|
Post by Dave on Oct 3, 2021 18:12:31 GMT -5
D"Other humanoid types before Adam – agrees with me not you R" Actually when I listened to him 6 years ago, I may have overlooked some things.
Reading the statements 6 years on, I see he may be referring the a creature that looks like humans but isn't, ie apes. In our church we have different theories to the rise of these apes that look like humans. or should I say humans that degraded to look like apes. In any case Gerald is not making a big point of this, so no he is not saying anything much about humanoids.ponderingconfusion.com/papers.php?id=incrementThe data suggest that species appeared suddenly, lived without changing, and then completely died out. Although, the data represented above agrees in scope, notice that in detail there is still much disagreement, especially in the timeline. Another startling revelation made clear from this fossil evidence is that around the time Homo sapiens first appeared in the record, there is the possibility that two to eight different Humanoid species shared the planet at the same time. If there was any compression of the time line at all, then these 2 to 8 different humanoid species could have interacted for generations. If I say it – you attack me without end- If Schroeder says it you sayIn any case Gerald is … not saying anything much about humanoids.Your respect is notedG" We have a 6000 year clock that begins with Adam. The six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks. D"Agrees with me and scripture – not you R" He doesn't say anything much about it Dave. Yes – Time is not linear – it is depended upon the perspective of the viewer 2Pet 3:8 + Psa 90:4 + Einstein + Schoeder + me + Kabbalah = all in agreementSure I don't like Gerald saying the time of the 6 days is different from the normal time of counting days. He suggests we are looking at the time from another frame of reference, ie God's look at time relative to earth. Yes – Time is not linear – it is depended upon the perspective of the viewer 2Pet 3:8 + Psa 90:4 + Einstein + Schoeder + me + Kabbalah = all in agreementG" But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept… a cosmic view of time. D"The 6 Days of creation are not 24hrs – on a completely different time scale Agrees with me – and scripture – not you R" Gerald is not saying that Dave, he is saying the time is recorded differently and should be viewed from God in heaven, not man on earth, hence the time is different.Yes Robert – he is saying that the 6 Days of creation cannot be recorded / measure as the same as the linear 24hr days of man’s time Yes – Time is not linear – it is depended upon the perspective of the viewer 2Pet 3:8 + Psa 90:4 + Einstein + Schoeder + me + Kabbalah = all in agreementG"In truth, they both may be correct. D" Where have I heard this before? R" Your paper didn't simply say only that, ponderingconfusion.com/papers.php?id=incrementMy point here is not to prove a correlation between scripture and science. However, it is my mission to show that these two warring factions, scripture and science, are not in conflict with one another. Your respect is notedG"The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration D"Where have I heard this before? R" This is a theory by Gerald. Is this theory of Gerald, published by Rob's website? You demand 6 24hr days – does Schroeder agree with you or not?(Rob comments to Dave here) Note I mention Gerald's theory of faith here, Quantum stretching of time.)Look Robert – I will try one more time – but my patience run thin with youTime is a measure of distance – how long does it take you to get from point A to B Creation – expanded = time – distance from God or the beginning When astronomers look through their telescope and say light years – they are speak of distance
Gerald Schroeder, a Jewish Scientist declares that billion of years and 6,000 years of time may be both correct as time is referenced differently depending where it is measured from. From earth we see time as billion of years when in fact from GOD's reference only thousands of years have actually passed. Yet both involve 24 hour days of time. Yes – Time is not linear – it is depended upon the perspective of the viewer 2Pet 3:8 + Psa 90:4 + Einstein + Schoeder + me + Kabbalah = all in agreement
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2021 4:57:46 GMT -5
D" If I say it – you attack me without end- If Schroeder says it you say In any case Gerald is … not saying anything much about humanoids. Your respect is notedR" I don't mind your theory Dave. But Gerald did not elaborate. I just take it as a theory. We SDA also have theories of humanoids, We say due to inbreeding, poor food, etc, some mutations caused some strange lines to appear, than die out. D" However, it is my mission to show that these two warring factions, scripture and science, are not in conflict with one another. Your respect is notedR" point taken, apologies if I was harsh on your paper. D" You demand 6 24hr days – does Schroeder agree with you or not?R" Yes, but He also acknowledges cosmic time. Both views are correct. D" Time is a measure of distance – how long does it take you to get from point A to B Creation – expanded = time – distance from God or the beginning When astronomers look through their telescope and say light years – they are speak of distanceR" Yes correct. ..time is similar to the Doppler affect, as the objects rush pass you, the distance stretches and the time decreases and lengths, so the clocks slow, showing age differences between them. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 4, 2021 9:02:51 GMT -5
D"If I say it – you attack me without end- If Schroeder says it you say In any case Gerald is … not saying anything much about humanoids. Your respect is noted R" I don't mind your theory Dave. But Gerald did not elaborate. He clearly said – the creation of Adam came AFTER other men were created What more dose he have to say?
