Thread for tracking Michae Cadry's 11/9/2017 prophecy

[God's Truth]

You are assuming what I do or do not believe, instead of attending to the question.

You are the one who said Jesus made a false statement.

 

[freelight]

Ask away......

Ask away......

Ask freelight if he believes Jesus is the Son of God, you might be surprised. He doens't necessarily believe Paul either and I think he thinks there are many ways to salvation.

I've given ample commentary on both Unitarian and Trinitarian Christology, in many of the 'Jesus is God' or 'Jesus is NOT God' threads. I would consult those

Dont forget,...all that are born or 'generated' by 'God', are sons of God - one can afford Jesus a 'special' and 'unique' Sonship, but that is 'optional'.

"We are all His offspring".

For more commentary on various subjects, all are free to see my recent posts, discuss or engage, as they see fit, but do so civilly, since all that is being shared are different points of view. Part of your own liberation consists in SEEING... that all they are...are points of view. - that gets rid of half the baggage, for starters.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes dear,....been here since 2003, and a 'subscriber' for some years up to current as well. I have a history here, far more than you know, and have seen many come and go. The gods have been good :crackup:

The gods? :doh:

Yes, you're still here. We had some good times in that word game thread, and you've never offended me, that I can recall. I don't have to agree with your ideas, though, do I?

 

[freelight]

You might be right 'bout them many ways and he does have trouble with the epistles to Timothy.

A good number of scholars/laymen have problems with Paul, but thats another thread, since it entails approaching the subject from many different relational contexts involving the relationship between Judaism and 'his gospel' which deviated so far from it.

I am neutral on the Pastoral epistles, recognizing them as pseudographical.

 

[glorydaz]

You are the one who said Jesus made a false statement.

Back to school with you. A statement is not the same as a question. See those little squiggly marks at the end of each sentence? Those are called question marks, and that means they are questions and not statements. In case you still have a problem, note the actual word spelled out "QUESTION" and then the colon? That means it's a question and not a statement.

Question: Does this mean some would still be living (in that current generation) to see the Messiah "come into his kindgom"? Did this take place?

Now, don't you feel like a fool? If not, then you are one, for sure. Which is it?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

A good number of scholars/laymen have problems with Paul, but thats another thread, since it entails approaching the subject from many different relational contexts involving the relationship between Judaism and 'his gospel' which deviated so far from it.

I am neutral on the Pastoral epistles, recognizing them as pseudographical.

That was quite the side step there. lol

 

[glorydaz]

Back to school with you. A statement is not the same as a question. See those little squiggly marks at the end of each sentence? Those are called question marks, and that means they are questions and not statements. In case you still have a problem, note the actual word spelled out "QUESTION" and then the colon? That means it's a question and not a statement.



Now, don't you feel like a fool? If not, then you are one, for sure. Which is it?

Well, Jesus spoke of some apocalyptic events happening and something great to come about in a certain generation, saying those living would see such things come to pass (in that generation),...did they? (somewhere in the gospels). - Matthew 24:34

Yep, there's the first squiggly mark.

 

[freelight]

Humor me.................

Humor me.................

The gods? :doh:

Yes, you're still here. We had some good times in that word game thread, and you've never offended me, that I can recall. I don't have to agree with your ideas, though, do I?

I have quite a legacy thru-out unbeknownst apparently to some newbies here, and all my commentary is available for anyone's exploration and enjoyment. I'm tickled to see that a perky little word-game is what you know me by, when the vast extent of my contributions here engage much deeper philosophical and theological issues but hey,...thats fun, although I prefer to engage more interesting and weightier matters.

I've never assumed or demanded in discussion that anyone has to or needs to agree with me about anything. If you know 'freelight', he is much more intersted in sharing ideas, concepts, perspectives....diving into the nature, meaning and values of such. - while remaining open to question and research. There is no final conclusion of any matter, in the space-time continuum of LEARNING, unless there is nothing left to learn.

