Ensignia Mark of the Beast

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

If I have rejected your reason, it is on the basis that you have not taken Jude 6 in proper context. Jude is not referring to the Book of Enoch. You have already stated in other posts, the Book of Enoch is not to be trusted. It is not counted acceptable to be included in the Bible. I will not base my reasoning on the Book of Enoch. There is no proof Jude is quoting from that source. The fact that Jude mentions the name "Enoch" later on in his letter is not by way of referring to any writings of Enoch; more a case of quoting the ancient scriptures that mention Enoch.

You dismissed this as a watershed, but if you fail to get the context of Jude correctly, I do not see any hope of discussing any other prophecies/passages in the Bible.

To consider the context of Jude, concentrate on the words highlighted:

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.6 And the angels (angels = ministers) which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example,


What specific incident is Jude reminding his readers of?

Who or what groups of people were destroyed in the Wilderness after deliverance from Egypt?

What are the names of the ministers destroyed?

By what means were the ministers destroyed?


Answer these questions and then you have the context in which the word "angels" has been used.


I am hoping you will at least give an answer to these four questions. Even if you do not accept the answer you are lead to, you will have found an alternative explanation and a reasonable interpretation of Jude to add to your knowledge base.

It is better that you do the work to find out who it is that Jude is reminding his readers of, than for me to tell you who it is. Once you have given me your answers to these questions, I can post my explanation of Jude 6 (which I said I would do) in a new thread in the Bible Studies section.


All the best,

David

PS There is also a reasonable explanation for Michael and Satan, but one step at a time. Deal with "angels" first.

Hi David,

Your statement that "Jude is not referring to the Book of Enoch" has no basis in fact as far as I can tell. It is merely an assertion, and it contradicts all scholarship on the topic. Read any competent scholar and you will find them confirming this fact.

Now moving on to your questions:

What specific incident is Jude reminding his readers of?
He is referring to three incidents:

1) The entire 40 years in the wilderness, when God destroyed all those who did not believe him. "And the LORD'S anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the LORD, was consumed" (Num 32:13).

2) Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

3) Sodom and Gomorrah


Who or what groups of people were destroyed in the Wilderness after deliverance from Egypt?
All who did not believe.

What are the names of the ministers destroyed?
Jude made no mention of any "ministers" in the verse you quoted. Your interpretation is forced and it contradicts context. Jude refers to Michael the Archangel in the immediate context. He would have been entirely incompetent to refer to humans as "angels" just two verses earlier. If you want to make your case, you must first establish that it is reasonable to think that the "angels" in verse 5 really refer to human "ministers." Why haven't you done that?

By what means were the ministers destroyed?
Again, the text you quoted made no mention of any ministers. It specifically spoke of God destroying all those who did not believe in the exodus.

All the best,

Richard

[duxrow]

Hi Guys,
Note that Jude refers to "Enoch, the 7th from Adam", instead of saying Enoch, son of Jared,
and LEAVING OUT the fact that this was a 'second' Enoch, rather than the son of Cain.

I see it as a crumb clue (seed) about counting the Generations, and a kind of trope 'hysteresis' which
is only revealed in the latter pages of the 66.

[David M]

Hi Guys,
Note that Jude refers to "Enoch, the 7th from Adam", instead of saying Enoch, son of Jared,
and LEAVING OUT the fact that this was a 'second' Enoch, rather than the son of Cain.

I see it as a crumb clue (seed) about counting the Generations, and a kind of trope 'hysteresis' which
is only revealed in the latter pages of the 66.

I simply find Enoch listed as the son of Jared and Enoch is the 7th in line from Adam in the geneology listed in Genesis 5. I do not see what the problem is.

David

[duxrow]

I simply find Enoch listed as the son of Jared and Enoch is the 7th in line from Adam in the geneology listed in Genesis 5. I do not see what the problem is.

David

Not a problem. Just seeing a departure from the acceptable way of I.D. using the name of the Father, plus confirmation in counting the Generations -- had he said Enoch the 6th, we may have figured Adam for the Zero Generation. You think?

