"The only-begotten God" in Jn 1:18

[Robert.Evans]

It is conscious evolving in a fractal holographic way.
It replicates what it is.

Did you know if you have a hologram on a card, say of a dove, and then cut it up into 4 pieces with scissors, you do not have 4 parts of a dove. You have 4 smaller doves! Isn't that amazing! That is a hologram. That is how the consciousness of God works. We replicate what already is.

It is fractal and holographic. What you see is your own reality. There is science theory now (not accepted by mainstream science) to say this is right, that the universe is holographic, there are many worlds, many realities, and that everything is consciousness.

 

[Robert.Evans]

aaaahhhhhh

what brand of belief does this derive from?? Is it mystisicm or gnostic or something else??


Its pretty far from where i'm standing, so im seeing it very clearly tbh.

'tbh'? What is this?

Gnostic thinking is definitely in there. They spoke of the lord.
All scripture is beneficial. So my thinking is this: all religion is right, when you understand what realm of reality is fits into. But the other side of the coin is, all religion in wrong (haha) as we cannot be fundamentally correct when we are so far from the true light.
So it depends on what aspect of God that we follow to what reward we receive.
You are the first to ask in such a way. That is nice. Now you can ignore it

How is it in Australia? It is wet here.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Mystics I think speak of all things being One. I agree. But within that Oneness, there is still separation. That is why you sit there and i sit here. There has to be. Thought (logos) has to be perfected. It learns through the hard knocks of physical life.
Words, they say, are cheap. Pain is another thing altogether. That is why we are in a physical body. What is within us has to made complete (perfect). What is on the outside is just the vehicle that represents something else. What is not seen is what is real. Think of this: we are made in the IMAGE of God. God is Invisible. Are Mind is invisible. Do you see? There very part of you that is really YOU, you can't see. Now is that not wonderful. You can't prove YOU exist.. haha.

 

[Clear]

Regarding when and how the theory of Lucifer falls and whether he was “assigned” by God to “watch over” (“oversee&#8221 Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Hi Pegg : Sorry to interject in the conversation you're having with Robert.Evans and apologize for not getting back to your last request earlier. I am traveling again (I travel at least ½ of my week) and am not home.

1) When I asked about the origin and justification of the Jehovahs’ Witness departure from early Christian, Jewish and Islamic agreeing traditions that Lucifer became the devil before he was in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, you mentioned : “ …no one creates theories in our organisation. The study of the bible is done in groups,…” If you say that the actual source of the Jehovahs Witness theory (that Lucifer was not yet an enemy to God when he interacts with Adam and Eve) is unknown or obscure to you, then I will believe this answer and will simply assume that one of the study groups probably came to this theory and the others adopted it (unless and until I have better data).


2) Pegg asked : “ Could you please provide the sources as to where the teaching derives from that Satan was already a fallen angel before he was in the Garden of Eden?“

Since I am not home with access to further texts, perhaps you can simply refer to my 5 Posts (# 28-33) since these many textual references all have to do with the context of the Fall of the Arch-Angel Lucifer and his evolving into an enemy of God and I think it represents a wide enough sampling of examples and witnesses sharing the same context.

The many textual witness do not refer to the only controversy and frustration Lucifer has with those around him in heaven, but it is the most well-known historical textual controversy that leads up to this war in heaven that resulted in Satan’s expulsion from heaven. It is also attested to by multiple early Jewish; by multiple early Christian; and by multiple early Islamic literature including haggadic literature and is one of the few doctrinal “crossroads” that all three Abrahamic religions agreed upon.

Initially, when you first brought up this theory, it seemed very strange since it doesn’t exist in any early literature, either biblical or mishnic or other sacred literature, Talmudic, or otherwise. However, I think that, as I considered what sorts of theories non-historians without other historical contexts could have imagined, I imagine they could theorize multiple time-lines outside of the historical context. This simply didn't occur in early literature and so yours is the first I've heard of that did so. I just didn’t know how the Jehovahs’ Witnesses themselves arrived at such a different time-line than Historical religion. IN any case, since you cannot tell us where the theory originates or it’s process of origination, then the theory has little other interest for me at this point.

I do very much appreciate the information and apologize if I was insensitive in any way in inquiring about this theory. I am glad for the things that I learned.

Clear
φιακσιω

 

[Pegg]

'tbh'? What is this?

Gnostic thinking is definitely in there. They spoke of the lord.
All scripture is beneficial. So my thinking is this: all religion is right, when you understand what realm of reality is fits into. But the other side of the coin is, all religion in wrong (haha) as we cannot be fundamentally correct when we are so far from the true light.
So it depends on what aspect of God that we follow to what reward we receive.
You are the first to ask in such a way. That is nice. Now you can ignore it

How is it in Australia? It is wet here.

tbh is 'to be honest'


Well the aspect of God that we follow is the one explained in the scriptures... The one who offers mankind a redemption from sin and death through the blood of his only begotten son. And the reward is a life free from pain suffereing and death in a world governed by him.

Revelation 21:3, 4 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”


Thats what i'm looking forward to. What is it you are looking forward to?


Australia is a very big place... some parts are icy cold, others are dry and arid, the north is very humid and hot, the south where i am is hot one day and cold the next....today its cool, but yesterday was fairly hot and who knows what tomorrow will be
Actually yesterday i was horseriding with a girl from england and she was getting sun burnt because she wasnt wearing any sunscreen. I told her why Australians call english people pommy's...its because when they come here with their fair skin, they go out in the australian sun and get burnt and turn red like the a pommy apple. Our sun is very harsh here in Australia because of the hole in the ozone layer...so you burn very quickly and need a high spectrum sunscreen.

 

[Pegg]

Mystics I think speak of all things being One. I agree. But within that Oneness, there is still separation. That is why you sit there and i sit here. There has to be. Thought (logos) has to be perfected. It learns through the hard knocks of physical life.
Words, they say, are cheap. Pain is another thing altogether. That is why we are in a physical body. What is within us has to made complete (perfect). What is on the outside is just the vehicle that represents something else. What is not seen is what is real. Think of this: we are made in the IMAGE of God. God is Invisible. Are Mind is invisible. Do you see? There very part of you that is really YOU, you can't see. Now is that not wonderful. You can't prove YOU exist.. haha.

I think im understanding what you are saying now... so if i understood correctly, I can prove that I exist because i have a physical body.

 

[Pegg]

Regarding when and how the theory of Lucifer falls and whether he was “assigned” by God to “watch over” (“oversee&#8221 Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Hi Pegg : Sorry to interject in the conversation you're having with Robert.Evans and apologize for not getting back to your last request earlier. I am traveling again (I travel at least ½ of my week) and am not home.

