God's will is done in Heaven [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

David M

09-15-2012, 01:26 AM

Rose

09-15-2012, 09:00 AM

This error of believing God’s Angels in Heaven can sin, has been taught by some Christian churches. It starts from a misunderstanding of a verse in Genesis (6:2) which says; the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 2 Peter 2:4 has been used as evidence to support their claim that it was (God's) angels that had sinned. I see this is as one error building on another error so compounded to conclude a doctrine which (in my opinion) is wrong. Examine the reasons I give in this short post and reach your own conclusions.

The expression “sons of God” have been mistakenly assumed to be God’s Angels in Heaven. This title can apply to humans as it can also apply to God’s Angels in Heaven. Consider for example John 1:12 which reveals that humans (us) can be sons of God; But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name The distinction has to be made when this title is used. In this verse, it is the "believers" that are the sons of God. In the context of sin, the title will always apply to humans. There are also reasons based on God’s word why it is impossible for God’s Angels in Heaven to have sex with humans and for offspring to be born; this is simply impossible and not true.

All verses in the Bible which give rise to a paradox must be understood correctly to resolve and remove the paradox. If we can get it wrong about God’s Angels, what else is there in the Bible we have got wrong? This question we must answer for ourselves.

These apparent paradoxes in the Bible leads to many conflicting discussions on this forum. These paradoxes must be resolved in order to get to the whole truth of the Bible.

David

Hello David,

A careful reading of Genesis 6 will reveal that there are five types of beings spoken of.

Gen.6:1-4 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

1. Men
2. Daughters of men
3. Sons of God
4. Giants
5. Mighty men of renown

The verse starts with men multiplying on the earth by having daughters born unto them, then beings called the sons of god are introduced...they see the daughters of men and bore offspring by them. The next being that is introduced is giants, after that it states that the offspring born from the sons of god/daughters of men union became mighty men of renown.

I agree that this is a very strange passage that really doesn't make a lot of sense, especially since it is just stuck in Genesis 6 with no previous introduction. What we do know from the passage is that the author intended to convey a distinct difference between the beings listed, and that the sons of god are different from sons of men which is why it calls the females daughters of men.

The best explanation I can come up with, is that the story in Genesis 6 is a compilation of different mythological stories circulating at the time period in which it was written. The authors could have used the term sons of god to refer to the lineage of Adam and the daughters of men could have referred to all the other humans alive at the time...who knows? It's obvious it wasn't inspired from the mind of a true creator, because all that passage has done is cause confusion amongst those trying to interpret it.

Take care,
Rose

David M

09-15-2012, 02:22 PM

Hello David,

A careful reading of Genesis 6 will reveal that there are five types of beings spoken of.

Gen.6:1-4 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

1. Men
2. Daughters of men
3. Sons of God
4. Giants
5. Mighty men of renown

The verse starts with men multiplying on the earth by having daughters born unto them, then beings called the sons of god are introduced...they see the daughters of men and bore offspring by them. The next being that is introduced is giants, after that it states that the offspring born from the sons of god/daughters of men union became mighty men of renown.

I agree that this is a very strange passage that really doesn't make a lot of sense, especially since it is just stuck in Genesis 6 with no previous introduction. What we do know from the passage is that the author intended to convey a distinct difference between the beings listed, and that the sons of god are different from sons of men which is why it calls the females daughters of men.

The best explanation I can come up with, is that the story in Genesis 6 is a compilation of different mythological stories circulating at the time period in which it was written. The authors could have used the term sons of god to refer to the lineage of Adam and the daughters of men could have referred to all the other humans alive at the time...who knows? It's obvious it wasn't inspired from the mind of a true creator, because all that passage has done is cause confusion amongst those trying to interpret it.

Take care,
Rose
2
Hello Rose
I appreciate this type of response from you. I am prepared to research the different groups and find else what other explanations are going around. Just as the Sons of God can describe those who are righteous as opposed to unrighteous, the word "giants" might have a meaning that is not the obvious. It sounds to me from what you say, that you would not use this verse to say as Richard does; " I believe it clearly teaches that angels can sin (since it explicitly says so). As I am showing, this is not what the Bible states and no-one has yet explained away the paradox which the words of Jesus give rise to.

After the supposed union of the sons of God and the daughters of men, I have not had it explained why the offspring if "giants" did not die out in the flood. The union of Angels and humans either continues after the Flood or as is believed God has locked them up in the bowels of the earth to be judged in the future. This would make it impossible to angels to continue to have sex after the Flood. The reason for giants as were the men of Gath would have to be explained away by different means.

We know giants (tall large men) like men of Gath of whom Goliath might have been the largest. These were also born with genetic differences which resulted in having six toes and six figures on each limb. This was a non-beneficial mutation otherwise we might all have had six fingers on each hand or six toes on each foot, or they were a beneficial mutation to giants only. Personally, I do not need an extra finger or toe and do not think an extra toe or finger will benefit me.

Depending on time and responses to other post I will try and give some more thought as to what "Giant"s and "mighty men of renown" are meant to mean to us.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-15-2012, 08:09 PM

This post is to explain that God's Angels cannot sin and a paradox must be resolved.

Jesus spoke a model prayer for his disciples to understand the priority of what to pray for. The third important statement in the prayer of Jesus says (Matthew 6:10); “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven”. Understanding what Jesus said here is crucial to the understanding the obedience of God’s Angels in Heaven.

Who has a better understanding of God and His word than His only begotten Son? If Jesus tells us, God’s will is done in Heaven, who are we to argue with Jesus?

There are a few verses that have been translated in a way that leads us to think that angels can sin, yet if the translators had used an alternative word such as “messengers” the error might never have been made. One example is 2 Peter 2:4 which says; For if God spared not the angels that sinned. This is referring to the same passage found in Jude 6. I have given an explanation of “the angels” of Jude 6 in a separate post which you click through to from here. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3066-The-quot-angels-quot-in-Jude-6)

What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved. Explaining Jude 6 or 2 Peter 2:4 to show that the angles referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven removes the paradox. The same can be done for any passage in the Bible which implies God’s Angels in Heaven can sin.

Hey there David,

I like the way you framed this discussion. A nice, clearly stated "paradox." That should make for some good progress.

Personally, I don't see any paradox. You have only provided a single verse to support your assertion that angels could never sin. But the Bible presents many verses that say they could and did. Specifically:
Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Here we see that there was "war in heaven." But according to your interpretation of the words of Jesus, there never could be a war in heaven because God's will is always done in heaven! Therefore, this verse contradicts your interpretation of that verse. The fact the Satan was in heaven and was cast down is also taught by Jesus:
Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Thus Luke 10:18 confirms Rev 12:9. Now we have two verses that confirm each other and contradict your assertion. And then we have Peter's statement:
2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

We can't say that this is talking about human messengers because they were not cast down into Tartarus. And you can't even know what "Tartarus" means without appealing to a Greek dictionary, but a Greek dictionary will tell you it was the place where Zeus cast the Titans (supernatural beings) who rebelled just as God cast the angels (supernatural beings). So this is direct evidence that the Bible teaches that angels sinned and that this idea was current at the time Peter wrote. Anyone who can read can see that this is a strong argument. It's not conclusive, but it's strong. And of course this interpretation coheres and confirms Jude's statement:
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

And Jude directly quoted a large text from the book of Enoch by name (which was popular at the time he wrote), and the book of Enoch speaks specifically of the angels that sinned and links it directly to Genesis 6. Most scholars conclude that Jude was referencing the fallen angels in the book of Enoch, not because they care about whether or not angels can really sin, but because that's what the evidence points to. Now I know you like to limit your knowledge to the collection of ancient writings that are accepted as "Scripture" but there is no good reason to close you eyes to facts that can be verified. The people who wrote the NT and the early church fathers were familiar with that book and it influenced their thinking.

Furthermore, Paul spoke of "angels of heaven" that could lie:
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

If it were impossible for angels to lie (sin) then Paul's statement would be meaningless.

So now we have FIVE passages of Scripture that contradict the single passage upon which you built your entire doctrine. That's 5 to 1. I know you can "explain away" the five passages I quoted, but I could just as easily (or rather, more easily) explain away the ONE passage that you use to base you entire theory. And besides that, I have additional evidence from ancient writings (Enoch) that support my case.

This is what it all comes down to. You are applying your human logic to a single passage in the Bible, and then explaining away the five verses that contradict your preferred doctrine. Someone who disagrees need only explain away your interpretation of that one verse, and the Bible is restored to harmony.

So the real issue is this: How do we determine which verses should be explained away to fit other verses? A simple count would be my first guess. If you have to explain away FIVE TIMES AS MANY VERSES as me, then I say my interpretation is probably correct.

Great post, my friend! :thumb:

Richard

David M

09-15-2012, 11:36 PM

This is what it all comes down to. You are applying your human logic to a single passage in the Bible, and then explaining away the five verses that contradict your preferred doctrine. Someone who disagrees need only explain away your interpretation of that one verse, and the Bible is restored to harmony.

Thank you Richard. I guessed this is the way we should try to have a dialogue. Thanks for your five counter arguments. As you want me to do, I can link to my post explaining Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 Here is the link for others to read; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3066-The-quot-angels-quot-in-Jude-6
This explains away the "angels that sinned" "Tartarus" and phrases like "rooms of darkness" and the "bowels of the earth". That will leave one or two of the verses you have given to explain away, which I can do later. As for the Book of Enoch, I am not doubting Jude referred to the Enoch of Genesis and who might have written an original book by him that was known, but as you know, which is why I do not think you should keep introducing this link to the Book of Enoch, is that book must have been later hijacked and changes made to it by some unknown author and material added to that makes it an unreliable book. To quote you again (paraphrased from memory) you said it was a book "not to be trusted" and you gave reasons why. This is what you thought when you were a Christian and I agree and have no reason to doubt what you said then is true now and this is why the book never was accepted as one of the books to make up the Bible.

However, you have not answered away the paradox which the words of Jesus have given rise to, so I could say that until you or someone else does (and we invite others to contribute to this discussion) we should concentrate on the words of Jesus first of all, as this might be the easier solution to resolving this matter. It means we only have to deal with one phrase.

I have to accept that you can and will explain away the words of Jesus and that I might not be able to refute your answer, and then I have a problem. If I can refute your answer, then the ball is back in your court (to use the game of tennis as a metaphor). Maybe this should be an example where we concentrate one point at a time and so concentrate on the words of Jesus. As I said, I regard the words of Jesus as the most authoritative. Where do you think Jesus got his insight from;the old testament scriptures or a direct revelation?

I wait for an answer before proceeding further.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-16-2012, 03:35 PM

Thank you Richard. I guessed this is the way we should try to have a dialogue. Thanks for your five counter arguments. As you want me to do, I can link to my post explaining Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 Here is the link for others to read; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3066-The-quot-angels-quot-in-Jude-6
This explains away the "angels that sinned" "Tartarus" and phrases like "rooms of darkness" and the "bowels of the earth". That will leave one or two of the verses you have given to explain away, which I can do later. As for the Book of Enoch, I am not doubting Jude referred to the Enoch of Genesis and who might have written an original book by him that was known, but as you know, which is why I do not think you should keep introducing this link to the Book of Enoch, is that book must have been later hijacked and changes made to it by some unknown author and material added to that makes it an unreliable book. To quote you again (paraphrased from memory) you said it was a book "not to be trusted" and you gave reasons why. This is what you thought when you were a Christian and I agree and have no reason to doubt what you said then is true now and this is why the book never was accepted as one of the books to make up the Bible.

Good afternoon David,

Here is the explanation you gave of "Tartarus" in the post you linked:
Since figurative language for death has been used in the verses under consideration, we should understand God’s teaching about death. This will remove the mystery and superstitions which surround the subject. It is legitimate to use common language and phrases that the people of that period would understand, even if that means borrowing mythical language of the time. Therefore, all the expressions used by Jude and in the parallel account of 2 Peter 2:14 using the following phrases must be seen in the same light; 'everlasting chains under darkness', 'cast them down to hell'. Because the Greek word for 'tartarus' has been used by Peter, does not mean that Peter believed in the folklore surrounding that word. However, by using the word, the people receiving his message understood the fatal end which befell the rebels. Euphemisms and metaphors for death does not change the fact that when a person dies, that means cessation of life. The Bible makes it very clear. Psalm 6:5 'For in death there is no remembrance of thee: ' Eccl 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:

Your solution is one possibility, but nothing you wrote proves it is true. And it doesn't address the most important point which is the parallelism of the myth with what Peter wrote. Here it is:

MYTH: The god Zeus cast the rebellious Titans (spiritual beings) into Tartarus and bound them in chains.
BIBLE: The god Yahweh cast the rebellious angels (spiritual beings) into Tartarus and bound them in chains.

The myth existed before Peter wrote and Peter obviously knew about it or he couldn't have made reference to it. You must address these facts since in any other context rational people would recognize that the later text was dependent on the earlier text. Do you have any explanation why we should reject this conclusion?

As for your assertion that the Bible is "very clear" that dead people are not with the Lord in heaven, well, that is directly contradicted by the Bible in many places:

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Matt. 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. [This directly states that the dead faithful are living with God]
Philippians 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: [Paul speaks of only two possibilities, to be in the body or in the presence of the Lord]
2 Kings 2:11 1 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth: such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth

I could list more of course. When you are done, what will the score be? Will you have to explain away 100 verses for every one that supports your doctrines? Of course, the numbers don't matter The truth is plain for all to see. No matter what position anyone takes, they must explain away ten or twenty or a hundred verses that contradict their positions. This proves but one thing - the Bible is totally contradictory and all anyone can do is choose what they want to believe and then force the rest of the Bible to conform to their belief.

I note that you believe in soul sleep, reject the Trinity, and teach that angels cannot sin. These are the doctrines of the Christadelphians. They define their doctrine using exactly the same verse as you (emphasis in the original, source (http://www.christadelphia.org/belief.htm)):
The Christadelphians believe that the God of the Bible is one, the Father alone (1 Cor. 8:6). God stands alone and unrivaled in the universe, the source of all good and evil (Is. 45:5-7). We reject the idea that the devil is one of Gods' angels that was permitted to rebel in the very heavens (thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven) and now wrestles with God for control of the world. We likewise reject the idea of a God with multiple independent personalities as not being in harmony with the teachings of scripture.

So there you go! Two of your primary dogmas in one paragraph from the page "Our Faith and Beliefs" on the official Christadelphia.org website. And of course your doctrine of "soul sleep" is also a fundamental dogma of the Christadelphians. They even used the same two verses as you to justify their dogma [source (http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/afterdth.htm)]:

The writer of Ecclesiastes is quite categorical: he desires men to see

"that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath . . . All go unto one place: all are of the dust and all turn to dust again" (3:19-21).

Men and animals have by nature the same fate: they all return to the ground.

In view of the Biblical evidence so far reviewed, it is no surprise to learn that the dead rest, completely unconscious in the grave. Do not trust in princes or in man, says the Psalmist, for "his breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psalm 146:4).

David prays that God will deliver him, for "in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?" (Psalm 6:5).

Psalm 115 says the same: "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence" (v. 17).

The writer of Ecclesiastes is most emphatic:
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything . . . Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished . . . Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest" (9:5-10).

The place of the dead is consistently described in these emphatic passages as "in his earth" (the dust of the ground from which man was made), "in the grave" and "in silence".

