Is Jesus God?

lol there are lots of small towns dotted around the world called eden, but the scritpure in ezekeil says that 'in the GARDEN of Eden you proved to be'There was only 1 Garden of Eden and God did not allow anyone back in there. Its a reference to the original garden created by God....and the one who was said to be there was also a cherub of God...the enemy who became known as Satan. Job 38:4-7 Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?...
7When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?

​

Revelation 22:16 ‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to YOU people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and THE BRIGHT MORNING STAR.’

​

Psalm 18:10 10And he came riding upon a CHERUB and came flying,
And he came darting upon the wings of A SPIRITRevelation 7:12 . So down the great dragon was hurled, the ORIGINAL SERPENT, the one called Devil and SATAN. do spirits have physical bodies? No they dont. therefore their 'wings' cannot be literal, can they? They are only said to have such things so that we can relate to them.Spirits do not have physical characteristics. They are completely different to us.
1Cor15:40And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort.The word 'spirit' actually means 'breath' as in wind. Its not something that is seen becaues there is no physical characteristics to it. This is why angels have to appear in the bodies of humans...its so we can see them. It was for a while. But the reality of that physical representation of Gods Kingdom was located elsewhere.Hebrews 12:22But YOU have approached a Mount Zion and a city of [the] living God, HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, and myriads of angels, 23in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn who have been ENROLLED IN THE HEAVENS, and God the Judge of all, and the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect, 24and Jesus the mediator

hERICtic writes:
And finally, absolute proof Eden refers to a town! I guess its now only one thread we are debating on, since we have been told to stop discussing "yom". Anyway, I'm shocked we've been able to continue with this discussion.Back to our debate. So even though I have given you two scriptures which states Eden was a trading route, EVEN WITHIN Ezekial, you still refuse to accept that there was such a place.Ok. I guess no need to further that part of the debate then. You asked for scripture, I give it, it clearly states it and you refuse to believe it. None so blind..........hERICtic writes:
Yet nowhere in the Bible does it state a cherub is an angel. Plus, nowhere in scripture does it state an angel is a morning star.Again, all you have done is ignore what I have stated. I find it amazing that you constantly tell others to refer to scripture to back up their assertions, yet you refuse to do it now. Job refers to Venus and Mercury. Morning stars were common references to those planets. Notice though, it states the morning stars were cried joyfully AND the angels were shouting. Two seperate entities.As for Revelation...Jesus is not an angel. I stated angels were not called morning stars. As to why Jesus was called that...another issue.I'm not sure why you gave Psalm 18.hERICtic writes:
You cannot even use scripture from the OT to show Satan was in the garden. It makes no mention of Satan ever being a serpent, no mention of Satan or any angel for that matter being in the there. Thats from the NT.hERICtic writes:
So cherubs/angels do not have literal wings bc they are spirits, but they have legs? Hands? Face?Where does it say in the Bible that their wings are not literal? Every description of a cherub refers to it with wings. I was unclear. Angels are described as being human shaped. Cherubs with wings. No instance in scripture is an angel described with wings.hERICtic writes:
Mountain of god is Mt Zion. Located on earth, not heaven. (Isa. 2:2, 3; 56:7) You lost me here. It still on earth.Again, start reading from Ezekial 26, it clearly lays out the fall of the King. Also, did Satan have trading routes? Jewels? Was he a man?

