Rev 1:1, 3:11 If they were shortly to come to pass then, how much sooner now.
Rev 1:7 The all the dead will be resurrected, so all eyes will see him.
Rev 6:17 This is a paraphrase of what some will say in the endtimes.
Ken*, if rebuilding the Temple refered to the actual structure, then why was Jesus talking about it, what was his point? If He intended to boast, why say three days? Why not 10mins?
*Editted: Sorry Gordy; it was plenty clear, I didn't recall it correctly as I typed.
Beliefs in God
Moderator: scott
re: Beliefs in God
Last edited by Jonathan on Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: Beliefs in God
hi jonathan,
my post was no as clear as i thought , the temple was jesus.....!
sorry for the poor choice of wording and phrases.....:-)
gordy
my post was no as clear as i thought , the temple was jesus.....!
sorry for the poor choice of wording and phrases.....:-)
gordy
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Beliefs in God
Jonathan asks:
But, that Temple was almost completely destroyed in 70 AD by the Roman army and it is still not been reconstructed...yet another failed "end time" prophecy.
ken
Perhaps Jesus imagined that, since his Second Coming would occur soon after his resurrection and Ascension, he would return with a army of angels that would actually be able to rebuild the Temple in only three days time. After all, angels apparently can fly or have some technical means to achieve flight, so they might also have the ability to levitate the stones of the Temple and put it all back together again. For them, the matter might be as easy as a child collecting scattered blocks from a floor and building a little structure from them. Perhaps since Jesus had been a carpenter and, perhaps, had even done construction work, he felt he could direct their reconstruction of the Temple. This would seem to rationalize why Jesus said he (Jesus) would rebuild the temple in three days.Ken, if rebuilding the Temple refered to the actual structure, then why was Jesus talking about it, what was his point?
But, that Temple was almost completely destroyed in 70 AD by the Roman army and it is still not been reconstructed...yet another failed "end time" prophecy.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Beliefs in God
Was there a time limit imposed by Jesus on the temples rebuilding? Or was it supposed to be done at his second coming?
The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Beliefs in God
SeaWasp...
I do not think Jesus intended to be able to rebuild the Temple during his mortal pre-resurrection life. That was something that he intended to be able to accomplish after he achieved full "glory" which would have been the enhanced powers he would possess after the Second Coming took place.
ken
I do not think Jesus intended to be able to rebuild the Temple during his mortal pre-resurrection life. That was something that he intended to be able to accomplish after he achieved full "glory" which would have been the enhanced powers he would possess after the Second Coming took place.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Beliefs in God
Steve, no, the prophecy of the Temple being rebuilt was fulfilled 2000y ago because Jesus was speaking of Himself metaphorically. He did prophecy that there would be a time when not one stone of the Temple would be left upon another, and that is what came true in 70AD.
Ken, you didn't answer my question of why, you answered a question of how. But I don't care if He summons an army of angels or reverses the rotation of the Earth; I asked you why would He talk about rebuilding a Temple even as it stood before Him?
Ken, you didn't answer my question of why, you answered a question of how. But I don't care if He summons an army of angels or reverses the rotation of the Earth; I asked you why would He talk about rebuilding a Temple even as it stood before Him?
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Beliefs in God
Jonathan...
I did another scan of the Gospels and did, indeed, find a passage in the Book of John where it specifically mentions that Jesus was referring to his body when he mentioned raising the "Temple" up!
Here it is:
Obviously then, Jesus's reference to the crowd outside of the Temple was intended to be a metaphor describing his future resurrection from the dead. So, he must have been aware, in advance, that he was scheduled to die and would be resurrected. However, even with such reassurance from his "higher power" contact that he would not remain dead more than 3 days, it would have required an ultimate act of courage / faith to carry through on his part of the plan.
Yes, it's an interesting tale and I do believe that most of it happened, more or less, as described in the Gospels.
However, I question what possible relevance it all can have for us 1900+ years later. There was no Second Coming, the real Temple was never rebuilt, and life goes on. All that would seem to have any lasting value to me was Jesus' moral and ethical teachings although I am sure that there are probably many today that would even challenge their validity in the modern world.
