• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nothing Short Of Perfection

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
If you AGREE with me that Jesus is not a mere angel, but is above all angels in position, then you have ceded the argument. Otherwise, you are mis-describing my position. If you have a different belief, try to describe it coherently and logically and give us data. You say you want to use your bible. But you are not using it.

Hebrews = Jesus is above all angels
Clear = Jesus and Satan are brothers
Satan = Angel

God is not an angel’s brother. Pearl of Great Price says Satan is coequal with Jesus and Satan offered himself for the redemption of mankind. Do you not understand why a Biblicist is uncomfortable with LDS doctrines?

These kinds of ideas of yours detract from the gospel—that Jesus died and rose, the perfect for the imperfect. You already by fiat adhere to a church that teaches that Satan could have died and risen for us as well—or at least asked to do so. Will you answer the question:

Why does Satan offer to redeem man before either Satan or man have fallen, according to POG Price?

What is the motive for trying to portray me as taking a literal position when you yourself use “brother” metaphorically?

My motive is to demonstrate that you don’t hold to LDS canon, either, and should not say you are representative of LDS members. POG Price and other writings indicate Satan is a literal, not metaphorical, brother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you agree or disagree?

You are becoming irrational. The scripture from John 1:18 is hardly a heretical source and you have not provided a single biblical reference to support the theory that Jesus is not a begotten Son of God. If you disagree with the early Christian belief that Jesus was begotten, what data to you have to show readers?

It is irrational to say Jesus was unbegotten, that He is coeternal with God? You don’t recognize that the Bible and the early church and most Christians sects, ever, have Jesus as coeternal with God?

Billiardsball said : "This is now the fifth (sixth?) time I've invited you to stay within the confines of the Bible. "

The answer has been consistently : “No”. It is silly and counterproductive to stay within the confines of a modern English bible if one is attempting to obtain a breadth of historical knowledge of the early Jews, Christians, the time and places in which they live, their language and it’s idioms and idosyncracies and it common uses and meaning, and their doctrines and practices.

Unfortunately, however, your posts tend to be well over 95% early sources that are people commenting on the Bible. You fear discussing the Bible with me because most Christians have doctrines that are biblical and because LDS makes up doctrine from whole cloth. You need not confine yourself to the Bible but if you wish to go on discussing with me, it would be great for you to say, talk about the Bible some of the time, instead of 5% of the time.

Billiardsball said : Because surely if your early Christian doctrines are true, we can find them in the Bible, can't we?
The difference is that you are attempting to synthesize a belief system on the bible just like most other Christians are doing, and yet their doctrines conflict with yours. Though I think you are doing the best that you can, still your modern theories are simply a group of theories out of thousands of other competing theories.

Thousands of theories?

Jesus is a literal brother of Satan or not, two theories, 99% of Christians believe one of the theories.

Jesus is coeternal or was created by the Father, two theories, 99% of Christians believe one of the theories.

Jesus died for us to be saved or we save ourselves, two theories, 99% of conservative Christians believe one of the theories, and social gospel advocated believe the other.

While it is obvious in our various discussions that I am familiar with multiple bibles from different eras and in different languages, my purpose of study is different than yours. You want to prove to yourself and others that what you believe is true. What I am doing is looking at the early Judeo-Christian texts and seeing what the Early Judeo-Christians themselves believed from their own witnesses. This is an entirely different perspective.

Actually, what happens is rather than preconceive notions, when you bring up something I haven’t already heard before, I ask God to give insight.

I don’t think you “have a purpose of study” per se, I think rather you are intent on demonstrating to as many readers as possible that the Bible isn’t to be trusted. What a strange agenda for someone to say, “I’m a Christian, but the Christian source texts are untrustworthy to a large degree.” I don’t understand your perspective. Please tell me more.

This was the reason I brought up the early Doctrines about the plan of God and the reasons underlying God’s plan in early Judeo-Christian worldviews. This is the reason I brought up the early doctrines regarding Lucifers fall and Satans origin. The modern Judeo-Christian movements like yours have very, very few details regarding the origin of Satan and the circumstances underlying his motives and reason surrounding his fall and being cast out of Heaven.

If you think your theories on the origin of Lucifer are superior, I have asked you to offer them as well, but you don’t seem to have any that have any detail. This has also be one of my points. Ancient, informed Christian thought is better than modern, uninformed Christian theories.

I haven’t had any breathing room or time from you to offer any such ideas. I’d love to discuss-not argue with you—my ideas regarding redemption, the Fall, Lucifer, etc. but first, I’d love for you to adhere to a church movement not because “they have superior doctrines and ideas regarding Satan” but rather, “they are faithful to the Word of God.

Billiardsball said : Why do you feel to secure LDS doctrines, you have to refer to neither LDS canon nor Bible canon but letters of people not claiming any inspiration at all? I don't understand. Please help me understand.

I have practiced medicine for many years and many of my patients display psychological patterns that are counter-productive. Though you say you want to “understand” another point of view, I do not think individuals whose loyalty to ideology and lack of logical and rational thought are often able to understand ideologies much beyond their own vision, nor are they able to understand logical and rational thought since they do not subject their ideology to logic or coherence. Whether you are in this category or not, you can judge. Readers can as well.

Thus, my writings have often not been for your benefit since your theories are not often built upon deep historical data, or logic or reasoning. But instead I have often written for other posters who do value Historical data and rational, logical thought as they consider what it is they are to believe about a historical religion. I also want the LDS readers to see the incredible strength of their historical position and introduce them to the literature of early Christians as a valuable witness as to what early Christianity was like and how the early Christians themselves, interpreted the bible.

As you have admitted, your own interpretations have no advantage over that of the earliest Christian witnesses. As you also have observed, and admitted, your own religion is different to that of the earliest Christians. Their religion is “heresy to your religion” and your religion is often “heresy” to them. This is the nature of the apostasy away from early religion and evidence that it happened. Thus, your own posts provide strong evidence to the LDS of their theology, you just don’t see it. In any case, whether the LDS are correct or incorrect in their own religious views, I believe that the earliest and most authentic doctrines in the earliest Christian movement are superior to modern Christian religious theories.

Billiardsball, you can have a satisfying and wonderful spiritual journey, but there are rules. I hope you find happiness in your own journey.

No, please DO help me understand. You don’t believe what the early Christians believe, you believe in the doctrines of the Mormon church, and you also believe that neither Mormon nor Christian canonical books are wholly true. That seems an illogical and untenable stance, and I’m trying to understand.

Also, in a not subtle manner, you imply I’m mentally unwell. Are you a certified counselor or psychologist? If you are a GP or surgeon, do you really tell biblicists who adhere closely to the love of Christ and the Bible that they are being counter-productive to their healing process, and that they are being blind, and are mentally unwell? You owe me an apology.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST ONE OF FOUR

Forum members and LDS readers

I've demonstrated in posts 331,332,333 &334 how Joseph Smiths description of the overall plan of God parallels restorative principles with early Christian worldviews. The verses in Moses 4:1-4 similarly, parallels and coordinates with early Christian worldviews. The reason to introduce the early model of the fall of Satan in posts 301,302, and 303 was to give some base context to Lucifer and his fall.

REGARDING THE ACTUAL QUOTE FROM THE BOOK OF MOSES
The verses in question are :
And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. 2. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me – Father, thy will be done and the glory be thine forever. 3. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down. 4. And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

If you simply review the fall of Satan in posts 301,2 and 3, you will see the base parallels starting and continuing through the quotes. I will repeat the base Judeo-Christian context in the next few posts and add commentary of how these verses fit into the ancient Christian history. I will post commentary underlined and in BLUE.

Religious historians of early Judeo-Christian texts and those familiar with early Christian Theology and the a variety of early Judeo-Christian texts will be familiar with this themes, certainly the LDS will and other restorational theists will. This quote has to do with the context of the early controversies of Lucifer, which result in his becoming an enemy of God and mankind.

In early Judeo-Christian and Islamic theology, Lucifer is characterized as one who is envious, and is seeking glory and worship and who ultimately plans and attempts to set up an alternate throne, administration and plan than God the Father has. He seeks honor that he is not given.



REGARDING THE HISTORY OF LUCIFER BECOMING AN ENEMY TO GOD, THE WAR IN HEAVEN:
“I remember a historical discussion regarding the origin of Satan where the poster commented :
...there's nothing, scripturally speaking, that addresses the question of the origin of evil (or Satan, if you prefer). The only hint is in Genesis 3 where the serpent (in later tradition -- again without scriptural support -- identified as the devil) appears quite suddenly as part of an apparently very good creation. Nary a word of comment on the origins of this creature....

That’s it, in toto.

Such statements reveal a lack of a framework for understanding the basic issues surrounding what is going on with all of this “good” and “evil” that none of us avoid inside of creation; and demonstrate the value of turning to the earliest Christian teachings and their writings on such issues (in the period before many of the important doctrines were lost or changed). I do not believe that modern christian theory is as coherent; nor as understandable as the early Judao-Christian doctrines regarding Lucifers origins and motives for his fall from heaven.

Though there are many modern theories regarding how Lucifer, an archangel with some authority became Satan, an enemy to all righteousness, there is a great deal of early literature regarding what the early christians themselves believed regarding the Origin and motives of Lucifer (his “name” before he became “satan” or the “devil”...)…

It is important historically, to keep in mind that Lucifer’s “fall” did not happen suddenly nor in a contextual vacuum. That is, the “good” Archangel Lucifer didn't simply wake up in a bad mood and decide to be “evil” one morning. But instead, Lucifers fall was more logical and it occurred in the context ofseveral frustrating controversies, (some more important than others). The most famous controversy in the ancient texts occurred during the honoring of Adam which itself takes place in the greater context of God the Fathers Plan. To best understand this cascade of events, I think one should start with God’s original plan according to ancient Judeo-Christian textual witnesses and consider events from there forward.


It is contextually important to understand that, to this ancient christian theology :

1) The spirits of angels, men and God existed prior to mortality

2) God the Father’s plan entailed moral advancement of the spirits of men

3) The Honoring of Adam was logical in view of his role in God’s plan for mankind

4) Lucifer’s “rebellion” was more than a refusal to “honor Adam”.

5) Lucifer’s “punishment” relates to his rebellion against the plan AND God himself

6) Lucifer’s current “dominion” plays a “role” in God’s ultimate plan


Without considering conditions PRIOR to Lucifer’s rebellion, then the rebellion cannot be understood as the ancient Judeo-Christians (who wrote the texts) understood it. Without considering the nature of the rebellion, then Lucifer’s punishment and his current dominion cannot be understood as the ancient Christians understood and taught such doctrines.

A) SPIRITS OF MANKIND EXISTED BEFORE THEY WERE BORN.

Long before the creation of this world, God was in the midst of spirits. Early textual testimonies describe innumerable spirits existing in “heaven” before creation :
Regarding his vision of pre-creation heaven, Enoch records : "No one could come near unto him [God the Father] from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". (1 En 14:23). Enoch continues : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits".(1 Enoch 40:1-2)"

At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, .... Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world. Each one in it’s due time the Holy One, be blessed, bade come to him, and then said: “Go now, descend into this that this place, into this and this body.” (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)

God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits of mankind and angels and the texts describe what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits.


Commentary : “Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning,” בראשת – The “beginning” here does not mean a co-eternality with the Father, but refers to the early stages of the Fathers plan.

B) INTELLIGENT SPIRITS HAD THE CAPABILITY OF LEARNING AND CHANGING AND PROGRESSING.

