Originally posted by sumydidAnd I would expect better of you than to suggest that that is what I suggested! What I pointed at is an example. It was also an opportunity to be better. But you're right, it's probably best to neither forgive nor attempt to start afresh.
bbarr,
(by the way, are you the congressman from georgia I wonder)
I completely understand that there are times when RC is pounced upon but it goes beyond this thread. I would expect better of you than for you to suggest that this thread would be the tell-all for who hurled what insult first.
When there is a long history involved and it becomes a c ...[text shortened]... llied" or not, will quickly draw a crowd in opposition.
It's fairly rudimentary, really.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrtouché I guess. you presume I implied such. And I clearly didn't.
And I would expect better of you than to suggest that that is what I suggested! What I pointed at is an example. It was also an opportunity to be better. But you're right, it's probably best to neither forgive nor attempt to start afresh.
The others and their relationship with this apple of your eye is a concern for me, only to the degree that he abuses those whom I care for.
I washed my hands of him when he said that he believes Christ is Apollyon. That's blasphemy in the highest order. Not something I can overlook.
Do I forgive him? Sure!
Do I want anything to do with him? No.
See the difference, congressman?
Originally posted by sumydidYou're begging the question, since it's the identity of Apollyon that's at issue. It's only blasphemy if he's wrong, and even then it would be unintentional. But, of course, you might as well overlook this obvious point and level accusations of blasphemy. That's probably a constructive way to engage with another Christian.
touché I guess. you presume I implied such. And I clearly didn't.
The others and their relationship with this apple of your eye is a concern for me, only to the degree that he abuses those whom I care for.
I washed my hands of him when he said that he believes Christ is Apollyon. That's blasphemy in the highest order. Not something I can overlook. ...[text shortened]... ive him? Sure!
Do I want anything to do with him? No.
See the difference, congressman?
The name michael has been translated "who is like God" The Talmudic tradition is that it is translated as a question "who is like God?" that begs an answer, the only answer...no one. Therefore interpreting Michael to be Christ because his name is "who is like God" is predicated on the erroneous supposition that any being is like God. There this only one God, and his name is Yeshua, the I AM, the Savior; hence Michael cannot be Yeshua. His name represents humilty before God, not a "co-Godship"
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrIt came about that robbie had asked stoker if he had a reference to
Or perhaps he feels bullied. Frankly, I find it unsettling how quickly vicious many Christians here get in conversations about theology. You're all brothers and sisters, right? I would never talk to my family that way. RC and I were having a perfectly cordial and reasonable discussion earlier. Go back and read the beginning of this thread. Where do the insults begin, and who issues them? Here's a hint: They don't start with Robbie.
more than one archangel and stoker referred him to my previous
post on a wikipedia article that named 7 archangels. Then I posted
to stoker that robbie would not ask me because he did not want to
know the truth. I suppose this is what you consider the first insult
hurled on this thread.
In a follow-up post I quoted from the Book of Enoch concerning another
archangel. And robbie replied with the following insult to me:
"no there is one archangel mention in scripture, his name is Micheal, there
rest are merely angels, you are lying, AGAIN. I an uninterested in your extra
biblical claims i am interested in what is in the Bible not what is not."
Notice that he says I was lying, AGAIN. This is because anything that seems
to disagree with his Watchtower dogma is a lie. Notice also that he assumes
that there is only one archangel because Michael is the only one of the two
named angels that is called an archangel in what the the Watchtower Society
recognizes as scripture. So with that logic only two angels have names and
all others angels have no names. By his logic Gabriel is the only other
angel to have been given a name.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsyou were lying at worst, mistaken at best, there is only one archangel mentioned in
It came about that robbie had asked stoker if he had a reference to
more than one archangel and stoker referred him to my previous
post on a wikipedia article that named 7 archangels. Then I posted
to stoker that robbie would not ask me because he did not want to
know the truth. I suppose this is what you consider the first insult
hurled on this threa gels have no names. By his logic Gabriel is the only other
angel to have been given a name.
scripture, you introduced extra biblical sources and apocrypha in an effort to
support your erroneous assertion, if that is not devious or at the very least clutching
at straws then what it is? I have stated it once and I will state it again, the atheists,
agnostics which frequent this forum are far more reasonable, far more learned and
far more willing to listen to other points that those who profess to be Christians and I
share some empathy with them for like me, they are subject to the most
outrageous and unfounded prejudices, based not on knowledge but ignorance. As
soon as it was learned that I professed that the angel of the abyss, Apollyon was
the Christ, divesgeester practically called me a devil worshipper, disgusting,
professing another Christ, summydid excommunicated me on the spot, under the
guise that i was either rude or intolerant,. Jaywill refused to acknowledge the point
and blathered on about my personal salvation producing reams upon ream of the
most unfounded and unsubstantiated personal opinion masquerading as truth that i
think i had the misfortune to read, you kicked me from your buddy list and are still
drivelling on about the watchtower this and the watchtower that when i dont think at
any point i mentioned it. Suzzianne likewise chastised me without making any
reference to the point that i had made in typical and capricious manner and Rajk
also continued the charade with more personal attacks upon my character without
making any reference to the text other than the usual JW's are crazy etc etc
That is all fine, it amounts to one thing, you could not assail the simple logic of the
texts provided , were proven wrong, as if the antichrist, Satan or a demonic element
was actually responsible for abyssing Satan himself for a thousand years and have
as yet not even remotely addressed the texts which either myself, bbar or galveston
provided as the basis for our reasoning but prefer to continue in this pathetic
manner.
