Ensignia Mark of the Beast

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You are sticking to your guns no matter what. That does not make you any different to me.

My guns are logic and facts, so yes, I will stick to them no matter what for they are the most powerful of all weapons. Your guns are dogmas and unfounded assertions not supported by the text. It is very unfortunate that you have chosen to stick to such impotent guns that could never convince anyone who doesn't already agree.

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.

I know of no such thing. It is very childish to make such a claim. You always want to appear to have the upper hand. According to other commentaries the chapter is divided into sections and Michael the archangel is in the next section. Therefore, in the immediate context of verse, the link to the next section does not have to be made. If you insist it does, that is your opinion and others must judge who is right or wrong. There is no point us arguing when neither of us want to shift from our understanding. I stand my ground until proved wrong. Nothing you have said, has moved me to think differently.

Ha! You have just contradicted your entire argument. The section that you say contains the "massive clue" to meaning of verse 5 is in a different "section" than verse 5. Indeed, it is separated by six verses, whereas the references to "angels" and "archangel" are separated by only two!



This is what always happens when people try to justify a falsehood. They will always be forced to contradict themselves. That's why I can have great confidence that my interpretation is correct. It fits perfectly with all the facts in a very plain and simple way.

What special pleading are you on about? There is no desperation on my part. I am sure you are making things up to win your argument. Not many events in the wilderness are memorable to you or you would make the connection. The text is economical with words, Jude only had to make the hint and the association would be made. Those who recognize that Jude is talking about ministers would make the connection.

You are sure that I am making things up? Then you need to state precisely what I "made up." All you have done so far is make empty assertions with no evidence.

This is really important. You have made a statement that you now must either justify with facts or retract.

As for special pleading - that is what you do when you insist on "context" to support your assertion that verse 11 explains verse 5 but then reject "context" when I say that verse 9 explains verse 6! It's the same fallacy you commit when you reject the plain meaning of verse 5 and insist that it is "really" speaking of one single event rather than the the destruction of the entire generation. You change your methods depending on the result you want to achieve. You logic is inconsistent. Click the link for more info on this fallacy.

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.

So why mention it or make the association. Either you believe God's Holy Angels had sex with humans or they did not. If you say now that they did not, that is good, but if you fail to say it, I can only assume you support the idea. I do not, so I speak out against it.

I mentioned it because it was relevant to the context. Remember? CONTEXT is important.

My beliefs have nothing to do with what Jude wrote. That's your fundamental error. We need to establish what Jude actually meant independent of our own beliefs. You cannot receive what Jude wrote because it contradicts your doctrines. You have begun with a fundamentally flawed assumption that there are no contradictions in Scripture. This forces you to contradict yourself as you attempt to justify the Bible.

I shall make the association when I present my explanation of verse 6. I could ask the converse question. Why do you associate angels with God's Holy Angels when it is not necessary. Quoting a verse is not supporting your argument when there is an alternative explanation that you will not accept when it is pointed out to you.

There is a massive body of evidence that the early Christians believed that angels had sex with humans. And there is a massive amount of evidence that this is what Jude thought too. I have presented the evidence, by you rejected much of it because it involves writings not found in the Bible. That is a fundamental error because those books help us understand what the early Christians believed. They are the literary CONTEXT in which the book of Jude was written.

I don't understand why I have to explain such things. You wouldn't be able to read a word of the Bible if not for the scholars who learned the language and the meaning of the words by looking at ancient Greek literature. Case in point: we would have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the meaning of 2 Peter 2:4 if we didn't look at Greek literature because the word "Tartarus" appears nowhere else in Scripture.

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.

I have explained that I do not have to make the connection between two different sections. I am staying in the context of each section of the chapter.

Yes, and as I explained you have directly contradicted yourself because you say that verse 11 is in "context" of verse 5, but verse 9 is not in "context" of verse 6!

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.

Your support of God's Holy Angels having sex with humans has already convinced me you are mixed up. I think others can see you are not prepared to even consider that angels can be human. I have refuted the facts. It is you who keep asserting I have not. At least in other threads I have and in this one, I shall give my reasoning to who the angels of verse 6 are shortly.

