If the clergy and academic theologians keep “pertinent language” to themselves, if they see distortion of truth in the general public’s comprehension and say nothing, that is sin. It is academic elitism, esoteric segregation. It is the belief that only the few are capable of understanding.
Deuteronomy 30:11-14
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
Moses did not think the Law was too difficult for the masses. He thought everyone needed to know. Even small children could be told. The concept of God is no different. If those who “know” do not speak up, then those who “don’t know” will be the teachers. The general population’s knowledge becomes corrupt, thus easily manipulated toward the worship of created things. As generations go by, those corruptions become part of the beliefs held by the clergy and academic theologians. They will ceaselessly argue over whose opinion is closer to God’s, while being blind that the basis of the argument is false.
That is not good. It is one of the reasons God had Jerusalem destroyed, twice. Those in the “know” will be held accountable by God.
It’s refreshing to see a place one can go to discuss controversial topics with many who are not going to take personal offense to everything.
Could you please share in simple form what these upper echelon folks are aware of about God’s true nature that the masses are not? I find this idea rather intriguing. Maybe I’m missing something here.
I was using the wording from @Tony 's post, which earlier you noticed as “high and mighty.” I will add to those statements, “those who know” do not need to have advanced degrees.
Your example of “white bearded man in the sky” is a good start. I have heard it used flippantly by preachers. The problem arises when a new convert hears it used. How do they respond except by believing what they hear supports what the world has told them? How many generations does it take for everyone to believe it true? Must God beg for a messenger of truth?
One scenario that suds my soapbox is “God created a perfect world. Sin distorted the world so much it became imperfect. Immortal humans became mortal. God, repulsed by the sin filled world, retreated to hide in heaven to let angels take care of business here.” Those dogmatic statements and all the dogmatic beliefs are not mentioned in the Bible. Not once are they held as dogma. Yet, some version of this dogma is taught from the pulpit by nearly every denomination.
I mention the above, because God’s nature is distorted by the dogma. Sin is more powerful than the Creator, since it’s version of the world is all we can see. The dogma transforms the personal God described in the Eden story and loved by Jesus into a wrathful and unreachable deity. The God, who is love, no longer shows mercy and forgiveness. He is described as vengeful until the New Testament, where the blood of Jesus calms Him so God can again show mercy and forgiveness. Such beliefs were not taught by the prophets or Jesus. They said God begs for repentance. Their God desired to show mercy and forgiveness, but the choice of the people was to continue in sin and their distorted beliefs.
Dogma says God is not responsible for the bad things in nature. Bad things, like death, cancers, and tsunamis, must come from someone else other than a perfect God. This is dualism, a belief that is not biblical. Theology (made by and upheld by academic theologians) gives God’s authority to sin or Satan. Instead, Genesis One claims God made everything. Everything means everything, and everything was called good. Throughout the Old Testament God maintains responsibility for blindness, storms, earthquakes, and large animals that eat people. Our concept of perfection is not what God created.
The Bible even gives the responsibility of who runs nations to God. He is ultimately responsible for death and war. God has always taken responsibility for everything, which includes humanity’s ability to be evil. He gave us free will. He let us have knowledge of good and evil, and then said our knowledge was like His (never called a curse by biblical writers). That means we must learn to be like God and take responsibility for our thoughts and actions.
Well, I’ve gotten through Genesis 3… Hope you see my point. One distortion can lead to the distortion of who God is. That distorts our understanding of His relationship with nature and humanity. Those distort our view of the entire Bible.
Where are the theologians who should teach the teachers?
Sometimes it’s a matter of picking battles. Are we going to feed the homeless or clarify “what God looks like”? There are a lot of things that “people should know” and you can’t say everything all the time. Further, in my experience, there are times when you say things and people hear it through their own lens, and miss what it is exactly that you’re saying.
One of the things that struck me when I started reading the Bible in earnest and discussing it with people is that not a single person is recorded as having predicted the Christ that they received. The first advent of Christ was apparently completely different from what the professional clergy, what you might call charasmatic types, lay people, shepherds, etc. anticipated. ie. not one person seems to have gotten it right about the form and function of Christ from all the prophecy, rabbinical writings, and man on the street discussion.
These people were led by theologians. The theologians were evidently wrong about God and many egregiously so.
Then you have something that I have come to become fascinated with to a greater and greater degree as I’ve contemplated science and God.
Gamaliel, who apparently was the theologians’ theologian, in Acts 5 summed up very simply how I think we should approach many of the things of God :
“So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”
He seems to have a wait and see, one might even call it scientific approach to this problem. ie. observe, mark, and learn
As to the question of what these theologians know that we sheeple don’t, I am eagerly anticipating a response. I think we are way over confident in our understanding of the Nature of God as a whole. I think we are given to understand some things, but only piecemeal and of course through a veil.
Some folks on here have claimed that the white bearded man is a reality for some people, but originally I was interested in adult Christians with this view.
I have known non-theists with this image, but an image of something you don’t believe exists is different than an image of something you do believe exists. I have a hard time conceiving actual, sane adults who believe that the Sistine Chapel pic is an actual physical rendering of the Deity.
Through Lewis I have been reading George Macdonald’s Unspoken Sermons. MacDonald is an interesting person. I guess he and Twain were buddies. One thing that struck me that he said goes something like this
The Bible is a Word of God, not THE Word of God.
I think he thought it true (not necessarily literal), but I think many Christians practice a form of Bibliolatry that ignores the Word of God Himself. But Macdonald urges us not ignore God Himself.
