[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
I never post here in pwi but what the hell. Ive noticed some here are VERY troubled by other peoples belief systems. I for one do believe in god, now i also believe in evolution and im pro-choice. I dont care if people choose to worship satan and drink blood (as long as blood is given willingly). Why should i care what others believe? Do i think some beliefs are crazy or stupid? yes but I have to ask HH why are you so troubled by christianity? I think maybe you were assaulted sexually or otherwise by a person of faith? No? did one of those televangilist take your money? fuck your wife? Im sorry for the wrong they did to you sincerely. Now can we let people worship whatever god, deity, spirit, space alien or golden statue they like without going out of our way to stir shit among them? Give it a shot devote some of your faith hate to something productive, or maybe start your own church called “i dont believe in shit and neither should you”[/quote]
Religion is anti-mind. Faith is the substitution of someone else’s judgment for your own.
It is mysticism, of gun or religion, that is destroying the world.
If you think that’s not worth fighting against, well, just bend over and pepper thy angus.
[/quote]
So you feel the need to attack people for their religion? I don’t come out here and attack you for not being religious.
CS[/quote]
Who attacked anyone? If you can show that my statements about faith were false, the I would here this gladly.
What IS the definition of ‘faith’ anyway, except the acceptance of something as fact without empirical evidence?
[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
I never post here in pwi but what the hell. Ive noticed some here are VERY troubled by other peoples belief systems. I for one do believe in god, now i also believe in evolution and im pro-choice. I dont care if people choose to worship satan and drink blood (as long as blood is given willingly). Why should i care what others believe? Do i think some beliefs are crazy or stupid? yes but I have to ask HH why are you so troubled by christianity? I think maybe you were assaulted sexually or otherwise by a person of faith? No? did one of those televangilist take your money? fuck your wife? Im sorry for the wrong they did to you sincerely. Now can we let people worship whatever god, deity, spirit, space alien or golden statue they like without going out of our way to stir shit among them? Give it a shot devote some of your faith hate to something productive, or maybe start your own church called “i dont believe in shit and neither should you”[/quote]
Religion is anti-mind. Faith is the substitution of someone else’s judgment for your own.
It is mysticism, of gun or religion, that is destroying the world.
If you think that’s not worth fighting against, well, just bend over and pepper thy angus.
[/quote]
So you feel the need to attack people for their religion? I don’t come out here and attack you for not being religious.
CS[/quote]
He is, just not the kind you would probably approve of.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Oh, please excuse me. What I meant to type was:
“Were you hoping to contact me via facebook or something so you could harass me and my friends and family as you have done to at least one other person on this forum before?” But of course, I should have left out ‘family’, because you didn’t harass the man’s family. Just other people who are important to him. I get confused sometimes because I usually refer to the people who are important to me as family.
The situation may be ‘handled for now’, but reading your posts from that thread destroyed any respect I had for you and will prevent me from trusting you from here on out. [/quote]As opposed to when you trusted me before? Do what you want. I was trying to be friendly to you which I will still do.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Is there a particular reason you didn’t actually answer the question? Just because you dodge my questions and requests doesn’t mean I have forgotten about them.
I have asked you for information, and you have ignored those requests. I have asked you direct questions, and as usual you have either completely ignored or deflected them.
[/quote]
Why didn’t I answer that question, JP? Because, like all your direct questions, it was a loaded question, a variation of the “did-you-stop-beating-your-wife” query. That question presupposes that you are correct in your interpretations of the various passages you cite, when the correctness of your interpretations remains exactly what we are debating.
You do the EXACT same thing in your question below. Let’s look at your preliminary statements first…
The paragraph above is difficult to follow (as usual), but I’ll give it my best shot. “The original claim” - whose original claim? I can only assume you are referring to the Old Testament’s claim, i.e., the passages in the OT that refer to people seeing and speaking to God. “Then, when Christ made it known that no one had ever seen God, the story changed to them seeing an angel” - is THAT the order of events??? LOL That’s not how it happened at all, dude. Man, you really need a history lesson, or at least to pay attention to the stuff I write.
The Jews already believed that no one had ever seen God. They believed that for hundreds of years before Jesus was even born. Neither Jesus nor John says ANYTHING that Second Temple Jews would have disagreed with; they firmly believed that no one had seen God.
Because Jews knew that no one had ever seen God, they explained such apparent God-sightings of God’s representative, the Angel of the Lord. The Jews believed this hundreds of years before Jesus was born; we find evidence of this interpretation in 1 Enoch and the Septuagint. Stephen’s statements about the angel at Sinai shows his rootedness in Second Temple Jewish thought; it was NOT an innovation precipitated by Jesus’ statement.
Moreover, we find this idea in the Old Testament itself. When Stephen talks about an angel in the burning bush, he is quoting Exodus 3:2 (“There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush”). In other words, Second Temple Jews derived this idea of the Angel of the Lord as God’s representative from the biblical text itself.
Considering that, once again, you completely misinterpreted my statements about the Angel of the Lord and his relation to theophanies in the OT, you can see that we are NOT in agreement.
Let’s move on to your question then…
[quote]
Here’s my question:
We are talking about an angel who characterized himself as I described before:
Appears as a fire that does not consume
Uses the serpent as a symbol of himself to Pharaoh
Kills with fire at the slightest mistake
Demands a blood sacrifice sprinkled on his altar
Loves the smell of burning flesh
Gives his people statutes that are no good and ordinances they can’t live by
Instructs them to murder women and children after he gave them the command to never murder
Spiteful
Hateful
Selfish
He also stood on holy ground, in the tabernacle, and in the temple and proclaimed himself God.