So the jig is up David. It's time for you to admit that you have learned your doctrines from MEN, specifically the Christadelphians who invented their doctrines long before you were born. :lmbo:

However, you have not answered away the paradox which the words of Jesus have given rise to, so I could say that until you or someone else does (and we invite others to contribute to this discussion) we should concentrate on the words of Jesus first of all, as this might be the easier solution to resolving this matter. It means we only have to deal with one phrase.

There is no paradox. It is your insistence on the Christadelphian interpretation that creates the paradox.

Before bothering with an explanation of other possible interpretations of Christ's words, I'd like to see your explanation of the "war in heaven" in Rev 12 since that's the most obvious contradiction to your position.

I have to accept that you can and will explain away the words of Jesus and that I might not be able to refute your answer, and then I have a problem. If I can refute your answer, then the ball is back in your court (to use the game of tennis as a metaphor). Maybe this should be an example where we concentrate one point at a time and so concentrate on the words of Jesus. As I said, I regard the words of Jesus as the most authoritative. Where do you think Jesus got his insight from;the old testament scriptures or a direct revelation?

I wait for an answer before proceeding further.

We both know that it wouldn't matter if an "angel from heaven" told you the Christadelphians were wrong David. No evidence will ever change your mind because your beliefs are not based on evidence. They are based on the teachings of men long dead who started yet another denomination.

All the best,

Richard

David M

09-16-2012, 04:17 PM

Good afternoon David,

Here is the explanation you gave of "Tartarus" in the post you linked:
Since figurative language for death has been used in the verses under consideration, we should understand God’s teaching about death. This will remove the mystery and superstitions which surround the subject. It is legitimate to use common language and phrases that the people of that period would understand, even if that means borrowing mythical language of the time. Therefore, all the expressions used by Jude and in the parallel account of 2 Peter 2:14 using the following phrases must be seen in the same light; 'everlasting chains under darkness', 'cast them down to hell'. Because the Greek word for 'tartarus' has been used by Peter, does not mean that Peter believed in the folklore surrounding that word. However, by using the word, the people receiving his message understood the fatal end which befell the rebels. Euphemisms and metaphors for death does not change the fact that when a person dies, that means cessation of life. The Bible makes it very clear. Psalm 6:5 'For in death there is no remembrance of thee: ' Eccl 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:

Your solution is one possibility, but nothing you wrote proves it is true. And it doesn't address the most important point which is the parallelism of the myth with what Peter wrote. Here it is:

MYTH: The god Zeus cast the rebellious Titans (spiritual beings) into Tartarus and bound them in chains.
BIBLE: The god Yahweh cast the rebellious angels (spiritual beings) into Tartarus and bound them in chains.

The myth existed before Peter wrote and Peter obviously knew about it or he couldn't have made reference to it. You must address these facts since in any other context rational people would recognize that the later text was dependent on the earlier text. Do you have any explanation why we should reject this conclusion?

As for your assertion that the Bible is "very clear" that dead people are not with the Lord in heaven, well, that is directly contradicted by the Bible in many places:

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Matt. 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. [This directly states that the dead faithful are living with God]
Philippians 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: [Paul speaks of only two possibilities, to be in the body or in the presence of the Lord]
2 Kings 2:11 1 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth: such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth

I could list more of course. When you are done, what will the score be? Will you have to explain away 100 verses for every one that supports your doctrines? Of course, the numbers don't matter The truth is plain for all to see. No matter what position anyone takes, they must explain away ten or twenty or a hundred verses that contradict their positions. This proves but one thing - the Bible is totally contradictory and all anyone can do is choose what they want to believe and then force the rest of the Bible to conform to their belief.

I note that you believe in soul sleep, reject the Trinity, and teach that angels cannot sin. These are the doctrines of the Christadelphians. They define their doctrine using exactly the same verse as you (emphasis in the original, source (http://www.christadelphia.org/belief.htm)):
The Christadelphians believe that the God of the Bible is one, the Father alone (1 Cor. 8:6). God stands alone and unrivaled in the universe, the source of all good and evil (Is. 45:5-7). We reject the idea that the devil is one of Gods' angels that was permitted to rebel in the very heavens (thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven) and now wrestles with God for control of the world. We likewise reject the idea of a God with multiple independent personalities as not being in harmony with the teachings of scripture.

So there you go! Two of your primary dogmas in one paragraph from the page "Our Faith and Beliefs" on the official Christadelphia.org website. And of course your doctrine of "soul sleep" is also a fundamental dogma of the Christadelphians. They even used the same two verses as you to justify their dogma [source (http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/afterdth.htm)]:

So the jig is up David. It's time for you to admit that you have learned your doctrines from MEN, specifically the Christadelphians who invented their doctrines long before you were born. :lmbo:

There is no paradox. It is your insistence on the Christadelphian interpretation that creates the paradox.

Before bothering with an explanation of other possible interpretations of Christ's words, I'd like to see your explanation of the "war in heaven" in Rev 12 since that's the most obvious contradiction to your position.

We both know that it wouldn't matter if an "angel from heaven" told you the Christadelphians were wrong David. No evidence will ever change your mind because your beliefs are not based on evidence. They are based on the teachings of men long dead who started yet another denomination.

All the best,

Richard

Hello Richard
A very long post which for the most part is off topic. When you refute the words of Jesus giving scriptural evidence, we can continue. I am staying on topic.

Regards
David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-16-2012, 04:22 PM

Hello Richard
A very long post which for the most part is off topic. When you refute the words of Jesus giving scriptural evidence, we can continue. I am staying on topic.

Regards
David
Ah come on David, you aren't going to start hiding from the truth like CWH are you? I've got your number dude! You learned your doctrines from the Christadelphians. Are you going to admit it?

Think of the irony this reveals. How many times have you accused anyone who disagrees with you as "following the doctrines of men"? You've said that, or something similar to me at least two dozen times. And every time I asked where you learned your doctrines you refused to answer. But now the cat is out of the bag, so why pretend any longer?

Richard Amiel McGough

09-16-2012, 04:23 PM

Hello Richard
A very long post which for the most part is off topic. When you refute the words of Jesus giving scriptural evidence, we can continue. I am staying on topic.

Regards
David

That was not a "very long post." It was short and direct. But if you want to deal with the meat of it, give me your answer to the war in heaven. You have no excuse to avoid my request since it directly contradicts your assertion that God's will is always done in heaven.

David M

09-18-2012, 04:19 PM

That was not a "very long post." It was short and direct. But if you want to deal with the meat of it, give me your answer to the war in heaven. You have no excuse to avoid my request since it directly contradicts your assertion that God's will is always done in heaven.

Hello Richard

I have done your request and started a new topic http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49372#post49372.

I would like to see some Bible exposition from you explaining your reasons for what you believe Bible passages mean. You did not take up the Jude 6 challenge. It would be helpful to get to the truth if you try and get your answers from the Bible and get to understand the figurative language correctly.

If you find my the Bible references and meaning of them incorrect, then please offer your alternative references and meanings so that we can work towards the truth.

I think this now ends this topic.

All the best.

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-18-2012, 06:32 PM

Hello Richard

I have done your request and started a new topic http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49372#post49372.

I would like to see some Bible exposition from you explaining your reasons for what you believe Bible passages mean. You did not take up the Jude 6 challenge. It would be helpful to get to the truth if you try and get your answers from the Bible and get to understand the figurative language correctly.

If you find my the Bible references and meaning of them incorrect, then please offer your alternative references and meanings so that we can work towards the truth.

I think this now ends this topic.

All the best.

David
Hey there David, :yo:

That was a very lucid exposition you wrote. I enjoyed answering it and look forward to your response. I based everything I wrote on the Bible alone. It looks like we are in for an excellent conversation. See you there ...

All the best,

Richard

David M

03-27-2013, 08:10 AM

Readers

I am importing the reply from Richard into this thread, where it belongs and where you can see my opening post and the way I referred to a paradox. Richard has labored this "paradox" by plastering his replies across different threads pursuing me on my rejection of his phrase in his logical statements, which has put words in my mouth. He is forcing me to accept statements I do not accept. I had hoped to bring this discussion to a close, but Richard insists on continuing in order to gain his victory.

In the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted) Richard extended the following olive branch and to make a "fresh start", which up to now, he has not gone there and continued the discusssion. I have started off the discussion and explained again why I did not accept his logic and the statements as first given.

Here is Richards reply from the thread; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=53346
So, let's try a different angle. There never was any need for you to state your argument in the form of a paradox in the first place. You could just as well have stated it directly as a standard IF P THEN Q implication as follows:
Define P = God's Will is done in Heaven
Define Q = Angels in heaven sin
IF P THEN NOT Q
Or spelled out:
IF God's will is done in heaven, THEN angels in heaven cannot sin.
So now your job is to justify this implication, to prove that it is true. I hope this "fresh start" will help us make progress.

Happy New Year!

Richard

Please note; I never stated the paradox in any form in my opening post. If we see a paradox, it is from the face value of reading separate verses and I have only quoted the verses that can be construed as a paradox, which once explained in the correct way (IMO) removes any possible contradiction.

So now to reply to Richard

Richard

I know you found that very confusing but I can't understand why. The logic is simple and lucid. You stated your paradox by writing this:
David: There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.
Please Richard, I am struggling to find the quote you attribute to me. I have looked to my opening post in which my first words are;
This post is to explain that God's Angels cannot sin and a paradox must be resolved.

I wanted to help you understand that your "paradox" is similar to the problem of human free will in light of God's sovereignty. This is an ANCIENT problem in both Christian Theology and general philosophy. To see why it is a problem, we need only refine your paradox by adding a variable X for the location of the beings that sinned
Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location X and yet beings in location X sin.
If we set "X = heaven" then my statement is logically identical to yours:
Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet beings in heaven sin.
And if we use X = "heaven and earth" then we arrive at the classic problem of free will vs. God's sovereignty:

Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and earth and yet beings in heaven and earth sin.
I consider you have muddied the simple paradox by introducing God's sovereignty into the discussion. This was your original reply;

Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
Good afternoon David,

The fact that you don't see the paradox does not mean it does not exist. The fact that an "apparent" paradox exists is evident because Christians have been trying to solve it for centuries. And this paradox is directly relevant because it is formally identical to the paradox you think is "real." This is easy to see. Let X = "heaven" and let Y = "heaven and earth":

David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location X and yet beings in location X sin.
Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location Y and yet beings in location Y sin.

See that? I simply replaced X with Y. This proves that the two statements are formally identical. Exactly the same logic applies to both. If one is a paradox, so is the other. This paradox has been recognized for many centuries by Christians who have tried to solve it.

The problem Christians have made is by their incorrect understanding of God's Angels. You are correct about man made myths, but wrong attributing those myths to the Bible. Christians have invented myths and they have been perpetuated and people are blindly accepting.

Correctly understand the passages in which God's Angels have been wrongly accused of doing sinful acts and there is no problem and no paradox to resolve. That is what I have done and what I am showing must be done to counteract the man-made myths. The face value reading of "angels" as God's angels is wrong. If you continue to claim those verses in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 refer to God's angels, then no paradox exists for you. I understand that and where you are coming from, which is why I am not yielding to your first choice of words.

I do not agree to you combining humans and God's Angels under the same umbrella as "beings". I am not grouping together Angels and humans which are of different substance. Man cannot enter into Heaven (God's presence), whilst God's Angels can be in Heaven and also on Earth (such as the Angel Gabriel who stands in the presence of God). I do not agree with the logical statements, when you substitute both humans and God's Angels.

I said all this to help you see that the problem with angels sinning is essentially the same as the problem of free will in in a universe where God is absolutely sovereign. Therefore, your doctrine that angels can't sin appears to imply that angels have no free will. But that appears to contradict various passages, and indeed, the very idea that angels are sentient beings (since it seems the sentience and free will go together).
You have to give me an example where Angels have freewill and do not do the will of God. This is why, I do not agree with your logical statements to support your view. Whereas you fail to interpret "angels" as messengers, which were human priests or ministers, you are arguing to support the idea that Angels can sin. You do not see a paradox exists and I can understand why, even though you said I stated the paradox clearly, which I did not actually state. Of course depending on your opinion of how you interpret the two verses I quoted, you either see them as a paradox or not. You have always been arguing in support of God's Angels sinning; if not you would agree with me.

I explained your confusion in great detail last September in post #27 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49642#post49642) of the War in heaven thread. Here is what I wrote (you had written your words in red):

You confused yourself by erroneously thinking that I was "making Heaven = (Y) and earth = (Y)." I did no such thing.

And as usual, you totally ignored my explanation and so now you are repeating the same error that I explained seven months ago.
OK, in my hasty reply I quoted that wrong and I have quoted what you said above in this post. I disagree with; X = earth and Y = earth + heaven, for the reason given above.

As in your quote I have copied above you have assigned to me the way you want to phrase the paradox; David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location X and yet beings in location X sin. I have not formulated the paradox in any way as you have recently admitted, You have tried to formulate the paradox more "clearly and succinctly" as you said. In so doing you have made matters worse by using the words you later assign to me; "David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin." I have always disagreed with the phrase; "and yet angels could sin" knowing that you regard "angels" as God's Angels.

Richard. Have you read posts #74 and #75 in the thread; Can God's Angel's be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted/page8)? Those posts ought to be imported into this thread if this discussion is to continue here. Since you have not continued the discssion in that thread, I closed it off with post #76. It is probably of little importance to you now, but I have answered you and given my explanation for not accepting the phrases within the logical statements. I did make the fresh start and had accepted your challenge;
So, let's try a different angle. There never was any need for you to state your argument in the form of a paradox in the first place. You could just as well have stated it directly as a standard IF P THEN Q implication as follows:
Define P = God's Will is done in Heaven
Define Q = Angels in heaven sin
IF P THEN NOT Q
Or spelled out:
IF God's will is done in heaven, THEN angels in heaven cannot sin.
So now your job is to justify this implication, to prove that it is true. I hope this "fresh start" will help us make progress.

The simple answer to justify the implication and prove God Angels did not sin is; not to find any verses referring to God's Angels in which it says they sin. You cannot use 2 Peter 2:4 or Jude 6, which we do not agree on and you say is "mute" if we cannot agree to the interpretation. You have to find another verse where there is no ambiguity. We have ambiguity any time the word "angels" can be human or God's Angels. We have ambiguity in the phrase; 'sons of God', which can apply to humans and God's angels. If we cannot agree the context, we have to agree to call the verses mute and find other verses.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

03-27-2013, 10:54 AM

Readers

I am importing the reply from Richard into this thread, where it belongs and where you can see my opening post and the way I referred to a paradox. Richard has labored this "paradox" by plastering his replies across different threads pursuing me on my rejection of his phrase in his logical statements, which has put words in my mouth. He is forcing me to accept statements I do not accept. I had hoped to bring this discussion to a close, but Richard insists on continuing in order to gain his victory.

In the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted) Richard extended the following olive branch and to make a "fresh start", which up to now, he has not gone there and continued the discusssion. I have started off the discussion and explained again why I did not accept his logic and the statements as first given.

Here is Richards reply from the thread; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=53346

Please note; I never stated the paradox in any form in my opening post. If we see a paradox, it is from the face value of reading separate verses and I have only quoted the verses that can be construed as a paradox, which once explained in the correct way (IMO) removes any possible contradiction.

So, let's try a different angle. There never was any need for you to state your argument in the form of a paradox in the first place. You could just as well have stated it directly as a standard IF P THEN Q implication as follows:
Define P = God's Will is done in Heaven
Define Q = Angels in heaven sin
IF P THEN NOT Q
Or spelled out:
IF God's will is done in heaven, THEN angels in heaven cannot sin.
So now your job is to justify this implication, to prove that it is true. I hope this "fresh start" will help us make progress.

