Judgement Day

[basics]

conon394,

What I wrote is a possibility not a certainty based on numbers that the Bible uses over and over again. So, when Creation was finished God declared everything to be good and so He rested on the seventh which to Him is perfect. In six days He made all things and on the sixth day He made man good but one day short of perfection, why? Because if man had been made on the seventh he would have been able to rest like God as being perfect which as we find out he wasn't. Obviously this was to conform to the story predestined before the worlds were made that Jesus Christ would come into the world to save certain men and women from their sin, to make those that He died for able to be taken into God's rest, which He did at the cross.

Man thinks he is in this world as the main character but alas this is a false notion that sin has built into him from events in the garden where the serpent persuaded the twosome to question God's word and has been ever since as we see from these threads. The story is all about God. He being the Author is the central Character and has been throughout all time, us being players, no more and no less than that. In other words the story is about glorifying the One Who made us, Who sustains us and Who judges us. In Genesis He tells us how we got here and in the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ He tells us how it will all end. Somewhere in between stand you and I and where we both end up. God persuaded me but as yet He has not persuaded you.

Finally, since God is complete perfection and ten is the Biblical number of completeness the figure one thousand relates to ten x ten x ten as in Father, Son and Holy Spirit whereas man's number is six relating to the evil number of 666 composed of the triune evil ones that convince the world to follow them to make the predicted one world system intent on thwarting God's plan. But like all good stories this one has a much better finish because it involves the whole world's populations from the beginning of our time until the end. Indeed it is not a finished fiction, rather it will be a finished fact and no-one will be left in any doubt that God is not only real but Sovereign too.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Thank goodness we can always count on people who don’t believe anything the Bible says or its meaning to tell us what it says and what it means.

[Akar]

It's almost like you don't have to believe something to understand it, isn't it?

Sort of like how I have a thorough understanding of the workings of the LOTR universe, and yet I still don't believe any of it really actually happened.

Good luck getting an ideologue to accept their dogma is unscriptural, generally they just gasbag away about flow and context and go off topic, or snidely observe "only believers can understand scripture". I can tell a contradiction when I see one, you'd have to be figuratively blind not to see the Bible is stuffed full of contradictions.

Completely agree.

There is a significant irony in the fact that Legio has chosen to attempt to refute your statement with the exact response you predicted.

Here Jesus is referring to the transfiguration, which occurred about a week after he said this and was witnessed by some of the disciples. Peter later comments on this as well:

Peter is the only book where the transfiguration takes place chronologically after that speech. In all of the other books the transfiguration has already taken place when the speech is given. What sort of person makes a prophecy about an event that has already come to pass?

(if you die the literal end of days has come for you in any case),

Lmao, you don't think that ones a bit of a ing stretch? Guess you can make anything fit with your beliefs if you try hard enough.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It's almost like you don't have to believe something to understand it, isn't it?

Sort of like how I have a thorough understanding of the workings of the LOTR universe, and yet I still don't believe any of it really actually happened.



Completely agree.

There is a significant irony in the fact that Legio has chosen to attempt to refute your statement with the exact response you predicted.



Peter is the only book where the transfiguration takes place chronologically after that speech. In all of the other books the transfiguration has already taken place when the speech is given. What sort of person makes a prophecy about an event that has already come to pass?



Lmao, you don't think that ones a bit of a ing stretch? Guess you can make anything fit with your beliefs if you try hard enough.

I’m not really interested in empty chatter. No reference was given for the other claims regarding Jonah/Jesus etc. For all I know he made it up/misrepresented it. If there’s something from the Bible to discuss, that’s fine. Claiming the Bible is wrong/dumb/contradictory based on personal premises is easy to do, but absent actual references to the text, there’s nothing of substance to address. As it is, it’s quite curious to reject the Bible as an irrelevant book of ancient fairy tales, and yet spend so much time coming up with incorrect assertions about what it says/means.

Being an atheist doesn’t absolve someone of the need for evidence, anymore than if I claimed Frodo is from Mordor. Feel free to break down the claim that Jesus prophesied something would happen in the future that had already happened. It doesn’t take divine insight to understand that Matthew 17 comes after 16, not before. Reads as “some of you standing here today….” Next verses in 17: “After 6 days….Jesus was transfigured before them.” The evasive tagline “you’re just going to say I took things out of context” is an admission that your chosen talking points are not Biblically falsifiable. 17 comes after 16 in most contexts I can think of.

