The Mark of the Beast

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Masada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
colliric said:
which politician is that?

It’s not a certain Greens Party Senator right?
Click to expand...
I’ve answered your question about the politician above.

However I’ll give you a few instances as to why I thought the pastor was accurate.

Most of these conversations took place around 1990/91, as the pastor died in January 1992. But a couple were earlier.
  1. He warned a young bloke to ride his motor bike more carefully or “He wouldn’t last two weeks.” He buried him precisely two weeks later.
  2. Just after the first Gulf War, he commented, “I think there’ll be a second Gulf War. The Americans will have had enough of him (Saddam Hussein) and they’ll get rid of him. But I think they’ll lose a few men that time.”
  3. “I think he (his eldest son) will have his health badly affected.” I think he mentioned a stroke. Only four or five years later his eldest son had a stroke.
  4. “I don’t think your sister will live very long.” i think he mentioned leukemia. My sister died in 2005 of leukemia, at 45 years of age.
  5. “I think you’ll be doing a cleaning job. You won’t be doing it for long. I think the Lord will just want you to hear about a ghost.” That happened in 2006, despite the odd prediction. I think my role was to get a mass said for the ghost, who seems to have been a case of suicide.
  6. “I think there’ll be a conspiracy against you and you’ll lose your job. You’ll make a silly mistake and they’ll use that to get rid of you. I think bug-a-lug will be involved.” (Bug-a-lug was a particular Protestant pastor who tells a lot of lies and has no problem in conspiring against others). In 1995 I lost my “career” due to a silly error, vastly over-blown by the ones who wanted to get rid of me, partly for religious reason.
There were other things, but I used to find he was very, very accurate. Likewise the politician we were talking about wasn’t even leader of the opposition at the time we were talking, but rose very high in Australian politics a few years later.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
No.

Liberal.

Very well known in Australian circles.

Seventy in a few days.
Click to expand...
OH, yeah… I can see why he thought that… I don’t agree… but I can see why he thought that. I think the Labor Party’s worse. I don’t really like Rudd and Gillard, especially because Rudd’s quite oddly cunning. I Hope Joe Hockey goes for the PM’s Job next election, he seems likable.
 
colliric said:
OH, yeah… I can see why he thought that… I don’t agree… but I can see why he thought that. I think the Labor Party’s worse. I don’t really like Rudd and Gillard, especially because Rudd’s quite oddly cunning. I Hope Joe Hockey goes for the PM’s Job next election, he seems likable.
Click to expand...
In the end, if he was correct, then it will happen, and obviously soon. Since it will be foreordained, there won’t be much we can do about it.

If he was incorrect, then it won’t happen. I think he was correct. But all we can do is wait.

Clearly it would require external events to set the scene. To my mind it will require something like nuclear terrorism, or limited nuclear war, with the Americans then setting up a dictatorship to enforce a Pax Americana, using their clear supremacy in military technology.

In my old pastor’s words, it might even be good at first. But eventually everything would have to be done for America.
 
SteveLohr said:
Ben Masada;5445148:
SteveLohr;5442880:
For example, William F. Albright has written “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80" and “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)”

Sorry Steve, but the statement above by this William Albright invalidates and discredits him about any other opinion he might have about the NT. Luke was an acknowledged Greek Gentile Medical Doctor, who was never a Jew and much less a baptized Jew, if there was such a thing. He was a baptized Christian disciple of Paul’s.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The quote from Albright is intended to show how scholarship is increasingly coming to believe that the Gospels were written earlier than the late-1st cent. dates that have been accepted. They were not intended to raise an entirely new topic on Luke’s ethnic heritage. However, I would add that your statement that Luke was an “acknowledge gentile” does not appear in either Luke or Acts. Further, there is debate on what Luke’s heritage was. See generally
rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu.dpqF1K4XQAtDdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw–/SIG=11asntuq5/EXP=1247738345/**http%3a//www.google.com/

and
rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu.dpqF1K4XQAtDdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw–/SIG=11asntuq5/EXP=1247738345/**http%3a//www.google.com/

Accordingly, I don’t see Mr. Albright’s view that Luke was a Jew to be beyond the bounds of acceptable scholarship. I’m not going to get into a discussion of the relative merits of the gentile or jew position, because it is simply not important to this discussion. My objective is simply to point out that Mr. Albright’s scholarship on the dating of the gospels should not be questioned simply because he takes one side of a different debate, whose answer is unclear.

Regards,
SteveLohr

Steve, there is debate on everything in the NT. What is it not debatable in the NT? It’s impossible to harmonize so much confusion.
Click to expand...
 
