J
- Status
C
Crumpy
Guest
my audio isn’t working.
What is this guy saying?
What is this guy saying?
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
Hi
Although he may have that part right - I didn’t bother to check the meanings of the names specifically…although I DO know that names typically have more than ONE meaning to them - I would be VERY careful of anything this guy teaches. Because he also teaches: Rapture theology, Bible Code (for it), the mating of fallen angels and humans resulting in offspring (NOT possible…even if it WERE possible…would God even allow such an abomination? - as He is the one who gives life…I rather think NOT??) to name a few.
Typical Garbage if you ask me. If you want good teaching - and a lot of “Oh WOW” try this out: Scott Hahn Teaching Center there’s a lot there…nose around some. If you want more than what’s available on that page - click ‘home’ and go register (it’s free) for the bible study course - also free, and self-paced. Mr. Hahn is VERY good.
Here is the website for the ‘teacher’ in question above if you wish to check for yourself Koinonia House
Pax
John
Although he may have that part right - I didn’t bother to check the meanings of the names specifically…although I DO know that names typically have more than ONE meaning to them - I would be VERY careful of anything this guy teaches. Because he also teaches: Rapture theology, Bible Code (for it), the mating of fallen angels and humans resulting in offspring (NOT possible…even if it WERE possible…would God even allow such an abomination? - as He is the one who gives life…I rather think NOT??) to name a few.
Typical Garbage if you ask me. If you want good teaching - and a lot of “Oh WOW” try this out: Scott Hahn Teaching Center there’s a lot there…nose around some. If you want more than what’s available on that page - click ‘home’ and go register (it’s free) for the bible study course - also free, and self-paced. Mr. Hahn is VERY good.
Here is the website for the ‘teacher’ in question above if you wish to check for yourself Koinonia House
Pax
John
R
rcjones
Guest
Chuck Missler, unfortunately broadcasts things before he researches them well.
However in this case, he is accurate.
The nature of sensus plenior is that God speaks in discernible, verifiable riddles, and always speaks of Christ.
Chuck does not have the ability to systematically discern sensus plenior, and so when he discovers things like this, there is a Oh, Wow element to it, and they look like accidental occurrences.
The real Oh WOW, is that every verse contributes to a picture of Christ.
sensusplenior.net/?page_id=2
However in this case, he is accurate.
The nature of sensus plenior is that God speaks in discernible, verifiable riddles, and always speaks of Christ.
Chuck does not have the ability to systematically discern sensus plenior, and so when he discovers things like this, there is a Oh, Wow element to it, and they look like accidental occurrences.
The real Oh WOW, is that every verse contributes to a picture of Christ.
sensusplenior.net/?page_id=2
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
Hi
“Sensus plenior” is a Latin term which means, literally, “fuller sense,” or “deeper meaning”. The term “sensus plenior” is used to refer to those passages which, at their most obvious level speak of one person or event, but which also have a deeper meaning hinted at through that specific event in question. In other words, “sensus plenior” is the term which acknowledges that some historical persons and events in the Old Testament are really “types,” and that the passages treating of those persons and events speak not just of themselves alone, but also of the “antitypes” (i.e., the fulfillments of the types) which they foreshadow.
What Mr. Missler is doing is akin to the 'Bible Code" and as such, can lead you astray. Even if the verse(s) in question refer to Christ, false conclusions, etc. can, and obviously in his case at least, do - lead to/contribute to bad theology. This is why the Catholic Church has teaching authority.
Pax
John
“Sensus plenior” is a Latin term which means, literally, “fuller sense,” or “deeper meaning”. The term “sensus plenior” is used to refer to those passages which, at their most obvious level speak of one person or event, but which also have a deeper meaning hinted at through that specific event in question. In other words, “sensus plenior” is the term which acknowledges that some historical persons and events in the Old Testament are really “types,” and that the passages treating of those persons and events speak not just of themselves alone, but also of the “antitypes” (i.e., the fulfillments of the types) which they foreshadow.
