At the beginning of this thread someone said “The trinity is the welcoming committee and the public relations machine for the antichrist. The trinity is a perpetual reminder that..."Haleluia, the antichrist is coming". …. I disagreed – that seemed to be somewhat of a false attribution fallacy ...so I counterargued in my post > here - to point out Satan / antichrist somehow imitating the resurrection of Christ and along with lying signs and wonders were actually imitating the various roles of the Holy Trinity...
…and furthermore I tend to think that Satan will try to appeal to our desire for transcendence - of rising above this physical level to a superior state – and that ties into Biblical eschatology with the expectation of Christ’s godlike role on Earth - Christ coming back as lord of lords and king of kings…even just shortly after his resurrection the disciples asked Christ “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”Acts 1:6It seems to me, even from way back then up to now, many are already primed to expect some superhuman to come on the scene as a geopolitical savior – so it’s not that farfetched that people will fall for the deceptions of the Satanic trinity.
And there’s something else in the book of Revelation that gets me wondering about how dire the human condition is. In my opinion Revelation 20 is like opening up a can of worms. You’d think locking up Satan for a thousand years would solve the problem or prove something during the millennial kingdom of Christ’s rule on Earth. But read on – and note that shortly after his release, Satan goes at it again to deceive the nations…now mind you – Christ has been ruling as king of kings for a thousand years…what?!?! How could things go south so quickly…read the whole passage below and then I’ll offer something after that:
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
On page 1222 ofThe Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Volume 2: New Testament the authorobserves that this section of Revelation 20 shows something of the deep, complex nature of evil – and that the underlying source of rebellion against God does not lie with the devil but springs up from deep within a person’s own heart.
Edited by T-Bone The editor’s trinity: dictionary, grammar guide, White-Out
Continuing with a discussion of why I think the Trinity is an asset – let’s look into how John describes some very vivid images he saw in Revelation 5:6:
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
This passage suggests the marks of Jesus’ wounds are still visible – perhaps like when Thomas was invited to look at Jesus’ hands and touch the scar in his sideJohn 20:27…Jesus was slain and yet he appeared triumphant in his resurrected body to Thomas and the other disciples and over 500 brothers and sisters and to PaulI Corinthians 15: 1-11
This compelling book is the most comprehensive defense of Jesus' resurrection anywhere. If you're interested in knowing the evidence for the resurrection and sharing it with others, then you must read this book!” —Lee Strobel, Author of The Case for Christ
"It may be the most thorough defense of the historicity of the resurrection." —J.P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology.
~ ~ ~ ~
The authors use logic, historical proximity and decisions based on levels of probability used in courts of law and investigations. If you’re a Christian and read this book – there’s a good chance it will only bolster your confidence in the historical authenticity of the Scriptures and Jesus Christ’s resurrection!
~ ~ ~ ~
Okay – back on track...
…notice there’s a threefold use of the numberseven in Revelation 5:6 emphasizes completeness and perfection with respect to Jesus Christ – “The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God…” According to the American publication, the Orthodox Study Bible, 777 represents the threefold perfection of the Trinity. The number 777, as triple 7, can be contrasted against triple 6, for the Number of the Beast as 666… In the book of Revelations, in the Holy Bible, the numbers "777" is used to mark the people in which God chooses as his own. Satan is portrayed as attempting to counterfeit this number which is referred to as "666".See Wiki - 777and Wiki - 666.
Breaking down the triple sevens is as follows:
Seven horns:
In ancient Hebrew culture the horn symbolized the power, authority or resources wielded by a mighty individual (seeRevelation 17:12andDeuteronomy 33:17)and with seven hornsthat makes Jesus Christ the King of Kings – possessing complete authority to rule over all Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…”Matthew 28:18andinJohn 17:2Jesus prayed to the FatherFor you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.
Seven eyes:
With a commanding view from perfect eyesight – Jesus Christ is able to observe everything going on! Nothing escapes his notice. Visual acuity brings him perfect knowledge. The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.Proverbs 15:3My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from me, nor is their sin concealed from my eyes.Jeremiah 16:17
Seven spirits:
Noted in a couple of commentaries was the expression seven spirits refers to the fullness of the Holy Spirit -inRevelation 1:4,Revelation 3:1 ,Revelation 4:5One of the many things I find so riveting about Rev. 5:6 is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit seem to be inexplicably interwoven in their effectiveness…something my feeble mind is unable to explain – as evidenced in my previous postsregarding the Trinity - here- hereandhere .
Circling back to the first part of Rev. 5:6 - Jesus Christ with his perfect skill sets of command, oversight, knowledge, wisdom, and experiences is best qualified to be the perfect administrator of the whole shooting match. - Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders…Lenski observes in his commentary “in the midst” (KJV) or “at the center” and “encircled” (NIV) is not so much a spatial reference – though it could mean that too – but even more so as a correlation. In other words, because of his position at the center of everything the Lamb is literally and figuratively at the center – he is the power center – the director of power – in English we often use the phrase power center to refer to a locus of power, especially of political power or authority; a powerful person or institution. When someone speaks of the seat of government, they usual mean the location that is the center of authority to govern - usually the capital city of an area.
The Amplified Bible puts it altogether:
And there between the throne (with the four living creatures) and among the elders I saw a Lamb (Christ) standing, [bearing scars and wounds] as though it had been slain, with seven horns (complete power) and with seven eyes (complete knowledge), which are the seven Spirits of God who have been sent [on duty] into all the earth.
Besides exploring the Trinity, this thread has also touched upon eschatology or end times and the kingdom of God. John M. Frame, American theologian and philosopher in hisSystematic Theologysays that there are many ways in which the Bible story can be told – other perspectives from which it can be seen. One way is the kingdom of God – which describes the dynamic movement of history:
…the kingdom is dynamic, indeed dramatic. It is a world-historical movement, following the fall of Adam in which God works to defeat Satan and bring human beings to acknowledge Christ as Lord. It is preeminently, the history of salvation.
God could have remedied the fall in an instant, sending his Son in an accelerated time frame, bringing him to death, resurrection, ascension, and triumphal return in a matter of seconds. Or he might have accomplished this work in a matter of decades, allowing for a somewhat more normal kind of historical development. But instead, he determined a process spread over millennia. He spent centuries narrowing the messianic line to a chosen family, bringing then into the Land of Promise, ordaining the birth of his Son in the “fullness of time” (Gal.4:4), accomplishing redemption in thirty-three more years, and sending his disciples on a journey of several thousand years at least to bring this good news to all the nations.
Why he chose to stretch out the drama of salvation over so long a time is a mystery. The length of this time is related to other mysteries of Scripture, such as the problem of evil…If God had determined to complete his purposes in an instant, and the sting of pain and suffering would be much less if God were to abbreviate his story to a few decades. But God’s decision is clear: that the history of redemption will take millennia, leaving space for dramatic movements, ups and downs, twists and turns, longings and astonishments. Salvation is to be a great epic, not a short story. God will glorify himself, not by measuring his kingdom in time spans appropriate to human kings, but by revealing himself as “King of the ages” (Rev. 15:3 NIV).
Besides exploring the Trinity, this thread has also touched upon eschatology or end times and the kingdom of God
Victor "taught" that the kingdom of God is within, under and limited by a dome. This is in line the flat earth model - a disc-shaped earth encapsulated by a dome.
Any thoughts on putting God's kingdom in a box...er... a dome as "taught" by victor?
Victor "taught" that the kingdom of God is within, under and limited by a dome. This is in line the flat earth model - a disc-shaped earth encapsulated by a dome.
Any thoughts on putting God's kingdom in a box...er... a dome as "taught" by victor?
And on your points, I’d like to add a few things…
I gave a couple of hyperlinks in my last post on the book “Love Wins” – one link is to the book on Amazon – and another link is to a very thoughtful thread on that great thought-provoking book…one of the many reasons why I come to Grease Spot Café is the sumptuous buffet for thought…even after checking out that book that Rocky recommended my belief system is still in a mind-blowing mood! Concerning the kingdom of God something I shared on that thread-here- where I said:
my fascination with superstring theoryand extra dimensions. Bell uses it as a springboard to suggest Jesus’ talk of the kingdom of God as being an all-pervasive dimension of being, that was here, at hand, right now. Basically that was Jesus’ answer when the Pharisees asked him when the kingdom was coming - seeLuke 17: 20 & 21. Something like this always makes me wonder about the nature of the spiritual realm. I usually think of it as something distinctly not me…really another dimension and perhaps a place far away from me. But in superstring theory multidimensional particles could be compacted and folded up inside each other – and as far as we know nonexistent compared to our experience of only 3 dimensions and the passage of time…
…And I guess if one could control how multidimensional particles are compressed and rolled up – then it would be possible to change the properties or characteristics of something. Makes me think of the city bending scene in the dream sequences of the movieInceptionand the manipulation of reality scene in the movieDr. Strange...And probably the movie that comes closest to describing a world within a world is the scene of a futuristic city popping up in the middle of an open field in the movie Midnight Special(happens at about 2:15 minutes into the You Tube clip).
Indeed some passages likeII Peter 3:10andRevelation 6: 12 - 17that talk about the heavens disappearing with a roar, the elements destroyed by fire and the sky being split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up fires my imagination of what might happen on a cosmic scale…
...The majority of books I’ve read and scripture that I’ve studied have always reminded me of a transcendent God. Bell’s book got me to think about theimmanenceof Godin the comprehensive and eternal work of Jesus Christ in all people in all situations. Something Bell said about God’s love near the end of the book seemed to circle back to superstring theory (the “stuff” of extra-dimensions curled up into a compact space) – but His love is not static or diminutive in any way – “the indestructible love of God is an unfolding, dynamic reality and that every single one of us is endlessly being invited to trust, accept, believe, embrace, and experience it.”
End of excerpts from my Love Wins post
(note if you're in need of some entertainment go to my post on that Love Wins thread - in the original text you'll find hyperlinks to Bible verses and you tube clips )
~ ~ ~ ~
*** Just thought I’d mention that whenever I quote from books, websites, or give hyperlinks – it’s not without having reservations…in other words - I don’t mean to suggest these references are 100% right on everything or that I agree with everything they say. My purpose is to serve them up as food for thought. I do not necessarily agree with everything they say, and some of their ideas may reflect belief systems that are totally different from mine. But all in all, I value alternate viewpoints when they have something of merit. I believe our individual uniqueness may be necessary to give us all an inkling of the bigger picture...whatever that is…
I know there’s certain folks on Grease Spot Café who might think I get hypercritical of wierwille’s works and give anyone else’s work a free pass – but NOPE- that wouldn’t be honest or reliable cognitive skills…I believe their perceived disparity in how I treat wierwille’s works from others may be due to some big-wierwille-fans don’t think there’s a level playing field in About the Way or Doctrinal forums – but I think they may have an erroneous concept about fairness in forums– I’m not saying that each Grease Spotter has an equal chance to win an argument - but that we ALL PLAY BY THE SAME SET OF RULES - and NOT resort to logical fallacies, proof-texting, personal attacks, dodging, etc. ***
~ ~ ~ ~
Speaking of putting God in a box – I wanted to add a few things:
So while we do not downplay doctrine, at the same time we must admit that it can lead us to place limitations on God. This should not lead us to conclude that the fault is with doctrine in general or with biblical doctrine in particular. The fault is with us. So let’s examine three ways doctrine can lead us to put God in a box…
…The first way we can put God in a box is through our misunderstandings of Him and His nature. We have a responsibility to know and believe what He has revealed of Himself in the Scripture…
…A second way we can put God in a box is through creating or assuming knowledge of Him that He has not revealed to us. When we understand our limitations, we will have to conclude that there are some things that are simply too wondrous for us to comprehend…
…The third way we can put God in a box is through making theology an end in itself. In our flawed, limited understanding of God, we can make an idol of theology. Rather than studying God with a view to making theology a practical outpouring of the wonder of who He is, we succumb to theology-ology, or “the study of the study of God.”
Victor "taught" that the kingdom of God is within, under and limited by a dome. This is in line the flat earth model - a disc-shaped earth encapsulated by a dome.
Any thoughts on putting God's kingdom in a box...er... a dome as "taught" by victor?
Never heard anything about a dome that's news to me. Are you referring to the teaching that the universe is a big water bubble?
Never heard anything about a dome that's news to me. Are you referring to the teaching that the universe is a big water bubble?
Ooohhh!!! Please elaborate!! I can barely type I'm laughing so hard!
There is a recording out there. It's a SNT or Advanced or Corps teaching. It's on YouTube. I'll try to find it. A question is asked and he goes off on the dome but sounds shaky about it, yet he holds forth as T7TMG anyway.
Ooohhh!!! Please elaborate!! I can barely type I'm laughing so hard!
There is a recording out there. It's a SNT or Advanced or Corps teaching. It's on YouTube. I'll try to find it. A question is asked and he goes off on the dome but sounds shaky about it, yet he holds forth as T7TMG anyway.