I had some interest in religion in my youth and studied the various precepts of many of the major religions on our planet. I found that there were hundreds of religions and dozens of holy books. Each had its miracles, its prophets, and many even predicted the imminent return of a savior figure that would, once and for all, eliminate evil from the world and turn it into the Paradise it was meant to be (North American Indian religions are particular interesting in this regard).
I think this is an ancient unfulfilled dream of humanity. To have a world devoid of suffering and want. But, it seems such an intractable problem that one automatically assumes that only a god-like being with magical powers could achieve it.
Well, most of the religions that have existed on Earth since early humans began migrating out of the African continent about 50,000 years ago are long gone and we are not even aware that they ever existed! Their prophesied saviors never showed up, their holy writings/books are dust, as are the remains of their adherents.
In trying to come to terms with the many different religious views on Earth at the present, I think the best approach is to try to look for the common moral themes that run through them all and then consider conforming one's life to those broad themes. Mainly, I try to determine what they say the ideal relationships between humans should be; that is, what kind of behavior will lead to a better world wherein each person can have as meaningful, though finite, a life as possible.
Christianity is an important religion, but it is still one that is not accepted by about 80% of the Earth's 6 billion inhabitants. Most adhere to whatever religion they grew up with if they are religious at all.
In the future, I see individual religions eventually (like maybe in hundreds of years from now) being replaced with a single, global religion that will be based more on morality and ethics and less on miracles and prophecies...
ken
I did another scan of the Gospels and did, indeed, find a passage in the Book of John where it specifically mentions that Jesus was referring to his body when he mentioned raising the "Temple" up!
Here it is:
John 2:19-21 (King James Version)
19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21But he spake of the temple of his body.
Obviously then, Jesus's reference to the crowd outside of the Temple was intended to be a metaphor describing his future resurrection from the dead. So, he must have been aware, in advance, that he was scheduled to die and would be resurrected. However, even with such reassurance from his "higher power" contact that he would not remain dead more than 3 days, it would have required an ultimate act of courage / faith to carry through on his part of the plan.
Yes, it's an interesting tale and I do believe that most of it happened, more or less, as described in the Gospels.
However, I question what possible relevance it all can have for us 1900+ years later. There was no Second Coming, the real Temple was never rebuilt, and life goes on. All that would seem to have any lasting value to me was Jesus' moral and ethical teachings although I am sure that there are probably many today that would even challenge their validity in the modern world.
I had some interest in religion in my youth and studied the various precepts of many of the major religions on our planet. I found that there were hundreds of religions and dozens of holy books. Each had its miracles, its prophets, and many even predicted the imminent return of a savior figure that would, once and for all, eliminate evil from the world and turn it into the Paradise it was meant to be (North American Indian religions are particular interesting in this regard).
I think this is an ancient unfulfilled dream of humanity. To have a world devoid of suffering and want. But, it seems such an intractable problem that one automatically assumes that only a god-like being with magical powers could achieve it.
Well, most of the religions that have existed on Earth since early humans began migrating out of the African continent about 50,000 years ago are long gone and we are not even aware that they ever existed! Their prophesied saviors never showed up, their holy writings/books are dust, as are the remains of their adherents.
In trying to come to terms with the many different religious views on Earth at the present, I think the best approach is to try to look for the common moral themes that run through them all and then consider conforming one's life to those broad themes. Mainly, I try to determine what they say the ideal relationships between humans should be; that is, what kind of behavior will lead to a better world wherein each person can have as meaningful, though finite, a life as possible.
Christianity is an important religion, but it is still one that is not accepted by about 80% of the Earth's 6 billion inhabitants. Most adhere to whatever religion they grew up with if they are religious at all.
In the future, I see individual religions eventually (like maybe in hundreds of years from now) being replaced with a single, global religion that will be based more on morality and ethics and less on miracles and prophecies...
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Beliefs in God
>However, even with such reassurance from his "higher power" contact [etc]<
Read those verses again: He says He will raise Himself up (and it was only His body which really died).