Happy New Year!

Richard

So now to reply to Richard

Richard

Please Richard, I am struggling to find the quote you attribute to me. I have looked to my opening post in which my first words are;

David,

I'm really glad you have finally chosen to respond to the evidence. If you had done this months ago rather than running and hiding and refusing to answer I would not have been forced to "plaster" them all over the forum in an effort to chase you down. I have been adamant on this because no rational discourse with you will be possible as long as you continue to run and hide and refuse to answer even as you FALSELY CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE ANSWERED. Therefore, it is utterly absurd for you to complain. It is your refusal to answer, coupled with your repeated false assertions that you had answered, that left me no choice.

Your assertion that I have put "words in your mouth" is blatantly false and outrageously absurd. I proved this in a post yesterday and you just ignored what I wrote. This is typical of your posts. You provide no proof and assert things that have been proven false.

Likewise, it is utterly absurd for you to say that you have rejected my phrase "angels sinned" since that is not my phrase at all. You used it in your OP when you quoted Peter's statement about angels that sinned, and you used it yourself in your own formulation of your own paradox as I have proven many times. This is why your comments are so ridiculous.

And now you say you can't even find your own formulation of your own paradox? This is because you ran and hid and refused to answer and created such a huge cloud of absurd confusion that you can't find or remember YOUR OWN WORDS. You formulated your paradox in post #58 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=51398#post51398) of the thread Can God's angels be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted). Here was our exchange with your formulation of the paradox highlighted red bold:

Good evening David,

I do not merely "say" that you missed your own point. I proved it with perfect and precise logic. If you cannot demonstrate that you understand the nature of your error, then it would be foolish in the extreme to try to reason with you because all my arguments depend upon the same kind of logic that you don't understand.

One thing you could do that would help would be to state the paradox that you say that I must answer. If you cannot do that, then we have no way to discuss it. Let me help. In the OP of your thread God's Will is done in heaven (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3352-God-s-will-is-done-in-Heaven) you stated the basic idea of the paradox implicitly as follows:
What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved.

I need you to state the paradox explicitly in a sentence that begins with the words "There would be a paradox if ...."

Thanks!

Richard

Hello Richard

There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.

That is my last statement on this subject. Either produce more evidence that God's Angels sinned or this discussion is over. You are avoiding the fact that your answers to get round what Jesus said and trying to make out Angels sinned before Jesus said those words or that Angels were somehow not in the presence of God i.e. not in Heaven, your argument failed.

Enough of this silliness. You know what the paradox is and you know how I have explained it away to show that a paradox/contradiction does not in fact exist.

All the best

David

I then explained that your answer was irrational because your formulation of your own paradox is logically identical to my formulation which you reject. You used the phrase "God's Angels in Heaven sinned" just as my formulation used the phrase "and yet angels could sin." And how did you respond? WITH MIND NUMBING IDIOCY! You simply repeated your assertion that you reject my formulation of your paradox!

YOU HAVE NEVER RESPONDED TO MY EXPLANATION. ON THE CONTRARY, YOU SIMPLY REPEAT THE SAME ERROR THAT I HAVE EXPOSED! IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I EXPLAIN IT TO YOU - YOU TOTALLY IGNORE WHAT I WRITE!!! Just look at this recent post from March 18:

So Richard, you are going to give up and not continue with the fresh start that you offered in the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted/page8)

I have felt like quitting having seen us to go round in circles. I have explained that I am not accepting your wording. It is not the basic equations of logic I do not understand. Unless we can agree the wording of the paradox then it is clear we shall not find agreement on anything else we said about the matter. As I have explained, the paradox is based on Jesus saying; "Thy will be done as it is (done) in Heaven". Then we have the verse of Peter which say; "the angels that sinned", and concerning the same angels, Jude wrote; "the angels which kept not their first estate". A correct understanding of "angels" which in this case are humans removes any apparent contradiction about understanding the workings of God's Angels and they do His will and are "ministering spirits". They always obey the instructions of God and and do not sin and it is wrong for humans to place the human condition on to the Angels of God which are not human, but can take on the appearance of humans.

I have not accepted your words; "yet Angels could sin" If you are referring to "angels", which are human, then I can accept those words about humans, but when you are applying those words to God's Angels, then I do not accept your form of words. This is the crux of this matter.

Good morning David,

You are repeating EXACTLY the same error that I have exposed many times.

You say that you reject my statement of the paradox because it contains the words "and yet angels could sin" but then YOU use the words "God's Angels in heaven sinned" in your formulation of the paradox!

Richard: There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

David: There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.

Your formulation of the paradox is logically identical to mine. It is therefore completely irrational for you to object to my formulation. Your comments have been PURE GIBBERISH!

If you can't understand logic as plain and obvious as this, then it would be impossible to have any meaningful conversation with you.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Here they are again:

I stated your paradox as follows:
There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

You rejected my statement of your paradox by objecting to the phrase "and yet angels could sin." That is TOTALLY, UTTERLY, AND ABSOLUTELY ABSURD because the paradox cannot be stated without mentioning that idea, because that idea is supposed to be the root of the paradox. I proved this by asking you to formulate your own paradox in your own words and when you did, your formulation was logically identical to mine. You wrote:
There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.
Your formulation uses the phrase "God's Angels in Heaven sinned" just as my formulation used the phrase "angels could sin." This is why you objection to the use of that phrase in the formulation of the paradox is so mind-numbingly absurd. YOUR PARADOX, the paradox that you formulated as the very foundation of your entire argument, cannot be stated without mentioning the idea that "angels sinned." We've been debating this ONE POINT for over five months and you simply refuse to admit that you are wrong.

It appears you simply have no concept of the subjunctive mood which is FUNDAMENTAL to the formulation of any logical statement of the form "IF P THEN Q." Here is how the wiki explains it:
Subjunctive possibility (also called alethic possibility or metaphysical possibility) is the form of modality most frequently studied in modal logic. Subjunctive possibilities are the sorts of possibilities we consider when we conceive of counterfactual situations; subjunctive modalities are modalities that bear on whether a statement might have been or could be true—such as might, could, must, possibly, necessarily, contingently, essentially, accidentally, and so on. Subjunctive possibilities include logical possibility, metaphysical possibility, nomological possibility, and temporal possibility.
I've explained this to you dozens of times and you simply ignore what I write. You need to respond to the explanation I have given. Here it is again:

Your words are confused gibberish. You failed to understand your own paradox. You failed to notice the word "if" in my statement of your paradox. Specifically:
There is a paradox IF we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
THAT IS THE PARADOX YOU SAID I HAD TO RESOLVE! That is the paradox you say implies angels cannot sin! You didn't understand your own argument. Everyone knows that you "are not saying 'and yet angels can sin.'" DUH! That is the POINT of your paradox! You are saying that IF angels could sin, then there would be a contradiction because God's will is done in heaven (where angels are). That is exactly what I stated! How is it possible you could fail to understand this? It's nothing but the most elementary logic stated in the clearest possible language.

Your whole argument is that there would be a paradox (contradiction) IF God's will is done in heaven AND YET angels could sin. But logic says a contradiction cannot be true. Therefore, angels cannot sin. That's your argument! That is the paradox I wrote down. How is it possible you could fail to understand something this plain and obvious? There is no clearer way to say it. You totally and absolutely missed your own point.

You need to respond to these words and demonstrate that you understand your error or it will be impossible for us to discuss ANYTHING because all discussions are based on LOGIC which you simply do not understand.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Will you NOW answer the explanations I have given?

Thanks,

Richard

Do you see my repeated words begging you to actually answer? Why did I feel a need to repeat those words? Why did I have to repeat them again in red bold in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3647-O-A-C-____-A-C-A-C&p=53277#post53277) a week later? BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN REFUSING TO ANSWER FOR MONTHS! And you refuse to answer no matter how many times I ask.

THIS IS RANK INSANITY! You continue to repeat the same error over and over and over again for months!. You REFUSE TO ANSWER my demonstration of your error except to repeat the very error that I have exposed. And then you say that you have answered! :dizzy:

You need to write something that shows you actually understand your error.

Thanks,

Richard

David M

03-27-2013, 01:24 PM

David,

I'm really glad you have finally chosen to respond to the evidence. If you had done this months ago rather than running and hiding and refusing to answer I would not have been forced to "plaster" them all over the forum in an effort to chase you down. I have been adamant on this because no rational discourse with you will be possible as long as you continue to run and hide and refuse to answer even as you FALSELY CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE ANSWERED. Therefore, it is utterly absurd for you to complain. It is your refusal to answer, coupled with your repeated false assertions that you had answered, that left me no choice.

Your assertion that I have put "words in your mouth" is blatantly false and outrageously absurd. I proved this in a post yesterday and you just ignored what I wrote. This is typical of your posts. You provide no proof and assert things that have been proven false.

Likewise, it is utterly absurd for you to say that you have rejected my phrase "angels sinned" since that is not my phrase at all. You used it in your OP when you quoted Peter's statement about angels that sinned, and you used it yourself in your own formulation of your own paradox as I have proven many times. This is why your comments are so ridiculous.

And now you say you can't even find your own formulation of your own paradox? This is because you ran and hid and refused to answer and created such a huge cloud of absurd confusion that you can't find or remember YOUR OWN WORDS. You formulated your paradox in post #58 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=51398#post51398) of the thread Can God's angels be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted). Here was our exchange with your formulation of the paradox highlighted red bold:

I then explained that your answer was irrational because your formulation of your own paradox is logically identical to my formulation which you reject. You used the phrase "God's Angels in Heaven sinned" just as my formulation used the phrase "and yet angels could sin." And how did you respond? WITH MIND NUMBING IDIOCY! You simply repeated your assertion that you reject my formulation of your paradox!

YOU HAVE NEVER RESPONDED TO MY EXPLANATION. ON THE CONTRARY, YOU SIMPLY REPEAT THE SAME ERROR THAT I HAVE EXPOSED! IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I EXPLAIN IT TO YOU - YOU TOTALLY IGNORE WHAT I WRITE!!! Just look at this recent post from March 18:

Do you see my repeated words begging you to actually answer? Why did I feel a need to repeat those words? Why did I have to repeat them again in red bold in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3647-O-A-C-____-A-C-A-C&p=53277#post53277) a week later? BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN REFUSING TO ANSWER FOR MONTHS! And you refuse to answer no matter how many times I ask.

THIS IS RANK INSANITY! You continue to repeat the same error over and over and over again for months!. You REFUSE TO ANSWER my demonstration of your error except to repeat the very error that I have exposed. And then you say that you have answered! :dizzy:

You need to write something that shows you actually understand your error.

Thanks,

Richard

OK Richard, thank you for pointing me to post #58. You have the advantage of a better recall as well as having access the the database and can search through it.

Ok, so you got me to say; "IF God's Angels in Heaven sinned" The word "if" is highly suggestive of something that is impossible. This is a long way from saying as you did at the beginning; and yet angels could sin". If is allowing for a possibility and I should have stuck to my guns and not allowed a chink in the armour for you to penetrate. If suggests a very uncertain possibility and not one I would entertain, and so it would be a contradiction of a major order when the "if" turned into a reality. There is nothing uncertain about your phrase; "yet angels could sin".

If you were really claiming that your re-formulation of the paradox was saying the same as me, then I was prepared to accept that and asked you to move to your next point. Instead, you insisted on pursuing something you had not need to.

You have re-formulated your paradox which is not the same as you started with. I never claimed to formulate a paradox and to say your formulatio of the paradox was more succinct, and clear than mine (which had not formulated) actually muddied the waters. I totally reject your phrase; "yet angels (God's Angels) could sin" and will do so and the fact that you modified to say to agree wth "if God's Angels sinned" only goes to show the difference there was. The two phrases do not mean the same, as I have just explained.

So is this the last of it, or are you going to continue to do more of the same?

David

Richard Amiel McGough

03-27-2013, 02:51 PM

OK Richard, thank you for pointing me to post #58. You have the advantage of a better recall as well as having access the the database and can search through it.

I may have a better recall, but I have not used any "advantage" with the database. I explained this a few days ago when you said the same thing. I used the search function that everyone else uses (click on the Advanced Search button on the top right).

And there would not have been any need to "search" for anything if you had just ANSWERED MY POST MONTHS AGO when I first posted it.

Ok, so you got me to say; "IF God's Angels in Heaven sinned" The word "if" is highly suggestive of something that is impossible. This is a long way from saying as you did at the beginning; and yet angels could sin". If is allowing for a possibility and I should have stuck to my guns and not allowed a chink in the armour for you to penetrate. If suggests a very uncertain possibility and not one I would entertain, and so it would be a contradiction of a major order when the "if" turned into a reality. There is nothing uncertain about your phrase; "yet angels could sin".

The word "if" is NOT suggestive of anything "impossible." Is there no bottom to the abyss of you mind? You don't even know the meaning of the word "IF" and the role it plays in logical implications of the form IF P THEN Q?!!!!! I am stunned. :eek:

And this is not a "long way" from anything I've ever said. I've been repeating exactly the same thing for MONTHS trying to get you to answer! You comments are radically INSANE.

Your comments are RADICALLY IRRATIONAL. TOTAL GIBBERISH!

If you were really claiming that your re-formulation of the paradox was saying the same as me, then I was prepared to accept that and asked you to move to your next point. Instead, you insisted on pursuing something you had not need to.

Dude, my formulation of the paradox that you presented in you OP is LOGICALLY PERFECT, PRECISE, AND EXACTLY WHAT YOUR OWN WORDS IMPLIED. The fact that you cannot understand this means that you are utterly totally and absolutely incapable of understanding the most basic elements of logic and the English language.

You have re-formulated your paradox which is not the same as you started with. I never claimed to formulate a paradox and to say your formulatio of the paradox was more succinct, and clear than mine (which had not formulated) actually muddied the waters. I totally reject your phrase; "yet angels (God's Angels) could sin" and will do so and the fact that you modified to say to agree wth "if God's Angels sinned" only goes to show the difference there was. The two phrases do not mean the same, as I have just explained.

So is this the last of it, or are you going to continue to do more of the same?

David
So you "totally reject" my formulation despite the fact that it is logically equivalent to your formulation? Brilliant.

Thank you David. We are done with this. I never would have thought that any human who could type could utter words as crazy and irrational as yours. Your comments reveal an absolute failure to understand the most basic elements of both logic and the English language. And worse, you are absolutely resistant to any learning. Your ignorance is therefore impenetrable. You have chosen the path of invincible ignorance.

Wow. Just wow.

Richard

David M

03-28-2013, 12:52 AM

Hello Richard

I may have a better recall, but I have not used any "advantage" with the database. I explained this a few days ago when you said the same thing. I used the search function that everyone else uses (click on the Advanced Search button on the top right).

And there would not have been any need to "search" for anything if you had just ANSWERED MY POST MONTHS AGO when I first posted it.
I won't doubt you used the search function on this occassion, and I tell you that on my laptop. the search function is pathetic. Maybe its a fault with my laptop like in Firefox the spell check function does not work, but on another computer, it does.

The advanced search function has hardly ever given me the results I wanted and in many cases no results at all. Unless you can show me how to use it properly and expose features I do not know about, the advanced search function is practically useless.

There was an occassion when in a post I said you be able to easily find something and you did and you said it was easy because you are able to search the MYSQL database and construct a search string to find the exact posts you are after. Now can I do the same thing? If I have the same access. please show me or give all the readers a tutorial of how to do it.