Just exactly which angel would do such a thing?[/quote]
Once again, we have a loaded question. I disagree with nearly ever single one of these claims you make above.
Uses the serpent as a symbol of HIMSELF? There is a BIG difference between turning a staff into serpent as a demonstration of his POWER and turning the staff into a snake as a symbol of HIMSELF! At no point does Exodus say that serpent was a SYMBOL for God; the point was to demonstrate God’s power.
And frankly, using your logic, you have a much more important question to ask - why does JESUS seem to consider the serpent a symbol of HIMSELF (John 3:14-15)?
Kills with fire at the slightest mistake? Are you God? Do you get to decide what constitutes a major or a minor mistake? In fact, God repeatedly shows forbearance in the Old Testament in NOT destroying the people for their grievous sins.
In case you didn’t know it, the whole notion of Jesus “dying for our sins” is premised on the sacrificial system. That was PRECISELY how the earliest Christians understood Jesus’ death - it was the culmination of the blood sacrificial rite. And frankly, from a purely human perspective, asking for the torture and death of a human being, especially one’s own son, sounds A LOT worse than asking people to kill some animals.
That’s called an anthropomorphism, dude.
I dealt with this accusation IN DEPTH previously - you have completely misinterpreted Ezekiel 20:25 by not reading it in context. Israel’s failure to obey God’s commands, commands by which they guaranteed their lives, resulted in God giving them over to their further disobedience and defilement.
Though others have said this before, there is a difference between murder and God-ordained warfare. God decides which is which, not you.
“Spiteful, hateful, and selfish” - As always, you have to prove these accusations. More importantly, however, you don’t have the right to dictate the character of God.
Since I disagree with you on all your points, how am I supposed to answer your question? “What angel would do all these things? Uuum, how about one derived entirely from your fantasy?” Of course, you are implying that it is Satan.
Two questions for you - on what grounds do you assume that the Father is so different in character from Yahweh? Doesn’t Jesus say that, if we fail to forgive others for their sins against us no matter how many times or how awful the sins are, the Father will treat us the same way as the master who handed his wicked servant “over to the jailors to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed” (Matt. 18:35)? Doesn’t Jesus threaten to kill people who follow the woman symbolically called Jezebel in Revelation 2:20-23? Will he not also, according to John’s vision (Rev. 19:21) butcher a multitude of people at his coming, only to resurrect them later in order to throw them into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14-15)? Frankly, Jesus and the Father don’t seem all that different in character than Yahweh in the OT.
Secondly, where does Scripture say that Satan is an angel? There is only one passage that even seems to imply that, and it’s 2 Corinthians 11:14. There it doesn’t even say that Satan was an angel; it merely says that he masquerades as “an angel of light.” So since the only passage that even remotely suggests that Satan was an angel at all is a statement of PAUL’S, on what grounds would you link Satan and the Angel of the Lord in the OT? You have no other corroboration.
You really shouldn’t use words like “obviously” when an issue is far from obvious. Conservative AND secular scholars alike have noted that Luke actually seems to be relatively uninfluenced by Paul’s theology. They’ve looked for the distinctive markers of Pauline thought (themes, language, etc.) and have consistently found that, rather than simply being Paul’s hack, Luke possesses a theological voice uniquely his own. Consequently, you have an entire world of scholarship to deal with here, bud, and any references to the supposedly close relationship between Luke and Paul are NOT sufficient evidence to say that Luke is simply Paul’s mouthpiece.[/quote]
I meant to respond to this separately.
I say that Paul dictated much of Luke’s work because Paul is the only source for much of his information (specifically Acts).
That should be obvious, which is why it should be obvious why I used the word ‘obviously’
And I never said that Luke is merely Paul’s mouthpiece. Seems like you’re arguing against the ‘normal’ points of contention that you’ve been trained to defend against. You keep making assumptions based on some perceived assumption on my part.[/quote]
You said, and I quote…
If that’s not what you meant, then you shouldn’t have used the verb “dictate” with the gerund “writing.” Together, those terms imply literary action, not merely one individual providing the source material for another. And believe me, JP, the stuff you are talking about is FAR from the ‘normal’ points of contention in scholarly circles. There aren’t any apologetics courses tailored to dealing with the nonsense you spew.[/quote]
[b]dictate
vb [d�?�ªk�??te�?�ªt]
to say (messages, letters, speeches, etc.) aloud for mechanical recording or verbatim transcription by another person[/b]
I meant it just as I wrote it. Paul told the stories, and Luke wrote them down.[/quote]
And once again you demonstrate your illiteracy, this time by quoting a definition that you clearly couldn’t comprehend. If you HAD been able to comprehend it, you would see that it supports my point and not your own. To say something aloud for “verbatim transcription by another person” means that what one person speaks, another writes down in the exact way that first person says it. Thus, if the stories about Paul in Luke’s gospel were “dictated” by Paul to Luke, that means that Luke functions as Paul’s mouthpiece, which is EXACTLY what I am saying is ridiculous. Paul may have told Luke some stories, but since the way those stories are told in the book of Acts lack any evidence of typical Pauline word choice and syntax, then there is no basis for claiming that Paul “dictated” the stories to Luke. The most you could say is that Paul may have told many of the stories to Luke (though in several cases Lukeâ??s use of the pronoun â??we,â?? as well as his mentioning of other figures besides Paul in the narratives, suggests that Luke had other sources for his material besides Paul, including his own eyewitnesses testimony), but Luke ultimately condensed, paraphrased, and edited them to suit the rhetorical goals of his own narrative.
