Time Is Near: Five Common Misinterpretations Of The Book Of Revelation

And the fhu.com has the pathway to him!

You don't come here for the hunting; do you...

I never did understand how they could disobey a direct order.

It does seem weird...

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

I never did understand how they could disobey a direct order.

It does seem weird...

NIV 1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

What they read is alleged to mean something else...But they don't have a clue what that something else is...

"Sure they do!", Elsie said smarmily!

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,

' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Of course he's a partial preterist. Then again, so are plenty of Lutherans and Presbyterians, but you don't taunt them, so maybe you're okay with partial preterism.

May I direct your readers to the Logical Fallicies reply?

Thanks!

“In Catholic thinking there’s Catholics,
and the rest of the world,
who are all wrong to varying degrees”

I’ve seen others expound on the Mahdi 12th imam as antichrist.

There's many on FR who think that Flying Inman members are anti-Christs (or something along that order...)

You spoke of a potential merger of the Vatican and Islam? Note this:Them Catholic wannabe's - MORMONs - want a piece of the action; too!

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]
Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.
Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.
As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.
Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]
Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.
Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, look to Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, whom they consider Divinely appointed, as the rightful successor to Muhammad, and the first imam. (Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad). Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith's followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith's own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.
Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith's claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.

...MORMONs - want a piece of the action; too!

That was THEN; this is NOW:

https://www.google.com/search?q=mormon+islamic+studies&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7ADRA_enUS475

It was beyond belief, worse than the blackest nightmare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

Despite being many times corrected as in threads linked here, along with the main one , you are dealing with a poster who is one of the RCs whose resortion to rants (followed by one of two pictures) has rendered him to be one you cannot have an objective intelligent exchange with, and simply continues to posts the same fallacies after being refuted.

Rather than Protestantism rendering Holy Spirit to be imperfect based upon the premise that the Holy Spirit did not protect Scripture from the inclusion of error, He can be seen doing just that, as there simply was no infallible indisputable canon until after Luther's death, and the fact is that scholarly dispute about books continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent. Thus by the time the enlarged RC canon was made binding, the Prot. Bible with its ancient OT canon had been printed in the common tongue.

Yet an infallible magisterium was never necessary to recognize and est. writings as being of God, nor does even being the instrument and steward of Scripture mean such magisterium is infallible.

In addition, the Vulgate was not uniform in all its editions and contained errors, and Trent did not specify which edition was to be used, and also was corrected more than once, Trent ordering one itself with the fewest possible faults, leading to the disastrous Vulgata Sixtina , which may have gotten the pope killed, and a coverup of his erroneous work ensued. And Rome's present Bibles have their own Catholic critics.

Meanwhile, to be consistent with himself, Rashputin can charge the EOs with rendering Holy Spirit to be imperfect since the canon generally held by EOs is larger than that of Rome.

The idea that Luther with his non-binding canon removed books from an infallible indisputable canon is simply a fabrication RCs love to parrot, as is the idea that we follow him as a pope. And which refutation Rashputin has been shown, but would not look at.

Which includes arguments regarding the Septuagint, for as has been substantiated, the evidence is contrary to the LXX of the time of Christ containing the apocrypha, among other problems with the LXX argument.

And the Lord enjoined obedience to the scribes and Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) except where they deviated from Scripture, and never corrected them for rejecting the apocrypha, while Lk. 24:44 best indicates conformity to the tripartite 22 book (=39) canon, and impugns the argument for the Lord's sanction of the apocrypha.

And as also has been said, the logic behind rejecting the Scribes and Pharisees, who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) due to their rejection of the apocrypha as Scripture, also means we should reject all they held. And yet, as said, it is actually Rome that is most like the Pharisees, with the magisterium being supreme.

..the Pharisees introduced rites in the Temple which originated in popular custom and were without foundation in the Law. Such was the water-procession of the people, on the night of Sukkot, from the Pool of Siloam, ending with the libation of water in the morning and the final beating of the willow-trees upon the altar at the close of the feast. .. For the decision of their Scribes,... they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error (Sifre, Deut. 153-154); they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times (see Abrogation of Laws), and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death (Ber. 4a). ...They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows (Ḥag. i. 8; Tosef., i.). ..Nothing could have been more loathsome to the genuine Pharisee than Hypocrisy....It is such types of Pharisees that Jesus had in view when hurling his scathing words of condemnation against the Pharisees, whom he denounced as "hypocrites," calling them "offspring of vipers"...Exactly so are hypocrites censured in the Midrash..— http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees

It makes me wonder about the state of mind of someone who would choose the screenname of RASPUTIN...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin

"It makes me wonder about the state of mind of someone ..."

Says the dude whose chooses to be called ELSIE...

Yes, rather “eccentric” to be polite.

Except Mary; you heretic>>>>

Well i,ah, um, hm

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

Thank you for posting that. He most certainly has an intriguing message. I think he is spot on but I do think he misses the connection currently being developed between the Vatican and Islam.

It will be interesting to watch the developing connection between the Vatican and Islam.

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

“In Catholic thinking there’s Catholics, and the rest of the world, who are all wrong to varying degrees”

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

“In Catholic thinking there’s Catholics,
and the rest of the world,
who are all wrong to varying degrees”