Baptism and the Flood of Noah for Dummies - Beasts in the Water

EnochWasRight

lonewolf19792000
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

The flood was an extinction event, the end of the world (as it was). The Ark represents the Lord, and all the clean and unclean beasts (kingdoms) went into it and were saved and delivered on the other side safely which is a future allusion to the Millenial reign of Christ.

Throughout the OT we see a pattern, and that pattern repeats itself into the NT: enter into Him and be saved.

IN the OT scriptures we also see that the Ark (throne of God on earth) is in the Temple (the Groom), and the Temple is in the City (Bride).

I always love your comments. As far as I can determine, eternity already exists. We are moving toward that conclusion, which has already happened. Reality is simply a reply of how we arrived. Possibly for the new lives that are developed from the process that began the process. If our reality is a hologram, then it's no different than a movie we record and play over and over again. Just a larger version of the same idea. Our time is simply an event engaged in another timeline. From our perspective, it's like watching a movie more than once. Take a DVD out and watch it, but the making of the DVD may have been 3 years ago. The timeline of the move as it plays is still relative to when it was made. The same could be true for our universe.

edit on 2-11-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

Thanks . Of course eternity already exists. It existed before creation even began. This is how the Lord sees things: He is an island amidst a raging river of time flowing around him. He sees what was, and is, and is to come yet for him it has already happened because he already has seen the end and what lies between is reality catching up to him. He goes before us, in every way.

The Song of Solomon offers a more unique insight into the Temple (Groom) and City (Bride) as Solomon plays the part of the Beloved and the Shulamite girl plays the part of the Bride and Jeremiah 33:10-11 gives us the perspective. Throughout history, from the very beginning he has proclaimed these things and he even has said it.

Look at Adam and Eve. Adam shed his blood so that his bride could be brought forward, from the very beginning proclaiming Groom and Bride.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


What you're doing is called a red herring.

The red herring fallacy is almost as much an argumentation tactic as it is a logical fallacy. If it is used consciously it is definitely an argumentation tactic. However, red herring can also be quite unconscious. Sometimes when a person’s beliefs are deeply indoctrinated or their identity is dependent on said belief they may trigger this fallacy unconsciously.

If a person commits this consciously they are either deceptive or intellectually dishonest. If done unconsciously then we should feel pity for them and try to be as patient and compassionate as possible. Often times there is no hope of changing this persons mind in the current conversation. However we can try our best to lay the foundation for a true understanding of the fallacious nature of their idea or belief so that later they will have a better chance of fighting their own minds tricks.

Source

I believe you fall under the highlighted areas.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


The Christians being thrown to the lions and gladiators, or tortured to death was for God's glory. For every one that Rome martyred, 100 more converted. Their sacrifice fueled the fire for more conversions and then Rome stood up and took notice and was afraid as their armies were being overrun with Christians which was a direct threat to the empire, because our King is not Caesar.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Yet the bible states that rulers only bear the sword against wrongdoers. Read Romans 13:3-4.

Were those Christians doing something wrong by believing and spreading the truth? Because Paul implies that they were wrongdoers since the sword was brought down on them by the rulers.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Well yes, the Lord did warn them against asking for a flesh and blood king they could admire like the goyim (nations)had, yet they rejected the idea of having a spirit for a king. So he demonstrated "ask and you shall receive", he gave them what they wanted. However in their blindness they thought that king was Saul, it was not.

In order for the Lord to give them a King they could admire (worship) and it not be idolatry, he would have to give them himself for a King in the flesh, and Jesus Christ would enter the scene 1000+ years later, and they nailed their King to a cross. The King of Israel, is and always will be God.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Yet the bible states that rulers only bear the sword against wrongdoers. Read Romans 13:3-4.

Were those Christians doing something wrong by believing and spreading the truth? Because Paul implies that they were wrongdoers since the sword was brought down on them by the rulers.

Matthew 5:43-48

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

It rains on the just and the unjust alike. Why? For his glory.

Job 2:1-10

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. 2 And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?”

Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

3 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.”

4 So Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. 5 But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!”

6 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.”

7 So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. 8 And he took for himself a potsherd with which to scrape himself while he sat in the midst of the ashes.

9 Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!”

10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

So you see, all these bad things happened to Job for the Lord's glory. God allowed satan to test Job, and Job measured up and satan got to eat some crow pie. It rains on the just and the unjust alike, but will you shake your fist at God or will you glorify him instead? These are the lessons we are given in this life. Can you hold fast to your faith or will you cave in where the rubber meets the road?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Outstanding. More people should listen to these words.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

What you're doing is called a red herring.

The red herring fallacy is almost as much an argumentation tactic as it is a logical fallacy. If it is used consciously it is definitely an argumentation tactic. However, red herring can also be quite unconscious. Sometimes when a person’s beliefs are deeply indoctrinated or their identity is dependent on said belief they may trigger this fallacy unconsciously.

If a person commits this consciously they are either deceptive or intellectually dishonest. If done unconsciously then we should feel pity for them and try to be as patient and compassionate as possible. Often times there is no hope of changing this persons mind in the current conversation. However we can try our best to lay the foundation for a true understanding of the fallacious nature of their idea or belief so that later they will have a better chance of fighting their own minds tricks.

Source

I believe you fall under the highlighted areas.

Don't you have somewhere to rant? Rant in a mirror...

lonewolf19792000
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Well yes, the Lord did warn them against asking for a flesh and blood king they could admire like the goyim (nations)had, yet they rejected the idea of having a spirit for a king. So he demonstrated "ask and you shall receive", he gave them what they wanted. However in their blindness they thought that king was Saul, it was not.

In order for the Lord to give them a King they could admire (worship) and it not be idolatry, he would have to give them himself for a King in the flesh, and Jesus Christ would enter the scene 1000+ years later, and they nailed their King to a cross. The King of Israel, is and always will be God.

Well said...

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Again, good quotes. We bear a cup knowing our King has already conquered. The Ram is caught in the thorn bush placed on His head. Fire was in the middle of that bush.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Yet Paul says clearly that rulers do not bear the sword against those who are good. He says it clear as day, you are just choosing to ignore it. Denial.

If rulers don't bear the sword against those who do good (as Paul clearly says), then why did they persecute and kill thousands of Christians who spread and believed the truth? Is believing and spreading the truth a bad thing? Were the Roman rulers of the time bearing the sword against only wrongdoers as Paul clearly states as fact?

Were the Christians good or bad? If good, why were the rulers bearing their swords and killing them like Paul said they wouldn't?

You're using a red herring to avoid the issue.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


No ranting here, just pointing out a flaw in your theology.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

No ranting here, just pointing out a flaw in your theology.

If you want to discuss me, do it in the mirror.

Mirror

Discuss the subject in this thread.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

If you want to discuss me, do it in the mirror.

Discussing a "flaw in your theology" is not "discussing you", Ed. You know better than that. Your mirror thread itself is FULL of logical fallacy videos that describe exactly what you are doing.

You post your theology "for Dummies" and then shut the door to opposition. So very convinced that YOU, ALONE have a handle on the truth -- that you shut down and/or ignore others who dispute your convoluted (while intricate) knowledge and INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

Are we all just supposed to say, "Oh! Okay then!" ? What point is there in posting if you don't want discussion, but only more chances to "answer"/"school" us "Dummies" (as if we are mentally handicapped and need a sheltered workshop in order to be 'human') and spotlight your "flawless brilliance."

Give us a break. When, honestly, was the last time you let ANYONE on these forums teach YOU something?

reply to post by wildtimes


Exactly, thank you. Your point actually points toward something I posted at the top of this page about red herrings.

However, red herring can also be quite unconscious. Sometimes when a person’s beliefs are deeply indoctrinated or their identity is dependent on said belief they may trigger this fallacy unconsciously.

Classic case of unconscious denial on his part. He sees his theology as his identity, which means he would be throwing out part of his own identity if he threw out part of his theology.

He sees me "attacking" his theology as me attacking him personally, which is not the case at all. I think that line of thinking could be considered a straw man.

wildtimes
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

If you want to discuss me, do it in the mirror.

Discussing a "flaw in your theology" is not "discussing you", Ed. You know better than that. Your mirror thread itself is FULL of logical fallacy videos that describe exactly what you are doing.

You post your theology "for Dummies" and then shut the door to opposition. So very convinced that YOU, ALONE have a handle on the truth -- that you shut down and/or ignore others who dispute your convoluted (while intricate) knowledge and INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

Are we all just supposed to say, "Oh! Okay then!" ? What point is there in posting if you don't want discussion, but only more chances to "answer"/"school" us "Dummies" (as if we are mentally handicapped and need a sheltered workshop in order to be 'human') and spotlight your "flawless brilliance."

Give us a break. When, honestly, was the last time you let ANYONE on these forums teach YOU something?

edit on 11/3/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

The subject is Baptism and the Flood of Noah as symbolized by involution and evolution. You can speak to the subject or go to the mirror and rant away.

Mirror

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Exactly, thank you. Your point actually points toward something I posted at the top of this page about red herrings.

However, red herring can also be quite unconscious. Sometimes when a person’s beliefs are deeply indoctrinated or their identity is dependent on said belief they may trigger this fallacy unconsciously.

Classic case of unconscious denial on his part. He sees his theology as his identity, which means he would be throwing out part of his own identity if he threw out part of his theology.

He sees me "attacking" his theology as me attacking him personally, which is not the case at all. I think that line of thinking could be considered a straw man.

edit on 3-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

All the instances when you used 'his' and 'he' would be better served as a rant in the rant section. Here is the thread where you can scream in the mirror.

Mirror Mirror on the Wall...

reply to post by EnochWasRight


We aren't ranting. YOU are ranting...about how "right" you are about everything. We have the 'right' to dispute your theology. YOU presented it, presumably for others to read and interpret....YOUR "truth." If we disagree, you consider it "ranting."

News flash: if your idea gets shot down, that IS speaking to the topic. It is not an assault on YOU. It is on your ideas and your PRESENTATION.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


So let me get this straight. If you like what we have to say, you answer with actual substance. If you don't like what we have to say, then you hide behind your "mirror" thread which appears to have been posted specifically to thumb your nose at us while we fume behind the brick wall of ignorance you have erected as a shield.

This is quite literally a mockery of everything ATS stands for. I'm infuriated by the injustice.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


The only reason I mentioned "he" and "him" is because you somehow turned what I said about your theology into attacking you personally. You're the one that turned it into a discussion about you, not me.

I have discussed what you have asked. You are the one who asked us to provide scripture that could be denied, and once I did you assumed I was somehow attacking you personally. No, I am disputing the theology that you use to interpret the bible, it is flawed, that has nothing to do with you personally, so stop playing the victim here, you asked for it.