It is Baruch that reminds us of the innate ability of the spirit of men to advance in knowledge consistent with God’s plan. He says : “For the nature of men is always changeable. For as we were once, we are no longer, and as we are now, we shall not remain in the future. For if an end of all things had not been prepared, their beginning would have been senseless”. (2 Baruch 21:16-17)

Even at this early, less sophisticated stage of existence, spirits were able to exercise agency
. Thus the spirits of men were able to exercise choice to take part in this plan despite difficulties they will experience in mortality (as Job was reminded), just as they are allowed moral choice in this life.

Given the grandeur and the pure intent and profound implications of God’s plan for mankind, it may start to make some sense of what it meant for Lucifer, not only to refuse to take part in the plan, but to openly rebel against the plan, and ultimately rebel against God the Father himself.



C) BECAUSE GOD WAS INTELLIGENT AND POSSESSED POWER AND CHARITY, HE DEVISED A PLAN SO AS TO ALLOW THESE SPIRITS TO ADVANCE


The ancient Jewish doctrine that God had instituted a divine plan is interwoven into multiple texts : "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264) “....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4)

The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of this plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) In these descriptions of his Plan, God the Father seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement of the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed).

Though these texts tell us that all the spirits of men existed before the creation of the earth, the spirits were in no way equals (just as we are not equal now). Among them were the more intelligent and gifted; i.e. those who were more full of grace and truth than others. In addition to Lucifer, God the Father and Adam, all other key players are all present in this pre-mortal realm. In Enoch’s vision, he also see’s the pre-mortal Jesus with the Father. Upon seeing the two together, Enoch asks who this individual (Jesus) is and what role he has in the Father's Plan : "At that place, I saw the Beginning of days [i.e. the Father] And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one – from among the angels –who was going with me,..."Who is this and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?" And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4)


POST TWO OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST TWO OF FOUR


It is in this context that the Apostolic Father Ignatius taught that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father..” (Ignatius :6:1). The ancient records show the Father and Jesus, from early on, both possessed a great similarity and unity of Purpose. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations). Diogenes relates this ancient doctrine : "And when he revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of [us] ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child...(Diog 301:8-11)

D) DESPITE CONCERNS, THE PLAN WAS GENERALLY, RECEIVED JOYOUSLY

Ancient pre-creation histories describe that the Father’s plan, revealed to these spirits before the foundations of the earth were laid was generally joyously received. God’s question to Job was not merely rhetorical, but was a contextual reminder to Job of an actual occurrence. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?(Job 38:4-7)

The advancement entailed by God's plan was something the spirits wanted : Enoch says that he saw : "...the fountain of righteousness,...surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom. (Then) their dwelling places become with the holy, righteous, and elect ones.‘

Who among them, (or us) would not have wanted to drink from that same wisdom and take their place with others who were holy, righteous and elect?

The Zohar relates mortality to a moral education received by coming to mortality : “...why do they [the spirits of mankind] descend to this world only to be taken thence[back to heaven] at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile:A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace.When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day.....“ (The zohar - A seal upon your heart)


E) LUCIFER REFUSES TO HONOR ADAM FOR ADAMS IMPORTANT ROLE IN GODS PLAN

Among the several controversies that arise, the most famous one is that, as Adam is chosen to inaugurate the plan of God upon the earth, he is honored for this important role. Lucifer, refuses to honor Adam and rebels and this forms the most famous of the historical controversies involving Lucifer and play into his ultimately becoming an enemy to God and being cast out of heaven. This specific controversy is not the only controversy, but it is the most famous and the most well documented one that all three abrahamic religions (Jews, Christians, Muslims) agreed on in their earlier textual witnesses.

It is important that readers understand that I did not simply pick out a single “obscure” reference describing this story. Rather, this early doctrine was taught and described in many texts over a great deal of time and space.

The early Christian Text “Cave of Treasures” relates : “And when the prince of the lower order of angels saw what great majesty had been given unto Adam, he was jealous of him from that day, and he did not wish to honor him.And he said unto his hosts, "Ye shall not honor him, and ye shall not praise him with the angels. It is meet that ye should worship me, because I am fire and spirit; and not that I should worship a thing of dust, which hath been fashioned of fine dust."

Commentary : When this Christian text relates the Lucifer was jealous of Adam, he is simply relating the same characteristic pattern of jealousy that existed between Lucifer and Jesus. Lactantius said : For he envied his predecessor, who through his steadfastness is acceptable and dear to God the Father.“ Multiple early texts describe this same theme of Lucifer, having Jealousy of, and wanting the glory and honor of another, to whom glory and honor actually belonged.

For examples : Sedrach relates : “You commanded your angels to honor Adam, but he who wasfirst among the angels disobeyedyour order and did not honor him: and so you banished him because he transgressed your commandment and did not come forth (to honor) the creation of your hands." (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7)

Jewish Haggadah (having Talmudic origins) also relates : “The extraordinary qualities with which Adam was blessed, physical and spiritual as well, aroused the envy of the angels...After Adam had been endowed with a soul, God invited all the angels to come and pay him reverenceand homage.Satan, the greatest of the angels in heaven,....refusedto pay heed to the behest of God, saying, “You created us angels from the splendor of the Shekinah, and now you command us to cast ourselves down before the creature which you fashioned out of the dust of the ground!” God answered, “Yet this dust of the ground has more wisdom and understanding than you.”... (The Haggadah -The Fall of Satan)

The text then relates the "battle of wits" between Lucifers spirit and Adam's spirit where Lucifer is bested and loses "face".

Christian Bartholomew also confirms the story as Lucifer says : “And when I came from the ends of the world, Michael said to me: ‘Honor the image of God which he has made in his own likeness.’ But I said: ‘I am fire of fire. I was the first angel to be formed, and shall I worship clay and matter?” And Michael said to me: ‘Honor, lest god be angry with you.’ I answered: ‘God will not be angry with me, butI will set up my throne over against his throne, and shall be as he is[cf. Isa. 14:14]. ‘ then god was angry with me and cast me down,...” (The Gospel of Bartholomew Ch IV)

Jewish Enoch relates, in the context of this Lucifer’s rebellion : “the devil understood how I wished to create another world, so that everything could be subjected to Adam on the earth, to rule and reign over it. ....And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. 6 And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam.(2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1)

The Christian text “Life of Adam and Eve” relates the same incident : Speaking to Adam, the Devil said : "...because of you [Adam], I [Lucifer] am expelled and deprived of my glory which I had in the heavens in the midst of angels, and because of you I was cast out onto the earth.” 2 Adam answered, “What have I done to you, and what is my blame with you? Ch 13 “The devil replied,...It is because of you that I have been thrown out of there. 2 When .......Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ Ch 14 3 And I answered,‘I do not worship Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to worship me.’ 15 1 When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to worship him.(Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 12: 1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3)

This doctrinal controversy is not simply Jewish and Christian in it’s nature, but it’s also confirmed by the Sixth Century Quran text : "..And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "I am going to create a man (Adam) from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud. So, when I have fashioned him completely and breathed into him (Adam) the soul which I created for him, then fall (you) down prostrating yourselves unto him." So, the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together. ExceptIblis (Satan), - he refused to be among the prostrators.(Sura 15:28-31)

In Sura 20 : “And (remember) when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves to Adam." They prostrated (all) exceptIblis (Satan), who refused. (Sura 20:116)

In Sura 38 : “(Remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Truly, I am going to create man from clay". So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him." So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them:Except Iblis (Satan) he was proudand was one of the disbelievers.(Sura 38:71-74)

In Sura 7 : "And surely, We created you (your father Adam) and then gave you shape (the noble shape of a human being), thenWe told the angels, "Prostrate to Adam", and they prostrated, except Iblis (Satan), he refusedto be of those who prostrate. (Allah) said: "What prevented you (O Iblis) that you did not prostrate, when I commanded you?" Iblis said: "I am better than him (Adam), You created me from fire, and him You created from clay." (Sura 7:11-12)

In Sura 18 : “And (remember) when We said to the angels; "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis(Satan). He was one of the jinns; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord....(Sura 18:50)

The point in repeating this doctrine from so many different ancient sources and versions is to show that this specific controversy and it’s relation to the doctrine of the “Origin” of Satan, is VERY ancient, the doctrine is VERY widespread among a large group of ancient literature, and the doctrine is VERY “orthodox” to the ancient Christians and other religious groups as well. It was one of the "crossroad" doctrines that was a common agreement and tradition shared by all three major abrahamic religions.

F) THE HONOR DUE ADAM WAS PERFECTLY LOGICAL IN VIEW OF GOD’S PLAN

It ought to be perfectly clear that as milestones were reached in the moving forward of God’s Plan for the spirits of mankind, the inauguration of mortality was an incredibly important phase that all spirits had long been anticipating. Thus,the “honoring of Adam” was not simply an arbitrary and spontaneous “office party” thrown at a whim, but it was a recognition of the culmination of organization and creation over a great deal of time and the inauguration of the opening phase of mortality of all mankind..

The jewish Haggadah describes the “wary reluctance” some souls experienced to leave a pre-mortal “heaven” to be born into mortality. Speaking this sort of “reluctance” the Zohar describes how God, tells a spirit to “Go now, descend into this and that place, into this and this body.” Yet often enough the soul would reply: “Lord of the world, I am content to remain in this realm, and have no wish to depart to some other, where I shall be in thralldom, and become stained.” Whereupon the Holy One, be blessed, would reply: “Your destiny is, and has been from the day of thy forming, to go into that world.” (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)



POST THREE OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST THREE OF FOUR

Such “unconfidence” is not “rebellion”
and such souls are given encouragement and still sent into mortality through birth according to God’s plan. However,just as “reluctance” is not “rebellion”, Lucifer’s “rebellion” was not merely “reluctance”. Lucifer’s rebellion was described as a willful and confident full fledged disagreement which evolved into a plan for an asaultive counter “coup” having a DIFFERENT administration under a DIFFERENT King and DIFFERENT goals to the ultimate effect of nullifying God’s initial plan.In the context of controversies such as Lucifer’s “last straw” over Adam, one can better understand the sparks that made up the fires of the Rebellion or “war in heaven” itself.

Commentary : The Book of Moses verse one “plugs and plays” into this plan of satan. This was not just a “different” administration and a “different King” and “different” goals, but this matches in rough time period where Lucifer describes this new administration. This isn’t the same as “when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. Job 1:6 or “when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord Job 2:1 But rather “he [Lucifer] came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor..

In LDS theology, this is not an offer of kindness offered by a "good" Lucifer, but a summary of Lucifers’ evil plan to take away free agency from mankind so that they could not choose to do wrong. This is the reason he could guarantee that not one soul would be lost. However, in early Christian theology, the plan had already been set out and the Son Jesus had already been chosen and named. Thus Enoch testified : : "At that place, I saw the …[ Father] And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual…. And I asked the one – from among the angels –who was going with me,..."Who is this and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?" And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4)


This is the same witness of Christian Bartholomew when “Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life everyone who came to me.” “ G of Barthol CH IV . This “naming” is not referring to the personal “name” but rather to a title and position just as being "the son" is not, in this instance a familial term, but a title, describing a position. These terms apply to the assignment he was given to the end that mankind would be redeemed from the moral stain of mortality.

