I keep running into the idea on facebook, that Mary is not the mother of God because she
provided no divinity only humanity to Jesus Christ. This is assuming that to be a mother
one must be strictly an origin and that nothing else matters or can be in play. (which of
course ignores adoption.) Theotokos is better translated Birth Giver of God (in the flesh).
Jesus is God The Second Person of the Holy Trinity in the flesh. He was this from His
conception on, He did not acquire divinity later. WHAT CAME OUT OF MARY'S WOMB
WAS BOTH GOD AND MAN. Therefore she is mother of God Incarnate because she gave
birth to Jesus Who is incarnate God.
the very narrow mechanistic understanding of Protestantism is inherited in part from Roman
Catholic scholasticism, but Roman Catholicism was inhibited from taking things too far because
they inherited a tradition from Orthodoxy which they had broken from in AD 1054 (the real
beginning of Roman Catholicism as a separate church), which was rooted in intense Scripture
study.
The fathers of the first Council of Nicea hesitated to use the word homoousios same essence
because this word, though it accurately consolidated Scripture teaching, was not itself in
the Bible, you would think they were a bunch of sola scriptura people!
The pagans had a "queen of heaven" false goddess, and this is pointed to by those objecting
to this title for Mary, and the doctrine though extant among believers was not official required
belief until declared in the 1800s. The argument for it in RC was that the Jewish queens
were never the wives of kings, but their mothers.
This practice provided some continuity between the deceased prior king and his son the
then current king. In the Kings or Chronicles it is recorded that a righteous king had
deposed his mother from being queen because she had sacrificed to false gods.
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Thursday, November 9, 2017
ROTFLMAO dept. 1 TheRighteousness of Judge Moore
"Bannon said opponents of Moore are "out to destroy him.... Because they cannot take the righteousness the people like Judge Moore represent.""
http://bvtnews.com/politics/steve-bannon-establishment-hates-roy-moores-righteousness.html
so he represents all this righteousness no one can stand and it turns out he's fooling
around with teenaged girls one as young as 14. Of course this means he's cheating on
his wife and cheating on the girls most likely. Not to mention taking advantage of
youthful impressionability and stupidity or perhaps weak mindedness if he kinda
bulldogged them into this.
Trump seems to have surrounded himself with idiots, Bannon being a case in point.
http://bvtnews.com/politics/steve-bannon-establishment-hates-roy-moores-righteousness.html
so he represents all this righteousness no one can stand and it turns out he's fooling
around with teenaged girls one as young as 14. Of course this means he's cheating on
his wife and cheating on the girls most likely. Not to mention taking advantage of
youthful impressionability and stupidity or perhaps weak mindedness if he kinda
bulldogged them into this.
Trump seems to have surrounded himself with idiots, Bannon being a case in point.
Monday, October 30, 2017
Monday, October 9, 2017
40% of people are peer pressure susceptible
timestamp 5:26 an experiment showed that 40% of people will go along to get along
even when the answer provided is blatantly wrong.
how this translates to politics and morals is interesting. Just about everything shows
some influence by trend setters and so forth over the decades.
while you're worrying about not obeying but questioning authority, you might
take a look at not obeying but questioning the authority of the herd. St. Paul warns
against both imitating and against being different for its own sake. in the latter
category you get both at once - being counter culture by showing by some
clothing or whatever that you are "different" which involves imitating the style
that says all this.
Thursday, October 5, 2017
Max Planck Institute and Neanderthals
Recently I found that Neadnerthal DNA (not mitochondrial but nuclear DNA) is
in whites and Asians, but not pure African blacks. 2-4% but up to 5% in
Romanians. interesting.
Also, that a lot of genes for bad stuff are from the Neanderthal genome.
Neanderthal had as much or more brain size as us, ditto Cro Magnon, but
Neanderthal was stockier and stronger and probably had less need of tools.
Fine work could be done with teeth and nails, so their tools were cruder.
So their physical culture was inferior to Cro Magnon. Also they were the
sort of apish looking "primitive" sorts that would have been dismissed
as untermenschen under the old Nazi physiology ideas. So I figured this
essentially messed up the aryanist thing, we are the hybrid descendants
of a subhuman, Africans the pure human or at least uncontaminated by
recessive mutations from a peculiar population, so much for white
superiority since white skin and red hair seem to have come from the
Neanderthal.
Oops. Seems the Planckians are putting a "hybrid vigor" spin on this,
consistent with Darwinian survival of the fittest evolutionism (which has
always translated into social Darwinism which means enslaving and
exterminating lesser type humans and to hell with the poor).
Even said genes from NEanderthal were "advantageous" including
that some diabetes 2 related thing is good for you, so let the Asiatic
branch of hybrid human keep on being hungry I guess. Supposedly
the ability to quit cigarettes is Neanderthal, but I read of addiction
capability genes being from Neanderthal.
Essentially, these people can't get their Germanic superiority out of their
guts, so they spin anything that could go against it in its favor.
As Shoebat has said (or was it one of his writers) European superiority
didn't come from genetics, but from Christian civilization (and I would
add some congruence of historical and geographic influences, which
included Roman Empire civilizing the half naked screaming hyped up
head hunting human sacrificing probably cannibalistic at times Nordic
type humans in NW and northern Europe).
in whites and Asians, but not pure African blacks. 2-4% but up to 5% in
Romanians. interesting.
Also, that a lot of genes for bad stuff are from the Neanderthal genome.
Neanderthal had as much or more brain size as us, ditto Cro Magnon, but
Neanderthal was stockier and stronger and probably had less need of tools.
Fine work could be done with teeth and nails, so their tools were cruder.
So their physical culture was inferior to Cro Magnon. Also they were the
sort of apish looking "primitive" sorts that would have been dismissed
as untermenschen under the old Nazi physiology ideas. So I figured this
essentially messed up the aryanist thing, we are the hybrid descendants
of a subhuman, Africans the pure human or at least uncontaminated by
recessive mutations from a peculiar population, so much for white
superiority since white skin and red hair seem to have come from the
Neanderthal.
Oops. Seems the Planckians are putting a "hybrid vigor" spin on this,
consistent with Darwinian survival of the fittest evolutionism (which has
always translated into social Darwinism which means enslaving and
exterminating lesser type humans and to hell with the poor).
Even said genes from NEanderthal were "advantageous" including
that some diabetes 2 related thing is good for you, so let the Asiatic
branch of hybrid human keep on being hungry I guess. Supposedly
the ability to quit cigarettes is Neanderthal, but I read of addiction
capability genes being from Neanderthal.
Essentially, these people can't get their Germanic superiority out of their
guts, so they spin anything that could go against it in its favor.
As Shoebat has said (or was it one of his writers) European superiority
didn't come from genetics, but from Christian civilization (and I would
add some congruence of historical and geographic influences, which
included Roman Empire civilizing the half naked screaming hyped up
head hunting human sacrificing probably cannibalistic at times Nordic
type humans in NW and northern Europe).
Monday, August 14, 2017
patterns of anonymice
anonymice are anonymous posters on Cumbey's blog (or anywhere for that matter).
with a couple of exceptions the most vicious attacks on me came from anonymice
though a couple of them sign a name at the end of the post, but it is not in the post
opening line with a link.
They and some others exhibit certain patterns. One of them is apparently
Dorothy Margraf, who can be excused because she is a convert to Judaism
(went looking for some kind of social experience, not theological truth she
admitted), and is obsessed with Nazism as the sole relevant feature of the New
Age movement (yes, its there, the kind of evolutionary mysticism that sooner
or later moves to racial groups and their role allegedly in the world, including
that some are holdovers of prior root races doomed to extinction, if the New
Ager writing is close enough to Blavatsky thinking). Margraf doesn't want
Christian theological and bible interpretation issues cluttering up the place.
Or EU politics that aren't obviously about resugent Nazism.
But aside from her, what are the motives for the others? here's how they go.
post something showing that a new ager like Icke can admit something is
seriously wrong with humans at a basic level, which is an admission of
original sin even if officially denied by the writer/speaker, and therefore
can be used in apologetics and evangelism, and you are condemned as
a new ager.
post something about chakras being real and energy work real, and THEREFORE
dangerous and that new age ideas and practices regarding chakras derange
them creating problems in the nervous system inclining you to a happy
psychotic delusionary experience called "enlightenment" where you have a
serious breakdown of boundaries between you and the rest of the world, either
in just your mind or worse yet your own soul boundaries become blurred
and you are easier to manipulate or permeate or invade paranormally,
and you are condemned as a witch and a new ager.
the latest thing, is that Craig, who although dishonest seems to be motivated
mostly by his own pride and ambition not by any covert occultist agenda,
is now targeted by RayB (signed but anonymous) and an anonymous because
he is calling out one Thomas Dahlheimer, a worse case scenario new ager,
on his posts, and showing the irrationality of his belief system while making
sure first he knows just what that belief system in Dahlheimer's case consists
of so there are no straw men (which is honest enough but also practical),
and he is attacked as engaging in encouraging (and reproducing when
quoting) the spew of garbage by Dahlheimer.
I mentioned something about new age spirituality being the ground for
the politics and an anonymous reacts that all know this already, well,
NO there are hundreds of lurkers on blogs that never post, and learn
something from all this.
Ignored likewise is the importance of the argument with Dahlheimer,
that some new age inclined or gnostic inclined (similar) people reading
this have their belief system challenged and undermined, and Christians
get tools to use in arguments with such.
the anonymous and/or RayB (one of those who lied and said I'd posted
then deleted an ad for psychic services) then arrogantly tells Craig
to quit it and move this to another venue, but this person has no
authority to tell Craig this, and Constance who DOES have the authority
to do so has, on the contrary, endorsed the discussion as very important.
So what gives?
I suspect one of the players at least is a witch of some sort who doesn't
want his or her game ruined by ideas that undermine the world view
and the style of operating.
whether it is the same person or another, one of the anonymice routinely
defends my biological so called mother the witch bitch monster (who had
the gall to call my grandmother a witch bitch) despite repeated statements
she engaged in paranormal invasion of me. paul does the same but less
so unless he is an anonymous when he wants to run hog wild and give up
all pretense to class.
sounds like these people or person are child abusers of the paranormal and
mind control sorts of enslavers.
with a couple of exceptions the most vicious attacks on me came from anonymice
though a couple of them sign a name at the end of the post, but it is not in the post
opening line with a link.
They and some others exhibit certain patterns. One of them is apparently
Dorothy Margraf, who can be excused because she is a convert to Judaism
(went looking for some kind of social experience, not theological truth she
admitted), and is obsessed with Nazism as the sole relevant feature of the New
Age movement (yes, its there, the kind of evolutionary mysticism that sooner
or later moves to racial groups and their role allegedly in the world, including
that some are holdovers of prior root races doomed to extinction, if the New
Ager writing is close enough to Blavatsky thinking). Margraf doesn't want
Christian theological and bible interpretation issues cluttering up the place.
Or EU politics that aren't obviously about resugent Nazism.
But aside from her, what are the motives for the others? here's how they go.
post something showing that a new ager like Icke can admit something is
seriously wrong with humans at a basic level, which is an admission of
original sin even if officially denied by the writer/speaker, and therefore
can be used in apologetics and evangelism, and you are condemned as
a new ager.
post something about chakras being real and energy work real, and THEREFORE
dangerous and that new age ideas and practices regarding chakras derange
them creating problems in the nervous system inclining you to a happy
psychotic delusionary experience called "enlightenment" where you have a
serious breakdown of boundaries between you and the rest of the world, either
in just your mind or worse yet your own soul boundaries become blurred
and you are easier to manipulate or permeate or invade paranormally,
and you are condemned as a witch and a new ager.
the latest thing, is that Craig, who although dishonest seems to be motivated
mostly by his own pride and ambition not by any covert occultist agenda,
is now targeted by RayB (signed but anonymous) and an anonymous because
he is calling out one Thomas Dahlheimer, a worse case scenario new ager,
on his posts, and showing the irrationality of his belief system while making
sure first he knows just what that belief system in Dahlheimer's case consists
of so there are no straw men (which is honest enough but also practical),
and he is attacked as engaging in encouraging (and reproducing when
quoting) the spew of garbage by Dahlheimer.
I mentioned something about new age spirituality being the ground for
the politics and an anonymous reacts that all know this already, well,
NO there are hundreds of lurkers on blogs that never post, and learn
something from all this.
Ignored likewise is the importance of the argument with Dahlheimer,
that some new age inclined or gnostic inclined (similar) people reading
this have their belief system challenged and undermined, and Christians
get tools to use in arguments with such.
the anonymous and/or RayB (one of those who lied and said I'd posted
then deleted an ad for psychic services) then arrogantly tells Craig
to quit it and move this to another venue, but this person has no
authority to tell Craig this, and Constance who DOES have the authority
to do so has, on the contrary, endorsed the discussion as very important.
So what gives?
I suspect one of the players at least is a witch of some sort who doesn't
want his or her game ruined by ideas that undermine the world view
and the style of operating.
whether it is the same person or another, one of the anonymice routinely
defends my biological so called mother the witch bitch monster (who had
the gall to call my grandmother a witch bitch) despite repeated statements
she engaged in paranormal invasion of me. paul does the same but less
so unless he is an anonymous when he wants to run hog wild and give up
all pretense to class.
sounds like these people or person are child abusers of the paranormal and
mind control sorts of enslavers.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Banned by Joe McNeil from The Micro Effect
the broadcasters at TME The Micro Effect seem to be of what I call the
patriot militia sort, and include at least one Christian Identity nut case
who accepted the absurd statement by a guest on her show, that Ruth
was a levite princess. There were no rulers from the tribe of Levi, no
princes no kings ergo no princesses. the biblical illiteracy of many who
bases heresies of doctrine and heresies of history allegedly on the Bible
knows no limits.
I nailed her in the chatroom as to whether a non white who accepted
Jesus Christ could be saved, after hemming and hawing she said that
would be up to God but essentially, no. when I rephrased it as you
are saying a non white can't be saved or words like that, she didn't
deny this.
McNeil hosts Constance Cumbey, probably because he can use her
anti new age and anti globalist one worldism as bait to get listeners
to hear the others she doesn't run with, and/or to focus some listeners
on the insidious nature of all this as it can be seen to affect their
interests, particularly since Constance has highlighted the infiltration
of the New Age into churches (the new age Bailey eschatology is
very similar to that of hyper charismatics by the way, it was an
approving new ager observer of this who got her attention on it) and
the other issues (racism, neo confederatism, Christian Identity Anglo
Saxonism, etc.) being rejected by churches can be viewed (wrongly)
as the result of this. All he or any has to do is take Constance's
warnings, which do NOT support this, in some cases she lists these
things as part of the NEw Age interests and products tracking back to
theosophy and other occultism and http://visup.blogspot.com
documents occultist origins to the patriot movement that claims to
oppose occultism, can you spell controlled opposition? and then
spin the new age issue to support the McNeil gang issues.
So I was in the chatroom and some wannabe cop killer was putting
forth leading questions, obviously looking for validation and maybe
converts to some group (get talking, find like minded, arrange
contact offline, etc.) and I nipped it at stage one. The issue of the
sin of pride came up, the legitimacy of the 16th amendment (income
tax) and the crazy idea that "we are still under the Articles of
confederation," and the Constitution is not valid.
McNeil was in the chatroom. I had posted one link already debunking
some idea, and was looking for another (which I will include here).
Someone asked why I was there when I disagreed with their beliefs,
I answered I was only there for Constance's show and had stayed over,
and found that I couldn't post. McNeil was asked are you reading
the posts and he said he was. After I couldn't post a bit later I
couldn't get to the chatroom at all. Then I couldn't even get on the
page to listen to any program, "403: forbidden."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments#Benson_contentions
as you can see, the alleged illegality of the 16th amendment hinges on
inconsequential errors in transmission of the text to the state legislatures,
which did not affect meaning but were punctuation and capitalization
Other issues raised were even more worthless.
Well, Joe McNeil has banned me from even listening to his satellite
radio using the internet page.
Constance was persuaded, that her disreputable company she is forced
to keep on the air, by broadcasting from his station, though they are
not on her show, that Joe believes in freedom of speech and therefore
these people should have a platform.
I think not. McNeil showed by his actions towards me, that freedom of
speech is not his primary agenda. I think the only reason he got her
to be on his station, is that he has his uses for her information. A lot of
(admittedly new age influenced) groups are hostile to some parts of
the new age movement, especially the anti national sovereignty and
anti racism public elements. (new age actually is often covertly
racist but up front is another matter.)
patriot militia sort, and include at least one Christian Identity nut case
who accepted the absurd statement by a guest on her show, that Ruth
was a levite princess. There were no rulers from the tribe of Levi, no
princes no kings ergo no princesses. the biblical illiteracy of many who
bases heresies of doctrine and heresies of history allegedly on the Bible
knows no limits.
I nailed her in the chatroom as to whether a non white who accepted
Jesus Christ could be saved, after hemming and hawing she said that
would be up to God but essentially, no. when I rephrased it as you
are saying a non white can't be saved or words like that, she didn't
deny this.
McNeil hosts Constance Cumbey, probably because he can use her
anti new age and anti globalist one worldism as bait to get listeners
to hear the others she doesn't run with, and/or to focus some listeners
on the insidious nature of all this as it can be seen to affect their
interests, particularly since Constance has highlighted the infiltration
of the New Age into churches (the new age Bailey eschatology is
very similar to that of hyper charismatics by the way, it was an
approving new ager observer of this who got her attention on it) and
the other issues (racism, neo confederatism, Christian Identity Anglo
Saxonism, etc.) being rejected by churches can be viewed (wrongly)
as the result of this. All he or any has to do is take Constance's
warnings, which do NOT support this, in some cases she lists these
things as part of the NEw Age interests and products tracking back to
theosophy and other occultism and http://visup.blogspot.com
documents occultist origins to the patriot movement that claims to
oppose occultism, can you spell controlled opposition? and then
spin the new age issue to support the McNeil gang issues.
So I was in the chatroom and some wannabe cop killer was putting
forth leading questions, obviously looking for validation and maybe
converts to some group (get talking, find like minded, arrange
contact offline, etc.) and I nipped it at stage one. The issue of the
sin of pride came up, the legitimacy of the 16th amendment (income
tax) and the crazy idea that "we are still under the Articles of
confederation," and the Constitution is not valid.
McNeil was in the chatroom. I had posted one link already debunking
some idea, and was looking for another (which I will include here).
Someone asked why I was there when I disagreed with their beliefs,
I answered I was only there for Constance's show and had stayed over,
and found that I couldn't post. McNeil was asked are you reading
the posts and he said he was. After I couldn't post a bit later I
couldn't get to the chatroom at all. Then I couldn't even get on the
page to listen to any program, "403: forbidden."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments#Benson_contentions
as you can see, the alleged illegality of the 16th amendment hinges on
inconsequential errors in transmission of the text to the state legislatures,
which did not affect meaning but were punctuation and capitalization
Other issues raised were even more worthless.
Well, Joe McNeil has banned me from even listening to his satellite
radio using the internet page.
Constance was persuaded, that her disreputable company she is forced
to keep on the air, by broadcasting from his station, though they are
not on her show, that Joe believes in freedom of speech and therefore
these people should have a platform.
I think not. McNeil showed by his actions towards me, that freedom of
speech is not his primary agenda. I think the only reason he got her
to be on his station, is that he has his uses for her information. A lot of
(admittedly new age influenced) groups are hostile to some parts of
the new age movement, especially the anti national sovereignty and
anti racism public elements. (new age actually is often covertly
racist but up front is another matter.)
