Numbers 23:22
22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Notice "as it were the...." That is merely a description, not a specific set amount of strength. It's along the lines of a parable.

Mark 6:4-5
4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

Where exactly does that "limit" Jesus' power?

Remember Yahshua's words to satan when he was in the Desert for 40 days and night? One man does not eat by bread alone and 2 do not Tempt Yahweh Your Elohim

I am not sure I understand: "It is written" that one can do this, but doing it will tempt g-d? Then what is the point of it being "It is written", Isn't this how the prosperity preachers try to get you? And why the Creationists are against Science? As they believe "if this isn't true, how can that be"? You what is also a good read? The book by the guy who robbed Mike Murdock's safe.

OK. What about #8

8. Around when did Jesus say the world would end?
Although Jesus claims he has no knowledge on which particular day or hour God will cause the end of the world (Mark 13:32) (even though Jesus himself claims to be God), Jesus gives a very clear couple of decades in which we could expect his return. Thus, the only correct answer to this one is A. Jesus was very specific in saying that the world would end before the disciple’s generation was over. Some try to “interpret” out of this one by saying Jesus meant the church’s generation or the Jewish race , but later he distinctly says to a group of people that some of them will still be alive when his kingdom comes again to earth. Some others try to “interpret” out of this one by saying Jesus really meant the miracle of speaking to all nations (Pentecost), but if you take the time to read just before these passages it is painfully clear he meant the whole 2nd coming thing with the fire and the brimstone and the judgment, etc. (Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:27-28, Luke 9:26-27, Luke 21:32, Matthew 24:34, John 5:25-29, James 5:8, 1John 2:18, 1Peter 4:7). It has been 1900 years and still nothing has happened but tithing collection and religious wars--Jesus was simply wrong, much like the doomsday cult leaders which are all too common today. But still, if you chose A give yourself 10 points. B is obviously incorrect as we are still here, and if C is correct it is not according to scripture.
A.) +10
B.) +0
C.) -10

Generation - All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor.

We are the generation of Adam and Eve. A generation does not have to be parent to child. We are still the same "generation" of Adam and Eve. This "stage" has not yet finished.

Your response is already covered in the post; it would be more useful if you responded to the objection to your response, as per the post

??? lost me there. My objection is to the post.



And you're saying he's wrong because you're claiming it did not happen in that "generation" as he said. So I clarified what "generation" ment and further explained it with showing that we are still in the generation of Adam. So he would not be wrong, since the generation has not passed by, we are still in the same generation as the people Jesus spoke these words to.

And true "Christian" churches have not started nor was/are part of any "war". For Jesus has told us to turn the other cheek. Just because a group of people claim to be Christian does not make it so. Actions speak louder then words. And to be a "Christian" one follows the teachings/commandments of Jesus. And again Jesus has told us to turn the other cheek, so therefor it would be an oxymoron for a "Christian" to either start a war or be part of that war in the offensive position.

This part:

Some try to “interpret” out of this one by saying Jesus meant the church’s generation or the Jewish race , but later he distinctly says to a group of people that some of them will still be alive when his kingdom comes again to earth. Some others try to “interpret” out of this one by saying Jesus really meant the miracle of speaking to all nations (Pentecost), but if you take the time to read just before these passages it is painfully clear he meant the whole 2nd coming thing with the fire and the brimstone and the judgment, etc. (Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:27-28, Luke 9:26-27, Luke 21:32, Matthew 24:34, John 5:25-29, James 5:8, 1John 2:18, 1Peter 4:7).

This part:

Some try to “interpret” out of this one by saying Jesus meant the church’s generation or the Jewish race , but later he distinctly says to a group of people that some of them will still be alive when his kingdom comes again to earth. Some others try to “interpret” out of this one by saying Jesus really meant the miracle of speaking to all nations (Pentecost), but if you take the time to read just before these passages it is painfully clear he meant the whole 2nd coming thing with the fire and the brimstone and the judgment, etc. (Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:27-28, Luke 9:26-27, Luke 21:32, Matthew 24:34, John 5:25-29, James 5:8, 1John 2:18, 1Peter 4:7).

This part:

Some try to “interpret” out of this one by saying Jesus meant the church’s generation or the Jewish race , but later he distinctly says to a group of people that some of them will still be alive when his kingdom comes again to earth. Some others try to “interpret” out of this one by saying Jesus really meant the miracle of speaking to all nations (Pentecost), but if you take the time to read just before these passages it is painfully clear he meant the whole 2nd coming thing with the fire and the brimstone and the judgment, etc. (Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:27-28, Luke 9:26-27, Luke 21:32, Matthew 24:34, John 5:25-29, James 5:8, 1John 2:18, 1Peter 4:7).

