War in Heaven - Revelation 12:7 [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

David M

09-18-2012, 03:37 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-18-2012, 06:03 PM

An often-misunderstood passage which is used to support the idea (which is not true) that God’s Angels can sin, is that found in the Book of the Revelation and in chapter 12.

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.

This exposition is presented to come to a proper understanding of what the author of this figurative story meant us to understand. In order to do this, we must understand the figurative language of the Bible. What are we supposed to understand by these word pictures? To do this, we shall look to other parts of the Bible to find similar expressions and examine the context in which signs and symbols have been used. This is the legitimate use of scripture to explain itself and provide its own answers. The Word of God is consistent and the Bible is harmonious (human errors excepted) and the more so as the false interpretations are uncovered.

Hey there David,

I agree completely with your approach. We must understand Revelation in accordance with how the symbols are used elsewhere in the Bible. Case in point: Mystery Babylon is the "Great City" which Rev 11:8 identifies symbolically as "Egypt and Sodom" and literally as the city where Christ was crucified (earthly Jerusalem). It is contrasted with the New Jerusalem which is the "heavenly Jerusalem" and "mother of us all" spoken of Paul in Galatians in contrast with the "earthly Jerusalem" (Great Harlot) in bondage with her children. If we follow your suggestion, many Scriptures become quite lucid and many problems and apparent contradictions are resolved. All this to say that I agree with your approach and think it is the key to accurately interpreting the Bible. The curious thing is that serious students of the Bible will often come to explicitly contradictory conclusions using the same method because there is a lot of freedom when choosing how to interpret symbolic language. The key to solve this problem is to expose the hidden assumptions that cause the divergence of interpretation.

The wrong idea that there was a war in Heaven and that God’s Angels rebelled and were thrown out and cast down to earth, where they are held in chains and in rooms of darkness below the earth, until the day of judgment, is based on myths and legends of men. These have been used to support a belief that God’s Angels rebel. This is not the case and flies against other scriptures that tell us this cannot be the case.

That is a good statement of the interpretation you seek to refute.

The words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 6:10 say; Thy (God’s) will be done in earth as it is in Heaven Jesus tells us that God’s will is done in Heaven, therefore, God’s Angels do not sin. These are words from the only begotten the Son of God, and who better to know the truth about God’s kingdom in Heaven? One can try and get around this statement of Jesus and say that Angels sinned in the past, but do not sin now. This argument is not sustainable as this passage in Revelation proves. The book of Revelation was written many years after Jesus said these words. The Book of Revelation is talking of future events that were to begin shortly and continue until his return. This would mean that God’s Angels in Heaven were continuing to sin when the Book of Revelation was written and thereafter. This would make Jesus a liar and God or His son does not lie. The words of Jesus present us with a paradox especially if we take a few verses like Rev 12:7 at their face value without knowing their proper interpretation. Therefore, it is this paradox that must be resolved in order to explain away the apparent contradiction.

I believe you have made a false assumption here.

First, the Book of Revelation is not future, but rather past. It is the "Big Apocalypse" that reveals the fulfillment of the "Little Apocalypse" also known as the Olivet Discourse. This is the only interpretation allowed by Scripture for many reasons. Jesus opened the Olivet Discourse by predicting the destruction of the Temple and said it would happen during the lifetime of his first century audience (this generation). His words are confirmed by history. Revelation opens by Jesus saying that he was revealing "things which much quickly come to pass .... for the time is at hand." Thus, both the Big and the Little Apocalypses explicitly declare that the prophecy would be fulfilled in the first century. Likewise, immediately before he predicted the destruction of the Temple, he told the Jews that their "house" (Temple) would be desolate because of their sins.
Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

This prophecy was fulfilled in Mystery Babylon (apostate Jerusalem):
Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

These passages are strongly mutually confirming and they are totally integrated with the whole prophetic network of the Bible, such as John's fulfillment of prophecies of Elijah (forerunner of Messiah and prophet of the great and terrible Day of the Lord). Again we see that Christ said it would happen in "this generation" (Matt 23:36) in context. We see that Mystery Babylon fulfilled Christ's prophecy against Apostate Jerusalem (Rev 18:24). And most significantly, the prophecy against Mystery Babylon in Rev 18:20-23 is essentially identical to prophecies against Apostate Jerusalem in Jeremiah 25:10. I could go on and on of course. The mutual confirmation we see in the Preterist interpretation is ten thousand times stronger than any other interpretation.

Second, even if Revelation is future in general, Revelation 12 is most definitely not future. It is a synopsis of things that had already happened and which led to 70 AD. Specifically, it speaks of Israel (woman crowned with 12 stars) giving birth to the Messiah. Any reader of the Bible would immediately recognize the identity of the woman, the 12 stars are the 12 tribes. The Great Dragon represents the evil government (as you well noted below). It represents Herod who wanted to destroy the Christ child as soon as he was born. After the women gave birth to Messiah, he ascended to heaven, exactly as it is written of Christ. As you can see, there are many strongly mutually confirming verses supporting this view. You would have to establish your interpretation of Revelation before continuing with your exposition since your thesis depends critically upon your assertion that Rev 12 is yet future.

The heavens can refer to the political heavens. The sun, moon and stars have special political significance and can represent political leaders or nations and kings. For example we read in Numbers 24:17; there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel. This Star and Sceptre are not a literal. They represent a political power. TV and film celebrities are called “stars”, so the idea of calling people with influence stars is not new. The Star in this case has a kingly position denoted by the symbol of the sceptre which is a rod held in the hand to represent regal and imperial power of the Star. (Matthew 24:29); Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. In this prophecy of Jesus, he is speaking of future governments and powers represented by the sun, moon and stars, and the “stars shall fall from heaven” meaning that political rulers shall lose their status and power and also nations will lose their power over other nations.

That's great! We agree that the "heavens" can mean the "political heavens." This is how it is used in 2 Peter 3:10 which says "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." This is when "heaven and earth passed" and the law passed as Christ predicted when he said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matt 5:18)." This is yet another confirmation that all these prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD. This is why this interpretation is so very powerful and impossible to refute. All the Scriptures that confound Futurists come together in a fully integrated network of mutually confirming witnesses that are all based on the plain and obvious meaning of words and symbols that are established throughout the body of Scripture.

The Dragon, the Serpent, the Devil and Satan are all one of the same symbolic figure. Revelation 12:9 explains; And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan. This Dragon is a figurative creature that is given a title or the name of Satan or Devil. Whenever we see these names used, we should think of this figurative Dragon. It is not a literal Dragon and does not exist. The figure of Satan is seen as an adversary or an opposer. Jesus said to his disciple Peter (Matthew 16:23); Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Peter had good intentions for his master, but those intentions were not what God intended, and Peter’s intentions were in opposition to God’s will.

But there are other possibilities. The fact that the dragon is not literal does not mean that it does not symbolically represent a real being. It could be a symbol telling us what the literal fallen angel Satan is "like" - he's not a literal dragon, but he is like a dragon. You will have to answer this possibility. Your exposition is pretty weak on this point. You don't want to assume that which you are trying to prove.

The Dragon can be personified; that imeans to take on the attributes of person. The influence of the Dragon to deceive people can take many forms and like the wind is a force that cannot be seen, but its effects are felt and human actions and communications are no different. Satan is not a spirit being, it is representative of any opponent of God. Satan is not a disgraced Angel of God who has been allowed to tempt mankind to sin against God.

Again, you are merely asserting your interpretation. You have not yet established that there are no fallen angels or that Satan is not a real malevolent spiritual being in opposition to God.

War in heaven. This is what we have to get in context. This can be speaking of a time to come when political rulers who are in opposition to Israel and God’s people will have their power taken away from them. These kings and rulers and political leaders will fall in status and be brought down to the same level as the people they rule over. Nations will be overthrown by God and lose their power and influence. Identifying who the Dragon is on the real world stage is a Bible study in itself and it is not in the scope of this exposition to identify the Dragon. All we need to know for now, is that this Dragon is in the position to deceive the whole world.

This interpretation would work perfectly with Preterism which sees the falling stars as the rulers of first century Apostate Israel. So the only way to tell which interpretation is correct is to count up how many verses the Preterist interpretation explains compared with the Futurist interpretation. In my study, I have become convinced the ratio is about a 100 to 1 - and that's not hyperbole! It's the real number. For example, the Preterist interpretation accepts the dozens of time texts at face value whereas no Futurist can explain them at all without twisting the words beyond any acceptable limit. And the same goes for the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse which is confirmed by history. And many other verses. So in truth, the ratio is about a 100 to1 in favor of Preterism.

The world represents the people occupying the earth and for the most part, the people represented by the “world” are the people who do not obey God or believe in Him and do those things which God hates. As James explains (James 4:4); Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? It is impossible to be a friend of God and a friend of the world; we have to make a choice.
This enmity of the world is as a direct consequence of the actions of Adam and Eve whereby God told Eve that because of her actions there would always be enmity between her seed (offspring) and the seed of the serpent. The seed of the serpent is also the seed that is the Devil (the offspring of the serpent). That seed is within each one of us when the thoughts or our mind lead us to act in ways that are contrary to God’s ways. The Devil is the concept of wrong thoughts and in opposition to God, the Devil in us has nothing to do with inherited genes. The battle with the devil is a battle that goes on in our own minds and it is a battle we often lose; choosing to follow the way we want to go instead of following the ways of God. This often results in sin which means that we have disobeyed God. The Apostle James again gives us the explanation of how sin originates (James 1:14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. If we sin, it is our fault, we have been drawn away from God by our own selfish lusts.

Jesus overcame this battle of self-will and we have examples of Jesus doing this at times of great temptation. Jesus overcame his temptation by recalling God’s scriptures which guided him. That is exactly what we have to do, if we are to overcome the devil that is in our mind. This is something we must want to do. This is exactly what Jesus accomplished completely and perfectly and is explained in Hebrews 2:14; that through death he (Jesus) might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. The devil, which represents the thoughts of the mind to disobey God and therefore cause us to sin, brings the wages of sin, which is death (Romans 6:23).

Jesus died though he had not sinned and therefore he did not earn the wages. God is true to His word (Ezekiel 18:4); the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Jesus did not deserve to remain in the grave because he was sinless. Therefore, God had to raise Jesus from the dead. Jesus cannot be tempted; he has proven this. Therefore, God raised Jesus from the dead and Jesus has been given an incorruptible body and will live for evermore. This is how Jesus defeated the devil which has the power of death. We have to fight our battle against the devil within us.

That's a fine story, but why should anyone believe it? There are many other possibilities you did not address. Your assertion that the Devil is "the concept of wrong thoughts in opposition to God" appears to conflict with many verses. Are we to believe that Jesus said he saw the "concept of wrong thoughts" fall like lightning? This is another very weak point in your exposition. You merely assert your opinion. You have not integrated it with the rest of Scripture or shown that there are many mutually confirming verses supporting it. And worse, you did not derive it from Scripture but rather began with your story and then tried to find verses to support it. That's backwards. We must begin with the MAIN and the PLAIN things established by many mutually confirming verses. Only then will we have any confidence that our interpretation is correct.

The spiritual and the physical both apply to this passage in Revelation. The Dragon (the world power yet to be identified) in the world also has an application to the believer on a spiritual level that is seen in the practical workings of our mind. The wonder of God’s word is that its message is consistent on many levels. Revelation 12:10 confirms that this war in heaven is affecting God’s people (Rev 12:10); And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. This verse confirms that our accuser or opposer (the Dragon, Satan, Serpent, or Devil) that is in our mind is there all the time, and is accusing us before God. We are accusing ourselves by giving into the devil that is our own thoughts. This devil within each one of us must be overcome; at least we should try our best to overcome it, but since we fail, we need Christ to intercede for us and it is by his sacrifice to cover our sins that we can be saved. The devil is in our own mind and to have the mind of Christ is to resist the devil and replace devilish thoughts with holy thoughts. This is the explanation given by James (James 4:7); Resist the devil, and he (it) will flee from you.

That verse does not "confirm" your interpretation. At best, it is consistent with your interpretation. But it also is consistent with the idea that Satan is a real spiritual being.

Is there a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly teaches that the "Devil" is a symbol of our own self-accusatory thoughts? I know of none. This is a very weak point and your entire exposition is critically dependent upon it. Furthermore, the vast majority of the best scholars and most serious students of the Bible don't agree with you on this point. And worse, your doctrine was invented, as far as I know, by the relatively minor fringe group known as the Christadelphians who are rejected by most Bible believing Christians as teaching many doctrines that are clearly unbibilical. Here is a typical response (http://www.christianlibrary.org.au/cel/documents/cults/04.html) by someone who strongly believes in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible:
One of the most serious aspects of this denial [of the existence of Satan] is that it completely undermines the reliability of Scripture. How are we, for example, to understand the temptations of Jesus? Are we to think that the writers of the Gospels were wrong when they indicate that Satan actually spoke to Jesus and tempted Him? The Christadelphian's rejection of the existence of Satan demonstrates their contempt for the Scriptures. For the Bible clearly reveals that the devil is an evil spirit who literally exists. The book of Job speaks of Satan in terms of a real spirit who spoke with God, and accused Job of only loving God for what he could get from Him. Who can read the book of Job and not conclude that there is a personal devil? According to the Bible, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness being tempted by Satan, during which time Satan actually spoke to Him and tempted Him to do evil. The Bible records that Jesus conducted a conversation with Satan. It is obvious that the Christadelphians do not take the teachings of Scripture seriously, but distort them to fit with their own theories. The Bible leaves us with no question at all regarding the reality of the literal existence of a spirit being called Satan. By their denial of the personality of Satan, the Christadelphians demonstrate how little regard they really have for the integrity of God's word.

Thus we see that fervent Bible believing Christians differ strongly on this interpretation. Mere assertions and the weaving of stories are entirely insufficient to settle it one way or the other. All the objections raised in the paragraph I just quote would have to be answered with solid Scriptures that clearly teach your doctrine. You have not done this yet as far as I can tell.

Further confirmation of this battle within us and the saving sacrifice of Jesus is explained in the following verse in Revelation concerning this war in heaven. (Revelation 12:11); And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. This is saying that the brethren of Christ (those who believe and are associated with him), have overcome the Dragon, the Devil. They have totally overcome the devil, made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus, and it is the blood of the sacrifice of Jesus that covers our sins before God. Of course, belief requires commitment and a believer’s commitment will be shown by the their testimony witnessing to the truths of God and who follow after the example of Jesus and give their lives over to him. “Loved not their lives unto death” is best explained when Jesus said (Matt 16:25); For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. The true follower of Jesus believes in the resurrection and that although they will die, they will live again. We can chose to live this life totally for ourselves and at the end of it die forever, or we can chose to give up this worldly life that is enmity with God, in order to receive the eternal life which is to come.

At best, those passages are consistent with your interpretation, but they certainly don't "confirm" it. This is because you never established your doctrine from the Bible is the first place! You need to derive it from Scripture. But that's seems to be impossible since the plain reading of the Bible always speaks of Satan as a personal being. This is an exceedingly weak point of your exposition which is a bit odd since it is the very thing your exposition is supposed to be proving!

From what has been explained and from what we can find in God’s word, this war in heaven is using figurative language and cannot be taken literally. It is not a war taking place in God’s dwelling place, where the Angels of God are in His presence. In Heaven, as was meant by the words of Jesus, God’s Angels do not sin.

There a many other possibilities. You have not come close to proving your thesis.

The Dragon, Serpent, Satan, Devil are the same and has been shown to apply to anything or anyone who is in opposition to God’s will. It is not a fallen Angel of God, but represents the opposer/adversary that is in each of our minds in which we have a battle of wills to defeat. The question we must answer for ourselves is; do we do our own will or do we do the will of God? In as much as our thoughts should be heavenly, we have earthly thoughts and it is these earthly thoughts that must be cast out of our mind. By constantly winning the battle that goes on in our mind, we defeat the devil and the eternal death that would naturally follow is defeated in that the believer will be raised to life again on the day of resurrection.

It is true that you showed that the symbol of Satan and the Dragon can be used to represent anyone in opposition to God's will. But that says nothing about the truth of your thesis. All Bible believers know that those symbols can be used that way and yet believe that Satan is a personal being. Both could be true. You have failed to establish your thesis.

Conclusion
The war in heaven is spoken of in figurative language and should not be taken literally as between a dragon and an Angel of God. This war in heaven is not taking place in God’s dwelling place. Heaven can refer to the political heavens in which nations and and powerful dictators will be reduced in power of influence and in status; thus they are cast down to a symbolic earth. The war is to take place on the world stage is to involve a world power that is at war against God’s people for whom Michael the Arch Angel will stand up and fight for God’s people. Michael and his Angels shall win and the Dragon and its angels shall be defeated.
This war in heaven has an application to what is going on in our mind and is a war that we shall overcome by associating ourselves with the sacrifice of Jesus to cover our sin and the transforming of our minds to have the mind of Christ.

I agree with many of the "hermeneutical moves" you made. Your symbolic interpretation follows good hermeneutical principles. But you did not establish your thesis as being what the Bible actually teaches. And most importantly, you did not derive your fundamental concepts from the Bible at all. You merely invented or imported them and then looked for verses that would confirm them. That's backwards.

It's great to be working with you on this David. Despite the shortcomings I noted, you did a very good job explaining your point of view.

Richard

David M

09-19-2012, 05:51 AM

Good morning Richard

Hey there David,

I agree completely with your approach. We must understand Revelation in accordance with how the symbols are used elsewhere in the Bible. Case in point: Mystery Babylon is the "Great City" which Rev 11:8 identifies symbolically as "Egypt and Sodom" and literally as the city where Christ was crucified (earthly Jerusalem). It is contrasted with the New Jerusalem which is the "heavenly Jerusalem" and "mother of us all" spoken of Paul in Galatians in contrast with the "earthly Jerusalem" (Great Harlot) in bondage with her children. If we follow your suggestion, many Scriptures become quite lucid and many problems and apparent contradictions are resolved. All this to say that I agree with your approach and think it is the key to accurately interpreting the Bible. The curious thing is that serious students of the Bible will often come to explicitly contradictory conclusions using the same method because there is a lot of freedom when choosing how to interpret symbolic language. The key to solve this problem is to expose the hidden assumptions that cause the divergence of interpretation.
Glad to see we are beginning to agree on the approach. I am not going to get involved in any other topic in this thread such as Mystery Babylon.

First, the Book of Revelation is not future, but rather past. It is the "Big Apocalypse" that reveals the fulfillment of the "Little Apocalypse" also known as the Olivet Discourse. This is the only interpretation allowed by Scripture for many reasons. Jesus opened the Olivet Discourse by predicting the destruction of the Temple and said it would happen during the lifetime of his first century audience (this generation). His words are confirmed by history. Revelation opens by Jesus saying that he was revealing "things which much quickly come to pass .... for the time is at hand." Thus, both the Big and the Little Apocalypses explicitly declare that the prophecy would be fulfilled in the first century. Likewise, immediately before he predicted the destruction of the Temple, he told the Jews that their "house" (Temple) would be desolate because of their sins.
Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

This prophecy was fulfilled in Mystery Babylon (apostate Jerusalem):
Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

These passages are strongly mutually confirming and they are totally integrated with the whole prophetic network of the Bible, such as John's fulfillment of prophecies of Elijah (forerunner of Messiah and prophet of the great and terrible Day of the Lord). Again we see that Christ said it would happen in "this generation" (Matt 23:36) in context. We see that Mystery Babylon fulfilled Christ's prophecy against Apostate Jerusalem (Rev 18:24). And most significantly, the prophecy against Mystery Babylon in Rev 18:20-23 is essentially identical to prophecies against Apostate Jerusalem in Jeremiah 25:10. I could go on and on of course. The mutual confirmation we see in the Preterist interpretation is ten thousand times stronger than any other interpretation.

Second, even if Revelation is future in general, Revelation 12 is most definitely not future. It is a synopsis of things that had already happened and which led to 70 AD. Specifically, it speaks of Israel (woman crowned with 12 stars) giving birth to the Messiah. Any reader of the Bible would immediately recognize the identity of the woman, the 12 stars are the 12 tribes. The Great Dragon represents the evil government (as you well noted below). It represents Herod who wanted to destroy the Christ child as soon as he was born. After the women gave birth to Messiah, he ascended to heaven, exactly as it is written of Christ. As you can see, there are many strongly mutually confirming verses supporting this view. You would have to establish your interpretation of Revelation before continuing with your exposition since your thesis depends critically upon your assertion that Rev 12 is yet future.
All these other points need to be a study on their own. I think we need to apply the same approach to every topic and then we might get somewhere. My exposition was light compared to what it could have been, one has to draw a balance between being too brief and not only giving one example or too detailed and taking the dictionary approach and defining the meaning of every word.
The main point I want to focus on which you have missed, it that Revelation's opening verse (Rev 1:1)says;The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Question: Are you saying the "war in heaven" that would shortly (begin) to come to pass happened in OT times and before Jesus made his statement?
I will let you respond to this the question before we proceed any further.

That's great! We agree that the "heavens" can mean the "political heavens." This is how it is used in 2 Peter 3:10 which says "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." This is when "heaven and earth passed" and the law passed as Christ predicted when he said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matt 5:18)." This is yet another confirmation that all these prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD. This is why this interpretation is so very powerful and impossible to refute. All the Scriptures that confound Futurists come together in a fully integrated network of mutually confirming witnesses that are all based on the plain and obvious meaning of words and symbols that are established throughout the body of Scripture.
Its great we are beginning to agree. I don't say I can give an explanation of every phrase you cite. These will have to be examined in detail as I am not likely to disagree if you say all these things apply to AD70 or before; some might but I do not think all do.

But there are other possibilities. The fact that the dragon is not literal does not mean that it does not symbolically represent a real being. It could be a symbol telling us what the literal fallen angel Satan is "like" - he's not a literal dragon, but he is like a dragon. You will have to answer this possibility. Your exposition is pretty weak on this point. You don't want to assume that which you are trying to prove.
I quite agree and that point was inferred but not stressed. The Dragon or the Devil or Satan can be applied to a person and we know Peter was Satan at the time Jesus called him by that name. We must be clear when prophecy is relating to say a real-world power or the leader of that world power or whether the context of the Devil or Satan is in a spiritual sense. Let me leave you with one question. The beginning of the book of Job used to puzzle me until it was explained that it is written as a play thought the facts and truths can be taken as real. The Satan mentioned at the beginning is used in support of a literal Satan and is believed by some to be this fallen Angel of God.
Question: Who inflicted on Job the loss of all things including his health?

Again, you are merely asserting your interpretation. You have not yet established that there are no fallen angels or that Satan is not a real malevolent spiritual being in opposition to God.
I know I am asserting an interpretation based on the words of Jesus. The burden is now on you to show me that there is a fallen Angel of God that I cannot disprove in the way that I have already said. The "war in heaven" does not infer fallen Angels of God. Show me in the Bible that the Dragon or Serpent or Satan or Devil is said to have started off as an Angel of God.

This interpretation would work perfectly with Preterism which sees the falling stars as the rulers of first century Apostate Israel. So the only way to tell which interpretation is correct is to count up how many verses the Preterist interpretation explains compared with the Futurist interpretation. In my study, I have become convinced the ratio is about a 100 to 1 - and that's not hyperbole! It's the real number. For example, the Preterist interpretation accepts the dozens of time texts at face value whereas no Futurist can explain them at all without twisting the words beyond any acceptable limit. And the same goes for the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse which is confirmed by history. And many other verses. So in truth, the ratio is about a 100 to1 in favor of Preterism.
This will have to be the basis of a separate topic as without knowing the verses you mean, I cannot comment; only that in light of being a Futurist, I am likely to disagree.

That's a fine story, but why should anyone believe it? There are many other possibilities you did not address. Your assertion that the Devil is "the concept of wrong thoughts in opposition to God" appears to conflict with many verses. Are we to believe that Jesus said he saw the "concept of wrong thoughts" fall like lightning? This is another very weak point in your exposition. You merely assert your opinion. You have not integrated it with the rest of Scripture or shown that there are many mutually confirming verses supporting it. And worse, you did not derive it from Scripture but rather began with your story and then tried to find verses to support it. That's backwards. We must begin with the MAIN and the PLAIN things established by many mutually confirming verses. Only then will we have any confidence that our interpretation is correct.
I know I have not addressed every possibility and I hope it makes people think about what they have been told and come to accept. These mutually confirming verses as you suggest, I suspect will be shown not to be mutually confirming once a proper interpretation of them has bee found. We must look for the answers in the scriptures and letting scripture give the explanation; not you and not me! What is plain to you is plain as day wrong to me and vice versa, so we have to study each case to find the correct. answer.

That verse does not "confirm" your interpretation. At best, it is consistent with your interpretation. But it also is consistent with the idea that Satan is a real spiritual being.
If God instructed an Angel to do something that was in opposition to me, in that context, the Angel of God would be Satan to me. Therefore the Angel in this case would be a spiritual being. I hear what you say and that is why anytime you think Satan refers to an Angel of God (fallen of not) we must look at the context and decide what the author intends us to understand.

Is there a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly teaches that the "Devil" is a symbol of our own self-accusatory thoughts? I know of none. This is a very weak point and your entire exposition is critically dependent upon it. Furthermore, the vast majority of the best scholars and most serious students of the Bible don't agree with you on this point. And worse, your doctrine was invented, as far as I know, by the relatively minor fringe group known as the Christadelphians who are rejected by most Bible believing Christians as teaching many doctrines that are clearly unbibilical. Here is a typical response (http://www.christianlibrary.org.au/cel/documents/cults/04.html) by someone who strongly believes in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible:
One of the most serious aspects of this denial [of the existence of Satan] is that it completely undermines the reliability of Scripture. How are we, for example, to understand the temptations of Jesus? Are we to think that the writers of the Gospels were wrong when they indicate that Satan actually spoke to Jesus and tempted Him? The Christadelphian's rejection of the existence of Satan demonstrates their contempt for the Scriptures. For the Bible clearly reveals that the devil is an evil spirit who literally exists. The book of Job speaks of Satan in terms of a real spirit who spoke with God, and accused Job of only loving God for what he could get from Him. Who can read the book of Job and not conclude that there is a personal devil? According to the Bible, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness being tempted by Satan, during which time Satan actually spoke to Him and tempted Him to do evil. The Bible records that Jesus conducted a conversation with Satan. It is obvious that the Christadelphians do not take the teachings of Scripture seriously, but distort them to fit with their own theories. The Bible leaves us with no question at all regarding the reality of the literal existence of a spirit being called Satan. By their denial of the personality of Satan, the Christadelphians demonstrate how little regard they really have for the integrity of God's word.

Thus we see that fervent Bible believing Christians differ strongly on this interpretation. Mere assertions and the weaving of stories are entirely insufficient to settle it one way or the other. All the objections raised in the paragraph I just quote would have to be answered with solid Scriptures that clearly teach your doctrine. You have not done this yet as far as I can tell.
Of course I cannot show you one verse that will state that the Devil is the opposing thoughts in our minds to God's will, but that is what I conclude is one of a number of explanations of the what the devil is.
Question: How did the death of Jesus defeat the devil?

Say what you like about other Churches. I do not have contempt for God's word; nothing could be further from the truth and that is the problem. From what you say and the evidence you put forward, it is this that makes me think it is you who does not understand the truth as God intends us to understand it. You have a lot of knowledge and great intellect, but you are missing the essential truths of God's message. It is like missing the point of what Jesus is saying when he speaks in parables. Some people did not understand his message and the same goes for all of God's word. The truth is easily missed and especially when it is not searched for. I hope this exercise of examining some of the scriptures we disagree on, can bring more truth to light for both of us.

At best, those passages are consistent with your interpretation, but they certainly don't "confirm" it. This is because you never established your doctrine from the Bible is the first place! You need to derive it from Scripture. But that's seems to be impossible since the plain reading of the Bible always speaks of Satan as a personal being. This is an exceedingly weak point of your exposition which is a bit odd since it is the very thing your exposition is supposed to be proving!
Maybe I should have used another passage. I was aware that the post would be long and I limited the number of examples to one. I mentioned personification to make the point. I can easily see the influence of satanic things in the way that persons influence each other by what they do and say. Again, this would have to be a topic all of its own. If it makes people think a little differently that will be good, I know you have your set (rejected) beliefs and that is the problem I have getting my message across. I know I am set on my beliefs that have grown stronger over many years of reading God's word and study of it, and no-one like you has been able to convince me otherwise. Put up a good defense of your position by supporting it from scripture. If it is true, and there is no possible way it can be refuted, you will win. If your explanation from the Bible can be refuted, then all that you say about my interpretations can be said of yours. Maybe by concentrating only a couple of our differences of interpretation for the moment, might we begin to see the error of our own thinking.

There a many other possibilities. You have not come close to proving your thesis.
Put up all the possibilities you want. You gave five quotes from the Bible to oppose the idea that God's will is done in Heaven and you wanted this specific one to be answered, which I have done. I said in a previous post that I would be able to answer any passages of scripture you want to put up and if you have only put up five and the one I have answered is your strongest, then why would you want to put up hundreds. Let's deal with your strongest objection first of all and get it out of the way.

It is true that you showed that the symbol of Satan and the Dragon can be used to represent anyone in opposition to God's will. But that says nothing about the truth of your thesis. All Bible believers know that those symbols can be used that way and yet believe that Satan is a personal being. Both could be true. You have failed to establish your thesis.
This just sounds like repetition. You have made your point, but not proved your point. Raising objections does not disprove my case.

I agree with many of the "hermeneutical moves" you made. Your symbolic interpretation follows good hermeneutical principles. But you did not establish your thesis as being what the Bible actually teaches. And most importantly, you did not derive your fundamental concepts from the Bible at all. You merely invented or imported them and then looked for verses that would confirm them. That's backwards.
The main point was to show that what you say and what others believe is not of itself the truth. I am explaining what I understand the Bible teaches and anything you say that contradicts what I say, I can just bounce back at you. Once again we get into a game of ping-pong which I want to avoid. Without specific examples to work on, this part of our discussions serves no purpose. Put up your detailed exposition of the 'war in heaven' that will leave no-one in any doubt that your exposition is the only possible explanation.

It's great to be working with you on this David. Despite the shortcomings I noted, you did a very good job explaining your point of view.
Thank you for that. The only way it will be better is by examining the points of difference and making it the subject of a stand alone topic. This is what I have done by concentrating on this phrase; 'war in heaven' and taking it out of the topic; 'God's will is done in Heaven'. The next step is to break the argument down and deal with specific parts in more detail to get to the truth. I do not want to have too many topics on the go at the same time, I know you can deal with lots, but I only want to have a few topics to deal with and ideally one at a time is best for me. If you just answer the questions I have asked in this reply, that will be a start.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-19-2012, 08:49 PM

Good morning Richard

Glad to see we are beginning to agree on the approach. I am not going to get involved in any other topic in this thread such as Mystery Babylon.

Good evening David, :yo:

Yes, it is good that we can agree on the basic approach. There is no need to respond to my interpretation. I gave it only to show that there are many possibilities and mere verbal "explanations" can never settle the question of which is right. There's only one way to discover the truth, and it's not by writing thousands of words of explanations because anyone can do that. So how do we know which is right and which is wrong? As I explained in my last post, we simply need to count up who must explain away more verses. It is my estimation after much study that Preterism wins over Futurism about a 100 to 1. Just think of all the obvious time-texts that say the last days happened in the first century. That fits perfectly with Preterism whereas Futurists must twist words beyond all recognition to try to make them fit their system.

The history of science gives a good example of how this works. The Ptolemaic system presumed that the sun, moon, planets and stars revolved around the earth in perfect circles. To make it work, they had to invent epicycles. If something didn't match predictions, they'd just add more epicycles. Then along comes Kepler who said that the earth and planets move around the sun in ellipses. This system needs no "fixing". It just works. But what if someone was devoted to the Ptolemaic system? Anytime something didn't fit, he'd just add more epicycles. It is my contention that Futurism requires endless epicycles whereas Preterism naturally fits the Biblical data. I've been discussing this with folks on this forum for over five years and have never seen anything that would make me think otherwise.

608

All these other points need to be a study on their own. I think we need to apply the same approach to every topic and then we might get somewhere. My exposition was light compared to what it could have been, one has to draw a balance between being too brief and not only giving one example or too detailed and taking the dictionary approach and defining the meaning of every word.

Again, we will never be able to know who is right or wrong by comparing long expositions. We need to start with the main and the plain things, and see which view best fits the Biblical data. It's really pretty simple.

The main point I want to focus on which you have missed, it that Revelation's opening verse (Rev 1:1)says;The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Question: Are you saying the "war in heaven" that would shortly (begin) to come to pass happened in OT times and before Jesus made his statement?
I will let you respond to this the question before we proceed any further.

I didn't miss that point at all. On the contrary, I directly addressed it when I said that even if Revelation is generally future, we have good reason to think Revelation 12 was past at that time because it is a synopsis of things that had already happened (the birth and ascension of Christ). Note that Satan was cast out of heaven after Christ ascended. That makes good sense if we understand that Christ defeated Satan by his death and resurrection:
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

This is why believers overcome by the "blood" of the Lamb, which is merely a way to refer to his death. So there is a large degree of coherence in this view.

Its great we are beginning to agree. I don't say I can give an explanation of every phrase you cite. These will have to be examined in detail as I am not likely to disagree if you say all these things apply to AD70 or before; some might but I do not think all do.

Yes, step by step is important. And beginning with the main and plain things that can be established by many mutually confirming verses. We must lay the foundation before trying to interpret ambiguous verses that are not clearly confirmed by others.

I quite agree and that point was inferred but not stressed. The Dragon or the Devil or Satan can be applied to a person and we know Peter was Satan at the time Jesus called him by that name. We must be clear when prophecy is relating to say a real-world power or the leader of that world power or whether the context of the Devil or Satan is in a spiritual sense. Let me leave you with one question. The beginning of the book of Job used to puzzle me until it was explained that it is written as a play thought the facts and truths can be taken as real. The Satan mentioned at the beginning is used in support of a literal Satan and is believed by some to be this fallen Angel of God.
Question: Who inflicted on Job the loss of all things including his health?

The Bible says Satan did it:
Job 2:7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

Now from what I gather by your explanation, the text should read:
Job 2:7 So Job's self-accusatory thoughts went forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

I don't think that really works.

I know I am asserting an interpretation based on the words of Jesus. The burden is now on you to show me that there is a fallen Angel of God that I cannot disprove in the way that I have already said. The "war in heaven" does not infer fallen Angels of God. Show me in the Bible that the Dragon or Serpent or Satan or Devil is said to have started off as an Angel of God.

I don't need to show that there is such a fallen angel because all you need to do is read what the Bible says. The plain language speaks of a personal being who goes about doing things. It is your interpretation that is contrary to everything the Bible says about Satan. You inferred your interpretation from a verse that said nothing about Satan or the Devil. That's why your interpretation is so contrary to what most people see when they read the Bible. They never inferred anything from that text because that text doesn't say anything about Satan. This is how I know that you learned your doctrines from men. It is very rare for someone to come to the same inference if it is not even hinted at in the text.

This will have to be the basis of a separate topic as without knowing the verses you mean, I cannot comment; only that in light of being a Futurist, I am likely to disagree.

Yes, of course. I was just giving you another example that there are other ways to interpret those passages.

I know I have not addressed every possibility and I hope it makes people think about what they have been told and come to accept. These mutually confirming verses as you suggest, I suspect will be shown not to be mutually confirming once a proper interpretation of them has bee found. We must look for the answers in the scriptures and letting scripture give the explanation; not you and not me! What is plain to you is plain as day wrong to me and vice versa, so we have to study each case to find the correct. answer.

What determines the "proper interpretation"? You've been studying Scripture long enough to know that there is no standard by which to test such things. The only path is to begin with a foundation of agreement about the main and plain things. If there is no such foundation, then the Bible is worthless.

Of course I cannot show you one verse that will state that the Devil is the opposing thoughts in our minds to God's will, but that is what I conclude is one of a number of explanations of the what the devil is.
Question: How did the death of Jesus defeat the devil?

There is nothing in the Bible that implies the devil is merely a symbol of self-accusatory thoughts. Your doctrine is invented out of whole cloth. And worse, it is something invented by some man before you were born. You merely inherited it. I would be very interested to know if there is a single Christadelphian doctrine that you don't agree with. Do you consider yourself a Christadelphian, and if so, how did you get involved? Were you taught these doctrines as a child?

As for "how" the death of Christ defeated the Devil, that's not for me to explain. The Bible says it. That's sufficient for our conversation. We won't gain anything by making up explanations that are not given in Scripture.

Say what you like about other Churches. I do not have contempt for God's word; nothing could be further from the truth and that is the problem. From what you say and the evidence you put forward, it is this that makes me think it is you who does not understand the truth as God intends us to understand it. You have a lot of knowledge and great intellect, but you are missing the essential truths of God's message. It is like missing the point of what Jesus is saying when he speaks in parables. Some people did not understand his message and the same goes for all of God's word. The truth is easily missed and especially when it is not searched for. I hope this exercise of examining some of the scriptures we disagree on, can bring more truth to light for both of us.

I said nothing about the Churches. I quoted on person to illustrate a point. That's all. It is absurd for you to say that I am "missing the essential truths of God's message" since I base all my statements on the main and plain things established by many mutually confirming verses, whereas you base your doctrines on "inferences" based on verses that don't even say a single word about the thing that you infer! That is the sin qua non of all cults.

Put up all the possibilities you want. You gave five quotes from the Bible to oppose the idea that God's will is done in Heaven and you wanted this specific one to be answered, which I have done. I said in a previous post that I would be able to answer any passages of scripture you want to put up and if you have only put up five and the one I have answered is your strongest, then why would you want to put up hundreds. Let's deal with your strongest objection first of all and get it out of the way.

You always have told me I must consider all possible interpretations. I thought you would appreciate my following your advice.

The point is that you have nothing but an "interpretation" based on "inferences" drawn from verses that say nothing about angels or whether they have free will. My possibilities are based on the main and plain teachings of Scripture. There is a world of difference.

This just sounds like repetition. You have made your point, but not proved your point. Raising objections does not disprove my case.

I repeated myself because you repeated your assertion. And if raising objections does not disprove your case, merely asserting your case certainly does not prove it!

I agree with many of the "hermeneutical moves" you made. Your symbolic interpretation follows good hermeneutical principles. But you did not establish your thesis as being what the Bible actually teaches. And most importantly, you did not derive your fundamental concepts from the Bible at all. You merely invented or imported them and then looked for verses that would confirm them. That's backwards.
The main point was to show that what you say and what others believe is not of itself the truth. I am explaining what I understand the Bible teaches and anything you say that contradicts what I say, I can just bounce back at you. Once again we get into a game of ping-pong which I want to avoid. Without specific examples to work on, this part of our discussions serves no purpose. Put up your detailed exposition of the 'war in heaven' that will leave no-one in any doubt that your exposition is the only possible explanation.

If your "main point was to show that what you say and what others believe is not of itself the truth" then your main point failed. All you did was give your own private interpretation based on "inferences" from a verse that doesn't say anything about Satan. And you have to explain away all the verses that present Satan as a personal being, so you simply did not make you case at all. No serous Bible student would accept any interpretation founded on such a weak argument.

And most importantly, you did not derive your interpretation from the Bible, but rather invented your interpretation and then looked for ways to prove it. That's backwards.

Thank you for that. The only way it will be better is by examining the points of difference and making it the subject of a stand alone topic. This is what I have done by concentrating on this phrase; 'war in heaven' and taking it out of the topic; 'God's will is done in Heaven'. The next step is to break the argument down and deal with specific parts in more detail to get to the truth. I do not want to have too many topics on the go at the same time, I know you can deal with lots, but I only want to have a few topics to deal with and ideally one at a time is best for me. If you just answer the questions I have asked in this reply, that will be a start.

Breaking the argument down will never lead to truth because you can make up whatever explanation (epicycle) required to "fit the data." We need to simply look at your interpretation in light of the whole Bible and ask how many verses you must "explain away" vs. how many verses the alternative interpretation must "explain away." It seems pretty clear that your interpretation fails under this test.

Great chatting!

Richard

David M

09-20-2012, 06:44 AM

Good evening David, :yo:

Yes, it is good that we can agree on the basic approach. There is no need to respond to my interpretation. I gave it only to show that there are many possibilities and mere verbal "explanations" can never settle the question of which is right. There's only one way to discover the truth, and it's not by writing thousands of words of explanations because anyone can do that. So how do we know which is right and which is wrong? As I explained in my last post, we simply need to count up who must explain away more verses. It is my estimation after much study that Preterism wins over Futurism about a 100 to 1. Just think of all the obvious time-texts that say the last days happened in the first century. That fits perfectly with Preterism whereas Futurists must twist words beyond all recognition to try to make them fit their system.

The history of science gives a good example of how this works. The Ptolemaic system presumed that the sun, moon, planets and stars revolved around the earth in perfect circles. To make it work, they had to invent epicycles. If something didn't match predictions, they'd just add more epicycles. Then along comes Kepler who said that the earth and planets move around the sun in ellipses. This system needs no "fixing". It just works. But what if someone was devoted to the Ptolemaic system? Anytime something didn't fit, he'd just add more epicycles. It is my contention that Futurism requires endless epicycles whereas Preterism naturally fits the Biblical data. I've been discussing this with folks on this forum for over five years and have never seen anything that would make me think otherwise.
Hello Richard
It is a good illustration to show how our understanding changes and our perception changes as we become more knowledgeable.

Again, we will never be able to know who is right or wrong by comparing long expositions. We need to start with the main and the plain things, and see which view best fits the Biblical data. It's really pretty simple.
We need to stay highly focused, but in answering these subjects we cannot help mention other matters and then we get bogged down by the other matters. Whether we can find a common foundation seems to be the problem.

I didn't miss that point at all. On the contrary, I directly addressed it when I said that even if Revelation is generally future, we have good reason to think Revelation 12 was past at that time because it is a synopsis of things that had already happened (the birth and ascension of Christ). Note that Satan was cast out of heaven after Christ ascended.
This is one way of looking at it as if Christ literally had a war with Satan in Heaven and God had waited for His Son to come to Heaven before God let Jesus do what God should have done. Then some will say that God did that a long time earlier going back to Genesis.
If Jesus had been with God before He was born, why didn't Jesus throw Satan out in the Old Testament days? If he was responsible for throwing out Satan as part of the Godhead, that would mean Jesus had defeated Satan before he died and that would be a contradiction and does not support your argument. I thought you once believed in the Trinity etc.

And if Satan plagued Job, why didn't Jesus throw Satan out then? Your answer which is not proved and is strained and all the things you accuse me of doing, you are doing likewise. So who is right and how to we continue a discussion or shall we just leave it at that?

That makes good sense if we understand that Christ defeated Satan by his death and resurrection:
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

This is why believers overcome by the "blood" of the Lamb, which is merely a way to refer to his death. So there is a large degree of coherence in this view.

Response required: Please show me where the Bible explains that believers "overcome" the devil by the blood of the lamb.

The Bible says Satan did it:
Job 2:7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

Now from what I gather by your explanation, the text should read:
Job 2:7 So Job's self-accusatory thoughts went forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

I don't think that really works.
Of course it does not work because you choose to apply the one definition from a number of definitions and that is why the Devil or Satan is not a solitary being. Satan or the Devil can be applied in many different ways. Personification is just a simple way of explaining it.

The story of Job has many valuable lessons. Satan at this point is thought (by many) to be this rebellious Angel who is thrown out of heaven contradicting you argument that Jesus threw him out after he ascended to heaven. The title Satan can be applied to anyone, Satan came amongst the Sons of God and the Sons of God can be His Angels in Heaven or they can be humans on earth. The Sons of God can become a Satan. I acknowledge that an Angel can do God's work as if a Satan but would not be a Satan in God's sight. In this story of Job, God appears to let Satan do what he wants (except kill Job). Since this style of writing is in the form of a play, I am not going to be too specific on who exactly Satan is at this point. You say Satan was responsible in answer to my question and right at the end of Job it is explained (Job 42:11)..and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: The answer here is that it is the Lord (God) that brought the evil events on Job. This is my answer to the same question. The personification of Satan and referring to the Sons of God, is not essential to the story but goes to show in a play setting what men and women think about Job and how they are envious of Job. God sets out to prove men's thoughts are wrong and herein is one of the fundamental lessons to learn from the story of Job. God proves what men thought about Job were wrong; and that is what we are doing in the way that men think about God's word; many are simply wrong.

I don't need to show that there is such a fallen angel because all you need to do is read what the Bible says. The plain language speaks of a personal being who goes about doing things. It is your interpretation that is contrary to everything the Bible says about Satan. You inferred your interpretation from a verse that said nothing about Satan or the Devil. That's why your interpretation is so contrary to what most people see when they read the Bible. They never inferred anything from that text because that text doesn't say anything about Satan. This is how I know that you learned your doctrines from men. It is very rare for someone to come to the same inference if it is not even hinted at in the text.
If you want to see Satan as a personal being and that is your simple understanding of Satan, so be it. You started off by telling me of men's perception of planets going around the sun and now I am showing you that your perception can be like those early men. You stick to the gloss and I will dig below the surface to uncover the truth.

What determines the "proper interpretation"? You've been studying Scripture long enough to know that there is no standard by which to test such things. The only path is to begin with a foundation of agreement about the main and plain things. If there is no such foundation, then the Bible is worthless.
The Bible has a foundation but if you do not agree with the foundation of the Bible that I have, it is worthless to you but not to me.

There is nothing in the Bible that implies the devil is merely a symbol of self-accusatory thoughts. Your doctrine is invented out of whole cloth. And worse, it is something invented by some man before you were born. You merely inherited it. I would be very interested to know if there is a single Christadelphian doctrine that you don't agree with. Do you consider yourself a Christadelphian, and if so, how did you get involved? Were you taught these doctrines as a child?
I have studied what other Christians doctrines teach and have come to accept the beliefs I hold. My beliefs are open to interrogation just as you are doing. Your arguments are not shaking by belief. It is possible for separate people to come to the same conclusion just as in science two people who are working independently and in different countries can make the same discovery.

As for "how" the death of Christ defeated the Devil, that's not for me to explain. The Bible says it. That's sufficient for our conversation. We won't gain anything by making up explanations that are not given in Scripture.
but you have explained and it is not a good explanation. I have told you why at the top of this page. I agree that we can and might have to accept things in order for the discussion can continue. I was wondering if we could compose a list between us of all the possible points of difference and simple tick a "yes" or "no" box to show the things we agree on.

I said nothing about the Churches. I quoted on person to illustrate a point. That's all. It is absurd for you to say that I am "missing the essential truths of God's message" since I base all my statements on the main and plain things established by many mutually confirming verses, whereas you base your doctrines on "inferences" based on verses that don't even say a single word about the thing that you infer! That is the sin qua non of all cults.
Even in this post and in your post earlier, you have mentioned the Christadelphians. You also said that Alter2Ego had disappeared to her JW cave thus referring to the Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not know how you can say you have not referred to other Churches. What you are doing is attaching a set of church beliefs to an individual. For the sake of discussion on this forum, I am not going down that route. I have no interest knowing which church a Bible Wheel forum member belongs to. Just stick to what the Bible says and argue from there.

You always have told me I must consider all possible interpretations. I thought you would appreciate my following your advice.

The point is that you have nothing but an "interpretation" based on "inferences" drawn from verses that say nothing about angels or whether they have free will. My possibilities are based on the main and plain teachings of Scripture. There is a world of difference.
I agree there is a world of difference between us and I am not sure how we can bridge the difference. If you take the some verses as literal and with a simple childlike-understanding, then perhaps this shows you are still suckling on the milk of the word cannot digest the "meat of the word" which Paul was speaking about.

If your "main point was to show that what you say and what others believe is not of itself the truth" then your main point failed. All you did was give your own private interpretation based on "inferences" from a verse that doesn't say anything about Satan. And you have to explain away all the verses that present Satan as a personal being, so you simply did not make you case at all. No serous Bible student would accept any interpretation founded on such a weak argument.
Maybe we should examine all the verses you speak of. You gave me five verses in argument against God's will done in Heaven and asked me to answer the strongest. Your own interpretation is weaker than mine. I am giving alternative explanations that are likely to be as true as any other.
Now that I believe what I do, it is reasonable to say that other interpretations are wrong. All you are doing is picking me up on this point and it is not worth arguing about. Just concentrate on the task in hand and get to the bottom of the truth on a single point (if that is possible).

And most importantly, you did not derive your interpretation from the Bible, but rather invented your interpretation and then looked for ways to prove it. That's backwards.
I see your form of words can be just as insulting as mine might appear to you. I have studied passages and posted tables etc on this forum having come to those conclusions from what I read. They are my conclusions. We have all been told things and read things which have to be compared to what the Bible says and come to our own acceptance of the things that are true. a If I have been misled concerning the scriptures, then in time those errors will show up. If my history teachers and what is written in the history books, I might never discover the truth about history. Evolution is likely to be another misleading subject, but let's not go there again.

Breaking the argument down will never lead to truth because you can make up whatever explanation (epicycle) required to "fit the data." We need to simply look at your interpretation in light of the whole Bible and ask how many verses you must "explain away" vs. how many verses the alternative interpretation must "explain away." It seems pretty clear that your interpretation fails under this test.
I get the impression you want me to lose this argument by quitting first. If you are not prepared to break the argument down then you have lost this battle. We are never going to get anywhere unless you do break the argument down. This might be the reason no-one will ever win an argument with you, because you only play to your rules. If that is the case, I choose not to play by your rules and will let you win your game by default.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-20-2012, 10:50 AM

Hello Richard
It is a good illustration to show how our understanding changes and our perception changes as we become more knowledgeable.

Hey there David,

Yes, it is a good example of that, but more importantly, it is an example of how we should determine the truth or falsehood of a theory. That's what we really need to focus on. After all the arguments with ten thousand words are written, how do we determine which is true? I think I have the solution. If we count up how many verses "naturally fit" with one interpretation over the other then we will have a clear answer if the numbers are like I say they are, which is about a 100 to 1 in favor of Preterism. I think I'll start a thread when Futurists and Preterists can present their counts.

Again, we will never be able to know who is right or wrong by comparing long expositions. We need to start with the main and the plain things, and see which view best fits the Biblical data. It's really pretty simple.
We need to stay highly focused, but in answering these subjects we cannot help mention other matters and then we get bogged down by the other matters. Whether we can find a common foundation seems to be the problem.

The "common foundation" should be the FACTS of what the Bible actually says. If we can't agree about that, then how could we even have a debate? We must begin with a solid foundation of explicit agreement about the facts that we are going to debate.

This is one way of looking at it as if Christ literally had a war with Satan in Heaven and God had waited for His Son to come to Heaven before God let Jesus do what God should have done. Then some will say that God did that a long time earlier going back to Genesis.
If Jesus had been with God before He was born, why didn't Jesus throw Satan out in the Old Testament days? If he was responsible for throwing out Satan as part of the Godhead, that would mean Jesus had defeated Satan before he died and that would be a contradiction and does not support your argument. I thought you once believed in the Trinity etc.

As you noted above, we cannot follow every rabbit trail. Your question indicates that you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I find this fascinating since it means you are vehemently rejecting something you don't even understand.

Response required: Please show me where the Bible explains that believers "overcome" the devil by the blood of the lamb.

I'll look into this as time permits.

Of course it does not work because you choose to apply the one definition from a number of definitions and that is why the Devil or Satan is not a solitary being. Satan or the Devil can be applied in many different ways. Personification is just a simple way of explaining it.

The story of Job has many valuable lessons. Satan at this point is thought (by many) to be this rebellious Angel who is thrown out of heaven contradicting you argument that Jesus threw him out after he ascended to heaven. The title Satan can be applied to anyone, Satan came amongst the Sons of God and the Sons of God can be His Angels in Heaven or they can be humans on earth. The Sons of God can become a Satan. I acknowledge that an Angel can do God's work as if a Satan but would not be a Satan in God's sight. In this story of Job, God appears to let Satan do what he wants (except kill Job). Since this style of writing is in the form of a play, I am not going to be too specific on who exactly Satan is at this point. You say Satan was responsible in answer to my question and right at the end of Job it is explained (Job 42:11)..and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: The answer here is that it is the Lord (God) that brought the evil events on Job. This is my answer to the same question. The personification of Satan and referring to the Sons of God, is not essential to the story but goes to show in a play setting what men and women think about Job and how they are envious of Job. God sets out to prove men's thoughts are wrong and herein is one of the fundamental lessons to learn from the story of Job. God proves what men thought about Job were wrong; and that is what we are doing in the way that men think about God's word; many are simply wrong.

Why did God confuse the issue by falsely presenting himself as "Satan" who is obviously different than himself since he talks to him?

If you want to see Satan as a personal being and that is your simple understanding of Satan, so be it. You started off by telling me of men's perception of planets going around the sun and now I am showing you that your perception can be like those early men. You stick to the gloss and I will dig below the surface to uncover the truth.

I don't "want" to see him that way. It is the Bible that presents him that way, but you don't want to believe the Bible on this point. So you make up a more "sophisticated" interpretation which you apparently believe is much better than the "child's view" that God himself chose to put in his own Bible. So is God an idiot? Why did he write such a confusing book? Only so the Christadelphians could come along 1800 years later and explain how God's explanations are those of a simple child while theirs are "sophisticated"?

The Bible has a foundation but if you do not agree with the foundation of the Bible that I have, it is worthless to you but not to me.

And what is your foundation?

And if it is true, then why is it so contrary to the plain sense of Scripture? (I'm not talking about the "simplistic child's view" but rather the simple view that arises from the natural harmony of many mutually confirming verses.)

I have studied what other Christians doctrines teach and have come to accept the beliefs I hold. My beliefs are open to interrogation just as you are doing. Your arguments are not shaking by belief. It is possible for separate people to come to the same conclusion just as in science two people who are working independently and in different countries can make the same discovery.

Yes, it is possible for scientists to come independently to the same conclusions. But is that what happened in your case, or did you learn these dogmas from the group that invented them? Why don't answer my simple questions? I'm just trying to understand who you are and where you are coming from.

but you have explained and it is not a good explanation. I have told you why at the top of this page. I agree that we can and might have to accept things in order for the discussion can continue. I was wondering if we could compose a list between us of all the possible points of difference and simple tick a "yes" or "no" box to show the things we agree on.

You constantly assert that my explanations are "not good." Well, I can say the same thing about yours. Will that accomplish anything?

My explanations are a thousand times better than yours, and I can prove it mathematically. How's that?

What you are doing is attaching a set of church beliefs to an individual. For the sake of discussion on this forum, I am not going down that route. I have no interest knowing which church a Bible Wheel forum member belongs to. Just stick to what the Bible says and argue from there.

The reason it is of interest is because it appears that the Christadelphians are the source of your doctrine which we are debating. If we followed your suggestion, it would be like saying that we can't mention Darwin in a discussion about evolution.

I agree there is a world of difference between us and I am not sure how we can bridge the difference. If you take the some verses as literal and with a simple childlike-understanding, then perhaps this shows you are still suckling on the milk of the word cannot digest the "meat of the word" which Paul was speaking about.

I try to interpret the Bible in a way that it was intended by the folks who wrote it.

Maybe we should examine all the verses you speak of. You gave me five verses in argument against God's will done in Heaven and asked me to answer the strongest. Your own interpretation is weaker than mine. I am giving alternative explanations that are likely to be as true as any other.
Now that I believe what I do, it is reasonable to say that other interpretations are wrong. All you are doing is picking me up on this point and it is not worth arguing about. Just concentrate on the task in hand and get to the bottom of the truth on a single point (if that is possible).

Well, "my interpretations" are based on a larger and more coherent set of verses, so I have good reason to believe they are better than yours. This is the issue we should be discussing. We will never be able to settle the issue if it is just a battle of who can make up the best "explanations."

I see your form of words can be just as insulting as mine might appear to you. I have studied passages and posted tables etc on this forum having come to those conclusions from what I read. They are my conclusions. We have all been told things and read things which have to be compared to what the Bible says and come to our own acceptance of the things that are true. a If I have been misled concerning the scriptures, then in time those errors will show up. If my history teachers and what is written in the history books, I might never discover the truth about history. Evolution is likely to be another misleading subject, but let's not go there again.

I'm sorry if my comments offended you. That was not my intent. I am simply telling you what I see in the clearest possible language.

And I do believe that the time has come that your errors have "shown up."

Evolution is a good example. It is supported by the overwhelming majority of evidence. You don't accept the scientific theory because it contradicts your religious beliefs. This is a fundamental error, as we see in the history of the conflict between science and religion. So far, science has always won every conflict with religion that can be proven with any objective degree of certainty.

