Anything is possible, but reality shows that what Yeshua and the prophets said is playing out historically. You can expect Armageddon (Har-Magedon), and the sky to fall (Revelation 16:16-21. Keep in mind that Megido (Har-Magedo) is where the Kaiser (Caesar) and the Ottomans armies were destroyed in 1918. Keep in mind that missiles, out of the sky, are falling on Israel almost every day.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
Azazal is a desert God .. Pay no attention to Second Temple - non cannonical apocryphia and bastardization of the term Angel.
Just like Ha Satan is no Angel .. Do you not understand that Ha Satan is a God .. Chief God over the Earth - a Son of the Supreme one - El Oliun.
You are trying to project 3rd Century BC Monotheistic beliefs onto 10th Century BC Pagan Israelites .. who, to a person - all believed in the existence of other Gods.
So in the story of Job - when the "sons of God" are visiting the Most High God in heaven - ( some kind of celebration in the clouds) The Most High God - El Shaddai - has a conversation with one of these Sons of the God.
El El Shaddai - El Oliun - El Elyon - according to Ugarit literature - has 70 sons .. these are the son's mentioned in Deut 32:8 -- .. to whome the various people of the earth were allocated .. YHWH's share being Jacob.
So hearken not to "The book of Enoch" to tell you about Israelite religious beliefs in the 10th century AD .. but to the religious beliefs of the Israelites .. Same as everyone else in the Region.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You continue to miss the point as Jesus clearly was using a play on words, plus there's no different word in Aramaic between stone and pebble.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, you know more than these scholars and clergy, most of which have studied scripture and language for decades?
ElishaElijah
Return
Not sure why you’re posting your comment…
What did the Bible say about how a person receives Eternal Life and the forgiveness of sins?
ElishaElijah
Return
As a Christian I believe this to be accurate:
www.instagram.com
Shields of Strength on Instagram: "Brilliant"
75K likes, 1,575 comments - shieldsofstrength on January 30, 2024: "Brilliant".
www.instagram.com
The "fat" shepherds, those who are strong, who do not feed or heal the sheep, "I will destroy" (Ezekiel 34:10 &16). It is Yeshua who says that those who say they are wise and intelligent, will not understand (Matthew 11:25). Apparently, your scholars, with decrees in fluid soft science, have less understanding than babes/infants. They may or not be able to recite the traditions of men, but then that is all they possess.
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to infants.
Ezekiel 34:10 ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I shall demand My sheep from them and make them cease from feeding sheep. So the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore, but I shall deliver My flock from their mouth, that they may not be food for them.”’”
Ezekiel 34:16 “I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken, and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will eliminate. I will feed them with judgment.
A "pebble" is a small "stone". Nothing on which to build a structure. It would be like building a "house" on sand (Matthew 7:26)
Matthew 7:26 “And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand.
Job portrays Satan as a son of God, whereas there were also other sons of God at the meeting, and some, which were called "watchers" (Genesis 6), rebelled against God, and took daughters of men for wives, and their children were known as "men of renown" (Genesis 6:4), who eventually died, and their spirits were known as demons, who possess men, as in the "false prophet" and the "beast" (Revelation 16:13). As the 1st Commandment notes, there are other gods, and as Revelation notes, the "dragon"/"devil"/"Satan"/"Serpent" will be the god authority over the "beast" (kings of earth) (Revelation 13 & 17 & 20:2). The "beasts" will rule under the authority of the dragon, until all the kingdoms of the beasts are defeated at the same time (Daniel 2). And where did your "canon" come from, but from a self-righteous bishop, Athanasius, in 367 A.D., who had worked under the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, well after the falling away. (Matthew 24:10) I think you have attended too many classes on the traditions of men. As for the 70 sons, that would refer to the offspring of Noah (Genesis 10), from whom Jacob was a later offspring of Shem, who was one of the original sons of Noah.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Repeating the same ole same ole doesn't miraculously make it right. Theologians well know that Jesus and the Twelve mainly spoke Aramaic causally and Hebrew at shul. There is 0 indication they spoke Greek. Therefore, the fact that Jesus starts out with "Thou art Peter...", whereas Peter had already been named as such previous to this, logically indicates that Jesus was using a play-on-words for a very specific reason, and the subsequent actions by the Twelve tell us that.