[David M]

Hi David,

Your statement that "Jude is not referring to the Book of Enoch" has no basis in fact as far as I can tell. It is merely an assertion, and it contradicts all scholarship on the topic. Read any competent scholar and you will find them confirming this fact.

Now moving on to your questions:

What specific incident is Jude reminding his readers of?
He is referring to three incidents:

1) The entire 40 years in the wilderness, when God destroyed all those who did not believe him. "And the LORD'S anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the LORD, was consumed" (Num 32:13).

2) Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

3) Sodom and Gomorrah


Who or what groups of people were destroyed in the Wilderness after deliverance from Egypt?
All who did not believe.

What are the names of the ministers destroyed?
Jude made no mention of any "ministers" in the verse you quoted. Your interpretation is forced and it contradicts context. Jude refers to Michael the Archangel in the immediate context. He would have been entirely incompetent to refer to humans as "angels" just two verses earlier. If you want to make your case, you must first establish that it is reasonable to think that the "angels" in verse 5 really refer to human "ministers." Why haven't you done that?

By what means were the ministers destroyed?
Again, the text you quoted made no mention of any ministers. It specifically spoke of God destroying all those who did not believe in the exodus.

All the best,

Richard

Thanks Richard for answering the questions. This shows me that you have not looked into the incidents that took place in the wilderness to identify the people involved. You have missed a massive clue given in verse 11 of Jude. If you look at the whole context between verses 5 and 11 it is involving an incident in the wilderness. You accused highflyertoo of not seeing the context within the space of four verses, and now you have failed to see the context of Jude in the six verses or eight verses beginning at verse 5.

Originally Posted by RAM
Revelation makes it very clear that it is a symbol marking those who are not saved. It is the unbelievers' counterpart to the "Father's name" that is written on the forehead of believers. This is confirmed by the fact that the mark of the beast and the mark on believers appear together within the space of four verses. That's called "context." And it is confirmed again by the OT symbolism that readers of Revelation would have recognized:

Why would Jude (between verses 5 and 11) involving something that happened in the Wilderness suddenly go off at a tangent speaking of God's Holy Angels (as you would claim) sinning? There is no record whatever of God's Holy Angels sinning in the Wilderness. Stay within the context and look for ministers who were destroyed in the Wilderness. As I say, you have a massive clue in verse 11.

Twospirits says he sees the context, I wonder how many others reading this have tried to find out who Jude is referring to. Your answers tell me you are trapped in your thinking and relying on what you have read elsewhere, I had hoped you would do a proper investigation instead of giving me one of your stock answers.

I will leave it another day or so before posting the answer as I see it. I am interested to see if anyone else claims to see the proper context. From what I have now told you, you should be able to work it out for yourself. Forget what you have read elsewhere and believed for so many years and open up your mind to look at this anew. This will show whether you are a free-thinker or not, and whether you are trapped by your own dogma.

All the best,

David

[highflyertoo]

Your logic is flawed. The text in Exodus is historical narrative. It simply reports things that happened. Therefore, anyone who believes the Bible does not need any other document to support those facts. This doesn't work with Ezekiel because the text in Ezekiel is a prophetic vision that uses symbols. Therefore, Bible believers don't know if the events described in symbols were literally enacted or if they were symbolic of something else. That's why you need some kind of evidence to support your assertion that six men literally went through Jerusalem slaying all the people that didn't have a mark on their forehead. But you can't do that, because there is no such evidence. And besides that, it seems to me totally obvious that the "six men" were simply symbols representing God's judgement.

So why would there be evidence?

And if there is evidence,where would it be stored for protection against fire,bandits,flooding,insects and bacteria and general wear and tear.

Your point of having no evidence for scientists to examine is shakey ground.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thanks Richard for answering the questions. This shows me that you have not looked into the incidents that took place in the wilderness to identify the people involved. You have missed a massive clue given in verse 11 of Jude. If you look at the whole context between verses 5 and 11 it is involving an incident in the wilderness. You accused highflyertoo of not seeing the context within the space of four verses, and now you have failed to see the context of Jude in the six verses or eight verses beginning at verse 5.

