Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
It would be great to be there in heaven with you when you are formally introduced to the angels you have already met while in the flesh.
If we equate "experience" with sensory contact with the reality exterior to ourselves, and to nothing more, then it's perfectly understandable that a person would have to "wonder." It seems to me there's nothing in this sort of experience that can, all by itself, account for them.
I didn't notice this earlier and perhaps it is a typo, but in some spaces this is true: In the triangle inequality the whole is always more than the sum of its parts or equal but never less. In euclidian space it is not true.
LOL! I know, Gnostics (New Agers and the like) believe that we are spirits imprisoned in bodies as punishment for being "naughty" angels...
Let me just ask you, since I am sure you are familiar with this: do your brain "cells" believe something other than what your hair cells "believe" or is whatever makes the cells 'believe' all the same regardless if they are cells of the spermatic duct or those on rods and cones?
Kant deduced most of his Critiques, but the categories were simply presented—pow! What he calls space and time are well defined but not described so we are free to describe them any way we want without violating the Critiques. We have discussed space and time often enough on FR, and obviously can’t come to an objective agreement—because they are entirely subjective.
No doubt, and I probably missed to notice that they were angels. Buit I know I didn't feed them.
Ah, but is the universe in euclidian space?
We are just going to disagree. As I disagree that satan fathered Cain. However, I see a lot of folks seem to want to believe the nephalim were fallen angels, so this belief may not be as extreme as people say, that does not make it true though. In my limited study of Scripture one thing I have noticed is major points are revealed to us numerous times. Here a whole new theological perspective is being fashioned from a questionable interpretation of a single passage and this point is found nowhere else in Scripture.
How does reincarnation play out in this interpretation of Scripture?
True. This is what Einsteinian relativity tells us to expect. But at the same time, it insists that the laws of the universe are identical for all observers, regardless of their own particular "rest frames," or particular spatio-temporal coordinates.
Actually, I believe, science explains or models events based on the assumption that the laws of the universe are the same throughout the universe.
This is a fundamental assumption. Unprovable except through inferential logic, not firmly.
Another fundamental assumption of science is that we can trust our senses - i.e., conscious reality is not all a dream.
But when there is any apparent contradiction between a Gospel verse and one, say, in the OT, we employ two completely different methods of reconciliation. Our side tries to find a way so that both verses can logically be 100% true. You, I believe, are closer to simply declaring the OT verse 100% wrong and the Gospel verse 100% right. This isn't interpretation, it's nullification. :)
In the Apostolic Church all scripture is equally true, even if being only a foreshadowing of Christ, and all scriptures are not ranked the same.
If you mean ranked "generally" then this would seem to be a contradiction because some scriptures would be "truer" than others. I think it might be fine to "rank" in terms of specific issues. For basic salvation issues, of course the Gospels are at the top. However, what about abortion, for example? If you were ministering to someone about the Biblical view, would you stay contained within the Gospels, or would Books like Psalms, Isaiah, Exodus, and Job get the most mention? I think it would be a mistake to elevate any one book over another in a generic sense. Now, if I was going to a desert island and could only take a certain number of books I would make that choice based on the importance of the material covered to me. However, I wouldn't make that choice thinking I was taking God's full revelation along with me. That wouldn't be true.
It is my understanding that the 1st century Church considered only Tanakh (aka Old Testament) as scripture.
I thought that Peter recognized Paul as scripture, and Paul was obviously writing TO churches.
Forgive me. I know I don't have a dog in this fight but seems as though you are unaware of your own writings. There are strong indicators of this theology in NT writings as well as intertestemental writings.
Jude 5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
The above writing link two concepts by using the words "in a similar way", angels and Sodom and Gomorrah.
2 Peter 4For 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;
The above has Peter aware that angels sinned. Paul seemed to be familiar with this as well when he told women to cover their heads "because of the angels". He was aware of writings in the book of Enoch (whom Jude quoted from) that mention angels were attracted to the hair of women.
Gnostism is based in fatalism.. like Islam.. and some Christian(works based) and Buddhist religious thought..
God(Judeo-christian god) is Spirit and those that worship him MUST worship in spirit and reality.. all other is flesh and movement/writhing of "the Worm"..
Sure they do. Christ is telling us what He wants the church to teach - About the Kenites, sons of Cain.
As I pointed out earlier, your premise for the two creations is based upon the KJV translation of heavens in Gen 1:1 and Heaven in Gen 1:2. It has been shown to you that the word for Heavens and Heaven are both the same exact hebrew word and only the KJV has a differing translation.
No, it hasn't. As I said before, we appear to have deuling scholars. Mine states:
With Heb. Particle 'eth before each, emphasising the Article "the", and thus distinguishing both from 2:2 "Heavens" in Heb. always in pl.
I don't know about you but that didn't make a bit of sense to me.....anyway, he thinks the translation of "heaven" in the singular is correct in vs.1.
If nothing else it should tell you that those verses should not be the basis for advocating for a strange doctrine (one shared uniquely by Mormons and White Supremists).
hummmm. Sure sounds like someone might be talking racism again (or else why would that person continue to bring that up???) The heaven/heavens deal is NOT the basis for what I have been talking about. It is only one small part of a puzzle. As I said before, disregard it if your scholars believe it is not correct. There are other areas to discuss.
Now your doctrine of Cain being the son of Satan is directly contradicted by the plain language of Genesis 4:1. Adam was the father of Cain. Period.
Then why is he not listed in Adam's genealogy. Why does he have a separate line of his own? Why does Christ tell us he is the son of the devil? Why does Paul tell us Eve was "wholly seduced"? Why does Christ want the churches to teach who his children are? Why did God throw them out of the Garden as there was no "apple" there.
but if you wish to try to explain your strange doctrines, then please start with Revelation 1:18.
I feel that scripture is a warning to us to listen to what He is about to teach. He has "the keys of hell and of death." He also has the seven churches in His hands.
The first church He approves of is Smyrna (2:8) and the other is Philadelphia (3:7). That Key of David is the key to biblical understanding and once you have the knowledge, that the 2 churches have, no one can take that away. The similarity that these two churches have that the others do not is that they teach about the Kenites.
9.Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie;
Knowing who they are will (10)"keep thee from the hour of temption, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
It sounds crucial to understand who those are that "say they are Jews but are not".
Who does Christ tell us that they are?
John 8:13The Pharisees therefore said unto Him "Thou bearest record of Thyself; Thy record is not true." (I use this verse to show who Christ is speaking to in the following verses - the Pharisees, supposed Jews)
33.We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest Thou, 'Ye shall be made free?'" (We know that the true Hebrews were in bondage in Egypt)
37.I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill Me, because My word hath no place in you.
38.I speak that which I have seen with My Father; and ye do that which ye have seen with your father." (lower case father - Satan)
41.Ye do the deeds of your father."....
44.Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
So....Jesus tells us who they are that "say they are Jews but are not". They are the synagogue of Satan and their father is the devil. They are the ones that killed Christ. Not the true Jews who have been taking that blame forever.
BTW, I'll admit that my mind is not open to your theories, but you are free to try to explain them.
Thank you Marlowe. I think it is a very important message.......Ping
Can you give me a specific example of a revelation that is not subject to falsification?
Now we are getting down to the kind of inquiry that separates the Kantians from the dilettantes. It has been shown to be spherical, but of course that says nothing about euclidial or hyperbolical. It might even be n-dimensional where n is increasing infinitely every instant.
That Jesus Christ is the revelation of God Himself in human flesh.
It seems to me you can believe that or not believe that. What you cannot do is falsify it.
Great points, D-fendr! Thanks so much for writing!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.