Hereâ??s why I am harping on this â?? you saidâ?¦
I’m not sure what you are going for here, JP. Do you think you are being clever or something? It’s not like you are tripping me up; I flat out told you that I am using the term “cult” in a technical sense, i.e., how it is used in the field of sociology. It’s common knowledge that the word “cult” has other uses too, but the sociological sense of that word specifically distinguishes between “religions” and “cults.” Your comeback seems like the old “a-b***h-is-a-female-dog” retort. Yes, your comment is true, but absolutely irrelevant in a world where words have more than one meaning/usage. [/quote]
lol.
So you accept the definition of the word as it applies to other people, but reject the definition that applies to you. I am not surprised.
[/quote]
Lol JP, is this really the best you’ve got? Yup, Christianity is, based on ONE general use of the term, a cult. Christianity is not, based on the sociological use of the term, a cult. I was employing the sociological use. The term cult used in its general sense is not pejorative (that means “derogatory” or “negative”), so I have no problem talking about Christianity as a cult in that sense. Only the sociological use can be considered pejorative, and only from a specific standpoint (i.e., that of the religious tradition from which the cult diverges). I’m still not getting why you think this is clever, but oh well…
Lol Why am I arguing with you about this? Because, for someone who claims to want to know Truth, your thinking is disgustingly undisciplined. Do you know how the definite article "the"functions in English, JP? It’s purpose is to mark something as specific and unique. As I pointed out, there is more than one definition of the word “heretic.” Therefore, the most that you could say is that by a definition of the word heretic (and an old one at that, considering that, as I noted previously, the Catholic Church now refers to baptized Protestants as “separated brethren,” not heretics). You do realize that the meanings of words change over time, right?
lol statements like this just continue to show your ignorance of the processes involved in the translation process. Why are there so many different versions of the Bible? Is the ONLY possible answer that scholars are in significant disagreement about the meaning of most biblical passages? Not at all. In fact, there are other factors that have resulted in the composition of multiple translations. Here are the big three, though they are all fundamentally relatedâ?¦
â??Literalâ?? vs. Dynamic translations philosophies - While all translators and exegetes recognize that the Scriptures often employ idioms that cannot be translated sensibly â??word-for-word,â?? scholars are divided as to the extent of explanation of such idioms proper within the translated text itself. Some attempt to mirror the grammar and syntax of the biblical languages as much as possible in English, hoping to leave it to pastors (trained in Greek and Hebrew) to explicate the text; other translators opt to render the Greek and Hebrew into more common English idioms and syntax. These are all on a spectrum, with the NASB leaning more toward the â??literalâ?? end, and translations like the NIV being more on the Dynamic end.
The treatment of gender language â?? while scholars are in agreement that gendered terms like anthropos (â??manâ??) frequently function to encompass both males and females within their purview, translators are torn over whether to use gender neutral language in translations. These discussions arise not because of actual disagreement among scholars about the meaning of the gender terms, but because church leaders put pressure on translators to provide translations that fit the pastorsâ?? translation philosophies. Thus, for example, we have the ESV, which is essentially the NRSV without the gender-neutral language. Again, this is not because scholars disagree, but because the buyers of their translations have certain preferences.
Niche translations â?? many translations arise to fill certain functions. The Godâ??s Word translation was intended for individuals with a lower reading level; the Message and the NLT were made intended for more devotional reading.
These are the kinds of things that motivate the generation of new translations, bud, not simply differences in the interpretation of various passages.
[quote]
I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that understanding of the Scriptures does not come through translation, but will come through in any translation.
When I read the various versions of the Bible, they all say the same thing. That’s the beauty of the Truth.[/quote]
I couldn’t care less what you do or don’t doubt. You aren’t an authority at ANY level in this arena, JP. YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGES. The language you do “know”… well, you seem to have a pretty tenuous grasp of it, as evidenced by your frequent misquotations and misinterpretations of translations. The fact that all the translations â??say the same thingâ?? to YOU is not in any way reassuring â?? youâ??ve already shown that you are a careless reader! Need I remind you AGAIN of your EGREGIOUS misinterpretation of Acts 7:21 as stating that Moses was merely â??put outside the door?â?? When someone reads as carelessly as you do, itâ??s no wonder every text seems to say the same thing lol.
I’m not trying to be a snob; it’s just that you have no idea how ridiculously arrogant you are. You cannot even read the biblical texts themselves; you are ENTIRELY reliant on the work of others, and since you know nothing about the processes others had to go through to give you a translation, you don’t even know how to compare one translation with another. In other words, you have developed no skills that would protect you against error in interpretation, and despite having no safeguards against your own limitations, you actually think your uneducated opinion should carry weight. And you think I’M arrogant?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Is there a particular reason you didn’t actually answer the question? Just because you dodge my questions and requests doesn’t mean I have forgotten about them.
I have asked you for information, and you have ignored those requests. I have asked you direct questions, and as usual you have either completely ignored or deflected them.
[/quote]
Why didn’t I answer that question, JP? Because, like all your direct questions, it was a loaded question, a variation of the “did-you-stop-beating-your-wife” query. That question presupposes that you are correct in your interpretations of the various passages you cite, when the correctness of your interpretations remains exactly what we are debating. [/quote]
It was indeed a loaded question, but it was not I who loaded it. It is a question that you know there is no good answer for, and if you really believed that passing off His words as interpretations and distillations was a sufficient answer, you would have defended it.
