Slain from the foundation of the world

[WhiteWings]

The foundation of the world=the founding of the kosmos=the conception of the kosmos.   That word 'foundation' = katabole which comes from kataballo which literally means to throw down or cast down.

Or in Cardinal tongue "slowed down"  :winkgrin:

[WhiteWings]

I may be wrong, but I get from that is you believe Adam (as in 'Adam and Eve in the garden') was [the not-yet-revealed] Yeshua, the Son of God?   Also, I guess a case could be made that Adam wasn't deceived (Eve was), yet he still was in disobedience?....

TT, we'll try to bring this full circle back to your OP   :smile:

Usually spiraling down is a better choice of words for threads that go off-topic at the first reply  :laughing7:

[Ross]

Hi;
Rom 9;11 " They, in fact, not being born yet, nor having practiced anything good or bad, in order that the purpose of God might stand by way of election, NOT by works, but by Him that we are calling."

This seems to be the stuff about before the foundation of the world so as to teach us the difference between good and evil, and yet bring us to be of equal value before Him through the common cleansing blood of the lamb.

[Cardinal]

The foundation of the world=the founding of the kosmos=the conception of the kosmos.   That word 'foundation' = katabole which comes from kataballo which literally means to throw down or cast down.

Or in Cardinal tongue "slowed down"  :winkgrin:

:cloud9: :laughing7: You got it  :thumbsup: Another thought to throw out there......wife, helpmeet, run into the word for foundation. The creation is His "wife".....

[Molly]

from the [casting down] foundation of the [kosmos] world

"world"

G2889
κόσμος
kosmos
kos'-mos
Probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.


I think this fits in with Jab's definition of kosmos as a 'system' [orderly arrangement] and also with what Cardinal said of all creation as his wife [adornment, decoration].

Adam was created to tend and keep the garden of God.  After the casting down, the garden turned to thorns and thistles, death and sin entered in, Adam was still the tender and keeper but now by the sweat of his brow, [and working under Satan's rule of the kosmos now, imo].  But the LORD left the garden with Adam, stayed with him outside the garden [=outside the camp], and was always there to make a way.

[pneuma]

My  :2c:


Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Revelation 13:8
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


What is this scripture really saying?

Is it talking about the foundation of the old world or is it talking about the foundation of the new world?

If it is speaking of Christ being slain from the foundation of the old world then why did He have to be slain AGAIN 2000 years ago?

If He was slain from the foundation of the old world why do the scripture say:

Hebrews 9:25-26
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

But NOW ONCE in the end of the WORLD/AGE He appeared to put away sin by the SACRIFICE of HIMSELF.

If Christ was sacrificed/slain from the foundation of the old world then sin was already put away and He would not have had to come in the END of the world/age.

Rev.13:8 is not talking about Christ being sacrificed/slain from the foundation of the old world, it is talking about Christ being slain from the foundation of the NEW WORLD.

This is brought out more fully when we read 1 Peter 1:20

1 Peter 1:20
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,


This scripture point out that Christ was NOT slain from the foundation of the old world, but that He was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be slain/sacrificed in the last time for us.

If He was already sacrificed/slain then it would not say He was foreordained to be sacrificed/slain in the last times for us.

Jesus Christ is our foundation, and not only our foundation, but also the capstone on which the foundation is laid.

Isaiah 28:16
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Rev.13:8 is speaking of Christ being sacrificed/slain from the foundation of the NEW WORLD and that foundation was laid 2000 years ago when He was sacrificed/slain and access to the kingdom of heaven was given unto men through Him.
 
The scriptures state while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

So if Christ died for us from the foundation of the old world then He died for us BEFORE we were sinners and NOT while we were sinners.
 
God bless

[WhiteWings]

1 Peter 1:20
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

This scripture point out that Christ was NOT slain from the foundation of the old world, but that He was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be slain/sacrificed in the last time for us.

