katabole vs. themelios: Will the real foundation please be laid...

[Eleutheros]

PART TWO

One could also ask why He placed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil unless he planned for them to eat of it.

My point exactly. He did plan on them eating from it- but with His permission. And that would be granted after the temptation to become like God, apart from Him, was refused.

As an aside note, it was CS Lewis in The Magician's Nephew that planted this seed thought in me over 20 years ago.

If he really intended for things to go as you have suggested (especially without the benefit of foreknowledge), then why place Adam in a position where they could be tempted, deceived and caused to fall? Your answer would probably be, to give them an opportunity to exercise a choice, which is not necessarily a wrong answer, just an incomplete one.

Well, you are beginning to grasp what I am saying because you're almost right about my answer. We've come a long way, Doc, thanks.

This then is my complete answer to your very good question:

"The reason why God placed The Adam in a position where they could be tempted, deceived and possibly turned was to give them the opportunity to acquire virtue through trusting the Word of Jehovah (exactly like He still asks us to do) and refusing to gain the wisdom of God apart from Him. And so, for them acquiring His wisdom, by eating the fruit, knowing they were going against Him, even as He said they have become like Us for acquiring this knowledge of Good and Evil, He had to stop them from going further into aionian life because something that was supposed to happen didn't. Namely, they failed to grasp virtue first and thus His good intentions for them were disrupted."

I perceive that there are two erroneous assumptions you are making here, Doc.

The first is that I'm trying to prove to you my contentions; that I'm trying to 'solve a problem' for you by convincing you to see things my way, when it's obvious that you don't want me to because you don't see what you believe as a problem!
You've already decided what you want to believe…

Perceptions are funny things. I'm not assuming that you are attempting to prove your contentions, nor have I already decided what I want to believe. I speak from my current understanding, but that does not mean my understanding will not change. It has changed many times already. Perhaps you are the one making incorrect assumptions about me. 

You are right. And so I again offer to you my apologies for any misperceptions I typed from. And thank you for setting me straight. I will keep these things you said about yourself in mind as we continue to interact.

As I said to you before, I appreciate the fact that it will require a paradigm shift in your heart of thoughts before you will be able to perceive and appreciate what I am presenting here.
And paradigm shifting is beyond my abilities…

Well, I'm doing my best, but it's clear that I haven't produced enough of a challenge for you as yet.

HA! So you say! I'll admit here that you had me a bit anxious when I first read that serpent thingy! And know that all of my replies to you require a lot of research and thinking to type out-stuff I wouldn't be doing if you weren't hanging with me! So keep trying!

The second thing that is erroneous is that you are assuming I am arguing for 'free-will' simply because I am arguing against Predestination. I can understand that, given what you've been taught to believe...

...'Free-will' and 'predestination' are two sides of the same coin. And that coin is a counterfeit one…

Well, as I can see from having read part 1, I now understand that you are not arguing for free-will. On to part two then…

Nor am I arguing for that peculiar predestination that Calvin misconceived!

So here in Romans 7:1 he begins to present his case to the ones who both had and understood the Mosaic Law. Specifically he was arguing to prove that the law had no power to stop a human from sinning. In fact, because of the law it was even more difficult to deal with Sin because now through the law you are aware of exactly what Sin is!...

…So Grace, which is God forbearing our sins while He works out His plan to restore us to Himself, with the full council of His plurality, gained after the disruption of the world, is what will free us from Sin; for it was Grace that sent Jesus to accomplish the needed forgiveness of sins when, we, through faith, are re-sired through spirit,…

The only thing I need to insert here is that we were forgiven of sin at the cross, not when we are re-sired through spirit. Freedom from sin however, requires "re-siring" as you put it (that's salvation).

I agree. The distinction is a very important one and so I will ensure that that this distinction is made clear, from this point on, when I reason with others. Thank you for pointing that out.

Doc, I say this to you boldly: If you are going to grasp the truth of Romans 7 and 8 you must quit reading The Words peripherally, looking for 'spiritual' understanding and grasp the literal understanding Paul is presenting here of the before and after states of every human: Before his/her re-birth and after his/her re-birth.

Before the re-birth Sin made it's home in all humans, Jew and Gentile alike, because of The Adam's turning.

This is not what was supposed to have happened!

They were supposed to gain virtue by refusing to gain a conscience illicitly that is, by trusting Jehovah and refusing the offer to become fully like God-apart from God- a thing impossible to do anyway, as The Satan found out.

How could they have gained more virtue than they already had? Sin and the resulting death had not been introduced into the world yet. What need would they have had for conscience without knowledge of good and evil? It was a fall, remember; not from a perfect state, but from a good state.

Again I've heard this before, actually in a conversation I had once with some UR minded folk.

However, before I answer I need to correct this point first. A conscience is knowing the difference between good and evil.
And so, as I said earlier, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could also be called the Tree of Conscience.
Therefore, it is logical to asssume that if the fruit of this tree was intended to impart a conscience to them then it follows that they were not originally created with a conscience.

Now, part of the temptation to turn was the spoken truth that this tree would make one like God, that is wise. And God confirmed that this was the truth when He said, while still in that counsel session Peter referred to, "Perceive! They have become like One of Us knowing the difference between good and evil." or "...they have become like One of Us for aquiring a conscience."

So, true innocence would be defined as not knowing the difference between good and evil.

Therefore, I agree that they were in a 'good' but neutral state. An aware existence that we cannot truly comprehend for our having in us a conscience informing us of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong.

Therefore I agree with you that they were incomplete, that is not perfected.

Jesus said to the Jews which knew the law: "You be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." That word perfect is the Greek word teleios and it means 'to be brought to completion'.

Now, with that said, I can answer your first question:

How could they have gained more virtue than they already had?

My answer is that, at this point, they had no virtue at all because they were neutral or truly innocent for not having a conscience, yet. Virtue needed to be gained, first. And virtue is not quantitative: You can't be more or less virtuous or have less or more virtue, by the very definition of virtue.

You either are virtuous or you are not.

And so the conscience we now have is weak to keep us from Sin because Sin which has made it's home in us keeps us sinning, whether we know it or not; and even when we don't want to for being aware of it. We sin because we try to impulsively satisfy our bodies desires for food, shelter, sex, power over our destiny and a comfortable life all of which cause harm to not only ourselves, for this impulsive behaviour, but harms others as well, even the innocent. Truly a vain pursuit!...

…We are not free from sin. That is the problem! And that is why the creation was subject to vanity, without it's consent, when The Adam turned, so that we humans would know that we are not free to do as we damm well please! But are, instead, slaves to our impulses.

Because the only choice we have to make through our so called 'free-will ' is to sin, some more than others and to keep refusing the pull of the spirit of God, Who is dragging all humans to 'the foot of the cross' so they will come to realize their need for His forgiveness.
Some are brought there willingly and gladly through the heralding of the Gospel, these are the firstfruits as Paul called us. For those who sin less than others are foreknown to God for His constantly searching the hearts of men through spirit.

Thus he finds those, in each generation- in each new 'crop' of humans, so to speak, who recognize the purpose of a conscience in us as well as understanding God's righteousness through their interactions with others and through what is known of God by what He created. As well as perceiving the futility of our trying to be good that comes with this realization for living in a creation subject to vanity.

Exactly. We are either slaves to sin or to Christ. And we can only refuse the pull of the spirit of God for so long.

See! I'm not quite the loony after all!

These are the ones who come to love the God they know this way and thus love righteousness in their inner man as Paul said:
 
For I am gratified with the law of God as to the man within,..

And these ones of whom He is aware before He designates beforehand to receive His justification even as Paul said:

Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also.

Does not designation beforehand require foreknowledge?

Yes it does. However the real question to ask in order to gain understanding, is, "What did the original writers mean for using the word proginosko or 'to know before'?"  In other words, "What is it exactly that the original writers said Jehovah knows before?" And it is not the future, as a fact.

Did you read through all of that three-part post I made?

Because with a whole bunch of words I systematically argued that Calvin's idea of proginosko- which is, by unwitting assimilation, also your idea of proginosko, Doc-specifically that Jehovah knows the future, as a fact, is not the truth.

Jehovah searches human hearts through spirit. And with this knowledge gained, simultaneously, of each and every individual human He can, 'know before', what any one human will and won't do given the 'right' (or 'wrong') circumstances and what they are capable of doing; whether that be responding to the Gospel or suicidally crashing jet airplanes, loaded with human beings, into tall buildings, also filled with human beings, thus killing thousands at one time from an evil sense of 'righteousness'.

In other words, for knowing all human hearts, intimately and simultaneously, Jehovah can gain knowledge of the immediate and possible future.

And it is this idea for proginosko that is in full agreement with His giving human beings room to repent; for often enough they may actually surprise Him and change their hearts and thus receive His mercy for their act of repentance.

It is Calvin's idea of 'foreknow' that is in contradiction to Jehovah actually being recorded as giving humans room to repent because it is logically absurd for Jehovah to even consider offering this  so- called, 'room for repentance' if it is a truth that He 'foreknows' the future, that is, as a fact.

In other words Calvin's God is an absurd God and baloney will always be baloney no matter how you slice it.

Now not everyone will be of the firstfruits for some will be dragged 'to the foot of the cross' through having to be evaluated, in the Day of Evaluation as needing to be brought to justice first and thus be destroyed as their spirits are purified of dross by unquenchable, holy fire, before they can receive His forgiveness and be restored to God through Jesus who is praised forever and worthy to receive the reward for His suffering!!! US!!

Agreed.

And it is exactly this way also for those covenanted ones who have the Mosaic Law. Because all the law can do is develop in us a keen awareness of Sin, not stop us from sinning.
And that is because a conscience needs spirit to be the powerful living thing it was intended to be in us.

Nothing in particular to disagree with here.

That is something we would have had now, had the world not been disrupted when The Adam gained a conscience before They gained virtue. Even as we have exactly that now through faith; a clean and powerful conscience gained through the rebirth of spirit and that through faith in Jesus the Christ who gave Himself that He might free us from Sin and thus deliver us from Death- not 'came to save us from hell' or 'came to save us so we could go to heaven' or 'came to save us to be His Bride'- but to complete in us what was left uncompleted, so long ago the Garden, by manumitting us from Sin to live lives of righteousness even as He is righteous; a thing once impossible before, but, now, made possible even as Jesus said in context:  "All things are possible with God." Halleluiah!!
 
And that is why Jesus said you must be begotten anew, of spirit, before you can perceive the kingdom of God.

This is where I'm not really tracking with you. You seem to be suggesting that Adam was incomplete in the Garden (The incompleteness I don't particularly disagree with in and of itself) because they gained conscience before virtue. But I ask again, what virtue did they not already have before the fall that they would not have needed a fall to gain? God called all He created, "good".

Blessings,

Doc

Everything I've written, up to this point has been to give you, Doc, the ability to answer your own question:

...what virtue did they not already have before the fall that they would not have needed a fall to gain?

From my understanding.

So, now I'm going to ask some questions for you to ponder.

The first is to ask: "Why exactly is God virtuous?"

The next is to ask: "Can any being be virtuous that does not also have a genuine choice to not be virtuous?"
 
And the last is to ask the question that I imagined God asked Himself: "How can I (God) create a virtuous human?"

Keep on being good Doc, even as you were created to be!

Dennis!

[Doc]

OK! Here we go!


END OF PART ONE

Well, I see what I consider a major problem with this understanding of things so far. It carries with it the underlying assumption (I believe it to be an unrecognized assumption) that God can make mistakes.
So to my mind, the only way that God could not have foreknown that the fall would happen is if He can actually make mistakes. God could have chosen to make us perfect to begin with, but He did not. The only thing I can logically conclude from this is that God had a plan which at the very least included a contingency for something going awry. Satan, in some form was already in existence; Both trees were placed in the garden. An instruction was given not to eat of ToKoGaE. You have explained its presence by stating that God did intend for them to eat from it at the appropriate time. The problem is that this is an argument from silence/ ignorance. There is no scriptural evidence (in Genesis, at least) that God ever intended for them to eat of it under any circumstances. We hear only of the presence of the tree of life in the context of Adam post fall being barred from it, but no instruction on what they were to have done with it previously. I am therefore led to the conclusion that your explanation of why the ToKoGaE was placed in the garden is a stretch. We know that both trees were intentionally placed there. The only thing we aren't told is why. The simplest explanation is that God planned for Adam to fall, because He could have easily prevented it by simply not placing the offending tree there. Remember, this story is about God and his glory, not ours. He will share that glory with no one. If we could have brought about righteousness by our obedience, then the glory would be ours, not God's.

Are you aware of the distinction between God's stated will (thelo) and his ultimate intention (boulemai)? Many things go (for a time) against God's stated will, yet ultimately work toward his ultimate intention.

A contextual case can be made for how the word Ra should be translated as calamity, etc. in that Isaiah passage, but there are other places where God is spoken of as doing similar things. All of them cannot be explained away so easily as, "well, it's our fault." Ra can be translated as many different things, but the two most common are bad and evil. God has, and has taken, the ultimate responsibility for His creation, and I conclude from that that He is in fact ultimately responsible. We can be held accountable for our individual actions, but God has made it clear that His is the ultimate responsibility.

How can all those bad things happen you ask? Well, that's a question many of us wrestle with, but there is a purpose in all of it, or God wouldn't allow it. The present suffering will be nothing in light of the weight of aionian glory.

[CHB]

Don't mean to butt in but just had to say AMEN Doc. 

CHB

[reFORMer]

I'll admit I pieced together some previous writings to make this post.  Though it is future looking, it clarifies the nature of God our foundation.  There's not only what was and is, but also what will be.  To understand where we're headed facilitates that purpose being put into effect now.
_______________________________

Everything immersed and filled with the Holy Spirit will be and do perfectly by nature so need not be subject to anything but are free.  There is then no more Ruler.  All will be gathered together into one and re-headed with Christ.

 In this revelation, Paul by the Holy Spirit says, (1 Co 15:24 CLV):  "...thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power."  While it continues, going into, "...placing all His enemies under His feet," I am certain that it is not only enemy sovereignty, enemy authority and power that are in view, though that is included.  What we are coming to is where there is no sovereignty but the many membered Son in Whom we will fully be and Who will fully be in us.  We are coming to where there is no authority and power except the many membered Son Himself and we are in total union with Him.  This entity will subject all to itself.  Then He gives "up the kingdom to His God and Father."  "...that God may be All in all" (vs. 28)

When, "The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea" (Hab 2:14) and it is fulfilled, that He has, "...ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things" (Eph 4:10), then everything will by nature be perfect and will freely do everything perfectly.  With all existing completely filled with God and immersed in God, nothing will have to rule and nothing will need to be instructed or ruled over in the "glorious liberty" that is opened already in the ascended Jesus.  Paul in Romans 8 includes all creation in this "glorious feedom of the children of God."  This freedom is why "every sovereignty and every authority and power" has to be eliminated, even that of The Sonship Realm.  Sovereignty, authority and [it's] power imply something external to another, subject to another.  This will cease in the Absolute Liberty inherent in Total Oneness.

So many caught up all their lives in being an audience for a few professionals seem incapable of understanding "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."  For what else would they want liberty?  The very idea of personal freedom is something that research suggests was brought to the world by Jesus.  Yet it remains something difficult to comprehend by many people even today.  They seem to only hear descriptions of freedom as rebellion or anarchy.  Jesus as head of the church, while preventing any other among us from being over us, seems to disappear into a vacuum in some believers heads.

In the longest passage quoted in Greek from the Hebrew God says His new covenant "will not be like that when I took you by the hand and lead you out of Egypt."  Yet people almost 3,000 years later are still singing, "Precious Lord, take my hand; lead me on, let me stand..."  The NEW covenant is not "new" as in different so much as it has the continual quality of "newness," or, "young."  That's why it can't be in external writings.  It is of life in immediacy.  No more being bossed around, even by God.  It is something written in our hearts and minds; meaning, we know and understand within ourselves the will of God, delighting in it with our own hearts, choosing it without being told to.  We become one with Him.  Not leadings!!!  But, beings!!!