You know you are wrong and that’s why you won’t give a straight answer.
[quote]You do the EXACT same thing in your question below. Let’s look at your preliminary statements first…
The paragraph above is difficult to follow (as usual), but I’ll give it my best shot. “The original claim” - whose original claim? I can only assume you are referring to the Old Testament’s claim, i.e., the passages in the OT that refer to people seeing and speaking to God. “Then, when Christ made it known that no one had ever seen God, the story changed to them seeing an angel” - is THAT the order of events??? LOL That’s not how it happened at all, dude. Man, you really need a history lesson, or at least to pay attention to the stuff I write.
The Jews already believed that no one had ever seen God. They believed that for hundreds of years before Jesus was even born. Neither Jesus nor John says ANYTHING that Second Temple Jews would have disagreed with; they firmly believed that no one had seen God.
Because Jews knew that no one had ever seen God, they explained such apparent God-sightings of God’s representative, the Angel of the Lord. The Jews believed this hundreds of years before Jesus was born; we find evidence of this interpretation in 1 Enoch and the Septuagint. Stephen’s statements about the angel at Sinai shows his rootedness in Second Temple Jewish thought; it was NOT an innovation precipitated by Jesus’ statement.
Moreover, we find this idea in the Old Testament itself. When Stephen talks about an angel in the burning bush, he is quoting Exodus 3:2 (“There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush”). In other words, Second Temple Jews derived this idea of the Angel of the Lord as God’s representative from the biblical text itself.
Considering that, once again, you completely misinterpreted my statements about the Angel of the Lord and his relation to theophanies in the OT, you can see that we are NOT in agreement.
Let’s move on to your question then…
[quote]
Here’s my question:
We are talking about an angel who characterized himself as I described before:
Appears as a fire that does not consume
Uses the serpent as a symbol of himself to Pharaoh
Kills with fire at the slightest mistake
Demands a blood sacrifice sprinkled on his altar
Loves the smell of burning flesh
Gives his people statutes that are no good and ordinances they can’t live by
Instructs them to murder women and children after he gave them the command to never murder
Spiteful
Hateful
Selfish
He also stood on holy ground, in the tabernacle, and in the temple and proclaimed himself God.
Just exactly which angel would do such a thing?[/quote]
Once again, we have a loaded question. I disagree with nearly ever single one of these claims you make above.
Uses the serpent as a symbol of HIMSELF? There is a BIG difference between turning a staff into serpent as a demonstration of his POWER and turning the staff into a snake as a symbol of HIMSELF! At no point does Exodus say that serpent was a SYMBOL for God; the point was to demonstrate God’s power.
And frankly, using your logic, you have a much more important question to ask - why does JESUS seem to consider the serpent a symbol of HIMSELF (John 3:14-15)?[/quote]
If you truly understood what you are reading, you would see that He plainly states that Moses ‘lifted up the serpent’. Who is the serpent? Is Christ not bringing that reign to an end?
Offering up the wrong smoke in a panicked attempt to show deference to your god is not a slight mistake?
He only shows forbearance due to Moses’ appeal to his selfish nature, telling him that if he kills the Israelites, no one will ever worship him again.
Is it just a coincidence that Lucifer was thrown out of Heaven at approximately the same time that the Father provided our sacrifice for us and ended the blood rite?
The god of Israel loving the smell of burning flesh is not an anthropomorphism. If the claim was that the altar loved the smell, it would be.
That is not what it says. It says “Moreover also I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live; and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah.”
So because they disobeyed him, he gave them rules that caused them to disobey further. So that he could cause desolation.
Do you think it’s OK to kill children in war? Would you do it? If a soldier came back from war and confessed to you that he killed women and children in the name of God, would you accept that as God-ordained warfare?
I didn’t dictate it. I read it. And I am not talking about the character of God. Christ told us about the character of God, and told us that we had never known Him.
The examples of what I said are all in there. You don’t know how to recognize spite, hate and selfishness?
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Two questions for you - on what grounds do you assume that the Father is so different in character from Yahweh?[/quote]
The most basic difference is that Yahweh gives Earthly requirements and Earthly rewards. Our Father gives us Divine requirements and Heavenly rewards.
If Christ doesn’t seem all that different to you than Yahweh, you have been spending too much time studying and arguing terminology, nuance, and semantics. Not only can you not see the forest, you can’t even see the trees for the leaves.
[quote]Secondly, where does Scripture say that Satan is an angel? There is only one passage that even seems to imply that, and it’s 2 Corinthians 11:14. There it doesn’t even say that Satan was an angel; it merely says that he masquerades as “an angel of light.” So since the only passage that even remotely suggests that Satan was an angel at all is a statement of PAUL’S, on what grounds would you link Satan and the Angel of the Lord in the OT? You have no other corroboration.
[/quote] http://carm.org/questions/about-demons/was-lucifer-originally-angel-worship
Have you seriously been studying this stuff for years and still don’t know the basics?
Here’s another coincidence: compare the description of the covering of Lucifer in Ezekiel 28:13 to the description of the breastplate in Exodus 39.
Kai, I understand the atmosphere here in PWI a little better now and I know that my posts can seem a little harsh sometimes, so I want you to do me a huge favor;
Please read my posts with a calm tone in mind, because that is exactly how I intend them. I am not trying to be insulting, I am not upset in any way, and I am most certainly not trying to be arrogant.