Why would Jude (between verses 5 and 11) involving something that happened in the Wilderness suddenly go off at a tangent speaking of God's Holy Angels (as you would claim) sinning? There is no record whatever of God's Holy Angels sinning in the Wilderness. Stay within the context and look for ministers who were destroyed in the Wilderness. As I say, you have a massive clue in verse 11.

Twospirits says he sees the context, I wonder how many others reading this have tried to find out who Jude is referring to. Your answers tell me you are trapped in your thinking and relying on what you have read elsewhere, I had hoped you would do a proper investigation instead of giving me one of your stock answers.

I will leave it another day or so before posting the answer as I see it. I am interested to see if anyone else claims to see the proper context. From what I have now told you, you should be able to work it out for yourself. Forget what you have read elsewhere and believed for so many years and open up your mind to look at this anew. This will show whether you are a free-thinker or not.

All the best,

David

Hey there David,

I'm sorry, but you are the one failing to see the context. There are SEVEN events mentioned in the context of Jude 5-11. Here they are:

1) THE ENTIRE TIME IN THE WILDERNESS during which God destroyed the entire generation of Israelites who did not believe him:
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

2) THE EVENTS OF GENESIS 6 which Jude interpreted as ANGELS having SEX with women
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

3) THE EVENTS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH which involved both ANGELS and SEX
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

4) EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO A "HOLY ANGEL" who contended with the devil
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

5) REFERENCE TO CAIN who killed his brother Abel
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain,

6) REFERENCE TO BALAAM (which is odd since Balaam said "I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God")
and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward,

7) FINALLY! The third fragment of the verse you think is the "massive clue" that you can take out of context to prove your case.
and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.

There are many problems with your attempt to force your interpretation. First, Jude mentioned Michael the archangel and the devil (who is typically understood as a fallen angel) in the immediate CONTEXT of "the angels which left their first estate." If he was using the word "angel" with two different meanings in those two verses in the SAME CONTEXT then he was a very confused writer. Second, he mentioned the sexual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (which involved men wanting to have sex with angels) in the SAME CONTEXT. Third, you contradict the plain text which specifically speaks of the fact that God "destroyed them that believed not" (referring to his judgment upon all those who did not believe) and have tried to force your idea that verse 5 refers only to the event with Korah. Fourth, you need to explain why you think Korah in verse 11 is the "massive clue" whereas Balaam and Cain are totally ignored in your interpretation.

Therefore, you interpretation fails on multiple points. If you think I have erred in my judgment, you will need to do two things. First, you need to refute the points I have presented, and second, you need to give some reason to think that the "angels" actually refer to Korah and his men. Is there one verse in the Bible that supports your assertion? If so, then please present it. But don't forget, you need to answer why Jude used the word "angel" within the immediate context of "archangel" but with an entirely different meaning. I don't see how you can do this since if you are correct, then CONTEXT means nothing.

Looking forward to your answers,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So why would there be evidence?

And if there is evidence,where would it be stored for protection against fire,bandits,flooding,insects and bacteria and general wear and tear.

Your point of having no evidence for scientists to examine is shakey ground.

You misunderstood my point. I was asking what BIBLICAL evidence you have to support your assertion that the symbols in the vision (six men) would arrive on the scene and literally slay everyone in Jerusalem who did not have a literal mark on their forehead.

That's the problem, my friend. Without any evidence of any kind, all you have is the assertion of your opinion. And worse, your opinion contradicts that fact that visions are typically filled with symbols that represent real events, but not in a literal fashion.

[David M]

Hello Richard

I am going to add my comments in red to show where I disagree with your statements and then I will post my explanation of the "angels" in Jude in another thread to follow in a day or two. Instead of concentrating on this one point, you keep mixing in a load of false beliefs due to misunderstanding of the other metaphors used by Jude. I am happy for others to make up their own minds once they have been presented with an alternative interpretation.

