PDA

View Full Version : O. A. C. ...____...A. C. A. C.



Timmy
03-14-2013, 04:01 AM
:Investigate:Something about an extremely right wing solution was mentioned...do you recall?

We'll get into that soon enough; but for now we can begin here . The blue wording ending paragraph 7, is an AV giving the gist of what this first post will begin getting on about: aspects regarding the deterioration and collapse of cultured society.

Whoever will, debate all you want; but at present there is no time for that here.

Rather, no matter what anyone should post, when time permits, new parts can be added to this first post. Whenever something is added/edited, a posting after final comment(s) made since Timmy previously wrote anything (on this thread) will reveal this has been done. Each addition will be a different color. There also will be a link in these identifier/link posts taking you back again to this text.




Richard once seemed to wonder if Timmy is a conspiracy theorist. Timmy does't even lean that way, and then clarified:
There is no conspiracy. What fear mongers are FINALLY talking about is already in place: you just do not realise you are what you should fear the most. Welcome to this place where the beginning is the end only to come round and swallow it's tail again.

Dreg Hunter became irked assuming Timmy and Richard were just playing "good cop/bad cop" and stormed off.

Seeker7:icon_hello: put a very sensible spin on the whole issue. Dreg Hunter never took the time to really hear Seeker7, Richard, or Timmy out. He got in such a dither because of Richard's wonderful way of providing rational perspective rhetorically...and quite pointedly I might add. Delusional seems quite fitting considering the nature of content: presenting facts without factually linking one to the other in a congruent and realistic fashion. For example, whether by current method or gematria, numbers and calculations only help assist understanding of what already exists, either in force or by form. So when you hear of a conspiracy, do not even think in terms of what could happen. Speculation of this nature is based on what already happened. When you see or hear about these type things, if you waste time or attention looking back thinking you might change your future that way remember, all the while you are doing that, those who rule you keep counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV63G2W6DTE&NR=1&feature=endscreen)





The actual truth about this information has never been freely or widely recieved. In retrospect, it shall be provided without really giving exact things to point your finger at: because there is not one certain individual thing. We are all to blame for the way things are, if not implicitly, by your complicity. Even so, this will not be toward socio-political debate, but toward you realising things for yourself that maybe you just never stopped to question why.

Have you built your own cage and then furnished it to survive as you do?

Have you grown accustomed to things as they are for you?



Quibbless,

Timmy bin Laden

Charisma
03-15-2013, 06:23 AM
Quotable quotes:



'We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.'

David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991.




'Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA riot.] Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond , whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.'

[I]Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991




'This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.'

David Rockefeller speaking at the UN, September 1994.




'We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.'

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)




'We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.'

James Paul Warburg speaking to the U.S. Senate, 17th February, 1950.

duxrow
03-15-2013, 10:24 AM
Noah Webster, the Father of American Christian education, wrote the first American dictionary and established a system of rules to govern spelling, grammar, and reading. This master linguist understood the power of words, their definitions, and the need for precise word usage in communication to maintain independence. Webster used the Bible as the foundation for his definitions.

Not much of a plot, but VERY helpful. Amen? :thumb:

http://1828.mshaffer.com/

Timmy
03-15-2013, 10:54 AM
:icon_hello:AMEN BOB!!!!!


At this point, it is wished that you will consider very seriously the quotes brought foreward, looking at them knowing they are directly related to you.

These are only few of many spokespersons representing this agenda.

This has been easily available and flaunted in your face for decades. This information is available to anyone who will just look for it. One need not look too far either. The new media as well as arts and enertainment are prophecying their messages laoud and clear. You do not even have to look for subliminal so see what's going on, and this is what you have submitted to.



Will you take note and give this sinister agenda significance?

:prophet:Like many other peoples of various nations, most Americans still assume this dream of independent national sovereignty and freedom will continue.

Guess what?

Your political leaders have already signed it all away. This plan is already in place. Like a trap that has been baited and set, when it springs, you will not be able to easily escape.



One more "quotable quotes" for your thoughts. David Rockefeller wrote a book called “Memoirs of David Rockefeller.” This is what he says on page 405:

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”



As you have considered the above quote, now note below what Charisma forewarded with the fluff of word fillers removed and a bit re-ordered in terms revealing:

1. These dregs of subhumanity do not care about you.
2. Their plan and purpose are toward what they will have no matter who suffers and dies, is impoverished, or deluded by their words.
3. They do not consider you worth anything more than a slave.
4. They live lives that are seperated off from what you and I go through daily
5. If you do not realise a way out now, you will no longer have a choice without considering first the consequences of non-compliance with their agenda.

The whole world will become--and already is becoming--a place where love is hate, peace is war, and joy is submission. Any freedom's you once enjoyed will be forgotten for the sake of just trying to find a way to survive.



Quotable quotes:
1950:
'We shall have World Government, whether...by conquest or consent.'"
~James Paul Warburg speaking to the U.S. Senate

1991:
'...great publications... have... respected their promises...for almost forty years...for us to develop our plan for the world... [without] ...publicity during those years. But, the world is now...prepared to march towards a world government...of an intellectual elite...'
~David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany

1991:
'The one thing every man fears is the unknown...with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for...well-being granted to them by the World Government.'
~Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France

September, 1994:
'This present window of opportunity, during which a... world order might be built...a global transformation...we need...the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.'
~David Rockefeller speaking at the UN

July/August, 1995:
'We are...going to achieve a New World Order...paying for it...in blood as well as in words and money.'
~Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs


Quibbless,

TbL

duxrow
03-15-2013, 11:39 AM
:tea:Duly noted, Timmy, and agree.. have seen NWO coming for decades, and would act if it would make a difference.

As it is, am saying "bring it on". We aren't yet at Rev 13, but getting close! :thumb:

Timmy
03-16-2013, 02:12 PM
:tea:Duly noted, Timmy, and agree.. have seen NWO coming for decades, and would act if it would make a difference.

As it is, am saying "bring it on". We aren't yet at Rev 13, but getting close! :thumb:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6uLec1HC-U

:icon_hello:Ya' know what Dux?

I am of the same understanding and attitude...yet still do not understand why I laughed so hard reading that. No cynicism at all, but happy to know here is yet another one who gets the picture.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq7BHogAmHg




On the Kymatica thread, I kept on telling Charis, what's done is done and that does not change. I still do not understand why any different remains insisted upon. Here there is no more care to even stand square (by recognized standards) because the days of fair are long since gone. One 43 degree winter day, the wind blew so hard no fire making was possible. It was on that day all those former things were all laid to rest.




G R A V I T Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjr2MF548G8




For 360 degrees and the circle's formed
then by Misraim we wield its square.
Trained ov this solemn discipline:
Down pointed is the Jason sign:
What has been done is done.
Left hand holds plumbline:
raised sword in one,
Ov many,
i am just one
who then declared,
"What is done is done."






Our lives hid are in Christ, and they have the audacity to think they might make us do or take anything from us? So, worst? case scenario, maybe they might find a chance to terminate our ability to walk earth...

...for brief a moment,
but we shall have the birds eye view,
watching it all go down.:tea:

Yeah, bring it on!:clap2:



AMEN?
:winking0071:Timmy

Charisma
03-16-2013, 04:42 PM
'The old world order changed when this war-storm broke. The old international order passed away as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest, or by a volcanic eruption. The old world order died with the setting of that day's sun and a New World Order is being born while I speak, with birth-pangs so terrible that it seems almost incredible that life could come out of such fearful suffering and such overwhelming sorrow.'

Nicholas Murray Butler, to the Union League of Philadelphia, November 27, 1915




'The peace conference has assembled. It will make the most momentous decisions in history, and upon these decisions will rest the stability of the New World Order and the future peace of the world.'

M. C. Alexander, Executive Secretary of the American Association for International Conciliation, in a letter for the periodical, 'International Conciliation', 1919.




'If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a New World Order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands.'

Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, President of the World Federation of Education Associations, August 1927, quoted in 'International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World', 1931.




'... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the New World Order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.'

H. G. Wells, in his book, 'The New World Order', 1939.

L67
03-16-2013, 06:02 PM
:tea:Duly noted, Timmy, and agree.. have seen NWO coming for decades, and would act if it would make a difference.

As it is, am saying "bring it on". We aren't yet at Rev 13, but getting close! :thumb:


The NWO is a conspiracy theory and like all conspiracy theories they are not based on facts. There is no evidence you could present that would prove such a conspiracy to be true.

Revelation 13 is not going to happen because it already did. You are clinging to a false futurist doctrine of the Bible. Your view completely ignores all the overwhelming evidence that spoke of those times. The language is especially damning to your case because it describes the events as "imminent". Not to mention John even tells you who the Book of Revelation was written for. Rev. 1:4-6. The first century audience. There is no future event told in Revelation that would take thousands of years to happen.

Revelation 13:18 even tells you that those who have "insight" can calculate the number of the beast and who this man is. Neron Kesar (Nero)in old Hebrew spells 666. http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/gemetria%20and%20the%20number%20of%20the%20beast%2 0666.htm

Revelation 13 is not the mythical being that is "Satan". It's just a mortal human named Nero emperor of Rome.

Charisma
03-16-2013, 06:21 PM
Okay, L67, I'll own up to capitalising some words, but they were already in the text. I didn't add them to it.

Another phrase which alludes to the same scheme of ideals is, 'The Rule of Law'. Listen out for it. It's in the mix. The NWO mix, that is.

L67
03-17-2013, 06:36 AM
Okay, L67, I'll own up to capitalising some words, but they were already in the text. I didn't add them to it.

Another phrase which alludes to the same scheme of ideals is, 'The Rule of Law'. Listen out for it. It's in the mix. The NWO mix, that is.


That's fine Charisma. But that still doesn't lend credibility to the NWO claims. The NWO gets traction from the religious crowd because of it's "end times" implications. Unfortunately for you there is no evidence for the NWO. The futurist doctrine you cling to for believing the NWO is also false.. It was made up by man. There is no evidence to suggest any such event that is going to take place. There is overwhelming evidence such "end times" already occurred.

duxrow
03-17-2013, 09:11 AM
NWO - Different strokes for different folks!
Too bad they didn't build the UN hdqtrs in the Cayman Islands, since they just had to have a place for the World leaders to assemble.
And why didn't the arabs aim for it, instead of WTC?

OK, so Stalin and Churchill are out, but new ones are coming along. They don't still talk about the supercomputer in Brussels
that used the '666', yet we're now 'required' to have credit card and/or drivers lic. -- just a step from i.d. for buying and selling... hah.

My 2 cents worth - don't claim to be qualified or UTD.. OK? :winking0071:

Charisma
03-17-2013, 05:54 PM
That's fine Charisma. But that still doesn't lend credibility to the NWO claims. The NWO gets traction from the religious crowd because of it's "end times" implications. Unfortunately for you there is no evidence for the NWO. The futurist doctrine you cling to for believing the NWO is also false.. It was made up by man. There is no evidence to suggest any such event that is going to take place. There is overwhelming evidence such "end times" already occurred.

'No evidence for the NWO'? :applause: :hysterical: :rofl: :lmbo:

Look a couple of posts back. This is in the public domain now. A person who really exists, made this knowledgeable statement:

'We' (Note the plural pronoun.) 'are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.'

So, we are talking about an agreement which lasted at least 60 years. No wonder it doesn't seem to be happening quickly. It's not! It was already forty years in the making before the agreements to which he alluded. Where have you been? This is old news!

'But, the world is now more sophisticated' [corrupted] 'and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.'


David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991.




I hope the winds don't get up too high round where you are, so you can keep your head safely buried in the sand.

Richard Amiel McGough
03-17-2013, 07:32 PM
'No evidence for the NWO'? :applause: :hysterical: :rofl: :lmbo:

Look a couple of posts back. This is in the public domain now. A person who really exists, made this knowledgeable statement:

'We' (Note the plural pronoun.) 'are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.'

So, we are talking about an agreement which lasted at least 60 years. No wonder it doesn't seem to be happening quickly. It's not! It was already forty years in the making before the agreements to which he alluded. Where have you been? This is old news!

'But, the world is now more sophisticated' [corrupted] 'and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.'


David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991.


I hope the winds don't get up too high round where you are, so you can keep your head safely buried in the sand.
Hey there Charisma,

Do you have any real evidence supporting that quote? Do you know that it's authenticity is disputed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller#Disputed)? Did you even TRY to check the facts? Or do you just believe whatever you want without any evidence of any kind?

There is a deep inconsistency in your New World Order conspiracy theory. If the Illuminati really control the media, then why did they choose expose themselves? What do they have to gain? Why are all the conspiracy theories so crazy and stupid? Why do conspiracy theorists show NO SKEPTICISM about highly dubious claims (many of which are easily shown to be false) and RADICAL SKEPTICISM about extremely well established science?

Do you understand why such inconsistency makes your claims look delusional? I know you don't like it when I use that word, but what other word could I use? It seems you believe things without any good reason. Have you thought about how this affects your Christian witness? If Christians believe every crazy conspiracy theory that is easily proven false, why should anyone think their faith in Christ is not equally delusional?

Sorry for the "plain speech" but let's get real. Conspiracy theories like the Illuminati, the NWO are just as crazy as all the Christian "end time" delusions that have been spewed out for the last 2000 years. Everyone knows they've always been wrong. That's a 2000 year record of perfect error. And now we see the same people are susceptible to extreme gullibility and paranoia and crazy conspiracy theories.

What's a sane man to think?

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
03-17-2013, 07:41 PM
NWO - Different strokes for different folks!
Too bad they didn't build the UN hdqtrs in the Cayman Islands, since they just had to have a place for the World leaders to assemble.
And why didn't the arabs aim for it, instead of WTC?

OK, so Stalin and Churchill are out, but new ones are coming along. They don't still talk about the supercomputer in Brussels
that used the '666', yet we're now 'required' to have credit card and/or drivers lic. -- just a step from i.d. for buying and selling... hah.

My 2 cents worth - don't claim to be qualified or UTD.. OK? :winking0071:
The "supercomputer in Brussels" is a ridiculous rumor that began back in 1973 (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/beastofbelgium.htm#.UUZ9SByG3FE)! That's 40 years ago! :doh:

Did you even try to check the facts? Or do you just believe whatever random thoughts pass through your head?

If Christians are so easily deluded, then why should anyone believe the Gospel?

Is there any difference between Christians and UFO cults, conspiracy theorists, lunatic Mormons, or any other wacko? I can't see it.

This is blowing my mind.

L67
03-17-2013, 08:57 PM
'No evidence for the NWO'? :applause: :hysterical: :rofl: :lmbo:

Look a couple of posts back. This is in the public domain now. A person who really exists, made this knowledgeable statement:

'We' (Note the plural pronoun.) 'are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.'

So, we are talking about an agreement which lasted at least 60 years. No wonder it doesn't seem to be happening quickly. It's not! It was already forty years in the making before the agreements to which he alluded. Where have you been? This is old news!

'But, the world is now more sophisticated' [corrupted] 'and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.'


David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991.




I hope the winds don't get up too high round where you are, so you can keep your head safely buried in the sand.


That's your evidence? A dubious claim from the internet? There is really no evidence he even said what you quoted. Wow I'm so convinced. Let me show you what else Rockefeller had to say about this issue to a Canadian journalist in 2007 quoted from the book We the People: A Christian Nation
By Richard McKenzie Neal


I don't think that I really feel that we need a world government. We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate. But, I can't imagine that there would be any likelihood or even that it would be desirable to have a single government elected by the people of the world. There have been people... ever since I had my position in the world, who accused me of being ruler of the world. I have to say that I think for the large part, I would have to describe them as crackpots. It makes no sense whatsoever, and it isn't true, and won't be true, and to raise it as a serious issue seems to me to be irresponsible.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ogbPG2E2AioC&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=We+need+governments+of+the+world+that+work+toge ther+and+collaborate.+But,+I+can%27t+imagine+that+ there+would+be+any+likelihood+%E2%80%94+or+even+th at+it+would+be+desirable+%E2%80%94+to+have+a+singl e+government+elected+by+the+people+of+the+world&source=bl&ots=_9xSBnHoCb&sig=JkUgCSYpz2llm3rfhsV4G5V35xk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JodGUcrgJKnk4APxg4HIBw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=We%20need%20governments%20of%20the%20world%20tha t%20work%20together%20and%20collaborate.%20But%2C% 20I%20can%27t%20imagine%20that%20there%20would%20b e%20any%20likelihood%20%E2%80%94%20or%20even%20tha t%20it%20would%20be%20desirable%20%E2%80%94%20to%2 0have%20a%20single%20government%20elected%20by%20t he%20people%20of%20the%20world&f=false

Scroll down a little farther to see what he describes as a "new world order". It is nothing like you have been stating nor is it any end times prophecy. I'm sorry but you have no evidence for the nwo or the end times. You have been misled by ignorant people of the faith who will cling to anything to prove their beliefs true.

Charisma
03-17-2013, 09:29 PM
Hello Richard and L67,

I don't doubt the New World Order as it was originally envisaged might have looked somewhat different from what it might become in the future when more of it is in place, but you don't really need to concern yourselves with it if you're not interested. Just enjoy the life you're living while it lasts.

Whether I'm being misled or not, by people, doesn't bother me either, because I'm not resting my hopes for the future on what 'people' have to say.

God bless you both.

David M
03-18-2013, 03:33 AM
Hello Richard and L67,

I don't doubt the New World Order as it was originally envisaged might have looked somewhat different from what it might become in the future when more of it is in place, but you don't really need to concern yourselves with it if you're not interested. Just enjoy the life you're living while it lasts.

Whether I'm being misled or not, by people, doesn't bother me either, because I'm not resting my hopes for the future on what 'people' have to say.

God bless you both.


I agree with Charisma that it is better to trust in the words of God than the words of man. That is why, not all men's interpretation of God's word should be trusted. Some interpretations are closer to the Truth than others, and so it comes down to whose interpretation we decide, based on our own knowledge and understanding we have of God's word. We have to read the whole of the Bible ourselves and and due what ever due diligence it takes for us to believe another man's word.

We have enough evidence from our own reading of God's word to base our faith on Jesus, the begotten Son of God, to bring us to the day in which Jesus will be able to explain all things that we did not understand correctly. Given that day might be in the Kingdom of God, then it would not make much difference whether we had our understanding put right or not. In the kingdom when time might be likened to one never-ending day, the need to look back to the past or look forward to the future will be done away with.

David

L67
03-18-2013, 06:15 AM
Hello Richard and L67,

I don't doubt the New World Order as it was originally envisaged might have looked somewhat different from what it might become in the future when more of it is in place, but you don't really need to concern yourselves with it if you're not interested. Just enjoy the life you're living while it lasts.

Whether I'm being misled or not, by people, doesn't bother me either, because I'm not resting my hopes for the future on what 'people' have to say.

God bless you both.

How can you be so dense? You posted a dubious 22 year old quote that is disputed that the man even said it. I posted what Rockefeller had to say in 2007 on the matter. The nwo hasn't changed from its original meaning. People like you have taken things out of context to suit your religious beliefs.

Actually I do need to concern myself with the matter. Because people like yourselves spread these conspiracies as if they were a fact.

Oh the irony of your last statement. You're the one who posted dubious claims about the NWO to prove the Bible right. You had blind faith that those quotes were accurate. You completely rested your entire argument on what people had to say about the NWO. Speaking of resting your hopes on what people had to say. Where did your beliefs come from? Traditions handed down from PEOPLE. How do you know those are accurate? You have already admitted you don't care about the truth. It really is sad that you admit you don't care if you're misled. That shows you don't care about the truth. You're only interested in confirming your preconceived bias.

L67
03-18-2013, 06:25 AM
I agree with Charisma that it is better to trust in the words of God than the words of man. That is why, not all men's interpretation of God's word should be trusted. Some interpretations are closer to the Truth than others, and so it comes down to whose interpretation we decide, based on our own knowledge and understanding we have of God's word. We have to read the whole of the Bible ourselves and and due what ever due diligence it takes for us to believe another man's word.

We have enough evidence from our own reading of God's word to base our faith on Jesus, the begotten Son of God, to bring us to the day in which Jesus will be able to explain all things that we did not understand correctly. Given that day might be in the Kingdom of God, then it would not make much difference whether we had our understanding put right or not. In the kingdom when time might be likened to one never-ending day, the need to look back to the past or look forward to the future will be done away with.

David

David can't you see you are trusting the words of man. Men wrote the Bible. Traditions have been handed down through the words of man. That's all you have are the words of man. Who decides what interpretation is correct? Your interpretation contradicts most of Christianity.

What evidence? Post one shred of factual evidence that is concrete. Don't bother with Roods evidence. His claims have already been proven false. The fact of the matter is there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is just mythical stories with some historical value.

Charisma
03-18-2013, 07:23 AM
Hi L67,

I notice your posts manifest certain features.

1) You think that what Christians (Maybe you don't specify 'Christians'.) believe, are traditions handed down by man.

2) You miss God out of your definition of 'religious'.

3) You theorise that the New World Order is something to do with what 'religious' people 'believe' the Bible teaches about 'the end times'.


For your information - as you don't seem to have noticed - I have not mentioned any of the following:

1) The Bible

2) Christianity

3) Traditions

4) Religion

5) 'End times'.



You're the one who posted dubious claims about the NWO to prove the Bible right.

Even in the light of the OP of this thread, the reasoning in your posts is plucked out 'of the air'. As a result, you are beginning to sound like the one with dubious motives, the more you introduce extraneous factors in a feeble attempt at looking as if you have something substantial to say.

Believe what you like. Your mention of 'the truth' is laughable while you're unwilling to seek a relationship with the Truth Himself, Jesus Christ.

Another piece of information you should take on board, is that while local politicians obfuscate the existence of the new world order in the US, politicians in other parts of the world speak of it openly. It is, therefore, far too late to succeed in persuading an informed observer that all the references to a 'new world order' which are in the public domain, are suspect. If it were true that none are true, it would indeed suggest a conspiracy. :lmbo:

duxrow
03-18-2013, 07:29 AM
David can't you see you are trusting the words of man. Men wrote the Bible. Traditions have been handed down through the words of man. That's all you have are the words of man. Who decides what interpretation is correct? Your interpretation contradicts most of Christianity.
IF you ever wise-up ( I won't count on it..) you may understand about Balaam's 'donkey' doing the speaking.. Numb22:28 What evidence? Post one shred of factual evidence that is concrete. Don't bother with Roods evidence. His claims have already been proven false. The fact of the matter is there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is just mythical stories with some historical value.:arghh:
2Pet3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction". :p

Charisma
03-18-2013, 08:00 AM
Hi L67,

I missed the following gems from you on the previous screen page:


You have already admitted you don't care about the truth. It really is sad that you admit you don't care if you're misled. That shows you don't care about the truth. You're only interested in confirming your preconceived bias.

I think if you re-read my post you'll see I didn't mention 'the truth'. It was you who brought up that topic.

Nor did I say that I don't care if I'm misled per se. I said something a little different:


Whether I'm being misled or not, by people, doesn't bother me ...'


As for 'confirming' a 'preconceived bias', the same could be said for the choices made by those to who whom Jesus was referring when He said:

Matthew 7:13 '... for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat.

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 09:15 AM
David can't you see you are trusting the words of man. Men wrote the Bible. Traditions have been handed down through the words of man. That's all you have are the words of man. Who decides what interpretation is correct? Your interpretation contradicts most of Christianity.
IF you ever wise-up ( I won't count on it..) you may understand about Balaam's 'donkey' doing the speaking.. Numb22:28 What evidence? Post one shred of factual evidence that is concrete. Don't bother with Roods evidence. His claims have already been proven false. The fact of the matter is there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is just mythical stories with some historical value.:arghh:
2Pet3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction". :p
Now that's ironic! Who is more "unlearned" than Christians who believe the Bible and conspiracy theories without any evidence and reject science which stands on much evidence?

Also, Peter was talking to his late first-century contemporaries who were being mocked by the Jews for the failure of their prediction that Christ would return in the first century.

Christ's promise that he would return in the first century is the greatest failed prophecy of all time. It cannot not be denied. This is why C. S. Lewis, commonly known as the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th century, said that Jesus Christ and his disciples were DELUDED! :eek: Here's the quote (http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/eschatology/how_to_share.htm):
The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, "This generation shall not pass till all these things be done." And He was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. (Essay "The World's Last Night" (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)
How can Christians think they have the truth if the greatest apologist said Christ and his disciples were deluded and the Bible contains false prophecies? Why should anyone believe the Bible?

This problem is greatly exacerbated when we see that Christians are commonly so gullible that they accept insane conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence. Is there no bottom to this abyss of absurdity?

Sorry for the plain speech, but Christians tell us that their claims are the most important claims we could ever hear. We are talking about issue of Life, Death, and perhaps EVERLASTING TORMENT!?!?!?!?! Obviously, now is not the time for hiding truth under sweet sounding words. Christians threaten every soul that has ever lived with either eternal death or torment. If those threats are not true, they are exceedingly evil, twisted, perverted, and deluded. Therefore, there is nothing of greater importance than to determine the truth of the Christian claims. And ironically, that's where they fail. There is nothing like "sufficient evidence" to justify such beliefs.

All the best to one and all,

Richard

duxrow
03-18-2013, 09:27 AM
Hey Richard.. You're forgetting about how we're being 'ribbed', and how they were filled with mirth after having the Words explained to them, Neh8:12, not to
mention how we're a "Temple" with two pillars (legs) like what Samson pulled down... "pulling your leg", maybe? Just for grins? :thumb:

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 09:30 AM
I agree with Charisma that it is better to trust in the words of God than the words of man. That is why, not all men's interpretation of God's word should be trusted. Some interpretations are closer to the Truth than others, and so it comes down to whose interpretation we decide, based on our own knowledge and understanding we have of God's word. We have to read the whole of the Bible ourselves and and due what ever due diligence it takes for us to believe another man's word.

Who says the Bible is not the "words of man"?

We know that the Bible contains the "words of man" because humans wrote it! And it won't help if you assert (with NO evidence of any kind) that God inspired the original manuscripts because there are many conflicting manuscripts and only one could be "from God" so all the others contain the fallacious "words of man."

And then enter INTERPRETATION! :dizzy: Potsherds clashing with potsherds. Each man choosing which interpretation (his own) is correct according to his own fallible logic and knowledge of the facts. This is where the scene becomes quite surreal as the Bible believers choose to believe without evidence and base their interpretation on blatant logical fallacies. :doh:



We have enough evidence from our own reading of God's word to base our faith on Jesus, the begotten Son of God, to bring us to the day in which Jesus will be able to explain all things that we did not understand correctly. Given that day might be in the Kingdom of God, then it would not make much difference whether we had our understanding put right or not. In the kingdom when time might be likened to one never-ending day, the need to look back to the past or look forward to the future will be done away with.