I am, however, confident and convicted there is only One in whom we can place our trust. From that, I can not be swayed.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Two questions for you - on what grounds do you assume that the Father is so different in character from Yahweh?[/quote]
The most basic difference is that Yahweh gives Earthly requirements and Earthly rewards. Our Father gives us Divine requirements and Heavenly rewards.
[/quote]
What do you think an earthly requirement is in distinction to a “divine” requirement? Examples?
This is not an answer. I am showing you one of the fundamental flaws in your reasoning. You blindly assume that “Jesus is nice and Yahweh is mean.” I’ve given you several verses that show just how “mean” Jesus and “the Father” can be. There are many more. If your theory is true, JP, it has to account for all the evidence. You cannot put together 50 pieces of a 1000-piece puzzle, throw the other 950 pieces off the table, and declare, “the puzzle is finished!” In essence, that is exactly what you have done - you don’t like the portrayal of Yahweh in the OT, so you dismiss much of it; you dislike the portrayal of “the Father” in Paul’s letters and Acts, so you dismiss those texts as well. Consequently, I am using only those texts that you DO recognize as authoritative; if your view is correct, you should be able to explain the passages in the Gospels and Revelation that show just how “mean” Jesus and “the Father” can be. Frankly, I think you are skewing the data by dismissing most of the NT’s witness out of hand, but the fact is that even the gospels don’t portray Jesus’ or “the Father’s” character in as friendly terms as you think.
Example - a being who will punish someone horribly for not being willing to forgive seems pretty darn mean. Some Christians have suffered unspeakable horrors in this world, but if they don’t forgive the people that hurt them, THEY will be the ones “the Father” punishes! Explain how that is so unlike Yahweh.
Have you seriously been studying this stuff for years and still don’t know the basics?
Here’s another coincidence: compare the description of the covering of Lucifer in Ezekiel 28:13 to the description of the breastplate in Exodus 39.[/quote]
My question was rhetorical, JP; I’m trying to get you to analyze your presuppositions for once instead of just taking every thought you think fits your theory for granted. I know the historical development of the concept of Satan in Jewish and Christian traditions far better than you do. It is you who doesn’t know the basics. I’ll explain…
Let’s recap - you’ve denied the basic Christian metanarrative assumed by Christians of ALL stripes since the beginning of Christianity, i.e., that Yahweh, God of Israel, is the Father of whom Jesus speaks. Nevertheless, you still rely on outdated Christian mythology when it suits your aim. Case in point - the myth of “Lucifer.” This myth was created by Christians in response to readings of Revelation 12 and the story of the Dragon being cast down from heaven. Christians in the second and third centuries formed a grand narrative of Satan’s fall based on this passage, and they thought they found support for this interpretation in allegorizations of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. The name “Lucifer” derives from the Latin Vulgate, a late translation of the Hebrew by Jerome; it is neither a Hebrew nor a Greek word for Satan.
Here’s why I call it a myth…
Satan is NEVER called Lucifer in the OT or NT. As I noted previously, it is NOT a Hebrew or Greek word.
“Lucifer” is not a name for an individual, but rather a Latin word referring to the planet Venus, which the ancients called the “morning star.” Later Christians came to use the word as a proper name for Satan based on their misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12 as a reference to Satan, but this was a late development (4-5th centuries A.D.).
Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are NOT references to an angelic being. Read them in context - Isaiah 14:4 clearly states that this entire section (14:4-21) is a taunt the Israelites were to speak against THE KING OF BABYLON once Yahweh pardoned them from their sins and removed the yoke of the Babylonians. The subject is not an angelic being; it is the King of Babylon, hence why he is specifically called a “man” (14:16). Similarly, Ezekiel 28 refers to the King of Tyre (Ez. 28:2, 12); it does not mention “Lucifer” or Satan at all. The text specifically says that the person the prophet was addressing was the King of Tyre, not Satan. Good scholars all understand this now (as do rabbinic Jews); they recognize that these passages, LIKE HEBREW POETRY IN GENERAL, are hyperbolic (please look up the word hyperbole if you aren’t absolutely positive you know what it means).
Consequently, since there are no passages directly calling Satan “Lucifer,” and since Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14, read in context, both clearly refer to historical kings rather than Satan, and since there are no biblical texts in either the NT or the OT that link the figure of Satan with Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28, there is therefore NO justification for your claim that Satan and Lucifer are the same OR that Satan was an angel, except for Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians.
As for the gemstones, (1) Ezekiel 28 lists only 9 stones, whereas Exodus 39 lists twelve; (2) the stones are in different groupings in Ezekiel 28 than in Exodus 39; (3) there were only a handful of precious stones known to people in antiquity, so it is not surprising that the lists overlap; (4) Revelation 21:19-20, drawing upon the Septuagint, claims that the exact same 12 stones that were on the breastplate form the foundations of the New Jerusalem! Talk about continuity! So in reality, Revelation 21:19-20 has MORE in common with Exodus 39 than Ezekiel 28 does!
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Is there a particular reason you didn’t actually answer the question? Just because you dodge my questions and requests doesn’t mean I have forgotten about them.
I have asked you for information, and you have ignored those requests. I have asked you direct questions, and as usual you have either completely ignored or deflected them.
