- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump’s belief that men can be women is an automatic disqualifier
Posted on 7/2/23 at 7:36 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 7/2/23 at 7:36 am to FooManChoo
Why do you think “John” called Jesus the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
The Passover lamb had nothing to do with atonement. It was a sacrifice, not for sin forgiveness, but to prevent Yahweh from going on a murderous rampage killing firstborns.
Seems to me John should have said “behold, the goat of God who takes away the sins of the world.” That would have been way more fitting since Jesus was the Yom Kippur goat that would be sacrificed as Yahweh. What did you think the first time you learned that the criminal Pilate released was named Jesus Bar Abbas?
When the Hupsistos gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided the sons of Adam,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of Theos.
But Kyrios portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.
yet for us there is one Theos, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Kyrios, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
I used Greek transliterations of Most High, God, and LORD and bolded them. For the mentally challenged, Hupsistos is El Elyon, Theos is El, and Kyrios is Yahweh/LORD.
El Elyon divided mankind and assigned his sons (sons of El) to rule over the (other) nations. He gave Jacob to Yahweh. Israel was Yahweh’s inheritance from his father El. There were some second temple scribes who were confused about this concept, as you are. But the Deuteronomist and Paul were not confused. They don’t conflate the two. Paul knew El Elyon, which he called Theos, was the father and that Yahweh, whom he called Kyrios, was his favorite son. Paul never conflated the two. Does Paul ever call Jesus the son of Kyrios (son of the LORD)? Nope. You will not find such a thing in your Bible. Always Jesus is the son of Theos… because Jesus is Kyrios… Jesus is the LORD.
You are what Paul would call “blind” because you do not accept the truth, the truth that is in the Book that you read yet you deny.
The Passover lamb had nothing to do with atonement. It was a sacrifice, not for sin forgiveness, but to prevent Yahweh from going on a murderous rampage killing firstborns.
Seems to me John should have said “behold, the goat of God who takes away the sins of the world.” That would have been way more fitting since Jesus was the Yom Kippur goat that would be sacrificed as Yahweh. What did you think the first time you learned that the criminal Pilate released was named Jesus Bar Abbas?
When the Hupsistos gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided the sons of Adam,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of Theos.
But Kyrios portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.
yet for us there is one Theos, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Kyrios, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
I used Greek transliterations of Most High, God, and LORD and bolded them. For the mentally challenged, Hupsistos is El Elyon, Theos is El, and Kyrios is Yahweh/LORD.
El Elyon divided mankind and assigned his sons (sons of El) to rule over the (other) nations. He gave Jacob to Yahweh. Israel was Yahweh’s inheritance from his father El. There were some second temple scribes who were confused about this concept, as you are. But the Deuteronomist and Paul were not confused. They don’t conflate the two. Paul knew El Elyon, which he called Theos, was the father and that Yahweh, whom he called Kyrios, was his favorite son. Paul never conflated the two. Does Paul ever call Jesus the son of Kyrios (son of the LORD)? Nope. You will not find such a thing in your Bible. Always Jesus is the son of Theos… because Jesus is Kyrios… Jesus is the LORD.
You are what Paul would call “blind” because you do not accept the truth, the truth that is in the Book that you read yet you deny.
This post was edited on 7/2/23 at 9:04 am
1
Posted on 7/3/23 at 12:44 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Because in the old covenant economy, lambs, as well as other animals, were offered up as sacrifices to atone for sin and guilt and to expiate God's wrath. Lambs, especially, are provided for guilt offerings in a few different places: Ex. 29:38-42; Lev. 14; and Num. 6:12.
Why do you think “John” called Jesus the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Jesus is a sin offering and guilt offering that takes away the sin of His people, in all the world by taking God's wrath on Himself instead of on God's people for their sin.
quote:Christ's death did multiple things for His people. It took away sin, but it also expiated God's wrath as a propitiation. In other words, Christ's sacrifice allows God to "pass over" the sins of believers by bearing His wrath on the cross.
The Passover lamb had nothing to do with atonement. It was a sacrifice, not for sin forgiveness, but to prevent Yahweh from going on a murderous rampage killing firstborns.
The paschal lamb was a sacrifice that caused God to pass over His people so that they would not receive the wrath poured out on Egypt for their sin.
I hope you can now see the parallel and why Jesus is the Passover Lamb.
Also, it is no more murder for God to take the lives of His guilty creations than it is murder for the government to justly put to death treasonous criminals. You need to stop using the word "murder" for what God does, because He is not in violation of any law against taking lives.
quote:As I already explained this, I won't do so again. I'll just add that Christ's sacrifice was a greater atonement than what was provided on Yom Kippur, because the blood of bulls and goats (and lambs) cannot actually take away sin. Those were merely signs that pointed the Jews to the reality of a Messiah that would eventually take away their sin. Jesus is that Messiah.
Seems to me John should have said “behold, the goat of God who takes away the sins of the world.” That would have been way more fitting since Jesus was the Yom Kippur goat that would be sacrificed as Yahweh.
quote:It's not certain that his name was Jesus Bar Abbas, or simply, Barabbas, as the manuscript evidence is sparse for that reading. However, if his name was Jesus, too, it would be an ironic juxtaposition to have Jesus, "son of the father" released although guilty, while Jesus, "Son of God", was condemned although innocent.
What did you think the first time you learned that the criminal Pilate released was named Jesus Bar Abbas?
quote:You're saying that the author of Deuteronomy (Moses) was making a distinction between Theos and Kyrios in verses 8-9, however we see just a few verses earlier, that the same author uses Kyrios and Theos to refer to the same God.
When the Hupsistos gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided the sons of Adam,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of Theos.
But Kyrios portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.
yet for us there is one Theos, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Kyrios, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
I used Greek transliterations of Most High, God, and LORD and bolded them. For the mentally challenged, Hupsistos is El Elyon, Theos is El, and Kyrios is Yahweh/LORD.