According to Ephesians 1:9-11 "...the secret of His will (in accord with His delight, which He purposed in Him)" (vs.9) is, "To head up THE ALL in the Christ." (vs.10)  When all has been subjected to Him it is important to continue on into the manifestation of God as God has made known in, "...saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is OUTSIDE OF HIM Who subjects all to Him." (1 Co 15:28)  Therefore, subsequently He must give "up the kingdom to His God and Father" (vs.28) because nothing will remain outside Him.  For a Royal Priesthood to be reigning over others there must be a subjecting of those beneath and external to who rules.  This must cease when consumed by God.  With no kingdom there can be no royalty, no kings.  Priestly intercession is between two; but, the two must be made one. Intercession defines boundaries that must not prevail against the consummation.  Of necessity there can be no more Royal Priesthood because of the freedom of the glory!  "Whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him," and it is so, '...that God may be All in all" (1 Co 15:28) which is "INWARDLY AND OUTWARDLY:  THE DEIFICATION OF EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE."

PERFECT EVERYTHING!!!
TOTAL LIBERTY!!!

[Doc]

PART TWO



From my understanding.

So, now I'm going to ask some questions for you to ponder.

The first is to ask: "Why exactly is God virtuous?"

The next is to ask: "Can any being be virtuous that does not also have a genuine choice to not be virtuous?"
 
And the last is to ask the question that I imagined God asked Himself: "How can I (God) create a virtuous human?"

Keep on being good Doc, even as you were created to be!

Dennis!

1)God is "virtuous" by nature. For example, He IS love. If God ever ceased to be virtuous, then He would cease to be God and then cease to exist; so 2) He does not have a choice not to be virtuous.

3)God could theoretically create humans however He wanted to.

[Doc]

A couple of specific points I felt I needed to add/ address.

 Again I've heard this before, actually in a conversation I had once with some UR minded folk.

However, before I answer I need to correct this point first. A conscience is knowing the difference between good and evil.
And so, as I said earlier, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could also be called the Tree of Conscience.
Therefore, it is logical to asssume that if the fruit of this tree was intended to impart a conscience to them then it follows that they were not originally created with a conscience.

Now, part of the temptation to turn was the spoken truth that this tree would make one like God, that is wise. And God confirmed that this was the truth when He said, while still in that counsel session Peter referred to, "Perceive! They have become like One of Us knowing the difference between good and evil." or "...they have become like One of Us for aquiring a conscience."

So, true innocence would be defined as not knowing the difference between good and evil.

Therefore, I agree that they were in a 'good' but neutral state. An aware existence that we cannot truly comprehend for our having in us a conscience informing us of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong.

Therefore I agree with you that they were incomplete, that is not perfected.

Then my question stands. They would not have needed a conscience without knowledge of good and evil, because they go together. They had innocence. God told them not to eat of the tree of conscience, which tells me He didn't 'want' (stated will, thelo) them to know good and evil. But He knew they had to to go on to perfection/ completion (ultimate intention, boulemai)

Jesus said to the Jews which knew the law: "You be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." That word perfect is the Greek word teleios and it means 'to be brought to completion'.

Now, with that said, I can answer your first question:

How could they have gained more virtue than they already had?

My answer is that, at this point, they had no virtue at all because they were neutral or truly innocent for not having a conscience, yet. Virtue needed to be gained, first. And virtue is not quantitative: You can't be more or less virtuous or have less or more virtue, by the very definition of virtue.

You either are virtuous or you are not.

Perhaps I phrased that badly, in that case. I'll agree they didn't have virtue according to these definitions, so I'll rephrase: What could they have gained that they didn't already have? They were in the Garden, they walked and talked and had a great relationship with God. They were innocent, not knowing the difference between good and evil. So they were "good" as God declared them to be, but they were not yet perfect/ complete.

So, then, how does one gain virtue, unless there is an alternative to virtue? At this point, the only opposition to virtue WAS the tree of conscience. So even though they didn't have virtue, how could they have gained virtue unless there was something to oppose it? Therefore, the ONLY way they could have gained virtue was from eating of the tree, which means that God must have planned for them to do it...and not after they gained virtue, because there was no alternative (only goodness and innocence) unless they ate from the tree! And you have already admitted that there is no virtue without conscience/ knowledge of good and evil.

Which all means...that God planned (and hence foreknew) for them to eat from the tree that he told them not to eat of, because he knew that was the only way that they could move from innocence to perfection. Even Jesus Christ learned obedience from the things that he suffered and he was sinless! So you see, that is God's pattern, His design. The seed must fall into the ground and die to produce life. Adam had to die to be perfected!

How do you get a kid to do something? Tell them not to do it!
Talk about a great illustration of the difference between God's stated will and intention....

Blessings,

Doc

[Doc]

Hi Dennis! Well, I finally got around to doing that extra research on "serpent" (nachash), and I found something interesting. I'm going to post some quotes here from a paper I've found:
This is an article by Michael S. Heiser, PhD. of the Dept. of Hebrew and Semitic studies at UW-Madison. The title of the paper is

The Nachash  and His Seed:
Some Explanatory Notes on Why the "Serpent"
in Genesis 3 Wasn't a Serpent.

As readers of The Façade already know, my view of the fall narrative in
Genesis 3 is quite different than the usual theological or exegetical
fare. As different as it is, it is based on (1) sound Hebrew grammar;
(2) the context of the Hebrew Bible's descriptions of Eden with the
vocabulary of the meeting place of the divine council in wider ancient
near eastern terms and motifs (see the earlier newsletter issue with
that specific PDF file); and (3) sound reasoning that springs from the
first two considerations. In that regard, my explanation provides a
coherent answer for why Eve was not at all surprised that a "serpent"
(a nachash)1 was speaking to her.
In this lesson, I'd like to lay out in more detail, with at least a little
visual help, my translation of the word in Gen. 3 usually translated
"serpent" in Genesis 3 – hannachash . I'll also trace a few
references to the "seed" of hannachash in the Old Testament. Some
of what follows will be familiar, as my goal is to try and tie a few ends
together a bit more tightly for readers.

The Translation of the Word
The Hebrew word  is actually an adjective; meaning "bright",
"brazen [as in shiny brass]) with the prefixed article (ha - the word
"the" in Hebrew). Thus the word is formed #$xfnF + ha for #$xfn@Fha (a dot is
added in the second letter from the right when an article is attached).
The whole word then, in the Hebrew text is #$xfn@Fha, hannachash
(nachash is pronounced "nakash").
What is different about this approach is that I view the base word,
nachash, as an adjective, not a noun. The NOUN spelled nachash in
Hebrew can mean: snake / serpent or one who practices of divination.
The adjective means "bright, brazen" and is itself the base word for
other nouns in Hebrew, like "shining brass" - t#$exon; (nechoshet). In
Hebrew grammar, it is not unusual for an adjective to be "converted"
for use as a noun (the proper word is "substantivized").2 A common
example would be "holy one" (with or without the article). If we take
#$xfn@Fha as deriving from the adjective rather than as a noun, the
translation becomes "the shining one", which is quite in concert with
descriptions of the satan figure in the Old Testament. For example, in
Isa 14:12-15, he is called Helel ben-shachar – "The shining one, son of
the dawn." Elsewhere, divine beings are described as "shining" or
luminous, even by use of the adjective #$xfnF. For example:
Daniel 10
4Now on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was by
the side of the great river, that is, the Tigris, 5I lifted my eyes
and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen, whose
waist was girded with gold of Uphaz! 6His body was like beryl,
his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like
torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze
(t#$exon; ; nechoshet) in color, and the sound of his words like the
voice of a multitude.
Personally, I tend to think that, in light of the serpentine appearance
of divine beings in Yahweh's presence (see that PDF file), what we
have in Genesis 3 is wordplay using all the meanings of the #$xfnF
semantic range. That is, Eve was not talking to a snake. She
was speaking to an bright, shining upright being who was
serpentine in appearance, and who was trying to bewitch her
with lies.

Interestingly, The author takes a literal view of the fall event, while he views the ensuing curse as more metaphorical.

You can read the article in its entirety at:   http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/nachashnotes.pdf

What I was arguing originally regarding this word is not too dissimilar, although less exact and detailed. We as Western English speakers are frequently unaware of things like this; that often (as in this case) the Hebrew nouns are taken from the adjectives rather than the other way around. So the Strong's definition that I gave is basically, as this scholar confirms, the more primary meaning of the word nachash.
I also found this on an online encyclopedia : The Hebrew word for serpent is na(c)hash. The root of the word are the Hebrew letters Nun, Het and Shin - "to decipher, to find out". (hence to "divine", and some of the other definitions from Strong's, i.e. prognosticate, learn by experience, etc.)

Hence, I maintain my position that the serpent in the Garden was not a literal snake, but rather the "shining one" who (may have) presented a serpentine appearance, but was not an actual, literal 'snake'.

[Eleutheros]

Doc!

You've posted as I was writing this, so this post won't be as poignant as it would have been for what I've read in your posts.

However I'm going to let it stand, as it was written, in reply to your first post, because to try and change it now would stunt our discussion.

OK! Here we go!

END OF PART ONE

Well, I see what I consider a major problem with this understanding of things so far. It carries with it the underlying assumption (I believe it to be an unrecognized assumption) that God can make mistakes. So to my mind, the only way that God could not have foreknown that the fall would happen is if He can actually make mistakes.

Hey Doc!

Well, as you wish!

Did you think that I hadn't thought this might be seen as a problem in my logic, if I was misunderstood? This understanding I have isn't something I decided I wanted to believe and then misused logic to make The Words say what I wanted them to say. And it certainly isn't something that is derived from ulterior motives. My conscience is clean on that.

I am familiar with the conclusions that will be drawn when what I am trying to say in not understood. You are certainly not the only human who holds Calvin's idea of 'foreknowledge' as the truth. And I am the only one I know who has concluded that it is a lie- and that from a careful study of the Original Text.

Therefore, I will point out that if you take the time to try and answer, honestly, without dissimilitude, the three questions at the end of my second post you may grasp the understanding I have and will then know that what you have stated here is not accurate.

Not having 'foreknowledge', so-called, of a singular and very unique event in human history, that I maintain Jehovah could not know the definite outcome of, does not equate to God 'making a mistake'.
 
NOTE: I see that you have answered those questions, but you have done so from your understanding. Perhaps you should try and answer them, now, from how you perceive my understanding.

I have demonstrated that I understand your point of view of Gen 1-3, but you have not done the same; possibly from assuming that understanding equates to agreement.

You may disagree with my conclusions but you should at least know what you are disagreeing with, first.

God could have chosen to make us perfect to begin with, but He did not.

This is an axiom, not a fact. And its only proof is in circular reasoning.
Therefore it is unknowable, at best, whether He could have made us "perfect" to begin with. Check out the link I provided in my prior post to a place where I answered this question before.
 

The only thing I can logically conclude from this (my understanding? Ed.) is that God had a plan which at the very least included a contingency for something going awry.

Exactly as I have concluded. Which means that something didn't happen that was supposed to. Are we in agreement here?

Satan, in some form was already in existence;...

Yes.

Both trees were placed in the garden

Yes.

An instruction was given not to eat of ToKoGaE.

Yes.

You have explained its presence by stating that God did intend for them to eat from it at the appropriate time.

More accurately, with His permission, after passing the test; a seed idea I got from C.S. Lewis.

Doc, what I'm going to type here may clear the way for your understanding what I am saying and why I am saying it; it may 'open your eyes'.

Here is why this is a very important point. Comprehend that permission to eat, after they gained virtue, would remove any previous doubt they had that Jehovah's intention was to keep something from them. And it was that idea in them that became another component of the temptation; for The Satan came to know that this doubt was in their minds for how Ishsha changed the exact warning that Jehovah gave to include something He didn't say, specifically, "...eat of it, nor touch it lest you die"; and for not repeating the exact phrase "in dying you will die".

The other component of the temptation was, of course, the offer to become like God, or wise, apart from Him- a thing impossible to be, but they didn't know that.

And so, overcoming this doubt, through trust in Jehovah, is what would have made them virtuous- with doubt, of course, being the very thing in them that would corrupt the work of the fruit designed to impart to them what God Himself has, a conscience.

For virtue cannot be gained without having a genuine choice to not be virtuous, including all the consequences thereof, for good or bad, one way or another.

In the day they ate, exactly what Jehovah said would happen did. In dying to true innocence, this way, by eating from the tree against a command not to and that with doubt and distrust, they died to what they were intended to become, specifically, like God knowing of evil objectively for knowing good first.
Physical Death came later, much later, but it came nonetheless, because they were now denied access to the replenishing properties of the Tree of Life; A tree whose fruit was designed to sustain them in a physical world for ages of time. Even as 'Trees of Life' make a return appearance in the Unveiling with a little more description given, specifically, that each has 12 fruits growing in a yearly cycle and that each has leaves that are for the therapy of all human's i.e. 'the nations'.

Which indicates that some kinds of physical harm can come to humans in the physical world that will be The New Heavens with its New Earth. Sounds like adventure to me!

So, with the permission to eat granted, after the test of virtue was successful, the doubt and distrust in them of Jehovah's motives would be immediately removed and the work of the fruit would still have done its job of ending their true, but useless innocence.
However, instead of awakening to shame for their nudity, and that for the Turning of their sexuality, as well as awakening to Death; "...in dying you will die.", would now be changed to, "in dying you will live"! They would have awakened to understanding good and evil the way God does, that is to say knowing of evil objectively by knowing of good experientially! And thus gained an appreciation of their very powerful sexuality, including its proper 'care and maintenance', for knowing the difference between right and wrong exactly the way Jehovah does by knowing of evil objectively and that through being good!

Stop here for a second, Doc and imagine a world where humans respect theirs and each other's sexuality.
Men and Women would create all those little humans as they were intended to, united into a compound unity through the very sex that they create these little humans with, but only within the confines of a loving and committed marriages. And for that, those marriages would be glorious things indeed for us being like God, Who is agape, that is fondness and affection.

So, for having gained this wisdom, after acquiring virtue first, it would be very easy for them to continue being virtuous, that is knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to do right always, just as The Father does... And exactly what He now re-sires us to be! Humans who are virtuous!

And so the reason things had to be done this way is because this is the only way God could think of to create virtuous humans, one way or another, which is His ultimate goal.

For some things can only be done right, once, that is the first time. After that a lot of work is required to make it right again; a thing impossible for us, but, with God, even this is possible.

All of this is totally consistent with His 'foreknowledge' as I have demonstrated what the scriptures say of exactly how He gains this foreknowledge, is the truth, not Calvin's idea shoe-horned into the Original Text.
And it is also consistent with God's sovereignty over His creation- All souls truly belong to Him and the soul that sins it will (and must) die; and with Him being revealed as a Father to us, through Jesus; and with His being agape; and with His allowing humans 'room to repent'; and with His patiently enduring our sins, even while He feels every one of them personally; and with His giving Jesus a reward for His sufferings on our behalf, at the Father's request, after that specific counsel Peter mentioned, to become our Savior, namely the firstfruits of Believers who are to become His 'Bride' (YEA!!)- remember, Jesus is now a glorified human being, which is something He wasn't before (now there's a logical conclusion that will mess with your mind!); and the need to recreate Heaven and Earth for this one having to be sacrificed to the process of redeeming turned humans i.e. being cursed into entropy and thus wearing out for being made hostile to the humans it was originally designed to sustain for eons of time.

Now there's some new thoughts, eh?

The problem is that this is an argument from silence/ ignorance.

No its not. The presence of the Tree of LIFE (What's in a name, eh?) is proof that something that was supposed to happen didn't; exactly because they ended up being banned from it. And therefore I conclude that the command to not eat of the 'ToKoGaE'  was a 'preparation' to accomplish what was intended to happen, specifically that they refuse the 'offer' to become like God by acquiring a conscience apart from Him.

Simply then, I maintain that if He knew as a fact that they were going to turn then this thing He did in the Garden was a set up to fail; a truly cosmic 'sting operation'. And God is capricious and megalomaniacal as I have logically shown Him to be.

And if He did not know, as a fact, that they were going to turn then this thing He did in the Garden was preparation for a successful completion of the first pair of humans to be like God, that is virtuous- the same thing we will be when God, through Jesus the Christ, is ALL and in ALL.

