Posts by pomegranate

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

pomegranate

>>I suppose it illustrates one thing; what to me is a reasonable trail of logic (no evidence, no god (and you know that's a VERY simplistic abstraction) to you is unsupportable. What to you is a reasonable trail of logic to me is unsupported conjecture.<<

Well, let's reason on logic a bit.

What is logic? Logic is based on reasoning from earlier and known statements, events or conditions WHETHER TRUE or FALSE. Logic is a principle based on the age old conflict of TRUE and FALSE. OFF and ON. YES and NO. Logic is BINARY, it is answers (YES or NO) based on rational analysis.

In order to have logic and reason, we use known things as a base for starting. Logic is based on QUESTIONS and ANSWERS.

For instance, Did God "know" evil before Satan created it? That question demands a YES or NO in logic. Evidence (previous accepted knowns, whether factual or intellectual) can support a train of logic regarding this simple question.

So you see, I really can't go on unless you understand and verify the legitimacy of the "logic" I am presenting. Is what I have presented to you intellectually logical? Because if you feel what I have said thus far is illogical (even off the wall), then it is useless to go forward as future logic will be based on prior logic. If prior logic is deemed FALSE and illogical by you (because of a "lack of evidence", it should be pointed out that logic can also be built on premise), any further building of this train of logic will be fruitless and to go forward will be a waste of time for both of us.

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

pomegranate

>>if god knew there would be a fall, then god is source of evil
but god cannot be evil, so he did not know of fall
so god couldn't be omniscient then
but god is omniscient now
so god made himself omniscient at some point

It's a great story, but I think you realise that this is unprovable conjecture, which is something you critisize scientists for!<<

Personally, I'd call it a reasonable trail of logic and not conjecture. As far as provable goes, I believe proving He exists will be His job alone. If I could prove He exists, then I would be more than another man and then too, faith would be useless and meaningless.

For human beings, the ONLY real proof that satifies is by sight. But, it is not for man to show God, it is for God to show Himself.

12

Proclaiming Jah's name

by SixofNine in

in terms of cold, hard, non-partisan evidence, (and i realize that will eliminate some of yours' ability to respond) what are the arguments for how much or how little emphasis jesus, primarily, and secondarily the early christians, put on using and promulgating the divine name?.

jesus words "let your name be sanctified" come to mind immediatly, but what did that seem to mean to jesus, and how often did he seem to use the divine name?.

i am vaguely aware of the arguements that the nwt went overboard in "reinserting" the divine name.. edited by - sixofnine on 17 december 2000 15:18:58

pomegranate

---

57

Why is there evil

by d0rkyd00d in

don't know if this has been touched on before, but where did evil originate?

yes, some may answer satan.

but think about this: god created all things, and god is perfect.

pomegranate

The Greek word here is "anthroopos" which is rendered correctly as "man." The Revised Standard inaccurately rendered the word as can be clearly seen by every other translation, Also, the context is NOT talking about Satan, it is talking about Christ and men.

John 3:27-28
27 To this John replied, "A MAN can receive only what is given him from heaven.
NIV

John 3:26-27
27 John answered and said, "A MAN can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven.
NKJV

John 3:27
27 John answered and said, "A MAN can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven.
NASU

John 3:27
27 John answered and said, A MAN can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
KJV

John 3:27
27 John answered and said, A MAN can receive nothing, except it have been given him from heaven.
ASV

John 3:26-28
27 John answered and said, "A MAN can receive nothing, unless it has been given him from heaven.
NAS

John 3:27-28
27 John replied, "God in heaven appoints each man's work.
TLB

>>You say Satan created the first lie... that is incorrect. Satan did not 'create' the first lie.<<

John 8:44-46
44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

Christ is speaking to you in verse 45.

57

Why is there evil

by d0rkyd00d in

don't know if this has been touched on before, but where did evil originate?

yes, some may answer satan.

but think about this: god created all things, and god is perfect.

pomegranate

>>God DID NOT give Satan the ability to "create evil."<<

Satan gave himself the ability to create evil.

>>If God did, that makes Satan a Creator.<<

What the heck kind of logic is that. Satan can create all sorts of things ie, Satan created the first lie. He just can't create life.

Satan is the creator of evil. Just like you are the creator of whatever you do, think and say.

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

pomegranate

>>Pom; I'm with you. Rebellion in heaven. So, I suppose God could zap the rebels, but that would leave the question implicit in the rebellion unanswered. Or god could tell the devil to go it's way, and divide creation. Hmmm... don't think either side would want that, it's an all-or-nothing thing. Or god could allow the question to be resolved in a wonderful way?<<

Perfect analysis. Now...what really was the question? What was this conflict in heaven really all about? Just this: God.

