The Book of Revelation: Mystery Or Profitable?

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I remember something around 20 years ago I made mention of the notion you might be a Star Trek fan because your Icon then looked somewhat like the playing surface on Triskelion. Now I'm sure of it ... this is pure Spock.;)
Logic depends on something more primitive. That's why I've never found this idea persuasive, logic isn't all the way down, logic isn't metaphysical ground. So therefore it's in the zone of Arian to say Logos means logic.
 

fzappa13

Well-known member
Temp Banned
Logic depends on something more primitive. That's why I've never found this idea persuasive, logic isn't all the way down, logic isn't metaphysical ground. So therefore it's in the zone of Arian to say Logos means logic.
To me that was the whole point of the Spock character ... to point out the strengths and weaknesses of Kant's approach. That's why I sort of enjoy Clete offering a "premise", and building a rhetorical straw man whose life depends on the premise. Logic and reason, in and of themselves, depend solely upon the premise that they build upon.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
To me that was the whole point of the Spock character ... to point out the strengths and weaknesses of Kant's approach. That's why I sort of enjoy Clete offering a "premise", and building a rhetorical straw man whose life depends on the premise. Logic and reason, in and of themselves, depend solely upon the premise that they build upon.
Which premise do logic and reason in and of themselves depend on?
 

fzappa13

Well-known member
Temp Banned
Which premise do logic and reason in and of themselves depend on?
They depend on the one you offer. So then the question becomes what is the quality or veracity of your premise. Reviewing post 661 Clete had offered the premise that "God is just" from which to build a logical construct that suggested that Adam and Eve already knew the difference between good and Evil before eating of the fruit of said tree. I suggested a better premise would be to assume that God said what He meant and meant what He said which would lead to a conclusion more harmonious with what the Bible says if you can't just let the Bible say what it says and simply must rationalize it first. Clete was attempting to reverse engineer a premise to fit a preferred/predetermined outcome.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Clete, you call people stupid!

That's an ad hominem!
No, it isn't.

Jesus called people actors, and hypocrites, but the closest thing to Him calling someone stupid was when He said if you call someone stupid you're going to Hell!
Yeah, well since He never said that, you're point is sort of lost, isn't it?

That is a lie, and another ad hominem.
Nope! Still not a ad hominem.

The term "ad hominem" IS NOT synonymous with "insult"!

It just isn't what it means.

If you refuse to figure it out or find that you cannot figure it out then the term "fool" or "stupid" may apply respectively.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I remember something around 20 years ago I made mention of the notion you might be a Star Trek fan because your Icon then looked somewhat like the playing surface on Triskelion. Now I'm sure of it ... this is pure Spock.;)
I was big fan of Spock when I was a teen but now, as an adult, I notice constantly how illogical the character was.

As for my avatar, I like using any form of triquetra. Until I just now looked it up, I had no idea there was anything that was called a "Triskelion", never mind that the avatar I used to use was actual one of them. The term "Triskelion" actually refers to that triple spiral motif and is far older than Star Trek, obviously. I used it because I thought the way it spun around was cool.

spiral01_no ring3_shadow.gif

P.S. I just tried to make that my avatar again but it doesn't spin around like that! :(
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You're right.
Yes, I am more often than not.

You're the only one in the World who thinks that.
On the contrary!

I find it amusingly flattering that you think I'm the genesis of that teaching! Do you read anything that isn't written by a Catholic?
"John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.​
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.​
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​
...this translation––may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person's distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti–intellectualistic accusation of "reducing" God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.​
Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic." - Gordon H. Clark; Against The World. The Trinity Review, 1978-1988. [God And Logic, Gordon H. Clark, p. 52-56] John W. Robbins, Editor.
"For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ;" - Justin Martyr: The First Apology of Justin Chapter V
Logos n. < Gr, a word: see Logic 1 Gr. Philos. reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifested by speech 2 Christian Theol. the eternal thought or word of God, made incarnate in Jesus Christ: John 1 - Webster's Dictionary
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You begin and end your offering with the notion that "democracy", in and of itself, lay at the root of our inability to self govern.

