Jump to content

Photo

Intoducing Me

Predestination

  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#41 paid4

paid4

    Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
178
Excellent
  • LocationJohnston County NC

Posted 17 April 2014 - 11:59 AM

Gen 19:1
Chapter 19
1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom:and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;


Gen 19:5
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.


God called them 'angels'.
A bunch of queer rapists called them 'men'.
Whose side are you on?

I say that, in ridicule, to make a point.
I assume you are on God's side, until you tell me different.

Heb 13:2
2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers:for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Are we unaware that they are men?

No.

They appear to be men.

We are unaware that they are angels.

This isn't rocket science.

Here's the context....from the intro chapter of the very book you are misinterpreting:

Heb 1:7
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Heb 1:14
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?


They are clearly not us.
They are never called us.
They appear to us, and are made to look like us, for our sake.
They are spirits, our ministers, and not us.

Psa 8:4-5
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,
and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

There isn't a single reference where God calls a human messenger "angel" from Gen to Jude.
So there is no reason to think He was calling those who He clearly revealed as angels, to John, in Rev.1, "men", in chapter 2.


Anishinaabe

I didn't mean to confuse nor am I confused. I do agree that angels and humans are seperate beings. I just misunderstood what you were looking for. I took your question literally. The references I gave did answer the post that I quoted. Angels, when active here on earth, do take the form of man. I believe they are sexless beings not bound by time or demensions.

Besides why would a man want to be an angel anyway.

1. They can't sing songs like "amazing grace", "redeemed", or "since Jesus came into my heart" and fully understand what they mean.

2. They don't know what it's like to have Jesus die for them. 

3. We are his beloved bride.

 

Angels cannot understand us or salvation. I don't blame them either. Why would God come down and die for me. 1 Peter 1:12



#42 heartstrings

heartstrings

    He shall feed his flock like a shepherd....

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,366 posts
1,182
Excellent

Posted 17 April 2014 - 12:31 PM

I didn't mean to confuse nor am I confused. I do agree that angels and humans are seperate beings. I just misunderstood what you were looking for. I took your question literally. The references I gave did answer the post that I quoted. Angels, when active here on earth, do take the form of man. I believe they are sexless beings not bound by time or demensions.

Besides why would a man want to be an angel anyway.

1. They can't sing songs like "amazing grace", "redeemed", or "since Jesus came into my heart" and fully understand what they mean.

2. They don't know what it's like to have Jesus die for them. 

3. We are his beloved bride.

 

Angels cannot understand us or salvation. I don't blame them either. Why would God come down and die for me. 1 Peter 1:12

Exactly, 

1 Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

 

Isn't "the angel of the church of Philadelphia" one of the angels? Else it would have to specify "which things the heavenly angels desire to look into"


Edited by heartstrings, 17 April 2014 - 12:32 PM.


#43 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,640 posts
2,070
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 17 April 2014 - 01:21 PM

PLease understand: I'm not seeking to be contentious. My only point I made was, why would it be necessary for God to address angels, ie, heavenly beings, of the obvious pros and cons of the various churches with which they have to do, and tell them to get the problems right, as though it was somehow the fault of the angels to fix the problems, or that the angels were worthy of the praise for what was going on correctly in the churches?   

 

Clearly it is not so much the churches being addressed, but the ANGELS of the churches. Are THEY to blame for the problems? Are THEY responsible for the good? It is perhaps my own lack of understanding, and of course, I judge nothing according to purely my own understanding, but why address angels, when it is the men in those churches who are responsible for both good and ill. Why, then, directly address the angels? Shall I blame the angel of the church of Herlong for all my troubles?

 

Seriously, if someone can give some sort of an answer to this, other than, "Well, it says angels it must mean heavenly beings'. Yeah, I get it. But again, the word 'god' is used very rarely when referring to men, but it IS used. So why could not the term angel be used in one instance of men, when the meaning of a messenger would still be valid? And would they not be, indeed, a messenger of God to that church?

 

Again, not trying to be contentious. The context just doesn't seem to support it.



#44 heartstrings

heartstrings

    He shall feed his flock like a shepherd....

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,366 posts
1,182
Excellent

Posted 17 April 2014 - 01:52 PM

It's puzzling.

If "angel", here, means "pastor", then why doesn't it say "pastor"?



