XPost: alt.bible, alt.religion, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy   
   XPost: alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic   
   From: seaviews7@yahoo.com   
      
   On 5/31/2023 5:55 PM, No one scribbled:   
   > On May 31, 2023, servant wrote   
   > (in article<64776fec$0$2245$1c4686b2@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>):   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Friend james mindlessly parrots a jw vatican claim to cover failed   
   >> predictions. These failures were dates for His physicall return.   
   >>   
   >> However they were drivento flip flop on the predictions, twice.   
   >>   
   >> They said around 1895 and once again in 1914 Christ had returned but   
   >> invisible. The first claim was abandoned and more "physical" predictions   
   >> followed, including 1914. Once again the "invisble" claim was   
   >> "resurrected", so to speak to once again cover failed predictions.   
   >>   
   >> Here are two scripture bits friend james has offfered, not his but   
   >> parroting the jw vatican excuses:   
   >>   
   >>>> Acts 1:9 And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was   
   >>>> lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.   
   >>   
   >> also:   
   >>   
   >>> 1 Corinthians 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a   
   >>> living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.   
   >>   
   >> Here is the excuse taken, nay poured into the above bits:   
   >>   
   >> When entering the cloud, He became invisible. Well duh, had He just turned   
   >> a corner He would also now be "invisible" to observers, no? There is no   
   >> reason to claim an "invisible" return.   
   >>   
   >> Described as a "spirit" He had to be "invisible", no?   
   >   
   > No. You did not speak of to whom they were or were not visible. Creating your   
   > own doctrines?   
      
      
   horse manure.   the true bible is not of the practice of using the word   
   visible or invisible. The word visible, only shows itself 2 times.  Once   
   in Colisions once in Hebrews.  However, the word appeared is seen 120   
   times threw out the entire true Bible, mostly associated with angels,   
   and that is what is meant, from the invisible a visible angel appeared.   
      
      
      
      
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Note, it is just as easily a statement of the godhead,ie. one God in 3   
   >> ppersons, wait for it, including the Holy Spirit. Does scripture claim   
   >> "spirits/ghosts" are invisible?   
   >   
   > Have you any clue as to what parts of the Godhead are visible and to whom   
   > were they visible, or not. You do a great job of muddying the waters.   
      
   This is very dumb,  as they many did see Jesus, and He is a part of the   
   Godhead, He declared that Himself.  However, As to the Father, He is not   
   visible, or the Holy Ghost, they are both declared such, man not able to   
   see them. Yet, the angels are declared to be able to see God The Father   
   always.  And this is said so in the form of seeing the father.   He   
   never said, you cannot see Jesus.  He just said, that there is no reason   
   to believe he would come back invisible.  No where does it say that He   
   would come invisible.  It does say that when he left, that yes,   
   eventually that we could not see him.   
      
   >>   
   >> Consider also, the jw vatican claims Christ was but a recycled angel.   
   >> Angles are depicted in scripture as visible bings, poof, so muchfor the   
   >> "angel" theory.   
   >   
   > There is no scriptural proof of what you claim, unless you cherry pick a   
   > verse and ignore the totality of the Word of God.   
   >   
   > 2Ki 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that   
   > he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and,   
   > behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about   
   > Elisha.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Bottom line, seen in and of themselves no one would come away with the   
   >> "invisble" theory imposed pon then, poured backward 2000 years to invent an   
   >> excuse.   
   >   
   > It appears to me that you are pouring a lot of dung in all your posts.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)