BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Eschatology => Topic started by: davy on June 16, 2025, 02:41:25 PM
-
I mean really, there's so much crazy false speculation out there that leaves the actual written Bible Scriptures about the identity of the coming false one at the end of this world, that it is impossible for the Biblically illiterate to know what's really going on. And one should not be surprised that Biblically illiterate includes many pastors over many churches today. I know, because I've gotten emails from them when I covered this subject on a old website I had years ago.
Get Up And Walk Away Situations:
1. anytime one claims there is no singular Antichrist
2. anytime one claims the coming Antichrist is already here, or already happened.
3. anytime one claims there exists many antichrists only
4. anytime one claims a pope is the Antichrist
5. anytime one claims a city, group, or nation is the Antichrist
6. anytime one claims the the image of 'man' always means one who is flesh-born
7. anytime one claims the Antichrist will arise from a Christian nation, like the USA or the EU.
8. anytime one claims the 666 number applies to Rome and/or a pope.
I could probably think of more 'excuses' like the above that many of the seminaries and fleshy thinkers come up with to try and pin the Antichrist label on, simply because they leave Bible Scripture with not realizing how wrong they are. All the above ideas are design to get you off track of the actual Bible Scripture meanings about the coming Antichrist at the end of this world.
1. In 1 John 2:18, that verse contains 2 objects involving the idea of Antichrist. The first phrase John mentioned was how the brethren there had already heard that "antichrist" shall come. That is about a SINGULAR Antichrist figure. Then John said that there were "many antichrists" already at work, and that 2nd phrase is about the idea of... yeah, that's right MANY antichrists, plural. Now we cannot simply move that latter "many antichrists" object and replace the singular "antichrist" with it that John mentioned in his 1st phrase, yet that is what some church systems and their deceived, or play-along pastors do, just to keep their jobs.
That Biblical Truth is confused by those who fail to study all their Bible. Early on in the history of the children of Israel, pagans crept in among the children of Israel, especially among the tribe of Judah (Jews). Judges 2 & 3, Joshua 9, 1 Kings 9, Ezra 2, Ezra 9, etc., show a flowing history of how Israel failed to destroy the specific nations of Canaan which God had commanded destroyed, and instead Israel allowed those leftover Canaanites to dwell among them. The Kenites represent one group of Canaanite peoples and 1 Chronicles 2:55 reveals those Kenites became the scribes of Israel in charge of keeping the letters of God's written Word. These scribes would side with those Pharisees who wanted Jesus killed, and no wonder, they were Canaanites that had crept into Moses' seat of the law. Thus the "many antichrists", and the "tares" in Lord Jesus' Matthew 13 parable, and Apostle Paul's "mystery of iniquity" (see Jude 4).
That mystery is one of the major themes of Old Testament history. God simply did not flat out tell you those 'crept in unawares' that were ordained to the condemnation of working against The Father and His Son, would be one of the major problems throughout Israel's history, and throughout world history. Just as God had hardened Pharaoh's heart in the days of Moses, likewise those 'crept in unawares' are here to work the negative side of God's Plan of Salvation through His Son Jesus Christ. This matter is a bitter pill most do not want to take, yet it is the bitter in the belly part that Apostle John felt when he was told to 'take' the Book and eat it. Christ's disciples are to understand both the sweet part and the bitter part. That is one of the ways The Holy Spirit keeps us from being deceived. Like Apostle Paul said, "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." (2 Cor.2:11)
Summary: God's Word reveals the existence of both... a singular Antichrist figure, and plural many antichrist workers. The "many antichrists", or "mystery of iniquity", began long, long ago, back in Old Testament history. One could even include Cain in that "many antichrists" group, since Cain killing his brother Abel would work for Satan's plan to destroy the bloodline that Christ Jesus would be born through. Satan made many later attempts to destroy the lineage of the "woman" of Genesis 3, even down to the time of Baby Jesus when king Herod issued a decree to murder all the firstborn in hopes of including Jesus.
For the time being, think about those items in that above list, how they are designed to deceive you away from Bible Scripture as written about the real... Antichrist that is coming at the end of this world.
-
hm, How does replacing the Antichrist with many antichrists (antichristissimo?) help them keep their jobs?
-
That Biblical Truth is confused by those who fail to study all their Bible. Early on in the history of the children of Israel, pagans crept in among the children of Israel, especially among the tribe of Judah (Jews). Judges 2 & 3, Joshua 9, 1 Kings 9, Ezra 2, Ezra 9, etc., show a flowing history of how Israel failed to destroy the specific nations of Canaan which God had commanded destroyed, and instead Israel allowed those leftover Canaanites to dwell among them. The Kenites represent one group of Canaanite peoples and 1 Chronicles 2:55 reveals those Kenites became the scribes of Israel in charge of keeping the letters of God's written Word. These scribes would side with those Pharisees who wanted Jesus killed, and no wonder, they were Canaanites that had crept into Moses' seat of the law.
New conspiracy theory just dropped.
-
That Biblical Truth is confused by those who fail to study all their Bible. Early on in the history of the children of Israel, pagans crept in among the children of Israel, especially among the tribe of Judah (Jews). Judges 2 & 3, Joshua 9, 1 Kings 9, Ezra 2, Ezra 9, etc., show a flowing history of how Israel failed to destroy the specific nations of Canaan which God had commanded destroyed, and instead Israel allowed those leftover Canaanites to dwell among them. The Kenites represent one group of Canaanite peoples and 1 Chronicles 2:55 reveals those Kenites became the scribes of Israel in charge of keeping the letters of God's written Word. These scribes would side with those Pharisees who wanted Jesus killed, and no wonder, they were Canaanites that had crept into Moses' seat of the law.
New conspiracy theory just dropped.
