Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Poor Satan, so misunderstood.
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 121 of 301 (441861)
12-19-2007 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by jaywill
12-17-2007 12:22 AM


Re: Worlds Overthrown by the Blessed God.
jaywill responds to me:
quote:
Hebrew language readers of the book of Genesis have at times understood the destruction of a previous creation to that world committed to Adam. And they were not only Christians.
Right. Strange how none of the branches of Judaism come to this conclusion.
Are you saying Jews don't know their own religion?
quote:
The serpent did lie.
What was the lie? All the serpent said was:
Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
That's it. No cajoling of Eve to actually go through it. All the serpent says is that you won't die if you eat of the tree, you will become as god knowing good and evil, and that god knows this.
And all of that is precisely true. Adam and Eve do not die as god directly states they would, the do become as gods knowing good and evil, and god does know this.
So where is the lie?
quote:
I don't know why you want to ignore that for the serpent to say that the couple would NOT die - was a lie.
Because they don't die. Adam lives for nearly 1000 years. Eve lives at least long enough to bear two children, have one reach some form of maturity, and bear another son after that.
The idea that it is some sort of "spiritual death" or that Adam and Eve were immortal until they ate of the tree is not supported by the text. Adam and Eve were always going to die. That's the point behind the Tree of Life. What would god have done if Adam and Eve had managed to get to the Tree of Life or had eaten from it first? And the direct statement of god in Genesis 2 is that if you eat from the Tree of Knowledge, you will be dead before the sun sets. Again, Adam and Eve live on for years after that. Thus, that statement of god's was not true.
And since he knows it isn't true, that makes it a lie.
quote:
They did die.
No, they didn't. Adam lived for nearly 1000 years after and Eve lived long enough to bear at least two generations of children. How did they do that if they were dead?
quote:
You grasp the true part only and defend the serpent. Curious.
It's called "text analysis." Everybody should be capable of it.
quote:
Then you go on to accuse God of lying. I can't trust your way of interpretation here at all.
Why not? Simply because I disagree with you? I've been quoting the text left and right. You have yet to indicate where the problem is.
quote:
Now, Noah was found to be righteous in all his generation.
You've moved the goalposts. The request was not to find someone "perfect in all his generation." The request was simply to find someone who was perfect. The text plainly states that Noah was:
Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
And Noah wasn't the only one. There's Asa:
2 Chronicles 15:17 But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.
And Abraham:
Genesis And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
quote:
However it does not say that God created him like that from the very beginning of his existence.
And thus, you move the goalposts. But that's OK...Asa was perfect.
quote:
What I think it means is that Noah learned to walk with God.
That's not what the text says. Thus, you impose upon it.
quote:
G.H. Pember points out that history knows of no king of Tyre though it knows of a prince of Tyre.
Incorrect. Just a short list:
Abibaal
Hiram I
Baal-Eser I
Abdastratus
Methusastartus
Astarymus
Phelles
Eshbaal I
Baal-Eser II
Mattan I
Pygmalion
Eshbaal II
Hiram II
Mattan II
Elulaiois
Abd Melqart
Baal I
And note, Tyre was under the rule of Alexander the Great for a while. Since Ezekiel is referring to a period about the late 500s BCE, that would put the specific king in question in the rule of Eshbaal III (591 - 573 BCE).
But at any rate, it is irrelevant. The text calls him "king":
Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
Are you saying the text has an error?
quote:
Ezekiel 28 first starts speaking about the princeof Tyre. Then there is a full stop and the passages take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre. The change has some significance.
Not for this point. The text reads:
Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
The statements in 28:13 are directed at the king of Tyre. Are you saying the king of Tyre was the devil?
Hint: The original Hebrew words that are translated as "prince" and "king" in Ezekiel 28 really aren't that different. Solomon is also referred to as "prince" and "king" without anybody thinking there's something mystical going on.
You seem to think that the text was written in English.
quote:
This is to say that some humanistic aspects are certainly in the prophecy.
Indeed. But when the text says that this particular verse applies to this specific person, it is inappropriate to suddenly claim that it isn't referring to that person at all.
quote:
Exekiel 28 I take as containing instances of the prophetic past.
Except it's referring to specific people and specific events. It makes reference to King Jehoiachin, therefore we know what time period it is placed in.
quote:
The Eden could not be the Eden in Genesis where no king of Tyre was.
Indeed. It's a metaphor. The lamentation is not that the king of Tyre was an actual resident of Eden. It's that the king of Tyre had every advantage and luxury. To drive the point home, the text uses a common literary device: Hyperbole.
quote:
I agree with this Destruction / Reconstruction view of Genesis.
And you're perfectly free to do so.
Just be honest and admit that you're imposing this interpretation on the text, reading into it things that it does not say.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jaywill, posted 12-17-2007 12:22 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jaywill, posted 12-19-2007 8:27 AM Rrhain has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 122 of 301 (441895)
12-19-2007 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Rrhain
12-19-2007 2:55 AM


