What does foreknowledge mean when it comes to Lucifer/Adam?

[pcosmar]

What evidence do you have that Christians ever regarded the Book of Enoch as inspired Scripture?

Jude.

and Jude quoted the Prophet Enoch. do you have a problem with that?
Apparently the words of the prophet were considered scripture,, and have been down through the years.

[hells_unicorn]

Sigh. I can't take some of you anymore. I just can't. Have fun on S_F's funride to hell. This is a choice. Make no mistake about that.

I've got better things to do. So I'm dusting my feet. Later.

Given your rather childish and unprovoked neg rep comment towards me earlier, this little passive-aggressive routine of yours has a bit of trouble passing the smell test. Do watch out for the Calvinists hiding under you bed before going night night.

[Sola_Fide]

Jude.

and Jude Quoted the Prophet Enoch. do you have a problem with that?

Yeah I do have a problem with that. Paul quoted Epimenides. Is Epimenides inspired?

[Natural Citizen]

While we're in the accusation game, if I may ask, are you a sock-puppet? I ask because Natural Citizen's latest neg rep leads me to believe that you and he are the same person, or that you like to team up when somebody says something other than what you want to hear.

Don't ever use my name in the third person in such an accusatory way, please. If you have something to say about me, say it to me. That's what men do.

[Natural Citizen]

Given your rather childish and unprovoked neg rep comment towards me earlier, this little passive-aggressive routine of yours has a bit of trouble passing the smell test. Do watch out for the Calvinists hiding under you bed before going night night.

It's a good thing I don't care what you think, isn't it?

[lilymc]

While we're in the accusation game, if I may ask, are you a sock-puppet? I ask because Natural Citizen's latest neg rep leads me to believe that you and he are the same person, or that you like to team up when somebody says something other than what you want to hear.

Um, no. We are two different people. lol. And I had no idea he neg repped you, but I know that he and I agree on this topic, and about the arrogance from those who push this false doctrine.

[Natural Citizen]

And I had no idea he neg repped you, but I know that he and I agree on this topic, and about the arrogance from those who push this false doctrine.

I negged him just because. I disapproved of his post. Not enough room in the little neg rep box to splain why

Then he negged me back and called me temperance heretic. Heh.

[pcosmar]

Yeah I do have a problem with that. Paul quoted Epimenides. Is Epimenides inspired?

Did Paul describe him as a Prophet. "A man who walked with God,, and was not, because God took him,"

No?

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”[

And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he did not see death. He could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.

You don't think his writings might be enlightening?

[Sola_Fide]

Did Paul describe him as a Prophet. "A man who walked with God,, and was not, because God took him,"

No?

No. Because the book of Enoch was not written by Enoch. It is a first century work. In Enoch 10:2 it says Enoch wrote about Noah, even though the Bible says that Enoch was taken up to heaven years before Noah was born. It also says the wind comes out of a portal on the east edge of the flat earth. It contradicts Scripture over and over.

[pcosmar]

No. Because the book of Enoch was not written by Enoch. It is a first century work. In Enoch 10:2 it says Enoch wrote about Noah, even though the Bible says that Enoch was taken up to heaven years before Noah was born. It also says the wind comes out of a portal on the east edge of the flat earth. It contradicts Scripture over and over.

Tell it to Jude.

It was known as scripture then. and only removed later in a huge act of error.

[Superfluous Man]

According to the Bible it was.

Unless you are a King-James-onlyist, the Bible does not say that his name was ever Lucifer.

Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "shining one." It is used in the KJV in Isaiah 14 as a translation of the Hebrew word that means shining one, and there is no reason for it to be capitalized.

[Sola_Fide]

Tell it to Jude.

It was known as scripture then. and only removed later in a huge act of error.

No it wasn't universally recognized as Scripture. It is an obvious forgery, and it has dozens of contradictions in it. It is not inspired Scripture.

[Superfluous Man]

That is an incorrect interpretation of Ezekiel 28. For one thing it was the king of Tyre, not the prince. For another, throughout the Bible God uses dual prophecies. For example when God said in Revelation "Babylon is fallen" and "come out of her my people" he wasn't talking about literal Babylon which had already fallen. God gave a dual prophecy in Ezekiel, talking about how the king of Tyre but giving attributes that could not have applied to any human.



The one who sinned from the beginning.

