Fulfilled Theology - Preterist

Discussion All Areas Of Systematic Theology

Thanks for the opportunity to coment!

   As to the number in the Garden during Adam's creation, we cannot question other than a plurality present.

Genesis 1:26 clearly states a plurality in the "us, our, and them' in scriptural account. By the way, as author, in The

Great Deception, I laid out the dimensions of Heaven and Earth, to within a foot in all directions. Additionally, Eden encompassed these same boundaries. To the East in Eden, could be anywhere east of central Heaven and Earth.

Guess where that would place the Garden? No, not along the Euphrates! Donald possesses the map.

   Hope this might stir some interest and discussion.

Ben Winter

 

 

 

 

c

Views: 530

Comment

You need to be a member of Fulfilled Theology - Preterist to add comments!

Join Fulfilled Theology - Preterist

Comment by Bennie Winter on June 1, 2012 at 1:16pm

Rivers:

I can't resist a response, even though I have a ton of work waiting for me.

Ben

Re:

1.  The "angel" who spoke to Abraham "from heaven" (Genesis 22:15; Galatians 1:8)

2.  The "angels of God" that are distinguished from human beings (Luke 12:8)

3.  The  affairs of "angels" that are beyond human "life" on earth (1 Corinthians 6:3)

4.  Being "like the angels" who live in heaven and don't marry (Matthew 22:30)

No. 1) Genesis -- You are going to have to define and locate the Hebrew notion

of Heaven before we can hash this out.  Galatians - Only one man has ever set

up residence in heaven -- Messiah; you know, in residence where the God hung

out. So any man from heaven would have to be him who ascented to heaven.

No. 2) Luke 12:8: Of whom and what is Jesus talking about and where do those

people act as angels and evidence their hypocricy? Also, Jesus is in his ministry:

wherein, none are to understand until kingdom establishment with the Holy Ghost.

Nol 3) I Cor. 6: You are reading something here I do not intercept. I see nothing

untoward here except the saints ruling and judging those messengers who gave

false hope pre-Parousia and during Parousia. This is the only place saints could

judge over the wayward people of Israel. By the way, these saints are judging by

those messages already delivered in their lifetime and in the present time of those

present at Parousia. The saints were not to be physically present.

No. 4) Matthew: Rivers, I value your friendship but allow me; in this conversation

with the Sadducees, Jesus is answering a trick question posed by this particular

Hebrew sect. Here, they talk about the numerous God-husband covenant-relation

with his Tribal-wife, the children of Israel, and how such intimate relations must 

end because of an end to the Ten Ages covenant agreement. Remember: this is

not to be understood but received only as an astoundment? There could not be

another marriage because Jesus referred to end of the covenant! They could not

enjoy another covenant as expected by those angels (messangers) often speaking

in the heavenly place(s).

I've got to get to work. Please exegete this and try to understand the parable Jesus 

uses to commit the Sadducees to silence. You see, the Sadducees are angels in (from)

heaven but only in the sense that Pharisees are angels from heaven. Those hypocrites!

A consideration: all messengers (angels) are not necessarily good messengers and

have obligation to come from neither a good nor bad place. These messengers were

God's people -- good or bad!

Like I said, I am one busy feller' today!

You guys have fun with my 'neck stuck out.'

Ben

Comment by Bennie Winter on June 1, 2012 at 12:18pm

Rivers:

Re:

1.  The "angel" who spoke to Abraham "from heaven" (Genesis 22:15; Galatians 1:8)

2.  The "angels of God" that are distinguished from human beings (Luke 12:8)

3.  The  affairs of "angels" that are beyond human "life" on earth (1 Corinthians 6:3)

4.  Being "like the angels" who live in heaven and don't marry (Matthew 22:30)

 

No. 1) You are going to have to define and locate the Hebrew notion of

Heaven before we can hash this out.

Comment by RiversOfEden on June 1, 2012 at 5:52am

Hi Ben,

 

As a "full preterist" I don't consider the post-apostolic information in the Talmud or Q'uran to be relevant to any discussion of the older biblical canon (which contains inspired testimony).

 

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Comment by Taffy on June 1, 2012 at 5:23am

Hi Rivers, I don't want to get caught up in a discussion about "angels" at present.  But like you I'm curious as to Ben's views.  (They appear to differ from mine.)  I'll wait for him to flesh them out.

 

Take care, Taffy.

Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Comment by RiversOfEden on June 1, 2012 at 5:19am

Hi Donald,

 

Yes, I also think "Gabriel" was understood to be an heavenly "messenger" (angel) and not merely an ordinary human being.   There are many other examples that I didn't cite.  Perhaps Ben or Taffy can demonstrate how they would support the conclusion that the heavenly angels were merely human beings.