Something about Genesis 1:7 -- And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
So the expanse is the water bubble. That's what I once heard from someone at twi don't remember who.
Something about Genesis 1:7 -- And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
So the expanse is the water bubble. That's what I once heard from someone at twi don't remember who.
Ahhh. Right. He may have been on his way to tie it all together with gloved hands at the end. I couldn't listen to the whole thing, as I can't most recordings of his. He definitely starts with the flat earth dome for the kingdom of God. When I find it, I'll post it.
Victor "taught" that the kingdom of God is within, under and limited by a dome. This is in line the flat earth model - a disc-shaped earth encapsulated by a dome.
Any thoughts on putting God's kingdom in a box...er... a dome as "taught" by victor?
3 hours ago, oldiesman said:
Never heard anything about a dome that's news to me. Are you referring to the teaching that the universe is a big water bubble?
2 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:
Ooohhh!!! Please elaborate!! I can barely type I'm laughing so hard!
There is a recording out there. It's a SNT or Advanced or Corps teaching. It's on YouTube. I'll try to find it. A question is asked and he goes off on the dome but sounds shaky about it, yet he holds forth as T7TMG anyway.
2 hours ago, oldiesman said:
Something about Genesis 1:7 -- And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
So the expanse is the water bubble. That's what I once heard from someone at twi don't remember who.
1 hour ago, Nathan_Jr said:
Ahhh. Right. He may have been on his way to tie it all together with gloved hands at the end. I couldn't listen to the whole thing, as I can't most recordings of his. He definitely starts with the flat earth dome for the kingdom of God. When I find it, I'll post it.
I think Nathan_Jr is probably referring to wierwille’s/ancient Hebrew cosmology mishmash. I’m not one to claim I can unravel wierwille’s hodgepodge- since it lacks coherency with science and Biblical theology, the best I think anyone can do is parse each identifiable chunk for what it is – and good luck on trying to figure out his fallacious logic in tying it all together.
There are a few pictures I’ve posted below that show ancient Hebrew cosmology.
wierwille’s pseudo-science extravaganza point # 1:
You might recall wierwille’s teachings on the creation in Genesis 1where wierwille suggested that the Devil’s rebellion after Genesis 1:1 was so catastrophic as to cause the original universe to be flooded – which brings us to God’s cleanup job of Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
wierwille said the ginormous amount of water needed to flood the entire universe came from outside the universe (which reflects ancient Hebrew cosmology – see below). I also remember him saying that the giant chunks of ice floating in space that science has observed are a remnant of the waters from outside the universe…I guess in a Cecil B. DeMille Hollywood special effects scene, once you plug the leaks in the “cosmic ceiling” the looooooooooong streams of water (traveling however many lightyears across the cosmos to earth ) petered out and voila you have big aqua-globules that eventually froze.
another thing his cosmic model makes me wonder about - why was there this ginormous body of water in the first place? doesn't make sense - if you read Genesis 1:1 it says In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
A brief aside here - while wading through wierwille’s pseudo-science gobbledygook. What is your criteria for truth? I’m not asking about scientific truth – I mean metaphysical truth.
Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical truth. Therefore, what is needed is another definition of truth for the metaphysical realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s calledthe correspondence theory of truth “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.”
I think it's silly to try and shoehorn the Bible into science - but I will say this - if you look past the poetry and viewpoint of the ancient culture in the first couple of chapters in Genesis - I think the simple statement of creation in Genesis 1:1 might just correspond to the big bang
and to point out the obvious - there is no water outside the expanding "cone"
wierwille’s pseudo-science extravaganza point # 2:
I’ve heard wierwille teach on Noah’s flood drawing again on ancient Hebrew cosmology. In the Genesis 7account it says In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. . . .according to wierwille God used the water outside the universe – but this time only to a limited degree to flood the earth and not the whole universe.
~ ~ ~ ~
wierwille’s pseudo-science / pseudo-Biblical conflation that doesn’t have a point:
wierwille had no problem merging different ideas with as much finesse as a blind interior decorator would mix and match different but supposedly complementary concepts to form a theory. So, if God the creator is indeed the God of the cosmos – then the whole enchilada can also be considered the kingdom of God. This wierwille clearly stated on page 24 of The Bible Tells Me So, in the chapter Are You Limiting God? wierwille says:
As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supersedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so, there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world.
~ ~ ~ ~
below are a few representations of ancient Hebrew cosmology:
Edited by T-Bone The editor came from an editorial pool outside the universe
You might recall wierwille’s teachings on the creation in Genesis 1where wierwille suggested that the Devil’s rebellion after Genesis 1:1 was so catastrophic as to cause the original universe to be flooded – which brings us to God’s cleanup job of Genesis 1:2
I don't recall this, but I can believe he taught it. The Devil is not mentioned in Genesis 1:1-2. Not even implied. But if he is already making it up as he goes along, he will make it fit like a hand....
Great post, T-Bone. Hilarious and enlightening! (Yeah, the flat earth lie is based on these ancient Hebrew cosmological, mythical models.)
I don't recall this, but I can believe he taught it. The Devil is not mentioned in Genesis 1:1-2. Not even implied. But if he is already making it up as he goes along, he will make it fit like a hand....
Great post, T-Bone. Hilarious and enlightening! (Yeah, the flat earth lie is based on these ancient Hebrew cosmological, mythical models.)
Not worth the effort for me to dig out my PFAL books – but if memory serves me well – wierwille addressed “the time gap” between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 in PFAL, in which he said you could have as much time as you need in the gap – to allow for the earth being really really really old and where dinosaurs would fit in.
Below I’ve quoted from one source that attributes Arthur C. Custancewith being one of the biggest proponents of the gap theory…Oddly enough there were several of Custance’s books in the Rome City campus library…hmmmm a coincidence or the smoking gun of an unabashed plagiarist…
Fyi - me being a big science fan – I looked at Custance’s books a few times while I was in residence…anyway here’s an excerpt concerning the gap theory:
Origin of the Gap Theory
The gap theory became increasingly attractive during the end of the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, as the new scientific discipline of geology made it increasingly obvious that Earth was far older than a straightforward, literal interpretation of Genesis and the Bible-based Flood geology would allow. The gap theory provided an attractive escape from this dilemma, allowing religious geologists to preserve both their faith in the Bible and in the new authority of science, which, according to the doctrine of natural theology, was now considered a second revelation—God's word in nature as well as in scripture. The two revelations could not contradict each other; some means of reconciliation had to be found. (Another popular approach was simply to denounce science, and geology in particular, as being atheistic and impious. But most geologists of this era were good Christian believers who were convinced that God's truth was discoverable in nature.)
The agony of this dilemma is clearly seen in Philip Henry Gosse's Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, published just two years before Darwin's Origin of Species. A member of the fundamentalist Plymouth Brethren as well as a very competent naturalist, Gosse was torn between the obviously conflicting evidence of geology and the Bible. He cut this Gordian knot by his ingenious suggestion that Earth, including its geological strata and fossils, was created with the appearance of age, just as Adam was created as an adult, fully formed, with a belly button ("omphalos"). A functioning Earth would look mature—ancient even—the moment it was created. Gosse's triumphant and heartfelt suggestion met with ridicule from all sides. Fundamentalists condemned its conciliatory attitude toward scientific theories of the age of Earth. Creationists today, however, are often forced to concede "creation with appearance of age" for refractory evidence, although they are somewhat embarrassed by Gosse's bold application of this principle to its logical extreme.
The gap theory proved to be a much more popular reconciliation of Genesis with geology; in fact, it proved to be an almost irresistible temptation. In a scholarly appraisal of creationist theories, Bernard Ramm, an evangelical, wrote:
The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings.
The gap theory may not be the "standard" creationist interpretation today—Ramm was writing a few years prior to the reemergence of young-Earth Flood geology creationism in the 1960s—but it is still surprisingly popular.
Arthur C. Custance, a Canadian physiologist with a doctorate in anthropology and author of the well-known Doorway Papers series on creation and Christian evidences, wrote a privately published book, Without Form and Void (1970), arguing for the gap theory. This book is considered the strongest and most able defense of the gap theory available. Custance, who also has a master's degree in oriental languages, makes a valiant attempt to demonstrate the validity of gap theory biblical exegesis by analysis of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin versions and study of other Bible passages claimed to support this interpretation. He also claims that belief in the gap theory antedated the aforementioned conflict engendered by the discovery of geological ages—that the ancient Bible commentators and church fathers endorsed it and that it is, in fact, the orthodox view rather than a desperate maneuver to avoid the inescapable dilemma posed by the rising science of geology.
Here’s another thing that shoots holes in the timeframe of the gap theory coinciding with Satan’s rebellion -How is it that sometime in the future an angel with a great chain will have no problem seizing the devil, binding him and throwing him in the Abyss for a thousand years…but I’m supposed to believe that God Almighty or this angel of Rev. 20:1 ...or any angel…or the Logos(who was in the beginning…or rather even before the beginning sinceJohn 1: 1 & ff is obviously alluding to Genesis 1)could not stop Satan from devastating the “original” cosmos of Genesis 1:1?
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.Revelation 20: 1-3
if scientists are correct about the meteor theory,
then something struck the earth and devastated the ecosystem, raising a cloud of ash that blocked sunlight, which interrupted the food chain, and produced a global catastrophe, with plants dying, plant-eaters dying, then meat-eaters dying when they couldn't find plant-eaters to eat.
Eventually, the atmosphere would clear, allowing light to enter the atmosphere once again. And so on.
From the POV of the Earth, a description of all of this might sound awfully familiar. It might sound just like Genesis 1.
if scientists are correct about the meteor theory,
then something struck the earth and devastated the ecosystem, raising a cloud of ash that blocked sunlight, which interrupted the food chain, and produced a global catastrophe, with plants dying, plant-eaters dying, then meat-eaters dying when they couldn't find plant-eaters to eat.
Eventually, the atmosphere would clear, allowing light to enter the atmosphere once again. And so on.
From the POV of the Earth, a description of all of this might sound awfully familiar. It might sound just like Genesis 1.
And like a boomerang fits in a gloved hand, we come back to the book of Revelation:
The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.
The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water — the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter.Revelation 8: 8-11
The previous posts got me thinking of the juxtaposition of Genesis and Revelation…found an interesting comparison chart:
Good basics for what you copied or posted after this. I simply cover this with more detail in three of the last chapters in my 16 chapter biblical teaching book.
Chapter Thirteen
When Will the Dead Be Made Alive Through Jesus Christ?
The first paragraphs of this chapter explain the original deception of the devil who is figuratively called the serpent. Here is the second paragraph with quoted scriptures after this paragraph and inside the paragraph, which I wrote.
Quote
The first example of deception is read in Genesis 3:1-6. Here the devil as a spiritual being is symbolically referred to as a serpent, which is a crawling reptile or snake. Before this in Genesis 2:15, God put man in the garden “to work it and take care of it.” (NIV®) This was likely both physical and spiritual since death had not yet arrived for Adam. Adam had the free will ability to do what he thought he needed or wanted to do. In Genesis 2:16-17, after creating the world including agriculture, animals and mankind. God told Adam that he was “free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (NIV®). This commandment by God was given as a test to Adam of his obedience to God the creator with proof that Adam was dependent of or needed God. This accountability to God was humanity following God regarding the knowledge of good and evil instead of humanity not relying on God, while trying to determine all without God’s help. Next begins the deception.
Genesis 3:4-5
4 And the serpent said to the woman, Ye will not certainly die;5 but God knows that in the day ye eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and ye will be as God, knowing good and evil.(Darby)
Chapter Fifteen
End Times with the Judgement of Humanity Through Jesus Christ
Chapter 16
End Times Purification of Humanity Jesus Christ Reigning Supreme
This accountability to God was humanity following God regarding the knowledge of good and evil instead of humanity not relying on God, while trying to determine all without God’s help.
We know that the word philosophy is from Greek and means “love of wisdom”. In my opinion they all examine fundamental questions – but the big difference as I understand it is that “regular” philosophy relies on human knowledge – whereas when you add religion in the mix – one is also relying on or being strongly influenced by the help of God, some higher power, some absolute principle or adopted tenets – whatever – which always looms large in the background…there’s lots of variations depending on traditions, culture, shared values, sacred texts, etc., of the particular religion.