I just take it as a theory. – that agrees with all of the evidence
We SDA also have theories of humanoids, We say due to inbreeding, poor food, etc, some mutations caused some strange lines to appear, than die out. After Adam – and disagrees with all of the evidence
D"You demand 6 24hr days – does Schroeder agree with you or not? R" Yes, but He also acknowledges cosmic time. Both views are correct. NO – he absolute disagrees with 24hr day He clearly says that the 6 Days are anything but 24hrs from man’s perspective. His 6 Days are measured as cosmic time – Time is not linear – time moves at a different rate – forward or backward for the Lord Time only appears linear to man.
I say it – Einstein says it – the ahl says it – the agl says it – Schroeder says it – I say it The only people you agree with is the Creation Initiate’s propaganda
D"You teach – not to witness to those most lost R" I have witnessed to Evolutionists before. I was a Science Teacher remember. Evidently they kicked your ass – because you have given up Did you attempt to present the facts in their own vocabulary – or did you speak creationism to them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2021 4:59:50 GMT -5
Greetings Dave
I don't think it is clear as a message as you say at all. Maybe since you raise this, but not 6 yrs ago when I listened to Gerald speak.
"The Jewish year is calculated by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days from the creation of the universe to the creation of the first human, that is the first being with the soul of a human (not the first hominid, a being with human shape and intelligence, but lacking the soul of humanity, the neshama)."
In my ignorance I took this to mean the apes before Adam, some looked humanoid. That's it. Adam was the first human created by God.
Gerald does not elaborate.
SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 5, 2021 5:12:45 GMT -5
hu·man·oid having an appearance or character resembling that of a human.
Apes are a branch of Old World tailless simians native to Africa and Southeast Asia. They are the sister group of the Old World monkeys, together forming the catarrhine clade
Gerald Schroeder is a respected scientist – by everyone
Your solution = He probably didn’t mean what he said, or he wasn’t bright enough to know the difference! Why do you feel so comfortable misrepresenting others work?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2021 5:27:03 GMT -5
I don't mean to disrespect him, are you sure he means what he says? If that is true, I will have to remove him from my website, but I did like his presentation one "yom echad" is really brilliant.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 5, 2021 5:56:29 GMT -5
I don't mean to disrespect him, are you sure he means what he says? Do you know what respect is?
I will have to remove him from my website, Sure - removing real science from you web-site is a step in the right direction
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2021 13:48:03 GMT -5
D"Sure - removing real science from you web-site is a step in the right direction
R" What? are you being sarcastic? Is it OK to quote some of the good you hear from others, even if some of their stuff is wrong? Is there a Biblical idea on this? Jesus took on board Jews who had a wrong idea of salvation. Even Nicodemus didn't know, a teacher of Israel. But Jesus worked with the good He saw in them. So I find what Gerald says in parts is good. Must I also exclude his words just because some parts are bad?
SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 5, 2021 17:32:48 GMT -5
R" I will have to remove him from my website, D" Sure - removing real science from you web-site is a step in the right direction R" What? are you being sarcastic? Is it OK to quote some of the good you hear from others, even if some of their stuff is wrong?
Misrepresenting other’s work to fit your argument is NOT ACADEMIC HONESTY Academic Honesty – Integrity – seriousness and honest is required – or the study is worthless
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2021 4:57:02 GMT -5
D" Misrepresenting other’s work to fit your argument is NOT ACADEMIC HONESTYR" I don't believe I am misrepresenting another's piece of work Dave. I showed you what I have said about Gerald. I like this "yom echad" idea, and the "space stretching"idea to explain cosmic time, these two things are extremely well done. Question: Does a supporter of God have to be absolutely correct in all things before God fully uses him in God's salvation? Y/N? Peter had pride and had to repent twice before God used him fully. John the man of anger had to be fully loved all the time, the Greek word alludes to. Thomas was a doubter, yet God used him. Martin Luther came from Catholic background, some of his doctrines are wrong, but I believe he is saved in heaven despite this. Even Abraham was saved and look of the sins he did, polygamy, lying about wife, etc. I hope you are not saying I should reject you as a friend just because your theology is so different to mine? I will one day quote you favourably on my website when I update it. You have taught me some new things, and I will only publish the good I received from you and ignore the bad, where we differ. I did not come here to mock your differences, but to understand and talk to a Jew willing to discuss Jewish things. When I leave this forum to spend time updating my website, I will give you links so you can read of my opinions with us, and publish them favourably. And if you don't like anything, or I misquote you, I am happy to edit it again. For example I spoke to a Jewish supporter of God who does not believe Jesus ever pre-existed. I note that Dave as a Jewish supporter of Ghod does support the idea that Jesus did pre-exist. Here is a publish review of some of the 80+ emails we shared together over the years. spiritualsprings.org/ss-993.htmThe person is identified as "P" in colour as brown writings. You can read some of our discussions and note I do not mock his as a friend in anyway. I post some of his quotes" P: "I have consider that, but ruled it out because I don't see the trinity (as taught in Christianity three co-equal, co-eternal persons comprising one God) in Scripture."