Anyone else out there read MacDonald? I would think that many Biologos people would be interested in him.
He has many, many titles available on the Free Books App.
I totally agree. For most people, just getting through the day is difficult. That goes double for local pastors who constantly deal with more human problems than I could possibly tolerate AND write a sermon or three for the week AND stay pleasant for the next person who arrives.
But they, like the rest of us, need sources that teach what the Bible actually says. Too many of the “popular” books going around do not clarify who God is per the Bible. They emphasize traditions dictated by their denomination. These big name writers are so badly trained that they jump to conclusions and use circular logic then declare they have made valid points. I have heard these “proofs” repeated by preachers. Basically, the teachers of the teachers are not well trained.
Yup. All the information was there for them to gain awareness, but most of them relied on their own understanding instead of asking for clarification. Traditions and arrogance kept them from seeing “God with them.” You nailed the reason. We argue differences in traditions and hold ours as holier than others. We forget that God is personal and is quite capable of talking for Himself.
Yes, a good teacher should assess new ideas, particularly those that do go against what is believed. Yes, too many people are sheeple (love that word) and never really think through what they are told by the people they trust. But I’m not sure I agree totally with Gamaliel’s attitude. He may have waited, but did he learn? Did he actually try to determine if Jesus really was who the people said, or did he just wait for a “sign” from heaven? Did he go out of his way to ask Jesus questions like Nicodemus did? Or, without an acceptable sign, was he one of those who decided against believing and shouted “Crucify him!” Did he ever believe Jesus arose? At some point, we all stop waiting and decide.
I said I have met people (adults) who believed in the WBMIS. They were quite adamant that their views were correct per the Bible. They quoted scripture to prove their side. They were deaf to the fact that those scriptures were metaphors, thus not literal descriptions.
It is good that God is not petty and is understanding. We humans (including me) believe in lots of stupid things about God. He knows our hearts and loves us through all the stupid stunts we pull.
I started reading MacDonald a few years ago, downloaded a bunch of sermons, got distracted and totally forgot to go back. Thank you for reminding me!
It is arguably not feasible to present a detailed description of God’s true nature in simplistic terms. What is involved is no less than a theory of everything. If we desire to comprehend the mystery of God, the revealed word (scripture) and the facts of science must be considered in context with the surrounding words and circumstances involved. In other words, if ambiguity and vagueness are to be avoided it is essential to be clear and precise. As such, to even begin to understand the true nature of God, it is unequivocally necessary to break up the whole into its respective parts so as to examine in detail how the respective parts function and how they are interrelated. In this way, an assessment can be made and a judgment drawn as to whether our assumptions are in fact as assumed. Accordingly, this requires the necessary and pertinent language inherent in the various fields of inquiry.
“Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.” Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
The uniformity of nature demonstrates how the world functions. Consecutively, by understanding how the world functions, knowledge is attained as to what the facts are. This relationship between science and truth is the principle behind the philosophy of science. The ultimate purpose of science must therefore be the procurement of truth.
“Philosophy has two important aims. First, it tries to give a person a unified view of the universe in which he lives. Second, it seeks to make a person a more critical thinker by sharpening his ability to think clearly and precisely.” (Philosophy - World Book Encyclopedia)
How does philosophy try to give a person a unified view of the universe in which he lives? And how does it seek to make a person a more critical thinker? Through the observation and experimentation of nature of course, whereby philosophers incorporate the discoveries of science into the curriculum of the scholastic education system. The continual effort to be clear and precise in language usage is fundamental to critical thinking. Accuracy becomes an important goal whereby the student learns the importance of the clarity and precision of thought, free from errors, mistakes, or distortion.
“Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that seeks to understand reality, beyond what we know from our sense perceptions.” (Philosophy [Philosophical Terms] - World Book Encyclopedia) Metaphysics is the name given to research about the eternal universal nature of things. (Metaphysics - World Book Encyclopedia) Metaphysics includes epistemology (the theory of knowledge), ontology (the study of the nature of reality), and cosmology (the theory of the origin of the universe and its laws). (Metaphysics - World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary)
How does metaphysics seek to understand reality beyond what we know from our sense perceptions? How can we know anything apart from our sense perceptions? Our sense perceptions are precisely that—the organs through which the nervous system gathers information from the world. However, the question remains; how does metaphysics propose to understand reality beyond what we know from the very sense perceptions we require to gather information from the world in the first place?
“Deduction is a method of reasoning from general statements to particular conclusions. Induction is a method of arriving at conclusions by examining particular facts. Induction depends on observation and experimentation.” (Philosophy [Philosophical Terms] - World Book Encyclopedia)
Through observation and experimentation (induction) we establish the concrete facts about the world. Similarly, by reasoning from general statements to particular conclusions (deduction) we form hypotheses leading to further observation, experimentation, and verification. Hence, beyond the physics lie the metaphysics requiring more of the same critical thinking that scientists are already accustomed to—drawing conclusions or inferences from observations, facts, or hypotheses, and making these inferences explicit, along with the assumptions or premises upon which those inferences are based.
Furthermore, bringing these deliberations together with the biblical narrative and taking into consideration the history of mankind, the outline of God’s plan as presented in scripture becomes explicitly understood. Our assumptions should be based on these facts and assessed from this perspective.