Utter balderdash! Ok...thats not really a word I use, but I thought I would throw it in. You claim dual meanings for one reason only, to solve obvious theological dilemmas. I find it amusing that Christians have the "spirit" yet there are thousands of denominations all disagreeing with each other. Heck, you and Peg are debaing what scripture states right now regarding Jesus! So who has this spiritual gift?I bet me, without the spirit, using google, can find anything faster than you can through prayer. Why is that? And I'd be more accurate.There isnt a single scripture in all the Bible that states there are dual prophecies. Not one. No such thing. Its not silly. Its common sense. If Jesus was god, hes talking to himself. As for bowel movements...Yeah, it sounds funny...but you have to understand why the Jews think its utter blasphemy that their god is a man. Its you, Christians, who claim god is 100% man. Fine. I guess he needs to do all those things that humans do, correct? I'm throwing everything out to show how absurd your belief is, that god lowered himself to become man. Everything I have said is true. You have given a few ambigious verses while I have shown the sheer lunacy of such a concept.Jesus prayed to god. Does this sound like something god would do? Jesus cried out to be saved? Prayed to NOT be sacrificed? This is god? Runs away from small crowds? Claims quite a few times he has a god. How can that be if he is god? Jesus admits the words he speaks are not his own, yet you continue to state he is god. The list goes on and on. LMAO! Its apparent, you with the spirit, know less of the Bible than I do. Jesus said he is one with god, bc they're on the same mission so to speak. Jesus over and over said his message is that of god. Jesus also stated those that follow him are one with him. Are his followers now god? Logically? You and Peg are debating the words of these supposed spiritally filled authors and coming to different conclusions. How is this clear? God, who is the not the author of confusion, has two Christians confused on what Jesus meant. No, they werent. The authors were men, writing their beliefs. Nothing more. You made it seem like most people accepted right away that Jesus was god. I gave the above names and then you made it seem like those that believed Jesus was NOT god, were few in number and only at the earliest times.Look at the dates of those I posted.Let me ask you a question. Matthew 27 has the dead, their bodies coming out of the graves. You want the author of Matthew to be inspired. Why is it, no other author wrote about this? Why is it, during the greatest empire, not one author wrote about this event? Think about it, such an amazing occurence would have created chaos of unimaginable levels. Why did not one author, who lived in that vicinity write about it? How was such a story not passed on through many different scribes?Do you think perhaps, just perhaps, it didnt happen?Now, I have asked you this probably close to 6 times already.Why in Revelation, Jesus who is NOT human, is Jesus stating he has a god?