Re: Worlds Overthrown by the Blessed God.
Right. Strange how none of the branches of Judaism come to this conclusion.
Are you saying Jews don't know their own religion?
Knowing one's religion is one thing. Knowing God and knowing the truth is another. King Saul knew his religion. It didn't stop him from trying to kill David. Korah knew his religion. It didn't stop him from trying to stone Moses and lead the Israelites back into Egypt.
What was the lie? All the serpent said was:
Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
That's it. No cajoling of Eve to actually go through it. All the serpent says is that you won't die if you eat of the tree, you will become as god knowing good and evil, and that god knows this.
And all of that is precisely true. Adam and Eve do not die as god directly states they would, the do become as gods knowing good and evil, and god does know this.
So where is the lie?
What does this following passage mean to you ?
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, and he died. (Gen. 5:5)
Sounds like he died. And while you're talking about the branches of Judaism, do they ALL say like you that God lied ?
Because they don't die. Adam lives for nearly 1000 years.
Notice again:
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, and he died. (Gen. 5:5)
God hates death. He hates death more than He hates sin. We SHOULD NOT TAKE GEN 5:5 FOR GRANTED. Wake Up !
I have heard the reasoning that Adam didn't die that day so God lied. I reject that because he began the process of death immediately. His spirit became comatose. That is why in the new covenant we have to "born again" because the spiritual organ within man's being is deadened.
Besides, God told the truth of course. If Adam didn't turn to dust immediatly that would only be an indication of God's mercy. If that is the case I think it is exceedingly wicked for a person to abuse unthankfully the mercy of God and twist it into a charge of lying.
Anyway, death began its process in Adam as soon as he trangressed and ate the forbidden tree. How many branches of Judaism charge Yahweh with lying in Genesis ?
Eve lives at least long enough to bear two children, have one reach some form of maturity, and bear another son after that.
It of course God's wisdom to allow her enough time to have children or else there would be no human race to survive.
His heart was to save man. His heart was not to forsake His eternal purpose and cause the human race to go extinct. So, sure, she lived long enough to be the mother of all living.
How many branches of Judaism find fault with Yahweh for allowing the human race to continue through the children of Adam and Eve?
The idea that it is some sort of "spiritual death" or that Adam and Eve were immortal until they ate of the tree is not supported by the text.
Yes it is. They were barred from the tree of life. And for the express reason that they would not live forever. The tree of life is guarded by a spiritual being. So the strong implication of spiritual priorities is solidly in the story.
Besides, Cain's behavior indicated that his conscience was not functioning normally. This is a indication of spiritual death. He had no sense of wrong doing in the killing of his brother.
You may say that has nothing to do with spiritual death. But the rest of the Bible, Old and New Testament would not agree with you.
Adam and Eve were always going to die.
No they were not. If you want to talk about imposing understandings on Genesis, I think you are doing that now.
You and I grow old and die. You are imposing that custom on your understanding of Genesis. The only indication I see of any death occuring to the couple was their trangression to eat of the tree that would cause them to die.
If death was a concern to God and man, God could have warned them of many many things which would cause them to die. A Paradise is a Paradise. They were created with an everlasting life.
That's the point behind the Tree of Life. What would god have done if Adam and Eve had managed to get to the Tree of Life or had eaten from it first?
Since the prohibition to eat of the tree of life followed Adam eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I believe at this point that a similiar probition would have been against the other tree. And that may have meant also the destruction of the serpent - the Devil.
Adam moved from a neutral state to one of two mutually exclusive states. One was a oneness with God. The other was a oneness with Satan. This is a record of the beginnings of the human race. Any interpretation that the serpent is not representative of the great cosmic war between God and Satan I reject.
The theme of the creation story in Genesis is foundational and universal. Any interpretation that there just happened to be this naughty serpent in the garden who had nothing to do with God's main Advasary, I reject.
The universal cosmic war between God and the Devil is exposed in the account of Adam and Eve's expulsion from paradise. And the entrance of death into the human race is repeated again and again
"and he died ... and he died ... and he died ... and he died ..."
It is the story of how mankind was expelled from Paradise and made a slave of sin and death. It is also a story of God's salvation from sin and death. All the following events of Genesis after the expulsion of Adam and Eve highlight the downward trend of the human race into sin and death - farther and farther away from God.
Here and there are examples of ones who were exceptions and partook of God's salvation - Abel, Enosh, Enoch, Noah, etc.
And the direct statement of god in Genesis 2 is that if you eat from the Tree of Knowledge, you will be dead before the sun sets. Again, Adam and Eve live on for years after that. Thus, that statement of god's was not true.
You seem eager to charge God with lying. Is this a desire to be novel or what? Is there a eagerness on the part of most branches of Judaism to point out the lying Yahweh in Genesis?
The word day in Genesis 3:5 is the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:4:
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth which they were created, in the DAY that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen, 2:4)
The writer has just taken the time in chapter one to demonstrate that God made the earth and the heavens in six days, using the same word. He has flanked each event with evening and morning, seven times. So we understand seven days. Yet in 2:4 he speaks of "the DAY that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." So we cannot be too strict that the usage of the word in 3:5.
Had the text said as it does in chapter one, something like "there will be evening and morning and you will die" then we could insist that the promise had to be fulfilled within something like 24 hours.
The definition of the word used in Genesis 3:5 and 2:4 is not restricted to only refering to sunrise to sunset. It can also mean season or a space of time defined by an associated term. In Genesis chapter 1 it is bounded by two expressions which indicate a solar day is intended. But the same word elsewhere does not always insist on that meaning.
Besides, I am sure that spiritually man began to die because his spirit died. We are a tripartite being - spirit - soul - body (1 Thess 5:23). First Thessalonians being a New Testament book does not render its truth irrelevant to the basic composition of the created man in Genesis.
Bottom line is that God is truth and of course spoke truth. And I think it is ironic that on one hand you pose to defend Judaism and on the other accuse the Blessed of being a liar.
It's called "text analysis." Everybody should be capable of it.
I think it is terribly faulty text analysis.
You've moved the goalposts. The request was not to find someone "perfect in all his generation." The request was simply to find someone who was perfect. The text plainly states that Noah was:
It must be in a relative sense. In a comparative sense.
Noah had a considerable failure after the ark came to rest. He became drunk and was found unclothed in an undignified way. So the perfection of Noah there is something relative.
Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
And Noah wasn't the only one. There's Asa:
2 Chronicles 15:17 But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.
And Abraham:
Genesis And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Because God is the All-inclusive one with a BIG BREAST as the Hebrew states, God has ssufficient grace to cause Abraham to be perfect. It is God's supply. God is pictured there as a big breasted one. The word picture is that God's grace and God's supply, if Abraham will depend upon Him, will cause Abraham to walk before God perfectly.
Interestingly enough, this is a strong female word picture of God in the Old Testament.
And thus, you move the goalposts. But that's OK...Asa was perfect.
All these ones that you refer to offered protitiatory sacrifices for the atonement of thier sins. So the perfection there is relative and not absolute. Compared to others of their generation they shined.
But a perfect one would not be compelled to offer the sin offerings, trespass offerings, peace offerings, onsecration offerings prescribed in Leviticus. These offerings were precisely for the atoneing of sins for people who were in fact NOT perfect.
Jesus Christ is PERFECT.
And you know all those passages where they show how the priests were to separate the inners of the animal? It goes into detail about the fat and the kidneys. This is typology to show that the Christ, the one sacrifice for the sins of the world was totally perfect.
His innermost motive was perfect. His intention was perfect. His imagination was perfect. His memory, His inclinations, His motive, and all the innermost movements of His soul were utterly perfect to the Father. That is the significance of the great detail given to what the priests did in handling the insides of these slain animals.
When God examined His Son Jesus, He was thoroughly and entirely PERFECTION. No figure of the Old Testament can compare. This is true even though the Bible does say that Asa or Noah was found perfect in a relative sense compared to their contemporaries.
Incorrect. Just a short list:
Abibaal
Hiram I
Baal-Eser I
Abdastratus
Methusastartus
Astarymus
Phelles
Eshbaal I
Baal-Eser II
Mattan I
Pygmalion
Eshbaal II
Hiram II
Mattan II
Elulaiois
Abd Melqart
Baal I
I'll look into it. I don't know the history of Tyre. In Earth Earliest Ages G.H. Pember said that a king of Tyre was not known in connection to that time.
Maybe that is not correct.
And note, Tyre was under the rule of Alexander the Great for a while. Since Ezekiel is referring to a period about the late 500s BCE, that would put the specific king in question in the rule of Eshbaal III (591 - 573 BCE).
I will cut this response short here.
Some of the utterances in Ezekiel are appropriate to a human figure. Others are not. And these I take as revelations of someone super human.
In the New Testament God spoke to Peter and called him Satan. He used a contemporary person, Peter. But he addressed a spiritual being behind Peter's opinion that Christ should not suffer.
So God can speak to a worldly figure and reveal something about the behind the scene spiritual affairs that motivate that worldly person's desires.
This is precisely what I see in both Exekiel 28 with the King of Tyre and also in Isaiah 14. One is a record of Satan's rebellion against God's holiness. The other is a record of Satan's rebellion against God's authority.
Two is a testimony. The Spirit of God has left us TWO testimonials of a supernatural ruler who rebelled against the holiness and authoity of the Creator God.
If you can't take it then don't take it. But we are involved in spiritual warfare. And it is important that God expose the nature and history of our foe. And this, not to tickle our curiosity, but arm us against the wiles and stradegems of the Devil. For the saved it is important that we understand the nature of our foe. And God has not left us with guesswork or in the dark about the ancient past of the Devil.
I have no use for your friendly neighberhood attorney being God's handy dandy helper. I have no use for "There's no Satan in the Old Testament." Job, Zechariah, and other sections of the Bible say otherwise.
But at any rate, it is irrelevant. The text calls him "king":
Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
Are you saying the text has an error?
No. I lost your line of reasoning here.
This is poetry. It is poetry that is prophetic and spiritually related. It may not be easy to interpret. But we should seek to understand.
And we should consider the entire Bible for our context for it is one revelation from Genesis to Revelation.
Hint: The original Hebrew words that are translated as "prince" and "king" in Ezekiel 28 really aren't that different. Solomon is also referred to as "prince" and "king" without anybody thinking there's something mystical going on.
You seem to think that the text was written in English.
Indeed. But when the text says that this particular verse applies to this specific person, it is inappropriate to suddenly claim that it isn't referring to that person at all.
No. I don't mean that exactly. I mean that in speaking of a worldly rebel it transcends and addresses the Rebel of all rebels - the Day Star, the Anointed Cherub.
Why on earth would God refer to the king of Tyre as the Anointed Cherub that covers? God is transcending and speaking beyond this worldly figure to remove the viel to something about the Original Rebel who was the Anointed Cherub in God's government.
Indeed. It's a metaphor. The lamentation is not that the king of Tyre was an actual resident of Eden. It's that the king of Tyre had every advantage and luxury. To drive the point home, the text uses a common literary device: Hyperbole.
It is more than luxury there. He seems to be close to the presence of God Himself.
It is one thing to have a luxurious Gentile palace. It is another to be said to walk up and down amid the holy stones of fire. It is one thing to say that his palace is like Eden the Garden of God. It is another to say that he was the anointed cerub that covers the ark.
Was the glory of God in Tyre? Did God need a Gentile king in a idol worshipping land to guard the glory of God in the ark like the covering cherub?
I acknowledge that not all the utterances seem fitting for a angelic being. But neither do all of the utterances seem appropriate to a mere human king.
What king woke up from the moment of his creation to be perfect, surrounding by music and honor? This is from the day he was created.
David was a great and good king. He is set as a standard for all other kings that came after him. And even he says that he was not created perfect. A rather he was conceived in inquity and in sin his mother gave birth to him (Psalm 51)
If David, king of Israel, was [not] perfect from the day of creation, why should we believe that this king of Tyre was?
Just be honest and admit that you're imposing this interpretation on the text, reading into it things that it does not say.
I'll be perfectly honest and say that I think my interpretation is more to the truth than what you have presented.
I may have a spiritual sensativity which is keener than yours. But you also can have it. You would have to admit that the New Testament is a divine book. And you would have to realize that Christ is the centrality of the Bible.
Without seeing the importance of the Messiah and the new covenant, frankly you are at a disadvantage in fully comprehending some of these matters.
By His mercy I humbled myself to learn from Christ. I think you should humble yourself to do the same. As it stands you are at a disadvantage in getting into the Old Testament if you don't see where it is headed and to Whom it points in many many ways.
Even without this, how can you charge God with lying ?
If God is lying then you might as well throw the entire Book away.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2007 2:55 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Rrhain, posted 12-20-2007 2:24 AM jaywill has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 123 of 301 (442088)
12-20-2007 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by jaywill
12-19-2007 8:27 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
Knowing one's religion is one thing. Knowing God and knowing the truth is another.
And who is more likely to know the god of the Jews and said god's truth: Jews or non-Jews?
The Torah was written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context.
quote:
What does this following passage mean to you ?
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, and he died. (Gen. 5:5)