Ben_Masada said:
SteveLohr;5442880:
For example, William F. Albright has written “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80" and “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)”

Sorry Steve, but the statement above by this William Albright invalidates and discredits him about any other opinion he might have about the NT. Luke was an acknowledged Greek Gentile Medical Doctor, who was never a Jew and much less a baptized Jew, if there was such a thing. He was a baptized Christian disciple of Paul’s.
Click to expand...
**“The Gospel of Luke was written by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the “former account” of “all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). The destiny (“Theophilus”), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between A.D. 60 and 62 (see ACTS, HISTORICITY OF). This evidence includes these observations:

If Luke accounted for ALL that Jesus began to do and teach, how come he ignores the slaughter of the children with the purpose to get Jesus? How come he ignores Jesus’ trip to Egypt? How come he ignores the visit of the three Astrologers from the East? How come he ignores the spear-piercing? And many other howcomes.**

Ben Masada,

This references an earlier comment you made. Matthew was a tax collector, who Jesus chose as one of the 12 Apostles. He would have no reason to be a follower of Paul. Matthew wrote his Gospel to the Jews of the day from his time and experience with Christ.
So, where is the heresay in that?

Where did you get this that Matthew is a disciple of Paul, somewhat?. Now, I’ve read that Mark was a disciple of Peter. The twelve Apostles were the combined leaders of Christ’s Church. Paul was a self-appointed apostle, seeking Peter’s okay about his self-appointment. Paul made 13, unless James brother of John (sons of Zebedee) had already been sworded to death in Spain, thereby making Paul #12 again.

jpaul1953
Click to expand...
 
Ben_Masada said:
**The Catholic Saint Joseph’s Edition of the NAB prefaces every gospel with the following dates: Mark, soon after the Jewish-Roman War of 70 CE, Luke in the year 75 CE, Matthew in 85 CE and John in between 95 and 100 CE.

None of the writings of the Nazarenes, followers of Jesus was approved into the Canon of the NT by the Fathers of the Church, due to their controversial character vis-a-vis the writings of Paul. Therefore, none of the gospels was written by any of the Apostles. They were all former disciples of Paul. Futhermore, they wrote those gospels after Paul was done with his writings which were finished about 65 CE. And also for the Letters, after those of Paul’s, especially the one of Peter’s, the preface mentions that an unknown author wrote it and attributed it to Peter. We can assume that the same happened to all the books of the NT.**
Click to expand...
Ben
Because that particular edition has that does not mean it is an official date of the Church. I have tried to explain to you that an imprimatur which is basically what you are going on does not mean what you think it does. I can produce other translations with the earlier date. If you tell me that it uses CE, than I tell you something is rotten in Denmark. I really find it hard to believe that those dates were used. I will check it out. I won’t have access to the edition you are referring to until tomorrow. It is not the position of the Church to confirm any date. I don’t accept those dates as I don’t accept the reasoning for them. When they find q then they will have a leg to stand on until them I accept those who were closer to the actual writings. Matthew and John were apostles. There is no evidence to the contrary only conjecture.
 
Ben_Masada said:
SteveLohr;5445194:
Ben Masada;5445148:
Steve, there is debate on everything in the NT. What is it not debatable in the NT? It’s impossible to harmonize so much confusion.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ben-I didn’t say there was no debate regarding Mr. Albright’s view of Luke as being a Jew. To the contrary, I acknowledged the debate on this issue. What I said in post #984 was that I wasn’t going to debate the issue, because it was a tertiary point to what I was claiming, which was that there is a significant body of evidence that the Gospels were written significantly before the dates generally ascribed by scholars. I further noted that because that your dismissal of Albrights’ thoughts of the dating of the Gospels (which is a minor part of my argument), based entirely on your disagreement with him on the point of Luke being a Jew was an example of faulty logic. Mr. Albright’s position on this point is not so beyond the bounds of accepted scholarship so as to contaminate his view on the unrelated point of the dates of the Gospels.

Regards,
SteveLohr
Click to expand...
 
Ben_Masada said:
**That was a Roman joke prepared by Pilate himself. I can’t believe you went for that one. It’s unbelievable how the simple can believe anything, even a Roman joke.

Ben: :D**
Click to expand...
All poignant jokes. wether they are meant to be funny, hurtful, spiteful etc. Are based in truth.👍
 
josephpaul1953 said:
Ben Masada;5445148:
Ben Masada,

This references an earlier comment you made. Matthew was a tax collector, who Jesus chose as one of the 12 Apostles. He would have no reason to be a follower of Paul. Matthew wrote his Gospel to the Jews of the day from his time and experience with Christ.
So, where is the heresay in that?

Where did you get this that Matthew is a disciple of Paul, somewhat?. Now, I’ve read that Mark was a disciple of Peter. The twelve Apostles were the combined leaders of Christ’s Church. Paul was a self-appointed apostle, seeking Peter’s okay about his self-appointment. Paul made 13, unless James brother of John (sons of Zebedee) had already been sworded to death in Spain, thereby making Paul #12 again.

jpaul1953
Click to expand...
**Matthew had been indeed a tax collector, and he was one of Jesus’ 12
apostles; but he was not the man who wrote that gospel. Matthew, the Apostle was a member of the Sect of the Nazarenes, followers of Jesus. He would never write a book so Hellenistic as that gospel and lacking so much of Jewish culture and customs. The man who wrote that gospel was a former disciple of Paul. And the same goes with Mark. Peter would never dictate Hellenism to Mark.

The Apostles were the combined leaders of the Sect of the Nazarenes. They never had anything to do with Christianity.