Hey there David,

I'm sorry, but you are the one failing to see the context. There are SEVEN events mentioned in the context of Jude 5-11. I don't disagree, but there is a specific event to which Jude is calling the readers of his letter to remembrance. In so doing Jude calls on other events in which humans did their own will and things which were displeasing to God. This is the BIG lesson you do not want to accept and why would you, if you do not believe in God any more? You have to decide what is the specific event to which the word "angels" can be applied. You want to keep thinking God's Holy Angels when the word "angels" is not used in this context. Here they are:

1) THE ENTIRE TIME IN THE WILDERNESS during which God destroyed the entire generation of Israelites who did not believe him:
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
There were other groups within the people as a whole who died off in the wilderness. The dying of that generation was a less memorable event than the one Jude is referring to.

2) THE EVENTS OF GENESIS 6 which Jude interpreted as ANGELS having SEX with women
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Once again, this is figurative language and can be simply explained. The "angels" in Genesis 6 are likewise not Gods' Holy Angels but are human.

3) THE EVENTS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH which involved both ANGELS and SEX
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Where is the mention of God's Holy Angels having sex? There is no mention here; this is only referring to human practices. You are making a gross assertion which is not scriptural.

4) EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO A "HOLY ANGEL" who contended with the devil
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
But who is the devil? I can see from your mixed up belief why you think the way you do. Just as the "angels" are human, the devil (having many associations) can also be a human adversary (singular or collective). You will not accept this fact. You assert all "angels" must be God's Holy Angels and you are reading into the text what is not there and yet you accuse others of misconstruing what is actually written. I can quite easily see why you have such a lot of error, which you claim to be correct

5) REFERENCE TO CAIN who killed his brother Abel
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain,
I expect you think Cain should be saved for murdering his brother. If you think he should, you are going against the teaching of scripture. Cain did that which was unacceptable to God and Cain had gone his own way. This is typical of human behaviour when a person does not submit to doing God's will. Jude is only pointing out this lesson to his readers.

6) REFERENCE TO BALAAM (which is odd since Balaam said "I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God")
and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward,
So what is your point? What is the error of Balaam? Jude is pointing out three things in verse 11; 1) going the way of Cain 2) the error of Balaam 3) the gainsaying of Core (Korah) These were all ways contrary to God's will.

7) FINALLY! The third fragment of the verse you think is the "massive clue" that you can take out of context to prove your case.
and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.
Yes, because we are staying in context. You are side-tracking by introducing other parts of Jude's writing which I said will be dealt with separately. Just as the myth centered around angels needs to be de-constructed, so the myth about the devil also needs to be de-constructed. I know you do not want to change on this; I accept that. Given those myths are busted (not just by me), the proper context of Jude is quite easy to see

There are many problems with your attempt to force your interpretation. First, Jude mentioned Michael the archangel and the devil (who is typically understood as a fallen angel This is the big problem; the word "angels" is typically misunderstood) in the immediate CONTEXT of "the angels which left their first estate."Because you cannot see how this relates to the humans who wanted to change their status If he was using the word "angel" with two different meanings in those two verses in the SAME CONTEXT then he was a very confused writer But Jude was not a confused writer. As part of God's inspired word, it contains truth which must be correnctly understood. Jude is not confusing Michael and the Arch Angel with an ordinary messenger. If the translators had used the word "messenger" in place of "angels" you would not be making the forced association you do. Second, he mentioned the sexual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (which involved men wanting to have sex with angels) in the SAME CONTEXT To use your phrase; "this is an absurd statement." As already explained above, there is no direct mention of God's Holy Angels having sex. This is a scriptural untruth that goes against the principle of different kinds as defined in Genesis 1. God's Holy Angels are spirit and of a totally different substance and can only do the will of God. This makes it impossible for Holy Angels to sin and have sex. It is a total fabrication to think so. Third, you contradict the plain text which specifically speaks of the fact that God "destroyed them that believed not" I make no contradiction. I know that the generation that left Egypt died off in the wilderness for unbelief following the report of the spies that were sent out to survey the Promised Land (referring to his judgment upon all those who did not believe) and have tried to force your idea that verse 5 refers only to the event with Korah. Fourth, you need to explain why you think Korah in verse 11 is the "massive clue" I will, but by quoting Balaam you are ducking from the context of what Jude is reminding the people of whereas Balaam and Cain are totally ignored in your interpretation. I am not ignoring the reference to Cain or Balaam. They are superfluous to understanding who the angels in Jude verse 6 are. You are introducing Cain and Balaam as a red herring instead of getting to the bottom of the question; "who are the angels (messengers, ministers) referred to?"