#45 prophet1

prophet1

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts
221
Excellent

Posted 17 April 2014 - 05:05 PM

Exactly,
1 Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

Isn't "the angel of the church of Philadelphia" one of the angels? Else it would have to specify "which things the heavenly angels desire to look into"

Yes. More common sense.
Thank You for this contribution.

Anishinaabe



#46 prophet1

prophet1

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts
221
Excellent

Posted 17 April 2014 - 05:17 PM

PLease understand: I'm not seeking to be contentious. My only point I made was, why would it be necessary for God to address angels, ie, heavenly beings, of the obvious pros and cons of the various churches with which they have to do, and tell them to get the problems right, as though it was somehow the fault of the angels to fix the problems, or that the angels were worthy of the praise for what was going on correctly in the churches?

Clearly it is not so much the churches being addressed, but the ANGELS of the churches. Are THEY to blame for the problems? Are THEY responsible for the good? It is perhaps my own lack of understanding, and of course, I judge nothing according to purely my own understanding, but why address angels, when it is the men in those churches who are responsible for both good and ill. Why, then, directly address the angels? Shall I blame the angel of the church of Herlong for all my troubles?

Seriously, if someone can give some sort of an answer to this, other than, "Well, it says angels it must mean heavenly beings'. Yeah, I get it. But again, the word 'god' is used very rarely when referring to men, but it IS used. So why could not the term angel be used in one instance of men, when the meaning of a messenger would still be valid? And would they not be, indeed, a messenger of God to that church?

Again, not trying to be contentious. The context just doesn't seem to support it.

I believe that you are missing the point, in Rev 2 and 3.

The Angel of the church is supposed to carry the message to the church.

God isn't holding the Angel responsible for the church, or what it does with the message.

God is dictating messages, to be sent by His messengers, like a CEO would.

Rev 2:10
10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer:behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days:be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

"Some of you" in the church, get it?

Rev 2:13
13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is:and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.



Anishinaabe



#47 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,463 posts
1,989
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 17 April 2014 - 05:35 PM

But John is writing these things to the angels of these churches.
This is where the context of the passage appears to imply other than the common understanding of 'angel'.

Where else has God used a man to write his message to an angel to then give that message to men?

The plain reading in this case indicates against the common useage.

The logical way to read this is that these 'angels' are human messengers - pastor, bishop, elder, of each of these seven existing churches.

God tells John to write a physical letter to be delivered to each of these churches - that much can not be disputed.

#48 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,648 posts
5,611
Excellent

Posted 17 April 2014 - 05:44 PM

The thing is, IF these are referring to men as messengers rather than angels, then shouldn't the translators have used the word "messenger", as they did elsewhere in Scripture, rather than "angel" which is used throughout Scripture to refer to the "ministering spirits".



#49 heartstrings

heartstrings

    He shall feed his flock like a shepherd....

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,366 posts
1,182
Excellent

Posted 17 April 2014 - 05:53 PM

Hey ya'll.Don't you reckon angels can read? They got BOOKS up there ya know......... :frog:

 

 Revelation 20:12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.


Edited by heartstrings, 17 April 2014 - 05:54 PM.


#50 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,463 posts
1,989
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 17 April 2014 - 05:59 PM

Unless they accurately translated the words used without adding their own thoughts to the words.

#51 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,648 posts
5,611
Excellent

Posted 17 April 2014 - 06:12 PM

Do we know the specific word the translators translated in this case?

 

In some cases we know where there are multiple possible translations of a particular word, the translators sometimes used different words in different parts of Scripture. They had reasons for doing so.

 

What about the case we are discussing?



#52 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,463 posts
1,989
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 17 April 2014 - 06:18 PM

The word in Greek is Angelos.........

#53 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,648 posts
5,611
Excellent

Posted 17 April 2014 - 06:27 PM

If that is the same word the translators used to refer to angels in most places, and messenger in a couple places when referring to men, then it would seem they meant angels, not men, when they said angels in Revelation.



#54 prophet1

prophet1

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts
221
Excellent

Posted 17 April 2014 - 09:13 PM

But John is writing these things to the angels of these churches.
This is where the context of the passage appears to imply other than the common understanding of 'angel'.

Where else has God used a man to write his message to an angel to then give that message to men?