El Elyon divided mankind and assigned his sons (sons of El) to rule over the (other) nations. He gave Jacob to Yahweh. Israel was Yahweh’s inheritance from his father El. There were some second temple scribes who were confused about this concept, as you are. But the Deuteronomist and Paul were not confused. They don’t conflate the two. Paul knew El Elyon, which he called Theos, was the father and that Yahweh, whom he called Kyrios, was his favorite son. Paul never conflated the two. Does Paul ever call Jesus the son of Kyrios (son of the LORD)? Nope. You will not find such a thing in your Bible. Always Jesus is the son of Theos… because Jesus is Kyrios… Jesus is the LORD.
For I will proclaim the name of the Lord (kyriou); ascribe greatness to our God (theo)! (vs. 3).
Here, the Lord (kyriou/kyrios) and God (theo/theos) are equated, and the author goes on to refer to both words in the singular, indicating that he was talking about the same, single God. Your interpretation (that they are different gods) butchers the grammar. Instead, we see that in the text, the different names/titles are used interchangeably. We see the same sort of thing in Numbers 24.
the oracle of him who hears the words of God (el/theou), who sees the vision of the Almighty (saday/theou) (v. 4)
and
the oracle of him who hears the words of God (el/theou), and knows the knowledge of the Most High (elyon/hypsistou), who sees the vision of the Almighty (saday/theos) (v. 16)
You can see here that God (el/theou) is described as almighty (saday), and is translated as simply "God" (theou) in the LXX in verse 4, and the same format is given again in verse 16, except now we see that the Most High (elyon/hypsistou) is added, demonstrating that El, Elyon, and Saday are all descriptions of the same, singular God.
Interestingly, Jesus is described as Son of the Most High (hypsistou) in Mark 5:7 as well as in Luke 1:32 and Luke 8:28. If you were correct, I'd expect that Jesus would only be the son of theos/theou, not the son of hypsistou. Is Jesus the son of two fathers? Or is God also the most high? I believe the language supports the latter position against the former.
One last thing: in Acts 7, Stephen equates "the God (theo) of Jacob" in verse 46 with "the Most High" (hypsistos) in verse 48, as recorded by Luke. In the New Testament, God is the Most High, not the son of the Most High.
quote:While I'm sure I don't have all my theology correct (I'm a sinner after all), I'm quite confident that I'm not spiritually blind in the way that you are, as you have rejected Christ and spit on God's Word.
You are what Paul would call “blind” because you do not accept the truth, the truth that is in the Book that you read yet you deny
This post was edited on 7/3/23 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 7/3/23 at 12:47 pm to FooManChoo
This Sunday School Showdown is a little weird, but I’ll take the bumps.
Posted on 7/3/23 at 6:53 pm to FooManChoo
El = Elyon = Hupsistos = Most High and father of the Elohim / Theos including YHWH
YHWH = Kyrios = the LORD who received Israel as his inheritance from Elyon
YHWH is also Jesus, according to Paul’s epistles. Jesus was the king of the Jews, and the earthly embodiment of YHWH
Know who else was the earthly embodiment of YHWH? All the other Jewish kings including Saul, David, Solomon, Jeroboam, Hezekiah, etc. it all goes back to first temple theology. Margaret Barker writes some good books on the first temple theology.
Complicating things a little are the Jewish scribes in the second temple who tried to equate the gods if first temple writings into one single entity. Hence in many second temple writings, YHWH can be called YHWH or Elohim, or YHWH Elohim. Depending on adjectives, verbs, and pronouns and such, one can tell whether Elohim (a plural word) is actually referring to plural heavenly divine beings, or one particular divine being called YHWH. Context matters. In the LXX, anywhere you see Elohim in Hebrew, it is translated as Theos or a form of Theos. El is also translated as Theos.
In the New Testament though, Hupsistos is Elyon. Theos is sometimes Elyon/El and sometimes it is plural for the army of heavenly hosts/angels/demons.
New Testament authors quoted from or referenced 1 Enoch hundreds, or maybe thousands of times. They considered it scripture. 1 Enoch was preserved by groups like the Essenes who hated the second temple priests and theology. 1 Enoch is valuable to understand the early Christian mindset, and 1 Enoch wasn’t redacted by second temple scribes. The Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Genesis 6 theology is explained in detail in 1 Enoch for anyone who wants to learn.
One of the problems with the “inspired” scripture is that they often use the same word for multiple meanings. You have to look at the word in context. In Hebrew the word used in verse 3 is “our god”. Not the god, or the only god. For a god to be called “our god” infers there are gods of others. You just have to read the scripture to see all the gods of the others.
It’s like throughout many of the books of the Old Testament the word (transliterated) “Elohim” is used to sometimes mean the host of heaven, the angelic beings, many gods, or the one specific god called Yahweh.
It must have been difficult for John to decide to call him the “lamb” instead of the “goat”. There’s the Passover sacrifice of the lamb. The passion scene blends the lamb and the goat sacrifices. Jesus is carries his wood for the sacrifice just as Isaac carried his firewood. Two men “robbers” accompany Jesus to the sacrificial altar just as two men accompanied Abraham and Isaac. On the other hand, Jesus was definitely the Yom Kippur goat sacrifice. Two identical goats are chosen. One Jesus the Messiah, one Jesus son of the Father. One goat is sacrificed. One is released to carry away the sins of Israel (to the evil angel Azazel in the pit). I can see the lamb being applicable but the goat seems to be more accurate in my opinion. It is the atonement ritual that is the more important (or most important) ritual that takes away the sins of Israel (and the world?).
Jesus is always Lord, or the LORD, just as Yahweh is. Jesus is not once every called Theos. He’s always the LORD and son of Theos. Sometimes son of the most high. In that context Theos was most high. Not sure what the answers in Genesis guys say but they are not scholarly.