Thursday, August 3, 2017
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Sept. 23, AD 2017 - a recurring event of no importance prophetically
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/what-will-happen-september-23-2017/
explains that this same configuration happens over and over.
supposedly the juxtaposition of Virgo and Jupiter where her womb would be
points to the Rapture or Second Coming or something like that. this is more
hype to make money by selling books and DVDs.
it may be something worse.
people with a practicing witchcraft background used to working with energies
and spirits and who became Christian have commented that they recognize
some of the same stuff at the charismatic events. Rick Joyner is a secret
luciferian to judge by Mishel McCumber's discovery when working for him
and is promoting a notion of Joel's Army (not limited to him) of super
Christians exterminating the Christians who don't go along with them,
and that the Second Coming consists of the incarnation of the Christ spirit
or some such thing in the Christians themselves as a collective, or the
special real spiritual ones like him and his followers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJGyKO3HoZE
and search http://herescope.blogspot.com posts of previous years for details
on this sort of stuff.
it might be instructive to dig into the family and personal connections and
activities (raid the garbage for thrown out info) of the people pushing
(and especially who started) this Sept. 23 thing.
witches (I don't mean wicca fluff bunny types but the dead serious ones and
incl. practicing occultists ritual magicians etc. and people like Marina
Abramovitch) have sometimes used public events of a magical sort, that incl.
occultic themes and stir up people, to exploit the energy produced by the people
and their LACKOF KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IS GOING ON HELPS THE
OCCULTIST because then there is no opposition to it (except on some gut
level by some who sense something wrong but can't quite figure it and don't
fully cooperate emotionally).
and the moon will be waxing on that date. a waning moon is used to promote
spells of decrease, cursing, etc. usually, and a waxing moon to enhance
spells of increase.
the building of excitement on the part of many people may be plugged into
for magick purposes.
If someone were to correlate such previous times of expectation being
whipped up and other things incl. increase in occult manifestations it might
show a pattern. or might not.
explains that this same configuration happens over and over.
supposedly the juxtaposition of Virgo and Jupiter where her womb would be
points to the Rapture or Second Coming or something like that. this is more
hype to make money by selling books and DVDs.
it may be something worse.
people with a practicing witchcraft background used to working with energies
and spirits and who became Christian have commented that they recognize
some of the same stuff at the charismatic events. Rick Joyner is a secret
luciferian to judge by Mishel McCumber's discovery when working for him
and is promoting a notion of Joel's Army (not limited to him) of super
Christians exterminating the Christians who don't go along with them,
and that the Second Coming consists of the incarnation of the Christ spirit
or some such thing in the Christians themselves as a collective, or the
special real spiritual ones like him and his followers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJGyKO3HoZE
and search http://herescope.blogspot.com posts of previous years for details
on this sort of stuff.
it might be instructive to dig into the family and personal connections and
activities (raid the garbage for thrown out info) of the people pushing
(and especially who started) this Sept. 23 thing.
witches (I don't mean wicca fluff bunny types but the dead serious ones and
incl. practicing occultists ritual magicians etc. and people like Marina
Abramovitch) have sometimes used public events of a magical sort, that incl.
occultic themes and stir up people, to exploit the energy produced by the people
and their LACKOF KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IS GOING ON HELPS THE
OCCULTIST because then there is no opposition to it (except on some gut
level by some who sense something wrong but can't quite figure it and don't
fully cooperate emotionally).
and the moon will be waxing on that date. a waning moon is used to promote
spells of decrease, cursing, etc. usually, and a waxing moon to enhance
spells of increase.
the building of excitement on the part of many people may be plugged into
for magick purposes.
If someone were to correlate such previous times of expectation being
whipped up and other things incl. increase in occult manifestations it might
show a pattern. or might not.
Saturday, July 29, 2017
notes on the loss of culture wars article.
"The Faith Based Partnership / Multi Sector Collaborations of management theorist, Peter Drucker, are central to Leadership Network’s training and view of the Church as solely a social organization that creates community. Doctrinal teaching and promotion of individual salvation are determined to be problematic, divisive and down played “for the common good.” "
This view of the church is the key problem in itself, allowing all other evils.
"So, thinking this through a moment — the lead researcher for the SBC’s Lifeway Research is good friends and collaborator with the developer of “The Gay Christian Identity” which negotiates the reconciling of a Biblical view of homosexuality and LGBTQ identity. Suddenly the host of mixed messages on LGBTQ issues coming from Stetzer, Moore and others begin to take on a more disturbing edge. Is this why Stetzer’s Exchange blog hosts a journalist outed for a gay tryst in 2012 to converse about “The Future of Evangelicalism” and asserts that homosexuality, which was once considered a CURSE, is now considered a CROSS (to be born by the SSA Christian) to one day perhaps being celebrated as a CROWN? Why is such a conversation being facilitated into mainstream Christian media? The same interview described the current attitude of the church on a range of issues from homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, legalizing drugs and more as being like “unbaked cookies which need to be placed back in the oven and taken out in three to five years to see where we are.” This interview was about 3 years ago and the conversation and collaborations are about 33 years in the making."
incremental stages and you can see, I hope, that it would not be possible if the average
Christian didn't already to some extent view the church as a social rather than an otherworldly
God focused organism but instead more of a this world society whose value lies in facilitating
peace and smooth functioning of the secular society.
This is called civil religion, and while it is a good argument for Christianity against pagan
detractors, that a good Christian is a good citizen until some great evil is demanded by Caesar
and/or society, it is NOT Chritianity's primary value or basis of truth.
This view of the church is the key problem in itself, allowing all other evils.
"So, thinking this through a moment — the lead researcher for the SBC’s Lifeway Research is good friends and collaborator with the developer of “The Gay Christian Identity” which negotiates the reconciling of a Biblical view of homosexuality and LGBTQ identity. Suddenly the host of mixed messages on LGBTQ issues coming from Stetzer, Moore and others begin to take on a more disturbing edge. Is this why Stetzer’s Exchange blog hosts a journalist outed for a gay tryst in 2012 to converse about “The Future of Evangelicalism” and asserts that homosexuality, which was once considered a CURSE, is now considered a CROSS (to be born by the SSA Christian) to one day perhaps being celebrated as a CROWN? Why is such a conversation being facilitated into mainstream Christian media? The same interview described the current attitude of the church on a range of issues from homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, legalizing drugs and more as being like “unbaked cookies which need to be placed back in the oven and taken out in three to five years to see where we are.” This interview was about 3 years ago and the conversation and collaborations are about 33 years in the making."
incremental stages and you can see, I hope, that it would not be possible if the average
Christian didn't already to some extent view the church as a social rather than an otherworldly
God focused organism but instead more of a this world society whose value lies in facilitating
peace and smooth functioning of the secular society.
This is called civil religion, and while it is a good argument for Christianity against pagan
detractors, that a good Christian is a good citizen until some great evil is demanded by Caesar
and/or society, it is NOT Chritianity's primary value or basis of truth.
Friday, July 28, 2017
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Sunday, July 23, 2017
chakra errors
https://fightthenewage.blogspot.com/2017/07/chakra-errors.html
Sunday, July 16, 2017
chakra errors
years ago I ran across a chart showing the chakras as located NOT on
a line of the spine, but here and there.
https://www.eclecticenergies.com/chakras/differences.php discusses differences
in ascribed locations and number of them, in fact some systems figure there
are only four and the Indian tantra 7 and so forth.
someone has suggested somewhere that some chakras are artificial and placed
in people to exploit them by aliens or demons or whatever.
the kundalini energy apparently runs up the spine from the lowest chakra to
the top of the head. manifestations of this are often disturbing to put it mildly
and appear in charismatic Christian groups and in the latihan of subud. clearly
this is not The Holy Spirit, and could be a demon or a facilitator of such.
What is more likely, is that kundalini does not normally lie coiled at the base
of the spine, and that the chakras are not for the most part deployed along
the spine, convenient to such an undoing of creation sort of thing as
laya yoga or kundalini yoga.
" Chakras play an important role in the Tibetan Buddhism in completion stage practices.[44] It is practiced to bring the subtle winds of the body into the central channel, to realise the clear light of bliss and emptiness, and to attain Buddhahood.
48]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakra
This is not identical with the raise kundalini idea but similar. whether it has the same
symptoms or not is not stated. however, several new ager articles describe a
kundalini syndrome of bad stuff happening as a result of these efforts.
Clearly a lot of "manifestations of The Holy Spirit" are nothing of the sort, and much of
the lineage of "anointings" in Pentecostalism/charismaticism track back to William Branham,
who had an angel that acted more like a demon, and to who (instead of to God) Branham
attributed all his miracles. Branham also made a missionary trip to India, met an Indian
cultist who claimed to be the Messiah or Second Coming of Christ, and accepted him as such.
The shaktipat or transfer of Shakti by touch from a guru is identical to the slain in the spirit
and such like anointings, which Branham emphasized more than most did and probably
acquired in India, then passed it on pretending it was The Holy Spirit.
After some thought and prayer, I decided there is aside from the probability of either an
energy derangement that demons can use, or a demon itself or group of them transferred in
shaktipat or both, the whole chakra system is in error.
For one thing, the throat chakra is NOT center or base of throat, but top of throat ringing
it at base of skull. An attack on this point which I experienced twice in different ways,
caused a painful in one case, garotte cinching sensation in the other case, at that point.
Farther down, there is a center on the right side of the body where the belly joins the pelvis
in the flesh crease. Leadbeater (a pervert who was apparently also psychic) located chakras
some of them off center.
The error is not so much where they are naturally located, but in concentrating on them AS
BEING LOCATED SPINALLY.
These meditations bring the normally offcenter chakras into alignment, allowing an abnormal
straight flow upwards of energy. This derangement is easily used by demons, aside from
being a warping in itself.
So aside from opening them being to facilitate lying spirits, RELOCATING them centrally
is a warping of their position and creating an abnormal condition that, however peaceful or
whatever it might feel at times, is enabling a spiritually dangerous paranormal condition
or event to occur.
a line of the spine, but here and there.
https://www.eclecticenergies.com/chakras/differences.php discusses differences
in ascribed locations and number of them, in fact some systems figure there
are only four and the Indian tantra 7 and so forth.
someone has suggested somewhere that some chakras are artificial and placed
in people to exploit them by aliens or demons or whatever.
the kundalini energy apparently runs up the spine from the lowest chakra to
the top of the head. manifestations of this are often disturbing to put it mildly
and appear in charismatic Christian groups and in the latihan of subud. clearly
this is not The Holy Spirit, and could be a demon or a facilitator of such.
What is more likely, is that kundalini does not normally lie coiled at the base
of the spine, and that the chakras are not for the most part deployed along
the spine, convenient to such an undoing of creation sort of thing as
laya yoga or kundalini yoga.
" Chakras play an important role in the Tibetan Buddhism in completion stage practices.[44] It is practiced to bring the subtle winds of the body into the central channel, to realise the clear light of bliss and emptiness, and to attain Buddhahood.
48]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakra
This is not identical with the raise kundalini idea but similar. whether it has the same
symptoms or not is not stated. however, several new ager articles describe a
kundalini syndrome of bad stuff happening as a result of these efforts.
Clearly a lot of "manifestations of The Holy Spirit" are nothing of the sort, and much of
the lineage of "anointings" in Pentecostalism/charismaticism track back to William Branham,
who had an angel that acted more like a demon, and to who (instead of to God) Branham
attributed all his miracles. Branham also made a missionary trip to India, met an Indian
cultist who claimed to be the Messiah or Second Coming of Christ, and accepted him as such.
The shaktipat or transfer of Shakti by touch from a guru is identical to the slain in the spirit
and such like anointings, which Branham emphasized more than most did and probably
acquired in India, then passed it on pretending it was The Holy Spirit.
After some thought and prayer, I decided there is aside from the probability of either an
energy derangement that demons can use, or a demon itself or group of them transferred in
shaktipat or both, the whole chakra system is in error.
For one thing, the throat chakra is NOT center or base of throat, but top of throat ringing
it at base of skull. An attack on this point which I experienced twice in different ways,
caused a painful in one case, garotte cinching sensation in the other case, at that point.
Farther down, there is a center on the right side of the body where the belly joins the pelvis
in the flesh crease. Leadbeater (a pervert who was apparently also psychic) located chakras
some of them off center.
The error is not so much where they are naturally located, but in concentrating on them AS
BEING LOCATED SPINALLY.
These meditations bring the normally offcenter chakras into alignment, allowing an abnormal
straight flow upwards of energy. This derangement is easily used by demons, aside from
being a warping in itself.
So aside from opening them being to facilitate lying spirits, RELOCATING them centrally
is a warping of their position and creating an abnormal condition that, however peaceful or
whatever it might feel at times, is enabling a spiritually dangerous paranormal condition
or event to occur.
men who position themselves as gods
"the many scientists today who study animals and human biology and at the same time promote eugenics. Let this be a lesson to us, that these “men of science” who position themselves as gods — dictating who lives and who dies — look to humanity no differently than how they see bacteria and insects under the microscope." http://shoebat.com/2017/07/23/german-scientists-will-be-studying-the-brains-of-holocaust-victims-and-now-the-german-government-is-talking-about-creating-nuclear-bombs/
Ted Shoebat, ponerologist extraordinaire (study of evil) is onto something important here
in this statement, and cites Chesterton about how humans studying humans become inhuman
in order to do so. But it is more than choosing who lives and who dies. and more than studying
humans.
while there are diseases and conditions that are inheritable and can be prevented by identifying
carriers and encouraging them to not reproduce, and perhaps genetic surgery can correct a
problem, the fact is that when you get to thinking about control and selective breeding and
stuff like this, you are very rarely able to do so without positioning yourself as god.
And I think that the subtle thrill of this position, and the false sense of safety in an insecure
world you get by such positioning of yourself as god, and therefore as all powerful and therefore \
as invulnerable is a big driver in this eugenics stuff.
in other words, the sin of pride.
there is also a considerable shortsightedness. even if you posit races or breeds of humans
having some qualities, that doesn't establish who is "superior." it depends on superior in
what context for what purpose? what is superior? that is serves some great values, well
what are these values? are they necessarily consistent with Godly values? are they
even consistent with survival and accomplishment outside of a context that genetics
can't control?
the much glorified western European civilization is not the result of bloodlines but of
Christian influenced culture. the original population was a pack of half naked brawling short
sighted seekers of personal glory with shifting alliances constantly and looking to kill
and die for little else. not exactly accomplishing anything. While the euro eugenicist
may think of black Africans and far southeast Asians as naked head hunters that is exactly
what the original European warrior culture was.
so we got a mix of pride and incompetence drawing in part on dishonesty about history
of one's own ancestry. if it is admitted, the history, and that the ultimate purpose of wars
of white supremacy is to restore the wild "innocent" naked barbarian society untinged
by semitic and other influences, this means that ultimately you would be working to
make a society where all the vaunted cultural and scientific developments that supposedly
set Aryan euros apart from all else would be thrown away.
and these accomplishments are not without precedent elsewhere.
Ted Shoebat, ponerologist extraordinaire (study of evil) is onto something important here
in this statement, and cites Chesterton about how humans studying humans become inhuman
in order to do so. But it is more than choosing who lives and who dies. and more than studying
humans.
while there are diseases and conditions that are inheritable and can be prevented by identifying
carriers and encouraging them to not reproduce, and perhaps genetic surgery can correct a
problem, the fact is that when you get to thinking about control and selective breeding and
stuff like this, you are very rarely able to do so without positioning yourself as god.
And I think that the subtle thrill of this position, and the false sense of safety in an insecure
world you get by such positioning of yourself as god, and therefore as all powerful and therefore \
as invulnerable is a big driver in this eugenics stuff.
in other words, the sin of pride.
there is also a considerable shortsightedness. even if you posit races or breeds of humans
having some qualities, that doesn't establish who is "superior." it depends on superior in
what context for what purpose? what is superior? that is serves some great values, well
what are these values? are they necessarily consistent with Godly values? are they
even consistent with survival and accomplishment outside of a context that genetics
can't control?
the much glorified western European civilization is not the result of bloodlines but of
Christian influenced culture. the original population was a pack of half naked brawling short
sighted seekers of personal glory with shifting alliances constantly and looking to kill
and die for little else. not exactly accomplishing anything. While the euro eugenicist
may think of black Africans and far southeast Asians as naked head hunters that is exactly
what the original European warrior culture was.
so we got a mix of pride and incompetence drawing in part on dishonesty about history
of one's own ancestry. if it is admitted, the history, and that the ultimate purpose of wars
of white supremacy is to restore the wild "innocent" naked barbarian society untinged
by semitic and other influences, this means that ultimately you would be working to
make a society where all the vaunted cultural and scientific developments that supposedly
set Aryan euros apart from all else would be thrown away.
and these accomplishments are not without precedent elsewhere.
Saturday, July 1, 2017
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Craig's and my argument on cumbey's blog
UPDATE:
"Craig said...
Susanna,
...my proficiency with Greek is mediocre at best, really. My vocabulary is poor....a few very handy tools—one in particular that parses all the words and has a great search function. If I had to take any first level test without my tools, I’d likely flunk or barely pass."
aha. therefore don't talk to me about grammatical ambiguity. From the foundation of the world has to refer
to The Lamb's death, not the book. you can argue whatever is dependent on the Lamb's death is from the
foundation also with the Lamb's death, but it is the Lamb's death referred to since all depends on it.
When there is real or apparent ambiguity, check rest of Scripture on the subject. the Acts cite I gave says
the same, that the Crucifixion is from the pre determination of God. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=2905384041416305199&blogID=11772087&isPopup=false&page=2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
since Craig of https://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/ has engaged in slippery and twisting
behavior in arguing with me, and the likely covert witch mole who hates the
denunciation of manipulating chakras as dangerous because real instead of chakras
being nonexistent fawns on him and posted here, for the benefit of my readers in
case he realizes his mistake (unlikely considering how self satisfied he is), and deletes
his posts, I have our conversation copied here goes through three or four threads on
Constance's blog comments section.
I notice on his blog he does some similar twisting of the Bible and prefers the
sloppier Alexandrian text (which he either idiotically or dishonestly on purpose
calls a separate issue from translation, when text drives translation, duh!) here
is what I read so far. I am sure that his denunciations of the errors of some others
is correct enough though may contain subtle errors in them even as started this
argument with me.
For instance, he considers that Malina and Rohrbach have "some relevant insights
into Jesus' final act" which include something outrageous.
"After thus ratifying that his purpose has been fully accomplished, Jesus hands over his spirit to those around the cross—the community of those who believe in him their leader, the beloved disciple and the witnessing women."
No, He gave up his spirit to God The Father "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." Luke 23:46."
Even without this you can take it for granted that He wasn't now simply infiltrating and haunting
His followers and living in their community! I wonder if ther is some heretical agenda
in these people's writings.
Craig said...
paul,
Yes; while Dahlheimer’s “God” has to clean up a mess made by a lesser G/god who emanated from him, the Christian God, the One True God, had a plan from the very beginning. Revelation 13:8 states:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.
Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”.
-----------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said..."slain from the foundation of the world" not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb
was decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the Crucifixion was
settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened.
-------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine, the indisputable queen of syntax and grammar (at least on this blog) wrote, in response to my post @ 8:26 AM above:
"slain from the foundation of the world" not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened.
The verse is grammatically ambiguous, such that it is grammatically permissible to translate it in one of two ways, as I had in my earlier comment. Just consult a good technical commentary. Since exegesis begins with correct translation, and interpretation hinges on translation, it is prudent to point these sorts of things out. Given the syntactical ambiguity, one could accept the second of the two translations above and interpret the passage as espousing predestination. But, then, one should back that up with other passages.
Your statement above is an interpretation, your interpretation presupposing what the verse should say (eisegesis). I don’t necessarily disagree with your “the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation began”, as that’s what I tried to convey in my closing paragraph (to have a Book of Life, it would appear to require the Life Giver). However, your claim that this was a “backup plan if sin occurred” is concerning. Did God think He might have to sacrifice the Lamb just in case sin would occur? Is God not omniscient? Are you an open theist?
Putting that aside, here’s food for thought, not requiring a response (please): From a philosophical perspective, what is the relationship between the temporal realm and eternal? Should we construe eternity as consisting of events occurring in a linear fashion?
----------------------------
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
...
Craig, re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style, but
this supports its legitimacy, a semi literate fisherman would have scribes help him phrase
the Gospel, but was on his own on Patmos.
