Fleeing to Mars not of God

[truthpls]

Let me clarify for you then. Isaac Newton believed that the very Church that facilitated the writing of your precious version of the bible, was in fact the antichrist. And you're fine with that.

Interesting.

If he did think that, I am sure he had some reasons. Many today think the same thing. Personally I do not think that some decrepit old man in a supposedly Christian organization will be the man that has all the world worship him and Satan. Your attempt to divide and conquer failed.
Looking at what some of what Newt believed, I agree with him on a lot.

"Newton also believed that a general apostasy from Christ’s doctrines occurred early on in the history of the Christian church, and he wrote that a restoration of the Lord’s church would come at some future time."

“The first Principles of the Christian religion are founded, not on disputable conclusions, opinions, or conjectures, or on human sanctions, but on the express words of Christ and his Apostles; and we are to hold fast the form of sound words"

A Brief Survey of Sir Isaac Newton's Views on Religion | Religious Studies Center

rsc.byu.edu

If he noticed that the papacy was not doing that (The first Principles of the Christian religion are founded, not on disputable conclusions, opinions, or conjectures, or on human sanctions, but on the express words of Christ) he had a point!

Ah, the old battered wife excuse again, she made him beat her. Adam and Eve made God curse the very ground that they walked on.

Yes, their choice had consequences. The consequence was also that He would have to die for man to make a way to be saved and restored. In other words man took the long way home. Either way we were to get home.

 

[truthpls]

What do you know about the book of Genesis, the culture of the people, the textual variants, the cosmology of the time, the symbolism of the time? Do you know who wrote it, when, for whom and most importantly, why?

All we need to know is Jesus. Then the confused ideas of men fall into the shadows and the truth goes marching on.

 

[truthpls]

Yes and also that Mars, planets, stars and the sky becomes gods when we reject the one true God of the universe. THis has been a repreated phenomena throughout history.

Good point.

The whole idea that we need defense is the problem in a fallen world. Theres a deep religious and belief divide going back a long way that is coming out in modern ways. But its not too dissimilar to the Isrealites and the pagan nations at war. Or Cain and Abel.

The problem I was thinking of was not actual defence, which can be a good thing. For example a man defending his family and home. The dept of defence in the US has been involved in all sorts or terror and mass murders etc. One example is the support of the terror against the people of Gaza.

It is only by being unified under Christ. But Christs truth and authority has been lost to all the politics and culture wars. So many are deaf and blind and no amount of reasoning or truth will change that. A bit like in Noahs time when people could not see the coming judgement.

True, that is exactly what these days are like or rapidly becoming like.

In a way its an inevitable confrontation of good verses evil. All the stories of good triumphing over evil from our lived history are in what we are heading for. We all knew it all along that this was really a spiritual battle and what we see now with the physical conflicts and divisions is the symptoms. The signs are becoming to a head as its no longer a local concern but a global one. Who will save us from this inevitable scenario.

You seem to have it pretty straight

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just read what I said instead what it seems to you. It is the easiest way to not get confused about what one said or meant.

I meant that many US Christians had little to no knowledge about the texts they are reading in the Bible. Believing that Genesis 1 is a literal history is a part, a sign of this broader ignorance. It is not about agreeing or disagreeing with me, I did not invent anything new or original about Genesis.

The branches of Christianity that have little use for such thing have become prominent in US Christianity being the only parts that had any growth in the last generation.

 

[trophy33]

All we need to know is Jesus. Then the confused ideas of men fall into the shadows and the truth goes marching on.

No. For example, you obviously need to know what words mean and how to write to be able to communicate here. Similarly, you need to know some facts to understand the texts of others, like the book of Genesis.

Also, it is disrespectful towards the Bible to willfully refuse to learn to understand it, if you want to use it.

 

[trophy33]

The branches of Christianity that have little use for such thing have become prominent in US Christianity being the only parts that had any growth in the last generation.

They are the most visible and the most loud in the online space, at least.

