Are the souls of men the fallen heavenly hosts?

[TomLaPalm]

No one with a third grade reading comprehension level would have gotten that from what I wrote. That's solid bone between your ears.

I'll mock and jeer atchya later, angel man. Laugh

you said this:

But, no matter what the law says, men ain't gods, and that's the point that Christ is making. He's not saying we're like Him. He's drawing a stark, black and white contrast between us and Himself, and then citing the types and shadows of the law to expose the corruption in the judgment of the Pharisees—and yours.

This is not found in John 10, Christ NEVER contrasted Himself to us.

You accuse me of blasphemy? If He called them gods because they preached the Word, How much more am I the Son of God, Who IS the Word?

This explanation is so far off it shows the lack of even the base comprehension of this passage.

"preach the word" is not even alluded to. Jesus stating to be the Word is not in these verses

Jhn 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken

This passage is referring to:

Heb 1:1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

and this
Rom 3:1
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Jesus was referring to the prophets were receive word from God regarding this passage from Psalms 82 "unto whom the word came " is not Jesus


In your Hebrews posting above:

Why can man judge angels if we are lower than them?

If you can't answer this simple question you need to stay on the porch, until you are ready,.
You can mock and jeer or bark and whine , whatever suits you. But you are only embarrassing yourself

 

[agedman]

Thank you for your kind response but there are several errors present.

1. There is no scripture that says angels are not redeemable, (although it is true, they have to be human first. )

Hebrew 2 would be definitive as the answer.

“What is man, that You remember him?
Or the son of man, that You are concerned about him?
7 “You have made him for a little while lower than the angels;
You have crowned him with glory and honor,
And have appointed him over the works of Your hands;
8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”​

So, humankind is made up of beings "a little lower than the angels" for that was the form Christ took when born on this earth.

Humankind cannot be "lower than the angels" and be fallen angels. "lower" as used here is not lower in rank or authority, but lower in design and purpose. The great chandelier does not enjoy either the design or purpose of the commode. They each have their purpose. It would be sad if one confused them.

2 , 3 . Elohyim is used for the almighty but this is not that usage "heavenly host" and is plural as in Job 1 This is why we cannot determine doctrine from Translation, esp KJV.

Again, the Jews used the word to indicated any who were in authority (like the European lords, lards, esquires, knights, ...) so is the use in Job 1.

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
​

I sense that you desire to read some alignment of heritage rather than that of purpose in the words "sons of God."
Again, it is a mater of delegation of purpose that separated the "heavenly hosts" including all created beings and things, from those "sons of God" who had delegated authority. It is a matter of positional responsibility, not one of heredity.

One in the military salutes the rank, not the person holding the rank. One in the military does not salute the son of a Lt. Col. unless that son acquires such a rank as obliges that opportunity. The "sons of God" did not have privilege by heritage, but by rank.

Unlike the believers who have privilege by heritage. We are joint heirs with Christ.

Romans 8:

The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him​

Unlike the angels, the redeemed enjoy a rank and heritage.

Look at the timeline given by Peter (1) when showing how that the OT folks preached, taught, and inquired; and how even the angels looked and continue to look into.

As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look.​

So, the angels look into what the prophets spoke, and look into the preaching and teaching of the apostles and even to our day as the Holy Spirit works in the lives of believers. BUT, there is no Scriptures that state that the angels are ever redeemed, or given a chance to be redeemed.

4. This is the exact opposite of new age thinking. You agree we are spiritual eternal beings in a flesh and blood temporal body. We are not Gods but the sinful beings that were kick out of Heaven.
WE are the bad guys in this redemption scenario.

I disagree with your considering this thinking is not "New Age," but that is not the actual discussion of the OP, and is a side trail.

Just know that it is, and it is not uncommon to hear and read some form of the thinking among the Hollywood bunch.

Such thinking as was part of the "heavens gate" bunch who were taught that humankind were descendants of some extra terrestrial beings that were coming on a comet.

"New age" doesn't mean it is brand new, but it means that the thinking rejects that of the "old" Scriptures, so it is "new" for the age, in constant reinventing, and never quite pinned to anything other than some eccentric anti Scriptural presentations.

The use of Jehovah in the OT is comparable to God in the NT. " to them gave He the power to become the sons of GOD " is the same GOD of the OT.