"the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" the
second phrase clarifies the first, and focusses on the Lamb so is about the Lamb not the
book. supports Mosaic sacrifices looking forward to Jesus Christ, can also mean slain to
found the new creation to come.
"...your claim that this was a “backup plan if sin occurred” is concerning..... Is God not
omniscient? Are you an open theist?" no, God would know it would be needed, and they
all agreed on this solution to the inevitable problem before creating anything. plan A was
the sinless perfect creation until sin happened then plan B would kick in. There is no "oops"
when you anticipate something.
--------------------------
Craig said...
Christine, our resident know-it-all, wrote:
Craig, re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style, but this supports its legitimacy, a semi literate fisherman would have scribes help him phrase the Gospel, but was on his own on Patmos.
"the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" the second phrase clarifies the first, and focusses on the Lamb so is about the Lamb not the book. supports Mosaic sacrifices looking forward to Jesus Christ, can also mean slain to found the new creation to come.
“Questioned because of poor writing style”? I think it was your poor comprehension, most likely due to reading too fast, coupled with your zeal to ‘correct’ everyone here. Why can’t you just admit that you initially missed my point?
I find it amazing that such a “semi literate” [sic] fisherman would be able to write such vivid imagery, replete with symbols galore (stars as angels, e.g.), in writing Revelation in its apocalyptic style, a genre so much different than the one employed in the Gospel of John, without the help of other scribes.
You also wrote, responding to me, confusing my quotations of you and your own quoting of my quotations of you, which I’ll fix for the sake of clarification:
"...your claim that this was a ‘backup plan if sin occurred’ is concerning..... Is God not
omniscient? Are you an open theist?" no, God would know it would be needed, and they
all agreed on this solution to the inevitable problem before creating anything. plan A was
the sinless perfect creation until sin happened then plan B would kick in. There is no "oops"
when you anticipate something.
So, you are implicitly admitting you were being sloppy in your initial response. At least that’s how I’m gonna take it.
---------------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
Craig I got your point, and I answered it. I did not admit initial sloppiness, but had to
explain the obvious to you in more detail.
you base your interpretation on syntax ambiguity which I answered was a feature of Revelation
used against it by some who denied its authenticity so you can't rely on it for your purpose
I added that this ambuity was what you could expect if it was legitimate. Revelation was first accepted, then misused by Montanists so rejected and a coucil reinstated it. And since The
LAmb is mentioned second half of sentence but not the book of life, the seconed half is about the Lamb not the book.
Revelation was a bit rough for koine so a simple fisherman wrote it unaided. nothing amazing, he WROTE WHAT HE SAW AND HEARD. you, heretic, assume he wrote a genre. HE REPORTED WHAT HE SAW.
--------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Oh Christine, au contraire.
First of all, syntax ambiguity is found in all of Scripture. It’s found in John’s Gospel. I’m currently finishing up a series (some is posted), and I point out how John 19:28 is syntactically ambiguous. A similar thing is found in 19:30.
And you are wrong regarding the placement of “Lamb” and “book” in Revelation 13:8—but don’t let facts stop you from pontificating. Both are found together in the latter half of the verse (and neither is repeated). Here’s how it reads in the Greek:
?? t? ß?ß??? t?? ???? t?? ?????? t?? ?sfa?µ???? ?p? ?ataß???? ??sµ??
in the Book of Life of the Lamb of the one slain from foundation of cosmos.
I’m the “heretic”, eh? John wrote what he saw, and the writing is in the apocalyptic genre. If you wish to believe that everything written should be understood literally, that’s your prerogative. Me, I don’t think that Jesus will strike down His enemies with a literal sharp sword that comes out of His mouth. I think this is more likely to be understood as in line with Hebrews 4:12.
------------------------------------------------------
"And you are wrong regarding...“Lamb” and “book” in Revelation 13:8...(and neither is repeated)."
Lamb is repeated in the translation you used.
" Here’s how it reads in the Greek:
....in the Book of Life of the Lamb of the one slain from foundation of cosmos."
Thank you for making my point for me, "the Book of life of the Lamb OF THE ONE
slain from the foundation of cosmos" of the one slain clearly refers to the Lamb.
"I’m the “heretic”, eh? John wrote what he saw, and the writing is in the apocalyptic genre."
you say its amazong John could do this by implication ascribing Revelation to John's ability as if he made it up of course its going to be apocalyptic because of content. you say its amazing he could do this. WHY? if he could read and write he could file a report. nothing amazing. STOP FOCUSING ON MAN AND FOCUS ON GOD. (same deal with your nonsense about health reason for food laws) If he saw Ozzie and Harriet discuss theology the report wouldn't be apocalyptic what he saw was apocalyptic so the report was apocalyptic.
literal vs. symbolic has to do with interpreting what was seen, NOT with reporting it. he REPORTED what he was shown, as he was told to do, he didn't have some reverie with strong fantasy and compose in the apocalyptic genre
------------------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine,
I don’t know why you have this penchant to try to ‘prove’ things about which you’ve no clue.
First, let’s not lose track of the argument. Most recently you claimed the following: And since The LAmb is mentioned second half of sentence but not the book of life, the seconed half is about the Lamb not the book. Yet rather than concede that your assertion is wrong in view of the evidence I provided, you go back to your original assertion that the syntax is not ambiguous and claim I'd made your point (I didn't). Rather than attempt to explain exactly how the syntax is ambiguous, I’ll point you to a number of English versions that illustrate it.
Should that not be convincing—and why would I think it would be for you—check out the parallel at 17:8, which is not syntactically ambiguous:
… whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world… (KJV)
--------------------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine wrote, quoting me first (bold), then responding: 'And you are wrong regarding..."Lamb" and "book" in Revelation 13:8...(and neither is repeated).'
Lamb is repeated in the translation you used.
BUT IT'S NOT IN THE GREEK FROM WHICH THE VERSE WAS TRANSLATED!!!
"Lamb" and "book of life", in Greek, are most certainly in the last half of that verse--and NEITHER is repeated. Just look at the Greek text in the hyperlink supplied at 6:40 PM above: t? ß?ß??? t?? ???? = "the book of life"; t?? ?????? = "the lamb". You are incorrect, and it's well-past time you admit this.
--------------------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhfJwAHhmrk Summer of Rage | Mass Riots in July?
paul, I apologize for putting the wrong name on.
re Jim Bakker, anyone who could tolerate him before the scandal and sees only the scandal is seriously fleshly and loving deception. the whole style was to put it mildly worldly and fleshly I doubt it has changed much. I couldn't stomach him for more than a few seconds, two minutes at the most. the scandal was predictable. and THEME PARK!? and his wife like an over made up whore? that people would send him money shows how screwed up many Christians are.
Craig "Yet rather than concede that your assertion is wrong in view of the evidence I provided,"
you gave no evidence
"you go back to your original assertion that the syntax is not ambiguous"
EXCUSE ME?! I NEVER SAID THE SYNTAX WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS. I said that the ambiguity was more typical of Revelation than the rest of the NT and some said therefore John didn't write it, but less educated and alone this could be expected. Scripture ambiguities - difficulty of finite expressing inifnite, also it is street Greek not Classical Greek, think ebonics vs. Ivy League English.
" and claim I'd made your point (I didn't)."
Yes you made my point, because when you quote Greek that says THE ONE in that sentence instead of repeating the word LAMB it is clearly speaking about THE LAMB because books don't get slain and if all in it die then no one meets Jesus at His Return and gets caught up as He is descending. the translator who put the repeat of "Lamb" in the sentence obviously saw "the one" as referring to The Lamb.
saying the LAMB was slain from the foundation of the cosmos is consistent with your true statement, that God "had a plan from the very beginning." The Lamb was as good as dead because His death (and REsurrection) was determined from before Creation to correct what
would inevitably happen.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore on this. you want to pursue your self righteousness
go ahead. meanwhile, paul, forget health reasons for food laws. there aren't any. it was about separation. That is explicitly clear.
"MCE is not interested in the truth, not interested in what is right." on the contrary, defending truth is why I argue and I am repeatedly apalled by what I see here. Like the people who insisted that the parable of the mustard tree was not about what Jesus said it was about, the growth of the Kingdom of Heaven, but about the abnormal growth of false churches.
------------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine, continuing to obfuscate:
Craig [wrote to Christine:] "Yet rather than concede that your assertion is wrong in view of the evidence I provided,"
[her response:] you gave no evidence
The evidence was in the Greek text I provided, which refutes your assertion that (1) it is not ambiguous; (2) that “the Lamb” is in the 2nd half of the verse rather than “book of life” which is in the first [since The LAmb is mentioned second half of sentence but not the book of life, the seconed half is about the Lamb not the book… (10:53PM – all time stamps from previous thread)]; and, (3) that “the Lamb” was not repeated in the verse. I’ll provide proof of your statements as I go.
[quoting me:] "you go back to your original assertion that the syntax is not ambiguous"
EXCUSE ME?! I NEVER SAID THE SYNTAX WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS. I said that the ambiguity was more typical of Revelation than the rest of the NT and some said therefore John didn't write it, but less educated and alone this could be expected. Scripture ambiguities - difficulty of finite expressing inifnite, also it is street Greek not Classical Greek, think ebonics vs. Ivy League English.
Addressing (1), your initial response (1:14AM) stated: not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation… You partially backed down from this assertion [re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style (1:18AM)], claiming that, comparatively, John’s Gospel is not ambiguous because John had help [a semi literate fisherman would have scribes help him phrase the Gospel, but was on his own on Patmos (1:18AM)]; however, the Scriptural evidence shows ambiguity throughout the NT, including John’s Gospel. In fact, the current series I’m writing points to this in John 19:28-30.
Cont:
7:50 AM
Anonymous Craig said...
Cont:
Yet, then again, your words below imply that it’s not really ambiguous (‘round and ‘round we go), because (2) and (3) above:
[quoting me:] "and claim I'd made your point (I didn't)."
Yes you made my point, because when you quote Greek that says THE ONE in that sentence instead of repeating the word LAMB it is clearly speaking about THE LAMB because books don't get slain… the translator who put the repeat of "Lamb" in the sentence obviously saw "the one" as referring to The Lamb.
So, after your initial claim (2), you respond to my preemptive response to you—“the Lamb” is not repeated (3)—by claiming that the Greek substantival [t?? ?sfa?µ????], which means “the one slain”, or “who was slain” (or, “the one who was slain”) is a repeating of “the Lamb”, though you neglect that even if one were to grant that (I wouldn’t), that it’s STILL IN THE LATTER PART OF THE VERSE ALONG WITH “BOOK OF LIFE” (2).
I’m only belaboring this because I’m tired of you running roughshod over folks here. My initial comment was in response to Dahlheimer, but you had to butt in with your ‘know-it-all’ attitude. You clearly DON’T know it all.
---------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Phooey. In my attempt to unravel Christine’s Gordian knot, I added an extra “not” in my point (3) above. That is, it should be: (3) that “the Lamb” was repeated in the verse. And since I’m providing a correction, I’ll add another preemptive statement. If I were to state, “Christine, the one who would argue with wallpaper”, the part after “Christine” is descriptive, NOT a repeating of “Christine”. Hence “the Lamb” is not repeated in the Greek text.
-----------------------------
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
Craig, I didn't back down AT ALL from ANYTHING. if you can't see that in English, I doubt
you can make any valid points in Greek so I doubt I will waste my time reading whatever
nonsense you put together in that article. This is the second time you ascribed to me
things I was not doing and didn't appear to be either, admitting you take things the way you
prefer so you are not after truth but subjective wishful thinking.
The original English translation said The Lamb twice, second time translating "the one"
so I'm not alone in figuring this meant the Lamb. meanwhile you are left in the position
of saying either
no one is left alive who were in the book of life, unlikely given harpazo statement and
Matthew 24 though not impossible given Luke 18:8,
the other an absurdity, that a book is killed,
third option a reference to God's preplanning which is to the glory of God. And you refuse
the latter. hah!
or the absurdity that only those who get killed are in the Lamb's book of life, that if you didn't
die a martyr violently, but died peacefully in your sleep, you are damned or at least real low
class barely tolerated on the perimeter of the Kingdom of HEaven when it is installed on earth.
--------------------------------------
Christine wrote: I didn't back down AT ALL from ANYTHING.
In a way, that’s not exactly untrue. What you DID do is initially claim “no grammar ambiguity” against my claim that there was grammatical ambiguity (there are two ways to interpret the Greek); however, your follow-up answer didn’t “back down”, rather it just said: re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style. So, you didn’t EXPLICITLY “back down”, though it was implicit.
In any case, I’ve made my case just above, so I won’t rehash. Clearly, you’ve backtracked to where you’d done a 360, then continued your attempts at obfuscation. I’ll let the readers decide whose position is the accurate portrayal of events.
Now, with this new stuff you’ve brought up…are you serious?! Where did I intimate that the Greek translated “the one who was slain” refers to the book of life?! Your comprehension is seriously lacking, Christine. Go argue with your wallpaper. You’ll do much better, I promise you.
The problem is that you don’t understand the Greek, and, hence, you’ve no idea what you’re talking about. As I suggested in my last comment on the other thread, you don’t have to believe me, just check the variations in English translations illustrating the very point I made in my initial comment on Revelation 13:8. That is, the grammar is grammatically ambiguous such that there are two possible renderings.
But, haven’t you—again—violated your once per week limit on posting?
--------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
Sunday May 28, AD 2017 will date future posts so no one wrongly thinks as two do now that I
posted twice in same week.
...
"... you didn’t EXPLICITLY “back down”, though it was implicit."
I see why you misunderstood me, to me syntax and grammar are all the same. I did not back
down. writing problems in NT are because it is NOT Classical Greek but koine http://www.theopedia.com/greek which is to Classical Greek as ebonics is to proper English.
Revelation has extra problems, used against it when arguing John the Apostle didn't write it (Irenaeus, student of John's student, said he did, so he did). https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17428/who-wrote-the-book-of-revelation
confusing the issue is "a literal millennium" Revelation shows NO END to Christ's rule.
the first thousand years the devil is fully bound unable to tempt ANYONE not crippled like now,
then released briefly for one last test of mankind a revolt happens and it is put down then the
general resurrection, the judgement, new heavens and new earth and descent of the New
Jerusalem (which the CHurch is a foretaste of).
I have NOT violated the once a week limit. I post on Sundays and sometimes on a later day
that is still ONE DAY IN THAT WEEK. Lack of others posting looks like less time passed.
"Clearly, you’ve backtracked to where you’d done a 360," huh? you mean I reminded you
that you started this by denying The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world?
"then continued your attempts at obfuscation." I have not obfuscated but tried to explain in more detail but you seem more dishonest than confused. so you don't deceive others I try to correct your errors anyway.
"Where did I intimate that the Greek translated “the one who was slain” refers to the book of life?!"
BY DENYING THAT "THE ONE SLAIN" REFERS TO THE LAMB, which denial much earlier is why this discussion, YOU LEAVE NO OTHER OPTION but that the book of life was slain, and a couple of other absurdities.
----------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine,
Since you persist, let’s go back to the very first statement I made, which was addressed to paul and in reference to Dalheimer’s “god”. [This provides yet another opportunity for Dalheimer to try to defend his position/refute my assertions about his cosmology and theology.]
_________________________________
Yes; while Dahlheimer’s “God” has to clean up a mess made by a lesser G/god who emanated from him, the Christian God, the One True God, had a plan from the very beginning. Revelation 13:8 states:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.
Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”.
___________________________________
I’ve never stated nor intimated anything about the scroll being ‘slain’—that’s your own ridiculous misconstrual. In fact, above I implied otherwise with this @ 9:19 AM: If I were to state, “Christine, the one who would argue with wallpaper”, the part after “Christine” is descriptive, NOT a repeating of “Christine”. Hence [similarly] “the Lamb” is not repeated in the Greek text.
Yes, all the NT is written in Koine Greek. But, let’s not obfuscate [again], I didn’t confuse what you wrote. Sure, “syntax” and “grammar” can be synonymous; I’ve even used them that way. The issue here is your attempted rebuttal of my initial statement above, not Koine vs. Classical Greek. As I noted, syntactical ambiguity is found throughout the NT, including the Gospel of John. I stand by my comment above @ 7:50 / 7:52 AM, and the follow-up @ 9:19 AM, which point out your flip-flop on the issue of syntax/grammar: In reference to my very first comment above, you said “not grammar ambiguity” [previous thread @ 1:14 AM], then in subsequent comments you appealed to the “syntax ambiguity” inherent in Revelation [previous thread 1:18 AM].
Now, show me and everyone here where I, in your words, was “DENYING THAT ‘THE ONE SLAIN’ REFERS TO THE LAMB”. Point to the specific comment by thread and time. Well, ya can’t, because I didn’t.
------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
June 4,
...
Craig,
"...show me...where I...was “DENYING THAT ‘THE ONE SLAIN’ REFERS TO THE LAMB”...."
the issue was denying the Lamb was slain FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE COSMOS
I apologize for not being more specific.
previous thread: 8:26 AM
"...the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain."
[you complain of grammar/syntax ambiguity in English so I drag in koine to prevent similar claim
about Greek]
"Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning,
"this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”."
THAT BY DEFINITION IS A BACKUP PLAN. there is no oops when you expect and plan ahead of time. The book of life because requiring the life-giver leaves The Lamb was slain from the foundation
DO YOU DENY CHRIST'S DEATH WAS AGREED ON BEFORE CREATION?
after that 1:46 PM:
"And you are wrong regarding the placement of “Lamb” and “book” in Revelation 13:8 ... (and neither is repeated). Here’s how it reads in the Greek: ...
in the Book of Life of the Lamb of the one slain from foundation of cosmos."
the sentence is talking about something slain from the foundation of the cosmos. So it is either the book or the lamb. The translation said "The Lamb" instead of "the one" recognizing the Lamb was meant.
"“the Lamb” is not repeated in the Greek text."
I said that "the one slain" REFERS TO THE LAMB, and of course so does "the foundation of the cosmos," you present the Greek text as valid so you are left with the MEANING that THE LAMB
WAS SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE COSMOS which speaks to eternality.
(I agree with all denunciations of Dahlheimer and whoever thinks Dahlheimer would like the supposed dung at my blog has such for brains. there is NOTHING about auras, etc. that support pantheism regardless of you believing the new age lie that they do, these things are not illusion they are REAL THEREFORE DANGEROUS)
----------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
June 11 Sunday
...
Craig,
I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY POSITION ONE SINGLE TIME whic is, that The Lamb was slain
from the foundation of the world, not that the book was there from then, you however have
weasled when confronted with the fact that "the one slain" refers to The Lamb in the Greek
and argued "The Lamb" isn't repeated in Greek but the translator who knows koine Greek
better than you I figure, chose to put "the Lamb" instead of "the one." I defer to the translator
who has more credibility than you do. The issue is did "the one slain from the foundation of the cosmos" refer to the lamb? it did. I ASK A SECOND TIME, DO YOU DENY THAT CHRIST'S DEATH
AND RESURRECTION WERE AGREED UPON BEFORE CREATION? sounds like you do.
--------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Like the odor of farmland freshly fertilized with manure, there is Christine’s weekly contribution, with its fabrications, imputing incorrect assertions to individuals while simultaneously attempting to impugn their characters, all the while spewing her own brew of quasi-new age and blatant new age beliefs onto the readership, all of it mixed with the very rare valid statements. But is it really worth the effort to find the credible among the (sometimes literally) incredible?
Christine wrote regarding the conversation she initially butted [pun intended] herself into, and continues to incessantly ramble on about:
I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY POSITION ONE SINGLE TIME whic is, that The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, not that the book was there from then, you however have weasled when confronted with the fact that "the one slain" refers to The Lamb in the Greek and argued "The Lamb" isn't repeated in Greek but the translator who knows koine Greek better than you I figure, chose to put "the Lamb" instead of "the one." I defer to the translator who has more credibility than you do. The issue is did "the one slain from the foundation of the cosmos" refer to the lamb? it did. I ASK A SECOND TIME, DO YOU DENY THAT CHRIST'S DEATH AND RESURRECTION WERE AGREED UPON BEFORE CREATION? sounds like you do.