"assumption: A statement accepted or supposed as true without proof or demonstration; an unstated premise or belief. All human thought and experience is based on assumptions. Our thought must begin with something we take to be true in a particular context. We are typically unaware of what we assume and therefore rarely question our assumptions. Much of what is wrong with human thought can be found in the uncritical or unexamined assumptions that underlie it. For example, we often experience the world in such a way as to assume that we are observing things just as they are, as though we were seeing the world without the filter of a point of view. People we disagree with, of course, we recognize as having a point of view. One of the key dispositions of critical thinking is the on-going sense that as humans we always think within a perspective, that we virtually never experience things totally and absolutistically. There is a connection, therefore, between thinking so as to be aware of our assumptions and being intellectually humble. (A Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts — Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms)
Our assumptions about spiritual matters have been influenced by the men who took over the early church after the apostles. The upper echelon of today’s governing bodies of clergy amongst the different denominations are not exempt. Here is an example of how the wrong assumptions can create distortion in our critical thinking;
"What is Real? We often use the expression “Seeing is believing” without thinking much about it. But sometimes we find that the expression is not quite true. You may be sure you see a puddle of water in the road, but when you come closer, the puddle may not be there at all. Or you may see a bent stick in a glass of water, but find that the stick is straight when you take it out. You then begin to wonder, “Was there a puddle of water in the road?” "Is the stick bent or straight? These problems concern the question of deciding whether what we perceive, or sense, is real, and which of two perceptions is the true one. See PERCEPTION.
As you look at a stick, you might say, “I see a stick.” But what you actually see is an image formed in your eye. If you compare the stick you now see with one you might have seen in a dream, you might find little difference. But you know that the one in the dream was a mental thing. This raises the question of the nature of what you perceive. Is the stick a real thing independent of your knowledge of it. Or is the stick simply what you know of it, or a purely mental thing? The philosophic theory called realism insists that objects exist independently of our knowledge of them. Idealism argues that they exist only in the mind. See IDEALISM; REALISM.
Another aspect of the problem of what is real is the philosophic discussion of universals and particulars. When you look at a set of book, you recognize that they are all books. All books are alike as books. This means that each book is an example of a “Book” in a general sense. Philosophers call this general “Book” a universal, and the individual books particulars. They ask, “Is the particular book or the universal “Book” the real one?” Some philosophers say that only the universal is real. The particular book seems to change, but the universal remains unchanged." (Philosophy [What is Real?] - World Book Encyclopedia)
The hopes and dreams of the prophets of Ancient Israel and the main message of Christianity was and still is the Kingdom of God. The book of Daniel of the Hebrew scriptures informs us of the prophet Daniel’s interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream concerning the world empires that were to rule the world until God’s Kingdom would take over the reins of power.
“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” (Daniel 2:44)
I would like to emphasis [break in pieces] and [consume all these kingdoms] as part of this policy, and conclude with a quote that magnifies and clarifies this perspective;
“What is at stake is more than one small country—it is a big idea. A new world order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind. With few exceptions the world now stands as one. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fulfill the long held promise of a new world order. We can find meaning and reward by serving some higher purpose than ourselves. A shining purpose, the illumination of a thousand points of light. And that’s why I wanted to speak to you today about the new world taking shape around us. About the prospects for a new world order now within our reach. It refers to new ways of working with other nations to deter aggression and to achieve stability. As old threats recede, new threats emerge. The quest for the new world order is in part a challenge to keep the dangers of disorder at bay.”
So in other words, you have nothing to say about what upper echelon thinkers know about the true nature of God that is only revealed to upper echelon thinkers?
Exactly. You don’t get to define God as necessarily being someone you can’t accept, and then count yourself as justified for rejecting him on the grounds that he is what you decided he had to be. It is completely circular.
The guided tour demonstrating the interrelationship and methodology of philosophy, metaphysics, philosophy of science, and mainstream science was meant as a primer in considering how theology is to be viewed in the grand scheme of things. I think that through understanding the true nature of God’s Kingdom we can come to understand the true nature of God—the God of Creation and the God of Christianity are different aspects of the whole reality.
Furthermore, I never said that God’s true nature is ONLY revealed to upper echelon thinkers (clergy and academic theologians). For the most part it is—since God’s true nature is inherently a major part of their study—however, many academic scholars in other fields are very much interested in what the facts of reality are, as are others in society who are beginning to wake up.
I have written many posts here at BioLogos describing God’s true nature—as a matter of fact, all my posts have been about God’s true nature. If you click with your mouse on the orange T for my name (same goes for any other member) a rectangular black box appears with membership information as well as a bigger orange T. Click on the larger T and you will be taken to a page with all my posts (again same goes for any other member). If you really are interested in what I have to say concerning God’s true nature the following topics should be a good place to start:
I’ve read several of your posts Tony, and honestly, I don’t find them particularly interesting. They tend to follow the playsheet. I mean one might say that you are reading from a bit of an advanced playsheet, say one of Bill Walsh’s West Coast playsheets from the 80s (though truth be told Walsh’s O is quite basic which is part of the beauty and efficacy of it), rather than one of the old school HS football dive, blast, power, sweep 3 yard and a cloud of dust playsheets from the late 70s-but it is still just a playsheet (or seems so to be to me).
Your posts seem to demonstrate the kind of settled mind that makes discussion at best unprofitable.
I agree, play sheets with complicated maneuvers when simple straightforward tactics do the job do create a cloud of dust. Perhaps the following list of synonyms and antonyms provide a more basic (beauty and efficacy) assessment of what concerns us here:
The God of Creation (Elohim) = The eternal animating force.
The universe is cyclical (big bang, big crunch) — Cosmological evolution through biological evolution.
The Trinity is Adam (the Father), Jesus (the Son), Parousia (the inspired One of Holy Spirit).
