Divine or Demonic?

a reply to: GoShredAK

You brought a smile to my face GoShredAK. I do love Ecclesiastes. Thank you for reminding me of that.

a reply to: glend

You do know that in the original revelations manuscript only 6 words out of your statement are in it. John mentions no singing in it. He doesn’t refer to them as the four faces. nothing about gates. You are trying to figure out something and almost none of what you use to define it is even in the original manuscript. ALL THAT WAS ADDED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Plus It keeps getting more and more added to it with every new printing. It is really disconcerning that maybe a handful of people in the world have read the original writings of the biblical scrolls. Lost sheep.

a reply to: Terpene
You forget it’s not that everything is good but the opposite. Everything is evil. Are we not sinners? Could all the evil in the world be punishment for sinning? Our free will makes it so that evil isn’t by God, it’s by us. Being given free will is what makes us the only ones that can bring evil into this world. God can’t make evil. God shines a brighter light on the Good for us to see, and that is how we find our way back into perfection. It’s a narrow path but it leads to you finding your peace after being surrounded by evil.

a reply to: SeaWorthy
Those who are the true truth seekers, will find Gods answers. Never stop seeking Truth. Truth is the only weapon we need to defeat evil.

a reply to: TheRedneck

God cannot create evil. Only we can because of our free will. Notice that Adam and Eve created evil. The snake is just a metaphor of it entering into there thinking. They decided whether or not evil existed. And that evil is still in the same place, when they brought it into existence. It’s in all of us a disease we can’t cure. Passed down generation to generation. We see the Antichrist everyday when we look in the mirror. If no one is like Christ then they are Anti-Christ.

a reply to: mcsnacks77

Sorry for being so vague. The devine chariot described by Ezekiel 1.10 in the Torah.... "Their faces looked like this: Each of the four had the face of a human being, and on the right side each had the face of a lion, and on the left the face of an ox; each also had the face of an eagle.".

If you agree the temple of the Lord exist within (1 Corinthians 3:16) then you will understand that the ONE that both John and Ezekiel saw in their visions exist within the temple. That temple has gates that are guarded by angels. Only those that are purified can pass the gates,

a reply to: mcsnacks77

You forget it’s not that everything is good but the opposite.

When you deal in extremes one is like the other. So yes you are right from your vantage point, overall it makes no diffrence

It’s a narrow path but it leads to you finding your peace after being surrounded by evil.

I cannot disagree with you, except that you might live in peace WHILE being surrounded by evil. It will never go away if you don't trow it out of your thinking pattern.

a reply to: mcsnacks77

God cannot create evil.

I agree. Evil cannot exist in the presence of God. If it were to try, God's mere presence would destroy it.

Only we can because of our free will. Notice that Adam and Eve created evil. The snake is just a metaphor of it entering into there thinking.

It appears Ezekiel disagrees with you. Ezekiel 28:13-15 says

Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Now, it is true enough that this statement was made to the king of Tyrus; however, the king of Tryus was not in the Garden of Eden, and was not a cherub (so far as we know). Lucifer, on the other hand, was both the greatest of the archangels, second to only God Himself, and there is no reason I know of to suggest he did not have access to Eden. Therefore Lucifer fits the description on both accounts. So it makes sense to me that Ezekiel was addressing Lucifer (aka Satan) through the king of Tyrus who followed Lucifer.

That passage also tells us that angels, and that includes fallen angels (aka demons), were present in the Garden of Eden. So I don't see the serpent as figurative... I don't know what kind of creature the serpent was, but it makes no sense to me that God would waste time cursing a figurative character. I agree that there are a lot of figurative areas in the Bible, but the ones I am aware of at this time are all indicated clearly as such, either by being in a vision or by being labelled as a parable.

Furthermore, in Isaiah 14:12-14 the scriptures name Lucifer specifically:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

So it seems clear to me that at least one angel, Lucifer, also sinned against God. I do agree that we, as humans with free will granted by God, are able to produce evil as well as good... I simply believe that Lucifer was also capable of turning evil despite being created perfect.