David
You have nothing like "enough evidence" to believe the Bible. You believe merely because you believe it. From any evidential and logic point of view, you claims are no different than if you were shouting that you are the President of the Galactic Federation and that you can fly to the moon by flapping your arms. I just don't get it. You KNOW that you have no evidence. How do you know this? Every time you've been asked to produce it you have either refused or been shown your claims false. Yet you persist in believe the Bible without any good reason. How is that different than a Muslim who blindly believes the same thing about the Quran? It's not, and you know it, but you won't admit it to yourself. How then can you think you really committed to the truth?

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 09:39 AM
Hey Richard.. You're forgetting about how we're being 'ribbed', and how they were filled with mirth after having the Words explained to them, Neh8:12, not to
mention how we're a "Temple" with two pillars (legs) like what Samson pulled down... "pulling your leg", maybe? Just for grins? :thumb:
I'm guessing you are using "ribbed" as a metaphor the "raptured." Is that correct?

I think your metaphoric style is quite entertaining, but it seems a bit out of place since you know that we are talking about factual things.

Here's the problem - you are using symbolic language to derive all sorts of ideas about the factual world. Such a game is guaranteed to fail. Case in point: your parallelism between modern political figures (last 4 presidents of the USA) with the last four patriarchs in your overworked genealogy.

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 09:42 AM
That's your evidence? A dubious claim from the internet? There is really no evidence he even said what you quoted. Wow I'm so convinced. Let me show you what else Rockefeller had to say about this issue to a Canadian journalist in 2007 quoted from the book We the People: A Christian Nation
By Richard McKenzie Neal

http://books.google.com/books?id=ogbPG2E2AioC&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=We+need+governments+of+the+world+that+work+toge ther+and+collaborate.+But,+I+can%27t+imagine+that+ there+would+be+any+likelihood+%E2%80%94+or+even+th at+it+would+be+desirable+%E2%80%94+to+have+a+singl e+government+elected+by+the+people+of+the+world&source=bl&ots=_9xSBnHoCb&sig=JkUgCSYpz2llm3rfhsV4G5V35xk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JodGUcrgJKnk4APxg4HIBw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=We%20need%20governments%20of%20the%20world%20tha t%20work%20together%20and%20collaborate.%20But%2C% 20I%20can%27t%20imagine%20that%20there%20would%20b e%20any%20likelihood%20%E2%80%94%20or%20even%20tha t%20it%20would%20be%20desirable%20%E2%80%94%20to%2 0have%20a%20single%20government%20elected%20by%20t he%20people%20of%20the%20world&f=false

Scroll down a little farther to see what he describes as a "new world order". It is nothing like you have been stating nor is it any end times prophecy. I'm sorry but you have no evidence for the nwo or the end times. You have been misled by ignorant people of the faith who will cling to anything to prove their beliefs true.
Excellent info. Worth repeating.

duxrow
03-18-2013, 09:52 AM
I'm guessing you are using "ribbed" as a metaphor the "raptured." Is that correct?
Nothing to do with 'rapture' far as I'm concerned -- in fact, I think more about the "twinkling".. :lol:

I think your metaphoric style is quite entertaining, but it seems a bit out of place since you know that we are talking about factual things.
God is Jehovah Shammah (Present) don't you know, and it would be prudent to imagine Him LAUGHING at us gullible homosapiens.. right?

Here's the problem - you are using symbolic language to derive all sorts of ideas about the factual world. Such a game is guaranteed to fail. Case in point: your parallelism between modern political figures (last 4 presidents of the USA) with the last four patriarchs in your overworked genealogy.

Yeah, I agree it's 'overworked', and like 'beating a dead horse', but we can't escape how FIGURES OF SPEECH were known to the Almighty even before the Creation -- He knew we'd be talking about the 22SKDU and about getting our eyes open when we see what He's had the Ghostwriter do. At least, IMO... and I never took seriously that biz of the 666 in Brussels.. :yo:

L67
03-18-2013, 10:18 AM
Hi L67,

I notice your posts manifest certain features.

1) You think that what Christians (Maybe you don't specify 'Christians'.) believe, are traditions handed down by man.

2) You miss God out of your definition of 'religious'.

3) You theorise that the New World Order is something to do with what 'religious' people 'believe' the Bible teaches about 'the end times'.

1: They are traditions handed down by men. We know men wrote the Bible. I know you think the Bible is inspired by God but you have ZERO evidence to support that belief and a mount of evidence to oppose it.

2: No I didn't. You interpreted it wrong.

3: I said no such thing. I said there was NO evidence for the NWO or end times. You know very well that Christians believe that the nwo conspiracy leads to the the antichrist and one world government. Don't play dumb. You know it's true.



For your information - as you don't seem to have noticed - I have not mentioned any of the following:

1) The Bible

2) Christianity

3) Traditions

4) Religion

5) 'End times'.


What's your point? The only reason to believe the nwo conspiracy is because of your beliefs and all those things fit together.




Even in the light of the OP of this thread, the reasoning in your posts is plucked out 'of the air'. As a result, you are beginning to sound like the one with dubious motives, the more you introduce extraneous factors in a feeble attempt at looking as if you have something substantial to say.

Believe what you like. Your mention of 'the truth' is laughable while you're unwilling to seek a relationship with the Truth Himself, Jesus Christ.

Another piece of information you should take on board, is that while local politicians obfuscate the existence of the new world order in the US, politicians in other parts of the world speak of it openly. It is, therefore, far too late to succeed in persuading an informed observer that all the references to a 'new world order' which are in the public domain, are suspect. If it were true that none are true, it would indeed suggest a conspiracy. :lmbo:

Plucking out of thin air? LMAO! No it's to debunk your nwo claim. I did that with your Rockefeller quote. Why didn't you bother to address that? Instead you are distracting away from your error. If my dubious motives are bringing you back to reality from your basesless conspiracies then so be it.

I'll tell you what's laughable. Asserting Jesus as the truth with no evidence to support your claim. You're right my mention of truth is laughable because it deals with reality. I know reality is a tough pill to swallow for Christians but you should try it. It's very liberating.

Spare me the politicians hide the nwo bs. You need to actually look into the nwo further. David Rockefeller is suppose to be one of the big boys behind the scenes pushing the nwo you believe in. But in Rockefellers own words he laid out what the nwo actually is. It's none of the crap you posted. In fact, he called people who believe in that nonsense crackpots.

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 10:20 AM
I'm guessing you are using "ribbed" as a metaphor the "raptured." Is that correct?
Nothing to do with 'rapture' far as I'm concerned -- in fact, I think more about the "twinkling".. :lol:

I don't get it. Are you saying that the "twinkling" has nothing to do with the doctrine of the rapture? Do you reject the rapture? I have no idea what you are talking about because you are talking in incoherent fragments - bits and pieces without sufficient content to be interpreted.


I think your metaphoric style is quite entertaining, but it seems a bit out of place since you know that we are talking about factual things.
God is Jehovah Shammah (Present) don't you know, and it would be prudent to imagine Him LAUGHING at us gullible homosapiens.. right?

The image of a "laughing" god with a good sense of humor sounds great. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound anything like the biblegod who prefers to laugh derisively at those poor weak homosapiens that he torments with his infinite power.

Psalm 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Psalm 59:8 But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.



Here's the problem - you are using symbolic language to derive all sorts of ideas about the factual world. Such a game is guaranteed to fail. Case in point: your parallelism between modern political figures (last 4 presidents of the USA) with the last four patriarchs in your overworked genealogy.

Yeah, I agree it's 'overworked', and like 'beating a dead horse', but we can't escape how FIGURES OF SPEECH were known to the Almighty even before the Creation -- He knew we'd be talking about the 22SKDU and about getting our eyes open when we see what He's had the Ghostwriter do. At least, IMO... and I never took seriously that biz of the 666 in Brussels.. :yo:

So are you planning on apologizing when your predictions prove false?

Don't you understand that you mock the Gospel when you toy with such things? How many souls are destined for hell because they rejected the Gospel as meaningless gibberish after seeing Christians making up obviously irrational crap? I've very confused by your attitude. On the one hand, you seem to take the Bible very seriously while on the other you treat it with contempt and trample it under the foot of silly speculations that will almost certainly be proven false and drive away rational folk.

And I trust you see that embedding your answers within the quotes that you are answering makes it very difficult to follow the discussion.

duxrow
03-18-2013, 10:24 AM
Who knows? Are you simply having a good laugh, or have you considered the pattern?
Maybe he doesn't leave office, or maybe Michelle takes over, or maybe ?? who knows?
My POV is that you don't "listen" to me, but to the WORD of the LORD.

Will there REALLY come a time when we can't buy or sell, even with cash on hand? :eek:

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 10:28 AM
Who knows? Are you simply having a good laugh, or have you considered the pattern?
Maybe he doesn't leave office, or maybe Michelle takes over, or maybe ?? who knows?
My POV is that you don't "listen" to me, but to the WORD of the LORD.

Will there REALLY come a time when we can't buy or sell, even with cash on hand? :eek:
Maybe the moon is a secret CIA headquarters run by Elvis and JFK!

Maybe "maybe" is not a good foundation for any belief.

Maybe you should understand that the "word of the Lord" says nothing about 21st century American presidents!

L67
03-18-2013, 10:29 AM
Hi L67,

I missed the following gems from you on the previous screen page:



I think if you re-read my post you'll see I didn't mention 'the truth'. It was you who brought up that topic.

Nor did I say that I don't care if I'm misled per se. I said something a little different:

Charisma, it's really simple. If it doesn't bother you that you are misled, then you don't care about the truth. Because if you cared about the truth at all it would bother you if you were being misled. So if you want to play words games, that's fine. But the implications are the same regardless.





As for 'confirming' a 'preconceived bias', the same could be said for the choices made by those to who whom Jesus was referring when He said:

Matthew 7:13 '... for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat.

No the same could not be said of those who are committed to truth.

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 10:33 AM
Whether I'm being misled or not, by people, doesn't bother me either, because I'm not resting my hopes for the future on what 'people' have to say.

Can you name a single thing you believe about God and Jesus Christ that you have not learned from people? Before answering, please remember that PEOPLE put together and gave (or sold) you the Bible that you read. You did not get it from God. You got it from people. And every word in it was written by people. You can imagine that God guided them if you like, but that's irrelevant (especially since you have no evidence supporting that wild idea). The point is that you believe people the same way that Muslims who accept the Quran are really trusting the people who gave it to them.

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 10:37 AM
Charisma, it's really simple. If it doesn't bother you that you are misled, then you don't care about the truth. Because if you cared about the truth at all it would bother you if you were being misled. So if you want to play words games, that's fine. But the implications are the same regardless.

That's an extremely important truth. It is the Great Mystery of Christian Intellectual Iniquity. To claim to have God's own truth even as they believe the most ridiculous conspiracy theories with no evidence? Oh! The IRONY!




As for 'confirming' a 'preconceived bias', the same could be said for the choices made by those to who whom Jesus was referring when He said:

Matthew 7:13 '... for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat.
No the same could not be said of those who are committed to truth.
That is exactly correct. If Christ was talking about anyone, I think he must be talking about those who claim to be following the TRUTH while really following total delusion.

duxrow
03-18-2013, 10:59 AM
Can you name a single thing you believe about God and Jesus Christ that you have not learned from people? .

:bricks: MAYBE, Ram, because we saw the intracasies of how the 66 are arranged in a 3x22 acrostic manner, and how the breath of God into Adam, and breath of Jesus into apostles, and the breath of 2Tim3:16, (plus many more) fit together like pieces of picture puzzle. Some folks don't seem to be able to fit any pieces together, some don't even try, and others imagine the picture is something done by Leonardo DaVinci.
Just because our English KJV differs from the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, causes some to argue against the Truth of Scripture, but the many metaphors are a kind of camouflaged clue to understanding -- they've been inspired by the Holy Spirit, even though "Mankind" has historically failed to focus, but rather clings to their thoughts prior to birth of Christ. :eek:

L67
03-18-2013, 11:00 AM
That's an extremely important truth. It is the Great Mystery of Christian Intellectual Iniquity. To claim to have God's own truth even as they believe the most ridiculous conspiracy theories with no evidence? Oh! The IRONY!


It truly is mind boggling. I never realized the insanity until I could no longer believe as they do.

Speaking of another conspiracy. The religious nuts claimed that Obamacare required an rfid chip. But reality has a way of rearing it's ugly head to such fantasies. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp

The internet is a powerful tool for truth, but it can also let the gullible believe things that are ridiculous.

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 11:01 AM
:bricks: MAYBE, Ram, because we saw the intracasies of how the 66 are arranged in a 3x22 acrostic manner, and how the breath of God into Adam, and breath of Jesus into apostles, and the breath of 2Tim3:16, (plus many more) fit together like pieces of picture puzzle. Some folks don't seem to be able to fit any pieces together, some don't even try, and others imagine the picture is something done by Leonardo DaVinci.
Just because our English KJV differs from the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, causes some to argue against the Truth of Scripture, but the many metaphors are a kind of camouflaged clue to understanding -- they've been inspired by the Holy Spirit, even though "Mankind" has historically failed to focus, but rather clings to their thoughts prior to birth of Christ. :eek:
You missed my point Bob. I was not talking about things that you learn by reading the words that PEOPLE gave you. I'm talking about those WORDS that were given by PEOPLE.

Would you know anything about Jesus if nobody gave you a book that told you about Jesus? Nope! That's the point.

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 11:05 AM
It truly is mind boggling. I never realized the insanity until I could no longer believe as they do.

Speaking of another conspiracy. The religious nuts claimed that Obamacare required an rfid chip. But reality has a way of rearing it's ugly head to such fantasies. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp

The internet is a powerful tool for truth, but it can also let the gullible believe things that are ridiculous.
Excellent example. How many thousands (millions?) of gullible Christians believed that lie? I know many spread it around. And there are many Christians now claiming that Obama is the Antichrist.

It's all just plain nuts. Dogmatic religion rots the brain.

duxrow
03-18-2013, 11:11 AM
You missed my point Bob. I was not talking about things that you learn by reading the words that PEOPLE gave you. I'm talking about those WORDS that were given by PEOPLE.

Would you know anything about Jesus if nobody gave you a book that told you about Jesus? Nope! That's the point.

Now really, ole man -- isn't that the point of the Book? Didn't the Almighty plant this seed, this word, His Son, so that we could learn of Him? Isn't He the Husbandman as well as the Father and the Son and the Husband and the Potter? Isn't Our "Confounded Language" such that it confuses those w/o Faith, but infuses Godly Faith to those who want to believe? :thumb:

duxrow
03-18-2013, 11:36 AM
Don't you understand that you mock the Gospel when you toy with such things? On the one hand, you seem to take the Bible very seriously while on the other you treat it with contempt and trample it under the foot of silly speculations that will almost certainly be proven false and drive away rational folk.

:sEm_oops:Pot calling the kettle black?
Not contemptuous and not mocking, but rather hoping for lurkers to awake to Bible Truth's rarely discussed. In Conclusion, BTW, saying Not My Opinion, but God's Truth in the 66 Books from Genesis to Revelation. Amen. :thumb:

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 11:54 AM
Christ's promise that he would return in the first century is the greatest failed prophecy of all time. It cannot not be denied. This is why C. S. Lewis, commonly known as the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th century, said that Jesus Christ and his disciples were DELUDED! :eek: Here's the quote (http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/eschatology/how_to_share.htm):
The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, "This generation shall not pass till all these things be done." And He was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. (Essay "The World's Last Night" (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)
How can Christians think they have the truth if the greatest apologist said Christ and his disciples were deluded and the Bible contains false prophecies? Why should anyone believe the Bible?

I was checking that quote for accuracy and found it in context (http://books.google.com/books?id=7YYhHvuNNzIC&pg=PA385&lpg=PA385&dq=The+apocalyptic+beliefs+of+the+first+Christians +have+been+proved+to+be+false.&source=bl&ots=JRvU5ST91p&sig=4_EA0_iyDjuUMCwPkEbjr402tqQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1j1HUZreGJP8qAG72IDICQ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=The%20apocalyptic%20beliefs%20of%20the%20first%2 0Christians%20have%20been%20proved%20to%20be%20fal se.&f=false) on Google books. The page that I copied it from got it very wrong. I explained my error and posted the correct quote in context in a new thread: Correction! I misquoted C. S. Lewis (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3654-Correction!-I-misquoted-C-S-Lewis).

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 12:05 PM
:sEm_oops:Pot calling the kettle black?
Not contemptuous and not mocking, but rather hoping for lurkers to awake to Bible Truth's rarely discussed. In Conclusion, BTW, saying Not My Opinion, but God's Truth in the 66 Books from Genesis to Revelation. Amen. :thumb:
How can I be a pot or kettle in this when I don't claim that the Bible is true?

It's one thing to be looking for interesting patterns in the Bible, but it's quite another to be suggesting that the last four presidents of the USA are linked to the genealogies in the Bible and that Obama will be the last president of the USA! That's DOOMSDAY PREDICTION!

:Date_Setting:

That's DATE SETTING which has a 2000 year record of perfect error! It is one of the most common reasons rational people to reject Christianity.

If all this stuff is "Bible Truth" then "Bible Truth" looks like gross falsehood to me because your theory is based on all sorts of false assumptions and manipulations of the Bible to force your conclusions. First, it begins with a false eschatology. The Bible plainly and repeatedly states that the "end times" happened in the first century. And you theory depends critically upon forcing the genealogies into the 66 book pattern. And your theory seems to be mixing far-right-wing politics with the Bible which is exceedingly problematic for many reasons.

Charisma
03-18-2013, 12:29 PM
You did not get it from God.

Hi Richard,

I know the difference between what God speaks to me and what 'people' speak to me. Do you?

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 01:22 PM
Hi Richard,

I know the difference between what God speaks to me and what 'people' speak to me. Do you?
Hey there Charisma,

Every believer thinks they can tell the difference between their own imagination and the voice of God, but we know they can't all be right because they contradict each other.

So can you tell me how you know if something is from God or not? If you can't tell me how you know, then how do you know?

duxrow
03-18-2013, 01:41 PM
How can I be a pot or kettle in this when I don't claim that the Bible is true?

It's one thing to be looking for interesting patterns in the Bible, but it's quite another to be suggesting that the last four presidents of the USA are linked to the genealogies in the Bible and that Obama will be the last president of the USA! That's DOOMSDAY PREDICTION! That's DATE SETTING which has a 2000 year record of perfect error! It is one of the most common reasons rational people to reject Christianity.

If all this stuff is "Bible Truth" then "Bible Truth" looks like gross falsehood to me because your theory is based on all sorts of false assumptions and manipulations of the Bible to force your conclusions. First, it begins with a false eschatology. The Bible plainly and repeatedly states that the "end times" happened in the first century. And you theory depends critically upon forcing the genealogies into the 66 book pattern. And your theory seems to be mixing far-right-wing politics with the Bible which is exceedingly problematic for many reasons.

:hippie: You're much too literal, Rich... I don't mean that you're made of metal or that you aren't used for cooking... hah. The 66 Complete Books, and yet being contrary to its truth is what I refer to.. NOT A THEORY, BTW -- where'd you get that notion?

NO, I never used the word 'doomsday' -- and not liking people to put words in my mouth, saying I "predicted" such and such.. Your Bad. :p

The Genealogy (Pedigree of Jesus) happens To Fit the 66 Books; being a Triple-Acrostic (3x22) like the middle chapter of Lamentations. Correct?

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 02:57 PM
:hippie: You're much too literal, Rich... I don't mean that you're made of metal or that you aren't used for cooking... hah. The 66 Complete Books, and yet being contrary to its truth is what I refer to.. NOT A THEORY, BTW -- where'd you get that notion?

I didn't take your reference to pots and kettles literally. Why would you think that?

As for your theory - maybe you are correct. It's not sufficiently well developed to be called a theory. The word "hypothesis" is probably more accurate.

Do you have any foundation for your assertion that the 66 books are complete? I know of only two lines of evidence supporting that idea: 1) The Bible Wheel, and 2) The Isaiah-Bible Correlation. I don't think the genealogy that you developed works for all the reasons I've explained previously. And here's another this is probably the most significant: There is no correlation between the names and the books. The only connection is the number 66 and that is almost certainly a random coincidence (or more accurately, a forced coincidence since you could have gotten any number between 62 and 70 by changing your arguments).


NO, I never used the word 'doomsday' -- and not liking people to put words in my mouth, saying I "predicted" such and such.. Your Bad. :p

I know you never used that word, but you write as if that's what you are thinking. Or what? What do you expect to happen that will cause there to be NO MORE PRESIDENTS after Obama? Is the USA going to exist without a President? Is the Antichrist going to take over the world? That's what it sounds like you are saying, and the shorthand for that is DOOMSDAY so your complaint is unwarranted. So it looks like it was your bad after all. :winking0071:



The Genealogy (Pedigree of Jesus) happens To Fit the 66 Books; being a Triple-Acrostic (3x22) like the middle chapter of Lamentations. Correct?
No, not correct for many reasons. There are not even 66 generations, unless you say that Luke is wrong. But then you are saying that the genealogies in the Bible are not reliable and so you shoot yourself in the foot. Why don't you understand this? I've explained it many times.

The mere appearance of one common number is not sufficient to establish a meaningful connection. By your logic, I would have to believe that the Quran is the TRUE WORD OF ALLAH because there are LOTS of patterns based on the number 19 and the Quran itself says that the number 19 "rules over it." And I would have to believe the Book of Mormon is the TRUE WORD OF GOD because of various coincidental patterns found in it.

Here's the problem. You have an extremely strong confirmation bias that is causing you to have irrational beliefs, just like everyone else in all the other religions. You have "let your mind go" by failing to apply any skepticism so now you believe things with no reason just like people in all the cults.

Don't you care about truth at all? If you do, then you know you must be skeptical and only believe things for which you have good reason. Otherwise, you will be just like all the deluded people who believe things that you think are ridiculous. You don't want to be like that, right? Then you know what you need to do.

duxrow
03-18-2013, 03:40 PM
I didn't take your reference to pots and kettles literally. Why would you think that?

As for your theory - maybe you are correct. It's not sufficiently well developed to be called a theory. The word "hypothesis" is probably more accurate.

Goodie for you! But it isn't even that strong--'consideration' more like it. Think about it!


Do you have any foundation for your assertion that the 66 books are complete? I know of only two lines of evidence supporting that idea: 1) The Bible Wheel, and 2) The Isaiah-Bible Correlation. I don't think the genealogy that you developed works for all the reasons I've explained previously. And here's another this is probably the most significant: There is no correlation between the names and the books. The only connection is the number 66 and that is almost certainly a random coincidence (or more accurately, a forced coincidence since you could have gotten any number between 62 and 70 by changing your arguments).
Well, I like the 39/27 and the 3-squared/3-cubed connection.

I know you never used that word, but you write as if that's what you are thinking. Or what? What do you expect to happen that will cause there to be NO MORE PRESIDENTS after Obama? Is the USA going to exist without a President? Is the Antichrist going to take over the world? That's what it sounds like you are saying, and the shorthand for that is DOOMSDAY so your complaint is unwarranted. So it looks like it was your bad after all.
Nice try, Ram, but I don't accept your 'shorthand' or even your longhand -- it's not as though I thought you were inspired by the Holy Spirit, even tho Nebuchadnezzar was used in astonishing way.

No, not correct for many reasons. There are not even 66 generations, unless you say that Luke is wrong. But then you are saying that the genealogies in the Bible are not reliable and so you shoot yourself in the foot. Why don't you understand this? I've explained it many times.


Too bad you still don't understand how Matthew is the Pedigree of Mary (single child of Joseph, son of Jacob-II), while Luke describes the ancestry of Mary's husband. The 3x14 of Matthew are from the 3x10 in the OT that lead to David#33. Why don't you understand this? I've explained it many times, and it's on my website: http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm

The mere appearance of one common number is not sufficient to establish a meaningful connection. By your logic, I would have to believe that the Quran is the TRUE WORD OF ALLAH because there are LOTS of patterns based on the number 19 and the Quran itself says that the number 19 "rules over it." And I would have to believe the Book of Mormon is the TRUE WORD OF GOD because of various coincidental patterns found in it. The koran is only a commentary of the Bible -- actually a plaigarism which denies the son by saying God wasn't married! :lol:

Here's the problem. You have an extremely strong confirmation bias that is causing you to have irrational beliefs, just like everyone else in all the other religions. You have "let your mind go" by failing to apply any skepticism so now you believe things with no reason just like people in all the cults.
Poppycock! You want to think this in order to justify your inexplicable rejection of Jesus, but it won't wash for believers of His..

Don't you care about truth at all? If you do, then you know you must be skeptical and only believe things for which you have good reason. Otherwise, you will be just like all the deluded people who believe things that you think are ridiculous. You don't want to be like that, right? Then you know what you need to do.

Obviously I think it's ridiculous to think as you do, Richard, and was hoping that eventually you would 'See the Light' of the Glorious Gospel of Christ. One strike, two strikes, and the 3rd Strike says YOU'RE OUT! :winking0071:

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 04:13 PM
Well, I like the 39/27 and the 3-squared/3-cubed connection.

Yes, there are plenty of neat patterns, I agree. Are you familiar with how the squares of 27, 39, and 66 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Collaboration/Paardekooper2002_10_21a.php) relate to each other and to the value of John 1:1 = 39 x 93?

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/John1_1squares.gif

That's cool stuff, but it is not sufficient to establish the claim that the 66 books are complete, let alone that they are the "Word of God."

The problem is that it's nothing like the kind of evidence required to convince a rational skeptic. And if I fail to be a rational skeptic, then I would be a gullible fool which no sane person would want to be.

I trust you can also see that I am truly open minded. I freely admit evidence no matter which side it supports. Can you say the same? Or are you knowingly one-sided (biased)?


Obviously I think it's ridiculous to think as you do, Richard, and was hoping that eventually you would 'See the Light' of the Glorious Gospel of Christ. One strike, two strikes, and the 3rd Strike says YOU'RE OUT! :winking0071:
Name one ridiculous thing about how I think. I dare you! :p

I've explained many times why I think your thoughts are ridiculous (usually without using that word, of course). And my explanations stand. I don't think the same can be said of your claims. To my knowledge, you have not shown any of my thoughts to be "ridiculous." Why then do you make such an empty assertion?

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 04:23 PM
I know you never used that word, but you write as if that's what you are thinking. Or what? What do you expect to happen that will cause there to be NO MORE PRESIDENTS after Obama? Is the USA going to exist without a President? Is the Antichrist going to take over the world? That's what it sounds like you are saying, and the shorthand for that is DOOMSDAY so your complaint is unwarranted. So it looks like it was your bad after all.
Nice try, Ram, but I don't accept your 'shorthand' or even your longhand -- it's not as though I thought you were inspired by the Holy Spirit, even tho Nebuchadnezzar was used in astonishing way.
You apparently missed my point in its entirety. So here it is again:

What do you expect to happen that will cause there to be NO MORE PRESIDENTS after Obama? Is the USA going to exist without a President? Is the Antichrist going to take over the world? That's what it sounds like you are saying, and the shorthand for that is DOOMSDAY so your complaint is unwarranted.




