The Potter and His clay & El Elyon

[peacemaker]

First, that the commandment came first and God wanted obedience and sacrifice ONLY became necessary AFTER disobedience.

:cloud9: Question pneuma....how do you reconcile this with the fact that the Lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world, ie. no commandment yet,no disobedience yet? Not trying to be critical, this is just my "brake". Blessings...

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.


"from"

G575
ἀπό
apo
apo'
A primary particle; "off", that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): - (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain 4969 from the foundation 2602 of the world 2889.  (Revelation 13:8)

4969. sphazo sfad'-zo a primary verb; to butcher (especially an animal for food or in sacrifice) or (generally) to slaughter, or (specially), to maim (violently):--kill, slay, wound.

2602. katabole kat-ab-ol-ay' from 2598; a deposition, i.e. founding; figuratively, conception:--conceive, foundation.

2598. kataballo kat-ab-al'-lo from 2596 and 906; to throw down:--cast down, lay.

2596. kata kat-ah' a primary particle; (prepositionally) down (in place or time), in varied relations [according to the case (genitive, dative or accusative) with which it is joined]:--about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, (charita-)bly, concerning, + covered, (dai-)ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from ... to, godly, in(-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), ... by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-)on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through(-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-)to(-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where(-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution, or intensity.

906. ballo bal'-lo a primary verb; to throw (in various applications, more or less violent or intense):--arise, cast (out), X dung, lay, lie, pour, put (up), send, strike, throw (down), thrust.

2889. kosmos kos'-mos probably from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world.

2865. komizo kom-id'-zo from a primary komeo (to tend, i.e. take care of); properly, to provide for, i.e. (by implication) to carry off (as if from harm; genitive case obtain):--bring, receive.

[pneuma]

The alternate conclusion is that Adam had "special" flesh wherein unlike Paul dwelt good.  And Adam could not have said "it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me".  No, no sin dwelled in Adam.  He sinned in a different way than we all sin.

Where is the scripture that says man's nature changed after Adam sinned?

Bob it is NOT the flesh that corrupts the man, its the sin in the flesh that corrupts. Sin knocked at the door, Adam opened himself to sin and became a sinner.

Not to excuse Adam and Eve but I see the makings of a 'sinner' in people (A&E) right from the get go........

  And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was]  pleasant  to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.gen 3.6

and

For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.jn2.16

All this lusting and pride is said not to be of the Father but it seems it is the natural consequences of the way we are made from the beginning. Satan is a murderer from the beginning and he sure seemed part of the make up of man right from the start. Right there in the garden, subtle and quiet, but there none the less.

Satan was there BEFORE any outright disobedience just as was the lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes and the pride of life.

We just have to deal with it.

cp

Clay there is nothing wrong with our flesh bodies, lust, jealousy etc. are given to us of God.

If lust and jealousy are sin then God who is a jealous God is a sinner, and the Holy Spirit lusteth against the flesh.

Lust must first conceive to bring forth sin;therefore, it is who one has carnal knowledge with that makes it sinful or not.

Adam left his first love and clave unto another and brought forth sin.

[pneuma]

If Adam layed down his life for Eve out of love then perhaps he disobeyed the letter of the commandment only since love fulfills all the law.  I wonder how else Adam could have been a type of Christ.

Where in any scripture do you guys see that Adam laid down his life for Eve?

Eve was deceived she did not commit a sin that was unto death, all Adam had to do was pray for her.

Adam was not deceived thus he committed a sin unto death.


So it was NOT Adam that followed Eve into death, it was Eve that followed Adam into death that she might through child baring save him.

I think we see this facet of the Diamond in relation to Jesus dying for creation. Adam seems to be a type of Jesus and as Jesus willingly walked into death to save creation I kind of see Adam willingly doing the same for 'Eve'.

Some of us tend to see Adam as representing spirit while Eve represents soul. I am not totally clear on this but it seems when a person is dominated by soul, sin erupts and when the spirit dominates then there is no sin. The story of A & E when she ate of the tree is the story of a soul led person as we all get the 'privelage' of being it seems!

cp

Adam was disobedient, Christ was obedient so how can Adam represent Christ dying for creation?

[pneuma]

First, that the commandment came first and God wanted obedience and sacrifice ONLY became necessary AFTER disobedience.

:cloud9: Question pneuma....how do you reconcile this with the fact that the Lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world, ie. no commandment yet,no disobedience yet? Not trying to be critical, this is just my "brake". Blessings...

Sis already answered that a couple of time, check out the bottom half of post 334.

[pneuma]

When you draw conclusions about God's desire for the sacrifice of Christ from God's desire for the sacrifice of bulls and goats you are mixing the shadow and the very image.

No I am not brother I am making a contrast.

Was Christ mixing together the shadow and the very image when he said God cares for the sparrow but we are of more value than many sparrows.

God did not desire the sacrifice of the bulls and goats, how much more than the sacrifice of His son.

See you just compared God's desire for the shadow with God's desire for the very image.

That not mixing them Bob, that contrasting them. We are of more value than many sparrows.

You just concluded that if God did not take pleasure in the shadow then God takes even less pleasure in the very image.

Yes based on the contrast. God did not take pleasure in the sacrifice of bulls and goats, so how much more displeasure in the sacrifice of His son.

If God cares for the life of the sparrow, how much more the life of His son.

By your reasoning God cared more for the life of the bulls and goats than He did for His own son.

Here it is right here Scott in the passage below.  God did not take pleasure the sacrifice of bulls and goats, BUT IN CONTRAST God did want the sacrifice of His Son: God prepared Christ a body to be an offering to God by laying down His life.  Christ came "Lo to do THY WILL" by sacrificing Himself.

Ok let's look at those scriptures.

•   Hebrews 10

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, BUT a body hast thou prepared me:

Do you not see that even when Christ came into the world that Jesus said sacrifice and offerings thou wouldest NOT?

Yet you are saying God wanted sacrifice the total opposite of what that scripture just stated.

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 

No pleasure in, what I have been saying

7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Obedience, what I have been saying

8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Again no pleasure in, and both Adam and Jesus were offered up by the law. Adam by his own wilful disobedience, Christ by the wicked hands of the Jews. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die.

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Obedience, again what I have been saying

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Yes we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus, but that does not mean God wanted to have to sacrifice His son.

The blood of bulls and goats also covered the sins of the people Bob yet we know God had no delight in their sacrifice.

That is not to say God had no delight in the outcome of those sacrifices (for they covered sin) but God did not delight in the need to sacrifice them.

The same with Jesus.

What happened under shadow is what took place in reality and what your saying is that the shadow Christ cast is
opposite of the reality of Christ.

As if God didn't know whether they would or would not reverence Christ.

That is NOT what I was saying brother.

Matthew 21:37 actually says "They WILL reverence Him" as opposed to "it may well be..."

The parable is showing God as a man without foreknowlege.

I agree it is a parable showing Gods foreknowledge and in that parable we see how God did not want to have to sacrifice His son because kept sending unto the people His servants. And it was only because of the stiff necked disobedience of the people God sent forth His son.

The same way He gave Israel commandments He knew they would not obey when He was giving them.  God gave commandments so "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

Only to those who are UNDER the law Bob not every mouth in the world. And how did people get under the law? Disobedience.

And guilty means- subject to the judgments of God.

Therefore that scripture states ..... and all the world my become subject to the judgments of God.

myQuote
That response being the provision of sacrifice.  Sacrifice was not in God's plan, but in response to the clay sacrifice became needful.

That's what "second best provision" means to me.  If it was not God's original ideal plan, then it was not His 'best' plan.  And it was a provision.  So to me that's a provision which is second best.

That because you still see it as a part of Gods plan, but disobedience was NEVER a part of Gods plan. My ways are not your ways.

Mans way was disobedience and death and God said that was NOT His way.

You keep insisting on disobedience as being Gods plan yet you will not find that sentiment anywhere in scripture.

But you will find many a time where God is disgusted and weeps because of the peoples disobedience.

If He planned it all out as you say brother, then God anger and weeping for the peoples disobedience is all a sham. 

