Sunday, February 28, 2021
PhD: Twitter quote 57
Thursday, February 25, 2021
The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity: Very non-exhaustive
Saturday, February 20, 2021
Different evil entities? (sermon) II
Men possessed by the spirit of Antichrist don't know the truth and wouldn't preach it if they did. But what about God-fearing men? Why have they gotten it so wrong so long? I can tell you why. They confuse words that sound alike with ideas that are alike.
If the Antichrist is the enemy of God and the Man of Sin is the enemy of God and the Beast is the enemy of God and the False Prophet is the enemy of God and the Little Horn is the enemy of God then.the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Little Horn are all the same man!
Wrong!
Who killed the Lord? Pontius Pilate, King Herod, Caiaphas, Annas, Judas Iscariot, the Roman soldiers, the Centurion, and the mob. Are Judas and Pilate the same man? Is Herod another name for Annas? They were all enemies of the Lord, but they were different persons.
A concordance is like the law, "Good, if it is used lawfully". But comparing a word in Revelation to a word in Daniel to a word in Matthew to a word in I John is no way to study the Bible or to find the truth!
Read the Bible in context, get the flow of thought, understand one passage before you go on to another. That's the way to keep your doctrine straight and your heart in the truth.
---
Interesting perspective, perhaps on preterist lines on some points. By the Pastor's take, the Antichrist, is not the Man of Sin, and yet again the Beast, False Prophet and Little Horn are all different persons.
(The Beast and False Prophet have often been distinguished in scholarship).
I am by no means dismissing this theology. It is reasonable theology, however, a trillion dollar question arises for me. If these persons, after separating the Beast from the False Prophet, are not the Antichrist, then who are they?
Robert Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. Mounce (1990: 42).
Strong lists the Antichrist four times from the New Testament, and the term Antichrists once. The references are from First and Second John. Phillips' sermon too ties these terms to John's within his letters.
Strong's number 473 is noted as ἀντί, and therefore is anti, anglicised. Strong (1986: 13). The number 5547 is χριστός, which is Christ, which Strong's states is from 5548 which means the anointed, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus. Strong (1986: 106). The beast from Revelation 11: 7 onward is figuratively described as θηρίον.
Robert Mounce is a well-known scholar on the Book of Revelation. In contrast to a preterist position, he embraces at least aspects of a futurist position. In Revelation, the Antichrist is the beast and the enemy of the Church in the last days. Mounce states that this may be the beast of Daniel 7: 7. Mounce (1990: 225).
Notice he states, 'may'.
David A. Hubbard writes that the term 'antichrist' is found only in the Johannine letters. Again in support of Phillips' sermon.
The concept is found in both Testaments and in intertestamental writings. Hubbard (1996: 55). Hubbard explains as Christ is not fully revealed in the Old Testament, the Antichrist is not either.
Hubbard notes that in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolizes rebellion, and in eschatological terms seems to depict the defeat of God's final enemy, while Daniel 8 describes Antiochus IV who persecuted the Jews and their religion. Hubbard (1996: 55). The description of the king of the north in Daniel 11 has helped shape the picture of the New Testament Antichrist, as he erected the abomination of desolation, exalted himself to a position of deity, and his helpless death points to Christ's slaying of the Antichrist.
The beast from the sea in Revelation 13 points toward Daniel 7 and ties Daniel to the New Testament. Hubbard (1996: 55). In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark the abomination of desolation recalls Daniel's prophecy and this may be pointing to a single personality according to Hubbard. Hubbard (1996: 55).
Again, note the term 'may'.
In Second Thessalonians, Paul describes the man of lawlessness and the lawless one (Second Thessalonians 2:3, 8-9). This man claims to be deity and according to Hubbard is not a pseudo-Messiah pretending to represent God, but a pseudo-God that viciously opposes all other religions. Hubbard (1996: 56).
(The man of sin)
The Antichrist will do many amazing wonders with satanic power that will be attributed to God (Second Thessalonians 2: 9-10 and Matthew 24). Hubbard reasons that John, like Paul and Daniel, depicts a single Antichrist who demands personal worship. Hubbard (1996: 56).
So, this is in contrast to the sermon, reviewed.