I don't support or deny the idea that "God's Holy Angels having sex with humans." My personal beliefs are irrelevant. We are talking about what the Bible says. That's the source of your error. You reject what the Bible says because it contradicts your personal beliefs.

You say you have "refuted the facts" when in fact all you did was wave your hands. If you really had refuted something I have written, you would be able to state clearly and precisely exactly what you refuted and cite the post. But you can't do that because you are just making empty assertions with no foundation in fact.

You assertion that I am "not prepared to even consider that angels can be human" is entirely false. I know that in the OT the word "malak" (angel) was frequently applied to humans. And in the NT the word angelos is a applied to human messengers in a few verses. So the issue is not if angelos could be men - I admit that does in some instances. The question is if that was Jude's intent. The context says NO. The context and all available information says that Jude thought the angels had fallen and had sex with women. And Peter concurs when he says that God imprisoned the angels that sinned in Tartarus. Obviously, mere men were not chained in darkness of Tartarus. It was the place that Zeus imprisoned the Titans who rebelled, in perfect harmony with Peter's use of that word.

OK. It is one of the events in section 3 of the chapter which does not have to be linked with section 2 just as angels do not have to be linked to archangels

And just as Korah in verse 11 does not have to be linked to verse 5.

There is wide/broad context and narrow context. If it can be seen that there are distinct sections to the chapter then we should stay within the context of each section. That is why we generally split our essays into paragraphs to bring attention to the fact that the subject has changed.

You have contradicted yourself for the third time in one post! If verse 11 is in the second section, then we have no reason to link it to verse 5 or 7.

You have introduced things that we do not need to consider when looking at the context of verse 6. You introduced Enoch when it was unnecessary.

Failing to discuss Jude's reference to Enoch would be a gross error.

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.

This is crazy! The blind leading the blind? OK, I am blind, what makes you think you can see any better? What the Bible clearly states is not so clear that we both agree. God's Holy Angels do not have sex with humans. what could be clearer?

What could be clearer? How about the fact that you made up a doctrine that angels cannot have sex which is nowhere stated in the Bible? Is that clear enough for you?

I wish others would comment on your statements. If I naturally read angels as applying to humans, I see nothing wrong in that. You are refusing to acknowledge that "angels" applies to humans as well as it applies to God's Holy Angels. We have to be careful when deciding which is being referred to. You are making different links/connection to make your argument which are different to my links/connections. I am happy to put up and shut up and let others decide who they believe makes the more sense. We do not have to continue these silly tit-for-tat arguments that we descent into. I expect others will give up reading them.

The context shows that Jude was speaking of angels in both verses. They are, after all, in the same section (by your estimation).

There would be no "silly tit-for-tat arguments" if you dealt with the facts. It is your avoidance of the facts that makes this conversation so tedious.

I am not contradicting verse 5. I have not answered fully as I propose to do. I can identify three groups. Each group was "destroyed" to use your word in different ways. A whole generation was allowed to die in the wilderness. This is not saying they were destroyed. It was merely preventing them from entering the Promised Land.

It's not "my word" - it's the word that Jude used!

Jude 1:5 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.

And we have confirmation that Jude was talking about the destruction of the entire generation of unbelievers that came out of Egypt:

Hebrews 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeitnot all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Your attempt to limit vs. 5 to the event of Korah forces you to ignore or falsely interpret many other verses. That's what makes erroneous doctrines so obvious and easy to refute. Truth is always self-consistent. So you need to contradict many things if you invent a doctrine that is contrary to what the Bible actually teaches.

I have refuted many things you have said, but you stick to your ground and have not accepted anything I have said, so I would not expect you to concede anything at any time. I expect we are all big enough to admit our mistakes once we have recognized them.

Another empty assertion with no evidence. If you think any of your refutations stand, then it is very easy for you to prove me wrong and show everyone how I am refusing to deal with some fact that cannot be refuted. But I don't think you will do that. I expect you will just make make more empty assertions that you have "refuted" something when in fact you only rejected it without refuting it at all.

