I'd like to have a calm, rational conversation about End Times...anyone?

[bbyrd009]

And I note that you have commented on everything except the verses I posted. Yep...I found the time. Knock yourself out.

ok, we're talking the vv on this other thread you mentioned here right

the 9/23/17 Rev 12:5 X #162, #178, #179, #199 and #209.

i'll go look, but i'm fam with the tone of the vv you mean anyway i guess, and my reply is most likely going to be that imo i read those and ponder how they might apply to the Revelation of Christ, whereas you read them after first having been led to a determination of what must literally happen in your future. Not can, might, or should, but must.

and i can't deny that they might happen, either, we might very well die and go into some humongous hall, a Valhall perhaps, with all of the other billions, waiting for that singular day in the future when the Ancient Passive-Aggressive decides who will attend the 1000 year party and who will be the bbq, based entirely upon what they believe (or not ok; just an example), and i could even read it along with you, yes.

and it holds together as long as we don't consider other Scripture, too; so, i am willing to admit that those might literally come true ok, yes. But i am also now willing to entertain that the blind are being led there, based upon other Scripture. And not just one or a couple other refs, but a preponderance of evidence; "if someone tells you 'look, here He is over here' (in the future even) don't even bother going to look."

 

[Naomi25]

ah, i thot you accepted Jesus as God too

Um...Trinity. One God, Three persons. Not three separate Gods.

ah sry, that is the standard by which we are to judge?
of course we are talking future (in your perception anyway) so the fruit itself cannot be judged there, but the expectation of it can; obviously "we hope to all get ground up for dog food" would not be considered very good fruit,
whereas "we know that we are all going to be in heaven with Jesus after we die" might be considered good, etc.
and i've even heard the last referred to as "beam me up" lol, sry if i mistook you there.

so, completing the sentence "i expect that God is going to do _______" (for me) becomes a kind of witness

I still have very little idea what on earth your point is here. What I expect God is going to do for me...? Well...my whole point has been what they bible says God is going to do. What God says he is going to do. That we can know it to be true, because that is what he has told us. In his word.
What that has to do with fruit, I'm still not sure. Witness...well, sure. That's the point, isn't it? God tells us through his word, we tell others?

ok, we're talking the vv on this other thread you mentioned here right

No, actually I posted more that were pertinent to this conversation as you asked me to. Actually, more like goaded me to. Post #303.
My references to the other, older posts was because you basically called me on not posting anything, when I had.

i'll go look, but i'm fam with the tone of the vv you mean anyway i guess, and my reply is most likely going to be that imo i read those and ponder how they might apply to the Revelation of Christ, whereas you read them after first having been led to a determination of what must literally happen in your future. Not can, might, or should, but must.

Wait...so you get to taunt me for not 'bam post a v' to back my ideas, but when I do, you wave your hand and say you're going to basically disregard them all anyway...you just happen to know ahead of time all the ones I'll post and you know...you've been there and done that and can already tell me I'm wrong.
Let me tell you something. You are a hypocrite. You say that I've "already been led to a determination of what must literally happen in your future" in regards to these verses and how I read them. Well...right back at you.

and i can't deny that they might happen, either, we might very well die and go into some humongous hall, a Valhall perhaps, with all of the other billions, waiting for that singular day in the future when the Ancient Passive-Aggressive decides who will attend the 1000 year party and who will be the bbq, based entirely upon what they believe (or not ok; just an example), and i could even read it along with you, yes.

and it holds together as long as we don't consider other Scripture, too; so, i am willing to admit that those might literally come true ok, yes. But i am also now willing to entertain that the blind are being led there, based upon other Scripture. And not just one or a couple other refs, but a preponderance of evidence; "if someone tells you 'look, here He is over here' (in the future even) don't even bother going to look."

And once again you side-step the real issue, deny confronting it straight on, make vague noises about "you could be right"..."I can't be sure" to hedge your bets.
Absolute Truth, 009? A Christian knows the bible to be true. That's why I can know that when I die, I won't be going to Vallhalla. The bible is supremely clear about it. And if you won't take the time to address it head on, I'm just going to take that as a win.
Thanks.

