"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Twilight]

Quote:

Ellen White says "the angels of God went through the host and removed their chariot wheels." Can you think of any reason she would say that, when she meant that the evil angels did it?

Only one reason would stand out to me.

That she was not inspired.

So, as I know she was, as was Moses.

I have to accept her plain statement and reject anyone's that wants to represent "new light" and try to claim it is "her" light...

Isn't it absolutely ludicrous when we get to the point where we say that what has been said means the exact opposite?

What amazes me, is how satan can get hold of a mind in such a way so that they cannot even see that they are claiming the exact opposite of a plain statement?

And I do beleive this is what has happened here.

I love my brethren, but how I wish they would just stop a moment and read what they are actually saying...

I believe good, honest, God fearing folks have been deceived by a lie.

And they so desperately want to believe that lie, that they will argue black is white all day long.

[skyblue888]

Mark, you have stayed away from this discussion for the most part and while some of us have been at the very front of the battle, you choose to jump in at this junction to make very bold statements about those who do not see exactly as you do. I don't mind you jumping in but since you have remained aloof from this discussion for a good while, I don't think it is fair for you to come and make such bold statements.

I do admire John's zeal and confidence but I do believe that his zeal and confidence, just like yours, are worthy of a better cause.

I beg you pardon my dear brother Mark but since you are making such bold statements about those who disagree with your stated view, I hope you will allow me the same boldness in saying with even greater assurance, that I believe it is you who has been resisting the light that has been shining lately concerning the character of God, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin.

As far as I can see, the reason why we can't see eye to eye on this vital issue, regarding God's ways of saying and doing, is that some have accepted and applied the principles of interpretation that the Lord has revealed to us from the Bible and the SoP and some haven't yet. Mark it is plain as day that you yourself continue to resist or reject these principles of interpretation. There is no doubt in my mind that your view and that of John317 and others concerning the character of God and the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin is the traditional view which is hoary with age and is flawed.

The majority of us today read the Old Testament the same way it has always been read. Even John the Baptist, whom Jesus said was the greatest of the prophets born of a woman, including His own disciples, had not understood the character of God, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin.

Because he had read and wrongly interpreted the language of the Old Testament Scriptures, the way many do today, "John the Bapist did not understand the nature of Christ's kingdom... He had pointed to the Messiah as One whose fan was in His hand, and who would thourougly purge His floor, who would gather the wheat into His garner, and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Like the prophet Elijah, in whose spirit and power he had come to Israel, he looked for the Lord to reveal Himself as a God that answereth by fire." Desire of Ages,215.

Do we appreciate and understand the meaning of this amazing statement as we should? Obviously not! John the Baptist and Elijah were both mistaken as Christ's disciples were in regard to the issue we have been discussing on this thread. The disciples also had looked for the Lord to reveal Himself as a God that answereth by fire. They had called upon Him to make fire come down from heaven to destroy a village of the Samaritans because they had refused to put them up for the night. They had come to view God in that false light because tradition and misinterpretation had obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin. There is nothing new under sun. We can say this with great confidence since the Lord Himself has told us this. "Tradition and misinterpretation have obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin." The Great Controversy, p.492.

Example after example have been given from the Bible and the SoP as to how the Lord would have us read and interpret His sayings and doings. How He would have us understand that His thoughts and ways are as different from ours as the heavens are higher than the earth. But we still don't get it. We choose to cling to the traditional way of reading and interpreting His sayings and doings.

The language of the Bible is always consistent. Many times the Lord will say, "I will do this," or "I will do that," or "I did this," or "I did that," but then He explains Himself, as in the case of David. Because of his sin, the Lord, through Nathan the prophet sent him this message. "I will raise up evil against you out of your own house." 2 Sam.12:11. This was a prophecy as to how his son Absolom would rebel against him and shame him publicly in an attempt to dethrone him. It is a fact that the average person who reads these words does not stop to think that these words could mean anything different from man's tradidional way of thinking. But we now know that by saying what He said God did not mean that He Himself would prompt these evil acts of wickedness against David but that He would not exercise His power to prevent them. That is exactly how the Lord, through His prophet, interpreted these words as found in Patriarchs and Prophets, p.739. But even when this inspired interpretation is presented, and it has been presented again and again, most of us continue to cling to the old traditional way of reading and interpreting God's sayings and doings, just as it reads! But why would anyone do this?