Sham- something that is presented as genuine but that is not.- not genuine and used for deception- to pretend to be experiencing a condition such as illness or an emotion in order to deceive

At the time Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6 God DID want to sacrifice His Son so how can Hosea 6:6 prove God did not.

Because in the volume of the book these things were spoken of HIM.

What things were spoken of HIM?

Sacrifice and offerings.

myQuote
God does not change brother so if He did not desire the shedding of the blood of innocent animals, how much more then the shedding of the blood of His innocent son?

Yes, God does not change.  God is never pleased with the shedding of innocent blood.  Not before man sinned or after.

Yet you just finished making an argument that God was pleased to sacrifice His son. You can't have it both ways Bob either He was pleased with the sacrifice of Christ or He was not.

You can look at the death of Christ from two perspectives:
1. Christ laying down his life for the sins of the world
2. Christ being murdered, innocent blood being shed

God was well pleased with the sacrifice of His Son but was never pleased with his murder

.

And that is what I have been saying, God did NOT delight to have to sacrifice His son, but He was delighted with the sacrifice (Jesus) himself.

There is a difference between being delighted with what the sacrifice it's self and the need of sacrificing the sacrifice. But your calling them the same thing.

Christ's sacrifice was a "sweet smelling savour" to God.  And God does not change.  So how are you saying God did not desire it but later God did desire it?
•   Epesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

The blood of bulls and goats were also a sweet smelling savour unto God brother and we KNOW that He did NOT desire their sacrifice.

There is nothing wrong with the sacrifices themselves, both the bulls/goat and Jesus God was pleased with, but God did NOT desire their sacrifice.

There is a difference and your mixing the two together and coming to the conclusion that because God was pleased with Jesus that He was also pleased with the need to sacrifice Jesus.

But we know that sacrifice and offerings God does not desire, but because of mans disobedience God implemented something He did not desire to implement.   

Yes, God hated them murdering His Son.  Yet God sent His Son into the world for the purpose of be murdered.   Desire vs Intention.
Yes, God planned the shedding of innocent blood.  Jesus said "not my will but thine be done".  But God did not desire what He hates.  Desire vs Intention.

Have you ever intended to put yourself through something you hated for some greater good?  Then you intended to go through what you hated without desiring what you hated.

What you're saying brother is God murdered His own son, because you say God PLANNED it that way from the beginning.

Does not matter if He pulled the trigger or not Bob, if it was His PLAN He is the murderer.

You want to let the mob boss off for murder and just blame the hit men.

Christ sacrifice was not a part of God PLAN, Christ sacrifice ONLY became necessary because of man disobedience.

So unless you can find a scripture that says God planned out or God's plan was through disobedience Bob you should really consider before the Lord what I am endeavouring to say. 

[bobf]

No I am not brother I am making a contrast.  Was Christ mixing together the shadow and the very image when he said God cares for the sparrow but we are of more value than many sparrows.

God did not desire the sacrifice of the bulls and goats, how much more than the sacrifice of His son. That not mixing them Bob, that contrasting them. We are of more value than many sparrows.

Yes based on the contrast. God did not take pleasure in the sacrifice of bulls and goats, so how much more displeasure in the sacrifice of His son.  If God cares for the life of the sparrow, how much more the life of His son.

By your reasoning God cared more for the life of the bulls and goats than He did for His own son.

Scott, you are speaking as if the reason God did not take pleasure  the sacrifice of bulls and goats was out of caring for the life of the bulls and goats. Yes God cares for the lives of sparrows, bulls, and goats.  And much moreso for Christ and us.  If God were simply saying "I don't like the sacrificing of bulls and goats because I care for the bulls and goats" then I would agree with you that even moreso that would apply to Jeus Christ.

But that's not what that saying is about.  God was not complaining about the sacrificing process.  God was compaining about the disobedience of the ones doing the sacrifices.  In a similar fashion God also complained about their assemblies, holy days, feasts, fasting, prayers, sackcloth & ashes, and their worship.  They were all a stench to God because they were disobedient to the heart of the law.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.  5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, BUT a body hast thou prepared me:

Do you not see that even when Christ came into the world that Jesus said sacrifice and offerings thou wouldest NOT?  Yet you are saying God wanted sacrifice the total opposite of what that scripture just stated.

Scott that is saying God doesn't give a rip about sacrificing bulls and goats, instead God prepared Christ a body in which He could lay down His life as God willed.  The former is people killing animals, the latter is the greatest form of love.

The sacrifice of bulls and goats can not take away sins WHEREFORE God said that He takes no pleasure in sacrifices and offerings.  In contrast, Christ's sacrfice can and will take away sins.  WHEREFORE God said no such thing about Christ's sacrifice.

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.  7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
No pleasure in, what I have been saying
Obedience, what I have been saying

Obedience to what?  To sacrificing His life.  God was pleased with Christ laying down His life, God was not pleased with Israel killing bulls and goats.

Yes we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus, but that does not mean God wanted to have to sacrifice His son.

The blood of bulls and goats also covered the sins of the people Bob yet we know God had no delight in their sacrifice.  That is not to say God had no delight in the outcome of those sacrifices (for they covered sin) but God did not delight in the need to sacrifice them. The same with Jesus.

I'm not saying God delighted in the sacrificING of Jesus.  God delighted in Jesus' sacrifice.  Laying down His life out of love.

What happened under shadow is what took place in reality and what your saying is that the shadow Christ cast is opposite of the reality of Christ.

physical circumcision shadowed circumcision of the heart
physical sabbath keeping shadowed us ceasing our works & entering into God's rest.

The shadows are similar to the very image or they wouldn't be types.  But obeying the shadow and disobeying what it represents is a stench to God.  In that sense, yes, they are polar opposites.

Only to those who are UNDER the law Bob not every mouth in the world. And how did people get under the law? Disobedience.  And guilty means- subject to the judgments of God.  Therefore that scripture states ..... and all the world my become subject to the judgments of God.

No disagreement with your view of that scripture.

You keep insisting on disobedience as being Gods plan yet you will not find that sentiment anywhere in scripture.

So unless you can find a scripture that says God planned out or God's plan was through disobedience Bob you should really consider before the Lord what I am endeavouring to say.

Romans 9.  Those whom God chooses he chooses before they are born.  Before they have obeyed or disobeyed. God's choice is not based on their willing or their running. God chooses to harden or have mercy upon whom He wills.  Pharoah is given as a specific example.  God planned to command pharoah one thing and then harden pharoah's heart so he would disobey.  For the purpose of showing God's power, His displeasure with disobedience and His mercy.  The whole plan of God regarding disobedience and obedience is in that chapter in summary form.

There are many others examples where God "did something" that helped cause or involved disobedience.
God moved David to number Israel.
God told Satan, behold Job is in your power, God removed Job's hedge so Satan could do his thing.
God sent lying spirits into the mouth of prophets.
God decieves prophets.
God sends a strong delusion so men will believe a lie.
God gave a messenger of Satan to buffet Paul.
God raised up evil against David.
Jesus came to blind those who see.

But you will find many a time where God is disgusted and weeps because of the peoples disobedience. If He planned it all out as you say brother, then God anger and weeping for the peoples disobedience is all a sham.  Sham- something that is presented as genuine but that is not.- not genuine and used for deception- to pretend to be experiencing a condition such as illness or an emotion in order to deceive.

God's anger and weeping is real.  Intending is not approving.  God judged pharoah because it was still pharoah's choice all the way through.

Because in the volume of the book these things were spoken of HIM.  What things were spoken of HIM?  Sacrifice and offerings.

Right, God sent His Son to die.  That's what God wanted Christ to do, God's will, by laying down His life.  God was pleased with that.

Yet you just finished making an argument that God was pleased to sacrifice His son. You can't have it both ways Bob either He was pleased with the sacrifice of Christ or He was not.

God was pleased with the act of love that Christ carried out, laying down His life.  Not with sacrificING Christ.  Even "it pleased the LORD to bruise Him" is due to Christ's act of obedience and love and the outcome, not the brutal act of Christ being crucified.

