Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564

    God's will is done in Heaven

    This post is to explain that God's Angels cannot sin and a paradox must be resolved.

    Jesus spoke a model prayer for his disciples to understand the priority of what to pray for. The third important statement in the prayer of Jesus says (Matthew 6:10); “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven”. Understanding what Jesus said here is crucial to the understanding the obedience of God’s Angels in Heaven.

    Who has a better understanding of God and His word than His only begotten Son? If Jesus tells us, God’s will is done in Heaven, who are we to argue with Jesus?

    There are a few verses that have been translated in a way that leads us to think that angels can sin, yet if the translators had used an alternative word such as “messengers” the error might never have been made. One example is 2 Peter 2:4 which says; For if God spared not the angels that sinned. This is referring to the same passage found in Jude 6. I have given an explanation of “the angels” of Jude 6 in a separate post which you click through to from here.

    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.

    This error of believing God’s Angels in Heaven can sin, has been taught by some Christian churches. It starts from a misunderstanding of a verse in Genesis (6:2) which says; the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 2 Peter 2:4 has been used as evidence to support their claim that it was (God's) angels that had sinned. I see this is as one error building on another error so compounded to conclude a doctrine which (in my opinion) is wrong. Examine the reasons I give in this short post and reach your own conclusions.

    The expression “sons of God” have been mistakenly assumed to be God’s Angels in Heaven. This title can apply to humans as it can also apply to God’s Angels in Heaven. Consider for example John 1:12 which reveals that humans (us) can be sons of God; But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name The distinction has to be made when this title is used. In this verse, it is the "believers" that are the sons of God. In the context of sin, the title will always apply to humans. There are also reasons based on God’s word why it is impossible for God’s Angels in Heaven to have sex with humans and for offspring to be born; this is simply impossible and not true.

    All verses in the Bible which give rise to a paradox must be understood correctly to resolve and remove the paradox. If we can get it wrong about God’s Angels, what else is there in the Bible we have got wrong? This question we must answer for ourselves.

    These apparent paradoxes in the Bible leads to many conflicting discussions on this forum. These paradoxes must be resolved in order to get to the whole truth of the Bible.


    David

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post

    This error of believing God’s Angels in Heaven can sin, has been taught by some Christian churches. It starts from a misunderstanding of a verse in Genesis (6:2) which says; the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 2 Peter 2:4 has been used as evidence to support their claim that it was (God's) angels that had sinned. I see this is as one error building on another error so compounded to conclude a doctrine which (in my opinion) is wrong. Examine the reasons I give in this short post and reach your own conclusions.

    The expression “sons of God” have been mistakenly assumed to be God’s Angels in Heaven. This title can apply to humans as it can also apply to God’s Angels in Heaven. Consider for example John 1:12 which reveals that humans (us) can be sons of God; But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name The distinction has to be made when this title is used. In this verse, it is the "believers" that are the sons of God. In the context of sin, the title will always apply to humans. There are also reasons based on God’s word why it is impossible for God’s Angels in Heaven to have sex with humans and for offspring to be born; this is simply impossible and not true.

    All verses in the Bible which give rise to a paradox must be understood correctly to resolve and remove the paradox. If we can get it wrong about God’s Angels, what else is there in the Bible we have got wrong? This question we must answer for ourselves.

    These apparent paradoxes in the Bible leads to many conflicting discussions on this forum. These paradoxes must be resolved in order to get to the whole truth of the Bible.


    David
    Hello David,

    A careful reading of Genesis 6 will reveal that there are five types of beings spoken of.

    Gen.6:1-4 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

    1. Men
    2. Daughters of men
    3. Sons of God
    4. Giants
    5. Mighty men of renown

    The verse starts with men multiplying on the earth by having daughters born unto them, then beings called the sons of god are introduced...they see the daughters of men and bore offspring by them. The next being that is introduced is giants, after that it states that the offspring born from the sons of god/daughters of men union became mighty men of renown.

    I agree that this is a very strange passage that really doesn't make a lot of sense, especially since it is just stuck in Genesis 6 with no previous introduction. What we do know from the passage is that the author intended to convey a distinct difference between the beings listed, and that the sons of god are different from sons of men which is why it calls the females daughters of men.

