Wow. Check this. Why Didn't God forgive Satan for sinning

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Dec 15, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RETSoldja

    RETSoldja Telling it like it is.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    64
    I take no offense to honest mistakes when they occur, so no worries.

    I am not asserting this at all. I am asserting that the original Catholic church is the result of the earliest Christian faith- Though Peter was not the first Pope, as they claim; the Catholic church did, in fact, come from the first believers. It was a gradual growth, from a scattering of believers all across the known world under various overseers, such as Timothy; to a unified body which came to be known as the Catholic Church.
    It is vital that one understands that the original Catholic Church was not what we see today. Remember what I said earlier about the substitution of the word church? The name "Catholic Church" literally meant "universal body of Christ." It was coined in the second century as a means of identifying those who followed what we now call the Bible, from those who were Arian, Gnostic, etc.
    Over time, the Catholic Church grew corrupt, and the first great schism took place as a result. This bore offshoots of the different variations of Catholicism. The Protestant Reformation was yet another schism as a result of corruption within the Catholic Church, and it was here that several alterations were made to the Bible that we from that offshoot currently have today.
    During the Protestant Reformation, seven books were struck from the canon, as were certain chapters of books, and verses of chapters. Examples of this would be the last verses of Esther, Psalm 151, and parts of Daniel. We also nearly lost some books that were ultimately left, such as James and Revelation.

    So, to summarize, the Christianity we know today did, in fact, spring from the Catholic Church; but the Catholic Church was originally comprised and developed by the first Followers of The Way.



    Now, if I may ask you a question wholly unrelated: What do you mean when you state "seer" under your username?
    test
  2. GaLaTeA

    GaLaTeA GymArt

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    31,440
    Agreed.

    (lost a bet, hence the wayne in the sig)

    ...so you are all about dollars and no sense (cents)?
    test
  3. RETSoldja

    RETSoldja Telling it like it is.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    64
    Ah- That sucks.

    I will say that I liked Drop The World and How to Love. Aside from that- Not a fan.
    test
  4. GaLaTeA

    GaLaTeA GymArt

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    31,440
    ...Drop the world is the only one known to me, not a fan either, tbh...

    :welcome: to the board, btw.

    ...anyways, back to the original discussion...
    test
  5. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Life - Breathless - Indaba Music

    I made an amazing song to an instrumental called "Hit-Boy & Chase N. Cashe - Drop The World" from an old mixtape I was working on...but, check it out

    Life - Breathless - Indaba Music

    once we're born as an infant we forget why we ignore the fact
    we're livin' in the instant we begin to remember things
    it's the very same second we lose all our past memories
    where we stray, headed dowwn a path that causes everything

    chance, brevity, enhanced levels of sense and speech
    advancements in technology, relaxants, comedy
    advantages, modesty, damaged health, stress relief
    stems and seeds from plants that got ya laughin' while the drama screams
    silence, commotion, violence, devotion,
    childish sins, grown ones, mild winds, cold gusts
    pile a' dust, stone chunks, miles a' rugged roads,
    ruts, bumps an' bruises, smooth sailin, nuthin' ta lose since you'd fail at

    Life, if it wasn't a one man race,
    It's life, if it only comes once it's a waste,
    It's life, if it's going where we pull it like a toy train
    It's life, if it's a coin flip in the throwing, is it joy or pain?


    it's life, if it wasn't a one man race,
    It's life, if it only comes once it's a waste,
    It's life, if it's going where we pull it like a toy train
    It's life, if it's a coin flip in the throwing, is it joy or pain?