I agree that Christ’s sacrifice was seen as greater than the Yom Kippur atonement ritual. It was seen as the final sacrifice. This is described in the New Testament but also prophesied in Enoch. Enoch was essentially written around 300-400BCE and was scripture to Jews outside of Jerusalem area, especially to the Essenes and Ebionites. The earliest Christians were Enochian Jews whose prophecies were fulfilled.
The Enochian Jews hated the temple. The fact that the gospel Jesus hated the temple is one of hundreds of evidences that the Christians were Enochian. A lot of what didn’t make sense to me as a youngster is really cleared up by studying Enoch. The Ascension of Isaiah too.
Jesus wasn’t El Elyon’s only son. There were many sons of El. Yahweh (Jesus) was the monogenes. The “only begotten” is a poor translation to a modern English speaker in my opinion. Monogenes is more closely “one of a kind” or “only of its kind” or even better “unique”. Elyon had many sons. At least 70 if you believe the Ugaritic manuscripts, Genesis 10, and 1 Enoch. Many more if you include all the angels and demons that are describes as sons of El or sons of Elohim. Jesus was his extra special unique son, that inherited Israel, and then acted as a final blood sacrifice to purify creation, so that no more blood sacrifices were necessary.
YHWH = Kyrios = the LORD who received Israel as his inheritance from Elyon
YHWH is also Jesus, according to Paul’s epistles. Jesus was the king of the Jews, and the earthly embodiment of YHWH
Know who else was the earthly embodiment of YHWH? All the other Jewish kings including Saul, David, Solomon, Jeroboam, Hezekiah, etc. it all goes back to first temple theology. Margaret Barker writes some good books on the first temple theology.
Complicating things a little are the Jewish scribes in the second temple who tried to equate the gods if first temple writings into one single entity. Hence in many second temple writings, YHWH can be called YHWH or Elohim, or YHWH Elohim. Depending on adjectives, verbs, and pronouns and such, one can tell whether Elohim (a plural word) is actually referring to plural heavenly divine beings, or one particular divine being called YHWH. Context matters. In the LXX, anywhere you see Elohim in Hebrew, it is translated as Theos or a form of Theos. El is also translated as Theos.
In the New Testament though, Hupsistos is Elyon. Theos is sometimes Elyon/El and sometimes it is plural for the army of heavenly hosts/angels/demons.
New Testament authors quoted from or referenced 1 Enoch hundreds, or maybe thousands of times. They considered it scripture. 1 Enoch was preserved by groups like the Essenes who hated the second temple priests and theology. 1 Enoch is valuable to understand the early Christian mindset, and 1 Enoch wasn’t redacted by second temple scribes. The Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Genesis 6 theology is explained in detail in 1 Enoch for anyone who wants to learn.
quote:
For I will proclaim the name of the Lord (kyriou); ascribe greatness to our God (theo)! (vs. 3).
One of the problems with the “inspired” scripture is that they often use the same word for multiple meanings. You have to look at the word in context. In Hebrew the word used in verse 3 is “our god”. Not the god, or the only god. For a god to be called “our god” infers there are gods of others. You just have to read the scripture to see all the gods of the others.
It’s like throughout many of the books of the Old Testament the word (transliterated) “Elohim” is used to sometimes mean the host of heaven, the angelic beings, many gods, or the one specific god called Yahweh.
quote:
Jesus is a sin offering and guilt offering that takes away the sin of His people
It must have been difficult for John to decide to call him the “lamb” instead of the “goat”. There’s the Passover sacrifice of the lamb. The passion scene blends the lamb and the goat sacrifices. Jesus is carries his wood for the sacrifice just as Isaac carried his firewood. Two men “robbers” accompany Jesus to the sacrificial altar just as two men accompanied Abraham and Isaac. On the other hand, Jesus was definitely the Yom Kippur goat sacrifice. Two identical goats are chosen. One Jesus the Messiah, one Jesus son of the Father. One goat is sacrificed. One is released to carry away the sins of Israel (to the evil angel Azazel in the pit). I can see the lamb being applicable but the goat seems to be more accurate in my opinion. It is the atonement ritual that is the more important (or most important) ritual that takes away the sins of Israel (and the world?).
Jesus is always Lord, or the LORD, just as Yahweh is. Jesus is not once every called Theos. He’s always the LORD and son of Theos. Sometimes son of the most high. In that context Theos was most high. Not sure what the answers in Genesis guys say but they are not scholarly.
I agree that Christ’s sacrifice was seen as greater than the Yom Kippur atonement ritual. It was seen as the final sacrifice. This is described in the New Testament but also prophesied in Enoch. Enoch was essentially written around 300-400BCE and was scripture to Jews outside of Jerusalem area, especially to the Essenes and Ebionites. The earliest Christians were Enochian Jews whose prophecies were fulfilled.
The Enochian Jews hated the temple. The fact that the gospel Jesus hated the temple is one of hundreds of evidences that the Christians were Enochian. A lot of what didn’t make sense to me as a youngster is really cleared up by studying Enoch. The Ascension of Isaiah too.
Jesus wasn’t El Elyon’s only son. There were many sons of El. Yahweh (Jesus) was the monogenes. The “only begotten” is a poor translation to a modern English speaker in my opinion. Monogenes is more closely “one of a kind” or “only of its kind” or even better “unique”. Elyon had many sons. At least 70 if you believe the Ugaritic manuscripts, Genesis 10, and 1 Enoch. Many more if you include all the angels and demons that are describes as sons of El or sons of Elohim. Jesus was his extra special unique son, that inherited Israel, and then acted as a final blood sacrifice to purify creation, so that no more blood sacrifices were necessary.
This post was edited on 7/3/23 at 10:20 pm
Posted on 7/3/23 at 6:55 pm to Jon Ham
Is Biden gonna give you a medal for going undercover on the Poli board?
Posted on 7/3/23 at 6:58 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I have changed my position and am now convicted that I can only vote for someone who openly professes loyalty to Jesus Christ and lives a life consistent with the gospel of Christ. Unfortunately, I won’t be voting for Trump a third time unless he repents.