 

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Comment by Taffy on May 31, 2012 at 10:40pm

Hi Ben, thanks.  But anyone who thinks the "male physical form" is only the way it is because that's how God first wanted "angels" to appear is IMO beyond sensible reasoning.  

 

Lucky old Neanderthals, apes and chimps, ay.  Not only did/do they "look" similar to modern-man but they were/are nearly exactly the same as us genetically.  Maybe they also bear the "image of God"?..lol.

 

Like I said before.  IMO there's a fatal flaw in 'how' Rivers interprets scripture.  He says you have to take "ALL available evidence into account" but never does.  Nor will he allow any extra-biblical "evidence" UNLESS he feels it will support his paradigm.  Without that he will dismiss it as "pagan" mumbo-jumbo.

 

Take his lack of understanding about the "righteousness/Law of God" for example; when it had its origins amongst men, who it applied to, what it is, etc, and his 'narrow' understanding of Israel; who they were, what they were "chosen" for and called to do, what they "inherited", why it was important that "promises and covenants" be made with them, etc.  (More on this another time.)

 

I am however interested to hear more about your view on "angels".  Given what you've said so far I'm not sure where's it's heading?

 

Take care, Taffy.

Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Comment by Bennie Winter on May 31, 2012 at 6:38pm

Taffy:

Can't see any reason for you not to comment on my thread (if it is mine)! lol

Ben

Comment by Bennie Winter on May 31, 2012 at 5:02pm

Donald:

I hope to have more time in the next two or three days to fully address Riverofeden, Taffy, and your query about the 'angel,' Gabriel; notwithstanding, Gabriel was a spirit and could appear only in dreams, visions, or thoughts. Other than that, I willl have to be quiet for a little while -- until I can catch up on a few chores and errands.  This promises to be a great study, and I can hardly wait to begin serious debate.

Perhaps you, Donald, with Riverofeden and Taffy (and others if they care to contribute) can iron out a few wrinkles until I can join the discussion. To complicate a hoped-for, unbiased study, everyone seems hopelessly steeped in diverse but traditional teachings; at the same time, I am neither endorsing nor condemning the National pastime of interpretative leaps -- distanced debate appears to draw more from interpretation excess than exegetical exertion; in our prejudices, we should strive for more open-minded exegesis. Nonetheless, all of us together should be able to thresh this out to an acceptable harvest. We might, each of us, be able to contribute something. And so: Would you believe the angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammed, in a cave, where Mohammed daydreamed and hallucinated a lot?  lol  We have the word of nineteenth century writers that such was indeed the case (though Mohammed lived in the early seventeenth century, 200 years previous)! In the sense of justification, Talmud, Bible, and Qu'ran are but legal-historicisms, unchallengeable in the authenticity allowed by dent of antiquity but unprovable in the utter silence of ongoing extrasensory communication from touted 'angels' (spirital messengers). They must have expired After all, did not ancient writers construe part of each content to Gabriel, an entity given existentialist reach only in imagination, visions, and dreams?

(I don't know what happened to the above type: it appears to have enlarged and is a complete mystery to me. lol )

Perhaps we should first confirm or deny First Century application in the Twenty-First Century -- but restricted to witnessed testimony. Perhaps Don can start a thread when this present topic has run its course.

Look forward to reading some of your thoughts.

Best Regards,

Ben

Comment by Donald on May 31, 2012 at 12:23pm

Also what about Gabriel (Dan. 8:16; 9:20-21; Luke 1:19, 26)?

Comment by RiversOfEden on May 31, 2012 at 11:38am

Hi Ben,

 

With all due respect, your comments about "angels" is an oversimplification of the biblical evidence.

 

You are correct in saying that the Hebrew and Greek words translated "angel" are usually the same as the common word for any kind of person acting as a "messenger."   However, there are numerous uses of the word "angel" (messenger) in scripture that certainly don't suggest that an ordinary human being is delivering the message.

 

Please consider a few examples:

 

1.  The "angel" who spoke to Abraham "from heaven" (Genesis 22:15; Galatians 1:8)

2.  The "angels of God" that are distinguished from human beings (Luke 12:8)

3.  The  affairs of "angels" that are beyond human "life" on earth (1 Corinthians 6:3)

4.  Being "like the angels" who live in heaven and don't marry (Matthew 22:30)

 

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

This is an open forum to discuss all areas of Systematic Theology which it does not agree with the Church Traditions.

© 2017   Created by Donald.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service