So I can understand and have more of a clear direction of response, what is the point with these verses? None of them say exactly when judgement time comes and some of them aren't even talking about judgement.

Just for quick simple example -

James 5:8
8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

Says it draweth, draws near. You do realize yes it may have been esistamated 2000 years since this has been said. But we're speaking of an eternal being, a being that has existed forever and will exist ever more. 2000 years isn't all that great of a length of time.


John 5:25-29
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Again, no set time/date not even a close area of time. First off, this being translated from another language originally you have to realize that not every single word for word is precisely translated, translations don't work that way. Grammar, words or lack thereof, and so forth from language to language is totally different especially when speaking of the time span difference between the two translations. By no means am I saying the verse(s) are wrong or any verse(s) are wrong, just different and have to put it into context. He says "The hour is coming". This would still apply, "is" coming. Didn't say is there or has already came. For example, tomorrow is coming, Christmas is coming, winter is coming, night is coming, and so on. He didn't say it is coming tomorrow, next year, or any specific set amount. So again I ask, what is your point/reasoning/direction behind these verses?

Is there some reason you are glossing over the question?

but later he distinctly says to a group of people that some of them will still be alive when his kingdom comes again to earth.

Here is your time-frame and why most scholars believe him to be a doomsday prophet who fully expected the world to end in his lifetime

I must have missed that one, please show the verse(s) that specifically state that they will still be alive when his kingdom comes again to Earth.

Believe you've misunderstood something my friend and took some verses out of context to come to the conclusion you've made here.


John 5:25-29
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Notice it says, now is when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall be alive. So these people Jesus is personally telling these words to will be alive come judgement, for they will inevitably die of old age or whatever may be the case per person but they will hear the voice of the Lord and they shall live, they will be raised up from the grave.

esus Said that He Would Return in the First Century
2001

It seems that every generation of Christians believes that the end of the world and the return of Jesus will happen during their lifetimes. The first prediction of this sort that I can find is from Saint Paul himself, in his letters, in 1st Thessalonians Chapter 4, when he predicts the prompt return of Jesus at a time when "…we also … are still alive." All you have to do is ask a Christian if Jesus will return during their lifetimes. People are taught by their priests and pastors that Jesus is "coming quickly", and that they should be prepared, because he might pop up at any moment.

If Jesus said he would be returning "quickly", and he said that 2000 years ago, what exactly is going on here? Do we have any information as to when the writers of the New Testament foretold the return of Jesus? Actually, we have very good information on that. We have nearly precise information. There is scriptural evidence that those who wrote about Jesus intended for him to come back during the lifetimes of those who first followed him. That's right... in the First Century.

First, let us look at the gospel of Mark, chapter 13. (When I reference the gospels, I will refer to them as "Mark" and "Matthew", even though these labels were attached to those texts by the Early Church-- the books are actually anonymous and no one knows who the true authors are). In this chapter, Jesus speaks of a "tribulation", nation rising against nation, earthquakes, and the coming of false Christs and false prophets, the stars falling from the sky, and the coming of the Son of Man "in the clouds with great power and glory". Then, in verse 30, he tells when this will happen. "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."

Second, let us look at Matthew (copied from Mark), which contains the same story. The same earthquakes, false prophets, darkening sun, falling stars, etc., and the return of the Son of Man, "coming in the clouds with of heaven with power and great glory." And then in verse 34, he says when to look for all of this commotion: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Pretty conclusive.

Now, there is a rebuttal to this interpretation. It can be found, among other places, in some evangelistic bibles as a footnote in Matthew and Mark.

"The word "Generation", though commonly used in scripture to those living at one time, could not mean here those who are alive at the time of Christ, as none of these things, i.e. the worldwide preaching of the kingdom, the tribulation, the return of the Lord in visible glory, and the regathering of the elect-- occurred then. The expression "this generation" here may mean the future generation which will endure the tribulation and see the signs. Or it may be used in the sense of race or family, meaning the nation of Israel or the Christians will be preserved until these things take place."