That Biblical Truth is confused by those who fail to study all their Bible. Early on in the history of the children of Israel, pagans crept in among the children of Israel, especially among the tribe of Judah (Jews). Judges 2 & 3, Joshua 9, 1 Kings 9, Ezra 2, Ezra 9, etc., show a flowing history of how Israel failed to destroy the specific nations of Canaan which God had commanded destroyed, and instead Israel allowed those leftover Canaanites to dwell among them. The Kenites represent one group of Canaanite peoples and 1 Chronicles 2:55 reveals those Kenites became the scribes of Israel in charge of keeping the letters of God's written Word. These scribes would side with those Pharisees who wanted Jesus killed, and no wonder, they were Canaanites that had crept into Moses' seat of the law.
New conspiracy theory just dropped.
🎤 🤐
And here I thought the Kennites intermarried with the Barbieites…
-
That Biblical Truth is confused by those who fail to study all their Bible. Early on in the history of the children of Israel, pagans crept in among the children of Israel, especially among the tribe of Judah (Jews). Judges 2 & 3, Joshua 9, 1 Kings 9, Ezra 2, Ezra 9, etc., show a flowing history of how Israel failed to destroy the specific nations of Canaan which God had commanded destroyed, and instead Israel allowed those leftover Canaanites to dwell among them. The Kenites represent one group of Canaanite peoples and 1 Chronicles 2:55 reveals those Kenites became the scribes of Israel in charge of keeping the letters of God's written Word. These scribes would side with those Pharisees who wanted Jesus killed, and no wonder, they were Canaanites that had crept into Moses' seat of the law.
New conspiracy theory just dropped.
From the thread title I was wondering the Antichrist would turn out to be Slim Shady or something...
-
That Biblical Truth is confused by those who fail to study all their Bible. Early on in the history of the children of Israel, pagans crept in among the children of Israel, especially among the tribe of Judah (Jews). Judges 2 & 3, Joshua 9, 1 Kings 9, Ezra 2, Ezra 9, etc., show a flowing history of how Israel failed to destroy the specific nations of Canaan which God had commanded destroyed, and instead Israel allowed those leftover Canaanites to dwell among them. The Kenites represent one group of Canaanite peoples and 1 Chronicles 2:55 reveals those Kenites became the scribes of Israel in charge of keeping the letters of God's written Word. These scribes would side with those Pharisees who wanted Jesus killed, and no wonder, they were Canaanites that had crept into Moses' seat of the law.
New conspiracy theory just dropped.
From the thread title I was wondering the Antichrist would turn out to be Slim Shady or something...
Will Smith don't gotta cuss in his raps to sell records :o
-
I mean really, there's so much crazy false speculation out there
I KNOW, right?!
...those Kenites became the scribes of Israel in charge of keeping the letters of God's written Word. These scribes would side with those Pharisees who wanted Jesus killed... (see Jude 4).
See? This is what you're talking about. Suggesting the Kenites were that consistent across ~2,000 years is bonkers.
-
I mean really, there's so much crazy false speculation out there
I KNOW, right?!
...those Kenites became the scribes of Israel in charge of keeping the letters of God's written Word. These scribes would side with those Pharisees who wanted Jesus killed... (see Jude 4).
See? This is what you're talking about. Suggesting the Kenites were that consistent across ~2,000 years is bonkers.
That aspect of Davy's post really seems to have struck a chord with folks here. From my perspective it is not especially exceptional, but that is probably because I lack a nuanced understanding of...whatever this is.
Which brings me to the question, what were the consequences of failing to successfully cleanse the world of Amalekites, Canaanites and Gibeonites, and are any of those consequences spiritual in nature and long term? At the heart of my question is that I do not really understand what distinguishes Davy's assertions from what is commonly believed and arguably asserted by the bible.
-
At the heart of my question is that I do not really understand what distinguishes Davy's assertions from what is commonly believed and arguably asserted by the bible.
The assertion I'm speaking to, is the one that suggests the Kenites effectively survived millennia in whatever form, to side with the Pharisees in Jesus' day in their role as scribe, having been "[keepers of] the letters of God's written Word" since time immemorial (or at least the time of Chronicles). It's that particular I'm pointing to as absurd.
What this view implies, of course, is that the whole of Judaism and the Jewish Scriptures is corrupt. This is obviously absurd within its own narrative, given the authority Jesus et al place upon those very same Scriptures. It begs the question: why could we not assume that despite Joshua et al failing, those peoples were brought to faith over time regardless? If they're "keeping the letters of God's written Word" for that long, then what, is God's written Word that powerless? But Jesus validates the "Old Testament". There are no Kenites to shake our fists at given this.
If we'e going to assume "corruption", then I think that would have happened eventually even if Joshua et al been successful in genociding the ANE. Give it 2,000 years et voila, similar if not the same problems happen. Ignore the *ites of the ANE, and the ancient Israelites take up Ba'al and Asherah and whatever all the same, all by themselves. Killing the people doesn't kill the idea, and the idea was always the deadlier problem. Some people are all, "if only ancient Israel had massacred the ANE Israel would have X, Y, Z", but you know what happens after everyone else is dead? Israel starts killing itself if it wants to maintain religious and ideological purity. It was never going to happen.
And the big baddie Pharisees. Do you know what happens if Jesus incarnated today instead of ~2,000 years ago? We get to be the "Pharisees".
"Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Episcopalians, the Evangelicals got together. One of them, an expert in the Law, tested [Jesus] with this question: ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
That's enough waffling for now.
-
Which brings me to the question, what were the consequences of failing to successfully cleanse the world of Amalekites, Canaanites and Gibeonites, and are any of those consequences spiritual in nature and long term? At the heart of my question is that I do not really understand what distinguishes Davy's assertions from what is commonly believed and arguably asserted by the bible.
Those orders were given long ago and are no longer in effect.
It's the irony of those orders that make them astonishing to the modern ears. Because they're in the same body of work that gave the world western values.