And that is what I have been saying, God did NOT delight to have to sacrifice His son, but He was delighted with the sacrifice (Jesus) himself.

If God HAD TO sacrifice Christ then man forced God's hand.  We both agree there is a reason God sent Christ to die.  You think that reason was outside of God's plan, man's disobedience.  I think the reason was that God wanted to demonstrate the full measure of His love and have us follow Him.  God showing Himself was accomplished by Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, laying down His life.

There is a difference between being delighted with what the sacrifice it's self and the need of sacrificing the sacrifice. But your calling them the same thing.

I'm not saying God takes pleasure in sacrficING bulls, goats, or His Son.

The blood of bulls and goats were also a sweet smelling savour unto God brother and we KNOW that He did NOT desire their sacrifice.  There is nothing wrong with the sacrifices themselves, both the bulls/goat and Jesus God was pleased with, but God did NOT desire their sacrifice.

The blood of bulls and goats were not a sweet smeeling savour to God.  Only what the blood of bulls and goats represented were a sweet smelling savour.

But we know that sacrifice and offerings God does not desire, but because of mans disobedience God implemented something He did not desire to implement.   What you're saying brother is God murdered His own son, because you say God PLANNED it that way from the beginning.

No, I'm not saying that at all Scott.

Suppose I were.

You just said God implemented it out of need.

Then you would be saying that God murdered Christ because God needed to.

You think God "needed to" because man disobeyed.

I think God "needed to" because God decided to create man in His image.  And that image is love.  And that love in it's greatest form is laying down one's life for both  friends and His enemies.  So God intended to show us that.  And God intended us to follow in His steps.

So God was pleased with the sacrifice (not -ING) of Christ because Christ showed us the Father.

[reFORMer]

It has been brought out that rather than sacrifice and offering, coming into a prepared body to do His will is what delights God.  It is important to understand what the will of God is from the mouth of Jesus.

When Jesus forgave the sins of a paralytic the religious judges in the crowd said He was blaspheming.  Telling them that in order for it to absolutely be known the son of man has power to forgive sins, Jesus responded with healing him.  Then He said, "Now go, learn what this is: Mercy am I wanting, and not sacrifice. For I did not come to call the just but sinners." (Mt 9:13, CLV cp., Ho 6:6)  What these religious leaders did instead was conspire how they might kill Jesus.  Then, a little later Jesus says to them, "Now if you had known what this is: Mercy am I wanting, and not sacrifice-you would not convict the faultless..." (Mt 12:7, CLV)

Mercy (Hbr:  chesed) is the ardor to fulfill.  Whatever the need is, it is the drive to meet that need.  It is covenental love in action.  It is God's darling attribute.  Mercy, or grace (Grk:  charis) is the result of having had the need met, of having been filled full.  You need never again wonder at or miss God's will, for mercy is the absolute will of God.  It determines how we are judged.  "All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies." (Ps 25:10, AV)  Such are thus equipped to perceive how all the doing and being of God is mercy.  The image and glory of God rests upon the Mercy Throne.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Good post  :thumbsup:

[pneuma]

It has been brought out that rather than sacrifice and offering, coming into a prepared body to do His will is what delights God.
It is important to understand what the will of God is from the mouth of Jesus.  When Jesus forgave the sins of a paralytic the religious judges in the crowd said He was blaspheming.  Telling them that in order for it to absolutely be known the son of man has power to forgive sins, Jesus responded with healing him.  Then He said, "Now go, learn what this is: Mercy am I wanting, and not sacrifice. For I did not come to call the just but sinners." (Mt 9:13, CLV cp., Ho 6:6)  What these religious leaders did instead was conspire how they might kill Jesus.  Then, a little later Jesus says to them, "Now if you had known what this is: Mercy am I wanting, and not sacrifice-you would not convict the faultless..." (Mt 12:7, CLV)  Mercy (Hbr:  chesed) is the ardor to fulfill.  Whatever the need is, it is the drive to meet that need.  It is covenental love in action.  It is God's darling attribute.  Mercy, or grace (Grk:  charis) is the result of having had the need met, of having been filled full.  You need never again wonder at or miss God's will, for mercy is the absolute will of God.  It determines how we are judged.  "All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies." (Ps 25:10, AV)  Such are thus equipped to perceive how all the doing and being of God is mercy.  The image and glory of God rests upon the Mercy Throne.

yes all God's paths are mercy and truth.

But Gods ways are NOT our ways.

Our ways =disobedience and death

Gods ways = obedience and life.

Proverbs 14:12
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Whos ways = death?

MANS

[pneuma]

Scott, you are speaking as if the reason God did not take pleasure  the sacrifice of bulls and goats was out of caring for the life of the bulls and goats. Yes God cares for the lives of sparrows, bulls, and goats.  And much moreso for Christ and us.  If God were simply saying "I don't like the sacrificing of bulls and goats because I care for the bulls and goats" then I would agree with you that even moreso that would apply to Jeus Christ.

But that's not what that saying is about.  God was not complaining about the sacrificing process.  God was compaining about the disobedience of the ones doing the sacrifices.  In a similar fashion God also complained about their assemblies, holy days, feasts, fasting, prayers, sackcloth & ashes, and their worship.  They were all a stench to God because they were disobedient to the heart of the law.

Bob it does not matter if there is a further layer to the onion the top layer must still apply. So my point still stands.

So let us look at your point.

The people offered up sacrifices in disobedience, and God did not desire that.

So you must than believe that those who offered up Christ sacrificed Him in obedience to God. Then why did Jesus say forgive them for they know not what they do?

Even by your point brother, it shows God did NOT desire the sacrifice of Christ.

Scott that is saying God doesn't give a rip about sacrificing bulls and goats, instead God prepared Christ a body in which He could lay down His life as God willed.  The former is people killing animals, the latter is the greatest form of love.

The sacrifice of bulls and goats can not take away sins WHEREFORE God said that He takes no pleasure in sacrifices and offerings.  In contrast, Christ's sacrfice can and will take away sins.  WHEREFORE God said no such thing about Christ's sacrifice.

Bob there is a difference between Christ sacrifice which was total obedience to the Father, and the sacrifice of Christ that the people made of Christ.

Obedience=life

Disobedience=death

And why was Christ sacrificed? Because of disobedience which = death.

Obedience to what?  To sacrificing His life.  God was pleased with Christ laying down His life, God was not pleased with Israel killing bulls and goats.

That is what I have been saying Bob.

God was pleased with Christ laying down His life, but was NOT pleased with the people who slew Him or the need to do so.

Why was God not pleased with those who slew Christ?

Because God did not desire the sacrifices of disobedience.

I'm not saying God delighted in the sacrificING of Jesus.  God delighted in Jesus' sacrifice.  Laying down His life out of love.

Then we are in agreement here.

So why did Christ have to lay down His life?

Because of MANS disobedience not because God planned desired Christ death from the very beginning.


myQuote
What happened under shadow is what took place in reality and what your saying is that the shadow Christ cast is opposite of the reality of Christ.

physical circumcision shadowed circumcision of the heart
physical sabbath keeping shadowed us ceasing our works & entering into God's rest.

The shadows are similar to the very image or they wouldn't be types.  But obeying the shadow and disobeying what it represents is a stench to God.  In that sense, yes, they are polar opposites.

And by saying Christ sacrifice for disobedience was desired by God is disagreeing with what the shadow represents.

The shadow show us that God did not desire sacrifice; therefore, as the shadow represents Christ, God did not desire Christ sacrifice.

Your understanding changes what the sacrifices represent.

Therefore, the sacrifice of old cannot represent Christ.

But they do represent Christ; therefore, we can understand that God did not desire the sacrifice of Christ for disobedience.

myQuote
You keep insisting on disobedience as being Gods plan yet you will not find that sentiment anywhere in scripture.

So unless you can find a scripture that says God planned out or God's plan was through disobedience Bob you should really consider before the Lord what I am endeavouring to say.

