quote:

in luke 17:28 the same clue was given to us by the Bible about the end times.. everybody was busy eating, drinking, marrying, and building , while the children of God were already prepared for the flood, they went in the ark and the flood washed all the evil men, likewise will be the coming of son of man.

Didn't God promise never to do that again, a la rainbow?

quote:

it never happened on Jesus' time. but it will happen on our time.

Why? People have been saying that the apocalypse will happen in thier time since the middle ages; none have been right yet.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
If it came immediately after the tribulation, you'd be prepared as well.

Now I'm not really sure what we're talking about. When did the tribulation come into play?

in that verse that i gave before, Matthew 24:29, the tribulation is a worldwide event that will come in the future. it never happened on Jesus' time. but it will happen on our time. tribulation as defined by the Bible also in the book of Matthew is an event that will happen Matthew 23:21-22.. such as was not since the beginning of teh world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. and except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for hte elect's sake those days shall be shortened. in these verses, there is prophecy by Christ. the preparation must be made by the Christians. coz it is a very horrible situation that will be soon happening. no time specifications but Christ mentioned some clues on how near the great tribulation is. Still on Matthew 24:3-28 are the clues and what will happen on the whole world.
anyway, i would like to the threads that you gave me, about the Catholic Church.. i now know more about its truth, the scenes behind this powerful religion that the Vatican Council has formed, not Christ.

If it came immediately after the tribulation, you'd be prepared as well.

Now I'm not really sure what we're talking about. When did the tribulation come into play?

quote:

Isaiah is full of prophecies, most of which are used now to describe Jesus.

not all of it. but much about the rise of a nation of God in the end times

quote:

No time frame is ever stated. The end could come instantly after the gospel is preached to all nations, or it could come a millennium later. It doesn't specify when.

there is no time frame stated of course, how else will we be prepared? the appearance of the son of man will be immediately after the tribulation.

quote:

Actually excommunication from the Roman Catholic church still happens. We just don't make a bunch of noise about it thanks very much.

in our country, that is the most predominant Catholic nation in Asia, they dont. gamblers and prostitutes are still able to attend church assemblies. you dont have to make a bunch of noise. excommunication simply screens out the bad eggs.

quote:

Certainties don't count as prophecies dear besides there were already many religions before the bible was written down

not as many as it is now that bring Christ to man.

quote:

Because as it's been explained to me the return of Christ shall come upon us with out warning "like a thief in the night" revelations just lays out what will happen during the end times (again that's how it's been explained to me)

the clue of the end times as written in matthew 24:37 - But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark.and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away. in luke 17:28 the same clue was given to us by the Bible about the end times.. everybody was busy eating, drinking, marrying, and building , while the children of God were already prepared for the flood, they went in the ark and the flood washed all the evil men, likewise will be the coming of son of man.

quote:

The Bible is full of prophecies and one by one they are unfolding in the very eyes of man in time and time to come.

The thing about prophecies is that they are very vague. They can be interpreted however anyone wishes. Isaiah is full of prophecies, most of which are used now to describe Jesus. But I'm sure that if you looked hard enough, you'd find prophecies that never came true. It's always hit and miss with telling the future. If you're vague enough, you might get more right than wrong, know what I mean?

quote:

If the above verse or prophecy of Jesus Christ is indeed true then the gospel of the Catholic Church which has been around for years and has spread worldwide, the end should’ve came but yet we’re still here alive and kicking.

As I was saying, that's a vague prophecy. No time frame is ever stated. The end could come instantly after the gospel is preached to all nations, or it could come a millennium later. It doesn't specify when.

quote:

they don’t excommunicate their members

*throws penalty flag* BS call on orangegoddess! Actually excommunication from the Roman Catholic church still happens. We just don't make a bunch of noise about it thanks very much.

quote:

One of the prophecies of the Bible is the rise of many religions

Certainties don't count as prophecies dear besides there were already many religions before the bible was written down

quote:

signs of the end times,

really? must have missed that in revelations. Because as it's been explained to me the return of Christ shall come upon us with out warning "like a thief in the night" revelations just lays out what will happen during the end times (again that's how it's been explained to me)