When we read that "God troubled the host of the Egyptians, and took off their chariot wheels so that they drove them heavily," (Ex.14:24,25) we must read this language the same way we just read what God said to David, "I will raise up evil against you out of your own house." Not that God would directly trouble the Egyptians by taking the wheels off their chariots but that He would no longer be able to exercise His power to prevent the enemy, Satan and his evil angels, from doing it.

"How readest thou?"

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Robert

An exact understanding of God is not prerequisite for salvation. Like Paul states in the context of God's love, "Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very clearly - face to face. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me." [1 Cor 13:12]

Wherever there is an impulse of love [agape] and sympathy, wherever the heart reaches out to bless and uplift others, there is revealed the working of God’s Holy Spirit. In the depths of heathenism, men who have had no knowledge of the written law of God, who have never even heard the name of Christ, have been kind to His servants, protecting them at the risk of their own lives. Their acts show the working of a divine power. The Holy Spirit has implanted the grace of Christ in the heart of the savage, quickening his sympathies contrary to his nature, contrary to his education. The “Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9), is shining in his soul; and this light, if heeded, will guide his feet to the kingdom of God.

_______________________________________________

Robert, I know this is from Ellen's writings. I remember reading it before. It is beautiful. But I don't remember where I read it from. Could you give us the reference? thank you.

"Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very clearly - face to face. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me."

Many read these words believing that as long as we live in this world this is to be our experience but in the book The Desire of Ages, p.670, these words are given a totally different meaning:

"The disciples still failed to understand Christ's words in their spiritual sense, and again He explained His meaning. By the Spirit, He said, He would manifest Himself to them. 'The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things.' No more will you say, I cannot comprehend. No longer will you see through a glass, darkly. You shall 'be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge.'" Eph. 3:18,19.

As you can see for yourself, this was the experience of the disciples of Christ beginning at Pentecost when the Spirit came upon them in a fullness that reached every heart. How much more is this to be the experience of those through whom the Lord will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness in these last days.

sky

[teresaq]

Mark, you have stayed away from this discussion for the most part and while some of us have been at the very front of the battle, you choose to jump in at this junction to make very bold statements about those who do not see exactly as you do. I don't mind you jumping in but since you have remained aloof from this discussion for a good while, I don't think it is fair for you to come and make such bold statements. Mark, you have stayed away from this discussion for the most part and while some of us have been at the very front of the battle, you choose to jump in at this junction to make very bold statements about those who do not see exactly as you do. I don't mind you jumping in but since you have remained aloof from this discussion for a good while, I don't think it is fair for you to come and make such bold statements.

when one has the bible/sop to back them they do not need insults.

we have to remember the bible just as plainly states that God hardened pharoahs heart, yet if we studied the "whole bible", what do we find?

the bible is its own dictionary and interpreter. but only for those who look. :)

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Now John you are quoting from the new versions which cannot be said to be trustworthy since they the translators did not understand that language any more than many adventists do.

Quote:

The Old Versions did not try to paraphrase but they kept as close to the Hebrew as possible.

Most of the translations I quoted are true translations and not paraphrases. It doesn't matter if you go by the "old versions" or not: the result is the same, that the "mighty hand" is describing the use of force on the part of God in order to obtain the release of Israel from slavery.

this isnt true, john.

the paraphrases are translating according to their understanding, but not according to the original wording.

the original does not state, "my strong hand", and that is how the translations you chose are translating it. the original states by "a strong hand".

lets stick to the original wording and leave off the suppositions, shall we?