That in direct contradiction to god's claim that in the day that Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam lived for nearly a millenium after.
quote:
Sounds like he died.
So? Adam wasn't immortal. Why bother with the Tree of Life if he were? The claim of god was not that Adam would lose immortality. The claim of god was that before the sun set on the literal day that Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, he would be physically dead.
Instead, Adam lived for nearly a thousand years.
Where was the lie of the serpent?
quote:
And while you're talking about the branches of Judaism, do they ALL say like you that God lied ?
I never claimed that my comments about god's actions are the basis of Judaism. I'm simply pointing out that your claims about who the serpent was are not shared by the people who wrote the text.
There's a lesson to be learned there. Hint: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
quote:
God hates death.
Then why did he destroy nearly all life on the planet? Why does god order the destruction of entire cities? And the people who were living in the Promised Land? And all the other wars and battles that were demanded by god? The god described in the Jewish texts is not a god of peace.
quote:
We SHOULD NOT TAKE GEN 5:5 FOR GRANTED. Wake Up !
Nice try, but that was my argument to you. Genesis 5:5 clearly shows that god was not telling the truth back in Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Adam did not die on the day he ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Instead, he lived for nearly a thousand years.
So how did the serpent lie?
quote:
Besides, God told the truth of course. If Adam didn't turn to dust immediatly that would only be an indication of God's mercy.
Huh? God has no problem killing people. And god made a definitive and clear statement:
Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Nowhere in the text do we find a statement that god changes his mind. That isn't to say that god never does (Abraham and Moses are constantly arguing with god and getting god to rethink the rash action he is about to undertake). Instead, the text would say if god changed his mind. Since it doesn't, any claim that god did is an imposition upon the text.
quote:
Anyway, death began its process in Adam as soon as he trangressed and ate the forbidden tree.
Except that isn't what god said. God said that Adam would be physically dead by the time the sun set. Instead, he lives for nearly another thousand years.
quote:
They were barred from the tree of life.
Which means they were never immortal. Else, why bother with the Tree of Life? What would god have done had Adam and Eve eaten from it first? After all, god panics upon learning that Adam and Eve have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge. The only thing standing in their way of achieving complete apotheosis is eating from the Tree of Life.
quote:
quote:
Adam and Eve were always going to die.
No they were not.
Yes, they were. What was the point of the Tree of Life if they weren't? The only thing standing in their way of achieving complete apotheosis is eating from the Tree of Life. What would god have done had Adam and Eve eaten from it first?
quote:
Any interpretation that there just happened to be this naughty serpent in the garden who had nothing to do with God's main Advasary, I reject.
And you are certainly free to do so.
I merely ask that you be honest and admit it is because you are imposing your personal desires upon the text.
quote:
You seem eager to charge God with lying. Is this a desire to be novel or what?
I love being analyzed over the internet. I always learn such wonderful things about myself! You're practically accusing me of being a Satanist, jaywill, so stop beating around the bush and come right out and say it.
It's a desire to be honest about what the text says and compare that to what people think it says. The quote from the remake of DOA is always helpful: "When I say something, that's implying; the way you take it, that's inferring." Inferral is not bad in and of itself. I merely ask that people be honest and not confuse the two.
quote:
The writer has just taken the time in chapter one to demonstrate that God made the earth and the heavens in six days, using the same word.
First, you're assuming that the author of Gen 1 is the same as the author of Gen 2. That would be a mistake. Gen 2 is written by a different author from Gen 1.
Second, you're assuming that the word "yowm" has only one meaning. "Yowm" is very much like the English word, "day." It can mean various things depending upon how it is phrased. The context of the statement will tell you what is meant.
"Evening and morning of the nth day" is phrasing indicating a literay, 24-hour day. "In the day," however, is indicative of a nebulous, non-specific length of time.
quote:
Had the text said as it does in chapter one, something like "there will be evening and morning and you will die" then we could insist that the promise had to be fulfilled within something like 24 hours.
And it does. You seem to think that the Bible was written in English.
quote:
Besides, I am sure that spiritually man began to die because his spirit died.
Irrelevant. Gen 2:17 is referring to a physical death ("Dying, you will die," to use a more literal phrasing.)
quote:
I think it is terribly faulty text analysis.
But you haven't shown any textual analysis to contradict it. All you've said is, "I reject it." That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. Just don't pretend it's based upon what the text says.
quote:
It must be in a relative sense. In a comparative sense.
No, you moved the goalposts. You demanded X thinking that it couldn't be shown and when it was, you did the typical creationist thing to claim that it wasn't an example of Y, hoping to high heaven that nobody would notice that you didn't ask for Y in the first place.
quote:
Jesus Christ is PERFECT.
So is Noah. So is Asa.
quote:
I'll look into it. I don't know the history of Tyre.
Excuse me? You made a proclamation without bothering to do any research on the subject?
And you expect anybody to take you seriously?
quote:
Some of the utterances in Ezekiel are appropriate to a human figure. Others are not.
So how is a direct statement to go to a real person and say something directly to him an indication that it isn't referring to a real person?
quote:
This is precisely what I see in both Exekiel 28 with the King of Tyre and also in Isaiah 14.
But both of them are direct statements about specific people. Therefore, there is no connection to the devil...especially since there is no concept of the devil in Judaism as Christianity claims.
quote:
Why on earth would God refer to the king of Tyre as the Anointed Cherub that covers?
Because, as I pointed out, the text is using a standard literary device: Hyperbole. You do know what hyperbole is, yes?
quote:
Even without this, how can you charge God with lying ?
Because the text clearly indicates so. Gen 2:17 is directly contradicted by Gen 5:5.
quote:
If God is lying then you might as well throw the entire Book away.
As I have often said, have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jaywill, posted 12-19-2007 8:27 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jaywill, posted 12-20-2007 1:16 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 133 by jaywill, posted 12-22-2007 10:10 AM Rrhain has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 124 of 301 (442179)
12-20-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Rrhain
12-20-2007 2:24 AM


And who is more likely to know the god of the Jews and said god's truth: Jews or non-Jews?
Jesus was a Jew. Peter, John, James and the other chosen disciples were Jews. Paul was a Jew. These Jews believed that Jesus (a Jew) was the fulfillment of the promise of a coming Messiah.
I have been expounding the Bible hugely influenced by the New Testament sourced in a Jewish Jesus of Nazareth and reported to the world by mainly His Jewish apostles. We may exclude Luke from being a Jew. All the other writers of the 27 New Testament books, I believe, were all Jews.
I think it might be a good discussion topic in itself, something like (Do Non-Jews Have a Right to Claim Understanding of the Hebrew Bible?).
This is not all that I'd like to say about this. But this is all I'' say right now.
The Torah was written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context.
As I said above, I think this large topic could be developed in a thread dedicated to that subject. I don't think with one or two paragraphs the problem can be dealt with as it should be.
That in direct contradiction to god's claim that in the day that Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam lived for nearly a millenium after.
I already gave my response to this objection on a linquistic and theological basis. I don't think I will rehash that reply again.
So? Adam wasn't immortal. Why bother with the Tree of Life if he were? The claim of god was not that Adam would lose immortality. The claim of god was that before the sun set on the literal day that Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, he would be physically dead.
Adam was created good. In facf Adam was created "very good". Adam was also created with an immortal life.
When he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that terminated his everlasting life and he began to die.
God had millions of angels which also were good and immortal. What was the need for yet another creature created immortal and good, and that made out of the dust of the ground?
This new creature had an avenue opened to his choosing that no other previous being ever had. He could partake of God's own divine life. He could take into himself the Person of God and God could live in him and out from him - a God-man.
God was not satisfied with good and immortal angels. God wanted to dispense His life and nature into this man so that this man becomes the mingling and incorporation of the Divine and the Human. This reality looks like something. What does it look like - a GOD-MAN ?
It lools like Jesus Christ the Son of God. It looks like God in a Man and a Man in God united in one person expressing the divine attributes from within human virtues.
It also happens that this mingling and blending of God and man renders man with eternal life. But this is eternal not only in terms of spand of time. It is eternal in terms of quality and glory. The invisible God created a creature within Him He could dwell, incorporate, blend, mingle, unite, and be interwoven as one - a perfect harmony of the Creator and the created.
This is the significance of the tree of life. To understand the nature of the universe, the will of God and His eternal purpose you have to study Jesus Christ. This is why God created a universe - to be expressed from within a creature MAN.
No angel enjoyed this opportunity. Though the angels are very good and live forever, not one of them (including the Anointed Cherub - the Day Star who became Satan) enjoyed this opportunity to become united in life and nature with God Himself.
I never claimed that my comments about god's actions are the basis of Judaism. I'm simply pointing out that your claims about who the serpent was are not shared by the people who wrote the text.
And I am pointing out that some of your interpretation surely cannot boast of greater Jewish Orthodoxy. Which is more damaging to Judaism in your opinion - saying that the Devil was the serpent or saying that Yahweh is a liar?
Besides, I would someday verify whether you are right or not that no rabbinical teaching of Genesis recognizes that Satan is associated with the serpent in Genesis. When you imply that no orthodox Jew teaches that way, I can only take you word for it.
I will be looking into that.
But last of all the revelation of God in the whole Bible progresses. Certain generations do not see, nor are they held responsible for certain truths.
I am sure that early Jewish readers of Genesis before the New Testament times were edified to realize that they should not be tempted away from the words of God by any slyness or deceit. That was good enough for them at that time. They may not have associated this serptent with the grand cosmic war between God and Satan. But they received edification.
We in the New Testament age see something deeper there and need this up to date light from the Holy Spirit of God.
There's a lesson to be learned there. Hint: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I don't follow this comment. You'd have to elaborate.
Then why did he destroy nearly all life on the planet? Why does god order the destruction of entire cities? And the people who were living in the Promised Land? And all the other wars and battles that were demanded by god? The god described in the Jewish texts is not a god of peace.
This is too drastic a change of subject and requires a lot of additional discussion. Maybe you want to open up another thread on just that question.
Concerning me saying Genesis 5:5 should not be taken for granted and my call for you to "Wake Up" you reply:
Nice try, but that was my argument to you. Genesis 5:5 clearly shows that god was not telling the truth back in Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
On both a linguistic and theological basis, I already responded to this objection.
But here are a few passages from the New Testament which show that Messiah Jesus and His apostles considered some people dead though they were walking around:
In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness was not able to overcome it. (John 1:4)
Here the teaching is that death and darkness pervade fallen sinners. Christ has the life they need which not only enlivens the deadness of sinners but also brings them into the light or reality.
Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly I say to you, Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)
This passage indicates that fallen sinners need a birth into life other than their natural birth which they received drom their mothers. They may be 50 years old but lack this life of God with which they need a new birth.
Truly, truly, I say to you, An hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. (John 5:25)
Unlike the verse 28 verse 25 concerns not those in the tombs but those who are spiritually DEAD. If they hear the voice of the Son of God they will be regenerated with a spiritual and divine life. The dead. if they hear the voice of Jesus and believe, will LIVE.
This proves that we may be walking and breathing but in God's eyes we are dead. This king of death plagued the human race from the time Adam ate of the forbidden fruit and died, passing this death on to his descendents in all of its varied aspects.
But Jesus said to him, Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead. (Matt. 8:22)
This passaged indicates that there are spiritually dead people concerned about burying physically dead people.
Jesus therefore said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise Him up in the last day. (John 6:53,54)
This was Jesus' extreme way of teaching that they had to both believe and receive into their being that God the Author of eternal life was incarnated in a man - Himself. This was God Himself speaking, in a man, that to have life within themselves they must receive the incarnated God-man.
"But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, EVEN WHEN WE WERE DEAD in offenses, made us ALIVE together with Christ ..." (Eph. 2:4,5 my emphasis)
Speaking to the believers in Christ in Ephesus Paul says that he and they were DEAD before Christ made them alive in regeneration.
Yet a little while and the world beholds Me no longer, but you behiold Me; because I live, you also shall live. (John 14:19)
This is Jesus speaking of His resurrection and ascension to heaven. The world will see Him for a time no longer. But because He lives in resurrection the disciples will also live.
We might say the disciples will live regardless. But this living is a living of the divine life imparted into them at the new birth. Because Jesus lives in resurrection His believers may not be the walking dead but may live also.
" ... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)
This passage shows that this new life which enlivens the spiritually dead sinners is simply Christ Himself in a "pneumatic" form in which He may spiritually enter into our beings and give us God as life.
All this was not revealed to the readers early ancient readers of Genesis.
But they knew SOMETHING was wrong with man. They knew that SOMETHING was missing. As many thoughtful philosophers East and West have known. They knew that something was seriously missing in the existence of man.
It is crystalized in the New Testament. From the fall of man we became dead, not only in terms of becomming dust. But also we became dead in the kernel spiritual aspect of our beings. It is as if we were made for a three dimensional life but we only have two dimensions. We know that something is missing.
Some years ago a singer, Jimi Hendrix, wrote a song called I Don't Live Today. In that song Hendrix stated that he felt that he was not alive and that he was living at the bottom of a grave. He said he was only sure of one thing, that today, he did not live.
This of course is only poetry. But it is telling. Man knows that something is missing in his life even to the point that he feels that he is not really living.
There is a inner sense of vanity, futility, emptiness, dissatisfaction, hollowness ... This is the sense of death in man. This is the calling card of the grave. This is the sign that he is dead and is going to turn into dust.
Nowhere in the text do we find a statement that god changes his mind. That isn't to say that god never does (Abraham and Moses are constantly arguing with god and getting god to rethink the rash action he is about to undertake). Instead, the text would say if god changed his mind. Since it doesn't, any claim that god did is an imposition upon the text.
I did not state that He did catagorically. I left room for an interpretation that the physical death was mercifully held off until chldren could be born. And I stated that this should not be abused and twisted into a charge of God lying.
Someone made extrememly popular on the Internet that because Adam did not collapse to dust before sunset, that means that the serpent is the honest one in Genesis and God is the untrustworthy lying one.
I think surely this teaching is sourced in demons. I think that possibly some people who espouse this teaching are the unwitting pupils of evil spirits.
Paul warns the Christian church:
But the Spirit says expressly that in the later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons. (1 Tim 4:1)
It is a demonic teaching to teach that the serpent was the trustworthy one in Genesis and that Yahweh God was the untrustworthy lying one.
You should drop this teaching.
Which means they were never immortal. Else, why bother with the Tree of Life? What would god have done had Adam and Eve eaten from it first? After all, god panics upon learning that Adam and Eve have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.
More slanderous teachings. I don't see God panicing at all. I see God coming in the cool to the day in love, giving Adam a chance to ascertain where he is. He calls out to Adam "Where are you?"
It seems that He is giving Adam a chance to discover from what sweet fellowship he has just fallen. Of course God knew where Adam was. He wanted Adam to have self discovery.
God is very cool and controlled. Yet He is still righteous and does not let matter go undwelt with.
God did not give up His eternal plan because of Adam's sin. He still needs even dying human beings to receive His gracious plan of salvation. So the turning into dust is not immediate. They live physically long enough to bare a race of people to be saved.
But Adam cannot now partake of the tree of life. The power of the life of God would cause him to live forever in this horrid state. God will not have that.
The sequence of events proves that the two trees were mutually exclusive. And the sequence proves that the tree of life was the stronger power of the two sources. For if Adam was forbidden to eat of it after taking the forbidden tree then it proves that though the forbidden tree can kill, the tree of life can overcome physical death.
I believe that had Adam gotten to eat the tree of life first then the flaming sword would have come down against the serpent to destroy him. Instead of guarding God would have destroyed the lying serpent and probably destroyed his tree.
You see, though the knowledge of good and evil is something of God, I believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was something of the Devil. It was a contest not unlike the contest in the book of Job.
This forbidden tree was in reality a thrust to be independent from God. All evils and sins stem from independence from God. It was not a tree of gambling. It was not a tree of cheating on your wife. It was not a tree of stealing, or of murder, or of idol worship.
It was a tree of "Break Away from God and Do it Your Own Way" tree. It was a "You Don't Need God" tree.
It was a "Take the OTHER way, rather than God's Way" tree.
It was a dynamic withdrawl from the Source of all life and blessing. It was DEATH. It was death with an attractive and deceptive sounding name. It was a tree of complication.
The tree of life is so simple. The other tree is complicated. It is of knowlegdge. It is of knowledge of both good and evil.
We need to learn much more about the life of God. We have seen the effect of independence and revolt against God. We need to see what glorious things come out of dependence, faith, trust, and living in the realm of God bring.
I love being analyzed over the internet. I always learn such wonderful things about myself! You're practically accusing me of being a Satanist, jaywill, so stop beating around the bush and come right out and say it.
A Satanist is a worshipper of Satan. I do not think that you are that.
I think probably you are playing around with a concept which you don't think is really realistic.
It's a desire to be honest about what the text says and compare that to what people think it says. The quote from the remake of DOA is always helpful: "When I say something, that's implying; the way you take it, that's inferring." Inferral is not bad in and of itself. I merely ask that people be honest and not confuse the two.
Genesis 2:4 in the 1901 American Standard Bible says " ... the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."
Please tell me on which DAY did Jehovah God make earth and heaven? A number will be sufficient:

Day #1 ?
Day #2 ?
Day #3 ?
Day #4 ?
Day #5 ?
Day #6 ?
Day #7 ?
Which day was the day the God made the earth and the heavens ?
Exodus 20:11 says in the same translation " for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is them is ..."
My point is this word [Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary #3117] is used in Gen. 2:4 to speak generally. For it was not on a single day that God made the heavens and the earth but in six.
By the same token " ... shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" can mean some number of days (six or more) will be the 24 hour period of their total demise.
Just as the acculation of six days is generally spoken of THE day in which God made the heavens and the earth.
Now, I do not think that the serpent's was taking advantage of the fact that it may take a number of days before Adam's heart stopped beating. I think his deception was that in an absolute sense the couple would NOT die PERIOD at all. Which was a lie.
Even if the serpent had some thought of taking advantage of the fact that Adam, after eating, would live almost a thousand more years, I see no excuse for championing the serpent as trustworthy and Yahweh as the unstrustworthy one.
I am not a native Hebrew language reader. But in the King James English translation, this word #3117 is referenced also in the following passages in which the same Hebrew is translated not "day" but "when"
" ... WHEN raw flesh appeareth in him." (Lev. 13:14)
" ... teach WHEN it is unclean." (Lev. 13:57)
" ... and WHEN it is clean: this is the law" (Lev.13:57)
" ... WHEN he maketh his sons to inherit..." (Deut. 21:16)
" ... WHEN they chastened him ... " (Deut. 21:18)
" ... WHEN the Philistines had slain Saul ..." (2 Sam. 21:12)
" ... WHEN Gog shall come against ..." (Ezek. 38:18)
To sum up:
1.) I believe that the process of death started right away when they ate of the forbidden tree.
2.) I don't think the language insists that they had thier hearts had to stop beating before the 24 hour day was over.
First, you're assuming that the author of Gen 1 is the same as the author of Gen 2. That would be a mistake. Gen 2 is written by a different author from Gen 1.
Not really. I am assuming that one God inspired both chapters as well as the following 65 other books of the Hebrew and New Testament canon.
Are you taking a position that you positively know that they were not the same author ? Could not one author compile them both into one writing though he knew that two sources were being derived?
Second, you're assuming that the word "yowm" has only one meaning. "Yowm" is very much like the English word, "day." It can mean various things depending upon how it is phrased. The context of the statement will tell you what is meant.
Quite the contrary. IT seems that this is your line of reasoning.
Are you slipping into another debate on another subject ? We are not talking about Day Age Creation here are we? We are talking about whether God lied or spoke the truth that when the couple ate the forbidden tree they would die.
You say. "Didn't die. God lied. Serpent told the truth."
And this is suppose to champion Orthodox Judaism? I mean to charging the serpent with truth and Yahweh with lies ?
"Evening and morning of the nth day" is phrasing indicating a literay, 24-hour day. "In the day," however, is indicative of a nebulous, non-specific length of time.
As I suspected you're drifting into another debate.
My opinion is that in the case of evening and morning flanking each day of God's formation work leaves little room for misunderstanding that the trypical daily solar cycle is meant to be communicated.
I am not a Young Earth exponent though. I believe in an Interval of unspecified time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The details of the intervening age or ages is dimly revealed in other chapters of the Bible.
And it does. You seem to think that the Bible was written in English.
Irrelevant. Gen 2:17 is referring to a physical death ("Dying, you will die," to use a more literal phrasing.)
I think this rendering brings you closer to my understanding. Beginnig to die, Adam will die.
Me:
Jesus Christ is PERFECT.
You:
So is Noah. So is Asa.
In the Bible there is a chapter or so about Asa. There are 27 books about Jesus.
This One said:
"Ninevite men will stand up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something more than Jonah is here." (Matt.12:41)
"The queen of the south will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because she came from the ends ofthe earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something more than Solomon is here." (12:42)
"But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here." (12:6)
The point here is that nothing and no one in the Old Testament is greater than Jesus Christ. That would include Noah and Asa as well. When God incarnated and came as the Son of God, He was more than any matter or person that came before, in righteousness, in holiness, in purity, in being pleasing to God.
Asa was good. Hezekiah, Noah, and many other patriarchs and prophets were very outstanding. But none can compare to the Christ. In fact the Savior of Asa and Noah is Jesus Christ. They offered sacrifices and offerings in faith in anticipation of His atoneing death for the sins of all mankind for all time on Calvary.
So we are told that He was the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world, including the sins of Noah and Asa.
Excuse me? You made a proclamation without bothering to do any research on the subject?
I quoted what I recalled reading in Pember's book. Are you finished "researching" for all time? You could do some more. I also could do some more. But I don't like to waste my time with things which will not make that much difference to the truth I perceive as established
Regardless of the alleged kings in your list, there are utterances in the 28th chapter of Ezekiel that should not be thought to refer to any mere human:
"You were in Eden the garden of God ..."
"You were the anointed cherub that covers [the ark of the covenant]"
"... indeed I set you, so that you were upon the holy mountain of God."
Since when was pagan nation of Tyre "the holy mountain of God?" Which Old Testament book informs us that Tyre was the holy mountain of God?
" ... you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire"
Moses and the elders saw the holy stones of fire underneath the feet of God on Mt. Sinai. What right did the Gentile king of Tyre have to be seen walking in such closeness to the God of glory?
"You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you"
I understand this to refer to a perfect angelic being created by God and not a descendent of Adam who became a king.
David said "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5)
And Solomon says that God made man upright but they have sought out many tricks.
The position that the Anointed Cherub had as a king and a priest were taken from him and given to the believers in Christ (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 2:26-27; 3:21; 12:5; 20:6; 22:3, 5)
The divine priesthood and kingship beforehand were assigned to Israel. And before that to the created Adam. In each age only a remnant of overcomers secured the mandate of God. usually the larger body of saints failed. God still accomplishes His plan with this remnant of overcomers.
This Anointed Cherub of Ezekiel 28 was so close to God that he is discribed as the covering cherub over the ark of the covenant. In Ezekiel 28:17 it says that his heart was lifted up because of his beauty.
I believe that Satan held the highest position in the pre-Adamic universe. The musical instruments associated with celebrating his creation suggest that he was some kind of king. He was some kind of priest leading the creation in the worship of God and some kind of king excercising authority over the creation of God. And he was lifted up with pride in his heart because of his own beauty. He became Satan.
All the earthly rebels, all the earthly prideful ones have their ancient source in this original proud rebel of the angelic race.
He was full of wisdom but corrupted it to totally oppose God. No human being is a match for his wiles. Adam could have dealt with him by obeying God to not listen anything contrary to God's command and by eating of the tree of life. Not to live immortally, which he already had, but to be incorporated with the divine life of God.
This repetition is not so much for you Rrhain. It is for others coming fresh into the discussion.
In context of the whole Bible, Satan is exposed and revealed in Ezekiel 28 poetically mingled with some words about the king of Tyre.
And you expect anybody to take you seriously?
Some. Yes.
But both of them are direct statements about specific people. Therefore, there is no connection to the devil...especially since there is no concept of the devil in Judaism as Christianity claims.
I don't know what "Christianity claims" about Judaism's knowledge of the Devil. I am not speaking for Christianity really. That word means a lot of things to a lot of people - the "ANITY" of Christianity.
Do you think that the prophets of God understood everything that the Holy Spirit had them write? The prophet Daniel wrote:
"And I heard, but I did not understand." (Dan. 12:8)
So even the great prophet Daniel had revelations from God which he wrote yet did not completely comprehend.
The great prophet Zechariah also had to ask the angel to explain some visions. The divine reply is surprised, as if the prophet SHOULD have understood:
"Then I answered and said to him, What are these two olive trees on the right of the lampstand and on its left?
And I answered a second time and said to him, What are the two olive branches that are by the side of the two golden spouts, which empty the gold from themselves ?
And he spoke to me, saying, Do you not know what these are? And I said, No, sir.
And he said, These are the two sons of oil, who stand by the lord of the whole earth." (Zech. 4:11-14)
My point here is that sometimes the prophets themselves did not fully grasp the significance of what they saw or wrote. We have the assistance of the New Testament apostles, prophets, and teachers to help us. The Holy Spirit is a Master Guide of all the saints.
I do not mean that each and every explanation of the OT is reliable no matter what. I submit that this interpretation of a poetic revelation of Satan's ancient history is reliable and solid interpretation of a mysterious prophecy.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Rrhain, posted 12-20-2007 2:24 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Rrhain, posted 12-20-2007 11:32 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 125 of 301 (442362)
12-20-2007 7:54 PM