The God of Christianity (Yahuwah) = The Higher Self — Jesus also prayed to (Yahuwah) the Higher Self.
Satan = Opposer = Unrestrained evil emanating from the subconscious ID.
The devil = The sociopath (primary psychopath) = Antichrist.
Possessed with the spirit of the devil = Influenced with the personality of the sociopath (the primary psychopath) — this identifies the “possessed one” as the (secondary psychopath).
The Antichrist = The man of sin = The abomination of desolation = The opposer to Christ’s rule.
Hell = (Sheol, Hades) = The grave, the pit.
Sin = Crime.
The sinner = The criminal
To forgive = To pardon.
To repent = To regret.
Penitentiary = The place to show penitence (remorse).
Although I have had convincing suggestions that religious language isn’t needed whatsoever to explain these facts (that science alone can demonstrate the ideas), religious understanding, piety, and a profound passion for justice is what will validate and legitimize those concerned. Remember, “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8). Also, Revelation chapters 4 and 5 express how Messiah is made worthy to rule as king.
I do welcome any counterpoints for consideration — please, prove my ideas wrong!
[quote=“Tony, post:24, topic:4410”]
I agree, play sheets with complicated maneuvers when simple straightforward tactics do the job do create a cloud of dust. Perhaps the following list of synonyms and antonyms provide a more basic (beauty and efficacy) assessment of what concerns us here:
The God of Creation (Elohim) = The eternal animating force.
The universe is cyclical (big bang, big crunch) — Cosmological evolution through biological evolution.[/quote]
Cosmological evolution through biological evolution? What does that even mean? That biological entities effect the next Crunch/Bang?
So, who evicted Adam from the Garden?
Theologically, God is essentially “Other,” not “higher me.”
That concept would be completely foreign to the writers of the New Testament. They believed in “ghosts.” Resurrection specifically meant physical raising from the dead.
Doesn’t really fit the Job model…
Where is your reference for this? Only one NT author refers to the Antichrist–and it’s not in Revelation.
What does that even mean? According to which laws?
Actually, that’s wrong. The word for “repent” simply means to “change”–ones direction, mind, heart. We assume regret but it doesn’t mean regret.
You’ve played fast and loose with etymology to generate these definitions. It’s a further leap to call them “facts.”
I apologize for not being clearer. All I meant by that statement was that biological evolution follows cosmological evolution (as presented in Genesis). And no, I don’t think biological entities can affect the next Crunch/Bang.
Yahuwah the (Higher Self) of course. You’re not suggesting that the White Bearded Man in the Sky did… are you…?
God (Yahuwah) being essentially “Other” is a deistic belief—that God is separate from His creation. This is wrong! The Christian belief is that Yahuwah is immanent (indwelling the universe, permanently pervading and sustaining the universe), and transcendent (beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience) for those who do not have an intimate relationship with Yahuwah. God existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe is a false belief system—it’s called deism. Evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution is not based on a deistic philosophy. Again, are you suggesting that Jesus prayed to the White Bearded Man in the Sky… are you…?
Perhaps that concept would be completely foreign to the writers of the New Testament—excluding John the author of Revelation of course. It’s explicitly clear that John who wrote the book Revelation was in line with the tradition of the Hebrew prophets. John would believe otherwise as most definitely Jesus would as well.
Maybe it doesn’t fit the Job model because the account of Job involves the philosophical implications of God’s [Elohim’s] responsibility for allowing evil. (Remember, in my worldview Elohim is the eternal animating force that creates and sustains the universe—not the White Bearded Man in the Sky). Job had no understanding of cosmology and genetics (not at the level we do today), how the universe functions, and how disease is inherited and transmitted. Therefore, Job believed that God [Elohim] allowed an evil entity called Satan (a horned, hoofed spirit being) to test Job. However, today we know better how the universe functions, the weather patterns and their indicators, and how diseases are inherited and transmitted.
In relation to the unrestrained evil emanating from the subconscious ID, I was of course referring to the most horrendous and atrocious people the world has ever known. I mean let’s face it these guys aren’t your typical choir boys. I also believe unrestrained evil is the most perfect term to express the actions of despicable people such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Mengele, Caligula, Nero, etc. etc… In such people the super-ego does not restrain the base instinctive impulses coming from the subconscious ID—for them there are no moral standards and anything goes. Of course these characters are the worst of the worst on the international level however, at the national, state, and municipal levels these same characters run amuck wreaking havoc within civilized societies. Following are links for the super-ego and for the personality construct.
You’re referring to 1st and 2nd John where John uses the term Antichrist several times correct? What you fail to grasp however is that the Antichrist is referred to by other terms in different books of the Bible.
For example, 2 Thessalonians 2:1–4 and 2 Thessalonians 2:7–10 refer to the Antichrist as the man of sin, and, the son of perdition;
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God (2 Thessalonians 2:1–4 KJV).
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved (2 Thessalonians 2:7–10 KJV).
Therefore, taking into consideration the two passages from Thessalonians, you are mistaken that only one NT author refers to the Antichrist.
The prophet Daniel makes it clear that he was referring to our present time (for at the time of the end shall be the vision) with his vision of the Antichrist;
And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision (Daniel 8:16-17 KJV).
And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days (Daniel 8:23-26 KJV).
In Daniel 11 the Antichrist is referred to as a vile person who will come to power at the time of the end;
And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries (Daniel 11:21 KJV).
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain (Daniel 11:36-39 KJV).