It is actually pointless futile and a complete waste of time discussing anything
spiritual with nominal Christians, either you are damned for not accepting the
premise that Christ is God Almighty incarnate (of which i have yet to read in
scripture despite having assiduously studied them almost daily for 15 years) or you
are a devil worshipping anti Christ for not accepting this one dimensional dogmatic
approach. 'Who are you to judge the house servant of another', Paul asks, 'to his
own God he stands or falls', not to yours.
2 edits
Reagrdless of how many angels are named and who their names are, the rhetorical question of Hebrews 1:5 is obviously a negative.
To NO angel was it ever said, "You are My Son; this day I have begotten You"
Combing through either the Bible or the Apocrapha for angel names is a moot point.
( I have not bothered to read anyone's reasoning here yet, why I should be forced to provide the name of an angel to answer Hebrews 1:5 in the affirmative).
5 edits
Originally posted by Suzianne
The "title" is something I came up with myself, to describe his role before he turns, halfway through the Tribulation, and proclaims himself to be God, requiring everyone to worship him.
The rest of what you said I take as a given. I was only asking what exact moment and reason there is, when he turns to a malevolent figure, instead of his previous sham the restraining power is removed, and wanted to know what you thought of that idea.
The "title" is something I came up with myself, to describe his role before he turns, halfway through the Tribulation, and proclaims himself to be God, requiring everyone to worship him.
I have not studied about the Antichrist as Daniel relates it in a long time. So I was a little hesitant to get into it.
How he will act in the first half of this 7 year period is obscure to me at the moment.
The rest of what you said I take as a given. I was only asking what exact moment and reason there is, when he turns to a malevolent figure, instead of his previous sham of a benevolent figure? Remember, I'm pretty educated on the timeline of events of Revelation. This ain't my first time at this rodeo.
I do not like Hal Lindsey's book "The Late Great Planet Earth". I am pretty sure it contains some very misleading and mistaken teachings. But when I first read it in the 70s I liked it more. And there are some useful things in Hal Kindsey's book. I believe that I received some better teaching since then.
Have you ever read "Come Lord Jesus" by Watchman Nee or "Rapture" by D M Panton ?
Have you ever looked at The Life Study of Revelation by Witness Lee ?
Here is a sample link in which you can navigate your way around and look up subject matter you are interested in.
http://www.livingstreambooks.com/servlet/Page?template=ls-rev-51
You think it's after his "grievous head wound"? This does make sense. I'm wondering also when it occurs as a part of the timeline of other events, though, such as when Satan falls to earth, and when this "restraining" power is removed.
Satan is driven down because of the early rapture of some overcoming believers.
It is the progress of the saints which triggers the start of the great tribulation. I find few Christian who realize this.
The timing of Satan's being driven from his activity of accusing God's saints before God in heaven, happens in connection with the killing and resuscitation of the man who becomes the Antichrist.
The summoning up of the spirit of Nero must happen in conjunction with the man being killed and resuscitated - the mortal wound is healed. The world will marvel at this counterfeit resurrection by the power of Satan.
Can you imagine what competition that will present to the long held belief that Christ the Son of God was the risen Lord ?
The pull of the deception will be too strong for too many in the world to resist.
I'm almost sure that the "restraining" power is probably the Holy Spirit. It also makes sense that he will not be allowed to fully step into his role as AntiChrist until the restraining power is removed, and wanted to know what you thought of that idea.
I am not sure about this part. There are some pretty strong indications that no saints of God could survive the Great Tribulation without the aid of the Holy Spirit (Revelation 14:13)
At this time I am uncommitted about who or what that restraining force is that Paul spoke of. I may revisit that subject in the near future since we are discussing it.
3 edits
Originally posted by Suzianne
For your information, PK, it is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that starts all Christians on their way after they accept Christ's gift and ask Him to enter their lives and take His rightful place as their Savior.
I see no reason why the Holy Spirit would not continue to guide Christians in their faith.
For your information, PK, it is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that starts all Christians on their way after they accept Christ's gift and ask Him to enter their lives and take His rightful place as their Savior.
I see no reason why the Holy Spirit would not continue to guide Christians in their faith.
That is right.
There is His leading and our capacity and willingness to be led. Thank God that usually he gives the disciple a lifetime of learning in this matter.
We should not assume though that the leading of the Holy Spirit is only about "correct information" in doctrine.
We can be "dead right" but "livingly wrong". It is better to have true information. But how the Spirit makes inroads into our tastes, attitudes, reactions, choices, thought life, words, deeds and walk, I am pretty sure comes at a higher priority than just correct doctrinal information on many matters.
First Corinthians 13 ?