P: "Yahweh was all three by Himself." My friend P, seems to be very similar to your one God with three expressions idea Dave. ( you are welcome to make any comments in these webpages, and I will add them to the discussion) P: "I disagree. "archangel" does not mean "commander over angels". It means "chief angel" or "first (in rank) angel", not "chief of angels". Michael is definitely an angel.From a Greek view Dave does "archangel archaggelos" technically mean "chief messenger" ? You might enjoy reading of a Messanic Jew who sees some things slightly differently to your own view, but there are some things the same. In any case I do not delete the good from person P. I do not mock him either. Hold unto the good, the Bible says and think on these things. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 6, 2021 6:08:51 GMT -5
D" Misrepresenting other’s work to fit your argument is NOT ACADEMIC HONESTY R" I don't believe I am misrepresenting another's piece of work Dave. What is – R" I will have to remove him from my website,
Evidently you have used him to validate you views all this time – but when you learn he does not agree with you – you want to remove him from your data set. My question to you was – why would any true student want to remove amazingly respected quality science data from your data set? The answer can only be because that real data does not support your view.
One short sentence in the middle of his paper suggested that THE ORDER of creation agrees with science. His view of science validates scripture. His view validates incremental creation. His 1600 year old kabbalistic view “IS” cutting edge physics theory and validates Incremental Creation. What is – R" I will have to remove him from my website,
I showed you what I have said about Gerald. I like this "yom echad" idea, and the "space stretching"idea to explain cosmic time, these two things are extremely well done. But you did not understand what he meant. Your version of his work is not his version.
Question: Does a supporter of God have to be absolutely correct in all things before God fully uses him in God's salvation? Y/N?
No he doesn’t - a true prophet of God – a true teacher of the word – someone who truly wants to witness (Jer 1:5) – doesn’t need anything accept the One True Teacher – who teaches from the inside.
What is the difference between the HS witness and man’s? The HS will never lie to you! Man is a liar and makes up crap to fit their man-made doctrines. There are time when I think you will say almost anything to defend your satan god. You make up facts – and misrepresent facts. You also play word games – A means B and B means C so A can mean something different
Pretend – you go to a sales meeting – you want to buy a house, a car, or better yet – trust your life to a surgeon. As you listen to the guy speak – you listen to him speak un-truths, make up facts, and misrepresent the data – will you buy? – or will you decide that if this guy is a liar, how can I trust him?
You go on and on about conspiracy this and that – accuse the world of false information – you do not trust any of it – the official line is a lie – your government is lying to you and it OFFENDS YOU!
But when you try to push your anti-Christian pro-Ellen White doctrine – do you impress others with one fact after another – or do your exaggerations and misinformation just identify you as UDED CAR SALESMAN BULL SHITTER.
You asked me long ago – how to be an effective witness MY ANSWER = DON’T LIE TO ME
Don Patton may be famous to those with no education – but to those who know better – he just sound like a full of crap liar – pushing an agenda He does as much to hurt the faith and those who set dates for the end times.
Peter had pride and had to repent twice before God used him fully. YEP – he had to honest with the Lord John the man of anger YEP – he had to honest with the Lord Thomas was a doubter, yet God used him. YEP – he had to honest with the Lord
Even Abraham was saved and look of the sins he did, polygamy, lying about wife, etc. (google) polygyny is not prohibited by the Bible and it would have been required if a married man seduced (Ex. 22) or raped (Deut. 22) a virgin, as long as her father did not veto the marriage. (google) Can a man marry more than one wife? When a man is married to more than one wife at the same time, sociologists call this polygyny.
The commandment is NOT to bear false witness against another Eve lied before you say the serpent lied Eve didn't sin but the serpent did you say - so consistant
Why do you supersede man’s law for God’s Law Why have you been taught that the Patrarches of the Jewish faith all practiced sin? Why is it a sin to obey the Lord or scripture?