One should also know that while I can appear quite serious in my religious studies and their exposition, I also can add a little humor here or there. I think it better for one to come to the table with a full deck of cards, and not just a few numbers.

 

[glorydaz]

That was quite the side step there. lol

It takes years of practice. He admitted as much. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

I have quite a legacy thru-out unbeknownst apparently to some newbies here, and all my commentary is available for anyone's exploration and enjoyment. I'm ticked to see that a perky little word-game is what you know me by, when the vast extent of my contributions here engage much deeper philosophical and theological issues but hey,...thats fun, although I prefer to engage more interesting and weightier matters.

Sorry, Freelight, but I'm an old hippy. I've spent enough time with those "deep issues" you consider weighty. I find NO TRUTH except in God's word. All my searchings, in the past, led me farther from the Truth, so I'm not the least tempted to turn back.

Sometimes I can catch your humor, though, and that is a good thing.

 

[freelight]

OOPS...forgot a letter

OOPS...forgot a letter

Sorry, Freelight, but I'm an old hippy. I've spent enough time with those "deep issues" you consider weighty. I find NO TRUTH except in God's word. All my searchings, in the past, led me farther from the Truth, so I'm not the least tempted to turn back.

Sometimes I can catch your humor, though, and that is a good thing.

Sorry GD,

I meant to write 'tickled', NOT 'ticked' - I was never 'ticked' lol - wow, see all the difference just 'one letter' can make

Otherwise, those familiar with my work, know I'm a wordsmith, since writing itself is an 'art'. In this way we are all painters. What varies is the canvas, colours, language and forms we choose to 'communicate' with. All language is 'symbolic'.

There is a realm of truth quite beyond words, ideas, concepts...even knowledge. But where ideas RELATE,...we must use symbols to carry them.

 

[God's Truth]

Back to school with you. A statement is not the same as a question. See those little squiggly marks at the end of each sentence? Those are called question marks, and that means they are questions and not statements. In case you still have a problem, note the actual word spelled out "QUESTION" and then the colon? That means it's a question and not a statement.

I said freelight said JESUS made a false statement. You have just been schooled. You also need to read further back and see that freelight didn't just ask a question. All the makes you doubly wrong, and then some. It proves you are bent on degrading others. You are not schooling me with any truth. You have made more than one false statement yourself about the Bible that I have corrected you on.

 

[God's Truth]

Hedshaker is more of a secular realist, humanist and atheist, but I've not corresponded with him in some time, so was wonderfully surprised to see him post again, since we go back aways Scoffer? - oh dear. - I can just as well be cordial, open-minded with skeptics, agnostics and atheists, respecting each point of view, as long as those points are shared in a civil
fashion.

Hedshaker btw was "removed" from this discussion thread with no explanation, which certainly is not inspiring any attraction to whatever 'form' of 'Christianity' is being presented here. Granted his 'tone' may have come off a bit 'anti-religious' or 'atheistic', but that is something religionists ought to be prepared to deal with, knowing that many reject a modern portraiture of traditional 'theism', especially those who are 'exclusivist' or rigidly dogmatic in their 'belief-system'.

As a spiritualist with eclectic proclivities, I can be a bit more lenient and liberal I suppose in engaging those of different temperments, and go towards a goal of 'creative dialogue', looking at all points of view from a higher transcendental perspective - and this can be with a belief in 'God' or not. Life still goes on with or without your opinion about it.

The link above of so called 'fulfilled prophecies' are mostly 'biased' with Christian believers since they ASSUME Jesus fulfilled such prophesies, but there are Jewish counter-missionary ministries that can just as well shoot down every one of those prophesies supposedly fulfilled by Jesus. Some of those allusions shared are not 'fulfillments' of anything as much as they are mere correlations. I find the work of Uri Yosef pretty good in this catagory, - see here.

No, your going to different sources outside of Christ does not give you a higher transcendental perspective.