Hi Scott,

Maybe it simply means the plan was made before the foundation of the old world.
I wonder if it would have been of any use if Jesus was slain before all the OT laws were declared.
The reason Jesus was/is saviour that His sacrifice was according to many laws that cover/do away with sin.
Without those laws in place it would be useless to die that way....?

[thinktank]

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;


But the Earth belongs to the lord. So what is this world that the devil offers?


Matthew 5:14
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

The world is a dark place, so dark that we as a candle light it up.

John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

John 4:42
And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Matthew 13:22
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.


The thorns choke the word. Notice in Genesis that God cursed the Earth so it produced thistles and thorns.

So if the lamb is slain from the foundation of the world, it means God planned the sacrifice for Adam after he sinned and needed a sacrifice.

Since before Adam sinned there was no need for a sacrifice, as there was no transgression.


Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isaiah 53:8
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression


The Earth does not end

Deuteronomy 10:14
Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

But the world does

Matthew 24:3
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world


Luke 16:8
And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.


Here we see to classes of people. One class being the children of the world and the other class being the children of light.

John 7:7
The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

John 8:23
And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

So how can the lamb be slain from the foundation of the Earth if

1. There is no transgression, therefore no need of a sacrifice

But after Eve was in the transgression, now we see that a sacrifice is necessary.


Hebrews 5:1
For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:


Hebrews 7:27
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.


Hebrews 9:26
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

This verse sums by theory up. That he suffered since the foundation of the world, he puts away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

So where is the sin in Genesis 1.1 that needs a sacrifice? Since a lot think that is where the foundation of the world began, rather than at the moment Adam and Eve transgressed.



John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

[pneuma]

1 Peter 1:20
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

This scripture point out that Christ was NOT slain from the foundation of the old world, but that He was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be slain/sacrificed in the last time for us.

Hi Scott,

Maybe it simply means the plan was made before the foundation of the old world.
I wonder if it would have been of any use if Jesus was slain before all the OT laws were declared.
The reason Jesus was/is saviour that His sacrifice was according to many laws that cover/do away with sin.
Without those laws in place it would be useless to die that way....?

Hi WW, good to hear from you again.

I don't believe God PRE-planned to sacrifice His Son.
How many times have we read where God sent His servant to people in order to get them to repent? Was God just wasting His time by doing this? Did these servants suffer and die for nothing? They would have if God PRE-planned the sacrifice of His Son.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not needed UNTIL man refused to obey His commandments. If man had of obeyed the voice of God in the garden God would not have had to sacrifice His Son. However because man refused to obey His voice God did that which He NEVER wanted to do.

Here is a small article on this topic I wrote awhile back



God did NOT want to sacrifice His son
, but because man would NOT obey His voice God had to do that which He NEVER intended in the first place.


KJV
Jer 7:22 For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: Jer 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.


First thing I would point out is God gave the Law written in stone BEFORE He gave the commands concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

In the day God brought the people out of Egypt He gave commands for us to OBEY HIS VOICE but the people would not listen to OBEY HIS VOICE so God commanded burnt offerings and sacrifices for the people.

If the people had OBEYED HIS VOICE then there would have been no need of burnt offerings and sacrifices. But because of the peoples disobedience God instituted/made provision/weaved a way for man to come before Him in repentance by burnt offerings and sacrifices.

We see this very principal brought out in

1 Samuel 15:22
22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.


God has far more delight in our obedience then He has in us having to offer up burnt offerings and sacrifices for our sins. If we OBEY Him we have no need of sacrifices.




Now we know that the sacrifices given in the OT are a shadow of Christ sacrifice for us. Thus, God says that when He brought the people out of Egypt (God taking man from the dust of the earth OUTSIDE the garden[Egypt] and putting man into the garden) He did NOT command concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.

Why?

Because He commanded them to Obey my voice.

The sacrifice and offerings only came into play AFTER the disobedience of man. Thus, He says to obey is better than sacrifice.