I have been reviewing some supposed Orthodox Jewish teachings on Satan. I found it helpful to see the differences between the Christian view of this figure and that of at least one teacher of Orthodox Judaism.
He did say that Satan is an angel. He objected to the belief that this angel became an evil Satan by rebelling against God. He did teach that Satan is some kind of assistant to God. And he taught that when his job is concluded he will become non-existent. He said that this is not unfair to an angel because they are just obedient servants.
The Rabbi did object to the Christian notion of Satan as opposed to God on a great cosmic level. Rather this advasary is an angelic helper of God to make humans have to choose against an evil principle. Such testing will no longer be needed at some point at the final judgement and then Satan will become non-existant.
The Rabbi also said that Satan does not want to be followed and is not happy when people rebel against God. He does not want to receive worship and is cooperative as a coordinating appointed Hinderer helping followers of God to choose between good and evil.
He claimed to be doing Counter Missionary Work and correcting the wrong headed notions of Christians. He accepts email questions but warned Christians not to try to change his beliefs.
In his brand of Orthodox Judaism Satan then is an angelic being with a job to do for God in the testing of people on earth. Some of the concepts were similar to what have been proposed in this discussion.
Here are some of my thoughts on this Orthodox Rabbi's article:
I agree with him that God has used Satan. But God has used him in some kind of providential way according to His sovereignty.
I utterly reject that this is some kind of happy coexistence or cooperation between God and an obedient servant.
In the oldest book of the Bible, Job, it is clear that Satan wants to KILL Job. God has to place a hedge around Job to prevent him from being killed by Satan.
The picture of a cooperative and obedient helper cannot stand up to this revelation of the viciousness and murder rampant in the heart of Satan.
Furthermore, Satan wants Job to curse God to His face. This is totally too evil to assume Satan as some obedient co-worker with the Divine Being. The fact that Satan wants Job to curse God outright to His face reveals his immense HATRED for his Creator.
Can you imagine a leader or ruler of a country having a servant who expresses the desire that the ruler's subjects would curse the ruler to his face?
"Have you not set a hedge around him and his household and all that he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his possessions are spread throughout the land.
But stretch Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face." (Job 1:10-12)
Why does Satan seem eager that Job would curse God to His face? It is because that is what Satan desires to do. And Satan is delighted that man would curse God along with him.
The New Testament says that the etenal punishment has been prepared for the Devil and his angels -(Matt. 25:41)
"Then He will say also to those on the left, Go away from Me, you also who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
This discussion began with a plea for sympathy for the bening that earnestly desires to curse God and that you also as a human would join him in the cursing of God.
In the book of Job God has to specifically command Satan not to kill Job. If God did not do this, this so-called helper of God surely would go beyond the call of "duty" in a moment to cruely kill God's saint Job.
In fact Satan seems to be taking the initiative to rove up and down on the earth HUNTING for someone he can use to discredit God. This is seen in God's asking Satan from where has he come and Satan's answer:
"And Jehovah said to Satan, Where have you come from? And Satan answered Jehovah and said, From roving the earth and going about in it.
And Jehovah said to Satan, Have you considered My servant Job ? For there is none like him on the earth, a perfect and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil." (Job 1:7,8)
The implication here is not that God sent Satan on a errand but that Satan took it open himself to find grounds to slander God. The idea of God needing an obedient servant to curse Him and recruit others to curse Him is ridiculous.
In the second round after God has admitted allowed Satan to destroy all of Job's possessions Satan seeks further opportunity to drive God's prize servant to curse God:
Then Satan answered Jehovah and said, Skin for skin! Indeed all that a man has he will give for the sake of his life.
But stretch forth forth Your hand, and touch his bone and his flesh; and he will curse You to Your face.
And Jehovah said to Satan, Here he is, in YOUR HAND; [my emphasis] only spare his life."
You can see the utter hatred for God's other created human being as Job falls into the hands of Satan. And Satan knows fallen human nature very well. The self love of man will eventually cause him to react to misfortune by cursing God.
Now why is Judaism's view of Satan not as wicked as that of the New Testament? I think the answer lies in the fact they fail to see the total wickedness of Satan in his opposition to the Son of God.
Of course Orthodox Judaism rejects that Jesus is the Son of God. So they do not grasp the pure evil of Satan's activity to derail and destroy the work of the incarnate Son of God. So thier view is that that Satan is a nuisance but not really that bad.
This is a watered down realization of Satan's evil due to the failure to grasp the New Testament revelation of Christ's coming as Son of God.
By the time Jesus comes to the earth Satan is viewed as the prince of demons. This is exceedingly evil. God is holy. But this so-called helping servant of God is the prince of demons. Here is where we see that the prince of demons was understood to be Satan:
"And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons He casts out the demons.
And He called them to Himself and said to them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan" And if a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom is not able to stand ... And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he is not able to stand but has come to an end." (See Mark 3:22-24)
This passage proves that the Jews of that time believed that Satan was the ruler of the demons - very dirty, very unholy, very evil, and very much opposed to all that God stands for. Yet we have a revisionist modern Orthodox teaching that Satan is a helper who is not happy to see men disobey God.
Now if I recall correctly, Beelzebul was a derogative play on words for one of the Gentile dieties called Beelzebulb. One name meant Lord of the Flies. I believe that the derogative term Beelsebul mocked this pagan god by refering to him as "Lord of the Dunghill".
At any rate the picture of flies swarming around a dirty dunghill having a ruler over them is too filthy to attribute to a supposed "helper" of God in any friendly cooperative sense.
Yahweh is unspeakably holy and clean. He does not partner with the dirty flies of the filthy dunghill of the refuse of demonic rebellion. Neither does such a being deserve sympathy for being misunderstood. To become the opposite of all that God is Satan had to become so dirty and filthy in his rebellion.
Rather than peacefully become non-existent in the next age we see Satan will first be bound and then assigned his place in eternal punishment. He won't like it. Pewrhaps his only happiness is that through his evil wiles he has deceived many other creatures to share the terrible endless torment that he must bear. At least he will not be alone. And there he can enjoy hearing the curses against the Righteous God, if there are any.
Do you still want to feel pity for this "misunderstood" enemy of God and man?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by ringo, posted 12-20-2007 10:32 PM jaywill has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 126 of 301 (442378)
12-20-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jaywill
12-20-2007 7:54 PM