John adds to Paul's version by mentioning the false prophet, the second beast. This person will direct the political and religious workings of the Antichrist. Hubbard (1996: 56). If the Antichrist is a system as opposed to an actual person, the second beast, the false prophet, could also be an aspect of the system.
Mounce writes that the beast has ten horns and seven heads. The ten horns are like Daniel's fourth beast from Daniel 7: 7. Ten kings come from the fourth kingdom. The seven heads can be connected to the seven-headed dragon of Revelation 12: 3. The number seven carries the idea of completeness. Mounce (1990: 250). The beast is given divine permission to rule for forty-two months. Mounce (1990: 254). The beast blasphemes God in a way similar to Antiochus in Daniel's day, and the Roman Empire in John's day. This means the Antichrist is likely a secular authority. Mounce (1990: 254).
The beast will overcome the saints and put them to death, and this too will echo the times of both Antiochus and the later Roman Empire. Mounce (1990: 255). But, as Mounce points out, there is victory in martyrdom for Christians in this era. Mounce explains that the entire world will worship this beast, apart from those written in the Lamb's book of life and the beast will be a type of false Christ described in Matthew 24. Mounce (1990: 255). So, on this last point he appears to differ from Hubbard. To demonstrate how careful one should be in dealing with eschatology and the issue of the Antichrist, consider the following:
Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. The events and book of Revelation are not relegated to the future, but are understood to have occurred by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476. Mounce (1990: 41).
Mounce explains that a major problem with this preterism is that the decisive victory over evil described in Revelation is not achieved. John views the overthrow of evil occurring with the defeat of Antichrist. Mounce (1990: 42).
The futurist view is more common among scholars and understands that Revelation describes a final victory over evil. Phillips acknowledges this in his sermon. Some scholars regard everything after Revelation 4:1 as taking place in the future. But, Mounce sees this as problematic as the book still needs to be relevant for the first-century reader. Mounce (1990: 42). Mounce reasons that no single approach is sufficient.
The preterist is correct that the book of Revelation must be understood in a first-century context.
The futurist is correct that the book is centrally eschatological describing how this age will come to an end. Mounce (1990: 44). Mounce also explains the value of the historist approach which sees the importance of specific fulfilment in history. A problem which this view is that it is quite subjective in connecting certain historical events to Scripture. Mounce (1990: 42). The benefits of the idealistic approach are that God can be seen as guiding the events. But, Mounce notes that the idealistic approach may lack a distinct consummation of events. Mounce (1990: 43). Its allegorical method tends to lessen the historical nature of future events. Mounce (1990: 43).
W.R.F. Browning writes that the lawless one is expected before the Second Coming of Christ and has been identified with the Roman Empire and Nero. Beyond the historical dimension, Antichrist is a symbol for a final revolt against Christ, although the revolt is embodied in a historical person such as Judas Iscariot. Browning (1997: 17). By the use of Judas, I reason Browning means that the Antichrist will act as a representative of God and Christ, but in reality represents satanic powers.
Further:
2 Thessalonians 2: 7-12...
New American Standard Bible
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [f]coming; 9 that is, the one whose [g]coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and [h]signs and false wonders, 10 and with [i]all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God [j]will send upon them [k]a deluding influence so that they will believe [l]what is false, 12 in order that they all may be [m]judged who did not believe the truth, but [n]took pleasure in wickedness.
f 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Or presence
g 2 Thessalonians 2:9 Or presence
h 2 Thessalonians 2:9 Or attesting miracles
i 2 Thessalonians 2:10 Or every deception
j 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Lit is sending
k 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Lit an activity of error
l 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Or the lie
m 2 Thessalonians 2:12 Or condemned
n 2 Thessalonians 2:12
Or approved I take it this event, the second coming of Jesus Christ, should be interpreted with a significant level of literalness. However, I admit that the Lord slaying the lawless one with the breath of His mouth is quite possibly significantly figurative language. But the second coming of Christ is a literal, biblical and theological event of the future.
In my mind, the potentially figurative nature of Christ's breath and the slaying of the opposition does not cancel out the literalness of the second advent. Actual (non-fiction, non-mythological) historical events can be described with degrees of literal and figurative language. Jesus Christ literally destroys the lawless one at this point, in some context to do with breath from his mouth. Possibly, it may also be quite literal language, as Jesus Christ as the God-man would be quite capable of destroying an opponent that way.
Regardless, it does not appear this event occurred in the New Testament era.
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HUBBARD, DAVID A.(1996) ‘Antichrist’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
Thursday, February 18, 2021
The Orthodox Study Bible: Gnosticism
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
Tuesday, February 16, 2021
PhD: Twitter quote 56
Monday, February 15, 2021
PhD: Twitter quote 55
Sunday, February 14, 2021
PhD: Twitter quote 54
Friday, February 12, 2021
The Orthodox Study Bible: Colossians 2: 8 is not against all philosophy
Tuesday, February 09, 2021
PhD: Twitter quote 53
Monday, February 08, 2021
PhD: Twitter quote 52
Saturday, February 06, 2021
PhD: Twitter quote 51
Monday, February 01, 2021
Final Events IV: Chapter I Continued
Final Events IV: Chapter I Continued
Edited February 3 2021
REDFERN, NICK (2010) Final Events: And The Secret Government Group On Demonic UFOS And The Afterlife, San Antonio/New York, Anomalist Books.
Preface
Finishing up with Chapter I..
Previous entries for context
Monday, January 18, 2021: Final Events III: Chapter 1 ReviewThursday, August 27, 2020> Final Events II: Introduction Continued
Friday, August 07, 2020: Final Events I: Introduction
Introduction
Author Redfern explains that Ray Boeche, an Anglican priest and Rector at Celebration Anglican Church in Lincoln, Nebraska, is also the founder and former director of the Fortean Research Center. He is as well a former Nebraska State Director for the Mutual UFO Network. In 1991, Boeche, after being contacted, met with two United States Department of Defense physicists in regards to the subject of UFOs. (I).
Redfern learned about these meetings when he met Boeche in 2006 and then interviewed him in 2007. (I). The book states Boeche had a shorter, and then a longer meeting with the two physicists from the Department of Defense. (I). This led to Boeche being 'plunged headlong into a strange and surreal world of classified Department of Defense projects, secret meetings and follow-up dialogues...'(2).
What was presented to Boeche from these Department of Defence physicists was descriptions of NHE's or Non-Human Entities, which many within UFO research and analysis reason are aliens (extraterrestrials, my add). (2). However, in contrast, certain persons within the Department of Defence reason these are 'deceptive minions of Satan.' (2).
The two men Boeche met with were 'physicists' (2). They were both Christians and while working for the US Department of Defense, an aspect of their work was to contacts NHE's. (2). The next part of this text is revealing:
Quote:
'And part of this effort was to try and control the NHE's and use their powers in military weapons applications and in intelligence areas, such as remote-viewing and psychotronic weapons.' (2).
These two Department of Defense, physicists reasoned the NHE's 'were not extraterrestrial at all; they believed they were some sort of demonic entities.' (2). Further the scientists stated that all the benevolent or beneficial contacts with these entities were 'tainted'. (2). Eventually the results of the contacts worked out to be 'bad'. (2). The scientists therefore viewed these encounters as demonic as opposed to extraterrestrial. (3). From a biblical context, the entities were viewed as deceivers of humanity. (3).
The two scientists that held to Christian faith and philosophy reasoned that others with the US Department of Defence were 'being lulled into a false sense of security' (4). The text explains that the supposed technology provided by the NHE's, such as psychotronic weapons and remote viewing was not really being done by the Department of Defence, but the entities 'were always the causal factor'. (4).
February 1, 2021:
Chapter I: Thee Quest Begins- Continued
The book written in 2010, explains that the author, Redfern, since meeting with Boeche has 'dug deep into the central theme of his revelations.' (8). Redfern states that this secretive group of American government, military, and intelligence employees collectively call themselves the 'Collins Elite'.
Redfern opines
Quote:
'Yet for all their military-swagger, ingrained machismo. and bravado, the Collins Elite live in a perpetual state of overwhelming apprehension, fear and absolute dread.' (8).
This state of mind arises from the actions of what this group perceives as 'hostile and ominous intruders from a realm of existence far different than the one we now inhabit..' (8). According to the Collins Elite, states Redfern these aliens/extraterrestrials are not 'friends and allies' (8) of humanity. (8).
Interesting
Quote:
'In essence , the Collins Elite utterly refute and reject any and all notions that extraterrestrials have ever visited planet Earth or have abducted human beings for the purposes relative to medical examination, scientific study, and hybridization-a scenario that many UFO researchers strongly assert is taking place. Instead, the conclusion of the group is that we have in our midst a cold-hearted and sinister intelligence of demonic origins that masquerades as alien, whose presence in our world threatens each and every one of us, and that consigns all of us to, perhaps quite literally a living hell.' (8).
I will continue to work through this chapter within my next related entry however: I note that at the end of this chapter Redfern explains 'the accounts, beliefs, theories and conclusions that I have uncovered are strictly those of the people who have been willing to have them published. (11). Redfern is providing a message as a messenger. (11).
Academically, it would better to have primary citations from people such as Boeche, the Collins Elite and the United States, Department of Defense. That being stated, I am reviewing this book as a secondary source, and do not academically dismiss it as such.
My expertise is not in UFO research or the occult. But biblically and theologically, I am at least, allowing the intellectual possibility the United States, Department of Defense has been dealing with demonic entities pretending to be aliens. I realize this is less palatable than actual extraterrestrials for many within present, Western and American, secular worldviews. I am claiming no level of relative certainty here in regards to the content of the book under review...
Redfern explains that the Collins Elite has fear and suspicion that through these interactions with the extraterrestrials the human race is being convinced to abandon 'the teachings of religion.' (9). Rather, it is a belief in Satan himself that is being pushed by these alien entities under 'the deceptive guise of an advanced alien entity.-as our savior, shortly before our countdown to Armageddon beings...'(9).
This is connected to UFOlogy and the aliens known as the Grays. (9). Within the US Department and the US government are officials that desire to engage these extraterrestrials in order to make use of alien technologies. (9-10). Quote: 'a technology that appears to be a strange, magical brew comprised of truly advanced science, ancient alchemy, and archaic rite and ritual. (10).
Many secular humanists that deny the relevancy and truthfulness of God's revelation through the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, manuscripts and translations, making up the Bible, would find UFOlogy more palatable within a worldview than a biblical faith and philosophy. However, this approach to UFOlogy requires plenty of faith, including assuming the benevolence and wisdom of extraterrestrials that directly or indirectly allow their extraterrestrial science and weaponry to be used by, in the case under review, the United States government.
Note, that not all that study UFOlogy would necessarily consider the Grays or all extraterrestrials benevolent. For example, the author of the book under review, seemingly has his doubts. But, in the content of their acceptance by those in the US government, the aliens are considered well-meaning.
By biblical standards (Genesis, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews) all government is ruled by finite and sinful (imperfect), human beings, and by secular humanistic standards, finite and imperfect, human beings.
Why should these finite extraterrestrials be assumed to be definitively and definitely, less imperfect?
They evolved? From what?
Who created these aliens?
Scientifically, time, space and matter are finite.
Scientifically the 'big bang theory' is a cosmological theory that all matter and energy in the universe originated from a state of enormous density and temperature 'that exploded at a finite moment in the past' where space and time came into existence. (Oxford Dictionary of Science: 85). According to the Oxford Dictionary of Science, the universe will eventually have a heat death. (386). When entropy is maximized and 'all large-scale samples of matter are at a uniform temperature.' (386). Future 'heat death' indicates a finite universe.
Philosophically to avoid a vicious regress, a first cause exists, that is of absolute necessity in any possible world. This God is infinite (where not logically contradictory), eternal, beyond finite, time, space and matter, yet able to interact within creation.
Theologically, this is where a reasonable, human, hope, faith and trust should reside, as opposed to reasonable, human hope, faith and trust in other finite entities, fictional or non-fictional.
Biblically, the sinful fall of humanity (Genesis, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, Revelation, as examples) leads to both disbelief and false belief in the biblical God. According to the New Testament, this fracture is only repaired through the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ for believing humanity by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 1-2).