The sons of God are not the chosen line of Seth. It is used to reference beings before Seth was born.

Job 38:7

How is it that we will judge sinful angels?

How is it that Hell is prepared for the Devil and his angels and we know sinners go there but no verse says a man is cast into hell?

First, again, you are placing "sons of God" (Elohim) as if that is a statement of heritage rather than rank.

Job 38:7
"When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?"​

could just as easily been translated from the original,

"The morning stars rang in unison, and the authorities over them blasted and blasted."​

Second, the line to the Messiah ran through Seth, not through Cain. The genealogy given in Genesis 5 would exclude any of Cain's heritage existing after the flood.

Third, it is important to remember that the passages in the Scriptures that would indicate some condition of life before this earth are but a small photo of much larger events. For example: I can hold in my hand a photo of a soldier from the 1860's, and I can describe the photo and the person in the photo. But that is not all of that person, not all of the events that surrounded that person, or of the whole life, living, influences... of that person. It is merely a snapshot of that instant of one particular person.

Had we also stood in that timeless expanse we might have a far clearer understanding, but it is not given to us to speculate or to imagine. The words given by the Scriptures are given so that the believer may be fully equipped in this living, at this time.

Fourth, certainly there is Scriptures given that state the heathen unredeemed are cast into "hell." Such is found in the conclusion of the Revelation 20.

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades (hell - KJV) gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades (hell - KJV) were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.​

Now, I suppose that one could state, "See, they were cast into the lake of fire, not hell." Well, where was hell?


Now, I have spent enough time responding, and wonder, did you read from this source which would have provided you a great amount of information on this topic?

I'm not suggesting that you read and agree with every sentence, rather that you gain wisdom and understanding from the presentations. This source isn't very long, and gives a diversity of views on the information.

I understand if it is too wearisome for you to read from this source, for at times it would have been for me, too.

 

[TomLaPalm]

Since we are Sinful all humans are lower than the "angels" ( a misnomer) or "elohyim" in their original created state. The fallen angels are spiritually dead or unable to respond to spiritual stimuli. Man is spiritually "quickened" to be able to respond to God's prompting to repent. If We repent "to them gave He the power to become the "sons of God" or be reconcile unto himself by the cross (Col 1:20) So the redeemed sinners can rightfully judge those who were given the same chances (as Humans) as the unrepentant sinners.

"sons of gods or "ben elohyim is not always humans nor is it used the same in all instances. Psalms 82 for instance God is talking to the "the congregation of the mighty" "He judgeth among the gods" Same word as in V6. Thas is not spoken to humans.


God is chiding men to show their supernatural powers here.
Isa 41:23
Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together

"sons of God "in Job are not Humans, it is the same words This is especially evident when God asked Job where was he when creation events happened . The sons of God" shouted DURING the foundation of the earth. It is definitely not a man

Revelation 20 is a future event .

The elohyim who sinned were cast into darkness, and are here, even Satan himself. This is the place of the spiritual dead. Even so Jesus said "Let the dead bury their dead" They are "chained in darkness , reserved unto judgement. (not in judgment yet).

Hell is the all encompassing "place of the dead" which includes a place of " torment" as in the rich man. It also is for the spiritually dead.

 

[agedman]

Too much to respond to, so I will pick a few problems out.

Since we are Sinful all humans are lower than the "angels" ( a misnomer) or "elohyim" in their original created state. The fallen angels are spiritually dead or unable to respond to spiritual stimuli. Man is spiritually "quickened" to be able to respond to God's prompting to repent. If We repent "to them gave He the power to become the "sons of God" or be reconcile unto himself by the cross (Col 1:20) So the redeemed sinners can rightfully judge those who were given the same chances (as Humans) as the unrepentant sinners.

Again, you are exalting the word "elohim" by choosing to excluding all that the Jews even to this day consider the world meaning.

It is NOT used just for diety, but for any that have authority, it matters not if they are of the enemy of believers or not. It is a word signifying authority, skill, strength that places who or what (the object of the word) as set apart from the everyday, or common.

Do NOT use "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, [even] to those who believe in His name," (John 1) as if that is speaking of elohim. It is NOT! Not even close.