Democracy is bad for a nation.

Just look at what happened to Korah and his posse...

You then get, in my estimation, much closer to the truth when you point out man as the weakness that results in the failure of this form of self government.

Any form of government that includes man is weakened simply due to man being part of it.

Thus, the goal should not be, "What is the perfect form of government?" but instead, "What is the form of government that is the most resistant to decay?"

I would take it a step further and point to 1 Sam 8. Being ruled over by the Lord was not sufficient and so began the experiment in self governance by God's chosen people. It's been down hill ever since and I think there is a lesson to be learned there.

As Clete pointed out already, God's intention was ALWAYS going to be that Israel would be ruled by a king.

The problem wasn't the kind of government they chose, but rather their impatience with God's timing.

I point to the fact that God, 400 years before Israel demanded God give them a king, wrote in the law He gave to Moses rules for the king to follow.

You then suggest that man (and woman) are inherently evil.

History teaches, through man's inhumanity towards man, that men are not basically good, but inherently evil.

I disagree.

Your opinion has been noted, and the note discarded.

I would suggest that we are capable of both good and evil and across the course of a lifetime we learn to eschew the latter and embrace the former.

Of course man is capable of both good and evil..

But that doesn't change the fact that man is inherently evil.

You then go on to lay the blame for our march toward "collectivism" at the feet of women being given the right to vote. While I would agree that they are "the weaker vessel" we are charged with their care and at some point we are going to have to quit playing Adam and blaming them for our own shortcomings.

Women are emotional creatures (as opposed to men, who are more logical/rational creatures).

If you hurt someone's feelings today, you're likely to go to jail.

Do I need to make the connection more explicit?

"People (both male and female) are evil, and once you get past a handful of trusted advisors, the more people involved in making a decision, the more likely that decision will be evil."

The Bible says this:
Prov 15: 22Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.

As Clete pointed out, but I'd like to reiterate:

A singular point of accountability often rightly motivates.

We're not saying that people shouldn't seek advice from their peers.

We're saying that decisions made by committees instead of a single person are more likely to be evil, due to the inherent evilness of men, and the fact that the majority is evil.

To put it another way: A single person has the opportunity to make good decisions. A committee full of evil people will never make good decisions.

The bigger the committee, the fewer those who control it.

You then go on to argue for an Old Testament justice system as if Jesus never showed up and said what He said.

Jesus taught the Mosaic law.

Any time you see Him correcting something that the Jews considered the law, go look up what the original law was in the Old Testament, and compare it to what Jesus said.

I guarantee you that the two will be identical, and that what the Jews thought was the law was, in fact, not what was originally said.

I know "an eye for an eye" sounds fair

That's because it IS fair.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Or the literal application of that, ie, the application of the law, "you will have done to you what you do unto others."

You intentionally destroy someone's eye? You will have your eye removed.

but it leaves us all blind eventually.

No, it doesn't, and to say it does makes God out to be unjust.

If we enforced just one law, and it was that if you harm someone so that they lose an eye, you will have your eye removed, and then swiftly, and painfully enforced it on the first person who broke that law, overnight, the number of crimes where someone's eye was irreparably damaged would plummet to almost ZERO!

It's called a deterrent effect.

Even better if it were capital punishment for crimes worthy of death. If we put one person, JUST ONE, to death, within 24-48 hours of conviction in a capital crime case, the number of capital crimes being commmitted would INSTANTLY drop to zero, thereby eliminating that crime from society.

Criminals are cowards, generally speaking, and will do anything they can to preserve themselves, even moreso when their very lives are at stake. Even the dumbest criminals would think twice about committing a crime they may lose their life over if they get caught.

Not only am I "not nicer than God" I'm not smarter than Him either.

You're certainly acting like you are.

I tend to just accept what He has said at face value and I find no need to rationalize what He has said to fit my preferences as I have none as it regards His pronouncements.

God said put the murderer to death, flog those guilty of assault, and force those who steal to pay back their victims.

If we can agree that said king was Jesus then I concur.

Nope. The children of Israel wanted a king just one generation earlier than God had planned.

Family history USED to be extremely important, and still is especially for royalty.

God reluctantly established Saul's throne, and was going to use him for the lineage of Christ (because He is omni-competent, and can adapt His plans), but then Saul rebelled, and became wicked, and so God had to remove him and his lineage from the throne. God had David anointed to become the next king, and the rest is history.

Jesus not only is King, but he has the lineage to back it up.

How many times in the Bible is Jesus referred to as Son of David in the New Testament? Every single time He is, it's a reference to his royal heritage. Christ is king of Israel not just in name, but he is the actual blood descendant (through Mary) of David!

Had Saul not rebelled, it would have been Saul's name there, and not David's.

Jesus was not and is not "a human".

Jesus became a man. If you deny that, then you are a heretic, and you need to repent.

He was not, then became, and remains to this day, a man.

He took on a human nature, thus making Him the Perfect Mediator between God and man.

A rather dreary outlook but I tend to agree. Myself personally, I have no interest in crowds much less following them but I am an outlier. We do tend to be a herd animal and that makes us susceptible to being led astray but, at the end of the day, that is still a choice that we must make and account for.

Then why support having a government based on what the crowd wants?

Rather counterproductive, if your goal is to have a just government...

If what you're suggesting here is that we have a clique of the enlightened run things ... they are working on that as we speak but I don't think that arrangement is going to end up the way you envision.

No, what we're advocating is a constitutional monarchy, with ONE person in authority over the nation, who himself rules from a position under the law.

I would respectfully suggest that you missed the entire point and purpose of Jesus.

And I would respectfully suggest that you need to look in a mirror.

Supra.

Do you not recall that little incident with the woman taken in adultery?

What about it?

And while we're at it, lets address King David the adulterer too.

Make the argument.

No, they didn't know it was wrong, they were told it was wrong ... there's a difference.

God told them not to eat of the tree.

Disobeying Him was and is wrong.

They knew it was wrong simply by being told that they shouldn't do it.

This isn't hard, FZ.

Satan told Eve something else

Not quite.

God told Adam that eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden.

Eve was not told this by God.

Instead, most likely, she was told by Adam to not eat of it nor to touch it. She, and likely Adam, put a law around the law, so that they would not break the law given by God. (This is a common theme throughout the Bible, by the way, putting a law around the law, for example, the Jews implemented a law that only up to 39 lashes should be given, so that they would never even accidentally violate God's command to give up to 40 lashes in punishment.) Satan used this to deceive Eve (and thus fell himself) by telling her that she wouldn't die... but left out the part he was referring to, that being "touching the fruit."

God said: "If you eat of the fruit, dying you shall die."
Eve said: "God has said If one eats the fruit or touches it, he will die."
Satan said: "You shall not surely die"... but left out "if you touch the fruit."

A very clever deception, if you ask me, one based on a falsehood AND a truth.

God did not say "nor shall you touch it." Eve attributed to God what God did not say, likely because it's what Adam told her.

and not knowing good from evil she went with it and so did Adam.

She knew only what Adam told her, because she was not told by God directly.
 

ttruscott

Well-known member
That means God's perfect creation for man, was a World with demons.
this world was NOT GOD's perfect creation for man but a perfect prison for the fallen, Rev 12:4-9, both the reprobate demons who never put their faith in GOD as their Saviour for sin AND those who did put their faith in YHWH as their saviour for sin but who later sinned...these two groups are mentioned in John 3:18 believers who were never condemned but lived here to be redeemed and the non or never believers who were condemned already for their sins to be the bad examples to help open the eyes of the sinful elect to their need to repent, Matt 13:27-30.
 

ttruscott

Well-known member
Because he got kicked out of Heaven? So the only realm left was Earth?
Satan's rebellion against YHWH's claims to be our GOD and saviour for all sin as the lies of a false god and the rebellion of some of those who accepted YHWH's claims to be our GOD and Saviour from all sin (thus becoming HIS elect) but who then rebelled against HIS call for the banishment of the Satanic to hell as unloving and excessive, were the sinners flung into prison earth. this prison had a rehab centre in it for HIS fallen elect, HIS sheep gone astray into sin, to bring them into redemption and full sanctification.