1) When I asked about the origin and justification of the Jehovahs’ Witness departure from early Christian, Jewish and Islamic agreeing traditions that Lucifer became the devil before he was in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, you mentioned : “ …no one creates theories in our organisation. The study of the bible is done in groups,…” If you say that the actual source of the Jehovahs Witness theory (that Lucifer was not yet an enemy to God when he interacts with Adam and Eve) is unknown or obscure to you, then I will believe this answer and will simply assume that one of the study groups probably came to this theory and the others adopted it (unless and until I have better data).


2) Pegg asked : “ Could you please provide the sources as to where the teaching derives from that Satan was already a fallen angel before he was in the Garden of Eden?“

Since I am not home with access to further texts, perhaps you can simply refer to my 5 Posts (# 28-33) since these many textual references all have to do with the context of the Fall of the Arch-Angel Lucifer and his evolving into an enemy of God and I think it represents a wide enough sampling of examples and witnesses sharing the same context.

The many textual witness do not refer to the only controversy and frustration Lucifer has with those around him in heaven, but it is the most well-known historical textual controversy that leads up to this war in heaven that resulted in Satan’s expulsion from heaven. It is also attested to by multiple early Jewish; by multiple early Christian; and by multiple early Islamic literature including haggadic literature and is one of the few doctrinal “crossroads” that all three Abrahamic religions agreed upon.

Initially, when you first brought up this theory, it seemed very strange since it doesn’t exist in any early literature, either biblical or mishnic or other sacred literature, Talmudic, or otherwise. However, I think that, as I considered the theory from the standpoint of a non-historian who has no other historical context, one could theorize multiple time-lines outside of the historical context. I just didn’t know how the Jehovahs’ Witnesses themselves arrived at such a different time-line than Historical religion. IN any case, since you cannot tell us where the theory originates or it’s process of origination, then the theory has little other interest for me at this point.

I do very much appreciate the information and apologize if I was insensitive in any way in inquiring about this theory. I am glad for the things that I learned.

Clear
φιακσιω

Sorry, i missed those posts.

But now I see that they all derive from apocryphal writings or from non-chrisitan religions and teachers.

I guess that explains why you and I have a very different understanding of who Satan is and when he began his path of destruction.

We ONLY use the Bible for the source of our teachings. So what we are really seeing here are two opposing views...the views of the bible writers and the views of the apocryphal writers, and they are very different.

What makes you believe those apocryphal teachings are correct? If they contradict Gods own Word, then how can you really trust them?

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

1) Pegg said : “ But now I see that they all derive from apocryphal writings or from non-chrisitan religions and teachers. I guess that explains why you and I have a very different understanding of who Satan is and when he began his path of destruction. “


You are a non-historian who does not see the historical implications of what you are saying.

Firstly, none of my quotes came from the apocrypha. You are not a historian and do not understand the profound importance of your admission that Jehovahs Witness theory is not found in any of the earliest Christian literature and witnesses.

Secondly : IF you are admitting that your religious theory is inconsistent with this incredibly wide sampling of virtually all of the earliest sacred literature including early New Testament texts, early Christian prayers; early Christian mishnas; early Christian hymns; early lectionaries; early Christian romance literature; early Christian diaries, etc., this statement is profoundly important since it places your theory OUTSIDE of early Christianity and it’s worldviews.

This is a sampling of virtually ALL of the earliest known Christian literature and NONE of it was taking from the “apocrypha” as you suggest. This means that your theory is nowhere to be found in early Christian theory or written interpretation.

The Jehovahs witnesses CANNOT use ANY early Christian literature to support their new specific religious theories as support because NONE of the early Christian literature supports them. This historical point is not lost on readers with historical understanding. They understand that Jehovahs Witnesses have been unable to use the earliest Christian literature because their theories on these points simply did not exist at any time in early Christian written interpretation.

IF Jehovahs Witness theoreticians wish to claim that their modern interpretations are to be held in greater esteem than the earliest and original Christian interpretations, then the Jehovahs Witnesses must provide some sort of data and logical reasoning as to why their new theoretical interpretations are more credible than early Christianity.



2) The misuse of historical witnesses and abandonment of history itself

Pegg said : People really need to understand what these terms meant to the people who wrote them down for us. “ # 25

Pegg, You need to take your own advice.

I understand you are by no means a historian and thus do not have any significant grounding in early Christianity, but to simply mischaracterize and disregard early Christian witnesses which are much more authentic Christian tradition than Jehovah witness theories, and have much greater claim to authentic historical orthodoxy than the Jehovahs Witness theory on these points is bizarre and abandons historical principles underlying religious history.

For example, the Apostolic Fathers I quoted are not “apocryphal”, but they are Christian textual witnesses from the time when an apostle would have been living. For example, Clement was the apostle Peters protégé in the New Testament. The other apostolic Fathers are of similar age and providence. This is the quality of some of these Christian witnesses you dismiss because it destroys your theory.

On the other hand, you admit that cannot even tell us where your Jehovahs Witness theory came from. We can see that it did not come from the bible; it did not come from historical Christianity or Judaic beliefs; it did not come from any early textual theory, it simply came from, as you said, a “group of bible students” (who are anonymous and unknown to us). That is more of an “apocryphal” beginning than any text I have quoted from

When the Jehovahs Witnesses are trying desperately to try to achieve some historical credibility, it makes no sense then, to abandon the very historical principles which underlie historical credibility itself.



3) Ignorance of history in the creation of a façade of history

People really need to understand what these terms meant to the people who wrote them down for us. “ Pegg # 25
If you take your own advice, you can understand your place either within or outside of the early Christian Context. For example, The early Christian synagogal prayers are much more authentic of a Christian witness of what these people believed in than an anonymous group of millerites or early Jehovahs Witnesses making their best guess as to what a doctrine concerning Satan ought to be. You are not following your own rule when you said : “People really need to understand what these terms meant to the people who wrote them down for us. “ (Pegg # 25)

If the Jehovahs Witnesses want to create even a facade of historicity, they cannot do it by placing their theology outside the context of Christian history and then claim to be “historical” in this day and age when individuals have access to historical data which so easily destroys such facades.



4) One cannot achieve historical credibility by mischaracterizing or abandoning early Christianity

For example, you say the texts are not “biblical”. Yet the quote from Luke IS biblical. The quotes from Hermas WERE in 4th Century New Testaments (as were barnabas). Enoch IS in the Jewish Dead Sea Scroll canon and is referenced more than 127 times by new Testament writers. If you read an authentic New Testament, you ARE reading Enoch, you just didn’t know it. Enoch remains firming INSIDE the current eastern Old testament, as does Jubilees.

If Jehovahs Witnesses are going to eve achieve a credible historical opinion, then It isn’t enough for Jehovahs Witnesses to claim to be historical, but they will, as some point, need to actually BECOME historical. This, especially as historical data becomes more easily accessed and more and more individuals see that your theology is NOT historical, nor does it fit into any historical Christian mold. It is not even enough to claim to have (somehow), discovered the original name of God and then change the biblical text to agree with them.