 

[truthpls]

No. For example, you obviously need to know what words mean and how to write to be able to communicate here.

Yes and apparently they mean different things to different people in many cases.

Similarly, you need to know some facts to understand the texts of others, like the book of Genesis.

The fact we need is Jesus. Then a child can understand Genesis. The issue is not understanding but believing.

Also, it is disrespectful towards the Bible to willfully refuse to learn to understand it, if you want to use it.

Trying to insert 'the culture of the people, the textual variants, the cosmology of the time, the symbolism of the time' as being required to understand simple things like how God put Adam to sleep and made the first woman from a bone is wrong.

 

[trophy33]

Yes and apparently they mean different things to different people in many cases.

Great that you acknowledge this. It is only a step from realizing that you need to learn what the words of Genesis meant for the authors of Genesis, not what you just guess they mean.

The fact we need is Jesus. Then a child can understand Genesis. The issue is not understanding but believing.

Believing without understanding is a nonsensical position. You cannot believe in "I do not know".

Trying to insert 'the culture of the people, the textual variants, the cosmology of the time, the symbolism of the time' as being required to understand simple things like how God put Adam to sleep and made the first woman from a bone is wrong.

See the beginning of your post. You need to know what the story meant for the original authors to understand what they meant. What they meant by the waters, by the abyss, by the firmament, by the number 7, by God resting etc. What cultural meanings did gardens, rivers, genealogies, dust, serpents etc had for them.

 

[truthpls]

Great that you acknowledge this. It is only a step from realizing that you need to learn what the words of Genesis meant for the authors of Genesis, not what you just guess they mean.

What we need to know is what God means. When He says He created the fish on a certain of the six days of creation, that is precisely what He means. When He tells us how He made Eve that is what He means.

Believing without understanding is a nonsensical position. You cannot believe in "I do not know".

Genesis is easy to understand, the issue is believing it.

See the beginning of your post. You need to know what the story meant for the original authors to understand what they meant.

God is the original Author, men used in relaying the message are like background noise.

What they meant by the waters, by the firmament, by the number 7, by God resting etc.

Water is water. The firmament is where stars were made so we can call that space. The number seven is a number that comes after number 6 and before number 8. If people take away from the obvious to insert their interpretation of numerology in the bible, they are wrong! Yes there is significance in the bible to certain numbers God uses. In no way does that take away from the reality of what is said! If you find it does so then you know you are chasing some rabbit's tail diversion.

I find that the reason some people chase diversions and strain at nats while swallowing camels is that they do not believe what is written and seek to find some clever sounding excuse.

 

[trophy33]

What we need to know is what God means. When He says He created the fish on a certain of the six days of creation, that is precisely what He means. When He tells us how He made Eve that is what He means.

Genesis was not written by God. It would be written in the first person "And I said: Let there be...". You are not taking the text seriously. The text clearly indicates that it is about God, not written by God.

Genesis is easy to understand, the issue is believing it.

You keep repeating it, but I see no understanding. You just take it all literally, even the places that are absurd to take literally.

Water is water. The firmament is where stars were made so we can call that space. The number seven is a number that comes after number 6 and before number 8.

Oh mine. Can you explain to me how birds fly in space among stars?

 

[Hans Blaster]

They are the most visible and the most loud in the online space, at least.

And in politics.

 

[partinobodycular]

If he did think that, I am sure he had some reasons. Many today think the same thing. Personally I do not think that some decrepit old man in a supposedly Christian organization will be the man that has all the world worship him and Satan. Your attempt to divide and conquer failed.
Looking at what some of what Newt believed, I agree with him on a lot.

"Newton also believed that a general apostasy from Christ’s doctrines occurred early on in the history of the Christian church, and he wrote that a restoration of the Lord’s church would come at some future time."

“The first Principles of the Christian religion are founded, not on disputable conclusions, opinions, or conjectures, or on human sanctions, but on the express words of Christ and his Apostles; and we are to hold fast the form of sound words"

Kudos for at least looking into it.