God did NOT want to sacrifice His son, He wanted obedience, but because man disobeyed His voice, He gave them a means of coming before Him through sacrifice.


Hosea 6:6
6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
 
God did NOT desire sacrifice; therefore God did not desire the sacrifice of His son.

Psalm 40:6
6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 

 Again it say sacrifice and offering God did NOT desire, but it even go farther and says that they were NOT required.

If God planned all along for Jesus to be sacrificed for us why do scriptures say that offerings were NOT required?

Because if man had of obeyed His voice sacrifices and offering would NOT have been required.


Psalm 51:16
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
 
Again we see the same thing, God did NOT desire sacrifice.

Hebrews 10:5-6
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:  6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Jesus said it Himself, sacrifice and offering God did NOT want, and He(God) found NO pleasure in them.

Now we all know that God had pleasure in the outcome of Christ sacrifice, so what is Jesus saying here? Is He not saying that God had NO pleasure in the need of sacrificing His son.

Why did He(God) have NO pleasure in sacrificing His son?

Because He wanted obedience and NOT sacrifice.

[WhiteWings]

I don't believe God PRE-planned to sacrifice His Son.

So He switched to plan B when it vecame clear His creation was flawed?

How many times have we read where God sent His servant to people in order to get them to repent? Was God just wasting His time by doing this? Did these servants suffer and die for nothing? They would have if God PRE-planned the sacrifice of His Son.

Why did God* sent the servants if He knew it would have no effect at all?
*=I starting to doubt more and more that His Son is correct. I think Father rarely mentioned in OT. Basicly that means Jesus sacrificed Himself.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not needed UNTIL man refused to obey His commandments. If man had of obeyed the voice of God in the garden God would not have had to sacrifice His Son. However because man refused to obey His voice God did that which He NEVER wanted to do.

I think that's something we won't reach an agreement on.

[thinktank]

Excellent article pneuma. It really does make sense and makes me appreciate Jesus even more, knowing he sacrificed himself for our sins and came to save us.

I don't believe God PRE-planned to sacrifice His Son.

So He switched to plan B when it vecame clear His creation was flawed?
-----------------

What's wrong with plan B?


You think God only has one plan?

I think God has multiple plans. He might plan to make you wings a president, but if you refuse he would have another plan so that you are a cleaner, learned how to clean properly, then God might change plan again and promote you to president.

How many times have we read where God sent His servant to people in order to get them to repent? Was God just wasting His time by doing this? Did these servants suffer and die for nothing? They would have if God PRE-planned the sacrifice of His Son.

Why did God* sent the servants if He knew it would have no effect at all?
*=I starting to doubt more and more that His Son is correct. I think Father rarely mentioned in OT. Basicly that means Jesus sacrificed Himself.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not needed UNTIL man refused to obey His commandments. If man had of obeyed the voice of God in the garden God would not have had to sacrifice His Son. However because man refused to obey His voice God did that which He NEVER wanted to do.

I think that's something we won't reach an agreement on.

New things take time to learn.

[rosered]

 Christ/ meaning annointed ..

Slain from the foundation of the world .................

I have an idea  of it , but would make no sense to some ...  I may explain it  if anyone wants to hear it  and critique it of course  :laughing7:

[jabcat]

Excellent article pneuma. It really does make sense and makes me appreciate Jesus even more, knowing he sacrificed himself for our sins and came to save us.

I don't believe God PRE-planned to sacrifice His Son.

So He switched to plan B when it vecame clear His creation was flawed?
-----------------

What's wrong with plan B?


You think God only has one plan?

I think God has multiple plans. He might plan to make you wings a president, but if you refuse he would have another plan so that you are a cleaner, learned how to clean properly, then God might change plan again and promote you to president.

How many times have we read where God sent His servant to people in order to get them to repent? Was God just wasting His time by doing this? Did these servants suffer and die for nothing? They would have if God PRE-planned the sacrifice of His Son.