And Paul, who made him the 13th apostle, Jesus? That’s what he said and Jesus’ Apostles did not believe him when he came up to Jerusalem to join the Sect. They rather elected Mathias, another Jew to substitute Judas and not Paul.**
Click to expand...
 
adrift said:
Ben
Because that particular edition has that does not mean it is an official date of the Church. I have tried to explain to you that an imprimatur which is basically what you are going on does not mean what you think it does. I can produce other translations with the earlier date. If you tell me that it uses CE, than I tell you something is rotten in Denmark. I really find it hard to believe that those dates were used. I will check it out. I won’t have access to the edition you are referring to until tomorrow. It is not the position of the Church to confirm any date. I don’t accept those dates as I don’t accept the reasoning for them. When they find q then they will have a leg to stand on until them I accept those who were closer to the actual writings. Matthew and John were apostles. There is no evidence to the contrary only conjecture.
Click to expand...
Oh no, Adrift, the prefaces with those dates don’t use CE. They use AD. I am the one who uses CE. We Jews don’t use AD. Now, if you insist that the gospels were written by Jesus’ Apostles, we will be dealing with a lot of contradictions. And if you can produce other Catholic translations with different dates for the writing of the gospels, there is division within the Church. The Church’s Imprimatur says more than a lot.
If you confirm that Matthew and John wrote thoses gospels with their names, be ready to answer many questions about contradictions.
 
latin_rite said:
All poignant jokes. wether they are meant to be funny, hurtful, spiteful etc. Are based in truth.👍
Click to expand...
**Well, let us hypothetically accept your line of thinking. When was Jesus ever King of the Jews, if Pilates’ joke was based in truth? **
 
Ben_Masada said:
adrift;5448131:
Ben Masada;5445439:
Bring them up.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ben-I’m not sure what you are asking me to do here. First, in your post #999, you appear to have cited Adrift’s post #994, and nothing that I have written. Accordingly, your posting is better addressed to Adrift. Second, Adrift’s post merely notes there are disagreements among scholars about Old Testament interpretation. My posting was about the dating of the Gospels. You seem to want to start an entirely new discussion about Old Testament interpretation, while leaving unresolved the original issue. Is this correct?

Regards,
SteveLohr
Click to expand...
 
Ben_Masada said:
**Myself, with contempt for the Gentiles? I don’t think so. How could I have contempt for the Gentiles if I am ready to walk miles to bring the Truth to the Gentiles? Jesus was the one with contempt for the Gentiles. Read Matthew 10:4,5. Every time he would send his disciples on a mission to spread the news of the Kingdom of God, he would warn them to go to the Gentiles. That’s contempt for the Gentiles.

And to answer your question about Jesus being preached as Christ, the idea started with Paul in Antioch, about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. (Acts 11:26) So, all that time, even his Apostles did not know anything about such an idea.**
Click to expand...
Jesus told his Disciples to preach to ALL NATIONS, meaning everyone. If you feel He only spoke to Gentiles, perhaps it is because the Jews wouldn’t listen. They never obeyed or listened to God in the OT, never mind in the NT.
 
Ben_Masada said:
**Well, let us hypothetically accept your line of thinking. When was Jesus ever King of the Jews, if Pilates’ joke was based in truth? **
Click to expand...
When Pilate wrote "Jesus of Nazareth, KING of the Jews, it was no joke. He believed this even when he was sentencing Christ to death. There was doubt in Pilates heart but not totally. That is why when asked of him by the Jews why he would write that? Pilate’s words were “What I have written, is written”.
 
this is old Voltaire nonsense…Jesus declared He was the Son of God and thus had to go…He was conveting too many to His new church…so the establishment church and the roman authorities circled His name and after He chased the money changers out of 'His Fathers house" it was the cross for Jesus. Peter declared Him also to be The Messiah…and was congratulated for knowing the answer to His question…"whom do you think I am??? If Jesus was not what He claimed to be He was an evil man for millions have given their life for Him…evil and of course …insane…but since he disappeared from that sealed up grave…right in front of guards chosen by the Jewish high priests and later His followers changed from snivling cowards to the greatest warriors ever,something changed their mind…they SAW Jesus after He was starved,whipped, speared and nailed to a piece of wood.then His body torn off of that wood,covered with a 100lbs of spices and sealed up in an airtight tomb…guarded by at least 16 guards…4 in the front row on their feet for 8 hours,4 in the second row on their knees, 4 in the third row sleeping and the 4 nearest the tomb entrance playing dice…
 
SteveLohr said:
Ben Masada;5449408:
adrift;5448131:
Ben-I’m not sure what you are asking me to do here. First, in your post #999, you appear to have cited Adrift’s post #994, and nothing that I have written. Accordingly, your posting is better addressed to Adrift. Second, Adrift’s post merely notes there are disagreements among scholars about Old Testament interpretation. My posting was about the dating of the Gospels. You seem to want to start an entirely new discussion about Old Testament interpretation, while leaving unresolved the original issue. Is this correct?

Regards,
SteveLohr
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right. Sorry. So, Adrift is the one who must bring up the debatable points from the Tanach for discussions.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top