Satan and his angels

[Jocund]

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.

It would be good to know what version of the Bible you are using because the verses do not say it was a vision. The account in Luke goes so far to say that Elias and Moses were talking with Jesus prior to Peter et al waking up and becoming aware of the situation.

"And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him." - Matthew 17:3 KJV

"And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus." - Mark 9:4 KJV

"And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him." - Luke 9:30-32 KJV

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

No. But it is great that you acknowledged that you made assumptions.

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.

I acknowledge that you erroneously attributed the quote to Jesus in post 51... I am boggled. Why does your mistake matter? Especially when it had absolutely nothing to do with the point that was being discussed.

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".

No. There is no sentence rule with non sequitur. There are likely going to be at least two clauses. It comes from Latin meaning "it does not follow". It's not hard to find examples of single sentence non sequitur: https://literarydevices.net/non-sequitur/

If you believe non-sequiturs are a minimum of 2 sentences long: can you explain why you called a single sentence non sequitur in post 39?

In order for an angel to sin it must have had a sinful nature.

Non-sequitur.

The reply "That can't be true because Tuesday is seven letters long." is an example of non sequitur.

So the alarming thing is how in the world did you possibly come to the conclusion that non sequitur required two sentences? Did you look up examples and come to the conclusion that all of the examples you briefly looked at had two sentences therefore it was a requirement? That in itself is an example of poor inductive reasoning that led you to an absurdly incorrect conclusion about a simple concept. Sure, you might have been following your intuition regarding what "felt right" in that instance, but without the requisite logical checks and balances you ended up in a world of incorrect conclusions and misconceptions about how things work.

This is basically what you are doing when you make up things on the fly like that:

Just because those letters and symbols can be used as tautology does not mean I was using them to mean that.

It would be helpful if you could look up what tautology means before commenting on it.

I was referring to the Law of Identity with the same symbols...right out of the textbook

Considering you conflated two different laws of thought and seem to refuse to recognize that the law of identity is a tautology, and that you were saying the opposite of your excerpt text stated, I don't think this is worth discussing further.

Logic is an expression of the mind of God. And intuition is the ability to directly know things

Not quite. Divine revelation is the condition of being directly shown something. Intuition is a process for arriving at an answer, it is subject to human err. I would argue that intuition is part of pathos.

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

You didn't. I would have liked if you had a cohesive rebuttal to transmutation or the possibility of an alternate grace mechanism. You basically just came to the conclusion that "those concepts don't feel right therefore they can't be true." which doesn't add anything to a rational discourse.

The Holy Spirit illuminates the Scripture to me.

It might be the case that you have been led to an understanding of things that is specific to you and what you need. I can see that. I would suggest the interpretation that you aren't presenting universal truths and are mistaking those truths relative to your circumstance to apply universally.

It would be like stating that shellfish should never be eaten and insisting to everyone else that it will always be the case for yourself and anyone you meet that shellfish is not to be consumed. Based on Romans 14, it might very well be the case that you shouldn't eat shellfish and that anyone you eat with shouldn't eat shellfish. It might become a deeply rooted belief that you have that shellfish is never to be consumed. Also based on Romans 14, that perception of shellfish, while existing as a truth within your realm of existence, would not universally be true.

It may be the case that your perception of fallen angels, etc. is a specific understanding that the Holy Spirit has given you and only for you. If fallen angels, unclean spirits, etc. could be saved by some intervention perhaps it would be the case that it isn't in your design or purpose to participate in that mission. It would make sense that your understanding would not align with that function.

Your method of "feeling out answers" might be exactly what you should be doing in order to find answers for yourself and perhaps even those directly around you. But don't confuse that with logical process, rational discourse, and logos.

 

[Magenta]

It would be good to know what version of the Bible you are using because the verses do not say it was a vision. The account in Luke goes so far to say that Elias and Moses were talking with Jesus prior to Peter et al waking up and becoming aware of the situation.

English Standard Version
And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them,
“Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.”

Berean Study Bible
As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Do not tell
anyone about this vision until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

Berean Literal Bible
And as they were descending from the mountain, Jesus instructed them, saying,
"Tell to no one the vision, until the Son of Man is risen out from the dead."

King James Bible
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying,
Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

New King James Version
Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying,
“Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.”

New American Standard Bible
When they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying,
“Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.”

NASB 1995
As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying,
“Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.”

NASB 1977
And as they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying,
“Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.”

Christian Standard Bible
As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Don’t tell
anyone about the vision until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.”

Holman Christian Standard Bible
As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Don’t
tell anyone about the vision until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.”

American Standard Version
And as they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them,
saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And as they descended from the mountain, Yeshua ordered them and he said to them, “Do
not tell this vision in the presence of any man until The Son of Man will rise from the dead.”

Douay-Rheims Bible
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying:
Tell the vision to no man, till the Son of man be risen from the dead.

Good News Translation
As they came down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, "Don't tell anyone about
this vision you have seen until the Son of Man has been raised from death."

International Standard Version
On their way down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, "Don't tell anyone
about this vision until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

Literal Standard Version
And as they are coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying,
“Say to no one the vision, until the Son of Man may rise out of the dead.”

New American Bible
As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, “Do not
tell the vision to anyone until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

NET Bible
As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, "Do
not tell anyone about the vision until the Son of Man is raised from the dead."

New Revised Standard Version
As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, “Tell no one
about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

Young's Literal Translation
And as they are coming down from the mount, Jesus charged them, saying,
'Say to no one the vision, till the Son of Man out of the dead may rise.'

Literal Emphasis Translation
And as they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying,
Do not tell anyone the vision until the Son of Man is risen from out of the dead.

Catholic Translations
Douay-Rheims Bible
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying:
Tell the vision to no man, till the Son of man be risen from the dead.

Catholic Public Domain Version
And as they were descending from the mountain, Jesus instructed them, saying,
“Tell no one about the vision, until the Son of man has risen from the dead.”

Translations from Aramaic
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And as they descended from the mountain, Yeshua ordered them and he said to them, “Do
not tell this vision in the presence of any man until The Son of Man will rise from the dead.”

Lamsa Bible
And as they were going down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, and said to them,
Do not speak of this vision in the presence of anyone, until the Son of man rises from the dead.

NT Translations
Anderson New Testament
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying:
Tell the vision to no one, till the Son of man has risen from the dead.

Godbey New Testament
And they coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying,
Tell the vision to no one, until the Son of man may rise from the dead.

Haweis New Testament
And when they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them,
saying, Tell no man the vision, until the Son of man is risen from the dead.

Mace New Testament
As they went down the mountain, Jesus gave them this charge, don't speak of the vision, said
he, to any body, till the son of man be risen again from the dead: but his disciples asked him,

Weymouth New Testament
As they were descending the mountain, Jesus laid a command upon them.
"Tell no one," He said, "of the sight you have seen till the Son of Man has risen from among the dead."

Worrell New Testament
And, as they were coming down out of the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying,
"Tell the vision to no one, until the Son of Man be raised from among the dead."

Worsley New Testament
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying,
Tell the vision to no one, till the Son of man be risen from the dead.

Geneva Bible of 1587
And as they came downe from the moutaine, Iesus charged them, saying,
Shewe the vision to no man, vntil the Sonne of man rise againe from the dead.

Bishops' Bible of 1568
And when they came downe from the mountayne, Iesus charged them, saying:
shewe the vision to no man, vntyll the sonne of man be rysen agayne from the dead.

Coverdale Bible of 1535
And wha they came downe fro ye mountayne, Iesus charged them, and sayde:
Tell no man of this vision, tyll the sonne of man be rysen agayne from ye deed.

Tyndale Bible of 1526
And as they came doune from the mountayne Iesus charged them sayinge: se yt ye
shewe the vision to no man vntyll the sonne of man be rysen ageyne from deeth.

 

[Jocund]

King James Bible
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying,
Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Good catch. I should have stated "figurative vision" as that was what we were talking about.

If Moses and Elias weren't literally present in the transfiguration, the implication is that the burning bush Moses encountered wasn't literally a burning bush (just a figurative vision per Acts 7:31 where the same word is used).

 

[Runningman]

Good catch. I should have stated "figurative vision" as that was what we were talking about.

If Moses and Elias weren't literally present in the transfiguration, the implication is that the burning bush Moses encountered wasn't literally a burning bush (just a figurative vision per Acts 7:31 where the same word is used).