As far as your last sentence above, it seems you are assuming I built my "house upon the sand", so why would you say that? Are you judging me?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What a pathetically arrogant statement the above is.
Plus, it's quite obvious you have never been involved in serious Torah and/or Bible study, because if you had you would well know that intelligent scholars can read the same narrative and possibly come up with different interpretations. IMO, you're way too much into yourself.
ElishaElijah
Return
Well, the goal of biblical hermeneutics is to find out what the author meant by what He said and many times the scholars of the day, the religious leaders got it wrong. Most didnt even recognize their Creator when He was right in front of them. Jesus called fishermen, tax collectors and sinners.
There is only 1 correct interpretation but many applications.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
IYO, but you ain't the final answer.
BTW, I'm much more impressed with those who actually act with love and compassion as Jesus taught versus those who are so arrogant they think they know-it-all. Maybe reread Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats, and just a reminder that the "Goats" believed about Jesus but not in him.
ElishaElijah
Return
That’s nice but doesn’t really mean anything on these forums. You always post that parable like it’s some big revelation. Anyone born again will live a life pleasing to God, walking in the Spirit.
Plus it’s not my opinion it what the Bible says and that’s the final answer.
Last edited:
Holy Carp ... what part of "Lose the 3rd Century BC Aphocrypha" was not made clear. You are misrepresenting and misquoting the Bible
1) The other Gods up in heaven celebrating with the God Supreme are not called "Watchers" .. nor were they known as Watchers by the people during the Time Job was written .. ~1000 BC .. Sorry .. know nothing about these other Gods in attendance other than of Ha Satan -- the Adversary God Sends to test people when so desired .. the God who Tests Jesus in the Desert .. this God both a Son of the Supreme one and Chief God on Earth - This God never acts outside the will of the Supreme one .. and we are given no indication that the other Gods in attendance to either .. OK .. U Understand ?
2) We have other Son's of Gods mentioned in Genesis 6 .. but the text does not say that these Gods Rebelled against God in taking daughters of men for wives. Why are you falsely citing the Bible ?
The text just states that there were Son's of Gods who came down from the sky and took wives of the daughters of men - repeating a well known story from the universal creation story circulating at the time. Everyone believed this .. "Sky People came down -- created a hybrid human " .. the various intereactions between these "Adamu" and the Gods discussed in great detail -- "In the Religion of the Day" .. U Understand .. not the religion of 300 BC that you desperately want to insert ..
Now .. perhaps some divine beings fell from grace at a later date .. but this is not what Genesis 6 is saying.
Here we simply have Sons of God having children and making wives with daughaters of Humans .. actually getting married to them and presumably co-habitating. Precisely ZERO about these Gods (or sky people) participating in some act of rebellion on this basis.
You also have Nephilium -- who are the offspring of the coupling of these Sons of God and Humans .. the great hero's of Old - Men of Renoun. Nothign is said about these offspring of man and God turning into demons. Why have you insterted this falsehood into the text ?
Revelation has ZERO bearing on who these Gods being discussed in Job and Genesis are. One question you should be asking is who the other God's in the creation of Humans were .. who is the "US" humans are in the Image of .. as per the Religious beliefs of the Day .. What did people writing this story believe about the Gods in that story .. and those who read the story in 1000 BC ? .. the answer to which Revelations has ZERO Relevance.
Dimi95
Прaвославие!
The dogma of papal infallibility is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy.
"Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine "initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition.It does not mean that the pope cannot sin or otherwise err in some capacity, though he is prevented by the assistance of the Holy Spirit from issuing heretical teaching even in his non-infallible Magisterium, as a corollary of indefectibility."
Does that mean the succesors of the first Bishop of "Jerusalem"(for example) are not prevented by the Holy Spirit from issuing heretical teaching?
Let's see what James says
James 2:1
"My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism."
There is no biblical or historical evidence for the claims of the Roman Church that Peter was the first pope.
Peter himself did not claim authority , rather he discussed everything with the other disciples.That was for 10 centuries , untill someone decided to leave the traditions , invent new dogmas and claimed authority over all churches.