No, not correct for many reasons. There are not even 66 generations, unless you say that Luke is wrong. But then you are saying that the genealogies in the Bible are not reliable and so you shoot yourself in the foot. Why don't you understand this? I've explained it many times.
Too bad you still don't understand how Matthew is the Pedigree of Mary (single child of Joseph, son of Jacob-II), while Luke describes the ancestry of Mary's husband. The 3x14 of Matthew are from the 3x10 in the OT that lead to David#33. Why don't you understand this? I've explained it many times, and it's on my website: http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm

That has nothing to do with my comment. Luke inserts a name in the genealogy of Abraham which contradicts your pattern. When you reject Luke's genealogy, you shoot yourself in the foot because you are declaring that the genealogies in the Bible are not reliable. Why don't you understand this? I've explained it many times.




Here's the problem. You have an extremely strong confirmation bias that is causing you to have irrational beliefs, just like everyone else in all the other religions. You have "let your mind go" by failing to apply any skepticism so now you believe things with no reason just like people in all the cults.
Poppycock! You want to think this in order to justify your inexplicable rejection of Jesus, but it won't wash for believers of His..

What exactly are you rejecting as poppycock?

Are you saying there is no such thing as confirmation bias?

Are you saying there are no people in the world with religious delusions?

Are you saying there is no relation between confirmation bias and religious delusions?

My rejection of Bible as the Word of God is not inexplicable. On the contrary, I have given a LOT of explanations based on sound logic and facts. The thing that is truly inexplicable is why you and so many other people believe things without any evidence. It is your faith in the Bible that is truly "inexplicable" in a most literal sense, since you cannot explain it.

L67
03-18-2013, 05:32 PM
My rejection of Bible as the Word of God is not inexplicable. On the contrary, I have given a LOT of explanations based on sound logic and facts. The thing that is truly inexplicable is why you and so many other people believe things without any evidence. It is your faith in the Bible that is truly "inexplicable" in a most literal sense, since you cannot explain it.

Somehow these pictures of faith seems fitting.

802

803

Richard Amiel McGough
03-18-2013, 05:47 PM
Somehow these pictures of faith seems fitting.

802

803
It seems to me that those are the pure expressions of the essence of faith ... and the reason dogmatic religion is fundamentally delusional. Case in point: The premier "philosophical" defender of Christianity, William Lane Craig, says that the "witness of the Holy Spirit" trumps all facts so he would believe even if all the evidence proved him wrong.

:dizzy:

Charisma
03-19-2013, 04:00 PM
Hi L67,

I quite liked your Rockefeller quote. It indicates his ability and willingness to change his tune according to the moment, rendering both your and my quote open to question. Yours certainly doesn't negate mine, but all your theorising about the NWO's importance to certain current doctrines is merely theorising. The NWO will arrive in the fulness of time, regardless of its relationship to the return of Christ, Who will, also, arrive in the fulness of time.


I know you think the Bible is inspired by God but you have ZERO evidence to support that belief

Um... I think you're mistaken. You may have 'ZERO evidence' to support my belief, but I have ample, thank you.


If it doesn't bother you that you are misled, then you don't care about the truth. Because if you cared about the truth at all it would bother you if you were being misled.

You're the one playing word games. I said 'misled by people'. If your 'truth' comes from what 'people' say, you are welcome to it. I can see how vital it would be to ascertain the veracity of their claims.

In regard to my defintion of truth, you seem to keep forgetting that God is true, and every man's a liar, and Jesus didn't trust Himself to man 'because He knew what is in man'. Therefore, if I follow His example, and don't trust myself to man because He knows what is in man, I'll be fine, thanks, and I can concentrate on knowing God and being affected by His truth more and more, in complete peace of mind and safety of soul.

Get it?


The internet is a powerful tool for truth, but it can also let the gullible believe things that are ridiculous.

... while the not-so-gullible can tell the difference...

Charisma
03-19-2013, 04:25 PM
Hi dux,


Now really, ole man -- isn't that the point of the Book? Didn't the Almighty plant this seed, this word, His Son, so that we could learn of Him? Isn't He the Husbandman as well as the Father and the Son and the Husband and the Potter? Isn't Our "Confounded Language" such that it confuses those w/o Faith, but infuses Godly Faith to those who want to believe? :thumb:


Thanks for all your encouraging posts. I really enjoyed this one. :yo:

Charisma
03-19-2013, 04:39 PM
Hi Richard, :tea:


The point is that you believe people the same way that Muslims who accept the Quran are really trusting the people who gave it to them.

No I don't. You are just deceiving yourself and other readers to keep making this assertion, which is not founded in spiritual reality. It's just your words.


Every believer thinks they can tell the difference between their own imagination and the voice of God, but we know they can't all be right because they contradict each other.

I am seriously disappointed with this comment, which you made in response to my statement:


I know the difference between what God speaks to me and what 'people' speak to me.

because you are the one claiming to use scientific methods to determine believable truth, and you haven't even retained the basic terms of reference. Huh?


So can you tell me how you know if something is from God or not?

Well, now Richard... the way to tell the difference is not a secret. The New Testament is full of information about how to know God for yourself.

Likewise the Spirit also helps our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searches the hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because he makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.


If you can't tell me how you know, then how do you know?

I could tell you, but I'm not going to give you any more testimony, just to have you ridicule it publicly like some kind of bloodless sport. But, if you're ever in enough of a spot to need some help or prayer to the only true and living God, feel free to email me and I'll be glad to have a private conversation about it.

L67
03-19-2013, 07:44 PM
Hi L67,

I quite liked your Rockefeller quote. It indicates his ability and willingness to change his tune according to the moment, rendering both your and my quote open to question. Yours certainly doesn't negate mine, but all your theorising about the NWO's importance to certain current doctrines is merely theorising. The NWO will arrive in the fulness of time, regardless of its relationship to the return of Christ, Who will, also, arrive in the fulness of time.

And your proof of the NWO is what exactlly? NONE. I'm not merely theorizing. Your first post in this thread is Rockefellers "alleged" world government quote. Now tell me that Christians don't believe that world government sets the stage for the antichrist? Is that what you expect me to believe? People like you have been saying the NWO will arrive for decades. We're still waiting.

My quote does negate yours because the quote you posted is disputed that the man even said it. Mine is based on FACTS.

Also, you have no proof that Christ will return. The Bible doesn't even teach such things. The Bible was written for the first century audience and there is ZERO evidence the Bible contains anything in the future thousands of years.




Um... I think you're mistaken. You may have 'ZERO evidence' to support my belief, but I have ample, thank you.

I'm sorry, but you couldn't provide any evidence that would lend credibility to your beliefs.




You're the one playing word games. I said 'misled by people'. If your 'truth' comes from what 'people' say, you are welcome to it. I can see how vital it would be to ascertain the veracity of their claims.

I'm playing word games? lol. It's rather ironic you say it doesn't bother you if people mislead you. But YOU are the one that relied on the words of people for the truth. That makes you a hypocrite. Who's playing words games again? It is you who is being dishonest.


In regard to my defintion of truth, you seem to keep forgetting that God is true, and every man's a liar, and Jesus didn't trust Himself to man 'because He knew what is in man'. Therefore, if I follow His example, and don't trust myself to man because He knows what is in man, I'll be fine, thanks, and I can concentrate on knowing God and being affected by His truth more and more, in complete peace of mind and safety of soul.

Get it?

Every man is a liar? Speak for yourself. YOU are the only one who has been dishonest in this thread. You accused me of relying on people for the truth, when it was YOU who did it. I was merely debunking your erroneous claims.

The funny thing is you broke your own rule and trusted in man for those quotes. Oh the irony. You try to act holier than thou and the problem lies with you. It's hilarious.

I also find it pathetic you don't care about dishonesty. If you are knowingly being mislead it is YOUR duty as an honest person to find the truth.


... while the not-so-gullible can tell the difference...

Obviously you can't.

Charisma
03-20-2013, 12:54 AM
Hi L67,

There is a world of difference between posting a quote in an internet forum, and 'rely'ing on 'people' for 'the truth'.

I know the Truth, and the truth has made me free.

Christ did say that He would return, and no-one has been able to prove that it happened in the first century AD, even though they claim that it did.

He gave enough prophecy around His return for us to know it will be a world event, so it's surprising no-one in the world noticed, if it's already happened, and that absence of eye-witnesses from amongst 'all the tribes of the earth', makes it more likely that it hasn't happened - yet.

If you need any help finding the places in the Bible where His return is mentioned, I'm sure Richard will be glad to point you to the references. (I am, too.)

David M
03-20-2013, 04:20 AM
Hi L67,

There is a world of difference between posting a quote in an internet forum, and 'rely'ing on 'people' for 'the truth'.

I know the Truth, and the truth has made me free.

Christ did say that He would return, and no-one has been able to prove that it happened in the first century AD, even though they claim that it did.

He gave enough prophecy around His return for us to know it will be a world event, so it's surprising no-one in the world noticed, if it's already happened, and that absence of eye-witnesses from amongst 'all the tribes of the earth', makes it more likely that it hasn't happened - yet.

If you need any help finding the places in the Bible where His return is mentioned, I'm sure Richard will be glad to point you to the references. (I am, too.)


I agree with Charisma. We know that JWs, for example, were looking for Jesus to return in 1912/1914 therabouts and because he did not return, they had to change their story. They changed the words in their own Bible from saying; "reigning on the earth" to "reigning over the earth in order to explain that Jesus was now reigning from Heaven. Just in this last week, when conversing with JWs on the doorstep, they still maintain something very significant happened on that date.

God's word has not changed even though men's interpretation of it has changed.

No man knows the "day or the hour" and our good friend Timmy has quoted this in another thread I have just read. I now have a better understanding of why Jesus said that and why Jesus did not know himself because of the way God's calendar works. This has only come to me recently by listening to Michael Rood. I will give time to listen to anyone who reasons from the Bible using the words in the Bible to support what they say.

The reason for not knowing the day (let alone the hour) has to do with reckoning time using God's calendar, which is based on the astronomical timeperiods of the moon and the agricultural calendar based on the seasons and the ripening of the harvests etc. The Jewish new year (1st day of the 1st month) cannot be established until the barley harvest has ripened (the aviv barley). The sighting of the new moon after the barley harvest has ripened determines the 1st day of the 1st month of the new year. This is why some years will have 13 months. The sighting of the new moon can be calculated by the likes of NASA and can be calculated when it happend hundreds and thousands of years ago. However, there is uncertainty due to when the moon was physically sighted due to atmospheric conditions and sometimes due the short time window the new moon was visible after sunset, when the sliver of the new moon could be seen. Moonset could have taken place shortly after sunset and could have been missed and so the new moon could not seen until the day after.

Just because we cannot predict when exactly the barley harvest will ripen, we do not know the day, but that does not mean that according to God's time and the prophecies that have been revealed, we cannot calculate the year. I have yet to see Michael Rood's calculation based on Daniel's prophecy and I am interested to see his book; 'The Chronological Gospels'' which determines the ministry of Jesus to have lasted 70 weeks and is a layer of the 70 weeks of Daniel's prohecy. The book should be published for public reading around the middle of this year.

The signs of the times are upon us more so now than ever before and certainly not at the time of the destruction of the temple circa AD70 (or as Michael Rood pinpoints the date to AD68) and the destruction of Jerusalem which followed.

I am stll waiting for L67 (and anyone else) to explain to me how the splitting of the Mount of Olives into two is to be interpreted figuratively. What is the figurative interpretation of something that to me is an identified landmark and I see as happening literally. It is known that there is a fault line running through the Mount of Olives and so when the splitting happens, of course scientists will say; "we knew about that fault all along". I say; God knew about it thousands of years ago and is responsible for the fault being there. Have you ever thought what happened as reported by Matthew at the time of Christ's crucifixion?

Matthew records (27:51) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
It is only clear in hindsight what probably happened at the time of that earthquake. Evidences of the earthquake have only come to light within the last couple of decades as these things have been found doing archeological surveys.


David

Charisma
03-20-2013, 05:44 AM
Hi David,


Have you ever thought what happened as reported by Matthew at the time of Christ's crucifixion?

Matthew records (27:51) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
It is only clear in hindsight what probably happened at the time of that earthquake. Evidences of the earthquake have only come to light within the last couple of decades as these things have been found doing archeological surveys.

Yep! When you look at it on google earth, you can see it clearly. I was alerted to this by a photograph from the 1930s, called 'The four peaks of the Mount of Olives'. Needless to say, the programme of disinformation which began then, has not only managed to 'lose' the real information from the intellectual capital of the Church, but has also attacked the crossing of the Red Sea and no doubt more, which supported the historicity of the Bible.

L67
03-20-2013, 06:06 AM
Hi L67,

There is a world of difference between posting a quote in an internet forum, and 'rely'ing on 'people' for 'the truth'.

I know the Truth, and the truth has made me free.

Christ did say that He would return, and no-one has been able to prove that it happened in the first century AD, even though they claim that it did.

He gave enough prophecy around His return for us to know it will be a world event, so it's surprising no-one in the world noticed, if it's already happened, and that absence of eye-witnesses from amongst 'all the tribes of the earth', makes it more likely that it hasn't happened - yet.

If you need any help finding the places in the Bible where His return is mentioned, I'm sure Richard will be glad to point you to the references. (I am, too.)

Again you fail with your argument. How can you be so dishonest? I told you those quotes didn't lend credibility to your claims, and you laughed. And then what did you do? In Post # 12 you referred me back to your OP to read the quotes again. You totally trusted and relied on the quotes of men to prove your case. That not noly makes you a hypocrite for accusing me of that, but you are dishonest about it as well.

It's also laughable you act this way and then say you know the truth. How can anyone trust you know any truth? You have demonstrated you don't by your dishonesty.

Yes he did. But we have a problem with your interpretation. You think the Bible is the inspired word God. Yet God allowed language to describe Christ return as imminent, only to mean thousands of year in the future. What kind of sense does that make? Jesus even told his disciples that some would not taste death until his return. Why did he say that and not follow through?

The only prophecy you could use for Christ return is the destruction of Jerusalem, and with your future interpretation you're rejecting that.

I don't need any ones help finding verses in the Bible. The Bible supports my view much more than it does yours. I'd be happy to discuss this with you further if your interested.

duxrow
03-20-2013, 06:29 AM
Was 'kinda' kidding. After MUCH deliberation, I came to the conclusion the only way all four Gospels could be true, was if Peter denied 3 times before the 1st crowing, and 3 more times before the 2nd crowing. Have decided our Lord has a great sense of humor. hah. :)

DAVID & GOLIATH, 1Sam17 - Bob Smith, Jamaica, 1/89

When David heard what Goliath said, it made his blood to boil,
He determined then and there, that the giant's plan he would foil.
He told King Saul that he would fight--that he was not afraid,
And then the battle could be won, and Israel would be saved.

King Saul was concerned about David's youth--he was only a lad, so fair,
But David told him then that he'd already whipped the lion and the bear.
"God had delivered him then", he said, and He would do it again,
Because the battle between Good & Evil was for Israel to win.

So David prepared for the battle, and he tried on the armor of Saul,
But that armor hadn't been tested, he said; and it didn't fit him at all.
So he removed that armor, and instead took his sling and his staff,
and 5 smooth stones from the brook, to go up against the enemies wrath.

Then David marched out on the battlefield, while the Army of Israel waited
with bated breath, to see young David go up against the foe that they all hated.
Goliath stomped and raged as he saw the lad draw near,
And he cursed him in the name of his gods; but in David there was no fear...

You see, David was wearing the Armor of God, and in his mouth was a two-edged sword;
And he hurried forth to meet Goliath, in the name of his heavenly Lord.
He told him he'd take his head off, and feed his flesh to the birds;
That the Lord of Hosts, God of All-Israel, was with him to accomplish those words.

Then David loaded one of his stones, and began to whirl his sling;
and he guaged the giant's position, and then the stone he did fling!
...It hit Goliath in the forehead--right between the eyes--
and he crashed to earth upon his face, amidst the enemies cries.
With Goliath's own sword, David cut off his head, while Israel shouted for joy;
That Uncircumcised Philistine was dead--cut down by a spirit-filled boy!


"Why was King Saul agreeing to the Giant's terms? Why didn't he send out a SWAT team or dig an elephant pit? It really should have been King Saul's fight (cause he was a tall man), and why was he allowing young David to determine the fate of Israel?
Put on the armor of God, Eph6, to fight the N.T. "giant" of sickness. Their adversaries were flesh and blood, but ours is the spiritual battle against sickness and ignorance of the Truth--an enemy bigger than any one man.

Richard Amiel McGough
03-20-2013, 11:11 AM
Hi Richard, :tea:

The point is that you believe people the same way that Muslims who accept the Quran are really trusting the people who gave it to them.

No I don't. You are just deceiving yourself and other readers to keep making this assertion, which is not founded in spiritual reality. It's just your words.

Yes you do. You are just deceiving yourself with your strong delusion caused by your confirmation bias. You simply ignore and reject any evidence that proves you wrong. That's exactly what every other religion does. There is no difference that I can see between you and them.




Every believer thinks they can tell the difference between their own imagination and the voice of God, but we know they can't all be right because they contradict each other.
I am seriously disappointed with this comment, which you made in response to my statement:
I know the difference between what God speaks to me and what 'people' speak to me.
because you are the one claiming to use scientific methods to determine believable truth, and you haven't even retained the basic terms of reference. Huh?

What "basic terms of reference" have I not retained?




So can you tell me how you know if something is from God or not?
Well, now Richard... the way to tell the difference is not a secret. The New Testament is full of information about how to know God for yourself.

Likewise the Spirit also helps our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searches the hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because he makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

Those verses tell us NOTHING about how to tell the difference between our own imagination and the voice of God. Every believer in every Christian cult will claim those verses! The Mormons, JWs, Christadelphians, Branch Davidians, Catholics, Protestants, etc.,etc.,etc. will claim that THEIR OWN BELIEFS are the ones "confirmed" by the Holy Spirit.

How is it possible that I have to explain this to you? It is the most obvious fact in the universe. Any person lost in a false religion could claim EXACTLY the same thing as you. Indeed, the Muslims also have many many verses in the Quran that promise Allah will guide them into all truth!

Whoever believes in Allah – He will guide his [or her] heart. Allah has knowledge of all things. (Surat at-Taghabun, 11)

As for those who believe in Allah and hold fast to Him, He will admit them into mercy and favor from Him, and will guide them to Him on a straight path. (Surat an-Nisa, 175)

He sent down serenity into the hearts of the believers, thereby increasing their faith with more faith – the legions of the heavens and Earth belong to Allah. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. (Surat al-Fath, 4)

Allah is the Light of the heavens and earth. The metaphor of His Light is that of a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp inside a glass, the glass like a brilliant star, lit from a blessed tree, an olive, neither of the East nor of the West, its oil all but giving off light even if no fire touches it. Light upon Light. Allah guides to His Light whoever He wills, makes metaphors for humanity, and has knowledge of all things. (Surat an-Nur, 35)

Allah always confounds the schemes of the unbelievers. (Surat al-Anfal, 18)

If Allah helps you, no one can vanquish you. If He forsakes you, who can help you after that? So the believers should put their trust in Allah. (Surah Al 'Imran, 160)

We will certainly help Our Messengers and the believers both in this world and on the Day the witnesses appear. (Surah Ghafir, 51)

What is the difference between your blind faith in the Bible and the Muslims blind faith in the Quran?




If you can't tell me how you know, then how do you know?
I could tell you, but I'm not going to give you any more testimony, just to have you ridicule it publicly like some kind of bloodless sport. But, if you're ever in enough of a spot to need some help or prayer to the only true and living God, feel free to email me and I'll be glad to have a private conversation about it.
No, you could NOT tell me because the truth is that you have no way to discern between your own imagination and the voice of God.

No "testimony" would be valid because your testimony is indistinguishable from the testimony of any other believer whether it be a Muslim, Mormon (with the "burning in the bosom") or any other.

I am not seeking to ridicule your testimony - and this search for truth is most certainly not "bloodless." Think about it Charisma. You are making claims about the most important issues of LIFE AND DEATH. If your words are true they are the most important words anyone could ever hear. If they are false, they are pernicious and exceedingly harmful and should be rejected. This is most certainly NOT a "bloodless sport." I take it very seriously. We are talking about truth and the issues of life and death.

All the best,

Richard

L67
03-20-2013, 11:48 AM
I agree with Charisma. We know that JWs, for example, were looking for Jesus to return in 1912/1914 therabouts and because he did not return, they had to change their story. They changed the words in their own Bible from saying; "reigning on the earth" to "reigning over the earth in order to explain that Jesus was now reigning from Heaven. Just in this last week, when conversing with JWs on the doorstep, they still maintain something very significant happened on that date.

Much like the failed doomsday prophet you believe in. He was WRONG and therefore had to change his beliefs to suit his purpose. So how are you or any other Christian any different?


God's word has not changed even though men's interpretation of it has changed.

This is complete BS! The Bible has been tampered with throughout the age. We know for a fact that the Gospel of Mark was tampered with. If Mark was under direct inspiration from God, why did someone else have to insert a better ending? The original gospel ended at 16:8. If Mark had later insertions what else has been messed with? How would you know you are dealing with any truth?

I would like to show you what the earliest church fathers had to say about the so called truth. Remember these are the men your traditions come from.



"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ... He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles.

We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."



– St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

How about Eusebius in the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:



"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."



Here is more from Eusebius:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.



Clement of Alexandria- one of the earliest church fathers: :

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."

– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)


John Chrysostom: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...

For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...

And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.



Faustus- Manichean bishop: "Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."




Ignatius Loyola -founder of the Society of Jesus[Jesuits]: "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."



Saint Jerome: 'To confute the opposer ... one argues as one pleases, saying one thing while one means another ... Origen, Eusebius [et al] write at great length ... Sometimes it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is useful.'

– St Jerome, c. 380.



– Celsus (On The True Doctrine, c178 AD): 'Clearly the Christians have used ... myths ... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth ... It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction.'


The Christians of the day were so threatend by this that they burned every copy of his writings.


No man knows the "day or the hour" and our good friend Timmy has quoted this in another thread I have just read. I now have a better understanding of why Jesus said that and why Jesus did not know himself because of the way God's calendar works. This has only come to me recently by listening to Michael Rood. I will give time to listen to anyone who reasons from the Bible using the words in the Bible to support what they say.

Do you realize how forced and absurd this explanation is? Jesus can predict his own death, resurrection, and have the power to raise himself from the dead but he doesn't know how God' calendar works? But a failed doomsday prophet knows how the calendar works and Jesus doesn't? Do you know how completely irrational that sounds? You render Jesus nothing more than blathering idiot.


The reason for not knowing the day (let alone the hour) has to do with reckoning time using God's calendar, which is based on the astronomical timeperiods of the moon and the agricultural calendar based on the seasons and the ripening of the harvests etc. The Jewish new year (1st day of the 1st month) cannot be established until the barley harvest has ripened (the aviv barley). The sighting of the new moon after the barley harvest has ripened determines the 1st day of the 1st month of the new year. This is why some years will have 13 months. The sighting of the new moon can be calculated by the likes of NASA and can be calculated when it happend hundreds and thousands of years ago. However, there is uncertainty due to when the moon was physically sighted due to atmospheric conditions and sometimes due the short time window the new moon was visible after sunset, when the sliver of the new moon could be seen. Moonset could have taken place shortly after sunset and could have been missed and so the new moon could not seen until the day after.

More basedless specualtion on your part


Just because we cannot predict when exactly the barley harvest will ripen, we do not know the day, but that does not mean that according to God's time and the prophecies that have been revealed, we cannot calculate the year. I have yet to see Michael Rood's calculation based on Daniel's prophecy and I am interested to see his book; 'The Chronological Gospels'' which determines the ministry of Jesus to have lasted 70 weeks and is a layer of the 70 weeks of Daniel's prohecy. The book should be published for public reading around the middle of this year.

More speculation. Bring some facts.



The signs of the times are upon us more so now than ever before and certainly not at the time of the destruction of the temple circa AD70 (or as Michael Rood pinpoints the date to AD68) and the destruction of Jerusalem which followed.

According to who? The great doomsday prophet? David what you fail to realize is who the Bible was written for. It was written for the first century audience. All the signs of the end times occurred back then. For you to asser other wise is just silly.


I am stll waiting for L67 (and anyone else) to explain to me how the splitting of the Mount of Olives into two is to be interpreted figuratively. What is the figurative interpretation of something that to me is an identified landmark and I see as happening literally. It is known that there is a fault line running through the Mount of Olives and so when the splitting happens, of course scientists will say; "we knew about that fault all along". I say; God knew about it thousands of years ago and is responsible for the fault being there. Have you ever thought what happened as reported by Matthew at the time of Christ's crucifixion?

The gospels are meaningless as an accurate description of events. They were not eywitness to these events. They wrote many years after. Do you have any evidence of such a fault line? I found one credible piece of information and the rest is from end times websites with no evidence.

So, according this paper Wachs, D. and Levitte, D. 1984. Earthquake risk and slope stability in Jerusalem Environmental Geology 6(3), 183-186) there is, despite reports of a fault at the north end of the mount of olives (Willis, B. 1928), no geological support for an active fault associated with the place (Jerusalem itself is about 25km from the seismically active Dead Sea). On the other hand, unlike the rest of Jerusalem, the mount has been repeatedly affected by seismic activity, apparently due to its poor structural foundations, in the form of significant landslides. The reason for this is that the Mount is underlain by the soft chalks of the Cretaceous Menuha Formation, whereas the rest of the city largely sits on more firm limestones and dolomites of the slightly older Bina Formation.

The authors speculate that the events described by Zacharaiah 14 are in fact a description of landslides including the formation of a large valley - similar to the view of Shalem (1949), who suggested that the so-called "Uzziah" earthquake and attendant damage (dated to the first half of the 8th century bc) may lie behind the comments in Zacharaiah.


Edit: I tried to find more information about the quote above and can't locate any more about it. So may or may not be truthful.

Charisma
03-20-2013, 06:11 PM
God allowed language to describe Christ return as imminent, only to mean thousands of year in the future. What kind of sense does that make?

You should have this figured out by now, if you have used all the Bible verses which help us understand the interface between time and eternity. If you really don't understand it, then how can you be so sure of your interpretation as to call mine into question?



Hi Richard,

You changed what 'people' speak, to 'imagination'.

There is, also, a certain truth in your comparison between the appearance of what a Christian believes with the appearance of what any other religionist believes, because there is a Spirit in Christian experience just as there is or are, spirits running the unseen aspects of other religions. The difference between the Spirit who communicates the Godhead, and the other spirits, is that God's is the spirit of the law of life in Christ Jesus, which makes the believer free from the law of sin and death, and no other spirit has the power to release from the law of sin and death. Perversely, those other spirits confirm the law of sin and death to the believer therein, and they become increasingly subject to their powers as they continue to worship them.