[razerbelkin]

So the scripture is full of contradictions for some, but how about Irlmaier´s statements? How do the non-believers explain Irlmaier´s visions and correct predictions? If not God (Irlmaier was very catholic and encouraged us to pray) how else do you explain this?
And that man was no liar either, as was proven at court. I repeat what I wrote on page 1, Heres a screenshot of the grounds for judgment and the translation below:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"[...] ... indication that he is a juggler. On the contrary, he helped many people during the war to get through the nervous strain of the aerial warfare. He unselfishly gave them mental calming in the most difficult hours by correctly predicting, which time brings particular dangers, which areas, yes which houses are particularly endangered and how those seeking advice should behave.
The interrogation of the witnesses has produced such astonishing testimony to the accused's talent for vision, which can hardly be explained with the previously known forces of nature, that he cannot be described as a juggler. [...] "

With Irlmaier beeing a "juggler" or "liar" out of the way, my question still stands:
How do you explain Irlmaier, if you don´t believe in God?

[Cyclops]

It's almost like you don't have to believe something to understand it, isn't it?

Sort of like how I have a thorough understanding of the workings of the LOTR universe, and yet I still don't believe any of it really actually happened.

Infantile gatekeeping such as "you don't believe so you cannot understand" protects the ideologue from examining their own beliefs. Its a shame because actually reading the Bible and taking inspiration from its faith narratives (as opposed to the somewhat sterile intellectual game playing agnostics like myself indulge in) is a venerable and very lovely tradition.

Peter is the only book where the transfiguration takes place chronologically after that speech. In all of the other books the transfiguration has already taken place when the speech is given. What sort of person makes a prophecy about an event that has already come to pass?

Look mate if you're going to discuss the Bible you need to believe every word of it first lol.

Imagine if you tried that bulldust in a court of law. "your honour my client isn't going to offer his evidence unless you agree to believe it before he testifies".

[Lord Thesaurian]

Infantile gatekeeping such as "you don't believe so you cannot understand" protects the ideologue from examining their own beliefs. Its a shame because actually reading the Bible and taking inspiration from its faith narratives (as opposed to the somewhat sterile intellectual game playing agnostics like myself indulge in) is a venerable and very lovely tradition.

Appeals to ridicule are not evidence, and admitting you’re playing a rhetorical game isn’t ideal given your whole argument is I’m the one allegedly acting in bad faith. I’ve never claimed to be any kind of special authority on the Bible. It should be very easy to cite the book and chapter if not chapter and verse your assertions are based on. Projecting the idea that I’m refusing to address evidence doesn’t work if you haven’t given any. Agnosticism doesn’t mean your unsourced assertions are more objective or valuable than anything put forth by the most deranged of street corner evangelists.

[antaeus]

I'm not entirely sure that 'evidence' is the correct term when discussing something that is self-evidencing (for the large part).

[Lord Thesaurian]

Evidence is information indicating whether a claim is true. The lack of any need to cross reference with other sources means it should be that much easier to back up claims with evidence from the single source.

[basics]

Thank goodness we can always count on people who don’t believe anything the Bible says or its meaning to tell us what it says and what it means.

Lord Thesaurian,

Was your comment a dig at me?

[Akar]

Evidence is information indicating whether a claim is true. The lack of any need to cross reference with other sources means it should be that much easier to back up claims with evidence from the single source.

Except, it's not evidence. The sole evidence for a work's legitimacy cannot be derived from the work itself, it's illogical.

If you tried to use a single self referential source to prove anything in an academic context you would be laughed out of the building.

Lord Thesaurian,

Was your comment a dig at me?

I think it was pretty clearly directed at me and/or Cyclops.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I didn’t ask for “academic” evidence. I asked for Biblical evidence.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

[razerbelkin]

Thanks for all the feedback and the interesting discussion so far, but maybe we are a bit off topic by now

Personally speaking, I find Irlmaier very important for my faith, as I have no other explanation than God to explain his gifts. And that was a little bit my intention, to make people reconsider the possibility of a living God...
How do you folks deal with Irlmaier, I guess the most of you have heard of him for the first time in this thread I guess?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Thanks for all the feedback and the interesting discussion so far, but maybe we are a bit off topic by now

Personally speaking, I find Irlmaier very important for my faith, as I have no other explanation than God to explain his gifts. And that was a little bit my intention, to make people reconsider the possibility of a living God...
How do you folks deal with Irlmaier, I guess the most of you have heard of him for the first time in this thread I guess?

Anyone claiming to be a prophet must be tested against Scripture. Knowing nothing about this guy, I don’t have high hopes. Sorcery, fortune telling, claiming to commune with spirits, etc, is Satanic and often a capital offense in the Bible. The dead are dead. The Bible compares it to sleep. They know nothing. They do not speak to anyone. Neither the muse of the so-called mystic nor the polytheistic ancestor worship of “saints” and their corpses/relics.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...l-in-the-Bible

[Cyclops]

...The sole evidence for a work's legitimacy cannot be derived from the work itself, it's illogical....

Of course Christianity is about faith, someone trying to make the Bible into some logical weapon to beat coreligionists about the head will find it crumbling to dust in their hands. A few years study would erase this confusion, but ideologues seem to lack the commitment.

Prophecy in the Bible is repeatedly contradicted by other parts of the Bible itself, and a retreat into semantics does not change that fact.

A present day prophet is also interesting, How to prophets come by their prophecies? In the main they can be shown to be frauds preying on human stupidity. Given humans are mostly stupid (well I certainly am) they have a rich field from which to gather.

The love and reverence people feel for God translates into a love and reverence for scripture as well, which is understandable, but it also leads to boastful stupidity such as "the Bible is unerring and contains all wisdom". Frauds can manipulate that reverence by apeing the part of a prophet.

Perhaps there is also real prophecy, and people who use their senses (including ones we do not know we have?) to perceive the path of future events, but mostly its fraud.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Aaand we’re back to people who openly reject Christianity and the Bible gatekeeping Christianity and the Bible.

Prophecy in the Bible is repeatedly contradicted by other parts of the Bible itself, and a retreat into semantics does not change that fact.

You’ve provided exactly zero Biblical references to back up that assertion and a retreat into semantics does not change that fact. If you’ve committed so many years of study to it surely you can come up with one. Of course, disregarding the Bible verse that says it is unerring and contains all wisdom, based on personal ideology no less, doesn’t do much to help the argument that other people are the intractable ideologues picking and choosing whatever fits their preconceived ideas. If I’m wrong about the Bible then show me in the Bible where I am wrong. It’s quite simple, and it’s the request many reformers made before the Pope’s inquisitors prior to being tortured to death for disobeying him/making him look bad.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

[Akar]

"A self referential source references itself" Hebrews 4

[Cyclops]

The discussion around biblical prophesy is a fascinating one. There's the issue of foretelling vs "tell forth", predicting the definite vs a possible future.

Some prophecies seem to be Delphic, that is to say vague enough to be subsequently confirmed by a number of outcomes depending on political necessity.

As with most of the Bible the prophetic elements have non-Biblical examples that may be the direct inspiration or at least influenced them. IIRC here's prophetic collations from the Mari Letters. A wider knowledge of conditions in the widely separated periods when the books of the Bible were written, rewritten and redacted is very helpful in approaching the subject rationally, but that does not negate their value as faith documents of course.

Of course I don't control access to this material, all this material is freely available through libraries and online resources. Be cautious of the faith based commentators when they tackle history as their enthusiasm and certainty of their own correctness leads to near blindness to any verses not cohering with their fresh and original ideas.

My own ignorant view is the post-Easter prophesy is passionate and sincere, absolutely aflame with Pentecostal fire, but not above score settling and politics even as it tells of Jesus certain return: above all Revelations is the most cogent example here. I feel like John is taking swings at contemporaries even as he longs for the Kingdom to come. Thats not to criticise his faith, his work displays IMHO deep and passionate commitment to faith, and he's the deepest thinker of the Evangelists for mine. I find Fox's thesis that John is the beloved apostle (and the only one of the twelve present at Jesus' death) persuasive, he's right at the heart of the Jesus movement, before and after the Passion.

Once again we've had prophets claiming the last Trump is around the corner, sadly they have been wrong, but it doesn't stop the clamour, indeed failed prophets sometimes gather strength from their errors and found new movements.

"A self referential source references itself" Hebrews 4

Perhaps the Ideologues are killing Christianity? Basing enthusiastically severe orthodoxies on cherry picked verses and ignoring those parts of Scripture that contradict these fragile versions is just undermining the mission to tell Gods truth. Why present a flawed argument that undermines faith?

I've even noticed poor faith argumentation (in past discussion). There may be nothing worse than knowing you're right but not being smart enough to prove it.

[basics]

Cyclops,

Just as one can only know God if God makes that possible, so too does understanding His Word the Bible. Its core message never changes no matter what book one reads, why? Because at the centre of all of them is God dealing with a people who wilfully don't want to know Him. They don't like the idea that they are responsible to a Higher Authority because that fact would expose their flaws to their friends and neighbours and one cannot have that. The big question for all of them is how do some suddenly change from being their friend to being the religious nutter who stays next door so to speak? They were not that long ago of the same attitude, the same thoughts, the same disbelief, yet now they love Someone that they once detested, why? The answer is the Bible wherein lies the Gospel, the good news, about Jesus Christ promised from the fall of man and how He alone by His blood poured out on that cross made it possible for man to really know God as Creator, Saviour, Comforter, Sovereign over all things.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Basing enthusiastically severe orthodoxies on cherry picked verses and ignoring those parts of Scripture that contradict these fragile versions is just undermining the mission to tell Gods truth.

Where have I done so? So far the only one here who has explicitly rejected Scripture is you, all while repeating the same slander in place of backing up your claims.

"A self referential source references itself" Hebrews 4

17 comes after 16 in any source I can think of.