    The best explanation I can come up with, is that the story in Genesis 6 is a compilation of different mythological stories circulating at the time period in which it was written. The authors could have used the term sons of god to refer to the lineage of Adam and the daughters of men could have referred to all the other humans alive at the time...who knows? It's obvious it wasn't inspired from the mind of a true creator, because all that passage has done is cause confusion amongst those trying to interpret it.

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello David,

    A careful reading of Genesis 6 will reveal that there are five types of beings spoken of.

    Gen.6:1-4 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

    1. Men
    2. Daughters of men
    3. Sons of God
    4. Giants
    5. Mighty men of renown

    The verse starts with men multiplying on the earth by having daughters born unto them, then beings called the sons of god are introduced...they see the daughters of men and bore offspring by them. The next being that is introduced is giants, after that it states that the offspring born from the sons of god/daughters of men union became mighty men of renown.

    I agree that this is a very strange passage that really doesn't make a lot of sense, especially since it is just stuck in Genesis 6 with no previous introduction. What we do know from the passage is that the author intended to convey a distinct difference between the beings listed, and that the sons of god are different from sons of men which is why it calls the females daughters of men.

    The best explanation I can come up with, is that the story in Genesis 6 is a compilation of different mythological stories circulating at the time period in which it was written. The authors could have used the term sons of god to refer to the lineage of Adam and the daughters of men could have referred to all the other humans alive at the time...who knows? It's obvious it wasn't inspired from the mind of a true creator, because all that passage has done is cause confusion amongst those trying to interpret it.

    Take care,
    Rose
    2
    Hello Rose
    I appreciate this type of response from you. I am prepared to research the different groups and find else what other explanations are going around. Just as the Sons of God can describe those who are righteous as opposed to unrighteous, the word "giants" might have a meaning that is not the obvious. It sounds to me from what you say, that you would not use this verse to say as Richard does; " I believe it clearly teaches that angels can sin (since it explicitly says so). As I am showing, this is not what the Bible states and no-one has yet explained away the paradox which the words of Jesus give rise to.

    After the supposed union of the sons of God and the daughters of men, I have not had it explained why the offspring if "giants" did not die out in the flood. The union of Angels and humans either continues after the Flood or as is believed God has locked them up in the bowels of the earth to be judged in the future. This would make it impossible to angels to continue to have sex after the Flood. The reason for giants as were the men of Gath would have to be explained away by different means.

    We know giants (tall large men) like men of Gath of whom Goliath might have been the largest. These were also born with genetic differences which resulted in having six toes and six figures on each limb. This was a non-beneficial mutation otherwise we might all have had six fingers on each hand or six toes on each foot, or they were a beneficial mutation to giants only. Personally, I do not need an extra finger or toe and do not think an extra toe or finger will benefit me.

    Depending on time and responses to other post I will try and give some more thought as to what "Giant"s and "mighty men of renown" are meant to mean to us.

    All the best

    David

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    This post is to explain that God's Angels cannot sin and a paradox must be resolved.

    Jesus spoke a model prayer for his disciples to understand the priority of what to pray for. The third important statement in the prayer of Jesus says (Matthew 6:10); “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven”. Understanding what Jesus said here is crucial to the understanding the obedience of God’s Angels in Heaven.

    Who has a better understanding of God and His word than His only begotten Son? If Jesus tells us, God’s will is done in Heaven, who are we to argue with Jesus?

    There are a few verses that have been translated in a way that leads us to think that angels can sin, yet if the translators had used an alternative word such as “messengers” the error might never have been made. One example is 2 Peter 2:4 which says; For if God spared not the angels that sinned. This is referring to the same passage found in Jude 6. I have given an explanation of “the angels” of Jude 6 in a separate post which you click through to from here.

