Door-To-Door Missionaries - Page 14

mee · 12-29-2007, 01:41 PM

the whole theme of the bible runs from Genesis to Revelation .

without the book of revelation the bible is not complete . and the understanding about the prophecies especially in the time of the end would not be understood .

thats why the revelation means revealing and uncovering

Quahom1 · 12-29-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mee

the whole theme of the bible runs from Genesis to Revelation .

without the book of revelation the bible is not complete . and the understanding about the prophecies especially in the time of the end would not be understood .

thats why the revelation means revealing and uncovering

Your book of Revelation was nearly discarded by the first counsel, when they were putting the bible together.

pattimax · 12-29-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Your book of Revelation was nearly discarded by the first counsel, when they were putting the bible together.

"His" book?

As for the book of Revelation, it wasn't discarded. I wonder why? Do you know?

Quahom1 · 12-29-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pattimax

"His" book?

As for the book of Revelation, it wasn't discarded. I wonder why? Do you know?

"his" book since it seems to be the only one that has most focus with him. And no I do not know why it was kept while others were discarded(there were more than one book of Revelation).

mee · 12-29-2007, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

"his" book since it seems to be the only one that has most focus with him. And no I do not know why it was kept while others were discarded(there were more than one book of Revelation).

the book of revelation has great meaning today especially since jesus came into kingdom power.

many of the things in that book tie up with daniel and other books.

and its all happening in this time that we live in

cyberpi · 12-29-2007, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pattimax

Let me set your mind at ease. You ARE going to heaven.

Pattimax, do you really claim to know who is going to heaven?

bob x · 12-30-2007, 07:48 AM

When you accept Revelation and 2nd Peter, you are submitting to the authority of the Pope. Different branches of the early church had differing opinions about what should or should not be in the "New Testament" canon, but for some odd reason fundamentalist Protestants, many of whom rail against the Popes as deceitful servants of Antichrist, accept the infallibility of the church of Rome's decision on this point.

pattimax · 12-30-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Pattimax, do you really claim to know who is going to heaven?

Yes, that is my claim.

cyberpi · 12-30-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pattimax

Yes, that is my claim.

Are your enemies going to heaven?

Saltmeister · 12-31-2007, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Are your enemies going to heaven?

I would assume that they have their own alternative/counter claims.

pattimax · 12-31-2007, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Are your enemies going to heaven?

Silly man, I do NOT decide who is heaven bound. THAT is a personal decision. It is between the individual and Jesus Christ...

cyberpi · 12-31-2007, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pattimax

Silly man, I do NOT decide who is heaven bound. THAT is a personal decision. It is between the individual and Jesus Christ...

Does Jesus Christ tell you the personal decisions that your enemies make? Are the personal decisions of other people made known to you?

Xavier Breath · 12-31-2007, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

It's all about dogma, ideology, semantics and conformity. People who insist on conformity to the doctrine are usually not that interested that you worship God, but that you validate their beliefs. They want to feel important. If you chant the same slogans as they do, you show that their beliefs are important, and therefore that they (not God) are important.

...

I'm not so much in favour of the idea as, it sounds like a kind of idolatry. The doctrine is made to be more important than your actual devotion to God, which I think is wrong. People worship the doctrine more than God Himself.

...

It was said that we are not supposed to create graven images, but this seems to be one of them!!!

Very well put. This approach to use of dogma as a weapon leads to exclusion, and self-aggrandizement. It is a very easy trap, I think.
When we have a life-changing experience, the social animal in us urges us to share it. This is good, but when we find that the sharing does not have the same impact, we either question our ability to describe the experience (and then refine our "doctrine" to get better results) or we condemn the hearer as being somehow flawed. The latter leads to self-righteousness and all of the proud, sacrificial, self-serving transgressions of the Missionary Zealot.
The former leads us to begin to transform God from being the Creator into something that fits into our little box, and thus our Creature. When we seek to describe God with language, we cannot avoid limiting Him. All language is built on differentiating one thing or action from another. The fact that we have all (or at least mostly) acquiesced to using the masculine pronoun to refer to God is a great example. Is God Male or Female? God is neither, or both, or all, or perhaps the best answer is that this question is not only irrelevant but presumptuous. To paraphrase the Tao: The God whom we call God is not God!
The well intentioned efforts of those who seek to create more acceptable, less assailable descriptions of God generally result in creating new loopholes and more opportunities for attack. Look at all the pages spent in this thread debating the details of a God who defies description!!! I used to be very focussed on trimming and altering God to fit into a box that I could control and feel comfortable with.
Unfortunately, while I was busy building the God-In-The-Box, God stopped laughing at me long enough to demonstrate to me that the box would never be His limit.
This is, I believe, part of what the manger scene is all about. If God is willing to shove Himself into a meatsack and come to a poor, grubby little town as the illegitimate infant son of itinerant trash to prove to me that He cares, then I am never safe. He has shown He is willing to go to any length to do the impossible to enter into a relationship with me, and there is nowhere to hide from Him.
For some, the concept of a Trinity makes more sense than anything else. For others, it is a deal-breaker. God is willing to let those who need it rest in the comfort of their description of Him. I suspect it breaks His heart, though, when some of us feel entitled to dictate the terms of another person's relationship with a God none of us can truly envision, understand, or describe while we yet live.

pattimax · 12-31-2007, 06:06 AM

Itinerant trash?

Xavier Breath · 12-31-2007, 06:22 AM

Joseph was an itinerant in the sense that he (or his ancestors) had lost the land to which they had been given a right, and were therefore of the "lower classes". The Jews of the day believed that those without the land of their inheritance had sinned, and God had expelled them, and they were considered trash, or rabble.
Mary was a teenager, pregnant out of wedlock.
It sounds harsh, but they were, in their day, viewed as we view trailer-park dwellers today. The fringes, at best, and the bottom of the barrel at worst. How could anything good come out of Bethlehem?