The reason to quote from Jewish Textual witnesses and Islamic textual witnesses is to show how very widespread and orthodox the doctrine was in the early Christian era before there were so many schizms. It is, hypocritical to criticize the many, many, early Christian, jewish, and Islamic textual witnesses that all agree on this early theology when you could not even find a single clear reference for your theory either from the bible or out of the bible.

It is simply irrational for a Jehovahs Witness to say in effect : “ The Jehovahs Witnesses do not have a single biblical reference for our theory; We cannot tell anyone who first theorized this timeline and theology nor do we know where it came from, nor do we know how it came to be ingrained in Jehovahs Witness theology, BUT, we reject the many, very clear textual witnesses from early Christianity simply because someone (we don’t know who) told us our theory is correct.“

It is becoming an increasingly bizarre situation the more firm data you reject and the more firmly you hold to an unknown theory of unknown origin and of unknown provenance that is inconsistent and illogical in the context of History.

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO


5) The tendency to allow strange theology to change sacred text
Pegg : “ We ONLY use the Bible for the source of our teachings. “

Pegg, this is simply a “sound bite”; a memorized “party line” that you are using.
You have already shown us that these two specific theories do NOT come from any authentic Bible. In fact, you’ve already shown us that to give ANY support to the theory, the Jehovahs Witnesses have to change the biblical text itself in creating the New World Translation and even YOUR OWN translation did not support your theory. We’ve also shown that authentic bibles such as the Masoretic and Greek, do NOT support these two specific theories.

Several readers have noticed and pointed out this important point. You cannot actually USE any authentic version of the Masoretic or Septuagint for these theories since they also, do not form a source for this theory.;

This sort of unusual thinking can explain the motive behind the changes the Jehovahs witnesses created in authentic biblical text to create the New World Translation, which, in essence, is not particularly biblical, (but is more of a commentary about the actual bible from a Jehovahs Witness viewpoint) as we’ve shown when you’ve tried to use Ezekiel 28 and John 1:1 it to support this theory of your. In essence, the changes to a biblical text to agree with your theology rather changing your theology to agree with authentic biblical text, simply creates a text that then says what you want it to say rather than creating a theological theory based on real biblical text.

It then creates a very limited appearance of "being biblical" among the users of the text and their children who grow up using this text. What happens when these users or their children are then exposed to authentic biblical texts? It becomes your single version of a New Testament and it’s many, many, disagreements against the thousands and thousands of greek source manuscripts.

Have you considered what will happen if any member tries to expose themselves to authentic early manuscripts? Will they simply call the original texts “apocryphal” and claim the original has error and bad theology while the inaccurate version remains entrenched as the “real” version in their minds?

What good it is, then, if one Says “I base my theology on the bible”, when their “bible” is simply a text that approximates and looks like a biblical text but simply packages a different theology?



6) The unmoring of a specific Christian theory from Christian History itself
Christianity is a historical religion with a great deal of literature written by the early Christians that describe in their own words and by the Christians themselves as to what they believe. The textual witnesses from the 5 posts in #28 - #33 are from the widest possible sampling of the earliest Christian, Jewish and Islamic literature available. To simply admit that your religious theory cannot survive and / or is “inconsistent” with this vast textual landscape is to admit that your religious theory was never part of and does not fit into any part of this history.

For example, the Jehovahs Witnesses cannot use ANY of the vast earliest Christian Literature to support these two specific theories the Jehovahs Witnesses have created. The fact that this theory did not exist in the bible, nor did it exist in ANY textual witness places the creation of this new theory OUTSIDE of any known legitimate historical context.

If the Jehovahs Witnesses have struggled for any scholarly historical acceptance, it is partly because they are simply not “historical”. The Jehovahs Witnesses have been unable to use any early Textual Witness from any genre or area of these earliest texts to support their specific theories on these points. The fact that Jehovahs Witnesses created and adopted a specific religious theory does NOT explain how and why they created and adopted a different theory. As you have already told us, even YOU do not know why they did this, nor who did this, nor how it became a theory inside Jehovahs Witness theology. It explains none of these historical points.



7) Pegg claims : So what we are really seeing here are two opposing views...the views of the bible writers and the views of the apocryphal writers, and they are very different.

What we are really seeing here is an individuals attempt to characterize the jehovahs Witnesses as “biblical” when you have not given us a single verse from any authentic base bible that supports your theory. Do you think readers missed this point?

We are also seeing the attempt to mischaracterize and devalue a vast amount of early Christian texts




8) Pegg : “ We ONLY use the Bible for the source of our teachings. “

Pegg, if we must delve into this issue further before I can disengage without causing you to claim that historical sources (virtually ALL of the earliest Christian texts) are “apocryphal” and that instead, the Jehovahs Witnesses ONLY use the BIBLE as a source of their teachings then I suppose we can spend more time on these two specific theories.

Since you say regarding your theory and timeline that “ We ONLY use the Bible for the source of our teachings.”, can we discuss this further. Since you have not given us much information regarding the origin of this theory, I simply looked at the article from Wikipedia and Jehovahs’ Witness theology.

Wikipedia says : “Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Satan and his demons were cast down to earth from heaven after October 1, 1914,at which point the end times began. Witnesses believe that Satan is the ruler of the current world order, that human society is influenced and misled by Satan and his demons, and that they are a cause of human suffering. "

Does this quote from Wikipedia Correctly represent Jehovahs Witness timeline regarding Satan and his demons being "cast down" to earth from heaven?


Clear
φυεισιω

 

[Robert.Evans]

tbh is 'to be honest'

thankyou

Well the aspect of God that we follow is the one explained in the scriptures... The one who offers mankind a redemption from sin and death through the blood of his only begotten son. And the reward is a life free from pain suffereing and death in a world governed by him.

fair point

Revelation 21:3, 4 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

Thats what i'm looking forward to. What is it you are looking forward to?

I shall come to that

Australia is a very big place... some parts are icy cold, others are dry and arid, the north is very humid and hot, the south where i am is hot one day and cold the next....today its cool, but yesterday was fairly hot and who knows what tomorrow will be

haha... Ok. And what's the wind speed? Ok, I'm joking Thankyou for the info. Sometimes it is like that here. Scotland is generally colder, but being only a wee country, the difference is not so vast.

Actually yesterday i was horse riding with a girl from england and she was getting sun burnt because she wasnt wearing any sunscreen. I told her why Australians call english people pommy's...its because when they come here with their fair skin, they go out in the australian sun and get burnt and turn red like the a pommy apple. Our sun is very harsh here in Australia because of the hole in the ozone layer...so you burn very quickly and need a high spectrum sunscreen.