Some interesting hyperlinks on religions and sacred texts:
Besides exploring the Trinity, this thread has also touched upon eschatology or end times and the kingdom of God. John M. Frame, American theologian and philosopher in hisSystematic Theologysays that there are many ways in which the Bible story can be told – other perspectives from which it can be seen. One way is the kingdom of God – which describes the dynamic movement of history
Following up on one point in my post above - eschatology or end times – I wanted to share something from a book by N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird on the history of the interpretation of the book of Revelation which
…reveals something of the open nature of the book…many have seen it as offering a timetable, a road map towards the ‘end times. From as early as the second century there have been a steady stream of ‘millennialist’ interpreters who saw the book as prophesying a concrete ‘new world’ very like the present one, only with evil, sin, and death banished…On the other hand, there have always been interpreters who have understood the book to be figurative, symbolic, and thus inviting allegorical interpretation…
…Four major approaches to the interpretation of the book of Revelation have emerged over the years…
First, there arepreteristperspectives. These look for the specific fulfilment of the prophecies of the book in actual events that have now already happened…This view certainly appears to make Revelation relevant to the immediate circumstances of its earlier readers, but it appears to make it much less relevant to subsequent generations, including our own…
Second, there arehistoricistapproaches. By this scholars have meant that Revelation was predicting the entire course of subsequent world history, including things like the rise of the Goths, the Arabs, the Mongols, the medieval papacy, Napoleon, Hitler, and the Soviet Union. This has the opposite problem to the preterist interpretation: instead of the book being relevant to early readers but to nobody else, these readings make it sporadically relevant from time to time in subsequent history while making it hard to see what its first readers were supposed to think of it…
Third, there arefuturistsperspectives. This is like the ‘historicist’ reading, with Revelation predicting long-range future events, except that the ‘history’ in question only begins in what, for us, is the ‘modern’ period. Revelation is thus seen as primarily predicting distant future events…and they treat…the visions of Revelation 6 – 19 as literal and linear series of events, complete with the ‘rapture’, the ‘tribulation’, and the ‘millennium that is to take place on the eve of the world’s end. The problem here is that interpreters fail to grasp the rhetorical and symbolic nature of apocalyptic discourse, and frequently display a highly parochial and provincial interpretative strategy, supposing that world history is all about themselves.
Fourth, there areidealist interpretations. These regard Revelation as a multilayered symbolic portrayal of the conflict taking place between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world in the time between the victory of Jesus on the cross and his final return. This generalized account leaves room for various kinds of allegorical and symbolic understandings of the theological, spiritual, and political realities of the whole period. What can be lost with this approach, however, is the sense of imminence. John insists that he is talking about things that will happen ‘soon’.
The best course seems to be an eclectic approach to the interpretation of Revelation. We must insist that the book would have been highly relevant to its first readers (who lived in a culture where this kind of book was much better known than it has been in the modern period)…
John the Seer’s apocalypse is designed to be highly affective, not just by stirring the emotions, but in challenging and reshaping the audience’s imagination. The book is designed to inspire its readers to reaffirm their allegiance to God and his Messiah, and in that light praise the faithful, shame the wicked, and steel the resolve of the churches to resist the monstrous and idolatrous Roman power. Joh intends to call out lukewarm faith and acculturation, and above all to urge his hearers to persevere in the faith despite suffering.
The book of Revelation is one of my favorite books of the Bible – but I certainly don’t consider myself an expert on it – or an expert on end times or prophesy. Being a Bible study bug, I like to have an openminded approach – kind of like the eclectic approach Wright and Bird mentioned…most commentaries I’ve read will take primarily one of the four approaches mentioned above.
I’ve read commentaries using the futurist approach that imply nukes and other modern technology may be alluded to in Revelation…which – if there’s something to that – it makes me wonder how these images, ideas and situations were conveyed to the author. Was he taken up to another dimension – where time and space are irrelevant? Was he given a time-travel-trip to the future – and actually saw this stuff first hand? Did the Holy Spirit provide something along the lines ofremote viewing? I’m thinking it would have been like watching something in the far-off reaches of time and space. Was it fantastic and bizarre images presented in a vision? Like inDaniel 2.
I tend to think like one of those worst-case scenario planners - - now combine that mindset with studying the book of Revelation. Where am I going with this? Well…
Do you remember where you were when 9/11 happened? Do you remember any thoughts or first impressions when you heard the breaking news?
My wife and I were on vacation in a cabin at Big Sur, California – our kids were back home. There was no TV in our cabin – so we went to the main lodge for breakfast and when we walked in everyone was glued to the TV. At first I thought it was about some local heavy rains and landslides – I asked someone “what’s this?”and this guy turns around to me and says “they just took out the world trade center” . I think I was in shock – and somewhere in the mess of emotions and confusion I do remember thinking I must have missed some of the other prophetic signs – because this was obviously the beginning of the end.
North American civil aviation was shut down for two days after the attacks. Even though our return flight was a week away – I figured I was in no mood to get back on a plane any time soon – so we drove the rental car all the way back to Texas…funny how some beliefs get you to do some crazy things…About a couple of years later - in my saner moments – the thought would occur to me what if things continue like this for thousands and thousands of years.
by the way, this topic has been discussed before on Grease Spot Café -here .
I think a subtext of this thread might be taking note of the practical impact of doctrine and beliefs. That was the point in sharing about my reaction to 9/11...and also at the beginning of this thread, I noticed anti-Trinity rants tend to polarize and galvanize folks to take a side – and that sideshow trivialized the deeper discussion of the Trinity being an asset or a liability. Maybe things could have been diffused if we didn’t use the term “Trinity” -but went for something too prolix and discursive - like – “do you think it would help your faith to have a deeper understanding of how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit work together?”
Edited by T-Bone If you’ve read this far – the end is near…very near…here it is…the end!
In considering the typical methods of asset valuation as described byCorporate Finance Institute com: Asset ValuationI believe the cost method is the easiest way of asset valuation. It is done by basing the value on the historical price for which the asset was bought…In production, research, retail, and accounting, a cost is the value of money that has been used up to produce something or deliver a service, and hence is not available for use anymore. In business, the cost may be one of acquisition, in which case the amount of money expended to acquire it is counted as cost. In this case, money is the input that is gone in order to acquire the thing.( Wiki - cost )
At first, I thought the idea behind this thread was silly and appeared to be a ploy to push a particular wierwille-doctrine. As I expressed in point # 6 inmy first post on this thread - herethe terms needed to be defined. I said An asset is something tangible or intangible and is a resource that is owned or controlled by an individual, a company, a government, or an economic entity for accounting purposes with an expectation to produce positive economic value and benefit in the future. A liability is a business’s financial or service-based debt or obligation payable to another individual or business entity at the end of an accounting period to settle past transactions or events.
the Trinity is certainly NOT something we ownor control– but we can say we own it, in a certain sense – if we acknowledge or accept it – like when we take responsibility for making a certain choice, we say “I own that decision”.
What is the cost to acquire spiritual or divine illumination? Thinking about my own experiences – I would say the cost is very pricey – I had to be honest in my sense of self-esteem…make some concessions regarding my self-importance…that came into play in acceptance of the faith (in my case even growing up in a Christian family – childlike faith comes naturally) and it’s ongoing as I continue to grow in my faith.
I found an interesting article on illumination and how that is accomplished through the work of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as detailed in the gospel of John – and I hope you find the following excerpts stimulating:
Illumination has traditionally been discussed in two contexts: illumination in conversion and illumination of the Word of God. The first is the ‘aha!’ of coming to understand who Christ is, the second is the Spirit taking the words that fall upon our ears and applying them to our heart and mind.
One of the peculiarities of John’s Gospel is his tendency to tell long narratives of individual encounters with Christ. These narratives capture for us ‘Aha’ moments—moments of illumination when God makes sense in a way that transcended their ability to make sense of. And yet, they would never be the same again (i.e., woman at the well, the man born blind).
John’s Gospel is replete with references to Jesus as this agent of illumination: “In him was life, and that life was the light of men” (John 1:4). He was the light that “shines in the darkness” but is not overcome (1:5), He is the light which enlightens all humanity (John 1:9), and John the Baptist was witness to this light (1:8, 5:35). He is the light who has come into the world (3:19), indeed, the light of the world (8:12, 9:5) and it is in his light that we walk and do not stumble (11:9-10). Those who believe in this light become children of the light (12:36). Therefore, the very reason he came into the world was illumination (12:46).
But what did Christ illumine? Lights shines not only so that we may see it, but in order that by it, we may see something else. A hallmark of John’s Gospel is the unique language Jesus uses to speak of his own relationship to the father. Beyond any other Gospel, Jesus speaks intimately of the Son’s relationship to the Father, that he was sent by the Father so that in knowing and seeing him, they may know and see the Father also (Jn. 3:17, 34-36; 5:36-40; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36, 11:42, 17:3, 8, 18,21,23,25; 20:21).
Jesus speaks intimately of the Son’s relationship to the Father, that he was sent by the Father so that in knowing and seeing him, they may know and see the Father also.
The light that Christ shines is none other than the light of the Father who sent him (1 John 1:5). George Stevens writes, “What God has done in revelation and redemption it was according to his nature to do. If God has loved the world, it is because he is love. If God has enlightened the world, it is because he is light.” That is to say, God’s mission to illumine people is grounded in his nature as light.
This reveals two elements to John’s triune doctrine of illumination that reflect two categories of theological inquiry more generally: The immanent trinity and the economic trinity. Simply put, the immanent trinity speaks of God in himself (nature, essence, and attributes), the economic trinity speaks of God in his work toward the world.
All of God’s actions are rooted in God’s being. This is not a philosophical principle, but the conclusion to the argument over the correspondence between who God is, and what God does. “Light” as a concept is ambiguous, and as an aspect of God’s nature, seems undefinable. However, God’s nature as light pertains to God’s holiness and God’s glory.
God’s nature as light means God is wholly separate from darkness and so his light is the radiance of his holiness. Likewise, glory is the brilliance of his own perfections. Glory is an inherently self-communicating attribute. It shines in itself with a light all its own. Therefore, the mutual glorification of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (John 8:54, 14:13, 16:14) in the immanent trinity is each of the persons of the trinity putting on display the glory of the others. It is this kind of illuminating communication that the Gospel of John displays in the economic trinity…
…It is no coincidence that it is at this point that John introduces us to the paraclete. Not only is Jesus nearing the end of his ministry, but his disciples are nearing the entrance into a new reality. Jesus commissions the new chapter of the divine mission in the world. In this chapter the light of the World gives his Spirit to the disciples so that they may now go and be the light of the World themselves (Matt. 5).
John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:12-15, the most commonly cited Johannine passages in doctrinal constructions of illumination, articulates how the disciples will go on to participate in Christ’s work in the world as the Spirit of God makes it possible. The Spirit will speak and teach about the Son, The Spirit will glorify him and remind them of all that he said. The Spirit will guide them into truth and pass on what the Son has heard from the Father. As Karl Barth puts it, in all of this, Jesus “gives us his Holy Spirit in order that His own relationship to His Father may be repeated in us” …
…In the wake of his work he leaves a people who live by the power of his Spirit’s illumination. For this reason, we conclude that triune Illumination is participation in the Son’s knowledge of the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Analyzing some of wierwille’s nonsense in Jesus Christ Is Not God
In the book Jesus Christ Is Not God, wierwille makes several dubious statements on pages 72 to 74:
Adam is the head of all the races of men on earth, and Jesus had to be of the line of Adam in order to fulfill the law. God, to produce a sinless man yet one who was of the line of Adam, had to provide a way whereby Jesus would have a human body derived from Adam and yet not have soul-life from Adam’s sinful blood…
[the above last sentence has footnote #9 on the bottom of page 73 and reads: 9. God createdthe sperm that impregnated the ovum (egg) of Mary in the Fallopian tube. This created sperm carried only dominant characteristics and did what ordinarily any sperm would do to an impregnated ovum…]
…If Jesus Christ had had the same source of soul-life as other men, he could not have legally redeemed man for he would not have been a perfect sacrifice. Similarly if Jesus Christ had been God, he would not have legally redeemed man for he could not have wilfully [sic]chosen to do so.
If God did not care to act within legal boundaries, He could have rectified the situation immediately after Adam and Eve’s fall. But, had God done this, he would not have been all good and all perfect.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
The fallacies and pseudoscientific speculations of wierwille in the above quote are problematic.
1.“Adam is the head of all the races of men on earth, and Jesus had to be of the line of Adam in order to fulfill the law”…I disagree - first off, wierwille makes it sound like even God Almighty the creator of the cosmos must submit to some law in order to redeem man.
What are laws? They are a system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties. If the governing body is fair and upfront these laws are usually made public so everyone is informed of the rules and hopefully will comply. What laws were in effect in the account of Adam and Eve? I am only aware of one prohibition:
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”Genesis 2:15-17 NIV
This is a clear statement of a law and the penalty for violators. There is no hint at a plan for redemption. But if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, loving and wise we assume there must be a plan of action for saving human beings from sin, error, or evil. One of the problems I have with wierwille’s redemption theory is that he makes it sound like God is subject to our concept of laws.