jaywill writes:
In the oldest book of the Bible, Job, it is clear that Satan wants to KILL Job. God has to place a hedge around Job to prevent him from being killed by Satan.
Reference, please?
In my Bible, God brings up the subject of Job. Satan claims that Job is loyal only because God protects him and his possessions:
quote:
Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for naught?
Job 1:10 Hast not thou made a hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
In the book of Job God has to specifically command Satan not to kill Job.
Satan is allowed to do anything up to but not including killing Job. Why? Because killing Job would negate the whole point of the exercise. You can't test somebody by killing him. If Satan was so clever, why would he ruin his own master plan?
God's reminder not to kill Job seems like an extra-clear instruction to a not-too-bright employee.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jaywill, posted 12-20-2007 7:54 PM jaywill has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 127 of 301 (442382)
12-20-2007 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by jaywill
12-20-2007 1:16 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
Jesus was a Jew.
You are assuming Jesus even existed. There is no evidence of such.
At any rate, the books of the New Testament were not written by Jesus nor were they written by any contemporaries of Jesus or anybody who knew him.
They were written by Christians who were trying to justify their apostasy.
quote:
Adam was also created with an immortal life.
Then what's the point of the Tree of Life? The only thing standing between Adam and Eve and complete apotheosis was the Tree of Life. What would god have done had they eaten of it first?
quote:
It lools like Jesus Christ the Son of God.
Which flies in the face of Judaism and the very first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. There is no son because that would imply a second and there is no second. There is only one. God doesn't need a son.
quote:
And I am pointing out that some of your interpretation surely cannot boast of greater Jewish Orthodoxy.
And I never said they were. The fact that my comments don't necessarily jibe with Judaism doesn't mean yours do.
The only point regarding Judaism I have made is that Judaism doesn't have a concept of the devil the way Christianity does. The serpent in the garden is just a serpent. It cannot be the devil because there is no devil.
Again, there is only one god.
quote:
quote:
There's a lesson to be learned there. Hint: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I don't follow this comment. You'd have to elaborate.
The very complaint you are making toward me also applies to you.
quote:
This is too drastic a change of subject and requires a lot of additional discussion.
No, it isn't. You said that god hates death. And yet, there are myriad examples of god killing everything in sight. One of them quite literally.
quote:
But here are a few passages from the New Testament which show that Messiah Jesus and His apostles considered some people dead though they were walking around
You cannot use the New Testament to try and justify its contradictions of the Old. If you could, then there wouldn't be any Christians for they would all be Jews as Judaism would recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The very point behind the New Testament is that it doesn't match the Old. The books of the Jews were written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context.
quote:
I did not state that He did catagorically.
Huh? First you're saying god changed his mind and rather than having Adam die like he said in Gen 2:17, he changed his mind and saved Adam's life. Now you're saying he didn't change his mind. They can't both be true. Either he changed his mind or he didn't. Nowhere in the text do we find a statement that god changes his mind. Since it doesn't, any claim that god did is an imposition upon the text.
quote:
I think surely this teaching is sourced in demons.
Stop beating around the bush, jaywill. If you're going to claim I'm a Satanist, just come right out and say it.
quote:
I don't see God panicing at all.
OK, first, a spelling flame (yeah...I know): It's "panicking," with a "k." In English, "c" before "i" is soft as in "icing." "Panicing" would be pronounced "PAN-ih-seeng." Similarly, "c" before "e" is also soft, so it's "panicked."
Second, the text clearly states that he does:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
What's god afraid of? Why does god care if Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Life? You just said that god hates death, so why would god condemn Adam and Eve to death? God is clearly panicking, doing everything he can to get rid of Adam and Eve lest they achieve apotheosis.
quote:
A Satanist is a worshipper of Satan. I do not think that you are that.
And yet, you just said:
I think surely this teaching is sourced in demons. I think that possibly some people who espouse this teaching are the unwitting pupils of evil spirits.
...
It is a demonic teaching to teach that the serpent was the trustworthy one in Genesis and that Yahweh God was the untrustworthy lying one.
You should drop this teaching.
That you're feigning modesty and claiming that I'm "unwitting," you're still insisting that I'm spreading the word of the devil.
So just come out and say it.
quote:
I think probably you are playing around with a concept which you don't think is really realistic.
So I'm playing the Devil's Advocate?
quote:
ase tell me on which DAY did Jehovah God make earth and heaven?
According to Genesis 1, heaven was created on the second day:
Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Earth was created on the third:
Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
[...]
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
quote:
My point is this word [Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary #3117] is used in Gen. 2:4 to speak generally. For it was not on a single day that God made the heavens and the earth but in six.
But Genesis 1 is where we find the specific days on which things happen. You're trying to say that "day" only means one thing and it does not. If you phrase it in a certain way, it means a literal, 24-hour day ("evening and morning"). If you phrase it another way, it means a nebulous, non-specific length of time ("in my day.")
And in Genesis 2:17, the phrasing is very specific: If you eat from the tree, you will be physically dead before the sun sets.
quote:
Are you taking a position that you positively know that they were not the same author ? Could not one author compile them both into one writing though he knew that two sources were being derived?
The text has been redacted, yes. But the two stories are contradictory. A single author writing both as if it were a coherent, single story makes no sense.
This is even more apparent in the story of Noah. It is literally two stories shuffled together. That's why Noah enters the ark twice, why the animals come in two different sets of numbers, why the ark lands twice, etc. It's two different stories by two different people.
quote:
Are you slipping into another debate on another subject ?
No, we're talking about what is meant by "on the day you eat" means. You seem to think it means that it's not really a day. And since you brought up the "day" reference from earlier in Genesis as an example of how "day" can mean something other than a literal, 24-hour day, I responded that you seem to be indicating that "yowm" only means one thing.
Instead, "yowm" means different things and the contextual phrasing surrounding it will tell you what is meant. And in Genesis 2:17, the context is quite clear: If you eat from the tree, you will be physically dead before the sun sets.
quote:
And this is suppose to champion Orthodox Judaism?
I never said it was any kind of Judaism let alone Orthodox. How did we land upon Orthodox?
I am simply reading the text. The fact that I am not speaking for the Jews doesn't mean you are, though.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
quote:
As I suspected you're drifting into another debate.
You're the one who brought it up. If you don't like the fact that you're being shown up, then perhaps you should retract your statement. You're trying to say that the word "day" in Gen 2:17 doesn't mean an actual day and you're using Gen 2:4 as justification. All I'm pointing out is that "day" can actually mean a literal, 24-hour day as well as a nebulous, non-specific length of time and that the way you determine which is meant is by looking at the contextual phrasing surrounding the word.
And in Genesis 2:17, the context is quite clear: If you eat from the tree, you will be physically dead before the sun sets.
quote:
I think this rendering brings you closer to my understanding. Beginnig to die, Adam will die.
No, not "beginning." If I had meant "beginning," I would have said "beginning." If the text meant "beginning," it would have said "beginning." Since neither I nor the text say that, it is clear we don't mean that. The phrase, "dying, you will die," means something very specific. It isn't implying that you're going to linger for another thousand years or that you will lose your immortality. It means that you're going to drop dead on the spot.
quote:
In the Bible there is a chapter or so about Asa. There are 27 books about Jesus.
Jesus isn't mentioned anywhere in the Jewish texts. The fact that Christians are obsessed with him is irrelevant when discussing the Old Testament. Asa and Noah, however, are mentioned and both of them are declared to be perfect.
quote:
The point here is that nothing and no one in the Old Testament is greater than Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is irrelevant when approaching the Old Testament. You're still trying to impose Christian sensibilities upon a Jewish text.
quote:
Since when was pagan nation of Tyre "the holy mountain of God?"
Since the notions of "hyperbole" and "metaphor" were invented. How many times do I have to say it before you remember it?
quote:
I don't know what "Christianity claims" about Judaism's knowledge of the Devil.
You misunderstand. I am comparing Judaism's concept of the devil with Christianity's. The concept of where evil comes from is different in Judaism than it is in Christianity. There is no devil the way that Christians claim there is.
quote:
Do you still want to feel pity for this "misunderstood" enemy of God and man?
How does one feel "pity" for something that doesn't exist, according to the text?
The serpent in the garden was just a serpent. It wasn't the devil.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jaywill, posted 12-20-2007 1:16 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jaywill, posted 12-21-2007 6:45 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 132 by jaywill, posted 12-21-2007 12:35 PM Rrhain has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 128 of 301 (442416)
12-21-2007 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Rrhain
12-20-2007 11:32 PM