Interesting... especially the pommy's, haha.

What am I looking forward to? Good question.
I think we all have within us something that is pure and untouched. It is that which is moved on all the time until 'that which is around it is also pure'. We would think of that as a body, but not physical in the sense we think of.
The outer part which is not purified dies. We see that in the physical sense as the physical body. It dies. With that also does the mind. But even then, that energy is recycled. Science says the same, through our atoms. It is much like a tree made into a table. The wood exists but the tree does not.

All of us at some point will be complete. We shall all be the finished article. It takes time. The 'outer' is what is destroyed for the sake of the 'inner'. The inner is what counts. Yet it requires an outer. Most things need a skin to protect 'that which is within'.
Usually that which is within is better, more succulent as food. Then we also find in the middle a stone or seed. That is the source, and is all important, as that is the thing that brings about life. But as the seed is planted to grow, we see that life is cyclic, and always will be. There will always be universes, always be life somewhere in a infinite ways, and infinite worlds.

To be completed so that your higher-soul is saved, you become like a god, or dare I say, like a God. On that day, 'we shall see him as he is, for we shall be like him' (1Jh)
With that process completed, the process would start over again. We would become the seed (source) and life would emanate from us. Amazing hey? We are the thing we talk about. The God we experience as believers, we are... not in a complete sense, as we are the lower aspect of God. That is why we kill one another! We are base level.

There are many different levels of Self, Self of the person I mean. They reflect from the 'One that Is'. That ONE, is the true Source that all other comes from. All thing reflect from that, as this is all that could happen at first. It is a learning process. The Existence which is everything, is cleansing its own Self. We are part of that, we are that. It will happen, there is no stopping it. It is us.

What we shall be 'no eye has seen nor heart contemplated' what God has in store for those who love him.

All things will become apparent eventually. It is like reading a long novel, only to find out it is part of a series. All you can do is enjoy the book, and thank the lender that he allows you to read. He did not have to. It is His Book.

The True Source of everything had no need of anything, it was the feminine side that brought about what we see through error, but in doing that, we have life, and shall 'have it to the full'.

Something like that, is what I think, I guess... haha Are you asleep yet? haha.

(how come you were riding with an English woman? Was she on holiday?.... Do you know that there is a man in Australia called Michael ( i think) who should probably be the king of England. Long story. Is that not fascinating. You have our king )

 

[Pegg]

thankyou


What am I looking forward to? Good question.
I think we all have within us something that is pure and untouched. It is that which is moved on all the time until 'that which is around it is also pure'. We would think of that as a body, but not physical in the sense we think of.
The outer part which is not purified dies. We see that in the physical sense as the physical body. It dies. With that also does the mind. But even then, that energy is recycled. Science says the same, through our atoms. It is much like a tree made into a table. The wood exists but the tree does not.

All of us at some point will be complete. We shall all be the finished article. It takes time. The 'outer' is what is destroyed for the sake of the 'inner'. The inner is what counts. Yet it requires an outer. Most things need a skin to protect 'that which is within'.

so how long do you think it takes for a person to become complete?

And what of babies or children who die?.... or even unborn babies who are cruelly aborted so that they die before birth.... what is in store for these ones?

(how come you were riding with an English woman? Was she on holiday?.... Do you know that there is a man in Australia called Michael ( i think) who should probably be the king of England. Long story. Is that not fascinating. You have our king )

She's over here working and is helping me with a horse im preparing to sell.

I have heard of the king who abdicated the throne to marry a divorcee... but not of an heir to the throne, no... unless they had a son??

 

[Robert.Evans]

so how long do you think it takes for a person to become complete?

That's a good question Peggy. The consciousness that is the universe we live in, is everything within it, me you included. So it is the ONE consciousness that is being changed, just as we see the universe and life change (because it happens in a physical way). We are aspects of that one Self. Think of it this way: if you could put all your thought into a play, and that play was real life, what would it be like? Would you change any of it, sack a few actors? Promote others? This is what happens. Being in a physical realm is hard. Anyone who has suffered pain knows that. Ultimately that is how we learn. It is a long process. But I will stick my neck out on this.... perhaps there is only one fully complete person per universe! If everything else is recycled, as atoms are, then you can imagine that it would take a long long time. Plus you must consider that every possible outcome of you is to be experience, to be 'set free' so that it may live. In this all offspring is given that freedom brought about through the feminine.

The process does not stop. We think of things in time because that is what we live in... time governs us. Our physical bodies get old. But outside of that, outside of the body, what is time?

So the short answer is, there is one per universe. But where did that conscious come from that made that universe? How many cycles has it gone through? It is hard to tell. Just enjoy the ride.

And what of babies or children who die?.... or even unborn babies who are cruelly aborted so that they die before birth.... what is in store for these ones?

What is joined is One. What is One cannot be destroyed. It can only change. There is OT scripture which says that 'people forget that when someone dies when they are young, He is taking away the good from the evil'. I don't think it is a very good translation, and I can't remember where it is, but it is fitting. We, or our inner Self, the pure part, is within the Ark. The Ark is Christ, and it is that which protects us within the feminine consciousness (waters). But we would not recognise that part... it would be foreign to us, because we are flawed and 'it' is not.

In a fractal sense, our bodies become the Ark.

She's over here working and is helping me with a horse im preparing to sell.

Ok, ta

I have heard of the king who abdicated the throne to marry a divorcee... but not of an heir to the throne, no... unless they had a son??

It fits as regards the fractal nature of God as I see it.
It was in a program on English TV by Tony Robinson. Perhaps you can find it. The long and the short of it was this:
There is a tiny scrap of evidence to say that our royal family is not legitimate. (that fits with the fractal print). This Michael is to do with a Plantagenet line. He knows it, he has all the papers of his family line etc. He is not bothered. He lives in Australia and drinks beer with his mates. But if the royal family is not legitimate, that makes him king!
The reason they say all this, is this: when the mother became pregnant many generations ago, there is evidence to say that the ''supposed'' father, was fighting a war many miles away! So it was not his child. But it is a long time ago, and there is only one fragment of info to go on... and you know how difficult it is to convince someone of something even when you have a whole book, right!

Look after our King.

 

[Pegg]

Regarding when and how the theory of Lucifer falls and whether he was “assigned” by God to “watch over” (“oversee”) Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Hi Pegg : Sorry to interject in the conversation you're having with Robert.Evans and apologize for not getting back to your last request earlier. I am traveling again (I travel at least ½ of my week) and am not home.



2) Pegg asked : “ Could you please provide the sources as to where the teaching derives from that Satan was already a fallen angel before he was in the Garden of Eden?“

Since I am not home with access to further texts, perhaps you can simply refer to my 5 Posts (# 28-33) since these many textual references all have to do with the context of the Fall of the Arch-Angel Lucifer and his evolving into an enemy of God and I think it represents a wide enough sampling of examples and witnesses sharing the same context.

