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

[Eleutheros]

Hi Eleutheros,

Hi CHB,

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.

Nor do I clam to know ALL THE TRUTH. And at my age I am certainly aware of what I don't know!

I just have a different understanding than I've ever heard before. And because of how I actually derived this understanding;  the method and logic of which has been presented here for public scrutiny;  if it's of truth, then it is not a 'new' understanding at all, but a resurrection of a much older one, older even than Augustine of Hippo himself, who, by the way, hated Greek and gave us hell.

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?

Yes! Absolutely!

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

Good thing perception isn't often reality or I would conclude you were meaning to be a smart alec. Thanks for letting me know the truth. I'll keep it in mind.

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.

Yes, I'm glad you can see that.

Do you have a 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!

(Deut 29:29) The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, BUT THE THINGS WHICH ARE REVEALED BELONG TO US and to our children FOREVER, that we may do all of the words of this law.

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.

Except for that one thing that didn't happen, their obedience to His command not to eat.

One other thing, Eve sinned before she ever partook of the tree of good and evil.

Sinned?  Hummm… Interesting point to ponder. I'll think about it. Thanks for bringing it up!

Sinned...    I wonder…. 

*Are thoughts sins?*  *Is wondering why Jehovah commanded them not to eat... a sin?* *Did they change their perception of His exact words on purpose?* *Isn't sinning a conscious act?* *Or was it out of a sense of fear or respect associated with this wondering that led them to a misperception of His words?* *How did their perception of His words get changed?* *Perhaps He intended for them to wonder about it so they would be ripe for… a temptation?* *Hummm...* *Can true innocence sin without a temptation?*

The tree of good and evil was just a law giving thing. It was a way of bringing law into the picture.

OK. You do have a conclusion of YOUR own.

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

Yes. You should check out what I wrote here.

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.

I agree.

 So, what would be the change in this, YOUR logical conclusion, if katabole doesn't mean 'foundation'? What if it means 'disruption'?

(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.

Wow. I wish I were as free to take The Words out of their context and make them say what I want them to say! Are you sure you're not meaning to be a smart alec? 'Cause I could perceive that you're something else if you're truly not meaning to be a smart alec.

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?

Perhaps if you read the whole quote you quoted you would know how it was I said He would 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?

I almost agree.

You create it to be the way you want it to be.

CHB

So, according to YOUR understanding, what exactly did God create us to be, at the beginning?

I say, "To be good!"

That is what we were created to become - at the beginning.

What's wrong with that?

(Besides, of course, that it's not the truth)

Dennis!

P.S. You might want to calm down a bit before you hit that 'Quote' button and start typing out your reply, or else I might perceive, next time, that you are meaning to be a smart alec.

[Eleutheros]

Hi, reFORMer!

I thank you for taking the time to make this reply! And also for waiting patiently for it.

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.

That is correct.

I don't know why it would be thought that would be what made Him to know what would happen on that day.

I understand. The best idea I can think to give you to add to what I wrote about the Greek idea behind proginosko is to point out that there is a subtle but definite difference, in English, between the phrase 'know before' and 'knew before' and the compound words, 'foreknow' and 'foreknew'.

When you read my post through did you 'catch' that there were two places in The Original Text where the writers used proginosko in reference to humans? And in those places proginosko was not translated with the words 'foreknow' or 'foreknew' but, rather, with the phrase 'know before' or 'knew before'.
The reason the KJV interpreters weren't consistent here is exactly because of that subtle difference between the phrases and the words. They needed to reserve the words 'foreknow' and 'foreknew' for those key quotes that they had to twist in order to make you believe that John Calvin's theology is the truth, according to (the KJV version of) The Word of God.

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.

Again, I understand. And for most Christians the kind of discussion were having here seems pointless and futile. And that is because they know their God and they know He is agape, by expereience. And so, if (the KJV version of) the 'Word of God' says He knew from the foundation of the world that Jesus was going to be the lamb slain in sacrifice for our sins, they simply trust Him and keep on loving Him. And there is never, ever, anything wrong in simply trusting God and loving Him, no matter what any of these 'logical conclusions' are that we are discussing.

He knows Who He is and so the ugly lies that are a logically arrived at for John Calvin shoe-horning his theology into The Original Text, mean nothing to Him because most of those humans who truly know Him either refuse to believe these lies or simply throw their hands up and declare it all 'a mystery' and keep right on chugging along entrusting their lives to Him and the goodness they know of Him, from their experiences with Him.

Some stubborn ones, though, like Doc and I, gotta dig till we get something that makes sense of the truthful lies we are thinking.
 

How does He make me see or know things that will happen before they do? He has to know them before.

Yes, I agree. And I repeat that I have never said Jehovah doesn't have the ability to know things before they happen. All I am doing is showing what The Original Text reveals about how He gets his knowledge of the future. It reveals that He is intimately acquainted with the thoughts of all humans simultaneously, through spirit. And for this I conclude He can know what is going to happen before it does.

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.

Yes. This is actually a very good way of perceiving how He can know the future. The only thing I would change, to turn this analogy toward my understanding, is to say that, rather than it being a parade He is watching,  it is a crowd, like at Grand Central Station, with everyone milling about trying to get their objectives accomplished. And because He can know, simultaneously, the thoughts of all in that crowd; when He becomes aware of a thought He needs to do something about He can 'zoom in' from  His position and influence that person through his/her spirit with a thought. (This would be especailly true of those humans who have the spirit of Jesus at home in them.)
Or, if something physical needs to be done He can send a messenger (an angel) at 'the speed of light' (I would imagine) with specific directions on what He wants them to accomplish.

Remember reFORMer, this is just an analogy, adapted on the fly, from yours to help you perceive this understanding. I cannot make claim that this 'explains everything', even as I perceive its shortcomings.

I suspect Jesus would've died even if Humankind had not partaken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I'm sorry, but I can't acknowledge that as the truth.

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 now!

This is what I will say. This makes sense to you, but I can't pretend I fully understand what you are saying, even though your words leave an impression on my mind of goodness.

However, it is clear that you have thought this through and this is the answer that satisfies your heart for the mysteries you perceive in The Words. For I perceive, also, that you know your God and you know Him to be good. And so, for this, you are content with what you have concluded.

My blessings on it.

For I see that you are also a seeker for saying, "I prefer the latter for now!"

So, If something I have said here speaks to you, then ask me a question or two about it. It is my pleasure to give answer for what I believe and why, because I learn more each and every time I do; with the hope always in me that others will maybe find something in what I say that will answer the questions they have thought of, on thier own, but never dared to speak before for knowing before the kind of reviling responses they will get.

Know then, reFORMer that I appreciate you addressing your thoughts to me.

Be good!

It is what you were created to be!

Dennis!

[CHB]

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.

Hello!! This is God we are talking about here. 

Eleutheros, if I hadn't said "I don't mean to be a smart alec" you probably wouldn't even have given it a thought. 

As far as Eve sinning, she lusted, coveted, and had pride. all in this verse (Gen. 3:6). And when the woman saw that the tree was good for fruit...and that it was pleasent {a desire} to the eyes...and a tree to be desired to MAKE ONE WISE.

You ask Brandon "what is the heart"?  One explaination is, "the heart is decieteful above all things and desperately wicked who can know it"?

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?"

Ahhhhh...ohhhhhh!!! sounds like something I said. I am just trying to be funny here.

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.

Dennis, How can any one stop sinning while in these fleshly bodies? The flesh itself is sin. 

Now, when we confess our sins as to the reality that Christ died for them, then we are no longer sinners, we have been crucified buried and resurrected with Christ and are now sitting on the right hand of God in Jesus Christ. If we keep right on confessing our sins, it is like crucifying Christ all over again (Rom. 6:2-6)  Please read these verses. 

Well, I did respond, didn't want you to think we here at Tentmaker didn't have an answer or was afraid to respond to your theory.

I don't believe the God I know, would leave any thing to chance.   

CHB

[Eleutheros]

Hey, 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... 

Well, Doc, I think this is about the most fantastic thing I've ever read.

Seriously, I was in so much emotional distress after reading it that I had to leave it for a day to let the profound sadness in my heart of thoughts  dissipate before I could dare approach it again with a reasonable frame of mind.

And while I'm sure you may agree with Martin Zender's…  'antilogic'… I'm very grateful that you didn't write it yourself.

And for that I think it may be close to the time for me to move on.

I want to ask you some questions, Doc and your answers will let me know if we have reached a point in our discussion when all we will be doing is bantering and repeating the same things over again.

Martin Zender said:

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.

Do you believe this to be a truthful statement? Yes or No.

He also said:

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.

Do you agree with his conclusion as he stated it here? Yes or No.

If No then please let me know why you think it is not correct.

He also said:

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)

What does the Greek word katabole mean?

Does it mean 'foundation'?

Or does it mean 'disruption'?

Choose one.

Your answers will tell me whether I should be moving on or not.

And know, my friend, that I truly do appreciate all the time you have spent with me. You are literally a gift, sent from God.

Blessings,

Dennis!

[CHB]

I love that Martin Zender. Thanks for posting this Doc.

I just thought of something else, don't know if Doc already brought this up or not.?  If foundation means disruption then Christ was a disruption because HE is our foundation. (1Cor. 3:11) "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". If the word means what Eleutheros says it does, wouldn't that mean our foundation is unstable, broken apart, not reliable?