What Mr. Missler is doing is akin to the 'Bible Code" and as such, can lead you astray. Even if the verse(s) in question refer to Christ, false conclusions, etc. can, and obviously in his case at least, do - lead to/contribute to bad theology. This is why the Catholic Church has teaching authority.
Pax
John
R
rcjones
Guest
The Bible Code is nonsense, but it is nothing like this. Please produce for us the sensus plenior of the passage before saying this is not it. What better sensus plenior than to find Christ in the scriptures?
The meaning Missler derived is firmly attached to the words, and in fact he didn’t follow it far enough. As he has produced it, it appears to be an accident of the words used, But it is the end of a sensus plenior narrative starting in Genesis 2.
A
archistrage
Guest
Yes, it is possible. And you’re right, God didn’t allow it. That was the point of the Great Flood, to destroy. Many people believe that the reference to the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis refers to the children of Seth, while the reference of ‘Daughters of Man’ means the children of Cain. The problem with this, is that the phrase that translate as ‘Sons of God’, also translates as ‘Immortal Ones’. Likewise, ‘Sons of Man’ means ‘Mortal Ones’. Seeing as how the children of both Seth and Cain were not immortal, we can see that it refers to the Angels.
The idea of the Children of Seth and Cain is not new by any accounts. It is based on the work, the Book of Adam, which if anyone else has read it will agree with me that it is the biggest P.O.S. that has ever been written.
First off, yes the Angels do have the ability to mate with man. We know that the angels are capable of sinning. This is clear from Lucifer’s Fall. We know that they are capable of taking human form. This was shown to us in the Book of Tobit, as well as possibly in the Book of Daniel. The angels were given great power by God. To deny this is to deny God’s creation.
In a way, you are also correct in the way that, they were alive, but they did not possess life within them. They were empty shells. When they were killed during the flood, God condemned them to a non-corporeal form, to prowl about the earth. They are not spirits in the sense that the Angels are, because the Angels have the power to take on a physical form. They are essentially evil forces.
The Bible says that, “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God had relations with the daughters of men, who bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” Gen 6:4.
The giants are supposedly the basis for several myths, in particular the Greek myths. Remember, Greek mythology is full of gods and spirits coming to earth and sleeping with women.
Archistrage
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
I already gave a definition of Sensus Plenior - which is NOT what he is doing. Sensus Plenior has nothing whatsoever to do, with deriving ‘hidden Scripture’ from the definitions of the words themselves. That is closer to kabbalism, than Sensus Plenior.
Again…the definition of Sensus Plenior:
“Sensus plenior” is a Latin term which means, literally, “fuller sense,” or “deeper meaning”. The term “sensus plenior” is used to refer to those passages which, at their most obvious level speak of one person or event, but which also have a deeper meaning hinted at through that specific event in question. In other words, “sensus plenior” is the term which acknowledges that some historical persons and events in the Old Testament are really “types,” and that the passages treating of those persons and events speak not just of themselves alone, but also of the “antitypes” (i.e., the fulfillments of the types) which they foreshadow.
The test is not whether or not you can find Christ in the definitions of the words - even the Bible Code can produce this…does that mean it too is valid? The test is - does what is produced ( I can’t say “found” because you have to “produce”, for yourself, what the words mean, decide which single word makes sense in comparison to the rest of the possible definitions of all the following words, and string it together into something that (hopefully) makes sense) match up with the TRUTH of the whole of revelation concerning Scripture. For all that…to what end? Some juicy tidbit God neglected to put into what is plainly written? Even if, for example, it does match up somehow - is it a mere curiosity - or does it reveal something actually ‘hidden’? If it is hidden, the next natural question - why is God hiding these things? Did He intend to? Did He intend for us to find them? If He intended for us to find them…why didn’t He tell us about it?