no im not refusing to accept there was such a place at all. But ezekeil specifically says "In the Garden of Eden you proved to be"it also says in the same verses"You were made faultess" and "You were one of the Cherubs"Now im reading what Ezekiel is saying and there is no way to apply this verse to any human. there were only 2 humans who lived in the Garden of Eden. And no human has ever been called a Cherub.And in Psalm 18:10, the cherubs are spirits.... just like all of the angels are, they are simply a high ranking angel. The human king of tyre was not. c'mon, you can do better then that.You can clearly see that Jesus calls himself a 'bright morning star' and yet you refuse to accept that the scirpture in Job where the 'morning starts cry out joyfully' could be angels. These are not literal stars in the sky being spoken of here....stars do not speak and are not conscious. But seriously, if you are not willing to bend to the scriptures, then i'm not going to waste my time on it any more.You said there are no scriptures that state that a cherub is an angel. I show you a scripture that states a cherub is a spirit....you fob it off.You said there are not scriptures that say angels are morning star. I show you a scirpture where the angels are called morning stars and Jesus the bright morning star...you fob it off.You say that Job was refering to the stars of mercury and venus, yet fob off the fact that Jesus called himself the bright morning star. I mean c'mon. why ask me for scriptures if you completely trample them??? Ok, so angels are always described as being like humans. No problem. How about this description? Ezekeil 1:5-6 "And out of the midst of it there was the likeness of four living creatures, and this was how they looked: they had the likeness of earthling man. 6And [each] one had four faces, and [each] one of them four wings"or what if the angels are depicted as flying....should not this indicate that when seen in vision, they are seen with wings? If you saw one without wings, but flying, you'd probably be inclind to say he was 'floating' rather then flying. Flying is associated with wing action...unlike hotair balloons which have not wings but still fly, they really float and they appear as they are floating. But her in vision john describes an angel as flying. Rev 14:6And I saw another angel flying in midheavenand ill ask you, Was a man a cherub of God who existed in the Garden of Eden? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Your verbage and lack of understanding concerning Gods word is revealed in almost every phrase of your statements. Humans dont have the Spirit, the word of God has the Holy Spirit, humans will always disagree, the best we can do is ask God for wisdom (notice I did not say knowledge) to understand his word (James 1), he gives the wisdom to understand spiritual things Heritic, but you need to believe his IS and that he can actually do that to see dual meanings in scripture.The way to start the process is to believe that it is the mind of Christ revealed through his prophets and apostles, (ICor 1). In this way Heritic, you will see it as a unity of knowledge about Christ starting with Gen Chapter 3 through Revelationbesides this using google will not help you find the mind of God. Tell me Heritic, if God called his creation Good, is it possible that he could live as part of that creation. You have not provided any valid reason as to why that is not possible. you have only displayed your dissatisfaction, which is not a valid argument. I await These are perfectly valid if God is one God in Spirit form in three persons or personalities, AS THE SCRIPTURES INDICATE.Secondly. the scriptures clearly indicate that a personality of the only God, emptied himself, did not think a thing of being EQUAL with God, was something to be GRASPED (held on to) and took on the form of a servant. Yes it makes perfect sense.You cannot LET GO of something you do not have heritic. Jesus IS and always has been God if you knew more about the scriptures than I do, then you would understand simple principles, it is obvious you do not. you dont even understand that scriptures have priorities. you know FACTS Heritic, you do not understand the scripturesEven the casual reader heritic, could see that there is more between God and Christ than them simply having the same message.heritic is gods creation good and complete as he says it is in his inspired Word "let God be true and every man a liar" heritic, IF the scriptures are Gods Word, it is truth and the only truth. If it is not, noneof this matters anyway. One of us is wrong on this subject, either way, as to whether Christ is God. Disagreements do not make it untruthful or uninspired, it makes them disagreements.Because it is the truth and one of is wrong, that means the truth exists to determins a conclusionWhen God says through an Apostle that Christ is EQUAL to God, he can make it no clearer than that. When the scriptures say that ONLY GOD IS GOOD, he can make it no clearer than that, correct? When the scriptures says that Christ was perfect and sinless, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that is is saying Christ is God in human form. Then why in Gods name IS IT IMPORTANT TO YOU whether the scriptures says he was God or the Devil. If they were not inspired of and from God, I dont care what they thought Did God write this incident or did a bunch of men giving thier opinion writ this story.What great writers or writers would you suspect witnessed this event. Those alleged writers that would have heard about it second hand, would have not believed it. if they did witness it, I doubt they would have commited it to paper for fear of being deemed insane or unreliable.If a person recorded the resurrection of Lazarus outside of the scriptures would you believe him? Or would you find a way to dismiss itevery reference to Jesus, James the just, John the baptist or anyother biblical character OR INCIDENT outside the NT is DEEMED AND CATEGORIZED A FORGERY, FRAUD or an INTERPOLATIONIf its not there outside the scriptures you complain, if it is there you say its a forgery. Hmmm?You would reject it outright as unreliable or dismiss it as fraugelant and interpolations and additions. There is NO OBJECTIVITY by yourself and others concerning these storiesI remember another writer years ago, here on this website, telling me that IF EVERY STORY IN THE SCRIPTURES could be VERIFIED in historical events, it would not mean the scriptures were the Word of God. Hmmm?Now watch this heritic. You complain that it is not recorded or written down concerning this story. but I point out to you that it is, it is recorded in the NT, why dont you believe it.Which demonstrates my point that you do not want to believe it to start with Its about 2:30 in the morning here Ill hit this one in the morning. Your statement above is exacally what I meant about you not understanding scriptureGood morning. You asked why Jesus says he has a God/ heritic there is only God, in the Nt it is made even clearer that this God exists in what we (humans) call personalities, three to be exact, atleast that is what the NT inidcates.Again, for about the ninth time now, as I have indicated, we cannot understand God nature, whatever that is. the Bible describes that as Spirit, whatever that is. So things have to be put n human terms and understanding.the passgae in revelations is just about like that one in the book of Daniel, where it is stated that the Sonof Man was brought before the ancient of days. it is written by God to and for human purposes. Individuals are desribed, expressions are used like "brought forth". God does not literally come and go anywhere he is everywhere. Do you see the discriptive language.personalities and designation are a way of helping us understand the Spirit nature, especially Gods. God manifests himself in A HEAVEN, throne room, sitting on a throne, and angels worship him. While that is literal enough for the angels it is not Gods truest existence or reality only, a representation of it, to assist his creation of angels to work and worship.the passage in revelations is much the same. Humans still do not understand Gods truest nature. the people of that time only really knew Christ as a human being, then a human being going to heaven, to SIT AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, while this is literal enough for those there, it is still only a representation of Gods authority, nature and make up.God does not literally have a throne, he is just Spirit. God does not literally write on people, its descriptive and figurativechrist never ceased being God as a human. he never ceased being God when left to return to heaven.Now put it altogether heritic. Christ is representing himself in heaven as a human, speaking to humans, because he had lived and presented himself as a human and was actually human. as this representation of God in the flesh he presents himself to the churches for purposes of authority and titleship as that same person, while still fully God. the same way in which god represents himself in totality as having a throne room, etc. its something we can recognize and understand. how can we worship God if we cant understand or see him in some formHere it is again in descriptive language. At the end of this present age Christ will deliver up the church to the father. simply descriptive language to show position and ownership."All authority has been given unto me in heaven and in earth"not that he did not already have it to begin with."By him and through him all things were made that are made, thers is nothing that is made that is not made, that was not made without him"he is the image of the invisible God. God was put in human form to help us understand something we cannot. just as heaven and the throne are images of God, so was Christ a repesentation of the God himself. Paul also tells us that he WAS EQUAL TO GODImage does not mean lesser than the real thing, it is simply a reflection of what it is. God MANIFESTED HIMSELF in the form of a human, to display something we COULD NOT UNDERSTAND OTHERWISE. the image we witnessed in Christ was his mentality, his character and his sinlessness. the human form was a way to help us understand something we cannot, his Spiritual existence. but Pauo tells us he is GodAs a man or angel he could NOT be the exact relection of GodHe was and is God heritic, that which you read is descriptive language to and about Christ, when he emptied himself and took on the form of a servant"My God and your God", shows realationship. In revelations he is still speaking from a human perspective to assist humans in understnading.When you put it all together it makes perfect senseEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I went to edit this reply and posted it twice. Whoops.Correct post is below.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