"sons of gods or "ben elohyim is not always humans nor is it used the same in all instances. Psalms 82 for instance God is talking to the "the congregation of the mighty" "He judgeth among the gods" Same word as in V6. Thas is not spoken to humans.


God is chiding men to show their supernatural powers here.
Isa 41:23
Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together

"sons of God "in Job are not Humans, it is the same words This is especially evident when God asked Job where was he when creation events happened . The sons of God" shouted DURING the foundation of the earth. It is definitely not a man

Revelation 20 is a future event .

The elohyim who sinned were cast into darkness, and are here, even Satan himself. This is the place of the spiritual dead. Even so Jesus said "Let the dead bury their dead" They are "chained in darkness , reserved unto judgement. (not in judgment yet).

Hell is the all encompassing "place of the dead" which includes a place of " torment" as in the rich man. It also is for the spiritually dead.

I don't wish to get into all this.

But, to state that you are taking the word and attempting to smush it into a perspective that it just doesn't fit.

In EVERY instance, you need to seek which of the definitions of the word actually FIT the context of use.

For example: Bill had a sick old dog that needed to see the vet. Bill rode the old dog to town.

The use of the words "old dog" are not pointing to the same object. One was an animal, the other a greyhound bus. Context must be used to discern.

Another example: The Mayor had a meeting with the Lord of the Water and the Lord of the Trees. They discussed how much water the trees in the town park would need during the drought.

Certainly you wouldn't connect the title with something holy or righteous. It is merely the title.

Elohim is a title, a statement of one who either by appointment, skill, intellect, wisdom or some other attribute is considered a leader or ruler of the common.

Not always is Elohim used to mean deity or even related to deity in Jewish writings.

 

[annsni]

Jhn 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken

This passage is referring to:

Heb 1:1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

and this
Rom 3:1
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

How could the Gospel of John be referring to two letters that were not even written?

 

[TomLaPalm]

How could the Gospel of John be referring to two letters that were not even written?

no, all three verses show that God gave scripture to the Hebrews/Jews

 

[TomLaPalm]

Too much to respond to, so I will pick a few problems out.



Again, you are exalting the word "elohim" by choosing to excluding all that the Jews even to this day consider the world meaning.

It is NOT used just for diety, but for any that have authority, it matters not if they are of the enemy of believers or not. It is a word signifying authority, skill, strength that places who or what (the object of the word) as set apart from the everyday, or common.

Do NOT use "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, [even] to those who believe in His name," (John 1) as if that is speaking of elohim. It is NOT! Not even close.




I don't wish to get into all this.

But, to state that you are taking the word and attempting to smush it into a perspective that it just doesn't fit.

In EVERY instance, you need to seek which of the definitions of the word actually FIT the context of use.

For example: Bill had a sick old dog that needed to see the vet. Bill rode the old dog to town.

The use of the words "old dog" are not pointing to the same object. One was an animal, the other a greyhound bus. Context must be used to discern.

Another example: The Mayor had a meeting with the Lord of the Water and the Lord of the Trees. They discussed how much water the trees in the town park would need during the drought.

Certainly you wouldn't connect the title with something holy or righteous. It is merely the title.

Elohim is a title, a statement of one who either by appointment, skill, intellect, wisdom or some other attribute is considered a leader or ruler of the common.

Not always is Elohim used to mean deity or even related to deity in Jewish writings.

I do not know how to respond.

Are you saying God of the OT (like Gen 1) and the NT (like John 1) are not the same?

Elohyim is not always used the same, for GOD. but I only know one usage where it is used for designated authority for a judge.

Psalms 82 1 has both usages

Psa 82:1
[[A Psalm of Asaph.]] God (elohyim) standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (elohyim)

Jesus said ye are "elohyim" as in plural "gods" to men who were trying to kill him for saying the He was one with the Father

What is your point with modern Jews?

 

[agedman]

What I am saying is:
1) that Elohim is plural, but that the Jews consistently take it as relating to a singular when speaking of the creator, and with a identifier when used with false gods (Genesis 35:4, Exodus 12:12).

2) that Elohim is a word that may indicate the authority of God or the authority of humans. It is a title, of character not a tile of hereditary. As "theos" is applied to believers, it is also a title given to the character of the new creature, who, as a result, is hereditarily aligned with God. The unredeemed are not related to God.