It's a difficult concept, this idea of sin existing in God's creation. Do you have any scriptures that say otherwise?

They decided whether or not evil existed. And that evil is still in the same place, when they brought it into existence. It’s in all of us a disease we can’t cure. Passed down generation to generation. We see the Antichrist everyday when we look in the mirror. If no one is like Christ then they are Anti-Christ.

I agree with most of that; I don't believe we are antichrist in ourselves, save when we choose to be so. We are all sinners and imperfect; hence the need for Jesus. I simply see a difference of intensity between "sinner" and "antichrist."

Good post, though. You make me think and question. I like that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Terpene

I see the bible more as predictive programming than anything divine...

You haven't looked enough to see anything and you're humiliating yourself.

It's really great to ask questions about things you don't understand. But asking
questions with a preferred directive to reach a preferred conclusion. Mocks
your own closed minded opinion in a display of intellectual dishonesty that is
uninteresting and redundant.

a reply to: Randyvine2

Given your only interest, is to attack the player from your highground, I take it as your opinion and I'm glad you found it important enough to share...

originally posted by: Terpene

It just seems very arbitrary when it comes to the distinction between demonic and divine miracles, and who is going to be that arbitrary, if we don’t trust the Vatican?

If you do not trust the Vatican or the teachings of other Christian churches, then you are left alone with the area of non-material forces in which the ordinary secular person is not able to understand anything.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Randyvine2

Given your only interest, is to attack the player from your highground, I take it as your opinion and I'm glad you found it important enough to share...

Truth is often looked upon as an attack when it was only intended as truth.

a reply to: Terpene

Interesting take on Biblical prophecy...

I've always found it curious when some event of influence occurs that appears to match the Bible's forecast and many immediately see said similarity as evidence of prophecy fulfilled. Always felt a bit desperate, this perspective, as the frantic clutching at anything remotely validating faith.

Why are other possibilities not considered to explain this apparent cause/effect relationship? One such scenario - the first to occur to me - can best be described by way of analogy with a screenplay standing in for religious prophecy.

If the screenwriter pens an action for the actor to perform, does he become a prophet in so doing? He is, after all, describing an unambiguous event that will take place in the future. Or, for that matter, should his play be viewed as a holy screed, replete with predictive scriptures yet to unfold?

And what of the actor in this analogy? When he finally does perform the preordained action in accordance with the screenplay, does he then become an instrument of prophecy? Is he, in performance of his role, inspired by the writer who arranged it in times now past?

Sure, my analogy may seem trite, even sacrilegious to some but I'm merely trying to demonstrate a more logical perspective on the subject of prophecy. If an event of magnitude seems a direct embodiment of prophetic texts, could it not, instead, be an action performed in accordance with said texts?

Or, to quote Terpene: "I see the bible more as predictive programming than anything divine..." Yeah, I like that. Much simpler and to the point.

a reply to: Randyvine2

To proclaim your opinion as the thruth does not make it so.

a reply to: Terpene

To proclaim your opinion as the thruth does not make it so.

Oh I agree

I proclaimed no opinion and judged you neither.

I simply made an observation that cut to the quick in the hope of
conveying a message. I don't have an opinion as of yet.

a reply to: glend

You say it was a description. A description is something that has been seen. Read the first paragraph. It’s saying asteroids came from the sky on fire. Everything after the first paragraph is comparing the asteroids to the constellation or stars. Likeness of man in paleo-Hebrew is what they called the Sun. The last paragraph says how they came down in straight lines and couldn’t turn. Then they struck the earth, describing the sound as lightning and an the explosion flashing like a torch, kinda like how a nuclear bomb looks when it goes off. A brightness came out of the fire AKA explosion. How do people not see this? Maybe it’s because I learned a dialect of paleo Hebrew from my grandfather. He would tell stories like this that he learned when he was little from the elders. This was how they described cataclysmic events but they were told this way so they wouldn’t be forgotten. When my grandfather would see airplanes he called them eagle with many faces but they have nothing in common except flight. The eagle was the plane the faces were the people flying it. But if he wrote that down and gave it to a Bible scholar they would go off on some crazy explanation that he was talking about a divine chariot of God. And that’s kinda crazy right? Keep seeking Truth and maybe you will find it. Although I have my doubts.