    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.
    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. You have only provided a single verse to support your assertion that angels could never sin. But the Bible presents many verses that say they could and did. Specifically:
    Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
    Here we see that there was "war in heaven." But according to your interpretation of the words of Jesus, there never could be a war in heaven because God's will is always done in heaven! Therefore, this verse contradicts your interpretation of that verse. The fact the Satan was in heaven and was cast down is also taught by Jesus:
    Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
    Thus Luke 10:18 confirms Rev 12:9. Now we have two verses that confirm each other and contradict your assertion. And then we have Peter's statement:
    2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
    We can't say that this is talking about human messengers because they were not cast down into Tartarus. And you can't even know what "Tartarus" means without appealing to a Greek dictionary, but a Greek dictionary will tell you it was the place where Zeus cast the Titans (supernatural beings) who rebelled just as God cast the angels (supernatural beings). So this is direct evidence that the Bible teaches that angels sinned and that this idea was current at the time Peter wrote. Anyone who can read can see that this is a strong argument. It's not conclusive, but it's strong. And of course this interpretation coheres and confirms Jude's statement:
    Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
    And Jude directly quoted a large text from the book of Enoch by name (which was popular at the time he wrote), and the book of Enoch speaks specifically of the angels that sinned and links it directly to Genesis 6. Most scholars conclude that Jude was referencing the fallen angels in the book of Enoch, not because they care about whether or not angels can really sin, but because that's what the evidence points to. Now I know you like to limit your knowledge to the collection of ancient writings that are accepted as "Scripture" but there is no good reason to close you eyes to facts that can be verified. The people who wrote the NT and the early church fathers were familiar with that book and it influenced their thinking.

    Furthermore, Paul spoke of "angels of heaven" that could lie:
    Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
    If it were impossible for angels to lie (sin) then Paul's statement would be meaningless.

    So now we have FIVE passages of Scripture that contradict the single passage upon which you built your entire doctrine. That's 5 to 1. I know you can "explain away" the five passages I quoted, but I could just as easily (or rather, more easily) explain away the ONE passage that you use to base you entire theory. And besides that, I have additional evidence from ancient writings (Enoch) that support my case.

    This is what it all comes down to. You are applying your human logic to a single passage in the Bible, and then explaining away the five verses that contradict your preferred doctrine. Someone who disagrees need only explain away your interpretation of that one verse, and the Bible is restored to harmony.

    So the real issue is this: How do we determine which verses should be explained away to fit other verses? A simple count would be my first guess. If you have to explain away FIVE TIMES AS MANY VERSES as me, then I say my interpretation is probably correct.

    Great post, my friend!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    This is what it all comes down to. You are applying your human logic to a single passage in the Bible, and then explaining away the five verses that contradict your preferred doctrine. Someone who disagrees need only explain away your interpretation of that one verse, and the Bible is restored to harmony.
    Thank you Richard. I guessed this is the way we should try to have a dialogue. Thanks for your five counter arguments. As you want me to do, I can link to my post explaining Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 Here is the link for others to read; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...quot-in-Jude-6
    This explains away the "angels that sinned" "Tartarus" and phrases like "rooms of darkness" and the "bowels of the earth". That will leave one or two of the verses you have given to explain away, which I can do later. As for the Book of Enoch, I am not doubting Jude referred to the Enoch of Genesis and who might have written an original book by him that was known, but as you know, which is why I do not think you should keep introducing this link to the Book of Enoch, is that book must have been later hijacked and changes made to it by some unknown author and material added to that makes it an unreliable book. To quote you again (paraphrased from memory) you said it was a book "not to be trusted" and you gave reasons why. This is what you thought when you were a Christian and I agree and have no reason to doubt what you said then is true now and this is why the book never was accepted as one of the books to make up the Bible.

    However, you have not answered away the paradox which the words of Jesus have given rise to, so I could say that until you or someone else does (and we invite others to contribute to this discussion) we should concentrate on the words of Jesus first of all, as this might be the easier solution to resolving this matter. It means we only have to deal with one phrase.

    I have to accept that you can and will explain away the words of Jesus and that I might not be able to refute your answer, and then I have a problem. If I can refute your answer, then the ball is back in your court (to use the game of tennis as a metaphor). Maybe this should be an example where we concentrate one point at a time and so concentrate on the words of Jesus. As I said, I regard the words of Jesus as the most authoritative. Where do you think Jesus got his insight from;the old testament scriptures or a direct revelation?

