When Jesus Comes

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+ Dec 2 2004, 10:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 2 2004, 10:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@ Dec 2 2004, 01:22 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@ Dec 2 2004, 06:39 PM

After reading the descriptions of the events that precede the second coming (especially the D&C verses) I'm pretty sure I hope I'm not even around at that time.

Why? Are you afraid of heights?

No. I'm afraid of war, and people dying everywhere, and earthquakes in diverse places, and two prophets lying in the streets of Jerusalem dead for several days, and the moon turning to blood, and famine, and pestilence, and the love of men waxing cold (especially this one), and blood, and fires and vapors of smoke. (oh, and short days)

Oh, you’re afraid, are you? Have you heard what is said about how true love cast out all fear? That’s not to say that I look forward to seeing those things happen, but I know that good will triumph in the end and I think I would actually enjoy seeing such a monumental moment in this world’s history.

And that means that I’m not afraid of going to war, and I believe I will be someday when Michael gathers together his armies to banish Lucifer from the Earth.

And I’m not afraid of seeing people dying everywhere. Or of seeing two prophets lying dead in the streets of Jerusalem for several days. Death is nothing to be afraid of, except for the people who fail to prepare themselves.

And I’m not afraid of earthquakes. I’ve been through a few of those, and they’re not all that bad. They can make a mess, though.

I think seeing the moon turn to blood will be particularly interesting. I wonder what Joel and John meant by that?

And what makes you afraid of famine and pestilence? I do think it will be troubling and sad to see that some people will have to suffer for not preparing. Eating and storing a supply of good food will take care of most of those problems.

“the love of men waxing cold” is an interesting phrase too. What do you suppose Jesus and the prophets meant by that? I don’t believe they were referring to the love of God. Do you? I looked it up and here's what I found:

And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. - Matthew 24:12

Blood. Yah, that’s a good one. I usually feel faint at the sight of blood, and because of that I’m not sure how I would handle myself in a war. Hopefully I won’t have to see the blood from anyone I might have to kill someday, but if I do, I suppose I’ll get more accustomed to seeing it. I don’t believe Nephi or Moroni or any of the other warrior prophets enjoyed seeing the sight of blood either, when they had to go to war, but they still managed to fight the good fight anyway.

Fire and smoke. Yah, that’s a good one, too. When I think about that I think about the fires in the New York Trade Center towers, but still, there were people who managed to get through that okay. I admire firefighters too, just as I admire policemen. Fighting fire and smoke is a tough job, but somebody has to do it, and I hope that if I’m ever confronted with that situation, I’ll do it as nobly and bravely as those men did on September 11, 2001.

Heh, short days? You’re afraid of short days? I see short days all the time during the Christmas season here in Portland, Oregon. They’re nothing to be afraid of.

[shanstress70]

Yes Ray, I'm sure it will all be very lovely... you're right!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 3 2004, 11:11 AM

And that means that I’m not afraid of going to war, and I believe I will be someday when Michael gathers together his armies to banish Lucifer from the Earth.

And I’m not afraid of seeing people dying everywhere. Or of seeing two prophets lying dead in the streets of Jerusalem for several days. Death is nothing to be afraid of, except for the people who fail to prepare themselves.

And I’m not afraid of earthquakes. I’ve been through a few of those, and they’re not all that bad. They can make a mess, though.

I think seeing the moon turn to blood will be particularly interesting. I wonder what Joel and John meant by that?

And what makes you afraid of famine and pestilence? I do think it will be troubling and sad to see that some people will have to suffer for not preparing. Eating and storing a supply of good food will take care of most of those problems.

“the love of men waxing cold” is an interesting phrase too. What do you suppose Jesus and the prophets meant by that? I don’t believe they were referring to the love of God. Do you? I looked it up and here's what I found:

And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. - Matthew 24:12

Blood. Yah, that’s a good one. I usually feel faint at the sight of blood, and because of that I’m not sure how I would handle myself in a war. Hopefully I won’t have to see the blood from anyone I might have to kill someday, but if I do, I suppose I’ll get more accustomed to seeing it. I don’t believe Nephi or Moroni or any of the other warrior prophets enjoyed seeing the sight of blood either, when they had to go to war, but they still managed to fight the good fight anyway.

Fire and smoke. Yah, that’s a good one, too. When I think about that I think about the fires in the New York Trade Center towers, but still, there were people who managed to get through that okay. I admire firefighters too, just as I admire policemen. Fighting fire and smoke is a tough job, but somebody has to do it, and I hope that if I’m ever confronted with that situation, I’ll do it as nobly and bravely as those men did on September 11, 2001.