You voted for Trump twice? And are just NOW figuring out he's a piece of shite of monumental proportions?
Good grief.
Posted on 7/3/23 at 11:34 pm to Squirrelmeister
I ran out of characters so this will have to be a multi-post reply.
BTW, the "inheritance" is the focus of that passage in Deuteronomy. The point is that Israel was chosen by God out of all the nations of the earth to be a special people for God.
You make it seem that "El Elyon" is a different and greater god than Yahweh, and that Elyon was the one who chose Israel to be an inheritance for Yahweh, and that Yahweh simply received what was given him. That's not what the Scriptures say time and time again.
For example: “For you are a people holy to the Lord (Yehova) your God (elohim). The Lord (Yehova) your God (elohim) has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth" -Deut. 7:6.
It was Yahweh who chose Israel for Himself, not "Elyon" as a different god or deity. El Elyon is Yahweh.
Psalm 106:4-6 explains further that God's "inheritance" is His chosen people (whom He chose). They were not given to Him from someone else, but He chose them from among the nations. There are many passages in the Bible that speak to God (Yahweh/Elohim) choosing Israel for Himself, which further proves my point that Yawheh is El Elyon.
Here's something you should look at if you take her seriously.
Regarding the "embodiment of YHWH" in the earthly kings, please cite an example for me.
Theos does sometimes refer to spiritual beings like angels. It most often refers to God. It does depend on context.
I'm not sure what your point is about these particular words. They don't support your argument.
Perhaps you should stop reading everything but the Bible and start focusing on what the Bible actually says and teaches.
"El" means "God" and is used to describe the one God in various ways. Your problem (aside from your spiritual blindness, which is actually the root of your problems) is that you keep saying that El Elyon is a different God from Yahweh/Jehovah. "Elyon" just means "highest" or "most high" and the word is used elsewhere in the Bible that isn't even referring to God's name proper, such as the Chief Baker's dream in Genesis 40:7.
Here are other names/titles/descriptions of God from the Bible using El:
El Echad (the one God - Mal. 2:10)
El Hanne'eman (the faithful God - Deut. 7:9)
El Emet (the God of truth - Psalm 31:5)
El Tzaddik (the righteous God - Isa. 45:21)
El Shaddai (the all-sufficient God - Gen. 17:1)
El Elyon (the most high God - we've covered this one)
El Olam (the everlasting God - Gen. 21:33)
El Roi (the God who sees (me) - Gen. 16:13)
El Gibbor (the mighty God - Isa. 9:6)
El De'ot (the God of knowledge - 1 Sam. 2:3)
Immanuel (God with us - Isa. 7:14)
And over a dozen others. So no, "El" is not short for just El Elyon, but it means "God", and is paired with a couple dozen other words to describe the one God throughout the Scriptures.
And yes, El Elyon is used a synonym for Theos, because Theos in its plainest meaning simply means "God" in Greek, and it recognizes that El Elyon and other titles/descriptions/names are the names of God, so sometimes in the LXX the words are simply translated as form of Theos (God).
quote:Elyon (Hebrew) = Hupsistos (Greek). Elyon just means "highest" or "most high". I touch on that later in the post (I started responding before you added the details at the top).
El = Elyon = Hupsistos = Most High and father of the Elohim / Theos including YHWH
quote:El Elon is the same God as Yahweh, who is the Kyrios in the formal sense.
YHWH = Kyrios = the LORD who received Israel as his inheritance from Elyon
BTW, the "inheritance" is the focus of that passage in Deuteronomy. The point is that Israel was chosen by God out of all the nations of the earth to be a special people for God.
You make it seem that "El Elyon" is a different and greater god than Yahweh, and that Elyon was the one who chose Israel to be an inheritance for Yahweh, and that Yahweh simply received what was given him. That's not what the Scriptures say time and time again.
For example: “For you are a people holy to the Lord (Yehova) your God (elohim). The Lord (Yehova) your God (elohim) has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth" -Deut. 7:6.
It was Yahweh who chose Israel for Himself, not "Elyon" as a different god or deity. El Elyon is Yahweh.
Psalm 106:4-6 explains further that God's "inheritance" is His chosen people (whom He chose). They were not given to Him from someone else, but He chose them from among the nations. There are many passages in the Bible that speak to God (Yahweh/Elohim) choosing Israel for Himself, which further proves my point that Yawheh is El Elyon.
quote:Wait a second. Is this where you get your ideas about Elyon and Yahweh being different gods? From Margaret Barker and her Temple Theology?
YHWH is also Jesus, according to Paul’s epistles. Jesus was the king of the Jews, and the earthly embodiment of YHWH
Know who else was the earthly embodiment of YHWH? All the other Jewish kings including Saul, David, Solomon, Jeroboam, Hezekiah, etc. it all goes back to first temple theology. Margaret Barker writes some good books on the first temple theology.
Here's something you should look at if you take her seriously.
Regarding the "embodiment of YHWH" in the earthly kings, please cite an example for me.
quote:The second half of your statement is correct. The first half that seems to be pulled from Barker's theology? Not so.
Complicating things a little are the Jewish scribes in the second temple who tried to equate the gods if first temple writings into one single entity. Hence in many second temple writings, YHWH can be called YHWH or Elohim, or YHWH Elohim. Depending on adjectives, verbs, and pronouns and such, one can tell whether Elohim (a plural word) is actually referring to plural heavenly divine beings, or one particular divine being called YHWH. Context matters. In the LXX, anywhere you see Elohim in Hebrew, it is translated as Theos or a form of Theos. El is also translated as Theos.
quote:Hypsistos is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word elyon, and both mean "highest" or "most high", and can refer to God, or to something that is high up (in location or position).
In the New Testament though, Hupsistos is Elyon. Theos is sometimes Elyon/El and sometimes it is plural for the army of heavenly hosts/angels/demons.
Theos does sometimes refer to spiritual beings like angels. It most often refers to God. It does depend on context.