Romans 9.  Those whom God chooses he chooses before they are born.  Before they have obeyed or disobeyed. God's choice is not based on their willing or their running. God chooses to harden or have mercy upon whom He wills.  Pharoah is given as a specific example.  God planned to command pharoah one thing and then harden pharoah's heart so he would disobey.  For the purpose of showing God's power, His displeasure with disobedience and His mercy.  The whole plan of God regarding disobedience and obedience is in that chapter in summary form.

There are many others examples where God "did something" that helped cause or involved disobedience.
God moved David to number Israel.
God told Satan, behold Job is in your power, God removed Job's hedge so Satan could do his thing.
God sent lying spirits into the mouth of prophets.
God decieves prophets.
God sends a strong delusion so men will believe a lie.
God gave a messenger of Satan to buffet Paul.
God raised up evil against David.
Jesus came to blind those who see.

Bob every example you have used is Gods weaving because of disobedience. We are talking about TWO different aspects here and you are mixing them together thinking they are the same.

Because of man disobedience God made provisions for man to come before Him, one of those provisions was sacrifice; therefore, God did that which He did not desire.

Death was in the world before Christ came and God weaved through Christ life out of death.

God's anger and weeping is real.  Intending is not approving.  God judged pharoah because it was still pharoah's choice all the way through.

Well if God planned it all out from the beginning as you say Bob than tell me why He did NOT approve of His own plan :dontknow:?

Right, God sent His Son to die.  That's what God wanted Christ to do, God's will, by laying down His life.  God was pleased with that.

Again we agree on this part Bob, God sent His son to lay down His life. Complete agreement.

Where we disagree is WHY?

You say it was because God planned man to be disobedient (but did not approve of this part of His own plan :dontknow:), so that Christ would come and die for us, and that Christ death was God PLAN/WAY for us from the beginning.


And I see Gods PLAN/WAY as obedience from the very start, that Christ sacrifice was NOT a part of the PLAN/WAY, but because of mans disobedience God responded to the clay and sent His son in response to mans disobedience.

Our reason for WHY Christ had to come and die for us is our disagreement.

You believe God planned if from the beginning, I believe God responded to the clays disobedience and God weaved sacrifice in order for man to be able to come back to Him.

I don't believe God disapproves of any part of His plan, yet in your understanding God must disapprove of part of His own plan.

God was pleased with the act of love that Christ carried out, laying down His life.

I agree and it is what I have been saying.

Not with sacrificING Christ.

That is also what I have been saying, you're the one who has been saying God desired Christ sacrifice.

Even "it pleased the LORD to bruise Him" is due to Christ's act of obedience and love and the outcome, not the brutal act of Christ being crucified.

I agree, a sacrifice of obedience, not a sacrifice of disobedience.

myQuote
And that is what I have been saying, God did NOT delight to have to sacrifice His son, but He was delighted with the sacrifice (Jesus) himself.

If God HAD TO sacrifice Christ then man forced God's hand.

Tis the potter responding to the clay Bob.

How many times do we read in scripture God telling the people that if they repent and obey His voice that He will heal them etc., but also telling them the outcome of what would happen if they continue in disobedience?

So what happens when man continues to walk in disobedience?

Is their disobedience according to God plan as you believe, or is their disobedience their own and we see God responding to their disobedience?

We both agree there is a reason God sent Christ to die.  You think that reason was outside of God's plan, man's disobedience.

Yes, and unless someone can show me a scripture that states God planned for mans disobedience from the get go I'll continue to believe it.

But don't forget I also believe God weaves man disobedience so that good can come out of evil.

 

I think the reason was that God wanted to demonstrate the full measure of His love and have us follow Him.  God showing Himself was accomplished by Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, laying down His life.

Bob in order to show your younger sons what true love is do you plan to have your oldest son beaten and murdered?

That's basically what you are saying.

I believe love begets love and I don't believe we need to sin in order to understand love.

myQuote
There is a difference between being delighted with what the sacrifice it's self and the need of sacrificing the sacrifice. But your calling them the same thing.

I'm not saying God takes pleasure in sacrficING bulls, goats, or His Son.

Then why have you been disagreeing with me?

The blood of bulls and goats were not a sweet smeeling savour to God.  Only what the blood of bulls and goats represented were a sweet smelling savour.

Although I agree it is what they represent as being the sweet smelling savour, I disagree that the bulls and goats themselves were not a sweet smelling savour for they also covered sin year by year and if they were not a sweet smelling savour this would not have been the case.


myQuote
But we know that sacrifice and offerings God does not desire, but because of mans disobedience God implemented something He did not desire to implement.   What you're saying brother is God murdered His own son, because you say God PLANNED it that way from the beginning.

No, I'm not saying that at all Scott.

Suppose I were.

Well are you or are you not letting the mob boss off the hook for murder his henchmen committed?

You just said God implemented it out of need.

Then you would be saying that God murdered Christ because God needed to.

I don't believe God planned or murdered Jesus Bob, Jesus laid down His own life FREELY. But yes God sent His son to die out of need, MANS need, NOT His.

You think God "needed to" because man disobeyed.

Yep, tis the potter responding to the clay.

I think God "needed to" because God decided to create man in His image.  And that image is love.  And that love in it's greatest form is laying down one's life for both  friends and His enemies.  So God intended to show us that.  And God intended us to follow in His steps.

And I believe man is made in God image through obedience, not through disobedience, which is what we are left with if God planned mans disobedience.

[peacemaker]

"For my pardon, this I see ...nothing but the blood of Jesus; for my cleansing this my plea ...nothing but the blood of Jesus."

Many are fixated on Jesus' death, and will accept nothing but the blood of Jesus, as "they know not, what they do."
Although, there is only ONE whose undeniable innocence (not an ordinary victim) was able to change the process of scapegoating; a slaughterhouse religion having a ritual carnivorous diet. And it is a saving act of God – a victory over the powers of this world and a defeat of death. Reversing it through Resurrection.

The cross may, indeed be, the centerpiece of the Christian religion, but it is not God's altar. Rather, it is the gospel which was/is/will end all bloodshed, not that of merely exchanging victims (i.e. bulls and goats for that of Christ, or as a substitution, taking the place of another). It was a sacrifice to end all sacrificing.

"Let's not make it a prescription for suffering death, but ONE of LIFE."

Through personal experience, the human race will learn how deadly and destructive their choices have been. Collectively, we still have not learned that lesson, but we will – that's a promise!

In His Love, and mine,
peacemaker

[bobf]

Bob it does not matter if there is a further layer to the onion the top layer must still apply. So my point still stands.

Scott,

(1) God did not take pleasure in the killng of Jesus Christ which was an act of hate.
(2) God did take pleasure in Christ laying down his life which was an act of love.

If (1) is the outside layer of your onion then I agree.  If (2) is the outside layer then I disagree.

"sacrifices and offerings thou wouldest not" is not a comment on (2).  Frankly, I don't think it's even a comment on (1) either -- "thou shallt not kill" is a comment on (1).

My understanding is that "sacrifices and offerings thou wouldest not" is comment similar to this comment about circumcision:

• Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

IOW physical sacrifice and physical circumcison according to the letter but void of the spirit are vain worship.

Anyway it's kind of moot since we agree that God does not take pleasure in sacrficing.

The people offered up sacrifices in disobedience, and God did not desire that.

Yes.  For me that means they were disobedient to the heart of the law - mercy, love, faith.   Therefore God did not take pleasure in their sacrifices, prayers, incense, fasting, etc.

So you must than believe that those who offered up Christ sacrificed Him in obedience to God.

Absolutely not.

Then why did Jesus say forgive them for they know not what they do?

It was murder.

Even by your point brother, it shows God did NOT desire the sacrifice of Christ.

Again "the sacrifice of Christ" can refer multiple things. 
1. The sacrifice Christ made which was an act of love.
2. The sacrificing of Christ by those who crucified Him which was an act of hate.

One event, two intentions.  The intention of Christ.  The inention of the people. God approved of (1) but not of (2).  God intended the whole.

It is like what I was trying to explain with Paul's thorn in the flesh.  Wrapped up in that thorn was
1. the love of God.
2. the hatred of Satan and his messengers.

One event, two intentions.  The intention of God.  The intention of the messengers of Satan.  God approved of (1) but not of (2).  God intended the whole.