Then be stunned. Is anyone capable of answering your points to your satisfaction? When I answer them you disagree or say I have not answered your question or I have failed to answer the question or I have missed the point. If I keep missing the point, perhaps you are not making the point sufficiently clear or you must say how you want your point answered.

It is exceedingly easy to answer my points to my satisfaction. Just give me logic and facts rather than fallacies and empty assertions and you will see how easy it really is.

Archangelos comes some verses on from verse 6 and it is in the immediate context of verse 6 that we are considering.

If that's correct, then you bear witness that your attempt to use VERSE 11 to explain VERSE 5 is absurd.

You know what "angelos" means and yet you do not want to apply it to humans. There is nothing more I can say if you are not prepared to accept that angels can apply to humans. This is the whole point of understanding the Bible correctly. Examine all possible answers before reaching a conclusion. You have reached your conclusions or you would not argue but say, I appreciate the point though at this point in time I disagree.

I have agreed that it can apply to humans. That's not the issue. The issue is if we have any reason to think Jude meant it to apply to humans in vs. 6.

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.

I do not know how you can say this when I have pointed out the error in your thinking. I have pointed out your error in many a thread but we shall keep on disagreeing. This tit-for-tat is tedious and I shall take a rest for a while.

It is tedious because you have not shown any errors in my thinking. Your mistake is obvious. You think that I have erred merely if I disagree with your opinion. That is not how you show error. To show error, you must show that something I wrote is factually wrong. That is something you have not done.

You really should focus on this. Find a demonstrable ERROR in something I've written. Then we can make progress because I will have to admit it. But that's what you have been doing. You've merely been asserting your interpretation as if it were fact, and then you assert that you have shown the "error in my thinking" merely because I disagree with your opinion!

You are turning this into one. Maybe it is time to lighten up.

That's always good advice.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

Jude might be quoting Enoch but he might not be quoting from the Book of Enoch as we have it today.

May be this quotation of Enoch is the only recorded scripture by Enoch and as pointed out by duxrow to have the book of Enoch in the list of books of the Bible would mess up your Bible Wheel for sure though you now say the Aprocryha messes up your Bible Wheel count which is why you should not accept that book any more readily than you accept the Book of Enoch. You agree that the Book of Enoch is not a reliable book and for that reason it was not included in the compilation of the Bible. The Schofield Bible I have says this in the notes:

'The quotation attributed to 'Enoch..the seventh from Adam' is similar to a passage in the noncanonical Book of Enoch written by an unknown person who used Enoch’s name for the title of the Book. Jude uses this quotation from Enoch does not suggest that he considered the Book of Enoch as authoritative. Besides, it is not impossible that Jude is the source from which there the quotation eventually found its way into the Book of Enoch, since there is no evidence as to the precise contents of this apocryphal book until many centuries after the time when Jude was written. The prophecy of this Godly Enoch is the earliest recorded revelation of the second coming of Christ.'

Who wrote the Book of Enoch? The first five books of the Bible including Genesis is attributed to Moses. Enoch was translated before the Great Flood so how did his revelation come to us?

I can see why you have rejected the book. Here is a website that exposes the Book of Enoch as a fraud.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/book_of_enoch.htm

The phrase 'tens of thousands of his saints' is very similar to Moses in Deut 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Could Moses have revealed something from Enoch that was known but not enough to make it a book? Maybe we shall not find the answer

Hi David,

I'm really glad you are engaging the evidence.

I agree that it's possible that Jude could have quoted a version of the book of Enoch that no longer exists. But there is no evidence supporting that view as far as I know, and it does not seem likely given that Jude both quoted the part of the book that does currently exist and this coheres quite simply with his reference to "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." Indeed, though Jude 1:6 is not a quote from Enoch, it is very similar to elements found in it. For example:

Enoch X.4: And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azazel [of of the fallen angels] hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. 5. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. 6. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire.