    It's plans, levity, devil tongued rants the deaf can't see
    a back track in philosophy, sudden accidents, constant grief
    a bad hand ya get, a partner's lead, cancer cells, medical teams
    radical procedures, ancient methods, age old wisdom, prophecy

    psychics, charlatans, con artists, harlequins
    side kicks, hardships, clocks tickin' off our existence,
    final hours, first seconds, the time is ours to learn a lesson
    turn the page, find the message you mighta missed if you didn't look at


    It's life, if it wasn't for bein' born we'd ignore it
    It's life, if it's showing us what's more than important
    It's life, if it's solely for your own enjoyment,
    It's life, so, don't even hope to avoid it

    It's life, if it wasn't for bein' born we'd ignore it
    It's life, if it's showing us what's more than important
    It's life, if it's solely for your own enjoyment,
    It's life, so, don't even hope to avoid it


    It's life...just imagine it all the passion, anger, pride and hatred gone
    lost in the winds of changes, dancin' off to abyssmal wastelands
    it's happenin', but you can't fall back to stay alive, don't take me wrong
    process this one statement, have it caught in yer inner brainstem
    let it go, but keep control of it, hold it near yer heart
    show yer tears, don't darken yer face with veils made to block out the rays
    of sunlight, 'cause even when the moon shines you might get a little bit brighter
    when the tides have finally returned to yer side an' yer eyes've drifted skywardd

    (mash together of choruses)

    Once we're born, as an infant, we forget why we ignore the fact
    we're livin' in the instant we begin to remember things
    it's the very same second we lose all our past memories
    where we stray, headed down a path that causes everything

    (offset mash together of first 2 verses)
    test
  6. GaLaTeA

    GaLaTeA GymArt

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    31,440
    ^^that was dope. I tip my hat to you.
    test
  7. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    A scenario I've pondered myself at times. Though still undecided, I tend to lean toward the opposite view simply due to the fact Lucifer is an angel and perhaps not subject to grace as we are.


    I agree, for the most part. No English translation remains completely true to the original texts, some more so than others and for a multitude of reasons and motives.





    I beg to differ and would urge you to reconsider your stance. King Henry VIII reigned when the first separation from Papal authority took place. The Traditional Roman Catholic Church (RCC) denied the King permission to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. King Henry VIII subsequently, in an act of defiance, demanded financial recompense from the RCC and demanded their acknowledgment of him being their supreme head. In 1531 the Church of England recognized King Henry VIII as the supreme head of the Church and in 1532 the Church of England became a separate independent entity under the authority of the monarch. The King procured an annulment from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, and married his mistress. He was then excommunicated from the RCC by Pope Clement VII in 1533. However, it wasn’t until 1534 that the Church of England formerly ended the RCC and the Pope’s influence.
    It wasn’t until Queen “Bloody” Mary ascended to the throne in 1553 that the Church of England reunited with Rome. However, upon her death in 1558, when Queen Elizabeth I came to reign, separatism was again reintroduced. This separation was formalized once more in 1559 and Queen Elizabeth I was excommunicated by Pope Pius V in 1570.

    Shortly after Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, after the death of Queen Elizabeth I, the Protestant Clergy approached him with their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop’s Bible (authorized Anglican publication from Elizabethan times that replaced the Great Bible from Henrician times) in an attempt to garner the people’s favour over the widely accepted Geneva Bible (complete English translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts). The King, in 1604, granted permission and so spawned a massive project combining the efforts of near 50 scholars. The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament were all considered. In essence the Old Testament was translated from original Hebrew texts and the New Testament from the original Greek. Different scholars worked on separate parts and then revised the complete works together. Though formal permission was required for commencement of translation and approval of the end publication, his influence was primarily confined to the omission of marginal notes (some of which were extremely controversial; proclamations of the Pope being the anti-Christ, etc).
    The end result, after 6 years, was the 1611 King James Bible (KJV); a widely available, incredibly accurate translation of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. And although not truly a Protestant translation, and in spite of the Rheims New Testament (which used, among other texts, the Latin Vulgate) being taken in to consideration during the process of formation, it remains over 95% true to the Geneva Bible – a translation taken entirely from the original texts. As a result, apart from the Geneva Bible and the original William Tyndale New Testament, the KJV is the most accurate English translation of the scriptures widely available.
    Please also realize that despite many claims of revisions the KJV was essentially unaltered until the 1769 Baskerville revision.