CHB

[Eleutheros]

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.

Hello!!

Hi!!

This is God we are talking about here. 

Yes, CHB. It is.

Eleutheros, if I hadn't said "I don't mean to be a smart alec" you probably wouldn't even have given it a thought. 

This statement is an attempt to justify yourself because I demonstrated that you did mean to be a smart alec. If you hadn't of said, "I don't mean to be a smart alec…" you wouldn't have been lying and I wouldn't have been able to write what I did to show that you were being a smart alec.

As far as Eve sinning, she lusted, coveted, and had pride. all in this verse (Gen. 3:6). And when the woman saw that the tree was good for fruit...and that it was pleasent {a desire} to the eyes...and a tree to be desired to MAKE ONE WISE.

I understand, from your logic, why this is a 'truth'; for I was taught the same things you were.

I also perceive that you have not grasped my logic and that you don't care to. So, if I were to present my answer to this, again, given your smart alec attitude, I foreknow that I would be perceived by you as just gainsaying; and I would be found to be wasting my time.
 

You ask Brandon "what is the heart"?  One explaination is, "the heart is decieteful above all things and desperately wicked who can know it"?

So, CHB, is your heart still deceitful above all things and desperately wicked?  Because, if it is, according to the Words of God through John, you are not a begotten anew child of God. (John 3:3)

"Yet he who is doing sin is of the Adversary, for from the beginning is the Adversary sinning. For this was the Son of God manifested, that He should be annulling the acts of the Adversary.  Everyone who is begotten of God is not doing sin, for His seed is remaining in him, and he can not be sinning, for he is begotten of God. In this are apparent the children of God and the children of the Adversary: everyone who is not doing righteousness is not of God, and who is not loving his brother. (1 John 3:8-10 CLV)

The Greek word translated 'seed' here is: sperma.

I won't present to you my conclusion, given your disposition toward me, because through logic I'm sure you can draw your own.

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?"

Ahhhhh...ohhhhhh!!! sounds like something I said. I am just trying to be funny here.

I was being sincere; you were not.

I would appreciate it, then, if, in the future, you wouldn't take my words out of context so you can be 'funny'.

It is not good for how others will perceive you.

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.

Dennis, How can any one stop sinning while in these fleshly bodies? The flesh itself is sin. 

Through Jesus Christ who came that he should be nullifying the works of the Adversary.

Now, when we confess our sins as to the reality that Christ died for them, then we are no longer sinners, we have been crucified buried and resurrected with Christ and are now sitting on the right hand of God in Jesus Christ. If we keep right on confessing our sins, it is like crucifying Christ all over again (Rom. 6:2-6)  Please read these verses. 

"What, then, shall we declare? That we may be persisting in sin that grace should be increasing?
May it not be coming to that! We, who died to sin, how shall we still be living in it? Or are you ignorant that whoever are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into His death? We, then, were entombed together with Him through baptism into death, that, even as Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father, thus we also should be walking in newness of life. For if we have become planted together in the likeness of His death, nevertheless we shall be of the resurrection also, knowing this, that our old humanity was crucified together with Him, that the body of Sin may be nullified, for us by no means to be still slaving for Sin, for one who dies has been justified from Sin.  (Romans 6: 1-7 CLV)

Done.

Can you now present for my understanding, the logic you used to take what you asked me to read and from which you concluded this:

If we keep right on confessing our sins, it is like crucifying Christ all over again (Rom. 6:2-6)  Please read these verses. 

Given this scripture:

"If we should be saying that we have no sin we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we should be avowing our sins, He is faithful and just that He may be pardoning us our sins and should be cleansing us from all injustice." (1 John 1:8-9 CLV) ?

How do you reconcile the two with your understanding? For they seem not only disparate but contradictory.

This is your chance, CHB, your invitation, to add something more to the discussion than words written with a smart alec attitude.

Well, I did respond, didn't want you to think we here at Tentmaker didn't have an answer or was afraid to respond to your theory.

Thank you. Know then, that I truly do appreciate what you wrote because I recognize that it was a courageous thing for you to do, given the threat you perceive my theory to be. Courageousness is courage, regardless of perception.

I don't believe the God I know, would leave any thing to chance. CHB

I don't either.

Dennis!

[reFORMer]

Jesus, being the way (movement, "C²,") the truth (reality, "M,") and the life (quickening, "E,") it seems He would know Himself.  The creation exists by means of God's approving awareness of it, though much of is perhaps in Him something like our subconsciousness is to us.  His locus is in the person of Jesus and what is focused on by Him. Jesus is the wisdom of God and His foundation.

"The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens." Proverbs 3:19 (AV)


(To have sin is not the same as to do sin.
I would've quoted the CLT if I could've found my copy.)

[rosered]

I love that Martin Zender. Thanks for posting this Doc.

I just thought of something else, don't know if Doc already brought this up or not.?  If foundation means disruption then Christ was a disruption because HE is our foundation. (1Cor. 3:11) "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". If the word means what Eleutheros says it does, wouldn't that mean our foundation is unstable, broken apart, not reliable?

CHB

  Hi CHB ,
 not exactly , the english translations of word meanings seem to get in the way of progress 
 in every way
 
  to me Jesus  is it ! , we are all humbled by His presence
 and he  makes the new creatures in Christ by His seed/ Word of God that   is  everlasting /uncorruptible ..   and make new
  seems the  dividing or   "break apart '   by disruption , but  the strongs is not saying that ?
 
  here is what  katabole  means in the greek 
 
 Strong's G2602 - katabolē
καταβολή
Transliteration

katabolē
 Pronunciation

kä-tä-bo-lā' (Key)
 
Part of Speech

feminine noun

 Root Word (Etymology)

from G2598
 


Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a throwing or laying down
a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb

b) of the seed of plants and animals

2) a founding (laying down a foundation)

Strong's G2598 - kataballō
καταβάλλω
Transliteration

kataballō
 Pronunciation

kä-tä-bä'l-lō (Key)
 
Part of Speech

verb

 Root Word (Etymology)

from G2596 and G906
 


Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to cast down
a) to throw to the ground, prostrate

2) to put in a lower place
a) to lay (down) a foundation

  When we look to Him !   we see Him , very humbling  indeed for Jesus Christ is the  Wisdom of God and Power of God ..
..   
 rose
 
     I am still trying to "catch up " with Eleutheros / freeborn 's   
posts !    he has done a very through  and complete study on  much of this  stuff!!   wow !!  lots to read .......   

[CHB]

I was being sincere; you were not.

Eleutheros,

It seems that not only can you read God's mind but mine also. 

Sorry to disappoint you but you cannot read minds, you do not have that ability.

I was not trying to be a smart alec, even though it might have sounded that way.

I foreknow that I would be perceived by you as just gainsaying; and I would be found to be wasting my time.

So, by the above are you saying you can foreknow things but God cannot?

Apparently you did not understand nor care to know what I was saying either.  We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".

It isn't by any thing I have done but by the things Jesus did that makes me sin free. Christ only had to die once to accomplish this, not many times like the Priest who had to go back and sacrifice all the time to get forgiveness for their sins. It is a done deal.

I am sorry Eleutheros if I offended you in any way, that was certainly not my intention. I don't want to hurt another human beings feelings for nothing in the world, not intentionally.     As far as my heart being wicked and deceitful, of course it is, BUT Christ has taken care of that for me.



CHB
 

[Eleutheros]

I was being sincere; you were not.

Eleutheros,

It seems that not only can you read God's mind but mine also. 

Sorry to disappoint you but you cannot read minds, you do not have that ability.

I was not trying to be a smart alec, even though it might have sounded that way.

I foreknow that I would be perceived by you as just gainsaying; and I would be found to be wasting my time.

So, by the above are you saying you can foreknow things but God cannot?

Apparently you did not understand nor care to know what I was saying either.  We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".

It isn't by any thing I have done but by the things Jesus did that makes me sin free. Christ only had to die once to accomplish this, not many times like the Priest who had to go back and sacrifice all the time to get forgiveness for their sins. It is a done deal.

I am sorry Eleutheros if I offended you in any way, that was certainly not my intention. I don't want to hurt another human beings feelings for nothing in the world, not intentionally.     As far as my heart being wicked and deceitful, of course it is, BUT Christ has taken care of that for me.



CHB
 

As you wish!

Dennis!

[CHB]

I love that Martin Zender. Thanks for posting this Doc.

I just thought of something else, don't know if Doc already brought this up or not.?  If foundation means disruption then Christ was a disruption because HE is our foundation. (1Cor. 3:11) "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". If the word means what Eleutheros says it does, wouldn't that mean our foundation is unstable, broken apart, not reliable?