I think you need to clarify a little more, or post the actual quote from Isaac Newton.

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time. So this will actually be the short version.

Your request is reasonable, but you need to understand that Isaac Newton wrote a LOT. Much of what he said wasn't confined to nice neat quotable soundbytes. If there was a significant event that happened, then he probably thought about its implications, and wrote about it.

But here's the gist of it. Newton believed that the "end times" wasn't some future time period... he was living in them. They're all the time from Christ forward. Newton believed that the antichrist wasn't a person, it was the office of the papacy. He identified King Charlemagne's appointment as Emperor in 800 A.D. by Pope Leo III as the beginning of the antichrist. Although it may have begun three and a half years earlier with Pepin.

So the beginning of the papacy as the antichrist predated both the great schism and reformation. It's when God's appointed successor to Peter was superseded by an earthly one, and the papacy corrupted. It's quite likely that Newton was using the KJV, which was created during the reign of the Holy Roman Empire by the Protestant King James, from manuscripts mainly obtained from Catholic sources.

This doesn't mean that the KJV is in any way corrupted, but it illustrates why the meaning of prophecy had to be 'hidden' from the very people who were writing the KJV... because the prophecy was actually about them. They had to write it without realizing that. That's why it's wrong to read it literally. It's metaphorical.

Personally I do not think that some decrepit old man in a supposedly Christian organization will be the man that has all the world worship him and Satan.

You're not thinking about Revelation and the end times in the same way that Newton did. It's all of the time from Christ onward condensed into a metaphorical framework, much like Genesis is. You need to stop taking things literally. Think of the antichrist as the whole of the papacy from 800 A.D. onward, including the power of the Holy Roman Empire... that's what Newton was looking at. That was indeed a very, very powerful thing, and that's why he never published his findings. He knew that the antichrist was the actual authority that he was living under. He couldn't just say hey, look, you're the antichrist. He would've been immediately killed and his writings destroyed.

Which is why you need to stop reading things literally. The meaning is hidden, but for very obvious reasons.

Anyway, I'm way out of time, but I'll be back letter to fix whatever I messed up.

OBSERVATIONS upon the PROPHECIES of DANIEL, and the APOCALYPSE of St. JOHN.

Charlemagne

 

[truthpls]

Genesis was not written by God.

Genesis was written by God. No one else knew about creation details. He used men to pipe it to us. Jesus confirmed it is bang on.

It would be written in the first person "And I said: Let there be...". You are not taking the text seriously. The text clearly indicates that it is about God, not written by God.

Not if He was speaking through a man, as He was.

You keep repeating it, but I see no understanding.

I won't argue that you don't see it

You just take it all literally, even the places that are absurd to take literally.

It is clear when something is told as a fact and when it is used as a symbol or etc

Oh mine. Can you explain to me how birds fly in space among stars?

Easily. heaven is not one layer. The sky above earth is also called heaven. The heaven of heavens is also called heaven. The place where stars are is also called heaven.

 

[truthpls]

Kudos for at least looking into it.



Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time. So this will actually be the short version.

Your request is reasonable, but you need to understand that Isaac Newton wrote a LOT. Much of what he said wasn't confined to nice neat quotable soundbytes. If there was a significant event that happened, then he probably thought about its implications, and wrote about it.

But here's the gist of it. Newton believed that the "end times" wasn't some future time period... he was living in them. They're all the time from Christ forward. Newton believed that the antichrist wasn't a person, it was the office of the papacy. He identified King Charlemagne's appointment as Emperor in 800 A.D. by Pope Leo III as the beginning of the antichrist. Although it may have begun three and a half years earlier with Pepin.

So the beginning of the papacy as the antichrist predated both the great schism and reformation. It's when God's appointed successor to Peter was superseded by an earthly one, and the papacy corrupted. It's quite likely that Newton was using the KJV, which was created during the reign of the Holy Roman Empire by the Protestant King James, from manuscripts mainly obtained from Catholic sources.

