Salvation for Fallen Humans & Fallen Angels (A Practical Guide)

[cuchulain]

I just can't fathom grown ups believing its true...because it said so.  Thats ultimately what it amounts to.  I got similar stories AND delivery at the carnivals when i was a kid.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

16 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I just can't fathom grown ups believing its true...because it said so.  Thats ultimately what it amounts to.  I got similar stories AND delivery at the carnivals when i was a kid.

 

 

This is what happens when faith replaces reason.

 

Tinkerbell is dying.  If you want her to get better -- believe real hard and clap your hands.  See that?  The power of Clap.

 

 

 

Go ahead and laugh.  It's better than crying.  It's impossible to argue with faith.  The alternative to laughing is

 

      and          and      😕     

Edited March 20, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Why does God need Human prophets?  The goal is for God to convey a message, from God, to people.  Why does God need the help of prophets?  It might be the best method that I could come up with, in order to convey a message.  Is God as weak and helpless as I am -- to put out a message?

Seriously.  God.  This is the best idea that God could implement?  God?  It's almost as though God had nothing to do with it.

 

Two angels told Lot to get out of Sodom, they were not human, nor was Gabriel who prophesied to Mary that she was going to give birth.. Jesus was a prophet, and he was God manifested in the flesh. So while God usually uses prophets to relay messages, its not always so. And if the message is God inspired, the mode of delivery doesn't matter. Its the servants of God who do the work, but the message is divine, preserved, and inspired by God. Billions have heard, received, and accepted the Word of God, so apparently He's not as weak or helpless at conveying a message as you may think.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Two angels told Lot to get out of Sodom, they were not human, nor was Gabriel who prophesied to Mary that she was going to give birth.. Jesus was a prophet, and he was God manifested in the flesh. So while God usually uses prophets to relay messages, its not always so. And if the message is God inspired, the mode of delivery doesn't matter. Its the servants of God who do the work, but the message is divine, preserved, and inspired by God. Billions have heard, received, and accepted the Word of God, so apparently He's not as weak or helpless at conveying a message as you may think.

 

 

So, your response to why God needs prophets to put out a message  -- is God also needs angels.  

 

     

 

And scribes.  Lots and lots of scribes.

 

 

God can make a whole Universe without assistance; but putting out a message takes lots and lots of helpers.  

 

 

Forty thousand flavors of Christianity, means that even Christians can't agree on the message.

 

 

 

Considering the vast numbers of people reading the Koran -- as the Word -- I'd say that God's message is getting lost in the shuffle.  Even with all that help -- God really stinks at this.

 

 

 

I didn't even mention the other religions.  

 

 

 

It's almost as though God wasn't involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Two angels told Lot to get out of Sodom, they were not human, nor was Gabriel who prophesied to Mary that she was going to give birth.. Jesus was a prophet, and he was God manifested in the flesh. So while God usually uses prophets to relay messages, its not always so. And if the message is God inspired, the mode of delivery doesn't matter. Its the servants of God who do the work, but the message is divine, preserved, and inspired by God. Billions have heard, received, and accepted the Word of God, so apparently He's not as weak or helpless at conveying a message as you may think.

I don't believe that's true at all.  Can you prove it?

[Key]

13 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Two angels told Lot to get out of Sodom, they were not human, nor was Gabriel who prophesied to Mary that she was going to give birth.. Jesus was a prophet, and he was God manifested in the flesh. So while God usually uses prophets to relay messages, its not always so. And if the message is God inspired, the mode of delivery doesn't matter. Its the servants of God who do the work, but the message is divine, preserved, and inspired by God. Billions have heard, received, and accepted the Word of God, so apparently He's not as weak or helpless at conveying a message as you may think.

Angels aside for the moment, as it can be argued there was no proof of them and these events happening other than what is written in the Bible.

Let me put this in another context to show what you are conveying here. 

I wrote some lyrics, because I was inspired by the Beatles. So, my work is by the Beatles, becaused the mode of the work and who did the work doesn't matter, as the music is entertaining, recorded, and Beatles inspired.

Or how about this? I sent a lyric sheet to Aerosmith, they recorded it, but added some content. Since no one else had seen the original lyric sheet, everyone believes I wrote the whole thing.

[Dan56]

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

So, your response to why God needs prophets to put out a message  -- is God also needs angels.