CHB

  Hi CHB ,
 not exactly , the english translations of word meanings seem to get in the way of progress 
 in every way
 
  to me Jesus  is it ! , we are all humbled by His presence
 and he  makes the new creatures in Christ by His seed/ Word of God that   is  everlasting /uncorruptible ..   and make new
  seems the  dividing or   "break apart '   by disruption , but  the strongs is not saying that ?
 
  here is what  katabole  means in the greek 
 
 Strong's G2602 - katabolē
καταβολή
Transliteration

katabolē
 Pronunciation

kä-tä-bo-lā' (Key)
 
Part of Speech

feminine noun

 Root Word (Etymology)

from G2598
 


Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a throwing or laying down
a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb

b) of the seed of plants and animals

2) a founding (laying down a foundation)

Strong's G2598 - kataballō
καταβάλλω
Transliteration

kataballō
 Pronunciation

kä-tä-bä'l-lō (Key)
 
Part of Speech

verb

 Root Word (Etymology)

from G2596 and G906
 


Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to cast down
a) to throw to the ground, prostrate

2) to put in a lower place
a) to lay (down) a foundation

  When we look to Him !   we see Him , very humbling  indeed for Jesus Christ is the  Wisdom of God and Power of God ..
..   
 rose
 
     I am still trying to "catch up " with Eleutheros / freeborn 's   
posts !    he has done a very through  and complete study on  much of this  stuff!!   wow !!  lots to read .......   

Hi rosered,

Eleutheros said that katabole was the right word for foundation which meant disruption, That is why I said, if that is what it meant wouldn't we be standing on a shaky, unstable foundation, one that could break apart. You are right, about the meaning of the word. 

CHB

[Gilbert]

I was being sincere; you were not.

Eleutheros,

It seems that not only can you read God's mind but mine also. 

Sorry to disappoint you but you cannot read minds, you do not have that ability.

I was not trying to be a smart alec, even though it might have sounded that way.

I foreknow that I would be perceived by you as just gainsaying; and I would be found to be wasting my time.

So, by the above are you saying you can foreknow things but God cannot?

Apparently you did not understand nor care to know what I was saying either.  We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".

It isn't by any thing I have done but by the things Jesus did that makes me sin free. Christ only had to die once to accomplish this, not many times like the Priest who had to go back and sacrifice all the time to get forgiveness for their sins. It is a done deal.

I am sorry Eleutheros if I offended you in any way, that was certainly not my intention. I don't want to hurt another human beings feelings for nothing in the world, not intentionally.     As far as my heart being wicked and deceitful, of course it is, BUT Christ has taken care of that for me.



CHB
 

If you don't mind, I'd like to add some additional comments to the Post:

You said: " We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".
I would like to add to the above comment as follows:
It is not merely that your heavenly Father does not see your sins; neither can the evil one persist with his legal/rightful power to pay you the wages for them because Jesus bore the wages justly due to you.
By His love He forgives; by His grace He forgets. (very similar to an earthly parent, ay?)

[Eleutheros]

I was being sincere; you were not.

Eleutheros,

It seems that not only can you read God's mind but mine also. 

Sorry to disappoint you but you cannot read minds, you do not have that ability.

I was not trying to be a smart alec, even though it might have sounded that way.

OK. Yes, You did sound that way.

No, I cannot read minds and neither can you; so, know that it is through your saying things like this that you come to be perceived as a 'smart alec', even if its not your intention.

Remember, all I have to know about you is what you type and first impressions are lasting ones.

So, for that, I would say if you feel sincere when you type out your replies, you will type with sincerity.

Likewise if you feel sardonic when you type out your replies, you will sound sardonic through your typing.

I foreknow that I would be perceived by you as just gainsaying; and I would be found to be wasting my time.

So, by the above are you saying you can foreknow things but God cannot?

No.

CHB, I have to assume one of two things here for you saying this: Either you have not read my posts, or if you have, your emotions kept you from seeing that, several times, I have stated emphatically that I am not denying that Jehovah has the ability to 'know before' of things that are going to happen.

Instead I have absolutely agreed that unless He can know of things before they happen then He cannot be sovereign.

I use the words 'foreknow' and 'foreknew' like this, in my posts, as a device to illustrate, by usage, not only how these words are to be understood in the Greek, but also to show that they are not 'sacred words' that only apply to Jehovah, just as I have shown that the Greek word proginosko is also used in The Original Text to describe a humans ability to 'know before'.

Apparently you did not understand nor care to know what I was saying either.

I understand why you would think that. And I will say, for the record, that I do understand what you are saying; I was raised immersed in modern Medieval Christian thought.

However your perceived 'smart alec' reply was a check against me giving you more 'fodder' to use against me, even as I observed you took a scripture out of context to 'proof text' me and took my own words out of context in a similar fashion to use against me and for saying things that you would not have said if you had read my posts, with understanding.

So, given all this can you blame me for assuming that you were wanting to be a smart alec and thus engage me in a 'battle of emotions', despite your claim that you were not?

We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".

It isn't by any thing I have done but by the things Jesus did that makes me sin free. Christ only had to die once to accomplish this, not many times like the Priest who had to go back and sacrifice all the time to get forgiveness for their sins. It is a done deal.

I too was taught this exactly as you say it.

All I will say to you in reply, for now, is that my eyes were opened, many years ago, when I realized that The Words were telling me that, not only was it was possible for me to stop sinning- for having the 'spirit of Jesus making its home in me', as Paul put it, or, for being 're-sired by the sperm of Jehovah', as John put it- but that it was expected, by God and reasonably so, that I stop sinning and start being righteous exactly because I now have the very Nature of God in me; His own Divine Nature, imparted to me in similar fashion as an earthly father passes his nature on to his children.

And from that understanding, over the years, my eyes became opened even further to the understanding I am attempting to present here, openly and publically, among fellow Believers and fellow humans that I 'foreknew' would be resistant to it, that I may test it for truth in my own heart of thoughts.

I am sorry Eleutheros if I offended you in any way, that was certainly not my intention. I don't want to hurt another human beings feelings for nothing in the world, not intentionally.   

Thank you for saying this. Your apology is accepted and I too offer my apologies as well for my simply replying, "As you wish" before I modified this post to give you a better answer. I should have taken a break to let your post 'sink in' before my initial reply.

I will endeavor, CHB, from this point forward, to respond with more understanding for perceiving you in a better light, now that I know more about you for what you have typed here.

I am delighted by how much I am learning from my interactions here, including the miscues.

As far as my heart being wicked and deceitful, of course it is, BUT Christ has taken care of that for me.

CHB

I agree.

But in an even more complete way than your current understanding makes it possible for you to imagine! (Though you can experience it without understanding it)

So, for that, I will say, "Be good, CHB!"

"Exactly as you were re-sired to be!"

Dennis!

[Eleutheros]

Hey, reFORMer!

Jesus, being the way (movement, "C²,") the truth (reality, "M,") and the life (quickening, "E,") it seems He would know Himself.  The creation exists by means of God's approving awareness of it, though much of is perhaps in Him something like our subconsciousness is to us.  His locus is in the person of Jesus and what is focused on by Him. Jesus is the wisdom of God and His foundation.

You are taking the equation that shows matter and energy are equivalent and applying it to your understanding of Jehovah's relationship among Himself! This is very interesting!

I don't know, yet, if I can agree with it, but I'd certianly like to understand it better. Could you let me know more?

"The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens." Proverbs 3:19 (AV)

Question: By what name was 'Jesus' called before He forever became Jesus? Answer: Wisdom!

Now there's a thought for ya!

(To have sin is not the same as to do sin.
I would've quoted the CLT if I could've found my copy.)

Could I ask you to be persistent and provide the CLT quote from which you derive this?

I would appreciate it!

Be good!

Dennis!

[CHB]

All I will say to you in reply, for now, is that my eyes were opened, many years ago, when I realized that The Words were telling me that, not only was it was possible for me to stop sinning- for having the 'spirit of Jesus making its home in me', as Paul put it, or, for being 're-sired by the sperm of Jehovah', as John put it- but that it was expected, by God and reasonably so, that I stop sinning and start being righteous exactly because I now have the very Nature of God in me; His own Divine Nature, imparted to me in similar fashion as an earthly father passes his nature on to his children

Well, the way I am understanding this quote is, you believe it is up to you to stop sinning on your own. If that is possible what did Jesus need to die for? If you are referring to St John to prove that you can stop sinning on your own, you have to remember that John was written before Jesus was crucified. There was no Savior at that time. If you are referring to John 1 2 or 3, then these were written to the Israelites, people who were under Moses' law and the New Covenant. Paul was given the final revelation of salvation which was first to the Jew's then finally to the Gentiles. We Gentiles are not under any laws. Paul says we are in Christ and are NOW sitting in heaven in him on the right hand of God. So, spiritually we are not sinners but physically we are. Hope you can understand what I am saying here. I am not the best at explaining things, I am a smart alec remember?? Seriously!!! but only in fun

You keep saying that we were created to be good and you are right but not in this lifetime. Jesus said "no man is good except one that is God" (Luke 18:19). I believe we are learning the good from the bad which will take a lifetime and it is God who will have to perform that in us we can't do nothing on our own. Didn't Jesus say, "of mine own self I can do nothing"? Are we more powerful than Jesus was? When we become immortal then we can say we are good. Just the way I see things. 

CHB

[CHB]

I was being sincere; you were not.

Eleutheros,

It seems that not only can you read God's mind but mine also. 

Sorry to disappoint you but you cannot read minds, you do not have that ability.

I was not trying to be a smart alec, even though it might have sounded that way.

I foreknow that I would be perceived by you as just gainsaying; and I would be found to be wasting my time.

So, by the above are you saying you can foreknow things but God cannot?