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillno this point is moot and is the usual diversionary attempt which now seems obligatory
Reagrdless of how many angels are named and who their names are, the rhetorical question of [b]Hebrews 1:5 is obviously a negative.
To NO angel was it ever said, "You are My Son; this day I have begotten You"
Combing through either the Bible or the Apocrapha for angel names is a moot point.
( I have not bothered to read anyone's reas ...[text shortened]... d be forced to provide the name of an angel to answer Hebrews 1:5 in the affirmative).[/b]
in your case, infact you wasted reams of posts telling us what the angel was supposed
to be,, when in fact you could easily have compared Rev 9:11 and Revelation 20:1 and
seen that the angel is an agency not from the Antichrist, Satan or daemonic, but God
himself, the confession that you have read no one else's reasons just about sums it up
for me, one dimensional dogmatic thinking, we can expect no less.
3 edits
-Removed-its no shame, in fact it was quite productive, for it demonstrates what i suspected all
along, its futile trying to reason with you people, you are not interested in reason, for
you had ample time and opportunity to make a single reference to Galvestons reasons
and not one post, not a measly syllable, endless drivel from Jaywill , pitch fork and
torches from the rest and hysteria from others.
Originally posted by bbarrHi and sorry for disappearing but have been busy and under the weather. Our experiance with trying to get them to simply back up what they believe the Bible says with even a simple scripture or two has never happened in the 4 years I've been involved with the spiritual forums. It's blast after blast of accusations and "the bible says this and the Bible says that".
Robbie is not claiming that the JW is true because he says so, or even that we should believe the JW claim because you haven't presented information to the contrary (except jaywill, who made his case above). Robbie is asking you to present your case! If the JW view is absurd, then it should be easy to refute with scripture, right? I mean, isn't that something like an rule of theological debate? So, make your case!
So welcome to the spiritual forums and get used to not seeing the proof that they say is in the Bible.
6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no this point is moot and is the usual diversionary attempt which now seems obligatory
in your case, infact you wasted reams of posts telling us what the angel was supposed
to be,, when in fact you could easily have compared Rev 9:11 and Revelation 20:1 and
seen that the angel is an agency not from the Antichrist, Satan or daemonic, but God
h asons just about sums it up
for me, one dimensional dogmatic thinking, we can expect no less.
no this point is moot and is the usual diversionary attempt which now seems obligatory in your case, infact you wasted reams of posts telling us what the angel was supposed to be,, when in fact you could easily have compared Rev 9:11 and Revelation 20:1 and seen that the angel is an agency not from the Antichrist, Satan or daemonic, but God himself, the confession that you have read no one else's reasons just about sums it up for me, one dimensional dogmatic thinking, we can expect no less.
I said I did not read it "yet". And I had the Jehovah's Witnesses in mind for the most part.
The king over the terrible entitites out of the abyss is the Destroyer and Destruction.
Revelation 11:18 speaks of God's judgment of "those who destroy the earth". So I am pretty certain that "Abaddon" and the Destroyer (or Destruction) is the object of God's judgment in Revelation.
This makes it unlikely that the Destroyer mentioned in chapter 9 is Jesus Christ. Of course depending on where a sinner stands, he MAY regard Jesus negatively as a Destroyer, I speak of His coming in judgment.
"And the nations became angry, and Your wrath came, and the time came ... to destroy those who destroy the earth." (Rev. 11:18)
I believe that this judgment refers back to the Destroyer and his subjects. And that emphatically would not be Jesus Christ.
Can you locate any passage saying Jesus is lord over demons ? Was it not blasphemy when He was accused of being the prince of the demons in Matt. 10:25.
Now I suppose we have to debate on whether DEMONS are indicated by those terrible locust creatures from chapter 9. I have little doubt that they refer to subjects of Satan.
The "crowns" on thier heads may refer to the Satanic royalty that they enjoyed in a pre-Adamic time. These beings may be something left over from a long ancient pre-Adamic age. They were too terrible to allow to roam the world.
There are indications of beings so bad from the past that they are in special confinement (2 Peter 2:4). I think these locusts are of that catagory. But Satan is allowed to release them. And the king over them is not Jesus Christ.
Some, not all, of the subjects of Satan have been too terrible to be allowed to run free in the universe:
"For if God did not spare the angels who sinned but delivered them to gloomy pits, having cast them down to Tartarus, they being kept for judgment ..." (2 Pet. 2:4)
All the angels that followed Satan sinned. Not all have been confined to what Peter calls Tartarus.
We know many of the evil angels and demons are freer to act upon men. So SOME are confined. Somehow at the end of the age, some more terrible ones will be released.
If you are arguing that Abaddon is Christ, I preemptively rebut it here. Rather the king over the terrible creatures, the Destroyer, is the object of God's judgment over "those who destroy the earth" (11:18) along with his subjects.
There is your reply. But it is really all secondary to the matter of receiving Jesus as Lord that the anointing of the Holy Spirit may give you, I mean you, the assurance of your eternal redemption.
I told you that that was more important to me, regarding you, than anything else.
So I am praying for you to recieve mercy.
But I don't accept Abaddon / Apollyon as Christ. The Destroyer Antichrist will do much destroying according to Daniel 8:23-25.