My ex setup the husband of one of her friends as an example of how finances should work. The guy handed all his income ($12k a month) to his wife and knew nothing about how the money was spent. In my eye he is a fool and totally irresponsible. How does he know his wife doesn't channel some of his money to her bank account in Russia? (As I learned all Russians have bank accounts under their parents' name in Russia.)
I could not do it. I always felt that I was happy to let my ex manage the finances as long as I am involved in the decisions and know where the money goes. She did not want it, so I managed my income myself. Eventually finances became a source of conflict.
No, I don't believe this theory. Paul was persecuting the early disciples. In one respect he was similar, that he truly immersed into the faithful life (to the point of death) of Yeshua and went through quite similar experiences (ie rejected by his own brethren, dragged before the courts, handed over to the Romans and in the end being killed by them).
We do not know for sure Miriam's lineage. Since her cousin, Elizabeth, was the daughter of Aaron Miriam might have very well been a Levite herself, but not necessarily. Christians claim that Luke gives Miriam's lineage, for which claim we have no proof.
Yeshua is likened to Melchizedek, who was the high priest of the Almighty, but not in the line of Aaron. I haven't dug into this subject much myself, so I have no definite answer.
You are welcome to post, I have no intention to police this thread. I don't belong to any of the organised religions myself. When I was an atheist I fell asleep in no time when trying to read religious stuff, so I know what you are talking about
In Judaism Satan is either an angel, the faithful servant of God (as in Job), or the personification of evil intents. Not an anti-God. Christianity adopted that idea from Zoroastrianism.
Loving your enemies doesn't negate one's duty of defending his family or people from aggressors. God being the Ultimate Judge executes judgment through various people.
People may be atheists, but by today we have most of the Noahide laws in place in much of the world. Human courts of justice, laws against animal cruelty, etc. This is one of the tasks of the Messiah - to bring the light of the Torah (which for Gentiles is the Noahide laws) to the nations. There are many Gentile Noahide churches that subject themselves to the religious authority of Judaism. Even though they rightly reject the Hellenised Jesus, through their righteous devotion to Torah observance they actually follow Yeshua ben Yosef and unknowingly, through their actions, acknowledge him as their Messiah.
It is not beliefs that matter, but deeds. And some atheists may be actually better followers of Yeshua than many religious people.
Another of his task was to regather Israel to her ancient land, another to build the Temple (still to come), and finally, universal righteousness, peace and at the very end conquering death.
Interestingly, science is already talking about the ability to extend life even to 1000 years. That will be the fulfilment of the biblical prophecy.
We are also exploring the possibilities of time travel. What we cannot do today we will do tomorrow. We may be able to go back in time and collect samples from people who deserve honour. Science can already do cloning and attempt to read minds. One day we will be able to save off one's memories and personality, clone him from a single cell and reload his memories. And what atheists think is impossible for God (ie resurrection) will become possible for man.
Preterism teaches that the Kingdom of God is spiritual and Yeshua began to rule after his death ("all authority was given to me...") fulfilling the Daniel prophecy of the one like the son of man approaching the Ancient of Days. According to this view he returned in judgment when Jerusalem was destroyed. It is not the one who carries out the action, but the one who is pulling the strings that matter.
Unfortunately, many Jews are getting sucked into the Hellenistic religion without being aware of whom they are going to serve. I only warned Christians because my experience shows that dogma is such an emotional issue that very few of them can handle a challenge. I had my best friends screaming when I told them I no longer believed in the trinity. They said I was attacking their faith at the very foundation.
Muslims would not have a lot of problem with my post, though they believe in the virgin birth.
Atheists, well, I have no intention to prove that there is a God and the bible is true, simply to give an exposition. Would atheist be interested in this? Maybe, I don't know. It seems there are many who are and they are most welcome to contribute. I just don't want a flame war.
The preposition "anti" refers to opposing something. The Jewish Yeshua, the biological son of Yosef, the husband of the young maiden, Miriam, came in the name of his God and served him by fulfilling (fully observing His Torah), while the counterfeit Christ came in his own co-equal, co-eternal name, abrogated the Torah and claimed deity. The Antichrist is therefore not a real person, but a Pagan deity derived from these Jewish religious writings about the real Jewish Yeshua, by giving these writings a heavy Hellenistic twist. Unfortunately, most Christians don't realise whom they follow.
There are many things that we do not see or have no proof of but still believe. For example, dark matter in the universe. A particular theory requires its presence, but what if the theory is wrong? Yet, scientists believe something like 90% (I am not sure of the exact number) of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, which cannot be measured or observed in any way.
I am going to give an exposition on the following verses:
1John 4: 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ ["christ" = "anointed"] has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
Let me note that John has nothing to say to atheists or people of other religions. The are not in his thoughts. He deals with those who once belonged to the first century Jesus movement, but then adopted Pagan ideas.
A few points I need to mention: 1. "Christ" is not a title of a deity as many Christians believe, but it simply means "anointed". In ancient times human beings were anointed, that is, appointed for particular offices, such as kings or high priests. Anointing was performed by a higher authority, such as prophets, and after the age of the prophets, by the Sanhedrin, the religious council. However, in the first century the Sanhedrin was corrupt, and thus didn't qualify to anoint anyone, therefore, God alone could anoint Jesus, the son of Joseph. Confessing that Jesus is the Christ means one believes that he was the faithful servant of God Almighty.
2. The verse says one had to believe he came in the flesh. This is not a reference to the incarnation of a deity through virgin birth, of which there were plenty in the Pagan Roman world, but to Jesus' human origin.
3. Ancient people didn't refer to a deity like this:
"every spirit that does not confess Jesus..."
If John thought Jesus was deity, he would have been a lot more reverent, such as:
"every spirit that does not confess the Lord Jesus...",
but no, John simply says "Jesus".
Which means John thinks Jesus is one of us, not a deity. And those who don't confess Jesus (as a human being) are... see the above passage.
Notice how reverent John is in Revelation. Being a Jew he would not even dare to name God Almighty, lest he took His name in vain. So rather, he just says "the One who was, who is, who is to come", and "the One sitting on the throne", and so on.
But here he just says, "Jesus", and in Revelation, "one like the son of man sitting on a cloud". Clearly, to him Jesus is not deity.
The spirit of the antichrist therefore is a reference to the Pagan ideas that already infiltrated the churches, which sought to deify Jesus.
Earlier John writes:
1John 2: 18 Little children, it is the last hour. 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. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really part of us. If they had been part of us, they would have stayed with us. But by going out from us, they showed they all are not part of us.
So the Antichrist already came shortly after John wrote these words. The man of lawlessness [ie Torah-lessness], this deified man, who abrogated the Torah, who came in his own co-eternal and co-equal name and changed times and seasons [as set out in the Torah (=Instruction)] has been with us ever since. Throughout history horrendous crimes were committed in his name.
So don't wait for another. The Antichrist is not a Muslim.
On the contrary, the real Jesus, the biological son of Joseph, came in the name of God and observed His Torah. As we read in the Old Syriac Sinaitic translation (English version based on it):
Matthew 1: 16 Matthan begat Jacob; Jacob begat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin ["young maiden"], begat Jesus, who is called the Christ.
I wish to state that I don't intend to start a flame war or hurt anyone's feelings, I simply post an exposition of a few verses that talk about the subject. You are most welcome to disagree with me on any or all the points, and I hope this little write-up leads to a healthy discussion, rather than mud-throwing.
OK, what I bring up here will be of no interest to the non-religious, though even they believe Nostradamus, who in turn actually talks about the divine spirit that showed him those visions.
Anyway, if you are a Christian, be warned, you better stop reading right here - though I am convinced that it is vital that you understand what I am going to say. Let me state again, that I have no intention to insult anyone or hurt anyone's feelings. So it is your choice, you can still turn back.
Every culture has words that were adopted from other cultures over the history. Hungarians use many foreign words, Turkish use some Hungarian words, etc. The ball-pen was called biro, which was the name of its Hungarian inventor. Or gulash is also a Hungarian name for a particular soup.
When cultures meet they inevitably adopt terms that the other uses to describe something that doesn't exist in one's culture.
The fun begins when a foreigner creates a new term that means one thing in this culture, but a completely different thing in another. So was when the joystick was invented. I won't tell you what that means in Hungarian, but the very word gives me the suspicion that a Hungarian came up with the name.
Yes, similarity of words don't always mean that an idea was adopted from another culture. Hence, the Greek term "genesis" is simply a generic term that was used every day to describe the origin of something - no need to see religious terminology in its use, just as when we say "origin" we don't necessarily means "State of Origin" :-)
True, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah's "behold a virgin shall conceive" is correctly translated as "look, a young maiden is with child", as in NRSV. The term was translated in the LXX using the Greek term "parthenos", which at that time had the same meaning, but sometime later it meant a virgin.
I heard you should avoid answering them. Maybe just tell "I did not speed" rather that "I don't know the speed limit". If you don't admit it they need to prove you were speeding.
revealer24 Forum Posts (985)
RE: Behaving before PostinG ...
Try to post something religious, you get replies in a thunder