    I wait for an answer before proceeding further.

    All the best

    David

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Thank you Richard. I guessed this is the way we should try to have a dialogue. Thanks for your five counter arguments. As you want me to do, I can link to my post explaining Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 Here is the link for others to read; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...quot-in-Jude-6
    This explains away the "angels that sinned" "Tartarus" and phrases like "rooms of darkness" and the "bowels of the earth". That will leave one or two of the verses you have given to explain away, which I can do later. As for the Book of Enoch, I am not doubting Jude referred to the Enoch of Genesis and who might have written an original book by him that was known, but as you know, which is why I do not think you should keep introducing this link to the Book of Enoch, is that book must have been later hijacked and changes made to it by some unknown author and material added to that makes it an unreliable book. To quote you again (paraphrased from memory) you said it was a book "not to be trusted" and you gave reasons why. This is what you thought when you were a Christian and I agree and have no reason to doubt what you said then is true now and this is why the book never was accepted as one of the books to make up the Bible.
    Good afternoon David,

    Here is the explanation you gave of "Tartarus" in the post you linked:
    Since figurative language for death has been used in the verses under consideration, we should understand God’s teaching about death. This will remove the mystery and superstitions which surround the subject. It is legitimate to use common language and phrases that the people of that period would understand, even if that means borrowing mythical language of the time. Therefore, all the expressions used by Jude and in the parallel account of 2 Peter 2:14 using the following phrases must be seen in the same light; 'everlasting chains under darkness', 'cast them down to hell'. Because the Greek word for 'tartarus' has been used by Peter, does not mean that Peter believed in the folklore surrounding that word. However, by using the word, the people receiving his message understood the fatal end which befell the rebels. Euphemisms and metaphors for death does not change the fact that when a person dies, that means cessation of life. The Bible makes it very clear. Psalm 6:5 'For in death there is no remembrance of thee: ' Eccl 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:
    Your solution is one possibility, but nothing you wrote proves it is true. And it doesn't address the most important point which is the parallelism of the myth with what Peter wrote. Here it is:

    MYTH: The god Zeus cast the rebellious Titans (spiritual beings) into Tartarus and bound them in chains.
    BIBLE: The god
    Yahweh cast the rebellious angels (spiritual beings) into Tartarus and bound them in chains.

    The myth existed before Peter wrote and Peter obviously knew about it or he couldn't have made reference to it. You must address these facts since in any other context rational people would recognize that the later text was dependent on the earlier text. Do you have any explanation why we should reject this conclusion?

    As for your assertion that the Bible is "very clear" that dead people are not with the Lord in heaven, well, that is directly contradicted by the Bible in many places:
    1. 2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
    2. Matt. 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. [This directly states that the dead faithful are living with God]
    3. Philippians 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: [Paul speaks of only two possibilities, to be in the body or in the presence of the Lord]
    4. 2 Kings 2:11 1 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
    5. 2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth: such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth

    I could list more of course. When you are done, what will the score be? Will you have to explain away 100 verses for every one that supports your doctrines? Of course, the numbers don't matter The truth is plain for all to see. No matter what position anyone takes, they must explain away ten or twenty or a hundred verses that contradict their positions. This proves but one thing - the Bible is totally contradictory and all anyone can do is choose what they want to believe and then force the rest of the Bible to conform to their belief.

    I note that you believe in soul sleep, reject the Trinity, and teach that angels cannot sin. These are the doctrines of the Christadelphians. They define their doctrine using exactly the same verse as you (emphasis in the original, source):
    The Christadelphians believe that the God of the Bible is one, the Father alone (1 Cor. 8:6). God stands alone and unrivaled in the universe, the source of all good and evil (Is. 45:5-7). We reject the idea that the devil is one of Gods' angels that was permitted to rebel in the very heavens (thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven) and now wrestles with God for control of the world. We likewise reject the idea of a God with multiple independent personalities as not being in harmony with the teachings of scripture.
    So there you go! Two of your primary dogmas in one paragraph from the page "Our Faith and Beliefs" on the official Christadelphia.org website. And of course your doctrine of "soul sleep" is also a fundamental dogma of the Christadelphians. They even used the same two verses as you to justify their dogma [source]:
    Quote Originally Posted by Christadelphia.org
    The writer of Ecclesiastes is quite categorical: he desires men to see

    "that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath . . . All go unto one place: all are of the dust and all turn to dust again" (3:19-21).