Heh, short days? You’re afraid of short days? I see short days all the time during the Christmas season here in Portland, Oregon. They’re nothing to be afraid of.

Well thank you for the attitude adjustment Ray. You are absolutely right! I will be a pillar of righteousness such as yourself and gird up my loins, and stand steadfast amongst the carnage around me. Praise the Lord!!!!!!!

[Ray]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Dec 3 2004, 12:43 PM

Yes Ray, I'm sure it will all be very lovely... you're right!

Lovely? I never said it would be "lovely". Where did you get that idea?

But I do think it will be pretty awesome. :)

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 3 2004, 12:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 3 2004, 12:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Dec 3 2004, 11:11 AM

And that means that I’m not afraid of going to war, and I believe I will be someday when Michael gathers together his armies to banish Lucifer from the Earth. 

And I’m not afraid of seeing people dying everywhere.  Or of seeing two prophets lying dead in the streets of Jerusalem for several days.  Death is nothing to be afraid of, except for the people who fail to prepare themselves.

And I’m not afraid of earthquakes.  I’ve been through a few of those, and they’re not all that bad.  They can make a mess, though.

I think seeing the moon turn to blood will be particularly interesting.  I wonder what Joel and John meant by that?

And what makes you afraid of famine and pestilence?  I do think it will be troubling and sad to see that some people will have to suffer for not preparing.  Eating and storing a supply of good food will take care of most of those problems.

“the love of men waxing cold” is an interesting phrase too.  What do you suppose Jesus and the prophets meant by that?  I don’t believe they were referring to the love of God.  Do you?  I looked it up and here's what I found:

And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. - Matthew 24:12

Blood. Yah, that’s a good one. I usually feel faint at the sight of blood, and because of that I’m not sure how I would handle myself in a war. Hopefully I won’t have to see the blood from anyone I might have to kill someday, but if I do, I suppose I’ll get more accustomed to seeing it. I don’t believe Nephi or Moroni or any of the other warrior prophets enjoyed seeing the sight of blood either, when they had to go to war, but they still managed to fight the good fight anyway.

Fire and smoke. Yah, that’s a good one, too. When I think about that I think about the fires in the New York Trade Center towers, but still, there were people who managed to get through that okay. I admire firefighters too, just as I admire policemen. Fighting fire and smoke is a tough job, but somebody has to do it, and I hope that if I’m ever confronted with that situation, I’ll do it as nobly and bravely as those men did on September 11, 2001.

Heh, short days? You’re afraid of short days? I see short days all the time during the Christmas season here in Portland, Oregon. They’re nothing to be afraid of.

Well thank you for the attitude adjustment Ray. You are absolutely right! I will be a pillar of righteousness such as yourself and gird up my loins, and stand steadfast amongst the carnage around me. Praise the Lord!!!!!!!

Way to go, girl. :)

[Traveler]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 3 2004, 10:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 3 2004, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Dec 3 2004, 08:55 AM

This is why the traditional Trinitarian Christian period of political and social dominance in power is known as the Dark Ages.

Oh! Silly me... I thought the "Dark ages" was a term coined by historians to represent the period immediately following the collapse of the Roman empire when Europe was plunged into a very unsafe, unstable anarchy and the people were struggling so hard to survive that education was not available to most. I didn't realize that it was a religous conspiracy.

Let me make sure that I understand your thinking. You claim that (fall of major empire) + (confusion among struggling uneducated peoples) = reason for Dark Ages.

Can we find any historical additional parallels to verify your reasoning? During recorded history of mankind how many times has a major empire fallen and people been struggling, confused and undeucated? Has there been more than one? How many “Dark Ages” have there been? Just one? What is the single most outstanding difference in human history that sets apart the “Dark Ages” from all other eras in history?

Shame on me to surmise that the predominant religious philosophy of the time and place could somehow have contributed to the collapse of reason and enlightenment. Thank goodness that when truths were rediscovered (like the fact that the earth is not flat or the center of the universe) that the Trinitarians have been the first to recognize and give full support to the truth.

The Traveler

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Traveler,

I would say, off the top of my head, that when the Islamic civilization based on the Baghdad caliphate was destroyed by the Mongols in the 1300s, the Near East entered a Dark Age from which it has yet to emerge. The Chinese empire went through a couple of "dark ages," like the Warring States period or (arguably) the early 20th century, occasioned by the collapse of dynasties.

By the way, what do you count as the "Dark Ages"? Do you mean the entire medieval period (roughly defined as 500 AD through 1400) or just the hard-core, barbarian-infested Dark Ages from 500 to about 900? Because the High Middle Ages from about 1100 on were increasingly sophisticated intellectually and artistically.

The reason the early Middle Ages looked so bad was that the Romans, at their peak, were really, really good, having combined the intellectualism of the Greeks with a centralizing efficiency that made for long period of stability and peace. It's pretty hard to produce a glorious civilization when Vikings are slaughtering all your artists and thinkers, along with everyone who can't run inland fast enough, every decade or so. (Modern war, as horrible as it is, just doesn't have the same utterly devastating effect on civilization as did old-school, kill-everyone-or-sell-them-as-slaves warfare, which is why science and literature continue even during major modern wars.)

As self-righteous as some "Trinitarians" (which includes Mormons; it's just that our Trinity isn't consubstantial) can be, I think that, in the long run, medieval Christianity preserved and advanced civilization more than it obstructed it. Christianity was pretty much Europe's single shared heritage for a long time, which resulted in Latin being a kind of common language, which enabled scholars to share their thoughts and discoveries. Trinitarian faith inspired great art and architecture, which in turn advanced mathematics and engineering. The Catholic tradition of canon law was a major influence on the development of legal principles that are still used. It goes on and on. Keep in mind that by the 1840s, when Joseph Smith first began to challenge traditional Trinitarianism (the Book of Mormon being pretty much conventionally Trinitarian), the scientific and industrial revolutions were already well under way and picking up incredible steam. The rest of the world, unhampered by your supposedly civilization-hampering Trinitarianism, lagged further and further behind and was roadkill for the Trinitarian Europeans when they started poking about overseas.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Traveler@Dec 3 2004, 05:29 PM

Shame on me to surmise that the predominant religious philosophy of the time and place could somehow have contributed to the collapse of reason and enlightenment.

Oh, I'm quite sure that it did contribute to the ignorance that insued. It was an age of unimaginable corruption in the clergy. I'm saying that the church didn't cause the dark ages, and that's not why the dark ages are called the dark ages. The term was actually coined during the Renaissance, and, of course, each generation misunderstands the previous generation.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Dec 3 2004, 06:56 PM

Traveler,

I would say, off the top of my head, that when the Islamic civilization based on the Baghdad caliphate was destroyed by the Mongols in the 1300s, the Near East entered a Dark Age from which it has yet to emerge. The Chinese empire went through a couple of "dark ages," like the Warring States period or (arguably) the early 20th century, occasioned by the collapse of dynasties.

By the way, what do you count as the "Dark Ages"? Do you mean the entire medieval period (roughly defined as 500 AD through 1400) or just the hard-core, barbarian-infested Dark Ages from 500 to about 900? Because the High Middle Ages from about 1100 on were increasingly sophisticated intellectually and artistically.

PD. The classical dark ages is the time beginning with the destruction of the great library of human knowledge and enlightenment in Alexandra. (392AD.) It was more than just a vacuum created by the deliberate and systematic destruction of the best humans had achieved. There was also an effort to dominate humanity (economically, and politically) by maintaining all classes of human of that society in ignorance.

During other times there were efforts to oppress certain segments but this is the only time I know of that oppressed all human development. I believe this Dark Age existed until the Crusades that broke the economic and political stranglehold the Trinitarians had on both the religious culture and political landscape. This time table is somewhat different than the one you seem to be assuming. BTW did you know that the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks appeared to understand and use simple electrical devices? And some of the math science developed by them was not duplicated again until the late 18th century?

The Traveler

[Guest curvette]

What the heck are the "classical dark ages?" I've heard of the classical age, and the dark age, but never together. I'm starting to think that the "dark ages" you are talking about is more about the great apostasy than what we study in history about the historical dark ages (the beginning of medieval times.) I've never heard of the "dark ages" beginning in 392, but always just before 500--after the Roman empire crumbled for good.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 1 2004, 07:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 1 2004, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Dec 1 2004, 07:19 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Blessed@Dec 1 2004, 04:10 PM

Hint: Keep your eyes to the East! 

The problem, of course, is that the world is round, which the Biblical prophets didn't know. If Christ is coming down from what appears as the eastern sky in, say, Missouri, then He will appear to be coming from the west to a person in India.