This apologist basically says: "It can't mean those living at the time of Jesus, because he would not have said that". They say that "this generation" means the generation that's alive during the tribulations. Let us take a good look at this "explanation". First, the claim that generation could mean race, family, or the nation or tribe of Israel.

What are the Greek words for Nation, Tribe, Family and Generation? Generation is "genea", the root of genealogy. "Family" is "patria". "Tribe" is "phule". "Nation" is "ethnos", as in ethnic. Next, we need to look up these words as they appear in the New Testament, and cross-reference the Greek words with the English words. I have done this. Every single occurrence for Nation that I looked up gave the word "ethnos". Every single occurrence for Generation that I looked up gave the word "genea". When the writers meant nation, they wrote ethnos. When they meant generation, they wrote genea. They were apparently very clear in this. They never used "patria" or "phule" in any of these instances. To prove his case, the evangelistic writer who wrote the "explanation" above must find one instance of the word nation translated from the Greek word genea. Furthermore, if the word genea could have been translated as nation, then why wouldn't the translators have written it as nation? It would certainly have made more sense, if that's what they intended, and they could have prevented a major theological problem. But that's not what they wrote.

So, the rationalization that the bible writers meant "the Nation of Israel" falls to the ground. But what about the other "explanation" that is sometimes offered, that Jesus was speaking about those people who would be witnessing the tribulations in future times? Did he mean that that future generation would not pass until all those things came to be?

This rationalization fails as well. In the first place, Jesus does not say "that generation", he says "this generation". But in fairness, this is could be related to translation. Some have argued, ala Thomas Paine, that this sort of situation (the inability to accurately translate one language into another), is proof that the "Word of God" could never exist in print. Then again, the translation could be perfectly accurate. This is a thing that we can never know, however, since no original version of any of the gospels exist.

But there is more positive proof than this. Jesus makes it clear that he is speaking about the current generation of people. In Matthew 24:4 when the disciples asked Jesus about the end of the world, he "answered and said unto THEM", "Take heed that no man deceive you... ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars... Ye shall see the abomination... etc." He is clearly replying to them, telling them what they shall see. He says that THEY shall see these things. Read it for yourself. Then he concludes by saying: "THIS generation shall not pass" until he comes again. The evidence can be found in Mark chapter 13, starting from verse 5 onward. It is clear that he is speaking to his apostles, answering their inquiry. To say otherwise is to be dishonest.

And yet there is something even stronger than this. The same story is related in Matthew chapter 16. Yet this time, Jesus does not use the word "generation". He again describes how he will come in the glory of his father, with his angels, to judge men according to their works. Then he concludes by saying "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."

That is the final nail in the coffin. Matt. 16:28 says there were some men standing there next to Jesus who will see his second coming, and it is totally clear that in Matthew 24:34 and Mark 13:30, Jesus believed the end of the world would come during the lifetimes of his apostles. Jesus says so himself. He thought that he was going to be returning in the First Century. He said: "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand." (Mark 1:15) Similar statements are to be found in Mark 9:1; 13:30; Matthew 10:23; 23:29-36; and Luke 12:49-50. Jesus' title of "Messiah" literally translated means "inaugurator of the end".

It is clear. There is no reason to doubt that the author of Mark wrote what he intended to write. Christian scholars claim that the book of Mark was written around the year 60 C.E., 35 years after the alleged death of Jesus, and well within the lifetimes of any of his followers. Whoever wrote the text believed that the Messiah would return during his lifetime. And as Matthew was constructed from Mark some decades later, whoever wrote Matthew simply copied this same information.

I share Robert G. Ingersoll's opinion:

"You must remember, also, one other thing. Christ never wrote a solitary word of the New Testament -- not one word. There is an account that he once stooped and wrote something in the sand, but that has not been preserved. He never said: "Matthew, remember this. Mark, do not forget to put that down. Luke, be sure that in your gospel you have this. John, do not forget it." Not one word. And it has always seemed to me that a being coming from another world, with a message of infinite importance to mankind, should at least have verified that message by his own signature. Is it not strange that not one word was written by Christ? Is it not strange that he gave no orders to have his words preserved -- words upon which hung the salvation of a world? Why was nothing written? I will tell you.

