2007 Rapture?

Started by Nellinator65 pages

Originally posted by Gregory
About Rambsel, maybe; I was just going off memory.

Regarding vowles, I didn't mean they were added into the Hewbrew (which doesn't use them; you're right). I mean ... let's take an example in English, because it's easier when we have a language we both speak. Suppose that you tell your computer to start somewhere and take every fifth vowel, and you get, "Jesus is lord."

Now suppose that you're dealing with the same example, except that you don't have any of the English vowles thrown in. You're computer spits out, "Jss s lrd." Jesus is lord? Jess is Lord? Jesus is lard? Any of these phrases are valid readings; but you get to pick the one you want.

And that's why it's easier to find messages in Hebrew then in English.

(There's no real reason you would know this, but I've gotten sort of curious; has anybody subjected nonChristian holy books to this sort of scrutany, and what have they turned up if they have?)


I'm not sure that vowel thing is right. I don't think the letter combination of Jesus can be used to make other words. I'm pretty sure the four letters mean Yeshua every time. Its actually easier to make meaningful words in code within the English language than it is in Hebrew I think I remember reading because of the presence of vowels and the simplicity of our word structures.

I think Rambsel is doing research on the Talmud and the Quran if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure the Nag Hammadi library is being looked at as well as is the canonical NT. However, that research is still imcomplete if memory serves me.

Jesus may mean Jesus every time, but I believe that the word "God," for example, is only differentiated from "to" and "no" by vowles (or context, in ancient Hebrew, but of course, the Bible code eliminates context). I don't know why English having vowles should make things easier; it makes it harder, as far as I can tell

I think it was in the year 1000 that everyone sold what they had, gave it to the poor and waited for Jesus......Some people stood up high on hills and such....... 🙁

Originally posted by debbiejo
I think it was in the year 1000 that everyone sold what they had, gave it to the poor and waited for Jesus......Some people stood up high on hills and such....... 🙁

That was dumb of them.

Hell, Christians started out sitting on wooden poles.

The religion isn't exactly brimming with credibility.

In the year 1000? Something like that happened much more recently, I think. The Jehovas' Witnesses, maybe?

Re: Re: 2007 Rapture?

Originally posted by Robtard
Hello JIA,

I have a few question if you do not mind:

1) If Jesus and God are indeed one and the same, how could Jesus not have known? That's like the chef not knowing when the meal is ready.

2) Summer 2007 is vague, is it supposed to be when we N. Americans have our summer or when it is summer somewhere else?

3) I was once told by a Christian/End of Day person that when the rapture comes, one must have coins in his/her pocket otherwise be left standing on the side lines, is this true?

4) On September 22nd 2007, what will you say when you're still standing on at the corner with your bags packed and the rapture bus hasn't yet come to spirit you off to Jesus land? Hypothetically speaking.

How are you doing Robtard?
1) I believe that when the Lord Jesus Christ walked the earth that He temporarily laid aside His divine attributes. One of God's attributes is omniscience (i.e. knowledge of all things). Now that the Lord Jesus has been restored to the glory that He shared with the Father God before the world was, I believe that He does know when He will catch away His church.

2) I can only say that that is what the woman claims that the Lord God revealed to her as to when Jesus will catch away His church.

3) The whole coins in a pocket thing is easy for you to decide whether it is true or not, just use common sense. I don't mean to offend you but if something sounds ridiculous, most likely it is.

4) What rapture bus? I didn't say that I believed whether the woman's claim was true or not, I said that we should judge her prophecy by the Bible, and give it equal time like we do everything else.

Any more questions?

If god is omniscient then why did he mythologically create humans and the tree of knowledge in a garden, and being omniscient know they would eat from it, which he had forbade them from doing, then subsequently get angered and cast them out of the garden, despite already knowing that they would do so before he even made them, the garden and the tree.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If god is omniscient then why did he mythologically create humans and the tree of knowledge in a garden, and being omniscient know they would eat from it, which he had forbade them from doing, then subsequently get angered and cast them out of the garden, despite already knowing that they would do so before he even made them, the garden and the tree.

Sounds sadistic doesn't it...

Re: Re: Re: 2007 Rapture?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How are you doing Robtard?
1) I believe that when the Lord Jesus Christ walked the earth that He temporarily laid aside His divine attributes. One of God's attributes is omniscience (i.e. knowledge of all things). Now that the Lord Jesus has been restored to the glory that He shared with the Father God before the world was, I believe that He does know when He will catch away His church.

2) I can only say that that is what the woman claims that the Lord God revealed to her as to when Jesus will catch away His church.

3) The whole coins in a pocket thing is easy for you to decide whether it is true or not, just use common sense. I don't mean to offend you but if something sounds ridiculous, most likely it is.