So, you didn’t first argue against my assertion regarding the grammatical ambiguity, then subsequently implicitly concede that it is grammatically ambiguous? That’s meant rhetorically, as that is, in fact, what you did, as your VERY FIRST WORDS were, and I quote you verbatim: not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the Crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened ["THE PROPHESIED SYSTEM OF REVELATION 13 RAPIDLY ADVANCES!" @ 1:14 AM]. So, Christine, here you state the Lamb’s death was a settled issue before creation, yet your most recent comment states specifically that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. So, your position has changed. As to your subsequent concession on ambiguity, I again quote you verbatim: Craig, re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style, but this supports its legitimacy… [same thread as above, @ 1:18 AM]. Your position changed on the issue of ambiguity, as well.
You just make it up as you go, changing the argument, rather than explicitly conceding you were wrong/mistaken, etc.
I was quite clear from the very beginning, and I’ve never wavered, that “the one slain” refers to the Lamb (who else would it be?!), as that was never in question and was never brought up as an issue—until you tried to make it one. It’s not my fault you have a comprehension problem. If you don’t understand something, why not just ask a question rather than going off on some wild tangent, imputing something to me that I’d never stated?
And you conflate the real issue in this verse with something you think it is with your statement: The issue is did "the one slain from the foundation of the cosmos" refer to the lamb? it did.
So, I’ll have to go back to the issue as I brought it up initially.
Cont…
4:15 PM
Anonymous Craig said...
Cont…
The syntactical ambiguity in Revelation 13:8 allows for one of two interpretations:
(1) All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the one [the Lamb] who was slain from the foundation of the world.
(2) All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.
Thus, (2) does NOT state that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, as it states nothing about the timing of the Lamb’s slaying, while (1) does. The fact that the NIV chooses to repeat “the Lamb” in English translation does not belie the fact that “the Lamb” occurs only once in the Greek. You’re making an issue out of nothing, as clearly “the one” refers to the “the Lamb”—something I’d never denied. What I DID state is in the above, which brings me to the real issue, which is: To what “from the foundation of the world” modify—does it modify the slaying of the Lamb ((1)) or those whose names were not written in the Book of Life ((2))?
As to your very last question in your most recent comment, this has been answered more than once—the very first time in my very first comment (in its last paragraph), which I’ll quote (again) here: Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning….
Read more carefully, Christine, before you comment. If you are not sure, ask.
---------------------
5:32 PM
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
...
Craig,
"Christine, here you state the Lamb’s death was a settled issue before creation, [later states] was slain from the foundation of the world. So, your position has changed. "
that is two ways of saying the same thing. before creation was TIMELESS eternity the foundation
was in God's mind before spoken into existence and somewhere in all that the agreement for the Lamb
to be slain was done.
"...first argue against... grammatical ambiguity, then ... implicitly concede that it is grammatically ambiguous?"
I repeatedly said the ambiguity was an illusion (you invented in English) in Greek ditto because
NT is NOT PROPER OR CLASSICAL GREEK but koine a lower class dialect (like ebonics) different rules.
Byzantine text has to be original type because originals written in Byzantine turf! per Pickering.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/13-8.htm Greek "the Book of Life of The Lamb HAVING
BEEN SLAIN from the founding of the world." (KJV/NKJV Byzantine.) "having been slain" points to "the
founding of the world" sounds ongoing from past.
NIV repeat Lamb to simplify because obviously The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.
Alexandrian meant this but it is clearer in the Byz. text type. Consistent with Acts 2:23 states: “… Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," points to Lamb being slain from the founding of the cosmos.
"... your very last question" you say answered but you have NOT answered YES OR NO do you
admit the Lamb's death was decreed from the founding/before creation?
"....either...the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or...the book of life
belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver,
Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing."
Not the same. the Book depends on the Lamb being slain so the latter is from foundation of cosmos.
you obviously prefer the book from then.
" No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning…. "
THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF A BACKUP PLAN, WHICH BY DEFINITION IS DEVELOPED BEFORE STARTING
SOMETHING. the backup plan was there from the beginning. No backup plan? the Fall was then an
unexpected oops followed by a scramble to find a solution.
6:39 AM
Delete
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine,
As I stated just above, your very first words on this subject were: Not grammar ambiguity…. You can, until you are blue in the face, restate that you did not claim this, but the evidence by your own very explicit words illustrates that did initially claim counter my position, then subsequently change to agreeing with my position based on your assertion that this ambiguity is (1) due to John’s poor writing, and (2) being Koine Greek. Of course, all the NT is Koine…
Now you change your position even further to claim this is something I invented [Your statement: I repeatedly said the ambiguity was an illusion (you invented in English)] . Well, anyone can consult the various translations to see the differences—the differences I detailed in my very first comment.
You wrote: … but you have NOT answered YES OR NO do you admit the Lamb's death was decreed from the founding/before creation? Aaaah, here you’ve reframed your stance. “Decreed” is much different than actually being slain.
You wrote: the Book depends on the Lamb being slain so the latter is from foundation of cosmos. NOW you’re getting warmer! The implication in the last paragraph of my very first comment was just that, with my words: …this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning.
And now you even bring forth a new, and totally unrelated, position: Byzantine text has to be original type because originals written in Byzantine turf! Let me make this abundantly clear: THIS IS NOT A TEXT-CRITICAL ISSUE (Byzantine vs. Alexandrian text), THIS IS A TRANSLATION ISSUE!
It’s time for you to, as per the KJV, ‘give up the ghost’ on this issue.
--------------------------
Craig said...
Christine,
To stave off more of the same line of argumentation from you, I’m going to quote your very first statement in full (bold added):
not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the Crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened.
I state this because of your assertion just above: Not the same. the Book depends on the Lamb being slain so the latter is from foundation of cosmos. you obviously prefer the book from then.
In your very first comment to me you state the Crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened, which is exactly the point I strongly imply in the last paragraph of my initial comment, and quoted again above regarding the end result of either translation “amount[ing] to the same thing”. So, initially, though you didn’t fully understand my implication, you agreed with the point I was making, and now you are disagreeing with your own initial comment! You are now, in essence, arguing against yourself!
-----------------------------
Craig said...
paul,
Yes; while Dahlheimer’s “God” has to clean up a mess made by a lesser G/god who emanated from him, the
Christian God, the One True God, had a plan from the very beginning. Revelation 13:8 states:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of
life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of
the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.
Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the
Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to
the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”.
-----------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said..."slain from the foundation of the world" not grammar ambiguity,
but that the atoning death of the Lamb
was decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the Crucifixion was
settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened.
-------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine, the indisputable queen of syntax and grammar (at least on this blog) wrote, in response to my post @
8:26 AM above:
"slain from the foundation of the world" not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb was
decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the crucifixion was settled on
before creation, which made it as good as having happened.
The verse is grammatically ambiguous, such that it is grammatically permissible to translate it in one of two
ways, as I had in my earlier comment. Just consult a good technical commentary. Since exegesis begins with
correct translation, and interpretation hinges on translation, it is prudent to point these sorts of things out. Given
the syntactical ambiguity, one could accept the second of the two translations above and interpret the passage as
espousing predestination. But, then, one should back that up with other passages.
Your statement above is an interpretation, your interpretation presupposing what the verse should say
(eisegesis). I don’t necessarily disagree with your “the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation
began”, as that’s what I tried to convey in my closing paragraph (to have a Book of Life, it would appear to
require the Life Giver). However, your claim that this was a “backup plan if sin occurred” is concerning. Did God
think He might have to sacrifice the Lamb just in case sin would occur? Is God not omniscient? Are you an open
theist?
Putting that aside, here’s food for thought, not requiring a response (please): From a philosophical perspective,
what is the relationship between the temporal realm and eternal? Should we construe eternity as consisting of
events occurring in a linear fashion?
----------------------------
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
...
Craig, re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style, but
this supports its legitimacy, a semi literate fisherman would have scribes help him phrase
the Gospel, but was on his own on Patmos.
"the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" the
second phrase clarifies the first, and focusses on the Lamb so is about the Lamb not the
book. supports Mosaic sacrifices looking forward to Jesus Christ, can also mean slain to
found the new creation to come.
"...your claim that this was a “backup plan if sin occurred” is concerning..... Is God not
omniscient? Are you an open theist?" no, God would know it would be needed, and they
all agreed on this solution to the inevitable problem before creating anything. plan A was
the sinless perfect creation until sin happened then plan B would kick in. There is no "oops"
when you anticipate something.
--------------------------
Craig said...
Christine, our resident know-it-all, wrote:
Craig, re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style, but this supports its
legitimacy, a semi literate fisherman would have scribes help him phrase the Gospel, but was on his own on
Patmos.
"the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" the second phrase clarifies
the first, and focusses on the Lamb so is about the Lamb not the book. supports Mosaic sacrifices looking forward
to Jesus Christ, can also mean slain to found the new creation to come.
“Questioned because of poor writing style”? I think it was your poor comprehension, most likely due to reading
too fast, coupled with your zeal to ‘correct’ everyone here. Why can’t you just admit that you initially missed my
point?
I find it amazing that such a “semi literate” [sic] fisherman would be able to write such vivid imagery, replete
with symbols galore (stars as angels, e.g.), in writing Revelation in its apocalyptic style, a genre so much
different than the one employed in the Gospel of John, without the help of other scribes.
You also wrote, responding to me, confusing my quotations of you and your own quoting of my quotations of you,
which I’ll fix for the sake of clarification:
"...your claim that this was a ‘backup plan if sin occurred’ is concerning..... Is God not
omniscient? Are you an open theist?" no, God would know it would be needed, and they
all agreed on this solution to the inevitable problem before creating anything. plan A was
the sinless perfect creation until sin happened then plan B would kick in. There is no "oops"
when you anticipate something.
So, you are implicitly admitting you were being sloppy in your initial response. At least that’s how I’m gonna take
it.
---------------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
Craig I got your point, and I answered it. I did not admit initial sloppiness, but had to
explain the obvious to you in more detail.
you base your interpretation on syntax ambiguity which I answered was a feature of Revelation
used against it by some who denied its authenticity so you can't rely on it for your purpose
I added that this ambuity was what you could expect if it was legitimate. Revelation was first accepted, then
misused by Montanists so rejected and a coucil reinstated it. And since The
LAmb is mentioned second half of sentence but not the book of life, the seconed half is about the Lamb not the
book.
Revelation was a bit rough for koine so a simple fisherman wrote it unaided. nothing amazing, he WROTE WHAT
HE SAW AND HEARD. you, heretic, assume he wrote a genre. HE REPORTED WHAT HE SAW.
--------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Oh Christine, au contraire.
First of all, syntax ambiguity is found in all of Scripture. It’s found in John’s Gospel. I’m currently finishing up a
series (some is posted), and I point out how John 19:28 is syntactically ambiguous. A similar thing is found in
19:30.
And you are wrong regarding the placement of “Lamb” and “book” in Revelation 13:8—but don’t let facts stop you
from pontificating. Both are found together in the latter half of the verse (and neither is repeated). Here’s how it
reads in the Greek:
?? t? ß?ß??? t?? ???? t?? ?????? t?? ?sfa?µ???? ?p? ?ataß???? ??sµ??
in the Book of Life of the Lamb of the one slain from foundation of cosmos.
I’m the “heretic”, eh? John wrote what he saw, and the writing is in the apocalyptic genre. If you wish to believe
that everything written should be understood literally, that’s your prerogative. Me, I don’t think that Jesus will
strike down His enemies with a literal sharp sword that comes out of His mouth. I think this is more likely to be
understood as in line with Hebrews 4:12.
------------------------------------------------------
"And you are wrong regarding...“Lamb” and “book” in Revelation 13:8...(and neither is repeated)."
Lamb is repeated in the translation you used.
" Here’s how it reads in the Greek:
....in the Book of Life of the Lamb of the one slain from foundation of cosmos."
Thank you for making my point for me, "the Book of life of the Lamb OF THE ONE
slain from the foundation of cosmos" of the one slain clearly refers to the Lamb.
"I’m the “heretic”, eh? John wrote what he saw, and the writing is in the apocalyptic genre."
you say its amazong John could do this by implication ascribing Revelation to John's ability as if he made it up of
course its going to be apocalyptic because of content. you say its amazing he could do this. WHY? if he could read
and write he could file a report. nothing amazing. STOP FOCUSING ON MAN AND FOCUS ON GOD. (same deal
with your nonsense about health reason for food laws) If he saw Ozzie and Harriet discuss theology the report
wouldn't be apocalyptic what he saw was apocalyptic so the report was apocalyptic.
literal vs. symbolic has to do with interpreting what was seen, NOT with reporting it. he REPORTED what he was
shown, as he was told to do, he didn't have some reverie with strong fantasy and compose in the apocalyptic
genre
------------------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine,
I don’t know why you have this penchant to try to ‘prove’ things about which you’ve no clue.
First, let’s not lose track of the argument. Most recently you claimed the following: And since The LAmb is
mentioned second half of sentence but not the book of life, the seconed half is about the Lamb not the book. Yet
rather than concede that your assertion is wrong in view of the evidence I provided, you go back to your original
assertion that the syntax is not ambiguous and claim I'd made your point (I didn't). Rather than attempt to
explain exactly how the syntax is ambiguous, I’ll point you to a number of English versions that illustrate it.
Should that not be convincing—and why would I think it would be for you—check out the parallel at 17:8, which is
not syntactically ambiguous:
… whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world… (KJV)
--------------------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine wrote, quoting me first (bold), then responding: 'And you are wrong regarding..."Lamb" and "book" in
Revelation 13:8...(and neither is repeated).'
Lamb is repeated in the translation you used.
BUT IT'S NOT IN THE GREEK FROM WHICH THE VERSE WAS TRANSLATED!!!
"Lamb" and "book of life", in Greek, are most certainly in the last half of that verse--and NEITHER is repeated.
Just look at the Greek text in the hyperlink supplied at 6:40 PM above: t? ß?ß??? t?? ???? = "the book of life"; t??
?????? = "the lamb". You are incorrect, and it's well-past time you admit this.
--------------------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhfJwAHhmrk Summer of Rage | Mass Riots in July?
paul, I apologize for putting the wrong name on.
re Jim Bakker, anyone who could tolerate him before the scandal and sees only the scandal is seriously fleshly
and loving deception. the whole style was to put it mildly worldly and fleshly I doubt it has changed much. I
couldn't stomach him for more than a few seconds, two minutes at the most. the scandal was predictable. and
THEME PARK!? and his wife like an over made up whore? that people would send him money shows how screwed
up many Christians are.
Craig "Yet rather than concede that your assertion is wrong in view of the evidence I provided,"
you gave no evidence
"you go back to your original assertion that the syntax is not ambiguous"
EXCUSE ME?! I NEVER SAID THE SYNTAX WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS. I said that the ambiguity was more typical of
Revelation than the rest of the NT and some said therefore John didn't write it, but less educated and alone this
could be expected. Scripture ambiguities - difficulty of finite expressing inifnite, also it is street Greek not
Classical Greek, think ebonics vs. Ivy League English.
" and claim I'd made your point (I didn't)."
Yes you made my point, because when you quote Greek that says THE ONE in that sentence instead of repeating
the word LAMB it is clearly speaking about THE LAMB because books don't get slain and if all in it die then no one
meets Jesus at His Return and gets caught up as He is descending. the translator who put the repeat of "Lamb"
in the sentence obviously saw "the one" as referring to The Lamb.
saying the LAMB was slain from the foundation of the cosmos is consistent with your true statement, that God
"had a plan from the very beginning." The Lamb was as good as dead because His death (and REsurrection) was
determined from before Creation to correct what
would inevitably happen.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore on this. you want to pursue your self righteousness
go ahead. meanwhile, paul, forget health reasons for food laws. there aren't any. it was about separation. That is
explicitly clear.
"MCE is not interested in the truth, not interested in what is right." on the contrary, defending truth is why I
argue and I am repeatedly apalled by what I see here. Like the people who insisted that the parable of the
mustard tree was not about what Jesus said it was about, the growth of the Kingdom of Heaven, but about the
abnormal growth of false churches.
------------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine, continuing to obfuscate:
Craig [wrote to Christine:] "Yet rather than concede that your assertion is wrong in view of the evidence I
provided,"
[her response:] you gave no evidence
The evidence was in the Greek text I provided, which refutes your assertion that (1) it is not ambiguous; (2) that
“the Lamb” is in the 2nd half of the verse rather than “book of life” which is in the first [since The LAmb is
mentioned second half of sentence but not the book of life, the seconed half is about the Lamb not the book…
(10:53PM – all time stamps from previous thread)]; and, (3) that “the Lamb” was not repeated in the verse. I’ll
provide proof of your statements as I go.
[quoting me:] "you go back to your original assertion that the syntax is not ambiguous"
EXCUSE ME?! I NEVER SAID THE SYNTAX WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS. I said that the ambiguity was more typical of
Revelation than the rest of the NT and some said therefore John didn't write it, but less educated and alone this
could be expected. Scripture ambiguities - difficulty of finite expressing inifnite, also it is street Greek not
Classical Greek, think ebonics vs. Ivy League English.
Addressing (1), your initial response (1:14AM) stated: not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the
Lamb was decided on before creation… You partially backed down from this assertion [re syntax ambiguity
Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style (1:18AM)], claiming that, comparatively, John’s Gospel
is not ambiguous because John had help [a semi literate fisherman would have scribes help him phrase the
Gospel, but was on his own on Patmos (1:18AM)]; however, the Scriptural evidence shows ambiguity throughout
the NT, including John’s Gospel. In fact, the current series I’m writing points to this in John 19:28-30.
Cont:
7:50 AM
Anonymous Craig said...
Cont:
Yet, then again, your words below imply that it’s not really ambiguous (‘round and ‘round we go), because (2)
and (3) above:
[quoting me:] "and claim I'd made your point (I didn't)."
Yes you made my point, because when you quote Greek that says THE ONE in that sentence instead of repeating
the word LAMB it is clearly speaking about THE LAMB because books don't get slain… the translator who put the
repeat of "Lamb" in the sentence obviously saw "the one" as referring to The Lamb.
So, after your initial claim (2), you respond to my preemptive response to you—“the Lamb” is not repeated (3)
—by claiming that the Greek substantival [t?? ?sfa?µ????], which means “the one slain”, or “who was slain” (or,
“the one who was slain”) is a repeating of “the Lamb”, though you neglect that even if one were to grant that (I
wouldn’t), that it’s STILL IN THE LATTER PART OF THE VERSE ALONG WITH “BOOK OF LIFE” (2).
I’m only belaboring this because I’m tired of you running roughshod over folks here. My initial comment was in
response to Dahlheimer, but you had to butt in with your ‘know-it-all’ attitude. You clearly DON’T know it all.
---------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Phooey. In my attempt to unravel Christine’s Gordian knot, I added an extra “not” in my point (3) above. That is,
it should be: (3) that “the Lamb” was repeated in the verse. And since I’m providing a correction, I’ll add another
preemptive statement. If I were to state, “Christine, the one who would argue with wallpaper”, the part after
“Christine” is descriptive, NOT a repeating of “Christine”. Hence “the Lamb” is not repeated in the Greek text.
-----------------------------
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
Craig, I didn't back down AT ALL from ANYTHING. if you can't see that in English, I doubt
you can make any valid points in Greek so I doubt I will waste my time reading whatever
nonsense you put together in that article. This is the second time you ascribed to me
things I was not doing and didn't appear to be either, admitting you take things the way you
prefer so you are not after truth but subjective wishful thinking.