 

The Son was the manifestation of God in the flesh, so in that respect, God directly delivered His message in person, and He assigned apostles to write it down for us.. Can't get much more direct than that. Also consider that God is spirit and infinite, so how could you possibly reveal that which is incomprehensible? A DVD just wouldn't cut it. We can't even understand the vast expanse of the universe, yet alone grasp the power that brought it about. Remember, righteousness and sin don't mix, so God separated himself from the world until Christ became sin for our sake's, and that's when the Living Word was literally revealed to all. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Dan56

[Dan56]

34 minutes ago, Key said:

Angels aside for the moment, as it can be argued there was no proof of them and these events happening other than what is written in the Bible.

Let me put this in another context to show what you are conveying here. 

I wrote some lyrics, because I was inspired by the Beatles. So, my work is by the Beatles, becaused the mode of the work and who did the work doesn't matter, as the music is entertaining, recorded, and Beatles inspired.

Or how about this? I sent a lyric sheet to Aerosmith, they recorded it, but added some content. Since no one else had seen the original lyric sheet, everyone believes I wrote the whole thing.

 

I suppose the difference is that you would have been inspired by the Beatles, but your work is still your own. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote directly about what Christ did and said, his words and deeds, not their own.

 

If Aerosmith changed your lyrics, then your work would have been changed, and people may very well believe you wrote the polluted lyrics. But God knows what He inspired men to write, and Christ being the Living Word, knew the scriptures, and he did not have a problem with what was written or say they were altered. "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

The Son was the manifestation of God in the flesh, so in that respect, God directly delivered His message in person, and He assigned apostles to write it down for us..

  

1.  Can't get much more direct than that.

 

2.  Also consider that God is spirit and infinite, so how could you possibly reveal that which is incomprehensible?

 

A DVD just wouldn't cut it. We can't even understand the vast expanse of the universe, yet alone grasp the power that brought it about. Remember, righteousness and sin don't mix, so God separated himself from the world until Christ became sin for our sake's, and that's when the Living Word was literally revealed to all. 

 

 

1.  That's your idea of direct?  Unknown authors, writing long after the alleged events, things that are implausible?  Unless of course, you think that zombies, walking around Jerusalem is plausible.

 

2.  Sad to say, I wouldn't know how to reveal the incomprehensible.  What's even more sad is that God -- the All Powerful -- also could not manage to do so.  Which means that God is not All Powerful.  So God isn't God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

There is a similarity to religion and atheism.  I know, gasp.

 

Atlanta.  Frank has been driven to the park by his parents his whole life, and now he's older and drives himself the same route.  It's the route he knows.  It's the one his parents said works, the only one.  He believes firmly that this is the only way to get to the park.  Bob was driven as a child to the park, but now he takes his own way.  He researched it himself, found about 20 different ways before he settled on the one he likes, which is short and direct.  Alice never really got to the park as a kid, but found out about it later on and decided she wanted to go too.  She carpooled with a lot of different people who took different routes before she decided on the one she liked because it had nice scenery.  Mary walks butt naked by the moonlight to the park, heck with driving.  Phil lives in the park.  He wears these weird robes and meditates all the time.

Now, Frank and Bob talk pretty regular.  They debate the best way to the park.  More, they debate the history of the roads of Atlanta, who created those roads, were there paths there naturally that man just sort of paved over or did the city planners create everything from scratch.  Frank is pretty pushy about it, he thinks there are no other routes after all and Bob is telling him there are indeed other roads.  Some of their debate entails which buildings are on which path.  Frank insists that there is a Starbucks on his route, but Bob has researched it and found that the Starbucks is actually a couple of roads over and Frank is wrong.  Alice doesn't give a crap about Starbucks, she just likes to look at the trees.  She gets tired of hearing Frank and Bob argue on a regular basis, so she determines a new area of the park to sit in so she doesn't have to hear it.  Mary is there at night, when nobody else is around.  It's a good thing, because nobody really wants to see her naked butt dance in the moonlight.  Everyone else agrees that's weird and leaves her alone.  Phil likes everybody.  He doesn't mind hearing the arguments, and occasionally chimes in to cool things down because he knows Frank and Bob are friends and don't want something as silly as a road to get in the way of friendship.  That just spurs Frank to tell Bob that he's using the wrong kind of gas in his car, got the wrong tires, and needs a car wash before going to the park.