I can hardly believe you speak in such a way. It is as if you think you could have taught Jesus something if you were there when he walked the earth. You put down Jesus proves to me you are nowhere near a follower of Christ.

 

[steko]

Sorry, Freelight, but I'm an old hippy. I've spent enough time with those "deep issues" you consider weighty. I find NO TRUTH except in God's word. All my searchings, in the past, led me farther from the Truth, so I'm not the least tempted to turn back.

Sometimes I can catch your humor, though, and that is a good thing.

:cheers:

 

[patrick jane]

If you know 'freelight', he is much more intersted in sharing ideas, concepts, perspectives.....

3rd person :chuckle:

Question:
	Hi! I have a friend (in his 40's) who is constantly referring to himself in the third person. This is usually done when he writes. For example, his "name" is Joe Schmoo. He will write something like this, "Joe Schmoo saw a great movie last night, but he slept through the credits," etc. This is annoying to me, and I have no idea why he does it. It's almost as if he's trying to split his personality? What's up?
	Becca (40 year-old woman)
Answer:
	Becca, Thanks for your fun letter. Peg has some ideas about this. (Couldn't resist that!) When your friend refers to himself in the third person, you get annoyed. This makes sense, because your friend "leaves" the conversation when he does this. In a way, he abandons you and your discussion, to stand outside of it and comment on it. One of the reasons he does this, then, is to distance himself from you and perhaps, others. Since he runs the risk of aggravating people - and he probably knows this at some level at least - he uses this device to keep others away. He'd rather annoy you than have you get too close, I suspect.

https://www.queendom.com/advices/advice.htm?advice=382

 

[glorydaz]

I said freelight said JESUS made a false statement. You have just been schooled. You also need to read further back and see that freelight didn't just ask a question. All the makes you doubly wrong, and then some. It proves you are bent on degrading others. You are not schooling me with any truth. You have made more than one false statement yourself about the Bible that I have corrected you on.

It was a question. Don't double down on stupidity. It's so unbecoming. :down:

 

[God's Truth]

It was a question. Don't double down on stupidity. It's so unbecoming. :down:

Freelight gave her opinion about Jesus and it was about Jesus making false statements about what would happen.

Now will you back off me?

 

[freelight]

3rd person :chuckle:

Question:
	Hi! I have a friend (in his 40's) who is constantly referring to himself in the third person. This is usually done when he writes. For example, his "name" is Joe Schmoo. He will write something like this, "Joe Schmoo saw a great movie last night, but he slept through the credits," etc. This is annoying to me, and I have no idea why he does it. It's almost as if he's trying to split his personality? What's up?
	Becca (40 year-old woman)
Answer:
	Becca, Thanks for your fun letter. Peg has some ideas about this. (Couldn't resist that!) When your friend refers to himself in the third person, you get annoyed. This makes sense, because your friend "leaves" the conversation when he does this. In a way, he abandons you and your discussion, to stand outside of it and comment on it. One of the reasons he does this, then, is to distance himself from you and perhaps, others. Since he runs the risk of aggravating people - and he probably knows this at some level at least - he uses this device to keep others away. He'd rather annoy you than have you get too close, I suspect.

https://www.queendom.com/advices/advice.htm?advice=382

Yes pj,

I was referencing myself in '3rd person' as a 'literary device' (a spoof)- it was just a manner of speaking, - having a bit of fun from an multidimensional perspective. I AM not my name or any title given to me, those are just 'tags' one wears, so you can reference those 'tags' from different angles. Its ok to think 'outside the box'

Does your 'God' allow you to have fun?

 

[freelight]

How to interpret Jesus prophecies of his coming.......

How to interpret Jesus prophecies of his coming.......

Freelight gave her opinion about Jesus and it was about Jesus making false statements about what would happen.

Now will you back off me?