Jewish Enoch also witnesses to this point in his vision of heaven when he says “
At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, ...before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts… For this purpose he became the Chosen One…because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they have life.” 1st Enoch 48:1-7; (the שם or ονομα or names are, in this symbology, the position/calling etc that correspond to the name, e.g. "Christ" is not a "name" per se, but a description of the position of Messiah or Savior)


The great controversy existed that IF mankind, having free will, was sent to earth, then mankind would certainly commit moral atrocities. This was known long before the fall of Adam, and in fact, long before Adam was placed into the Garden. 3rd Enoch relates Lucifers complaints against God the Father and his plan : "Then three of the ministering angels, Uzzah, Azzah, and Aza’el [Lucifer], came and laid charges against me in the heavenly height. They said before the Holy One, blessed be he, ‘Lord of the Universe, did not the primeval ones give you good advice when they said, Do not create man!

The core controvery was that man would commit great evil upon the face of the earth and suffering would occur. This was the appeal of Lucifers plan, that no suffering, no evil, no sin would occur. However, it would subvert the plan of the Father to educate mankind as well as create other problems having to do with who received the Glory. (Satan wanted and demanded glory)

The concept of the evils man would do on earth should the plan go forth is attested to in multiple early Judeo-Christian witnesses. In abbaton for example, in symbolic prose, it is the earth who complains that if God creates man, “very many sins shall come forth … and many fornications, and slanderous abuse, and jealousy, and hatred and contention shall come forth from his hand, and many murders and sheddings of blood shall come forth from his hand.

This same controversy is the very reason the spirit in Hebrew Zohar relates as to why it was “content to remain in this realm, , and have no wish to depart to some other, where I shall be in thralldom, and become [morally] stained.

In Christian Abbaton history this is the same controversy referred to by God the Father at the placing of Adams spirit into his body. God said : If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains. (because of the sins and abuse and evil that will occur). Jesus replies, Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him. And My Father said unto Me, If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state. And I said unto My Father, Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command. And, as LDS Moses adds : “my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me – Father, thy will be done and the glory be thine forever.” Moses 4:2. These two points, 1) how the controversy was to be overcome and 2) who was to get the Glory also fit very neatly into Joseph Smiths line uttered by Satan : “surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.”.

Thus, when Satan comes with two other angels and complains to God that he should not create man as planned, “The Holy One, blessed be he, replied, ‘I have made and will sustain him; I will carry and deliver him.’ (3rd Enoch 4:6)

The context of Moses chapter 41-4 is that Lucifer is simply describing the plan under which his separate administration will work, but at the cost of undermining both God the Fathers plan and his own glory. It is not a plan based on love and free will and grace and repentance and moral progress. It is part of Satan's rebellion. This is why the verse in Moses 4:3 describes it thusly : Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down.

Even the point of the premortal Jesus' role in the casting down of Satan fits neatly into the early Judeo-Christian descriptions of this. None of this early Christian theology fits into modern Christian worldviews, because it is not modern.


Smith’s Moses fit’s neatly into the historical context and the parallels are multiple, and they exist in several layers, on several points of base doctrines.

Such references hint of the other controversies and together, they offer a coherent history regarding such related controversies and their relationship to Lucifers Fall.

As the earth was created and it’s preparations finished and the time arrived for God’s plan to be inaugurated, the mood among the hosts of heaven becomes one of anticipation and excitement. It is under these circumstance that the body for Adam is created and joined to his spirit and God commanded that Adam was to be honored for his role in inaugurating God’s plan upon the earth. Michael calls all the angels to honor Adam for what he is about to do. A seemingly “fed up” Lucifer arrives to the occasion with a bad attitude.

It is in such a context that later, the fallen Lucifer later explained to the fallen Adam :..Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ And I answered, ‘I do not honor Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to worship me.’ .... When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to honor him. And Michael asserted, ‘Honor the image of God. But if now you will not honor, the Lord God will be wrathful with you.’ And I said, ‘If he be wrathful with me, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven and will be like the Most High.” (Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 12: 1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3)

As I’ve pointed out, there are many, many confirming versions of this same story. In these early christian texts, the anger and frustration of Lucifer does not remain a private gripe, but becomes an open rebellion.

”... one from the order of the archangels deviated, together with the division that was under his authority.He thought up the impossible idea, that he might place his throne higher than the clouds which are above the earth, and that he might become equal to my power. 5 And I hurled him out from the height, together with his angels.” (2nd Enoch 29:3-5)



POST FOUR OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST FOUR OF FOUR

G) THE NATURE OF LUCIFER’S REBELLION IN THE CONTEXT OF GOD THE FATHER’S PLAN.

The nature of Lucifer’s punishment indicates the seriousness of what he did : When Enoch tells the fallen angel Azaz’el that “There will not be peace unto you; a grave judgment has come upon you. They will put you in bonds because you have taught injustice (1st Enoch 13:1-3), Enoch is not speaking of mere “naughtiness” or mere “disagreement” with God’s plan. Such fallen angels were told “judgment is passed upon you. 5 From now on you will not be able to ascend into heaven unto all eternity,(1st Enoch 14:3-5) because their rebellion had much greater ramifications than simple disagreement with God.

It is in this larger set of contexts that it was said : “And the Rebel meditating these things Fol. 5b, col. 2 would not render obedience to God, and of his own free will he asserted his independence and separated himself from God. But he was - swept away out of heaven and fell, and the fall of himself and of all his company from heaven took place ...because he turned aside from the right way, ... he lost the apparel of his glory. And behold, from that time until the present day, he and all his hosts have been stripped of their apparel, (Cave of Treasures, chapt on “The Revolt of Satan”)

It’s unnecessary to the purpose of this post to discussed the symbolism of Lucifer’s apparel, his armor, and the “names” which were written in his hand (as the christian Abbaton also describes in greater detail), but it’s apparent that Lucifer unwillingly undergoes a ritual removal of his powers and authorities and authority for leadership and, with those angels who took part in his planned rebellion, he is cast down into the earth. This is the context surrounding such biblical statements as Jesus' statement "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18)

When biblical Jude describes the early history regarding "...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." (Jude 4, 6), he is referring to this same history the writer of Jude found in early Enoch that he quotes from.

It is not simply Lucifer that is cast out, as early biblical texts tell us, but other colleagues of Lucifer are cast out with him. Thus biblical text of revelations summarizes these early traditions saying : "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 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."(Rev 12:7-9)

Once Lucifer finds himself and his fallen angels on the earth, his own recognition and understanding and sense of what he had done increased, but recognition was not associated with remorse, but rather formed an obstinate resolve for continuing his rebellion. : “..he fled from heaven; Sotona, because his name was satanail. In this way he became different from the angels. His nature did not change, (but) his thought did, since his consciousness of righteous and sinful things changed. And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam." (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1)

COMMENTARY : All of these early Judeo-Christian witnesses move hand in hand with the Book of Moses quote. The restorative doctrines not only move together with the ancient histories, but they can dance together while modern theories are not even invited to the ball.

“And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. 2. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me – Father, thy will be done and the glory be thine forever. 3. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down. 4. And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.”

When I discovered the power and the parallels and the historical strength of the connections between restorative theology of the LDS, I realized that the historical connections ran more deeply and more closely intertwined that any modern theories I have ever been exposed to.

While I do not expect non LDS or those with prior bias or the non-historian to be convinced, I am quite confident that early Judeo-Christian religion and restorations of the same are more informed and superior to modern theology in logic and coherence and in historical harmony. While I can read about individuals complaining that Joseph Smith made some error in their eyes, I have never seen individuals relate how he created and conformed so many doctrines in such deep parallels to early Judeo-Christian religious witnesses without inspiration.

These parallels are the most complete and profound historical parallels I've ever come across, and they are not merely in text, but in linguistics and in greek and hebrew idiom and in concern with early Christian Diaries, Christian Lectionaries, early Christian Hymns and Psalms, and early synagogal prayers and in the Jewish epigraphs, the discoveries of the various libraries from Nag Hamadi, to Onychyrynchus, to the Lachis Letters, to the Dead Sea Scroll documents and others which Smith had no access to (most had not been discovered until a century after his death). I cannot seen how anyone can correlate and coordinate these early Judeo-Christian Themes in such depth and with such accuracy before they were commonly available to public access without revelation.


Clear
σεδρακσεω
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
REGARDING THE ACTUAL QUOTE FROM THE BOOK OF MOSES

The verses in question are:

“And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. 2. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me – Father, thy will be done and the glory be thine forever. 3. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down. 4. And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.”

**

From the passage above:

Why was Satan seeking to "redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost," before "he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will...”?

Why does the passage above say Satan can lead men captive at Satan's will?
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Billiardsball;


I do apologize to you if you thought I was referring to “mental disease”. I was referring to counter-productive patterns of thought and actions that prevent one from seeing any viewpoint other than their own. All of us are subject to this to some extent especially when we are young. If, as we age, we cannot learn to see things from another point of view, then we can never fully understand our spouses, our children, our co-workers, nor can we understand other textual descriptions nor other individuals on a religious forum. Trying to see a point from another point of view is difficult, especially if emotions color our motives. However, if we cannot learn to see another persons point of view, it affects our ability to live with them in harmony and happiness. It causes a lot of heartache in families.

Regarding your two questions:
1) Why was Satan seeking to "redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost," before "he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will...”?

2) Why does the passage above say Satan can lead men captive at Satan's will?


Consider the title of שטן (Satan) in it’s ancient context of "one who is hostile" or "one who opposes" (davidsons Hebrew lexicon) and read the entire four posts and pay attention to the time-lines. Read the entire sentences you are quoting bits and pieces of.

If you still cannot understand these two points, I will give my opinion. But, as an exercise in insight and seeing things from a different perspective (not as belief or non-belief, but for historical understanding of a different group of people from a different time period), I recommend you first, try to read it yourself, (not as a claim to religious doctrine or truth, but simply as a historical description.) Be patient and think about what the text is actually saying.

Let me know if you don’t come to understand the text.

Clear
σεφισεφυω
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I do apologize to you if you thought I was referring to “mental disease”. I was referring to counter-productive patterns of thought and actions that prevent one from seeing any viewpoint other than their own. All of us are subject to this to some extent especially when we are young.

Do you think me unaware that we all have biases? Are you unaware of the biases I needed to overcome to become a Christian, after being born a Jew? Do you not know how many friends and family I lost for sticking to the truths of the Bible and overcoming my biases? Why is it your consistent "apologetic" to ask readers to judge my biases and your biases, rather than the facts of the scriptures and the facts under debate?

Consider the title of שטן (Satan) in it’s ancient context of "one who is hostile" or "one who opposes" (davidsons Hebrew lexicon) and read the entire four posts and pay attention to the time-lines. Read the entire sentences you are quoting bits and pieces of.

If you still cannot understand these two points, I will give my opinion. But, as an exercise in insight and seeing things from a different perspective (not as belief or non-belief, but for historical understanding of a different group of people from a different time period), I recommend you first, try to read it yourself, (not as a claim to religious doctrine or truth, but simply as a historical description.) Be patient and think about what the text is actually saying.

Let me know if you don’t come to understand the text.

How patronizing of you to say I don't understand the text. Satan is offering to redeem man (wrong) before the Fall (also wrong). This is the fourth (?) time I'm asking you how Satan offers to redeem man before Satan falls, which means, man is not yet fallen, also, setting up (another) LDS illogical doctrine.

And this is the fifth (?) time I'm asking you how you defend your Christian beliefs to others, while telling prospective converts, "Christianity is great, just don't place too much trust in the source documents!" ...?
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
You don’t think the Jewish people were a foci for Paul in Romans?

I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen[a] according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God.


There is no mention of Jewish people per se in 13, although the entire chapter is tying Roman taxation and paying taxation to the Law of Moses.



Not at all. The chapters 24 and 25 in Matthew discuss the Great Tribulation, in 24, Jesus comes bodily to end the Tribulation to save believers from it.