In my judgment they expected the end of the world in a few days. That generation was not to pass away until the heavens should be rolled up as a scroll, and until the earth should melt with fervent heat. That was their belief. They believed that the world was to be destroyed, and that there was to be another coming, and that the saints were then to govern the earth. And they even went so far among the apostles, as we frequently do now before election, as to divide out the offices in advance. This Testament, as it now is, was not written for hundreds of years after the apostles were dust. Many of the pretended facts depended upon the inaccuracy of legend, and for centuries these doctrines and stories were blown about by the inconstant winds. And when reduced to writing, some gentleman would write by the side of the passage his idea of it, and the next copyist would put that in as a part of the text. And, when it was mostly written, and the church got into trouble, and wanted a passage to help it out, one was interpolated to order. So that now it is among the easiest things in the world to pick out at least one hundred interpolations in the Testament. And I will pick some of them out before I get through."

In this case, the bible itself provides ample evidence that Jesus was supposed to return in the First Century, some 1900 years ago. If he did, no one noticed. But, I don't expect that this proof will make a dent in most Christians. But I thought that I would point it out. The end of the world will not come anytime soon. Jesus will not "come quickly". No. What will happen is that you will continue to live, and work-- the world will continue to go on, past 2000, then 2010, then 2025, and so on, until you grow old and pass away. When you get to be old, at the end of your life, think of my writings. Remember that I told you so. You will never see the end of the world.

Some readers may point to the book of Revelation, and object to my conclusions. But let's honestly take a look at that book for a moment. Among much unintelligible ravings, the anonymous writer of Revelation clearly predicts the destruction of Rome (17:16-18), asserts that Nero, who was really dead, was yet alive (13:3), proclaims the immediate coming of Christ (1:7, 22:7, 12), the avenging of the persecuted prophets and apostles (18:20), the binding of Satan for a thousand years (20:2), and the establishment of God's Kingdom (21).

"We know how completely these expectations were disappointed. Jerusalem, where the temple at least was never to be violated, fell utterly, and the sanctuary was laid low never to rise again; while Rome, instead of being turned into a desert, still held her rank and fame. Nero, the Antichrist, was dead and never returned to life; but neither did the Christ come back to earth. The martyrs were not avenged, but fresh persecutions awaited the faithful. The kingdom of Satan held its own, and the Kingdom of God came not." The Bible for Learners, Vol. 3, pg. 655)

I apologize I did not read the entire post as it is quite long and with it being so much at once, things would get crossed here or there. So figured we could/would discuss parts of it at a time.



We're still in that same generation though, a generation does not have to be child to parent 1, child to parent 2, ect. That's how we generally use that term, but that is because we are only alive for a certain period of time on this Earth. So with that, we naturally use it in that context. But there is no set time span in the term "generation".

Generation - All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor.

Who's to say when this "stage" begins or ends.



It's all one generation, we're still that generation. A generation does not have to be parent to child. There is no specific set amount of time in a generation. It is one stage to the next.

Read further into Matthew 17 my friend.

Jesus showed them a vision on a high mountain. And was told the following -

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

So they did see his second coming, in a vision given to them by Jesus himself. And that's why he said "some" men there would see it. If he was going to return that quickly, they all would see it. But no, he said some. Which happened shortly after through a vision on the mountain.

I can see how one can assume "now is the time" "in your lifetime" and with "this generation" would mean thousands of years hence, especially when one has a priori beliefs not supported by the text. Just like believing the 10 commandments are as written in Exodus 34, but some vague statements in Exodus 27- the text means exactly what you want or need it to mean. This is the point of the OP.

This would avoid statements like this:


Meet Scott Esk, The Tea Party candidate for Oklahoma State House from District 91. Esk, on his political website, wholly believes that our rights come from [The Christian] God and therefore not from any government, saying that he is “a big proponent of state rights” (a phrase that has surely never been used for anything notorious in the past).
Among his ideological offerings are the usual Tea Party cocktail of lowering taxes (on the rich), curtailing voting rights, building a wall at the border, etc.

His messages originated from a Facebook exchange about a story concerning Pope Francis then recently-released sermon asking “who am I to judge” [Concerning gay priests]. Esk quickly responded by posting Old Testament scriptures that supposedly condemn gay and lesbian people.

A commenter on the thread asked, “So just to be clear, you think we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)?”

Esk wasted no time:

“I think we would be totally in the right to do it.......That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss..... If men wink at such perversions, God may have no choice than to judge such nations with calamities.”

I wonder how he feels about eating Shrimp or wearing Fabric of two different types?

There is Video from local affiliate KFOR Here:

Oklahoma political candidate expresses extreme views on homosexuality


Shall we go on to the question dealing with whom it is written should be killed?