Likewise, the Christian becomes increasingly freed from bondage, the more he/she engages the power of the Holy Spirit according to the will of God.

In your search for 'truth' I can tell you from experience that God will not change the parameters within which He reveals Himself, so the onus is on you (not Him) to find out how He likes to be found, and go seek Him that way. He fully intends to work in those who seek Him according to His will, to restore to them the fellowship which Adam lost, but that also means losing all the stupidity (rebellion and pride) which Adam's action bestowed upon his descendants.

Charisma
03-20-2013, 06:35 PM
Hi L67,

I have the distinct impression that you don't understand my posts. Never mind. I'll live. :winking0001:


I told you those quotes didn't lend credibility to your claims, and you laughed.

You told me? And you are.... who, exactly?

Also, it seems you don't understand that I was not 'claim'ing anything. The quotes were of other people making claims, which you are free to disregard; but it seems pointless to accuse me of dishonesty for quoting them, when you have no credibility as a superior authority to be indisputably believed.

You have, additionally, created and attributed to me an agenda I did not mention. Did it ever cross your mind there might be a reason for that... that perhaps I don't espouse that particular agenda, either? Meanwhile you have made a huge song and dance about the invalidity of the quotes, as if - if you are correct - we are to conclude any nwo cannot come to pass. Really? Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

L67
03-20-2013, 06:43 PM
You should have this figured out by now, if you have used all the Bible verses which help us understand the interface between time and eternity. If you really don't understand it, then how can you be so sure of your interpretation as to call mine into question?

I am sure of my interpretation. I specifically asked YOU what kind of sense that made. Let me show you some examples of why your futuristic interpretation is erroneous. It takes the plain meaning of words and turns it on it's head.


Jesus to His twelve apostles:
...you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes. (Mt. 10:23)

Jesus to His disciples:
...there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Mt.16:27,28)

Jesus to His disciples:
...this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (Mt. 24:34, see Lk. 21:32)

Paul to all who were beloved of God in Rome:
...it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. (Ro. 13:11,12)

To the Hebrews:
God...in these last days has spoken to us in His Son... (Heb. 1:1,2)

James to the twelve tribes who were dispersed abroad:
...the coming of the Lord is at hand. ...the Judge is standing right at the door. (James 5:7-9)

Peter to those who resided as aliens:
...according to His great mercy has caused us...who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Pet. 1:3,5)
...you...may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 1:6,7)
...grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 1:13)
The end of all things is at hand...(1 Pet. 4:7)
For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God... (1 Pet. 4:17)

John to those who believed in the name of the Son of God:
And the world is passing away... (1 Jn. 2:17)
Children, it is the last hour...from this we know that it is the last hour. (1 Jn. 2:18)

The revelation of Jesus Christ communicated through John to His bond-servants:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place... (Rv. 1:1)
...for the time is near. (Rv. 1:3)
I am coming quickly...(Rv. 3:11)
...I am coming quickly. (Rv. 22:7)
...Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. (Rv. 22:10)
Behold, I am coming quickly...(Rv. 22:12)
Yes, I am coming quickly. (Rv. 22:20)

Now tell me how these verses point to a future return? It doesn't. But if we look at who the Bible was written for it makes perfect sense. It was written for the first century audience. And they would NOT have understood it any other way than in those times.

Charisma
03-20-2013, 06:49 PM
they would NOT have understood it any other way than in those times.

First possible reply: and you can be sure because.... you think you know what they mean?

Second possible reply: until Pentecost.

Third possible reply: they were wrong to give you the impression they had no sense of eternity.

L67
03-20-2013, 07:45 PM
Hi L67,

I have the distinct impression that you don't understand my posts. Never mind. I'll live. :winking0001:

I understand you perfectly. You are a hypocrite by accusing me of the very thing YOU did.





You told me? And you are.... who, exactly?

Yes I did tell you. Which you couldn't defend btw. I'll tell you who I am. I'm just someone presenting reality to people who believe such silly conspiracies.



Also, it seems you don't understand that I was not 'claim'ing anything. The quotes were of other people making claims, which you are free to disregard; but it seems pointless to accuse me of dishonesty for quoting them, when you have no credibility as a superior authority to be indisputably believed.

No I understand you perfectly. How about this gem of a post.
'No evidence for the NWO'?

Look a couple of posts back. This is in the public domain now. A person who really exists, made this knowledgeable statement:

'We' (Note the plural pronoun.) 'are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.'

So, we are talking about an agreement which lasted at least 60 years. No wonder it doesn't seem to be happening quickly. It's not! It was already forty years in the making before the agreements to which he alluded. Where have you been? This is old news!

'But, the world is now more sophisticated' [corrupted] 'and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.'

I told you there was no evidence for the NWO and you laughed. You told me to go back a couple post to prove the NWO exist. You claimed a person who really exist made the NWO claim in the quote above. You also claimed this is in public domain now. Sorry you don't get to weasel out of this one. YOU are being dishonest when you say you didn't claim anything.




You have, additionally, created and attributed to me an agenda I did not mention. Did it ever cross your mind there might be a reason for that... that perhaps I don't espouse that particular agenda, either? Meanwhile you have made a huge song and dance about the invalidity of the quotes, as if - if you are correct - we are to conclude any nwo cannot come to pass. Really? Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

I didn't attribute you to anything. I said there is no evidence of the NWO like you tried to prove.

No I made a huge song and dance about 1 quote and said there is no evidence to support the NWO conspiracy. ANd there isn't. I never said any nwo can't come to pass. I just said that there is no evidence for the nwo you posted about.

L67
03-20-2013, 07:53 PM
First possible reply: and you can be sure because.... you think you know what they mean?

Second possible reply: until Pentecost.

Third possible reply: they were wrong to give you the impression they had no sense of eternity.

Wow that is a very convincing argument.

I do know what they mean. How else are you suppose to interpret the plain meaning of words? For example, shortly in Greek means soon. Have you ever heard someone refer to soon as thousands of years? That is preposterous to assert that.

You need to clarify your second and third reply. They don't make much sense as they are.

David M
03-21-2013, 04:10 AM
Hello Richard


Who says the Bible is not the "words of man"?
We know that the Bible contains the "words of man" because humans wrote it! And it won't help if you assert (with NO evidence of any kind) that God inspired the original manuscripts because there are many conflicting manuscripts and only one could be "from God" so all the others contain the fallacious "words of man."
Paul tells us he received revelations from God, and therefore he has reason and evidence to believe in the inspired word of God (2 Tim 3:16). The God's message was written by the hand of man, but under inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God which is His power by which things are accomplished.

Proof is not found by any one chapter or book, but the message is consistent and has been written over centuries. It is this consistency and harmony of the scriptures which is evidence of divine authorship rather than men. You fail to perceive and acknowledge the evidence for divine authorship and that is your opinion. You have not presented me with anything to prove to me the contrary which I have not been able to resolve to my satisfaction. You have deserted your original words of truth in favor of denying the whole of Gods word and making YOUR claim that it is the work of men. I see the Bible oppositely to you and can see the scriptures as a whole could not have been written by man, because it would be impossible for man to have written separate documents separated by centuries of time and in different locations to have been so consistent and harmonious.

It is YOUR rubbish words that come out of YOUR mouth which tries to convince people coming to this forum that you are the king of logic and facts and that YOUR opinion is the correct one. Any true Bible scholar can see right through you. Your Bible Wheel has some merit, but is devoid of a lot of the Truth of God's word.
The nearest you come to seeing the Bible having a divine author is from considering the numbers and patterns of numbers which gematria reveal. You cannot explain this and you fail to search for the consistency of God's message. Your acceptance of God's angels sinning and the acceptance of the Trinity (to give two examples), tells me you believe the constructs of man. Also, you side with Preterist interpretations and so you have nailed your colors to that mast. You support the writings of men more than the inspired word of God. That is your error, because you prefer to believe what men write about God's word. You have your opinion and you now accept any of men's writings which support your opinion. You have failed to find the Truth and all you can do is challenge those who claim to have found more of the Truth than you have. You have declared that in the ten years you have studied the Bible, you have not made it fit together; all this tells me is; you are a failure.

Your challenges to me have only made me examine my beliefs and made my faith stronger for having examined my beliefs. I have had many discussions with you and it is false of you to claim it is me who has quit conversations. I do not have access to the database to prove everything I say, but I know there are many unfinished threads in which you have not continued. You refuse to accept anything I have put before you as evidence, such as the establishment of the Nation of Israel. It is false of you to say that I have not given you evidence. I accept that what I have given you as evidence, has not satisfied you and that is different to saying I have not given you evidence. I was not the one to quit examining these prophecies which the intention to discus prophecy died before it got started. The only time I have quit or threatened to quit an argument is when the conversation goes round in circles and we keep passing each other by. It is about time you quit your character assassinations of people and stuck to getting to the Truth of God's word; it is YOU who has quit in this respect.


And then enter INTERPRETATION! :dizzy: Potsherds clashing with potsherds. Each man choosing which interpretation (his own) is correct according to his own fallible logic and knowledge of the facts. This is where the scene becomes quite surreal as the Bible believers choose to believe without beidence and base their interpretation on blatant logical fallacies. :doh:
You are telling me something I already know. There is only one Truth in God's word and it behoves us to find it. It should be evident from your studies of the Bible that many of the different claims you disagree with, you have your own opinion about. You apparently side with some, so you have not put yourself in the position of someone who knows nothing and cannot agree with anything. Whether the things you side with are true or not is another question. You have placed yourself amongst the mass of aetheists and all you can do is repeat the same old questions, which I have answered many times ad nauseum and only do so again for the benefit of new readers to this forum.


You have nothing like "enough evidence" to believe the Bible. You believe merely because you believe it. From any evidential and logic point of view, you claims are no different than if you were shouting that you are the President of the Galactic Federation and that you can fly to the moon by flapping your arms. I just don't get it. You KNOW that you have no evidence.
Utter drivel Richard as to how you think I believe. You cannot believe anything in the Bible because you failed to see the foundation on which it stands, preferring to put your trust in science and facts (as you see them).


How do you know this? Every time you've been asked to produce it you have either refused or been shown your claims false. Yet you persist in believe the Bible without any good reason. How is that different than a Muslim who blindly believes the same thing about the Quran? It's not, and you know it, but you won't admit it to yourself. How then can you think you really committed to the truth?
As said already, I have given you evidence even though you do not accept it. You say your have shown my evidence to be false, and that I dispute. I have good reason, and you you do not agree with my reason; that is the truth behind your words.
You have not shown me how the restoration of the nation of Israel is not fulfilling an unconditional promise of God You should stop making dishonest statements, sayng I have not gien you evidence or my reason for saying what I do. All you do is claim anything I put before you is false; that is YOUR opinion. You have not explained to me how the prophecies of Ezekiel have been fulfilled; you have not explained to me 'The Valley of Dry Bones etc'. You have not explained to me the splitting of the Mount of Olives and how that was fulfilled (since you side with Preterists). When did that happen and if like L67 you think it is figurative, then please tell me what I am to understand by that figurative prophecy. Please do so now!

You keep bringing up the same question about Muslims and I should not have answer it again. It is easy to compare what the Bible says and what the Quran says. The only reason to believe the Quran is to be under the cultural pressure placed on Muslims. Those who are not Muslims and convert to the faith, are the ones not to understand the Bible properly. A Muslim is the same as a Jew when it comes to continuing their separate tradition. I do not have tradition blinding me from seeing the book which is more truthful. I reject the Quran, because it does not agree with the Bible and especially about the relationship of Jesus with God. The god of the Quran and the God of the Bible (Israel) is not the same God, and so I have to choose the God who declares He is the God and Father of His only begotten son, Jesus. This is not the god of the Quran who places Mohammed above Jesus. The god of the Quran has not proven himself like the God of Israel has proven Himself in the many promises and prophecies, which the word of God tells us. The god of the Quran does not tell us about his plan and purpose with this earth or the origins of the universe and how this planet was formed and life was created, as clearly as the Bible does. These are some the reasons why I do not accept the Quran. If you want to differ, then you can show me by example how the Quran explains things better and which things have been prophesied in the Quran and have come true.

I know I have more evidence to support the Bible than you have brains in your big toe.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough
03-21-2013, 01:45 PM
Good morning David, :tea:


Hello Richard


Who says the Bible is not the "words of man"?
We know that the Bible contains the "words of man" because humans wrote it! And it won't help if you assert (with NO evidence of any kind) that God inspired the original manuscripts because there are many conflicting manuscripts and only one could be "from God" so all the others contain the fallacious "words of man."
Paul tells us he received revelations from God, and therefore he has reason and evidence to believe in the inspired word of God (2 Tim 3:16). The God's message was written by the hand of man, but under inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God which is His power by which things are accomplished.

Paul's assertion that he received revelations from God does not count as any kind of "evidence" that he really did. Your answer is a textbook example of Petitio Principii - commonly known as the fallacy of Beginning the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). And worse, your logic is grossly inconsistent because we both know that you would not accept a similar statement in the Quran as proof that it was inspired.

How is it possible that you could think to base an argument on such blatantly fallacious logic? It's exactly the same as this logic from a Muslim site (http://www.allahsquran.com/quran_source_of_guidance.php):
The ultimate manifestation of God's grace for man, the ultimate wisdom, and the ultimate beauty of expression: in short, the word of God. If one were to ask any Muslim to depict it, most likely they would offer similar words. The Quran, to the Muslim, is the irrefutable, inimitable Word of God. It was revealed by God Almighty, through the instrument of Prophet Muhammad (peace be Upon Him). The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself had no role in authoring the Quran, he was merely a human secretary, repeating the dictates of the Divine Creator:




"He (Muhammad) does not speak of his own desire. It is no less than an Inspiration sent down to him." [Noble Quran 53:3-4]



Do you think that's good evidence that the Quran is revealed from God? Of course not. Your logic is both fallacious and inconsistent.



Proof is not found by any one chapter or book, but the message is consistent and has been written over centuries. It is this consistency and harmony of the scriptures which is evidence of divine authorship rather than men. You fail to perceive and acknowledge the evidence for divine authorship and that is your opinion. You have not presented me with anything to prove to me the contrary which I have not been able to resolve to my satisfaction. You have deserted your original words of truth in favor of denying the whole of Gods word and making YOUR claim that it is the work of men. I see the Bible oppositely to you and can see the scriptures as a whole could not have been written by man, because it would be impossible for man to have written separate documents separated by centuries of time and in different locations to have been so consistent and harmonious.

The idea of "harmony of the Scriptures" is totally subjective. One believer's harmony is another believer's absurdity. Just look at the Doctrine of the Trinity. You reject it absolutely, whereas the vast majority of Christians say it is the most sacred truth that only a heretic could deny. And how do you justify your beliefs? With your own fallible logic! That's it. That's all you have - your "logic" and your idiosyncratic subjective "harmonies" that cannot be proven.

I explained this to you in great detail months ago in the post #10 in the War in Heaven (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49505#post49505) thread, and as usual, you failed to understand my explanation no matter how many times I explained it to you. And so now you are repeating the same error. Therefore, I will repeat my explanation in hope that you will actually engage me in a discussion about it.





I am not inventing explanations. I am taking into account all possible meanings. It will be taking all possible meanings and taking the context into account that will decide what is the best meaning when all of scripture is taken into account to see the harmony and consistency of the message. You see a unity in texts that say the same thing. I see the unity only if the context is the same for both.

That's your error. Cult leader Harold Camping used EXACTLY the same "standard" of finding the "harmony and consistency of the message." That's all he ever talked about. It is how he deluded himself and his followers. It is a false standard. If you allow yourself to make up whatever "explanations" you want, you will always be able to find "harmony and consistency" no matter how ludicrous your theories. I watched Harold Camping do this for a few years as a hobby. It is the fast path to delusion. It didn't matter how far off the plain meaning of Scripture he went. Folks would call in to his radio show and point out the obvious absurdity of his assertions and how they directly contradicted the plain teaching of the Bible, and Camping would launch into a half hour explanation that "harmonized" his twisted interpretation.


This is the key to your confusion David. Anyone can "harmonize" any text with any idea if they work hard enough. That's not the path to truth. Therefore, we need a consistent method to determine what a text is really saying. The method is scientific. I explained it in some detail in post #4 in the War in Heaven (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49424#post49424) thread:



There's only one way to discover the truth, and it's not by writing thousands of words of explanations [harmonizing Scriptures] because anyone can do that. So how do we know which is right and which is wrong? As I explained in my last post, we simply need to count up who must explain away more verses. It is my estimation after much study that Preterism wins over Futurism about a 100 to 1. Just think of all the obvious time-texts that say the last days happened in the first century. That fits perfectly with Preterism whereas Futurists must twist words beyond all recognition to try to make them fit their system.

The history of science gives a good example of how this works. The Ptolemaic system presumed that the sun, moon, planets and stars revolved around the earth in perfect circles. To make it work, they had to invent epicycles. If something didn't match predictions, they'd just add more epicycles. Then along comes Kepler who said that the earth and planets move around the sun in ellipses. This system needs no "fixing". It just works. But what if someone was devoted to the Ptolemaic system? Anytime something didn't fit, he'd just add more epicycles. It is my contention that Futurism requires endless epicycles whereas Preterism naturally fits the Biblical data. I've been discussing this with folks on this forum for over five years and have never seen anything that would make me think otherwise.

608

Your "harmonization of the Scriptures" looks like Ptolemy's epicycles to me. They look designed to force-fit preconceived doctrines.


It is YOUR rubbish words that come out of YOUR mouth which tries to convince people coming to this forum that you are the king of logic and facts and that YOUR opinion is the correct one. Any true Bible scholar can see right through you. Your Bible Wheel has some merit, but is devoid of a lot of the Truth of God's word.

Your words are both rude and irrational. I have exposed many of your logical fallacies - indeed, I exposed three already in this one post. And worse, they are logical fallacies that you are REPEATING even after they have been exposed with full proof and explanation. I am mystified how anyone could choose to persist in such error.

I am not trying to prove that I am "king of logic." All I have done is expose the logical fallacies that have led to your false conclusions. This is necessary if we want to articulate truth, which is my true desire.



The nearest you come to seeing the Bible having a divine author is from considering the numbers and patterns of numbers which gematria reveal. You cannot explain this and you fail to search for the consistency of God's message. Your acceptance of God's angels sinning and the acceptance of the Trinity (to give two examples), tells me you believe the constructs of man. Also, you side with Preterist interpretations and so you have nailed your colors to that mast. You support the writings of men more than the inspired word of God. That is your error, because you prefer to believe what men write about God's word. You have your opinion and you now accept any of men's writings which support your opinion. You have failed to find the Truth and all you can do is challenge those who claim to have found more of the Truth than you have. You have declared that in the ten years you have studied the Bible, you have not made it fit together; all this tells me is; you are a failure.

I do not "fail to search for the consistency of God's message." I openly admit consistency when I see it. But as a true truth seeker, I also admit discrepancies when I see them. You can't do this because you are starting with the false assumption that the Bible is the "essentially" inerrant and infallible Word of God. Thus, you mind is closed. And worse, you have no reason to believe the Bible at all! I've asked you countless times to explain why you begin with the assumption it is the Word of God and the only answer you gave was because of prophecies that were supposedly fulfilled. But you have never been able to support that assertion.

I do not "accept" that God's angels sinned or the Doctrine of the Trinity. I don't even believe the Bible! How many times have I told you this? Why do you continue to repeat the same absurdity? My position is that the doctrine that angels had free will (and so could sin) seems to be what the authors of the Bible believed. The Trinity is a little less obvious, but one thing is sure, your doctrine that Jesus was "just a man" is not consistent with the teaching of the Bible. Of course, the Bible may be logically incoherent on this point which is why the only solutions are necessarily incoherent with either logic, the Bible, or both.

But more to the point: Your assertion that I believe DOGMAS like you is utterly absurd. You reject angels sinning and the Trinity because those are the dogmas of your religion. You then try to "prove" your dogmas with transparently fallacious logic. I have no dogmas to defend so there is no force twisting my logic. I can admit the truth with no fears. Clarity comes naturally and easily when you have no dogmas to defend.

As for Preterism, that is far and away the best fit to the Biblical data. Futurism is utterly absurd. It directly contradicts the plain text of the Bible on hundreds of points. Of course, it appears the Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent which explains why no one can agree about it.

Your assertion that I "prefer to believe what men write about God's word" is blatantly absurd. I prefer to believe the truth. I base my conclusions on what the Bible actually states.



Your challenges to me have only made me examine my beliefs and made my faith stronger for having examined my beliefs. I have had many discussions with you and it is false of you to claim it is me who has quit conversations. I do not have access to the database to prove everything I say, but I know there are many unfinished threads in which you have not continued. You refuse to accept anything I have put before you as evidence, such as the establishment of the Nation of Israel. It is false of you to say that I have not given you evidence. I accept that what I have given you as evidence, has not satisfied you and that is different to saying I have not given you evidence. I was not the one to quit examining these prophecies which the intention to discus prophecy died before it got started. The only time I have quit or threatened to quit an argument is when the conversation goes round in circles and we keep passing each other by. It is about time you quit your character assassinations of people and stuck to getting to the Truth of God's word; it is YOU who has quit in this respect.

I have presented a massive amount of evidence that many of your beliefs are fallacious which you have not been able to refute. For you to say that this makes your faith "stronger" is the very quintessence of a religiously deluded psyche. It's been written about. I mentioned this in post #79 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3616-How-Beliefs-Resist-Change-Christianity-and-Cognitive-Science&p=52751#post52751) to you in the How Beliefs Resist Change (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3616-How-Beliefs-Resist-Change-Christianity-and-Cognitive-Science) thread. Here's what I wrote:
What is your take on the main point about how believers tend to delude themselves? Specifically, what is you take on "cognitive dissonance" and the book "When Prophecy Fails" that shows how FAILED prophecy can cause "true believers" to become even more deluded?
This is an established psychological fact. Folks who hold to beliefs without evidence will often say that evidence against their beliefs actually STRENGTHENS their beliefs! And by the way - that thread is one where you quit after I exposed the evidence against Michael Rood. And what was that evidence? It was centered on Roods FAILED PREDICTION of the end times starting in the year 2000! How ironic is that? His followers continued to follow him even when he was proven false. Here is what I wrote (which you have not answered):
It is quite ironic that one of the better articles debunking him (http://www.isitso.org/guide/rood.html) has a section on "cognitive dissonance" titled "When ProphecyFails" because that's exactly what happened to the Michael Rood doomsday cult when his ludicrous prediction about the end coming in 2000 AD failed. Here is what I'm talking about:
I then presented the evidence, which contained many references to the book "When Prophecy Fails." You haven't responded to any of that.

As for the "circles" - those are caused when YOU reject logic and my explanations of it. You have been doing that for MONTHS on the War in heaven thread and in other threads where you have refused to admit that your rejection of my formulation of your paradox is irrational because your formulation of your paradox is logically identical. This is an elementary point of logic that any child could understand, and you have refused to admit it for many months now.

I have absolutely no interest in "character assassinations." All I have done is demand that you deal with the logical fallacies that I have exposed or we won't be able to discuss anything. It is you who are committing "character suicide" when you falsely accuse me.




And then enter INTERPRETATION! :dizzy: Potsherds clashing with potsherds. Each man choosing which interpretation (his own) is correct according to his own fallible logic and knowledge of the facts. This is where the scene becomes quite surreal as the Bible believers choose to believe without beidence and base their interpretation on blatant logical fallacies. :doh:
You are telling me something I already know. There is only one Truth in God's word and it behoves us to find it. It should be evident from your studies of the Bible that many of the different claims you disagree with, you have your own opinion about. You apparently side with some, so you have not put yourself in the position of someone who knows nothing and cannot agree with anything. Whether the things you side with are true or not is another question. You have placed yourself amongst the mass of aetheists and all you can do is repeat the same old questions, which I have answered many times ad nauseum and only do so again for the benefit of new readers to this forum.

Your belief that there is "only one Truth in God's word" has no foundation in fact. The Bible contains many demonstrable contradictions and errors.

I don't "side" with anything but the evidence. You think like a dogmatist and you project your dogmatism on me. I don't think the Bible is even true, so it is absurd to say that I am holding to some sectarian dogma. When I say that Preterism is the "best fit" to the Biblical data, I am telling you my conclusion based on the best logic and facts that I can see. Your rejection is based on dogma and preconceived beliefs, not logic and facts.

The questions are repeated because you repeat your false and/or unfounded assertions. Your answers have not withstood scrutiny, and then you say that these questions that you cannot answer make you faith stronger? That's the quintessence of delusion.




You have nothing like "enough evidence" to believe the Bible. You believe merely because you believe it. From any evidential and logic point of view, you claims are no different than if you were shouting that you are the President of the Galactic Federation and that you can fly to the moon by flapping your arms. I just don't get it. You KNOW that you have no evidence.
Utter drivel Richard as to how you think I believe. You cannot believe anything in the Bible because you failed to see the foundation on which it stands, preferring to put your trust in science and facts (as you see them).

Utter drivel? Your comment is utterly delusional. I have presented MUCH EVIDENCE that you cannot answer. It's all been recored. Months and months of your assertions being refuted while mine stand. Yet you continue to believe your dogmas. That's the definition of delusion.

Yes, I prefer to trust in science and facts. The horror! :eek:




How do you know this? Every time you've been asked to produce it you have either refused or been shown your claims false. Yet you persist in believe the Bible without any good reason. How is that different than a Muslim who blindly believes the same thing about the Quran? It's not, and you know it, but you won't admit it to yourself. How then can you think you really committed to the truth?
As said already, I have given you evidence even though you do not accept it. You say your have shown my evidence to be false, and that I dispute. I have good reason, and you you do not agree with my reason; that is the truth behind your words.

You have not shown me how the restoration of the nation of Israel is not fulfilling an unconditional promise of God You should stop making dishonest statements, sayng I have not gien you evidence or my reason for saying what I do. All you do is claim anything I put before you is false; that is YOUR opinion. You have not explained to me how the prophecies of Ezekiel have been fulfilled; you have not explained to me 'The Valley of Dry Bones etc'. You have not explained to me the splitting of the Mount of Olives and how that was fulfilled (since you side with Preterists). When did that happen and if like L67 you think it is figurative, then please tell me what I am to understand by that figurative prophecy. Please do so now!

You keep bringing up the same question about Muslims and I should not have answer it again. It is easy to compare what the Bible says and what the Quran says. The only reason to believe the Quran is to be under the cultural pressure placed on Muslims. Those who are not Muslims and convert to the faith, are the ones not to understand the Bible properly. A Muslim is the same as a Jew when it comes to continuing their separate tradition. I do not have tradition blinding me from seeing the book which is more truthful. I reject the Quran, because it does not agree with the Bible and especially about the relationship of Jesus with God. The god of the Quran and the God of the Bible (Israel) is not the same God, and so I have to choose the God who declares He is the God and Father of His only begotten son, Jesus. This is not the god of the Quran who places Mohammed above Jesus. The god of the Quran has not proven himself like the God of Israel has proven Himself in the many promises and prophecies, which the word of God tells us. The god of the Quran does not tell us about his plan and purpose with this earth or the origins of the universe and how this planet was formed and life was created, as clearly as the Bible does. These are some the reasons why I do not accept the Quran. If you want to differ, then you can show me by example how the Quran explains things better and which things have been prophesied in the Quran and have come true.


