Chariots of God (Scripture & Photo Examined)

Science tries hard to eliminate subjective experience from the equation.

The scientist sees what we can see for ourselves. You could repeat the experiments to confirm or deny the scientific explanation but you choose to turn a blind eye toward what you might see. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find."

If you drown, your spirit will be in the ocean. If you die on land, it's ashes to ashes and dust to orbs.

Ezekiel had a vision of God which he expressed in a figurative way. You're bastardizing Ezekiel's vision by imposing it on something thing that happens to be round.

Seeing a "vision" is figurative. If Ezekiel had seen something concrete, he wouldn't have called it a vision - and the people with him would have seen it too. Ezekiel seeing a vision is the same as Martin Luther King having a dream.Yes, Ezekiel described what he saw but he didn't see it in the same way he saw a coffee table or a camel. And again, you're bastardizing what he saw by attributing the same vision to a speck of dust.

There may be a difference in the state of consciousness but both visions and dreams are "mental pictures" of things that are not physically seen. If a vision was physically seen, then it would be physically seen by everybody present, not just by Ezekiel. But there is a simple physical explanation for the "orbs". Your woo-woo "explanation" is unnecessary - and it does a disservice to Ezekiel.

I'm pretty knowledgeable about the Flintstones.

Yes. And that's why those "orbs" are not equivalent visions from God - because those of us who are not His prophets can see them.

Maybe they are a "suggestion", in the same sense that Oreo cookies are. But as long as they are visible to everybody, they are not a "vision" in the same sense as Ezekiel's vision. A "vision" is not something that is seen literally. It is in the mind of the viewer. Thus, anything that is objectively visible is not a vision.

You're contradicting your own definition:

quote:

---

vision, something seen by other than normal sight, something perceived in a dream, trance, etc. or supernaturally revealed as to a prophet.

---

Something seen by "other than normal sight" is not objective. To be objective, it needs to be seen by normal sight.Something perceived in a dream or trance is necessarily subjective:And as I keep telling you, because the revelation was to Ezekiel only and not to the people with him, it was by definition subjective.

quote:

---

Ezekiel 1:1 Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.

---

Do you believe that the other people who were with Ezekiel saw the same vision?To be objective, it had to be apparent to everybody - but if it was apparent to everybody, what's the significance of Ezekiel being a prophet?

I already quoted it in Message 308:

quote:

---

1 Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.

---

Ezekiel was "among the captives".

Why wouldn't captives mean captives? Ezekiel was taken into captivity in Babylonia. Why read more into it?

Well, that's more-or-less what I've been saying all along, that Ezekiel's vision was in a world that outsiders couldn't see. You call it an "invisible spirit world" and I call it "Ezekiel's mind" but we agree that it is not visible to everybody.So how can you claim that the "chariots of the spirits" are visible to everybody and can appear on film? By your own definition, your photographs ought to be blank.

Sure, why not? But you're presenting photographs that everybody can see. If they were from the invisible spirit world they would be invisible to most people.