The word "if" is NOT suggestive of anything "impossible." Is there no bottom to the abyss of you mind? You don't even know the meaning of the word "IF" and the role it plays in logical implications of the form IF P THEN Q?!!!!! I am stunned. :eek:
Here is part of the definition of the word "if" according to how it is used

noun
6.
a supposition; uncertain possibility: The future is full of ifs.

The word "if" suggests an uncertain possibility. I use the word reservedly knowing that to me God's Angels sinning is an impossibility. I will add a futher article to this thread explaining that further.

And this is not a "long way" from anything I've ever said. I've been repeating exactly the same thing for MONTHS trying to get you to answer! You comments are radically INSANE.
Then to repeat yourself is madness so why did you not change your form of words with which I would agree. You keep saying your formulation was the same as mine, which I never intentionally tried to formulate. When I agreed to agree with you at one stage, you would not move the conversation forward.

Your comments are RADICALLY IRRATIONAL. TOTAL GIBBERISH!

Ditto

Dude, my formulation of the paradox that you presented in you OP is LOGICALLY PERFECT, PRECISE, AND EXACTLY WHAT YOUR OWN WORDS IMPLIED. The fact that you cannot understand this means that you are utterly totally and absolutely incapable of understanding the most basic elements of logic and the English language.
Hello Mr Perfect. You have no sin in you, well we know what that means...

So you "totally reject" my formulation despite the fact that it is logically equivalent to your formulation? Brilliant.
and I still reject it, but if you say it is equivalent to "your formulation" which I did not formulate, then why would you not progress the conversation?

Thank you David. We are done with this. I never would have thought that any human who could type could utter words as crazy and irrational as yours. Your comments reveal an absolute failure to understand the most basic elements of both logic and the English language. And worse, you are absolutely resistant to any learning. Your ignorance is therefore impenetrable. You have chosen the path of invincible ignorance.
Now you are agreeing to call an end and I am just getting started. I wonder why? Watch out for my next post!!

David

L67

03-28-2013, 06:46 AM

Hello Richard

I won't doubt you used the search function on this occassion, and I tell you that on my laptop. the search function is pathetic. Maybe its a fault with my laptop like in Firefox the spell check function does not work, but on another computer, it does.

No it's just the user. I used the search function and found your words instantly.

Here is part of the definition of the word "if" according to how it is used

The word "if" suggests an uncertain possibility. I use the word reservedly knowing that to me God's Angels sinning is an impossibility. I will add a futher article to this thread explaining that further.

David is there no end to your silliness? The word if in this case is not used as an uncertain possibility. The definition of if is:
a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

Richards paradox is as follows: It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

Anyone of those defitions can be substituted for "if'. You can easily say that "it is a paradox in the event that God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

How can you be this stupid?

and I still reject it, but if you say it is equivalent to "your formulation" which I did not formulate, then why would you not progress the conversation?

But you did formulate the paradox David. You said: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven.

That is what YOU proposed. It is assinine on your part to say you didn't formulate it. You called me out the other day and said you have exposed me for agreeing with Richard. And when I responded with something so simple that even a grade schooler could figure it out, you never responded. Well I'm not going away. Now answer this simple question I asked you yesterday.

You said this : What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven.

This was the contradiction that you proposed. The contradiction is that angels can't sin if Jesus says God's will is done in heaven. Richard stated It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

It's right there David. It is a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin. It's the same freaking thing David. The contradiction is God's will can't be done in heaven if angels sin or angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

How can you fail to understand it's the same freaking thing you originally proposed?

Now you are agreeing to call an end, and I am just getting started. I wonder why? Watch out for my next post!!

It's not because you are right. It's because you are acting so ignorant and don't even understand your own words.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-28-2013, 09:42 AM

David is there no end to your silliness? The word if in this case is not used as an uncertain possibility. The definition of if is:
a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

Richards paradox is as follows: It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

Anyone of those defitions can be substituted for "if'. You can easily say that "it is a paradox in the event that God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

How can you be this stupid?

I have written many posts to David about the basic meaning of words like "if" and how they function in logical implications of the form "IF P THEN Q" and he has never shown any comprehension at all. On the contrary, he has consistently written rank gibberish in response to my explanations. For example, in post #33 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49667#post49667) of the War in heaven thread, he reformulated his paradox yet again by switching the word "if" with "when"! :doh:

There is no need for further explanation. I have expressed your paradox with perfect clarity.
There would be a contradiction if we said that God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels could sin.

Do you understand that this is a perfect expression of your paradox? If not, then you need to state your paradox with similar clarity. You need to state it as a proposition of the form "There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and ..."

Richard

I think it is about time you let others speak if this thread to continue; I am finished discussing this with you. You do not want to address the the ambiguity you have presented by creating your own paradox because I will not confirm your statement which you say represents the paradox I have presented (IF God's Angels sin in Heaven). This is my final statement of the paradox to solve;

We have a paradox when God's will is done in Heaven IF God's Angels sin in Heaven.
I think it is about time we heard from other contributors if this thread to continue. If no contributors come forward, this discussion is over and others can make up their mind from all the posts in this thread who they think has been more truthful in getting to the problem of the paradox.

David
So I wrote a long post explaining why his rewording of the paradox (switching "when" for "if") changed nothing. And again, he showed ZERO understanding.

I think I have finally figured out the essence of David's confusion. It he thinks that the mere act of stating an implication of the form IF P THEN Q necessarily assumes the actual, factual truth of P and Q. It appears he has no understanding of the subjunctive mood, the grammatical form of hypothetical situations that is the essence of logical implications of the form IF P THEN Q. We see this clearly in his response from last December where he explicitly stated this for the proposition Q = "and yet God's angels can sin." He said merely stating that in a logical implication mean that "you are supposing God's Angels in Heaven can sin." So I had to explain that the meaning of the word paradox and the nature of logical implications, and that of course you are "supposing" the propositions true in order to see if they are REALLY TRUE and that that's the whole point of his paradox. That's why he formed the paradox in his OP! And again he showed no understanding of any kind:

I have given you my answer. I disagree with your supposition. When you say; "and yet God's angels can sin". You are supposing God's Angels in Heaven can sin.

Good morning David,

You are merely repeating your error. You need to respond to my explanation of why your statement is logically incoherent. Your answer indicates that you do not understand how to state a logical paradox. So here is my explanation again, which I posted last September (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7/page3&p=49642#post49642) and again last week in post #44 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=51211#post51211). You never answered that post with any understanding at all. You need to answer it and show that you understand basic logic.

To begin, we need to establish the meaning of English words. Here is the definition of a logical paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox):
A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which (if true) defies logic or reason

This can generally be expressed for an arbitrary proposition P as follows:
It is a paradox if P is true, and yet Not P is true.

The word "yet" is a conjunction that means (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/yet) "nevertheless" or "and despite this fact" as in the sentence "She said she would be late, and yet arrived on time." It is not necessary in my example. I could just as well have written it as:
It is a paradox if P is true, and Not P is true.

A "paradox" in the sense used in our conversation merely means "contradiction."
It is a contradiction if P is true, and yet Not P is true.

This is the essence of your argument. Here is how you stated it in the OP of your thread God's Will is done in heaven (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3352-God-s-will-is-done-in-Heaven).
What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved.
So I stated your paradox with perfect clarity:
David: It is a paradox if God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.
And how did you respond? With total mind-numbing confusion! Look at what you wrote:

David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin. I am not saying; "and yet angels could sin" the word "yet" you have inserted implies they do. I am saying that it is a paradox to say God's Angels sin. My argument is God's Angels in Heaven cannot sin (the same as they do not sin on earth. It is "angels" which are human that sin on earth and human angels are not in Heaven..

Your words are confused gibberish. You failed to understand your own paradox. You failed to notice the word "if" in my statement of your paradox. Specifically:
There is a paradox IF we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

THAT IS THE PARADOX YOU SAID I HAD TO RESOLVE! That is the paradox you say implies angels cannot sin! You didn't understand your own argument. Everyone knows that you "are not saying 'and yet angels can sin.'" DUH! That is the POINT of your paradox! You are saying that IF angels could sin, then there would be a contradiction because God's will is done in heaven (where angels are). That is exactly what I stated! How is it possible you could fail to understand this? It's nothing but the most elementary logic stated in the clearest possible language.

Your whole argument is that there would be a paradox (contradiction) IF God's will is done in heaven AND YET angels could sin. But logic says a contradiction cannot be true. Therefore, angels cannot sin. That's your argument! That is the paradox I wrote down. How is it possible you could fail to understand something this plain and obvious? There is no clearer way to say it. You totally and absolutely missed your own point.

All the best,

Richard

It appears he is simply blind when it comes to basic logic. He has even explicitly rejected the most fundamental law of all logic - the Law of Non-Contradiction!

But you did formulate the paradox David. You said: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven.

That is what YOU proposed. It is assinine on your part to say you didn't formulate it. You called me out the other day and said you have exposed me for agreeing with Richard. And when I responded with something so simple that even a grade schooler could figure it out, you never responded. Well I'm not going away. Now answer this simple question I asked you yesterday.

You said this : What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven.

This was the contradiction that you proposed. The contradiction is that angels can't sin if Jesus says God's will is done in heaven. Richard stated It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

It's right there David. It is a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin. It's the same freaking thing David. The contradiction is God's will can't be done in heaven if angels sin or angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

How can you fail to understand it's the same freaking thing you originally proposed?

Asking why it is so hard for David to grasp it may be like asking why is it so hard for a diabetic to produce insulin. It's not his "fault" - it appears to be a physical brain disorder. I can see no other possibility after seven months of conversations like this where David has consistently failed to understand the most basic meaning of logical implications like "IF P THEN Q."

It's not because you are right. It's because you are acting so ignorant and don't even understand your own words.
Exactly correct. David introduced the concept of a "paradox" in his OP. It is the foundation of his entire argument. Yet he cannot state it in the form "There would be a paradox if ..." because in his mind, that would imply that the paradox was "real." And that's the absurdity because if there were not a real paradox implied by assuming that Angels could sin, then it would not prove David's point!

The point of David's paradox: To prove that God's angels cannot sin.

To accomplish that, one need only prove: There would be a contradiction if God's Will is done in heaven AND YET God's Angels sinned in heaven.

This is what David is really trying to do, but he doesn't understand how logic works. I have explained it to him in grotesque detail dozens of times over the span of seven months, and yet he has never shown any understanding at all.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-28-2013, 10:40 AM

noun
6.
a supposition; uncertain possibility: The future is full of ifs.
Here is part of the definition of the word "if" according to how it is used

The word "if" suggests an uncertain possibility. I use the word reservedly knowing that to me God's Angels sinning is an impossibility. I will add a futher article to this thread explaining that further.

David, do you see the word "supposition" in the definition? That's how logic works. When we say IF P THEN Q we mean "Suppose P is true. That would imply Q is true." Case in point:

Let P = "God's will is done in heaven."
Let Q = "Angels in heaven can sin."

Your paradox as stated in your OP becomes:
What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned” (= Q), and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. (= P)
Therefore your paradox is stated with perfect precision as follows:
There would be a paradox IF P (God's will is done in heaven) AND Q (angels sinned).
Now look at the reason you gave in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=51368#post51368) for rejecting your own paradox:

I have given you my answer. I disagree with your supposition. When you say; "and yet God's angels can sin". You are supposing God's Angels in Heaven can in.
Yes David, when anyone states a logical implication of the form "IF P THEN Q" one is "supposing" that P is true for the sake of the argument. That is how logic is done. I explained all this to you in minute detail in my response and you never showed any understanding at all. I showed you the definition of a paradox:
A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which (if true) defies logic or reason

Do you see that? The word "IF TRUE"??? That's the whole point. It is not an assertion that it IS TRUE, but rather, IF P is true THEN Q! :doh:

Then to repeat yourself is madness so why did you not change your form of words with which I would agree. You keep saying your formulation was the same as mine, which I never intentionally tried to formulate. When I agreed to agree with you at one stage, you would not move the conversation forward.

Yeah, I thought about that yesterday. I wondered if I was showing the same kind of insanity that you exhibit where you repeat your same error over and over and over again. But then I saw that there is a big difference. The reason I repeat my explanations is because YOU REFUSED TO ANSWER! So it's nothing like the kind of insanity that you show when you continue to repeat the same error over and over and over again even as you IGNORE the explanations I have given.

And the reason no conversation can "move forward" until you answer is because all conversations require an understanding of basic logic. So if you cannot show that you understand basic logic, all other conversations would be futile and absurd.

Dude, my formulation of the paradox that you presented in you OP is LOGICALLY PERFECT, PRECISE, AND EXACTLY WHAT YOUR OWN WORDS IMPLIED. The fact that you cannot understand this means that you are utterly totally and absolutely incapable of understanding the most basic elements of logic and the English language.
Hello Mr Perfect. You have no sin in you, well we know what that means...

We are not talking about "sin" here. We are talking about basic logic. And I did not say that I was perfect. I said that my formulation of your paradox is perfect, and that is simply a fact just like saying that the equation 1 + 2 = 3 is perfect. How is it possible that you could fail to understand words written with perfect clarity and precision?

So you "totally reject" my formulation despite the fact that it is logically equivalent to your formulation? Brilliant.
and I still reject it, but if you say it is equivalent to "your formulation" which I did not formulate, then why would you not progress the conversation?

You are rejecting LOGIC ITSELF! :doh:

Now you are agreeing to call an end and I am just getting started. I wonder why? Watch out for my next post!!

David
When I read your post my brain exploded and splattered a lot of words like "PURE GIBBERISH" and "RANK INSANITY" on the screen. I'm sorry. I'll try to control myself better. The problem is that I was caught off-guard by the rank absurdity of your comments.

In truth, I am interested to see if you can find your way back to the world of reason and reality. So I look forward to your next post.

And while we are on the subject, let me tell you what needs to happen. We need to write LUCID and LOGICAL words that we can totally agree upon without any ambiguity. Like 1 + 2 = 3. If there is something we disagree about, we need to be able to EXPLICITLY state and AGREE upon the nature of our disagreement. We need to stand on a COMMON FOUNDATION OF LOGIC. This is the real problem in your posts. You consistently reject the most fundamental aspects of logic. You reject the law of the excluded middle. You reject logical implications of the form IF P THEN Q. This has made progress impossible.

Do you understand? There is no reason we cannot ARTICULATE our differences with PERFECT CLARITY. That is the prerequisite for any progress.

All the best,

Richard

David M

03-29-2013, 03:55 AM

Hello L67

No it's just the user. I used the search function and found your words instantly. Good for you. It might be my browser, but I do not get good results. The server/connections are a pain at the moment and I lost one reply I had to do all over again. Such are the aggravations of the techonolgy.

David is there no end to your silliness? The word if in this case is not used as an uncertain possibility. The definition of if is:
a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

Richards paradox is as follows: It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

Anyone of those defitions can be substituted for "if'. You can easily say that "it is a paradox in the event that God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

How can you be this stupid?
Even you have not quoted Richard's original words correctly. Richard said; "and yet angels could sin". Why did Richard have to use that phrase? When the wording as you have used and Richard used in order to have a "fresh start" was more acceptable, that is where we should have been at the beginning. The words "angels that sinned" is in the verse I quoted; why change them? Richard was not making his formulation any clearer than a formulation I did not make. I never stated the paradox in a single sentence. As I have explained following; the word "angels" is ambiguous and so the word must be defined or else as Richard likes to quote Voltaire;“If you want to debate me, first we must define the terms of our argument or there can be no meaningful debate.” That was the reason for not accepting the phrase; "and yet angels could sin". I am suspicious of the meaning Richard was using for saying; "and yet God's Angels could sin" is a no-no in my book.

But you did formulate the paradox David. You said: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven.

That is what YOU proposed. It is assinine on your part to say you didn't formulate it. You called me out the other day and said you have exposed me for agreeing with Richard. And when I responded with something so simple that even a grade schooler could figure it out, you never responded. Well I'm not going away. Now answer this simple question I asked you yesterday.

You said this : What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven.

This was the contradiction that you proposed. The contradiction is that angels can't sin if Jesus says God's will is done in heaven. Richard stated It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

It's right there David. It is a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin. It's the same freaking thing David. The contradiction is God's will can't be done in heaven if angels sin or angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

How can you fail to understand it's the same freaking thing you originally proposed?

You are making me repeat the explanation I have already given. I referred to the words which could be construed as a paradox. I did not change the words and put them into a sentence like Richard did and I was suspicious of the definition Richard was using. I have explained; to infer; "and yet God's Angels could sin" is a no-no and that why I would not accept those words which inferred that and any such words that might is the reason for having to explain them away. Like Richard, I do not expect you to see a paradox exists because Richard say the Bible teaches God's Angels sin. That is the supposition he is starting from and accuses me of having suppositions he does not agree with. When do suppositions stop being suppositions? Please answer that question.

It's not because you are right. It's because you are acting so ignorant and don't even understand your own words. Are you able to have a conversation in which you cannot be insulting? I understand exactly what I am saying, if you cannot. I am not going to be deceived by "lying words". That is a warning from the Bible.

David

David M

03-29-2013, 04:21 AM

Hello Richard

I see you gave a long explanation to L67. I know he accepts what you say and that is why he is taking up the argument and I am explaining again to him.

In truth, I am interested to see if you can find your way back to the world of reason and reality. So I look forward to your next post.
I have not left the world of sanity, but I have come into your world of science and facts, devoid of spirit, faith and wisdom and that is the world I will leave behind.

And while we are on the subject, let me tell you what needs to happen. We need to write LUCID and LOGICAL words that we can totally agree upon without any ambiguity. Like 1 + 2 = 3. If there is something we disagree about, we need to be able to EXPLICITLY state and AGREE upon the nature of our disagreement. We need to stand on a COMMON FOUNDATION OF LOGIC. This is the real problem in your posts. You consistently reject the most fundamental aspects of logic. You reject the law of the excluded middle. You reject logical implications of the form IF P THEN Q. This has made progress impossible.
I agree and your formulation of the paradox was not as clear to me as you thought it was to yourself. Terms were not defined and that is part way to resolving an apparent paradox. So let's be clear on the terms in future.

Do you understand? There is no reason we cannot ARTICULATE our differences with PERFECT CLARITY. That is the prerequisite for any progress.
I understand this perfectly. In future, please do confuse the discussion by being too clever and bringing in unnecessary formulations.

All the best,

David

PS. Since we have calmed down, the thoughts I had intended to post, I shall leave to another time and another thread.

L67

03-29-2013, 06:30 AM

Hello L67

Even you have not quoted Richard's original words correctly. Richard said; "and yet angels could sin". Why did Richard have to use that phrase? When the wording as you have used and Richard used in order to have a "fresh start" was more acceptable, that is where we should have been at the beginning. The words "angels that sinned" is in the verse I quoted; why change them? Richard was not making his formulation any clearer than a formulation I did not make. I never stated the paradox in a single sentence. As I have explained following; the word "angels" is ambiguous and so the word must be defined or else as Richard likes to quote Voltaire;“If you want to debate me, first we must define the terms of our argument or there can be no meaningful debate.” That was the reason for not accepting the phrase; "and yet angels could sin". I am suspicious of the meaning Richard was using for saying; "and yet God's Angels could sin" is a no-no in my book.

OMG. I can't believe you are this resistant to simple logic. Why did he use that phrase? Because it implies a contradiction David. How can you not see that? You said angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven. Ok. Richard stated "It is a paradox if Gods will is done in heaven, and yet angels could sin". In order to have a paradox we need a contradiction. So let's assume that God's will is done in heaven, "and yet angels could sin". Now we have a true statement that "God's will is done in heaven". The phrase "and yet angels could sin" contradicts our true statement therefore completing the paradox. How can you fail to see that? Logic dictates that is identical to your original paradox.

You are making me repeat the explanation I have already given. I referred to the words which could be construed as a paradox. I did not change the words and put them into a sentence like Richard did and I was suspicious of the definition Richard was using. I have explained; to infer; "and yet God's Angels could sin" is a no-no and that why I would not accept those words which inferred that and any such words that might is the reason for having to explain them away. Like Richard, I do not expect you to see a paradox exists because Richard say the Bible teaches God's Angels sin. That is the supposition he is starting from and accuses me of having suppositions he does not agree with. When do suppositions stop being suppositions? Please answer that question.

Because you keep having a breakdown of the english language. And when asked to formulate the paradox yourself you wrote something logically identical to Richards. It doesn't matter if Richard believes angles can sin. That is irrelevant to this dilemma because he is NOT saying any such thing.

Read this David: THAT IS THE PARADOX YOU SAID I HAD TO RESOLVE! That is the paradox you say implies angels cannot sin! You didn't understand your own argument. Everyone knows that you "are not saying 'and yet angels can sin.'" DUH! That is the POINT of your paradox! You are saying that IF angels could sin, then there would be a contradiction because God's will is done in heaven (where angels are). That is exactly what I stated! How is it possible you could fail to understand this? It's nothing but the most elementary logic stated in the clearest possible language

Do you see that David? Nobody is saying angels can sin. The only person who is hung up on that is YOU. The whole point of your original paradox is that angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven. You have completely failed to recognize your own words and quitely clear don't understand them months later.

Are you able to have a conversation in which you cannot be insulting? I understand exactly what I am saying, if you cannot. I am not going to be deceived by "lying words". That is a warning from the Bible.

Nice double standard David. You complain that I was insulting, and then you insult me.

Lastly it is quite apparent you DON'T understand your own argument. I have demonstrated that above.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-29-2013, 08:04 AM

David is there no end to your silliness? The word if in this case is not used as an uncertain possibility. The definition of if is:
a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

Richards paradox is as follows: It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

Anyone of those defitions can be substituted for "if'. You can easily say that "it is a paradox in the event that God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

How can you be this stupid?

Even you have not quoted Richard's original words correctly. Richard said; "and yet angels could sin". Why did Richard have to use that phrase? When the wording as you have used and Richard used in order to have a "fresh start" was more acceptable, that is where we should have been at the beginning. The words "angels that sinned" is in the verse I quoted; why change them? Richard was not making his formulation any clearer than a formulation I did not make. I never stated the paradox in a single sentence. As I have explained following; the word "angels" is ambiguous and so the word must be defined or else as Richard likes to quote Voltaire;“If you want to debate me, first we must define the terms of our argument or there can be no meaningful debate.” That was the reason for not accepting the phrase; "and yet angels could sin". I am suspicious of the meaning Richard was using for saying; "and yet God's Angels could sin" is a no-no in my book.

David,

I think I've isolated your confusion. There is no meaningful logical distinction between the phrases "and yet angels could sin" and "and yet angels sin." The "could" merely indicates that the action of "angels sinning" is possible but not necessary. It has nothing to do with the paradox per se. Either phrase is perfectly acceptable and no one who understands basic logic and the English would stumble over this point. Your comment is meaningless.

You are showing the same kind of confusion that started this long twisted trail of confusion last September when you rejected my use of the word "yet." I had formulated your paradox into a single sentence for clarity, hoping it would make it easier for you to see the logic since you were obviously quite confused. Your answer blew my mind. Here's what you wrote in post #23 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49606#post49606) of the War in heaven thread (your words in red):
David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin. I am not saying; "and yet angels could sin" the word "yet" you have inserted implies they do. I am saying that it is a paradox to say God's Angels sin. My argument is God's Angels in Heaven cannot sin (the same as they do not sin on earth. It is "angels" which are human that sin on earth and human angels are not in Heaven..
Your confusion here is so thick I knew it was unlikely that any explanation would help, so I had the brilliant idea of reminding you about the Law of Non-Contradiction so you would have to choose between P and Not P and so see that my formulation of the paradox was perfect and precise. So in post #24 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49608#post49608) I wrote this:

Good morning David,

I don't understand your last post. Could you please tell me which of these two propositions you agree with?

P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

By the Law of the Excluded Middle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle) (also known as the Law of Non-Contradiction), you must agree with one of those propositions, P or Not P.

The Law simply states that for any proposition P, either that proposition is true, or its negation Not P is true.

Thanks,

Richard

And to my utter astonishment, my effort failed and you answered by asserting that you don't reject the law of non-contradiction but that you do reject both P and Not P! :doh: Arrrrggg! My brain! My brain! Here is what you wrote:
The law that you now state (above) I do not disagree with. I am rejecting both of your statements, because the paradox that is at the center of this present discussion does not exist.
And it gets worse! Not only did you simultaneously affirm and deny the Law of Non-Contradiction, you went on to assert that the very paradox upon which you base your entire argument DOES NOT EXIST! Wow ... just wow. This is some deep mental doo-doo dude! We're talking some serious brain rot here. And it constantly gets deeper and deeper. It's like "fractal brain rot" that goes on forever.

Now I understand why you say the contradiction does not exist. You have "resolved" it by saying that when Peter spoke of "angels that sinned" he was speaking about human messengers, not "God's Holy Angels" which are spiritual beings that cannot sin. I've understood that from the beginning. But this does not mean that the paradox "does not exist." It means you have RESOLVED the paradox to your satisfaction. Your assertions have been radically irrational, confused, and filled with logical contradictions and absurdities.

So once I saw that you could not see and understand basic logical implications, I took it upon my scatological self to analyse the essence of your confusion down to the finest detail in post #27 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49642#post49642). I explained the meaning of the word "yet" and the word "if" and the nature of a logical paradox and you did not understand a word of what I wrote! I've repeated that post many times and you have consistently ignored it and shown no understanding of the most basic elements of logic and the English language.

Here's the bottom line explanation: You constantly complain that we are "supposing God's Angels in Heaven can in" when we state the paradox and you REFUSE to make that supposition because you don't think it is true.

And why don't you think it is not true? Because >>>IF<<< it is true, that is, IF WE SUPPOSE IT IS TRUE, >>>THEN<<< we have a CONTRADICTION. This is the essence of your argument that you posted many months ago. And now you are saying you cannot even state your own paradox because it doesn't even exist? This is deep brain doo doo David. Deep doo doo.

So anyway, you have all the information you need if you ever want to educate yourself on how to understand logical implications. I'd be happy to help, but I certainly can't make you think if you are so adamantly opposed to it.

You are making me repeat the explanation I have already given. I referred to the words which could be construed as a paradox. I did not change the words and put them into a sentence like Richard did and I was suspicious of the definition Richard was using. I have explained; to infer; "and yet God's Angels could sin" is a no-no and that why I would not accept those words which inferred that and any such words that might is the reason for having to explain them away. Like Richard, I do not expect you to see a paradox exists because Richard say the Bible teaches God's Angels sin. That is the supposition he is starting from and accuses me of having suppositions he does not agree with. When do suppositions stop being suppositions? Please answer that question.

The essence of a LOGICAL IMPLICATION is of the form SUPPOSE P IS TRUE. THAT IMPLIES Q IS TRUE. Folks who understand this are able to use the shorter form IF P THEN Q. :doh:

Are you able to have a conversation in which you cannot be insulting? I understand exactly what I am saying, if you cannot. I am not going to be deceived by "lying words". That is a warning from the Bible.

David, you don't have a CLUE about what you are saying. You directly contradict yourself on many points. You don't understand the nature of a logical implication. You don't even understand the meaning of the words like "if" and "yet" and "could." You are radically confused. We've been discussing this ONE TRIVIAL ERROR for seven months. I have explained the meaning of practically every word needed, and yet you still are as clueless as the day we began.

I do not enjoy telling you that your logic is fundamentally illogical, but I have no choice. And since you refused to answer for so long, and when you did answer you wrote radically insane confusion, I did let myself tell you exactly what I saw. I'm sorry if it felt "insulting" - that was not my purpose. My purpose was to find a way to ROPE YOU IN to the world of sanity. I had to use a "sharp instrument" like a whaler's spear to pierce your soul so I could drag you in from the sea of insanity. You have become my White Whale David. Call me Ahab.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

03-29-2013, 08:13 AM

I agree and your formulation of the paradox was not as clear to me as you thought it was to yourself. Terms were not defined and that is part way to resolving an apparent paradox. So let's be clear on the terms in future.

Every word was defined with perfect precision. That was not the problem. The problem was that you didn't understand how to state a logical contradiction and how to use a contradiction to prove a point, namely, that "God's Angels can't sin." We've been going over this same error for seven months. I've explained every word from (if, yet, could, paradox, etc.) and you still show no understanding. I've never encountered anyone as resistant to basic logic as you.

I understand this perfectly. In future, please do confuse the discussion by being too clever and bringing in unnecessary formulations.

When you say that my formulation of your paradox was "unnecessary" you prove yet again that you don't understand anything that we've been talking about.

PS. Since we have calmed down, the thoughts I had intended to post, I shall leave to another time and another thread.
If we are talking calmly, why leave?

I would like to see if you will EVER admit your error. I get the impression that this is what is disabling your brain. Your pride will not allow you to admit your error, but logic will not allow you to deny it. You apparently have chosen to sacrifice you mind in service of your pride. Can you see how very serious this is?

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

03-29-2013, 08:16 AM

OMG. I can't believe you are this resistant to simple logic. Why did he use that phrase? Because it implies a contradiction David. How can you not see that? You said angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven. Ok. Richard stated "It is a paradox if Gods will is done in heaven, and yet angels could sin". In order to have a paradox we need a contradiction. So let's assume that God's will is done in heaven, "and yet angels could sin". Now we have a true statement that "God's will is done in heaven". The phrase "and yet angels could sin" contradicts our true statement therefore completing the paradox. How can you fail to see that? Logic dictates that is identical to your original paradox.

I'm glad I'm not alone. I wonder how many witnesses must stand up before David will admit his error?

Because you keep having a breakdown of the english language. And when asked to formulate the paradox yourself you wrote something logically identical to Richards. It doesn't matter if Richard believes angles can sin. That is irrelevant to this dilemma because he is NOT saying any such thing.

Read this David: THAT IS THE PARADOX YOU SAID I HAD TO RESOLVE! That is the paradox you say implies angels cannot sin! You didn't understand your own argument. Everyone knows that you "are not saying 'and yet angels can sin.'" DUH! That is the POINT of your paradox! You are saying that IF angels could sin, then there would be a contradiction because God's will is done in heaven (where angels are). That is exactly what I stated! How is it possible you could fail to understand this? It's nothing but the most elementary logic stated in the clearest possible language

Do you see that David? Nobody is saying angels can sin. The only person who is hung up on that is YOU. The whole point of your original paradox is that angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven. You have completely failed to recognize your own words and quitely clear don't understand them months later.

I've been repeated this words, and a thousand variations of them, for seven months and David has never shown any understanding at all.

L67

03-29-2013, 09:10 AM

I'm glad I'm not alone. I wonder how many witnesses must stand up before David will admit his error?

Hmmm.... that is a good question. I'm not sure it will happen. Thankfully the truth is never a lost cause. I love inspirational quotes and stumbled upon this one. It just seems so fitting.

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.