It appears you have yet to understand why I continue to mention other religions. The POINT is that your "logic" is identical to the logic of any believer. You say you believe the Bible is inspired because the Bible says so. The Muslim says the same thing about the Quran (as shown above). This is the fallacy of begging the question. The POINT is that you need objective evidence supporting your beliefs. You think that the so called "restoration" of secular Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy. Both L67 and I explained that your interpretation failed because the prophecies you appeal to are really about the return from the Babylonian exile and or the NT era. I have explained this many times to you and others on this forum. Most recently, I explained it this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3495-Why-does-God-Allow-Evil-People-to-be-Born&p=51201#post51201) in the Why does God allow evil people to be born (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3495-Why-does-God-Allow-Evil-People-to-be-Born) thread. You answered pretty much every post except mine. So my evidence stands unrefuted by your or anyone else on this forum. I would be very interested in your response ...

But the existence of the modern secular state of Israel is not the point. That's only one highly dubious prophecy that many Christians do not believe applies to modern Israel!!! If believers can't agree, it's pretty obvious that the evidence would not convince any rational skeptic. But even if this one prophecy were fulfilled, it would not be sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the Bible is anything like "trustworthy" let alone the "word of God."

As for the prophecies of Ezekiel - I don't recall if you and I have discussed them, but I have explained them many times on this forum. I repeated myself just a couple months ago in January in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1959-Was-Israel-reborn-in-1948-by-the-hand-of-God&p=51855#post51855) which links to an explanation I gave three years ago (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5869#post5869) and which I have repeated many times. It is obvious that Ezekiel's "dry bones" prophecy was talking about the church because Paul made that explicit. But even if you don't agree, such prophecies are obviously not sufficient to prove anything since they depend critically upon subjective judgments and even believers can't agree.

Your assertion that "The god of the Quran and the God of the Bible (Israel) is not the same God" is based upon your assumption that the Bible is true and the Quran false, so you are just begging the question again. How do you know that you can't harmonize the Quran with the Bible? If you can interpret the Bible so that the phrase "angels that sinned" does not refer to "angels that sinned" you should be able to harmonize light with darkness and truth with error.

Muslims strongly disagree with rour assertion that "The god of the Quran does not tell us about his plan and purpose with this earth or the origins of the universe and how this planet was formed and life was created, as clearly as the Bible does." And for good reason, since the Quran tells many of the same stories about Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, God's call of Abraham, Jesus born of a virgin and able to heal, etc., etc., etc. I list 19 examples in my thread A Common Confession of Faith for Christians and Muslims (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3179-A-Common-Confession-of-Faith-for-Christians-and-Muslims). So your rejection of the Quran on this point appears to be irrational and inconsistent.



I know I have more evidence to support the Bible than you have brains in your big toe.

In light of the facts demonstrated in this post, your claim is utterly delusional.




All the best

David
And to you!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard Amiel McGough
03-21-2013, 02:48 PM
Hi Richard,

You changed what 'people' speak, to 'imagination'.

There is, also, a certain truth in your comparison between the appearance of what a Christian believes with the appearance of what any other religionist believes, because there is a Spirit in Christian experience just as there is or are, spirits running the unseen aspects of other religions. The difference between the Spirit who communicates the Godhead, and the other spirits, is that God's is the spirit of the law of life in Christ Jesus, which makes the believer free from the law of sin and death, and no other spirit has the power to release from the law of sin and death. Perversely, those other spirits confirm the law of sin and death to the believer therein, and they become increasingly subject to their powers as they continue to worship them.

Likewise, the Christian becomes increasingly freed from bondage, the more he/she engages the power of the Holy Spirit according to the will of God.

In your search for 'truth' I can tell you from experience that God will not change the parameters within which He reveals Himself, so the onus is on you (not Him) to find out how He likes to be found, and go seek Him that way. He fully intends to work in those who seek Him according to His will, to restore to them the fellowship which Adam lost, but that also means losing all the stupidity (rebellion and pride) which Adam's action bestowed upon his descendants.
Hey there Charisma,

And how do we know when a "Christian becomes increasingly freed from bondage"? That's obviously a subjective judgment. Folks with contradictory beliefs would both claim it.

And what are the "parameters wihin which" God "reveals" himself? Again, such a revelation is purely subjective. Folks from every religion think that they have received "revelations" from God, and most if not all are deluded. So how do you deal with this? I've asked many times and you don't seem to understand that there is no objective way for any religious believer to know that they are right.

So I guess we understand each other quite well. There is no way for anyone to discern between truth and falsehood in religion. It's all just a matter of whatever the believer wants to believe and there is no way to penetrate such a defense. A Mormon, JW, Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist ... they would all give me logically indistinguishable answers. Its pure subjectivity based on confirmation bias.

Do you have any answer to these facts? What path would you suggest for a person who does not want to be deluded like the millions of believers who believe falsehood?

All the best,

Richard

David M
03-22-2013, 01:09 PM
Hello Richard


Good morning David, :tea:


Paul's assertion that he received revelations from God does not count as any kind of "evidence" that he really did. Your answer is a textbook example of Petitio Principii - commonly known as the fallacy of Beginning the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). And worse, your logic is grossly inconsistent because we both know that you would not accept a similar statement in the Quran as proof that it was inspired.

How is it possible that you could think to base an argument on such blatantly fallacious logic? It's exactly the same as this logic from a Muslim site (http://www.allahsquran.com/quran_source_of_guidance.php):
The ultimate manifestation of God's grace for man, the ultimate wisdom, and the ultimate beauty of expression: in short, the word of God. If one were to ask any Muslim to depict it, most likely they would offer similar words. The Quran, to the Muslim, is the irrefutable, inimitable Word of God. It was revealed by God Almighty, through the instrument of Prophet Muhammad (peace be Upon Him). The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself had no role in authoring the Quran, he was merely a human secretary, repeating the dictates of the Divine Creator:




"He (Muhammad) does not speak of his own desire. It is no less than an Inspiration sent down to him." [Noble Quran 53:3-4]



Do you think that's good evidence that the Quran is revealed from God? Of course not. Your logic is both fallacious and inconsistent.
All you have done here is given me a commentary of something someone is saying about Muhammad. This is not quite the same league as Paul saying; (Galatians 1:11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. All I am saying is that Paul is speaking of his personal experience which anyone who doubts will not destroy. Unless the person is delusional and imagines these things, they are soon exposed by the words which come out of their mouth. There is nothing in Paul's words which would indicate that he was delusional and his words are not in harmony with the teaching in the Old Testament scriptures. Put it the other way round and say that the Old Testament scriptures support what Paul says, gives no reason to accuse Paul of lying or being delusional.



The idea of "harmony of the Scriptures" is totally subjective. One believer's harmony is another believer's absurdity. Just look at the Doctrine of the Trinity. You reject it absolutely, whereas the vast majority of Christians say it is the most sacred truth that only a heretic could deny. And how do you justify your beliefs? With your own fallible logic! That's it. That's all you have - your "logic" and your idiosyncratic subjective "harmonies" that cannot be proven.
It might be subjective, but that does not stop more pieces of the puzzle being put together showing more of the complete picture we call the Truth. The more pieces put together correctly, the more Truth is revealed. That is not so subjective when it can be shown that one person has put more pieces together than another person.


I explained this to you in great detail months ago in the post #10 in the War in Heaven (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49505#post49505) thread, and as usual, you failed to understand my explanation no matter how many times I explained it to you. And so now you are repeating the same error. Therefore, I will repeat my explanation in hope that you will actually engage me in a discussion about it.
You say you explained it to me and I rejected your explanation for the reasons I gave. You tried to make out that Angels sinned before Jesus sopke his words and that angels might not have sinned at the time Jesus was speaking. You then try to make out that the future event of a war in Heaven took place in the past. You claim to be right and I say you are wrong. Let others be the judge.


This is the key to your confusion David. Anyone can "harmonize" any text with any idea if they work hard enough. That's not the path to truth. Therefore, we need a consistent method to determine what a text is really saying. The method is scientific. I explained it in some detail in post #4 in the War in Heaven (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49424#post49424) thread:

Your "harmonization of the Scriptures" looks like Ptolemy's epicycles to me. They look designed to force-fit preconceived doctrines.
Is the doctrine of resurrection preconceived or is it a biblical doctrine? If we agree Paul spoke of the resurrection and that is a doctrine, even though the exact nature of that doctrine has its differences, then if resurrection is the basic doctrine as opposed to say reincarnation, then I admit I am going to make other less obvious scriptures align with the doctrine of resurrection and not with a doctrine of reincarnation. Do you want to argue for reincarnation from the Bible or are you going to accept resurrection? If you agree resurrection, then saying I have preconceived doctrines is not an excuse to say I am wrong about everything. I can say you have preconceived ideas and that you force the evidence to fit your ideas. You will object to that statment as much as I object to your statement. This tit-for-tat is starting all over again and it is about time you changed your line of attack. You are becoming so repetitious as to be nauseus.


I do not "accept" that God's angels sinned or the Doctrine of the Trinity. I don't even believe the Bible! How many times have I told you this? Why do you continue to repeat the same absurdity? My position is that the doctrine that angels had free will (and so could sin) seems to be what the authors of the Bible believed.
Your saying that is what you think the authors are saying and is putting your interpretation on the subject. I do not see the authors saying that and sighting 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 and say "angels" means "God's Angels" is putting the spin of those you agree with on the word "angels". You either agree "angels" in that context are human or you think that means "God's Angels". You are revealing your understanding by what you accept and want to keep arguing with me instead of agreeing.



The Trinity is a little less obvious, but one thing is sure, your doctrine that Jesus was "just a man" is not consistent with the teaching of the Bible. Of course, the Bible may be logically incoherent on this point which is why the only solutions are necessarily incoherent with either logic, the Bible, or both.
It is blindingly obvious and you do not seriously try to look for consistency and if you have tried, you have failed. It is your failure that leads you to explain away the Bible by arguing its inconsistency. You have changed from believing in God to not believing in God and as you accuse others of inconsistency you have proven yourself to be inconsistent. The only consistency now is that you do not believe anything in the Bible and want to denegrate anyone else for suceeding where you have failed.



But more to the point: Your assertion that I believe DOGMAS like you is utterly absurd. You reject angels sinning and the Trinity because those are the dogmas of your religion. You then try to "prove" your dogmas with transparently fallacious logic. I have no dogmas to defend so there is no force twisting my logic. I can admit the truth with no fears. Clarity comes naturally and easily when you have no dogmas to defend.
You have your own dogmas and introduce Ptolemaic Epicylces to somehow prove your point. You do not attempt to resolve the problems you failed to do in the past. You have a dogma from my perspective just as you say I have a dogma. It is another tit-for-tat subject and so you ought to give it a rest, since your rhetoric achieves nothing.


As for Preterism, that is far and away the best fit to the Biblical data. Futurism is utterly absurd. It directly contradicts the plain text of the Bible on hundreds of points. Of course, it appears the Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent which explains why no one can agree about it.
You have said all that before and I do not know why you have to keep repeating. You do not win your argument by repetition. Preterism might seem the best fit to you, but others do not share that view and will say you are wrong. I shall ask the question here again because it is not getting answered in my other posts. Please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and if it is not taken to be literal, what is it supposed to mean figuratively?


Your assertion that I "prefer to believe what men write about God's word" is blatantly absurd. I prefer to believe the truth. I base my conclusions on what the Bible actually states.
No you do not and the Book of Enoch which you rejected and gave good reason on this forum some years ago, you use to support your argument for angels sinning. Yes, you prefer to say that "the angels that sinned" is saying: "God's Angels sinned" because you want to take the word "angel" at face value when in fact face value of that word when correctly applied should be human. Everything you accuse me of equally applies to yourself and unless you change track, unfortunately I see our conversations going round in circles on the same track and not getting down to increasing our understanding of God's word.



I have presented a massive amount of evidence that many of your beliefs are fallacious which you have not been able to refute. For you to say that this makes your faith "stronger" is the very quintessence of a religiously deluded psyche. It's been written about. I mentioned this in post #79 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3616-How-Beliefs-Resist-Change-Christianity-and-Cognitive-Science&p=52751#post52751) to you in the How Beliefs Resist Change (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3616-How-Beliefs-Resist-Change-Christianity-and-Cognitive-Science) thread. Here's what I wrote:
What is your take on the main point about how believers tend to delude themselves? Specifically, what is you take on "cognitive dissonance" and the book "When Prophecy Fails" that shows how FAILED prophecy can cause "true believers" to become even more deluded?
This is an established psychological fact. Folks who hold to beliefs without evidence will often say that evidence against their beliefs actually STRENGTHENS their beliefs! And by the way - that thread is one where you quit after I exposed the evidence against Michael Rood. And what was that evidence? It was centered on Roods FAILED PREDICTION of the end times starting in the year 2000! How ironic is that? His followers continued to follow him even when he was proven false. Here is what I wrote (which you have not answered):
It is quite ironic that one of the better articles debunking him (http://www.isitso.org/guide/rood.html) has a section on "cognitive dissonance" titled "When ProphecyFails" because that's exactly what happened to the Michael Rood doomsday cult when his ludicrous prediction about the end coming in 2000 AD failed. Here is what I'm talking about:
I then presented the evidence, which contained many references to the book "When Prophecy Fails." You haven't responded to any of that.
I have responded to that and maybe you have not read my posts. I have said you are a false witness preferring to believe the writings of those who have not been first-hand witnesses. Your disparaging remarks about Michael Rood say more about your character than than his good character. Until you have listened to everything he has said, you have to rely on what other people have to say about him. I have listened to over 40 hours of his teaching expecting to find fault and I have not found anything major to disagree with him. Your accusations against him are just as fallacious as those you accuse other people of. So until you can quote Michael Rood's own words from all the videos you can find on Youtube and have watched them, you remain a false witness.



As for the "circles" - those are caused when YOU reject logic and my explanations of it. You have been doing that for MONTHS on the War in heaven thread and in other threads where you have refused to admit that your rejection of my formulation of your paradox is irrational because your formulation of your paradox is logically identical. This is an elementary point of logic that any child could understand, and you have refused to admit it for many months now.
I am not going to reply here about that. I have replied and taken up your offer of the fresh start and there are questions you might want to answer in the thread where the discussion of this subject belongs. As for going round in circles, I have stated my reasons for not accepting your wording and your argument.


I have absolutely no interest in "character assassinations." All I have done is demand that you deal with the logical fallacies that I have exposed or we won't be able to discuss anything. It is you who are committing "character suicide" when you falsely accuse me.
You constantly attack the person for being deluded etc instead of actually dealing with the subject. I have also replied to your logical statements and the ambiguity of the wording which I do not accept. I have responded, but it appears you have not read my recent posts.


Your belief that there is "only one Truth in God's word" has no foundation in fact. The Bible contains many demonstrable contradictions and errors.
So you say, but not so many errors as you make out. Many can be resolved but you do not accept explanations when given you and there is nothing anyone can do to open your mind.



I don't "side" with anything but the evidence. You think like a dogmatist and you project your dogmatism on me. I don't think the Bible is even true, so it is absurd to say that I am holding to some sectarian dogma. When I say that Preterism is the "best fit" to the Biblical data, I am telling you my conclusion based on the best logic and facts that I can see. Your rejection is based on dogma and preconceived beliefs, not logic and facts.
You do not think the Bible is true and so you argue from that standpoint. We are just the opposite and that is all we can say and nothing is going to change. You have changed from a believer to a non-believer and I remain the same. I stay with the ONE who is also constant and whose message has not changed and is on course to fulfill all which He has promised.


The questions are repeated because you repeat your false and/or unfounded assertions. Your answers have not withstood scrutiny, and then you say that these questions that you cannot answer make you faith stronger? That's the quintessence of delusion.

Utter drivel? Your comment is utterly delusional. I have presented MUCH EVIDENCE that you cannot answer. It's all been recored. Months and months of your assertions being refuted while mine stand. Yet you continue to believe your dogmas. That's the definition of delusion.
Who says yours stand unrefuted but yourself? There are many disagreeing with you and they are all wrong from your point of view. I agree with you when I know you are right and I will continue to disagree with you when I know you are wrong. I am not caving into your false remarks.


Yes, I prefer to trust in science and facts. The horror! :eek: That is what I learned from what you have written.


It appears you have yet to understand why I continue to mention other religions. The POINT is that your "logic" is identical to the logic of any believer. You say you believe the Bible is inspired because the Bible says so. The Muslim says the same thing about the Quran (as shown above). This is the fallacy of begging the question. The POINT is that you need objective evidence supporting your beliefs. You think that the so called "restoration" of secular Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy. Both L67 and I explained that your interpretation failed because the prophecies you appeal to are really about the return from the Babylonian exile and or the NT era. I have explained this many times to you and others on this forum. Most recently, I explained it this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3495-Why-does-God-Allow-Evil-People-to-be-Born&p=51201#post51201) in the Why does God allow evil people to be born (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3495-Why-does-God-Allow-Evil-People-to-be-Born) thread. You answered pretty much every post except mine. So my evidence stands unrefuted by your or anyone else on this forum. I would be very interested in your response ...[/QUOTE]
I have answered that at some point. Just because you write things does not make you correct. Twospirits refuted your posts, but you claim no-one has refuted you. I have refuted what you have said and you simply say that I have not. Only other people reading our posts can judge who is telling the truth. I think you are delusional to think that no-one has refuted what you say.



But the existence of the modern secular state of Israel is not the point. That's only one highly dubious prophecy that many Christians do not believe applies to modern Israel!!! If believers can't agree, it's pretty obvious that the evidence would not convince any rational skeptic. But even if this one prophecy were fulfilled, it would not be sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the Bible is anything like "trustworthy" let alone the "word of God."
I know your reasons because you do not believe anything anyone says differently to your opinion. I have not seen your explanations of the prophecy you say refers only to the exile and the restoration of the poeple. There is much you are missing out. It will need an indepth study and discussion of the relevant chapters but that is not going to happen between us on this forum. I will try to find time to visit some of the new threads you have givn links to.



As for the prophecies of Ezekiel - I don't recall if you and I have discussed them, but I have explained them many times on this forum. I repeated myself just a couple months ago in January in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1959-Was-Israel-reborn-in-1948-by-the-hand-of-God&p=51855#post51855) which links to an explanation I gave three years ago (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5869#post5869) and which I have repeated many times. It is obvious that Ezekiel's "dry bones" prophecy was talking about the church because Paul made that explicit. But even if you don't agree, such prophecies are obviously not sufficient to prove anything since they depend critically upon subjective judgments and even believers can't agree.
That seems to be your stock answer and why you do not find it necessary to continue to piece together the Bible, which you failed to do. I have labeled you a failure and that is how I have to regard you in the context of getting to the truth of the Bible.

Your assertion that "The god of the Quran and the God of the Bible (Israel) is not the same God" is based upon your assumption that the Bible is true and the Quran false, so you are just begging the question again. How do you know that you can't harmonize the Quran with the Bible? If you can interpret the Bible so that the phrase "angels that sinned" does not refer to "angels that sinned" you should be able to harmonize light with darkness and truth with error.
Muslims strongly disagree with rour assertion that "The god of the Quran does not tell us about his plan and purpose with this earth or the origins of the universe and how this planet was formed and life was created, as clearly as the Bible does." And for good reason, since the Quran tells many of the same stories about Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, God's call of Abraham, Jesus born of a virgin and able to heal, etc., etc., etc. I list 19 examples in my thread A Common Confession of Faith for Christians and Muslims (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3179-A-Common-Confession-of-Faith-for-Christians-and-Muslims). So your rejection of the Quran on this point appears to be irrational and inconsistent.[/QUOTE]
I have already explained that the Quran and the Bible disagree on the relationship of Jesus with God. There are bound to be parts which can be harmonized. I appreciated your quotes from both books, but that does not reconcile the differences.


In light of the facts demonstrated in this post, your claim is utterly delusional.
And in light of what you said about Michael Rood, you are a false witness. You are now a false witness and a failure.


Shine on!
Ironical since it is snowing heavily in my part of the world today and I have not seen the sun for two days.

Nevertheless, all the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough
03-22-2013, 04:09 PM
Hello Richard

Good morning David, :tea:


Paul's assertion that he received revelations from God does not count as any kind of "evidence" that he really did. Your answer is a textbook example of Petitio Principii - commonly known as the fallacy of Beginning the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). And worse, your logic is grossly inconsistent because we both know that you would not accept a similar statement in the Quran as proof that it was inspired.

How is it possible that you could think to base an argument on such blatantly fallacious logic? It's exactly the same as this logic from a Muslim site (http://www.allahsquran.com/quran_source_of_guidance.php):
The ultimate manifestation of God's grace for man, the ultimate wisdom, and the ultimate beauty of expression: in short, the word of God. If one were to ask any Muslim to depict it, most likely they would offer similar words. The Quran, to the Muslim, is the irrefutable, inimitable Word of God. It was revealed by God Almighty, through the instrument of Prophet Muhammad (peace be Upon Him). The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself had no role in authoring the Quran, he was merely a human secretary, repeating the dictates of the Divine Creator:




"He (Muhammad) does not speak of his own desire. It is no less than an Inspiration sent down to him." [Noble Quran 53:3-4]



Do you think that's good evidence that the Quran is revealed from God? Of course not. Your logic is both fallacious and inconsistent.

All you have done here is given me a commentary of something someone is saying about Muhammad. This is not quite the same league as Paul saying; (Galatians 1:11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. All I am saying is that Paul is speaking of his personal experience which anyone's doubt will not destroy. Unless the person is delusional and imagines these things is soon exposed by the words which come out of their mouth. There is nothing in Paul's words which would indicate that he was delusional and his words are in harmony with the teaching in the Old Testament scriptures. Put it the other way round and say that the Old Testament scriptures support what Paul says, that gives no reason to accuse Paul of lying or being delusional.

Good afternoon David,

I gave you more than a human commentary. I quoted the Quran which quotes God (Allah) as saying "He (Muhammad) does not speak of his own desire. It is no less than an Inspiration sent down to him (from Allah)." [Noble Quran 53:3-4]. I could have given you many more examples where the Quran quotes God who says that the Quran is inspired. For example:
But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers. [Quran 10:94]
But this is really irrelevant because your appeal to the Bible to prove the Bible is a fundamental fallacy.

As for the supposed "harmony" of Paul's words with the OT, that is not self-evident at all. On the contrary, Paul directly contradicts the OT law of circumcision. And he says the old covenant law was abolished. And he strongly contrasted the New Covenant with the Old, and said that those who lived under the Old had to obey all of it. It doesn't matter if you think you can "harmonize" all these verses because you have no way to prove if your "harmonies" are true. That's the problem with your whole approach to the Bible. It is totally subjective. Your interpretations are subject ONLY to your own fallible judgment.

As for Paul lying or being delusional - he claimed to have visions from God. In the VAST majority of cases, such claims are known to be lies or delusions. Do you give Muhammad the benefit of the doubt? Do you give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt? Do you give Rev. Moon the benefit of the doubt? Of course not. Therefore, to be rational and fair, we must begin with the presupposition that anyone claiming to hear voices or see visions from God is probably delusional. The burden of proof is therefore on you to give me a reason to think that Paul was not delusional.




The idea of "harmony of the Scriptures" is totally subjective. One believer's harmony is another believer's absurdity. Just look at the Doctrine of the Trinity. You reject it absolutely, whereas the vast majority of Christians say it is the most sacred truth that only a heretic could deny. And how do you justify your beliefs? With your own fallible logic! That's it. That's all you have - your "logic" and your idiosyncratic subjective "harmonies" that cannot be proven.
It might be subjective but that doees not mean that more pieces of the puzzle have been put together showing more of the complete picture we call the Truth. The more that pieces together correctly the more Truth is revealed. That is not so subjective when it can be shown that one person shows that they have put more pieces together.

I'm glad you understand that it is subjective. And I totally agree that finding which interpretation has "put more pieces together" is a good test for which is probably true. Indeed, that's exactly the test that I suggested to you months ago in post #4 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49424#post49424) of the War in heaven thread. Here's the gist of again:
There's only one way to discover the truth, and it's not by writing thousands of words of explanations because anyone can do that. So how do we know which is right and which is wrong? As I explained in my last post, we simply need to count up who must explain away more verses. It is my estimation after much study that Preterism wins over Futurism about a 100 to 1. Just think of all the obvious time-texts that say the last days happened in the first century. That fits perfectly with Preterism whereas Futurists must twist words beyond all recognition to try to make them fit their system.
I'm glad we agree on this now. I think it would be great to actually conduct the test. I'll start a thread with a title like "The Real Test: Preterism vs. Futurism" or something like that. We'll actually see which system explains more verses and which requires more invention of unbiblical ideas like the 2000+ year gap in Daniel, yet another "coming" of Elijah to precede yet another coming of messiah with yet another desolation of the Temple, etc.




I explained this to you in great detail months ago in the post #10 in the War in Heaven (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49505#post49505) thread, and as usual, you failed to understand my explanation no matter how many times I explained it to you. And so now you are repeating the same error. Therefore, I will repeat my explanation in hope that you will actually engage me in a discussion about it.
You say you explained it to me and I rejected your explanation for the reasons I gave. You tried to make out that Angels sinned before Jesus sopke his words and that angels might not have sinned at the time Jesus was speaking. You then try to make out that the future event of a war in Heaven took place in the past. You claim to be right and I say you are wrong. Let others be the judge.

You do not understand the most basic facts about logic. You are basing your entire argument on a presumed "contradiction" that must be resolved, but you are unable to even formulate the statement of the contradiction! And when I pressed you on this point, the contradiction your formulated was logically identical to the one I formulated which you adamantly rejected on the absurd pretext that it contained the statement "angels sinned" that is required to formulate the contradiction! :dizzy:

I've explained your error more than a dozen times with absolutely perfect precision and you have consistently IGNORED the answers I gave and simply repeated your error. You need to actually respond to the information I have presented to you. That's why I repeated my request that you "answer my words" over and over and over again. Yet you still refused to answer. Our interaction has gone well past the point of absurdity long ago.




