Moonlapse

If the only Communism is a pure Communism, then I would argue that the same applies to your use of the word Capitalism.

Perhaps that wasn't blatant enough.

Because a group of about 30,000 Celts swept through southeastern Europe into Asia Minor in search for loot & land, eventually got spanked then settled and became mercenaries for various local kingdoms. Yes but isn't it true that these invaders came from the Thrace area? I could be wrong, I do not specialize in the Celts, but from what I know I do believe all these peoples are related enough in cultural background to verify my original point. Came from Gallia by way of Thrace is a little more accurate.

So is ancestor worship relevant to any of this? I'm going to have to re-read some things...

I still think is has something to do with the increase in the importance of warfare and technology in territorial control.

Hmm, well, what if I just swiftly jab a paper clip into the wall outlet?

Thanks for this valuable insight.

Oooo, maps... those are informative indeed.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/home.html Amazing site.

Do you consider Isiah, Job, Matthew, Mark, Acts, Thessalonians from Revelation? Why would I forget the false Messiah when he's associated with the tribulation. Take chapter 17 alone, why would Jesus give the examples of Noah and Lot, if he's talking exclusively of his second coming without the preceding events that occur. Remember who Jesus was answering before turning to the disciples in Chap 17, What do you think these verses mean? "20-Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21-nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." 22-Then he said to his disciples, "The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23-Men will tell you, 'There he is!' or 'Here he is!' Do not go running off after them. 24-For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25-But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation." Luke 17 He's obviously talking about the fake Messiah, and he continues until the end of the Chapter. I have a Greek dictionary right next to me, plus a Hebrew and Chaldee dictionary. Well, I'll get to my point. I don't care one way or the other. In regards to the false messiah, what Jesus says in those verses indicates that the second comming will be like lightning in its suddenness and its basically pointless listen to those who claim that the kingdom of heaven is here, or that the messiah is here. I agree that this can imply a singular false messiah in the context of other scripture, but taken by itself it can also imply that events and mutiple people might cause someone to think that the second comming was here. On to the point... 20-25 can amdittedly be interpreted as the comming of a specific false messiah when used with context from other scripture, even if it literally does not say so. This is consistent with your interpretation. Heres the thing, although the Greek interpretation actually does support your ideas, not only is the pre-tribulation rapture idea is a misinterpretation, but your original interpretation that 31-37 describes a false messiah is a misinterpretation, based on a combination of King James wording and Greek wording. To put it another way - even though the Greek meaning of these verses indicates false returns of the messiah before the actual return (which is consistent with your view, and inconsistent with the pre-tribulation rapture idea), you have used the incorrect wording of the King James Bible to insist that the entire passage describes a false messiah. So next time you argue this point with someone you can point to the original Greek, instead of relying on a misinterpretation. My purpose in arguing the interpretations is to show that when different versions of the Bible, different denominations, and different personal agendas are combined, the ambiguous and metaphorical scriptures can be manipulated in many different ways. Anyways, I've spent far to much time debating here and not getting things done, so I'm done here.

The interpretation I'm explaining relies on the meanings of the original Greek words as they are understood today. The interpretation that the 'taken' are actually the people decieved by the false messiah described in the writings of John of Patmos who had revelations of the Apocalypse relies on the King James version for verses prior to 37 and the original Greek as they are understood today for verse 37. Thats not even the point here. No disrespect by any stretch of the imagination but I don't want to hear this, 'I was a great Christian who went to church everyday.' St. Athanasius was a pagan yet he stayed true to what he believed is right. If we just heed the word of God rather than love him, we do not sincerely love him. Of course you don't. Well chaps, I'm off to sleep. Cya in the mornin'

Because the context is Luke 17. The chronology for the Tribulation is from Revelations, which was the writing of John of Patmos who had 'visions'. You are fitting the previous writings into that context and eliminating the more subtle meaning in order to do so. Forget the trumpets and the Beast, the context is the spoken words of Jesus according to Luke. Forget the King James version and look at the orginal words of Luke with their Greek meanings. At the second comming, much like the stories of Lot and Noah, some will be taken and others sent away. This is the essence of the original Greek. The disciples ask where, Jesus says that where the carcass is the vultures gather, according to the Greek. Your mind is set on Revelations which is not the word of Jesus, and you are twisting the actual words of Jesus to fit your interpretation of Revelations and the rapture. That, sir, is what this demonstration is all about.