Apparently you did not understand nor care to know what I was saying either.  We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".

It isn't by any thing I have done but by the things Jesus did that makes me sin free. Christ only had to die once to accomplish this, not many times like the Priest who had to go back and sacrifice all the time to get forgiveness for their sins. It is a done deal.

I am sorry Eleutheros if I offended you in any way, that was certainly not my intention. I don't want to hurt another human beings feelings for nothing in the world, not intentionally.     As far as my heart being wicked and deceitful, of course it is, BUT Christ has taken care of that for me.



CHB
 

If you don't mind, I'd like to add some additional comments to the Post:

You said: " We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".
I would like to add to the above comment as follows:
It is not merely that your heavenly Father does not see your sins; neither can the evil one persist with his legal/rightful power to pay you the wages for them because Jesus bore the wages justly due to you.
By His love He forgives; by His grace He forgets. (very similar to an earthly parent, ay?)

Thanks Gilbert for adding that.

CHB

[Eleutheros]

All I will say to you in reply, for now, is that my eyes were opened, many years ago, when I realized that The Words were telling me that, not only was it was possible for me to stop sinning- for having the 'spirit of Jesus making its home in me', as Paul put it, or, for being 're-sired by the sperm of Jehovah', as John put it- but that it was expected, by God and reasonably so, that I stop sinning and start being righteous exactly because I now have the very Nature of God in me; His own Divine Nature, imparted to me in similar fashion as an earthly father passes his nature on to his children

Well, the way I am understanding this quote is, you believe it is up to you to stop sinning on your own.
 If that is possible what did Jesus need to die for? If you are referring to St John to prove that you can stop sinning on your own, you have to remember that John was written before Jesus was crucified. There was no Savior at that time. If you are referring to John 1 2 or 3, then these were written to the Israelites, people who were under Moses' law and the New Covenant. Paul was given the final revelation of salvation which was first to the Jew's then finally to the Gentiles. We Gentiles are not under any laws. Paul says we are in Christ and are NOW sitting in heaven in him on the right hand of God. So, spiritually we are not sinners but physically we are. Hope you can understand what I am saying here. I am not the best at explaining things, I am a smart alec remember?? Seriously!!! but only in fun

You keep saying that we were created to be good and you are right but not in this lifetime. Jesus said "no man is good except one that is God" (Luke 18:19). I believe we are learning the good from the bad which will take a lifetime and it is God who will have to perform that in us we can't do nothing on our own. Didn't Jesus say, "of mine own self I can do nothing"? Are we more powerful than Jesus was? When we become immortal then we can say we are good. Just the way I see things. 

CHB

Good Morning!

Thank you, CHB, for replying and providing me with these challenges derived from your understanding.

Like I said before, I was raised with this understanding exactly as you have said it here and so I do understand why you think what you think;  you're going to have to trust me that I am telling you the truth.

However, before I attempt to provide you an answer can I ask if you have read my two posts that begin here and here with understanding- remember understanding does not equate to agreement.

In the meantime, while I await your answer I will be contemplating the best reply I can give you to your challenge here and while I'm doing that I would like to ask you to contemplate something.
 
I think it's safe to assume that you no longer hold that peculiar hell that John Calvin gave us through the KJV interpretation of The Words actually exists because if you did you wouldn't be here on Tentmaker.

I think it also safe to assume that you were not raised to believe what you now know to be the truth; in fact, you were raised believing that peculiar hell was as real as the God you used to believe created it to punish sinners for eternity.

But now you don't.

Why?

What convinced you that what you used to believe was a truth is now, in fact, a lie? Was it intuition? Was it from knowing your God and realizing that this couldn't be a truth because of your experiences with Him? Was it everything else The Words said that weren't about 'hell'? Was it because you read an article or a book wherein someone presented a logical argument against hell? Was it through the difference you perceived in a Christian friend who does believe in hell and one who doesn't? Was it from reading the CLV translation? Or was it a combination of these things that led to where you are now, a poster, in good standing, on Tentmaker?

I'm not necessarily asking you to tell me your story, unless you want to share it here- I'd love to read it. Instead, what I'm asking you to do is contemplate your story as you read or are even re-reading the things I've written; while also holding, in your mind, that understanding does not equate to agreement; for you, as a human being, already understand a lot of things that you don't agree with.

Awaiting your reply!

Be good!

Dennis!

[Gilbert]

First of all, I found it very VERY heart warming to read the comments of Poster "Eleutheros". Unfortunately, many have not obtained a similar confession and their Christian experience becomes the stressful monotony of a eternal 'flood insurance' policy; continuously treading water in the frantic hope of somehow escaping the swallowing depths.

Sad to say, some of these same sincere Christians were rightfully quick to discard the 'fire insurance' of the ET'rs but insist to remain captivated to the 'flood insurance' that we all remain helpless sinners until death.

For those treading water, to them death isn't an enemy; it's a friend.

A Christian who remains inwardly connected with sin is a double-hearted man, and "that person must not suppose that a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways, will receive anything from the Lord", (James 1:7). Neither must he suppose that he will grow into a perfect and ripe fruit. His heart, in its unfertile and rocky condition, is incapable of producing the good fruit.

For the faithful of the New Covenant, perfection, (not righteousness), is the final goal: growing up and developing in the spiritual world where the child of God lives. The New Covenant offers a possibility for spiritual growth and for reaching the full maturity of spiritual manhood.

The average Christian would perhaps answer the question of by Jesus, "Would you be perfect?", (Matt 19:16), by saying that he expects to be a sinner until he dies; that the best he can do is to muddle through.

An evangelical would probably reject the question by saying that one should be humble, that his daily prayer is for a contrite heart and a broken spirit. He thinks perfection will come after death, not before. Merely asking a question like this already shows an annoying lack of balance. Aren't we all respectable Christian sinners?

For the modern Christian the mere idea of perfection is absurd and unacceptable. People who ask this kind of question are oftentimes scorned and accused of 'perfectionism' or 'sinlessness'.

So, you would do well to answer the same question that Jesus asked of the rich young ruler: "Would you be perfect?", (Matt 19:16).

What Jesus meant is this: "Wouldn't you like to go beyond the limits of the Old Covenant? Wouldn't you like to seek for something better and achieve a higher purpose? If so, I'll show you the upward way to the heavenly places". There is a gospel of the kingdom of heaven, and it offers unprecedented opportunities. Never before had this gospel been preached, but it was revealed by Jesus. To be perfect, not just to become perfect after death, the young man would have to surrender all his earthly securities. His heart would have to be strengthened by grace, not by wealth and possessions. He would have to enter into the unseen Kingdom of God and lay up treasure there which cannot be consumed by either moth or rust, nor stolen by thieves. In that Kingdom he would have to live by faith only. That is why the Lord told him: "Sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me".

Following Jesus means accepting and keeping his words, living in keeping with his ways of thinking, thinking as He thought, speaking as He spoke and acting as He acted. It means being prepared to relinquish everything in order to achieve the heavenly inheritance of forgiveness of sin and childhood of God, of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit, of becoming partakers of the divine nature and propagating the love of God which seeks man's freedom, healing and restoration, and of conquering the powers of darkness. Then even Death and Hades will be conquered enemies, no more to be seen or tasted. These treasures are invisible to the' human eye. They can only be found by faith. They are the inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled and unfading, kept in heaven for us (1Peter 1:4).
 
Jesus guaranteed the young man these heavenly treasures provided he was able to let go of earthly security. The young man had many possessions about which he never stopped caring and worrying. He had more than just money. He had to consider his prestige, his status, the ceremonies of the Old Testament religion; then there were his sincerity and integrity, his long prayers, the sacred garments and the entire structure of outward religion with its fasts, its Sabbaths, its precepts and solemn occasions.

"Give it to the poor", the Lord advised him. "Give your money to those who need it for their subsistence, and give all the outward religious pomp to the Pharisees 'and scribes who need it to maintain themselves on the religious scene. Follow Me to be able to hear the truth without care and worry and to lay up real treasure" in the Kingdom of God".

The rich young man was unable to make the switch from earth to heaven; from the visible to the invisible. He did not follow Jesus but went away sorrowful.

All of us Christians have to make this choice: a religious life after the pattern of the Old Testament or a life which makes perfection its purpose by faith and by the renewal of the mind.

You wrote:
"Well, the way I am understanding this quote is, you believe it is up to you to stop sinning on your own. If that is possible what did Jesus need to die for?"
[/quote]

In Mark 16.16 Jesus said: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved". The word 'saved' means that the believer will be enabled to completely fulfill God's purpose with man. Not only that he will be justified and born again, but also continuing on the road of salvation, that he will partake of the glory of sonship. This salvation culminates in a Christian's perfection and maturity. For he is an heir of God and a co-heir with Christ, (Rom 8:17). He partakes of the divine nature, (2Pet 1:4), and is predestined to reign on the throne of God over all the works of his hands, (2Tim 2:12 & Rev 5:10).

The gospel of Jesus "trains in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work", (2Tim 3:16). Jesus brings about His word, also when He says: "You, therefore, must (or: will) be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect", (Matt 5:48). Christ loved his church and gave Himself up for her, "that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to Himself in splendor; without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish", (Eph 5:25-27). The apostle also wrote: 'For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son", (Rom 8.29). This is the purpose which the apostle sought to attain, and he pressed on to make it his own. He testified: "Christ in us, the hope of glory".
Will the church attain this purpose? God says: "Yes!" and the devil says: "Never!"