This is the key to your confusion David. Anyone can "harmonize" any text with any idea if they work hard enough. That's not the path to truth. Therefore, we need a consistent method to determine what a text is really saying. The method is scientific. I explained it in some detail in post #4 in the War in Heaven (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49424#post49424) thread:

Your "harmonization of the Scriptures" looks like Ptolemy's epicycles to me. They look designed to force-fit preconceived doctrines.
Is the doctrine of resurrection preconceived or is it a biblical doctrine? If we agree that Paul spoke of the resurrection and that is a doctrine, even though the exact nature of that doctrine has its differences, then if resurrection is the basic doctrine as opposed to say reincarnation, then I admit I am going to make other less obvious scriptures align with the doctrine of resurrection and not the doctrine of reincarnation. Do you want to argue for reincarnation from the Bible or are you going to accept resurrection? If you agree resurrection, then saying I have preconceived doctrines is not an excuse to say I am wrong about everything. I can say you have preconceived ideas and that you force the evidence to fit your ideas. You will object to that statment as much as I object to your statement. This tit-for-tat is starting all over again and it is about time you changed your line of attack. You are becoming so repetitious as to be nauseus.

As you noted, there are different doctrines of the resurrection. Some take it in a physical sense, others focus on the "spiritual body" that Paul spoke of. But I don't see what this has to do with my point which was that we must compare which interpretation naturally explains the most verses and which must "explain away" more verses. Merely "harmonizing" verses is the fast path to delusion as Harold Camping proved quite conclusively.

I do not say that every one of your "preconceived doctrines" is equally a source of error. I was speaking specifically of your preconceived doctrines involving things that are not plainly stated like the resurrection. For example, your doctrine that angels can't sin. That directly contradicts many verses and it is based on your own fallible logic applied to the idea that "God's will is done in heaven." The difference is obvious. The resurrection is a diversion from what we are talking about.

There would be no "tit for tat" if you would actually respond to what I write. I have proven over and over and over again that your logic is fallacious. Yet you refuse to even ANSWER the proof! You just repeat the same error over and over and over again while ignoring the actual proof. Here it is again: You cannot state the paradox that is the heart of your argument! You reject the logical formulation of your paradox which is absolutely perfect and precise, namely:
There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels in heaven could sin.
This is the paradox that you say must be resolved by concluding that "angels cannon sin." But you have no understanding of how to formulate a logical argument, so you insist that you will not accept this statement of your paradox because it contains the phrase "and yet angels in heaven could sin." That is FREAKING INSANE David! It is absolutely moronic! Your entire argument is contained in that statement of the paradox. The fact that there WOULD BE a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven is supposed to PROVE that "angels in heaven cannot sin." Let me repeat:
The fact that there WOULD BE a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven is supposed to PROVE that "angels in heaven cannot sin."
This is the most basic logic. I've explained this over and over and over again, and yet you still do not understand. You continue to reject the formulation of the paradox (which is logically identical to the one you formulated) because it uses the phrase "and yet angels in heaven could sin." Yet that is the very statement that would prove your point if there really is a paradox! This is moronism. This is insanity. You need to admit that you have erred on this point.




The Trinity is a little less obvious, but one thing is sure, your doctrine that Jesus was "just a man" is not consistent with the teaching of the Bible. Of course, the Bible may be logically incoherent on this point which is why the only solutions are necessarily incoherent with either logic, the Bible, or both.
It is blindingly obvious and you do not seriously try to look for consistency and if you have you have failed. It is your failure that leads you to explain away the Bible by arguing its inconsistency. You have changed from believing in God to not believing in God and as you accuse others of inconsistency you have proven yourself to be inconsistent. The only consistency now is that you do not believe anything in the Bible and want to denegrate anyone else for suceeding where you have failed.

Not true. When I was a Christian I worked hard to find consistency. But I also fiercely held to my intellectual integrity and freely admitted when there were things I could not explain. That's why I didn't fall into the deep delusion so common amongst Biblical fundamentalists. I simply cannot imagine how the explanations that satisfy you would satisfy anyone with intellectual integrity. Sorry, but that's the truth. Even when I was in my most fundamentalist days I never accepted absurdities that are commonly believed by other fundamentalists. The Bible Wheel helped a lot because it enabled me to hold the Bible with a "light grip." Unlike other fundamentalists, I had real evidence supporting my beliefs that no one could refute. And so I felt no need to explain all the little problems here or there since I had solid proof that the Bible as a whole was designed by God. And besides, my integrity would never allow me to make up crap excuses to defend the Bible. That was always self-evidently absurd to me.




But more to the point: Your assertion that I believe DOGMAS like you is utterly absurd. You reject angels sinning and the Trinity because those are the dogmas of your religion. You then try to "prove" your dogmas with transparently fallacious logic. I have no dogmas to defend so there is no force twisting my logic. I can admit the truth with no fears. Clarity comes naturally and easily when you have no dogmas to defend.
You have your own dogmas and introduce Ptolemaic Epicylces to somehow prove your point. You do not atempt to resolve the problems you failed to do in the past. You have a dogma from my perspective as you say I have a dogma. It is another tit-for-tat subject and so you ought to give it a rest since your rhetoric achieves nothing.

Not true. Not true at all. Your dogmas are blatantly obvious, starting with your dogma that the Bible is the trustworthy word of God. I don't start with any such domgas. I accept the Bible for what it demonstrably is - a book produced by humans. That's what it really is. It may also be a book influenced by God somehow, but that's not obvious in any way at all. But I'm OPEN to even that possibility, whereas you are not open because you mind is closed by dogmas. I have no dogmas closing my mind. You do. That's the difference between us.




As for Preterism, that is far and away the best fit to the Biblical data. Futurism is utterly absurd. It directly contradicts the plain text of the Bible on hundreds of points. Of course, it appears the Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent which explains why no one can agree about it.
You have said all that before and I do not know why you have to keep repeating. You do not win your argument by repetition. Preterism might seem the best fit to you, but others do not share that view and will say you are wrong. I shall ask the question here again because it is not getting answered in my other posts. Please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and if it is not taken to be literal, what is it supposed to mean figuratively?

Yes, others can "say" anything they want. The can say that the sky is green. But saying don't make it so, and I have refuted every futurist that has ever attempted to prove their doctrines. It's all recorded here on the forum. If you think this is not true, then I invite you to find any example that contradicts my claim and I will recant (or prove you wrong).

Ahhh ... yes, the quintessence of the Futurist hermeneutic. Ignore the main and the plain things and demand explanations that require speculation because they cannot be confirmed and then complain when a speculative answer is given. How very typical. That's not how Bible study is supposed to be done. That's how DECEIVERS invent their doctrines that are not really supported by the Bible at all. I've explained this error many times but you still don't understand. So here it is again. It's called The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics (http://www.biblewheel.com/Theology/TheologyIntro.php). Futurists hate it because it exposes their errors. I wrote it long ago when I was a fundamentalist. Violation of this principle is the first sign of all Bible based cults:
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS (http://biblewheel.com/Theology/TheologyIntro.php)

Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:


[*=1]Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses,shall the matter be established.
[*=1]Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
[*=1]2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.


This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistemology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology. Application of this rule immediately clears away the debris accumulated from centuries of unfounded speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the true Biblical doctrines of Eschatology.
Now look at your demand in light of this principle. Are there any "mutually confirming" verses that could establish the proper interpretation of Zechariah 14? Certainly nothing obvious. That's why it's open to dispute! And that's how Futurists sneak their doctrines into the Bible. They look for GAPS and AMBIGUOUS PASSAGES which they can manipulate and twist to force their doctrines. They SHRED the mutually confirming verses so that they totally destroy any integrity that the Bible actually has. Case in point - they utterly SHRED the unity of the Olivet Discourse so that some parts of Matthew and Mark are taken as future while the corresponding parts of Luke are taken as past. It blatant intellectual inconsistency all designed to FORCE a futurist doctrine.

But as for Zech 14 - it's obviously figurative because it speaks of future sacrifices and all Christians know that the sacrifices ended with Christ.




Your assertion that I "prefer to believe what men write about God's word" is blatantly absurd. I prefer to believe the truth. I base my conclusions on what the Bible actually states.
No you do not and the Book of Enoch which you rejected and gave good reason on this forum some years ago, you use to support your argument for angels sinning. Yes, you prefer to say that "the angels that sinned" is saying: "God's Angels sinned" because you want to take the word "angel" at face value when in fact face value of that word when correctly applied should be human. Everything you accuse me of equally applies to yourself and unless you change track, unfortunately I see our conversations going round in circles on the same track and not getting down to increasing our understanding of God's word.

I was thrilled when you found that old quote where I rejected the Book of Enoch because it showed how I had fallen into the same kind of error as other fundamentalists. This is the great value of this forum. It records my transition from a Bible believing fundamentalist to a freethinking non-theist. That's a HUGE transition and there's a lot of value in the psychological insights this record contains. Case in point: I rejected the Book of Enoch merely because it contradicted my presuppositions about the Bible. Here is the exchange we had:




Hello Richard

You have changed your opinions about the Bible, I cannot see why you would want to change your opinion of the Book of Enoch unless to support your current ideas. For the reasons you state in your post below, I am not entertaining the idea of quoting from the Book of Enoch. I have conceded the one verse which is obvious but as to uncertain scriptural truths, I am staying well clear. It is sufficient to know the erroneous message it contains.


23rd June 2007
Hey Bob,

I was beginning to follow the same line of thought, but now I see it as backwards. Enoch is obviously not Scripture. As mentioned by Rose, it has a "totally different feel and flavor" about it. It has all the earmarks of an error ridden man-made book. It professes all sorts of "secret knowledge" such as the exact names of the leading angels that fell and"all the secrets of the heavens ... the secrets of the lightning and of the thunder, and the secrets of the winds ... and the secrets of the clouds and dew" etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
So given the fact that we KNOW that 1 Enoch can not be trusted, it would be pure folly for us to infer anything from it that is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This means that we can not conclude that angels and humans produced children, since there is no unambiguous witness to that idea in the Bible.


This is the end of this story as far as the Book of Enoch is concerned. I am sticking with your original conclusion.

All the best,
David
Hey there David, :yo:

I'm really glad you found that quote from my old post. I wrote that five years ago when I was still a fundamentalist Christian. It shows how I reasoned from the Bible much in the same way as you do now. And I must say that my reasoning would be valid if we began with the presupposition that the Bible is true. This is a perfect example of how our presuppositions affect our reasoning. I was willing to reject evidence for no reason other than the fact that it contradicted my presupposition! If I were a proud man, I guess this might make me feel embarrassed. But as a man humbled by the fact that he knows he's been wrong about many things, this example encourages me because I see that I am making progress and though I was ignorant because of false presuppositions I was ultimately able to free my mind and accept the evidence.

So now I understand why you simply cannot, under any circumstances, accept the evidence in this case. I once was where you are now. Acceptance of the evidence would mean that Jude agreed with an erroneous book and is therefore in error. This would imply that the Bible contains error, and that contradicts your presupposition.

But this brings up a really thorny question. How do you know your presupposition about the Bible is true? How could you tell if you were wrong? What if you were a Muslim and presumed the Koran is the Word of God and rejected any evidence that contradicted that fact? How would you free yourself from your false beliefs?

So now the question is this: Why do you presume that the Bible has no error? You can't say it is a conclusion based on evidence if you reject all evidence that contradicts your presupposition! That would be a textbook case of circular reasoning. So I presume you will say you believe it through "faith" but that's just saying you believe it because you believe it, and that doesn't help ensure you are not trapped in a false religion. It's exactly what Muslims and Mormons would say.

I think this question hits at the heart of it all: Do you have an intellectual foundation for your faith, or is objectively indistinguishable from all the false religions?

Great chatting my friend. You've really gone the distance and have proven yourself a "worthy opponent." :thumb:

All the best,

Richard

Now look at how you responded. You grabbed that old quote and held onto it with a death grip! You didn't care what reasons I gave. You didn't care that I explained it was an error. You grabbed that old quote and used it as an excuse to IGNORE the reasons I gave! Did you not confirm these words I wrote to you?
So now I understand why you simply cannot, under any circumstances, accept the evidence in this case. I once was where you are now. Acceptance of the evidence would mean that Jude agreed with an erroneous book and is therefore in error. This would imply that the Bible contains error, and that contradicts your presupposition.
You simply refuse to think about the errors of your position that I have exposed. Indeed, you continue to use that post but you never respond to the POINT THAT IT PROVES, namely, that you cannot accept any evidence that contradicts your presuppositions. I explained all this again about four months ago when you brought it up in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=51191#post51191) in the Can God's Angels in heaven be trusted (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted) thread where also we find a repetition of my lengthy explanation in post #44 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=51211#post51211) of your never ending error concerning the basic formulation of logical implications of the form "There would be a paradox if P and yet not P." Do you ever learn? You continuously ignore what I write and then REPEAT the same errors over and over and over again. I have given answers that you have ignored for months on end.



I have responded to that and maybe you have not read my posts.

Merely writing a response is not the same as actually responding to what I have written. That's the problem. I can PROVE that you have ignored the same point over and over and over again in our discussion of how to formulate a logical implication of the form "There would be a paradox if P and yet not P."



I have said you are a false witness preferring to believe the writings of those who have not been first-hand witnesses. Your disparaging remarks of Michael Rood say more about your character than than his good character. Until you have listened to everything he has said, you have to rely on what other people have to say about him. I have listened to over 40 hours of his teaching expecting to find fault and I have not found anything major to disagree with him. Your accusations against him are just as fallacious you accuse other people of. So until you can quote Michael Rood's own words from all the videos of his that I have watched, then you are a false witness.

Michael Rood is a liar. I have given you proof. You have not proven that anything I wrote was false. Indeed, you did not even attempt to provide any evidence to support your false accusations against me. That means that you simply slandered me. That says a lot about your character. You will note I always give EVIDENCE.

What makes you think that Rood has a "good character"? Is it his pretty dress? His pretty hair and long beard that makes you think he's a "real Jew" who has "secret knowledge" about the end times (despite his outrageous false prophecy of the year 2000)?

:lmbo:

You falsely asserted that Rood did not present himself as a "messianic rabbi" or as a "Jew" and gave you EVIDENCE that he had done that. Did you then admit the truth? Nope. Yet you think you are justified to accuse me without evidence? Have you forgotten this is a public forum? Everyone can see what you have done.

Your idea that I must "listen to everything he has said" is as absurd as it is impossible. Have you done that with all the teachers you reject as false? Of course not. Once again, we see a double standard.

Your statement that you haven't found anything do disagree with is ludicrous! ROOD BELIEVES THAT ANGELS SINNED!!! You should have been able to find this out yourself. And I explained it in a previous post and you still don't realize that Rood holds to a doctrine that you utterly and totally reject? I get the impression that Rood has somehow brainwashed you. And it's particularly amazing to me because I give solid answers that you adamantly reject and yet you uncritically believe the blatantly ridiculous teachings of someone like Rood. I am simply stunned.




As for the "circles" - those are caused when YOU reject logic and my explanations of it. You have been doing that for MONTHS on the War in heaven thread and in other threads where you have refused to admit that your rejection of my formulation of your paradox is irrational because your formulation of your paradox is logically identical. This is an elementary point of logic that any child could understand, and you have refused to admit it for many months now.
I am not going to reply here about that. I have replied and taken up your offer of the fresh start and there are questions you might want to answer in the thread where the discussion of this subject belongs. As for going round in circles, I have stated my reasons for not accepting your wording and your argument.

The circles are entirely in your head. You simply do not understand the most basic elements of logic. I have explained your error in gruesome detail, and you didn't even respond to the explanation but rather repeated your absurd error about a "wording" that you do not accept. It was that error that I explained! All you did was repeat it again for the hundredth time.




I have absolutely no interest in "character assassinations." All I have done is demand that you deal with the logical fallacies that I have exposed or we won't be able to discuss anything. It is you who are committing "character suicide" when you falsely accuse me.
You constantly attack the person for being deluded etc instead of actually dealing with the subject. I have also replied to your logical statements and the ambiguity of the wording which I do not accept. I have responded, but it appears you have not read my recent posts.

Not true. You have NEVER dealt with my explanation of your error. All you do is repeat the same error that I exposed without actually addressing the explanation I gave. This has been going on since last September. That's seven months of pure stubbornness on your part!




Your belief that there is "only one Truth in God's word" has no foundation in fact. The Bible contains many demonstrable contradictions and errors.
So you say, but not so many errors as you make out. Many can be resolved but you do not accept explanations and there is nothing anyone can do to open your eyes.

I never said "how many" errors there are, so your comment that there are "not so many" as I make out is meaningless.

My eyes are open to all evidence. Your eyes are closed to any evidence that contradicts your presuppositions. And that's the truth of the matter as our discussion amply proves.




I don't "side" with anything but the evidence. You think like a dogmatist and you project your dogmatism on me. I don't think the Bible is even true, so it is absurd to say that I am holding to some sectarian dogma. When I say that Preterism is the "best fit" to the Biblical data, I am telling you my conclusion based on the best logic and facts that I can see. Your rejection is based on dogma and preconceived beliefs, not logic and facts.
You do not think the Bible is true and so you argue from that standpoint. We are just the opposite and that is all we can say and nothing is going to change. You have changed from a believer to a non-believer and I remain the same. I stay with the ONE who is also constant and whose message has not changed and is on course.

Not true. There are many things stated in the Bible that are true. I've explained this to you many times. Why do you persist in such error? The Bible is a rich treasury that reveals the collective psyche of humanity. It contains much that is true, and much that is false, and much that is superstitious, and a lot of other stuff too.

I agree that we are the "opposite." I am OPEN to any possible evidence supporting any possible truth, whereas you are absolutely CLOSED to any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

How is your claim that you "stay with the ONE" different than your imagination? There is no way for you to discern between your imagination and the "ONE" that you imagine you are staying with. And all the other people with FALSE beliefs would say the same thing, so how do you know you are different? (Easy answer: you don't!)





Utter drivel? Your comment is utterly delusional. I have presented MUCH EVIDENCE that you cannot answer. It's all been recored. Months and months of your assertions being refuted while mine stand. Yet you continue to believe your dogmas. That's the definition of delusion.
Who says yours stand but yourself. There are many disagreeing with you and they are all wrong from your point of view. I agree with you when I know you are right and I will continue to disagree when I know you are wrong. I am not caving into your false remarks.

I do not dismiss any argument merely because it contradicts what I believe. I give EVIDENCE. Case in point: I have proven dozens of times that you don't understand the most basic elements of how to form a logical proposition. You explicitly reject the law of non-contradiction with absurdities about "wording" when you yourself used the same wording in your own formulation of the paradox. You just don't get it. You cannot win by simply DENYING REALITY that is staring you in the face. I have exposed blatant errors in your posts and you have repeatedly IGNORED THE EVIDENCE even as it stands staring you in the face.

DEAL WITH THE PROOF I HAVE GIVEN! Here is is again (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3593-Does-it-make-a-difference-who-the-next-Pedophile-Protecting-Pope-will-be&p=53114#post53114). You DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED YOUR OWN WORDS. You reject my formulation of your paradox even though it is logically identical to yours.



I have answered that at some point. Just because you write things does not make you correct. Twospirits refuted your posts, but you claim no-one has refuted you. I have refuted what you have said and you simply say that I have not. Only other people reading our posts can judge who is telling the truth. I think you are delusional to think that no-one has refuted what you say.

Ha! What an utterly absurd JOKE! I proved that twospirits' logic was inconsistent. He asserted the following two contradictory things (as explained in my victory post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2841-Preterism-in-the-21-Century&p=49824#post49824) which neither you nor twospirits contested):

Henry asserts an omission of "on the mount of Olives" would imply an inaccuracy in Luke if he recorded the same event as Matthew.

Henry asserts an omission of "the end of the world" would NOT imply an inaccuracy in Mark if he recorded the same event as Matthew.

Henry (twospirits) quit the conversation because he could not refute my demonstration of his utterly irrational contradictions. And now you prove yet again that you don't understand the most basic elements of logic when you say that Henry's contradiction is not a contradiction.

I have proven my point. Neither you nor Henry even TRIED to refute my VICTORY POST (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2841-Preterism-in-the-21-Century&p=49824#post49824). If my words were false, you could expose my error and my words would fall. If you want your words to stand, you need to show why Henry's blatant contradiction is not a contradiction. But you don't do things like that. You don't try to present evidence. You just assert your opinions with no evidence of any kind. And then you have the audacity to say that's what I am guilty of? Man, when are you going to learn? You need to provide EVIDENCE if you want your words to stand.

That's why MY WORDS STAND. I have given irrefutable evidence. And everyone can see my words are TRUE because you cannot present any evidence against what I say. All you can do is make EMPTY ASSERTIONS with no evidence of any kind.




But the existence of the modern secular state of Israel is not the point. That's only one highly dubious prophecy that many Christians do not believe applies to modern Israel!!! If believers can't agree, it's pretty obvious that the evidence would not convince any rational skeptic. But even if this one prophecy were fulfilled, it would not be sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the Bible is anything like "trustworthy" let alone the "word of God."
I know your reasons because you do not believe anything anyone says differently to your opinion. I have not seen your explanations of the prophecy you say refers only to the exile and the restoration of the poeple. There is much you are missing out. It will need an indepth study and discussion of the relevant chapters but that is nbot going to happen between us on this forum.

Your comments are degenerating into mindless ad hominem. You can't provide any evidence, so you merely assert that I don't believe anyone who disagrees with my opinion. That's INSANE David. It is pure mindless slander. You have no justification for making such blatantly false and absurd assertions.

And if the "in depth discussion" is not going to happen, it will be only because you will refuse to answer when you are proven wrong.




As for the prophecies of Ezekiel - I don't recall if you and I have discussed them, but I have explained them many times on this forum. I repeated myself just a couple months ago in January in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1959-Was-Israel-reborn-in-1948-by-the-hand-of-God&p=51855#post51855) which links to an explanation I gave three years ago (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5869#post5869) and which I have repeated many times. It is obvious that Ezekiel's "dry bones" prophecy was talking about the church because Paul made that explicit. But even if you don't agree, such prophecies are obviously not sufficient to prove anything since they depend critically upon subjective judgments and even believers can't agree.
That seems to be your stock answer and why you do not find it necessary to continue to piece the Bible together in which you failed to do. I have labeled you a failure and that is how I have to regard you in the context of getting to the truth of the Bible.

Of course it's my "stock answer." It is the best answer I have ever seen, and it has withstood the test of time. Have you ever refuted it? Have you even tried? Then what is the sense of saying it is my "stock answer." It appears empty words are your stock answer.



I have already explained that the Quran and the Bible disagree on the relationship of Jesus with God. There are bound to be parts which can be harmonized. I appreciated your quotes from both books, but that does not reconcile the differences.

Right, and I explained that you could explain those differences if you were so inclined. That's the nature of your "explanations." They can be made to fit whatever you want them to fit because there are no objective tests for truth about your "harmonization of Scripture." It's all subjective. Whatever you want to believe, you believe.



And in light of what you said about Michael Rood, you are a false witness. That will do for now.

Did you provide any evidence that anything I wrote was false? No? Then that makes YOU the false witness.



Nevertheless, all the best

David
Yes ... and I wish the same for you, which means that I truly hope you will take my words to heart and correct your ways. They are becoming deeply disturbing. You made false accusations against me without even trying to present any evidence. You totally rejected evidence that would stand in any court of law concerning the lies told by Michael Rood. You believe in Rood even though he directly contradicts your most fundamental belief that angels cannot sin. You assert that Henry did not contradict himself when I proved he did. And on and on it goes. Your post is a monument to falsehood and blatant absurdity. But it's not too late. You can come back to reality. Just deal with the TRUTH that I have shown you, or show where I have erred. That's all there is too it. Drop the absurd ad hominem. Drop your devotion to delusion.

All the best, indeed,

Richard

David M
03-23-2013, 12:20 PM
Hello Richard

I am not going to go on going round in circles especially as I have taken up your offer of a fresh start in the thread ; 'Can God's Angels be trusted' and kicked off the discussion there

The only one question I hoped you would answer in my last post in this thread, which you have ignored or forgotten, so here it is again;
I shall ask the question here again because it is not getting answered in my other posts. Please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and if it is not taken to be literal, what is it supposed to mean figuratively?

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough
03-23-2013, 12:41 PM
Hello Richard

I am not going to go on going round in circles especially as I have taken up your offer of a fresh start in the thread ; 'Can God's Angels be trusted' and kicked off the discussion there

Don't be absurd David. I have proven your error with absolutely irrefutable logic and you ran away with your tail between your legs and have REFUSED to respond. This is all recorded for all to see.

You have been refuted absolutely. My argument stands. You cannot deny this fact without making yourself appear delusional (or worse, dishonest).

David M
03-24-2013, 01:35 AM
Don't be absurd David. I have proven your error with absolutely irrefutable logic and you ran away with your tail between your legs and have REFUSED to respond. This is all recorded for all to see.

You have been refuted absolutely. My argument stands. You cannot deny this fact without making yourself appear delusional (or worse, dishonest).

Hello Richard

I have not "run away" and again that shows a presumption on your part and is one of your failings. I am not continuing this discussion on this subject in this thread and I have directed you to the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted? in which I have made a fresh start and explained (again) why I do not accept your fomulation of the paradox and the language you have used within the logical expressions. Why have you not answered in that thread?

As for this thread, I can either start a new thread and you can answer the question I have asked of you, or you can answer it here. Let me know where you want to answer the question. The question that you have avoided I repeat again;
I shall ask the question here again because it is not getting answered in my other posts. Please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and if it is not taken to be literal, what is it supposed to mean figuratively?

Once again, I let our readers decide who is the more honest between us when it comes to explaining ourselves and our reasoning. There will be those for and against us, which of itself is not proof of our honesty and integrity. We are human and apt to deceive ourselves and miss seeing our own mistakes even though we try our best to be honest and maintain the highest integrity at all times.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough
03-24-2013, 10:50 AM
Hello Richard

I have not "run away" and again that shows a presumption on your part and is one of your failings. I am not continuing this discussion on this subject in this thread and I have directed you to the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted? in which I have made a fresh start and explained (again) why I do not accept your fomulation of the paradox and the language you have used within the logical expressions. Why have you not answered in that thread?

Good morning David,

Your statement that you "do not accept [my] formulation of the paradox and the language [I] have used within the logical expressions" is totally, utterly, and absolutely absurd because you used logically identical language in your formulation of your paradox. This is what I have been explaining over and over and over again for MONTHS. It is impossible that you don't know this. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude anything but that you are deliberately ignoring - and running away from - the truth.

When I say you "ran away" I mean that you have deliberately IGNORED the overwhelming evidence I have posted. You "run away" from answering the evidence I have been repeatedly posting now for seven months. You don't even attempt to answer it. Every time I post it, you ignore it as if it were not there. Here it is again (from post #52 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3593-Does-it-make-a-difference-who-the-next-Pedophile-Protecting-Pope-will-be&p=53114#post53114) that YOU REFUSED TO ANSWER after you REFUSED TO ANSWER post #42 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3593-Does-it-make-a-difference-who-the-next-Pedophile-Protecting-Pope-will-be&p=52997#post52997) after YOU REFUSED TO ANSWER ... etc., etc., etc., etc. ... ).