Here is the good news for those who stand long and have learned to keep their hands clean—so to speak;
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days (Daniel 12:1-13).
Sin or crime is the transgression of the law under which persons are subject to respect the persons and property of the society of which they are a part of. Moses’ Ten Commandments are the basis for civilized society. Jesus summed up the law of Moses into Two Commandments: Moses’ first four Commandments concern honor and worship for God; The remaining six comprise respect for next of kin, neighbor, and property. This is why Jesus commanded to love Yahuwah God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and to love thy neighbour as thyself. The law is foundational for a civilized society. It’s not for nothing that scripture states that we must be subject to those in authority;
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:1-10).
I think if you actually take a closer look at the authorized definitions for these words you will have a “change” in your direction, mind, and heart — In the following quotes I have used [brackets] throughout to [emphasize] the correlation of the terms we are discussing:
Penitence; the state of being [penitent]; [regret] for one’s wrongdoing or [sinning]; contrition; [repentance].
Word Origin and History for Penitence
c.1200, from Old French penitence (11c.) and directly from Latin paenitentia “[repentance],” noun of condition from paenitentum (nominative paenitens) “[penitent],” present participle of paenitere “[cause or feel regret],” probably originally “is not enough, is unsatisfactory,” from paene “nearby, almost.” PENITENCE Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
Repent; 1. to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; [regret] or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often followed by of): “He repented after his thoughtless act.” 2. to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as [to be disposed to change] one’s life for the better; [be penitent]. 3. to remember or regard with self-reproach or contrition: to [repent] one’s [injustice to another]. 4. to feel sorry for; [regret]: to [repent] an imprudent act.
Word Origin for Repent
1250-1300; Middle English [repenten] < Old French [repentir], equivalent to re- re- + pentir to feel sorrow (< Latin paenitēre to [regret], be sorry);
Word Origin and History for Repent
v. c.1300, “to feel such [regret] for [sins or crimes] as produces amendment of life,” from Old French [repentir] (11c.), from re-, here probably an intensive prefix (see re-), + Vulgar Latin *[penitire] “[to regret],” from Latin poenitire “make sorry,” from poena (see penal). The distinction between [regret] (q.v.) and [repent] is made in many modern languages, but the differentiation is not present in older periods. REPENT Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
Contrition; 1. sincere [penitence] or [remorse]. 2. Theology. sorrow for and detestation of sin with a true purpose of amendment, arising from a love of God for His own perfections (perfect contrition) or from some inferior motive, as fear of divine punishment (imperfect contrition).
Compunction; 1. a feeling of uneasiness or anxiety of the conscience caused by [regret] for doing wrong or causing pain; contrition; remorse. 2. any uneasiness or hesitation about the rightness of an action. COMPUNCTION Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
The point needs to be repeated;
The distinction between [regret] and [repent] is made in many modern languages, but the differentiation is not present in older periods.
To [repent] of your [sins] implies to [regret] your [crimes]. To show contrition, [penitence], [remorse]. Only then can one be [forgiven] of [sin]—[pardoned] of [crime].
Although it’s true I played fast and loose with etymology to generate these definitions in my previous post (I only wanted to present a general outline of my ideas—@nickster wanted something quick and simple), anyone who has a certain degree of understanding with the principles of semantics can grasp the idea how modern languages change our perspective of the world. As for suggesting it’s a further leap to call them “facts,” I hope I have provided a more precise presentation of evidence for these esoteric pontifications. I believe any serious Christian, philosopher, scientist, or theologian should take these considerations in earnest.
P.S. Where I said, “Although I have had convincing suggestions that religious language isn’t needed whatsoever to explain these facts (that science alone can demonstrate the ideas),” what I was referring to is the FACTS by which our present modern day justice systems operate—through the FACTS of philosophy, science, and evidence. For those who have a hard time following the discussion because of a lack of philosophic and scientific knowledge and have trouble understanding the pertinent issues, the religiously minded must begin with the FACTS of philosophy and science and then bridge these FACTS with their religious beliefs. ONLY THEN can a person TRULY comprehend the mystery of God.
[quote=“Tony, post:26, topic:4410”]
Yahuwah the (Higher Self) of course. You’re not suggesting that the White Bearded Man in the Sky did… are you…? [/quote]
So Adam’s higher self evicted his “lower self”? This sounds like a schizophrenically induced relocation.
No, it’s a theistic belief–that God is both transcendent and immanent.
You are guilty of the logical fallacy of the false dilemma; that transcendence negates immanence–something I neither said nor implied.
Um…what? You’re reading stuff in there that’s not in there. The OT prophets did not hold to a “different definition of resurrection.” And there is no evidence that the author of Revelation did either.
Uh…neither did any of the other biblical writers. So if you reject Job, how can you appeal to the others? Besides which, you keep implying that I support a “white bearded man in the sky” when I explicitly stated in this thread that I did not.
So…can you stop it?
Irrelevant. That you were referring to that doesn’t make you correct.
Thus…Freudian psychological constructs? Um…no.
[quote]You’re referring to 1st and 2nd John where John uses the term Antichrist several times correct? What you fail to grasp however is that the Antichrist is referred to by other terms in different books of the Bible.
For example, 2 Thessalonians 2:1–4 and 2 Thessalonians 2:7–10 refer to the Antichrist as the man of sin, and, the son of perdition;
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God (2 Thessalonians 2:1–4 KJV).
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved (2 Thessalonians 2:7–10 KJV).
Therefore, taking into consideration the two passages from Thessalonians, you are mistaken that only one NT author refers to the Antichrist.
