Re: The Second Coming Of Jesus Christ
Pastor Frank
news:eqydnRPtR_RlEbHV...@ptd.net...
> rogue wrote:
>> On May 14, 10:12 pm, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>>> rogue wrote:
>>> > On May 10, 12:32 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>>> >> The title of P.G. Mathew's sermon makes the topic quite clear
>>> >> concerning Jesus' second coming sometime in the future and how
>>> >> glorious it shall be.
>>>
>>> > JERRY
>>> > Unfortunately, Carl, the text of the bible, and particularly Jesus
>>> > himself, was quite clear that this event was supposed to happen during
>>> > the lifetimes of the disciples. I point you especially to Matthew
>>> > chapter 24.
>>>
>>> How do you know that the event didn't happen to anyone?
>>
>> JERRY
>> Are you a preterist? Do you believe that Jesus returned in 70 AD with
>> his angels and rewarded all men according to their works?
>
> My position is simply that we don't know much about God
> and all our understanding of God needs to be flexible
> and should change according to the development of
> science and any other knowledge.
>
How much of God do we need to know when "God is love"? [1 John 2: 4,
16] Me thinks, the more you know about love, the less you actually love.
And I don't think science will be of any help in this matter.
Pastor Frank
CHRIST'S COMMANDMENTS ALL EXHORT US TO LOVE
Jesus in Jn:13:34: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Jesus in Jn:13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples,
if ye have love one to another.
Jesus in Jn:15:12-13: This is my commandment: That ye love one another,
as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends.
Pastor Frank
> rogue wrote:
>> On May 14, 10:12 pm, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>>> rogue wrote:
>>> > On May 10, 12:32 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>>> >> The title of P.G. Mathew's sermon makes the topic quite clear
>>> >> concerning Jesus' second coming sometime in the future and how
>>> >> glorious it shall be.
>>>
>>> > JERRY
>>> > Unfortunately, Carl, the text of the bible, and particularly Jesus
>>> > himself, was quite clear that this event was supposed to happen during
>>> > the lifetimes of the disciples. I point you especially to Matthew
>>> > chapter 24.
>>>
>>> How do you know that the event didn't happen to anyone?
>>
>> JERRY
>> Matt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came
>> unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? AND
>> WHAT SHALL BE THE SIGN OF THY COMING, AND OF THE END OF THE WORLD?
>> Jesus tells them of all the signs to come and then tells them:
>> Matt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS,
>> TILL ALL THESE THINGS BE FULFILLED.
>> So, Jesus is asked when he is coming back AND THE END OF THE WORLD.
>> He tells them it will happen before the current generation has passed,
>> in other words, before the disciples have all died.
>> Now, look around and look V-e-e-r-r-y-y closely.
>> Did the world end?
>> Check out Matthew chapter 16.
>> 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with
>> his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
>> 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall
>> not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
>> kingdom.
>> Verse 27 tells that Jesus will return and come in the Glory of his
>> Father WITH HIS ANGELS and then he shall REWARD EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO
>> HIS WORKS. (sounds like Judgment Day to me)
>> Verse 28 tells us "there be some standing here, WHICH SHALL NOT TASTE
>> OF DEATH, TILL THEY SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN HIS KINGDOM.
>> Those are just some of the verses. The failed parousia is one of the
>> best documented failings of the bible to be true.
>> Did that happen to anyone? Was EVERY MAN rewarded according to his
>> works? It was predicted duirng the lifetimes of the disciples.
>
> First, you really should not use the Bible itself
> to probe it wrong.
> The Bible cannot be correctly understood without faith.
> Even if you just wanna point out the contradictions in it,
> many statements in it are not factual at all.
> So, you need to prove that both of the contradicting statements
> are really factual or at least intended to be factual.
> Wouldn't it be silly for you to try so hard
> to prove that something in the Bible is factually true?
> Second, you really should not think you can
> understand the Bible without faith in God.
> The Bible is really not about what happened
> but all about how to live here and now.
> To understand it is to live according to the book.
> If you have no intention of believing in it
> and following the way shown in it, you would never
> be able to comprehend it properly.
> The only way to read it properly is to trust it
> and love it with all your heart.
> You are not trying to do so, are you?
>
It is easy to be a literalist, no need to think. There are many who
invite Christ into their hearts and see Him "coming in his kingdom" while
still alive. That in itself is a reward according to his works.
bob young
Pastor Frank wrote:
>
> "monkfish" <monkfish@nowhere> wrote in message
> news:eqydnRPtR_RlEbHV...@ptd.net...
> > rogue wrote:
> >> On May 14, 10:12 pm, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
> >>> rogue wrote:
> >>> > On May 10, 12:32 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >>> >> The title of P.G. Mathew's sermon makes the topic quite clear
> >>> >> concerning Jesus' second coming sometime in the future and how
> >>> >> glorious it shall be.
> >>>
> >>> > JERRY
> >>> > Unfortunately, Carl, the text of the bible, and particularly Jesus
> >>> > himself, was quite clear that this event was supposed to happen during
> >>> > the lifetimes of the disciples. I point you especially to Matthew
> >>> > chapter 24.
> >>>
> >>> How do you know that the event didn't happen to anyone?
> >>
> >> JERRY
> >> Are you a preterist? Do you believe that Jesus returned in 70 AD with
> >> his angels and rewarded all men according to their works?
> >
> > My position is simply that we don't know much about God
> > and all our understanding of God needs to be flexible
> > and should change according to the development of
> > science and any other knowledge.
> >
> How much of God do we need to know............
...........if gods effect the minds of millions and has them
doing things that they would otherwise hesitate to do, it is
patently obvious we need to know a lot more about them.
