• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Christ appear to other nations?

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
greatcalgarian said:
This post has been hijacked to Christian versus LDS.

I thought every one in the RF believe God is God, and each is entitled to his way of worshipping God and believing?

Spread some love around, agree to disagree and move on to discuss whether God has appeared to other nations or not, giving your evidence to show your agreement or disagreement, and leave out arguement about difference in this Christian sect and that Christian sect. Okay?
You are right, however, one way to argue Jesus did not come here as the Mormons teach, is to examine whether they are true. Thus my question that since their main prophets made statements, which I question are at odds with plain Bible doctrine, and that if all a prophets' prophecies do not come to pass, then one may question this idea of whether Jesus came here. It is all tied in, but I see you're point. I think we all feel we have more important things to demand our attention, like salvation of as many as we can bring to Christ. But, thanks, we are a bit off subject at times.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
gnosis_777 said:
Ah, the glory of circular reasoning...


~
The Bible was written by men... dur...
~If God is unknowable, how do you claim to understand his wants and needs by reading Bible scripture written by men?
~No one thinks God had advisors, if he did, he would not BE god
~If there is more to learn about God through other men's perspectives, what's the harm in doing so? Why dont you try seeing what you can gain from something before you crush it with the ignorance you love showing?

I answer your statements in order, w/o bubbles:

Ok, first, this is a theist debate, we are talking about Jesus and if he visited America.

Men wrote the Bible, but I believe it to be God inspired, you do not, thus I use it to understand God, you do not, we must agree to disagree on that.

It is believed by some LDS prophets, that he had advisors, that there was a council of Gods, that God was once man, and, there were other God's, and are, according to their beliefs--see quotes in above posts.

While all men have knowledge of God, and I do learn from others outside my exact faith, what you feel is my ignorance, I feel is totaly different, I feel, that from the Bible I have a basis for a knowledge of THE truth, not to crush anyone, only to shed the light of God's Word, as nice as I know how.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
may said:
LOL the great crowd of other sheep, welcome Jesus as king of Gods heavenly kingdom goverment in the heavens , he was made king of the heavenly goverment in 1914 but the question is,do we welcome him as the rightful king , have we got our palm branch in our hand to welcome him as king
After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: "Salvation [we owe] to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb ........Revelation 7;9-10 yes the lamb is Jesus christ and he has been made king, i am waving my palm branch as there is no salvation in any other king ,his kingdom is now established and soon it will do away with all other manmade goverments ..... daniel 2;44

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.............. yes it will stand forever, only the best king on the throne , The legal heir to the throne is Jesus christ

it will certainly become no [one’s] until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give [it] to him. ezekiel 21;27

(Daniel 7:14) And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin



Ok, not the right thread, but Jesus 2nd Coming, (not the rapture), but 2nd Coming will be as the lightening flashes across the sky, all will know, it will happen at the end of the Great Seven Year Tribulation. That is all I will say here on that.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
benjosh said:
Genesis 1:1
1. ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


In Strong's we read that God of genesis 1:1 is elohiym el-o - hiym or im.
Im or hiym is like our english "s". It indicates plurality, as in more than one.



Did the KJV translators miss the plurality or is the Hebrew language wrong?


How do you handle the following?

Genesis 1:26
26. ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 3:22
22. ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

BenJosh
Okay, first, it does not say GODS, plural, it says THE Lord GOD.

ON the 'Let us' deal, that would be the Godhead (or Trinity, whatever you wanna name it), Jesus being there and the Holy Spirit as well. Briefly here is what I believe, again wrong thread.

John 1 says in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, that everything was made by Him, etc. Kinda like and God SAID... there was the Word.

In Genesis it says the Spirit of God hovered over the earth, there you may have the Holy Spirit.

But look at Jesus, in Colossians it says He made all things and by Him all things consist.
Jesus said before Abraham was, I AM, He forgave Sins, which only God can do. That is why they killed Him. I Timothy 3:16 says God was manifest in the flesh...Mathew calls Him Emmannuel meaning God with us, and Acts 20:28 says...feed the church of GOD which he hath purchassed with HIS OWN BLOOD. GOD shed HIS OWN BLOOD. Many other verses show this, the Deity of Christ, His oneness with the Father, that Jesus is God.

Therefore, when it says let US make man after our own image, I have no problem there. Cool?
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Ok, getting back on topic, here is a short reason why I don't believe He appeared in America from the Christian Research Institute:

Mormons believe that Jesus appeared in America shortly after His resurrection. Is this really true?

Mormons claim that the “other sheep” mentioned in John 10:16 refers to displaced Israelites who inhabited the American continent. Mormons further reason that Jesus would have had to appear to those Israelites, since He talked about bringing these other sheep into His fold. As we’re going to see, however, such conclusions have no scriptural or, for that matter, historical basis.

Isaiah 49:6 speaks of “a light for the Gentiles,” and is quoted in Luke 2:32 with reference to Christ (cf. Acts 13:47; 26:23). This makes it clear that Christ’s mission involves the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles. Now if the Gentiles are included in God’s plan of salvation — as these passages clearly indicate (cf. John 11:51-52; Acts 13:26; 28:28; Rom. 11:11, 25) — then the other sheep Jesus mentioned in John 10:16 could only refer to the Gentiles.

In that same passage, Jesus says that “there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” This statement of Jews and Gentiles coming together under Christ is echoed in such verses as Romans 10:12 and 11:17 (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:20; Col. 3:11).

In addition, the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 clarifies the fact that Jesus would gather believers from all nations through the missionary work of His disciples (cf. John 4:22). Mormons are therefore incorrect in saying that these other sheep were Israelites in America whom Christ had to visit.

It’s not surprising that Mormons turn to the Book of Mormon to try to prove their case. But to quote a letter from the Smithsonian Institute, one of the world’s most prestigious historical institutions: “There is no evidence whatever of any migration from Israel to America, and likewise no evidence that pre-Columbian Indians had any knowledge of Christianity or the Bible.” This authoritative statement alone should not only serve to dispel the notion that Israelites inhabited America, it should also eliminate the fanciful myth that Jesus trekked the continent under the name of Quetzalcostl, the feathered serpent. Remember, too, that the Book of Mormon frequently contradicts Scripture; and it is easy to demonstrate from a historical perspective that the Bible is divine — rather than human — in origin.
Okay, so maybe this will get us back on track of the thread anyway, lol.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
joeboonda said:
Ok, getting back on topic, here is a short reason why I don't believe He appeared in America from the Christian Research Institute:

Mormons believe that Jesus appeared in America shortly after His resurrection. Is this really true?

Mormons claim that the “other sheep” mentioned in John 10:16 refers to displaced Israelites who inhabited the American continent. Mormons further reason that Jesus would have had to appear to those Israelites, since He talked about bringing these other sheep into His fold. As we’re going to see, however, such conclusions have no scriptural or, for that matter, historical basis.

Isaiah 49:6 speaks of “a light for the Gentiles,” and is quoted in Luke 2:32 with reference to Christ (cf. Acts 13:47; 26:23). This makes it clear that Christ’s mission involves the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles. Now if the Gentiles are included in God’s plan of salvation — as these passages clearly indicate (cf. John 11:51-52; Acts 13:26; 28:28; Rom. 11:11, 25) — then the other sheep Jesus mentioned in John 10:16 could only refer to the Gentiles.

In that same passage, Jesus says that “there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” This statement of Jews and Gentiles coming together under Christ is echoed in such verses as Romans 10:12 and 11:17 (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:20; Col. 3:11).

In addition, the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 clarifies the fact that Jesus would gather believers from all nations through the missionary work of His disciples (cf. John 4:22). Mormons are therefore incorrect in saying that these other sheep were Israelites in America whom Christ had to visit.

It’s not surprising that Mormons turn to the Book of Mormon to try to prove their case. But to quote a letter from the Smithsonian Institute, one of the world’s most prestigious historical institutions: “There is no evidence whatever of any migration from Israel to America, and likewise no evidence that pre-Columbian Indians had any knowledge of Christianity or the Bible.” This authoritative statement alone should not only serve to dispel the notion that Israelites inhabited America, it should also eliminate the fanciful myth that Jesus trekked the continent under the name of Quetzalcostl, the feathered serpent. Remember, too, that the Book of Mormon frequently contradicts Scripture; and it is easy to demonstrate from a historical perspective that the Bible is divine — rather than human — in origin.
Okay, so maybe this will get us back on track of the thread anyway, lol.
Dear Joe,

Why don't you ever cite when you snip from a website? You took most of every word you wrote above from http://www.equip.org/free/CP0308.htm, without quote marks, or web citation or even acknowledging it was not your thoughts you were posting.

If you presented the material on your own in print or verbal presentation that would be an act of plagiarism.
Main Entry: pla·gia·rize javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?plagia04.wav=plagiarize')
Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
- pla·gia·riz·er noun


It took me 15 seconds to find the web citation for the material, it took me about five to copy and paste the website address into this note. People keep gigging you for quoting anti-Mormon sites constantly with never an acknowledgement or quote mark, and you keep doing it, why? If you're gonna cut and paste, you would be well-advised to acknowledge that the words are not your own, and it does not even take much time - just seconds to do so.

Regards,
Scott
pixt.gif
 

benjosh

Member
joeboonda said:
Okay, first, it does not say GODS, plural, it says THE Lord GOD.

ON the 'Let us' deal, that would be the Godhead (or Trinity, whatever you wanna name it), Jesus being there and the Holy Spirit as well. Briefly here is what I believe, again wrong thread.

John 1 says in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, that everything was made by Him, etc. Kinda like and God SAID... there was the Word.

In Genesis it says the Spirit of God hovered over the earth, there you may have the Holy Spirit.

But look at Jesus, in Colossians it says He made all things and by Him all things consist.
Jesus said before Abraham was, I AM, He forgave Sins, which only God can do. That is why they killed Him. I Timothy 3:16 says God was manifest in the flesh...Mathew calls Him Emmannuel meaning God with us, and Acts 20:28 says...feed the church of GOD which he hath purchassed with HIS OWN BLOOD. GOD shed HIS OWN BLOOD. Many other verses show this, the Deity of Christ, His oneness with the Father, that Jesus is God.

Therefore, when it says let US make man after our own image, I have no problem there. Cool?



Joe do you think maybe the plural designation of the elohim could be Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father?

If so, there is the us of the other verses in Genesis.

And, that is the trinity that is taught in the Book of Mormon.

I totally agree with what you quoted fromthe Bible.

So, I am agreeing on this.

But, you are saying things about Joseph Smith that you do not know re: some Mormon doctrines (that most Mormons themselves have disavowed).
BenJosh
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
joeboonda said:
Okay, first, it does not say GODS, plural, it says THE Lord GOD.

ON the 'Let us' deal, that would be the Godhead (or Trinity, whatever you wanna name it), Jesus being there and the Holy Spirit as well. Briefly here is what I believe, again wrong thread.

John 1 says in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, that everything was made by Him, etc. Kinda like and God SAID... there was the Word.

In Genesis it says the Spirit of God hovered over the earth, there you may have the Holy Spirit.

But look at Jesus, in Colossians it says He made all things and by Him all things consist.
Jesus said before Abraham was, I AM, He forgave Sins, which only God can do. That is why they killed Him. I Timothy 3:16 says God was manifest in the flesh...Mathew calls Him Emmannuel meaning God with us, and Acts 20:28 says...feed the church of GOD which he hath purchassed with HIS OWN BLOOD. GOD shed HIS OWN BLOOD. Many other verses show this, the Deity of Christ, His oneness with the Father, that Jesus is God.

Therefore, when it says let US make man after our own image, I have no problem there. Cool?
Let's look at the opening lines of "Hear O Israel . . . "
The Power of the Shema comes
from God alone...

Duet 6:4
Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Elohaynu Adonai Echad.
"Hear O Israel the Lord your God is One"
It says "Adonai Elohaynu, Adonai Echod" which means in the English of the era of King James of England: ". . . the Lord, your God is One."
It does not say "The Lord your Gods are Three." "Echod" means "One".
Its really better if your going to cite a verse to go ahead and QUOTE the verse. Quoting single verses is best refuted by quoting the verse in context.
The letter to the Collosians is NOT what Jesus said, you know. Only in the Gospels can you find what JESUS said, rather than someone else who may be making an error. What right does the author of Collossians have to tell me what Jesus meant?
Regards,
Scott
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
Dear Joe,

Why don't you ever cite when you snip from a website? You took most of every word you wrote above from http://www.equip.org/free/CP0308.htm, without quote marks, or web citation or even acknowledging it was not your thoughts you were posting.

If you presented the material on your own in print or verbal presentation that would be an act of plagiarism.
Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
- pla·gia·riz·er noun


It took me 15 seconds to find the web citation for the material, it took me about five to copy and paste the website address into this note. People keep gigging you for quoting anti-Mormon sites constantly with never an acknowledgement or quote mark, and you keep doing it, why? If you're gonna cut and paste, you would be well-advised to acknowledge that the words are not your own, and it does not even take much time - just seconds to do so.

Regards,
Scott
pixt.gif
WHOAH, here is the FIRST line of that post:

Ok, getting back on topic, here is a short reason why I don't believe He appeared in America from the Christian Research Institute:

I DID cite my source!!!
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
benjosh said:
Joe do you think maybe the plural designation of the elohim could be Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father?

If so, there is the us of the other verses in Genesis.

And, that is the trinity that is taught in the Book of Mormon.

I totally agree with what you quoted fromthe Bible.

So, I am agreeing on this.

But, you are saying things about Joseph Smith that you do not know re: some Mormon doctrines (that most Mormons themselves have disavowed).
BenJosh
I have learned that much of Joseph Smith's teachings have been disavowed by most Mormons, I apologize, it has been a source of confusion to me. On your question, I just call it the 'three-in-one', there is only one God, like our books say.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
joeboonda said:
WHOAH, here is the FIRST line of that post:

Ok, getting back on topic, here is a short reason why I don't believe He appeared in America from the Christian Research Institute:

I DID cite my source!!!
Looking up the Christian Research Institute does not give the page you quoted, after several minutes search and using the search box for "Mormon", I still could not find it.

Don't always need page and paragraph, but it would be nice to be able to check out the page and evaluate its slant. I provided the exact link by taking a characteristic phrase from your cut and paste and putting that in the search engine, and I found it at the top of the list of hits.

Anyone who wants to look at Joe's source can go tohttp://www.equip.org/free/CP0308.htm

Regards,
Scott
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
Let's look at the opening lines of "Hear O Israel . . . "
The Power of the Shema comes

from God alone...



Duet 6:4

Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Elohaynu Adonai Echad.

"Hear O Israel the Lord your God is One"


It says "Adonai Elohaynu, Adonai Echod" which means in the English of the era of King James of England: ". . . the Lord, your God is One."

It does not say "The Lord your Gods are Three." "Echod" means "One".

Its really better if your going to cite a verse to go ahead and QUOTE the verse. Quoting single verses is best refuted by quoting the verse in context.

The letter to the Collosians is NOT what Jesus said, you know. Only in the Gospels can you find what JESUS said, rather than someone else who may be making an error. What right does the author of Collossians have to tell me what Jesus meant?

Regards,


Scott
Right, I believe in one God, made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is a mystery to be sure, I believe one God, but a tri-une God. Theologians have been perplexed by this for centuries, just something we mere humans may not be able to get a complete grasp on? I guess I try to understand it from the Bible, but that is just me. Its like getting a cup of water from the ocean, like, that's all we got, but its not enough to understand the whole ocean. Someday we will see Him and understand better, eh?

I think we went through the Colossians thing, where I believe it to be inspired by God, and you do not, perhaps we may discuss that some time, ok?

Best Wishes,

Mike
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
Looking up the Christian Research Institute does not give the page you quoted, after several minutes search and using the search box for "Mormon", I still could not find it.

Don't always need page and paragraph, but it would be nice to be able to check out the page and evaluate its slant. I provided the exact link by taking a characteristic phrase from your cut and paste and putting that in the search engine, and I found it at the top of the list of hits.

Anyone who wants to look at Joe's source can go tohttp://www.equip.org/free/CP0308.htm

Regards,
Scott
Thanks, Scott, you will be glad to know that I am citing EXACT links now, as I have been learning how the forum works. And I have been doing a bit less pasting, instead just providing links to the info. Anway, I got my info from CRI so I figured that I gave my source, as I say, EXACT links from now on!

One thing, and it goes for me, I love to do research, and yes, normally at Christian sites I have checked for 'sound doctrine', but research on many religious related subjects. I hit sites of other religions, too, I think we all should. I have studied and been a Christian for so long, though, that I do believe it to be the truth, so, just as one may be convinced of their own religion, I think when we read something that we 'know' is out of line with what we believe (for me the Bible), we may dismiss it too quickly. But, I like to still read about as many religious thoughts, writings, etc. as I can, even though I have very strong core beliefs, I still learn much wisdom and ways of looking at things from others with different backgrounds than I.

Cya's

Mike
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
joeboonda said:
I think we went through the Colossians thing, where I believe it to be inspired by God, and you do not, perhaps we may discuss that some time, ok?

Best Wishes,

Mike
Fine, let me try to explain it this way. In my faith we have the words and writings of Baha`u'llah, the Founder of the Faith, Whom we believe to have received a revelation from God. We have what are undoubtedly His words, still in original form, but having been published in many languages since.

Baha`u'llah left behind a will which appointed His eldest son and first follower Abdu'l Baha to be the only person living with the authority to interpret what Baha`u'llah had said and written. When Abdu'l Baha passed away in 1921, He left behind a will apointing Shoghi Rabbani, Effendi (his own grandson) to be the sole interpreter of the writings of Baha`u'llah and Abdu'l Baha. Shoghi Effendi passed away in 1957 with no issue to be appointed as a second Guardian. Today there is no living interpreter, though we have the Universal House of Justice to legislate for anything NOT COVERED in the writings of Baha`u'llah, Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

During the long years of their lives Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi spoke intimately with many of the friends during travels and during pilgramages. Many of those visitors made extensive notes of what they heard said and how they interpreted those words. These writings are called in the faith "Pilgrim's Notes".

The words of those pilgrims are very interesting to read but they are NOT authoritative.
They just MIGHT be mistaken in what they heard, or misunderstood what they heard and later found ways to gloos over what might be error. They wrote their notes and occasionally published them, but the publishers of books about the faith are very careful to make distinction between "authoritative interpretation" and pilgrim's notes.

Jesus spoke and His words were memorized and eventually written down by the four authors of the Gospels. Those are the words and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christ did NOT appoint an interpreter for His followers after His crucifixion.

So, the authors of the Epistles, wrote "OPINION" and wrote "INTERPERTATIONS" of what Jesus said but they did so without express authority. They are "pilgrim's notes" to all intent and purposes. Interesting reading, generally good guidance, but without authority.

Hope that clears up the difference.

Regards.
Scott
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
joeboonda said:
Thanks, Scott, you will be glad to know that I am citing EXACT links now, as I have been learning how the forum works. And I have been doing a bit less pasting, instead just providing links to the info. Anway, I got my info from CRI so I figured that I gave my source, as I say, EXACT links from now on!

One thing, and it goes for me, I love to do research, and yes, normally at Christian sites I have checked for 'sound doctrine', but research on many religious related subjects. I hit sites of other religions, too, I think we all should. I have studied and been a Christian for so long, though, that I do believe it to be the truth, so, just as one may be convinced of their own religion, I think when we read something that we 'know' is out of line with what we believe (for me the Bible), we may dismiss it too quickly. But, I like to still read about as many religious thoughts, writings, etc. as I can, even though I have very strong core beliefs, I still learn much wisdom and ways of looking at things from others with different backgrounds than I.

Cya's

Mike
That actually helps a lot, Mike - thanks. I knew you'd get the idea if I explained it carefully. I can't help myself, I've written too much for academic audiences so I'm a stickler, sorry.

Regards,
Scott
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Joeboonda,

Mike you wouldn't be from Oklahoma City, would you? If so we may have met on the AOL spirituality chat rooms.

Regards,
Scott
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Nah, I live in Tennessee, wanted to say I enjoyed the read above on the Pilgrim's Notes and all. Sometime I will have to take the time to share why I believe the apostle's writing were authoritative, I will try and get you a good answer, time not permitting right now, and i am slow at doing the verses and all, even with the pasting, lol.

Thanks,

Mike
 

benjosh

Member
joeboonda said:
I have learned that much of Joseph Smith's teachings have been disavowed by most Mormons, I apologize, it has been a source of confusion to me. On your question, I just call it the 'three-in-one', there is only one God, like our books say.

What you are saying are Joseph Smith's teachings are primarily Brigham Young's teachings, but a person would have to take the time and make th effort to find that out.

THere was such an unjust prejudice against Joseph and the early church. A recent article (Jan 4, 2005 KC Star) sheds light on what was going on in those days.

A jackson county courthouse archiver came across a court document naming 54 residents of Independence MIssouri as defendants in a lawsuit for tarring and feathering Bishop Partridge and another LDS man. As the article states the names on the list were not a bucnh of hooligans. Leading citizens in the tarring and feathering were named and found guilty. THe trial had to be moved to another county because the Saints could not get a fair trial in Jackson County.


http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/13543134.htm

You have bought into a very long lived campaign against a man that is innocent of wrong -doing.
One day Gentiles will fulfill what Jeremiah prophesied, Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

20. Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods?

21. Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is The LORD.

BenJosh
 
A

A. Leaf

Guest
Who knows where Christ went after he was raised? maybe he had to go to pastures new so the wars and famines he prophesised could happen to allow the comforter to follow, maybe?
 

may

Well-Known Member
Freelancer7 said:
Who knows where Christ went after he was raised? maybe he had to go to pastures new so the wars and famines he prophesised could happen to allow the comforter to follow, maybe?
the bible tells us where he went , he went to heaven to be with his Father Jehovah , waiting for the future time when he would be made king of Gods heavenly kingdom, and now he is King of that heavenly goverment, and that heavenly goverment is going to get rid of all manmade goverments for good ..daniel 2;44
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite........ and now Jesus is waitingfor the command from his father Jehovah to go into action. and i say bring it on

Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth ... matthew 6;10

 
Top