This is men, not women, too? I will tell the Christian women I know:

*They are not living stones in the church

*They will be put to shame after believing in Jesus

*They are not the people of God.

After all, that is the passage under discussion…



Is there uncertainty if someone is a predestinarian also? The Calvinists say you cannot be sure. Is there stance correct or are you correct here?



I said nothing of the sort. I stated that you and Clear are of necessity holding to the steady state model as discarded by almost 100% of modern cosmologists. The Big Bang describes a finite beginning.



No, you began with a false premise—that your argument is logical. It is not.

I have spent many, many hours discussing with atheists that penal substitution is immoral and unjust. Once again, LDS is promoting an illogical doctrine that is unbiblical ALSO.



I disagree. You and Clear cherry-picked “authorities”, mostly from the RCC, to support this untenable stance. LDS doctrines are closest to the RCC—both are unbiblical. Further, penal substitution is expressed in the scriptures. “For the love of Christ controls us, for one died for all therefore all died.”

If all had an example of love, all did not die. If all did not die, their sin nature lives, and they cannot die to be born again.

You don’t?

You have:

  1. The Bible is imperfect.

  2. Orontes is imperfect.

  3. Orontes can never perfectly understand the Bible, but sees fit to tell biblical adherents how and where they are wrong.
Better might be:

  1. I’ve gotten a 98 on a test before, and understood what was needed to get 100.

  2. I’ve gotten 100’s on tests before, and understand what a perfect test score is.

  3. God is smarter than us, and when we grade the Bible, it scores a 100%.

  4. 3 is eminently knowable except for people who like to promote unorthodox doctrines.


Of COURSE they are referring to the Law of Moses. If it helps, the perfection you need to be saved is per the Law of Moses. Don’t break it! But the grace v. works dichotomy you abhor is Pauline, from Romans:

And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Read the verse above. Meditate. Repeat. Grace and works have no parts tying to each other, like Christ and a prostitute or Christ and Belial.



Not only does it make sense, when I asked you this, I was setting you up for my question:

If the whole thing isn’t prosoepoeia, why are you resistant to SOME of Romans being written for Jewish readers?


Master Billiards,

1) Per Romans:
No. The Jewish people are not the audience of the Book of Romans. As explained: Paul states in the text he is speaking to the Gentiles. The literary structure of the text is Hellenistic. This is clear from the literary devices employed and appeals to Greek tragic literature done in the text, none of which would mesh with, or make sense to, a Jewish audience. What you quote only underscores the point. One simple example from your citations:

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen[a] according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God.​

Who pray are Paul’s countrymen? Paul was a citizen of Rome. Who are the Israelites noted? The text gives you the answer: “to whom pertain the adoption” This would not be Jews, only those coming from without into the covenant.


2) Per Matt 24:13: “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved”. If you recognize the subject must endure to be saved per the very Bible you claim loyalty to, you have ceded the point. There is no getting around this. It undercuts your notion the subject is simply a passive object.

3) Per 1 Peter 2: 5-9: You have not responded to the argument. You have ceded the point.

4) Per Calvinism and predestination: Mormonism isn’t a breed of Calvinism. Their postures on predestination are wrong. The base point remains: a moral system requires free will and therefore an open space of uncertainty where the subject can choose X or Y. In simple terms: the subject must be part of the process, insofar as it is a moral process.

5) Per the Penal Substitution Model of the Atonement: After multiple posts on this subject in the past where you were unable to given a counter, you are now claiming I began with a false premise? I don’t think you remember how the discussion progressed. We can explore this again. My position is the Penal Model is immoral, irrational and unjust. I will begin with a basics of justice: Justice entails the innocent ought not to suffer and the guilty ought not to go free. The Penal Model violates this principle, therefore it is unjust. As justice is a subcategory of morality, it is therefore immoral. We’ll start there. Explain the logical error? If you cannot, then once again, your loyalty to an unjust system will be clear.

There is a sub-point you attempt. You challenge that most of Christendom has and does reject the Penal Model. You claim I cherry pick authorities. You then follow with some anti-Catholic charges. This doesn’t respond to the point. There are 1.2 Billion Catholics in the world. Catholicism rejects the Penal Model. There are some 400 Million Eastern Orthodox Christians in the world. They reject the Penal Model. There are some 600 million Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians globally. They reject the Penal Model. According to Pew's 2011 Global Religious Survey, Evangelicals make just a little over 13% of Christians. Not all Evangelicals agree with the Penal Substitution Model. In short, this isn’t an issue of cherry picking authority. It is a question of basic addition. Most Christians reject the Penal Model.

The other point I made is that historically, most Christians have not followed the Penal Model. This is obvious from the fact the Penal Model didn’t exist until Calvin invented it in the 16th Century and it only gained follows among some Reformed Christians. A believer in the Penal Model needs to explain why for 16 centuries, from the time of the apostles, through those who compiled the Bible, up to Calvin, no Christian believed such.

6) Per inerrancy:
your attempt at a counter syllogism is not a syllogism. It is just separate statements. You have not studied logic. More to the issue: you have not replied to the point. As you believe in inerrancy, you are disqualified from making any authoritative statements on the meaning of the Bible, because by your own admittance, you are imperfect while the text is perfect. It's meaning is beyond you. I will hold you to this, until you reject the absurdity of inerrancy or cease to make statements about the meaning of the Bible.

7) Per Grace and Works: Your continued statements about the two principles indicate you understand neither concept. Paul does not adopt the position you assume. As I explained previously, Paul’s references to grace and work is tied to following the Law of Moses or no. There is no larger works metaphysical concept being appealed to. There is no abstract concept of works being discussed. I previously explained to you why faith and works is a false dichotomy. I can do so again. Faith is, by definition a work. It is something that is subject specific. If that is not the case, then it is not the subject’s faith and they cannot be credited for it or condemned for its absence. If faith is important to salvation and faith is removed from the subject, there is no criteria for why one person attained salvation and another not. You are left with either an arbitrary system or a tyrannical one.

8) Per prosoepoeia: You ask:

“If the whole thing isn’t prosoepoeia, why are you resistant to SOME of Romans being written for Jewish readers?”​

I don’t think you understood my reply. Prosoepoeia is a literary technique of Classical Greek literature. Not all of Greek literature is prosoepoeia. It is one technique among others within the genre. I gave Hebrew chiasmus and an example. Chiasmus can be found in the Book of Isaiah. The Book of Isaiah was written for a Jewish audience. This does not mean all of the Book of Isaiah is chiasmic, simply that it is one technique employed by the author for his audience and in recognizing its existence, one can tell who Isaiah's audience was. If one were to ask “well, why can’t the non-chiasmic parts of the Book of Isaiah then be written to Assyrians? This indicates a basic failure to understand the point. It also indicates a basic failure to understand how rhetoric or literature operate. I gave prosoepoeia as one example why those who understand Classical Greek literature hold the Book of Romans was written for a Greco-Roman audience. I gave other examples. One being Paul’s quoting from Greek Tragedy. I explained the central role rhetorically this played in Paul’s rhetoric.. None of this is controversial for people who understand Koine Greek and Classical literature.


In my last reply I suggested you narrow things to a central topic you want to discuss, because there are too many disparate points. These long posts with multiple topics come off as disjointed. You choose not to do this. I numbered the points you brought up. Of these. What your posted that fall under points 2), 3), 4), 5), 6) and 7) are basically vacuous. They are not serious or reflective posts on your part. I again suggest you narrow things to one point you want to discuss and put some thought into the reply. What you are responding with suggests a simple non-reflective ideological knee jerk loyalty. It isn’t interesting and doesn't serve you well.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member


Forum members :


1) REGARDING COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE PATTERNS OF THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS

Clear said : I was referring to counter-productive patterns of thought and actions that prevent one from seeing any viewpoint other than their own. All of us are subject to this to some extent especially when we are young. If, as we age, we cannot learn to see things from another point of view, then we can never fully understand our spouses, our children, our co-workers, nor can we understand other textual descriptions nor other individuals on a religious forum. Trying to see a point from another point of view is difficult, especially if emotions color our motives. “
Billiardsball responded : “Do you think me unaware that we all have biases? Are you unaware of the biases I needed to overcome to become a Christian, after being born a Jew? Do you not know how many friends and family I lost for sticking to the truths of the Bible and overcoming my biases? Why is it your consistent "apologetic" to ask readers to judge my biases and your biases, rather than the facts of the scriptures and the facts under debate?

I was NOT talking about “biases” nor did not mention the word “bias” once. Your response is a very good example of the point I made that certain patterns of thought prevent accurate communication and they are worse when one is emotional.



2) REGARDING THE ANCIENT MODEL OF SATANS FALL FROM HEAVEN

Billiardsball asked : “Why was Satan seeking to "redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost,"before"he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will...”? Why does the passage above say Satan can lead men captive at Satan's will?
Clear responded : Consider the title of שטן (Satan) in it’s ancient context of "one who is hostile" or "one who opposes" (davidsons Hebrew lexicon) and read the entire four posts and pay attention to the time-lines. Read the entire sentences you are quoting bits and pieces of.

If you still cannot understand these two points, I will give my opinion. But, as an exercise in insight and seeing things from a different perspective (not as belief or non-belief, but for historical understanding of a different group of people from a different time period), I recommend you first, try to read it yourself, (not as a claim to religious doctrine or truth, but simply as a historical description.) Be patient and think about what the text is actually saying. Let me know if you don’t come to understand the text.

Billiardsball responded : “How patronizing of you to say I don't understand the text.

This is another good example of counter-productive patterns of communication. You ask what a text means (implying you don't know) , but then complain that it is "patronizing" to notice that you don’t know what it means. This is not normal communication.


3) TIMELINES
Billiardsball :

1) I suggested you pay attention to “timelines” before theorizing.

In the early eastern (Jerusalem) abbaton text, when God is about to put breath into Adam, Jesus says : “…My Father said unto Me, If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state. And I said unto My Father, Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfill Thy command. In this textual history, Jesus is volunteering then do something in the future that will be needed in the future AFTER mankind falls. (The word "will" in this context, pertains to future tense) Likewise, Satans' plan to undercut Gods’ plan referred to the future. In both examples, Adam is not yet a living mortal man. Likewise Satans "offer" referred to the future. Your theory of what the verse means is illogical and inconsistent with the historical context.


4) THE TITLE “SATAN” IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN USAGE

The reason I asked you to consider the title of שטן (Satan) in it’s ancient context as "one who opposes" is so that you might gain historical insight so that you might make fewer similar mistakes in the future. The title “satan” as “one who opposes” applied to anyone who “opposes” God. For example, when Jesus spoke of his death in Matt 16:22-23, the apostle Peter “began to rebuke [Jesus], saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.” Jesus “turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan:, thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God…” Jesus was not referring to Peter as “THE Devil”, but instead, the moment Peter felt and expressed opposition to this pre-ordained plan of the Messiah offering his life, Peter was, by definition and usage of language, “a Satan” (“one who opposes”). Thus Jesus referred to him as "Satan". It is a Hebraism. Mark 8:33 and Luke 4:8 use this same Hebraic idiom in the same manner..

In ancient texts, the religious appellation Satan could be applied to anyone who opposed God, for example, 1st Enoch speaks of “ all the oppressive deeds of the Satans, (plural). 1st Enoch 65:6 Notice it is “Satans” in the plural since it applies to multiple angels who also opposed God and took Lucifers side in this controversy. This is simply how the title “Satan” was used. Early Enoch uses this word in the same way in describing the devil and his name “… because his name was satan’el”, (an opposer of God). (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1), thus the Christian text says : “…when I rejected the image of God, I was called Satan ... The Gospel of Bartholomew Ch IV. This is yet another example of Joseph Smiths Moses 4:1-4 using an obscure, authentic ancient idiom correctly and in the correct context in parallel ways to ancient records.