And I looked, and, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, a great cloud, with a fire flashing up, so that a brightness was round about it; and out of the midst thereof as the colour of electrum, out of the midst of the fire.

And out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man.

And every one had four faces, and every one of them had four wings.

And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot; and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.

8 And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and as for the faces and wings of them four.

As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like coals of fire, burning like the appearance of torches; it flashed up and down among the living creatures; and there was brightness to the fire, and out of the fire went forth lightning.
And they went every one straight forward; whither the spirit was to go, they went; they turned not when they went.

As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like coals of fire, burning like the appearance of torches; it flashed up and down among the living creatures; and there was brightness to the fire, and out of the fire went forth lightning.

a reply to: TheRedneck

But see you need to read the original paleo Hebrew scrolls. Paleo Hebrew has no word for Satan, Lucifer, or any other one you have heard. Those are all Greek words. The original scrolls mention a fire that fell from the heavens, which they call the morning star. Morning star tho is also what they called the messenger from God(messiah), God was Elohim, the man in the heavens that gives life, also referenced to as the Sun. As Jesus the messiah was referenced to also as the Sun of Man. The hebrews and the Sumerians believed that if you did wrong to others, when you died you went to a frozen wasteland. A hell of fire was invented by the Greeks and Catholics. Angels were never given free will be either so they couldn’t be fallen or evil. Free will is the only creator of evil. Without having free will you would be a divinity. This is a fact. Only a being with the choice of choosing between being good or evil can create evil. We are the only ones with free will. God doesn’t even have free will. He can only be good. He can’t choose between good or evil.

a reply to: mcsnacks77

Paleo Hebrew has no word for Satan, Lucifer, or any other one you have heard. Those are all Greek words.

The entirety of the Old Testament was written in one of a few different dialects of ancient Hebrew. It was not written in ancient Greek; the New Testament was written in ancient Greek. That is simply a fact; we have the Dead Sea Scrolls; they exist and their language is not in any form of Greek.

As for the words used, "Lucifer" is translated from the Hebrew word hêlēl, which literally means "the morning star." That much is correct. What you miss, however, is that it is also indicated as a proper name and in that context means the angel ascribed to light: the one we today call Lucifer.

"Cherub" in the passage from Ezekiel is translated from the Hebrew kᵊrûḇ, which specifically refers to a spiritual, as opposed to a material, creature. Notice the similarity between pronunciation: we pronounce "cherub" as "cher'-ub," while the original kᵊrûḇ is pronounced as "ker-oob'." Our interpretation of kᵊrûḇ is not a translation at all, but rather a transliteration that has occurred over time. It is an ancient Hebrew word.

"Satan" appears many times in the Old Testament (again, which was written in ancient Hebrew), quite a few of those in what is believed to be the oldest book included, Job. There, it is a translation of the ancient Hebrew word śāṭān (again, more of a transliteration than a translation, because the word is one of Hebrew origin that has no direct English translation). The Strong's definition of śāṭān (H7854) is

sâṭân, saw-tawn'; from H7853; an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan, the arch-enemy of good:—adversary, Satan, withstand.

H7853, referenced as the entomological root, is śāṭan, defined by Strong's as

sâṭan, saw-tan'; a primitive root; to attack, (figuratively) accuse:—(be an) adversary, resist.

So it would appear that Satan is actually a proper name given to one who attacks or accuses... and indeed, in many passages Satan is referred to by this description.