    Men and animals have by nature the same fate: they all return to the ground.


    In view of the Biblical evidence so far reviewed, it is no surprise to learn that the dead rest, completely unconscious in the grave. Do not trust in princes or in man, says the Psalmist, for "his breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psalm 146:4).

    David prays that God will deliver him, for "in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?" (Psalm 6:5).

    Psalm 115 says the same: "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence" (v. 17).

    The writer of Ecclesiastes is most emphatic:
    "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything . . . Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished . . . Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest" (9:5-10).
    The place of the dead is consistently described in these emphatic passages as "in his earth" (the dust of the ground from which man was made), "in the grave" and "in silence".
    So the jig is up David. It's time for you to admit that you have learned your doctrines from MEN, specifically the Christadelphians who invented their doctrines long before you were born.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    However, you have not answered away the paradox which the words of Jesus have given rise to, so I could say that until you or someone else does (and we invite others to contribute to this discussion) we should concentrate on the words of Jesus first of all, as this might be the easier solution to resolving this matter. It means we only have to deal with one phrase.
    There is no paradox. It is your insistence on the Christadelphian interpretation that creates the paradox.

    Before bothering with an explanation of other possible interpretations of Christ's words, I'd like to see your explanation of the "war in heaven" in Rev 12 since that's the most obvious contradiction to your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I have to accept that you can and will explain away the words of Jesus and that I might not be able to refute your answer, and then I have a problem. If I can refute your answer, then the ball is back in your court (to use the game of tennis as a metaphor). Maybe this should be an example where we concentrate one point at a time and so concentrate on the words of Jesus. As I said, I regard the words of Jesus as the most authoritative. Where do you think Jesus got his insight from;the old testament scriptures or a direct revelation?

    I wait for an answer before proceeding further.
    We both know that it wouldn't matter if an "angel from heaven" told you the Christadelphians were wrong David. No evidence will ever change your mind because your beliefs are not based on evidence. They are based on the teachings of men long dead who started yet another denomination.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good afternoon David,

    Here is the explanation you gave of "Tartarus" in the post you linked:
    Since figurative language for death has been used in the verses under consideration, we should understand God’s teaching about death. This will remove the mystery and superstitions which surround the subject. It is legitimate to use common language and phrases that the people of that period would understand, even if that means borrowing mythical language of the time. Therefore, all the expressions used by Jude and in the parallel account of 2 Peter 2:14 using the following phrases must be seen in the same light; 'everlasting chains under darkness', 'cast them down to hell'. Because the Greek word for 'tartarus' has been used by Peter, does not mean that Peter believed in the folklore surrounding that word. However, by using the word, the people receiving his message understood the fatal end which befell the rebels. Euphemisms and metaphors for death does not change the fact that when a person dies, that means cessation of life. The Bible makes it very clear. Psalm 6:5 'For in death there is no remembrance of thee: ' Eccl 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:
    Your solution is one possibility, but nothing you wrote proves it is true. And it doesn't address the most important point which is the parallelism of the myth with what Peter wrote. Here it is:

    MYTH: The god Zeus cast the rebellious Titans (spiritual beings) into Tartarus and bound them in chains.
    BIBLE: The god
    Yahweh cast the rebellious angels (spiritual beings) into Tartarus and bound them in chains.

    The myth existed before Peter wrote and Peter obviously knew about it or he couldn't have made reference to it. You must address these facts since in any other context rational people would recognize that the later text was dependent on the earlier text. Do you have any explanation why we should reject this conclusion?