I'm not sure what your point is about these particular words. They don't support your argument.
quote:Enoch is not inspired Scripture, and it originated before Christ's advent. The Jews and early Christians were certainly aware of the writings attributed to Enoch (they were pseudepigraphal), and it was quoted or alluded to directly in the Scriptures a few times, but so were pagan poets in Acts 17, for example.
New Testament authors quoted from or referenced 1 Enoch hundreds, or maybe thousands of times. They considered it scripture. 1 Enoch was preserved by groups like the Essenes who hated the second temple priests and theology. 1 Enoch is valuable to understand the early Christian mindset, and 1 Enoch wasn’t redacted by second temple scribes. The Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Genesis 6 theology is explained in detail in 1 Enoch for anyone who wants to learn.
Perhaps you should stop reading everything but the Bible and start focusing on what the Bible actually says and teaches.
quote:What "research" might that be?
My belief based on my research is that El is (short for) Elyon. Theos is Most High. Those are used as synonyms.
"El" means "God" and is used to describe the one God in various ways. Your problem (aside from your spiritual blindness, which is actually the root of your problems) is that you keep saying that El Elyon is a different God from Yahweh/Jehovah. "Elyon" just means "highest" or "most high" and the word is used elsewhere in the Bible that isn't even referring to God's name proper, such as the Chief Baker's dream in Genesis 40:7.
Here are other names/titles/descriptions of God from the Bible using El:
El Echad (the one God - Mal. 2:10)
El Hanne'eman (the faithful God - Deut. 7:9)
El Emet (the God of truth - Psalm 31:5)
El Tzaddik (the righteous God - Isa. 45:21)
El Shaddai (the all-sufficient God - Gen. 17:1)
El Elyon (the most high God - we've covered this one)
El Olam (the everlasting God - Gen. 21:33)
El Roi (the God who sees (me) - Gen. 16:13)
El Gibbor (the mighty God - Isa. 9:6)
El De'ot (the God of knowledge - 1 Sam. 2:3)
Immanuel (God with us - Isa. 7:14)
And over a dozen others. So no, "El" is not short for just El Elyon, but it means "God", and is paired with a couple dozen other words to describe the one God throughout the Scriptures.
And yes, El Elyon is used a synonym for Theos, because Theos in its plainest meaning simply means "God" in Greek, and it recognizes that El Elyon and other titles/descriptions/names are the names of God, so sometimes in the LXX the words are simply translated as form of Theos (God).
quote:Finally we agree on something! I've been telling you that you have to look at context for weeks/months at this point, instead of cherry-picking a verse here and there and trying to read them out of context according to your perverted hermeneutic.
One of the problems with the “inspired” scripture is that they often use the same word for multiple meanings. You have to look at the word in context.
This post was edited on 7/4/23 at 10:49 am
Posted on 7/3/23 at 11:45 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Here's where you show that you haven't actually looked at the context, event though you just said that you have to look at the context. I suppose you mean that you only look at the context that suits your particular narrative, but you aren't looking at the rest of the Bible to help you understand particular words, phrases, verses, etc.
In Hebrew the word used is “our god”. Not the god, or the only god. For a god to be called “our god” infers there are gods of others. You just have to read the scripture to see all the gods of the others.
The Bible has many examples where the "gods" of the peoples are ridiculed for not being gods at all, but mere idols of the imaginations of the peoples with no actual power or substance to do anything. When the Bible talks about "our God", it doesn't mean that there are legitimate gods with real existence that God (Yahweh) is competing against or has His place upon a pantheon. It is simply contrasting the God of Israel to those so-called gods that the other nations believed existed and worshipped.
There is no such thing as a literal "trans person", but that term is used for people who think they are a different gender than what their biological sex would show. When I talk about "trans people", I don't actually believe they are trans, but I have to use the language that makes sense in our cultural context to make sense of concepts that are used in society. Likewise, the Bible doesn't recognize that any others gods exist in the polytheistic sense, but that it uses the language of the people to refer to objects of idolatrous worship, referred to as "gods".
quote:The rest of Scripture tells us Christ's sacrifice was. It was an atoning propitiation meant to expiate sin. John used "lamb" clearly for several reasons, but primarily because He was a sacrificial lamb. As I mentioned, lambs were used in sacrifices to assuage guilt and remove God's wrath for sin. The Passover lamb was a good example of it.
It must have been difficult for John to decide to call him the “lamb” instead of the “goat”. There’s the Passover sacrifice of the lamb. The passion scene blends the lamb and the goat sacrifices. Jesus is carries his wood for the sacrifice just as Isaac carried his firewood. Two men “robbers” accompany Jesus to the sacrificial altar just as two men accompanied Abraham and Isaac. On the other hand, Jesus was definitely the Yom Kippur goat sacrifice. Two identical goats are chosen. One Jesus the Messiah, one Jesus son of the Father. One goat is sacrificed. One is released to carry away the sins of Israel (to the evil angel Azazel in the pit). I can see the lamb being applicable but the goat seems to be more accurate in my opinion. It is the atonement ritual that is the more important (or most important) ritual that takes away the sins of Israel (and the world?).
quote:I'm not sure what the AIG guys say on this, either, but Titus 2:13 says that Jesus is theos: "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God (theos) and Savior Jesus Christ"
Jesus is always Lord, or the LORD, just as Yahweh is. Jesus is not once every called Theos. He’s always the LORD and son of Theos. Sometimes son of the most high. In that context Theos was most high. Not sure what the answers in Genesis guys say but they are not scholarly.
quote:Enoch wasn't Scripture.
I agree that Christ’s sacrifice was seen as greater than the Yom Kippur atonement ritual. It was seen as the final sacrifice. This is described in the New Testament but also prophesied in Enoch. Enoch was essentially written around 300-400BCE and was scripture to Jews outside of Jerusalem area, especially to the Essenes and Ebionites. The earliest Christians were Enochian Jews whose prophecies were fulfilled.
quote:Jesus didn't hate the temple. He chased the money changers out of the courtyard of the temple for "defiling" it.
The Enochian Jews hated the temple. The fact that the gospel Jesus hated the temple is one of hundreds of evidences that the Christians were Enochian. A lot of what didn’t make sense to me as a youngster is really cleared up by studying Enoch. The Ascension of Isaiah too.
Seriously, read the Bible. Your takes are terrible as you don't seem to remember even basic Sunday School stories.
quote:Man, you were so close this time. Yes, monogenes is better translated as "one of a kind" or "unique" and puts an emphasis on a special relationship of sonship, but it doesn't mean that God had other literal "sons". Jesus has a special sonship to the Father in that He is the second person of the Trinity. The "sons of God" as used by the Bible refers to several different relationships, including Christians (e.g., Galations 3:26). That doesn't mean there were many gods. There is one God in three persons.
Jesus wasn’t El Elyon’s only son. There were many sons of El. Yahweh (Jesus) was the monogenes. The “only begotten” is a poor translation to a modern English speaker in my opinion. Monogenes is more closely “one of a kind” or “only of its kind” or even better “unique”. Elyon had many sons. At least 70 if you believe the Ugaritic manuscripts, Genesis 10, and 1 Enoch. Many more if you include all the angels and demons that are describes as sons of El or sons of Elohim. Jesus was his extra special unique son, that inherited Israel, and then acted as a final blood sacrifice to purify creation, so that no more blood sacrifices were necessary.
Posted on 7/3/23 at 11:50 pm to exiledhogfan
quote:No, I've disagreed with his immoral lifestyle for a long time. At first, I enjoyed his straight talk (especially regarding the establishment and media) and certain positions he's taken, but I didn't vote for him because of his moral character, but in spite of it. I certainly took the lesser of two evils position, voting against Clinton and Biden while trying to highlight the good aspects of Trump to help justify my choices.
You voted for Trump twice? And are just NOW figuring out he's a piece of shite of monumental proportions?
Good grief.
My convictions have become more solidified over the past few years that I can't continue choosing lesser of two evils, but should lend my support to those who fear God and recognize Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords.
Posted on 7/5/23 at 8:03 pm to FooManChoo
Let’s looks at Deut 32 once more:
What do these verses mean. Let me learn you something:
- Elyon divided mankind (sons of Adam)
- Elyon set up the borders of nations on earth according to the quantity of his sons. Each son got to rule over a nation on earth.
- Elyon gave each of his 70 sons a nation to rule as their inheritance.
- Yahweh’s portion of the people - his nation to rule over, would be the sons of Jacob (Israel) as his inheritance.
Not only is it clearly stated here in Deuteronomy, but all over the Bible really. Yahweh is Elyon’s special son that will someday judge and destroy his evil brothers who ruled unjustly, and will inherit all the nations previously ruled over by his brothers.
I’ll include all of Psalm 82 and bold the important parts for you.
Also with mentioning in verse seven “prince” in the Septuagint is archonton, so we know this “prince” mentioned here is talking about a heavenly ruler… which in context the whole Psalm is about heavenly sons of Elyon ruling the earthly nations unjustly.
Sources outside the Bible corroborate and further detail the 70 sons of Elyon. A good place to start is with Enoch obviously, and then the Ugaritic manuscripts, which were basically the same polytheistic religion as pre-exile Israelites and Jews. Why does the Bible say to quit worshipping the other gods, and that Yahweh is jealous? It’s because they simply believed in and worshipped other gods. Oh you can’t read Enoch, because the Catholics who you claim to not be Christians said it wasn’t inspired 1700 years ago. Silly me.
1 Samuel 26:11
Every Israelite and Jewish king was Yahweh’s messiah. Cyrus the Zoroastrian king of Persia and Babylon was Yahweh’s messiah. Jesus was the messiah.
Most of the old Kings were also the high priest too (Melchizedek). Abraham encounters the king and high priest of Jerusalem, Melchizedek, who blessed Abraham and Lot with bread and wine. After Cyrus took over, the roles of king and high priest had to be split, because the Jews couldn’t have a king. At that time, the (apostate Persian-influenced dogs) high priest was said to be the unearthly embodiment of Yahweh. The Essenes and other Enochian Jews viewed the temple as the whore of Babylon, the harlot on the hilltop, run by the high priest reporting to Cyrus or whichever king ruled them at the time. One day the true king / high priest Melchizedek, the true messiah, would return to drive out the second temple priests and usher in a new age, a new kingdom. Their guy was named Jesus.
You’ll have to read some books on the subject, from PhD level educated published theologians and historians who you think are incompetent because they don’t agree with your biased and non-evidence based beliefs. Even if I show you it’s probably a waste of time. You don’t believe facts staring you in the face.
Here’s a quick link dissertation partly on the subject. LINK
quote:
8When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. 9But the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.
What do these verses mean. Let me learn you something:
- Elyon divided mankind (sons of Adam)
- Elyon set up the borders of nations on earth according to the quantity of his sons. Each son got to rule over a nation on earth.
- Elyon gave each of his 70 sons a nation to rule as their inheritance.
- Yahweh’s portion of the people - his nation to rule over, would be the sons of Jacob (Israel) as his inheritance.
Not only is it clearly stated here in Deuteronomy, but all over the Bible really. Yahweh is Elyon’s special son that will someday judge and destroy his evil brothers who ruled unjustly, and will inherit all the nations previously ruled over by his brothers.
I’ll include all of Psalm 82 and bold the important parts for you.
quote:
A Psalm of Asaph.
1God (Elohim but they mean Yahweh) has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods (Elohim is plural in context and based on conjugated verbs) he holds judgment: 2“How long will you (the other Elohim - his brothers) judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah 3Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. 4Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” 5They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; 7nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” (Yahweh is going to kill them) 8Arise, O God (Elohim singular - this is Yahweh again), judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!
Also with mentioning in verse seven “prince” in the Septuagint is archonton, so we know this “prince” mentioned here is talking about a heavenly ruler… which in context the whole Psalm is about heavenly sons of Elyon ruling the earthly nations unjustly.
Sources outside the Bible corroborate and further detail the 70 sons of Elyon. A good place to start is with Enoch obviously, and then the Ugaritic manuscripts, which were basically the same polytheistic religion as pre-exile Israelites and Jews. Why does the Bible say to quit worshipping the other gods, and that Yahweh is jealous? It’s because they simply believed in and worshipped other gods. Oh you can’t read Enoch, because the Catholics who you claim to not be Christians said it wasn’t inspired 1700 years ago. Silly me.
quote:
Regarding the "embodiment of YHWH" in the earthly kings, please cite an example for me.
1 Samuel 26:11
quote:
The LORD forbid that I should put out my hand against the LORD’s anointed (messiah). But take now the spear that is at his head and the jar of water, and let us go.”
Every Israelite and Jewish king was Yahweh’s messiah. Cyrus the Zoroastrian king of Persia and Babylon was Yahweh’s messiah. Jesus was the messiah.
Most of the old Kings were also the high priest too (Melchizedek). Abraham encounters the king and high priest of Jerusalem, Melchizedek, who blessed Abraham and Lot with bread and wine. After Cyrus took over, the roles of king and high priest had to be split, because the Jews couldn’t have a king. At that time, the (apostate Persian-influenced dogs) high priest was said to be the unearthly embodiment of Yahweh. The Essenes and other Enochian Jews viewed the temple as the whore of Babylon, the harlot on the hilltop, run by the high priest reporting to Cyrus or whichever king ruled them at the time. One day the true king / high priest Melchizedek, the true messiah, would return to drive out the second temple priests and usher in a new age, a new kingdom. Their guy was named Jesus.
You’ll have to read some books on the subject, from PhD level educated published theologians and historians who you think are incompetent because they don’t agree with your biased and non-evidence based beliefs. Even if I show you it’s probably a waste of time. You don’t believe facts staring you in the face.
Here’s a quick link dissertation partly on the subject. LINK
Posted on 7/5/23 at 8:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The Bible has many examples where the "gods" of the peoples are ridiculed for not being gods at all
You are mistaken. The words used do not mean non existent. I think you know that. Often the word used in that context is more closely “worthless”. It’s like me saying your piece of shite Chevy is not a real truck (compared to my F Two Fitty).
quote:
I'm not sure what the AIG guys say on this, either, but Titus 2:13 says that Jesus is theos: "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God (theos) and Savior Jesus Christ"
Well I’ll be honest I am surprised you found that. I didn’t know it was there. I think I’m that context it is used a a plural form (like Elohim) instead of a specific “the” Theos, like the rest of the NT and the LXX using Theos not as a specific diety. I don’t pay must attention to Titus as it was not written by Paul but is a forgery, which is the consensus view of modern scholarship.
quote:
Enoch wasn't Scripture.
It was, to the writers of the NT. It’s clear. Jude quotes Enoch directly with a call out to “Enoch said”. There’s hundreds of other themes and passages quoting Enoch. It was the single most preserved manuscript found at Qumran (Essenes were Enochian Jews).
quote:
Jesus didn't hate the temple. He chased the money changers out of the courtyard of the temple for "defiling" it.
He threatened to destroy it. I’d say that’s not liking it very much, no?
quote:
Seriously, read the Bible. Your takes are terrible as you don't seem to remember even basic Sunday School stories.
61But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need?
Ok Mr Sunday School, tell me. Did that high priest, the one Jesus was talking to (allegedly) ever get to see Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven seated at the right hand of power? Jesus is supposed to be the new high priest and king, who will replace that old apostate high priest. Jesus, Melchizedek, will be the new high priest and king, returning (after death??) on the clouds. Did Jesus return to judge the living and the dead, resurrected the dead, and usher in the the new kingdom like he promised?
28“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
So did Jesus lie, or was that promise beyond his abilities?
They don’t teach you critical thinking in Sunday School. Pick up a non-fictional books sometime and learn something.
Hell, start with a book on biological evolution. Or Geology. You’ll maybe then be able to understand that dinosaurs and people didn’t coexist and the earth is billions of years old.
Posted on 7/5/23 at 9:10 pm to FooManChoo
You can actually read this…
1 Thessalonians chapter 4
… and you falsely claim Paul didn’t expect the immediate coming of Jesus in his lifetime.
Paul says Jesus will come (note: not “return”) and sweep the believers up into heaven as he gives them new imperishable angelic divine bodies when they shed their evil flesh.
Then in the gospels it’s the opposite. “Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven”. The kingdom will be established on earth. Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob and his kingdom will be without end.
The truth is Paul and the later gospel writers couldn’t agree on major issues.
- Paul says Jesus rose spiritually in an imperishable heavenly body
- Paul says when Jesus comes he will sweep them up (both Paul and his mates who are still alive, and the dead in Christ) into heaven
- later NT writings has Jesus rising in a fleshy body, with wounds, and the dead rising bodily in flesh and living in a kingdom in earth instead of being swept up into heaven.
Do you see a conflict there? Of course you don’t with your mental gymnastics and excuses.
1 Thessalonians chapter 4
quote:
15For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
… and you falsely claim Paul didn’t expect the immediate coming of Jesus in his lifetime.
Paul says Jesus will come (note: not “return”) and sweep the believers up into heaven as he gives them new imperishable angelic divine bodies when they shed their evil flesh.
Then in the gospels it’s the opposite. “Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven”. The kingdom will be established on earth. Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob and his kingdom will be without end.
The truth is Paul and the later gospel writers couldn’t agree on major issues.
- Paul says Jesus rose spiritually in an imperishable heavenly body
- Paul says when Jesus comes he will sweep them up (both Paul and his mates who are still alive, and the dead in Christ) into heaven
- later NT writings has Jesus rising in a fleshy body, with wounds, and the dead rising bodily in flesh and living in a kingdom in earth instead of being swept up into heaven.