    I must disagree with you. Please see the aforementioned reference to the KJV’s source material. In fact King James I was intent on ensuring the KVJ completely removed itself from the Papal influence.
    If so desired, I would gladly post a complete Bible timeline that I have previously documented. It chronologically details the English translations of the scriptures.
    test
  8. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    I’ll have to respond to this later as I am rather pressed for time at the minute. Agape (one of the three Greek word’s for love – meaning unconditional love [God’s love]) is the original word and suffice to say ‘charity’ has a strong correlation to tithing which may well be the motive you're presuming here.
    Although I strongly recommend the KJV to people, especially those who are not well studied in scripture, I would not consider myself one of the ‘hardcore supporters’ you mention. In fact, wherever possible, I suggest use of the Geneva Bible. In my humble opinion it is the most accurate translation, compiled entirely from the original Hebrew and Greek texts. It is also the bible upon which America was founded.
    test
  9. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Again, I must respond later. Quickly, however, in this instance 'seer' has two meanings. It describes me as I define myself, as an observer. And it references my username, the great prophet Easayah/Eashaya (Isaiah of the Old Testament), as seer is a synonym for prophet.
    test
  10. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    As you’ve already stated, the original Greek word used (in this reference) was agape, which we know to mean unconditional love. As I alluded to earlier, your assumption here might be one of motive, as charity, as we commonly understand it today, is the act of giving. However, we must closely examine why the English word ‘charity’ was chosen by the translators instead of ‘love’.

    It is first necessary to confirm we know it was deliberate, as throughout the KJV the original Greek word ‘agape’ was translated to the English ‘love’, so why charity in these instances?

    Let us look at the distinction of the characteristics by using passages from the Scripture, but before I do this, I will first endeavour to make it quite clear that ‘charity’ in this regard does not mean charity in regards to giving, as some would try to indicate.

    In I Corinthians 13:3 the KJV says, "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." Giving to the poor is charity as some would like to indicate, so where the passage goes on to say, “and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” it would be a paradox were we to interpret charity in the respect of giving. Therefore, we know that charity, as it is used here, must mean something else. It is evident that they've purposefully used 'charity', but why?

    Now, let’s refer to the Scriptures:

    Charity "doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own".
    Charity as well "thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth".

    However, where modern versions state that "love (agape) thinks no evil, does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth" (NKJV), many contradictions occur when considered with other passages in the Scripture.

    If "LOVE seeks not her own and thinks no evil" what do we suppose with the following Scriptures where "love" (agape) clearly seeks her own and does indeed rejoice in evil?

    "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." (Agapao) John 3:19

    "They did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God."( Agapao) John 12:42-43

    "for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them."( Agapao) Luke 6:32

    "For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world..." (Agapao) 2 Timothy 4:10

    "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness." (Agapao) 2 Peter 2:15

    "If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (Agapao) 1 John 2:15

    Perhaps this is why the initial scholars responsible for translating the original Greek text in to English to publish the KJV, and the subsequent collective, agreed upon the use of the word charity instead of love. Love can clearly seek her own and rejoice in evil.

    Considering this, charity, as defined by Webster’s 1913 Dictionary, also means love in a sense much greater than ‘love’ is commonly used.
    1. Love; universal benevolence; good will.

    Now abideth faith, hope, charity, three; but the greatest of these is charity. 1. Cor. xiii. 13.

    "With malice towards none, with charity for all." Abraham Lincoln.

    2. Liberality in judging of men and their actions; a disposition which inclines men to put the best construction on the words and actions of others.

    The highest exercise of charity is charity towards the uncharitable. Buckminster.