Peg, lets back up.Who does Ezekial 28 say its about?1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'In the pride of your heart
you say, "I am a god;
I sit on the throne of a god
in the heart of the seas."
But you are a man and not a god,
though you think you are as wise as a god.Chapter 26 starts about gods anger at the King of Tyre. Chapter 27 follows, with god still furious with the King.Does Chapter 28 make a reference that god is still pissed at the king? When it states "in the heart of the seas", what does this refer to?Are you wiser than Daniel [a] ?
Is no secret hidden from you?4 By your wisdom and understanding
you have gained wealth for yourself
and amassed gold and silver
in your treasuries.Did you think "amassed gold and silver" refers to the King of Tyre?5 By your great skill in trading
you have increased your wealth,
and because of your wealth
your heart has grown proud.Do you think "great skill in trading", increased wealth refers to the King of Tyre?6 " 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'Because you think you are wise,
as wise as a god,7 I am going to bring foreigners against you,
the most ruthless of nations;
they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom
and pierce your shining splendor.Do you think this still refers to the King of Tyre?8 They will bring you down to the pit,
and you will die a violent death
in the heart of the seas.In the "heart of the seas", does this refer to Satan? If it refers to the King, why?9 Will you then say, "I am a god,"
in the presence of those who kill you?
You will be but a man, not a god,
in the hands of those who slay you.Is Satan a man?10 You will die the death of the uncircumcised
at the hands of foreigners.
I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.' "Did Satan die a death at the hands of foreigners?11 The word of the LORD came to me: 12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.So far, does this refer to Satan or the King of Tyre? Now be honest Peg.