John saw a rider on a black horse, (Rev 6:5-6). This horseman does not give life, but causes death because he does not hand out the word of God, the bread of life. This black horse is galloping through many sincere churches today; teaching things of the denominational fathers which are squarely opposed to the intent of the teachings of Jesus, which is perfection.
Not a wonder the Lord prophesied there would be famine. The meager food that was given could not help anybody to reach the maturity mentioned in Eph 4:13.

During the last fifty years erroneous teachings developed among those who say they love Scripture and endeavor to hand out the right kind of spiritual food. These teachings concerning the future keep the children of God from going the high road through the heavenly places, even when dealing with the time of the end. These doctrines sprang up in England and America. The people that adhere to them fill their WebSites and magazines with  articles about the natural people of Israel, but at the same time they deny that the promise of the latter rain has been given to the church of God. Therefore they have to deny God's purpose with his church and are unable to accept God's promise that the "wife of the Lamb" will prepare herself to meet her "husband." For they do not believe in the gifts of the spirit as a means to reach this goal. The movement that sprung from this doctrine therefore did not form sound churches, notwithstanding the words of Paul: "that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places" (Eph 3:10).

You wrote:
"You keep saying that we were created to be good and you are right but not in this lifetime. Jesus said "no man is good except one that is God" (Luke 18:19). I believe we are learning the good from the bad which will take a lifetime and it is God who will have to perform that in us we can't do nothing on our own. Didn't Jesus say, "Of mine own self I can do nothing"? Are we more powerful than Jesus was? When we become immortal then we can say we are good. Just the way I see things".

Simultaneous with the prophecy concerning the destruction of the unfaithful church of the Old Covenant, the Lord also pictured the development of the unfaithful church of the New Covenant. The Jerusalem of the Old Covenant, which was about to go under, was a shadow of the great Babylon in the new dispensation, which was now developing. Although the leaders of Jesus' time called themselves children of Abraham, in the heavenly places they were children of the devil, (John 8:44).
In the same way many would come "in the name of Jesus." They would call themselves "of Christ," or "Christian," but they would lead the people away from the gospel of Jesus and make them fail the purpose of faith, which is perfection.
As such, they would prove themselves to be co-operators with the evil one. They would even say: "The time is near", (Luke 21:8), before the plan of God with man had been revealed. Then they would teach that the Lord might come any day, that nothing would be able to resist Him, notwithstanding the fact that the church would not have attained perfection, but would be soiled, wrinkled, and rumpled. Jesus taught: "The earth produces of itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come", (Mark 4:28-29). They would teach: "The time is near," and "Jesus will soon come," while the grain was not ripe. James, however, wrote: "Behold, the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient over it until it receives the early and the late rain", (James 5:7). The falling of the late rain is not even taken into account. Concerning these false teachers, who lose sight of God's purpose with his people, the warning is heard: "Do not follow after them".

But Jesus added: "But the end is not yet!".Let all those who pay attention to the "signs of the times" heed these words of Jesus. Wars, rumors of wars, persecutions, and falling away are not signs that the end is nigh. The end has not yet arrived for the church. The Greek word for end is: 'telos', which means the attaining of a purpose, the fulfillment for which one yearns. This purpose is the perfection of the wife of the Lamb, the completion of the congregation, the revelation of a church which has attained her purpose.

The love and the gifts of the Holy Spirit form a "still more excellent way", (1Cor 12:31).
 
When the end of all things is nigh, (I Peter 4.7), then the holy ones will be holier still, and the filthy will be filthier still. Paul uses the word 'telos' when he says: "The aim of our charge is love that Issues from a pure heart", (1Tim 1:5), and also Peter in this verse: "What will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?", (1Peter 4:17). In Matt 26:58 this word 'telos' is translated by 'end."
So for example, in the sermon on the Mount of Olives Jesus means to say: this is not the end of my church; this chaos is not her finish. The true church will separate herself from these things and develop as the light of the world, and, as a city on top of a mountain, she will not remain hidden.
The teaching that the church could be caught up any moment, as unprepared individuals out of chaos, is diametrically opposed to the sayings of Jesus. He said: "The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." So the Lord will treat the unfaithful church as He has treated the temple: He will deliver her to fire, this time not natural fire, but to the powers of darkness. The powers of sin will completely lose their grip on the true believers and "then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father", (Matt 13:41-43).
It does not say, as many seem to believe: "Gather the wheat first by being caught up in a moment, in the twinkling of the eye" but rather: "Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, (delivered to the powers of darkness), but gather the wheat into my barn", (Matt 13:30).
For instance, in our current world we see the evidence of the ecumenical influences gathering and bundling the unfaithful church; but the believers are gathered into the "barn," an parable image of the faithful church.
 
For many sincere Christians these days the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel is not expected. They have failed to comprehend the ultimate purpose and intent of God for their lives and therefore have shut spiritual growth and development from their lives. They therefore cannot grow spiritually and come into maturity. The striving for perfection of which the Scripture speaks, is for them an idle fancy. The laws of the Spirit are not written in their heart and therefore cannot function within them. Because of this they have turned back to the law of Sinai which can never give life because it kills. The first law was not faultless and could not make anyone faultless, (Heb 8:7). For such Christians the men of God of the Old Testament are their ideal of a Christian. They are calling for an Elijah or someone like John the Baptist. However, the apostle wrote: "Be imitators of me, Just as I also am of Christ", (1Cor 11:1).
Jesus pointed to the fact that the least in the Kingdom of God, the most insignificant, is more than John the Baptist and more than Elijah.

There are also many who did receive the Spirit of God but did not allow themselves to be led by the Spirit and to accept His teaching. A person who reaches forward for the baptism of the Holy Spirit must also save himself from a crooked generation which does not know this baptism and blocks the way of God with errors and false doctrines, (Acts 2:40). For instance, one who believes in the teaching of predestination, is actually even hindered in repenting. He will not reach out for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Those who have received the Spirit of God but hold on to the teaching of original sin, can never obtain faultlessness because 'sin is with them all the time'. One who holds to so-called fundamentalist 'maranatha-teaching', believes that the Lord could even come tonight to gather His church. In this case He will not present the church to Himself in splendor and faultlessness, because her members will be immature and full of spots and wrinkles. A person who adheres to the teaching of restoration of the natural Israel, continues to look at the world to see how far this restoration has advanced. He will not look to the heavens, the unseen world from which he must expect his deliverance and perfection. Because of this, he is always connecting the spiritual with the unspiritual, something which the apostle rejects, (1Cor 2:13). This teaching does not make the Christian a full grown, spiritual co-worker in the Kingdom of heaven, but this vision blinds him to the earth and all that happens there.

Is it any wonder that the charismatic movement, which accepts the baptism of the Holy Spirit and its utterances while holding on to and being fervently involved in the doctrines of the old churches, will never gain sight of spiritual maturity and completeness and will never reach the purpose of God? On the contrary, this movement will prepare the way for the antichrist, who will plunder the great Babylon in order to use it for his own purposes and afterward to burn it with fire.
Thankfully, the faithful children of God will have gone out before that time.

The early and the latter rain are indispensable. However, without the good seed in the soil and therefore without the teaching which Jesus Himself brought, these rains are purposeless. They are meant for the good seed in order to produce the desired result before God.

The true followers of Jesus will be filled with power. The result of this will be that they will be worthy and skillful co-workers of God. With great zeal they pass on the gospel of the Kingdom over the whole earth and the Lord will again co-operate with the power of signs and wonders. We read: "And I will give portents in the heavens," (Joel 2:30).

Just like the Master, they will go about "doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil," and through the power of the Holy Spirit many lives will be renewed by a marvelous restoration. All these wonders are brought about through the supernatural world because the church of the endtime is truly a "partaker of the heavenly calling." Her citizenship, walk and field of work is not on earth but in heaven.

The church of Jesus Christ does not wind up in decline, but she ends in a climax. Throughout the centuries the church has lived in spiritual Babylon. She resembles the faithful remnant in the Old Covenant which was exiled in Babylon together with the disobedient people, longingly looking forward to the return to its own country and land. Prophets as Daniel and Ezekiel were exiled as well as the erring people among which they were living.
The church of God is like a child which is still hidden in its mother's womb. The woes of labor pains push it out into the visible world. "The woman was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth", (Rev 12:2). The actual woes start at the fifth trumpet which announces the first woe, (Rev 9:12).
At the sixth trumpet the second woe begins, (Rev 11:14), while the third woe follows closely after the last trumpet. When this trumpet is blown the world will behold, a church which is completely restored, having reached perfection in spirit, soul, and body. The third or lost woe produces the afterbirth. The character of the anti-Christian church then becomes evident when the seven bowls of the wrath of God are poured out over her.

[Molly]

Great post, Gilbert.


Genesis 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.


Perfection is the completeness we achieve in union with the Lord.  It is a state of being in relationship to God.



Hebrews 7:19
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.



"perfect"
H8549
תּמים
tâmîym
taw-meem'
From H8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth: - without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (-ly), whole.

[Doc]

Hey, Doc!


Well, Doc, I think this is about the most fantastic thing I've ever read.

(Tongue-in-cheek) If it is, then you definitely need to read more...

Seriously, I was in so much emotional distress after reading it that I had to leave it for a day to let the profound sadness in my heart of thoughts  dissipate before I could dare approach it again with a reasonable frame of mind.

And while I'm sure you may agree with Martin Zender's…  'antilogic'… I'm very grateful that you didn't write it yourself.

And for that I think it may be close to the time for me to move on.

The truth is sometimes hard to swallow. Be that as it may...

I want to ask you some questions, Doc and your answers will let me know if we have reached a point in our discussion when all we will be doing is bantering and repeating the same things over again.

Martin Zender said:

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.

Do you believe this to be a truthful statement? Yes or No.

This is a sarcastic statement that he made intentionally to make a point. Neither Martin or I believe that logic is the enemy of all religion (faith-based belief system); although I will say that it is the enemy of all Religion (with a capital R) If you get my meaning.

He also said:

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.

Do you agree with his conclusion as he stated it here? Yes or No. If No then please let me know why you think it is not correct.

I agree with His statement as stated, yes; understanding that he means they only make God so in the eyes of those viewing Him through that lens as a logical conclusion of viewing God through that lens.

He also said:

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)

What does the Greek word katabole mean?

Does it mean 'foundation'?

Or does it mean 'disruption'?
Choose one.

Well, actually, that was my bit, not his. I was trying to personalize it to the discussion based on elements of your previous post.

Anyway my answer is that it means what I said it meant in the rest of that part of the post, and what others have confirmed it means in subsequent posts above. I'll repost it here for ease of reference:

  here is what  katabole  means in the greek  
 
 Strong's G2602 - katabolē
καταβολή
Transliteration

katabolē
 Pronunciation

kä-tä-bo-lā' (Key)
 
Part of Speech

feminine noun

 Root Word (Etymology)

from G2598
 


Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a throwing or laying down
a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb

b) of the seed of plants and animals

2) a founding (laying down a foundation)

Your answers will tell me whether I should be moving on or not.

And know, my friend, that I truly do appreciate all the time you have spent with me. You are literally a gift, sent from God.

Blessings,

Dennis!

I haven't responded to at least one of your posts to me here yet, but if you feel you need to move on after reading my answers here, that is of course your prerogative.

There was one other point I had intended to address previously that slipped my notice until something in your response to reformer's post, I think it was, jogged my memory. Bear with me here for a moment. I can't scroll back far enough on this page to get to that post, so I'm going to go back and look at it and edit this post with that particular thought. Back in a tic...

Ok... Adam and Eve's disobedience was the vehicle through which sin was brought into the world, yes? Where was it before it was brought in? It had to have existed already for them to bring it in, right? Adam and Eve therefore, did not create sin; they only brought it into the world. Now granted, sin and evil are not the same thing, though they often go hand in hand. The fact remains though, that we were created with the ability to miss the mark. That 'design decision' was therefore intentional, and thus part of God's plan.

One more edit... sorry, I just had to bring this up as well. You keep saying this throughout your various posts:

I think it's safe to assume that you no longer hold that peculiar hell that John Calvin gave us through the KJV interpretation of The Words actually exists because if you did you wouldn't be here on Tentmaker.

You speak as if Calvin is solely responsible for giving us "that peculiar hell". Now, I know you've got it in for Calvin; and I agree that the Turkey created a lot of theological problems with his doctrines. But I have to remind you that Calvin was not, by a longshot, solely responsible for "that peculiar hell". Augustine gets at least as much credit, and there are quite a large number in the rogue's gallery. Calvin was, relatively speaking, a latecomer to this whole affair. He played his role in propagating the whole mess, certainly, but I don't think in all fairness we can lay the blame squarely with him, eh?


And for what it's worth, I have also enjoyed our discussions so far. They've made me dig in a bit and think and rethink. So thanks for the challenge!

Blessings,

Doc

[CHB]

Hi Eleutheros,

I read one post and most of the other one you ask about. You keep mentioning John Calvin and how he believes that God foreknew that Adam was going to fall. Well, so what, John Calvin got one right as we all do. Every one of us is not 100% right but everyone of us has some truth, Calvin just happened to have a bit of truth as all the rest of religion does. The Baptist has some truth, so do Seventh day Advents, even UR's, only thing is, I feel UR is the closest to the truth.

I am aware and agree that the KJV has some mistakes in it, but so do all the others, just like with the religions of the world.

Now, back to your original idea which is I understand, is that God did not know that Adam would fall. You base your idea on one word "katabole", I use the whole Bible and what it tells me is, God created Adam without any experience of sin and put him in the garden with a serpent and a tree that he should not eat from. For God not to know that he would eat from it would be foolish thinking on God's part. Even I a human, if I put my child in a room full of candy and told him not to eat any, it would be stupid of me to think he wouldn't touch it.

You ask if I use to not believe the things I believe now. I grew up in a Baptist environment. Went to the Seventh Day Advent Church a while. Even attended Pentecostal meetings. Joined the World Wide Church of God. Last, I was shown the knowledge about the salvation of all. It was all God's doing. God brought me through all
these beliefs for a purpose. I did not learn about the salvation of all through my own doing, you cannot find that any of the disciples or apostles came to Christ on their own, they were all chosen. You were chosen, believe it or not, to know what you know whether it be right or wrong. So was I. I have nothing to brag about as far as knowing anything. Isn't this what Paul said also?

I see Doc is back so I will let you two hash it out. It has been nice communicating with you. You seem very intelligent and have done a lot of studying on this one word.

CHB

[Doc]

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.

I'm with you so far, I think.

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.

Well, we certainly agree on this point. What we seem to disagree on is the particular role that this tree played in the process of acquiring 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.

Except that I think that this was the plan from the beginning...

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.

Sigh... But virtue cannot be acquired without the knowledge of good and evil. If Adam and Eve had made a choice for simple obedience in their innocence, they could not have acquired virtue this way; under your model, this was the requirement for obtaining virtue. But since they had no knowledge of good and evil yet, they could not obtain virtue without first knowing the difference, viz. knowing good and evil.

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 I obviously don't agree that obedience to his command would have accomplished the same thing, for reasons I've already outlined here and elsewhere. We appear to be at an impasse on this one.

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?"

I don't know If I'd use the word "expect". It is certainly His stated will, and as it is also his ultimate intention, so it will be for every individual, someday.
The statement you quoted there is a statement of fact, not a command or statement of expectation. If you love me YOU WILL keep my commands.
If we keep His commands, then we show that we love Him. In other words, He's telling us what will be the natural result of our love for Him

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?

They are righteous because he has declared them so, not because of anything they did of themselves. They could not have been obedient if God had not placed it in their hearts to do so.

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?"

I have asked myself these kinds of questions. Again, we're back to stated will vs. ultimate intention.

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?

I am aware of this, but the good answer does not come from disagreeing with scripture. In fact, that's where the "bad answers" have come from!

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.

Well, how do your children learn obedience? Are we not all in some sense, God's children? (Even if we individually do not attain to sonship? teknon vs. huios). Will not everyone suffer the discipline of being salted with fire in obedience or disobedience?

But notice the point that this is what perfected Him. I think we can stretch it at least to those who will be called sons. Are you implying here that Adam could've done what Christ did, become perfected through obedient suffering?

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

I think that last sentence from Phillippians sums up the obedience question rather well.

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.



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!

Well, it's funny, because I see your view being just as detrimental to the character of God.

Hmm, Yes I was rather looking forward to your response to the nachash post. Whatever response you can give there is appreciated.

[Gilbert]

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.

I'm with you so far, I think.

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.

Well, we certainly agree on this point. What we seem to disagree on is the particular role that this tree played in the process of acquiring 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.

Except that I think that this was the plan from the beginning...

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.

Sigh... But virtue cannot be acquired without the knowledge of good and evil. If Adam and Eve had made a choice for simple obedience in their innocence, they could not have acquired virtue this way; under your model, this was the requirement for obtaining virtue. But since they had no knowledge of good and evil yet, they could not obtain virtue without first knowing the difference, viz. knowing good and evil.

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 I obviously don't agree that obedience to his command would have accomplished the same thing, for reasons I've already outlined here and elsewhere. We appear to be at an impasse on this one.

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?"

I don't know If I'd use the word "expect". It is certainly His stated will, and as it is also his ultimate intention, so it will be for every individual, someday.
The statement you quoted there is a statement of fact, not a command or statement of expectation. If you love me YOU WILL keep my commands.
If we keep His commands, then we show that we love Him. In other words, He's telling us what will be the natural result of our love for Him

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?

They are righteous because he has declared them so, not because of anything they did of themselves. They could not have been obedient if God had not placed it in their hearts to do so.

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?"

I have asked myself these kinds of questions. Again, we're back to stated will vs. ultimate intention.

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?

I am aware of this, but the good answer does not come from disagreeing with scripture. In fact, that's where the "bad answers" have come from!

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.

Well, how do your children learn obedience? Are we not all in some sense, God's children? (Even if we individually do not attain to sonship? teknon vs. huios). Will not everyone suffer the discipline of being salted with fire in obedience or disobedience?

But notice the point that this is what perfected Him. I think we can stretch it at least to those who will be called sons. Are you implying here that Adam could've done what Christ did, become perfected through obedient suffering?

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

I think that last sentence from Phillippians sums up the obedience question rather well.

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.



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!

Well, it's funny, because I see your view being just as detrimental to the character of God.

Hmm, Yes I was rather looking forward to your response to the nachash post. Whatever response you can give there is appreciated.

Because of the massive quantity of green 'quotes' accompanying this Post, I suggest we might want to name it the 'St.Patrick Day Post' for future reference. 

[Eleutheros]

Hey, Doc!

Hey, Doc!


Well, Doc, I think this is about the most fantastic thing I've ever read.

(Tongue-in-cheek) If it is, then you definitely need to read more...

No thanks. I value the peace in my heart way to much to keep on exposing it to this kind of blasting 
 

Seriously, I was in so much emotional distress after reading it that I had to leave it for a day to let the profound sadness in my heart of thoughts  dissipate before I could dare approach it again with a reasonable frame of mind.

And while I'm sure you may agree with Martin Zender's…  'antilogic'… I'm very grateful that you didn't write it yourself.

And for that I think it may be close to the time for me to move on.

The truth is sometimes hard to swallow. Be that as it may...

No! Say it isn't true!

I want to ask you some questions, Doc and your answers will let me know if we have reached a point in our discussion when all we will be doing is bantering and repeating the same things over again.

Martin Zender said:

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.

Do you believe this to be a truthful statement? Yes or No.

This is a sarcastic statement that he made intentionally to make a point. Neither Martin or I believe that logic is the enemy of all religion (faith-based belief system); although I will say that it is the enemy of all Religion (with a capital R) If you get my meaning.

Yes I do. And the point is taken. So the answer is, "No", you do not agree with his statement because it was intended to be sarcastic.

So, it is reasonably safe to say that you embrace his logic and his logical conclusions as accurate reflections of reality, that is they are the truth.

He also said:

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.

Do you agree with his conclusion as he stated it here? Yes or No. If No then please let me know why you think it is not correct.

I agree with His statement as stated, yes; understanding that he means they only make God so in the eyes of those viewing Him through that lens as a logical conclusion of viewing God through that lens.

The answer then is, "Yes"- with a... 'clarification'; and I would add, one worthy of John Calvin himself.

I'm sorry, Doc but I gotta pause here and add that what I perceive coming from Martin is a logical attempt to justify what, to my perception, cannot be justified because it is a lie; namely that God foreknew of the fall, as a fact, before it happened.

Doc, truly I was not being hyperbolic when I described the effect Martin's words had on me. "Ugly" was my initial word of choice, but I withdrew it and inserted "fantastic" out of respect for your appreciation of this man. For it is not my intention to demean Martin in your eyes, but I also want you to know that my emotional reaction to his words was genuine- given the glibness I know you intended only in fun. No offense was taken and I hope you perceive none for these words.

That being said, I certianly know that both you and he and many others, do not perceive it that way. And in fact, Martin does sound brilliant for his logic (The Q & A thingy was very clever).
But so was Calvin.
And I too know how logic works even as I have tried to share that knowledge here by demonstrating how to discern if the logic is truthful by examining the conclusions for accuracy; assuming one is really looking for truth; for logic itself is neutral and works independently of the truth in the statements that drive it.

So, if his logic satisfies your heart of thoughts, for believing, with all your heart, that The Bible teaches us that God foreknew the fall before He created Adam and Eve- then it does. And I will not be found gainsaying it.

He also said:

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)

What does the Greek word katabole mean?

Does it mean 'foundation'?

Or does it mean 'disruption'?
Choose one.

Well, actually, that was my bit, not his. I was trying to personalize it to the discussion based on elements of your previous post.

Anyway my answer is that it means what I said it meant in the rest of that part of the post, and what others have confirmed it means in subsequent posts above. I'll repost it here for ease of reference:

  here is what  katabole  means in the greek   
 
 Strong's G2602 - katabolē
καταβολή
Transliteration

katabolē
 Pronunciation

kä-tä-bo-lā' (Key)
 
Part of Speech

feminine noun

 Root Word (Etymology)

from G2598
 


Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a throwing or laying down
a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb

b) of the seed of plants and animals

2) a founding (laying down a foundation)

So the answer is, "I choose 'foundation'".

OK, then.

Some closing thoughts: Strong's 'definitions' of Greek and Hebrew words was derived from their usage in the KJV text, not from the original languages. Thus the 'definitions' are self-referencing.

This is like defining a 'machine' as "anything that contains machinery".
 
The truth cannot be known from what is said in the definition because what is said refers back to the word itself for understanding.

The only thing Strong did to help ease the burden Calvin made The Words carry, given the severe bias that produced the KJV, was to list the usages in order such that, usually, the last definition or two listed is the one that is not accurate.
 
One final question asked for thoughtful purposes only: Are Strong's definitions for aion and aionios also just as accurate? Because if they are, then the Tentmaker's arguments against Strong's definitions are inaccurate and that peculiar hell really does exist, exactly as the King's English says it does.

My final word on this, then, is to sate the fact that everything I have written here depends on katabole meaning 'disruption';  just like it is a fact that what you have written here depends on katabole meaning 'foundation'.

And Doc: You and I know this.

So, I think you will agree that we have reached the inevitable impasse.

I say then, sincerely, thank you for answering these questions with honesty even as you have demonstrated an honorable spirit throughout our discussions; you are a rare find, indeed, Doc. And that is why I consider you a gift from God Himself.

Your answers will tell me whether I should be moving on or not.

And know, my friend, that I truly do appreciate all the time you have spent with me. You are literally a gift, sent from God.

Blessings,

Dennis!

I haven't responded to at least one of your posts to me here yet, but if you feel you need to move on after reading my answers here, that is of course your prerogative.

There was one other point I had intended to address previously that slipped my notice until something in your response to reformer's post, I think it was, jogged my memory. Bear with me here for a moment. I can't scroll back far enough on this page to get to that post, so I'm going to go back and look at it and edit this post with that particular thought. Back in a tic...

Ok... Adam and Eve's disobedience was the vehicle through which sin was brought into the world, yes? Where was it before it was brought in? It had to have existed already for them to bring it in, right? Adam and Eve therefore, did not create sin; they only brought it into the world. Now granted, sin and evil are not the same thing, though they often go hand in hand. The fact remains though, that we were created with the ability to miss the mark. That 'design decision' was therefore intentional, and thus part of God's plan.

Please, Doc, don't take this as a sardonic reply because, really, it is with a somber spirit that I say this, but, I perceive that you have learned well from Martin.

I'm sorry, Doc, but this idea you present is repulsive to me. You truly believe that Sin is a pre-existent 'thing'? And that God intentionally designed us to... 'miss the mark' in order to introduce Sin... so He could later fix us? (That is His plan, right?)
And I noted, in past posts, that you seem to think of  'good' and 'evil' as 'things' also that He created…   Truly, I am sorry Doc, but the very idea that Sin is a pre-existent 'thing', created by my God for our Parents to 'introduce' into the world and that 'good' and 'evil' are also 'things'; with 'evil' being created by Him for our benefit because He 'knows' that the only way that we can know of 'good' is objectively, for having to experience 'evil' first, is… something I understand…  and don't wish to become better acquainted with.
 
All I have left to say, as I bring this reply to a close, is that, of truth, just as you and Martin have demonstrated it to be, this is exactly what one will come to logically think about their God for believing what The Bible teaches us; that Jesus is, "…the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8 KJV).

Put your faith then in what you will and call it understanding; but I have to turn away from this for the ugliness I see.

One more edit... sorry, I just had to bring this up as well. You keep saying this throughout your various posts:

I think it's safe to assume that you no longer hold that peculiar hell that John Calvin gave us through the KJV interpretation of The Words actually exists because if you did you wouldn't be here on Tentmaker.

You speak as if Calvin is solely responsible for giving us "that peculiar hell". Now, I know you've got it in for Calvin; and I agree that the Turkey created a lot of theological problems with his doctrines. But I have to remind you that Calvin was not, by a longshot, solely responsible for "that peculiar hell". Augustine gets at least as much credit, and there are quite a large number in the rogue's gallery. Calvin was, relatively speaking, a latecomer to this whole affair. He played his role in propagating the whole mess, certainly, but I don't think in all fairness we can lay the blame squarely with him, eh?

I agree. Your summation is a good one and your question a fair one.

The reason I single John Calvin out for particular scrutiny is because of Calvin's unique contribution to modern Medieval Christian thought, namely his theology, given into the mind of the world through the Latin-to-English King James Bible.
He gave us a systematic and highly logical way of appreciating the fact of a foreknown and even planned, eternal damnation of recalcitrant humans in an ever-burning hell by laying the sole responsibility for human sin at the feet of God through the… 'concept' of  'double predestination'.

Thus, it was found that his hellish theology was promulgated into popularity, with the help of the ecumenical leaders, right into the time of King James' truly brilliant strategy for undermining the power of the Holy Roman Church, while transferring that power to himself- through his loyal 'Reformers'- by giving the mostly ignorant and certainly unsuspecting commoners The Words of Calvin shoehorned into The Word of God, in their own language.

What my posts have been all about is trying to undo the damage Calvin has done to our thoughts about God by exposing the translational trickery his interpreters employed to ensure that Calvin's theology was, 'The Truth, according to The Bible'.

And going even one better, I also offered a well thought out 'alternative theology' derived through the compelling nature of logic, for the change in meaning presented when katabole is translated with 'disruption' instead of 'foundation'.

What's in a word?

And for what it's worth, I have also enjoyed our discussions so far. They've made me dig in a bit and think and rethink. So thanks for the challenge!

Blessings,

Doc

In closing, then, I let you know that your words are worth a lot to me. Thank you Doc, I am quite pleased to know that I was able to challenge you toward understanding even as you did me. Good thing, though, that I didn't come here to convince anybody of anything, eh?
 
I have a few promises to keep, including giving you a reply to the 'serpent thingy'. After that I will be likely moving on… with this exchange, so far, as my happiest moment:

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!

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

High praise indeed!

And thank you for saying so, 'cause I, too, think it is... that is, of course, for something logically derived from my believing that The Words teach that Jesus is, "…the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world" (Rev 13:8 CLV).

Which is why I continue to urge you and every one else to be good, 'cause, logically speaking, it's what you were originally created to be!

Well, according to my logic anyway.

The 'last word' is your's, Doc.

And receive my blessings as well,

Dennis!

[Doc]

Hey, Doc!




The answer then is, "Yes"- with a... 'clarification'; and I would add, one worthy of John Calvin himself.

  Somehow, I knew you were going to say that....

If I ever wanted to find you, I expect all I'd need to do is call around to the universities and find Professor Eleutheros teaching "Calvin bashing, 101"   

I'm sorry, Doc but I gotta pause here and add that what I perceive coming from Martin is a logical attempt to justify what, to my perception, cannot be justified because it is a lie; namely that God foreknew of the fall, as a fact, before it happened.

Doc, truly I was not being hyperbolic when I described the effect Martin's words had on me. "Ugly" was my initial word of choice, but I withdrew it and inserted "fantastic" out of respect for your appreciation of this man. For it is not my intention to demean Martin in your eyes, but I also want you to know that my emotional reaction to his words was genuine- given the glibness I know you intended only in fun. No offense was taken and I hope you perceive none for these words.

That being said, I certianly know that both you and he and many others, do not perceive it that way. And in fact, Martin does sound brilliant for his logic (The Q & A thingy was very clever).
But so was Calvin.
And I too know how logic works even as I have tried to share that knowledge here by demonstrating how to discern if the logic is truthful by examining the conclusions for accuracy; assuming one is really looking for truth; for logic itself is neutral and works independently of the truth in the statements that drive it.

So, if his logic satisfies your heart of thoughts, for believing, with all your heart, that The Bible teaches us that God foreknew the fall before He created Adam and Eve- then it does. And I will not be found gainsaying it.

This approach leads to a logical conclusion that you cannot accept. I understand that perfectly, because the logical end to your approach leads to conclusions I cannot accept, either. And for the record, as much as you may think so, it's not because of Calvin's theology. I arrived at these things in the same way you arrived at yours, through study and logic. The last four years (continuing on) have been a time of reflection and serious re-evaluation for me, including the revelation of UR. I have left virtually no stone unturned, and my theology now (collectively) is nearly 180 degrees from where it was 4 or 5 years ago. Martin just happens to reflect my thoughts on this area rather well, and says some things better than I could. That said, I don't agree with Zender on everything, particularly when it comes to eschatology. You might actually find a lot of agreement with him yourself on other topics, because he is a literalist and a champion of the Concordant Literal Version.

OK, then.

Some closing thoughts: Strong's 'definitions' of Greek and Hebrew words was derived from their usage in the KJV text, not from the original languages. Thus the 'definitions' are self-referencing.

This is like defining a 'machine' as "anything that contains machinery".
 
The truth cannot be known from what is said in the definition because what is said refers back to the word itself for understanding.

The only thing Strong did to help ease the burden Calvin made The Words carry, given the severe bias that produced the KJV, was to list the usages in order such that, usually, the last definition or two listed is the one that is not accurate.

The problem with this theory is that there are other expositors that are more rigorous, who also agree with these definitions; so you can't just blame Strong and the KJV and Calvin for everything.

I agree that Strong did not always get it right, nor does the KJV, nor does any other translation always get it right. There are a huge number of reasons for this that could probably take up their own 6 page thread.

 

One final question asked for thoughtful purposes only: Are Strong's definitions for aion and aionios also just as accurate? Because if they are, then the Tentmaker's arguments against Strong's definitions are inaccurate and that peculiar hell really does exist, exactly as the King's English says it does.

A fine example of what I was just talking about. As I said, no one always gets it right.

My final word on this, then, is to sate the fact that everything I have written here depends on katabole meaning 'disruption';  just like it is a fact that what you have written here depends on katabole meaning 'foundation'.

And Doc: You and I know this.

So, I think you will agree that we have reached the inevitable impasse.

The problem is, that it doesn't only depend on one word. UR does not depend solely on the meaning of aion and its derivatives, nor does what we're discussing rely only on the meaning of katabole, which is what I've been trying to say all along; As much as I know you'll disagree with that statement.

I say then, sincerely, thank you for answering these questions with honesty even as you have demonstrated an honorable spirit throughout our discussions; you are a rare find, indeed, Doc. And that is why I consider you a gift from God Himself.

And I thank you as well.

And know, my friend, that I truly do appreciate all the time you have spent with me. You are literally a gift, sent from God.

Blessings,

Dennis!

Likewise.

Please, Doc, don't take this as a sardonic reply because, really, it is with a somber spirit that I say this, but, I perceive that you have learned well from Martin.

I'm sorry, Doc, but this idea you present is repulsive to me. You truly believe that Sin is a pre-existent 'thing'? And that God intentionally designed us to... 'miss the mark' in order to introduce Sin... so He could later fix us? (That is His plan, right?)
And I noted, in past posts, that you seem to think of  'good' and 'evil' as 'things' also that He created…   Truly, I am sorry Doc, but the very idea that Sin is a pre-existent 'thing', created by my God for our Parents to 'introduce' into the world and that 'good' and 'evil' are also 'things'; with 'evil' being created by Him for our benefit because He 'knows' that the only way that we can know of 'good' is objectively, for having to experience 'evil' first, is… something I understand…  and don't wish to become better acquainted with.
 
All I have left to say, as I bring this reply to a close, is that, of truth, just as you and Martin have demonstrated it to be, this is exactly what one will come to logically think about their God for believing what The Bible teaches us; that Jesus is, "…the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8 KJV).

Apart from Him, nothing could exist--at all. He is the creator of all. All is of God, remember? That's scripture. Everything has been made by and for Him. What else could I possibly conclude? Unless all doesn't really mean all...

Put your faith then in what you will and call it understanding; but I have to turn away from this for the ugliness I see.

I'm sorry that you see it that way. I can't expect that everyone will see things the same way. In the body of Christ, we have many parts. We can't all be eyes or ears, etc. So we're not going to see things the same way until...well until we become like Him when we all see Him as He is.

I agree. Your summation is a good one and your question a fair one.

The reason I single John Calvin out for particular scrutiny is because of Calvin's unique contribution to modern Medieval Christian thought, namely his theology, given into the mind of the world through the Latin-to-English King James Bible.
He gave us a systematic and highly logical way of appreciating the fact of a foreknown and even planned, eternal damnation of recalcitrant humans in an ever-burning hell by laying the sole responsibility for human sin at the feet of God through the… 'concept' of  'double predestination'.

Thus, it was found that his hellish theology was promulgated into popularity, with the help of the ecumenical leaders, right into the time of King James' truly brilliant strategy for undermining the power of the Holy Roman Church, while transferring that power to himself- through his loyal 'Reformers'- by giving the mostly ignorant and certainly unsuspecting commoners The Words of Calvin shoehorned into The Word of God, in their own language.

What my posts have been all about is trying to undo the damage Calvin has done to our thoughts about God by exposing the translational trickery his interpreters employed to ensure that Calvin's theology was, 'The Truth, according to The Bible'.

And going even one better, I also offered a well thought out 'alternative theology' derived through the compelling nature of logic, for the change in meaning presented when katabole is translated with 'disruption' instead of 'foundation'.

What's in a word?

I understand. I should remind you however, that the translators were not "Calvin's". The KJV was not translated until after Calvin's death, and was the third official translation into English. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Calvin had a direct hand in the translation of any versions of scripture.

In closing, then, I let you know that your words are worth a lot to me. Thank you Doc, I am quite pleased to know that I was able to challenge you toward understanding even as you did me. Good thing, though, that I didn't come here to convince anybody of anything, eh?
 
I have a few promises to keep, including giving you a reply to the 'serpent thingy'. After that I will be likely moving on… with this exchange, so far, as my happiest moment:

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!

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

High praise indeed!

I'm glad you took it that way.

And thank you for saying so, 'cause I, too, think it is... that is, of course, for something logically derived from my believing that The Words teach that Jesus is, "…the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world" (Rev 13:8 CLV).

Which is why I continue to urge you and every one else to be good, 'cause, logically speaking, it's what you were originally created to be!



The 'last word' is your's, Doc.

And receive my blessings as well,

Dennis!

And so we all will be, someday.


I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the nachash paper.