The prophet Daniel makes it clear that he was referring to our present time (for at the time of the end shall be the vision) with his vision of the Antichrist;
And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision (Daniel 8:16-17 KJV).
And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days (Daniel 8:23-26 KJV).
In Daniel 11 the Antichrist is referred to as a vile person who will come to power at the time of the end;
And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries (Daniel 11:21 KJV).
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain (Daniel 11:36-39 KJV).[/quote]
You’re confusing the Antichrist with the Beast from Revelation (which is the Daniel referent).
What you missed is that the NT word Antichrist comes from Johannine tradition, as does the book of Revelation, and the book of Revelation does not use the word Antichrist. You are assuming that Paul is referring to the Antichrist with his “man of perdition.” That’s just tradition, not solid biblical exegesis.
[quote]Here is the good news for those who stand long and have learned to keep their hands clean—so to speak;
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days (Daniel 12:1-13).[/quote]
See above. The extended length of a quote does not buttress an inferior claim.
So…Kristallnacht was not sin…?
[quote]I think if you actually take a closer look at the authorized definitions for these words you will have a “change” in your direction, mind, and heart — In the following quotes I have used [brackets] throughout to [emphasize] the correlation of the terms we are discussing:
Penitence; the state of being [penitent]; [regret] for one’s wrongdoing or [sinning]; contrition; [repentance].
Word Origin and History for Penitence
c.1200, from Old French penitence (11c.) and directly from Latin paenitentia “[repentance],” noun of condition from paenitentum (nominative paenitens) “[penitent],” present participle of paenitere “[cause or feel regret],” probably originally “is not enough, is unsatisfactory,” from paene “nearby, almost.” PENITENCE Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
Repent; 1. to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; [regret] or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often followed by of): “He repented after his thoughtless act.” 2. to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as [to be disposed to change] one’s life for the better; [be penitent]. 3. to remember or regard with self-reproach or contrition: to [repent] one’s [injustice to another]. 4. to feel sorry for; [regret]: to [repent] an imprudent act.
Word Origin for Repent
1250-1300; Middle English [repenten] < Old French [repentir], equivalent to re- re- + pentir to feel sorrow (< Latin paenitēre to [regret], be sorry);
Word Origin and History for Repent
v. c.1300, “to feel such [regret] for [sins or crimes] as produces amendment of life,” from Old French repentir, from re-, here probably an intensive prefix (see re-), + Vulgar Latin *[penitire] “[to regret],” from Latin poenitire “make sorry,” from poena (see penal). The distinction between regret and [repent] is made in many modern languages, but the differentiation is not present in older periods. REPENT Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
Contrition; 1. sincere [penitence] or [remorse]. 2. Theology. sorrow for and detestation of sin with a true purpose of amendment, arising from a love of God for His own perfections (perfect contrition) or from some inferior motive, as fear of divine punishment (imperfect contrition).
Synonyms 1. compunction, [regret]. CONTRITION Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
Compunction; 1. a feeling of uneasiness or anxiety of the conscience caused by [regret] for doing wrong or causing pain; contrition; remorse. 2. any uneasiness or hesitation about the rightness of an action. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compunction[/quote]
The Bible wasn’t written in English.
[quote]The point needs to be repeated;
The distinction between [regret] and [repent] is made in many modern languages, but the differentiation is not present in older periods.
To [repent] of your [sins] implies to [regret] your [crimes]. To show contrition, [penitence], [remorse]. Only then can one be [forgiven] of [sin]—[pardoned] of [crime].[/quote]
The Bible wasn’t written in English. The word translated into the English word “repent” does not mean “feel sorry.”
Exactly! Mental illness was the consequence when Adam chose to disobey his conscience and go his own way. In our present day many schizophrenics end up being relocated to psychiatric institutions. Others learn to deal with the voices and hallucinations. And still others end up living their lives within the criminal justice system of incarceration.
If it wasn’t Adam’s higher self that evicted him from the garden, who, or what was it then that evicted him? Therefore, I ask politely, if you don’t believe in a white bearded man in the sky, who or what else was present with Adam that had the power of speech to declare eviction? Do you see the problem? God [Elohim] the eternal animating force is not a being that has a mouth, a tongue, and a voice box—[it] is the energy source for everything that exists. Eastern Orthodox theology has correlation to these ideas. The article here has much to look into. Essence–energies distinction - Wikipedia
The following quote has since been removed from the website from when I copied it about a year ago;
"Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) “all”; ἐν (en) “in”; and θεός (Theós) “God”; “all-in-God”) is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.
In panentheism, God is not exactly viewed as the creator or demiurge but the eternal animating force behind the universe, with the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. The cosmos exists within God, who in turn “pervades” or is “in” the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the “supreme affect and effect” of the universe."
I agree that God is both transcendent and immanent and that transcendence and immanence is a fundamental aspect of theistic belief. However, here, you stated;
Jesus being an “Other” being from all other beings is a true statement. That the trinity is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is another true statement. However, that God is “Other” than the Creation, I believe is a false statement. Why? Because, we as humans, including the physical world, are all part of the Creation. Therefore, God is not “Other” in that sense. If you mean that God is “Other” in the sense of being a different aspect of the Creation, then according to this reasoning it would be a true statement. According to panentheism God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Accordingly, God is the dynamic energy that gives existence to the manifestations of reality.