    3. Liberality to the poor and the suffering, to benevolent institutions, or to worthy causes; generosity.

    4. Whatever is bestowed gratuitously on the needy or suffering for their relief; alms; any act of kindness.

    I find this evidence enough to determine that where ‘charity’ is used in the commonly referred to “Charity Chapter”, it is specifically referring to the love (agape) we (should) have for our fellow men. It is not used to describe the love of God for man or the love of man for God.

    Paul stresses that we are to walk "charitably" toward our weaker brothers (Romans 13:14-15). “Let us not therefore judge one another anymore: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.”

    He praised the Thessalonians because "the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth" (2 Thessalonians 1:3). “We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth.” In 1 Peter 4:8-9, “and above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. Use hospitality one to another without grudging.”

    John encouraged the saints, "Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church..." (3 John 1:5-6)
    In all of these passages, charity describes the love of the followers for others. Mostly, it refers to other believers: toward each other, amongst ourselves, to our brethren. In one case it also includes strangers, but in all of them, God is referring to the special love that followers should have for others.

    There are many passages that speak about the importance of love in general, but the Scripture speaks of charity to direct us to a specific kind of love.
    Charity is the love toward others that suffers long with them and is kind, (1 Corinthians 13:4) “Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up”, that does not behave unseemly, seek to get its own way, or is easily provoked;” (1 Corinthians 13:5) “Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;” that rejoices not in the iniquity of others, (1 Corinthians 13:6) “Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth”; that bears, believes, hopes, and endures. (1 Corinthians 13:7) “Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”

    It is the GRACE that proves our faith, it is the GRACE that saves.
    test
  11. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Interesting.

    Its also used to describe the gift of discernment.
    test
  12. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,182
    interesting. and very plausible.
    test
  13. RETSoldja

    RETSoldja Telling it like it is.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    64
    Eashaya, excellent work there. In order to hopefully keep things short, I'll not be directly quoting; rather, I'll reference your work.

    In reference to Lucifer (post #47): I have found considerable biblical evidence for the possibility of angelic forgiveness. However, because of the extremely controversial nature of the topic, I tend not to talk about it much. Thus the reason I lean the way I do.


    Mary, Henry, James, and the Church of England: I am aware of the history you quoted, however, you failed to take into account the fervor with which James carried on the separation. I did not say that he initiated the division, but that it was being attempted. According to Papal writ, at the time of James, Rome once more laid claim to the Church of England. That writ took place after the death of Elizabeth, and gave quite a bit of trouble to James in the early years of his English monarchy. That is what James was attempting to do away with, and yes- A translated Bible with his own authorization would go a great length in furthering that end, as at the time, all Catholic institutions used the same Bibles.

    As to the revisions of the KJV, it was practically heresy to suggest such a thing for a very long time after its completion, so no surprise there. Revisions did take place prior to its completion, however.

    As to the "removal of Papal influence," (aside from making my point regarding his stance on removing the Church of England completely), it really didn't make a lot of difference. The source they used as their "Rosetta Stone," as it were, was the Vulgate. Yes, they removed a great deal of Catholic influence. However, they did not remove it all. We'll get to that momentarily.


    As pertains to the differences between agape (post #50), it means unconditional love- Period. There is absolutely nothing in the word that references God. Remember, Paul and others were writing in a secular language; one that recognized multiple deities, none of which could be said to display the kind of love YHWH exhibits. If the writers of the NT had wished to differ between "...the love... we (should) have for our fellow men," and unconditional love, they would have used both agape and philia. They did not. Why?

    From the original writer's standpoint, he is talking about unconditional love in all aspects. The unconditional love of God far outweighs that of man, yet man also unconditionally loves the things of the world. Even after finding the Lord, we all struggle with agape for the world, rather than the agape of Christ.

    1 Corinthians 13 is not the "charity chapter," it is the love chapter, but the unconditional love of God; not of this world. The unconditional love of the world was best seen in the love of a mother for her child, and even in this, as foretold, the love has waxed cold.
    Taking this into account with your own explanation, which may very well be accurate, only proves the fact that rather than providing better understanding, the writers of the KJV were specifically concerned with pleasing their liege; thus, the lack of better research.