i dont know why you keep asking me this. I've already said that part of it refers to the human king of tyre...but a certain part of it can only apply to a spirit creature who was in the garden of eden and who betrayed God.The human king of tyre was never in the garden of eden, he was never one of Gods cherubs and he certainly wasnt born without sin or fault. vs 17 Your heart became haughty because of your beauty. You brought your wisdom to ruin on account of your beaming splendor. Onto the earth I will throw you" and earthly person does not need to be thrown to the earth because they are already here. 14You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. On the holy mountain of God you proved to be. In the midst of fiery stones you walked about. 15You were faultless in your ways from the day of your being created until unrighteousness was found in you
Could a sinful human enemy of God ever be an anointed cherub or be 'faultess' in his ways??? Every human is born a sinner...with fault.So i am not saying that the whole passage refers to Satan, but as you can see, some of the passage is prophetically speaking about Satan, Gods arch enemy. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

I see Peg you're really not interested in actually debating honestly. I gave you verses 1-13 and asked questions about them and you went right to the verses past that.You can go back and answer my questions regarding verses 1-13. If you do not want to, no problem. But then at that point, if you're not going to be polite and actually address what is being asked, whats the point of continuing?

i already did answer them.... i agreed that they refer to the human king of tyre.I also said it several posts back that YES part of the passage is refering to the human king of tyre.You cant seem to acknowledge that some of it CANNOT be refering to a human king though. So who is not honestly debating here?But ok. If you really beleive that the human king of tyre was at one time a cherub of God who was created faultless and who was sitting by Gods throne in heaven, then you go right ahead and believe that.

Peg, you continue to state the Bible has poetry, symbolism, metaphors....yet when Ezekial does this, suddenly that is all thrown by the wayside and converted to dual meanings, when in fact, scripture makes no mention of it. Nothing.So you admit, Chapter 26, 27 and up until Chapter 28, verse 13 its all about the king...then suddenly just shifts for a verse or two about Satan, then right back to the king? Just bc you need it to be?13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, [b] turquoise and beryl. [c]
Your settings and mountings [d] were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.So it must be about Satan, yet it clearly states a list of precious stones, which obviously Satan did not have, but the King of Tyre did? I showed you Eden was a rich trade route, even mentioned in the same story (Ezekial 27) but this is ignored. I gave you scripture from Chronicles, Isaiah and Joel refering to Eden. But you seem to be hinged upon one word, "garden". So apparently all I would have to do is show that the "garden" can be referenced for something at the time of King Tyre and we can discard this argument from you.Ezekial 31:1 In the eleventh year, in the third month on the first day, the word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes:
" 'Who can be compared with you in majesty?
3 Consider Assyria, once a cedar in Lebanon,
with beautiful branches overshadowing the forest;
it towered on high,
its top above the thick foliage.The king of Egypt and Assyria are being refered to. A time frame then is given.4 The waters nourished it,
deep springs made it grow tall;
their streams flowed
all around its base
and sent their channels
to all the trees of the field.5 So it towered higher
than all the trees of the field;
its boughs increased
and its branches grew long,
spreading because of abundant waters.6 All the birds of the air
nested in its boughs,
all the beasts of the field
gave birth under its branches;
all the great nations
lived in its shade.7 It was majestic in beauty,
with its spreading boughs,
for its roots went down
to abundant waters.8 The cedars in the garden of God
could not rival it,
nor could the pine trees
equal its boughs,
nor could the plane trees
compare with its branches
no tree in the garden of God
could match its beauty.9 I made it beautiful
with abundant branches,
the envy of all the trees of Eden
in the garden of God.Ezekiel 31:16
I made the nations tremble at the sound of its fall when I brought it down to the grave with those who go down to the pit. Then all the trees of Eden, the choicest and best of Lebanon, all the trees that were well-watered, were consoled in the earth below.Peg, the garden existed somewhere in the east. Exactly where the King reigned. It does not say the King actually existed in the same Eden. The fact that trade routes were named Eden, in the same story (Ezekial 27) should make it clear to you. You originally stated Eden only existed in Genesis. I showed you otherwise. Then you changed it to the "garden". In chapter 31, obviously the garden no longer exists as in Genesis, but it speaks of the trees (nations) being in the garden of Eden.Now the other one verse which seems to cause you so much trouble.14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.I have already pointed out that the holy mountain of god is Mt. Zion. Did Satan walk amongst the gems?15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.Again it refers to the "person" being referenced as one who trades.Nowhere does it ever state in scripture that an angel is a cherub.You wish to believe it is Satan in the garden, who apparently at this point is a snake. Cursed to crawl on his belly, yet walks later on with god on earth and in heaven (as per the OT). You'll state its all symbolism and metaphors, but apparently to you its impossible for god to be using any of that when refering to the King of Tyre and his pride. Even more amazing, in multiple places it clearly states god is refering to the King. The cherubs not only were spirits in scripture bc statues to represent the power of the kings.