So why did God order the Israelites to purge the land of Israel of the pagan Canaanites? One could postulate that at the time, ethical monotheism, the idea that one God exists and has expectations of moral behavior from humanity, was a radical new idea. It needed time and space to take root. If the pagans were allowed to remain in the land, perhaps it never would have, and we would be witnessing child sacrifice to Moloch even until today. So they had to be eliminated, to the best of the Israelites ability. And because of that we have the values that we do.
-
Which brings me to the question, what were the consequences of failing to successfully cleanse the world of Amalekites, Canaanites and Gibeonites, and are any of those consequences spiritual in nature and long term? At the heart of my question is that I do not really understand what distinguishes Davy's assertions from what is commonly believed and arguably asserted by the bible.
Those orders were given long ago and are no longer in effect.
It's the irony of those orders that make them astonishing to the modern ears. Because they're in the same body of work that gave the world western values.
So why did God order the Israelites to purge the land of Israel of the pagan Canaanites? One could postulate that at the time, ethical monotheism, the idea that one God exists and has expectations of moral behavior from humanity, was a radical new idea. It needed time and space to take root. If the pagans were allowed to remain in the land, perhaps it never would have, and we would be witnessing child sacrifice to Moloch even until today. So they had to be eliminated, to the best of the Israelites ability. And because of that we have the values that we do.
The question of why the orders were given and perhaps even less so, was it justified--is unrelated to what I was asking, although I do appreciate you taking the time to answer.
I'm asking more about God as 'God who works through history', supernaturally. That is, is it so peculiar to suggest that the Canaanite diaspora maintained a thread down through to the scribes, carrying with them some deleterious spiritual fallout or corruption that expressed itself in the Pharisees' heresies. A bit like Final Destination, you cannot cheat death, the spiritually tainted chickens always come home to roost even if the path to get there is convoluted and difficult to prove by just observing with natural eyes (like isn't that in part the kind of thing the bible is meant to elucidate?).
Or maybe to put it another way, Did Joshua's unauthorized treaty with the Gibbionites lead directly to Saul's misfortunes by mundane subsequence that only had the appearance of spiritual significance--or was there some very literal spiritual stream that flowed from one series of events to the other? Either way, I've seen it commonly characterized as the latter, and if the spiritual residues of an incomplete genocide can topple a future king, then I have trouble seeing why it is unthinkable that those residues didn't darken the doorstep of ancient Hebrew academia.
-
At the heart of my question is that I do not really understand what distinguishes Davy's assertions from what is commonly believed and arguably asserted by the bible.
The assertion I'm speaking to, is the one that suggests the Kenites effectively survived millennia in whatever form, to side with the Pharisees in Jesus' day in their role as scribe, having been "[keepers of] the letters of God's written Word" since time immemorial (or at least the time of Chronicles). It's that particular I'm pointing to as absurd.
I mean, I think you were clear about your suggestion from the beginning, but perhaps I wasn't clear about mine. Generally speaking the idea that choices that people made in the past have very literal spiritual eternal existential consequences in the future seems to lie at the heart of many folks interpretation of events depicted in the bible. I mean, its not like I'm defending the whole enterprise as not absurd, but like, I don't understand why you guys think this crosses the line into absurdity.
What this view implies, of course, is that the whole of Judaism and the Jewish Scriptures is corrupt. This is obviously absurd within its own narrative, given the authority Jesus et al place upon those very same Scriptures. It begs the question: why could we not assume that despite Joshua et al failing, those peoples were brought to faith over time regardless? If they're "keeping the letters of God's written Word" for that long, then what, is God's written Word that powerless? But Jesus validates the "Old Testament". There are no Kenites to shake our fists at given this.
I might make the exact case you are making, if it served my question...In this case though lets handwave it away by saying that the scripture need not be corrupt, only the interpretation. For my money, this is the insidiousness of heart hardening and the like, God needn't change anything about reality, just the target's perception of it. Or perhaps put another way, he could change the incentive structure to stimulate preexisting paradigms of motivated thinking.
If we'e going to assume "corruption", then I think that would have happened eventually even if Joshua et al been successful in genociding the ANE. Give it 2,000 years et voila, similar if not the same problems happen. Ignore the *ites of the ANE, and the ancient Israelites take up Ba'al and Asherah and whatever all the same, all by themselves. Killing the people doesn't kill the idea, and the idea was always the deadlier problem. Some people are all, "if only ancient Israel had massacred the ANE Israel would have X, Y, Z", but you know what happens after everyone else is dead? Israel starts killing itself if it wants to maintain religious and ideological purity. It was never going to happen.
Honestly I might have written this myself when I'm feeling particularly cogent, but I feel like I've gotten sidetracked. I saw Davy's post and thought it seemed par for the course theologically...and I really do get all of your objections, its just that--and I hate to keep repeating myself, but like why this? Like with a few mad-libs style replacements, in my eyes your objections here are the framework for why most of the bible doesn't hang together. so why this?
And the big baddie Pharisees. Do you know what happens if Jesus incarnated today instead of ~2,000 years ago? We get to be the "Pharisees".
"Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Episcopalians, the Evangelicals got together. One of them, an expert in the Law, tested [Jesus] with this question: ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
But isn't our need for Jesus the consequence of earlier (arguably the earliest) human blunders that polluted the river of human history with sin all the way back at the mouth? The question isn't if the kind of world where spiritual fallout through history can exist given the logical consequences of that fallout, it is, What are the consequences if any of the failed Canaanite genocide and were they spiritual and long term? Or maybe its, what precludes the consequences from being this.
I guess you did answer though, continuing to do this will probably just be an exercise in repeating ourselves..I mean unless it isn't, not saying I don't want to read em if you got em.
That's enough waffling for now.
meh whatever, I liked reading it.
-
Interesting topic in the sense that the process of preparing for the eventuality of that final enclave is patently manifest in the world at large today, lest one should be fooled into thinking Antichrist surprises an innocent world.