The Bible uses names to describe beings, not just as a moniker the way we do in present society. There are several examples of this, in both the Old and the New Testament:

• God renamed Abram to Abraham, because "Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee."
  
  "Abraham" is from 'aḇrāhām (again, a transliteration) which is defined as Strong's H85.

  
  ʼAbrâhâm, ab-raw-hawm'; contracted from H1 and an unused root (probably meaning to be populous); father of a multitude; Abraham, the later name of Abram:—Abraham.

  
  
  
• God also renamed Sarai to Sarah, because "And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be."
  
  "Sarah" is from śārâ (H8283), which is specified in Strong's as the same as śārâ (H8282), defined as

  
  sârâh, saw-raw'; feminine of H8269; a mistress, i.e. female noble:—lady, princess, queen.

  H8282 is a descriptive noun; H8283 is a proper name.
  
  
  
• Paul, the writer of most of the New Testament and a fervent follower of Jesus after his encounter with Him, was originally named Saul. God saw fit to re-name him. Saul (from G4569, saulos) is a Greek proper name, which is derived from the adjective saoul, meaning "desired one." Paul is a proper name (paulos, G3972) which is derived from the verb pauō, meaning "to cease." That new name likely chosen because when Saul/Paul met Jesus on the path, he ceased persecution of Christians.

In short, just because a name is related to a common word it does not follow that the name is not a proper noun. It was common for people to choose a name (or be given a name) that described them.

As Jesus the messiah was referenced to also as the Sun of Man.

Ummm... no. That is simply incorrect.

The exact phrase "son of man" occurs as far back as Numbers 23:19, where the word "son" comes from the Hebrew bēn (H1121) which refers to a descendant. In opposition, the word "sun" appears even further back in Genesis, where, in Genesis 15:12 as an example, it is from the Hebrew šemeš (H8121) which means, simply put, the big shining ball of nuclear fusion in the sky.

The words "son" and "sun" may today, in the English language, be homonyms... but they are not such, not even close, in the Hebrew language (nor the Greek). What you are presenting is an old, old myth that was begun by those who somehow missed the fact that English and Hebrew are not the same language, and tried to define words written thousands of years in the past by translation with modern words that are only a few hundred years old. That is a terrible abuse of every logical canon known, and I am surprised you fell for it.

Angels were never given free will be either so they couldn’t be fallen or evil.

Then I ask you again: how did Lucifer fall from Heaven?

How can there be demons?

TheRedneck

a reply to: mcsnacks77

oops my mistake, I just realized I was mixing Seraphim (that sing holy holy holy) with Cherubim. Some people in todays age describe contact with these angels. They are not concious but described as spiritual processes that undertake specific aims. Not seeing any for myself, who knows, if they product of conciousness, or not. But same could be asked of our reality, as well.

As below, so above suggests that there is a correspondence between observation in the spiritual and material realms so I am not rejecting what you are saying for the sake of being right. But we need question why revelation was written. If we believe relevation is prophency it turns christianity into a promise of tomorrow. That can suppress our will to strive for salvation within our lifetime.

That is the only reason I questioned your post.

a reply to: glend

So let’s breakdown why people would write down something in this time period. Since materials for writing were scarce or difficult to use. Also literacy was very rare. So that would mean it would have to be written by a highly educated scholar and them seeing it as a great importance.
A scholarly person knowing this wouldn’t write about supernatural premonitions. They would record historical events that altered the world because they would understand the importance of understanding and knowing about these events for future use. Scientists and scholars recognize having a record of this has more future applications than of a supernatural event that may or may not happen. Knowing the steps that were taken to preserve these writings shows they wouldn’t have supernatural connections. Ask yourself if the planet was about to be destroyed and could only preserve one of these books- book on the history of the world or a book by a seer of possible future event- which would you choose?
Or better yet. If you could write someone in the future would you write about something you believed may or may not happen in the future or would you write about current events so they would have an idea of what what was going right in the world or what was going wrong with it?