I get the impression you want me to lose this argument by quitting first. If you are not prepared to break the argument down then you have lost this battle. We are never going to get anywhere unless you do break the argument down. This might be the reason no-one will ever win an argument with you, because you only play to your rules. If that is the case, I choose not to play by your rules and will let you win your game by default.

No, not at all. I do not want you to quit. I want you to agree with the objective facts about what the Bible really says and means. That's all.

Great chatting,

Richard

David M

09-22-2012, 04:03 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-22-2012, 11:44 AM

Good morning Richard

The "common foundation" should be the FACTS of what the Bible actually says. If we can't agree about that, then how could we even have a debate? We must begin with a solid foundation of explicit agreement about the facts that we are going to debate.

This is one reason I now see we will never agree. You wants facts which is like saying "prove it happened". As you know and I know, we are not going to agree on facts unless they are written in the secular books of history.

David,

You TOTALLY missed my point. I said nothing about having historical proof about what happened. I was speaking about the FACTS about WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.

The real reason we won't be able to come to agreement is because you are absolutely committed to unbiblical dogmas and fringe "traditions of men" that directly contradict WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS and you refuse to accept WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. It has nothing to do with any demand to "prove it happened" in history.

If Jesus had been with God before He was born, why didn't Jesus throw Satan out in the Old Testament days? If he was responsible for throwing out Satan as part of the Godhead, that would mean Jesus had defeated Satan before he died and that would be a contradiction and does not support your argument.
As you noted above, we cannot follow every rabbit trail. Your question indicates that you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I find this fascinating since it means you are vehemently rejecting something you don't even understand.

I understand the Trinity at is has been presented by the mainstream churches. God is God and Jesus is separate from God and was born human. No interpretation of the Trinity is going agree with the "facts" that are stated in the Bible.

There you go, totally misunderstanding the doctrine of Trinity again. It does not say that "God is God and Jesus is separate from God." You simply have no concept of the doctrine that you so strongly oppose. That indicates that you are simply following the teaching of the fringe group "Christadelphians" without even bothering to find out what the doctrine of the Trinity really states.

This fact is confirmed by your comment about what Jesus would have done if he was "with God" as "part of the Godhead" because it reveals again a total lack of understanding that the Trinity teaches there is only one God. No "part of the Godhead" does anything independent of the Godhead. You created a strawman argument based on a lack of understanding of what the doctrine of the Trinity says.

Why did God confuse the issue by falsely presenting himself as "Satan" who is obviously different than himself since he talks to him?
I am not confusing the issue. I am explaining it. I said Job is written in the form of play. Satan is depicted as a charatacter. That does not make Satan a real person. I have posted a new topic to explain my understanding of the devil and the way Jesus defeated the devil by his own death. The link is here; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3370-The-death-of-Jesus-and-the-destruction-of-the-devil. It is not up for debate, but if I have not made myself clear then I will answer any questions to clear up any misunderstanding.

I didn't say you were confusing the issue. I asked why GOD confused the issue by falsely presenting Satan as a personal being. Your explanation fails because God did not present Satan as a personal being only in Job but everywhere else in Scripture too.

And again we see that you have to INVENT explanations that have nothing to do with what is actually written. There is nothing in the Bible that would suggest Satan is not a personal being. So you INVENTED that doctrine and then went looking for verses you can "explain" with ten-thousand words to support your point. That's backwards. You need to begin with the main and plain things the Bible actually states, and then build your doctrines from that.

I don't "want" to see him that way. It is the Bible that presents him that way, but you don't want to believe the Bible on this point. So you make up a more "sophisticated" interpretation which you apparently believe is much better than the "child's view" that God himself chose to put in his own Bible. So is God an idiot? Why did he write such a confusing book?
To quote the Bible; the fool has said in his heart, there is not God". You do not want to see God and you do not (IMHO) really want to find God. You are putting up every obstacle to stop you finding God. I can get over your obstacles and I am as I said (to use Paul's words); giving you the "meat of the word" and not the milk.

We are not talking about the existence of God David. Your assertion that I do not want to find God is ludicrous. I spent 15 years as a fundamentalist Christian. And then I read the Bible with HONEST EYES and refused to lie to myself and pervert all logic to deny what it really says.

I have not put up any obstacles other than truth, goodness, reason and reality. That's the problem. The Bible is filled with errors, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God. No one with any moral or intellectual integrity can deny these facts or believe the Bible is true. Simple as that.

And what is your foundation? The foundation is the promises made to Abraham and the promise made in John 3:16 I know your foundation is facts, but this is the facts of the Bible (God's words) and not facts you will find in the history books.

Yes, those are some facts of what the Bible says. But the Bible is NOT "God's Word" and that's a fact that can be proven with incontrovertible logic.

And if it is true, then why is it so contrary to the plain sense of Scripture? (I'm not talking about the "simplistic child's view" but rather the simple view that arises from the natural harmony of many mutually confirming verses.)
I can say the same thing. I find many mutually confirming verses. This is just words and as we both know, context is everything when understanding the message the author intends us to understand.

No, you do NOT "say the same thing" and have your words be true. You cannot find "many mutually confirming verses." That's why you have to write ten thousands words to force your interpretation.

Yes, it is possible for scientists to come independently to the same conclusions. But is that what happened in your case, or did you learn these dogmas from the group that invented them? Why don't answer my simple questions? I'm just trying to understand who you are and where you are coming from.
This questioning will not get us anywhere, just consider the facts as they are given in the Bible. That is what I am reasoning from and letting the Bible give its own answers as much as possible.

Should I take that as an admission that you were indoctrinated by the Christadelphians? If not, why do you so adamantly refuse to discuss the source of your fringe doctrines?

The simple truth is that you do NOT "just consider the facts as they are given in the Bible." That's the problem. You begin with an absolute assertion that "angels cannot sin" when the "Biblical facts" plainly and explicitly state that "angels have sinned." So then you write your mountainous pile of words to "explain" why the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. And where did you get that idea in the first place? You learned it from a fringe group! You are following the "traditions of men." That's why it's so very ironic that you constantly accused me of that error. :doh:

You constantly assert that my explanations are "not good." Well, I can say the same thing about yours. Will that accomplish anything?
You can say the same thing but then by your own logic have shown your logic to be faulty. I said that Jesus casting out Satan when Jesus ascended to Heaven was not a good explanation and my argument stands. If you Satan was cast out after Jesus ascended to heaven that means Satan was in Heaven and still sinning after the time Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven. Just answer this one point and we will forget the other problems of the Trinity that this point brings up.

You have not shown any error in my "logic." Your "argument" was based on a false understanding of the Trinity and so had no merit whatsoever.

And the fact that you want to focus on a point that is NOT explained in the Bible only shows how you avoid what the Bible actually states and prefer to just make up your own "explanations." That method will never work. You need to begin with WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY STATES AND ESTABLISHES WITH MANY MUTUALLY CONFIRMING VERSES. But that's not what you do. You focus on ambiguous passages while ignoring the main and the plain things.

You constantly assert that my explanations are "not good." Well, I can say the same thing about yours. Will that accomplish anything?

My explanations are a thousand times better than yours, and I can prove it mathematically. How's that?
Sounds like the claim of a small child to me.

That's hilarious! I was talking about YOUR claim! :hysterical:

I try to interpret the Bible in a way that it was intended by the folks who wrote it.
This is the aim of both of us, so why argue and just present the evidence to support your understanding. Once again, it is like understanding parables, we can all understand the story, but we do not all understand the spiritual message of the story. This is one way that separates us, you look for facts and I look for the spiritual meanings and lessons that should be drawn from God's word.

I have no problem with the "spiritual message." But I also know that folks who focus on the "spiritual message" while ignoring the main and the plain things end up inventing their own fringe doctrines. A perfect example is the lunatic Harold Camping who predicted the rapture would happen on May 21, 2011. He had an "explanation" for every word of the Bible, but he was mad as a hatter. The problem is that you don't understand the most basic element of hermeneutics, which is that you cannot build doctrines off of things the Bible does not say!

Well, "my interpretations" are based on a larger and more coherent set of verses, so I have good reason to believe they are better than yours. This is the issue we should be discussing. We will never be able to settle the issue if it is just a battle of who can make up the best "explanations."
it is not a case of who makes up the best explanation, I do not see this is a game I must win. It is the best explanation that will win, but if you never accept anyone else's explanation, then of course you can maintain to win as much as you like. If others are not drawing the same conclusions as you, means that your explanation can be as wrong as mine are to you.

I can accept any "explanation" that is supported by what the Bible actually says. And of course my "explanations" could be wrong just like anyone else's. So how do we determine which is right and which is wrong? You have not offered any solution but to compare massive "explanations" involving thousands of words and countless speculations and unwarranted assumptions. My solution is altogether different. I say we begin with an AGREEMENT about what the Bible actually states and not accept anything ambiguous, undefined, and not supported by at least one other clear and unambiguous verse. We then simply compare which "explanation" explains more verses. It's like comparing Ptolemaic astronomy with the heliocentric system. Your "explanations" look like a massive collection of epicycles. The difference is like night and day.

And I do believe that the time has come that your errors have "shown up."
This is just a matter of opinion and I can say that you have thrown up lots of errors in your thinking and I leave you with the one problem that I see of Jesus throwing out Satan after Jesus ascended to heaven. Apart from Satan not being what you think Satan is; it is your logic based on the order of events I am questioning.

It's not just a matter of opinion because I have solid logic and facts backing it up.

As for the timing - Scripture plainly states that Christ defeated Satan on the cross:
Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

So there it makes perfect sense that Satan was cast out of heaven when Christ ascended after his resurrection.

I know every time I mention Evolution you will come out with the same spiel; it is your own dogma that you accuse me of having dogma.

Modern science is not equivalent to ancient superstitious dogma like what we see in the Bible.

No, not at all. I do not want you to quit. I want you to agree with the objective facts about what the Bible really says and means. That's all.
That is all I want you to do to, but be prepared to dig.

Great! Let's get to it.

All the best,

Richard

David M

09-22-2012, 05:04 PM

Good day Richard
You did not comment about me pointing out the flaw in your logic.

You can say the same thing but then by your own logic have shown your logic to be faulty. I said that Jesus casting out Satan when Jesus ascended to Heaven was not a good explanation and my argument stands. If you Satan was cast out after Jesus ascended to heaven that means Satan was in Heaven and still sinning after the time Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven. Just answer this one point and we will forget the other problems of the Trinity that this point brings up.

You say Jesus cast out Satan when he ascended to Heaven which was after Jesus said that God's will is done in Heaven. Before this you claimed that Angels had sinned in the past and that when Jesus said what he did, the Angels no longer sinned. This was your way around the argument but then you made a flaw in saying Jesus cast out Satan when he ascended to Heaven. I think this proves you have it all wrong.

The real reason we won't be able to come to agreement is because you are absolutely committed to unbiblical dogmas and fringe "traditions of men" that directly contradict WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS and you refuse to accept WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. It has nothing to do with any demand to "prove it happened" in history.
I am giving you relevant quotes from the Bible to substantiate what I say, which is more than what you do as I will show when I come to the verse you quote at the bottom of the your post.

There you go, totally misunderstanding the doctrine of Trinity again. It does not say that "God is God and Jesus is separate from God." You simply have no concept of the doctrine that you so strongly oppose. That indicates that you are simply following the teaching of the fringe group "Christadelphians" without even bothering to find out what the doctrine of the Trinity really states.
I see how you have misunderstood what I wrote. "God is God" is not referring to the Trinity. that was my way of saying God is ONE and when I said; "and Jesus is separate from God and was born human" how you managed to think I was speaking about the Trinity goes to show that you are not stopping to think but reacting in haste. I have explained why I am not interested in proclaiming which church I associate with and why I am not interested in knowing the church anyone on this forum belongs to. I am letting the Bible speak. It is futile of you to keep on pushing your point.

This fact is confirmed by your comment about what Jesus would have done if he was "with God" as "part of the Godhead" because it reveals again a total lack of understanding that the Trinity teaches there is only one God. No "part of the Godhead" does anything independent of the Godhead. You created a strawman argument based on a lack of understanding of what the doctrine of the Trinity says.
So by three in one and in one Godhead and not doing anything independently saying that God was in Heaven and God was on the Cross and Jesus is the same as God and Jesus was in Heaven and Jesus was on the cross and in fact you are saying the Godhead was on the cross and the Godhead died and who raised the Godhead. The whole idea of the Trinity does not make sense and is not scriptural. Many different Christian churches also do not agree with the Trinity so I do not feel alone on this point.

I didn't say you were confusing the issue. I asked why GOD confused the issue by falsely presenting Satan as a personal being. Your explanation fails because God did not present Satan as a personal being only in Job but everywhere else in Scripture too.
God is not confusing the issue and Satan is often personified which is a consistent way of presenting Satan. Personification is used all of the time in our language so why can't you accept that this is a possible way to interpret what Satan is. I am not making things up, just point out what should be obvious.

And again we see that you have to INVENT explanations that have nothing to do with what is actually written. There is nothing in the Bible that would suggest Satan is not a personal being. So you INVENTED that doctrine and then went looking for verses you can "explain" with ten-thousand words to support your point. That's backwards. You need to begin with the main and plain things the Bible actually states, and then build your doctrines from that.
I am not inventing explanations. I am taking into account all possible meanings. It will be taking all possible meanings and taking the context into account that will decide what is the best meaning when all of scripture is taken into account to see the harmony and consistency of the message. You see a unity in texts that say the same thing. I see the unity only if the context is the same for both.

We are not talking about the existence of God David. Your assertion that I do not want to find God is ludicrous. I spent 15 years as a fundamentalist Christian. And then I read the Bible with HONEST EYES and refused to lie to myself and pervert all logic to deny what it really says.
And what does a fundamentalist Christian by your definition believe? Are they the same beliefs held by mainstream Christendom? To reject the beliefs of mainstream Christendom is not a bad thing, we should be having more agreement but now you appear to reject everything so I do not know how you expect to find God. You appear to reject God by saying the Bible is the work of men and you deny that God is just and look for ways to say that God was unjust. That to me is not out to find God and where do you expect to find God, what other revelation do you expect to find if not in the Bible?

I have not put up any obstacles other than truth, goodness, reason and reality. That's the problem. The Bible is filled with errors, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God. No one with any moral or intellectual integrity can deny these facts or believe the Bible is true. Simple as that.
The Bible is not half as full as errors as you claim. You are making your own errors of interpreting the Bible obvious for all to see. Here you go again to prove my point made in the previous paragraph.

Yes, those are some facts of what the Bible says. But the Bible is NOT "God's Word" and that's a fact that can be proven with incontrovertible logic.
how does your logic say that the Bible is not God's word?? Another proof you will not find God for you are denying the one place God has revealed himself.

No, you do NOT "say the same thing" and have your words be true. You cannot find "many mutually confirming verses." That's why you have to write ten thousands words to force your interpretation.
Just listing a bunch of verses does not always prove anything. I know I have put up passages and I have expected readers to think about them. What you do is put up a bunch of texts and you expect me to see what you see and I do not and that is why you are not proving anything to me. Unless we examine all these mutually confirming verses in their context they might not be as mutually confirming as you think. This is where it would be better dealing with the verses in question rather than having this ping-pong type discussion which is not achieving a better understanding of what the Bible says.

Should I take that as an admission that you were indoctrinated by the Christadelphians? If not, why do you so adamantly refuse to discuss the source of your fringe doctrines?
I have already explained so there is no need to keep pushing the point. I have given you an answer and if you are not satisfied that is your problem, I am not going to repeat myself in this thread anymore than I have to.

The simple truth is that you do NOT "just consider the facts as they are given in the Bible." That's the problem. You begin with an absolute assertion that "angels cannot sin" when the "Biblical facts" plainly and explicitly state that "angels have sinned." So then you write your mountainous pile of words to "explain" why the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. And where did you get that idea in the first place? You learned it from a fringe group! You are following the "traditions of men." That's why it's so very ironic that you constantly accused me of that error. :doh:
It is fair to make the assertion when it is clear from the words of Jesus that Angels do not sin. You have not answered the paradox correctly and you accuse me of making things up and you are showing to everyone on this forum that you are not reasoning these things out as you claim you do. Keep throwing your stones, we can all see you are in your glass house.

You have not shown any error in my "logic." Your "argument" was based on a false understanding of the Trinity and so had no merit whatsoever.
I have answered this above and all you have done is give a rapid reply without stopping to think.

And the fact that you want to focus on a point that is NOT explained in the Bible only shows how you avoid what the Bible actually states and prefer to just make up your own "explanations." That method will never work. You need to begin with WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY STATES AND ESTABLISHES WITH MANY MUTUALLY CONFIRMING VERSES. But that's not what you do. You focus on ambiguous passages while ignoring the main and the plain things.
Amiguous to you , this is how you easily dismiss verses in the Bible that have more significance than you think. This is your reason for saying you win your argument, you dismiss your opponents replies. These are giving me all the reasons to say that any conversation with you about what the Bible says is futile.

That's hilarious! I was talking about YOUR claim! :hysterical:
And your icon of you rolling around the floor like a child in a tantrum goes to prove my point.

I have no problem with the "spiritual message." But I also know that folks who focus on the "spiritual message" while ignoring the main and the plain things end up inventing their own fringe doctrines. A perfect example is the lunatic Harold Camping who predicted the rapture would happen on May 21, 2011. He had an "explanation" for every word of the Bible, but he was mad as a hatter. The problem is that you don't understand the most basic element of hermeneutics, which is that you cannot build doctrines off of things the Bible does not say!
How many basic doctrines are there? What do you say the most important doctrines are? There are are only about one dozen topics to talk about, all the rest is variations on the topic. I am not making up lots of fringe doctrines. The doctrines I have are what was believed by the Apostles. Can you say the same thing. Did the Apostles believe the Trinity what proof do you have all the Apostles believed the Trinity. Did the Jews in their ancient scriptures believe the Trinity?

I can accept any "explanation" that is supported by what the Bible actually says. And of course my "explanations" could be wrong just like anyone else's. So how do we determine which is right and which is wrong? You have not offered any solution but to compare massive "explanations" involving thousands of words and countless speculations and unwarranted assumptions. My solution is altogether different. I say we begin with an AGREEMENT about what the Bible actually states and not accept anything ambiguous, undefined, and not supported by at least one other clear and unambiguous verse. We then simply compare which "explanation" explains more verses. It's like comparing Ptolemaic astronomy with the heliocentric system. Your "explanations" look like a massive collection of epicycles. The difference is like night and day.
I appreciate the admission from you. I say the same thing, I could be wrong and that is for others to show me that I am wrong. I do not claim to know everything and there is a lot I can learn, but the fundamental doctrines are what is the most important to get right.
I think you are saying more or less what I have been saying that where I see 9 out of 10 verses meaning one thing, then the verse that says something different can be put to one side until and explanation is found to make it fit. How is it we disagree so much when we agree on the same analysis of what should be done?

It's not just a matter of opinion because I have solid logic and facts backing it up
Your solid logic and facts are not coming through, and maybe you need to explain in depth more to get your point across.

As for the timing - Scripture plainly states that Christ defeated Satan on the cross:
Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

So how did Jesus defeat the Satan or the Devil on the cross. This is what I want you to explain to me how Jesus did that, if you do not agree to the way I present Jesus defeating the devil through his death. You make many statements each of which needs close examination. For example you say. "He forgave us all our sins". Who are the "us" and when were those sins forgiven?

When you quote; "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" what do you understand by this? This says nothing about Satan being in Heaven. I do not see how you derive your conclusion, therefore you must explain this to me. You are going to have to produce more words in order to explain this. As it goes you need to explain away the flaw I see in your logic of Satan being in Heaven after Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven at the time of his saying that.

So there it makes perfect sense that Satan was cast out of heaven when Christ ascended after his resurrection.
I do not know how you can say this makes perfect sense. There is nothing in what you have given that suggests anything like this and I have has to ask you to explain it to me if this is the conclusion from the verses in Colossians you quote.

Great! Let's get to it.
Let's see your reasoning to the explanations I have asked for, this can be the start.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-22-2012, 09:13 PM

You say Jesus cast out Satan when he ascended to Heaven which was after Jesus said that God's will is done in Heaven. Before this you claimed that Angels had sinned in the past and that when Jesus said what he did, the Angels no longer sinned. This was your way around the argument but then you made a flaw in saying Jesus cast out Satan when he ascended to Heaven. I think this proves you have it all wrong.

Before I answer your "paradox" you have a paradox of your own that you must answer. The Bible says that God is Sovereign and that no one can resist his will. How then does anyone sin? You need to solve this problem before I can answer your "paradox" since your paradox is based on the same idea that God's will is done in heaven.

And while you are thinking on that, I'll invent a couple explanations for you to chew on.
1) God does not allow Satan to violate his will in heaven. Satan is only allowed to disobey on earth.

Can you refute that with Scripture?

And here is another possible explanation:
2) The earthly Temple was an image of the heavenly temple. The earthly temple had a court of the Gentiles. Thus God's will is done only in the part of heaven that would correspond to the inner court. The outer court is where Satan was allowed to roam.

So there you go. You have three things you need to answer.

This is why it is so absurd to base doctrines on ambiguous verses. There is no limit to the number of possible "explanations" that people can invent for things not clearly established in the Bible. And every time some group invents a new explanation, all they've really done is invented a new cult.

That's why this is the WRONG way to study the Bible. It is the method of the cults.

So by three in one and in one Godhead and not doing anything independently saying that God was in Heaven and God was on the Cross and Jesus is the same as God and Jesus was in Heaven and Jesus was on the cross and in fact you are saying the Godhead was on the cross and the Godhead died and who raised the Godhead. The whole idea of the Trinity does not make sense and is not scriptural. Many different Christian churches also do not agree with the Trinity so I do not feel alone on this point.

No Trinitarian would agree with your caricature of their doctrine. You obviously know nothing of the doctrine which you have been taught to reject.

God is not confusing the issue and Satan is often personified which is a consistent way of presenting Satan. Personification is used all of the time in our language so why can't you accept that this is a possible way to interpret what Satan is. I am not making things up, just point out what should be obvious.

The Bible most certainly is confusing people concerning the identity and meaning of Satan. The vast majority of people who read it come to conclusions diametrically opposed to your doctrines. And you can't claim that they are any less diligent, careful, or devoted in the study of the Bible than you. So what accounts for the difference? The answer seems pretty obvious. The Bible is either totally confused on this point or you are wrong. There is no other possibility that I can see.

I am not inventing explanations. I am taking into account all possible meanings. It will be taking all possible meanings and taking the context into account that will decide what is the best meaning when all of scripture is taken into account to see the harmony and consistency of the message. You see a unity in texts that say the same thing. I see the unity only if the context is the same for both.

That's your error. Cult leader Harold Camping used EXACTLY the same "standard" of finding the "harmony and consistency of the message." That's all he ever talked about. It is how he deluded himself and his followers. It is a false standard. If you allow yourself to make up whatever "explanations" you want, you will always be able to find "harmony and consistency" no matter how ludicrous your theories. I watched Harold Camping do this for a few years as a hobby. It is the fast path to delusion. It didn't matter how far off the plain meaning of Scripture he went. Folks would call in to his radio show and point out the obvious absurdity of his assertions and how they directly contradicted the plain teaching of the Bible, and Camping would launch into a half hour explanation that "harmonized" his twisted interpretation.

And what does a fundamentalist Christian by your definition believe? Are they the same beliefs held by mainstream Christendom? To reject the beliefs of mainstream Christendom is not a bad thing, we should be having more agreement but now you appear to reject everything so I do not know how you expect to find God. You appear to reject God by saying the Bible is the work of men and you deny that God is just and look for ways to say that God was unjust. That to me is not out to find God and where do you expect to find God, what other revelation do you expect to find if not in the Bible?

As a fundamentalist Christian I believed the Bible.

I don't merely "say" the Bible is the work of men, I have proven that to be the fact and you know you can't refute me on this point. All you can do is make up "explanations" that no rational person could believe because they are baseless and circular - you simply assume what you are supposed to be proving. You have constantly asserted that the Bible is the Word of God and the prophecy proves it, but you can't prove a word of what you say. So don't you think it's rather absurd to be telling me that I'm wrong if you can't support your assertions with logic and facts?

The Bible is not half as full as errors as you claim. You are making your own errors of interpreting the Bible obvious for all to see. Here you go again to prove my point made in the previous paragraph.

It has many more errors than I have yet to list.

You have NEVER found any error in any argument I have made except perhaps (we shall see) the one that we are currently discussing about the meaning of Revelation 12. You have frequently made FALSE ASSERTIONS like that. I don't know how you can live with yourself if you are so bloody dishonest as to assert that my logic is faulty. You have never shown any error in my logic. You should repent.

how does your logic say that the Bible is not God's word?? Another proof you will not find God for you are denying the one place God has revealed himself.

The Bible contains errors, contradictions, logical absurdities, falsehoods, and moral abominations attributed to God. And it's totally sexist from beginning to end. Therefore, it cannot be the Word of God. QED

Just listing a bunch of verses does not always prove anything. I know I have put up passages and I have expected readers to think about them. What you do is put up a bunch of texts and you expect me to see what you see and I do not and that is why you are not proving anything to me. Unless we examine all these mutually confirming verses in their context they might not be as mutually confirming as you think. This is where it would be better dealing with the verses in question rather than having this ping-pong type discussion which is not achieving a better understanding of what the Bible says.

No one is talking about "listing a bunch of verses." I am talking about showing an integrated complex of mutually confirming verses. It's the same way we establish any truth. It's the essence of epistemology. The more independent mutually confirming "witnesses" or "facts" the more we have confidence that we are right. For example, if I have three thermometers operating on different principles (mercury, electrical resistance, alcohol) and they all agree, I have high confidence that my measurement is correct. It's the same thing with the Bible. This is the REAL WAY to determine what the Bible says. CULTS use the "harmonization" idea because they can "harmonize" the verses any way they want. This is your fundamental error. You have been studying the Bible all these years, but you don't even know what the main and the plain teachings of the Bible are. You focus on obscurities like "angels can't sin" and soul sleep and whatever else the Christadelphians taught you. But you can't understand the basic prophetic flow form the OT to the NT. This is Henry's problem to a tee. He says that a minor omission in Luke PROVES ABSOLUTELY that Matt/Mark recorded a different event, but then invents the most ridiculous "explanations" for all the discrepancies between Matthew and Mark to prove they are "harmonized." And since you have not commented on that thread, I assume you have not even noticed how ludicrous his hermeneutics are.

I have already explained so there is no need to keep pushing the point. I have given you an answer and if you are not satisfied that is your problem, I am not going to repeat myself in this thread anymore than I have to.

I find it fascinating that you refuse to own your own group! What's up with that? If you think they have the very truth of God, why are you hiding it? And if they are not your group, why wouldn't you just say so. What are hiding, and why?

It is fair to make the assertion when it is clear from the words of Jesus that Angels do not sin. You have not answered the paradox correctly and you accuse me of making things up and you are showing to everyone on this forum that you are not reasoning these things out as you claim you do. Keep throwing your stones, we can all see you are in your glass house.

There are many possible explanations. You just don't think so because you got indoctrinated in the Christadelphian religion. It is possible that God simply does not allow Satan to sin in heaven! Why didn't you think of that? And you could invent any number of possibilities if you really put your mind to it.

It seems unlikely that you are really that concerned about the truth of Jesus' words that "God's will is done in heaven" because that leads to the same kinds of problems we have understanding free will given God's sovereignty. So it looks like your real concern is to prove the dogma you were taught. You were given that one verse and told it was the answer. But did you see the logical problems with that verse? Nope. You just assumed it proved your dogma so you didn't have to think any further. That's really a pretty clear sign of a dogma. You quit thinking and could not imagine any other possibilities.

And the fact that you want to focus on a point that is NOT explained in the Bible only shows how you avoid what the Bible actually states and prefer to just make up your own "explanations." That method will never work. You need to begin with WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY STATES AND ESTABLISHES WITH MANY MUTUALLY CONFIRMING VERSES. But that's not what you do. You focus on ambiguous passages while ignoring the main and the plain things.
Amiguous to you , this is how you easily dismiss verses in the Bible that have more significance than you think. This is your reason for saying you win your argument, you dismiss your opponents replies. These are giving me all the reasons to say that any conversation with you about what the Bible says is futile.

That's not correct at all. There are many ambiguous verses. Why are they ambiguous? Because the BIBLE DOES NOT SAY WHAT THEY MEAN so you need to INVENT an explanation. This is the most obvious thing in the world. Every CULT builds doctrines on ambiguous verses. That's their primary method. The fact that you don't even understand that there are ambiguous verses proves again that you have simply been indoctrinated. You are not THINKING FOR YOURSELF about what the verses really mean. You have been told the answers by the cult and now you are out crusading for their dogmas.

For you to say that my demand for establishing WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS by establishing it on MANY MUTUALLY CONFIRMING VERSES is merely a trick to dismiss my opponents indicates a total ignorance of the most basic principle of Biblical hermeneutics. And I know why you attack this principle - it is the ONLY way your doctrines could stand because your doctrines are based on HUMAN INVENTIONS that are contrary to the main and the plain things that the Bible states.

I have no problem with the "spiritual message." But I also know that folks who focus on the "spiritual message" while ignoring the main and the plain things end up inventing their own fringe doctrines. A perfect example is the lunatic Harold Camping who predicted the rapture would happen on May 21, 2011. He had an "explanation" for every word of the Bible, but he was mad as a hatter. The problem is that you don't understand the most basic element of hermeneutics, which is that you cannot build doctrines off of things the Bible does not say!
How many basic doctrines are there? What do you say the most important doctrines are? There are are only about one dozen topics to talk about, all the rest is variations on the topic. I am not making up lots of fringe doctrines. The doctrines I have are what was believed by the Apostles. Can you say the same thing. Did the Apostles believe the Trinity what proof do you have all the Apostles believed the Trinity. Did the Jews in their ancient scriptures believe the Trinity?

I don't know "how many" basic doctrines there are. That's not the point. The point is that you have invented/imported beliefs that are based on things the Bible does not say and that directly contradict things the Bible does say.

The Apostles did not believe the Trinity, but they did worship Christ as God and say he was God, so the early church was forced to figure it out and they came up with the doctrine of the Trinity.

So how did Jesus defeat the Satan or the Devil on the cross. This is what I want you to explain to me how Jesus did that, if you do not agree to the way I present Jesus defeating the devil through his death. You make many statements each of which needs close examination. For example you say. "He forgave us all our sins". Who are the "us" and when were those sins forgiven?

I already explained that the Bible does not say "how" he did it except that he did it on the cross. There's nothing more for anyone to say, unless you think that the Bible actually gives an explanation. But whatever you do, DON'T MAKE UP AN EXPLANATION! That just adds to the confusion. If you think the Bible gives an explanation, just cite the appropriate verses.

When you quote; "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" what do you understand by this? This says nothing about Satan being in Heaven. I do not see how you derive your conclusion, therefore you must explain this to me. You are going to have to produce more words in order to explain this. As it goes you need to explain away the flaw I see in your logic of Satan being in Heaven after Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven at the time of his saying that.

Scripture says that Christ defeated Satan and death on the cross. I don't feel like making up any "explanation" beyond what the Bible says.

But there is no "flaw" in my logic. There are many possible explanations that you have not considered.

I do not know how you can say this makes perfect sense. There is nothing in what you have given that suggests anything like this and I have has to ask you to explain it to me if this is the conclusion from the verses in Colossians you quote.

Christ defeated Satan on the cross and Satan was cast out of heaven in Rev 12 after Christ ascended. What's there not to understand?

All the best,

Richard

David M

09-23-2012, 01:46 PM

Before I answer your "paradox" you have a paradox of your own that you must answer. The Bible says that God is Sovereign and that no one can resist his will. How then does anyone sin? You need to solve this problem before I can answer your "paradox" since your paradox is based on the same idea that God's will is done in heaven.
Richard, I do not need to answer this new question of yours before you answer mine. This is a diversion and we are to stay on topic,

And while you are thinking on that, I'll invent a couple explanations for you to chew on.
1) God does not allow Satan to violate his will in heaven. Satan is only allowed to disobey on earth.

Can you refute that with Scripture?
So why should Jesus throw out Satan when Jesus ascended to Heaven if that is where Satan was not allowed to to violate his will? Have you not just proved what Jesus said was true? God's will is done in Heaven; i.e. God's will is not violated in Heaven. In the game of chess, this would be checkmate against you.

And here is another possible explanation:
2) The earthly Temple was an image of the heavenly temple. The earthly temple had a court of the Gentiles. Thus God's will is done only in the part of heaven that would correspond to the inner court. The outer court is where Satan was allowed to roam.

So there you go. You have three things you need to answer.
It is a possible explanation , but is it true and what is your evidence? I have exposed the flaw in your argument about Jesus casting out Satan and God's will is done in Heaven. How are you going to get out of checkmate?

This is why it is so absurd to base doctrines on ambiguous verses. There is no limit to the number of possible "explanations" that people can invent for things not clearly established in the Bible. And every time some group invents a new explanation, all they've really done is invented a new cult.

That's why this is the WRONG way to study the Bible. It is the method of the cults.
So you say and you are repeating your rhetoric, which has no weight. You claim verses to be ambiguous and do not accept anyone's explanation. You cannot give a good exposition of the verses in question, therefore there is no point to further discussion; you have ruled yourself out from serious study.

No Trinitarian would agree with your caricature of their doctrine. You obviously know nothing of the doctrine which you have been taught to reject.
What knowledge do I need to know that will make me believe in the Trinity? This is not the topic of this discussion so I do not want to pursue this at this time.

The Bible most certainly is confusing people concerning the identity and meaning of Satan. The vast majority of people who read it come to conclusions diametrically opposed to your doctrines. And you can't claim that they are any less diligent, careful, or devoted in the study of the Bible than you. So what accounts for the difference? The answer seems pretty obvious. The Bible is either totally confused on this point or you are wrong. There is no other possibility that I can see.
By exposing these subjects to scrutiny then we examine all interpretations and meanings. Amongst all the confusion the truth is there to be found. If you really want to know the truth, you should welcome the opportunity to re-examine these subjects to sort out your own confusions.

That's your error. Cult leader Harold Camping used EXACTLY the same "standard" of finding the "harmony and consistency of the message." That's all he ever talked about. It is how he deluded himself and his followers. It is a false standard. If you allow yourself to make up whatever "explanations" you want, you will always be able to find "harmony and consistency" no matter how ludicrous your theories. I watched Harold Camping do this for a few years as a hobby. It is the fast path to delusion. It didn't matter how far off the plain meaning of Scripture he went. Folks would call in to his radio show and point out the obvious absurdity of his assertions and how they directly contradicted the plain teaching of the Bible, and Camping would launch into a half hour explanation that "harmonized" his twisted interpretation.
We know Harold Camping wrongly predicted the return of Christ, but what has this to do with the subject of the topic under discussion? Your repeated attempt to discredit my explanations does not help our discussions.

As a fundamentalist Christian I believed the Bible
I asked;
And what does a fundamentalist Christian by your definition believe? Are they the same beliefs held by mainstream Christendom?
I want to know what beliefs a fundamental Christian must believe, please be specific if you want to answer the question. Since it is off topic you need not answer.

I don't merely "say" the Bible is the work of men, I have proven that to be the fact and you know you can't refute me on this point. All you can do is make up "explanations" that no rational person could believe because they are baseless and circular - you simply assume what you are supposed to be proving. You have constantly asserted that the Bible is the Word of God and the prophecy proves it, but you can't prove a word of what you say. So don't you think it's rather absurd to be telling me that I'm wrong if you can't support your assertions with logic and facts?
God said He would punish Israel and He would disperse them through all nations and He would not make a full end of them and He would regather them and make a nation of them. Israel were looking for the restoration of their kingdom, which at that time they did not know they had not felt the full force of God's punishment. The nation of Israel thoroughly dispersed in the first century and following but is now regathered and established. Therefore, against all the odds, the Jews have retained their identity and have be regathered to form a nation. This proves God has been true to His word. The case is now proven.

You have NEVER found any error in any argument I have made except perhaps (we shall see) the one that we are currently discussing about the meaning of Revelation 12. You have frequently made FALSE ASSERTIONS like that. I don't know how you can live with yourself if you are so bloody dishonest as to assert that my logic is faulty. You have never shown any error in my logic. You should repent.
I have not kept a list of all your mistakes in your answers to me, but you have made statements that were incorrect; one example was your quoting Zechariah in connection with animal sacrifice. The reference you gave was to do with the Feast of Tabernacles and had nothing to do with animal sacrifices. You then dismissed the point, which is what you do when you have failed.

The Bible contains errors, contradictions, logical absurdities, falsehoods, and moral abominations attributed to God. And it's totally sexist from beginning to end. Therefore, it cannot be the Word of God. QED
Saying QED means nothing at all, because this is your point of view and you have proven nothing by what you have said. I challenge your opinion and explained it away, therefore you do not have an indisputable proof. If it was so proven, we would not be having this argument.

No one is talking about "listing a bunch of verses." I am talking about showing an integrated complex of mutually confirming verses. It's the same way we establish any truth. It's the essence of epistemology. The more independent mutually confirming "witnesses" or "facts" the more we have confidence that we are right. For example, if I have three thermometers operating on different principles (mercury, electrical resistance, alcohol) and they all agree, I have high confidence that my measurement is correct. It's the same thing with the Bible. This is the REAL WAY to determine what the Bible says. CULTS use the "harmonization" idea because they can "harmonize" the verses any way they want. This is your fundamental error. You have been studying the Bible all these years, but you don't even know what the main and the plain teachings of the Bible are. You focus on obscurities like "angels can't sin" and soul sleep and whatever else the Christadelphians taught you. But you can't understand the basic prophetic flow form the OT to the NT. This is Henry's problem to a tee. He says that a minor omission in Luke PROVES ABSOLUTELY that Matt/Mark recorded a different event, but then invents the most ridiculous "explanations" for all the discrepancies between Matthew and Mark to prove they are "harmonized." And since you have not commented on that thread, I assume you have not even noticed how ludicrous his hermeneutics are.
You keep saying the same things and until we examine these mutually confirming verses which can be the subject of another thread, you are straying from the topic. You keep attempting to discredit me but you have not discredited my explanation. All you can do is belittle them.

I find it fascinating that you refuse to own your own group! What's up with that? If you think they have the very truth of God, why are you hiding it? And if they are not your group, why wouldn't you just say so. What are hiding, and why?

There are many possible explanations. You just don't think so because you got indoctrinated in the Christadelphian religion. It is possible that God simply does not allow Satan to sin in heaven! Why didn't you think of that? And you could invent any number of possibilities if you really put your mind to it.
You keep pushing and I have explained why I am not going to associate myself with any church, so why keep pushing? This is all you can do to attempt to win a discussion, you keep repeating the same rhetoric. We have been here before so please quit.

It seems unlikely that you are really that concerned about the truth of Jesus' words that "God's will is done in heaven" because that leads to the same kinds of problems we have understanding free will given God's sovereignty. So it looks like your real concern is to prove the dogma you were taught. You were given that one verse and told it was the answer. But did you see the logical problems with that verse? Nope. You just assumed it proved your dogma so you didn't have to think any further. That's really a pretty clear sign of a dogma. You quit thinking and could not imagine any other possibilities.
That's not correct at all. There are many ambiguous verses. Why are they ambiguous? Because the BIBLE DOES NOT SAY WHAT THEY MEAN so you need to INVENT an explanation. This is the most obvious thing in the world. Every CULT builds doctrines on ambiguous verses. That's their primary method. The fact that you don't even understand that there are ambiguous verses proves again that you have simply been indoctrinated. You are not THINKING FOR YOURSELF about what the verses really mean. You have been told the answers by the cult and now you are out crusading for their dogmas.

For you to say that my demand for establishing WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS by establishing it on MANY MUTUALLY CONFIRMING VERSES is merely a trick to dismiss my opponents indicates a total ignorance of the most basic principle of Biblical hermeneutics. And I know why you attack this principle - it is the ONLY way your doctrines could stand because your doctrines are based on HUMAN INVENTIONS that are contrary to the main and the plain things that the Bible states.
You keep on about my dogma and cannot answer the subject of this topic. Your attack me and my explanations and this does you no credit. We have been here on many occasions and it is about time you quit your attacks on what individuals believe and just concentrate on the reasons for those beliefs and expose the unreliability of those beliefs by giving detailed explanations of the verses and the symbols used. My beliefs are there to be challenged and must be challenged by giving scriptural support and by properly understanding the verses given as supporting evidence. That is the basis for any discussion.

I don't know "how many" basic doctrines there are. That's not the point. The point is that you have invented/imported beliefs that are based on things the Bible does not say and that directly contradict things the Bible does say.

The Apostles did not believe the Trinity, but they did worship Christ as God and say he was God, so the early church was forced to figure it out and they came up with the doctrine of the Trinity.
They came up with the wrong conclusion and that can be discussed as another topic as it already has been discussed. You prefer to attack your opponents without concentrating on the topic under discussion.

I already explained that the Bible does not say "how" he did it except that he did it on the cross. There's nothing more for anyone to say, unless you think that the Bible actually gives an explanation. But whatever you do, DON'T MAKE UP AN EXPLANATION! That just adds to the confusion. If you think the Bible gives an explanation, just cite the appropriate verses.

Scripture says that Christ defeated Satan and death on the cross. I don't feel like making up any "explanation" beyond what the Bible says.
It is a pity you cannot see the weakness in your own answers. You show me and others you are not looking for explanations. Jesus defeated the devil through his death, and either you agree with the explanation I have given in my separate answer given in the topic; ' http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3370-The-death-of-Jesus-and-the-destruction-of-the-devil (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3370-The-death-of-Jesus-and-the-destruction-of-the-devil) 'or you must explain it in a better way. I have cited verses in my explanation and you have not adequately given your own explanation. The cross might explain the devil's defeat, but you have not explained what the devil is and that is the weakness in your answer.

But there is no "flaw" in my logic. There are many possible explanations that you have not considered.
Christ defeated Satan on the cross and Satan was cast out of heaven in Rev 12 after Christ ascended. What's there not to understand?
So put up all the explanations and we can begin a reduction process. I have exposed your flaw at the top of this reply and you have put yourself in a checkmate position.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-23-2012, 02:32 PM

David M

09-24-2012, 03:42 AM

David M

09-25-2012, 03:28 AM

Readers who are dipping into this topic at this point should read my opening post explaining what I think the 'war in heaven' of Revelation 12:7 means

My discussion with Richard so far has gone like this:

The argument thus far for saying that in Heaven God’s Angels do not sin is supported in my view by the words of Jesus (God’s Son) saying; “Thy will be done…as in Heaven”
The explanation given by Richard is that Angels might have sinned in the past but do not sin by the time Jesus said his words. We then have this future war in heaven that Richard claims was past, supporting his view that it took place in the past.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
First, the Book of Revelation is not future, but rather past.
Second, even if Revelation is future in general, Revelation 12 is most definitely not future.

My question to this was;

David Question: Are you saying the "war in heaven" that would shortly (begin) to come to pass (Rev 1:1) happened in OT times and before Jesus made his statement?
and Richard's reply followed:

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough Note that Satan was cast out of heaven after Christ ascended. That makes good sense if we understand that Christ defeated Satan by his death and resurrection:
Added to this was a quote from Hebrews that did not support Richard's answer and has opened up a diversion that he has to answer now;

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Originally Posted by David M
Response required: Please show me where the Bible explains that believers "overcome" the devil by the blood of the lamb.
I'll look into this as time permits.

The discussion then moves forward with Richard claiming that Jesus threw out Satan when he ascended to Heaven after his resurrection. This is after Jesus said his words before his resurrection and is therefore a future event from the time Jesus said his words. The argument is that at the time of Jesus saying his words, God's Angels were not sinning. And so from here Richard replies;

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough As for the timing - Scripture plainly states that Christ defeated Satan on the cross:
Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
So there it makes perfect sense that Satan was cast out of heaven when Christ ascended after his resurrection.

One minute Richard says Jesus defeated Satan on the cross and later when Jesus ascends to Heaven either immediately after his resurrection or 40 days after this. Richard has not explained who Satan is and how Satan this Angel of God (supposedly) is identified in Colossians 2:13.

I have written and explanation of how I consider Jesus destroyed the devil through his death ' http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3370-The-death-of-Jesus-and-the-destruction-of-the-devil (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3370-The-death-of-Jesus-and-the-destruction-of-the-devil)' but no exposition of the subject has been given by Richard.
Now Richard is saying that Satan was not actually in Heaven (the dwelling place of God where the Angels have access to God, but Satan was cast out of God's presence to an outer court.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Scripture says that Christ defeated Satan and death on the cross. I don't feel like making up any "explanation" beyond what the Bible says.But there is no "flaw" in my logic.
My repy to this is;

David
It is a pity you cannot see the weakness in your own answers. You show me and others you are not looking for explanations. Jesus defeated the devil through his death, and either you agree with the explanation I have given in my separate answer given in the topic; ' http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3370-The-death-of-Jesus-and-the-destruction-of-the-devil (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3370-The-death-of-Jesus-and-the-destruction-of-the-devil)' or you must explain it in a better way. I have cited verses in my explanation and you have not adequately given your own explanation. The cross might explain the devil's defeat, but you have not explained what the devil is and that is the weakness in your answer.

Richard now insists I answer his question and posing me a paradox before he will answer mine. This is a distraction and diversion which I have been accused applying the 38 dishonest tricks to win an argument. That might not have been Richard's intention but in the process of responding to my observation he has slandered me.

Richards accuses me of writing words and not facts, and Richard puts up a verse here and there as if explaining what the Bible means and he has not given any explanation in the way that I have given, even before he has read my post explaining how Jesus destroyed the devil through his death.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
I'll take a look at that thread.

So the questions remain for Richard to answer before we can move on.

Q1. What is satan; what can the symbol of satan represent?

(Richard did identify the Dragon as King Herod and the Dragon in Revelation 12:9 is also described as;And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan. For the sake of my explanation of the war in heaven, it is not necessary to identify who exactly is the the Dragon of this prophecy is, which could be a political leader, or a nation in the future. By Richard's logic if Herod was Satan, that means Jesus cast out Herod when Jesus went to Heaven)

Q2. How can the devil (satan) still be alive when Jesus destroyed the devil through his own death on the cross?

And if we do get to the bottom of this, then we might conclude that God’s Angels do not sin in Heaven.

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-25-2012, 04:08 PM

Good morning Richard

That's right David - you don't "have to" do anything at all. But if you want to have a rational discussion, then you must deal with paradox I proposed because it it contains the same elements as the paradox you proposed. If you can't answer mine, why should I try to answer yours? This is not a diversion - it is the essence of the paradox you want answered.

I will answer your questions, but I do not have to until you have answered mine first. You introduce your questions and expect me to answer you first. If those are your rules; I am not playing by them and we can quit now.

Good afternoon David,

You missed my point. It was neither a diversion nor a game based on bad rules. It was a simple call for consistency. Your beliefs are based on a paradox that is essentially identical to the one you want me to answer. So you need to explain to me why you think it is a paradox when I say it, but not a paradox when you say it. Specifically:

David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and on earth and yet people sin.

My paradox follows from the fact that the Bible says that God is sovereign and it is impossible to resist his will. The normal explanation for this paradox is to appeal to human free will. That's why God's will is not done on earth. Calvinists don't accept this explanation because they say it contradicts God's sovereignty. They invent an explanation that says God has two wills - his "decretive will" that is based on his "eternal decrees" and his "prescriptive will" that he reveals in his commandments. These are also known as his secret will and his revealed will. Some Christians find these concepts necessary to resolve contradictions, such as the statement that God "desires all people to be saved." Well, if God desires it, then it's going to happen! Or else God is not sovereign. Or God has two different wills. Or ... you can make up your own explanation. But what's the point? Obviously, the explanation will add nothing to our knowledge since it will be made to conform to whatever we want to believe. There are different possible solutions depending on different assumptions about things that cannot be known, so seeking an answer seems like chasing a wild goose. But if you want to pursue this, I'd be happy to follow your lead.

I find it odd that you do not seem to be familiar with the various solutions to this paradox. This conversation has been going on in Christianity for hundreds of years. It is an essential part of the history of Christian theology.

I did not "prove" that what Jesus said was true. I simply assumed your interpretation that angels can't sin in heaven and so explained your paradox.
No you did not prove it, you confirmed it without knowing it.

I neither proved it nor confirmed it. I assumed it as the basis for my answer to you! You wanted a resolution of the paradox, so I had to assume the truth of your assertion or I could not have given a resolution.

Maybe not checkmate to you but you are backing into a corner you will not get out. I might summarize after this post, for after this post, I shall just stick on this one subject until it is resolved.

That's the point of the game David (to use "game" in its allegorical rather than denotative sense, of course). I'm glad you are trying to push me in a corner. But it would be good if you refrained from shouting "CHECK-MATE!" before that is actually the fact.

As for why Jesus would throw out Satan at that time, it could be a symbolic way of expressing his victory over Satan. Maybe it's not literal. You can make up whatever explanation you like. That's what you do.
Why accuse me of assertions when by your own admission here; "it could be symbolic", "maybe its not literal". This is what I am saying and yet you just want to reject my argument, which from the bottom of your post, you say you have not read. This really shows up your own failings and rushing to comment without giving the subject thought.

I call you on your assertions when you claim they "prove" something when in fact they prove nothing because they are mere assertions.

I gave some of the evidence, and it's a LOT more than the evidence you have for your position. And I don't have to DIRECTLY CONTRADICT the plain statements of Scripture, like when Peter speaks of the angels that sinned.
What was the evidence and what are you relating to? You have given no evidence relating to the topic of this thread and how could you when you have made the comments above.

Here is the evidence I gave:

And here is another possible explanation:
2) The earthly Temple was an image of the heavenly temple. The earthly temple had a court of the Gentiles. Thus God's will is done only in the part of heaven that would correspond to the inner court. The outer court is where Satan was allowed to roam.

So there you go. You have three things you need to answer.

It is based on a LOT of evidence that you surely know since you are familiar with the Bible. I don't have to show you where it is, do I? I am assuming you are well-versed in Scripture.

And here is another possible explanation:
2) The earthly Temple was an image of the heavenly temple. The earthly temple had a court of the Gentiles. Thus God's will is done only in the part of heaven that would correspond to the inner court. The outer court is where Satan was allowed to roam.

So there you go. You have three things you need to answer.

It is a possible explanation, but is it true and what is your evidence? I have exposed the flaw in your argument about Jesus casting out Satan and God's will is done in Heaven. How are you going to get out of checkmate?

You exposed nothing but your own failure to understand plain English.

Please explain how I have failed to understand English, otherwise you are making meaningless assertions and is this part of your "smear campaign" that is talked about in another post?

I'm sorry. Saying that you didn't "understand English" was not very helpful or accurate. The real problem was that you were jumping to the "CHECKMATE" conclusion long before it was justified. Please accept my apology.

It is not "rhetoric" - I explained your errors and you can't understand because you have been indoctrinated in the cult practice of "harmonizing" the Bible by making up "explanations" for things the Bible does not say.
You have explained nothing so get off this track now! Answer the questions and resolve the problems, this discussion is going nowhere.

I've explained it at least three times already. And you have not responded to the point I was making. Why is that? Here is the explanation I gave in Post #10 of this thread:

I am not inventing explanations. I am taking into account all possible meanings. It will be taking all possible meanings and taking the context into account that will decide what is the best meaning when all of scripture is taken into account to see the harmony and consistency of the message. You see a unity in texts that say the same thing. I see the unity only if the context is the same for both.

That's your error. Cult leader Harold Camping used EXACTLY the same "standard" of finding the "harmony and consistency of the message." That's all he ever talked about. It is how he deluded himself and his followers. It is a false standard. If you allow yourself to make up whatever "explanations" you want, you will always be able to find "harmony and consistency" no matter how ludicrous your theories. I watched Harold Camping do this for a few years as a hobby. It is the fast path to delusion. It didn't matter how far off the plain meaning of Scripture he went. Folks would call in to his radio show and point out the obvious absurdity of his assertions and how they directly contradicted the plain teaching of the Bible, and Camping would launch into a half hour explanation that "harmonized" his twisted interpretation.
Do you understand the error of your hermeneutical practice? If not, I'd be happy to explain.

I could give a great exposition on the verses if I let myself just make up stuff like you. But I'm not interested in such absurdities.
Please give your exposition, but if you want to fill it with junk to prove a point, you will make yourself look an idiot.

Am I an "idiot" because I don't want to make up stuff that can't be proven true or false? I don't follow your logic.

Any explanation will be just speculation because the Bible plainly contradicts itself on this point. We have explanations like the "two wills of God" or the different interpretations of "thy will be done" or the idea that Satan simply was not allowed to sin in heaven or the idea that there is an "outer court" in the heavenly Temple like there is in the earthly image where the unclean Gentiles were allowed to walk ... and on and on and on we can make up any explanations we want. What good is that?

I am not saying you have not done serious study, I appreciate all you have done, but you are ruling yourself out of serious study with me.

I'm truly sorry you feel that way and will do my best to engage you in mutually respectful and edifying discourse. Please accept my apology.

Serious study involves seriously dealing with the main and the plain things established by many mutually confirming verses. All you do is look for ambiguous verses as grist for 10,000 word-mill
And this is why I cannot have a serious study with you, because you are just maligning my attempts to get my explanation across.

Again, I'm sorry you have gotten that impression. I am not "maligning your attempts to get your explanations across" - on the contrary, I am trying to help you see that anyone can make up any explanations they want and if all we have to go on is the "harmony" of the explanations, then we have no way to know who is right and who is wrong. That's why we need to establish what the Bible really says and confirms by many mutually confirming clear and unambiguous passages. Focusing on the idea that God's will is done in heaven is not a proper foundation for inventing a doctrine that contradicts dozens of verses in the Bible.

God said that and then sent them to Babylon, and then returned them to the land so that prophecy was fulfilled. Where is the promise in the NT that he would bring them back after the exile of 70 AD?
The promise is in the Old Testament. I never said it was in the New Testament, where did you get that idea from? It is just another of your wrong conclusions?

Yes, the promise is in the OT and it was fulfilled in the OT.

I got the idea from your assertion that the OT promises applied to the dispersion that happened in the NT. The NT has no promise of a return from the exile of 70 CE. This is different than all the exiles of the OT in which God always stated how long they would last. The OT exiles always had a precise time associated with them. There is neither a time nor a promise of return at all from the exile of 70 AD. The best you can do is try to infer one from one single verse about the "time of the Gentiles." That is not sufficient as the foundation for your entire eschatological system.

You seem to forget the most basic fact of the Bible. The Jews were kicked out of the promised land because of unbelief. Obviously, God is not going to bring them back if they have not repented! :doh:
They will repent and you ignore the fundamental fact that God said he would not make a full end of them and would regather them. God will fulfill the promises made to Abraham and the nation of Israel is proof today that God has kept His word.

You missed my point. Whether they "will repent" or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that they got kicked out for unbelief, so it is absurd to say that God brought them back in unbelief since that is the reason he kicked them out and in the OT promises he always conditioned return on their repentance.

Your entire eschatological system is based on a fundamental error of not recognizing the identity of the Church as the remnant of believing Israel. Think about the first century. Who were Peter, Paul, John, and all the first Christians? They were believing Jews. Who was destroyed in 70 CE. The unbelieving Jews. Who were the first Christians? The believing remnant of Israel. The unbelievers were cut off. The Old Covenant ended and the New began. There is no "Israel" to return. There are only carnal sons of Abraham for whom God NEVER made any promises. Christians are the "sons of Abraham" and the "sons of promise." Unbelievers are the "sons of the flesh" whether carnal sons of Abraham or not.

I have exposed the weakness of your logic concerning Jesus throwing Satan out of Heaven and it is you who is now looking for excuses and giving reasons to say Satan was not in Heaven, when we all know Heaven to means God's dwelling place. Therefore, you need to explain to me what is meant by Satan and what is meant by the war in heaven and how did Jesus destroy the devil through his death? If the devil has been destroyed, why is the devil still alive? Please explain in a rational and realistic way.

It is true that you exposed an inconsistency in my idea that Satan was allowed to sin in heaven before he was cast out after Christ's ascension. That's why I dropped that point long ago. I believe that is what you thought was your "checkmate." But it was only an idea I floated, and have since floated better ideas. I concede that point. But the other possibilities still remain on the table, and as far as I know, you have not shown any other logical flaw in anything I've written in this thread.

It is odd that you say "we all know Heaven to mean God's dwelling place" since in another thread you explained at least three possible meanings of heaven.

I never said the devil had been "destroyed." Where did you get that idea?

