The Aliens will crown the False Christ as Chancellor liaison of the NWO Grecian Roman Empire Beast

[Alfred Persson]

Satan rebelled against the ultimate authority and thus is the perfect model. We think he is bad, but history is always written by the winners. How am I self-contradictory?

Post #7 exposed the compartmentalization; the self contradiction. You claim to be a "Romantic Rationalist", precisely what Satan is not. "Perfect model" of someone NOT a Romantic Rationalist.

Satanists are so easily duped by the lies, he is the premier candidate for the Lake of Fire, nothing more.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Satan rebelled against the ultimate authority and thus is the perfect model. We think he is bad, but history is always written by the winners. How am I self-contradictory?

Satan is the Perfect model of hate:

"Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time." (Rev. 12:12 NKJ)

Once Satan is cast to the earth he knows his time is short, about 7 years before being imprisoned in the Abyss (Rev. 20:1-3).

He is wrathful, hating God with all his being. The only way he can maximize God's pain, is to destroy spiritually the human race, those whom God loves.

That is not a "glorious rebellion against the ultimate authority" (which lie will deceive mankind to war against God at Armageddon Rev. 16:13-14, 16)----its a pathological hatred against God for not giving him what he want.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Satan is the Perfect model of hate:

"Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time." (Rev. 12:12 NKJ)

Once Satan is cast to the earth he knows his time is short, about 7 years before being imprisoned in the Abyss (Rev. 20:1-3).

He is wrathful, hating God with all his being. The only way he can maximize God's pain, is to destroy spiritually the human race, those whom God loves.

That is not a "glorious rebellion against the ultimate authority" (which lie will deceive mankind to war against God at Armageddon Rev. 16:13-14, 16)----its a pathological hatred against God for not giving him what he want.

That's God's narrative. God won over Satan, so God got to write about Satan in this way. Why do you think it is accurate?

 

[Edward]

Wikipedia just states straight up that it was second century. They say that at the very beginning of the page. In the Composition section they give various footnotes with scholars who consider it to be second century. The old view is not even considered worthy of mention. Of course the books you read are different. You only read what confirms your view.

yes, well I am not impressed with Wiki[edia, lol.

 

[T. E. Smith]

yes, well I am not impressed with Wiki[edia, lol.

Cite for me mainstream scholars who agree that Daniel was written early, before all the events prophesied.

Notice what it says:

Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.

See also:

But whereas the events leading up to the sacking of the Temple in 167 BC and the immediate aftermath are remarkably accurate, the predicted war between the Syrians and the Egyptians (11:40–43) never took place, and the prophecy that Antiochus would die in Palestine (11:44–45) was inaccurate (he died in Persia). The obvious conclusion is that the account must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164 BC, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem, and the consensus of modern scholarship is accordingly that the book dates to the period 167–163 BC.

This all is cogent logic that is supported by all mainstream scholars.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Post #7 exposed the compartmentalization; the self contradiction. You claim to be a "Romantic Rationalist", precisely what Satan is not. "Perfect model" of someone NOT a Romantic Rationalist.

Satanists are so easily duped by the lies, he is the premier candidate for the Lake of Fire, nothing more.

I don't actually believe in a literal Satan, but he is a symbol for both the Romantic and the Rationalist. The Revolt of the Angels by Anatole France expresses what I mean. It's public domain and can be easily read online free legally.

 

[Edward]

Cite for me mainstream scholars who agree that Daniel was written early, before all the events prophesied.

Do your own homework. I'm not doing it for you and typing everything out for you to scoff at it and ignore it completely.

It's true boy. They taught you wrong about that.

But it's in Wikipedia so it must be true?!

 

[T. E. Smith]

Do your own homework. I'm not doing it for you and typing everything out for you to scoff at it and ignore it completely.

It's true boy. They taught you wrong about that.

But it's in Wikipedia so it must be true?!

So you want me to cite scholars for you, but you refuse to do it? It's painfully obvious that you have nothing.

Okay then Edward, you do your own homework. Find scholars in the mainstream who agree with me. It ain't hard. Look at Wikipedia's bibliography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Bibliography That should give you a good starting point.

 

[Edward]

So you want me to cite scholars for you, but you refuse to do it? It's painfully obvious that you have nothing.

Okay then Edward, you do your own homework. Find scholars in the mainstream who agree with me. It ain't hard. Look at Wikipedia's bibliography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Bibliography That should give you a good starting point.

Been there done that. got the T-Shirt. It's always apparent in your responses that you either don't or wont seriously consider anything said to you. And you scoff, and believe what you believe. Showing me, I wasted my time typing for you.

And you have a lot of mixed up ideas. So where I know the truth, I am willing to let you know, hey you're wrong about that. And if you had an ounce of sense you would study things a lot more. But I'm no dead philosopher so yeah, you can do your own homework, lol.

 

[T. E. Smith]

But I'm no dead philosopher so yeah, you can do your own homework, lol.

Jesus is a dead philosopher, if he's anything at all.

So where I know the truth, I am willing to let you know, hey you're wrong about that.

Yet you can't cite anyone at all.

 

[Edward]

Okay then Edward, you do your own homework. Find scholars in the mainstream who agree with me. It ain't hard.

No offense man, but that's exactly how girls talk.

 

[Edward]

Jesus is a dead philosopher, if he's anything at all.

Yet you can't cite anyone at all.

Hey wait. This isn't the ladies locker room. ?? Girlish talk. Set that tactic down son it don't look good on you.

 

[T. E. Smith]

No offense man, but that's exactly how girls talk.

What part? "Do your own homework"? That's what you said.

Hey wait. This isn't the ladies locker room. ?? Girlish talk. Set that tactic down son it don't look good on you.

How is it girlish and how are you applying that sexist language?

 

[Edward]

What part? "Do your own homework"? That's what you said.

How is it girlish and how are you applying that sexist language?

That's what I said.

When men talk and one says no about something, the other man accepts that and they rill from there...

Girls aren't done bickering about it yet. Why why why blah blah blah. No, man. Ok?

 

[Edward]

they roll from there, lol.

 

[Edward]

how are you applying that sexist language?

It's this wonderful thing called (fingertips) a mouth. I am a man. I speak. I spoke.

 

[T. E. Smith]

I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult girls by claiming that they just say "Why why why blah blah blah".

 

[Alfred Persson]

I don't actually believe in a literal Satan, but he is a symbol for both the Romantic and the Rationalist. The Revolt of the Angels by Anatole France expresses what I mean. It's public domain and can be easily read online free legally.

Its reasonable whether literal or a symbol, #7 contradicts the concept of "romantic rationalism".

I already know everything I need to know about the revolt of the angels, from the Bible--the only 100% correct source of information. None of them rebelled against authority, they rejected holiness desiring instead what is improper:

1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. (Gen. 6:1-2 NKJ)

While this text is about angels who didn't join Satan's rebellion, they still wanted sexual relations with humans as did the Nephilim "Fallen Ones":

The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them -- they are the heroes, who, from of old, are the men of name. (Gen. 6:4 YLT)

Without Holiness its impossible to be in God's presence. All enslaved to perversion and sin will be outside of God's Holy Presence. In effect, God gives them what they chose, they exist apart all that is good and fun to enjoy:

14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
(Rev. 22:14-15 NKJ)

You should repent and believe in Jesus Christ for your salvation, before the door that is open, shuts:

24 "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
25 "When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying,`Lord, Lord, open for us,' and He will answer and say to you,`I do not know you, where you are from,'
26 "then you will begin to say,`We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.'
27 "But He will say,`I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.'
28 "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. (Lk. 13:24-28 NKJ)

 

[Edward]

14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
(Rev. 22:14-15 NKJ)

I think that's talking about the New Jerusalem. So some will live outside the city, and be allowed to drink from the river of life and eat from the tree of life which spans the river (!!). Those who were saved and born again, but not unblemished.

So some saved live outside the city and can't enter the city. Others do live in the city and have a house or mansion on some property somewhere (The real 90210, lol) and still some others will have rooms in the Fathers House, the Sons and Daughters of God.

Let's see, it goes, Servant, Friend, Son, Bride.
I'm sorry, but your post made me think. We now return you to your regulaly scheduled thread.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I think that's talking about the New Jerusalem. So some will live outside the city, and be allowed to drink from the river of life and eat from the tree of life which spans the river (!!). Those who were saved and born again, but not unblemished.

So some saved live outside the city and can't enter the city. Others do live in the city and have a house or mansion on some property somewhere (The real 90210, lol) and still some others will have rooms in the Fathers House, the Sons and Daughters of God.

Let's see, it goes, Servant, Friend, Son, Bride.
I'm sorry, but your post made me think. We now return you to your regulaly scheduled thread.

The lake of fire is "outside the city", so whether literal or symbolic one shouldn't want to be there.

It is about New Jerusalem. I think its a real city that presently exists outside of our spacetime, in an alternate reality we call "heaven." I believe angels built it, so they don't just fly around strumming harps or whatever.

1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.
2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.
4 "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful." (Rev. 21:1-5 NKJ)