Take the word “Trogo” for example (The only one I can come up with off the top of my head - yes I know it is NT, bear with me) it means “Eat, chew, masticate, crunch” now…which single word do you decide that means? I would imagine you would have to decide that after your next word in series would you not? Or you would have to come up with another word that encompasses all of them…so what is it REALLY that you are doing?
A-dom = humanity, or man…depending on which word you like best to define it with. But Man, is vastly different from humanity - so which one do you go with, in this ‘hidden scripture’ exercise, and how do you know you are right?
Again…this is why there is a Magesterium.
Pax
John
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
Thank you for illustrating my point. Just because Nephilim CAN translate also as ‘immortal ones’ does NOT mean that is how it SHOULD be translated.
Angels are spirit…spirit = ‘not physical’. Not physical and NOT human. Just because they can appear to be human, does not logically follow that they are human. Not human and Not physical = not able to reproduce with humans. God gives life - not fallen angels.
Greek Mythology has nothing on par with Holy Scriptures. Although I’m sure the same misunderstanding of Scripture is what could have prompted the myth.
Giants could be referring to the philistines - remember Goliath?
Again…this is why there is a teaching Authority in the Church
Pax
John
A
archistrage
Guest
You’re correct, simply because it can be translated as ‘immortal ones’ doesn’t mean it is correct. However vice versa, simply because it can be interpreted to means the sons of Seth doesn’t mean that it is correct as well. Next time you hear from Noah, make sure you ask him.Thank you for illustrating my point. Just because Nephilim CAN translate also as ‘immortal ones’ does NOT mean that is how it SHOULD be translated.
Angels are spirit…spirit = ‘not physical’. Not physical and NOT human. Just because they can appear to be human, does not logically follow that they are human. Not human and Not physical = not able to reproduce with humans. God gives life - not fallen angels.
Greek Mythology has nothing on par with Holy Scriptures. Although I’m sure the same misunderstanding of Scripture is what could have prompted the myth.
Giants could be referring to the philistines - remember Goliath?
Again…this is why there is a teaching Authority in the Church
Pax
John
Also, the Church has never had an official position over this issue. The Church fathers have suggested that it could be either way, but there’s never been an adamant decision on it.
Once more, READ the Book of Tobit. Angels are fully capable of interacting with our world. We know that God gave them greater power than we could ever dream of. As demonstrated in Tobit, this includes coming to us under the appearance of a human, while in reality they are an angel. This is similar to the true presence of the Eucharist. In appearance they are bread and wine, while in reality they are the Body and Blood of Christ.
Archistrage
R
rcjones
Guest
Glad you asked rather than jump to premature conclusions:
What is hidden in the scriptures is exactly pictures of Christ. The very purpose of the scriptures is to speak of Christ. He is hidden in them all.
An orthodox Christian site tells you:
“A Biblical Christian is the one who, wherever he looks, on every page of Scripture, finds everywhere Christ.”
orthodoxphotos.com/readings/HRB/christ.shtml
Jesus tells you
Jesus on the road to Emmaus shows the disciples something they had never seen before, where in all the scriptures it speaks of him.
God tells you he speaks in riddles
How many times must God say that He speaks in riddles?
What about mysteries?
How is it a mystery if it was not hidden?
The mystery was made known in Christ, but it can still be seen in mystery form in the scriptures.
**
God says it is his Glory to hide things**
So yes, God did tell us that he speaks in riddles, and He told us that he hid things in mysteries, and he intended for us to seek them out. He equates the riddles to His Glory.
R
rcjones
Guest
The Catholic Catechism teaches that there are four layers, the first is the literal, the other three are hidden.
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml
Bolding your definition does not make it correct. It speaks of types, but it does not speak of shadows:
**
Is it a mere curiosity?**
Illegitimate linking
By continually referring to the Bible code you attempt to discredit this by association. This is dishonest. They are in no way related.
By linking with Kabbalah, you attempt to discredit this.
What Missler has done (though he is unaware of it) is consistent with the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer which were available prior to the public ministry of Christ. Kabbalah came later.