This doesn't mean that the KJV is in any way corrupted, but it illustrates why the meaning of prophecy had to be 'hidden' from the very people who were writing the KJV... because the prophecy was actually about them. They had to write it without realizing that. That's why it's wrong to read it literally. It's metaphorical.




You're not thinking about Revelation and the end times in the same way that Newton did.

Nor do I need to. We are closer to the time now and it becomes clearer.

It's all of the time from Christ onward condensed into a metaphorical framework, much like Genesis is.

Revelation actually is about the revealing of Jesus. Primarily in the end times

You need to stop taking things literally.

You need to start taking thing literally. If something is more than literal, it is denoted or in context as such.

Think of the antichrist as the whole of the papacy from 800 A.D. onward, including the power of the Holy Roman Empire...

You can't do that. The AntiChrist is a man that rules and lives in a certain time. Nothing to do with 'papacy' If the remnant Catholic system after the Rapture joins with the evil guy, then there would be no big surprise there. That does not mean the entire history of the papal system is 'the AntiChrist'

that's what Newton was looking at.

Then he needed to rent a clue on the matter. The AC is a man in a certain time, there is no fogginess about that.

That was indeed a very, very powerful thing, and that's why he never published his findings. He knew that the antichrist was the actual authority that he was living under.

No he knew nothing of the sort. he may have imagined that.

He couldn't just say hey, look, you're the antichrist. He would've been immediately killed and his writings destroyed.

Then they would have whacked him for the wrong reasons. Neither of them had much of a clue about these things.

Which is why you need to stop reading things literally. The meaning is hidden, but for very obvious reasons.

Wisdom is plain to him that understands actually. Clear as day.

 

[partinobodycular]

You can't do that. The AntiChrist is a man that rules and lives in a certain time. Nothing to do with 'papacy' If the remnant Catholic system after the Rapture joins with the evil guy, then there would be no big surprise there. That does not mean the entire history of the papal system is 'the AntiChrist'

Awesome, because I was concerned that I might have to spend a whole lot of my time trying to explain it to you, but since Newton was obviously not as intelligent as you are, I won't bother.

 

[truthpls]

Awesome, because I was concerned that I might have to spend a whole lot of my time trying to explain it to you, but since Newton was obviously not as intelligent as you are, I won't bother.

That works for me. There is nothing to explain, obviously the bible was not Newt's strong point, at least as far a prophesy goes.

 

[stevevw]

Good point.

The problem I was thinking of was not actual defence, which can be a good thing. For example a man defending his family and home. The dept of defence in the US has been involved in all sorts or terror and mass murders etc. One example is the support of the terror against the people of Gaza.

Yes and like the defense against the Nazis. Maybe defence with deadly weapons was inevitable in that there was always going to be evil in the world.

But its also a catch 22 situation where the need for defensive weapons is also a catalyst for attacking or misusing weapons because they are so available.

But when we have terrorist who don't care about peace then what can you do. We allowed the terror to grow and even fed it. Now we have to deal with the mess. But without Christ it will only get worse.

True, that is exactly what these days are like or rapidly becoming like.

You seem to have it pretty straight

 

[trophy33]

Genesis was written by God. No one else knew about creation details.

Genesis 1 and 2 are not creation details. They are mythological drama and mythological narrative. They do not correspond to literal, "scientific" history. Therefore, no special revelation about details was needed for it to be written.

Genesis 1 is younger, written around the Babylonian exile. It uses Yahweh for God, creating the whole world as a temple for Him to rest in, in 7 sacred cycles etc.

Gen 2 is older, it uses Elohim for God and a different cultural perspective. It is focused on gardens and the "sacred", "life-giving" rivers and on the pre-agricultural society (hunters and gatherers) which they probably saw as some idealistic and innocent state. The work in the fields (the agricultural society - bread instead of just eating from trees) is presented as a curse.

Easily. heaven is not one layer. The sky above earth is also called heaven. The heaven of heavens is also called heaven. The place where stars are is also called heaven.