The original English translation said The Lamb twice, second time translating "the one"
so I'm not alone in figuring this meant the Lamb. meanwhile you are left in the position
of saying either
no one is left alive who were in the book of life, unlikely given harpazo statement and
Matthew 24 though not impossible given Luke 18:8,
the other an absurdity, that a book is killed,
third option a reference to God's preplanning which is to the glory of God. And you refuse
the latter. hah!
or the absurdity that only those who get killed are in the Lamb's book of life, that if you didn't
die a martyr violently, but died peacefully in your sleep, you are damned or at least real low
class barely tolerated on the perimeter of the Kingdom of HEaven when it is installed on earth.
--------------------------------------
Christine wrote: I didn't back down AT ALL from ANYTHING.
In a way, that’s not exactly untrue. What you DID do is initially claim “no grammar ambiguity” against my claim
that there was grammatical ambiguity (there are two ways to interpret the Greek); however, your follow-up
answer didn’t “back down”, rather it just said: re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor
writing style. So, you didn’t EXPLICITLY “back down”, though it was implicit.
In any case, I’ve made my case just above, so I won’t rehash. Clearly, you’ve backtracked to where you’d done a
360, then continued your attempts at obfuscation. I’ll let the readers decide whose position is the accurate
portrayal of events.
Now, with this new stuff you’ve brought up…are you serious?! Where did I intimate that the Greek translated “the
one who was slain” refers to the book of life?! Your comprehension is seriously lacking, Christine. Go argue with
your wallpaper. You’ll do much better, I promise you.
The problem is that you don’t understand the Greek, and, hence, you’ve no idea what you’re talking about. As I
suggested in my last comment on the other thread, you don’t have to believe me, just check the variations in
English translations illustrating the very point I made in my initial comment on Revelation 13:8. That is, the
grammar is grammatically ambiguous such that there are two possible renderings.
But, haven’t you—again—violated your once per week limit on posting?
--------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
Sunday May 28, AD 2017 will date future posts so no one wrongly thinks as two do now that I
posted twice in same week.
...
"... you didn’t EXPLICITLY “back down”, though it was implicit."
I see why you misunderstood me, to me syntax and grammar are all the same. I did not back
down. writing problems in NT are because it is NOT Classical Greek but koine http://www.theopedia.com/greek
which is to Classical Greek as ebonics is to proper English.
Revelation has extra problems, used against it when arguing John the Apostle didn't write it (Irenaeus, student of
John's student, said he did, so he did). https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17428/who-wrote-
the-book-of-revelation
confusing the issue is "a literal millennium" Revelation shows NO END to Christ's rule.
the first thousand years the devil is fully bound unable to tempt ANYONE not crippled like now,
then released briefly for one last test of mankind a revolt happens and it is put down then the
general resurrection, the judgement, new heavens and new earth and descent of the New
Jerusalem (which the CHurch is a foretaste of).
I have NOT violated the once a week limit. I post on Sundays and sometimes on a later day
that is still ONE DAY IN THAT WEEK. Lack of others posting looks like less time passed.
"Clearly, you’ve backtracked to where you’d done a 360," huh? you mean I reminded you
that you started this by denying The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world?
"then continued your attempts at obfuscation." I have not obfuscated but tried to explain in more detail but you
seem more dishonest than confused. so you don't deceive others I try to correct your errors anyway.
"Where did I intimate that the Greek translated “the one who was slain” refers to the book of life?!"
BY DENYING THAT "THE ONE SLAIN" REFERS TO THE LAMB, which denial much earlier is why this discussion,
YOU LEAVE NO OTHER OPTION but that the book of life was slain, and a couple of other absurdities.
----------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine,
Since you persist, let’s go back to the very first statement I made, which was addressed to paul and in reference
to Dalheimer’s “god”. [This provides yet another opportunity for Dalheimer to try to defend his position/refute my
assertions about his cosmology and theology.]
_________________________________
Yes; while Dahlheimer’s “God” has to clean up a mess made by a lesser G/god who emanated from him, the
Christian God, the One True God, had a plan from the very beginning. Revelation 13:8 states:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of
life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of
the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.
Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the
Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to
the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”.
___________________________________
I’ve never stated nor intimated anything about the scroll being ‘slain’—that’s your own ridiculous misconstrual. In
fact, above I implied otherwise with this @ 9:19 AM: If I were to state, “Christine, the one who would argue with
wallpaper”, the part after “Christine” is descriptive, NOT a repeating of “Christine”. Hence [similarly] “the Lamb”
is not repeated in the Greek text.
Yes, all the NT is written in Koine Greek. But, let’s not obfuscate [again], I didn’t confuse what you wrote. Sure,
“syntax” and “grammar” can be synonymous; I’ve even used them that way. The issue here is your attempted
rebuttal of my initial statement above, not Koine vs. Classical Greek. As I noted, syntactical ambiguity is found
throughout the NT, including the Gospel of John. I stand by my comment above @ 7:50 / 7:52 AM, and the
follow-up @ 9:19 AM, which point out your flip-flop on the issue of syntax/grammar: In reference to my very first
comment above, you said “not grammar ambiguity” [previous thread @ 1:14 AM], then in subsequent comments
you appealed to the “syntax ambiguity” inherent in Revelation [previous thread 1:18 AM].
Now, show me and everyone here where I, in your words, was “DENYING THAT ‘THE ONE SLAIN’ REFERS TO THE
LAMB”. Point to the specific comment by thread and time. Well, ya can’t, because I didn’t.
------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
June 4,
...
Craig,
"...show me...where I...was “DENYING THAT ‘THE ONE SLAIN’ REFERS TO THE LAMB”...."
the issue was denying the Lamb was slain FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE COSMOS
I apologize for not being more specific.
previous thread: 8:26 AM
"...the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of
the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain."
[you complain of grammar/syntax ambiguity in English so I drag in koine to prevent similar claim
about Greek]
"Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to
the Lamb was there from the very beginning,
"this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was
there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”."
THAT BY DEFINITION IS A BACKUP PLAN. there is no oops when you expect and plan ahead of time. The book of
life because requiring the life-giver leaves The Lamb was slain from the foundation
DO YOU DENY CHRIST'S DEATH WAS AGREED ON BEFORE CREATION?
after that 1:46 PM:
"And you are wrong regarding the placement of “Lamb” and “book” in Revelation 13:8 ... (and neither is
repeated). Here’s how it reads in the Greek: ...
in the Book of Life of the Lamb of the one slain from foundation of cosmos."
the sentence is talking about something slain from the foundation of the cosmos. So it is either the book or the
lamb. The translation said "The Lamb" instead of "the one" recognizing the Lamb was meant.
"“the Lamb” is not repeated in the Greek text."
I said that "the one slain" REFERS TO THE LAMB, and of course so does "the foundation of the cosmos," you
present the Greek text as valid so you are left with the MEANING that THE LAMB
WAS SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE COSMOS which speaks to eternality.
(I agree with all denunciations of Dahlheimer and whoever thinks Dahlheimer would like the supposed dung at
my blog has such for brains. there is NOTHING about auras, etc. that support pantheism regardless of you
believing the new age lie that they do, these things are not illusion they are REAL THEREFORE DANGEROUS)
----------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
June 11 Sunday
...
Craig,
I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY POSITION ONE SINGLE TIME whic is, that The Lamb was slain
from the foundation of the world, not that the book was there from then, you however have
weasled when confronted with the fact that "the one slain" refers to The Lamb in the Greek
and argued "The Lamb" isn't repeated in Greek but the translator who knows koine Greek
better than you I figure, chose to put "the Lamb" instead of "the one." I defer to the translator
who has more credibility than you do. The issue is did "the one slain from the foundation of the cosmos" refer to
the lamb? it did. I ASK A SECOND TIME, DO YOU DENY THAT CHRIST'S DEATH
AND RESURRECTION WERE AGREED UPON BEFORE CREATION? sounds like you do.
--------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Like the odor of farmland freshly fertilized with manure, there is Christine’s weekly contribution, with its
fabrications, imputing incorrect assertions to individuals while simultaneously attempting to impugn their
characters, all the while spewing her own brew of quasi-new age and blatant new age beliefs onto the
readership, all of it mixed with the very rare valid statements. But is it really worth the effort to find the credible
among the (sometimes literally) incredible?
Christine wrote regarding the conversation she initially butted [pun intended] herself into, and continues to
incessantly ramble on about:
I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY POSITION ONE SINGLE TIME whic is, that The Lamb was slain from the foundation of
the world, not that the book was there from then, you however have weasled when confronted with the fact that
"the one slain" refers to The Lamb in the Greek and argued "The Lamb" isn't repeated in Greek but the translator
who knows koine Greek better than you I figure, chose to put "the Lamb" instead of "the one." I defer to the
translator who has more credibility than you do. The issue is did "the one slain from the foundation of the
cosmos" refer to the lamb? it did. I ASK A SECOND TIME, DO YOU DENY THAT CHRIST'S DEATH AND
RESURRECTION WERE AGREED UPON BEFORE CREATION? sounds like you do.
So, you didn’t first argue against my assertion regarding the grammatical ambiguity, then subsequently implicitly
concede that it is grammatically ambiguous? That’s meant rhetorically, as that is, in fact, what you did, as your
VERY FIRST WORDS were, and I quote you verbatim: not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the
Lamb was decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the Crucifixion was
settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened ["THE PROPHESIED SYSTEM OF
REVELATION 13 RAPIDLY ADVANCES!" @ 1:14 AM]. So, Christine, here you state the Lamb’s death was a settled
issue before creation, yet your most recent comment states specifically that the Lamb was slain from the
foundation of the world. So, your position has changed. As to your subsequent concession on ambiguity, I again
quote you verbatim: Craig, re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style, but this
supports its legitimacy… [same thread as above, @ 1:18 AM]. Your position changed on the issue of ambiguity,
as well.
You just make it up as you go, changing the argument, rather than explicitly conceding you were
wrong/mistaken, etc.
I was quite clear from the very beginning, and I’ve never wavered, that “the one slain” refers to the Lamb (who
else would it be?!), as that was never in question and was never brought up as an issue—until you tried to make
it one. It’s not my fault you have a comprehension problem. If you don’t understand something, why not just ask
a question rather than going off on some wild tangent, imputing something to me that I’d never stated?
And you conflate the real issue in this verse with something you think it is with your statement: The issue is did
"the one slain from the foundation of the cosmos" refer to the lamb? it did.
So, I’ll have to go back to the issue as I brought it up initially.
Cont…
4:15 PM
Anonymous Craig said...
Cont…
The syntactical ambiguity in Revelation 13:8 allows for one of two interpretations:
(1) All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book
of life, the one [the Lamb] who was slain from the foundation of the world.
(2) All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the
foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.
Thus, (2) does NOT state that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, as it states nothing about the
timing of the Lamb’s slaying, while (1) does. The fact that the NIV chooses to repeat “the Lamb” in English
translation does not belie the fact that “the Lamb” occurs only once in the Greek. You’re making an issue out of
nothing, as clearly “the one” refers to the “the Lamb”—something I’d never denied. What I DID state is in the
above, which brings me to the real issue, which is: To what “from the foundation of the world” modify—does it
modify the slaying of the Lamb ((1)) or those whose names were not written in the Book of Life ((2))?
As to your very last question in your most recent comment, this has been answered more than once—the very
first time in my very first comment (in its last paragraph), which I’ll quote (again) here: Thus, it’s either that the
Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the Lamb was there from
the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No
back-up plan; it was there from the beginning….
Read more carefully, Christine, before you comment. If you are not sure, ask.
---------------------
5:32 PM
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
...
Craig,
"Christine, here you state the Lamb’s death was a settled issue before creation, [later states] was slain from the
foundation of the world. So, your position has changed. "
that is two ways of saying the same thing. before creation was TIMELESS eternity the foundation
was in God's mind before spoken into existence and somewhere in all that the agreement for the Lamb
to be slain was done.
"...first argue against... grammatical ambiguity, then ... implicitly concede that it is grammatically ambiguous?"
I repeatedly said the ambiguity was an illusion (you invented in English) in Greek ditto because
NT is NOT PROPER OR CLASSICAL GREEK but koine a lower class dialect (like ebonics) different rules.
Byzantine text has to be original type because originals written in Byzantine turf! per Pickering.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/13-8.htm Greek "the Book of Life of The Lamb HAVING
BEEN SLAIN from the founding of the world." (KJV/NKJV Byzantine.) "having been slain" points to "the
founding of the world" sounds ongoing from past.
NIV repeat Lamb to simplify because obviously The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.
Alexandrian meant this but it is clearer in the Byz. text type. Consistent with Acts 2:23 states: “… Him, being
delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," points to Lamb being slain from the founding of
the cosmos.
"... your very last question" you say answered but you have NOT answered YES OR NO do you
admit the Lamb's death was decreed from the founding/before creation?
"....either...the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or...the book of life
belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver,
Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing."
Not the same. the Book depends on the Lamb being slain so the latter is from foundation of cosmos.
you obviously prefer the book from then.
" No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning…. "
THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF A BACKUP PLAN, WHICH BY DEFINITION IS DEVELOPED BEFORE STARTING
SOMETHING. the backup plan was there from the beginning. No backup plan? the Fall was then an
unexpected oops followed by a scramble to find a solution.
6:39 AM
Delete
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine,
As I stated just above, your very first words on this subject were: Not grammar ambiguity…. You can, until you
are blue in the face, restate that you did not claim this, but the evidence by your own very explicit words
illustrates that did initially claim counter my position, then subsequently change to agreeing with my position
based on your assertion that this ambiguity is (1) due to John’s poor writing, and (2) being Koine Greek. Of
course, all the NT is Koine…
Now you change your position even further to claim this is something I invented [Your statement: I repeatedly
said the ambiguity was an illusion (you invented in English)] . Well, anyone can consult the various translations
to see the differences—the differences I detailed in my very first comment.
You wrote: … but you have NOT answered YES OR NO do you admit the Lamb's death was decreed from the
founding/before creation? Aaaah, here you’ve reframed your stance. “Decreed” is much different than actually
being slain.
You wrote: the Book depends on the Lamb being slain so the latter is from foundation of cosmos. NOW you’re
getting warmer! The implication in the last paragraph of my very first comment was just that, with my words: …
this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was
there from the beginning.
And now you even bring forth a new, and totally unrelated, position: Byzantine text has to be original type
because originals written in Byzantine turf! Let me make this abundantly clear: THIS IS NOT A TEXT-CRITICAL
ISSUE (Byzantine vs. Alexandrian text), THIS IS A TRANSLATION ISSUE!
It’s time for you to, as per the KJV, ‘give up the ghost’ on this issue.
--------------------------
Craig said...
Christine,
To stave off more of the same line of argumentation from you, I’m going to quote your very first statement in full
(bold added):
not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation began, THAT was
the backup plan if sin occurred, so the Crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good as
having happened.
I state this because of your assertion just above: Not the same. the Book depends on the Lamb being slain so the
latter is from foundation of cosmos. you obviously prefer the book from then.
In your very first comment to me you state the Crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good
as having happened, which is exactly the point I strongly imply in the last paragraph of my initial comment, and
quoted again above regarding the end result of either translation “amount[ing] to the same thing”. So, initially,
though you didn’t fully understand my implication, you agreed with the point I was making, and now you are
disagreeing with your own initial comment! You are now, in essence, arguing against yourself!
-----------------------------
I incl. the remakr to Paul because of my attacker here calling me New Age.
paul
you don't know what hinduism is. It is NOT chakras, that is info from Indian civ exploited to screw one's mind,
aka illumination hinduism is worship of vedic false gods plus some mystical philosophical stuff (some is in the
charismatic and/or contemplative scene) ramped up to look better to Brits.
if chakras weren't real and manipulating them make you more vulnerable to evil spirits and self deceptive states,
why would demons work on getting us to do this? if they don't exist they are harmless waste of time and nothing
to argue against christians doing for a placebo effect. idiot.
LEAVE CHAKRAS ALONE NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST BUT BECAUSE THEY DO EXIST.
an effort to refute Eccles. 12 as relevant a few years ago referred to the life force that animates the body, an
occultic mystical concept itself (which is probably accidentally correct). AND NO ONE CUAGHT IT!
some clairvoyance is physical since animals see and react a lot of "spiritual" is just a more attenuated form of
material.
as for the Gospel, chakras and MArs are not part of it neither is the politics on this blog you need the Gospel
followed by the Bible to sort these things out, and to do spiritual warfare. so why do you talk in terms of mixing
it? I suppose you think salvation requires understanding EU politics? or when and if we get into WW3?
you who denounce viciously any serious weapon against new age practices that discredits them possibly
with them and with deceived Christians, SOUND LIKE PANICKED WITCHES!
Craig
I NEVER CHANGED MY STANCE. reframing is restating, not changing stance "do you have H2O" is reframed as
"do you have water?"
"... you state the Crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened...the
point I strongly imply in... my initial comment,"
liar. you stated agianst this that between decreed and dead is a difference. you argued for the book not the
Lamb's slaying being from the foundation, since the book depends on the Lamb's death, BUT THAT IS WHY
the book is AFTER the foundation.
" ... the end result of either translation “amount[ing] to the same thing”."
AGAIN YOU LIE. you did NOT say this about translations but that either the book or the Lamb's death being from
the foundation amounted to the same thing, WHICH THEY DO NOT.
you say I misunderstood but agreed NO. your main point was no backup plan but what's arranged
before or during start is by definition a backup plan, and YOU MAKE GOD OUT TO BE AN IDIOT BY DENYING HE
MADE A BACKUP PLAN. you don't need supernatural wisdom or foreknowledge to compute the liklihood of the
Fall.
"...Not grammar ambiguity…" yes I deny ambiguity that goes against the predetermination of the Cross (outside
of your warped mind). any ambiguity in Greek is an ILLUSION NT Greek is not Classical or modern different rules.
you say text issue new and unrelated and is irrelevant to translation. idiot, text determines translation. (you
presented Greek text yourself.)
YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY WITH ME never refuted me and I REFUTED YOU REPEATEDLY. enough of you
and your self satisfied phony graciousness. I will ignore you.
BTW prewrath rapture doesn't involve two second comings, just a hover in the sky with Jesus.
"Craig said...
Susanna,
...my proficiency with Greek is mediocre at best, really. My vocabulary is poor....a few very handy tools—one in particular that parses all the words and has a great search function. If I had to take any first level test without my tools, I’d likely flunk or barely pass."
aha. therefore don't talk to me about grammatical ambiguity. From the foundation of the world has to refer
to The Lamb's death, not the book. you can argue whatever is dependent on the Lamb's death is from the
foundation also with the Lamb's death, but it is the Lamb's death referred to since all depends on it.
When there is real or apparent ambiguity, check rest of Scripture on the subject. the Acts cite I gave says
the same, that the Crucifixion is from the pre determination of God. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=2905384041416305199&blogID=11772087&isPopup=false&page=2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
since Craig of https://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/ has engaged in slippery and twisting
behavior in arguing with me, and the likely covert witch mole who hates the
denunciation of manipulating chakras as dangerous because real instead of chakras
being nonexistent fawns on him and posted here, for the benefit of my readers in
case he realizes his mistake (unlikely considering how self satisfied he is), and deletes
his posts, I have our conversation copied here goes through three or four threads on
Constance's blog comments section.
I notice on his blog he does some similar twisting of the Bible and prefers the
sloppier Alexandrian text (which he either idiotically or dishonestly on purpose
calls a separate issue from translation, when text drives translation, duh!) here
is what I read so far. I am sure that his denunciations of the errors of some others
is correct enough though may contain subtle errors in them even as started this
argument with me.
For instance, he considers that Malina and Rohrbach have "some relevant insights
into Jesus' final act" which include something outrageous.
"After thus ratifying that his purpose has been fully accomplished, Jesus hands over his spirit to those around the cross—the community of those who believe in him their leader, the beloved disciple and the witnessing women."
No, He gave up his spirit to God The Father "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." Luke 23:46."
Even without this you can take it for granted that He wasn't now simply infiltrating and haunting
His followers and living in their community! I wonder if ther is some heretical agenda
in these people's writings.