The many textual witness do not refer to the only controversy and frustration Lucifer has with those around him in heaven, but it is the most well-known historical textual controversy that leads up to this war in heaven that resulted in Satan’s expulsion from heaven. It is also attested to by multiple early Jewish; by multiple early Christian; and by multiple early Islamic literature including haggadic literature and is one of the few doctrinal “crossroads” that all three Abrahamic religions agreed upon.

I was thinking about this again last night and had a question for you regarding the 'timing' of Satan being thown down from heaven and confined to the earth.

You think it happened before the Garden of Eden, if i understood you correctly.

However, the only place where the war in heaven is mentioned is in the book of Revelation by the Apostle John.
Revelation begins with Vs1 1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw.

If Revelation is a vision about the future, how could the war have happened in the past before the founding of the Garden of Eden?

And another line of reasoning we can use to determine that the war did not happen before the Garden of Eden is the account about Job in the book of Job. In that account, we see that Satan is still in heaven during that time for he appears before God in assembly with all the other angels.

Job 1:6  Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them.

If the war in heaven had already happened, then Satan and his demons would not have been able to enter in before God in the heavens because the war in heaven was to banish them from heaven. If you've been banished, you can't come and go freely.

So i just wanted to get your thoughts on these two lines of reasoning.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE

REGARDING

1) THE EVOLUTION OF LUCIFER FROM ARCH ANGEL OF GOD INTO AN ENEMY OF GOD AND

2) THE TIMING OF THIS CHANGE IN ATTITUDE AND POSITION


1) Pegg : you are confused and making incorrect historical assumptions underlying your premise.

In early Judeo-Christian tradition, this casting out of the Arch-Angel Lucifer and his devolution into Satan, an enemy of God was a dispute (war) in heaven which resulted in his changed attitudes; his becoming an enemy to God; and his being cast out of God’s presence. Thus, when Jesus says “…I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” in Luke 10:18, Jesus is speaking in past tense regarding an even in Jesus' past.

The “war” you are (apparently) referring to is a future, escatological dispute. Your attempt to confuse and mix these two events represent a strange and confusing mix of entirely different eras and events, poor logic and unsound reasonin.

USE your own claim : People really need to understand what these terms meant to the people who wrote them down for us. “ Pegg , post # 25 If you study early Christian theology and the early written Judeao-Christian witnesses regarding their interpretations and beliefs, it would help you understand these historical issues we are discussing.

It is this insistent disregard of your own rule which causes your bible student to mix historical with non-historical and come up with these entirely new Christian theories such when you suggested that : “… Satan is thrown out of heaven when the Messianic kingdom is born...that Kingdom was not created until our recent times (100 years ago) so its not possible that Satan sinned and fell from heaven before that time.

You say that your theology comes from "groups of bible students" and their study of the bible. However the continued disregard of these bible student for understanding early Christian thought and their interpretation and meaning results in multiple new but unusual theory and interpretations which are entirely different than those of early Christian theory. For example, I asked you in post # 69 regarding this timeline :

Wikipedia says : “ Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Satan and his demons were cast down to earth from heaven after October 1, 1914,at which point the end times began. Witnesses believe that Satan is the ruler of the current world order, that human society is influenced and misled by Satan and his demons, and that they are a cause of human suffering. "Does this quote from Wikipedia Correctly represent Jehovahs Witness timeline regarding Satan and his demons being "cast down" to earth from heaven?

2) Another second question I now have is : “ Who is the individual (or individuals who created) the New World Translation? Your quotes from it contain so many small contextual and translational errors that I am interested in who it was that created it this text.


I think there is a reason that non-JW scholars are, in the main, unable or unwilling to use the NW Translation for historical discussions. There are too many translational mistakes that seem (to me) to be the result of forcing one’s theology into a text where the theology never existed. This disobedience to your own rule of understanding “what these terms meant to the people who wrote them down for us” creates a historical literary “dissonance” an obvious and forced disharmony of historical rules of speech and of historical religious principles that is doesn’t flow smoothly since it cannot smooth these “bumps” and inconsistencies in historical language or historical religious principles.

The translators are speaking from the context of Jehovahs Witness theology and not thinking about what the early Christians believed.


3)The early Judeo-Christian traditions regarding the origin of Satan all take place in the distant Past, before Adam and Eve were placed into the Garden of Eden. In this version of Christian theology, God did not place his enemy satan into the Garden to watch over (“oversee”) Adam and Eve. READ the textual witness and you will see that these traditions all take place in this very, very, early stage in God the Father’s plan. :

D) THE HONORING OF ADAM FOR HIS PLACE IN INAUGURATING GOD’S PLAN FOR MANKIND

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. The spirit that was to become Adam was honored for his role in inaugurating God the Fathers plan. This “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)

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.


In reference to a different, earlier controversy regarding the knowledge, that IF man, 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 one of the fallen angels complaints against God the Father and his plan :
"Then three of the ministering angels, Uzzah, Azzah, and Aza’el, 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 Holy One, blessed be he, replied, “I have made and will sustain him; I will carry and deliver him.’ (3rd Enoch 4:6)

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) worship 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 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.’ .... When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to worship him. And Michael asserted, “Worship the image of God. But if now you will not worship, 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)

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF THREE

E) LUCIFER’S REFUSAL TO HONOR ADAM WAS AN ORTHODOX TEACHING IN EARLY CHRISTIAN RELIGION

Regarding the reference to Lucifer’s refusal to honor Adam, it is important to me 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.

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

The Christian text “Life of Adam and Eve”; relates the same incident : Speaking to Adam, the Devil said : “ ...because of you I 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) worship 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)

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 worship him. And he said unto his hosts, "Ye shall not worship 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."

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)

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 reverence and homage. Satan, the greatest of the angels in heaven,....refused to 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: “Worship 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: “Worship, lest god be angry with you.’ I answered: “God will not be angry with me, but I 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)



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. Except Iblis (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) except Iblis (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 proud and 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), then We told the angels, "Prostrate to Adam", and they prostrated, except Iblis (Satan), he refused to 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.