Therefore, you interpretation fails on multiple points. If you think I have erred in my judgment, you will need to do two things. First, you need to refute the points I have presented I have done that in my inserted comments , and second, you need to give some reason to think that the "angels" actually refer to Korah and his menBecause as you know, being a scholar of the Greek language, you know the word "angelos" means messenger and can refer to humans. You just want to ignore this and apply your own interpretation or the false interpretation you have learnt from other miguided people. Is there one verse in the Bible that supports your assertion? If so, then please present it. Can you produce ONE verse to support your claims? That is a tall order. I doubt you can provide one verse to support your claims . Gen 1:1 "In the beginning GOD." There again, you don't believe in God anymore so why would you want to understand and why would you want to change your previously held misconceptions? But don't forget, you need to answer why Jude used the word "angel" within the immediate context of "archangel" but with an entirely different meaning I do not have to make the connection you are trying to make. Jude is not comparing "angels" with Michael. Michael was a chief messenger represented by God's Holy Angel and "angels" are ordinary men in this case. If the word "messengers" (as used in the Diaglott) or "ministers" had been used by the translators, the association would not be made. The devil is a misconception and all you do is add one misconception on top of another. No wonder you and a whole bunch of so-called Christians have missed the truth of God's message. I don't see how you can do this since if you are correct, then CONTEXT means nothing. There is the wider context of doing God's Will and "contending for the faith". We should not be confusing the broad context of Jude's letter with the context in which the word "angels" has been used.

Looking forward to your answers,
I expect you will want to rip my understanding of verse 6 apart, but if you do, I shall not be drawn into any further discussion. Once I have stated my case that is it. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will make me change my understanding on this point. I shall look for your contribution in other matters where I am still looking for answers, but on this issue of "angels" I will not change. I respect God's sovereignty to control His creation and I submit to God's will and I can see that my interpretation of "angels" in no way diminishes Him. If I am wrong, then I trust God will have mercy and ultimately bring me to know all the things I have got wrong once I am in the Kingdom. I would rather be fooled by my own misunderstanding rather than follow the misunderstanding of others. It is not my intention to mislead anyone. I think others have had different agendas and motives and their false ideas have been accepted. Once accepted, they are hard to shake off. God will be the judge.
Richard

Till the next time,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning David,

I'm sorry, but you are the one failing to see the context. There are SEVEN events mentioned in the context of Jude 5-11. I don't disagree, but there is a specific event to which Jude is calling the readers of his letter to remembrance. In so doing Jude calls on other events in which humans did their own will and things which were displeasing to God. This is the BIG lesson you do not want to accept and why would you, if you do not believe in God any more? You have to decide what is the specific event to which the word "angels" can be applied. You want to keep thinking God's Holy Angels when the word "angels" is not used in this context.

You wrote many words, but you did not give any evidence whatsoever that "there is a specific event to which Jude is calling the readers of his letter to remembrance."

Your assertion that "This is the BIG lesson you do not want to accept" is entirely false. My exegesis of Jude has nothing to do with any desire of mine. I have simply presented the facts of what the text actually states. And there is a great irony in your assertion, because you are the one who absolutely refuses to accept what the Bible states because it contradicts your own private doctrines. The way you handle the text proves that you will force it to conform to your own interpretation no matter what it really says. Indeed, you stated this quite explicitly when you said "There is absolutely nothing you can say that will make me change my understanding on this point." Simply stated, you have chosen to close your mind to what the Bible actually states.

You want to keep thinking God's Holy Angels when the word "angels" is not used in this context.

It has nothing to do with what I "want" to believe. Remember, you are the one with the preconceived ideas that contradict the plain meaning of the text. Jude explicitly used the words "angels" and "Archangel" within the same context. It would be absurd to suggest that he was using those words with totally different meanings in the space of two verses. Context is on my side, and you know it.