4) What rapture bus? I didn't say that I believed whether the woman's claim was true or not, I said that we should judge her prophecy by the Bible, and give it equal time like we do everything else.

Any more questions?

What makes you believe that Jesus put away his divine powers? By the Bible's account, Jesus performed miracles (i.e. healed the sick, turned water to wine etc.)?

Originally posted by Robtard
Sounds sadistic doesn't it...
Or retarded depending on how you look at it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: 2007 Rapture?

Originally posted by Robtard
What makes you believe that Jesus put away his divine powers? By the Bible's account, Jesus performed miracles (i.e. healed the sick, turned water to wine etc.)?

Jesus had to increase in wisdom which means that He was not already all-wise. Jesus got hungry and sleepy. Jesus walked the earth as a Man with two natures: that of God and that of Man. But in His divinity Jesus emptied Himself of His dvine privileges so that He could depend on the Holy Spirit and function as a Man. I do not have time to go into detail.

There is no record anywhere in the Bible of Jesus performing any miracles until after He was anointed by the Spirit of the Lord (i.e. the Holy Spirit Who is the third Person in the Godhead).

Luke 4:18-20
The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me

To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.”

The Holy Spirit had to come upon Jesus (i.e. anoint Him for service. Remember what happened after Jesus was baptized?.

Matthew 3:16
When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.

The Holy Spirit alighted (i.e. landed or came to rest) upon Jesus after Jesus had come up out of the water. The Holy Spirit alighted upon Jesus signifying the power of God coming up Him for ministry. Jesus constantly stated that His Father in Him did or performed the works (i.e. signs or miracles).

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If god is omniscient then why did he mythologically create humans and the tree of knowledge in a garden, and being omniscient know they would eat from it, which he had forbade them from doing, then subsequently get angered and cast them out of the garden, despite already knowing that they would do so before he even made them, the garden and the tree.

First, xmarksthespot, there is nothing mythological about the events described in the Bible. Second, Do you personally have children or do you know of someone that has children? Has your child or the child of someone that you know always obeyed his/her parents? Every parent takes a risk in bringing a child into the world. There are no guarantees that that child will obey its parents in all things, grow up completely responsible, and ultimately become a law-abiding citizen. But yet people knowingly bring children into this world (some of which end up on death row, in prison for life, or as serial killers or terrorists). Some children come into the world with disabilities and other health problems. Some children are born with behavioral problems or severe genetic defects and abnormalities. Some children are born pygmies or abnormally tall. Some are born hermaphrodites (possessing characteristics of both genders). In spite of all of these possibilities people continue to have children with full knowledge that all of these adverse circumstances may befall one or more of their offspring. So let me turn the question back on you. Why would you or someone that you know knowingly bring a child into the world with the possibility that that child might become the next Hitler? Why would you or someone that you know bring a child into the world with the possibility that that child might become a pedophile, rapist, murderer, thief, terrorist, racist, etc. Can't you see the fallacy in this line of thinking? People that have children don't worry about these things for the joy of bringing a life into the world. I said all that to say this: I surmise that God created Adam and Eve because He wanted children. But God knew that His children were going to be capable of disobeying Him (the same is true of earthly parents and their children). I conjecture that God wanted children that had the power to choose whether or not to love and obey Him. I don't believe that God wanted a couple of automatons (i.e. robots) that simply do what they are programmed to do. Do you want your children to be robots? Do you want your children to love you because they have no other choice or alternative? Your children have a free will (just like Adam and Eve) and they can decide for themselves whether to love you or to hate you. If your children did not have a will then they could not truly love you out of a heart of genuine love for you. They would be doing so because they have no other choice. I believe that God wanted to have children who were created in His image and likeness and have the power to choose (just like God) whether to love Him or not to love Him. God made Adam and Eve with wills so that they could make a decision on their own and not be forced to do anything. If you love you parents then the best way to demonstrate this is through your obedience to their commands (i.e. instructions). Children who truly love their parents are first and foremost obedient to their parents. This is a fundamental principle that all of us recognize. It is no different with Adam and Eve. God put that tree in the garden for no other reason that to give Adam and Eve an opportunity to obey Him of their own free will. Just like children today, Adam and Eve chose (i.e. willingly exercised their free wills in spite of the consequences) to disobey their Heavenly Father. What they did is no different than what children do all day long everyday. The only difference is that their consequence was death because they loosed the law of sin and death into the human race and into the world corrupting everything with sin. It is not God's fault that His children disobeyed Him. You can train, instruct, and instill values into your children but that is not an iron-clad, full-proof guarantee that your children will never disobey you. The onus is not on God at all. There are children that have grown up in homes where their parents were paragons of virtue and have lived exemplary lives for their children to emulate. But yet and still those children rebelled. Some children's rebellion is just a phase or a reaction to peer pressure and so forth. But the point is that their parents did everything that they could for them and yet they still rebelled. Now, those children may have eventually came to their senses and are now living their lives responsibly before God, their parents, and their fellow man/woman. So, don't blame God for Adam and Eve's mess, it is not His fault any more than it is your fault that your children's infractions are necessarily your fault. Don't you remember all of the stupid, ignorant, disobedient things that you did? We all do but we don't necessarily blame our parents for our foolishness do we? So don't blame God for Adam and Eve's foolishness.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
First, there is nothing mythological about the events described in the Bible.