F) LUCIFER’S REFUSAL BECOMES A REBELLION

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)

The Book of John the evangelist confirms Satan’s presumption in similar language “He set his seat above the clouds of heaven”;. Bartholemew records this occurrence in almost the same words as the other versions : “I will set my throne over against his throne”; (bar 4:55) ;

It is for carrying out the actual plan and organized attempt to “set up [his] throne above the stars of heaven and ..be like the Most High”; that Lucifer was punished. (“Stars”; was a euphamism for the greatest angels). Speaking of Lucifer and the angels who allied with him the ancient psalm read :
“Now as they were warring with each other, they made bold to attack the land of Light, considering themselves capable of conquering it. Yet they know not that what they thought will recoil upon their own heads. But there was a host of angels in the Land of Light which possessed the power to issue forth and overcome the enemy of the Father, whom it pleased that through the Word that he would send, he should subdue the rebels who desired to raise themselves above what was more exalted than they.... (The Coptic Psalm-book - Let us worship the spirit of the paraclete) Psalm 223 (allberry 9-11) p 328; )

This attempted “coup”; would have divided heaven and created a rival Kingship over a rival group in heaven. It was an attempt to set up a rival administration with it’s own rival plan for man. This was no mere show of minor “disloyalty”;. Also, one should note the doctrine that the father delegated the successful battle which overcame Lucifer “through the Word”; (who was his son). The earthly Devil had undergone multiple prior perceived offenses as the pre-mortal Lucifer. AND, his memories of pre-mortal happenings were not “veiled”; from him, as Adams were. Certain battle lines were drawn long, long ago.

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE

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. However, such histories lend sense and context and confirmation to other histories such as Apocalypse of abraham when Azaz’el is told regarding Abraham “...shame on you Azazel! For Abraham’s portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth, for you have selected here, (and) become enamored of the dwelling place of your blemish. .... For behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him, and the corruption which was on him has gone over to you.”; (The Apocalypse of Abraham 13: 4,5,7-14)

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 this recognition was not associated with remorse nor repentance, but rather with an obstinate resolve and desire and plan for revenge (and other motives) and for continuing his rebellion.

“..he fled from heaven; Sotona, because his name was satanail. 5 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. 6 And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam." (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1)


The point is, that the early Christian doctrines and texts place the origin and actions of the arch-Angel Lucifer into a pre-moral context and it was in this pre-mortal time period that his various frustrations and pride and anger and offense occur to the point of becoming the “Devil”;; “Satan”; and an enemy to God. When Adam arrives in the Garden of Eden in early Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, Satan has already become an enemy to God and God would not have place an enemy as a “helper”; and “over seer”; over Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden.

Regarding out shifts in names or appellations of the key players.

Just as the mortal Jesus was called by different names or appellations in his pre-mortal roles (e.g. "The Right Hand", "the righteous one", "the creator", occasionally "the Father" - which is confusing since he is normally "the son", etc), often attached to specific and varying roles he plays. He is then known as “Jesus”; during mortality though he is, even then, called by several titles (rabbi, teacher, etc) depending upon the context. In the same way Lucifer and others have different names as well in different texts.

In ancient Christian Texts he is often "Lucifer" before his fall, and then Satan (or devil, etc) AFTER his fall from heaven. In The Holy Quran, Satan is often referred to as "Iblis". In Jewish records Satan is represented by varying names but Azaz'el, in the quote in the posts above, also refers to Satan. It was to avoid the confusion names that I referred to him as Lucifer. There are many names for all players depending upon the time period; the context; and the language used.

Pegg, I hope that as you read through these early textual witnesses, it will occur to you that you are referring to an entirely different era and a different controversy than the early Judeo-Christians were referring to. In their theology, the Devil / Satan was an enemy to God before Adam was placed into the Garden of Eden. He was not an honored Arch-Angel when he was trying to convince Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit.

In any case, good Journey to you Pegg.

Clear
φυακτωω

 

[Pegg]

POST ONE OF TWO

1) Pegg said : “ But now I see that they all derive from apocryphal writings or from non-chrisitan religions and teachers. I guess that explains why you and I have a very different understanding of who Satan is and when he began his path of destruction. “


You are a non-historian who does not see the historical implications of what you are saying.

Firstly, none of my quotes came from the apocrypha. You are not a historian and do not understand the profound importance of your admission that Jehovahs Witness theory is not found in any of the earliest Christian literature and witnesses.

Hi Clear,

Im sorry, but by reading your post #5 is saw they were all mostly apocryphal literature.

You say you believe an apostasy occured as the bible foretold, but you use many of the very texts written during the time of the apostasy to prove your teaching points. Im sorry, but that just doesnt seem to make a lot of sense to me.

You cannot find such teachings in the bible because the bible does not contain them...nor does it contain the books to which you are getting that false information from.

Im more then happy to look a the bible verses which you believe may prove your points, but if you are not going to use the bible, please dont accuse us of not using christian writings. The books of the bible or 'New Testament' are the Christian scriptures written and authorised by the 12 Apostles and they are not tainted by the apostate ideas which are found in the books you use.

4) One cannot achieve historical credibility by mischaracterizing or abandoning early Christianity

For example, you say the texts are not “biblical”. Yet the quote from Luke IS biblical.
The quotes from Hermas WERE in 4th Century New Testaments (as were barnabas).
Enoch IS in the Jewish Dead Sea Scroll canon and is referenced more than 127 times by new Testament writers.
If you read an authentic New Testament, you ARE reading Enoch, you just didn’t know it. Enoch remains firming INSIDE the current eastern Old testament, as does Jubilees.

Hermas has a vision where he is told he is sinning because he desired to take a woman as his wife. Does that sound a little odd to you? Does not God recommend marriage and does he not bless sexual relations as good and proper? Yet this apochryphal work claims it is sinful to have such a desire. That is not God speaking! Surely you can see that???

The gospel of Barnabas has evidence of being written in the middle ages...it wasnt even written by a christian.

The book of Enoch is a 3bce work made up of jewish myths...its not a christian work and the book of Jubilees was rejected as part of the Hebrew bible by the jews themselves.

So its crazy that you actually think these works are all part of Gods Word.

 

[Clear]

Hi Pegg :



1) REGARDING THE OBVIOUS MISTAKE OF MIXING OF HISTORICAL EVENTS AND TIME PERIODS.

I assume you’re responses means that you realize you confused an escatological event with protological event and this is the reason your theory doesn’t make historical sense. I also assume readers have seen the confusing consequences of disregarding history when creating historical theories.



2) REGARDING

1) THE EVOLUTION OF LUCIFER FROM ARCH ANGEL OF GOD INTO AN ENEMY OF GOD AND
2) THE TIMING OF THIS CHANGE IN ATTITUDE AND POSITION

Wikipedia says : “ Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Satan and his demons were cast down to earth from heaven after October 1, 1914,at which point the end times began. Witnesses believe that Satan is the ruler of the current world order, that human society is influenced and misled by Satan and his demons, and that they are a cause of human suffering. "

Pegg, this is the third time I’ve asked this simple question and you’ve avoided the answer. Does this quote from Wikipedia Correctly represent Jehovahs Witness timeline regarding Satan and his demons being "cast down" to earth from heaven? Do the Jehovahs Witnesses believe Satan was cast down in the above timeline or not?



