End of Days Date Setting

[Grim Reaper 6]

15 hours ago, the13bats said:

A lot of this isnt all so different to what doh applesauce preached to his subjects then they all offed themselves

Well it can’t happen anytime soon because one of the major events that must occur is, Israel must reoccupy all the lands given to them by Gods covenant with Abraham! 

Here is an interesting Academic journal on what is called The Trump Prophecies and the Mobilization of Evangelical Voters: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00084298211012698

Below is a map of the area they must occupy before the second coming of Christ can occur!

[TashaMarie]

What is the point of his return?  Why is he coming back?

[Crazy Horse]

For what its worth, I see the Apocalypse as the great unveiling of the Truth, (whatever THAT actually is).

A Truth that shall set us free of all ignorance, and therefore all pain and suffering.

In other words, GOD Consciousness.

And, personally, I see this Consciousness starting with one person, and then spreading into all those folk who are genuinely trying to seek and know GOD, no matter their actual religion, anyone who genuinely has love in their hearts, until the light and love is so great that even Satan will succumb to THAT force of Goodness. 

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, TashaMarie said:

What is the point of his return?  Why is he coming back?

Might have left to coffee maker on.

[Davros of Skaro]

To Paul a physical resurrection does not inherit God's Kingdom.

1 Cor. 15:49 "49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality."

Note: Dirty clothes/clean clothes were seen as metaphors for Earthly/spiritual bodies in the ancient world. (Mar. 14:51-52, 16:5 "A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.", "As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.") 

Mar. 15:14-15 (Yom Kippur Scapegoat) "Pilate asked them, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify him!" So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas (Son of the Father) for them; and after flogging Jesus (Son of God), he handed him over to be crucified." 

Lev. 16:7-10 "He shall take the two goats and set them before the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting; and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel. Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD, and offer it as a sin offering; but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel." (1 Cor. 5:5 "5 you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." Gal. 4:3 "So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world." Gal. 4:9 "Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again?") 

 

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, Davros of Skaro said:

a physical resurrection does not inherit God's Kingdom.

 

That's right. Because it's simpler than that.

In fact, a resurrection isn't necessary at all (to inherit God's Kingdom) only the birth of something very specific within a person's true intents and purposes.

Then will God's Kingdom come (be inherited) when God's will be done.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Will Due

[Davros of Skaro]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

That's right. Because it's simpler than that.

In fact, a resurrection isn't necessary at all (to inherit God's Kingdom) only the birth of something very specific within a person's true intents and purposes.

Then will God's Kingdom come (be inherited) when God's will be done.

 

 

Receiving the Holy Ghost, and receiving immortality are two different things. The former is seen as instruction, while the latter is the final fruit if the former is followed through (even Paul gives a caveat that Satan still destroys the flesh even if one fumbles 1 Cor. 5:5).

The Gospels (except for the original Mark) do not reflect Pauline theology in regards to his spiritual body ressurection. Of course this does not give pause to those of faith.

 

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Of course this does not give pause to those of faith.

 

No. You are right.

To those of faith it doesn't give pause.

And that's because there's a big difference between the complexities of having faith in the cumbersome theologies of men and simply having faith in the Fatherhood of God.

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Will Due

[+and-then]

12 hours ago, TashaMarie said:

What is the point of his return?  Why is he coming back?

To take up his throne.  Initially, He will do battle against those who are killing His people.  Most who think of Jesus at all, only know of His first advent as an innocent baby in a manger.  They expect the same baby to return, but as an adult.  The truth is, He will make war against those who are making war against His people.

After that, He will "rule and reign" with a "rod of iron" for 1000 years.  

[+and-then]

On 1/27/2022 at 2:42 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I don’t want to know the day, I’d rather wake up to hearing the Wormwood Trumpet rather than know that in six months it’ll blow. Frankly, I’d rather be one of the ones sleeping in their grave rather then live through those days. 