    Yes, true charity comes from love. However, the two are not, have never been, and cannot be interchanged. Where one relies on the existence of another, the former can exist without the latter. True charity comes from the existence of godly love, but godly love can exist without the appearance of charity. Charity grows from a spirit imbued with that love.

    As to grace proving our faith- I'd like to see where you got that.


    As to translations (post #48): I've found a few that I dearly love, as well as one paraphrase that I truly like. For a while, I appreciated the NIV, until I discovered some of the errors in that as well. Regardless, the ASB and NASB are very decent translations, as they were translated directly from the original texts, with very minimal outside input. I've also come into possession of a copy of the "Julia Version," which I must say is tremendous. If you've never heard of it, PM me and I'll give you some info on getting it.

    A paraphrase that I really like, which is unusual to say the least, was written by an Anglican minister. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that it accurately portrays what is intended to be said!! This would be the Phillips New Testament. I do not recommend it as a study Bible, but for general reading and a better understanding of what's being said, this is a decent paraphrase.


    Finally (post #49), I'd like to take the seer discussion to PM if we can. I recognized your name, but I still have some questions regarding the "seer" bit.


    Excellent conversing with you, by the way. For the record, I'll be placing links to each reference point as soon as I'm able. Must be here for seven days, and all that.
    test
  14. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    ^wouldnt nightmare make a good clavinist lol
    test
  15. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    I understand completely. In fact I would usually not even engage in this discussion. For your reference however, I would never ridicule or disrespect, irrespective of one’s belief or opinion, I have no right to judge or condemn and should I disagree, I would do so respectfully.


    When you say “all Catholic institutions used the same Bibles” would you be incorporating the Anglican Church? As at the time of King James’ ascension the Church of England was using the Bishop’s Bible which was not what the Traditional Roman Catholic Church was using. The English Bible that Rome authorized in the late 16th and early 17th century was the Rheims New and the Douay Old Testament.
    In regards to his motives, whether our different assumptions are correct or not, I believe the fruits are God’s inspired Word. God uses the wicked and the good alike.

    The entire source material that the translators of the KJV used is as follows: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and the Rheims New Testament. The Tyndale, Matthews, Great and Geneva Bible were all translated entirely from the original texts. Only a very small percentage of the Coverdale Bible used the Vulgate and the Rheims New Testament somewhat more.


    You’re correct that ‘agape’ means unconditional love and that it originally had no reference to God’s love. However, and as much as I dislike referring one to Wikipedia, I will to clarify:

    *Agápe (ἀγάπη agápē[1]) means "love" (unconditional love) in modern day Greek, such as in the term s'agapo (Σ'αγαπώ), which means "I love you". In Ancient Greek, it often refers to a general affection or deeper sense of "true love" rather than the attraction suggested by "eros". Agape is used in the biblical passage known as the "love chapter", 1 Corinthians 13, and is described there and throughout the New Testament as sacrificial love. Agape is also used in ancient texts to denote feelings for a good meal, one's children, and the feelings for a spouse. Agape was appropriated by Christians for use to express the unconditional love of God. Before agape love there was no other word to express such great love.*

    Here we see its fundamental meaning is that of unconditional love. Which we can interpret as ‘true love’ and is used at times in the scripture as sacrificial love (charity as it is used in the ‘Charity Chapter’ or known to many as the ‘Love Chapter’ in correction of the KJV; this distinction, though, belongs to 1 John 4 where love is mentioned 27 times.) However, agape itself also has subtle differences when used in the original language and text as Wikipedia refers to its use as feelings for a good meal and as used in John 21:15-17. In verses 15-16, in the English translation, we have the Lord asking, "lovest thou me?” Taken from the original Greek text, "agapao me?" Which is charity love; the purest most sincere love. Peter answers, in reply, in the English translation "you know that I love thee". Or in the Greek, "phileo you", which is like, "I like you".