So you are an expert on Harold Camping - good for you. Without knowing all about Harold Camping as you do, I expect Harold Camping has got things wrong the way that I see you have got parts of the Bible wrong. Therefore I expect you to explain why you have not got things wrong, but you have failed to explain up to now. I hope you will now explain and stop trying to rubbish what I say when you admit that you have not read the things I have written.

You missed my point entirely. I mention Harold Camping as a "case in point" that shows the error in your method of "harmonizing speculative explanations." That's the problem. Why don't you understand this? If we are free to make up whatever explanations we want, we can obviously "harmonize" them any way we want, and how then can we discern between truth and false. Image this scenario. You, me, Harold Camping, and a hundred of the smartest students of the Bible sit in separate rooms and are given some deep "contradiction" in the Bible to resolve. We each work for a year and write a ten thousand word "harmonization." What are the chances that any two would come to the same conclusion? Zero. That's my point.

All the best,

Richard

David M

09-26-2012, 02:49 AM

Hello Richard
I shall respond to some of the points you have raised. I do not want to continue by repeating a long post

Good afternoon David,

You missed my point. It was neither a diversion nor a game based on bad rules. It was a simple call for consistency. Your beliefs are based on a paradox that is essentially identical to the one you want me to answer. So you need to explain to me why you think it is a paradox when I say it, but not a paradox when you say it. Specifically:

David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and on earth and yet people sin.

My paradox follows from the fact that the Bible says that God is sovereign and it is impossible to resist his will. The normal explanation for this paradox is to appeal to human free will. That's why God's will is not done on earth. Calvinists don't accept this explanation because they say it contradicts God's sovereignty. They invent an explanation that says God has two wills - his "decretive will" that is based on his "eternal decrees" and his "prescriptive will" that he reveals in his commandments. These are also known as his secret will and his revealed will. Some Christians find these concepts necessary to resolve contradictions, such as the statement that God "desires all people to be saved." Well, if God desires it, then it's going to happen! Or else God is not sovereign. Or God has two different wills. Or ... you can make up your own explanation. But what's the point? Obviously, the explanation will add nothing to our knowledge since it will be made to conform to whatever we want to believe. There are different possible solutions depending on different assumptions about things that cannot be known, so seeking an answer seems like chasing a wild goose. But if you want to pursue this, I'd be happy to follow your lead.

I find it odd that you do not seem to be familiar with the various solutions to this paradox. This conversation has been going on in Christianity for hundreds of years. It is an essential part of the history of Christian theology.

You have introduced as a paradox something I regard as a non-valid paradox. This is why I say it is erroneous and is a distraction. I do not want to go there again... I fail to see the paradox in what you say. God's will is done in Heaven has nothing to do at this present time with people sinning. The point behind what Jesus was saying is that he prayed for God's kingdom to come (future) on earth, so that people would not sin any longer and would in future do His will. God's sovereignty on earth in which everyone in God's Kingdom will do His will is in the future and we have to wait for the kingdom to come.

The paradox I am arguing is that Jesus says; God's will is done in Heaven and that is where the Angels reside and yet you claim Angels sin. This is the true paradox you have to explain and you are in the process of trying to explain. It has to focus on Angels sinning in Heaven where they reside and Jesus saying God's will is done in Heaven. If you cannot see what you are doing by introducing something that (to me) is not a paradox, and you do not accept my reasoning for saying so, then you have introduced a problem by way of stopping this conversation in its tracks and for any other discussion that results in this type of problem.

I will help you clear up your confusion about the sovereignty of God as another topic, but to introduce it here is not answering this straightforward paradox. This is my reason for saying again, you are distracting from answering the question. I wish I could call upon a jury to decide between us which one of us is the more correct.

I have not cataloged the number of times I see you misapplying scripture in the posts you have replied to me. For example, the recent post in which you quoted from Colossians; the verses do not state what you say it does about Satan. Instead, you made an inference but not fully explained what we are to understand by those verses. Therefore, whatever you read into those verse, I do not read the same as you.

I am not as well read on Christian theology as you and quite frankly all that theology does nothing to add to my understanding of God's word. "Christian theology" which is the pure thoughts of men is of no interest to me. I am not reasoning using theology purely of men. If you think the Bible is written solely by men and not through God's inspiration, so be it. Please do not add all this trivial theology into the discussion and waste time writing long posts. Let's stick to what the Bible says and make the best of it as we can.

I am not making up any excuses or explanations that are any worse than you are doing and what I see you doing is misapplying scripture to make your point. Please make this a separate topic of discussion so we can keep on track here and you do not have to reply to that point here. I am going to conclude here my response to your reply.

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

To keep us on track, I have refuted your "paradox" as not a paradox. I am refuting your explanation that Satan was in the outer court of Heaven. Likening Heaven to the temple layout you have no proof of and are merely making an association that is not there. Remember God does not dwell in temples made with hands (or anything like that made by men). The Tabernacle was after the pattern given to Moses by God but that does not mean is is fashioned on the layout of Heaven. The Tabernacle has spiritual significance and lessons to be applied, but again is not proof that Heaven is laid out in the same fashion. Jeus is seated at the right-hand of God merely indicates his status rather than a physical position. Man is on earth and God is Heaven and the two remain separated as long as man remains sinful and we have intercession made for us by Jesus. (I am getting sidetracked so please do not respond to my statement unless you want to start a new topic).

Satan can be personified and this personification can be seen in many of the verses that you will present as evidence to support your claim that Satan is a spirit being. The disciple Peter was Satan to Jesus and you would agree was not the Satan who you say the Bible says is a spirit being (a rebellious Angel of God). If the term Satan can be applied in different ways, it comes down to how we apply the different ways to the verses we read. This is the problem; two separate cases are made for Satan being or not being a fallen Angel of God. One of those is unscriptural for reasons that are found in scripture.

You have yet to fully answer the paradox I am discussing in a way that does not conflict with scripture. The point you make about Satan being in an outer court (in my mind) is unscriptural and you have to prove to me that Heaven is like the way you think it is. Our other point of controversy is that you are placing Revelation 12 in the past, when quite clearly the context of Revelation is stated in the first verse which says these things would begin to take place shortly after the time of giving the Revelation. To make use of another of your sayings; "you are denying what the scripture plainly states". If you refute my application of your saying, then from now on, please refrain from saying the same thing against me .

All the best

David

Roberto

09-26-2012, 08:35 AM

An often-misunderstood passage which is used to support the idea (which is not true) that God’s Angels can sin, is that found in the Book of the Revelation and in chapter 12.

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.

This exposition is presented to come to a proper understanding of what the author of this figurative story meant us to understand. In order to do this, we must understand the figurative language of the Bible. What are we supposed to understand by these word pictures? To do this, we shall look to other parts of the Bible to find similar expressions and examine the context in which signs and symbols have been used. This is the legitimate use of scripture to explain itself and provide its own answers. The Word of God is consistent and the Bible is harmonious (human errors excepted) and the more so as the false interpretations are uncovered.

The wrong idea that there was a war in Heaven and that God’s Angels rebelled and were thrown out and cast down to earth, where they are held in chains and in rooms of darkness below the earth, until the day of judgment, is based on myths and legends of men. These have been used to support a belief that God’s Angels rebel. This is not the case and flies against other scriptures that tell us this cannot be the case.

The words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 6:10 say; Thy (God’s) will be done in earth as it is in Heaven Jesus tells us that God’s will is done in Heaven, therefore, God’s Angels do not sin. These are words from the only begotten the Son of God, and who better to know the truth about God’s kingdom in Heaven? One can try and get around this statement of Jesus and say that Angels sinned in the past, but do not sin now. This argument is not sustainable as this passage in Revelation proves. The book of Revelation was written many years after Jesus said these words. The Book of Revelation is talking of future events that were to begin shortly and continue until his return. This would mean that God’s Angels in Heaven were continuing to sin when the Book of Revelation was written and thereafter. This would make Jesus a liar and God or His son does not lie. The words of Jesus present us with a paradox especially if we take a few verses like Rev 12:7 at their face value without knowing their proper interpretation. Therefore, it is this paradox that must be resolved in order to explain away the apparent contradiction.

This next part is to give proof from the Bible as to how the war in heaven is meant to be understood. A summary and conclusion will be given at the end of this exposition if you want to skip to the end. A full explanation needs to be given to understand the figurative language used and the meaning of the words used.

Hi David, it is a nice layout of what you believe personally, and i don't think we all see fully the truth as you can see in the mixed christianity, but if the buildingblock is Jesus fullfillment on the cross, it will be easier for God's Spirit to teach us. I like many of your meanings, i will just tell you my different meanings of your meanings, i like to chew on it, like food, we are told to do that from many different opinions of the bible.

What is meant by heaven? This does not necessarily mean the place where God dwells, which is denoted by using a capital “H” – Heaven. What else can heaven refer to? Does it have a connection with the “heavens” as mentioned in the Bible?

The physical heaven is explained in Genesis 1:8; And God called the firmament heaven. In the previous verse we read (7); And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. From this simple description we can conclude that heaven is the sky between the surface of the earth with the waters on it and the cloud base; above which the clouds contain water.

Spiritual heaven has nothing to do with the sky or literal heaven. (Matt 24:29) and the stars shall fall from heaven. The stars we see in the night sky will not literally fall out of the sky. (Luke 24:10); The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? The directive of baptism of John came from God not man. Things which come from God, we can think of as heavenly. We can think on heavenly things like the coming kingdom of God on earth. It does not exist as it shall, until Christ restores the kingdom. God said through the prophet Isaiah to God’s people Israel (Isaiah 55:9); For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. We live in a physical world but our thoughts can be on spiritual matters such as God’s Heaven. In thought our minds can be on spiritual matters, when the reality is, we are here on earth. Not to think on heavenly things is to think about earthly things and the things of this world.

The heavens can refer to the political heavens. The sun, moon and stars have special political significance and can represent political leaders or nations and kings. For example we read in Numbers 24:17; there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel. This Star and Sceptre are not a literal. They represent a political power. TV and film celebrities are called “stars”, so the idea of calling people with influence stars is not new. The Star in this case has a kingly position denoted by the symbol of the sceptre which is a rod held in the hand to represent regal and imperial power of the Star. (Matthew 24:29); Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. In this prophecy of Jesus, he is speaking of future governments and powers represented by the sun, moon and stars, and the “stars shall fall from heaven” meaning that political rulers shall lose their status and power and also nations will lose their power over other nations.

I think Heaven is a place where God is seperated from sin. And it is a placed somewhere, can call it in another dimension, or outside the seeing universe, i think Paul called it the 3rd heaven. Sin did not come in the picture before Satan decieved Adam, the original firstborn, and after that i think God seperated sin in heaven by casting out the sinful angels. The spiritual heaven are divided now in two i think, the Heaven where God is dwelling, and where all the dead is, where Jesus went and took the key from Satan that was lord of this untill Jesus, the new firstborn accepted into Heaven where God dwells. But i think we are to paint a picture of this when we believe inside us, and thats why heaven is inside us, and there we can clean out death by looking to Jesus fullfillment.

I like what you mean about stars as not physically, the book of revelation is like the cryptic code book in the bible, and it is the last book so if we understand the symbolic meanings of the bible, we can then finally figure out the last book, but as The Book of Ecclesiastes say, there is a time for everything, i think the book of revelation is not fully understood before the very last time of this world.
I like your picture of political heavens, it might very well mean that. A friend of mine said that revelation 18 is about the stock market of the world that rich people play with to become more wealthy, and there is an elite that knows exactly when things rise and fall. Super rich evil people that can never find their way back to God. They are easily controlled by Satan.

Michael the Arch Angel is one of the few Angels of God in Heaven who is actually named and given the title of Arch Angel. Michael is the Angel (God’s representative and agent) by which God protects and defends Israel and all of God’s people. (Daniel 12:1) And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: Here is the role of Michael the Arch Angel explained in Daniel, and it is in this context we have to understand the passage in Revelation 12:7

“angels” is often used of humans to mean messengers; these can be priests, ministers, apostles and those people who give God’s message to the people. As it is with God, He has messengers on earth, and so it is with the Dragon in Revelation; it has messengers on earth. The Dragon has its own network of messengers that do the Dragon’s will. This has to be seen in the proper context of what the Dragon represents.

The Dragon, the Serpent, the Devil and Satan are all one of the same symbolic figure. Revelation 12:9 explains; And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan. This Dragon is a figurative creature that is given a title or the name of Satan or Devil. Whenever we see these names used, we should think of this figurative Dragon. It is not a literal Dragon and does not exist. The figure of Satan is seen as an adversary or an opposer. Jesus said to his disciple Peter (Matthew 16:23); Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Peter had good intentions for his master, but those intentions were not what God intended, and Peter’s intentions were in opposition to God’s will.

The Dragon can be personified; that imeans to take on the attributes of person. The influence of the Dragon to deceive people can take many forms and like the wind is a force that cannot be seen, but its effects are felt and human actions and communications are no different. Satan is not a spirit being, it is representative of any opponent of God. Satan is not a disgraced Angel of God who has been allowed to tempt mankind to sin against God.

Interesting points speaking of angels as persons. Jesus says we are to be like angels after this life. And you bring to the point that Peter had a Satan's thought. But i don't believe that the thought is pictured as a thought inside him, but more as a thought outside of him in the spiritual realm. I think when people are posessed, something has moved inside the person, as do God's Spirit move inside us, when we are saved. People who have God's Spirit inside him can only become affected from spiritual thoughts that are whispered outside of God's Spirit that is dwelling inside us. So i see demonposessed people letting evil outide spirits play so much with the person that it will come inside of him. I think Satan is a spiritual master of evil, but it is not that God allows him, it is more that Adam gave him this possition, but Jesus came to reverse this destruction.
And i have some kind of thought that Michael is Jesus name in the spiritual angelic world, and by graceplay Jesus did on earth, Jesus could in the spiritworld being Michael, could take Moses body, meaning that Satan is taken away his weapon of accusing by the law, that we are to understand to make the devil flee from us, having the right kind of armour.

War in heaven. This is what we have to get in context. This can be speaking of a time to come when political rulers who are in opposition to Israel and God’s people will have their power taken away from them. These kings and rulers and political leaders will fall in status and be brought down to the same level as the people they rule over. Nations will be overthrown by God and lose their power and influence. Identifying who the Dragon is on the real world stage is a Bible study in itself and it is not in the scope of this exposition to identify the Dragon. All we need to know for now, is that this Dragon is in the position to deceive the whole world.

The world represents the people occupying the earth and for the most part, the people represented by the “world” are the people who do not obey God or believe in Him and do those things which God hates. As James explains (James 4:4); Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? It is impossible to be a friend of God and a friend of the world; we have to make a choice.
This enmity of the world is as a direct consequence of the actions of Adam and Eve whereby God told Eve that because of her actions there would always be enmity between her seed (offspring) and the seed of the serpent. The seed of the serpent is also the seed that is the Devil (the offspring of the serpent). That seed is within each one of us when the thoughts or our mind lead us to act in ways that are contrary to God’s ways. The Devil is the concept of wrong thoughts and in opposition to God, the Devil in us has nothing to do with inherited genes. The battle with the devil is a battle that goes on in our own minds and it is a battle we often lose; choosing to follow the way we want to go instead of following the ways of God. This often results in sin which means that we have disobeyed God. The Apostle James again gives us the explanation of how sin originates (James 1:14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. If we sin, it is our fault, we have been drawn away from God by our own selfish lusts.

Jesus overcame this battle of self-will and we have examples of Jesus doing this at times of great temptation. Jesus overcame his temptation by recalling God’s scriptures which guided him. That is exactly what we have to do, if we are to overcome the devil that is in our mind. This is something we must want to do. This is exactly what Jesus accomplished completely and perfectly and is explained in Hebrews 2:14; that through death he (Jesus) might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. The devil, which represents the thoughts of the mind to disobey God and therefore cause us to sin, brings the wages of sin, which is death (Romans 6:23).

Jesus died though he had not sinned and therefore he did not earn the wages. God is true to His word (Ezekiel 18:4); the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Jesus did not deserve to remain in the grave because he was sinless. Therefore, God had to raise Jesus from the dead. Jesus cannot be tempted; he has proven this. Therefore, God raised Jesus from the dead and Jesus has been given an incorruptible body and will live for evermore. This is how Jesus defeated the devil which has the power of death. We have to fight our battle against the devil within us.

The spiritual and the physical both apply to this passage in Revelation. The Dragon (the world power yet to be identified) in the world also has an application to the believer on a spiritual level that is seen in the practical workings of our mind. The wonder of God’s word is that its message is consistent on many levels. Revelation 12:10 confirms that this war in heaven is affecting God’s people (Rev 12:10); And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. This verse confirms that our accuser or opposer (the Dragon, Satan, Serpent, or Devil) that is in our mind is there all the time, and is accusing us before God. We are accusing ourselves by giving into the devil that is our own thoughts. This devil within each one of us must be overcome; at least we should try our best to overcome it, but since we fail, we need Christ to intercede for us and it is by his sacrifice to cover our sins that we can be saved. The devil is in our own mind and to have the mind of Christ is to resist the devil and replace devilish thoughts with holy thoughts. This is the explanation given by James (James 4:7); Resist the devil, and he (it) will flee from you.

Further confirmation of this battle within us and the saving sacrifice of Jesus is explained in the following verse in Revelation concerning this war in heaven. (Revelation 12:11); And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. This is saying that the brethren of Christ (those who believe and are associated with him), have overcome the Dragon, the Devil. They have totally overcome the devil, made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus, and it is the blood of the sacrifice of Jesus that covers our sins before God. Of course, belief requires commitment and a believer’s commitment will be shown by the their testimony witnessing to the truths of God and who follow after the example of Jesus and give their lives over to him. “Loved not their lives unto death” is best explained when Jesus said (Matt 16:25); For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. The true follower of Jesus believes in the resurrection and that although they will die, they will live again. We can chose to live this life totally for ourselves and at the end of it die forever, or we can chose to give up this worldly life that is enmity with God, in order to receive the eternal life which is to come.

Summary
This war in heaven is figurative and represents a political power that will in some way war against the people of God for whom Michael the Arch Angel will be God’s agent acting for His people and fight against this political power or entity. The prophet Daniel tells us (Daniel 4:7); the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men. This tells us that God is in control and whatever powers this battle is between, God is in control of the situation and God will win. God cannot lose and His plan and purpose will be fulfilled. This political power or entity will lose its status and power and have no power over believers who are in the earth. It is not the scope of this exposition to explain who the Dragon represents on the world stage.

From what has been explained and from what we can find in God’s word, this war in heaven is using figurative language and cannot be taken literally. It is not a war taking place in God’s dwelling place, where the Angels of God are in His presence. In Heaven, as was meant by the words of Jesus, God’s Angels do not sin.

The Dragon, Serpent, Satan, Devil are the same and has been shown to apply to anything or anyone who is in opposition to God’s will. It is not a fallen Angel of God, but represents the opposer/adversary that is in each of our minds in which we have a battle of wills to defeat. The question we must answer for ourselves is; do we do our own will or do we do the will of God? In as much as our thoughts should be heavenly, we have earthly thoughts and it is these earthly thoughts that must be cast out of our mind. By constantly winning the battle that goes on in our mind, we defeat the devil and the eternal death that would naturally follow is defeated in that the believer will be raised to life again on the day of resurrection.

Conclusion
The war in heaven is spoken of in figurative language and should not be taken literally as between a dragon and an Angel of God. This war in heaven is not taking place in God’s dwelling place. Heaven can refer to the political heavens in which nations and and powerful dictators will be reduced in power of influence and in status; thus they are cast down to a symbolic earth. The war is to take place on the world stage is to involve a world power that is at war against God’s people for whom Michael the Arch Angel will stand up and fight for God’s people. Michael and his Angels shall win and the Dragon and its angels shall be defeated.
This war in heaven has an application to what is going on in our mind and is a war that we shall overcome by associating ourselves with the sacrifice of Jesus to cover our sin and the transforming of our minds to have the mind of Christ.

In keeping with principles that are consistent and run throughout the whole of the Bible, we have a situation where there is conflict between the seed of the serpent (devil, dragon, satan) and the seed of the woman.. We have to choose whose seed we want to be. God gives us two choices, choose life or choose death. We cannot have both. Do we want to be on the side of “good” or the side of “evil”. We have to choose whether to be friends with the world (which is enmity with God) or choose to be friends with God. The choice is clear and as opposite as black is to white. There is no shade of grey to God. If there is a shade of grey to us, it is because we do not see clearly the message from God.

May God bless you in your diligent striving to understand His message.

It's great to figure out partly these things before we see it fully. I know for sure that the accusser Satan will have no power over me when i look at the cross and know it's true meaning for me. But of course he will try like a roaring lion saying that i have failed in the law. And say God dosen't excist, do as you want. But these things are easier for the devil to use if we look at our own power of humans, but if we look and understand the cross, then nothing can go against that. It is indeed a powerful message, that i believe is the best way to change the world, God knew we could'nt do it without giving us a Master plan. And that plan is hidden in the bible.
This what you say about being friends with the world is right, but it is often used by the devil to tell you how bad you are. So i think it is better to listen to how graceful God's Masterplan is, and it will change our hearts to not wanting the lust for this world. It has been a long period process, and it will continue our whole lives, so i hope that newlysaved people don't fall in this trap of satan to accuse them for being friends with the world.

Gil

09-26-2012, 12:42 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-26-2012, 03:58 PM

Hello Richard
I shall respond to some of the points you have raised. I do not want to continue by repeating a long post

You have introduced as a paradox something I regard as a non-valid paradox. This is why I say it is erroneous and is a distraction. I do not want to go there again... I fail to see the paradox in what you say. God's will is done in Heaven has nothing to do at this present time with people sinning. The point behind what Jesus was saying is that he prayed for God's kingdom to come (future) on earth, so that people would not sin any longer and would in future do His will. God's sovereignty on earth in which everyone in God's Kingdom will do His will is in the future and we have to wait for the kingdom to come.

The paradox I am arguing is that Jesus says; God's will is done in Heaven and that is where the Angels reside and yet you claim Angels sin. This is the true paradox you have to explain and you are in the process of trying to explain. It has to focus on Angels sinning in Heaven where they reside and Jesus saying God's will is done in Heaven. If you cannot see what you are doing by introducing something that (to me) is not a paradox, and you do not accept my reasoning for saying so, then you have introduced a problem by way of stopping this conversation in its tracks and for any other discussion that results in this type of problem.

I will help you clear up your confusion about the sovereignty of God as another topic, but to introduce it here is not answering this straightforward paradox. This is my reason for saying again, you are distracting from answering the question. I wish I could call upon a jury to decide between us which one of us is the more correct.

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.

Now let's take a closer look at the Lord's Prayer and see if your assertions about what it means hold up. Your Futurist interpretation may be a possible "secondary meaning" I suppose, but it is not necessarily implied by the text at all. Christ was teaching his followers to pray that God's will would be done [OBEYED] on earth NOW and at all times, not only at some distant time 2000+ years in the future:
Matthew 6:9 Our Father which art in heaven [NOW], Hallowed be thy name [NOW]. 10 Thy kingdom come [NOW]. Thy will be done in earth [NOW], as it is in heaven [NOW].

Jesus was teaching that the believers should pray for God's will to be done - that is OBEYED - on earth "as it is in heaven." Now are we to assume that this implies God's will is not actually done on earth? Of course not. God reigns supreme in heaven and earth despite the fact that people and angels sin. If you solve this paradox, you will solve both paradoxes.

Now another assumption we must question is your idea that "heaven" in this verse refers to the "spiritual" heaven where angels dwell as opposed to the physical heaven. Is that assumption justified? Let's see. When heaven and earth are spoken of together, they often refer to the physical heaven and physical earth. Here are a number of verses where these words appear together, beginning with the first occurrence:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 14:22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
Joshua 2:11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.
1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
2 Kings 19:15 15 And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.
Ezra 5:11 And thus they returned us answer, saying, We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up.
Acts 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

A comparison of all those verses shows that God is said to dwell "between the cherubim" [on earth] and in the [physical] heavens above the earth. So I think you have made a mistake by identifying the "heaven" in the Lord's Prayer as the spiritual place where the angels dwell. It is contrasted with the physical earth, so there is no reason to think it does not refer to the physical heavens which always obey the "ordinances of heaven." The sun, moon, and stars bear witness to the God's sovereignty. That is where his will is always done. So, if you want your argument to follow, you need to establish the fact that the "heaven" in the Lord's Prayer refers to the place where angels dwell.

I have not cataloged the number of times I see you misapplying scripture in the posts you have replied to me. For example, the recent post in which you quoted from Colossians; the verses do not state what you say it does about Satan. Instead, you made an inference but not fully explained what we are to understand by those verses. Therefore, whatever you read into those verse, I do not read the same as you.

Yes David, and the same goes for your citation of Scriptures. It reminds me of William Blake's excellent couplet:
We both read the Bible day and night,
But you read black where I read white.

That's why we have so much to talk about! But it would be good if we could establish things on clear logic with all our hidden assumptions exposed. That's how we'll make progress.

I am not as well read on Christian theology as you and quite frankly all that theology does nothing to add to my understanding of God's word. "Christian theology" which is the pure thoughts of men is of no interest to me. I am not reasoning using theology purely of men. If you think the Bible is written solely by men and not through God's inspiration, so be it. Please do not add all this trivial theology into the discussion and waste time writing long posts. Let's stick to what the Bible says and make the best of it as we can.

When you dismiss all the theology of all the Christians who went before you as worthless, you simultaneously reject all the theology you have developed. There is no difference between you and them. They read and believe the same Bible (more or less). So what makes you right and them wrong? And if you don't know about their theology then you don't understand the Biblical reasons for the doctrines they have developed. It makes no sense to glory in ignorance. They are the people that produced the translated Bible and the dictionaries you use to understand it. You ignore their work at your own peril.

To keep us on track, I have refuted your "paradox" as not a paradox. I am refuting your explanation that Satan was in the outer court of Heaven. Likening Heaven to the temple layout you have no proof of and are merely making an association that is not there. Remember God does not dwell in temples made with hands (or anything like that made by men). The Tabernacle was after the pattern given to Moses by God but that does not mean is is fashioned on the layout of Heaven. The Tabernacle has spiritual significance and lessons to be applied, but again is not proof that Heaven is laid out in the same fashion. Jeus is seated at the right-hand of God merely indicates his status rather than a physical position. Man is on earth and God is Heaven and the two remain separated as long as man remains sinful and we have intercession made for us by Jesus. (I am getting sidetracked so please do not respond to my statement unless you want to start a new topic).

No proof? Have you not read the book of Hebrews?
Hebrews 8:4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."
Hebrews 9:23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

Scripture explicitly states that the earthly tabernacle is a "copy and shadow" of the tabernacle in heaven.

I never said it was "laid out in the same PHYSICAL pattern." The point is that the physical pattern had a place for unclean Gentiles to walk about, so there is no reason to say that heaven could not be similar in the sense that unclean angels who sinned could not exist there.

Satan can be personified and this personification can be seen in many of the verses that you will present as evidence to support your claim that Satan is a spirit being. The disciple Peter was Satan to Jesus and you would agree was not the Satan who you say the Bible says is a spirit being (a rebellious Angel of God). If the term Satan can be applied in different ways, it comes down to how we apply the different ways to the verses we read. This is the problem; two separate cases are made for Satan being or not being a fallen Angel of God. One of those is unscriptural for reasons that are found in scripture.

I've already answered this point. The fact that Satan can be used as a symbol of disobedience as with Peter does not imply that Satan is not a personal being.

The problem is that the plain meaning of many verses directly contradicts the idea that Satan is just a symbol. That's not the what the text says and it takes a lot of word-twisting to force it to fit your interpretation. This doesn't mean you are wrong, but it does make it likely in my estimation. Time will tell as we deal with every verse.

You have yet to fully answer the paradox I am discussing in a way that does not conflict with scripture. The point you make about Satan being in an outer court (in my mind) is unscriptural and you have to prove to me that Heaven is like the way you think it is. Our other point of controversy is that you are placing Revelation 12 in the past, when quite clearly the context of Revelation is stated in the first verse which says these things would begin to take place shortly after the time of giving the Revelation. To make use of another of your sayings; "you are denying what the scripture plainly states". If you refute my application of your saying, then from now on, please refrain from saying the same thing against me .

I think I adequately answered your point concerning the outer court. But I don't think that is the best solution to the paradox. A better answer seems to be that Christ was not talking about the "spiritual heaven" but rather the physical.

As for your assertion that I am "denying what the scripture plainly states" concerning the time sequence in Revelation 12 - that is false because John was told to "write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this" (Revelation 1:19). His vision included things past, present, and future.

You would do well to be more careful with assertions like "you are denying what the scripture plainly states" since falsely asserting such things takes the power out of your words.

All the best,

Richard

David M

09-26-2012, 06:07 PM

Hello Richard
I am going to try keep my replies short.

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.
Of course you can say that just because I do not see a paradox one does not exist, but in this case I do not see the paradox you are introducing. In the paradox you attribute to me, it is you who is saying; "yet beings in location X sin" That is not what I am saying. I am saying that Angels DO NOT sin in Heaven. The parallel cannot be made with your claimed paradox. Humans sin on earth and humans are not in heaven and so humans cannot sin in Heaven because they are not there. I do not see anything logical in what you have written and your logic in my opinion is faulty on this occassion. If it is only me who is blind to what you are saying, so be it, you have made your point and I have made mine and the jury must decide who is correct.

Now let's take a closer look at the Lord's Prayer and see if your assertions about what it means hold up. Your Futurist interpretation may be a possible "secondary meaning" I suppose, but it is not necessarily implied by the text at all. Christ was teaching his followers to pray that God's will would be done [OBEYED] on earth NOW and at all times, not only at some distant time 2000+ years in the future:
Matthew 6:9 Our Father which art in heaven [NOW], Hallowed be thy name [NOW]. 10 Thy kingdom come [NOW]. Thy will be done in earth [NOW], as it is in heaven [NOW].

Jesus was teaching that the believers should pray for God's will to be done - that is OBEYED - on earth "as it is in heaven." Now are we to assume that this implies God's will is not actually done on earth? Of course not. God reigns supreme in heaven and earth despite the fact that people and angels sin. If you solve this paradox, you will solve both paradoxes.
You have added the word "now" and whilst this is something we might wish for now, it is certainly not done now. God's kingdom to come is future and to make it present is to to the same with scripture as to make it all fit and complete in the first century. The same arguments apply against the kingdom of God on earth now as apply to everything being complete in the first century. The model prayer of Jesus is repeated by believers down all the centuries and is praying for the kingdom of God to come and that is because it is not here now.

Now another assumption we must question is your idea that "heaven" in this verse refers to the "spiritual" heaven where angels dwell as opposed to the physical heaven. Is that assumption justified? Let's see. When heaven and earth are spoken of together, they often refer to the physical heaven and physical earth. Here are a number of verses where these words appear together, beginning with the first occurrence:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 14:22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
Joshua 2:11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.
1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
2 Kings 19:15 15 And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.
Ezra 5:11 And thus they returned us answer, saying, We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up.
Acts 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

A comparison of all those verses shows that God is said to dwell "between the cherubim" [on earth] and in the [physical] heavens above the earth. So I think you have made a mistake by identifying the "heaven" in the Lord's Prayer as the spiritual place where the angels dwell. It is contrasted with the physical earth, so there is no reason to think it does not refer to the physical heavens which always obey the "ordinances of heaven." The sun, moon, and stars bear witness to the God's sovereignty. That is where his will is always done. So, if you want your argument to follow, you need to establish the fact that the "heaven" in the Lord's Prayer refers to the place where angels dwell.
If you want to think that Jesus is not referring Heaven as the place God dwells in which His Angels are present, you can, but I see no reason for thinking this. Gods Angels are not always in His presence in Heaven. We know God's Angels are sent to earth for a purpose and even then, they do God's will. I do not believe Angels sin when they come to earth and they did not have sex with humans. These are human inventions and are not scriptural. You can try to cause doubt and introduce other possibilities, but I think the scripture is quite clear on these points.

Yes David, and the same goes for your citation of Scriptures. It reminds me of William Blake's excellent couplet:
We both read the Bible day and night,
But you read black where I read white.
That's good. That sums up our two positions spot on.

That's why we have so much to talk about! But it would be good if we could establish things on clear logic with all our hidden assumptions exposed. That's how we'll make progress.
I agree but sadly I disagree with the logic of your paradox (above ) you say exists.

When you dismiss all the theology of all the Christians who went before you as worthless, you simultaneously reject all the theology you have developed. There is no difference between you and them. They read and believe the same Bible (more or less). So what makes you right and them wrong? And if you don't know about their theology then you don't understand the Biblical reasons for the doctrines they have developed. It makes no sense to glory in ignorance. They are the people that produced the translated Bible and the dictionaries you use to understand it. You ignore their work at your own peril.
I have not created any theology of my own. My theology is what I know to be the truth contained in God's word. Some of men's theology seem not to include God or the Bible. That is the impression I get from listening to the radio programmes discussing theology.

No proof? Have you not read the book of Hebrews?
Hebrews 8:4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."
Hebrews 9:23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

Scripture explicitly states that the earthly tabernacle is a "copy and shadow" of the tabernacle in heaven.

I never said it was "laid out in the same PHYSICAL pattern." The point is that the physical pattern had a place for unclean Gentiles to walk about, so there is no reason to say that heaven could not be similar in the sense that unclean angels who sinned could not exist there.
You rightly quote that the pattern of the Tabernacle was given to Moses by God and as we come to understand the things which come from God are said to be "Heavenly". The Tabernacle and the way it is constructed and the materials used all have a spiritual significance. The Tabernacle is a copy and a shadow and by this it is definitely not equal to as it is in Heaven. In Heaven the Angels might not always be in the actual presence of God, but they are still in Heaven and not on earth. Wherever the Angels are in Heaven, they do not sin. If you put Satan in an outer court in Heaven, that is still in Heaven (IMO), so my argument stands that Satan could not be anywhere in Heaven if Satan had sinned and he was not there to be cast out by Jesus when Jesus went to Heaven to be with his Heavenly Father. Also, you have made Satan to be in the future after Jesus said his words, at which time the Angels did not sin in Heaven. I cannot see anyway out of this.

I've already answered this point. The fact that Satan can be used as a symbol of disobedience as with Peter does not imply that Satan is not a personal being.
I agree and I have said that Satan can be many things and applied to humans. I just do not believe Satan is an Angel of God which sinned. Satan can be anybody or represented by some earthly power. Satan and the Devil appear to be interchangeable and the devil I can understand as representing the evil thoughts in the mind that are self generated and only become sinful if acted upon. You can think that Jesus was tempted by a spirit being or there is nothing to stop you thinking that it was just the thoughts of Jesus going through his mind. Do you put down to Satan all the thoughts that go through your head to lead you to take actions that would be contrary to God's will (knowing as you do, what God's will is even if you do not believe in God)?

The problem is that the plain meaning of many verses directly contradicts the idea that Satan is just a symbol. That's not the what the text says and it takes a lot of word-twisting to force it to fit your interpretation. This doesn't mean you are wrong, but it does make it likely in my estimation. Time will tell as we deal with every verse.
I am agreeing that Satan is not just a symbol; it is a title which can be given to anybody who acts in opposition to God's will as was Peter on the occasion Jesus rebuked him.

I think I adequately answered your point concerning the outer court. But I don't think that is the best solution to the paradox. A better answer seems to be that Christ was not talking about the "spiritual heaven" but rather the physical.
It is not the best solution to the paradox and that is why I say it is not a solution at all. The one problem we have in understanding Heaven is that it is real, but we cannot see it and we cannot point to it and say; there it is. The dividing line between what is spirit and unseen and what is physical and seen seems blurry at times. I try to be as realistic as I can and by that I mean; I do not believe in fairies, but I do believe in the spirit forces of Angels and that they can appear in physical form yet also have the unseen force of the power of God available to them. This is a reality to me and not a myth. Father Christmas and faires we both agree do not exist for real and are myths.

As for your assertion that I am "denying what the scripture plainly states" concerning the time sequence in Revelation 12 - that is false because John was told to "write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this" (Revelation 1:19). His vision included things past, present, and future.
When I read verse 19 I have to go back to verse 10. The Lord's day I take as future. In verse 11 John is told to write the things he sees. In verses 12 to 18 John is shown things in the future and then in verse 19 he is told to write the things he has be shown (or just seen). Therefore, John is not told to write things that he saw back in his past before this Revelation was given to him.

You would do well to be more careful with assertions like "you are denying what the scripture plainly states" since falsely asserting such things takes the power out of your words.
You forget; I was merely quoting your words. when you say; "the Bible clearly states (or words to this effect)". It is a mistake we can all make in saying something like this when something is obvious to us. As we know, it is not always obvious to the other person.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-26-2012, 06:48 PM

Of course you can say that just because I do not see a paradox one does not exist, but in this case I do not see the paradox you are introducing. In the paradox you attribute to me, it is you who is saying; "yet beings in location X sin" That is not what I am saying. I am saying that Angels DO NOT sin in Heaven. The parallel cannot be made with your claimed paradox. Humans sin on earth and humans are not in heaven and so humans cannot sin in Heaven because they are not there. I do not see anything logical in what you have written and your logic in my opinion is faulty on this occassion. If it is only me who is blind to what you are saying, so be it, you have made your point and I have made mine and the jury must decide who is correct.

David,

Yes, of course you are asserting that "angels do not sin." Duh! That's the whole point of this discussion. And how did you come to that conclusion? You said there would be a PARADOX if God's will was done in heaven and angels could sin! Have you forgotten your own words? Have you forgotten how logic works? You said that IF God's will is done in heaven, THEN there would be a paradox if angels could sin. THIS IS THE PARADOX you have repeatedly challenged me to answer! So I wrote your paradox down:

David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

This is the paradox you challenged me to answer! I simply generalized it to show you that it applies to both 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.

How is it possible that you could fail to see and understand such elementary logic? I'm guessing you answered before you really thought about what I wrote.

Now as for you assertion that the parallel between X = "heaven" and Y = "heaven and earth" cannot be made, you need to prove that point. Merely asserting it means nothing.

You have added the word "now" and whilst this is something we might wish for now, it is certainly not done now. God's kingdom to come is future and to make it present is to to the same with scripture as to make it all fit and was completed with AD70 and so the same arguments apply against the kingdom of God on earth now as apply to everything not being complete by AD70. The model prayer of Jesus is repeated by believers down all the centuries and is praying for the kingdom of God to come and that is because it is not here now.

You can assert your Futurist interpretation all you want. But it will mean nothing if you can't support your assertion with logic and facts.

If you want to think that Jesus is not referring Heaven as the place God dwells in which His Angels are present, you can, but I see no reason for thinking this. Gods Angels are not always in His presence in Heaven. We know God's Angels are sent to earth for a purpose and even then, they do God's will. I do not believe Angels sin when they come to earth and they did not have sex with humans. These are human inventions and are not scriptural. You can try to cause doubt and introduce other possibilities, but I think the scripture is quite clear on these points.

You can see no reason to accept my suggesting because you know it would destroy your entire argument.

And now that you know this, you also know that you MUST prove that my suggestion is NOT possible, or your entire argument will fail. You will not be able to assert that you can PROVE that angels can't sin unless you PROVE that the Lord's Prayer is not talking about the physical heaven.

If you fail on this point, I will have DEFEATED YOUR DOCTRINE that angels cannot sin.

I have not created any theology of my own and what you call theology I call the truth of the Bible. Some of men's theology seem no to include God or the Bible. That is the impression I get from some of the radio programmes I listen to.

Great! That's what Christians call "theology" - the truth of the Bible. You can't escape by merely switching words around.

You rightly quote that the pattern of the Tabernacle was given to Moses by God and as we come to understand that things that come from God are said to be Heavenly. The Tabernacle and the way it is constructed and the materials used all have a spiritual significance. The Tabernacle is a copy and a shadow and from this it is definitely not equal and maybe the Angels are not always in God's presence when in Heaven, but wherever they are in Heaven, they do not sin according to the way I understand the words of Jesus.

But is there any basis for "the way you understand the words of Jesus"? If Jesus was talking about the physical heaven then your entire argument fails.

If you put Satan in an outer court in Heaven, that is still in Heaven to me, so my argument stands that Satan could not be anywhere in Heaven if Satan had sinned.

If you begin by admitting an outer court in heaven analogous to the court of the Gentiles where the unclean could walk, but then assert that there can be no sin in heaven, you are merely contradicting yourself and failing to understand your own words.

You have made Satan being in Heaven future to when Jesus said his words at which time the Angels did not sin in Heaven. I cannot see anyway out of this.

I mentioned that possibility exactly ONCE long ago and already conceded it is not a good solution to the paradox. Why do you keep pushing it?

It is not the best solution to the paradox and that is why I say it is not a solution at all.

It's a possible solution. Just not the best. The best is that Jesus was talking about the physical heaven and earth. If you can't prove that he was not, then your entire argument fails.

You forget I was quoting your words.

That only makes it worse because when I said those words, I was fully justified and I proved it. Mimicry doesn't make right.

Richard Amiel McGough

09-26-2012, 07:19 PM

Howdy all,

Science and scripture are compatible.
The war in the heavens began within the garden.
The garden was seen to be as a womb where modern man (Homo sapiens) with self awareness and introspection
were to emerge from that of pre-man to a new form that would open up the mental and spiritual realms to him.
One where a relationship with the creator would at the first begin to unfold.
The heaven of angels, and spirits that would enter the mind of man.
Man was a soul, created/bara'ed from the dust of the earth and had life breathed into him.
All that was within the mind of pre-man would also be within the new mind of the first Adam .
Man was formed of the earth and chose to remain earthly and have complete dominion over the earthen body that he was and the entire earth as he knew his world to be.
Adams individual spirit which was called, that of fallen man , was Lucifer/Satan through which other Spirits as wholes would evolve through the first a-prior spirit of individual Adam.
Paul tells of all this in his Christology.
Man is spirit (pneuma) soul (psuche) and Body ( flesh).
The spirit is life given the soul and dwells within the mind ( psyche ) of the soul and the soul dwells within the flesh body.
The heavens are the minds of man and the earth is his/her body of flesh that was formed of the dust of the earth which houses the soul.
Was and is there war in the heavens. You bet.
Within the minds of flesh man where his conscience through the consciousness of good and evil find their battle ground.

The Biblical story is that of man and his God. A story of relationship , the one with the other.
Within the story we find heaven and hell, the dwelling place of the Spirits.
It appears that in the beginning , that hell was to be found within the mind of Cain the first born.
Through Abel/Seth, heaven and hell were to be found within the minds of the Israelites and in the end
Would the Christ be made manifest unto the true children of God within their heaven.
The heaven in which a true relationship is to be found with the giver of life eternal.
The heaven in which we as Christians find our peace and rest.

Gil :pop2:
Hey there Gil,

From what you have written, it seems that you really mean that science and your personal interpretation of Scripture are compatible.

Let's look at the interpretations your suggest:

The war in the heavens began within the garden.
Really? Most Christians think Satan was already a deceiver before he entered the garden. That seems to imply that that war in heaven would have had to start earlier.

The garden was seen to be as a womb where modern man (Homo sapiens) with self awareness and introspection
were to emerge from that of pre-man to a new form that would open up the mental and spiritual realms to him.
Do you know of any other Christians that believe that? How does it follow from the Bible?

Man was a soul, created/bara'ed from the dust of the earth and had life breathed into him.
We have contradictory accounts of the creation of Adam. Genesis 1:27 says God bara'ed them, whereas Genesis 2:7 says God yatzar'ed the male and then yatzar'ed the female from his rib.

All that was within the mind of pre-man would also be within the new mind of the first Adam .
Where do you get that from?

Man was formed of the earth and chose to remain earthly and have complete dominion over the earthen body that he was and the entire earth as he knew his world to be.
The Bible doesn't say anything about Adam making such a choice. On the contrary it says that God commanded Adam and Eve to have dominion over the earth. Where are you getting these ideas?

Adams individual spirit which was called, that of fallen man , was Lucifer/Satan through which other Spirits as wholes would evolve through the first a-prior spirit of individual Adam.
There is no being named "Lucifier." That's just a translation error that was imported from the Latin Vulgate into the KJV. Most Christians are ignorant of this fact.

Paul tells of all this in his Christology.
Man is spirit (pneuma) soul (psuche) and Body ( flesh).
That's just one verse. It would be an error to use it to conclude anything definitive about human ontology, especially sincey your interpretation appears to contradict Genesis 2:7 which says that many was made of dust (flesh) and God breathed into him the breath of life (pneuma) and so he became a living soul (psuche). There are not "three" but two that are subsumed in the third, just like Genesis 2:7.

All the best,

Richard

David M

09-27-2012, 02:30 AM

Good morning Richard
I am going to deal with the first part of your reply and if I get chance I will come back to answer the rest, though we shall just go round in circles with us saying the same thing. I think it is best for the moment to concentrate on one point at a time.

You keep maintaining t that you are right and "I am the expert in logic" and that is one of the 38 ways (if you remember) of how to persuade an audience your argument is correct. I am not claiming to be an authority and I am giving you explanations which you can accept or reject (as you often do).

I am adding some comments in red to the following

David,

Yes, of course you are asserting that "angels do not sin." Duh! That's the whole point of this discussion. And how did you come to that conclusion? You said there would be a PARADOX if God's will was done in heaven and angels (God's Angels in Heaven) could sin! Have you forgotten your own words? No Have you forgotten how logic works? NoYou said that IF God's will is done in heaven, THEN there would be a paradox if angels could sin. THIS IS THE PARADOX you have repeatedly challenged me to answer! So I wrote your paradox down:

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..

This is the paradox you challenged me to answer! I simply generalized it to show you that it applies to both heaven and earth: It does not apply to Heaven and earth and that is the point of my argument. The way you have presented it, is faulty. This is what I think, so either you have to explain it better or give me up as being "thick", but you have not proved your case to my satisfaction, so (to me) my case still stands.

David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location X (Heaven) and yet beings in location X sin. Yes, that is the paradox except for the word "yet" you have inserted. This simple paradox is; it is said by people (like yourself) that God's Angels sin and Jesus says; God's will is done in Heaven (where the Angels reside).
Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location Y(Heaven) and yet beings in location Y(earth) sin. Here is the fault (as I see it). You are making Heaven = (Y) and earth = (Y). I am saying; Heaven = (Y) and earth = (X). Therefore, your premise on which you base your logic is faulty. OK, I see now that it is not your logic which is at fault, it is your premise to begin with that is at fault. Angels do not sin in Heaven and humans (not God's Angels) sin on earth. This is not a paradox. Merely stating angels sin on earth is faulty and takes us back to understanding who the angels refer to as in Jude for example which I explained can be Korah, Dathan and Abiram. You have not given me the full explanation of Jude 6 of why you think the angels in Jude 6 are God's Angels (as in Heaven) except you maintain Jude refers to the Book of Enoch (which has been discredited by you in the past) for saying that angels in Jude are God's Angels. Until that is resolved, I guess the paradox I am saying exists is muddied by erroneous interpretations of other verses leading you to think that "angels" mean God's Angels which does not have to be the case. We should stick with Angels in Heaven and not introduce the earth, therefore my side of the argument stands.

How is it possible that you could fail to see and understand such elementary logic? I'm guessing you answered before you really thought about what I wrote.
No, I did not answer before I thought about it (and I could say the same of you to my posts) In my paradox the action is all taking place in Heaven (God's dwelling place). In your (supposed) paradox the action you are comparing is between what takes place in Heaven with what takes place on earth. I gave my explanation of this and so my argument stands. You are not comparing like for like and you need to concentrate on answering the paradox I have presented. Instead you take me on a false (not realizing it is false) trail (perhaps not intentionally) in order to win your point of view (one of the 38 reasons...).

Now as for you assertion that the parallel between X = "heaven" and Y = "heaven and earth" cannot be made, you need to prove that point. Merely asserting it means nothing. I have explained as above. Heaven = Y and earth = X (not Y)

You can assert your Futurist interpretation all you want. But it will mean nothing if you can't support your assertion with logic and facts. There is no futurist interpretation about this paradox. Why say this unless to somehow discredit what I say. It is not necessary to say this and it is infuriating that you hold my futurist understanding against me at every opportunity. STOP IT!!! The more you say comments like this, the more you prove you are using one of the 38 ways I have brought to your attention. You have not presented facts, only verses, which to my understanding, do not support your case and do not say what you think they say. I maintain it is your premise that is faulty in the way you have presented it, therefore my argument stands.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-27-2012, 10:03 AM

David M

09-27-2012, 11:37 PM

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

Hello Richard

What is it you do not understand in my comments inserted into your reply? I have given you by way of my comments full reason why I cannot accept what you say and stating that your premise is wrong.

I have explained the paradox we have to discuss and how the paradox you introduce is not in fact a paradox; the whole premise for your logic is incorrect.

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. I have explained to you that your premise is wrong. You are saying that angels can sin and I am saying that God's Angels do not sin. The other part of the the paradox is dealing with where the sin occurs and we are discussing Heaven. I have also explained that God's Angels do his will both in Heaven and on earth, so the earth makes no difference when it comes to God's Angels. It is only human angels that sin on earth and are unable to sin in Heaven, because humans do not go to Heaven.

Please do not feign not understand what I have written when it is perfectly clear. If you cannot understand, why should I accept your erroneous paradox you introduce into the discussion when you do not understand your own error?

Let us remember that the paradox we are discussing ceases to be a paradox once it is explained correctly. Hence I am using the word paradox even though I do not believe there is a paradox. The paradox only exists if you say as Jesus said; God's will is done in Heaven and then you say God's Angels do not do God's will in Heaven. The paradox is created by faulty reasoning and the faulty reasoning is what has to be exposed.

Now that the paradox is clear, the paradox is created when we say; God's Angels do not do the will of God in Heaven. I have explained this error away exposing the faulty reasoning which is based on the wrong application of the word "angels". I have dealt with this subject in another post and it is explained in my exposition of Jude 6. To have the wrong application of the word "angels" (which are human) is what leads to the paradox we are discussing. Explaining the paradox that has been created by faulty reasoning also explains the faulty reasoning behind the understanding of the 'war in heaven' which is the subject of this thread.

You have created further errors (and a paradox) by saying; Satan (who does not do the will of God) was in Heaven at the time Jesus said; God's will is done in Heaven. You have had to explain this away by saying Jesus cast out Satan when Jesus ascended to Heaven (which is after Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven). Next you claim that Satan was not in Heaven (God's presence) but in an outer court of Heaven. It is now clear that you do not want to explain away the paradoxes you have created and have got us speaking about fundamentals of logic (hence one of the 38 reasons...).

All the best,

David

David M

09-28-2012, 12:39 AM

Hi David, it is a nice layout of what you believe personally, and i don't think we all see fully the truth as you can see in the mixed christianity, but if the buildingblock is Jesus fullfillment on the cross, it will be easier for God's Spirit to teach us. I like many of your meanings, i will just tell you my different meanings of your meanings, i like to chew on it, like food, we are told to do that from many different opinions of the bible.

Hello Roberto
Thanks for your reply. I think this forum gives us the opportunity to express our different beliefs and explain how we have come to those beliefs. It gives us the opportunity to find out from others and also to ask questions about things we do not understand. It is good if we admit we do not know everything and we can ask questions to find out from others in order to get to an understanding and to have our questions answered.

In whatever way life has brought us to have faith in God and accept God's word as truth, if we believe the promise in John 3:16 and properly commit to what God requires of us, then that should be sufficient. It is not necessary to know all things concerning prophecy and everything there is to know about the history of Israel and the many lessons that the Bible teaches us. One thing is for sure, we can spend a lifetime in study of God's word and we shall not know everything at the end of our life. What we can know are the most important knowledge that leads to eternal life.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-28-2012, 10:31 AM

You keep maintaining t that you are right and "I am the expert in logic" and that is one of the 38 ways (if you remember) of how to persuade an audience your argument is correct. I am not claiming to be an authority and I am giving you explanations which you can accept or reject (as you often do).

Good morning David,

I don't need to be any kind of "expert in logic" to expose your errors because your errors violate the most elementary principles of logic. I was truly dumbfounded - indeed, stunned - that you could not understand your own words. So I explained your error but you didn't understand and chose rather to double down on your error. And most dumbfounding of all, you EXPLICITLY REFUSED to obey the Law of Non-Contradiction! Wow. That's a real mind blower.

Now you said: "Please do not feign not understand what I have written when it is perfectly clear." Dude - I was not "feigning" anything. Your post is a monument to irrationality and confusion. It was so confused I knew it would be vain to explain it to you because you failed to understand the elementary logic of my previous post. I knew you would just write another mountain of incoherent babble if I tried to explain something to you, so I came up with what I thought would be an effective solution. I thought that it would be absolutely impossible for anyone who can both type and tie their shoes to deny the Law of Non-Contradiction. But you proved me wrong! So now I must explain your errors in all their grotesque detail.

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 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.

The real irony of all this is that you have frequently asserted that my "reasoning is faulty" AND YET you never have shown any contradiction in anything I have written.

This is why I challenged you with the Law or Non-Contradiction. I didn't want to write all these words explaining every detail of your errors. I wanted to help you see it for yourself. So I presented this pair of propositions since anyone who accepts logic MUST agree that one of them is true and the other false:
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.

I presented this because it gives you an immediate and self-evident way for you to recognize your error. You cannot refuse to choose one of these propositions since the Law of Contradiction demands that one is true and the other false. But did you obey this most basic of all logical laws? Nope. 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.

You CANNOT reject both P and Not P! What kind of insanity has infected your brain? You say you "do not disagree" with the Law of Non-Contradiction and then you directly contradict the Law of Non-Contradiction when you said that you "reject both statements." So now you are not merely asserting contradictions, but you are directly contradicting the Law of Non-Contradiction itself! Simply stated, you logic is utterly, totally, abysmally absurd. It is INSANE.

Now let's look at your total failure to understand the logic that I built from the paradox you challenged me to solve. You wrote:

David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location X (Heaven) and yet beings in location X sin. Yes, that is the paradox except for the word "yet" you have inserted. This simple paradox is; it is said by people (like yourself) that God's Angels sin and Jesus says; God's will is done in Heaven (where the Angels reside).
Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location Y(Heaven) and yet beings in location Y(earth) sin. Here is the fault (as I see it). You are making Heaven = (Y) and earth = (Y). I am saying; Heaven = (Y) and earth = (X). Therefore, your premise on which you base your logic is faulty. OK, I see now that it is not your logic which is at fault, it is your premise to begin with that is at fault. Angels do not sin in Heaven and humans (not God's Angels) sin on earth. This is not a paradox. Merely stating angels sin on earth is faulty and takes us back to understanding who the angels refer to as in Jude for example which I explained can be Korah, Dathan and Abiram. You have not given me the full explanation of Jude 6 of why you think the angels in Jude 6 are God's Angels (as in Heaven) except you maintain Jude refers to the Book of Enoch (which has been discredited by you in the past) for saying that angels in Jude are God's Angels. Until that is resolved, I guess the paradox I am saying exists is muddied by erroneous interpretations of other verses leading you to think that "angels" mean God's Angels which does not have to be the case. We should stick with Angels in Heaven and not introduce the earth, therefore my side of the argument stands.

Here we see that you failed to understand my argument. You changed my definitions of X = "Heaven" and Y = "Heaven and Earth" to be X = "Heaven" and Y = "Earth." That totally misrepresents what I wrote and makes a total confusion of my argument and shows again that you don't understand the most elementary logic. You cannot refute my argument by changing my definitions of the variables I used in my argument! Here is my argument again stated with the meaning of X and Y which seem to have gone totally over your head:

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

My argument is perfect in clarity and logic, and you have not answered it. To answer it, you would have to argue that God's will is NOT done in location Y (Heaven and Earth). But the Bible says that God is sovereign over all creation and no one can resist his will. This is an ancient paradox of Christian theology that Christians have tried to solve for hundreds of years. But you are willfully ignorant of this paradox because you said you don't care about Christian theology. And yet you think you have the "true" interpretation of the Bible? What a pathetic joke.

What a total waste of time. I had hoped to avoid all this by appealing to the Law of Non-Contradiction but you refused even that!

So there it is. Your "logic" has been exposed as pure, unadulterated absurdity.

David M

09-28-2012, 02:57 PM

OK Richard.

Comments added in blue.

My argument is perfect in clarity and logic, and you have not answered it. Yes I have but not in the way you want me toTo answer it, you would have to argue that God's will is NOT done in location Y (Heaven and Earth). God's will is not done on earth by humans; I have explained this alreadyBut the Bible says that God is sovereign over all creation and no one can resist his will. This is an ancient paradox of whose making? - mens makingof Christian theology that Christians have tried to solve for hundreds of years. But you are willfully ignorant of this paradox It is not a paradox when God's word is proper understoodbecause you said you don't care about Christian theologybecause it serves not purpose other than to confuse and that is what you are doing. And yet you think you have the "true" interpretation of the Bible? I am giving you an explanation and the truth will speak for itselfWhat a pathetic joke.Your insulting now and I had thought we had got past this stage and if this is how you want to continue, I am definitely finished discussing anything with you. I do not like having to keep threatening to quit, but a final straw will eventually come unless you refrain from deploying the 38 reasons to ....