Same thing with Job, God, and Satan.

Bob there is a difference between Christ sacrifice which was total obedience to the Father, and the sacrifice of Christ that the people made of Christ.

I agree.  That's what I have been saying too.   But I think we've been using different words.

When you say "sacrifice of Christ" you are picturing what the people did which I starting calling "the sacrificING of Christ" in order to make the distinction.  When I hear "sacrifice of Christ" I picture primarily Christ's act of love and God's sending Him to show us the way to the Father.

Obedience=life
Disobedience=death
And why was Christ sacrificed? Because of disobedience which = death.

I agree Scott.  It's just that I belive there was an additional purpose which was purposed from the beginning.

That is what I have been saying Bob.  God was pleased with Christ laying down His life, but was NOT pleased with the people who slew Him or the need to do so.

We agree on that point.

Why was God not pleased with those who slew Christ?  Because God did not desire the sacrifices of disobedience.

Simply because they were full of hate.

Then we are in agreement here.  So why did Christ have to lay down His life?  Because of MANS disobedience not because God planned desired Christ death from the very beginning.

And that's where we disagree.

And by saying Christ sacrifice for disobedience was desired by God is disagreeing with what the shadow represents.  The shadow show us that God did not desire sacrifice; therefore, as the shadow represents Christ, God did not desire Christ sacrifice.  Your understanding changes what the sacrifices represent.

See and this just shows how the phrases "sacrifice of Chist" and "Christ sacrfice" are ambigous.  Because here you say "God did not desire Christ sacrifice" but a few lines up you say "Christ sacrifice which was total obedience to the Father".  It just depends on whether you happen to be viewing those phrases as referring to Christ's act or the act of the people.

Anyway, I disagree that I am disagreeing with what the shadow represents.

To me it's just like circumcision.  Paul said circumcision is nothing.  Anyone trying to become right with God through physical circumcision is fallen from grace.  Does that mean that circumcison of the heart is also nothing?  No.

Therefore, the sacrifice of old cannot represent Christ.  But they do represent Christ; therefore, we can understand that God did not desire the sacrifice of Christ for disobedience.

They do represent Christ.  God desires inward circumcision not outward circumcision.   God deisres us to become burnt offerings seasoned with salt, not for us to offer up literal burnt offerings seasoned with salt.  God desires us to enter into His rest, not for us to observe holy days.

Bob every example you have used is Gods weaving because of disobedience. We are talking about TWO different aspects here and you are mixing them together thinking they are the same.

Planning to harden pharoah's heart before giving the command to him is planning not weaving.  Also, hardening a heart is weaving disobedience.  So is blinding those who see, and sending lying spirits, and moving David to number Israel.  God is able to weave good out of each of those.

Well if God planned it all out from the beginning as you say Bob than tell me why He did NOT approve of His own plan

Scott, you have decided that if God intends something to occur then God must be approving of the hearts of every invidual involved in that plan.  That is just not so in scripture.

Where we disagree is WHY?

I agree that's where we disagree.  It's not that I disagree with your reason.  Christ died for our sins and so for our disobedence.  Just that's not the complete picture.

You say it was because God planned man to be disobedient (but did not approve of this part of His own plan :dontknow:)...

God approved of His plan for man to be disobedient, but God did not approve man's disobedience.  Those two are not one and the same.  There are two hearts & intentions going on there.  God's and man's.  God approved of what He was doing, not of what man was doing.

An example from scripture: God approved of His plan to try Job.  God approved of His plan to tell Satan to go and harm Job.  But God did not approve of Satan's heart in doing so.

...so that Christ would come and die for us, and that Christ death was God PLAN/WAY for us from the beginning.

Again, when you say "Christ's death" that can refer to
a) Christ laying down His life on the cross
b) People murdering Christ

God approved of the overal plan because without (b) there is no (a). But God never remotely approved of (b) itself.

Even from your POV.  You believe God approved of His plan to send Christ to die after mankind sinned.  Yet you do not believe God approved of (b).

And I see Gods PLAN/WAY as obedience from the very start...

I agree that obedience has always been and always will be the way to come to the Father and be conformed to His image.  God planned for pharoah to disobey but pharoah's dsiobedience was not God's way.

that Christ sacrifice was NOT a part of the PLAN/WAY, but because of mans disobedience God responded to the clay and sent His son in response to mans disobedience.

There is that phrase "Christ sacrifice" again.  Before you said Christ's sacrifice was total obedience to the Father but now you say it was not God's plan/way.  I agree that His sacrifice of Himself laying down His life was total obeidence.  The greatest obedience.  To greatest love.  I believe God intended to show us that way from the beginning.

Our reason for WHY Christ had to come and die for us is our disagreement.

You believe God planned if from the beginning, I believe God responded to the clays disobedience and God weaved sacrifice in order for man to be able to come back to Him.

Yes.  I think we agree on most things, just not that.

I don't believe God disapproves of any part of His plan, yet in your understanding God must disapprove of part of His own plan.

I think God approved of 100% of His plan too.  Wouldn't you agree that God approved of 100% of His plan to give Paul a thorn in the flesh without approving the messengers of Satan who were the thorn in Paul's flesh?

That is also what I have been saying, you're the one who has been saying God desired Christ sacrifice.

By Christ's sacrifice I was referring to Christ's act of love.

I agree, a sacrifice of obedience, not a sacrifice of disobedience.

I believe God intended from the beginning to show us what a "sacrifice of obedience" looks like and intends us to follow suit.

How many times do we read in scripture God telling the people that if they repent and obey His voice that He will heal them etc., but also telling them the outcome of what would happen if they continue in disobedience?  So what happens when man continues to walk in disobedience?

Just like God told pharoah before God hardened his heart.

Is their disobedience according to God plan as you believe, or is their disobedience their own and we see God responding to their disobedience?

Pharoah's disobedience was his own even though God planned it.  Pharoah was making "everyday" choices just like we make though under more extreme circumstances.  God did not do anything magical to puppteer pharoah into doing anything.

Yes, and unless someone can show me a scripture that states God planned for mans disobedience from the get go I'll continue to believe it.  But don't forget I also believe God weaves man disobedience so that good can come out of evil.

God planned for pharoah to disobey before God had any of pharoah's disobedience to weave.

Another question to ask as a way to decide this is based on the fact that "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends".

The question is:  Did God intend from the beginning to put this form of love on display?  Did God intend from the beginning for us to live out this love?

If God intended us to never disobey then I think the answer would be "no".

I don't know of any scripture that answers that question though.

Bob in order to show your younger sons what true love is do you plan to have your oldest son beaten and murdered?  That's basically what you are saying.

Well, if one son disobeys, I don't send the other to die for his sins either.

You previously said that God implemented the same but for a different reason, due to man's disobedience.  So I could turn that around and ask you Scott, when one of your sons disobeys do you plan to send another son to be beaten and murdered on his behalf?

I believe love begets love and I don't believe we need to sin in order to understand love.

I don't believe we need to sin to love either.  But in order to love a sinner there needs to be a sinner to love. 

Then why have you been disagreeing with me?

Communcation disconnect over the phrases "sacrifice of Christ" and "Christ's sacrifice".  As I pointed out above you can view those from two angles and it affects whether God approves or disapproves.

Although I agree it is what they represent as being the sweet smelling savour, I disagree that the bulls and goats themselves were not a sweet smelling savour for they also covered sin year by year and if they were not a sweet smelling savour this would not have been the case.

To me it's like the manna from heaven.  In the OT Moses says it WAS bread from heaven but in the NT Jesus said it WAS NOT the bread from heaven.  The manna Moses gave did come from heaven and did keep them alive but it wasn't the real deal.

I don't believe God planned or murdered Jesus Bob, Jesus laid down His own life FREELY. But yes God sent His son to die out of need, MANS need, NOT His.

I also believe Jesus laid down His life freely and even the Father did not required it of Him in the sense that God did not force Him though it was the will of the Father.  It was a loving choice to do the Father's will.

[trettep]

Scott, you are speaking as if the reason God did not take pleasure  the sacrifice of bulls and goats was out of caring for the life of the bulls and goats. Yes God cares for the lives of sparrows, bulls, and goats.  And much moreso for Christ and us.  If God were simply saying "I don't like the sacrificing of bulls and goats because I care for the bulls and goats" then I would agree with you that even moreso that would apply to Jeus Christ.

But that's not what that saying is about.  God was not complaining about the sacrificing process.  God was compaining about the disobedience of the ones doing the sacrifices.  In a similar fashion God also complained about their assemblies, holy days, feasts, fasting, prayers, sackcloth & ashes, and their worship.  They were all a stench to God because they were disobedient to the heart of the law.

Bob it does not matter if there is a further layer to the onion the top layer must still apply. So my point still stands.

So let us look at your point.

The people offered up sacrifices in disobedience, and God did not desire that.

So you must than believe that those who offered up Christ sacrificed Him in obedience to God. Then why did Jesus say forgive them for they know not what they do?

Even by your point brother, it shows God did NOT desire the sacrifice of Christ.

Scott that is saying God doesn't give a rip about sacrificing bulls and goats, instead God prepared Christ a body in which He could lay down His life as God willed.  The former is people killing animals, the latter is the greatest form of love.

The sacrifice of bulls and goats can not take away sins WHEREFORE God said that He takes no pleasure in sacrifices and offerings.  In contrast, Christ's sacrfice can and will take away sins.  WHEREFORE God said no such thing about Christ's sacrifice.

Bob there is a difference between Christ sacrifice which was total obedience to the Father, and the sacrifice of Christ that the people made of Christ.

Obedience=life

Disobedience=death

And why was Christ sacrificed? Because of disobedience which = death.

Obedience to what?  To sacrificing His life.  God was pleased with Christ laying down His life, God was not pleased with Israel killing bulls and goats.

That is what I have been saying Bob.

God was pleased with Christ laying down His life, but was NOT pleased with the people who slew Him or the need to do so.

Why was God not pleased with those who slew Christ?

Because God did not desire the sacrifices of disobedience.

I'm not saying God delighted in the sacrificING of Jesus.  God delighted in Jesus' sacrifice.  Laying down His life out of love.

Then we are in agreement here.

So why did Christ have to lay down His life?

Because of MANS disobedience not because God planned desired Christ death from the very beginning.


myQuote
What happened under shadow is what took place in reality and what your saying is that the shadow Christ cast is opposite of the reality of Christ.

physical circumcision shadowed circumcision of the heart
physical sabbath keeping shadowed us ceasing our works & entering into God's rest.

The shadows are similar to the very image or they wouldn't be types.  But obeying the shadow and disobeying what it represents is a stench to God.  In that sense, yes, they are polar opposites.

And by saying Christ sacrifice for disobedience was desired by God is disagreeing with what the shadow represents.

The shadow show us that God did not desire sacrifice; therefore, as the shadow represents Christ, God did not desire Christ sacrifice.

Your understanding changes what the sacrifices represent.

Therefore, the sacrifice of old cannot represent Christ.

But they do represent Christ; therefore, we can understand that God did not desire the sacrifice of Christ for disobedience.

myQuote
You keep insisting on disobedience as being Gods plan yet you will not find that sentiment anywhere in scripture.

So unless you can find a scripture that says God planned out or God's plan was through disobedience Bob you should really consider before the Lord what I am endeavouring to say.

Romans 9.  Those whom God chooses he chooses before they are born.  Before they have obeyed or disobeyed. God's choice is not based on their willing or their running. God chooses to harden or have mercy upon whom He wills.  Pharoah is given as a specific example.  God planned to command pharoah one thing and then harden pharoah's heart so he would disobey.  For the purpose of showing God's power, His displeasure with disobedience and His mercy.  The whole plan of God regarding disobedience and obedience is in that chapter in summary form.

There are many others examples where God "did something" that helped cause or involved disobedience.
God moved David to number Israel.
God told Satan, behold Job is in your power, God removed Job's hedge so Satan could do his thing.
God sent lying spirits into the mouth of prophets.
God decieves prophets.
God sends a strong delusion so men will believe a lie.
God gave a messenger of Satan to buffet Paul.
God raised up evil against David.
Jesus came to blind those who see.

Bob every example you have used is Gods weaving because of disobedience. We are talking about TWO different aspects here and you are mixing them together thinking they are the same.

Because of man disobedience God made provisions for man to come before Him, one of those provisions was sacrifice; therefore, God did that which He did not desire.

Death was in the world before Christ came and God weaved through Christ life out of death.

God's anger and weeping is real.  Intending is not approving.  God judged pharoah because it was still pharoah's choice all the way through.

Well if God planned it all out from the beginning as you say Bob than tell me why He did NOT approve of His own plan :dontknow:?

Right, God sent His Son to die.  That's what God wanted Christ to do, God's will, by laying down His life.  God was pleased with that.

Again we agree on this part Bob, God sent His son to lay down His life. Complete agreement.

Where we disagree is WHY?

You say it was because God planned man to be disobedient (but did not approve of this part of His own plan :dontknow:), so that Christ would come and die for us, and that Christ death was God PLAN/WAY for us from the beginning.


And I see Gods PLAN/WAY as obedience from the very start, that Christ sacrifice was NOT a part of the PLAN/WAY, but because of mans disobedience God responded to the clay and sent His son in response to mans disobedience.

Our reason for WHY Christ had to come and die for us is our disagreement.

You believe God planned if from the beginning, I believe God responded to the clays disobedience and God weaved sacrifice in order for man to be able to come back to Him.

I don't believe God disapproves of any part of His plan, yet in your understanding God must disapprove of part of His own plan.

God was pleased with the act of love that Christ carried out, laying down His life.

I agree and it is what I have been saying.

Not with sacrificING Christ.

That is also what I have been saying, you're the one who has been saying God desired Christ sacrifice.

Even "it pleased the LORD to bruise Him" is due to Christ's act of obedience and love and the outcome, not the brutal act of Christ being crucified.

I agree, a sacrifice of obedience, not a sacrifice of disobedience.

myQuote
And that is what I have been saying, God did NOT delight to have to sacrifice His son, but He was delighted with the sacrifice (Jesus) himself.

If God HAD TO sacrifice Christ then man forced God's hand.

Tis the potter responding to the clay Bob.

How many times do we read in scripture God telling the people that if they repent and obey His voice that He will heal them etc., but also telling them the outcome of what would happen if they continue in disobedience?

So what happens when man continues to walk in disobedience?

Is their disobedience according to God plan as you believe, or is their disobedience their own and we see God responding to their disobedience?

We both agree there is a reason God sent Christ to die.  You think that reason was outside of God's plan, man's disobedience.

Yes, and unless someone can show me a scripture that states God planned for mans disobedience from the get go I'll continue to believe it.

But don't forget I also believe God weaves man disobedience so that good can come out of evil.

 

I think the reason was that God wanted to demonstrate the full measure of His love and have us follow Him.  God showing Himself was accomplished by Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, laying down His life.

Bob in order to show your younger sons what true love is do you plan to have your oldest son beaten and murdered?

That's basically what you are saying.

I believe love begets love and I don't believe we need to sin in order to understand love.

myQuote
There is a difference between being delighted with what the sacrifice it's self and the need of sacrificing the sacrifice. But your calling them the same thing.

I'm not saying God takes pleasure in sacrficING bulls, goats, or His Son.

Then why have you been disagreeing with me?

The blood of bulls and goats were not a sweet smeeling savour to God.  Only what the blood of bulls and goats represented were a sweet smelling savour.

Although I agree it is what they represent as being the sweet smelling savour, I disagree that the bulls and goats themselves were not a sweet smelling savour for they also covered sin year by year and if they were not a sweet smelling savour this would not have been the case.


myQuote
But we know that sacrifice and offerings God does not desire, but because of mans disobedience God implemented something He did not desire to implement.   What you're saying brother is God murdered His own son, because you say God PLANNED it that way from the beginning.

No, I'm not saying that at all Scott.

Suppose I were.

Well are you or are you not letting the mob boss off the hook for murder his henchmen committed?