1) THE ENTIRE TIME IN THE WILDERNESS during which God destroyed the entire generation of Israelites who did not believe him:
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
There were other groups within the people as a whole who died off in the wilderness. The dying of that generation was a less memorable event than the one Jude is referring to.

Your assertion that that the death of the entire generation of unbelievers was "less memorable" than the event of Korah has two flaws. First, there is nothing in the text that suggests it. Second, it is special pleading - you made it up in a desperate attempt to support your interpretation.

2) THE EVENTS OF GENESIS 6 which Jude interpreted as ANGELS having SEX with women
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Once again, this is figurative language and can be simply explained. The "angels" in Genesis 6 are likewise not Gods' Holy Angels but are human.

Anything can be "explained" - but such explanations are the enemy of truth if they used to invent doctrines that have no actual support in Scripture.

3) THE EVENTS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH which involved both ANGELS and SEX
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Where is the mention of God's Holy Angels having sex? There is no mention here; this is only referring to human practices. You are making a gross assertion which is not scriptural.

You misunderstood my point. I did not say the angels had sex. I said that the incident involved angels and sex because those two elements are in the story. The mob wanted to have sex with the angels, as it is written: "bring them out unto us, that we may know them" (Genesis 19:5). The fact that I have to explain such simple points proves that your mind is closed to what the Bible actually states.

4) EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO A "HOLY ANGEL" who contended with the devil
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
But who is the devil? I can see from your mixed up belief why you think the way you do. Just as the "angels" are human, the devil (having many associations) can also be a human adversary (singular or collective). You will not accept this fact. You assert all "angels" must be God's Holy Angels and you are reading into the text what is not there and yet you accuse others of misconstruing what is actually written. I can quite easily see why you have such a lot of error, which you claim to be correct

You constantly assert that the angels could be humans, but as yet, you have not cited a single verse in support of your assertion. Why is that?

And you ignore the fact that the angels in verse 5 are mentioned in the same context as the archangel in verse 7. If Jude was using those words with entirely different meanings in the space of two verses, he is very confused. Why didn't he just refer to them as men, or better, by NAME if your interpretation is true? Is God trying to create confusion? Your interpretation is totally confused and made up. It has absolutely no basis in the text at all.

It is very silly for you to merely assert that my beliefs are "mixed up." You have not shown any error in anything I've written on this topic to date. If I really had made an error, why haven't you exposed it with facts rather than constantly making false assertions about my motives? Your behavior indicates that you know you cannot refute the facts I have presented.

5) REFERENCE TO CAIN who killed his brother Abel
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain,
I expect you think Cain should be saved for murdering his brother. If you think he should, you are going against the teaching of scripture. Cain did that which was unacceptable to God and Cain had gone his own way. This is typical of human behaviour when a person does not submit to doing God's will. Jude is only pointing out this lesson to his readers.

I have nothing to say about Cain right now. I merely listed it because it is one of the many events that Jude mentioned.

6) REFERENCE TO BALAAM (which is odd since Balaam said "I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God")
and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward,
So what is your point? What is the error of Balaam? Jude is pointing out three things in verse 11; 1) going the way of Cain 2) the error of Balaam 3) the gainsaying of Core (Korah) These were all ways contrary to God's will.

I was not making a point other than to note the big incongruity in the idea of that Balaam had made some sort of error since he explicitly said was a believer in the LORD and did his will and blessed Israel. But there's no need to go down that rabbit trail.

7) FINALLY! The third fragment of the verse you think is the "massive clue" that you can take out of context to prove your case.
and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.
Yes, because we are staying in context. You are side-tracking by introducing other parts of Jude's writing which I said will be dealt with separately. Just as the myth centered around angels needs to be de-constructed, so the myth about the devil also needs to be de-constructed. I know you do not want to change on this; I accept that. Given those myths are busted (not just by me), the proper context of Jude is quite easy to see

I don't think you know what the word "context" means. You reject "context" when "angels" and "archangel" appear in the same context.