What a total waste of time.Maybe not for me, because you have exposed yourself to not answering the paradoxes you raise and confuse the discussion by introducing logical statements I cannot agree the premiseI had hoped to avoid all this by appealing to the Law of Non-Contradiction but you refused even that!I did not refuse to answer, but I refuse to be led on agreeing with premises that are incorrect

So there it is. Your "logic" has been exposed as pure, unadulterated absurdity. As only decided by RAM. I will wait for the jury's decision

It looks like this discussion has come to an end and if this is going to be the tone of your replies in future, you will have driven me to quit corresponding with you. I have threatened this before and relented, but I shall end up as one adding to your statistics of the people you have driven away from the forum.

You say; the Bibles says God is sovereign and no-one can resist His will; the reality is that God has given humans freewill to obey or disobey, and since humans disobey; that is sin. God can force us all to do His will and then we would be robots, but God has not made us robots. The Bible says God tempts no man and therefore God does not force humans to sin, and humans sin of their own accord. God does not want anyone to perish, but perish millions of people will. God's invitation is open to all, but God does not make you accept His Offer. Is God sovereign to Richard Amiel McGough?

I am sorry you have based your introduction of logical statements with incorrect an incorrect premise. Again, it can be left to the jury to decide.

David

PS the only reply you need give (as this discussion is over) is the place in the Bible where you say; "But the Bible says that God is sovereign over all creation and no one can resist his will". I would like to have the chapter and verse so I can see the context.

Richard Amiel McGough

09-28-2012, 03:19 PM

It looks like this discussion has come to an end and if this is going to be the tone of your replies in future, you will have driven me to quit corresponding with you. I have threatened this before and relented, but I shall end up as one adding to your statistics of the people you have driven away from the forum.

You say; the Bibles says God is sovereign and no-one can resist His will; the reality is that God has given humans freewill to obey or disobey, and since humans disobey; that is sin. God can force us all to do His will and then we would be robots, but God has not made us robots. The Bible says God tempts no man and therefore God does not force humans to sin, and humans sin of their own accord. God does not want anyone to perish, but perish millions of people will. God's invitation is open to all, but God does not make you accept His Offer. Is God sovereign to Richard Amiel McGough?

I am sorry you have based your introduction of logical statements with incorrect an incorrect premise. Again, it can be left to the jury to decide.

David

PS the only reply you need give (as this discussion is over) is the place in the Bible where you say; "But the Bible says that God is sovereign over all creation and no one can resist his will". I would like to have the chapter and verse so I can see the context.

David,

You are playing your game of writing many words to avoid the plain and obvious truth. The Law of Non-Contradiction applies to ANY proposition P. You cannot escape this fact. If you refuse to adhere to the most fundamental law of logic, you will never again be able to assert that anything you say is based on "logic."

Here is a proposition P and its negation. You must choose which is true and which is false:

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.

But this is totally irrelevant, because you have not understood that your opposition to my proposition was based on a total confusion about the meaning of basic English words. The whole point of YOUR paradox is that there WOULD BE a contradiction IF God's will is done in heaven AND YET angels sin. It is impossible that you don't understand this. There was never any confusion about my statement of the paradox you proposed.

It is impossible for you to deny that you have said it WOULD BE a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven AND angels sin. YOU KNOW THIS IS THE PARADOX you presented. You said it is proof that angels cannot sin. I agree it would be proof if the "heaven" used in that verse meant "the place where angels dwell." But I gave you an alternative that you have not answered. Namely, the "heaven" in that verse could be the physical heaven. You need to prove it is not if you want your argument to stand.

As for the "rudeness" of my previous post - I hate to tell you this, but was holding back. You have no idea how I really think of the "logic" you have displayed in your last few posts where you rejected the Law of Non-Contradiction.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

09-28-2012, 03:30 PM

The discussion has now ended.

No, it has not. Unless you are openly rejecting the Law of Non-Contradiction, in which case I say let it die since it is not worthy to live.

David M

09-28-2012, 05:16 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-28-2012, 06:21 PM

For this thread to continue, I appeal for more contributors to this thread in order to get a different opinion to Richard's and mine.

Richard has introduced a paradox of his own: "There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location Y and yet beings in location Y sin". (where Richard says; Y = Heaven and Earth). I disagree with this because on earth God's will is both done and not done by humans and humans are not in Heaven. I do not see this as a valid paradox and Richard is mixing together Heaven with Earth and I disagree with his doing this.

David,

It is pointless to discuss my parallel to your contradiction as long as your refuse to clearly state the contradiction which is the basis of your entire argument. You say that there is a problem with my statement of the contradiction you propose. So you need to state your contradiction in a way that makes sense. You need to state it as a proposition like this:
There would be a contradiction if we said that God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels could sin.

If that is not the contradiction you say can only be resolved by asserting "angels cannot sin" then you need to restate it in a way that you think is accurate. What could be simpler? If you can't state your contradiction in plain English, then how can we proceed?

Richard has introduced the law of non-contradiction. I am not doubting the construct of the law, and for reasons stated above I am not going to be drawn into an argument about logical expressions. I have responded and I could not agree to what I say is the premise as I have explained above in the paradox of Richard's creating.

For those who would like to read up on the Law of Non-Contradiction that has been introduced by Richard, here is the link to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Here is the first sentence of one of the opening sections:

One difficulty in applying the law of noncontradiction is ambiguity in the propositions.

Richard has introduced an ambiguity by combining Heaven with earth and on earth God's will is done and it is not done by humans and humans are not in Heaven.

That is not true. I generalized your contradiction to refer to an arbitrary location "X" -
It would be a contradiction to say that God's will is done in location X and yet beings in location X sin.

You have rejected my statement of your contradiction. It is therefore meaningless to discuss my parallel to your contradiction if you reject my statement of your contradiction. The first thing we must do is AGREE upon a statement of the contradiction that YOU propose. My statement is a perfect statement of your contradiction if we set X = "Heaven" and agree that angels are beings "in heaven." We can make no progress until you accept my statement, or replace it with your own that is more accurate. Only then can we discuss parallels with different values of X.

Furthermore, if you want your argument about "ambiguity" to apply, you must show EXACTLY what ambiguity exists in my statement of your paradox. You quoted only the first sentence of the relevant paragraph in the wiki. Here is the rest:

One difficulty in applying the law of noncontradiction is ambiguity in the propositions. For instance, if time is not explicitly specified as part of the propositions A and B, then A may be B at one time, and not at another. A and B may in some cases be made to sound mutually exclusive linguistically even though A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time. However, it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, the absence and the presence of the same fixed quality.
Note the last sentence. If you want to assert that there is an ambiguity in my statement of your paradox, you need to explain exactly what is ambiguous about it. Now don't get confused. We are not talking about my "location X" version. We are talking about the original version that you rejected, namely:
There would be a contradiction if we said that God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels could sin.

If that is not the contradiction you say must be resolved by asserting that "angels cannot sin" then you need to restate it in a way that you think is accurate.

After you state the contradiction you think must be resolved, then we can revisit my refutation. We can't discuss my parallel of your contradiction until you are able to state your own contradiction yourself. You need to express it clearly and logically. As far as I can tell, I have perfectly stated the contradiction that you say can only be resolved by asserting "angels cannot sin".

The problem to resolve is an apparent contradiction. Jesus said; "God's will is done in Heaven". 2 Peter 2:4 for example says; "..and the angels that sinned". If this refers to God' Angels in Heaven, then it contradicts what Jesus said. Either we accept the statement of Jesus as true, or else Jesus is a liar. Can an explanation be given that does not make "and the angels that sinned" a contradiction?

Can someone else please give Richard and me the benefit of their understanding and how you resolve this apparent paradox?

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 ..."

Thanks!

Richard

David M

09-28-2012, 11:51 PM

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

Richard Amiel McGough

09-29-2012, 07:50 AM

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
Good morning David,

Thank you for stating your paradox. But I'm confused. Your statement is logically identical to my statement which you vehemently rejected. This is easy to see.

Let A = "It is true that God's will is done in heaven."

Let B = "It is true that Angels sin in Heaven."

Your statement then becomes:
We have a paradox WHEN A IF B.

And when we plug these into my formulation of this paradox, we have:
There would be a paradox IF A AND YET B.

The two statements are logically identical. The one implies the other and vice versa. If you disagree, you need to explain why. If you agree, you need to explain why you rejected my statement. If you cannot or will not do this, there will be only two possibilities:

You do not understand the most basic elements of logic.
You refuse to admit the truth of the most basic elements of logic.

In either case, any further conversation with you on any topic will be exposed as utterly vain because you either cannot or will not admit the most basic truths of logic.

All the best,

Richard

weeder

09-29-2012, 10:42 PM

Hi David
Ill share a few ideas....

Paul was caught up to the 3rd heaven....not permitted to tell what he saw.
Thy kingdom come ,thy will be done on earth as it is in the 3rd Heaven.
:idea:
Seeing as God created all things, some of his creations erred and lost their right to the special place where God dwells...whether in Heaven or on earth. Eden was a special place on earth where God walked and fellowshipped with Man, but man erred and was cast out , but he still dwells on the earth. Angels likewise were cast out, but still dwell in the 2nd heaven.

Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but with spiritual principalities in the Heavenly realm. Jesus saw satan falling from heaven, due to the exploits of his disciples.

satan came before the throne of God to accuse us, but he can no longer do that, as the blood of the lamb washes away all that would accuse us.
God and satan have nothing left to talk about, and satan knows that his time is short,so he does his best to screw with the truth of the Gospel on earth ,as it makes its way to all peoples and nations for their enlightenment.

Rev 12 comments.
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.

Israel is pregnant with the Messiah.

3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.

Looks like a reference to herod, as he sought to kill the child .

5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

The ascention of Jesus.
The woman is Israel or/and the Church. Israel in exile---The Church driven underground due to Roman persecutions.

7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, 8 and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying,
“Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. 12 For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time.”

satans accusations have no merit anymore due to the blood of the lamb, and he turns his attention to hindering the Gospel on earth. He attacks it from without in the first 3 centuries, then corrupts it from within...

13 And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15 And the serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, so that he might cause her to be swept away with the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon poured out of his mouth. 17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Could be a ref of Constantine bringing an end to Romes persecutions of the Church.
The woman/Church in the wilderness is later seen as corrupted in Rev 17.

David M

09-30-2012, 01:12 AM

Good morning David,

Thank you for stating your paradox. But I'm confused. Your statement is logically identical to my statement which you vehemently rejected. This is easy to see.

Let A = "It is true that God's will is done in heaven."

Let B = "It is true that Angels sin in Heaven."

Your statement then becomes:
We have a paradox WHEN A IF B.

And when we plug these into my formulation of this paradox, we have:
There would be a paradox IF A AND YET B.

The two statements are logically identical. The one implies the other and vice versa. If you disagree, you need to explain why. If you agree, you need to explain why you rejected my statement. If you cannot or will not do this, there will be only two possibilities:

You do not understand the most basic elements of logic.
You refuse to admit the truth of the most basic elements of logic.

In either case, any further conversation with you on any topic will be exposed as utterly vain because you either cannot or will not admit the most basic truths of logic.

All the best,

Richard

Hello Richard

I am not in disagreement with logical statements as they are presented in the text books. I do disagree with your form of words applied to the statements that are apparent paradoxes.

Because of our opposite views, we are using different form of words. I did not want a form of words used that suggest God's Angels sin. I believe God's Angels do not sin, hence my form or words do not concede they did, hence I used the word "if". You have now used the word "if" at the beginning of your second statement and that implies (to me) that God's will might not be done in Heaven and your use of "yet could" implies that God's Angels sin in Heaven.

Now when you can find a form of words that are neutral and have no bias, then I can agree with you. Unfortunately, you might have exposed the reason no-one will ever be able to win their argument with you, because you will dismiss them on logical grounds, when it is not the logic that is at fault, but the use of words. Unfortunately, the English language is not logical and is full of double meanings and open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. It is not logic that we are disagreeing with; it is the form of language used.

Unfortunately, I am still in disagreement with the form of your (second) paradox presented in which for "Heaven" you have substituted "Heaven and Earth". It is a paradox according to your equation only, but the reality does not make it a paradox (for the reasons I explained already). Humans sin, therefore God's will is not always done on earth, yet the same humans that sin can also do the will of God (but not perfectly). Also, sinful humans cannot be in Heaven.

Alas, your introduction of your second paradox has diverted this thread away form the central theme of this thread and I would be surprised if anyone would want to continue to read this thread all the way through.

We have the one (apparent) paradox to explain away. You started off by explaining it away and I did not agree that Satan could be in Heaven (or sinful Angels) at the time of Jesus was saying the very words; God's will is done in Heaven. If it was claimed that God's will was not always done in the past (in Heaven), but is done so now (at the time of Jesus saying his words) and those rebellious Angels including Satan were thrown out of Heaven (in the past), it was before Jesus said his words and therefore, Satan could not have been in Heaven at the time of Jesus saying his words. You then said that Satan was in an outer court of Heaven and not in God's presence and to me an outer court in Heaven is still in Heaven.

You have now claimed that Revelation 12 happened in the past, and you quoted verse 19 as proof. I have explained this away as not happening in the past before John was given the Revelation. I explained this away by saying you have to read from verse 10 and what John is then shown, he was told to write down. All this is after the opening statement in Rev 1:1 concerning things that are to begin shortly to happen.

So everything up to now that you have given me by way of an answer, I have been able to explain away or show as faulty.

Whether you want to continue to explain away the apparent paradox which is created from not understanding who "the angels that sinned" are, or continue to present faulty statements that do not fit in with the proper sequence, is now up to you. You have by no means won your argument by straightforward logic or reasoning. I can only hope others see what you have presented in the same way as I do. If I am in the minority (as you are in your own minority), that does not worry me. It is better for me not to conform to the masses (who are wrong on many points) and I would rather be wrong on a few points and let others decide for themselves. Your opinion that I am wrong has no weight at all, and I am exposing your own weakness and failings in understanding the scriptures. Therefore, as I have asked before;STOP this form of words against me and accept our differences and just stick to the words of scripture and get to proper understanding. I will accept when I am wrong, when I can "see" that I am wrong. Until that time, you have to keep trying to get me to "see" I am wrong just as I am doing with you.

All the best

David

David M

09-30-2012, 07:34 AM

Hello Weeder

Hi David
Ill share a few ideas....

Paul was caught up to the 3rd heaven....not permitted to tell what he saw.
Thy kingdom come ,thy will be done on earth as it is in the 3rd Heaven.
:idea:
Seeing as God created all things, some of his creations erred and lost their right to the special place where God dwells...whether in Heaven or on earth. Eden was a special place on earth where God walked and fellowshipped with Man, but man erred and was cast out , but he still dwells on the earth. Angels likewise were cast out, but still dwell in the 2nd heaven.
Thanks for your ideas. It is refreshing to have another contributor to this thread. I accept you have given us ideas, but if Jesus had meant anything other than Heaven where God is and the Angels reside, I think he would have said so.

Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but with spiritual principalities in the Heavenly realm. Jesus saw satan falling from heaven, due to the exploits of his disciples
Which disciples of Jesus are you referring to?

(Eph. 6:12) For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.Paul is including himself with his brethren and sisters. I do not think what Paul says can be likened to the exploits of Jesus disciples. Jesus knew what human nature was like and knew his disciples would desert him at the last hour. His disciples showed little faith but were not battling against with governments and institutions that I think Paul is referring to. The disciples showed a remarkable change after the resurrection of Jesus. I don't think the disciples fell from grace from then on.

satan came before the throne of God to accuse us, but he can no longer do that, as the blood of the lamb washes away all that would accuse us.
God and satan have nothing left to talk about, and satan knows that his time is short,so he does his best to screw with the truth of the Gospel on earth ,as it makes its way to all peoples and nations for their enlightenment. But what about all those who have not been washed in the blood of the lamb? Satan can still accuse them.

Rev 12 comments.
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.
Israel is pregnant with the Messiah.
For those who see that Israel will probably be overrun again and put in a position of calling upon God to save them, that means the Messiah has still to come. That day is coming closer as repeating world events can be likened to a woman in child-birth where the pain of the contractions get more severe and frequent.

3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.
Looks like a reference to herod, as he sought to kill the child

5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
Who were all the stars of heaven and who made up the third of heaven that were cast down to earth?

The ascention of Jesus.
The woman is Israel or/and the Church. Israel in exile---The Church driven underground due to Roman persecutions.

7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, 8 and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying,
“Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. 12 For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time.”
This is highly symbolic language and it does not make sense for two spiritual beings at war; what did they fight with? What form of war is taking place? How does Michael throwing out Satan out of Heaven, relate to the real physical world? Michael is the the Arch Angel that stands up for God's people including Israel and will overpower Satan and the Devil every time. If Jesus destroyed the devil in his death, how can the devil still be alive?

satans accusations have no merit anymore due to the blood of the lamb, and he turns his attention to hindering the Gospel on earth. He attacks it from without in the first 3 centuries, then corrupts it from within...
Satan has billions of successes to accuse before God without needing to hinder the Gospel message. They are relatively few who have been saved by the blood of the lamb. I think we have to think what these figurative stories mean in the real physical world.

13 And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15 And the serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, so that he might cause her to be swept away with the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon poured out of his mouth. 17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Could be a ref of Constantine bringing an end to Romes persecutions of the Church.
The woman/Church in the wilderness is later seen as corrupted in Rev 17.
Constantine lived in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD and I thought from your comments about Revelation 12 you were saying these things happened in the first century, so I am a little confused as to whether you think all of Revelation is first century or post first century.

It is interesting getting to the bottom of what we are intended to know by these highly symbolic word pictures.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-30-2012, 10:50 AM

Hello Richard

I am not in disagreement with logical statements as they are presented in the text books. I do disagree with your form of words applied to the statements that are apparent paradoxes.

Because of our opposite views, we are using different form of words. I did not want a form of words used that suggest God's Angels sin. I believe God's Angels do not sin, hence my form or words do not concede they did, hence I used the word "if". You have now used the word "if" at the beginning of your second statement and that implies (to me) that God's will might not be done in Heaven and your use of "yet could" implies that God's Angels sin in Heaven.

Good morning David,

Your formulation of the paradox is logically IDENTICAL to mine. You have not explained any difference between our two formulations of the paradox. Your explanation of why you reject it is therefore irrational. You are not "conceding that angels could sin" when you form the paradox based on the PREMISE that angels sin! That's what makes it a PARADOX! You must "presume" the truth of the thing you want to disprove or you can't form the paradox in the first place. It doesn't matter where you put the word "if" though it is much more clear if you put it at the beginning of the proposition. "IF God's will is done AND YET angels sin there would be a paradox."

You simply don't understand the most basic elements of logic. You are not "conceding" anything when you state the paradox as follows:
There WOULD BE a contradiction IF God's will is done in heaven AND YET angels sin.

THAT IS THE PARADOX you say must be solved by denying that "angels sin." It is logically identical to your formulation of the paradox. This is the most elementary logic imaginable, and you cannot see or admit it. Until you understand and admit this simple fact, any discussion with you about "logical implications" will remain absurd.

There is one and only one reason that you will not admit this obvious point. You would have to admit that you were wrong when you rejected my formulation, and you are absolutely unwilling to do that. So be it. If you are willing to cast your mind into the abyss of absurdity to save your pride, go for it. I have proven that you are being irrational, and any rational person can see it.

Now when you can find a form of words that are neutral and have no bias, then I can agree with you. Unfortunately, you might have exposed the reason no-one will ever be able to win their argument with you, because you will dismiss them on logical grounds, when it is not the logic that is at fault, but the use of words. Unfortunately, the English language is not logical and is full of double meanings and open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. It is not logic that we are disagreeing with; it is the form of language used.

Your formulation of the paradox is logically IDENTICAL to mine. There is absolutely no "bias" in my formulation. The only difference is that mine is clearer because it begins with the "IF" preceding the two supposedly contradictory assertions A and B, namely:

Let A = "It is true that God's will is done in heaven."

Let B = "It is true that Angels sin in Heaven."

Your statement then becomes:
We have a paradox WHEN A IF B.

It much more clear to put the "IF" before both premises:
We have a paradox IF A AND B.

That's the clearest possible expression of the paradox. Your rejection of it is utterly irrational. But now I see the problem. You apparently don't understand that A and B are PREMISES in the logical proposition! BOTH MUST BE ASSUMED TRUE to form the paradox. It is the paradox that forces either A, B, or both to be false. Therefore, the "IF" must go before both premises. You are assuming the truth of both A and B, and then saying that the contradiction implies one or both are false.

Here's a little more detail to help you understand. You say it is a paradox because you assert that B implies Not A, and so we see the paradox is simply the Law of Non-Contradiction:
We have a paradox IF A AND NOT A.

That's it. Where's the "biased language"? Where are the "double meanings" which are "open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding"? Your assertions are blatantly absurd.

Unfortunately, I am still in disagreement with the form of your (second) paradox presented in which for "Heaven" you have substituted "Heaven and Earth". It is a paradox according to your equation only, but the reality does not make it a paradox (for the reasons I explained already). Humans sin, therefore God's will is not always done on earth, yet the same humans that sin can also do the will of God (but not perfectly). Also, sinful humans cannot be in Heaven.

We are not discussing the second form. That is simply impossible until we come to agreement about the formulation of the paradox.

Alas, your introduction of your second paradox has diverted this thread away form the central theme of this thread and I would be surprised if anyone would want to continue to read this thread all the way through.

It is your rejection of the most basic elements of logic that have diverted this thread. You are trapped on the horns of a dilemma: 1) You can't refute the logic and facts I have presented, and 2) You refuse to admit that you were wrong. Simple as that.

All the best,

Richard

David M

10-01-2012, 01:15 AM

Good morning Richard

Thank you for stating your paradox. But I'm confused. Your statement is logically identical to my statement which you vehemently rejected.

Because you were in agreement with my wording of the paradox at this point, I think you should move on instead of laboring the point of logical statements because I am not entirely happy with the form of words used by you. If you use neutral words or letters like A and B, we agree the basic logical expression. Using words can introduce ambiguity.

1) You can't refute the logic and facts I have presented, and 2) You refuse to admit that you were wrong. Simple as that.

I am refuting the ambiguity in the paradox you present using your words. You have not presented any explanation of the paradox that I have not been able to explain away. It is "that simple"! You think you are correct and could not possibly be wrong in anything you have said in this thread and that is for others to decide. I can and have clearly shown your possible mistakes if my plausible explanations are acceptable to others.

So , having agreed the paradox I have presented, what is your next step? You have given several answers, all of which I have shown your possible error, so what is your next answer in order to move this thread forward?

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

10-01-2012, 10:31 AM

Because you were in agreement with my wording of the paradox at this point, I think you should move on instead of laboring the point of logical statements because I am not entirely happy with the form of words used by you. If you use neutral words or letters like A and B, we agree the basic logical expression. Using words can introduce ambiguity.

Good morning David,

It is true that words could introduce "ambiguity" - that's exactly what your words have done. Our two statements are logically identical. You have not shown any ambiguity in my statement whatsoever. Indeed, my formulation is clearer than yours because your statement introduces non-standard language and unnecessary ambiguity. Specifically:

Let A = "It is true that God's will is done in heaven."

Let B = "It is true that Angels sin in Heaven."

Your statement then becomes:
We have a paradox WHEN A IF B.

Your use of the word "when" adds nothing but confusion. It means exactly the same thing as my "if." So your statement really is:
We have a paradox IF A AND IF B.

There is no need for two ifs. It is much more clear to put the "IF" before both premises:
We have a paradox IF A AND B.

Your statement is logically and semantically identical to my statement:
We have a paradox IF A AND B = We have a paradox WHEN A IF B

Any other discourse will be vain as long as you refuse to admit this simple fact. You have diverted this conversation for many days by denying the obvious.

I am refuting the ambiguity in the paradox you present using your words. You have not presented any explanation of the paradox that I have not been able to explain away. It is "that simple"! You think you are correct and could not possibly be wrong in anything you have said in this thread and that is for others to decide. I can and have clearly shown your possible mistakes if my plausible explanations are acceptable to others.

You have written absolutely nothing that "refutes" any "ambiguity" in my words. You have not even explained how there is any "ambiguity" in my formulation of your paradox. And besides that, it is your formulation that is ambiguous because of your non-standard use of "when" and "if."

It impossible to present an explanation of your paradox if we cannot agree about the statement of your paradox.

Your assertion that I "think I am correct and could not possibly be wrong in anything I have said in this thread" is absurd. I have given you solid reasons for everything I have written, and you have been adamantly rejecting basic logic for days. So don't try to put anything on me. My statements are perfectly logical and lucid. If you disagree, you need to quote something I wrote and show why it is flawed or ambiguous. You have repeatedly claimed there was "ambiguity" but have not been able to identify it. On the contrary, you just repeat your assertion without even trying to support it with logic and facts.

So , having agreed the paradox I have presented, what is your next step? You have given several answers, all of which I have shown your possible error, so what is your next answer in order to move this thread forward?

The "next step" is for you to admit your error in your criticism of my original statement of your paradox in Post #23 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49606#post49606):

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..

You need to show that you now understand your error by explaining it in lucid prose. If you cannot or will not do this, there will be no way to reason with you.

All the best,

Richard

David M

10-02-2012, 04:21 AM

You have repeatedly claimed there was "ambiguity" but have not been able to identify it. On the contrary, you just repeat your assertion without even trying to support it with logic and facts.

The "next step" is for you to admit your error in your criticism of my original statement of your paradox in Post #23 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49606#post49606):

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..

You need to show that you now understand your error by explaining it in lucid prose. If you cannot or will not do this, there will be no way to reason with you.

Hello Richard

I am agreeing with your form of words for the paragraphs since in principle we are agreed on the first paradox. Since you have already tried to explain it away, it might be that you have nothing more to say on the matter.
I have explained why I am unhappy with the wording of your second paradox and why it is not a paradox. However, you say you do not want to deal with that one till we have agreed on the first. I am agreeing with the first so we can move on. I did give my reasons for not being happy with the wording but not to keep going over the same thing, I want to move forward.

If we are going to stick to logical expressions and there form, then that is the subject of another thread and I guess you are done attempting to explain away the first paradox. For certain I will not be able to reason anything with you in future if you introduce logic the way you have done here. We are on different wavelengths with no possibility that we will re-tune to be on the same wavelength. That has been obvious from most our discussions.

I will leave you and our readers with some questions to ponder on:

1. If as you say, Jesus went back to Heaven and threw out Satan, why did not Jesus throw out Satan before Jesus came to earth?
2. If a man who is sinful was in the presence of God and could look at God, he would die; why did not the sinful angels that were in God's presence and who could look at God, why did they not die?
3. What is going to happen finally to the angels chained in darkness in the bowels of the earth; will it be the same end as that of humans?

All the best

David

Gil

10-02-2012, 07:54 AM

Howdy David,

Gil > looks like the paradox post has finally ran its course.
Ponder?

1. If as you say, Jesus went back to Heaven and threw out Satan, why did not Jesus throw out Satan before Jesus came to earth?

Gil > Why don't you take the lead of science and Paul.
You will never find GOD the creator . The closest one can come is to see the manifestation/ presence of the Spirit of the Father within the presence of the spirit of his Son. Of the twain they are made One Spirit in Christ.
Paul ,through the Gospel of Christ ,given him by the presence of the Spirit of Jesus Christ turned everything upside /down, outside/ in.
Heaven is within not without.
Here you will find your Spirits .

2. If a man who is sinful was in the presence of God and could look at God, he would die; why did not the sinful angels that were in God's presence and who could look at God, why did they not die?

Gil > Wrong point of view.
If they touched the ark or looked at the face of the false God, they would die. The angel of death was the messenger sent to Moses.
If you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father. You shall not surely die but Live.
The sinful angels as such did die. It was through the resurrection that they to would live.

3. What is going to happen finally to the angels chained in darkness in the bowels of the earth; will it be the same end as that of humans?

Gil > There aren't anymore angels chained in darkness in the bowels of the earth. The new age of light and life began in AD 70 with the manifestation of the BOC. (Body of Christ).
After darkness would come the Light that shines as the glory of the Father and the Son.

The BOC was made manifest unto and for all flesh , and many from the new beginning until now have chosen to enter unto/into the Body.
All man is now judged individually and a great many have already judged themselves.
Those that have not heard the Gospel message are judged according to their own actions and deeds.

Gil :pop2:

Richard Amiel McGough

10-02-2012, 08:07 AM

Hello Richard

I am agreeing with your form of words for the paragraphs since in principle we are agreed on the first paradox. Since you have already tried to explain it away, it might be that you have nothing more to say on the matter.
I have explained why I am unhappy with the wording of your second paradox and why it is not a paradox. However, you say you do not want to deal with that one till we have agreed on the first. I am agreeing with the first so we can move on. I did give my reasons for not being happy with the wording but not to keep going over the same thing, I want to move forward.

If we are going to stick to logical expressions and there form, then that is the subject of another thread and I guess you are done attempting to explain away the first paradox. For certain I will not be able to reason anything with you in future if you introduce logic the way you have done here. We are on different wavelengths with no possibility that we will re-tune to be on the same wavelength. That has been obvious from most our discussions.

I will leave you and our readers with some questions to ponder on:

1. If as you say, Jesus went back to Heaven and threw out Satan, why did not Jesus throw out Satan before Jesus came to earth?
2. If a man who is sinful was in the presence of God and could look at God, he would die; why did not the sinful angels that were in God's presence and who could look at God, why did they not die?
3. What is going to happen finally to the angels chained in darkness in the bowels of the earth; will it be the same end as that of humans?

All the best

David

Good morning David,

You have not shown that you understand your error. I laid it out with perfect clarity and you simply ignored what I wrote. But I think you now understand your error and you simply don't want to admit that you were wrong. I find that very disturbing because it suggests that you will never admit any error no matter how much proof is given. That said, we can now move forward.

It is more direct to state your paradox as an assertion rather than a contradiction. Here is the assertion that gives rise to your paradox:
IF God's will is done in heaven THEN beings in heaven cannot sin.

Your paradox is just a special case of a more general paradox:
IF God's will is done in location X THEN beings in location X cannot sin.

This assertion must be true for any location X. Therefore, we must conclude that God's will is not done on earth. But the Bible says that God is sovereign and his will is always accomplished and no one can resist his will. Therefore, your paradox cannot be answered until you answer how God's will can be done everywhere while God's will is not done everywhere. Are you denying that God is sovereign and that he ALWAYS accomplishes his will?

One solution, of course, is to note that there are two meanings to "doing God's will."

1) God always accomplishes his will, so it is always done.
2) Creatures can disobey God's will, so it is not always done.

A traditional Christian answer is that this implies there are two kinds of God's will - decretive and prescriptive. If you reject the traditional answer, you will have to find another because your entire doctrine about angels not sinning is based on your assertion that your argument is true for X = "Heaven" but not true for X = "Heaven and Earth." This cannot be believed until you give an explanation of how the will of an Almighty God could not be done. You need to deal with the underlying contradiction that says God's will both IS and IS NOT done everywhere.

And you have not dealt with my other argument that there is a hidden assumption in your assertion. You assume that Christ was referring to the spiritual heaven. But there is good reason to think he was contrasting the physical heaven where the the sun, moon, and stars always obey God's will as opposed to the earth where disobedient humans live. So if you want your argument to stand, you must PROVE that Christ was not referring to the physical heavens.

All the best,

Richard

Chris Stuber

10-02-2012, 12:17 PM

The holy angels are "elect angels" (1 Timothy 5:21). Similarly, the elect in heaven will be "sealed" in their decision to forsake sin and trust in Christ. Nothing impure will ever enter heaven (Revelation 21:27). Outside of heaven are those who sin (Revelation 22:15). So, the answer is no, there will be no sin in heaven according to new testament scripture.

I guess this would imply that in heaven, you will have no "freewill". Ok, this is thought provoking.... and being human we are prone to screw up, and while one who accepts and trusts in Christ (saved) might make you "sealed"... how would that keep you from sinning? Are we saying here that in heaven, you won't have a brain (in the physical sense) and therefore a robot slave for eternity?

Says that in heaven, there will be no more death, sorrow, crying, or pain. But, what happens if someone I love, chooses NOT to trust Christ and burns in hell. Would that not be a source of sorrow and pain? Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven... Michael v Dragon Wow that sounds peaceful, huh?

I don't understand God's "plan"... Is it a plan of war? good v evil? I view the cross as being something more than a method of killing a human being. To me it symbolizes something more like an equilibrium or equalizer. No scripture to back that up, but If you think of one axis is good, and the other evil... the part in the
middle of the cross is where the Jesus's head is. If you are a religion X, and you think the other religions are the "axis of evil", what makes your thought process, or religion the "axis of good"? Ok the accusations fly... Good v Evil, Truth v Lies and next thing we know.. it's war.

So God has a beef with Satan because of pride?? Casts satan and his angels out of heaven to earth? Was that supposed to be punishment for satan, or humanity?
God didn't want "sin" in heaven, and sends it to earth? It reads like a Hollywood script. So the scribes of long ago knew all too well about "war" and what causes it. And now we have weapons that are far more devastating to humans, animals and the planet. In the movie "war games"... the computer figures out the only winnable war, is the one that is not fought. If this is something we know, why do we play the game?

David M

10-03-2012, 03:45 AM

Hello Chris
It is good you are contributing to this thread and presenting your point of view.

The holy angels are "elect angels" (1 Timothy 5:21). Similarly, the elect in heaven will be "sealed" in their decision to forsake sin and trust in Christ. Nothing impure will ever enter heaven (Revelation 21:27). Outside of heaven are those who sin (Revelation 22:15). So, the answer is no, there will be no sin in heaven according to new testament scripture.
I am pleased you say "there will be no sin in heaven" as that puts us probably on the same wavelength. Of course at this point, we have not defined what is the "heaven" meant to symbolize in Rev 12:7. However, as far as Heaven (the dwelling place of God) is concerned, I believe as I understand from the words of Jesus that in Heaven there is no sin and the will of God is performed.

I guess this would imply that in heaven, you will have no "freewill". Ok, this is thought provoking.... and being human we are prone to screw up, and while one who accepts and trusts in Christ (saved) might make you "sealed"... how would that keep you from sinning? Are we saying here that in heaven, you won't have a brain (in the physical sense) and therefore a robot slave for eternity?
Jesus also had freewill and this is what made Jesus human like you and me for he was a man. Jesus overcame all selfish desires and only did the will of his Heavenly Father. I know we cannot imagine what it is like not to sin, but this is what Jesus achieved and what makes Jesus so special and to have earned him a name that is above every name (even the title of God is invested upon him) and he has been given an incorruptible body. All we know is that Jesus overcame the devil (that was within) and as Jesus said; "resist the devil and he will flee from you". As I have explained in another post, I can see that by continually resisting the temptation to sin, it becomes habit forming to do the will of God. Automatically doing the will of God should be second nature to us. What should be second nature will become our primary nature in the kingdom of God.
The fact is that Jesus overcame all temptation while in the flesh and now with his incorruptible body, Jesus cannot be tempted anymore. With temptation taken away, he is not in a position to sin. This is where being in the kingdom of God and living for ever in an incorruptible body will mean that we can also in be in a situation where we cannot be tempted to sin. This victory over the devil (within) and the gift of a place in the kingdom of God on earth, has only come about by the victory of Jesus over the devil (within). Without that victory, the sacrifice of Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice acceptable to God.
It is your freewill to chose to do your best for Jesus and God, and by God's grace (given our failings) we can also be given the victory and the prize that Jesus received and we shall become like Jesus with his glorious incorruptible body.

Says that in heaven, there will be no more death, sorrow, crying, or pain. But, what happens if someone I love, chooses NOT to trust Christ and burns in hell. Would that not be a source of sorrow and pain? Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven... Michael v Dragon Wow that sounds peaceful, huh?
I do not believe in hell as being a place of torment. Hell simply means the grave where there is no consciousness. The dead are dead and have gone back to dust. In death, all life has ceased. All those who have rejected God and Jesus need not be pitied or sorrowed for; it was their choice. Once again, we have to understand exactly what this war in heaven represents and heaven could refer to the political heavens.

I don't understand God's "plan"... Is it a plan of war? good v evil? I view the cross as being something more than a method of killing a human being. To me it symbolizes something more like an equilibrium or equalizer. No scripture to back that up, but If you think of one axis is good, and the other evil... the part in the
middle of the cross is where the Jesus's head is. If you are a religion X, and you think the other religions are the "axis of evil", what makes your thought process, or religion the "axis of good"? Ok the accusations fly... Good v Evil, Truth v Lies and next thing we know.. it's war.
God's plan is simply what He has promised; His Glory shall fill the whole earth (Numbers 14:21). In other words the paradise conditions as they were before the fall of Adam and Eve will be restored and when all those living in God's kingdom will not sin. All of God's plan is centered on His creation upon this earth. Alas, all wars are of human origin and that is why the war in heaven in Rev 12:7 (I think) must involve humans.

So God has a beef with Satan because of pride?? Casts satan and his angels out of heaven to earth? Was that supposed to be punishment for satan, or humanity?
God didn't want "sin" in heaven, and sends it to earth? It reads like a Hollywood script. So the scribes of long ago knew all too well about "war" and what causes it. And now we have weapons that are far more devastating to humans, animals and the planet. In the movie "war games"... the computer figures out the only winnable war, is the one that is not fought. If this is something we know, why do we play the game?
Pride is a human condition and that is why I think references to satan involve humans. Even governments and nations made up of people have their pride. Our own personal war should be against the devil that is inside each of us. It is our pride that should be abased and humility should be put in its place. The vast majority of people do not see they have a war within themselves to win and will please themselves most of the time. Unfortunately, in pleasing themselves (selfishness) they do not love their neighbor. Hence, we have wars and strife in the earth that are evil and are all of man's making.

It is good to think on these things and come to see the truth of God's word.

David

David M

10-03-2012, 09:42 PM

Good morning

Good morning David,

You have not shown that you understand your error. I laid it out with perfect clarity and you simply ignored what I wrote. But I think you now understand your error and you simply don't want to admit that you were wrong. I find that very disturbing because it suggests that you will never admit any error no matter how much proof is given. That said, we can now move forward.
I have stated that I did not like your form or words and gave my reason and I have no argument with the construct of the logical expression. If you stick to letters such as "A" and "B" then I do not disagree. I am not going to admit any error, because I do not see where I am in error. Now if you want to keep saying I am in error (according to your thinking) then so be it; we must move on.

It is more direct to state your paradox as an assertion rather than a contradiction. Here is the assertion that gives rise to your paradox:
IF God's will is done in heaven THEN beings in heaven cannot sin.
I have nothing to disagree with this statement. If I am asserting my understanding so be it. The paradox is when anything is said or written that suggests that this statement is not true.

Your paradox is just a special case of a more general paradox:
IF God's will is done in location X THEN beings in location X cannot sin.
Again I do not disagree with statement, but then my argument that God's will not not done in location X when X = earth. So X cannot equal everywhere. Hence the word IF has been used and that is the point; your argument might be true IF God's will is done on earth, but it is not.

This assertion must be true for any location X. Therefore, we must conclude that God's will is not done on earth. But the Bible says that God is sovereign and his will is always accomplished and no one can resist his will. Therefore, your paradox cannot be answered until you answer how God's will can be done everywhere while God's will is not done everywhere. Are you denying that God is sovereign and that he ALWAYS accomplishes his will?
Now you are making an assertion that is not true, and as I have explained X cannot equal everywhere. This is where where the argument falls down and you are trying to make a logical expression fit a form of words that make the logical expression untrue. X cannot equal earth, if God's will is not done on earth.

One solution, of course, is to note that there are two meanings to "doing God's will."

1) God always accomplishes his will, so it is always done. DM - This is your eror; God always accomplishing His will, is not the same as humans always doing God's will. Despite humans not doing God's will. God's plan for this earth will be accomplished. God is in control and God can exercise control whenever He wants, but God can also let man have free reign to do what man wants to do, until God intervenes
2) Creatures can disobey God's will, so it is not always done. DM - Exactly my point; the creatures in this case are humans that God has given freewill to either do God's will or not do God's will

A traditional Christian answer is that this implies there are two kinds of God's will - decretive and prescriptive. If you reject the traditional answer, you will have to find another because your entire doctrine about angels not sinning is based on your assertion that your argument is true for X = "Heaven" but not true for X = "Heaven and Earth." This cannot be believed until you give an explanation of how the will of an Almighty God could not be done. You need to deal with the underlying contradiction that says God's will both IS and IS NOT done everywhere.
You are now introducing a paradox again that is not there. Who says; because God is sovereign, God's will is done everywhere? Does the Bible say this? Please show me the verses that support this idea and then we can study the verses to find out exactly what they mean. In the meantime, humans sin, and therefore, God's will is not being done on earth. This is why your location X = heaven and earth I do not agree with. You can substitute X for any words you like and then a statement might produced which you could then say; is truly "absurd".

And you have not dealt with my other argument that there is a hidden assumption in your assertion. You assume that Christ was referring to the spiritual heaven. But there is good reason to think he was contrasting the physical heaven where the the sun, moon, and stars always obey God's will as opposed to the earth where disobedient humans live. So if you want your argument to stand, you must PROVE that Christ was not referring to the physical heavens.
If I have made that assumption, and I have no reason to think that Jesus thought anything different, for the sake of the paradox we can run with that assumption. If you say that Jesus is not referring to Heaven as the dwelling place of God, then you must also prove that Jesus was referring to the physical heavens. You can explain away the paradox that way (if you want), but is that really true? Of course when we come to discussing Rev 12:7 we might very well be dealing with the physical heavens. This is what leads to paradoxes by the use of one word that has two meanings. The paradox is resolved once the two or more meanings are understood and accepted.

For example, angels can refer to God's angels in Heaven and angels can mean human messengers. Now if we accept that is true, we have no paradox in that God's Angels do his will and humans do not do the will of God. There is no paradox once an explanation has been found. It is only a paradox if no explanation can be found and if there is an explanation, but the explanation has not been found, it is an apparent paradox.

All the best

David

David M

10-03-2012, 09:53 PM

Hello Gil

Howdy David,

Gil > looks like the paradox post has finally ran its course.
It has run its course with Richard having attempted to answer it and then we have moved on to an argument about logical expressions.

Ponder?

1. If as you say, Jesus went back to Heaven and threw out Satan, why did not Jesus throw out Satan before Jesus came to earth?

Gil > Why don't you take the lead of science and Paul.
You will never find GOD the creator . The closest one can come is to see the manifestation/ presence of the Spirit of the Father within the presence of the spirit of his Son. Of the twain they are made One Spirit in Christ.
Paul ,through the Gospel of Christ ,given him by the presence of the Spirit of Jesus Christ turned everything upside /down, outside/ in.
Heaven is within not without.
Here you will find your Spirits .

2. If a man who is sinful was in the presence of God and could look at God, he would die; why did not the sinful angels that were in God's presence and who could look at God, why did they not die?

Gil > Wrong point of view.
If they touched the ark or looked at the face of the false God, they would die. The angel of death was the messenger sent to Moses.
If you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father. You shall not surely die but Live.
The sinful angels as such did die. It was through the resurrection that they to would live.

3. What is going to happen finally to the angels chained in darkness in the bowels of the earth; will it be the same end as that of humans?

Gil > There aren't anymore angels chained in darkness in the bowels of the earth. The new age of light and life began in AD 70 with the manifestation of the BOC. (Body of Christ).
After darkness would come the Light that shines as the glory of the Father and the Son.

The BOC was made manifest unto and for all flesh , and many from the new beginning until now have chosen to enter unto/into the Body.
All man is now judged individually and a great many have already judged themselves.
Those that have not heard the Gospel message are judged according to their own actions and deeds.

Gil :pop2:

Thank you for your ponderings. I can agree with most of what you write, but what happened to the "angels chained in darkness"? I thought they were "chained in darkness" waiting the day of judgement. Are you saying that that day has past. What happens to those (like me) waiting to be judged? To answer these questions is perhaps going off topic and we can continue with this in another thread. In the meantime we can continue pondering.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

10-04-2012, 10:05 AM

Good morning

You have not shown that you understand your error. I laid it out with perfect clarity and you simply ignored what I wrote. But I think you now understand your error and you simply don't want to admit that you were wrong. I find that very disturbing because it suggests that you will never admit any error no matter how much proof is given. That said, we can now move forward.
I have stated that I did not like your form or words and gave my reason and I have no argument with the construct of the logical expression. If you stick to letters such as "A" and "B" then I do not disagree. I am not going to admit any error, because I do not see where I am in error. Now if you want to keep saying I am in error (according to your thinking) then so be it; we must move on.

Good morning David,

I have exposed your error and you refuse to admit it. You made false assertions about some "ambiguity" that you refuse to identify and you refuse to admit it. How can we have a rational conversation if you refuse to admit such basic and incontrovertible truths?

It is more direct to state your paradox as an assertion rather than a contradiction. Here is the assertion that gives rise to your paradox:
IF God's will is done in heaven THEN beings in heaven cannot sin.

I have nothing to disagree with this statement. If I am asserting my understanding so be it. The paradox is when anything is said or written that suggests that this statement is not true.

Of course you have "nothing to disagree with that statement." It is the essence of what you have been asserting for months on this forum.

Your paradox is just a special case of a more general paradox:
IF God's will is done in location X THEN beings in location X cannot sin.

Again I do not disagree with statement, but then my argument that God's will not not done in location X when X = earth. So X cannot equal everywhere. Hence the word IF has been used and that is the point; your argument might be true IF God's will is done on earth, but it is not.

You contradict yourself. First you say that you DO NOT disagree with the statement, then you say you DO disagree with the statement for a specific value of X. That shows again that you are confused about logic. You TOTALLY agree with the statement for all values of X. This is obvious because you USE the statement to PROVE that God's will is not done on earth by asserting the falsehood of the consequent. You are using the classic Modus Tollens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens) argument:
Premise 1: IF P THEN Q.
Premise 2: Not Q.
Conclusion: Therefore not P.

You assert the falsehood of the consequent Q using X = "earth":
Premise 1: IF God's will is done in location X THEN beings in location X cannot sin.
Premise 2: Beings in location X sin.
Conclusion: Therefore God's will is not done in location X.

Your argument would fail if you denied the truth of your first premise. You really need to work on clarifying your logic or your argument will remain confused. You TOTALLY agree with my statement for all possible values of X. You assert that it is always true that IF God's will is done in location X then beings in location X cannot sin. This is the basis of your entire argument.

Now look at the text I highlighted red. It displays a significant misunderstanding of basic logic. The word "IF" has absolutely nothing to do with the specific value of X. That's not "why" the word "if" is used in that statement. The word "if" exists in the statement because that is how all counterfactual conditionals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional) are constructed. This is extremely basic logic. I have noticed that you frequently get confused about the basic structure and meaning of logical constructs. That's why we wasted a week on your fallacious rejection of my formulation of your paradox - you rejected a perfectly valid, logical, and lucid statement, and you have refused to admit your error.

This assertion must be true for any location X. Therefore, we must conclude that God's will is not done on earth. But the Bible says that God is sovereign and his will is always accomplished and no one can resist his will. Therefore, your paradox cannot be answered until you answer how God's will can be done everywhere while God's will is not done everywhere. Are you denying that God is sovereign and that he ALWAYS accomplishes his will?
Now you are making an assertion that is not true, and as I have explained X cannot equal everywhere. This is where where the argument falls down and you are trying to make a logical expression fit a form of words that make the logical expression untrue. X cannot equal earth, if God's will is not done on earth.

Again, you reveal your confusion about logic. My counterfactual conditional is true for all values of X. You yourself ASSUME its validity when you form your counterargument. Your counterargument would be invalid if my statement were not true.

Your entire argument is based on assuming the truth of the assertion that IF God's will is done in location X THEN beings in location X cannot sin.

One solution, of course, is to note that there are two meanings to "doing God's will."

1) God always accomplishes his will, so it is always done. DM - This is your eror; God always accomplishing His will, is not the same as humans always doing God's will. Despite humans not doing God's will. God's plan for this earth will be accomplished. God is in control and God can exercise control whenever He wants, but God can also let man have free reign to do what man wants to do, until God intervenes
2) Creatures can disobey God's will, so it is not always done. DM - Exactly my point; the creatures in this case are humans that God has given freewill to either do God's will or not do God's will

And it is possible that angels have free will like humans. Indeed, that is what the Bible plainly states when it speaks of the angels that sinned and the war in heaven and so forth. So now we are just looping around on our assertions. You assert your view, I assert mine.

Here's the point: You can invent any doctrine you like, but you can't prove it is true because there are other possibilities that you cannot prove are impossible. The problem is simple: You have ONE VERSE that you are setting against many other verses. This means we have an apparent contradiction in Scripture. Any solution will involve REINTERPRETING (explaining away) some verses. You prefer to explain away the verses in Luke, Peter, Jude, and Revelation. I prefer to explain away the one verse in the Lord's prayer. How do we discern which "explanations" are valid? You say we can tell by the "harmony" that results. Great. How do we determine which is more harmonious? We have now moved from logic to the aesthetics of hermeneutical harmony! There is no way to prove such things. It is mere assertion based on personal preference and the tradition you have received.

A traditional Christian answer is that this implies there are two kinds of God's will - decretive and prescriptive. If you reject the traditional answer, you will have to find another because your entire doctrine about angels not sinning is based on your assertion that your argument is true for X = "Heaven" but not true for X = "Heaven and Earth." This cannot be believed until you give an explanation of how the will of an Almighty God could not be done. You need to deal with the underlying contradiction that says God's will both IS and IS NOT done everywhere.
You are now introducing a paradox again that is not there. Who says; because God is sovereign, God's will is done everywhere? Does the Bible say this? Please show me the verses that support this idea and then we can study the verses to find out exactly what they mean. In the meantime, humans sin, and therefore, God's will is not being done on earth. This is why your location X = heaven and earth I do not agree with. You can substitute X for any words you like and then a statement might produced which you could then say; is truly "absurd".

I am not introducing a new paradox. Many, if not most, Christians see the paradox of God's Sovereignty vs. human freedom. This topic has dominated Christian theology for 2000 years. I recommend using Google to get yourself up to speed. You are 2000 years behind in this conversation.

As for the verses that generate this paradox, I shouldn't have to show them to you since they are common knowledge amongst all students of Scripture. They are all the verses that speak of God's sovereignty. Here is a page (http://www.mslick.com/verses.htm) that lists about a hundred of them.

And you have not dealt with my other argument that there is a hidden assumption in your assertion. You assume that Christ was referring to the spiritual heaven. But there is good reason to think he was contrasting the physical heaven where the the sun, moon, and stars always obey God's will as opposed to the earth where disobedient humans live. So if you want your argument to stand, you must PROVE that Christ was not referring to the physical heavens.
If I have made that assumption, and I have no reason to think that Jesus thought anything different, for the sake of the paradox we can run with that assumption. If you say that Jesus is not referring to Heaven as the dwelling place of God, then you must also prove that Jesus was referring to the physical heavens. You can explain away the paradox that way (if you want), but is that really true? Of course when we come to discussing Rev 12:7 we might very well be dealing with the physical heavens. This is what leads to paradoxes by the use of one word that has two meanings. The paradox is resolved once the two or more meanings are understood and accepted.

You've got it backwards. You are the one making the assertion that Christ was speaking about the spiritual heaven. Therefore, you can't prove your point if you don't prove that he was not talking about the physical heaven. The burden of proof is on you because you are the one making the assertion.

For example, angels can refer to God's angels in Heaven and angels can mean human messengers. Now if we accept that is true, we have no paradox in that God's Angels do his will and humans do not do the will of God. There is no paradox once an explanation has been found. It is only a paradox if no explanation can be found and if there is an explanation, but the explanation has not been found, it is an apparent paradox.

That is a perfect example of the ambiguities involved in this discussion. Angels can be humans or spiritual beings. Heaven can be the physical or the spiritual heaven. God's will can be his sovereign will or his prescriptive will. The Bible is saturated by ambiguities like this, and that's why it is utterly absurd for anyone to think that they could "prove" anything absolutely with mere logic. It simply is not possible because the text is too ambiguous. So all you can do is make up your private interpretations which strike you as "harmonious" and then declare, without warrant, that everyone else is wrong. That seems rather foolish to me.

All the best,

Richard

PS: And by the way, there is a rather obvious solution to your paradox. God's will is always done in heaven because he kicks out any angel that sins. This coheres perfectly with Christ's statement that he "saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." And it coheres perfectly with Peter's statement that God chained the angels that sinned in Tartarus.

David M

10-04-2012, 02:31 PM

Good morning David,

I have exposed your error and you refuse to admit it. You made false assertions about some "ambiguity" that you refuse to identify and you refuse to admit it. How can we have a rational conversation if you refuse to admit such basic and incontrovertible truths?
To you only maybe. You can think you have exposed my error, but I have exposed your error. I do not agree that you can simply substitute any wording you like for the value X. You say X = heaven and I will agree, but when you say X = "heaven and earth" combined; I disagree. I have explained why and so there is nothing else to add.

You contradict yourself. First you say that you DO NOT disagree with the statement, then you say you DO disagree with the statement for a specific value of X. That shows again that you are confused about logic. You TOTALLY agree with the statement for all values of X. This is obvious because you USE the statement to PROVE that God's will is not done on earth by asserting the falsehood of the consequent. You are using the classic Modus Tollens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens) argument:
Premise 1: IF P THEN Q.
Premise 2: Not Q.
Conclusion: Therefore not P.

You assert the falsehood of the consequent Q using X = "earth":
Premise 1: IF God's will is done in location X THEN beings in location X cannot sin.
Premise 2: Beings in location X sin.
Conclusion: Therefore God's will is not done in location X.

Your argument would fail if you denied the truth of your first premise. You really need to work on clarifying your logic or your argument will remain confused. You TOTALLY agree with my statement for all possible values of X. You assert that it is always true that IF God's will is done in location X then beings in location X cannot sin. This is the basis of your entire argument.

Now look at the text I highlighted red. It displays a significant misunderstanding of basic logic. The word "IF" has absolutely nothing to do with the specific value of X. That's not "why" the word "if" is used in that statement. The word "if" exists in the statement because that is how all counterfactual conditionals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional) are constructed. This is extremely basic logic. I have noticed that you frequently get confused about the basic structure and meaning of logical constructs. That's why we wasted a week on your fallacious rejection of my formulation of your paradox - you rejected a perfectly valid, logical, and lucid statement, and you have refused to admit your error.
Above you appear to be treating earth and heaven separately and both (individually) can = X This is not what you were saying in previous posts. You were saying "heaven and (plus) earth" = X. I do not agree to combining earth and heaven. In Heaven, Angels do not sin and on earth humans sin. There is no paradox to explain if you combine heaven with earth.

And it is possible that angels have free will like humans. Indeed, that is what the Bible plainly states when it speaks of the angels that sinned and the war in heaven and so forth. So now we are just looping around on our assertions. You assert your view, I assert mine.
Of course we keep looping around unless you can explain the paradox and since you believe the angels that sinned are Gods Angels in Heaven, you cannot, or do not want to explain away the paradox. It is convenient to support your claim that the Bible is full of errors to keep this paradox alive and not explain it away.

Here's the point: You can invent any doctrine you like, but you can't prove it is true because there are other possibilities that you cannot prove are impossible. The problem is simple: You have ONE VERSE that you are setting against many other verses. This means we have an apparent contradiction in Scripture. Any solution will involve REINTERPRETING (explaining away) some verses. You prefer to explain away the verses in Luke, Peter, Jude, and Revelation. I prefer to explain away the one verse in the Lord's prayer. How do we discern which "explanations" are valid? You say we can tell by the "harmony" that results. Great. How do we determine which is more harmonious? We have now moved from logic to the aesthetics of hermeneutical harmony! There is no way to prove such things. It is mere assertion based on personal preference and the tradition you have received.
There is more than one verse, but the crucial verse is the words of the Son of God and I value his authority to know about God and what goes on in Heaven more than your opinion.

I am not introducing a new paradox. Many, if not most, Christians see the paradox of God's Sovereignty vs. human freedom. This topic has dominated Christian theology for 2000 years. I recommend using Google to get yourself up to speed. You are 2000 years behind in this conversation.
You just keep repeating the same thing as if that makes you right. Christians have been misled for centuries and it does not matter how much it has been discussed, because you are locked into your own interpretation of angels and think the same as all those others who have been misled.