I hope you are not saying I should reject you as a friend just because your theology is so different to mine? If you catch me in a lie – expose me Quality is as Quality does - be my friend amd teach me It is called peer review - lay it open and bare - expose it fully - look at it from all sides - question it - but if there is no academic honesty the scrutiny is worthless.
Why don't Don Patton and the ICR like peer review? Because they end up printing retractions and taking down exibits as frauds
The difference between an academic and a used car salesman An academic just present the facts A used car salsman has to paint an illusion - that may or may not have anything to do with the facts The Lutherans have their illusion - doctrine The Catholic have theirs - you certianally have yours as inspired by Ellen White I'll just stick to the facts as presented in scripture - and Rom 1:1- and Psa 19:2 Things only happened one way - God's way - therefore everything must support that way (Rom 1:19 + Psa 19:2)
You and the SDA - take an opposite approach - according to you - most everything is wrong - the scientist are wrong - history is wrong - the math is wrong -scripture is wrong - or parts of it are fariy tales
P: "I have consider that, but ruled it out because I don't see the trinity (as taught in Christianity three co-equal, co-eternal persons comprising one God) in Scripture." P: "Yahweh was all three by Himself." My friend P, seems to be very similar to your one God with three expressions idea Dave. YES – there is Only One True God – your 3 god pantheon is an abomination
P: "I disagree. "archangel" does not mean "commander over angels". It means "chief angel" or "first (in rank) angel", not "chief of angels". Michael is definitely an angel. From a Greek view Dave does "archangel archaggelos" technically mean "chief messenger" ? DUH – what does achie mean Robert – First in order – First in time – First in Rank Have you learned nothing from our talks together?
Ponder why no one calls them "in the begining angels." It is your argument from Eph 6:12 - just in the begining angels
Each time you play your silly games to discredit scripture - you just hurt your own credibility then you continue to harm your credibility over and over by switching your story - being inconsistant As I said - sometimes I think you will say anything to defend your satan god
You have a problem with academic honesty - you bend the facts to fit your doctrine
What is the difference between gnosis and belief You belived Schroeder support your view for 6 years - now you want to take him off your web-site Why - did your beliefs change? Once you believed him -now you don't?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2021 14:30:03 GMT -5
D"DUH – what does achie mean Robert – First in order – First in time – First in Rank Have you learned nothing from our talks together?
R" OK, what about "first in rank as God's messenger"?
I just tried to shorten the meaning to "chief messenger", same idea?
Do you agree now?
archaggelos "archie"-"aggelos" "first in rank" "messenger"
My point is archaggelos is not a reference to a cherub, it means the "first in rank messenger".
D"What is the difference between gnosis and belief You belived Schroeder support your view for 6 years - now you want to take him off your web-site Why - did your beliefs change? Once you believed him -now you don't?
R" My views of Gerald have not changed. I will leave him on my website. I liked the bits he presented. He doesn't go into details about humanoids, so I do not have to support that view.
I think it is OK to choose good bits from others and use that to glorify God? nothing wrong with that is it?
Shalom
I found this today
---------------------------------
Are you still in the workforce or perhaps looking for work?
If so, no matter what kind of work you do, you have the potential to function as a priest, ambassador, or messenger on behalf of God and His kingdom!
How is that so?
We see a glimpse of this in the Hebrew word for work or occupation — melachah (מְלָאכָה), which might be related to malach (מֲלְאָךְ).
Malach is translated over 200 times as either the Angel of the Lord, angel or earthly messenger, as well as ambassador or envoy. At times, it refers to a messenger who is a prophet (Haggai 1:13) or a priest (Malachi 2:7).
So, if you ever felt insignificant at your job, this bit of linguistic insight can change your entire perspective.
But there’s much more to know about God’s plan and purposes for you and your work.
malak "flowing authority strong in the palms", a messenger carrying a message.
malakh " flowing authority strong in the palms, of a Person. Behold!", A worker working the message.
-------------
God Himself ordained work at the beginning of creation. (Genesis 1:28)
That means it is our moral duty to perform work and, as we’ll see, He gives us many reasons for that.
One reason is found in another word for work, which is ma’aseh.
In Deuteronomy 14, we see the words ma’aseh and ta’aseh, which help us understand that we receive a blessing for doing work.