Eze 28:15
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Compare with:

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Note the commonality in all of those verses. Lucifer was perfect until sin was found in him. (Again that can't be any post Adam human.) The devil was the first sinner, liar and murderer. There is no other possibly Biblical explanation than that of Lucifer being a perfect angel that became the devil and Satan.

Let's say you're right and Ezekiel 28 is talking about an angel, as opposed to using figurative language (like Ezekiel does all throughout the book). How do you know which angel? I don't see any commonality between Ezekiel 28 and John 8:44 or 1 John 3:8. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out there. But if Ezekiel 28 is talking about an angel being cast out of Heaven, then it's also saying that the timing of that is some time after there were already nations on the earth. So it's long after Adam's sin.

[Sola_Fide]

Let's say you're right and Ezekiel 28 is talking about an angel, as opposed to using figurative language (like Ezekiel does all throughout the book). How do you know which angel? I don't see any commonality between Ezekiel 28 and John 8:44 or 1 John 3:8. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out there. But if Ezekiel 28 is talking about an angel being cast out of Heaven, then it's also saying that the timing of that is some time after there were already nations on the earth. So it's long after Adam's sin.

Excellent point.

[hells_unicorn]

I negged him just because. I disapproved of his post. Not enough room in the little neg rep box to splain why

Then he negged me back and called me temperance heretic. Heh.

It's an accurate statement of somebody who consciously refuses to obey scripture on the sacrament of communion, it's a little more specific and substantiated that "just because", though admittedly I used that on lilymc after he/she negged me for the reason of "//".

You two are made for each other, 100% snark and zero substance.

Um, no. We are two different people. lol. And I had no idea he neg repped you, but I know that he and I agree on this topic, and about the arrogance from those who push this false doctrine.

Your accusations of arrogance is an exercise in projection to an extreme bordering on ridiculous, and for two different people, you behave remarkably similar (snarky, unexplained negative rep attacks, likely compensating for something). Either way, the assertion that I am pushing "false doctrine" is not born out by scripture, and the woefully pathetic attempts at certain individuals to refute Sola's point regarding both foreknowledge and predestination are more in line with people who trust their own will more than scripture.

Either way, good luck with your snarky retorts, I hope your sarcasm will sate your ego.

[hells_unicorn]

Tell it to Jude.

It was known as scripture then. and only removed later in a huge act of error.

Paul referenced the writings of heathen Greek poets in the epistles, are we to count them as canon as well?

[Natural Citizen]

It's an accurate statement of somebody who consciously refuses to obey scripture on the sacrament of communion, it's a little more specific and substantiated that "just because", though admittedly I used that on lilymc after he/she negged me for the reason of "//".

You two are made for each other, 100% snark and zero substance.



Your accusations of arrogance is an exercise in projection to an extreme bordering on ridiculous, and for two different people, you behave remarkably similar (snarky, unexplained negative rep attacks, likely compensating for something). Either way, the assertion that I am pushing "false doctrine" is not born out by scripture, and the woefully pathetic attempts at certain individuals to refute Sola's point regarding both foreknowledge and predestination are more in line with people who trust their own will more than scripture.

Either way, good luck with your snarky retorts, I hope your sarcasm will sate your ego.

Well that wasn't a very nice thing to say.

[pcosmar]

Paul referenced the writings of heathen Greek poets in the epistles, are we to count them as canon as well?

Paul did not refer to them as Prophets.. Jude DID.

The error was in removing scripture.
and btw.. Some have NEVER REMOVED IT.
It has been part of the Ethiopian Bible.

[jmdrake]

Unless you are a King-James-onlyist, the Bible does not say that his name was ever Lucifer.

Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "shining one." It is used in the KJV in Isaiah 14 as a translation of the Hebrew word that means shining one, and there is no reason for it to be capitalized.

What are you even arguing about? Seriously? It clear that the devil/Satan/"the shining one"/whatever you want to call him was originally an angel in heaven. He had other angelic followers. They got kicked out by Michael.

Here is the NIV since you have some odd prejudice against the KJV.

Revelation 12
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

[jmdrake]

Let's say you're right and Ezekiel 28 is talking about an angel, as opposed to using figurative language (like Ezekiel does all throughout the book). How do you know which angel? I don't see any commonality between Ezekiel 28 and John 8:44 or 1 John 3:8. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out there. But if Ezekiel 28 is talking about an angel being cast out of Heaven, then it's also saying that the timing of that is some time after there were already nations on the earth. So it's long after Adam's sin.

Good grief. Did you totally not get the point I made about Babylon? The Bible talks about literal Babylon and figurative Babylon. In Ezekiel he was talking about a literal king and how that king could be compared to the angel that led a rebellion in heaven and was kicked out of heaven.

Revelation 12
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

[jmdrake]

Excellent point.

So you don't believe that the devil was kicked out of heaven either? What Bible do you read?

[Superfluous Man]

What are you even arguing about? Seriously? It clear that the devil/Satan/"the shining one"/whatever you want to call him was originally an angel in heaven. He had other angelic followers. They got kicked out by Michael.

Let's say that's true. It isn't clear to me. But for the sake of argument, say it is. You claimed that Lucifer was his name, and furthermore that the Bible itself said so. Clearly the Bible does not say anything like that.

And even if the person Isaiah 14 is talking about is an angel, and even if that angel's name was Lucifer, how could you possibly know that that fallen angel is the same one who also goes by the title Satan?

[Superfluous Man]

Revelation 12
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

But that passage is talking about something yet future.

[jmdrake]

But that passage is talking about something yet future.

Ummmm...no. It's talking about past tense. "But he was not strong enough and the lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down." But I'm sure @Sola_Fide will say "excellent point" to whatever bit of twisted biblical interpretation it takes for him to somehow think he's right.

[jmdrake]

Let's say that's true. It isn't clear to me. But for the sake of argument, say it is. You claimed that Lucifer was his name, and furthermore that the Bible itself said so. Clearly the Bible does not say anything like that.

If you wish to believe a lie rather than the truth then sobeit. I do not believe the Bible was written in English so your "The Latin just means light bearer" point is beyond stupid. The being identified as "light bearer" or "Lucifer" or whatever is the same being that led the rebellion that already happened and was mentioned in Revelation 12 and that being and the angels that followed him were cast out of heaven and that being is called, in English, Satan (which means the accuser) and the devil.

[Superfluous Man]

If you wish to believe a lie rather than the truth then sobeit. I do not believe the Bible was written in English so your "The Latin just means light bearer" point is beyond stupid. The being identified as "light bearer" or "Lucifer" or whatever is the same being that led the rebellion that already happened and was mentioned in Revelation 12 and that being and the angels that followed him were cast out of heaven and that being is called, in English, Satan (which means the accuser) and the devil.

But nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that Satan went by some other name at some point.

The Rebellion in Revelation 12 is yet future.

[Superfluous Man]

Ummmm...no. It's talking about past tense. "But he was not strong enough and the lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down." But I'm sure @Sola_Fide will say "excellent point" to whatever bit of twisted biblical interpretation it takes for him to somehow think he's right.

So? It's past tense. You think that means it happened in the past? It's prophecy. Prophecy is often given in the past tense. Lots of what the Book of Revelation says is going to happen in the future is presented in past tense in that book.

What about the fleeing of the woman into the wilderness. Do you think that already happened too?

The Devil's being cast out of Heaven in Revelation 12 is after his having had access to Heaven to accuse the brethren. These brethren are Christians.

[jmdrake]

So? It's past tense. You think that means it happened in the past? It's prophecy. Prophecy is often given in the past tense. Lots of what the Book of Revelation says is going to happen in the future is presented in past tense in that book.

What about the fleeing of the woman into the wilderness. Do you think that already happened too?

The Devil's being cast out of Heaven in Revelation 12 is after his having had access to Heaven to accuse the brethren. These brethren are Christians.

You're merely trolling at this point. Oh...and I know you're a sock puppet.

[Superfluous Man]

I would encourage anyone with questions about Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 to consult any commentaries on the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel written by actual scholars of the Old Testament who understand the Hebrew language and have devoted their lives to the study of the Old Testament. You would be hard pressed to find any who think either passage is talking about Satan. They just interpret the details of those passages that people think must be about Satan as being figurative language, which is common in those books.

Of course they could be wrong. But you shouldn't say, "The Bible says X," when it's really just your interpretation of the Bible that says X.

[Superfluous Man]

You're merely trolling at this point.

Because I take a perfectly normal interpretation of Revelation 12?

I notice that you didn't answer my question about the woman fleeing into the wilderness.