I feel exactly the same.  I've lived my life with an assumption that I would be "watching it from the mezzanine".  I begin to believe that I might get to experience it all, whether I like it, or not.  I think we are experiencing the very beginning of those days right now.  All the landmarks I've trusted in for my whole life, are being systematically removed, one at a time.  

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

22 minutes ago, and then said:

I feel exactly the same.  I've lived my life with an assumption that I would be "watching it from the mezzanine".  I begin to believe that I might get to experience it all, whether I like it, or not.  I think we are experiencing the very beginning of those days right now.  All the landmarks I've trusted in for my whole life, are being systematically removed, one at a time.  

You know what, I pray you’re wrong. But if you’re not and we end up on the last wall together I’ll buy the first round.

[Davros of Skaro]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

No. You are right.

To those of faith it doesn't give pause.

And that's because there's a big difference between the complexities of having faith in the cumbersome theologies of men and simply having faith in the Fatherhood of God.

Oh dayam...

I'm not going to say who, but I thought you were someone else.

Will.

Read any good books lately? 

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, and then said:

To take up his throne.  Initially, He will do battle against those who are killing His people.  Most who think of Jesus at all, only know of His first advent as an innocent baby in a manger.  They expect the same baby to return, but as an adult.  The truth is, He will make war against those who are making war against His people.

After that, He will "rule and reign" with a "rod of iron" for 1000 years.  

So reincarnated and created Islam.

[eight bits]

4 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

The Gospels (except for the original Mark) do not reflect Pauline theology in regards to his spiritual body ressurection. Of course this does not give pause to those of faith.

Davros!

Good to see you. I've dropped in a few times at the other place on the web you once mentioned, but haven't seen you there. Good to find you back here.

In general I think Mark used his knowledge of Paul in a sophisticated way (i.e., they aren't fully in agreement, but did share an interest in many of the same issues, and of course did agree in some overall sense). I do think the non-physicality of the resurrection body explains some of the manuscript history of Mark.

Premise: Although the post-empty tomb "Long Ending" (canonical and numbered as 16:9-20) is usually treated as a single unit, I think it is two compositions by different authors: verses 16:9-14 (the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the appearance "in a different form" to the two disciples, and finally the appearance to the eleven) which I think was composed before 16:15-20 (the absurd parting speech which is beloved of the snake-handling wing of Christianity).

If all we had was Mark through 16:8, then we'd have nothing at all about the nature of Jesus's resurrected form.

If all we had was Mark through 16:14, then there would be nothing on the page which supported a physical resurrection, or anything at all except a visionary encounter. The "in another form" appearance is strongly suggestive of something magical going on. Compare Paul: he has his ideas about the pneuma body, but all he reports in the way of encounters cannot be distinguished from hallucinations or dream visits.

Verses 16:15-20 at least give Jesus a long speech. The only quality manuscript I know of which breaks the 16:9-20 block in two (between 16:14 and 16:15) is the Washington with its Freer logion, in which there is some two-way dialog between the disciples and Jesus, thus further increasing the impression of a real presence, rather than just a hallucinatory moment on the part of the survivors.

Modern consensus scholarship likes to cut out everything after 16:8. Maybe so, but I find it amazing that the message of Mark then would be "women can't be trusted with important church business, although they can handle the dirty jobs that men don't want or can't find the time to do."

BUT in all three proposed endings: 16:8, 16:14, and the canonical 16:20, and despite their different degrees of illusiveness for Jesus, Mark's risen Jesus never demonstrates the physicality found in the other, later Gospels. Only in the last, laughable version does he even establish much of a definite presence.

Well, you know me. IMO, Christian origins come down to Paul with support from Mark presenting the Greatest Ghost Story Ever Told^®. And while Gentile converts were understandably concerned about their bacon cheeseburgers and letting Mr Happy keep his hat on, I think they also preferred an afterlife where their spirits could soar unencumbered by dragging around material flesh. Paul knew his customers, and Mark did, too.

Welcome back.

.

[TashaMarie]

4 hours ago, and then said:

To take up his throne.  Initially, He will do battle against those who are killing His people.  Most who think of Jesus at all, only know of His first advent as an innocent baby in a manger.  They expect the same baby to return, but as an adult.  The truth is, He will make war against those who are making war against His people.