As for the verses that generate this paradox, I shouldn't have to show them to you since they are common knowledge amongst all students of Scripture. They are all the verses that speak of God's sovereignty. Here is a page (http://www.mslick.com/verses.htm) that lists about a hundred of them.
I have had a look at the list and it says nothing that I have not already got in my reference Bible. The website does not show me what I asked you to show me, namely that God's will is done everywhere. Are you doing God's will? Is your disbelief in the God of the Bible doing God's will? Anything we want to do should be qualified by saying; "God willing". If God wills something, then nothing can resist. That is why God's Angels in Heaven do not resist but obey and do what God wants them to perform. It is God's will that man can be allowed to rule himself until God intervenes to put a stop to it. If men and women do not want to conform to God's ways, that won't matter to God, for these people will not be in His kingdom. God will not save reprobates.

You've got it backwards. You are the one making the assertion that Christ was speaking about the spiritual heaven. Therefore, you can't prove your point if you don't prove that he was not talking about the physical heaven. The burden of proof is on you because you are the one making the assertion.
It is obvious that Jesus is talking about the Angels being in the presence of God (wherever God is), so trying to introduce any other definition of Heaven is a distraction. You do not realize how many of the 38 ways to win an argument you are deploying.

That is a perfect example of the ambiguities involved in this discussion. Angels can be humans or spiritual beings. Heaven can be the physical or the spiritual heaven. God's will can be his sovereign will or his prescriptive will. The Bible is saturated by ambiguities like this, and that's why it is utterly absurd for anyone to think that they could "prove" anything absolutely with mere logic. It simply is not possible because the text is too ambiguous. So all you can do is make up your private interpretations which strike you as "harmonious" and then declare, without warrant, that everyone else is wrong. That seems rather foolish to me.
(Psalm 14:1)The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. My interpretations are not private interpretations, because there are many others (even if a minority) that believe the same as I do. You make no attempt to rationalize and find harmony in God's word and you accuse me of my own private interpretations. You can make up all the foolish statements you like, they are meaningless. I will let others make up their minds as to who is the more foolish between us when it comes to explaining scripture and they can decide who is trying to solve the paradox that I first presented.

PS: And by the way, there is a rather obvious solution to your paradox. God's will is always done in heaven because he kicks out any angel that sins. This coheres perfectly with Christ's statement that he "saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." And it coheres perfectly with Peter's statement that God chained the angels that sinned in Tartarus.
This shows that you simply string a few verses together to support your myths. You do not realize just how foolish your statement is (quote) "God's will is always done in heaven because he kicks out any angel that sins"
What you are saying is that Angels were sinning before God kicked them out of Heaven. Therefore God's will was not done in Heaven and you are accusing Jesus of lying. You want to believe that God's Angels in Heaven sin, because it suits your satanist role to discredit the Bible as God's inspired word. You have no proof for what you say and quoting Christ as saying;"saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." goes to show that you make no attempt to explain what that verse really means. Given the symbolism and figurative language of the book of Revelation, you want to discard all symbolism and figurative language in order to support your own flimsy evidence to claim that God's Angels in Heaven sin.

I see that I was going to quit this thread a few post back and yet again I find myself in the same position of not being able to reason with you and so this has to be the end. If I continue with this same sort of dialogue, they will be taking me to the asylum for continuing to try and have a meaningful discussion with you.

All the best

David

Gil

10-05-2012, 10:00 AM

Howdy David,
passing by again.

David >
Thank you for your pondering's. I can agree with most of what you write, but what happened to the "angels chained in darkness"? I thought they were "chained in darkness" waiting the day of judgment. Are you saying that that day has past. What happens to those (like me) waiting to be judged? To answer these questions is perhaps going off topic and we can continue with this in another thread. In the meantime we can continue pondering.

All the best

David

Gil >
They were judged. The children of Israel after their covenant with death and darkness at the giving of the Law to them by Moses at Sinai.
Their judgment began individually at the Pentecost and as a whole (people/Nation ) at the destruction of
Old Israel , that would usher in the manifestation of that Body which be perfect. The BOC.

I know you consider yourself as a futurist and some here consider themselves as being Preterist.
There are many futurist factions and many preterist factions, but in Christ there are neither.
You may not understand Paul's Christology but you have already been judged in Christ . You are no longer found to be guilty of any sin [ I don't like that word sin as everyone sees their own picture but before the giving of the Law sin was not counted as sin]. You are seen to be innocent ,as in a court of Law.
When you drop your mortal body of flesh you will be instantly translated into the realm of the Father and Son.

Your saved brother, don't worry about it.

See ya David,

Gil :pop2:

Gil

10-05-2012, 10:06 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

10-07-2012, 04:04 PM

Good morning David,

I have exposed your error and you refuse to admit it. You made false assertions about some "ambiguity" that you refuse to identify and you refuse to admit it. How can we have a rational conversation if you refuse to admit such basic and incontrovertible truths?
To you only maybe. You can think you have exposed my error, but I have exposed your error. I do not agree that you can simply substitute any wording you like for the value X. You say X = heaven and I will agree, but when you say X = "heaven and earth" combined; I disagree. I have explained why and so there is nothing else to add.

It is not "to me" - objective truth is just that, objective. You have shown no error in the logic and facts I presented. My argument stands unrefuted.

Your assertion that you "do not agree that you can simply substitute any wording you like for the value X" simply demonstrates that you do not understand basic logic. As shown above, and again below (in blue), you USE my statement with the value X = "earth" to prove that God's will is NOT done on earth.

Again I do not disagree with statement, but then my argument that God's will not not done in location X when X = earth. So X cannot equal everywhere. Hence the word IF has been used and that is the point; your argument might be true IF God's will is done on earth, but it is not.
You contradict yourself. First you say that you DO NOT disagree with the statement, then you say you DO disagree with the statement for a specific value of X. That shows again that you are confused about logic. You TOTALLY agree with the statement for all values of X. This is obvious because you USE the statement to PROVE that God's will is not done on earth by asserting the falsehood of the consequent. You are using the classic Modus Tollens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens) argument:
Premise 1: IF P THEN Q.
Premise 2: Not Q.
Conclusion: Therefore not P.

You assert the falsehood of the consequent Q using X = "earth":
Premise 1: IF God's will is done in location X THEN beings in location X cannot sin.
Premise 2: Beings in location X sin.
Conclusion: Therefore God's will is not done in location X.

Your argument would fail if you denied the truth of your first premise. You really need to work on clarifying your logic or your argument will remain confused. You TOTALLY agree with my statement for all possible values of X. You assert that it is always true that IF God's will is done in location X then beings in location X cannot sin. This is the basis of your entire argument.

Now look at the text I highlighted red. It displays a significant misunderstanding of basic logic. The word "IF" has absolutely nothing to do with the specific value of X. That's not "why" the word "if" is used in that statement. The word "if" exists in the statement because that is how all counterfactual conditionals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional) are constructed. This is extremely basic logic. I have noticed that you frequently get confused about the basic structure and meaning of logical constructs. That's why we wasted a week on your fallacious rejection of my formulation of your paradox - you rejected a perfectly valid, logical, and lucid statement, and you have refused to admit your error.
Above you appear to be treating earth and heaven separately and both (individually) can = X This is not what you were saying in previous posts. You were saying "heaven and (plus) earth" = X. I do not agree to combining earth and heaven. In Heaven, Angels do not sin and on earth humans sin. There is no paradox to explain if you combine heaven with earth.

My post is perfect in clarity. I explicitly defined X = "earth" in the post to which you responded. If you can't understand something as simple and explicit as this, how can you understand anything?

You have shown no understanding of my explanation of simple logic. This has gone well past the point of absurdity. The only rational response to my post was "I agree."

I am not introducing a new paradox. Many, if not most, Christians see the paradox of God's Sovereignty vs. human freedom. This topic has dominated Christian theology for 2000 years. I recommend using Google to get yourself up to speed. You are 2000 years behind in this conversation.
You just keep repeating the same thing as if that makes you right. Christians have been misled for centuries and it does not matter how much it has been discussed, because you are locked into your own interpretation of angels and think the same as all those others who have been misled.

If I am repeating myself it is because you have shown no understanding of the facts presented. Yet they are essential to your "paradox." We can't move forward as long as you remain ignorant of the paradoxes of the Bible.

As for the verses that generate this paradox, I shouldn't have to show them to you since they are common knowledge amongst all students of Scripture. They are all the verses that speak of God's sovereignty. Here is a page (http://www.mslick.com/verses.htm) that lists about a hundred of them.
I have had a look at the list and it says nothing that I have not already got in my reference Bible. The website does not show me what I asked you to show me, namely that God's will is done everywhere. Are you doing God's will? Is your disbelief in the God of the Bible doing God's will? Anything we want to do should be qualified by saying; "God willing". If God wills something, then nothing can resist. That is why God's Angels in Heaven do not resist but obey and do what God wants them to perform. It is God's will that man can be allowed to rule himself until God intervenes to put a stop to it. If men and women do not want to conform to God's ways, that won't matter to God, for these people will not be in His kingdom. God will not save reprobates.

See the text I highlighted red. That's why I didn't need to show you the verses that say God is sovereign. Now you say that God sovereignty does not imply that his will is actually done by his creatures. That's a paradox that you have not answered. That's the paradox you must answer before this conversation can go forward.

You admit that "If God wills something, then nothing can resist." Excellent. That is one of the premises of the paradox. But you assert that "It is God's will that men can be allowed to rule himself until God intervenes to put a stop to it." There are two problems with your assertion. 1) It is not stated in Scripture. 2) It contradicts your first premise because men do things contrary to God's will. To see the problem all you need to do is tell me if this proposition is true or false:

P = It is God's will that men sin.

If P is true, then men must sin for no one can resist his will. If P is false, then men cannot sin for no one can resist his will. Which is it? It must be P or Not P by the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Please don't dodge this question like the last time. You MUST assert either P or Not P or you will show yourself to be irrational.

You've got it backwards. You are the one making the assertion that Christ was speaking about the spiritual heaven. Therefore, you can't prove your point if you don't prove that he was not talking about the physical heaven. The burden of proof is on you because you are the one making the assertion.
It is obvious that Jesus is talking about the Angels being in the presence of God (wherever God is), so trying to introduce any other definition of Heaven is a distraction. You do not realize how many of the 38 ways to win an argument you are deploying.

Sorry, but asserting "it is obvious" is not an argument.

And worse, Jesus did not speak about "angels" at all when he said "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

And you are the one who introduced "another definition of heaven" in your first post in this thread to save your dogma from contradiction! :doh:

And you do not realize how absurd it is for a man who cannot obey the Law of Non-Contradiction to throw his "38 ways" at me as if that meant something. The real irony is that your reference to those "38 ways" is itself one of them. You seem to forget that I PROVED ABSOLUTELY that your previous charge based on those "38 ways" were grossly fallacious. You used a post by CWH, where he was running and dodging and changing the topic and refusing to answer a point that proved him wrong as an example of ME using those "38 ways." I prove that you were wrong, and you have not admitted it.

That is a perfect example of the ambiguities involved in this discussion. Angels can be humans or spiritual beings. Heaven can be the physical or the spiritual heaven. God's will can be his sovereign will or his prescriptive will. The Bible is saturated by ambiguities like this, and that's why it is utterly absurd for anyone to think that they could "prove" anything absolutely with mere logic. It simply is not possible because the text is too ambiguous. So all you can do is make up your private interpretations which strike you as "harmonious" and then declare, without warrant, that everyone else is wrong. That seems rather foolish to me.
(Psalm 14:1)The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. My interpretations are not private interpretations, because there are many others (even if a minority) that believe the same as I do. You make no attempt to rationalize and find harmony in God's word and you accuse me of my own private interpretations. You can make up all the foolish statements you like, they are meaningless. I will let others make up their minds as to who is the more foolish between us when it comes to explaining scripture and they can decide who is trying to solve the paradox that I first presented.

Ha! By your own words you prove yourself to be "satanic" because you confound every word of the Bible with grossly irrational ambiguities to prove your unbiblical dogmas. This verse is for you:

Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

As for others making up their minds. I have perfect certainty that any rational reader will see your errors. I am confident because BY DEFINITION a rational reader will be able to follow the logic I have written and see it is perfect, and that you have not shown a word of it to be fallacious. You don't understand the most basic logical propositions I have presented. Indeed, you don't even obey the Law of Non-Contradiction.

That's why your descent into slander is to be expected. It is what always happens when a person cannot support their argument with logic and facts.

PS: And by the way, there is a rather obvious solution to your paradox. God's will is always done in heaven because he kicks out any angel that sins. This coheres perfectly with Christ's statement that he "saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." And it coheres perfectly with Peter's statement that God chained the angels that sinned in Tartarus.
This shows that you simply string a few verses together to support your myths. You do not realize just how foolish your statement is (quote) "God's will is always done in heaven because he kicks out any angel that sins"
What you are saying is that Angels were sinning before God kicked them out of Heaven. Therefore God's will was not done in Heaven and you are accusing Jesus of lying. You want to believe that God's Angels in Heaven sin, because it suits your satanist role to discredit the Bible as God's inspired word. You have no proof for what you say and quoting Christ as saying;"saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." goes to show that you make no attempt to explain what that verse really means. Given the symbolism and figurative language of the book of Revelation, you want to discard all symbolism and figurative language in order to support your own flimsy evidence to claim that God's Angels in Heaven sin.

Your assertion that I merely "string together a few verses" is absurd when compared what you do to those verses! You totally deny their plain and obvious meaning, and are therefore forced to write thousand word posts to "explain" why the IDIOT GOD (your implication) who inspired Scripture could not speak clearly enough to be understood by the vast majority of his followers over a span of 2000 years only to be saved by the ridiculous cult of PRIDE and ludicrous "logic" known as the "Christadelphians" who resort to slander when the errors in their arguments are refuted.

Suppose we had a perfect government on earth. Every criminal was caught and jailed. Would we say that the "will of the government" was always accomplished? Sure, and it allows for free will too. The error in your rebuttal is obvious. You want "God's will is done in heaven" to be an "absolute" that denies free will. It doesn't have to be that way. It is perfectly logical to says Christ's prayer and believe that God's will is done in heaven because he enforces it. You are simply desperate because you are committed to an entirely unbiblical dogma.

Your rejection of every verse that presents Satan as a personal being shows you have no regard for Scripture in the least.

I see that I was going to quit this thread a few post back and yet again I find myself in the same position of not being able to reason with you and so this has to be the end. If I continue with this same sort of dialogue, they will be taking me to the asylum for continuing to try and have a meaningful discussion with you.

You can't reason with me because you can't reason at all. If this thread proves anything, it proves that you do not understand the most basic logical propositions.

David M

10-08-2012, 04:54 PM

Hello Richard

It is not "to me" - objective truth is just that, objective. You have shown no error in the logic and facts I presented. My argument stands unrefuted.
I am not disputing the logic if phrased correctly is is not 'P' and 'Not P' that I have issue with, it is the application of the term; "heaven and earth". In Heaven the will of God is done or not done (according to the apparent) paradox but on earth God's will is done and not done. There is no paradox involving God's will on earth. If you want to make that the subject of another thread, please do so we can move on or finish with this thread.

Your assertion that you "do not agree that you can simply substitute any wording you like for the value X" simply demonstrates that you do not understand basic logic. As shown above, and again below (in blue), you USE my statement with the value X = "earth" to prove that God's will is NOT done on earth.

My post is perfect in clarity. I explicitly defined X = "earth" in the post to which you responded. If you can't understand something as simple and explicit as this, how can you understand anything?

You have shown no understanding of my explanation of simple logic. This has gone well past the point of absurdity. The only rational response to my post was "I agree."
First of all you use "heaven" then "earth" and then "heaven and earth". You introduced a second paradox and then withdrew it until we finished the first paradox, but the first and the second paradox is not a paradox when the earth is involved because God's will is done and not done on earth. Can you construct the paradox you are claiming about God's will done on earth by quoting a couple of verses from the Bible? Jesus was praying that this would be the case and it was obviously not being done at the time of Jesus praying for it.

If I am repeating myself it is because you have shown no understanding of the facts presented. Yet they are essential to your "paradox." We can't move forward as long as you remain ignorant of the paradoxes of the Bible.
I am not ignorant of other apparent paradoxes and they are only apparent because they can be explained away. I suggest you deal with other paradoxes separately so as not to confuse the paradox here. In fact this thread is not about the apparent paradox of God's will done in Heaven if Angels sin; this thread is about understanding the 'war in heaven'. The argument you have started should be in the thread; 'God's will is done in Heaven'.

See the text I highlighted red. That's why I didn't need to show you the verses that say God is sovereign. Now you say that God sovereignty does not imply that his will is actually done by his creatures. That's a paradox that you have not answered. That's the paradox you must answer before this conversation can go forward.
There is no paradox if God's creatures (humans sin) that is what God allows. When Jesus said; (Luke 22:42) Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Jesus was asking God to remove the cup from Him. God's will was that the cup should not be removed by God. Jesus could have not gone through with it and Jesus could have given up, but the will of Jesus was to do the will of his Heavenly Father. Jesus was not forced into giving His life on the cross, but even Jesus saw that that was the only possible thing to do if he was to do the will of God and there would be no hope for mankind if he did not go through with it. It was for the joy beyond the cross that Jesus could see for himself and those who would follow. This was the victory won by Jesus in that he was strong willed not to do his own will, but the will of God. I asked you a question and you did not answer so here it is again; are you doing the will of God or are you doing what you want to do? You are obviously not compelled to obey God, so is God's will being exercised in you?

You admit that "If God wills something, then nothing can resist." Excellent. That is one of the premises of the paradox. But you assert that "It is God's will that men can be allowed to rule himself until God intervenes to put a stop to it." There are two problems with your assertion. 1) It is not stated in Scripture. 2) It contradicts your first premise because men do things contrary to God's will. To see the problem all you need to do is tell me if this proposition is true or false:
It is not stated in scripture directly, but how could Jeremiah say; "it is not in man to direct his steps" if that is what man had failed to do. Men sinning on earth is contrary to God's will in that they disobey God. God's desire is that men and women are obedient to the "laws of love" i.e "to love God" (commandment #1) and "to love thy neighbor" (commandment #2).
It is as plain as day that the ways of this world are contrary to the ways God has instructed the world to live. God's people are told to come out of the world and be separate. The world is enmity with God, because the world does not know God and does not follow after the ways he has set for man, knowing what is best for man. There is no paradox to consider when involving the earth and where God's will is done and not done. Doing God's will is not the same as God exercising His will on someone. Doing God's will is voluntarily, and as I said, all we do should be qualified by saying; "God willing" for we know that if what we want to do is not God's will, then God can intervene and exercise His will. Can you say what God's will is? If you can say what God's will is; are you doing it?

P = It is God's will that men sin.

If P is true, then men must sin for no one can resist his will. If P is false, then men cannot sin for no one can resist his will. Which is it? It must be P or Not P by the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Please don't dodge this question like the last time. You MUST assert either P or Not P or you will show yourself to be irrational.
It is not God's desire that men should sin. However, men sin and also can do God's will. The reality is that men do not do God's will all of the time. It would be better to say that God desires men to do his will rather than say God is willing men not to sin or indeed willing men to sin. God is desiring instead of willing. When God wants to exercise His will, He will do so, but that does not mean that God is always willing people to do what he wants. So I disagree with your phrase; "it is God's will that men sin". God's desire is that men do not sin. God desires that no-one should perish, but desire does not bring about perfection in men. God is allowing men the freedom to obey or not obey and God selects those who are the more obedient and deserving. Do you try to be obedient to God's ways which he has set out for man? Of course you say that you do not believe God has given men and women rules to live by so you are not living by God's rules. You can be living by men's rules and that might be acceptable to God except for the fact that you have now rejected the God of the Bible and it is the Bible that we only have record of how God has revealed himself. The only other way might be a personal revelation, but if we have not had the pleasure or discomfort of God's personal revelation, then the only way we can come to learn of God is through His (inspired) word.

Sorry, but asserting "it is obvious" is not an argument.
Sorry for saying the same as what you do.

And worse, Jesus did not speak about "angels" at all when he said "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
OK, so now you are on track talking about angels and heaven. No, Jesus did not mention angels by name, so who is Jesus referring to when he says; "Thy will be done...as in Heaven"? He cannot be referring to humans, because no human we know of is with God in heaven at the time Jesus was speaking. (Sinful) Humans only exist on earth. By a process of elimination who else can be in Heaven (God's dwelling place)? It is God's Angels that do God's will on earth as well as in Heaven. It is man who for the most part does not do God's will on earth.

And you are the one who introduced "another definition of heaven" in your first post in this thread to save your dogma from contradiction! :doh:
I was not the first to mention a physical heaven and since you were the one to first mention it, I referred to it. I do not mind you introducing all possible interpretations of heaven, because that is the exercise to consider all possible interpretations and then to eliminate as many as possible to hopefully get down to the one true interpretation.

And you do not realize how absurd it is for a man who cannot obey the Law of Non-Contradiction to throw his "38 ways" at me as if that meant something. The real irony is that your reference to those "38 ways" is itself one of them. You seem to forget that I PROVED ABSOLUTELY that your previous charge based on those "38 ways" were grossly fallacious. You used a post by CWH, where he was running and dodging and changing the topic and refusing to answer a point that proved him wrong as an example of ME using those "38 ways." I prove that you were wrong, and you have not admitted it.
You are doing it again, switching subjects accusing me of not understanding logic when you avoid answering the questions and cannot see when you use any of the 38 ways .... I am not admitting I am wrong because as I have explained before, I cannot see that I am wrong. I also accept you cannot see that you are wrong, so we must accept this if we are to move on.

Ha! By your own words you prove yourself to be "satanic" because you confound every word of the Bible with grossly irrational ambiguities to prove your unbiblical dogmas. This verse is for you:

Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
I am definitely satanic against your explanations of scripture. Again, it is all your opinion and it is about time you stuck to reasoning from the scripture and looking for the true meaning. I must be an irritant to you because I do not accept what you have to say. I can expose you weakness just as you are trying to undermine my credulity. I need not worry about that verse, you condemned yourself long before you reckon I have.

As for others making up their minds. I have perfect certainty that any rational reader will see your errors. I am confident because BY DEFINITION a rational reader will be able to follow the logic I have written and see it is perfect, and that you have not shown a word of it to be fallacious. You don't understand the most basic logical propositions I have presented. Indeed, you don't even obey the Law of Non-Contradiction.
We can both find people who agree with our personal opinion. I know that I am in a minority and so it goes that I will find less (if none) on this forum who will agree with everything I say. I am not saying I am correct in every way, and I am entitled to express when I consider another interpretation is wrong. I understand the basic logical propositions but I object to any just any wording made a proposition. That is our difference of opinion and we cannot resolve it unless someone else would like to step in and referee.

That's why your descent into slander is to be expected. It is what always happens when a person cannot support their argument with logic and facts.
Who's descended to slander, the paragraph below shows you are bent on slandering me and my understanding of the Bible. If you want to continue to have a discussion with me, you must stop this attack and reason from the scriptures.

Your assertion that I merely "string together a few verses" is absurd when compared what you do to those verses! You totally deny their plain and obvious meaning, and are therefore forced to write thousand word posts to "explain" why the IDIOT GOD (your implication) who inspired Scripture could not speak clearly enough to be understood by the vast majority of his followers over a span of 2000 years only to be saved by the ridiculous cult of PRIDE and ludicrous "logic" known as the "Christadelphians" who resort to slander when the errors in their arguments are refuted.
Now I know you are losing your argument and having to refer to names and insults. I am losing all respect for you as someone I thought was trying to get to the truth. All you can do is reject my explanations and will not consider that they could be correct. You and Rose are a cult of two and you have given me no reason to want to believe your ideas about any God of your imaginations.

Suppose we had a perfect government on earth. Every criminal was caught and jailed. Would we say that the "will of the government" was always accomplished? Sure, and it allows for free will too. The error in your rebuttal is obvious. You want "God's will is done in heaven" to be an "absolute" that denies free will. It doesn't have to be that way. It is perfectly logical to says Christ's prayer and believe that God's will is done in heaven because he enforces it. You are simply desperate because you are committed to an entirely unbiblical dogma.
I am far from desperate and that is why you attack my intellect. You have failed to give sound reasoning to explain away the apparent paradox and I have explained why you will not. It might help if we define what is meant by the word "will". I have no reason to doubt that God's Angels do not have the same freewill as humans have and therefore Angels to His will. In the kingdom of God to come, all those who are given eternal life will naturally do the will of God and will not rebel and why should they when they have nothing more to gain than eternal life in a perfect world.

Your rejection of every verse that presents Satan as a personal being shows you have no regard for Scripture in the least.
Well that is your opinion and that needs no further comment from me. I let others with better judgment decide who has more regard for scripture. It is rife coming from someone who no longer believes in the God of the Bible.

You can't reason with me because you can't reason at all. If this thread proves anything, it proves that you do not understand the most basic logical propositions.
Ditto. I am not arguing the basic logical expressions; only the wording put into those logical expressions. I have explained I cannot agree with your statement; "It is God's will that men sin". God is not willing in the sense of controlling men, God's will is in the sense of; these are the ways God desires men to follow, but God is leaving men to decide to follow or not. Ultimately, God will step in and send Jesus back who will reign with power and in righteousness. Men can either be persuaded to conform or else be rejected, there is no compulsion, though if they are denied water for example, that is a good motivator to conform. The more one is compelled, the more a person can harden their heart, if they so desire.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

10-08-2012, 08:01 PM

You've got it backwards. You are the one making the assertion that Christ was speaking about the spiritual heaven. Therefore, you can't prove your point if you don't prove that he was not talking about the physical heaven. The burden of proof is on you because you are the one making the assertion.
It is obvious that Jesus is talking about the Angels being in the presence of God (wherever God is), so trying to introduce any other definition of Heaven is a distraction. You do not realize how many of the 38 ways to win an argument you are deploying.

Sorry, but asserting "it is obvious" is not an argument.

And worse, Jesus did not speak about "angels" at all when he said "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

And you are the one who introduced "another definition of heaven" in your first post in this thread to save your dogma from contradiction! :doh:

I was not the first to mention a physical heaven and since you were the one to first mention it, I referred to it. I do not mind you introducing all possible interpretations of heaven, because that is the exercise to consider all possible interpretations and then to eliminate as many as possible to hopefully get down to the one true interpretation.

What are you talking about? You introduced the three possible definitions of heaven in your first post in this thread to explain away the contradiction of the "war in heaven" with your doctrine that angels can't sin.

What is meant by heaven? This does not necessarily mean the place where God dwells, which is denoted by using a capital “H” – Heaven. What else can heaven refer to? Does it have a connection with the “heavens” as mentioned in the Bible?

The physical heaven is explained in Genesis 1:8; And God called the firmament heaven. In the previous verse we read (7); And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. From this simple description we can conclude that heaven is the sky between the surface of the earth with the waters on it and the cloud base; above which the clouds contain water.

Spiritual heaven has nothing to do with the sky or literal heaven. (Matt 24:29) and the stars shall fall from heaven. The stars we see in the night sky will not literally fall out of the sky. (Luke 24:10); The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? The directive of baptism of John came from God not man. Things which come from God, we can think of as heavenly. We can think on heavenly things like the coming kingdom of God on earth. It does not exist as it shall, until Christ restores the kingdom. God said through the prophet Isaiah to God’s people Israel (Isaiah 55:9); For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. We live in a physical world but our thoughts can be on spiritual matters such as God’s Heaven. In thought our minds can be on spiritual matters, when the reality is, we are here on earth. Not to think on heavenly things is to think about earthly things and the things of this world.

The heavens can refer to the political heavens. The sun, moon and stars have special political significance and can represent political leaders or nations and kings. For example we read in Numbers 24:17; there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel. This Star and Sceptre are not a literal. They represent a political power. TV and film celebrities are called “stars”, so the idea of calling people with influence stars is not new. The Star in this case has a kingly position denoted by the symbol of the sceptre which is a rod held in the hand to represent regal and imperial power of the Star. (Matthew 24:29); Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. In this prophecy of Jesus, he is speaking of future governments and powers represented by the sun, moon and stars, and the “stars shall fall from heaven” meaning that political rulers shall lose their status and power and also nations will lose their power over other nations.
There it is. PROOF that YOU are the one who introduced the "other definition of heaven" IN YOUR OPENING POST in this thread! So now you can have the great joy of applying your own words to yourself.

You introduced THREE definitions of "heaven" in order to pick and choose one that would make room for you dogma.

Therefore, you speak of yourself when you say: trying to introduce any other definition of Heaven is a distraction. You do not realize how many of the 38 ways to win an argument you are deploying.

You have accused yourself of using the "38 dishonest tricks to win an argument." How's that for irony? :lmbo:

There will be no way to reason with you as long as you persist in this blatantly irrational and hypocritical behavior.

And while we are on the topic of irrationality and hypocrisy, we see that you are totally inconsistent with your definitions of heaven. Behold! When speaking of the Lord's prayer which makes no mention of any angels whatsoever, you say "It is obvious that Jesus is talking about the Angels being in the presence of God (wherever God is)." Then, when talking about the war in heaven which mentions the archangel Michael by name and the angels fighting with him you say that refers to mere humans. This shows that you simply make up whatever you want to fit your preconceived dogmas. You change the definitions of "heaven" and "angels" to suit your doctrines! And then you have the audacity to falsely accuse me of doing what you did!

And there is yet another possible interpretation that you have not addressed. It is possible that Jesus meant this:

Thy will be done on earth (by all people) as it is done in heaven (by those who died in faith).

The beauty of this interpretation is that it is symmetric. It is speaking of the same kinds of beings on earth as in heaven. This is called "consistency" - something that is of utmost importance when interpreting the Bible. Of course, you couldn't think of this possibility because you hold to the unbiblical doctrine that those who died in faith are not alive with God in heaven. But this directly contradicts the words of Christ when he said:
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 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. 33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

And your doctrine is contradicted again by the fact that Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ on the mount of transfiguration:
Matthew 17:1-4 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."

Your doctrines contradict the entire Bible, from beginning to end.

David M

10-10-2012, 05:38 AM

Hello Richard
Irksome as this is becoming, sticking with pointing out your contradictions is something I am compelled to do. I can only hope you tone down your attack on my attempts to get to the truth and accept the alternative meanings that can be reasonably deduced. For example, I shall pick up on the one interpretation that you have given.

Thy will be done on earth (by all people) as it is done in heaven (by those who died in faith).[/B]
It was the hope of Jesus that the will of God would be done by all people and it will be done in God's kingdom that Jesus will restore when he returns. As for "by those who died in faith" being in heaven, where do you get this from? This is teaching we go to Heaven when we die and God is very clear when he says; (Eccl 3:19) 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: for all is vanity. God teaches of the resurrection that is in store for the belivers so that those who have died and are waiting the resurrection are not in Heaven doing God's will. So I ask you again, who else is there in Heaven besides God's Angels?

The beauty of this interpretation is that it is symmetric. It is speaking of the same kinds of beings on earth as in heaven. This is called "consistency" - something that is of utmost importance when interpreting the Bible. Of course, you couldn't think of this possibility because you hold to the unbiblical doctrine that those who died in faith are not alive with God in heaven. But this directly contradicts the words of Christ when he said:
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 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. 33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

There is no contradiction, for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead as though sleeping. There resurrection is assured. For those who die, there next waking moment is but a second, it is like going to sleep and waking up. That is what is meant By God being the God of the living. It is the dead who have no hope and who will not be raised from the dead that will remain dead and who will not be alive as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be. It is good if we can agree that whether you think they are alive now or as I think they will be alive at the resurrection, that they will be in the kingdom of God wherever and whenever that is.

And your doctrine is contradicted again by the fact that Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ on the mount of transfiguration:
Matthew 17:1-4 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."

This is one or those visions that the disciples witnessed that would suggest that Moses and Elijah are not dead waiting the resurrection. Maybe these are two special cases that are untypical of all those who died. Also take into consideration Hebrews 11:13; These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. and who is this speaking of but the same Abraham as in verse 8; By faith Abraham,
I do not think I am being inconsistent. Whatever you think, I am looking for consistency. I am not wresting scripture as you might well do by not taking all scripture into account and accepting all possible interpretations before deriving the correct understanding of all to come to see the harmony that is there. You have presented me with an interpretation which as I see it is contradicting other scriptures. This is the basis on which we must avoid personalities and concentrate on the facts as you like to do.
Moses and Elijah are two prophets and servants of God that we do not know of their death. There is Enoch who we are told; And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. Because we are not told that Moses or Elijah died, we might assume that God took them also. This does not negate the fact that all other people who have died remain in the grave until resurrected.

Your doctrines contradict the entire Bible, from beginning to end.
This is your conclusion but if our readers want to follow these things through, I trust that they will find it is not me who is contradicting what the Bible teaches. I am not so arrogant to think I know best, or that I am better educated than you, but I endeavor to understand the scriptures to the best of my ability and despite what you say, I am actively looking for truth and not taking for granted interpretations of scriptures of others. I will read and listen and if I can find a grain of truth I have not seen before, I will take it on board. I am not churning out copied and saved material as a means of giving an answer. I am working on a document which I shall post shortly and expect you to take me to task on, but it is my sincere way of understanding what the scriptures say and making the best sense of it. The title I have in mind is; "When is the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy?' This will contradict your thread entitled; 'Daniel's 70 Weeks were fulfilled in 70 AD!' This will cut across your claim that I cannot refute the argument you were having with Two spirits that Jesus was not talking of the future beyond AD70. I won't say anymore as that the discussion will continue after I post my new thread. I am checking for typos and any errors and I shall post shortly.

All the best

David

David M

10-10-2012, 06:16 AM

Hello Richard
I will answer the point you make below separately as you are correct to point out that at the beginning of my thread I pointed to the different ways that heaven can be interpreted.

Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
What is meant by heaven? This does not necessarily mean the place where God dwells, which is denoted by using a capital “H” – Heaven. What else can heaven refer to? Does it have a connection with the “heavens” as mentioned in the Bible?

The physical heaven is explained in Genesis 1:8; And God called the firmament heaven. In the previous verse we read (7); And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. From this simple description we can conclude that heaven is the sky between the surface of the earth with the waters on it and the cloud base; above which the clouds contain water.

Spiritual heaven has nothing to do with the sky or literal heaven. (Matt 24:29) and the stars shall fall from heaven. The stars we see in the night sky will not literally fall out of the sky. (Luke 24:10); The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? The directive of baptism of John came from God not man. Things which come from God, we can think of as heavenly. We can think on heavenly things like the coming kingdom of God on earth. It does not exist as it shall, until Christ restores the kingdom. God said through the prophet Isaiah to God’s people Israel (Isaiah 55:9); For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. We live in a physical world but our thoughts can be on spiritual matters such as God’s Heaven. In thought our minds can be on spiritual matters, when the reality is, we are here on earth. Not to think on heavenly things is to think about earthly things and the things of this world.

The heavens can refer to the political heavens. The sun, moon and stars have special political significance and can represent political leaders or nations and kings. For example we read in Numbers 24:17; there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel. This Star and Sceptre are not a literal. They represent a political power. TV and film celebrities are called “stars”, so the idea of calling people with influence stars is not new. The Star in this case has a kingly position denoted by the symbol of the sceptre which is a rod held in the hand to represent regal and imperial power of the Star. (Matthew 24:29); Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. In this prophecy of Jesus, he is speaking of future governments and powers represented by the sun, moon and stars, and the “stars shall fall from heaven” meaning that political rulers shall lose their status and power and also nations will lose their power over other nations.

What are you talking about? You introduced the three possible definitions of heaven in your first post in this thread to explain away the contradiction of the "war in heaven" with your doctrine that angels can't sin.

There it is. PROOF that YOU are the one who introduced the "other definition of heaven" IN YOUR OPENING POST in this thread! So now you can have the great joy of applying your own words to yourself.
OK. I introduced the three possibilities of what heaven might mean but this is as you agree is when I was explaining the 'the war in Heaven'. Somehow the argument got on to the paradox about angels sinning and God's will not done in heaven. It was in this context that I said you were the first to refer to the physical heavens. The paradox that has to be explained is firmly in Heaven which is the dwelling place of God. You can introduce the physical heaven if you wish by way of not explaining away the paradox that I am talking about. I said we had got off topic and it is not fair to mix up topics and stray away from the topic we should be discussing. I went along with you explanations as to the paradox I introduced in another thread, but really we should not have been mixing up the two subjects that are different.

You introduced THREE definitions of "heaven" in order to pick and choose one that would make room for you dogma.
I have asked you to quit from saying dogma. What I have come to accept, I am not going to prostitute and throw away. Everything you write and say, I can say is your dogma, for you are supporting interpretations you once believed. Therefore, I cannot disassociate your dogma that you once held. From now on lets not even mention the word dogma.

Therefore, you speak of yourself when you say: trying to introduce any other definition of Heaven is a distraction. You do not realize how many of the 38 ways to win an argument you are deploying.
You can say that now, but it is nowhere near the number of distractions you have introduced, but I want to get off this silliness; we have been in this same situation to many times.

You have accused yourself of using the "38 dishonest tricks to win an argument." How's that for irony?
Please point out to me when I do, I do not believe that I have in the way you have tried to show. I admitted when I introduced the 38 ways that I can be guilty of doing so, even though trying to avoid doing so. In future, please point it out at the time of my using instead of making a general comment just because I have pointed out to you your repeated use of some of the 38 ways. I have done this on more than one occasion yet you continued to do the same thing.

There will be no way to reason with you as long as you persist in this blatantly irrational and hypocritical behavior.
Say what you like in order to make your own moral victory; I have nothing to feel guilty about. I am not making personal accusations that are intentionally insulting (as I have received); I stand firm that I have a good conscience in trying to understand God's word (as imperfect as my understanding might be).

(1 Peter 3) 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

I consider I am having a good conversation in Christ; can you say the same?

All the best

David

Twospirits

10-10-2012, 10:44 AM

David M wrote,

This is your conclusion but if our readers want to follow these things through, I trust that they will find it is not me who is contradicting what the Bible teaches. I am not so arrogant to think I know best, or that I am better educated than you, but I endeavor to understand the scriptures to the best of my ability and despite what you say, I am actively looking for truth and not taking for granted interpretations of scriptures of others. I will read and listen and if I can find a grain of truth I have not seen before, I will take it on board. I am not churning out copied and saved material as a means of giving an answer. I am working on a document which I shall post shortly and expect you to take me to task on, but it is my sincere way of understanding what the scriptures say and making the best sense of it. The title I have in mind is; "When is the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy?' This will contradict your thread entitled; 'Daniel's 70 Weeks were fulfilled in 70 AD!' This will cut across your claim that I cannot refute the argument you were having with Two spirits that Jesus was not talking of the future beyond AD70. I won't say anymore as that the discussion will continue after I post my new thread. I am checking for typos and any errors and I shall post shortly.

All the best

David

Hi David,

I'm glad to see you strive to find the truth of scripture, there are to few today that do this. Well, this ought to be very interesting so lets see where it leads us. I will do what I can to help in this area of eschatology, so I hope to see the thread posted shortly. There is much evidence that shows that Daniel's 70 weeks were not fulfilled in 70 A.D.

So what are we waiting for? :winking0071:

God bless---Twospirits

Gil

10-10-2012, 10:59 AM

Howdy David and Richard,

More to ponder on David:

Gil > David is right ( from my POV) that the heavens referred to were spiritual heavens.
What you do not take note of is the fact that there are two heavens associated with man as he dwells upon this earth.

The Heaven in which God the Father dwelled within Jesus > Christ and the heaven which the Spirit of man called Satan had dwelled within, as the then new Father of the children of Israel whom the woman (Israel) took on as a new Husband, and a bloody one as that.

The place where God finds his dwelling place within man post AD 70, is within the Christ. It is a heaven in relation to man and where one finds the presence of the Spirit of God the father and the presence of the spirit of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ.
Of the twain being made but One Spirit in Christ. A place where the Spirit may have a relationship with his creation.

Gil > What a difference a word makes!
It says " IN " not " ON " earth. [ " IN " earth as it is " IN " heaven.]
Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.

Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
[ Some of the older manuscripts say " but deliver us from the evil one ".]

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Gil > They ,their own Bodies as both individuals and as a Whole were the Temple of God in a physical sense.
A direct statement showing them that the worldly Temple made with hands was the false Temple of the Spirit
of God the Father. If so, who did dwell within the Temple made with hands? I say the Spirit of Man himself.

We however are not seen to be a Temple or tabernacle.
We are the BOC. As individuals ,we in Christ are the flesh and bone of Jesus Christ himself.
It is here where we pass through the body of the cross and are raised up in the body of the resurrection.

Gil > Three heavens?
The One [ The physical /material Cosmos]
The two [ The Mental heavens of which there were two.]
The heaven which contained both good and evil in which sin was not counted as sin.
The heaven which contained only evil where Sin was counted as Sin. Sin that came through the Law and covenant of death.
The three [ The Spiritual heaven where one finds the presence of the Spirit of the Father and the presence of the Spirit of Jesus Christ where of the twain they are made but One Spirit in Christ.

Gil :pop2:
-----------------

Richard Amiel McGough

10-10-2012, 11:20 AM

Thy will be done on earth (by all people) as it is done in heaven (by those who died in faith).

The beauty of this interpretation is that it is symmetric. It is speaking of the same kinds of beings on earth as in heaven. This is called "consistency" - something that is of utmost importance when interpreting the Bible. Of course, you couldn't think of this possibility because you hold to the unbiblical doctrine that those who died in faith are not alive with God in heaven. But this directly contradicts the words of Christ when he said:
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 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. 33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

And your doctrine is contradicted again by the fact that Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ on the mount of transfiguration:
Matthew 17:1-4 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."

It was the hope of Jesus that the will of God would be done by all people and it will be done in God's kingdom that Jesus will restore when he returns. As for "by those who died in faith" being in heaven, where do you get this from? This is teaching we go to Heaven when we die and God is very clear when he says; (Eccl 3:19) 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: for all is vanity. God teaches of the resurrection that is in store for the belivers so that those who have died and are waiting the resurrection are not in Heaven doing God's will. So I ask you again, who else is there in Heaven besides God's Angels?

Good morning David,

Why did you ask "where do you get this from"? I gave my answer in the post to which you responded.

Your assertion that the verse from Ecclesiastes makes it "very clear" is false because that verse contradicts other verses. Therefore, it is not clear at all. If anything is clear, it is that the Bible is sufficiently ambiguous on this point to allow believers to make up whatever they want with no way of proving who is right or wrong. You happen to hold a minority view. That doesn't mean you are wrong, but it does show that if you are right then the vast majority of Christians are wrong on this point and that only confirms again that the Bible is too ambiguous to be used as proof of anything.

The beauty of this interpretation is that it is symmetric. It is speaking of the same kinds of beings on earth as in heaven. This is called "consistency" - something that is of utmost importance when interpreting the Bible. Of course, you couldn't think of this possibility because you hold to the unbiblical doctrine that those who died in faith are not alive with God in heaven. But this directly contradicts the words of Christ when he said:
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 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. 33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

There is no contradiction, for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead as though sleeping. There resurrection is assured. For those who die, there next waking moment is but a second, it is like going to sleep and waking up. That is what is meant By God being the God of the living. It is the dead who have no hope and who will not be raised from the dead that will remain dead and who will not be alive as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be. It is good if we can agree that whether you think they are alive now or as I think they will be alive at the resurrection, that they will be in the kingdom of God wherever and whenever that is.

Any sleeping person is alive, so I can see why you would want to say that they are "dead as though sleeping" since you must try to make your interpretation consistent with the fact that Jesus said they were alive. But your solution is logically incoherent because you are suggesting that they were "dead as though living in a state of sleep but actually dead." It makes no sense.

Everyone is free to make up whatever they want to force the Bible to fit their interpretations. That's what proves the Bible is utterly useless as a proof of anything. Equally sincere and intelligent believers come to opposite conclusions depending on how they "harmonize" the Bible. There is no way to determine who is right or wrong.

As for what I think the Bible really teaches on this point - I think it is too ambiguous to come to any firm conclusion. But if I were forced to give an answer, I would say that the traditional view that those who died in faith are "with the Lord" is the best fit to the biblical data.

And your doctrine is contradicted again by the fact that Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ on the mount of transfiguration:
Matthew 17:1-4 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."

This is one or those visions that the disciples witnessed that would suggest that Moses and Elijah are not dead waiting the resurrection. Maybe these are two special cases that are untypical of all those who died. Also take into consideration Hebrews 11:13; These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. and who is this speaking of but the same Abraham as in verse 8; By faith Abraham,
I do not think I am being inconsistent. Whatever you think, I am looking for consistency. I am not wresting scripture as you might well do by not taking all scripture into account and accepting all possible interpretations before deriving the correct understanding of all to come to see the harmony that is there. You have presented me with an interpretation which as I see it is contradicting other scriptures. This is the basis on which we must avoid personalities and concentrate on the facts as you like to do.
Moses and Elijah are two prophets and servants of God that we do not know of their death. There is Enoch who we are told; And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. Because we are not told that Moses or Elijah died, we might assume that God took them also. This does not negate the fact that all other people who have died remain in the grave until resurrected.

I'm glad you see that you are making up ad hoc explanations to "harmonize" this passage with the doctrine you hold. I say that you see it because you suggest that "Maybe these are two special cases that are untypical of all those who died." This shows that you are simply making up whatever explanation needed to force this verse to fit your doctrines. I think it would be better if you changed your doctrines to fit the verses!

Your doctrines contradict the entire Bible, from beginning to end.
This is your conclusion but if our readers want to follow these things through, I trust that they will find it is not me who is contradicting what the Bible teaches. I am not so arrogant to think I know best, or that I am better educated than you, but I endeavor to understand the scriptures to the best of my ability and despite what you say, I am actively looking for truth and not taking for granted interpretations of scriptures of others. I will read and listen and if I can find a grain of truth I have not seen before, I will take it on board. I am not churning out copied and saved material as a means of giving an answer.

Anyone reading can see that your interpretations frequently contradict the plain sense of the text. The proof is simple - you must reinterpret almost every verse we touch! You accept almost nothing as given. Now this doesn't mean you are wrong, but if you are right then we know the Bible is utterly useless as a "proof" of anything because you are saying that almost everyone has gotten it wrong for two thousand years. And worse, the explanations you give feel forced and the arguments are seem very weak and filled with inconsistencies so if you are right then all you have proven is that we can't even trust basic logic to understand the Bible.

I am working on a document which I shall post shortly and expect you to take me to task on, but it is my sincere way of understanding what the scriptures say and making the best sense of it. The title I have in mind is; "When is the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy?' This will contradict your thread entitled; 'Daniel's 70 Weeks were fulfilled in 70 AD!' This will cut across your claim that I cannot refute the argument you were having with Two spirits that Jesus was not talking of the future beyond AD70. I won't say anymore as that the discussion will continue after I post my new thread. I am checking for typos and any errors and I shall post shortly.

That should prove very interesting. I look forward to it.

All the very best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

10-10-2012, 11:31 AM

Hi David,

I'm glad to see you strive to find the truth of scripture, there are to few today that do this. Well, this ought to be very interesting so lets see where it leads us. I will do what I can to help in this area of eschatology, so I hope to see the thread posted shortly. There is much evidence that shows that Daniel's 70 weeks were not fulfilled in 70 A.D.

So what are we waiting for? :winking0071:

God bless---Twospirits

Hey there Henry, :yo:

Glad you stopped by for a visit. I agree, David's article should be interesting. And I think it will be nice to have a "fresh start" with new material.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

10-10-2012, 12:04 PM

There it is. PROOF that YOU are the one who introduced the "other definition of heaven" IN YOUR OPENING POST in this thread! So now you can have the great joy of applying your own words to yourself.
OK. I introduced the three possibilities of what heaven might mean but this is as you agree is when I was explaining the 'the war in Heaven'. Somehow the argument got on to the paradox about angels sinning and God's will not done in heaven. It was in this context that I said you were the first to refer to the physical heavens. The paradox that has to be explained is firmly in Heaven which is the dwelling place of God. You can introduce the physical heaven if you wish by way of not explaining away the paradox that I am talking about. I said we had got off topic and it is not fair to mix up topics and stray away from the topic we should be discussing. I went along with you explanations as to the paradox I introduced in another thread, but really we should not have been mixing up the two subjects that are different.

It is good that you admitted your mistake. That's progress I guess.

"Somehow the argument got on to the paradox about angels sinning and God's will not done in heaven."
It was not "somehow." It is the foundation of your presumed paradox which is based on the assertion that "If God's will is done in location X then beings in location X cannot sin." There is much biblical evidence that angels can or at least could sin "in heaven" just as people sin on earth. You assert that your interpretation of the Bible is the only possible interpretation. I have shown that is not true. Given the fluidity of the meaning of words, anyone can make up an "harmonization" they like and there is no way to prove which is correct, if any.

I have asked you to quit from saying dogma. What I have come to accept, I am not going to prostitute and throw away. Everything you write and say, I can say is your dogma, for you are supporting interpretations you once believed. Therefore, I cannot disassociate your dogma that you once held. From now on lets not even mention the word dogma.

OK - I will refrain from the use of dogma. But I don't see why you object since it seems perfectly clear that you hold to dogmas that you have received from the Christadelphians. Is there a single doctrine they hold that you do not agree with? This is very significant because it seems entirely unlikely that you could have arrived at the same set of fringe doctrines through independent Bible study.

Therefore, you speak of yourself when you say: trying to introduce any other definition of Heaven is a distraction. You do not realize how many of the 38 ways to win an argument you are deploying.
You can say that now, but it is nowhere near the number of distractions you have introduced, but I want to get off this silliness; we have been in this same situation to many times.

Don't be absurd. Those are your words that you falsely threw at me but which actually apply to you.

The things you call "distractions" were the exact opposite. And last time you tried to convict me of using some of the "38 tricks" totally backfired because you cited my response to CWH when in fact it was CWH who was guilty of using many of those tricks. And as far as I recall, you never admitted your error. But you keep making blatantly false assertions about me using those techniques. You really need to stop with the false accusations. I have proven you false. Have you no dignity?

You have accused yourself of using the "38 dishonest tricks to win an argument." How's that for irony?
Please point out to me when I do, I do not believe that I have in the way you have tried to show. I admitted when I introduced the 38 ways that I can be guilty of doing so, even though trying to avoid doing so. In future, please point it out at the time of my using instead of making a general comment just because I have pointed out to you your repeated use of some of the 38 ways. I have done this on more than one occasion yet you continued to do the same thing.

Please follow your own advice! You have frequently and repeatedly accused me of using the "38 ways" without giving any evidence supporting your assertion.

There is a great irony in your constant unsupported accusation that I use the "38 ways" because that is itself one of the "38 ways." And so again you succeed only in accusing yourself. And an even greater irony is that this is what Christ warned of when he said:
Luke 6:42 How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

That verse applies to you and your constant false accusations that I employ the "38 ways."

There will be no way to reason with you as long as you persist in this blatantly irrational and hypocritical behavior.
Say what you like in order to make your own moral victory; I have nothing to feel guilty about. I am not making personal accusations that are intentionally insulting (as I have received); I stand firm that I have a good conscience in trying to understand God's word (as imperfect as my understanding might be).

(1 Peter 3) 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

I consider I am having a good conversation in Christ; can you say the same?

Your constant stream of false accusations that I employ the "38 ways" most definitely is something you should feel guilty. You are constantly making "personal accusations." If they are not intended as insults, then you would do well to learn how to communicate your intentions better.

As for having a "good conversation in Christ" - yes, I can say the same so long as we understand that "in Christ" means in the spirit of one who holds to the highest moral and intellectual standards.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

10-10-2012, 12:15 PM

Howdy David and Richard,

More to ponder on David:

Gil > David is right ( from my POV) that the heavens referred to were spiritual heavens.
What you do not take note of is the fact that there are two heavens associated with man as he dwells upon this earth.

Hey ho Gil, :yo:

When you say "David is right" are you saying that Peter was wrong and that angels cannot sin? Specifically, how do you interpret this verse?

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;

The Heaven in which God the Father dwelled within Jesus > Christ and the heaven which the Spirit of man called Satan had dwelled within, as the then new Father of the children of Israel whom the woman (Israel) took on as a new Husband, and a bloody one as that.

I've never heard of "heaven" being the place where "God the Father dwelled witthin Jesus Christ." I know that the Bible says the fulness of God dwelt in Christ, but I never heard that referred to as "heaven." Where did you get that idea? There may be some merit to to it in a symbolic sense. I don't know.

The place where God finds his dwelling place within man post AD 70, is within the Christ. It is a heaven in relation to man and where one finds the presence of the Spirit of God the father and the presence of the spirit of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ.
Of the twain being made but One Spirit in Christ. A place where the Spirit may have a relationship with his creation.

That makes some sense, though I don't know if we would be justified to call it "heaven."

Gil > What a difference a word makes!
It says " IN " not " ON " earth. [ " IN " earth as it is " IN " heaven.]
Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.

Good observation. In vs on.

Gil > They ,their own Bodies as both individuals and as a Whole were the Temple of God in a physical sense.
A direct statement showing them that the worldly Temple made with hands was the false Temple of the Spirit
of God the Father. If so, who did dwell within the Temple made with hands? I say the Spirit of Man himself.

Yep, that seems to be what the NT says.

We however are not seen to be a Temple or tabernacle.
We are the BOC. As individuals ,we in Christ are the flesh and bone of Jesus Christ himself.
It is here where we pass through the body of the cross and are raised up in the body of the resurrection.

That doesn't make any sense to me. The Body of Christ is the Temple, and we are "pillars" and "living stones" in that temple. And we are like little temples ourselves, so the Temple of the Body of Christ is made of living stones that are themselves temples.

Gil > Three heavens?
The One [ The physical /material Cosmos]
The two [ The Mental heavens of which there were two.]
The heaven which contained both good and evil in which sin was not counted as sin.
The heaven which contained only evil where Sin was counted as Sin. Sin that came through the Law and covenant of death.
The three [ The Spiritual heaven where one finds the presence of the Spirit of the Father and the presence of the Spirit of Jesus Christ where of the twain they are made but One Spirit in Christ.

Gil :pop2:
-----------------

"Mental heavens" - that's a new idea I had not thought of before.

A heaven where sin is not counted as sin? That's another new definition.

A heaven that contained only evil? Never heard of that one either, and it sounds like an oxymoron.

David M

10-12-2012, 03:05 AM

Anyone reading can see that your interpretations frequently contradict the plain sense of the text. The proof is simple - you must reinterpret almost every verse we touch! You accept almost nothing as given. Now this doesn't mean you are wrong, but if you are right then we know the Bible is utterly useless as a "proof" of anything because you are saying that almost everyone has gotten it wrong for two thousand years. And worse, the explanations you give feel forced and the arguments are seem very weak and filled with inconsistencies so if you are right then all you have proven is that we can't even trust basic logic to understand the Bible.

That should prove very interesting. I look forward to it.

All the very best,

Richard

Hello Richard

I am pleased your reply has been in such a way that I feel we are back on track and might continue from here to have a sane discussion between us. Let's both try to refrain from saying anything about another person's interpretation of scripture as; "that is absurd or ridiculous" and just accept we are expressing different ways to understand the scriptures. I know that absurd things are spoken on this forum and have nothing to do with scripture or are devoid of any understanding of scripture. I can sometimes agree with you when you say that something is absurd.

The fact is that the verses in scripture can be understood in several ways, though as the author intends us to know, there is only one true interpretation. I think we have far more words in the dictionary to help us communicate in words today than perhaps there were at the time the scriptures were written; you know more about this than me. The Bible uses symbolic language and figurative language and so we have to apply our own language to understand this type of language as best we can.

As we know by our own English language, words can have several meanings and it is knowing what meaning to apply. The same will go for Hebrew and Greek and I leave you to bring that knowledge to the table. I do not think the authors of the scriptures and God are deliberately using innuendo to suggest something other than what is written, or we are intended to understand. However, the style of language used in the Bible does leave us to search for an interpretation in the scriptures that can supply the interpretation. This is far better than a man-made interpretation which is likely to be wrong and is not supported by scripture. It is clear in the way Jesus uses parables. His message made sense as a simple story relating to everyday situations that people were familiar with, but Jesus had an implied spiritual meaning that only those who had "eyes to see" could perceive the spiritual message and would understand how it related to the physical reality of the kingdom of God on earth to come.

The verses I do take at face value and do not look for another explanation, you will argue against me. I understand why you do this, because (the same argument applies to you as you use against me) you have to fit in with your own doctrine or dogma. For example, when God's Angels (doing the will of God) said to the disciples; Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven., this tells me to expect Jesus to come back the earth in the same body as he went into heaven and he will come back in the same (like) manner. By the word "like", I use the word "same" and I do not take these words to mean "similar". This is in-keeping with the teaching of God's kingdom on earth ("Thy Kingdom come" (on earth)...) and the time when "God's Glory shall fill the whole earth". That time is future from now and from the time when the scriptures were written.