HAH! Gods are myhtological.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
First, xmarksthespot, there is nothing mythological about the events described in the Bible. Second, Do you personally have children or do you know of someone that has children? Has your child or the child of someone that you know always obeyed his/her parents? Every parent takes a risk in bringing a child into the world. There are no guarantees that that child will obey its parents in all things, grow up completely responsible, and ultimately become a law-abiding citizen. But yet people knowingly bring children into this world (some of which end up on death row, in prison for life, or as serial killers or terrorists). Some children come into the world with disabilities and other health problems. Some children are born with behavioral problems or severe genetic defects and abnormalities. Some children are born pygmies or abnormally tall. Some are born hermaphrodites (possessing characteristics of both genders). In spite of all of these possibilities people continue to have children with full knowledge that all of these adverse circumstances may befall one or more of their offspring. So let me turn the question back on you. Why would you or someone that you know knowingly bring a child into the world with the possibility that that child might become the next Hitler? Why would you or someone that you know bring a child into the world with the possibility that that child might become a pedophile, rapist, murderer, thief, terrorist, racist, etc. Can't you see the fallacy in this line of thinking? People that have children don't worry about these things for the joy of bringing a life into the world. I said all that to say this: I surmise that God created Adam and Eve because He wanted children. But God knew that His children were going to be capable of disobeying Him (the same is true of earthly parents and their children). I conjecture that God wanted children that had the power to choose whether or not to love and obey Him. I don't believe that God wanted a couple of automatons (i.e. robots) that simply do what they are programmed to do. Do you want your children to be robots? Do you want your children to love you because they have no other choice or alternative? Your children have a free will (just like Adam and Eve) and they can decide for themselves whether to love you or to hate you. If your children did not have a will then they could not truly love you out of a heart of genuine love for you. They would be doing so because they have no other choice. I believe that God wanted to have children who were created in His image and likeness and have the power to choose (just like God) whether to love Him or not to love Him. God made Adam and Eve with wills so that they could make a decision on their own and not be forced to do anything. If you love you parents then the best way to demonstrate this is through your obedience to their commands (i.e. instructions). Children who truly love their parents are first and foremost obedient to their parents. This is a fundamental principle that all of us recognize. It is no different with Adam and Eve. God put that tree in the garden for no other reason that to give Adam and Eve an opportunity to obey Him of their own free will. Just like children today, Adam and Eve chose (i.e. willingly exercised their free wills in spite of the consequences) to disobey their Heavenly Father. What they did is no different than what children do all day long everyday. The only difference is that their consequence was death because they loosed the law of sin and death into the human race and into the world corrupting everything with sin. It is not God's fault that His children disobeyed Him. You can train, instruct, and instill values into your children but that is not an iron-clad, full-proof guarantee that your children will never disobey you. The onus is not on God at all. There are children that have grown up in homes where their parents were paragons of virtue and have lived exemplary lives for their children to emulate. But yet and still those children rebelled. Some children's rebellion is just a phase or a reaction to peer pressure and so forth. But the point is that their parents did everything that they could for them and yet they still rebelled. Now, those children may have eventually came to their senses and are now living their lives responsibly before God, their parents, and their fellow man/woman. So, don't blame God for Adam and Eve's mess, it is not His fault any more than it is your fault that your children's infractions are necessarily your fault. Don't you remember all of the stupid, ignorant, disobedient things that you did? We all do but we don't necessarily blame our parents for our foolishness do we? So don't blame God for Adam and Eve's foolishness.

The problem with the whole "parent/child" analogy is that, simply put, it doesn't work.

If it was true God would be be considered negligent by the law.

Oh wait, I forgot God doesn't obey the law. God is a parent? When he drowned the world and killed all those "evil people" - was that something a parent usually does, kill their children? And the Egyptian children. And I know few parents who would see their children suffer terribly - even the ones who actually have done something wrong let alone the ones who simply "believed the wrong thing." Yet God will let the Atheist burn, and the Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and Catholics and everyone else who found more truth in teachings other then he, or those who believed in him but believed wrong.