It is a part of God’s commandment in the Old Testament to hear and accept the prophet sent by God (Deut. 18:1,18) How much more if God sent the Christ, his only begotten son, who only revised the old commandments and not transgressed them? The Lord God advised the Jews and/or Israelites on how to determine a false prophet as we can read it in Deut. 18:22 (when a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him) the jews have a basis of their faith but not most of it have been fulfilled especially they are led by the Pharisees and Saducees and the scribes who were being rebuked by Christ because of their hypocrisy.
The bible does require faith. Faith is the believing of things unseen. To further prove the power of the Bible or God will absolutely rely on the words that are written therein. Not even bible scholars are able to fully understand the Bible. The apostles were not educated people but they were given the spirit in rightly dividing the word of truth.
The Bible is full of prophecies and one by one they are unfolding in the very eyes of man in time and time to come. One of the prophecies of the Bible is the rise of many religions. It also advised man what are the signs of the end times, some have predicted a certain date but nothing came about. False prediction = false prophet
If Peter was given by Christ the mantel of being a shepherd, why are peter’s successors were the ones defying almost all of the commandments of God? can the catholic church discern the end times? They just warn the laity of the evil deeds, they don’t excommunicate their members as what God has ordered.
In matthew 24:14 we read, And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. “The Roman Catholic Church is the largest organized body of any world religion” as what is stated in the thread that clpo13 recommended. Thanks by the way. If the above verse or prophecy of Jesus Christ is indeed true then the gospel of the Catholic Church which has been around for years and has spread worldwide, the end should’ve came but yet we’re still here alive and kicking.
If man sins, then the pope, a human man, sins too. So why trust a man when you can trust God who can lead us to the perfect green pastures?
Historical facts further emphasize the legality or authenticity of a thing. On the history and other articles of the Catholic Church, as I have read it thoroughly, further prove its real state.

You connect atheism with hedonism, yet the vast majority of atheists do follow some sort of moral code, even if it is looser than religious moral codes. Not all atheists live wild, out of control lives.

Arguing the validity of any religion is pointless for no evidence can prove it false. On the flip side religious people cannot prove that religion is the truth. Religion's cornerstone is faith and you cannot debate faith in religion. We can houwever debate our beliefs as to why we believe what we do. It is a lifestyle choice, my conviction for being religious is because it makes people better for humanity, it diciplines and sets moral guidelines. Religion has lasted as long or longer than atheism has. Before the enlightenment age atheism was considered heracy. Ever since science and humanism came around and stirred our thoughts a bit people started to doubt and believe in themselves. The more technology increased and minds developed the less we felt we needed a god in the picture. It is typical that we would push God out of the picture because we empower ourselves to believe we lead our own lives. Religion if anything convicts humans of evil and challenges us to be better. Atheism is a complete anhilation of the super ego and a means of constantly satisfying the id, in my opinion this is uncontrolable living in the end and leads to destruction of self and others around you.

quote:

may i ask what about the Bible dont you agree with?

There are many things. Mainly I disagree with the fact that it claims to be true and uses itself as the only evidence. There are indeed many things in the Bible which are historically true, but I won't believe the rather outlandish claims it makes about our creation and just what we need to believe in without some outside form of evidence. The Bible asks to be taken solely on faith, which is not enough for me. I need something a bit more...substantial than words written by men and supposedly given to them by God. Of course, that's not even going into the bias the men wrote into it, even assuming they did get the original stuff straight from God. Humans have a tendency to stick their own beliefs into what they write, so it's impossible to tell the difference between human opinions and God's word when reading the Bible. For all you or I know, it could all be a load of hogwash. I won't pass judgment that quickly, but neither will I blindly accept it's truth.

And no, I have not read every word. I simply don't have the time. But I have read the important parts. I'm sure I don't need to read Ezekiel 3:14 or Malachi 1:2 to have a full understanding of the Bible.

(If you interested, Ezekiel 3:14 says "So the spirit lifted me up, and took me away, and I went in bitterness, in the heat of my spirit; but the hand of the LORD was strong upon me." which is referring only to Ezekiel and nothing of spiritual or historical importance; and Malachi 1:2 says "I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob," which really makes no sense at all, even in context.)

quote:

during the time of Christ, false religions were already existing in the forms of the scribes, pharasis, and saducees.

As amp said, these people were acting in the interest of Judaism, which God had originally created. They were following God's original testament to his people. Jesus came to make a second covenant, which conflicted quite a lot with the original one, so it's understandable why he was persecuted. I mean, come on. You can't seriously expect people to believe someone who comes and says that they've been doing it all wrong for the past couple thousand years, especially when God himself told them to do it.