But I believe God Almighty does not fit inside anyone’s theological or legal box – and concerning redemption I touched on this earlier in my July 31st post- here- quoting from Frame’s Systematic Theology:
…God could have remedied the fall in an instant, sending his Son in an accelerated time frame, bringing him to death, resurrection, ascension, and triumphal return in a matter of seconds. Or he might have accomplished this work in a matter of decades, allowing for a somewhat more normal kind of historical development. But instead, he determined a process spread over millennia. He spent centuries narrowing the messianic line to a chosen family, bringing then into the Land of Promise, ordaining the birth of his Son in the “fullness of time” (Gal.4:4), accomplishing redemption in thirty-three more years, and sending his disciples on a journey of several thousand years at least to bring this good news to all the nations.
Why he chose to stretch out the drama of salvation over so long a time is a mystery. The length of this time is related to other mysteries of Scripture, such as the problem of evil…If God had determined to complete his purposes in an instant, and the sting of pain and suffering would be much less if God were to abbreviate his story to a few decades. But God’s decision is clear: that the history of redemption will take millennia, leaving space for dramatic movements, ups and downs, twists and turns, longings and astonishments. Salvation is to be a great epic, not a short story. God will glorify himself, not by measuring his kingdom in time spans appropriate to human kings, but by revealing himself as “King of the ages” (Rev. 15:3 NIV).
2. “God, to produce a sinless man yet one who was of the line of Adam, had to provide a way whereby Jesus would have a human body derived from Adam and yet not have soul-life from Adam’s sinful blood…footnote #9 God created the sperm that impregnated the ovum (egg) of Mary in the Fallopian tube. This created sperm carried only dominant characteristics and did what ordinarily any sperm would do to an impregnated ovum”… Oh really? Where does it say in the Bible that God created the sperm that impregnated the ovum of Mary? Did wierwille obtain genetic material from Adam, Mary, and Jesus Christ to compare the genomesof all three individuals? wierwille throws this pseudoscientific stuff around like it’s all facts – but it’s based on nothing more then his shoehorn bias.
It's like any other wierwille mumbo jumbo. He would say God who is spirit can only speak to what He is, which is spirit– oh yeah? Who says? Other than wierwille saying that – where does it say that in the Bible? Maybe he forgot about passages likeGenesis 3:8-19and Numbers 22:21-30.
In my opinion, wierwille’s speculations are indicative of his Gnostic tendencies – in reflecting the same idea of a huge seemingly unbridgeable gap between spirit and matter ANDthe assumption of having a special knowledge…being a know-it-all wierwille thought he could explain everything…I remember from one Advanced Class session wierwille offering a scientific explanation for how the Great Principle works (“God who is spirit teaches His creation in you…”etc.), by saying in a very excited tone something like “the neuroglia cells of the brain respond to the direct application of energy – that’s revelation, Baby!” If you’re familiar with E=mc2you know that energy and matter are really the same thing. Completely interchangeable. Also seeThe Universe Today: How are Energy and Matter the Same?
According to wierwille-doctrine spirit is beyond the five senses - and yet – here we see him commingling everything. That was his specialty – by using his signature intuition he could blend Gnosticism’s paradigm of disconnecting the material world from the spiritual world and yet pontificate over demonology / spiritualism pretending to explain the “mechanics” of EXACTLY HOW stuff works in the spiritual realm…Herein is another problematic hermeneutic of fundamentalism – a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture while holding to a literal AND inerrant interpretation of Scripture – the result is impractical and NOT even possible…well…if you’re a diehard-wierwille-fan it probably doesn’t bother you that with wierwille being in the driver’s seat of interpreting the Bible for you and his popping the clutch by using his signature intuition like a manual transmission to abruptly reengage fundamentalism, spiritualism and Gnosticism – for whatever best suits his agenda. If his shifting does bother you – it might be because you’ve got your eyes on the road (what the Bible actually reads) instead of your eyes and trust placed upon wierwille.
~ ~ ~ ~
3. “…If Jesus Christ had had the same source of soul-life as other men, he could not have legally redeemed man for he would not have been a perfect sacrifice...” I beg to differ with wierwille. “…the same source of soul-life as other men…” is such a nebulous phrase!According to John 1:14 NETJesus Christ was totally unique:
Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory--the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.
In the Greek text of John 1:14“the one and only” is- μονογενοῦς-monogenouscould be translated as one of a kind ! I won’t even attempt to speculate the commingling of the divine and the human – since that would involve guesswork regarding divine attributes – but if anything Jesus Christ might be considered a hybrid - the offspring of two different species…and in light of my argument in point #1, there was no legal requirement for God to redeem man this way…rather it seems like the most relevant way for God to compensate for the poor past performance of human beings.
You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.Matthew 5:38 NLT
As Ellicott’s Commentary of Matthew 5:38, 39points outin remembering that our Lord Himself, when smitten by the servant of the high priest, protested, though He did not resist (John 18:22-23), and that St. Paul, under like outrage, was vehement in his rebuke (Acts 23:3); and (2) in the fact that the whole context shows that the Sermon on the Mount is not a code of laws, but the assertion of principles. And the principle in this matter is clearly and simply this, that the disciple of Christ, when he has suffered wrong, is to eliminate altogether from his motives the natural desire to retaliate or accuse…And I think it might be simply a matter of principle – like an eye for an eye – a life for a life - a sacrifice– a surrender of something of equal value as a means of gaining something desirable or of preventing some evil. Ideas like sacrifice, sin offering, and redemption are conveyed through symbols used in the cultures/languages of the Bible.
Language can be thought of as a system of communication that uses symbols to convey deep meaning. Symbols can be words, images, body language, sounds, etc. Language is symbolic in more ways than can be summarized in a sentence or paragraph, but generally we are talking about how symbols can stand for something else, how they can be used to communicate, and how they can be imbued with meaning. For a simple example of symbolic language: the word cat is symbolic of the idea of a cat, a dollar is a symbol of $1 of economic value, the word yes or a nod is a symbol of confirmation, a grimace is a symbol of disapproval, and a smiley face emoji is a symbol of happiness.
Humans, consciously and subconsciously, are always striving to make sense of their surrounding world. Symbols—such as gestures, signs, objects, signals, and words—help people understand that world. They provide clues to understanding experiences by conveying recognizable meanings that are shared by societies.
The world is filled with symbols. Sports uniforms, company logos, and traffic signs are symbols. In some cultures, a gold ring is a symbol of marriage. Some symbols are highly functional; stop signs, for instance, provide useful instruction. As physical objects, they belong to material culture, but because they function as symbols, they also convey non-material cultural meanings. Some symbols are valuable only in what they represent. Trophies, blue ribbons, or gold medals, for example, serve no other purpose than to represent accomplishments. But many objects have both material and non-material symbolic value.
Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.
3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. Hebrews 8:1-6 NIV
Ellicott’s commentary of Hebrews 8:5 speaks to ideas expressed through symbols, images, metaphors, allegories and such:
“Copy,” not in the sense of perfect resemblance, but rather a token suggesting and designed to suggest the original. (See Note on Hebrews 9:23, where the same word is used.) “Shadow,” as the shadow has no substance or independent existence, but represents only the outline of an object. (Comp. Hebrews 10:1, where “shadow” is contrasted with “the very image”; and Colossians 2:17, where it is opposed to “the body.”) We must not confound these words, “token” and “shadow,” with “the pattern” mentioned in Exodus 25:40, quoted later in this verse. The “heavenly things” are “the sanctuary” and “the tabernacle “of Hebrews 8:2, the realities to which the true earthly tabernacle corresponded; their nature can be understood only when Christ has come as High Priest of the good things to come. (See Hebrews 9:11; Hebrews 10:1.) That every part of God’s earthly house might be a fitting emblem of spiritual truth to be afterwards revealed. Moses was charged in all respects to follow the pattern which had been shown him in the mount (Exodus 25:40). Jewish tradition understood these words to imply the presentation of a heavenly tabernacle to the sight of Moses, as a model to be imitated with exactness; and Stephen’s words in Acts 7:44, “according to the pattern” (the same word is here used) “which he had seen,” convey the same meaning.
The sacrificial laws of the Old Testament were meant to foretell of the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. wierwille seems to suggest that Jesus Christ had to meet some legal requirement to redeem humankind. I think that is rather presumptuous of wierwille to dictate how God is to accomplish something.
~ ~ ~ ~
4.“Similarly if Jesus Christ had been God, he would not have legally redeemed man for he could not have wilfully[sic]chosen to do so…” Does God have freedom of will?
Human beings have some measure of free will. But God’s volition is truly free. What would compel God to lie or sin? If God is all-loving, righteous and everything about His intrinsic nature is perfect – then external influences have no hold on Him. It is my contention that both God as well as Jesus Christ willfully choose to take certain actions.
Clark H. Pinnock(February 3, 1937 – August 15, 2010) was a Christian theologian, apologist, author, and Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at McMaster Divinity College – and he was a proponent ofopen theismwhich statesIn short, open theism says that since God and humans are free, God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. While several versions of traditional theism picture God's knowledge of the future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming settled as time moves forward.
The Trinity is unchangeably what it is from everlasting to everlasting – and nothing can change that. Furthermore, we can always rely on God to be faithful to his promises; he is not in any way fickle or capricious…
…But the tradition has taken immutability far in the direction of immobility and inertness…They have equated the biblical idea of faithfulness with the Greek idea that requires any changes related to God to occur only on the human side. This is the error that tempted some of the early theologians to explain the incarnation without admitting that God changed, and to explain away dozens of biblical references to God’s repenting and changing.
This is a mistake from a biblical standpoint. The God of the Bible is a God of action, not inaction. God is immutable in essence and in his trustworthiness over time., but in other respects God changes. For example, God changes in his response to events in history. The Bible states that when God saw the extent of human wickedness on the earth, he was sorry that he had made humankind (Gen. 6:5)…
…God’s immutability does not rule out God’s responsiveness, the quality that enables God to deal with every new happening and to bend it toward his objectives without violating its integrity…
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
DVD bonus features:
Hey Grease Spotters, check out these other interesting discussions on the Trinity
Jesus would have a human body derived from Adam and yet not have soul-life from Adam’s sinful blood…
Soul-life is from blood? Didn't vic "teach" in PFAL that soul-life came from God breathing it into Adam? So, soul-life begins when a baby takes its first breath, not before. This logic provided the cop out vic needed to force those girls to abort his babies. Right?
The babies weren't breathing in the womb, hence, no soul-life = abortion of victor's rape babies were A-OK because a fetus doesn't have a soul-life.
Maybe I'm misremembering. All the bull$hit gets confusing. I'm probably trying to fit the left-handed glove on the right hand.
Soul-life is from blood? Didn't vic "teach" in PFAL that soul-life came from God breathing it into Adam? So, soul-life begins when a baby takes its first breath, not before. This logic provided the cop out vic needed to force those girls to abort his babies. Right?
The babies weren't breathing in the womb, hence, no soul-life = abortion of victor's rape babies were A-OK because a fetus doesn't have a soul-life.
Maybe I'm misremembering. All the bull$hit gets confusing. I'm probably trying to fit the left-handed glove on the right hand.
Yeah – wierwille’s bull$hit does get confusing – and here you’ve pointed out his typical pseudoscience gibberish – life is in the blood - or is it soul life is breath life? What’s worse than a fundamentalist using the Bible like a technical manual? A con artist who uses the Bible to steal people’s money, time, energy, etc.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
71
46
60
Popular Days
Jun 28
25
Jun 19
23
Jun 23
22
Jun 18
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Sanguinetti 23 posts
T-Bone 71 posts
Bolshevik 46 posts
Nathan_Jr 60 posts
Popular Days
Jun 28 2022
25 posts
Jun 19 2022
23 posts
Jun 23 2022
22 posts
Jun 18 2022
17 posts
Popular Posts
johniam
When the devil tempted Jesus, as recorded in both Matthew chapter 4 and in Luke chapter 4, he offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of this world and the glory of them". He further stated that those things
T-Bone
This thread belongs in doctrinal forum. But for now, I’ll throw my 2 cents in while it’s hot off the press. note your words are in bold red 1. “Prior to the day of Penteco
Bolshevik
Hi Johniam, Maybe reread your paragraph. You say people have a choice . . . But it sounds like an ultimatum. You start off with love and end with a threat. The middle sentence feels like a li
T-Bone
At the beginning of this thread someone said “The trinity is the welcoming committee and the public relations machine for the antichrist. The trinity is a perpetual reminder that..."Haleluia, the antichrist is coming". …. I disagreed – that seemed to be somewhat of a false attribution fallacy ...so I counterargued in my post > here - to point out Satan / antichrist somehow imitating the resurrection of Christ and along with lying signs and wonders were actually imitating the various roles of the Holy Trinity...