“… the Lord your God will bless you in all the work [ma'aseh} of your hand that you will do [ta'aseh].” (Deuteronomy 14:29)
In Hebrew it is: לְמַ֤עַן יְבָֽרֶכְךָ֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ בְּכָל־מַֽעֲשֵׂ֥ה יָֽדְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּֽעֲשֶֽׂה
We find here that we have to do (ta’aseh) the work (ma’aseh) in order to receive the blessing from God—that is, make our work successful.
ahsh - asah - "Seeing thorns .Behold the Person" to do
mahsh - masah - "Flowing eye sees thorns. Behold the Person" to work, to make
---------
The Genesis of Work
Some might think that when God placed Adam and Eve in His perfect garden that He did not intend to give them work — that everything they needed and wanted would be available to them.
But that was not entirely the case.
Right after finishing His own work of creating the heavens and the earth and all living creatures, God told Adam and Eve to subdue the earth and rule over it. (Genesis 1:28)
The gathering of food became a toil only after Adam and Eve deliberately disobeyed Him.
God told Adam:
“Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life . . . By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken.” (Genesis 3:17–18; see also Genesis 5:29)
God emphasized His desire for man to work when issuing the Ten Commandments: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work ...” (Exodus 20:9; Deuteronomy 5:13)
What is work?
One Jewish writer described it as anything that "represents a constructive, creative effort" and that demonstrates a man or woman’s "mastery over nature," which God gave us in Genesis 1:28.
The Genesis of Not Working
While God wants mankind to work, He ordained that we keep the Shabbat holy even before Adam and Eve disobeyed Him.
“God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it He rested from all the work of creating that which he had done.” (Genesis 2:3)
He also gave the commandment to not work on Shabbat.
“The seventh day is a shabbat to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” (Exodus 9:11–12)
Some people rest on Shabbat, keeping it holy by pursuing their spiritual and relational development with God. They have family time, study the Torah (Bible), pray, and simply rest in His Presence.
For the other six days, however, God calls us to create, to dominate the environment (while also caring for it), and to find His purpose in doing so.
God’s Purposes for Work
Scripture helps us to find much meaning in our work.
We work to find self-fulfillment and dignity as Solomon wrote:
“There is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and tell himself that his labor is good. This I have also seen is from the hand of God.” (Ecclesiastes 2:24)
We work to provide food for ourselves and not be a burden to others, which is dignifying: God clearly expects us to work for our own food when He told Adam, “By the sweat of your face, you will eat bread.” (Genesis 3:19)
Rabbi Sha’ul (the Apostle Paul) taught that no one should eat if they don’t work for it. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)
To set an example for new Believers, Paul worked when visiting the churches he planted and did not allow himself to be a burden to others. (1 Thessalonians 2:9, 4:12; 1 Timothy 5:8)
We work to earn a profit, which allows us to supply for our own needs and give to charity so that others who can’t work, such as elderly widows and orphans are taken care of:
“In all labor there is profit [advantage, abundance], But mere talk leads only to poverty.” (Proverbs 14:23)
We work to avoid idleness. By working in any capacity, even as a volunteer or trainee, we avoid idleness — a lifestyle that is harshly condemned throughout Scripture, such as when King Solomon wrote these wise words:
“How long will you lie there, you sluggard? When will you get up from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man.” (Proverbs 6:9–11)
We work to be His priests, ambassadors and messengers. Too often, Believers quit their jobs or resent them, feeling that they are not able to honor God in the secular marketplace, but that is far from reality.
No job is so trivial that it cannot glorify Him.
Our job is to be lights in the workplace and marketplace, which certainly need the light of Godly men and women in it! (2 Corinthians 5:20; 1 Corinthians 3:9; 1 Peter 2:9)
How do we be this light?
Through the study of Scripture, we learn God’s standards for working with others as leaders and as subordinates, as buyers and as sellers.
We are to be honest, where many people in the marketplace are not.
We are to be hard workers, when many others are not.
And most importantly, we are to show God’s mercy and love, as many people have not experienced this in their lives.
By setting His standards as our standards, we set an example of being a child of God's kingdom. Perhaps God will even give us supernatural wisdom or knowledge to solve problems no one else can solve. (1 Corinthians 12:8)
Our calling is to be loyal ambassadors and trust Him to see us through it all.
King Solomon, who was the wisest man writes:
“In the end, I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot in life.” (Ecclesiastes 3:22)
And to work "is a gift from God.” (Ecclesiastes 5:19)
---------------
Ge 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
Ex 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Dave, what is the difference between "messenger work" and "ordinary work"?
I get the impression "messenger work" was ordained by God, and "ordinary work" is the work we do to overcome the curse of sin.
Your opinions is valued here, I found the Messanic Jewish email very interesting.