Enoch XII.4 'Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, declare to the Watchers [angels] of the heaven who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives: "Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth:

So your hypothesis is weak on two points: 1) It has no evidential support, and 2) the statement of Jude 1:6 fits naturally with content from Enoch.

It is not surprising that Jude has used this phrase attributable to Enoch. To remain part of God’s word that has been handed down, it has to be coherent and I can agree with the content of the verse. This is no way impinges on understanding what is meant by 'angels' in verse 6. For you to quote Jude 1:14 and link the whole of Jude to the Book of Enoch to support the idea that God’s Holy Angels can sin, smacks of desperation. I am comfortable with Jude attributing the quote to Enoch, but not to the Book of Enoch as it stands.

Your assertion that this evidence "no way impinges on understanding what is meant by 'angels' in verse 6" is totally absurd. This evidence is found in all commentaries written by competent scholars. I didn't just make it up, you know.

And I don't link Enoch to the whole book of Jude. I linked it to the verses that were Jude quoted and the verse that speaks quite plainly about the angels who left their first estate, just like Enoch.

You reject evidence if it contradicts your preferred doctrine. That is the essence of ignorance, and you will be chained in darkness as long as you persist in such behavior.

[highflyertoo]

There is nothing "preachy" about anything I wrote. Would it be "preachy" for me to tell a medical student that he should be interesting in biology? Would it be "preachy" for me to tell a mechanical engineer that he should be concerned about physics? How is a Christian who chooses to believe the Bible without evidence any different than a Muslim, Mormon, or Scientologist?

When I was a believer, I believed I had EVIDENCE for the validity of the Bible.

I have never said it was of "utmost importance for people not to believe." Why do you misquote me? The truth should be perfectly obvious to you. I think it is of utmost importance that people learn to think for themselves, since otherwise they are subject to men who will use and abuse them. Do you think it is good that there are a billion Muslims who believe the Koran "through faith"?

I am not "pushing atheism" - I am pushing free thought, free speech, and intelligent informed decision making.

I already am enjoying life - much more in fact than when I constrained by doctrines that are not true.

I am not a "Bible basher." I am merely presenting the facts that anyone can see and confirm for themselves. You think it is "bashing" because the Bible contains things that you know are wrong.

Who do I think I am "saving"? First, I don't think I am "saving" anyone if you are using the Christian sense of that word. But if you are using it in the ordinary sense, then I am saving myself from many errors, and sharing what I see with others who can take it or leave it.

All the best,

Richard

So if a person chooses to believe in the Scriptures then you are implying they are not thinking for themselves?

And as far as evidence is concerned,my personal experiences with the supernatural is enough for me to know how there are greater powers,firstly God and the Devil as I have meet them both...

I meet God in a vision with a couple of others spirits and a nearby group of about seven spirits and another group of about 24 other spirits. I was in a deep sleep,I was about 11 years old.

When I was younger I had different strangers approach me and imply that I was someone special and they knew the secrets about me. My father claimed to be the Devil,and he read my mind when I was younger and when I became an adult,My Uncle on my Mother's side who is about 5 years older than me claims to be the second devil or second dragon known as the False Prophet. My Mother who is now sixty five claimed to be Jezebel (Isabel) who was brought back to to life, My Mother's defacto of over twenty years is the SEVENTH SON of males in his all male family. I had many people/strangers come out of the blue and had told me to watch my self and to keep quiet.

Now Richard, if I was predestined to be the Beast,then I know how by me trying to tell the world of my family secret society activities,then I may very well be able to prevent mass destruction and so change the scriptures that were foretold about me.

I currentky know how to make very cheap electricity by the many machines that I have planned in my head. Did you know Richard, that the ''little horn'' aka as the Beast, is to honor a god of forces that his fathers knew not about? It's electricity.

BTW, I who was set up to kill myself with a physical sword,did about face turn and have stalled that prophecy for over twenty years,I was 17 when right on the brink to literally fall on the sword that was provided for me by Leslie Craig Philips the seventh son. I have been evading death ever since.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So if a person chooses to believe in the Scriptures then you are implying they are not thinking for themselves?