Why did God* sent the servants if He knew it would have no effect at all?
*=I starting to doubt more and more that His Son is correct. I think Father rarely mentioned in OT. Basicly that means Jesus sacrificed Himself.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not needed UNTIL man refused to obey His commandments. If man had of obeyed the voice of God in the garden God would not have had to sacrifice His Son. However because man refused to obey His voice God did that which He NEVER wanted to do.

I think that's something we won't reach an agreement on.

New things take time to learn.

I agree Tony.  I believe in a God Who is all powerful, all knowing, and in control.  He is not surprised, and doesn't have to ad lib.  He knows the end from the beginning, and is in charge of it all.

As far as new things taking time to learn.  There are lots of doctrines, and hopefully we're learning things according to a right division of the scriptures. 

[pneuma]

So He switched to plan B when it vecame clear His creation was flawed?

Not a plan B WW, God has always-wanted obedience, obedience is God's plan, always has been and always will be. Jesus says if you love me, you will keep my commandments.
When God placed Adam in the garden, he gave him the commandment not to eat of the TOGE.

Now to say God planned for Adam to eat from the tree is the same as saying Gods command not to eat from the tree is redundant.

God set before Adam the choice of life or death. Life was through obedience to the command not to eat, death through disobedience to that command. This is the same choice that is before us every day.

What you call a plan B is nothing but God responding to the movement of the clay.

Here is another short article I wrote concerning the potter and the clay.

The Potter and His Clay

Jeremiah 18:1-17
The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, 2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.  4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter:

A funny thing about clay is that it has a memory of its own and always wants to return to its clay form. So when one is fashioning a vase the clay tries to fall back into its natural form. Thus being marred in the hands of the potter. It is NOT the potter who mars the clay in his hands, it is the clay trying to return to clay that mars itself. The potter wants to make a vase, the clay wants to return to its natural form.

So if we look at man who is formed from the dust of the earth and placed into the garden to be fashioned into Gods image and likeness, we can see the clay in the potters hands.
Now through mans own disobedience man marred himself in the potters hands and returned to the dust/clay from whence he was taken. Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.

Now lets look at those same scriptures out of the Septuagint.

18:1 The word that came from the Lord to 2 Jeremias, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there thou shalt hear my words. 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and behold, he was making a vessel on the stones. 4 And the vessel which he was making with his hands fell:

And we know that Adam fell by disobedience. Thus the potter did NOT mar the vessel
the vessel fell and marred itself.


so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. 

Thus the potter takes up the same clay and makes a NEW vessel out of it.
We are a NEW creation in Christ Jesus.

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

Does nor matter how many time the clay falls from the masters hand, God will keep moulding the clay until it is fashion after His will, and once fashioned after His will the vessel is put into the fire to keep it from ever returning to its old form .

Thus proving that all vessels pass through the fire, for without the baking process the vessel will always retain it's own will and turn to it's old form.


 
Now lets jump down to verses 16 & 17
In the KJV these scriptures seem to be saying God created the smith that bloweth the coals and the waster to destroy.

16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. 17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

Now lets look at the Septuagint for a TOTALLY different view then what the KJV seems to present. 

Septuagint

16 Behold, I have created thee, not as the coppersmith blowing coals, and bringing out a vessel fit for work; but I have created thee, not for ruin, that I should destroy thee. 17 I will not suffer any weapon formed against thee to prosper; and every voice that shall rise up against thee for judgment, thou shalt vanquish them all; and thine adversaries shall be condemned thereby. There is an inheritance to them that serve the Lord, and ye shall be righteous before me, saith the Lord.

Which version seems to be more in lines with God who is love and love worketh NO evil?

You will all have to decide that for yourselves but I would like to point out one more thing concerning those verses.

If like the KJV states that God created the smith and the waster to destroy why does He then say NO weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper?
Surely if God formed these weapons against us they would prevail would they not?

God bless

Now some I have talked with bring up predestination and make an argument from that point. However, predestination does not work the way most seem to think it does.