[/quote]
Why didn’t I answer that question, JP? Because, like all your direct questions, it was a loaded question, a variation of the “did-you-stop-beating-your-wife” query. That question presupposes that you are correct in your interpretations of the various passages you cite, when the correctness of your interpretations remains exactly what we are debating. [/quote]
It was indeed a loaded question, but it was not I who loaded it. It is a question that you know there is no good answer for, and if you really believed that passing off His words as interpretations and distillations was a sufficient answer, you would have defended it.
You know you are wrong and that’s why you won’t give a straight answer.
[/quote]
LOL JP, I don’t think you know what a loaded question is. A loaded question is a question framed with an unjustified premise. “Have you stopped beating your wife yet” is a loaded question because it presupposes that I have been beating my wife to begin with. You cannot answer that question in a straightforward manner; you have to question its premise. Here was the question you asked me…
What does this question assume? It assumes (1) that I don’t believe Jesus’ words, and (2) that I take the teachings of a man whose spirit is not right within him over Jesus’. There is a further premise underlying point 2, and that is that your interpretation (which you stole from someone else) of Habakkuk 2 as a prophecy about Paul is correct. The reality is, however, that Jesus will never ask me why I didn’t believe his words, because (1) I do believe and obey his words, (2) because Paul was a genuine apostle of Jesus Christ, and (3) because Habakkuk 2 does NOT prophecy Paul’s coming.
Moreover, my point about the FACT that we know Jesus’ words only as they were interpreted, distilled, paraphrased, and transmitted to us by the apostles is not some excuse to get out of obeying him. Frankly, that’s really insulting of you to even insinuate. The reason why Tirib and I have made this point several times over is to show you that your assumption that you can somehow dispense with the apostles, including Paul, and get back to Jesus alone is naive and ridiculous. Once again, as I have said before, your most basic assumptions are fundamentally flawed. You hate to talk about theory and presuppositions, but the fact of the matter is that, if your most basic presuppositions are wrong, your conclusions will be too. That’s why I know you are wrong, JP.
[quote]
[quote]You do the EXACT same thing in your question below. Let’s look at your preliminary statements first…
The paragraph above is difficult to follow (as usual), but I’ll give it my best shot. “The original claim” - whose original claim? I can only assume you are referring to the Old Testament’s claim, i.e., the passages in the OT that refer to people seeing and speaking to God. “Then, when Christ made it known that no one had ever seen God, the story changed to them seeing an angel” - is THAT the order of events??? LOL That’s not how it happened at all, dude. Man, you really need a history lesson, or at least to pay attention to the stuff I write.
The Jews already believed that no one had ever seen God. They believed that for hundreds of years before Jesus was even born. Neither Jesus nor John says ANYTHING that Second Temple Jews would have disagreed with; they firmly believed that no one had seen God.
Because Jews knew that no one had ever seen God, they explained such apparent God-sightings of God’s representative, the Angel of the Lord. The Jews believed this hundreds of years before Jesus was born; we find evidence of this interpretation in 1 Enoch and the Septuagint. Stephen’s statements about the angel at Sinai shows his rootedness in Second Temple Jewish thought; it was NOT an innovation precipitated by Jesus’ statement.
Moreover, we find this idea in the Old Testament itself. When Stephen talks about an angel in the burning bush, he is quoting Exodus 3:2 (“There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush”). In other words, Second Temple Jews derived this idea of the Angel of the Lord as God’s representative from the biblical text itself.
Considering that, once again, you completely misinterpreted my statements about the Angel of the Lord and his relation to theophanies in the OT, you can see that we are NOT in agreement.
Let’s move on to your question then…
Again, you think that you are equipped to understand Scripture, but you didn’t even realize that John 3:14-15 is an allusion to an OT story. In that story, the people are bitten by snakes and Yahweh tells Moses to put a bronze snake on a pole, so that when the people look at it, they recover. The phrase “lifted up” is a catchphrase in John’s gospel, occurring several times in Jesus’ speeches and which John finally explains in chapter 12 is a reference to Jesus’ crucifixion (John 12:33). Jesus’ point is that the image of the serpent on the wooden pole is an image of his own death; just as the serpent was lifted up on wood, so must Jesus himself. Thus Jesus draws a direct link between himself and the serpent. The serpent being lifted up is not a symbol of its triumph or reign, but rather of its death! There is a recent work by noted N.T. scholar James Charlesworth on this very subject.
More massive, unjustified assumptions. Aaron and his sons spent an entire week learning EXACTLY what Yahweh wanted them to do and how to execute his plans (Lev. 8:31-34). He gave them EXTREMELY detailed instructions and a significant period of time to learn them. They were given a unique right in Israel - the right to stand in the divine presence and make expiation for Israel’s sins. This was a unique privilege and responsibility, and by going outside of the detailed plans Yahweh had given them, they showed their carelessness. Nowhere does the text say that they acted out of a “panicked attempt to show deference to” their god; you are reading that into the story. They were given specific instructions and they did not follow them.
Moreover, you missed the point - God is God. HE decides what constitutes a slight or a major mistake, especially when it comes to how he is approached and represented. More importantly, there are DOZENS of examples of Yahweh’s forbearance; Exodus 32 is only one example, and you completely misread that too. Moses does NOT say, “please save them or no one will worship you again.” Comments like that show how little you know about the ancient Near East - a god who would actually destroy people was EXACTLY the kind of god people would worship, because such a god might actually interfere in your daily life, and if you pissed him off, you had better watch out! God’s “meanness” would NOT have been a deterrent from worship; it would have been even more reason for ancient Near Easterners to worship him. In reality, however, Moses’ argument is (1) the Egyptians won’t know that the people are punished for their sins; they’ll think you were just being malicious; (2) God also made a promise to the Israelites forefathers that he needs to keep (Exodus 32:11-13).
This is figurative, symbolic language in a VERY HEAVILY symbolic section of Revelation. Trying to determine exact times is a waste and misses the point of the apocalyptic imagery. Temporality as we know it is suspended in apocalypses.
These are REEEEEAAAALY basic words and concepts, dude, things that high schoolers in youth groups understand.
Vocabulary Review
Anthropomorphism - attributing human characteristics to non-human entities, especially divinities
Personification - attributing personal characteristics to inanimate objects.
Yahweh doesn’t have a nose; thus, this language of him smelling something is anthropomorphic. If the claim was that the altar loved the smell, that would be personification, as the altar is an inanimate object.
I am very careful in my choice of terms. Its essential for complex thought. You really need to look up big words before you use them, and especially before you try to correct someone who majored in English as an undergrad.
Last sentence is correct; however, you once again relied on a crappy translation (openeth??? Jehovah???). My point is that Ezekiel 20:11 refers to the laws given to Moses, the laws “by the pursuit of which a man shall live” (Ez. 20:11). These laws stands in opposition to the laws he gave after Israel proved unfaithful; these later “laws” refer to God’s providential allowance of Israel’s engagement in child sacrifice. The phrase “wherein they should not live” is poorly translated; the Hebrew says, “BY which they could not live,” referring back and standing in opposition to Ez. 20:11 and Yahweh’s original laws “by the pursuit of which they COULD live.” “Live” here does not mean obey; rather, it refers to the fact that Yahweh promised life to those who obeyed his laws and death to those who didn’t. The later laws would result in death; only the earlier ones gave life.
Now, if your problem is that Yahweh would do something like that, then you have a problem in the gospels too. Mark 4:1-12 - Jesus tells the parable of the sower, after which the disciples ask him about it. Jesus replies, “the secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you (i.e., his disciples), but to those on the outside everything is said in parables, so that ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding, lest they might turn and be forgiven.’” That last quotation is from Isaiah 6, and Jesus’ point is clear - he tells things in parables so that outsiders won’t understand, and he does this specifically SO THAT THEY WON’T TURN AND BE FORGIVEN. Hmmm, that sounds A LOT like Yahweh’s purpose in Ez. 20:23-26, and Jesus even uses an OT passage (Is. 6:9-12) to explain AND justify his decision!
SCRIPTURE is not the testimony of a modern soldier; there is a qualitative distinction. Did this soldier have Yahweh come down in a cloud AFTER delivering him powerfully out of the land of Egypt and across a sea on dry ground? Once again, YOU don’t get to tell God what to do. Whether you like it or not, what he tells us to do is what we are supposed to do.
[quote]
I didn’t dictate it. I read it. And I am not talking about the character of God. Christ told us about the character of God, and told us that we had never known Him.
The examples of what I said are all in there. You don’t know how to recognize spite, hate and selfishness?[/quote]
This is not an answer. You have to provide examples. They constitute evidence. It’s not MY job to route around for examples to try to make YOUR bogus point. If you don’t know the Scriptures well enough to come up with examples for your argument WITHOUT relying on ridiculous websites, then you have NO right to be preaching your beliefs.
KingKai, what is your view of Satan? Is he a personal being that literally rages war with God, and was one time an angel that rebelled? Or is he more a concept/allegory/personification (I can’t think of the right word) of evil?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
How about this…repent and believe.
I want you all to do three things from this day forward:
Go to your local parish and talk to the priest about frequenting the sacraments.
Pray for just 15 minutes a day, same time, same thing. And, keep it simple stupid.
Study the faith everyday for just 15 minutes a day, same time, every day.
Follow this until you’re at 100% for an entire month, then give me a call. [/quote]
Watching SpongeBob would be better.
[/quote]
I’m sure it is easier on the intellect that actually studying something you don’t understand.[/quote]
Well, it was designed so that no one would understand. That’s why you and KK and JP have walls of text trying to figure it out.
You won’t.
It was designed so that everyone would think: “Wow, this is really awesome! I don’t understand it so it MUST be great! I guess I better just trust the ones who DO understand it and take orders from them!!”
They don’t understand it either but they know how to rule gullible people.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
How about this…repent and believe.
I want you all to do three things from this day forward:
Go to your local parish and talk to the priest about frequenting the sacraments.
Pray for just 15 minutes a day, same time, same thing. And, keep it simple stupid.
Study the faith everyday for just 15 minutes a day, same time, every day.
Follow this until you’re at 100% for an entire month, then give me a call. [/quote]
Watching SpongeBob would be better.
[/quote]
I’m sure it is easier on the intellect that actually studying something you don’t understand.[/quote]
Well, it was designed so that no one would understand. That’s why you and KK and JP have walls of text trying to figure it out.
You won’t.
It was designed so that everyone would think: “Wow, this is really awesome! I don’t understand it so it MUST be great! I guess I better just trust the ones who DO understand it and take orders from them!!”
They don’t understand it either but they know how to rule gullible people.[/quote]
Hey, hey, hold up. I rule nobody and have no desire to.
Christ is the only One that can be trusted. That’s all I’ve claimed, all I’ve defended, and I still stand by it.
EDIT: Other than including me in your statement, I agree with it.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
How about this…repent and believe.
I want you all to do three things from this day forward:
Go to your local parish and talk to the priest about frequenting the sacraments.
Pray for just 15 minutes a day, same time, same thing. And, keep it simple stupid.