-
I'm asking more about God as 'God who works through history', supernaturally. That is, is it so peculiar to suggest that the Canaanite diaspora maintained a thread down through to the scribes
Over a period of more than 1,000 years? Including an exile to Babylon and a return to Judea? It seems to strain credibility. If someone suggested that there was a secret group that was present at the signing of the Declaration of Independance and has been working to undermine it over the last 250 years, you'd think you were reading the latest Dan Brown book or something.
So far as a "God working through history", there is a modern day state of Israel, in the same location as the biblical state, populated by the descendants of that state, speaking the same language, practicing the same religion- and it was promised by God via His prophets, more than 2500 years ago. Is that "God working in history" or nah?
carrying with them some deleterious spiritual fallout or corruption that expressed itself in the Pharisees' heresies.
I do not believe that the Pharisees were heretical, but rather the intellectual and spiritual descendants of the prophets. Jesus believed that too. Matthew 23: "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you."
Or maybe to put it another way, Did Joshua's unauthorized treaty with the Gibbionites lead directly to Saul's misfortunes by mundane subsequence that only had the appearance of spiritual significance--or was there some very literal spiritual stream that flowed from one series of events to the other? Either way, I've seen it commonly characterized as the latter, and if the spiritual residues of an incomplete genocide can topple a future king, then I have trouble seeing why it is unthinkable that those residues didn't darken the doorstep of ancient Hebrew academia.
I don't believe in "spiritual residue".
-
Over a period of more than 1,000 years? Including an exile to Babylon and a return to Judea? It seems to strain credibility. If someone suggested that there was a secret group that was present at the signing of the Declaration of Independance and has been working to undermine it over the last 250 years, you'd think you were reading the latest Dan Brown book or something.
So far as a "God working through history", there is a modern day state of Israel, in the same location as the biblical state, populated by the descendants of that state, speaking the same language, practicing the same religion- and it was promised by God via His prophets, more than 2500 years ago. Is that "God working in history" or nah?
As I understand, it is a common and reasonably well accepted belief amongst believers that the modern state of Israel actually is an example of God working through history.
From my perspective all of it strains credulity, and this is precisely why It struck me as odd that there was such a strong reaction to Davy's proposition. If there is some supernatural component to the story of Adam and Eve for instance, and that component has spiritual implications and literal effects that defy mere natural explanation, and those implications and effects are extant and germane to humanity today--then the sins of the Canaanites, or of the Israelites failing to eliminate the Canaanites having long lasting, specific and not especially logical (from a purely naturalistic evaluation) influence over events a many hundreds of years down the line is no less plausible a connection than that of Adam to Oscar or Ancient Israel to modern Israel.
Again, it is my understanding of the position of at least some non-trivial fraction of believers--that the bible is a record of history meant in part to illuminate the the spiritual threads that connects the beginning to the present to the end- Including the direct hand of God.
I do not believe that the Pharisees were heretical, but rather the intellectual and spiritual descendants of the prophets. Jesus believed that too. Matthew 23: "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you."
I mostly said 'heresies' because it rhymed, so you can disregard that as I don't think it affects the thrust of my point.
I don't believe in "spiritual residue".
I can't tell if you are rejecting the idea of literal supernatural/spiritual effects and consequences that can influence events and people over the course of time, or if you just think calling it spiritual residue was too glib. Do you believe that supernature interacts with nature to cause things, and can it cause things over time? If so then that is all I mean by spiritual residue-- supernatural effects that can have an effect over some arbitrary period and scope.... or maybe its better said to have an effect over some period and scope that is permitted or mandated by God. If you don't believe that , I'd love to hear what you do believe.
-
As I understand, it is a common and reasonably well accepted belief amongst believers that the modern state of Israel actually is an example of God working through history.
From my perspective all of it strains credulity,
So on the one side, we have a prediction in the bible that took place 2500 years that was fulfilled in the most literal and observable sense. On the other, we have an allegation of a shadowy cabal of troublemakers, of whom there is no proof or even evidence of their existence, let alone the outcome of their secret plans.
And you can't tell the difference?
If there is some supernatural component to the story of Adam and Eve for instance
What if there isn't?
As Nachmanides said in his disputation with the Catholic Church in 1263, his soul is no more connected to Adam and Eve than it is to Pharoah.
Again, it is my understanding of the position of at least some non-trivial fraction of believers--that the bible is a record of history meant in part to illuminate the the spiritual threads that connects the beginning to the present to the end- Including the direct hand of God.
Are you a religious person?
The bible is a story of a people and their trials and tribulations.
I mostly said 'heresies' because it rhymed, so you can disregard that as I don't think it affects the thrust of my point.
Of course it affects it. If I don't believe that the Pharisees were heretical then Davy's point is meaningless. I mean it anyway, but just another reason why.
I can't tell if you are rejecting the idea of literal supernatural/spiritual effects and consequences that can influence events and people over the course of time, or if you just think calling it spiritual residue was too glib. Do you believe that supernature interacts with nature to cause things, and can it cause things over time? If so then that is all I mean by spiritual residue-- supernatural effects that can have an effect over some arbitrary period and scope.... or maybe its better said to have an effect over some period and scope that is permitted or mandated by God. If you don't believe that , I'd love to hear what you do believe.
I don't believe that. Simple as.
-
So on the one side, we have a prediction in the bible that took place 2500 years that was fulfilled in the most literal and observable sense. On the other, we have an allegation of a shadowy cabal of troublemakers, of whom there is no proof or even evidence of their existence, let alone the outcome of their secret plans.
And you can't tell the difference?
I believe you are leaving out one major allegation in the case of Israel that will shed some light on why I believe these things are less dissimilar than you do. That is that it is asserted in the bible that God would reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people....and so on.
I suppose you lean less into the supernature of it all than other's I've encountered, but if we can both only agree that receiving accurate information about events to occur thousands of years in the future from the god of the universe is itself a supernatural occurrence--then, I think that needs to be acknowledged.
Perhaps you'll disagree with me here, but If the prophecy was not simply a prediction, but a promise from God, then it follows that the establishment of modern Israel was a supernatural series of events shaped by the influence of supernatural power.