 

[bbyrd009]

Um...Trinity. One God, Three persons. Not three separate Gods.

yes, i'm fam with the doctrine, that makes God into persons and removes my glory,
22I have given them the glory You have given Me. May they be one as We are one.
and hopefully you see that Trinity is not an AT either, see; it is just an attempt to define God.
iow not a bad thing, necessarily

but now i'd like to ask you, on "belief in God," Muslims believe in God; does their belief count, in your opinion?

 

[bbyrd009]

I still have very little idea what on earth your point is here.

that doesn't preclude you from answering the Q though huh

What I expect God is going to do for me...?

yes

Well...my whole point has been what they bible says God is going to do.

so, that doesn't preclude you from answering either, but something is precluding you, yes?
Bc now i'm getting a justification instead of an answer, see

 

[bbyrd009]

What God says he is going to do.
That we can know it to be true,
because that is what he has told us.
In his word.

justification
justification
justification
justification

when there are no wrong answers, see, you don't have to justify what you believe to me.

i'm not sure how to point out that we are now really talking about conviction,
or that you have just made a statement about your conviction...
um, that you are not hearing yet i guess

which i don't wanna sound like judging, i dunno if i've ever been convicted in my life lol
spent half my life in prison though

 

[bbyrd009]

What that has to do with fruit, I'm still not sure.

what that has to do with why you have not just answered at this point, i am sure.
And i totally understand, ok, this is no different from what i do, sometimes

Witness...well, sure. That's the point, isn't it? God tells us through his word, we tell others?

well i guess that is one shade, imo the dimmest one, telling ppl stuff, that is a witness of a sort, ya. Should go without saying that in this telling you envision--what i guess is surely considered witnessing by you now--a telling of the fruit will come with it, right? Or to put that another way, you "witness" what God is doing, has done, will do for you. Yes?

imo be convicted Naomi, ok.
(been editing in here so if the next para is non-sequitur that's why)

i always thought these "witnesses" would all be agreeing with each other, and i guess we apply that to finding justification for a doctrine in more than one verse, right, but something i just recently realized is that even opposing witnesses are still witnesses, and in fact more truth is realized from hearing them than listening to 100 of the deceived who might be agreeing, sometimes anyway. Even if they are lying, as weird as that sounds; a lie can point to the truth too.

just an interesting thing i recently noted, how it can work both ways. For instance now if someone were to ask me for any truth in this matter we are currently discussing, i would be more inclined to point out that you are a witness here also, whether i agreed with you or not, whether you are deceived or not, or even lying or not. Iow we don't have to agree for the truth to come out between us; and even if we are both wrong, the truth still comes out!

perceived differently by everyone--except those in agreement--don't get me wrong, but still an interesting thing imo.
really just an extension of "we only fool ourselves" i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

Post #303

ok found it, my bad, you mean this book you wrote back at 303, ok,

Again, self explanatory.

as is "you will see Him come down the same way you saw Him go up" i guess, ya. hopefully my reply then, and this one,

i'll go look, but i'm fam with the tone of the vv you mean anyway i guess, and my reply is most likely going to be that imo i read those and ponder how they might apply to the Revelation of Christ, whereas you read them after first having been led to a determination of what must literally happen in your future. Not can, might, or should, but must.

which i'll stick by for now--until it gets addressed at least--will work?

Wait...so you get to taunt me

who is taunting you? i read those and ponder how they apply to the Revelation of Christ in a man's future--even one that is now asleep iow, dead--and you read them and have formed a conclusion about what must happen to all men at a certain specific but unknown date in the future, isn't that correct?

i apologize if this is read as taunting? i just mean to make a position statement, i mean i do not even say who might be more "right" or anything there, there are valid arguments for both positions, etc

 

[bbyrd009]

You say that I've "already been led to a determination of what must literally happen in your future" in regards to these verses and how I read them.

well, either you have or you have not, certainly, and this is why i'm asking for a witness of the fruit, to verify this.
But you don't have to answer me, ok?
and obviously you do not have to be convicted either

 

[bbyrd009]

That's why I can know that when I die, I won't be going to Vallhalla.

call it whatever you like, Naomi
changing the name doesn't change the intent i guess

The bible is supremely clear about it.

no kidding;
no one knows where they go when they die
all go to the same place
no one has ever gone up to heaven except He Who came down from it, the Son of Man
you and your sons will be here with me
why do you stand there looking up into the sky
the kingdom does not come by observation

And if you won't take the time to address it head on, I'm just going to take that as a win.
Thanks.

ok, have a good one, imo we got a lot closer to truth here, i hope you grow from this as well

 

[Naomi25]

yes, i'm fam with the doctrine, that makes God into persons and removes my glory,
22I have given them the glory You have given Me. May they be one as We are one.
and hopefully you see that Trinity is not an AT either, see; it is just an attempt to define God.
iow not a bad thing, necessarily

but now i'd like to ask you, on "belief in God," Muslims believe in God; does their belief count, in your opinion?