Predestination has a starting point.

When God sets before us the choice of life or death (as He did with Adam) and we chose life (this is by obedience) we are predestined to life. When we chose death as Adam did we are predestined to death.

Life and death are the two predestined roads/paths that God has given to man to choose from. But the predestined path only come AFTER the choice of man, NOT BEFORE man has made a choice.

Why did God* sent the servants if He knew it would have no effect at all?
*=I starting to doubt more and more that His Son is correct. I think Father rarely mentioned in OT. Basicly that means Jesus sacrificed Himself.

You will have to explain this brother as I don't understand your point.

I think that's something we won't reach an agreement on.

Not so long ago WW you would have said the same thing to me if I had stated to you that Jesus Christ is the saviour of ALL MEN, no ifs, ands, or buts.

[pneuma]

Excellent article pneuma. It really does make sense and makes me appreciate Jesus even more, knowing he sacrificed himself for our sins and came to save us.

I don't believe God PRE-planned to sacrifice His Son.

So He switched to plan B when it vecame clear His creation was flawed?
-----------------

What's wrong with plan B?


You think God only has one plan?

I think God has multiple plans. He might plan to make you wings a president, but if you refuse he would have another plan so that you are a cleaner, learned how to clean properly, then God might change plan again and promote you to president.

How many times have we read where God sent His servant to people in order to get them to repent? Was God just wasting His time by doing this? Did these servants suffer and die for nothing? They would have if God PRE-planned the sacrifice of His Son.

Why did God* sent the servants if He knew it would have no effect at all?
*=I starting to doubt more and more that His Son is correct. I think Father rarely mentioned in OT. Basicly that means Jesus sacrificed Himself.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not needed UNTIL man refused to obey His commandments. If man had of obeyed the voice of God in the garden God would not have had to sacrifice His Son. However because man refused to obey His voice God did that which He NEVER wanted to do.

I think that's something we won't reach an agreement on.

New things take time to learn.

Thanks TT

[pneuma]

Christ/ meaning annointed ..

Slain from the foundation of the world .................

I have an idea  of it , but would make no sense to some ...  I may explain it  if anyone wants to hear it  and critique it of course  :laughing7:

Hi Rosered, it has been awhile.

What I put forth makes no sense to some either sis, so go ahead and post your thoughts, maybe we can make no sense together :laughing7:

[WhiteWings]

TT, I overlooked your reply. I thought you just quote Scott and me but you hid some answers too :winkgrin:

So He switched to plan B when it became clear His creation was flawed?
-----------------

What's wrong with plan B?

That type of question is similar to: Can God create a rock He can't lift?
That said plan B means:
a] Plan A failed.
b] Plan A was not perfect enough.
c] Plan A was fine but someone force God to change it.

My point is that not even God can improve His own perfect plan A. If He can plan A was not perfect. Or God learned new things, meaning He wasn't perfect when He made plan A

You think God only has one plan?

Yes.

I think God has multiple plans. He might plan to make you wings a president, but if you refuse he would have another plan so that you are a cleaner, learned how to clean properly, then God might change plan again and promote you to president.

God knows I would refuse so He won't make me part of that plan. Or He gives me a Saul->Paul conversion.

New things take time to learn.

No problem TT. If you don't understand just ask :icon_jokercolor:
Just kidding buddy everyone is allowed to his/her opinion. (me included :winkgrin:)

[WhiteWings]

So He switched to plan B when it vecame clear His creation was flawed?

Not a plan B WW, God has always-wanted obedience, obedience is God's plan, always has been and always will be. Jesus says if you love me, you will keep my commandments.

That's another point we seem to disagree about. The "wanted" of God are not possibilities or hopes. They are facts.

When God placed Adam in the garden, he gave him the commandment not to eat of the TOGE.

Now to say God planned for Adam to eat from the tree is the same as saying Gods command not to eat from the tree is redundant.