Craig said...
paul,
Yes; while Dahlheimer’s “God” has to clean up a mess made by a lesser G/god who emanated from him, the Christian God, the One True God, had a plan from the very beginning. Revelation 13:8 states:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.
Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”.
-----------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said..."slain from the foundation of the world" not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb
was decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the Crucifixion was
settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened.
-------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine, the indisputable queen of syntax and grammar (at least on this blog) wrote, in response to my post @ 8:26 AM above:
"slain from the foundation of the world" not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened.
The verse is grammatically ambiguous, such that it is grammatically permissible to translate it in one of two ways, as I had in my earlier comment. Just consult a good technical commentary. Since exegesis begins with correct translation, and interpretation hinges on translation, it is prudent to point these sorts of things out. Given the syntactical ambiguity, one could accept the second of the two translations above and interpret the passage as espousing predestination. But, then, one should back that up with other passages.
Your statement above is an interpretation, your interpretation presupposing what the verse should say (eisegesis). I don’t necessarily disagree with your “the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation began”, as that’s what I tried to convey in my closing paragraph (to have a Book of Life, it would appear to require the Life Giver). However, your claim that this was a “backup plan if sin occurred” is concerning. Did God think He might have to sacrifice the Lamb just in case sin would occur? Is God not omniscient? Are you an open theist?
Putting that aside, here’s food for thought, not requiring a response (please): From a philosophical perspective, what is the relationship between the temporal realm and eternal? Should we construe eternity as consisting of events occurring in a linear fashion?
----------------------------
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
...
Craig, re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style, but
this supports its legitimacy, a semi literate fisherman would have scribes help him phrase
the Gospel, but was on his own on Patmos.
"the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" the
second phrase clarifies the first, and focusses on the Lamb so is about the Lamb not the
book. supports Mosaic sacrifices looking forward to Jesus Christ, can also mean slain to
found the new creation to come.
"...your claim that this was a “backup plan if sin occurred” is concerning..... Is God not
omniscient? Are you an open theist?" no, God would know it would be needed, and they
all agreed on this solution to the inevitable problem before creating anything. plan A was
the sinless perfect creation until sin happened then plan B would kick in. There is no "oops"
when you anticipate something.
--------------------------
Craig said...
Christine, our resident know-it-all, wrote:
Craig, re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style, but this supports its legitimacy, a semi literate fisherman would have scribes help him phrase the Gospel, but was on his own on Patmos.
"the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" the second phrase clarifies the first, and focusses on the Lamb so is about the Lamb not the book. supports Mosaic sacrifices looking forward to Jesus Christ, can also mean slain to found the new creation to come.
“Questioned because of poor writing style”? I think it was your poor comprehension, most likely due to reading too fast, coupled with your zeal to ‘correct’ everyone here. Why can’t you just admit that you initially missed my point?
I find it amazing that such a “semi literate” [sic] fisherman would be able to write such vivid imagery, replete with symbols galore (stars as angels, e.g.), in writing Revelation in its apocalyptic style, a genre so much different than the one employed in the Gospel of John, without the help of other scribes.
You also wrote, responding to me, confusing my quotations of you and your own quoting of my quotations of you, which I’ll fix for the sake of clarification:
"...your claim that this was a ‘backup plan if sin occurred’ is concerning..... Is God not
omniscient? Are you an open theist?" no, God would know it would be needed, and they
all agreed on this solution to the inevitable problem before creating anything. plan A was
the sinless perfect creation until sin happened then plan B would kick in. There is no "oops"
when you anticipate something.
So, you are implicitly admitting you were being sloppy in your initial response. At least that’s how I’m gonna take it.
---------------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
Craig I got your point, and I answered it. I did not admit initial sloppiness, but had to
explain the obvious to you in more detail.
you base your interpretation on syntax ambiguity which I answered was a feature of Revelation
used against it by some who denied its authenticity so you can't rely on it for your purpose
I added that this ambuity was what you could expect if it was legitimate. Revelation was first accepted, then misused by Montanists so rejected and a coucil reinstated it. And since The
LAmb is mentioned second half of sentence but not the book of life, the seconed half is about the Lamb not the book.
Revelation was a bit rough for koine so a simple fisherman wrote it unaided. nothing amazing, he WROTE WHAT HE SAW AND HEARD. you, heretic, assume he wrote a genre. HE REPORTED WHAT HE SAW.
--------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Oh Christine, au contraire.
First of all, syntax ambiguity is found in all of Scripture. It’s found in John’s Gospel. I’m currently finishing up a series (some is posted), and I point out how John 19:28 is syntactically ambiguous. A similar thing is found in 19:30.
And you are wrong regarding the placement of “Lamb” and “book” in Revelation 13:8—but don’t let facts stop you from pontificating. Both are found together in the latter half of the verse (and neither is repeated). Here’s how it reads in the Greek:
?? t? ß?ß??? t?? ???? t?? ?????? t?? ?sfa?µ???? ?p? ?ataß???? ??sµ??
in the Book of Life of the Lamb of the one slain from foundation of cosmos.
I’m the “heretic”, eh? John wrote what he saw, and the writing is in the apocalyptic genre. If you wish to believe that everything written should be understood literally, that’s your prerogative. Me, I don’t think that Jesus will strike down His enemies with a literal sharp sword that comes out of His mouth. I think this is more likely to be understood as in line with Hebrews 4:12.
------------------------------------------------------
"And you are wrong regarding...“Lamb” and “book” in Revelation 13:8...(and neither is repeated)."
Lamb is repeated in the translation you used.
" Here’s how it reads in the Greek:
....in the Book of Life of the Lamb of the one slain from foundation of cosmos."
Thank you for making my point for me, "the Book of life of the Lamb OF THE ONE
slain from the foundation of cosmos" of the one slain clearly refers to the Lamb.
"I’m the “heretic”, eh? John wrote what he saw, and the writing is in the apocalyptic genre."
you say its amazong John could do this by implication ascribing Revelation to John's ability as if he made it up of course its going to be apocalyptic because of content. you say its amazing he could do this. WHY? if he could read and write he could file a report. nothing amazing. STOP FOCUSING ON MAN AND FOCUS ON GOD. (same deal with your nonsense about health reason for food laws) If he saw Ozzie and Harriet discuss theology the report wouldn't be apocalyptic what he saw was apocalyptic so the report was apocalyptic.
literal vs. symbolic has to do with interpreting what was seen, NOT with reporting it. he REPORTED what he was shown, as he was told to do, he didn't have some reverie with strong fantasy and compose in the apocalyptic genre
------------------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine,
I don’t know why you have this penchant to try to ‘prove’ things about which you’ve no clue.
First, let’s not lose track of the argument. Most recently you claimed the following: And since The LAmb is mentioned second half of sentence but not the book of life, the seconed half is about the Lamb not the book. Yet rather than concede that your assertion is wrong in view of the evidence I provided, you go back to your original assertion that the syntax is not ambiguous and claim I'd made your point (I didn't). Rather than attempt to explain exactly how the syntax is ambiguous, I’ll point you to a number of English versions that illustrate it.
Should that not be convincing—and why would I think it would be for you—check out the parallel at 17:8, which is not syntactically ambiguous:
… whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world… (KJV)
--------------------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine wrote, quoting me first (bold), then responding: 'And you are wrong regarding..."Lamb" and "book" in Revelation 13:8...(and neither is repeated).'
Lamb is repeated in the translation you used.
BUT IT'S NOT IN THE GREEK FROM WHICH THE VERSE WAS TRANSLATED!!!
"Lamb" and "book of life", in Greek, are most certainly in the last half of that verse--and NEITHER is repeated. Just look at the Greek text in the hyperlink supplied at 6:40 PM above: t? ß?ß??? t?? ???? = "the book of life"; t?? ?????? = "the lamb". You are incorrect, and it's well-past time you admit this.
--------------------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhfJwAHhmrk Summer of Rage | Mass Riots in July?
paul, I apologize for putting the wrong name on.
re Jim Bakker, anyone who could tolerate him before the scandal and sees only the scandal is seriously fleshly and loving deception. the whole style was to put it mildly worldly and fleshly I doubt it has changed much. I couldn't stomach him for more than a few seconds, two minutes at the most. the scandal was predictable. and THEME PARK!? and his wife like an over made up whore? that people would send him money shows how screwed up many Christians are.
Craig "Yet rather than concede that your assertion is wrong in view of the evidence I provided,"
you gave no evidence
"you go back to your original assertion that the syntax is not ambiguous"
EXCUSE ME?! I NEVER SAID THE SYNTAX WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS. I said that the ambiguity was more typical of Revelation than the rest of the NT and some said therefore John didn't write it, but less educated and alone this could be expected. Scripture ambiguities - difficulty of finite expressing inifnite, also it is street Greek not Classical Greek, think ebonics vs. Ivy League English.
" and claim I'd made your point (I didn't)."
Yes you made my point, because when you quote Greek that says THE ONE in that sentence instead of repeating the word LAMB it is clearly speaking about THE LAMB because books don't get slain and if all in it die then no one meets Jesus at His Return and gets caught up as He is descending. the translator who put the repeat of "Lamb" in the sentence obviously saw "the one" as referring to The Lamb.
saying the LAMB was slain from the foundation of the cosmos is consistent with your true statement, that God "had a plan from the very beginning." The Lamb was as good as dead because His death (and REsurrection) was determined from before Creation to correct what
would inevitably happen.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore on this. you want to pursue your self righteousness
go ahead. meanwhile, paul, forget health reasons for food laws. there aren't any. it was about separation. That is explicitly clear.
"MCE is not interested in the truth, not interested in what is right." on the contrary, defending truth is why I argue and I am repeatedly apalled by what I see here. Like the people who insisted that the parable of the mustard tree was not about what Jesus said it was about, the growth of the Kingdom of Heaven, but about the abnormal growth of false churches.
------------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine, continuing to obfuscate:
Craig [wrote to Christine:] "Yet rather than concede that your assertion is wrong in view of the evidence I provided,"
[her response:] you gave no evidence
The evidence was in the Greek text I provided, which refutes your assertion that (1) it is not ambiguous; (2) that “the Lamb” is in the 2nd half of the verse rather than “book of life” which is in the first [since The LAmb is mentioned second half of sentence but not the book of life, the seconed half is about the Lamb not the book… (10:53PM – all time stamps from previous thread)]; and, (3) that “the Lamb” was not repeated in the verse. I’ll provide proof of your statements as I go.
[quoting me:] "you go back to your original assertion that the syntax is not ambiguous"
EXCUSE ME?! I NEVER SAID THE SYNTAX WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS. I said that the ambiguity was more typical of Revelation than the rest of the NT and some said therefore John didn't write it, but less educated and alone this could be expected. Scripture ambiguities - difficulty of finite expressing inifnite, also it is street Greek not Classical Greek, think ebonics vs. Ivy League English.
Addressing (1), your initial response (1:14AM) stated: not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation… You partially backed down from this assertion [re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style (1:18AM)], claiming that, comparatively, John’s Gospel is not ambiguous because John had help [a semi literate fisherman would have scribes help him phrase the Gospel, but was on his own on Patmos (1:18AM)]; however, the Scriptural evidence shows ambiguity throughout the NT, including John’s Gospel. In fact, the current series I’m writing points to this in John 19:28-30.
Cont:
7:50 AM
Anonymous Craig said...
Cont:
Yet, then again, your words below imply that it’s not really ambiguous (‘round and ‘round we go), because (2) and (3) above:
[quoting me:] "and claim I'd made your point (I didn't)."
Yes you made my point, because when you quote Greek that says THE ONE in that sentence instead of repeating the word LAMB it is clearly speaking about THE LAMB because books don't get slain… the translator who put the repeat of "Lamb" in the sentence obviously saw "the one" as referring to The Lamb.
So, after your initial claim (2), you respond to my preemptive response to you—“the Lamb” is not repeated (3)—by claiming that the Greek substantival [t?? ?sfa?µ????], which means “the one slain”, or “who was slain” (or, “the one who was slain”) is a repeating of “the Lamb”, though you neglect that even if one were to grant that (I wouldn’t), that it’s STILL IN THE LATTER PART OF THE VERSE ALONG WITH “BOOK OF LIFE” (2).
I’m only belaboring this because I’m tired of you running roughshod over folks here. My initial comment was in response to Dahlheimer, but you had to butt in with your ‘know-it-all’ attitude. You clearly DON’T know it all.
---------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Phooey. In my attempt to unravel Christine’s Gordian knot, I added an extra “not” in my point (3) above. That is, it should be: (3) that “the Lamb” was repeated in the verse. And since I’m providing a correction, I’ll add another preemptive statement. If I were to state, “Christine, the one who would argue with wallpaper”, the part after “Christine” is descriptive, NOT a repeating of “Christine”. Hence “the Lamb” is not repeated in the Greek text.
-----------------------------
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
Craig, I didn't back down AT ALL from ANYTHING. if you can't see that in English, I doubt
you can make any valid points in Greek so I doubt I will waste my time reading whatever
nonsense you put together in that article. This is the second time you ascribed to me
things I was not doing and didn't appear to be either, admitting you take things the way you
prefer so you are not after truth but subjective wishful thinking.
The original English translation said The Lamb twice, second time translating "the one"
so I'm not alone in figuring this meant the Lamb. meanwhile you are left in the position
of saying either
no one is left alive who were in the book of life, unlikely given harpazo statement and
Matthew 24 though not impossible given Luke 18:8,
the other an absurdity, that a book is killed,
third option a reference to God's preplanning which is to the glory of God. And you refuse
the latter. hah!
or the absurdity that only those who get killed are in the Lamb's book of life, that if you didn't
die a martyr violently, but died peacefully in your sleep, you are damned or at least real low
class barely tolerated on the perimeter of the Kingdom of HEaven when it is installed on earth.
--------------------------------------
Christine wrote: I didn't back down AT ALL from ANYTHING.
In a way, that’s not exactly untrue. What you DID do is initially claim “no grammar ambiguity” against my claim that there was grammatical ambiguity (there are two ways to interpret the Greek); however, your follow-up answer didn’t “back down”, rather it just said: re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style. So, you didn’t EXPLICITLY “back down”, though it was implicit.
In any case, I’ve made my case just above, so I won’t rehash. Clearly, you’ve backtracked to where you’d done a 360, then continued your attempts at obfuscation. I’ll let the readers decide whose position is the accurate portrayal of events.
Now, with this new stuff you’ve brought up…are you serious?! Where did I intimate that the Greek translated “the one who was slain” refers to the book of life?! Your comprehension is seriously lacking, Christine. Go argue with your wallpaper. You’ll do much better, I promise you.
The problem is that you don’t understand the Greek, and, hence, you’ve no idea what you’re talking about. As I suggested in my last comment on the other thread, you don’t have to believe me, just check the variations in English translations illustrating the very point I made in my initial comment on Revelation 13:8. That is, the grammar is grammatically ambiguous such that there are two possible renderings.
But, haven’t you—again—violated your once per week limit on posting?
--------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
Sunday May 28, AD 2017 will date future posts so no one wrongly thinks as two do now that I
posted twice in same week.
...
"... you didn’t EXPLICITLY “back down”, though it was implicit."
I see why you misunderstood me, to me syntax and grammar are all the same. I did not back
down. writing problems in NT are because it is NOT Classical Greek but koine http://www.theopedia.com/greek which is to Classical Greek as ebonics is to proper English.
Revelation has extra problems, used against it when arguing John the Apostle didn't write it (Irenaeus, student of John's student, said he did, so he did). https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17428/who-wrote-the-book-of-revelation
confusing the issue is "a literal millennium" Revelation shows NO END to Christ's rule.
the first thousand years the devil is fully bound unable to tempt ANYONE not crippled like now,
then released briefly for one last test of mankind a revolt happens and it is put down then the
general resurrection, the judgement, new heavens and new earth and descent of the New
Jerusalem (which the CHurch is a foretaste of).
I have NOT violated the once a week limit. I post on Sundays and sometimes on a later day
that is still ONE DAY IN THAT WEEK. Lack of others posting looks like less time passed.
"Clearly, you’ve backtracked to where you’d done a 360," huh? you mean I reminded you
that you started this by denying The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world?
"then continued your attempts at obfuscation." I have not obfuscated but tried to explain in more detail but you seem more dishonest than confused. so you don't deceive others I try to correct your errors anyway.
"Where did I intimate that the Greek translated “the one who was slain” refers to the book of life?!"
BY DENYING THAT "THE ONE SLAIN" REFERS TO THE LAMB, which denial much earlier is why this discussion, YOU LEAVE NO OTHER OPTION but that the book of life was slain, and a couple of other absurdities.
----------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine,
Since you persist, let’s go back to the very first statement I made, which was addressed to paul and in reference to Dalheimer’s “god”. [This provides yet another opportunity for Dalheimer to try to defend his position/refute my assertions about his cosmology and theology.]
_________________________________
Yes; while Dahlheimer’s “God” has to clean up a mess made by a lesser G/god who emanated from him, the Christian God, the One True God, had a plan from the very beginning. Revelation 13:8 states:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.
Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”.
___________________________________
I’ve never stated nor intimated anything about the scroll being ‘slain’—that’s your own ridiculous misconstrual. In fact, above I implied otherwise with this @ 9:19 AM: If I were to state, “Christine, the one who would argue with wallpaper”, the part after “Christine” is descriptive, NOT a repeating of “Christine”. Hence [similarly] “the Lamb” is not repeated in the Greek text.
Yes, all the NT is written in Koine Greek. But, let’s not obfuscate [again], I didn’t confuse what you wrote. Sure, “syntax” and “grammar” can be synonymous; I’ve even used them that way. The issue here is your attempted rebuttal of my initial statement above, not Koine vs. Classical Greek. As I noted, syntactical ambiguity is found throughout the NT, including the Gospel of John. I stand by my comment above @ 7:50 / 7:52 AM, and the follow-up @ 9:19 AM, which point out your flip-flop on the issue of syntax/grammar: In reference to my very first comment above, you said “not grammar ambiguity” [previous thread @ 1:14 AM], then in subsequent comments you appealed to the “syntax ambiguity” inherent in Revelation [previous thread 1:18 AM].
Now, show me and everyone here where I, in your words, was “DENYING THAT ‘THE ONE SLAIN’ REFERS TO THE LAMB”. Point to the specific comment by thread and time. Well, ya can’t, because I didn’t.
------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
June 4,
...
Craig,
"...show me...where I...was “DENYING THAT ‘THE ONE SLAIN’ REFERS TO THE LAMB”...."
the issue was denying the Lamb was slain FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE COSMOS
I apologize for not being more specific.
previous thread: 8:26 AM
"...the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain."
[you complain of grammar/syntax ambiguity in English so I drag in koine to prevent similar claim
about Greek]
"Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning,
"this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”."
THAT BY DEFINITION IS A BACKUP PLAN. there is no oops when you expect and plan ahead of time. The book of life because requiring the life-giver leaves The Lamb was slain from the foundation
DO YOU DENY CHRIST'S DEATH WAS AGREED ON BEFORE CREATION?
after that 1:46 PM:
"And you are wrong regarding the placement of “Lamb” and “book” in Revelation 13:8 ... (and neither is repeated). Here’s how it reads in the Greek: ...
in the Book of Life of the Lamb of the one slain from foundation of cosmos."
the sentence is talking about something slain from the foundation of the cosmos. So it is either the book or the lamb. The translation said "The Lamb" instead of "the one" recognizing the Lamb was meant.
"“the Lamb” is not repeated in the Greek text."
I said that "the one slain" REFERS TO THE LAMB, and of course so does "the foundation of the cosmos," you present the Greek text as valid so you are left with the MEANING that THE LAMB
WAS SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE COSMOS which speaks to eternality.
(I agree with all denunciations of Dahlheimer and whoever thinks Dahlheimer would like the supposed dung at my blog has such for brains. there is NOTHING about auras, etc. that support pantheism regardless of you believing the new age lie that they do, these things are not illusion they are REAL THEREFORE DANGEROUS)
----------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
June 11 Sunday
...