3) John 1 does not use the term "Elohim," for that is a Hebrew word. It uses "Theos" which is contextually specific to the "Creator, the God of all." It is also in the singular, and does not take the form of the plural (unlike the Hebrew) when relating to the Creator.

4) Jesus used the statement of the OT, in John 10, because he was rebuking the religious righteous. Remember, that when the law was given to the Jews, they were considered God's chosen, a "people called by His name," therefore, His children, and so the term "theos" is accurately applied. But that has no implication that they were in anyway fallen angelic beings.

5) Because believers are "joint heirs with Christ" we also are "theos" but that is not a statement of preexisting as a fallen angel. It is a transfer of title from unredeemed to redeemed.

6) The point I was making of "modern Jews" is to show the consistency of how they actually view the use of the word.

Please understand, that the word is used as a word denoting a title, some authority, some level of skill, perhaps even a brash or bold complement. In each use, the context must determine the meaning.

There are times when the word is used in relationship to the God of all - the creator. There are times when it is used in relationship to the authority, skill, or in some other manner toward humankind.

But it is never to be taken as indicating that humans were fallen angelic beings.

Here is an writing that will help (hopefully) with better explanation than what I have shared.

Hebrew Streams: Elohim

 

[Martin Marprelate]

come on guys, none of what you posted negates the point.

I think you'll find it does.
But here's another text for you.
Hebrews 2:16. 'For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants.'
I have re-read Psalm 82 and John 10:34 at your request. They are difficult texts, but I don't see that your interpretation makes them any less difficult, rather the reverse.

 

[TomLaPalm]

What I am saying is:
1) that Elohim is plural, but that the Jews consistently take it as relating to a singular when speaking of the creator, and with a identifier when used with false gods (Genesis 35:4, Exodus 12:12).

2) that Elohim is a word that may indicate the authority of God or the authority of humans. It is a title, of character not a tile of hereditary. As "theos" is applied to believers, it is also a title given to the character of the new creature, who, as a result, is hereditarily aligned with God. The unredeemed are not related to God.

3) John 1 does not use the term "Elohim," for that is a Hebrew word. It uses "Theos" which is contextually specific to the "Creator, the God of all." It is also in the singular, and does not take the form of the plural (unlike the Hebrew) when relating to the Creator.

4) Jesus used the statement of the OT, in John 10, because he was rebuking the religious righteous. Remember, that when the law was given to the Jews, they were considered God's chosen, a "people called by His name," therefore, His children, and so the term "theos" is accurately applied. But that has no implication that they were in anyway fallen angelic beings.

5) Because believers are "joint heirs with Christ" we also are "theos" but that is not a statement of preexisting as a fallen angel. It is a transfer of title from unredeemed to redeemed.

6) The point I was making of "modern Jews" is to show the consistency of how they actually view the use of the word.

Please understand, that the word is used as a word denoting a title, some authority, some level of skill, perhaps even a brash or bold complement. In each use, the context must determine the meaning.

There are times when the word is used in relationship to the God of all - the creator. There are times when it is used in relationship to the authority, skill, or in some other manner toward humankind.

But it is never to be taken as indicating that humans were fallen angelic beings.

Here is an writing that will help (hopefully) with better explanation than what I have shared.

Hebrew Streams: Elohim

I am missing the point you are trying to make.

1. Yes elohyim is plural, and it is also used to signify GOD. It is also used for real or imagined supernatural beings. as in heavenly host.

2. It is correct to indicate rank, not heredity. Rank is shown as "lower than the angels" etc.

3. The language does not change the identity of the beings, Jehovah Elohyim is Theos

4. No, the Greek Theos is not being quoted in John 10. It is the Hebrew from Psalms

5. We can be joint heirs with Christ because we are "redeemed" which indicate a previous possession. same as reconciliation. . Fallen sinners have forfeited the relationship with God and is restored by the cross.
Col 1 20
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whetherthey be things in earth, or things in heaven.

And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in yourmind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

6. I do not know about modern Jews, The use of the meaning is consistent for about a thousands years any way.

Chabad.org Psalms 82

6I said, "You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High.

Indeed, as man, you will die, and as one of the princes, you will fall.