Yes, years ago they treated them as 'wise men above the
clouds', when that became too ridiculous for most people to
swallow they were modified into 'faiths' and in your case
into a weak 'love' god.
What is quite obvious, none of them exist, all being the
work of frightened humans.
default
>the more you know about love, the less you actually love.
>And I don't think science will be of any help in this matter.
Love is an emotion, and as such only within the realm of the black art
of psychology and not science.
The more you know about love, the less you actually love? care to
'splain that to me?
--
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
monkfish
>
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:59:52 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>
>>the more you know about love, the less you actually love.
>>And I don't think science will be of any help in this matter.
>
> Love is an emotion, and as such only within the realm of the black art
> of psychology and not science.
Love is not just an emotion.
It's typical of you to be so certain
of such a difficult matter.
If psychology is not a science,
how about sociology and political science?
--
monkfish
* The followup-to header is set to alt.christnet.theology.
** alt.atheism is removed from the groups header.
Pastor Frank
news:482E3A77...@netvigator.com...
reiterating, that those invisible creatures of yours above the clouds don't
exist. Is there anyone you know that believes they exist? I think you have
your doubts, Bob.
Pastor Frank
> default wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:59:52 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
>> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>the more you know about love, the less you actually love.
>>>And I don't think science will be of any help in this matter.
>>
>> Love is an emotion, and as such only within the realm of the black art
>> of psychology and not science.
>
> Love is not just an emotion.
> It's typical of you to be so certain
> of such a difficult matter.
> If psychology is not a science,
> how about sociology and political science?
>
any evidence, but demand evidence for everything else. Christians accept
only evidenced love.
Pastor Frank
news:1211036418_2549@isp.n...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:59:52 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>
>>the more you know about love, the less you actually love.
>>And I don't think science will be of any help in this matter.
>
> Love is an emotion, and as such only within the realm of the black art
> of psychology and not science.
> The more you know about love, the less you actually love? care to
> 'splain that to me?
>
loving action. Such love comes straight from the heart and is devoid of
ulterior motives and intellectual deliberations. It must be pure, lacking
any and all logic and reasons.
default
On Sun, 18 May 2008 16:57:26 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>news:1211036418_2549@isp.n...
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:59:52 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
>> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>the more you know about love, the less you actually love.
>>>And I don't think science will be of any help in this matter.
>>
>> Love is an emotion, and as such only within the realm of the black art
>> of psychology and not science.
>> The more you know about love, the less you actually love? care to
>> 'splain that to me?
>>
> Any love worth to be called that, must be evidenced by spontaneous
>loving action. Such love comes straight from the heart and is devoid of
>ulterior motives and intellectual deliberations. It must be pure, lacking
>any and all logic and reasons.
There are few Christians who might scale that moral high ground. I
do agree with you - just that the evidence suggests most people don't
get it - people (not just Christians or the religiously bent).
default
On Sun, 18 May 2008 04:44:40 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>"monkfish" <monkfish@nowhere> wrote in message
>news:d9KdnczDkORqubLV...@ptd.net...
>> default wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:59:52 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
>>> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>the more you know about love, the less you actually love.
>>>>And I don't think science will be of any help in this matter.
>>>
>>> Love is an emotion, and as such only within the realm of the black art
>>> of psychology and not science.
>>
>> Love is not just an emotion.
>> It's typical of you to be so certain
>> of such a difficult matter.
>> If psychology is not a science,
>> how about sociology and political science?
>>
> It's always amazing to see how atheists accept love as a feeling without
>any evidence, but demand evidence for everything else. Christians accept
>only evidenced love.
One chooses to love another, it doesn't just happen. If you have half
a brain you choose someone who you like, trust, respect, and who you
are compatible with sexually, morally, etc..
monkfish
>
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 04:44:40 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>
>>"monkfish" <monkfish@nowhere> wrote in message
>>news:d9KdnczDkORqubLV...@ptd.net...
>>> default wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:59:52 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
>>>> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>the more you know about love, the less you actually love.
>>>>>And I don't think science will be of any help in this matter.
>>>>
>>>> Love is an emotion, and as such only within the realm of the black art
>>>> of psychology and not science.
>>>
>>> Love is not just an emotion.
>>> It's typical of you to be so certain
>>> of such a difficult matter.
>>> If psychology is not a science,
>>> how about sociology and political science?
>>>
>> It's always amazing to see how atheists accept love as a feeling
>> without
>>any evidence, but demand evidence for everything else. Christians accept
>>only evidenced love.
>
> One chooses to love another, it doesn't just happen. If you have half
> a brain you choose someone who you like, trust, respect, and who you
> are compatible with sexually, morally, etc..
Love is much more than an emotion.
It involves attitude, commitment, and much more.
Still it can just happen almost instantly sometimes.
Reality is much more complex
than your simplistic scheme of things.
Can we love someone that does not exist?
Pastor Frank
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 16:57:26 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>news:1211036418_2549@isp.n...
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:59:52 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
>>> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>the more you know about love, the less you actually love.
>>>>And I don't think science will be of any help in this matter.
>>>
>>> Love is an emotion, and as such only within the realm of the black art
>>> of psychology and not science.
>>> The more you know about love, the less you actually love? care to
>>> 'splain that to me?
>>
>> Any love worth to be called that, must be evidenced by spontaneous
>>loving action. Such love comes straight from the heart and is devoid of
>>ulterior motives and intellectual deliberations. It must be pure, lacking
>>any and all logic and reasons.
>
> There are few Christians who might scale that moral high ground. I
> do agree with you - just that the evidence suggests most people don't
> get it - people (not just Christians or the religiously bent).
>
to be perfect immediately. We know, that many atheists far outstrip some
Christians in virtue, but that's just the point, Christians are aware of
their shortcomings and seek to address them with the help of Christ who
resurrected in their hearts and minds.