In theology the question of the Deity transcending the universe, time, etc., implies transcending the space, time, and matter of this universe. But the space, time, and matter of this universe is contained within the space, time, etc. of God. This is what panentheism is referring to that the universe is contained within God. Therefore, all that is implied by—God transcends the universe—is that with the end of a given universe God moves on to create a new universe (not that God is a separate entity from the universe).
This is why I refer to God [Elohim] as the eternal animating force of panentheism. Because Genesis 1:1 tells us that “God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth.” It does not tell us that God [Yahuwah] created the heavens and the earth. God [Yahuwah] is the higher self that exists in all human beings. Yahuwah is who spoke and walked with Adam in the garden. Yahuwah is who told Noah to build the arc and gave him the instructions for doing so. Yahuwah is who told Abraham to leave Babylon. And Yahuwah is who spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai.
I say the voice that spoke to these men of God came from within themselves. From where do you suggest this voice came from? I will wait for your answer patiently.
I don’t see any dilemma between transcendence and immanence. For me they are in perfect accord, as explained above.
Perhaps you are forgetting that while Jesus ministered He often encountered the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The two groups had opposing views on spiritual matters. “The Sadducees said that there was no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees confessed both” (Acts 23:8). It would seem that the two groups had difficulty agreeing about what the position of the Old Testament prophets was. So… I’m not reading stuff in there that isn’t there. It’s definitely there, and there is no doubt about it. The OT prophets were men of God who prophesied about the coming Messiah. And as was mentioned in my previous post, the author of Revelation is in line with the Hebrew prophets—the evidence is there to support this claim. Therefore, to suggest that they did not hold to a “different definition of resurrection” or to “other facts about God” would be incorrect.
From the account we can tell that the book of Job was not written by one of the Hebrew prophets. And even if it were, it would be correct to state that it was written from the perspective of the ordinary man who doesn’t have the facts. Job represents the ordinary righteous man who questions why evil would come upon someone who is morally upright.
If we reject the perspective from Job we can appeal to the prophets and to the author of Revelation, because the facts tell us what reality is. It’s like reading a story that has both truths and misleading accounts in it. Someone who understands the facts about life and death will spot the truths from the misleading accounts.
The only reason I keep implying that you support a “white bearded man in the sky” when you explicitly stated that you did not is because you keep defending the position of doing so. I sense that you feel ridiculed (So…can you stop it?)—but that is not my intention. Please don’t take it as if it is. It’s a way of describing that position that many people have—even if it is subconscious. How else can we describe it? God the spirit person that has eyes to see, a mouth to speak, and ears to hear (although they are not physical—but rather, invisible)? This being does exist—in our dreams. This is why the Bible is full of accounts of dreams, and visions. This is where God [Yahuwah] communicates with men and women. Joseph, Ezekiel, Daniel, Mary mother of Jesus, Joseph step-father of Jesus, and John the author of Revelation all were given messages through dreams and/or visions. By the way, the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation were written in symbolic form, in the same fashion that the subconscious presents its dreams. Dream interpretation is an important asset for interpreting the messages from the prophets (in conjunction with the revealed word of course).
OK… you’re right, point well taken. There is no excuse for the sloppiness in my writing.
Um…yes. Freud gets to the core of how the mind functions and how behavior is shaped. Jung’s work is also indispensable in that respect. Both Freud’s and Jung’s personality constructs present well-defined models for the interrelationship between the conscious and subconscious parts of the mind.
Sigmund Freud described the personality as “the Subconscious ID which seeks the gratification of basic needs, especially sex and aggression, the Conscious Ego which is in contact with the world and is aware of social constraints, and the Superego which decides how we ought to behave.”
Carl Jung explained the personality in different terms, although, equally instructive. “The psyche is a flow of energy from opposing poles of the personality which eventually merge to form the Super-Conscious.” The two descriptions of the mind from Freud and Jung must be brought together for a full understanding of the processes involved.
Freud’s Subconscious ID (Instinctive Desire) is that part of the personality from where our desires emerge. The reason Freud emphasizes [sex and aggression] is because these are the polar opposites of the emotions i.e.—love and fear. The Conscious Ego is that part of the personality that confronts our daily social experience and is cognizant of the “criminal laws.” Hence, Freud’s—“in contact with the world and aware of social constraints.” Finally, the Super Ego is the part of the personality that [decides] how we ought to [behave]. Here, we come to an understanding of Jung’s—flow of energy—from [opposing poles] of the personality and picture the “Super-Conscious” which plays the role of “Moral Conscience.”
This should remind the reader of the “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” syndrome—depicting bipolar personality disorder. A very interesting point to make here is how one of the episodes of the children’s cartoon, “The Flintstones,” portrayed the characteristics of the disorder with Fred Flintstone. The opposing poles of personality were portrayed as a white winged angel with halo on one shoulder, and a red horned and tailed devil with pitch fork on the other. Fred Flintstone, in the middle of it all, had to decide who to listen to—or rather, how to behave. This interrelationship between the different parts of the personality develops into the persons we finally become.
Some do not subscribe to the notion of Jung’s collective unconsciousness. Instead, I am convinced that we fully apply our faculties as—free individuals—to reason through and understand different aspects of the world around us. These faculties comprise our personality and its different component parts, including the [personal unconscious] and its extension to the [collective unconscious] that mankind shares as a whole—the archetypes of the physical and psychological worlds, and the moral values we share as a global society.