You are assuming Jesus even existed. There is no evidence of such.
I take this as a desperate diversion.
I don't take this bait right now.
At any rate, the books of the New Testament were not written by Jesus nor were they written by any contemporaries of Jesus or anybody who knew him.
This is another drastic change of the subject. We are not discussion the non-existence of historical Jesus or the non-existence of the authors of the New Testament who are believed to be some of His disciples.
So I won't bite the bait. In this case it is desperate diversion.
They were written by Christians who were trying to justify their apostasy.
This is a desperate diversion. I won't bite the bait.
Right now I am only interested in your comments on the subject related to the serpent, the interpretation of Satan's ancient past, and things we've been talking about.
You can open up a new thread on the reliabiity of the New Testament Documents over in the Forum devoted to such discussions. Hear my focus is "What Does The Bible Really Mean?" specifically about the serpent in Genesis 3.
Then what's the point of the Tree of Life? The only thing standing between Adam and Eve and complete apotheosis was the Tree of Life. What would god have done had they eaten of it first?
That's better. Maybe now we can continue.
The purpose of the Tree of Life is difficult to ascertain only by reading Genesis. The New Testament is needed.
I could not explain what the Tree of Life signifies without the revelation of the New Testament. I don't think anyone could.
I think the best Orthodox Jewish interpretation might be that the Tree of Life represented something like the law of God. That is not bad. But it is not that good either.
Now, the Tree of Life (we capitalize this time) represents God's eternal intention to dispense Himself as life into man. This is a most profound concept because we do not naturally think of God as Someone Who can be lived. But this is the nature of God in finality.
When God created an angel he created merely a servant for obedience. When God created this man out of the dust, He created a vessel into which He Himself God could enter and live. God created man as a GOD LIVER - one who lives God.
I said MAN is a creature who is enabled to LIVE GOD. I do not mean man can just live FOR God. I do not mean that man can merely live UNTO God. I mean that man is a creature that can live God.
Man is a being who can enter into the living realm of God's inner being and live a co-inherited and mingled life with God and God with him.
The Tree of Life represents God imparting Who He is in His life and nature into the vessel of man's being.
Through the Tree of Life God and man become mingled into one. God retains the Headship over the relationship. Man becomes the enlargement of the relationship. Man becomes the "organic" extension of God.
There are attributes of God which are not communicable. Man will never be these things:
1.) Omnipresent
2.) Omniscient
3.) Omnipotent
4.) A Creator of universes
5.) An Object of worship
These God will not communicate into any other being.
But God as love, God as light, God as holiness, God as righteousness, God as peace, God as wisdom, God as beauty and many other divine attributes God desires to dispense into the being of man His vessel.
Put another way the tree of life represents God dispensing His life into man to produce sons of God. I do not mean sons as in male sex. I mean sons as in sharing the same life, sharing the same "genes" if you will.
This is a new idea which never entered the universe before. No angel could live God or God live in him.
When we think of man created in the image of God we might think of the example of a glove and a human hand. And this is only an analogy for the purpose of comprehending something divine, mystical, and very profound.
A glove is made in the image of a human hand. When you look at a glove you can say "I see a hand." You see the image of a hand in the design of the glove. This is so that a hand might fit comfortably into the glove. Then the glove contains the hand. The glove is the VESSEL and the hand is the living CONTENT.
This is an analogy to explain how man is made in the image of God. Man is a creature made so that God can enter into his being and the two, God and man, may have a relationship of oneness.
The Tree of Life was not simply a source of an everlasting life. Though it does contain eternal life it is more. It was representative of God Himself.
Now this is what we all must understand: Satan's way is to run ahead of God and imitate God's plan. This is the way the Devil attempts to fight against God's purpose. Satan runs ahead and seeks to duplicate the purpose of God.
In the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Satan entered into man. And man became Satanified, poisoned, polluted with the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit who now operates in the sons of disobedience (See Eph. 2:2).
Fallen descendents of Adam have become infested with Satan. He is an objective being. But he also has in some way entered into the human race. And in doing so has somehow spread his enfluence also over the creation that God placed man as head of.
God's salvation first must:
1.) Forgive man for offenses commited in his Satanified state
2.) Lead man back to the life of God
3.) Enter into man to empower him to counter the indwelling Satanification.
4.) Finally eradicate the Satanic nature
5.) Saturate man with the life of God - spirit, soul, and body
6.) Build this saved man up into a corporate house of God for His glory and man's enjoyment. This is seen in the New Jerusalem in the closing chapters of the Bible.
The Jews and Israel play a specific part in this eternal purpose of God. The oracles of God and the world's Savior were commited to them. And there are certain national promises which God cannot fail to fulfill on the behalf of Israel. But I do not speak at length to that now.
There in the New Jerusalem the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is gone. But there remains the tree of life which is now practically Christ Jesus the Son of God and Savior:
And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb in the middle of its street. And on this side and on that side of the river was the tree of life, producing twelve fruits, yeilding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. (Rev. 22:1,2)
This is a symbolic sign show God flowing out His life into man. The life of God as pictured in the river of the water of life is pouring out of the throne of God. This means that God is ruling by means of dispensing His life into man. He reigns by flowing what He is into man.
The river is in the middle of the street to signify that the way man lives is in harmony with the dispensing of the life of God. Man "walks" along the way that the river of life is flowing. Everything of what God desires and wants is as clear as crystal. And the tree of life is growing along the street; along the river there also to depect God dispensing His life and nature into man.
God is on the throne. The Son is seen in the Tree of Life. And the Holy Spirit as the final reaching of God to man's inner being is seen in the water of life. This is the one monotheistic Triune God imparting His divine life into the city.
Here the tree of life is mentioned again:
Blessed are those who wash their robes that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter by the gates into the city. (Rev. 22:14)
God, by this time, has not changed His eternal purpose. Neither Satan's opposition nor man's unbelief and disobedience can change His mind. After so many thousands of years the eternal purpose of God is the same. God obtains a eternal city into which He dispenses His life. He is in the center and summit of this city. You see the city is of gold signifying the divine nature of God. It is actually a mountain of gold.
God's interests on the earth remain the same. Where as Adam was to guard God's interests in the garden in Genesis, at the end we see a huge city with walls protecting God's interests on the earth.
I may open up another thread one day just comparing the first few chapters of Genesis with the last two chapters of Revelation. You will see that the two sections are like two book ends on a book shelf. God is truly the Alpha and the Omega.
And in the end He mass produces God-men through the Lord and Savior Messiah Jesus Christ, THE God Man and seed of the woman who came to crush the head of the serpent.
Now if you will excuse me I must say for any brethren who may be reading:
Praise the Lord Jesus for His unspeakable wonderful eternal purpose.
Which flies in the face of Judaism and the very first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. There is no son because that would imply a second and there is no second. There is only one. God doesn't need a son.
You don't see it yet.
You know the angels were at one point called sons of God in Job (Job 1:6;2:1; 38:7). God had these "sons of God". But they were in for a surprise. Out of the dust of the ground God created a new creature to REALLY be a son with the divine life of the Father. The angels are the servants of these human sons of God who are to inherit salvation and of whom Jesus Christ is the Head as the Firstborn Son:
'Having become as much better than the angels as to have inherited a more distinguished name than they.
For to which of the angels has He ever said, "You are My Son; this day I have begotten You"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him, and He will be a Son to Me"?
And when He brings again the Firstborn into the inhabited earth, He says, And let all the angels of God worship Him."
And of the angels He says, "Who makes His angels winds and His ministers a flame of fire";
But of the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom."
(Hebrews 1:4-8 quoting Psalm 2:7; 2 Sam. 7:14; Psalm 97:7; Psalm 104:4; Psalm 45:6-7)
The Firstborn Son of God of course means that other sons of God are to follow. God duplicates sons of God through the salvation of the Firstborn Son of God Jesus. He was made FIrstborn Son of God in resurrection. He came into the world as the Onlybegotten Son of God (John 3:16).
In incarnation He brought God into man. In resurrection He brought man into God. He united man with God to produce the Firstborn Son of God. First He brought God into man. Then in resurrection He went back to the eternal throne wearing forever the human nature which He clothed Himself with. He uplifted and glorified the human nature and took it back for eternity to the throne of Almighty God.
Today on the throne of the universe is a Man - a God-Man - Jesus Christ. God became man so that man might become God in life and in nature but not in His Godhead. God became man so that man might become one with God, extend God, expand God, and be mingled with God as God initially desired with the Tree of Life in Genesis.
I will stop this post here.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Rrhain, posted 12-20-2007 11:32 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by jaywill, posted 12-21-2007 7:13 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 130 by Phat, posted 12-21-2007 9:41 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 136 by Rrhain, posted 12-22-2007 6:41 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 129 of 301 (442421)
12-21-2007 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by jaywill
12-21-2007 6:45 AM


Jesus Christ is irrelevant when approaching the Old Testament. You're still trying to impose Christian sensibilities upon a Jewish text.
It is not that I believe something extra. It is that you do not believe enough.
You can take the few opening measures of Beethoven's FIfth Symphony and decide you only want to know about those few measures of music. You can insist that this is all you want to whistle and that nothing else after those opening bars has anything to do with them.
This is like what you are doing. God has communicated with us. You want to get away from a good portion of that communication and insist that it does not exist.
Even ignoring the New Testament there are a number of interpretations which I see nothing from your analysis refuting.
Just taking Genesis, it is a record of the decline of man from Paradise to the need for God to wipe out all but eight people and start all over again. Then because He cannot get through the created race He brings about the called race - the Abrahamic race.
And why does God estabish an Abrahamic race - a called race to replace the failed created race ? It is not only for the sake of the called race. It is also for the sake of REACHING the created race. His blessing of the created race is through the Abrahamic race - the called race.
My main point is that the decline started in a definite place - from the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The downward trend, the downward slide of man commences from that point. And Satan is behind every step of the way.
Just because he is suddenly introduced in Genesis without previous biographical backround does not mean that he is NOT there. Wisdom demands that the unique enemy and slanderer of God is instrumental in the entire decline of mankind away from God.
Of what use is it to conceal Satan in Genesis? It is only useful to you in your attempt to drive another wedge between the New Testament and the Old.
By the way, the new covenant was predicted and prophisied to come in the Old Testament.
God promised to make a new covenant. So why do you want to amputate it from the rest of God's word? Is it because you don't like it? Is it because you do not believe that it has come yet ?
I believe that it has come in the Person of Jesus. And pretending that there is no Jesus to me is like sitting at the base of Mt. Everest and saying "There's is no big mountain here called Mt. Everest."
Foolish talk.
The New Testament says the ancient serpent is Satan the Devil. The New Testament books are the oracles of God Almighty. It is not a faulty error prone human commentary on the Hebrew Bible.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by jaywill, posted 12-21-2007 6:45 AM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Rrhain, posted 12-22-2007 6:45 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 142 by arachnophilia, posted 12-24-2007 4:58 PM jaywill has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 130 of 301 (442438)
12-21-2007 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by jaywill
12-21-2007 6:45 AM


Just stirring the pot a bit
jaywill writes:
God became man so that man might become one with God, extend God, expand God, and be mingled with God as God initially desired with the Tree of Life in Genesis.
How can an omnipotent, omniscient God be extended and expanded? Kinda seems illogical, if you ask me.
jaywill writes:
There are attributes of God which are not communicable. Man will never be these things:
1.) Omnipresent
2.) Omniscient
3.) Omnipotent
4.) A Creator of universes
5.) An Object of worship
Actually, humans have managed to mimic the last two items. Our science fiction writers are literally creators of universes. We can imagine but we cannot literally create out of matter. As for being objects of worship, go to any beauty pageant and observe the reactions of some of the audience members. Pop stars, movie stars, and other folks in our modern Cult(ure) of Personality are indeed objects of worship---rightly or wrongly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by jaywill, posted 12-21-2007 6:45 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jaywill, posted 12-21-2007 11:46 AM Phat has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 131 of 301 (442462)
12-21-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Phat
12-21-2007 9:41 AM