God died for ALL sins.

 

[TomLaPalm]

I think you'll find it does.
But here's another text for you.
Hebrews 2:16. 'For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants.'
I have re-read Psalm 82 and John 10:34 at your request. They are difficult texts, but I don't see that your interpretation makes them any less difficult, rather the reverse.

fair enough, let's suppose God DOES have favorites, choosing to save one group of sinners yet reject another .myet He says He is a righteous judge.

let's suppose , God had prepared a place to hold the arch criminal , yet chose to send the new creation of innocents there too.

I believe there were eternal unrelated spiritual beings created by God who sinned and God had a plan to redeem these beings by placing them in a flesh and blood vessel were one death could be shared by all.

Heb 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

They were children before they were flesh and blood

 

[Darrell C]

Just popping in for a quick post:

fair enough, let's suppose God DOES have favorites, choosing to save one group of sinners yet reject another .myet He says He is a righteous judge.

We need not suppose, we have already been told...

Acts 10:34

King James Version (KJV)


34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:


This is simply a Basic Bible Principle that we see illustrated throughout the Word of God.

God does not save people because He favors certain over another, the just nature of His judgment is according to obedience of men, as well as Angels, to His will for them. This too is a Basic Bible Principle.

let's suppose , God had prepared a place to hold the arch criminal , yet chose to send the new creation of innocents there too.

Again, no supposition necessary, or should I say, "No assembly required," lol. No need to construct theories when we already know that (1) Hell was created for Satan and his angels, and (2) Satan is not currently residing in a "place prepared to hold the arch criminal." He roams the earth, that we know. He seeks to devour, that we know.

Secondly, the "arch criminal" of Scripture is not Satan, but mankind. Scripture was not given to Angels, nor through Angels, nor by Angels, but given to men from God. When we consider Angels, they are clearly distinguished from men, just as other members have already pointed out.

Third, there is but one "new creation" spoken of in Scripture (in regards to man and Angels), and that is the Born Again Believer. There are no "innocents" among mankind, thus we are hard pressed to find among Angels, particularly fallen angels...innocents. It is a contradiction. You are trying to construct a scenario that distinguishes "good" angels from "bad" in your attempt to rationalize a simple statement to your doctrine:

I think you'll find it does.
But here's another text for you.
Hebrews 2:16. 'For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants.'

You say...

I am missing the point you are trying to make.

...so consider that the Writer's statement denies the possibility that angels and men are one and the same. The reason is because if men were spirits that preexisted and given flesh and blood bodies, then in fact Christ would be "helping Angels." If men are Angels, then redemption is for them through mankind, as you suppose.

The Writer also states...


Hebrews 2

King James Version (KJV)


6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?


7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:


If men are Angels, then this would be incorrect. We do not view God veiling His Glory in human flesh as making Him lower than Angels. We would have to say He was made as the angels, rather than lower, which is of course a reference to mankind. This distinguishes the difference between men and Angels.

This we do not have to suppose, because we know that God took on the form of a man. If preexisting spirits also did that, we would have an identical process, but the Writer makes it clear, He was man in the likeness of men, who, by the way, were made in the likeness of God, which is another point to consider: The underlying premise is that men are (preexisting) fallen spirits given a "second chance," so to speak, for redemption. So the creation of the world would be God then making these preexisting spirits in His likeness and image. Does that really make sense, Tom?

I believe there were eternal unrelated spiritual beings created by God who sinned and God had a plan to redeem these beings by placing them in a flesh and blood vessel were one death could be shared by all.

I agree, for the most part, that there are unrelated spiritual beings created by God who sinned. However, they were not eternal, for only God is eternal. They were, as you acknowledge, created, which gives them a place in eternity when they have a beginning.

Secondly, only when we adopt a view which not only cannot be validated by Scripture, but is invalidated, that men are preexisting spirits given an opportunity for redemption...can we go so far off the beaten path of what is revealed to us and take on a view taught by cults (primarily Mormons, who, because they had no Scripture to validate their doctrine, supposed it was okay to concoct their own). Scripture distinguishes between men and Angels enough that we can understand this distinction.

So what you believe should have a Scriptural Basis, and so far nothing you have presented comes close to denying the distinction clearly drawn.