I did not "sidetrack" anything. Your assertion is absurd. You are the one who demanded that I look at the verses from 5 to 11! So I looked at them, and reported what I saw. The problem is that the verses do not support your idiosyncratic interpretation. That's why you can't simply present evidence like I do. You write a mountain of words to avoid dealing with what the Bible actually states.

And your assertion that you know I "do not want to change on this" is absurd. You are the person with the FIXED DOGMA concerning these passages. I am the one with the open mind who can freely accept what the Bible actually states. There is a world of difference between you an me because you have chosen to believe something no matter how strongly it contradicts what the Bible actually states.

I agree that "the proper context of Jude is quite easy to see." That's what makes your doctrine so easy to refute.

There are many problems with your attempt to force your interpretation. First, Jude mentioned Michael the archangel and the devil (who is typically understood as a fallen angel This is the big problem; the word "angels" is typically misunderstood) in the immediate CONTEXT of "the angels which left their first estate."Because you cannot see how this relates to the humans who wanted to change their status If he was using the word "angel" with two different meanings in those two verses in the SAME CONTEXT then he was a very confused writer But Jude was not a confused writer. As part of God's inspired word, it contains truth which must be correnctly understood. Jude is not confusing Michael and the Arch Angel with an ordinary messenger. If the translators had used the word "messenger" in place of "angels" you would not be making the forced association you do.

You have not presented one shred of evidence to support your assertion that "angels" in verse 5 refers to humans. Nothing! NADA! ZIP! Yet this is the CORNERSTONE of your entire interpretation! Until you address this point, no serious scholar or Bible believer could have any reason at all to accept your interpretation.

And you did not answer why Jude would use the words "angels" and "archangel" in the same context if they had totally different meanings. I've brought this up a number of times, but you refuse to address it. You have not even tried to answer this point! You merely dodged it. This is fatal to your interpretation.

You said "If the translators had used the word "messenger" in place of "angels" you would not be making the forced association you do." First, it is absurd for you to suggest that there is a "forced association." It is a natural reading of the text, recognized by all competent scholars. Second, it has NOTHING to do with any translators. I read the text in the Greek and I see the word "angelos" used in the immediate context of "archangelos." It is perfectly plain and obvious that Jude thought the angels had sex with women.

Second, he mentioned the sexual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (which involved men wanting to have sex with angels) in the SAME CONTEXT To use your phrase; "this is an absurd statement." As already explained above, there is no direct mention of God's Holy Angels having sex. This is a scriptural untruth that goes against the principle of different kinds as defined in Genesis 1. God's Holy Angels are spirit and of a totally different substance and can only do the will of God. This makes it impossible for Holy Angels to sin and have sex. It is a total fabrication to think so.

You misunderstood my statement again. I said the event "involved angels and sex" because the mob wanted to "know" the angels, as explained above.

Third, you contradict the plain text which specifically speaks of the fact that God "destroyed them that believed not" I make no contradiction. I know that the generation that left Egypt died off in the wilderness for unbelief following the report of the spies that were sent out to survey the Promised Land (referring to his judgment upon all those who did not believe) and have tried to force your idea that verse 5 refers only to the event with Korah.

You contradict the text of Jude 5 when you say that he was not talking about the destruction of the entire generation of unbelievers.

Fourth, you need to explain why you think Korah in verse 11 is the "massive clue" I will, but by quoting Balaam you are ducking from the context of what Jude is reminding the people of whereas Balaam and Cain are totally ignored in your interpretation. I am not ignoring the reference to Cain or Balaam. They are superfluous to understanding who the angels in Jude verse 6 are. You are introducing Cain and Balaam as a red herring instead of getting to the bottom of the question; "who are the angels (messengers, ministers) referred to?"

You have given no reason to think that the mention of Korah is the "massive clue." You merely grabbed that one element (without justification) because it is the only way for you to find any support at all for your doctrine.

Therefore, you interpretation fails on multiple points. If you think I have erred in my judgment, you will need to do two things. First, you need to refute the points I have presented I have done that in my inserted comments ,

You have not shown a single error in anything I have written. If you disagree, just post a point that you have refuted and I will be forced to publicly admit it.

second, you need to give some reason to think that the "angels" actually refer to Korah and his menBecause as you know, being a scholar of the Greek language, you know the word "angelos" means messenger and can refer to humans. You just want to ignore this and apply your own interpretation or the false interpretation you have learnt from other miguided people.

Yes, I know that angelos means messenger and can refer to humans. But you have given no reason to think this is the case in that verse. And you have given no explanation about why Jude would use the words "angelos" and "archangelos" in the same context with radically different meanings. You just don't get it. If you are correct, then why did Jude use the word angelos in that verse??? You just don't get it. If Jude did that, then he is a VERY CONFUSED WRITER. You have not addressed this point. Why do I have to repeat myself so many times? Because you are dodging the truth and cannot deal with what the Bible really says because it contradicts your dogma.

Is there one verse in the Bible that supports your assertion? If so, then please present it. Can you produce ONE verse to support your claims? That is a tall order. I doubt you can provide one verse to support your claims . Gen 1:1 "In the beginning GOD." There again, you don't believe in God anymore so why would you want to understand and why would you want to change your previously held misconceptions?

DUDE! THAT WAS A TOTAL DODGE!!!! You are declaring yourself absolutely incapable of answering my points. I am stunned that you could believe you are correct even in the face of all the evidence that proves you wrong. Truly, I am stunned.

But don't forget, you need to answer why Jude used the word "angel" within the immediate context of "archangel" but with an entirely different meaning I do not have to make the connection you are trying to make. Jude is not comparing "angels" with Michael. Michael was a chief messenger represented by God's Holy Angel and "angels" are ordinary men in this case. If the word "messengers" (as used in the Diaglott) or "ministers" had been used by the translators, the association would not be made. The devil is a misconception and all you do is add one misconception on top of another. No wonder you and a whole bunch of so-called Christians have missed the truth of God's message.

You did not answer my question. You merely repeated your assertion. And again, it has nothing to do with translations. When I read the Greek, I see "angelos" in the immediate context of "archangelos."

Everyone can see that your assertion that I "add one misconception on top of another" is just empty bluster because you have not shown any error in anything I've written.

And I can't think of anything more ironic than you, a man who builds a mountain of dogma without a shred of evidence, accusing others as "a whole bunch of so-called Christians have missed the truth of God's message."



What do you think this is, a comedy show?

I expect you will want to rip my understanding of verse 6 apart, but if you do, I shall not be drawn into any further discussion. Once I have stated my case that is it. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will make me change my understanding on this point. I shall look for your contribution in other matters where I am still looking for answers, but on this issue of "angels" I will not change. I respect God's sovereignty to control His creation and I submit to God's will and I can see that my interpretation of "angels" in no way diminishes Him. If I am wrong, then I trust God will have mercy and ultimately bring me to know all the things I have got wrong once I am in the Kingdom. I would rather be fooled by my own misunderstanding rather than follow the misunderstanding of others. It is not my intention to mislead anyone. I think others have had different agendas and motives and their false ideas have been accepted. Once accepted, they are hard to shake off. God will be the judge.

Dude, there was nothing for me to "rip apart" because you didn't present any evidence at all. You merely stated your own private opinion. You dodged the questions I asked.

I believe you when you say "There is absolutely nothing you can say that will make me change my understanding on this point." If you reject what Scripture plainly states despite the fact that you cannot refute a word that I've written, then it's pretty obvious that there is nothing I could say that would change your mind. Your mind is closed like a steal trap.

And I believe you when you say "It is not my intention to mislead anyone." Unfortunately, you have deceived yourself in a grand fashion. You strongly insisted in many threads that I should engage you in a discussion of Jude. And what happened now that I've presented the evidence supporting my interpretation? You quit the conversation because you know that you cannot refute what I have written. I think that's pretty funny, really.

How you can think you are a "Bible believer" is beyond me man. I mean, you have made it abundantly clear you don't care about anything the Bible actually states if it contradicts your own dogmas.

I am stunned.

But I'm also very happy we had this little exercise, because it shows how Christians who claim to believe the Bible don't really believe it at all. They only believe their own interpretation which often has nothing to do with what is actually written.

All the best,

Richard