because a prophet writing under inspiration is not going to write something that is completely out of harmony with God and truth.It is not true that any human born form Adam and Eve were born without sin. The king of tyre could not have been born faultless because all humans are born into sin. This is said in the psalms and in the NT. Even King David was said to be born in sin, so how could this enemy of God have not been???If a passage of scripture 'appears' to be in contradiction to other passages of scripture, you have to look for an alternative explanation because GOD DOES NOT CONTRADICT HIMSELF. Gods throne in heaven is said to be adorned in precious stones such as these. Ezekeil 1 describes the wheels of Gods throne as being made of crysolite. Also in Revelation 21 the heavenly city of Jerusalem is said to have walls adorned with all sorts of precious stones. There are no literal gems in heaven because physical things do not dwell there, so these descriptions are not literal, but figurative of something else.As these stones are precious and very expensive from an early point of view, they must represent goods of very high value. The chariot of God is something of high value, so is the heavenly jerusalem and so was Satan before he rebelled. there is no way of knowing the exact geographic location of the garden of Eden. This is because the description of Eden in Genesis is based on the names of 4 rivers that issued out of it... 2 of them are to this day unidentified. They are the Euphrates, Hiddekel (Tigris), Pishon, and Gihon.so you cannot say that Tyre was where the garden of Eden was located. Tyre was a Phoenician seaport whereas most scholars beleive the garden of Eden (based on the description of the 4 rivers) was located in a mountainous region somewhere SW of Mount Ararat and a few kilometers south of Lake Van, in the eastern part of modern Turkey.But the reality is that unless Tyre has these 4 rivers issuing out of it, then it cannot be the orginal site of the garden of Eden. Did the King of Tyre? The king who sat on Gods throne in Jerusalem was said to represent him... did the king of Tyre ever represent God on his throne and sit on Mount zion in such a position?no i dont think so.

Ill let you decide like you encouraged Peg, if you heritic want to reply to my last post 170. In the meantime let me ask a couple of questions here to try and clear a few things up from Peg and mines, from this passage.I think one of the VERY OBVIOUS problems here is that you are appraoching this from a Humanistic perspective. I believe you told me that these writings were just what a bunch of men thought from thier perspective and we had no evidence that anything guided them, correct? I can reproduce those statements if you wishThat being the case,it would be very likely that tthe writer was speaking exclusively about the king of tyre. if however, the author is God, is it possible that it is both a reference to that king and Satan himself. the same way Gen 3:15 is a possible reference to Christ. Not that it can be proved absolutely, or that you believe it exclusively, but is it possible if inspiration is involved?I think this is Pegs point that it is a clear reference about Satan, APPLIED to the King of Tyre. Is this not possible?IOW, there is no reason to believe that dual meanings cannot be attributed in passages, where inspiration is involved, correct. it seems that you have chosen a strict humanistic (ironically)approach, of all places to a body of teaching that streches over centuries, with an eternal God with eternal purposesA very good point is that the average casual reader comes upon this passage and immediatley identifies these statements with Satan, and is one wrong in doing so, where God and inspiration are involved? It seems much to obviousEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Just a quick note here concerning the issue of original Sin. Calvanism teaches obviously, through the doctrine of Heritary Total Depravity, infants are born with sin. they use various passages to try and demonstrate this point. One of these is Psa 50:51. "I was born in sin I was concieved in iniquity"Besides the doctrine of HTD not being true, the easiest way to demonstrate that david is NOT saying he was born WITH sin is to look at the second half of the passage, "I was concieved in inguity". Since his parents were legal and spiritually married ther cannot be any inquity in thier sexual act, therfore no conception in inquity.Since David had nothing to do with the act in the first place and since the scriptures make it clear that Sin is transgression of the Law, 1 John 3:4, it should be obvious for one to BE responsible to a Law, he first needs to be able to understand the Law. or be able to comprehend its tenetsDavid is simply saying he was born into a sinful and iniquitous world and that the circumstances concering his conception and birth were involved in deception, (by other parties, not himself)of which, NOW WATCH, he had nothing to do with at all I agree. 1 John 3:4 is a commentary on the passage that says, "by one man sin entered into the world" Romans 5. Not that all that are born inherit sin, but all that are born are born into a sinful world. We inherit the consequences of Adams sin which is slow physical death, but we are sinless until we can understand a Law to break itNow watch this, If all men do NOT recieve remssion of sins simply because Christ died for all, that is, there is more for them to do themselves, its not a one sided act. the it wouold follow also thatbecause sin entered the world by one man, does not mean that all inherit that sin, only that they have the potential when they gain knowledge of the Law to break it (1 John 3:4) You cannot transgress something you cannot understand or comprejend. therefore infants are safe, born with no sin, they are not saved, they have no need to be saved from anythingAdams and Christs actions while universal have exclusions in the nature of mans involvement and participation. Christ dies for all, but all will not recieve forgiveness unless they believe in him.By Adam sin entered the physical world but not all are sinfull until they break they law. This is how the scriptures work to interpret different passagesYes Adams sin was universal to the world in that it started a process in the world. Yes Christs death burial and resurrection is universal in the forgiveness of sins, but I dont recieve remission of sins UNTIL I TAKE ACTIONS ON MY PART. In the same way we do not inherit Adams sin simply because it started a universal process. 1 Joh 3:4 makes it an impossibility for a child to be born with sin
EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