“Collective unconscious is a term of analytical psychology, coined by Carl Jung. It is proposed to be a part of the unconscious mind, expressed in humanity and all life forms with nervous systems, and describes how the structure of the psyche autonomously organizes experience. Jung distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious, in that the personal unconscious is a personal reservoir of experience unique to each individual, while the collective unconscious collects and organizes those personal experiences in a similar way with each member of a particular species.” Collective unconscious - Wikipedia
To be specifically clear concerning the distinguishing factors and differences between the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious—the [collective unconscious] collects and organizes the same personal experiences unique to the personal unconscious but assesses the personal experiences through the moral standards of the whole species, whereas the [personal unconscious] assesses the personal experiences through its own moral standards.
You are claiming that I’m confusing the Antichrist with the Beast from Revelation (which is the Daniel referent).
However, which Beast from Revelation are you referring to?—There are many Beasts from the book of Revelation.
Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians was advising the early Christians not to be deceived in any way that the day of the Lord was upon them; “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:3 KJV). That falling away was the erosion of the pristine state of Christian doctrine which was already occurring as Paul was writing that letter. “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed” (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 KJV). The NRSV states it differently; “but only until the one who now restrains it is removed.” The exegesis here is that Paul was referring to the leadership of the Caesars. And we know from history that in 538 A.D. the throne of Caesar was abdicated and passed over to the Pontiff’s of Rome. Therefore it’s clear that Paul is referring to the Antichrist with his “man of perdition.”
Following are the opening words presenting a portion of the Justinian Code taken from a Seventh-Day Adventism website. A copy of the original document can be found at the Constitution Society website—the links are below.
“This is a copy of the decree of the Justinian Code by the emperor Justinian. This Code was put in place in 534AD. This decree was made against those who did not support the Trinity creed. The Papacy used this decree to destroy all those that were found to be non-trinitarian. A group of people were destroyed in 538AD called the Ostrogoths. Many of us will recognize this group as the 3rd horn that was uprooted by the Papacy. After destroying the Ostrogoths in 538AD because of their unbelief in the Trinity Creed. This was what marked the beginning of the 1260 year reign of Church and State terror from 538-1798 when the church and state reign was broken by general Berthier under Napoleon.”
The establishment of Papal authority over the Roman Catholic Church is the mid-point of Daniel’s 2520 year prophecy that began in 722 B.C. with the fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_captivity 1260 years later we arrive at the establishment of Papal Authority over the Roman Catholic Church. This mid-point begins what has been referred to as the Catholic Church’s reign of terror throughout much of Europe which comes to an end 1260 years later in 1798. On February 10, 1798 Napoleon Bonaparte sends General Berthier to Rome where Pope Pius VI is taken prisoner and escorted to France where he dies in a French prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_and_the_Catholic_Church This is what is referred to in the book of Revelation as the deadly head wound. “And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death…” (Revelation 13:3 KJV).
On February 11, 1929 the Lateran Treaty is signed recognizing the Vatican as an independent state and reestablishing Papal Authority once again. "It recognized the Vatican as an independent state, with Prime Minister Benito Mussolini agreeing to give the church financial support in return for public support from the pope at the time. < Lateran Treaty - Wikipedia> Thus, Revelation states, “…and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the [BEAST]” [Emphasis Mine]. Therefore, the BEAST, here, that Revelation is referring to is Papal Authority, which is the Antichrist system. And whether Paul is referring to the Antichrist with his “man of perdition” is also clear.
Revelation confirms Daniel’s prophecy if one understands the day/year biblical principle. That there are 360 days in a year (according to the biblical calendar) therefore, 42 months = 1260 days which = 1260 years. Daniel and Revelation also refer to this same time period as a time, times, and half a time, or 3 1/2 years.
And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:4-7).
Again, the word BEAST is used throughout this passage for the Antichrist system directed by Papal Authority.
In my previous post I presented general statements concerning the Antichrist. The Antichrist figure and the Antichrist system were always well centered in their principal location. However, Revelation 13 informs us that another beast coming out of the earth is made as an image unto the first beast—many believe this second beast is the United States of America. Therefore, I believe the central authority of the first beast is passed over to the second beast.
And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live (Revelation 13:11-14).
Furthermore, I know I said, “In Daniel 11 the Antichrist is referred to as a vile person who will come to power at the time of the end.” That person is the one called the false prophet in the trinity of evil—All three are Antichrist, and all three are under the influence of the Satanic force;
And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty (Revelation 16:13-14).
I apologize for not being clearer—I wasn’t exactly sure how much you understood regarding the subject and how specific our discussion would get.
This question comes in response to my statement here;
The “Night of Broken Glass,” throughout Germany and Austria, during which Jews were killed and their property destroyed was a transgression of that law. How could Kristallnacht not be sin therefore? Of course Kristallnacht was sin!
You are obviously correct that the Bible wasn’t written in English, however, you are mistaken in your conclusions here. The following link to the Hebrew for Christians website is an excellent source on repentance. The Hebrew and Greek words associated with repentance (such as regret, remorse, and turning back to God) are discussed in detail.
Original quote has been removed because of copyright reasons.
Well, sure, all the more reason for precision—if someone is there who is honest, sincere, and interested in truth, who can grasp what is being said, and who has respect for the discussion.
No, not because… I said so. Because… God said so;
1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish (Psalm 1:1-6 KJV).
The least you could have done was to answer my questions, and indicate what concepts I am redefining. But since you haven’t, I’ll take it that you just cannot contradict what I have said.
You can take it that way if you want. But honestly I can’t be bothered talking about correcting vast reinterpretations and misinterpretations of basic Christian belief. Maybe another time I would have. But you’re no longer talking about “the white bearded man in the sky.” You’re radically reinterpreting Christianity.