>However, I question what possible relevance it all can have for us 1900+ years later. There was no Second Coming, the real Temple was never rebuilt, and life goes on.<
There are different interpretations of the second coming. I currently tend to see it in a two-fold sense. Each time a person is converted to Christianity, Jesus has come to them. Then there is the official Second Coming, with resurrection of all the dead, etc. Now, instead of asking 'where is he?', you should be grateful for your blessing that He has waited 1900 years 'til now, plus some time more (most probably), for you to come to Him. I think it says something like that in the Bible, I don't remember where.
I don't know what you mean by the 'real Temple'.
As for relevance, how about salvation and eternal happiness?
>I found that there were hundreds of religions and dozens of holy books. [etc]<
Yes, but most of them are clearly nonsense. The Earth itself is not alive; it doesn't rest on Atlas' back, nor on an infinite tower of turtles (I kid you not). How many ancient religions specifically taught that a god hung the Earth upon nothing? Only one I can think of: Job 26:7. To the best of my knowledge, the stars were considered by many for some time to be countable; not what the Bible says: Jer 33:22. And the many denouncements of astrology and magic.
>not accepted by about 80% of the Earth's 6 billion inhabitants.<
If 80% (67% really) of all people jumped off a bridge... :)
Read those verses again: He says He will raise Himself up (and it was only His body which really died).
>However, I question what possible relevance it all can have for us 1900+ years later. There was no Second Coming, the real Temple was never rebuilt, and life goes on.<
There are different interpretations of the second coming. I currently tend to see it in a two-fold sense. Each time a person is converted to Christianity, Jesus has come to them. Then there is the official Second Coming, with resurrection of all the dead, etc. Now, instead of asking 'where is he?', you should be grateful for your blessing that He has waited 1900 years 'til now, plus some time more (most probably), for you to come to Him. I think it says something like that in the Bible, I don't remember where.
I don't know what you mean by the 'real Temple'.
As for relevance, how about salvation and eternal happiness?
>I found that there were hundreds of religions and dozens of holy books. [etc]<
Yes, but most of them are clearly nonsense. The Earth itself is not alive; it doesn't rest on Atlas' back, nor on an infinite tower of turtles (I kid you not). How many ancient religions specifically taught that a god hung the Earth upon nothing? Only one I can think of: Job 26:7. To the best of my knowledge, the stars were considered by many for some time to be countable; not what the Bible says: Jer 33:22. And the many denouncements of astrology and magic.
>not accepted by about 80% of the Earth's 6 billion inhabitants.<
If 80% (67% really) of all people jumped off a bridge... :)
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: Beliefs in God
Hello Jonathan
I wonder if you may wish to say what you do believe in.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think from your posts you disagree with most religious ideas, and if I remember rightly, you do not think Bessler did indeed make a working wheel. Do you think we can make a wheel that will do what Bessler did?
Respectfully
I wonder if you may wish to say what you do believe in.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think from your posts you disagree with most religious ideas, and if I remember rightly, you do not think Bessler did indeed make a working wheel. Do you think we can make a wheel that will do what Bessler did?
Respectfully
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Beliefs in God
Jonathan...
You brought up some interesting points:
There were, however, some Jews in Jesus' time that believed in reincarnation which would tend to imply that a spirit from a previously deceased person had somehow survived their death and "transmigrated" to another person during their gestation. But, I can not find anything in the Gospels where Jesus says a person's soul would be reunited with their body during the resurrection. Rather, I suspect that the word "soul" in the New Testament should have been more properly translated as "life" or "consciousness". If people really did have animating souls or spirits in them, then why the need for a resurrection to life on Earth? Why not just have everybody's soul ascend to some eternal heaven? Why the need for a return to Earth? I notice that even in Roman Catholocism, although the focus is on a person's soul (if they were good, of course) ascending to heaven after death, the Apostle's Creed still says that Catholics expect a return to life on Earth.
I do accept Jesus' moral teaching and I accept the reality of such things as his miracles. What I do not accept, based on my study of scriptures, is that there is some sort of Second Coming that is going to happen now or in the future. I believe that if it was going to happen, then it would have happened in the 1st century AD.