Craig,
I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY POSITION ONE SINGLE TIME whic is, that The Lamb was slain
from the foundation of the world, not that the book was there from then, you however have
weasled when confronted with the fact that "the one slain" refers to The Lamb in the Greek
and argued "The Lamb" isn't repeated in Greek but the translator who knows koine Greek
better than you I figure, chose to put "the Lamb" instead of "the one." I defer to the translator
who has more credibility than you do. The issue is did "the one slain from the foundation of the cosmos" refer to the lamb? it did. I ASK A SECOND TIME, DO YOU DENY THAT CHRIST'S DEATH
AND RESURRECTION WERE AGREED UPON BEFORE CREATION? sounds like you do.
--------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Like the odor of farmland freshly fertilized with manure, there is Christine’s weekly contribution, with its fabrications, imputing incorrect assertions to individuals while simultaneously attempting to impugn their characters, all the while spewing her own brew of quasi-new age and blatant new age beliefs onto the readership, all of it mixed with the very rare valid statements. But is it really worth the effort to find the credible among the (sometimes literally) incredible?
Christine wrote regarding the conversation she initially butted [pun intended] herself into, and continues to incessantly ramble on about:
I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY POSITION ONE SINGLE TIME whic is, that The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, not that the book was there from then, you however have weasled when confronted with the fact that "the one slain" refers to The Lamb in the Greek and argued "The Lamb" isn't repeated in Greek but the translator who knows koine Greek better than you I figure, chose to put "the Lamb" instead of "the one." I defer to the translator who has more credibility than you do. The issue is did "the one slain from the foundation of the cosmos" refer to the lamb? it did. I ASK A SECOND TIME, DO YOU DENY THAT CHRIST'S DEATH AND RESURRECTION WERE AGREED UPON BEFORE CREATION? sounds like you do.
So, you didn’t first argue against my assertion regarding the grammatical ambiguity, then subsequently implicitly concede that it is grammatically ambiguous? That’s meant rhetorically, as that is, in fact, what you did, as your VERY FIRST WORDS were, and I quote you verbatim: not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the Crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened ["THE PROPHESIED SYSTEM OF REVELATION 13 RAPIDLY ADVANCES!" @ 1:14 AM]. So, Christine, here you state the Lamb’s death was a settled issue before creation, yet your most recent comment states specifically that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. So, your position has changed. As to your subsequent concession on ambiguity, I again quote you verbatim: Craig, re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style, but this supports its legitimacy… [same thread as above, @ 1:18 AM]. Your position changed on the issue of ambiguity, as well.
You just make it up as you go, changing the argument, rather than explicitly conceding you were wrong/mistaken, etc.
I was quite clear from the very beginning, and I’ve never wavered, that “the one slain” refers to the Lamb (who else would it be?!), as that was never in question and was never brought up as an issue—until you tried to make it one. It’s not my fault you have a comprehension problem. If you don’t understand something, why not just ask a question rather than going off on some wild tangent, imputing something to me that I’d never stated?
And you conflate the real issue in this verse with something you think it is with your statement: The issue is did "the one slain from the foundation of the cosmos" refer to the lamb? it did.
So, I’ll have to go back to the issue as I brought it up initially.
Cont…
4:15 PM
Anonymous Craig said...
Cont…
The syntactical ambiguity in Revelation 13:8 allows for one of two interpretations:
(1) All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the one [the Lamb] who was slain from the foundation of the world.
(2) All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.
Thus, (2) does NOT state that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, as it states nothing about the timing of the Lamb’s slaying, while (1) does. The fact that the NIV chooses to repeat “the Lamb” in English translation does not belie the fact that “the Lamb” occurs only once in the Greek. You’re making an issue out of nothing, as clearly “the one” refers to the “the Lamb”—something I’d never denied. What I DID state is in the above, which brings me to the real issue, which is: To what “from the foundation of the world” modify—does it modify the slaying of the Lamb ((1)) or those whose names were not written in the Book of Life ((2))?
As to your very last question in your most recent comment, this has been answered more than once—the very first time in my very first comment (in its last paragraph), which I’ll quote (again) here: Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning….
Read more carefully, Christine, before you comment. If you are not sure, ask.
---------------------
5:32 PM
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
...
Craig,
"Christine, here you state the Lamb’s death was a settled issue before creation, [later states] was slain from the foundation of the world. So, your position has changed. "
that is two ways of saying the same thing. before creation was TIMELESS eternity the foundation
was in God's mind before spoken into existence and somewhere in all that the agreement for the Lamb
to be slain was done.
"...first argue against... grammatical ambiguity, then ... implicitly concede that it is grammatically ambiguous?"
I repeatedly said the ambiguity was an illusion (you invented in English) in Greek ditto because
NT is NOT PROPER OR CLASSICAL GREEK but koine a lower class dialect (like ebonics) different rules.
Byzantine text has to be original type because originals written in Byzantine turf! per Pickering.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/13-8.htm Greek "the Book of Life of The Lamb HAVING
BEEN SLAIN from the founding of the world." (KJV/NKJV Byzantine.) "having been slain" points to "the
founding of the world" sounds ongoing from past.
NIV repeat Lamb to simplify because obviously The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.
Alexandrian meant this but it is clearer in the Byz. text type. Consistent with Acts 2:23 states: “… Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," points to Lamb being slain from the founding of the cosmos.
"... your very last question" you say answered but you have NOT answered YES OR NO do you
admit the Lamb's death was decreed from the founding/before creation?
"....either...the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or...the book of life
belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver,
Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing."
Not the same. the Book depends on the Lamb being slain so the latter is from foundation of cosmos.
you obviously prefer the book from then.
" No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning…. "
THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF A BACKUP PLAN, WHICH BY DEFINITION IS DEVELOPED BEFORE STARTING
SOMETHING. the backup plan was there from the beginning. No backup plan? the Fall was then an
unexpected oops followed by a scramble to find a solution.
6:39 AM
Delete
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine,
As I stated just above, your very first words on this subject were: Not grammar ambiguity…. You can, until you are blue in the face, restate that you did not claim this, but the evidence by your own very explicit words illustrates that did initially claim counter my position, then subsequently change to agreeing with my position based on your assertion that this ambiguity is (1) due to John’s poor writing, and (2) being Koine Greek. Of course, all the NT is Koine…
Now you change your position even further to claim this is something I invented [Your statement: I repeatedly said the ambiguity was an illusion (you invented in English)] . Well, anyone can consult the various translations to see the differences—the differences I detailed in my very first comment.
You wrote: … but you have NOT answered YES OR NO do you admit the Lamb's death was decreed from the founding/before creation? Aaaah, here you’ve reframed your stance. “Decreed” is much different than actually being slain.
You wrote: the Book depends on the Lamb being slain so the latter is from foundation of cosmos. NOW you’re getting warmer! The implication in the last paragraph of my very first comment was just that, with my words: …this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning.
And now you even bring forth a new, and totally unrelated, position: Byzantine text has to be original type because originals written in Byzantine turf! Let me make this abundantly clear: THIS IS NOT A TEXT-CRITICAL ISSUE (Byzantine vs. Alexandrian text), THIS IS A TRANSLATION ISSUE!
It’s time for you to, as per the KJV, ‘give up the ghost’ on this issue.
--------------------------
Craig said...
Christine,
To stave off more of the same line of argumentation from you, I’m going to quote your very first statement in full (bold added):
not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the Crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened.
I state this because of your assertion just above: Not the same. the Book depends on the Lamb being slain so the latter is from foundation of cosmos. you obviously prefer the book from then.
In your very first comment to me you state the Crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened, which is exactly the point I strongly imply in the last paragraph of my initial comment, and quoted again above regarding the end result of either translation “amount[ing] to the same thing”. So, initially, though you didn’t fully understand my implication, you agreed with the point I was making, and now you are disagreeing with your own initial comment! You are now, in essence, arguing against yourself!
-----------------------------
Craig said...
paul,
Yes; while Dahlheimer’s “God” has to clean up a mess made by a lesser G/god who emanated from him, the
Christian God, the One True God, had a plan from the very beginning. Revelation 13:8 states:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of
life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of
the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.
Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the
Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to
the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”.
-----------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said..."slain from the foundation of the world" not grammar ambiguity,
but that the atoning death of the Lamb
was decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the Crucifixion was
settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened.
-------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine, the indisputable queen of syntax and grammar (at least on this blog) wrote, in response to my post @
8:26 AM above:
"slain from the foundation of the world" not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb was
decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the crucifixion was settled on
before creation, which made it as good as having happened.
The verse is grammatically ambiguous, such that it is grammatically permissible to translate it in one of two
ways, as I had in my earlier comment. Just consult a good technical commentary. Since exegesis begins with
correct translation, and interpretation hinges on translation, it is prudent to point these sorts of things out. Given
the syntactical ambiguity, one could accept the second of the two translations above and interpret the passage as
espousing predestination. But, then, one should back that up with other passages.
Your statement above is an interpretation, your interpretation presupposing what the verse should say
(eisegesis). I don’t necessarily disagree with your “the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation
began”, as that’s what I tried to convey in my closing paragraph (to have a Book of Life, it would appear to
require the Life Giver). However, your claim that this was a “backup plan if sin occurred” is concerning. Did God
think He might have to sacrifice the Lamb just in case sin would occur? Is God not omniscient? Are you an open
theist?
Putting that aside, here’s food for thought, not requiring a response (please): From a philosophical perspective,
what is the relationship between the temporal realm and eternal? Should we construe eternity as consisting of
events occurring in a linear fashion?
----------------------------
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
...
Craig, re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style, but
this supports its legitimacy, a semi literate fisherman would have scribes help him phrase
the Gospel, but was on his own on Patmos.
"the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" the
second phrase clarifies the first, and focusses on the Lamb so is about the Lamb not the
book. supports Mosaic sacrifices looking forward to Jesus Christ, can also mean slain to
found the new creation to come.
"...your claim that this was a “backup plan if sin occurred” is concerning..... Is God not
omniscient? Are you an open theist?" no, God would know it would be needed, and they
all agreed on this solution to the inevitable problem before creating anything. plan A was
the sinless perfect creation until sin happened then plan B would kick in. There is no "oops"
when you anticipate something.
--------------------------
Craig said...
Christine, our resident know-it-all, wrote:
Craig, re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style, but this supports its
legitimacy, a semi literate fisherman would have scribes help him phrase the Gospel, but was on his own on
Patmos.
"the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" the second phrase clarifies
the first, and focusses on the Lamb so is about the Lamb not the book. supports Mosaic sacrifices looking forward
to Jesus Christ, can also mean slain to found the new creation to come.
“Questioned because of poor writing style”? I think it was your poor comprehension, most likely due to reading
too fast, coupled with your zeal to ‘correct’ everyone here. Why can’t you just admit that you initially missed my
point?
I find it amazing that such a “semi literate” [sic] fisherman would be able to write such vivid imagery, replete
with symbols galore (stars as angels, e.g.), in writing Revelation in its apocalyptic style, a genre so much
different than the one employed in the Gospel of John, without the help of other scribes.
You also wrote, responding to me, confusing my quotations of you and your own quoting of my quotations of you,
which I’ll fix for the sake of clarification:
"...your claim that this was a ‘backup plan if sin occurred’ is concerning..... Is God not
omniscient? Are you an open theist?" no, God would know it would be needed, and they
all agreed on this solution to the inevitable problem before creating anything. plan A was
the sinless perfect creation until sin happened then plan B would kick in. There is no "oops"
when you anticipate something.
So, you are implicitly admitting you were being sloppy in your initial response. At least that’s how I’m gonna take
it.
---------------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
Craig I got your point, and I answered it. I did not admit initial sloppiness, but had to
explain the obvious to you in more detail.
you base your interpretation on syntax ambiguity which I answered was a feature of Revelation
used against it by some who denied its authenticity so you can't rely on it for your purpose
I added that this ambuity was what you could expect if it was legitimate. Revelation was first accepted, then
misused by Montanists so rejected and a coucil reinstated it. And since The
LAmb is mentioned second half of sentence but not the book of life, the seconed half is about the Lamb not the
book.
Revelation was a bit rough for koine so a simple fisherman wrote it unaided. nothing amazing, he WROTE WHAT
HE SAW AND HEARD. you, heretic, assume he wrote a genre. HE REPORTED WHAT HE SAW.
--------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Oh Christine, au contraire.
First of all, syntax ambiguity is found in all of Scripture. It’s found in John’s Gospel. I’m currently finishing up a
series (some is posted), and I point out how John 19:28 is syntactically ambiguous. A similar thing is found in
19:30.
And you are wrong regarding the placement of “Lamb” and “book” in Revelation 13:8—but don’t let facts stop you
from pontificating. Both are found together in the latter half of the verse (and neither is repeated). Here’s how it
reads in the Greek:
?? t? ß?ß??? t?? ???? t?? ?????? t?? ?sfa?µ???? ?p? ?ataß???? ??sµ??
in the Book of Life of the Lamb of the one slain from foundation of cosmos.
I’m the “heretic”, eh? John wrote what he saw, and the writing is in the apocalyptic genre. If you wish to believe
that everything written should be understood literally, that’s your prerogative. Me, I don’t think that Jesus will
strike down His enemies with a literal sharp sword that comes out of His mouth. I think this is more likely to be
understood as in line with Hebrews 4:12.
------------------------------------------------------
"And you are wrong regarding...“Lamb” and “book” in Revelation 13:8...(and neither is repeated)."
Lamb is repeated in the translation you used.
" Here’s how it reads in the Greek:
....in the Book of Life of the Lamb of the one slain from foundation of cosmos."
Thank you for making my point for me, "the Book of life of the Lamb OF THE ONE
slain from the foundation of cosmos" of the one slain clearly refers to the Lamb.
"I’m the “heretic”, eh? John wrote what he saw, and the writing is in the apocalyptic genre."
you say its amazong John could do this by implication ascribing Revelation to John's ability as if he made it up of
course its going to be apocalyptic because of content. you say its amazing he could do this. WHY? if he could read
and write he could file a report. nothing amazing. STOP FOCUSING ON MAN AND FOCUS ON GOD. (same deal
with your nonsense about health reason for food laws) If he saw Ozzie and Harriet discuss theology the report
wouldn't be apocalyptic what he saw was apocalyptic so the report was apocalyptic.
literal vs. symbolic has to do with interpreting what was seen, NOT with reporting it. he REPORTED what he was
shown, as he was told to do, he didn't have some reverie with strong fantasy and compose in the apocalyptic
genre
------------------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine,
I don’t know why you have this penchant to try to ‘prove’ things about which you’ve no clue.
First, let’s not lose track of the argument. Most recently you claimed the following: And since The LAmb is
mentioned second half of sentence but not the book of life, the seconed half is about the Lamb not the book. Yet
rather than concede that your assertion is wrong in view of the evidence I provided, you go back to your original
assertion that the syntax is not ambiguous and claim I'd made your point (I didn't). Rather than attempt to
explain exactly how the syntax is ambiguous, I’ll point you to a number of English versions that illustrate it.
Should that not be convincing—and why would I think it would be for you—check out the parallel at 17:8, which is
not syntactically ambiguous:
… whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world… (KJV)
--------------------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine wrote, quoting me first (bold), then responding: 'And you are wrong regarding..."Lamb" and "book" in
Revelation 13:8...(and neither is repeated).'
Lamb is repeated in the translation you used.
BUT IT'S NOT IN THE GREEK FROM WHICH THE VERSE WAS TRANSLATED!!!
"Lamb" and "book of life", in Greek, are most certainly in the last half of that verse--and NEITHER is repeated.
Just look at the Greek text in the hyperlink supplied at 6:40 PM above: t? ß?ß??? t?? ???? = "the book of life"; t??
?????? = "the lamb". You are incorrect, and it's well-past time you admit this.
--------------------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhfJwAHhmrk Summer of Rage | Mass Riots in July?
paul, I apologize for putting the wrong name on.
re Jim Bakker, anyone who could tolerate him before the scandal and sees only the scandal is seriously fleshly
and loving deception. the whole style was to put it mildly worldly and fleshly I doubt it has changed much. I
couldn't stomach him for more than a few seconds, two minutes at the most. the scandal was predictable. and
THEME PARK!? and his wife like an over made up whore? that people would send him money shows how screwed
up many Christians are.
Craig "Yet rather than concede that your assertion is wrong in view of the evidence I provided,"
you gave no evidence
"you go back to your original assertion that the syntax is not ambiguous"
EXCUSE ME?! I NEVER SAID THE SYNTAX WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS. I said that the ambiguity was more typical of
Revelation than the rest of the NT and some said therefore John didn't write it, but less educated and alone this
could be expected. Scripture ambiguities - difficulty of finite expressing inifnite, also it is street Greek not
Classical Greek, think ebonics vs. Ivy League English.
" and claim I'd made your point (I didn't)."
Yes you made my point, because when you quote Greek that says THE ONE in that sentence instead of repeating
the word LAMB it is clearly speaking about THE LAMB because books don't get slain and if all in it die then no one
meets Jesus at His Return and gets caught up as He is descending. the translator who put the repeat of "Lamb"
in the sentence obviously saw "the one" as referring to The Lamb.
saying the LAMB was slain from the foundation of the cosmos is consistent with your true statement, that God
"had a plan from the very beginning." The Lamb was as good as dead because His death (and REsurrection) was
determined from before Creation to correct what
would inevitably happen.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore on this. you want to pursue your self righteousness
go ahead. meanwhile, paul, forget health reasons for food laws. there aren't any. it was about separation. That is
explicitly clear.
"MCE is not interested in the truth, not interested in what is right." on the contrary, defending truth is why I
argue and I am repeatedly apalled by what I see here. Like the people who insisted that the parable of the
mustard tree was not about what Jesus said it was about, the growth of the Kingdom of Heaven, but about the
abnormal growth of false churches.
------------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine, continuing to obfuscate:
Craig [wrote to Christine:] "Yet rather than concede that your assertion is wrong in view of the evidence I
provided,"
[her response:] you gave no evidence
The evidence was in the Greek text I provided, which refutes your assertion that (1) it is not ambiguous; (2) that
“the Lamb” is in the 2nd half of the verse rather than “book of life” which is in the first [since The LAmb is
mentioned second half of sentence but not the book of life, the seconed half is about the Lamb not the book…
(10:53PM – all time stamps from previous thread)]; and, (3) that “the Lamb” was not repeated in the verse. I’ll
provide proof of your statements as I go.
[quoting me:] "you go back to your original assertion that the syntax is not ambiguous"
EXCUSE ME?! I NEVER SAID THE SYNTAX WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS. I said that the ambiguity was more typical of
Revelation than the rest of the NT and some said therefore John didn't write it, but less educated and alone this
could be expected. Scripture ambiguities - difficulty of finite expressing inifnite, also it is street Greek not
Classical Greek, think ebonics vs. Ivy League English.
Addressing (1), your initial response (1:14AM) stated: not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the
Lamb was decided on before creation… You partially backed down from this assertion [re syntax ambiguity
Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style (1:18AM)], claiming that, comparatively, John’s Gospel
is not ambiguous because John had help [a semi literate fisherman would have scribes help him phrase the
Gospel, but was on his own on Patmos (1:18AM)]; however, the Scriptural evidence shows ambiguity throughout
the NT, including John’s Gospel. In fact, the current series I’m writing points to this in John 19:28-30.
Cont:
7:50 AM
Anonymous Craig said...
Cont:
Yet, then again, your words below imply that it’s not really ambiguous (‘round and ‘round we go), because (2)
and (3) above:
[quoting me:] "and claim I'd made your point (I didn't)."
Yes you made my point, because when you quote Greek that says THE ONE in that sentence instead of repeating
the word LAMB it is clearly speaking about THE LAMB because books don't get slain… the translator who put the
repeat of "Lamb" in the sentence obviously saw "the one" as referring to The Lamb.