I agree that he is speaking about the second comming of the messiah. It is not in the context of Revelations. The stories of Lot and Noah describe some that were saved while the rest perished. What is the point of your rebuttal? When you talk of the Tribulation, you are outside of the context of Jesus' words.

Context - 1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning. 2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting. I was made to study the Bible from the time I could read until I left my parent's house. I've done much independent Bible study. I've debated many issues and converted a number of people to Christianity (regretfully) during missions. I'm familiar with many different interpretations of different issues in the Bible. I have no need to re-read it to understand. I'll let my previous posts speak for themselves.

Look at the context given in the verses that precede Luke 17:31-37. How does this obviously refer to the sixth trump when Jesus, who refers to himself as the 'Son of man', says that this will occur when he, not the false messiah, is revealed? Wouldn't the revealing of the 'Son of man' and the comming of the kingdom of God (which is the context of these verses) be more like the seventh trump? Why is it that so often, passages from several different books get taken out of context, then stitched together with some sort of rationale attached to it in order to explain something? Perhaps Jesus' words don't apply to the hallucinations of John of Patmos. Regarding this: If you study the previous verses in the original Greek (not just 37), the words used imply that one will be taken and the other sent away. It's undersood that the taken are taken by the revealed 'Son of man', who else would they be taken by? The question in verse 37 most likely refers to where the ones sent away will be sent away to. This is due to a muddling of subtle meanings (such as 'eagle' and 'body') during Greek to English translation. When the word 'left' is used in the KJV it indicates 'to remain' and is not considered the subject of the question, "Where, Lord?" This misunderstanding is consistent with the choice of translation for vulture and carcass. http://www.greekbible.com/index.php If you've noticed, this has nothing to do with denomination and is all based on the immediately contextual scripture. I have a question. I know that you got your interpretation from someone else. Who did you get it from, and what is their affiliation?

Well, you can argue that with those who believe it. If you take any one believer of any denomination or no denomination, they will consider their views and interpretations to be the correct ones. Most scripture is not demonstrably cut any dried or as 'obvious' as you claim.

Please plug your pie-hole and pass me a pilsner.

Is this counteraction on a 1:1 ratio?

Certain interpretations indicate that during the rapture, the saved will actually disappear, based on Luke 17:31-37. It depends on what your pastor/priest/minister has told you to believe, which is what denominational leaders have defined as the truth.

Wrong city. Its a minor league stadium. That would suck to live in downtown Denver.

Perhaps the dependence upon the earth and its cyclical and reproductive nature infuenced this early belief. As technology progressed the population increased, territorial conficts and warfare increased. I guess the new dependency was now upon the protection provided by a much more influential warrior class. I could be way off.

It was pretty far away.

In re-reading this thread, I think I may be misunderstood in a few ways. I don't mean to come across as anti-american or as trying to justify terrorism. I'm not trying to push conspiracy theories or whatnot. In years past, I never had a thorough understanding of the world around me. I relied on 'talking heads', since it spared me the extremely daunting task of sorting through the garbage heap of media to find my own thoughts. Well, thats what I've been trying to do for myself since then. In my personal experience of trying to differentiate the subtle slants from the real information contained in any one piece of media, regardless of its source, I've come to the personal conclusion that everything has a much much larger context that can be nearly impossible to grasp if you don't really dig for it. In all, I would suppose that the normal person only spends a very short amount of time each day aquainting themselves with current events. Our busy lives only leave room for extremely condensed, out of context news blurbs or a few minutes of subjective banter on some talk radio station. What I'm advocating here is that people spend a little bit more time paying attention some of these important things in a whole context, finding diversified sources, and trying to answer specific questions FOR THEMSELVES.

As I sit here at the computer in a room on the second story, there is a window to my back that overlooks a panoramic view of this area of the city. There is a nearby baseball stadium that regularly shoots off spectacular fireworks displays at the end of winning games. The booms are exaggerated by echoes off of the ridge that the house is on. Tonight, there is a massive thunderstorm looming across the horizon a dozen or so miles away. As the fireworks explode into sparkling orbs, bright atmospheric lightning continuously lights up the sky and clouds with incredibly long horizontal arcs, sending low rumbles to mingle with the echoing booms. Occasionally, a long and bright fork of pure whiteness hits the ground, unobscured by the distant rain and mist.