Wheeler wrote (with respect to Jonathan):
ken
You brought up some interesting points:
The Bible can get really muddled when it comes to the matter of people containing animating spirits in themselves. Actually, I can not find the words "immortal soul" anywhere in the Bible and my personal belief is that humans do not have an animating soul in them. When a person dies, it only appears that something, an animated "spirit" leaves the body. All that happens is that one's cells become oxygen starved from a catastrophic circulatory failure and unable to maintain the functions of the nervous system, muscles, etc.Read those verses again: He says He will raise Himself up (and it was only His body which really died).
There were, however, some Jews in Jesus' time that believed in reincarnation which would tend to imply that a spirit from a previously deceased person had somehow survived their death and "transmigrated" to another person during their gestation. But, I can not find anything in the Gospels where Jesus says a person's soul would be reunited with their body during the resurrection. Rather, I suspect that the word "soul" in the New Testament should have been more properly translated as "life" or "consciousness". If people really did have animating souls or spirits in them, then why the need for a resurrection to life on Earth? Why not just have everybody's soul ascend to some eternal heaven? Why the need for a return to Earth? I notice that even in Roman Catholocism, although the focus is on a person's soul (if they were good, of course) ascending to heaven after death, the Apostle's Creed still says that Catholics expect a return to life on Earth.
You mean the Second Coming is being delayed until I repent and accept Jesus?! Wow, then I had better hurry up!Now, instead of asking 'where is he?', you should be grateful for your blessing that He has waited 1900 years 'til now, plus some time more (most probably), for you to come to Him.
I do accept Jesus' moral teaching and I accept the reality of such things as his miracles. What I do not accept, based on my study of scriptures, is that there is some sort of Second Coming that is going to happen now or in the future. I believe that if it was going to happen, then it would have happened in the 1st century AD.
Many atheists (and I am not suggesting you are one) consider the concepts of sin, redemption, angels, demons, heaven, etc. of Christianity to be nonsense, too. The people that have followed those other religions, both known and unknown, were just as sincere as many who follow the "organized" religions of today. I suspect that if a person tries the best they can to lead a moral life, then God will take care of them if there's an afterlife whether or not they were a Christian or even worshipped some statue in a jungle cave somewhere. If God is truly merciful and forgiving, then it would seem to me that his focus is more on a person's intentions and less on his particular belief system.(with reference to the hundreds of other religions and dozens of holy books) Yes, but most of them are clearly nonsense.
Wheeler wrote (with respect to Jonathan):
Well, I've been here since March and I do not ever remember reading that Jonathan (or anybody else for that matter) did not believe in the reality of Bessler's wheels. I've always assumed that every member of this board did believe that Bessler did it, otherwise they wouldn't be here....and if I remember rightly, you do not think Bessler did indeed make a working wheel.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Beliefs in God
Hello
Ken wrote
I must be mistaken on this, but I somehow thought Jonathan leaned towards the math of it not making sense.
Thank you
Ken wrote
Well, I've been here since March and I do not ever remember reading that Jonathan (or anybody else for that matter) did not believe in the reality of Bessler's wheels. I've always assumed that every member of this board did believe that Bessler did it, otherwise they wouldn't be here.
I must be mistaken on this, but I somehow thought Jonathan leaned towards the math of it not making sense.
Thank you
Last edited by Wheeler on Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
re: Beliefs in God
Wheeler,
My thoughts and image of Jonathan is that he is a very smart young man with intellect and a scientific mind. I am better than three times his age and wish I had 1/5 of his knowledge and math skills.
When it comes to religion or a Bessler wheel, he keeps his mind open to discussion and all possibilitys. I have never found him to not see the forest for the trees. Even though his knowledge of known physics say that a gravity wheel is impossible he also remembers such historic statements of other things once said to be impossible.
As for his comments about believing in Bessler, he has stated that he has never posted a concept, as he has not found one that will live up to his mathematical equations regarding gravity as a conservative force. That does not say he is not looking. He is very helpful in the pursuit of Bessler research, even though his learned teaching have said No!
There are a number of publications by various authors who have wrote about "why a gravity wheel is impossible" and and have shot down all designs since the beginning of history keeping. I have yet to find any authors or publishers that is willing to take on Johann Bessler. Reason being is that they cannot substantiate proof that his did not work.
To hold a firm believe in any thing not substantiated represents a closed mind, leaving one with no receptiveness, that does not sound like Jonathan to me.