You just said God implemented it out of need.

Then you would be saying that God murdered Christ because God needed to.

I don't believe God planned or murdered Jesus Bob, Jesus laid down His own life FREELY. But yes God sent His son to die out of need, MANS need, NOT His.

You think God "needed to" because man disobeyed.

Yep, tis the potter responding to the clay.

I think God "needed to" because God decided to create man in His image.  And that image is love.  And that love in it's greatest form is laying down one's life for both  friends and His enemies.  So God intended to show us that.  And God intended us to follow in His steps.

And I believe man is made in God image through obedience, not through disobedience, which is what we are left with if God planned mans disobedience.

Of course God desired the sacrifice of Christ.  He planned the whole thing.  It was God's cup that the Son was drinking from.  God knew that He was providing us the sacrificial lamb (our passover).  I know and accept that I murdered Jesus Christ, but what comes along with that is having slain my passover lamb.  Jesus showed it was not his own will for why he died but of His Father's will:

Mat 26:39  And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Obviously, Jesus wants us to know that it was not his own will that wanted to die but that it was His Father's will.  So if Jesus performs that which is not His will - it is no longer him but God in him that does such.  This is just like it is no longer our will in us but Christ Jesus in us that puts down sin in our own body of flesh.  It is not my will to do so but His.

Think of the opposite.  If it was not God's Will for Jesus to die then something went contrary to God's will.  Obviously it was God's will for Jesus to die that He did or else it would not happen.  Nothing can prevent God's will from happening.   So if we sin NOW, it is according to God's will that we are able to do such. 

Paul

[jabcat]

I like your summary Paul  :thumbsup:.  Good word, brother.

[peacemaker]

Will is the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action:

The choice which is made; a determination or preference which results from the act or exercise of the power of choice; a volition, or willingness. To be willing; to be inclined or disposed; to be pleased; to wish; to desire.

An active option, as opposed to a subjective impulse having no purpose.

peacemaker

[reFORMer]

peacemaker,

People can come to it in different ways.  I felt I had to jetison the "free will" doctrine I was raised in as a child when I experienced a revelation of the absolute sovereignty of God.  It even went so far as being overcome with the reality of God as Totality.  His being the all in all overwhelmed me.  Yet, He gave us wills.  There's a will of the flesh rather independent of me that I refuse.  The spirit lusts against the flesh (and vice versa.)  I have been led of God to accept His desire for me to make decisions and commitments.  I am supposed to exercise my will.  I am not sovereign.  I am a dependent aspect of His image.

"I will love thee, O LORD, my strength." (Ps 18:1, AV..."I passion You, O IEUE, my Steadfastness." CLV)

Sometimes God has moved me to one side, as it were, taking over my body.  He took me over to see out of the back of my head someone approaching.  He caused me to stand and turn, rebuking the devil.  I had to finish the rebuke, tacking, "...in the name of Jesus" on the end.  He has possessed me.  Sometimes I am completely overcome by Him. This just is not operating according to my own will.  Much about ourselves, our circumstances have nothing to do with any exercise of our own wills.  Yet, we are to use our ability to close with a matter, to decide on a thing, to commit ourselves to a path of duty.  God delights to meet us in that.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I experienced what you are talking about once. He stepped into me full body from behind like you would step into a garment, as I was preparing to pray for a demon possessed men, and said one word (to the man) and snapped my fingers by the man's ear, and then stepped out. The man was slain in the Spirit instantly.

Both speaking and snapping my fingers that He did, were done by bypassing my carnal mind completely, ie. I had no forethought of doing or being told to do it, He just DID IT.  I was so astonished all I could do was sob and praise Him. I have wondered ever since, is this what it is going to be like to be literally be FILLED with the Spirit? I think I got a taste of it, and it was just like you were "set aside" yet there, for a moment.

THANK YOU for sharing this. I've never heard anyone else speak of this in all my years of walking with Him. Blessings...

[reFORMer]

There are times when He took over my body as I was worshipping Him while playing the keyboards.  I was literally to one side, shifted slightly to the right of Him, observing Him as He wore my body, using my hands to play the piano Himself as I watched right there, experiencing the anointing power of His presence.

O, to know more of His overcoming grace!!!  Take me Jesus!

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: He is amazing, no doubt about it...... :thumbsup:

[pneuma]

I agree.  That's what I have been saying too.   But I think we've been using different words.

When you say "sacrifice of Christ" you are picturing what the people did which I starting calling "the sacrificING of Christ" in order to make the distinction.  When I hear "sacrifice of Christ" I picture primarily Christ's act of love and God's sending Him to show us the way to the Father.

See and this just shows how the phrases "sacrifice of Chist" and "Christ sacrfice" are ambigous.  Because here you say "God did not desire Christ sacrifice" but a few lines up you say "Christ sacrifice which was total obedience to the Father".  It just depends on whether you happen to be viewing those phrases as referring to Christ's act or the act of the people.

Ya never said I was good with words, I thought that might be part of the problem that is why I tried to phrase it about 4 different ways. But I think we understand each other finally.

Christ sacrifice of Himself out of love is good.

The sacrifice of Christ by the people is not good.

One point finally down and we are in agreement.

Planning to harden pharoah's heart before giving the command to him is planning not weaving.  Also, hardening a heart is weaving disobedience.  So is blinding those who see, and sending lying spirits, and moving David to number Israel.  God is able to weave good out of each of those.
God planned for pharoah to disobey before God had any of pharoah's disobedience to weave.

God knows what is in the hearts of men Bob, and knew the disobedience of Pharaoh was already in his heart. And God weaved that disobedience into something good. And God blinded the people because of their disobedience; thus, He used their disobedience against them.

But again when did these things happen Bob?

Was it BEFORE Adam's disobedience or AFTER?

This is what I am trying to get you to consider.

AFTER Adam's disobedience I think we are very close in our understanding.

It's BEFORE Adam's disobedience that our biggest differences come in.

You say God planned for Adam to be disobedient, and I disagree, God planned for Adam to be obedient.

And it is this aspect we should be concentrating on.

Another question to ask as a way to decide this is based on the fact that "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends".

The question is:  Did God intend from the beginning to put this form of love on display?  Did God intend from the beginning for us to live out this love?

If God intended us to never disobey then I think the answer would be "no".

The answer is yes and God never intended man to be disobedient.

Here is the problem with people looking at Adam and saying things like Adam gave up his life and followed Eve into death.

They are attributing something to Adam that should ONLY be attributed to Christ.

Adam may well have thought I have to eat in order to save Eve (there is a way that seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof is the way of death) so Adam ate from the tree and brought death into the world.

Now did Adam save Eve by being disobedient and eating of the tree?

NO, because through disobedience is not the way to save someone.

So how could of Adam's obedience have saved Eve?

Matthew 16:25
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

If Adam had of been obedient and lost his life/soul/eve he would have saved his life/soul/eve.

Thus, showing forth true love by laying down his life/soul/eve through obedience and greater love has no man then this.

Therefore was it God want Adam to enter into death in order to save his life/soul/eve or was the commandment ordained unto life and God wanted Adam to lose his life/soul/eve in order to save it?

Thus Gods plan for salvation and being made into His image and likeness was and has been always through obedience and not through disobedience.

Quote
Yes, and unless someone can show me a scripture that states God planned for mans disobedience from the get go I'll continue to believe it.  But don't forget I also believe God weaves man disobedience so that good can come out of evil.

I don't know of any scripture that answers that question though.

Then why believe it brother?

I know your reasoning and if you used that reasoning AFTER Adam's disobedience I think we are basically in agreement. But when you take that reasoning all the way back to the beginning and say that disobedience was always in God plan, that God wanted Adam to be disobedient to show forth true love you attribute to God mans disobedience.

Proverbs 14:12
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Isaiah 55:8
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Think on these two scriptures before the Lord brother and ask yourself

What are mans ways?

Does not the scriptures tell us that mans ways are the ways of DEATH? And that mans ways are NOT Gods ways?

Therefore do they not show that disobedience/death is not the path/way that God planned for man to walk?