--------------------
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 7, 2021 5:30:54 GMT -5
D"DUH – what does achie mean Robert – First in order – First in time – First in Rank Have you learned nothing from our talks together? R" OK, what about "first in rank as God's messenger"? I just tried to shorten the meaning to "chief messenger", same idea? Yes Robert it means the same – Chief Messenger = First Messenger - agreed-
Do you agree now? - archaggelos "archie"-"aggelos" - "first in rank" "messenger" Now? – I have always agreed with this – you are the one who tried to deny the meaning of archie
My point is archaggelos is not a reference to a cherub, it means the "first in rank messenger". Absolutely correct – What does this have to do with a chief messenger being a warrior, a book keeper, or a guardian/cherub Your argument = Michael cannot be a warrior because he is a chief messenger You are saying that a chief messenger cannot be a guardian – you have no proof - you are playing a word game
Exk 28 – the King of Tyre was the guardian of his kingdom Your argument = the King of Tyre cannot be the guardian of his kingdom – because the word guardian always means a messenger of the Lord
Eze 28:14 You were an anointed guardian cheruv. Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; Dose not say the King of Tyre is an angel/messenger – it says he is the guardian of his kingdom
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. Adam – man – mankind
Eze 28:16 … I made you vanish, guardian cheruv, from among the stones of fire. Eze 28:16 …I will destroy thee, O covering cherub,
Tell me again how this proves that the King of Tyre is not a man – but is actually a messenger from heaven
---------------------------------
If so, no matter what kind of work you do, you have the potential to function as a priest, ambassador, or messenger on behalf of God and His kingdom! How is that so? DUH – Jer 1:5 what is the work we are assigned – what is our purpose for being here – what is the meaning of life? Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
We see a glimpse of this in the Hebrew word for work or occupation — melachah (מְלָאכָה), which might be related to malach (מֲלְאָךְ). YES – Jer 1:5 we are messengers of the Lord – that is our function
Malach is translated over 200 times as either the Angel of the Lord, angel or earthly messenger, as well as ambassador or envoy. At times, it refers to a messenger who is a prophet (Haggai 1:13) or a priest (Malachi 2:7). YES - John the Baptist is a messenger – the disciple John had messengers
But there’s much more to know about God’s plan and purposes for you and your work. malak "flowing authority strong in the palms", a messenger carrying a message. YES – Jer 1:5 we are messengers of the Lord – that is our function
------------- God Himself ordained work at the beginning of creation. (Genesis 1:28) That means it is our moral duty to perform work and, as we’ll see, He gives us many reasons for that. DUH – Jer 1:5 what is the work we are assigned – what is our purpose for being here – what is the meaning of life? Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. YES – Jer 1:5 we are messengers of the Lord – that is our function
God’s Purposes for Work We work to find self-fulfillment and dignity as Solomon wrote: DUH – Jer 1:5 what is the work we are assigned – what is our purpose for being here – what is the meaning of life? Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. YES – Jer 1:5 we are messengers of the Lord – that is our function
“In all labor there is profit [advantage, abundance], But mere talk leads only to poverty.” (Proverbs 14:23) The story of Joseph
We work to be His priests, ambassadors and messengers. DUH – Jer 1:5 what is the work we are assigned – what is our purpose for being here – what is the meaning of life? Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. YES – Jer 1:5 we are messengers of the Lord – that is our function
No job is so trivial that it cannot glorify Him. The story of Joseph
Our job is to be lights in the workplace and marketplace, which certainly need the light of Godly men and women in it! (2 Corinthians 5:20; 1 Corinthians 3:9; 1 Peter 2:9) DUH – Jer 1:5 what is the work we are assigned – what is our purpose for being here – what is the meaning of life? Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. YES – Jer 1:5 we are messengers of the Lord – that is our function
How do we be this light? We are to be honest, where many people in the marketplace are not. Hmmm? Where have I heard this before?