Matthew 24:27 For as the light of the morning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, and covereth the whole earth; so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.

Well, technically, the sun never "covereth the whole earth" at the same time--it only covers it half of it at a time--but as PD said, how could the ancients have known that...except that the ancient Greeks discovered it scientifically, but the significance of that knowledge must not have been widespread.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler@Dec 1 2004, 10:27 PM

When I was a young buck there was a mediator that flashed across the sky just after sundown. It was quite bright and the street lights went out and the impact was in Nevada. For about an hour there was general panic while many thought it was the end of the world.

I have been writing an novel that uses that experience and a rather strange event that occurred when we were testing the B1 bomber. It is a Science Fiction and concerns an event that is possibly caused by extra terrestrials that many take for the second coming.

Anyway I thought I would ask to see what people expect.

The Traveler

When I was a young buck there was a mediator that flashed across the sky just after sundown.  It was quite bright and the street lights went out and the impact was in Nevada.  For about an hour there was general panic while many thought it was the end of the world.

Well, I quess it would be appropriate that Jesus comes back as a mediator! Maybe he can settle all the judicial disputes and solve the backlog problem in our courts. No more need for fast-track, right PD?

Of course, if BY was a prophet, the millenium is already here. He said that Blacks (I think he used a different term) would not get the Mormon Priesthood until the second coming. I quess were must be in it.

Frankly, I'm more worried about my first going, than Jesus' second coming.

[Cal]

Originally posted by speedomansam+Dec 2 2004, 08:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (speedomansam @ Dec 2 2004, 08:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Dec 2 2004, 08:06 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Dec 2 2004, 05:04 PM

Just a quick note:  I do not believe Matthew though the earth was flat.  If he had access to the scriptures found among the Dead Sea Scrolls he would have known better.  The early Trinitarians believed the earth to be flat and found a way to interpret the scriptures to support this belief.  It is this method of interpretation of things that has many in the Christian world confused concerning science and religion.  I would also point out the Trinitarians have confused many things based on their interpretations of scripture. 

The Traveler

Interesting. What is it in the Dead Sea Scrolls that suggests their writers knew the earth was round?

I'm thinking of the passage in Isaiah where it talks about the earth being rolled together like a scroll at the end of the world. A scroll is flat; ergo, Isaiah thought the world was flat. I don't see how "Trinitarians" would have needed to "interpret" this language to derive its meaning; you'd have to seriously wrest it to give it any other.

prophets speak the word of God through inspiration. just because Isaiah was inspired to use some amazing imagery of the earth being rolled together like a scroll (which could mean a variety of things like all the continents merging together like they were before they were split) doesn't mean Isaiah thought the world was flat.

plus, since it seems that many prophets were shown all of God's creations, i'll bet Isaiah was given the universe tour too.

If Isaiah got a tour of the Universe, he was luckier than most other prophets who used imagery like "stars of the firmament"---the ancients thought that the night sky was "firm", like a blanket--apparently they couldn't conceive of the fact that blackness is simply the absence of light. (like where God separated the light from the dark--as though the dark were some positive entity from which something could be separated, rather than simply the absence of something ie light)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler+Dec 3 2004, 08:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Dec 3 2004, 08:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Dec 2 2004, 07:06 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Dec 2 2004, 05:04 PM

Just a quick note:  I do not believe Matthew though the earth was flat.  If he had access to the scriptures found among the Dead Sea Scrolls he would have known better.  The early Trinitarians believed the earth to be flat and found a way to interpret the scriptures to support this belief.  It is this method of interpretation of things that has many in the Christian world confused concerning science and religion.  I would also point out the Trinitarians have confused many things based on their interpretations of scripture. 

The Traveler

Interesting. What is it in the Dead Sea Scrolls that suggests their writers knew the earth was round?

I'm thinking of the passage in Isaiah where it talks about the earth being rolled together like a scroll at the end of the world. A scroll is flat; ergo, Isaiah thought the world was flat. I don't see how "Trinitarians" would have needed to "interpret" this language to derive its meaning; you'd have to seriously wrest it to give it any other.