5) re : READING ENTIRE SENTENCES

Billiardsball asks : “Why does the passage above say Satan can lead men captive at Satan's will?

The reason I suggested that you “Read the entire sentence rather than bits and pieces of a sentence.” Is that the answer is in the later part of the sentence you ask about.

The actual, full sentence reads : “And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken to my voice. (Moses 4:4)

This is yet another wonderful parallel to the early Judeo-Christian concept of “the two ways”. While modern Christian theory occasionally views main moral influence as God, Satan, and Man’s own choice, the early Judeo-Christian description was that of “two ways”. For example, the Testament of Abraham (recension A) 11:2 and 10-11 describes that “Abraham saw two ways. The first way was strait and narrow and the other broad and spacious....(the gate) of the righteous, which leads to life, and … the broad gate is (the gate) of the sinners, which leads to destruction and to eternal punishment.” The same pattern exists in the ancient Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, for example, Judah 20:1-3 says “So understand my children, that two spirits await an opportunity with humanity: the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. In between is the conscience of the mind which inclines as it will. The Things of truth and the things of error are written in the affections of man…”. This is the very same base description of the Dead Sea Scroll1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4 vs 15-26 texts. The enochian literature describes the same early Judeo-Christian pattern as God explains concerning Mankind (and in the same correct context of the concept of free will as Joseph Smith placed it in Moses 4) , saying “ And I gave him his free will; and I pointed out to him the two ways –light and darkness. And I said to him, ‘this is good for you, but that is bad’; so that I might come to know whether he has love toward me …” 2nd Enoch 30:11-17. In these simple models, it is either that one responds to influences toward God and truth and light or one responds to influences toward Satan and error/lies and to darkness. Thus, Moses 4:4 reads those who are lead by Satan, "captive at his will" but importantly the sentence ends with "even as many as would not hearken to my voice." (Moses 4:4) inside the correct ancient pattern of moral opposites.

Thus, the stamp of authentic ancient doctrine in the same pattern exists in the description of Moses 4 as exists in multiple ancient Judeo-Christian documents and this example is even placed in the correct ancient context of free will and knowledge where Smith places it.

Forum readers and LDS readers : I hope it becoming more clear as we discuss these concepts that the depth of consistency with these early patterns runs deep and the parallels more accurate the more one knows of early Christian theology and that the greater the ignorance of early theological patterns, the more they appear inconsistent. This itself is consistent with the evolving doctrinal changes and patterns that happen over time in the Christian movements (e.g. apostasy).

Billiardsball : I agree with Orontes point that many of your criticisms are “vacuous” and concern petty issues that you could have solved yourself if you had given your criticism more thought.

In any case, I hope you can achieve satisfaction and happiness in life, but you will not get it by focusing your life on petty and vacuous and insignificant concerns.



Clear
σεφυδρτωω
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Per Romans: No. The Jewish people are not the audience of the Book of Romans.

I understand the viewpoint, held to my most scholars, that Paul’s primary audience in Romans were Gentile believers. However:

*Paul never stopped witnessing the Jewish people, including those in Rome. Acts is clear on this, as is Paul’s statement in Romans 10, “My prayer is for their salvation.”

*Paul wrote to more than ONLY Gentiles in Romans. You NEVER responded to my comments from Romans 7 and elsewhere, “I’m writing to you WHO KNOW THE MOSAIC LAW.” If you are not accepting that these are Jewish people, if you insist these are Gentiles, then they are Gentile proselytes who LEARNED THE LAW IN A SYNAGOGUE or JEWISH HOME CHURCH. Do you think the Jews these Gentiles fellowshipped with were ushered out of the room so they couldn’t hear Paul’s letter? And are you not understanding how Paul reproves the prideful Gentiles that they were not to look down on the Jewish people?

Per Matt 24:13: “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved”. If you recognize the subject must endure to be saved per the very Bible you claim loyalty to, you have ceded the point. There is no getting around this. It undercuts your notion the subject is simply a passive object.

Stop twisting my words. I’ve been specific that:

*The Bible uses the word saved in the NT elsewhere NOT referring to salvation.

*Matthew 24:13 is clearly “saved physically from the Tribulation.” Unless you can prove that all believers are going to participate (after death?!) in the Tribulation…”

Per 1 Peter 2: 5-9: You have not responded to the argument. You have ceded the point.

I certainly DID respond to the argument. Repeating: If ONLY men are the priesthood of all believers in the passage, then women aren’t living stones, sacrifices acceptable to God, not to be put to shame when Christ returns, etc. Is that what LDS members really believe?

My position is the Penal Model is immoral, irrational and unjust.

Your statements are aligned with atheists. Have you read Christopher Hitchens’s writings on this? The penal model was not invented by Calvin in modern times. But if it was, why do we reject a modernist author for simply being modern but must accept the LATTER-DAY revelations of Joseph Smith? Be consistent.

Per inerrancy: your attempt at a counter syllogism is not a syllogism. It is just separate statements. You have not studied logic. More to the issue: you have not replied to the point.

I don’t need to respond to a logical syllogism starting with a false premise. However, I’ve done you the courtesy of pointing out your false premises and logical assumptions, that is, I’ve replied to the point.

Per Grace and Works: Your continued statements about the two principles indicate you understand neither concept. Paul does not adopt the position you assume. As I explained previously, Paul’s references to grace and work is tied to following the Law of Moses or no. There is no larger works metaphysical concept being appealed to. There is no abstract concept of works being discussed.

I understand. You are claiming that Paul’s statement that works invalidate grace regarding salvation are talking about works of the Mosaic Law. Somehow you then parse your works into ones that aren’t opposed to grace. Do you love your neighbor as yourself? This is in Torah (Mosaic Law) and cannot save you. Do you love God with all your mind and strength, as per Torah command? This cannot save you. If you have another work that you feel is beyond/higher than either of these two principles, and salvific, please post it here:

Work 1:

Work 2:

Work 3:

I don’t think you understood my reply. Prosoepoeia is a literary technique of Classical Greek literature. Not all of Greek literature is prosoepoeia. It is one technique among others within the genre. I gave Hebrew chiasmus and an example. Chiasmus can be found in the Book of Isaiah.

Yet, inexplicably, you fail to notice the chiasmus examples in Romans! If you like, I will provide at least one chiasmus from each and every chapter of Romans here. Then you will be better informed as to the “intensely Hellenistic nature” of Romans.

I will perhaps confine myself to one or two points of argument if you stop writing each time I make a response, “you cede” the point. I cede no points of your 8 points to you. None.

What you are responding with suggests a simple non-reflective ideological knee jerk loyalty. It isn’t interesting and doesn't serve you well.

I can see you find my remarks knee-jerk, thoughtless and uninteresting. After all, you reply to every point I make. You should probably leave this thread then, and allow me to have the final knee-jerk, thoughtless words here.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member

Forum members :


1) REGARDING COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE PATTERNS OF THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS

Clear said : I was referring to counter-productive patterns of thought and actions that prevent one from seeing any viewpoint other than their own. All of us are subject to this to some extent especially when we are young. If, as we age, we cannot learn to see things from another point of view, then we can never fully understand our spouses, our children, our co-workers, nor can we understand other textual descriptions nor other individuals on a religious forum. Trying to see a point from another point of view is difficult, especially if emotions color our motives. “
Billiardsball responded : “Do you think me unaware that we all have biases? Are you unaware of the biases I needed to overcome to become a Christian, after being born a Jew? Do you not know how many friends and family I lost for sticking to the truths of the Bible and overcoming my biases? Why is it your consistent "apologetic" to ask readers to judge my biases and your biases, rather than the facts of the scriptures and the facts under debate?

I was NOT talking about “biases” nor did not mention the word “bias” once. Your response is a very good example of the point I made that certain patterns of thought prevent accurate communication and they are worse when one is emotional.



2) REGARDING THE ANCIENT MODEL OF SATANS FALL FROM HEAVEN

Billiardsball asked : “Why was Satan seeking to "redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost,"before"he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will...”? Why does the passage above say Satan can lead men captive at Satan's will?
Clear responded : Consider the title of שטן (Satan) in it’s ancient context of "one who is hostile" or "one who opposes" (davidsons Hebrew lexicon) and read the entire four posts and pay attention to the time-lines. Read the entire sentences you are quoting bits and pieces of.

If you still cannot understand these two points, I will give my opinion. But, as an exercise in insight and seeing things from a different perspective (not as belief or non-belief, but for historical understanding of a different group of people from a different time period), I recommend you first, try to read it yourself, (not as a claim to religious doctrine or truth, but simply as a historical description.) Be patient and think about what the text is actually saying. Let me know if you don’t come to understand the text.

Billiardsball responded : “How patronizing of you to say I don't understand the text.

This is another good example of counter-productive patterns of communication. You ask what a text means (implying you don't know) , but then complain that it is "patronizing" to notice that you don’t know what it means. This is not normal communication.


3) TIMELINES
Billiardsball :

1) I suggested you pay attention to “timelines” before theorizing.

In the early eastern (Jerusalem) abbaton text, when God is about to put breath into Adam, Jesus says : “…My Father said unto Me, If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state. And I said unto My Father, Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfill Thy command. In this textual history, Jesus is volunteering then do something in the future that will be needed in the future AFTER mankind falls. (The word "will" in this context, pertains to future tense) Likewise, Satans' plan to undercut Gods’ plan referred to the future. In both examples, Adam is not yet a living mortal man. Likewise Satans "offer" referred to the future. Your theory of what the verse means is illogical and inconsistent with the historical context.


4) THE TITLE “SATAN” IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN USAGE

The reason I asked you to consider the title of שטן (Satan) in it’s ancient context as "one who opposes" is so that you might gain historical insight so that you might make fewer similar mistakes in the future. The title “satan” as “one who opposes” applied to anyone who “opposes” God. For example, when Jesus spoke of his death in Matt 16:22-23, the apostle Peter “began to rebuke [Jesus], saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.” Jesus “turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan:, thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God…” Jesus was not referring to Peter as “THE Devil”, but instead, the moment Peter felt and expressed opposition to this pre-ordained plan of the Messiah offering his life, Peter was, by definition and usage of language, “a Satan” (“one who opposes”). Thus Jesus referred to him as "Satan". It is a Hebraism. Mark 8:33 and Luke 4:8 use this same Hebraic idiom in the same manner..

In ancient texts, the religious appellation Satan could be applied to anyone who opposed God, for example, 1st Enoch speaks of “ all the oppressive deeds of the Satans, (plural). 1st Enoch 65:6 Notice it is “Satans” in the plural since it applies to multiple angels who also opposed God and took Lucifers side in this controversy. This is simply how the title “Satan” was used. Early Enoch uses this word in the same way in describing the devil and his name “… because his name was satan’el”, (an opposer of God). (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1), thus the Christian text says : “…when I rejected the image of God, I was called Satan ... The Gospel of Bartholomew Ch IV. This is yet another example of Joseph Smiths Moses 4:1-4 using an obscure, authentic ancient idiom correctly and in the correct context in parallel ways to ancient records.


5) re : READING ENTIRE SENTENCES

Billiardsball asks : “Why does the passage above say Satan can lead men captive at Satan's will?

The reason I suggested that you “Read the entire sentence rather than bits and pieces of a sentence.” Is that the answer is in the later part of the sentence you ask about.

The actual, full sentence reads : “And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken to my voice. (Moses 4:4)

This is yet another wonderful parallel to the early Judeo-Christian concept of “the two ways”. While modern Christian theory occasionally views main moral influence as God, Satan, and Man’s own choice, the early Judeo-Christian description was that of “two ways”. For example, the Testament of Abraham (recension A) 11:2 and 10-11 describes that “Abraham saw two ways. The first way was strait and narrow and the other broad and spacious....(the gate) of the righteous, which leads to life, and … the broad gate is (the gate) of the sinners, which leads to destruction and to eternal punishment.” The same pattern exists in the ancient Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, for example, Judah 20:1-3 says “So understand my children, that two spirits await an opportunity with humanity: the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. In between is the conscience of the mind which inclines as it will. The Things of truth and the things of error are written in the affections of man…”. This is the very same base description of the Dead Sea Scroll1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4 vs 15-26 texts. The enochian literature describes the same early Judeo-Christian pattern as God explains concerning Mankind (and in the same correct context of the concept of free will as Joseph Smith placed it in Moses 4) , saying “ And I gave him his free will; and I pointed out to him the two ways –light and darkness. And I said to him, ‘this is good for you, but that is bad’; so that I might come to know whether he has love toward me …” 2nd Enoch 30:11-17. In these simple models, it is either that one responds to influences toward God and truth and light or one responds to influences toward Satan and error/lies and to darkness. Thus, Moses 4:4 reads those who are lead by Satan, "captive at his will" but importantly the sentence ends with "even as many as would not hearken to my voice." (Moses 4:4) inside the correct ancient pattern of moral opposites.

Thus, the stamp of authentic ancient doctrine in the same pattern exists in the description of Moses 4 as exists in multiple ancient Judeo-Christian documents and this example is even placed in the correct ancient context of free will and knowledge where Smith places it.

Forum readers and LDS readers : I hope it becoming more clear as we discuss these concepts that the depth of consistency with these early patterns runs deep and the parallels more accurate the more one knows of early Christian theology and that the greater the ignorance of early theological patterns, the more they appear inconsistent. This itself is consistent with the evolving doctrinal changes and patterns that happen over time in the Christian movements (e.g. apostasy).

Billiardsball : I agree with Orontes point that many of your criticisms are “vacuous” and concern petty issues that you could have solved yourself if you had given your criticism more thought.

In any case, I hope you can achieve satisfaction and happiness in life, but you will not get it by focusing your life on petty and vacuous and insignificant concerns.



Clear
σεφυδρτωω

I'm aware that Jesus, being prescient and divine, planned to redeem man before man even fell. Like most Christians, however, I find the notion that Satan was prescient of his own future fall to cause man's fall, and thus was offering to be a redeemer proactively, ridiculous on its face. Further, the concept that Satan offered himself as redeemer is blasphemous.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
I understand the viewpoint, held to my most scholars, that Paul’s primary audience in Romans were Gentile believers. However:

*Paul never stopped witnessing the Jewish people, including those in Rome. Acts is clear on this, as is Paul’s statement in Romans 10, “My prayer is for their salvation.”

*Paul wrote to more than ONLY Gentiles in Romans. You NEVER responded to my comments from Romans 7 and elsewhere, “I’m writing to you WHO KNOW THE MOSAIC LAW.” If you are not accepting that these are Jewish people, if you insist these are Gentiles, then they are Gentile proselytes who LEARNED THE LAW IN A SYNAGOGUE or JEWISH HOME CHURCH. Do you think the Jews these Gentiles fellowshipped with were ushered out of the room so they couldn’t hear Paul’s letter? And are you not understanding how Paul reproves the prideful Gentiles that they were not to look down on the Jewish people?

Master Billiards,

Actually, Per Acts, Paul specifically states he is going to the Gentiles after having Jews reject him:

And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he (Paul) shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.- Acts 18:6​

You state I never responded to your comment in Romans 7. You wrote "I’m writing to you WHO KNOW THE MOSAIC LAW". I did reply. I replied referring to my original statement. Here it is again:

"(Paul) is writing to Romans: gentiles who have been swayed by Jewish Thought. "​

Paul is dealing with, what the Book of Acts refers to, as God Fearers and proselytes. That's the point. These are Romans interested in Judaism and/or converts. In my initial statement I had added in "(why Romans would have the least bit of interest in Jewish Thought is a separate point, but I can explain it if you wish". You never showed interest in this point, but instead challenged the base idea that the Book of Romans is a Greco-Roman text.



Stop twisting my words. I’ve been specific that:

*The Bible uses the word saved in the NT elsewhere NOT referring to salvation.

*Matthew 24:13 is clearly “saved physically from the Tribulation.” Unless you can prove that all believers are going to participate (after death?!) in the Tribulation…”

Per Matt 24:13: “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved”.

I have not twisted your words. I have quoted scripture. Your are now stating that Matt 23: 13 actually means "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved (physically from the Tribulation). This is not what the text says. This is a problem.

You are confused about Matt 24. I will help. At the beginning of the chapter, Christ is asked by His disciples to answer two questions 1) when will this happen? This is right after Christ has told them the temple will be destroyed. 2) what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? Here is the context of verse 13:

9 Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who endures to the end will be saved.​

So, we have:

There is persecution and the killing of disciples
All nations will hate the disciples
Many will turn away from the faith and betrayal
False prophets and many deceived
An increase in wickedness, love going cold

In this series we are told the one who endures to the end will be saved. Your addition to scripture that saved means "saved from physical tribulation" makes no sense. It does not apply to disciples who are persecuted and then killed. It does not apply to those losing their faith. It does not apply to those deceived by false prophets. Aside from those killed, the base thrust is about disciples who lose their faith, are deceived or become wicked and their love goes cold. None of this is physical tribulation. There is no reference to being saved meaning saved from physical tribulation Your Biblical analysis is wanting.


In addition, we can reject your scriptural conclusions because by your own admission: you cannot understand the Bible as it is perfect and you are imperfect. You are cut off from its meaning.


Per 1 Peter 2: 5-9: In simple terms: priesthood references refer to the priesthood. Women were never considered priesthood holders. If you are uncomfortable with this, then you need to study the history of Judaism and Christianity from the issuing of the Law of Moses through to the Modern Era. Women were never considered part of the priesthood under the normative faith until the Modern Era when some Protestant groups and Reformed Jewish sects adopted the idea, basically in the Twentieth Century in the wake of the Feminist Movement. You have aligned yourself with these new movements and thereby inventing a new Gospel.


We can reject your scriptural conclusions because by your own admission: you cannot understand the Bible as it is perfect and you are imperfect. You are cut off from its meaning.


Per the Penal Model as immoral, irrational and unjust:


Point 1: the penal model is the creation of Calvin in the 16th Century. If you dispute this, you do not know the history of Christian theology and are ignorant of the root of the ideas you hold to.

Point 2: on rejecting modern creators of a thing, you do not recall the original thrust of this critique. It is not that the thing is new in and of itself that is the issue, but the how the new thing comes about. Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet. One of the elements of a prophet is to receive revelation and speak for God. This is the way something new can be proffered and justified. Calvin never made the claim to being a prophet. Therefore, if he invents a new model, the question is: where did it come from? Calvin inventing a new atonement theory that contradicts the prior 16 centuries of Christian theology is a problem if there is nothing beyond his own assertions. This issue is compounded when the details of the system show it is an evil system

Point 3: On atheists seeing the Penal Model as immoral, irrational and unjust: Being an atheist does not mean one cannot use reason. The failures of the Penal Model are clear and obvious.

Point 4: false premises and the basics of logic: You should not use words you do not understand. Here was your original post:

"No, you began with a false premise—that your argument is logical. It is not."​

"(T)hat (my) argument is logical" is not a premise. You are using the word incorrectly. A premise is a statement within an argument. We can use the earlier syllogism I created to illustrate the point
  1. The Bible is perfect
  2. Master Billiards is imperfect
  3. What is imperfect cannot understand was is perfect
  4. Therefore, Master Billiards cannot understand the Bible

The 1. above, is an example of a premise. Whether something is logical is based on the validity of the argument. Validity is dependent on the necessity between the premises and the conclusion. Do you understand?

Regarding my critique of the Penal Modal: I put forward a basic criticism tied to the understanding of justice. To whit: Justice entails the innocent ought not to suffer and the guilty ought not to go free. I claimed the Penal Model violates this notion, therefore it is unjust and since what is unjust is also immoral, the Penal Model is also immoral. You did not reply to this point. You have ceded the argument.



Per Faith and Works: I stated that Paul's reference to works in the Book of Romans is referring to the law of Moses. It is not an abstract discussion of works as a concept. Moreover, I stated the faith-works model you present is a false dichotomy. Faith is a work. I explained why this is the case. You gave no rebuttal. You have ceded the argument.



Per Chiasmus and the Book or Romans: are you attempting to argue the Book of Romans is a Hebrew text? If not, then your post seems confused and of little value. It does not relate to the discussion of the Book of Romans If you are making that attempt, I will point out that Romans is written in Greek. Now there is Greek chiasmus, the word chiasmus is derived from Greek. In Greek it means "to cross". If you want to argue Classical Greco-Roman chiasmus is the same as Hebrew chiasmus make the argument. I will read it. I will warn you Hebrew chiasmus is not simply inverted parallelism or antimetabole.



Per long disjointed posts: As long as you feel a penchant to post long disjointed postings, I will respond to them. I simply noted I don't think it does your case any good. The bulk of your post's content is rather kneejerk and void of substance. I think this is because you have a loyalty to ideology over rationality or the Bible.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Orontes said : “Per Matt 24:13: “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved”. If you recognize the subject must endure to be saved per the very Bible you claim loyalty to, you have ceded the point. There is no getting around this. It undercuts your notion the subject is simply a passive object.” (post #349)
Billiardsball said : “Matthew 24:13 is clearly “saved physically from the Tribulation.” (post # 351)


This new theory of yours that Matt 24:13 means Christians will be “saved physically” from the difficulties of tribulation is unusual, especially since he tells them in vs 9 that they will NOT be saved physically, but instead, disciples will be delivered up and put to death. The words you’re adding to the biblical text to support your theory do not exist in any known Greek New Testament and are not consistent with the historical use of the text. The text is : “ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος, οὗτος σωθήσεται.” And there are no known significant variants in any greek New Testament text.

The various uses of υπομενω (endure, persist, remain, etc) don’t seem to be associated with the blessing of being “saved physically from tribulation” (though you could offer us an example?). And the concept underlying υπομενω of “bearing up” or “enduring” don’t mean “surviving”.

For example, in the PSI IV, 435.11 papyrus (258-7 b.c.) the use of υπομενω την ληιτο[υργ]ιαν is that of “endure my ministry” such that a faithful choice under difficulty is implied. The only example I could find when choice was not involved refers to an undergoing of “suffering” in relation to a penalty one in Papyrus Oxy II 238.viii (186 a.d.) δικην υπομενουσι την προσηκουσαν. However, even then, the object was not passive, the “suffering” in this case is usually an active choice. Thus the Papyrus Hamb I.22.9 speaks of a man who “suffered” for the sake of his daughter (ος κακα πολλ υπεμεινε μιης επιηρα θυγατρος). It was his choice to endure sacrifice (i.e. suffer) for his daughter.

When used “to Endure” and “to remain” it is not the intransitive and passive “staying behind” that is being implied, but rather a willful persistence in a difficult endeavor despite tribulation and difficulties and suffering that is implied. (This is why it is some times rendered as “patience” in English.) Even when Petr III. 43(3) 14 papyrus (of 115 b.c.) speaks of [ο]υχ υπομενει εκουσιως αποδιδοναι” he is speaking of a person who “persistently” (almost a “stubborn patience…” refuses to do a thing out of choice, resisting pressure to do otherwise. It is a choice to continue in a decision that is implied.

For example, using the base word μενω in the context of place and time, P Hib I 55.6 (of 1 b.c.) uses it in the context of being unable to “remain longer”. This is in reference to making a choice of whether or not to maintain in a position for a time. In P Ryl.II 172.81 its’ usage is in reference to TIME when a lease shall “continue” secured, (μενεις επι τη προγεγραμμενη μισθωσι), that is, it is to remain engaged in an agreed upon contract or covenant. This is very much like it’s use in making the Christian covenant anciently. When used in reference to a person, there is usually a choice and will involved. It can be used for other objects that “maintain” a certain “quality” such as when hay “remains” too long uncut in P Flor (of iii a.d.).

None of the uses apply to someone who survives and is thus rewarded with physical survival or physical “salvation”.

Even the word υπο (the other half of μενω – to “abide” or “remain” in english) typically denotes a cause. That is, something which happens “in consequence of”. That is, ones resolve remains, in consequence of a choice in the case of a person. Examples of its use often show the person one is subject to or subjects themselves to another principles (such as a soldier showing obedience or a person obedient and loyal to a promise or condition). However, in such cases, it represents a responsibility or burden.

In this context the word is even used to describe the “burden” or “load” animals are “laden” with. In Fayr Ostrica 14:2 the use is “one ‘donkey’ laden with barleyυπ[ο] κριθ[ην] ονον ενα” or when “one 'donkey' laden with vegetable seed” was spoke in Meyer Ostrica 81:2 (in 23 a.d.) or in BFU I 248:26 when “a 'donkey' laden with three chores of wine,” and in P Tebt II 423.17 spoke of “the animals laden with hay” (early iii a.d.).

The point is that the context of this use is that of a burden, and in the case of mankind, it represents a promise, or covenant, or deal, or agreement, or burden that either one takes upon ones self or is placed upon one to do or be something. Because it is a willing burden, there is a reward for having taken it upon ones self. That is the pattern of use. Even different words used to describe this early Christian promise, carry similar patterns of description and meaning of continuance and then reward. For example :

In Romans 2:7 - To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: The word here is used for “patient continuance”. It is not continuance but involves patience on the part of the person who is enduring. It is not passive.
Luke 8:15 also renders the same word as “patience” - But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience. Even the word “patience” implies more than a passive stasis, but instead implies a quality to the endurance. It is not passive, but requires an acceptance of a situation one must tolerate or suffer without getting angry or upset at external pressures and frustrations.
Even other words used to teach the same concepts are almost synonyms in that they involve both an active involvement of will and endurance. Consider, for example, the use of greek βεβαιος in Hebrews in it’s uses.


Hebrews 3:6 - But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Hebrews 3:14 - For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; Even when no synonym is used, the concept of remaining in a current condition and it’s association with a reward are not only recognizable, but obvious in similarity and meaning.

Hebrews 10:39 - But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

In an almost equivalent situation to that explained by Orontes, as Jesus speaks to the Apostles, Revelation describes a similar situation where the disciples are to “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” Revelation 2:10

In none of these descriptions is the patient continuance of a religious burden rewarded with a physical release or salvation from "tribulation" or difficulties, (though I think there may be exceptions).

You are welcome to present your theory that Matthew 24:13 actually means "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved (physically from the Tribulation) instead of what the text actually says, but you will have to provide some additional data and reasoning before this interpretation will make more sense than the typical use and interpretation and expected reward of salvation in the kingdom of God as a result of remaining true to all conditions of the gospel of Jesus Christ.


Clear
σεσιτωειω
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Actually, Per Acts, Paul specifically states he is going to the Gentiles after having Jews reject him:

And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he (Paul) shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.- Acts 18:6

Subsequent verses show Paul staying at a home adjacent to a synagogue. That is the house where the synagogue’s rabbi lives. Paul stayed with a rabbi and preached in a synagogue immediately subsequent to his upsetting incident with some Jewish leaders. Further, despite Paul being upset in Acts 18, he remained committed to Jewish evangelism. He returned to Jerusalem knowing he would be arrested there in chains.

"(Paul) is writing to Romans: gentiles who have been swayed by Jewish Thought. "

Paul is dealing with, what the Book of Acts refers to, as God Fearers and proselytes. That's the point. These are Romans interested in Judaism and/or converts. In my initial statement I had added in "(why Romans would have the least bit of interest in Jewish Thought is a separate point, but I can explain it if you wish". You never showed interest in this point, but instead challenged the base idea that the Book of Romans is a Greco-Roman text.

My point remains—the Romans interested in Judaism and/or converts were fellowshipping in synagogues and Jewish house churches. Paul was aware Jewish believers would receive his Romans text.

Per Matt 24:13: “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved”.

I have not twisted your words. I have quoted scripture. Your are now stating that Matt 23: 13 actually means "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved (physically from the Tribulation). This is not what the text says. This is a problem.

You are confused about Matt 24. I will help. At the beginning of the chapter, Christ is asked by His disciples to answer two questions 1) when will this happen? This is right after Christ has told them the temple will be destroyed. 2) what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?

There are hundreds of verses in Tanakh regarding the Day of the Lord. Your eschatology is incomplete.

All nations will hate the disciples.

Before Christ’s return, the gospel first has to go to all nations. All nations (races, peoples, tribes) don’t even have disciples, so not all nations currently hate disciples. I’m not criticizing you, I’m just explaining how it is that premillennialists place Christ’s “endure” statement in its proper context. You are certainly correct if you can place the enduring at a time where all, 100% of the nations, hate the disciples of Christ.

Per 1 Peter 2: 5-9: In simple terms: priesthood references refer to the priesthood. Women were never considered priesthood holders. If you are uncomfortable with this, then you need to study the history of Judaism and Christianity from the issuing of the Law of Moses through to the Modern Era. Women were never considered part of the priesthood under the normative faith until the Modern Era when some Protestant groups and Reformed Jewish sects adopted the idea, basically in the Twentieth Century in the wake of the Feminist Movement. You have aligned yourself with these new movements and thereby inventing a new Gospel.

I accept that we need context to accept any teaching of the NT that is modifying an OT concept, yes. But reiterating your stance with new information doesn’t address my questions:

Do you believe that men only applies to the whole passage or just that one fragment?

Do you have something you’d like to share from the Greek that explains “You” is masculine only?

Per the Penal Model as immoral, irrational and unjust:

Point 1: the penal model is the creation of Calvin in the 16th Century. If you dispute this, you do not know the history of Christian theology and are ignorant of the root of the ideas you hold to.

I didn’t dispute that other than to remind you of the following:

Christus Victor and etc. having precedence in early writings cannot be used to nullify the penal model—that is your argument from silence. We could cull early church fathers’ writings and find scarce instances of, say, ransom theory, and five other theories. Is ONLY Christus Victor accurate, scriptural? Of course not. We've already agreed on this.

If something is in the holy scriptures (like penal theory) you can’t say Calvin or Anselm or Joseph Smith or Tertullian “invented it”. By rejecting penal theory, you are forcing Isaiah to say: “All we like sheep went astray but the Lord did NOT put on Him all our iniquity.”

Further, there are statements in Daniel and elsewhere that certain prophecies and ideas would be veiled until closer to the time of the end. I cannot reject out of hand any Calvinist doctrine ONLY for being modern, or I’d have to reject EVERY new doctrine of LDS FOR being modern. Clear's statements that LDS is in early church fathers' writings is rejecting by fundamentalists since scripture is bereft of LDS doctrine, but moreover, his and your statements that early church fathers "prove the truths of LDS" hasn't shown up in the writing selections you've proffered. Be consistent.

Also, arguably penal substitution is in the hands of reformers of the era other than Calvin. Calvin IS a convenient scapegoat for both of us, since he was a cruel person and not very strong in the scriptures or theology when he composed his institutes. I reject most Calvinist doctrines. But where I see penal theory enunciated in scripture… so perhaps we should confine ourselves to one point of discussion only, as you suggested… penal theory. Or at least, you would stop calling the tents of multiple reformers "Calvinist". That's inaccurate.

"No, you began with a false premise—that your argument is logical. It is not."

"(T)hat (my) argument is logical" is not a premise.

You are 100% correct. I’ll rephrase. You must simply reject your presupposition, not your premise, that you are consistently, always logical, and I’m not.

For example, statements like "no one who is imperfect can understand something that is perfect" is illogical.

The dictionary defines perfect as "having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."

Are you saying I cannot fathom the above definition? Are you saying you cannot fathom the above definition either? And if you cannot understand what IS perfect, how can you debate what is NOT perfect? That is illogical.

Faith is a work. I explained why this is the case. You gave no rebuttal. You have ceded the argument.

You may have forgotten, I can find the post if you need, that I’ve already said, “Faith is not one of the 613 Mosaic Laws.”

If you want to argue Classical Greco-Roman chiasmus is the same as Hebrew chiasmus make the argument. I will read it. I will warn you Hebrew chiasmus is not simply inverted parallelism or antimetabole.

Actually, that was my point. Antimetabole is used in Romans to show how Romans was constructed like many famous Tanakh passages. I know you know Matthew’s geneaology construction, for example, is a good example of how Matthew is showing in structure he is writing for a non-Gentile audience.

But, we should simply discuss penal theory as touching on the OP.

  1. Heaven is a utopia.

  2. Imperfect people would ruin a utopia (and per YOUR syllogism, cannot even UNDERSTAND a perfect utopia).

  3. Imperfect people will not go to Heaven.
I urge you to consider that rejecting my syllogism is surely nothing less than rejecting your earlier ones!
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
This new theory of yours that Matt 24:13 means Christians will be “saved physically” from the difficulties of tribulation is unusual, especially since he tells them in vs 9 that they will NOT be saved physically, but instead, disciples will be delivered up and put to death.

I addressed the context of Matthew 24 in my prior post.

The new wrinkle you’ve added here, however, is not saying that ALL disciples will be delivered and put to death. Eschatology study including Matthew 24 reveals that Jesus will return so that those in prison (even awaiting execution) will look up to see redemption drawing near. Jesus will return to cut short the tribulation and save those still alive who are enduring to the end (of the tribulation).

I’m unsure, however, whether I should expend effort to refute the points you made from other verses.

  1. You do not believe the Bible is inerrant.

  2. Therefore, it may contain self-contradictory concepts and doctrines.

  3. Therefore, saying “In Romans this word means X so it must, absolutely connote X in Matthew, is a moot point.
Paul wrote Romans. He did not write Matthew. I think since you believe the Bible is not perfect, you might try again, this time using classical Greek sources for your researches. Surely, we can trust the (presumed) Iliad and (extant) Aristotle to explain to us what the Greek words really mean? Do you disagree?

PS. You reveal a lack of study of eschatology saying "this new theory" of the tribulation. You can find many writers supporting the now-century-old viewpoint I've espoused, and from the Greek, also.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that Matt 24:13 means Christians will be “saved physically” from the difficulties of tribulation


Clear said : You are welcome to present your theory that Matthew 24:13 actually means "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved (physically from the Tribulation) instead of what the text actually says, but you will have to provide some additional data and reasoning before this interpretation will make more sense than the typical use and interpretation and expected reward of salvation in the kingdom of God as a result of remaining true to all conditions of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (post # 354)


1) Billiardsball responded : " I addressed the context of Matthew 24 in my prior post. " (post #356)
How does this support your theory that “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved means “saved physically from the Tribulation"?