After that, He will "rule and reign" with a "rod of iron" for 1000 years.  

Not sure if you're taking the p*** here or not.  

[Davros of Skaro]

10 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Davros!

Good to see you. I've dropped in a few times at the other place on the web you once mentioned, but haven't seen you there. Good to find you back here.

In general I think Mark used his knowledge of Paul in a sophisticated way (i.e., they aren't fully in agreement, but did share an interest in many of the same issues, and of course did agree in some overall sense). I do think the non-physicality of the resurrection body explains some of the manuscript history of Mark.

Premise: Although the post-empty tomb "Long Ending" (canonical and numbered as 16:9-20) is usually treated as a single unit, I think it is two compositions by different authors: verses 16:9-14 (the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the appearance "in a different form" to the two disciples, and finally the appearance to the eleven) which I think was composed before 16:15-20 (the absurd parting speech which is beloved of the snake-handling wing of Christianity).

If all we had was Mark through 16:8, then we'd have nothing at all about the nature of Jesus's resurrected form.

If all we had was Mark through 16:14, then there would be nothing on the page which supported a physical resurrection, or anything at all except a visionary encounter. The "in another form" appearance is strongly suggestive of something magical going on. Compare Paul: he has his ideas about the pneuma body, but all he reports in the way of encounters cannot be distinguished from hallucinations or dream visits.

Verses 16:15-20 at least give Jesus a long speech. The only quality manuscript I know of which breaks the 16:9-20 block in two (between 16:14 and 16:15) is the Washington with its Freer logion, in which there is some two-way dialog between the disciples and Jesus, thus further increasing the impression of a real presence, rather than just a hallucinatory moment on the part of the survivors.

Modern consensus scholarship likes to cut out everything after 16:8. Maybe so, but I find it amazing that the message of Mark then would be "women can't be trusted with important church business, although they can handle the dirty jobs that men don't want or can't find the time to do."

BUT in all three proposed endings: 16:8, 16:14, and the canonical 16:20, and despite their different degrees of illusiveness for Jesus, Mark's risen Jesus never demonstrates the physicality found in the other, later Gospels. Only in the last, laughable version does he even establish much of a definite presence.

Well, you know me. IMO, Christian origins come down to Paul with support from Mark presenting the Greatest Ghost Story Ever Told^®. And while Gentile converts were understandably concerned about their bacon cheeseburgers and letting Mr Happy keep his hat on, I think they also preferred an afterlife where their spirits could soar unencumbered by dragging around material flesh. Paul knew his customers, and Mark did, too.

Welcome back.

.

Hey eight. Back at ya. 

I've been busy. It would be there yet I'm still Steel Manning the case, not for certainty, but for agnosticism.

Impressive breakdown of the long ending. Yes, I find Mark sophisticated as well behind the prickly Greek. But we are at a stalemate here. We have been through this a couple times before.

It's just as plausible Mark ended with the woman fleeing the tomb. Then Christians later not knowing the author's symbolism tacked on the Longer Ending.

"16.9–20: The longer ending. This ending was probably added sometime in the mid-second century Ce to bring Mark’s ending into conformity with postresurrection accounts found in Matthew, Luke, and John."

Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV. pp. 1465

Mark is an inside secret 4:10-12 which follows Paul's Gentile inclusion theology Romans 11:7-11.

The angel in the tomb (16:7) tells the woman Jesus is going to Galilee just as he told them. Jesus being God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3) is OT scripture which harkens to Isaiah 9:1 "Galilee of the nations". Abraham has the promise from God of being "father of many nations" in Paul's spiritual adoption theology through faith (Galatians 3:26-29, 4:5-7).

Mark 13:10 "10 And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations.

Mark 16:7 "7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”'

Romans 4:17 "17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”)—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. 18 Hoping against hope, he believed that he would become “the father of many nations,” according to what was said, “So numerous shall your descendants be.”'

Rom. 15:12 "12 and again Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles shall hope." (Isa. 11:10 LXX).