From writing among the Dead Sea Scrolls there are a number of documents that deal with very accurate calendars. In addition they had the ability to predict solar and lunar eclipse, tildes and other such things. This does not happen in a flat earth center of the universe contrived by the Trinitarians. In general historians agree that the rift between science and religion was well established when Galileo tried to publish a book of tides to make sea travel safer and more predictable. Truth Trinitarians were willing to kill (innocent lives) in order to prevent knowledge from being known among the populist. This is why the traditional Trinitarian Christian period of political and social dominance in power is known as the Dark Ages. In reality the concept of a flat earth was devolution of knowledge during a time that human knowledge suffered an era of incredible darkness.

The Traveler

It wasn't the Essenes that discovered the earth was round, it was the Greeks, and they didn't do it by revelation, they did it with simple geometry and scientific measurement. No doubt the Essenes could have had knowledge of the Greek philosophers works.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 3 2004, 10:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 3 2004, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Dec 3 2004, 08:55 AM

This is why the traditional Trinitarian Christian period of political and social dominance in power is known as the Dark Ages.

Oh! Silly me... I thought the "Dark ages" was a term coined by historians to represent the period immediately following the collapse of the Roman empire when Europe was plunged into a very unsafe, unstable anarchy and the people were struggling so hard to survive that education was not available to most. I didn't realize that it was a religous conspiracy.

It wasn't a religious conspiracy, it was what Curvy said. However, the authoritarian church-state that persisted in most the remnants of the Roman empire was no help to the spread of the Greek enlightenment. Of course, the destruction of the Library of Alexandria didn't help matters--which is where most of the Greek knowledge had been preserved. A simple reference to some of it could have cleared up much of the "darkness".

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 3 2004, 11:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 3 2004, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@ Dec 2 2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by -Ray@ Dec 2 2004, 01:22 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@ Dec 2 2004, 06:39 PM

After reading the descriptions of the events that precede the second coming (especially the D&C verses) I'm pretty sure I hope I'm not even around at that time.

Why? Are you afraid of heights?

No. I'm afraid of war, and people dying everywhere, and earthquakes in diverse places, and two prophets lying in the streets of Jerusalem dead for several days, and the moon turning to blood, and famine, and pestilence, and the love of men waxing cold (especially this one), and blood, and fires and vapors of smoke. (oh, and short days)

Oh, you’re afraid, are you? Have you heard what is said about how true love cast out all fear? That’s not to say that I look forward to seeing those things happen, but I know that good will triumph in the end and I think I would actually enjoy seeing such a monumental moment in this world’s history.

And that means that I’m not afraid of going to war, and I believe I will be someday when Michael gathers together his armies to banish Lucifer from the Earth.

And I’m not afraid of seeing people dying everywhere. Or of seeing two prophets lying dead in the streets of Jerusalem for several days. Death is nothing to be afraid of, except for the people who fail to prepare themselves.

And I’m not afraid of earthquakes. I’ve been through a few of those, and they’re not all that bad. They can make a mess, though.

I think seeing the moon turn to blood will be particularly interesting. I wonder what Joel and John meant by that?

And what makes you afraid of famine and pestilence? I do think it will be troubling and sad to see that some people will have to suffer for not preparing. Eating and storing a supply of good food will take care of most of those problems.

“the love of men waxing cold” is an interesting phrase too. What do you suppose Jesus and the prophets meant by that? I don’t believe they were referring to the love of God. Do you? I looked it up and here's what I found:

And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. - Matthew 24:12

Blood. Yah, that’s a good one. I usually feel faint at the sight of blood, and because of that I’m not sure how I would handle myself in a war. Hopefully I won’t have to see the blood from anyone I might have to kill someday, but if I do, I suppose I’ll get more accustomed to seeing it. I don’t believe Nephi or Moroni or any of the other warrior prophets enjoyed seeing the sight of blood either, when they had to go to war, but they still managed to fight the good fight anyway.

Fire and smoke. Yah, that’s a good one, too. When I think about that I think about the fires in the New York Trade Center towers, but still, there were people who managed to get through that okay. I admire firefighters too, just as I admire policemen. Fighting fire and smoke is a tough job, but somebody has to do it, and I hope that if I’m ever confronted with that situation, I’ll do it as nobly and bravely as those men did on September 11, 2001.

Heh, short days? You’re afraid of short days? I see short days all the time during the Christmas season here in Portland, Oregon. They’re nothing to be afraid of.

I think seeing the moon turn to blood will be particularly interesting. I wonder what Joel and John meant by that?