And that my friend is how see and respect Jonathan.
Ralph
My thoughts and image of Jonathan is that he is a very smart young man with intellect and a scientific mind. I am better than three times his age and wish I had 1/5 of his knowledge and math skills.
When it comes to religion or a Bessler wheel, he keeps his mind open to discussion and all possibilitys. I have never found him to not see the forest for the trees. Even though his knowledge of known physics say that a gravity wheel is impossible he also remembers such historic statements of other things once said to be impossible.
As for his comments about believing in Bessler, he has stated that he has never posted a concept, as he has not found one that will live up to his mathematical equations regarding gravity as a conservative force. That does not say he is not looking. He is very helpful in the pursuit of Bessler research, even though his learned teaching have said No!
There are a number of publications by various authors who have wrote about "why a gravity wheel is impossible" and and have shot down all designs since the beginning of history keeping. I have yet to find any authors or publishers that is willing to take on Johann Bessler. Reason being is that they cannot substantiate proof that his did not work.
To hold a firm believe in any thing not substantiated represents a closed mind, leaving one with no receptiveness, that does not sound like Jonathan to me.
And that my friend is how see and respect Jonathan.
Ralph
re: Beliefs in God
Ralph
Thanks and I agree and you helped me understand that he has not posted a design, because he has been able to calculate it to the point of why post first.
I do remember many posts of different ideas to consider from him.
My last pm to him was to thank him for his input for everyone.
Do you think he looks like his aviator?
Will this mean we can become blood brothers now?
Later
Thanks and I agree and you helped me understand that he has not posted a design, because he has been able to calculate it to the point of why post first.
I do remember many posts of different ideas to consider from him.
My last pm to him was to thank him for his input for everyone.
Do you think he looks like his aviator?
And that my friend
Will this mean we can become blood brothers now?
Later
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
re: Beliefs in God
Wheeler:
I'm a nondenominational Christian. The Witnesses are wrong because they don't believe in the Deity of Christ. The Mormons are wrong for almost every possible reason (Joseph Smith: a, b, c, d; to be read in that order). The Catholics are wrong because they have many meaningless traditions, and tend to worship Mary. Protestants are wrong because they allow divorce, and there are other reasons specific to each subdenomination. The secular Christians are wrong because they are oxymorons.
Some verion of Bill's thermodynamic theory of Bessler's wheels seems most likely to me.
Ken:
Soul is here: Gen 2:7. It is translated from the Hebrew נפש. You can't find 'immortal soul' because souls aren't intrinsically immortal.
>Many atheists [...] consider [...] Christianity to be nonsense, too.<
They are objectively, demonstrably mistaken; they-are/I-was without excuse for the lack of wisdom.
>then it would seem to me that his focus is more on a person's intentions and less on his particular belief system.<
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even Hitler had good intentions, he truely believed he was making the world a better place.
I'm a nondenominational Christian. The Witnesses are wrong because they don't believe in the Deity of Christ. The Mormons are wrong for almost every possible reason (Joseph Smith: a, b, c, d; to be read in that order). The Catholics are wrong because they have many meaningless traditions, and tend to worship Mary. Protestants are wrong because they allow divorce, and there are other reasons specific to each subdenomination. The secular Christians are wrong because they are oxymorons.
Some verion of Bill's thermodynamic theory of Bessler's wheels seems most likely to me.
Ken:
Soul is here: Gen 2:7. It is translated from the Hebrew נפש. You can't find 'immortal soul' because souls aren't intrinsically immortal.
>Many atheists [...] consider [...] Christianity to be nonsense, too.<
They are objectively, demonstrably mistaken; they-are/I-was without excuse for the lack of wisdom.
>then it would seem to me that his focus is more on a person's intentions and less on his particular belief system.<
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even Hitler had good intentions, he truely believed he was making the world a better place.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: Beliefs in God
Thanks Jonathan
I am simply a believer.
The Joseph Smith link was very informative.
I will look at Bills design.
BTW how do you link to a word or letter?
I am simply a believer.
The Joseph Smith link was very informative.
I will look at Bills design.
BTW how do you link to a word or letter?
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.