Kabbalah was invented by Jews who intentionally tried to obfuscate the hidden pictures of Christ from Jews. There is a parable that goes with teaching Kabbalah about four rabbis who wanted to go to Paradise. They were cautioned that when they saw the white rock they should not say ‘Water,water’.
The white rock is Christ in the types and shadows. And doubling something refers to the heavenly and earthly. Water is the Word of God. So they said that when you see Christ, you should not call him the Word of God in heaven and on earth. The parable goes on with four threats if they find Christ in the scriptures.
Kabbalah uses a similar method, but brings in outside sources to jumble the pictures of Christ.
It is probable that Jesus when he was twelve, taught the method to Eliezor in the temple, since they were contemporaneous. It is what he showed Peter when he showed him all the places the scriptures said he had to die, it is what he showed them on the road to Emmaus, that all the scriptures spoke of Him.
And when the Jews could no longer kill Christians, they had to ‘poison’ the well’ with Kabbalah to keep people from seeing Christ.
Do you know the scriptures?
Show from the Old Testament where it teaches clearly that there is no marriage in heaven. If you cannot do it, then your hermeneutic is faulty.
What are we doing?
When is the ocean friendly? When it waves. Christ gave the mysteries to children.
The Jewish Midrash concludes that the Bible is full of riddles but has no solutions. That is because they refuse to look at Christ and the New Testament. The answer is Christ. When knowledge of Christ is applied back into the Midrash riddles, you have the solution.
Riddles are a legitimate form of communication that was used in the courts of kings for centuries. Just because today, we relegate it to the sandbox, does not mean that God doesn’t speak in riddles, particularly since He specifically says that He does.
So why is it that you don’t wish people to find Christ in the scriptures?
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml
Bolding your definition does not make it correct. It speaks of types, but it does not speak of shadows:
What’s the difference between a type and a shadow?
**
Is it a mere curiosity?**
Apparently you haven’t had a chance to follow the link. There is plenty of evidence there that it is really hidden. And had you asked, I would have given you the full context. But you have already decided the matter.
Illegitimate linking
By continually referring to the Bible code you attempt to discredit this by association. This is dishonest. They are in no way related.
By linking with Kabbalah, you attempt to discredit this.
What Missler has done (though he is unaware of it) is consistent with the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer which were available prior to the public ministry of Christ. Kabbalah came later.
Kabbalah was invented by Jews who intentionally tried to obfuscate the hidden pictures of Christ from Jews. There is a parable that goes with teaching Kabbalah about four rabbis who wanted to go to Paradise. They were cautioned that when they saw the white rock they should not say ‘Water,water’.
The white rock is Christ in the types and shadows. And doubling something refers to the heavenly and earthly. Water is the Word of God. So they said that when you see Christ, you should not call him the Word of God in heaven and on earth. The parable goes on with four threats if they find Christ in the scriptures.
Kabbalah uses a similar method, but brings in outside sources to jumble the pictures of Christ.
It is probable that Jesus when he was twelve, taught the method to Eliezor in the temple, since they were contemporaneous. It is what he showed Peter when he showed him all the places the scriptures said he had to die, it is what he showed them on the road to Emmaus, that all the scriptures spoke of Him.
And when the Jews could no longer kill Christians, they had to ‘poison’ the well’ with Kabbalah to keep people from seeing Christ.
Do you know the scriptures?
Show from the Old Testament where it teaches clearly that there is no marriage in heaven. If you cannot do it, then your hermeneutic is faulty.
Show where the scriptures prophesy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene. If you cannot, then your hermeneutic is faulty.
Both are explained when the method is used. This is evidence that Jesus knew it and Matthew knew it.
What are we doing?
We are solving riddles. Riddles are annoying because they cannot be solved with the information contained in the riddle. The solution must be known, and the trick of the riddle must be known, then applied back to the riddle.