What they probably meant was what the moon looks like after a volcanic eruption in the area. As you may know, volcanic eruptions can put dust in the atmosphere that scatters light enough to make the light coming from the sun look red. No doubt John had seen, or heard tales of the effect of eruptions (like Vesuvius) on the light.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 3 2004, 10:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 3 2004, 10:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Dec 3 2004, 05:29 PM

Shame on me to surmise that the predominant religious philosophy of the time and place could somehow have contributed to the collapse of reason and enlightenment.

Oh, I'm quite sure that it did contribute to the ignorance that insued. It was an age of unimaginable corruption in the clergy. I'm saying that the church didn't cause the dark ages, and that's not why the dark ages are called the dark ages. The term was actually coined during the Renaissance, and, of course, each generation misunderstands the previous generation.

Good point, Curvy---the 1800's would arguably look darker in comparison to the later 1900's than the pre- Renaissance would have looked to the later 100 year peoples. With scientific knowledge doubling every ten years, our children will be making fun of us, soon enough. Actually, they already do--when I tell my kids I used to watch black and white TV, the just look at me a snicker.

[Traveler]

The Traveler

It wasn't the Essenes that discovered the earth was round, it was the Greeks, and they didn't do it by revelation, they did it with simple geometry and scientific measurement. No doubt the Essenes could have had knowledge of the Greek philosophers works.

As usual you are only half right. The Greeks did not discover the world was round, Phoenicians figured it out at least 1000 years before the Greeks and the Pythagoreans figured it out before the Phoenicians.

You are also wrong in thinking the Essens figured it out. The theory of Essens and the Dead Sea Scrolls just took a hit when it has been discovered that the Copper Scroll was not made up but is accurate. If you understand the historical reference to Essens as defined by Josephus then you would know that the Essens could not have produced the copper scroll. This argument is as old as the descovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the claim that the copper scroll was not accurate was what was argued that the DSS was the result of Essens.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by curvette@Dec 4 2004, 07:11 PM

What the heck are the "classical dark ages?" I've heard of the classical age, and the dark age, but never together. I'm starting to think that the "dark ages" you are talking about is more about the great apostasy than what we study in history about the historical dark ages (the beginning of medieval times.) I've never heard of the "dark ages" beginning in 392, but always just before 500--after the Roman empire crumbled for good.

I must admit to being somewhat perplexed and frustrated by comments you make in reference to some of my posts. It is as though we are standing together at noon on a cloudless day and you declare it night. I differentiate between the Medieval era and Dark Ages quite easily (even though they overlap for a period). For clarification (understanding that you are most likely not interested). The Medieval era was that period of time when Europe (Western Civilization) was governed by a lose federation of Medieval War Lords. The operative term here is “lose”.

I am sure you have heard of Hitler and the Third Reich. The Third Reich has to do with a historical link between Trinitarian involvements in the Roman Empire. The First Reich being Constantine, around 325 AD. The Second Reich being Charlemagne, which was about 650 AD. Historical note, it was during the domain of Charlemagne that the Roman Empire was split into two empires. The Eastern capitol was at Constantinople and the western capitol was established in Rome. This also divided the Catholic Church into two clergy on the exact same lines. The Third Reich was to be established by Hitler. But it was to be the return of what some call Holy Roman Empire under dominance of the Trinitarian ideal. Although much of history has been rewritten, the Holocaust was not pointed at the Jews per say but that the Jews were the lightning rod of Trinitarian opposition to non-Trinitarian religion.

The Dark Ages as I understand was that time when any enlightenment (other than Trinitarian) was not just an evil to be avoided but “Forbidden” or heresy by law and punishable by death. Human knowledge accumulated during all other ages was considered “Pagan” by the early Trinitarians. Pagan being a term invented by Trinitarians during the time of Constantine. In fact, even the study of Christian Scripture was considered heretical by the Trinitarians that pronounced that such study resulted in wrong understanding of truth. The Trinitarians believed that only by pronouncement of the “Synod” is religion to be understood. This legal declaration was part of what has become known as the council that produced the Nicene Creed (AD 325). Since Education was considered a Pagan enterprise the Trinitarians established laws forbidding public literacy. Some consider that the Dark Ages began as early as 325 AD. As far as education I would remind you that Charlemagne reestablished the concept of education that previously had been exclusively Pagan. It was under his rule that such education would provide “degrees” printed on sheepskin from places that were qualified to provide “Universal” education. Yes this is what evolved into our “University” or college education.