Isaiah 9:1 "1 But there will be no gloom for those who were in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations."

The woman fleeing the empty tomb is symbolic of the LORD coming down from Heaven at the last trumpet. 

1 Corinthians 15:4 "4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,"

Exodus 19:11-13, :15-16 "11 and prepare for the third day, because on the third day the LORD will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.; 12 You shall set limits for the people all around, saying, 'Be careful not to go up the mountain or to touch the edge of it. Any who touch the mountain shall be put to death. 13 No hand shall touch them, but they shall be stoned or shot with arrows; whether animal or human being, they shall not live.' When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they may go up on the mountain."'    

"15 And he said to the people, "Prepare for the third day; do not go near a woman. 16 On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, as well as a thick cloud on the mountain, and a blast of a trumpet so loud that all the people who were in the camp trembled."

Mark 16:8 "8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

1 Corinthians 15:52 "52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."

So the ending of Mark with the scenario of the angel to tell the news, and the woman fleeing fits symbolically with Paul, the OT, and Jesus coming down. There's no need to go further with the story for those that are on the inside, but those later outside put the Longer Ending.

The ending is for telling the news so the Gentiles believe by faith (Gal. 3:5).

Anyone looking for the scholarship showing that the Longer Ending to be most likely not original go here: 

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication

by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends2

 

[Will Due]

5 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Read any good books lately? 

 

Why yes. And here's something from it that's directed at those who find it satisfying to do whatever they can to mock and belittle anything if not all, in order to create as much mayhem as possible in the lives of as many people they can:

 

 

“But herein is the danger to all who would postpone their entrance into the kingdom while they continue to pursue the pleasures of immaturity and indulge the satisfactions of selfishness: Having refused to enter the kingdom as a spiritual experience, they may subsequently seek entrance thereto when the glory of the better way becomes revealed in the age to come. And when, therefore, those who spurned the kingdom when I came in the likeness of humanity seek to find an entrance when it is revealed in the likeness of divinity, then will I say to all such selfish ones: I know not whence you are. You had your chance to prepare for this heavenly citizenship, but you refused all such proffers of mercy; you rejected all invitations to come while the door was open. Now, to you who have refused salvation, the door is shut. This door is not open to those who would enter the kingdom for selfish glory. Salvation is not for those who are unwilling to pay the price of wholehearted dedication to doing my Father’s will. When in spirit and soul you have turned your backs upon the Father’s kingdom, it is useless in mind and body to stand before this door and knock, saying, ‘Lord, open to us; we would also be great in the kingdom.’ Then will I declare that you are not of my fold. I will not receive you to be among those who have fought the good fight of faith and won the reward of unselfish service in the kingdom on earth. And when you say, ‘Did we not eat and drink with you, and did you not teach in our streets?’ then shall I again declare that you are spiritual strangers; that we were not fellow servants in the Father’s ministry of mercy on earth; that I do not know you; and then shall the Judge of all the earth say to you: ‘Depart from us, all you who have taken delight in the works of iniquity.’

 

 

 

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Davros of Skaro said:

I've been busy. It would be there yet I'm still Steel Manning the case, not for certainty, but for agnosticism.

Yeah, that's where I come from on HJ/MJ. If the guild would just acknowledge that the matter is uncertain, then I'd be a happy camper.

Quote

Yes, I find Mark sophisticated as well behind the prickly Greek.

I picture him as an ancient David Mamet. Somebody who writes the way people speak to one another. Koine was deployed in some very low-rent settings. Betcha lotsa folks back then spoke like Mark wrote.

2 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

It's just as plausible Mark ended with the woman fleeing the tomb.

It would be, except that verse 16:7 is a natural stopping place, a curtain line. Assuming that Mark didn't feel that his work was complete except that he hadn't yet trashed women, verse 16:8 serves only one function aesthetically, which is to set up verse 16:9 in order for it to complete a common Greek figure of speech (emphatic negation followed by an exception).