3) REGARDING THE CREATION OF A SPECIAL BIBLE FOR JEHOVAHS WITNESSES

I also asked WHO created the New World Translation of the bible (or what group of individuals created the text). What are their names and who are they? For example, anyone may look up Doug Moos’ group and see the names of the individuals who worked on the NIV. WHO created the New World Translation?



4) THE CONSEQUENCES OF DISREGARDING OR MISCHARACTERIZING HISTORICAL TEXTUAL WITNESSES OF EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS

As to your inaccurate caricurizations of early Judeo-Christian texts simply because they undermine your theory. I would have thought that your present gaff should have taught you that you MUST pay attention to history and historical texts in order to make accurate historical theories. For example, you theorize that Enoch was written in the 3rd c.e. yet there were more copies of Enoch in the Dead Sea Scrolls of 70 a.d. than any other biblical text other than the Pentateuch and psalms. This enochian literature is syncretic and is far older than the New Testament (else the Apostles could not have quoted from it...) . Just as the King James Old Testament was "written" in the 16th century c.e., the text it represents is from a far earlier period, the earliest enochian literature comes from the b.c. era . If you had read MORE about this literature, I am sure you would have noticed these points.

If then, your theories on texts are so easily dismissed, you MUST, at some point, learn to pay attention to authentic historical principles. IF what you say about the development of Jehovahs witness doctrines coming from groups of “bible students” such as yourself who is so naïve to historical principles, such simple mistakes undermine and destroy credibility in Jehovahs Witness historical theory rather than enhances credibility. You MUST pay attention to history and Christianity’s place in it if you are going to create historical theories.

Also, I did not say these Christian Witnesses are all "part of Gods' word" as you said. They are however, part of early Christian textual witnesses that demonstrate the context of early christian worldview to some extent, especially when the same theology exists is many, many, many texts separated by a great deal of time and geological space. Just as Jehovahs Witnesses create "textual witnesses" in the form of books and the watch tower magazine, etc. that are not "part of God's word", still, the early christians also described their own witnesses to their theology in their literature. Please Pegg, lets not start taking "pot shots" as mischaracterizing each other...



5) CONSEQUENCES OF USING “APOSTASY” AS A CRUTCH FOR WHY JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEORIES REGARDING THE CURRENT ISSUE OF TIMELINE SURROUNDING SATAN, ARE INCONSISTENT WITH VIRTUALLY ALL EARLY CHRISTIAN THEORY AND INTERPRETATION

Suppose we disregard such basic mistakes as your theory regarding Enochian literature and simply look at your theory on “apostasy” as a “catch all” explanation for all early texts that show Early Christianity did not hold to modern Jehovahs Witness theory.

If you go down the road of theorizing that ALL Christian texts from ALL time periods and from ALL locations regardless of their provinence represent apostate theology it will still place jehovahs Witness Theories outside the spectrum of historical Christianity on these points.

For example, if the Jehovahs Witnesses theorize that all Early sacred Judeo Christian textual witness in all of the earliest periods represent apostasy, then historians will ask Jehovahs Witnesses to explain why authentic Christianity did not write anything. NOTHING…? Why did early disciples preach the authentic gospel and then suddenly, only apostates leave textual witnesses?

The Jehovahs Witnesses must then generate another theory as to why some early texts they’ve labeled as “apostate” theology is in agreement with Jehovahs Witness theory in multiple important points if “all is apostasy” in these textual witnesses. It still places jehovahs Witness theories inside historical apostasy. You can’t have it both ways. This is partly why we must allow early Christianity to have their own witnesses and not manipulate or mis-characterize their witnesses of God and Christ.

These are not the only historical theories Jehovahs Witnesses must generate if they take the position that no early sacred witnesses from Early Christianity exist. They will be expected to place their “bible student groups” up against virtually all scholars of early texts and demonstrate why modern Christian interpretations from Jehovah’s Witness studies (which never existed before the last couple of centuries) take precedent over the earliest Christian interpretations.

It becomes more complicated than that, but readers get the point.

Like it or not, Christianity is a historical religion. Once you attempt to remove your Christian theory from history because it doesn’t fit religious history, then you unmoor your theory from any claim to a relationship to historical Christianity.



Pegg I did NOT want this discussion to turn into any sort of a debate and wanted to disengage from this thread once I realized the Jehovahs Witness claim that Satan was a trusted Cherub in the Garden of Eden was not going to give us any historical insight. It is your insistence that Jehovahs Witnesses are immune to historical context other than that which they create by their modern interpretation and modern theories which is the interesting point. Such an attitude will not save them from apostasy, but instead, it is one of the primary characteristics OF apostasy and how a group creates theology that can survive only in an artificial context, but not in the real world of religious history.





Pegg, Thanks in advance if you will answer the two questions I’ve asked repeatedly (questions under points #2 and #3)



I honestly wish you a pleasant life journey Pegg, Please, let me know if you think I am abusing this DIR in any way. I do NOT mean to be disrespectful and in fact have areas of agreement with Jehovahs Witness theology. Unfortunately, their theory as to the timeline as to when Satan became an enemy to God is not one of my agreements.



Clear
νετζτζω

 

[Pegg]

Hi Pegg :



1) REGARDING THE OBVIOUS MISTAKE OF MIXING OF HISTORICAL EVENTS AND TIME PERIODS.

I assume you’re responses means that you realize you confused an escatological event with protological event and this is the reason your theory doesn’t make historical sense. I also assume readers have seen the confusing consequences of disregarding history when creating historical theories.



2) REGARDING

1) THE EVOLUTION OF LUCIFER FROM ARCH ANGEL OF GOD INTO AN ENEMY OF GOD AND
2) THE TIMING OF THIS CHANGE IN ATTITUDE AND POSITION

Wikipedia says : “ Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Satan and his demons were cast down to earth from heaven after October 1, 1914,at which point the end times began. Witnesses believe that Satan is the ruler of the current world order, that human society is influenced and misled by Satan and his demons, and that they are a cause of human suffering. "

Pegg, this is the third time I’ve asked this simple question and you’ve avoided the answer. Does this quote from Wikipedia Correctly represent Jehovahs Witness timeline regarding Satan and his demons being "cast down" to earth from heaven? Do the Jehovahs Witnesses believe Satan was cast down in the above timeline or not?

That is more or less our belief, yes. Satan and his demons were cast out of heaven when the heavenly kingdom began to rule...when Christ was enthroned as its king as the book of revelation states in Revelation 12

Then a great sign was seen in heaven: A woman was arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars, 2 and she was pregnant. And she was crying out in her pains and in her agony to give birth. 3 Another sign was seen in heaven. Look! A great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and on its heads seven diadems; 4 and its tail drags a third of the stars of heaven, and it hurled them down to the earth. And the dragon kept standing before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she did give birth, it might devour her child. 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was snatched away to God and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God and where they would feed her for 1,260 days. 7 And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled ​

This is the prophecy seen in a vision by the Apostle John in the first century. You have said that you believe this war happened even before mankinds creation, yet John was given this vision and told it would be a 'future' event.

