Which Religion is the One True Religion?

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
Um...... Hate to break up your party but, to what and/or to who are you referring?

You, who just wrote:
Now, to Jesus statement in Matt 24 that the generation that sees those signs would not pass till they were fulfilled:

What makes you think that this is referring to his own generation?

Or did you mean what you typed in some allegorical sense?

I've just become a seasoned member. Who would have thought?

How about some seasoning?

The signs relating to the destruction of Jerusalem had similarities to the signs relating to the final judgment of mankind. Hence they were included as features in the same prophecy. The destruction of Jerusalem occurred within the lifetime of those to whom Jesus spoke. The second destruction is yet to come and no one knows the day or the hour.

Here are some interesting parallels:
Jerusalem was the center of the Jewish system which claimed to be in a covenant relationship with God.
The Jews repeatedly broke their covenant by engaging in the practices and beliefs of the religions originating in Babylon, including, from time to time, child sacrifice.
Christians were given a warning to flee Jerusalem when they saw certain signs. The main one being the attack by the Romans under Cestius Gallus in 66 C.E. and his unexplained withdrawal. (Now how would they know that?) Finally, Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in 70 C.E.
Nowadays:
The book of Revelation identifies Babylon the Great as the center of a religious system claiming to be in a special relationship with God.
This Babylon the Great continues in the practices and beliefs of the religions originating in Babylon, including, quite regularly, the sacrifice of young people to the god of war.
In addition to the warning in Matthew, God's people are given a warning in Revelation chapter 18 to flee this organization or "share . . . in her plagues."
In this case, it is the United Nations which will act as the destructive force.

More to it, of course; but I've already said enough to merit roasting and toasting by my esteemed fellow a2kers. Good thing I've been seasoned, eh?

Post edited because I thought maybe it needed it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hi SN,

I try not to issue petty objections. The fact is that some of the verses you were trying to include in the passage ARE NOT THERE AT ALL. It is not that you abbreviated the passage, leaving some things out. You conflated several passages, trying to make them fit together and did not (and still have not) admit that you had done so.

Now, to Jesus statement in Matt 24 that the generation that sees those signs would not pass till they were fulfilled:

What makes you think that this is referring to his own generation?

First of all to accuse me of making up verses is ridiculous especially since I quoted them verse for verse for clarity on my second post. When I quoted luke, I gave the chapter and the verses to give you the area to which I was referring. You think I'm stupid enough to think you don't own a bible and I can pull a fast one over you? C'mon.

In answer to your question, what makes me think he is referring to his own generation? A decent amount of reading comprehension. Jesus says "Those of you standing here" is to whom he is referring. Were you standing there? Is anyone in the future going to be standing there? There's only 1 generation that it could possibly be unless you re-translate (which you of course must) the text to fit in with your ideology.

Also, to your point that it was referring to the fall of Jerusalem I beg to differ. When Jerusalem fell, could they see the son of Man returning on a great cloud with angels blaring trumpets? Didn't think so. Unfortunately for you, Jesus was way too specific on exactly what was to come and clearly none of it has.

0 Replies

SN, you'd have to read it carefully to find out which time frame and which event Jesus was referring to in each of his statements.

It is not your fault, really. The bible contains simple statements that anyone can understand: Love God. Love your neighbor. It also contains statements which require diligent study. But even the most intricate passages may be understood by folks with little education. In fact, many are designed to trap those who would overintellectualize the things read.

This is how the priestcraft came about:
Unsophisticated folks too lazy to dig in the scriptures for answers appealed to wise and influential ones to give them simple solutions. Wise ones declared themselves priests and placed unreasonable burdens on the weak. That is what Jesus was referring to in his statement about the "blind leading the blind."

I'm sure you will find answers if you apply yourself.

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

real life wrote:
Hi SN,

I try not to issue petty objections. The fact is that some of the verses you were trying to include in the passage ARE NOT THERE AT ALL. It is not that you abbreviated the passage, leaving some things out. You conflated several passages, trying to make them fit together and did not (and still have not) admit that you had done so.

Now, to Jesus statement in Matt 24 that the generation that sees those signs would not pass till they were fulfilled:

What makes you think that this is referring to his own generation?

First of all to accuse me of making up verses is ridiculous especially since I quoted them verse for verse for clarity on my second post. When I quoted luke, I gave the chapter and the verses to give you the area to which I was referring. You think I'm stupid enough to think you don't own a bible and I can pull a fast one over you? C'mon.

In answer to your question, what makes me think he is referring to his own generation? A decent amount of reading comprehension. Jesus says "Those of you standing here" is to whom he is referring. Were you standing there? Is anyone in the future going to be standing there? There's only 1 generation that it could possibly be unless you re-translate (which you of course must) the text to fit in with your ideology.

Also, to your point that it was referring to the fall of Jerusalem I beg to differ. When Jerusalem fell, could they see the son of Man returning on a great cloud with angels blaring trumpets? Didn't think so. Unfortunately for you, Jesus was way too specific on exactly what was to come and clearly none of it has.

As Neologist mentioned, the verses are from the Bible, but not where you said they were. Nobody accused you of making verses up. We did say that they are not where you said they were.

The passage in Matt 16 that talks of "those standing here" is not the same one that has all the signs that you are saying haven't happened yet. That is Matt 24.

Matt 16 simply mentions that the disciples would see the beginning of Christ's kingdom , which they did. They were still alive when Christ died and resurrected to begin the kingdom He had promised.

Matt 24 mentions signs that will happen in the future and makes NO mention of "those standing here". What is says is the generation that sees those signs start to occur would also see the completion of them.

I think you got the two passages intermixed due to confusion.

Also another point of confusion on your part, I made no mention of the fall of Jerusalem. That was Neologist. Don't worry. Frank does the same thing when he calls Neologist "Life" .

Don't know why folks get us confused, maybe it's because we both have rugged good looks. Very Happy

0 Replies

No confusion on my part, I know exactly what was read and what was said. You feel the need to add in your interpretation of the passage because the passage alone cannot hold its own weight. You are simply playing with semantics and the true meaning of the passage is readily apparent to anyone who does not have the proverbial wool of faith pulled over their eyes.

So your basic premise is when Jesus said "this generation shall not pass" he was talking about some distant generation some 2,000 years after his death and not to those standing in front of him. Haha yeah right.

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

No confusion on my part, I know exactly what was read and what was said. You feel the need to add in your interpretation of the passage because the passage alone cannot hold its own weight. You are simply playing with semantics and the true meaning of the passage is readily apparent to anyone who does not have the proverbial wool of faith pulled over their eyes.

So your basic premise is when Jesus said "this generation shall not pass" he was talking about some distant generation some 2,000 years after his death and not to those standing in front of him. Haha yeah right.

Quite right. The generation(s) seeing the beginning of the signs will not pass away. There were actually two events foretold in the Matthew prophecy as I posted about 1/2 page back. In both cases the generation seeing the beginning will also see the end. The prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. should be easy to understand. The prophecy about the destruction to come may be more complicated, but easy enough to understand when you look at it honestly.

If anything is deserving of destruction, it would be the religious system which has plagued humankind for centuries.

Added later:
I just went back a page or two and I see where you missed the explanation of 'those standing here will not taste death.' It is not a part of the prophecy recorded at Matthew chapter 24.

And, dadburn it! You really did screw up the order of the passages and their citations. You should open the bible and read it for yourself.

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

No confusion on my part, I know exactly what was read and what was said. You feel the need to add in your interpretation of the passage because the passage alone cannot hold its own weight. You are simply playing with semantics and the true meaning of the passage is readily apparent to anyone who does not have the proverbial wool of faith pulled over their eyes.

So your basic premise is when Jesus said "this generation shall not pass" he was talking about some distant generation some 2,000 years after his death and not to those standing in front of him. Haha yeah right.

Hi SN,

Not my premise. I didn't write the verses. Matthew wasn't quoting me. I'm just reading what is there. In context , it says:

32Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Christ said when you see these things happening it is near and this generation will see the fulfillment.

His contemporary generation did not see the signs beginning to happen, so it should be obvious that it was not His contemporaries that He was referring to.

Sorry that you tried to shoehorn other verses in there to make this say something else. It just doesn't say it.

That is why I recommend that folks shouldn't quote from their favorite author's "101 Reasons Why I Don't Believe the Bible" . It is because the examples of "contradictions" offered by such authors are full of holes.

Read the Bible for yourself, not just a few scattered verses. Read it all, to get familiar with the structure and content. It is a large and complex document.

Show some original thought. If you think you have an objection, come up with it on your own, and then study the context and related matter.

You might be surprised what you will find.

0 Replies

You have a point there, real. I submit that the 101 reasons are 100 fabrications and 1 'because I don't want to take responsibility.'

But I'm just an ignorant moron, as Frank would say. Smile

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Added later:
I just went back a page or two and I see where you missed the explanation of 'those standing here will not taste death.' It is not a part of the prophecy recorded at Matthew chapter 24.

And, dadburn it! You really did screw up the order of the passages and their citations. You should open the bible and read it for yourself.

real life wrote:

Sorry that you tried to shoehorn other verses in there to make this say something else. It just doesn't say it.

These accusations are getting old and tiresome. I'll say this one more time and hope that you two take a few seconds to try and comprehend this. In the FIRST post, I quoted Luke. Yes, it was more of a generalization and not a word for word quote, it was simply meant to give you the area of Luke to which I was referring. I apologize if this is heretical or whatever to you and already stated I wouldn't do it again and even corrected myself.

My SECOND post quoted Matthew. Here I gave you a word for word quote of the passage, I didn't shoehorn anything. Luke and Matthew say basically the same thing so it didn't really matter which one I used. Either way from the second post on this crap about me shoehorning things in and making verses up is just a weak way to divert from the question at hand. The constant insinuations that I have not read the text and am taking this out of a mystical "101 bible contradictions" is also irritating. I've given many examples in my time here and not done the simple copy/paste from websites.

That being said, I know that I quoted from two different chapters of Matthew. They both say the same thing:

Matthew 16:27 wrote:

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.

Again like in Luke, Jesus will make a triumphant return with his angels to reward EVERY man according to his works (sounds like Judgement day). Now this leads into the next verse which I quoted earlier:

Matthew 16:28 wrote:

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.

Now in the prior verse, Jesus is talking about his great return and the judging of all men's deeds. Now in this verse he is saying that this is something that's going to happen soon. Some of you here will not even taste death before the kingdom of heaven is upon you. So first he's talking about judging all men's deeds and then in the next sentence he says the kingdom of heaven will be upon you before some of you taste death. Sounds pretty damn specific to me.

Matthew 24:34 wrote:

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Has the kingdom of heaven arrived on earth as it says in Matthew 16? No. Has all the prophecies in Matthew 24 been fulfilled? No. Do you not see why I took both quotes (HINT: LOOK AT THE WORDS THAT OPEN THE VERSE, PRETTY SIMILAR EH) and put them side by side?

Neo, you say it is a prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem. Not only does your buddy Real Life disagree with you but you never answered my question. If this is a prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem then what is with all the nonsense about God coming down on a great cloud with the angels blaring their trumpets? Did any of this occur during the fall of Jerusalem? If not, I'm afraid you and Jesus have got to be talking about two different times in history. Sorry.

Real life, you accuse me of shoehorning and then you post the EXACT same verses that I already posted in my second quote. Why? Maybe you didn't even take the time to read my response. Otherwise why reiterate what I already stated and then accuse me of not reading it at all. Doesn't make much sense.

Quote:

His contemporary generation did not see the signs beginning to happen, so it should be obvious that it was not His contemporaries that He was referring to.

Yeah, that's one explanation. Another could be his contemporaries did not see what he was referring to, therefore, he was wrong. Not that I expect you to be able to grasp that in your close minded reality but it is a feasible second option. There's really no way to win with your type of logic. If it has purportedly happened, then the bible is prophetic. If it hasn't happened then it's a prophecy of the future. And I'm the unoriginal one?

0 Replies

SN...you are trying to use logic and reason with these people.

It ain't gonna work. They are much, much too frightened of the boogyman to take their heads out from under the covers.

Of course Jesus was referring to the generation to whom he was speaking...but since that does not comport with what happened...they have to change it. That is something the religious do all the time.

Listen to what they had to say about the slavery and homosexual issues. The wording is so clear and precise...yet they want to put other interpretations on it in order to suit thier present purprose.

You gotta take this stuff with a healthy sense of humor....and a reasonable dose of compassion for the poor, deluded fools who have to contort logic and reason to arrive where they want to arrive.

Anyone with a brain reading this thread already knows who has dealt legitimately, logically, and ethically with the questions at hand....who has twisted and turned and dissembled.

Too bad for the world that so many are in the deluded camp. This old planet...and all the people on it...have suffered immeasurably because of the silly gods and the fools that work on their behalf.

Obviously, we've still got more to suffer.

0 Replies

You do not see the foundations of a skyscraper. Can you, therefore, argue that it simply sits on the ground? The foundations of this life are laid deep in the past, in lives already lived by you. This structure has been shaped by the ground plan of those lives. It is the unseen foundation that decides the structure and design of the entire edifice.

Idea

0 Replies

poor analogy. In fact its just idle speculation. You can see the foundations of a skyscraper on the architects plans. And if you made enough effort you can see them in the ground.

0 Replies

Well, SN, the early Christians knew enough about the sign for many to escape Jerusalem before it's destruction in 70 C.E.

While the Jews were rejoicing over the sudden retreat of Cestius Gallus, the Christians were fleeing the city.

This is one passage in particular that applied then and today: "Therefore, when YOU catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) 16 then let those in Ju·de´a begin fleeing to the mountains." (Matthew 24, 15:16)

You probably don't care how it applies. After all, I am only one of those "poor, deluded fools who have to contort logic and reason to arrive where they want to arrive", as our brilliant mentor, Frank, has so adroitly pointed out.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

poor analogy. In fact its just idle speculation. You can see the foundations of a skyscraper on the architects plans. And if you made enough effort you can see them in the ground.

He was trying the typical religious schtick of..."Look...there is a universe here. So of course there has to be a God!"

Well...the only way that religions continue to exist...is because there are empty headed people around.

0 Replies

Which is why most religions delight in filling the empty heads of children. Child abuse imo.

I think we've been much too tolerant of dangerous religious practices. There have been a number of really tragic stories here about children being viciously beaten even killed because some 'preacher' has said they are possessed by the devil. In at least one documented case, a young african boy was used as human sacrifice. There can be no room for mis understanding here, such things are absolutely wicked, illegal wrong and must stop. But under a new law banning religious hatred, it will soon be illegal to give offense to religious groups by criticising their beliefs. Even if you didnt mean to, and even if what you said was factually correct.

So if I say that branding a child as possessed by evil spirits is as wicked as physically torturing the child, and that causes offense, then its me likely to be prosecuted. Or if I say that certain religious practices fill me with disgust, then I'm at fault for speaking the truth about how I feel.

It was all sparked off by 911 and the Iraq war. The government has so alienated the muslim vote here by its policies particularly over Iraq, that its trying to win them back by giving protection to their religious ideas.

Of course they insist its the man not the idea they are trying to protect. But they protect the man from being offended by protecting his irrational and in my view harmful ideas.

But who cares about free expression when you're trying to win back support from a religious minority who you've upset by your actions abroad?

0 Replies

since all religions change over time there is not and is never going to be one true religion. at any moment in time each religion was at least a little different they change so fast, so over time you can't even say that its the same religion.

0 Replies

Neo wrote:

If anything is deserving of destruction, it would be the religious system which has plagued humankind for centuries.

That bears repeating - its the crux of the matter. Some concepts embodied within religion, even the Abrahamic religions, are wonderful. The way some folks - particularly the folks pulling the strings at the moment, whenever that moment or of what religion might be or have been, have manipulated religion is the problem with religion, and specifically is why there is, and under the human condition as it stands can be, no such thing as "One, true religion".

0 Replies

The attempt by the religious to enforce their beliefs to all the citizens of all countries is wrong. That is evident in countries like Italy and the US where religion controls legislation that affects everybody that is not a member of their church.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

F****g fairtales that are perverting our world.

How can grown people possibly buy into some of this shyt?

Just how terrified of the unknown....and the boogymen....does one have to be to swollow this nonsense....and go through the contortions these poor dupe go through in order to defend it?

If it were just them....living their silliness...

...I would not care on whit.

But as a conglomerate....they present a danger to mankind that cannot be ignored.

So what Final Solution are you proposing, Frank?

Since you have previously stated that whatever is considered "good for the species" is considered ok by you and that prohibitions against murder and theft should not be considered in terms of "right" and "wrong"..... you leave us wondering.

I am curious to know if you are willing to come out and out for religious cleansing or will you just continue to hint at it?

0 Replies

Well, I surely can't speak for Frank in this matter, but yes indeed I do adocate a religious cleansing of the universe, (as we know it) and the sooner the better., My motto is "the only good son/daughter of Abraham is one that is now in heaven and not on earth."

0 Replies

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know