Study the faith everyday for just 15 minutes a day, same time, every day.
Follow this until you’re at 100% for an entire month, then give me a call. [/quote]
Watching SpongeBob would be better.
[/quote]
I’m sure it is easier on the intellect that actually studying something you don’t understand.[/quote]
Well, it was designed so that no one would understand. That’s why you and KK and JP have walls of text trying to figure it out.
You won’t.
It was designed so that everyone would think: “Wow, this is really awesome! I don’t understand it so it MUST be great! I guess I better just trust the ones who DO understand it and take orders from them!!”
They don’t understand it either but they know how to rule gullible people.[/quote]
Well, you’re partly correct. If you could fully understand God, then he would be no bigger than your mind. What a dull God he would be. Cheer up chap. No, I don’t have walls of text. My writings are rather clear, I point to the Church. These other two guys rely on private interpretation.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
How about this…repent and believe.
I want you all to do three things from this day forward:
Go to your local parish and talk to the priest about frequenting the sacraments.
Pray for just 15 minutes a day, same time, same thing. And, keep it simple stupid.
Study the faith everyday for just 15 minutes a day, same time, every day.
Follow this until you’re at 100% for an entire month, then give me a call. [/quote]
Watching SpongeBob would be better.
[/quote]
I’m sure it is easier on the intellect that actually studying something you don’t understand.[/quote]
Well, it was designed so that no one would understand. That’s why you and KK and JP have walls of text trying to figure it out.
You won’t.
It was designed so that everyone would think: “Wow, this is really awesome! I don’t understand it so it MUST be great! I guess I better just trust the ones who DO understand it and take orders from them!!”
They don’t understand it either but they know how to rule gullible people.[/quote]
Hey, hey, hold up. I rule nobody and have no desire to.
Christ is the only One that can be trusted. That’s all I’ve claimed, all I’ve defended, and I still stand by it.
EDIT: Other than including me in your statement, I agree with it. [/quote]
You misunderstood – you are to be ruled, not a ruler.
No one understands this stuff; not meant to. You have good intentions so you aren’t one of the rulers. The rulers propagate it so you’ll think its great…you don’t understand it, so it must be great. No one was ever meant to understand it.
What the leaderships intends is like this: “Let’s insist that 2 + 2 = 5. There will be some people who will think we have some secret knowledge, worship us, and then we can rule them.”
I admire such scammers, in a Christian sort of way, of course…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
How about this…repent and believe.
I want you all to do three things from this day forward:
Go to your local parish and talk to the priest about frequenting the sacraments.
Pray for just 15 minutes a day, same time, same thing. And, keep it simple stupid.
Study the faith everyday for just 15 minutes a day, same time, every day.
Follow this until you’re at 100% for an entire month, then give me a call. [/quote]
Watching SpongeBob would be better.
[/quote]
I’m sure it is easier on the intellect that actually studying something you don’t understand.[/quote]
Well, it was designed so that no one would understand. That’s why you and KK and JP have walls of text trying to figure it out.
You won’t.
It was designed so that everyone would think: “Wow, this is really awesome! I don’t understand it so it MUST be great! I guess I better just trust the ones who DO understand it and take orders from them!!”
They don’t understand it either but they know how to rule gullible people.[/quote]
Well, you’re partly correct. If you could fully understand God, then he would be no bigger than your mind. What a dull God he would be. Cheer up chap. No, I don’t have walls of text. My writings are rather clear, I point to the Church. These other two guys rely on private interpretation. [/quote]
Do you realize that you made my point? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
How about this…repent and believe.
I want you all to do three things from this day forward:
Go to your local parish and talk to the priest about frequenting the sacraments.
Pray for just 15 minutes a day, same time, same thing. And, keep it simple stupid.
Study the faith everyday for just 15 minutes a day, same time, every day.
Follow this until you’re at 100% for an entire month, then give me a call. [/quote]
Watching SpongeBob would be better.
[/quote]
I’m sure it is easier on the intellect that actually studying something you don’t understand.[/quote]
Well, it was designed so that no one would understand. That’s why you and KK and JP have walls of text trying to figure it out.
You won’t.
It was designed so that everyone would think: “Wow, this is really awesome! I don’t understand it so it MUST be great! I guess I better just trust the ones who DO understand it and take orders from them!!”
They don’t understand it either but they know how to rule gullible people.[/quote]
Hey, hey, hold up. I rule nobody and have no desire to.
Christ is the only One that can be trusted. That’s all I’ve claimed, all I’ve defended, and I still stand by it.
EDIT: Other than including me in your statement, I agree with it. [/quote]
You misunderstood – you are to be ruled, not a ruler.
No one understands this stuff; not meant to. You have good intentions so you aren’t one of the rulers. The rulers propagate it so you’ll think its great…you don’t understand it, so it must be great. No one was ever meant to understand it.
What the leaderships intends is like this: “Let’s insist that 2 + 2 = 5. There will be some people who will think we have some secret knowledge, worship us, and then we can rule them.”
I admire such scammers, in a Christian sort of way, of course…
[/quote]
I am certainly a follower and servant, but of Christ not of the church. I know you won’t believe me when I say this, but I do understand it. Not every little detail, but for the most part I understand it. The Bible is full of lies, let’s make no mistake about it, but the Truth is in there, too.
The rulers do exactly what you say they are doing, though (Christ warned us against ruling over each other). They confuse people and lie to them just to take up a collection, and laugh all the way to the bank!