Who really was "God?" What really constituted being "God?" If I was to take excerpts from Ezekial, and define what it meant to be God to Satan, it would be something like this:

Ezek 27:3-4
'You say, O Tyre (Satan), "I am perfect in beauty." (Narcissism) 4 Your domain (asummed godship) was on the high seas (the now tumultous heaven); your builders (angelic traders/traitors) brought your beauty to perfection. (the fallen numbers reinforce his defiant rebellion based on Narcissism.)

Ezek 27:10
10 "'Men of Persia (demons), Lydia (demons) and Put (demons) served as soldiers in your army. They hung their shields and helmets on your walls (we're on your side), bringing you splendor (more reinforcement).

Ezek 28:2
...though you think you are as wise as a god. (Satan thinks also "wisdom" makes one a God.)

Ezek 28:12
"You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

(Many believe this passage to be God saying how Satan was created as something special from the other angels. I do not believe that is the case. I believe it is God echoing what Satan thought of himself.)

Satan thought, he was perfect, he was wise and he was beautiful. That's what Satan thought it meant to be God. Of course, Satan would have to cover over and hide the truth of what it truly meant to be God.

Ezek 28:14
14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers (Hebrew: cakak)

OT:5526
cakak (saw-kak'); or sakak (Ex 33:22) (saw-kak'); a primitive root; properly, to entwine as a screen; by implication, to fence in, cover over, (figuratively) protect:

YWHW God............Satan, I am a god.

So, the issue is who is really God. What does it mean to be God?

Now, before we go further, we need to examine this bubble of trouble. What did God know PRIOR to the line of defiance drawn by Satan. I am hinting at the present quality of God that is taught with surety in the Bible, and that being omniscience.

We have two choices. God was omniscient before Satan, or he was not.

Truth tells me He could not have been omniscient prior to "Satan."

If God foreknew all the evil that would come to be in the future, and He created the living beings that would bring this evil into existence, then God is in fact the source of ALL evil by his own foreKNOWLEDGE.

Before Satan, there was something God did not know. Evil.

I believe omniscience was a quality God created within Himself after Satan rebelled. If He can create on the outside of Himself, surely He can create on the inside of Himself.

I'll pause here.

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

pomegranate

>>Pom, you know my arguement regarding the illogicity of obscurity. What you are arguing is very obscure. I don't conceive a caring god would make his message that obscure.<<

Ab, the God of the Bible makes known quite clearly in a number of places that wisdom and understanding would be obscured (hidden, but with value) unless it was revealed and given out from Him. (For example, Prov. 2:2-6, Matt. 13:35,44)

So, because you have perceived what seems to be an obscurity of this possible truth, may not mean God does not care, but rather could mean He gives out the clarity of wisdom and understanding to the ones (individuals) He wants the blindness of obscurity removed from. Which is certainly what is written both in the OT and the NT.

>>That's not neccesarily an arguement against exlusivity, but is an arguement against elitism and, for want of a better word, theological disenfranchisement of those not exposed to the Bible.<<

Luke 10:21
21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

By Jesus own words, it seems to some "it" would remain hidden, to others "it" would be revealed. So, I think I can safely say exclusivity is a reality in what Christ taught. Regarding elitism, examples have been shown that once somone was chosen exclusively for a revealing, that one did not go elitist superior, rather one became very much subservient and diminutive, ie Saul/Paul.

It (obscurity/revealing) surely is what has been taught in the Bible, as it is what is written. Since "hidden" and "revealed" are taught, what you may be perceiving is the period before a revealing.

I also believe, only God can open someones eyes.

>>Having said that, I'm more than happy to listen to further details of your understanding, but I might not get back to you before Monday, as it's 3.30pm where I am and I'm probably not going to be online this weekend.

So, carry on by all means, I want a complete picture, oh, and have a good weekend...

(see, I can be nice sometimes)<<

**Continued**
The heavens are in a DIVISIVE turmoil BEFORE Genesis 1:1. Satan is on his "I AM A GOD" tangent (Ezekial 28:2). He is "trading" with other angels to use this NEW "freewill" to oppose God and be free from God and independent "gods" themselves. Satan's head swells because of his heavenly acquired "wealth" ie, gold and silver angel "victories." (Ezekial 28:5)

Satan was so sure of himself by his "trading victories", that he began to exibit another NEW attribute aimed towards God, violence:

Ezek 28:16
6 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned.

Satan thinks he is GOD. He is more and more convinced with every angel that has traded to his side. The demons traded sides. Angels believe him and many start siding with him...HE IS EVEN MORE convinced that cutting free from God is GOOD, because he has NUMBERS, and his violent rebellion was RIGHT, because others side with HIM and pump him up.

So, what are God's options?