Heb 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

They were children before they were flesh and blood

And this is the syllogistic conclusion drawn from the supposition you entertain. Only from a perspective of the Foreknowledge of God and Election can we view the redeemed as known prior to their creation, or be considered "children" before they were flesh and blood.

We know that some fallen angels are now in prison, some not. Consider that devils, or demons, fallen angels...posses men and women. How would we reconcile this to your doctrine, Tom? Are these preexisting spirits already having been born, or, not yet born?

Consider:


Matthew 8:28-32

King James Version (KJV)


28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.


29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?


30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.


31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.


32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.


Here we have preexisting spirits, demons, fallen angels, and they are well aware of their destiny. You can suppose that God "favored some above others" if you like, thus reconciling the problems that arise in your doctrine, but, this opens up other issues to consider. We have some of these preexisting spirits born as men, and some then...possessing their bodies.


Matthew 25:41

King James Version (KJV)


41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:



Your doctrine equates Satan with men. Hell was prepared for Satan and his angels, not men. Christ distinguishes that here. In view are the unbelieving who are destroyed at Christ's coming, and He does not say depart into everlasting fire...prepared for you.

Again, as we have discussed before, I caution you in this doctrine. And again, just popping in to make a quick comment or two, hope that helps stir up the conversation.


God bless.

 

[TomLaPalm]

Yes, we have been told.
My suppositions are what you have to believe in order to accept current doctrine, in total opposition to the Word of God and God's nature.
To say God does not have favorites and believe that God saves some sinners yet not others is a contradiction.
The supposition listed in the post all show the contradictions, or rather to not believe scripture to hold these common positions.

Fallen angels, including Satan have very much in common with man, both sinners, both condemned, both associated with spiritually "dead" , in the same place, same time, both same destination (unless redeemed. ) Both are spiritual beings, God called the same descriptions.

Hell is prepared for the devil and his angels, so what is man doing there? Was God caught unprepared? or unable to know man too would go to hell?

The souls of man are the sinful "elohyim" who were condemned and then placed in human vessels to be able to choose or deny redeemption.

Mankind is the method where God chose to save sinners by becoming flesh.

He plainly told Nicodemas , must be born of flesh then a second time spiritually to see the Kingdom


Satan will be incarnate , just as you are

 

[Internet Theologian]

I don't know . maybe I am very fundamentalist until I encounter a doctrinal issue or stretch in logic then I have to go to plain basic scripture and ignore man made opinion of what scriptures means and rely on what it says, even if I do not understand. In other words, I do not change scripture to mean what I think it says. . My background is more conservative than most here and the errors I saw and questioned forced me to reject commentaries and opinions and to search the Bible (in Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic) to learn what I did not understand.

How can you stand as the exact opposite of your own applauding of self credentials and not even see it? Friend you're way off track.Turn around, you're heading nowhere on an unsustainable path.

[Edited;JonC]

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, we have been told.

So why the supposition which cannot be validated? Why ignore that which makes the clear distinction between men and Angels and demons (fallen angels)?

My suppositions are what you have to believe in order to accept current doctrine, in total opposition to the Word of God and God's nature.

Not sure you understand what you are saying here: it is true, we would have to believe your suppositions to accept current doctrine which is in total opposition to the Word of God and God's nature (meaning His nature would be unstable if there is not a consistency in the Word of God).

To say God does not have favorites and believe that God saves some sinners yet not others is a contradiction.

Not at all: God gives all men the opportunity to come into obedience to His will, thereby the chance to stand in judgment. And I will give just one example of this Basic Bible Principle:


Romans 2:9-16

King James Version (KJV)


9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;


10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:


11 For there is no respect of persons with God.


12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;


13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.


14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:


15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)


16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.



What Paul is saying is that the Gentiles, who were outside exposure to the Covenant of Law, could fulfill the law because it was...written on their hearts. This will be a factor when these men are judged.

And the principle that is set forth is clearly stated in v.11, "For there is no respect of persons with God."

The primary necessity for man has always been to be obedient to the revelation provided to them by God, Who without respect of persons has revealed Himself to some extent (Creation, the internal witness given to all men, or direct revelation such as the Word of God (speaking directly to men, directly to men through men, Prophets, and speaking to man through the written Word). All men will be judged on that Basic Principle, whether they are believers or not.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The supposition listed in the post all show the contradictions, or rather to not believe scripture to hold these common positions.