hERICtic writes:
Peg, you continue to state the Bible has poetry, symbolism, metaphors....yet when Ezekial does this, suddenly that is all thrown by the wayside and converted to dual meanings, when in fact, scripture makes no mention of it. Nothing. It does not say the king was sinless. So far you admit Chapter 26, 27 and up to verse 13 in 28 are about the King of Tyre. Then you run into some problematic scripture (at least for you) but instead of looking at the context (it states its about the King, it states its about a man) you take two verses and run with it. It states the King amassed gold and silver in his storehouses.Yet all this is dismissed bc of the worrd "cherub" and "garden"? There isnt any other explanation possible? Peg, ANY contradiction can be explained away if one wants to add/delete or ignore context. But its evidence we are looking for. As usual, you've provided none. Nowhere in the OT does it state Satan fell from grace. Nowhere does in the OT does it state Satan was in the garden. Nowhere in the OT does it state Satan was thrown out of heaven, against god.hERICtic writes:
So it must be about Satan, yet it clearly states a list of precious stones, which obviously Satan did not have, but the King of Tyre did? It states the stones were in Eden. It makes no mention of an angle, Satan or the "man" in heaven.hERICtic writes:
Peg, the garden existed somewhere in the east. Exactly where the King reigned. It does not say the King actually existed in the same Eden. The fact that trade routes were named Eden, in the same story (Ezekial 27) should make it clear to you. You originally stated Eden only existed in Genesis. I showed you otherwise. I did not say it was located in Tyre. I'm giving you possibilites that make sense. Eden was located in Mesopotania. The trade routes which made him filthy rich were located there, not including through other nations. I gave you a few scripture which states Eden was in those trading routes.I also gave you Ezekial 31 which states the nation of Assyria was in the garden of Eden, metaphorically. The nation is compared to a cedar, the best tree in all of the garden.Also, Eden means luxury. Perhaps the "garden of Eden" in which the poem refers to reprsents how rich and powerful, how beautiful the nation was.hERICtic writes:
I have already pointed out that the holy mountain of god is Mt. Zion. Did Satan walk amongst the gems? WRONG! Jeruselem is Mt Zion. The King of Tyre built the very palace there for David!Is it making sense now? Its poetry. It states its about a man. It states he was prideful, boastful. It explains how rich he was and what he accomplished..............and what his end result was.