The plain reading in this case indicates against the common useage.

The logical way to read this is that these 'angels' are human messengers - pastor, bishop, elder, of each of these seven existing churches.

God tells John to write a physical letter to be delivered to each of these churches - that much can not be disputed.


God sends His messages to us by angels. Starts in Gen.
Gen 16:10
10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

and goes to Rev.:
Rev 22:16
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Same beings, same job, all the way through...

"Logic" doesn't tell us that the angels of the churches are men, false doctrine does.

Show me one place in Scripture where God puts a single "Pastor" in charge of a church. You won't.
If you study all things Ephesus, you will see the actual way contrasted with the Nicolaitan way.

The Nicolaitans need Rev 2 and 3 to be men, not angels, so they can hang their 'Church King' false doctrine on it.

The RCC wasn't around until another 200 years, after Rev. 2, so don't blame Rome.

Anishinaabe



#55 SpiritualWarrior

SpiritualWarrior

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
0
Neutral
  • LocationSmiley # 2

Posted 18 April 2014 - 01:02 PM

I am new to this site.  Have been exploring the topic of predestination.  Can we post links to other places that have helped us.  I found a place that explains the topic very well. 

You have to becareful what you post here. I have been reading the forum for about 6 years now, they censor and delete here. I have seen many people get banned from here for something they posted. You do not have to break a rule to get banned from here. They will just ban you if they do agree with you.


Edited by SpiritualWarrior, 18 April 2014 - 01:04 PM.


#56 robmac68

robmac68

    Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
174
Excellent
  • LocationWV

Posted 18 April 2014 - 01:28 PM

You have to becareful what you post here. I have been reading the forum for about 6 years now, they censor and delete here. I have seen many people get banned from here for something they posted. You do not have to break a rule to get banned from here. They will just ban you if they do agree with you.

Are you in the right place and referring to the correct forum.  Check your address, this is OnlineBaptist.com the paranoia,com forum is 2 blocks down and on the left.  :)



#57 heartstrings

heartstrings

    He shall feed his flock like a shepherd....

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,366 posts
1,182
Excellent

Posted 18 April 2014 - 02:07 PM

You have to becareful what you post here. I have been reading the forum for about 6 years now, they censor and delete here. I have seen many people get banned from here for something they posted. You do not have to break a rule to get banned from here. They will just ban you if they do agree with you.

I've been here for a few years, been vehemently disagreed with, have ruffled more than a few feathers, and been accused of some really crazy stuff but have never been banned. If you don't act like a troll, intentionally sow discord, or basically just try to be an antagonistic jerk, most are pretty forgiving.



#58 BroMatt

BroMatt

    Big Stick Wielder

  • Administrators
  • 7,590 posts
546
Excellent
  • LocationNew England

Posted 19 April 2014 - 02:02 PM

You have to becareful what you post here. I have been reading the forum for about 6 years now, they censor and delete here. I have seen many people get banned from here for something they posted. You do not have to break a rule to get banned from here. They will just ban you if they do agree with you.


Not sure where you are getting by our information from as our ban list is very, very small.

To say they were banned for something they posted is quite obvious, what else do you do on message boards other than post?

#59 SpiritualWarrior

SpiritualWarrior

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
0
Neutral
  • LocationSmiley # 2

Posted 19 April 2014 - 07:54 PM

Not sure where you are getting by our information from as our ban list is very, very small.

To say they were banned for something they posted is quite obvious, what else do you do on message boards other than post?

 

If you don't act like a troll, intentionally sow discord, or basically just try to be an antagonistic jerk, most are pretty forgiving.

This is very vague is it not?  This like saying, If I think you are acting like a troll(because I needed an excuse to justify why I got rid of you), intentionally sowing discord(because I needed an excuse to justify why I got rid of you), or basically just try to be an antagonistic jerk(because I needed an excuse to justify why I got rid of you).

 

Seriously, I am a grown man. Have some respect for me.



#60 SpiritualWarrior

SpiritualWarrior

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
0
Neutral
  • LocationSmiley # 2

Posted 19 April 2014 - 07:55 PM

Not sure where you are getting by our information from as our ban list is very, very small.

 

My own 2 eyes and I know many(what I consdier to be many) from other forums who have come here and been banned.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500