I have never understood why God thought sending Jesus to mix things up was a good idea. Why should the Jews have believed Jesus? Because he said he was God? These days, there are lots of people who claim to be Jesus or God. And they're all certifiably insane. You lock someone up if they run around claiming to be God. In Jesus' time, it was blasphemy. No wonder they didn't believe him.

Look at it this way if you have a hard time seeing at it as skeptics do: what would you do if someone claiming to be God came to your spiritual leader (sorry that I can't remember his name) and said that you guys didn't need to follow the Ten Commandments any more because God came up with some better ones. But the new commandments were very different than the old ones. Instead of having faith, you needed works in order to be saved. You could murder whoever you wanted but only if they had sinned. And Jesus was just some crazy guy who was lying about being God.

Would you believe him? I doubt you would. What Jesus said to the Jews during his ministry was just as outlandish. Instead of the 613 laws the Jews had been told to follow in Leviticus, Jesus said only the Ten Commandments were important. Works were not important; faith was. And finally, he preached a life of peace, where turning the other cheek was preferred to taking an eye for an eye. It was way off of what the Jews had been practicing since the time of Moses. They were understandably peeved at what they perceived as a man who had spent a little too much time out in the sun and had some sort of God complex (excuse the pun).

Do not presume to pass judgment on the Jews during the life of Jesus until you understand their position. Look at my example and see if you would really suspend all your beliefs to take the word of someone who challenged them all.

quote:

may i ask what about the Bible dont you agree with?

well I tend to be wary of a book that was written by human hands and transcribed by human hands many times and is represented as the word of God... I'm not sure how clipo feels about it but that's me.

quote:

Peter is just a disciple

Who was ordered by Christ to found the church. Don't belive me? after the evidence clpo brought? read the book of James. The very last bit. When Jesus says to Peter "watch over my sheep" he is passing the mantel of sheparding his flock on earth on to Peter.

quote:

false religions were already existing in the forms of the scribes, pharasis, and saducees.

[sarcasm] Right because the jewish faith... which worships the same God as the christians and has been doing it for several millenia longer if you regard the bible as an ok historical reference is absolutly incorrect, even though as we just learned they worship the same God... [/sarcasm]

quote:

the Vatican also referred to "some" of the verses of the Bible as basis of faith making you also a believer of the Bible

Right the problem here is what again? Some verses of the book are more faith inspiring than others? That sounds like an issue with the writing department not the reader

quote:

the only "Pope" of our times and the times of early people is Jesus Christ.

Nope that would be incorrect. Christ cannot be the pope due to some fundmental basics. See Christ can't be the pope because he's God the Son. The Pope is a man(a completely human man) whose single task is guiding the people of the world as a shepard guides his sheep to the green pastures of Christ. Jesus gave us the word. The pope and the priests guide us in the word

quote:

I don't believe what's written in the Bible simply because it's in the Bible; I believe if it's corroborated by outside facts.

may i ask what about the Bible dont you agree with? have you read everything? every word?

quote:

I will concede that many views of the modern church conflict with the views of the original church

ah..yes, the word is conflict. the original church still and will still uphold original doctrines and commandments of God. the Vatican also referred to "some" of the verses of the Bible as basis of faith making you also a believer of the Bible. Peter is just a disciple. the word pope was never mentioned in the bible. during the time of Christ, false religions were already existing in the forms of the scribes, pharasis, and saducees. the only "Pope" of our times and the times of early people is Jesus Christ. Conflict results to differences. Differences results to division.

quote:

you too, took it literally that Peter started the original church

I took it literally because it is backed up by historical fact. I don't believe what's written in the Bible simply because it's in the Bible; I believe if it's corroborated by outside facts.

Peter is considered to be the first pope. He indeed started the church in Jerusalem after Jesus' death and, although there were troubles between him and James (accusing Peter and Paul of ignoring Jewish law), that same church prevailed and grew into the current Catholic Church. Yes, I will concede that many views of the modern church conflict with the views of the original church, but the fact still remains that the Roman Catholic Church is directly descended from the institution founded by Peter. Read here and here.