[skyblue888]

A big Amen to that.

sky

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Wouldn't you agree that it's important for mankind to learn that God is holy, hates sin and will one day destroy sinners?

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

Yes, of course this is important, but mankind can't learn that sin is evil if the evil that comes as a result of sin is of God's own hand.

Quote:

JOHN3:17:There are sins, however, which do not appear to be evil in and of themselves. For instance, homosexuality. The only reason we know that God hates the practice of homosexuality is that Inspiration tells us so.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You really think so?

Yes, I really do.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You don't think this could be figured out on the basis of reasoning from creation?

But that information comes from Inspiration and special revelation. I do agree that the Bible does condemn the practice of homosexuality. But that is not the question here, as I understand it.

Isn't it your idea that people must see sin as wrong apart from "God's hand" in order to learn that sin is evil? If that is true, it wouldn't be enough to know sin is wrong on the basis of Scripture. So we must talk about the sinfulness of homosexuality [as well as other sins] strictly on the basis of what people can see apart from God's revelation that it is sin.

There are many millions of people who don't think homosexuality is a sin. These people can't understand why the Bible condemns it when it seems obvious to them that there's nothing wrong with it. The only harm they see in it is that God says people will be lost if they practice those things. They reason, "Why is it wrong for me to be happy and fulfilled being with someone I love?"-- and of course they are talking about being with a member of their own gender. "How does it hurt God or other people if I'm with someone I love?" This is their question.

Aside, then, from God saying in Scripture that it is wrong, what reason would you give a gay person that it is sinful for him/her to find happiness and fulfillment with a member of their own sex?

[teresaq]

There are sins, however, which do not appear to be evil in and of themselves. For instance, homosexuality. The only reason we know that God hates the practice of homosexuality is that Inspiration tells us so.

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

You really think so?

it seems to me that that kind of reasoning is just denying what the scriptures themselves say.

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

when we are really in touch with God, and with ourselves, we can see how sin, any and all sin, affects us. if we normally eat healthy then eat something unhealthy we can fairly soon see how it affects us negatively, for example, and the same is true for each and every other sin.

the only time that is not true is when we are used to living a certain way and so are not aware generally of the ill effects. it is "normal". if we do realize that we are practicing something that is harmful to us, mentally or physically, we may still hold onto it for some reason.

[Dr. Rich]

John317, and what part of "abomination" don't you understand? Please read Leviticus 18:22 nuf said!

[teresaq]

God will allow evil to be destroyed once and for all when it has come to the point that,

Nah 1:9 affliction shall not rise up the second time.

and only God knows when that time will be. just as we do not attempt to teach a 2 year old calculus, neither does God, so to speak.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: I'm sure you'll agree that if I intentionally removed my protection from someone with the purpose that they will die as a direct result of my action, is there anyone who would say at the Inquest that I bore no responsibility for the individual's death? I doubt it.

Quote:

ROBERT: God is love....Translated, "God is agape". One of the characteristics of agape is that it does not force or coerce. When God is rejected He doesn't get angry...He doesn't kill and destroy.

Sure, I agree that God is agape/love, but most people-- perhaps, in fact, all people-- have not yet begun to really understand what that means. At least an awful lot of people are evidently really confused about it. God is love, yes, but exactly what does it mean?

The Bible, as the Word of God, is an inspired revelation of His character. It tells us the truth about Him and of how He relates to humanity.

So, now, study Joshua 10 and 11 and tell what those chapters reveal about God.

See esp. these verses:

Joshua 10: 7-14, 30, 32, 40-42; 11: 6, 9, 12, 15, 20, 23.

In those verses you will find that God made the sun stand still and moon remain where it was until Israel "avenged themselves upon their enemies." 10: 13.

It says that "Jehovah cast down great stones from heaven upon them [people of Gilgal] up to Azekah, and they died. They were more who died with the hailstones than they whom the children of Israel had slain with the sword." 10: 11

It also says, "And Joshua smote the whole country, the mountain, and the south, and the lowland, and the hill-slopes, and all their kings: he let none remain, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Jehovah the God of Israel had commanded... Jehovah the God of Israel fought for Israel." 10: 40, 42.

Your thoughts?

Do not those verses show that God destroyed people and used force against them? If not, explain how the verses show that God did not destroy anyone or ever use any force against anybody.

[John317]

John317, and what part of "abomination" don't you understand? Please read Leviticus 18:22 nuf said!

If you look carefully at what I wrote, you will see that I am talking about homosexuality from the viewpoint apart from the revelation of God, i.e., outside the Bible.

My point is that we only know that homosexuality is wrong because of texts like Lev. 18: 22. The text itself is very clear to me, and I've written about it in many of my posts over the years.

The question here, however, is, why does God say it is wrong or a sin? Again, I know the answer-- but that is because I study the Bible and beleive God's commandments.

My previous post was making the point that we only know that it's wrong because of the Bible, not because there is anything obviously wrong with it from the human viewpoint.

Humanly speaking-- that is, apart from special revelation-- there is no apparent reason that people who practice homosexuality won't be in heaven. So, yes, I know there's something wrong with it, and I know it's wrong and a sin, but that is because "the Bible tells me so."

Andre Gide, a Nobel prize-winning author, wrote a humanistic defense of homosexuality entitled Corydon. The only reason I reject his argument is that I believe the Bible to be the word of God. Gide used to believe the Bible also, but he wrote Corydon as an atheist.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: There are sins, however, which do not appear to be evil in and of themselves. For instance, homosexuality. The only reason we know that God hates the practice of homosexuality is that Inspiration tells us so.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You really think so?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Yes, I really do.

Quote:

teresaq(sda):

it seems to me that that kind of reasoning is just denying what the scriptures themselves say.

NOTICE that I did not deny the Bible's teaching on homosexuality. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality. I am arguing that the only reason we know it is wrong is from the divine revelation.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): quoting: Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Explain this verse and show why people who do not study the Bible know that it's wrong to practice homosexuality. Remember I'm talking about showing that homosexuality is wrong to a gay person APART THE SCRIPTURE.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): when we are really in touch with God, and with ourselves, we can see how sin, any and all sin, affects us. if we normally eat healthy then eat something unhealthy we can fairly soon see how it affects us negatively, for example, and the same is true for each and every other sin.

There are many gay people who feel that they are close to God and who believe that there is nothing wrong with practicing homosexuality. Apart from the Bible's commandments, how would you go about showing them that the practice of homosexuality is a sin?

Quote:

teresaq(sda): the only time that is not true is when we are used to living a certain way and so are not aware generally of the ill effects. it is "normal". if we do realize that we are practicing something that is harmful to us, mentally or physically, we may still hold onto it for some reason.

What are the "ill-effects" of a man being with another man or a woman being with another woman whom they love? How would you explain to them what those ill-affects are, apart from using the Scriptures or any other special revelation from God? Are there such ill-affects, and if so, what exactly are they?

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: Now John you are quoting from the new versions which cannot be said to be trustworthy since they the translators did not understand that language any more than many adventists do.

The Old Versions did not try to paraphrase but they kept as close to the Hebrew as possible.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Most of the translations I quoted are true translations and not paraphrases. It doesn't matter if you go by the "old versions" or not: the result is the same, that the "mighty hand" is describing the use of force on the part of God in order to obtain the release of Israel from slavery.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): this isnt true, john.

What isn't true? The sentences you quoted here make more than one point. Are both points false, in your opinion?

Are you saying that the "mighty hand" spoken of in Exodus 6: 1 is the mighty hand of Pharaoh? If so, what is your evidence of that?

Are you saying, also, that the quotes from the Bible I gave in my previous post are not from true translations? If so, what translations are you referring to? Are all of them NOT true translations? Are you sure?

Tomorrow, Sabbath, I will produce convincing, if not conclusive, evidence that the "mighty hand" is God's hand and not the hand of the Egyptian King's. Whether you admit it is an entirely different question, but that it is the hand of God, there shall be little doubt.