If people "choose to believe the Bible" only because someone has told them is the Word of God (including being told by a Bible author) and they don't bother to check the facts, then they clearly are not "thinking for themselves."

And as far as evidence is concerned,my personal experiences with the supernatural is enough for me to know how there are greater powers,firstly God and the Devil as I have meet them both...

I have no problem with personal experience being used as evidence. But that kind of evidence is entirely subjective and it is very difficult for anyone, including the individual who had the experience, to discern between their own imagination and reality.

I meet God in a vision with a couple of others spirits and a nearby group of about seven spirits and another group of about 24 other spirits. I was in a deep sleep,I was about 11 years old.

When I was younger I had different strangers approach me and imply that I was someone special and they knew the secrets about me. My father claimed to be the Devil,and he read my mind when I was younger and when I became an adult,My Uncle on my Mother's side who is about 5 years older than me claims to be the second devil or second dragon known as the False Prophet. My Mother who is now sixty five claimed to be Jezebel (Isabel) who was brought back to to life, My Mother's defacto of over twenty years is the SEVENTH SON of males in his all male family. I had many people/strangers come out of the blue and had told me to watch my self and to keep quiet.

Now Richard, if I was predestined to be the Beast,then I know how by me trying to tell the world of my family secret society activities,then I may very well be able to prevent mass destruction and so change the scriptures that were foretold about me.

I currentky know how to make very cheap electricity by the many machines that I have planned in my head. Did you know Richard, that the ''little horn'' aka as the Beast, is to honor a god of forces that his fathers knew not about? It's electricity.

BTW, I who was set up to kill myself with a physical sword,did about face turn and have stalled that prophecy for over twenty years,I was 17 when right on the brink to literally fall on the sword that was provided for me by Leslie Craig Philips the seventh son. I have been evading death ever since.

I don't understand why you would publicly post things that make you sound delusional. You know that the world is filled with people who make similar claims, and they can't all be correct, can they? How is it that you don't understand that your comments don't contain any evidence that would convince any rational person? Why then do you post them? They only make you look nuts.

[highflyertoo]

If people "choose to believe the Bible" only because someone has told them is the Word of God (including being told by a Bible author) and they don't bother to check the facts, then they clearly are not "thinking for themselves."


I have no problem with personal experience being used as evidence. But that kind of evidence is entirely subjective and it is very difficult for anyone, including the individual who had the experience, to discern between their own imagination and reality.



I don't understand why you would publicly post things that make you sound delusional. You know that the world is filled with people who make similar claims, and they can't all be correct, can they? How is it that you don't understand that your comments don't contain any evidence that would convince any rational person? Why then do you post them? They only make you look nuts.

How does posting personal experiences about what family members and strangers said to me make me look nuts?

[David M]

Hello Richard
Something peculiar is happening with the forum at this end today. I have the reply box but no quotes to respond to. I have changed computers as I suspected my other laptop needed to be restarted and that is taking an age to update the 21 updates. I have opened the forum up on another computer and having the same problem with the reply box and now I am using Firefox again.

I am going to let you to have the last word on the other posting as we are just repeating ourselves in the tit-for-tat that we so easily descend into.

I have to copy and paste your reply into this box.

Hi David,

I'm really glad you are engaging the evidence.

I agree that it's possible that Jude could have quoted a version of the book of Enoch that no longer exists. But there is no evidence supporting that view as far as I know, and it does not seem likely given that Jude both quoted the part of the book that does currently exist and this coheres quite simply with his reference to "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." Indeed, though Jude 1:6 is not a quote from Enoch, it is very similar to elements found in it. For example:
Enoch X.4: And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azazel [of of the fallen angels] hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. 5. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. 6. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire.

Enoch XII.4 'Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, declare to the Watchers [angels] of the heaven who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives: "Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth:
So your hypothesis is weak on two points: 1) It has no evidential support, and 2) the statement of Jude 1:6 fits naturally with content from Enoch.