When is the ocean friendly? When it waves. Christ gave the mysteries to children.
The Jewish Midrash concludes that the Bible is full of riddles but has no solutions. That is because they refuse to look at Christ and the New Testament. The answer is Christ. When knowledge of Christ is applied back into the Midrash riddles, you have the solution.
Riddles are a legitimate form of communication that was used in the courts of kings for centuries. Just because today, we relegate it to the sandbox, does not mean that God doesn’t speak in riddles, particularly since He specifically says that He does.
So why is it that you don’t wish people to find Christ in the scriptures?
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
I am quite familiar with the book of Tobit, and how angels can and do interact with our world. But once again…the appearance of human, even to the point of eating drinking etc, does not equal being able to impregnate a human. Spirit is still spirit, no matter how you dress it up.You’re correct, simply because it can be translated as ‘immortal ones’ doesn’t mean it is correct. However vice versa, simply because it can be interpreted to means the sons of Seth doesn’t mean that it is correct as well. Next time you hear from Noah, make sure you ask him.
Also, the Church has never had an official position over this issue. The Church fathers have suggested that it could be either way, but there’s never been an adamant decision on it.
Once more, READ the Book of Tobit. Angels are fully capable of interacting with our world. We know that God gave them greater power than we could ever dream of. As demonstrated in Tobit, this includes coming to us under the appearance of a human, while in reality they are an angel. This is similar to the true presence of the Eucharist. In appearance they are bread and wine, while in reality they are the Body and Blood of Christ.
Archistrage
Taken from This Thread Post #49 Because he explained it much better than I usually do, and so it was easier to copy/paste and link
Nephilim found in Genesis 6:1-4 are the result of intermarrying people with different beliefs. The Nephilims are referred to as ‘Sons of God’, they are the descendants of Seth, which are intermarrying with the ‘daughters of men’, which are the decedents of Cain.
Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve. Abel was killed by Cain. From the line of Seth comes Noah. When the ‘Sons of God’( which are the descendants of Seth), intermarried with the ‘Daughters of Men’(which are the descendants of Cain), their offspring was the Nephilim.
The word Nephilim is from the Hebrew which mean ‘the fallen ones’ or ‘Giants’. Another reference is in Numbers 13:33. The people already living in Canaan are refereed to as a race of giants, in Hebrew, ‘Nephilim’. They were considered to be the offspring of arrogant unions.
The interpretation of the “sons of God” as Seth’s lineage can be traced to the Gospel of Luke and his genealogy of Jesus. In Luke 3:38 it states, ‘the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God’. Thus, the lineage of Seth is called the “sons of God,” while the lineage of Cain is referred to as the “children of men,” which later became a label applied to all wicked men, as evidenced by the Psalms of St. David.
The verses Genesis 6:1-4 shows the ‘sons of God’ were religious and virtuous descendants of Seth, while the ‘daughters of men’ were women following the way of Cain. Thus, this passage serves to highlight the increasing depravity of mankind before the flood. If this text was referencing angels, it would not make sense, because God clearly states He is punishing men for their sins and does not mention angels.
This is the position of most Modern Catholic Scholars.
See also Human Generis
- When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.** For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all,** or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
- Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter and spirit differ essentially.
- Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
Pax
John
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
First of all - Christ is EVERYWHERE in the Scriptures. All you need to do is open your eyes. Please don’t presume to tell me I don’t want people to find Him. When what I don’t want, is for people to continue to MISREPRESENT Him.
Second of all - I never said it WAS Kabbalism, I said it’s CLOSER to it.
Thirdly - after going through all of that, you still haven’t answered my question…which I will rephrase: when the Truth about scriptural exegesis is already known - which you yourself previously linked - how are we going to continue to let people look elsewhere?