Re: Just stirring the pot a bit
How can an omnipotent, omniscient God be extended and expanded? Kinda seems illogical, if you ask me.
Very good question. But I need to tie it into the topic under discussion somehow.
Let's consider some Old Testament passages:
"Thus says Jehovah, Heaven is my throne, And the earth is the footstool for My feet. Where is the house that you will build for Me, and where is the place of My rest?
For all these things My hand has made, And so all these things have come into being, declares Jehovah.
But to this kind of man will I look, to him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word." (Isaiah 66:1,2)
Everyone should be familiar that Solomon built a house for God's dwelling on earth. It was intended that God's presence would dwell in that sacred building. However when Solomon dedicated the temple to God he prayed and acknowledged that really no house could contain the God who fills the whole universe. Solomon prays:
"But will God indeed dwell with man on the earth? Behold, the heavens and the heaven of heavens are not able to contain You, how much less this house which I have built." ( 2 Chronicles 6:17,18)
The omnipresent God who fills the universe still fills the house that Solomon built with His glorious presence, and this even though Solomon does not expect that God could really dwell with man in a man made temple:
And when Solomon had finished praying, the fire came down from heaven and devoured the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of Jehovah filled the house. And the priests were not able to enter the house of Jehovah, for the glory of Jehovah filled the house of Jehovah. (2 Chron. 7:1,2)
Though God is omnipresent, and we though we could say "Hey, God is everywhere. He was already there in that house because He is present everywhere" God came and filled the house with His glory.
So there is God everywhere and there is also God coming to a place. This is not simple to understand. But we must perceive the truth. Though God is everywhere He nonetheless demonstrated that He was not in a place and then He filled a place!
Now let us come back to Isaiah 66. In this passage God takes our understanding to a deeper level. Where is the house that man will build for God of cedar and stone? God has created all these things as well as the heavens, His throne, as well as the earth His footstool.
Then God says "But TO THIS KIND OF MAN WILL I LOOK ..." (my emphasis)
THis means for His house, God will look to a man. For His dwelling place God will look to a certain kind of man. For His rest, His satisfaction, His resting place God looks toward His creature man. He looks to a man who is of a contrite spirit. That means not haughty like Satan and not proud but humbled in spirit. God looks to have His real house within man.
Is God omnipresent? Is God everywhere? Yes. On one level God is everywhere. But on another level God longs to take up His residence within man. God longs to live within man. Man is enterable to God. And God looks to man for His rest and dwelling place. He looks to enter into man's being.
This entering into man's being is an expansion of the omnipresent God into the personality and being of human beings. God therefore expands and is enlarged by dispensing Himself into man.
On one level the omnipresent God taught us by filling the house that Solomon built with His glorious presence which was physically viisible as a miraculous event in history. On a deeper level God tells us through Isaiah the prophet that He longs to look to dwell in man for His house and His rest.
What does God in man as His dwelling look like? We must come to Jesus Christ to study Him as the Firstborn Son of God and the Savior of the world, the (temporarily) rejected Messiah of Israel.
Here is His word that the Father dwells in Him:
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves." (John 14:11)
And here we see His word that He comes to dispense this reality into His believers:
" In that day you will know that I am in the Father, and you in Me, and I in you." (John 14:20)
This is beyond traditional Christianity. This is the recovery of revelation which has been buried for centries. God is in these last days recovering the most vital truths of the New Testament. This is not new light or new revelation. This is recovery of NEGLECTED truth and NEGLECTED revelation.
It is important to notice that the Apostle Paul confirms that the new covenant church is the dwelling place of God in spirit. He tells the Gentile believers that they with the Jews, in the New Testament church, are being built up into the habitation of God on the earth:
"So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.
Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone; In whom all the building, beingfitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; In whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in spirit." (Eph. 2:19-22)
The Triune God, the monotheistic Three - One God in His triune nature is building a living temple with the saved. He is building a dwelling place of God in spirit.
jaywill writes:
There are attributes of God which are not communicable. Man will never be these things:
1.) Omnipresent
2.) Omniscient
3.) Omnipotent
4.) A Creator of universes
5.) An Object of worship
Actually, humans have managed to mimic the last two items. Our science fiction writers are literally creators of universes. We can imagine but we cannot literally create out of matter. As for being objects of worship, go to any beauty pageant and observe the reactions of some of the audience members. Pop stars, movie stars, and other folks in our modern Cult(ure) of Personality are indeed objects of worship---rightly or wrongly.
In my younger days I was very fond of Science Fiction. I assure you that what is actually happening in the universe is more interesting and more real than any imaginative science fiction.
Created man was created to be the dwelling place of God. He wants to live a mingled and united life with His people. He wants to dwell in man. And in so doing man also dwells in God; in the sphere and realm of the Divine Life of the uncreated Divine Person - the Triune God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Phat, posted 12-21-2007 9:41 AM Phat has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 132 of 301 (442474)
12-21-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Rrhain
12-20-2007 11:32 PM


Jesus isn't mentioned anywhere in the Jewish texts. The fact that Christians are obsessed with him is irrelevant when discussing the Old Testament. Asa and Noah, however, are mentioned and both of them are declared to be perfect.
I am IMPRESSED with Jesus. I hope that I am not OBSESSED with Jesus. And why should I not be IMPRESSED with Jesus? He is IMPRESSIVE and He is a major part of the Bible.
Now let's take a look at Asa, who you boast was perfect. I was mistakeen about a chapter or two. In Second Chronicles Asa is given about three chapters. Both in 1 Kings and in 2 Chronicles there are about six or so chapters which mention Asa. He was a good king.
But Asa's perfection is relative. How do I know? Second Chronicles 14:1 - 16:14 cover the reign of Asa. And it begins with this very good recommendation:
And Asa his son reigned in his place. In his days the land was quiet for ten years. And Asa did what was good and upright in the sight of the Jehovah his God. For he removed the foreign altars and the high places and smashed the pillars and hewed down the Asherahs. (2 Chron. 14:1-3)
Asa, to his credit, sought to reform the people from idolatry. However there were a number of destestable things which he did not put out of the land until he heard a promise of divine victory from one of God's prophets:
And when Asa heard these words, that is, the prophecy of Obed the prophet, he strengthened himself and put away the detestable things from all the land of Judah and Benjamin and from the cities that he had taken in the hill country of Ephraim. And he restored the altar of Jehovah, which was before the portico of Jehovah. (2 Chron. 15:8)
The point here is that as good as Asa was there was still room for him to grow even better. So his perfection is a relative matter. The Bible also says that Asa failed to take away the high places. And that aside from this deficiency, he was good:
But the high places were not taken away from Israel; OTHERWISE [my emphasis] Asa's heart was perfect all his days. (2 Chron. 15:17)
Asa cannot compare in ABSOLUTENESS to the will of God as Jesus Christ does. He was "perfect". But the Bible mentions the deficiency in his "perfection."
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Rrhain, posted 12-20-2007 11:32 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Rrhain, posted 12-22-2007 6:51 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 133 of 301 (442682)
12-22-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Rrhain
12-20-2007 2:24 AM


"Rabbi" Who Taught the Serpent was the Devil
Rrhain writes:
And who is more likely to know the god of the Jews and said god's truth: Jews or non-Jews?
The Torah was written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context.
I believe that Jesus of Nazareth knew more about the Torah than the Jews of that day, let alone you and I today. Now what did Jesus say about Genesis as it relates to Satan the Devil?
Speaking to the opposing Jews in John chapter 8 He says:
" You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks it out of his own [possessions]; for he is a liar and the father of it." (John 8:44)
Nicodemus was an experienced and respected rabbi and respectfully called Jesus "Rabbi" (John 3:2)[/b] Nicodemus also confesssed that some of the priests realized that Jesus was a teacher who came from God (John 3:2)
Notice this "Rabbi" and teacher from God taught:
1.) Sinners have some kind of descended relationship with the Devil:
"You are of your father the devil ..."
2.) The Devil was a murderer from the beginning. This no doubt refers to the beginning of human history recorded in Genesis. Particularly this indicts the Devil Satan as the instigator of the murder of Abel at the hands of jealous Cain (Genesis 4:3-9)
3.) The Devil does not stand in the truth. So naturally what he spoke in Genesis chapter 3 was a lie. He lied by mixing some truth with lie. Here we can conclude that the serpent in Genesis chapter 3 is the Devil who does not stand in the truth.
4.) When the Devil (the serpent in Genesis 3) lies he is only drawing up from the abundance of his personal possessions. In other words the Devil is FULL of lies - " he speaks out of his own [possessions]"
5.) The motivation of his lies is MURDER. And up to the time of Jesus speaking the Devil still had a desire to MURDER, this time the Son of God - "You want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning ..."
6.) The serpent the Devil of Genesis chapter 3 is the father of lies. He originating untruth and lying. "For he is a liar and the father of it."
There you have it. The serpent, taught this teacher from God, was a liar, a murder from the beginning of human history. In other words Satan did not pop into the human picture some time latter, ie. after the Babylonian exile. He was there "in the beginning", ie. in the Genesis history of man's creation.
There is no truth in the Devil. He can only speak the lies which are his unique kind of possessions.
And he is the Originator of the lie. He is the father of lies. The serpent, the Devil Satan, seen in Genesis is the father of lies.
This teaching of Christ to the Jews leaves me with no doubt that the serpent was Satan the Devil. How, I do not know. But he was. And it is interesting that in John 8 we see no Jews deligently coming to the rescue of the serpent's reputation or refuting Jesus's teaching that he was the Devil.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Rrhain, posted 12-20-2007 2:24 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by AdminPhat, posted 12-22-2007 10:26 AM jaywill has not replied

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 301 (442688)
12-22-2007 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by jaywill
12-22-2007 10:10 AM


You Should Write A Book
Not scolding you or anything, but do you realize that between posts # 122 and #133 you wrote a total of 26 pages worth of material?
With the capacity for writing that you have, you would do well to write a book! I am impressed with your patience. (In one post alone, post # 124, you wrote 9.5 pages!)
Rrhain has some lengthy posts as well. I just wonder whether either of you read the others posts!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by jaywill, posted 12-22-2007 10:10 AM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by ringo, posted 12-22-2007 12:00 PM AdminPhat has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 135 of 301 (442706)
12-22-2007 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by AdminPhat
12-22-2007 10:26 AM


Re: You Should Write A Book
It should be noted that jaywill doesn't answer most of the objections to his posts. It isn't that hard to be prolific when you're blogging instead of discussing.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by AdminPhat, posted 12-22-2007 10:26 AM AdminPhat has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024