We read about this in
Rev 12:4 His tail swept a third of the stars from the sky, tossing them to the earth. right before his war with the holy angels. Since Satan had power over them to cast them down, I suggest they must have been sinners so I ask: "Why did Satan cast down sinners who could have helped him in his coming war with GOD?"

Perhaps they are sinners but they would not fight for him so he discarded them as useless to his cause? Satan hurled these sinners to the earth with the same hostile emotion that Michael et al hurled him and his demons to the earth.
To cast down is
S906. balló: to throw, cast down and in this verse includes the ideas of the use of force and effort: to smite one with slaps, to buffet... The animosity of this verb is echoed in v9 where it repeated twice: Rev 12:7 Then a war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But the dragon was not strong enough, and no longer was any place found in heaven for him and his angels. 9 And the great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Well, the only sinners I can think of that are useless to Satan are Christ's sheep who went astray into sin, the sinful people of the kingdom called the good seed. And if they were NOT his angles, then who are they that he has this power over them? Treating them with hostility implies the were not his at all, ie, that they were elect, not reprobate, but his power over them implies that they were sinful ...gee, almost like the sinful elect good seed in the parable.

The only reason people don't think that the 1/3 that Satan flung down v4 are different from his angels of v9, giving room for them to be the sinful people of the kingdom sown into the world by the Son of Man, Matt 13:36-38, is the orthodox doctrinal bias against our pre-earthly life in the heavenly realm.

This interpretation does no disvalue to the words as written and only conflicts with the preconceived ideology of some sectarian beliefs that we are created here on earth and not before the creation of the physical universe when all sinners chose their particular level and type of rebellion by a tue free will.

And, if you have a theory about there being other sinners beside the reprobate demons and the sinful elect people of the kingdom, I'll peruse your argument.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

Do you not know how to use punctuation? Your entire post is just one long run-on sentence...

this world was NOT GOD's perfect creation for man

Yes, it was. Then man fell and brought corruption into it.

but a perfect prison for the fallen, Rev 12:4-9,

Not even close.

The perfect prison is the Lake of Fire.

both the reprobate demons who never put their faith in GOD as their Saviour for sin

This wrongly implies that demons can be saved. They cannot.

The angels that fell cannot be redeemed.

The angels that did not fall have no reason to ask for forgiveness for sin to begin with, because they are sinless creatures.

AND those who did put their faith in YHWH as their saviour for sin but who later sinned...these two groups are mentioned in John 3:18

John 3:16-18 and onwards is talking about humans, not angels (including fallen angels, AKA demons).

believers who were never condemned

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Those who repent have been forgiven, those who do not repent will not be forgiven unless and until they repent.

but lived here to be redeemed and the non or never believers who were condemned already for their sins to be the bad examples to help open the eyes of the sinful elect to their need to repent, Matt 13:27-30.

A person is condemned the moment they sin, not before.
 

ttruscott

Well-known member
Because he got kicked out of Heaven? So the only realm left was Earth? Why couldn't God have just killed him?
...because if the judgement came upon all sinners before the fallen elect were fully sanctified, then they too would be wiped out, pulled up, against HIS promise of election. HE uses Satan's presence and sins to encourage us sinners who are not of Satan to repent.

This is explained in the parable of the weeds:
Matt 13:27 The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ 28 ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. [a reference to the explanation of this parable, ie, no more metaphor, in verses 36-39]

So the servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’[to bring the judgement upon them?] 29 ‘NO!’ he said, [postpone the judgement because...] ‘if you pull the weeds now, you might uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. The time of the harvest is the time of the maturity of the wheat and the only maturity that saves a sinner from the judgment is a mature holiness!

Thus their sins separated them from the holy elect and are the cause of the continued suffering of mankind on this earth.
 
Top