If you don't believe the God of the universe had anything to do with the establishment of modern Israel or that the only mechanisms that a supernatural god employed were natural mechanisms, then I suppose we are at an impasse because we disagree in principal about what constitutes a supernatural event.
Regardless, for me the establishment of modern Israel as an act of God that played out over thousands of years is no less impressive or incredible in principle than the Canaanite diaspora morphing into or having an effect on the Pharisees over the course of hundreds.
What if there isn't?
As Nachmanides said in his disputation with the Catholic Church in 1263, his soul is no more connected to Adam and Eve than it is to Pharoah.
If you don't believe that Adam and Eve have a literal spiritual effect on humanity today, then I'd say if you take one step further and propose that they are probably fictional and we are on exactly the same page.
That Nachmanides quote is interesting, as I understand it he rejected the idea of original sin, or inherited guilt, but did not reject the idea of inherited spiritual condition. That is to say that mortality, evil proclivities (yetzer hara, I wont pretend I have a nuanced understanding of this), and some form of spiritual separation from God became a part of the human condition as a consequence. Additionally he appears to believe that the actual birthrate of snakes and their inability to talk is also directly related to the snake's acts in the garden.
It is my understanding that these things in his mind were spiritual fallout (though specifically not guilt or inherited sin as the Catholics believe)...or erm 'residue' that modified humanity up through to today. I do not believe that Nachmanides actual position is that there were no spiritual or supernatural lasting consequences that stem from Adam and Eve as you've characterized it.
Are you a religious person?
The bible is a story of a people and their trials and tribulations.
I am not a religious person. I agree that your description of the bible is one that is accepted by many people as well. I also happen to know that some folks also believe that in addition to that, it is described as a record of how God works and moves through history....for my money I kinda feel like any description that fails to include God as a major aspect is insufficient.
Of course it affects it. If I don't believe that the Pharisees were heretical then Davy's point is meaningless. I mean it anyway, but just another reason why.
Okay, if you insist.
I don't believe that. Simple as.
Well, alright then.
-
I believe you are leaving out one major allegation in the case of Israel that will shed some light on why I believe these things are less dissimilar than you do. That is that it is asserted in the bible that God would reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people....and so on.
I suppose you lean less into the supernature of it all than other's I've encountered, but if we can both only agree that receiving accurate information about events to occur thousands of years in the future from the god of the universe is itself a supernatural occurrence--then, I think that needs to be acknowledged.
It's a historical occurrence.
Perhaps you'll disagree with me here, but If the prophecy was not simply a prediction, but a promise from God, then it follows that the establishment of modern Israel was a supernatural series of events shaped by the influence of supernatural power.
It was a historical occurence carried out by God.
Regardless, for me the establishment of modern Israel as an act of God that played out over thousands of years is no less impressive or incredible in principle than the Canaanite diaspora morphing into or having an effect on the Pharisees over the course of hundreds.
Except that the existence of the state of Israel is visible by all and not the ravings of a diseased mind with no historical evidence to back it up.
If you don't believe that Adam and Eve have a literal spiritual effect on humanity today, then I'd say if you take one step further and propose that they are probably fictional and we are on exactly the same page.
The two statements have nothing to do with each other. Adam and Eve could have actually existed and yet have no "spiritual effect" (whatever that is) on mankind today.
That Nachmanides quote is interesting, as I understand it he rejected the idea of original sin, or inherited guilt,
Jews reject the idea of original sin and inherited guilt, yes.
but did not reject the idea of inherited spiritual condition.
I don't know what this means.
I do not believe that Nachmanides actual position is that there were no spiritual or supernatural lasting consequences that stem from Adam and Eve as you've characterized it.
Are you familiar enough with his works to make such a declaration?
I am not a religious person.
Then you're making all these arguments, not as a believer, but from the outside.
-
It's a historical occurrence.
It was a historical occurence carried out by God.
Except that the existence of the state of Israel is visible by all and not the ravings of a diseased mind with no historical evidence to back it up.
well, idk if Davy has any diseases of the mind but the critiques of his proposal appear to me to tend toward pointing out the absurdity of the logistics and logical consequences of his proposition.
modern Israel exists, that is not up for debate--however the assertion isn't simply that modern Israel exists, it is that modern Israel exists because God made it so through supernatural means over the course of historical time scales---this point I do not find to be well evidenced, at least not any more so than other supernatural claims from the bible. Pointing out how absurd the logistics and logical consequences of God totally making Israel a thing are, doesn't normally gain any traction with believers in my expirience, so I find it curious that it is a sticking point for Davy's proposition.
For my money any activity by God is supernatural by virtue whether it is implicit or explicit. I get the feeling there is some distinction in your mind that does not exist for me.
The two statements have nothing to do with each other. Adam and Eve could have actually existed and yet have no "spiritual effect" (whatever that is) on mankind today.
I didn't mean to give the impression that those ideas were tied together in the sense that one follows from the other, but in the sense that I believe both that there are no lasting spiritual or supernatural consequences and that they probably didn't exist.
Spiritual effect---like do we have spirits? Were they effected? Is there a supernatural context to the consequences? like perhaps you can talk about whether you believe in supernatural or a spiritual aspect to the universe then provide your definitions and i'll likely just accept your definition and move on...sound good?
but did not reject the idea of inherited spiritual condition.
I don't know what this means.
I
It means that Nachmanides did not assert that the acts of Adam and Eve did not have any lasting consequences that are supernatural in nature. While we did not inherit guilt from Adam and Eve, we did inherit things like mortality and an inclination toward evil (yetzer hara). Every subsequent human inherited these conditions and those conditions are not only physical in nature but also spiritual. To be clear I'm essentially using spiritual and supernatural interchangeably, if that helps.
I do not believe that Nachmanides actual position is that there were no spiritual or supernatural lasting consequences that stem from Adam and Eve as you've characterized it.
