It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Romans 13 and Ephesians 6:12(Thanks to 3NL1GHT3ND1)
page: 5share:
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
So it had to be something else.
Most likely it goes along with what Jesus said to the Pharisees, that they had two lives, their public life where they looked all holy, and their private life, where they cheated their own parents out of support
So the iniquity that was committed by these people that Jesus said he didn't know, was not trying to be holy, it was being holy-looking while behind the scenes they were anything but holy.
Preaching and healing in Jesus' name is not lawlessness.
23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
So it had to be something else.
Most likely it goes along with what Jesus said to the Pharisees, that they had two lives, their public life where they looked all holy, and their private life, where they cheated their own parents out of support
So the iniquity that was committed by these people that Jesus said he didn't know, was not trying to be holy, it was being holy-looking while behind the scenes they were anything but holy.
The Bible never says not to do good works, or to not try to be good people.
What does Jesus say to these people who seek to work their way into heaven?
edit on 26-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by jmdewey60
Lets look at the verse above the quote to see why Paul quotes that verse.
"What then? Are we better than they? Not at all;"
Paul is making the Argument that Jews are not better than Gentiles, I agree, but he tells us why Jews are not better than Gentiles directly after that he says "for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;" He says they are not better than Gentiles because all are under sin. He quotes the OT to remind them that none is righteous and all are under sin. This quote is not presented as though he disagrees with it, but rather as evidence for his argument. You keep trying to make out like Paul disagrees with the words he quotes and that is not true.
The point of verse 19 is to really knock it all home. He says that everyone in the world is accountable to God(not just Jews), and "20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight;" You take this verse to mean that the Mosaic Law cannot make one righteous, but that is not what Paul means here. Sin is the disobedience of God's Law, so if a person could go there whole life without sinning then they could be justified through the law.
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for [j]through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
The point Paul is trying to get across here is not that following the Law cannot make one righteous, but rather that the fact no one can keep the Law their entire life without breaking it, so no one may ever be justified by the Law. This is how the knowledge that all men are sinners comes from the Law.
Your right Paul doesn't say people cannot be righteous, and nor do I. You have forgotten that the topic of this discussion was how Salvation is achieved. I agree that once one is born-again and saved from sin that God no longer views them as a sinner but as righteous people. However, Paul is trying to get people to understand why everyone needs a Savior, and he says that this knowledge comes through the Law(Romans 3:20). So I what I am trying to get you to understand is that before the acceptance of Christ none is righteous. Yes, I agree we can be made righteous through Christ, but that is not the topic of the discussion. The topic was how is Salvation achieved? I say Faith in Christ. Why do we need that Savior? Because before him, No one was righteous. Why can we now be made righteous? Because Christ atoned for our sins in our place.
I think for myself, and have my own opinions. I am will listen(or read) other opinions, but I am not going to listen to what someone else says Paul says. I am just going to read in the Bible what Paul said, and see what he meant.
"The Bible never says not to do good works, or to not try to be good people."
I didn't say that it did. I said that doing good works and being good to people does not earn you entrance to heaven.
You are removing the verse from its context and placing it with another part of the text without any means to justify doing so. Jesus was making a point here. Those who believe they are getting into the Kingdom of heaven because they have done good works will not get in. One will only get into Heaven because Jesus has atoned for their sins.
Note:Again I did not use Italics or anything of the sort....
Everything above verse 19 in your quote was Paul using Old Testament passages that show that the old written Mosaic Law doesn't make people righteous. Paul was making the argument that gentiles are not inferior to Jews, when it come to the Faith of Jesus. If the old written Mosaic Law was capable of making people righteous, then there would have been no need for Jesus to come and die.
Lets look at the verse above the quote to see why Paul quotes that verse.
"What then? Are we better than they? Not at all;"
Paul is making the Argument that Jews are not better than Gentiles, I agree, but he tells us why Jews are not better than Gentiles directly after that he says "for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;" He says they are not better than Gentiles because all are under sin. He quotes the OT to remind them that none is righteous and all are under sin. This quote is not presented as though he disagrees with it, but rather as evidence for his argument. You keep trying to make out like Paul disagrees with the words he quotes and that is not true.
The point of verse 19 is to really knock it all home. He says that everyone in the world is accountable to God(not just Jews), and "20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight;" You take this verse to mean that the Mosaic Law cannot make one righteous, but that is not what Paul means here. Sin is the disobedience of God's Law, so if a person could go there whole life without sinning then they could be justified through the law.
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for [j]through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
The point Paul is trying to get across here is not that following the Law cannot make one righteous, but rather that the fact no one can keep the Law their entire life without breaking it, so no one may ever be justified by the Law. This is how the knowledge that all men are sinners comes from the Law.
Paul never says that people cannot be righteous, it is just the righteousness that comes from believing in and following Christ.
Your right Paul doesn't say people cannot be righteous, and nor do I. You have forgotten that the topic of this discussion was how Salvation is achieved. I agree that once one is born-again and saved from sin that God no longer views them as a sinner but as righteous people. However, Paul is trying to get people to understand why everyone needs a Savior, and he says that this knowledge comes through the Law(Romans 3:20). So I what I am trying to get you to understand is that before the acceptance of Christ none is righteous. Yes, I agree we can be made righteous through Christ, but that is not the topic of the discussion. The topic was how is Salvation achieved? I say Faith in Christ. Why do we need that Savior? Because before him, No one was righteous. Why can we now be made righteous? Because Christ atoned for our sins in our place.
No, you have that wrong. Have you ever even looked a book, ever, about the New Testament or Paul's writings in particular, or Romans specifically?
I think for myself, and have my own opinions. I am will listen(or read) other opinions, but I am not going to listen to what someone else says Paul says. I am just going to read in the Bible what Paul said, and see what he meant.
"The Bible never says not to do good works, or to not try to be good people."
I didn't say that it did. I said that doing good works and being good to people does not earn you entrance to heaven.
Preaching and healing in Jesus' name is not lawlessness. So it had to be something else
You are removing the verse from its context and placing it with another part of the text without any means to justify doing so. Jesus was making a point here. Those who believe they are getting into the Kingdom of heaven because they have done good works will not get in. One will only get into Heaven because Jesus has atoned for their sins.
Note:Again I did not use Italics or anything of the sort....
edit on 26-2-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
The point is that this Law, that the Jews think proclaims them to be holy doesn't.
That is the source of their pride, that their having the Law makes them part of a holy people, and therefor automatically better than the gentiles.
Paul is not quoting the Old Testament to make the gentiles feel bad because they don't think the Law gives them a status to start with.
The point is that in the new covenant situation, where you have Christian converts from the pagans, and you have Christian converts from the Jews, one group is not starting out more holy than the other.
Everyone has the same holiness as being set apart from the sinful world and in the sanctity of the church.
He does not go on to say that, "Oh, and by the way, Christianity is no better than Judaism so you are all doomed to never being righteous".
The quotes Paul cites are from the Old Testament which here he is calling the Law.
He quotes the OT to remind them that none is righteous and all are under sin. This quote is not presented as though he disagrees with it, but rather as evidence for his argument. You keep trying to make out like Paul disagrees with the words he quotes and that is not true.
The point is that this Law, that the Jews think proclaims them to be holy doesn't.
That is the source of their pride, that their having the Law makes them part of a holy people, and therefor automatically better than the gentiles.
Paul is not quoting the Old Testament to make the gentiles feel bad because they don't think the Law gives them a status to start with.
The point is that in the new covenant situation, where you have Christian converts from the pagans, and you have Christian converts from the Jews, one group is not starting out more holy than the other.
Everyone has the same holiness as being set apart from the sinful world and in the sanctity of the church.
He does not go on to say that, "Oh, and by the way, Christianity is no better than Judaism so you are all doomed to never being righteous".
edit on 26-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
I think what you may be doing is ignoring the context and inventing your own definition of "law".
You could use reverse logic to say, if sin is the breaking of the law, then you can say that "law" is anything that going against would be sinful.
That might work in another context, in another discussion, but when dealing with this specific line of rhetoric by Paul, then you are reversing the points he is making by switching how he defines the terms of the argument.
This is the game of slight of hand that certain religionists perform to support their little cherished theories on salvation.
Elsewhere Paul talks about the Law of Faith, but not here.
In this particular discussion he is specifically talking about the old written Mosaic Law.
And the "works" would be circumcision, which was a big thing back then that distinguished between gentiles and Jews, that, along with eating kosher food, and not being too familiar with non-Jews, . . . etc.
"Works of the Law" here (and in other places) means following the dictates of the Old Testament.
The point of verse 19 is to really knock it all home. He says that everyone in the world is accountable to God(not just Jews), and "20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight;" You take this verse to mean that the Mosaic Law cannot make one righteous, but that is not what Paul means here. Sin is the disobedience of God's Law, so if a person could go there whole life without sinning then they could be justified through the law.
I think what you may be doing is ignoring the context and inventing your own definition of "law".
You could use reverse logic to say, if sin is the breaking of the law, then you can say that "law" is anything that going against would be sinful.
That might work in another context, in another discussion, but when dealing with this specific line of rhetoric by Paul, then you are reversing the points he is making by switching how he defines the terms of the argument.
This is the game of slight of hand that certain religionists perform to support their little cherished theories on salvation.
Elsewhere Paul talks about the Law of Faith, but not here.
In this particular discussion he is specifically talking about the old written Mosaic Law.
And the "works" would be circumcision, which was a big thing back then that distinguished between gentiles and Jews, that, along with eating kosher food, and not being too familiar with non-Jews, . . . etc.
edit on 26-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
So why would be go back on that earlier statement now?
Answer: he doesn't, because he knows from experience that keeping the Law perfectly does not make you a fully righteous (as in, godly) person.
Being circumcised does not make you better than someone who isn't.
The idea is to abandon the old written Mosaic Law in favor of following Jesus.
Paul said he gave up that legal perfection for a better righteousness.
He says that for the gentiles he made himself a gentile.
This entire chapter of Romans is built on the question of why the gentiles were not judged for so long, while the Jews, who ostensibly at least had the Law, were punished.
I interpret that by the situation which existed, where first Israel was devastated by the Assyrians, then Judea likewise treated by the Babylonians, then the pagan Romans were lording it over the current province of Judea, rather than it being its own independent kingdom.
The question is raised that, given the circumstances, how could God be fair?
So this part we are discussing comes after Paul's answer that the gentiles were saved for the opportunity that has now presented itself to be saved by their faith in Jesus, rather than that system that is under the old written Mosaic Law.
The book is, after all, called Romans, so Paul is giving the Romans something here, in the face of being treated as second class by the Jewish Christians.
Now at some point down the road, you might think that you are still in the church, for one reason or another, like that you actually attend your local congregation, but you may actually not be.
God sees the church as a thing set apart for holiness, but if a person isn't, and is committing sins, then rather than God ignoring him and pretending like everything is OK, God is going to not include that person as a member of that group.
That is how I understand it from my reading of the Bible.
You have probably another understanding that comes from theology loosely based on the Bible.
Things like imputed righteousness, where someone not really righteous is recognized as righteous by edict.
That may seem appealing to some people but it isn't strictly speaking a biblical teaching.
That is a theological theory, and not the Bible.
The doctors of the Law, and the high priests condemned Jesus to death as a law breaker.
Jesus took that punishment and the guilt associated with it, but then was vindicated by God Himself at the resurrection.
That was our redemption, that we can claim, to be free from that old written Mosaic Law.
Some of the older translations go along with Martin Luther's, that the word for propitiation in Romans 3:5 should be "Mercy Seat".
According to that understanding, then, it is saying that God presented Jesus as the real place for reconciliation between God and man, where in the old written Mosaic Law, it was in a tabernacle and attended to by a high priest on the Day of Atonement.
The old symbolic Mercy Seat was only accessible to the Jews by representation, but the true Mercy Seat is now accessible to all, including gentiles.
You are wrong because Paul says in another letter that according to Law, he was blameless.
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for [j]through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
The point Paul is trying to get across here is not that following the Law cannot make one righteous, but rather that the fact no one can keep the Law their entire life without breaking it, so no one may ever be justified by the Law. This is how the knowledge that all men are sinners comes from the Law.
So why would be go back on that earlier statement now?
Answer: he doesn't, because he knows from experience that keeping the Law perfectly does not make you a fully righteous (as in, godly) person.
Being circumcised does not make you better than someone who isn't.
The idea is to abandon the old written Mosaic Law in favor of following Jesus.
Paul said he gave up that legal perfection for a better righteousness.
He says that for the gentiles he made himself a gentile.
This entire chapter of Romans is built on the question of why the gentiles were not judged for so long, while the Jews, who ostensibly at least had the Law, were punished.
I interpret that by the situation which existed, where first Israel was devastated by the Assyrians, then Judea likewise treated by the Babylonians, then the pagan Romans were lording it over the current province of Judea, rather than it being its own independent kingdom.
The question is raised that, given the circumstances, how could God be fair?
So this part we are discussing comes after Paul's answer that the gentiles were saved for the opportunity that has now presented itself to be saved by their faith in Jesus, rather than that system that is under the old written Mosaic Law.
The book is, after all, called Romans, so Paul is giving the Romans something here, in the face of being treated as second class by the Jewish Christians.
You join the church through repentance and baptism. The church itself is sanctified.
I agree that once one is born-again and saved from sin that God no longer views them as a sinner but as righteous people.
Now at some point down the road, you might think that you are still in the church, for one reason or another, like that you actually attend your local congregation, but you may actually not be.
God sees the church as a thing set apart for holiness, but if a person isn't, and is committing sins, then rather than God ignoring him and pretending like everything is OK, God is going to not include that person as a member of that group.
That is how I understand it from my reading of the Bible.
You have probably another understanding that comes from theology loosely based on the Bible.
Things like imputed righteousness, where someone not really righteous is recognized as righteous by edict.
That may seem appealing to some people but it isn't strictly speaking a biblical teaching.
This is assuming that what makes a person not righteous is an accumulation of sin guilt that has to be paid for through punishment, and if someone, like Jesus, takes enough punishment, then that leaves the person righteous.
Why can we now be made righteous? Because Christ atoned for our sins in our place.
That is a theological theory, and not the Bible.
The doctors of the Law, and the high priests condemned Jesus to death as a law breaker.
Jesus took that punishment and the guilt associated with it, but then was vindicated by God Himself at the resurrection.
That was our redemption, that we can claim, to be free from that old written Mosaic Law.
Some of the older translations go along with Martin Luther's, that the word for propitiation in Romans 3:5 should be "Mercy Seat".
According to that understanding, then, it is saying that God presented Jesus as the real place for reconciliation between God and man, where in the old written Mosaic Law, it was in a tabernacle and attended to by a high priest on the Day of Atonement.
The old symbolic Mercy Seat was only accessible to the Jews by representation, but the true Mercy Seat is now accessible to all, including gentiles.
edit on 26-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
My point is that it is a pretty basic understanding, and it is actually written out for you in some Bibles, where they put in section headings, that explain that Paul was giving examples of people who were righteous before the was the Mosaic Law.
I can find a place that says the opposite.
Matthew 10:42
And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward."
(2011 NIV)
Matthew 5:7-8
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
(2011 NIV)
Luke 6:35
But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked
(2011 NIV)
Luke 14:
12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
(2011 NIV)
There are some very wise people who have spent a lifetime studying Paul and the Cook of Romans, and there is quite a bit of accumulated knowledge on the subject.
I think for myself, and have my own opinions. I am will listen(or read) other opinions, but I am not going to listen to what someone else says Paul says. I am just going to read in the Bible what Paul said, and see what he meant.
My point is that it is a pretty basic understanding, and it is actually written out for you in some Bibles, where they put in section headings, that explain that Paul was giving examples of people who were righteous before the was the Mosaic Law.
Can you find a place in the Bible that says that?
I said that doing good works and being good to people does not earn you entrance to heaven.
I can find a place that says the opposite.
Matthew 10:42
And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward."
(2011 NIV)
Matthew 5:7-8
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
(2011 NIV)
Luke 6:35
But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked
(2011 NIV)
Luke 14:
12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
(2011 NIV)
edit on 26-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
So where is it in the Bible that it talks about Jesus atoning for sins?
I don't think that doing a "good" thing makes up for doing a "bad thing", as if you can go on being a wicked person as long as you donate to a charity.
You are removing the verse from its context and placing it with another part of the text without any means to justify doing so. Jesus was making a point here. Those who believe they are getting into the Kingdom of heaven because they have done good works will not get in. One will only get into Heaven because Jesus has atoned for their sins.
So where is it in the Bible that it talks about Jesus atoning for sins?
Did you report it to the mods that someone hacked into the server and put underlining in half your post?
Note:Again I did not use Italics or anything of the sort....
edit on 26-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
Text He is the Creator of all things, invisible and visible (Colossians 1:16). Logically, we must conclude that God has a hand in the creation of evil, but I believe it is more correct to say that God created the potential for evil. It is also interesting to note, that Colossians not only says that all things are made by him, but for him. This means that that potential for evil must serve some kind of purpose for him.
According to Isaiah 45:7 evil is created by God but evil was not created by God in malice. Evil was created to show opposites. Without showing opposites the creation would remain in a zombie state. How could God tell His creation to be righteous if the creation did not know what righteousness meant? So actually evil (unrighteousness) is the opposite of good (righteousness). You must have this shown in order to have freedom of will or choice. The purpose of this is to show that love is opposite of hate and that love is righteousness and hate is unrighteousness. This is called knowledge and wisdom is the child of knowledge.
Lucifer and his cohorts embraced this spirit of disobedience while in the celestial estate and was cast out of the celestial estate and down to this earth into hell where he is this very day. (2nd Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6 and Isaiah 14:12-15) A Satan is one of many spirits who are against God while an antichrist is one of many terrestrial humans who are also against God. Lucifer was a Satan but is now in hell but there are other Satan's who afflict the world.
If Lucifer and cohorts are in hell then who tempted Jesus? A demon is also a Satan and it was a demon who tempted Christ Jesus. Then demons are not fallen angels as so many are taught. The fall of Lucifer and his cohorts is not the same as the angels who took the wives of men and produced a race of giants. These are two separate events. In the days of Enosh (not Enoch) is when a group of about 200 angels came down to Mt. Herman and took mortal wives. After hundreds of years of this procreation it produced the giants of the bible. These giants were not angels nor the sons of Adam and they perished in the flood of Noah. The spirits of these giants are the demons who find no rest upon this earth and afflict men. The angels that produced these giants are also imprisoned in the earth in various punishments and are not free to roam this earth.
By this it is taught that there are no fallen angels that afflict men but there are demons (Satan's) that afflict men and it is this affliction which is referenced as the Satan's of the bible. In the end time these angels (Book of Revelation) will be released from the bottomless pit to afflict the earth and then be destroyed in the lake of fire. This is why the bible tells us that an antichrist (human) will be the ruler at the end time. It distinguishes the difference between a Satan spirit and a Antichrist human.
reply to post by Seede
I agree and disagree with certain points you made, but great post thanks for the thoughts! Also you say the Anti-Christ is just Human, but do you believe he will be indwelled at the 3.5 year mark of the Tribulation?
I agree and disagree with certain points you made, but great post thanks for the thoughts! Also you say the Anti-Christ is just Human, but do you believe he will be indwelled at the 3.5 year mark of the Tribulation?
reply to post by Seede
That is an interesting point of view you have. I agree about the creation of evil, but could you back up your claims that Lucifer is currently in hell, and that demons are not fallen angels?
The way I see it, the Lucifer Rebelion ocurred long before man was created. The Fallen Angels that currently occupy Hell are the ones that took antediluvian human wives. I dont believe Lucifer was foolish enough to take part in the antediluvian hybridization. Instead, he was probably testing God to see what His response would be.
I believe that Lucifer executed a rebellion with the backing of 1/3rd if the entire angelic population (however many that is). While the antediluvian instigators are in hell now, a great many Fallen Angels/demons are still around.
I think Nimrod is the antichrist as Lucifer's post-diluvian progeny, and he is also known as Apollyon. Why else would the Beast and Apollyon share the symbol of the 7 headed dragon (the 1st of 7 kings who will be the 8th)? One account reveals his human nature (number of a man) while the other account reveals his angelic nature (angel of the abyss). The antichrist and Apollyon are one in the same.
That is an interesting point of view you have. I agree about the creation of evil, but could you back up your claims that Lucifer is currently in hell, and that demons are not fallen angels?
The way I see it, the Lucifer Rebelion ocurred long before man was created. The Fallen Angels that currently occupy Hell are the ones that took antediluvian human wives. I dont believe Lucifer was foolish enough to take part in the antediluvian hybridization. Instead, he was probably testing God to see what His response would be.
I believe that Lucifer executed a rebellion with the backing of 1/3rd if the entire angelic population (however many that is). While the antediluvian instigators are in hell now, a great many Fallen Angels/demons are still around.
I think Nimrod is the antichrist as Lucifer's post-diluvian progeny, and he is also known as Apollyon. Why else would the Beast and Apollyon share the symbol of the 7 headed dragon (the 1st of 7 kings who will be the 8th)? One account reveals his human nature (number of a man) while the other account reveals his angelic nature (angel of the abyss). The antichrist and Apollyon are one in the same.
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
Text That is an interesting point of view you have. I agree about the creation of evil, but could you back up your claims that Lucifer is currently in hell, and that demons are not fallen angels?
Yes I can according to the 1611 KJV bible. That is not saying that all bibles will agree with the 1611 KJV.
Naturally we are discussing theology and the natural sciences are not involved in this bible based theology.
To be fair in this matter I do admit that the Jewish Tanakh does not recognize any sort of Lucifer or disobedient angelic creation so my discussion is the modern Christian understanding. Orthodoxy denies that angels can or ever have sinned. My choice of scripture is the 1611 KJV bible and has been since a child.
Now along with the KJV, I also use the books of Enoch translated by Dr.R.H. Charlesworth. The reason being that Enoch was also found along with Isaiah among the Dead Sea scrolls and the fact that our early church fathers used Enoch among their teaching scriptures. Now with that said I can offer no physical proof for my theology simply because theology can never have proof. If it had proof it then would move into factual literature.
Lucifer is mentioned only once in most bibles and that would be in the books of Isaiah. Some scholars insist that Isaiah has more than one author and while this may have some evidence I refer to the book of Isaiah as belonging to this prophet named Isaiah.
Isaiah 14:12-19
12 - How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 - For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 -I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 - Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 -They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17 - That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
18 - All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
19 - But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
Now Lucifer was cast out of heaven and into this earth according to Revelation 12:7-9 and this was before the creation of Adam. Why should I believe that? Sin was embraced by the serpent (who was a beast in Gan Eden) and tempted Eve but the serpent was a creation before Adam and it was the serpent who embraced this evil (assumed ) from Lucifer. Actually the spirit of disobedience was embraced in heaven by Lucifer and Lucifer introduced this evil to the world’s creation. (Anthology)
The big question is when was Lucifer and his cohorts cast into hell?
Luke 10:18
"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven".
In this account Satan is not named as Lucifer but it is assumed that Jesus is describing the Satan called Lucifer.
2nd Peter tells us –
2Peter 2:4 "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;"
According to scripture Lucifer and his cohorts were not physically involved in Adam and Eve embracing this spirit of disobedience. It was definitely a beast which was called serpent and the beast was punished for his sin. God would not have punished the serpent for a sin of another entity. There is no mention that Lucifer was present in this act whatsoever but I assume that the beast was a terrestrial creature and Lucifer was a celestial creature and that it was the act of the terrestrial creature who actually sinned So what does this mean to me? It means that Peter agrees with Moses in this account. Peter says that Lucifer is in hell and Moses does not mention Lucifer in the garden, so I assume that Lucifer and cohorts are in hell at the time that Eve sinned. However it does not dispel the legends that Lucifer was the progenitor of sin to this world. What it does mean is that the serpent embraced this very same spirit of disobedience that Lucifer had embraced. At this time, in the garden, Lucifer is in hell with his cohorts.
If I am correct, before man procreated, Lucifer and his cohorts are in hell and could not be the same as the angels who took wives in the days of Enosh. The days of Enosh were 235 to 1140 after Adam which would be 3526 to 2621 BCE. Enosh was said to be the one who introduced idolatry in the world and that in this day is when the earth was one third engulfed in water. He lived 905 years and it is not certain exactly which year it was that the angels came to Mt. Herman and took wives. But according to this report it was at the very least 905 years after the garden episode with Adam and Eve. In my mind I am led to believe that a thousand years after Adam is fair to assume.
R.H. Charlesworth – “The old Testament Pseudepigrapha” 1 Enoch, Book1, 15:8-12 explains this from the Dead Sea scrolls and I believe from cave number four.
Quoting R.H. Charlesworth-
"And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die (5) and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget (6) children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly (7) spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. (8) And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon (9) the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; (10) they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. [As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but nevertheless (12) hunger and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from them."
According to this teaching, the reason that the giants were to be the Satan’s of this earth is because they were not sons of Adam nor creation of God. The creation of God was contained in a department of Sheol and the angelic sinners were also contained in another department of Sheol. These giants were neither of God’s creation and were condemned to exist without a place of rest.
Where are these angels who took the daughters of men? As you read the book of Enoch you will understand that these that took wives are to this day punished in containment till the end of this world where they will be consumed with the everlasting ethereal fires.
By my understanding Lucifer and cohorts were cast into hell before the creation of man. The 200 angels who took the women of men were at least 1,000 years later and in the days of Enosh. The 1611 KJV bible tells both stories if understood in context. You can download the book of 1 Enoch and perhaps enjoy the read.
Regardless of what modern teachers teach, the ancient teachers of the first century church of Jerusalem taught from Torah and Enoch
and at a later time the doctrine of Christ Jesus.
God Bless
reply to post by Seede
First, I must commend you on your research and data. That is the most logical theological theory I have read on ATS in a very long while. I will have to re-read your reply before I can address each issue, but this is my present respnse:
My translation of choice is the New American Standard. While there may be better translations, it is my choice. As a member of the Church, I study under the authority of a Pastor-teacher. This Pastor (R.B.Thieme) is a Hebrew and Greek scholar. While his theology is inevitably flawed, what I have learened from him is that the translations including KJV can not fully express all of God's word.
The truth is that the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are metered. By "metered", I mean that they express a numerical pattern in there syllables....like a song. The various psuedopigrapha are not metered.
For more on the meter, look here:
www.brainout.net...
This meter allows us to reconstruct a timeline from Adam's fall. Currently, we are 6122 years from the Fall. Since the Gen 5 registry is a documentation of God's followers (as opposed to the Gen 4 registry) I disagree with the idea that Enosh introduced idolatry into the world.
While the Book of Enoch is interesting and quoted in the Bible, I believe its integrity is compromised. As stated before, it wasnt metered, so it shouldnt be cannonized in scripture. The fact that the Hebrews practiced an oral tradition can account for the fragments of truth found in the adultered Book of Enoch.
I think the snake (serpent) of Eden was condemned for allowing Lucifer to possess him, the same way Lucifer possessed the earthly king mentioned in Isaiah.
We must remember that " Lucifer" is more of a title than a name. The "Son of dawn" or "shining one" to be specific. Morning Star would also suffice. Therefore, Lucifer is only a proper name in the translations. As Christians, we are called "Morning Stars" in the 7 Letters of Revelation.
With the psuedopigrapha excluded, I believe scripture identifies demons as fallen angels (the fallen "bene ha elohim), as I outlined before.
First, I must commend you on your research and data. That is the most logical theological theory I have read on ATS in a very long while. I will have to re-read your reply before I can address each issue, but this is my present respnse:
My translation of choice is the New American Standard. While there may be better translations, it is my choice. As a member of the Church, I study under the authority of a Pastor-teacher. This Pastor (R.B.Thieme) is a Hebrew and Greek scholar. While his theology is inevitably flawed, what I have learened from him is that the translations including KJV can not fully express all of God's word.
The truth is that the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are metered. By "metered", I mean that they express a numerical pattern in there syllables....like a song. The various psuedopigrapha are not metered.
For more on the meter, look here:
www.brainout.net...
This meter allows us to reconstruct a timeline from Adam's fall. Currently, we are 6122 years from the Fall. Since the Gen 5 registry is a documentation of God's followers (as opposed to the Gen 4 registry) I disagree with the idea that Enosh introduced idolatry into the world.
While the Book of Enoch is interesting and quoted in the Bible, I believe its integrity is compromised. As stated before, it wasnt metered, so it shouldnt be cannonized in scripture. The fact that the Hebrews practiced an oral tradition can account for the fragments of truth found in the adultered Book of Enoch.
I think the snake (serpent) of Eden was condemned for allowing Lucifer to possess him, the same way Lucifer possessed the earthly king mentioned in Isaiah.
We must remember that " Lucifer" is more of a title than a name. The "Son of dawn" or "shining one" to be specific. Morning Star would also suffice. Therefore, Lucifer is only a proper name in the translations. As Christians, we are called "Morning Stars" in the 7 Letters of Revelation.
With the psuedopigrapha excluded, I believe scripture identifies demons as fallen angels (the fallen "bene ha elohim), as I outlined before.
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
text - do you believe he will be indwelled at the 3.5 year mark of the Tribulation?
According to my own understanding that is a very loaded question and hotly debated among the Christian schools of teachings. My understanding is as follows but understand that this is only my own understanding.
Jacob’s trouble is known to most Christians as The Great Tribulation. There are two resurrections listed according to John in his book of Revelation but you must remember that when John wrote his Revelation from Jesus that the very first resurrection had already happened. That resurrection was at the death of Jesus when He was in the heart of this earth for three days and three nights and led the captives of Sheol out of the terrestrial earth and into the Celestial New Jerusalem. These were actually the very first to receive a new celestial body and a white stone with their names written upon their stone.
At this point when Jesus revealed the book of Revelation to John, there were to be two more resurrections before the end of the universe. The first of these future resurrections was the preparation for the Second Advent of “The Word Of God” which is identified as the reincarnated Christ Jesus. As the Christ Jesus returns to this earth to become the representative of God, He sets up a government of perfection with force but it is just before His advent that this first resurrection occurs.
This first resurrection is the one in which Jacobs Trouble or The Great Tribulation occurs and should not be confused with rabbinic doctrine. As you study the new testament you must be mindful of separation of rabbinic doctrine and the doctrine of Jesus. They are intermingled simply because this was a transition period from the understanding of the apostles. The apostles and disciples were not clear in every aspect of what Jesus taught. This is verified as John reveals the Revelation to him from Jesus. This was then given to the world long after Jesus died and yet John walked, talked and ate with the Christ Jesus.
Prior to this first resurrection is a time period when these events unfold and some will believe that this period will be seven years of a great tribulation. At the onset of this tribulation the accepted world authority will be a man who is greatly admired and hailed as a god. Then at about midway into this tribulation he shall be revealed as the antichrist of the Father God. By then it will too late to overthrow this antichrist and he will reign with terror and devastation.
It is at the end of this period that God ordains “The Word Of God” (Jesus) to bind and slaughter the kingdom of this antichrist but first take out His own people in this first resurrection. This means that while the entire world is in a chaotic state with earth quakes and floods of destruction and the wrath of Gods outpouring that Jesus takes out His own chosen righteous people. This could be looked at by the world as people simply being killed by the thousands or millions by the earthquakes and famines and draughts and disease’s or by other natural means. What I mean by that is that the world may look at the gathering in this manner. They may not be aware a gathering has occurred.
Now there is a lot of disagreement as to whether this gathering (resurrection) occurs before the great tribulation or during the great tribulation. I tend to agree that the righteous will live through the tribulation till the gathering (resurrection). My own personal belief is that this gathering will not take place before the tribulation but that the righteous will have to suffer the tribulation as well as the unrighteous. The reason I do believe this is that John tells us that there are some who will not take the mark of the beast and that are some who will take the mark of the beast and by this I am led to believe that those who do not take the mark of the beast are those who suffer death as the result of this refusing to accept the antichrist. Now as you can see, there are many different opinions in this regard. The book of Revelation is the most debated pieces of literature in the bible and quite frankly I believe the most misunderstood even by myself.
Now after this first resurrection occurs and Jesus sets up His government for the one thousand years reign, the world is emptied of righteous people. Or at least it is emptied for a time. Then as the unrighteous are governed and some become Christians and live and die in the same manner as before the first resurrection, this becomes a glorious 1st class civilization.
At the end of this one thousand years of Jesus’ reign, hell will be opened and those in hell will come up from the bottomless pit to once again influence the world and overcome the kingdom of Christ. This is allowed by God to show that the Christ Jesus is righteous as the Christ and that the spirits of hell are still the same evil that was before the garden. They never change and are deceived into believing that they can overcome their Creator. With that last effort they influence mankind once more and wage war against the kingdom of Christ. God then brings into play the last resurrection (gathering) and the righteous are gathered. Then the end of the human creation unfolds.
The entire universe is destroyed and the creation of this universe has come to the end. The entire world of humans now stand in judgment at this final gathering. Hell has already been judged and is now cast into the lake of fire. Those of the other gatherings will not stand in judgment but the rest of those who were alive as this last gathering occurs will stand before the white throne seat of Christ and each will be judged.
So your question is do I believe that this antichrist will be revealed and empowered before the tribulation starts or at the middle (31/2) years of the tribulation. I believe that the antichrist will be empowered before the tribulation starts (as the earthly New Jerusalem Temple is built) but that he will not be revealed for what he truly is till the mid tribulation. He will deceive almost the entire world except for some of the righteous that will see him as he truly is.
This is a hot topic and is really unsolvable to us at the present and I could very well be wrong. What is you take on this? I am not dogmatic and am always open to other points of view. That is how I learn. ---- God Bless
According to my own understanding that is a very loaded question and hotly debated among the Christian schools of teachings. My understanding is as follows but understand that this is only my own understanding.
Jacob’s trouble is known to most Christians as The Great Tribulation. There are two resurrections listed according to John in his book of Revelation but you must remember that when John wrote his Revelation from Jesus that the very first resurrection had already happened. That resurrection was at the death of Jesus when He was in the heart of this earth for three days and three nights and led the captives of Sheol out of the terrestrial earth and into the Celestial New Jerusalem. These were actually the very first to receive a new celestial body and a white stone with their names written upon their stone.
At this point when Jesus revealed the book of Revelation to John, there were to be two more resurrections before the end of the universe. The first of these future resurrections was the preparation for the Second Advent of “The Word Of God” which is identified as the reincarnated Christ Jesus. As the Christ Jesus returns to this earth to become the representative of God, He sets up a government of perfection with force but it is just before His advent that this first resurrection occurs.
This first resurrection is the one in which Jacobs Trouble or The Great Tribulation occurs and should not be confused with rabbinic doctrine. As you study the new testament you must be mindful of separation of rabbinic doctrine and the doctrine of Jesus. They are intermingled simply because this was a transition period from the understanding of the apostles. The apostles and disciples were not clear in every aspect of what Jesus taught. This is verified as John reveals the Revelation to him from Jesus. This was then given to the world long after Jesus died and yet John walked, talked and ate with the Christ Jesus.
Prior to this first resurrection is a time period when these events unfold and some will believe that this period will be seven years of a great tribulation. At the onset of this tribulation the accepted world authority will be a man who is greatly admired and hailed as a god. Then at about midway into this tribulation he shall be revealed as the antichrist of the Father God. By then it will too late to overthrow this antichrist and he will reign with terror and devastation.
It is at the end of this period that God ordains “The Word Of God” (Jesus) to bind and slaughter the kingdom of this antichrist but first take out His own people in this first resurrection. This means that while the entire world is in a chaotic state with earth quakes and floods of destruction and the wrath of Gods outpouring that Jesus takes out His own chosen righteous people. This could be looked at by the world as people simply being killed by the thousands or millions by the earthquakes and famines and draughts and disease’s or by other natural means. What I mean by that is that the world may look at the gathering in this manner. They may not be aware a gathering has occurred.
Now there is a lot of disagreement as to whether this gathering (resurrection) occurs before the great tribulation or during the great tribulation. I tend to agree that the righteous will live through the tribulation till the gathering (resurrection). My own personal belief is that this gathering will not take place before the tribulation but that the righteous will have to suffer the tribulation as well as the unrighteous. The reason I do believe this is that John tells us that there are some who will not take the mark of the beast and that are some who will take the mark of the beast and by this I am led to believe that those who do not take the mark of the beast are those who suffer death as the result of this refusing to accept the antichrist. Now as you can see, there are many different opinions in this regard. The book of Revelation is the most debated pieces of literature in the bible and quite frankly I believe the most misunderstood even by myself.
Now after this first resurrection occurs and Jesus sets up His government for the one thousand years reign, the world is emptied of righteous people. Or at least it is emptied for a time. Then as the unrighteous are governed and some become Christians and live and die in the same manner as before the first resurrection, this becomes a glorious 1st class civilization.
At the end of this one thousand years of Jesus’ reign, hell will be opened and those in hell will come up from the bottomless pit to once again influence the world and overcome the kingdom of Christ. This is allowed by God to show that the Christ Jesus is righteous as the Christ and that the spirits of hell are still the same evil that was before the garden. They never change and are deceived into believing that they can overcome their Creator. With that last effort they influence mankind once more and wage war against the kingdom of Christ. God then brings into play the last resurrection (gathering) and the righteous are gathered. Then the end of the human creation unfolds.
The entire universe is destroyed and the creation of this universe has come to the end. The entire world of humans now stand in judgment at this final gathering. Hell has already been judged and is now cast into the lake of fire. Those of the other gatherings will not stand in judgment but the rest of those who were alive as this last gathering occurs will stand before the white throne seat of Christ and each will be judged.
So your question is do I believe that this antichrist will be revealed and empowered before the tribulation starts or at the middle (31/2) years of the tribulation. I believe that the antichrist will be empowered before the tribulation starts (as the earthly New Jerusalem Temple is built) but that he will not be revealed for what he truly is till the mid tribulation. He will deceive almost the entire world except for some of the righteous that will see him as he truly is.
This is a hot topic and is really unsolvable to us at the present and I could very well be wrong. What is you take on this? I am not dogmatic and am always open to other points of view. That is how I learn. ---- God Bless
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
Text While the Book of Enoch is interesting and quoted in the Bible, I believe its integrity is compromised. As stated before, it wasnt metered, so it shouldnt be cannonized in scripture. The fact that the Hebrews practiced an oral tradition can account for the fragments of truth found in the adultered Book of Enoch.
BELIEVERpriest
I am pleased to hear from you. You are very fortunate to have a pastor, teacher who is a linguist.
I am not Jewish but lived with a Christian Jewish family in my youth and studied under a Jewish Rabbi Nicholsen. By this I am sure that you will understand our differences in religion.
There is a great difference in choosing a bible and the only reason that I identify myself is so that we can always reference each other. This way we can all be on the same page. I appreciate your telling me that you use the American Standard rendition. I will use the same in our discussion.
I am from Orthodoxy and not Conservative nor Reformed Judaic Structure so what I embrace may be different from that of your teacher. In my understanding, today is Adar 30, 5774. By this we do not agree with metering. We also use the Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia along with the Babylonian Talmud. Most of my studies were in the Jerusalem Church era from the death of Christ Jesus to about 135 CE. We did not accept the Roman organized organizations as being authentic. We understand the Church of Jesus to be the Jerusalem church which was entirely Aramaic and Hebrew liturgy. I suspect that your teacher will not agree but that is my stand in my religious understanding. By this you have a better picture of me.
Now as you have said that through your metering you do not accept 1st Enoch with any authority simply because it was not canonized in organized religion. You now understand our differences in Christianity. Christianity has many faces and many roots. The Ethiopian 1 Enoch is the only authentic version of Enoch to exist and is deeply revered by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Enochic texts of Jubilees and 1 Enoch are regarded as the 13th and 14th of their Tewahedo Old Testament. The Catholic, Greek and Protestant organized religions do not accept 1 Enoch. This should show you exactly as I had said in regards of my not accepting the Roman organized religions.
Some of the early church Christian fathers did regard 1 Enoch as authentic even though not canonized. Jerome, Origen and Augustin have mentioned 1 Enoch in their writings. Justin, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Lactantius and some others have opined from 1 Enoch many times. Then we have Tertullian who has written several times in great esteem of the book of 1 Enoch. This and many others have quoted many sermons from the Ethiopian book of 1 Enoch. This shows us that the writing of this book which dates to about 3 BCE is in fact a tool of great knowledge in whoever will choose to use it.
Now I am not about to challenge any church authority but only to show the differences of our acceptance of literature. To me 1 Enoch completes the Genesis account in my understanding. I accept the fact that many other people do not accept any teachings other than their organized religions dictate. That is their prerogative with no ill will towards them.
I do see that the ASV bible does agree with the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) insofar as to omit “Lucifer” and use the words “Day Star.” I believe I made that point in my first post. Yes, you are correct in that the name Lucifer is a Latin misnomer or believed to be by many scholars but I cannot change the KJV rendition and when I read the name Lucifer I always associate that entity as an entity which has fallen from the grace of God.
How are we told that this Lucifer and his cohorts are in hell?
ASV – 2nd Peter 2:4 - For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
KJV – 2nd Peter 2:4 - For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Actually I see no major conflicts in the entirety between these two translations.
You stated that demons were fallen angels and yet you read that the angels that sinned are imprisoned till the great judgment. How can fallen angels be the afflicting demons that are present upon this earth today? Do you imply that they have the freedom to come and go as they please? Could you please clarify this?
God Bless
reply to post by Seede
Thank you for your reply. There are portions and prophecies that I accept to be true from 1Enoch, I just question its authenticity as a whole. Nevertheless, it should not be ignored.
To clarify, I use the 'New American Stantard' as opposed to the very Catholic 'American Standard'. Either way, I feel KJV is equally sufficient.
I believe the sin cited in 2Peter 2:4 had to do with a group of fallen angels that commited sexual sins with humans.
2Peter 2:4-6 KJV
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
The connection between Antediluvia and Sodom and Gomorrah was the desire to commit sexual sins with angels. Jude confirms this.
Jude 1:6&7 KJV
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Gen 6:4 KJV
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Genesis 6 tells the story of the nephillim being on the Earth both before and after the Flood. If the nephillim are the progeny of fallen angels, then how could all of the fallen angels be locked up in Hell if there were nephillim on the Earth after the fact. I dont believe anyone on the ark carried angelic genes.
Isaiah 14 on the other hand, shows that Lucifer's sin was one of rebellion, not of a sexual nature.
Isaiah 14:12-16 KJV
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms
Isaiah 14:15 has yet to be fulfilled. Lucifer is still decieving the nations. The angels that commited the Antediluvian sins are locked in Hell until the Last Judgement. The only angel that rises from the pit in revelation is an angel-man. Apollyon is a nephillim king.
In Rev 20, Lucifer is being locked up in the Bottomless pit for his first time, for decieving the nations. I believe he will also be going there for fathering Apollyon, but this sexual sin would be a post-diluvian sin, not an antediluvian one.
Rev 20:1-3 KJV
And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
You see, Revelation 20:1-3 fulfills Isaiah 14:15.
Second Peter doesnt say how many angels sinned with women, it just states that the ones that did were locked away.
Thank you for your reply. There are portions and prophecies that I accept to be true from 1Enoch, I just question its authenticity as a whole. Nevertheless, it should not be ignored.
To clarify, I use the 'New American Stantard' as opposed to the very Catholic 'American Standard'. Either way, I feel KJV is equally sufficient.
I believe the sin cited in 2Peter 2:4 had to do with a group of fallen angels that commited sexual sins with humans.
2Peter 2:4-6 KJV
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
The connection between Antediluvia and Sodom and Gomorrah was the desire to commit sexual sins with angels. Jude confirms this.
Jude 1:6&7 KJV
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Gen 6:4 KJV
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Genesis 6 tells the story of the nephillim being on the Earth both before and after the Flood. If the nephillim are the progeny of fallen angels, then how could all of the fallen angels be locked up in Hell if there were nephillim on the Earth after the fact. I dont believe anyone on the ark carried angelic genes.
Isaiah 14 on the other hand, shows that Lucifer's sin was one of rebellion, not of a sexual nature.
Isaiah 14:12-16 KJV
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms
Isaiah 14:15 has yet to be fulfilled. Lucifer is still decieving the nations. The angels that commited the Antediluvian sins are locked in Hell until the Last Judgement. The only angel that rises from the pit in revelation is an angel-man. Apollyon is a nephillim king.
In Rev 20, Lucifer is being locked up in the Bottomless pit for his first time, for decieving the nations. I believe he will also be going there for fathering Apollyon, but this sexual sin would be a post-diluvian sin, not an antediluvian one.
Rev 20:1-3 KJV
And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
You see, Revelation 20:1-3 fulfills Isaiah 14:15.
Second Peter doesnt say how many angels sinned with women, it just states that the ones that did were locked away.
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
Text I believe the sin cited in 2Peter 2:4 had to do with a group of fallen angels that commited sexual sins with humans.
Once again God Bless-
Your very first question is the key to understanding the angels who have sinned and in my previous post that is why I stated that this understanding all hinges upon when Lucifer and his cohorts were imprisoned. This would be the angels who were cast out of heaven.
Now Peter had been taught that the angels who had sinned were in hell. That is what he declares in 2nd Peter 2:4. If Peter knew that angels who have sinned are in hell then they most certainly could not be the demons that he and Jesus were fighting on the earth at this time that he declares they were in hell. That would be as saying that only some of the sinners were in hell and some of the sinners were loose. That would be almost silly to even imagine such a thing would it not?
What Peter is declaring is that all who sinned against God are in hell as he speaks. This is why I have stated that there are two instances of rebellion of the heavenly host upon this earth. The first being Lucifer (The Satan) and the second being those that procreated mortal giants. This is why the book of Enoch clarifies this problem. Let me show you the second episode according to Enoch1.
Quoting Enoch 1 ---
[Chapter 6] - “1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 2 them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men 3 and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not 4 indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves 6 by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn 7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, 8 Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaq1el, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens.” Un Quote
Now in this episode we can see that this leader of 200 angels was not Lucifer but another angel named Semjaza. These angels took an oath of loyalty among them and then came to this earth in the area of Mt. Hermon in the days of Jarad. Take note that these angels also had embraced this created knowledge called evil before they came down from heaven. These were not cast out of heaven such as Lucifer and his cohorts were cast out of heaven. They came to this world not for power and authority such as Lucifer did but came in lust for women. There are other interpretations that they were sent to this earth to teach men the arts of unknown wisdom but were overcome with lust for mortal women.
If Enoch 1 is a true account then this shows us that these 200 angels were not on the earth to tempt Eve. They are said to have come to this earth in the days of Jered (Yered) and if that be true then the days of Yered or Jered were 460 years after Adam (3301 BCE). The Jewish time line encyclopedia tells me that Noah’s flood was in the year of 1656 after Adam (2105 BCE). That being true would mean that the entire procreation era of angels and giants were well over 1,000 years before God put a stop to it and had started at about 460 years after Adam was created.
This is why I stated in my previous posting that all of this hinges upon the book of 1 Enoch. I suggest that Peter is actually telling us that all of the angels who have sinned are in hell. Not just some of the angels but any angel who has sinned has to be in hell. If there are two episodes of disobedience then you are suggesting that only Semjaza and his cohorts are in punishment while Lucifer and his cohorts are still loose as demons. Enoch 1 tells us that there are two distinct episodes with two band leaders and that it is the offspring of these angels who perished in the flood that became the demons of the earth.
Now in the event that Enoch is not true and just another fairy tale, then that leaves us with just the Lucifer account and if that being true then who are these angels that Peter is declaring to be in hell? So you can see that we must either declare Peter as false or that there are indeed two accounts. That is why I must insist that there are two accounts with two distinct angelic hosts and the only clarity is 1 Enoch.
So let me summarize this. If there is only one account of disobedient angels (Lucifer) then Peter is saying that they are in hell and if they are in hell then they could not be demons upon this earth. Therefore Peter would be absolutely confusing. If there are two accounts of disobedience we must use 1 Enoch to understand. If we use 1 Enoch to understand then all disobedient angels are in hell and demons are the offspring of Semjaza. If you decide to omit 1 Enoch then you cannot explain Peter but if you decide to embrace 1 Enoch then you must explain that demons are the product of Semjaza and not angels. Which account do you believe?
God Bless
reply to post by Seede
Thank you for that scenario. For this particular scenario that I will present, disregard any and all psuedopigrapha.
When dealing with interactions between God and the angels, a recurrent thieme is that of a Divine Council. If Lucifer and 1/3rd of the Angels rebelled against God, then the justice of God requires a fair trial against Lucifer and his soldiers. This is where man is created to resolve the angelic conflict. The debate: is intellegent creation a product of environment or free will? From the moment Adam fell, God made the promise of a messaiah from the seed of Eve, and foretold of an anti-messiah from the seed of Satan. This gave man the choice: to be saved, or not to be saved. Lucifer knew that the key to overturning the trial would be to prevent the coming of Messiah, so he sent some of his angels to pollute the messiahic bloodline. He didnt use all of his forces, because he knew that he was cheating and the perpetrators would be held in Contempt of Court if the plan failed. God had His eye on Noah, and knew that His servent would be ideal for carrying on the bloodline. So, when God flooded the earth, He locked up the nephillim progenitors an promised Noah never to Flood the whole planet with water again.
Lucifer took advantage of this promise to spawn the anti-christ who would grow up to build the tower of Babel. Satan knew that when judgement came again at the 2nd advent (flood of fire), he would be locked up for Contempt of Court as well, but at least, he had the luxory of time and the ace in the hole...Nimrod/Apollon. This explains why Lucifer still roams free, why the nephillim existed before and after the flood, and why Lucifer traded the life of Nimrod to scatter Babel into the 70 nations of Gen 10.
Not all unbelievers are in hell. The living ones are still free on earth. The ones that get in God's way are cut off and held in contempt as well.
To say that the Angels would risk falling from grace for something as superficial as lust for an inferiour race seems illogical to me. 1 Enoch claims that these Angels made a packt. For what? Did they think the agreement would protect them from judgement some how? Especially after witnessing Lucifer's rebellion?
On the other hand, risking condemnation for the prospect of usurping God's authority would seem much more attractive in the eyes of an arrogant being.
This makes more sense to me, and does not require the input from outside sources.
Thank you for that scenario. For this particular scenario that I will present, disregard any and all psuedopigrapha.
When dealing with interactions between God and the angels, a recurrent thieme is that of a Divine Council. If Lucifer and 1/3rd of the Angels rebelled against God, then the justice of God requires a fair trial against Lucifer and his soldiers. This is where man is created to resolve the angelic conflict. The debate: is intellegent creation a product of environment or free will? From the moment Adam fell, God made the promise of a messaiah from the seed of Eve, and foretold of an anti-messiah from the seed of Satan. This gave man the choice: to be saved, or not to be saved. Lucifer knew that the key to overturning the trial would be to prevent the coming of Messiah, so he sent some of his angels to pollute the messiahic bloodline. He didnt use all of his forces, because he knew that he was cheating and the perpetrators would be held in Contempt of Court if the plan failed. God had His eye on Noah, and knew that His servent would be ideal for carrying on the bloodline. So, when God flooded the earth, He locked up the nephillim progenitors an promised Noah never to Flood the whole planet with water again.
Lucifer took advantage of this promise to spawn the anti-christ who would grow up to build the tower of Babel. Satan knew that when judgement came again at the 2nd advent (flood of fire), he would be locked up for Contempt of Court as well, but at least, he had the luxory of time and the ace in the hole...Nimrod/Apollon. This explains why Lucifer still roams free, why the nephillim existed before and after the flood, and why Lucifer traded the life of Nimrod to scatter Babel into the 70 nations of Gen 10.
Not all unbelievers are in hell. The living ones are still free on earth. The ones that get in God's way are cut off and held in contempt as well.
To say that the Angels would risk falling from grace for something as superficial as lust for an inferiour race seems illogical to me. 1 Enoch claims that these Angels made a packt. For what? Did they think the agreement would protect them from judgement some how? Especially after witnessing Lucifer's rebellion?
On the other hand, risking condemnation for the prospect of usurping God's authority would seem much more attractive in the eyes of an arrogant being.
This makes more sense to me, and does not require the input from outside sources.
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
Text Thank you for that scenario. For this particular scenario that I will present, disregard any and all psuedopigrapha
To my knowledge there is no divine council of creation that consults with the Creator. Rabbinic Judaism does insist that God consulted with His heavenly host in the Genesis account when He decided to make man but that is not accepted by the doctrine of Jesus. The doctrine of Jesus tells us that as God said “Let Us Make Man” it is God talking to His only begotten Son “The Word.” This is shown in the apostle John’s account - “John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.” The Jewish God is not the same as the Christian God.
You have asked
“To say that the Angels would risk falling from grace for something as superficial as lust for an inferiour race seems illogical to me. 1 Enoch claims that these Angels made a packt. For what? Did they think the agreement would protect them from judgement some how? Especially after witnessing Lucifer's rebellion?”
My answer
Disobedience is not a light matter for any of creation. But the angels who were bestowed with eternal life and power over the creation are a much greater matter than mortal man. Your question is of the pseudepigrapha literature and we agreed not to use pseudepigrapha literature
As you have requested, let us disregard all pseudepigrapha literature as it stands today but I do want you to be aware of the fact that all of your new testament was at one time pseudepigrapha literature scattered about in an unsorted manner. So that being said, our discussion will now entail your new testament of the American Standard Version Bible.
Lucifer does not exist but there is an entity described as “Day Star Son Of The Morning.” We shall now reference this entity as Day Star.
Isaiah 14: 12-15
(12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! (13) And thou saidst in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; (14) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. (15) Yet thou shalt be brought down to Sheol, to the uttermost parts of the pit.
Rev 1Rev 12:7-9
(7) And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels going forth to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and his angels; (8) And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. (9) And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.
We are now on the same page. There was an entity called Day Star, Dragon, Serpent, Devil. or Satan and by this we assume all of these names refer to the same Day Star that fell from the grace of God and was cast down to Sheol. We both understand that Hebrew Sheol is the underworld in this earth and Hell is the Greek etymology of Sheol. Some ancients did believe that Sheol had seven compartments of which Hell was only one. Nevertheless, it is now established that Day Star is confined into Sheol. That is according to both John and Isaiah scriptures. Now from what we just read of Isaiah and Revelation we have been told that Day Star has been imprisioned in Sheol.
I shall eliminate Ezekiel’s 28:13-17 account simply because so many people refuse to accept this as reference to Day Star.
Now we come to the question as to when Day Star was cast down to Sheol. We assume that it was Day Star who influenced the Gan Eden Serpent who then tempted Eve. How can we assume this? By many scriptures that infer that it was indeed Day Star or dragon or serpent among other names. But one thing we have to assume and that is that Day Star was cast out of heaven to this earth and had influenced the serpent or beast which tempted Eve. The question could be asked as to who taught disobedience to the Gan Eden Serpent? The answer to that question is revealed as we understand that the Gan Eden Serpent embraced the same spirit of disobedience as Day Star did. The spirit of disobedience was created by God and it is this spirit that all creation is privy to. In all reality no one has to teach this spirit to anyone. All creation automatically has this instilled in their knowledge but that is not to say that Day Star did not teach or influence the Gan Eden Beast.
It now comes to the Genesis account that specifically shows us that either angels or mortal sons of God defiled procreation. Rabbinic Judaism denies that this references angels. Their stance has always been that the heavenly host had never sinned and cannot ever sin. Rabbinic Judaism teaches that these “sons of God” were mortal men and not angels. Even though 1 Enoch has been recovered from the dead sea scrolls and has contradicted rabbinic Judaism, we shall not use that as evidence in this post.
Genesis 6:1-4
(1)And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them, (2) that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose. (3) And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. (4) The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
Now comes the part of contesting the scriptures. According to your understanding, Son Of Dawn has not yet been cast down to Sheol at this time even though Isaiah tells us that he has been cast down to Sheol. You insist that Son Of Dawn still walks the earth today and yet Peter says that angels who sinned were cast into Sheol.
2nd Peter 2:4
For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
We agreed to not use pseudepigrapha literature so the questions now come to the front. Is Day Star and his cohorts the same as the Nephilim and if you say yes or no how do you arrive at that conclusion? If Day Star is loose today then he was loose in Peter’s day was he not? Can you show me that the Nephilim are the same or separate from Day Star and his cohorts?
The second problem without outside literature is that of what Peter has said. Who are these angels that sinned and were cast into hell? If you cannot use pseudepigrapha literature then show me who these angels are who sinned. Where are your scriptures that show demons to be of the Day Star revolution (fallen angels)?
As a last thought I believe that you are under the impression that Day Star is loose today because in Revelation 20:1-3 that he is bound for a thousand years, You must also read Revelation 13:1-18 and you will see that in the great Tribulation (Jacob’s Trouble) that the beast is actually released from Sheol and is the representative of Day Star (Dragon) only to be once again bound a thousand years which will be at the end of Tribulation.
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
Lmao this whole post is absolute lunacy.
Clearest contradiction ever and you're really grasping here to try an act as if it is valid. This excuse you have concocted to try and talk your way out of this plain-as-day contradiction doesn't dissolve the contradiction at all.
You might as well have skipped the whole diatribe and said "God made an exception for this case."
By the way, I participated in the thread that this originated in and you still have all of your work ahead of you. You completely dodged about 130 more contradictions that were brought up there and this thread is really not going to cut it even for one of them.
Lmao this whole post is absolute lunacy.
Clearest contradiction ever and you're really grasping here to try an act as if it is valid. This excuse you have concocted to try and talk your way out of this plain-as-day contradiction doesn't dissolve the contradiction at all.
You might as well have skipped the whole diatribe and said "God made an exception for this case."
By the way, I participated in the thread that this originated in and you still have all of your work ahead of you. You completely dodged about 130 more contradictions that were brought up there and this thread is really not going to cut it even for one of them.
edit on 4-3-2014 by
TheRegal because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Seede
I still dont see where Peter states that ALL fallen angels are in Sheol, BUT if that is the case, then they will not be released until the Last Judgement, which occurs at the end of the Millenium. Therefore, Apollyon and his fleet are not fallen angels, but their resurrected sons, the nephillim.
Psalm 82 is a session of the Divine Council. King James translates it as congregation, but the context is of assembly.
I know that Elohim refers to the Trinity, that is not what I mean by Divine Council.
Psalm 82 KJV
[A Psalm of Asaph.] God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. 3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
The "gods" are fallen angels. They inhereted the earth when Adam fell. In this session, God is chastizing the fallen angels for ruling unjustly (rather than repenting), and tells the that they will "die like men", and "fall like a prince". This fall is the same fall to Sheol foretold in Isaiah, and fulfilled in Revelation 20. The prince that fell was Apollyon/Nimrod. He was the insrument of the "gods" in their plan to unify all of earth against God. Psalm 82:8 foretells of Christ inhereting all of the Earth when the fallen angels are finally cast in Sheol, when the Millenium begins.
I think verse 6 clearly identifies who these "gods" are. They are not men, because they will die like men. They are "children of the Most High" aka the "b'nai ha Elohim" aka the same "sons of God" cited in Gen 6:4.
Job also gives us a few peeks into God's Divine Council.
Job 1:6&7 KJV
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
These verses make it clear, that at the very least Day Star was still roaming Earth, and presented himself before the Divine Council.
Job 2:1 repeats a similar session.
Job 1:17 references the Chaldeans, so we know that this occured after the Flood, as Chaldea was a Post-diluvian empire.
I still dont see where Peter states that ALL fallen angels are in Sheol, BUT if that is the case, then they will not be released until the Last Judgement, which occurs at the end of the Millenium. Therefore, Apollyon and his fleet are not fallen angels, but their resurrected sons, the nephillim.
Psalm 82 is a session of the Divine Council. King James translates it as congregation, but the context is of assembly.
I know that Elohim refers to the Trinity, that is not what I mean by Divine Council.
Psalm 82 KJV
[A Psalm of Asaph.] God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. 3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
The "gods" are fallen angels. They inhereted the earth when Adam fell. In this session, God is chastizing the fallen angels for ruling unjustly (rather than repenting), and tells the that they will "die like men", and "fall like a prince". This fall is the same fall to Sheol foretold in Isaiah, and fulfilled in Revelation 20. The prince that fell was Apollyon/Nimrod. He was the insrument of the "gods" in their plan to unify all of earth against God. Psalm 82:8 foretells of Christ inhereting all of the Earth when the fallen angels are finally cast in Sheol, when the Millenium begins.
I think verse 6 clearly identifies who these "gods" are. They are not men, because they will die like men. They are "children of the Most High" aka the "b'nai ha Elohim" aka the same "sons of God" cited in Gen 6:4.
Job also gives us a few peeks into God's Divine Council.
Job 1:6&7 KJV
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
These verses make it clear, that at the very least Day Star was still roaming Earth, and presented himself before the Divine Council.
Job 2:1 repeats a similar session.
Job 1:17 references the Chaldeans, so we know that this occured after the Flood, as Chaldea was a Post-diluvian empire.
new topics
-
Where should Trump hold his next rally
2024 Elections: 1 hours ago -
Shocking Number of Voters are Open to Committing Election Fraud
US Political Madness: 2 hours ago -
Gov Kristi Noem Shot and Killed "Less Than Worthless Dog" and a 'Smelly Goat
2024 Elections: 2 hours ago -
Falkville Robot-Man
Aliens and UFOs: 3 hours ago -
James O’Keefe: I have evidence that exposes the CIA, and it’s on camera.
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 3 hours ago -
Australian PM says the quiet part out loud - "free speech is a threat to democratic dicourse"...?!
New World Order: 4 hours ago -
Ireland VS Globalists
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 5 hours ago -
Biden "Happy To Debate Trump"
2024 Elections: 5 hours ago -
RAAF airbase in Roswell, New Mexico is on fire
Aliens and UFOs: 5 hours ago -
What is the white pill?
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 7 hours ago
top topics
-
A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed
New World Order: 15 hours ago, 21 flags -
Blast from the past: ATS Review Podcast, 2006: With All Three Amigos
Member PODcasts: 7 hours ago, 11 flags -
Biden "Happy To Debate Trump"
2024 Elections: 5 hours ago, 9 flags -
Mike Pinder The Moody Blues R.I.P.
Music: 7 hours ago, 8 flags -
James O’Keefe: I have evidence that exposes the CIA, and it’s on camera.
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 3 hours ago, 7 flags -
Australian PM says the quiet part out loud - "free speech is a threat to democratic dicourse"...?!
New World Order: 4 hours ago, 7 flags -
What is the white pill?
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 7 hours ago, 5 flags -
Ireland VS Globalists
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 5 hours ago, 4 flags -
RAAF airbase in Roswell, New Mexico is on fire
Aliens and UFOs: 5 hours ago, 4 flags -
Putin, Russia and the Great Architects of the Universe
ATS Skunk Works: 11 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media • 307 • : CriticalStinker -
Biden "Happy To Debate Trump"
2024 Elections • 41 • : TheLieWeLive -
RAAF airbase in Roswell, New Mexico is on fire
Aliens and UFOs • 6 • : Degradation33 -
Shocking Number of Voters are Open to Committing Election Fraud
US Political Madness • 4 • : WeMustCare -
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have'
Aliens and UFOs • 78 • : Terpene -
Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.
Political Conspiracies • 811 • : Oldcarpy2 -
Meadows, Giuliani Among 11 Indicted in Arizona in Latest 2020 Election Subversion Case
Mainstream News • 28 • : yuppa -
Where should Trump hold his next rally
2024 Elections • 6 • : WeMustCare -
Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3
World War Three • 5737 • : Arbitrageur -
Gov Kristi Noem Shot and Killed "Less Than Worthless Dog" and a 'Smelly Goat
2024 Elections • 26 • : CarlLaFong