…and furthermore I tend to think that Satan will try to appeal to our desire for transcendence - of rising above this physical level to a superior state – and that ties into Biblical eschatology with the expectation of Christ’s godlike role on Earth - Christ coming back as lord of lords and king of kings…even just shortly after his resurrection the disciples asked Christ “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” Acts 1:6 It seems to me, even from way back then up to now, many are already primed to expect some superhuman to come on the scene as a geopolitical savior – so it’s not that farfetched that people will fall for the deceptions of the Satanic trinity.
And there’s something else in the book of Revelation that gets me wondering about how dire the human condition is. In my opinion Revelation 20 is like opening up a can of worms. You’d think locking up Satan for a thousand years would solve the problem or prove something during the millennial kingdom of Christ’s rule on Earth. But read on – and note that shortly after his release, Satan goes at it again to deceive the nations…now mind you – Christ has been ruling as king of kings for a thousand years…what?!?! How could things go south so quickly…read the whole passage below and then I’ll offer something after that:
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 20: 1-10 NIV
~ ~ ~ ~
On page 1222 of The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Volume 2: New Testament the author observes that this section of Revelation 20 shows something of the deep, complex nature of evil – and that the underlying source of rebellion against God does not lie with the devil but springs up from deep within a person’s own heart.
Edited by T-BoneThe editor’s trinity: dictionary, grammar guide, White-Out
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Continuing with a discussion of why I think the Trinity is an asset – let’s look into how John describes some very vivid images he saw in Revelation 5:6:
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
Revelation 5:6 NIV
This passage suggests the marks of Jesus’ wounds are still visible – perhaps like when Thomas was invited to look at Jesus’ hands and touch the scar in his side John 20:27 …Jesus was slain and yet he appeared triumphant in his resurrected body to Thomas and the other disciples and over 500 brothers and sisters and to Paul I Corinthians 15: 1-11
~ ~ ~ ~
On a sidenote about the resurrection I just finished reading a book that folks who are following this thread might enjoy reading The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Kindle Edition by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona from Amazon’s webpage here’s comments by two notable authors:
This compelling book is the most comprehensive defense of Jesus' resurrection anywhere. If you're interested in knowing the evidence for the resurrection and sharing it with others, then you must read this book!” —Lee Strobel, Author of The Case for Christ
"It may be the most thorough defense of the historicity of the resurrection." —J.P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology.
~ ~ ~ ~
The authors use logic, historical proximity and decisions based on levels of probability used in courts of law and investigations. If you’re a Christian and read this book – there’s a good chance it will only bolster your confidence in the historical authenticity of the Scriptures and Jesus Christ’s resurrection!
~ ~ ~ ~
Okay – back on track...
…notice there’s a threefold use of the number seven in Revelation 5:6 emphasizes completeness and perfection with respect to Jesus Christ – “The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God…” According to the American publication, the Orthodox Study Bible, 777 represents the threefold perfection of the Trinity. The number 777, as triple 7, can be contrasted against triple 6, for the Number of the Beast as 666… In the book of Revelations, in the Holy Bible, the numbers "777" is used to mark the people in which God chooses as his own. Satan is portrayed as attempting to counterfeit this number which is referred to as "666". See Wiki - 777 and Wiki - 666 .
Breaking down the triple sevens is as follows:
Seven horns:
In ancient Hebrew culture the horn symbolized the power, authority or resources wielded by a mighty individual (see Revelation 17:12 and Deuteronomy 33:17 ) and with seven horns that makes Jesus Christ the King of Kings – possessing complete authority to rule over all Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…” Matthew 28:18 and in John 17:2 Jesus prayed to the Father For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.
Seven eyes:
With a commanding view from perfect eyesight – Jesus Christ is able to observe everything going on! Nothing escapes his notice. Visual acuity brings him perfect knowledge. The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good. Proverbs 15:3 My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from me, nor is their sin concealed from my eyes. Jeremiah 16:17
Seven spirits:
Noted in a couple of commentaries was the expression seven spirits refers to the fullness of the Holy Spirit - in Revelation 1:4 , Revelation 3:1 , Revelation 4:5 One of the many things I find so riveting about Rev. 5:6 is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit seem to be inexplicably interwoven in their effectiveness…something my feeble mind is unable to explain – as evidenced in my previous posts regarding the Trinity - here - here and here .
We find in Scripture that the Father and the Son commission the Spirit to go forth into the world: see John 14:26 , John 15:26 , John 16:7 , Acts 1:8 and Galatians 4:6 .
Circling back to the first part of Rev. 5:6 - Jesus Christ with his perfect skill sets of command, oversight, knowledge, wisdom, and experiences is best qualified to be the perfect administrator of the whole shooting match. - Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders …Lenski observes in his commentary “in the midst” (KJV) or “at the center” and “encircled” (NIV) is not so much a spatial reference – though it could mean that too – but even more so as a correlation. In other words, because of his position at the center of everything the Lamb is literally and figuratively at the center – he is the power center – the director of power – in English we often use the phrase power center to refer to a locus of power, especially of political power or authority; a powerful person or institution. When someone speaks of the seat of government, they usual mean the location that is the center of authority to govern - usually the capital city of an area.
The Amplified Bible puts it altogether:
And there between the throne (with the four living creatures) and among the elders I saw a Lamb (Christ) standing, [bearing scars and wounds] as though it had been slain, with seven horns (complete power) and with seven eyes (complete knowledge), which are the seven Spirits of God who have been sent [on duty] into all the earth.
Revelation 5:6 Amplified
~ ~ ~ ~
Sources:
Crosswalk: why is the number 7 so important in the Bible?
New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Book of Revelation by Simon J. Kistemaker
The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of Revelation by Robert H. Mounce
NIV, Biblical Theology Study Bible, editors D.A. Carson and T. Desmond Alexander
NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, editors Craig S. Keener and John H. Walton
R.C.H. Lenski's Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. John's Revelation
Edited by T-BoneIn the midst of the seven editors there were seven itty bitty bottles of White Out
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Besides exploring the Trinity, this thread has also touched upon eschatology or end times and the kingdom of God. John M. Frame, American theologian and philosopher in his Systematic Theology says that there are many ways in which the Bible story can be told – other perspectives from which it can be seen. One way is the kingdom of God – which describes the dynamic movement of history:
…the kingdom is dynamic, indeed dramatic. It is a world-historical movement, following the fall of Adam in which God works to defeat Satan and bring human beings to acknowledge Christ as Lord. It is preeminently, the history of salvation.
God could have remedied the fall in an instant, sending his Son in an accelerated time frame, bringing him to death, resurrection, ascension, and triumphal return in a matter of seconds. Or he might have accomplished this work in a matter of decades, allowing for a somewhat more normal kind of historical development. But instead, he determined a process spread over millennia. He spent centuries narrowing the messianic line to a chosen family, bringing then into the Land of Promise, ordaining the birth of his Son in the “fullness of time” (Gal.4:4), accomplishing redemption in thirty-three more years, and sending his disciples on a journey of several thousand years at least to bring this good news to all the nations.
Why he chose to stretch out the drama of salvation over so long a time is a mystery. The length of this time is related to other mysteries of Scripture, such as the problem of evil…If God had determined to complete his purposes in an instant, and the sting of pain and suffering would be much less if God were to abbreviate his story to a few decades. But God’s decision is clear: that the history of redemption will take millennia, leaving space for dramatic movements, ups and downs, twists and turns, longings and astonishments. Salvation is to be a great epic, not a short story. God will glorify himself, not by measuring his kingdom in time spans appropriate to human kings, but by revealing himself as “King of the ages” (Rev. 15:3 NIV).
From: page 87 & 88 of Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief by John M. Frame
end of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Other sources of interest:
Revelation 15 NIV
Bible Hub: commentaries of Revelation 15:3
Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived by Rob Bell
Grease Spot thread about the book “Love Wins”
The Bible Challenge org: Consummation of the Kingdom
Got Questions org: What is the Kingdom of God?
Wikipedia – eschatology
Bible Study org: eschatology
Christianity com: what is eschatology?
Logos com: What Is Eschatology? 4 Views, Why There’s Disagreement
Edited by T-BoneDemonstrative Derrieres specializes in buttocks lifts – call now for a schedule of end times
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Victor "taught" that the kingdom of God is within, under and limited by a dome. This is in line the flat earth model - a disc-shaped earth encapsulated by a dome.
Any thoughts on putting God's kingdom in a box...er... a dome as "taught" by victor?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
And on your points, I’d like to add a few things…
I gave a couple of hyperlinks in my last post on the book “Love Wins” – one link is to the book on Amazon – and another link is to a very thoughtful thread on that great thought-provoking book…one of the many reasons why I come to Grease Spot Café is the sumptuous buffet for thought…even after checking out that book that Rocky recommended my belief system is still in a mind-blowing mood! Concerning the kingdom of God something I shared on that thread - here - where I said:
my fascination with superstring theory and extra dimensions. Bell uses it as a springboard to suggest Jesus’ talk of the kingdom of God as being an all-pervasive dimension of being, that was here, at hand, right now. Basically that was Jesus’ answer when the Pharisees asked him when the kingdom was coming - see Luke 17: 20 & 21 . Something like this always makes me wonder about the nature of the spiritual realm. I usually think of it as something distinctly not me…really another dimension and perhaps a place far away from me. But in superstring theory multidimensional particles could be compacted and folded up inside each other – and as far as we know nonexistent compared to our experience of only 3 dimensions and the passage of time…
…And I guess if one could control how multidimensional particles are compressed and rolled up – then it would be possible to change the properties or characteristics of something. Makes me think of the city bending scene in the dream sequences of the movie Inception and the manipulation of reality scene in the movie Dr. Strange ...And probably the movie that comes closest to describing a world within a world is the scene of a futuristic city popping up in the middle of an open field in the movie Midnight Special (happens at about 2:15 minutes into the You Tube clip).
Indeed some passages like II Peter 3:10 and Revelation 6: 12 - 17 that talk about the heavens disappearing with a roar, the elements destroyed by fire and the sky being split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up fires my imagination of what might happen on a cosmic scale…
...The majority of books I’ve read and scripture that I’ve studied have always reminded me of a transcendent God. Bell’s book got me to think about the immanence of God in the comprehensive and eternal work of Jesus Christ in all people in all situations. Something Bell said about God’s love near the end of the book seemed to circle back to superstring theory (the “stuff” of extra-dimensions curled up into a compact space) – but His love is not static or diminutive in any way – “the indestructible love of God is an unfolding, dynamic reality and that every single one of us is endlessly being invited to trust, accept, believe, embrace, and experience it.”
End of excerpts from my Love Wins post
(note if you're in need of some entertainment go to my post on that Love Wins thread - in the original
text you'll find hyperlinks to Bible verses and you tube clips )
~ ~ ~ ~
*** Just thought I’d mention that whenever I quote from books, websites, or give hyperlinks – it’s not without having reservations…in other words - I don’t mean to suggest these references are 100% right on everything or that I agree with everything they say. My purpose is to serve them up as food for thought. I do not necessarily agree with everything they say, and some of their ideas may reflect belief systems that are totally different from mine. But all in all, I value alternate viewpoints when they have something of merit. I believe our individual uniqueness may be necessary to give us all an inkling of the bigger picture...whatever that is…
I know there’s certain folks on Grease Spot Café who might think I get hypercritical of wierwille’s works and give anyone else’s work a free pass – but NOPE - that wouldn’t be honest or reliable cognitive skills…I believe their perceived disparity in how I treat wierwille’s works from others may be due to some big-wierwille-fans don’t think there’s a level playing field in About the Way or Doctrinal forums – but I think they may have an erroneous concept about fairness in forums – I’m not saying that each Grease Spotter has an equal chance to win an argument - but that we ALL PLAY BY THE SAME SET OF RULES - and NOT resort to logical fallacies, proof-texting, personal attacks, dodging, etc. ***
~ ~ ~ ~
Speaking of putting God in a box – I wanted to add a few things:
So while we do not downplay doctrine, at the same time we must admit that it can lead us to place limitations on God. This should not lead us to conclude that the fault is with doctrine in general or with biblical doctrine in particular. The fault is with us. So let’s examine three ways doctrine can lead us to put God in a box…
…The first way we can put God in a box is through our misunderstandings of Him and His nature. We have a responsibility to know and believe what He has revealed of Himself in the Scripture…
…A second way we can put God in a box is through creating or assuming knowledge of Him that He has not revealed to us. When we understand our limitations, we will have to conclude that there are some things that are simply too wondrous for us to comprehend…
…The third way we can put God in a box is through making theology an end in itself. In our flawed, limited understanding of God, we can make an idol of theology. Rather than studying God with a view to making theology a practical outpouring of the wonder of who He is, we succumb to theology-ology, or “the study of the study of God.”
From: Challies com: Putting God in a box
end of excerpts
And some other interesting links:
Christianity com: why do people put God in a box?