Last edited:
Dimi95
Прaвославие!
And now this is all a waste of time since you agreed with me. According to this article he was born Jewish, but also a Roman citizen, though some claim he became a citizen later, but at any rate it appears that he used the name Paul when dealing with Romans and Greeks:
Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I looked at my answer and i think that i misunderstood some things.
There is so little data about Paul's father and how he became Roman citizen.So Paul inherited that right according to Acts 22:28.
And i said most were in Rome , not all,you can check.
There is a path to become Roman citizen.
In ancient Rome, citizenship was the path to power
From the Republic to the Empire, civitas—full Roman citizenship—was prized by those who had it and coveted by those who did not.
www.nationalgeographic.com
What to note:
"The military provided another route for non-Romans to secure citizenship. As membership of the legion itself was reserved for citizens, a peregrinus (foreigner) could only be recruited into the auxiliary units. But on completing 25 years of service, he would be granted Roman citizenship as a reward when he graduated."
That is why i said mostly in Rome
"A child born of a legitimate union between citizen father and mother would acquire citizenship at birth."
Other source:
Also another information:
"Roman citizenship could be acquire by: birth, but strictly with a Roman father and a foreign mother (children with the reverse parentage would be foreign). manumission: as freed slaves of Roman citizens would acquire also citizenship. This was a frequent form of reward for loyal slaves."
I wanted to put emphasis on something else and i misunderstood the article , i apologize.
Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD< Satan also came among them".
This is to indicate that Satan was also a son of God. As for the demons being the spirits of the dead Nephelium, sons of the watchers, you should read Enoch and find out. You seem to feel you are superior to Enoch, well, then please tell us the source of the demons in Rev 16:13 who are from the "false prophet" and the "beast", or those being cast of the swine by Yeshua? And there is nowhere stating that the "watchers" married the daughters of men. It said they came into them, such as had intercourse with them. According to the law, if a man raped a single woman, there was a price to be paid (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Apparently, the angel of the LORD sat down and had dinner with Abraham as well (Genesis 18:8). "The sons of God" liked what they saw and took them as wives, whomever they chose. There was no asking their fathers for permission or paying a marriage dowry. Also, the "watchers" who watch men, are angels (Rev 1:20-2:1 & 5:6), and according to Yeshua, do not marry (Mt 22:30). The 7 eyes (Rev 5:6), the watchers "are the seven spirits of God, sent out into all the earth" to "scan the whole earth" (Zechariah 4:10), as in watching the whole earth. As for your "Bible", and its canon, that was of man, particularly Athanasius, in 367 A.D. and is nothing but a mix of the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil" and the "message" of the "son of man" in the same "field" (NT book) (Mt 13:25-49). As for "Revelation" it spans from Nebuchadnezzar, the first head of the 7 headed beast, to the last head of the beast, the 7th head (Revelation 17), who was the heir of Julius Caesar (5th head), Constantine, the "beast with two horns like a lamb", the "two horns" being the Christlike leaders of Constantine's Roman church, those being Peter and Paul, for whom Constantine glorified by building them both a basilica, which is a church in the shape of a pagan cross, in line with Paul's false gospel of the cross/grace/lawlessness. We are now in the era of the 8th head of the beast, one of the 7 (Rev 17). We are also at the end of the 6th millennium, so the day of the LORD, the day of rest, the 7th millennium of rest, is just behind the door (Mt 24:29-31). Your "heroes of renown, are the gods of old, with Satan/dragon, the "ruler of the world", being the authority of the "beasts"/kings (Rev 13:4). Examples of the gods and their worship is seen in the modern-day names of the days of the week, such as Wednesday for the god Woden (Mercury), and Sunday, for the day of the sun, that being Sol Invictus.
There is a history of the Western Roman church (Pope) rejecting Eastern Orthodoxy, and everything else besides, including Protestants. They have a history of also having different canons. I was brought up in a Roman Catholic church and was taught in the 1950s that Protestants all went to hell.
A rejecting B does not make A correct. They are both wrong.
According to Yeshua, per Matthew 11:25, your "intelligent" scholars don't know what they are talking about.
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes.