Satan and his angels

Jocund · May 18, 2022

1) Christ's sacrifice is for the forgiveness of sins
2) All have sinned
3) sin either comes from a violation of law or a violation of faith
4) Not all sin arises from the transgression of OT law ordinances
5) Some passages address Christ's sacrifice as a means of specifically redeeming OT law transgressions
6) Christ's sacrifice still provides grace for those that did not follow OT ordinances
7) Therefore those that are redeemed from sin are from one of at least two groups/subsets outlined in 5) and 6)

Can you specifically address the point in this list that you disagree with?

Diakonos said:

You believe that Christ's sacrifice was solely for the benefit of those that tried to follow the OT law?

So you don't believe that Christ's sacrifice benefits anyone that did not or does not follow OT law? You believe that the sacrifice had nothing to do with Gentiles?

How does your worldview work exactly? I haven't heard of your specific stance before.

Diakonos said:

No, it really isn't.

Diakonos said:

Then your position contradicts itself as it would be clear that sinful angels were able (compatible) to be in heaven in order to war.

Diakonos said:

Why are you equating understanding of a thing with eligibility for a thing? I disagree with your premise here.

Diakonos said:

No, you have not provided any sound evidence of your position yet.

Diakonos said:

I have not stepped beyond what has been written. I think you are missing a nuance here.

Diakonos said:

It's not circular reasoning.

Diakonos said:

You appealed to denying the antecedent.

Diakonos said:

And you never addressed the scenario of transmutation or changing cases.

A-Sword-Cometh · May 18, 2022

No hope for the fallen angels.

1 Corinthians 6:3
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

Jocund · May 18, 2022

montana123 said:

Angels can sin. Would it therefore be the case that angels (or even just sinful angels) have flesh?

Diakonos · May 18, 2022

Jocund said:

This part of my comment wasn't necessary to argue my point.
I was merely correcting your comment about which Law that passage referred to. It was more of a side-note.
My worldview is to take Scripture at face value, make no assumptions about Scripture, let Biblical details guide my investigations rather than my own curiosities, and use consistent logical reasoning.

Jocund said:

Number 6 is generalized beyond the scope that Scripture indicates.

The grace of God is said to apply to these sorts of individuals “tablets of human hearts", "souls of men" "salvation to all people". I already addressed earlier how Jesus' sacrifice was to save those under the curse of Adam's sin. I noticed that you haven't addressed that or the Kinsmen Redeemer.

Scripture only speaks of 2 groups.:

“But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” (Ephesians 2:13–16)

Jocund said:

No? If you can show me Scripture that proves your point, I'll retract that comment.

Jocund said:

You're the one who introduced the Rev 12 passage. Tell me, which heaven are they in at that moment?

Jocund said:

I didn't equate them. I associated them. You know the grace of God if you've received the grace of God.

“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor,
so that you through His poverty might become rich.” (2 Corinthians 8:9)

“Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt,
so that you will know how you should respond to each person.” (Colossians 4:6)

God commands His us to show grace to others because we know what grace is.

Jocund said:

What you're doing here is denying what I've presented, rather than combat it with Scripture. Use Scripture.

Jocund said:

Yes, I denied the antecedent, and I gave premises for why earlier. Now we are investigating the evidence for those premises.
Re-read my explanation of why it would be circular reasoning. If you start at the top of an argument and work your way down to the roots of its foundation, you can't resurface the top layer as evidence for the foundational layers of premises. You have to deal with the layer you're on, or go lower. You might not understand why that doesn't work. but I've been doing this long enough to know why (and how) discussions can end up going in circles. For our purposes, the positions have already been stated. Now we are investigating what Scripture says about our premises. We're not asking how the evidence proves the positions. The evidence proves the premises, and the premises prove the position, not the other way around.

Jocund said:

What Scriptures regarding angelic transmutation did you have in mind for discussion?
In order for this transformation to happen, there has to be a provision for salvation. I.e. salvation itself is what transforms you.
I invited you to explore the "other grace mechanism" you brought up. After you said Jesus' sacrifice didn't benefit the angels, but rather the sons of Abraham, I showed how Scripture says:

-blood makes atonement
-there is no forgiveness without blood
-there is no salvation outside of Jesus' blood

If Jesus' blood didn't benefit angels, and there's no forgiveness outside that sacrifice, what other grace mechanism can there be?
If there is no other mechanism for grace, who can one be transformed?

They can't.

I'm going to speculate now:
Have you ever considered that even if angels had a provision for mercy, they can't repent? We know that it is God's kindness that leads us to repentance. God can always show us more kindness because He can reveal more of Himself to us. But for the angels, they have already seen His full heavenly majesty and splendor. The angels have already experienced God's absolute glory. If they saw THAT and still turned away, there's nothing more to draw them back to God. I personally believe that angels can't repent for this reason. It is not evidence for my position, but it is a plausible syllogism.

Thank about that and let me know what you think.

LoveBrokeThru · May 18, 2022

Omegatime said:

I'd say that the power of Satan to deceive, is incredible.
How do you know?
Its because the Angels who left heaven with him, had heaven, had God, had Jesus the incarnate word, had everything that Heaven affords.......and they chose to FALL and Follow Lucifer, instead.

As a matter of fact, Satan is so good at deceiving,....>He took the 1st Adam and wife, and convinced them to walk on the wild side of rebellion, when they had the entire planet as their eternal joy, playground, and more.
Yet, Satan convinced them to "try this instead, you'll love it". "believe me".

montana123 · May 18, 2022

Jocund said:

I am talking about human beings that the sin resides in the flesh so if their sins are forgiven they can put off the flesh and their soul will be saved.

Angels do not have flesh.

Jocund · May 19, 2022

Diakonos said:

"Take Scripture at face value" and "make no assumptions about scripture" are contradictory positions. Assuming that scripture is best understood at face value IS an assumption.

Let's recap from the top. I'll divide the streams of thought by rough topics:

Topic said:

You stated "The angels have no kinsmen redeemer [and therefore can't be saved]"

I asked you what evidence you had for that.