So here is the post where you IGNORED what I wrote and REPEATED (yet again) the SAME ERROR that you just now REPEATED AGAIN in your last post:

============== POST #52 ================================


So Richard, you are going to give up and not continue with the fresh start that you offered in the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted/page8)

I have felt like quitting having seen us to go round in circles. I have explained that I am not accepting your wording. It is not the basic equations of logic I do not understand. Unless we can agree the wording of the paradox then it is clear we shall not find agreement on anything else we said about the matter. As I have explained, the paradox is based on Jesus saying; "Thy will be done as it is (done) in Heaven". Then we have the verse of Peter which say; "the angels that sinned", and concerning the same angels, Jude wrote; "the angels which kept not their first estate". A correct understanding of "angels" which in this case are humans removes any apparent contradiction about understanding the workings of God's Angels and they do His will and are "ministering spirits". They always obey the instructions of God and and do not sin and it is wrong for humans to place the human condition on to the Angels of God which are not human, but can take on the appearance of humans.

I have not accepted your words; "yet Angels could sin" If you are referring to "angels", which are human, then I can accept those words about humans, but when you are applying those words to God's Angels, then I do not accept your form of words. This is the crux of this matter.


Good morning David,

You are repeating EXACTLY the same error that I have exposed many times.

You say that you reject my statement of the paradox because it contains the words "and yet angels could sin" but then YOU use the words "God's Angels in heaven sinned" in your formulation of the paradox!

Richard: There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

David: There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.

Your formulation of the paradox is logically identical to mine. It is therefore completely irrational for you to object to my formulation. Your comments have been PURE GIBBERISH!

If you can't understand logic as plain and obvious as this, then it would be impossible to have any meaningful conversation with you.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Here they are again:

I stated your paradox as follows:
There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

You rejected my statement of your paradox by objecting to the phrase "and yet angels could sin." That is TOTALLY, UTTERLY, AND ABSOLUTELY ABSURD because the paradox cannot be stated without mentioning that idea, because that idea is supposed to be the root of the paradox. I proved this by asking you to formulate your own paradox in your own words and when you did, your formulation was logically identical to mine. You wrote:
There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.
Your formulation uses the phrase "God's Angels in Heaven sinned" just as my formulation used the phrase "angels could sin." This is why you objection to the use of that phrase in the formulation of the paradox is so mind-numbingly absurd. YOUR PARADOX, the paradox that you formulated as the very foundation of your entire argument, cannot be stated without mentioning the idea that "angels sinned." We've been debating this ONE POINT for over five months and you simply refuse to admit that you are wrong.

It appears you simply have no concept of the subjunctive mood which is FUNDAMENTAL to the formulation of any logical statement of the form "IF P THEN Q." Here is how the wiki explains it:
Subjunctive possibility (also called alethic possibility or metaphysical possibility) is the form of modality most frequently studied in modal logic. Subjunctive possibilities are the sorts of possibilities we consider when we conceive of counterfactual situations; subjunctive modalities are modalities that bear on whether a statement might have been or could be true—such as might, could, must, possibly, necessarily, contingently, essentially, accidentally, and so on. Subjunctive possibilities include logical possibility, metaphysical possibility, nomological possibility, and temporal possibility.
I've explained this to you dozens of times and you simply ignore what I write. You need to respond to the explanation I have given. Here it is again:

Your words are confused gibberish. You failed to understand your own paradox. You failed to notice the word "if" in my statement of your paradox. Specifically:
There is a paradox IF we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
THAT IS THE PARADOX YOU SAID I HAD TO RESOLVE! That is the paradox you say implies angels cannot sin! You didn't understand your own argument. Everyone knows that you "are not saying 'and yet angels can sin.'" DUH! That is the POINT of your paradox! You are saying that IF angels could sin, then there would be a contradiction because God's will is done in heaven (where angels are). That is exactly what I stated! How is it possible you could fail to understand this? It's nothing but the most elementary logic stated in the clearest possible language.

Your whole argument is that there would be a paradox (contradiction) IF God's will is done in heaven AND YET angels could sin. But logic says a contradiction cannot be true. Therefore, angels cannot sin. That's your argument! That is the paradox I wrote down. How is it possible you could fail to understand something this plain and obvious? There is no clearer way to say it. You totally and absolutely missed your own point.

You need to respond to these words and demonstrate that you understand your error or it will be impossible for us to discuss ANYTHING because all discussions are based on LOGIC which you simply do not understand.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Will you NOW answer the explanations I have given?

Thanks,

Richard

==============================================

Do you >>>SEE<<< those words I highlighted red? Why do you think I repeated them so many times? You are totally IGNORING the evidence that I have presented. I've been asking you to answer this point for months, and you pretend that you don't see the words I write. You don't even respond to them in any way at all.

This is INSANE.

Will you please answer the words I wrote?

Thanks!

Richard

David M
03-24-2013, 03:21 PM
Richard
I have made the "fresh start" you proposed to make in the thread; 'Can God's Angels be trusted' where this discussion belongs. I shall start a new thread and invite answers to the question I have asked you and are ignoring in this thread.

I have made the fresh start and given my explanations and stated my case in the fresh start and that is where this conversation will continue unless you quit. All you are doing is what you did to Cheow and not answer his question before he answered yours. To my knowledge, even offering a solution to the impasse, that situation was not resolved and I do not intend to get into the same rut with you.

I will see you in the other thread, but not anymore in this thread.

David

Richard Amiel McGough
03-24-2013, 04:40 PM
Richard
I have made the "fresh start" you proposed to make in the thread; 'Can God's Angels be trusted' where this discussion belongs. I shall start a new thread and invite answers to the question I have asked you and are ignoring in this thread.

I have made the fresh start and given my explanations and stated my case in the fresh start and that is where this conversation will continue unless you quit. All you are doing is what you did to Cheow and not answer his question before he answered yours. To my knowledge, even offering a solution to the impasse, that situation was not resolved and I do not intend to get into the same rut with you.

I will see you in the other thread, but not anymore in this thread.

David
David,

I have given PROOF that you directly contradict your own words and that your responses contain much GIBBERISH and you refuse to answer. How then can we have a rational conversation if you won't stand by your own words?
Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Sometimes the Bible gets things right.

Richard

David M
03-24-2013, 05:10 PM
Do you have any evidence of such a fault line? I found one credible piece of information and the rest is from end times websites with no evidence.

So, according this paper Wachs, D. and Levitte, D. 1984. Earthquake risk and slope stability in Jerusalem Environmental Geology 6(3), 183-186) there is, despite reports of a fault at the north end of the mount of olives (Willis, B. 1928), no geological support for an active fault associated with the place (Jerusalem itself is about 25km from the seismically active Dead Sea). On the other hand, unlike the rest of Jerusalem, the mount has been repeatedly affected by seismic activity, apparently due to its poor structural foundations, in the form of significant landslides. The reason for this is that the Mount is underlain by the soft chalks of the Cretaceous Menuha Formation, whereas the rest of the city largely sits on more firm limestones and dolomites of the slightly older Bina Formation.

The authors speculate that the events described by Zacharaiah 14 are in fact a description of landslides including the formation of a large valley - similar to the view of Shalem (1949), who suggested that the so-called "Uzziah" earthquake and attendant damage (dated to the first half of the 8th century bc) may lie behind the comments in Zacharaiah.


Edit: I tried to find more information about the quote above and can't locate any more about it. So may or may not be truthful.

Last edited by L67; 03-20-2013 at 07:30 PM.

Thanks L67 for giving some information re the splitting of the Mount of Olives in two. With all the posts recently, I missed this one and only just found it.

I still do not think you have answered the question. To answer your question first, I said the a fault line was known and I accepted that as fact as a a truth and that it could be used by scientists to give a reason for the splitting of the Mount of Olives when the earthquake takes place. It does not matter to me if a fault line does not exist and it would not give scientists any reason to explain away the event to disprove prophecy. When the event happens and if there is no fault line, then the scientists will have no excuse for explaining it away and not admitting the a prophecy was true.

Now I want to know, if you do not take the splitting of the Mount of Olives literally, and you claimed the event is to be taken figuratively, I need you or some other preterist to explain to me how it is figurative. I need an explanation so I can think about it and decide whether to accept it or not and give you my reason for not accepting the explanation. It has to fit in with scripture as a whole.

Unless it can be proven to have happened in the past or can be shown without doubt to be figurative, I have no reason to doubt it will happen in the future.

I await your explanation.


David

David M
03-25-2013, 06:11 AM
David,

I have given PROOF that you directly contradict your own words and that your responses contain much GIBBERISH and you refuse to answer. How then can we have a rational conversation if you won't stand by your own words?
Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Sometimes the Bible gets things right.

Richard

Richard

Are you accusing me of deliberately being evil? I would be very careful of who you slander
(1 Peter 3:15) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

Of course it is impossible for you to have a good conversation in Christ and that is a pity. This goes to show how low you will go to point a verse of scripture like that at me and says more about yourself than it does me.
(Matthew 15:18) But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man:

You condemn yourself more than you do me by the things you say.

Your proof is nothing but floss and tissue paper. I have responded to the ambiguity of your sentence and substituting the words "yet God's Angels could sin" is not what I am saying and you know that. Do you think you can just put any words into a logical expression? Are not those words to have meaning? You are asking me to agree with words in a sentence I do not agree with. You want to formulate the paradox and I am not setting out to formulate a paradox. I have explained this. We know how the words already in the Bible are the paradox and that is what we have to deal with; not another formulation which you began.

I have responded to you and explained all this again in the "fresh start" and unless you respond and make the "fresh start" you said we could make, you prove yourself to be dishonorable if you do not. I have repeatedly asked you to continue this discussion there and you will not. Maybe after much coercing you might, but I should not have to coerce you.

Its your forum and your rules and you can be as obstinate as you like, you do yourself no justice in my sight and are close to bringing all discussion between us to an end.

David

Richard Amiel McGough
03-25-2013, 07:51 AM
Your proof is nothing but floss and tissue paper. I have responded to the ambiguity of your sentence and substituting the words "yet God's Angels could sin" is not what I am saying and you know that. Do you think you can just put any words into a logical expression? Are not those words to have meaning? You are asking me to agree with words in a sentence I do not agree with. You want to formulate the paradox and I am not setting out to formulate a paradox. I have explained this. We know how the words already in the Bible are the paradox and that is what we have to deal with; not another formulation which you began.

I have responded to you and explained all this again in the "fresh start" and unless you respond and make the "fresh start" you said we could make, you prove yourself to be dishonorable if you do not. I have repeatedly asked you to continue this discussion there and you will not. Maybe after much coercing you might, but I should not have to coerce you.

Its your forum and your rules and you can be as obstinate as you like, you do yourself no justice in my sight and are close to bringing all discussion between us to an end.

David
Yes, you "responded" in the sense that you wrote GIBBERISH and ignored the evidence.

Your comment is INSANE because YOU used the phrase "God's Angels in Heaven sinned" in your own formulation of your paradox! :doh:

How DEEP does your madness run??? You've been rejecting your own words for months!

If you want to speak of someone being "obstinate" you speak only of yourself. I have been presenting your error to you for MONTHS and you have been OBSTINATELY refusing to even admit YOUR OWN WORDS.

You have NEVER shown ANY understanding of the BLATANT error in your logic. You refuse to even discuss it in a reasonable way. I have exposed your error and you refuse to admit it. Simple as that.

And WORSE - you now say that you are "not setting out to formulate a paradox" because "the words already in the Bible are the paradox." That's PURE GIBBERISH! When I say you "formulated" the paradox, I mean you stated it in English! That was something you refused to do because you knew it would expose the abject absurdity of your rejection of my "formulation" of the paradox. You made a CRUDE formulation of the paradox in your opening post of your thread God's Will is done in heaven (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3352-God-s-will-is-done-in-Heaven) where you stated the basic idea of the paradox implicitly as follows:
What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved.

I asked you to state the paradox explicitly in a sentence that begins with the words "There would be a paradox if ...." and you used the phrase "God's Angels in Heaven sinned" and so your paradox was logically identical to mine. Here was our exchange from months ago (last December):







Your whole argument is that there would be a paradox (contradiction) IF God's will is done in heaven AND YET angels could sin. But logic says a contradiction cannot be true. Therefore, angels cannot sin. That's your argument! That is the paradox I wrote down. How is it possible you could fail to understand something this plain and obvious? There is no clearer way to say it. You totally and absolutely missed your own point.
Hello Richard
you have stated my argument and you say that is the paradox you have written down, so then what is the next point you want to make? If you say I missed my own point, then so be it. On that basis what is the next point you wanted to make dealing with the title of this thread? The title is; Can God's Angels be trusted? I doubt they can, if they can rebel. But since I do not hold with that view, I believe God's Angels can be trusted. I have explained the apparent contradiction, so that there is no contradiction.

Good evening David,

I do not merely "say" that you missed your own point. I proved it with perfect and precise logic. If you cannot demonstrate that you understand the nature of your error, then it would be foolish in the extreme to try to reason with you because all my arguments depend upon the same kind of logic that you don't understand.

One thing you could do that would help would be to state the paradox that you say that I must answer. If you cannot do that, then we have no way to discuss it. Let me help. In the OP of your thread God's Will is done in heaven (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3352-God-s-will-is-done-in-Heaven) you stated the basic idea of the paradox implicitly as follows:
What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved.

I need you to state the paradox explicitly in a sentence that begins with the words "There would be a paradox if ...."

Thanks!

Richard


Your OBSTINATE REFUSAL to accept my formulation is BLATANTLY INSANE and you have been running and hiding and dodging ever since in a morass of utter insanity. You complained about the word "yet" and showed NO UNDERSTANDING of the most basic meaning of logical implications of the form IF P THEN Q!!! You have left a sludge trail of insanity spanning MONTHS on this forum. The proof is total and complete. Your only option is to ADMIT THE TRUTH and correct your errors. This has been going on for months and months and you continue to refuse to address the evidence.

You have NO CHOICE David. You must DEAL WITH THE EVIDENCE you have been leaving for MONTHS on this forum. I do not suffer fools lightly. You have made MANY false accusations against me with NO EVIDENCE even as you have refused to deal with the evidence of your own words. You need to deal with reality.

David M
03-25-2013, 10:16 AM
When are you going to move on Richard and start afresh?

I have looked back at the thread War in Heaven - Revelation 12:7

You began another Cheow like confrontation saying I had to answer your paradox before you answered mine. As far as I can see, I had not mentioned the word "paradox".
This has all started with you; even to putting words in my mouth and attributing a paradox to me, which I have constantly objected to.

Here is the sequence of posts to back what I have said.


From the thread War in Heaven – Revelation 12:7
Post #11

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Before I answer your "paradox" you have a paradox of your own that you must answer. The Bible says that God is Sovereign and that no one can resist his will. How then does anyone sin? You need to solve this problem before I can answer your "paradox" since your paradox is based on the same idea that God's will is done in heaven.
Richard, I do not need to answer this new question of yours before you answer mine. This is a diversion and we are to stay on topic,

Post #12

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
that's right David - you don't "have to" do anything at all. But if you want to have a rational discussion, then you must deal with paradox I proposed because it it contains the same elements as the paradox you proposed. If you can't answer mine, why should I try to answer yours? This is not a diversion - it is the essence of the paradox you want answered.

Post #15

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Good afternoon David,

You missed my point. It was neither a diversion nor a game based on bad rules. It was a simple call for consistency. Your beliefs are based on a paradox that is essentially identical to the one you want me to answer. So you need to explain to me why you think it is a paradox when I say it, but not a paradox when you say it. Specifically:
• David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
• Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and on earth and yet people sin.



See that!! You have attributed a paradox to me which I did not state. Please show me where I stated that first. I have searched and cannot find it.

You have diverted the conversatioin away from where it was and at the beginning you were losing the argument inventing things that were not scriptural. I am not going to revue all of thos posts here, I want to put an end to this stupid paradox you have forced upon me. We know what the words in the Bible are that sound like a paradox which if we understand correctly is no paradox at all.

You have done exactly the same as you did with Cheow forcing him to answer your question first before you answered his. That was a bit childish of you and goes to show you are not big enough to answer first. You have done the same with me and you cannot recognize the ambiguity you have introduced into the logical statements you have forced upon me.

Now go and make a "fresh start" as you offered and stop being Mr I-am-a-logic-guru. What a load of ....


David

L67
03-25-2013, 11:27 AM
See that!! You have attributed a paradox to me which I did not state. Please show me where I stated that first. I have searched and cannot find it.

You have diverted the conversatioin away from where it was and at the beginning you were losing the argument inventing things that were not scriptural. I am not going to revue all of thos posts here, I want to put an end to this stupid paradox you have forced upon me. We know what the words in the Bible are that sound like a paradox which if we understand correctly is no paradox at all.

You have done exactly the same as you did with Cheow forcing him to answer your question first before you answered his. That was a bit childish of you and goes to show you are not big enough to answer first. You have done the same with me and you cannot recognize the ambiguity you have introduced into the logical statements you have forced upon me.

Now go and make a "fresh start" as you offered and stop being Mr I-am-a-logic-guru. What a load of ....


David

David I have watched this argument go on for months and can't believe you can't grasp the situation. YOU absolutely did state the paradox. Richards formulation of the paradox reads the same way your does. You are flat out WRONG. Just admit your error and move on.

What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved. Explaining Jude 6 or 2 Peter 2:4 to show that the angles referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven removes the paradox. The same can be done for any passage in the Bible which implies God’s Angels in Heaven can sin.

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3352-God-s-will-is-done-in-Heaven

Richard Amiel McGough
03-25-2013, 11:52 AM
David I have watched this argument go on for months and can't believe you can't grasp the situation. YOU absolutely did state the paradox. Richards formulation of the paradox reads the same way your does. You are flat out WRONG. Just admit your error and move on.

What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved. Explaining Jude 6 or 2 Peter 2:4 to show that the angles referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven removes the paradox. The same can be done for any passage in the Bible which implies God’s Angels in Heaven can sin.

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3352-God-s-will-is-done-in-Heaven
Finally! A second witness. Thanks L67.

:signthankspin:

I invite ALL MEMBERS of this forum to weigh in on this issue, with one caveat. If you comment, provide EVIDENCE that supports your conclusion like L67 did. Don't just make claims.

Richard Amiel McGough
03-25-2013, 12:04 PM
When are you going to move on Richard and start afresh?

I have looked back at the thread War in Heaven - Revelation 12:7

You began another Cheow like confrontation saying I had to answer your paradox before you answered mine. As far as I can see, I had not mentioned the word "paradox".
This has all started with you; even to putting words in my mouth and attributing a paradox to me, which I have constantly objected to.

Here is the sequence of posts to back what I have said.


From the thread War in Heaven – Revelation 12:7
Post #11

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Before I answer your "paradox" you have a paradox of your own that you must answer. The Bible says that God is Sovereign and that no one can resist his will. How then does anyone sin? You need to solve this problem before I can answer your "paradox" since your paradox is based on the same idea that God's will is done in heaven.
Richard, I do not need to answer this new question of yours before you answer mine. This is a diversion and we are to stay on topic,

Post #12

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
that's right David - you don't "have to" do anything at all. But if you want to have a rational discussion, then you must deal with paradox I proposed because it it contains the same elements as the paradox you proposed. If you can't answer mine, why should I try to answer yours? This is not a diversion - it is the essence of the paradox you want answered.

Post #15

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Good afternoon David,

You missed my point. It was neither a diversion nor a game based on bad rules. It was a simple call for consistency. Your beliefs are based on a paradox that is essentially identical to the one you want me to answer. So you need to explain to me why you think it is a paradox when I say it, but not a paradox when you say it. Specifically:
• David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
• Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and on earth and yet people sin.

See that!! You have attributed a paradox to me which I did not state. Please show me where I stated that first. I have searched and cannot find it.

You have diverted the conversatioin away from where it was and at the beginning you were losing the argument inventing things that were not scriptural. I am not going to revue all of thos posts here, I want to put an end to this stupid paradox you have forced upon me. We know what the words in the Bible are that sound like a paradox which if we understand correctly is no paradox at all.

You have done exactly the same as you did with Cheow forcing him to answer your question first before you answered his. That was a bit childish of you and goes to show you are not big enough to answer first. You have done the same with me and you cannot recognize the ambiguity you have introduced into the logical statements you have forced upon me.

Now go and make a "fresh start" as you offered and stop being Mr I-am-a-logic-guru. What a load of ....

David
It is true that you did not STATE your paradox succinctly, accurately, and explicitly as I did in my formulation of it. But that's irrelevant because you stated PRECISELY the same thing implicitly in your OP (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3352-God-s-will-is-done-in-Heaven) of the "God's will is done in heaven" thread where you wrote this:
David: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved.
Your statement asserts that there would be a PARADOX if "angels sinned" and "God's will is done in heaven." This is exactly what I said your comment implied when I formulated it for you. I never said that you actually stated your paradox in those words, so your assertion is false.

And this reveals the absurdity of your assertion that you disagree with the use of the phrase "angels sinned" that is REQUIRED to formulate the paradox. You used that phrase yourself and it is found in the Bible as you noted. It is, therefore, utterly absurd for you to reject my statement of the paradox that you introduced as the very FOUNDATION of your argument in your OP!

I stated your paradox for you explicitly with clarity because that is the FAST TRACK TO MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING! I never dreamed you could object because my formulation is logically identical to your own statement of your own paradox in your own post.

The first thing everyone should do in any debate is state their understanding of their opponents view. Then the opponents can know if the other side understands them properly. If folks fail to do this, they often will just be talking past each other and "refuting" straw men because they don't understand what the other side said. This is ELEMENTARY.

I have never seen such STUBBORN STUPIDITY in all my born days (except by CWH, of course). I am utterly stunned.

You need to admit your error and show that you understand why it is an error. It's on the level of saying that 1 + 2 = 43. Dude. Listen to me. There's no way out of this mess. I've been trying to help you see your error for seven months!

Richard

David M
03-26-2013, 04:32 AM
This is to reply to both L67 and Richard

L67. You have just said;


David I have watched this argument go on for months and can't believe you can't grasp the situation. YOU absolutely did state the paradox Richards formulation of the paradox reads the same way your does. You are flat out WRONG. Just admit your error and move on.Please show me the words I used, which Richard has put into my mouth. I used the word "paradox", because of the words we find in the Bible which are on the face of it, a self-contradiction.

My opening words are;
This post is to explain that God's Angels cannot sin and a paradox must be resolved.

Please show me where I stated the paradox using the words Richard has put into my mouth. How does Richard's formulation which you admit he has formulated is the same as mine which I did not formulate. I expect you to have read Richard's reply by now and you will see Richard admits; "You did not state it". I merely cite two references of scripture, which on the face of it, appeart to be contradictory. This would appear to make the Bible self-contradictory. I have resolved the paradox to my my satisfaction, by explaining who the "angels" are and so for me, there is no contradiction. You are forcing the contradiction by claiming the Bible says "God's Angels sin" and that is not what I am agreeing to. Like Richard who said; "Personally, I don't see any paradox" is saying God's Angels can sin and is saying the words of Jesus do not mean what they do and making Jesus a liar for saying; "(God's will) is done in Heaven"

I am glad you have nailed your colors to Richard's mast. Our friend Timmy has nailed you both in a recent reply in which he addresses both of you and I am on Timmy's side.



Richard. In support of L67, thinking he is supoporting you, you have hit the proverbial nail of the head.


It is true that you did not STATE your paradox succinctly, accurately, and explicitly as I did in my formulation of it.

The paradox comes from the words in the Bible (not my words). Jesus said;Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" 2 Peter 2:4 speaking of the same event as Jude in which the word "angels" is used; the angels that sinned

You have said Richard; ".... in my formulation of it" That is what I have objected to from the beginning. I have given my reasons once again in the "fresh start" you offered we should take and yet you will not go there to continue the discussion. If you had, I would not have had the opportunity here of exposing both you and L67 at the same time.

I have answered and explained again in the "fresh start", and I can do no better. Accept my reasons or not, but what you have done here is a travesty of the truth and you have put words in my mouth. You are the person, despite all your protestations to the contrary, is the person who is adding to and taking away from the word of God, and you are doing the same to me. I have nothing to be remorseful of and I consider you need to be repentent.

I am tired of your badgering and belittling remarks and find your insults towards me in pervious posts objectionable. I wish I did not have to speak so bluntly, but what you and L67 have accused me of, has exposed both of you.




Readers, please note:

All this started after Richard said in his opening reply to my starting the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted?;

Hey there David,

I like the way you framed this discussion. A nice, clearly stated "paradox." That should make for some good progress.

Personally, I don't see any paradox and then after many posts, Richard went on to formulate the paradox and say the formulation was the same as mine and then insert that formulation into a logical expression in which I could not agree to the sentence he used and continues to use. I have given my reasons and explanations for not accepting his sentence. Here is the link to posts #74 and #75). (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted/page8)



Would anyone besides Richard and L67 reading this post and all that has gone on in the other threads, please give us your comments on this debarcle?


David

L67
03-26-2013, 07:23 AM
This is to reply to both L67 and Richard

L67. You have just said;

Please show me the words I used, which Richard has put into my mouth. I used the word "paradox", because of the words we find in the Bible which are on the face of it, a self-contradiction.

Yes, you did state that. And then you stated: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven.




Please show me where I stated the paradox using the words Richard has put into my mouth. How does Richard's formulation which you admit he has formulated is the same as mine which I did not formulate. I expect you to have read Richard's reply by now and you will see Richard admits; "You did not state it". I merely cite two references of scripture, which on the face of it, appeart to be contradictory. This would appear to make the Bible self-contradictory. I have resolved the paradox to my my satisfaction, by explaining who the "angels" are and so for me, there is no contradiction. You are forcing the contradiction by claiming the Bible says "God's Angels sin" and that is not what I am agreeing to. Like Richard who said; "Personally, I don't see any paradox" is saying God's Angels can sin and is saying the words of Jesus do not mean what they do and making Jesus a liar for saying; "(God's will) is done in Heaven"

I really can't believe you are this dense. You did not state Richards formulation of the paradox word for word. But that is irrelevant. You are hung up on that point. This is what you said:
What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven.

That is the paradox or contradiction you introduced. You say in one part of the Bible Peter says " angels sinned". And in another part Jesus says" God's will is done in Heaven".

Let's look at what "sinned" means. sinned past participle, past tense of sin
Verb
Commit a sin.

The way "sinned" is used means angels did sin. Now lets compare. The use of the word "sinned" means angels sin. His phrase "and yet angels sin" say that angels sin. They both have the same meaning. How can you fail to understand that?

Here is the paradox he stated: It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin. His formulation of the paradox has the same meaning as yours does. It doesn't matter if some of the words are different. The conclusion is the same.

It is absolutely mind blowing that you can't grasp this.



I am glad you have nailed your colors to Richard's mast. Our friend Timmy has nailed you both in a recent reply in which he addresses both of you and I am on Timmy's side.