You are presuming, presupposing my motive or agenda behind my question, while failing to attend to the question. Some believe that the words of Jesus clealy say that the end times and his second coming were to be in that very generation in which he spoke, and it does seem that what he said did not come to pass. If any prophet proclaims something, and gives the time-period of a 'generation' ( lets assume that means at least 100 years or less), and those things do not happen, what conclusion can we arrive at about the authenticity of the prophecy?

It could be that maybe the passages can be 'translated' or 'interpreted' in a way that would resolve the apparent failure of the prophecy, with a reasonable explanation ....granted that a proper exegesis can be done to the passages. Or maybe they could be concluded to be 'unfulfilled prophecies'.

I dont have a vested interest, presuppositional or 'faith-vested' stake in any passage having to be PERFECT, since I do NOT hold to a belief in biblical inerrancy, etc,....so to me its fine and even often probable that many passages have errors, inconsistencies, being redactions/interpolations, fictional narratives in some cases, etc. - although some passages in various books of the Bible do have inspired parts having true religious value, in accord with universal principles, having spiritual meaning, ethical import, relevance, etc. (but not total perfection or a finality of revelation, since I believe in 'progressive revelation'). I've never denied inspiration or usefulness within religious writings (enjoying studies in many different religious traditions and texts), - yet I refuse dogmatic assumptions of some doctrines like 'inerrancy', since I dont see a NEED for a religious book to be 'inerrant' to contain truth. All light that comes thru darkened glasses are 'distorted' to some degree.

At best, understanding better where I'm coming from, you can at least look at the prophecies of Jesus, and see if you can explain or resolve any paradox that might exist, with his failure to return or be SEEN by some within the generation he spoke of. Can the passages be explained? Who cares? I was just presenting the QUESTION, to inspire some research.

Passages concerned - Matthew 16: 27-28, Matthew 24: 25-34, Matthew 26: 63-64, Mark 13:26-30, Luke 21:27-32,

 

[God's Truth]

You are presuming, presupposing my motive or agenda behind my question, while failing to attend to the question. Some believe that the words of Jesus clealy say that the end times and his second coming were to be in that very generation in which he spoke, and it does seem that what he said did not come to pass. If any prophet proclaims something, and gives the time-period of a 'generation' ( lets assume that means at least 100 years or less), and those things do not happen, what conclusion can we arrive at about the authenticity of the prophecy?

It could be that maybe the passages can be 'translated' or 'interpreted' in a way that would resolve the apparent failure of the prophecy, with a reasonable explanation ....granted that a proper exegesis can be done to the passages. Or maybe they could be concluded to be 'unfulfilled prophecies'.

I dont have a vested interest, presuppositional or 'faith-vested' stake in any passage having to be PERFECT, since I do NOT hold to a belief in biblical inerrancy, etc,....so to me its fine and even often probable that many passages have errors, inconsistencies, being redactions/interpolations, fictional narratives in some cases, etc. - although some passages in various books of the Bible do have inspired parts having true religious value, in accord with universal principles, having spiritual meaning, ethical import, relevance, etc. (but not total perfection or a finality of revelation, since I believe in 'progressive revelation'). I've never denied inspiration or usefulness within religious writings (enjoying studies in many different religious traditions and texts), - yet I refuse dogmatic assumptions of some doctrines like 'inerrancy', since I dont see a NEED for a religious book to be 'inerrant' to contain truth. All light that comes thru darkened glasses are 'distorted' to some degree.

At best, understanding better where I'm coming from, you can at least look at the prophecies of Jesus, and see if you can explain or resolve any paradox that might exist, with his failure to return or be SEEN by some within the generation he spoke of. Can the passages be explained? Who cares? I was just presenting the QUESTION, to inspire some research.

Passages concerned - Matthew 16: 27-28, Matthew 24: 25-34, Matthew 26: 63-64, Mark 13:26-30, Luke 21:27-32,

I think you are a dishonest person and I don't care to debate you.