Do you think it is possible that you cannot find any scriptures that answer that question because the scriptures actually say something else?

God approved of His plan for man to be disobedient, but God did not approve man's disobedience.  Those two are not one and the same.  There are two hearts & intentions going on there.  God's and man's.  God approved of what He was doing, not of what man was doing.

And again I ask for scripture that states where God says He approves of disobedience in any fashion, whether it be His plan or any other point.

Also you are here again trying to let the mob boss off the hook and lay the blame on the hitman.

If God planned for man to be disobedient then God is responsible for every disobedient thing that comes from the heart of man.

Therefore how can God disapprove of what man does through disobedience when disobedience was God's plan? You want to believe they are two separate things Bob but ultimately the buck has to stop with God.

An example from scripture: God approved of His plan to try Job.  God approved of His plan to tell Satan to go and harm Job.  But God did not approve of Satan's heart in doing so.

Two things here Bob, first, this was AFTER Adam's disobedience not BEFORE. And whether you can see it or not that makes a difference.

The second thing is Job is a hard book to understand for God also says to satan "although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause".

This would indicate that God did not plan to try Job, but did so at the instigation of satan.

I think God approved of 100% of His plan too.  Wouldn't you agree that God approved of 100% of His plan to give Paul a thorn in the flesh without approving the messengers of Satan who were the thorn in Paul's flesh?

Again this is AFTER Adam's disobedience NOT before.

Well, if one son disobeys, I don't send the other to die for his sins either.

You previously said that God implemented the same but for a different reason, due to man's disobedience.  So I could turn that around and ask you Scott, when one of your sons disobeys do you plan to send another son to be beaten and murdered on his behalf?

Because of mans disobedience death entered the world, the only way God could then save his children was to send His son into death to save them out of it.

So yes, if I had billions of sons in death I would ask my oldest son to enter into death to save them, but that does not mean I wanted to send my oldest son into death.

Our scenarios differ on this point brother, you believe God planned and wanted to sacrifice His son from the very beginning, I believe God did not plan it and did not want to sacrifice His son but because of mans disobedience death entered into the world and God did that which He did not desire or plan.

Which scenario show forth the love of God brother, yours that state God planned disobedience and death so that He could send His son into death in order to save us.

Or God not wanting to send His son into death, but did it anyway,  because man by disobedience entered into death God sent His son into death to save us.

For me there is no love shown in the plan that God wanted man dead just so He could save man( to much like a puppet on a string), but much love is shown in that because of mans disobedience God sent His son to enter into death to save man. Thus showing God responding to man out of love for man.

[pneuma]

Of course God desired the sacrifice of Christ.  He planned the whole thing.  It was God's cup that the Son was drinking from.  God knew that He was providing us the sacrificial lamb (our passover).  I know and accept that I murdered Jesus Christ, but what comes along with that is having slain my passover lamb.  Jesus showed it was not his own will for why he died but of His Father's will:

Mat 26:39  And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Obviously, Jesus wants us to know that it was not his own will that wanted to die but that it was His Father's will.  So if Jesus performs that which is not His will - it is no longer him but God in him that does such.  This is just like it is no longer our will in us but Christ Jesus in us that puts down sin in our own body of flesh.  It is not my will to do so but His.

Think of the opposite.  If it was not God's Will for Jesus to die then something went contrary to God's will.  Obviously it was God's will for Jesus to die that He did or else it would not happen.  Nothing can prevent God's will from happening.   So if we sin NOW, it is according to God's will that we are able to do such.

Paul that does NOT answer the question of Gods PLAN/WAY from the BEGINNING.

Did God plan out mans disobedience from the beginning or was God responding to mans disobedience?

I keep trying to get everyone to focus on the beginning but everyone keeps adding what happend AFTER Adam sinned thinking they are the same thing.

So I'll give you the scriptures I gave Bob and ask what you make of them.

Proverbs 14:12
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Isaiah 55:8
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Think on these two scriptures before the Lord brother and ask yourself

What are mans ways?

Does not the scriptures tell us that mans ways are the ways of DEATH? And that mans ways are NOT Gods ways?

Therefore do they not show that disobedience/death is not the path/way that God planned for man to walk?

[sheila]

 the creature was subjected to vanity..not of it's own will..

   BUT BY THE WILL OF HIM THAT SUBJECTED IT


   vanity=hollowness,egoism, pride

   subjected[to]  subjection=state of being subjected,or under

  the power control or government of another.submissive

   [which I take to clearly delineate  SINS LAW IN OUR FLESH]

[sheila]

 The Foolishness of God

  Christ crucified

  1 Cor 1;22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greek's look for

wisdom,but we preach CHRIST CRUCIFIED.a stumbling block

to jews and foolishness to gentiles,BUT TO THOSE WHOM GOD

HAS CALLED,BOTH JEWS AND GREEKS,CHRIST THE POWER

OF GOD,AND THE WISDOM OF GOD

For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom,and the

weakness of God is stronger than man's strength

   well, here we have it,as far as I can see..CHRIST CRUCIFIED

IS THE WEAKNESS AND FOOLISHNESS OF GOD


....God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise,

God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong..

! Cor 2;5  so your faith might not rest on mens wisdom[Adam?]

  but on GOD'S POWER


  No, we speak of God's secret wisdom,a wisdom that has been

hidden and that GOD DESTINED FOR OUR GLORY BEFORE TIME

  BEGAN

. NONE OF THE RULERS OF THIS AGE UNDERSTOOD IT

   [those subjected to vanity?as rulers of this age?]

  for IF they had, they would NOT have crucified the LORD of

   Glory

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I'm still going to dig into pneuma's post on the foundation when I get time, but for now at least, this is the way I see it too Sheila. All things are subject to change, in my experience; mostly ME.  :laughing7: Blessings....

[peacemaker]

People can come to it in different ways.  I felt I had to jetison the "free will" doctrine I was raised in as a child when I experienced a revelation of the absolute sovereignty of God.  It even went so far as being overcome with the reality of God as Totality.  His being the all in all overwhelmed me.  Yet, He gave us wills.  There's a will of the flesh rather independent of me that I refuse.  The spirit lusts against the flesh (and vice versa.)  I have been led of God to accept His desire for me to make decisions and commitments.  I am supposed to exercise my will.  I am not sovereign.  I am a dependent aspect of His image.

"I will love thee, O LORD, my strength." (Ps 18:1, AV..."I passion You, O IEUE, my Steadfastness." CLV)

Sometimes God has moved me to one side, as it were, taking over my body.  He took me over to see out of the back of my head someone approaching.  He caused me to stand and turn, rebuking the devil.  I had to finish the rebuke, tacking, "...in the name of Jesus" on the end.  He has possessed me.  Sometimes I am completely overcome by Him. This just is not operating according to my own will.  Much about ourselves, our circumstances have nothing to do with any exercise of our own wills.  Yet, we are to use our ability to close with a matter, to decide on a thing, to commit ourselves to a path of duty.  God delights to meet us in that.

Disclaimer:

What was stated in the definition was not a reference to "free will" or to any said, doctrine. And having a will of our own or being able to make a choice, is not at the expense of his Sovereignty, nor does this subject God to our thoughts and ways. The choice to do as he pleases, is His - anything less is not Sovereign.


"We are not predestinated to sin, that's choice; but we are predestined to Holiness."

We seem to struggle with any other having power to interfere with our independence, regarding ourselves as autonomous, whereas, each denomination or congregation (an assembly of persons) is separate from the other.

However, He has a remedy for humanities freedom of choice, it is called "Reconciliation of all things." Absolutely, free from any separation or mixture - being ONE Body.

There will be no syncretism because the truth is, we are being set-free from the thoughts and ways of the world.

We seem to be in a period of testing and trial to ascertain our fitness, giving the offender freedom – under the guidance of HIS SPIRIT.

"A period of probation; a time to be considerate or thoughtful by the Grace of God."

And the right, power, or privilege of making a choice requires judgment, as we live by the consequences of our decisions; right or wrong.


"Not my will, but yours be done."

I see this as an active option, as opposed to a subjective impulse having no purpose.

peacemaker