I too see a number of "common positions" to be in error, but, we cannot trespass into idle speculation and create doctrines from that speculation.


You say...

fair enough, let's suppose God DOES have favorites, choosing to save one group of sinners yet reject another .myet He says He is a righteous judge.

let's suppose , God had prepared a place to hold the arch criminal , yet chose to send the new creation of innocents there too.

Both are in error. So if the supposition is erroneous, the conclusion is erroneous as well. We call this syllogism.

In view is Redemption, and Redemption pertains to humanity in regards to relationship with God. While we can see that in "the Regeneration" there will be a renovation of sorts for all of creation, which implacts Creation as a whole, we also know that this current creation will pass away. We see a distinction drawn in Scripture between man and animals, and we are nover given anything that suggests that animals are on a par with humanity in regards to the Curse or Redemption.

Consider:


1 Corinthians 15:42-47

King James Version (KJV)


42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:


43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:


44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.


45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.


46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.


47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.



This too shows that man did not preexist his earthly creation. Paul could not write "that was not first which is spiritual," if in fact men are preexisting spirits. Because we know that Angels and demons are in fact spiritual beings. Man will not be similar in nature to Angels until they receive that body they/we await, which is the glorified body we receive when we are made like unto Christ.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Fallen angels, including Satan have very much in common with man, both sinners, both condemned, both associated with spiritually "dead" ,

There is a number of distinctions which distinguish man and Angels are not of the same group. For example, the destiny of demons is set, and there is nothing in Scripture detailing a redemptive plan for them. As in the Scripture shared with you yesterday, when demons are cast out of the man possessed, they know they are going into torment.

Another distinction we see is man's creation itself. We would have to re-write the Creation account to say God placed a preexisting spirit in man, which conflicts with Man being made in the likeness and image of God. Think about that Tom...this would mean that demons were made into the likeness and image of God.

Secondly, on that point, we look at Adam's descendants:

Genesis 5

King James Version (KJV)


1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;


2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.


3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:


So the best you can do with your supposition is build a case that Adam, the first man, earthy...was a preexisting spirit placed in the body created by God from the elements of the ground.

But what you cannot do is deny that the descendants of Adam bear his likeness and image, not God's.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

in the same place, same time,

No, not in the same place and time, because man has his beginnings on earth, whereas Angels most likely preexist the creation of the universe and man. Your own speculation demands that point.

Secondly, there is a division between man and Angels, whether Holy or fallen, clearly seen in Scripture. In regards to Angels, when men interact with them, the distinction is clear. Sometimes men interact with them unawares. In regards to fallen angels, their interaction with man is always negative, undesired, and evil.

So what do we do with the demons that are seen to posses people? Are these preexisting spirits who have not yet been placed in human flesh?

And these issues that arise fall in line perfectly with Mormon theology (lower case t intentional).

both same destination (unless redeemed. )

yet Hell was not prepared for man, but for Satan and his angels.

The primary difference being...men can escape that fate, demons cannot. By their own confession they know they are headed for torment, and that there is a time in the future they will go into it.

Both are spiritual beings, God called the same descriptions.

No, both are not "spiritual beings. You are denying Christ's teaching that apart from Him...men have no life:


John 6:53

King James Version (KJV)


53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


This points to man's lack of spiritual life, and distinguishes the Life Christ, the True Bread, from physical life. All men have spirits, yet not all men have life. So man does not fall into a category of "spiritual being," for if he were, then Christ's distinction between the physical and spiritual would make little sense. We saw Paul also make this distinction, and sets man's beginning as...earthly. Physical.

When men are born again, they are spiritually resurrected, which is tied to the Fall itself. Men are born spiritually dead, thus the necessity of "the renewing of the Holy Ghost." So again, while you might try to make a case for Adam being a preexisting spirit "incarnate," you cannot say this concerning his offspring.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Hell is prepared for the devil and his angels, so what is man doing there? Was God caught unprepared? or unable to know man too would go to hell?

God has never been willing that any man should perish, and has always provided men with the necessary means for obedience, which determines man's eternal destiny.