It's a bit how you look at it. God has forknowledge and knew with split second accuracy when they would eat from tree. Long before Genesis 1:1.
He didn't redesign mankind so they wouldn't mess up. For me that means He accepted that would happen. And by accepting that it became His plan/will.

God set before Adam the choice of life or death. Life was through obedience to the command not to eat, death through disobedience to that command. This is the same choice that is before us every day.

What you call a plan B is nothing but God responding to the movement of the clay.

So the lump of clay forces the hand of the Potter?

And we know that Adam fell by disobedience. Thus the potter did NOT mar the vessel the vessel fell and marred itself.
so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. 

Thus the potter takes up the same clay and makes a NEW vessel out of it.
We are a NEW creation in Christ Jesus.

So a perfect potter made inperfect pots?

Why did God* sent the servants if He knew it would have no effect at all?
*=I starting to doubt more and more that His Son is correct. I think Father rarely mentioned in OT. Basicly that means Jesus sacrificed Himself.

You will have to explain this brother as I don't understand your point.

Exactly what I wrote Scott. I think if the HS would rewrite the OT and replace all God, He, Lord, etc with either Father or Son you would see much, much more verses with Son than with Father.

I think that's something we won't reach an agreement on.

Not so long ago WW you would have said the same thing to me if I had stated to you that Jesus Christ is the saviour of ALL MEN, no ifs, ands, or buts.

I have to guess what exactly you mean by that remark but let me say I "always" understood the Bible teaches salvation of all.
But yes it's possible we reach agreemnet on this in the future.

[WhiteWings]

Christ/ meaning annointed ..

Slain from the foundation of the world .................

I have an idea  of it , but would make no sense to some ...  I may explain it  if anyone wants to hear it  and critique it of course  :laughing7:

Hi Rosered, it has been awhile.

What I put forth makes no sense to some either sis, so go ahead and post your thoughts, maybe we can make no sense together :laughing7:

Seems we agree on something Scott :winkgrin:
Start posting (http://bestemailsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/rose-238x300.jpg)

[thinktank]

Excellent article pneuma. It really does make sense and makes me appreciate Jesus even more, knowing he sacrificed himself for our sins and came to save us.

I don't believe God PRE-planned to sacrifice His Son.

So He switched to plan B when it vecame clear His creation was flawed?
-----------------

What's wrong with plan B?


You think God only has one plan?

I think God has multiple plans. He might plan to make you wings a president, but if you refuse he would have another plan so that you are a cleaner, learned how to clean properly, then God might change plan again and promote you to president.

How many times have we read where God sent His servant to people in order to get them to repent? Was God just wasting His time by doing this? Did these servants suffer and die for nothing? They would have if God PRE-planned the sacrifice of His Son.

Why did God* sent the servants if He knew it would have no effect at all?
*=I starting to doubt more and more that His Son is correct. I think Father rarely mentioned in OT. Basicly that means Jesus sacrificed Himself.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not needed UNTIL man refused to obey His commandments. If man had of obeyed the voice of God in the garden God would not have had to sacrifice His Son. However because man refused to obey His voice God did that which He NEVER wanted to do.

I think that's something we won't reach an agreement on.

New things take time to learn.

I agree Tony.  I believe in a God Who is all powerful, all knowing, and in control.  He is not surprised, and doesn't have to ad lib.  He knows the end from the beginning, and is in charge of it all.

As far as new things taking time to learn.  There are lots of doctrines, and hopefully we're learning things according to a right division of the scriptures.

I also believe that God knows all things and is in charge. But also that we do not. Which means how can we say with certainty that God did not have other plans in the garden of Eden. Since there is 2 trees in the garden. Now it seems for some reason most Christians are like Eve and ignore the tree of life in the garden, and rush towards the tree of good and evil. Perhaps for some the tree of life is not an option and don't care for it. But for others the tree of life offers an opportunity. A opportunity that mankind did not partake in.

The fact that we chose the path of good and evil does not negate the opportunity of the tree of life.