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

pomegranate

>>pom-
you did not answer my question, although it appears you believe you did. heres my question:

Isn't it amazing how Mr. Joe doesn't know that "Azariah" is the same individual as "Uzziah?"

Uzziah = Amaziah, same guy.

so, you say hes the king with two names, fine, but apparently he has three? in these two quotes you claim he is "uzziah", "azariah" AND "amaziah". thats what my ???? was for.<<

You are correct dub. I made a mistake and did not understand the contradiction you were pointing out.

The king with two names is Uzziah/Azariah NOT Amaziah as you have correctly pointed out my error. Amaziah is the FATHER of King Uzziah Azariah.

Uzziah is Azariah, Amaziah is his father.

Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for seeing that.

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

pomegranate

Before I dissect Genesis 1:1, I would first need to explain what I believe to have happened before Genesis 1:1.

I believe Satan was in defiance of YWHW before Genesis 1:1. I believe a heavenly creation of spirit creatures that was once united (before defiance), had now become divided because of Satan's newly created defiance.

I support this understanding with three chapters in Ezekial. Chapters 26, 27 and 28. I believe this all to be an image and likeness of the heavenly dispute and it's root cause.

I'll go one small step at a time.

Now, what can happen is this, you can either accept this (not as total truth, but as a good start) and we can go on, or we can get embrittled in details and never get to the full picture.

Just to overview some in the chapters in Ezekial as I see it, so you can at least see my angle:

26 - God speaking destruction to Satan and his domain, through Tyre.

27 - An image and likeness of what happened in heaven between Satan and the other defiant demons. The relationship between Satan and the other defiant angels is pictured as big business. The last half depicting the smashing of this "business."

28 - More details on this first defiant one, and his imminent demise.

Again, the heavens are in turmoil BEFORE Genesis 1:1. Satan is on his tangent.

So, shall we go on? Or shall we get stuck in the muck and mire of dispute and my understanding will never come out?

Back to you.

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

pomegranate

>>I am still very troubled you use quotation marks round the word victim,<<

Don't let puncuation marks get your pants all up in a ball. "Gut feeling" was also punctuated the same way in the same post in the same sentence, doesn't that count as misogynistic too? I was quoting my own prior thought patterns to you, and you turned it into some kind wacked out woman hating perversion. Simple. (By the way, I'm not misogynistic. I'm 42, married over 20 years, have four kids, two boys and two girls. Happy now????)

>>when talking about people who have been raped, and then refuse to clarify whether of not you are a misogynist, instead concentrating on my spelling.<<

I thought your assumption of me being misogynistic just because of putting little (") around the word victim was outlandishly assanine, OK? If someone like you can jump to that kind of heinous conclusion from a couple of puctuation marks around a word, how on earth am I ever going to get real words of communication across to you?

>>In fact if you hadn't been so rude I would have not bothered replying,<<

I believe the rudeness started here with your big fat intro into this thread no?

Isn't it wonderful that in all this tap dancing on the head of a pin, pomegranate strains out the gnat and swallows down the camel? ARe you too busy playing with your calculator to actually think about the scriptures you quote;

Such an unrude way to make yourself known huh? Give me a break will ya? What kind of reaction would you have to the above??

>>as I see no possible outcome other than you becoming increasingly abusive and hypocritical.<<

See your intro please. I believe with your intial and continued onslaught of derogatory demeanor, I handled myself rather fairly with what I was being subjected to. Surely not perfect, but fair.

>>But I'm going to ignore it... I apologise if I have in any way insulted you and caused you to return like for like, I'll try to, what's the saying... turn the other cheek...? and hope you do the same.<<

Let's try it. If it goes south again, I'll be the one to say "good bye" to this thread as you did previous....only I won't come back. I will try to get to this thread as often as I can...I am self employed and business this time of year explodes. I

So...more of what I believe. Genesis used to be the most troubling for me. Matter of fact...I thought it was all a big bunch of fairy tale bed time story crap. There was one point in my "search" (oh oh!!!)...I would have to say I even HATED this WHOLE flippin' book...probably for the same reasons many have felt reading this thread. Then, somehow I understood it differently, and it all began making sense...So..here I go;

Gen 1:3-4
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

There was nothing made or ceated here. Do you see "created" or "made" in the context? Nothing was made here. But something did HAPPEN.

(I don't need the Hebrew here. But if you can agree with what I have just stated, that the passage really doesn't say "made" or even "created" like Gen 1:1, then we have to find out what happened here.)

Let's try and stay focused on this, OK? Actually, I would rather start at Gen 1:1, because there is where we would need the Hebrew.

***************************

Uzziah = Amaziah, same guy.

>>>???

King Uzziah is King Amaziah. This man who was king went by and had two names.

King Uzziah Amaziah