 

Probably fairly obvious.  Frank is the overzealous know it all Christian who refuses to be wrong even when he is.  Bob is the arrogant, somewhat condescending atheist who knows Frank is wrong and just won't admit it, but keeps trying anyway.  Alice might be a bit tricky.  She's the Satanist who chose her own path because she liked it, and not for anyone else's reasons.  Mary is the pagan, most likely Wiccan.  Phil be the Buddhist. 

The park...that's the ending, isn't it?  We all die.  We all end up at the park by whatever road we choose.  The details on the path are pretty irrelevant, unless your Frank, in which case you believe thoroughly that there is only one path anyway and anyone taking a different path is gonna end up in the wrong neighborhood where they have drive by's and shootings and muggings and whatnot.  And even Frank doesn't know everything, regardless of wanting to claim he does.  But then, Bob goes strictly by the city map.  Maybe that map just hasn't been updated.  After all they put in new Starbucks on a regular basis, as we all know.  

But who's the winner?  Alice.  She chose her own path.  She got tired of the bickering and went to a more peaceful corner of the park.

[Key]

22 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I suppose the difference is that you would have been inspired by the Beatles, but your work is still your own. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote directly about what Christ did and said, his words and deeds, not their own.

 

If Aerosmith changed your lyrics, then your work would have been changed, and people may very well believe you wrote the polluted lyrics. But God knows what He inspired men to write, and Christ being the Living Word, knew the scriptures, and he did not have a problem with what was written or say they were altered. "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

Here's the bigger difference: Christ did not dispute the Torah, or Jewish Scripture, but wasn't around for the New Testament, or Christian Scripture, so, of course He hasn't disputed that. Nor could Revelation have been a direct quote from Him. Possible it was written, as I've said before, to avert question and instill obedience by submission.

God knows, but men don't.

Parts may be inspired by Him, and parts of what others added may have been put in. 

Another point, men decided which books to include and which were excluded, and even later sought destruction of the latter.

What makes an agenda possible, or even a lie believable, for that matter, is that there are bits of truth sprinkled in it.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Key

[cuchulain]

And that people want to believe.  Some are so frightened by the idea of a final death they simply begin denying it is real.  Then invent a support system to reinforce that false belief.  Then persecute those who don't agree that we are really immortal after all.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

There is a similarity to religion and atheism.  I know, gasp.

 

Atlanta.  Frank has been driven to the park by his parents his whole life, and now he's older and drives himself the same route.  It's the route he knows.  It's the one his parents said works, the only one.  He believes firmly that this is the only way to get to the park.  Bob was driven as a child to the park, but now he takes his own way.  He researched it himself, found about 20 different ways before he settled on the one he likes, which is short and direct.  Alice never really got to the park as a kid, but found out about it later on and decided she wanted to go too.  She carpooled with a lot of different people who took different routes before she decided on the one she liked because it had nice scenery.  Mary walks butt naked by the moonlight to the park, heck with driving.  Phil lives in the park.  He wears these weird robes and meditates all the time.

Now, Frank and Bob talk pretty regular.  They debate the best way to the park.  More, they debate the history of the roads of Atlanta, who created those roads, were there paths there naturally that man just sort of paved over or did the city planners create everything from scratch.  Frank is pretty pushy about it, he thinks there are no other routes after all and Bob is telling him there are indeed other roads.  Some of their debate entails which buildings are on which path.  Frank insists that there is a Starbucks on his route, but Bob has researched it and found that the Starbucks is actually a couple of roads over and Frank is wrong.  Alice doesn't give a crap about Starbucks, she just likes to look at the trees.  She gets tired of hearing Frank and Bob argue on a regular basis, so she determines a new area of the park to sit in so she doesn't have to hear it.  Mary is there at night, when nobody else is around.  It's a good thing, because nobody really wants to see her naked butt dance in the moonlight.  Everyone else agrees that's weird and leaves her alone.  Phil likes everybody.  He doesn't mind hearing the arguments, and occasionally chimes in to cool things down because he knows Frank and Bob are friends and don't want something as silly as a road to get in the way of friendship.  That just spurs Frank to tell Bob that he's using the wrong kind of gas in his car, got the wrong tires, and needs a car wash before going to the park.