It is better to engage in the evidence, I agree. The problem here is that I do not accept the evidence you are quoting from the Book of Enoch. I accept that Jude has quoted that one verse but as to the remainder of the book we do not know what is attributable to Enoch. I have been saying that I will not accept the Book of Enoch as evidence. Neither I will I accept other books like the Apocrypha which are not in the Bible, so please do not expect me to accept any quotes outside the Bible as evidence. It is good where you can show perfect harmony as in this one verse, but as to the remainder you will have to take out all of the crud. You know it is not a book to be trusted which is why I cannot understand why you refer to it. Anything scientifically or archeologically I am prepared to listen to. Not works of men pretending to be divinely inspired.

Your assertion that this evidence "no way impinges on understanding what is meant by 'angels' in verse 6" is totally absurd.his evidence is found in all commentaries written by competent scholars. I didn't just make it up, you know.

I replied to this in my last post. I do not care what other scholars say. They can all be wrong. I expect you as a free thinker to think again and free yourself in thought as you have freed yourself from following Christian dogma. I think others on this forum see you as changing from one dogma to that of your own. If you are putting forward evidence that is not your own or that you do not believe, then you must make that very clear or else I can only assume that is what you believe. If the word "angels" can apply to men as equally as to God's Holy Angels then both interpretations should be accepted until the whole body of evidence is in. Then make a judgment on the whole body of evidence. Unfortunately, the other side gets rubbished instead of accepting and begging to differ. Anyway, let's hope we can stick to the evidence that can be relied on.

And I don't link Enoch to the whole book of Jude. I linked it to the at were Jude quoted and the verse that speaks quite plainly about the angels who left their first estate, just like Enoch.

Once again;"left their own estate" needs to be explained. How many explanations can we find? How many explanations can you give? Once all the explanations have been found, it needs to be decided which is the best fit? This is what we need to do; examine all possibilities before deciding which is the best evidence.

You reject evidence if it contradicts your preferred doctrine. That is the essence of ignorance, and you will be chained in darkness as long as you persist in such behavior.

Of course I do, it does not stop me listening and it does not make me ignorant. Once again, you are being disparaging. You cannot expect me to quit my beliefs to fit in with yours (whatever they are now]. I know you have "changed your own estate" in more ways than one. God's word does not change. My beliefs have not changed for forty years because God's word has not changed. I have seen all the arguments you are presenting and nothing is strong enough to make me change. It is not obstinancy, I am being faithful to God, who has not given me cause to change my understanding. I have more to find out from the goldmine that His word is, but not to change fundamental doctrines that do not change. I will listen to anything you want to put forward, just and I am giving you my reasons for not accepting what you say. I cannot help it if you do not see that I am answering you. I will agree as I have done on a few occassions and that should be sufficient to tell you I can agree with you on some things and I will change when I have better evidence, but there is none forthcoming.

If I believe God's Holy Angels cannot sin [as I discern from the teaching of Jesus and who better else to listen to] and I can find a suitable and rational explanation that supports God's word and makes it coherent and praises God rather than make Him look like a Creator that cannot create robots to obey Him or has no control over His creation, then how can I expect God to have any mercy on me for saying He is an incompetent God who does not know better? If I can find a meaning that does not contradict the whole of God's word, that is far perferential to believing in anything that diminishes His sovereignty and greatness. If you cannot see it that this way, it is not my problem.

There is no point arguing this point from now on. Either you accept where I am coming from and receive my explanations in the spirit they are given or else we quit any further conversation. I will comment on other posts but I shall not expect a reponse from you or reply to you. I am setting rules, but then this forum has rules and we cannot escape rules in this life. Rules help us to live in harmony and if we are to maintain harmony on this forum we have to respect each other's point of view. I am reading your other posts and saying to myself;"here we go again". It is your forum and I appreciate you want to communicate with all the contributors and state your point of view, but as a reader I am getting tired of reading the same message that goes against God. It is time to visit new pastures and get some fresh air.

I will post my Jude explanation of "angels" as I said I would do and that is the conclusion from me on this subject and in this thread.

All the best, and maybe I will catch you in another thread.

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard
Something peculiar is happening with the forum at this end today. I have the reply box but no quotes to respond to. I have changed computers as I suspected my other laptop needed to be restarted and that is taking an age to update the 21 updates. I have opened the forum up on another computer and having the same problem with the reply box and now I am using Firefox again.

Good morning David,

Thanks for letting me know. I had the same thing happen with one post in this thread - post #48 that you wrote. I tried responding to other posts at random and it worked fine. So I copied and pasted the content from your post to write my reply, and the same problem now occurs with the my reply (post #52)! I've never seen this problem before. It's a very strange bug. Have you seen it happen with any other post? I'll be researching it today.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

How does posting personal experiences about what family members and strangers said to me make me look nuts?

Posting personal experiences about what family members and strangers said to you is not what makes you look nuts. The appearance of nuttiness comes in when you say things like "if I was predestined to be the Beast,then I know how by me trying to tell the world of my family secret society activities,then I may very well be able to prevent mass destruction and so change the scriptures that were foretold about me."

Do you see that? You suggested that you might be the Beast foretold in the Scriptures! That's sorta the definition of nuttiness. And then when you say you may be able to prevent mass destruction doubles down on the nuttiness. And then you added another sign of nuttiness when you said "I currentky know how to make very cheap electricity by the many machines that I have planned in my head."

Even if you really are the Beast, you don't think anyone would believe you just because you said so, do you?

Are you able to take a step back and notice how your comments might seem to others? What would you think if you read similar comments from some person on the internet? Surely you must be able to see that your post makes you look like you have delusions of grandeur (a symptom of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder).

[David M]

Good morning David,

Thanks for letting me know. I had the same thing happen with one post in this thread - post #48 that you wrote. I tried responding to other posts at random and it worked fine. So I copied and pasted the content from your post to write my reply, and the same problem now occurs with the my reply (post #52)! I've never seen this problem before. It's a very strange bug. Have you seen it happen with any other post? I'll be researching it today.

All the best,

Richard

Good morning Richard
Funnily enough this reply worked, but in my previous post to you, it will let me edit. I say will not let me edit; it does not produce the text for me to edit. I wanted to change "left their own estate" to "left their first estate". It will have to stand plus any other errors while I cannot edit the post. Do you think the forum software has thrown a wobbly at our correspondence? It does only appear to be with this thread at the moment. I am glad it is not just at my end. I am having internet outages and funnies happening to my cursor at the moment. My wireless router cache does some peculiar things at time like not serving one particular website page in Internet Explorer but does so in Firefox; strange! I have reset my router a couple of times and now that particular page is back to normal, but did not last time I took the same course of action.

Regards
David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Richard
Funnily enough this reply worked, but in my previous post to you, it will let me edit. I say will not let me edit; it does not produce the text for me to edit. I wanted to change "left their own estate" to "left their first estate". It will have to stand plus any other errors while I cannot edit the post. Do you think the forum software has thrown a wobbly at our correspondence? It does only appear to be with this thread at the moment. I am glad it is not just at my end. I am having internet outages and funnies happening to my cursor at the moment. My wireless router cache does some peculiar things at time like not serving one particular website page in Internet Explorer but does so in Firefox; strange! I have reset my router a couple of times and now that particular page is back to normal, but did not last time I took the same course of action.

Regards
David

As far as I can tell, the mystery is restricted to those two posts - the one you wrote and my reply to it. I'm guessing there is a hidden character in the original post that is breaking the function that is supposed to fill the edit box with the text to edit. I'll need to take a look at the post as it is stored in the DB to see what is going on. I'll let you know what I find.

As for IE vs FF - I've seen lots of strange inconsistencies between those browsers. It will be a great day when browsers finally become mature and consistent. Writing code for the web was a real hassle in the early stage of the internet because all the different browsers had different bugs and you had to write special code for each!

Talk more soon,

Richard