AGAIN:
“Sensus plenior” is a Latin term which means, literally, “fuller sense,” or “deeper meaning”. The term “sensus plenior” is used to refer to those passages which, at their most obvious level speak of one person or event, but which also have a deeper meaning hinted at **through that specific event in question. **In other words, “sensus plenior” is the term which acknowledges that some historical persons and events in the Old Testament are really “types,” and that the passages treating of those persons and events speak not just of themselves alone, but also of the “antitypes” (i.e., the fulfillments of the types) which they foreshadow.
Simple as that.
Pax
John
R
rcjones
Guest
I did answer this, but I will rephrase:
The fact is that the truth was hidden **until **the time of Christ.
It is BECAUSE he has been revealed that we can see him hidden in the Old Testament.
Until you are able to show where the scriptures in the Old Testament teach that there is no marriage in heaven, you are not qualified to judge whether this is sensus plenior or not because Jesus told the Pharisees they didn’t know the scriptures or the power of God, based on their inability to see the teaching.
The event was that Adam was fruitful and multiplied… the genealogy hints of Christ’s work.
So we are agreed. It IS as simple as that.
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
The fact that Christ, and therefore the NT, is hidden in the OT - is well known.
What you seem to be saying, is that any method of interpreting the Scriptures is acceptable - which is not the case. There are established procedures for exegesis - forgive me if I rely on those who seem to have better qualifications to Judge what is a more sure form, and pass that along to those who may not know.
I am merely putting forward the definition of sensus plenior - if that bothers you, that is not my fault.
I think the teachings of the original person in question - rather betray your method you are proposing.
Again - this is why we, the Catholic Church, have a Teaching Authority found in the Magesterium.
Pax
John
A
archistrage
Guest
“One day, when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them.” Job 1:6
Your statement that all men on earth came from Adam and Eve, is nullified by the fact that last year the Pope last year declared that Evolution was in line with Church teaching.
See here for more on the Church and Evolution.
The formation of a physical life is not that complex. It is nothing more than exerting force over atoms and molecules. The angels DO possess that ability. They have the ability to take on a human form, a human body, while still maintaining their reality as supernatural beings. The creatures that were conceived were not born of God’s will, his Spirit, and therefore were not ‘alive’ in the sense of possessing a soul, nor the spirit of God which we judge ourselves to accordingly.
Also, I was not asserting anything into sacred scripture, so don’t you dare accuse me of such heresy. The Bible says that these were the “mighty heroes of old; the men of renown.” In several mythologies, particularly Greek, there are children born of DIVINE BEINGS.
Listen, can we at least agree on this. There is evidence to support both theories, because that’s what they are, both of our positions; theories. The Church has not made an official statement because it knows this, and therefore allows each individual to believe in either side.
Archistrage
Your statement that all men on earth came from Adam and Eve, is nullified by the fact that last year the Pope last year declared that Evolution was in line with Church teaching.
See here for more on the Church and Evolution.
The formation of a physical life is not that complex. It is nothing more than exerting force over atoms and molecules. The angels DO possess that ability. They have the ability to take on a human form, a human body, while still maintaining their reality as supernatural beings. The creatures that were conceived were not born of God’s will, his Spirit, and therefore were not ‘alive’ in the sense of possessing a soul, nor the spirit of God which we judge ourselves to accordingly.
Also, I was not asserting anything into sacred scripture, so don’t you dare accuse me of such heresy. The Bible says that these were the “mighty heroes of old; the men of renown.” In several mythologies, particularly Greek, there are children born of DIVINE BEINGS.
Listen, can we at least agree on this. There is evidence to support both theories, because that’s what they are, both of our positions; theories. The Church has not made an official statement because it knows this, and therefore allows each individual to believe in either side.
Archistrage
R
rcjones
Guest
Lets see. I said Bible Codes was garbage, that Misler often popularizes stuff before he verifies it, that Kabbalah was wrong, that Midrash was incomplete, and that not only do the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezor but that the rules on the link given to you also apply. And to you that means that I think any method is OK.
Sorry, when you can deal with my statements honestly perhaps we’ll pick it up again.
- Status