 

Probably fairly obvious.  Frank is the overzealous know it all Christian who refuses to be wrong even when he is.  Bob is the arrogant, somewhat condescending atheist who knows Frank is wrong and just won't admit it, but keeps trying anyway.  Alice might be a bit tricky.  She's the Satanist who chose her own path because she liked it, and not for anyone else's reasons.  Mary is the pagan, most likely Wiccan.  Phil be the Buddhist. 

The park...that's the ending, isn't it?  We all die.  We all end up at the park by whatever road we choose.  The details on the path are pretty irrelevant, unless your Frank, in which case you believe thoroughly that there is only one path anyway and anyone taking a different path is gonna end up in the wrong neighborhood where they have drive by's and shootings and muggings and whatnot.  And even Frank doesn't know everything, regardless of wanting to claim he does.  But then, Bob goes strictly by the city map.  Maybe that map just hasn't been updated.  After all they put in new Starbucks on a regular basis, as we all know.  

But who's the winner?  Alice.  She chose her own path.  She got tired of the bickering and went to a more peaceful corner of the park.

 

 

That's an amusing analogy.  Analogies can be turned on their ear.

 

Take the Atheist, who says, there is no park.

Or the Anti-theist, who says, that parks aren't natural.

Or the Agnostic, who doesn't know if there is a park.

Or the Apatheist, who doesn't care whether or not the park exists.

Or the Polytheist, who visits many small parks, instead of the big park.

 

An analogy can be created, or twisted, to prove any point.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Child of God]

Here is an example of a military leader, not a priest, known as Judas offering up money for the atonement of sin. We can offer up our good works for the atonement of another's sin in the afterlife. Please read; 

2 Maccabees 12:38-46. Expiation for the Dead. 38 Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was approaching, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there. 39 On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs. 40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. 42 [a]Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Child of God

[Dan56]

20 hours ago, Key said:

Here's the bigger difference: Christ did not dispute the Torah, or Jewish Scripture, but wasn't around for the New Testament, or Christian Scripture, so, of course He hasn't disputed that. Nor could Revelation have been a direct quote from Him. Possible it was written, as I've said before, to avert question and instill obedience by submission.

God knows, but men don't.

Parts may be inspired by Him, and parts of what others added may have been put in. 

Another point, men decided which books to include and which were excluded, and even later sought destruction of the latter.

What makes an agenda possible, or even a lie believable, for that matter, is that there are bits of truth sprinkled in it.

 

Well, if God preserved the OT, I trust He's capable of keeping the NT intact. The best evidence of that is the bible itself, the more its studied, the more evident it is that it could not have been comprised or put together by man, and the spiritual context remains consistent throughout.

 

The first 2 verses of Revelation reveal that's its "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (vs 1) so everything John wrote was "The testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw" (vs 2).

 

All the books that comprise the NT were all authenticated,  and all but Revelation are estimated to have been written 1 to 3 decades after Christ death, with confirmation of known autographs. The books discarded were generally written 200 years later via unknown authorship.

 

So I believe its all truth, not just bits sprinkled together.. And consider that if Christ was who he claimed to be, and did what it says he did, that God would allow the story to be compromised?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

38 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Well, if God preserved the OT, I trust He's capable of keeping the NT intact. The best evidence of that is the bible itself, the more its studied, the more evident it is that it could not have been comprised or put together by man, and the spiritual context remains consistent throughout.

 

The first 2 verses of Revelation reveal that's its "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (vs 1) so everything John wrote was "The testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw" (vs 2).

 

All the books that comprise the NT were all authenticated,  and all but Revelation are estimated to have been written 1 to 3 decades after Christ death, with confirmation of known autographs. The books discarded were generally written 200 years later via unknown authorship.

 

So I believe its all truth, not just bits sprinkled together.. And consider that if Christ was who he claimed to be, and did what it says he did, that God would allow the story to be compromised?

 

 

Authenticated?  By whom?  

 

If is such a sad word.  If this, then that.  If means that it might not be so.

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

27 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Well, if God preserved the OT, I trust He's capable of keeping the NT intact. The best evidence of that is the bible itself, the more its studied, the more evident it is that it could not have been comprised or put together by man, and the spiritual context remains consistent throughout.