So yes. We do beleive this war occured in 1914 and that is based on a few key prophecies. And we also accept what Jesus and the Apostles taught regarding Satan and his rulership over this earth:

Jesus said of satan:

John 14:30 I will not speak with you much more, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no hold on me.​

And Jesus apostles continued to believe that Satan was the real ruler of this world:

John 12:31 Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out​

2 Corinthians 4:3, 4 If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

1 John 5:19 We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.

3) REGARDING THE CREATION OF A SPECIAL BIBLE FOR JEHOVAHS WITNESSES

I also asked WHO created the New World Translation of the bible (or what group of individuals created the text). What are their names and who are they? For example, anyone may look up Doug Moos’ group and see the names of the individuals who worked on the NIV. WHO created the New World Translation?

it really doesnt matter who was involved in the translation of it... no one takes the credit for what rightfully belongs to God, do they?

4) THE CONSEQUENCES OF DISREGARDING OR MISCHARACTERIZING HISTORICAL TEXTUAL WITNESSES OF EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS

As to your inaccurate caricurizations of early Judeo-Christian texts simply because they undermine your theory. I would have thought that your present gaff should have taught you that you MUST pay attention to history and historical texts in order to make accurate historical theories. For example, you theorize that Enoch was written in the 3rd c.e. yet there were more copies of Enoch in the Dead Sea Scrolls of 70 a.d. than any other biblical text other than the Pentateuch and psalms. This enochian literature is syncretic and is far older than the New Testament (else the Apostles could not have quoted from it...) . Just as the King James Old Testament was "written" in the 16th century c.e., the text it represents is from a far earlier period, the earliest enochian literature comes from the b.c. era . If you had read MORE about this literature, I am sure you would have noticed these points.

Don't you think its more important what the book contains and why the Jewish priests did not see fit to include it as part of the hebrew cannon?

Also, I did not say these Christian Witnesses are all "part of Gods' word" as you said. They are however, part of early Christian textual witnesses that demonstrate the context of early christian worldview to some extent, ...

I keep asking this question, but you don't seem to want to answer... How can these writers be displaying a christian world view when what they write is contrary to what the Apostles taught?

You seem to put more creedence in their writings then in the bible's writings....why?

5) CONSEQUENCES OF USING “APOSTASY” AS A CRUTCH FOR WHY JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEORIES REGARDING THE CURRENT ISSUE OF TIMELINE SURROUNDING SATAN, ARE INCONSISTENT WITH VIRTUALLY ALL EARLY CHRISTIAN THEORY AND INTERPRETATION

John received the vision of the war in heaven and was told it was for the 'future'.

Rev 1:1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near.​

Based on Jesus words, how can it rightly be said that the war in heaven actually happened in the past???

Pegg I did NOT want this discussion to turn into any sort of a debate and wanted to disengage from this thread once I realized the Jehovahs Witness claim that Satan was a trusted Cherub in the Garden of Eden was not going to give us any historical insight. It is your insistence that Jehovahs Witnesses are immune to historical context other than that which they create by their modern interpretation and modern theories which is the interesting point. Such an attitude will not save them from apostasy, but instead, it is one of the primary characteristics OF apostasy and how a group creates theology that can survive only in an artificial context, but not in the real world of religious history.

the bible is our religious history... but those books you are using are not acceptable to us. The problem with our discussion is that you are using extra-biblical texts which are dubious in nature and are rightly excluded from Gods Word.

I would be more then happy to sit down and discuss the bible with you. But you dont want to use the bible for some reason... so you've resorted to debating over sources and then claiming there is something wrong with our teaching because its not based on the same sources.

Well i've said it already that our teaching is based on the bible and i've shown you plenty of scriptures which do back up the views that Satan was once a righteous angel... you never commented on it though, so im not sure what you think of it. It seems you dont think much of any bible scriptures i've sued to back up our position.

 

[Pegg]

That is more or less our belief, yes. Satan and his demons were cast out of heaven when the heavenly kingdom began to rule...when Christ was enthroned as its king as the book of revelation states in Revelation 12

Then a great sign was seen in heaven: A woman was arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars, 2 and she was pregnant. And she was crying out in her pains and in her agony to give birth. 3 Another sign was seen in heaven. Look! A great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and on its heads seven diadems; 4 and its tail drags a third of the stars of heaven, and it hurled them down to the earth. And the dragon kept standing before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she did give birth, it might devour her child. 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was snatched away to God and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God and where they would feed her for 1,260 days. 7 And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled ​

This is the prophecy seen in a vision by the Apostle John in the first century. You have said that you believe this war happened even before mankinds creation, yet John was given this vision and told it would be a 'future' event.

So yes. We do beleive this war occured in 1914 and that is based on a few key prophecies. And we also accept what Jesus and the Apostles taught regarding Satan and his rulership over this earth:

Jesus said of satan:

John 14:30 I will not speak with you much more, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no hold on me.​

And Jesus apostles continued to believe that Satan was the real ruler of this world:

John 12:31 Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out​

2 Corinthians 4:3, 4 If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

1 John 5:19 We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.




it really doesnt matter who was involved in the translation of it... no one takes the credit for what rightfully belongs to God, do they?



Don't you think its more important what the book contains and why the Jewish priests did not see fit to include it as part of the hebrew cannon?




I keep asking this question, but you don't seem to want to answer... How can these writers be displaying a christian world view when what they write is contrary to what the Apostles taught?

You seem to put more creedence in their writings then in the bible's writings....why?




John received the vision of the war in heaven and was told it was for the 'future'.

Rev 1:1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near.​

Based on Jesus words, how can it rightly be said that the war in heaven actually happened in the past???





the bible is the 'source' of Christianity... but those books you are using are not acceptable to us because they do not originate with the source. The problem with our discussion is that you are using extra-biblical texts which are dubious in nature and are rightly excluded from Gods Word.

I would be more then happy to sit down and discuss the bible with you. But you dont want to use the bible for some reason... so you've resorted to debating over sources and then claiming there is something wrong with our teaching because its not based on those same sources.

Well i've said it already that our teaching is based on the bible and i've shown you plenty of scriptures which do back up the views that Satan was once a righteous angel... you never commented on it though, so im not sure what you think of it. It seems you dont think much of any bible scriptures i've sued to back up our position.

If you want to know what Jesus taught through his apostles, you have to use the bible. I can't say it any more simply then that. And if you really believe that an apostasy occured as foretold, then I would like to know why you are so willing to use non-biblical writings to explain christian teaching?? Can you at least explain that to me??? plsss???