There has to be some firm foundations and I am not sure we have any firm foundations that we have in common. This is what God has said through the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 28:16);Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. And this is the question God asked Job to answer (Job 38:6); Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?

The cornerstone stone is Jesus (the Christ) (Eph 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:6). We all know the importance a corner stone in a building and how it has to be perfectly upright and have perfectly square corners which are used to ensure the construction keeps the whole building perfectly level and straight. Jesus is the cornerstone to God's whole purpose of creating the earth and populating it with "man" (in the image of God).
These foundations which built on Jesus, I believe are these: Jesus was born of a woman and was man. He was a man in every sense of our understanding of what it is to be human. Jesus lived a perfect (sinless) life. Jesus was the most humble person that has ever lived. Jesus died and was resurrected. Jesus was given immortality and given and incorruptible body. Jesus was given and will have again all the power of God (God's Holy Spirit) available to him to use to accomplish God's purpose on earth.

It is on that foundation that I believe in the kingdom of God on earth that will last forever, and believers will be raised to eternal life and have the same nature (body) as Jesus living in the kingdom of God on earth.

That is my "sure foundation" on which I will build my arguments for understanding prophecy and understanding the whole of God's word. I will only reason from God's word even though reading and listening to other interpretations by men of that word is helpful to get to the proper understanding we are meant to have. Limited as we are to the 66 books of the Bible, this is sufficient to get all the answers we need.

All the very best to you Richard.

David

PS. Every day as I read the Bible and read the posts on this forum, I get reason to modify my thinking and learn new things. My intended post will not be a lengthy document, but will be several pages and will not be earth shattering, and will give us reason to think that the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy might not be as we have thought it to be. I will probably post it as a pdf document to keep the formatting and we comment on the parts of the document we disagree with or can add to. I am constantly thinking that I ought to include this or that, but I have no intention to write a book. I am not going back to the fundamentals to explain everything from the beginning. That is why I have stated the firm foundations on which I believe and which are in accordance with the word of God.

David M

10-12-2012, 03:33 AM

Howdy David and Richard,

More to ponder on David:

Gil > What a difference a word makes!
It says " IN " not " ON " earth. [ " IN " earth as it is " IN " heaven.]
Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Hello Gil
Thanks for your insight. I am not sure I agree with all your definitions of heaven and I know Richard has replied to your post and asked you some questions that will be interesting to know your answers to.

It is interesting the point you make about "in" and "on" and as I read that I had the sudden thought that God wants His will to be done "in earth"(ly) man; i.e. man made of earth. Jesus was made of earth and was not made of the substance of God. God is ONE and His substance cannot be shared. God's Angels are not of God's substance. Are we to conclude from Hebrews (2:7 or 2:9) that the substance of the earth is lower than the substance of the Angels? (Hebrews 2:9) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels (comment - why? The answer is ) for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Angels cannot sin, but if they did, they would have to die (the soul that sinneth it shall die (Eze 18:4)) Now if the Angels were to be saved how were their sins to be covered and if Jesus is to judge God's Angels did Jesus die to cover the sins of God's Angels or was if for human angels? That is my own humble opinion of why I believe God's Angels in Heaven cannot and do not sin and have never sinned in the past.

There is a denomination that used to say (quoting from Revelation 5:10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. That was in print, but they later reprinted their own Bible.
In order to conform to their later understanding after the failed return of Jesus as predicted to be in 1914, their understanding was modified. Hence, they now have the word "above" in place of the word "on". This is just one example why I cannot accept a lot of other false teachings by that denomination and which other denominations have followed.

All the best

David

CWH

10-12-2012, 03:35 AM

Don't be absurd. Those are your words that you falsely threw at me but which actually apply to you.

The things you call "distractions" were the exact opposite. And last time you tried to convict me of using some of the "38 tricks" totally backfired because you cited my response to CWH when in fact it was CWH who was guilty of using many of those tricks. And as far as I recall, you never admitted your error. But you keep making blatantly false assertions about me using those techniques. You really need to stop with the false accusations. I have proven you false. Have you no dignity?

I don't bother why my name is always mentioned and falsely accused as long as my conscience is clear. You may say that I used those tricks and I believe everybody is guilty of using those 38 tricks. RAM likes to use those tricks of ignoring answering questions and then start bad-mouthing one's integrity shows that he dare not answer this simple question from his own perspective for fear of losing, "What are the main problems that evolutionists faced in the theory of evolution (from RAM's perspectives)"? .....why couldn't he answer this simple question?....makes one suspicious. I was falsely accused of diverting the issues etc. As I said, I stick to my promise that the thread will not continue until this question is answered.

God Blessed.:pray:

David M

10-12-2012, 04:24 AM

CWH

10-12-2012, 10:11 AM

Hello Cheow

I had not read Richard's reply to my post and I have only just replied to the post before his last reply to me. As far as I know, I was not even replying to Richard about a point you made to which he was replying. I did not have you in mind when I was making my reply to Richard. This is how we get diverted and side-tracked. I shall ignore continuing down that side trail and only pointing out that it is another side trail to introduce a reference to you (that is if and when I reply). Maybe Richard's selective recall is better than our own. His to access to forum posts and being able to nest comments is something I find difficult. The problem is, we end up going down side trails to the the main topic, which in this case is; 'The War in Heaven - Rev 12:17' and I end up on the topic of God's Angels doing God's will in Heaven and was the subject of a separate thread.

As you say, and as I have made the point at least twice to Richard, we are all guilty of using any of those 38 ways unknowingly and unintentionally. Richard continues to use the same, even after I have pointed out his use of one of the techniques. Now that might not be his intention and so he needs to stop and think before he posts. If I am the only one to think this, then I do not expect you to agree with me, but when I see you and others saying the same thing, then surely we count as two or more witnesses to the fact.

Going down side trails and going off topic is why we never reach a proper conclusion to a thread that has been started. There are times we need to be asked to explain things better in order to make our comments understandable, but if we ask a question first, we should be answered first before we are asked to answer a question in return.

I hope the topics in future will adhere closely to the title of the thread and not go off track. I hope you get an answer to the question you have asked first in the thread you started. If I am mistaken in this, then Richard can put me right.

All the best Cheow

David

Hi David,

I understand your frustrations talking to RAM. I have interacted with RAM since 2008 and I know all his tactics he used in debates in this forum. Don't be despair, we are here seeking the truth and preventing all believers falling into the hands of atheists. They do not know what they are doing. Like Saul before the conversion of Paul, they thought getting rid of Christians and Christianity is a good thing. Hope God will one day proves them wrong so that they will repent.

I agree that we should not deviate from the topic at hand which is War in Heaven - Rev 12: 17. My take is the same as yours and I do not believe in a literal war in heaven. I believe "War in Heaven" means a period in time in earth's history in which the conflicts between good and evil was fought involving God's people. In the Bible, the wars that God's people fought were against evil on earth and therefore "War" means the fight between good and evil on earth. "In Heaven" means in the spiritual realm. Therefore, "War in Heaven" means the spiritual warfare between good and evil fought on earth or in a period in earth's history involving God's people. This is explained in this article:

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/war-in-heaven?lang=eng

I did not involve actively in your debate with RAM on angels sinning or not sinning in heaven as it may deviate out of topic. My take is that both of you are right.
David : Angels do not sin in heaven; it makes a mockery out of the kingdom of heaven. God would have destroyed all sinning angels.
RAM: Angels did sin heaven as the Bible says so
My take is somewhere in between. Angels do not sin but some angels played a sinning role in testing humans with sin and evil to see the extent of their propensity for sin and evil. If their progress is to be more sinful and evil, they will be destroyed but if they repent and become good and righteous, they will be saved.

God Blessed. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

10-12-2012, 10:31 AM

I don't bother why my name is always mentioned and falsely accused as long as my conscience is clear. You may say that I used those tricks and I believe everybody is guilty of using those 38 tricks. RAM likes to use those tricks of ignoring answering questions and then start bad-mouthing one's integrity shows that he dare not answer this simple question from his own perspective for fear of losing, "What are the main problems that evolutionists faced in the theory of evolution (from RAM's perspectives)"? .....why couldn't he answer this simple question?....makes one suspicious. I was falsely accused of diverting the issues etc. As I said, I stick to my promise that the thread will not continue until this question is answered.

God Blessed.:pray:
Hey there CWH,

It was DAVID who dragged your name into this conversation when he quoted one of your posts where you were dodging my challenge in his mistaken attempt to convict me of doing what you were doing. Simple as that. Of course, he never admitted his error or showed any sense of moral truth by acknowledging that you were indeed doing the very thing he accused me of doing.

You know that I caught you in a falsehood months ago, and that you ran and hid and refused to answer and then insisted that I answer a question that you asked AFTER refusing to answer my question. I explained all this many times and you constantly refuse to admit the truth. I have a thread devoted to it and you still refuse to answer. Here it is again, from the thread A Challenge for CWH (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3271-A-Challenge-for-CWH). Note that I have repeatedly said I would answer your question about problems with evolution if you ever showed sufficient integrity to stand by your own words.

Oh, so you want to act like the Cleverbot (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3243-AI-Cleverbot-ain-t-so-clever) again? That ain't so clever, my friend. When the Cleverbot gets stumped it starts robotically mimicking the human. That's what you are doing right now. You have refused to answer many of my questions no matter how many times I ask. You evade, dodge, falsely claim that you did answer, and change the subject. So now in your mindless robotic brain you think you are going to throw all that back in my face and pretend that I'm the one who refuses to answer questions? Fat chance.

I would be happy to answer your questions after you demonstrate that you are not just a Cleverbot. Here is what you need to do:

1) Admit that you were wrong in post #58 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47425#post47425) of this thread when you falsely asserted that the scientific report implied "500 million year old genes and no mutations." I have brought this to your attention twice and you have refused to acknowledge the question, let along admit your error.

2) Answer my questions about the video link I posted in post #11 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47118#post47118). I repeated the same questions four times but you refused to answer. Here is how I presented the questions in post #33 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47209#post47209):
What was the conclusion stated in the video?

What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?

Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?
Please try to answer those questions with some semblance of intelligence.

3) You recently challenged me to answer a 90 minute creationist video after you refused to respond to the answers I had already given to the 9 minute video you posted in post #75 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46949#post46949) of the What's the Best Evidence for Evolution? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution) thread. In post #82 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46962#post46962) of that thread I showed that the video was produced by creationist liars, frauds, and deceivers. So if you want me to answer another video or any other question you present, you must first respond to the answers I have already given.

4) Demonstrate that you have any knowledge of evolution at all by presenting the best evidence for the theory in the thread called What's the Best Evidence for Evolution? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution).

5) Admit that you have been deliberately evading these questions that I have been repeating over and over and over again. I collected them all together earlier in post #59 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47426#post47426) of this thread and you ignored them all as usual. Then you tried to cover your tracks by changing the subject. Your behavior is making me think that you really are a Cleverbot. I'm not joking. I am seriously considering the possibility that I'm being hoaxed by some "clever" programmers who want to see how long it will take me to figure it out. You show no signs of any human awareness at all. You write like you are a machine that does not understand context, meaning, or trains of thought. If you are human, then please try to demonstrate this by responding intelligently to what I am saying to you.

Thanks!

:sunny:

Richard Amiel McGough

10-12-2012, 10:35 AM

Hi David,

I understand your frustrations talking to RAM. I have interacted with RAM since 2008 and I know all his tactics he used in debates in this forum. Don't be despair, we are here seeking the truth and preventing all believers falling into the hands of atheists. They do not know what they are doing. Like Saul before the conversion of Paul, they thought getting rid of Christians and Christianity is a good thing. Hope God will one day proves them wrong so that they will repent.

Your false accusations are plain for all to see CWH. It is all documented. I caught you in a falsehood and you refused to answer and THEN you made up your demand that I answer your questions so you could run and hide from the truth. It is all documented for everyone to see. Here is is again:

CWH has repeatedly posted false assertions on this forum and when I point them out to him, he runs and hides and refuses to answer. Then he posts more false assertions, and when I prove him wrong he runs and hides and refuses to answer. So I collected up a few of his recent offenses and asked him to answer and he did as he always does. He ran and hid and refused to answer. Here is the post that he needs to answer (from post #76 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47473#post47473) in the thread The Simplest Cell (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell)):

================================================== =======
============= CHALLENGE TO CHEOW WEE HOCK=====================
================================================== =======

Oh, so you want to act like the Cleverbot (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3243-AI-Cleverbot-ain-t-so-clever) again? That ain't so clever, my friend. When the Cleverbot gets stumped it starts robotically mimicking the human. That's what you are doing right now. You have refused to answer many of my questions no matter how many times I ask. You evade, dodge, falsely claim that you did answer, and change the subject. So now in your mindless robotic brain you think you are going to throw all that back in my face and pretend that I'm the one who refuses to answer questions? Fat chance.

I would be happy to answer your questions after you demonstrate that you are not just a Cleverbot. Here is what you need to do:

1) Admit that you were wrong in post #58 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47425#post47425) of this thread when you falsely asserted that the scientific report implied "500 million year old genes and no mutations." I have brought this to your attention twice and you have refused to acknowledge the question, let along admit your error.

2) Answer my questions about the video link I posted in post #11 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47118#post47118). I repeated the same questions four times but you refused to answer. Here is how I presented the questions in post #33 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47209#post47209):
What was the conclusion stated in the video?

What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?

Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?

Please try to answer those questions with some semblance of intelligence.

3) You recently challenged me to answer a 90 minute creationist video after you refused to respond to the answers I had already given to the 9 minute video you posted in post #75 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46949#post46949) of the What's the Best Evidence for Evolution? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution) thread. In post #82 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46962#post46962) of that thread I showed that the video was produced by creationist liars, frauds, and deceivers. So if you want me to answer another video or any other question you present, you must first respond to the answers I have already given.

4) Demonstrate that you have any knowledge of evolution at all by presenting the best evidence for the theory in the thread called What's the Best Evidence for Evolution? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution).

5) Admit that you have been deliberately evading these questions that I have been repeating over and over and over again. I collected them all together earlier in post #59 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47426#post47426) of this thread and you ignored them all as usual. Then you tried to cover your tracks by changing the subject. Your behavior is making me think that you really are a Cleverbot. I'm not joking. I am seriously considering the possibility that I'm being hoaxed by some "clever" programmers who want to see how long it will take me to figure it out. You show no signs of any human awareness at all. You write like you are a machine that does not understand context, meaning, or trains of thought. If you are human, then please try to demonstrate this by responding intelligently to what I am saying to you.

Thanks!

:sunny:

I agree that we should not deviate from the topic at hand which is War in Heaven - Rev 12: 17. My take is the same as yours and I do not believe in a literal war in heaven. I believe "War in Heaven" means a period in time in earth's history in which the conflicts between good and evil was fought involving God's people. In the Bible, the wars that God's people fought were against evil on earth and therefore "War" means the fight between good and evil on earth. "In Heaven" means in the spiritual realm. Therefore, "War in Heaven" means the spiritual warfare between good and evil fought on earth or in a period in earth's history involving God's people. This is explained in this article:

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/war-in-heaven?lang=eng

I did not involve actively in your debate with RAM on angels sinning or not sinning in heaven as it may deviate out of topic. My take is that both of you are right.
David : Angels do not sin in heaven; it makes a mockery out of the kingdom of heaven. God would have destroyed all sinning angels.
RAM: Angels did sin heaven as the Bible says so
My take is somewhere in between. Angels do not sin but some angels played a sinning role in testing humans with sin and evil to see the extent of their propensity for sin and evil. If their progress is to be more sinful and evil, they will be destroyed but if they repent and become good and righteous, they will be saved.

God Blessed. :pray:
Thanks for your input. We have yet another interpretation of Revelation 12. It looks like there are as many interpretations as there are interpreters.

CWH

10-12-2012, 10:46 AM

Your false accusations are plain for all to see CWH. It is all documented. I caught you in a falsehood and you refused to answer and THEN you made up your demand that I answer your questions so you could run and hide from the truth. It is all documented for everyone to see. Here is is again:

Thanks for your input. We have yet another interpretation of Revelation 12. It looks like there are as many interpretations as there are interpreters.

Say and accuse me and name me whatever you like, I am not bothered as my conscience is clear. I never hide from the truth, Just answer this SIMPLE question and I will answer yours. I have said that the thread will not move until this SIMPLE question is answered. This is no trap. Why can't you answer this simple question, are you paranoid?... "What are the problems that evolutionists faced in the theory of evolution(from RAM's perspective)?

God Blessed.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

10-12-2012, 10:52 AM

Hello Cheow

I had not read Richard's reply to my post and I have only just replied to the post before his last reply to me. As far as I know, I was not even replying to Richard about a point you made to which he was replying. I did not have you in mind when I was making my reply to Richard. This is how we get diverted and side-tracked. I shall ignore continuing down that side trail and only pointing out that it is another side trail to introduce a reference to you (that is if and when I reply). Maybe Richard's selective recall is better than our own. His to access to forum posts and being able to nest comments is something I find difficult. The problem is, we end up going down side trails to the the main topic, which in this case is; 'The War in Heaven - Rev 12:17' and I end up on the topic of God's Angels doing God's will in Heaven and was the subject of a separate thread.

As you say, and as I have made the point at least twice to Richard, we are all guilty of using any of those 38 ways unknowingly and unintentionally. Richard continues to use the same, even after I have pointed out his use of one of the techniques. Now that might not be his intention and so he needs to stop and think before he posts. If I am the only one to think this, then I do not expect you to agree with me, but when I see you and others saying the same thing, then surely we count as two or more witnesses to the fact.

Going down side trails and going off topic is why we never reach a proper conclusion to a thread that has been started. There are times we need to be asked to explain things better in order to make our comments understandable, but if we ask a question first, we should be answered first before we are asked to answer a question in return.

I hope the topics in future will adhere closely to the title of the thread and not go off track. I hope you get an answer to the question you have asked first in the thread you started. If I am mistaken in this, then Richard can put me right.

All the best Cheow

David
Good morning David,

You brought CWH into our debate when you used one of his posts where he was using many of the "38 dishonest tricks" in your failed attempt to falsely convict me of doing what he was doing. I'm talking about Post #52 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3357-Take-away-the-daily-sacrifice-Daniel-11-31&p=49562#post49562) in the Take away the daily sacrifice - Daniel 11:31 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3357-Take-away-the-daily-sacrifice-Daniel-11-31) thread. Here is what you wrote:

Example 3
Another example by a different contributor making the point that you are distracting from the question asked. Challenging with another question which you want answered first is a distraction.

What challenge is this when you can't even answer my simple question which I am the first to insist that the thread will not move on unless this question is answered. This is the question again which I would lie to hear from RAM:

I have asked a simple question but instead receive a long reply unrelated to my request. The question is :

What do evolutionists think are the Flaws in the Theory of Evolution? Is it wrong to ask this rational question so that we can understand the thinking behind the evolutionists? To seek the truth, one must see perspectives and issues in both ways. To say that the theory of Evolution have no flaw is totally BIASED. I do admit that creationism have some flaws such as the timing but will the evolutionists do likewise and admit their flaws? And when I asked why so many critics against the theory of evolution and the answer that RAM gave was they were all brainwashed and are liars etc. Why would they lie? What gain are they after? Many are the same as me questioning to find out the truth of the theory of evolution same as Rose and RAM questioning the bible God.

What are the flaws which evolutionists admit in the Theory of Evolution?

This is my post in relation to the issue at hand:

God Blessed.:pray:

You need to admit your error and to explicitly call out CWH for evading the truth for MONTHS on this forum. You have made false accusations against me, and you have allowed CWH's errors to go unchallenged. These are some serious moral failings that make rational discourse impossible. You need to man-up, if you know what I mean.

Thanks.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

10-12-2012, 10:57 AM

Say and accuse me and name me whatever you like, I am not bothered as my conscience is clear. I never hide from the truth, Just answer this SIMPLE question and I will answer yours. I have said that the thread will not move until this SIMPLE question is answered. This is no trap. Why can't you answer this simple question, are you paranoid?... "What are the problems that evolutionists faced in the theory of evolution(from RAM's perspective)?

God Blessed.:pray:

You began demanding that I answer your question AFTER you had refused to answer mine because I CAUGHT YOU IN A LIE that you have never admitted. You did this to DODGE the truth. It is there for all to see. You make yourself look delusional when you refuse to admit the truth that everyone can see.

You don't have to worry about me accusing you CWH. It is YOUR OWN WORDS that accuse you.

Matthew 12:36 "But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. 37 "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Richard Amiel McGough

10-12-2012, 11:17 AM

Hello Richard

I am pleased your reply has been in such a way that I feel we are back on track and might continue from here to have a sane discussion between us. Let's both try to refrain from saying anything about another person's interpretation of scripture as; "that is absurd or ridiculous" and just accept we are expressing different ways to understand the scriptures. I know that absurd things are spoken on this forum and have nothing to do with scripture or are devoid of any understanding of scripture. I can sometimes agree with you when you say that something is absurd.

The fact is that the verses in scripture can be understood in several ways, though as the author intends us to know, there is only one true interpretation. I think we have far more words in the dictionary to help us communicate in words today than perhaps there were at the time the scriptures were written; you know more about this than me. The Bible uses symbolic language and figurative language and so we have to apply our own language to understand this type of language as best we can.

As we know by our own English language, words can have several meanings and it is knowing what meaning to apply. The same will go for Hebrew and Greek and I leave you to bring that knowledge to the table. I do not think the authors of the scriptures and God are deliberately using innuendo to suggest something other than what is written, or we are intended to understand. However, the style of language used in the Bible does leave us to search for an interpretation in the scriptures that can supply the interpretation. This is far better than a man-made interpretation which is likely to be wrong and is not supported by scripture. It is clear in the way Jesus uses parables. His message made sense as a simple story relating to everyday situations that people were familiar with, but Jesus had an implied spiritual meaning that only those who had "eyes to see" could perceive the spiritual message and would understand how it related to the physical reality of the kingdom of God on earth to come.

Good morning David,

I agree with much you say. The question then is "how do we discern between a true and false interpretation?". Mere harmony cannot be the judge because there could be any number of ways to harmonize the same set of verses that come to entirely different conclusions. So how do we know? That is the real question. I'd love to know what you think the solution might be.

The verses I do take at face value and do not look for another explanation, you will argue against me. I understand why you do this, because (the same argument applies to you as you use against me) you have to fit in with your own doctrine or dogma.

Come on David, that's simply not true. I have no dogmas to uphold. It doesn't matter to me in any way at all if angels could or could not sin. What matters to me is to understand and accurately interpret what the Bible says INDEPENDENTLY of anyone's pet dogmas. How is it possible that you don't see this?

For example, when God's Angels (doing the will of God) said to the disciples; Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven., this tells me to expect Jesus to come back the earth in the same body as he went into heaven and he will come back in the same (like) manner. By the word "like", I use the word "same" and I do not take these words to mean "similar". This is in-keeping with the teaching of God's kingdom on earth ("Thy Kingdom come" (on earth)...) and the time when "God's Glory shall fill the whole earth". That time is future from now and from the time when the scriptures were written.

Those verses contradict many other verses, so again, it's just a game of choosing which verses you want to explain away, and which verses you want to accept "as given." There will never be any resolution of this confusion as long as we have no general theory about how to discern between different interpretations.

There has to be some firm foundations and I am not sure we have any firm foundations that we have in common. This is what God has said through the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 28:16);Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. And this is the question God asked Job to answer (Job 38:6); Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?

The cornerstone stone is Jesus (the Christ) (Eph 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:6). We all know the importance a corner stone in a building and how it has to be perfectly upright and have perfectly square corners which are used to ensure the construction keeps the whole building perfectly level and straight. Jesus is the cornerstone to God's whole purpose of creating the earth and populating it with "man" (in the image of God).
These foundations which built on Jesus, I believe are these: Jesus was born of a woman and was man. He was a man in every sense of our understanding of what it is to be human. Jesus lived a perfect (sinless) life. Jesus was the most humble person that has ever lived. Jesus died and was resurrected. Jesus was given immortality and given and incorruptible body. Jesus was given and will have again all the power of God (God's Holy Spirit) available to him to use to accomplish God's purpose on earth.

It is on that foundation that I believe in the kingdom of God on earth that will last forever, and believers will be raised to eternal life and have the same nature (body) as Jesus living in the kingdom of God on earth.

That is my "sure foundation" on which I will build my arguments for understanding prophecy and understanding the whole of God's word. I will only reason from God's word even though reading and listening to other interpretations by men of that word is helpful to get to the proper understanding we are meant to have. Limited as we are to the 66 books of the Bible, this is sufficient to get all the answers we need.

That is not a firm foundation because it is based on many of your own personal interpretations that are highly disputable because they are not based on the main and plain things taught in Scripture. The only foundation that will stand is the foundation built upon the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics (http://www.biblewheel.com/Theology/TheologyIntro.asp). Here is how I explain it:

The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics
Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistimology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology. Application of this rule immediately clears away the debris accumulated from centuries of unfounded speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the true Biblical doctrines of Eschatology.

All the very best to you Richard.

David

Great chatting my friend. You are truly diligent. I hope we can get completely beyond any form of bickering and share a journey into the fascinating world of the Bible.

PS. Every day as I read the Bible and read the posts on this forum, I get reason to modify my thinking and learn new things. My intended post will not be a lengthy document, but will be several pages and will not be earth shattering, and will give us reason to think that the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy might not be as we have thought it to be. I will probably post it as a pdf document to keep the formatting and we comment on the parts of the document we disagree with or can add to. I am constantly thinking that I ought to include this or that, but I have no intention to write a book. I am not going back to the fundamentals to explain everything from the beginning. That is why I have stated the firm foundations on which I believe and which are in accordance with the word of God.
Sounds great!

Gil

10-12-2012, 12:58 PM

Howdy Richard,

Originally Posted by Gil
Howdy David and Richard,

More to ponder on David:

Gil > David is right ( from my POV) that the heavens referred to were spiritual heavens.
What you do not take note of is the fact that there are two heavens associated with man as he dwells upon this earth.
Hey ho Gil,

When you say "David is right" are you saying that Peter was wrong and that angels cannot sin? Specifically, how do you interpret this verse?

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
-------------------------
Gil > I'll at least give you an answer, but don't think you will get much out of it, as a goes against the grain of fundamentalism,futurism and preterist thought.

The heavens were Mental heavens which are also spiritual . They are not the Physical heaven.
The Jews prior to the Law had within their own minds both heaven and hell. Individually and as a Whole Body.
Within their own minds they had the knowledge of both good and evil around which their conscience was formed.
They sinned but sin was not counted as sin.
It was at Sinai when the Law was given to Moses and seen as the covenant of death did Hell manifest itself and Sin became a Sin unto death.
The Angels were the Children of Israel and they had came face to face with Evil and Hell where they would await their Judgment.
The children of Israel were within the heaven which was good but being of fallen flesh a heaven which was evil also was within them .
In other words they fell from the heaven (good) into the heaven ( evil) which was hell. They being no longer in the heaven which was good.
There are angels of good and angels of evil. There are angels of darkness and angels of light.
There were children of darkness and the children of light. (Didache)
The Jews were in darkness
-------------------------------
Originally Posted by Gil
The Heaven in which God the Father dwelled within Jesus > Christ and the heaven which the Spirit of man called Satan had dwelled within, as the then new Father of the children of Israel whom the woman (Israel) took on as a new Husband, and a bloody one as that.

I've never heard of "heaven" being the place where "God the Father dwelled within Jesus Christ." I know that the Bible says the fulness of God dwelt in Christ, but I never heard that referred to as "heaven." Where did you get that idea? There may be some merit to it in a symbolic sense. I don't know.
------------------------------------
Gil > Its a long story that begins in Genesis.
God the Father dwells in heaven in a position of relationship. Within his Son Jesus Christ or within us who are within Christ.
It is within our mind.
To the Jews would Jesus say, "I am in my Father and my Father within me, I am within you and you are within me."
Paul would say" we are in Christ and Christ is within us."
Paul also gave his thoughts on the Trinity.
This among other things, was Paul deemed to be a Heretic by the early church founders after his death.
-----------------------------------
Originally Posted by Gil
The place where God finds his dwelling place within man post AD 70, is within the Christ. It is a heaven in relation to man and where one finds the presence of the Spirit of God the father and the presence of the spirit of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ.
Of the twain being made but One Spirit in Christ. A place where the Spirit may have a relationship with his creation.

That makes some sense, though I don't know if we would be justified to call it "heaven."
-------------------
Gil > Why not? Where the Father and Son dwell ,there you find heaven.
Were do you think they are , relative to man.
----------
Originally Posted by Gil
Gil > What a difference a word makes!
It says " IN " not " ON " earth. [ " IN " earth as it is " IN " heaven.]
Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.

Good observation. In vs on.
----------------------------
Gil > This One word " IN " earth and the other "IN" heaven are carried over into the thoughts of Paul.
GOD the creator not only desired to have a relationship with his creation , but is was all within the plan and purpose for which he created.
The new testament , with Paul as being chosen to make manifest the Gospel of Christ is pointed toward relationships.
Between man and man and between man and God the Father of Jesus Christ.
It is only accomplished through knowledge, wisdom and understanding
One takes on a new consciousness , new conscience and the mind of Christ..
Both " IN 's " refer to the individual body of man and the Whole that be of the many members.
--------------------------
Originally Posted by Gil
Gil > They ,their own Bodies as both individuals and as a Whole were the Temple of God in a physical sense.
A direct statement showing them that the worldly Temple made with hands was the false Temple of the Spirit
of God the Father. If so, who did dwell within the Temple made with hands? I say the Spirit of Man himself.

Yep, that seems to be what the NT says.

Originally Posted by Gil
We however are not seen to be a Temple or tabernacle.
We are the BOC. As individuals ,we in Christ are the flesh and bone of Jesus Christ himself.
It is here where we pass through the body of the cross and are raised up in the body of the resurrection.

That doesn't make any sense to me. The Body of Christ is the Temple, and we are "pillars" and "living stones" in that temple. And we are like little temples ourselves, so the Temple of the Body of Christ is made of living stones that are themselves temples.
----------------------
Gil > Without to much confusion, You are making reference to another Pauline Body as a whole. The Body of Christ Jesus.
This was a Jewish Body as a Whole.
The BOC is as a Womb, where transformation takes place to form new children That are of the Father.
-----------
Originally Posted by Gil
Gil > Three heavens?
The One [ The physical /material Cosmos]
The two [ The Mental heavens of which there were two.]
The heaven which contained both good and evil in which sin was not counted as sin.
The heaven which contained only evil where Sin was counted as Sin. Sin that came through the Law and covenant of death.
The three [ The Spiritual heaven where one finds the presence of the Spirit of the Father and the presence of the Spirit of Jesus Christ where of the twain they are made but One Spirit in Christ.

Gil
-----------------
"Mental heavens" - that's a new idea I had not thought of before.

A heaven where sin is not counted as sin? That's another new definition.

A heaven that contained only evil? Never heard of that one either, and it sounds like an oxymoron.

-------------------

Gil > It's all in the mind, yet all a reality.
You've had enough Physical science, Philosophy and Psychology to relate what the Bible ,in the imagery and language of that time
were trying to tell us.

------------------
Gil :pop2:

Gil

10-12-2012, 01:23 PM

Howdy David,

Originally Posted by Gil
Howdy David and Richard,

More to ponder on David:

Gil > What a difference a word makes!
It says " IN " not " ON " earth. [ " IN " earth as it is " IN " heaven.]
Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Hello Gil
Thanks for your insight. I am not sure I agree with all your definitions of heaven and I know Richard has replied to your post and asked you some questions that will be interesting to know your answers to.

-------------
Gil > You probably won't understand much of what I say ,as it, in the end goes against the grain of denominational futurism.
Paul looked forward to the coming of Christ ,not as an individual but a Body made perfect. He died before it became manifest.
The Body as a Whole was the BOC.
-------------

D >It is interesting the point you make about "in" and "on" and as I read that I had the sudden thought that God wants His will to be done "in earth"(ly) man; i.e. man made of earth. Jesus was made of earth and was not made of the substance of God.

-------------------
Gil > True David, in my POV.
It is the way in which Paul seen it to be. The earth is the flesh body which is sustained through blood.
In the body of the resurrection of Jesus Christ his outer body was of flesh and bone. The absence of blood not only pointed back to his own people ,the Jews, but made it clear that the body of the new man in Christ is sustained and made alive by the Spirit of Christ.
This to still relates to man in the flesh who are still alive , but are seen by Paul to be already dead to the flesh and made alive in the Spirit.
The body of the cross was flesh and blood and the body of the resurrection was flesh and bone.

Glad to see that you picked up a glimpse of Paul's Christology as I see it to be anyway.
In heaven also relates to man as being within the Mind.
Paul would say, " take on the Mind of Christ".

This relationship begins within Genesis with man being formed into the image and likeness of God .
A microcosm of the macrocosm which is the Cosmos.
------------------

D > God is ONE and His substance cannot be shared.
--------------------

Gil > GOD is Spirit and it is his Spirit which is shared. The Spirit of light and life for instance.
If you think you are alive, you share his Spirit.
Plants, fish, birds and animals share his Spirit.
--------------------

D > God's Angels are not of God's substance. Are we to conclude from Hebrews (2:7 or 2:9) that the substance of the earth is lower than the substance of the Angels? (Hebrews 2:9)

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels (comment - why? The answer is ) for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
-----------------
Gil > And so he was. A man in a flesh and blood body. He was resurrected into a flesh and bone body.

Jesus was born in the flesh as all peoples are born in the flesh, whether they were Jew, Gentile, Indians ,Chinese , mixed breeds etc.
It was the only way that the sins of his own generations, the Jews could be eradicated. To the Jew first. Then the Gentile.
He would suffer the Death imposed by the Law and the Old covenant of death.
The Angels referred to were the spirit/souls of those who were redeemed and even now us that are WITHIN the BOC.
Note the word WITHIN.
We, now even though being within a flesh and blood body, are seen to be within a body of flesh and bone (minus the blood) which was shed on the cross of which Paul terms as being the body of the resurrection..
The body of the cross was flesh and blood, the body of the resurrection is flesh and bone.
The BOC is both a Body of death and resurrection.
Paul would say, though we be dead to the flesh we are made alive in Christ.
We are no longer of( in bondage) to the flesh but now belong to the Spirit.
Jesus the flesh man would be raised up as the spirit man Jesus Christ.
Howbeit that, that which was first was a natural body and now then a spiritual body.

The body of flesh began as a living soul which was then covered with flesh. This is the natural man.
We are no longer seen to be of the flesh but of the spirit. This is the man quickened by the spirit.

The Angels that are higher than the flesh are those of the New Creation, New Body and New heavens.
Those that are in Christ who are no longer of the flesh but of the Spirit.
----------------

D >Angels cannot sin, but if they did, they would have to die (the soul that sinneth it shall die (Eze 18:4))

-------------
Gil > Man must once die . He either stays dead or is raised up. There is no man without sin (evil).
Even Paul said that he died daily to the lusts of the flesh which are sin, but to him it was gain.
As he died to the flesh he was being changed from within as he grew in the Mind of Christ.

All this is dependent on ones concept of an angel.
While in an earthen body they can sin and do. So to the Jews prior to the Law. It was however not counted as sin.
Only after the Law was Sin unto death counted as Sin.
It is why Jesus as the Messiah came unto his own as the promised seed of Genesis.

Paul said that the lusts of sin reside in the flesh.
He also said that we are no longer of the flesh .
It is within, not without that BOC that we are now found to be innocent of all sin and np longer guilty of sin.
It is because we pass through the body of death that was the body of Jesus the flesh man, the body of the cross to enter unto
the BOC . Only through Jesus can Sin be blotted out.
We do nothing of our own, as it is now through Faith and not works.

There was no other resurrection before or after the cross other than the Son of the Father Jesus > Jesus Christ.

His resurrection is our resurrection through Faith only.

-------------------

D > Now if the Angels were to be saved how were their sins to be covered and if Jesus is to judge God's Angels did Jesus die to cover the sins of God's Angels or was if for human angels?

Gil > I don't think that one can look at it that way. Gods angels , that is of the plural God ( US and OUR), were within human form as natural man before Spirit man.
It is like science discovering (finding out) that protons were made up of quarks.
A spirit/soul preceded the body of flesh. A living soul formed out of the dust of the earth indicates that it is to be within a body that was formed of the dust of the earth.
Without opening up a new tangent the living soul was created/Bara'ed by a God that was "Us and Our".
image and likeness.
The image of the spirit is spirit and the image of the earth is soul. Then the likeness.
"Bara" as I use it, is to form out of something which had already been created and already exists.

With Paul one has to look at Spirit, Mind, Soul and Body.
--------------------

D> That is my own humble opinion of why I believe God's Angels in Heaven cannot and do not sin and have never sinned in the past.

---------------
Gil > Gods angels within the BOC as messengers manifest the glory of Christ through them. They plant spiritual seeds within others.
They proclaim the Gospel of Christ and many more things.
When thinking of the BOC there are two Bodies and of the twain are but One Body. The inner and outer man be it and individual or the Whole.
From an individual POV it is the inner man which can be looked at as an angel within a body of flesh and bone. No longer of the flesh but of the Spirit.

Are we then as angels without sin.
Only in Christ are we seen to be without sin. We ,as Jesus in the flesh, partake of the body of the cross through Faith.
We through Jesus are seen to be dead to the flesh.
We through the body of his resurrection take on his body of the resurrection, also through Faith.
They are both free gifts offered unto those who have Faith in Christ. (both the Father and the Son).

But, there's the big but, although we are no longer in bondage to the flesh we still find that the lusts of sin still
reside within our flesh. We will still sin.
Even though, Paul then and now we, die daily to the flesh ,so to , Paul then and now we see it to be gain in Christ.
As we die daily we are daily made more alive in the Spirit as we take on the Mind of Christ.
-------------------------

D > There is a denomination that used to say (quoting from Revelation 5:10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. That was in print, but they later reprinted their own Bible.

------------
Gil > Never heard of them .
The BOC is not a kingdom.
You would have to stretch your mind to the breaking point, but in a way Christians are as a King over the own domain, their own body.
Christians as priests have access to the Holy of Holies eternally.
We in Christ and Christ in us.
-------------

D > In order to conform to their later understanding after the failed return of Jesus as predicted to be in 1914, their understanding was modified. Hence, they now have the word "above" in place of the word "on". This is just one example why I cannot accept a lot of other false teachings by that denomination and which other denominations have followed.

---------------
Gil > To say that we are the eyes and ears of the Father in which he views his creation is kind of a heavy thought also.

-------------

Gil > After we die and pass on to wherever we go, what other realm I don't think we are as Angels any longer.

-------------

All the best

David
Last edited by David M; Today at 05:04 AM.

Gil :pop2:

Gil

10-12-2012, 01:55 PM

Howdy again David,

Originally Posted by David M
PS. Every day as I read the Bible and read the posts on this forum, I get reason to modify my thinking and learn new things. My intended post will not be a lengthy document, but will be several pages and will not be earth shattering, and will give us reason to think that the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy might not be as we have thought it to be. I will probably post it as a pdf document to keep the formatting and we comment on the parts of the document we disagree with or can add to. I am constantly thinking that I ought to include this or that, but I have no intention to write a book. I am not going back to the fundamentals to explain everything from the beginning. That is why I have stated the firm foundations on which I believe and which are in accordance with the word of God.

------------------

Gil > Will look forward to your post as well.

At least you and Richard have calmed down a little.

There's enough within the Bible for everyone, Even evolutionists and scientists.

I see the seventieth week of Daniel from a completely different POV ,without kingdoms, kings and dynasties.

Gil :pop2:

David M

10-12-2012, 07:35 PM

Hi David,
I agree that we should not deviate from the topic at hand which is War in Heaven - Rev 12: 17. My take is the same as yours and I do not believe in a literal war in heaven. I believe "War in Heaven" means a period in time in earth's history in which the conflicts between good and evil was fought involving God's people. In the Bible, the wars that God's people fought were against evil on earth and therefore "War" means the fight between good and evil on earth. "In Heaven" means in the spiritual realm. Therefore, "War in Heaven" means the spiritual warfare between good and evil fought on earth or in a period in earth's history involving God's people. This is explained in this article:

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/war-in-heaven?lang=eng

I did not involve actively in your debate with RAM on angels sinning or not sinning in heaven as it may deviate out of topic. My take is that both of you are right.
David : Angels do not sin in heaven; it makes a mockery out of the kingdom of heaven. God would have destroyed all sinning angels.
RAM: Angels did sin heaven as the Bible says so
My take is somewhere in between. Angels do not sin but some angels played a sinning role in testing humans with sin and evil to see the extent of their propensity for sin and evil. If their progress is to be more sinful and evil, they will be destroyed but if they repent and become good and righteous, they will be saved.

God Blessed. :pray:

Thank you Cheow for contributing to the subject of the thread. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the material on the webpage you have supplied the link to. The site is quoting from books I do not recognize. Like the Book of Enoch that should now be discarded, I am not going to reason from books of dubious origin that were not accepted as divinely inspired scriptures when the 66 books making up the Bible were selected. I see the Book of Mormon features in the side bar, and it is obvious from reading the opening text that this is man-made myth and is not divinely inspired.

The first reference in their text is Isa. 14:12–20 and is a reference to Lucifer which is used to support the idea of Satan as fallen angel of God. I started a thread back in February explaining that it was the King of Babylon that was the context in which the name Lucifer was used. Here is the link; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2832-King-of-Babylon-is-Lucifer-mentioned-in-Isaiah-14-12
This is another case of explaining away another of the passages that has been wrongly used to support the myth that God’s Angels sin. Since I accept that God’s Angels do not sin, I will explain away any passage in scripture that is used to say the opposite. As with many subjects, I look for a plausible explanation/interpretation of the passages that support the opposite view from the one that is put forward to support what I regard as man-made myths.

Please put up your next passage in support of your claim (agreeing with Richard) that “Angels did sin“. I have explained away the references in Jude 6 and 2Peter 1:4 in my thread; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3066-The-quot-angels-quot-in-Jude-6
I also started a thread to explain various ways we can regard what Satan is; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2776-What-is-meant-by-the-term-Satan

Please try and give an explanation in the way I have to support your belief that God's Angels can sin.

I am pleased you think the war in heaven is a war of good against evil and does not take place in Heaven, which is the dwelling place of God. Exactly what ithe war in heaven of Rev 12:7 is in the context of Michael the arch Angel (doing the will of God) and fighting for God’s people is what we need to determine and when this takes place.

All the best

David

Gil

10-13-2012, 11:26 AM

Howdy CWH,

CWH >

Originally Posted by CWH
Hi David,
I agree that we should not deviate from the topic at hand which is War in Heaven - Rev 12: 17. My take is the same as yours and I do not believe in a literal war in heaven. I believe "War in Heaven" means a period in time in earth's history in which the conflicts between good and evil was fought involving God's people. In the Bible, the wars that God's people fought were against evil on earth and therefore "War" means the fight between good and evil on earth. "In Heaven" means in the spiritual realm. Therefore, "War in Heaven" means the spiritual warfare between good and evil fought on earth or in a period in earth's history involving God's people.

---------------------------------

Gil >
I still see this war being fought within the heavens that exist within the minds of man.
The battle is a mental battle within each individual as a member/part of a Whole that be of God or man.
When looked at as angels, it appears that the heavens that are individual are seen to be the hosts of the Whole .
The Angel that represents or presides over the Whole is an Arch Angel.
In Pauline it may mean that the Whole is all of the members that make up the Whole.
Where the Whole and the parts are of the twain only One Angel.

Paul said or at least implied that there were three heavens.
The heaven within man in the flesh, the heaven within man in the spirit, and a third heaven in which those in Christ
will eventual be a part of. This to is a heaven of relationship between God the Father and what ever form we may have.
The heaven of a future life to us who still live and breath upon this earth.
I Think one must separate the GOD who initiated the Creation of the Cosmos and all that is within it including man from the God who is considered our Father, even in the third heaven.
There is GOD who is Spirit and that of Light and Life. [ the GOD which we cannot comprehend ]
He may I guess be called the ultimate Whole Spirit, Self inclusive.
The God who is in relationship with man as the Father of Jesus Christ, and we ,is the presence of the Spirit of that GOD which we cannot comprehend.
--------------------
The Old Testament of the Bible is a book of beginnings told in the language and imagery of the time of the writers.
It is the story given us by the Generations of but one Adam that was of the ADAM of the sixth day.
It is a story of the relationship formed between them and the creator.
It gives us a glimpse of the good the bad and the ugly ,not only of their relationship with their God but also between themselves as individuals and with their neighbors . We see how the assimilation, synthesization of their peoples with others in their long journey which for the most part was bondage and slavery affected there ideas ,thoughts and concepts.
[ this was not a bad thing but a progressive development of the world of the mind ,as in the end, it would have an impact on all peoples upon this earth. (planet) ] .

The New Testament is the story of the interim period that would ensue between the Old and New worlds as they collided with each other.
It is all relative to new beginnings that were to replace those of the old.
There would be a new creation, new heavens and earth that would be created /Bara'ed of all that was old.

Revelation is a compliment of Genesis and can be seen as the book of the endings.
What began in Genesis was seen for the greater part to be fulfilled in Revelation.

The Bible is the story of both God and man .
No matter how one tries to categorize the many mental and spiritual phenomenon associated with Spirit's ,they can be seen as wholes of either God the creator, Father or of Man himself.
The Spirit of God or the Spirit of man.
All names given unto the parts of either Whole are still within the realm of the whole in either case.

We know where we stand post AD 70 according to Paul, but the thought shifts toward each individual
on an individual basis.
I speaks in a general sense of what happens when we die mortally to this body of flesh.

The final journey that each will make is dependent on the individual.
We in Christ have been given the way, the truth and the life to prepare us for our journey into the unknown.

I will let you ,Richard and David finish your post on the War without interference.

Gil :pop2:
---------------------

CWH

10-13-2012, 12:52 PM

Thank you Cheow for contributing to the subject of the thread. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the material on the webpage you have supplied the link to. The site is quoting from books I do not recognize. Like the Book of Enoch that should now be discarded, I am not going to reason from books of dubious origin that were not accepted as divinely inspired scriptures when the 66 books making up the Bible were selected. I see the Book of Mormon features in the side bar, and it is obvious from reading the opening text that this is man-made myth and is not divinely inspired.

The first reference in their text is Isa. 14:12–20 and is a reference to Lucifer which is used to support the idea of Satan as fallen angel of God. I started a thread back in February explaining that it was the King of Babylon that was the context in which the name Lucifer was used. Here is the link; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2832-King-of-Babylon-is-Lucifer-mentioned-in-Isaiah-14-12
This is another case of explaining away another of the passages that has been wrongly used to support the myth that God’s Angels sin. Since I accept that God’s Angels do not sin, I will explain away any passage in scripture that is used to say the opposite. As with many subjects, I look for a plausible explanation/interpretation of the passages that support the opposite view from the one that is put forward to support what I regard as man-made myths.

Please put up your next passage in support of your claim (agreeing with Richard) that “Angels did sin“. I have explained away the references in Jude 6 and 2Peter 1:4 in my thread; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3066-The-quot-angels-quot-in-Jude-6
I also started a thread to explain various ways we can regard what Satan is; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2776-What-is-meant-by-the-term-Satan

Please try and give an explanation in the way I have to support your belief that God's Angels can sin.

I am pleased you think the war in heaven is a war of good against evil and does not take place in Heaven, which is the dwelling place of God. Exactly what ithe war in heaven of Rev 12:7 is in the context of Michael the arch Angel (doing the will of God) and fighting for God’s people is what we need to determine and when this takes place.

All the best

David

Thanks David, to answer your question, let me start by saying why I believe angels Do Not sin in heaven.
-If angels sin in heaven, why didn't God destroy them immediately before they create more sin and evil? God will never allow sin in His kingdom.
-If angels sin, there would be sin in heaven which is contrary that there is no sin in the kingdom of heaven?
-Angels are the eternal messengers of God who are privilege to serve the will of God, why would they want to sin?
-Angels sent by God were good and sinless as depicted in the Bible except for Satan and his angels.

Now my explanation of why angels Can sin:
-Jesus said that if we are in the kingdom of heaven, we are like the angels in heaven. If humans can sin on earth, why not angels when they are on earth? Angels may not sin in heaven but possibly sin on earth. I suspect the "sons of God" that lusted after earth's women in Genesis were angels who turn rebellious while on earth.
-There are many passages in the Bible that suggest that angels sinned.
- God said that He also create good and evil which make me suspect that perhaps some angels were deliberately made by God or were made to play the role of sin and evil to test mankind. The chief of which is Satan. Such tests are necessary in order to allow humans to become like God knowing good and evil. There are also necessary to test righteousness (including love of God and love for one's neighbor) in man's hearts.
-If angels sinned why didn't God destroyed them immediately but allow them to propagate sin on earth? ....unless perhaps they were made for the purpose of testing righteousness(including Love of God and love for one;s neighbor) in man's heart on earth. They serves not only as testator but also as witness as to how righteous or evil is in man's hearts. Or perhaps God decided to show mercy and did not punished those rebellious sinful angels so that He could punished in one fell swoop all those rebellious angels and their generations during judgement day. This is to perhaps convince those rebellious angels and their generations what their evil rebellion against God will do to the world and life and God will pardon them if they repent.

God Bless.:pray:

David M

10-13-2012, 02:31 PM

Thanks Cheow for answering the question

-Angels sent by God were good and sinless as depicted in the Bible except for Satan and his angels.
Why make the exception? The title Satan is used a lot as personification for a number of different things including physical disabilities and in general relate to humans. I can understand using the term satan as a form of shorthand for simplicity to describe what are otherwise are difficult to explain the physical processes involved.

Now my explanation of why angels Can sin:
-Jesus said that if we are in the kingdom of heaven, we are like the angels in heaven.
Can you be specific with the verse you have in mind so we can explore the meaning? (Mark 25:11) For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. This would suggest the only time humans are like God's Angels is after the resurrection.
Here is an interesting verse to consider (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. This would confirm that we (believers) could have our own personal Angel of God who is ministering for us whether we realize it or not. God's Angels are ministering spirits (Hebrews 1) 13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

If humans can sin on earth, why not angels when they are on earth? Angels may not sin in heaven but possibly sin on earth. I suspect the "sons of God" that lusted after earth's women in Genesis were angels who turn rebellious while on earth.
Of course I cannot stop you thinking that even though it is not stated as God's Angels. The "sons of God" is a title given to humans as well as Angels and it is more likely that Angels do God's will and therefore the understanding of the verse in Genesis 6:2 is that sons of God represent those who are initially of the righteous line of Seth and who mingle (marry) with the unrighteous (daughters of men). This mingling caused righteousness to diminish until there was only Noah left. Alas the evil in the time of man's rule tends to dominate and that is why Jesus needs to return and put down man's rule and then the world will be governed in righteousness, by "that man" whom God hath ordained" (Acts 17:31).

-There are many passages in the Bible that suggest that angels sinned.
I wish you would list them and see how many can be explained away so as not to mean God's Angels.

- God said that He also create good and evil which make me suspect that perhaps some angels were deliberately made by God or were made to play the role of sin and evil to test mankind. The chief of which is Satan. Such tests are necessary in order to allow humans to become like God knowing good and evil. There are also necessary to test righteousness (including love of God and love for one's neighbor) in man's hearts.
Your words I have highlighted in red show that these are speculations on your part and we need scriptural proof. I do believe that God instructs His Angels to carry out tasks that humans can consider evil, but God takes responsibility and in these situations the Angels are obeying God's instruction and do not do things they have not been instructed to do.
The story of Job must be realized that it is written in the style of a play. We are introduced to a character by the name of Satan. This is personification to portray God having a dialogue with himself as though it were Satan talking to him. I asked Richard the question who caused Job's suffering and loss. The answer is God - (Job 42:11) and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him:

-If angels sinned why didn't God destroyed them immediately but allow them to propagate sin on earth? ....unless perhaps they were made for the purpose of testing righteousness(including Love of God and love for one;s neighbor) in man's heart on earth. They serves not only as testator but also as witness as to how righteous or evil is in man's hearts. Or perhaps God decided to show mercy and did not punished those rebellious sinful angels so that He could punished in one fell swoop all those rebellious angels and their generations during judgement day. This is to perhaps convince those rebellious angels and their generations what their evil rebellion against God will do to the world and life and God will pardon them if they repent.
Your answer is speculative. God's Angels do work for God but let us remember that we are taught; (James 1:13) neither tempteth he (God) any man: it follows that God would not instruct His Angels to tempt man.

You will find that once you accept God's Angels do not sin ever whether in Heaven or on earth (to where they are sent), you will be able to explain away all the verses you think suggest otherwise. It is these apparent contradictions I look to resolve.

All the best

David

CWH

10-14-2012, 04:26 AM

[QUOTE]Thanks Cheow for answering the question

Why make the exception? The title Satan is used a lot as personification for a number of different things including physical disabilities and in general relate to humans. I can understand using the term satan as a form of shorthand for simplicity to describe what are otherwise are difficult to explain the physical processes involved.

Can you be specific with the verse you have in mind so we can explore the meaning? (Mark 25:11) For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. This would suggest the only time humans are like God's Angels is after the resurrection.
Here is an interesting verse to consider (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. This would confirm that we (believers) could have our own personal Angel of God who is ministering for us whether we realize it or not. God's Angels are ministering spirits (Hebrews 1) 13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

I do believe that everyone of us have a guardian angel.
I do see Satan as a personification who can be spiritual or physical just like the angels and Lord Jesus who can turned from physical to spiritual and from spiritual to physical.

Of course I cannot stop you thinking that even though it is not stated as God's Angels. The "sons of God" is a title given to humans as well as Angels and it is more likely that Angels do God's will and therefore the understanding of the verse in Genesis 6:2 is that sons of God represent those who are initially of the righteous line of Seth and who mingle (marry) with the unrighteous (daughters of men). This mingling caused righteousness to diminish until there was only Noah left. Alas the evil in the time of man's rule tends to dominate and that is why Jesus needs to return and put down man's rule and then the world will be governed in righteousness, by "that man" whom God hath ordained" (Acts 17:31).
There is nothing in the Bible that says that the "sons of God" were the sons of Seth who mingle with the unrighteous daughters of men. This is equally speculative.

I wish you would list them and see how many can be explained away so as not to mean God's Angels.

The following is an excerpt from an article in the web, "Can Angels Sin" which record some passages to support this claim:

Can angels sin?

Many angels have sinned in the past. Jude 1:6 says

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day

2 Peter 2:4 also says

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;

Ephesians 6:12 also mentions these evil spiritual beings…

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.It can be assumed that these fallen angels sinned at the same time as Satan, or Lucifer, sinned and fell. (Isaiah 14:12-15). Some angels therefore have sinned. It appears that some angels, or unclean spirits, or demons still roam freely in the universe, while others are kept in eternal chains.

Your words I have highlighted in red show that these are speculations on your part and we need scriptural proof. I do believe that God instructs His Angels to carry out tasks that humans can consider evil, but God takes responsibility and in these situations the Angels are obeying God's instruction and do not do things they have not been instructed to do.
The story of Job must be realized that it is written in the style of a play. We are introduced to a character by the name of Satan. This is personification to portray God having a dialogue with himself as though it were Satan talking to him. I asked Richard the question who caused Job's suffering and loss. The answer is God - (Job 42:11) and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him:

Your answer is speculative. God's Angels do work for God but let us remember that we are taught; (James 1:13) neither tempteth he (God) any man: it follows that God would not instruct His Angels to tempt man.
I did not say tempt but test; there is a difference. Teachers do not tempt their students about their knowledge of the subjects taught but test them. Likewise, God did not instruct His angels to tempt men but to test them for their righteousness and knowledge of good and evil.

You will find that once you accept God's Angels do not sin ever whether in Heaven or on earth (to where they are sent), you will be able to explain away all the verses you think suggest otherwise. It is these apparent contradictions I look to resolve.
My position is that angels may sin on earth but not in heaven. Ultimately, these sinful angels will be destroyed if they did not repent and after they have played their part in testing human's righteousness(i.e. the knowledge of good and evil and loving God with all your heart, soul and might and loving of one's neighbors as oneself).

May God Bless us and His angels. :pray:

David M

10-16-2012, 05:58 AM

Hellow Cheow

Can angels sin?