That does not change the fact that we find an inconsistency in your doctrine when we deny...Hell was prepared for Satan and his angels, which implies that man's going into eternal separation from God follows that preparation. You deny that distinction when you make men angels, for then we would have to say that Hell was prepared for Satan, his angels...and man.

The souls of man are the sinful "elohyim" who were condemned and then placed in human vessels to be able to choose or deny redeemption.

Sorry, but if you read the account of the Creation of man, you will see he was not given "a soul," he became a soul through the process of his spirit being given him by God, which He breathed into the physical body created to house that spirit.

Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are two groups which capitalize on this erroneous belief that "the soul" is the immaterial aspect of man. The spirit is the immaterial aspect of man.

And we see both the disciples and Christ validate this here:


Luke 24:36-39

King James Version (KJV)


36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.


37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.


38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?


39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


We are given insight to the understanding of these disciples concerning those who die. They believed that when men died, their spirits separated from their physical bodies. Christ confirms this in His response.

But this is an issue many misunderstand, and will not give attention to it to correct this error that plays into so many erroneous doctrines. Two of the big ones are Soul Sleep and Annihilation.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Mankind is the method where God chose to save sinners by becoming flesh.

What you really mean to say is "Mankind is the method where God choses to save fallen angels by becoming flesh," and that is simply error.

He plainly told Nicodemas , must be born of flesh then a second time spiritually to see the Kingdom

Again, that is not correct, because Christ did not say "Man must be born of the flesh," what He said is...


John 3:5-6

King James Version (KJV)



5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


You are making being "born of water" to refer to physical birth, which makes little sense for a number of reasons: first, that men must be physically born is a moot issue...of course regeneration requires people that are physically alive.

Secondly, when we understand the numerous passages that teach on regeneration (new birth), we see that at no time is water instrumental in regeneration, nor do we see Apostles teaching that "men have to be physically born."

Third, when we do see water associated with spiritual regeneration...the water is always associated with the Word of God, not physical water, not physical birth:


Ezekiel 36:24-27

King James Version (KJV)


24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.


25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.


26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.


27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


John 15

King James Version (KJV)



3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.


John 17:17-19

King James Version (KJV)


17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.


18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.


19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.




Ephesians 5:25-27

King James Version (KJV)


25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;


26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,


27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.



1 Peter 1:22-23

King James Version (KJV)


22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:


23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.



Titus 3:4-5

King James Version (KJV)


4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,


5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


James 1:18

King James Version (KJV)


18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.



Just as in the confusion as to what a "soul" is, even so the "water" one must be born of to enter the Kingdom of God has been erroneously taught as a reference to physical birth. That is why you err in saying...

He plainly told Nicodemas , must be born of flesh then a second time spiritually to see the Kingdom

Christ does not validate Nicodemus' error when he equates being born again as being physical, but rebukes him for being a teacher of Israel...and not knowing these things, which were basic truths taught in the Scriptures available to Nicodemus. He should have immediately thought of Ezekiel 36-37, rather than thinking physical birth was in view.

And today, Nicodemus' error is not only being perpetuated...but taught as Biblical Doctrine.

Ironic, no?

No...its tragic.

Satan will be incarnate , just as you are

Again, we see that we would have to believe your supposition to embrace this statement as correct.

Men being born is not "incarnation" from a Theological perspective, only God holds that title in regards to His Own taking on of human flesh. We distinguish God manifesting in flesh, such as when He did so on the plains of Mamre, where Abraham washed His feet and provided a meal to God and two Angels... from the Incarnation.

Satan will not be "incarnate," he will, as Christ taught...go into Hell (the Lake of Fire). That he takes on a physical form at times does not play into a scenario where we see an equation to the Lord Himself taking on flesh, particularly in that Body He took upon Himself that He might die...for men.

Men, not fallen angels, not preexisting spirits.

Again, Tom, I just caution you on teaching this doctrine which even thirty years ago would have been recognized as the doctrine of cults and generally rejected. Today, it seems every wind of doctrine has a platform, and that cults have made great inroads in inserting their doctrine into by and large what used to be orthodox groups. I hope something said here will give you pause for consdieration of this issue from another perspective, perhaps objective and sincerely seeking the truth of the matter.


God bless.