I agree Jabcat there are many doctrines and not all are fruitful for learning. However I see that what I and pneuma have presented have a scriptural basis that is yet to be challenged. that does not take any glory from God, but yet in my opinion increases it and makes Him a savior that is willing to go to great lengths to save us from our short comings.

[jabcat]

Hi Tank.  Thanks for your kind reply.  Actually, it's addressed all over the TM site, including on the homepage.  Also, be aware some who "teach the scriptures" don't even believe all the scriptures are inspired, and pick and choose which ones they believe to be true.   Word to the wise.  Blessings, friend.

[pneuma]

That's another point we seem to disagree about. The "wanted" of God are not possibilities or hopes. They are facts.

Well God WANTED to take Israel under His wings as a hen does her chicks, but He could not because they would not have Him. So did God get what He wanted here? Not according to Jesus.

It's a bit how you look at it. God has forknowledge and knew with split second accuracy when they would eat from tree. Long before Genesis 1:1.
He didn't redesign mankind so they wouldn't mess up. For me that means He accepted that would happen. And by accepting that it became His plan/will.

Foreknowledge works hand and hand with predestination. God foreknows every step man will make along the path man has chosen to walk. This does not mean God foreknows the choice man will make BEFORE man makes the choice. Jesus did NOT have to die on the cross, He could have called on 12 legions of angels to deliver Him and God would have supplied those legions of angels to do just that. But He(Jesus) choose obedience (not my will but thine be done).
Now you might say but God foreknew Jesus would make the choice He made, but if that is the case why then does it say God would have sent the 12 legions to deliver him?

So the lump of clay forces the hand of the Potter?

Talk with anyone who works with clay WW, or watch a video of someone working with clay, you will see how the hands of the potter continually move to and fro over the clay until it is perfectly formed.

So a perfect potter made inperfect pots?

Yes. We are NOT yet made in the image and likeness of God, only the image and likeness of God is a perfect vessel.

Exactly what I wrote Scott. I think if the HS would rewrite the OT and replace all God, He, Lord, etc with either Father or Son you would see much, much more verses with Son than with Father.

OK, so what does that have to do with what I have said?

I have to guess what exactly you mean by that remark but let me say I "always" understood the Bible teaches salvation of all.
But yes it's possible we reach agreemnet on this in the future.

It could be that I am confusing you with another brother, but I thought at one time you were an atheist or at least leaned toward atheism.

[pneuma]

Hi Tank.  Thanks for your kind reply.  Actually, it's addressed all over the TM site, including on the homepage.  Also, be aware some who "teach the scriptures" don't even believe all the scriptures are inspired, and pick and choose which ones they believe to be true.   Word to the wise.  Blessings, friend.

Jab that is a misrepresentation of what I have said and what I beleive.

TT read this link and make up your own mind.

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/christian_life/someone_help_me_please..._9407.msg117847.html#msg117847

[jabcat]

Hi Scott.  I know what you've said, and my statement includes many people.  I've seen those type of sentiments in many places places in UR.

What you specifically said is that you don't believe all the scriptures in the Bible are really scripture - only the ones you believe are scripture are the ones you believe are inspired.  Which IMO, leaves one picking and choosing which scriptures they believe are true.  Also IMO, your definition of the scriptures is a misrepresentation.

Doesn't mean you're not my brother, but we have some quite basic, foundational disagreements;   and at the very least, if those I have disagreements with believe the scriptures are reliable and trustworthy (accurately translated, Spirit revealed) then we have a standard of which to refer.  But OTOH, if one picks and chooses what they accept as scripture, then one's really pretty much free to believe and say anything they wish.  Which one can do anyway, but may expect to be (hopefully gently, lovingly) "confronted".

[jabcat]

Yes, TT can make up his own mind, I didn't tell him not to.   But I like to know the perspective from which information I'm consuming is coming from, and it may be of others' benefit as well.  If not, they're free to ignore it and move on.