|
Author
|
Topic: Is Jesus God?
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
|
Message 152 of 492 (549563)
03-08-2010 7:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 150 by Peg
03-08-2010 7:04 PM
|
|
Re: God and Christ only perfect
Peg writes: no i didnt ignore your entire post..... No, just the parts the proved you wrong
Peg writes: I said that there is no way the king of tyre was ever in the garden of Eden, i said that an enemy of God would never be called one of his cherubs... a very high angelic position beside Gods throne. I pointed out that he was most certainly in Eden and you didnt even acknowledge this. I gave scripture to back up my assertion. I pointed out a cherub was not an angel and you ignored this. Do you want more scripture which also shows what a cherub is? Common sense-Satan was an angel. An angle is not a cherub. Therefore, Satan could not be a cherub. 16 Through all your trading you have become full of violent ways, and have done evil: so I sent you out shamed from the mountain of God; the winged one put an end to you from among the stones of fire. 17 Your heart was lifted up because you were beautiful, you made your wisdom evil through your sin: I have sent you down, even to the earth; I have made you low before kings, so that they may see you. 18 By all your sin, even by your evil trading, Did Satan have trading routes??? Here is how another translation reads: Ezekiel 28:14 With an anointed guardian cherub I placed you;...(RSV) Kings were refered to winged ones, due to their power: Isaiah 8:7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord brings up on them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks: 8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. Ok, enough about Ezekial. We're ruining a great thread. Some other time like I said. We've both said enough on this topic. As for Jesus not being god, carry on!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 150 by Peg, posted 03-08-2010 7:04 PM | | Peg has not replied |
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
|
|
Message 155 of 492 (549622)
03-09-2010 10:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 153 by Peg
03-08-2010 8:33 PM
|
|
Re: God and Christ only perfect
hERICtic writes: Ezekiel 27:22,23 "The merchants of Sheba and Raamah were your merchants. They traded for your wares the choicest spices, all kinds of precious stones, and gold. {23} "Haran, Canneh, Eden, the merchants of Sheba, Assyria, and Chilmad were your merchants.
Peg writes: there was never a city in Eden. Eden was lost after the flood. No one knows its exact location, so how can this mention of Eden be referring to a city with traders? It isnt. Its prophetic and symbolic. I guess we will keep discussing this until PD says its off topic.  Eden most certainly was a place outside of the garden you refer to: Isaiah 37:12 Did the gods of the nations that were destroyed by my forefathers deliver themthe gods of Gozan, Haran, Rezeph and the people of Eden who were in Tel Assar? Ezekial 27: 22 " 'The merchants of Sheba and Raamah traded with you; for your merchandise they exchanged the finest of all kinds of spices and precious stones, and gold. 23 " 'Haran, Canneh and Eden and merchants of Sheba, Asshur and Kilmad traded with you. 24 In your marketplace they traded with you beautiful garments, blue fabric, embroidered work and multicolored rugs with cords twisted and tightly knotted. And finally, absolute proof Eden refers to a town! Town of Eden, New York | The Garden Spot of New York  hERICtic writes: 3) A cherub is NOT an angel. Nowhere in scripture is it even stated.