Also, I'm arguing narrowly here: that the author of 16:9-14 is different from the author of 16:15-20. Whoever wrote 9-14 was at least familiar with the contents and styling of the undisputed Mark (that is 1:1 through 16:8). That didn't have to be "Mark." I don't know who Mark is; I don't even know that undisputed Mark is the work of a single author.

(I am told that in humanities department outside of New Testament Studies that it's all very trendy to question the very idea of authorship. I've been called "postmodern" to my virtual face online. Meh - in my misspent youth in the theater, I saw it all the time. Scripts morph under the wear and tear of actual performance. That's just the way it is.)

Quote

The angel in the tomb

is a young man in Mark. There is nothing on the page, not one thing, that justifies identifying him as anything other than a man. Oh, except those other gospels that Mark found itself bound together with later on in history.

2 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

So the ending of Mark with the scenario of the angel to tell the news, and the woman fleeing fits symbolically with Paul, the OT, and Jesus coming down. There's no need to go further with the story for those that are on the inside, but those later outside put the Longer Ending.

You realize that there is no evidence that Mark was a practicing Christian at the time he wrote? He could have been an ex-Christian (people were free to come and go). He could have been a never-Christian with an interest in exotic cults. He could have been a satirist...

Oh- there's also no evidence that there ever was one "inside." Paul is the one who tells us that there's at least one "inside," his own (milk before meat and all that), but Paul equally tells us that other leaders had other ideas even then. Maybe Cephas-Peter-Simon led an "inside," too. Maybe James the pillar led another one .  Maybe Apollos... By the Second Century, we know there were plural "insides."

2 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Anyone looking for the scholarship showing that the Longer Ending to be most likely not original go here: 

Then consider a view that is neither guild nor Carrier, for example: Why the block ought not to be assumed to have been a single unit

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/the-longer-ending-of-gmark-part-i-were-verses-169-20-written-as-one-unit/

and why I'd be willing to bet heavily that 16:9 is at least as "authentic" as 16:8

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/more-on-where-gmark-really-ends/

 

[zep73]

Aren't you believers at all concerned about having a god who demanded a human sacrifice and wants you to practice symbolic cannibalism? Oh well, not my problem...

[XenoFish]

41 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Aren't you believers at all concerned about having a god who demanded a human sacrifice

Well God did have a thing for burnt offerings there for a while. 

Quote

and wants you to practice symbolic cannibalism?

That's more a Catholic thing.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

14 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

That's right. Because it's simpler than that.

In fact, a resurrection isn't necessary at all (to inherit God's Kingdom) only the birth of something very specific within a person's true intents and purposes.

Then will God's Kingdom come (be inherited) when God's will be done.

 

 

So god was a Thelemite.

 

Br Cornelius

[zep73]

8 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Well God did have a thing for burnt offerings there for a while.

Yeah, he had a whole menu of wrongdoings, where you paid with dead animals. Like a McDrive, where you could order e.g. fornication, and he'd say 'That'd be one calf. Please proceed to the bonfire at the end of the line'.

 

12 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

That's more a Catholic thing.

As I recall it was Jeebus' idea, called 'the last happy meal'. I think all fractions of christianity are supposed to do it.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, zep73 said:

Yeah, he had a whole menu of wrongdoings, where you paid with dead animals. Like a McDrive, where you could order e.g. fornication, and he'd say 'That'd be one calf. Please proceed to the bonfire at the end of the line'.

 

As I recall it was Jeebus' idea, called 'the last happy meal'. I think all fractions of christianity are supposed to do it.

We really need to consider that we're dealing with fictional characters. I've got no proof, but I think the beginning of Christianity were more of a mystic sort of order. What we're seeing now is just a highly mutated form of that. Then against I fully reserve the right to be absolutely wrong in my opinion. 

Judaism is just a combination of other faiths, Christianity is an off-shoot, and islam is just a bastardized verson of Judaism. 

[+Sherapy]

8 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Oh dayam...

I'm not going to say who, but I thought you were someone else.

Will.

Read any good books lately? 

Welcome back Darv. 

[quiXilver]