Are you familiar enough with his works to make such a declaration?
Maybe. Are you familiar enough with his commentary on genesis to show me where I've failed to understand his actual position?
https://www.sefaria.org/Ramban_on_Genesis?tab=contents
Then you're making all these arguments, not as a believer, but from the outside.
Well, yeah. Is there some reason why i'd be precluded from understanding the topic as clearly as a believer? perhaps...some...spiritual component i'm missing?
-
modern Israel exists, that is not up for debate--however the assertion isn't simply that modern Israel exists, it is that modern Israel exists because God made it so through supernatural means over the course of historical time scales---this point I do not find to be well evidenced
You keep using terms like "spiritual" and "supernatural", not me. All I observed was that a prediction was made in the bible more than 2500 years ago, and said prediction came true. I find it historically fascinating that only one middle eastern tribe from the iron age has repopulated their original lands. What happened to the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Idumeans, the Hittites, and so on? They're gone. Did anyone predict their rebirth? No.
at least not any more so than other supernatural claims from the bible. Pointing out how absurd the logistics and logical consequences of God totally making Israel a thing are, doesn't normally gain any traction with believers in my expirience, so I find it curious that it is a sticking point for Davy's proposition.
Davy's proposition has no proof or even any evidence. That you keep arguing in spite of that simply makes you look contrarian, nothing more. You may as well be arguing that the moon is made of green cheese.
For my money any activity by God is supernatural by virtue whether it is implicit or explicit.
But you've already said that you're not a believer.
I didn't mean to give the impression that those ideas were tied together in the sense that one follows from the other, but in the sense that I believe both that there are no lasting spiritual or supernatural consequences and that they probably didn't exist.
Again, whether they existed or not is a separate matter from whether they has a "spiritual effect". This just seems argumentative and contrarian and nothing more.
Spiritual effect---like do we have spirits?
I have no idea. What is a "spirit"?
It means that Nachmanides did not assert that the acts of Adam and Eve did not have any lasting consequences that are supernatural in nature.
Textbook case of argument by omission. He also never said that the moon isn't made of green cheese, so obviously it must follow that he believed that the moon must be made of green cheese. No?
While we did not inherit guilt from Adam and Eve, we did inherit things like mortality and an inclination toward evil
We did not "inherit" those things. Their actions made humans subject to death and gave humanity free will.
Maybe. Are you familiar enough with his commentary on genesis to show me where I've failed to understand his actual position?
Is there a specific comment he made that's of interest to you, or are you just going to post all his works and challenge me to find where he says the opposite of what you believe?
Well, yeah. Is there some reason why i'd be precluded from understanding the topic as clearly as a believer?
Why, yes. There is. You don't believe any of this and have no skin in the game. No particular reason to try to understand. You're just a contrarian, looking to argue and feel superior over believers.
-
You keep using terms like "spiritual" and "supernatural", not me. All I observed was that a prediction was made in the bible more than 2500 years ago, and said prediction came true. I find it historically fascinating that only one middle eastern tribe from the iron age has repopulated their original lands. What happened to the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Idumeans, the Hittites, and so on? They're gone. Did anyone predict their rebirth? No.
I do keep using those words, and it increasingly seems like those terms don't apply to your beliefs I guess. So I suppose that is the end of that.
Davy's proposition has no proof or even any evidence. That you keep arguing in spite of that simply makes you look contrarian, nothing more. You may as well be arguing that the moon is made of green cheese.
noted
But you've already said that you're not a believer.
I was trying to have a discussion within the paradigm of a believer, I did this because my question was more about the reasoning behind the reaction to Davy's post and not the existence of god....the only thing kicking my post off with my unbelief would have done is irritate people, and frankly given who I am I was going to do that in the natural course of just being myself.
Again, whether they existed or not is a separate matter from whether they has a "spiritual effect". This just seems argumentative and contrarian and nothing more.
noted
I have no idea. What is a "spirit"?
Back of the napkin answer---Spirit is the supernatural, immaterial, aspect or component of a human being (and perhaps some other organisms, objects, places and concepts too). It is capable of detecting, interacting and/or communicating with God and perhaps other spirits and additional aspects of the supernatural world. It can manipulated or influenced and those influences can express themselves in the physiology and or psychology of a person. It continues to exist after physical death.
I've come across many properties said to belong to the spirit and spirits and such, but I'm fine with that as a working definition that can be adjusted to suit needs.
It means that Nachmanides did not assert that the acts of Adam and Eve did not have any lasting consequences that are supernatural in nature.
Textbook case of argument by omission. He also never said that the moon isn't made of green cheese, so obviously it must follow that he believed that the moon must be made of green cheese. No?
That is quite unfair considering that my next sentence continues to explain my understanding of Nachmanides position. I write long sentences, but I think its unreasonable to expect that I would pack everything that I had to say about his position into that one.
While we did not inherit guilt from Adam and Eve, we did inherit things like mortality and an inclination toward evil
We did not "inherit" those things. Their actions made humans subject to death and gave humanity free will.
Hmm, I suppose I can see where you are coming from. I'll conceded that it makes just as much sense to consider it to be a one time change to the human condition that is merely expressed in all subsequent human existence. So, let us say that as a consequence of A&E's actions the human condition was forever changed and that change exists to this day.
Maybe. Are you familiar enough with his commentary on genesis to show me where I've failed to understand his actual position?
Is there a specific comment he made that's of interest to you, or are you just going to post all his works and challenge me to find where he says the opposite of what you believe?
Well, no. You introduced Nachmanides to the conversation using a quote in a way that gave the impression that he supported your position, it struck me as a mischaracterization. So I went to the source to confirm for myself.
You then asked me if I was familiar enough to stand by my assertion. I could be incorrect in my interpretation, so I gave you the link so that you could challenge my assertion using my source if you so choose.
Historically you've completely ignored it or clipped things out of context when I provided you with excerpts from sources, it has not been a successful approach for me. If you think there is something wrong with my characterization, then you are welcome to produce it off of the top of your head or take the time to read it (really just the first 20 or so chapters are relevant to my argument).
Well, yeah. Is there some reason why i'd be precluded from understanding the topic as clearly as a believer?
Why, yes. There is. You don't believe any of this and have no skin in the game. No particular reason to try to understand. You're just a contrarian, looking to argue and feel superior over believers.
That's quite a thing to say to me.
-
I was trying to have a discussion within the paradigm of a believer
But you aren't. You believe none of this. There's no point.
Back of the napkin answer---Spirit is the supernatural, immaterial, aspect or component of a human being (and perhaps some other organisms, objects, places and concepts too). It is capable of detecting, interacting and/or communicating with God and perhaps other spirits and additional aspects of the supernatural world. It can manipulated or influenced and those influences can express themselves in the physiology and or psychology of a person. It continues to exist after physical death.
This is not a good definition.
That is quite unfair
No, it's not. You're arguing by omission, which is a logical flaw and means absolutely nothing. I have never stated that I was not a follower on scientology on these forums, so using your logic, that means I am a scientologist.
So, let us say that as a consequence of A&E's actions the human condition was forever changed and that change exists to this day.
See, it can be described without appealing to "spiritualism."
Well, no. You introduced Nachmanides to the conversation using a quote in a way that gave the impression that he supported your position, it struck me as a mischaracterization. So I went to the source to confirm for myself.
You "went to source"? The man was a giant sage and wrote vast commentary on the bible. Yet you claim to understand his position on vague topics.?
He was also the first European to use the Indian digit zero as a placeholder, as we do now. Does that mean that you understand all of mathematics?
That's quite a thing to say to me.
I call it like I see it.
-
I was trying to have a discussion within the paradigm of a believer
But you aren't. You believe none of this. There's no point.
You don't see any purpose in it, but It's worth it to me to once again get to bask in your charming repartee.
Back of the napkin answer---Spirit is the supernatural, immaterial, aspect or component of a human being (and perhaps some other organisms, objects, places and concepts too). It is capable of detecting, interacting and/or communicating with God and perhaps other spirits and additional aspects of the supernatural world. It can manipulated or influenced and those influences can express themselves in the physiology and or psychology of a person. It continues to exist after physical death.
This is not a good definition.
That is unfortunate, I put some effort into it. I invited you to provide a definition that you find acceptable, which you ignored. So, once again, would you like to share a definition that you find acceptable? Or perhaps you would like to modify the one I provided?
That is quite unfair
No, it's not. You're arguing by omission, which is a logical flaw and means absolutely nothing. I have never stated that I was not a follower on scientology on these forums, so using your logic, that means I am a scientologist.
lets review how i've represented my understanding of Nachmanides' position:
"That Nachmanides quote is interesting, as I understand it he rejected the idea of original sin, or inherited guilt, but did not reject the idea of inherited spiritual condition. That is to say that mortality, evil proclivities (yetzer hara, I wont pretend I have a nuanced understanding of this), and some form of spiritual separation from God became a part of the human condition as a consequence. Additionally he appears to believe that the actual birthrate of snakes and their inability to talk is also directly related to the snake's acts in the garden.
It is my understanding that these things in his mind were spiritual fallout (though specifically not guilt or inherited sin as the Catholics believe)...or erm 'residue' that modified humanity up through to today. I do not believe that Nachmanides actual position is that there were no spiritual or supernatural lasting consequences that stem from Adam and Eve as you've characterized it."
&
"It means that Nachmanides did not assert that the acts of Adam and Eve did not have any lasting consequences that are supernatural in nature. While we did not inherit guilt from Adam and Eve, we did inherit things like mortality and an inclination toward evil (yetzer hara). Every subsequent human inherited these conditions and those conditions are not only physical in nature but also spiritual. To be clear I'm essentially using spiritual and supernatural interchangeably, if that helps."
You've chosen to remove my statement from its context, and then ridiculed it for not making sense after you divorced it from that supporting framework.
So, let us say that as a consequence of A&E's actions the human condition was forever changed and that change exists to this day.
See, it can be described without appealing to "spiritualism."
So, you have a problem with this event or series of events being considered supernatural at all in addition to not being heritable?
Anyway, I think there is a difference between being able to make that statement without explicitly including the fact that the consequences spoken of were those imposed by the the supernatural creator of the universe, and asserting that there is not a supernatural component at all.
It is quite a treat to be in conversation with a believer that appears to be doggedly determined to divorce the events of genesis from any relationship to the supernatural.
Well, no. You introduced Nachmanides to the conversation using a quote in a way that gave the impression that he supported your position, it struck me as a mischaracterization. So I went to the source to confirm for myself.
You "went to source"? The man was a giant sage and wrote vast commentary on the bible. Yet you claim to understand his position on vague topics.?
It would be fair to call it a source as opposed to 'THE SOURCE'-- A source however, that dealt directly with the topic at hand and is to my knowledge representative of his position on the topic. Again you are welcome to point me in the direction of some of his other works that deal with the topic or are more representative of the topic than his genesis commentary.
He was also the first European to use the Indian digit zero as a placeholder, as we do now. Does that mean that you understand all of mathematics?
Man I would love a source on that whole zero business, because I've never heard anything remotely like that and I am extremely skeptical of that claim. Anyway appealing to Nachmanides' commentary on genesis in order to ascertain his position on the nature and consequences of the events that are recorded in Genesis is nothing at all like claiming to understand all of mathematics based on a suspiciously dubious factoid. If I were to make an analogy, it would be closer to reading Method of Fluxions and then asserting that it is representative of Newton's rationale and framework for derivative notation.
It is undeniable that that Nachmanides commentary on Genesis is about Genesis, and we were in fact talking about events in Genesis. There may be better sources, but it is not a ridiculous place to look for insights on his thinking on the topic.
That's quite a thing to say to me.
I call it like I see it.
and what a worthwhile addition to the conversation it was.
-
I mean, I think you were clear about your suggestion from the beginning, but perhaps I wasn't clear about mine. Generally speaking the idea that choices that people made in the past have very literal spiritual eternal existential consequences in the future seems to lie at the heart of many folks interpretation of events depicted in the bible. I mean, its not like I'm defending the whole enterprise as not absurd, but like, I don't understand why you guys think this crosses the line into absurdity.
Davy's idea isn't merely that "choices have consequences".
I might make the exact case you are making, if it served my question...In this case though lets handwave it away by saying that the scripture need not be corrupt, only the interpretation. For my money, this is the insidiousness of heart hardening and the like, God needn't change anything about reality, just the target's perception of it. Or perhaps put another way, he could change the incentive structure to stimulate preexisting paradigms of motivated thinking.
Why are you talking about God when I responded to Davy about people? Davy's position doesn't allow for "only the interpretation" to be corrupt, since he makes it a point to mention that the Kenites became scribes and keepers (of God's word).
Honestly I might have written this myself when I'm feeling particularly cogent, but I feel like I've gotten sidetracked. I saw Davy's post and thought it seemed par for the course theologically...and I really do get all of your objections, its just that--and I hate to keep repeating myself, but like why this? Like with a few mad-libs style replacements, in my eyes your objections here are the framework for why most of the bible doesn't hang together. so why this?
Why what?
But isn't our need for Jesus the consequence of earlier (arguably the earliest) human blunders that polluted the river of human history with sin all the way back at the mouth? The question isn't if the kind of world where spiritual fallout through history can exist given the logical consequences of that fallout, it is, What are the consequences if any of the failed Canaanite genocide and were they spiritual and long term? Or maybe its, what precludes the consequences from being this.
You're responding to me taking issue with turning the Pharisees into boogeymen. Did you mean to quote something else?
I guess you did answer though, continuing to do this will probably just be an exercise in repeating ourselves..I mean unless it isn't, not saying I don't want to read em if you got em.
I don't know what else you'd want me to say. I have to go make dinner.
-
I mean, I think you were clear about your suggestion from the beginning, but perhaps I wasn't clear about mine. Generally speaking the idea that choices that people made in the past have very literal spiritual eternal existential consequences in the future seems to lie at the heart of many folks interpretation of events depicted in the bible. I mean, its not like I'm defending the whole enterprise as not absurd, but like, I don't understand why you guys think this crosses the line into absurdity.
Davy's idea isn't merely that "choices have consequences".
Right, I guess. I was looking at your statement:
"The assertion I'm speaking to, is the one that suggests the Kenites effectively survived millennia in whatever form, to side with the Pharisees in Jesus' day in their role as scribe, having been "[keepers of] the letters of God's written Word" since time immemorial (or at least the time of Chronicles). It's that particular I'm pointing to as absurd."
and I couldn't, and still can't quite wrap my head around why this would be an absurd consequence of failing to wipe out the Canaanites. IOW why is this sequence of unlikely events that includes the survival of the Kenites and their maintaining some scribal role not a possible consequence in the context of supernatural consequences in the bible. To say it plain If i take for granted that If god tells you to do something and you don't do it, the consequences could appear very unlikely (even miraculous] and take a long time but that's what you get when you disobey God. So some people surviving hundreds of years to throw a monkey wrench in some future events seems on brand. maybe that is more clear.
I might make the exact case you are making, if it served my question...In this case though lets handwave it away by saying that the scripture need not be corrupt, only the interpretation. For my money, this is the insidiousness of heart hardening and the like, God needn't change anything about reality, just the target's perception of it. Or perhaps put another way, he could change the incentive structure to stimulate preexisting paradigms of motivated thinking.
Why are you talking about God when I responded to Davy about people? Davy's position doesn't allow for "only the interpretation" to be corrupt, since he makes it a point to mention that the Kenites became scribes and keepers (of God's word).
I was talking about god because it seemed relevant imo, why else would I do it? I did not read Davy's assertion as excluding the idea that "only the interpretation" was corrupt. I read that the kenites became scribes and keepers of god's word that sided with the Pharisees, not that they changed the text in order to side with the Pharisees, because then what is Davy relying on as scripture?
Honestly I might have written this myself when I'm feeling particularly cogent, but I feel like I've gotten sidetracked. I saw Davy's post and thought it seemed par for the course theologically...and I really do get all of your objections, its just that--and I hate to keep repeating myself, but like why this? Like with a few mad-libs style replacements, in my eyes your objections here are the framework for why most of the bible doesn't hang together. so why this?
Why what?
I'm banking my earlier response in this post as clarifying here, but if not just let me know and i'll try to be more clear.
But isn't our need for Jesus the consequence of earlier (arguably the earliest) human blunders that polluted the river of human history with sin all the way back at the mouth? The question isn't if the kind of world where spiritual fallout through history can exist given the logical consequences of that fallout, it is, What are the consequences if any of the failed Canaanite genocide and were they spiritual and long term? Or maybe its, what precludes the consequences from being this.
You're responding to me taking issue with turning the Pharisees into boogeymen. Did you mean to quote something else?
huh, Reading it back, it does seem like I was responding to something else, though I do not remember what.
I guess you did answer though, continuing to do this will probably just be an exercise in repeating ourselves..I mean unless it isn't, not saying I don't want to read em if you got em.
I don't know what else you'd want me to say. I have to go make dinner.
I didn't want you to say anything in particular, I was just trying to make it clear that I was open to reading any of your further contributions even if though it seemed like there wasn't much meat on that bone. enjoy your dinner
-
The OP has no flexibility in his understanding. His position is full of dogmatic assertions that speak of his immaturity. I think it's fine to hold a position on eschatology. Just don't get up and do a "walk away" when you are challenged. I read the book of revelation often and my view constantly shifts as I see through the lenses of different theoretical interpretations. That ability developed with age