So...let me sum up. You don't believe in the authority of scripture as true and absolute: the word of God. You don't believe in the Trinity. You don't believe in God, unless you can "define him first". You think that a conviction on our behalf means that we cannot know of God's existence in truth (like that's going to effect the outcome). You don't believe in life after death, or Christ's return.

What are you doing on a Christian site?

Muslims believe in a false god. Their belief is real, but what it is in, is not. I could believe with all my might that I'll win lotto tomorrow...doesn't make it true. That's why only belief, or only conviction, doesn't matter. It has to be in something that it true. That is why God revealing himself to us in his word is so important. We know it...Him, to be true. Truth is not subjective. Truth is always absolute. God exists as he is. He has revealed himself to us in his word, and in nature.

that doesn't preclude you from answering the Q though huh

It does if I have no idea what you're talking about. One must understand before one can comment.

so, that doesn't preclude you from answering either, but something is precluding you, yes?
Bc now i'm getting a justification instead of an answer, see

Look...this whole conversation has been about absolute truth, yeah? And if we can know God exists? And if the Bible holds AT. You asked me "what do you expect God was going to do for me?" And I answered in general, because I found your question, and notion, vague. I said that, given the nature of our conversation, I found that God has given us truth via his word.
If you want specifics, I can tell you that God has given me his Son, in my place, for my sins, so I won't have to pay for them. And you know how I know that? The bible. Which tells me this truth.
I don't see this as "justification" instead of an answer. Perhaps it is not the answer you want. If that's the case, try phrasing your question in a way that might be understood a little easier.

justification
justification
justification
justification

when there are no wrong answers, see, you don't have to justify what you believe to me.

i'm not sure how to point out that we are now really talking about conviction,
or that you have just made a statement about your conviction...
um, that you are not hearing yet i guess

which i don't wanna sound like judging, i dunno if i've ever been convicted in my life lol
spent half my life in prison though

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. -Rom 1:18-23

There is no excuse. Truth is truth: God exists. My convictions non-withstanding. And one day God will tell you the same thing.

 

[Naomi25]

what that has to do with why you have not just answered at this point, i am sure.
And i totally understand, ok, this is no different from what i do, sometimes

Answering what? To the best of my knowledge, you challenged me to back up my thoughts with scripture. I did. Now you continually harp at me to answer your questions. Questions that I either don't understand, or I have already addressed. I'm sorry if my answers don't fit your expectations. How about you actually front up with your answers now. You did ask for the verses. And I did provide them. I even gave where they're from...you know...to make it easy to check them out...contextually.

well i guess that is one shade, imo the dimmest one, telling ppl stuff, that is a witness of a sort, ya. Should go without saying that in this telling you envision--what i guess is surely considered witnessing by you now--a telling of the fruit will come with it, right? Or to put that another way, you "witness" what God is doing, has done, will do for you. Yes?

imo be convicted Naomi, ok.
(been editing in here so if the next para is non-sequitur that's why)

i always thought these "witnesses" would all be agreeing with each other, and i guess we apply that to finding justification for a doctrine in more than one verse, right, but something i just recently realized is that even opposing witnesses are still witnesses, and in fact more truth is realized from hearing them than listening to 100 of the deceived who might be agreeing, sometimes anyway. Even if they are lying, as weird as that sounds; a lie can point to the truth too.

just an interesting thing i recently noted, how it can work both ways. For instance now if someone were to ask me for any truth in this matter we are currently discussing, i would be more inclined to point out that you are a witness here also, whether i agreed with you or not, whether you are deceived or not, or even lying or not. Iow we don't have to agree for the truth to come out between us; and even if we are both wrong, the truth still comes out!