So, after your initial claim (2), you respond to my preemptive response to you—“the Lamb” is not repeated (3)
—by claiming that the Greek substantival [t?? ?sfa?µ????], which means “the one slain”, or “who was slain” (or,
“the one who was slain”) is a repeating of “the Lamb”, though you neglect that even if one were to grant that (I
wouldn’t), that it’s STILL IN THE LATTER PART OF THE VERSE ALONG WITH “BOOK OF LIFE” (2).
I’m only belaboring this because I’m tired of you running roughshod over folks here. My initial comment was in
response to Dahlheimer, but you had to butt in with your ‘know-it-all’ attitude. You clearly DON’T know it all.
---------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Phooey. In my attempt to unravel Christine’s Gordian knot, I added an extra “not” in my point (3) above. That is,
it should be: (3) that “the Lamb” was repeated in the verse. And since I’m providing a correction, I’ll add another
preemptive statement. If I were to state, “Christine, the one who would argue with wallpaper”, the part after
“Christine” is descriptive, NOT a repeating of “Christine”. Hence “the Lamb” is not repeated in the Greek text.
-----------------------------
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
Craig, I didn't back down AT ALL from ANYTHING. if you can't see that in English, I doubt
you can make any valid points in Greek so I doubt I will waste my time reading whatever
nonsense you put together in that article. This is the second time you ascribed to me
things I was not doing and didn't appear to be either, admitting you take things the way you
prefer so you are not after truth but subjective wishful thinking.
The original English translation said The Lamb twice, second time translating "the one"
so I'm not alone in figuring this meant the Lamb. meanwhile you are left in the position
of saying either
no one is left alive who were in the book of life, unlikely given harpazo statement and
Matthew 24 though not impossible given Luke 18:8,
the other an absurdity, that a book is killed,
third option a reference to God's preplanning which is to the glory of God. And you refuse
the latter. hah!
or the absurdity that only those who get killed are in the Lamb's book of life, that if you didn't
die a martyr violently, but died peacefully in your sleep, you are damned or at least real low
class barely tolerated on the perimeter of the Kingdom of HEaven when it is installed on earth.
--------------------------------------
Christine wrote: I didn't back down AT ALL from ANYTHING.
In a way, that’s not exactly untrue. What you DID do is initially claim “no grammar ambiguity” against my claim
that there was grammatical ambiguity (there are two ways to interpret the Greek); however, your follow-up
answer didn’t “back down”, rather it just said: re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor
writing style. So, you didn’t EXPLICITLY “back down”, though it was implicit.
In any case, I’ve made my case just above, so I won’t rehash. Clearly, you’ve backtracked to where you’d done a
360, then continued your attempts at obfuscation. I’ll let the readers decide whose position is the accurate
portrayal of events.
Now, with this new stuff you’ve brought up…are you serious?! Where did I intimate that the Greek translated “the
one who was slain” refers to the book of life?! Your comprehension is seriously lacking, Christine. Go argue with
your wallpaper. You’ll do much better, I promise you.
The problem is that you don’t understand the Greek, and, hence, you’ve no idea what you’re talking about. As I
suggested in my last comment on the other thread, you don’t have to believe me, just check the variations in
English translations illustrating the very point I made in my initial comment on Revelation 13:8. That is, the
grammar is grammatically ambiguous such that there are two possible renderings.
But, haven’t you—again—violated your once per week limit on posting?
--------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
Sunday May 28, AD 2017 will date future posts so no one wrongly thinks as two do now that I
posted twice in same week.
...
"... you didn’t EXPLICITLY “back down”, though it was implicit."
I see why you misunderstood me, to me syntax and grammar are all the same. I did not back
down. writing problems in NT are because it is NOT Classical Greek but koine http://www.theopedia.com/greek
which is to Classical Greek as ebonics is to proper English.
Revelation has extra problems, used against it when arguing John the Apostle didn't write it (Irenaeus, student of
John's student, said he did, so he did). https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17428/who-wrote-
the-book-of-revelation
confusing the issue is "a literal millennium" Revelation shows NO END to Christ's rule.
the first thousand years the devil is fully bound unable to tempt ANYONE not crippled like now,
then released briefly for one last test of mankind a revolt happens and it is put down then the
general resurrection, the judgement, new heavens and new earth and descent of the New
Jerusalem (which the CHurch is a foretaste of).
I have NOT violated the once a week limit. I post on Sundays and sometimes on a later day
that is still ONE DAY IN THAT WEEK. Lack of others posting looks like less time passed.
"Clearly, you’ve backtracked to where you’d done a 360," huh? you mean I reminded you
that you started this by denying The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world?
"then continued your attempts at obfuscation." I have not obfuscated but tried to explain in more detail but you
seem more dishonest than confused. so you don't deceive others I try to correct your errors anyway.
"Where did I intimate that the Greek translated “the one who was slain” refers to the book of life?!"
BY DENYING THAT "THE ONE SLAIN" REFERS TO THE LAMB, which denial much earlier is why this discussion,
YOU LEAVE NO OTHER OPTION but that the book of life was slain, and a couple of other absurdities.
----------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine,
Since you persist, let’s go back to the very first statement I made, which was addressed to paul and in reference
to Dalheimer’s “god”. [This provides yet another opportunity for Dalheimer to try to defend his position/refute my
assertions about his cosmology and theology.]
_________________________________
Yes; while Dahlheimer’s “God” has to clean up a mess made by a lesser G/god who emanated from him, the
Christian God, the One True God, had a plan from the very beginning. Revelation 13:8 states:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of
life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of
the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.
Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the
Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to
the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”.
___________________________________
I’ve never stated nor intimated anything about the scroll being ‘slain’—that’s your own ridiculous misconstrual. In
fact, above I implied otherwise with this @ 9:19 AM: If I were to state, “Christine, the one who would argue with
wallpaper”, the part after “Christine” is descriptive, NOT a repeating of “Christine”. Hence [similarly] “the Lamb”
is not repeated in the Greek text.
Yes, all the NT is written in Koine Greek. But, let’s not obfuscate [again], I didn’t confuse what you wrote. Sure,
“syntax” and “grammar” can be synonymous; I’ve even used them that way. The issue here is your attempted
rebuttal of my initial statement above, not Koine vs. Classical Greek. As I noted, syntactical ambiguity is found
throughout the NT, including the Gospel of John. I stand by my comment above @ 7:50 / 7:52 AM, and the
follow-up @ 9:19 AM, which point out your flip-flop on the issue of syntax/grammar: In reference to my very first
comment above, you said “not grammar ambiguity” [previous thread @ 1:14 AM], then in subsequent comments
you appealed to the “syntax ambiguity” inherent in Revelation [previous thread 1:18 AM].
Now, show me and everyone here where I, in your words, was “DENYING THAT ‘THE ONE SLAIN’ REFERS TO THE
LAMB”. Point to the specific comment by thread and time. Well, ya can’t, because I didn’t.
------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
June 4,
...
Craig,
"...show me...where I...was “DENYING THAT ‘THE ONE SLAIN’ REFERS TO THE LAMB”...."
the issue was denying the Lamb was slain FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE COSMOS
I apologize for not being more specific.
previous thread: 8:26 AM
"...the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of
the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain."
[you complain of grammar/syntax ambiguity in English so I drag in koine to prevent similar claim
about Greek]
"Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to
the Lamb was there from the very beginning,
"this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was
there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”."
THAT BY DEFINITION IS A BACKUP PLAN. there is no oops when you expect and plan ahead of time. The book of
life because requiring the life-giver leaves The Lamb was slain from the foundation
DO YOU DENY CHRIST'S DEATH WAS AGREED ON BEFORE CREATION?
after that 1:46 PM:
"And you are wrong regarding the placement of “Lamb” and “book” in Revelation 13:8 ... (and neither is
repeated). Here’s how it reads in the Greek: ...
in the Book of Life of the Lamb of the one slain from foundation of cosmos."
the sentence is talking about something slain from the foundation of the cosmos. So it is either the book or the
lamb. The translation said "The Lamb" instead of "the one" recognizing the Lamb was meant.
"“the Lamb” is not repeated in the Greek text."
I said that "the one slain" REFERS TO THE LAMB, and of course so does "the foundation of the cosmos," you
present the Greek text as valid so you are left with the MEANING that THE LAMB
WAS SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE COSMOS which speaks to eternality.
(I agree with all denunciations of Dahlheimer and whoever thinks Dahlheimer would like the supposed dung at
my blog has such for brains. there is NOTHING about auras, etc. that support pantheism regardless of you
believing the new age lie that they do, these things are not illusion they are REAL THEREFORE DANGEROUS)
----------------------
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
June 11 Sunday
...
Craig,
I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY POSITION ONE SINGLE TIME whic is, that The Lamb was slain
from the foundation of the world, not that the book was there from then, you however have
weasled when confronted with the fact that "the one slain" refers to The Lamb in the Greek
and argued "The Lamb" isn't repeated in Greek but the translator who knows koine Greek
better than you I figure, chose to put "the Lamb" instead of "the one." I defer to the translator
who has more credibility than you do. The issue is did "the one slain from the foundation of the cosmos" refer to
the lamb? it did. I ASK A SECOND TIME, DO YOU DENY THAT CHRIST'S DEATH
AND RESURRECTION WERE AGREED UPON BEFORE CREATION? sounds like you do.
--------------------------
Anonymous Craig said...
Like the odor of farmland freshly fertilized with manure, there is Christine’s weekly contribution, with its
fabrications, imputing incorrect assertions to individuals while simultaneously attempting to impugn their
characters, all the while spewing her own brew of quasi-new age and blatant new age beliefs onto the
readership, all of it mixed with the very rare valid statements. But is it really worth the effort to find the credible
among the (sometimes literally) incredible?
Christine wrote regarding the conversation she initially butted [pun intended] herself into, and continues to
incessantly ramble on about:
I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY POSITION ONE SINGLE TIME whic is, that The Lamb was slain from the foundation of
the world, not that the book was there from then, you however have weasled when confronted with the fact that
"the one slain" refers to The Lamb in the Greek and argued "The Lamb" isn't repeated in Greek but the translator
who knows koine Greek better than you I figure, chose to put "the Lamb" instead of "the one." I defer to the
translator who has more credibility than you do. The issue is did "the one slain from the foundation of the
cosmos" refer to the lamb? it did. I ASK A SECOND TIME, DO YOU DENY THAT CHRIST'S DEATH AND
RESURRECTION WERE AGREED UPON BEFORE CREATION? sounds like you do.
So, you didn’t first argue against my assertion regarding the grammatical ambiguity, then subsequently implicitly
concede that it is grammatically ambiguous? That’s meant rhetorically, as that is, in fact, what you did, as your
VERY FIRST WORDS were, and I quote you verbatim: not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the
Lamb was decided on before creation began, THAT was the backup plan if sin occurred, so the Crucifixion was
settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened ["THE PROPHESIED SYSTEM OF
REVELATION 13 RAPIDLY ADVANCES!" @ 1:14 AM]. So, Christine, here you state the Lamb’s death was a settled
issue before creation, yet your most recent comment states specifically that the Lamb was slain from the
foundation of the world. So, your position has changed. As to your subsequent concession on ambiguity, I again
quote you verbatim: Craig, re syntax ambiguity Revelation was questioned because of poor writing style, but this
supports its legitimacy… [same thread as above, @ 1:18 AM]. Your position changed on the issue of ambiguity,
as well.
You just make it up as you go, changing the argument, rather than explicitly conceding you were
wrong/mistaken, etc.
I was quite clear from the very beginning, and I’ve never wavered, that “the one slain” refers to the Lamb (who
else would it be?!), as that was never in question and was never brought up as an issue—until you tried to make
it one. It’s not my fault you have a comprehension problem. If you don’t understand something, why not just ask
a question rather than going off on some wild tangent, imputing something to me that I’d never stated?
And you conflate the real issue in this verse with something you think it is with your statement: The issue is did
"the one slain from the foundation of the cosmos" refer to the lamb? it did.
So, I’ll have to go back to the issue as I brought it up initially.
Cont…
4:15 PM
Anonymous Craig said...
Cont…
The syntactical ambiguity in Revelation 13:8 allows for one of two interpretations:
(1) All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book
of life, the one [the Lamb] who was slain from the foundation of the world.
(2) All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the
foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.
Thus, (2) does NOT state that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, as it states nothing about the
timing of the Lamb’s slaying, while (1) does. The fact that the NIV chooses to repeat “the Lamb” in English
translation does not belie the fact that “the Lamb” occurs only once in the Greek. You’re making an issue out of
nothing, as clearly “the one” refers to the “the Lamb”—something I’d never denied. What I DID state is in the
above, which brings me to the real issue, which is: To what “from the foundation of the world” modify—does it
modify the slaying of the Lamb ((1)) or those whose names were not written in the Book of Life ((2))?
As to your very last question in your most recent comment, this has been answered more than once—the very
first time in my very first comment (in its last paragraph), which I’ll quote (again) here: Thus, it’s either that the
Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the Lamb was there from
the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No
back-up plan; it was there from the beginning….
Read more carefully, Christine, before you comment. If you are not sure, ask.
---------------------
5:32 PM
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
...
Craig,
"Christine, here you state the Lamb’s death was a settled issue before creation, [later states] was slain from the
foundation of the world. So, your position has changed. "
that is two ways of saying the same thing. before creation was TIMELESS eternity the foundation
was in God's mind before spoken into existence and somewhere in all that the agreement for the Lamb
to be slain was done.
"...first argue against... grammatical ambiguity, then ... implicitly concede that it is grammatically ambiguous?"
I repeatedly said the ambiguity was an illusion (you invented in English) in Greek ditto because
NT is NOT PROPER OR CLASSICAL GREEK but koine a lower class dialect (like ebonics) different rules.
Byzantine text has to be original type because originals written in Byzantine turf! per Pickering.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/13-8.htm Greek "the Book of Life of The Lamb HAVING
BEEN SLAIN from the founding of the world." (KJV/NKJV Byzantine.) "having been slain" points to "the
founding of the world" sounds ongoing from past.
NIV repeat Lamb to simplify because obviously The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.
Alexandrian meant this but it is clearer in the Byz. text type. Consistent with Acts 2:23 states: “… Him, being
delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," points to Lamb being slain from the founding of
the cosmos.
"... your very last question" you say answered but you have NOT answered YES OR NO do you
admit the Lamb's death was decreed from the founding/before creation?
"....either...the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or...the book of life
belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver,
Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing."
Not the same. the Book depends on the Lamb being slain so the latter is from foundation of cosmos.
you obviously prefer the book from then.
" No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning…. "
THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF A BACKUP PLAN, WHICH BY DEFINITION IS DEVELOPED BEFORE STARTING
SOMETHING. the backup plan was there from the beginning. No backup plan? the Fall was then an
unexpected oops followed by a scramble to find a solution.
6:39 AM
Delete
Anonymous Craig said...
Christine,
As I stated just above, your very first words on this subject were: Not grammar ambiguity…. You can, until you
are blue in the face, restate that you did not claim this, but the evidence by your own very explicit words
illustrates that did initially claim counter my position, then subsequently change to agreeing with my position
based on your assertion that this ambiguity is (1) due to John’s poor writing, and (2) being Koine Greek. Of
course, all the NT is Koine…
Now you change your position even further to claim this is something I invented [Your statement: I repeatedly
said the ambiguity was an illusion (you invented in English)] . Well, anyone can consult the various translations
to see the differences—the differences I detailed in my very first comment.
You wrote: … but you have NOT answered YES OR NO do you admit the Lamb's death was decreed from the
founding/before creation? Aaaah, here you’ve reframed your stance. “Decreed” is much different than actually
being slain.
You wrote: the Book depends on the Lamb being slain so the latter is from foundation of cosmos. NOW you’re
getting warmer! The implication in the last paragraph of my very first comment was just that, with my words: …
this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was
there from the beginning.
And now you even bring forth a new, and totally unrelated, position: Byzantine text has to be original type
because originals written in Byzantine turf! Let me make this abundantly clear: THIS IS NOT A TEXT-CRITICAL
ISSUE (Byzantine vs. Alexandrian text), THIS IS A TRANSLATION ISSUE!
It’s time for you to, as per the KJV, ‘give up the ghost’ on this issue.
--------------------------
Craig said...
Christine,
To stave off more of the same line of argumentation from you, I’m going to quote your very first statement in full
(bold added):
not grammar ambiguity, but that the atoning death of the Lamb was decided on before creation began, THAT was
the backup plan if sin occurred, so the Crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good as
having happened.
I state this because of your assertion just above: Not the same. the Book depends on the Lamb being slain so the
latter is from foundation of cosmos. you obviously prefer the book from then.
In your very first comment to me you state the Crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good
as having happened, which is exactly the point I strongly imply in the last paragraph of my initial comment, and
quoted again above regarding the end result of either translation “amount[ing] to the same thing”. So, initially,
though you didn’t fully understand my implication, you agreed with the point I was making, and now you are
disagreeing with your own initial comment! You are now, in essence, arguing against yourself!
-----------------------------
I incl. the remakr to Paul because of my attacker here calling me New Age.
paul
you don't know what hinduism is. It is NOT chakras, that is info from Indian civ exploited to screw one's mind,
aka illumination hinduism is worship of vedic false gods plus some mystical philosophical stuff (some is in the
charismatic and/or contemplative scene) ramped up to look better to Brits.
if chakras weren't real and manipulating them make you more vulnerable to evil spirits and self deceptive states,
why would demons work on getting us to do this? if they don't exist they are harmless waste of time and nothing
to argue against christians doing for a placebo effect. idiot.
LEAVE CHAKRAS ALONE NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST BUT BECAUSE THEY DO EXIST.
an effort to refute Eccles. 12 as relevant a few years ago referred to the life force that animates the body, an
occultic mystical concept itself (which is probably accidentally correct). AND NO ONE CUAGHT IT!
some clairvoyance is physical since animals see and react a lot of "spiritual" is just a more attenuated form of
material.
as for the Gospel, chakras and MArs are not part of it neither is the politics on this blog you need the Gospel
followed by the Bible to sort these things out, and to do spiritual warfare. so why do you talk in terms of mixing
it? I suppose you think salvation requires understanding EU politics? or when and if we get into WW3?
you who denounce viciously any serious weapon against new age practices that discredits them possibly
with them and with deceived Christians, SOUND LIKE PANICKED WITCHES!
Craig
I NEVER CHANGED MY STANCE. reframing is restating, not changing stance "do you have H2O" is reframed as
"do you have water?"
"... you state the Crucifixion was settled on before creation, which made it as good as having happened...the
point I strongly imply in... my initial comment,"
liar. you stated agianst this that between decreed and dead is a difference. you argued for the book not the
Lamb's slaying being from the foundation, since the book depends on the Lamb's death, BUT THAT IS WHY
the book is AFTER the foundation.
" ... the end result of either translation “amount[ing] to the same thing”."
AGAIN YOU LIE. you did NOT say this about translations but that either the book or the Lamb's death being from
the foundation amounted to the same thing, WHICH THEY DO NOT.
you say I misunderstood but agreed NO. your main point was no backup plan but what's arranged
before or during start is by definition a backup plan, and YOU MAKE GOD OUT TO BE AN IDIOT BY DENYING HE
MADE A BACKUP PLAN. you don't need supernatural wisdom or foreknowledge to compute the liklihood of the
Fall.
"...Not grammar ambiguity…" yes I deny ambiguity that goes against the predetermination of the Cross (outside
of your warped mind). any ambiguity in Greek is an ILLUSION NT Greek is not Classical or modern different rules.
you say text issue new and unrelated and is irrelevant to translation. idiot, text determines translation. (you
presented Greek text yourself.)
YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY WITH ME never refuted me and I REFUTED YOU REPEATEDLY. enough of you
and your self satisfied phony graciousness. I will ignore you.
BTW prewrath rapture doesn't involve two second comings, just a hover in the sky with Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)