In the meantime, please briefly explain your reason for believing-- if indeed you do-- that the mighty hand of Ex. 6: 1 is NOT God's hand but the Pharaoh's?

Cite any commentator or translator who believes the hand in Ex. 6: 1 is Pharaoh's.

Finally, please tell why you believe-- as you apparently do-- that it's important that this hand is not God's hand but the king's.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17:The same with the Sabbath commandment: the only reason it is right to keep the Sabbath every seventh day of the week is that God blessed the seventh-day of the week and commanded us to keep it holy.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I disagree. The reason it is right to keep the Sabbath every seventh day is because God rested on the Sabbath day and sanctified it.

Yes, because it is revealed to us in Holy Scripture. What I am saying is that unlike the rest of the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath commandment is based strictly on the authority of God's command. Apart from special revelation, there is no reason to keep the Sabbath commandment. No one could arrive at seventh-day Sabbath-keeping on the basis of logic or of anything that occurs in nature.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: It makes good sense for people to rest one day in seven, but the seventh-day-ness of the Sabbath is based strictly on the say-so of God and not on any harmful consequences of not keeping the Sabbath on Saturday.

Quote:

pnattmbtc:It's based on the fact that God rested on the seventh-day and sanctified it. Not simply, or primarily, because of what God said, but because of what God did.

Yes, and all of that-- please notice-- is known ONLY through special revelation. It is not a part of logic or nature. You would not do it if there was no command to do it.

In that way, it is the same as the tree that God commanded Adam and Eve to refrain from eating. He could have chosen any tree in the garden, but He arbitrarily chose that particular tree to tell them leave alone. The same with the Sabbath: God could have chosen any day to tell us to rest on and keep holy, but He chose to make holy the last day of the weekly cycle. My point is that in both cases, the sinfulness of not keeping the Sabbath, and the sinfulness of eating the fruit, is based strictly on the command of God, not on any inherent difference in the day or in the tree.

[Robert]

Could you give us the reference?

COL 385

[Robert]

No more will you say, I cannot comprehend. No longer will you see through a glass, darkly. You shall 'be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge.'" Eph. 3:18,19.

Well, what John is doing is confusing this knowledge. His view does not present a God of love, but rather a stern taskmaster who is ever ready to torture you in the fires of hell.

[Guest]

Is it you Pope Robert? The one who declares the heretics, the one who guards heaven's gate?

[Robert]

I know the answer-- but that is because I study the Bible and beleive God's commandments.

But you don't keep all of them, huh?

Rob

[Robert]

Is it you Pope Robert? The one who declares the heretics, the one who guards heaven's gate?

Yes, anyone that thinks they can gain heaven by the law...or even partially by law is self-deceived. Any person who teaches this is a heretic.

[Guest]

I'm coming to South Carolina to kiss your ring.

[Robert]

I'm coming to South Carolina to kiss your ring.

And I'm coming to NC to kick your butt...

[Guest]

Come on. I'll PM you the address. Or maybe we can meet half way and save gas. I'll give you a Bible study.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

I'm coming to South Carolina to kiss your ring.

And I'm coming to NC to kick your butt...

Hey, this got me thinking....In the OT God told David to number Israel, then God said Satan told David to number Israel. Hmmmm? Likewise in the OT God told King Saul to kill all men, women and children, even those nursing on their mothers' breast....

What I said to you, joking (kind of), got me thinking. If God is my example then He is also my example in justice. If you are a heretic (and I think anyone to teaches legalism is a heretic) then what if I thought God told me to utterly destroy your family -- men, women and children? If I believe that God is like that I might follow through, but lucky for you teehe I don't see things like that....However, the history books are filled with such religiosity - killing in the name of God.

[Robert]

Come on. I'll PM you the address. Or maybe we can meet half way and save gas. I'll give you a Bible study.

Okay, but only after I slap you around....Deal?