OK, what version of the hundreds of versions of Genesis 1 do you believe is authoritative, because I do not see anything like this in the text I looked into. Genesis 1, if taken literally: There are primordial waters which God divided into two main bodies, one under the firmament, another one above the firmament. The Sun, the Moon and stars are in the firmament and birds fly in the firmament.

Interestingly, other places in the Bible describe the firmament to have doors and windows for rain. Do you also believe that rain comes from above the universe, if you try to say that the firmament means the whole universe?

 

[truthpls]

Yes and like the defense against the Nazis. Maybe defence with deadly weapons was inevitable in that there was always going to be evil in the world.

But its also a catch 22 situation where the need for defensive weapons is also a catalyst for attacking or misusing weapons because they are so available.

If defence is misused does one lose the right to defence? Weapons do not seem to stop the evil in the world so far! So why is 'defence' weapons needed? If we set aside the proxy wars like Gaza and Ukraine etc, I see one site lists about 12 million killed in wars of the USA.

"

DEATH TOLL FROM MODERN AMERICAN WARS​

KILLED IN THE NAME OF "FREEDOM"​

OVER 12 MILLION DEAD IN AMERICA'S WARS​

SINCE WORLD WAR II"

DEATH TOLL FROM MODERN AMERICAN WARS

The death toll of over 12 million in America's wars for freedom: wars in Korea, Vietnam and The War on Terror in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan

www.worldfuturefund.org

But when we have terrorist who don't care about peace then what can you do.

Convert them? Preach the gospel? How can big countries like the USA accuse others of not caring about peace?

We allowed the terror to grow and even fed it.

Who is 'we'? People in some countries consider the US and Israel to be terrorists. The Russians consider Ukraine terrorists.

Now we have to deal with the mess. But without Christ it will only get worse.

Again, there is that 'we'. There is only one way to peace - Jesus. The weapons of His people are not physical but spiritual. Winning the war of hearts and minds using spiritual weapons.

 

[truthpls]

Genesis 1 and 2 are not creation details.

Gen 1 and 2 are creation details.

They are mythological drama and mythological narrative.

They are facts that happened

They do not correspond to literal, "scientific" history.

They are literal history. The ability of science to confirm or deny is nearly non existent

Therefore, no special revelation about details was needed for it to be written.

It was all revelation and from His Spirit

Genesis 1 is younger, written around the Babylonian exile. It uses Yahweh for God, creating the whole world as a temple for Him to rest in, in 7 sacred cycles etc.

Though dates are not known, it was only a matter of when God wanted His book released.

Gen 2 is older, it uses Elohim for God and a different cultural perspective. It is focused on gardens and the "sacred", "life-giving" rivers and on the pre-agricultural society (hunters and gatherers) which they probably saw as some idealistic and innocent state.

No, the order of creation involved a garden and rivers. Nothing to do with man or some imagined focus.

The work in the fields (the agricultural society - bread instead of just eating from trees) is presented as a curse.

No, the curse was because of sin and involved making it hard for us to get bread.

OK, what version of the hundreds of versions of Genesis 1 do you believe is authoritative, because I do not see anything like this in the text I looked into. Genesis 1, if taken literally: There are primordial waters which God divided into two main bodies, one under the firmament, another one above the firmament. The Sun, the Moon and stars are in the firmament and birds fly in the firmament.

Looking at all the major versions on some bible sites, I see no disagreement. Some water was above where the stars are (firmament) and some on earth below the firmament. Birds fly in the lower part of the firmament. No excuse for getting confused

Interestingly, other places in the Bible describe the firmament to have doors and windows for rain.

There were portals opened in the sky that brought water down to earth. Even an official in the US government claimed they had the ability to alter time and space. Did you think God had trouble doing so?? The waters from above the stars were brought to earth.

Do you also believe that rain comes from above the universe, if you try to say that the firmament means the whole universe?

Yes water from above the stars was brought to earth via portals. They called them the windows of heaven.