Mahatma Gandhi

David M

03-05-2014, 02:04 AM

What started off in this thread discussing a paradox; a contradiction. This has spilled over into other threads and has descended to an argument over grammatical English and the two words used together; "and yet". Since Richard has brought this up again, I thought my reply to Richard's reply in another thread should be brought back into this thread.

Here we continue to resolve the paradox that Richard has said he has stated with perfect precision. That is a claim I rejected from the beginning.

I had stated your paradox that is at the core of your entire argument with perfect precision, yet you rejected it. Specifically, I had presented it as follows:

David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
Another variation of the paradox to generalize it by Richard failed in my opinion.
P = "If God's will is done in location X then beings in location X cannot sin." The problem with that generalization is that we have two variables. The first variable is X and the second is BEINGS. For the first variable X we have two locations; earth and Heaven. The second variable, we have humans and God's Angels. God's Angels can be on earth and in heaven and in both locations do God's will. Humans on the other hand are on earth and cannot be in heaven. On earth God's will is both done and not done and there is only one man who has ever done God's will completely and that was Jesus (God's only begotten Son).

Since at the beginning, Richard said I had stated the paradox clearly, he then proceeded to reformulate the paradox and I disagreed with his formulation. It is time to start anew. We can take a new approach and complete the following sentence in the most succinct and precise way; “The paradox is ........”

The paradox is based on two verses of the Bible. 1. (Matthew 6:10 )Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 2. (2 Peter 2:4) The angels that sinned.
Do these two verses constitute a paradox (contradiction) or not? Is the paradox real or imaginary, true or false?

Here is what I think is the shortest summary of the paradox.

David M - The paradox is; God’s will is done in Heaven and God’s Angels sin.

For those reading, who do not comprehend why that is a paradox in the Bible, then I will expand.

David M - The paradox is; God’s will is done in Heaven by God’s Angels, which are in Heaven, and God’s Angels sin, thereby not doing God’s will in Heaven.

The contradiction is clearly stated. If anyone can improve on that and state it better, please do so that we can find an agreeable set of words.

The challenge to Richard is now to complete the sentence; The paradox is...

After we agree a form of words that states the paradox, we can move on and Richard can then explain in this thread, why he does not see a paradox (contradiction) exists.

David

Silence

03-06-2014, 08:30 AM

As if this thread needs any more confusion added to it, I was reading some of the arguments that have taken place over the last several months and it occurred to me that it is entirely possible that angels (whether in heaven or elsewhere) can sin without God's will being broken. 1 John 4:8 is not describing one of God's attributes, it is stating His foundational nature. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

How do the scriptures describe love?

1 Cor 13:4-5

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Does love seek its own will? Will it bear contradiction and apparent powerlessness? Will it endure frustration?

I believe that God has stated things in the bible describing what His will is, but part of His will may be to demonstrate to us that He is willing to suffer by not enforcing it, perhaps in this way effecting a change in those who oppose Him by showing them that one doesn't have to be enslaved to always getting things their way. I also have read some commentaries that make a distinction between God's "will" and His "plan". In His dealings within "time", His will can be thwarted (in 1 Cor 13:5 "seeking, bearing, and enduring" all have to do with time). But as to His eternal purpose or plan, He wins. His "will" may be to get there directly, but He is willing to be thwarted from that and get there in spite of apparent opposition.

David M

03-06-2014, 11:37 AM

Hello Silence
Thank you for joining in this thread. I agree with most of your comments especially those concerning God’s will and God’s plan. I do not agree that God’s Angels sin and I will give my reasons again for saying that. All the evidence in looking up all the verses associated with God’s Angels leads me to conclude they do not sin. Here is some of the scriptural evidence to support this view.

The resurrection leads to eternal life, the same as God’s Angels have immortality already.
Concerning the resurrection, Jesus said(Matt 22:30); For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

The Angels in Heaven behold the face of God (Matt 18:10) Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
To behold God’s face, Angels cannot be sinful. Humans are not permitted to see God’s face for they shall die. God said to Moses (Exod 33:20) Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Angels can see God’s face, but man cannot, because he is sinful.

(Psalm 103 :20) Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. 21 Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure.

The Angels are ministering spirits (Hebrew 1:14) Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Further more in this chapter of Hebrews, we read this of Jesus (Heb 1: 9); But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death,

Jesus was sinless, and the same as man, was made lower than the Angels. The emphasis here is that Jesus as a man was destined to die.

The Apostle Paul writes (1 Cor 15:50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

It has already been concluded that the resurrection leads to eternal life and God’s Angels are immortal. This means that humans, which are made of flesh and blood are not of the same substance as God’s Angels, until after the resurrection. The invention by man that God’s Angels had sex with women goes against what scripture tells us. The sons of God in Genesis 6 are not God’s Angels.

God’s plan
Humans have tried to bring about God’s plan, even those counted as righteous. For example, Abraham and Sarah pre-empted the time when Sarah would conceive and so Abraham at Sarah’s instigation had a child by Hagar, Sarah's handmaid. Even so, God made a great nation starting with that child but not the nation God had planned for the child that Sarah would give birth to.

Jacob was not patient to wait for God to give him Isaac’s blessing and receive his birthright and took deceptive actions to trick Isaac into giving him his blessing.

We can wonder how much of what happened was under God’s control from the beginning. Whatever God speaks, his word is acted on and does not return to him void (Isaiah 55:11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Where is there a verse that contradicts that statement? God’s will, which is under his control will be done. Jesus had to make a conscious effort to do God’s will and not his own, and so Jesus was submissive to God’s will. Jesus said (Luke 22:42); Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (John 6:38) For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Jesus tells us what the will of God is (John 6:40) And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

God’s ultimate goal for the earth is for the earth to be filled with his glory and whilst man is sinful, God’s glory does not fill the earth. God is not all and in all, while man is sinful.

All the best
David

Silence

03-08-2014, 08:02 AM

Hi David,
In Matthew 22:30 immortality is not the comparison being made. The comparison is between the way life is lived by man in this age and how it will be in the next age. Marrying and being given in marriage is done by mankind in this age, but not then. This verse also refers only to the angels in heaven. There are many times where a subset of angels is implied, such as in this verse along with others like 1 Timothy 5:21 ("elect" angels, so some are not elect), Matt 25:31 ("holy" angels, so some are not holy?), Luke 12:8 (angels of God vs. angels of the dragon in Rev 12:7?). There are angels of fire, angels of the waters, and the angel of the abyss.

I know you do not think that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is referring to angels or spiritual beings. I do. The only times the Hebrew phrase "Ben-ay ha- Elohim" is used is in Genesis 6 and the book of Job. In the book of Job the sons of God are present when the foundations of the earth were laid, before the creation of man.

David M

03-08-2014, 12:56 PM

Hello Silence

Hi David,
In Matthew 22:30 immortality is not the comparison being made. The comparison is between the way life is lived by man in this age and how it will be in the next age. Marrying and being given in marriage is done by mankind in this age, but not then. This verse also refers only to the angels in heaven. There are many times where a subset of angels is implied, such as in this verse along with others like 1 Timothy 5:21 ("elect" angels, so some are not elect), Matt 25:31 ("holy" angels, so some are not holy?), Luke 12:8 (angels of God vs. angels of the dragon in Rev 12:7?). There are angels of fire, angels of the waters, and the angel of the abyss.
I can only find verses that mention the word elect. Each time, the elect could refer to a human. The word angels and whether referring to divine angels or human angels can only be discerned by studying the context. Elect angels or elect ministers or elect priests acting as God's messenger could be the people referred to.

I know you do not think that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is referring to angels or spiritual beings. I do. The only times the Hebrew phrase "Ben-ay ha- Elohim" is used is in Genesis 6 and the book of Job. In the book of Job the sons of God are present when the foundations of the earth were laid, before the creation of man. What about the times the "sons of God" are mentioned in the new testament?
How do you come to this conclusion in Job? The phrase to present before the Lord is associated with priests and humans presenting themselves before the Lord.

Silence

03-10-2014, 06:31 AM

Hello David,
In 1 Timothy 5:21 I suppose Paul could be talking about "elect messengers" in the sense of human ministers or apostles, but it seems more likely that he is talking about spiritual beings in the same way 2 Peter makes a comparison between presumptuous men slandering "dignitaries" (the Greek word is doxas, a word that is never used to refer to humans prior to their transformation at the Lord's coming) vs. angels who are greater in power and might than these humans, and yet do not do this.

1 Cor. 6:3 says that "we" shall judge angels. Who is the "we"? From the context it appears that Paul is talking about all believers, including himself. So who or what are the angels that he says we shall judge (future tense)? I doubt he is talking about believers judging other human "messengers" (angels), since he is using this future judgement of the angels in contrast to being able to judge things of "this life" in the present. Also if the angels Paul is referring to here is speaking of human "messengers" why would Paul put the judging of them in the future tense? He would put it in the present tense, since elsewhere he encourages believers to judge those who come to them as messengers (angels) of the gospel. So if Paul is not talking about human messengers, he must be talking about spiritual beings, and if spiritual angels never sin, what need is there for them to be judged by anyone?

As for the phrase "sons of God", I was referring to its use in Job 38:7 where the morning stars sang and the sons of God shouted for joy at the creation of the earth. The phrase "sons of God" in the new testament is something new to mankind, and comes way after Genesis 6.

David M

03-15-2014, 04:56 AM

Hello Silence
Thank you for your reply. I have been thinking over your reply and reading the relevant passage again. As with other things written by the apostle Paul, these things are hard to understand possibly because of the language used, which we are not familiar with. Having reached my conclusions about some of the things concerning God's Angels, I am not going to let one verse by itself change my opinion. There has to be much more reason before doing so.

Hello David,
In 1 Timothy 5:21 I suppose Paul could be talking about "elect messengers" in the sense of human ministers or apostles, but it seems more likely that he is talking about spiritual beings in the same way 2 Peter makes a comparison between presumptuous men slandering "dignitaries" (the Greek word is doxas, a word that is never used to refer to humans prior to their transformation at the Lord's coming) vs. angels who are greater in power and might than these humans, and yet do not do this. One thing is certain, God's Angels do not make accusations or lies against humans. Hence the the early reference to the Sons of God in Job not referring to God's Angels but human agents.

1 Cor. 6:3 says that "we" shall judge angels. Who is the "we"? From the context it appears that Paul is talking about all believers, including himself.Paul is speaking about himself and is doing so in two periods; one is future and one is the present. This whole letter is written to the assembly at Corinth and is dealing with their problems. They hardly appear to be saintly in some of their actions, yet Paul is referring to them as though they shall be Saints and (as Saints) they will judge "messengers". These messengers could be anyone who is in the office of a priest, minister, teacher communicating the message and teaching of God. The Saints (the resurrected ones) at the first resurrection and will be in the Kingdom of God are destined to be as described in Rev 1:6; And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; Hence Paul is making the comparison between what the Corinthians were behaving like in the present, with their behaviour in the future in which they have to judge matters.

So who or what are the angels that he says we shall judge (future tense)? I doubt he is talking about believers judging other human "messengers" (angels), since he is using this future judgement of the angels in contrast to being able to judge things of "this life" in the present. Also if the angels Paul is referring to here is speaking of human "messengers" why would Paul put the judging of them in the future tense? He would put it in the present tense, since elsewhere he encourages believers to judge those who come to them as messengers (angels) of the gospel. So if Paul is not talking about human messengers, he must be talking about spiritual beings, and if spiritual angels never sin, what need is there for them to be judged by anyone? As already explained, those who are Kings and Priests helping Jesus in the millennium reign, will be acting as judges. It was said of the 12 disciples of Jesus (Matt 19:28); shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

As for the phrase "sons of God", I was referring to its use in Job 38:7 where the morning stars sang and the sons of God shouted for joy at the creation of the earth. The phrase "sons of God" in the new testament is something new to mankind, and comes way after Genesis 6.Thanks for quoting that verse. I agree that at the Creation the Sons of God do refer to God's Angels. As I was thinking about, the Sons of God which presented themselves before the LORD in Job 1:6 ( Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. ) are humans. In the style this true story written in the form of a play, is portraying human jealous thoughts in the role of Satan. For God to test Job in the way people were thinking, God takes their thoughts and empowers those thoughts. Therefore, it was God who tested Job and is seen as taking the office of Satan.

One final thought. Every generation has had to combat lies. We are warned in the Bible many times of not believing lies. It was the problem that was in the beginning with Eve. Humans make up things, they come to believe their own thoughts and so lies get promulgated. A delusion is a form of lie and people come to be deluded. (2 Thess 2:11) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: See that verse in the context of what is written in the verses before. God will cause something or someone to happen that people will want to believe instead of believing the truth that God has revealed in his word. The delusion could be so strong as to deceive the elect. This will test out whether we hold strong to the truth and not be led astray.
Now that Paul was converted to the truth of Jesus (the Christ), Paul was not going to preach anything else that would be a lie. We could say that for Paul, to preach anything that would be a lie, would have been an impossibility. It is in that vein that Paul refers to divine Angels as God's messengers that it would be likewise an impossibility for God's Angels to lie (Gal 1:8);But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Paul is not teaching another Gospel and that is the main point of his statement. Just as Paul would not teach another Gospel, it should not be thought that God's Angels would teach anything different. That is a proof that God's Angels do not lie and they do God's will.

All the best
David

Silence

03-15-2014, 08:43 AM

Hi David,
There would have been no reason for Paul to try to shake the Corinthians awake to the fact that someday they will be judging human ministers of the things of God. Starting in verse 12 of chapter 1 he makes it clear that these Corinthians were already doing that. So it would be no big news to the Corinthians if Paul was to say to them in 6:3 that they will be judging "messengers", if by messengers Paul was referring to human ministers.

As for the "sons of God", it seems pretty clear to me that for humans to be called sons of God was something which was new at the time John 1:12 and 1 John 3:1 was written. The phrase as used in the old testament is referring to spiritual beings who were present with the Lord before He had made even the earth, much less mankind. There was nothing special about the line of Seth that would warrant them being singled out as "sons of God". God did not have a special lineage of people that He needed to work through. When He needed to communicate something to mankind, He sent His Spirit to come upon a person ( and in one case, upon a donkey). And if Seth's sons were "sons of God" then they failed miserably, first by only being able to influence one person to walk with God (Enoch) and second by going in to "the daughters of men" instead of taking wives of Seth's female descendants, who should have also been designated in the text as "daughters of God" if the "sons of God" had any choice in the matter. The only available mates mentioned are "the daughters of men".

Also, Seth himself seems to testify against his line being "sons of God" in that he names his first son Enosh which means "man", but in the sense that man is sickly and mortal. It was only after Enosh is born that men began to "call" on the name of the Lord. The word "call" can also be translated "blaspheme". Whatever it was that "Enosh" brought to mankind, it was something that was bad enough to cause men to either call on the name of the Lord for help or to blaspheme Him for it.

In addition to Genesis 6, there is also a passage in Daniel (2:43) that points out an unlawful "mingling" between two classes of beings. A clear distinction is made between "they" and "the seed of men". The seed of men are associated in Daniel's dream with the "clay", a clear reference to the creation of Adam (and his descendants) from the same material. The metals of gold, silver, bronze and iron in Daniel's dream symbolize the spiritual principalities that were behind the human empires that they were controlling.