The Gospel Coalition: don’t put God in a box
Grant Montgomery com: Putting God in a box
Edited by T-BoneI didn't put my editor in a box...he decided to live there all on his own :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Never heard anything about a dome that's news to me. Are you referring to the teaching that the universe is a big water bubble?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Ooohhh!!! Please elaborate!! I can barely type I'm laughing so hard!
There is a recording out there. It's a SNT or Advanced or Corps teaching. It's on YouTube. I'll try to find it. A question is asked and he goes off on the dome but sounds shaky about it, yet he holds forth as T7TMG anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Something about Genesis 1:7 -- And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
So the expanse is the water bubble. That's what I once heard from someone at twi don't remember who.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Ahhh. Right. He may have been on his way to tie it all together with gloved hands at the end. I couldn't listen to the whole thing, as I can't most recordings of his. He definitely starts with the flat earth dome for the kingdom of God. When I find it, I'll post it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think Nathan_Jr is probably referring to wierwille’s/ancient Hebrew cosmology mishmash. I’m not one to claim I can unravel wierwille’s hodgepodge - since it lacks coherency with science and Biblical theology, the best I think anyone can do is parse each identifiable chunk for what it is – and good luck on trying to figure out his fallacious logic in tying it all together.
There are a few pictures I’ve posted below that show ancient Hebrew cosmology.
wierwille’s pseudo-science extravaganza point # 1:
You might recall wierwille’s teachings on the creation in Genesis 1 where wierwille suggested that the Devil’s rebellion after Genesis 1:1 was so catastrophic as to cause the original universe to be flooded – which brings us to God’s cleanup job of Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
wierwille said the ginormous amount of water needed to flood the entire universe came from outside the universe (which reflects ancient Hebrew cosmology – see below). I also remember him saying that the giant chunks of ice floating in space that science has observed are a remnant of the waters from outside the universe…I guess in a Cecil B. DeMille Hollywood special effects scene, once you plug the leaks in the “cosmic ceiling” the looooooooooong streams of water (traveling however many lightyears across the cosmos to earth ) petered out and voila you have big aqua-globules that eventually froze.
another thing his cosmic model makes me wonder about - why was there this ginormous body of water in the first place? doesn't make sense - if you read Genesis 1:1 it says In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
A brief aside here - while wading through wierwille’s pseudo-science gobbledygook. What is your criteria for truth? I’m not asking about scientific truth – I mean metaphysical truth.
Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical truth. Therefore, what is needed is another definition of truth for the metaphysical realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s called the correspondence theory of truth “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.”
from: Wiki - correspondence theory of truth
I think it's silly to try and shoehorn the Bible into science - but I will say this - if you look past the poetry and viewpoint of the ancient culture in the first couple of chapters in Genesis - I think the simple statement of creation in Genesis 1:1 might just correspond to the big bang
and to point out the obvious - there is no water outside the expanding "cone"
Side notes see also
SC18 Super Computing org: The First Water in the Universe
Wikipedia – the universe
Witcombe SBC EDU: The PHYSICS of WATER in the UNIVERSE
Quora: how do things freeze in space?
Big Think: water in space does it freeze or boil?
~ ~ ~ ~
wierwille’s pseudo-science extravaganza point # 2:
I’ve heard wierwille teach on Noah’s flood drawing again on ancient Hebrew cosmology. In the Genesis 7 account it says In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. . . .according to wierwille God used the water outside the universe – but this time only to a limited degree to flood the earth and not the whole universe.
~ ~ ~ ~
wierwille’s pseudo-science / pseudo-Biblical conflation that doesn’t have a point:
wierwille had no problem merging different ideas with as much finesse as a blind interior decorator would mix and match different but supposedly complementary concepts to form a theory. So, if God the creator is indeed the God of the cosmos – then the whole enchilada can also be considered the kingdom of God. This wierwille clearly stated on page 24 of The Bible Tells Me So, in the chapter Are You Limiting God? wierwille says:
As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supersedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so, there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world.
~ ~ ~ ~
below are a few representations of ancient Hebrew cosmology:
Edited by T-BoneThe editor came from an editorial pool outside the universe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I don't recall this, but I can believe he taught it. The Devil is not mentioned in Genesis 1:1-2. Not even implied. But if he is already making it up as he goes along, he will make it fit like a hand....
Great post, T-Bone. Hilarious and enlightening! (Yeah, the flat earth lie is based on these ancient Hebrew cosmological, mythical models.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Earl Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Not worth the effort for me to dig out my PFAL books – but if memory serves me well – wierwille addressed “the time gap” between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 in PFAL, in which he said you could have as much time as you need in the gap – to allow for the earth being really really really old and where dinosaurs would fit in.
Below I’ve quoted from one source that attributes Arthur C. Custance with being one of the biggest proponents of the gap theory…Oddly enough there were several of Custance’s books in the Rome City campus library…hmmmm a coincidence or the smoking gun of an unabashed plagiarist…
Fyi - me being a big science fan – I looked at Custance’s books a few times while I was in residence…anyway here’s an excerpt concerning the gap theory:
Origin of the Gap Theory
The gap theory became increasingly attractive during the end of the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, as the new scientific discipline of geology made it increasingly obvious that Earth was far older than a straightforward, literal interpretation of Genesis and the Bible-based Flood geology would allow. The gap theory provided an attractive escape from this dilemma, allowing religious geologists to preserve both their faith in the Bible and in the new authority of science, which, according to the doctrine of natural theology, was now considered a second revelation—God's word in nature as well as in scripture. The two revelations could not contradict each other; some means of reconciliation had to be found. (Another popular approach was simply to denounce science, and geology in particular, as being atheistic and impious. But most geologists of this era were good Christian believers who were convinced that God's truth was discoverable in nature.)
The agony of this dilemma is clearly seen in Philip Henry Gosse's Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, published just two years before Darwin's Origin of Species. A member of the fundamentalist Plymouth Brethren as well as a very competent naturalist, Gosse was torn between the obviously conflicting evidence of geology and the Bible. He cut this Gordian knot by his ingenious suggestion that Earth, including its geological strata and fossils, was created with the appearance of age, just as Adam was created as an adult, fully formed, with a belly button ("omphalos"). A functioning Earth would look mature—ancient even—the moment it was created. Gosse's triumphant and heartfelt suggestion met with ridicule from all sides. Fundamentalists condemned its conciliatory attitude toward scientific theories of the age of Earth. Creationists today, however, are often forced to concede "creation with appearance of age" for refractory evidence, although they are somewhat embarrassed by Gosse's bold application of this principle to its logical extreme.
The gap theory proved to be a much more popular reconciliation of Genesis with geology; in fact, it proved to be an almost irresistible temptation. In a scholarly appraisal of creationist theories, Bernard Ramm, an evangelical, wrote:
The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings.
The gap theory may not be the "standard" creationist interpretation today—Ramm was writing a few years prior to the reemergence of young-Earth Flood geology creationism in the 1960s—but it is still surprisingly popular.
Arthur C. Custance, a Canadian physiologist with a doctorate in anthropology and author of the well-known Doorway Papers series on creation and Christian evidences, wrote a privately published book, Without Form and Void (1970), arguing for the gap theory. This book is considered the strongest and most able defense of the gap theory available. Custance, who also has a master's degree in oriental languages, makes a valiant attempt to demonstrate the validity of gap theory biblical exegesis by analysis of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin versions and study of other Bible passages claimed to support this interpretation. He also claims that belief in the gap theory antedated the aforementioned conflict engendered by the discovery of geological ages—that the ancient Bible commentators and church fathers endorsed it and that it is, in fact, the orthodox view rather than a desperate maneuver to avoid the inescapable dilemma posed by the rising science of geology.
from: From: NCSE: formless and void gap theory creationism
Edited by T-BoneMy editor has a big gap in his two front teeth…it’s bigger than Letterman’s ! And that’s the whole tooth…gap
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Here’s another thing that shoots holes in the timeframe of the gap theory coinciding with Satan’s rebellion - How is it that sometime in the future an angel with a great chain will have no problem seizing the devil, binding him and throwing him in the Abyss for a thousand years…but I’m supposed to believe that God Almighty or this angel of Rev. 20:1 ...or any angel…or the Logos (who was in the beginning…or rather even before the beginning since John 1: 1 & ff is obviously alluding to Genesis 1) could not stop Satan from devastating the “original” cosmos of Genesis 1:1?
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. Revelation 20: 1-3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
On the other hand,
if scientists are correct about the meteor theory,
then something struck the earth and devastated the ecosystem, raising a cloud of ash that blocked sunlight, which interrupted the food chain, and produced a global catastrophe, with plants dying, plant-eaters dying, then meat-eaters dying when they couldn't find plant-eaters to eat.
Eventually, the atmosphere would clear, allowing light to enter the atmosphere once again. And so on.
From the POV of the Earth, a description of all of this might sound awfully familiar. It might sound just like Genesis 1.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
And like a boomerang fits in a gloved hand, we come back to the book of Revelation:
The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.
The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water — the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter. Revelation 8: 8-11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The previous posts got me thinking of the juxtaposition of Genesis and Revelation…found an interesting comparison chart:
Genesis And Revelation Comparison Chart
Genesis
Revelation
1. Genesis, the book of beginning.
1. Apocalypse, the book of the end.
2. The Earth created (1:1).
2. The Earth passes away (21:1).
3. Satan’s first rebellion.
3. Satan’s final rebellion (20:3,7-10).
4. Sun, Moon, and Stars, for Earth’s government (1:14-16).
4. Sun, Moon, and Stars, connected with Earth’s Judgment (6:13, 8:12, 16:8).
5. Sun to govern the day (1:16).
5. No need of the Sun (21:23).
6. Darkness called night (1:5).
6. “No night there” (22:5).
7. Waters called seas (1:10).
7. “No more seas” (21:1).
8. A river for Earth’s blessing (2:10-14).
8. A river for the new Earth (22:1,2).
9. Man in God’s image (1:26).
9. Man headed by one in Satan’s image (13).
10. Entrance of sin (3).
10. Development and end of sin (21:22).
11. Curse pronounced (3:14,17).
11. “No more curse” (22:3).
12. Death entered (3:19).
12. “No more death” (21:4).
13. Cherubim, first mentioned in connection with man (3:24).
13. Cherubim, finally mentioned in connection with man (4:6).
14. Man driven out from Eden (3:24).
14. Man restored (22).
15. Tree of life guarded (3:24).
15. “Right to the Tree of Life” (22:14).
16. Sorrow and suffering enter (3:17).
16. No more sorrow (21:4).
17. Man’s religion, art and science, resorted to for enjoyment, apart from God (4).
17. Man’s religion, luxury, art and science, in their full glory, judged and destroyed by God (18).
18. Nimrod, a great rebel and King, and hidden Anti-God, the founder of Babylon (10:8,9).
18. The Beast, the great rebel, a King manifested Anti-God, the reviver of Babylon (13:18).
19. A flood from God to destroy an evil generation (6-9).
19. A flood from Satan to destroy an elect generation (12).
20. The Bow, the token of God’s covenant with the Earth (9:13,14,16).
20. The Bow, betokening God’s remembrance of His covenant with the Earth (4:3, 10:1).
21. Sodom and Egypt, the place of corruption and temptation (10:19).
21. Sodom and Egypt again: spiritually representing Jerusalem (11:8).
22. A confederacy against Abraham’s people overthrown (14).
22. A confederacy against Abraham’s seed overthrown (12).
23. Marriage of first Adam (2:18-23).
23. Marriage of last Adam (19).
24. A bride sought for Abraham’s son (Isaac) and found (24).
24. A bride made ready and brought to Abraham’s Son (19:9). See Matthew 1:1.
25. Two angels acting for God on behalf of His people (19).
25. Two witnesses acting for God on behalf of His people (11).
26. A promised seed to possess the gate of his enemies (22:17).
26. The promised seed coming into possession (11:18).
27. Man’s dominion ceased and Satan’s begun (3:24).
27. Satan’s dominion ended and Man’s restored (22).
28. The old serpent causing sin, suffering and death (3:1).
28. The old serpent bound for 1000 years (20:1-3).
29. The doom of the old serpent pronounced (3:15).
29. The doom on the old serpent executed (20:10).
30. Sun, Moon, and Stars, associated with Israel (37:9).
30. Sun, Moon, and Stars, associated again with Israel (12).
Courtesy of Grace School of the Bible
This chart copied from: http://www.shorewoodbiblechurch.org/
from: Saved by Grace com: Genesis and Revelation comparison chart
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
and in related charts
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Good basics for what you copied or posted after this. I simply cover this with more detail in three of the last chapters in my 16 chapter biblical teaching book.
Chapter Thirteen
When Will the Dead Be Made Alive Through Jesus Christ?
The first paragraphs of this chapter explain the original deception of the devil who is figuratively called the serpent. Here is the second paragraph with quoted scriptures after this paragraph and inside the paragraph, which I wrote.
Chapter Fifteen
End Times with the Judgement of Humanity Through Jesus Christ
Chapter 16
End Times Purification of Humanity Jesus Christ Reigning Supreme
Book with the title: Our Loving Savior Jesus Christ
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That’s an interesting thought, Mark!
And that makes me think of the tension, overlap and unknowns I find in several of my favorite subjects: philosophy , religious philosophy and philosophy of religion .
We know that the word philosophy is from Greek and means “love of wisdom”. In my opinion they all examine fundamental questions – but the big difference as I understand it is that “regular” philosophy relies on human knowledge – whereas when you add religion in the mix – one is also relying on or being strongly influenced by the help of God, some higher power, some absolute principle or adopted tenets – whatever – which always looms large in the background…there’s lots of variations depending on traditions, culture, shared values, sacred texts, etc., of the particular religion.
Some interesting hyperlinks on religions and sacred texts:
Quora – what relationship does philosophy have with religion?
Quora – why do religions have holy books?
Belief Net com: the Holy Books of world religions
World Atlas com: sacred texts of major world religions
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Following up on one point in my post above - eschatology or end times – I wanted to share something from a book by N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird on the history of the interpretation of the book of Revelation which
…reveals something of the open nature of the book…many have seen it as offering a timetable, a road map towards the ‘end times. From as early as the second century there have been a steady stream of ‘millennialist’ interpreters who saw the book as prophesying a concrete ‘new world’ very like the present one, only with evil, sin, and death banished…On the other hand, there have always been interpreters who have understood the book to be figurative, symbolic, and thus inviting allegorical interpretation…
…Four major approaches to the interpretation of the book of Revelation have emerged over the years…
First, there are preterist perspectives. These look for the specific fulfilment of the prophecies of the book in actual events that have now already happened…This view certainly appears to make Revelation relevant to the immediate circumstances of its earlier readers, but it appears to make it much less relevant to subsequent generations, including our own…
Second, there are historicist approaches. By this scholars have meant that Revelation was predicting the entire course of subsequent world history, including things like the rise of the Goths, the Arabs, the Mongols, the medieval papacy, Napoleon, Hitler, and the Soviet Union. This has the opposite problem to the preterist interpretation: instead of the book being relevant to early readers but to nobody else, these readings make it sporadically relevant from time to time in subsequent history while making it hard to see what its first readers were supposed to think of it…
Third, there are futurists perspectives. This is like the ‘historicist’ reading, with Revelation predicting long-range future events, except that the ‘history’ in question only begins in what, for us, is the ‘modern’ period. Revelation is thus seen as primarily predicting distant future events… and they treat …the visions of Revelation 6 – 19 as literal and linear series of events, complete with the ‘rapture’, the ‘tribulation’, and the ‘millennium that is to take place on the eve of the world’s end. The problem here is that interpreters fail to grasp the rhetorical and symbolic nature of apocalyptic discourse, and frequently display a highly parochial and provincial interpretative strategy, supposing that world history is all about themselves.
Fourth, there are idealist interpretations. These regard Revelation as a multilayered symbolic portrayal of the conflict taking place between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world in the time between the victory of Jesus on the cross and his final return. This generalized account leaves room for various kinds of allegorical and symbolic understandings of the theological, spiritual, and political realities of the whole period. What can be lost with this approach, however, is the sense of imminence. John insists that he is talking about things that will happen ‘soon’.
The best course seems to be an eclectic approach to the interpretation of Revelation. We must insist that the book would have been highly relevant to its first readers (who lived in a culture where this kind of book was much better known than it has been in the modern period)…
John the Seer’s apocalypse is designed to be highly affective, not just by stirring the emotions, but in challenging and reshaping the audience’s imagination. The book is designed to inspire its readers to reaffirm their allegiance to God and his Messiah, and in that light praise the faithful, shame the wicked, and steel the resolve of the churches to resist the monstrous and idolatrous Roman power. Joh intends to call out lukewarm faith and acculturation, and above all to urge his hearers to persevere in the faith despite suffering.
End of excerpts
From page 825ff of The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians by N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird
~ ~ ~ ~
The book of Revelation is one of my favorite books of the Bible – but I certainly don’t consider myself an expert on it – or an expert on end times or prophesy. Being a Bible study bug, I like to have an openminded approach – kind of like the eclectic approach Wright and Bird mentioned…most commentaries I’ve read will take primarily one of the four approaches mentioned above.
I’ve read commentaries using the futurist approach that imply nukes and other modern technology may be alluded to in Revelation…which – if there’s something to that – it makes me wonder how these images, ideas and situations were conveyed to the author. Was he taken up to another dimension – where time and space are irrelevant? Was he given a time-travel-trip to the future – and actually saw this stuff first hand? Did the Holy Spirit provide something along the lines of remote viewing ? I’m thinking it would have been like watching something in the far-off reaches of time and space. Was it fantastic and bizarre images presented in a vision? Like in Daniel 2 .
I tend to think like one of those worst-case scenario planners
- - now combine that mindset with studying the book of Revelation. 
Where am I going with this? Well…
Do you remember where you were when 9/11 happened? Do you remember any thoughts or first impressions when you heard the breaking news?
My wife and I were on vacation in a cabin at Big Sur, California – our kids were back home. There was no TV in our cabin – so we went to the main lodge for breakfast and when we walked in everyone was glued to the TV. At first I thought it was about some local heavy rains and landslides – I asked someone “what’s this?” and this guy turns around to me and says “they just took out the world trade center” . I think I was in shock – and somewhere in the mess of emotions and confusion I do remember thinking I must have missed some of the other prophetic signs – because this was obviously the beginning of the end.
North American civil aviation was shut down for two days after the attacks. Even though our return flight was a week away – I figured I was in no mood to get back on a plane any time soon – so we drove the rental car all the way back to Texas…funny how some beliefs get you to do some crazy things…About a couple of years later - in my saner moments – the thought would occur to me what if things continue like this for thousands and thousands of years.
by the way, this topic has been discussed before on Grease Spot Café - here .
I think a subtext of this thread might be taking note of the practical impact of doctrine and beliefs. That was the point in sharing about my reaction to 9/11...and also at the beginning of this thread, I noticed anti-Trinity rants tend to polarize and galvanize folks to take a side – and that sideshow trivialized the deeper discussion of the Trinity being an asset or a liability. Maybe things could have been diffused if we didn’t use the term “Trinity” - but went for something too prolix and discursive - like – “do you think it would help your faith to have a deeper understanding of how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit work together?”
Edited by T-BoneIf you’ve read this far – the end is near…very near…here it is…the end!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The Trinity – asset or liability?
In considering the typical methods of asset valuation as described by Corporate Finance Institute com: Asset Valuation I believe the cost method is the easiest way of asset valuation. It is done by basing the value on the historical price for which the asset was bought… In production, research, retail, and accounting, a cost is the value of money that has been used up to produce something or deliver a service, and hence is not available for use anymore. In business, the cost may be one of acquisition, in which case the amount of money expended to acquire it is counted as cost. In this case, money is the input that is gone in order to acquire the thing. ( Wiki - cost )
At first, I thought the idea behind this thread was silly and appeared to be a ploy to push a particular wierwille-doctrine. As I expressed in point # 6 in my first post on this thread - here the terms needed to be defined. I said An asset is something tangible or intangible and is a resource that is owned or controlled by an individual, a company, a government, or an economic entity for accounting purposes with an expectation to produce positive economic value and benefit in the future. A liability is a business’s financial or service-based debt or obligation payable to another individual or business entity at the end of an accounting period to settle past transactions or events.
the Trinity is certainly NOT something we own or control – but we can say we own it, in a certain sense – if we acknowledge or accept it – like when we take responsibility for making a certain choice, we say “I own that decision”.
What is the cost to acquire spiritual or divine illumination ? Thinking about my own experiences – I would say the cost is very pricey – I had to be honest in my sense of self-esteem…make some concessions regarding my self-importance…that came into play in acceptance of the faith (in my case even growing up in a Christian family – childlike faith comes naturally
) and it’s ongoing as I continue to grow in my faith.
I found an interesting article on illumination and how that is accomplished through the work of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as detailed in the gospel of John – and I hope you find the following excerpts stimulating:
Illumination has traditionally been discussed in two contexts: illumination in conversion and illumination of the Word of God. The first is the ‘aha!’ of coming to understand who Christ is, the second is the Spirit taking the words that fall upon our ears and applying them to our heart and mind.
One of the peculiarities of John’s Gospel is his tendency to tell long narratives of individual encounters with Christ. These narratives capture for us ‘Aha’ moments—moments of illumination when God makes sense in a way that transcended their ability to make sense of. And yet, they would never be the same again (i.e., woman at the well, the man born blind).
John’s Gospel is replete with references to Jesus as this agent of illumination: “In him was life, and that life was the light of men” (John 1:4). He was the light that “shines in the darkness” but is not overcome (1:5), He is the light which enlightens all humanity (John 1:9), and John the Baptist was witness to this light (1:8, 5:35). He is the light who has come into the world (3:19), indeed, the light of the world (8:12, 9:5) and it is in his light that we walk and do not stumble (11:9-10). Those who believe in this light become children of the light (12:36). Therefore, the very reason he came into the world was illumination (12:46).
But what did Christ illumine? Lights shines not only so that we may see it, but in order that by it, we may see something else. A hallmark of John’s Gospel is the unique language Jesus uses to speak of his own relationship to the father. Beyond any other Gospel, Jesus speaks intimately of the Son’s relationship to the Father, that he was sent by the Father so that in knowing and seeing him, they may know and see the Father also (Jn. 3:17, 34-36; 5:36-40; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36, 11:42, 17:3, 8, 18,21,23,25; 20:21).
Jesus speaks intimately of the Son’s relationship to the Father, that he was sent by the Father so that in knowing and seeing him, they may know and see the Father also.
The light that Christ shines is none other than the light of the Father who sent him (1 John 1:5). George Stevens writes, “What God has done in revelation and redemption it was according to his nature to do. If God has loved the world, it is because he is love. If God has enlightened the world, it is because he is light.” That is to say, God’s mission to illumine people is grounded in his nature as light.
This reveals two elements to John’s triune doctrine of illumination that reflect two categories of theological inquiry more generally: The immanent trinity and the economic trinity. Simply put, the immanent trinity speaks of God in himself (nature, essence, and attributes), the economic trinity speaks of God in his work toward the world.
All of God’s actions are rooted in God’s being. This is not a philosophical principle, but the conclusion to the argument over the correspondence between who God is, and what God does. “Light” as a concept is ambiguous, and as an aspect of God’s nature, seems undefinable. However, God’s nature as light pertains to God’s holiness and God’s glory.
God’s nature as light means God is wholly separate from darkness and so his light is the radiance of his holiness. Likewise, glory is the brilliance of his own perfections. Glory is an inherently self-communicating attribute. It shines in itself with a light all its own. Therefore, the mutual glorification of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (John 8:54, 14:13, 16:14) in the immanent trinity is each of the persons of the trinity putting on display the glory of the others. It is this kind of illuminating communication that the Gospel of John displays in the economic trinity…
…It is no coincidence that it is at this point that John introduces us to the paraclete. Not only is Jesus nearing the end of his ministry, but his disciples are nearing the entrance into a new reality. Jesus commissions the new chapter of the divine mission in the world. In this chapter the light of the World gives his Spirit to the disciples so that they may now go and be the light of the World themselves (Matt. 5).
John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:12-15, the most commonly cited Johannine passages in doctrinal constructions of illumination, articulates how the disciples will go on to participate in Christ’s work in the world as the Spirit of God makes it possible. The Spirit will speak and teach about the Son, The Spirit will glorify him and remind them of all that he said. The Spirit will guide them into truth and pass on what the Son has heard from the Father. As Karl Barth puts it, in all of this, Jesus “gives us his Holy Spirit in order that His own relationship to His Father may be repeated in us” …
…In the wake of his work he leaves a people who live by the power of his Spirit’s illumination. For this reason, we conclude that triune Illumination is participation in the Son’s knowledge of the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit.
~ ~ ~ ~
End of excerpts
From: Credo Magazine: The Trinitarian Doctrine of Illumination in John
Edited by T-BoneDefinition of an entire country of enlightened citizens – Illumi-Nation …I’m here all millennia, folks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Analyzing some of wierwille’s nonsense in Jesus Christ Is Not God
In the book Jesus Christ Is Not God, wierwille makes several dubious statements on pages 72 to 74:
Adam is the head of all the races of men on earth, and Jesus had to be of the line of Adam in order to fulfill the law. God, to produce a sinless man yet one who was of the line of Adam, had to provide a way whereby Jesus would have a human body derived from Adam and yet not have soul-life from Adam’s sinful blood…
[the above last sentence has footnote #9 on the bottom of page 73 and reads: 9. God created the sperm that impregnated the ovum (egg) of Mary in the Fallopian tube. This created sperm carried only dominant characteristics and did what ordinarily any sperm would do to an impregnated ovum…]
…If Jesus Christ had had the same source of soul-life as other men, he could not have legally redeemed man for he would not have been a perfect sacrifice. Similarly if Jesus Christ had been God, he would not have legally redeemed man for he could not have wilfully [sic] chosen to do so.
If God did not care to act within legal boundaries, He could have rectified the situation immediately after Adam and Eve’s fall. But, had God done this, he would not have been all good and all perfect.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
The fallacies and pseudoscientific speculations of wierwille in the above quote are problematic.
1. “Adam is the head of all the races of men on earth, and Jesus had to be of the line of Adam in order to fulfill the law”…I disagree - first off, wierwille makes it sound like even God Almighty the creator of the cosmos must submit to some law in order to redeem man.
What are laws? They are a system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties. If the governing body is fair and upfront these laws are usually made public so everyone is informed of the rules and hopefully will comply. What laws were in effect in the account of Adam and Eve? I am only aware of one prohibition:
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Genesis 2:15-17 NIV
This is a clear statement of a law and the penalty for violators. There is no hint at a plan for redemption. But if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, loving and wise we assume there must be a plan of action for saving human beings from sin, error, or evil. One of the problems I have with wierwille’s redemption theory is that he makes it sound like God is subject to our concept of laws.
But I believe God Almighty does not fit inside anyone’s theological or legal box – and concerning redemption I touched on this earlier in my July 31st post - here - quoting from Frame’s Systematic Theology:
…God could have remedied the fall in an instant, sending his Son in an accelerated time frame, bringing him to death, resurrection, ascension, and triumphal return in a matter of seconds. Or he might have accomplished this work in a matter of decades, allowing for a somewhat more normal kind of historical development. But instead, he determined a process spread over millennia. He spent centuries narrowing the messianic line to a chosen family, bringing then into the Land of Promise, ordaining the birth of his Son in the “fullness of time” (Gal.4:4), accomplishing redemption in thirty-three more years, and sending his disciples on a journey of several thousand years at least to bring this good news to all the nations.
Why he chose to stretch out the drama of salvation over so long a time is a mystery. The length of this time is related to other mysteries of Scripture, such as the problem of evil…If God had determined to complete his purposes in an instant, and the sting of pain and suffering would be much less if God were to abbreviate his story to a few decades. But God’s decision is clear: that the history of redemption will take millennia, leaving space for dramatic movements, ups and downs, twists and turns, longings and astonishments. Salvation is to be a great epic, not a short story. God will glorify himself, not by measuring his kingdom in time spans appropriate to human kings, but by revealing himself as “King of the ages” (Rev. 15:3 NIV).
End of excerpts
From: page 87 & 88 of Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief by John M. Frame
~ ~ ~ ~
2. “God, to produce a sinless man yet one who was of the line of Adam, had to provide a way whereby Jesus would have a human body derived from Adam and yet not have soul-life from Adam’s sinful blood… footnote #9 God created the sperm that impregnated the ovum (egg) of Mary in the Fallopian tube. This created sperm carried only dominant characteristics and did what ordinarily any sperm would do to an impregnated ovum”… Oh really? Where does it say in the Bible that God created the sperm that impregnated the ovum of Mary? Did wierwille obtain genetic material from Adam, Mary, and Jesus Christ to compare the genomes of all three individuals? wierwille throws this pseudoscientific stuff around like it’s all facts – but it’s based on nothing more then his shoehorn bias.
It's like any other wierwille mumbo jumbo. He would say God who is spirit can only speak to what He is, which is spirit – oh yeah? Who says? Other than wierwille saying that – where does it say that in the Bible? Maybe he forgot about passages like Genesis 3:8-19 and Numbers 22:21-30 .
In my opinion, wierwille’s speculations are indicative of his Gnostic tendencies – in reflecting the same idea of a huge seemingly unbridgeable gap between spirit and matter AND the assumption of having a special knowledge…being a know-it-all wierwille thought he could explain everything…I remember from one Advanced Class session wierwille offering a scientific explanation for how the Great Principle works (“God who is spirit teaches His creation in you…”etc.), by saying in a very excited tone something like “the neuroglia cells of the brain respond to the direct application of energy – that’s revelation, Baby!” If you’re familiar with E=mc2 you know that energy and matter are really the same thing. Completely interchangeable. Also see The Universe Today: How are Energy and Matter the Same?
According to wierwille-doctrine spirit is beyond the five senses - and yet – here we see him commingling everything. That was his specialty – by using his signature intuition he could blend Gnosticism’s paradigm of disconnecting the material world from the spiritual world and yet pontificate over demonology / spiritualism pretending to explain the “mechanics” of EXACTLY HOW stuff works in the spiritual realm…Herein is another problematic hermeneutic of fundamentalism – a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture while holding to a literal AND inerrant interpretation of Scripture – the result is impractical and NOT even possible…well…if you’re a diehard-wierwille-fan it probably doesn’t bother you that with wierwille being in the driver’s seat of interpreting the Bible for you and his popping the clutch by using his signature intuition like a manual transmission to abruptly reengage fundamentalism, spiritualism and Gnosticism – for whatever best suits his agenda. If his shifting does bother you – it might be because you’ve got your eyes on the road (what the Bible actually reads) instead of your eyes and trust placed upon wierwille.
~ ~ ~ ~
3. “…If Jesus Christ had had the same source of soul-life as other men, he could not have legally redeemed man for he would not have been a perfect sacrifice...” I beg to differ with wierwille. “…the same source of soul-life as other men…” is such a nebulous phrase! According to John 1:14 NET Jesus Christ was totally unique:
Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory--the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.
In the Greek text of John 1:14 “the one and only” is - μονογενοῦς - monogenous could be translated as one of a kind ! I won’t even attempt to speculate the commingling of the divine and the human – since that would involve guesswork regarding divine attributes – but if anything Jesus Christ might be considered a hybrid - the offspring of two different species…and in light of my argument in point #1, there was no legal requirement for God to redeem man this way…rather it seems like the most relevant way for God to compensate for the poor past performance of human beings.
You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. Matthew 5:38 NLT
As Ellicott’s Commentary of Matthew 5:38, 39 points out in remembering that our Lord Himself, when smitten by the servant of the high priest, protested, though He did not resist (John 18:22-23), and that St. Paul, under like outrage, was vehement in his rebuke (Acts 23:3); and (2) in the fact that the whole context shows that the Sermon on the Mount is not a code of laws, but the assertion of principles. And the principle in this matter is clearly and simply this, that the disciple of Christ, when he has suffered wrong, is to eliminate altogether from his motives the natural desire to retaliate or accuse…And I think it might be simply a matter of principle – like an eye for an eye – a life for a life - a sacrifice – a surrender of something of equal value as a means of gaining something desirable or of preventing some evil. Ideas like sacrifice, sin offering, and redemption are conveyed through symbols used in the cultures/languages of the Bible.
Language can be thought of as a system of communication that uses symbols to convey deep meaning. Symbols can be words, images, body language, sounds, etc. Language is symbolic in more ways than can be summarized in a sentence or paragraph, but generally we are talking about how symbols can stand for something else, how they can be used to communicate, and how they can be imbued with meaning. For a simple example of symbolic language: the word cat is symbolic of the idea of a cat, a dollar is a symbol of $1 of economic value, the word yes or a nod is a symbol of confirmation, a grimace is a symbol of disapproval, and a smiley face emoji is a symbol of happiness .
From: Language is a System of Communication that Uses Symbolism
Humans, consciously and subconsciously, are always striving to make sense of their surrounding world. Symbols—such as gestures, signs, objects, signals, and words—help people understand that world. They provide clues to understanding experiences by conveying recognizable meanings that are shared by societies.
The world is filled with symbols. Sports uniforms, company logos, and traffic signs are symbols. In some cultures, a gold ring is a symbol of marriage. Some symbols are highly functional; stop signs, for instance, provide useful instruction. As physical objects, they belong to material culture, but because they function as symbols, they also convey non-material cultural meanings. Some symbols are valuable only in what they represent. Trophies, blue ribbons, or gold medals, for example, serve no other purpose than to represent accomplishments. But many objects have both material and non-material symbolic value.
From: Intro to sociology – symbols and language
Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.
3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. Hebrews 8:1-6 NIV
Ellicott’s commentary of Hebrews 8:5 speaks to ideas expressed through symbols, images, metaphors, allegories and such:
“Copy,” not in the sense of perfect resemblance, but rather a token suggesting and designed to suggest the original. (See Note on Hebrews 9:23, where the same word is used.) “Shadow,” as the shadow has no substance or independent existence, but represents only the outline of an object. (Comp. Hebrews 10:1, where “shadow” is contrasted with “the very image”; and Colossians 2:17, where it is opposed to “the body.”) We must not confound these words, “token” and “shadow,” with “the pattern” mentioned in Exodus 25:40, quoted later in this verse. The “heavenly things” are “the sanctuary” and “the tabernacle “of Hebrews 8:2, the realities to which the true earthly tabernacle corresponded; their nature can be understood only when Christ has come as High Priest of the good things to come. (See Hebrews 9:11; Hebrews 10:1.) That every part of God’s earthly house might be a fitting emblem of spiritual truth to be afterwards revealed. Moses was charged in all respects to follow the pattern which had been shown him in the mount (Exodus 25:40). Jewish tradition understood these words to imply the presentation of a heavenly tabernacle to the sight of Moses, as a model to be imitated with exactness; and Stephen’s words in Acts 7:44, “according to the pattern” (the same word is here used) “which he had seen,” convey the same meaning.
From: Bible Hub: Hebrews 8:5 commentaries
The sacrificial laws of the Old Testament were meant to foretell of the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. wierwille seems to suggest that Jesus Christ had to meet some legal requirement to redeem humankind. I think that is rather presumptuous of wierwille to dictate how God is to accomplish something.
~ ~ ~ ~
4. “Similarly if Jesus Christ had been God, he would not have legally redeemed man for he could not have wilfully [sic] chosen to do so…” Does God have freedom of will?
Human beings have some measure of free will. But God’s volition is truly free. What would compel God to lie or sin? If God is all-loving, righteous and everything about His intrinsic nature is perfect – then external influences have no hold on Him. It is my contention that both God as well as Jesus Christ willfully choose to take certain actions.
Clark H. Pinnock (February 3, 1937 – August 15, 2010) was a Christian theologian, apologist, author, and Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at McMaster Divinity College – and he was a proponent of open theism which states In short, open theism says that since God and humans are free, God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. While several versions of traditional theism picture God's knowledge of the future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming settled as time moves forward.
In Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology 7th Edition Pinnock says on pages 31 & 32 concerning the immutability of God:
The Trinity is unchangeably what it is from everlasting to everlasting – and nothing can change that. Furthermore, we can always rely on God to be faithful to his promises; he is not in any way fickle or capricious…
…But the tradition has taken immutability far in the direction of immobility and inertness…They have equated the biblical idea of faithfulness with the Greek idea that requires any changes related to God to occur only on the human side. This is the error that tempted some of the early theologians to explain the incarnation without admitting that God changed, and to explain away dozens of biblical references to God’s repenting and changing.
This is a mistake from a biblical standpoint. The God of the Bible is a God of action, not inaction. God is immutable in essence and in his trustworthiness over time., but in other respects God changes. For example, God changes in his response to events in history. The Bible states that when God saw the extent of human wickedness on the earth, he was sorry that he had made humankind (Gen. 6:5)…
…God’s immutability does not rule out God’s responsiveness, the quality that enables God to deal with every new happening and to bend it toward his objectives without violating its integrity…
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
DVD bonus features:
Hey Grease Spotters, check out these other interesting discussions on the Trinity
Honest discussion of the Trinity
with Apologies to Jesus and the Trinity
The Trinity - April 2016 thread
Doctrine of the Trinity
The Trinity Glue
The Trinity – August 2008 thread
Why is the Trinity such a big deal?
born again with/without the Trinity
The Trinity has met its match
Edited by T-BoneI have the unfortunate job of editing myself…I and myself are one! He that has seen me has seen T-Bone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Soul-life is from blood? Didn't vic "teach" in PFAL that soul-life came from God breathing it into Adam? So, soul-life begins when a baby takes its first breath, not before. This logic provided the cop out vic needed to force those girls to abort his babies. Right?
The babies weren't breathing in the womb, hence, no soul-life = abortion of victor's rape babies were A-OK because a fetus doesn't have a soul-life.
Maybe I'm misremembering. All the bull$hit gets confusing. I'm probably trying to fit the left-handed glove on the right hand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah – wierwille’s bull$hit does get confusing – and here you’ve pointed out his typical pseudoscience gibberish – life is in the blood - or is it soul life is breath life? What’s worse than a fundamentalist using the Bible like a technical manual? A con artist who uses the Bible to steal people’s money, time, energy, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.