Many angels have sinned in the past. Jude 1:6 says

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day

2 Peter 2:4 also says

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
Again, you have only quoted verses in which it can be explained that the angels are "human" and were not God's Angels in Heaven. Quoting a verse is of itself not proof unless you explain what the verse means and can support that meaning with other scriptural references. Therefore, in order to explain Jude 6 and 2Peter 2:4 you need to provide more verses from scripture to support your case.

Ephesians 6:12 also mentions these evil spiritual beings…

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.[/COLOR]
It can be assumed that these fallen angels sinned at the same time as Satan, or Lucifer, sinned and fell. (Isaiah 14:12-15). Some angels therefore have sinned. It appears that some angels, or unclean spirits, or demons still roam freely in the universe, while others are kept in eternal chains.
Once again, I already explained Lucifer in the context of the chapter and Lucifer represents the king of Babylon. There is nothing in these verses to say that God's Angels sin and just quoting the verse is not a proof in itself.

I did not say tempt but test; there is a difference. Teachers do not tempt their students about their knowledge of the subjects taught but test them. Likewise, God did not instruct His angels to tempt men but to test them for their righteousness and knowledge of good and evil.
"Test" can mean a process by which something is assessed. We can test something to see if it is strong enough to bear a load. For example to find out the limits of load capability an object is subjected to increasing loads until the breaking point is found. It did not take much to test Eve to see of she would be strong enough to resist eating the fruit. Adam and Eve were not strong in obedience. Jesus was strong in obedience and carried out God's will perfectly.

The temptation for Eve was to have the knowledge of good and evil and become wise like God. As with the verse I quoted (James 1:13); Eve was tempted when she was drawn away by her own lust. If God had said; Eve, do not eat the fruit of this nameless tree because I want to test you to see if you can obey my command, she might well have obeyed. However, because the tree had been given the name 'the knowledge of good and evil', Eve reasoned within herself that if she ate of the fruit, it would make her wise knowing good and evil. God had said nothing of the kind and instead had told Adam (and Eve) that in the day they ate of that fruit they would die. Eve believed her own lie by reasoning that she would not die, but would become as God knowing good and evil.

My position is that angels may sin on earth but not in heaven. Ultimately, these sinful angels will be destroyed if they did not repent and after they have played their part in testing human's righteousness(i.e. the knowledge of good and evil and loving God with all your heart, soul and might and loving of one's neighbors as oneself).
I accept that is your position though I can not agree that God's Angels sin on earth. I can only accept God's Angels cannot sin on earth or wherever they are. Because all the verses that might suggest different can be explained away with explanations that is plausible and reasonable, and using other scriptures in support, I can only conclude for myself that God's Angels do God's will on earth as in Heaven.

All the best

David

Twospirits

10-16-2012, 07:31 AM

David M wrote,

I am working on a document which I shall post shortly and expect you to take me to task on, but it is my sincere way of understanding what the scriptures say and making the best sense of it. The title I have in mind is; "When is the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy?' This will contradict your thread entitled; 'Daniel's 70 Weeks were fulfilled in 70 AD!' This will cut across your claim that I cannot refute the argument you were having with Two spirits that Jesus was not talking of the future beyond AD70. I won't say anymore as that the discussion will continue after I post my new thread. I am checking for typos and any errors and I shall post shortly.

I thought I'd post this as a reminder to you David. Are you still working on it or have you changed your mind? I ask because its been a while since you posted this. I for one think it would be a good thread to sort out the truth of eschatology once and for all. Was it fulfilled in 70 A.D. as preterists claim or has it yet to be fulfilled as futurists claim?

The judgment on Jerusalem in the NT was also accomplished by the hand and mouth of God, and was fulfilled in 70 A.D. As in the OT, there was no need of an actual coming by God the Father, for the word of his mouth and his will fulfilled it (using human instruments, other nations), in the same way that there was no need of the coming of Christ in 70 A.D., for the word of his mouth and will fulfilled it (using the Roman nation). And again these were “all” judgmental prophecies on particular nations at particular times, and not the “redemption prophecies” promised for his saints seen in the NT that would “bring the final judgment on the whole ungodly inhabited world.” (which preterists deny). The NT shows this to be so in: Mt. 24: 30,31; Mt. 25: 30,31; Mark 13: 26,27; Luke 21: 27,28; Acts 1: 7,8,9,11; 1 Cor. 1:8; 1 Cor. 15:24,25,26; Eph. 1:10; 1 Thess. 1:10; 1 Thess. 3:13; 1 Thess. 4:15,16,17; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Thess. 1:7,8,9,10; 2 Thess. 2:3-8; 2 Tim. 4:1; 2 Peter 3:3,4,7,8,9,10,14; 1 John 2:28; Jude 14,15; Rev. 1:7; Rev. 6:15,16,17; Rev. 11:18; Rev. 19:17,20,21.

God bless---Twospirits

David M

10-16-2012, 02:32 PM

I thought I'd post this as a reminder to you David. Are you still working on it or have you changed your mind? I ask because its been a while since you posted this. I for one think it would be a good thread to sort out the truth of eschatology once and for all. Was it fulfilled in 70 A.D. as preterists claim or has it yet to be fulfilled as futurists claim?

The judgment on Jerusalem in the NT was also accomplished by the hand and mouth of God, and was fulfilled in 70 A.D. As in the OT, there was no need of an actual coming by God the Father, for the word of his mouth and his will fulfilled it (using human instruments, other nations), in the same way that there was no need of the coming of Christ in 70 A.D., for the word of his mouth and will fulfilled it (using the Roman nation). And again these were “all” judgmental prophecies on particular nations at particular times, and not the “redemption prophecies” promised for his saints seen in the NT that would “bring the final judgment on the whole ungodly inhabited world.” (which preterists deny). The NT shows this to be so in: Mt. 24: 30,31; Mt. 25: 30,31; Mark 13: 26,27; Luke 21: 27,28; Acts 1: 7,8,9,11; 1 Cor. 1:8; 1 Cor. 15:24,25,26; Eph. 1:10; 1 Thess. 1:10; 1 Thess. 3:13; 1 Thess. 4:15,16,17; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Thess. 1:7,8,9,10; 2 Thess. 2:3-8; 2 Tim. 4:1; 2 Peter 3:3,4,7,8,9,10,14; 1 John 2:28; Jude 14,15; Rev. 1:7; Rev. 6:15,16,17; Rev. 11:18; Rev. 19:17,20,21.

God bless---Twospirits

Hello Twospirits
I have not forgotten. I have been adding to it and it is now nine pages of A4. I shall post as a pdf attachment. Each time I read through again, I have felt the need to add a little more. I think I am now finished and will post shortly (in the sense of Rev 1:2 ; it will shortly come to pass). There are one or two elements of the prophecies that I am not 100% crystal clear on, but overall, as I study these prophecies, there is far more remaining that was not completed by AD70 or in the first century.

I am going to be very busy in the coming weeks so I might have to post and let others debate some of the points I make. As I said to Richard, I am not saying much that is new, though I have one possible explanation of what the abomination might be in these last days. As I say, if it is not this, then what should we be looking for? I do not consider the question was answered in previous threads or that it was fulfilled by the time of AD70.

I hope to bring out a few points that are perhaps overlooked when we read these prophecies.

All the best

David

Twospirits

10-16-2012, 02:52 PM

Hello Twospirits
I have not forgotten. I have been adding to it and it is now nine pages of A4. I shall post as a pdf attachment. Each time I read through again, I have felt the need to add a little more. I think I am now finished and will post shortly (in the sense of Rev 1:2 ; it will shortly come to pass). There are one or two elements of the prophecies that I am not 100% crystal clear on, but overall, as I study these prophecies, there is far more remaining that was not completed by AD70 or in the first century.

I am going to be very busy in the coming weeks so I might have to post and let others debate some of the points I make. As I said to Richard, I am not saying much that is new, though I have one possible explanation of what the abomination might be in these last days. As I say, if it is not this, then what should we be looking for? I do not consider the question was answered in previous threads or that it was fulfilled by the time of AD70.

I hope to bring out a few points that are perhaps overlooked when we read these prophecies.

All the best

David

Hi David,

Thanks for answering, its appreciated. I know how it is to make up an article, there always seems to be more to be disclosed till it seems you have a book instead of an article :lol: I really hope you find time to discuss this with the others that would post here. In any case thanks again and I look forward to reading the document.

God bless---Twospirits

sylvius

10-19-2012, 10:41 AM

I do think Revelation 12 is inspired on Genesis 15.

The son the woman gave birth to being Abraham's promised seed.

Genesis 15:5. And He took him outside, and He said, "Please look heavenward and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So will be your seed."

Rashi:

according to its midrashic interpretation, He said to him,“Go out of your astrology,” for you have seen in the signs of the zodiac that you are not destined to have a son. Indeed, Abram will have no son, but Abraham will have a son. Similarly, Sarai will not give birth, but Sarah will give birth. I will give you another name, and your destiny will change (Ned. 32a, Gen. Rabbah 44:10). Another explanation: He took him out of the terrestrial sphere and lifted him above the stars. This explains the expression of הַבָּטָה, looking down from above (Gen. Rabbah 44:12).

Revelation 13:18 presenting the key of understanding :

"Here is the wisdom!" :winking0071:

Gil

10-19-2012, 01:27 PM

Gil >
Howdy Sylvius,

Here is some more wisdom. :winking0071:

Whether Paul speaks of Whole or individual Bodies he defines the two types.
The Whole which is made up of the many that are terrestrial or the Whole which is made up of the
many that are celestial.

1 Corinthians 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

Gil > The two promised seeds that would be of Abraham. The one a natural body of Jesus the flesh man of his loins
and the spiritual body of his bosom, that of Jesus Christ, through whom the Christ would be made manifest.

1 Corinthians 15:40 [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another.

1 Corinthians 15:41 [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory.

Gil > The glory of the celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies in 15:40
Here Paul is giving an example of the glory of the two types of bodies.
The earthly natural body and the spiritual heavenly body.
The glory of the Christ is as the sun.
The glory of the terrestrial or natural man is as the moon.
The glory of the celestial or spiritual man is as the stars of heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

Gil > From the natural body to the spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

Gil > The terrestrial natural body is sown in dishonor and weakness and raised up a heavenly spiritual body in glory and power.

1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

Gil > Again the terrestrial body and the spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:48 As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly.

1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Gil :pop2:

sylvius

10-20-2012, 12:07 AM

Gil > The glory of the celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies in 15:40
Here Paul is giving an example of the glory of the two types of bodies.
The earthly natural body and the spiritual heavenly body.
The glory of the Christ is as the sun.
The glory of the terrestrial or natural man is as the moon.
The glory of the celestial or spiritual man is as the stars of heaven.

I don't see that, Can you explain further?

The woman of Revelation 12:1 being like Sarah, not subject to the manner of women, the menstruation-cycle (Genesis 18:11)

Gil

10-20-2012, 07:22 AM

Howdy Sylvius,

sylvius
Senior Member

Originally Posted by Gil

Gil > The glory of the celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies in 15:40
Here Paul is giving an example of the glory of the two types of bodies.
The earthly natural body and the spiritual heavenly body.
The glory of the Christ is as the sun.
The glory of the terrestrial or natural man is as the moon.
The glory of the celestial or spiritual man is as the stars of heaven.
I don't see that, Can you explain further?

The woman of Revelation 12:1 being like Sarah, not subject to the manner of women, the menstruation-cycle (Genesis 18:11)
---------------------

Gil > Trying to pass on Images isn't the easiest thing to do.

Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Revelation 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Gil >
The Woman was Israel ( New Israel ) through whom the Christ would be raised from the dead.
Within her womb was the Christ child, the first to be begotten of the Father and she was clothed with the glory of the presence of his Spirit.
Her previous glory was that of Old Israel, that of the moon.
Old Israel would come out of the darkness of the evening time into the light of the full of the Day.
Both Old and New Israel's were Whole Bodies.
The man child was raised up to the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Genesis 18:11 Now Abraham and Sarah [were] old [and] well stricken in age; [and] it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

Gil > Yes ,Sarah was old but she would give birth to Isaac and through his loins would come Jacob who would father the 12 tribes of Israel.
Through the womb of Mary would come the Messiah in the flesh, not through the seed of man in the flesh but of the seed of his Father Lord God.

Old Israel was barren and a flesh man who's father ( Spirit) was that of natural man would never give life to the promised seed that was to be Messiah.

Old Israel as a Whole was seen to be a woman .

Old Israel was a natural Body and New Israel was a Spiritual Body.

Gil :pop2:

sylvius

10-20-2012, 08:49 AM

The Woman was Israel ( New Israel ) through whom the Christ would be raised from the dead.

New Israel = the church?

I thought Jesus was raised from the dead by God (Romans 1:5)

Within her womb was the Christ child, the first to be begotten of the Father and she was clothed with the glory of the presence of his Spirit.
Her previous glory was that of Old Israel, that of the moon.
Old Israel would come out of the darkness of the evening time into the light of the full of the Day.
Both Old and New Israel's were Whole Bodies.

How you come to that?

The man child was raised up to the resurrected Jesus Christ. Wasn't it first slaughtered?

Gil > Yes ,Sarah was old but she would give birth to Isaac and through his loins would come Jacob who would father the 12 tribes of Israel.
Through the womb of Mary would come the Messiah in the flesh, not through the seed of man in the flesh but of the seed of his Father Lord God. I thought it was a matter of the Holy Spirit

Both Old and New Israel's were Whole Bodies.Old Israel was barren and a flesh man who's father ( Spirit) was that of natural man would never give life to the promised seed that was to be Messiah.

Old Israel as a Whole was seen to be a woman .

Old Israel was a natural Body and New Israel was a Spiritual Body.

Was old Israel crucified?

Gil

10-21-2012, 10:54 AM

Howdy Sylvius,

Just read your last post.
Will look over what I had said and see if I can give it more clarity.

Quote: Gil > Trying to pass on Images isn't the easiest thing to do.

Paul's Christology is a real head game. It is almost like one has to see it
before one can understand it. Sounds like Don gave it a shot and it did not take well.

In the meantime , how do you see the imagery of the verses you gave below?

[ Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Revelation 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Genesis 18:11 Now Abraham and Sarah [were] old [and] well stricken in age; [and] it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.]

We all know what and who Old Israel was from a Physical/mental point of view.
How do you see ,what is termed New Israel. Spiritual or a new form of Physical.

Paul used whole Body association for both.

Everyone that delves into Christology in its true form has to for obvious reasons be
called a Heretic who dabbles in heresies by evangelical Christians.

I'm a Christian but only that. A Christian.

In order to not cause another war between the various factions of Christianity
I will move this post into the " Deviations, Heresies and Cults forum."

Gil :pop2:

sylvius

10-21-2012, 12:24 PM

In the meantime , how do you see the imagery of the verses you gave below?

[ Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Revelation 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Genesis 18:11 Now Abraham and Sarah [were] old [and] well stricken in age; [and] it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.]

I once gazed into the intergalactial sphere and experienced higher consciousness. It is like a jump or leap. It happened at once.

The window is in the constellation of Andromeda, through which the Andromeda Nebula is to be seen.

I think Abraham must have experienced something like that.

The dragon sweeping down a third of the stars was breaking the unity of the vision.

1/3 = 0,33333333333
2/3 = 0,66666666666
1/3 + 2/3 = 0,9999999999 , never one!

We all know what and who Old Israel was from a Physical/mental point of view. maybe you, not me.

How do you see ,what is termed New Israel. Where is this termed so?

Paul used whole Body association for both. "whole Body association" what's that?

Gil

10-23-2012, 10:04 AM

Howdy Sylvius,

Originally Posted by Gil

In the meantime , how do you see the imagery of the verses you gave below?

[ Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Revelation 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Genesis 18:11 Now Abraham and Sarah [were] old [and] well stricken in age; [and] it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.]

S > I once gazed into the intergalactial sphere and experienced higher consciousness. It is like a jump or leap. It happened at once.

The window is in the constellation of Andromeda, through which the Andromeda Nebula is to be seen.

I think Abraham must have experienced something like that.

The dragon sweeping down a third of the stars was breaking the unity of the vision.

1/3 = 0,33333333333
2/3 = 0,66666666666
1/3 + 2/3 = 0,9999999999 , never one!
-----------------------------
Gil > That's one way to look at.
Both Gospels [ The gospel of the Kingdom of heaven through Messiah ] and
[ The Gospel of Christ ] were also written in the stars. Physical heavens (cosmos).
Thanks,

Gil :pop2:

sylvius

10-23-2012, 11:39 AM

-----------------------------
Gil > That's one way to look at.
Both Gospels [ The gospel of the Kingdom of heaven through Messiah ] and
[ The Gospel of Christ ] were also written in the stars. Physical heavens (cosmos).
Thanks,

Gil :pop2:

He comes from a sphere above the stars.

ironsheik7

04-01-2013, 05:52 PM

An often-misunderstood passage which is used to support the idea (which is not true) that God’s Angels can sin, is that found in the Book of the Revelation and in chapter 12.

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.

This exposition is presented to come to a proper understanding of what the author of this figurative story meant us to understand. In order to do this, we must understand the figurative language of the Bible. What are we supposed to understand by these word pictures? To do this, we shall look to other parts of the Bible to find similar expressions and examine the context in which signs and symbols have been used. This is the legitimate use of scripture to explain itself and provide its own answers. The Word of God is consistent and the Bible is harmonious (human errors excepted) and the more so as the false interpretations are uncovered.

The wrong idea that there was a war in Heaven and that God’s Angels rebelled and were thrown out and cast down to earth, where they are held in chains and in rooms of darkness below the earth, until the day of judgment, is based on myths and legends of men. These have been used to support a belief that God’s Angels rebel. This is not the case and flies against other scriptures that tell us this cannot be the case.

The words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 6:10 say; Thy (God’s) will be done in earth as it is in Heaven Jesus tells us that God’s will is done in Heaven, therefore, God’s Angels do not sin. These are words from the only begotten the Son of God, and who better to know the truth about God’s kingdom in Heaven? One can try and get around this statement of Jesus and say that Angels sinned in the past, but do not sin now. This argument is not sustainable as this passage in Revelation proves. The book of Revelation was written many years after Jesus said these words. The Book of Revelation is talking of future events that were to begin shortly and continue until his return. This would mean that God’s Angels in Heaven were continuing to sin when the Book of Revelation was written and thereafter. This would make Jesus a liar and God or His son does not lie. The words of Jesus present us with a paradox especially if we take a few verses like Rev 12:7 at their face value without knowing their proper interpretation. Therefore, it is this paradox that must be resolved in order to explain away the apparent contradiction.

This next part is to give proof from the Bible as to how the war in heaven is meant to be understood. A summary and conclusion will be given at the end of this exposition if you want to skip to the end. A full explanation needs to be given to understand the figurative language used and the meaning of the words used.

What is meant by heaven? This does not necessarily mean the place where God dwells, which is denoted by using a capital “H” – Heaven. What else can heaven refer to? Does it have a connection with the “heavens” as mentioned in the Bible?

The physical heaven is explained in Genesis 1:8; And God called the firmament heaven. In the previous verse we read (7); And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. From this simple description we can conclude that heaven is the sky between the surface of the earth with the waters on it and the cloud base; above which the clouds contain water.

Spiritual heaven has nothing to do with the sky or literal heaven. (Matt 24:29) and the stars shall fall from heaven. The stars we see in the night sky will not literally fall out of the sky. (Luke 24:10); The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? The directive of baptism of John came from God not man. Things which come from God, we can think of as heavenly. We can think on heavenly things like the coming kingdom of God on earth. It does not exist as it shall, until Christ restores the kingdom. God said through the prophet Isaiah to God’s people Israel (Isaiah 55:9); For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. We live in a physical world but our thoughts can be on spiritual matters such as God’s Heaven. In thought our minds can be on spiritual matters, when the reality is, we are here on earth. Not to think on heavenly things is to think about earthly things and the things of this world.

The heavens can refer to the political heavens. The sun, moon and stars have special political significance and can represent political leaders or nations and kings. For example we read in Numbers 24:17; there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel. This Star and Sceptre are not a literal. They represent a political power. TV and film celebrities are called “stars”, so the idea of calling people with influence stars is not new. The Star in this case has a kingly position denoted by the symbol of the sceptre which is a rod held in the hand to represent regal and imperial power of the Star. (Matthew 24:29); Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. In this prophecy of Jesus, he is speaking of future governments and powers represented by the sun, moon and stars, and the “stars shall fall from heaven” meaning that political rulers shall lose their status and power and also nations will lose their power over other nations.

Michael the Arch Angel is one of the few Angels of God in Heaven who is actually named and given the title of Arch Angel. Michael is the Angel (God’s representative and agent) by which God protects and defends Israel and all of God’s people. (Daniel 12:1) And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: Here is the role of Michael the Arch Angel explained in Daniel, and it is in this context we have to understand the passage in Revelation 12:7

“angels” is often used of humans to mean messengers; these can be priests, ministers, apostles and those people who give God’s message to the people. As it is with God, He has messengers on earth, and so it is with the Dragon in Revelation; it has messengers on earth. The Dragon has its own network of messengers that do the Dragon’s will. This has to be seen in the proper context of what the Dragon represents.

The Dragon, the Serpent, the Devil and Satan are all one of the same symbolic figure. Revelation 12:9 explains; And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan. This Dragon is a figurative creature that is given a title or the name of Satan or Devil. Whenever we see these names used, we should think of this figurative Dragon. It is not a literal Dragon and does not exist. The figure of Satan is seen as an adversary or an opposer. Jesus said to his disciple Peter (Matthew 16:23); Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Peter had good intentions for his master, but those intentions were not what God intended, and Peter’s intentions were in opposition to God’s will.

The Dragon can be personified; that imeans to take on the attributes of person. The influence of the Dragon to deceive people can take many forms and like the wind is a force that cannot be seen, but its effects are felt and human actions and communications are no different. Satan is not a spirit being, it is representative of any opponent of God. Satan is not a disgraced Angel of God who has been allowed to tempt mankind to sin against God.

War in heaven. This is what we have to get in context. This can be speaking of a time to come when political rulers who are in opposition to Israel and God’s people will have their power taken away from them. These kings and rulers and political leaders will fall in status and be brought down to the same level as the people they rule over. Nations will be overthrown by God and lose their power and influence. Identifying who the Dragon is on the real world stage is a Bible study in itself and it is not in the scope of this exposition to identify the Dragon. All we need to know for now, is that this Dragon is in the position to deceive the whole world.

The world represents the people occupying the earth and for the most part, the people represented by the “world” are the people who do not obey God or believe in Him and do those things which God hates. As James explains (James 4:4); Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? It is impossible to be a friend of God and a friend of the world; we have to make a choice.
This enmity of the world is as a direct consequence of the actions of Adam and Eve whereby God told Eve that because of her actions there would always be enmity between her seed (offspring) and the seed of the serpent. The seed of the serpent is also the seed that is the Devil (the offspring of the serpent). That seed is within each one of us when the thoughts or our mind lead us to act in ways that are contrary to God’s ways. The Devil is the concept of wrong thoughts and in opposition to God, the Devil in us has nothing to do with inherited genes. The battle with the devil is a battle that goes on in our own minds and it is a battle we often lose; choosing to follow the way we want to go instead of following the ways of God. This often results in sin which means that we have disobeyed God. The Apostle James again gives us the explanation of how sin originates (James 1:14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. If we sin, it is our fault, we have been drawn away from God by our own selfish lusts.

Jesus overcame this battle of self-will and we have examples of Jesus doing this at times of great temptation. Jesus overcame his temptation by recalling God’s scriptures which guided him. That is exactly what we have to do, if we are to overcome the devil that is in our mind. This is something we must want to do. This is exactly what Jesus accomplished completely and perfectly and is explained in Hebrews 2:14; that through death he (Jesus) might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. The devil, which represents the thoughts of the mind to disobey God and therefore cause us to sin, brings the wages of sin, which is death (Romans 6:23).

Jesus died though he had not sinned and therefore he did not earn the wages. God is true to His word (Ezekiel 18:4); the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Jesus did not deserve to remain in the grave because he was sinless. Therefore, God had to raise Jesus from the dead. Jesus cannot be tempted; he has proven this. Therefore, God raised Jesus from the dead and Jesus has been given an incorruptible body and will live for evermore. This is how Jesus defeated the devil which has the power of death. We have to fight our battle against the devil within us.

The spiritual and the physical both apply to this passage in Revelation. The Dragon (the world power yet to be identified) in the world also has an application to the believer on a spiritual level that is seen in the practical workings of our mind. The wonder of God’s word is that its message is consistent on many levels. Revelation 12:10 confirms that this war in heaven is affecting God’s people (Rev 12:10); And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. This verse confirms that our accuser or opposer (the Dragon, Satan, Serpent, or Devil) that is in our mind is there all the time, and is accusing us before God. We are accusing ourselves by giving into the devil that is our own thoughts. This devil within each one of us must be overcome; at least we should try our best to overcome it, but since we fail, we need Christ to intercede for us and it is by his sacrifice to cover our sins that we can be saved. The devil is in our own mind and to have the mind of Christ is to resist the devil and replace devilish thoughts with holy thoughts. This is the explanation given by James (James 4:7); Resist the devil, and he (it) will flee from you.

Further confirmation of this battle within us and the saving sacrifice of Jesus is explained in the following verse in Revelation concerning this war in heaven. (Revelation 12:11); And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. This is saying that the brethren of Christ (those who believe and are associated with him), have overcome the Dragon, the Devil. They have totally overcome the devil, made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus, and it is the blood of the sacrifice of Jesus that covers our sins before God. Of course, belief requires commitment and a believer’s commitment will be shown by the their testimony witnessing to the truths of God and who follow after the example of Jesus and give their lives over to him. “Loved not their lives unto death” is best explained when Jesus said (Matt 16:25); For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. The true follower of Jesus believes in the resurrection and that although they will die, they will live again. We can chose to live this life totally for ourselves and at the end of it die forever, or we can chose to give up this worldly life that is enmity with God, in order to receive the eternal life which is to come.

Summary
This war in heaven is figurative and represents a political power that will in some way war against the people of God for whom Michael the Arch Angel will be God’s agent acting for His people and fight against this political power or entity. The prophet Daniel tells us (Daniel 4:7); the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men. This tells us that God is in control and whatever powers this battle is between, God is in control of the situation and God will win. God cannot lose and His plan and purpose will be fulfilled. This political power or entity will lose its status and power and have no power over believers who are in the earth. It is not the scope of this exposition to explain who the Dragon represents on the world stage.

From what has been explained and from what we can find in God’s word, this war in heaven is using figurative language and cannot be taken literally. It is not a war taking place in God’s dwelling place, where the Angels of God are in His presence. In Heaven, as was meant by the words of Jesus, God’s Angels do not sin.

The Dragon, Serpent, Satan, Devil are the same and has been shown to apply to anything or anyone who is in opposition to God’s will. It is not a fallen Angel of God, but represents the opposer/adversary that is in each of our minds in which we have a battle of wills to defeat. The question we must answer for ourselves is; do we do our own will or do we do the will of God? In as much as our thoughts should be heavenly, we have earthly thoughts and it is these earthly thoughts that must be cast out of our mind. By constantly winning the battle that goes on in our mind, we defeat the devil and the eternal death that would naturally follow is defeated in that the believer will be raised to life again on the day of resurrection.

Conclusion
The war in heaven is spoken of in figurative language and should not be taken literally as between a dragon and an Angel of God. This war in heaven is not taking place in God’s dwelling place. Heaven can refer to the political heavens in which nations and and powerful dictators will be reduced in power of influence and in status; thus they are cast down to a symbolic earth. The war is to take place on the world stage is to involve a world power that is at war against God’s people for whom Michael the Arch Angel will stand up and fight for God’s people. Michael and his Angels shall win and the Dragon and its angels shall be defeated.
This war in heaven has an application to what is going on in our mind and is a war that we shall overcome by associating ourselves with the sacrifice of Jesus to cover our sin and the transforming of our minds to have the mind of Christ.

In keeping with principles that are consistent and run throughout the whole of the Bible, we have a situation where there is conflict between the seed of the serpent (devil, dragon, satan) and the seed of the woman.. We have to choose whose seed we want to be. God gives us two choices, choose life or choose death. We cannot have both. Do we want to be on the side of “good” or the side of “evil”. We have to choose whether to be friends with the world (which is enmity with God) or choose to be friends with God. The choice is clear and as opposite as black is to white. There is no shade of grey to God. If there is a shade of grey to us, it is because we do not see clearly the message from God.

May God bless you in your diligent striving to understand His message.

]An often-misunderstood passage which is used to support the idea (which is not true) that God’s Angels can sin

The words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 6:10 say will be done in earth as it is in Heaven Jesus tells us that God’s will is done in Heaven, therefore, God’s Angels do not sin. These are words from the only begotten the Son of God, and who better to know the truth about God’s kingdom in Heaven?

Matthew 6 10 doesn't say anything about angels, in fact it has nothing to even do with angels. Jesus is telling how to do alms not before men, but in secret.

Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

In fact lets read this verse in its actual context, and we see this has nothing to do with angels. You are just randomly picking a verse out for no reason at all, was all.

Matthew
6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Jesus tells us how to pray and then he tells us what to say to thy father in heaven. In comes the verse that you said was about angels and not about prayer to the father, but lets read the entire context of scripture. And we see this indeed is prayer and not talk of angels

Mtthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

An often-misunderstood passage which is used to support the idea (which is not true) that God’s Angels can sin, is that found in the Book of the Revelation and in chapter 12.

As well as your other quotes that angels cannot sin, yet the bible says angels can sin, in fact they did sin

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;

For god spared not the angels that what ?

A. Ate spaghetti and meatballs
B. went for a drive on the beach
C. Played records to loud
D. sinned

Lets look at that one again.

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;

I think I'll stick with what the bible says.

David M

04-02-2013, 02:38 AM

]An often-misunderstood passage which is used to support the idea (which is not true) that God’s Angels can sin

Matthew 6 10 doesn't say anything about angels, in fact it has nothing to even do with angels. Jesus is telling how to do alms not before men, but in secret.

Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

In fact lets read this verse in its actual context, and we see this has nothing to do with angels. You are just randomly picking a verse out for no reason at all, was all.

Matthew
6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Jesus tells us how to pray and then he tells us what to say to thy father in heaven. In comes the verse that you said was about angels and not about prayer to the father, but lets read the entire context of scripture. And we see this indeed is prayer and not talk of angels

Mtthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

As well as your other quotes that angels cannot sin, yet the bible says angels can sin, in fact they did sin

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;

For god spared not the angels that what ?

A. Ate spaghetti and meatballs
B. went for a drive on the beach
C. Played records to loud
D. sinned

Lets look at that one again.

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;

I think I'll stick with what the bible says.

Hello ironsheik7
Thanks for your reply. We know that angels are not mentioned in the prayer of Jesus, but it does beg the question, who is in H(h)eaven to do God's will? The angel Gabriel tells us; I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God;
I do not know that the Angel Garbriel or any other angel that has stood in the presence of God has evere sinned. Even if we do not consider Jesus has in mind the angels in heaven when he gave his molel prayer, the myth built up around God's Angels sinning comes from other misunderstood verses. I do not mind if you leave out the prayer of Jesus, it does not get round the problem that people are taught God's Angels sin, and that is not what I understand from what I read and studied in the Bible.

Are you sure you want to rest scripture as you do? 2 Peter 2:4 is mentioning the same event as Jude 6. I have thoroughly explained this in the thread I started. Here is the URL; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3066-The-quot-angels-quot-in-Jude-6
I do not deliberately add or take away from what God has put on record. I only want to add clarity to what is generally misunderstood, and in so doing, I leave myself open to the protestations of others as we all do when we put our thoughts in print on this forum. If you read my opening post in the thread: The angels of Jude 6 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3066-The-quot-angels-quot-in-Jude-6), you will see how I have dealt thoroughly with all the words in Jude 5 and 6. Perphaps you would do the same, and we can have the benefit of your thoughts.

All the best

David

duxrow

04-02-2013, 08:40 AM

David M

04-03-2013, 03:29 AM

The Sistine Chapel in the Vatican not withstanding, there doesn't seem to be any record of female angels in Scripture, nor fat baby angels either, and it's possible that even the good angels will include some who are less than perfect because Paul wrote how we'd be judging them in the world to come: 1Cor6:3. Maybe that will include the one named Moroni who brought the "newer" [sic] gospel to the Mormons. And, oh yes, the angels Raphael and Uriel are not from the canon of Scripture, but from the historical books of the Apocrypha.

2Cor 11:14 "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light".

"To which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" Heb 1:5,13

Is it the good angels, or the bad angels, that He said this? Or is it only rhetorical? :yo:

Hello Dux

It is interesting how Paul seems to interchange the word "angels" and "ministers" in the two verses in 2 Cor 1:14,15

Also, in the Book of Hebrews we learn; (Hebrews 2:7) Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

Very clearly, God has put all things under Jesus and given Jesus God's own authority. This is the authority Jesus had once He had been given access to the power of God by the Holy Spirit that was seen to descend upon him as a visible sign to those who witnessed it. That was confirmation that Jesus was given the authority to call upon and use God's power. That is why Jesus always considers himself not equal with God for God can take as well as give and Jesus received the Holy Spirit.

The other point about angels in heaven is; as Jesus says; (Matt 22:30) For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
If angels in heaven do not marry, that suggests they are sexless. Sometimes we cannot see the difference between humans. It is hard to distinguish by facial appearance only, whether a person is a woman or a man. Some women have facial hair and some men do not have facial hair. If it is hard to tell between humans as to their sex, then why should it be any different with Angels?

We simply do not know the workings of God to know what Angels are made of and whether they are like robots which can be made-to-order or decommissioned at will. All we can say is; God's Angels are part of his network by which God's will is accomplished. We are told vey little directly about what Angels do and their nature. Again Paul writes, and I accept his teaching; (Hebrews 1:14) Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? It is a rhetorical questions since the answer Paul expects is; "Yes".
I take this as without exception "all God's Angels" are "ministering spirits". Whatever story in which we see God's Angels at work, they are accomplishing what God has tasked them to do. This in one way God talks to sinful men, who he does not talk with directly and who cannot see his face lest they die. If God is so powerful and can do everything, why, we ask, does God need to use Angels?

For the moment, I liken Angels to be part of God's network. Like computers which are connected together via links, computers talk with each other and can be controlled by one master computer. A protocol is in place by which computers talk to each other and satellite computers receive their instructions and do exactly what they are programmed to do. We know man-made machines are not perfect and glitches occur, but for the most of the time, the protocol behaves perfectly and so do the computers. God's network works perfectly; why should it not? Only man is not perfect because of his sin. This would have happened to every man and woman regardless of Adam and Eve; they were literall the "fall guys". Jesus is the exception and proves man had the capability to lead a perfect life and be obedient to God's instructions. The curse that followed sin explains why so much sickness and disease is allowed to continue. Is there a direct correlation between the amount of sinful men and women and the amount if sickness in creation? The sickness did not stop with the Flood; it might have been halted for a short time, but the curse continued aftrer Flood as men and women continued to disobey God.

We know God has the power to correct everything which is wrong wiith creation and believers have to put up with questions from the skeptics and doubters as to why God does not stop the evil taking place and the bad things that happen to "innocent" people. The skeptics' questions are aimed to test the faith of those who believe in God and his word. Believers know and have the assurance as said by God and his son; (Rev 21:5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. Jesus has been given all authority in Heaven, even the authority of God himself and bears God's name. Jesus will be as God when he returns to establish the kingdom of God on earth and restore the earth to its former glory as it was before the fall. This is Jesus appearing as God. I can say that Jesus has that authority now, but it will not be manifest in its entirity until he returns.

As God has promised, this cannot happen until Christ has restored the the earth by ruling in righteousness and subduing all his enemies (the last enemy to be destroyed is death) and then when the kingdom is handed back to his Heavenly Father; God will be "all in all" and "God's glory shall fill the whole earth". From then on, we have no idea what God has "in store for them that love and fear him"

All the best

David

L67

04-03-2013, 06:27 AM

We know God has the power to correct everything which is wrong wiith creation and believers have to put up with questions from the skeptics and doubters as to why God does not stop the evil taking place and the bad things that happen to "innocent" people. The skeptics' questions are aimed to test the faith of those who believe in God and his word. Believers know and have the assurance as said by God and his son;

As God has promised, this cannot happen until Christ has restored the the earth by ruling in righteousness and subduing all his enemies (the last enemy to be destroyed is death) and then when the kingdom is handed back to his Heavenly Father; God will be "all in all" and "God's glory shall fill the whole earth". From then on, we have no idea what God has "in store for them that love and fear him"

All the best

David

You don't "know" God to do anything. God has the power to end the suffering of innocent children or stop a rapist, but he does NOTHING. That is why it is absurd for you to say such nonsense. That's what makes God's inaction morally reprehensible. If I had the power, it would be my obligation to stop such atrocities.

Your words remind me of this video. This what Christians sound like defending God's immoral actions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLakJ_Z_CGk

It's more like non-believers have to put up baseless assertions from Christians like you. No Christian faith is based on any sort of reality. That's all you do David is speculate. And then when you are shown to be in error you don't have the guts to admit you were wrong and just dodge the questions. You're not being a standup guy David. Certainly not very Christ like and most certainly NOT someone who is committed to the truth. That is what someone committed to the truth does David. They admit their error because they can actually LEARN something. You can't do that because you have indefensible dogmas to uphold.

David why don't you address my post that proves you wrong? http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3665-Top-20-Topics-taught-in-the-Bible&p=53410#post53410

duxrow

04-03-2013, 06:44 AM

Hello Dux

It is interesting how Paul seems to interchange the word "angels" and "ministers" in the two verses in 2 Cor 11:14,15

Also, in the Book of Hebrews we learn; (Hebrews 2:7) Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

Very clearly, God has put all things under Jesus and given Jesus God's own authority. This is the authority Jesus had once He had been given access to the power of God by the Holy Spirit that was seen to descend upon him as a visible sign to those who witnessed it. That was confirmation that Jesus was given the authority to call upon and use God's power. That is why Jesus always considers himself not equal with God for God can take as well as give and Jesus received the Holy Spirit.
The other point about angels in heaven is; as Jesus says; (Matt 22:30) For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
If angels in heaven do not marry, that suggests they are sexless. Sometimes we cannot see the difference between humans. It is hard to distinguish by facial appearance only, whether a person is a woman or a man. Some women have facial hair and some men do not have facial hair. If it is hard to tell between humans as to their sex, then why should it be any different with Angels?
Personally I don't care for the word 'sexless', but reckon procreation is for Planet Earth instead of heaven. Reminds me of Genesis where Eve seemed to be an afterthought! :winking0071:
We simply do not know the workings of God to know what Angels are made of and whether they are like robots which can be made-to-order or decommissioned at will. All we can say is; God's Angels are part of his network by which God's will is accomplished. We are told vey little directly about what Angels do and their nature. Again Paul writes, and I accept his teaching; (Hebrews 1:14) Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? It is a rhetorical questions since the answer Paul expects is; "Yes".
I take this as without exception "all God's Angels" are "ministering spirits". Whatever story in which we see God's Angels at work, they are accomplishing what God has tasked them to do. This in one way God talks to sinful men, who he does not talk with directly and who cannot see his face lest they die. If God is so powerful and can do everything, why, we ask, does God need to use Angels?

For the moment, I liken Angels to be part of God's network. Like computers which are connected together via links, computers talk with each other and can be controlled by one master computer. A protocol is in place by which computers talk to each other and satellite computers receive their instructions and do exactly what they are programmed to do. We know man-made machines are not perfect and glitches occur, but for the most of the time, the protocol behaves perfectly and so do the computers. God's network works perfectly; why should it not? Only man is not perfect because of his sin. This would have happened to every man and woman regardless of Adam and Eve; they were literall the "fall guys". Jesus is the exception and proves man had the capability to lead a perfect life and be obedient to God's instructions. The curse that followed sin explains why so much sickness and disease is allowed to continue. Is there a direct correlation between the amount of sinful men and women and the amount if sickness in creation? The sickness did not stop with the Flood; it might have been halted for a short time, but the curse continued aftrer Flood as men and women continued to disobey God.

We know God has the power to correct everything which is wrong wiith creation and believers have to put up with questions from the skeptics and doubters as to why God does not stop the evil taking place and the bad things that happen to "innocent" people. The skeptics' questions are aimed to test the faith of those who believe in God and his word. Believers know and have the assurance as said by God and his son; (Rev 21:5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. Jesus has been given all authority in Heaven, even the authority of God himself and bears God's name. Jesus will be as God when he returns to establish the kingdom of God on earth and restore the earth to its former glory as it was before the fall. This is Jesus appearing as God. I can say that Jesus has that authority now, but it will not be manifest in its entirity until he returns.

As God has promised, this cannot happen until Christ has restored the the earth by ruling in righteousness and subduing all his enemies (the last enemy to be destroyed is death) and then when the kingdom is handed back to his Heavenly Father; God will be "all in all" and "God's glory shall fill the whole earth". From then on, we have no idea what God has "in store for them that love and fear him"

All the best

David

Hi David - Ministers/Messengers both seem applicable to angels. Watch it though, because the 'angel that lied' in 1K13:18 may still be around! hah.

"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". Gal 1:8.

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal". 1Cor13:1

Since the angels are 'ministering spirits', it may be helpful to speak their language? You think?

David M

04-04-2013, 12:19 AM

Hello L67

You don't "know" God to do anything. God has the power to end the suffering of innocent children or stop a rapist, but he does NOTHING. That is why it is absurd for you to say such nonsense. That's what makes God's inaction morally reprehensible. If I had the power, it would be my obligation to stop such atrocities.
So you think God should stop you making your absurd remarks? What is the difference? Mankind as it is now shows very clearly mankind is incapable of doing the things you say God should do. God has proved himself, is proving himself and will prove himself again. God through his only begotten Son will "make all things new" and that is sufficient for me to believe that ultimately all the injustice in this world and all the evil in this will world will be a thing of the past and all the things you say God should do, He will accomplish in his determined time.

Your words remind me of this video.
This what Christians sound like defending God's immoral actions.
I do not hold with what a lot of Christians say, so videos such as this, I am not likely to agree with and might even agree with your comments about it. I tried to watch the video, but since it does not play smoothly in the window on this forum, I quit watching. I suggest you supply the Youtube url so I can download it and watch it that way (the link shows in the post when I "reply with quotes"). Whatever is said in the video, is irrelevant to our conversation.

Does God not have the right to let you die for not following his instructions? Whetther you die sooner or later, die you will. Letting "innocent" children in a reprobate society live to grow up and do the same thing is not being kind to those who suffer at their hand. Again, this is the point Timmy was making. Our justice system is failing for letting murders come out of prison to kill again. Justice is not being done by our own legal systems and yet you accuse God for the justice he exercises.

It's more like non-believers have to put up baseless assertions from Christians like you. No Christian faith is based on any sort of reality. That's all you do David is speculate. And then when you are shown to be in error you don't have the guts to admit you were wrong and just dodge the questions. You're not being a standup guy David. Certainly not very Christ like and most certainly NOT someone who is committed to the truth. That is what someone committed to the truth does David. They admit their error because they can actually LEARN something. You can't do that because you have indefensible dogmas to uphold.
You certainly have got a grudge against me. I suggest you back up your words about me with proof. I have over 1000 posts in the last 12 months, many of those posts have been long with explanations. You have written 160 posts in 8 months and many of those posts have not been in depth. All you are doing is commenting upon the person and not on the facts. I have admited my mistakes when I acknowledge I have made a mistake. Saying I have made a misake without adequately proving it, is not sufficient. This is why the arguements are continuing, because neither side accepts they are wrong and cannot agree with the other person's argument. Now if you want to argue for God's Angels sinning, I suggest you go to the posts; 'The angels of Jude 6' (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3066-The-quot-angels-quot-in-Jude-6) or 'Can Gods' Angels in Heaven be trusted?' (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted) and take up the discussion there and present your case in depth.

David why don't you address my post that proves you wrong? http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3665-Top-20-Topics-taught-in-the-Bible&p=53410#post53410[/QUOTE]
OK. I see that is next to the post Richard also replied to and which I have shall get around to replying to unless I am distracted like having to reply to you in this post. That is the nature of this forum, in that we oftern get sidetracked an things get forgotten. You are as guilty as any of us for not answering questions aimed at you. Please do me the courtesy of addressing my questions to you. Now I do not propose to answer all twenty topics you list. I have less time now to spend contributing to this forum and many of the things I expect to find in that post, I will have dealt with in the last 15 months and 1122 posts. I came across a website listing over 700 inaccuracies in the Bible. As much as I would like to challenge that website and show that number can be whittled down to a few errors, I simply do not have the time. I do not have prepared material I can copy and paste, which is why my answers on this forum take up so much of my time.

David

L67

04-04-2013, 07:29 AM

Hello L67

So you think God should stop you making your absurd remarks? What is the difference? Mankind as it is now shows very clearly mankind is incapable of doing the things you say God should do. God has proved himself, is proving himself and will prove himself again. God through his only begotten Son will "make all things new" and that is sufficient for me to believe that ultimately all the injustice in this world and all the evil in this will world will be a thing of the past and all the things you say God should do, He will accomplish in his determined time.

Absurd remarks? There is nothing more absurd than comparing God to humans. He is suppose to be above us remember? Last I checked God couldn't deal with the problems in the OT any better than humans because the same problems still exist.

There is nothing absurd about my remarks. You need to demonstrate that they are absurd. My remarks are based on reality. Your remarks are not based on reality. How has God proved himself? Show me one thing that could be said that God did anything.

I do not hold with what a lot of Christians say, so videos such as this, I am not likely to agree with and might even agree with your comments about it. I tried to watch the video, but since it does not play smoothly in the window on this forum, I quit watching. I suggest you supply the Youtube url so I can download it and watch it that way (the link shows in the post when I "reply with quotes"). Whatever is said in the video, is irrelevant to our conversation.

No the content of the video is very much relevant to this discussion. It shows how deluded Christians are when they excuse God's immoral actions. YOU are the one who claimed God has the power to change his creation and yet he has never been shown to do anything. You have repeatedly excused away God's immoral actions in the OT, so this video includes you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLakJ_Z_CGk

Does God not have the right to let you die for not following his instructions? Whetther you die sooner or later, die you will. Letting "innocent" children in a reprobate society live to grow up and do the same thing is not being kind to those who suffer at their hand. Again, this is the point Timmy was making. Our justice system is failing for letting murders come out of prison to kill again. Justice is not being done by our own legal systems and yet you accuse God for the justice he exercises.

How can you be so deluded? God's answer to sin was more violence, and it solved NOTHING. Not one thing changed from God's punishment. And there was nothing just from God's punishment because he routinely showed favortism.

Your comment about "innocent" children is morally reprehensible. Your religion has corrupted your rational though process. It takes a deluded mind to come up with such trash. The youtube video I posted is YOU to the letter. All that needs to be changed is the persons name to David.

You certainly have got a grudge against me. I suggest you back up your words about me with proof. I have over 1000 posts in the last 12 months, many of those posts have been long with explanations. You have written 160 posts in 8 months and many of those posts have not been in depth. All you are doing is commenting upon the person and not on the facts. I have admited my mistakes when I acknowledge I have made a mistake. Saying I have made a misake without adequately proving it, is not sufficient. This is why the arguements are continuing, because neither side accepts they are wrong and cannot agree with the other person's argument. Now if you want to argue for God's Angels sinning, I suggest you go to the posts; 'The angels of Jude 6' (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3066-The-quot-angels-quot-in-Jude-6) or 'Can Gods' Angels in Heaven be trusted?' (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted) and take up the discussion there and present your case in depth.

I don't care how much you have written. Post count does not make someone's point valid. On the contrary, most of your posts contain nothing but speculation with no facts. Sorry David it is YOU who is not dealing with the facts. I fully demonstrated your error in this post. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3665-Top-20-Topics-taught-in-the-Bible&p=53410#post53410

David it is irrelevant whether Angels can sin in the formulation of the paradox. YOU completely FAIL to understand your own words. What is wrong with you?

OK. I see that is next to the post Richard also replied to and which I have shall get around to replying to unless I am distracted like having to reply to you in this post. That is the nature of this forum, in that we oftern get sidetracked an things get forgotten. You are as guilty as any of us for not answering questions aimed at you. Please do me the courtesy of addressing my questions to you. Now I do not propose to answer all twenty topics you list. I have less time now to spend contributing to this forum and many of the things I expect to find in that post, I will have dealt with in the last 15 months and 1122 posts. I came across a website listing over 700 inaccuracies in the Bible. As much as I would like to challenge that website and show that number can be whittled down to a few errors, I simply do not have the time. I do not have prepared material I can copy and paste, which is why my answers on this forum take up so much of my time.

No you can't say I am guilty of not answering any questions asked of me. Please post the proof. You make FALSE assertions and then never back your claims up with evidence. I want concrete proof that I have never answered questions.

David M

04-04-2013, 10:58 AM

Absurd remarks? There is nothing more absurd than comparing God to humans. He is suppose to be above us remember? Last I checked God couldn't deal with the problems in the OT any better than humans because the same problems still exist.
God did not say he was solving the problem for ever. That will not happen until the last enemy "death" is defeated.

There is nothing absurd about my remarks. You need to demonstrate that they are absurd. My remarks are based on reality. Your remarks are not based on reality. How has God proved himself? Show me one thing that could be said that God did anything.
You simply do not accept anything presented to you, so I am not going to present you with more.

No the content of the video is very much relevant to this discussion. It shows how deluded Christians are when they excuse God's immoral actions. YOU are the one who claimed God has the power to change his creation and yet he has never been shown to do anything. You have repeatedly excused away God's immoral actions in the OT, so this video includes you.
I have not excused God. He has no case to answer. You are calling him immoral and I say he is just.

How can you be so deluded? God's answer to sin was more violence, and it solved NOTHING. Not one thing changed from God's punishment. And there was nothing just from God's punishment because he routinely showed favortism.
(Acts 10:34) Accordingt to Peter's understanding; Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Your comment about "innocent" children is morally reprehensible. Your religion has corrupted your rational though process. It takes a deluded mind to come up with such trash. The youtube video I posted is YOU to the letter. All that needs to be changed is the persons name to David.
You uphold that children are to be taught by reprobates and brought up as reprobates to do the evil acts which are abominable to God.

I don't care how much you have written. Post count does not make someone's point valid. On the contrary, most of your posts contain nothing but speculation with no facts. Sorry David it is YOU who is not dealing with the facts. I fully demonstrated your error in this post. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3665-Top-20-Topics-taught-in-the-Bible&p=53410#post53410]I have replied to that post and I agree with your condemnation of the religious elders you cited. I do not know why you continue to press the point.

David it is irrelevant whether Angels can sin in the formulation of the paradox. YOU completely FAIL to understand your own words. What is wrong with you?
You did not answer the question; who are the "angels" in Jude 6. You would need to justify your answer, but I am no longer interested in your answer. To answer correctly, you would have to explain how you come to the conclusion you have. If you do not want to read my post in which I have identified the "angels" and given my explanation, that is your prerogative; just do not expect me to continue this conversation.

I have fully explained my reasons for not accepting Richard's formulation. There is no need for me to repeat here. If you have not read my explanations, or cannot understand my point of view; I accept that and I am not pursuing this matter.

No you can't say I am guilty of not answering any questions asked of me. Please post the proof. You make FALSE assertions and then never back your claims up with evidence. I want concrete proof that I have never answered questions.
You did not answer the question I have cited above, but that does not matter now. I am not trawling through past post to find more examples.

Now, I am no longer interested if you answer my questions; I have not asked you any questions in this postso as not to invoke a reply. I am not inviting any further questions in this thread. We have both expressed our opinion and that should be enough. This is my last post to you in this thread. It is time to move on.

David

Richard Amiel McGough

04-04-2013, 12:23 PM

God has proved himself, is proving himself and will prove himself again. God through his only begotten Son will "make all things new" and that is sufficient for me to believe that ultimately all the injustice in this world and all the evil in this will world will be a thing of the past and all the things you say God should do, He will accomplish in his determined time.

Good afternoon David,

I find that claim exceedingly strange. Proof means EVIDENCE based on logic and facts. I've never seen any proof, and I've ask you many times for proof and you have never provided any. And as we all know, you choose to believe the Bible even though there is no proof. If there were anything like real proof Christians would have presented it by now. They wouldn't need to write absurdities like Hugh Ross who claims there are about 2000 prophecies that have been fulfilled "to the letter" with "no errors." I totally refuted his claim in my recent article called Two Thousand Reasons to Believe Dr. Hugh Ross Might Not Be Entirely Credible (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/03/29/2000-reasons-to-believe-hugh-ross-might-be-wrong/).

I think its important to realize that making outrageous claims that blatantly contradict reality don't help prove Christianity. On the contrary, they give skeptics good reason to doubt that there is any truth in Christianity at all given what it does to believers.

I do not hold with what a lot of Christians say, so videos such as this, I am not likely to agree with and might even agree with your comments about it. I tried to watch the video, but since it does not play smoothly in the window on this forum, I quit watching. I suggest you supply the Youtube url so I can download it and watch it that way (the link shows in the post when I "reply with quotes"). Whatever is said in the video, is irrelevant to our conversation.

It never ceases to amaze me that a lot of Christians reject "what a lot of Christians say" and yet don't see how this undermines their claim that the Bible is a reliable guide. Obviously, if most believers depend upon the Bible and yet come to wrong conclusions, the Bible did not function as a reliable guide.

As for the video quality: What browser are you using? I've never had any problems watching videos embedded in posts. In any case, you don't need to be given the url because you can just click the "Watch on YouTube" button in the lower right corner of the video.

All the best,

Richard

L67

04-04-2013, 01:29 PM

God did not say he was solving the problem for ever. That will not happen until the last enemy "death" is defeated.

Then what was the point of the flood? Because it solved absolutely nothing. He killed just to kill, since it accomplished nothing. He couldn't stand sin so he killed everyone except 8 and let the process start over. Doesn't seem very well thought out to me. Don't you think the creator could think of a better way than so much death and destruction? He knew before he created everything that it would lead to violence. Yet, he did it anyway. Seems pretty sadistic.

You simply do not accept anything presented to you, so I am not going to present you with more.

I will gladly accept anything you could provide as evidence, but you haven't presented anything of substance. You have only given your assertions with no evidence.

I have not excused God. He has no case to answer. You are calling him immoral and I say he is just.

He is immoral. How in the world can you call him just? Violence stemming from a problem he himself started. Completely immoral. I don't expect you to watch this video but this is to show people how immoral God really is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gXOhravzRI

(Acts 10:34) Accordingt to Peter's understanding; Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

That doensn't help your case David. That shows he an immoral God in that context David.

You uphold that children are to be taught by reprobates and brought up as reprobates to do the evil acts which are abominable to God.

I neve said any such thing. That is the nonsense flowing through your head. Yes, abominable acts that God KNEW about before he created everything and then knowingly had to kill them all because he hates sin. Makes perfect sense. That proves right there that God is immoral.

I have replied to that post and I agree with your condemnation of the religious elders you cited. I do not know why you continue to press the point.

Because you seem to think that somehow your beliefs are untainted through the process. They are not. They all stemmed from the same place and branched out.

You did not answer the question; who are the "angels" in Jude 6. You would need to justify your answer, but I am no longer interested in your answer. To answer correctly, you would have to explain how you come to the conclusion you have. If you do not want to read my post in which I have identified the "angels" and given my explanation, that is your prerogative; just do not expect me to continue this conversation.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO THE ANGELS ARE! The whole arugment stems from the paradox that you proposed and your failure to recognize Richards logically identical paradox. The meaning of angels is irrelevant.

I have fully explained my reasons for not accepting Richard's formulation. There is no need for me to repeat here. If you have not read my explanations, or cannot understand my point of view; I accept that and I am not pursuing this matter.

Your reasons are invalid. I have read them and they logically irrational.

You did not answer the question I have cited above, but that does not matter now. I am not trawling through past post to find more examples.

Because you were trying to direct the discussion away from where it needs to stay. The meaning of Angels is irrelvant.

Now, I am no longer interested if you answer my questions; I have not asked you any questions in this postso as not to invoke a reply. I am not inviting any further questions in this thread. We have both expressed our opinion and that should be enough. This is my last post to you in this thread. It is time to move on.

Why are you being quitter David? Come on don't act that way. You make many assertions and you don't expect people to refute what you have to say?

duxrow

04-04-2013, 01:54 PM

Then what was the point of the flood? Because it solved absolutely nothing.

Really? Depends on your POV.. We're still considering it after these many centuries! :winking0071:

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3566-The-Three-Arks&p=51984#post51984

L67

04-04-2013, 04:40 PM

Really? Depends on your POV.. We're still considering it after these many centuries! :winking0071:

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3566-The-Three-Arks&p=51984#post51984

No. Christians may still be considering it, but science knows there was no flood. No evidence to support that idea.