We are to be hard workers, when many others are not. YEP – be a true student – stop picking a worldly church and drinking their kool-aid (doctrine) The only doctrine that matters is God’s
And most importantly, we are to show God’s mercy and love, as many people have not experienced this in their lives. DUH – Jer 1:5 what is the work we are assigned – what is our purpose for being here – what is the meaning of life? Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. YES – Jer 1:5 we are messengers of the Lord – that is our function
By setting His standards as our standards, we set an example of being a child of God's kingdom. Perhaps God will even give us supernatural wisdom or knowledge to solve problems no one else can solve. (1 Corinthians 12:8) DUH – Jer 1:5 what is the work we are assigned – what is our purpose for being here – what is the meaning of life? Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. YES – Jer 1:5 we are messengers of the Lord – that is our function
Our calling is to be loyal ambassadors and trust Him to see us through it all. DUH – Jer 1:5 what is the work we are assigned – what is our purpose for being here – what is the meaning of life? Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. YES – Jer 1:5 we are messengers of the Lord – that is our function
King Solomon, who was the wisest man writes: But – some of us think King Solomon a liar – don’t you Robert – do not trust his writtings
And to work "is a gift from God.” (Ecclesiastes 5:19) DUH – Jer 1:5 what is the work we are assigned – what is our purpose for being here – what is the meaning of life? Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. YES – Jer 1:5 we are messengers of the Lord – that is our function ---------------
Ge 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
We work to provide food for ourselves and not be a burden to others, which is dignifying: God clearly expects us to work for our own food when He told Adam, “By the sweat of your face, you will eat bread.” (Genesis 3:19) YEP – life is hard – the Contest is between you and archon and you and World
He also gave the commandment to not work on Shabbat. Some people rest on Shabbat, keeping it holy by pursuing their spiritual and relational development with God. They have family time, study the Torah (Bible), pray, and simply rest in His Presence.
I get the impression "messenger work" was ordained by God, and "ordinary work" is the work we do to overcome the curse of sin.
Ex 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: Dave, what is the difference between "messenger work" and "ordinary work"? DUH – a messenger’s works is to deliver the message – Jer 1:5
Man is judged by his deeds, works, and fruit Deeds = the things he does Work = his witness for the Lord – His application of Jer 1:5 Fruit = spiritual fruit = bring another to the Lord – have an effective witness (work) Jer 1:5
A messengers work – is the work we do for the Lord – our witness – our parade ordinary work" = the things we do for ourselves – making money – doing business – not spending the day in reflection and praise
Your opinions is valued here, I found the Messanic Jewish email very interesting. This is what I have heard you say David has said all of this over and over to Robert – yet Robert only argues against Dave Dave uses the term Gnostic Christian so Robert has tried his best to prove I follow Simon Magnus Nothing Dave says – can be correct – because he used the Gnostic Word But – if another Messianic Jews says the exact same words to you – you say very interesting. Yes Robert – I hear you loud and clear
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2021 13:45:23 GMT -5
D" Yes Robert it means the same – Chief Messenger = First Messenger - agreedRP" My point is archaggelos is not a reference to a cherub, it means the "first in rank messenger".D" Absolutely correct –R" Very good. 1Th 4:16 For the Lord "YHWH" himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the "first rank chief messenger", and with the trump of "elohiym-powers": and the dead in Christ shall rise first: The YHWH cannot be the Father-YHWH here because this being is the chief messenger for the Father-YHWH, and by association is the SON-YHWH, who comes as the chief messenger, as the trumpet of "elohiym-powers" and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Da 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. We also know Michael is a prince. Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the "first in rank messenger", when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord "Son-YHWH" rebuke thee. Again like the other verse, the first in rank messenger of the Father-YHWH, the chief prince, comes to raise Moses, but the devil tried to stop Son-YHWH. And according to Moses Mainmanedes, the cherubs represent angels: Re 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his "cherubims" fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his "cherubims", D" Your argument = the King of Tyre cannot be the guardian of his kingdom – because the word guardian always means a messenger of the LordR" what has two functions go to do with each other? A cherub can be a "guardian" (not sure there is a Hebrew word for this word idea of yours, except "shamar" ?) and a cherub can be a "messenger", the Hebrew word for this is "malak". Jews have assumed the cherub is a always "shamar" - guarding things, where it is a Hebrew word for a creature created by God, as creatures closest to God, who have free will and respond to God's love , and thus "cherub" can be appointed to "shamar" or "malak" or "both functions". D" Eze 28:14 You were an anointed guardian cheruv. Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; Dose not say the King of Tyre is an angel/messenger – it says he is the guardian of his kingdomR" Who is playing word games now? Where is your "guardian" term coming from? Not from this Scripture directly? Pr 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. You have assumed, as Jews assume, the cherub guards things ALL the time, maybe as a function the cherub can "shamar" but surely "cherub" can also "malak"?? Ge 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep "shamar" the way of the tree of life. Jeff Benner says "shamar" means to "guard", OK, so the Cherub in this context has the function to "guard". I would agree with you that King Tyre is a guardian of his kingdom. (but this is assumed, as the term "shamar" is never used in Ezekiel 28) You are saying King Tyre is not an angel/messenger. OK Rabbi Apple says the cherub sinned is not exact parallel to King Tyre, so he is alluding to the fact a cherub sinned, not a King Tyre sinned. D" Tell me again how this proves that the King of Tyre is not a man – but is actually a messenger from heavenQuoting Rabbi Apple: " The king of Tyre who, once cherub-like, protected his kingdom, is told that he and his people have sinned, and he is to be cast out and the kingdom destroyed:
Thou wast in Eden, the garden of God;… thou wast the far-covering cherub; and I set thee, so that thou wast upon the holy mountain of God;… by the multitude of the traffic have they filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned; therefore have I cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God, and I have destroyed thee, O covering cherub (28:13-16).