I would find more online resources to back this up, but most of what I know about religion I learned in a comparative religions class, so I don't really have much hard evidence to provide, although I could find some if you really want me to.

quote:

that the doctrine that they carry which is handed down to them by Christ ought to please men than God. GAlatians l :10

correction please..handed dwon to them by Christ ought NOT to please men but please God.

quote:

Originally posted by DXRifYouDontKnowAsk:
Very cool use of Scripture, orangegoddess.

One question:
I thought the use of the term "Father Don" or "Reverend Nathan" was merely a term of respect. I mean, in Hebrew those words (Father, Teacher, etc) have different tenses. I think that what Jesus meant by that was, Do not call anything but God your creator or spiritual father. I call my priest Father Don, and we're not Catholic. I jsut thought it was a term of respect, like you call your boss sir or your dad Dad.

yes, its a term of respect of that priest but disrespecting God. its like putting the priest at par with God. when man whether he already is a Christian or not, still sins and "sins". why dont you "try" your friend, on why they let people address them father when it is a commandment of God himself not to call any other people of religious issues father. try the leaders of different religious denominations as this is also a commandment of God. "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."(1jn4:1)
in everthing there should be a basis, especially faith, coz it concerns our soul. The bible is the only basis for the authenticity of our faith. The bible is the complete journal and teachings of God..so using the scripture and verses is just quoting the words of God and does not come from personal opinions as what other people do. and by the way, the bible is like a gun, use it lawfully it will serve for the betterment of all(1Tim.1:8), but there are people who use the Bible just for their own advantage. (jude 1:16)
clpo13, the original is still the perfect, God is the one condemning the Catholics, it fits so perfectly. the catholic priest themselves defy the commandment of God. modern versions of Christianity are modified to please men not God. when we do things that are pleasing to men and not God, it would be absolutely pointless. the apostles have written their own journal in the Bible saying that the doctrine that they carry which is handed down to them by Christ ought to please men than God. GAlatians l :10

quote:

the Roman Catholic church is simply the modern version of the original church started by Peter

"And I (jesus) say also unto thee (the disciples), that thou are peter, and upon this rock i (jesus) will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" ( Matthew 16:18) looking into this verse, peter was just being mentioned. but it is still Jesus who will build the church upon the rock. what is that rock? in Deut. 32:4 it says, He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement" a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He. the Rock is God. remember that Jesus is not speaking literally here but spiritually because Jesus is not human but the son of God, therefore a spirit, that was only clothed by flesh.
clp013, i know you dont believe in the Bible and God, well you used to be, but part of what you "believe" also is from the Bible. you too, took it literally that Peter started the original church. and looking again into the verse (matt 16:18) the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.. hell means the place where Satan will be punished right? even the Gates of hell, not only hell but even the mere gates of Hell, God won't let it near into His church for the church of God is good and no evil will he let it in.

quote:

The Vatican Council formed the Roman Catholic Church on the 15th or 18th Century while Christianity was already established by Christ way back more than 2000 years ago.

Christianity (in some form or another) has indeed been around since shortly after Jesus crucifixion, but the Roman Catholic church is simply the modern version of the original church started by Peter. Up until around 325, there were many, many versions of Christianity practiced, all of them considered heresy by the Romans. Going into the third and fourth centuries (200s and 300s), Christianity gained popularity and was even adopted as the official religion by the Roman Emperor Constantine I. In 325, Constantine held a meeting of bishops from around the empire in the city of Nicea in present-day Turkey to come to a consensus on Christian doctrine. This formed the basis for the modern Roman Catholic church. The council established that Jesus was of the same substance of God, and also set a date for celebrating Easter. All of this was set down in the Nicene Creed and is accepted by nearly all forms of Christianity.

So really, Catholicism is closest to the original form of Christianity, although there really is no "original" form of Christianity, considering all the different versions that came about after Jesus' death.

Now, your use of scripture is a tad inaccurate, especially since you condemn the Catholic church for doing what many other sects of Christianity do, such as baptize infants, idolize the cross, celebrate Jesus' birth on the 25th of December, and so on.

Very cool use of Scripture, orangegoddess.

One question:
I thought the use of the term "Father Don" or "Reverend Nathan" was merely a term of respect. I mean, in Hebrew those words (Father, Teacher, etc) have different tenses. I think that what Jesus meant by that was, Do not call anything but God your creator or spiritual father. I call my priest Father Don, and we're not Catholic. I jsut thought it was a term of respect, like you call your boss sir or your dad Dad.