My thoughts exactly concerning Acts 7:31 where there was a literal burning bush for Moses, but it refers to it as something he saw rather than a vision. When I think of a vision I think it's either a dream or an image superimposed over reality. Moses seems to have seen a literal burning bush, but the translators called it "the sight" rather than a vision. To me that introduces the possibility that a vision doesn't necessarily have to be a dream or seeing something that is visible, but physically non-existent.

I don't know why they translated it as "sight", but I am no Greek language expert by any standard.

Acts 7:31 KJV
When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,

 

[Runningman]

My thoughts exactly concerning Acts 7:31 where there was a literal burning bush for Moses, but it refers to it as something he saw rather than a vision. When I think of a vision I think it's either a dream or an image superimposed over reality. Moses seems to have seen a literal burning bush, but the translators called it "the sight" rather than a vision. To me that introduces the possibility that a vision doesn't necessarily have to be a dream or seeing something that is visible, but physically non-existent.

I don't know why they translated it as "sight", but I am no Greek language expert by any standard.

Acts 7:31 KJV
When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,

And most translations, I might add, followed suit and kept the word "sight" in Acts 7:31 rather than change it to "vision." That's interesting, imo.

 

[Magenta]

Good catch. I should have stated "figurative vision" as that was what we were talking about.

If Moses and Elias weren't literally present in the transfiguration, the implication is that the burning bush Moses
encountered wasn't literally a burning bush (just a figurative vision per Acts 7:31 where the same word is used).

The bush was not literally burning or it would have been consumed, which it was not.

◄ 3705. horama ►

​

Strong's Concordance
horama: that which is seen
Original Word: ὅραμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: horama
Phonetic Spelling: (hor'-am-ah)
Definition: that which is seen
Usage: a spectacle, vision, that which is seen.

HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 3705 hórama (a neuter noun derived from 3708 /horáō, "to see,
spiritual and mentally") – a vision (spiritual seeing), focusing on the impact
it has on the one beholding the vision (spiritual seeing). See 3708 (horaō).

 

[Jocund]

The bush was not literally burning or it would have been consumed, which it was not.

◄ 3705. horama ►

​

Strong's Concordance
horama: that which is seen
Original Word: ὅραμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: horama
Phonetic Spelling: (hor'-am-ah)
Definition: that which is seen
Usage: a spectacle, vision, that which is seen.

HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 3705 hórama (a neuter noun derived from 3708 /horáō, "to see,
spiritual and mentally") – a vision (spiritual seeing), focusing on the impact
it has on the one beholding the vision (spiritual seeing). See 3708 (horaō).

That's really neat. I think I took it for granted that most would interpret the burning bush to be a supernatural miracle rather a vision based on Exodus 3:2-3's emphasis on Moses's astonishment that the bush wasn't being consumed.

"And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. - Exodus 3:2-3 KJV

You bring up a solid point: what would be stopping the burning bush from only being a figurative vision? The interesting implication is that all instances of "vision" or "appeared" or "great sight" or "and behold" would be subject to the same scrutiny. If we interpret all of these instances to necessarily be figurative visions, that incudes things like the Genesis creation account (and anything else revealed to Moses to write down), the appearance of Jesus after death (though the ressurection itself is necesssarily literal), the imagery in Revelation (Rev 9:17 uses Strong's 3706). If it's possible that the burning bush was just a figurative vision it would follow that many other things could be too. Including verses that don't explicitly say "vision".

But that brings us back to the part of the discussion that the other user and I were arguing about. Does the presence of the word "vision" necessarily mean that Moses wasn't actually present? I would argue no, it only possibly makes it the case.

And from a possible interpretation one would have to make their case about why it ought be considered the most compelling. The perspective the other user was presenting seemed to be that the Holy Spirit was leading them to understand scripture in a certain way. I don't personally find that to be a compelling argument for me. But I had to step back for a moment and appreciate that no one has a perfect understanding but everyone led by the Holy Spirit will have the understanding they need at that time.

Going back to the Monty Python skit about the witch weighing the same as a duck on an inbalanced scale. The scene highlights the danger of foregoing rational thinking (logos) in favour of intuition (pathos) by alluding to the witch trials. But it could have actually been the case that the Knight Bedeviere correctly landed on the right answer that she was a witch (despite using an irrational approach).

The best part about the skit is that she actually admits to being a witch when she quietly acknowledges "That's a fair cop" after the lopsided scales show that she weighs the same as a duck.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it's a fair cop

The "logic" of the Monty Python skit would be like having someone in a dream insisting that some absurd string of thoughts is the only logical approach. It could be the case that based on the dream-logic or cosmology of that dreamworld that they are absolutely right despite disagreeing with our internal feeling of what makes sense. It could be that in the dreamworld we're actually the ones that have the wrong internal sense of how things work and that our guide in the dream is speaking clearly in the logic and rationality of the waking world.

What if God's creation is His dreamworld? Shouldn't the absurdity of dreams we experience during sleep point to the fact that we can have such a conviction that our dreamstate "rational thinking" is sound despite waking up later and realizing that absurdity of our approach within that dreamscape? Maybe the logic was actually sound within that dreamscape by the rules of that dreamscape. Maybe the logic of the waking world is just as absurd as that of our dreams, we just wouldn't recognize in that moment.

We can have moments of lucidity in dreams where the waking mind peers through. In some cases, lucid dreamers can even start to break the rules of that dream. Is this what we see with miracles like walking on water? Are we in a dreamworld of the Great Dreamer?

I acknowledge that the other user's "rational approach" could be correct despite appearing to be completely absurd. The absurdity of something does not necessarily mean it can't be true. If taken literally instead of figuratively, Moses admired the absurdity of a burning bush that was not consumed. What an eye experiences might appear absurd to an ear.

If someone came up to me in a dream, shook me around and said "Wake up!" I might not understand right then and there what was going on. It might be a person in the waking world shaking my physical body but it might manifest in the dream in some way.

If someone was given a Divine Revelation, and started saying "Wake up!" while trying to explain something, it might come across as absurd and contrary to the logic of the world. But, I can't pretend to be lucid in a dream in order to become lucid, and I can't truly absorb what someone is saying from a personal divine revelation unless that revelation is given to me as well. But if you've had enough experiences with dreams, you'll know that sometimes you can will yourself to wake up or perhaps even intentionally will yourself into a lucid state. Could the same force of will (or faith?) work for opening up to a divinely revealed level of reality that has been shown to you before? To open a door that has been revealed to you?

Even with evershifting dream-logic, is there not a consistency between all things that love can be felt? Is love not a universal truth between all layers of reality? Could that be why there is such focus on love?

Does God love Satan despite the prophesied action to cast him into the Lake of Fire? Does God love tares despite their destiny for fire? If God loves these, shouldn't we also share God's love? Shouldn't we hope the best for them?

"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful." - Mat 6:35-36 KJV

"Love is patient, love is kind [...] It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. " - 1 Cor 13:4a&7 NIV

There was an interesting piece of folklore when Christianity was expanding into Iceland. The story goes that a Pastor or Priest came onto the island and started cleansing areas of evil spirits. Eventually one of the wicked spirits was pushed back to a small rocky cliff-face. The creature petitioned for mercy stating that even evil things need a place. The Priest granted the spirit mercy by leaving the cliff-face uncleansed.

So even if it were a prevalent modern thought that devils should be shown no quarter, it was at least historically a consideration in some places.

The thought I'm left with is: shouldn't we hope for the salvation of evil beings even if it only seems to be vastly improbable? Isn't that part of God's love? Is there a harm in projecting love and kindness? (Perhaps there is harm for some if there is a likelihood to be tempted to evil by the attempt to show love and mercy).

 

[Magenta]

That's really neat. I think I took it for granted that most would interpret the burning bush to be a supernatural miracle
rather a vision based on Exodus 3:2-3's emphasis on Moses's astonishment that the bush wasn't being consumed.

Now there's a non sequitur

 

[JesusLives]

I have not read that thread. But what I am saying angels are not given second chances when they sin

We don't know if they were given second chance in heaven as the Bible doesn't tell us that.

 

[Mem]

Phrases like busy body, poor soul. sweet spirit.... these have all been used in reference to humans so I can't reach that full certainty without doubt that God 'makes his angels ministering spirits' doesn't refer to some ethereal part of actual individual persons which, we shouldn't forget, are all made in His image.

 

[Diakonos]

It would be good to know what version of the Bible you are using because the verses do not say it was a vision. The account in Luke goes so far to say that Elias and Moses were talking with Jesus prior to Peter et al waking up and becoming aware of the situation.

"And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him." - Matthew 17:3 KJV

"And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus." - Mark 9:4 KJV

"And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him." - Luke 9:30-32 KJV



No. But it is great that you acknowledged that you made assumptions.



I acknowledge that you erroneously attributed the quote to Jesus in post 51... I am boggled. Why does your mistake matter? Especially when it had absolutely nothing to do with the point that was being discussed.



No. There is no sentence rule with non sequitur. There are likely going to be at least two clauses. It comes from Latin meaning "it does not follow". It's not hard to find examples of single sentence non sequitur: https://literarydevices.net/non-sequitur/

If you believe non-sequiturs are a minimum of 2 sentences long: can you explain why you called a single sentence non sequitur in post 39?




The reply "That can't be true because Tuesday is seven letters long." is an example of non sequitur.

So the alarming thing is how in the world did you possibly come to the conclusion that non sequitur required two sentences? Did you look up examples and come to the conclusion that all of the examples you briefly looked at had two sentences therefore it was a requirement? That in itself is an example of poor inductive reasoning that led you to an absurdly incorrect conclusion about a simple concept. Sure, you might have been following your intuition regarding what "felt right" in that instance, but without the requisite logical checks and balances you ended up in a world of incorrect conclusions and misconceptions about how things work.

This is basically what you are doing when you make up things on the fly like that:

It would be helpful if you could look up what tautology means before commenting on it.



Considering you conflated two different laws of thought and seem to refuse to recognize that the law of identity is a tautology, and that you were saying the opposite of your excerpt text stated, I don't think this is worth discussing further.



Not quite. Divine revelation is the condition of being directly shown something. Intuition is a process for arriving at an answer, it is subject to human err. I would argue that intuition is part of pathos.



You didn't. I would have liked if you had a cohesive rebuttal to transmutation or the possibility of an alternate grace mechanism. You basically just came to the conclusion that "those concepts don't feel right therefore they can't be true." which doesn't add anything to a rational discourse.



It might be the case that you have been led to an understanding of things that is specific to you and what you need. I can see that. I would suggest the interpretation that you aren't presenting universal truths and are mistaking those truths relative to your circumstance to apply universally.

It would be like stating that shellfish should never be eaten and insisting to everyone else that it will always be the case for yourself and anyone you meet that shellfish is not to be consumed. Based on Romans 14, it might very well be the case that you shouldn't eat shellfish and that anyone you eat with shouldn't eat shellfish. It might become a deeply rooted belief that you have that shellfish is never to be consumed. Also based on Romans 14, that perception of shellfish, while existing as a truth within your realm of existence, would not universally be true.

It may be the case that your perception of fallen angels, etc. is a specific understanding that the Holy Spirit has given you and only for you. If fallen angels, unclean spirits, etc. could be saved by some intervention perhaps it would be the case that it isn't in your design or purpose to participate in that mission. It would make sense that your understanding would not align with that function.

Your method of "feeling out answers" might be exactly what you should be doing in order to find answers for yourself and perhaps even those directly around you. But don't confuse that with logical process, rational discourse, and logos.

Since I took a break from social media to work on finals for my college quarter, I've forgotten a lot of what we were talking about.
If you direct message me, I can give you my phone number if you'd like to chat more efficiently.

In the meantime...A few things to note about the Transfiguration:

1. Immediately before the Transfiguration, Jesus said,​

​

“There are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death
until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.””(Matthew 16:28)
​

He was referring to a specific subset of the disciples he was speaking to at that moment (those who were about to join Him on the mountain).

2. He said the Transfiguration was a vision​

​

“As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying,
'Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.'” (Matthew 17:9)​

3. Peter associated their mountain-top experience with seeing the 2nd coming of Jesus (2 Pet 1:16-19); what they saw was prophetic.​

Proof: Matthew 17 and 2 Pet 1 side-by-side: (color-coded for accociation)​

​

​

​

​

​

On the mountain, Peter, James, and John were given a prophetic vision, in which they witnessed Jesus in all his glory and power at His 2nd coming. They saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom before they died. This is why the mountain top experience is mentioned as the following event to this statement in all the Synoptics. It was a vision.


When you're done chewing on that, feel free to private message me for my number. BTW, I prefer KJV and NASB when I'm using an English translation.