Of course, it is this idea that seems anathema for exactly how Calvin defined foreknowledge for you, the English reader, to believe so you would buy into His crap about hell.

Doc you said once, in essence, that without 'foreknowledge' God is not sovereign.

And I agree. For I have never denied that Jehovah doesn't have the ability to foreknow, only that Jehovah does not foreknow the future, as a fact, for how I have shown the scriptures say He gains this foreknowledge, specifically, by being acquainted intimately with all humans heart of thoughts, simultaneously and that through spirit. This is what Paul was saying in Romans 8; and Romans 8 is where that SOB, Calvin, twisted the scriptures to lead you to conclude that Jehovah foreknows the future, as a fact.

I have demonstrated, twice now, the absurdity that results when this idea, which is the popular one, is taken to its logical conclusion, even as you used the word 'planned' -as in Jehovah actually planned for us to fall so we could learn about good objectively. In other words, that God creates evil that good may come.

You have yet to do the same with my logic, that is, demonstrate its absurdity by taking it to its logical conclusion. I'm not saying it can't be done and I would like you to try because the effort might show us both a thing and two.

There is no scriptural evidence that God ever intended for them to eat of it. (The ToKoGaE)

What is correct is that there is no direct statement in The Words declaring His intention one way or another.

I presented, in my last post, a preponderance of indirect evidence that suggests something that was supposed to happen didn't, just as the word katabole or 'disruption' implies; evidence that you have not replied to directly by saying whether you agree or disagree and why.

We hear only of the presence of the tree of life in the context of Adam post fall being barred from it,...

That is not correct.

"And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and to be desired for food; the tree of life also in the center of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil … Gen 2:9

...but no instruction on what they were to have done with it previously.

This is also not correct.

"And God said, 'See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the land and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food'." Gen 1: 29 AMP

And

"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, in dying you will die. Gen 2:16 & 17.

I am therefore led to the conclusion that your explanation of why the ToKoGaE was placed in the garden is a stretch.

Perhaps you might want to reconsider then, given that some of your statements are factually inaccurate. And that surprisingly so, Doc, given the good arguments you've made in the past.

We know that both trees were intentionally placed there.

Yes.

The only thing we aren't told is why.

Correct. God has never made a statement, in effect, saying, "OK, you humans, listen up! I'm gonna tell you why I placed a tree, whose fruit would create a conscience in your Parents, where they could get at its fruit easily and then why I commanded your Parents not to eat from it- besides that warning thingy I gave them; you remember,  "…in the day you eat of it, in dying you will die."

Therefore it is left, by Him, for us to deduce why. And that is what this is all about!

Which is why I maintain that Genesis was intended to be understood literally. Jehovah wants us to deduce why He did things this way because the process of understanding will reveal more than mere words can. And besides, being the contrary things we are to truth- before we come to know Him and are re-sired by Him- wouldn't we just gainsay it?

Therefore, I assume, axiomatically, that all the information that I need to deduce His motive is there and that the account was meant to be understood, literally.

And for these assumptions, I've drawn some pretty darn good conclusions that are apparently difficult to argue against, given the massive silence from the Tentmakers who seem to be leaving you alone, Doc, to 'bear the burden' of disputing my claims; for I know that you are speaking for the many here.

(As of this writing there have been well over 500 hits to this thread. I can account for about 35 of them. So I know there is a… 'interest', among the Tentmakers in what we are discussing, even as I must know that there are not a few who wish they could give me a piece of their mind concerning the things I am typing! Which begs the question, "Why aren't they?")

I have demonstrated that your conclusion and indeed, the popular one, is derived from Calvin's idea of 'predestination' and 'foreknowledge'; ideas of his that I have proven were shoe-horned into the Text and thus were translated into existence, right along with that peculiar hell he loved so much.

And I have stated that my understanding is gained from purging my heart of all the pre-conceived 'Christian' notions put there by all those 'Godly men of old' and then asking the hard questions while I searched The Original Text for answers while trusting that truth is knowable and for knowing that I am willing to concede to these 'Godly men of old', should I find that any of the things they conclude are truth, apart from their saying they are.

Like I said, my conscience is clean concerning ulterior motives.

END OF PART ONE

[Eleutheros]

PART TWO

The simplest explanation is that God planned for Adam to fall, because He could have easily prevented it by simply not placing the offending tree there.

Again this is circular reasoning for assuming, axiomatically, that because, "Jehovah can do anything" we can imagine Him to do, He must have just choose not to do 'it' that way.

The truthful thought is that Jehovah can do all things that are possible to do, which includes a whole bunch of things that are impossible for us to do, including restoring a rich man to Himself. But even He cannot do things that are inherently contradictory; that is, He cannot make a rock so big that He can't lift it.

The facts are that He placed both trees in the Garden at the same time. And so, either He was setting them up to fail or He was preparing them for success.

Which conclusion you choose will lead you to conclusions that will either be contradictory to, or complimentary with, an accurate understanding of the rest of scripture. Just as I have made claim, above, to having done just that with my understanding.

Remember, this story is about God and his glory, not ours. He will share that glory with no one.

Well, even apart from the story you say you believe your God is writing for us that we may be learning good, objectively, through experiencing evil first- there is a glory we can know for ourselves that is His... more on that later.
 

If we could have brought about righteousness by our obedience, then the glory would be ours, not God's.

Yes, but obedience to what? Law? I agree. So why was law given? To show what sin is and in so doing show us how weak we are when it comes to being good, even when we truly want to be good! Something you agreed with in my last post; for being good and being righteous is one and the same!

"So may you walk in the way of good men, and keep to the paths of the righteous; for the upright shall dwell in the land and the men of integrity, blameless and complete, shall remain in it; but the wicked shall be cut off from the earth and the treacherous shall be rooted out of it." Prov 2:20-23

"As children of light be walking (for the fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth), testing what is well pleasing to the Lord." Eph 5: 9-10

Doc , Righteousness is not a 'thing'; it is not an object. Righteousness is a state of being gained through obedience! Specifically, for our current age, still living under a curse because of Sin, it is obedience that fosters our individual righteousness; obedience to the spirit of Jesus Who is making His home in us, who, in this age, while we yet live, are learning by obedience to His spirit to be righteous and that by loving and doing good! Even as Paul said here:

"Are you not aware that to whom you are presenting yourselves as slaves for obedience, his slaves you are, whom you are obeying, whether of Sin for death, or of Obedience for righteousness?" Rom 6:16

And here:

"Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith--obedience to the only, and wise God, through Christ Jesus, be glory for the eons of the eons. Amen!" Rom 16: 25-26

And here:

"Now I myself also am persuaded concerning you, my brethren, that you yourselves also are bulging with goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to be admonishing one another." Rom 15:14

And the writer of Hebrews here:

"And we may be considering one another to incite to love and ideal acts, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves, according as the custom of some is, but entreating, and so much rather as you are observing the day (of Evaluation) drawing near. For at our sinning voluntarily after obtaining the recognition of the truth, it is no longer leaving a sacrifice concerned with sins, but a certain fearful waiting for judging and fiery jealousy, about to be eating the hostile." Heb 10:25

And especially Peter here:

Simeon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who are chancing upon an equally precious faith with us, (What's this 'chancing' thingy?) in the righteousness of our God, and the Savior, Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the recognition of God and of Jesus Christ, our Lord! So has all of His divine power, that tends to life and devoutness, been presented to us through the recognition of Him -> Who calls us to His own glory and virtue<-; through which have been presented to us the precious and greatest promises, that through these you may become participants of the divine nature, fleeing from the corruption which is in the world by lust.

Now for this same thing also, employing all diligence, in your faith supply virtue, yet in virtue (supply) knowledge, yet in knowledge (supply) self-control, yet in self-control (supply) endurance, yet in endurance (supply) devoutness, yet in devoutness (supply) brotherly fondness, yet in brotherly fondness (supply) love. 2 Pet:1-7

(Did you get that? Does it sound like something I might write from my understanding?)

And this obedience of ours is definitely to the Glory of Jehovah, through us, as Paul said here:

"For all is because of you, that the grace, increasing through the majority, should be superabounding in thanksgiving to the glory of God." 2 Cor 4:15
 
And here:

"... And this I am praying, that your love may be superabounding still more and more in realization and all sensibility, for you to be testing what things are of consequence, that you may be sincere and no stumbling block for the day of Christ, (the Day of Evaluation) filled with the fruit of righteousness that is through Jesus Christ for the glory and laud of God." Phil 1: 9-11

And here

"For whatever promises are of God, are, in Him "Yes." Wherefore through Him also is the "Amen" to God, for glory, through us." 2 Cor 1:20

And not only does the glory of Jehovah come back to Him through us His Glory is also for us to receive!!!  Way cool! As Paul said here:

"You are witnesses, and God, how benignly and justly and blamelessly we became to you who are believing, even as you are aware how we were to each one of you, as a father to his own children, consoling and comforting you and attesting unto you to be walking worthily of God, Who calls you into His own kingdom and (His own) glory." 1 Thess 2: 10-12

And here:

"Yet wisdom are we speaking among the mature, yet a wisdom not of this eon, neither of the chief men of this eon, who are being discarded, but we are speaking God's wisdom in a secret, wisdom which has been concealed, which God designates before -- before the eons, for our glory, which not one of the chief men of this eon knows, for if they know, they would not crucify the Lord of glory." I Cor 2:6-8

And here:

"Being, then, justified by faith, we may be having peace toward God, through our Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom we have the access also, by faith, into this grace in which we stand, and we may be glorying in expectation of the glory of God." Rom 5:1-2

No offence intended, Doc, but I really think you should reconsider what you said. It sounds good, but it is quite specious for assuming that obedience toward being good, by doing good, something you agree He makes it possible for us to do, is the same thing as trying to be righteous through obedience to the law.

Are you aware of the distinction between God's stated will (thelo) and his ultimate intention (boulomai)?

Well, I am now! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Here is a synopsis of what I discovered:

I see that boulomai (Strong's#1014) is fairly consistently translated as 'intended', 'intention' and 'intend' in the CLV.

And thelo (Strong's#2309) is mostly translated with 'willing'.

There are two quotes that use both words in one sentence:

Matthew 1:19: Now Joseph, her husband, being just and not willing (thelo) to hold her up to infamy, intended (boulomai) covertly to dismiss her.

And

Acts 17: 20 For strange is what you are bringing to our hearing. We are resolved (boulomai), then, to know what this is wanting (thelo) to be."

Many things go (for a time) against God's stated will, yet ultimately work toward his ultimate intention.

What you have said seems truthful, as much as my reflection on it has been and for now I find nothing to disagree with, after examining the words you asked me to examine. However, let me illustrate my understanding of these words with this:

I would say that His intention (boulomai), from the beginning, to create virtuous humans, right off the bat, by giving them a chance to be virtuous first, that is, to know objectively what evil is by being good- the way God knows of evil- made Him willing (thelo) to take the risk on Himself, should they fail where He intended (boulomai) for them to succeed. And this risk He took, of course, was because He could not know, as a fact, whether or not they would pass or fail. And so, after the outcome became our new reality, at the Turning, He and whatever Jesus was before He became Human, knew that, in order to restore us to Himself, Jesus would have to accomplish the forgiveness of our sins and then find and restore as many as are willing (thelo) to become the firstfuits, both in Hades and on The Earth, even as His spirit draws all to the Truth, so that they may be re-sired to be what He originally intended for them to be, that is, good. And for the rest who are not willing (thelo) and resist His spirit right into The Day of Evaluation, they will be separated out during the Day of Evaluation with it being God's intention (boulomai) for them to endure that aionios fire that He never intended for them to have to endure; for it being created for The Satan and His angels and that in front of Jesus their savior, Who's face they will be observing, before they will become willing (thelo) to be restored through repentance.

Arguing then, from your understanding that Jehovah foreknew the Turning and using these same words, while incorporating the things you have said in support of your view- I would say His intention (boulomai) all along was for them to fail, indeed He even planed for them to fail, because He foreknew they would. And so He was willing (thelo) to create all these failed humans so He could force them to learn good, the only way they could, objectively, by creating lots and lots of evil for them to learn from, even though He Himself knows of evil, objectively, for being good. Of course His intention (boulomai), from the foundation of the world, was to foreordain whatever Jesus was before He conceived of this 'Plan A' to become a willing (thelo) Human sacrifice and die for the sins He intended (boulomai) even planned for us to commit; all done so He could forgive us all of them. The first ones to believe, the firstfruits, must have been the ones He liked better, or 'foreknew' and thus He predestined these to become good 'willingly' (thelo) without having to endure the aionios fire He had previously prepared for the Satan and His angels, but, found another use for. He, of course, planned for there to eventually be a Day of Evaluation in which He intended (boulomai), from the foundation of the world, for all those other humans he foreknew and didn't predestine to become good, willingly (thelo), to become willing (thelo) while being purged in this fire, He foreknew they would have to endure, in front of Jesus, their savior, while observing His face, before they would be, well, 'willing'(thelo). Of course all of this was done so He could rescue us from all this predestined evil and then receive for Himself, from us, the glory for such a magnanimous act.

No, Doc, I'm not trying to be clever here or even facetious. Nor am I trying to demean what you believe. God forbid.

What I am trying to do is illustrate to you how to take the foundational ideas, the axioms you put your faith in, to a logical conclusion. Then you can examine the conclusions to see if they are an accurate reflection of reality. And then, when you can do that, you will know whether the axioms you hold to be truths are indeed truthful, that is, that they accurately reflect reality.

I have presented my understanding here. You seem to grasp it. So, why don't you try to do the same thing with my understanding that I have done with yours, that is, take my foundational axioms to their logical conclusion so that I may perceive my thoughts from your understanding of them?

A contextual case can be made for how the word Ra should be translated as calamity, etc. in that Isaiah passage,

I'm glad you see that.

...but there are other places where God is spoken of as doing similar things.

Could you let me know where those places are so that I might examine your claim even as I have provided scripture and lots of it, to verify the claims I make?

All of them cannot be explained away so easily as, "well, it's our fault."

I won't know anything you say is a fact until I know what scriptures you are referring to and how you use them to arrive at your conclusions.

Ra can be translated as many different things, but the two most common are bad and evil.

And because of that I will remind you that context is everything; even as I provided the context to demonstrate that the scripture you used to show that God creates evil, as in, 'that good may come' cannot be used to support your claim. And you now agree that I have made my case well for that scripture.

God has, and has taken, the ultimate responsibility for His creation, and I conclude from that that He is in fact ultimately responsible. We can be held accountable for our individual actions, but God has made it clear that His is the ultimate responsibility.

Doc, where has He made this clear? What scripture quotes provided the axioms that you built on? What are the logical steps you used to arrive at this conclusion? You have shared here what you think but you have not shared much on why you think it- as I have. You just state your conclusions as 'facts' and leave it at that.

I'm not trying to say, "Your conclusions are wrong!", don't misunderstand. What I am wanting to do is point out that I have been transparent here. Every axiom I claim as truthful I have backed up with scripture and that mostly from an agreed on source, the CLV. I have laid my logic down step by step for you to examine, backing up each step with scripture to show you how I arrived at the conclusion I hold to be truth, specifically, that Jehovah did not know, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them. And then I have demonstrated how, with that being understood, several 'mysteries' of the faith like 'predestination' and 'free will' and Jehovah giving humans 'room to repent', despite this peculiar 'foreknowledge' Christians think He has, are not mysteries at all, but just stupid contradiction and the logical result of ulterior motivated deliberate mistranslations that incorporated lies into what is Truth.

I have also taken what I perceive to be the axioms you build your understanding on and unceremoniously illustrated their absurdity by taking them to their logical conclusions. And I did so, unceremoniously, because there is no way to be 'nice' about absurdity. I'm sorry about that, but I think you understand that I wasn't saying that you were absurd.

What I'm asking then, at this point, is that you return the 'favor', do your best to disprove my understanding and champion yours, besides just stating your conclusions as facts 'everyone knows'.
 

How can all those bad things happen you ask? Well, that's a question many of us wrestle with, or God wouldn't allow it. The present suffering will be nothing in light of the weight of aionian glory.