Do you see a conflict there? Of course you don’t with your mental gymnastics and excuses.
Posted on 7/5/23 at 9:44 pm to Tmcgin
quote:
Making fun of a guy with cerebral palsy didn’t do it ?
Debunked hoax. Catch up.
Posted on 7/5/23 at 9:47 pm to Squirrelmeister
I've already shown that Yahweh and Elyon are synonyms so I'm not going to debate you any more on your false view on that. You keep going back to the same well of lies, pivoting to debunked points that don't say what you think they say. You ignore the context of the Scriptures and interpret the Bible according to everything but the Bible. You take the words of every other person and writing that contradicts the Bible as truth so long as they say something contradictory to the Scriptures and then act as if you are unbiased and intellectually superior. You are not. You are a sinner deserving of God's wrath, and you will receive it all for eternity unless you repent of your sins and put your trust in Jesus Christ, the great God and Savior who alone can remove your guilt of sin before God. Repent now.
Posted on 7/5/23 at 9:51 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
… and you falsely claim Paul didn’t expect the immediate coming of Jesus in his lifetime.
Paul didn't definitively predict this. He correctly spoke as though it could happen - the same perspective we should have.
Posted on 7/5/23 at 9:59 pm to FooManChoo
Paul’s pretty clear on fleshy vs spiritual bodies. Flesh on earth, spirit bodies in heaven. Pretty simple. This is also explained in great detail in Enoch.
1 Corinthians 15…
Then there’s 1 Peter 3…
Pretty clear. Not only people, but also Jesus (who was a person, right?) are sown in flesh, and rise in spiritual bodies.
But what’s this?
Luke chapter 24: Luke rebukes the earlier beliefs of Paul and Peter. Like says Paul and Peter got it all wrong! Any reader of Luke might have been familiar with the teachings of Paul and Peter who would have known that Jesus was resurrected in a spiritual heavenly body. Now they stand “corrected”.
Of course John had to take it up a notch in chapter 20:
I know you’ve read all that before. You’ve got books of the NT with opposing Christology. Yet you say they both are “the truth”. When you claim two things which are observably opposite are the same, you sound like a retard.
1 Corinthians 15…
quote:
35But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
Then there’s 1 Peter 3…
quote:
18For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit
Pretty clear. Not only people, but also Jesus (who was a person, right?) are sown in flesh, and rise in spiritual bodies.
But what’s this?
Luke chapter 24: Luke rebukes the earlier beliefs of Paul and Peter. Like says Paul and Peter got it all wrong! Any reader of Luke might have been familiar with the teachings of Paul and Peter who would have known that Jesus was resurrected in a spiritual heavenly body. Now they stand “corrected”.
quote:
36As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” 37But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. 38And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate before them.
Of course John had to take it up a notch in chapter 20:
quote:
24Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin,d was not with them when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” 26Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
I know you’ve read all that before. You’ve got books of the NT with opposing Christology. Yet you say they both are “the truth”. When you claim two things which are observably opposite are the same, you sound like a retard.
Posted on 7/5/23 at 10:19 pm to Jon Ham
What I don't get about any Trump supporter is this: He has NO principles. He couldn't care less about ANY policy. He says what suits him today, and tomorrow he will say whatever suits him then.
Anyone trying to ascribe any sort of ideology to him -- other save my orange arse -- is on a fool's errand.
Anyone trying to ascribe any sort of ideology to him -- other save my orange arse -- is on a fool's errand.
Posted on 7/5/23 at 11:19 pm to exiledhogfan
quote:
What I don't get about any Trump supporter is this: He has NO principles. He couldn't care less about ANY policy. He says what suits him today, and tomorrow he will say whatever suits him then.
Anyone trying to ascribe any sort of ideology to him -- other save my orange arse -- is on a fool's errand.
What you don't get is those are your opinions, nothing more.
Tell me why you think he ran for the presidency.
Posted on 7/5/23 at 11:40 pm to FooManChoo
Your “truth” of reality is the same “truth” that a man can don a wig and become a woman. You cannot seem to grasp basic logic and basic facts about nature. You believe things without evidence, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You are truly delusional and need help. I hope you get it.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 7:27 am to VolcanicTiger
quote:
Paul didn't definitively predict this. He correctly spoke as though it could happen - the same perspective we should have.
You are right. He didn’t predict it. He was stating to Thessalonians what was going to happen as he had heard the Gospel of God directly from the mouth of Jesus during hallucinations. He had not learned the gospel through any man (same as with the other apostles, Jesus appeared to them in visions only… the Jesus on earth stories weren’t yet invented). Paul had heard from Jesus about the metamorphosis of the living and the dead to be given spiritual heavenly bodies by God and that they’d all get swept up into heaven to meet Jesus. From his vantage point it wasn’t his own prediction. Jesus told him what was going to happen, and he shared that information with his church.
So you are wrong about the part about speaking as if it could happen. Paul was telling them definitively what was going to happen.
1 Thessalonians chapter 2:
quote:
3For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, 4but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. 5For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness. 6Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ. 7But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. 8So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us.
…
13And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.
Here’s
Galatians 1
quote:
11For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 11
quote:
23For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
2 Corinthians 12
quote:
1I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.
I could go on. Point being is that he learned of the gospel, the “truth” about God and Jesus (yes, they are separate… there’s no evidence Paul was trinitarian… that was fabricated through hundreds of years of later arguments od church fathers using mental gymnastics to overcome contradictions in the Bible they had smashed together). Paul was spreading his truth. Paul believed absolutely that he was not going to die, but rather be transformed into a spiritual being and swept up into heaven. To him it was not a prediction.
Guess who else thought the same thing though? The Essene community at Qumran. We have their writings. The Qumran sect wore white robes and believed they would shed their flesh and be wisked away into heaven when the messiah comes. Sound familiar?
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News