The parallel is not exact, since here it is the cherub himself who has proved unworthy of his responsibility and must be cast out of the garden, but both passages, in Genesis and in Ezekiel, agree that cherubim have a protecting role." Notice Rabbi Apple is saying the cherub sinned in his protective role for God, not an exact parallel to King Tyre, they both had protective roles, and both sinned in that role, the human and the cherub. Notice what you are saying Dave " Tell me again how this proves that the King of Tyre is a messenger from heaven" King Tyre is a human, and is not a different creature like a cherub, so can never be a messenger from heaven, as the cherubs were guardian angels here, and some can function as messengers as well. --------- D" YES – Jer 1:5 we are messengers of the Lord – that is our functionR" You write well here D" Nothing Dave says – can be correct R" Not so, I showed you at least 4 things you said well in your published papers, not a single comment, that I uphold your words on these themes? For example I concur with your vaccine paper, your expansion theory idea of earth, your floride in the water idea, and so forth. I even like your off grid living, and you wind generator invention is brilliant. I was moved by your witnessing stories, and by you continued discussions with me. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 7, 2021 14:38:11 GMT -5
D" Yes Robert it means the same – Chief Messenger = First Messenger - agreed RP" My point is archaggelos is not a reference to a cherub, it means the "first in rank messenger". D" Absolutely correct – R" Very good. Michael is an archangel – and he is a warrior angels – he is a messenger angel
I am going to respond to you with as much Robert flare possible
1Th 4:16 For the Lord "YHWH" himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the "first rank chief messenger", satan and with the trump of "elohiym-powers": and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
The YHWH cannot be the Father-YHWH here because this being is the chief messenger satan for the Father-YHWH, and by association is the SON-YHWH, who comes as the chief messenger, satan as the trumpet of "elohiym-powers" and the dead in Christ shall rise first.
Da 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. Ok – now Michael is satan
We also know Michael is a prince. And ‘sar’ = satan = angel Michael = satan A=b and B=c and C=d - therfore I can play this word game - it is the Rpobert method
Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the "first in rank messenger",satan when contending with the devil satan he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord "Son-YHWH" rebuke thee.
Again like the other verse, the first in rank messenger of the Father-YHWH, satan the chief prince, satan comes to raise Moses, but the devil satan tried to stop Son-YHWH.
Re 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michaelsatan and his "cherubims"satan fought against the dragon;satan and the dragonsatan fought and his "cherubims",satan And Michael the chief messenger satan was cast out by himeself
WOW - no wonder you bow to your satan god - he is everywhere
D"Your argument = the King of Tyre cannot be the guardian of his kingdom – because the word guardian always means a messenger of the Lord R" what has two functions go to do with each other? I AGREE ROBERT - JUST EXACTLY WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DO WITH ONE ANOTRHER - NOTHING!
Jews have assumed the cherub is a always "shamar" - guarding things, Yes - but the Jews are wrong – they are always wrong – they use the Kabbalah No truth in them
Wow – I prove you so wrong - your Robert method - I am so proud of myself – I played a word game A=b and B=c and C=d - therfore I can play this word game - it is the Robert method Was it helpful?
You play this same game over and over trying to twist scripture into what you want it to say!
After I get over you extreme dedication to integrity - I might answer the rest of your post
D"Tell me again how this proves that the King of Tyre is not a man – but is actually a messenger from heaven Quoting Rabbi Apple: Rabbi Apple is a contemporary Rabbi that has spent his adult life blending Christians, Muslims, and Jews togeteher
Can we stop with the man-made doctrine of today - and focuse upon the ahl and agl I can quote a modern theologian saying anything I want - I can quote you speaking against your own ideas The challange for you Robert - if you want to prove your point that - Jewish theology is wrong and the ahl supports your Catholic doctrine view only not the Jewish view - therefore Catholic doctrine existed prior to Rome therefore Catholic dsoctrine is supreme over the Jewish view.
Prove to me the doctrine existed befoe Rome invented it
The Jews wrote the Torah - they lived and died the Torah for 3000 years before Christ and yest in all that time - no one ever spoke of an angel that turned agaist God UNTIL ROME INVENTED IT as a form of population control and force dependency upon the church
|
|