So much for a proud father, proud of our free will, doing what out hearts and minds tell us is right. I mean it might be understandable if it was just really bad people. But the people who society doesn't classify as bad? Like some father sending his son or daughter to hell because she wanted to be a doctor instead of a lawyer. "I know I said you should use your free will and do what you think is right... but by that I meant follow me complelty. Sorry, off to hell with you my child. But remember while you suffer I will still love you."

And parents are meant to educate and answer questions... ooops, looks like God forgot that one. He just left a book and nothing else, and that book is far from perfect.

And parents who leave poisons in reach of children are bad parents. Whats this... God left the tree that would lead to sin within reach of the children! Bad Parent! Bad God!

And parents are meant to protect their children from harm and bad people... lets see, open up the paper... and whats this? There are children dying somewhere. A house fire... faulty wiring. Flames to hot for it to be rescued. Well, thank heavens its parent God was looking out for it. Its horrible fiery death is understandable when one has God as a parent.

And whats this? The ultimate bad man Satan... yes, God certainly protects us from him, doesn't he? Just let Satan whisper in our ears and then gives him our eternal souls if we don't live up to God's expectations.

Etc etc etc.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The problem with the whole "parent/child" analogy is that, simply put, it doesn't work.

If it was true God would be be considered negligent by the law.

Oh wait, I forgot God doesn't obey the law. God is a parent? When he drowned the world and killed all those "evil people" - was that something a parent usually does, kill their children? And the Egyptian children. And I know few parents who would see their children suffer terribly - even the ones who actually have done something wrong let alone the ones who simply "believed the wrong thing." Yet God will let the Atheist burn, and the Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and Catholics and everyone else who found more truth in teachings other then he, or those who believed in him but believed wrong.

So much for a proud father, proud of our free will, doing what out hearts and minds tell us is right. I mean it might be understandable if it was just really bad people. But the people who society doesn't classify as bad? Like some father sending his son or daughter to hell because she wanted to be a doctor instead of a lawyer. "I know I said you should use your free will and do what you think is right... but by that I meant follow me complelty. Sorry, off to hell with you my child. But remember while you suffer I will still love you."

And parents are meant to educate and answer questions... ooops, looks like God forgot that one. He just left a book and nothing else, and that book is far from perfect.

And parents who leave poisons in reach of children are bad parents. Whats this... God left the tree that would lead to sin within reach of the children! Bad Parent! Bad God!

And parents are meant to protect their children from harm and bad people... lets see, open up the paper... and whats this? There are children dying somewhere. A house fire... faulty wiring. Flames to hot for it to be rescued. Well, thank heavens its parent God was looking out for it. Its horrible fiery death is understandable when one has God as a parent.

And whats this? The ultimate bad man Satan... yes, God certainly protects us from him, doesn't he? Just let Satan whisper in our ears and then gives him our eternal souls if we don't live up to God's expectations.

Etc etc etc.


You seem to ignore the idea that God told us how to get to heaven. If we choose not to follow him its our own fault.
You can be a child of God without being a child. Should God need to keep the tree out of the reach of grown children. No, we should be responsible enough to know better and to get help when we OD. And God does still instruct us. It is called the Holy Spirit. "I will write the Law in their heart" or something to that effect in Jeremiah.

A father instructs his son how to be a good Christian, what is right and wrong, and that Jesus is the Savior. The Son decides becomes hooked on drugs and constantly brings the issues involved with it into the home. He eventually leaves home and ends up on the street addicted to drugs. The father still loves him and the son can return home at any time and the father will help him become well again. But its entirely up to the son whether or not he returns. That is how I see God.

Originally posted by Nellinator
If we choose not to follow him its our own fault.

Exactly, so shut the **** up. The burden of our souls is not your responsability.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Should God need to keep the tree out of the reach of grown children.

GOing with this reference.

Why is the tree of "Knowledge" evil? Whats so bad about knowledge that we can't eat its fruit? What was God hiding from us?

Why is the serpent, a symbol of inellectualism, the form that the devil takes?

If the tree is so evil, why create it in the first place? Why have it in the garden?

Originally posted by Alliance
GOing with this reference.

Why is the tree of "Knowledge" evil? Whats so bad about knowledge that we can't eat its fruit? What was God hiding from us?

Why is the serpent, a symbol of inellectualism, the form that the devil takes?

If the tree is so evil, why create it in the first place? Why have it in the garden?

excatly! It's like the bad guy spelling out the plot before the hero is dead. it's a lazy plot device designed to give teh hero a believable means of saving the day.

😆 I don't really understand that, but it late and my mind is hazy.