In one part of your comment you stated "Christ died for those under the Law" and referenced Gal 4:4–5 and Gal 3:13. You capitalized "Law" which implied OT Law and it seemed possible that you were suggesting that Christ died exclusively for those under the law. You later explained in post 39 that this is exactly what you meant (am I mistaken in that perception?). If that is your position it is completely wrong even just on the premise of Gal 3:14, the directly following verse.

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." - Gal 4:4-5 KJV

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." - Gal 3:13-14 KJV

Christ didn't just die for those that followed OT ordinances. I'll say this another way: Christ did not only die for the redemption of OT ordinance observers. I'll say this another way: the OT ordinance observers were not the only ones subject to the benefits of Christ's sacrifice. Even Gal 3:14 addresses the concept that Gentiles are included in the plan. I stated that Rom 2:14 would be a great addition to your Gal passages. If you mean what I think you mean in post 39, your initial statement would be understood as "Christ [only] died for those under the Law" which is incorrect. But, at the time, to explore a sense of what you could have meant by that, I offered Rom 2:14 to illustrate that Gentiles were not lawless. If you read further to Rom 2:27 you will see that that Gentiles by the law within their nature were capable of being aligned to fulfil the Law. They were capable of having the spirit of the Law even if they did not have the letter.

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: [...] And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?" - Rom 2:14&27 KJV

You were the one seemingly dividing Jews and Gentiles at the time of Christ's sacrifice by stating that "Christ [only] died for those under the Law". My point was that either your position was flat out wrong, or that you could have been trying to argue that Gentiles were under the Law in their own way.

You replied with: ""a group" contains an assumption that needs to be substantiated before it can be used as a premise." Which makes absolutely no sense in the context of the discussion. I don't think this thread of the conversation ever got resolved. I think you were getting hung up on the term "group" without understanding what I was saying.

You also replied with "But to say "those passages reveal who Christ's sacrifice applies to"...is substantiated, and therefore, a dependable premise for arguing a position.". No one was disagreeing with the concept that "Christ died for many including those under the Law / observers of OT ordinances." But if you were arguing that "Christ [only] died for those under the Law / observers of OT ordinances" your interpretation is incorrect.

You also stated "But there is no Biblical evidence that His sacrifice may apply to other kinds of creatures." There are two important points that need to be addressed with that. First, I hope you don't include Gentiles in your definition of "other kinds of creatures". The second is that we see Jesus state that even rocks could be raised into descendants of Abraham. It clearly could be the case that any kind of creature or thing could be changed in order to fall within God's grace if God so willed it. If a rock is raised into a descendant of Abraham, is it still a rock? That get's into an ontological problem.

In a post I stated "It might be the case that Christ's sacrifice applies only to the redemption of men, but I still don't see a passage that would explicitly make that the case." which should be understood more simply as "show me the passage that supports your claim" and your response to this was "We ought not "go beyond what is written". We form our Biblical positions based on what is written, not what isn't written.". Can you explain what you were thinking here? Your comment makes no sense when compared to the context of my statement.

I stated ""a group" does not necessarily imply that there are other groups." in response to your confusion about the use of the word "group" and you replied: "You are assuming that the Redeemed, according to Scripture, is just "a group". My position is that the Redeemed according to Scripture are the Redeemed." I'm tempted to assume that your comment in this case is your way of claiming "only those under the ordinances of the OT Law were redeemed therefore there is no need to think that non-OT observers fit into that category". You would be wrong if that is what you intended to convey. It isn't entirely clear what you mean by that line. It's possible I have the wrong impression of what you mean.

[part 1/4]

Jocund · May 19, 2022

Topic said:

We had a simultaneous conversation about angelology, etc. Let's recap those portions:

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." - 1 Cor 15:39-40 KJV

You referenced 1 Cor 15:39-40. I assume you made this comment to followup from "Here are a few examples stating that humans and angels are not each other's kin"

I posed the question "It could be the case that an incorruptible body is one of several kinds of heavenly bodies of which angels might have corruptible heavenly bodies at first?". You replied to that with "A heavenly body is a body that contains no trace of sin's curse; heavenly bodies are fit for (i.e. compatible with) heaven." I stated "This premise can't be true because angels are heavenly beings but angels can sin." I asked you whether you meant "instance of sin" or "nature of sin" by "sin's curse". I noted that a sinful nature is required in order to sin. An incorruptible body does not contain sinful nature, therefore angels don't have incorruptible bodies (because angels can sin). And "This suggests that there are different kinds of heavenly bodies if that is the case." And if you look back at 1 Cor 15, that premise makes sense. You reply with "Anything that decays, dies, corrupts, etc...is not compatible with heaven (the 3rd heaven), not to be confused with "heaven" as in the sky we see." You should be able to connect the dots that something capable of corruption/sin has a corruptible or sinful nature. The presence of an "instance of sin" is evidence of the presence of the "nature of sin". I stated "In order for an angel to sin it must have had a sinful nature." You replied by calling it a "Non-sequitur."

A non-sequitur is "a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement:" Sinful nature is the capability to sin. God does not have a sinful nature but people do. It follows that if something sinned it must have had a sinful nature. That isn't a non-sequitur. I believe you just meant to say you didn't understand what I was saying.

In a different part of the comments I said "angels may have some mean of appealing to the grace of God" to which you replied "Scripture indicates that angels do not understand grace [because 1 Peter 1 says angels desire to learn]" In the most basic terms, that's just not what it says:

"That the trial of your faith [...] the angels desire to look into." - 1 Peter 1:7-12 KJV

You brought up 2 Cor 8:9 to suggest that Christians "know grace" where angels desire to. If you look at the Greek for 2 Cor 8:9 you will see that the proper sense of the translation is more in line with "For you know the graciousness of Christ". We can reference to Col 4:3 to show that there is a mystery in Christ.

You state "If not the sacrifice of Jesus, then who's blood could save the angels?" You may not realize but your question is self-defeating based on your previously established positions. You expand on your thought with Hebrews 9:22. Hebrews 9:22 states that "by the law" (the same OT Law that you stated that angels were not under) all things are purged with blood. If angels aren't under the Law, this passage does not apply to them. If you want an example of an actual non-sequitur, your argument here was a good example.

We had some back and forth about the actual act of angels being cast out of heaven with 2 Pet 2:4 and Rev 12:7-9. You provided your opinion that these are separate events. Another assumption on your part, but that is OK. If these are separate past and future events it means that sinful angels can exist in heaven which is at odds with your assumptions about only sinless things being able to be in heaven. I stated: "Then your position contradicts itself as it would be clear that sinful angels were able (compatible) to be in heaven in order to war." To which you replied "You're the one who introduced the Rev 12 passage. Tell me, which heaven are they in at that moment?" Your comment here was a deflection of the fact that the burden of proof is on you. It is up to you to address the contradiction in your worldview.

To touch base on your 3rd heaven concept, do you understand that the reference to the third heaven traces back to 2 Cor 12? Do you understand that Paul presents the idea that a physical corruptible human body could have been brought into the 3rd heaven. Do you understand why your position about trying to break down Rev 12 into a "not 3rd heaven" argument is untenable?

In another part of your comments, you essentially presented the argument that because there was a passage that states "the devil and his angels will be judged and cast into the Lake of Fire" and from that you proposed that any angel that is currently an angel of Satan would necessarily continue to be one of his angels up to the timeframe of that passage. You might not understand why your logic is flawed in that case. If we consider this logic from a different angle, if a human is an unrepentant antiChrist sinner, and all unrepentant sinners are destined to go into the Lake of Fire, does that mean that specific human will necessarily go into the Lake of Fire? No. Because that person can repent and thus stop being within that identity of "an unrepentant sinner". Their ontology can change. If you understand what I'm talking about with ontology, you will understand how an angel that is currently "Satan's angel" could be changed to "not Satan's angel" at the timing of that passage. If you struggle with the concept of the Eucharist, you're going to have a hard time understanding what I mean. If you understand concepts like transubstantiation, you're going to have a much easier time understanding what it means for an angel that is "Satan's" to change into a state of "not Satan's" by the time of that judgement.

OK. So that was the recap. It's basically a recap of my perceptions about what was said. My hope is that if you do see a misconception about something that you have an open opportunity to zero into the points.

[part 2/4]

Jocund · May 19, 2022

Jocund said:

Diakonos said:

Point blank. No. Your comment is incorrect. Even if we merely look back to the Gal 3:13 vs. Gal 3:14 part of the recap, Christ's sacrifice works for more than just those that tried to follow the letter of the Law, therefore your counter is completely wrong.

Diakonos said:

You are changing the goalposts between ordinances of the OT law and the Adamic sin. I think it is probably more fitting to point to Adamic sin (first Adam vs second Adam, etc.)

Diakonos said:

I did address this, and to reiterate from the recap above, the kinsmen redeemer mechanism is specific to the framework of the Law which you claim that angels are not under. (I still think that it is useful to try to explore more deeply into Heb 2:16)

Diakonos said:

If Q, then P.
Not Q, therefore not P.

That's the short and sweet explanation of what denying the antecedent means. It is not justified to say "therefore not P" because it does not logically follow.

Diakonos said:

The hope in my recap above was to try to flush out exactly what you were getting at with this comment. I don't think you understood the ontological argument that I was trying to present to you. One that is "Satan's angel" could later become "not Satan's angel" instead (and therefore be spared of the fate that happens to "Satan's angels" at the time of judgement). I was asking for evidence that it could not be the case.

Diakonos said:

The point that you called circular reasoning was not circular reasoning, so that by itself is a nonstarter.

I like trying to understand what people mean by different things that they say though. I don't understand what you mean by "top of an argument" or "work your way down to the roots of its foundation". I don't think I've ever heard someone refer to parts of an argument as more or less the "top" or "bottom" of an argument. I don't understand what you mean by "you have to deal with the layer you're on, or go lower".

I have no idea what you mean by those top/bottom/lower descriptors. I'm interesting in learning what you mean by that, but as it stands I don't know what you mean.

[part 3/4]

Jocund · May 19, 2022

Diakonos said:

OK. Here's the basics:

There are base principles held authoritatively as being inherently true (e.g. "scripture is true", "1+1=2"). There are projected possible interpretations that come from those base principles (e.g. competing theories). And there are arguments or considerations which provide weighting factors regarding which possible interpretations we find to be more compelling or less compelling than others.

Here's an example.

"Was Jesus' robe red or purple at the crucifixion?"

1. Because we hold scripture as the inerrant word of God, and scripture does not contradict itself, we can dismiss the concept that one of the Gospel authors just "got it wrong" -- (logical determination of a case that is necessarily not true)

2. It could be the case that the robe was a combination of red and purple such as stripes or red on one side, purple on the other. (possibly true)

3. It could be the case that the lighting was different and there was a perception of different colours (possibly true, but opens up an exegetic can of worms)

4. It could be the case that the robe was magenta and that of which the words "red" and "purple" are close approximations. Magenta is technically a type of red but is also technically a type of purple, in the same way that some teals are a type of blue and a type of green at the same time (possibly true)

The logical process only takes us so far. We can eliminate some interpretations. We either need an additional convention for sorting through the remaining possibilities, or we leave it up to another means of determining what feels the most compelling. But, if we happen to have a preference for interpretation out of the remaining possibilities, we should be hesitant to use our intuition to authoritatively claim that to be the case.

There are three modes of argumentation: ethos (an argument from authority), logos (an argument from logic), and pathos (an argument from feeling).

First, we state axioms. We establish concepts and ideas that are considered inherently true (e.g. "scripture is the inerrant word of God", etc.). This is a type of ethos argument.

Second, we determine what is logically possible. We test concepts and interpretations within the framework of axioms for logical consistency and coherence. Logical discernment will differentiate between that which is possible, necessarily true, or necessarily not true. We will inevitably end up with many interpretations that contradict each other but are each consistent with the base axioms. This process of determining what is possible relies on logos.

Third, we determine what we consider to be compellingly true from the possible truths. We might have different reasons for finding something compelling. Maybe we would like to preferentially choose the interpretation(s) with the most apparent utility. Maybe we prefer an answer because it feels like the right thing to believe. It can be for a number of motivations. These resolutions tend to come from a place of intuition rather than reasoning (from heart instead of mind) and would be pathos by their nature. Even choosing an answer like "this will give you the best/most of something" is an appeal to how you feel about your own advantage or position relative to that thing even if it might feel logical.

So again, from ethos (axioms or authoritative conventions), we explore with logos (logically possible, necessarily true, or necessarily not true), and we hone our focus on what feels to be compellingly true with pathos (determinations from intuition).

Logical fallacies in themselves aren't actually bad arguments, they just aren't logical arguments. When I noted that you were denying the antecedent, the first thing you should recognise is that if you are indeed doing that in a particular case, you aren't making a logical argument. The moment we understand that, we can either approach this as "why do you feel that way?" or "why do you give such authority to that specific convention of thinking?"

It's easy to state "my deeply held belief from the authority of my heart states that fallen angels have no opportunity for salvation in any way"

It is also easy to state "angels have no grace, it just feels wrong to think otherwise"

It takes more time and energy to do a proper logical exploration from base premises and to comprehensively paint the picture for why we hold the positions we do. And I think given the right information, minds will tend to resonate rather than clash.

I want to state my position that if the Trinity is considered axiomatic, that also necessitates Greek philosophy including ontology as Greek ontological principles are key to the way the Trinity works. From ontology, it is easy to understand how the concept of transubstantiation operates. That's a good common-sense check. If transubstantiation doesn't make sense as an ontological premise, we need to stop there and work on that. If transubstantiation does make sense, we can move on to the principle of how a "fallen angel" could become "not a fallen angel" and therefore avoid the consequence prescribed for the fallen angels at the time of judgement. I'm suggesting that we evaluate this only by the base principles and the logic that follows directly from that. I am suggesting that we do not engage in the third step of determining what we feel is compelling. So, from that, I am asking you to check against the premise. I am asking to see if you have some verse or established concept (following only from base principles) that would negate or disallow that concept of what I will call "transmutation" (for lack of a better term) of a fallen angel into some kind of thing that is saved.

We also see the concept of transmutation of stones into children of Abraham. Or dust from the ground into Adam, etc. The concept is there. We can talk about whether it is compelling or not, but our first check should be whether it is truly possible. If there is no conflicting verse or necessary concept, it therefore remains the case that the interpretation is possible.

Diakonos said:

We know that angels don't know everything. I don't have enough angel verses in the top of my head to really make heads or tails about the entire concept of angels having seen the full majesty of God. At face value, I could see how maybe there are some verses to cover that. My post is running long at this point and I'm not doing the leg work for that at this moment. If you have specific verses to flesh out your position with that, that would be great value added. If not, I can always come back to this later and search.

I would almost say that a better approach for you position to use something like Mat 12:31's reference about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit being an unforgivable sin. And from there infer something about sinning angels having performed sins that were in that nature in some way.

While I still find the concept of "grace for fallen angels" possible, I'm still interesting in interpretations that would render it uncompelling. And if you don't understand what I mean by that, that's OK too. Even if we don't end up on the same page, I appreciate your input and time.

[part 4/4]

Diakonos · May 20, 2022

FWI I'm only going to respond to hyperlinked quotes

Jocund said:

Let's define terms so that you understand what I mean by those phrases.

"take Scripture at face value" = Scripture means what it says.
"make no assumptions about Scripture" = not imposing another meaning other than what is indicated in the text.
Notice how I also said I "use consistent logical reasoning".
This summarized the first two as the Law of identity in logic:
A = A
A ≠ non-A

Jocund said:

Correct. Jesus of Nazareth is a son (descendent) of Adam, just as all humans are. Jesus was able to become our Kinsmen Redeemer because He became a human.
Angels are not sons of Adam; they are direct creations of God.

Jocund said:

You're free to think whatever you want. I happen to agree here, though. Jesus's sacrifice was for the purpose of reversing the curse of Adam's sin, to save those affected by the curse of Adam's sin (humans).

Jocund said:

I don't have a problem flipping the phrase. I just don't want you to accuse me of using circular reasoning. Will you agree to not cause me of circular reasoning if I argue that in the other direction also?

Jocund said:

The angels that sinned were imprisoned and will remain there until judgment (2 Pet 2:4). On what basis do you then say, "Satan's angels could later become 'not Satan's angels'"? You are the one who suggested transmutation. The burden of proof is always on you to support this as a plausible exploration. I'm only obligated to provide evidence (Scripture) for what I claim. It is the same with you. It is a fallacy to insist that someone else disprove a hypothetical, especially when you are the one who introduced it.

Jocund said:

Simply put. Every argument is built "upon" premises, which are built "upon" evidence (hence the hierarchy of an argument).

Logically, "evidence" directly supports the premises, not the conclusion. The premises are what support the conclusion. So when you disagree with a conclusion I've made, then I present my premises. If you then disagree with one (or more) of the premises, then I give the evidence (Scripture) to support the premise(s). It's ok to debate about how legitimately the evidence supports the premises. But if you then ask me how the evidence "proves" the conclusion, you have ignored the premises, thus, ignoring what you are arguing against.

Jocund said:

Correct. Hence, why I "take Scripture at face value".

Jocund said:

First, Jesus was alluding to a concept in Greek mythology as common ground to illustrate God power. Second, it is irrelevant because the Hebrew author said that God gives no help to the angels, but He gives help to the descendants of Abraham.

“Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people (humans).” (Hebrews 2:14–17)

Jesus had to be a man to offer priestly service on behalf of mankind.
Jesus can not be a high priest for angels because He is not an angel. It's that simple. I'm shocked how people don't comprehend "representation". One cannot represent a group they are not a part of. One cannot belong to Christ (i.e. Abraham's descendant) unless they are represented through priestly service with a blood sacrifice.

Jocund said:

““See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their
angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 18:10)

“Micaiah said, “Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne,
and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.” (1 Kings 22:19)

“The angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God,
and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news.” (Luke 1:19)

I think this is sufficient to show that angels have seen the fullness of God's glory.

Jocund said:

It's very possible that that is the case. In the case of humans, when a person commits this sin, their heart is so hard that it cannot repent. I reckon that it is the same for angels who see God's full glory...and walks away.

Jocund said:

Likewise.

Shalom

Jocund · May 20, 2022

Diakonos said:

Your understanding is incorrect.

What you consider to be a "face value" meaning can differ from what other people consider to be a "face value" meaning.

This would be to follow your impression of what a passage says rather than exploring proper exegesis of what a passage could be conveying.

You are basically appealing to the authority of your intuition. That can be a great tool for pruning after you have determined all possible logically consistent interpretations but you are using it incorrectly within the axioms of your arguments. Your approach first assumes that your intuition is 100% true regardless of logic. Regardless of linguistics and translation as a science, you are presenting your belief that you will just "know" the meaning of something without having to consider what could have been conveyed.

If someone wrote something down, and you took the "face-value" meaning of what they said, who has the greater authority to clarify what they said? You or the original author? Is it ever possible to misunderstand what the original author wrote? It therefore follows that a "face-value" only approach can lead to an incorrect understanding.

Diakonos said:

I would not describe your worldview as one driven by logic. If you are irrationally discarding possible truths without consideration simply because you "feel" they aren't correct, you clearly aren't driving your sense of truth by logic. Logos is very important.

Logical consistency also requires you to discard or reconsider your position if the conclusions you come to contain contradictions. Some of your conclusions are contradictory. I would not describe your approach as one that faithfully follows logical consistency either.

Diakonos said:

No. You are misunderstanding the difference between tautology and syllogism.

If 'R' is a word with three possible meanings, and 'M1', 'M2', and 'M3' respectively represent each of those meanings, we can write that as:

"R therefore M1 OR M2 OR M3"

R=R is a tautology. "R means D" is a completely different statement. The moment you are searching for meaning, it enters the topic of syllogism. We can explore further to state that after further investigation against other established premises that "M#" is necessarily true, necessarily not true, or possibly true.

Using logic alone, you can't just say "I feel like M1 is the answer, therefore M2 and M3 are each wrong", but that is exactly what you have proposed as the proper process.

And beyond that, in formal logic we have the concept of "sets". It's important. I will briefly try to explain.

Imagine that there is a closed box on a table, and the person in charge of the table told you that there were initially 10 silver coins, 10 gold coins, and 10 copper coins on the table behind a small barrier that doesn't allow you to see. It is your job to figure out which coins are in the box. The table-owner starts to give you hints. None of the coins have left the table. They are either in the stack behind the small barrier or in the box. He slowly moves the barrier over to show you that there are only 8 silver coins in the silver coin stack left. Our conclusion at that point should be that "there are at least 2 silver coins in the box". At no point in time should we assume (based only on that observation) that the box contains only silver coins. Do you understand what a set is? Do you understand what I am getting at?

Diakonos said:

Taking scripture at face value is not the same thing as "scripture is true"

Diakonos said:

That seems unlikely considering that His audience was Hebrew and not Greek. The concept of transmutation isn't necessarily unique to Greek either. Even Adam was the result of the transmutation of dust.

Diakonos said:

The Bible never says "God gives no help to angels". You are using the kins redeemer concept to imply that. We already addressed the fact that the blood-redemption mechanism is specific to the Law which does not apply to angels. It therefore does not follow that "Christ's blood sacrifice was not for angels" means that God in no way could have offered grace to angels.

I pointed out your contradiction. You are skirting around it.

Diakonos said:

You clearly don't understand formal logic.

Diakonos said:

Here's my claim:

1) With God, all things are possible (unless it has been declared as not possible by God)
2) God cannot contradict Himself
3) Scripture is the inerrant word of God
4) It is not necessarily the case that we derive the correct meaning from the word of God
5) Transmutation is an established concept in scripture
6) Transmutation is therefore possible unless it has been declared to be not possible in that case
7) Transmutation has not been ruled out for Satan's angels
8) Therefore it is possible that Satan's angels could experience transmutation

My point is that the event is possible. Possibility and plausibility are different. We need to determine possibility before discussing plausibility. You claimed that it was not possible that Satan's angels could change, it is therefore on you first to make your case for why you don't think it is possible.

Diakonos said:

No. It isn't.

Diakonos said:

You don't understand. It is possible to have a mistake or improper piece of information in your "pool of evidence". The only way you are going to be able to identify this is if you check the implications (the "premises") of the evidence and check for consistency in the conclusion. If you have an incoherent or inconsistent conclusion, something is wrong with either your "premises" or your "pool of evidence".

If I give you two mathematical identities, those start as your "pool of evidence". Through a mathematical process, you shift the identities to help you solve something. If in the end you end up with the answer "1=2", something is wrong.

I'm telling you that one or more of your arguments have encountered that "1=2" type of contradiction. Instead of addressing the fact that you have a problem with your "premises" or "pool of evidence" you instead insist that you don't have to address the contradiction because basically you don't feel like you need to. The ball is in your court to address the issues with your worldview. I've already done my part by pointing them out.

Diakonos · May 20, 2022

Jocund said:

This is why I said, "Let's define terms so that you understand what I mean by those phrases." I didn't make a dynamic claim to their meaning. Please don't misrepresent me. I'm intentional about the verbiage I use.

Jocund said:

Words have a default meaning unless they are modified by other words. So I first see what something means...then I look to see if the meaning was modified by other words (the "exploration of a passage", as you put it. Sometimes it is modified, and sometimes it isn't, depending on the context. This isn't making assumptions; it's letting the text speak for itself. This is also how normal conversation works. When you say something, I believe exactly what you say, unless the context of what you say modifies the meaning of the words you use. In other words, there is no reason to assume you mean something other than what you say unless you indicate that.

Would you agree?

You are misunderstanding the explanation of my hermeneutic. Taking Scripture "at face value" considers all passages about a given subject, not just the immediate passage. God's Word is one whole truth. Each passage modifies (clarifies) the meaning of the other passages.

Diakonos said:

Jocund said:

What are you talking about?
I didn't "A =A" or "A =non-A" was a syllogism.
I said my speculation of angelic repentance was a syllogism (post #44) ("quoted below)

Please stop misrepresenting me. It reveals your level of attention to my words.

Jocund said:

That's another discussion for another time, regarding whether Scripture should be taken literally (not to be confused with literalistically).

Jocund said:

Are you saying Jesus never alluded to Greek ideas when speaking to a Jewish audience?

Jocund said:

In the context of having to be made like humans, I already quoted this passage

I'm not using the Kinsmen redeemer to imply this. The bible says this, and the Kinsmen Redeemer is evidence for it. This whole passage is about how Jesus had to be made human to be a high priest for humans.

“Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest
in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” (Hebrews 2:17)

Please tell me. Why does God make the distinction between the angels and the sons of Abraham?

Jocund said:

\

Jocund said:

Hypotheticals cannot be disproven.

You are committing an Argumentum Ad Speculum "Hypothesis Contrary to Fact" fallacy.
You cannot introduce a hypothetical, then say I'm wrong because I cannot disprove your hypothetical.
My reasoning is within the bounds of Scripture. I only responded to this hypothetical because you introduce it.

The angels have no high priest to represent them before God.
Yes or No?

Jocund said:

Are you saying that Angels

Jocund said:

How do you know that?

Jocund said:

It's ok to debate over whether the evidence is being understood correctly, but it is not ok to ask how the evidence directly "proves" the conclusion. That ignores the connected premise and insists that I skip a logical step.
If I offer a premise, you may agree or disagree. If you disagree, then we go down a layer to investigate the evidence to see if the evidence supports that premise. If you did agree with the evidence, then that is where we hang out for a while and discuss the passage(s). But you cannot ask me how the passage directly "proves" my conclusion unless no premise is required and the evidence is so obviously connected. I know you disagree with my conclusion. But do you understand what I mean by "layers" now?

Jocund · May 21, 2022

Diakonos said:

No, your assessment is incorrect.

Not only can a word have multiple meanings by dictionary definition, they can also have different meanings based on context including symbolic language, etc. There is no "default" meaning for items that have multiple potential meanings. That is an assumption you have included and it is not logic based. There can be, in some cases, conventions that language works by, which is not the same thing.

It compellingly seems to be the case that your use of "face-value" meaning is the same as your use of "default" meaning. If that is the case, my criticism of your use of "face-value" remains completely unchanged.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with lexicography as a science. There are no prescriptive defaults to words, only descriptive depictions about typical uses.

Diakonos said:

Did you even read the comment that you quoted and replied to?

"A=A" is tautology.
"A therefore B" is syllogism.

Diakonos said:

If you want to talk about this as a syllogism, can you please render this into a syllogistic structure?

Diakonos said:

The context here goes back to Heb 2:9. The subject is that the act of the flesh and blood sacrifice, and that the mechanism there, was not for the sake of angels. If you read the verse in isolation with a bad translation, you could misconstrue it.

I suggest finding a better translation to look at first. I'm not a KJV purist by any means but KJV illustrates the proper context:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. [...] For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." - Heb 2:9&16-17 KJV

The Greek in Heb 2:16 is basically: "For then not angels does he take hold of but the seed of Abraham"

If the passage is cherry-picked the context can be accidentally removed. The scope of Heb 2:16 is about the Christ death and resurrection as it pertains to OT Law mechanics and the promises to Abraham and seed.

If we reintroduce part of Heb 2:9 to highlight the context, we have: "That Jesus should taste death for every man, for verily he took not on him the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham"

Diakonos said:

You really don't understand formal logic if you think that is the case.

Diakonos said:

If you want to say it is necessarily the case that something does not exist (not possibly the case), it is on you to substantiate that claim.

You also don't even need to necessarily "disprove" a possible interpretation, you can accept it as a possibility and then make the case for why it ought be seen as uncompelling or unlikely.

Diakonos said:

"Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: From a statement of fact, the argument draws a counterfactual claim (i.e. a claim about what would have been true if the stated fact were not true). The argument falsely assumes that any state of affairs can have only one possible cause."

No, that does not apply to my positions in this case. Are you throwing words against the wall to see what sticks?

If someone made an argument to the effect of "If Christ wasn't crucified" that would be an example of a hypothesis contrary to fact.

Diakonos said:

I believe it would have been unlikely to be the case. Jesus was very careful to speak in terms that His intended audience would understand. The prime example of that was His explanation for the use of parables.

You could suppose that the Pharisees were not the true audience that He was speaking to and that instead He was speaking to the future readers of the Bible. I admit that we can look at this as a type of compelling interpretation. That still would not give advantage to the interpretation that Jesus was speaking in terms of Greek concepts at the point.

But...

As I stated, transmutation is not uniquely a Greek concept (e.g. Ecc 3:20). There are clear instances where Jesus was speaking in Hebrew concepts, including references to Law and Abraham. It is therefore necessarily the case that Jesus at least part of the time spoke in terms of Hebrew concepts. It may be the case that He always spoke in Hebrew concepts. You would need to demonstrate:

1) That there were any instances where Jesus ever undeniably spoke in terms of Greek concepts (especially in-person pre-resurrection)
2) That it would likely be the case that "raise stones into children of Abraham" was a distinctly Greek concept

Do you have an example that would compellingly be interpreted as Jesus speaking in terms of Greek concepts?

Diakonos said:

Non-sequitur. Angels aren't under the OT Law. The high priest is a function under the Law. The passage you are alluding to was discussing the mechanics of OT Law. How many times do I need to cover this same point?

Diakonos said:

Let's recap.

Here are the phrases you used:

A) "angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father" (from Mat 18:10)
B) "all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left." (from 1 Kings 22:19)
C) "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God," (from Luke 1:19

Regarding A), "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face..." - Ex 33:11a KJV. Moses also disobeyed God, yet ended up standing beside the transfigured Jesus later in Mark 9.

Regarding B), "host of heaven" does not necessarily mean 100% angels. But again, following from the Moses example. Moses literally stands beside God as well.

Regarding C), Adam and Eve also stood in the presence of God. 2 Timothy 4:1 states that he was also in the presence of God.

Your argument was trying to make a distinction between angels and men by virtue of whether or not they had seen the full glory of God. To try to substantiate that, you brought forward examples of angels being "in the presence of" or "standing beside" God. Your examples don't sufficiently differentiate between humans and angels as both angels and humans have been in the presence of God.

You could try other passages, but the three passages you brought up were not sufficient to demonstrate your argument. Passage C) is also categorically not the type of passage you should be looking for to demonstrate your point. If one specific angel had a specific kind of relationship with God, it does not necessarily follow that all other angels would have as well.

Diakonos said:

Can you provide an example?

In your example can you specifically identify what you are calling "evidence" vs. "premise" vs. "conclusion"

Can you explain how this "layers" concept explains your "circular reasoning" claim?

Diakonos · Jun 15, 2022

Jocund said:

There absolutely is. But the default (literal) meaning of words can be modified by their context.

e.g. "dog"
default meaning = "a tamable carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, nonretractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice"

"the dog walked by the sidewalk" dog = dog
"the dog food was more expensive last month" dog = dog
"dogs are the 8th smartest animal" dog = dog

When there are no contextual modifiers, the word "dog" always retains its default meaning.
Now let's look at it with modifiers:

"it's raining cats and dogs" (colloquialism) dog = large raindrops
"the homie and his dogs were making a music video" (slang) dog = gangsters
“It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs" (cultural idiom) dog = gentiles

When certain contexts modify a word due to slang, idioms, colloquialisms, etc, the meaning of the word changes. All words have a base meaning by default. The modified meanings of words are often shown in the alternate definitions in a dictionary.

Jocund said:

Here is an excerpt from a logic textbook:

This is what I meant by "A=A". Now you know.

Jocund said:

Side note- the last vs of Ch 1 says the angels "render service for the sake of those who inherit salvation". They are not a part of the group for which they render service. Anyways...

“Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. Because surely He does not take hold of angels, but He takes hold of the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” (Hebrews 2:14–17, NASB95)

This introduces a major theme that will permeate most of the epistle...that Jesus became our high priest by becoming like us, and the effect that has under the new covenant. Without a high priest, no one can represent us before God for propitiation. Humans have a high priest. Angels do not.

Jocund said:

I encourage you to go and learn the "Argumentum Ad Speculum fallacy" (Hypothesis Contrary to Fact).

Jocund said:

This is what I mean by Argumentum Ad Speculum.

[part 1/2]

Diakonos · Jun 15, 2022

Jocund said:

1. You're assuming that the Jews didn't understand Greek ideas.

2. They weren't ordinary Jews, they were religious teachers (Matt 3:7-9). They understood Greek ideas.

2. (In response to your comment about how Jesus speaks) Jesus said things all the time that people didn't understand.
In fact, He spoke in parables so that certain people wouldn't understand:

“And He said, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God,
but to the rest, it is in parables so that while seeing they may not see, and while hearing they may not understand.” (Luke 8:10)

3. Jesus actually didn't even say this, john the Baptist did:

“Now John himself had a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? “Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.” (Matthew 3:4–9)

Jocund said:

There are no single sentence non-sequiturs. I don't understand what you are referring to. You have to quote at least 2 consecutive sentences with a logical disconnect before you can call something an on-sequiter. A statement isn't a non-sequitur simply because it is untrue. So what are you referring to here?

Jocund said:

The transfiguration was a vision. Moses and Elijah weren't actually standing on the mountain with them. Your justification is a false comparison.

Jocund said:

all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left." (1 Kings 22:19)
"all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left." (1 Kings 22:19). Stop twisting God's word

Jocund said:

People can be in God's presence. That's not the issue. The issue is seeing God's actual face without dying. None of these Scriptures you've provided are evidence that angels haven't seen God's absolute glory.
In fact, God's glory "fills His temple", where the Seraphim dwell (Isa 6:1-13)...which brings us full circle back to "all the host of heaven standing by his throne" (2 King 22:21).

The angels have seen the fullness of God's glory.

Jocund said:

this wasn't part of my argument. I made it very clear that this part was speculation.
View attachment 240757

Please don't put words in my mouth. It's really unpleasant to converse with someone who constantly misquotes (and therefore, straw-mans) me. My speculation was that angels cannot repent because there's nothing more to draw them back than what they have already experienced.

I am still researching this in the Scriptures. But I have been busy with school, so it's on pause at the moment.

Jocund said:

My original post (post# 10) is the conclusion (top layer).
The reasons I gave are the premises (middle layer).
The passages of Scripture are the basis on which the premises stand (bottom layer).

Each layer is either supporting another layer, being supported by another layer, or both.

When you make an argument, you express a claim (conclusion), which is supported by the premises.
The reasons for the conclusion are a series of supporting premises.
Each premise is supported by a handful of Scriptures.

Each time you attempt to scrutinize the meaning or legitimacy of a layer, you cannot derive or justify any legitimate scrutiny by examining a higher layer. You have to move down in order to deconstruct that part of an argument. I suppose I can illustrate:

If I was an architect who designed your house and over the next 10 years the house began to lean unevenly, the logical thing to do would be to examine the foundation of the house to make sure it was established on a level surface (going down a layer). But if you were to suggest that we examine the roof to see why the house is leaning, we wouldn't get anywhere productive because there is no causal relationship between the roof and the leaning house. The roof didn't cause the house to lean, the uneven foundation did. The person who understands this will not waste time investigating the wrong thing.

That is the best I can do to explain how deconstructing arguments works. If that isn't enough, you'll need to do some independent research on the subject. This has to make sense to both of us before we can meaningfully revisit any of the off-branches earlier in the discussion.

[part 2/2]

Magenta · Jun 15, 2022

Diakonos said:

I think this is clever on multiple levels

Jocund · Jun 15, 2022

Diakonos said:

Hmm... "literal default" + "Moses standing beside not literal"

Diakonos said:

That's not what I said. Please read more carefully.

Diakonos said:

Please reflect on the meaning of "intended audience"

Diakonos said:

That can't be true because Tuesday is seven letters long.

Jocund said:

Diakonos said:

Oh I see.

Diakonos said:

Jocund said:

Please review.

Jocund said:

Diakonos said:

If the meaning of the "heavenly host" includes nonangels, it would follow that the host would not be 100% angels by composition.

"IF" statements, logical "necessity". Please review. Read. Read again.

Diakonos said:

Do you not realize that there is such a thing as a speculative argument? You made a speculative argument following from your "now I'll speculate" line.

Now go back and read what I wrote with that understanding. Huge portions of your argumentation are speculative. The part that you called speculative doesn't make the rest of your argumentation not speculative. And calling a speculative argument speculative doesn't make it cease being an argument.

Diakonos said:

Based on your usage you have no idea what that means.

I wouldn't be surprised if you actually meant to say a different term altogether.

Diakonos said:

I imagine the engineer doing the calculations for that design wouldn't be in for a fun time.

Diakonos said:

The thing you are alleging as your "bottom layer" isn't actually scripture, the bottom you are using is your interpretation of the meaning of scripture. Your interpretation of the meaning of different verses is mainly what I am challenging.

If I'm recalling correctly from our conversation so far, I proposed that an angel that is currently "Satan's angel" could change into "not Satan's angel" by the timing of the verse that mentions where Satan's angels go.

Imagine a passage that stated "all caterpillars go into the fire on the last day". If a caterpillar became a butterfly before the last day, the line would not apply to it. If there was a line that said "all unrepentant sinners go to hell", it would clearly be the case that repenting would take someone out of that category. Is an angel that is Satan's angel today forever Satan's angel? If that isn't necessary true, then their destination isn't necessarily known.

A good approach for "Satan's angels can't change" is from Heb 6.

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." - Heb 6:4-6 KJV

I still don't see Heb 6 as a slam-dunk, but it is a good starting point to make a compelling case.

Diakonos said:

If a premise is necessary true, it is a necessary extension of the axioms. The "roof" can become part of the "foundation" which is why the temple pillar analogy doesn't work. In order to improve that analogy, you need to imagine a multilayered temple.

The ground level would be your base axioms such as "scripture is true", the initial lowest pillars would be your conventions for interpretation "This phrasing means this", and from that initial set of interpretations which you can picture as the second floor. From that you can build on bigger concepts, and from there you can build your worldview with the third floor. Your issue with how you are processing this is that you're staring at the second to third floor as though that is the only part of the conversation that exists. I'm telling you that you have premise issues between the ground and the second floor.

The temple pillar analogy is still terrible, but I'm hoping something clicks for you with the multilayered temple point.

And why wouldn't a roof have a causal relationship to a leaning house? If the pillars don't correctly support the weight of the roof, of course the structure will lean.

Diakonos said:

Is this pictured temple built on a level surface?

You sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. Your analogy and explanation are entirely irreconcilable. If you care for explaining yourself more clearly, can you please use a different analogy? Or better yet, can you present your case using a formal syllogism?

Diakonos said:

Based on the way you try to explain, you seem to completely lack a sound understanding of how formal logic and rational discourse work. You consistently use terms incorrectly, including "circle reasoning", "non sequitur", "Argumentum Ad Speculum", "syllogism", etc. You consistently demonstrate a lack of comprehension for concepts such as speculative argumentation. You don't seem to care to learn about how language works from a lexicographical perspective. You constantly impose your own intuited (not logically determined) interpretation of what scripture means in a way that sometimes contradicts your own arbitrary rules that you introduced in other parts of your explanation.

Diakonos said:

The core of exegesis is mathematics. If you have trouble trying to think in terms of equations and balancing of numbers and variables, you are likely going to have trouble remaining objective about how scripture should be interpreted.

It could be the case that your intuition about different topics is bang-on. My criticism isn't about what you feel is true. Your sense of truth could be 100% accurate when derived from intuition. My criticism is that you seem to be trying to present your perspective as though you have logically come to that conclusion. I think you've just intuitively come to a conclusion and then performed simple contradiction checks against scripture afterwards.

Think of this Sudoku puzzle. There are two ways to approach this. You can lead by intuition and randomly fill in the positions of "7" and "2" and double check for the lack of contradictions afterwards. Or you can logically assess that there are two possible solutions that are both equally valid. Two people that work from intuition will inevitably come to contradictory conclusions and argue with each other over which interpretation is more correct. Two people that work from logic will never contradict each other as both will recognize a superposition of two possibilities. If one person came from intuition and the other person from logic, they will also both disagree.

The person that operates by intuition might have arbitrary rules or conventions for how to resolve ambiguity. Maybe they think that reading from top left to bottom right, the pattern should be lowest to highest whenever possible. So their solution would be 2-7-7-2. They might become so comfortable with that to the point they don't understand how anyone could see it any other way.

Diakonos · Jun 22, 2022

Jocund said:

If the passage didn't modify the description of the encounter, then we could understand the Transfiguration event to include Moses and Elijah actually standing on the mountain with them. But since the passage says it was a vision, we know they were not literally there with them.

Jocund said:

I didn't say you said it. I said you assumed it. Is that not your assumption?

Jocund said:

The intended audience of the passage you quoted ("God is able to raise up children to Abraham") was John the Baptist speaking to the religious leaders.

Jocund said:

Again, the fact that a sentence is nonsensical or untrue, does not make it a non-sequitur.
Non-sequiturs are a minimum of 2 sentences long.
You incorrectly labeled a single sentence of mine a "non sequitur".

Jocund said:

Just because those letters and symbols can be used as tautology does not mean I was using them to mean that. I was referring to the Law of Identity with the same symbols...right out of the textbook. I have explained how that is what I meant. I know that it can be used to express tautology, but that is not how I used it (via my context in those posts), and I have thoroughly explained how. So you have all you need here to understand my purpose for the expression: "A = A". Even though they can be used for the tautology, I used them to illustrate the Law of Identity. You have been thoroughly informed of this usage.

Jocund said:

Concerning 1 Kings 22:19, you said, the " 'host of heaven" does not necessarily mean 100% angels".
How do you know that?

In the passage, they are called "spirits" who are "standing by [the Lord]" and speaking to Him about Ahab and obeying His command to entice Ahab (1 Kings 22:19-22).

Jocund said:

I said, "I'm going to speculate now" . . . I personally believe that angels can't repent for this reason . . . It is not evidence for my position . . ."
I clarified in advance that I was not relying on this speculation to justify my previously-articulated position (post# 10). It was an unnecessary side-note in case you were curious to see one way I consider the possibility of angelic repentance. Of course, I could have gone that route and used used this speculation as part of my argument, but I chose to offer it in a manner for your mere entertainment.

Jocund said:

. . .
which I thoroughly dismantled at the end of post# 39.

CS1 · Jun 22, 2022

Omegatime said:

GOD said he has prepared a place for them and God never suggested that location or event will not happen. The time is short. Satan knows it.

Satan and his angels

Banned

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member