Why don’t they intervene in our world any more now that we have video cameras?
I don’t suppose you would believe me but i did have an encounter with one in a Post Office parking lot. Re your other questions we are not told that info so any answers would just be speculation. I don’t really understand why it would be harder for God to create Angels then Universes or stars or planets or humans or insects?
Why don’t angels intervene now? Well how do you know they haven’t? There are countless encounters of miracles where strangers happen to show up at the right moment to save someone’s life and then disappear. Also it says we can be entertaining angels and not even know it:
Hebrews 13:2-Don’t forget to show hospitality to strangers, for in doing so, some have entertained angels without knowing it.
I like it. Especially the KJV bible stuff 
These are things we all have to deal with… And thus why we come to forums like this to beat each other up 
If we can really accept other views, even if we don’t embrace them, we will go a long, long way to helping humans understand each other.
Good post
qaz said:
Hmm, can you elaborate on why? I am interested.
So you do not think that angles or demons are active today? In other word is it possible that believing that the second coming was fulfilled and Satan and all the cohorts (demons) were thrown into a fiery lake and we are now living in a time of grace where angels do not tread?
I’ll say I think God is still working. I think he uses Angels and I think because of my understanding of history, Christ came back to judge Israel. After that, I think God is continuing to work and influence people here on his creation. 
No Steve, I don’t believe you.
When I think about our universe running its course for 14 billion years, I find it extremely hard to believe that while stars and planets have been forming and life has been evolving, there have been persons in an alternate level of reality just waiting for human life to evolve so that they could on rare occasion intervene
If i understood you correctly i think it had to do with Angels being metaphysical but isn’t God too? Didn’t John call God “Spirit” plus the “Holy Spirit” is metaphysical too? Why would you believe in one and not the other?
Metaphysical creatures who have existed outside the universe and sometimes teleport into the universe to intervene is not.
Of course you’re entitled to your belief but it seems to me if God decided He wanted to create metaphysical creatures that existed outside the universe and sometimes travel into the universe to intervene then God would have created these beings called “Angels.” Jesus certainly referred to Angels as did Daniel and Moses and Paul and others.
That is interesting qaz. To believe in God and to think He would not have agents working on his behalf is quite remarkable.
I totally believe in God’s not only ability to work within our 2018 world but to work in ways that we can never even fathom.
How can I say this delicately, Enjoy the understanding of who God is and what Jesus did for
us and humanity. Go on… Enjoy
oops, posted in wrong thread… Thought I was in Qaz’s thread.
Measurements of time are based on suppositions. A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. The Red Shift used in astronomy to support Big Bang supposes a constant rate of expansion, going out from an initial explosion of all matter. But some scientists believe there was an initial rapid expansion in the first seconds at a very accelerated rate, before the steady rate that is now observed began.
Many years ago, in a secular science magazine, I read a physicist arguing that almost the entire distance outward currently reached by the celestial bodies could have been attained in the first milliseconds after an initial explosion, before those bodies decelerated to their current sub-lightspeed steady velocity. And he had math that showed his model to be feasible. Can’t find it now. But I’ve seen this again from others, since then. For example: “The Inflation Theory proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments. It was developed around 1980 to explain several puzzles with the standard Big Bang theory, in which the universe expands relatively gradually throughout its history.” Suddenly we can go from 14 billion to a several thousand years, depending on the model.
Also, Red Shift assumes the speed of light is a constant, it assumes light has always traveled at the same rate, and it assumes that the light has not traveled through anything that may change its speed and/or appearance. But physicists have succeeded in both speeding up, and slowing down the speed of light! (See here, here, and here.)
Einstein hypothesized that at the speed of light, time stops. And that at greater than the speed of light, one could move back and forth in time. (I believe that the book of Revelation shows that the author, John, went forward in time.)
Radiocarbon dating techniques used in geology and archeology assume the atmosphere has had the same Carbon 14 concentration in the past as now. And it assumes a constant decay rate. However, there is evidence that radioactive decay rates and concentrations have not been constant in the past. Again, you can go from billions of years, to thousands, depending on your suppositions.
I think you would agree that it would be impossible for anyone to provide real scientific evidence for the origin of time, space, and matter. To discuss something’s origin, we must go beyond time, space, and matter, which takes us outside the realm of science.
Blessings. (PS I will also post this same comment in “Evolution, The Flood, and God’s True Nature.”)
I think it’s too early to tell, what changing the speed of light experiments show - or don’t show. We will have to see if future experiments, can show the same thing. And whether they can be easily replicated. Whether light can be speeded up or slowed down. For now, I’ll just keep an open mind.
I don’t think it makes much difference - theologically…whether we adopt evolution, old earth, and big bang…or some form of seven-day creationism. As long as it doesn’t radically alter - our fundamental theology.
Good discussion here.
I’m going to give you a way to understand the Law and I’m going to use the example of the Speed Limit. At some point in time, civil leaders acknowledged that they had to reduce injury and death on the highways, therefore, they enacted the Speed Limit and that law said to Obey Established Speed Limits.
Now let’s break this down a bit -
Spirit of the Law = Reduce Injury and Death on the Highways
Letter of the Law = Obey Established Speed Limits
Now consider your driving in your car and suddenly a tire falls off the back of some flatbed truck and goes rolling diagnally toward your lane. You know that if you slam on your breaks, the person behind you is going to smash in to the back of your car. But you can quickly identify that if you speed up the tire will pass between your car and the one behind you preventing any problem. However, by speeding up you break the Etablished Speed Limits which is the Letter of the Law. But, you also fulfilled the Spirit of the Law which is to Reduce Injury and Death on the Highways.
You see the Letter of the Law is provided to help you understand the Spirit of the Law. But the problem in the Old Testament is that the Letter of the Law became the Law. In other words, the image became the focus instead of what the image was a reflection of - The Spirt of the Law. Therefore, in the scenario I showed above, if you execute judgement based on the Letter of the Law, you would be guilty for having went over the speed limit. This is how the Letter of the Law can be used unjustly.
Now with Christ, He came and abolished the Letter because He provided a way for the Spirit to abide in us.
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
and against your sense of rationality
Isaiah 45:7 “Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil (hebrew word Rah). I, Yahweh Elohim, made all of these things.”
ooooppps…
Are we going to go by emotional reactions and philosophy or scripture?
If God didnt create evil where did it come from? Why did He state He made it? And how will we be sure it wont slip through the cracks into the new heavens and earth if it so sneakily slipped past Gods eyes before?
We could try going by the words of the apostle John:
…in Him is no darkness at all.(I John 1:5)
And especially by the words of God’s Son, who revealed His Father’s character as no other had ever done:
But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. (Luke 6:35)
By the way, all commentators that I have read say that “creator of evil” refers to the fact that floods, earthquakes, etc. are the result of God’s creation. There events are considered “evil” since often people die as a result of their occurence. There is NO scripture, even in the Old Testament that affirms that God creates moral evil.
Good response, Paidion, but it will fall on deaf ears.
You two have both advocated to literally throw parts of the bible out and call it man made! you,dave, for job said “it was a book written 4000 years ago that shouldn’t be taken literally”. paidion throws out anything in the o.t., despite God using evil in the n.t. too like the crucifix and revelations, that doesn’t fit his “God is always a warm and cozy teddy bear that never uses evil for his purposes of good”. because it doesn’t fit your theologies that you learn from “such esteemed theologians with hoity toity degrees from the top seminary schools”. You both would ignore Isaiah 45:7 because it’s a “hard saying” as Christ would call it. And you say I have deaf ears?! I try to Harmonize scripture as it is written concordantly. Not toss the extra verses away, like extra screws after a project, or add words to change what it plainly states.
If you both sharpied out what you consider man made and not inspired I wonder how much would be left… Lets take out the flood, let’s take out the war commands, let’s take out Isaiah 45:7,take out the plagues and killing of the first born in Egypt, definitely take out pretty much all of revelations for sure because woah that’s a lot of wrath…, lets take out the stonings for going against the law in the o.t., lets take out judgement cause that won’t feel too nice, while we are at it let’s take out the crucifix and all the verses saying it was Gods plan too because that was the WORST evil ever committed. There we made God out to be nothing but nice and cuddly. Why even believe in scripture when you just ignore it or twist it to say what it doesn’t when it goes against your man made philosophies?
If you seriously don’t believe it I dare you, cross out what you don’t believe is true and/or write in the words you think should be in there that aren’t. Go ahead. Change God’s inspired words to your liking. After all it’s what you are currently doing to justify your positions of a God who “never uses evil for His purposes”. Make sure to cross out the parts that attributes the evil, yet divinely ordained, work of the cross to God.
I’ll trust scripture over man saying it, or parts of it, aren’t true any day. “Let everyone a liar and God be true”.
who cares what the “commentators say”. They are literally plugging in the word “natural”,which isnt there in the hebrew, in front of evil to make it say what they WANT it to say. Thats how we got into the whole mess of “eternal hell” being put into scripture, man making it say what they want it to say. You are listening to man and theologians over God word. I think thats a big problem for most here. I see it all the time, I cite scripture and they cite a theologian. Instead of testing what theologians say against scripture they just swallow it whole. Theres a reason why it was inspired to be written AS IT IS and not AS YOU AND THEOLOGIANS WANT IT TO BE READ. I see many people doing this a lot, they take a verse and ADD words to change what it says. Seriously, SCREW what theologians teach if it against scripture! I dont care what origen,augustine,Joe Bob from seminary,etc have to say. Its an appeal to authority fallacy at its finest. Hell half of them arent even learned on the basics, take john piper still saying “aion” means eternal despite his seminary and “many years of study”. Uphold what God has said through scripture, not what man says ABOUT scripture. A theologian can twist scripture to “prove eternal hell exists” should we take that as truth just because hes a theologian who can twist scripture to his liking?! GIVE ME THE WORDS OF GOD, NOT THE TEACHING OF MAN!
“Beware of the scribes and pharisee” being weary of those who translate and teach from scripture is just as pertinent today as it was back then. If not more so.
There is no darkness in God, true. To say that means He never uses evil is a non-sequitor. And scripturaly unfounded. Just because there is no machine in me doesnt mean I cant use machines for my purpose. Likewise just because there is no evil in God does not mean He cannot use evil for His purposes. His essence and the means by which He fulfills his intentions are two separate things. In fact, your admittance that He uses natural evil would discredit your whole argument. Its self defeating that you use “in him there is no darkness so God doesnt use or create evil for His purposes” to discredit the truth that God uses moral evils through men while you also state He does use and create natural evils to enact His purposes.
The cross was a moral evil, yet is also attributed to God as His divine plan to use evil to produce good.
I already gave you one. And you twisted it. But heres another:
“Yahweh has MADE EVERYTHING for its own pertinent end, Yea even the wicked for the day of evil.” Proverbs 16:4.
Everything includes evil (moral and natural) and the those committing evil. Thats why the word EVERYTHING is there.
ooops again.
And another:
“Indeed should we receive good from the One, Elohim, and should we not receive evil? In all this, Job did not sin with his lips.”
Job 2:10
Lots of the evils commited unto job were moral evils carried out by men, like the pillagers.
This is the one verse that made Dave write off job as just “some book written 4000 years ago that shouldnt be taken literally” in another post. I mean seriously by that ill logic one could say, along with the atheists, “the bible is just some book written thousands of years ago that shouldnt be taken literally”.
oops again.
Lets go to the new testament just for good measure.
“Consequently, then, to whom He will, He is merciful, yet whom He will, He is hardening.” [19]You will be protesting to me, then, “Why, then, is He still blaming? for WHO has withstood His intention?” [20]O man! who are you, to be sure, who are answering again to God? That which is molded will not protest to the molder, "Why do you make me thus? [21] Or has not the potter the right over the clay, out of the same kneading to make one vessel, indeed, for honor, yet one for dishonor? Now if God, wanting to display His indignation and to make His powerful doings known, carries, with much patience, the vessels of indignation, ADAPTED for destruction, [23] it is that He should also be making known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He makes ready before for glory -"
MAJOR OOOPPPS OPERATION OOOPS AT CRITICAL FAILURE! Kneading and hardening vessels of dishonor, those who are to commit evil to be made for the day of indignation, sounds like creating “moral evil” to be judged to me…
Is it not the contrast of evil itself that brings you to a longing for Gods righteousness, rule, and reconciliation?! Evil serves a purpose, a purpose ordained by God for His reasons. Who are you to clap back and ask Him “what dost thou!”
Done. Enjoy your warm,fuzzy, scriptually unfounded, never uses evil for his purposes “god”. But dont call it the God of scripture as is proven here that God does use evil for His purposes of greater good. Ill stick to scripture and not plug in mine, or some theologians, thoughts into what it “SHOULD” say based on my, or their, emotions. But simply take it, as it was written, for what it plainly states.
Holy fool the idea God never uses evil is what tickles the ear. Hearing God uses evil for His purposes is what “hurts” the ears of those who have been fed lies.
You sound very angry, “Reconciliation” and “All things Reconciled”! Are you aware that “the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God”? (James 1:20 ESV). Or should the words of James be counted with those of early early Christians (which you reject and whose words didn’t happen to be included in “the canon of scripture” that Athanasius formed in the fourth century?
You seem to reject everything except “scripture” (which really amounts to YOUR interpretation of what you call “scripture”).
And just what DO you call “scripture”? It seems to be something that you consider infallible—the only thing you can trust. But what is it? Is it the Bible? But which Bible? Is it the Protestant Bible? The Roman Catholic Bible? The Eastern Orthodox Bible? All three differ as to which writings are included.
You seem to reject rational thought when it comes to Christian matters. Just blindly follow whatever Bible you think is “the infallible Word of God”—or rather whatever way you interpret that Bible.
I prefer to throw away your interpretation to throwing away my brains.