2) Billiardsball responded : "The new wrinkle you’ve added here, however, is not saying that ALL disciples will be delivered and put to death. Eschatology study including Matthew 24reveals that Jesus will return so that those in prison (even awaiting execution) will look up to see redemption drawing near. Jesus will return to cut short the tribulation and save those still alive who are enduring to the end (of the tribulation)." (post #356)
Agreed. Not ALL disciples are put to death. However, this does not tell us how this claim is helpful to you. Present your data and then tell us how it supports your theory that Matthew 24:13 “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved means “saved physically from the Tribulation"?


3) Billiardsball responded : "Paul wrote Romans. He did not write Matthew. I think since you believe the Bible is not perfect, you might try again, this time using classical Greek sources for your researches." (post #356)
I used Koine greek and NOT classical greek sources because the New Testament was written in Koine Greek and it was the spoken greek of the earliest Christian converts as well. What differences do you find regarding the three words I discussed that help your theory in classical greek? How would any differences support your theory that “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved means “saved physically from the Tribulation"?


4) Billiardsball responded : "Surely, we can trust the (presumed) Iliad and (extant) Aristotle to explain to us what the Greek words really mean? Do you disagree?" (post #356)
I disagree, Aristotle, who was born almost 400 years before Christ is not Christian, and he is not speaking or writing in the Greek (Koine) used by Christians and he is not using similar words in a Christian religious context. The Christian concepts such as the Christian “tribulation” and Christian “salvation” and Christian “covenants” would not have been concepts Aristotle would have been conversant with in the Christian movement, or the concept of the "tribulation" which did not exist until more than 300 years after he was dead.

If the actual vocabulary and use and context of the language spoken by the apostles doesn't support your theory, then how does changing to a language they didn't speak, help your theory? It's an illogical point.

Thus, how does any reference to Aristotle support your theory that Matthew 24:13 “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved means “saved physically from the Tribulation"?


5) Billiardsball responded : "PS. You reveal a lack of study of eschatology saying "this new theory" of the tribulation." (post #356)
You misunderstand, the “new theory” I speak of is not the christian “tribulation”. I am referring to your new theory that Matt 24:13 “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved means “saved physically from the Tribulation."


6) Billiardsball responded : "You can find many writers supporting the now-century-old viewpoint I've espoused, and from the Greek, also." (post #356)
OK....... Claiming you have data and support is not the same as presenting your data. Give us data supporting your theory that Matthew 24:13 “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved means “saved physically from the Tribulation."


Clear
σεσισεφιω
 
Last edited:

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Master Billiards,


Per Romans: The point of difference has been your claim Paul was writing to Jews and Gentiles. My argument has been the audience of the text were Romans. The text is Greco-Roman. It is thoroughly Hellenistic, demonstrated by the literary structure and rhetoric employed. This indicates who the target audience was. I don’t think this is a complicated or controversial argument. Where the letter was read is not relevant. Who else was in attendance is not relevant. Imagine a sermon in a Church where the Pastor focuses on tax evasion. Those who are in attendance who don’t pay taxes are not the focus of the sermon. It applies to a specific group. If someone in the audience thought the Pastor’s sermon was directed to ten year olds, he would be wrong, regardless if there were ten year olds in the pews.


Per Matt 24:13: You keep focusing in eschatology. This is a mistake. It isn’t relevant to the topic. I think you’ve forgotten what the point originally was. Your original position was that man is totally dependent. There is nothing he can do in regard to his salvation. I presented Matt 24: 13 as a simply counter example.

“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved”.​

The verse indicates a person who does a thing (endure) shall be saved. On a basic level there is a Subject A who does thing B with positive result C. C is dependent on A’s act. The positive result C is indicated as ‘saved’. That is it in a nutshell. Arguing saved doesn’t mean saved, or that saved actually means “saved from physical tribulation” has no substance. The point remains a contradiction to your notion.


Per 1 Peter 2: 5-9: You asked my opinion of the verses, focusing on gender and the meaning of the Greek pronouns used. I think the author of 1 Peter is referring to a group and in the case of verse 9 the attributes of the group taken in toto, not per any individual element of the whole. Why do I believe that? Because that is the way the original Greek speakers understood it and the way Christianity understood it for over 16 Centuries. I gave women not having the priesthood as a simple example. Women were never recognized as priests. The same could be said of children etc. Further, the contrary view is absurd. Under your stance Baha'is would be recognized as priests because their belief in Jesus. I don't think you understand the ramifications of the odd views you have adopted.



Per the Penal Model: Calvin did invent it. The Penal Atonement Model is not in the scriptures. No one had heard of, contemplated or understood the atonement as the Penal Model prior to Calvin’s invention. It was adopted by certain elements of Reformed Christianity. Those same elements form the backdrop for Modern Evangelicalism. As I explained previously, if something new is introduced, it needs to be justified. Calvin never claimed prophesy or revelation for its creation. Calvin never claimed prophet status. It is simply an atonement theory produced by his understanding of the Bible. Unfortunately, it is irrational. I gave you one simple critique to demonstrate the point. You have no rebuttal. It is also immoral. The Penal Model turns Deity into an evil being or at best an amoral one. In either case, something unworthy of devotion. Why do you hold to an irrational and evil system? Why do you worship an evil god? This all follows from adopting the evil absurdity of Calvin’s Penal Model.


The basics of Logic: Below is the syllogism:

1) The Bible is perfect
2) Master Billiards is imperfect
3) What is imperfect cannot understand what is perfect
4) Therefore, Master Billiards cannot understand the Bible.

You now claim premise 3 is “illogical”. You give a definition of perfection and then ask why you, being imperfect, cannot understand the definition. This does not relate to premise 3. The question has no value. Premise 3 is not about an inability to understand the definition of a word. It is about what is “ im”-perfect not being able to understand what is perfect. There is a conceptual limitation with the one that does not apply to the other. This is what is indicated with the prefix, meaning ”not” perfect. Imperfection and perfection are conceptually distinct. To claim the one has the same traits as the other is to fail to understand this basic point. The syllogism holds. You stand condemned by your own silly notions.

Because you have deified the Bible and granted it perfection, and therefore on par with God you have cut yourself off from understanding it. None of your assertions about its meaning have value.


Per faith and works: Saying Faith is not one of the 613 Mosaic Laws is a non sequitur. Faith precedes the Mosaic Law and extends beyond it.



  1. Heaven is a utopia.

  2. Imperfect people would ruin a utopia (and per YOUR syllogism, cannot even UNDERSTAND a perfect utopia).

  3. Imperfect people will not go to Heaven.
I urge you to consider that rejecting my syllogism is surely nothing less than rejecting your earlier ones!

The above is not a syllogism. They are just three statements.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
A legal trade happens, Jesus righteousness for our sins
A heart change occurs where what one love changes
Raised spiritually by the rebirth and renewal of our minds with cooperate with God in a depentent way
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that Matt 24:13 means Christians will be “saved physically” from the difficulties of tribulation


Clear said : You are welcome to present your theory that Matthew 24:13 actually means "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved (physically from the Tribulation) instead of what the text actually says, but you will have to provide some additional data and reasoning before this interpretation will make more sense than the typical use and interpretation and expected reward of salvation in the kingdom of God as a result of remaining true to all conditions of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (post # 354)


1) Billiardsball responded : " I addressed the context of Matthew 24 in my prior post. " (post #356)
How does this support your theory that “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” means “saved physically from the Tribulation"?

Repeating: This isn’t my theory. Your ignorance of premillennial doctrine is surprising to me.

Repeating: The whole of Matthew 24 is parsed into answers to two questions: sign of Jesus’s return and of the end of the age. You don’t know the tribulation ends this church age?

2) Billiardsball responded : "The new wrinkle you’ve added here, however, is not saying that ALL disciples will be delivered and put to death. Eschatology study including Matthew 24reveals that Jesus will return so that those in prison (even awaiting execution) will look up to see redemption drawing near. Jesus will return to cut short the tribulation and save those still alive who are enduring to the end (of the tribulation)." (post #356)
Agreed. Not ALL disciples are put to death. However, this does not tell us how this claim is helpful to you. Present your data and then tell us how it supports your theory that Matthew 24:13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” means “saved physically from the Tribulation"?
Because you wrote that the dying invalidates the concept. The context is Jesus’s return stops the dying/execution of tribulation saints.

3) Billiardsball responded : "Paul wrote Romans. He did not write Matthew. I think since you believe the Bible is not perfect, you might try again, this time using classical Greek sources for your researches." (post #356)
I used Koine greek and NOT classical greek sources because the New Testament was written in Koine Greek and it was the spoken greek of the earliest Christian converts as well. What differences do you find regarding the three words I discussed that help your theory in classical greek? How would any differences support your theory that “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” means “saved physically from the Tribulation"?

I was being facetious. You attempted to use similar words in other NT books to prove your point that all the expositors who believe endures to the end refers to tribulation sufferings are wrong. I reject your references from other NT books because you don’t believe the NT is inerrant.

4) Billiardsball responded : "Surely, we can trust the (presumed) Iliad and (extant) Aristotle to explain to us what the Greek words really mean? Do you disagree?" (post #356)
I disagree, Aristotle, who was born almost 400 years before Christ is not Christian, and he is not speaking or writing in the Greek (Koine) used by Christians and he is not using similar words in a Christian religious context. The Christian concepts such as the Christian “tribulation” and Christian “salvation” and Christian “covenants” would not have been concepts Aristotle would have been conversant with in the Christian movement, or the concept of the "tribulation" which did not exist until more than 300 years after he was dead.

If the actual vocabulary and use and context of the language spoken by the apostles doesn't support your theory, then how does changing to a language they didn't speak, help your theory? It's an illogical point.

Thus, how does any reference to Aristotle support your theory that Matthew 24:13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” means “saved physically from the Tribulation"?

I was being facetious as above. I wonder why you only quote the Bible to refute my beliefs but quote early Christians to prove yours. You have no loyalty to the scriptures, so why should I accept your bizarre doctrines?

“To the law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this Word, they have no light in them!” – From Isaiah

5) Billiardsball responded : "PS. You reveal a lack of study of eschatology saying "this new theory" of the tribulation." (post #356)
You misunderstand, the “new theory” I speak of is not the christian “tribulation”. I am referring to your new theory that Matt 24:13 “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” means “saved physically from the Tribulation."

It’s not a new theory, it isn’t my theory, and people who believe in the assurance of the believer and are premillennial in eschatology agree with me. The fact that you write “tribulation” when, to be frank, it is rather the Great Tribulation Jesus saves us from, shows you’ve never studied modern Christian eschatology.

The most important doctrines:

How can we be saved?

Can we retain salvation?

What happens at the end of the age (important if this time is near)?

You need to study more.

6) Billiardsball responded : "You can find many writers supporting the now-century-old viewpoint I've espoused, and from the Greek, also." (post #356)
OK....... Claiming you have data and support is not the same as presenting your data. Give us data supporting your theory that Matthew 24:13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” means “saved physically from the Tribulation."

I’m not claiming I will need to present more data here. Rather, I’m claiming you’ve never read any Greek scholars who have presented on Matthew 24 regarding the tribulation, nor is it likely you are well read in any sort of literal millennial theory. Then again, I imagine most readers here miss that as a Mormon, you likely don’t believe you will go to Heaven!

So, why are we arguing?
 
Top