perceived differently by everyone--except those in agreement--don't get me wrong, but still an interesting thing imo.
really just an extension of "we only fool ourselves" i guess

Yes, I agree witnessing can be more than just speaking, it is also living. And while I agree God can, and does, use 'bad' or 'incorrect' things to his glory as well, I think we should still strive for the truth. Because...it is true. God is truth, and when we defend truth, we are defending his character. When we defend scripture, we are defending his word. They are not disconnected.

as is "you will see Him come down the same way you saw Him go up" i guess, ya. hopefully my reply then, and this one,
bbyrd009 said: ↑
i'll go look, but i'm fam with the tone of the vv you mean anyway i guess, and my reply is most likely going to be that imo i read those and ponder how they might apply to the Revelation of Christ, whereas you read them after first having been led to a determination of what must literally happen in your future. Not can, might, or should, but must.
which i'll stick by for now--until it gets addressed at least--will work?

That's it? You look at all those verses and just "ponder how they might apply to the Revelation of Christ"? Man, if you don't read all those and admit that there is something waiting for us..that Christ is returning at some point, then no wonder you don't believe in scripture as truth. Self imposed ignorance. Or perhaps "refused to love the truth so God gave a strong delusion that they may believe what is false."

who is taunting you? i read those and ponder how they apply to the Revelation of Christ in a man's future--even one that is now asleep iow, dead--and you read them and have formed a conclusion about what must happen to all men at a certain specific but unknown date in the future, isn't that correct?

i apologize if this is read as taunting? i just mean to make a position statement, i mean i do not even say who might be more "right" or anything there, there are valid arguments for both positions, etc

Okay. Sure. Perhaps I do read them a certain way. Most Christians do. But the real question is why? And what would make someone read them...all of them, in such a way to be taken...twisted, into a parody of reality? Because that's what you have to do. You have to twist, rationalize, play games with the text, to come to the conclusion that the great bulk of verses that talk of these things, are only about how we as Christians can 'experience' Christ more in the coming years.
When you read the text as the text asks to be read...I'm talking about correct genre, correct hermeneutics in place, exegesis lined up with everything else...then the conclusions are obvious. And that's why orthodox Christianity expects Jesus to bodily return, and for our dead to go to heaven.

well, either you have or you have not, certainly, and this is why i'm asking for a witness of the fruit, to verify this.
But you don't have to answer me, ok?
and obviously you do not have to be convicted either

You want a witness of my fruit, to prove how I read certain bits of scripture? Sure. That makes sense. Why didn't I just jump on that?
You do know what the bible says about fruit, right? Faith, love, patience...etc. How, for the love of all that's holy, would any of those help our conversation? Even if I did decide I should get on my throne and start throwing out my own fruit...which I don't feel comfortable doing. If people see fruit in me, well and good, I'd hope they do. But going around labeling my own fruit, tooting my own horn? Well...no. Especially since it has nothing to do with anything here.
If you want an answer...ask a question that makes sense.

 

[Naomi25]

call it whatever you like, Naomi
changing the name doesn't change the intent i guess

"changing the name doesn't change the intent"? What intent? The intent that you make no sense and have no idea of what you're speaking about? Okay, sure, I'll give you that.
Or, are you saying you think there's no real difference between Vallhalla (the Viking's beliefs) and heaven (Christians beliefs). Are you therefore saying that truth is subjective, that people can know what is true for them? Many ways to one place? I hope not, cause that doesn't meet your definition of AT, does it.
My point is, the bible tells us that when we die, we will be with Jesus. That is not Vallhalla. I don't particularly care if you call it heaven, although Paul did, so I'd say we go with that. If you want to argue with that, go for it...you'll just be wrong. You know wrong...its the opposite of right. Just like lies are the opposite of truth. The bible tells us truth, not lies. And if you think that what it claims to tell us it just "maybe", or just suggestions, then you are essentially saying it lies. It cannot make claims to be true, that are also 'maybes'. It's like Jesus' claim to be God, and then people saying he was a "good teacher." No....he was claiming to be God...that makes him either God, or a liar. But certainly not a 'good man'.

no kidding;
no one knows where they go when they die
all go to the same place
no one has ever gone up to heaven except He Who came down from it, the Son of Man
you and your sons will be here with me
why do you stand there looking up into the sky
the kingdom does not come by observation

ok, have a good one, imo we got a lot closer to truth here, i hope you grow from this as well

It's proper etiquette to post where your verses are from, that way people can verify them.
The first one, I can't find where it's from....you could have made it up, for all I know.
Ecc 3:20 - All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.
This one is clearly talking about death...not what happens after death. It's talking about the inevitability of death that comes to all living things. we can't avoid it. The bible is always clear about this. But death is not the end for the Christian. It's also clear about that. You are cherry picking verses.
John 3:13 - No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
This is Jesus speaking of his right as Son of God, to ascend into heaven and return to speak of such things. But as heaven was his rightful home, he had first descended from it. This doesn't talk about people, or what happens to them after death. Not at all.
1 Sam 28:19 - Moreover, the Lord will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The Lord will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.”
This, again, speaks of Saul's approaching death, and the inevitability of it. 'With me' implies, 'in the grave', but doesn't say what happens to souls who are in the grave. You are implying that these verses are the be all, end all in the bibles teachings on what happens once we die. They are not.

Acts 1:11 - and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”
This seems pretty clear to me. Jesus is going to come back one day, descending from heaven, unto earth.
Luke 17:20 - Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed,
No one has suggested heaven can be observed. And while this Age continues, the Kingdom of God is within us, this is true. But, as the previous Acts verse tells us, a day will come when Jesus will return, a New Age will begin and the Kingdom will come. There are simply too many verses telling us that The Day of The Lord will come, and that all things old will pass away, including this earth; sin and death with it. Nothing you can say can weigh against the number of those passages, or the clearness of their message.

 

[bbyrd009]

So...let me sum up.

never a good idea, imo, but ok

You don't believe in the authority of scripture as true and absolute: the word of God

oh i dunno, i can confidently tell you that you will see Him come down the same way you saw Him go up, and the kingdom you envision in the future will not ever come, by observation. These are both Scripture but you don't seem to believe them, right. And i am convicted that God's Word works just like your word, and requires breath. If someone gave me their word, and then i went and told you their word, did they then give you their word?

we would say "no," for the simple reason that the Bible is not Word either, but "God~Breathed;" there are intermediaries in the woodpile, see, scribes. Plus you must then mislabel God's Word when you hear it, by definition right. If the Bible is God's Word, then anything you actually hear from God must be something else. This is also why you cannot Quote "the Bible is the Word of God."

So see how you put me in the position of "not believing that the Book is the authority," and at the same time you cannot demonstrate your position from the Book. I mean you may as well have said "Holy Bible," right, which you also cannot Quote. Except in English.

Another example would become evident if you were to (attempt to) Quote "the authority of Scripture" from the Book; go ahead, give it your best shot. What is going on here is that we have a different definition of "Bible" too, i guess, prolly everyone does. Fwiw you'll never hear me say "the Bible is wrong" unless It's a scribed one, if that helps?

You don't believe in the Trinity

check. Great concept in theory, in practice used as a political tool to exclude others
imo

You don't believe in God, unless you can "define him first"

i never said that, and we have been over this to death already Naomi, what gives? i said my belief does not qualify as an AT.

You think that a conviction on our behalf means that we cannot know of God's existence in truth

not sure why you even say this, imo a conviction is the only way that you can know, if you have no proof. But tbh we have not defined conviction yet and i suspect that we are talking at cross-purposes here too at the moment. Conviction, all three in agreement, is easy to detect once you know where to look, as is lack of conviction, that thing that is so ubiquitous that we make jokes deemed "at others' expense" revolving around it, etc,

or do stuff kind of like i'm doing to you here--and believe me, you could do to me in a diff situation--to test/reveal your conviction

You don't believe in life after death, or Christ's return.

i believe that we do not yet know what we will become, and that Christ is Revealed, so if your "life after death" is an anticipation of a belief/working vision that you share with many other people about the future, after you have all literally died, to the point where you might even say "here it is, over here," and you read "return" literally too, then you are correct, i happen to not believe those things any longer.

What are you doing on a Christian site?

ha well i'm doing God's will, just like you are Naomi

 

[bbyrd009]

It does if I have no idea what you're talking about. One must understand before one can comment.

not asking for a comment there Naomi, just an honest answer. it is not a trick Q ok; it is just a revealing one.
i mean rly you don't even have to answer now i guess lol, the point has already been made right

And I answered in general, because I found your question, and notion, vague.

ok
but you might notice that you had no prob answering it, after you had re-established your terms, and negated the other ones that the Scriptures i posted suggested

I don't see this as "justification" instead of an answer.

if you go back and look you will see that you just immediately began justifying the answer that you never would give as a personal statement, but only as Quotes. Which don't get me wrong those are great, as long as you are convicted by them, but then you might ask yourself why not just make a confident personal statement something to the effect of "i expect to be in heaven with Jesus after i die" if that is what you believe? i've said it like 3 times now, you can't say it once?

I said that, given the nature of our conversation, I found that God has given us truth via his word.

and i have discovered that given the nature of our convo, you are the one who gets to define all of the terms, using this as a justification. What you are really doing here is insisting that your interpretations are the only correct ones, see, bc after all you read them in the Bible, right.

so, just to be clear, i don't know what i'm talking about anyway, and for all i know you are correct

 

[bbyrd009]

That's why only belief, or only conviction, doesn't matter.

so you say, but Scripture says different. Lotta diff in the two fwiw. I'd be catching up on what Scripture has to say about conviction though ok

If you want specifics, I can tell you that God has given me his Son, in my place, for my sins, so I won't have to pay for them. And you know how I know that? The bible. Which tells me this truth.

"No Son of Man may die for another's sins; the soul that sins shall die."
"Therefore be ye perfect, as I am perfect"
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
i tell you that you will not be released until you have paid the last penny
count the cost

wadr we have already determined that AT to you is whatever you believe, right

 

[bbyrd009]

But going around labeling my own fruit, tooting my own horn? Well...no.

didn't ask for that, and i guess you already know i didn't, which is why all the explanation/justification above right? "i answered generally bc this, i quoted Scripture bc that?" ("i did everything but answer the Q bc ____") which i guess sounds combative or something, pls understand the intent here; to illustrate the other pov, not to say you are wrong

Well...no. Especially since it has nothing to do with anything here.

seems to me that your expectations about tomorrow--the fruit you expect to harvest--have everything to do with the subject at hand Naomi

 

[bbyrd009]

When you read the text as the text asks to be read...I'm talking about correct genre, correct hermeneutics in place, exegesis lined up with everything else...then the conclusions are obvious. And that's why orthodox Christianity expects Jesus to bodily return, and for our dead to go to heaven.

many will be deceived, i guess
the path is narrow, and few there are who find it
"I see a god coming up out of the earth"

and these all search pretty good for me, sry if i forget to list the ref sometimes

 

[bbyrd009]

That's it? You look at all those verses and just "ponder how they might apply to the Revelation of Christ"? Man, if you don't read all those and admit that there is something waiting for us..that Christ is returning at some point, then no wonder you don't believe in scripture as truth. Self imposed ignorance. Or perhaps "refused to love the truth so God gave a strong delusion that they may believe what is false."

ya ya, maybe that's it

I will never leave you nor forsake you

but srsly that is a distinct possibility, and i would def go about establishing the truth however you see fit ok.

I am deceived too, and i do not know ok

 

[bbyrd009]

Man, if you don't read all those and admit that there is something waiting for us

"look, here it is, over here!"
i never said that tomorrow was not coming, Naomi; just that i no longer hold preconceived beliefs that i am not convicted of; i do not yet know what i will become

that Christ is returning at some point

why do you stand there looking up into the sky though?
You will see Him come down the same way you saw Him go up, Naomi, ezackly like the Book says, see.

only i guess that interp does not work for you, huh? You have a different interpretation there, right.

 

[bbyrd009]

John 3:13 - No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
This is Jesus speaking of his right as Son of God, to ascend into heaven and return to speak of such things. But as heaven was his rightful home, he had first descended from it. This doesn't talk about people, or what happens to them after death. Not at all.

ok

"changing the name doesn't change the intent"? What intent? The intent that you make no sense and have no idea of what you're speaking about? Okay, sure, I'll give you that.

ha "zing" lol, good one

If you want an answer...ask a question that makes sense.

i'll just let you determine what those are then

have a nice weekend