Skip to comments.Harold Camping's Latest Claim - VANITY
Posted on 05/23/2011 6:01:37 PM PDT by WillVoteForFood
click here to read article
That was exactly what he said when he was wrong the first time.
When God didn’t come on that first day in 1994, he said God was being merciful and was coming but a few months down the road.
This man’s great tragedy is he is totally unteachable and arrogantly stubborn. He was probably the dad from hell.
Again - that statement about the great commission is logical which is what I try and ascribe to.
I don’t worry about any of us being exactly right - the truth is that much of what is spiritual is likely beyond our understanding. Mostly I think christianity is about becoming a loving person - but I think that is too hard for most people so they go the legalistic route (I can’t hardly blame them - it is very hard to be loving).
There is something extremely fascinating about christianity and for me it is the idea of the atonement - that one can stand in for another. It affects me on a gut level. It just has the ring of truth to it.
Most of the other trappings of religion I don’t even care about. For myself I keep to the basics, like the nicene creed - it’s what I feel is the core and most important part. Beyond that I have no clue.
Just think, they can leave all the old posters up and just stamp the revised month over the old one. Think of all the money that would save!
BTW, this book was written in 1881; you wouldn't believe how accurate it is!
In the late nineteenth century, Father Charles Arminjon, a priest from the mountains of southeastern France, assembled his flock in the town cathedral to preach a series of conferences to help them turn their thoughts away from this lifes mean material affairsand toward the next lifes glorious spiritual reward. His wise and uncompromising words deepened in them the spirit of recollection that all Christians must have: the abiding conviction that heavenly aims, not temporal enthusiasms, must guide everything we think, say, and do.
When Father Arminjons conferences were later published in a book, many others were able to reap the same benefitincluding fourteen-year-old Thérèse Martin, then on the cusp of entering the Carmelite convent in Lisieux. Reading it, she says, plunged my soul into a happiness not of this earth. Young Thérèse, filled with a sense of what God reserves for those who love him, and seeing that the eternal rewards had no proportion to the light sacrifices of life, copied out numerous passages and memorized them, repeating unceasingly the words of love burning in my heart.
Now the very book that so inspired the Little Flower is available for the first time in English.
Let the pages of The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life fill you with the same burning words of love, with the same ardent desire to know God above all created things, that St. Thérèse gained from them. Let them also enrich your understanding of certain teachings of the Faith that can often seem so mysterious, even frightening:
Jesus commands us to be ever-watchful for his return, and ever-mindful that we have no lasting city on earth. The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life is an invaluable aid to inculcating in your spirit that heavenly orientation, without which true human happiness cannot be foundin this world or the next.
Except that Jesus isn't "like" God, he *is* God.
The name Michael can also be understood as a rhetorical question -- "Who is like God?"; the correct answer being, "Nobody". I believe this is the traditional Hebrew understanding of the name.
Jesus' "pre-existing name"? YVWH, of course.
If you read Isaish, Christ had several names.
Who is like God, is a title and statement and not a question. You’d have to show it was intended as a question and not a statemnt for it to not be correct.
Not a Hebrew scholar, but some cursory reading seems to indicate that the Hebrew is unambiguous about being a question, not a statement: meaning of "Michael"
You may be right and I may be crazy - Billy Joel.
The reason why I don’t agree that it is a question is for two reasons.
1. Michael is a real being, doing real things. He’s not written about in a commentary format in the same sort of format that the leviathan is spoken of in Job, where Job is commenting on the power of God and whatnot.
2. Michael contends directly with Satan. Satan is the reason we’re in this mess and he’s the main antagonist. It would seem a strange thing that God would pass the responsibility off to somebody lesser than Satan was. It could only be appropriate that God Himself takes care of business when dealing with him.
Just to be clear, the Adventist understanding issue is not meant to lessen the position of Christ, for He is God and eteral. But rather, it is bringing up the name Michael, which has been given a lesser weight by other Christian denominations.
That's exactly what God does, the more profoundly to humiliate Satan. He's not setting out to appeal to Satan's pride, which is already well out of control. He uses the lowly to humble the great; cf Lk 1:46-55.
The following prayer was said at the end of every Catholic Mass from about 1880 until 1963:
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin and destruction of souls.
We will agree to disagree then. :)