I agree with the last sentence.

I can't agree, though, that I 'wrestle' with why all those bad things happen because of what I know from scripture that began with a truthful and therefore better idea about what Paul and Peter meant when they wrote the Greek words that the KJV interpreters translated with the deliberately misleading, even inaccurate words, 'predestinate', 'foundation', 'foreknow', 'foreknew', 'foreknowledge' and 'foreordained'.

Thanks Doc for reading, I do appreciate it. And I thank you also for hanging with me. I only hope that you are gaining as much from our exchanges as I am.


Be good!

Dennis!

P.S. I'll reply to the other posts you made after I ponder them awhile. They're some good ones!

[aspiring son]

Dennis,

It is clear you have put a alot of time and energy into your posts. They are very thought provoking. I have not read them all but the page and a ahalf that I have read is interesting.


Blessings...

I'll admit I pieced together some previous writings to make this post.  Though it is future looking, it clarifies the nature of God our foundation.  There's not only what was and is, but also what will be.  To understand where we're headed facilitates that purpose being put into effect now.
_______________________________

Everything immersed and filled with the Holy Spirit will be and do perfectly by nature so need not be subject to anything but are free.  There is then no more Ruler.  All will be gathered together into one and re-headed with Christ.

 In this revelation, Paul by the Holy Spirit says, (1 Co 15:24 CLV):  "...thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power."  While it continues, going into, "...placing all His enemies under His feet," I am certain that it is not only enemy sovereignty, enemy authority and power that are in view, though that is included.  What we are coming to is where there is no sovereignty but the many membered Son in Whom we will fully be and Who will fully be in us.  We are coming to where there is no authority and power except the many membered Son Himself and we are in total union with Him.  This entity will subject all to itself.  Then He gives "up the kingdom to His God and Father."  "...that God may be All in all" (vs. 28)

When, "The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea" (Hab 2:14) and it is fulfilled, that He has, "...ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things" (Eph 4:10), then everything will by nature be perfect and will freely do everything perfectly.  With all existing completely filled with God and immersed in God, nothing will have to rule and nothing will need to be instructed or ruled over in the "glorious liberty" that is opened already in the ascended Jesus.  Paul in Romans 8 includes all creation in this "glorious feedom of the children of God."  This freedom is why "every sovereignty and every authority and power" has to be eliminated, even that of The Sonship Realm.  Sovereignty, authority and [it's] power imply something external to another, subject to another.  This will cease in the Absolute Liberty inherent in Total Oneness.

So many caught up all their lives in being an audience for a few professionals seem incapable of understanding "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."  For what else would they want liberty?  The very idea of personal freedom is something that research suggests was brought to the world by Jesus.  Yet it remains something difficult to comprehend by many people even today.  They seem to only hear descriptions of freedom as rebellion or anarchy.  Jesus as head of the church, while preventing any other among us from being over us, seems to disappear into a vacuum in some believers heads.

In the longest passage quoted in Greek from the Hebrew God says His new covenant "will not be like that when I took you by the hand and lead you out of Egypt."  Yet people almost 3,000 years later are still singing, "Precious Lord, take my hand; lead me on, let me stand..."  The NEW covenant is not "new" as in different so much as it has the continual quality of "newness," or, "young."  That's why it can't be in external writings.  It is of life in immediacy.  No more being bossed around, even by God.  It is something written in our hearts and minds; meaning, we know and understand within ourselves the will of God, delighting in it with our own hearts, choosing it without being told to.  We become one with Him.  Not leadings!!!  But, beings!!!

According to Ephesians 1:9-11 "...the secret of His will (in accord with His delight, which He purposed in Him)" (vs.9) is, "To head up THE ALL in the Christ." (vs.10)  When all has been subjected to Him it is important to continue on into the manifestation of God as God has made known in, "...saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is OUTSIDE OF HIM Who subjects all to Him." (1 Co 15:28)  Therefore, subsequently He must give "up the kingdom to His God and Father" (vs.28) because nothing will remain outside Him.  For a Royal Priesthood to be reigning over others there must be a subjecting of those beneath and external to who rules.  This must cease when consumed by God.  With no kingdom there can be no royalty, no kings.  Priestly intercession is between two; but, the two must be made one. Intercession defines boundaries that must not prevail against the consummation.  Of necessity there can be no more Royal Priesthood because of the freedom of the glory!  "Whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him," and it is so, '...that God may be All in all" (1 Co 15:28) which is "INWARDLY AND OUTWARDLY:  THE DEIFICATION OF EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE."

PERFECT EVERYTHING!!!
TOTAL LIBERTY!!!

Amen! That energized my spirit while reading!

[Eleutheros]

To The Tentmakers:

Through my studies I have come to think disdainfully of the theologies of Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin and their interprtetation of the Original Text that bore their theology to the world, namely the King James Bible.

And I'm sure you've noted that, for that disdain, I have been uncompromisingly ruthless in my langauge when I refer to these humans.

That will stop as of now.

My God has made it clear to me that it is not for me to use such language against another human being, dead or alive.

And so I apologize to all of you for the unkind adjectives and nouns I have used to smear the character of these men. History is its own witness and so it is not for me to evaluate them this way by using such language, that is to say, for me it is a sin.

And so I ask your forgiveness in this. And while I will continue to argue against thier theologies and the work they made of The Words, because I perceive that it is not according to truth, but is misleading and deceptive, I will no longer disparage them personally.

It is for God to evaluate what belongs to Him, namely all souls, including mine and yours and that of Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin.

Thank you for your forgiveness in advance.

Working at being good through obedience to the spirit of Jesus in me, exactly as I was re-sired to do,

Dennis!

[Doc]

Your replies are getting too long. I have to post my response to just part 1 in two parts!
 

Hey Doc! Well, as you wish! Did you think that I hadn't thought this might be seen as a problem in my logic, if I was misunderstood? This understanding I have isn't something I decided I wanted to believe and then misused logic to make The Words say what I wanted them to say. And it certainly isn't something that is derived from ulterior motives. My conscience is clean on that.

Which is why I said that this was not intentional, but unconscious. I didn't really know whether you were aware of that aspect or not, which is why I pointed it out, and gave you the benefit of the doubt on having ulterior motives, which I'm certain you don't have.

I am familiar with the conclusions that will be drawn when what I am trying to say in not understood. You are certainly not the only human who holds Calvin's idea of 'foreknowledge' as the truth. And I am the only one I know who has concluded that it is a lie- and that from a careful study of the Original Text. Therefore, I will point out that if you take the time to try and answer, honestly, without dissimilitude, the three questions at the end of my second post you may grasp the understanding I have and will then know that what you have stated here is not accurate. Not having 'foreknowledge', so-called, of a singular and very unique event in human history, that I maintain Jehovah could not know the definite outcome of, does not equate to God 'making a mistake'. NOTE: I see that you have answered those questions, but you have done so from your understanding. Perhaps you should try and answer them, now, from how you perceive my understanding. I have demonstrated that I understand your point of view of Gen 1-3, but you have not done the same; possibly from assuming that understanding equates to agreement. You may disagree with my conclusions but you should at least know what you are disagreeing with, first.

 Ok. I'll give it a go. I believe you re-address this area later in the post, so I'll try to re-address it there.

This is an axiom, not a fact. And its only proof is in circular reasoning. Therefore it is unknowable, at best, whether He could have made us "perfect" to begin with. Check out the link I provided in my prior post to a place where I answered this question before.

It's no more circular than I believe some of the things you have said are. If God can perfect us at all, it stands to reason that we could've been created already perfected. That's how I see it. If God is already perfect, then I believe it's not a stretch in reason to say that it is likely He could create a perfect creation from the start.

only thing I can logically conclude from this (my understanding? Ed.) is that God had a plan which at the very least included a contingency for something going awry. Exactly as I have concluded. Which means that something didn't happen that was supposed to. Are we in agreement here?

Sort of. This gets muddier later, but I agree to the point of saying that something went against God's stated will, but not necessarily his intention. I'll get into that more specifically when I address the point about God making mistakes.

I have explained its presence by stating that God did intend for them to eat from it at the appropriate time. More accurately, with His permission, after passing the test; a seed idea I got from C.S. Lewis.

Ok. But I'm going to ask a question of you here similar to one you ask of me later (and a point is made about this later in the post). Where is the specific evidence that God intended for them to eat of that tree at all? The only explicit instruction given regarding the Tree of Knowledge is that they not eat of it. Now, I know you say later that the presence of the tree of Life is evidence of this, but I'll try to address that more specifically when we get there.

Doc, what I'm going to type here may clear the way for your understanding what I am saying and why I am saying it; it may 'open your eyes'. Here is why this is a very important point. Comprehend that permission to eat, after they gained virtue, would remove any previous doubt they had that Jehovah's intention was to keep something from them. And it was that idea in them that became another component of the temptation; for The Satan came to know that this doubt was in their minds for how Ishsha changed the exact warning that Jehovah gave to include something He didn't say, specifically, "...eat of it, nor touch it lest you die"; and for not repeating the exact phrase "in dying you will die". The other component of the temptation was, of course, the offer to become like God, or wise, apart from Him- a thing impossible to be, but they didn't know that. And so, overcoming this doubt, through trust in Jehovah, is what would have made them virtuous- with doubt, of course, being the very thing in them that would corrupt the work of the fruit designed to impart to them what God Himself has, a conscience. For virtue cannot be gained without having a genuine choice to not be virtuous, including all the consequences thereof, for good or bad, one way or another.

I think I've already agreed with you that virtue cannot be gained without having a genuine choice not to be virtuous. The problem in the logic of how this plays out, I believe, is related to your similar point that virtue cannot be gained without conscience, which cannot happen apart from knowledge of good and evil. More on that later, as I think you get to the relevant item later in the post.

In the day they ate, exactly what Jehovah said would happen did. In dying to true innocence, this way, by eating from the tree against a command not to and that with doubt and distrust, they died to what they were intended to become, specifically, like God knowing of evil objectively for knowing good first. Physical Death came later, much later, but it came nonetheless, because they were now denied access to the replenishing properties of the Tree of Life; A tree whose fruit was designed to sustain them in a physical world for ages of time. Even as 'Trees of Life' make a return appearance in the Unveiling with a little more description given, specifically, that each has 12 fruits growing in a yearly cycle and that each has leaves that are for the therapy of all human's i.e. 'the nations'.

This seems like assumption to me, but perhaps I missed something in your reasoning here. The tree of Knowledge carries the knowledge of both good and evil, and there does not appear to be any "order". In other words, you eat the fruit, you get the knowledge of both good and evil simultaneously.

So, with the permission to eat granted, after the test of virtue was successful, the doubt and distrust in them of Jehovah's motives would be immediately removed and the work of the fruit would still have done its job of ending their true, but useless innocence. However, instead of awakening to shame for their nudity, and that for the Turning of their sexuality, as well as awakening to Death; "...in dying you will die.", would now be changed to, "in dying you will live"! They would have awakened to understanding good and evil the way God does, that is to say knowing of evil objectively by knowing of good experientially! And thus gained an appreciation of their very powerful sexuality, including its proper 'care and maintenance', for knowing the difference between right and wrong exactly the way Jehovah does by knowing of evil objectively and that through being good!

I'm still not seeing where in scripture you're getting this idea of Adam and Eve getting permission to eat should they avoid temptation to do so against God's command.

So, for having gained this wisdom, after acquiring virtue first, it would be very easy for them to continue being virtuous, that is knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to do right always, just as The Father does... And exactly what He now re-sires us to be! Humans who are virtuous! And so the reason things had to be done this way is because this is the only way God could think of to create virtuous humans, one way or another, which is His ultimate goal.

Are you telling me that you seriously think that God, the most supreme, wise, intelligent, etc. being in the universe could only think of one way to do something? Didn't we just say in the previous posts and in a different way in this one, that you can't have virtue without conscience (knowledge of good and evil)? If so, then how can virtue be gained first? Let's look at our definitions again: A conscience is knowing the difference between good and evil. vir⋅tue  [vur-choo]  Show IPA –noun 1. moral excellence; goodness; righteousness. 2. conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude. 3. chastity; virginity: to lose one's virtue. 4. a particular moral excellence. Compare cardinal virtues, natural virtue, theological virtue. 5. a good or admirable quality or property: the virtue of knowing one's weaknesses. 6. effective force; power or potency: a charm with the virtue of removing warts. 7. virtues, an order of angels. Compare angel (def. 1). 8. manly excellence; valor. So, according to these definitions, conscience is a pre-requisite for virtue. You can't perform a virtuous act or be virtuous without knowing the difference between good and evil (otherwise, it's not virtue, it's innocence). Yet, you're telling me that God's plan was for the Adam to gain virtue first, before knowing good and evil, by sheer obedience. But this is a logical impossibility. Your claim here seems to be that virtue can be gained through sheer obedience, without conscience. But that is a logical absurdity.

On to part two of part one.

[Doc]

Part two of reply to part one:

All of this is totally consistent with His 'foreknowledge' as I have demonstrated what the scriptures say of exactly how He gains this foreknowledge, is the truth, not Calvin's idea shoe-horned into the Original Text. And it is also consistent with God's sovereignty over His creation- All souls truly belong to Him and the soul that sins it will (and must) die; and with Him being revealed as a Father to us, through Jesus; and with His being agape; and with His allowing humans 'room to repent'; and with His patiently enduring our sins, even while He feels every one of them personally; and with His giving Jesus a reward for His sufferings on our behalf, at the Father's request, after that specific counsel Peter mentioned, to become our Savior, namely the firstfruits of Believers who are to become His 'Bride' (YEA!!)- remember, Jesus is now a glorified human being, which is something He wasn't before (now there's a logical conclusion that will mess with your mind!); and the need to recreate Heaven and Earth for this one having to be sacrificed to the process of redeeming turned humans i.e. being cursed into entropy and thus wearing out for being made hostile to the humans it was originally designed to sustain for eons of time. Now there's some new thoughts, eh?

I think you raise the point of how God gains his foreknowledge elsewhere, so I will attempt to address that there.

The problem is that this is an argument from silence/ ignorance. No its not. The presence of the Tree of LIFE (What's in a name, eh?) is proof that something that was supposed to happen didn't; exactly because they ended up being banned from it. And therefore I conclude that the command to not eat of the 'ToKoGaE'  was a 'preparation' to accomplish what was intended to happen, specifically that they refuse the 'offer' to become like God by acquiring a conscience apart from Him.

I wouldn't call it proof, I would call it circumstantial evidence. I maintain that it is an argument from silence: A conclusion based on a lack of contrary evidence. Genesis doesn't tell us that the tree of knowledge was ever to be eaten from, yet you conclude from the presence of the tree indicates that it was there to be eaten from under special circumstances which do not appear in the scripture.

Simply then, I maintain that if He knew as a fact that they were going to turn then this thing He did in the Garden was a set up to fail; a truly cosmic 'sting operation'. And God is capricious and megalomaniacal as I have logically shown Him to be.

God would not be capricious and megalomaniacal though if we can see that He did this because He knew that as a being not yet perfected, Adam had to fall and die in order to be perfected.

And if He did not know, as a fact, that they were going to turn then this thing He did in the Garden was preparation for a successful completion of the first pair of humans to be like God, that is virtuous- the same thing we will be when God, through Jesus the Christ, is ALL and in ALL.

Or alternatively, this was exactly how God planned to accomplish this, as we have seen that virtue comes after knowledge of good and evil, not before.

Doc you said once, in essence, that without 'foreknowledge' God is not sovereign. And I agree. For I have never denied that Jehovah doesn't have the ability to foreknow, only that Jehovah does not foreknow the future, as a fact, for how I have shown the scriptures say He gains this foreknowledge, specifically, by being acquainted intimately with all humans heart of thoughts, simultaneously and that through spirit. This is what Paul was saying in Romans 8; and Romans 8 is where that SOB, Calvin, twisted the scriptures to lead you to conclude that Jehovah foreknows the future, as a fact.

I'm going to put this as simply as I can, in bottom-line terms. If God does not know the "future" (from our perspective) as a fact, then He cannot declare it. If He cannot declare it, then we can't trust prophecy, and we can't know that God will be able to deliver on his promises, because He can't know this information, either. That includes the Universal Restoration.

I have demonstrated, twice now, the absurdity that results when this idea, which is the popular one, is taken to its logical conclusion, even as you used the word 'planned' -as in Jehovah actually planned for us to fall so we could learn about good objectively. In other words, that God creates evil that good may come. You have yet to do the same with my logic, that is, demonstrate its absurdity by taking it to its logical conclusion. I'm not saying it can't be done and I would like you to try because the effort might show us both a thing and two.

I have attempted to do so in this response to your post. Your way of approaching it winds up logically coming to a perhaps somewhat unique, but essentially Arminian theology, in which God is sovereign in name only (God is sovereign, but...).

There is no scriptural evidence that God ever intended for them to eat of it. (The ToKoGaE) What is correct is that there is no direct statement in The Words declaring His intention one way or another. I presented, in my last post, a preponderance of indirect evidence that suggests something that was supposed to happen didn't, just as the word katabole or 'disruption' implies; evidence that you have not replied to directly by saying whether you agree or disagree and why.

I now have, above.

That is not correct. "And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and to be desired for food; the tree of life also in the center of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil … Gen 2:9

Ok, but that isn't the point.

This is also not correct. "And God said, 'See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the land and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food'." Gen 1: 29 AMP And "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, in dying you will die. Gen 2:16 & 17.

Again, Ok... my point was they were not specifically instructed to eat of it, and why.

Perhaps you might want to reconsider then, given that some of your statements are factually inaccurate. And that surprisingly so, Doc, given the good arguments you've made in the past.

Hey, I was tired. And the factual mistakes are beside the point anyway. They had no specific instruction to eat of the tree of life, only permission to.

Correct. God has never made a statement, in effect, saying, "OK, you humans, listen up! I'm gonna tell you why I placed a tree, whose fruit would create a conscience in your Parents, where they could get at its fruit easily and then why I commanded your Parents not to eat from it- besides that warning thingy I gave them; you remember,  "…in the day you eat of it, in dying you will die." Therefore it is left, by Him, for us to deduce why. And that is what this is all about!

Which is also why I maintain the argument from silence comments earlier in the post.

Which is why I maintain that Genesis was intended to be understood literally. Jehovah wants us to deduce why He did things this way because the process of understanding will reveal more than mere words can. And besides, being the contrary things we are to truth- before we come to know Him and are re-sired by Him- wouldn't we just gainsay it? Therefore, I assume, axiomatically, that all the information that I need to deduce His motive is there and that the account was meant to be understood, literally. And for these assumptions, I've drawn some pretty darn good conclusions that are apparently difficult to argue against, given the massive silence from the Tentmakers who seem to be leaving you alone, Doc, to 'bear the burden' of disputing my claims; for I know that you are speaking for the many here. (As of this writing there have been well over 500 hits to this thread. I can account for about 35 of them. So I know there is a… 'interest', among the Tentmakers in what we are discussing, even as I must know that there are not a few who wish they could give me a piece of their mind concerning the things I am typing! Which begs the question, "Why aren't they?") I have demonstrated that your conclusion and indeed, the popular one, is derived from Calvin's idea of 'predestination' and 'foreknowledge'; ideas of his that I have proven were shoe-horned into the Text and thus were translated into existence, right along with that peculiar hell he loved so much. And I have stated that my understanding is gained from purging my heart of all the pre-conceived 'Christian' notions put there by all those 'Godly men of old' and then asking the hard questions while I searched The Original Text for answers while trusting that truth is knowable and for knowing that I am willing to concede to these 'Godly men of old', should I find that any of the things they conclude are truth, apart from their saying they are. Like I said, my conscience is clean concerning ulterior motives. END OF PART ONE

I'll remind you again, I don't think you have any ulterior motives. However, ideas similar to Calvin's don't make me a calvinist, nor do your Arminian-like ideas make you an Arminian. I appreciate that you have searched the original text for answers, but my point is that there are those who also have done so that have come to the opposite conclusions that you have.

I probably won't get to part two (your part two) until at least tomorrow. I've got a lot on my plate right now. Until then...

[CHB]

Hi Eleutheros,

This is just my understanding at this time and I don't believe any of us has ALL THE TRUTH. It is not possible in this life time. The more I learn the more I realize I don't know much.

I have been reading some of your posts and if I am understanding you correctly it sounds to me as if you are saying God doesn't know everything? Is this a misunderstanding on my part?

I don't mean to be a smart alec or anything but from reading your post it seems you know more than God. You say..............

only thing I can logically conclude from this (my understanding? Ed.) is that God had a plan which at the very least included a contingency for something going awry. Exactly as I have concluded. Which means that something didn't happen that was supposed to. Are we in agreement here?

You are right, in saying this is YOUR conclusion.

(Rom 11:33) O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how UNSEARCHABLE are his judgements, and his WAYS PAST FINDING OUT!

Everything that happened in the garden of Eden was suppose to happen or God may have some surprises that he isn't prepared to handle further down the road.

One other thing, Eve sinned before she ever partook of the tree of good and evil. The tree of good and evil was just a law giving thing. It was a way of bringing law into the picture.

(Jer. 1:5) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.

If God created us and knew us before the foundation of the world as it says, then he would know our minds, what we think, and what we are going to do from second to second.

(Psalms 73:11) And they say, how doth God know? and is there knowledge in the most High? Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches. 

I have explained its presence by stating that God did intend for them to eat from it at the appropriate time. More accurately, with His permission, after passing the test; a seed idea I got from C.S. Lewis.

So, if you agree that God did intend for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of good and evil at the appropriate time, then you have to acknowledge that God did have a foreknowledge of the situation, or else he couldn't have known the APPROPRIATE TIME?

Since God is our creator and he created our minds and he knows all about us, our thoughts, our hearts, how could he not know what man would do from the beginning? If you create something you know everything about it, right? You create it to be the way you want it to be.

CHB

[Doc]

Thanks for that, CHB. Sometimes it takes a second set of eyes. I especially liked the Jeremiah reference. 

[Pierac]

To The Tentmakers:

Through my studies I have come to think disdainfully of the theologies of Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin and their interprtetation of the Original Text that bore their theology to the world, namely the King James Bible.

And I'm sure you've noted that, for that disdain, I have been uncompromisingly ruthless in my langauge when I refer to these humans.

That will stop as of now.

My God has made it clear to me that it is not for me to use such language against another human being, dead or alive.

And so I apologize to all of you for the unkind adjectives and nouns I have used to smear the character of these men. History is its own witness and so it is not for me to evaluate them this way by using such language, that is to say, for me it is a sin.

And so I ask your forgiveness in this. And while I will continue to argue against thier theologies and the work they made of The Words, because I perceive that it is not according to truth, but is misleading and deceptive, I will no longer disparage them personally.

It is for God to evaluate what belongs to Him, namely all souls, including mine and yours and that of Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin.

Thank you for your forgiveness in advance.

Working at being good through obedience to the spirit of Jesus in me, exactly as I was re-sired to do,

Dennis!

Sweet,

We just love these types of post…

Spank the theology, not the person! 

Paul

[aspiring son]

Dennis,

Now I just wanted to add a quick- bit, I am mot trying to team up against you in any kind of way, as I know you and Doc are mainly holding this discussion. But as I posted last night, your posts and debates have at least made me think more about things.

You say that if the fall in the garden was planned than it was a sting operation by a megalomaniac. Here's my issue;

We all agree that the law does not bring life, but kills, showing the sins of the flesh, correct?

Yet when God set before the Israelites the blessings and cursings, the law, with fire and thunder coming from the mountain. He said through Moses that if they were to obey all these things, that they would be kings and prietsts. Of course we know that Israel said they would do them, and meant it, but they didn't; nor could they on their own.

But wasn't that apart of God's, plan and could not that also be considered a type of set up? They were fulfilling God's purpose, just not the way they thought. Pharoah did as well, he just did not know it at the time.
I believe the fullness of times is already in us, Christ in each and every person. They are just revealed in their own order. So it's like are flesh is playing catch-up to the realization of what is already there.

I don't think we are robots: we certainly have a will, just not the will to chose and understand spiritual things. Yet I believe he is intimately in everything. He chose my family, my wife, my job. He makes us willingly do what he wishes.

To be honest, I think if labels were non existant, there would be a lot less debates and division. When we try to go to in depth in catagorizing what we see, we come up with words like trinity, calvinism, armainism, oneness, etc. If we did not have these things as blockers, we could hear the language of the spirit more clearly, which is sometimes almost impossible to articulate with human words.

Grace and peace,

Brandon

[Eleutheros]

Hey!

Your latest posts were a good 'un Doc because I perceive that we are making progress in understanding. Your challenges are getting more specific and to the point and that is very useful.

In this reply to your earlier post I respond with clarifications and with challenges of my own that bear on some of the things in your later two-part reply to the first part of my last two part post… (How much longer can this go on! LOL!)

I think you will pick up on which parts go where. And I will help by referring you back to this, if needed, when I reply to your latest two part post!

A couple of specific points I felt I needed to add/ address.

Again I've heard this before, actually in a conversation I had once with some UR minded folk.

However, before I answer I need to correct this point first. A conscience is knowing the difference between good and evil.
And so, as I said earlier, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could also be called the Tree of Conscience.
Therefore, it is logical to assume that if the fruit of this tree was intended to impart a conscience to them then it follows that they were not originally created with a conscience.

Now, part of the temptation to turn was the spoken truth that this tree would make one like God, that is wise. And God confirmed that this was the truth when He said, while still in that counsel session Peter referred to, "Perceive! They have become like One of Us knowing the difference between good and evil." or "...they have become like One of Us for acquiring a conscience."

So, true innocence would be defined as not knowing the difference between good and evil.

Therefore, I agree that they were in a 'good' but neutral state. An aware existence that we cannot truly comprehend for our having in us a conscience informing us of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong.

Therefore I agree with you that they were incomplete, that is not perfected.

Then my question stands. They would not have needed a conscience without knowledge of good and evil, because they go together. They had innocence. God told them not to eat of the tree of conscience, which tells me He didn't 'want' (stated will, thelo) them to know good and evil. But He knew they had to to go on to perfection/ completion (ultimate intention, boulemai)

Doc, I see that I am not communicating again or you, likely, would not have said this. Let me try to offer up this clarification:

A conscience is by definition 'knowing the difference between good and evil'. Not 'knowing 'of good' and 'of evil', as if 'good' and 'evil'  were 'things' to become acquainted with by experience.

Do you see the difference?

If not, then consider this: Jehovah has never had to do something, anything at all, evil in order to become acquainted with what is wrong to do.

I think you will agree that this is a self-evident truth.

But why is this a truthful thing to say of Him?
Because it is assumed by us that He knows the difference between what is good to do what is evil to do; that is to say it is assumed that He has a conscience. And so, for His knowing the difference between what is good to do and what is wrong to do He always chooses to do what is good and right and righteous and moral to do and He never chooses to do what is bad or wrong or wicked or immoral to do. And it is His consistently right choices, for His knowing the difference between good and evil, that is for having a conscience, that make Him virtuous.

And that consistent choice is made because He is agape, or 'fondness and affection' and therefore, desires good and pleasant and winsome and happy and joyful and beautiful things to be the result of His choices. Which He knows will never come to be, if He ever does what He knows is wrong to do. And yes God knows a whole Universe full of 'more' than I ever will.

So, that is the answer to my first of three questions: "Why exactly is God virtuous?" Answer: Because He knows the difference between good and evil. And because He is agape He always chooses to do what is good and right to do.

And so the answer to my second question, "Can any being be virtuous that does not also have a genuine choice to not be virtuous?" is simply, "No." Regardless of whether that being is God, or a human, or an angel.

And so I imagined God asking Himself (I'm assuming a few things about His goodness here that would motivate Him to ask this question, things I have not discussed here):  "How can I create a virtuous human?"
 
However, after careful consideration of this, your reply, I think I will change my question a bit to this:

"How can I create virtuous humans, who 'resemble' or 'are like Me', that is, who will know the difference between good and evil and choose to be good always, without them having to experience the consequences of doing evil first?"

My answer is: "State what will happen, plainly and truthfully and then give them a genuine choice to be virtuous first, through trusting Me and being obedient to my command, when tested, before I grant them a conscience."

And that is my answer because that is what I perceive was Jehovah's motive, derived from what I know of His goodness and His virtue, that explains, without any contradiction whatsoever, when understood, the events as they were played out in the Garden.

I say 'when understood' and by that mean 'for not approaching Genesis 1-3 with the idea firmly planted in your heart of thoughts that Jehovah knew they were going to fall all along'.

It was much later, long after this conclusion was reached, that I discovered the deception fostered on us by the King's interpreters as I examined the Greek words translated, in key places, with our words 'predestined',  'foreknow', 'foreknew', ' foreknowledge', 'foreordained' and especially 'foundation'.

For from these studies it became apparent to me that Jehovah does not have foreknowledge of the future, as a fact, but, rather what He can 'know before' comes by knowing intimately and simultaneously, through spirit, the heart of thoughts in each and every human being. Thus what He does know of what will happen in the future is gained through this intimacy.

Which, of course, leads logically to the conclusion that Jehovah could not know and therefore did not know, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them.

An idea totally consistent with what I had concluded before. As well as having the added bonus of causing the mystery in the question, "Why does Jehovah give humans 'room to repent' if He already knows, as a fact, that they won't?" to vanish with a *pouf!*

As I said before, there is nothing in the Genesis account that will lead one to conclude that Jehovah 'knew before', as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them.

Nothing.

And of a fact, a literal reading of Gen 1-3 will actually lead one away from that conclusion, assuming they can dare to approach the text without the 'fact' firmly planted in their minds that Jehovah must have foreknown the 'fall', as a fact, or He couldn't be God!

Now, Doc, I'm gonna ask you: "Don't you think I know how wild and bizarre even 'blasphemous' this idea seems to those who were weaned on the ideas about God given us by King James' interpreters?

And for having to spend their hearts trying to figure out how all these things can be, don't most throw up their hands and declare it a divine mystery we can't know? And for concluding it a mystery we can't know, don't many consider it arrogant and unworthy of a lowly, sin-bedraggled human to even dare to try and comprehend it unless that comprehension includes the fact that we are arrogant, unworthy and lowly sin-bedraggled humans with corrupt minds unable to even come close to fathoming  what He gave for us to study?
 
For in thinking this, it is possible to mask their minds to the absurdity and the ugliness in the logical conclusions derived from the axioms planted into their hearts as 'truth' by the King's English.

Do you remember how circumspect I was at the beginning of this thread? Well, now you know why.

Because the reason I came here to the Tentmakers with this is because the humans here are already familiar with exactly how the KJV interpreters translated that peculiar hell into existence. And it was my hope that because I was using the same logic they are familiar with for their uncovering 'the truth about hell' and for their grasping the scriptural truth that Jehovah is going to restore everything to Himself including all human beings who have lived, who are living and who have yet to be born, that the Tentmakers, above all the Christians on the planet, might just be able to grasp what I am trying to present here.

Again I state, I'm not asking anyone to agree with it and it is not my goal to convince anyone, but I was hoping that I might find someone who could at least comprehend what I'm saying and why and interact with me so that I could deeply test this idea for truth in my own heart of thoughts by having them ask questions of it, once it was understood.

It seems that person might be you Doc. Though, at this point, I don't think you have grasped my understanding, even as I will try to present it here more clearly so that you may.

Please know that I do appreciate the time you are spending trying to convince me that I'm a loony. 

Truly, it has been good for my heart of thoughts.

Jesus said to the Jews which knew the law: "You be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." That word perfect is the Greek word teleios and it means 'to be brought to completion'.

Now, with that said, I can answer your first question:

How could they have gained more virtue than they already had?

My answer is that, at this point, they had no virtue at all because they were neutral or truly innocent for not having a conscience, yet. Virtue needed to be gained, first. And virtue is not quantitative: You can't be more or less virtuous or have less or more virtue, by the very definition of virtue.

You either are virtuous or you are not.

Perhaps I phrased that badly, in that case. I'll agree they didn't have virtue according to these definitions, so I'll rephrase: What could they have gained that they didn't already have? They were in the Garden, they walked and talked and had a great relationship with God. They were innocent, not knowing the difference between good and evil. So they were "good" as God declared them to be, but they were not yet perfect/ complete.

Yes, I agree with you, Doc and exactly as you have said it. Does that surprise you?

We agree then that there was something more that needed to be accomplished; for true innocence is a completely useless thing- Except for… preparing them to acquire virtue before they acquire a conscience.

Regardless, we are agreed that true innocence had to come to an end, one way or another, for them to be completed by… what?
 
I think you would say- incorporating some of your own typed out words toward this idea of completion- by eating of the forbidden fruit and falling from innocence into Sin. Just as Jehovah foreknew they would, so we could begin the process of learning good, objectively, by experiencing evil first, with Jehovah Himself creating all the evil we would need to see this process to its conclusion. And this is OK because He will eventually restore all of these fallen humans to Himself by sacrificing His only begotten Son to forgive us of all the Sin He planned for us to do during this process of redeeming us and restoring us all To Himself through Jesus Christ, who was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, foreordained by God in His foreknowledge to be the Sacrifice needed for 'our sins'.
 
That sounds so ugly when I say it that way, doesn't it? And it's not the first time you've had to endure reading something like this from me about the God who foreknew that The Adam was going to fall before He created them, is it?

It's no wonder I'm not liked much for my constantly restating what most here believe-like that!

Well, this dislike of me and my ideas is something I had foreknowledge of, from the foundation of this thread, so I don't take it personally.

So, Doc, how would you sum up this process of completion we both agree was imminent, according to your understanding, so it doesn't sound as ugly as I have made it sound?

Because I would say they were to be completed by refusing the offer to become like God, apart from Him, through trust in Him, despite their doubts, thus acquiring virtue.
And once that was accomplished, Jehovah would then grant them permission to eat from the 'forbidden' tree, removing all previous doubt from their minds of His intentions. And by eating the fruit, then, they would assimilate a conscience and become wise, exactly like God is, for His own knowing of the difference between good and evil. And thus they would begin to know of evil objectively instead of good, by experiencing all the good Jehovah planned for them to know. Their 'eyes would be opened' to understanding and wisdom and knowledge and they would comprehend that they were naked, but, would not be ashamed (or else they would retain the 'light' that I hear tell was around them 'clothing' them; an idea I like) and Jehovah would enable her womb with His blessing (instead of with a curse) and we would all be born into fully resembling God for not only being created to resemble Him in being Male and Female but also for being virtuous, that is, knowing the difference between good and evil and having not only the power to choose to be good (which Paul and John say He brings to us, now, through the spirit of Jesus 'making its home in us' [Paul] and acting like 'sperm' meeting an ovum to create a new human inside of us that 'partakes of the divine nature'[John]), but the will to because we would also be agape, fondness and affection, just like Him.

And that's a pretty good thing to be, don't you think? Not at all blasphemous, for concluding that Jehovah could not have foreknown their choice and therefore did not know, as a fact, that they were going to turn before He created them!

But that didn't happen.

Rather than trusting God, they were deceived by the nachash (notice I didn't type 'serpent') into believing that their doubts were the truth.

She ate first, in one swift motion, plucking a fruit from the tree and biting into it. Then, while she was yet chewing, she turned and handed it to Ish, who was right beside her, as mute and silent as a man can ever be for witnessing a sin in the making. And seeing her arm outstretched to him with the bitten fruit in her hand and perceiving that the nachash was eying Him also, He stood and stared for a few long moments…  and as he perceived that she wasn't dying for even touching it… and now, for knowing that there was no turning back, as he watched her swallow and heard her say, "Here, take it" he looked hopelessly at the grinning nachash, who nodded... and then he sealed his fate to hers, his beautiful, beloved and precious Ishsha by taking it from her hand… and taking a bite, he himself ate.

And with tears for the world I know we lost, I too watch, in my mind, as the world Jehovah intended for me to know was disrupted.

The process of completion would now have to come through a much more painful and arduous path, both for us and for Him.

It was then decided, in counsel among Himself, that The One from among Himself that was 'Jesus' before He permanently became Jesus, should come to enter the world of men and women by being born through a deposit of divine sperm into a virgin's womb, thus circumventing the weakness we all inherited through father Adam.
He would then grow up as a Human, growing into knowing what it's like to be a human and to die as a Human, so that Justice's righteous demands of vengeance on all of us, for the horrible things even He could not imagine we would be capable of doing to each other, would be satisfied. And since they were now turned away from Him and for His knowing from the time before what they might be capable of, for what happened in the previous manifestation of this earth, when there were only angels, they could not be allowed anymore access to the replenishing properties of Tree of Life, lest they live on into the ages in an incomplete and corrupted state; which also meant that Sheoul would now have open its gates to receive them when they eventually did die.

And the rest is history.

OK. So, do you think you could do the same with my understanding as I have done with yours? Can you take my understanding and putting it into your own words, incorporating my words against me; make my understanding sound as ugly as I can make yours?

No, you're right; it doesn't prove anything even if you did. And certainly no more than what I was able to do 'disproves' your understanding. But, the exercise might be revealing, don't you think?

END OF PART ONE

[Eleutheros]

PART TWO

So, then, how does one gain virtue, unless there is an alternative to virtue?

Do you mean to choose evil?  Well that is the only other functional side to virtue because all the other alternatives I can think of to being virtuous is to either be innocent, like a human baby, or to be stupid like a fool, or to be dumb like an animal, or simply, to be evil.

At this point, the only opposition to virtue WAS the tree of conscience.

Careful, Doc I'm thinking that you're really not that far now from grasping my understanding.

And for that, I would say that the Tree of Conscience was not in opposition to them acquiring virtue but was a part of the process needed for them to acquire virtue.

It cannot be undone what the work of the fruit was supposed to accomplish in them, that is, end their innocence and give them a conscience.

There was only one shot at 'getting it right the first time', so to speak. After that it would require God to, one by one, seek and save each of us, changing us, one by one, through the spirit of Jesus, one way or another, into what He intended for us to be all long, through The Adam Completed.

And this is what Jesus meant when He said of the seeming impossibility of a rich man to take hold of the kingdom of God, "With God, all things are possible." That is to say, God can restore this rich man to Himself… and will.

So even though they didn't have virtue, how could they have gained virtue unless there was something to oppose it?

Do you mean here the nachash?

Therefore, the ONLY way they could have gained virtue was from eating of the tree, which means that God must have planned for them to do it...

OK so, you don't mean the nachash. Actually Doc I don't think you are grasping what virtue is.

I can only hope that I clarified that previously in this reply.

and not after they gained virtue, because there was no alternative (only goodness and innocence) unless they ate from the tree!

Actually there was an alternative…  obey Jehovah, who they personally knew to be really great God; a God Who walked and talked with them…  and maybe even raced with Ish down to that tree yonder and back while Ishsha flagged the winner…  and trust Him and don't eat the fruit of that tree.

Virtue, Doc, is all about being free to choose that which is correct and right to do in any situation.

And for choosing 'right', for choosing to trust this awesome God, they and we would know things…

Like, of evil, objectively, for experiencing and doing good.

And you have already admitted that there is no virtue without conscience/ knowledge of good and evil.

Wow. I'm sorry, cause if I actually said that exactly as you say I did, then I'm not communicating well, am I? So, could you provide me with the place where I said exactly that that so I can see if I can salvage the damage done?

Cause what I know I would have meant was that by acquiring virtue first, through making a choice to trust Jehovah against doubts not to, they could then acquire this conscience, with His permission -which permission  would alleviate all doubts in their mind about Him- and thus, through eating, they would not only gain a conscience but have wisdom like God's for knowing the difference between good and evil so that they would know of evil objectively while being and doing good; just like the God Who made them to resemble Him.

Which all means...that God planned (and hence foreknew) for them to eat from the tree that he told them not to eat of, because he knew that was the only way that they could move from innocence to perfection.

So says you! LOL!  I don't agree that having them eat of the tree, against His command not to, "was the only way that they could move from innocence to perfection". Obedience to His command would have accomplished the same thing, don't you think?

And consider this, doesn't He still expect us to be obedient to His commands? Didn't His Son say, "If you love me you will keep my commands?"

Has not He Himself declared several humans to be righteous, even 'perfect' exactly because they do what they are asked to do or what they know to do and thus are obedient to His commands?

So, why would He not expect them to keep this command? Because He foreknew they would fall and therefore had to insure it by giving them a command He knew they would disobey? Indeed why would He command any of us to do anything He already foreknows we either couldn't or wouldn't do?  So he could insure His foreknowledge is right? For His glory? OK. But I'll have to say, "Thanks, but no thanks" to this God. Of course he'll likely smite me for being so arrogant even as I know some humans reading this would like for Him to do, or perhaps do it for Him, in His name.

I'm not saying this to be rude or disrespectful. Instead I'm saying these things so that, in all seriousness,  I can ask, "Why haven't any of you asked these kinds of questions of yourselves?"

Are you aware that the 'lost' are asking these kinds of questions and rejecting this (your) God because you can't answer them with a good answer?

Even Jesus Christ learned obedience from the things that he suffered and he was sinless!

Hummm… this is an interesting thought! Let me ponder it a bit…

 

…OK I'm back. You're quoting Hebrews 5:8. Here it is with its context:

"For every chief priest obtained from among men is constituted for men in that which is toward God, that he may be offering both approach presents and sacrifices for sins, able to be moderate with the ignorant and straying, since he also is encompassed with infirmity, and because of it he ought, according as for the people, thus for himself also, be offering for sins.
And not for himself is anyone getting the honor, but on being called by God even as Aaron, also.
Thus Christ also does not glorify Himself by becoming a chief priest, but He Who speaks to Him, "My Son art Thou! I, today, have begotten Thee," according as in a different place also He is saying, "Thou art a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek," Who, in the days of His flesh, offering both petitions and supplications with strong clamor and tears to Him Who is able to save Him out of death, being hearkened to also for His piety, even He also, being a Son, learned obedience from that which He suffered. And being perfected, He became the cause of eonian salvation to all who are obeying Him, being accosted by God "Chief Priest according to the order of Melchizedek,"…"

What I'm reading here is that what His sufferings as a human taught Him was how hard it is to be an obedient human, that is, obedient to God, as a human, despite Him being the very Son of God…
I'm thinking here of His painful , gut-wracking,  moment-of-doubt  filled, blood- pressure-raising- to- the-point- of-sweating- great-drops-of-blood, words in Gethsemane…
And therefore He was perfected by remaining in obedience to His Father's desires for Him to become the Lamb that takes away the Sins of the World even though it caused Him great physical suffering, in more ways than we can know by simply reading words, so that He could become a sympathetic and therefore eternally effective Chief Priest for being able to sympathize with us, through experience, how hard it is to be obedient to God, as a human.

Remember Jesus was something else with God before He permanently left that state and became, forever, a glorified Human on our behalf, at the behest of His Father. Talk about us screwing things up cosmically! God truly is agape to have done this for us…  I am in awe as I contemplate it.

I think then, Doc, that is somewhat out of context to say that what is meant here as an explanation of how, despite Him being The Son of God, the unique and very difficult sufferings of Jesus, that came to Him for being obedient to the Fathers' desires, obedience that perfected Him to become a Human who can be a sympathetic and eternal Chief Priest, able to forgive the sins of mankind forever, equates to saying that the only way anyone can ever learn obedience is by suffering, whether it be for their own sins or the Sins of All… is a bit…  disrespectful of what Jesus did for us.
As well as being unflattering of the nature of God.

Just as Peter said here:

For what credit is it if, sinning and being buffeted, you will be enduring it? But if, doing good and suffering, you will be enduring, this is grace with God. For for this were you called, seeing that Christ also suffered for your sakes, leaving you a copy, that you should be following up in the footprints of Him Who does no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; Who, being reviled, reviled not again; suffering, threatened not, yet gave it over to Him Who is judging justly, Who Himself carries up our sins in His body on to the pole, that, coming away from sins, we should be living for righteousness; by Whose welt you were healed. 1 Pet 2: 20-25

And here also:

Christ, then, having suffered for our sakes in flesh, you also arm yourselves with the same thought, for he who is suffering in flesh has ceased his sins, by no means still to spend the rest of his lifetime in the flesh in human desires, but in the will of God. 1 Pet 4: 1-2

As the writer of Hebrews says here:

"For take into account the One Who has endured such contradiction by sinners while among them, lest you should be faltering, fainting in your souls. Not as yet unto blood did you repulse, when contending against sin. Heb 12: 3-4

And as Paul said here about His sufferings and what they mean for us ALL:

For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also, Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God, nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father. So that, my beloved, according as you always obey, not as in my presence only, but now much rather in my absence, with fear and trembling, be carrying your own salvation into effect,  for it is God Who is operating in you to will as well as to work for the sake of His delight. Phil 2:5-13

So you see, that is God's pattern, His design. The seed must fall into the ground and die to produce life.Adam had to die to be perfected!

Yes, Doc I do 'see' what you are saying. I have all along.

(The 'seed' thingy is also taken out of context, by the way, for it being said in reference to His own death multiplying to life for all, but you can check that out for yourself)

All I can say to this, after much pondering of what I can say to help you 'see', is that if you understood your God you would realize just how…  unaware…  and unpleasant this conclusion is.

It is logical yes, to arrive at this conclusion if it is an axiomatic truth that Jehovah 'foreknew', as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them.
 
I understand that logic. I see your point. I know where you are coming from. Been there, done that. I dig. As do countless scores of other Christians, worldwide.

But, it is as I said before, understanding does not equate to agreement.

For I also perceive that you do not grasp how detrimental and maligning this logical conclusion is to the character of your God. As do, also, countless scores of other Christians.

Or do they? There are many, many humans who have experienced His forgiveness and re-siring and know Him to be agape.

Maybe the truth is that they just don't know what to say against this logic? For they too believe what the brilliant logician, John Calvin, made them believe, through the King's English, specifically, that, through His foreknowledge of the future, Jehovah foreordained His Son, from the foundation of the world, to be the Lamb slain in sacrifice for our sins.

Are there any Christians in the room, besides me, who would disagree with this thought, exactly as I have stated it?

So, do you now see, Doc, that, of a truth, this thought, as I have stated it, was a quite brilliant and therefore deliberate deception, just as I have shown it to be?
And the reason this thought was translated into existence was because it well-served Augustine's and Calvin's hell-based theology to have YOU, the English reader, logically conclude, from his mistranslation of key words, without Him actually having to say such an ugly thing directly, that Jehovah must have then 'foreknown' that the Adam was going to 'fall' before He created them.

And then to clinch this conclusion firmly into our heart of thoughts, we came to understand that this conclusion must be true because without God having the ability to know of the future before it happens He could not be sovereign over His creation; which is a truth that I have not denied in any of my writings, at anytime.

Instead, what I have shown is exactly how Jehovah gets His knowledge of the future, according to the correct usage of those key words that Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin deliberately mistranslated to support their hell-based theology.

You said "Adam had to die to be perfected!"  And that your very own physical death is therefore "…God's pattern, His design." And so it must have been His intention, all along, for Adam and his wife and their sons and their son's sons, through to millions, all the way up to and through the flood and then all over again on up through many, many more millions right on into October 8th, 2009 A.D. and beyond, to die.

Why? Because, as you say, this is, "God's pattern, it is His design".

I understand. Really, I do.

It's funny isn't it? Because this is also what Ish and Ishsha also came to believe; that He is a God of Death. They too came to believe that the good God that they knew, would punish them with death if they so much as even touched the fruit of the 'forbidden' tree.

When exactly what their truly good God said to Ish was, "… in the day that you eat of it (nothing about touching it) in dying, you will die."

Which words I have come to conclude, because of what did happen when they ingested the fruit, was supposed to happen. For the fruit did what it was created to do- when swallowed, it ended their useless innocence and imparted to them a conscience. But, without a choice made by them to be virtuous, first, by trusting in Jehovah and His goodness, which was his good will for them and His intention, even if they may not have known what virtue was themselves, it was the distrust of Him that was in their heart of thoughts, at that time, that corrupted the work of the fruit. And the world that was intended for them and us to know was disrupted.

And so instead of a clean and useful conscience, useful for knowing of evil, objectively, for both being and experiencing good, just like how their God and ours knows of evil, they and we, must now learn, because of this disruption, of good objectively for experiencing evil; and that of our own making, not God's.

And as I said before, the rest is history.

How do you get a kid to do something? Tell them not to do it!
Talk about a great illustration of the difference between God's stated will and intention....

Blessings,

Doc

Wouldn't it be great, Doc if every human child born to us, didn't have to be taught to tell the truth?

Thank you, Doc.

And blessings to you as well.

P.S. I'll be pondering your other replies and will give an answer soon enough. And while I have found the 'serpent thingy 'fascinating for the things I'm reading- very educational, thank you for bringing it to my attention- I would like to ask you if I could refrain from replying to that post; unless you just want me to give you my nascent thoughts, for your own benefit, because, for you, I will do that. Truly, you have been a blessing!

[Doc]

PART TWO

P.S. I'll reply to the other posts you made after I ponder them awhile. They're some good ones!

Rather than going through and trying to answer part two point by point, I'll just write out here what I hope will cover all those bases.

Here we go:

There would be no Christ to kneel before had not sin invaded the world. And where would be the Crucified One without Romans practiced in that terrible art? And what becomes of His resurrection without an Adversary to ensure His death?

I would like, at this time, to make two statements. Some will consider these heretical, for they are logical; logic, we know is the enemy of all religion. Nevertheless: 1) Since there can be no salvation without something to be saved from, sin is necessary, and 2) Since "all is of God" (2nd Cor. 5:18) and sin exists, then sin must be of God.

Wait.

Sin means "to miss the mark". Does God ever miss the mark? No, never. Therefore, God never sins. He cannot. I am not saying that God sins. But if God meant for sin to enter the universe, then He did not miss the mark when it came. He would only be a sinner if He didn't mean for sin to come, but it came anyway.
Some religious people, attempting to read this, will unfairly accuse me of making God a sinner. But have I called Him that? Not once. I have only said that sin must be of God. I reached this conclusion by logic, based on the scripture that says "all is of God".

I am a champion of the responsibility of God for whatever has entered His universe. Others would prefer to say: "God is not responsible." What a frightening doctrine--the irresponsibility of God.
 
But we like it.

So how did sin come about then?

By stealth and trickery, apart from God's original intention.

I don't suppose you see what you've done.

Do we ever?

You have made God a sinner.

We would never do that.

You do it indirectly by making Satan sovereign in sin. God never intended for sin to mar His universe, according to you. Your unavoidable conclusion is that Satan disrupted God's original intention, forcing God into plan B. God missed His original mark and settled for less. That's sin.

We're only trying to help God, to erase all the bad things from his resume.

I know, but you're a public relations nightmare. By attemptin to excuse God for doing what you cannot see a purpose for, you have booted Him from His throne.

How can you say that?

Everyone who tries to shield God from the consequences of His own creation inadvertently--yet inevitably--makes Him a sinner.

Are you trying to get logical on us?

I want you to see that anyone who attempts to relieve God of responsibility for sin, ends up making Him the very thing they try to avoid.

Katabole does not mean what you think it does. It literally means to throw down or lay down, as in laying down a foundation. (Rev. 13:8)

You say man's sin forced God back to His drawing board for a contingency plan: Christ. How demeaning to the Son of God. This is what the teaching of "Adam blew everything" leads to. By Christ's sacrifice predating Adam's sin, we know that God had sacrificial love in His heart from the beginning. Yet there can be no revelation of this apart from human failure. Christ was no afterthought. Jesus was not a good idea come late. Satan did not inspire Calvary/ Golgotha by forcing God's hand.

Why can't we believe Isaiah 45:7? Neither good nor God can be revealed without opposition. Since there was a time when no opposition existed in the universe, God had to create it. "all is of God", remember?

Yet what you believe leads to the conclusion that long ago, God lost control of His universe, and He has been struggling ever since to salvage some of it.

In the scripture, God is always getting humans into scrapes so that He can get them out of scrapes and show His power. You say, "No, God isn't getting humans into scrapes, humans are getting themselves into scrapes." Well, that theory works fine until you consider accounts such as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. More on that in a minute. God delights in making things humanly impossible before He sets to work. The blind man at the pool of Siloam. Oh, I think I'll put some mud on the blind guy's eye's. That'll help him see. Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Israel (These are God's chosen people?...) Joseph (Gen. 50:20: you thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good. Romans 11:8 God gave the nation of Israel a spirit of stupor. Not satan. Why? Romans 11: 11,12 tells us; "In their offense is salvation to the nations...their offense is the world's riches." Romans 3:5 "Our injustice is commending God's righteousness." Then there's the story of Gideon. Talk about impossible odds. Abraham and Sarah.

Exodus 4:21 has God saying "I will harden Pharaoh's heart". To make sure we can't miss it, God then repeats this phrase throughout the account. Then Paul brings it home in Romans 9:17-18, to make sure nobody forgets it: "For the scripture is saying to Pharaoh that 'For this selfsame thing I rouse you up, so that I should be displaying in you My power, and so that My name should be published in the entire earth.' Consequently, then, to whom He will, He is merciful, yet whom He will, He is hardening."

But Pharaoh hardened his own heart...

Except that before Moses even went into Egypt, God said in Exodus 4:21 that He would harden Pharaoh's heart.

Psalm 105:25 says, "God turned their (Egyptians) heart to hate his people."

Isaiah 63:17 says, "Why, O Lord, do you cause us to stray from Your ways, and harden our heart from fearing You?" Romans 11:8 backs this up when Paul writes that "God gives Israel a spirit of stupor".

Ok, I think I've said enough for now.



I wish I could attribute this post to myself, but I can't. These are all excerpts from writings of Martin Zender.

But hey, I included more scripture this time...  

[Doc]

Doc, I see that I am not communicating again or you, likely, would not have said this. Let me try to offer up this clarification:

A conscience is by definition 'knowing the difference between good and evil'. Not 'knowing 'of good' and 'of evil', as if 'good' and 'evil'  were 'things' to become acquainted with by experience.

Do you see the difference?

If not, then consider this: Jehovah has never had to do something, anything at all, evil in order to become acquainted with what is wrong to do.

I think you will agree that this is a self-evident truth.

But why is this a truthful thing to say of Him?
Because it is assumed by us that He knows the difference between what is good to do what is evil to do; that is to say it is assumed that He has a conscience. And so, for His knowing the difference between what is good to do and what is wrong to do He always chooses to do what is good and right and righteous and moral to do and He never chooses to do what is bad or wrong or wicked or immoral to do. And it is His consistently right choices, for His knowing the difference between good and evil, that is for having a conscience, that make Him virtuous.

And it appears to assumed by you that we can have the same principle applied to ourselves as created, finite beings the same way that God, a self existent Creator being can.

And that consistent choice is made because He is agape, or 'fondness and affection' and therefore, desires good and pleasant and winsome and happy and joyful and beautiful things to be the result of His choices. Which He knows will never come to be, if He ever does what He knows is wrong to do. And yes God knows a whole Universe full of 'more' than I ever will.

So, that is the answer to my first of three questions: "Why exactly is God virtuous?" Answer: Because He knows the difference between good and evil. And because He is agape He always chooses to do what is good and right to do.

And so the answer to my second question, "Can any being be virtuous that does not also have a genuine choice to not be virtuous?" is simply, "No." Regardless of whether that being is God, or a human, or an angel.

But you're ignoring the fact that if God ceased to be what He is ("virtuous") He would un-define Himself and cease to exist at all. So, I disagree, God does not have a genuine choice. You were the one who said that God cannot do logically impossible things.

However, after careful consideration of this, your reply, I think I will change my question a bit to this:

"How can I create virtuous humans, who 'resemble' or 'are like Me', that is, who will know the difference between good and evil and choose to be good always, without them having to experience the consequences of doing evil first?"

My answer is: "State what will happen, plainly and truthfully and then give them a genuine choice to be virtuous first, through trusting Me and being obedient to my command, when tested, before I grant them a conscience."

And that is my answer because that is what I perceive was Jehovah's motive, derived from what I know of His goodness and His virtue, that explains, without any contradiction whatsoever, when understood, the events as they were played out in the Garden.

And that would be a good answer, assuming that your question as stated above was provably what God asked Himself and not a total assumption...

Again I state, I'm not asking anyone to agree with it and it is not my goal to convince anyone, but I was hoping that I might find someone who could at least comprehend what I'm saying and why and interact with me so that I could deeply test this idea for truth in my own heart of thoughts by having them ask questions of it, once it was understood.

It seems that person might be you Doc. Though, at this point, I don't think you have grasped my understanding, even as I will try to present it here more clearly so that you may.

Please know that I do appreciate the time you are spending trying to convince me that I'm a loony. 

Truly, it has been good for my heart of thoughts.

Right on. 

Yes, I agree with you, Doc and exactly as you have said it. Does that surprise you?

We agree then that there was something more that needed to be accomplished; for true innocence is a completely useless thing- Except for… preparing them to acquire virtue before they acquire a conscience.

Regardless, we are agreed that true innocence had to come to an end, one way or another, for them to be completed by… what?
 
I think you would say- incorporating some of your own typed out words toward this idea of completion- by eating of the forbidden fruit and falling from innocence into Sin. Just as Jehovah foreknew they would, so we could begin the process of learning good, objectively, by experiencing evil first, with Jehovah Himself creating all the evil we would need to see this process to its conclusion. And this is OK because He will eventually restore all of these fallen humans to Himself by sacrificing His only begotten Son to forgive us of all the Sin He planned for us to do during this process of redeeming us and restoring us all To Himself through Jesus Christ, who was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, foreordained by God in His foreknowledge to be the Sacrifice needed for 'our sins'.
 
That sounds so ugly when I say it that way, doesn't it? And it's not the first time you've had to endure reading something like this from me about the God who foreknew that The Adam was going to fall before He created them, is it?

It's no wonder I'm not liked much for my constantly restating what most here believe-like that!

Well, this dislike of me and my ideas is something I had foreknowledge of, from the foundation of this thread, so I don't take it personally.

So, Doc, how would you sum up this process of completion we both agree was imminent, according to your understanding, so it doesn't sound as ugly as I have made it sound?

It doesn't surprise me that you agree to that extent. Where we disagree is in how God actually went about accomplishing what we  do agree on. How would I sum it up? See my last post above this response, if you haven't already read it.

Because I would say they were to be completed by refusing the offer to become like God, apart from Him, through trust in Him, despite their doubts, thus acquiring virtue.
And once that was accomplished, Jehovah would then grant them permission to eat from the 'forbidden' tree, removing all previous doubt from their minds of His intentions. And by eating the fruit, then, they would assimilate a conscience and become wise, exactly like God is, for His own knowing of the difference between good and evil. And thus they would begin to know of evil objectively instead of good, by experiencing all the good Jehovah planned for them to know. Their 'eyes would be opened' to understanding and wisdom and knowledge and they would comprehend that they were naked, but, would not be ashamed (or else they would retain the 'light' that I hear tell was around them 'clothing' them; an idea I like) and Jehovah would enable her womb with His blessing (instead of with a curse) and we would all be born into fully resembling God for not only being created to resemble Him in being Male and Female but also for being virtuous, that is, knowing the difference between good and evil and having not only the power to choose to be good (which Paul and John say He brings to us, now, through the spirit of Jesus 'making its home in us' [Paul] and acting like 'sperm' meeting an ovum to create a new human inside of us that 'partakes of the divine nature'[John]), but the will to because we would also be agape, fondness and affection, just like Him.

And that's a pretty good thing to be, don't you think? Not at all blasphemous, for concluding that Jehovah could not have foreknown their choice and therefore did not know, as a fact, that they were going to turn before He created them!
But that didn't happen.

Well, it's a nice sounding theory...

Rather than trusting God, they were deceived by the nachash (notice I didn't type 'serpent') into believing that their doubts were the truth.

She ate first, in one swift motion, plucking a fruit from the tree and biting into it. Then, while she was yet chewing, she turned and handed it to Ish, who was right beside her, as mute and silent as a man can ever be for witnessing a sin in the making. And seeing her arm outstretched to him with the bitten fruit in her hand and perceiving that the nachash was eying Him also, He stood and stared for a few long moments…  and as he perceived that she wasn't dying for even touching it… and now, for knowing that there was no turning back, as he watched her swallow and heard her say, "Here, take it" he looked hopelessly at the grinning nachash, who nodded... and then he sealed his fate to hers, his beautiful, beloved and precious Ishsha by taking it from her hand… and taking a bite, he himself ate.

And with tears for the world I know we lost, I too watch, in my mind, as the world Jehovah intended for me to know was disrupted.

The process of completion would now have to come through a much more painful and arduous path, both for us and for Him.

It was then decided, in counsel among Himself, that The One from among Himself that was 'Jesus' before He permanently became Jesus, should come to enter the world of men and women by being born through a deposit of divine sperm into a virgin's womb, thus circumventing the weakness we all inherited through father Adam.
He would then grow up as a Human, growing into knowing what it's like to be a human and to die as a Human, so that Justice's righteous demands of vengeance on all of us, for the horrible things even He could not imagine we would be capable of doing to each other, would be satisfied. And since they were now turned away from Him and for His knowing from the time before what they might be capable of, for what happened in the previous manifestation of this earth, when there were only angels, they could not be allowed anymore access to the replenishing properties of Tree of Life, lest they live on into the ages in an incomplete and corrupted state; which also meant that Sheoul would now have open its gates to receive them when they eventually did die.

And the rest is history.

OK. So, do you think you could do the same with my understanding as I have done with yours? Can you take my understanding and putting it into your own words, incorporating my words against me; make my understanding sound as ugly as I can make yours?

No, you're right; it doesn't prove anything even if you did. And certainly no more than what I was able to do 'disproves' your understanding. But, the exercise might be revealing, don't you think?

END OF PART ONE

Again, see my previous post. I'll get to part two a bit later...possibly this weekend sometime.

[reFORMer]

You said God didn't know the events of 9/11 would occur until He saw the thought of it in Osama Bin Laden's mind.  I don't know why it would be thought that would be what made Him to know what would happen on that day.  The idea God knew something happening on a certain day when or before the creation was manifested doesn't seem difficult to accept for me.  How does He make me see or know things that will happen before they do?  He has to know them before.  I understand Him to be in dimensions beyond the space/time continuum.  Like the observer on the ground sees the parade going by only in a limited way.  It is each section and the performers immediately passing by his place on the ground that he perceives.  When he climbs to the top of the many floored apartment building and goes out on the roof he can see the entire parade.  From start to finish, it's all viewed by him becouse of his vantage point.

I suspect Jesus would've died even if Humankind had not partaken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  One way of viewing creation is God created it in wisdom (Bk of Proverbs) before it was lowered into manifestation.  The Lamb (physical Sonship realm) is that aspect of God in manifestation that died in order that a place could be available for something to come into manifestation other than God.  I have not been able to know for sure, as some say, that the "disruption" of the world was when sin entered into this creation or if it was when the creation emerged physically from the higher realm of God's consciousness, though I prefer the latter for nowl

[CHB]

If not, then consider this: Jehovah has never had to do something, anything at all, evil in order to become acquainted with what is wrong to do.

Are you serious?  The crucifixion of Christ was the most evil thing that has ever been done, and it was planned before the world begin.  Here was Jesus a perfect man sinless and did every thing his Father asked but what did his Father do? Allowed and even planned his crucifixion. All the good works of Christ God did not consider, that should tell us something about works.

God had to experience evil in order to show us what evil is. In this one action God showed his negative and positive grace.

A lot more I could say but will not.

CHB

[Eleutheros]

Hey, Brandon!

I thank you for your patience in waiting for my reply.

Dennis,
It is clear you have put a alot of time and energy into your posts. They are very thought provoking. I have not read them all but the page and a ahalf that I have read is interesting.

Blessings...

Thank you for noting that. I appreciate it. Yes, I do put a lot of time and energy into these posts. And I'm pleased that you find them thought provoking; it is my hope that I can continue to be so here, in this, my reply.

I recognize that what I'm presenting here is certainly a 'new' thing for many, maybe even all. And so I do strive to be as accurate and concise as I know how to be. And for it, I perceive that Doc and I have attracted the attention of many other Believers. So, I'm doubly studious for that knowing.

That's why my replies are so long in coming!

Dennis,

Now I just wanted to add a quick- bit, I am mot trying to team up against you in any kind of way, as I know you and Doc are mainly holding this discussion. But as I posted last night, your posts and debates have at least made me think more about things.

Thank you. They are unique in that, aren't they? Certainly no one else I know of holds this understanding. Or if they do, I don't think they would dare to speak it publically for how sacrosanct these 'facts' I'm attempting to counter are!

However, if this understanding is truthful then it's really nothing 'new'.

And don't worry about any perceptions of me that you may have. I can get frustrated at times, with myself, but other than that, I'm pretty much insult-proof!

You say that if the fall in the garden was planned than it was a sting operation by a megalomaniac.

The operative word is "planned"; so, Yes.

However, let me pause here, Brandon. I need to make absolutely sure that you understand why I said this because, as you said earlier, you have only read a small portion of my posts. And so, since I have no reason to think you have read more, as of this writing, I want to offer you this synopsis:

Its been said of logic that it's a way of arriving at a wrong conclusion with certainty! A joke but nonetheless true.

So, what I have been doing is demonstrating how to examine logic for truth; for logic works independent of truthfulness. (I wrote of this in some earlier posts.)

By taking statements designed to reflect truth and putting them together with facts you are compelled, by logic, to a certain and unique conclusion. It is then, by examining this conclusion, that one can determine if the statements intended to reflect truth are indeed accurate. Because if the conclusion does not reflect reality and all the facts are accurate, then the statement is false.

In Logic these 'statements designed to reflect truth' are called 'axioms'.

Speaking only through logic then, when the facts recorded in Gen 1-3 are combined with the Christian axiom, (the 'statement of fact'), that 'Jehovah foreknew the turning of the first humans before he created them', then one is compelled by logic to the certain realization that the character of this God is best described with the words 'capricious' and 'megalomaniacal'; an absurd conclusion, of course, but a logical one.

Like I said, logic works independent of truthfulness.

So, I simply took this much believed statement of 'fact' to its logical conclusion to illustrate that this axiom, derived from a source proven to be tainted with theological bias, namely the KJV translation, is false exactly because it is absurd.

Historically speaking, then, The King's English interpretation of The Original Text was designed to support the hell-based theologies of Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin.

And a necessary component of their theology is the need for that 'statement of fact', that axiom to be 'the truth'. Therefore, this 'statement of fact' was translated into existence right along with and in exactly the same way as that peculiar hell they wanted us to believe in, by taking the Greek word katabole and translating it with our English word 'foundation', while at the same time, knowing that the Greek language already has a word that means 'foundation' and that word is themelios.

Katabole means 'disruption'. Themelios means 'foundation'.

This, then, is what I want you and really, everyone else, to grasp:

This 'fact' that 'Jehovah foreknew the turning of the first humans before he created them' was, of truth, translated into existence by mistranslating certain key words in certain key quotes to make us believe that The Word of God teaches that 'Jesus is the lamb slain in sacrifice from the 'foundation' (katabole) of the world'.

This is a mistranslation intended to lead you, the English reader, to conclude, through the compelling nature of logic, that the above stated 'scriptural truth'; 'Jehovah foreknew the turning of the first humans before he created them', is the truth.

These two 'facts' then- that peculiar 'hell' and this peculiar idea of 'foreknowledge' -support each other in John Calvin' original systematic theology of double predestination.

They are therefore inseparable. And since it has been proven that they were both translated into existence, they are both false; they are both lies.

Therefore, speaking logically, any and all thoughts that begin with the 'fact' that 'Jesus is the lamb slain in sacrifice from the foundation of the world' will, through the compelling nature of logic, lead to false conclusions.

That is, these conclusions will not accurately reflect reality- they will not be truthful- they will be lies.

Exactly then, if it is a fact that 'Jesus is the lamb slain in sacrifice from the foundation of the world', then it is logical to conclude that He knew of the turning of the first humans before He created them. Just as John Clavin wanted you and every other Bible-reading, Bible-believing, hell-minded Christian to conclude.

And so, if this conclusion is applied to the facts recorded in Genesis 1-3, then it is logical to conclude that the events in the garden were a 'sting operation'; a set up to ensure failure.

Does that sound ugly to you?

Because this is exactly what many Christians believe is the truth, even if they may balk at it being said this way. And really, I can't blame them for believing this because this is exactly what the KJV interpretation of The Original Text teaches Christians to believe.

And so, that is why I was illustrating the absurdity of this 'truth' by continuing to logically apply this 'truth' to the facts of History as recorded in the Bible, thus demonstrating that if this fact is 'the truth' then the God of the Bible's character can be accurately described as 'capricious' and 'megalomaniacal'.

These conclusions, of course, do not reflect reality and are, in actuality, absurd. God's character is not capricious and megalomaniacal, He is agape. And that is the truth.

So, Brandon, what happens, logically, when you take the real truth revealed in the Original Text which is this statement of fact that 'Jesus is the lamb slain in sacrifice from the disruption (katabole) of the world' and apply it to the facts recorded in Genesis 1-3…..? Well, that is what this thread is all about!

Now, with that synopsis given for understanding, we'll move on!

Here's my issue;

We all agree that the law does not bring life, but kills, showing the sins of the flesh, correct?

Let's keep going…

Yet when God set before the Israelites the blessings and cursings, the law, with fire and thunder coming from the mountain. He said through Moses that if they were to obey all these things, that they would be kings and prietsts. Of course we know that Israel said they would do them, and meant it, but they didn't; nor could they on their own.

I'm tracking with you. You say "on their own"…  However, I will add that, among the Israelites and even among Gentiles, there were many, many humans- 7,000 Jews we are told once- who did obey Jehovah and were declared righteous. How is this possible if we cannot be obedient to Jehovah, "on our own"?

But wasn't that apart of God's, plan and could not that also be considered a type of set up?

No. All I can say, for now, is that there are a lot of underlying assumptions that drive this simple statement, many of which I don't hold as truthful; specifically that God knows of everything, as a fact, from the 'foundation' of the world, or even that God planned everything to happen, as it has, from the 'foundation' of the world.

As I said, these ideas were derived from a deliberate mistranslation of the Greek word katabole as well as the deliberate misapplication of the English words 'foreknow' and 'foreknew' for the Greek word proginosko. I have already made several posts on these words.

And so katabole means 'disruption' not 'foundation'; which when the word 'disruption' is inserted where 'foundation' used to be, in those certain key verses, the text reveals that something that was intended to happen did not happen. And this alone demonstrates that the idea derived from the KJV text, namely that everything was known in advance, as a fact, or even that everything was planned to happen, from before the world began and specifically that Jesus was to be crucified for our sins as a part of God's original 'plan for man', is a false idea also.

They were fulfilling God's purpose, just not the way they thought. Pharoah did as well, he just did not know it at the time.

This is a tricky sentence to handle because I know what is in your mind when you say they were fulfilling 'God's purpose' even as I am familiar with what Modern (Augustinian) Christian thought says about 'God's purpose' and 'Gods plan'.

However I also know that you don't know what I mean when I say 'God's purpose' and God's plan'. And I shouldn't expect you to.

The best thing I can think to say of this is that because the world was disrupted, that is, that something happened that wasn't supposed to happen, 'God's purpose' was going to take longer and be a whole lot harder to accomplish, even to the point of requiring Him to permanently change the nature of His own plurality to accomplish His purpose-- an incredibly humbling thought, in my mind, for the understanding in my heart.
Whatever Jesus was before the disruption He is no longer. He is now and permanently a Glorified Human bearing permanent and beautiful scars for His efforts on our behalf. Glory be to God! For His ways are truly not ours…

As for the Pharaoh of the Exodus: It is difficult to understand this incredibly complex story from any one 'angle' of Christian thought.

However, everyone still has their 'take' and for what it's worth here is mine:

The first thing I notice is that this is a story of Jehovah, the righteous and virtuous God, Who has a conscience and knows the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, bringing a recalcitrant and incredibly stubborn and 'powerful' human male, who, in truth, 'owns ' this God's covenanted people, to a place where this 'powerful' man, among men, is willing to do what Jehovah has set His mind for and purposed Him to do, namely, set the Israelites free and do so in such a way that He maintains His own virtue while exercising His own sovereign ownership of all souls, including Pharaoh's soul, to accomplish His purpose of getting Him to willingly give up his own 'ownership' and  let His people go; and that with great compensation for their centuries of slave labor.

The key is, 'willingly'; for certainly Jehovah could have set them free by simply killing every Egyptian (He owns them too!) and saying to the Israelites, "Get their stuff and come on! Let's get out of here before the bodies begin to stink!"
 
(So, why didn't He do it this way? Part of my answer is here.)

So, my 'take' on this story is to note that Jehovah began the adventure of freeing His people by directing Moses and the Elders of Israel to engage Pharaoh with His command to give Him His people for only a short time, three days journey away, so that they could sacrifice to Him in the wilderness; a 'right' that a 'God' can reasonably claim and one that Pharaoh would have a hard time saying, 'No' to, given the importance of the gods of Egypt in his heart of thoughts.

This opening move built quickly into a move-countermove 'chess-game' of wills pitting Jehovah against Pharaoh and his magicians who represented the very real and evil powers behind the gods of Egypt; a battle of wills that included Jehovah exercising His own superior right of ownership and hardening this stubborn, recalcitrant, 'powerful' human male's heart of thoughts.

Brandon, I want to pause here a second and ask you to think about something.

If I say to you that what I am writing here is, 'from my heart' you will know what I am talking about.

But if I ask you, "What is the heart?" What would be your answer?


I'll tell you what your answer will be, after a lot of false starts and pauses and it will be- "I don't know".

In my previous posts I give an actual working definition of what the human heart is:

"It is the sum total of the thoughts in you from which you will speak, react and act."

So, if you change the thoughts--  you change the heart.

"For as he thinks in his heart, so is he." (Prov 23:7a)

Now, given that, I'm going to ask you this about the issue of Jehovah's  hardening of Pharaoh's heart of thoughts.

Did Jehovah make him think anything He wasn't disposed to already thinking?

For the scriptures say that He hardened Pharaohs heart. Not that He changed Pharaoh's heart of thoughts.

Jehovah did not make him think anything other than what he was already disposed to think, which was, in essence, "There is no way I am ever going to let this Hebrew God get the best of me! These slaves aren't going anywhere!"

Jehovah, simply enough, provided him with incentive to keep on believing his own lie, when He became weak and that against his own will to not want to, or as the scriptures say, He hardened Pharaoh's heart of thoughts.

I hope you find that thought provoking.

Let's move on, then and pick up where we left off-

END OF PART ONE

[Eleutheros]

PART TWO
 
So why was Jehovah doing all this, this way?

He was intending to show the Israelites that He was, undoubtedly, their God; that He was for them and that there is none like Him Who can deliver so righteously and so mightily.

Thus He planted a permanent memory in them and in the remembrance of the world, that endures to this day. He was their God and through them He would keep this turned world, turned away from Him, mindful of Him,, thier Creator, which is exactly what happened. The world is remaining mindful of Him, for what He did here, even to this day.

And I should note, also, that, from my understanding, having to do this was not part of His original 'plan for man'. Israel came into existence as part of a subsequent strategy for dealing with the direction the world took after the turning, a direction Jehovah never intended to have to go in order to accomplish His purpose.

Which purpose, by the way, just so you will know what I perceive it to be is to create virtuous humans, humans who will resemble Him in every way, one way or another.

So, Brandon, if you are willing, I would ask, as a means to further provocation, that you go back, sometime soon and re-read the story of the Exodus with this understanding I've presented to you in your mind.

And if I'm right, I think you will hear a lot of *clicking* in your head.

I believe the fullness of times is already in us, Christ in each and every person. They are just revealed in their own order. So it's like are flesh is playing catch-up to the realization of what is already there.

Well... I've heard this before. And I understand the logic behind this belief, as you stated it and can say, definitely, that I do not agree that this is a truthful conclusion. That is to say that I don't perceive it to be an accurate reflection of reality.

I don't think we are robots: we certainly have a will, just not the will to chose and understand spiritual things. Yet I believe he is intimately in everything. He chose my family, my wife, my job. He makes us willingly do what he wishes.

I do understand what you are saying. I am familiar with the logic.
Listen, if what 'He wishes' means to you that you have repented from your sinfulness and have come to realize that you have the ability to identify sin in you, via the spirit of Jesus making its home in you- through your faith- and as a result you have stopped sinning and have started being righteous, then you understand what 'He wishes'.

And if this is so, then you will be mindful that in the day when Jesus evaluates the world you will be held accountable for that which you are truly not ignorant of. Don't read anything suggestive into this Brandon, but instead understand that Jehovah knows your heart of thoughts and the most important reason He sent Jesus to accomplish the forgiveness of sins is to give you the power to stop sinning so that you may stand blameless before Him on that day, which 'that day' is on its way and has not yet happened.

So, if what you believe also includes the thought that all sins are now done away with and what we humans are doing now is not 'sinning' but 'learning from our mistakes to be better people and make a better world through the presence of Jesus', then know that your belief is, in effect, justifying Sin.

However, if you have stopped sinning and are practicing righteousness by doing good, out of love, bearing the sins of others against you and around you, with patience (which means you can feel their sins as  a 'weight' to be born), then you are a re-sired human with God's own divine nature in you. For God does not sin. And if you are His re-sired child then you also will not continue to sin. And when you do sin you will feel it in you as defilement and will want to confess it quickly so that you may receive forgiveness and rid yourself of it.

I will say boldly, then, for your benefit, that if this describes your experience then you are acquainted with truth.

But if what you have put your faith in, in anyway nullifies this, then know that you are in agreement with it and are justifying Sin with what you believe.

If it seems good to you, as a way of demonstrating how to compare conclusions and you would like to have your thoughts provoked further concerning this, then try this:

Take this scripture and read it in the light of your own understanding - what you believe-and then note what you think of it from that understanding.

Then take this same scripture and read it in the light of the understanding I presented here and note also what you think of it from that understanding.

Then compare the two conclusions in your thoughts and I think you will see how different they are; not 'right' or 'wrong', but different and most importantly, you will know why they are different.

Here is the scripture:

"Indeed, then, condoning the times of ignorance (before Jesus came), God is now charging mankind that all everywhere are to repent, forasmuch as He assigns a day in which He is about to be judging the inhabited earth in righteousness by the Man Whom He specifies, tendering faith to all, raising Him from among the dead…" Acts 17: 30-31 CLV

To be honest, I think if labels were non existant, there would be a lot less debates and division. When we try to go to in depth in catagorizing what we see, we come up with words like trinity, calvinism, armainism, oneness, etc. If we did not have these things as blockers, we could hear the language of the spirit more clearly, which is sometimes almost impossible to articulate with human words.

I've heard this before as well. And while I do understand what you mean about the 'labels' we give to Christian concepts and theologies, labels that sometimes hinder us in our discussions for the perceptions associated with these 'labels', I have never known them to keep me from perceiving the truth in The Words.

Like I said before, don't read anything suggestive into this, but I have also come to recognize that some 'labels' like, 'righteous', 'wicked', 'moral', 'immoral', 'wise', 'fool', 'knowledgeable', 'ignorant', 'humble', 'arrogant', 'good', 'evil ',etc. are very useful toward perceiving the truth in The Words. And that is so because, for good or bad, all of these 'labels' can, through evaluation, be applied to various humans.
 
So, you make sure that the good ones can be applied to you by being obedient to the spirit of Jesus that came to be inside you, through your faith, repentance and baptism 

Grace and peace,

Brandon

And Jehovah's heart-peace to you as well.

Know that I very much appreciate you entering this discussion. I learned a lot from giving you this reply and I hope you find it to be as beneficial to you. Thank you for your time.

Dennis!