Genesis 6:4 also says that the sons of God came in unto women "afterward". After what? In the context it seems most likely to be referring to the flood. In that case, Noah and one of his lines of descent would have to be the sons of God that came afterward. In that case, these "sons of God" failed pretty quickly too (the tower of Babel situation). If God was willing to put His name on special groups of humans who constantly fail, what makes you think He would never do it with spiritual beings?

duxrow

03-15-2014, 09:00 AM

David M

03-18-2014, 12:58 AM

Hello Silence

Hi David,
There would have been no reason for Paul to try to shake the Corinthians awake to the fact that someday they will be judging human ministers of the things of God. Starting in verse 12 of chapter 1 he makes it clear that these Corinthians were already doing that.In some ways we are all making judgements of other people even though all judgement has been reserved for Christ. In that way, we have to think about what type of judgement we are talking about.

So it would be no big news to the Corinthians if Paul was to say to them in 6:3 that they will be judging "messengers", if by messengers Paul was referring to human ministers.It would not be news; I agree. Anyone, who came with the message Paul delivered, was going to be judged by his peers. Paul was making the emphasis about the type of judgement the Corinthians were making with their limited knowledge, compared to the judgement they would make in future as the elected saints.

As for the "sons of God", it seems pretty clear to me that for humans to be called sons of God was something which was new at the time John 1:12 and 1 John 3:1 was written.Was it new? Things which have been hidden for years are not new. Once found, something that has existed for years does not become new. The fact that only John is using the phrase does not make the idea new. In the context of the play (a true story) the sons of God as presented in Job 1 & 2 are human agents.

The phrase as used in the old testament is referring to spiritual beings who were present with the Lord before He had made even the earth, much less mankind.That is partly correct, except for Job 1 & 2 in which the sons of God represent human agents on the earth.

There was nothing special about the line of Seth that would warrant them being singled out as "sons of God". I would not be so hasty, since the Bible has something to say (Gen 4:25); And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel A replacement for Abel seems like it was necessary. After Seth begat a son, whose name was Enos, then the following began to happen (Gen 4:26); then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. The facts are few and simply said; but we are told that men began to call on the name of the LORD. At this stage, it not revealed that there was any written guide for men and women to follow. The fact is; from the time when men did call upon the name of the LORD, the situation began to spiral into decline to the point where only Noah was righteous in God's sight. The decline came about by the sons of God mingling with the daughters of men and being corrupted by them. Not too dissimilar by Solomon being corrupted by his wives. We can all be corrupted by the company we keep, if we are not very careful. Hence the Bible message that is a thread running through the whole of the Bible and that is; the call to be separate. We have to separate ourselves from the thinking of the world (made up of Godless people), which leads to corruption.

God did not have a special lineage of people that He needed to work through.Your point is wrong. We find God does work through a lineage; the lineage of Abraham, even the son born to Hagar, which was not God's intention, God would cause to become a great nation known as the Arabs.

When He needed to communicate something to mankind, He sent His Spirit to come upon a person ( and in one case, upon a donkey). And if Seth's sons were "sons of God" then they failed miserably, first by only being able to influence one person to walk with God (Enoch) and second by going in to "the daughters of men" instead of taking wives of Seth's female descendants, who should have also been designated in the text as "daughters of God" if the "sons of God" had any choice in the matter. The only available mates mentioned are "the daughters of men". I think we have been simply presented with two classes of people. Those that began to call on the name of the LORD and those who did not. If the sons of God are represented by the line of Seth and Enos (whether they be men or women) the fact is; men and women, who are represented by the daughters of men (the line of Cain) were not calling on the name of the LORD.

Also, Seth himself seems to testify against his line being "sons of God" in that he names his first son Enosh which means "man", but in the sense that man is sickly and mortal. It was only after Enosh is born that men began to "call" on the name of the Lord. The word "call" can also be translated "blaspheme". Whatever it was that "Enosh" brought to mankind, it was something that was bad enough to cause men to either call on the name of the Lord for help or to blaspheme Him for it.Where do you get that idea from. I might have accepted it, if I was not so suspicious of false claims. As a quick guide (though not always correct) I looked up Strong's reference for the word call;
7121. qara', kaw-raw'; a prim. root [rather ident. with H7122 through the idea of accosting a person met]; to call out to (i.e. prop. address by name, but used in a wide variety of applications):--bewray [self], that are bidden, call (for, forth, self, upon), cry (unto), (be) famous, guest, invite, mention, (give) name, preach, (make) proclaim (-ation), pronounce, publish, read, renowned, say. I do not see the word or similar to; blaspheme.

In addition to Genesis 6, there is also a passage in Daniel (2:43) that points out an unlawful "mingling" between two classes of beings. A clear distinction is made between "they" and "the seed of men". The seed of men are associated in Daniel's dream with the "clay", a clear reference to the creation of Adam (and his descendants) from the same material. The metals of gold, silver, bronze and iron in Daniel's dream symbolize the spiritual principalities that were behind the human empires that they were controlling. The reference in Daniel is an interesting point and one that I had not dwelt on. The prophecy is dealing with the kingdoms of men. When the text is speaking of the two materials, iron and clay, whose seed is it being mentioned? Is it the seed of the iron or the seed of the clay that is referred to as the seed of man? I am generating some thoughts as I write, but will reserve these thoughts till later, if you want to pick up on this point. Maybe you can start a separate thread in the Biblical Studies section.

Genesis 6:4 also says that the sons of God came in unto women "afterward". After what? In the context it seems most likely to be referring to the flood. In that case, Noah and one of his lines of descent would have to be the sons of God that came afterward. In that case, these "sons of God" failed pretty quickly too (the tower of Babel situation). If God was willing to put His name on special groups of humans who constantly fail, what makes you think He would never do it with spiritual beings? Let's see what that verse says; There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. This verse needs to be explored and an exposition can be made. I suggest that the word "giants" might not mean what you think is implied. Even now we can refer to men and women as being giants in industry for example. That is not referring to them as literal giants in their physical stature. Even some of the children born out of the mingling of the sons of God and the daughters of men, are referred to as; mighty men or men of renown. However you wish to think of what those terms mean, the fact is; the conduct of men and women spiraled down to the point there was only one man and his family were worth saving. (Gen 6:5) 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
We can draw lessons from this, which I will not go into at this time.

All the best
David

Silence

03-18-2014, 06:47 AM

Hi David,
Sorry for introducing confusion with my mistake. The profaning is not indicated by the word qarah, but by the previous word huw-chal.

From Letusreason.org -Genesis 4:26 many have contended that huwchal, which is translated "began", should be rendered began profanely, or then profanation began, from this time the origin of idolatry began.

OT:2490 chalal (khaw-lal'); a primitive root [compare OT:2470]; properly, to bore, i.e. (by implication) to wound, to dissolve; figuratively, to profane (a person, place or thing), to break (one's word), to begin (as if by an "opening wedge"); denom. (from OT:2485) to play (the flute): (New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary).

Adam Clarke's Commentary has a view that other hold as well, "Then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord."

Still othere see this the opposite of a good thing. The Targum of Onkelos translates the clause in Genesis 4:26, `then the children of men ceased to invoke the name of the Lord.' And some others, `then began men to profane or blaspheme the name of the Lord.' Dr. Benisch has embodied in his new translation the view of Jewish writers, which is this, `then it was begun to call idols by the name of the Eternal." (from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)

This word is used more than 225 times in the Old Testament. As a verb, chalal is used in what seem to be two quite different ways. In one sense, the word means "to pollute" or "to profane." In the second usage the word has the sense of "to begin."

Vines: “The most frequent use of this Hebrew root is in the sense of "to pollute, defile." This may be a ritual defilement, such as that resulting from contact with a dead body Leviticus 21:4, or the ceremonial profaning of the sacred altar by the use of tools in order to shape the stones Exodus 20:25. Holy places may be profaned Ezekiel 7:24; the name of God Ezekiel 20:9 and even God Himself Ezekiel 22:26 may be profaned. The word is often used to describe the defilement which results from illicit sexual acts, such as harlotry Leviticus 21:9 or violation of one's father's bed Genesis 49:4-- the first occurrence.

In more than 50 instances, this root is used in the sense of "to begin." Perhaps the most important of such uses is found in Genesis 4:26. There it is stated that after the birth of Seth, who was born to Adam and Eve after the murder of Abel by Cain, "men began to call upon the name of the Lord" (RSV). The Septuagint translates it something like this: "he hoped [trusted] to call on the name of the Lord God." The Jerusalem Bible says: "This man was the first to invoke the name of Yahweh." One must ask whether the writer meant to say that it was not until the birth of Enosh, the son of Seth, that people "began" to call on the name of the Lord altogether, or whether he meant that this was the first time the name Yahweh was used. In view of the accounts in Genesis 1-3, neither of these seems likely. Perhaps the writer is simply saying that in contrast to the apparent non-God- fearing attitude expressed by Cain, the generation beginning with Seth and his son Enosh was known for its God-fearing way of life. Perhaps, in view of the passive intensive verb form used here, the meaning is something like this: "Then it was begun again to call on the name of the Lord. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words)

To understand this phrase leaves people on two different sides. This can be understood as the decline.

It is then in Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Finding only Noah is left as righteous in a span of only 1,656 years which leads to the judgement.

This appears to go along with Paul stating in Romans 1:21 although they knew God , they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful," V:28 they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting." Or we have a few families in the ancient past the God did not mention in the Scripture as those who opposed the wicked antedeluvian world. I leave the conclusion to you.

I don't recall anywhere in scripture where men called on the name of the Lord for anything other than help when in trouble. The text also just says "men", not a separate group of men who are God-fearing.

As for the reference to Daniel 2:43, the only "seed" mentioned is "the seed of men". The metals in Daniel's vision are symbolic of the spiritual principalities empowering the various human empires (Daniel 10:20 -the princes of Persia and Greece).

Silence

03-18-2014, 06:52 AM

More of these in scripture, Silence -- "after six days", Matt 17:1, and "in the 30th year", Ezek 1:1, are two of my favorites and I'm convinced the Lord has planted them for our meditation and consternation! :eek:

Hi Duxrow,
Yeah, they seem to be purposely worded to provoke questions.

duxrow

03-18-2014, 02:44 PM

Agree, Silence. Those who don't trust or believe the Bible will just scan past these things. The transfiguration "after six days" seems to agree with 'Six Days for Mankind' when a thousand years are as one day. Ex20:9,10 apply..

Silence

03-29-2014, 08:49 AM

David M

10-18-2014, 02:37 AM

Hello Richard
I am taking what you have said in another thread and bringing it back into this thread where the conclusion should be drawn.

I think it would be great if we could finish that conversation. All we need to do is begin with your formulation of the paradox and walk through the logic step by step. If we find a point we can't agree, then we will discuss it until we come to agreement. What could be simpler? It's just basic logic after all!
Now that we have some new members on the forum, they might like to contribute once we start over again. However, before we get started, I am going to quote what you written to dpenn in another thread and then use that as my reason to give my version and summarize what has gone on for the benefit of our new members.

I explained the meaning of the subjunctive because it was at the root of a debate with David that lasted for two years. David had formed an argument to prove that God's angels in heaven cannot sin because that would create a contradiction with the idea that "God's will is done in heaven." I tried to clarify the discussion by formalizing David's contradiction in clear logic so we could analyze it. I wrote it as follows:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

David has never accepted that statement even though it is nothing but a precise formulation of the argument he presented. He says it implies that God's angels actually do sin. This is because he is reading the word "could" as the past tense of "can" rather than as the subjunctive. I've explained it a million times yet he refuses to even answer the explanations. We went round and round and round and round. He refused to follow any logic to completion. I explained his error in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59706#post59706) (and dozens of others), and here he is repeating exactly the same error again. It's very strange. He also rejects the use of the words "and yet" on the pretext that they would imply that "God's angels actually sin." See this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=60428#post60428).

**************
My Summary:

Although the argument has its roots in the statement of the paradox, the subjunctive was not at the root of my argument to begin with. I was asking Richard to reword his formulation of the paradox, which he would not do. This argument has spread over many threads and another key thread related to this is; Can God's Angels be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trustedhttp://)

This is what Richard has said at the beginning of this thread;
Hey there David,

I like the way you framed this discussion. A nice, clearly stated "paradox." That should make for some good progress.

I never "stated" the paradox, but quoted the two verses that make up the paradox. The fact is; this formulation of the paradox had begun in another of my threads; War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7) There Richard put words in my mouth as if I had formulated the paradox expressed by Richard. Richard's formulation of the paradox was as I read it; "God's will is done in Heaven, and yet God's Angels could sin". I was not happy with that sentence. That sentence as it stands is not the use of the subjunctive clause, but with Richard adding the word "if" before it, somehow transforms it to the subjunctive. I objected to the word "could". What you have to understand and know is where Richard is coming from in his argument. I know how Richard has argued elsewhere that God's Angels did sin before being kicked out of Heaven and maybe at the time Jesus was saying his prayer, the Angels that had sinned might not have been in God's presence. If I can find the links to those post where Richard gave his answers, I will come back and post it here.

Before Richard brought up the (exc)use of the subjunctive clause and before that twist, Richard tried to win his argument by using the logical agument of; "P and NOT P", hence we ended up disagreeing on the use of the "Law of non-contradiction". My objection, which of course Richard simply ignores and does not accept, is what I quote from Wikipedia; "One difficulty in applying the law of non-contradiction is ambiguity in the propositions". As Richard argues for elsewhere and quotes Voltaire (I agree); "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms"

Richard claimed to have formulated the paradox "succinctly" with "perfect precision". I disagreed. Eventually, Richard agreed that the word "yet" is superfluous. I then pointed out that the phrase "and yet", although commonly used, is grammatically incorrect. In addition, the phrase "and yet", when at the beginning of a sentence can be interpreted as saying colloquially; "that maybe so, but ...." That was something I found out while researching. Once found, it becomes a fact. The fact that those two words can imply something else, leaves room for ambiguity, but as I know what Richard thinks about Angels, I see his words as a subliminal message.

Ambiguity has been at the heart of Richard's formulation. In trying to make an all embracing formulation, Richard then came up with something else that I disagreed with.
Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
I would like to generalize this by replacing the location "heaven" with a general location "X" as follows:
The fact that Gods will is done in location X implies that God's angels in location X cannot sin.
Is that acceptable to you? Do you agree that the logic is identical to your argument? If not, then we'll have to discuss it. As I was explaining to Richard before he generalized, we have a situation where we have two locations; earth and Heaven. God's Angels can be in both places, and man (in his sinful state) can only be on earth. Men both do and fail to do God's will, whereas I claim, God's Angels, which are in Heaven (and can be on earth), do his will.

***************

That is my summary of what has taken place.

Richard, you have proposed we start afresh, maybe our new members will contribute to the logical way you want to tackle the subject. I suggest to anyone who contributes to begin, they start in reply to post #4, or Richard, you can begin first with your new post starting from here.

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough

10-18-2014, 04:00 PM

What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved. Explaining Jude 6 or 2 Peter 2:4 to show that the angles referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven removes the paradox. The same can be done for any passage in the Bible which implies God’s Angels in Heaven can sin.

Hey there David,

I like the way you framed this discussion. A nice, clearly stated "paradox." That should make for some good progress.

I never "stated" the paradox, but quoted the two verses that make up the paradox. The fact is; this formulation of the paradox had begun in another of my threads; War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7) There Richard put words in my mouth as if I had formulated the paradox expressed by Richard. Richard's formulation of the paradox was as I read it; God's will is done in Heaven, and yet God's Angels could sin". I was not happy with that sentence. That sentence as it stands is not the use of the subjunctive clause, but with Richard adding the word "if" before it, somehow transforms it to the subjunctive.

Good afternoon David,

I think it's an excellent idea that we go back to your original formulation of the paradox, as I quoted above, but I don't understand why you are "not happy with that sentence" I wrote (highlighted red). Please explain how it differs from your statement of the paradox. You said the paradox consists of two statements P and Q:

P = Peter tells us; “angels sinned”

Q = Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven

Plugging these into your original statement of the paradox, we have:

David: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. P and Q. This paradox must be resolved.

You said the paradox could be resolved by assuming that "the angels referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven." Therefore, according to your argument, P contradicts Q only if we assume that P is talking about God's Angels in heaven. Therefore, I used that specification in my formulation of the paradox:

X = God's will is done in heaven = Q

Y = God's Angels in heaven could sin = P (with the specification that it refers to God's Angels, not human messengers)

I then formulated your paradox as "There would be a contradiction if X and yet Y."

After much discussion about the meaning of the phrase "and yet" I explicitly agreed that the "yet" could be dropped (without changing the meaning) and agreed to do so because you insisted it somehow created some "ambiguity" in the meaning of the sentence. Thus, I reformulated my statement to be:

There would be a contradiction if X and Y.

To review:

David says "P and Q" is a paradox if we assume that P refers to "God's Angels in heaven."

Richard says the same paradox can be stated as "X and Y."

Please explain how "X and Y" differs from "P and Q."

Thanks!

Richard

David M

10-19-2014, 11:35 PM

Hello Richard

Good afternoon David,

I think it's an excellent idea that we go back to your original formulation of the paradox, as I quoted above, but I don't understand why you are "not happy with that sentence" I wrote (highlighted red). Please explain how it differs from your statement of the paradox. You said the paradox consists of two statements P and Q:

P = Peter tells us; “angels sinned”

Q = Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven

Plugging these into your original statement of the paradox, we have:

David: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. P and Q. This paradox must be resolved.

You said the paradox could be resolved by assuming that "the angels referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven." Therefore, according to your argument, P contradicts Q only if we assume that P is talking about God's Angels in heaven. Therefore, I used that specification in my formulation of the paradox:

X = God's will is done in heaven = Q

Y = God's Angels in heaven could sin = P (with the specification that it refers to God's Angels, not human messengers)

I then formulated your paradox as "There would be a contradiction if X and yet Y."

After much discussion about the meaning of the phrase "and yet" I explicitly agreed that the "yet" could be dropped (without changing the meaning) and agreed to do so because you insisted it somehow created some "ambiguity" in the meaning of the sentence. Thus, I reformulated my statement to be:

There would be a contradiction if X and Y.

To review:

David says "P and Q" is a paradox if we assume that P refers to "God's Angels in heaven."

Richard says the same paradox can be stated as "X and Y."

Please explain how "X and Y" differs from "P and Q."

Thanks!

Richard

We both know there is not really a paradox (a contradiction). We have our explanations (which are different) for why there is no actual paradox. Eventually, (in this thread), you have to explain why you understand there is no paradox.

I have no problem understanding the logic you are using; my only problem is agreeing the words which you refuse to change and so word your formulation of the paradox differently.

We have to agree terms, and by terms, I mean words. It is possible that, either I do not understand what the words mean, or the words are ambiguous (by having more than one meaning). Therefore, I ask you to explain what you mean by the words; “and yet could”. Please use alternative words to define those words in your formulation of the paradox, so I am able to understand precisely what you mean.

I have never defined Y as “(and yet) God’s Angels could sin”. These are your words. It does not matter whether those words are used to define Q or Y.
My definition of P (X) and Q (Y) is as follows. I will define P (X) as; God’s will is done in Heaven. I will define Q (Y) as; Angels sin.

Why do I regard those two statements as a paradox? Because the only beings in Heaven beside God are his Angels. Sinful beings cannot be in the presence of God in his dwelling place. An Angel that has sinned against God, even if only once, has not done God’s will constantly. That contrasts, or contradicts with the words of Jesus in his prayer; (Matt 6:10)Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Alternatively, we can quote from Luke 11:2; Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

Expressing the paradox in another way, we can say; “on one hand we have Peter who says (2 Peter 2:4); “the angels that sinned” and on the other hand, we have Jesus saying; “God’s will is done in Heaven””.

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough

10-20-2014, 07:15 AM

I have never defined Y as “(and yet) God’s Angels could sin”. These are your words. It does not matter whether those words are used to define Q or Y.
My definition of P (X) and Q (Y) is as follows. I will define P (X) as; God’s will is done in Heaven. I will define Q (Y) as; Angels sin.

Good morning David,

Those are not my words. I explicitly OMITTED the word "yet" in my statement "X and Y." It does not exist in my statement as given in my comment. Your response makes no sense. It has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Why do I regard those two statements as a paradox? Because the only beings in Heaven beside God are his Angels. Sinful beings cannot be in the presence of God in his dwelling place. An Angel that has sinned against God, even if only once, has not done God’s will constantly. That contrasts, or contradicts with the words of Jesus in his prayer; (Matt 6:10)Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Alternatively, we can quote from Luke 11:2; Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

Excellent. Thank you for your explanation. To be clear: You appear to be saying that the reason angels cannot sin is because of their LOCATION "in the presence of God in heaven." Is that correct?

All the best,

Richard

David M

10-20-2014, 12:40 PM

Good morning David,

Those are not my words. I explicitly OMITTED the word "yet" in my statement "X and Y." It does not exist in my statement as given in my comment. Your response makes no sense. It has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Excellent. Thank you for your explanation. To be clear: You appear to be saying that the reason angels cannot sin is because of their LOCATION "in the presence of God in heaven." Is that correct?

All the best,

Richard
Hello Richard
We are making a little progress. OK, I accept you have dropped the double conjunction. I think you can drop the "would" and "if" that precedes the paradox and state what the paradox is. The paradox can be formulated as a hypothetical statement, but is not necessary. That leaves you to explain why you need to use the auxiliary verb "could", when the verb "to sin" can be used in the present or past tense.

I think the question will eventually come down to deciding whether God's Angels sin or not. I shall say "no" and you will say "yes" based on past remarks, but we will see once you state how you resolve the paradox, such that there is no paradox.

I am saying God's Angels do not sin (anywhere). Location has nothing to do with this. It is not in the nature of Angels to sin. I only refer to God's "Angels" in Heaven to make a clear distinction between "angels" that are human and are limited to earth. Hence, my resolving of the paradox for me comes down to identifying the difference between (God's) Angels (upper case) and human angels (lower case).

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough

10-20-2014, 12:53 PM

Why do I regard those two statements as a paradox? Because the only beings in Heaven beside God are his Angels. Sinful beings cannot be in the presence of God in his dwelling place. An Angel that has sinned against God, even if only once, has not done God’s will constantly. That contrasts, or contradicts with the words of Jesus in his prayer; (Matt 6:10)Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Alternatively, we can quote from Luke 11:2; Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

Excellent. Thank you for your explanation. To be clear: You appear to be saying that the reason angels cannot sin is because of their LOCATION "in the presence of God in heaven." Is that correct?

I am saying God's Angels do not sin (anywhere). Location has nothing to do with this. It is not in the nature of Angels to sin. I only refer to God's "Angels" in Heaven to make a clear distinction between "angels" that are human and are limited to earth. Hence, my resolving of the paradox for me comes down to identifying the difference between (God's) Angels (upper case) and human angels (lower case).

Thanks for the explanation David, but now I am confused. The reason you gave (highlighted red) is based on the location of the angels in heaven. Now you say the real reason has nothing to do with location. Therefore, your original explanation makes no sense.

So let's try it again. Here is what you wrote:

David: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved.

Please explain why those two statements would appear to form a paradox. What exactly is the paradox that must be resolved?

Thanks!

Richard

David M

10-20-2014, 08:17 PM

Thanks for the explanation David, but now I am confused. The reason you gave (highlighted red) is based on the location of the angels in heaven. Now you say the real reason has nothing to do with location. Therefore, your original explanation makes no sense.

So let's try it again. Here is what you wrote:

David: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved.

Please explain why those two statements would appear to form a paradox. What exactly is the paradox that must be resolved?

Thanks!

Richard

Hello Richard

Why are you confused and appear to be acting so dumb? Is this thread going to dwindle to nothing, because you claim not to understand what I have been saying? I have repeated myself ad nausea answering the same questions from you. I have stated the paradox again and again. You even said I had explained it very clearly at the start of this thread, before you gave your formulation of the paradox in a way that I have been unhappy with.

Please give me the explanation to the question of "why" in my previous post. Here it is again; "That leaves you to explain why you need to use the auxiliary verb "could", when the verb "to sin" can be used in the present or past tense."

You are fixated on location. I am not changing what I have said from the beginning. God's Angels can be in Heaven or on earth (when sent by God). The location of the Angels of God has nothing to do with the paradox. Jesus is referring to God's Angels in Heaven doing God's will in Heaven. Only Angels can be in the presence of God, because they are sinless. Jesus only ascended to God after proving he was sinless and God has bestowed upon Jesus immortality. Jesus can no more be tempted to sin and will remain sinless for ever. Jesus is now like (even above) the Angels, because they have immortality. There is no place for immortal sinners in God's Kingdom. Men who are "the angels" on earth are not in Heaven and can never be in Heaven while they are sinful. That is why Jesus was praying for God's will to be done on earth as it is done in Heaven. Ultimately, the time will come, when sin and death on this earth has been done away with and God's will, is done "in earth as it is in Heaven"

This must be the last time I have to repeat the same answers.

If you do not accept the answers I am giving you , then let's see what our other readers make of it. I expect they can give their statement of the paradox and maybe give their solution at the same time.

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough

10-20-2014, 10:55 PM

Hello Richard

Why are you confused and appear to be acting so dumb? Is this thread going to dwindle to nothing, because you claim not to understand what I have been saying? I have repeated myself ad nausea answering the same questions from you. I have stated the paradox again and again. You even said I had explained it very clearly at the start of this thread, before you gave your formulation of the paradox in a way that I have been unhappy with.

Please give me the explanation to the question of "why" in my previous post. Here it is again; "That leaves you to explain why you need to use the auxiliary verb "could", when the verb "to sin" can be used in the present or past tense."

You are fixated on location. I am not changing what I have said from the beginning. God's Angels can be in Heaven or on earth (when sent by God). The location of the Angels of God has nothing to do with the paradox. Jesus is referring to God's Angels in Heaven doing God's will in Heaven. Only Angels can be in the presence of God, because they are sinless. Jesus only ascended to God after proving he was sinless and God has bestowed upon Jesus immortality. Jesus can no more be tempted to sin and will remain sinless for ever. Jesus is now like (even above) the Angels, because they have immortality. There is no place for immortal sinners in God's Kingdom. Men who are "the angels" on earth are not in Heaven and can never be in Heaven while they are sinful. That is why Jesus was praying for God's will to be done on earth as it is done in Heaven. Ultimately, the time will come, when sin and death on this earth has been done away with and God's will, is done "in earth as it is in Heaven"

This must be the last time I have to repeat the same answers.

If you do not accept the answers I am giving you , then let's see what our other readers make of it. I expect they can give their statement of the paradox and maybe give their solution at the same time.

All the best
David
Hey there David,

I see you are now repeating the same errors and absurdities I refuted over a year ago in post #154 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=56593#post56593) in the Can God's Angels in heaven be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=56593#post56593) thread. I see no reason to repeat myself.

All the best,

Richard

David M

10-21-2014, 01:46 AM

Hey there David,
I see you are now repeating the same errors and absurdities I refuted over a year ago in post #154 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=56593#post56593) in the Can God's Angels in heaven be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=56593#post56593) thread. I see no reason to repeat myself.

Hello Richard
I agree there is no point in repeating yourself. I thought we were getting to the root of the problem. It seems like as we are getting very close to doing that and maybe exposing the nonsense you wrote that you have been forcing on me, you finally quit and revert to post #154. We can only go round in circles from here, for you fail to complete the task of drilling down to the root of the problem. Now it is getting to the point where you have lost the debate about your formulation, and you have reverted to type. In my book, you have lost another argument.

You have avoided answering my last question repeated in the previous two posts. You might think it irrelevant to answer the question, but to me, you have shown that you did not formulate the paradox "succinctly" and without "precision" as you claimed. With your latest revelation about debunking your own work; 'The Bible Wheel', I would advise everyone not to listen to you and your interpretation of what you think the Bible means. You have a great knowledge of facts, but zero Wisdom. You will rely on the Bible authors quoting folklore and myth to say that the Bible teaches the same folklore and myth. You quote figurative language and say that is the reality. There is no foundation of reasoning possible with you about anything in the Bible. I might agree with you about some of the things you have said to others quoting references in the Bible, but that does not mean I give you credit for understanding much in the Bible. Now I know, that it is pointless entering any debate with you on Biblical subjects. We all know your fallback position. Here is the last part of post #154 so that our new members can read your reply here;

Your new formulation of your argument is a travesty of ambiguity, especially in light of your own words over the last year. You now say "I have agreed to the following sentence; God's will is done in Heaven and angels can sin." That's totally insane. You are deliberately EQUIVOCATING on the word "angels" which could mean either human messengers or divine agents. Equivocation is one of the most obvious and elementary LOGICAL FALLACIES! :doh:

This is insane. You have constantly accused me of introducing "ambiguities" when you are the one actually doing that! You have equivocated over the meaning of the word "if" and "yet" and "could" and now you say you are willing to agree to a totally AMBIGUOUS statement like "God's will is done in Heaven and angels can sin." Is there no bottom to the abyss of your mind?

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether L67 or I "believe in God and his word" because the vast majority of people who "believe in God and his word" also believe that God's angels that were in heaven sinned and were cast to the earth, just like the Bible says:

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Your "explanations" of these verses are based on your own idiosyncratic, fallacious, and radically inconsistent LOGIC, so why would anyone believe in them? You don't even believe your own words!

In view of your own belief of what the Bible means (says), you show a lack of Wisdom that comes from understanding the Bible. You talk of me being absurd, to divert from your own absurdities. You have the cheek to formulate the paradox and put words in my mouth about a paradox that you say is not there. Whether intentionally or not, you have subliminally formulated the paradox, which supports your conclusion. That is what I maintained almost from the beginning, and so once again, I am repeating by way of concluding this subject and thread. I think our more discerning Bible Scholars have already figured you out and the tactics you use.

You have not fully explained why there is no paradox as you explained to me in another thread a long time ago and I was hoping you would confirm by way of answering the subject fully. Your answers at that time did not stand up. You used Rev 12:7 which was future to the time of Jesus's prayer. That meant Satan and his angels had not been kicked out of heaven when Jesus was speaking, so that makes Jesus a liar. Your next answer (idea) was that the sinful Angels were not in the immediate presence of God in Heaven at the time Jesus was speaking. There is no foundation from the Bible to support that idea. I have given you the relevant Biblical references to support my side of the argument.

You have failed to agree the terms for which you will quote Voltaire to others. The actual basis you work on is reason for anyone not to get into a debate with you. You have turned into a serpent, spouting lies about what the Bible means (says), instead of attempting to get to the truth behind its figurative language. You have become a Satan to God. You are your own devil. You have become (by the Bible definition) "a Fool" and you have debated this thread foolishly thinking yourself to be wise. Have I met my match with you on Biblical matters? No!

I hope some of our new members might have contributed their thoughts on this subject that might have helped us come to a conclusion. Again, another thread and subject that fails to reach an agreed conclusion on the matter. There are many more paradoxes brought up accusing the Bible of being contradictory. Almost all of the cited contradictions can be explained away, leaving very few contradictions in the Bible to remain to be solved. I shall not be going there with you to resolve any more paradoxes.

Despite all that criticism of you, I wish you all the best.

David