The whole idea of a global flood is preposterous. If you want to see just how ridiculous the idea is read this link. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

David M

04-05-2013, 04:37 AM

Hello L67
I have this minute replied to you in the thread; 'The top 20 topics in the Bible". I feel we might be making some progress and we ought to pick a topic and exhaust the topic and reach a conclusion.

I will answer your questions here, but I do not want to carry on separate conversations which sidetrack us and dilute the conversation we ought to be having.

Then what was the point of the flood? Because it solved absolutely nothing. He killed just to kill, since it accomplished nothing. He couldn't stand sin so he killed everyone except 8 and let the process start over. Doesn't seem very well thought out to me. Don't you think the creator could think of a better way than so much death and destruction? He knew before he created everything that it would lead to violence. Yet, he did it anyway. Seems pretty sadistic.
One lesson to come out of the flood is that God let things continue until the last remaining "good" family were worth saving, and even then Noah was not perfect. Why did God save only eight souls? Eight is a significant numer in scripture and eight represents "new beginning" and that is what God did with Noah and his family; God started again. God did not solve the problem of sin and sin will not be erradicated until Christ has destroyed the "last enemy" which is death and that will not happen for another 1000 years (or a longish time). At the end of the 7th millenuim follows the 8th. That is the new beginning, wihich is for eternity.

I will gladly accept anything you could provide as evidence, but you haven't presented anything of substance. You have only given your assertions with no evidence.
My main evidence is the same as you do and quote scripture. The failing we can all do is to quote scripture and not fully explain it. I have explained often, but not every time, the way I understand these verses and that is what is not accepted by you and Richard and my opponents. So when I have given my proof for believing what I do, it is not accepted as proof. I ought not to be accused of not giving proof of what I claim. I do not always give chapter and verse when writing in a hurry, but most of the time I do, and I try to highlight verses in color when I am quoting from the Bible and I highlight in red when quoting the words of Jesus.

He is immoral. How in the world can you call him just? Violence stemming from a problem he himself started. Completely immoral. I don't expect you to watch this video but this is to show people how immoral God really is. So you blame God for setting a test? It was inevitable, even without Adam and Eve, a man or woman would eventually disobey God's instruction. I see in the story of Adam and Eve, God was right to test them from the beginning and get the matter settled. God already had a plan for redeeming man. Yes, God knew man would fail.

God did set the test, but it was man who failed. It is man who goes against God's instruction and it is man who is rejecting God. Why should God do anything for anyone who rejects him? You want to kill, hate, rape, commit adultery, lie, steal, and give false witness and expect God to give you eternal life? How ludicrous is that!! If we cannot follow simple instruction, what hope have we? God does not want robots in his kingdom; alreadyt he has Angels which obey him. God's problem is with man, but it is not really a problem. God knows what he is doing and will separate the righteous who meet his requirements from all the reprobates who will be destroyed one way or another. It is the people God destroys that leaves the remnant to be the best.

That doensn't help your case David. That shows he an immoral God in that context David. I see no context in which the actions of God are not seen as just. Bringing in "innocent" children is an excuse for denying the obvious. The sins of the parents are "visited" (inherited) on the children, because for most children, they grow up to do the same as their parents. Richard's solution to clsoe up the wombs of repbroabates might be one way to do it, who knows whether that would be best in the long-term. How would you explain a happening like that? I guess that would not be recognized as God's hand at work. No change there by the skeptics. God's method was expedient at the time, and whatever you say and introduce "innocent" children, the fault lies with the parents and the parents brought the consequences on the children. God does not kill the righteous, we have numerous examples where God saves and gives opportunity for people to be saved. Those who ignore his warning, suffer the consequences.

I neve said any such thing. That is the nonsense flowing through your head. Yes, abominable acts that God KNEW about before he created everything and then knowingly had to kill them all because he hates sin. Makes perfect sense. That proves right there that God is immoral. It is more immoral of men to let killers carry on killing. If I had to argue for the immorality of God, it would be for letting things as they are now continue, but I know that is not the case. God is proving to me he is right and man's rule is not just and is full of wickedness. God has declared his intention and all reprobates will die the eternal death and the righteous will live for ever. With that stark choice, you are left to make your decision. Do not expect me to follow you to "hell".

Because you seem to think that somehow your beliefs are untainted through the process. They are not. They all stemmed from the same place and branched out.
My beliefs are not just my own. I do not see the beliefs that I share with others as being perfect without taint. However, daily my beliefs are being strengthened and perfected. Whilst I am on a learning path, I am prone to make mistakes and will stand corrected, but not by people who do not hold to truth. I might be further along the parth to ultimate truth than many trailing behind.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO THE ANGELS ARE! The whole arugment stems from the paradox that you proposed and your failure to recognize Richards logically identical paradox. The meaning of angels is irrelevant. As Richard would say; "this blows my mind". It matters what you consider the "angels" are. This is the basis for a paradox or no paradox. Richard sees no paradox, because be accepts God's Angels sin. I do not accept this. I accept priests (angels) sin and that for me takes away the paradox which I see. Only when "angels" = "God's Angels", which is not true in every case, we would have a contradiction.

You MUST have an opinion as to who the "angels" are. It is the reason I am objecting to Richard's use of logic and the expression he used in his statement.
So long as "angels" can refer to both humans and God's Angels, there in ambiguity in the meaning of "angels". Added to this, when in Richard's defence of his arguent he says; "earth" and "earth + heaven" are the same and can be interchanged, this is not true! As I have explained, humans (as "angels"-messengers, priests,) are on earth and cannot be in Heaven, and God's Angels are in Heaven and can also be on earth when God sends them to earth. "angels" which are human cannot be where God's Angels can be in Heaven. I do not know why no-one will admit to not seeing this as I do and agreeing with me and exposing Richard's logic for what it is. I feel like I am the "one voice crying in the wilderness". I will not be "bullied" as Rick described Richard's tactics and knows how Richard operates. I have not used that term, but I know the way Richard operates and I do not always like it. I think Richard can be equally frank without using the tactics he does. It would be better to stop accusing everyone of being delusioned, dishonest, and the like.

As I was looking for a post (and unable to find it) I was reading many post I had missed. Whilst we have our differences of understanding, I see that I am not alone and share an affinity with Charisma, Duxrow, Timmy, jce, CWH, Slyvius, heb 13-13, to name a few from memory. We all see the tactics Richard uses and see his methodology for winning his side of the argument.
I do not hold myself in any high esteem and despite his remarks about me in recent posts, after six months of discussion with Richard, he said I was; "a worthy opponent". I will not yield to Richard's claim that he is right and that by implication everyone else is delusioned and wrong. It amazed me how Richard latched on to your support of him by adopting the same language you use against believers in God's word. It is not a tactic I like and I would prefer to have a reasoned discussion based solely on the text of the Bible and leave personality out of the discusion. On that basis, I shall continue, but do not expect me to continue and tolerate the abuse that has been levelled at me lately. I felt we are beginning to make progress in the other thread I mentioned at the beginning of this post. Let us stick to keeping it that way, and let us get to the truth of God's word, even if that makes us both uncomfortable at times.

Your reasons are invalid. I have read them and they logically irrational. That is your opinion and I have just given my reasons again. I only hope someone else can see things as I do.

Because you were trying to direct the discussion away from where it needs to stay. The meaning of Angels is irrelvant. You are sounding more like Richard in every post. He now accuses me of exactly the same as I have repeatedly accused him of. He is now shifting the blame on me as if I started this. How deceptive is that? This nonsense has to stop, or I will walk away.

Why are you being quitter David? Come on don't act that way. You make many assertions and you don't expect people to refute what you have to say? I have a threshold of toleration. I am not going to go mad and keep having to repeat myself and go round in circles. There are times when the discussion has to draw to a close. I am not quitting where a reasoned argument can continue. I do not want to carry on multiple conversations in which Richard and you keep dragging in the same old dispute we have had about "angels". I will continue that discussion under the "fresh start" Richard said we could do and yet has not gone there. If you want to continue that argument, please do so in the thread; 'Can God's Angels be trusted? or 'God's will is done in Heaven' or a thread in which it is appropriate. More than anyone else I have read on this forum, I have been saying we should stay on topic in a thread.

All the best

David

David M

04-05-2013, 06:22 AM

Good afternoon David,

I find that claim exceedingly strange. Proof means EVIDENCE based on logic and facts. I've never seen any proof, and I've ask you many times for proof and you have never provided any. And as we all know, you choose to believe the Bible even though there is no proof. If there were anything like real proof Christians would have presented it by now. They wouldn't need to write absurdities like Hugh Ross who claims there are about 2000 prophecies that have been fulfilled "to the letter" with "no errors." I totally refuted his claim in my recent article called Two Thousand Reasons to Believe Dr. Hugh Ross Might Not Be Entirely Credible (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/03/29/2000-reasons-to-believe-hugh-ross-might-be-wrong/).

I think its important to realize that making outrageous claims that blatantly contradict reality don't help prove Christianity. On the contrary, they give skeptics good reason to doubt that there is any truth in Christianity at all given what it does to believers.
Hello Richard
I have heard the same response from you many times to me and to others and I am becoming fatigued by it. We have to move on and stop saying the same old things. I shall try to stop mentioning "minority" and give reason for anyone to go of an a side trail. I only want to reason from the Bible and get to whatever truth the author(s) intended us to understand. We have to stick with one topic until it is exhausted and then come to a conclusion. We have to hear each others reasons until all the evidence is in and then try and come to an agreement or some conclusioon. Unless we can do this and have some form of rules to stick to, so discussions stay on track, all discussions between us are doomed. Even now I am saying what I have said months ago. Either we adopt a basis for discussion or we desist from entering into discussion.

It never ceases to amaze me that a lot of Christians reject "what a lot of Christians say" and yet don't see how this undermines their claim that the Bible is a reliable guide. Obviously, if most believers depend upon the Bible and yet come to wrong conclusions, the Bible did not function as a reliable guide. I accept that point of view. We can forget all that, it is an irrelevance to us, who should be discussing the words of the Bible to get to the truth. That which is not truth gets exposed and thrown out. I am having a conversation with L67 about the "few" and the "many". It is known there are to be many imposters, who appear as "angels of light". It does not surprise me many are being deceived and led along the wrong path. I guess you know every interpretation and permutation there is and you use that as your reason for not reaching a descision of your own. You say Preterism seems to be the best fit, and yet that is not a perfect fit. Why not continue to find the perfect fit? You are using your failure to do so for ten years as your excuse for quitting and now finding every reason to support your present view. I am still no wiser as to what you think the Bible teaches. Should we just start with one topic say; "resurrection" and stick with that subject till we have exhausted it and reached a conclusion?

As for the video quality: What browser are you using? I've never had any problems watching videos embedded in posts. In any case, you don't need to be given the url because you can just click the "Watch on YouTube" button in the lower right corner of the video. Thanks for the tip, I shall look out for that next time. I know how to get the URL as I explained.

As for this Firefox 12 running on my laptop, it is not acting in the way my other computers (I use less frequently) do. My spell checker does not work, even though the relevant box is ticked. I get frustrated with interconnections breaking mid post, and slowly responding videos. This probably this has something to do with the lack of video accelerator program. I dumped a program which forced itself in place of another program I was using and have not got back to having the old program installed. I have reloaded Firefox with no improvement and this latest edition of Firefox has disabled incompatible extensions I was happy using. Firefox might be advertising on Google its 15th year, but it is not something I am shouting the praises of at the moment. It might be due to technical problems with my laptop which has many uses and so I have to give Firefox some benefit of doubt at the moment.

All the best,

David

duxrow

04-05-2013, 08:17 AM

No. Christians may still be considering it, but science knows there was no flood. No evidence to support that idea.

The whole idea of a global flood is preposterous. If you want to see just how ridiculous the idea is read this link. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
hah! Read "The Genesis Flood" by scientists Whitcomb and Morris - 'Scientists' are routinely discovering new 'facts' to enlighten us with, and I grant you it may not look to you that a Flood occurred, but when GOD wants to hide something, you haven't a clue! :lol:

If you're dedicated to the proposition that the Bible is simply a compilation of the writings of ancient fiction authors, then you will likely never observe the consummate and intricate skill of the Great Holy Ghostwriter and Husbandman in planting His Seed in Planet Earth.

He wants sons and daughters that will make him proud (not ashamed), and gives us 70+ years (mostly) to get wisdom and our act straight, Ps90:10. Not that the lowlife and scum (tares) are likely to get their eyes opened, but there's still hope for those with the breath of life.. hah. :eek:

Richard Amiel McGough

04-05-2013, 10:36 AM

Hello Richard
I have heard the same response from you many times to me and to others and I am becoming fatigued by it. We have to move on and stop saying the same old things. I shall try to stop mentioning "minority" and give reason for anyone to go of an a side trail. I only want to reason from the Bible and get to whatever truth the author(s) intended us to understand. We have to stick with one topic until it is exhausted and then come to a conclusion. We have to hear each others reasons until all the evidence is in and then try and come to an agreement or some conclusioon. Unless we can do this and have some form of rules to stick to, so discussions stay on track, all discussions between us are doomed. Even now I am saying what I have said months ago. Either we adopt a basis for discussion or we desist from entering into discussion.

Good morning David,

If you don't want me to repeat my refutation, then quit repeating the thing I refuted. You had asserted yet again that God had "proven himself." So I felt it important to remind you and the readers that you have never substantiated that claim. It's fine if you want to present evidence supporting your assertion, but to merely state such a wild assertion with no evidence at all demands a response.

Now you say that you only want to "reason from the Bible and get to whatever truth the author(s) intended us to understand." I don't think that is quite accurate. It appears you want to reason using the entirely unjustified presupposition that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. That's a far cry from determining what the "authors" intended. Would you use that presupposition for any other book like the Quran, the book of Mormon, or how about the book of Enoch? If you really want to know what the authors intended, you would accept the standard methods of determining such things. For example, you would accept all the evidence that shows Jude and Peter, like many early Christians, believed the book of Enoch and the idea that angels had sex with women. You would admit that Peter was obviously talking about fallen angels when he adapted the traditional Greek mythology in 2 Peter 2:4:

MYTH: The god ZEUS bound the rebellious TITANS and cast them into Tartarus.
BIBLE: The god YHWH bound the rebellious ANGELS and cast them into Tartarus.

Don't you think we should use the same kind of logic we would use in all other studies if we want to come to valid conclusions about the Bible? To do otherwise would be a double standard.

I accept that point of view. We can forget all that, it is an irrelevance to us, who should be discussing the words of the Bible to get to the truth. That which is not truth gets exposed and thrown out. I am having a conversation with L67 about the "few" and the "many". It is known there are to be many imposters, who appear as "angels of light". It does not surprise me many are being deceived and led along the wrong path. I guess you know every interpretation and permutation there is and you use that as your reason for not reaching a descision of your own. You say Preterism seems to be the best fit, and yet that is not a perfect fit. Why not continue to find the perfect fit? You are using your failure to do so for ten years as your excuse for quitting and now finding every reason to support your present view. I am still no wiser as to what you think the Bible teaches. Should we just start with one topic say; "resurrection" and stick with that subject till we have exhausted it and reached a conclusion?

Why don't I continue looking for a perfect fit? Because I have taken it to the limit. I have found the main and the plain things that fit very well, such as the explicit statements that the end of the age would be marked by the destruction of the Temple which happened in 70 AD. The things that don't fit require AD HOC INTERPRETATION, just like the problematic passages in the Futurist scheme. I have no interest in making up explanations to fill the gaps that are caused by the logical incoherence of the Bible.

I am not using my "failure" as an excuse. On the contrary, I am using my SUCCESS in proving the Bible is logically incoherent as the reason there is no need for further study on this particular point.

Why do you begin with the assumption that the Bible is coherent? This seems particularly odd given that 1) the Bible contains many obvious contradictions, errors, superstitions, and absurdities, and 2) the most fervent believers come to radically contradictory conclusions. And the Bible is a book written by humans, so the obvious default position is that it is fallible like any human book. If you start with this presumption it makes a lot more sense.

As for "what the Bible teaches" - you and I have talked for a year. If you still don't know, then don't blame me. I've explained myself many times. The Bible teaches that John the Baptist fulfilled the two prophecies of the Elijah who was to come to 1) prepare the way for the Messiah, and to 2) warn of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Jesus said he fulfilled these prophecies. The Bible teaches that Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised the third day. Etc., etc., etc. The answer to your question is quite simple. I think the Bible teaches what the Bible teaches. As for disputed things that the Bible is unclear about, I think the Bible is unclear about those things.

If you REALLY want to know what the Bible teaches, you should work with me on establishing the FOUNDATION according to the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics. It instantly exposes doctrines not founded in what the Bible actually states.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS (http://biblewheel.com/Theology/TheologyIntro.php)

Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:

[*=1]Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
[*=1]Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
[*=1]2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistemology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology. Application of this rule immediately clears away the debris accumulated from centuries of unfounded speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the true Biblical doctrines of Eschatology.

But I doubt you will do this because no believer committed to idiosyncratic sectarian doctrines has ever been willing to hold to this principle because they know their doctrines will not stand in light of the main and plain things taught in the Bible.

As for this Firefox 12 running on my laptop, it is not acting in the way my other computers (I use less frequently) do. My spell checker does not work, even though the relevant box is ticked. I get frustrated with interconnections breaking mid post, and slowly responding videos. This probably this has something to do with the lack of video accelerator program. I dumped a program which forced itself in place of another program I was using and have not got back to having the old program installed. I have reloaded Firefox with no improvement and this latest edition of Firefox has disabled incompatible extensions I was happy using. Firefox might be advertising on Google its 15th year, but it is not something I am shouting the praises of at the moment. It might be due to technical problems with my laptop which has many uses and so I have to give Firefox some benefit of doubt at the moment.

All the best,

David
Firefox used to be my preferred browser, but it has big problems with YouTube videos. I don't know if a day went by when FF didn't crash while watching one. I switched to Chrome and haven't had a problem.

How old is your laptop? Have you defragged your harddrive lately?

Great chatting!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

04-05-2013, 10:56 AM

hah! Read "The Genesis Flood" by scientists Whitcomb and Morris - 'Scientists' are routinely discovering new 'facts' to enlighten us with, and I grant you it may not look to you that a Flood occurred, but when GOD wants to hide something, you haven't a clue! :lol:

Ha, indeed! That book is ridiculous. Have you actually read it? There is NO EVIDENCE of any kind for a global flood. And there is a lot of evidence proving it never happened. For example, there has not been a global extinction of land animals in recent history. The whole story is absurd on the face of it. What are we supposed to believe? That a single pair of kangaroos swam the ocean to get to the Middle East and then swam back after the flood resided? And what did the carnivores eat? And why is there no fossil record of this event? And where did the 40,000 species of spiders come from? Did they all ride the ark, and then each pair miraculously survive and reproduce? And on and on it goes. The story is just that - a story. It is absurd to believe it literally happened.

And if God wanted to hide it, why did he tell us about it in the Bible? Is he really such a deceiver?

If you're dedicated to the proposition that the Bible is simply a compilation of the writings of ancient fiction authors, then you will likely never observe the consummate and intricate skill of the Great Holy Ghostwriter and Husbandman in planting His Seed in Planet Earth.

Not true. I can see many amazing patterns in the Bible such as the holographs, the Bible Wheel, and the Isaiah Bible Correlation. But I don't know how they got there, and I can't believe in the god described in the Bible because the Bible says he does all sorts of cruel and irrational things, and it says he answers prayers but he doesn't.

The truth is this - If you believe that a book is inspired, you will see patterns that are not even their. Case in point: Muslims are totally convinced that Allah designed the Quran upon the Number 19 to prove it is inspired. Do you believe that? Why not? Because your presupposition is different. You think YOUR BOOK is inspired and not theirs, so you see patterns in your book and not theirs.

He wants sons and daughters that will make him proud (not ashamed), and gives us 70+ years (mostly) to get wisdom and our act straight, Ps90:10. Not that the lowlife and scum (tares) are likely to get their eyes opened, but there's still hope for those with the breath of life.. hah. :eek:
He didn't give those starving children in Africa no 70 years. They died from starvation and disease, never learned to read, let alone to read the Bible. That's the way MOST humans have died in history. The Bible is a relatively NEW book, especially the NT. If only those who read or hear of the Bible get a chance, then God has been very cruel and unjust.

And worse, if it depends on us figuring it out we are all doomed, since everyone has a different idea about what the Bible means.

duxrow

04-05-2013, 12:02 PM

Read it 30 yrs ago, and the authors were well educated (like you, Richard) and no question but that science has progressed since then. YOU ask a bunch of questions but I'm confident you wouldn't like my answers.. hah. (Bible doesn't say about 'species', and I'm willing to pick up on some evolution at this point..) :winking0071:

What makes you think GOD should answer your prayers? I agree He doesn't answer them all, but many testify to 'answered prayer'. :pray:

As for the koran, I consider it simply a commentary on the Bible, that tries to re-write the scenario to fit their own ideas -- God had 2 sisters for wives, according to Jeremiah! So why not a son?? A chip off the old block, called "a Rock" in 1Cor10:4.

Yes, we're in "Life or Death" situation here, so wisdom and caution are certain requirements, and not everyone gets their 70 or 80. Some are "taken" to perhaps a better place--like in "absent from the Body, is to be present with your Lord". You think? :eek:

duxrow

04-05-2013, 02:10 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

04-05-2013, 02:50 PM

Ram says: And worse, if it depends on us figuring it out we are all doomed, since everyone has a different idea about what the Bible means.
You got that right--we're all doomed! All the 'firstborn' die!On second thought, Ram, you do pose some interesting questions; some the Bible seems to totally ignore, and even more. How could those early guys live hundreds of years, and where did all that water come from? We aren't told about how the animals were distributed over the earth, and who's to blame for the Galapagoes missing out on the camels and elephants? Do the stories about babies being delivered by storks, have a basis in the Ark account?

When you say 'miraculous survive', Richard, are you suggesting that a miracle is beyond God's reach? That the shadow on the sun-dial
didn't actually reverse itself ten degrees, or that the resurrection of Jesus couldn't possibly be true, just because the itinerary is garbled? :p

Jesus told us to "be salt", so maybe we should 'take it with a grain of salt', and decide to wait for the answer till we get to heaven. eh? :pop2:
Well, I didn't say we are all doomed. I said IF it depends on us figuring out the Bible THEN we are doomed. Big difference, eh?

Why don't you just accept that the Bible communicates its truth through myth? That's the purpose of myth anyway. Is that what you meant by a "grain of salt"? That's makes more sense that trying to force the Bible to be what it is not. It's not a science book. If you live by the sword of literal history, you will die by that sword. That's already happened for millions of people who reject the Bible because it teaches the mythological three-tiered cosmology of the ANE. Same goes for the flood and the exodus. They simply didn't happen as far as I can tell, and I feel pretty confident about that conclusion. It's not because something is "beyond God's reach" in principle, but rather in practice. Lots of old books say God and or gods did all sorts of things. Joseph Smith says he saw an angle and golden plates. I tend to be a bit skeptical about such claims, especially since the gods quit doing them once video cameras were invented. :winking0071:

duxrow

04-05-2013, 03:26 PM

Well, I didn't say we are all doomed. I said IF it depends on us figuring out the Bible THEN we are doomed. Big difference, eh?
Joseph Smith says he saw an angle and golden plates. I tend to be a bit skeptical about such claims,:

OK, Ram, maybe you aren't doomed yet.. but that's maybe why Jesus said 'You must be born again'.

Joe Smith is not my type of authority -- not part of the 66! :eek:

As for the Resurrection, once you get past that, the other miracles are just small potatoes, and since they are the hardest to peel, I try to leave them for last. OK? :D

Richard Amiel McGough

04-05-2013, 04:21 PM

OK, Ram, maybe you aren't doomed yet.. but that's maybe why Jesus said 'You must be born again'.

Well, it's good to know that I "might" not be doomed yet! :p

Joe Smith is not my type of authority -- not part of the 66! :eek:

Why do you lift up any man as an authority?

It's funny about believers and numbers. There are folks who reject the 66 because it is obviously "man's number" and way too close to 666 for comfort! :eek:

They put the books in a different order and count them as 49 by regrouping them. They like the number 49 because it is "obviously" God's number 7 squared! 49 = 7 x 7! They follow the pattern of Ernest L. Martin's Restoring the Original Bible like this:

844

I refuted this pattern here (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2007/10/27/refutation-of-restoring-the-original-bible-by-ernest-l-martin/).

As for the Resurrection, once you get past that, the other miracles are just small potatoes, and since they are the hardest to peel, I try to leave them for last. OK? :D

I don't agree. The resurrection is no problem at all because there is no way to prove or disprove it. The idea of a global flood is TOTALLY different. It would leave all sorts of evidence that's just not there. So either God is extremely deceptive and he miraculously hid all the evidence, or it never really happened.

duxrow

04-06-2013, 08:41 AM

TEACHERS LAMENT - Prov 1:5
by Bob Smith of Foreman AR

So many things they have to learn,
So precious is the time they burn..
We try to fill their questing minds
Instead of whipping their behinds.

To write their names and count the change;
On this the adults insist!
To cross the "T's" and dot the "i's"
The children, most all, will resist..

Now English, Math, and Chemistry
have been studied under duress..
Biology, Ethics, and History
instilled by what teachers profess..

The apron strings are loosed at last--
they've learned their P's and Q's
Since life is not just nuts and bolts
They'll return to share their views..

The time has come to leave the nest,
To try on Life and meet the Test..
To show they're made of sterner stuff
Who'll overcome when the going's rough.

Now off they go into the world
that's filled with vice and sin.
Where liars, thieves, and wickedness
will lay it on their chin..

We know their honor can't be bought
If they learned the lesson that we taught..
There they go..against the foe
Armed with our loving advice..
Our hearts go too, with the special few
Who will name the name of Christ!

Not just any authority, but we all must learn to spell and count! amen? :thumb:

.

L67

04-06-2013, 01:27 PM

Hello L67

One lesson to come out of the flood is that God let things continue until the last remaining "good" family were worth saving, and even then Noah was not perfect. Why did God save only eight souls? Eight is a significant numer in scripture and eight represents "new beginning" and that is what God did with Noah and his family; God started again. God did not solve the problem of sin and sin will not be erradicated until Christ has destroyed the "last enemy" which is death and that will not happen for another 1000 years (or a longish time). At the end of the 7th millenuim follows the 8th. That is the new beginning, wihich is for eternity.

That is not a lesson David. The whole story is a moral abomination. The Bible tells us that God created man, but he regretted that decision because of mans wickedness. He was grief stricken due to this wickedness. Genesis 6:5-9 5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Apparently he was unable to foresee the future behavior of his creations. In particular, He did not predict the degree of wickedness that mankind would exhibit since he regretted his decision. So because of a bad decision on his part, he comes up with the solution to destroy all but 8. What a loving God. It is absolutely insane to think there is any lesson in this story. Also, how can a perfect all knowing God regret his own decision? It's pretty silly to assert God is perfect. Even God doesn't feel his creation was perfect.

The story also one again demonstrates how God shows favoritism. Let's also not forget that the flood trampled on everyone's free will. Where was there free will that Christians say God gave humans?

My main evidence is the same as you do and quote scripture. The failing we can all do is to quote scripture and not fully explain it. I have explained often, but not every time, the way I understand these verses and that is what is not accepted by you and Richard and my opponents. So when I have given my proof for believing what I do, it is not accepted as proof. I ought not to be accused of not giving proof of what I claim. I do not always give chapter and verse when writing in a hurry, but most of the time I do, and I try to highlight verses in color when I am quoting from the Bible and I highlight in red when quoting the words of Jesus.

Yes but there is a difference between you and I. I can have mountains of verses to support my claims. You take verses out of context to make them fit your doctrine. Example: I caught you erroneously trying to use Jeremiahs prophecy to point to a future date.

So you blame God for setting a test? It was inevitable, even without Adam and Eve, a man or woman would eventually disobey God's instruction. I see in the story of Adam and Eve, God was right to test them from the beginning and get the matter settled. God already had a plan for redeeming man. Yes, God knew man would fail.

Yes God is to blame. Why was it inevitable that man would sin? Maybe if God didn't create us with a sinful nature it never would have happened. After all he did regret his decision. God knew man would fail and created man anyways. Then when he saw the wickedness of man he regretted his decision. And then he punishes man for his mistakes by killing all but 8. How insane do you have be to come up with such a situation?

Edit: I'm not saying you are insane David. I was referring to God.

God did set the test, but it was man who failed. It is man who goes against God's instruction and it is man who is rejecting God. Why should God do anything for anyone who rejects him? You want to kill, hate, rape, commit adultery, lie, steal, and give false witness and expect God to give you eternal life? How ludicrous is that!! If we cannot follow simple instruction, what hope have we? God does not want robots in his kingdom; alreadyt he has Angels which obey him. God's problem is with man, but it is not really a problem. God knows what he is doing and will separate the righteous who meet his requirements from all the reprobates who will be destroyed one way or another. It is the people God destroys that leaves the remnant to be the best.

I tell you what is luducrous is your blatant excusal of God's immoral actions.

God failed first. He set up the situation for man to fail him. God knew he failed since his heart was full of grief and he regretted his decision of creating man.

I see no context in which the actions of God are not seen as just. Bringing in "innocent" children is an excuse for denying the obvious. The sins of the parents are "visited" (inherited) on the children, because for most children, they grow up to do the same as their parents. Richard's solution to clsoe up the wombs of repbroabates might be one way to do it, who knows whether that would be best in the long-term. How would you explain a happening like that? I guess that would not be recognized as God's hand at work. No change there by the skeptics. God's method was expedient at the time, and whatever you say and introduce "innocent" children, the fault lies with the parents and the parents brought the consequences on the children. God does not kill the righteous, we have numerous examples where God saves and gives opportunity for people to be saved. Those who ignore his warning, suffer the consequences.

Of course you don't. Your moral compass has been compromised.

Bringing innocent children into the mix is not an excuse. It's reality David. Your idea that sins of the parents are inherited to the children is assinine. There are a lot of children with lousy parents that have grown up to be productive members of society. Your assertion that parents bring the consequences on the children is so immoral it's not even funny. The children had no say in being born or even who there parents would be. And for God to punish them for something they had no say in is completely immoral. For you to defend such abominations is just plain nuts.

It is more immoral of men to let killers carry on killing. If I had to argue for the immorality of God, it would be for letting things as they are now continue, but I know that is not the case. God is proving to me he is right and man's rule is not just and is full of wickedness. God has declared his intention and all reprobates will die the eternal death and the righteous will live for ever. With that stark choice, you are left to make your decision. Do not expect me to follow you to "hell".

Yes it is immoral to let killers carry on killing. That is why God is immoral. He is doing that very thing. God's rule is most certainly NOT just. He routinely shows favoritism. That is not just David.

God says many absurdities about many things. Why should I believe anything he says? He doesn't even have confidence in his creation of man. He himself ADMITS it was a mistake to create man.

My beliefs are not just my own. I do not see the beliefs that I share with others as being perfect without taint. However, daily my beliefs are being strengthened and perfected. Whilst I am on a learning path, I am prone to make mistakes and will stand corrected, but not by people who do not hold to truth. I might be further along the parth to ultimate truth than many trailing behind.

This is why you are NOT committed to the truth. You think that anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible is not dealing with truth. That is wrong because you yourself do not know you are dealing with any truth in the Bible.

As Richard would say; "this blows my mind". It matters what you consider the "angels" are. This is the basis for a paradox or no paradox. Richard sees no paradox, because be accepts God's Angels sin. I do not accept this. I accept priests (angels) sin and that for me takes away the paradox which I see. Only when "angels" = "God's Angels", which is not true in every case, we would have a contradiction.

David this has nothing to do with what anyone believes angels means. The whole argument stems from your rejection of Richards formulation of the paradox using your own words. It is nothing more than that. Richard is not even saying Angels can sin in this instance. He simply formed a logically identical paradox to the contradiction you presented. It doesn't matter if there is a paradox or not. You rejected your own words. That's what this is about. Nothing else.

As I was looking for a post (and unable to find it) I was reading many post I had missed. Whilst we have our differences of understanding, I see that I am not alone and share an affinity with Charisma, Duxrow, Timmy, jce, CWH, Slyvius, heb 13-13, to name a few from memory. We all see the tactics Richard uses and see his methodology for winning his side of the argument.
I do not hold myself in any high esteem and despite his remarks about me in recent posts, after six months of discussion with Richard, he said I was; "a worthy opponent". I will not yield to Richard's claim that he is right and that by implication everyone else is delusioned and wrong. It amazed me how Richard latched on to your support of him by adopting the same language you use against believers in God's word. It is not a tactic I like and I would prefer to have a reasoned discussion based solely on the text of the Bible and leave personality out of the discusion. On that basis, I shall continue, but do not expect me to continue and tolerate the abuse that has been levelled at me lately. I felt we are beginning to make progress in the other thread I mentioned at the beginning of this post. Let us stick to keeping it that way, and let us get to the truth of God's word, even if that makes us both uncomfortable at times.

David he uses no tactics. His tactics are logic and facts. Logic and facts pierce through Christian dogmas. What you fail you to understand about the arguments that Christians propose is they never substantiate any of their claims with concrete evidence.

You are sounding more like Richard in every post. He now accuses me of exactly the same as I have repeatedly accused him of. He is now shifting the blame on me as if I started this. How deceptive is that? This nonsense has to stop, or I will walk away.

Oh really? David in all honesty it was YOU who rejected his paradox from YOUR words. That is all this is about.

Don't walk away David. Seriously they are just words on a screen.

I have a threshold of toleration. I am not going to go mad and keep having to repeat myself and go round in circles. There are times when the discussion has to draw to a close. I am not quitting where a reasoned argument can continue. I do not want to carry on multiple conversations in which Richard and you keep dragging in the same old dispute we have had about "angels". I will continue that discussion under the "fresh start" Richard said we could do and yet has not gone there. If you want to continue that argument, please do so in the thread; 'Can God's Angels be trusted? or 'God's will is done in Heaven' or a thread in which it is appropriate. More than anyone else I have read on this forum, I have been saying we should stay on topic in a thread.

Fair enough. I might pop into that thread.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-06-2013, 02:28 PM

Apparently he was unable to foresee the future behavior of his creations. In particular, He did not predict the degree of wickedness that mankind would exhibit since he regretted his decision. So because of a bad decision on his part, he comes up with the solution to destroy all but 8. What a loving God. It is absolutely insane to think there is any lesson in this story. Also, how can a perfect all knowing God regret his own decision? It's pretty silly to assert God is perfect. Even God doesn't feel his creation was perfect.

That's the $64,000 question. I don't think it makes any sense at all to say that an omniscient being could choose to do something he would later regret. This is why there is no good reason to believe the Bible. It presents an incoherent picture of God. Sometimes it says that God is omniscient and all powerful, and at other times it presents God a limited being who can't even overcome men if they have iron chariots!
Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Apparently my brain is like an iron chariot. The Lord certainly has not been able to present arguments that can overcome my humble reasoning.

My main evidence is the same as you do and quote scripture. The failing we can all do is to quote scripture and not fully explain it. I have explained often, but not every time, the way I understand these verses and that is what is not accepted by you and Richard and my opponents. So when I have given my proof for believing what I do, it is not accepted as proof. I ought not to be accused of not giving proof of what I claim. I do not always give chapter and verse when writing in a hurry, but most of the time I do, and I try to highlight verses in color when I am quoting from the Bible and I highlight in red when quoting the words of Jesus.
Yes but there is a difference between you and I. I can have mountains of verses to support my claims. You take verses out of context to make them fit your doctrine. Example: I caught you erroneously trying to use Jeremiahs prophecy to point to a future date.

David, the problem is that your "evidence" is really just an interpretation requires elaborate convoluted "explanations" that are not believable and that are obviously designed to support a preconceived dogma. When I present evidence, it is based on the plain meaning supported by many mutually confirming verses. That's the difference.

And I bear witness with L67 that you have been corrected multiple times on your erroneous appeal to Jeremiah 30. You took it out of context. It refers to the Babylonian exile. You would do well to acknowledge this fact so we can all be on the same page. Otherwise we'll be stuck repeating the same charge over and over and over again which is quite tedious. The only way to make progress is to admit the truth.

guerella44@Aol.com

04-06-2013, 05:21 PM

Richard and I guess arent geling so well. Its no important to be forthwith before you explain biblical profecy accurately. Michael is the arch angel. First of all there are two dragons. Michael is one of the dragons. The dragoon.secondly michael is also the devil. Satan is the other dragon. The devil and satan are seperate.thesmall h is used because its signifying hell. Michael guards the gates of hell. That great serpent is the. Davi dragon. The davis devilLORDGOD POSING AS AN ARCH ANGEL. Then it says and satan obviously 2 entities.they both decieveth the whole world.. michael drains kasoag lake to release satan and the angels that participated in the rebellion. Fucking a they rebelled. You with me so far. The property is almost all in my possession. Noone has a seperation of deed. When the lake is drained , its actually an old mill pond. You can do that if you own all the property around it. Then it becomes the lake of fire. Michael is the angel between the two seas. Each crick. My mother and daughter are named rebecca. The angel in between the two cc s. Satanss spawn is here waiting for me to finish getting possession of the land. Don't tell me what to do bitch kenites. Now my mother is a kenite. Kennedy. This is one the four hidden dynasties. You guys really screwed this one up. Dynasties are families not political yadda yadda. The kenites fill all of the other three with political and religious. A type 7 kenite are those that love God. My mother loves me. Michael when I drain the lake releases the plagues. My high school darryl Ratte hold the compact for the backwater drainage. These are the 2 angels that have control over the plagues. Getting scared yet you should bne.I AM THAT I AM.

God awfulalmighty michael

04-06-2013, 06:20 PM

Bible says there are three Moses right. Moses was Moses.LordGod don't be naive. John Brown the abolitionist was the second Moses. Nickname osowatomie. I AM THE POSSESSOR OF JUDAHS SCEPETRE. THE TOMAHAWK. IS how john brown got his nickname. I saw john browns face in the hatchet. There's a tomahawk and a hatchet. Formed together it makes ancient pi symbol. My grandma davis asked me in an old note in my bible who's face do I wanna see on the other side. I AM THE ANGEL BETWEEN THE 2 SEES. I'M MOSES 3. BIBLE SAYS MOSES WILL APPEAR IN END TIMES.JOYCE MEYERS IS ENOCH. ARNOLD MURRAY IS ELIJAH. THEY BOTH KNOW EXACTLY WHO I AM.WHO AM I .WHILE RUBBING A WHITE STONE RECENTLY I HAD A NAME POP INTO MY HEAD. OSOWOEHATCHIE. IT MEANS IN THE OUTPOURING OF HEAVEN. WOE TO THE POSSESSOR OF CHRISTS HATCHET IF THOU ARE EVIL. NO WEAPON FORMED AGAINST ME SHALL PROSPER. SEE HOW I'M MOSES3. REMEMBER RICHARD THE MOTHERFUCKER NEXT DOOR SWITCHED THE ONE HATCHET. EVIL POSSES CHRISTS HATCHET. JH ALLEN SAYS IT WILL FALL OUT OF POSSESSSION FROM OF gods armory to evil but will return. Joseph is my son. Joshua is my son.YHVH SAVIOR. CHRIST. JOSEPHS BIRTHRIGHT. INDIANS KNOW EXACTLY WHO I AM. BIBLE IN PSALMS TALKS ABOUT DRAGONS. I'M THE THE DRAGOON. I KILL DRAGONS. CRAZY EAGLE THE ONE THAT LAYS THE OS. JOSHUA AND JOSEPH. AND THEN LAYS MANY Os. THE DRAGOON. MY FATHER CHARLIE . WAS THE FIRST BEAST OF REVELATION. 187 AIRBORN KOREA. X TROOPS VERY HUSH HUSH STUFF. CHOSIN RESIVIOR DIVINE INTERVENTION OCCURED. ARNOLD MURRAY I TOLD HE IS ELIJAH.TWO WARS WERE FOUGHT KOREA AND NAM. REMEMBER TOKYO ROSE. GOT GET CHARLI .THEY DIDN'T GET HIM. CHARLIE MADE MICHAEL THE SECOND BEAST OF REVELATION. YOU SHOULD CONTACT ME.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-06-2013, 07:21 PM

David M

04-08-2013, 02:12 AM

That's the $64,000 question. I don't think it makes any sense at all to say that an omniscient being could choose to do something he would later regret. This is why there is no good reason to believe the Bible. It presents an incoherent picture of God. Sometimes it says that God is omniscient and all powerful, and at other times it presents God a limited being who can't even overcome men if they have iron chariots!
Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Apparently my brain is like an iron chariot. The Lord certainly has not been able to present arguments that can overcome my humble reasoning.

David, the problem is that your "evidence" is really just an interpretation requires elaborate convoluted "explanations" that are not believable and that are obviously designed to support a preconceived dogma. When I present evidence, it is based on the plain meaning supported by many mutually confirming verses. That's the difference.

And I bear witness with L67 that you have been corrected multiple times on your erroneous appeal to Jeremiah 30. You took it out of context. It refers to the Babylonian exile. You would do well to acknowledge this fact so we can all be on the same page. Otherwise we'll be stuck repeating the same charge over and over and over again which is quite tedious. The only way to make progress is to admit the truth.

Hello Richard
My understanding of Jeremiah still stands even though you do not accept it. I know Jeremiah speaks of the exile and return, but only those who went into exile in Babylon returned. The ten nothern tribes did not return. He also speaks of another return (Jeremiah 30:3) For, lo, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the LORD: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it. 4 And these are the words that the LORD spake concerning Israel and concerning Judah.

There are other passages not necessarily in chapters 29 or 30 which speak of the regathering of Israel and Judah and becoming one nation again. I do not have time to extract all the verses from Jeremiah to post here. When looking at my PC-based Bible, I often slip from one chapter into another without realizing it. For the moment, consider these few verses from Jeremiah 31.

35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, (then) I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Notice the "If" and "then" statments. God is saying as long as the ordinances continue, the nation of Israel will not totally disappear (for ever). This speaks of God's unfailing promise not to let the nation of Israel disappear totally. This is inkeeping with his unconditioanl promise to restore Israel. Just as it is impossible for man to go to the depths of the earth to search out the things that are there, so is is impossible for God to cast off Israel (for ever).

I see no way around the unconditioanl promise to restore natural Israel whenever they have been dispersed. They do not remain dispersed for ever. They have been returned to their land and are still returning; the nation has been re-established. There is to be one final overhrow of Jerusalem and the time is coming when Israel must cry out for deliverance for God to save them. This is when their Messiah comes and they recognize Jesus as the one they killed 2,000 years ago.

David

David M

04-08-2013, 04:18 AM

Good morning David,

If you don't want me to repeat my refutation, then quit repeating the thing I refuted. You had asserted yet again that God had "proven himself." So I felt it important to remind you and the readers that you have never substantiated that claim. It's fine if you want to present evidence supporting your assertion, but to merely state such a wild assertion with no evidence at all demands a response.
I am not copying and pasting whole psots (even if I could find them). I not not have to justify every word I write as I do not expect you to justify every word you write. It is sufficient to keep posts short to protest at one another's remarks do that readers see a balanced argument.

Now you say that you only want to "reason from the Bible and get to whatever truth the author(s) intended us to understand." I don't think that is quite accurate. It appears you want to reason using the entirely unjustified presupposition that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. That's a far cry from determining what the "authors" intended. Would you use that presupposition for any other book like the Quran, the book of Mormon, or how about the book of Enoch? If you really want to know what the authors intended, you would accept the standard methods of determining such things. For example, you would accept all the evidence that shows Jude and Peter, like many early Christians, believed the book of Enoch and the idea that angels had sex with women. You would admit that Peter was obviously talking about fallen angels when he adapted the traditional Greek mythology in 2 Peter 2:4:

MYTH: The god ZEUS bound the rebellious TITANS and cast them into Tartarus.
BIBLE: The god YHWH bound the rebellious ANGELS and cast them into Tartarus.

Don't you think we should use the same kind of logic we would use in all other studies if we want to come to valid conclusions about the Bible? To do otherwise would be a double standard.
We are at a disadvantage not beeing able to speek with the authors. Maybe the authors of the ancient scriptures were not knowing of everything they were inspired to write. Howeve, as God is the author behind their inspiration, it is what God wants us to understand which is important.

As for Peter's writings, they might not be inspired as say were the Books atttributed to Moses. I wish you would drop the Book of Enoch, which has for the reasons you have given, is not a book to be trusted and appears to have been added to and is not all the original wok of Enoch. What we are to understand of Peter's use of the then current-day mythtology, we shall have to wait till Peter is resurrected. Quoting mythical language as the ligua franca in Peter's writings is no reason for saying Peter believed the mythology of the Greeks. I use the term Gremlins though I do not believe Gremilns as they are depicted in the films.

Why don't I continue looking for a perfect fit? Because I have taken it to the limit. I have found the main and the plain things that fit very well, such as the explicit statements that the end of the age would be marked by the destruction of the Temple which happened in 70 AD. The things that don't fit require AD HOC INTERPRETATION, just like the problematic passages in the Futurist scheme. I have no interest in making up explanations to fill the gaps that are caused by the logical incoherence of the Bible.
Your having given up is the reason for not cointinuing any line of discussion that could be a road to discovery. I am not going to keep answering the same questions I have answered elsewhere and which you keep asking everyone else. I will deal with new things and read what others reply to those questions I have deallt with.

am not using my "failure" as an excuse. On the contrary, I am using my SUCCESS in proving the Bible is logically incoherent as the reason there is no need for further study on this particular point.
One person's success is another person's failure and vice versa.

Why do you begin with the assumption that the Bible is coherent? This seems particularly odd given that 1) the Bible contains many obvious contradictions, errors, superstitions, and absurdities, and 2) the most fervent believers come to radically contradictory conclusions. And the Bible is a book written by humans, so the obvious default position is that it is fallible like any human book. If you start with this presumption it makes a lot more sense.
It stems from God "not being an author of confusion" I agree with Paul, who did not regard the Jewish scriptures in his day were written by an author of confuison, even if Paul in his zealousness was wrongly persecuting the Christians until his error was exposed.

As for "what the Bible teaches" - you and I have talked for a year. If you still don't know, then don't blame me. I've explained myself many times. The Bible teaches that John the Baptist fulfilled the two prophecies of the Elijah who was to come to 1) prepare the way for the Messiah, and to 2) warn of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Jesus said he fulfilled these prophecies. The Bible teaches that Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised the third day. Etc., etc., etc. The answer to your question is quite simple. I think the Bible teaches what the Bible teaches. As for disputed things that the Bible is unclear about, I think the Bible is unclear about those things.
Ok, so you believe the Bible teaches Jesus rose from the dead. That means Jesus was resurrected. That means the Bible teaches the resurrection of the dead. Whether you believe it or not, that is the basis I want to understand what you think the Bible teaches and then that can be used as some basis to work from.

If you REALLY want to know what the Bible teaches, you should work with me on establishing the FOUNDATION according to the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics. It instantly exposes doctrines not founded in what the Bible actually states.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS (http://biblewheel.com/Theology/TheologyIntro.php)

Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:

[*=1]Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
[*=1]Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
[*=1]2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistemology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology. Application of this rule immediately clears away the debris accumulated from centuries of unfounded speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the true Biblical doctrines of Eschatology.

But I doubt you will do this because no believer committed to idiosyncratic sectarian doctrines has ever been willing to hold to this principle because they know their doctrines will not stand in light of the main and plain things taught in the Bible.
Once we can agree on the things you say the Bibe teaches, we can work slowly one topic at a time on the things I disagree with you. Yes, we have to look for supporting scriptures. Your three mutually agreeing verses is on a par with me saying; if 9 out or 10 verses say one thing, the 1 out of 10 verse should not be believed for saying something that is, on the face of it, contradictory.

Firefox used to be my preferred browser, but it has big problems with YouTube videos. I don't know if a day went by when FF didn't crash while watching one. I switched to Chrome and haven't had a problem. Unfortunatley, I do not like Chrome and haved uninstalled it several times. Google already have enough information from me and I refuse to complete all they ask wihen installing Chrome now. I might have to use Explorer on this computer when replying on the forum. That said, the spell check works in FF on my other computers.

How old is your laptop? Have you defragged your harddrive lately? I went to try defragging the harddrive as I have not done this for ages and then found that I had less than 15% hard drive space available, so could not do it. I have recently cleared enough space to do it and then gone and filled some of the space up again. I shall try defragging at some time, though I doubt this is the problem. I have deleted a lot of unused programs recently and I clean the files and fix the registry every time I uninstall a program so as to keep the laptop running qucikly (as opposed to its slowed down state). I am running Windows XP as my laptop cannot hold more than 2GB ram. My laptop is plenty fast enough most of the time for what I need to do. Maybe the FF problem will be fixed next time I install the next major upgrade.

Great chatting!

David

Richard Amiel McGough

04-14-2013, 01:41 PM

Good afternoon David, :yo:

As for Peter's writings, they might not be inspired as say were the Books atttributed to Moses. I wish you would drop the Book of Enoch, which has for the reasons you have given, is not a book to be trusted and appears to have been added to and is not all the original wok of Enoch. What we are to understand of Peter's use of the then current-day mythtology, we shall have to wait till Peter is resurrected. Quoting mythical language as the ligua franca in Peter's writings is no reason for saying Peter believed the mythology of the Greeks. I use the term Gremlins though I do not believe Gremilns as they are depicted in the films.

Well now, that's a surprise. I had no idea you believed there could be "levels of inspiration." And I find it particularly odd that you would think the OT was more inspired than the NT since the NT was written by people who supposedly had been taught directly by Christ and had seen the "great light" and understood many things that were only "darkly hinted at" in the OT. This is the meaning of the ancient maxim attributed to Augustine in the fifth century, "In the Old Testament, the New Testament is concealed; in the New Testament the Old Testament is revealed." This is what Paul was talking about when he said that the Jews read the Torah with a veil which is removed by Christ. The NT reveals the LIGHT that enlightens the meaning of the OT.

Again, you seem to be seeing a mirror image of the reality that I see. Or more like a photographic negative.

I wish you would drop the Book of Enoch, which has for the reasons you have given, is not a book to be trusted and appears to have been added to and is not all the original wok of Enoch.

Nobody has ever said that it was an "original work of Enoch." That's not the point. The point is that we can be pretty sure it was not "added to" in any significant way since Jude quoted from it because we have lots of quotes from others that confirm it. And besides, it's totally obvious form the context of Jude that he was thinking about the same topic since he talked about angels that had left their first estate and gone after strange flesh, just like the angels in the book of Enoch.

What we are to understand of Peter's use of the then current-day mythtology, we shall have to wait till Peter is resurrected. Quoting mythical language as the ligua franca in Peter's writings is no reason for saying Peter believed the mythology of the Greeks. I use the term Gremlins though I do not believe Gremilns as they are depicted in the films.

If we have to wait for the resurrection to know what Peter, Paul, James and John meant in their writings, then all our study is vain.

I didn't say that Peter believed in the Greek mythology about Zeus. I said that he adapted the mythological language which supports the idea that he was thinking of spiritual beings that rebelled against God just like the Titans rebelled against Zeus. He is using the lingua franca that speaks of fallen spiritual beings. This is what most informed people think the passage is talking about. And why do they think that? You have falsely asserted it was because they have been deceived by false doctrine. But that's just slander. You have no right to slander all Biblical scholars merely because you don't like their conclusions. You must show that there REASONS are not valid. Look at what Barne's Note's on the Bible says in reference to 2 Peter 2:4:
The apostle, by the "angels" here, refers undoubtedly to a revolt in heaven - an event referred to in Jde 1:6, and everywhere implied in the Scriptures.
Do you see that? He links it to both the war in heaven (Rev 12) and Jude 1:6 and says that it is "everywhere implied in the Scriptures." And here's more info that is generally accepted amongst Bible scholars:
But cast them down to hell - Greek ταρταρώσας tartarōsas - "thrusting them down to Tartarus." The word here used occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, though it is common in the Classical writers. It is a verb formed from Τάρταρος Tartaros, Tartarus, which in Greek mythology was the lower part, or abyss of Hades, Αδης Hadēs, where the shades of the wicked were supposed to be imprisoned and tormented, and corresponded to the Jewish word Γεέννα Geenna - "Gehenna." It was regarded, commonly, as beneath the earth; as entered through the grave; as dark, dismal, gloomy; and as a place of punishment. Compare the Job 10:21-22 notes, and Matthew 5:22 note. The word here is one that properly refers to a place of punishment, since the whole argument relates to that, and since it cannot be pretended that the "angels that sinned" were removed to a place of happiness on account of their transgression. It must also refer to punishment in some other world than this, for there is no evidence that. This world is made a place of punishment for fallen angels.
You would have to refute all this and much more. So here's a quick question: Out of all the thousands of Bible scholars, do you know of any that support your view of 2 Peter 2:4? Even one?

It stems from God "not being an author of confusion" I agree with Paul, who did not regard the Jewish scriptures in his day were written by an author of confuison, even if Paul in his zealousness was wrongly persecuting the Christians until his error was exposed.

That one verse proves that God is not the author of the Bible, because the Bible has authored more confusion than any other book ever written.

As for "what the Bible teaches" - you and I have talked for a year. If you still don't know, then don't blame me. I've explained myself many times. The Bible teaches that John the Baptist fulfilled the two prophecies of the Elijah who was to come to 1) prepare the way for the Messiah, and to 2) warn of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Jesus said he fulfilled these prophecies. The Bible teaches that Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised the third day. Etc., etc., etc. The answer to your question is quite simple. I think the Bible teaches what the Bible teaches. As for disputed things that the Bible is unclear about, I think the Bible is unclear about those things.
Ok, so you believe the Bible teaches Jesus rose from the dead. That means Jesus was resurrected. That means the Bible teaches the resurrection of the dead. Whether you believe it or not, that is the basis I want to understand what you think the Bible teaches and then that can be used as some basis to work from.

Of course I believe that Bible teaches the resurrection from the dead. What could be more obvious?

I'm guessing that you are not really asking about the resurrection per se, but rather the nature of the resurrection, whether it is physical or spiritual. That's a question of interpretation - the Bible does not clearly teach the nature of the resurrection. Paul says that "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom, and that's why he taught the resurrection would be in a spiritual body. This is something Christians have debated for 2000 years because the Bible is ambiguous on this point.

Once we can agree on the things you say the Bibe teaches, we can work slowly one topic at a time on the things I disagree with you. Yes, we have to look for supporting scriptures. Your three mutually agreeing verses is on a par with me saying; if 9 out or 10 verses say one thing, the 1 out of 10 verse should not be believed for saying something that is, on the face of it, contradictory.

You totally misunderstood my principle. I didn't say a word about "not believing" some verses! I am constantly amazed at how you twist my words and say that I said things I never said nor thought! It would be ABSURD to follow the rule that you invented. That is not how you deal with contradictions.

Here is the Fundamental Principle yet again: Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. If there are verses that contradict, then OBVIOUSLY there is CONFUSION that must be cleared up, and CONFUSION is not a good foundation for any fundamental doctrines. We have to start with things that can actually be established without dispute amongst rational people. That's my point. If we can't do that, then there is no meaning to the Bible at all. It would be nothing but a mass of confused opinions.

Unfortunatley, I do not like Chrome and haved uninstalled it several times. Google already have enough information from me and I refuse to complete all they ask wihen installing Chrome now. I might have to use Explorer on this computer when replying on the forum. That said, the spell check works in FF on my other computers.

Can't blame you there! The are a little too powerful as the owners of global information for my comfort. But I trust the rule of chaos to ensure our safety from dictators.

I don't like IE either - monopoly. I'm still using Chrome. FF used to be my favorite.

I went to try defragging the harddrive as I have not done this for ages and then found that I had less than 15% hard drive space available, so could not do it. I have recently cleared enough space to do it and then gone and filled some of the space up again. I shall try defragging at some time, though I doubt this is the problem. I have deleted a lot of unused programs recently and I clean the files and fix the registry every time I uninstall a program so as to keep the laptop running qucikly (as opposed to its slowed down state). I am running Windows XP as my laptop cannot hold more than 2GB ram. My laptop is plenty fast enough most of the time for what I need to do. Maybe the FF problem will be fixed next time I install the next major upgrade.

Aha! A full harddrive explains a lot. And only 2GB of RAM is pretty small these days, though it should be plenty with XP.

Great chatting!

David
Indeed! Let's see if we can "engage" each other in warp-drive conversation which can only happen when we really try to understand each other by clarifying our points of agreement, and taking that to the top where we also clearly articulate and understand and agree about the things we don't agree about. Then we won't feel frustrated. We will know what we disagree about and why, and then could investigate those reasons ...

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard