 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1766
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
TwoPutt,
| TwoPutt wrote: | | No I do not see any supposed contradiction on my part. |
That is why speaking to you is a vain pursuit.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 842
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Well, this causes a huge divide between what you and I believe and essentially affects the rest of the argument. |
I've asked you not to trip over the term fallen angel or rebel angel. I've also indicated that though we may not know exactly who and/or what the Genesis 6 sons-of-God are, or from whence they came, what we do know is they are not mere men. Given that there is no other term, 'angel' seems to work, though I do not think it is the sort of angel that comes to mind when one thinks of heavenly angels. I refer to Jude 1:6.....And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day......a Scripture which is made null and void in your view.
Hey, btw, I'm not sure you read my last post. We posted at pretty much the same time.
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Take a closer look at the context and see the style of writing of that Psalm. Your extrapolating based on an assumption that "sons of God" equals angels here when it is not in the context. |
Can you walk me through it line by line....every line?
| TwoPutt wrote: | | I always get that answer but then when confronting those who give heed to enochic fables say there is a bit of truth in the Book of Enoch. |
P = I x E....an algebraic formula that is true, but not found in Scripture. And though the formula is true, I don't believe it to be inspired. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi TBax,
| TBax wrote: | TwoPutt,
| TwoPutt wrote: | | No I do not see any supposed contradiction on my part. |
That is why speaking to you is a vain pursuit. |
It's only vain if you can't establish your position but instead attack mine or even me personally.
You still haven't addressed my point that the text in Gen 6 actually comes short of making the connection your are presenting.
God bless,
2p |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dust,
| Dust wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | Well, this causes a huge divide between what you and I believe and essentially affects the rest of the argument. |
I've asked you not to trip over the term fallen angel or rebel angel. I've also indicated that though we may not know exactly who and/or what the Genesis 6 sons-of-God are, or from whence they came, what we do know is they are not mere men. Given that there is no other term, 'angel' seems to work, though I do not think it is the sort of angel that comes to mind when one thinks of heavenly angels. I refer to Jude 1:6.....And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day......a Scripture which is made null and void in your view. |
Sorry Dust, there is nothing in the passage that indicates the sons of God were or were not mere men. Point is the passage is somewhat obscure. However, we read where Jesus says angels can't marry (Mt 22:30) and also says they cannot die, thus cannot sin (comp. Lk 20:36). Jesus actually defines the sons of God being those of the resurrection, confining it to overcomers. Paul also uses the term for faithful men and women in Christ Jesus. The use of sons of God in Genesis may very well be descriptive of character in the same sense as Paul uses it, but to use it the way the book of Job does (allegorically) is more difficult to establish. My position is always to go with the simple explanation where available, and Jesus makes this whole enochic scenario very easy to understand.
This also addresses your interpretation of both Jude and Peter's use of the book of Enoch within the context of their letters.
And, I haven't nullified Jude. I've repeatedly stated I believe it inspired. My understanding of Jude's context is vastly different from yours, that is all.
| Dust wrote: | | Hey, btw, I'm not sure you read my last post. We posted at pretty much the same time. |
Are you referring to Saturday around 4:37/8? You were responding to TBax and I to you if I'm correct.
| Dust wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | Take a closer look at the context and see the style of writing of that Psalm. Your extrapolating based on an assumption that "sons of God" equals angels here when it is not in the context. |
Can you walk me through it line by line....every line? |
Actually, I'd like to see you actually link angels to this text. I don't need a line by line explanation; just a overview.
| Dust wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | I always get that answer but then when confronting those who give heed to enochic fables say there is a bit of truth in the Book of Enoch. |
P = I x E....an algebraic formula that is true, but not found in Scripture. And though the formula is true, I don't believe it to be inspired. |
That's a red herring.
The truth of the matter is that some are willing to accept a few selective exerpts from a verifiable pseudepigraphal piece of literature in order to fill in "gaps" in the Bible. However, if we just see the context of the letters of Peter and Jude and understand the audience who they were addressing (remember, the epistles are largely reactionary in context), then we can apply the most appropriate interpretation to the passages.
God bless,
2P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 842
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Actually, I'd like to see you actually link angels to this text. |
I already have.
But hey, look, perhaps there are some other understandings which need to be garned before proceeding any futher on this subject. You should just put this up on a shelf, in your mind, for possible future consideration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dust,
| Dust wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | Actually, I'd like to see you actually link angels to this text. |
I already have. |
Not really. The reference to John 10 and Jesus' saying "your law" as an explanation of Jewish midrashes is bogus since Jesus goes on to say (as a parenthetical, such as I'm using now  ) that this same law cannot be broken, being the scriptures.
...If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken)...
Jn 10:35
| Dust wrote: | | But hey, look, perhaps there are some other understandings which need to be garned before proceeding any futher on this subject. You should just put this up on a shelf, in your mind, for possible future consideration. |
Okay. How about the rest of my last post? Any further thoughts?
God bless,
2P
Edit: Added a thought regarding John 10:35. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 842
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Howdy TwoPutt,
| TwoPutt wrote: | | if we just see the context of the letters of Peter and Jude and understand the audience who they were addressing (remember, the epistles are largely reactionary in context), then we can apply the most appropriate interpretation to the passages. |
Hey this is all fine and good, but how do we actually apply it? Is it in a way to prove out some preconceived goal, or to validate some particular teaching? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | Howdy TwoPutt, |
Howdy back at ya!
| Dust wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | if we just see the context of the letters of Peter and Jude and understand the audience who they were addressing (remember, the epistles are largely reactionary in context), then we can apply the most appropriate interpretation to the passages. |
Hey this is all fine and good, but how do we actually apply it? |
Well, that's simple Dust. Like I said (typed), just go with the context.
| Dust wrote: | | Is it in a way to prove out some preconceived goal, or to validate some particular teaching? |
Well, I'm a big proponent of the "two or three witnesses" approach. So, bearing that in mind we must ask ourselves where else in the Bible is it clearly spelled out that the events in Genesis 6 are what is being put forth by Peter and Jude, i.e. angels leaving their proper place and mingling with human women? The obscure references presented so far are just that...obscure. If we take a look at the book of Enoch what we have presented is a very detailed series of events from which Peter and Jude both obviously draw upon. So, what now? Do we give inspiration (partial or otherwise) status to the book of Enoch? I am certainly not willing to do that. There then must be another way to reconcile the use of the book of Enoch by Peter and Jude.
God bless,
2P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 842
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TwoPutt,
Don't jump on the two or three witnesses deal. I have two or three witnesses. Tbax has two or three witnesses. The Mormons have two or three witnesses. You're misapplying the concept.
Let me be frank. You are being led! Plain and simple!
Throw the book of Enoch out....you dont have to keep looking at it. I didn't!
There is not much that can be trusted in this world. The bible tells us...that supernatural forces are trying to deceive us....and here we are in darkness, trying to see things clearly...come on...STAY ON YOUR TOES MAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dust,
| Dust wrote: | TwoPutt,
Don't jump on the two or three witnesses deal. I have two or three witnesses. Tbax has two or three witnesses. The Mormons have two or three witnesses. You're misapplying the concept. |
The idea is that the two or three witnesses actually agree Dust.
| Dust wrote: |
Let me be frank. You are being led! Plain and simple! |
Hmm, okay Frank. I guess you have me figured out.
| Dust wrote: | | Throw the book of Enoch out....you dont have to keep looking at it. I didn't! |
I have thrown the book of Enoch out. I think the problem is you aren't reading what I'm putting forth here. Neither did TBax, that is why he grew so frustrated and rude in his dealing with me.
Shall I pull the relevant passages out from the book of Enoch that are illustrated in Jude and Peter? I have a feeling you'll decline the offer, but before you do just give it a little thought. My point is not that Enoch is inspired; I believe it to be complete fiction. What I'm putting forth is that for those who hold to Gen 6 and rebel angels, they are holding up fiction as truth. Why then do Peter and Jude clearly reference Enoch??
| Dust wrote: | | There is not much that can be trusted in this world. The bible tells us...that supernatural forces are trying to deceive us....and here we are in darkness, trying to see things clearly...come on...STAY ON YOUR TOES MAN! |
The only forces trying to deceive us is the flesh. Test out that theory. I'm a monotheist in the very strictess sense. I don't believe in any other type of less or greater god-like entities (demons, devils, rebel angels) nor do I believe the Bible teaches it as anything more than our flesh deceiving us. The first time sin is specificially addressed in the Bible it is characterized as something akin to being alive with a purpose to rule over us...
"If you do well, will you not be accepted: And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it." Gen 4:7
Sin is basically personified. It has purpose, it has desire. Follow this idea out and it becomes apparent it is our own flesh that causes us to sin. By the time we get to the New Testament sin has become the Devil and Satan; personified and given enochic attributes, linking it to rebel angels. This is all verifiable.
However, it is still our flesh. We must still rule over it. It is sneaky though, which is why we are warned to not deceive ourselves. How does one possibly deceive oneself? Gen 4:7 gives us insight.
So, back to Jude and Peter. They used ficticious literature well-known (and believed by many -- again, the Enochic movement among Jews of the time is verifiable) within a larger picture of warning against false teachers. If I draw from Moby Dick, using the example of Ahab and how his vengeance in killing the whale consumed his life to make a larger point about vengeance belonging to God alone, does that automatically make Moby Dick inspired (obviously I'm not inspired, but I hope you get my point)? Of course not.
One other thing; it is apparent that while Jude and Peter quote Enoch to make their point, they also effectively show the error of Enoch and those ascribing to Enochic fables: Jesus did the same in Luke 20:36. Again, there is a deeper meaning to Jude and Peter's uses of Enoch than a simple surface reading. But, that means we have to approach the scriptures as literature in some respects and that immediately turns some away: As though the idea of the Bible as literature in any respect is blasphemous. You know, the thing is the Bible is largely literature. Not fiction, but literature....and inspired.
God bless,
2P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1766
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TwoPutt wrote: | | I have thrown the book of Enoch out. |
THEN
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Shall I pull the relevant passages out from the book of Enoch |
Way to "throw it out", buddy. 
I suppose you cannot see that contradiction either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi TBax,
| TBax wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | I have thrown the book of Enoch out. |
THEN
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Shall I pull the relevant passages out from the book of Enoch |
Way to "throw it out", buddy.
I suppose you cannot see that contradiction either. |
Still gunning for me, huh?
I have to admit I'm bored with you slandering me....really. You completely ignore the context of my postings and pull out a snippet here and a sentence there, say I am contradicting myself, then ridicule me.
Then again, you seem to ignore the context of the Bible as well by doing the same thing.
Here's a test for ya....
1 Chronicles 21:1 -- "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel..."
2 Samuel 24:1 -- "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah."
Is that a contradiction as well, TBax?? Or, is there something to the context that shows that the apparent contradiction really isn't a contradiction at all??
If you want to discuss scripture, then let's do it. If all you are going to do is be rude, do me a favor and keep it to yourself.
God bless you,
2P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1766
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poor victim TwoPutt, 
How can I be so hard on you, pointing out a contradiction.  How brave of you to carry on through such impossible conditions. 
Pointing out your errors is slander? Oh. Looks like we need to rewrite the dictionary now.
If all you are going to bring up is nonsence, do me a favor and keep it to yourself.
Did you actually see your contradiction this time, or are you still blind to your errors??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi TBax,
| TBax wrote: | Poor victim TwoPutt,
How can I be so hard on you, pointing out a contradiction. How brave of you to carry on through such impossible conditions. |
Hm, I guess this passes for Christ-like behavior in your circles? Yea for the Jehovah's Witnesses...they certainly are fortunate to have you.
| TBax wrote: | | Pointing out your errors is slander? Oh. Looks like we need to rewrite the dictionary now. |
Re-read my post TBax. Misquoting me is the slander. You really do have a mean spirit about you, don't ya? It's easy to be all sweet and "Christian" when people agree with you, but when someone comes along that doesn't, you go all Mr. Hyde on them. Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same?
Pity.
| TBax wrote: | If all you are going to bring up is nonsence, do me a favor and keep it to yourself.
Did you actually see your contradiction this time, or are you still blind to your errors??? |
You haven't addressed my post yet. Just more ridicule. Not very surprising however.
God bless ya,
2P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MoJo
Moderator
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 3148
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tbax and TwoPutt; I would ask you to stop provoking this disagreement with each other. If one or both of you you have nothing enlightening to say **on the topic,** then don't say it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