Peg writes: Just as mankind has their different stations (generals/captains/presidents/princes etc), so do the Angels of God. All of them, not matter their station, are still angelic sons of God. They are spirits. They are also termed sons of the true God, morning stars, and holy myriads. There is one Arch Angel, mentioned at Jude 6. Isaiah 6;2 mentions the Seraphs who have 6 wings (obviously not literal becaues spiritual creatures do not have physical bodies) The Cherubs are also metioned...2 of these were stationed at the garden of Eden to prevent entry. Then there is a large number of angelic messengers. These are all angels, they all serve God, the are all spirits. 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. You also seem to have a habit of ignoring question. 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. Did Satan have a trading route? Did you miss the part where it shows Kings have "wings"? 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? Bottom line Peg, the ONLY way you can make this about Satan is if you throw in your dual meanings. This occurs every single time a Christian is faced with a theological problem. Just make it with a dual meaning! It clearly states its about a MAN. It clearly states who this man is. It states foreigners will go against him. Does this sound like Satan yet? Satan had treasures? Really? A spirit needs precious stones? Its only bc of the words Eden and cherub to you believe it refers to Satan. No mention of an angel. No mention of Satan. Without the proper understanding of those two words, combined with your need for dual hidden meanings.....only then can you mean it to be Satan. Late addition: Mountain of god is Mt Zion. Located on earth, not heaven. (Isa. 2:2, 3; 56:7). Last but not least (I have enough edits on here), start reading from chapter 26. Remember, there werent chapters originally. Its on story about the King of Tyre and his fall. Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given. Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given. Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 153 by Peg, posted 03-08-2010 8:33 PM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 166 by Peg, posted 03-10-2010 2:44 AM | | hERICtic has replied |
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
|
|
Message 159 of 492 (549631)
03-09-2010 11:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 158 by kbertsche
03-09-2010 11:09 AM
|
|
Re: Hebrews 1:8
KB writes: It may be both. Biblical prophecy often has multiple referents, a near-term referent and another further in the future. I humbly say...no such thing. Invented to cover the obvious midrash used in the gospels. Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 158 by kbertsche, posted 03-09-2010 11:09 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
Re: scriptures have priorities
Eric previously writes: I NEVER suggested even once that before the Creed others did not believe Jesus to be god. I said, the verse in question, screams that Jesus is god. But NO ONE, prior to the fourth century ever used said scripture to show Jesus was god. NO ONE. EMA writes: Sometimes when you read these responses you get a good belly laugh, such is the case here. Sure you never said that directly Eric the hertic, but your implication was to convey that the early Christians did not believe in Jesus as God. Well, I'm glad I could provide some comic relief. The problem is that never once did I suggest this. I have no idea how many did or did not accept Jesus as god. We could go back and forth and provide quotes, but thats a strawman argument. We are debating what scripture states. Not what people think.
EMA writes: My implication from this passage was that it was such common knowledge and there were so many other passages that indicate what this does, that there was no need to use every scripture to demonstrate a well established BELIEF. But it was not common knowledge. On top of that, there are only a few that would indicate Jesus is god. Most state the opposite. In fact, the few you have given, not one is greater than the verse we are refering to. As I said, it SCREAMS out loud and clear Jesus is god. Yet its never referenced.
EMA writes: To the early christians HE did mean God, that is the way the understood the passage, based on other passages, so when translating it, it could be either God or HE, same thing. How do you know this? From some quotes? Look up Marcionites. Look up Gnostics. Look up Docetism. Justin Martyr and St Clement of Rome are two big names in Christianity, neither believed Jesus to be god.
Eric previously writes: If it states "god", instead of "he", again I ask-why is it never mentioned by all the great writers. Heck, you just gave a list of authors who believed Jesus was god prior to the 4th century. Please show me which one refers to Phil 2. EMA writes: Another belly holder. eric before 1200 or so, I believe, there were no chapters or verses, just compilations of letters and writings, the writings and THIER CONTENTS were well KNOWN BY THE EARLIEST of Christians. When they refered to a doctrine, they seem to have quoted it verbatum or gave the gist of its context. Such is the case with John 1:1, Col, Phil 2, etc. So lets see if I undestand this. The verse in question was well known but NO ONE quoted it to show Jesus was god. I should be holding my belly laughing.
EMA writes: One can see with the greatest of ease, they were using the same scriptures we are today, to establish the doctrine through inspiration. the verbage they use in thier letters ECHO without mistake what the Nt teaches on the fact that Jesus was believed to be God incarnate. its simply to easy to miss. Now this is funny. You do realize there are many passages in the Bible which were tampered with. Now you go to state its "too easy to miss", yet thats my entire point...it WAS missed.
EMA writes: Here is another item to drive the point home. the early Christians and some that directly followed John were DIRECTLY guided through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that is those that had had the Apotles hands laid on them to recieve the gifts of the Spirit. Why would so many early Christians, some of which knew John and were guided by the Holy Spirit directly, get such a simple truth wrong. the answer is that they did not, and it is easily seen in thier writings LMAO! It was not John who wrote it wrong...it was the translators! Although even more hysterical, John was illiterate, so I have trouble understanding how he wrote anything. But thats another debate. Anyway, Peg has already covered what John 1:1 should be read as or could be read as. Worse, you're using circular reasoning to drive home your point. You have no evidence John was guided by anything. Here is the bottom line. It was NOT clear that Jesus was god bc you have many offshoots and Christian writers who did not believe this. The mere fact that this occured should be a warning to your beliefs. Why, if crystal clear as you say, should so many NOT believe Jesus was god? Bc its not clear. The FEW verses you gave have been shown time and time again to be mistranslated or ambigious at best. I'll ask for the fourth time. If Jesus is god, how is he in heaven next to god, claiming to have a god? Your excuse was that hes part man, part god (nowhere in scripture is this stated by the way) and that its his human side that proclaims god is his father. Yet here Jesus is in heaven, not a man. ON earth Jesus is god? Jesus, talking to himself? Jesus crying out to himself? Jesus praying to himself? Jesus asking not to die, to himself? OT scripture stating that god is not a man. Heck, Jesus crapping? Do you really think god lowered himself to this? Everything makes perfect sense if Jesus was divine, although a man, who was the messiah. As Jesus said, his words were not his own, he can do nothing without gods permission, he is not all powerful, not all knowing and has a god.
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
Re: scriptures have priorities
Eric previously writes: You have no evidence John was guided by anything. EMA writes: I was under the impression I was speaking with someone who believed the scriptures to be the direct revelation of God to the writers indicated. Is this not the case, you and I have been wasting our precious time. So since we have different religious views, we're wasting our time debating what scripture states. Might as well close down the entire site, since most people debating with each other have different view points. Lets assume they are inspired...it has no bearing at all on our debate. Scripture could be inspired and have Jesus not as god. Or as god. The debate is what scripture states. Your comment about John made it seem like it was John, the apostle. I did not say the author was not inspired. I said the author was not John. Big difference. Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
Re: scriptures have priorities
Eric previously writes: Lets assume they are inspired...it has no bearing at all on our debate. Scripture could be inspired and have Jesus not as god. Or as god. EMA writes: Absolutely wrong, it has everything to do with bearing Eric. So beofre we get to far off topic, is it your opinion that these are inspired writings, your not rquired to respond, but it would help. It has nothing to do with our debate. You are using horrible, horrible circular logic. From what I can tell you're saying Jesus is god. Since the writers were inspired and they claim Jesus is god, its must be true. If you're not claiming this, then whether or not they're inspired has nothing to do with our debate. Peg believes they're inspired. You believe they're inspired. Yet you both disagree on what scripture states. Not sure how those filled with the ghost can disagree on what the Bible states. Again, a debate for another time. So how does the belief that scripture is inspired or not have any validity on our debate? The authors could be inspired and claim Jesus is god. The authors could be inspired and claim Jesus is not god. The authors could not be inspired and claim Jesus is god. The authors could not be inspired and not claim Jesus is god. The end result is the exact same. Is Jesus god or not.
Eric previously writes: Your comment about John made it seem like it was John, the apostle. I did not say the author was not inspired EMA writes: That is not what you said but I will go with it anyway. My quote, from post 160: It was not John who wrote it wrong...it was the translators! Although even more hysterical, John was illiterate, so I have trouble understanding how he wrote anything. But thats another debate. Eric previously writes: How do you know this? From some quotes? Look up Marcionites. Look up Gnostics. Look up Docetism. Justin Martyr and St Clement of Rome are two big names in Christianity, neither believed Jesus to be god. EMA writes: Of course the groups existed and I am aware of all of them. But the point is that they arose after the formulation of the Gospel and Pauls epistles, that is how they knew that they (gnostics and related groups )were heresies. for the first 30 or 40 years of the Church, it was free of this and other errors You need to do a lil research on those names I listed.
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
|
|
Message 167 of 492 (549772)
03-10-2010 7:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 166 by Peg
03-10-2010 2:44 AM
|
|
Re: God and Christ only perfect
hERICtic writes: And finally, absolute proof Eden refers to a town!
Peg writes: 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. 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.
Peg writes: Job 38:4-7 Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?... 7 When 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 10 And he came riding upon a CHERUB and came flying, And he came darting upon the wings of A SPIRIT 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.
Peg writes: Revelation 7:12 . So down the great dragon was hurled, the ORIGINAL SERPENT, the one called Devil and SATAN. 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?
Peg writes: 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. 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)
Peg writes: It was for a while. But the reality of that physical representation of Gods Kingdom was located elsewhere. Hebrews 12:22 But YOU have approached a Mount Zion and a city of [the] living God, HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, and myriads of angels, 23 in 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, 24 and Jesus the mediator 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?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 166 by Peg, posted 03-10-2010 2:44 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 169 by Peg, posted 03-10-2010 8:11 PM | | hERICtic has replied |
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
Re: scriptures have priorities
EMA writes: Pegs and mine approach of dual menaings in a passage can only be understood from a spiritual standpoint. Y0u appear to have no spiritual approach. 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.
EMA writes: this is why your comments about jesus talking to himself and bowel movements are simply silly 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.
EMA writes: How without a total comprehension and totality of scripture could one begin to understand the expression, "I and the father are one' 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?
EMA writes: Do you think inspiration and spiritual understanding still dont matter? Think about it logically, if this is not the work of a single mind, then any meaning could and will be extracted due to different authors opinions and mind sets in any given century 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.
Eric previously writes: You have no evidence John was guided by anything. EMA writes: Did I really misrepresent or misunderstand you? Is it your view that any of the writers were guided by the Holy Spirit? No, they werent. The authors were men, writing their beliefs. Nothing more.
Eric previously writes: You need to do a lil research on those names I listed. EMA writes: I have, what is your point? 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?
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
|
|
Message 171 of 492 (550237)
03-13-2010 7:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 169 by Peg
03-10-2010 8:11 PM
|
|
Re: God and Christ only perfect
I went to edit this reply and posted it twice. Whoops. Correct post is below. Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by Peg, posted 03-10-2010 8:11 PM | | Peg has not replied |
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
|
|
Message 172 of 492 (550238)
03-13-2010 7:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 169 by Peg
03-10-2010 8:11 PM
|
|
Re: God and Christ only perfect
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by Peg, posted 03-10-2010 8:11 PM | | Peg has replied |
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
|
|
Message 174 of 492 (550245)
03-13-2010 7:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 173 by Peg
03-13-2010 7:32 PM
|
|
Re: God and Christ only perfect
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?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 173 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 7:32 PM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 175 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 7:45 PM | | hERICtic has replied |
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
|
|
Message 176 of 492 (550257)
03-13-2010 8:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 175 by Peg
03-13-2010 7:45 PM
|
|
Re: God and Christ only perfect
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 175 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 7:45 PM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 177 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 10:42 PM | | hERICtic has replied |
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
|
|
Message 180 of 492 (550296)
03-14-2010 1:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 177 by Peg
03-13-2010 10:42 PM
|
|
Re: God and Christ only perfect
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.
Peg writes: 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??? 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 writes: 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. 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?
Peg writes: 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. 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.
Peg writes: 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. 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?
Peg writes: 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. 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 177 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 10:42 PM | | Peg has not replied |
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
Re: God and Christ only perfect
EMA writes: 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 wish No, I am approaching it based upon evidence. Show me one verse which speaks of dual meanings. You cant. It does not exist. Also, based upon the evidence, it does not apply to Satan. Your confusion, is based upon your lack of knowledge on this subject/chapter. You make assumptions, not based upon evidence. Peg assumed that there was only one instance of the Garden of Eden, thousands of years ago. Therefore she erroneously based her belief that it could not refer to the king. I showed her Eden was mentioned elsewhere as a rich trading route. She refused to accept this. I showed her the Assyrian king was mentioned as being in the Garden, metaphorically. She refesed to accept this. I showed her Eden, means luxury. The king was quite rich, lived a luxurious life. It could mean he was in the garden of luxury. All plausible, all based upon evidence. The story starts in chapter 26 and goes to chapter 28. Peg accets up until verse 13, its about the King. Yet suddenly it just changes to Satan? No mention of Satan. No mention of an angel. Peg also believed a cherub was an angel. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever state this. Kings were thought to have "wings". This fits perfectly with the analogy of the King of Tyre having wings. Its poetry. I think this is Pegs point that it is a clear reference about Satan, APPLIED to the King of Tyre. Is this not possible?
EMA writes: 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 purposes Thats the problem. Its not clear. In fact, its only a few words which lead one to come to this conclusion. Without knowing all the facts, I can understand how one could come to this belief. BUT...once the facts are in, the evidence, its evidence it points to the King. In fact, it states its about a man. The ONLY way one can come to the conclusion that its about Satan is by throwing in dual meanings. In that case, anything can mean anything!
EMA writes: A 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 obvious You're correct. If a CASUAL reader would come to this conclusion. The problem is that neither of you are causual readers. If you want to go even further, Satan is NEVER mentioned in the garden. This is a mistaken belief based upon Revelation, which states Satan is the dragon, the serpent. Obviously, Satan is neither. In fact, the serpent was cursed to crawl on its belly forever. Does this make more sense if it refers to an actual snake or Satan? If its Satan, what was he doing walking the earth in Job? What was he doing hanging out in heaven in Psalms and Zechariah? Nowhere in the entire OT is Satan mentioned as the entity against god. These are facts. The Satan in the NT is a combination of the entity in the OT and Persian beliefs (which had an anti-god). Ask a Jew who Satan is in the OT, they'll tell you its gods helper, who tempts mankind, as per the isntructions of god.
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4546 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
|
|
Message 358 of 492 (554792)
04-10-2010 8:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 356 by Peg
04-10-2010 7:46 AM
|
|
Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
Jaywill writes: The crowd took up stones to stone Him at the point where He said - "Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am." That was the last straw, when this Man before them identified Himself as the I AM, the preexisting and ever existing God. Interesting that the quote you give is lower case (as are the earliest translations) yet you turn around and capitalize it to show Jesus is god. Nowhere in the gospels dpes anyone exclaim that Jesus is god after this. Nowhere. Now, if this was meant as such a revelation, why is that? Surely from that point on the Jews, authors would have exclaimed that he was god. But they never do. Even more interesting, Jesus is taken before the high priest and the chief priests. They are looking for a reason to kill him. They even ask: "Are you the Christ?"? Mark 14:61. Wouldn't they have asked "Do you claim to be God?"? They brought in accusers and even false accusers, yet no one ever claimed Jesus stated he was god! "Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus in order that they might put him to death; .... And the high priest said to him, 'I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.'" - Matt. 26:59 Here they invoke gods name, but not in relation to Jesus. Again they call him the Messiah, the SON of god. Seriously, if Jesus was thought of as god, why didnt they accuse him of that? On top of that, it does not even make sense to claim I AM is god (when Jesus is speaking) bc it would read: "Before Abraham came into being, god." How does this mean Jesus is god? Doesnt it make more sense that Jesus was stating before Abraham existed, Jesus did. Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 356 by Peg, posted 04-10-2010 7:46 AM | | Peg has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 359 by hERICtic, posted 04-10-2010 8:26 AM | | hERICtic has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2