This was to counter the sweeping movement elsewhere among a people the Trinitarians called “Saracens” that were encroaching on Trinitarian dominance of Europe. (Started about 575AD). The Saracens were busy gathering what was left of human knowledge and are credited today with numbers based 60. Used today for time (clocks) and navigation (degrees in a circle and angles). They also are credited with Algebra. I happen to agree with the historians that feel that the Dark Ages were beginning to end at the very time you insist that they were beginning.

But I will not argue with you – I have only stated my opinion and the means by which I have derived my understanding. I am aware that Trinitarian historians now claim that the early Trinitarians did not destroy the library of Alexandria and that the Dark Ages did not occur until medieval times. Yet even in the Trinitarian history there exist a contradiction in that it is recorded that when the Alexandrian library was burned that the daughter of the library’s administrator (A Trinitarian Heretic) was dragged nicked through the streets and skinned alive with seashells for her sins.

The Traveler

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Traveler@Dec 1 2004, 07:28 AM

I am taking an informal survey.  What is the final sign that you as a Christian are looking for that will convince you that Jesus has returned?  Please indicate what it is that convinces you, a short explanation of why and your Christian affiliation. 

I am aware that many, like doubting Thomas, do not have faith enough except they feel the prints in his side, hands and feet.  For you and the rest of you, if you would please indicate what you are looking forward to.  If you do not know of a sign or have not thought about it or do not think there will be a sign – please indicate your opinion and why.  In general how will you know Jesus (not an imposter as prophesied) has come again to live among mankind? 

The Traveler

I believe Christ has already come when He appeared to Joseph Smith and established his kingdom on earth again. Those who are zion know this already.

[speedomansam]

Originally posted by Amillia+Dec 5 2004, 06:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Dec 5 2004, 06:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Dec 1 2004, 07:28 AM

I am taking an informal survey.  What is the final sign that you as a Christian are looking for that will convince you that Jesus has returned?  Please indicate what it is that convinces you, a short explanation of why and your Christian affiliation. 

I am aware that many, like doubting Thomas, do not have faith enough except they feel the prints in his side, hands and feet.  For you and the rest of you, if you would please indicate what you are looking forward to.  If you do not know of a sign or have not thought about it or do not think there will be a sign – please indicate your opinion and why.  In general how will you know Jesus (not an imposter as prophesied) has come again to live among mankind? 

The Traveler

I believe Christ has already come when He appeared to Joseph Smith and established his kingdom on earth again. Those who are zion know this already.

but what about every knee bowing? the millenium where Christ reigns personally upon the earth (article of faith)? the millenium where satan is bound? prophets in jerusalem dying and being resurrected? the wicked all being burned? and tons of other things?

these things haven't happened yet. when Christ comes, then the millenium will come where the wickedness we see today won't exist.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by speedomansam@Dec 5 2004, 08:35 PM

Those who are zion know this already

And what do you mean? Zion, has it been re-established? Don't give me this metephorical mumbo jumbo. Where is Zion? And besides, I think there is a reason its called the "first VISION". Because at the second comming Christ will come in ALL His glory. Not as a vision in a remote woods.

Don't worry all you "zionist" we still have something grand to look forward to!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Trav -- My understanding of the sense in which the Third Reich was "third" was that it was the third unified German empire. The first was Charlemagne's, and the second referred to the unification of Germany under Wilhelm I in 1870. The Roman empire has little to do with any of this, except that Charlemagne viewed himself as a new Roman emperor (notwithstanding that he didn't actually control, well, Rome.)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Traveler@Dec 5 2004, 04:36 PM

it is recorded that when the Alexandrian library was burned that the daughter of the library’s administrator (A Trinitarian Heretic) was dragged nicked through the streets and skinned alive with seashells for her sins.

The Traveler

Yikes! It's good to be an American, huh? (I've heard that the Alexandrians were quite the rambunctious fellas!)

[Traveler]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Dec 6 2004, 12:13 PM

Trav -- My understanding of the sense in which the Third Reich was "third" was that it was the third unified German empire. The first was Charlemagne's, and the second referred to the unification of Germany under Wilhelm I in 1870. The Roman empire has little to do with any of this, except that Charlemagne viewed himself as a new Roman emperor (notwithstanding that he didn't actually control, well, Rome.)

Charlemagne was a Frank (French) not German. Also Charlemagne divided the Germans and their land with the Franks. The city (Frankfort) is divided to this day between the Franks and Saxon Hausen. The Symbols used by Hitler were of Roman origin for a reason.

The Traveler