 

The first 2 verses of Revelation reveal that's its "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (vs 1) so everything John wrote was "The testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw" (vs 2).

 

All the books that comprise the NT were all authenticated,  and all but Revelation are estimated to have been written 1 to 3 decades after Christ death, with confirmation of known autographs. The books discarded were generally written 200 years later via unknown authorship.

 

So I believe its all truth, not just bits sprinkled together.. And consider that if Christ was who he claimed to be, and did what it says he did, that God would allow the story to be compromised?

Actually, one might question even the OT, as it, too, was written by men. Maybe Christ didn't dispute it, because as a guide or in principle it was better or closer to God's work than many of the other beliefs of the region in His view. Just like Christians do with the NT now. Remember only priests or rabbi had access to the whole Torah, while the laws were often debated for greater understanding among the faithful.

Also, how reliable are people's memories 1 to 3 decades after an event? Not everyone view things the same later as they do at the time of something happening.

Then, there's the pesky interpretation thing again. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ", may refer to John's view of Christ as a revelation, and did he write those testimonies while they were given by Christ, or later? (Memory reliability again.)

Plus, there is no accounting for passages having been added or removed after they were written via church restricted access. Which goes to the question of how much control or power the church wished to maintain over a society.

And still more questions abound. Who, as asked earlier by Jonathan, did the authentication? How reliable were they? Were they officials of the church, which might present questions of conflict of interest?

 

In my view, the reason God may no longer interfere with how men run religion is that Christ was the last piece of the puzzle for men to put together. No longer would we need Him to appoint Judges, Kings, or even prophets to be saved. Christ, Himself, said for us to question everything, especially authority. (Which, on a side note, is why I find it completely ridiculous for folks to believe that God propped Trump up to become POTUS.)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

10 minutes ago, Key said:

Actually, one might question even the OT, as it, too, was written by men. Maybe Christ didn't dispute it, because as a guide or in principle it was better or closer to God's work than many of the other beliefs of the region in His view. Just like Christians do with the NT now. Remember only priests or rabbi had access to the whole Torah, while the laws were often debated for greater understanding among the faithful.

Also, how reliable are people's memories 1 to 3 decades after an event? Not everyone view things the same later as they do at the time of something happening.

Then, there's the pesky interpretation thing again. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ", may refer to John's view of Christ as a revelation, and did he write those testimonies while they were given by Christ, or later? (Memory reliability again.)

Plus, there is no accounting for passages having been added or removed after they were written via church restricted access. Which goes to the question of how much control or power the church wished to maintain over a society.

And still more questions abound. Who, as asked earlier by Jonathan, did the authentication? How reliable were they? Were they officials of the church, which might present questions of conflict of interest?

 

In my view, the reason God may no longer interfere with how men run religion is that Christ was the last piece of the puzzle for men to put together. No longer would we need Him to appoint Judges, Kings, or even prophets to be saved. Christ, Himself, said for us to question everything, especially authority. (Which, on a side note, is why I find it completely ridiculous for folks to believe that God propped Trump up to become POTUS.)

 

 

Of course, the Old Testament should be questioned.  Where do  you want to begin?  Adam and Eve?  The Great Flood?  The Tower of Babel?  The Exodus?  Which part can be taken seriously?

 

Of course people wrote the Bible.  All of it.  Who or what else?  They were not, what we now call historians.  They were propagandists, with a wide variety of agenda.  What abounds is pious fraud.

 

There is such a thing as Biblical scholarship.  Of course there were assertions; and adjustments.

 

The same God, now being credited with Putting Trump in his job -- is the God being credited, with being the force behind all of Human history.  It's a silly assertion now.  Nothing has changed.  It's always been a silly assertion.

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

22 hours ago, cuchulain said:

And that people want to believe.  Some are so frightened by the idea of a final death they simply begin denying it is real.  Then invent a support system to reinforce that false belief.  Then persecute those who don't agree that we are really immortal after all.

 

 

Alas, wanting immortality -- even needing immortality with great faith -- does not make it so.  Reality is not forged by want or need.  Only what is.  In the end, reality prevails.

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

Christians often say god only gives you what you can bear.  Clearly wrong of course.  Millions of new borns born with fatal disease, millions with cancer, multitudes killed by 'acts of god'...definitely not immortal.