Do you know how childish you sound? You really are delusional. Timmy did nothing of the sort. He made baseless assertions like you do and didn't bother to refute one word I said. In fact, he offered a video of a know scammer as evidence to prove his point. Does that sound familiar David? It should. Because you look to Michael Rood the same way. I posted absolutely devastating evidence to the charlatan that is Michael Rood and you never responded. Whyis that David? Why is it you and Timmy hitch your wagons to shady people? Does your religion teach you to be brain dead?




You have said Richard; ".... in my formulation of it" That is what I have objected to from the beginning. I have given my reasons once again in the "fresh start" you offered we should take and yet you will not go there to continue the discussion. If you had, I would not have had the opportunity here of exposing both you and L67 at the same time.

You have exposed nothing other than your gross ignorance of your own argument. You have failed to grasp your own words. It's pretty sad David.

L67
03-26-2013, 09:02 AM
Please show me where I stated the paradox using the words Richard has put into my mouth. How does Richard's formulation which you admit he has formulated is the same as mine which I did not formulate. I expect you to have read Richard's reply by now and you will see Richard admits; "You did not state it". I merely cite two references of scripture, which on the face of it, appeart to be contradictory. This would appear to make the Bible self-contradictory. I have resolved the paradox to my my satisfaction, by explaining who the "angels" are and so for me, there is no contradiction. You are forcing the contradiction by claiming the Bible says "God's Angels sin" and that is not what I am agreeing to. Like Richard who said; "Personally, I don't see any paradox" is saying God's Angels can sin and is saying the words of Jesus do not mean what they do and making Jesus a liar for saying; "(God's will) is done in Heaven"



I want to clarify something. I want you to read Richards words to you in the "War in Heaven" thread. Here is what he says: THAT IS THE PARADOX YOU SAID I HAD TO RESOLVE! That is the paradox you say implies angels cannot sin! You didn't understand your own argument. Everyone knows that you "are not saying 'and yet angels can sin.'" DUH! That is the POINT of your paradox! You are saying that IF angels could sin, then there would be a contradiction because God's will is done in heaven (where angels are). That is exactly what I stated! How is it possible you could fail to understand this? It's nothing but the most elementary logic stated in the clearest possible language

Do you see that David? That is why your point about the paradox is logically identicals to Richard formulation of it. Now in light of the above.

It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin

How does this not logically reach the same conclusion you have stated?

David M
03-26-2013, 09:56 AM
I want to clarify something. I want you to read Richards words to you in the "War in Heaven" thread. Here is what he says: THAT IS THE PARADOX YOU SAID I HAD TO RESOLVE! That is the paradox you say implies angels cannot sin! You didn't understand your own argument. Everyone knows that you "are not saying 'and yet angels can sin.'" DUH! That is the POINT of your paradox! You are saying that IF angels could sin, then there would be a contradiction because God's will is done in heaven (where angels are). That is exactly what I stated! How is it possible you could fail to understand this? It's nothing but the most elementary logic stated in the clearest possible language

Do you see that David? That is why your point about the paradox is logically identicals to Richard formulation of it. Now in light of the above.

It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin

How does this not logically reach the same conclusion you have stated?

OK L67 you want to take up the argument.

Please define "angels". Who are the "angels"? If you say they are God's Angels then you are saying; God's Angels in Heaven sin. Jesus said; God's will is done in Heaven. This does not mean as Richard tried to explain that God's Angels could have sinned before Jesus spoke his words and that by the time he did, Angels no longer sinned. I did not accept that way of getting around the paradox.

"That is exactly what I stated!". And at one point when Richard seemed to say he and I were saying the same thing, I said to Richard something like; "if you say I am saying the same thing, why do you not move the conversation on and make your next point" and Richard insisted on laboring this sticking point. You can look that up; it will take too much of my time trawling through the posts. Richard will be able to find it easily.

Is this whole thing a paradox to you or do you believe God's Angels can sin whether they be in Heaven or on earth?



At another point Richard in his X = earth and Y = heaven + earth was confusing the point. I do not want to get into an argument where God's Angels could be accused of sinning. That is why I replied, men sin on earth and men are not in heaven to sin and Angels are in Heaven and it does not mean they can sin on earth as it the case which in a recent post, Richard is saying is myth, but I got the distinct impression he says this is what the Bible says when the "sons of God", assumed to be God's Angels had sex with the "daughters of men". Richard says this is what the Bible says and then says the Bible is written by non-inspired men. He does not believe the Bible so can say anything he likes. Richard is wrong on two counts; the ancient scriptures as supposedly written by Moses were written under inspiration and God's Angels did not have sex with human women as for reasons I have given. I have asked Richard for a list of things he thinks the Bible says and that can be the basis for future discussion. If Richard puts forward the writings of men to support his argument, whether he believes the Bible or not, then I take it he supports the evidence he puts forward. Even now, Richard continues the argument with the Book of Enoch. He said it was a book not to be trusted, and so brings it into the conversation to support his idea for saying Jude is referring by the word "angels" to God's holy angels. If the Boiok of Enoch became unreliable and could not be trusted, then it should not be used as evidence to support an argument. I am having to many arguments with Richard who keeps introducing these things that are distractions and confusing the discussion.
That is why, I am letting this drop and moving on and I will discuss with Richard once I know what he understands the Bible teaches. On the things he says the Bible teaches and I disagree, then we can discuss specifically those things and stay focussed, just as I am now trying to do with the thread; 'The splitting of the Mount of Olives'.





David

Richard Amiel McGough
03-26-2013, 10:14 AM
Please show me the words I used, which Richard has put into my mouth. I used the word "paradox", because of the words we find in the Bible which are on the face of it, a self-contradiction.

My opening words are;


This post is to explain that God's Angels cannot sin and a paradox must be resolved.
Please show me where I stated the paradox using the words Richard has put into my mouth. How does Richard's formulation which you admit he has formulated is the same as mine which I did not formulate. I expect you to have read Richard's reply by now and you will see Richard admits; "You did not state it". I merely cite two references of scripture, which on the face of it, appeart to be contradictory. This would appear to make the Bible self-contradictory. I have resolved the paradox to my my satisfaction, by explaining who the "angels" are and so for me, there is no contradiction. You are forcing the contradiction by claiming the Bible says "God's Angels sin" and that is not what I am agreeing to. Like Richard who said; "Personally, I don't see any paradox" is saying God's Angels can sin and is saying the words of Jesus do not mean what they do and making Jesus a liar for saying; "(God's will) is done in Heaven"

I am glad you have nailed your colors to Richard's mast. Our friend Timmy has nailed you both in a recent reply in which he addresses both of you and I am on Timmy's side.

David,

Every post you write becomes more ridiculous than the last. I did not put those words in your mouth! I never said you wrote those words. And you know this because last September you responded to my formulation of your paradox by saying this (red words, post # 23 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49606#post49606)):
David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location X (Heaven) and yet beings in location X sin. Yes, that is the paradox except for the word "yet" you have inserted. This simple paradox is; it is said by people (like yourself) that God's Angels sin and Jesus says; God's will is done in Heaven (where the Angels reside).
So there you go. You said "Yes, that is the paradox." (Of course you didn't understand the concept of an algebraic variable X representing any "place" and so inserted the specific location "heaven" which is absurd because then there is no reason to use the variable.)

Let me repeat: Seven months ago, you agreed that "Yes, that is the paradox." You understood that I was only trying to clarify your paradox and that I was not putting those words in your mouth as if you had written them yourself.

I never put any words in your mouth. You need to admit this truth.

And your charge is BLATANTLY ABSURD because you confirmed that my formulation of your paradox is correct when you wrote you own version as follows:
David wrote: There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.
You really need to quit playing these absurd word games. They are idiotic. Moronic. Dumbass bullshit far beneath the dignity of any man. Indeed, I find myself quite disturbed by my own responses. It feels horrible to have to tell you for months on end that you are writing utterly meaningless gibberish. I fear that folks who just happen to drop into the middle of this conversation without any context might think I'm some sort of raging asshole. But truth will win, and I will not back down from it.

It's easy to see what your problem is. You are grossly confused about the most basic elements of logic and the English language. I've been explaining this to you for seven months but you have refused to learn. But I'm patient, so I will explain it again. Your essential error is that you think you must ASSUME THE TRUTH of a proposition stated in the subjunctive mood. You think that merely stating the paradox implies that "angels sinned." Here is how I explained your error last September (which is the post you answered when you said "Yes, that is the paradox."):





Of course you can say that just because I do not see a paradox one does not exist, but in this case I do not see the paradox you are introducing. In the paradox you attribute to me, it is you who is saying; "yet beings in location X sin" That is not what I am saying. I am saying that Angels DO NOT sin in Heaven. The parallel cannot be made with your claimed paradox. Humans sin on earth and humans are not in heaven and so humans cannot sin in Heaven because they are not there. I do not see anything logical in what you have written and your logic in my opinion is faulty on this occassion. If it is only me who is blind to what you are saying, so be it, you have made your point and I have made mine and the jury must decide who is correct.

David,

Yes, of course you are asserting that "angels do not sin." Duh! That's the whole point of this discussion. And how did you come to that conclusion? You said there would be a PARADOX if God's will was done in heaven and angels could sin! Have you forgotten your own words? Have you forgotten how logic works? You said that IF God's will is done in heaven, THEN there would be a paradox if angels could sin. THIS IS THE PARADOX you have repeatedly challenged me to answer! So I wrote your paradox down:


David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

This is the paradox you challenged me to answer! I simply generalized it to show you that it applies to both heaven and earth:


David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location X and yet beings in location X sin.
Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location Y and yet beings in location Y sin.

How is it possible that you could fail to see and understand such elementary logic? I'm guessing you answered before you really thought about what I wrote.

Do you see those red words David? You have persisted in this absurd error for seven months now. The whole point of YOUR assertion that there would be a paradox is to PROVE that "angels cannot sin." You cannot form this paradox without using some variation of the phrase "angels sinned" - just like YOU did in your OP! Here is an explanation I gave just last week that you have refused to answer:




So Richard, you are going to give up and not continue with the fresh start that you offered in the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted/page8)

I have felt like quitting having seen us to go round in circles. I have explained that I am not accepting your wording. It is not the basic equations of logic I do not understand. Unless we can agree the wording of the paradox then it is clear we shall not find agreement on anything else we said about the matter. As I have explained, the paradox is based on Jesus saying; "Thy will be done as it is (done) in Heaven". Then we have the verse of Peter which say; "the angels that sinned", and concerning the same angels, Jude wrote; "the angels which kept not their first estate". A correct understanding of "angels" which in this case are humans removes any apparent contradiction about understanding the workings of God's Angels and they do His will and are "ministering spirits". They always obey the instructions of God and and do not sin and it is wrong for humans to place the human condition on to the Angels of God which are not human, but can take on the appearance of humans.

I have not accepted your words; "yet Angels could sin" If you are referring to "angels", which are human, then I can accept those words about humans, but when you are applying those words to God's Angels, then I do not accept your form of words. This is the crux of this matter.


Good morning David,

You are repeating EXACTLY the same error that I have exposed many times.

You say that you reject my statement of the paradox because it contains the words "and yet angels could sin" but then YOU use the words "God's Angels in heaven sinned" in your formulation of the paradox!

Richard: There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

David: There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.

Your formulation of the paradox is logically identical to mine. It is therefore completely irrational for you to object to my formulation. Your comments have been PURE GIBBERISH!

If you can't understand logic as plain and obvious as this, then it would be impossible to have any meaningful conversation with you.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Here they are again:

I stated your paradox as follows:
There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

You rejected my statement of your paradox by objecting to the phrase "and yet angels could sin." That is TOTALLY, UTTERLY, AND ABSOLUTELY ABSURD because the paradox cannot be stated without mentioning that idea, because that idea is supposed to be the root of the paradox. I proved this by asking you to formulate your own paradox in your own words and when you did, your formulation was logically identical to mine. You wrote:
There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.
Your formulation uses the phrase "God's Angels in Heaven sinned" just as my formulation used the phrase "angels could sin." This is why you objection to the use of that phrase in the formulation of the paradox is so mind-numbingly absurd. YOUR PARADOX, the paradox that you formulated as the very foundation of your entire argument, cannot be stated without mentioning the idea that "angels sinned." We've been debating this ONE POINT for over five months and you simply refuse to admit that you are wrong.

It appears you simply have no concept of the subjunctive mood which is FUNDAMENTAL to the formulation of any logical statement of the form "IF P THEN Q." Here is how the wiki explains it:
Subjunctive possibility (also called alethic possibility or metaphysical possibility) is the form of modality most frequently studied in modal logic. Subjunctive possibilities are the sorts of possibilities we consider when we conceive of counterfactual situations; subjunctive modalities are modalities that bear on whether a statement might have been or could be true—such as might, could, must, possibly, necessarily, contingently, essentially, accidentally, and so on. Subjunctive possibilities include logical possibility, metaphysical possibility, nomological possibility, and temporal possibility.
I've explained this to you dozens of times and you simply ignore what I write. You need to respond to the explanation I have given. Here it is again:

Your words are confused gibberish. You failed to understand your own paradox. You failed to notice the word "if" in my statement of your paradox. Specifically:
There is a paradox IF we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
THAT IS THE PARADOX YOU SAID I HAD TO RESOLVE! That is the paradox you say implies angels cannot sin! You didn't understand your own argument. Everyone knows that you "are not saying 'and yet angels can sin.'" DUH! That is the POINT of your paradox! You are saying that IF angels could sin, then there would be a contradiction because God's will is done in heaven (where angels are). That is exactly what I stated! How is it possible you could fail to understand this? It's nothing but the most elementary logic stated in the clearest possible language.

Your whole argument is that there would be a paradox (contradiction) IF God's will is done in heaven AND YET angels could sin. But logic says a contradiction cannot be true. Therefore, angels cannot sin. That's your argument! That is the paradox I wrote down. How is it possible you could fail to understand something this plain and obvious? There is no clearer way to say it. You totally and absolutely missed your own point.

You need to respond to these words and demonstrate that you understand your error or it will be impossible for us to discuss ANYTHING because all discussions are based on LOGIC which you simply do not understand.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Will you NOW answer the explanations I have given?

Thanks,

Richard


Do you see those words I repeated at the end of my post? Why do you think I repeated them? You REFUSED to answer my explanation. You have never shown any understanding of your error no matter how many times I explain it to you, and worse, you ADAMANTLY REFUSE to actually address the explanation I give. I even repeated that post with the five repeated requests for an answer in red bold! But you still refused to answer. Why do you not just discuss the explanations I give? Why do you ignore them?

So now I'm trying to "get inside your head" to see how it is possible that you could fail to understand such simple logic after all these months of explanations. I think I might have figured it out. You have resolved the paradox by saying that the "angels that sinned" mentioned by Peter are not "God's angels" but rather human messengers. I've known this from the beginning. So now you think that it is impossible to even state that paradox (the very paradox that you resolved!) without asserting the actual factual truth of the proposition "God's Angels sinned." This is, of course, utterly absurd because YOU YOURSELF FORMULATED YOUR OWN PARADOX using that phrase. Specifically, here is what you wrote:
David wrote: There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.
Therefore, your rejection of my formulation of your paradox is utterly, totally, and absolutely ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and LUDICROUS. It is time you admit this truth that anyone with half a brain can see.



I am tired of your badgering and belittling remarks and find your insults towards me in pervious posts objectionable. I wish I did not have to speak so bluntly, but what you and L67 have accused me of, has exposed both of you.

The sense of "badgering" comes from your own refusal to answer my posts. You have been refusing to answer simple questions with truth and clarity for seven months. I have proven my case. It is time for you to admit the truth. You need to stop making excuses and writing gibberish.

Here's how it's supposed to work David. We work together to ARTICULATE the question in words that we BOTH agree to. That's the starting point of any discourse. You have been writing words that are utterly meaningless and totally confused and then you REFUSE to cooperate when I try to reason with you. You have ignored the explanations I have given for months, and then you REPEAT EXACTLY THE SAME ERROR that I had explained many times. This is absurd. You need to admit the truth and speak truth.

All the best,

Richard

David M
03-26-2013, 10:31 AM
Richard
I have explained it was a mistake to put just the word "yet" in quotes when it should have been the whole phrase I was in disagreement with and have always argued since that it is the whole phrase I do not accept. As for the remainder of your repeated posts, you are just wasting space.

You do not want to move on to another discussion and want to keep making your point here. That is OK. I have made all the points I wanted to and Iwill not repeat myself and I am moving on. If you want to bring this up in every conversatuion we have, then that is the recipe to kill every discussion. Either move on or not, its your choice.


David

L67
03-26-2013, 11:24 AM
OK L67 you want to take up the argument.

Please define "angels". Who are the "angels"? If you say they are God's Angels then you are saying; God's Angels in Heaven sin. Jesus said; God's will is done in Heaven. This does not mean as Richard tried to explain that God's Angels could have sinned before Jesus spoke his words and that by the time he did, Angels no longer sinned. I did not accept that way of getting around the paradox.

David just stop. Listen to what I am saying. You said this : What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven.

This was the contradiction that you proposed. The contradiction is that angels can't sin if Jesus says God's will is done in heaven. Richard stated It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin

It's right there David. It is a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin. It's the same freaking thing David. The contradiction is God's will can't be done in heaven if angels sin or angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Richard Amiel McGough
03-26-2013, 12:23 PM
Richard
I have explained it was a mistake to put just the word "yet" in quotes when it should have been the whole phrase I was in disagreement with and have always argued since that it is the whole phrase I do not accept. As for the remainder of your repeated posts, you are just wasting space.

You do not want to move on to another discussion and want to keep making your point here. That is OK. I have made all the points I wanted to and Iwill not repeat myself and I am moving on. If you want to bring this up in every conversatuion we have, then that is the recipe to kill every discussion. Either move on or not, its your choice.


David
David,

Why do you continue to ignore my posts? YOU ARE REPEATING THE SAME ERROR that you repeated in the post you are supposed to be answering! And in that very post, you repeated the same error after I told you that you were repeating it. Its insane for you to simply repeat it without dealing with the explanation I gave. What will it take to get through to you? Your assertion that you "do not accept" the phrase "angels sinned" is absurd because YOUR paradox cannot be stated without using some variation of that phrase. This is what I have been explaining to you for months. You need to answer this post, line by line, in a way that shows you understand basic logic and basic English:




So Richard, you are going to give up and not continue with the fresh start that you offered in the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted/page8)

I have felt like quitting having seen us to go round in circles. I have explained that I am not accepting your wording. It is not the basic equations of logic I do not understand. Unless we can agree the wording of the paradox then it is clear we shall not find agreement on anything else we said about the matter. As I have explained, the paradox is based on Jesus saying; "Thy will be done as it is (done) in Heaven". Then we have the verse of Peter which say; "the angels that sinned", and concerning the same angels, Jude wrote; "the angels which kept not their first estate". A correct understanding of "angels" which in this case are humans removes any apparent contradiction about understanding the workings of God's Angels and they do His will and are "ministering spirits". They always obey the instructions of God and and do not sin and it is wrong for humans to place the human condition on to the Angels of God which are not human, but can take on the appearance of humans.

I have not accepted your words; "yet Angels could sin" If you are referring to "angels", which are human, then I can accept those words about humans, but when you are applying those words to God's Angels, then I do not accept your form of words. This is the crux of this matter.


Good morning David,

You are repeating EXACTLY the same error that I have exposed many times.

You say that you reject my statement of the paradox because it contains the words "and yet angels could sin" but then YOU use the words "God's Angels in heaven sinned" in your formulation of the paradox!

Richard: There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

David: There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.

Your formulation of the paradox is logically identical to mine. It is therefore completely irrational for you to object to my formulation. Your comments have been PURE GIBBERISH!

If you can't understand logic as plain and obvious as this, then it would be impossible to have any meaningful conversation with you.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Here they are again:

I stated your paradox as follows:
There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

You rejected my statement of your paradox by objecting to the phrase "and yet angels could sin." That is TOTALLY, UTTERLY, AND ABSOLUTELY ABSURD because the paradox cannot be stated without mentioning that idea, because that idea is supposed to be the root of the paradox. I proved this by asking you to formulate your own paradox in your own words and when you did, your formulation was logically identical to mine. You wrote:
There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.
Your formulation uses the phrase "God's Angels in Heaven sinned" just as my formulation used the phrase "angels could sin." This is why you objection to the use of that phrase in the formulation of the paradox is so mind-numbingly absurd. YOUR PARADOX, the paradox that you formulated as the very foundation of your entire argument, cannot be stated without mentioning the idea that "angels sinned." We've been debating this ONE POINT for over five months and you simply refuse to admit that you are wrong.

It appears you simply have no concept of the subjunctive mood which is FUNDAMENTAL to the formulation of any logical statement of the form "IF P THEN Q." Here is how the wiki explains it:
Subjunctive possibility (also called alethic possibility or metaphysical possibility) is the form of modality most frequently studied in modal logic. Subjunctive possibilities are the sorts of possibilities we consider when we conceive of counterfactual situations; subjunctive modalities are modalities that bear on whether a statement might have been or could be true—such as might, could, must, possibly, necessarily, contingently, essentially, accidentally, and so on. Subjunctive possibilities include logical possibility, metaphysical possibility, nomological possibility, and temporal possibility.
I've explained this to you dozens of times and you simply ignore what I write. You need to respond to the explanation I have given. Here it is again:

Your words are confused gibberish. You failed to understand your own paradox. You failed to notice the word "if" in my statement of your paradox. Specifically:
There is a paradox IF we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
THAT IS THE PARADOX YOU SAID I HAD TO RESOLVE! That is the paradox you say implies angels cannot sin! You didn't understand your own argument. Everyone knows that you "are not saying 'and yet angels can sin.'" DUH! That is the POINT of your paradox! You are saying that IF angels could sin, then there would be a contradiction because God's will is done in heaven (where angels are). That is exactly what I stated! How is it possible you could fail to understand this? It's nothing but the most elementary logic stated in the clearest possible language.

Your whole argument is that there would be a paradox (contradiction) IF God's will is done in heaven AND YET angels could sin. But logic says a contradiction cannot be true. Therefore, angels cannot sin. That's your argument! That is the paradox I wrote down. How is it possible you could fail to understand something this plain and obvious? There is no clearer way to say it. You totally and absolutely missed your own point.

You need to respond to these words and demonstrate that you understand your error or it will be impossible for us to discuss ANYTHING because all discussions are based on LOGIC which you simply do not understand.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.

Will you NOW answer the explanations I have given?

Thanks,

Richard


You need to answer this post.

Richard Amiel McGough
03-26-2013, 12:25 PM
David just stop. Listen to what I am saying. You said this : What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven.

This was the contradiction that you proposed. The contradiction is that angels can't sin if Jesus says God's will is done in heaven. Richard stated It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin

It's right there David. It is a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin. It's the same freaking thing David. The contradiction is God's will can't be done in heaven if angels sin or angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Yo, L67! :yo:

I'm so glad you are here man. :thumb:

Maybe David will understand if someone else explains it to him.

Richard Amiel McGough
03-26-2013, 12:54 PM
At another point Richard in his X = earth and Y = heaven + earth was confusing the point.

I know you found that very confusing but I can't understand why. The logic is simple and lucid. You stated your paradox by writing this:
David: There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.
I wanted to help you understand that your "paradox" is similar to the problem of human free will in light of God's sovereignty. This is an ANCIENT problem in both Christian Theology and general philosophy. To see why it is a problem, we need only refine your paradox by adding a variable X for the location of the beings that sinned
Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location X and yet beings in location X sin.
If we set "X = heaven" then my statement is logically identical to yours:
Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet beings in heaven sin.
And if we use X = "heaven and earth" then we arrive at the classic problem of free will vs. God's sovereignty:

Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and earth and yet beings in heaven and earth sin.
I said all this to help you see that the problem with angels sinning is essentially the same as the problem of free will in in a universe where God is absolutely sovereign. Therefore, your doctrine that angels can't sin appears to imply that angels have no free will. But that appears to contradict various passages, and indeed, the very idea that angels are sentient beings (since it seems the sentience and free will go together).

I explained your confusion in great detail last September in post #27 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49642#post49642) of the War in heaven thread. Here is what I wrote (you had written your words in red):



Now let's look at your total failure to understand the logic that I built from the paradox you challenged me to solve. You wrote:


David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location X (Heaven) and yet beings in location X sin. Yes, that is the paradox except for the word "yet" you have inserted. This simple paradox is; it is said by people (like yourself) that God's Angels sin and Jesus says; God's will is done in Heaven (where the Angels reside).
Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location Y(Heaven) and yet beings in location Y(earth) sin. Here is the fault (as I see it). You are making Heaven = (Y) and earth = (Y). I am saying; Heaven = (Y) and earth = (X). Therefore, your premise on which you base your logic is faulty. OK, I see now that it is not your logic which is at fault, it is your premise to begin with that is at fault. Angels do not sin in Heaven and humans (not God's Angels) sin on earth. This is not a paradox. Merely stating angels sin on earth is faulty and takes us back to understanding who the angels refer to as in Jude for example which I explained can be Korah, Dathan and Abiram. You have not given me the full explanation of Jude 6 of why you think the angels in Jude 6 are God's Angels (as in Heaven) except you maintain Jude refers to the Book of Enoch (which has been discredited by you in the past) for saying that angels in Jude are God's Angels. Until that is resolved, I guess the paradox I am saying exists is muddied by erroneous interpretations of other verses leading you to think that "angels" mean God's Angels which does not have to be the case. We should stick with Angels in Heaven and not introduce the earth, therefore my side of the argument stands.

Here we see that you failed to understand my argument. You changed my definitions of X = "Heaven" and Y = "Heaven and Earth" to be X = "Heaven" and Y = "Earth." That totally misrepresents what I wrote and makes a total confusion of my argument and shows again that you don't understand the most elementary logic. You cannot refute my argument by changing my definitions of the variables I used in my argument! Here is my argument again stated with the meaning of X and Y which seem to have gone totally over your head:


David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location X (Heaven) and yet beings in location X (Heaven) sin.
Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location Y (Heaven and Earth) and yet beings in location Y (Heaven and Earth) sin.

My argument is perfect in clarity and logic, and you have not answered it. To answer it, you would have to argue that God's will is NOT done in location Y (Heaven and Earth). But the Bible says that God is sovereign over all creation and no one can resist his will. This is an ancient paradox of Christian theology that Christians have tried to solve for hundreds of years. But you are willfully ignorant of this paradox because you said you don't care about Christian theology. And yet you think you have the "true" interpretation of the Bible? What a pathetic joke.

What a total waste of time. I had hoped to avoid all this by appealing to the Law of Non-Contradiction but you refused even that!

So there it is. Your "logic" has been exposed as pure, unadulterated absurdity.

You confused yourself by erroneously thinking that I was "making Heaven = (Y) and earth = (Y)." I did no such thing.

And as usual, you totally ignored my explanation and so now you are repeating the same error that I explained seven months ago.