    Then in verse 17, the Lord, lowers the bar somewhat and asks Peter does he "phileo" (like) him, to which Peter answers that he did "phileo" (like) him.

    *Philia (φιλία philía[3]) means friendship or affectionate love in modern Greek. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. In ancient texts, philos denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers*

    The reason I believe the KJV translators decided to use "charity" instead of "love" is that they were endeavoring to do the Greek text justice as the whole theme of the first part of 1 Corinthians 13 was this Agapao (sacrificial/unconditional/graceful) love.


    Please refer to my earlier post regarding the contradiction between the usage of ‘love’ exclusively for ‘agape’.
    test
  16. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    I would respectfully disagree. I would interpret their decision as trying to better illustrate the message of the chapter; trying to do justice to the original texts, not an injustice. One only needs to look at the history and acts of some of the translators of the source texts and, to me, it becomes quite clear that their intentions were beyond honourable.

    I do not believe the intent was to be interchangeable, but to, as previously stated, make clear the distinction between the different uses of agape. And where I agree with your assertion that unconditional love can exist without charity, charity is the next level. In other words, charity, as it is intended in the Charity Chapter, is the epitome of perfection in the Christian life. It is the “greatest” of the three abiding virtues (1 Corinthians 13:13), it is the “bond of perfectness” (Colossians 3:14), and the “end of the commandment” (1 Timothy 1:5). Peter behooves the Saints to add charity to their faith, as the seventh of seven things (2 Peter 1:5-7).

    This is my belief: To have grace (charity), one would, at the expense of oneself, forgive unconditionally, help sacrificially, and love unconditionally those who others would seek to reject. One could only display such grace with true faith. Consider the Grace of God by which we are forgiven and permitted entrance in to the Gates of Heaven. One should endeavour to bestow such grace upon one’s brothers, however incapable of it we may be.


    I often hear, “the best Bible is the one being read.” Where, as with everything, this can of course be proven wrong, it is also usually correct. I never inculcate or force my opinions, only try and explain them, if it is so desired. My understanding of many things will be quite different to even my identical twin should I have had one. I have been convicted by men who believers would consider unworthy, and observed questionable behaviour by said believers. In other words, I do not discriminate when it comes to learning, and I do my upmost to never pick up and cast the first stone.
    I’m more than happy to take any queries or conversation to PM. I too have valued this conversation and applaud you for your articulation and civil discussion.

    I would, however, like to make the point that, in the grand scheme of things, this really is rather insignificant. After a long time of studying scripture and hypothesizing on many related topics, I have come to the conclusion that a very simple message is enough. Love and forgiveness is paramount, and through true love and forgiveness all that matters is all that is good.
    test
  17. RETSoldja

    RETSoldja Telling it like it is.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    64
    I agree entirely. It's just nice to be able to have an intelligent, informed and scholarly discussion (or debate for that matter) with another.

    Look for the PM. God bless.
    test
  18. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    It is indeed, and it has been appreciated, which is somewhat surprising given the nature of the forum.

    I forgot to reply regarding the Julia Bible. I believe I know of it, but never read it. That is, if it is the late 19th century works of the American Julia Smith - please refer to your PM.

    I would also advise others to take heed of your recommendations regarding the NASB and the ASV (ASB) before considering J B Phillips New Testament. Not to say the Phillips translation is duplicitous in nature, just that the Inspired Word of God is best read before a paraphrase, the latter, in my opinion would serve one better when used in this manner.
    test
  19. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay (christian god) is also God. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two Gods: darkness being necessary to light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.

    Even if god forgave Satan.. He wouldn't accept his forgiveness b/c he would lose his "so called divine" label ..

    i call satan a god.. but i say it loosely. not attributing him to any likeness of god the almighty.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)