    As for your assertion that the Bible is "very clear" that dead people are not with the Lord in heaven, well, that is directly contradicted by the Bible in many places:
    1. 2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
    2. Matt. 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. [This directly states that the dead faithful are living with God]
    3. Philippians 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: [Paul speaks of only two possibilities, to be in the body or in the presence of the Lord]
    4. 2 Kings 2:11 1 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
    5. 2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth: such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth

    I could list more of course. When you are done, what will the score be? Will you have to explain away 100 verses for every one that supports your doctrines? Of course, the numbers don't matter The truth is plain for all to see. No matter what position anyone takes, they must explain away ten or twenty or a hundred verses that contradict their positions. This proves but one thing - the Bible is totally contradictory and all anyone can do is choose what they want to believe and then force the rest of the Bible to conform to their belief.

    I note that you believe in soul sleep, reject the Trinity, and teach that angels cannot sin. These are the doctrines of the Christadelphians. They define their doctrine using exactly the same verse as you (emphasis in the original, source):
    The Christadelphians believe that the God of the Bible is one, the Father alone (1 Cor. 8:6). God stands alone and unrivaled in the universe, the source of all good and evil (Is. 45:5-7). We reject the idea that the devil is one of Gods' angels that was permitted to rebel in the very heavens (thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven) and now wrestles with God for control of the world. We likewise reject the idea of a God with multiple independent personalities as not being in harmony with the teachings of scripture.
    So there you go! Two of your primary dogmas in one paragraph from the page "Our Faith and Beliefs" on the official Christadelphia.org website. And of course your doctrine of "soul sleep" is also a fundamental dogma of the Christadelphians. They even used the same two verses as you to justify their dogma [source]:

    So the jig is up David. It's time for you to admit that you have learned your doctrines from MEN, specifically the Christadelphians who invented their doctrines long before you were born.


    There is no paradox. It is your insistence on the Christadelphian interpretation that creates the paradox.

    Before bothering with an explanation of other possible interpretations of Christ's words, I'd like to see your explanation of the "war in heaven" in Rev 12 since that's the most obvious contradiction to your position.


    We both know that it wouldn't matter if an "angel from heaven" told you the Christadelphians were wrong David. No evidence will ever change your mind because your beliefs are not based on evidence. They are based on the teachings of men long dead who started yet another denomination.

    All the best,

    Richard
    Hello Richard
    A very long post which for the most part is off topic. When you refute the words of Jesus giving scriptural evidence, we can continue. I am staying on topic.

    Regards
    David

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard
    A very long post which for the most part is off topic. When you refute the words of Jesus giving scriptural evidence, we can continue. I am staying on topic.

    Regards
    David
    Ah come on David, you aren't going to start hiding from the truth like CWH are you? I've got your number dude! You learned your doctrines from the Christadelphians. Are you going to admit it?

    Think of the irony this reveals. How many times have you accused anyone who disagrees with you as "following the doctrines of men"? You've said that, or something similar to me at least two dozen times. And every time I asked where you learned your doctrines you refused to answer. But now the cat is out of the bag, so why pretend any longer?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard
    A very long post which for the most part is off topic. When you refute the words of Jesus giving scriptural evidence, we can continue. I am staying on topic.

    Regards
    David
    That was not a "very long post." It was short and direct. But if you want to deal with the meat of it, give me your answer to the war in heaven. You have no excuse to avoid my request since it directly contradicts your assertion that God's will is always done in heaven.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    That was not a "very long post." It was short and direct. But if you want to deal with the meat of it, give me your answer to the war in heaven. You have no excuse to avoid my request since it directly contradicts your assertion that God's will is always done in heaven.
    Hello Richard

    I have done your request and started a new topic http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...9372#post49372.

    I would like to see some Bible exposition from you explaining your reasons for what you believe Bible passages mean. You did not take up the Jude 6 challenge. It would be helpful to get to the truth if you try and get your answers from the Bible and get to understand the figurative language correctly.

    If you find my the Bible references and meaning of them incorrect, then please offer your alternative references and meanings so that we can work towards the truth.

    I think this now ends this topic.

    All the best.

    David

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •