My name is Dennis!
I put an exclamation mark after my name because I love being human, exactly as I was created to be.
Eleutheros (Strong's # 1658), my moniker, describes how I feel.
To the point then, here is the central theme:
It can be proven that the KJV interpreters translated that peculiar hell we are all familiar with into existence, by using a dishonest, translational slight-of-hand trick. They surreptitiously chose an Old English word, 'hell' -a verb that had previously been turned into a proper noun by those who translated Dante's Inferno into English- and used it to translate four other proper nouns that, in Greek and Hebrew, were the proper names of three different places, thus making these three different places appear, to the English reader, to be one and the same place... and Ta-da! Hell now exisits because the Bible tells me so!
They choose this verb-cum-noun deliberately for perceiving that it was already associated, in the English mind, with that mythological place, The Inferno, that sprang from the Italian writer, Dante's fertile, if not macabre imagination - a place as mythological, but, as well known, in it's time, as Mordor is in ours.
They also deliberately and painstakingly tortured the Greek noun aion and it's adjective, aionios, to make them read 'eternal' when and where it could be done to fit their ulterior purposes.
And were 'eternal' couldn't be made to fit, they chose any other English word but 'age', or, 'age-lasting' so that the English translation wouldn't become nonsensical.
And that against their knowing that the Greek language has a word for 'eternal' that could have been chosen by the original writers in place of aion; a word the original writers did choose, often enough and accurately enough, when 'eternal' was truly the idea they wanted to convey.
And historically speaking, the KJV interpreters were tasked by the power-hungry King James to produce an English translation of the cannon that would serve two purposes:
The first was to usurp the power of The Holy Roman Church, who only used Latin to speak The Words in public, thus keeping the commoners, who didn't know Latin, dependent on them to interpret The Words for them.
This idea of giving the commoners The Words in thier own language was a brilliant political move on the part of King James for knowing that once the commoners could read The Words for themselves they would discover the fact that they had been duped into following all that malarkey that they were told they needed to endure, for the sake of their soul's rescue from hell and rebel against the Pope and His cronnies, which they did.
The second reason was more ulterior and thus more diabolical. The English translation should reflect the theology of St. Augustine, recently made systematic by his sycophant, John Calvin and thus preserve the hierarchy necessary for a religion to work. However, this time the rule would be preserved under the King, not the Pope, through a new priesthood, loyal to the King, but, nonetheless one that still maintained it's power the tried and true way by also threatening the adherents with 'hell' if they crossed any line drawn by the 'priests', or 'pastors' as they were now ecumenically charged with being.
Now, given what I've read on Tentmaker, I don't think there is anyone here who will disagree with these facts. And so, to the point for why I wrote all that out, I ask:
"Given the deliberate, ulterior motivated dishonesty of the KJV interpreters, how can we trust the rest of their work? Indeed, why should we?
My answer is: I don't.
But many, I perceive, still do. And are, likely, unaware of it since I've never read or heard of anyone, ever, asking this question directly.
~
A lot has been written about Genesis 1-3, here on Tentmaker, with many varying interpretations, explanations and conclusions presented as facts to back the presenter's point.
I have perceived, then, for reading a number of these posts, that many of these conclusions, presented as facts, are, either somewhat, or else entirely, at odds with each other. That is to say, these ideas would contradict each other, in their logical conclusions, should they be put toe to toe.
So, what else is new? Eh?
It has been said, facetiously, but truthfully, that logic is a way of arriving at an incorrect conclusion with certainty.
Funny, yes, but, you know it's true.
However, do you know why it's true?
I do.
And I will share that knowledge with you, in time. Unless, of course, someone else here knows why the use of logic often leads to innaccurate conclusions and wants to make this dirty little secret known, ahead of me, which thing I would welcome.
But, first, I want all of you to know that I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar.
I am a nobody, both in The World and in The modern Christian Church.
I came to faith in Jesus Christ in the USAF soon after being caught smoking pot, again. Except the experience was real this time; much different and certainly not like when I walked the aisle, several times, an emotional wreck after hearing a sermon on hell and signed the 3x5 cards that declared me saved on whatever Sundays those were.
Therefore, I am a human, just like many of you, who, through faith in Jesus Christ- the only sexually begotten Son of His Father, Jehovah, who came, at the behest of His Father, to accomplish the forgiveness of sins through His death, burial and resurrection- experienced the forgiveness of a God Who is agape and was thus re-sired, through holy spirit, much like sperm creates a new life when it pentrates an ovum, to take His nature and thus be free to live my life unto Him, freed from sin and provided with a cleansed conscience, which then becomes my responsibility to maintain through confession, when I do sin, as well as through consistently choosing to do good, even as it prompts me to do it.
And this on-going thing, growing inside me, where I'm told the kingdom of the heavens is, has so changed the meaning of my life that, in an effort to understand what I was going through, I, too, learned to use Strong's and interlinears and dictionaries et.al. just like you did, in my own search, so that I might gain an understanding of the truth that was happening to me.
*Whew* That was a mouthful wasn't it? Did you like how I worked my theology, my understanding, into that statement and included you in with it? Pretty good, huh?
And so I ask, did what I type describe your experience with the God Who is agape, that is, 'fondness and affection'?
Or would you disagree, theologically, from your own understanding, or from the understanding of others, on some point or another, with what I have typed?
In other words, I'm asking: "What do you think of what I typed?"
It's OK, you can tell me, I won't get mad at you, or belittle you, or call you names because I'm not out to challenge you but, rather, I am seeking for you to challenge me.
As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another. A truth that works well among those who are wise.
And that is why I am asking you all this because I want to engage in a dialogue with you- any one of you, or, as many of you that wish- in which I will further present my own understanding of Genesis, for discussion and debate, that I might further hone my own understanding for the challenge.
And maybe help you hone your's as well.
The reason I start with Genesis is because it seems logical to me that if I get Genesis, the book of begninings, for that is it's very name in Hebrew, then I will also get everythig else The Words have to say.
And this I will say of my own understanding: Even as the title of this post contains the Greek words katabole (Strong's # 2602) and themelios (Strong's # 2310), words that help define my understanding, a search of the website using these words and the English words used to translate them, found no one who seems to have drawn the same conclusions I have.
Which means that my understanding will be unique. At least as unique as you may consider the understanding you have to be.
And so we are on equal footing, with each of us having an understanding that is our own and me wanting to hear your's and comapre it with mine.
With that said, then, I invite You, Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus, to lead me into all truth.
Is the game afoot?
Well, I really liked your account on the creation of the KJV. Very well written! :thumbsup:
As far as reading it: I don't. I basically think, after learning about the history of it, as garbage. Perhaps beautifully written garbage, but garbage nonetheless.
As far as Hebrew and Greek, I wouldn't be one to consult on most of it. There's a lot more people on here who have been taught/taught themselves on these languages. God bless you in your search into Scriptures! :bigGrin:
:cloud9: Welcome to the Tent, Dennis :happygrin: Blessings....
Hi Dennis,
There is no game afoot.
One Truth, One Spirit — you know that.
Present the Word as the Spirit leads and you will meet your brothers in Christ.
Some in the world, some in the Seventh Heaven.
Quote from: Tim B on August 10, 2009, 12:53:06 AM
Well, I really liked your account on the creation of the KJV. Very well written! :thumbsup:
Thanks, Tim for the compliment! It's much appreciated.
QuoteAs far as reading it: I don't. I basically think, after learning about the history of it, as garbage. Perhaps beautifully written garbage, but garbage nonetheless.
For the longest time I used the Amplified Bible, but still found myself quoting the KJV, with explanations, as I learned why this was a bad word choice, etc. And that's because the English does flow so very well with the KJV, (like with I Cor 13). And it
should! After all it took them 117 years to 'get it right'! :laughing7:
But even the Amplified proved inadequate after a while.
That was when I found the Concordant Literal Version (http://www.concordant.org/version/index.html) or CLV. An amazing translation, even if it's not 'good English', for keeping the Greek aorist verb tense alive. I never realized how important that would be to understanding. And of course 'aion' is 'eon' and 'Gehenna' is well, 'Gehenna' etc.
I highly recommend it. And it sure is fun to read from when I meet with the ecclesia and someone asks, "Does anyone have a
different translation?" :happygrin:
QuoteAs far as Hebrew and Greek, I wouldn't be one to consult on most of it. There's a lot more people on here who have been taught/taught themselves on these languages. God bless you in your search into Scriptures! :bigGrin:
Awwww, I'm sure we could have some fun, Tim! 'Cause I'm not looking for a scholar, just someone to share idea's with.
What if I asked you real nice like to share with me what you your thoughts are on Genesis 1-3?
For example I would imagine you've asked yourself questions like these:
Why two trees??
And why create the Tree of Life
at all if Elohim already knew, before He created them, that He was going to have to banish them from eating it?
Why doesn't His foreknowledge of their turning make The Tree of Life a superfulous creation, at best and a deception at worst?
And why does The Tree of life return in The New Heaven and The New Earth (The New Universe) where all things are reconciled and restored to Jehovah?
Did The Adam have sex before the turning?
If not, then why not?
If so, then why didn't Ishsha get pregnant before the expulsion?
And how long
were they in the Garden?? Thirty minutes as Saint Augustine declared? Or longer?
Why did Elohim
have do things
this way, i.e. create a uniquely named tree whose fruit He had to forbid them from eating?
Was something else
supposed to happen, for them being 'set up', that didn't happen?
Why did the serpent's temptation work?
Was the serpent telling the truth in response to Ishsha's answer to his question, or lying?
Why does Paul insist Eve was the one responsible for the turning?
And what did Paul mean in that weird verse he wrote to Timothy about a woman being 'saved in childbirth'?
Why did Elohim have to create Ishsha by taking a 'rib' from Ish?
And why didn't Elohim have to breathe His Breath into
her?
So, Tim, are you even a bit tempted now to tell me what you've secretly and quietly concluded about Genesis 1-3?
'Cause I know you and every other human who has read The Words, has asked these questions, or one's like it And isn't it a truth that everyone's answers are as different as we are?
Which leads me to ask: Do you think it's even possible for us to know the truthful answers to these questions?
I can ask them, which means I'm sentient, like you, but, is there, in truth, an understanding that makes sense even as it answers all the questions I can ask, without contradiction?
If so, then shouldn't we be
trying to understand, till we do?
And if not, then why did Elohim go through the trouble of seeing to it that we have this account of the begining of the things we know?
Be good, Tim!
It's what you were created to be!
Dennis!
Quote from: Cardinal on August 10, 2009, 12:54:51 AM
:cloud9: Welcome to the Tent, Dennis :happygrin: Blessings....
Thank you, Cardinal!
So, do you want to offer up your ideas? :winkgrin:
Be good!
Dennis!
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 10, 2009, 05:01:30 AM
Hi Dennis,
There is no game afoot.
One Truth, One Spirit — you know that.
Yes, I do. And for that knowing, I can't help but ask: If this is true, which it is because truth is both singular in nature as well as knowable, then why is there so much contradiction in our personal understandings?
For it is also true that as (a man) thinks in his heart, so he is: Which is said in the context of a human with a begrudging heart.
So is it true, then, that because of what we think in our hearts, (for what is the heart if it is not the sum total of the thoughts that we act on?), that we contradict and argue with each other over our understandings and so we still do not know the truth?
I don't think so because the Spirit of Truth which is The Spirit of Jesus, is about knowing, through faith, without nessesarily understanding.
But what I do think is that we fail to acknowledge the truth that there are right and wrong
ways of thinking, even as the writers of the Proverbs divide humans into two types, the wise and the foolish,
based on how they think.
QuotePresent the Word as the Spirit leads and you will meet your brothers in Christ.
Do I understand what you are saying here to be that if I present my understanding, as statements of fact, (which I did, surreptitiously :winkgrin:) then I will find my 'brothers', that is those who would agree with me? Is that accurate?
Well, I thought I did do just that! It's just that I did so with questions (not a lot of statements) intended to invite others to think along with me- The good ol'fahioned Jewish way of teaching, don'tcah know? :winkgrin:
And so I'm very pleased to meet you!
So, what would you say if I invited you, also, to provide answers to the questions I asked from your own understanding?
For surely you have asked ones like it in your own search for truth? Eh?
And no, I didn't call you 'Shirley'!
You are a Beloved Servant, even as you have named yourself.
So, be good, even as you think.
Dennis!
If you like; I can share with you the name of a teacher that the Lord has brought to my life.
I stumble when I speak of my own accord.
Also, I did not name myself.
Beloved servant is the English translation of my actual name.
Quote from: Eleutheros on August 10, 2009, 07:54:52 PM
Quote from: Tim B on August 10, 2009, 12:53:06 AM
Well, I really liked your account on the creation of the KJV. Very well written! :thumbsup:
Thanks, Tim for the compliment! It's much appreciated.
QuoteAs far as reading it: I don't. I basically think, after learning about the history of it, as garbage. Perhaps beautifully written garbage, but garbage nonetheless.
For the longest time I used the Amplified Bible, but still found myself quoting the KJV, with explanations, as I learned why this was a bad word choice, etc. And that's because the English does flow so very well with the KJV, (like with I Cor 13). And it should! After all it took them 117 years to 'get it right'! :laughing7:
But even the Amplified proved inadequate after a while.
That was when I found the Concordant Literal Version (http://www.concordant.org/version/index.html) or CLV. An amazing translation, even if it's not 'good English', for keeping the Greek aorist verb tense alive. I never realized how important that would be to understanding. And of course 'aion' is 'eon' and 'Gehenna' is well, 'Gehenna' etc.
I highly recommend it. And it sure is fun to read from when I meet with the ecclesia and someone asks, "Does anyone have a different translation?" :happygrin:
QuoteAs far as Hebrew and Greek, I wouldn't be one to consult on most of it. There's a lot more people on here who have been taught/taught themselves on these languages. God bless you in your search into Scriptures! :bigGrin:
Awwww, I'm sure we could have some fun, Tim! 'Cause I'm not looking for a scholar, just someone to share idea's with.
What if I asked you real nice like to share with me what you your thoughts are on Genesis 1-3?
For example I would imagine you've asked yourself questions like these:
Why two trees??
And why create the Tree of Life at all if Elohim already knew, before He created them, that He was going to have to banish them from eating it?
Why doesn't His foreknowledge of their turning make The Tree of Life a superfulous creation, at best and a deception at worst?
And why does The Tree of life return in The New Heaven and The New Earth (The New Universe) where all things are reconciled and restored to Jehovah?
Did The Adam have sex before the turning?
If not, then why not?
If so, then why didn't Ishsha get pregnant before the expulsion?
And how long were they in the Garden?? Thirty minutes as Saint Augustine declared? Or longer?
Why did Elohim have do things this way, i.e. create a uniquely named tree whose fruit He had to forbid them from eating?
Was something else supposed to happen, for them being 'set up', that didn't happen?
Why did the serpent's temptation work?
Was the serpent telling the truth in response to Ishsha's answer to his question, or lying?
Why does Paul insist Eve was the one responsible for the turning?
And what did Paul mean in that weird verse he wrote to Timothy about a woman being 'saved in childbirth'?
Why did Elohim have to create Ishsha by taking a 'rib' from Ish?
And why didn't Elohim have to breathe His Breath into her?
So, Tim, are you even a bit tempted now to tell me what you've secretly and quietly concluded about Genesis 1-3?
'Cause I know you and every other human who has read The Words, has asked these questions, or one's like it And isn't it a truth that everyone's answers are as different as we are?
Which leads me to ask: Do you think it's even possible for us to know the truthful answers to these questions?
I can ask them, which means I'm sentient, like you, but, is there, in truth, an understanding that makes sense even as it answers all the questions I can ask, without contradiction?
If so, then shouldn't we be trying to understand, till we do?
And if not, then why did Elohim go through the trouble of seeing to it that we have this account of the begining of the things we know?
Be good, Tim!
It's what you were created to be!
Dennis!
Hey Dennis,
I actually do enjoy the Concordant Literal Version as well. I tend to trust the CLV, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (I've got this one on my iPod Touch :bigGrin: ), and Young's Literal Translation the most, for accuracy. Rotherham's Emphasized uses age-lasting/age-abiding rather than eternal, and so does Young's Literal (which is why I like that one too). Rotherham's also correctly translates Matthews 25:46 as "age-lasting correction" as opposed to "eternal punishment". Over all, these three tend to be, in general, much more accurate than other translations. :bigGrin:
As for your questions, I would enjoy looking into answering some of them. I'd also need to read Genesis 1-3. I haven't read that all the way through in quite a while. However, I'm not sure how soon I'll be getting back to ya, as I can be kind of lazy, and more importantly I'm leaving for my vacation today and may not have internet access (*sniffle*).
Love be with ya! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 10, 2009, 09:49:05 PM
If you like; I can share with you the name of a teacher that the Lord has brought to my life.
As you wish, I'll receive it. But, I'd prefer your own thoughts. Unless, of course, all they are is what your teacher has told you to think, in which case your teacher would do fine!
Why don't you have him read my post and reply, if you don't want to?
QuoteI stumble when I speak of my own accord.
So did Moses, don'tcha, know? Besides, you'll be typing, not speaking. And wouldn't you know that I have a stammer in my own speech that can break concrete? :grin:
QuoteAlso, I did not name myself.
Beloved servant is the English translation of my actual name.
Now that is cool! I mean
really cool! Thanks for sharing that!
My full name, from the Greek and Latin, means that I am the god of both drinking and revelrey, as well as war.
*sigh*
Oh, well, I gotta new name coming. Maybe it will be Eleutheros. At least I wasn't named
Nabal, eh?
Be good!
Dennis!
Quote from: Tim B on August 10, 2009, 09:54:34 PMHey Dennis,
I actually do enjoy the Concordant Literal Version as well. I tend to trust the CLV, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (I've got this one on my iPod Touch :bigGrin: ), and Young's Literal Translation the most, for accuracy. Rotherham's Emphasized uses age-lasting/age-abiding rather than eternal, and so does Young's Literal (which is why I like that one too). Rotherham's also correctly translates Matthews 25:46 as "age-lasting correction" as opposed to "eternal punishment". Over all, these three tend to be, in general, much more accurate than other translations. :bigGrin:
I'm familiar with Young's. It's a bit stilted, but as you said He did accurately translate 'aion'.
Rotherham's, eh? I will look into this one as I've never heard of it till now. Thanks for sharing!
QuoteAs for your questions, I would enjoy looking into answering some of them. I'd also need to read Genesis 1-3. I haven't read that all the way through in quite a while. However, I'm not sure how soon I'll be getting back to ya, as I can be kind of lazy, and more importantly I'm leaving for my vacation today and may not have internet access (*sniffle*).
Love be with ya! :thumbsup:
Well, you just have a
really great vactaion! I know I just did!
Here's an idea: Why don't you print out the questions and discuss them with your traveling companion (are you married?), especially if you are driving. You'd likely learn a thing or two in the process! As you wish!
God speed you into a good time! :bgdance:
Dennis!
Yes, the Lord provided Aaron but Moses paid a price for it.
Here is a link: www.kingdombiblestudies.org
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 10, 2009, 10:31:49 PM
Yes, the Lord provided Aaron but Moses paid a price for it.
Here is a link: www.kingdombiblestudies.org
Hey!
Thank you for the link. I went to it and got only the home page. Was there a specific article of his that you wanted me to read? He's got a
lot of them, you know.
I'd be glad to read the one you had in mind if you can let me know which one it is!
Of course I know the story of how Moses argued with Jehovah (imagine that!) till, exasperated (imagine that!), Jehovah named Aaron to be Moses' mouth.
But how are you saying that Moses' paying for having Aaron as his spokesman applies to you? I'm a bit confused. What am I missing?
If you are so inclined, could you help me to understand?
And continue to be good, my friend.
Dennis!
"Echoes of Eden," as the title suggests, speaks much about Genesis.
Hi Dennis. Over on the evangelical universalist site, there is one who has stated that there is some internal evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-3 are not literal, which I find very interesting.
Quote from: Doc on August 11, 2009, 02:36:55 AM
Hi Dennis. Over on the evangelical universalist site, there is one who has stated that there is some internal evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-3 are not literal, which I find very interesting.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Genesis wasn't to be taken literally. It might in fact, better harmonize it with possible scientific discoveries. Do you have a link to the thread, Doc?
Quote from: Tim B on August 11, 2009, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: Doc on August 11, 2009, 02:36:55 AM
Hi Dennis. Over on the evangelical universalist site, there is one who has stated that there is some internal evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-3 are not literal, which I find very interesting.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Genesis wasn't to be taken literally. It might in fact, better harmonize it with possible scientific discoveries. Do you have a link to the thread, Doc?
What is literal?
Literal the way it's translated or the way the ancient texts describe things?
IMO Genesis' "days" could very well be the same type of translation error as aionos. But in reverse. And that's just one thing...
Quote from: Tim B on August 11, 2009, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: Doc on August 11, 2009, 02:36:55 AM
Hi Dennis. Over on the evangelical universalist site, there is one who has stated that there is some internal evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-3 are not literal, which I find very interesting.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Genesis wasn't to be taken literally. It might in fact, better harmonize it with possible scientific discoveries. Do you have a link to the thread, Doc?
To all:
A good while back, after hearing the evidence on both sides as to whether Genesis should or shouldn't be taken literally, I realized that it will always boil down to a choice made by the individual as to which way they
want to interpret it.
I will be honset enough, then, to admit that after weighing the arguments for and against, I
want to believe that Genesis is an account of real time events that really took place involving real flesh and blood human beings.
And the primary reason, among many, that I
want to believe that Genesis is an accurate and historical account of the real-time creation of the world is because Jesus, Himself, quoted from it, often,
as if it were.
Paul once said this to Timothy:"...For of these are those who are slipping into homes and are leading into captivity little women, heaped with sins, being led by various lusts and gratifications,
always learning and yet not at any time able to come into a realization of the truth.And so I ask how does anyone know when, through their learning, they have arrived at a realization of the truth.
My answer is because at some point along the way I recognized that I have to make a choice and move on with it,
building on that choice, until I am presented with good cause to go back and reexamine it.
(As well as being rid of the ulterior motives generated by the guilt of sin that lead me to want to choose a way of thinking that I know is wrong because of my need to justify a guilty conscience. But that's another thought,
not applicable here.)
And that answer comes from realizing the truth, even as I wrote it above to Beloved Servant, that, in truth, there are right and wrong
ways of thinking, just as the Proverbs divide humans into two types, the wise and the foolish,
based on the way they think.
I have found then that the way of thinking that begins with believing that Genesis is allegorical or metaphorical or anything
but literal leads me to a logical dead end, leaving more questions behind than it answered.
For
one of the ways you know you're aquiring truth is that difficult questions, of a sudden, have answers.
And for that being said, I recognize that, in choosing to believe that Genesis should be read literaly and because of Jehovah's foreknowledge, from which we conclude that He must have known that The Adam was going to turn before He created them, there are many very difficult questions to answer, even as I have asked a few of them above.
And so I conclude that, for many, the way of thinking that follows
wanting to choose to believe that Genesis should
not be taken literally, stems from a desire to find a way to answer those hard questions that the Genesis narrative poses for our conclusion that Jehovah knew The Adam was going to turn before He created them.
And of course there is the fact that as soon as we as humans
want to believe something we then search for the facts we need to back up what we've already concluded.
And so, we argue.
However it is a trap that is avoidable, if you are aware of your own thoughts enough that you can recognize
why you want to believe something is true. And then be able to examine that motive and discern whether it is an honest one or an ulterior one.
Be good!
Dennis!
Quote from: Tim B on August 11, 2009, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: Doc on August 11, 2009, 02:36:55 AM
Hi Dennis. Over on the evangelical universalist site, there is one who has stated that there is some internal evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-3 are not literal, which I find very interesting.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Genesis wasn't to be taken literally. It might in fact, better harmonize it with possible scientific discoveries. Do you have a link to the thread, Doc?
I'll see if I can find it. He doesn't really go into detail in the thread itself, but I think he posts a link to something he's written that has some relationship to what he was talking about. I'll see if I can find it, and I'll post it here if I can find it.
Here's the link to the thread. It's James Goetz's post on the first page. You might need to register to view the page, I don't know.
http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=424&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=Genesis
Here's the link to the original article he wrote that he was referencing in the thread:
http://theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/09/theistic-evolution-and-christian.html
Thanks Doc for the links!
I skimmed through them, he is quite thorough and quite verbose, but he isn't saying anything new- even as his extensive bibliography at the end of the article shows.
He has chosen to believe that:
Quote"...the Bible is to be taken figuratively specifically with respect to the creation of Adam and Eve."
Which means that he likely takes
most everything else in The Words 'literally' because 'literally' is the antonym of 'figuratively'.
And so I would ask why does he
want to do this?
Not because I'm necessarily interested in his answer, but to illustrate that because he has, in his thinking,
chosen to isolate the creation account of The Adam from the rest of The Words, he likely has an ulterior motive.
That is not a bad thing, necessarily, if he can own-up to why he wants to believe this and if he is in tune enough with his own thoughts to grasp how important it is for humans to be able to understand
why we want to believe what we do.
For I have found that this kind of honesty will take a human far in grasping truth.
He does seem to believe that The Words are inspired by Jehovah. However, his isolating out the creation account
to be interpreted differently from the rest of what Moses compiled is the same as saying that Jehovah must have
meant for the human who wrote the creation account to write it figuratively.
And from that I would have to ask why would Jehovah want/need to do this given that the very straightforward language of the account parallels the rest of the
literal history in Genesis?
Besides, as I said, Jesus refrenced Genesis,
all of it, as if were an accurate historical account of real time-events involving real time humans.
And that is proof enough for me to choose to believe that
all of Genesis should be taken literally, despite the serious problems caused in our thinking for the conclusion that Jehovah knew The Adam was going to turn
before He created them.
And it's likely, given the history I am familiar with, that the speculative answers he would give, in support of his conclusion and in answer to my question, would only lead to more arguments, instead of correct conclusions.
So, Doc, I ask
you, "Is there an understanding of Genesis that answers more questions than it raises? An understanding that is simple and doesn't require pages and pages of words to explain?"
What do you think?
Be good!
Dennis!
P.S. I've been away for the last 5 days and that is why this reply was slow in comming.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 11, 2009, 04:44:34 PMWhat is literal?
Literal the way it's translated or the way the ancient texts describe things?
IMO Genesis' "days" could very well be the same type of translation error as aionos. But in reverse. And that's just one thing...
I would answer literal
enough to convey the needed facts intended to lead one to a
correct conclusiuon, assuming the axioms (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom) in our thinking accurately reflect reality.
And that would hold true for any translation that made an honest attempt at accuracy. Assuming that Jehovah is watching over The Words to make sure we have what we need to understand (an axiom).
For instance:
yom can mean day, days, weeks, or years, or even shorter times than 'a day'. This is a fact. And therefore,
a truth.
And so it is logical to
assume (an axiom) that the writer knew of the limitations inherent in this word and how it's use could mislead from what he intended to say.
And so (the conclusion) to convey accurately what he intended to say he added
two things to each occurence of
yom; an ordinate number: one, two, three etc. And the phrase "the evening and the morning was the
x day".
This is an example of using logic to arrive at a correct conclusion, based on facts and an axiom that accurately reflects reality.
Of course, all that can be truthfully said, with accuracy, of this conclusion is that the writer of this account
believed that The Heavens and The Earth were created in six literal days
because of how he/she modifed
yomWhich means it's up to you, White Wings, to decide if you
want to beleieve the same, right along with the writer! For there are many, many other logical conclusions out there to pick and choose from, any of which can be used to support what you
want to believe.
And so I say be good!
it's what you were created to be!
Dennis!
Quote from: Eleutheros on August 16, 2009, 07:34:17 PM
Thanks Doc for the links!
I skimmed through them, he is quite thorough and quite verbose, but he isn't saying anything new- even as his extensive bibliography at the end of the article shows.
He has chosen to believe that:
Quote"...the Bible is to be taken figuratively specifically with respect to the creation of Adam and Eve."
Which means that he likely takes most everything else in The Words 'literally' because 'literally' is the antonym of 'figuratively'.
And so I would ask why does he want to do this?
Not because I'm necessarily interested in his answer, but to illustrate that because he has, in his thinking, chosen to isolate the creation account of The Adam from the rest of The Words, he likely has an ulterior motive.
That is not a bad thing, necessarily, if he can own-up to why he wants to believe this and if he is in tune enough with his own thoughts to grasp how important it is for humans to be able to understand why we want to believe what we do.
For I have found that this kind of honesty will take a human far in grasping truth.
He does seem to believe that The Words are inspired by Jehovah. However, his isolating out the creation account to be interpreted differently from the rest of what Moses compiled is the same as saying that Jehovah must have meant for the human who wrote the creation account to write it figuratively.
And from that I would have to ask why would Jehovah want/need to do this given that the very straightforward language of the account parallels the rest of the literal history in Genesis?
Besides, as I said, Jesus refrenced Genesis, all of it, as if were an accurate historical account of real time-events involving real time humans.
And that is proof enough for me to choose to believe that all of Genesis should be taken literally, despite the serious problems caused in our thinking for the conclusion that Jehovah knew The Adam was going to turn before He created them.
And it's likely, given the history I am familiar with, that the speculative answers he would give, in support of his conclusion and in answer to my question, would only lead to more arguments, instead of correct conclusions.
So, Doc, I ask you, "Is there an understanding of Genesis that answers more questions than it raises? An understanding that is simple and doesn't require pages and pages of words to explain?"
What do you think?
Be good!
Dennis!
P.S. I've been away for the last 5 days and that is why this reply was slow in comming.
I don't really know the answer to your question. I would bet though that James G. would say that a non-literal interpretation does answer more questions than it raises, because as I believe he points out, there are significant problems with a literal interpretation. My guess is that this is his motive for believing what he does.
I do think that we tend to oversimplify some portions of the scripture rather than the opposite. I would also say that any explanation of scripture that goes against the mainstream view is necessarily going to require pages of explanation.
Quote from: Doc link=topic=6555.msg72001#msg72001
I don't really know the answer to your question.
Hey Doc!,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Been busy! I hope that doesn't take the edge off our converstaion, so far.
Well, for me to answer my own question with, "Yes, there is an understanding of Genesis that is simple and elegant", would be for me to be implying that I have an answer that meets the criteria I set forth in my question.
And I do. And it is different, as I said before and as near as I've been able to determine. That is, I've not found anyone else, yet, who's
started their understanding of Genesis with the *ahem* 'foundational' axiom I begin with, anyway.
QuoteI would bet though that James G. would say that a non-literal interpretation does answer more questions than it raises, because as I believe he points out, there are significant problems with a literal interpretation. My guess is that this is his motive for believing what he does.
I would agree with your assessment. But, will then ask,
which questions is he trying to answer by choosing to believe that the Creation account was meant to be taken figuratively?
The hard questions raised by the Augustinian/Calvinist conclusion that Elohim
must know that The Adam was going to turn
before He created them?
QuoteI do think that we tend to oversimplify some portions of the scripture rather than the opposite. I would also say that any explanation of scripture that goes against the mainstream view is necessarily going to require pages of explanation.
A logical conclusion. My reply to that would be to quote Occam's Razor, an axiom used in the scientific method to differentiate competing hypothesis: Simply stated it is:
"When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."Of course, theology has always been strong on using (or abusing) logic and short on proof (exactly like the various cosmologies that are created to support evolution), but, still, I believe the Razor holds true, even with theology, so that the fewer assumptions (axioms) needed to support a conclusion, the closer to the truth the conclusions are.
Simplicity is elegance and to be elegant is to be beautiful. So, is there in truth
no beauty?
There have been over 125 'reads' of this thread and a few polite replies. So, I perceive that there may yet be
some interest in what I've typed, so far.
Lets see what happens now.
First off: As promised, logic's 'dirty little secret':
I have found that truth is split into two varieties or kinds.
First, there are facts, which are easily understood and verifiable statements of truth.
"The sky is blue."
"I love my wife."
"My van needs an oil change."
"My cats are hungry."
"That word is spelled wrong."
"Tony Stewart is the 2005 Nextel Cup Champion."
"Combining Sodium (Na) a metal, with water (H2O) a covalently bonded compound, will cause a violent reaction, generating heat and motion till either the sodium or the water are completely consumed in the transformation process."
And there are axioms. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom)
I like this definition of an axiom:
An axiom is a formal assumption, also called a postulate, which
we propose to assume is always valid.
While
we are free to formulate axioms
anyway we please, it is clearly desirable that any axioms we adopt lead to useful consequences.
A set of axioms must not lead to contradictory conclusions.The words
property,
law and
principle are sometimes used to denote an axiom and certain of their consequences.
That came from my old Algebra text book.
However, can you see how that definiton applies in all areas of expertise and experience where human beings exist together?
In Law they are called Natural Law.
In relationships they are called Principals.
In other branches of science they are called Properties.
They are self-evident truths that usually can't be proven, except by experience, and are generally accepted as true because they simply
make sense to all humans everywhere.
Here are a few well known axioms:
a=a
Don't murder.
a+b+c = (a+b)+c
Don't take what doesn't belong to you
a(b+c)= ab+ac
Don't lie
The shortest distant between two points is a straight line
Don't have sex with anyone you're not married to.
If a=b and b=c then a=c.
Don't desire what you can't have.
Also, many proverbs and sayings are axiomatic because they reflect the truth of our experiences in a succinct, often whimsical, but sometimes ruthless, way.
Now, the truth is that truth works hand in hand with logic to provide conclusions with
useful consequences.
But, the 'dirty little secret' is that
logic works independently of the truth in the statements.That is, you will
always arrive at a logical conclusion!
So, it follows, logically, that if the statements are true then the conclusion will also be true. But,
if any of the statements are false, either axiomatically or factually, then the conclusion will also be false.But the kicker is
there will always be a conclusion!
And that is why we argue, fuss and fight over our theologies! Because the logic of each and every theology (including mine) always has assumptions. And those assumptions are as different as there are humans who want to beleive what they want to believe.
And that is because, all to often, we search until we find the axioms that we can use to give us the conclusions we
want. And axioms can always be 'found' because we can make them up as we wish, 'proving' them later.
That is why it has been said of logic, facetiously, that it is a way of arriving at an incorrect conclusion with certianty!
And why I say, "Don't believe everything you think."
These are (whimsical) sayings and are, therefore, axioms. :happygrin:
OK. That's enough for now.
I don't want to go any further with my typing till I read an engaging reply from anyone who is curious about what I am blathering on about.
And the reason is because if there is no
real interest by anyone on Tentmaker in what I am typing here, then I'd rather move on.
For that is why I included, in my original post, a summation of the role the KJV translators played in establishing the theology of Saint Augustine and John Calvin in the English speaking mind; a theology whose conclusions most of you have rejected, at leat in part.
I say, in part, because I perceive that many of you still hold as truth several axioms that are an integral and necessary part of the theology of that misanthropic saint, Augustine and his sychophant, John Calvin.
In other words, I wrote my summation to show my solidarity, at least in part, with what you are wanting to accomplish here on Tentmaker and so demonstrate that I am not a threat. At least not yet, even as your perception of me will be what it will be.
And I choose Tentmaker to present these ideas of mine for debate because most all of you (even if you weren't aware of it) have experience in identifying inaccurate axioms and formulating the accurate axioms that lead you to the truthful and therefore correct conclusion that Jesus' accomplisment of the forgivness of sins was to reconcile
all things to the Father, including every human being who has lived, is living and will live,
against the tortured (and torturing) conclusions of Saint Augustine, as reflected in the logical and systematic theology
designed by John Calvin to support Augustine's conclusions. A theology that
heavily biased the KJV interpretors with the result that they
made The Words say what they
wanted them to say.
So, if there is no one on Tentmaker, who's interest I've peaked enough from what I've typed, so far, to engage me further, by answering some of my questions from their own understanding and in turn, asking some questions in return, then I will feel free to move on.
But, not before I encourage you all, once more, to be good!
It is, after all, what all of you, indeed every single human being, was created to be!
Dennis!
I forget what we were talking about now. :laughing7:
I really had just meant to throw that in there to add to the discussion; I haven't looked into it enough personally to have come to a conclusion one way or another about it.
Anyway, I have come to view the scripture as containing spiritual truths that are mainly independent of their historicity. In other words, the truths God intended to communicate through Genesis are not dependent on it being a literally understood historical account, and some of it may make more sense in the big picture, or at least correlate better with other things if we do not hold dogmatically to literal interpretations. I believe that was my only point.
Quote from: Doc on August 24, 2009, 09:51:53 PM
I forget what we were talking about now. :laughing7:
Hey Doc!
This thread does seem to have wandered a bit! But really it hasn't.
QuoteI really had just meant to throw that in there to add to the discussion; I haven't looked into it enough personally to have come to a conclusion one way or another about it.
Well, you may not be the
exact kind of curious and questioning soul I am, looking for truth by
making decisions on the 'hard' things and then building on them to see where the conclusions take me. After all, you can always keep a decision unmade!
And sometimes, I've observed, non-decision (which
is a decision, after all!) is necessary when the logical conclusions of making a decision are uncomfortable for leading one away from where one's thoughts want to go. Or worse, the conclusions challenge the 'truth' of a long held axiom which has become foundational to the belief system that we all build up in our thoughts for the things we
do make a choice to believe.
It's quite human to do this. And another of the reasons we argue fuss and fight over our theologies.
Because for something as foundational in our thinking as the answer to the questions, "How did we get here? And "How did we come to be how we are?" we
must have an answer that doesn't contradict, in it's conclusion's, every
other conclusion we hold as axiomatic.
In other words, we, as humans, living in this age of multiple-choice tend to let the other conclusions we
like decide, for us, how we want to perceive our origins. Either choosing one explanation from among the many, or, even choosing to combine them syncretically and thus be conciliatory and 'stop the bickering'. As well as choosing
not to choose.
Rather than letting the literal truth of our origins, as laid out in Genesis, interfere with what we have otherwise concluded because we
know that a literal interpretation of Genesis
seriously narrows our choices from among the conclusions that we want to hold as axiomatic concerning the other things of scripture that we want to believe.
After all, no one likes to have their 'foundations' shaken.
And so there is usually a negative, but, understandable, human response to the 'shaking of our foundations'. And this phenomenon most of you here on Tentmaker witness regularly as you present and argue for the biblical truth of Universal Reconciliation to those believers who hold sincerely to the late-coming, ulterior-motivated, hell-minded theologies that have driven modern Christianity for the last 1700 years or so.
So, that being said and addressing this question to all I ask, for the purpose of reflection:
"How did you come to believe UR? What about it 'pushed you over the edge', so to speak? And did you notice, once you accepted it's truth, that it changed the
way you think? Did you then find that there were several
other things you used to believe, axiomatically,
other conclusions you once held as truth that 'had to go' because the logical conclusions that came from your new belief
contradicted the logical conclusions of your old beliefs?
Of course you did.
And that is why I am here typing to you all because all of you here, among all of the Believers, have experienced a true paradigm shift,
after your re-birth, that changed your way of thinking and thus,
changed your heart (For what is
the heart if it is not the sum total of our thoughts?). And that, for the better, even as you know what I just typed is the truth.
QuoteAnyway, I have come to view the scripture as containing spiritual truths that are mainly independent of their historicity. In other words, the truths God intended to communicate through Genesis are not dependent on it being a literally understood historical account, and some of it may make more sense in the big picture, or at least correlate better with other things (Wow! You just annotated my point!Ed.) if we do not hold dogmatically to literal interpretations. I believe that was my only point.
For what I've read here on Tentmaker, Doc, you have pretty well summed up the point of view of most concerning our origins. Even as I perceive that many
must believe like this for their already choosing to make the conclusions of a pretristic eschatology the
primary focus of their belief system, adjusting their view on origins and
methods of interpretation so that the logical conclusions derived from the pretristic
way of thinking can be upheld against the contradictory conclusions arrived at for the literal
way of thinking about our origins.
Rather than letting the literal and therefore,
limiting truth of Genesis influence their eschatology, which, eschatology, is really only a secondary theme in scripture whose accurate understanding is derived from the truth of the primary things of scripture, not vice-versa. A truth.
As well as working, I have also perceived, to syncretically combine John Calvin's Johnny-come-lately, Latinized interpretation of 'predestination' with UR. And that (surprisingly enough for me, once I started talking with other UR-minded believers),
despite rejecting most every
other axiom in his mis-leading logic
needed to make his flawed, hell-minded theology viable!
Oh, boy! Now I've stepped in it! :bigGrin:
So, what do you think? :thumbsup: :thumbdown: :dontknow: :rolllol: :laughhand: :Chinscratch: :fool:
How did what I just typed make you feel? Am I arrogant for being so bold as to challenge this way? Am I now perceived by any of you as a threat, even as the emotion of resentment may have been roused in you for what you just read and that because of what you believe?
Or might I possibly have an understanding of Genesis you've never considered before? An understanding that
might even cause a good paradigm shift in your thinking, even as you have experienced this kind of shift before when the conclusions derived from the logic of UR swayed you to it's accurate
way of thinking?
Be good!
It's what you were created to be!
So, what do I think? I have no idea at this point, as I really am not clearly following the gist of where you're going with this.
Are you saying that if we view Genesis only through a literal lens, we will be led into error concerning our origins as well as many points of doctrine throughout the scripture?
If so, then I agree with you.
Quote from: Doc on August 26, 2009, 09:22:31 PM
So, what do I think? I have no idea at this point, as I really am not clearly following the gist of where you're going with this.
OK. I don't know what to say to this, Doc. I'm being as succinct as I know how to be for trying to
draw others into a discussion that, apparently, none are interested in.
I say that because no one here has attempted, yet, to actually answer any question I've put out there, even you Doc. Or even replied back with their thoughts on my replies to theirs, except for you, Doc.
So, I guess either I'm unable to arouse curiosity or else no one's curiosity is peaked enough to repond. Or it could be, also, that there are those who
do know what I'm getting at and wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
QuoteAre you saying that if we view Genesis only through a literal lens, we will be led into error concerning our origins as well as many points of doctrine throughout the scripture?
No. In fact, Doc, I'm saying
exactly the opposite. :umnick:
So, either you didn't
read my post but just skimmed it, or I am unable to communicate. :dontknow:
QuoteIf so, then I agree with you.
I can guarantee, then, that if you go back and read my post through, that you won't. Unless, of course, I am unable to communicate with the written word.
And thus I think that there is nothing more for me to say here because I'm sure that your understanding, as you just stated it, is reflective of the majority opinion. And if there
is an independent minority opinion here on Tentmaker, one that has not been shaped by the logical conclusions of Preterism and Calvinism, then those who hold that opinion are either timid or uninterested or else have not read this post. Or, it is even as I said it before, that I am unable to communicate.
So, once again, I encourage you all to be good, even as you were created to be!
I frankly find your posts hard to follow, because as I pointed out, I can't really quite work out from them what you're getting at. As you have perhaps guessed, your communication is not getting through effectively.
However, after that last post, it seems that you are championing a literal interpretation of Genesis. Perhaps if you would care to outline in some clear detail why you think this is the best interpretation, we may have something to discuss. Also, I fail to see how preterism impacts our interpretation of Genesis at all, as it's more typically applied to the interpretation of Revelation; and as far as I'm aware, the logical conclusions of Calvinism are the farthest thing from my understanding of Genesis. I would venture to guess that most of us here at Tent are not preterists, although we may have some leanings in that direction.
I guess in an attempt to answer an earlier question, I don't necessarily agree that the seeming "simplest" solution is the best one. Although this may usually be the case, it all depends on your perspective of simplicity. Sometimes the simplest solutions actually require more explanation, not less, because of the way people have been indoctrinated to think about certain things. This can make the simpler answers seem more complicated than they really are. I run into this all the time in patient education...
:cloud9: I, for one, did not get the gist of what you were getting at, Eleutheros. Blessings....
Nor I Card.
I for one, hate my flesh.
There is nothing good in it alone.
It is, however, going to be filled with the glory/nature of God, the whole purpose of Christ!
HI Eleutheros,
I have been following the discussion, and so I for one am interested in the discussion. The Bible says that we should be quick to listen and slow to speak. Right now, I am being slow to speak because I have listened and still do not understand where you are going. I got the impression that you favored a figurative interpretation of Genesis as well. So that is a pattern, meaning that if many different people are saying they don't understand your words, the conclusion is most likely that your are not communicating clearly enough, or that your style of writing is hard to grasp. I hope you don't take that as a discouragement. I am the kind of person that likes clarity, give it to me clear. But I don't want to put that demand on you. It is just that because the way my mind works, I will probably have to patiently wait until I can see what you are getting at.
This post in this spot is a computer glitch so, ignore this post; it doesn't really exist.
Hi again,
I would challenge the notion that because something takes pages and pages and many words, that it is not simple. For example, the gospel is incredibly simple. Yet look at how many pages and pages written about it in Romans. How about Hebrews? Those books describe a very simple truth, however they do it through pages of explanation. Simplicity is the quality of being easy to understand. A long explanation does not in itself define something as being difficult to understand, and it does not necessitate complexity. In fact, if something is too concisely stated, leaving out important points, that can actually lead to LESS simplicity and more confusion. Just wanted to throw that out there.
Quote from: Doc on August 26, 2009, 11:01:07 PM
I frankly find your posts hard to follow, because as I pointed out, I can't really quite work out from them what you're getting at. As you have perhaps guessed, your communication is not getting through effectively.
This is good. Thank you for helping me to grasp what I need to know. I will review and see what I can do better.
QuoteHowever, after that last post, it seems that you are championing a literal interpretation of Genesis. Perhaps if you would care to outline in some clear detail why you think this is the best interpretation, we may have something to discuss.
But I
did offer just such details, in several places, over several posts in this thread
QuoteAlso, I fail to see how preterism impacts our interpretation of Genesis at all,...
I know. And I'm not sure, right now, how to convey
why it does.
Except to say that, of truth, our
understanding of Genesis, of which a part is how we choose to interpret it, should be influencing our understanding of prophesy more than how we interpret prophesy should determine the stand we take on how we choose to interpret Genesis.
For when the
primary focus of an over all understanding of The Words
hinges on Prophesy, which I've noticed that Preterism must focus down on prophesy to be viable, then there is a
need to interpret Genesis in the same way we arrive at our eschatological conclusions- by either spiritualizing the text into allegory, when it's conveinient, or taking it literally, allowing, of course, for legitimate metaphor, hyperbole and analogy, when it's convenient. And it is that point where
how you choose to interpret prophesy does affect how you interpret the creation account as well. That's what my previously misunderstood post was really trying to lead to- simply stared.
Clear as mud?
Quote...as it's more typically applied to the interpretation of Revelation;
What I've actually found is that Preterism's logic works best on Jesus' Olivet discourse much more than it does with
The Unveiling or 'Revelation' as it's named in English.
Quote... and as far as I'm aware, the logical conclusions of Calvinism are the farthest thing from my understanding of Genesis.
*Smile* So, do you believe that Elohim knew
as a fact that The Adam was going to turn before He created them? If so then you have just linked one of the consequences of John Calvin's, KJV supported (that is, it's not found in the original words) doctrine of predestination to Genesis.
For there is nothing
anywhere in the Genesis text, when read litertally, that can lead one, by itself, to the conclusion that Elohim knew
as a fact that they were going to turn
before He created them.
Nothing.
In fact, a truly literal reading will actually lead
away from that conclusion, leaving one confused and questioning; assuming one came to Genesis with that Calvinistic conclusion
firmly planted into his mind
as a fact. After all Jehovah
must have known or else He couldn't be God? Right?
QuoteI would venture to guess that most of us here at Tent are not preterists, although we may have some leanings in that direction.
Very nicely put! Because I know that there are many who would call themselves only
partial preterists. And that, I believe, is because of the conundrum created for trying to relate
all of The Unveiling to a 'this has already been fullfilled'
way of thinking. Nonetheless, I have observed that the preteristic
way of thinking is dominat here on Tentmaker.
QuoteI guess in an attempt to answer an earlier question, I don't necessarily agree that the seeming "simplest" solution is the best one. Although this may usually be the case, it all depends on your perspective of simplicity. Sometimes the simplest solutions actually require more explanation, not less, because of the way people have been indoctrinated to think about certain things.
Well put! I couldn't agree more even as I have just likely challenged an indoctrination in your own thinking! :happygrin:
QuoteThis can make the simpler answers seem more complicated than they really are. I run into this all the time in patient education...
Believe it or not Doc, you have just hit the nail on the head of what I've been trying to say! Except I was trying to add, also, the reasons for
why I believe this is true!
I would put it this way:
Once understood,
once comprehension is grasped the
truthful answer is indeed simplistic and immediatley answers many, if not all, of the nagging questions raised by the previously presented, non-truthful answers with the reuslt being that, because it's truth, the gained understanding not only clears things up that were previously muddied, but also serves as a springboard to answer questions seemingly unrealted before.
That is what I meant by
simplicity. Not just 'being simple'. For often simplicity is
not simple to grasp because of not only
what we think, even as you pointed out,
but because of how we think.
And trying to illustrate
how we think is what I've
mostly been mostly typing about, so far.
Quote from: Cardinal on August 26, 2009, 11:05:00 PM
:cloud9: I, for one, did not get the gist of what you were getting at, Eleutheros. Blessings....
Well, to be honest I really haven't presented the gist yet. I've hinted at it. Strongly. But, mostly I've been exploring how to present these ideas in the way that I've come to them, by illustrating first how we think. So, I think that it is my way of thinking about how I think that is foreign. (Gotta smile at that one!)
For that has been my current goal, to arouse the interest of others so that they begin to think about how we think.
So, could you? Would you? Keep trying? These things that are in my heart to share aren't easy to present partly because these concepts of mine are unique in that I've not yet come across anyone who has drawn the same conclusions I have.
In other words, Cardinal, I find myself exactly as Doc described it so eloquently:
QuoteSometimes the simplest solutions actually require more explanation, not less, because of the way people have been indoctrinated to think about certain things.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 26, 2009, 11:12:07 PM
Nor I Card.
I'm sorry about that Beloved. I am trying though, to be clear.
QuoteI for one, hate my flesh.
There is nothing good in it alone.
Wow. I think I know what your trying to say here, Beloved, paraphrasing Rom 7:18. But, I'm not really sure. However, it does sound to me like your theology has really done a number on you! Wow. I wish you could not hate that which is supposed to be dead in you!
So, I will ask: "What is it then
exactly that you hate?" Yes I know how Paul used this word, 'flesh', in Romans 7:18 But I would ask: "Was this before or after 'the old man was put to death' in him?" For he also said of flesh that, "... no one at any time hates his own flesh, but is nurturing and cherishing it, according as Christ also the ecclesia, for we are members of His body."
And he also said this: "...you also were put to death to the law through the body of Christ, for you to become Another's, Who is roused from among the dead,
that we should be bearing fruit to God. For, when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were through the law, operated in our members to be bearing fruit to Death. YET
NOW we were exempted from the law,
dying in that in which we were retained, so that it is for us to be slaving in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter."
And we are told by Jehovah, through both Moses and Jesus, that we are to love our neighbour
as we love ourselves. Which prompts me to ask how we can know how to love them if we don't first know how to love ourselves?
So, I would ask bluntly why you feel you should still hate what the Lord has done away with in you? Why do you spend time hating what is supposed to be dead? Why spend time hating
at all?
QuoteIt is, however, going to be filled with the glory/nature of God, the whole purpose of Christ!
Shouldn't that be true now? After all you have been begotten anew and that by the very sperm of Jehovah, even as John said here: "Everyone
who is begotten of God is not doing sin, for His sperm is remaining in him, and
he can not be sinning, for he is begotten of God."
Do you understand, Beloved Servant, that I am not asking you these things to decry you but to get you to think beyond the Christianese you quote so well to the real thoughts these words are supposed to represent? In other words do you know that I care that you understand and so that is why I am blunt?
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2009, 12:14:40 AM
HI Eleutheros,
Hey Seth! Glad to have you chiming in!
QuoteI have been following the discussion, and so I for one am interested in the discussion. The Bible says that we should be quick to listen and slow to speak.
Well then you are following the Bible well! :grin:
QuoteRight now, I am being slow to speak because I have listened and still do not understand where you are going.
Well, as I said to Cardinal, I haven't really made my point, yet! (Or have I? :Sparkletooth:)
QuoteI got the impression that you favored a figurative interpretation of Genesis as well.
Sorry about that. It's needless to say, now, that I don't. And hopefully I addressed that to your satisfaction in my prior replies above.
So, will you go back and re-read what I've written knowing this about me? And then could I ask, if you do go back, that you would prompt me to clarify anything that I am not presenting clearly?
I would really appreciate that.
QuoteSo that is a pattern, meaning that if many different people are saying they don't understand your words, the conclusion is most likely that your are not communicating clearly enough, or that your style of writing is hard to grasp.
Your logic is sound even as you say it. I think it is both reasons you list.
QuoteI hope you don't take that as a discouragement.
Naw. I just want some response that's all! For I'm still working on how to present these concepts so that they are understood before they and I are dismissed, or worse.
QuoteI am the kind of person that likes clarity, give it to me clear. But I don't want to put that demand on you. It is just that because the way my mind works, I will probably have to patiently wait until I can see what you are getting at.
Oh, Please do, Seth! Truly I would be honored if you hung in there with me.
And that goes for all of you! Know then that you are appreciated! Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2009, 12:46:08 AM
Hi again,
I would challenge the notion that because something takes pages and pages and many words, that it is not simple. For example, the gospel is incredibly simple. Yet look at how many pages and pages written about it in Romans. How about Hebrews? Those books describe a very simple truth, however they do it through pages of explanation. Simplicity is the quality of being easy to understand.
I don't entirely disagree with this, however, on this point I'm going to play a little semantics with you and put it to you that 'being simple' is to be easliy understood
but doesn't mean that what you are understanding is the truth. And that
simplicity is what you perceive as the result of understanding what is true.
QuoteA long explanation does not in itself define something as being difficult to understand, and it does not necessitate complexity. In fact, if something is too concisely stated, leaving out important points, that can actually lead to LESS simplicity and more confusion. Just wanted to throw that out there.
I recognize that this is a way of thinking that is firmly rooted in the Greek schools, even as you stated it. And I am not against it. Not by a long shot. But, I recognize it's limitations; it is much easier for the presenter to present his concepts as arguments, covering all perceived points of contention in advance, even though arguments lead to arguments, rather than educate the 'Eastern way'; for I also recognize that a better way to communicate unique ideas is to
lead someone to follow your thoughts,
while making them aware of their own, by asking questions.
Even as I have done.
So, anyone want to take a stab at answering the questions in my post here (http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6555.msg71230#msg71230) from your own understanding?
Be good!
Quote from: Eleutheros on August 27, 2009, 06:24:27 AM
This is good. Thank you for helping me to grasp what I need to know. I will review and see what I can do better.
Not a problem.
Quote
But I did offer just such details, in several places, over several posts in this thread
Well, if you did, they were well disguised in your circumspect manner of writing...
Quote
I know. And I'm not sure, right now, how to convey why it does.
Except to say that, of truth, our understanding of Genesis, of which a part is how we choose to interpret it, should be influencing our understanding of prophesy more than how we interpret prophesy should determine the stand we take on how we choose to interpret Genesis.
For when the primary focus of an over all understanding of The Words hinges on Prophesy, which I've noticed that Preterism must focus down on prophesy to be viable, then there is a need to interpret Genesis in the same way we arrive at our eschatological conclusions- by either spiritualizing the text into allegory, when it's conveinient, or taking it literally, allowing, of course, for legitimate metaphor, hyperbole and analogy, when it's convenient. And it is that point where how you choose to interpret prophesy does affect how you interpret the creation account as well. That's what my previously misunderstood post was really trying to lead to- simply stared.
Clear as mud?
For me personally, the way I interpret any book of scripture is never influenced by only one factor. For example, I wouldn't consider a non-literal (by which I don't mean non-physical) interpretation of Genesis merely because that's the way I think it makes more sense to interpret more "prophetic" books. Not to mention the fact that individual scripture doesn't interpret itself independently of the rest of the witness. I agree that our understanding of Genesis will affect how we see many other things. There are "layers" to scripture as well, and I wouldn't suggest that a non-literal interpretation would necessarily preclude a literal layer of understanding as well. I am increasingly finding however, that the meatier spiritual truths lie in the non-literal layer.
Quote
What I've actually found is that Preterism's logic works best on Jesus' Olivet discourse much more than it does with The Unveiling or 'Revelation' as it's named in English.
I'd forgotten about the Olivet Discourse relationship, but it does quite a good job on both that and significant portions of Revelation when dealing with the literal aspects of that book. I don't think preterism (even partial) quite covers the bases when it comes to Rev. though. It's missing that spiritual layer I was talking about. Partial preterism can be a useful interpretive tool, but I don't think it can be applied well everywhere.
Quote
*Smile* So, do you believe that Elohim knew as a fact that The Adam was going to turn before He created them? If so then you have just linked one of the consequences of John Calvin's, KJV supported (that is, it's not found in the original words) doctrine of predestination to Genesis.
For there is nothing anywhere in the Genesis text, when read litertally, that can lead one, by itself, to the conclusion that Elohim knew as a fact that they were going to turn before He created them.
Nothing.
In fact, a truly literal reading will actually lead away from that conclusion, leaving one confused and questioning; assuming one came to Genesis with that Calvinistic conclusion firmly planted into his mind as a fact. After all Jehovah must have known or else He couldn't be God? Right?
I think the
whole of the scriptural witness is quite clear about a number of things that would lead us to that conclusion that He foreknew, regardless of Calvin's doctrine. You may be right that a literal reading of Genesis alone wouldn't lead one to that conclusion, but Genesis does not exist in a vacuum. Nor does any other book of scripture.
QuoteI would venture to guess that most of us here at Tent are not preterists, although we may have some leanings in that direction.
Very nicely put! Because I know that there are many who would call themselves only partial preterists. And that, I believe, is because of the conundrum created for trying to relate all of The Unveiling to a 'this has already been fullfilled' way of thinking. Nonetheless, I have observed that the preteristic way of thinking is dominat here on Tentmaker.
Well, that's the tricky thing when you're dealing with a God who was, is and is to come. Sometimes it's a bit difficult to try and work out what was, is and is to come. The bottom line for me though is that what falls into each of those categories is all the same from God's perspective. He knows the end from the beginning because he IS the end and the beginning. I don't think many of us would come out and say that all of Revelation has been fulfilled, in the sense that it has all entirely played itself out in time in an observable way. I am not personally a hyperpreterist, either.
Quote
Well, to be honest I really haven't presented the gist yet. I've hinted at it. Strongly. But, mostly I've been exploring how to present these ideas in the way that I've come to them, by illustrating first how we think. So, I think that it is my way of thinking about how I think that is foreign. (Gotta smile at that one!)
For that has been my current goal, to arouse the interest of others so that they begin to think about how we think.
So, could you? Would you? Keep trying? These things that are in my heart to share aren't easy to present partly because these concepts of mine are unique in that I've not yet come across anyone who has drawn the same conclusions I have.
Well, I suspected as much.
The thing you have to realize here is that many of us at tentmaker do not come to all the conclusions we come to solely by reason and logic. Many of us, for example, have had personal revelations that have lead us to deeper understandings that we would not have arrived at in any other way. So I'm not sure that an assessment of how we think is necessarily going to answer all the questions, or even prove a point, really. That's because it's all based on reason and logic, and that isn't how one generally arrives at the deeper truths of God anyway. One arrives at the deeper truths by God revealing himself directly from his spirit to ours. We walk by faith, not by sight.
Quote
So, anyone want to take a stab at answering the questions in my post here (http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6555.msg71230#msg71230) from your own understanding?
Be good!
I'll have to take a look and see if I can come up with anything...
Hey Doc! Thanks for the reply. I gotta split this into two parts because the character limit was exceeded. Here goes....
Quote from: Doc on August 27, 2009, 09:57:27 AMQuote from: Eleutheros on August 27, 2009, 06:24:27 AMBut I did offer just such details, in several places, over several posts in this thread
Well, if you did, they were well disguised in your circumspect manner of writing...
:bigGrin: Well, the 'details' are there, nonetheless.
Yes, circumspect. Good word- cautious, deliberate, prudent. A good word with good reason for how I write. I would also add introspective. Even as I want to lead my readers into introspection as well. Which is hard to do, but worth the effort when I see someone
gets it.
Thanks for the good word.
QuoteQuoteI know. And I'm not sure, right now, how to convey why it does.
Except to say that, of truth, our understanding of Genesis, of which a part is how we choose to interpret it, should be influencing our understanding of prophesy more than how we interpret prophesy should determine the stand we take on how we choose to interpret Genesis.
For when the primary focus of an over all understanding of The Words hinges on Prophesy, which I've noticed that Preterism must focus down on prophesy to be viable, then there is a need to interpret Genesis in the same way we arrive at our eschatological conclusions- by either spiritualizing the text into allegory, when it's convenient, or taking it literally, allowing, of course, for legitimate metaphor, hyperbole and analogy, when it's convenient. And it is that point where how you choose to interpret prophesy does affect how you interpret the creation account as well. That's what my previously misunderstood post was really trying to lead to- simply stared.
Clear as mud?
For me personally, the way I interpret any book of scripture is never influenced by only one factor.
Why not? Do you approach everything
else you read this way?
QuoteFor example, I wouldn't consider a non-literal (by which I don't mean non-physical) interpretation of Genesis merely because that's the way I think it makes more sense to interpret more "prophetic" books.
So, do you agree, then, that there were two literal real-time human beings, one male, the other female whom we named 'Adam and Eve' and that these two humans were not dissimilar from us, in that, the only difference between us and them was that they were created, not born, living in a real-time
Gan Eden (garden-of-delights), on
this very real Earth as well as two literal, real-time fruit trees given the telling names of The Tree of Life and The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
(Feel free to eliminate any factor I've listed that you feel should not be there for you to be in agreement with a physical interpretation, even as you said you don't exclude it.)
And to the rest of what you said, could I ask if you mean, then, that when you read The Words you pick and choose which method of interpretation you want to apply? If so, what is your criteria for judging which method should be used?
QuoteNot to mention the fact that individual scripture doesn't interpret itself independently of the rest of the witness.
You called this a fact. That is interesting. I would call it an axiom. Which doesn't mean I think it's an inaccurate one, but, I would first need to know what you have identified as 'the rest of the witness'.
For now I'll asssume your speaking of
alignment when you say 'witness'.
If this is what you mean then it is not a matter of using one scripture to
interrpret another, but, that what one scripture says, in meaning, doesn't contradict the meaning in another.
That is a different understanding, altogether, than saying that the information in one scripture is
needed to
interpret (instead of adding information to) what another scripture is saying. For, as it has been proven, the English version of The Words that most influences the thoughts of the English mind, the KJV, is a deliberate and diabolical mis-translation designed to support a very ugly and self-contradictory theology.
QuoteI agree that our understanding of Genesis will affect how we see many other things.
Emphasis mine. Exactly my point.
QuoteThere are "layers" to scripture as well, and I wouldn't suggest that a non-literal interpretation would necessarily preclude a literal layer of understanding as well.
I would.
Let me ask you a few questions:
Is truth knowable?
Is truth singular or plural in nature? Give me a reason for your answer.
What are some of the words we use words for things that are
not true?
What do these words, that we
must have, imply about the nature of truth?
QuoteI am increasingly finding however, that the meatier spiritual truths lie in the non-literal layer.
Yes I know you are, Doc. And I won't gainsay it because I'm not you.
However, could I ask you to illustrate, by example, something of this meatier truth you've come to know for perceiving the non-literal layer? In other words, what (extra?) information does your perception of this non-literal layer grant to you above what you can learn from the literal layer?
I am not discounting the role of the spirit in leading me into truth, no, not at all. I, too, have a spirit and it has given me insights into truth, but,
only from my knowledge and only when my knowledge is correct.
However, what I do find is that precious few really know what they're saying when they toss out the Christianese catch phrase "spiritual truths".
To illustrate what I mean I will ask you a question:
We know what flesh is: What is spirit?
QuoteQuoteWhat I've actually found is that Preterism's logic works best on Jesus' Olivet discourse much more than it does with The Unveiling or 'Revelation' as it's named in English.
I'd forgotten about the Olivet Discourse relationship, but it does quite a good job on both that and significant portions of Revelation, when dealing with the literal aspects of that book. I don't think preterism (even partial) quite covers the bases when it comes to Rev. though. It's missing that spiritual layer I was talking about. Partial preterism can be a useful interpretive tool, but I don't think it can be applied well everywhere.
That was a very thoughtful and succinct reply. You agree, then, that The Unveiling has at least some literal portions or even better a literal layer? Good. OK. So, I would ask, if it's a truth that the preteristic way of thinking is a truthful way to interpret scripture, or even just 'a useful tool' then why doesn't it work for the
rest of The Unveiling, even as you just admitted that it doesn't?
Is a tool that doesn't get the job done truly a
useful tool?
I ask that to illuminate this question: Is there a way of thinking, Doc, that brings understanding and unity to
every portion of The Unveiling?
And I would then ask, since you have astutely perceived that the preteristic way of thinking doesn't work for all of The Unveiling, despite it being a useful interpretive tool, then how do
you determine the lines of demarcation that must be drawn to know when this tool should be used and when it shouldn't? And why should I trust the lines that
you draw as opposed to the lines someone else draws? Or, even that I
want to draw?
Would you say, Doc, that this is a very important question that should be answered satisfactorily before going off and accepting, as truth, the axiom that the preteristic way of thinking is even a useful tool?
Let me ask you, also, about this spiritual layer you are talking about:
Given the nature of humans in this age, and given that most humans don't even know what spirit is, why
wouldn't it be dangerous to a truthful understanding to let anything anyone wants to say, from 'spiritual truth', stand
as truth, especially when these individual 'spiritual truths' are often contradictory with each other, or factually inaccurate, or in conflict with the human conscience?
(End of Part One)
(Part Two)
Quote from: Doc on August 27, 2009, 09:57:27 AMQuote from: Eleutheros on August 27, 2009, 06:24:27 AM*Smile* So, do you believe that Elohim knew as a fact that The Adam was going to turn before He created them? If so then you have just linked one of the consequences of John Calvin's, KJV supported (that is, it's not found in the original words) doctrine of predestination to Genesis.
For there is nothing anywhere in the Genesis text, when read literally, that can lead one, by itself, to the conclusion that Elohim knew as a fact that they were going to turn before He created them.
Nothing.
In fact, a truly literal reading will actually lead away from that conclusion, leaving one confused and questioning; assuming one came to Genesis with that Calvinistic conclusion firmly planted into his mind as a fact. After all Jehovah must have known or else He couldn't be God? Right?
I think the whole of the scriptural witness is quite clear about a number of things that would lead us to that conclusion that He foreknew, regardless of Calvin's doctrine.
Could you quote to me which of The Words you see as leading to this conclusion and tell me why these quotes lead you to conclude that Elohim knew, as a fact, that The Adam were going to turn
before He created them?
QuoteYou may be right that a literal reading of Genesis alone wouldn't lead one to that conclusion, but Genesis does not exist in a vacuum. Nor does any other book of scripture.
Again this is an axiom. Not a fact. I'm not saying it's not a truthful axiom, but, in this case I would need to know why you feel that Genesis needs anything else in scripture to bring understanding to it, even as you said earlier, of a truth:
QuoteI agree that our understanding of Genesis will affect how we see many other things.
Let me ask you, did the human writers of Genesis write it as a literal or a figurative narration?
That is, did they write the creation account wanting to convey information that they at least
believed was factual?
Or did they write Genesis like say, C.S. Lewis wrote "The Chronicles of Narnia", that is as allegory or like J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Silmarillion that is as a fantasy?
For if it is a truth that they wrote it to present information that they believed was factual then what right do we have to even say that it
could be interpreted as an allegory or as a fantasy- or even 'spiritually', whatever that means to whoever is claiming the right to do this?
Isn't that rather hubristic? At least, wouldn't you think so of someone who, if you wrote a book about how you came to be a millionaire, said you were only being allegorical of fantastic?
QuoteQuoteI would venture to guess that most of us here at Tent are not preterists, although we may have some leanings in that direction.
Very nicely put! Because I know that there are many who would call themselves only partial preterists. And that, I believe, is because of the conundrum created for trying to relate all of The Unveiling to a 'this has already been fulfilled' way of thinking. Nonetheless, I have observed that the preteristic way of thinking is dominant here on Tentmaker.
Well, that's the tricky thing when you're dealing with a God who was, is and is to come. Sometimes it's a bit difficult to try and work out what was, is and is to come. The bottom line for me though is that what falls into each of those categories is all the same from God's perspective.
Tricky, yes, I agree. If you hold to the idea that there should be more than one way to interpret The Words and that all the
different ways are equally valid, then it is tricky to draw lines between what was, what is and what is to come.
Have you ever considered
parallels as a valid way of interpreting scripture?
And I would ask if the past, present and future
are all the same from God's perspective, even as you say, than why does His Name Jah-Ho-Veh (Jehovah) mean HE
WILL BE/ BEING/ HE WAS?
Yes, I know that, also 'He is to come' (actually it should read 'He is coming' not 'He is to come'; a small mater of semantics with a big difference in meaning) even as is said of Him, repeatedly, in The Unveiling. But, what I'm asking, from the meaning of His Name, is if his ability to tell the future originates in His foreknowledge, as if future things were facts to Him, just facts
not yet realized, OR if his ability to tell what is coming stems from His ability to influence the course of the future, from the present, so that what He says is going to happen happens?
(Note: YaHWeH derived from YHWH is not His Name. Yahweh is a nonsense word in Hebrew, that is, it has no meaning.)
And by the way what were Peter and Paul really talking about when they spoke of His foreknowledge? When they wrote of this in Him what is it
exactly that they said He foreknows/foreknew?
Hint: It's not the future.
QuoteHe knows the end from the beginning because he IS the end and the beginning.
This is good logic. But is the conclusion a truthful and accurate one?
He said this
exactly of Himself,
in this order, "I
am the Alpha and the Omega, is saying the Lord God, Who is and Who was and Who is coming, the Almighty" (Rev 1:8): "I
have become the Alpha and the Omega, the Origin and the Consummation"(Rev 21:8 ): And "I
am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Origin and the Consummation." (Rev 22:13).
Did you catch the verb tense shift thingy not made clear in the KJV? (By the way the KJV interpreters, in Rev 1:11 inserted the phrase "I am the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last" between 'saying' and 'what you hear'. This phrase is not found in the original text. Why would they want to do this wrong thing to do?)
So, what He said exactly is that He is the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Then, that He
has become the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet and The Origin and The Consummation. Then, that He is the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, The First and the Last, The Origin and The Consummation.
Is this to be read literally of Him or metaphorically? I believe it's meant metaphorically. So what is this a metaphor for? What truth is he trying to convey by applying this metaphoric image to Himself of both being
and becoming the first and last letters of the Greek Alphabet, The First and the Last, The Origin and Consummation? Is it to convey the idea that He
knows the end from the beginning as You said? Or is it that He
is the meaning behind everything including The Words; that He is The First Word (The Logos, as John describes Him) and The Last and that He is The Origin of all things and their Consummation?
QuoteI don't think many of us would come out and say that all of Revelation has been fulfilled, in the sense that it has all entirely played itself out in time in an observable way. I am not personally a hyperpreterist, either.
That's good. Thank you for clarifying. Again I ask, have you ever considered seeing the Olivet discourse and The Unveiling as being parallel? Rather than trying to discern when this was fulfilled as opposed to that, like the preteristic way of thinking forces one to do?
QuoteQuoteWell, to be honest I really haven't presented the gist yet. I've hinted at it. Strongly. But, mostly I've been exploring how to present these ideas in the way that I've come to them, by illustrating first how we think. So, I think that it is my way of thinking about how I think that is foreign. (Gotta smile at that one!)
For that has been my current goal, to arouse the interest of others so that they begin to think about how we think.
So, could you? Would you? Keep trying? These things that are in my heart to share aren't easy to present partly because these concepts of mine are unique in that I've not yet come across anyone who has drawn the same conclusions I have.
Well, I suspected as much.
Of course. I am, after all, both circumspect and introspective when I type out my thoughts. What else could you suspect? :laughing7:
QuoteThe thing you have to realize here is that many of us at tentmaker do not come to all the conclusions we come to solely by reason and logic. Many of us, for example, have had personal revelations that have lead us to deeper understandings that we would not have arrived at in any other way.
Is this the 'spiritual truths' you were talking about? Well, personal revelation is not a very reliable way of discerning truth, because it is a fact that humans in this age have ulterior motives that all to often don't align with what's good and true and grave and just and pure and agreeable and worthy of renown, but, instead, with what is evil, in motive.
Which means that I need something else besides the other persons word that God revealed this truth to him or her for me to know if what they are telling me is the truth. I need a gauge or guide to discern whether these personal revelations are indeed truthful and of truth. And that job falls to what I have reliably concluded from the use of reason and logic, even as it should.
Let me ask you then, from your experience, what do you do when someone comes to you with a 'spiritual truth' revealed to them that contradicts a 'spiritual truth' that's been revealed to you or to someone else you know?
Or does this never happen?
QuoteSo I'm not sure that an assessment of how we think is necessarily going to answer all the questions, or even prove a point, really. That's because it's all based on reason and logic, and that isn't how one generally arrives at the deeper truths of God anyway.
Let me say, first, for the purpose of clarity: I certainly wasn't trying to
assess how anyone thinks, as if I wanted to critique anyone's thoughts. I was only trying to instruct on how we think so that I can illustrate how logic and reason are misused and abused and thus help my readers to know how to discern when logic is being used correctly and when it's not.
I know you did not mean to imply an insincere motive to me, Doc but you're use of the word
assessment meant I needed to clarify because don'tcha know? Words mean things.
That being said, all else I can say in response to what you believe is that as long as you hold this axiom to be a truth you likely will never will know how logic and reason and spirit and conscience are used to arrive at the deeper truths of God, without and apart from 'personal revelation'.
For all the personal revelations I've had- and I've had them- have always aligned with what my reason and logic have guided me to trust in and believe, first. But don't take my word for it.
For the truth is even as The LORD Himself said: "Come now, and let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool."
Reason aligns itself well, apart from the need for personal revelation, with the whole purpose behind why Jesus accomplished the forgiveness of sins and the cleansing of our conscience. It's so that we
could and
would stop sinning and
begin to live lives of righteousness, which is simply enough defined as choosing to do what is right, even as right is known from our knowledge of the difference between good and evil, commonly called, our conscience.
And one doesn't need personal revelation to arrive at this deep truth of God. Just a conscience and the heralding of the Gospel that the forgiveness of sins has been accomplished through Jesus, The Anointed One.
One more question, Doc:
Is it a truth that there are there are, indeed, right and wrong
ways of thinking?
QuoteQuoteSo, anyone want to take a stab at answering the questions in my post here (http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6555.msg71230#msg71230) from your own understanding?
Be good!
I'll have to take a look and see if I can come up with anything...
As you wish! I look forward, then, to our next exchange.
Dennis!
Quote from: Eleutheros on August 27, 2009, 10:07:51 PM
Why not? Do you approach everything else you read this way?
Well, because there are usually multiple factors in scriptural interpretation. I don't know that I approach
everything else that way, but some things, certainly; What sense would it make to take multiple considerations into account when reading a work of fiction that is of no consequence?
Quote
So, do you agree, then, that there were two literal real-time human beings, one male, the other female whom we named 'Adam and Eve' and that these two humans were not dissimilar from us, in that, the only difference between us and them was that they were created, not born, living in a real-time Gan Eden (garden-of-delights), on this very real Earth as well as two literal, real-time fruit trees given the telling names of The Tree of Life and The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
(Feel free to eliminate any factor I've listed that you feel should not be there for you to be in agreement with a physical interpretation, even as you said you don't exclude it.)
I think I would agree that on one level, there probably were two literal human beings. They probably were in some form of "garden" on earth, although the garden may have been more of a spiritual reality than a physical one. The same with the trees. Why would there be a literal tree with literal fruit that bestows knowledge of good and evil? Or one that bestows immortality on those who eat of it? There is a lot of scripture that is symbolic, and not to say that what is symbolized isn't real, but it may not be literal in the physical sense. The physical is representative of spiritual truth, not the other way around.
And to the rest of what you said, could I ask if you mean, then, that when you read The Words you pick and choose which method of interpretation you want to apply? If so, what is your criteria for judging which method should be used?
QuoteNot to mention the fact that individual scripture doesn't interpret itself independently of the rest of the witness.
You called this a fact. That is interesting. I would call it an axiom. Which doesn't mean I think it's an inaccurate one, but, I would first need to know what you have identified as 'the rest of the witness'.
The rest of the witness is the rest of the collection of books of scripture collectively referred to as the Bible.
QuoteThat is a different understanding, altogether, than saying that the information in one scripture is needed to interpret (instead of adding information to) what another scripture is saying. For, as it has been proven, the English version of The Words that most influences the thoughts of the English mind, the KJV, is a deliberate and diabolical mis-translation designed to support a very ugly and self-contradictory theology.
For the record, I do not use the King James version, except to get Strong's numbers for referencing the words in the original languages. I use literal translations.
QuoteThere are "layers" to scripture as well, and I wouldn't suggest that a non-literal interpretation would necessarily preclude a literal layer of understanding as well.
I would.
Some elaboration on that comment might be helpful
Quote
Let me ask you a few questions:
Is truth knowable?
Yes, but truth is not a thing, it's a person.
Quote
Is truth singular or plural in nature? Give me a reason for your answer.
I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Based on my last answer though, I'd have to answer 'plural'.
QuoteWhat are some of the words we use words for things that are not true?
False? Lie?
QuoteWhat do these words, that we must have, imply about the nature of truth?
...That it's not false :happygrin:
Quote
However, could I ask you to illustrate, by example, something of this meatier truth you've come to know for perceiving the non-literal layer? In other words, what (extra?) information does your perception of this non-literal layer grant to you above what you can learn from the literal layer?
To use a relatively easy example, getting the spiritual truths from parables requires that you look beyond the literal words of the story for the meaning behind the words.
QuoteI am not discounting the role of the spirit in leading me into truth, no, not at all. I, too, have a spirit and it has given me insights into truth, but, only from my knowledge and only when my knowledge is correct.
What you're saying here, in effect, is that the Spirit has a subordinate role to knowledge. Yet the scripture states that we are not to lean on our own understanding, and that the Spirit will guide us into all truth, and teach us all things. What you have just outlined in that statement is called gnosticism.
Quote
However, what I do find is that precious few really know what they're saying when they toss out the Christianese catch phrase "spiritual truths".
As do I.
QuoteTo illustrate what I mean I will ask you a question:
We know what flesh is: What is spirit?
I'm not sure how to answer that question. In what sense?
QuoteThat was a very thoughtful and succinct reply. You agree, then, that The Unveiling has at least some literal portions or even better a literal layer? Good. OK. So, I would ask, if it's a truth that the preteristic way of thinking is a truthful way to interpret scripture, or even just 'a useful tool' then why doesn't it work for the rest of The Unveiling, even as you just admitted that it doesn't?
Is a tool that doesn't get the job done truly a useful tool?
Is a wrench a useful tool for what it's good for, even though I can't use it as a hammer? Preterism is useful for making sense of historical context.
QuoteI ask that to illuminate this question: Is there a way of thinking, Doc, that brings understanding and unity to every portion of The Unveiling?
Yeah. It's called the mind of Christ, Whom the unveiling reveals.
QuoteAnd I would then ask, since you have astutely perceived that the preteristic way of thinking doesn't work for all of The Unveiling, despite it being a useful interpretive tool, then how do you determine the lines of demarcation that must be drawn to know when this tool should be used and when it shouldn't? And why should I trust the lines that you draw as opposed to the lines someone else draws? Or, even that I want to draw?
I determine them by listening to the Spirit of truth. I don't know that you should trust the lines that I draw, nor that I should necessarily trust yours.
QuoteWould you say, Doc, that this is a very important question that should be answered satisfactorily before going off and accepting, as truth, the axiom that the preteristic way of thinking is even a useful tool?
Let me ask you, also, about this spiritual layer you are talking about:
Given the nature of humans in this age, and given that most humans don't even know what spirit is, why wouldn't it be dangerous to a truthful understanding to let anything anyone wants to say, from 'spiritual truth', stand as truth, especially when these individual 'spiritual truths' are often contradictory with each other, or factually inaccurate, or in conflict with the human conscience?
(End of Part One)
It could be an important question based upon where you place your emphasis in what you receive as truth .
About your last point, let me ask you a question. Was Jesus telling the religious leaders of his day "You have heard it said, but I say" contradictory to their understanding of spiritual truth, factually inaccurate with regard to their literal reading of scripture, or in conflict with their conscience about what those words in scripture meant?
I'll visit part two when I have more time.
Hi Eleutheros--
I'm interested in hearing your specific ideas on Genesis 1-3, that is, the answers you have to the questions you posted.
When I started studying the Bible, I made a decision to take it literally, as though it were the literal truth. I've found that this approach opens up a lot of spiritual pathways, eventually. But, for me, the two stand side by side, and are equally important, and the natural comes first.
I am, after all, a physical creature.
So I do take it literally, and have pictured it in my mind many times as a literal occurrence. God created everything discretely, and in an orderly fashion. I do not consider the theory of evolution to be truth or science, rather a deliberate attempt to mask the truth of God and create an artificial barrier between God and science. But, that's another story.
Anyway, I'd like to talk to you about some of the specific things you yourself have discovered to be true in these chapters. Also, you mention Jesus referring to Genesis--could you show me the scripture you are talking about? Thanks.
Quote from: Molly on August 28, 2009, 04:56:04 AM
Hi Eleutheros--
I'm interested in hearing your specific ideas on Genesis 1-3, that is, the answers you have to the questions you posted.
When I started studying the Bible, I made a decision to take it literally, as though it were the literal truth. I've found that this approach opens up a lot of spiritual pathways, eventually. But, for me, the two stand side by side, and are equally important, and the natural comes first.
I am, after all, a physical creature.
So I do take it literally, and have pictured it in my mind many times as a literal occurrence. God created everything discretely, and in an orderly fashion. I do not consider the theory of evolution to be truth or science, rather a deliberate attempt to mask the truth of God and create an artificial barrier between God and science. But, that's another story.
Anyway, I'd like to talk to you about some of the specific things you yourself have discovered to be true in these chapters. Also, you mention Jesus referring to Genesis--could you show me the scripture you are talking about? Thanks.
Hi! Molly
I thought that I would throw my opinion into the mix.
The Bible was written for the spiritually blind as well as those who now see; the spiritually deaf as well as those who now are enabled to hear the voice of God and live.
So, most begin to follow after the Gospel as one who chases a shadow. By that I mean, their thoughts have been elevated and their spirit quickened sufficiently to perceive the glorious message; albeit somewhat blurred.
More often than not, it is the literalists who we find still chasing after the shadow many years after their first being introduced to the Gospel; never quite able to "put their minds on things above".
There are those who remain unable to see past the shadow of the Genesis narrative; as such their understanding of narrative continues to be somewhat blurred.
The meaning of the earthly garden of Eden was derived from the unseen, spiritual, heavenly paradise. As Jesus pictured the Kingdom of heaven in parables, so the earthly Garden of Eden was a 'parable' of the heavenly Father. It says of Jesus that He did not speak to them without a parable and this too He had learned from the Father.
There is a heavenly temple and there was an earthly picture of the unseen things. God said to Moses: "According to all that I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and all of its furniture, so you shall make it." (Ex 25:9). Thus there is a heavenly temple and there was the image of an earthly sanctuary; there is a heavenly Jerusalem and there was an earthly city of God. Similarly there is a heavenly garden of Eden and there was the earthly picture or shadow.
I agree, Gilbert. The physical and literal understanding is a shadow, a type, of the spiritual and real.
Quote from: Doc on August 28, 2009, 04:04:14 AM
Quote from: Eleutheros on August 27, 2009, 10:07:51 PM
For me personally, the way I interpret any book of scripture is never influenced by only one factor.
Why not? Do you approach everything else you read this way?
QuoteWell, because there are usually multiple factors in scriptural interpretation.
OK. Do these factors have a name so anyone can know what factor your choosing when you present your conclusions? How do you choose which factor is appropriate to get the truth?
Will any and every conclusion you draw from all these factors all be the truth? How do you know if they are? Is it simply because you thought of it?
Have you ever drawn a conclusion from these factors you mention that turned out to be false?
What I perceive, Doc, from what you said here and elsewhere, is that all these factors you mention, which will ever only produce a truthful conclusion, effectively makes The Bible into a magical book that can make anything you want to believe a truth simply because you can quote something from it and draw a conclusion.
QuoteI don't know that I approach everything else that way, but some things, certainly; What sense would it make to take multiple considerations into account when reading a work of fiction that is of no consequence?
I agree. But isn't allegory a form of fiction?
QuoteQuoteSo, do you agree, then, that there were two literal real-time human beings, one male, the other female whom we named 'Adam and Eve' and that these two humans were not dissimilar from us, in that, the only difference between us and them was that they were created, not born, living in a real-time Gan Eden (garden-of-delights), on this very real Earth as well as two literal, real-time fruit trees given the telling names of The Tree of Life and The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
(Feel free to eliminate any factor I've listed that you feel should not be there for you to be in agreement with a physical interpretation, even as you said you don't exclude it.)
I think I would agree that on one level, there probably were two literal human beings. They probably were in some form of "garden" on earth, although the garden may have been more of a spiritual reality than a physical one. The same with the trees. Why would there be a literal tree with literal fruit that bestows knowledge of good and evil? Or one that bestows immortality on those who eat of it? There is a lot of scripture that is symbolic, and not to say that what is symbolized isn't real, but it may not be literal in the physical sense. The physical is representative of spiritual truth, not the other way around.
Why do you
want to avoid, with such studiousness, Doc, a literal interpretation of Genesis? What is it about a literal, straightforward reading of it that makes you so wary and indecisive?
Why can't you simply say "Yes" to what I wrote?
By the way how did you come to the conclusion that The Tree of Life bestows
immortality?!?
And if Elohim can create trees whose fruit can feed the human body's needs so well why is it a stretch to imagine that he could create a tree whose fruit can awaken a human to the knowledge of Good and Evil?
Or did all these fruit trees we know get here by an evolutionary process?
Seeminlgly unrelated but really it's not, I would also like to ask if you think the flood was a real-time, world-wide event? Or is that to be interpreted also in layers, with factors, as well?
You asked this question:
QuoteWhy would there be a literal tree with literal fruit that bestows knowledge of good and evil?
In short order, you will have my answer.
QuoteQuoteThere are "layers" to scripture as well, and I wouldn't suggest that a non-literal interpretation would necessarily preclude a literal layer of understanding as well.
I would.
Some elaboration on that comment might be helpful.
OK. I would say that a non-literal interpretation would definately preclude a literal 'layer' of understanding.
Even as you demonstrated in your own words with your inability to answer yes to anything I wrote that was derived from a literal reading.
QuoteQuoteLet me ask you a few questions:
Is truth knowable?
Yes, but truth is not a thing, it's a person.
Got me there! Yes, Jesus metaphorically described Himself as The Way the Truth and The Life, but, what I meant was is it possible for us, as humans to
grasp truth. In other words can we know truth from non-truth?
QuoteQuote
Is truth singular or plural in nature? Give me a reason for your answer.
I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Based on my last answer though, I'd have to answer 'plural'.
QuoteQuoteWhat are some of the words we use words for things that are not true?
False? Lie?
QuoteQuoteWhat do these words, that we must have, imply about the nature of truth?
...That it's not false :happygrin:
Actually, if it is a neccesity for us to have the words 'lie' and 'false' and even 'half-truth' and 'deception', so that we have a way of describing something that is
not truth, then truth is singular in nature and it is non-truths, or lies, that are plural.
For simple logic says that if two conclusions are contradictory then one is false and the other is not or they are both false.
And that is because contradictory conclusions cannot both be true at the same time.
To illustrate this truth I offer this humorous anecdote: When my wife and I are driving and we are in a disagreement over which way to go I say "Let's keep going this way till one of us is right or both of us are wrong!"
QuoteQuoteHowever, could I ask you to illustrate, by example, something of this meatier truth you've come to know for perceiving the non-literal layer? In other words, what (extra?) information does your perception of this non-literal layer grant to you above what you can learn from the literal layer?
To use a relatively easy example, getting the spiritual truths from parables requires that you look beyond the literal words of the story for the meaning behind the words.
Even as Jesus meant you to. But, there is
a meaning! All of Jesus' parables were drawn from things of the Earth and were presented so that they might be understood by someone attune to truth, effectively 'locking out' those who were not.
Even as He said: "I am acclaiming You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for You did conceal these things from the wise and intelligent and You did reveal them to minors. Yes, Father, seeing that thus it became a delight in front of You."
So, is it a truth that whatever my interpretation of a parable would be is a truth as long as *I* say it's a spirtual truth?
QuoteQuoteI am not discounting the role of the spirit in leading me into truth, no, not at all. I, too, have a spirit and it has given me insights into truth, but, only from my knowledge and only when my knowledge is correct.
What you're saying here, in effect, is that the Spirit has a subordinate role to knowledge. Yet the scripture states that we are not to lean on our own understanding, and that the Spirit will guide us into all truth, and teach us all things. What you have just outlined in that statement is called gnosticism.
Thank you for your interpretation of what I said. I can tell then that I need to clarify.
I said that, from my knowledge and
only when my knowledge was correct, did I receive insight from the spirit to gain a further understanding of truth. This has been my experience. I did not 'gnostically' subordinate my spirit to my knowledge in my statement I simply acknowledged that the spirit and
correct knowledge work together in me to prove when I am grasping truth.
You see, Doc, I don't put my faith in the belief that truth is plural. I know it is singular both through reason and logic and through spirit. Which means that I know that there are conclusions that are correct and that there are conclusions that are wrong. There are lies and there are wrong ways of thinking- For not every cocnlusion is a truth just because someone claims they had a personal revealtion revealing to them a
spiritual truth. Even as John said, "...do not believe every
spirit, but test the
spirits to see if they are of God,
for many false prophets have come out into the world.You have said that you believe that truth is plural and I would conclude then that you don't even bother to examine for falsity when someone says I've been shown a spiritual truth! You seem to be saying that you just accept it. And so, because you put your faith in this I am prevented from being able to convey to you how I know when a conclusion is false and when it is a truth. Except to try and let this quote from the Words convey my understanding:
Let no one be seducing you with empty words, for because of these things the indignation of God is coming on the sons of stubbornness. Do not, then, become joint partakers with them, for you were once darkness, yet now you are light in the Lord.
As children of light be walking (for the fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth), testing what is well pleasing to the Lord.... Now all that which is being exposed, by the light is made manifest, for everything which is making manifest is light.
QuoteQuoteHowever, what I do find is that precious few really know what they're saying when they toss out the Christianese catch phrase "spiritual truths".
As do I.
QuoteQuoteTo illustrate what I mean I will ask you a question:
We know what flesh is: What is spirit?
I'm not sure how to answer that question. In what sense?
If I ask "What is flesh?" The answer is, "It is our appetites and desires and the drives to fulfill these that originate in the needs of the body."
And so I ask similarly "What is spirit?"
QuoteQuoteThat was a very thoughtful and succinct reply. You agree, then, that The Unveiling has at least some literal portions or even better a literal layer? Good. OK. So, I would ask, if it's a truth that the preteristic way of thinking is a truthful way to interpret scripture, or even just 'a useful tool' then why doesn't it work for the rest of The Unveiling, even as you just admitted that it doesn't?
Is a tool that doesn't get the job done truly a useful tool?
Is a wrench a useful tool for what it's good for, even though I can't use it as a hammer? Preterism is useful for making sense of historical context.
I think you missed my point. Preterism cannot provide a full comprehension of prophesy, even as you say. That means it is not getting the job done like a truthful understanding will accomplish.
QuoteQuoteI ask that to illuminate this question: Is there a way of thinking, Doc, that brings understanding and unity to every portion of The Unveiling?
Yeah. It's called the mind of Christ, Whom the unveiling reveals.
Actually, I would say a literal reading of it with the understanding that there are in it metaphoric representations for real-time humans who will exist in a time when all the events written about in the Unveiling will be taking place. The Unveiling makes a lot of sense when it's read as a 'future history' utilizing metaphors, with a one-to one correspondence to actual humans, who will be living in and causing real and very desperate and evil times.
QuoteQuoteAnd I would then ask, since you have astutely perceived that the preteristic way of thinking doesn't work for all of The Unveiling, despite it being a useful interpretive tool, then how do you determine the lines of demarcation that must be drawn to know when this tool should be used and when it shouldn't? And why should I trust the lines that you draw as opposed to the lines someone else draws? Or, even that I want to draw?
I determine them by listening to the Spirit of truth. I don't know that you should trust the lines that I draw, nor that I should necessarily trust yours.
Well, you just illustrated what I was trying to say about why the preterist 'tool' cannot get the job done of providing a full understanding.
QuoteQuoteWould you say, Doc, that this is a very important question that should be answered satisfactorily before going off and accepting, as truth, the axiom that the preteristic way of thinking is even a useful tool?
Let me ask you, also, about this spiritual layer you are talking about:
Given the nature of humans in this age, and given that most humans don't even know what spirit is, why wouldn't it be dangerous to a truthful understanding to let anything anyone wants to say, from 'spiritual truth', stand as truth, especially when these individual 'spiritual truths' are often contradictory with each other, or factually inaccurate, or in conflict with the human conscience?
It could be an important question based upon where you place your emphasis in what you receive as truth
The answer is actually that it
would be dangerous to truth to let stand
as truth, in your thinking, contradictory 'spiritual truths' and especailly so when they can be proven to go against facts or against the conscience.
QuoteAbout your last point, let me ask you a question. Was Jesus telling the religious leaders of his day "You have heard it said, but I say" contradictory to their understanding of spiritual truth, factually inaccurate with regard to their literal reading of scripture, or in conflict with their conscience about what those words in scripture meant?
Good one!
What Jesus did in addressing the Jews gathered around Him, of whom He said "You are the salt of the earth and a light on a hill" was to illustrate the importance of righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness above the demands of the law, so that they would be the good witness they were intended to be for God to the Gentiles. The very same righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness that works in those Gentiles re-sired by Jehovah to make them a good witness for God to the world today.
And these qualities of righteousness, mercy, lieiency and forgivness were not contradictory to their understanding of truth, 'spiritual' or otherwise, nor where they innaccurate with regard to their literal reading of scripture, nor where they in conflict with their conscience about what 'those words' (The Law) in scripture meant.
QuoteI'll visit part two when I have more time.
OK.
Till then Be good! We'll 'wrestle' some more when you're ready!
QuoteWhat Jesus did in addressing the Jews gathered around Him, of whom He said "You are the salt of the earth and a light on a hill" was to illustrate the importance of righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness above the demands of the law, so that they would be the good witness they were intended to be for God to the Gentiles. The very same righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness that works in those Gentiles re-sired by Jehovah to make them a good witness for God to the world today.
And these qualities of righteousness, mercy, lieiency and forgivness were not contradictory to their understanding of truth, 'spiritual' or otherwise, nor where they innaccurate with regard to their literal reading of scripture, nor where they in conflict with their conscience about what 'those words' (The Law) in scripture meant.
23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
--Mat 23
Micah 6:8
8He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?
Quote from: Molly on August 28, 2009, 04:56:04 AM
Hi Eleutheros--
Good Morning, Molly!
QuoteI'm interested in hearing your specific ideas on Genesis 1-3, that is, the answers you have to the questions you posted.
How about I do you one better and let you read the
end result of the answers to those questions?
I will soon be posting a narrative that will sum up my conclusions.
I'll let you know when it's up.
QuoteWhen I started studying the Bible, I made a decision to take it literally, as though it were the literal truth. I've found that this approach opens up a lot of spiritual pathways, eventually. But, for me, the two (What 'two'? Did you leave something out here?) stand side by side, and are equally important, and the natural comes first.
Good decision! Could I ask if it's been your experience that these 'spiritual pathways' you mention tend to narrow down to a specific, singular understanding, rather than broadening to be inclusive of any and every understanding?
QuoteI am, after all, a physical creature.
So, The Adam must have been as well! Good logic with a correct conclusion!
QuoteSo I do take it literally, and have pictured it in my mind many times as a literal occurrence.
As have I. Years of it, in fact.
QuoteGod created everything discretely, and in an orderly fashion.
Yes He did! Exactly as was needed to get the job done in six mornings and evenings or six 24 hour days as we would say.
QuoteI do not consider the theory of evolution to be truth or science, rather a deliberate attempt to mask the truth of God and create an artificial barrier between God and science. But, that's another story.
And a really great one to start talking about at gatherings of the ecclesia you don't ever want to be invited to again!
It's
almost as maddening to a Modern Christian as saying that you believe Jesus will restore every single human being to the Father!
You would be amazed at how many Believers out there actually think that evolution
must be incorporated into our understanding simply because they can't believe that all those scientists could all be wrong! Despite the fact that everything these scientists, so called, have ever touted as proof
and I do mean, literally, everything is eventually found to be a hoax or misapplied. Case in point this recent article on the appendix. (http://news.aol.com/health/article/researchers-say-appendix-has-uses/637211?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main%7Cdl1%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fhealth%2Farticle%2Fresearchers-say-appendix-has-uses%2F637211)
QuoteAnyway, I'd like to talk to you about some of the specific things you yourself have discovered to be true in these chapters.
Wait for my narrative and then we'll talk some more. Because after reading it you will then be able to ask better questions.
QuoteAlso, you mention Jesus referring to Genesis--could you show me the scripture you are talking about? Thanks.
Sure thing!
(Matt: 19:3-6) And the Pharisees came to Him, trying Him, and saying, "Is it allowed one to dismiss his wife for every cause?"
Now He, answering, said, "Did you not read that the Maker from the beginning makes them male and female, and He said, 'On this account a man shall be leaving father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh'? So that no longer are they two, but one flesh. What God, then, yokes together, let not man be separating."
(Mk 10:2-7) And approaching, the Pharisees, trying Him, inquired of Him if it is allowed a husband to dismiss a wife.
Yet He, answering, said to them, "What does Moses direct you?"
Yet they say, "Moses permits us to write a scroll of divorce, and to dismiss her."
And answering, Jesus said to them, "In view of your hardheartedness he writes for you this precept. Yet from the beginning of creation God makes them male and female. On this account a man will be leaving his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will be one flesh. So that no longer are they two, but one flesh. What God, then, yokes together, let not man be separating."
(Matt 24:36-39) Now, concerning that day and hour no one is aware, neither the messengers of the heavens, nor the Son; except the Father only. For even as the days of Noah, thus shall be the presence of the Son of Mankind. For as they were in those days before the deluge, masticating and drinking and marrying and taking in marriage until the day on which Noah entered into the ark, and did not know till the deluge came and takes them all away, thus shall be the presence of the Son of Mankind.
(Luke 17:26-30) "And according as it occurred in the days of Noah, thus will it be in the days of the Son of Mankind also. They ate, they drank, they married, they took out in marriage, until the day on which Noah entered into the ark, and the deluge came and destroys them all. Likewise, according as it occurred in the days of Lot, they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built. Yet on the day in which Lot came out from Sodom, fire and sulphur rains from heaven and destroys them all. In accord with these will it be on the day in which the Son of Mankind is unveiled.
There are many, many more examples where Jesus refers to Abraham as if he were an actual person just like He does Solomon and David, even as He refers to
them as male and female as if The Adam were just as real as Abraham, Noah, and Lot.
And so I conclude that The Adam was just as real as I am, even as you did also. And that axiom leads me to the correct conclusion that the rest of the Genesis narrative must be a literal account of Creation because all those things that He created would need to exist, almost simultaneously, to keep this real-time, very real human, The Adam, alive.
And for additional proof there is this from Luke's genealogy of Jesus:
And He, Jesus, when beginning, was about thirty years old, being a son (as to the law) of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat,... of Enosh, of Seth,
of Adam, of God.
Those who support anything
but a literal interpretation of Genesis are hard pressed to explain, with any sense, why Adam should be considered the
only figurative figure in this genealogy.
And of course the apostles also quote from Genesis as if the humans talked about were actual, real humans. For example:
(Rom 5:14) ... nevertheless death reigns from Adam unto Moses, (even)
over those also who do not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him Who is about to be. (What's this?!? What's this?!? Did he just say that there are humans
who don't sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam?!? Whaaaat? I thought we were
all depraved?
(I Cor 15:21-22 & 45) For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead. For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.
If there is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also. Thus it is written also, The first man, Adam, "became a living soul:" the last Adam a vivifying Spirit.
(1 Tim 2:13-15) ...(for Adam was first molded, thereafter Eve, and Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded, has come to be in the transgression). Yet she shall be saved through the child bearing, if ever they should be remaining in faith and love and holiness with sanity. If you're actually reading all this prompt me to and I'll provide for you an explanation of what Paul meant here that actually make sense.
(Jude 14) Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesies to these also, saying, "Lo! the Lord came among ten thousand of His saints...
(Heb 11:7- 12) By faith Noah, being apprized concerning that which is not as yet being observed, being pious, constructs an ark for the salvation of his house, through which he condemns the world, and became an enjoyer of the allotment of the righteousness which accords with faith.
By faith Abraham, being called, obeys, coming out into the place which he was about to obtain to enjoy as an allotment, and came out, not versed in where he is coming. By faith he sojourns in the land of promise as in an alien land, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the joint enjoyers of the allotment of the same promise. For he waited for the city having foundations, whose Artificer and Architect is God.
By faith Sarah herself also obtained power for the disruption of seed, and brought forth beyond the period of her prime, since she deems the Promiser faithful; wherefore, also, were begotten by one, and these of one who is deadened, according as the constellations of heaven in multitude, and as the sand beside the sea shore innumerable.
(1 Pet 3:20) He heralds to those once stubborn, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water...
(2 Pet 2: 4-11) For if God spares not sinning messengers, but thrusting them into the gloomy caverns of Tartarus, gives them up to be kept for chastening judging; and spares not the ancient world, but guards Noah, an eighth, a herald of righteousness, bringing a deluge on the world of the irreverent; and condemns the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to cinders by an overthrow, having placed them as an example for those about to be irreverent: and rescues the just man, Lot, harried by the behavior of the dissolute in their wantonness (for the just man dwelling among them, in observing and hearing from day to day, tormented his just soul by their lawless acts), the Lord is acquainted with the rescue of the devout out of trial, yet is keeping the unjust for chastening in the day of judging, yet specially those going after the flesh in defiling lust and despising lordship. Audacious, given to self-gratification, they are not trembling when calumniating glories, where messengers, being greater in strength and power, are not bringing against them a calumniating judging before the Lord.
Be good, Molly!
It's what you were created to be!
(BTW my wife's name is Molly- Love that name!)
QuoteGood decision! Could I ask if it's been your experience that these 'spiritual pathways' you mention tend to narrow down to a specific, singular understanding, rather than broadening to be inclusive of any and every understanding?
Yes, it does. It gets more and more focused, a narrow path. Truth is absolute! (Not saying I know it all yet). But it is a path we walk on, not turning to the right or the left. He is the Way--literally the road, the journey, the highway.
I understand now that the reason for the literal is that we have to be standing on something. Without that, we are just falling through space (the pit of evil is bottomless). Christ is our foundation in a very literal sense. We are standing on [his] faith, and it's real!
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, ..."substance"G5287
ὑπόστασις
hupostasishoop-os'-tas-is
From a compound of G5259 and G2476;
a setting under (support), that is, (figuratively) concretely essence, or abstractly assurance (objectively or subjectively): - confidence, confident, person, substance.
....the evidence of things not seen."evidence"G1650
ἔλεγχος
elegchosel'-eng-khos
From G1651;
proof, conviction: - evidence, reproof.
QuoteYou would be amazed at how many Believers out there actually think that evolution must be incorporated into our understanding simply because they can't believe that all those scientists could all be wrong! Despite the fact that everything these scientists, so called, have ever touted as proof and I do mean, literally, everything is eventually found to be a hoax or misapplied.
Not amazed, we are-- literally --surrounded in a bath of lies. Everything we think we know (because we learned it from man) is lies. The liars know they are lying and do it anyway. Those scientists all know that evolution as presented to the public is a lie--but they are afraid, they are cowards, they want their jobs, they want the praise of men, they think what's the harm?--so they keep their heads down and go along. But, that's just one drop in the bucket. It is pervasive. Our Lord warns us we will have to count the cost if we want to walk with him. The cost is high (in earthly terms).
Thanks for the scripture!
Hey Molly!
Quote from: Molly on August 28, 2009, 04:56:04 AMQuote
I'm interested in hearing your specific ideas on Genesis 1-3, that is, the answers you have to the questions you posted.
How about I do you one better and let you read the end result of the answers to those questions?
I will soon be posting a narrative that will sum up my conclusions.
I'll let you know when it's up.
As promised.
Hey Doc!
QuoteQuoteWhy would there be a literal tree with literal fruit that bestows knowledge of good and evil?
In short order, you will have my answer.
Here it is. (http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6744.0)
Quote from: Eleutheros on August 28, 2009, 10:32:06 PM
Hey Molly!
How about I do you one better and let you read the end result of the answers to those questions?
I will soon be posting a narrative that will sum up my conclusions.
I'll let you know when it's up.
I loved it. :gangel:
One of the first things that struck me most when I actually read the Bible about Adam (instead of just hearing bad things about him in the popular culture) was how much God loved him--and you captured that perfectly!
Quote from: Molly on August 29, 2009, 04:14:17 AM
Quote from: Eleutheros on August 28, 2009, 10:32:06 PM
Hey Molly!
How about I do you one better and let you read the end result of the answers to those questions?
I will soon be posting a narrative that will sum up my conclusions.
I'll let you know when it's up.
I loved it. :gangel:
One of the first things that struck me most when I actually read the Bible about Adam (instead of just hearing bad things about him in the popular culture) was how much God loved him--and you captured that perfectly!
Thank you Molly for your reply. I'm delighted that you
loved it!
I gotta ask: "What bad things did you hear about
Adam in the popular culture?"
It was always bad things about
God that I heard. And that was because of what Calvinist/Arminian Christians preached to the world for 1700 years; of that peculiar hell, yes, but, also that God knew,
as a fact, that The Adam was going to 'fall' (their word choice and reflective of their theology)
before He created him/her- An axiomatic belief that was translated into existence exactly as that peculiar hell was.
And of course, this axiom turns the set-up in the Garden to nothing less than a diabolical sting operation.
For it is a truth, even as I heard it once said, facetiously, of the logical and quite horrific conclusions accurately drawn from that axiom about the
character of Jehovah:
"No one will believe in a 'good' God who creates faulty humans and then blames
them for His mistakes!"
And that was being kind.
What I have written, after studying Genesis 1-3
literally and
scientifically and in the light, also, of a literal reading of the rest of scripture, even though the Genesis account can stand on it's own, when read literally, is to introduce anyone who can accept it to an
understanding- a
way of thinking- that,
once grasped, can answer a lot of heretofore 'difficult' questions.
Any, of course, are free to reject it as a truthful
way of thinking. As they wish. I don't think ill of anyone who does, nor do I believe anyone is wrong-headed who rejects it.
After all, to say that there might be something Jehovah
couldn't know,
as a fact, is bordering on blasphemy in many Believer's thoughts exactly because of the 1700 years of Calvinistic/Arminianistic indoctrination that, in this time, is now being exposed for the deception that it is.
And even though I do hold that there are right and wrong
ways of thinking- right and wrong
understandings- my God's Lady, Wisdom personified in Jesus, is mostly concerned with getting humans to stop sinning, even as my understanding concludes. And any and every belief that, comming from faith in Jesus The Messiah- Who cleanses the human conscience by forgiving sins and Whose spirit re-sires these humans to be the Children of God they were intended to be- can be used to
stop a human from sinning and
start them being righteous, is OK with me! Even as I perceive that, for now, the plurality of these many and often contradictory beliefs is OK with Him until
He sees fit to guide any one of us, who are among the first to believe, into that narrowing of their beliefs to a singular understanding that coaleses everything into Truth, even as He has done so with me.
And so I share Creation Hymn. Freely. It is my gift to my God. For even as the understanding I have come to know, built up over the years as I tried to find reasonable answers to those hard questions I asked, so long ago, has given me insight into things others have no real answer for, so I hope it will illuminate any others who both
can and
want to receive it.
Do with it, Tentmakers, as you will. It is a gift.
But, above all be good!
Exactly as you were created to be.
Dennis!
Quote from: Eleutheros on August 28, 2009, 11:27:09 AM
What Jesus did in addressing the Jews gathered around Him, of whom He said "You are the salt of the earth and a light on a hill" was to illustrate the importance of righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness above the demands of the law, so that they would be the good witness they were intended to be for God to the Gentiles. The very same righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness that works in those Gentiles re-sired by Jehovah to make them a good witness for God to the world today.
And these qualities of righteousness, mercy, lieiency and forgivness were not contradictory to their understanding of truth, 'spiritual' or otherwise, nor where they innaccurate with regard to their literal reading of scripture, nor where they in conflict with their conscience about what 'those words' (The Law) in scripture meant.
I'm only going to directly address this part, as these exchanges are getting too long for me to keep up with. I don't really think we're getting anywhere with this long-winded vague sniping back and forth.
I understand the point that this is what Jesus was trying to do, but, it
appeared to them as I suggested, which was the point. They thought they had the truth (the letter/ literal), so they didn't believe the Truth when he was standing right in front of them (the Spirit).
At any rate, I don't disagree that truth can be known at least at some level, and that the (absolute) truth itself is not plural. I do maintain however, that the only possible way that we can know this is by knowing the person who
is the Truth (and Way, and Life). Anytime we put
any knowledge or reason above this, we are guilty of missing the mark, which is exactly what happened to the Jews. We have to hear with spiritual ears and see with spiritual eyes, or we'll miss the message by not seeing the forest for the trees.
Now, I suspect that you have a point to make regarding your thread title, so I'd like to hear you lay out your position so that we can perhaps continue a more meaningful discussion.
Greetings Gentle Readers.
In my first post (http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6555.msg71142#msg71142) on this thread I summed up exactly how that peculiar hell was translated into existence by the KJV interpreters.
And later I said, in other posts, that I wrote all that out, right off the bat, to demonstrate my solidarity with what you guys, the Tentmakers, are trying to accomplish for the kingdom as well as to show that I am not a troublemaker or a threat, or even just frustrating, even as some, I knew, would later perceive me to be because of what the way they think would reveal to them about what I would say.
Well, after I summed up well the shenanigans of the KJV interpreters, with a gracious comment on it by Tim thrown in, thank you again, Tim, I then asked this question:
"Given the deliberate, ulterior motivated dishonesty of the KJV interpreters, how can we trust the rest of their work? Indeed, why should we?
My answer was that I don't. I don't trust that any logical conclusion, derived from the English sense forced onto the Greek and Hebrew text by King James's interpreters, is truthful.
And the majority of you here don't either, at least from what you know.
Why? Because words mean things. And that is why words can convey things we call thoughts or ideas.
The fact is that the KJV interpreters screwed with The Words of God. Which means we, the Believers, were the ones screwed. Specifically, we were screwed into trusting, at least for the next several centuries, that the hell-based theology of St. Augustine and John Calvin was truthful- and that, unfortunately, God was Who they interpreted Him to be- Mean, Angry and Capricious. Despite the 'agape' He supposedly demonstrated when He allowed His Son to be murdered, just so He could save a few humans, for whatever His purposes were in making these few His Son's (Gulp!) 'Bride' (*Chill* Imagine having John Calvin's God as your Father in Law for all of eternity!!)
Now, that doesn't mean that I disagree with how the KJV interpreters translated everything. For obviously The truth of the Gospel has gone out, successfully, into the World, preached from the final 1728 version of the 1611 KJV Bible right into the present.
And that is because the truth is that God is Agape! And He is a Good and Kind and Patient Father, even as those who receive his re-siring spirit come to know Him to be.
What I am saying is that I don't trust what I or anyone else will conclude from the English sense they gave to the original text, until I can verify it with my own word studies. Then I can know whether their's or my conclusions, drawn from this English sense they imposed, are accurate.
And how can I know whether my conclusions, or anyone else's, for that matter, are accurate? Because truth is singular in nature. It is lies that are plural. Therefore, I know, both logically and from experience, that many of the conclusions that are drawn from that foreign, English sense that was imposed on The Words by the KJV interpreters, lie to you in your thoughts.
So, what's in a word? Answer: Meaning: One word can mean almost the same thing as another and one word can mean exactly the opposite of another.
But it only ever takes just one word to mean exactly one thing.
Which is why you can change the thought you want to convey if you change just one single word. It can be a subtle change (using synonyms) or it can be a substantial one, even as substantial as to invert the meaning originally intended (using antonyms).
To illustrate this I am going to attempt to change your thinking about Jacob- that dirty scoundrel, that liar and deceiver, that suppplanter, that damn heel- grabber- by changing one English word that does not reflect the truth in the Hebrew word it was made to stand for in the English translation.
The Hebrew word is tawm (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8535&t=KJVStrongs%20#%208535)
It occurs 13 times in 13 verses of the Hebrew text.
It is translated with the English word 'perfect' nine times, with the English word 'undefiled' twice and with the English word 'upright' one time. All of these words are synonyms and based on the Hebrew context, these English words accurately convey the thought in the Hebrew text where tawm is used, variously, to describe, by God Himself, the character of Job and in two Psalms and a Proverb to contrast the righteous man with the unrighteous and once by Solomon to describe his Shulamite's physical beauty even as it is once used by her to describe his.
That accounts for twelve of the thirteen times tawm appears in the Hebrew text..
The thirteenth is actually the first time the word tawm appears. And it is used to describe Jacob.
And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a tawm man, dwelling in tents. Genesis 25:27 KJV.
But, here, in this first occurrence of tawm, did the KJV interpreters use any of the English words they choose to translate tawm everywhere else it appears, that is 'perfect', 'upright' or 'undefiled'?
No.
They said that Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.
Do you see, now, what I mean, how one word can literally and even drastically change everything?
Think now on the story of Jacob and Esau. What thought's are in your mind about Jacob, thoughts that you had planted in you by those who preached 'the truth' from the KJV, that now must be altered, assuming you desire truthfulness in your thinking about Jacob, because now you know the truth that Jacob was an 'upright', 'undefiled' or 'perfect' man, dwelling in tents?
Even as the Bible declares him to be and even as God Himself used tawm to describe Job, that is to say that he was upright and undefiled, or 'perfect'?
Well, Gentle Readers, in the similitude of what the KJV interpreters did to malign the character of Jacob, (a man God apparently had a lot of respect for and thus chose over another who really was a scoundrel), by changing one word and thus put it into our minds that he was a plain man, rather than an upright man, there is another deception that they foisted on the English speaking mind when they did something quite similar to what they needed to do to the text to translate into existence that peculiar hell that is the cornerstone of Calvin's theology: They translated two different Greek words katabole (Strong's # 2602) and themelios (Strong's # 2310)- which, in Greek, posses dissimilar, even opposite meanings- with one English word, thus translating into existence an idea that is as peculiar as hell.
First let's look at themelios (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2310&t=KJV)
It appears 16 times in 15 verses.
For your convenience I have provided all 15 of the scriptures, from the KJV, were this word appears and have italicized the English word used where themelios appears in the original text.
Lu 6:48- 49 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded (themelioo # 2311) upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
Lu 14:28-30 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Acts 16:25 And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed.
Rom 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation...
1 Cor 3: 10-12 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
Eph 2:19-22 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
1 Tim 6:17-19 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
2 Tim 2:19 ...Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying (katabollo #2598) again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God...
Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
Rev 21:14 & 19And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb... And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald...
Here then is the dictionary definition of the English word 'foundation' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foundation):
-noun
1) the basis or groundwork of anything: the moral foundation of both society and religion.
2) the natural or prepared ground or base on which some structure rests.
3) the lowest division of a building, wall, or the like, usually of masonry and partly or wholly below the surface of the ground.
4) the act of founding, setting up, establishing, etc.: a policy in effect since the foundation.
5) the state of being founded.
6) an institution financed by a donation or legacy to aid research, education, the arts, etc.: the Ford Foundation.
7) an endowment for such an institution.
8) a cosmetic, as a cream or liquid, used as a base for facial makeup.
9) Solitaire. a card of given denomination on which other cards are to be added according to denomination or suit.
And this is what Strong says it means:
1) laid down as a foundation, the foundation (of a building, wall, city)
2) metaph. the foundations, beginnings, first principals
a) of institution or system of truth
So, we see that, given the context of the Greek, when the word themelios appears, that our English word 'foundation' was a very good choice for accurately conveying the original writers intent.
That is, 'foundation' is concordant with themelios everywhere themelios appears and is a good word to convey the original writers intent.
Now in exactly the same way let's look at katabole (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2602&t=KJV) and the Greek word it comes from katabollo (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2598&t=KJV)
Katabole appears 11 times in 11 verses and katabollo appears 3 times in 3 verses.
Again, for your convenience, I have provided all 14 of the scriptures, from the KJV, were this word appears and this time have italicized in green the English words chosen by the KJV interpreters to use where katabole appears in the original text and in blue where katabollo appears.
Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
Matt 25:31-40 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came.
Luke 11: 48-51 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
2 Cor 4:8-10 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down , but not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
Eph 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundationof the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God... This verse is special. It uses both katabollo and themelios in the same thought which, all by itself, proves quite nicely that 'foundation' can not be what katabollo or katabole means.
Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Heb 9: 24-26 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 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.
Heb 11:11-12 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
1 Pet 1: 17-21 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Rev13: 8-9 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. If any man have an ear, let him hear.
Rev 17: 8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
The definition for foundation has already been given.
However, in one place katabole cannot be translated with the word 'foundation' because it just wouldn't make any sense.
In that troublesome place they chose the word 'conceive'.
Interesting, eh?
(Sound familiar? this is exactly like the situation where they had to translate aionios with phrases like 'since the world began' to keep some kind of sense because, in those toublesome places, the wrong word choice, 'eternal', just wouldn't work. Which, of course, just adds to the proof that many of their word choices aren't accurate ones.)
Now here is what Strong says katabole means:
1) a throwing or laying down
a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb
b) of the seed of plants and animals
2) a founding (laying down a foundation)
And what katabollo means:
1) to cast down
a) to throw to the ground, prostrate
2) to put in a lower place
a) to lay (down) a foundation
Now it is a truth, even as you are likely aware of it, I'm sure, from your own word studies, that Strong got his definitions from the context where the KJV interpreters said the English word should be used, with no regard for whether the Greek and English words were truly concordant.
In other words, if the KJV interpreters said that this is what the word meant then, for him, that is what the word meant.
OK. So, does the Greek language really have two words that mean exactly the same thing as all the ideas that come into our mind when we hear the English word 'foundation'?
The answer is no.
The Greek language does not have two words that mean exactly the same thing as 'foundation' anymore than the English language has two words that mean exactly the same thing as foundation.
Nor can any other language have two words that mean exactly the same thing. (Except for differences in spelling)
What the KJV interpreters are doing here is the exact same thing they did when they used one English word 'eternal' to translate aion, aionios and aiodios.
Only aiodios means exactly the same thing as our English word 'eternal'. Which means that aion and it's adjective, aionios, do not mean 'eternal' (as you all know), anymore than katabole and katabollo mean 'foundation' (as you all now know).
Themelios means 'foundation' in Greek, not katabole
End of Part 1
Quote from: Eleutheros on August 28, 2009, 10:32:06 PM
Hey Molly!
Quote from: Molly on August 28, 2009, 04:56:04 AMQuote
I'm interested in hearing your specific ideas on Genesis 1-3, that is, the answers you have to the questions you posted.
How about I do you one better and let you read the end result of the answers to those questions?
I will soon be posting a narrative that will sum up my conclusions.
I'll let you know when it's up.
As promised.
Hey Doc!
QuoteQuoteWhy would there be a literal tree with literal fruit that bestows knowledge of good and evil?
In short order, you will have my answer.
Here it is. (http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6744.0)
Posting that version of the creation account, while summing up your take on the creation narrative, doesn't really explain how you arrived at the conclusions you present.
I know of another Christian writer who uses the paradigm or axiom of "literal whenever possible", and uses the concordant literal version, yet comes to opposite conclusions on some of the points. For example, he does not believe that the scripture teaches free will, which you clearly do. He also does not believe that God took a risk by placing the Trees in the midst of the Garden, but rather that this was his plan all along, although he would agree with you that these were all literal things.
I also meant to answer another of your questions from the previous post, but I see now I'm going to have to go back and look to see which one it was. Back in a bit once I find it.
Part 2
So what does katabole mean in English?
That is a very good question.
I am not a Greek scholar and so like you I have to research what others have written and what I found is debate.
However, in any debate certain facts, which, you remember, facts are one kind of truth, emerged.
The first is that the translators of the Septuagint used the word katabollo to translate Hebrew words that mean destruction, degradation, decay, disintegration, overthrow, and a few others.
Hence, it is associated not with 'building upon' but in 'tearing down'. It is a word with a negative meaning.
The second is that themelios is used in the Septuagint as well and it is always used to translate words that mean exactly what we mean when we say 'foundation'.
Hence it is associated with the concept of laying something down for the purpose of building upon it. It is a word with a positive meaning.
And the third fact is that katabollo derives from two Greek words kata which means 'down' and bollo which means 'to cast'. So katabollo, from which katabole is derived, means to 'down-cast' which is an idea that is quite far removed from the idea of laying a foundation.
I also found where Origen had this to say of katabole:
"καταβολη, which has been very improperly translated into Latin by "constitutio;" for in Greek καταβολη signifies rather "dejicere," i.e., to cast downwards... From this it follows, that by the use of the word a descent from a higher to a lower condition, shared by all in common, would seem to be pointed out" (De Principiis, III.4).
Interesting thought when one considers the turning of The Adam in the Garden.
Of course, there is the fact that Saint Augustine is (in)famous for his preference of the Latin translations over the original Greek saying that he actually hated Greek. Which is understandable, given that he had an agenda and the Latin supported it much better than the Greek did, even as Origien pointed out that the Latin translation of katabole did not align well with the Greek usage.
This preference of the Latin over the Greek was also the course that the KJV interpreters took when they were tasked with making the KJV translation align with the much preferred, relatively new, highly logical, systematic, hell-based theology of John Calvin, against what The Words actually taught.
OK. So, is there a single English word that can convey to our minds what katabole does- for it does not mean 'foundation'?
Well I found this article (http://www.scripture4all.org/ISA2_help/DatabaseInfo/GNT_intro.html) and from it I quote (italics are mine):
To appreciate this 'concordant' method (of transaltion), we will examine the word [katabolE], commonly translated "foundation." One is confronted with a difficulty at the very outset. Another word is also translated "foundation." It is [themelios]. This word has a much better right to be thus translated. Most Greek words are members of a large family. The nearest relative, the father of this word for "foundation," means "to place" [tithEmi]. That it really includes the thought of founding is witnessed by the context of each occurrence. It is "upon a rock" (Matt.7:25; Luke 6:48), it keeps company with "rooted" (Eph.3:17), "settled" (Col.1:23), 'strengthen' (1Peter5:10). Every occurrence of the word itself, without exception, bears out for the meaning of "foundation." It is "built" (Luke 6:49; Rom.15:20; 1 Cor.3:12; Eph.2:20). It is "laid" (Luke 6:48; 14:29; 1 Cor.3:10,11). It is part of a prison (Acts 16:26), a temple (Eph.2:20), a city wall (Rev.21:14-19). There can be no other conclusion that [themelios] means "foundation."
But [katabolE], the word under study, has no such evidence to support its claim to this meaning. Its nearest relative, [kataballO], is generally translated "cast down" (2 Cor.4:9; Rev.12:10). The context of 2 Cor. 4:9 shows that it cannot mean "built up. Neither would heaven rejoice of Satan's being "founded" when he is defeated (Rev.12:10).
The evidence for the exact force of this expression is multiplied many times if it is separated into its elements. Its elements are DOWN-CAST, and the Greek has found its way into English in the word catabolism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/catabolism). The element DOWN brings in two hundred witnesses, while CAST commands over fifty. These may be called its near relatives. DOWN-CASTing is a strange and unlikely word for 'foundation'. It does not suggest building up, but casting down. By testing this new thought in all the contexts, DOWN-CASTing means 'disruption', not 'foundation', as, for example, in Eph. 1:4...
(There was an interlinear text 'picture' that was supposed to paste here to illustrate Eph 1:4 but I couldn't figure out how to get it onto this page. Please follow the link above to see the whole article)
So, 'disruption' is the best single English word to use every place katabole appears.
Even in this strange verse where katabole is used in this phrase katabole spermatos
Heb 11:11 ...Sarah herself received dunamis (power) to 'disrupt seed' katabole spermatos.
For we now know that the process of conception involves the 'death' of that lucky male sperm and the subsequent catabolizing or 'breaking down' of it, once inside the ovum, in order to release the DNA.
And it shouldn't seem strange that something like this knowledge of how a human is conceived could be known by the writer of Hebrews because it was known that, "...If a kernel of grain, (seed) falling into the earth, should not be dying, it is remaining alone, yet if it should be dying, it is bringing forth much fruit"-Jesus. (John 12:24 CLV).
As a side note I mentioned that I use the Concordant Literal Version in my studies because it is the only one to dare and use the truthful word choice for katabole, 'disruption'. Even Rotherman and Young don't dare to touch this very sacred mis-translation: And so, at the least, the foundation of Calvinism is kept alive in our thoughts, despite that we are witnessing the dissolution, in our thoughts, of everything else he said was truthful, especially that peculiar hell he caused to come into our thinking -and that in our lifetimes because of the work human's like you are doing here on Tentmaker.
And that is why I am still here, despite foreknowing that the way of thinking that domintes here on Tentmaker- a way of thinking Doc so well presented, thank you- would lead many of you to dismiss me and maybe even scoff, even if you didn't do it publicly, once it was perceived that I was circumspectly arguing for a literal translation of Genesis. (Love that word, Doc!)
I say 'foreknew' because it is a truth that, for the way of thinking that is in those who accept that truth is plural in nature, there can be no acceptance of the thought that truth is singular in nature.
However, there is the truth that the majority of you are well acquainted with the logic I've used here. It is the very same logic you yourselves use to disprove the KJV interpretation. That is, you have learned how to use the KJV against itself; for the KJV is a very inaccurate translation. And by this you prove to the world, from the original languages, that Jesus is truly the savior of ALL men, especially those who believe! A-men!
So, to sum up the truth's I've presented here, 'disruption' is concordant with katabole everywhere katabole appears and is a good word to convey the original writers intent, including all those very much depended upon mis-translated verses in Revelation and Ephesians, used to 'prove' the intended conclusion of the KJV interpreters that Jesus was crucified from the 'foundation' of the world.
Jesus was crucified from the disruption of the world, not it's founding.
Eph 1:3-4 (CLV) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who blesses us with every spiritual blessing among the celestials, in Christ, according as He chooses us in Him before the disruption of the world, we to be holy and flawless in His sight..
Rev 13:8-9 (CLV) And all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshiping it, everyone whose name is not written in the scroll of life of the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world. If anyone has an ear, let him hear.
Rev 17:8 (CLV) The wild beast which you perceived was, and is not, and is about to be ascending out of the submerged chaos, and to be going away into destruction. And marvel shall those dwelling on the earth, whose names are not written on the scroll of life from the disruption of the world, when they observe the wild beast, seeing that it was, and is not, and will be present.
Now gentle readers you are in a conundrum. I know that, here on Tentmaker, the foundation of a lot of your thoughts is built upon the idea that Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world, not it's disruption. And it is possible that, right now, some of you have perceived that your foundations are being shaken for the evidence I've just presented.
So what else is new?
How many of you here agonized over what the KJV said about hell as the truth of UR dawned on you?
How many of you put up a fight, first, before perceiving the truth?
How many of you understood UR almost immediately because of what you had grasped of truth about the character of your God, despite the 'truths' in the KJV Bible?
How many of you felt free once you grasped the truth of UR?
Well, this is no different.
Because the only real question left to answer is, when was the katabole kosmos? When was the 'disruption of the world'?
Of course my answer is in the Garden, when The Adam turned.
You may have a different answer. But, whatever it is, it should not be drawn from the erroneous conclusion that Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world implying that God knew, as a fact, before he created The Adam that they were going to 'fall'. AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I would like to thank all of you who participated in this discussion, especially you, Doc. You were bold and fearless.
You were all stellar in arguing for your beliefs. I thank you for the good spirit you all showed even when you perceived that I was arguing for something that most of you don't believe in, that is, that Genesis was intended to be read literally-only And for the other things.
I hope that I was perceived by you as having at least as good a spirit as I perceive you had. :bigGrin:
And Molly,
I thank you personally and publicly for being the one Tentmaker who was bold enough to express the minority opinion. (Are you the only one?!?) Your posts were well received by me and much appreciated :bigGrin: :thumbsup: )
And so Tentmakers, don't believe everything you think! I know I don't.
And be good!
It is, after all, what Your Father, God, originally intended for you to be!
Dennis!
Dennis,
I have found nothing in particular in these last few posts that I particularly disagree with you on, aside from the conclusion that the "fall" was not foreknown. I also use the CLV, and think that the KJV is a stinker of a translation, although as you point out, it doesn't always get it wrong. As I just pointed out in a previous post, there is another writer I am familiar with who also uses the CLV, is also UR, but comes to the opposite conclusion as you do on the issues of free will and on the foreknowledge of the "fall". So that can't be merely an issue of translation. While your word study on Katabole and Themelios was a good and instructive one, I think your conclusion of when the Katabole was, is perhaps less certainly demonstrable.
Here are the first two verses of Genesis from the CLV:
Gen 1:1 Created by the Elohim were the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 Yet the earth became a chaos and vacant, and darkness was on the surface of the submerged chaos. Yet the spirit of the Elohim is vibrating over the surface of the water.
Then the familiar creation account begins. Notice that the Adam was one of the last things created after this point, whether one's view is of six literal days or six figurative days. On a literal reading of Genesis 1 then, I would conclude that the Katabole occurred right there in Genesis 1:2, before the creation of Adam (or the rest of recognizable creation), and before the fall.
Dear Eleutheros, my computer is very slow today so I cannot say everything I would like to say.
Thank you so much for that study you did on the two words. I have been tearing my hair out for a long time over this because although I was given the revelation, I was not given the words.
Katabollo, to cast down, I have been dancing around that concept for a long time, now, but I didn't realize it appears where you have shown it to appear. Tell me, then, is Adam the lamb slain from the casting down of the world?
If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to me. Why is that?
I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. Who is that?
And, who are we?
The whole book is about the Lord Jesus, isn't it? Our brother, our Redeemer, our kinsman, the image of the invisible God, the second Adam. If you have done this to the least of my brothers, you have done it to me.
2And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.
3And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.
4And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:
5That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.
--Exodus 4
Dennis,
Regarding more specifically some of our earlier conversation, I'd appreciate some explanation from you on the literal interpretation of this selection from Genesis: (CLV)
Gen 3:13 And saying is Yahweh Elohim to the woman, "What is this you do? "And saying is the woman, "The serpent lured me and I am eating.
Who or what is the serpent? Are we to believe that this was an actual, literal serpent? If so, why?
Gen 3:14 And saying is Yahweh Elohim to the serpent, "As you do this, most cursed are you of every beast, and of all field life. On your torso shall you go, and soil shall you eat all the days of your life.
So, the serpent originally had legs and feet and/or wings. After this point, the serpent was made to crawl on its belly instead. Does this lend itself more to a literal interpretation, or an allegorical one?
Gen 3:15 And enmity am I setting between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall hurt your head and you shall hurt his heel.
In what sense can 3:15 be taken literally?
Gen 3:16 And to the woman He says, "Multiplying, yea, multiplying am I your grief and the groaning of your pregnancy. In grief shall you bear sons. "Yet by your husband is your restoration, and he shall rule over you.
What is the literal sense of the above verse (aside from the multiplication of grief and groaning of pregnancy)?
Gen 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim, "Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!
The above was the verse that I was referring to when I was talking about the tree of life, but it says live for the eon, not forever. Obviously, God did not want them living for the eon in their new state of being as "one of us, knowing good and evil". I don't have a specific question for you on this one, but I'd be interested in your take on its meaning.
Quote from: Doc on September 01, 2009, 12:45:54 AM
Dennis,
I have found nothing in particular in these last few posts that I particularly disagree with you on, aside from the conclusion that the "fall" was not foreknown. I also use the CLV, and think that the KJV is a stinker of a translation, although as you point out, it doesn't always get it wrong. As I just pointed out in a previous post, there is another writer I am familiar with who also uses the CLV, is also UR, but comes to the opposite conclusion as you do on the issues of free will and on the foreknowledge of the "fall". So that can't be merely an issue of translation. While your word study on Katabole and Themelios was a good and instructive one, I think your conclusion of when the Katabole was, is perhaps less certainly demonstrable.
Here are the first two verses of Genesis from the CLV:
Gen 1:1 Created by the Elohim were the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 Yet the earth became a chaos and vacant, and darkness was on the surface of the submerged chaos. Yet the spirit of the Elohim is vibrating over the surface of the water.
Then the familiar creation account begins. Notice that the Adam was one of the last things created after this point, whether one's view is of six literal days or six figurative days. On a literal reading of Genesis 1 then, I would conclude that the Katabole occurred right there in Genesis 1:2, before the creation of Adam (or the rest of recognizable creation), and before the fall.
I've noticed that, too, in Genesis 1:2.
But don't confuse emptiness and desolation, tohu and bohu, with katabole.
The first is the problem, and the second just might be the solution.
I suppose that's fair enough.
I still think that this (Gen 1:2) is potentially a better description of katabole than what came later with the expulsion. I think it's interesting to note that the heavens earth were created, then it became a chaos and vacant, and then God created what we have now. We can only speculate from what we have here, but this is perhaps an indication of some type of life before Adam.
Quote from: Eleutheros on August 10, 2009, 10:25:07 PM
Quote from: Tim B on August 10, 2009, 09:54:34 PMHey Dennis,
I actually do enjoy the Concordant Literal Version as well. I tend to trust the CLV, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (I've got this one on my iPod Touch :bigGrin: ), and Young's Literal Translation the most, for accuracy. Rotherham's Emphasized uses age-lasting/age-abiding rather than eternal, and so does Young's Literal (which is why I like that one too). Rotherham's also correctly translates Matthews 25:46 as "age-lasting correction" as opposed to "eternal punishment". Over all, these three tend to be, in general, much more accurate than other translations. :bigGrin:
I'm familiar with Young's. It's a bit stilted, but as you said He did accurately translate 'aion'.
Rotherham's, eh? I will look into this one as I've never heard of it till now. Thanks for sharing!
QuoteAs for your questions, I would enjoy looking into answering some of them. I'd also need to read Genesis 1-3. I haven't read that all the way through in quite a while. However, I'm not sure how soon I'll be getting back to ya, as I can be kind of lazy, and more importantly I'm leaving for my vacation today and may not have internet access (*sniffle*).
Love be with ya! :thumbsup:
Well, you just have a really great vactaion! I know I just did!
Here's an idea: Why don't you print out the questions and discuss them with your traveling companion (are you married?), especially if you are driving. You'd likely learn a thing or two in the process! As you wish!
God speed you into a good time! :bgdance:
Dennis!
Hey man, it's been a long time waiting, but I finally got around to replying to this message. To answer your question: I'm not married. Just about to turn 21, but I haven't found "the one" yet. lol
I tend to study alone (in person, I mean.) I study with lots of people on here, as in, share my thoughts and stuff. :bigGrin: Not that I don't want to study with others (outside of the internet), but most people I know either don't agree with UR or don't study much themselves. I can talk to my parents (my mom believes in UR and my dad more or less does), but they don't study a whole lot like I do. And even though my sister believes in UR she doesn't study the Bible or UR very much. So, basically, I'm out of luck, aside from my internet friends (currently speaking).
Quote from: Doc on September 01, 2009, 02:17:29 AM
I suppose that's fair enough.
I still think that this (Gen 1:2) is potentially a better description of katabole than what came later with the expulsion. I think it's interesting to note that the heavens earth were created, then it became a chaos and vacant, and then God created what we have now. We can only speculate from what we have here, but this is perhaps an indication of some type of life before Adam.
Then where would this fit in?
Who did what when for what purpose?
19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
--Rom 8
[For the earnest expectation of the]
"creature" [waiteth]
G2937
κτίσις
ktisis
ktis'-is
From G2936; original formation (properly the act; by implication the thing, literally or figuratively): - building, creation, creature, ordinance.
G2936
κτίζω
ktizō
ktid'-zo
Probably akin to G2932 (through the idea of the proprietorship of the manufacturer); to fabricate, that is, found (form originally): - create, Creator, make.
G2932
κτάομαι
ktaomai
ktah'-om-ahee
A primary verb; to get, that is, acquire (by any means; own): - obtain, possess, provide, purchase.
G2933
κτῆμα
ktēma
ktay'-mah
From G2932; an acquirement, that is, estate: - possession.
Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Hey, Doc!
Quote from: Doc on August 31, 2009, 09:29:45 PM
Quote from: Eleutheros on August 28, 2009, 11:27:09 AM
What Jesus did in addressing the Jews gathered around Him, of whom He said "You are the salt of the earth and a light on a hill" was to illustrate the importance of righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness above the demands of the law, so that they would be the good witness they were intended to be for God to the Gentiles. The very same righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness that works in those Gentiles re-sired by Jehovah to make them a good witness for God to the world today.
And these qualities of righteousness, mercy, lieiency and forgivness were not contradictory to their understanding of truth, 'spiritual' or otherwise, nor where they innaccurate with regard to their literal reading of scripture, nor where they in conflict with their conscience about what 'those words' (The Law) in scripture meant.
I'm only going to directly address this part, as these exchanges are getting too long for me to keep up with.
As you wish!
QuoteI don't really think we're getting anywhere with this long-winded vague sniping back and forth.
Well, then, I will say that I am sorry, Doc. Because a long-winded, vauge, sniper (is this a pun?!?) is not how I wanted to be perceived. Even though I foreknew I wouldn't exactly be embraced and hugged on once I started making my points more saliant. Even as you said, Doc and quite accurately, I was being circumspect.
After all, 'literalist' (as I was surreptitiously labeled, which is an accurate label, by the way, even though I know it wasn't intended to be complimentary) are considered, here, to be immature, even as Gilbert heavily intimated.
QuoteI understand the point that this is what Jesus was trying to do,...
Well, that's good. At least now I'm communicating! :bigGrin:
Quote...but, it appeared to them as I suggested, which was the point. They thought they had the truth (the letter/ literal), so they didn't believe the Truth when he was standing right in front of them (the Spirit).
Now there's an axiom if ever I heard one! Actually several all at once!
But, OK. As you wish. I'll not respond to this so we can end our previous conversation, even as you say we're not getting anywhere.
QuoteAt any rate, I don't disagree that truth can be known at least at some level, and that the (absolute) truth itself is not plural. I do maintain however, that the only possible way that we can know this is by knowing the person who is the Truth (and Way, and Life).
Well, this is certianly interesting! Are you back tracking a bit now on your belief that truth is plural in nature?
Does this mean that I'm making some progress with you?
Or are you just being concillatory?.
Well, semantics won't hide the fact, Doc, that you do truly and of truth believe that truth is plural in nature. As you wish!
For I, too, know Jesus and I know that He is all these things, even as you say. He is the Way in that He is the access to the Father and He is in me and with me on my Journey there as well: He is the Truth because it is His spirit that understands the deep things of God and reveals them to me that I might know the thoughts and therefore, the heart of my God: He is the Life because in Him all things exist even as He made all things and because through my faith in Him I will have life eonian when I am ressurected (Pretty good for a literalist, eh?)
QuoteAnytime we put any knowledge or reason above this, we are guilty of missing the mark, which is exactly what happened to the Jews.
So are you now saying that I'm actually sinning by thinking and using logic, knowledge and reason?!?
Just like the Jews did?!? No, of course not. I believe better of you than this... Well, I don't know though, you did interpret something I said earlier to be gnostic. Which, of course, required me to clarify, which I hope I did. But, that could have been my own inability to communicate...
Even so, what I recognize is that this is your 'truth'. Not mine.
So since you stated that you do believe truth is plural in nature, which means that whatever *I* can conclude is a truth, just like whatever you can conclude is a truth, can you accept the truth that I have a different more narrow standard by which I determine truth, that is, that what I understand is derived from a literal interpretetion of The Words?
I wouldn't think so, given that you think I'm sinning by holding to this much narrower less broad way of thinking that uses knowledge, reason and logic to arrive at truth-which the spirit of Jesus in me confirms by giving me peace and understanding to know which thoughts I should let into my heart and which I should reject even as I live from my heart for all to see!
QuoteWe have to hear with spiritual ears and see with spiritual eyes, or we'll miss the message by not seeing the forest for the trees.
Well, when you can answer my question What is spirit? Then I'll know that at least
you can see the forest for the trees and that
you know what you're talking about when you say "We have to hear with spiritual ears and see with spiritual eyes..."
Until then I can't afford to trust anyone who says they have something to say 'from the spirit', without something else to compare it with.
And that something else comes from a literal interpretation of The Words exactly because of the narrowing of conclusions I come to know and that I've found to be quite liberating for this literal way of thinking.
Besides, there's just far to many bad humans out there, Doc, with ulterior motives, lying and deceiving in the name of truth, Don'tcha know?
However, most of them become journalists. So that's good. At least they're easily identified. But, there are still some of these humans lurking about in Christendom, many of whom treat the Bible as if it can make anything anybody wants to say a truth as long as you can quote from it and draw a conclusion.
Ever wonder, Doc, where the Saducees got the
wrong conclusion that there is no ressurection from the dead, a
conclusion Jesus said was in error?
Answer: From the 'Bible'.
QuoteNow, I suspect that you have a point to make regarding your thread title, so I'd like to hear you lay out your position so that we can perhaps continue a more meaningful discussion.
Actually I was putting the finishing touches on it even as you were writing
this post! Isn't that a hoot!
I'm sorry it took me so long. I was diligently working on it for most of the last 48 hours 'cause I needed to make sure, before I posted it, that it was the truth both factually
and in it's conclusions, don'tcha know?
Be good!
Dennis!
Quote from: Molly on September 01, 2009, 01:30:56 AM
Dear Eleutheros, my computer is very slow today so I cannot say everything I would like to say.
I'm sorry for that. I hope it gets better!
QuoteThank you so much for that study you did on the two words. I have been tearing my hair out for a long time over this because although I was given the revelation, I was not given the words.
I'm very happy that you found it useful for stopping encroaching baldness! *smile*
QuoteKatabollo, to cast down, I have been dancing around that concept for a long time, now, but I didn't realize it appears where you have shown it to appear.
Glad to be of assistance.
QuoteTell me, then, is Adam the lamb slain from the casting down of the world?
No Jesus is the Lambkin-the baby lamb. So figured, metaphorically, in The Unveiling because the lamb was the sacrificial animal roasted and eaten whole at the Passover, which festival has a lot to prefigure about the literal sacrifice that was to come.
QuoteIf I be lifted up, I will draw all men to me. Why is that?
Well, since you ask, The word draw here would better be rendered
drag... If I be lifted up I will
drag all men unto me.
This is said in the context of the event that took place where Moses was instructed by Jehovah to make a bronze likeness of the serpents He had sent among them for all thier complaining and plotting and to put it up high on a pole, in the middle of the compound, so that anywhere anyone was in the compound, when they were bitten by the firey serpents, they could stop and fixing thier gaze on it, live till the poision in them was dissipated.
Jesus said that He must be lifted up in the same way to become that serpent-on-a-pole for taking upon Himself the sin of all Men and Women. Such that all those who 'fix thier gaze' on Him will live, despite the serpents 'bite'.
But he used the word drag because the forgivness He offers is indeed for all even as all will come to know it; even if some have to be dragged, through the bad consequences of bad choices, to the place where they will find themselves gazing upon his forgivness. And experiencing it they will bow willingly in worship and confess with joy that Jesus is LORD.
It says in The Unveiling that when those in the lake of fire are being tried and proven that they are being so proven in front of Him, thus they are able to observe Him.
I like to ask hell-minded sorts- What expression is on His face for them to see? Triumph? Victory? Is He gloating over them? Or is the look one of compassion and forgivness? Of course they always answer correctly, "Compassion and forgiveness" because they know that if they answer anything else their own hearts would be exposed as hard, even as the hell-minded theologies they hold to teach them to be toward their fellow human.
You see, the compassion and love and forgivness of God is in the face of Jesus such that any human who gazes on it cannot forever endure the weight of the sin they begin to feel in thier spirit before they burst forth in repentance and confession
The Catholics know
of this and thus put crucifixes in the center of thier churches.
And that is why I have concluded that forgivness is the most powerful force in the Universe. Love is just the generator that powers it.
QuoteI am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. Who is that?
Jesus. He said He was, Himself.
QuoteAnd, who are we?
That is a good one! WE are either one of two types of humans a male or a female. WE are sentient and self-aware (where did that come from?) WE have a conscience which means that WE know what the difference is between good and evil, or what is right and what is wrong (where did that come from?) WE, most of us anyway, persistently and consistently disregard this concscience and do things we know are wrong. WE feel guilt over this and thus spend a
lot of time justifying our heart- our thoughts- against what we know is the truth. Therefore, WE are dysfunctional.
WE then must have Someone do something about US, because Good and Right or being Righteous is the right way to be, even if all WE want is to be left alone to do wrong as we feel. Thus, WE have a Savior, because... WE need one, like it or not. He will restore all of US to His Father, the Original Owner and Creator of OUR souls, either through choice, first, even as He foreknows the hearts of those among US and thus knows who will chose to be the first to Believe and thus experience His forgivness and His re-siring of thier spirit. Or later, for those among US who could not or would not choose to be among those first to believe because they love doing wrong things with their sexuality and/or love hurting other humans and/or love lying and perverseness and/or practice deception and/or seek to gain power over other humans, etc. will be restored through a
very unpleaseant process that uses a 'fire' to purge their spirit of evil as well as a pruning to remove what is unhealthy. Thus will they, too, come to see their need for a Savior. And experiencing His forgivness as well as His re-siring, will be restored to the Father through Him. Thus will WE ALL be subject to OUR Savior Who will then subject Himself to His Father and thus will The Father be ALL and in ALL of US as we live long, long productive lives as ressurected humans in New Heavens and a New Earth, with direct access to God through but a thought, creating and exploring and building and learning and loving and creating children even as ALL of US will love goodness and righteousness and love the God who made US ALL to resemble Him.
Thus what He intended for us to gain in the Garden will finally be realized because virtuous will be what we
are, even as He
is and OUR conscience will thus be obeyed, rigorously, even as it continues to tell us what the difference is between right and wrong, good and evil.
And so that is who, I believe, WE are!
QuoteThe whole book is about the Lord Jesus, isn't it? Our brother, our Redeemer, our kinsman, the image of the invisible God, the second Adam. If you have done this to the least of my brothers, you have done it to me.
Yes.
Quote2And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.
3And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.
4And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:
5That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.
--Exodus 4
Yes, that ALL may believe, even if they gotta be dragged to the place where they can.
Be good!
Dennis!
Quote from: Eleutheros on September 01, 2009, 05:11:36 AM
I don't really think we're getting anywhere with this long-winded vague sniping back and forth.
Well, then, I will say that I am sorry, Doc. Because a long-winded, vauge, sniper (is this a pun?!?) is not how I wanted to be perceived. Even though I foreknew I wouldn't exactly be embraced and hugged on once I started making my points more saliant. Even as you said, Doc and quite accurately, I was being circumspect.
After all, 'literalist' (as I was surreptitiously labeled, which is an accurate label, by the way, even though I know it wasn't intended to be complimentary) are considered, here, to be immature, even as Gilbert heavily intimated.
No need for apology. I wasn't saying that you were the only one doing it. We were both going tit for tat over rather long posts, and I was merely observing that our mutual participation in that exercise wasn't getting us anywhere...
QuoteAt any rate, I don't disagree that truth can be known at least at some level, and that the (absolute) truth itself is not plural. I do maintain however, that the only possible way that we can know this is by knowing the person who is the Truth (and Way, and Life).
Well, this is certianly interesting! Are you back tracking a bit now on your belief that truth is plural in nature?
Does this mean that I'm making some progress with you?
Or are you just being concillatory?.
Well, semantics won't hide the fact, Doc, that you do truly and of truth believe that truth is plural in nature. As you wish!
For I, too, know Jesus and I know that He is all these things, even as you say. He is the Way in that He is the access to the Father and He is in me and with me on my Journey there as well: He is the Truth because it is His spirit that understands the deep things of God and reveals them to me that I might know the thoughts and therefore, the heart of my God: He is the Life because in Him all things exist even as He made all things and because through my faith in Him I will have life eonian when I am ressurected (Pretty good for a literalist, eh?)
:laughing7: No, not backtracking. I was being facetious about truth being plural in nature, given my remark about truth being a person; therefore that Truth=God="multiple oneness"=plural (e.g. Elohim)
Quote
So are you now saying that I'm actually sinning by thinking and using logic, knowledge and reason?!? Just like the Jews did?!? No, of course not. I believe better of you than this... Well, I don't know though, you did interpret something I said earlier to be gnostic. Which, of course, required me to clarify, which I hope I did. But, that could have been my own inability to communicate...
:sigh: No, what I'm saying is that putting logic knowledge and reason
above the Spirit of truth is missing the mark, not that using those things is...
QuoteEven so, what I recognize is that this is your 'truth'. Not mine.
This appears to be saying that there is more than one truth. Did you want to phrase that differently?
QuoteSo since you stated that you do believe truth is plural in nature, which means that whatever *I* can conclude is a truth, just like whatever you can conclude is a truth, can you accept the truth that I have a different more narrow standard by which I determine truth, that is, that what I understand is derived from a literal interpretetion of The Words?
I wouldn't think so, given that you think I'm sinning by holding to this much narrower less broad way of thinking that uses knowledge, reason and logic to arrive at truth-which the spirit of Jesus in me confirms by giving me peace and understanding to know which thoughts I should let into my heart and which I should reject even as I live from my heart for all to see!
As I pointed out above, I wasn't actually stating that truth (in the sense you actually meant) is plural. Using knowledge, reason and logic is fine; but these things are
subject to the Spirit of truth that teaches us all truth, not the other way around. That's all I'm saying. The scripture advises; trust in the Lord with all your heart and not to lean on your own understanding. Our knowledge, reason and logic is limited. What I'm saying is that the Pharisees standard was too narrow, so they missed the larger truth, the big picture.
Quote
Well, when you can answer my question What is spirit? Then I'll know that at least you can see the forest for the trees and that you know what you're talking about when you say "We have to hear with spiritual ears and see with spiritual eyes..."
Until then I can't afford to trust anyone who says they have something to say 'from the spirit', without something else to compare it with.
And that something else comes from a literal interpretation of The Words exactly because of the narrowing of conclusions I come to know and that I've found to be quite liberating for this literal way of thinking.
Besides, there's just far to many bad humans out there, Doc, with ulterior motives, lying and deceiving in the name of truth, Don'tcha know?
However, most of them become journalists. So that's good. At least they're easily identified. But, there are still some of these humans lurking about in Christendom, many of whom treat the Bible as if it can make anything anybody wants to say a truth as long as you can quote from it and draw a conclusion.
There are a number of different answers to the question "what is spirit?" Which is why I had asked, in what sense did you mean?
The Holy Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth; The Spirit that
is God, who
is Love. This goes beyond human reason, knowledge and logic. We must be given spiritual eyes and ears to see this level of Truth. Truth surpasses "fact", and the literal words on a page. The words
point to the truth.
QuoteEver wonder, Doc, where the Saducees got the wrong conclusion that there is no ressurection from the dead, a conclusion Jesus said was in error?
Answer: From the 'Bible'.
Which nicely illustrates the point I've been trying to make...
Quote
Actually I was putting the finishing touches on it even as you were writing this post! Isn't that a hoot!
I'm sorry it took me so long. I was diligently working on it for most of the last 48 hours 'cause I needed to make sure, before I posted it, that it was the truth both factually and in it's conclusions, don'tcha know?
Be good!
Dennis!
Yes, I realized that right after I posted!
Dennis;
With my last reply out of the way, would you be good enough to go back up and look at post #54 and reply to the questions I had for you there?
Quote from: Doc on September 01, 2009, 11:58:44 PM
Dennis;
With my last reply out of the way, would you be good enough to go back up and look at post #54 and reply to the questions I had for you there?
Hey Doc,
Yesterday I go quite busy and couldn't reply to your questions after I finished my post to Molly. And today my wife has the day off and so I'm spending the day with her.
I should have told you this in a short post yesterday so you wouldn't be left hanging. I'm very sorry I didn't. Will you forgive me?
I
will give a reply, of course because your's are the kind of questions I've been wanting to be asked so I can learn from them.
Perhaps tomorrow I can get a reply out. I will certianly try.
In the meantime I do have some time this morning to answer this that you asked me to clarify.
Quote from: EleutherosQuote from: DocAnytime we put any knowledge or reason above this, (The Spirit of Truth) we are guilty of missing the mark, which is exactly what happened to the Jews.
Even so, what I recognize is that this is your 'truth'. Not mine.
Quote from: DocThis appears to be saying that there is more than one truth. Did you want to phrase that differently?
:laughing7: I gotta snicker at us a bit here because I'm slowly begining to perceive that we
may actually be of a like mind on several points.
What I am saying here
exactly is that this is an
axiom that you hold as a 'truth' and that therefore drives
your thinking, not mine.
For I am perceived by you as doing exactly as you say I am; putting knowledge and reason above 'the Spirit of Truth'. And that because I am
using knowledge and reason and logic to prove my points even while saying that truth is narrow and singular in nature. And boldly so in a place where such a literal
way of thinking is considered 'immature' at the least or at worse to be 'missing the mark' which
is sinning even as Paul used the word
hamartia, a word borrowed from archery to describe sin!
You did say Doc, facetiously or not, in answer to a direct question that you thought truth was plural in nature. Why would you say this if you didn't believe it? I would
now say so you could be facetious. Unfortunately that time it was lost to me.
OK. Since then you've been heading
away from that answer a bit as you try to communicate your mind.
OK. This is good.
You said this:
Quote...I wasn't actually stating that truth (in the sense you actually meant) is plural. Using knowledge, reason and logic is fine; but these things are subject to the Spirit of truth that teaches us all truth, not the other way around. That's all I'm saying.The scripture advises; trust in the Lord with all your heart and not to lean on your own understanding. Our knowledge, reason and logic is limited. What I'm saying is that the Pharisees standard was too narrow, so they missed the larger truth, the big picture.
I found this quite encouraging and so I will attempt to share my heart, my way of thinking with you, so that you might know me better.
We have a conscience, which is defined as knowing the difference between right and wrong,
good and
evil (Just like that Tree in Gan Eden was called. I could even go so far as to say that it was 'The Tree of Conscience', An important point in my thinking which I introduce to you here).
And so we
know, all of us with
no exceptions, when we are doing right and when we are doing wrong. In other words, we know when we are lying or telling the truth; we know when we are engaing in illicit sex and when we aren't and we know that stealing is wrong, etc.
However, specifically, because we have all lied and gained by it, at the expense and to the hurt of others and because we have all been similar victims of such lies the
singular nature of truth is lost in us because we all have to deal with the guilt
and shame we properly feel- emotions produced in us because we have a conscience. However confession of the wrong is not what we do to alleviate the guilt and that is because of the shame we feel. Instead, what we do is justify ourselves to ourselves and so we lie some more, even to ourselves. And of course we must believe these lies. And that is why many of us become so angry about 'certian' things because when someone gets to close to the lies we 'know' as 'truth' we are at risk of having our shame exosed.
We are thus all dysfunctional. However, some of us are more dysfunctional than others not because they necessarily do
more wrong but because of two other things. The first is because of the way many have come to think for the lies that they are both victims of and have perpertrated. These are thus more dysfunctional than those humans who heed their conscience and learn from it not to do those things they know are wrong. However even these have done wrong things even as through them they've
allowed the consequences of these wrong things to teach them to do right. So, these do develop a way of thinking that is more in line with truth even as the
only knowledge of right and wrong that they have comes from their conscience.
In other words, I could take that pen called 'Disobedient' that Paul said God coralled us all into and re-label it 'Dysfunctional' and thus better convey the idea of what I belieive Paul meant.
There is a
lot of other scripture to back this idea up. For instance, you can discover
your thoughts on these things by simply listing all 32 of the verses where 'conscience' appears in the NT and reading them in thier context. The CLV is really good at fleshing out from the Greek these ideas I've presented.
Now, even though we all have a standard within us that we can use to guage truth,
our conscience, it
becomes an inadequate standard because there is nothing
we can do to rid ourselves completely of the guilt and shame we constantly feel for the wrong things we have done. All we can know is either
more or
less guilt depending upon how much and what kind of bad things we've done. For there is a difference
in degree between how we are made to feel for murder and lying and stealing and rape, etc. And the more you do these bad things to do and the
more bad they are the more you lie to yourself and believe your lies such that eventually your conscience becomes cauterized to even what truth you have. And so there are 'good' and 'bad' humans, but, in a subjective way.
But, not in a really truthful way. Even as God is good.
The sacrifice by Jesus of Himself litrally 'for the sins of the world' is needed because the universe has Goodness and Right
built into it. And I mean that
quite literally even as some of the conclusions from quantum physics are making it known.
And so to violate this Goodness and Right is to invite Justice in to correct what is wrong. C.S. Lewis calls this 'the magic' and 'the deep magic' built into the universe that Aslan created. A true allegory of the truth that speaks to the hearts of so many humans because it is
of truth. Even more than he himself might have known when he wrote it.
And so two things happen to us, according to The Words, when we hear the Gospel that Jesus has accomplished the forgivness of our sins, assuming we respond in faith to this meassge, which all good humans
will do with 'good' being defined rather subjectively as how much a human follows the conscience or truth he/she has and for what has developed in their heart which
is the
way of thinking that is in them.
Those two things are a
cleansed conscience which then becomes our responsibility to maintain and a 're-siring' of their spirit to create a new human with what John calls the sperm of Jehovah. A human that
cannot continue to sin sin because this human is now, literally, a child of Jehovah just like any human conceived from a man's deposit of sperm makes that human
his child with his
characteristics.
I have concluded that this 'sperm is what the CLV calls holy spirt. And it is the spirit of Jesus which is the spirit of truth.
Thus are we really and truly and
quite literally 'begotten anew' even as Jesus said we
must be.
And where does a new baby begin to grow? Inside! Exactly where Jesus said the Kingdom of God is! (The Greek He used makes if clear that He meant the Kingdom of God is
inside of us as opposed to
outside of us not 'from within us' which idea the Greek has a word for that wasn't used. And so, once more, any cocnlusions drawn for thinking that that Jesus said the kingdom of God is 'within' us instead of 'inside' of us will be erroneous even as the transaltion is erroneous).
Now the end of all this is, Doc, that what the Beleiver has now is a cleansed conscience and the ability to
be good and thus do right
consistently. And so with all this right-doing were doing and by which we
maintain a clean conscience besides the confessing of our shortcommings to each other when we realize that we did 'miss the mark' or 'fell short' of 'the target', a new and more accurate and therefore narrower
way of thinking develops in us even as this new human grows inside of us.
Which means a more accurate
standard of truth develops in us. It is even the spirit of truth which is from Jesus.
And so we have an accurate gauge for truth developing inside of us even as we have holy spirit inside of us united with our spirit, actively working through our clean conscience and our heart, which is the sum total of
our thoughts (very important point that!) and which works
in tandem with our logic and reason and
knowledge (very important that because none of us know everything and some things we
know are inaccurate) to
verify the accuracy or truth of a thought or conclusion someone else may present to us or
that we may even think of ourselves!Thus I am not elevating logic and knowledge and reason above the spirit of truth that I am becoming for *I* can still think wrong thoughts and draw wrong conclusions from those thoughts. What I am saying is that that the truth can be known in any situation where fasity exists by using logic
correctly with reason and
corrected knowledge which is prompted by correct
ing insight from the spirit inside me to confirm that what I am hearing is either of truth or of lies
even as that standard by which I understand truth narrows, as it develops in me, to what you called, intrestingly enough, 'absolute' truth, even though
all truth is, by nature absolute and immutable.
Paul repeatedly warned of those who would come with lies, in the name of Jesus, to deceive and lead away from the truth those that could be led away.
And that is even as I see it today. For the truth I know to be truth is not found in a
way of thinking that broadens our thoughts to be able to accept whatever anyone says is truth simply because they can quote a verse and from their way of thinking, draw a conclusion, saying it came from revelation. But, because what I perceive came from that narrowing of my thoughts to understand what is the correct
way of thinking even as Paul said that such a way exists.
"...God, Who wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all (the testimony in its own eras)..."
And
"...Let no one be seducing (you to believe lies ed.) with empty words, for because of these things the indignation of God is coming on the sons of stubbornness. Do not, then, become joint partakers with them (of thier sins), for you were once darkness, yet now you are light in the Lord. As children of light be walking (for the
fruit of the light is in
all goodness and
righteousness and
truth), testing what is well pleasing to the Lord.
There is more I can say about what you may mean about what you called the plurality of truth but my precious one needs my attention now and so for now, I say again as always,
Be good!
It's what you were created to be!
Dennis!
Quote from: Eleutheros on September 02, 2009, 07:46:58 PM
Quote from: Doc on September 01, 2009, 11:58:44 PM
Dennis;
With my last reply out of the way, would you be good enough to go back up and look at post #54 and reply to the questions I had for you there?
Hey Doc,
Yesterday I go quite busy and couldn't reply to your questions after I finished my post to Molly. And today my wife has the day off and so I'm spending the day with her.
I should have told you this in a short post yesterday so you wouldn't be left hanging. I'm very sorry I didn't. Will you forgive me?
I will give a reply, of course because your's are the kind of questions I've been wanting to be asked so I can learn from them.
Perhaps tomorrow I can get a reply out. I will certianly try.
In the meantime I do have some time this morning to answer this that you asked me to clarify.
Quote from: EleutherosQuote from: DocAnytime we put any knowledge or reason above this, (The Spirit of Truth) we are guilty of missing the mark, which is exactly what happened to the Jews.
Even so, what I recognize is that this is your 'truth'. Not mine.
Quote from: DocThis appears to be saying that there is more than one truth. Did you want to phrase that differently?
:laughing7: I gotta snicker at us a bit here because I'm slowly begining to perceive that we may actually be of a like mind on several points.
What I am saying here exactly is that this is an axiom that you hold as a 'truth' and that therefore drives your thinking, not mine.
For I am perceived by you as doing exactly as you say I am; putting knowledge and reason above 'the Spirit of Truth'. And that because I am using knowledge and reason and logic to prove my points even while saying that truth is narrow and singular in nature. And boldly so in a place where such a literal way of thinking is considered 'immature' at the least or at worse to be 'missing the mark' which is sinning even as Paul used the word hamartia, a word borrowed from archery to describe sin!
You did say Doc, facetiously or not, in answer to a direct question that you thought truth was plural in nature. Why would you say this if you didn't believe it? I would now say so you could be facetious. Unfortunately that time it was lost to me.
OK. Since then you've been heading away from that answer a bit as you try to communicate your mind.
OK. This is good.
You said this:
Quote...I wasn't actually stating that truth (in the sense you actually meant) is plural. Using knowledge, reason and logic is fine; but these things are subject to the Spirit of truth that teaches us all truth, not the other way around. That's all I'm saying.The scripture advises; trust in the Lord with all your heart and not to lean on your own understanding. Our knowledge, reason and logic is limited. What I'm saying is that the Pharisees standard was too narrow, so they missed the larger truth, the big picture.
I found this quite encouraging and so I will attempt to share my heart, my way of thinking with you, so that you might know me better.
We have a conscience, which is defined as knowing the difference between right and wrong, good and evil (Just like that Tree in Gan Eden was called. I could even go so far as to say that it was 'The Tree of Conscience', An important point in my thinking which I introduce to you here).
And so we know, all of us with no exceptions, when we are doing right and when we are doing wrong. In other words, we know when we are lying or telling the truth; we know when we are engaing in illicit sex and when we aren't and we know that stealing is wrong, etc.
However, specifically, because we have all lied and gained by it, at the expense and to the hurt of others and because we have all been similar victims of such lies the singular nature of truth is lost in us because we all have to deal with the guilt and shame we properly feel- emotions produced in us because we have a conscience. However confession of the wrong is not what we do to alleviate the guilt and that is because of the shame we feel. Instead, what we do is justify ourselves to ourselves and so we lie some more, even to ourselves. And of course we must believe these lies. And that is why many of us become so angry about 'certian' things because when someone gets to close to the lies we 'know' as 'truth' we are at risk of having our shame exosed.
We are thus all dysfunctional. However, some of us are more dysfunctional than others not because they necessarily do more wrong but because of two other things. The first is because of the way many have come to think for the lies that they are both victims of and have perpertrated. These are thus more dysfunctional than those humans who heed their conscience and learn from it not to do those things they know are wrong. However even these have done wrong things even as through them they've allowed the consequences of these wrong things to teach them to do right. So, these do develop a way of thinking that is more in line with truth even as the only knowledge of right and wrong that they have comes from their conscience.
In other words, I could take that pen called 'Disobedient' that Paul said God coralled us all into and re-label it 'Dysfunctional' and thus better convey the idea of what I belieive Paul meant.
There is a lot of other scripture to back this idea up. For instance, you can discover your thoughts on these things by simply listing all 32 of the verses where 'conscience' appears in the NT and reading them in thier context. The CLV is really good at fleshing out from the Greek these ideas I've presented.
Now, even though we all have a standard within us that we can use to guage truth, our conscience, it becomes an inadequate standard because there is nothing we can do to rid ourselves completely of the guilt and shame we constantly feel for the wrong things we have done. All we can know is either more or less guilt depending upon how much and what kind of bad things we've done. For there is a difference in degree between how we are made to feel for murder and lying and stealing and rape, etc. And the more you do these bad things to do and the more bad they are the more you lie to yourself and believe your lies such that eventually your conscience becomes cauterized to even what truth you have. And so there are 'good' and 'bad' humans, but, in a subjective way.
But, not in a really truthful way. Even as God is good.
The sacrifice by Jesus of Himself litrally 'for the sins of the world' is needed because the universe has Goodness and Right built into it. And I mean that quite literally even as some of the conclusions from quantum physics are making it known.
And so to violate this Goodness and Right is to invite Justice in to correct what is wrong. C.S. Lewis calls this 'the magic' and 'the deep magic' built into the universe that Aslan created. A true allegory of the truth that speaks to the hearts of so many humans because it is of truth. Even more than he himself might have known when he wrote it.
And so two things happen to us, according to The Words, when we hear the Gospel that Jesus has accomplished the forgivness of our sins, assuming we respond in faith to this meassge, which all good humans will do with 'good' being defined rather subjectively as how much a human follows the conscience or truth he/she has and for what has developed in their heart which is the way of thinking that is in them.
Those two things are a cleansed conscience which then becomes our responsibility to maintain and a 're-siring' of their spirit to create a new human with what John calls the sperm of Jehovah. A human that cannot continue to sin sin because this human is now, literally, a child of Jehovah just like any human conceived from a man's deposit of sperm makes that human his child with his characteristics.
I have concluded that this 'sperm is what the CLV calls holy spirt. And it is the spirit of Jesus which is the spirit of truth.
Thus are we really and truly and quite literally 'begotten anew' even as Jesus said we must be.
And where does a new baby begin to grow? Inside! Exactly where Jesus said the Kingdom of God is! (The Greek He used makes if clear that He meant the Kingdom of God is inside of us as opposed to outside of us not 'from within us' which idea the Greek has a word for that wasn't used. And so, once more, any cocnlusions drawn for thinking that that Jesus said the kingdom of God is 'within' us instead of 'inside' of us will be erroneous even as the transaltion is erroneous).
Now the end of all this is, Doc, that what the Beleiver has now is a cleansed conscience and the ability to be good and thus do right consistently. And so with all this right-doing were doing and by which we maintain a clean conscience besides the confessing of our shortcommings to each other when we realize that we did 'miss the mark' or 'fell short' of 'the target', a new and more accurate and therefore narrower way of thinking develops in us even as this new human grows inside of us.
Which means a more accurate standard of truth develops in us. It is even the spirit of truth which is from Jesus.
And so we have an accurate gauge for truth developing inside of us even as we have holy spirit inside of us united with our spirit, actively working through our clean conscience and our heart, which is the sum total of our thoughts (very important point that!) and which works in tandem with our logic and reason and knowledge (very important that because none of us know everything and some things we know are inaccurate) to verify the accuracy or truth of a thought or conclusion someone else may present to us or that we may even think of ourselves!
Thus I am not elevating logic and knowledge and reason above the spirit of truth that I am becoming for *I* can still think wrong thoughts and draw wrong conclusions from those thoughts. What I am saying is that that the truth can be known in any situation where fasity exists by using logic correctly with reason and corrected knowledge which is prompted by correcting insight from the spirit inside me to confirm that what I am hearing is either of truth or of lies even as that standard by which I understand truth narrows, as it develops in me, to what you called, intrestingly enough, 'absolute' truth, even though all truth is, by nature absolute and immutable.
Paul repeatedly warned of those who would come with lies, in the name of Jesus, to deceive and lead away from the truth those that could be led away.
And that is even as I see it today. For the truth I know to be truth is not found in a way of thinking that broadens our thoughts to be able to accept whatever anyone says is truth simply because they can quote a verse and from their way of thinking, draw a conclusion, saying it came from revelation. But, because what I perceive came from that narrowing of my thoughts to understand what is the correct way of thinking even as Paul said that such a way exists.
"...God, Who wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all (the testimony in its own eras)..."
And
"...Let no one be seducing (you to believe lies ed.) with empty words, for because of these things the indignation of God is coming on the sons of stubbornness. Do not, then, become joint partakers with them (of thier sins), for you were once darkness, yet now you are light in the Lord. As children of light be walking (for the fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth), testing what is well pleasing to the Lord.
There is more I can say about what you may mean about what you called the plurality of truth but my precious one needs my attention now and so for now, I say again as always,
Be good!
It's what you were created to be!
Dennis!
Hi! Dennis
WOW!
I found the germ (fundamental premise) of your comments here as both exciting and scripturally consistent.
Sadly, there are not that many occasions where once can read the confessions which you have stated here.
I found your Post a VERY enjoyable read.
Thanks for sharing!
Quote from: Eleutheros on September 02, 2009, 07:46:58 PM
Quote from: Doc on September 01, 2009, 11:58:44 PM
Dennis;
With my last reply out of the way, would you be good enough to go back up and look at post #54 and reply to the questions I had for you there?
Hey Doc,
Yesterday I go quite busy and couldn't reply to your questions after I finished my post to Molly. And today my wife has the day off and so I'm spending the day with her.
I should have told you this in a short post yesterday so you wouldn't be left hanging. I'm very sorry I didn't. Will you forgive me?
I will give a reply, of course because your's are the kind of questions I've been wanting to be asked so I can learn from them.
Perhaps tomorrow I can get a reply out. I will certianly try.
In the meantime I do have some time this morning to answer this that you asked me to clarify.
Quote from: EleutherosQuote from: DocAnytime we put any knowledge or reason above this, (The Spirit of Truth) we are guilty of missing the mark, which is exactly what happened to the Jews.
Even so, what I recognize is that this is your 'truth'. Not mine.
Quote from: DocThis appears to be saying that there is more than one truth. Did you want to phrase that differently?
:laughing7: I gotta snicker at us a bit here because I'm slowly begining to perceive that we may actually be of a like mind on several points.
What I am saying here exactly is that this is an axiom that you hold as a 'truth' and that therefore drives your thinking, not mine.
For I am perceived by you as doing exactly as you say I am; putting knowledge and reason above 'the Spirit of Truth'. And that because I am using knowledge and reason and logic to prove my points even while saying that truth is narrow and singular in nature. And boldly so in a place where such a literal way of thinking is considered 'immature' at the least or at worse to be 'missing the mark' which is sinning even as Paul used the word hamartia, a word borrowed from archery to describe sin!
You did say Doc, facetiously or not, in answer to a direct question that you thought truth was plural in nature. Why would you say this if you didn't believe it? I would now say so you could be facetious. Unfortunately that time it was lost to me.
OK. Since then you've been heading away from that answer a bit as you try to communicate your mind.
OK. This is good.
You said this:
Quote...I wasn't actually stating that truth (in the sense you actually meant) is plural. Using knowledge, reason and logic is fine; but these things are subject to the Spirit of truth that teaches us all truth, not the other way around. That's all I'm saying.The scripture advises; trust in the Lord with all your heart and not to lean on your own understanding. Our knowledge, reason and logic is limited. What I'm saying is that the Pharisees standard was too narrow, so they missed the larger truth, the big picture.
I found this quite encouraging and so I will attempt to share my heart, my way of thinking with you, so that you might know me better.
We have a conscience, which is defined as knowing the difference between right and wrong, good and evil (Just like that Tree in Gan Eden was called. I could even go so far as to say that it was 'The Tree of Conscience', An important point in my thinking which I introduce to you here).
And so we know, all of us with no exceptions, when we are doing right and when we are doing wrong. In other words, we know when we are lying or telling the truth; we know when we are engaing in illicit sex and when we aren't and we know that stealing is wrong, etc.
However, specifically, because we have all lied and gained by it, at the expense and to the hurt of others and because we have all been similar victims of such lies the singular nature of truth is lost in us because we all have to deal with the guilt and shame we properly feel- emotions produced in us because we have a conscience. However confession of the wrong is not what we do to alleviate the guilt and that is because of the shame we feel. Instead, what we do is justify ourselves to ourselves and so we lie some more, even to ourselves. And of course we must believe these lies. And that is why many of us become so angry about 'certian' things because when someone gets to close to the lies we 'know' as 'truth' we are at risk of having our shame exosed.
We are thus all dysfunctional. However, some of us are more dysfunctional than others not because they necessarily do more wrong but because of two other things. The first is because of the way many have come to think for the lies that they are both victims of and have perpertrated. These are thus more dysfunctional than those humans who heed their conscience and learn from it not to do those things they know are wrong. However even these have done wrong things even as through them they've allowed the consequences of these wrong things to teach them to do right. So, these do develop a way of thinking that is more in line with truth even as the only knowledge of right and wrong that they have comes from their conscience.
In other words, I could take that pen called 'Disobedient' that Paul said God coralled us all into and re-label it 'Dysfunctional' and thus better convey the idea of what I belieive Paul meant.
There is a lot of other scripture to back this idea up. For instance, you can discover your thoughts on these things by simply listing all 32 of the verses where 'conscience' appears in the NT and reading them in thier context. The CLV is really good at fleshing out from the Greek these ideas I've presented.
Now, even though we all have a standard within us that we can use to guage truth, our conscience, it becomes an inadequate standard because there is nothing we can do to rid ourselves completely of the guilt and shame we constantly feel for the wrong things we have done. All we can know is either more or less guilt depending upon how much and what kind of bad things we've done. For there is a difference in degree between how we are made to feel for murder and lying and stealing and rape, etc. And the more you do these bad things to do and the more bad they are the more you lie to yourself and believe your lies such that eventually your conscience becomes cauterized to even what truth you have. And so there are 'good' and 'bad' humans, but, in a subjective way.
But, not in a really truthful way. Even as God is good.
The sacrifice by Jesus of Himself litrally 'for the sins of the world' is needed because the universe has Goodness and Right built into it. And I mean that quite literally even as some of the conclusions from quantum physics are making it known.
And so to violate this Goodness and Right is to invite Justice in to correct what is wrong. C.S. Lewis calls this 'the magic' and 'the deep magic' built into the universe that Aslan created. A true allegory of the truth that speaks to the hearts of so many humans because it is of truth. Even more than he himself might have known when he wrote it.
And so two things happen to us, according to The Words, when we hear the Gospel that Jesus has accomplished the forgivness of our sins, assuming we respond in faith to this meassge, which all good humans will do with 'good' being defined rather subjectively as how much a human follows the conscience or truth he/she has and for what has developed in their heart which is the way of thinking that is in them.
Those two things are a cleansed conscience which then becomes our responsibility to maintain and a 're-siring' of their spirit to create a new human with what John calls the sperm of Jehovah. A human that cannot continue to sin sin because this human is now, literally, a child of Jehovah just like any human conceived from a man's deposit of sperm makes that human his child with his characteristics.
I have concluded that this 'sperm is what the CLV calls holy spirt. And it is the spirit of Jesus which is the spirit of truth.
Thus are we really and truly and quite literally 'begotten anew' even as Jesus said we must be.
And where does a new baby begin to grow? Inside! Exactly where Jesus said the Kingdom of God is! (The Greek He used makes if clear that He meant the Kingdom of God is inside of us as opposed to outside of us not 'from within us' which idea the Greek has a word for that wasn't used. And so, once more, any cocnlusions drawn for thinking that that Jesus said the kingdom of God is 'within' us instead of 'inside' of us will be erroneous even as the transaltion is erroneous).
Now the end of all this is, Doc, that what the Beleiver has now is a cleansed conscience and the ability to be good and thus do right consistently. And so with all this right-doing were doing and by which we maintain a clean conscience besides the confessing of our shortcommings to each other when we realize that we did 'miss the mark' or 'fell short' of 'the target', a new and more accurate and therefore narrower way of thinking develops in us even as this new human grows inside of us.
Which means a more accurate standard of truth develops in us. It is even the spirit of truth which is from Jesus.
And so we have an accurate gauge for truth developing inside of us even as we have holy spirit inside of us united with our spirit, actively working through our clean conscience and our heart, which is the sum total of our thoughts (very important point that!) and which works in tandem with our logic and reason and knowledge (very important that because none of us know everything and some things we know are inaccurate) to verify the accuracy or truth of a thought or conclusion someone else may present to us or that we may even think of ourselves!
Thus I am not elevating logic and knowledge and reason above the spirit of truth that I am becoming for *I* can still think wrong thoughts and draw wrong conclusions from those thoughts. What I am saying is that that the truth can be known in any situation where fasity exists by using logic correctly with reason and corrected knowledge which is prompted by correcting insight from the spirit inside me to confirm that what I am hearing is either of truth or of lies even as that standard by which I understand truth narrows, as it develops in me, to what you called, intrestingly enough, 'absolute' truth, even though all truth is, by nature absolute and immutable.
Paul repeatedly warned of those who would come with lies, in the name of Jesus, to deceive and lead away from the truth those that could be led away.
And that is even as I see it today. For the truth I know to be truth is not found in a way of thinking that broadens our thoughts to be able to accept whatever anyone says is truth simply because they can quote a verse and from their way of thinking, draw a conclusion, saying it came from revelation. But, because what I perceive came from that narrowing of my thoughts to understand what is the correct way of thinking even as Paul said that such a way exists.
"...God, Who wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all (the testimony in its own eras)..."
And
"...Let no one be seducing (you to believe lies ed.) with empty words, for because of these things the indignation of God is coming on the sons of stubbornness. Do not, then, become joint partakers with them (of thier sins), for you were once darkness, yet now you are light in the Lord. As children of light be walking (for the fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth), testing what is well pleasing to the Lord.
There is more I can say about what you may mean about what you called the plurality of truth but my precious one needs my attention now and so for now, I say again as always,
Be good!
It's what you were created to be!
Dennis!
I understand much better what you're saying now, and I found a lot to agree with in this post.
When I am speaking of the "plurality" of truth (and not being facetious) what I am really referring to is "levels" or "layers" of truth. I would agree with your statement that all truth is absolute, but what I'm getting at is that there are, within the framework of (absolute) truth, layers of understanding. The higher layers of understanding come with a view that
is perhaps narrower in some respects, but that must be wider in other respects, or these higher layers may be missed entirely. These higher layers are what I refer to as "spiritual truths". Can you gain access to these layers through literal levels of interpretation? Yes, to a degree, but they are more often than not a stepping-stone to the higher layers, which often a narrowly literal approach can prevent one from seeing at all. The physical points to the spiritual, because the physical is the shadow of the spiritual. Is there reality and truth in the physical? Yes, but the higher reality and truth is the spiritual. The things that are seen (physical) are made from the things that are unseen (spiritual). The spiritual is the primary reality. This is why I say that our reason and logic must be informed by the Spirit, not the Spirit informed by reason and logic. Our default tendency as westerners, is to put reason and logic above the Spirit. But the spirit is the higher reality. Make sense?
Good Morning!
Gilbert! Thank you for your gracious words concerning my post. They are,
really, much appreciated. :bigGrin:
Tim! Welcome back!
Quote from: Tim B on September 01, 2009, 04:12:08 AM
Hey man, it's been a long time waiting, but I finally got around to replying to this message. To answer your question: I'm not married. Just about to turn 21, but I haven't found "the one" yet. lol
May you soon find each other!
QuoteI tend to study alone (in person, I mean.) I study with lots of people on here, as in, share my thoughts and stuff. :bigGrin: Not that I don't want to study with others (outside of the internet), but most people I know either don't agree with UR or don't study much themselves.
'Tis sad, isn't it?
QuoteI can talk to my parents (my mom believes in UR and my dad more or less does), but they don't study a whole lot like I do. And even though my sister believes in UR she doesn't study the Bible or UR very much. So, basically, I'm out of luck, aside from my internet friends (currently speaking).
Well, all I can say is, been there done that
and still doing it!
Tim, feel free to chime in with your points even as Molly does. Tete-a-tete's may occur, but that's OK. Paul argued
a lot for the truth using the same scriptures from which others derived the plentitude of false conclusions that permeated the thoughts of many in his time, even as it is today.
All you need is a willingness to discover truth and a willingness
to change your way of thinking when you perceive
correct knowledge even as Apollos had to have the way of God expounded to him
more accurately and even as is said in the proverbs:
"The ear that listens to the reproof that gives life will remain among the wise."And
"Whoever loves instruction and correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is like a brute beast, stupid and indiscriminating."For it is a truth that The Words divide men into one of two types: the wise or the foolish. And that this division is based on the way of thinking that is in them, even as Jesus put it so well (as He usually does!):
"The
good man out of the good treasure of his heart is bringing forth that which is good, and the
wicked man out of the wicked treasure of his heart is bringing forth that which is wicked,
for out of the superabundance of the heart his mouth is speaking.Which prompts me to ask: "What
is 'the heart' if it is not the sum total of the thoughts in us that lead us to what we speak and how we respond?
Change the thoughts and you change the heart?
What do you think?
Be good, Tim!
Hey Doc!
Thank you, my friend, for hanging in there with me! You've given me a lot to think about and type about Which I will do because I very much want to.
However, for the next 4 days, I find, I'm going to be
quite busy. Which will give me time to think, but not type.
But, know that I will reply to
every question you asked of me.
And know that I truly appreciate you asking them!
There are two questions I asked prior that I would like you to look into while I'm out and about.
I've asked several times about spirit, even qualifying my question, as you asked, when I said this:
"If I ask "What is flesh?" The answer is, "It is our appetites and desires and the drives to fulfill these that originate in the needs of the body."
And so I ask similarly "What is spirit?"
I am asking this, in earnest, because there is an answer. And it is an answer that, I've found, clears up a lot of issues concerning what many call 'spiritually discerened' things. Even as anyone who claims to speak from 'the spiritual' and cannot answer that question should be ignored, even as you will know this is a truth when you know what spirit
is.
Unfortunately, if you don't arrive at the answer on your own then you will not perceive the answer I would give as being truthful and so I cannot give it here.
The second is to answer the question:
"What is it exactly that The Words say Jehovah foreknows/foreknew where these words appear? Hint: They do
not say He foreknew/foreknows the future.
Be good!
Dennis!
Quote from: Eleutheros on September 03, 2009, 06:30:08 PM
Thank you, my friend, for hanging in there with me! You've given me a lot to think about and type about Which I will do because I very much want to.
However, for the next 4 days, I find, I'm going to be quite busy. Which will give me time to think, but not type.
But, know that I will reply to every question you asked of me.
And know that I truly appreciate you asking them!
There are two questions I asked prior that I would like you to look into while I'm out and about.
I've asked several times about spirit, even qualifying my question, as you asked, when I said this:
"If I ask "What is flesh?" The answer is, "It is our appetites and desires and the drives to fulfill these that originate in the needs of the body."
And so I ask similarly "What is spirit?"
I am asking this, in earnest, because there is an answer. And it is an answer that, I've found, clears up a lot of issues concerning what many call 'spiritually discerened' things. Even as anyone who claims to speak from 'the spiritual' and cannot answer that question should be ignored, even as you will know this is a truth when you know what spirit is.
Unfortunately, if you don't arrive at the answer on your own then you will not perceive the answer I would give as being truthful and so I cannot give it here.
The second is to answer the question:
"What is it exactly that The Words say Jehovah foreknows/foreknew where these words appear? Hint: They do not say He foreknew/foreknows the future.
Be good!
Dennis!
In answer to your second question: In the new testament there are at least three places that speak of God's foreknowlege (
proginosko) They are Acts 26:5, 1 Peter 1:20 and Romans 11:2 It is reasonable to infer from this and other information we have about God that he has foreknown all things, not just the specific ones mentioned. There are a number of qualities to God that are not directly stated, but inferred from the overall witness of scripture.
I think I already gave an answer for what is spirit in a previous post, but perhaps it's not what you were looking for. So I'll do a bit of digging and see what I can come up with for you.
The word spirit in both Hebrew and Greek means (essentially) Wind, Breath, Life. God is Spirit, and the Father of spirits, and God is also Love and Light. One might say that spirit is the pure essence of things; the highest reality. Our inner, spiritual man is the highest reality, the core, the truth of who we are.
Is this what you're looking for?
Hey Doc!
I'm finally back to keep my promise to you and answer all these questions you asked. And know that I do appreciate you asking them because a few gave me cause to re-think on some things.
You see,
Creation Hymn is a work in progress, even though I call it 'finalized' as of my posting it here.
Many changes were incorporated into it from my first 'final' draft which was written before I had dealt with the issue of hell – an issue that I had avoided looking into for a long time because I sure didn't want to find that, of a truth, that peculiar hell King James gave into our thoughts was real!
But, once I came to realize that, of a fact, Jesus is the Savior of
all men especially of those who believe, my 'fear' of hell vanished, easily enough, because of exactly what I had
already come to believe from my studies of Genesis.
In other words, I experienced no serious agonizing over the issue of hell because what I already learned of truth from Genesis, as well as from my own experiences with my God, had prepared me to accept, with ease, the truth that we currently name Ultimate Reconciliation.
Discovering UR was actually an "Ah, Ha!" moment for me, once I grasped it's truth, because, of a sudden, I found that a lot of the questions about hell, to which I had no answers, were simply nullified through irrelevance, even though they were legitimate questions while I continued to believe that peculiar hell existed.
OK. So much for my preamble ramble. Let's get to it, shall we?
(In my answers I am assuming, Doc, that you read all the way through Creation Hymn and so you are at least familiar with what I wrote even if you may not agree with it.)
Quote from: Doc on September 01, 2009, 01:49:53 AM
Regarding more specifically some of our earlier conversation, I'd appreciate some explanation from you on the literal interpretation of this selection from Genesis: (CLV)
Gen 3:13 And saying is Yahweh Elohim to the woman, "What is this you do? "And saying is the woman, "The serpent lured me and I am eating.
Who or what is the serpent? Are we to believe that this was an actual, literal serpent? If so, why?
Ahhhh.... The serpent; he/it's been a problem from the first! :laughing7:
Well, according to Genesis, there are a lot of fantastic (to us) things about this creature/being called the serpent. First off, he/it talks! And with intelligence! And The Adam was apparently
not surprised by this, but, actually conversed with it as if this were nothing new.
Fantastic!
OK. So here then, Doc, is that 'foundational' thought, the axiom, if you will, from which I build:
The reality that The Adam knew in Gan Eden is not only lost
on us, but, is beyond our comprehension,
except for what we have in The Words
and what we carried out with us after being driven out.
(I say 'we' here, inclusively, because 'we' were in the loins of The Adam in much the same way that the scriptures say that Levi was in the loins of Abraham and so both are considered to have paid the tithe to Melchizidek.)
Did you get that? We
cannot know, from our experience, what
that world was like because
that world, including the innocence that existed without a conscience, is lost to us, including all the fantastic things the Genesis account gives us,
which things we would not even know about but for these ancient words.
And they certainly do tell us a
fantastic story!
And so, I would ask, just because something appears fantastic to us, even straining credulity, given only what we know from our experiences, does that make the fantastic any less unreal than that reality we know only from our experiences?
Or, is it mostly our
inability to believe that keeps the fantastic unreal to us in our thoughts? Even to saying that it is also from ulterior motives that we often do not
want to believe the fantastic because to do so would interfere with what we
do want to believe, and so we say it is
to fantastic?
For example: Are there not humans living today who deny the moon landings and that the holocaust ever occurred just because it just seems
to fantastic to them? Even the 9/11 'George W. Bush did it' conspirators have their part in this kind of thinking, finding it much easier to believe,
because they want to, that the US Government was behind 9/11 rather than the 'to fantastic' truth that it was those trained in radical Muslim thought that were soley reponsible for carrying out the attacks that killed over three thousand of us in one day.
Is not the technology we have today fantastic? Even in the sense of what the science fiction writers of the past conceived of as fantastic to them, in their time?
Have you never heard stories from a missionary about the fantastic things happening through the power of God such that the dead are raised, the blind see, the lame walk, the sick are made whole, demons are cast out, poison was ingested with no harm done and angels were seen?
All of these things are
to fantastic to many, but are, nonetheless, very real.
And so, yes, I do believe that the serpent was both actual and literal.
However, Doc, it is still a choice one has to make to believe that the Genesis narrative is meant to be a literal account of real time events involving real-time humans and so what you choose to believe about the fantastic things in Genesis is between you and your God.
But, I will remind you that the truth is even as you demonstrated it to be in your own answers; that choosing to believe Genesis is to be taken figuratively discounts your ability to perceive it for what it is, a literal, very real history of where we came from and how we got to be where we are.
And besides this, I would also like to ask you where the line of demarcation is to be drawn between the figurative and the literal?
When Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel? Was Abel's murder an allegorical event or a real-time one?
When Tubal and Jubal were born? How about after the flood? Or was that only an allegorical account as well?
So, I have given you why I believe what I believe and would also add this thought:
Genesis is the book that, literally, lays the foundation for every single truth we know from The Words. It is the
only thing we have that can accurately tell us where we came from and how we got to be where we are today. Without it we would be
totally ignorant of where we came from and thus be proven stupid, as well, for the things we would imagine to fill in this gap in our knowledge, even as we have demonstrated ourselves to be stupid for the things we have already imagined- from the pantheon of ancient gods all the way to modern evolution, we are stupid about our origins-
except for Genesis telling us where we came from and how we got here.
And so, for many, the historical narrative we call Genesis seems
to fantastic to believe,
as history, because these would rather believe the
really fantastic things, in the truest sense of that word, that come from our own vain imaginings.
For if Genesis cannot be trusted to be an accurate and literal historical account of where we came from and how we got here, no matter how fantastic some elements of it's narrative may seem to us, almost 6000 years, lots and lots of sins and one worldwide flood removed from that beginning, then I put it to you that the rest of The Words are indeed, also
to fantastic to be believed.
As for whom the serpent is: He/it is The Satan embodied either by possession or by invention, even as The Words declare him/it to be.
Rom 16:20 Now the God of peace will be crushing Satan under your feet swiftly. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you!
(What is Paul referencing here if it isn't the prophesy found in Gen 3:14-15? If it is this prophesy he is referencing then Paul certainly believed that Satan was at least equivalent enough to 'the serpent' to utilize this prophesy to describe what Jesus would do to Satan for the believers. Of course that's just what Paul believed. *smile*)
(By the way, didn't you just love that part in The Passion Of The Christ when Jesus
literally fulfilled that prophesy and STOMPED on the serpent's head as it was tempting Him? Boy Howdy! Did I ever cheer! And I mean out LOUD!)
2 Cor 11:3 Yet I fear lest somehow, as the serpent deludes Eve by its craftiness, your apprehensions should be corrupted from the singleness and pureness which is in Christ.
(Paul sure thought of the serpent as real, even as he did Eve and her beguiling, don't you think?)
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, the ancient serpent called Adversary and Satan, who is deceiving the whole inhabited earth. It was cast into the earth, and its messengers were cast with it.
Rev 20:1-2 And I perceived a messenger descending out of heaven, having the key of the submerged chaos and a large chain in his hand. And he lays hold of the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the Adversary and Satan, and binds him a thousand years.
QuoteGen 3:14 And saying is Yahweh Elohim to the serpent, "As you do this, most cursed are you of every beast, and of all field life. On your torso shall you go, and soil shall you eat all the days of your life.
So, the serpent originally had legs and feet and/or wings.
Apparently so...
QuoteAfter this point, the serpent was made to crawl on its belly instead. Does this lend itself more to a literal interpretation, or an allegorical one?
A literal one.
You don't have any problem believing, do you, Doc, that a real donkey spoke words to Balaam? Or that a fig tree withered
overnight when Jesus cursed it? Or that He walked on water? Or that Jesus could read minds? Or that Phillip 'quantum leaped' after baptizing the Ethiopian? Or that the widow's small cruse of oil filled the many pots it was poured into? Or that an axe head floated? Or that Jesus was born of a virgin? Or that Jesus fed, variously, four thousand and five thousand men as well as women and children on a few
very meager provisions? Or that the sun stood still, that is to say that the earth quit rotating, and then started up again, so Joshua could have enough time to win an important battle? Or that it rained forty days and nights such that all
that water, combining with all the water that came up from inside the earth, covered the entire planet with water? Or that the Red Sea was divided by a strong wind and withdrew back on itself so the Israelites could walk over the
dry sea bed to the other side? Or that there was a literal pillar of fire at night and a pillar of cloud during the day that guided the Israelites? Or that manna was literally bread from heaven? Or that the Hebrews clothes and sandals didn't wear out during the 40 year wandering? Or that Jehovah spoke to Moses from a bush that burned but wasn't consumed? Or that a very large gourd sprung up overnight to shade Jonah? Or that Jonah was in the belly of a fish for three days and nights, even as Jesus referenced this to be a
literal sign of what he was really going to do, that is, rise from the dead after three days and three nights (as the Jews counted within the Passover Week), a thing pretty fantastic in of itself, don't you think?
Or do you hold that these things are allegorical as well, simply because they are fantastic?
QuoteGen 3:15 And enmity am I setting between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall hurt your head and you shall hurt his heel.
In what sense can 3:15 be taken literally?
Ahhhh! Good one! I will answer with a riddle: "What's a metaphor?" To put cows in! :laughing7:
And so "What's an allegory?" isn't
even a joke.
Don't confuse meataphor (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor) and allegory (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory).
They are as different as a meadow is from a metaphor!
This quote is
a prophesy that those 'in the know' call
The Protevangelium, a $100.00 word that means 'the first evangel'. It is
a prophesy of what God was going to do about what had
just happened!
And no prophesy is
ever allegorical! (Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?)
It is, therefore, told in a metaphorical way because the actuality of it would not be realized for some 4,000 years. (Notice that there is no mention of the cross and no mention of Bethlehem or of the murder of the innocents in this prophesy) Yet, there is the curious phrase "...emnity between your seed..." meaning the 'descendants' of Satan, "...and her seed" meaning those descended from her progeny. However, the woman does not produce seed, or sperm, but the male does. (And so descendants are counted from the male because of the nature of sex being that the man takes the woman to be
his bride.) This, then, is implying that, somehow, the woman would conceive and have descendants
without a deposit of sperm, at least without one from a
human male.
Of course the scriptures abound with references derived from this 'first evangel':
For instance: Jesus' referring to the Pharisees as having the Devil for their father because they imitate his lying, false ways. And the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14 "...the
virgin shall conceive..." implying that at the time of the Septuagint the Jews understood that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (even if they
now deny this, saying, instead, that the word they formerly agreed should be translated 'virgin' in Isaiah is really 'unclear' because it could mean a married woman as well).
Of course, a crawling serpent would wound a heel, even as that heel, so wounded, could be then used to crush the head of the serpent that bit it. An
exquisitely good metaphor for what would happen cosmically as Jesus took the sins of the
Kosmos on Himself and was thus wounded with death in our place. And thus, the power of Satan, which is through sin, was destroyed even as Jesus entered the realm of the dead and snatched it's keys from Satan and after awakening them, preached the Gospel that he had accomplished the forgiveness of sins to the dead! WOW! And of course, many of them believed, even as they would have in life and were resurrected and went into the city of Jerusalem and showed themselves to many.
Fantastic!
Thus was the head of Satan crushed, even his power, which was in death because of sin.
So, yes, what I just said from history and from prophesy was very nicely summed up in this little phrase of Words about what Jehovah intended to do about the way things turned out in the garden, against what He intended to have happen- specifically, that The Adam would gain virtue, through trust in Elohim, before they got their conscience from the fruit of 'The Tree of Conscience' and thus make their conscience the powerful thing it was intended to be in and for all of us, the descendants of The Adam.
Pretty fantastic, eh?
QuoteGen 3:16 And to the woman He says, "Multiplying, yea, multiplying am I your grief and the groaning of your pregnancy. In grief shall you bear sons. "Yet by your husband is your restoration, and he shall rule over you.
What is the literal sense of the above verse (aside from the multiplication of grief and groaning of pregnancy)?
I believe that I explained that one in a foot note from Creation Hymn on the Hebrew phrase '
ezer kenegdo'.
I will, however, answer this question with a question: What did Paul
really mean when He said this to Timothy:
"... (for Adam was first molded, thereafter Eve, and Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded, has come to be in the transgression).
Yet she shall be saved through the child bearing, if ever they should be remaining in faith and love and holiness with sanity."
sozo de dia ho teknogonia is a curious phrase, or so I'm told, in the original Greek because of where the word
dia, here translated as 'in' appears- rather than the Greek word
en which truly means, in Greek, what we mean when we say "in".
Dia has a deeper meaning than
en, such that if Paul had intended this passage only to reference Jesus' virgin birth, in an allegorical way,
en would have sufficed.
But he choose
dia... so what was Paul
really trying to say here? For there is another legitimate way of understanding this verse, in Greek, that is quite literal even as it is fantastic! With proof for it's literal, but fantastic accuracy even in our modern times!
QuoteGen 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim, "Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!
The above was the verse that I was referring to when I was talking about the tree of life, but it says live for the eon, not forever. Obviously, God did not want them living for the eon in their new state of being as "one of us, knowing good and evil". I don't have a specific question for you on this one, but I'd be interested in your take on its meaning.
The Tree of LIFE! What a glorious thing it is!
It's mere presence in the Garden raises the most difficult questions of all to answer when one approaches Genesis believing that Elohim knew,
as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn
before He created them.
And I asked these very questions in my first post to Tim (http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6555.msg71230#msg71230). I asked, leadingly:
Why two trees??
And why create the Tree of Life at all if Elohim already knew, before He created them, that He was going to have to banish them from eating it?
Why doesn't His foreknowledge of their turning make The Tree of Life a superfluous creation, at best and a deception at worst?
And why does The Tree of life return in The New Heaven and The New Earth (The New Universe) where all things are reconciled and restored to Jehovah?
I can answer these questions very simply from knowing that Elohim did not know, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them.
Here, then, are my answers to my own questions
Why two trees??
Because the set-up in the Garden- and make no mistake, they were set-up-was intended to be a 'set up' to succeed
not to fail.
The Tree of Life, from which they obviously were allowed to eat, was there because Elohim intended for them to 'pass the test'. And when they did, everything would already be there for them-
including a tree whose 12 fruits and leaves were intended to be especially restorative to the physical needs of corporeal beings so that they could live age-enduring life- lives described in Isaiah as being as long as that of a tree.
Only the fatalistic mind of a Manichaean monk-turned-Christian could conceive the foreign idea that God intended the set-up to be nothing more than a glorified sting-operation diabolically designed to see them fall, because, apparently, He
foreknew they would,
anyway.
So, which came first the chicken or the egg? Did his foreknowledge that they would, in fact, 'fall' before He created them mean that they had no choice but to 'fall'?
Answer: "Yes."
Or was this set up intended to ensure that they would fall
exactly as His foreknowledge said they would?
Answer: "Yes."
*sigh* It's a horrifying and hideous thing to fall into the hands of St Augustine's god.
Good thing he was wrong about Him.
And why create the Tree of Life at all if Elohim already knew, before He created them, that He was going to have to banish them from eating it?
Even a child can understand enough of the implications of believing that Elohim knew, as a fact, that The Adam was going to fall before He created them to ask this insightful question; a question to which no Calvinist has a ready, non-evasive answer.
And a question that has
no meaning if, in fact, Elohim
didn't know, as a fact, that The Adam were going to turn before He created them.
For there is another 'childish' question that every child can know to ask, readily enough, when they are taught Protestant theology and that is: "What about those who died before Jesus came and never heard the Gospel? Are they in hell, burning forever?
And so, what do those who hold dearly to Augustine's and Calvin's 'truth' say in reply?
You tell me.
I'll bet, though that it's even the same thing they say when you ask logical questions of them concerning the logic they use to arrive at the conclusion that Elohim knew, as a fact, that The Adam was going to fall before He created them.
Why doesn't His foreknowledge of their turning make The Tree of Life a superfluous creation, at best and a deception at worst?
Answer: It doesn't. If He foreknew they were going to turn, as a fact, before He created them then the Tree of Life is,
at best, a superfluous creation and
at worst part of a grand deception perpetrated by Elohim Himself, even as His foreknowledge makes Him the Architect and Administrator of every evil and every sin ever perpetrated by a human.
And so this question, too, has no meaning if Elohim did not know, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them.
And why does The Tree of life return in The New Heaven and The New Earth (The New Universe) where all things are reconciled and restored to Jehovah?
Because the human beings living then will be just as corporeal as they are now and will need this special tree's 12 fruits and leaves to keep themselves healthy and to heal them when they become damaged from all the adventures they are going to have as they live out their eonian lives, lives as long as that of a tree, building, creating art, exploring, singing, dancing, writing stories and poetry, planting, harvesting, cooking, eating, talking, marrying, making love and raising children... in other words all the good things we humans are
really good at doing while we praise and honor our God in everything we do.
It is, in Greek, an interesting phrase used in Revelation about the Tree
s of life (at least three of them)...
It is: "...
phullon ho xulon eis therapeia ho ethnos."
Therapeia (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2322&t=KJV) means 'therapy'; a different kind of healing than
iaomai (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2390&t=KJV). And of course you recognize
ethnos as being where we get the English word 'ethnic' from.
In other words, the tree's leaves are for the
therapeutic healing of the
ethnics.
And so, I, who am among the first to believe, while this age lasts, look forward to the redemption of my spirit and soul from this body to be resurrected into a new age-enduring body dwelling in The New Heaven's and it's New Earth- a literal re-creation that is on its way, even as this Heavens and it's Earth are passing by- where righteousness dwells in all, through virtue, even as the new human I am re-sired to be is being trained in righteousness, in this age, so that *I* will be living my age-enduring life as a good human in the eon to come where God, Himself is All and in All and the former things are never remembered.
I absolutely
love being human!
And
good, even as Jehovah, my Father, is good and exactly as I was created to be!
Be good, then, Doc, even as you, too, were created to be!
Dennis!
Doc wrote:
QuoteGen 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim, "Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!
The above was the verse that I was referring to when I was talking about the tree of life, but it says live for the eon, not forever. Obviously, God did not want them living for the eon in their new state of being as "one of us, knowing good and evil". I don't have a specific question for you on this one, but I'd be interested in your take on its meaning.
To All:
Doc asked me to comment on this verse and after my prevous post I thought it might be a good idea to clarify my comments a bit by sharing some of my thoughts.
For it is from this quote that I get the idea that the set-up in the Garden was a set-up to succeed,
not to fail. And so let's see if I can convey my thoughts on this to those of you still interested:
In this quote, Elohim says that each One of Them among His plurality knows the difference between good and evil. And now, because of eating the fruit of The Tree of Conscience, The Adam knows the difference as well.
Even as we all, the decendants of The Adam, do.
And so my first conclusion is that The Adam did not
originally have a conscience, simply because a consceince is what the fruit imparted to them; for 'the knowledge of the difference between good and evil' is the very definition of a conscience.
Now, in every other way, God split the plural essence of Himself between The Adam, including, originally building the Female
into Ish, planning later to remove her from him, even as his awakening to his
need for a female was well thought out by Elohim.
Even as everything else He did was well thought out.
The second conclusion I derived, then, comes from these two facts: The first is that Elohim knows the difference between good and evil and the second is that the The Adam was designed to
resemble Elohim. Therefore it was correct to conclude that Elohim must also have wanted The Adam to be
like Him in knowing the difference between Good and Evil
and choosing to do good always.In other words, He must have originally wanted them to be virtuous even as He, Himself is virtuous.
Thus, my original and seemingly logical question then became: "Why didn't He just give them a conscience from the start, after all
he is God and He can do anything!"
This question took a long time for me to answer. Until I realized that the correct question to ask wasn't, 'why
didn't He do something' but, instead should be, 'why did He
do what He did?'
And so the question became one that I imagine Elohim, Who always does what is right, must have asked among Himself: "How can I create a corporeal being who knows the difference between good and evil,
even as We do and will delight in choosing to do what is good and right to do
always even as We do?
Well, of course, the answer was for Him to do
exactly what He did. Give them a genuine and legitimate choice,
with corresponding consequences, so that they could, one way or another, 'easy' or 'hard', aquire virtue (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virtue)
through trust in Him.
And then, once virtue was established,
by refusing a temptaion (enter The Satan), give them
permission to eat the very fruit they had to be initially forbidden to eat
exactly so that they could have the choice necessary to establish virtue!
For what is virtue? It is nothing, is it not, if it cannot also freely choose
against being virtuous?
It is a fact that we have knowledge of what virtue is even as we have a word for it, '
virtue'. And that this concept developed naturally in us because we have a conscience- despite the problem that we all have of not obeying it's direction as it conveys to us the difference between what is right and wrong to do, or, if you will the difference between good and evil; for evil comes into us and is with us when we choose to do what we know is wrong.
So, Elohim initially provided everything that would be needed for them to live age-enduring life from the start, which provision is found in the Tree of The Living, because His intention was for them
to succeed not to fail and thus live, from that point on, age-enduring lives in righteousness, enabled to reproduce and pass this desire to be virtuous onto the rest of the human race- even as we are
now re-sired by Him to want to be righteous, through the spirit of Jesus inside of us, where the Kngdom is, acting like sperm when it penetratrs an ovum and creates a new human being with all the characteristics of the Father.
This then is the motive of a loving and truthful God Who is a Father. And one worthy of Him, considering the great risk He took, even knowing what would be required from Him, should they fail- The sacrifice of His very Self through the obedience of His
only sexually conceived and therefore,
human Son whose Spirit came from Heaven to do His Father's will.
~
Many think that, somehow, Jehovah would not be God if He did not know, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them. Even to the point of vehemence when this notion is challenged. I understand this, even as I understand how deep seated this need is in us to imagine that He must have known because He would seem diminished, somehow, in
our eyes if He didn't.
However, many appear to have no problem with the logical consequences of just such a thought. Or do they?
Let me illustrate:
One day you wake up and get ready to go to work. Your spouse greets you at the door and after kissing you goodbye and saying, "I love you", your spouse hands you your car keys saying, "Drive carefully!"
The next thing you know your waking up in a hospital, seriously injured from a hideous automobile collision. You remember what happened and how it happened and you wonder that you are even alive.
But, now you see that your spouse is there, by your side, smiling and you can see the love in your spouse's face as he/she says seriously enough, "You know, dear, I foreknew, as a fact, that you were going to be in this wreck. And so here I am now, to help see you through it. Trust me that this is all as it's supposed to be and that I love you."
You are shocked beyond words to hear your spouse say this and yet as you probe him/her with questions, at first unbelievingly, your spouse finally convinces you that he/she did indeed know
in advance and therefore as a fact, even as he/she
handed you the car keys at the door on that fated morning, that you were going to be in this horrific collision, even as he/she also foreknew that you would be here asking him/her these questions with a broken and damaged body in this hospital.
And so, dumfounded and feeling sick at heart from perceiving this truth about your spouse, you ask the most logical question there is to ask: "Why didn't you stop me from going out that door!?! You even handed me the car keys...
and told me to be careful!"
To which your spouse replies, with all seriousness, "My ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts. All I'm asking you to do is to trust me and know that I love you."
*sigh* This 'spouse' is the god of St. Augustine and John Calvin.
And according to them, He wants us to live forever with Him in eternity, because
He loves us, well at least as many as he foreknew would be saved from hell, through Jesus, even the hell that He created, so that these lucky, 'chosen ones' would then become His Son's *gulp* bride..."
So, is St. Augustine's God your God?
Including what they taught us to think about Elohim; that He foreknew, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them?
You here on Tentmaker, based on logic and reason and a very literal reading of The Words, as well as from what you have come to know from your experiences with your God, have come to reject that peculiar hell they translated into existence.
So, you know of how ulterior thier motives were when they gave us King Jame's Bible
Consider then that if John Calvin's systematic theology was wrong concerning everything else you've come to know, personally, about your God, why should this peculair 'foreknowedge'
they gave to Him be any different?
After all, according to them, God
needs to know who is going to hell and who isn't,
from before the foundation of the world, or else the existence of hell makes him quite the capricious monster for His
choosing who would be saved from hell and who wouldn't.
Come to think of it, is there anyway for Him to avoid being perceived as a capricious monster for this peculiar foreknowledge He supossedly acted on in creating us?
Nothing I can think of- except His forgivness and love,
experiencedHowever, if that peculiar hell of their's is
not real, then is it still
necessary for Him, in our thoughts, to know something He
couldn't know,
as a fact, beforehand- that is what the 'either-or' choice would be of a created being that He was wanting to instill virtue in?
And so now you know why I always close by saying:
Be good!
It's what you were created to be!
Thanks for your answers. I have given some thoughts about them below.
Quote from: Eleutheros on September 09, 2009, 10:05:28 PM
Hey Doc!
Quote from: Doc on September 01, 2009, 01:49:53 AM
Regarding more specifically some of our earlier conversation, I'd appreciate some explanation from you on the literal interpretation of this selection from Genesis: (CLV)
Gen 3:13 And saying is Yahweh Elohim to the woman, "What is this you do? "And saying is the woman, "The serpent lured me and I am eating.
Who or what is the serpent? Are we to believe that this was an actual, literal serpent? If so, why?
Ahhhh.... The serpent; he/it's been a problem from the first! :laughing7:
Well, according to Genesis, there are a lot of fantastic (to us) things about this creature/being called the serpent. First off, he/it talks! And with intelligence! And The Adam was apparently not surprised by this, but, actually conversed with it as if this were nothing new.
Fantastic!
OK. So here then, Doc, is that 'foundational' thought, the axiom, if you will, from which I build:
The reality that The Adam knew in Gan Eden is not only lost on us, but, is beyond our comprehension, except for what we have in The Words and what we carried out with us after being driven out.
(I say 'we' here, inclusively, because 'we' were in the loins of The Adam in much the same way that the scriptures say that Levi was in the loins of Abraham and so both are considered to have paid the tithe to Melchizidek.)
Did you get that? We cannot know, from our experience, what that world was like because that world, including the innocence that existed without a conscience, is lost to us, including all the fantastic things the Genesis account gives us, which things we would not even know about but for these ancient words.
And they certainly do tell us a fantastic story!
And so, I would ask, just because something appears fantastic to us, even straining credulity, given only what we know from our experiences, does that make the fantastic any less unreal than that reality we know only from our experiences?
Or, is it mostly our inability to believe that keeps the fantastic unreal to us in our thoughts? Even to saying that it is also from ulterior motives that we often do not want to believe the fantastic because to do so would interfere with what we do want to believe, and so we say it is to fantastic?
For example: Are there not humans living today who deny the moon landings and that the holocaust ever occurred just because it just seems to fantastic to them? Even the 9/11 'George W. Bush did it' conspirators have their part in this kind of thinking, finding it much easier to believe, because they want to, that the US Government was behind 9/11 rather than the 'to fantastic' truth that it was those trained in radical Muslim thought that were soley reponsible for carrying out the attacks that killed over three thousand of us in one day.
Is not the technology we have today fantastic? Even in the sense of what the science fiction writers of the past conceived of as fantastic to them, in their time?
Have you never heard stories from a missionary about the fantastic things happening through the power of God such that the dead are raised, the blind see, the lame walk, the sick are made whole, demons are cast out, poison was ingested with no harm done and angels were seen?
All of these things are to fantastic to many, but are, nonetheless, very real.
And so, yes, I do believe that the serpent was both actual and literal.
However, Doc, it is still a choice one has to make to believe that the Genesis narrative is meant to be a literal account of real time events involving real-time humans and so what you choose to believe about the fantastic things in Genesis is between you and your God.
But, I will remind you that the truth is even as you demonstrated it to be in your own answers; that choosing to believe Genesis is to be taken figuratively discounts your ability to perceive it for what it is, a literal, very real history of where we came from and how we got to be where we are.
And besides this, I would also like to ask you where the line of demarcation is to be drawn between the figurative and the literal?
When Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel? Was Abel's murder an allegorical event or a real-time one?
When Tubal and Jubal were born? How about after the flood? Or was that only an allegorical account as well?
So, I have given you why I believe what I believe and would also add this thought:
Genesis is the book that, literally, lays the foundation for every single truth we know from The Words. It is the only thing we have that can accurately tell us where we came from and how we got to be where we are today. Without it we would be totally ignorant of where we came from and thus be proven stupid, as well, for the things we would imagine to fill in this gap in our knowledge, even as we have demonstrated ourselves to be stupid for the things we have already imagined- from the pantheon of ancient gods all the way to modern evolution, we are stupid about our origins- except for Genesis telling us where we came from and how we got here.
And so, for many, the historical narrative we call Genesis seems to fantastic to believe, as history, because these would rather believe the really fantastic things, in the truest sense of that word, that come from our own vain imaginings.
For if Genesis cannot be trusted to be an accurate and literal historical account of where we came from and how we got here, no matter how fantastic some elements of it's narrative may seem to us, almost 6000 years, lots and lots of sins and one worldwide flood removed from that beginning, then I put it to you that the rest of The Words are indeed, also to fantastic to be believed.
As for whom the serpent is: He/it is The Satan embodied either by possession or by invention, even as The Words declare him/it to be.
Rom 16:20 Now the God of peace will be crushing Satan under your feet swiftly. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you!
(What is Paul referencing here if it isn't the prophesy found in Gen 3:14-15? If it is this prophesy he is referencing then Paul certainly believed that Satan was at least equivalent enough to 'the serpent' to utilize this prophesy to describe what Jesus would do to Satan for the believers. Of course that's just what Paul believed. *smile*)
(By the way, didn't you just love that part in The Passion Of The Christ when Jesus literally fulfilled that prophesy and STOMPED on the serpent's head as it was tempting Him? Boy Howdy! Did I ever cheer! And I mean out LOUD!)
2 Cor 11:3 Yet I fear lest somehow, as the serpent deludes Eve by its craftiness, your apprehensions should be corrupted from the singleness and pureness which is in Christ.
(Paul sure thought of the serpent as real, even as he did Eve and her beguiling, don't you think?)
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, the ancient serpent called Adversary and Satan, who is deceiving the whole inhabited earth. It was cast into the earth, and its messengers were cast with it.
Rev 20:1-2 And I perceived a messenger descending out of heaven, having the key of the submerged chaos and a large chain in his hand. And he lays hold of the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the Adversary and Satan, and binds him a thousand years.
Here is why I asked you this question. Below is the Hebrew word that we translate 'serpent'
נחשׁ
nâchash
naw-khash'
A primitive root; properly
to hiss, that is, whisper a (magic) spell; generally to prognosticate: - X certainly, divine, enchanter, (
use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe.
So what the Adam was really talking to was not in fact an actual serpent in the sense of a physical snake as we have today, but it was in fact the adversary (the identity of whom is a whole other discussion) which you pointed out above in your quotation of Rev. 20: 1-2. This is why I also asked the next question:
QuoteGen 3:14 And saying is Yahweh Elohim to the serpent, "As you do this, most cursed are you of every beast, and of all field life. On your torso shall you go, and soil shall you eat all the days of your life.
So, the serpent originally had legs and feet and/or wings.
Apparently so...
After this point, the serpent was made to crawl on its belly instead. Does this lend itself more to a literal interpretation, or an allegorical one?
A literal one.
You don't have any problem believing, do you, Doc, that a real donkey spoke words to Balaam? Or that a fig tree withered overnight when Jesus cursed it? Or that He walked on water? Or that Jesus could read minds? Or that Phillip 'quantum leaped' after baptizing the Ethiopian? Or that the widow's small cruse of oil filled the many pots it was poured into? Or that an axe head floated? Or that Jesus was born of a virgin? Or that Jesus fed, variously, four thousand and five thousand men as well as women and children on a few very meager provisions? Or that the sun stood still, that is to say that the earth quit rotating, and then started up again, so Joshua could have enough time to win an important battle? Or that it rained forty days and nights such that all that water, combining with all the water that came up from inside the earth, covered the entire planet with water? Or that the Red Sea was divided by a strong wind and withdrew back on itself so the Israelites could walk over the dry sea bed to the other side? Or that there was a literal pillar of fire at night and a pillar of cloud during the day that guided the Israelites? Or that manna was literally bread from heaven? Or that the Hebrews clothes and sandals didn't wear out during the 40 year wandering? Or that Jehovah spoke to Moses from a bush that burned but wasn't consumed? Or that a very large gourd sprung up overnight to shade Jonah? Or that Jonah was in the belly of a fish for three days and nights, even as Jesus referenced this to be a literal sign of what he was really going to do, that is, rise from the dead after three days and three nights (as the Jews counted within the Passover Week), a thing pretty fantastic in of itself, don't you think?
Or do you hold that these things are allegorical as well, simply because they are fantastic?
I don't have any problem believing that the God (or one of his agents) who created the universe could cause a donkey to speak to balaam, or any of those other things. My point is that the spiritual truth is often not reflected accurately by our cartoonish literal understanding of these things the way we were taught them in Sunday School.
I would suggest that the curse of the serpent above is allegorical or metaphorical rather than literal, in the sense that God is making a statement of punishment to the satan that has a figurative meaning rather than literally cursing an actual snake that was previously able to fly or walk on legs to crawl on the ground by transforming it into a slithering creature, rather than one that uses another form of locomotion. I think you actually pointed this concept out rather nicely yourself in the next section.
QuoteGen 3:15 And enmity am I setting between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall hurt your head and you shall hurt his heel.
In what sense can 3:15 be taken literally?
Ahhhh! Good one! I will answer with a riddle: "What's a metaphor?" To put cows in! :laughing7:
And so "What's an allegory?" isn't even a joke.
Don't confuse meataphor (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor) and allegory (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory).
They are as different as a meadow is from a metaphor!
This quote is a prophesy that those 'in the know' call The Protevangelium, a $100.00 word that means 'the first evangel'. It is a prophesy of what God was going to do about what had just happened!
And no prophesy is ever allegorical! (Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?)
It is, therefore, told in a metaphorical way because the actuality of it would not be realized for some 4,000 years. (Notice that there is no mention of the cross and no mention of Bethlehem or of the murder of the innocents in this prophesy) Yet, there is the curious phrase "...emnity between your seed..." meaning the 'descendants' of Satan, "...and her seed" meaning those descended from her progeny. However, the woman does not produce seed, or sperm, but the male does. (And so descendants are counted from the male because of the nature of sex being that the man takes the woman to be his bride.) This, then, is implying that, somehow, the woman would conceive and have descendants without a deposit of sperm, at least without one from a human male.
Of course the scriptures abound with references derived from this 'first evangel':
For instance: Jesus' referring to the Pharisees as having the Devil for their father because they imitate his lying, false ways. And the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14 "...the virgin shall conceive..." implying that at the time of the Septuagint the Jews understood that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (even if they now deny this, saying, instead, that the word they formerly agreed should be translated 'virgin' in Isaiah is really 'unclear' because it could mean a married woman as well).
Of course, a crawling serpent would wound a heel, even as that heel, so wounded, could be then used to crush the head of the serpent that bit it. An exquisitely good metaphor for what would happen cosmically as Jesus took the sins of the Kosmos on Himself and was thus wounded with death in our place. And thus, the power of Satan, which is through sin, was destroyed even as Jesus entered the realm of the dead and snatched it's keys from Satan and after awakening them, preached the Gospel that he had accomplished the forgiveness of sins to the dead! WOW! And of course, many of them believed, even as they would have in life and were resurrected and went into the city of Jerusalem and showed themselves to many.
Fantastic!
Thus was the head of Satan crushed, even his power, which was in death because of sin.
So, yes, what I just said from history and from prophesy was very nicely summed up in this little phrase of Words about what Jehovah intended to do about the way things turned out in the garden, against what He intended to have happen- specifically, that The Adam would gain virtue, through trust in Elohim, before they got their conscience from the fruit of 'The Tree of Conscience' and thus make their conscience the powerful thing it was intended to be in and for all of us, the descendants of The Adam.
Pretty fantastic, eh?
As I said previously, you made the point rather nicely here. Metaphorical meanings are also 'non-literal' (symbolic) in my book, just as allegorical meanings are. But you're right, we should be more careful about the terms, because allegory is not the same as metaphor.
QuoteGen 3:16 And to the woman He says, "Multiplying, yea, multiplying am I your grief and the groaning of your pregnancy. In grief shall you bear sons. "Yet by your husband is your restoration, and he shall rule over you.
What is the literal sense of the above verse (aside from the multiplication of grief and groaning of pregnancy)?
I believe that I explained that one in a foot note from Creation Hymn on the Hebrew phrase 'ezer kenegdo'.
I will, however, answer this question with a question: What did Paul really mean when He said this to Timothy:
"... (for Adam was first molded, thereafter Eve, and Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded, has come to be in the transgression). Yet she shall be saved through the child bearing, if ever they should be remaining in faith and love and holiness with sanity."
sozo de dia ho teknogonia is a curious phrase, or so I'm told, in the original Greek because of where the word dia, here translated as 'in' appears- rather than the Greek word en which truly means, in Greek, what we mean when we say "in".
Dia has a deeper meaning than en, such that if Paul had intended this passage only to reference Jesus' virgin birth, in an allegorical way, en would have sufficed.
But he choose dia... so what was Paul really trying to say here? For there is another legitimate way of understanding this verse, in Greek, that is quite literal even as it is fantastic! With proof for it's literal, but fantastic accuracy even in our modern times!
Ok. I can see that you get where I was going with that one.
QuoteGen 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim, "Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!
The above was the verse that I was referring to when I was talking about the tree of life, but it says live for the eon, not forever. Obviously, God did not want them living for the eon in their new state of being as "one of us, knowing good and evil". I don't have a specific question for you on this one, but I'd be interested in your take on its meaning.
The Tree of LIFE! What a glorious thing it is!
It's mere presence in the Garden raises the most difficult questions of all to answer when one approaches Genesis believing that Elohim knew, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them.
And I asked these very questions in my first post to Tim (http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6555.msg71230#msg71230). I asked, leadingly:
Why two trees??
And why create the Tree of Life at all if Elohim already knew, before He created them, that He was going to have to banish them from eating it?
Why doesn't His foreknowledge of their turning make The Tree of Life a superfluous creation, at best and a deception at worst?
And why does The Tree of life return in The New Heaven and The New Earth (The New Universe) where all things are reconciled and restored to Jehovah?
I can answer these questions very simply from knowing that Elohim did not know, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them.
Here, then, are my answers to my own questions
Why two trees??
Because the set-up in the Garden- and make no mistake, they were set-up-was intended to be a 'set up' to succeed not to fail.
The Tree of Life, from which they obviously were allowed to eat, was there because Elohim intended for them to 'pass the test'. And when they did, everything would already be there for them- including a tree whose 12 fruits and leaves were intended to be especially restorative to the physical needs of corporeal beings so that they could live age-enduring life- lives described in Isaiah as being as long as that of a tree.
Only the fatalistic mind of a Manichaean monk-turned-Christian could conceive the foreign idea that God intended the set-up to be nothing more than a glorified sting-operation diabolically designed to see them fall, because, apparently, He foreknew they would, anyway.
So, which came first the chicken or the egg? Did his foreknowledge that they would, in fact, 'fall' before He created them mean that they had no choice but to 'fall'?
Answer: "Yes."
Or was this set up intended to ensure that they would fall exactly as His foreknowledge said they would?
Answer: "Yes."
*sigh* It's a horrifying and hideous thing to fall into the hands of St Augustine's god.
Good thing he was wrong about Him.
And why create the Tree of Life at all if Elohim already knew, before He created them, that He was going to have to banish them from eating it?
Even a child can understand enough of the implications of believing that Elohim knew, as a fact, that The Adam was going to fall before He created them to ask this insightful question; a question to which no Calvinist has a ready, non-evasive answer.
And a question that has no meaning if, in fact, Elohim didn't know, as a fact, that The Adam were going to turn before He created them.
For there is another 'childish' question that every child can know to ask, readily enough, when they are taught Protestant theology and that is: "What about those who died before Jesus came and never heard the Gospel? Are they in hell, burning forever?
And so, what do those who hold dearly to Augustine's and Calvin's 'truth' say in reply?
You tell me.
I'll bet, though that it's even the same thing they say when you ask logical questions of them concerning the logic they use to arrive at the conclusion that Elohim knew, as a fact, that The Adam was going to fall before He created them.
Why doesn't His foreknowledge of their turning make The Tree of Life a superfluous creation, at best and a deception at worst?
Answer: It doesn't. If He foreknew they were going to turn, as a fact, before He created them then the Tree of Life is, at best, a superfluous creation and at worst part of a grand deception perpetrated by Elohim Himself, even as His foreknowledge makes Him the Architect and Administrator of every evil and every sin ever perpetrated by a human.
And so this question, too, has no meaning if Elohim did not know, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them.
And why does The Tree of life return in The New Heaven and The New Earth (The New Universe) where all things are reconciled and restored to Jehovah?
Because the human beings living then will be just as corporeal as they are now and will need this special tree's 12 fruits and leaves to keep themselves healthy and to heal them when they become damaged from all the adventures they are going to have as they live out their eonian lives, lives as long as that of a tree, building, creating art, exploring, singing, dancing, writing stories and poetry, planting, harvesting, cooking, eating, talking, marrying, making love and raising children... in other words all the good things we humans are really good at doing while we praise and honor our God in everything we do.
It is, in Greek, an interesting phrase used in Revelation about the Trees of life (at least three of them)...
It is: "...phullon ho xulon eis therapeia ho ethnos."
Therapeia (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2322&t=KJV) means 'therapy'; a different kind of healing than iaomai (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2390&t=KJV). And of course you recognize ethnos as being where we get the English word 'ethnic' from.
In other words, the tree's leaves are for the therapeutic healing of the ethnics.
And so, I, who am among the first to believe, while this age lasts, look forward to the redemption of my spirit and soul from this body to be resurrected into a new age-enduring body dwelling in The New Heaven's and it's New Earth- a literal re-creation that is on its way, even as this Heavens and it's Earth are passing by- where righteousness dwells in all, through virtue, even as the new human I am re-sired to be is being trained in righteousness, in this age, so that *I* will be living my age-enduring life as a good human in the eon to come where God, Himself is All and in All and the former things are never remembered.
I absolutely love being human!
And good, even as Jehovah, my Father, is good and exactly as I was created to be!
Be good, then, Doc, even as you, too, were created to be!
Dennis!
The only problem with this line of thinking in the first section here (aside from the apparent inconsistency of some of the things you've stated) is that if you're right that God set it up in Eden for them to succeed (in the short-term) rather than fail or fall, then that means that at the very least, God's foreknowledge is imperfect. But it would also mean that God is not in control of his creation, and therefore that he is really not sovereign, a concept that I am unwilling and unable to accept.
The problem with the second section is that if what you say is true about the function of the tree of life and our state of existence, then none of us ever truly puts on immortality and incorruption. We would merely always remain essentially mortal and corruptible and depend on something external to continue life. What's more is that scripture is explicit that we will not be married nor given in marriage, but will be as the angels in heaven. So we will clearly not be "making love and raising children" as you stated.
And: I cannot 'be good'. There is only One who is good. I do not have the ability of myself to be good.
Quote from: Doc on September 14, 2009, 08:53:41 PM
Thanks for your answers. I have given some thoughts about them below.
Hey there!
Thanks for the challenges! This is really what I've been looking for- a chance to test what I've concluded against the thoughts of another.
A request before I'm off to ponder and a few comments:
Could you link me to where you got this? Because, as you are probably aware, Strong makes no such mention of this- not that I think Strong is the ultimate authority. (And by the way do you know where there is a Concordant OT text available on the Internet?):
Quoteנחשׁ
nâchash
naw-khash'
A primitive root; properly to hiss, that is, whisper a (magic) spell; generally to prognosticate: - X certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe.
We said:
Quote from: youQuote from: meOr do you hold that these (fantastic) things are allegorical as well, simply because they are fantastic?
I don't have any problem believing that the God (or one of his agents) who created the universe...
One of His
agents?!? This is certainly something I've never heard before! Could I ask you to expound?
Quote...could cause a donkey to speak to balaam, or any of those other things. My point is that the spiritual truth is often not reflected accurately by our cartoonish literal understanding of these things the way we were taught them in Sunday School.
Interesting turn of a phrase, Doc, "cartoonish literal understanding". As if to say that to think literally of the persons and events in scripture, well at least of those in Genesis, is to be cartoonish.
I don't mean that as a put down, really. I'm just noting that your phraseology reveals something to me of how you think. Even as you stated your point about literal interpretations prior to this:
QuoteThe physical points to the spiritual, because the physical is the shadow of the spiritual. Is there reality and truth in the physical? Yes, but the higher reality and truth is the spiritual. The things that are seen (physical) are made from the things that are unseen (spiritual). The spiritual is the primary reality.
I know, however, that you're referencing the well known caricature of the Devil in a red suit with horns and pitchfork, or even a serpent in a tree. And Noah's ark with the smiling animals hanging out the windows happy to be so crammed inside as well as the other, sometimes strange, flannel-graph representations used to teach Sunday school.
Personally, I don't really picture what 'The Satan' looks like at all, except for working
backward from the curse on him/it. And what the scriptures say about him being able to transform himself into an angel of light (interesting word there,
transform) and how Revelation describes him.
Which, I admit, does paint a fantastic picture! But, as I pointed out, no matter how you slice it up between literal, allegorical or metaphoric, the Genesis account is a fantastic story of a time and reality that would be lost to us
except for this account. And without it's historical and literal accuracy we would be stupid in our imaginings about where we came from and how we got to be where we are. Even if it is as you say that literal is only one
layer of meaning.
And so that is why I want to 'get Genesis right'.
QuoteI would suggest that the curse of the serpent above is allegorical or metaphorical rather than literal, in the sense that God is making a statement of punishment to the satan that has a figurative meaning rather than literally cursing an actual snake that was previously able to fly or walk on legs to crawl on the ground by transforming it into a slithering creature, rather than one that uses another form of locomotion. I think you actually pointed this concept out rather nicely yourself in the next section.
Thank you for that compliment Doc! I receive it. Even though I
do distinguish between the literal curse i.e. the Words spoken that actually transformed the serpent and the metaphoric words that describe what Jehovah was going to do, now, as a result of him/it's success in turning The Adam.
You commented on the summation of my answers to my own questions with this:
QuoteThe only problem with this line of thinking in the first section here (aside from the apparent inconsistency of some of the things you've stated) is that if you're right that God set it up in Eden for them to succeed (in the short-term) rather than fail or fall, then that means that at the very least, God's foreknowledge is imperfect.
A very well drawn, very logical conclusion, Doc!
May I assume, then, that these apparent inconsistencies you see stem also from what you perceive I am doing, that is, making Jehovah's foreknowledge of the future imperfect?
Which is to also ask, "Could you agree that my account is, at the least,
internally consistent for my
assuming that Jehovah did not know, as a fact (however unbelievable that may sound to you) that The Adam was going to turn before He created them?"
QuoteBut it would also mean that God is not in control of his creation, and therefore that he is really not sovereign, a concept that I am unwilling and unable to accept.
Ah, well said. And I'm sure you speak on behalf of many millions of Believers when you say this.
I really don't expect any other reply because I know, well, how unconventional and even bizarre the conclusions I have drawn seem to those whose understanding of God was ingrained into them by the concepts shoe-horned into the original text to make it support the theology of St. Augustine and John Calvin- Many of which are concepts that those here at Tentmaker have learned to reject as untruthful by using logic and reason and literal interpretations to support their rejections.
Well, I am using logic and reason and a literal interpretation of the words in exactly the same way Tentmaker does to challenge the idea of that peculiar hell to show that where scripture speaks of God's foreknowledge, using the Greek words
prognōsis and
proginōskō that the writers are
not teaching that Jehovah has foreknowledge of the future, but, of something else.
So what, exactly,
do the scriptures say He 'foreknew', where these two related Greek words appear?
You've avoided answering this question,
directly, several times now.
QuoteThe problem with the second section is that if what you say is true about the function of the tree of life and our state of existence, then none of us ever truly puts on immortality and incorruption. We would merely always remain essentially mortal and corruptible and depend on something external to continue life. What's more is that scripture is explicit that we will not be married nor given in marriage, but will be as the angels in heaven. So we will clearly not be "making love and raising children" as you stated.
That is a very good point Doc! And I'm glad you brought that up because right there is something I'm still exploring!
For the prophesies in Isaiah 65 and 66 of The New Heavens and their New Earth describe a
very corporeal, very human existence with babies being born and houses being built and even some humans, rare though it will be, dying, apparently for sinning! (Of course, I can imagine that you likely believe that where scripture speaks of The New Heavens and New Earth it's meant to be read allegorically or spiritually or anything else
but literally. And that's OK. I know where your head is at and I can accept it.)
Seemingly against what Jesus said about the state of those in the resurrection being like "the messengers (angels) of God in heaven". (Note that He did
not say that those resurrected would be sex
less that is androgynous: The part about 'not marrying', etc. was in response to what prompted the scathing rebuttal He gave, namely the hypothetical situation concerning a widow and her deceased husbands set up by the Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection, to trap Him in His words.)
As for Paul's quote from his first letter to the Corinthians that you referenced above:
"Lo! a secret to you am I telling! We all, indeed, shall not be put to repose, yet we all shall be changed, in an instant, in the twinkle of an eye, at the last trump. For He will be trumpeting, and the dead will be roused incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality. Now, whenever this corruptible should be putting on incorruption and this mortal should be putting on immortality, then shall come to pass the word which is written, Swallowed up was Death by Victory."
He also wrote this to Timothy:
"I am charging you in the sight of God, Who is vivifying all, and of Jesus Christ, Who testifies in the ideal avowal before Pontius Pilate, that you keep this precept unspotted, irreprehensible, unto the advent of our Lord, Christ Jesus, which, to its own eras, the happy and only Potentate will be showing: He is King of kings and Lord of lords,
Who alone has immortality,
(same word as above) making His home in light inaccessible, Whom not one of mankind perceived nor can be perceiving, to Whom be honor and might eonian! Amen!"
So the question is what did Paul mean by saying that God
alone had immortality while at another time using the same word alongside a word that means 'incorruption' to describe what we will become when we are (ex)changed at the last trump- that which dies exchanged for immortal and that which is corrupted exchanged for that which isn't?
Answer I don't know. Do you?
I have something I'm contemplating but I'm gonna keep it close, for now, and see what answer you give, if any, to this.
QuoteAnd: I cannot 'be good'. There is only One who is good. I do not have the ability of myself to be good.
I was waiting for this reply, even as I know the theology that drives your thoughts!
Nope, I agree,
by yourself you cannot be good, anymore than I can! But, with God,
all things are possible! Even making dirty, rotten
depraved sinners like us into righteousness loving do gooders!
Or, do you think Jesus saved you and gave you a cleansed conscience and re-sired you through holy spirit to keep on being bad so that God's grace may abound in you?
No! Of course not!
So,
be good! Exactly as you were at least
re-sired to be!
Besides, what's so wrong with saying that?
Because of what Jesus said to a young, rich Jewish man (of whom it is written that Jesus loved Him and thus challenged him, from His knowing his heart, concerning what is good
to do that this young man might be
perfect) who came to Jesus and falling at his feet in worship, sought to know of Him what he must
do (according to law) to receive life aionian:
And lo! one coming to Him said, "Teacher, what good shall I be doing that I should be having life eonian?" Yet He said to him, "Why are you asking Me concerning good? One is good. Yet if you are wanting to be entering into life, keep the precepts." ...The youth is saying to Him, "These all I maintain. In what am I still deficient?" Jesus averred to him, "
If you are wanting to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and be giving to the poor, and you will be having treasure in the heavens. And hither! Follow Me." Now, hearing this word, the youth came away sorrowing, for he had many acquisitions."?
I hope not! Because then you will be going against a
ton of scriptures, figuratively speaking, that declare that you not only
can be made righteous, through faith in Jesus Christ and the cleansing of your conscience, but
must be righteous, which means, doing right or
being good, to receive your own allotment of life aionian in the kingdom of God!
However, being raised a Calvinist myself, I do know what you mean, Doc. It's somehow anathema to think that you can
be good, almost as if your thinking that you could
be God.
So, I will add that, as long as you continue to hold to the Calvinistic conclusions that led you to reply as you just did, then I think you will not grasp anything of what I am saying.
(Note: I am
not saying, Doc, that you are a Calvinist, even if, perhaps, you are. What I am saying is that you, like so many other Believers, raised on the KJV, often hold, unknowingly and therefore,
unquestioningly, several of his theological conclusions to be 'gospel truth'- for instance "The Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world" thingy! )
Besides, really, what's so bad about wanting to
be good, Doc? Especially if it's Jehovah, the
happy God, Who is operating in you to will as well as to work for the sake of His delight!
For what does God delight in but that you may be filled full with the realization of His will, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding... to walk worthily of the Lord for all pleasing,
bearing fruit in every good work, and growing in the realization of God; being endued with all power, in accord with the might of His glory, for all endurance and patience with joy..."
Dennis!
Quote from: Eleutheros on September 15, 2009, 04:27:29 AM
Hey there!
Thanks for the challenges! This is really what I've been looking for- a chance to test what I've concluded against the thoughts of another.
A request before I'm off to ponder and a few comments:
Could you link me to where you got this? Because, as you are probably aware, Strong makes no such mention of this- not that I think Strong is the ultimate authority. (And by the way do you know where there is a Concordant OT text available on the Internet?):
נחשׁ
nâchash
naw-khash'
A primitive root; properly to hiss, that is, whisper a (magic) spell; generally to prognosticate: - X certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe.
Yeah, I got it from Strong's concordance in my e-sword program. I have the concordant NT and OT text in my e-sword program as well. nachash is the Hebrew word that we translate "serpent"
QuoteWe said:
Or do you hold that these (fantastic) things are allegorical as well, simply because they are fantastic?
I don't have any problem believing that the God (or one of his agents) who created the universe...
One of His agents?!? This is certainly something I've never heard before! Could I ask you to expound?
Angels. Sometimes God chooses to speak through a messenger.
Quote
Interesting turn of a phrase, Doc, "cartoonish literal understanding". As if to say that to think literally of the persons and events in scripture, well at least of those in Genesis, is to be cartoonish.
I don't mean that as a put down, really. I'm just noting that your phraseology reveals something to me of how you think. Even as you stated your point about literal interpretations prior to this:
In some cases, it is cartoonish, when we have study tools available that can show us the way that biblical words are translated isn't what they really mean at all. I'm simply demonstrating that when we read the English word "serpent", we automatically think "snake". But the Hebrew word literally means "hissing one that whispers (a magic spell). that does not suggest a literal snake. Do we have any other scriptural textual evidence that A&E were accustomed to speaking to animals and being spoken to by them?
QuoteThe physical points to the spiritual, because the physical is the shadow of the spiritual. Is there reality and truth in the physical? Yes, but the higher reality and truth is the spiritual. The things that are seen (physical) are made from the things that are unseen (spiritual). The spiritual is the primary reality.
I know, however, that you're referencing the well known caricature of the Devil in a red suit with horns and pitchfork, or even a serpent in a tree. And Noah's ark with the smiling animals hanging out the windows happy to be so crammed inside as well as the other, sometimes strange, flannel-graph representations used to teach Sunday school.
Personally, I don't really picture what 'The Satan' looks like at all, except for working backward from the curse on him/it. And what the scriptures say about him being able to transform himself into an angel of light (interesting word there, transform (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3345&t=KJV)) and how Revelation describes him.
Which, I admit, does paint a fantastic picture! But, as I pointed out, no matter how you slice it up between literal, allegorical or metaphoric, the Genesis account is a fantastic story of a time and reality that would be lost to us except for this account. And without it's historical and literal accuracy we would be stupid in our imaginings about where we came from and how we got to be where we are. Even if it is as you say that literal is only one layer of meaning.
And so that is why I want to 'get Genesis right'.
Thank you for that compliment Doc! I receive it. Even though I do distinguish between the literal curse i.e. the Words spoken that actually transformed the serpent and the metaphoric words that describe what Jehovah was going to do, now, as a result of him/it's success in turning The Adam.
You commented on the summation of my answers to my own questions with this:
The only problem with this line of thinking in the first section here (aside from the apparent inconsistency of some of the things you've stated) is that if you're right that God set it up in Eden for them to succeed (in the short-term) rather than fail or fall, then that means that at the very least, God's foreknowledge is imperfect.
A very well drawn, very logical conclusion, Doc!
May I assume, then, that these apparent inconsistencies you see stem also from what you perceive I am doing, that is, making Jehovah's foreknowledge of the future imperfect?
Which is to also ask, "Could you agree that my account is, at the least, internally consistent for my assuming that Jehovah did not know, as a fact (however unbelievable that may sound to you) that The Adam was going to turn before He created them?"
I would say that it probably is internally consistent. But so is much of Calvinism, which you continually insist that I adhere to (even though I do not). I disagree with Calvin (and Augustine, for that matter) on a great many things, including the limitation of God's love to only the elect.
QuoteBut it would also mean that God is not in control of his creation, and therefore that he is really not sovereign, a concept that I am unwilling and unable to accept.
Ah, well said. And I'm sure you speak on behalf of many millions of Believers when you say this.
I really don't expect any other reply because I know, well, how unconventional and even bizarre the conclusions I have drawn seem to those whose understanding of God was ingrained into them by the concepts shoe-horned into the original text to make it support the theology of St. Augustine and John Calvin- Many of which are concepts that those here at Tentmaker have learned to reject as untruthful by using logic and reason and literal interpretations to support their rejections.
Well, I am using logic and reason and a literal interpretation of the words in exactly the same way Tentmaker does to challenge the idea of that peculiar hell to show that where scripture speaks of God's foreknowledge, using the Greek words prognōsis (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4268&t=KJV) and proginōskō (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4267&t=KJV) that the writers are not teaching that Jehovah has foreknowledge of the future, but, of something else.
So what, exactly, do the scriptures say He 'foreknew', where these two related Greek words appear?
You've avoided answering this question, directly, several times now.
I have attempted to answer this question directly. Prognosis is a word that appears in two places in the New Testament; 1 Peter 1 and Acts 2
Acts 2: Act 2:22 Men! Israelites! Hear these words: Jesus, the Nazarene, a Man demonstrated to be from God for you by powerful deeds and miracles and signs, which God does through Him in the midst of you, according as you yourselves are aware -"
Act 2:23 This One, given up in the specific counsel and foreknowledge of God, you, gibbeting by the hand of the lawless, assassinate,
Act 2:24 Whom God raises, loosing the pangs of death, forasmuch as it was not possible for Him to be held by it."
So here in Acts 2 we have the foreknowledge of God specifically applied to the sacrifice of Christ.
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen expatriates of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God, the Father, in holiness of spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you!"
Here in first Peter, Peter is an apostle according to the foreknowledge of God.
proginosko is used in more places in the New Testament, but only a few of them directly apply to God's foreknowledge, so I'll only quote the relevant ones:
Rom 8:28 Now we are aware that God is working all together for the good of those who are loving God, who are called according to the purpose"
Rom 8:29 that, whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be Firstborn among many brethren."
Rom 8:30 Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also."
Here we have God's foreknowledge of the "saints".
Rom 11:2 God does not thrust away His people whom He foreknew. Or have you not perceived in Elijah what the scripture is saying, as he is pleading with God against Israel?
Here we have God's foreknowledge of "His people".
1Pe 1:17 And if you are invoking the Father, Who is judging impartially according to each one's work, you may behave, for the time of your sojourn, with fear,
1Pe 1:18 being aware that not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, were you ransomed from your vain behavior, handed down by tradition from the fathers,
1Pe 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a flawless and unspotted lamb,
1Pe 1:20 foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the world, yet manifested in the last times because of you, who through Him are believing in God,
1Pe 1:21 Who rouses Him from among the dead and is giving Him glory, so that your faith and expectation is to be in God."
Here we have God's foreknowledge of the blood of Christ
before the disruption of the world.
That's as direct as I and it can get...
Quote
That is a very good point Doc! And I'm glad you brought that up because right there is something I'm still exploring!
For the prophesies in Isaiah 65 and 66 of The New Heavens and their New Earth describe a very corporeal, very human existence with babies being born and houses being built and even some humans, rare though it will be, dying, apparently for sinning! (Of course, I can imagine that you likely believe that where scripture speaks of The New Heavens and New Earth it's meant to be read allegorically or spiritually or anything else but literally. And that's OK. I know where your head is at and I can accept it.)
Seemingly against what Jesus said about the state of those in the resurrection being like "the messengers (angels) of God in heaven". (Note that He did not say that those resurrected would be sexless that is androgynous: The part about 'not marrying', etc. was in response to what prompted the scathing rebuttal He gave, namely the hypothetical situation concerning a widow and her deceased husbands set up by the Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection, to trap Him in His words.)
The prophecies contained in Isaiah and Revelation are both still referring to what occurs in time in the non-eternal state. The eternal state does not occur until sin and all death are no more. Until then, we're still dealing with time.
QuoteAs for Paul's quote from his first letter to the Corinthians that you referenced above:
"Lo! a secret to you am I telling! We all, indeed, shall not be put to repose, yet we all shall be changed, in an instant, in the twinkle of an eye, at the last trump. For He will be trumpeting, and the dead will be roused incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality. Now, whenever this corruptible should be putting on incorruption and this mortal should be putting on immortality, then shall come to pass the word which is written, Swallowed up was Death by Victory."
He also wrote this to Timothy:
"I am charging you in the sight of God, Who is vivifying all, and of Jesus Christ, Who testifies in the ideal avowal before Pontius Pilate, that you keep this precept unspotted, irreprehensible, unto the advent of our Lord, Christ Jesus, which, to its own eras, the happy and only Potentate will be showing: He is King of kings and Lord of lords, Who alone has immortality, (same word as above) making His home in light inaccessible, Whom not one of mankind perceived nor can be perceiving, to Whom be honor and might eonian! Amen!"
So the question is what did Paul mean by saying that God alone had immortality while at another time using the same word alongside a word that means 'incorruption' to describe what we will become when we are (ex)changed at the last trump- that which dies exchanged for immortal and that which is corrupted exchanged for that which isn't?
Answer I don't know. Do you?
I have something I'm contemplating but I'm gonna keep it close, for now, and see what answer you give, if any, to this.
I'm thinking this means that the immortality we will experience is part and parcel of God becoming all and in all. It is His immortal life that we will have, not our own.
Quote
I was waiting for this reply, even as I know the theology that drives your thoughts!
Nope, I agree, by yourself you cannot be good, anymore than I can! But, with God, all things are possible! Even making dirty, rotten depraved sinners like us into righteousness loving do gooders!
Or, do you think Jesus saved you and gave you a cleansed conscience and re-sired you through holy spirit to keep on being bad so that God's grace may abound in you?
No! Of course not!
So, be good! Exactly as you were at least re-sired to be!
Besides, what's so wrong with saying that?
Because of what Jesus said to a young, rich Jewish man (of whom it is written that Jesus loved Him and thus challenged him, from His knowing his heart, concerning what is good to do that this young man might be perfect) who came to Jesus and falling at his feet in worship, sought to know of Him what he must do (according to law) to receive life aionian:
And lo! one coming to Him said, "Teacher, what good shall I be doing that I should be having life eonian?" Yet He said to him, "Why are you asking Me concerning good? One is good. Yet if you are wanting to be entering into life, keep the precepts." ...The youth is saying to Him, "These all I maintain. In what am I still deficient?" Jesus averred to him, "If you are wanting to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and be giving to the poor, and you will be having treasure in the heavens. And hither! Follow Me." Now, hearing this word, the youth came away sorrowing, for he had many acquisitions."?
I hope not! Because then you will be going against a ton of scriptures, figuratively speaking, that declare that you not only can be made righteous, through faith in Jesus Christ and the cleansing of your conscience, but must be righteous, which means, doing right or being good, to receive your own allotment of life aionian in the kingdom of God!
However, being raised a Calvinist myself, I do know what you mean, Doc. It's somehow anathema to think that you can be good, almost as if your thinking that you could be God.
So, I will add that, as long as you continue to hold to the Calvinistic conclusions that led you to reply as you just did, then I think you will not grasp anything of what I am saying.
(Note: I am not saying, Doc, that you are a Calvinist, even if, perhaps, you are. What I am saying is that you, like so many other Believers, raised on the KJV, often hold, unknowingly and therefore, unquestioningly, several of his theological conclusions to be 'gospel truth'- for instance "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" thingy! )
Besides, really, what's so bad about wanting to be good, Doc? Especially if it's Jehovah, the happy God, Who is operating in you to will as well as to work for the sake of His delight!
For what does God delight in but that you may be filled full with the realization of His will, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding... to walk worthily of the Lord for all pleasing, bearing fruit in every good work, and growing in the realization of God; being endued with all power, in accord with the might of His glory, for all endurance and patience with joy..."
Dennis!
Well, at least we agree on that. It is His righteousness that we put on, not our own.
So to me, the statement "be good", is the logical equivalent of saying, "be kinder than necessary".
Literal or figurative... I think the desire to become as God is the root of our quagmire. I see this as "wanting to take what God is already willing to give, and the attempt to take it in a measure God is not willing to give". We cannot see exactly as God sees, we see "through a glass darkly". If we accept the scriptures as God -breathed, at least in the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew,then we can accept(at least, I can :happy3:) that there was enough in all the major translations to lead seekers on a hunt that leads to the discovery of the truth of things obscured by translations. I found a syllogism, an absolute result of deductive reasoning in Eph 1; Colossians 1; Romans 11; and 1 Cor 15 that eliminated the possibility of an eternal tormenting hell, or a major annihilation of souls, before I began to study the ancient languages. In other words, I looked deeper because of things that were clearly declared in the shoddy translations.
I believe that if the scriptures are God breathed, and "cannot be broken" (translation issues resolved of course) then...... if there are two apparently opposing truths I need to look deeper for the resolution where they come together. There is a strong relationship between literal and figurative understandings because all that is "seen" is the product of the unseen. That which happens in time is a manifestation of God's aionios purpose. The scriptures plainly declare the foreknowledge of God, the predestined purposes of God, and the responsibilty of free will. Paul's answer to man's questions about the justice(or seeming injustice) of this is "What is it to you if God created vessels for mercy and vessels for breaking." He was not saying it cannot be understood- he was saying who are you to question the declared counsels of God or His eternal power and divine nature- rather, seek a deeper understanding. Theologians tend to be lazy, justifying one declared truth against another based on their limits and immaturity rather than understanding the simple truth that all mysteries require further "seeking". God is the rewarder of then that diligently seek Him.....but no one knocks who thinks they have already gone through the door. The unity of the faith is hidden in the mystery between predestination and free will, literalism and figurativism, law and grace, works and unmerited favor....all mysteries that resolve in the depths of knowing God.
1Co 2:6-16 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: (7) But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: (8) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (9) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (10) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. (11) For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. (12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (16) For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
The way I see it (which is not necessarily the way it is, just my view) that God "created" according to His "kind intention" which he purposed through Christ, to generate a throng of friends(Abraham was the friend of God because he understood sacrifice) who would understand who He was and share in His abundance. In order to get there they must pass through chaos in order to see that "sacrificial love" is the essence of union and harmony. Seeing UR takes the stigma off predestination and foreknowledge(if you look a little deeper) because it reveals the context of His "kind intention which He purposed in Himself, the summing up of all things....in Christ". This is the mystery. The way that free will acts within the microcosm called "time", "kosmos" and "aion", according to the foreknowledge of God, is a deeper mystery than I have yet been able to fathom....but I see it in context of His overall purpose, which is an ocean, a river, a universe of spirits rejoicing in harmony and union and glorious freedom.
Hey, Doc!
I'm sorry I've kept you waiting so long for this; I've been quite busy and had to do my research and typing in between my thinking. And it sure took a lot of thinking and research to write this reply! Most of the thoughts were already there, of course, just never flushed out and made specific; which, without you hanging in there with me this long, I would not have been motivated to do what it takes to get these thoughts in order.
And for that, I thank you.
Here, then, is my heart of thoughts. It was written in spurts with a lot of nascent axioms typed out and later nipped because what I was led to conclude from them was contradictory and unrevealing.
Hopefully, all of that effort will be transparent to you and this will be an effortless read. I was well challenged by you to examine my thoughts for truth and to discover that the understanding that is in me, as unique and contradictory as it seems to the Christian understandings that were derived from that ulterior motivated and therefore, deliberately mistranslated Latin-to-English text, is supportable in the original Greek and Hebrew text of The Words, to my own satisfaction.
A quick note: This first part of my reply was written in real time. I had decided, as a challenge to my understanding, to type out my discoveries as I researched your claim about the Hebrew word
nacash. And that was because I had no foreknowledge of what I would find, since your challenge about the Hebrew word translated 'serpent' was one I had never heard before. The only thing I did, later, was to go back and perform a 'spell check' and insert the hyperlinks and BBCode so you could see what I was seeing as I researched what you made claim to be a fact.
And so, if it's not a day late and a dollar short, here we go!
Quote from: Doc on September 15, 2009, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: Eleutheros on September 15, 2009, 04:27:29 AM
Could you link me to where you got this? Because, as you are probably aware, Strong makes no such mention of this- not that I think Strong is the ultimate authority. (And by the way do you know where there is a Concordant OT text available on the Internet?):
נחשׁ
nâchash
naw-khash'
A primitive root; properly to hiss, that is, whisper a (magic) spell; generally to prognosticate: - X certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe.
Yeah, I got it from Strong's concordance in my e-sword program. I have the concordant NT and OT text in my e-sword program as well. nachash is the Hebrew word that we translate "serpent"
Thanks for the info about e-sword. I'll look into it.
OK... this is very interesting! I'm exploring this as I type...The Bible software I use simply says that it means 'serpent' all 31 times it's used...
And many of those times it refers to a literal serpent, not just to the one that was in the Garden, like the literal and fiery ones God sent among the Hebrews in Numbers...
I just checked with my published 2001 update to Strong's and it says the same thing;
nachash... yep, your English spelling is right... Strong's # 5175... What Strong's # are you using? You didn't say... simply means 'serpent' and that it is a masculine noun...
OK.
I'm checking The Blue Letter Bible... Gesenius says:
a serpent (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5175&t=KJV) so called from it's hissing (see root) OK... The root is Strongs # 5172 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5172&t=KJV#)... Ahhhh!
This is the word that you said is translated 'serpent'! Interesting... the only difference between the two is the vowel points, which would change the
pronunciation of the word... and that
this word is a root
verb not a noun!
Gesenius says it is: an onomatopoetic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/onomatopoetic) word,
unused in Kal (Isn't 'Kal' a reference to the earliest and first form of the three forms of Biblical Hebrew?) meaning, exactly what you posted it meant, 'to hiss or whisper', specially used of the whispering of soothsayers...
And it's first appearance in The Words... Genesis 30:27 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=30&v=27&t=KJV#27), is some two thousand, or more years after the events of Genesis 1-3... And this usage is somewhat unique from it's more consistent usage later on in that Laban uses it to reference the knowledge of God's ways that he got 'the hard way', so to speak.
So, if I'm understanding this right- like I said, I'm no language scholar- the first form of this Hebrew word spelled 'nun-cheit- shin' and pronounced 'naw-chash' (the guttural 'ch' with a short, hard 'a' and a truncated 's'
similar to our word 'cash', if spelled with a 'k'- 'kash') is a
noun that means a literal snake or serpent. And so
because of what this literal serpent did; for what it
did came first, even as the first appearance in Hebrew of this word is as a noun meaning 'serpent', the word also spelled 'nun-cheit- shin' but pronounced
naw-chaasssh (the guttural 'ch' but soft and long on the 'a', with a lingering 's'
similar to our pronunciation of the word '
cushion' if it were spelled with a 'k'- '
kush-on') became, in later forms of Hebrew
and in Arabic (a much later language), a root
verb for the act of divination and was intended to resemble the hissing sound of a snake in the pronunciation of it's final syllable.
And again, that usage came to be because of what the literal serpent
did, beguile and seduce with flattering words, which is what soothsayers do. (It is not uncommon, in any language, to take a noun and turn it into a verb; we do it all the time in English. For instance the noun 'ship' is also a verb because of what a ship
does.)
And that makes perfect sense given the expositions I found here (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?type=getTopic&topic=Serpent) and here (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?type=getTopic&topic=Divination).
Well, I don't know what else to say, Doc. If my information is correct- and I welcome a challenge to it's accuracy- your's is not. And so, likely, would be any logical conclusions that you build from this belief that the Hebrew
noun of origin, pronounced
naw-cash in the Genesis creation account, meant the same thing,
back then, when this word was first used, that the root
verb, derived much later from this noun and pronounced
naw-kasssh, came to mean.
We said:
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisQuote from: DocOr do you hold that these (fantastic) things are allegorical as well, simply because they are fantastic?
I don't have any problem believing that the God (or one of his agents) who created the universe...
One of His agents?!? This is certainly something I've never heard before! Could I ask you to expound?
Angels. Sometimes God chooses to speak through a messenger.
OK! Speak, yes. But
create?!?Doc, what else am I supposed to think you mean by saying this, other than that you believe it is possible that God spoke and it was
the Angels who did the actual work of creation?
That sounds pretty fantastic to me!
However, as you wish! It makes sense to you. And since I am unfamiliar with the logic that led you to this conclusion, I certainly won't gainsay it for the sake of 'traditional' thinking!
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisInteresting turn of a phrase, Doc, "cartoonish literal understanding". As if to say that to think literally of the persons and events in scripture, well at least of those in Genesis, is to be cartoonish.
I don't mean that as a put down, really. I'm just noting that your phraseology reveals something to me of how you think. Even as you stated your point about literal interpretations prior to this:
In some cases, it is cartoonish, when we have study tools available that can show us the way that biblical words are translated isn't what they really mean at all.
Well, I'm sure you perceive that I've been doing exactly that all along!
themilios means 'foundation', not
katabole.
Katabole means 'disruption'. And so the only English verses readily available to 'prove' that God knew, as a fact, that the Adam was going to turn
before He created them, Rev 13:8 and 17:8, do
not translate to the familiar belief that founds
everything so many build their understanding of Jehovah on, namely, the thought that 'Jesus was crucified from the
foundation of the world'! Which, belief,
I conclude the KJV Calvinists wanted
you to conclude, otherwise they'd have had no motive to make two Greek words mean exactly the same thing in English, anymore than they would have had motive to make three Greek words and one Hebrew word mean 'hell.'
Quote from: DocI'm simply demonstrating that when we read the English word "serpent," we automatically think "snake". But the Hebrew word literally means "hissing one that whispers (a magic spell). that does not suggest a literal snake.
Well, it's up to you, now, to disprove what I discovered, at least to your own satisfaction, before you can continue to claim this as a fact.
Words mean things. And so, since no two words are exactly alike, there are correct and incorrect usages.
Quote from: DocDo we have any other scriptural textual evidence that A&E were accustomed to speaking to animals and being spoken to by them?
No we don't. Even though we know some animals can
learn to imitate human speech. But that doesn't prove your point, because, as a fact, even as I stated it before, without the Genesis account we would be found stupid for the things we would imagine to fill in the knowledge gap that exists as we try to answer the question of where we came from and how we got to be where we are.
Fortunately, though, we
do have the literal and historical account in Genesis. So, at the least, we are without an excuse because, through this account- which gives us a complete and trustworthy, though admittedly fantastic story, when understood literally- we can, at least
know that we are being stupid about our origins rather than being stupid
and ignorant for not even knowing that we are being stupid!
And just to make sure that I'm not misunderstood- I am
not saying anyone here on Tentmaker is being stupid or even ignorant. (Quite the contrary! I am here
exactly because intelligent and studious humans, like you, Doc, are here- humans who have used logic and reason to discern the truth we call UR, exactly as I have, yet, have a different
way of thinking than I do about other things and against whom I can test my way of thinking for accuracy and truth.)
I was referring to exactly what I said before: Humans used to imagine a whole pantheon of gods as being responsible for creation and now many humans imagine that we evolved upward from... whatever...
something lower (they're not even sure!) And in
these things we demonstrate that we are stupid as we try to fill in the gap in our knowledge with imagination
apart from a literal understanding of the Genesis account; which account is the
only accurate, historical and
truthful record we have of where we came from and how we got to be where we are!
And that is why I firmly believe that Genesis must be understood and believed literally,
first, (no matter how fantastic the account may seem) before any other 'spiritual' layers of meaning are 'discovered'; just like in Jesus' parables.
Quote from: DocQuote from: Dennis"...Could you agree that my account is, at the least, internally consistent for my assuming that Jehovah did not know, as a fact (however unbelievable that may sound to you) that The Adam was going to turn before He created them?"
I would say that it probably is internally consistent.
Thank you!
Quote from: DocBut so is much of Calvinism,...
I agree. And with that statement you prove the very important point I was trying to make earlier when I was demonstrating how logic operates; for internal consistency is not proof of accuracy. Only
accurate axioms and
truthfulfacts will give you truthful and useful conclusions. Which means that
any inaccurate axioms or
any untruthful 'facts' will yield a conclusion, yes, but not a truthful and
useful one (except for the purposes of deception), no matter how internally consistent the logic is.
This fact about logic eludes most and is one of the reasons why John Calvin, a brilliant logician (who likely knew the 'game' he was playing with The Words), got away, for so long, with what he wanted us to believe about God: Calvin was internally consistent in what he taught,
except what he taught wasn't the truth.
And what he did give us to believe about God turns out to be what we
wanted to believe, like that peculiar hell, as long as he could give 'us' a way to believe that 'we' were exempt from it.
Quote from: Doc....which you continually insist that I adhere to (even though I do not). I disagree with Calvin (and Augustine, for that matter) on a great many things, including the limitation of God's love to only the elect.
What's interesting about this comment is that, I as I wrote out my last reply, I came to foreknow that you would be concluding that I was doing this. And for foreknowing this, I offered a clarification, even this:
Quote from: Dennis(Note: I am not saying, Doc, that you are a Calvinist, even if, perhaps, you are. What I am saying is that you, like so many other Believers (myself included), raised on the KJV, often hold, unknowingly and therefore, unquestioningly, several of his theological conclusions to be 'gospel truth'- for instance "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" thingy! )
I am very sorry, though, that I left you frustrated here, Doc. I should have worked that clarification in earlier.
What I was really trying to do, however, was demonstrate a very simple point that I can now sum up for having presented most of my case:
Christians believe that Jehovah knew,
as a fact, that the Adam was going to 'fall'
before He created them because St Augustine and John Calvin
wanted us to believe this because it was needed for us to believe this to be a fact so we would could believe that peculiar hell existed!
In other words, the one 'fact' supported the other 'fact' such that if either one is false the other will be false. And that is why internal consistency is no proof of truth.
And so, through translational trickery, they made The Words say what
they wanted them to say so that
we would believe what
they wanted us to believe! And as I said earlier, what they gave Christians to believe about God, the majority of them wanted to believe, anyway.
A very exclusive club is what Calvinism gives us. And He was gracious enough to give us all the thoughts we would need to believe that it's all God's doing- that it's His
fault, if you will- that this exclusionary Believers Club is
so exclusive.
After all, weren't we taught that it was 'foreknown' by Jehovah, 'from the foundation of the world', which humans would be saved and which wouldn't?
And so I see this thought carried over into those with a UR mindset, only slightly altered, to be that Jehovah knew, as a fact, 'from the foundation of the world', that we would need to saved. Period.
And so, Jehovah sent Jesus, not to save just a relatively few humans from that peculiar hell, so that they could be His Son's bride, but to save all of us from... what?
What
did He send His Son to save us from? (He asked with a knowing smile!)
So, Doc, being the non-Calvinist you say you are for having rejected everything else he and that misanthropic Saint told Believers to think about your God, it seems that the only thing left, now, for you to decide, for hanging in there with me this far, is whether what the scriptures actually say Jehovah 'foreknows' is, indeed, what St. Augustine and John Calvin wanted you to conclude Jehovah foreknew, specifically, that He knows the future
as a fact (as if it had already happened) and therefore, He knew,
as a fact, that The Adam was going to 'fall' before He created them.
And so, if you are still willing to entertain my persistent insanity, here we go.
Quote from: Doc But it would also mean that God is not in control of his creation, and therefore that he is really not sovereign, a concept that I am unwilling and unable to accept.
I've been pondering this that you said from our last round... Doc, are you a chess player? Have you ever played someone with a Master rating? I have.
He tore me up!! And I am
not a weak player! This man
ruled over the chess board as he not only played me but 15 others, simultaneously. And he won
all of the games!
This man was
sovereign, he
reigned supreme over those boards and none could outsmart him or outmaneuver him while he, on the other hand, seemed to be able to got me and everyone else, at the same time, to move like he wanted me and them to! From my perspective it was uncanny... almost like he
foreknew how I was going to move.
So, do you think any human could win a game of chess against God? No, of course they couldn't. But
NOT because He 'foreknows',
as a fact, what you are going to do next, but because what He foreknows is
the game. And soon enough He will have you on the defensive and thus making the moves He would want you to make so He could win.
God would truly be the Ultimate Grand Master, ruling and reigning with unquestioned sovereignty over the game. Not because he knows every move you will make in advance,
as a fact, but because He knows the game,
intimately. Thus, He
will win every time. And when the sovereign God Who rules and reigns over the universe that He created and thus knows very well, including all the souls in it,
wins-not necessarily because He foreknows what everybody is going to do before they do it, but because he knows The Game and therefore exactly how to lead you and everyone else, simultaneously, into seeing that Truth that He
is through experiencing His love and forgiveness-
everybody wins! Literally!
Does this parable help you to see "foreknowledge" a little differently?
I said of your previous above reply:
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisI really don't expect any other reply because I know, well, how unconventional and even bizarre the conclusions I have drawn seem to those whose understanding of God was ingrained into them by the concepts shoe-horned into the original text to make it support the theology of St. Augustine and John Calvin- Many of which are concepts that those here at Tentmaker have learned to reject as untruthful by using logic and reason and literal interpretations to support their rejections.
Well, I am using logic and reason and a literal interpretation of the words in exactly the same way Tentmaker does to challenge the idea of that peculiar hell to show that where scripture speaks of God's 'foreknowledge', using the Greek words prognōsis and proginōskō that the writers are not teaching that Jehovah has foreknowledge of the future, but, of something else.
So what, exactly, do the scriptures say He 'foreknew', where these two related Greek words appear?
You've avoided answering this question, directly, several times now.
I have attempted to answer this question directly.
Yes, Doc, you did give
an answer before, an indirect one, yes. But this that you gave here is answering it directly.
However, I'm going to have to flip the order in which these quotes were addressed because I now realize, after much careful consideration of your reply and how I will need to type out my thoughts, that these quotes with the word
prognōsis will be better grasped after I give my reasoning using the quotes were
proginōskō appears, first.
Here, then, are your comments on these quotes where
proginōskō appears:
Quote from: DocProginosko is used in more places in the New Testament, (than prognosis)but only a few of them directly apply to God's foreknowledge, so I'll only quote the relevant ones:
Well, I perceive then that you looked up the quotes and gave them all a good read through!
I would think, though, that
all the quotes would be relevant to understanding the usage of the word
proginōskō.
But, yes, you are right. There are two other quotes in the words that use the word
proginōskō. And they are relevant
to understanding because in these two other quotes, where this word is used, we can gain a proper understanding of the usage of
proginōskō ; for these quotes declare that humans can 'foreknow' in pretty much the same way that God does, from intimate experience and acquaintance.
First, though, I need to uncover for you the now familiar knavery of John Calvin, even as I have done all throughout this thread.
There are five other Greek words, besides
proginōskō, that are translated by King James' interpreters with the English verbs 'know' and 'knew'; and not
incorrectly so, even if the
accuracy is questionable on a number of them. However, a thorough treatment of the 'what' and the' why' of this, I've found, by investigation, would be long and unproductive and unnecessary here,
except to say that by this much repeated use of the verbs 'know' and 'knew', when in some places words like 'perceive' and 'recognize' are more accurate, they, in effect, made the Greek verb
proginōskō a standout and especial word in the places where they
chose to translate it with the made-from-scratch, compound English verbs 'foreknow' and 'foreknew'- thus causing the English reader to conclude that God has 'foreknowledge'.
Which He does, but of what? The future? Yes, but
indirectly. I believe that the
immediate future is knowable to Him. But 'The Future' was not 'foreknown' to Him from either being
a fact, played out to Him before it was played out (talk about fantastic!), or, as a highly detailed, planned out and executed, known- from- the- foundation- of- the- world act, (like John Calvin wanted us to think), even as the Greek words will reveal, in context, exactly what He does have foreknowledge of and can, through that, 'foreknow' the
immediate future.
So, that being said, I will focus down on exactly how John Calvin practiced his knavery on the two Greek verbs that are relevant.
Both of them are derived from the Greek verb
ginōskō. They are
epiginosko and
proginōskō.
After studying what I linked you to, I think you will note that
epiginosko means, more accurately, 'to perceive' and 'to understand by becoming acquainted with'; hence it can mean 'to ascertain knowledge'. And that it is an
intimate word even as the Greek word
ginosko is also used to describe our sexual joining, not just as an act, but, to convey how, when we make love, we gain intimate knowledge of our spouse.
And so we should expect to find that
proginōskō is also a word that describes knowledge gained intimately.
However, what the King James interpreters did to hide this intimate knowledge from you, the English mind, was to translate differently the two other times the word
proginōskō appears with
only the much overused verb 'knew' in Acts 26:5 and with the more declarative, but still misleading phrase, 'know these things before', in 2 Pet 3:17.
And so the Calvinists made these two other places seem to be saying something different, even something
less than what The Words would say if they had chosen to use those especial words 'foreknow' or 'foreknew'; words that they deliberately held in reserve to translate
proginōskō only where the context can be twisted to lead you to conclude something different than what you would have concluded if they had no ulterior motive but to translate The Words accurately and consistently; rather than to interpret The Words so that they were forced into confirming the ugly theology of the Saint and his toady.
Here, then, are those two other KJV verses with me translating
proginōskō using their words 'foreknew' and 'foreknow' :
"My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; which foreknew me (KJV 'knew') from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee." Acts 26:5
And
"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye foreknow these things (KJV 'know these things before'), beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness." 2Peter 3:17
So what did these quotes tell you about the usage of this word and what these humans they are referencing had 'foreknowledge' of?
Well, it's not the future.
In the first case it was the Jews who 'foreknew' Paul to be a very good Pharisee.
What
does that mean? How can this be made to make sense?
Answer: "...
which knew me before, from the beginning, if they would testify...)
In the second quote it was that the Jewish believers foreknow that destruction comes on those unlearned and unstable souls who twist the scriptures.
Why does this make sense? Answer: Because they're acquainted with what Peter is writing about and so they know, from before, 'foreknow', what happens to those who twist scripture.)
As an aside observation and an important one, even A. E. Knoch's CLV avoids using the misleading words 'foreknew and 'foreknow' here, in these two verses, even though they readily use it in those
other verses. A fact I found very disappointing, considering the claim made to this being a
concordant translation; for there is no logically justifiable reason, from the Greek text, that I could find, for them to do this, other than a pre-conceived notion.
Truly and of truth, I am treading on the sacrosanct.
END OF PART ONE
PART TWO
So, here are those three remaining quotes where
proginōskō appears and the ulterior King's interpreters used those especial words 'foreknow' and 'foreknew'-as well as the
very misleading,
very inaccurate and
very ulterior word 'foreordained';
very revealing that!
I will be using the CLV text here, even as you did and will also provide it with my annotations as well as with the complete thought, that is, with the context.
Rom 8:25-30 "Now, if we (Believers) are expecting what we are not observing, we (Believers) are awaiting it with endurance. Now, similarly, the spirit, also is aiding our infirmity; for what we (Believers) should be praying for, to accord with what must be, we (Believers) are not aware, but, the spirit itself is pleading for us (Believers) with inarticulate groanings. Now He Who is searching the hearts (of Believers) is aware what is the disposition of the spirit, for in accord with God is it pleading for the saints.
Now we (Believers) are aware that God is working all together for the good of those (humans) who are loving God, (those humans) who are called according to the purpose that, (those humans) whom He foreknew, (through knowing intimately their hearts) He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him (Jesus) to be Firstborn among many brethren. Now those (humans) whom He designates beforehand (because He knows their hearts), these (humans) He calls also, and whom He calls, these (humans) He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these (humans) He glorifies also."
You said simply:
Quote from: DocHere we have God's foreknowledge of the "saints".
And I somewhat agree. However it does not say he has foreknowledge of the future, as a fact.
Let me pull the misleading word 'foreknew' and insert another phrase:
"Now we (Believers) are aware that God is working all together for the good of those (humans) who are loving God, (those humans) who are called according to the purpose that, (those humans) whom He knows before, (through knowing intimately their hearts) He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him (Jesus) to be Firstborn among many brethren."
Now
that, to my mind, lines up
much better with the thought that the living God is the savior of all men,
especially of those who believe!So, what is the difference, then, between
knew and
know? Answer: Not much,
except for the context.
For instance the phrase: "I know what's going on" implies current knowledge or knowledge gained in the present and "I knew what was going on" implies knowledge gained from the past.
Therefore, since Paul is keeping his talk in the present tense I feel it is justified to use 'know' rather than 'knew'. And because Knoch was inconsistent in his own translational goal here and also because of what I've read of his heart in his commentaries, I've concluded that he was pre-disposed to use 'foreknew', which means 'knew before' rather than the more accurate 'foreknow', which means 'know before'.
Like I said, I'm not a language scholar and I would welcome any
constructive input on this. Because I foreknow that what I am doing here would seem to be taking liberties to prove my point. And that it would seem, to those who don't
like what I am saying, that I am 'claiming' to know more than those who are learned in languages.
My only defense, for now, to such a charge, would be to quote you Doc:
Quote from: Doc...we have study tools available that can show us the way that biblical words are translated isn't what they really mean at all.
And that is all I am doing; using these tools while studiously examining my own thoughts for ulterior motives and prove my logic and reason against false, contradictory conclusions.
So, more to the point, what I perceive Jehovah actually foreknows, or, has intimate knowledge of, here, is not the "saints", as a singular, corporate body, but, specifically, the saint's
individual hearts; as well as, individually,
all the other humans and their hearts; which, as I've defined it biblically for you, the human heart is the sum-total of the thoughts in us that lead us to speak what we speak and act as we act.
But, it does not say here that Jehovah has foreknowledge of the future.
However, consider this: If Jehovah does, indeed, 'foreknow' the human heart- and there are a ton of scriptures to support that idea, including Jesus' uncanny ability to read human minds- for being intimately acquainted with each and every one of us, even as the word
proginōskō is an intimate word, cannot He then predict or
prognosticate what the human whose heart He knows so well, will
do, given a set of circumstances?
And with an almost unbelievable accuracy so that it
seems He knew what they were going to do, as a fact, even before they did?
And according to Paul, for those humans who have received holy spirit, that spirit pleads for us to give us strength in our weakness as it prays for us 'in accord with what must be'; which 'what must be' is not the future,
per se, that is, the future as a foreknown
fact, but is, instead, what Jehovah
determines should come to be for exactly what He does know.
And so, I ask, how does this thought, differing from the one Calvin gave you to believe about what Jehovah 'foreknows', diminish His sovereignty over the Universe He created? Did not He Himself say: "All souls are Mine"?
Answer: It doesn't diminish His sovereignty. In fact this thought gives my heart a much clearer vision, much more in line with the God I've come to know; a God Who is truly loving, Who really is agape and is intimately acquainted with every human soul, even mine such that the very (few) hairs (left) on my head are numbered. And that He is ever-acting among
all humans, especially through Believers, who have had holy spirit deposited into them, begetting them anew, to bring about exactly what Paul said we Believers know by experience, "...that He is working all together for the good of those (humans) who are loving God, (those humans) who are called according to the purpose that, (those humans) whom He knows before, (through knowing intimately their hearts)He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him (Jesus) to be Firstborn among many brethren."
So, if you didn't know this before, being a Believer, then now you know
exactly what Jehovah has foreknowledge of and what He is using this foreknowledge to accomplish, the salvation of all,
on the fly!, so to speak, even as the future unfolds with each new thought we think and with each new human that is created by us when we come to
ginosko each other as intimately as He is intimate.
All souls are His and He is particularly fond of all of them- even those souls that would not turn from wickedness and will eventually have to be destroyed, first, because of sin, before their spirits can be redeemed and restored to what he/she were intended to be from the beginning, that is, good.
He even, out of His Love, gave to us a way of knowing, intimately, this Love that He
is, fondness and affection,
agape, by giving us the ability to become Fathers and Mothers through our awe-inspiring sexuality, that is, when we make love, so that we would
know how it feels to be God, The Father, as we love the children created by us, in a moment, while we engaged each other's soul in pure and passionate intimacy.
And now the next verse, similarly annotated:
Rom 10:16-11:4 But not all (humans) obey the evangel, for Isaiah is saying, "Lord, who believes our tidings?" [Consequently, faith is out of (hearing the) tidings (of the evangel), yet the tidings (come) through a declaration of Christ.] But, I am saying, Do they (all humans) not hear (in order to perceive)at all? To be sure! (Yes, they do get to hear, toward understanding the evangel, because it is as
Psalm 19 says:) "Into the entire earth came out their (creation's testimonial) utterance,
(Rom 1:20-21) and into the ends of the inhabited earth (go) their declarations." But, I am saying, Did not Israel know (what was going to happen to them for their recalcitrant ways) at all? First Moses is saying, I shall be provoking you (Israelites) to jealousy over those (humans who are) not a nation (of My making); Over an unintelligent nation (umm... that would be us, the Gentiles) shall I be vexing you.(Boy, Howdy! Is this ever a truth!)
Yet Isaiah is very daring and is saying, "I (God) was found by those (humans) who are not seeking Me; I became disclosed to those (humans) who are not inquiring for Me." Now (however) to Israel He is saying, (frustrated and angry) "The whole day I spread out My hands to a stubborn and contradicting people!"
I am saying, then, Does not God thrust away His people? May it not be coming to that! For I also am an Israelite, out of Abraham's seed, Benjamin's tribe. (Therefore) God does not thrust away His people (the Israelites) whom He foreknew. Or have you not perceived in Elijah what the scripture is saying, as he is pleading with God against Israel? "Lord, Thy prophets they kill, Thine altars they dig down, and I was left alone, and they are seeking my soul." But what is that which apprises saying to him (Elijah)? "I (God) left for Myself seven thousand men who do not bow the knee to the image of Baal."
You said:
Quote from: DocHere we have God's foreknowledge of "His people".
I agree. But, still it is not foreknowledge of the future, as a fact.
Again, though, what God foreknows here, because of his intimate experiences with them, are His set-apart-by-covenant humans, namely, "His people," Israel and their individual hearts. Thus, He is intimately acquainted with their wrong
ways of thinking, which show up in their stubbornness and contradictions. However, God also foreknew Paul, for his foreknowing his heart, in much the same way that He foreknew those 7,000 Israelites that had not bowed their knee to worship Baal for being equally acquainted, intimately, with their righteous hearts. And so we read in The History how Jehovah used this foreknowledge of them to set these 7,000 aside from the destruction He was going to bring, through Jehu, Hazazel and Elisha, whom He also foreknew, to those unrighteous ones who did worship Baal, also whom He foreknew.
And finally this quote from Peter's first letter to the Believing Jews scattered (or sown) in to Asia for their belief in Jesus Christ:
Wherefore, (you Jewish believers by) girding up the loins of your comprehension, being sober, expect perfectly the grace which is being brought to you at the unveiling of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, not configuring to the former desires, in your ignorance, but, according as He Who calls you is holy, you (Jewish believers) also become holy in all behavior, because it is written (to you) that, Holy shall you (Israelites) be, for I am holy.
And if you are invoking the Father, Who is judging (you each) impartially according to each one's work, you may behave, for the time of your sojourn, with fear, being aware that not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, were you ransomed from your vain behavior, (behavior) handed down by tradition from the fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, (Jesus, who is given) as of a flawless and unspotted lamb, foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the world, yet manifested in the last times because of you (the Jewish believers), who through Him are believing in God, Who rouses Him (Jesus, the Lambkin)from among the dead and is giving Him (Jesus) glory, so that your faith and expectation is to be in God.
You said, with much emphasis:
Quote from: DocHere we have God's foreknowledge of the blood of Christ before the disruption of the world.
On that, given what I've learned of
proginōskō, from the last two quotes, I would disagree.
However, I can't fault you or any other Believers who think that Jesus' sacrifice was foreknown, as a fact, because you were taught to think this, on purpose, by the KJV interpreters who deliberately and seriously mistranslated
these words of Peter's
this way:
"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with
the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who, verily, was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God."
Did you catch that? The KJV interpreters 'foreknew' that if they put the word 'foreknown' here that their cover would be blown because this passage, above all the others, shows that it was Jesus who was foreknown by the Father, intimately and personally, (
John 17:24) before the disruption of the world- Not His sacrifice, as a fact, known before the 'foundation' of the world, as if it had already happened for God foreknowing (and even
planning?!? God forbid!) '
The Future' like it was all laid out before Him in all it's excruciating and sinful detail.
So, they used fore
ordained, which is not even a synonym, because, without the knowledge present in our thoughts that God knows the future,
in this way, Calvin's false teaching that there are those predestined for 'heaven' just like there are those predestined for 'hell', would be shown for what it is-
a lie. A very logical and internally consistent lie, but a lie, nonetheless.
And so that peculiar idea that comes in to your head when you read the word, 'predestination', was actually translated into existence, right along with that peculiar hell that John Calvin loved so much.
For the KJV interpreters hid the truth from us here by
seriously mistranslating
proginōskō as 'foreordained' and
katabole as 'foundation' - a diabolical and deliberate double deception that worked very well toward making Believers think a very confusing thought about what exactly your God foreknows, even as you said of this quote, with much emphasis:
Quote from: DocHere we have God's foreknowledge of the blood of Christ before the disruption of the world.
Which brings us now to
prognōsisDid you follow the link? Funny, isn't it, how we transferred into English, with spelling intact from the Greek, but with only a slight difference in pronunciation our noun 'prognosis'?
What does that tell you about what this word
really means?
Well, here are the two quotes from the CLV, annotated as before:
Men! Israelites! Hear these words: Jesus, the Nazarene, a Man demonstrated to be from God for you by powerful deeds and miracles and signs, which God does through Him in the midst of you, according as you yourselves are aware -- This One, given up in the specific counsel and
prognōsis (foreknowledge) of God, you, gibbeting by the hand of the lawless, assassinate, Whom God raises, loosing the pangs of death, forasmuch as it was not possible for Him to be held by it.
What does this curious phrase, "...this One, given up
in the specific counsel and
prognōsis (foreknowledge) of God" mean? For two things are at play here to determine that this One should be given up: specific (or determined) counsel and a
prognōsis.
You said:
Quote from: DOCSo here in Acts 2 we have the foreknowledge of God specifically applied to the sacrifice of Christ.
Well, I wouldn't use the word 'applied'. I would say that here we have Peter
revealing that the
prognōsis of God, gained from His specific counsel with Wisdom (Jesus), specifically determined that a sacrifice would
now be needed because the world we were intended to know was disrupted in the Garden when The Adam turned.
In other words, it was determined, by counsel among God's plurality, that, after the disruption of the world,
not before it, Jesus needed to become a human being, created without a deposit of human male sperm and thus, not of 'the seed' of Adam, but, of the woman only; hence a virgin birth. And then, for being the only sexually begotten Son of God, which means He is a human with an untainted spirit, He would be put to death by Satan, (of whom the scriptures say he would not have murdered Jesus had he foreknown what was going to happen) because Satan thought he would win out over God by killing His Son (even as God foreknew what Satan would do; remember the chess game parable?) Why? So Jesus could enter the realm of the dead and
get those keys!! HALLELUIAH!
After, God would raise Him from the dead! GLORY! And thus loose the pangs of death that came on us because of sin, through faith in Jesus! A-MEN! Even as Paul later explained:
"Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the Firstfruit (offering) of those (dead humans) who are reposing. For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead. For even as, in Adam, all (humans) are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all (humans) be vivified."
And now you know, Doc, besides from a literal reading of the Genesis account, exactly where I got the strange and seemingly stupid notion that Jehovah did not know, as a fact that The Adam was going to turn, before He created them! It was from what Peter said here.
So, with whom did God counsel? And why was this counsel called determined or specific?
My answer is found here in these quotes:
"Now I am saying, for as much time as the enjoyer of an allotment is a minor, in nothing is he of more consequence than a slave, being master of all, but is under guardians and administrators until the time purposed by the father. Thus we (Jews) also, when we (Jews) were minors, were enslaved under the elements of the world. Now, when the full time came, God delegates His Son, come of a woman, come under law, that He should be reclaiming those who are under law, that we (Jews) may be getting the place of a son."
How did God know it was the 'full time'? In other words what does it mean that the time was right to send His Son?
It has been said that because of the Roman rule of the civilized world at that time, with the Roman peace and the Roman roads, that the timing for Jesus to come was perfect for all that followed, right up to the foretold destruction of the Jewish Temple and thus the Jewish way of life, in 70 A.D. And recently I read about how, because of the
way the Pharisees and Sadducees thought, it would not be hard to predict that they would kill Jesus for the things He both said and did.
And so I ask this: Jesus could read the thoughts, or hearts, of men, often freaking them by answering, out-loud, questions they had only thought. Which means he can know the true intentions of anyone who's thoughts He comes to know and so He can act and speak uncannily concerning them. Indeed, John says this of Him:
"Now as He was in Jerusalem at the Passover in the festival, many believe in His name, beholding His signs which He did. Yet Jesus Himself did not entrust Himself to them, because of His knowing all men, for He had no need that anyone should be testifying concerning mankind, for He knew what was in mankind."
"He knew what was in mankind". And for His foreknowing them this way, the
prognōsis was that He shouldn't entrust Himself to them, even though they believed in his Name but
only for the miracles He had done." Of which He also said to the
really stubborn ones, "...and if ever you are not believing
Me, be believing
the works, that you may be knowing and believing that in Me is the Father, and I am in the Father."
The last quote is once again from Peter's first letter to the Believing Jews scattered (or sown) in to Asia for their belief in Jesus Christ:
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen expatriates of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia, (expatriated) according to the
prognōsis (foreknowledge) of God, the Father, in holiness of spirit, for obedience and (because of the)sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you!"
You said:
Quote from: DocHere in first Peter, Peter is an apostle according to the foreknowledge of God.
On that there would be some disagreement. Not necessarily between you and I but scholarly disagreement over who Peter said God had this
prognōsis of, the Jewish humans in the Asian scattering (the word 'Elect' was unjustifiably added in the KJV at the beginning of 'verse' 2 in order to justify this thought) or of Peter who was to be an apostle. The Greek seems unclear here.
However, after much study and thought, I find that I have a different take. First off, Peter does not write like Paul. Peter writes like Peter. And Peter, while an intelligent man, was not a man learned in letters, like Paul was. He was a Galilean and a fisherman. So, his meanings are sometimes more difficult to discern; for his writing style seems to me to be like someone who writes run together sentences and leaves out important prepositions. (See 2 Peter 3:19-21 for a good example of what I mean.)
So, given that, I also note that Peter chose the word
prognōsis here, not
proginōskō.
Proginosko is a verb that, in it's usage, always clearly refers to the knowledge gained of a human for knowing, intimately, their hearts, even as a human can do this and even I've shown it to be. While
prognōsis is a noun that in it's first and only other usage clearly indicates that what God knew ahead of time, or had foreknowledge of, was
an event that would take place, not of a person; specifically His
prognōsis that the sacrifice of Jesus was now needed after the world was disrupted. And for that significant difference I conclude that what Peter is trying to say is that God's
prognōsis was that these believing Jews would be 'thru- sown' in to Asia for their faith which was, "...in holiness of spirit, for obedience and (because of the) sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ".
And the fact that this greeting was obviously meant by Peter to be an encouragement, reminding them that God knew what they were going through, I was helped to conclude that what God 'foreknew' here was His
prognōsis that they would be expatriated for their belief in Jesus as the Messiah.
OK that's all of them.
It's taken me a long time, a lot of typing and a lot of research to get to this point; and again I think you Doc for hanging in there with me and challenging me as you have.
~
Let me sum up with a word picture what I perceive Paul and Peter meant when they used the word
proginōskō to describe what Jehovah actually 'foreknows' and how I think this gives Him a
prognōsis or 'foreknowledge' of the immediate future.
On September 11, 2001 America was attacked by radical Muslim terrorists trained in a seriously wrong way of thinking.
Seriously wrong because, with these wrong thoughts in their hearts they were able to override their own instinct for self preservation and 'righteously' (from their perspective) murder more than three thousand of us in a matter of a few hours by using our freedom to travel as we wish and where we wish, against us.
Obviously, then, the God who knows when a single bird falls from it's nest and dies and who can tell me, should He need to, tomorrow, how many hairs I have left on my head after I wash and dry it, must have known before, even as the widows of the Twin Towers top most floors filled up the passenger laden airliner's cockpit view that single second before the first impact, that thousands of humans were going to die that day.
So, I ask,
when did God begin to know that the events of this day were going to happen?
From the foundation of the world? This is what you were taught to believe.
I say not. It is an Ugly and Capricious God, indeed, Who would create us knowing, as a fact and that with excruciating detail, what would happen when He created us. And
then keep on watching us destroy ourselves and each other in horrible ways while He takes tens of centuries to work out His 'Plan A' to save us.
So, when
did Jehovah begin to know that the events of September 11, 2001 A.D. were coming?
My answer: When the evil heart of the wrong- thinking human, Osama Bin Laden, first conceived the idea.
Not a second before.
Think about it.
Concerning the rest of your replies to what I wrote, Doc, I have saved them and for now I will simply say, "Thank you." You've given me some thoughts to ponder even as I hope I have done the same for you.
I admit that I currently don't possess a clear understanding of the 'End Times' or of that time when God is All and in All, but I am working on it. And that is because I foreknow, from experience, that I will find that understanding because I know that The Words were meant to be understood by those whose eyes have been opened and can become acquainted with truth and thus with discernment.
It's taken me almost 17 years worth of new thoughts and much
unlearning to gain this weird understanding I have now. And so I will continue to think on these things till I know even as I am known.
END OF PART TWO
PART THREE
TO ALL:
If you've read this far, I thank you. Know then that I intend to move on, soon enough.
I did not come here to Tentmaker to convince any of you to believe what I do. I engaged you all because I knew that I needed to have my understanding challenged, just as I foreknew that the way of thinking that is in most of you, for my reading your own words, would provide enough testing to disprove or prove what I know to be truth.
I know how odd what I have come to put my faith in seems to you. Even as what many of you have put your faith in is as different to me for your imagining those 'layers of meaning' that logically preclude a literal understanding of The Words, especially in Genesis, where a literal understanding, first, is vital to truth, even as I have, hopefully, demonstrated.
I do understand, though, what so many of you here mean when you say that 'The Earthly' is a figure of 'The Heavenly' which is 'The True.' For it is as Jesus said when speaking to Nicodemous about being begotten anew:
"Verily, verily, I am saying to you that which we have perceived are we speaking, and to that which we have seen are we testifying, and our testimony you are not getting. If I told you of the terrestrial and you are (not persuaded to be) believing, how shall you be (persuaded to be) believing if I should be telling you of the celestial?"
My understanding of this says we humans must grasp the 'terrestrial' literally and first, before we can even begin to perceive how these things teach us about the 'celestial.'
For example: Remember how Phillip Keller's' A Shepherd looks at Psalm 23 opened your eyes of understanding for the things terrestrial that he gave into your minds about sheep and shepherds, things you were unfamiliar with before you read his book? And how this newly acquired terrestrial and literal understanding led you to better grasp the celestial understandings of Sheep and The Good Shepherd that you individually took away from this book?
That is what I mean when I say that The Words must be grasped literally, first, before you can know you understand the spiritual. For it is as I said (even if you are want to reject it as truth), unless you know what spirit is then you can't know that you understand things spiritual.
And that is because spirit is the stuff, or 'breath' that makes us conscious of our own existence. With it we become sentient and self-aware; having spirit means we are able to perceive when we understand. Therefore, spirit is the ability to reason and think and know. Without it we would be animals. Spirit is passed on to us through a sperm and an ovum meeting. And it is through spirit that God foreknows us as we imprint on it, by what we think do and say, who we are. It is from God and returns to Him when this body/soul duality that houses this spirit 'stuff' ceases to function. And that is why, because of sin, we need to be re-sired, through holy spirit- which 'holy' means only 'set aside for a special purpose'- to become the good humans we were intended to be, from the beginning, had The Adam not been turned in the Garden, thus disrupting the world Jehovah intended for us to know.
And that world was intended to be good and age-enduring and pleasurable, just as, through spirit, we can experience and gain the working knowledge we need of all those cool abstract things like the Three Loves and Words and Language and Poetry and... Stories, allegorical, metaphorical and literal... and Creating Art and Beauty and appreciating Symmetry and Grace and Playing at Games and Making Music and Dancing and Cooking and Eating and Falling in Love and Romancing and Marrying and Romancing and Making Love (not just 'having sex')... and creating those wonderful, beguiling Little Humans... and all that other really cool knowledge that leads us to perceive the reality of the truths we know through our conscience; truth's that were meant to guide us into goodness, when followed and make it such a grand and glorious thing to be a good human.
So, for those who have been following this and wondering, you now have my understanding of what spirit is. And for most all of you I hope it is a fresh definition to ponder even as the majority of you would have had no ready answer, before, if I asked you to tell me what the human heart is prior to my defining it here.
And so, unless I've inspired anyone to boldness and re-evaluation here on Tentmaker and if there is anyone who would want to know my heart of thoughts better and will ask it of me, so that they might perceive it, I will soon be moving on.
If anything I hope that I leave you knowing, now, why I say, as always, even as I know it likely irritates a few of you because of what you believe.
Be good!
It is what you were created to be!
Dennis!
Dennis,
The problem with all of this, as I see it, comes down to what we know about God from other scripture as well. Sometimes it takes more than a handful of verses containing certain words to identify things about God. If God does not foreknow in the traditional sense, then how can it be that God can declare the end from the beginning if he does not know it? How can he prophesy directly or through his prophets if he does not know the future (including the distant future)? God is not some divine fortune-teller that just makes really good educated guesses (which is what a prognosis is).
Maybe it's senseless to even discuss God's knowledge of the future; as a being who exists both inside and outside of time, perhaps he just sees everything in the "eternal now" and nothing is past or future to Him!
As to the serpent/ nachash issue, I will evidently need to do more research on that.
Quote from: Doc on September 22, 2009, 03:01:30 AM
Dennis,
The problem with all of this, as I see it, comes down to what we know about God from other scripture as well. Sometimes it takes more than a handful of verses containing certain words to identify things about God. If God does not foreknow in the traditional sense, then how can it be that God can declare the end from the beginning if he does not know it?
Hey there!
You read all that
that fast?!?OK! Well, as I was hoping to demonstrate with what I wrote, it all depends on what the
original writers meant by 'know'.
Augustinian theology was not cut from whole cloth. There had to be
something there, in The Words,
for them to twist. Even as Peter said of Paul's writings:
"And be deeming the patience of our Lord salvation, according as our beloved brother Paul also writes to you, according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to apprehend, which the unlearned and unstable are twisting, as the rest of the scriptures also, to their own destruction."
(Man! Talk about a runtogethersentence, declaring the word of truth, according to what he knew, just as what he writes, for the benefit of all, is first declared to the Jews!)
What I am trying to do is untwist the tangled and hurtful and
traditional theological mess
they made in my mind for what
they gave into it as they shoe-horned their ugly theology into The Words of God to give us the beautiful King James Bible.
Is it a surprise to you that Satan can metamorphisize himself into an angel of light?
Which means, for my grasping this, that nothing
they gave into my mind to believe about my God is sacrosanct; including what comes up in
your mind, Doc, for what you were
led to conclude from their deliberately deceptive misinterpretation of The Words when you read the English words: 'hell', 'predestination', 'foreknew', 'foreknow' 'foreordained' and 'foundation'. (Lot's of 'f' words there!)
For what comes into your mind was what
they put there, even as I have uncovered their knavery in
exactly the same way the Tentmakers have uncovered their knavery demonstrating that what
used to come into your mind when you read the English word "hell", Doc, was what
they put into your mind for you to think, even as they translated that peculiar hell into existence!
For it is a truthful and logical question to ask, just as I have asked it from the very first:
Quote from: Dennis"Given the deliberate, ulterior motivated dishonesty of the KJV interpreters, how can we trust the rest of their work? Indeed, why should we?
I'm challenging the sacrosanct, yes, I know that. Just as that peculiar hell that they gave you to believe existed was, once, sacrosanct.
And that is why I'm being open about it. I'm the only one I've ever met who dared to do this; tread on those sacred ideas that come into your mind when you read your KJV Bible and come across the words: 'predestination', 'foreknew', 'foreknow' 'foreordained' and 'foundation'.
Someone once began to speak out to Believers that the Living God is the savior of all men. Which, of course, meant to the Believers that,
if this someone were right, then that peculiar hell they
knew existed would, logically, be made obsolete. And so this someone was/is labeled 'a heretic' and 'a danger'.
Just so and in a similar fashion, I'm being open about my questionings because there may be someone, somewhere, who needs to hear what I am saying for recognizing the twisted logic that is required in order to continue believing the Calvinistic idea,
necessary for his theology to have credence, that Jehovah knew, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn
before He created them.
Quote from: DocHow can he prophesy directly or through his prophets if he does not know the future (including the distant future)? God is not some divine fortune-teller that just makes really good educated guesses (which is what a prognosis is).
From where you are now, in your thoughts, even as I used to think as you do, I can understand why you're going to perceive what I am saying to be that God is a divine fortune-teller that just makes really good educated guesses.
It will require a paradigm shift in your thinking before you will be able to perceive what I truly
am saying. Just like it took a paradigm shift before you could grasp UR.
But, once shifted, you will see prophesy in a different light than what is currently available to you.
So, since all paradigm shifts begin by using words to convey ideas in a logical and reasoning fashion, I am using words to convey boldly and in a logical and reasoning fashion that Jehovah did not know, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them.
And the reason I am doing this is because I foreknow that what follows, logically, from this idea will lead you to understand many things in scripture that seem 'mysterious' and 'unknowable' now.
Quote from: DocMaybe it's senseless to even discuss God's knowledge of the future; as a being who exists both inside and outside of time, perhaps he just sees everything in the "eternal now" and nothing is past or future to Him!
Ah! C.S. Lewis! God bless him! The funny thing is, it was The Chronicles of Narnia that set me on the path to thinking as I do now!
He too, like me, wrestled with the contradictory ideas forced into his mind for the English words, 'hell' and 'predestination' and 'foreknow' and 'foreknew' and 'foreordained' and 'foundation', because of exactly what he was taught to believe the beautiful KJV Bible and
tradition had taught him to believe.
And for that, your observation of the futility of this is what he also concluded and which you believe when you said:
Quote from: DocMaybe it's senseless to even discuss God's knowledge of the future;...
Because as long as you continue to trust that what
they gave you to believe is, of truth,
the truth about God's foreknowledge of the future, it
will be senseless and incomprehensible to even
try to discuss God's foreknowledge of the future.
Quote from: DocAs to the serpent/ nachash issue, I will evidently need to do more research on that.
Yes. That is good. I hope you find even more accurate and truthful things to consider for being willing to re-evaluate your thoughts. Jehovah is an accurate God and so we should also be as accurate as we know how to be.
Be good!
Dennis!
Well, the funny thing about all of this is; The mainstream church does not teach that God foreknew Adam's fall (specifically). The mainstream church teaches the more Arminian idea that humans were given this fabulous power called free-will that actually has the ability to thwart God's will, and has the ability to surprise Him. So the idea that God foreknew (and even planned) Adam's fall, was not an idea that entered into my mind until after accepting UR. The ironic thing is that some UR teachers who come from the same concordant perspective we do, actually reinforce this idea (Martin Zender comes to mind).
Rom. 8:20,21 For to vanity was the creation subjected, not voluntarily, but because of Him Who subjects it, in expectation that the creation itself, also, shall be freed from the slavery of corruption into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Sounds like God planned it to me...
Quote from: Doc on September 28, 2009, 11:40:15 PM
Well, the funny thing about all of this is; The mainstream church does not teach that God foreknew Adam's fall (specifically). The mainstream church teaches the more Arminian idea that humans were given this fabulous power called free-will that actually has the ability to thwart God's will, and has the ability to surprise Him. So the idea that God foreknew (and even planned) Adam's fall, was not an idea that entered into my mind until after accepting UR. The ironic thing is that some UR teachers who come from the same concordant perspective we do, actually reinforce this idea (Martin Zender comes to mind).
Rom. 8:20,21 For to vanity was the creation subjected, not voluntarily, but because of Him Who subjects it, in expectation that the creation itself, also, shall be freed from the slavery of corruption into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Sounds like God planned it to me...
OK, Doc! You got me!
What can I say? For you, Martin Zender speaks the truth. With but one single verse you've shown to yourself that nothing I've said here is worth the time and effort to grasp because, apparently, against what we humans would have wanted for ourselves, your God, from the very beginning, even before the very
foundation of the world, deliberately planned to subject the human race and everything else He created, to vanity, including Death for us ALL- if not at the hands of those other evil humans whom He foreknew or from diseases and pestilence, all of which He planned out, from the foundation of the world, of course, then just from us simply wearing out into weak, frail beings as our bodies aged, exactly as He planned for them to.
Which is OK by you, because He is God, after all. And even though He actually planned for all this to happen, really it's OK. Because all along He foreordained that His only sex-born Son would be murdered by the Rotten Sinners He intended, even planned, from the beginning, for us to be so that, through Him, He could rescue ALL of us, not just
some of us, as those stupid, ignorant hell-loving Augustinian/Calvinists believe (even though, apparently, this 'subjection to vanity' isn't what we would have chosen for
ourselves, had we been given a
genuine choice), so He could prove to ALL of us just how Magnanimous and Gracious and above all
Loving He
really is!
Yep, a Loving, Megalomaniacal Father-in-law is definately Someone I'm looking forward to spending an immortal existence with! Should be a lot of fun!
Thank's for setting me straight! ~ Just
one verse! Imagine that!
And so I would ask; please, please, Doc,
feel free do as it was foreknown you would do and consider every other thing I've written here as the immature machinations of a man predestined to be a wrong-thinking fool. I certianly wouldn't want you to think or speak or do anything different than what it was foreknown and therefore predestined for you to think, speak or do.
Because, like I said, I didn't come here to convince anyone of anything. I came here because, in my foreknowing the thinking of the souls who dominate this sight, I found what I was looking for; a chance to test myself against this kind of thinking. I'm satisfied with the reults, even as I said, from the foundation of this thread, that this is what I was here for.
Along the way, if any of you would have became convinced that I just
might have something worthwhile to say, then that would be unexpected; welcome, but unexpected, even as I tried to encourage it.
So, feel free to go your pre-ordained ways doing only those things that you can't help but doing, exactly as your God planned it all out for you to do, from the foundation of the world, including all the bad things you have already done and all those you will do in the future as well as all the "good", of course, because, after all who can resist His will; even for you foreknowing that He will also judge you for these things He fore-ordained you to think, speak and do.
And let me become but a fore-ordained memory that, perhaps, if He willed for you to, you may chuckle at as you would a recollection of a favorite Monty Python skit, for me being as equally silly and absurd.
Truly, I would consider it an honor to be so remembered by the Tentmakers!
As for me, I'll keep
choosing to be good, exactly as I was intended to be,
in the beginning,
before the disruption of the world and am now re-sired to be, even by Jehovah Himself for my faith in His Son Jesus Christ, Who came to free me from sin so that I might be holy and blameless before Him in the day when He evaluates the world.
And you keep on being what you can't help but be for what your God made you to be, free to be incapable of doing anything else but those things foreknown and thus predestined, from the foundation of the world, for you to do through your illusory... I'm sorry... '
mysterious'
free-will, from now into all eternity!
May you come to know the freedom this truth brings you!
Dennis!
Alright, then how do you explain Romans 8:20-21? Surely the word of God does not contradict itself?
Oh, and; it was two verses, actually.
Quote from: Doc on September 29, 2009, 07:27:57 PM
Alright, then how do you explain Romans 8:20-21? Surely the word of God does not contradict itself?
Oh, and; it was two verses, actually.
OK! It was
two verses! I was wrong. :thumbsup:
And don't call me Shirley.
Seriously, though, I'll answer your question, Doc, with two questions:
Answer mine first and then I'll explain Rom 8:21-22,
from my understanding, if your answering these two questions doesn't.
When did this 'subjection to vanity' take place?
And from
that answer ponder this:
Why Did Jehovah subject the creation to vanity; to what purpose was this done?
And "I don't know" is not an answer.
Doc, your anger at what I wrote is understandable. No one takes it kindly when someone takes personal, even 'sacred' thoughts to their logical conclusions and thus illustrates them into absurdity.
It
seems the equivalent of saying that you,
yourself are 'absurd' because of how deep these foundational thoughts are that you build on. I'm sorry about that, but it is a very human thing to feel such emotions, when so challenged, until you realize where those emotions come from.
Therefore, I wrote that reply, unapologetically, because I know that precious few humans, of their own initiative, actually take their thoughts to their logical conclusions and
then examine the
conclusions (not the logic) for truth.
It's like the human mind 'foreknows' where our thoughts are going to logically take us and so, 'armed' with this 'foreknowledge', we avoid those conclusions like we would a wreck on the highway that we 'foreknow' is coming.
All said so you would know that I didn't mean offense, even though I foreknew you would take such a challenge to your thinking personally. I once would have been offended too; been there and done that.
So, that was why I did it. Because now, for my having done that, you are left in the unenviable position of having to disprove,
at least to your own satisfaction, the absurdity in the logical conclusions I drew from thinking it
a fact that Jehovah not only foreknew, but even
planned (
your word), from the 'foundation' of the world for everything to happen
exactly as it has.
And that logical conclusion is that you and all humans are, individually and corporately, nothing more than a fore-ordained, predestined automaton, subject to the will and whimsy of a capricious God who did
all of this so He could gain glory for Himself by 'rescuing' us from the beings we were created to
and can't help but, be, which thing also included the sacrifice of His Son.
Corollary to this is the conclusion that your ability to 'choose'- your mysterious, 'free-will' (so called)- must be a 'Matrix'-style illusion; a deliberate deception fostered on your mind, apparently, so you would buy into this God's cosmically proportioned megalomania.
Well, Doc, I can help you deal with this conundrum by giving you this thought:
We sinful humans are so racked with sin, so thoroughly depraved in our hearts and minds that these kind of disrespectful and profane 'logical conclusions' must be the product of our depravity.
Jehovah
is God, after all. And
if it is, of truth, revealed in His Words that He foreknows the future,
as a fact, then it is must be us sinful, degenerate humans who, because of our dissolute minds, lack the ability to understand the mind of God where these things are concerned.
Despite His fore-doomed and therefore pathetic attempts to help us 'understand' Him through the Jews, Jesus and this Thing we call 'The Scriptures'.
There. I hope that helps.
I need you to know something, Doc; if you ever want me to just 'go away' just leave any of my replies unanswered and I promise you I will be gone.
Be good!
Dennis!
Hi Dennis, I appreciate all the work you have done on those words. Words are very important. I remember when I first started reading the Bible seriously, I said to myself, yikes, I'm becoming a Calvanist. It's the only conclusion you can draw really from the way some of those passages are written. So I put it aside for another day because I knew instinctively there must be a problem. I'll need to go back and re-read what you wrote more carefully. But, as we come to know God more intimately, it's clear that he is in no way a monster--quite the contrary, his name is called Wonderful!
So, I appreciate you doing your part to honor his name.
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
--Isa 9
QuoteSeriously, though, I'll answer your question, Doc, with two questions:
Answer mine first and then I'll explain Rom 8:21-22, from my understanding, if your answering these two questions doesn't.
When did this 'subjection to vanity' take place?
And from that answer ponder this: Why Did Jehovah subject the creation to vanity; to what purpose was this done?
And "I don't know" is not an answer.
wow been reading this very interesting conversation between you and Doc
they are challenging indeed , some strong stuff , wow !
I wait for Doc , but
I have two simple answers
for your questions Dennis
:HeartThrob: hope you dont mind me reading and getting in on this friends ..
No, rosered; go right ahead. I'm interested in what you have to say, because I frankly don't have the time or mental energy right now to answer.
Frankly though, at the end of the day I don't think it matters when it was subjected; only that it was, and that it was done by God, which Romans clearly points out. The answer to when the creation was subjected doesn't really solve the question of whether God foreknew the fall (unless it was clearly subjected before the fall), because even if he subjected it at or after the fall, it doesn't guarantee he did or did not foreknow.
The rest of the Romans passage talks about the purpose for which we were subjected.
Seriously, Dennis; Go back and read Romans 7:14-25 and tell me that represents free-will. I do not believe that God created us automatons either. We do have some level of choice and we clearly have a will. But Romans 7 does an excellent job of pointing out that that will is not anything like "free".
To Molly and rosered:
Quote from: Molly on September 30, 2009, 06:44:00 AM
Hi Dennis,
Hey Molly! Good to hear from you again!
QuoteI appreciate all the work you have done on those words.
You're welcome. Believe me when I say that the pleasure is mine.
QuoteWords are very important.
Yes they are! And for knowing this, I take Peter's warning seriously for believing that Truth is knowable.
QuoteI remember when I first started reading the Bible seriously, I said to myself, yikes, I'm becoming a Calvanist.
Oh, Molly! When I read this: "...when I first started reading the Bible seriously, I said to myself, yikes, I'm becoming a Calvanist." ... well, Molly, I hadn't laughed so hard in a long time...
Thank you! You summed up everything I've been trying to say here in one simple phrase!
I laughed hard because that is
exactly how I once felt.
Under the scholarly tutelage of my Baptist sponsored High School, when my friends and I used to fruitlessly argue predestination vs. free-will during lunch I came to realize, "Yikes! I'm becoming a Calvinist!" LOL!!
I soon quit arguing and decided that 'the truth' was as I had heard it said:
"No one will believe an omnipotent God who creates faulty humans and blames them for His mistakes!"
QuoteIt's the only conclusion you can draw really from the way some of those passages are written.
Exactly!!! You go girl! And the result of reading this beautiful KJV translation was.... what? Confusion!
Not clarity and understanding, which are the road-signs to Truth.
QuoteSo, I put it aside for another day because I knew instinctively there must be a problem.
God bless the feminine soul! Designed by your creator to
know from experience, you wonders graciously leap over logic and reason to conclusions that take a masculine soul a journey to discover!
QuoteI'll need to go back and re-read what you wrote more carefully.
I am honored to think that you would do that. Thank you.
And please ask me questions, any questions at all that may come into your mind.
Because I've found that learning how to ask questions and seek the answers to those questions is the best way for anyone to learn truth.
QuoteBut, as we come to know God more intimately, it's clear that he is in no way a monster--quite the contrary, his name is called Wonderful!
Yes and yes! That's it exactly! Dang! Your experience parallels mine.
And that is why Jehovah is unconcerned about the character assassination that is Augustinianism- He knows that what The Saint and his toady said about Him, isn't Who He is. And so He also foreknows that any who experience Him through His forgiveness and His goodness also come to realize that, despite what they are reading in the KJV, there is a 'problem' somehow, somewhere, with Calvinism.
Some just put it aside till another day as you did, secure in knowing Him, by experience, for Who He is.
And many, like eagelsway, investigate it and come to draw the only conclusion they can draw that will keep the 'logical monster' out of their minds for believing what they read in KJV English to be truth; it's all a
mystery (i.e. 'confusing') how God can have the kind of foreknowledge the KJV says He has and still act like He
doesn't have it for His giving humans 'room to repent' (free-will).
Thus for many of these souls, burdened with the lie of the double-sided coin that is Calvinism/Arminianism, UR is actually a welcome problem solver because, once that peculiar hell is disproven, thus splitting Calvinism/Arminianism into it's component parts 'Hell' and 'Predestination', you get to
keep 'Predestination', the 'fun part' of Calvinism.
'Fun' because it seemingly takes the onus of responsibility for our sins off of us, exactly as it was designed to do so Calvin could justify that peculiar hell that he loved sending 'bad' humans to in the name of God.
Someone I read once, important in UR circles, described this mixture of Predestination and Ultimate Reconciliation as God taking 'Ultimate Responsibility' for creating us in His foreknowing how bad we will be. But, it's OK, because all along He intended to save us
all from ourselves, predestining
all to salvation, rather than just a few.
And so a collective *WHEW* arose in the ranks of UR because with that peculiar hell now sliced away from Calvin's systematic theology, they saw a way to justify the 'mystery' of 'predestination
and free-will', thus keeping themselves still separated from the responsibility for their sins- the true but
unspoken draw of Calvin's theology.
"After all I've been predestined for heaven because I can confess that Jesus Christ is LORD! And so,
no matter what I do, I'm going to heaven! For who can resist the will of God who
must have fore-ordained, through His foreknowing, the sin I now
want to commit!"
And so, with his thinking firmly in place, they are
much happier than the hell-minded folk and therefore a
lot less likely to appreciate my challenges to what comes up in thier minds when they read the 'p'-word and all those 'f'-words, for being unburdened of that peculiar hell, which is only one-half of Calvin's theology!
And so, most UR folk don't seem to know enough of the big picture to answer kindly, with any authority, the kind of questions asked here (http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6387.0).
Then there is the odd duck, me, who began the torturous process of disassembling Calvinism in his mind by disproving what Calvin meant by 'Predestination'
first before tackling that peculiar hell.
And so the logic used to disprove that peculiar hell here on Tentmaker was not unfamiliar to me, as I came to grasp UR, even as the logic that I use to disprove Predestination should be familiar to the Tentmakers for their using it to disprove that peculiar hell!
For Calvin's theology is a
system. Thus 'Hell' and 'Predestination' are united concepts intended to support each other, even as I've proven here, to my own satisfaction, that
both concepts were shoe-horned into The Words of God to support Calvin's highly logical and systematic lie.
And unfortunately, you don't get to pick and choose which part of a lie you want to keep,
once you become aware of the lie.
In fact, for my originally thinking that UR-minded folk must use this good logic on
every part of the KJV English, I was really quite surprised to find, as I began to hang with UR-folk that Predestiniation was actually rooting itself even
more firmly in these human's minds!
I pondered this for quite some time, even as I found that I was making myself as odious to the UR folk during our discussions, when I challenged them with the same logic they were familiar with, as they are odious to those who like the idea of that peculiar hell when challenged by UR folk on it!
QuoteSo, I appreciate you doing your part to honor his name.
Thank you. I give Him the glory for helping me to see the truth as I have and thus the courage to challenge the sacrosanct but nonetheless
false idea that Jehovah foreknows the future,
as a fact.
Like I said, you don't get to pick and choose which part of a lie you want to keep,
once you become aware of the lie.
Quoteand his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
--Isa 9
Yes, indeed He is!
Be good, Molly!
Dennis!
Quote from: rosered on September 30, 2009, 07:09:53 AM
Quote from: DennisSeriously, though, I'll answer your question, Doc, with two questions:
Answer mine first and then I'll explain Rom 8:21-22, from my understanding, if your answering these two questions doesn't.
When did this 'subjection to vanity' take place?
And from that answer ponder this: Why Did Jehovah subject the creation to vanity; to what purpose was this done?
And "I don't know" is not an answer.
wow been reading this very interesting conversation between you and Doc
they are challenging indeed , some strong stuff , wow !
Hey rosered! Welcome to ma' thread! :grin:
I'm pleased to know that you are challenged by it. May the God of Truth give you wisdom and discernment to know if I'm a loony.
QuoteI wait for Doc , but
I have two simple answers
for your questions Dennis
Hey, chime right on in! You're welcome by me! Doc has even chimed in so don't wait for him!
Personally, I'd love to hear what you have to say!
Quote:HeartThrob: hope you dont mind me reading and getting in on this friends ..
No,
of course I don't mind! Do as you wish!
And you be good, too!
Dennis!
Quote
Quote from: rosered on September 30, 2009, 12:09:53 AM
Quote from: Dennis
Seriously, though, I'll answer your question, Doc, with two questions:
Answer mine first and then I'll explain Rom 8:21-22, from my understanding, if your answering these two questions doesn't.
When did this 'subjection to vanity' take place?
And from that answer ponder this: Why Did Jehovah subject the creation to vanity; to what purpose was this done?
And "I don't know" is not an answer.
Thank you Dennis and Doc for your kindness shown ,it is appreciated :icon_flower:
I have some real simple answers to each question and sure hope you will consider them
I thought almost instantly of this verse here . seems everything born of flesh has sorrow /suffering , to me the youth/vanity is not held accountable ,
but is to learn the Truth from error /mistakes and being corrected and chastened is painful as Paul also spoke of , but we learn from our faith being tested to trust in God only and not anything else such as idols etc.
Ecc 11:10 Therefore
remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for
childhood and youth [are] vanity.
the second part of your question ''Why Did Jehovah subject the creation to vanity; to what purpose was this done?''
To me it is this simple , to Learn not to blaspheme /lie against the Holy Spirit .
because from the begining , the lies was told and believed
and the Truth was dismissed
the serpent , Eve was decieved Adam also and the lies grew over time
into all areas and masses the whole world is in the spirit of error
to me this is why the Lord promises the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into all truth and teach us
And as Children we learn obedience
what better way to learn but by experience
So many scriptures in the Word of God touch on this very thing
I hope this helps and is not laughed at .. I feel like a first grader in a collage level class here .. :mblush:
I looked for this form of vanity for this verse,because there is different words for vain/ vanity .
Rom 8:20 For the
creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,
and it is
G3153 - mataiotēs
1)
what is devoid of truth and appropriateness2)
perverseness, depravity3)
frailty, want of vigour the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God
this world also hates God /and His son Jesus Christ
this world we must overcome though Jesus Christ who is in you when you are born from His Holy Spirit /above the world
1Jo 2:16 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.
we learn not to blashpeme /lie against the Truth
and the Lord God in His mercy and longsuffering wait till we do , learn it
by experience
hope this makes some kinda sense to you all ,
I know we are only accountable for what we get or have from the Lord and those who got nothing in this life are not accountable
I also believe that this short time on the earth if it be 70 years or more is nothing compared to what we will still be learning when this part is over and done with
just some simple things I have considered , I am not the deep thinker as some are on this forum , but am so grateful to God for them all .
Thanks for listening :happy3:
:HeartThrob: rose
Quote from: Doc on September 30, 2009, 09:21:03 PM
No, rosered; go right ahead. I'm interested in what you have to say, because I frankly don't have the time or mental energy right now to answer.
Frankly though, at the end of the day I don't think it matters when it was subjected; only that it was, and that it was done by God, which Romans clearly points out. The answer to when the creation was subjected doesn't really solve the question of whether God foreknew the fall (unless it was clearly subjected before the fall), because even if he subjected it at or after the fall, it doesn't guarantee he did or did not foreknow.
The rest of the Romans passage talks about the purpose for which we were subjected.
Seriously, Dennis; Go back and read Romans 7:14-25 and tell me that represents free-will. I do not believe that God created us automatons either. We do have some level of choice and we clearly have a will. But Romans 7 does an excellent job of pointing out that that will is not anything like "free".
Hey Doc! I'm sorry you're mentally tired. It certainly can get to wearing on a body to be thinking so much! So, get some rest and if you still wish to continue this discussion come back and read this reply.
For I perceive that you did answer my two questions concerning Romans 8:21-22, just not directly.
You said that you don't think it matters 'at the end of the day
when creation was subjected to vanity'. And that means that you know it
does matter, given the context in which you presented this quote. Otherwise you would have answered my question with 'after the fall' which is the correct answer. Instead you say, now, that you don't think it matters.
And this you say, now, because you foreknow that if you answer 'after the fall' that I will then say that Jehovah
had to subject His creation to vanity, against it's 'will',
because of the turning of The Adam; meaning that it was never Jehovah's intention, from the beginning, to have to subject His creation to vanity.
Or else *shudder* it
was His intention, all along, to subject it to vanity, just so He could 'set it free'. Which would then beg the question why didn't He just create us 'subject to vanity' right off the bat? And it's not a pleasant thought to try and answer that question while still insisting that God is agape.
Just like His creating the Tree of Life and putting it in the Garden becomes a superfluous act of creation if it is a truth that He knew, as a fact, that the Adam was going to turn before He created them; superfluous for His foreknowing, also, that He would be having to banish them from it.
And so
when creation was subjected to vanity,
against it's 'will', (for
that was your point),
does bear on the question of whether or not Jehovah 'foreknew' their turning as a fact before it happened, just like the mere presence of the Tree of Life argues against it. Otherwise you would not have brought this quote into a discussion on the question of whether God foreknew the future as a fact and thus predestined all to their individual fates!
I perceive that there are two erroneous assumptions you are making here, Doc.
The first is that I'm trying to prove to you my contentions; that I'm trying to 'solve a problem' for you by convincing you to see things my way, when it's obvious that you don't want me to because you don't see what you believe as a problem!
You've already
decided what you want to believe and so I perceive that our discussions are wearing you out. And for the most part you are hoping to disprove me by catching something I say.
So, for my knowing this I also know that it would be foolish to try and convince you of anything. And so persuasion is not my motive for being here. As I have stated repeatedly I am presenting my conclusions and the reasons why I conclude what I do so I can test my own thinking against others who would certainly disagree with me, so that I can satisfy
myself that I am grasping truth.
And should there be anyone that is touched by my reasoning and would like to explore these ideas further with me, I would welcome them gladly. But that is not something I expected to find here.
Frankly it doesn't touch me at the end of the day if you are convinced by me or not. If you're happy with making Calvin's 'Predestination' a foundation in your thinking then that is between you and your God, not between you and me.
As I said to you before, I appreciate the fact that it will require a paradigm shift in your heart of thoughts before you will be able to perceive and appreciate what I am presenting here.
And paradigm shifting is beyond my abilities.
All I have is logic and reason, a rebirth and a shared human experience from which to present my own heart of thoughts for you to evaluate for truth or argue against to prove to yourself that I am 'wrong'.
And for that being said know that I do welcome your challenges, Doc, in this public place, because I find you to be good for me as you keep coming to me with your replies.
I'm not afraid of being wrong, Doc. I've been that many times before. And so if you present a challenge to me that truly illustrates some absurdity in my thinking, you will be doing me a favor and I would welcome it because, of a truth, I am seeking truth.
However, as I said before, if this is wearing to much on you all you gotta do is quit replying! And if no one else comes along who is interested in reading my typing, then I will move on.
Besides, who knows, Doc, but that something I say may just be what you need to hear? That would, of course, be a God Thingy.
The second thing that is erroneous is that you are assuming I am arguing for 'free-will' simply because I am arguing
against Predestination. I can understand that, given what you've been taught to believe.
Because what comes into your mind when you hear the word 'free will' is as different from my understanding as what comes into your mind when you hear the word 'predestination'.
'Free-will' and 'predestination' are two sides of the same coin. And that coin is a counterfeit one.
That is why, when arguing from the King James English you will never arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to which is the 'truth'; for these two points of view contradict each other. And contradiction is unsolvable
as long as the axioms remain unchanged.It began its forging when Calvin shoe-horned his idea of predestination into the original text by his deliberate mis-translation of certain key Greek words. So, because it's a lie, a dilemma was created. Specifically the dilemma became apparent because it doesn't appear, at times, that Jehovah seems, by what He says, to foreknow something He
should foreknow. And also for His
peculiar behaviour in seeming to allow 'room for repentance' as if He somehow hoped for there to be a change in the concerned humans- an absurd thing to do if He already 'foreknows'
as a fact what these humans are going to do.
And so the idea that,
'we are free to choose to believe or disbelieve the Gospel', that we have 'free-will' was introduced as a rebuttal to Calvinism by Joseph Arminius, who, like Calvin, also liked the idea of that peculiar hell- just not that
so many were going there. And of those who
did, it was really their own fault, not God's, for God giving them 'free-will'. John Wesley and his Methodist pretty much embody this idea in our time.
And thus was the counterfeit coin forged for us Believers to enjoy playing with because both sides seem to be the truth-
as long as you keep it on only one side. But, flip it over and the other side seems just as equally valid. And so we've entertained and occupied ourselves these last few centuries, by fruitlessly flipping it over and over and over, with each new generation of Believers discussing each side in earnest- while the true 'coin' languished under interpretive arrogance.
And so, the best that can be done, once the futility of this flipping is realized and that for accepting this coin as being 'the truth', is to throw up your hands in resignation and incorrectly conclude that this counterfeit coin is a 'profound mystery', when, in reality, it's just a simple and stupid logical contradiction- and therefore not truth.
My understanding is a different 'coin' altogether for my beginning with the understanding that Jehovah did not know, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them. This
is a fact.
So, from that understanding I perceive that the key to understanding Romans 7:1 to approximately 8:4 is found in 'verse' 1:
Or are you ignorant,
brethren (
for I am speaking to those who know law)...
Of the
Gentiles, however, Paul said this in the same letter:
For there is no partiality with God, for whoever sinned without the law, without law also shall perish, and whoever sinned in law, through law will be judged.
For not the listeners to law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified. For whenever
they of the nations that have no law, by nature
may be doing that which the law demands, these, having no law, are a law to themselves,
who are displaying the action of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying together and their reckonings between one another, accusing or defending them, in the day when God will be judging the hidden things of humanity, according to my evangel, through Jesus Christ.
And this:
Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus
death passed through into all mankind, on which all sinned -- for
until law sin was in the world, yet sin is not being taken into account
when there is no law;
nevertheless death reigns from Adam unto Moses, over those also who do not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him Who is about to be.
But to the Jews Paul argues differently about... SIN; S-I-N;
Sin. Not Jehovah's 'subjecting to vanity'; which His subjecting creation to vanity was because of Sin, introduced into the world at the turning and thus disrupting His good intentions for it, the creation and us, creations reason for existing.
END OF PART ONE
PART TWO
So here in Romans 7:1 he begins to present his case to the ones who both had and understood the Mosaic Law. Specifically he was arguing to prove that the law had no power to stop a human from sinning. In fact, because of the law it was even more difficult to deal with Sin because now through the law you are aware of exactly what Sin is!
And of that He says this:
But sin I knew not except through law. For besides, I had not been aware of coveting except the law said, "You shall not be coveting."
He is not saying that coveting came into existence because of law but that before the law came he was coveting and did not know it was a wrong thing to do.
And so because Paul now knows what coveting and other sins are, he found that Sin, with a capitol 'S', was at home in him despite his desire to do what he knew was right.
As he said:
For what I am effecting I know not, for not what I will, this I am putting into practice, but what I am hating, this I am doing. Now if what I am not willing, this I am doing, I am conceding that the law is ideal. Yet now it is no longer I who am effecting it, but Sin making its home in me.
And that is the major difference between the Jew and The Gentile; the Jews, while still sinners, for having sinned, are much more keenly aware of Sin than the Gentiles are who only have their conscience, each other and what is revealed about God through Creation.
So he proves that this keen awareness of Sin, gained through the law, does not give a human the power to stop sinning but actually makes it worse because now they are keenly aware of what Sin is!
And to this precarious predicament Paul found himself in for knowing about Sin he says:
A wretched man am I! What will rescue me out of this body of death?
To which He answered:
Grace!
And then added:
I thank God, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
So Grace, which is God forbearing our sins while He works out His plan to restore us to Himself, with the full council of His plurality, gained after the disruption of the world, is what will free us from Sin; for it was Grace that sent Jesus to accomplish the needed forgiveness of sins when, we, through faith, are re-sired through spirit, of which Paul says:
Now those who are in flesh are not able to please God.
Yet you are not in flesh, but in spirit, if so be that God's spirit is making its home in you. Now if anyone has not Christ's spirit, this one is not His.
Now if Christ is in you, the body, indeed, is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is life because of righteousness. Now if the spirit of Him Who rouses Jesus from among the dead is making its home in you, He Who rouses Christ Jesus from among the dead will also be vivifying your mortal bodies because of His spirit making its home in you.
Doc, I say this to you boldly: If you are going to grasp the truth of Romans 7 and 8 you must quit reading The Words peripherally, looking for 'spiritual' understanding and grasp the literal understanding Paul is presenting here of the before and after states of every human: Before his/her re-birth and after his/her re-birth.
Before the re-birth Sin made it's home in all humans, Jew and Gentile alike, because of The Adam's turning.
This is not what was supposed to have happened!
They were supposed to gain virtue by refusing to gain a conscience illicitly that is, by trusting Jehovah and refusing the offer to become fully like God-apart from God- a thing impossible to do anyway, as The Satan found out.
And so the conscience we now have is weak to keep us from Sin because Sin which has made it's home in us keeps us sinning, whether we know it or not; and even when we don't want to for being aware of it. We sin because we try to impulsively satisfy our bodies desires for food, shelter, sex, power over our destiny and a comfortable life all of which cause harm to not only ourselves, for this impulsive behaviour, but harms others as well, even the innocent. Truly a vain pursuit!
But now, after our rebirth, we have something we never had before! The genuine ability to stop sinning, given to us through a re-birth of spirit that cleanses our conscience and gives it the power to influence us to not be constantly sinning!
And so now Jehovah can reasonably expect those who are truly begotten anew to stop sinning. That is to say that it is not something that is no longer unreasonable for Him to ask of us, who truly have the spirit of Christ making it's home in us because the first thing the spirit did when it 'moved in' and began making itself at home in us was to ungraciously kick Sin's ugly ass all the way out the door! Praise God! I am Eleutheros! I am made free, indeed by The Son of God!!!!
And so Paul says:
Nothing, consequently, is now condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. Not according to flesh are they walking, but according to spirit, for the spirit's law of life in Christ Jesus frees you from the law of sin and death.
For what was impossible to the law, in which it was infirm through the flesh, did God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sin's flesh and concerning sin, He condemns sin in the flesh, that the just requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who are not walking in accord with flesh, but in accord with spirit.
And
Now if the spirit of Him Who rouses Jesus from among the dead is making its home in you, He Who rouses Christ Jesus from among the dead will also be vivifying your mortal bodies because of His spirit making its home in you. Consequently, then, brethren, debtors are we, not to the flesh, to be living in accord with flesh, for if you are living in accord with flesh, you are about to be dying. Yet if, in spirit, you are putting the practices of the body to death, you will be living. For whoever are being led by God's spirit, these are sons of God.
So there you have my evaluation of Romans 7
We are not free from sin. That is the problem! And that is why the creation was subject to vanity, without it's consent, when The Adam turned, so that we humans would know that we are not free to do as we damm well please! But are, instead, slaves to our impulses.
Because the only choice we have to make through our so called 'free-will ' is to sin, some more than others and to keep refusing the pull of the spirit of God, Who is dragging all humans to 'the foot of the cross' so they will come to realize their need for His forgiveness.
Some are brought there willingly and gladly through the heralding of the Gospel, these are the firstfruits as Paul called us. For those who sin less than others are foreknown to God for His constantly searching the hearts of men through spirit.
Thus he finds those, in each generation- in each new 'crop' of humans, so to speak, who recognize the purpose of a conscience in us as well as understanding God's righteousness through their interactions with others and through what is known of God by what He created. As well as perceiving the futility of our trying to be good that comes with this realization for living in a creation subject to vanity.
These are the ones who come to love the God they know this way and thus love righteousness in their inner man as Paul said:
For I am gratified with the law of God as to the man within,..
And these ones of whom He is aware before He designates beforehand to receive His justification even as Paul said:
Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also.
Now not everyone will be of the firstfruits for some will be dragged 'to the foot of the cross' through having to be evaluated, in the Day of Evaluation as needing to be brought to justice first and thus be destroyed as their spirits are purified of dross by unquenchable, holy fire, before they can receive His forgiveness and be restored to God through Jesus who is praised forever and worthy to receive the reward for His suffering!!! US!!
And it is exactly this way also for those covenanted ones who have the Mosaic Law. Because all the law can do is develop in us a keen awareness of Sin, not stop us from sinning.
And that is because a conscience needs spirit to be the powerful living thing it was intended to be in us.
That is something we would have had now, had the world not been disrupted when The Adam gained a conscience before They gained virtue. Even as we have exactly that now through faith; a clean and powerful conscience gained through the rebirth of spirit and that through faith in Jesus the Christ who gave Himself that He might free us from Sin and thus deliver us from Death- not 'came to save us from hell' or 'came to save us so we could go to heaven' or 'came to save us to be His Bride'- but to complete in us what was left uncompleted, so long ago the Garden, by manumitting us from Sin to live lives of righteousness even as He is righteous; a thing once impossible before, but, now, made possible even as Jesus said in context: "All things are possible with God." Halleluiah!!
And that is why Jesus said you must be begotten anew, of spirit, before you can perceive the kingdom of God.
Daniel Amos, the band, summed up well my 'coin' with this two line chorus in their song Hound of Heaven
You can run but you can't hide from the Hound of Heaven
Your're free to choose, can you refuse the seeker of souls?
And so I say as always,
Be good!
It's what you were created to be!
God, but I love being human! Thank You Jesus for making me free to be good one!
Dennis!
Rosered,
I loved what you wrote! I want to reply but don't have the time right now except to say, "Thank you!"
You were a breath of fresh air!
I'll give my reply as soon as I can!~
Dennis!
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 01, 2009, 08:31:46 PM
For I perceive that you did answer my two questions concerning Romans 8:21-22, just not directly.
You said that you don't think it matters 'at the end of the day when creation was subjected to vanity'. And that means that you know it does matter, given the context in which you presented this quote. Otherwise you would have answered my question with 'after the fall' which is the correct answer. Instead you say, now, that you don't think it matters.
And this you say, now, because you foreknow that if you answer 'after the fall' that I will then say that Jehovah had to subject His creation to vanity, against it's 'will', because of the turning of The Adam; meaning that it was never Jehovah's intention, from the beginning, to have to subject His creation to vanity.
Well, no. I said it because after thinking about it, I realized that
when the creation was subjected to vanity doesn't really answer the question of foreknowledge conclusively.
When might give some evidence one way or another, but subjection to vanity at the fall or post-fall would not be conclusive proof of lack of foreknowledge of the event. In other words, If God subjected the creation to vanity at the time of the fall or later, that in and of itself does not preclude the possibility that He knew in advance it would happen. The only conclusive evidence of foreknowledge specifically of the fall would be if we could clearly show that He had subjected the creation to vanity before the fall. However, His actually doing that wouldn't make any sense. We don't make advance plans then carry them out before the time they're supposed to happen. Our advance plans include the time frame for when the plans will be carried out. I hope I was clear enough for your understanding in making this point.
Quote
Or else *shudder* it was His intention, all along, to subject it to vanity, just so He could 'set it free'. Which would then beg the question why didn't He just create us 'subject to vanity' right off the bat? And it's not a pleasant thought to try and answer that question while still insisting that God is agape.
I think we have both tried unsuccessfully to show that the other is unwilling to accept certain notions about God and His plans for the universe. I have said this in other contexts before, but how would we know objectively what good was if we did not know evil? would we know what darkness was if all we ever experienced was light? I maintain that God had a plan which included a pre-planned or at least foreknown element of needing to subject His creation to vanity so that we could learn what needed to be learned. God is writing a great story, His story of the universe. You can't have a good story without a protagonist, and antagonist and some tension built into it. In order for God to create this story, and for it to be a good story, God needed to include these elements! He didn't just subject us to vanity right off the bat, because that would've had much the same (but opposite) effect in the big overarching picture as never subjecting us to vanity at all. Remember, according to Isaiah, God creates both peace
and evil. Nothing that has been made has been made except by Him.
Quote
Just like His creating the Tree of Life and putting it in the Garden becomes a superfluous act of creation if it is a truth that He knew, as a fact, that the Adam was going to turn before He created them; superfluous for His foreknowing, also, that He would be having to banish them from it.
And so when creation was subjected to vanity, against it's 'will', (for that was your point), does bear on the question of whether or not Jehovah 'foreknew' their turning as a fact before it happened, just like the mere presence of the Tree of Life argues against it. Otherwise you would not have brought this quote into a discussion on the question of whether God foreknew the future as a fact and thus predestined all to their individual fates!
Not necessarily. As I've pointed out, yes it does
potentially bear on the question, but doesn't
conclusively answer it. The Tree of Life and its placement was not superfluous in any case; nothing God does is superfluous except in our flawed understanding of why He's done certain things. One could also ask why He placed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil unless he planned for them to eat of it. If he really intended for things to go as you have suggested (especially without the benefit of foreknowledge), then why place Adam in a position where they could be tempted, deceived and caused to fall? Your answer would probably be, to give them an opportunity to exercise a choice, which is not necessarily a wrong answer, just an incomplete one.
QuoteI perceive that there are two erroneous assumptions you are making here, Doc.
The first is that I'm trying to prove to you my contentions; that I'm trying to 'solve a problem' for you by convincing you to see things my way, when it's obvious that you don't want me to because you don't see what you believe as a problem!
You've already decided what you want to believe and so I perceive that our discussions are wearing you out. And for the most part you are hoping to disprove me by catching something I say.
So, for my knowing this I also know that it would be foolish to try and convince you of anything. And so persuasion is not my motive for being here. As I have stated repeatedly I am presenting my conclusions and the reasons why I conclude what I do so I can test my own thinking against others who would certainly disagree with me, so that I can satisfy myself that I am grasping truth.
And should there be anyone that is touched by my reasoning and would like to explore these ideas further with me, I would welcome them gladly. But that is not something I expected to find here.
Frankly it doesn't touch me at the end of the day if you are convinced by me or not. If you're happy with making Calvin's 'Predestination' a foundation in your thinking then that is between you and your God, not between you and me.
Perceptions are funny things. I'm not assuming that you are attempting to prove your contentions, nor have I already decided what I want to believe. I speak from my current understanding, but that does not mean my understanding will not change. It has changed many times already. Perhaps you are the one making incorrect assumptions about me. :dontknow:
QuoteAs I said to you before, I appreciate the fact that it will require a paradigm shift in your heart of thoughts before you will be able to perceive and appreciate what I am presenting here.
And paradigm shifting is beyond my abilities.
All I have is logic and reason, a rebirth and a shared human experience from which to present my own heart of thoughts for you to evaluate for truth or argue against to prove to yourself that I am 'wrong'.
And for that being said know that I do welcome your challenges, Doc, in this public place, because I find you to be good for me as you keep coming to me with your replies.
I'm not afraid of being wrong, Doc. I've been that many times before. And so if you present a challenge to me that truly illustrates some absurdity in my thinking, you will be doing me a favor and I would welcome it because, of a truth, I am seeking truth.
Well, I'm doing my best, but it's clear that I haven't produced enough of a challenge for you as yet.
QuoteThe second thing that is erroneous is that you are assuming I am arguing for 'free-will' simply because I am arguing against Predestination. I can understand that, given what you've been taught to believe.
Because what comes into your mind when you hear the word 'free will' is as different from my understanding as what comes into your mind when you hear the word 'predestination'.
'Free-will' and 'predestination' are two sides of the same coin. And that coin is a counterfeit one.
That is why, when arguing from the King James English you will never arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to which is the 'truth'; for these two points of view contradict each other. And contradiction is unsolvable as long as the axioms remain unchanged.
It began its forging when Calvin shoe-horned his idea of predestination into the original text by his deliberate mis-translation of certain key Greek words. So, because it's a lie, a dilemma was created. Specifically the dilemma became apparent because it doesn't appear, at times, that Jehovah seems, by what He says, to foreknow something He should foreknow. And also for His peculiar behaviour in seeming to allow 'room for repentance' as if He somehow hoped for there to be a change in the concerned humans- an absurd thing to do if He already 'foreknows' as a fact what these humans are going to do.
And so the idea that, 'we are free to choose to believe or disbelieve the Gospel', that we have 'free-will' was introduced as a rebuttal to Calvinism by Joseph Arminius, who, like Calvin, also liked the idea of that peculiar hell- just not that so many were going there. And of those who did, it was really their own fault, not God's, for God giving them 'free-will'. John Wesley and his Methodist pretty much embody this idea in our time.
And thus was the counterfeit coin forged for us Believers to enjoy playing with because both sides seem to be the truth- as long as you keep it on only one side. But, flip it over and the other side seems just as equally valid. And so we've entertained and occupied ourselves these last few centuries, by fruitlessly flipping it over and over and over, with each new generation of Believers discussing each side in earnest- while the true 'coin' languished under interpretive arrogance.
And so, the best that can be done, once the futility of this flipping is realized and that for accepting this coin as being 'the truth', is to throw up your hands in resignation and incorrectly conclude that this counterfeit coin is a 'profound mystery', when, in reality, it's just a simple and stupid logical contradiction- and therefore not truth.
My understanding is a different 'coin' altogether for my beginning with the understanding that Jehovah did not know, as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them. This is a fact.
So, from that understanding I perceive that the key to understanding Romans 7:1 to approximately 8:4 is found in 'verse' 1:
Or are you ignorant, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know law)...
Of the Gentiles, however, Paul said this in the same letter:
For there is no partiality with God, for whoever sinned without the law, without law also shall perish, and whoever sinned in law, through law will be judged.
For not the listeners to law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified. For whenever they of the nations that have no law, by nature may be doing that which the law demands, these, having no law, are a law to themselves, who are displaying the action of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying together and their reckonings between one another, accusing or defending them, in the day when God will be judging the hidden things of humanity, according to my evangel, through Jesus Christ.
And this:
Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed through into all mankind, on which all sinned -- for until law sin was in the world, yet sin is not being taken into account when there is no law; nevertheless death reigns from Adam unto Moses, over those also who do not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him Who is about to be.
But to the Jews Paul argues differently about... SIN; S-I-N; Sin. Not Jehovah's 'subjecting to vanity'; which His subjecting creation to vanity was because of Sin, introduced into the world at the turning and thus disrupting His good intentions for it, the creation and us, creations reason for existing.
END OF PART ONE
Well, as I can see from having read part 2, I now understand that you are not arguing for free-will. On to part two then..
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 01, 2009, 08:32:58 PM
PART TWO
So here in Romans 7:1 he begins to present his case to the ones who both had and understood the Mosaic Law. Specifically he was arguing to prove that the law had no power to stop a human from sinning. In fact, because of the law it was even more difficult to deal with Sin because now through the law you are aware of exactly what Sin is!
And of that He says this:
But sin I knew not except through law. For besides, I had not been aware of coveting except the law said, "You shall not be coveting."
He is not saying that coveting came into existence because of law but that before the law came he was coveting and did not know it was a wrong thing to do.
And so because Paul now knows what coveting and other sins are, he found that Sin, with a capitol 'S', was at home in him despite his desire to do what he knew was right.
As he said:
For what I am effecting I know not, for not what I will, this I am putting into practice, but what I am hating, this I am doing. Now if what I am not willing, this I am doing, I am conceding that the law is ideal. Yet now it is no longer I who am effecting it, but Sin making its home in me.
And that is the major difference between the Jew and The Gentile; the Jews, while still sinners, for having sinned, are much more keenly aware of Sin than the Gentiles are who only have their conscience, each other and what is revealed about God through Creation.
So he proves that this keen awareness of Sin, gained through the law, does not give a human the power to stop sinning but actually makes it worse because now they are keenly aware of what Sin is!
And to this precarious predicament Paul found himself in for knowing about Sin he says:
A wretched man am I! What will rescue me out of this body of death?
To which He answered:
Grace!
And then added:
I thank God, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
So Grace, which is God forbearing our sins while He works out His plan to restore us to Himself, with the full council of His plurality, gained after the disruption of the world, is what will free us from Sin; for it was Grace that sent Jesus to accomplish the needed forgiveness of sins when, we, through faith, are re-sired through spirit, of which Paul says:
The only thing I need to insert here is that we were forgiven of sin at the cross, not when we are re-sired through spirit. Freedom from sin however, requires "re-siring" as you put it (that's salvation).
QuoteNow those who are in flesh are not able to please God.
Yet you are not in flesh, but in spirit, if so be that God's spirit is making its home in you. Now if anyone has not Christ's spirit, this one is not His.
Now if Christ is in you, the body, indeed, is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is life because of righteousness. Now if the spirit of Him Who rouses Jesus from among the dead is making its home in you, He Who rouses Christ Jesus from among the dead will also be vivifying your mortal bodies because of His spirit making its home in you.
Doc, I say this to you boldly: If you are going to grasp the truth of Romans 7 and 8 you must quit reading The Words peripherally, looking for 'spiritual' understanding and grasp the literal understanding Paul is presenting here of the before and after states of every human: Before his/her re-birth and after his/her re-birth.
Before the re-birth Sin made it's home in all humans, Jew and Gentile alike, because of The Adam's turning.
This is not what was supposed to have happened!
They were supposed to gain virtue by refusing to gain a conscience illicitly that is, by trusting Jehovah and refusing the offer to become fully like God-apart from God- a thing impossible to do anyway, as The Satan found out.
How could they have gained more virtue than they already had? Sin and the resulting death had not been introduced into the world yet. What need would they have had for conscience without knowledge of good and evil? It was a fall, remember; not from a perfect state, but from a good state.
QuoteAnd so the conscience we now have is weak to keep us from Sin because Sin which has made it's home in us keeps us sinning, whether we know it or not; and even when we don't want to for being aware of it. We sin because we try to impulsively satisfy our bodies desires for food, shelter, sex, power over our destiny and a comfortable life all of which cause harm to not only ourselves, for this impulsive behaviour, but harms others as well, even the innocent. Truly a vain pursuit!
But now, after our rebirth, we have something we never had before! The genuine ability to stop sinning, given to us through a re-birth of spirit that cleanses our conscience and gives it the power to influence us to not be constantly sinning!
And so now Jehovah can reasonably expect those who are truly begotten anew to stop sinning. That is to say that it is not something that is no longer unreasonable for Him to ask of us, who truly have the spirit of Christ making it's home in us because the first thing the spirit did when it 'moved in' and began making itself at home in us was to ungraciously kick Sin's ugly ass all the way out the door! Praise God! I am Eleutheros! I am made free, indeed by The Son of God!!!!
We have been given the ability to stop sinning, but not through self-will or effort, which Paul clearly points out.
QuoteAnd so Paul says:
Nothing, consequently, is now condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. Not according to flesh are they walking, but according to spirit, for the spirit's law of life in Christ Jesus frees you from the law of sin and death.
For what was impossible to the law, in which it was infirm through the flesh, did God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sin's flesh and concerning sin, He condemns sin in the flesh, that the just requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who are not walking in accord with flesh, but in accord with spirit.
And
Now if the spirit of Him Who rouses Jesus from among the dead is making its home in you, He Who rouses Christ Jesus from among the dead will also be vivifying your mortal bodies because of His spirit making its home in you. Consequently, then, brethren, debtors are we, not to the flesh, to be living in accord with flesh, for if you are living in accord with flesh, you are about to be dying. Yet if, in spirit, you are putting the practices of the body to death, you will be living. For whoever are being led by God's spirit, these are sons of God.
So there you have my evaluation of Romans 7
We are not free from sin. That is the problem! And that is why the creation was subject to vanity, without it's consent, when The Adam turned, so that we humans would know that we are not free to do as we damm well please! But are, instead, slaves to our impulses.
Because the only choice we have to make through our so called 'free-will ' is to sin, some more than others and to keep refusing the pull of the spirit of God, Who is dragging all humans to 'the foot of the cross' so they will come to realize their need for His forgiveness.
Some are brought there willingly and gladly through the heralding of the Gospel, these are the firstfruits as Paul called us. For those who sin less than others are foreknown to God for His constantly searching the hearts of men through spirit.
Thus he finds those, in each generation- in each new 'crop' of humans, so to speak, who recognize the purpose of a conscience in us as well as understanding God's righteousness through their interactions with others and through what is known of God by what He created. As well as perceiving the futility of our trying to be good that comes with this realization for living in a creation subject to vanity.
Exactly. We are either slaves to sin or to Christ. And we can only refuse the pull of the spirit of God for so long.
QuoteThese are the ones who come to love the God they know this way and thus love righteousness in their inner man as Paul said:
For I am gratified with the law of God as to the man within,..
And these ones of whom He is aware before He designates beforehand to receive His justification even as Paul said:
Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also.
Does not designation beforehand require foreknowledge?
QuoteNow not everyone will be of the firstfruits for some will be dragged 'to the foot of the cross' through having to be evaluated, in the Day of Evaluation as needing to be brought to justice first and thus be destroyed as their spirits are purified of dross by unquenchable, holy fire, before they can receive His forgiveness and be restored to God through Jesus who is praised forever and worthy to receive the reward for His suffering!!! US!!
Agreed.
QuoteAnd it is exactly this way also for those covenanted ones who have the Mosaic Law. Because all the law can do is develop in us a keen awareness of Sin, not stop us from sinning.
And that is because a conscience needs spirit to be the powerful living thing it was intended to be in us.
Nothing in particular to disagree with here.
QuoteThat is something we would have had now, had the world not been disrupted when The Adam gained a conscience before They gained virtue. Even as we have exactly that now through faith; a clean and powerful conscience gained through the rebirth of spirit and that through faith in Jesus the Christ who gave Himself that He might free us from Sin and thus deliver us from Death- not 'came to save us from hell' or 'came to save us so we could go to heaven' or 'came to save us to be His Bride'- but to complete in us what was left uncompleted, so long ago the Garden, by manumitting us from Sin to live lives of righteousness even as He is righteous; a thing once impossible before, but, now, made possible even as Jesus said in context: "All things are possible with God." Halleluiah!!
And that is why Jesus said you must be begotten anew, of spirit, before you can perceive the kingdom of God.
Daniel Amos, the band, summed up well my 'coin' with this two line chorus in their song Hound of Heaven
You can run but you can't hide from the Hound of Heaven
Your're free to choose, can you refuse the seeker of souls?
And so I say as always,
Be good!
It's what you were created to be!
God, but I love being human! Thank You Jesus for making me free to be good one!
Dennis!
This is where I'm not really tracking with you. You seem to be suggesting that Adam was incomplete in the Garden (The incompleteness I don't particularly disagree with in and of itself) because they gained conscience before virtue. But I ask again, what virtue did they not already have before the fall that they would not have needed a fall to gain? God called all He created, "good".
Blessings,
Doc
Doc!
I love you, man!
This is good stuff here! Good questions, good conclusions, good challenges!
Thank you. And thank you also for not taking my perceptions of your motives personally. Accept, if you will, my apologies for that.
I'm off to ponder and will reply as soon as I can.
Blessings to you as well!
Dennis!
Quote from: rosered on October 01, 2009, 04:30:49 PM
Quote
Quote from: rosered on September 30, 2009, 12:09:53 AM
Quote from: Dennis
Seriously, though, I'll answer your question, Doc, with two questions:
Answer mine first and then I'll explain Rom 8:21-22, from my understanding, if your answering these two questions doesn't.
When did this 'subjection to vanity' take place?
And from that answer ponder this: Why Did Jehovah subject the creation to vanity; to what purpose was this done?
And "I don't know" is not an answer.
Thank you Dennis and Doc for your kindness shown ,it is appreciated :icon_flower:
I have some real simple answers to each question and sure hope you will consider them
I thought almost instantly of this verse here . seems everything born of flesh has sorrow /suffering , to me the youth/vanity is not held accountable ,
but is to learn the Truth from error /mistakes and being corrected and chastened is painful as Paul also spoke of , but we learn from our faith being tested to trust in God only and not anything else such as idols etc.
Ecc 11:10 Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth [are] vanity.
Yes this is good rosered! The Words of God definitely agree that we should learn from our errors and our mistakes- it is definitely a truth for this age. And that is what God's Grace is all about; to give us room to learn by doing even repenting to Him when necessary because we sinned.
He is a good Father after all; the Best and the model for all. And just like it hurts us when we see our own children having to learn the hard way, I can only imagine how He must feel for being everyone's Father!
I gained a
lot of respect for God as I raised my own children, that's for sure!
Quote from: roseredthe second part of your question "Why Did Jehovah subject the creation to vanity; to what purpose was this done?"
To me it is this simple , to Learn not to blaspheme /lie against the Holy Spirit .
because from the begining , the lies was told and believed
and the Truth was dismissed
the serpent , Eve was decieved Adam also and the lies grew over time
into all areas and masses the whole world is in the spirit of error
to me this is why the Lord promises the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into all truth and teach us
And as Children we learn obedience
what better way to learn but by experience
So many scriptures in the Word of God touch on this very thing
This is a good point! Yes, lies have replaced truth such that we live in a sea of lies, as Molly once said. I hadn't thought that one of the reasons why He would subject the creation to vanity would be to teach us not to go against The Holy Spirit that He promised to us to guides us into all Truth.
Certianly this works in well with God being a Father especially of those who Believe. Because we may need some room to learn as we live out our new regenerated lives In Him!
Quote from: roseredI hope this helps and is not laughed at .. I feel like a first grader in a collage level class here .. :mblush:
Awwww, rosered, just because Doc can be snippity at times and I can be long-winded and vague doesn't mean were 'college level'!!
We're just like you, searching to know better the God we love so much by studying His precious Words.
Quote from: roseredI looked for this form of vanity for this verse,because there is different words for vain/ vanity .
Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,
and it is
G3153 - mataiotēs
1) what is devoid of truth and appropriateness
2) perverseness, depravity
3) frailty, want of vigour
the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God
this world also hates God /and His son Jesus Christ
this world we must overcome though Jesus Christ who is in you when you are born from His Holy Spirit /above the world
1Jo 2:16 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.
we learn not to blashpeme /lie against the Truth
and the Lord God in His mercy and longsuffering wait till we do , learn it
by experience
Yes! Good research.
Indeed, through Him we are more than over-comers... We are conquerors of this world's hold on us which is through Sin!
Experience is a good teacher, especially for those who truly love righteousness which is nothing more than doing what we know is right. And those who love righteousness love God. So certainly these ones will learn quickly from their experiences so that they sin less and less and do good more and more!
Quote from: roseredhope this makes some kinda sense to you all ,
I know we are only accountable for what we get or have from the Lord and those who got nothing in this life are not accountable
Yes I agree. One of my favorite proverbs is 24:12 If you say, "Behold, we did not know this!" Does not He Who weighs and ponders the heart perceive and consider it? And He Who guards your life, does not He know it? And shall not He render to everyone according to his works?
Quote from: roseredI also believe that this short time on the earth if it be 70 years or more is nothing compared to what we will still be learning when this part is over and done with
Now that is a time that I truly look forward to!
Quote from: roseredjust some simple things I have considered , I am not the deep thinker as some are on this forum , but am so grateful to God for them all .
rosered, I can tell that you are a very thoughtful woman and that you know your God well. So you keep on thinking about Him and Loving Him and He will give you understanding.
Besides, 'deep-thinkers' sometimes drown in their own thoughts, don'tcha know?
Quote from: roseredThanks for listening :happy3:
:HeartThrob: rose
Hey, I'm the one honored to read your replies! Chime in anytime you feel like it rosered. I'd personally love to hear what you have to say!
Be good!
Dennis!
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 02, 2009, 01:30:30 AM
Quote from: rosered on October 01, 2009, 04:30:49 PM
Quote
Quote from: rosered on September 30, 2009, 12:09:53 AM
Quote from: Dennis
Seriously, though, I'll answer your question, Doc, with two questions:
Answer mine first and then I'll explain Rom 8:21-22, from my understanding, if your answering these two questions doesn't.
When did this 'subjection to vanity' take place?
And from that answer ponder this: Why Did Jehovah subject the creation to vanity; to what purpose was this done?
And "I don't know" is not an answer.
Thank you Dennis and Doc for your kindness shown ,it is appreciated :icon_flower:
I have some real simple answers to each question and sure hope you will consider them
I thought almost instantly of this verse here . seems everything born of flesh has sorrow /suffering , to me the youth/vanity is not held accountable ,
but is to learn the Truth from error /mistakes and being corrected and chastened is painful as Paul also spoke of , but we learn from our faith being tested to trust in God only and not anything else such as idols etc.
Ecc 11:10 Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth [are] vanity.
Yes this is good rosered! The Words of God definitely agree that we should learn from our errors and our mistakes- it is definitely a truth for this age. And that is what God's Grace is all about; to give us room to learn by doing even repenting to Him when necessary because we sinned.
He is a good Father after all; the Best and the model for all. And just like it hurts us when we see our own children having to learn the hard way, I can only imagine how He must feel for being everyone's Father!
I gained a lot of respect for God as I raised my own children, that's for sure!
Quote from: roseredthe second part of your question "Why Did Jehovah subject the creation to vanity; to what purpose was this done?"
To me it is this simple , to Learn not to blaspheme /lie against the Holy Spirit .
because from the begining , the lies was told and believed
and the Truth was dismissed
the serpent , Eve was decieved Adam also and the lies grew over time
into all areas and masses the whole world is in the spirit of error
to me this is why the Lord promises the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into all truth and teach us
And as Children we learn obedience
what better way to learn but by experience
So many scriptures in the Word of God touch on this very thing
This is a good point! Yes, lies have replaced truth such that we live in a sea of lies, as Molly once said. I hadn't thought that one of the reasons why He would subject the creation to vanity would be to teach us not to go against The Holy Spirit that He promised to us to guides us into all Truth.
Certianly this works in well with God being a Father especially of those who Believe. Because we may need some room to learn as we live out our new regenerated lives In Him!
Quote from: roseredI hope this helps and is not laughed at .. I feel like a first grader in a collage level class here .. :mblush:
Awwww, rosered, just because Doc can be snippity at times and I can be long-winded and vague doesn't mean were 'college level'!!
We're just like you, searching to know better the God we love so much by studying His precious Words.
Quote from: roseredI looked for this form of vanity for this verse,because there is different words for vain/ vanity .
Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,
and it is
G3153 - mataiotēs
1) what is devoid of truth and appropriateness
2) perverseness, depravity
3) frailty, want of vigour
the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God
this world also hates God /and His son Jesus Christ
this world we must overcome though Jesus Christ who is in you when you are born from His Holy Spirit /above the world
1Jo 2:16 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.
we learn not to blashpeme /lie against the Truth
and the Lord God in His mercy and longsuffering wait till we do , learn it
by experience
Yes! Good research.
Indeed, through Him we are more than over-comers... We are conquerors of this world's hold on us which is through Sin!
Experience is a good teacher, especially for those who truly love righteousness which is nothing more than doing what we know is right. And those who love righteousness love God. So certainly these ones will learn quickly from their experiences so that they sin less and less and do good more and more!
Quote from: roseredhope this makes some kinda sense to you all ,
I know we are only accountable for what we get or have from the Lord and those who got nothing in this life are not accountable
Yes I agree. One of my favorite proverbs is 24:12 If you say, "Behold, we did not know this!" Does not He Who weighs and ponders the heart perceive and consider it? And He Who guards your life, does not He know it? And shall not He render to everyone according to his works?
Quote from: roseredI also believe that this short time on the earth if it be 70 years or more is nothing compared to what we will still be learning when this part is over and done with
Now that is a time that I truly look forward to!
Quote from: roseredjust some simple things I have considered , I am not the deep thinker as some are on this forum , but am so grateful to God for them all .
rosered, I can tell that you are a very thoughtful woman and that you know your God well. So you keep on thinking about Him and Loving Him and He will give you understanding.
Besides, 'deep-thinkers' sometimes drown in their own thoughts, don'tcha know?
Quote from: roseredThanks for listening :happy3:
:HeartThrob: rose
Hey, I'm the one honored to read your replies! Chime in anytime you feel like it rosered. I'd personally love to hear what you have to say!
Be good!
Dennis!
Wow thank you Bro D ,
I do appreciate your reply
and good thoughts !
this that bro Paul
speaks of has blessed me so much
Romans 5 1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: :thumbsup:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein
we stand, and
rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:3 And not only [so], but we
glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation works patience; Rom 5:4 And
patience, experience; and experience, hope:
Rom 5:5
And hope makes not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. its all good :icon_flower:
you be good too now Dennis , ya hear lol.. :winkgrin:
God Bless ya :HeartThrob: rose
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 01, 2009, 11:17:24 PM
Doc!
I love you, man!
This is good stuff here! Good questions, good conclusions, good challenges!
Thank you. And thank you also for not taking my perceptions of your motives personally. Accept, if you will, my apologies for that.
I'm off to ponder and will reply as soon as I can.
Blessings to you as well!
Dennis!
No problem.
Also, somehow I left out this quote to comment on in my previous replies:
"That is why, when arguing from the King James English
you will never arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to which is the 'truth'; for these two points of view contradict each other. And contradiction is unsolvable as long as the axioms remain unchanged."
I'm unclear if this is a general "you" or a specific "you", but as I've said before, I don't argue from the King James English. All of my scripture quotations are from the CLV. Be that as it may...
Quote from: Doc on October 02, 2009, 04:26:06 AM
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 01, 2009, 11:17:24 PM
Doc!
I love you, man!
This is good stuff here! Good questions, good conclusions, good challenges!
Thank you. And thank you also for not taking my perceptions of your motives personally. Accept, if you will, my apologies for that.
I'm off to ponder and will reply as soon as I can.
Blessings to you as well!
Dennis!
No problem.
Also, somehow I left out this quote to comment on in my previous replies:
"That is why, when arguing from the King James English you will never arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to which is the 'truth'; for these two points of view contradict each other. And contradiction is unsolvable as long as the axioms remain unchanged."
I'm unclear if this is a general "you" or a specific "you", but as I've said before, I don't argue from the King James English. All of my scripture quotations are from the CLV. Be that as it may...
In context it was the general 'you'. Should have said, "...King James English
one will never..."
I am known as someone who massacres the King's English... :laughing7:
Dennis!
This is mostly a copy of something I posted a while back, though it may have been changed a little. As soon as I read page 2 and 3 I'll try to share more about the perspective I have had, at least for a while, knowing I'm ready for change when light increases...
___________________________________
The Two Shall Be One
A similar image found many places in scripture concerns successive levels of holiness, of entrance into the Divine and stages of development. At the start of "In Beginning," or, "Genesis" there is in the world an Eden (Lit., "pleasure") land that has a garden sanctuary which at it's center has two trees. In the world there is an Israel land that has a Jerusalem city which has at it's heart a mountain (representing a kingdom) called Zion. Similar is the outer court (30 fold,) holy place (60 fold,) and the holy of holies (100 fold.) Just as there are two cherubim, a cherub and a cheruba, in the innermost of the temple so there are two trees in the midst of the sanctuary in Eden. Male humans (cherubs?)have an x and a y chromosome; as one tree is a duality, good and evil; so also of the two basic forces not nuclear one which encompasses light is electromagnetism having polarity, positive and negative. Females (cherubas?) have double y chromosomes; as the other tree is a singularity, life; so also the other non-nuclear basic force is unitive, gravity.
From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil many repudiate the evil from their God knowledge. How about the good? Would you walk into incorruptible immortality in the next half an hour if you knew how? Where is our freedom to will it or to choose it that we could demonstrate this aspect of the real nature of Christ to which we are connected? So, why don't we know how? Jesus has opened the door and no man can shut it. Others have entered into things pertaining to it and God is no respecter of persons. I can't at this moment, but in sample experiences, obtain the body of resurrected glory. I can't accuse God of unfairness. I just don't qualify. That is no different than qualifying to be slain by Him who both wounds and heals, kills and makes alive. Each of us walks around with a glory cloud by our head that we can reach up into and a sucking whirlpool at our feet that we can with one step fall into destruction. Don't imagine you can keep an insipid balance. God gives spirit things that push us farther than our own self control would let us go.
There are times when the sword of the Spirit cuts into the flesh to bring forth the certainty of absolute grace and grace alone. Then another time it may be we are incited to good works while it is yet day. The living and active word of God is to accomplish His purposes in achieving His goal of reproducing His Image and Likeness in us. What may be needed today is abandonment to God and His Sovereignty. Tomorrow it is our personal responsibility that is emphasized. It is a two-mouthed sword. The point is Jesus.
Of the two trees some propose not eating of the tree of good and evil and to choose life instead. Hence, we have also exercised ourselves to not think thoughts of duality, only one-ing awareness. In Psalm 63, having gone progressively out through the thirsty soul into the craving of the flesh, "In land arid and faint, without water," Elohim, His strength and glory, is envisioned in the Sanctuary. The place where David (Lit., "Beloved," [60 fold]) says, "In the shadow of your wings shall I be jubilant" would be under where the wings of the Churubim "kiss" called the Mercy Throne. From there he expects those who would ruin his soul to be removed. (Grace, Greek, "charis" is "the result of being fulfilled," the result of the need having been met.) Mercy is "chesed," a desire to meet the need, meaning, "The ardor to fulfill whatever is lacking." It is God's covenantal love in action. It is His throne upon which the Glory rests. Overcomers are there. A line in the song (63) says, "Your Mercy (chesed) is better than life."
The reason she says, "our bed is green" (SS 1:16 ) is because they lie beneath the trees in the midst of the garden. "...the mature...because of habit, have faculties (senses) exercised toward discriminating beside good and evil." (Heb 5:14) Beside (the tree of)good and evil is (the tree of) life; but also there is a fountain, because the water that flows downhill, which divided into four heads of rivers, came forth from the midst of the holiest between the two trees flowing down the mountain (kingdom) at the center. This was as the Shekinah between the two Cherubim. It is something "better than life." The two trees are made things closest to the river flowing out of the innermost. Wherever the river flowed, everything lives. The Cherubim represent the sons of God in their priestly aspect which is how they rule. Priests are intercessors. They define the boundaries. By not guarding the holy places Adam was cast out and His ministry was exercised by Cherubim until the time appointed of the Father for the unveiling of the mature sons to reign. We are of a place beyond good and evil and better than life. It is beyond my will and His will duality and also better than singular Sovereignty. There is an invitation going out to come into the feast of the Lamb's marriage. The animal aspect will be raised to partake of permanent life, the full placing of the physical into inheriting the authority of being born out of the house of God, to be exercised in the name of Jesus over all things.
"There is a river, that flows from deep within.
There is a fountain, that cleanses from all sin.
Come to the ocean, there is a vast supply.
Drink of the river, that never will run dry."
---James Rohde
OK! Here we go!
Quote from: Doc on October 01, 2009, 10:13:57 PM
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 01, 2009, 08:31:46 PM
For I perceive that you did answer my two questions concerning Romans 8:21-22, just not directly.
You said that you don't think it matters 'at the end of the day when creation was subjected to vanity'. And that means that you know it does...
And this you say, now, because you foreknow that if you answer 'after the fall' that I will then say that Jehovah had to subject His creation to vanity, against it's 'will', because of the turning of The Adam; meaning that it was never Jehovah's intention, from the beginning, to have to subject His creation to vanity.
Well, no. I said it because after thinking about it, I realized that when the creation was subjected to vanity doesn't really answer the question of foreknowledge conclusively. When might give some evidence one way or another, but subjection to vanity at the fall or post-fall would not be conclusive proof of lack of foreknowledge of the event. In other words, If God subjected the creation to vanity at the time of the fall or later, that in and of itself does not preclude the possibility that He knew in advance it would happen. Still though is does provide some circumstantial proof.
I'm tracking here with you... Consider this: There is an understanding in American jurisprudence that allows the court to consider the actions of an individual as a whole, rather than just having to consider them individually, in order to determine if the individual is guilty of the offence they are charged with.
In other words, if the individual actions fall into a progressive time line and each action seems to build on another, leading to a specific goal, even if the actions themselves, separated into individual components, might be disproven as evidence for being so isolated, then it is assumed that there was intent on the part of the accused.
For instance Timothy McVie buying a lot of fertilizer, some electronics, some wire, renting a truck far from where he lived, etc, would lead one to conclude that he
intended to turn a truck into a bomb; even if each act, separated from the whole, might be 'explained away'. Therefore, this 'preponderance of evidence' is not ignored.
There is a preponderance of evidence that demonstrates that Jehovah did not 'foreknow' the Turning,
as a fact.
Of course,
when He subjected the creation to vanity is one item, even the fact that it became necessary for Him to do it; just as you said it "might give some evidence" and that it "does provide some circumstantial proof."
The presence of the Tree of Life, as a part of the original creation, is another for His having to
stop their access to that very Tree (Gen 3:22-read the footnote (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%203:22&version=AMP)).
The fact that Death came to all (which Death is what Jesus came to conquer) and thus a future evaluation of all humanity is another for the scripture declaring that the
aionios fire, into which sentenced humans will go at Jesus'
epiphaneia (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2015&t=KJV), was prepared for The Satan and his messengers,
not for humans (Matt 25:41).
The scripture that declares the earth wasn't created to be a worthless waste but to be inhabited (Isa 45:18) but yet that is what it has became (Gen 1:2 & 7:4, Isa 51:6)
often.
And then there is all the scriptures that declare that there is, on its way, a New Heaven and a New Earth (Isa 65:7, 66:22 2 Pet 3:5-13 Rev 21:1) despite the Psalm (78:69) that declares the earth was founded or established olam 'for the ages'.
Now, I recognize that in many human minds the creation of a New Heaven and its New Earth is the culmination of His "Plan A", as you call it, Doc, that began in the Garden.
I list it here among 'the other things' to illustrate that a whole new re-creation where righteousness dwells (2 Pet 3:13) could have been made necessary by the
disruption of the world. For in the very fact that the world was disrupted, no matter when you think that was, lies the unspoken conclusion that
something didn't happen that was supposed to.
So, I assume, axiomatically, that He originally intended, for there to be righteousness dwelling in
this earth through all the completed humans that would descend from The Adam, after he/she gained their own completion, that is, their virtue, by
passing the test,
not failing it (More on that later).
For as "...Sin entered the world through one 'man'", The Adam, I think it logical and correct to conclude that, because sex was given to them
before the Turning, Righteousness could also have entered the world through this one pair of humans, The Adam; even as it
later did through The Man from Heaven, Jesus Christ, Who came to restore ALL things to The Father
And that restoration began when Jesus accomplished the forgiveness of all sins at the cross allowing Him to
then do what couldn't be done before, create a
new human inside of us that is re-sired by Jehovah Himself so that we can begin to do what we could not do ourselves because of the Turning, specifically,
stop sinning! And
start growing into righteousness by having our mind metamorphasized into the mind of Christ!
And that is why I think it is not only logical but
correct to assume that Righteousness could have come into the world through The Adam just as Sin did. Because the end result is the same,
righteous humans!
As an aside note I will tell you, Doc, of truth that I came to this conclusion I made above, as well as many others, a
long time before I found out that
katabole means 'disruption', not 'foundation'.
In fact, when I discovered that
katabole means 'disruption', there was a
massive *clicking* in my mind as things came together in an excited rush because of
everything else I had concluded long before I found out the truth about Rev 13:8 & 17:8.
And that truth is that the lambkin was destined to be slain from the disruption of the world (remember Peter's declaring it was by the specific counsel of God that Jesus was given up) for our sins and that the names of all the humans that
come to belong to Him are being recorded in a unique scroll kept from the disruption of the world right into the present; a scroll that belongs to the lambkin and began its existence...
blank. Here is a discussion (http://tmbhotbuttons.blogspot.com/2007/09/as-requested-did-god-know.html) I started elsewhere about that very thing. And if you read it through it will introduce you to some other conclusions I drew just before I found out the truth about
katabole.
One more item in the preponderance of evidence is that, according to Isa 51:4-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa%2051&version=AMP), the Heavens will disappear like smoke and the Earth will
wear out with use (can anyone say "
entropy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entropy)"?) and that this is in the context of Jehovah
preparing to bring salvation and
permanent righteousness to His people, the ones with His law and His instruction
in their hearts and to destroy the rest in a manner similar to what Jesus described.
However, even if any one item is removed from my above list, there is still a preponderance of evidence to deal with.
Quote from: DocThe only conclusive evidence of foreknowledge specifically of the fall would be if we could clearly show that He had subjected the creation to vanity before the fall.
I agree.
Quote from: DocHowever, His actually doing that wouldn't make any sense. We don't make advance plans then carry them out before the time they're supposed to happen. Our advance plans include the time frame for when the plans will be carried out. I hope I was clear enough for your understanding in making this point.
Yes. Your point has been understood by me from the middle of our exchanges; specifically that Jehovah
planned both the fall and the rescue because this is the
only way for Him to accomplish His goal of making Himself ALL and in ALL, through Jesus Christ. And it's thought by you that this
must be the only way to do this simply because it happened this way!
This idea is not something new to me even as I tried, earlier, for your finally using the word 'planned', to illustrate this thought into absurdity by taking it to its logical conclusion. The logic was sound, even if its conclusion is unappealing for being absurd; and that absurdity is because the conclusion is not an accurate reflection of reality; just as you said, "I am not an automaton." And I agree because neither am I.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisOr else *shudder* it was His intention, all along, to subject it to vanity, just so He could 'set it free'. Which would then beg the question why didn't He just create us 'subject to vanity' right off the bat? And it's not a pleasant thought to try and answer that question while still insisting that God is agape.
I think we have both tried unsuccessfully to show that the other is unwilling to accept certain notions about God and His plans for the universe. I have said this in other contexts before, but how would we know objectively what good was if we did not know evil?...
I could equally ask, "How would we know objectively, what evil was if we did not know good?"
But that thought seems bassakward to us! Why? Because we are born
turned away from God!
But, if we were born as good humans, turned
toward God, right out of the womb, rather than bad, from that point of view the question, as you asked it, would be the one thought to be assbackward!
Quote from: DocI maintain that God had a plan which included a pre-planned or at least foreknown element of needing to subject His creation to vanity so that we could learn what needed to be learned. God is writing a great story, His story of the universe. You can't have a good story without a protagonist, and antagonist and some tension built into it. In order for God to create this story, and for it to be a good story, God needed to include these elements! He didn't just subject us to vanity right off the bat, because that would've had much the same (but opposite) effect in the big overarching picture as never subjecting us to vanity at all. Remember, according to Isaiah, God creates both peace and evil. Nothing that has been made has been made except by Him.
I've read this idea before elsewhere. I think it was that guy who wrote about "Ultimate Responsibility" that I mentioned in my last reply to Molly. I'm not sure, I just know I've read it before.
So, your axiomatic truth, then, is that God is writing a story in the same way a human would write a
good novel, with a Protagonist, an antagonist and some tension built into it-
except He gets to use real humans, not imaginary ones. And so these
real humans cannot help but go through what He is 'writing' for them to go through, which you call 'learning what we needed to learn'. Nice Father, this God.
No offense, Doc, but your right; that just doesn't work for me: I
am unwilling to accept that notion.
However just to entertain the notion I will take what you say and draw a logical conclusion by asking a question: Why couldn't my notion be equally valid? After all you did say:
Quote from: Doc...how would we know objectively what good was if we did not know evil?
At least with my notion there was
once a chance to 'get it right the first time', to know what good was, first and thus know of
evil, objectively, without Him having to 'create all the evil' that is, 'write in' all the thefts and destruction and beatings and selfishness and Communism and Liberalism and Conservatism and murders and rapes and abortions and Governments and accidents and pornography and sexual deviance and dismemberments and Hollywood and birth defects and wars and sickness and poverty and Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism and Jainism and Sikhism and disease and hunger and CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and Fox 'news' and torture and despotism and oppression and violence and child neglect and child abuse and child pornography and... all manner of evil, even inventing new ones for us to learn from.
It is truly an epic
horror story He's writing here for us to 'learn' in.
At least it's got a happy ending; Jesus (*gulp*) gets the Girl.
So, now I guess we know why it's a good thing that the former things won't be remembered.
He gets to 'wipe His slate clean'. I wonder what His next novel will be like?
Doc, this quote you referenced from Isaiah is in the context of Jehovah appointing Cyrus the Persian to be a human by which He would, for the benefit of Israel, show a world
already gone astray, a world disrupted, a world that knew not its Creator, that He is their God
also!
For through Cyrus the decree would come to rebuild the Temple and the captives of Israel were set free exactly as Jehovah said would happen, "without price or reward."
Jehovah does
not create evil so that good may come, as you are suggesting, God Forbid! He is speaking here of the peace and '
not peace' or the
adversity* that He brings into a world of evil humans to cause these rebellious idolaters to remember that He is their Creator!
In other words, because we are turned away from God to worship idols, whether they be idols of stone, gold, wood, etc. or American Idols, it becomes Jehovah's agape that He, in his forbearance and Grace, does what He can to get humans to even just
acknowledge His existence!
And so it is not wrong for Him to bring adversity to those who won't even acknowledge Him and peace to those who do! For in that aion, before Jesus accomplished the forgivness of sins, there wasn't much
else He could do except 'punish'. And as He found out, even that becomes ineffective after a while; just as anyone with rebellious teens will attest to.
Therefore, it is very,
very misleading, even as you have been mislead, to translate this Hebrew word here with our word 'evil'. And that is exactly why that bastard Calvin did it so He could use it to support his evil theology.
O LORD, My God! When will all of the evil thoughts of Augustine and Calvin be purged from our minds?
Like I said, it's not a pleasant thing to have to answer that question while still insisting that God is agape.
*It is true that the Hebrew word
Rah can be translated with 'evil'. But, like all Hebrew words with a multitude of uses, the
meaning intended is derived from the context. Here, in
Isaiah 45:7 it is used as a noun in a parallelism of 'light' (by which we perceive) and 'darkness' (which prevents perception) and 'peace' and '
the opposite of peace' which is 'adversity', a valid and much more accurate translation for this word,
in this place (Eccl 7:14).
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisJust like His creating the Tree of Life and putting it in the Garden becomes a superfluous act of creation if it is a truth that He knew, as a fact, that the Adam was going to turn before He created them; superfluous for His foreknowing, also, that He would be having to banish them from it.
And so when creation was subjected to vanity, against it's 'will', (for that was your point), does bear on the question of whether or not Jehovah 'foreknew' their turning as a fact before it happened, just like the mere presence of the Tree of Life argues against it. Otherwise you would not have brought this quote into a discussion on the question of whether God foreknew the future as a fact and thus predestined all to their individual fates!
Not necessarily. As I've pointed out, yes it does potentially bear on the question, but doesn't conclusively answer it. The Tree of Life and its placement was not superfluous in any case;...
No. That is not correct. The only way its presence could
not be superfluous is if He
never intended to have to ban them from it!
In other words, The Tree of Life was to be a part of what
didn't happen; even as the word 'disruption' implies something that was supposed to happen but did not.
Quote from: Docnothing God does is superfluous...
Exactly!
Quote from: Doc...except in our flawed understanding of why He's done certain things.
I couldn't argree more!
So, who's understanding is flawed? Mine or yours? Or are
both our understandings flawed and neither one of us understands, with the correct understanding being beyond our grasp?
Or are you referring to the depraved mind John Calvin says we all have that keeps us from understanding the 'mystery' (stupidity) of
his idea of 'predestination'?
Which idea begs the question; because Calvin
also is a depraved human, by his own definition, why is he so sure that what he thinks of God is the truth? Why isn't what he thinks of God, which is from a depraved mind, namely his, also a depraved thought and therefore,
not the truth?
Of course the answer is that what He thinks of God is, indeed,
not the truth.
For The Words declare that we
can know Him even as Jesus said that He came to show us The Father and even as Paul said:
For who knew the mind of the Lord? Who will be deducing from Him?
Yet we have the mind of Christ!
END OF PART ONE
PART TWO
Quote from: DocOne could also ask why He placed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil unless he planned for them to eat of it.
My point exactly. He
did plan on them eating from it- but with
His permission. And that would be granted after the temptation to become like God,
apart from Him, was refused.
As an aside note, it was CS Lewis in
The Magician's Nephew that planted this seed thought in me over 20 years ago.
Quote from: DocIf he really intended for things to go as you have suggested (especially without the benefit of foreknowledge), then why place Adam in a position where they could be tempted, deceived and caused to fall? Your answer would probably be, to give them an opportunity to exercise a choice, which is not necessarily a wrong answer, just an incomplete one.
Well, you are beginning to grasp what I am saying because you're almost right about my answer. We've come a long way, Doc, thanks.
This then is my complete answer to your very good question:
"The reason why God placed The Adam in a position where they could be tempted, deceived and
possibly turned was to give them the opportunity to acquire virtue through
trusting the Word of Jehovah (exactly like He still asks us to do) and refusing to gain the wisdom of God
apart from Him. And so, for them acquiring His wisdom, by eating the fruit, knowing they were going against Him, even as He said they
have become like Us for acquiring this knowledge of Good and Evil, He had to stop them from going further into aionian life because something that was supposed to happen didn't. Namely, they failed to grasp virtue
first and thus His good intentions for them were disrupted."
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisI perceive that there are two erroneous assumptions you are making here, Doc.
The first is that I'm trying to prove to you my contentions; that I'm trying to 'solve a problem' for you by convincing you to see things my way, when it's obvious that you don't want me to because you don't see what you believe as a problem!
You've already decided what you want to believe...
Perceptions are funny things. I'm not assuming that you are attempting to prove your contentions, nor have I already decided what I want to believe. I speak from my current understanding, but that does not mean my understanding will not change. It has changed many times already. Perhaps you are the one making incorrect assumptions about me. :dontknow:
You are right. And so I again offer to you my apologies for any misperceptions I typed from. And thank you for setting me straight. I will keep these things you said about yourself in mind as we continue to interact.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisAs I said to you before, I appreciate the fact that it will require a paradigm shift in your heart of thoughts before you will be able to perceive and appreciate what I am presenting here.
And paradigm shifting is beyond my abilities...
Well, I'm doing my best, but it's clear that I haven't produced enough of a challenge for you as yet.
HA! So you say! I'll admit here that you had me a bit anxious when I first read that serpent thingy! And know that all of my replies to you require a lot of research and thinking to type out-stuff I wouldn't be doing if you weren't hanging with me! So keep trying!
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisThe second thing that is erroneous is that you are assuming I am arguing for 'free-will' simply because I am arguing against Predestination. I can understand that, given what you've been taught to believe...
...'Free-will' and 'predestination' are two sides of the same coin. And that coin is a counterfeit one...
Well, as I can see from having read part 1, I now understand that you are not arguing for free-will. On to part two then...
Nor am I arguing for that peculiar predestination that Calvin misconceived!
Quote from: Doc on October 01, 2009, 10:41:15 PM
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 01, 2009, 08:32:58 PM
So here in Romans 7:1 he begins to present his case to the ones who both had and understood the Mosaic Law. Specifically he was arguing to prove that the law had no power to stop a human from sinning. In fact, because of the law it was even more difficult to deal with Sin because now through the law you are aware of exactly what Sin is!...
...So Grace, which is God forbearing our sins while He works out His plan to restore us to Himself, with the full council of His plurality, gained after the disruption of the world, is what will free us from Sin; for it was Grace that sent Jesus to accomplish the needed forgiveness of sins when, we, through faith, are re-sired through spirit,...
The only thing I need to insert here is that we were forgiven of sin at the cross, not when we are re-sired through spirit. Freedom from sin however, requires "re-siring" as you put it (that's salvation).
I agree. The distinction is a very important one and so I will ensure that that this distinction is made clear, from this point on, when I reason with others. Thank you for pointing that out.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisDoc, I say this to you boldly: If you are going to grasp the truth of Romans 7 and 8 you must quit reading The Words peripherally, looking for 'spiritual' understanding and grasp the literal understanding Paul is presenting here of the before and after states of every human: Before his/her re-birth and after his/her re-birth.
Before the re-birth Sin made it's home in all humans, Jew and Gentile alike, because of The Adam's turning.
This is not what was supposed to have happened!
They were supposed to gain virtue by refusing to gain a conscience illicitly that is, by trusting Jehovah and refusing the offer to become fully like God-apart from God- a thing impossible to do anyway, as The Satan found out.
How could they have gained more virtue than they already had? Sin and the resulting death had not been introduced into the world yet. What need would they have had for conscience without knowledge of good and evil? It was a fall, remember; not from a perfect state, but from a good state.
Again I've heard this before, actually in a conversation I had once with some UR minded folk.
However, before I answer I need to correct this point first. A
conscience is knowing the difference between good and evil.
And so, as I said earlier, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could also be called the Tree of Conscience.
Therefore, it is logical to asssume that if the fruit of this tree was intended to impart a conscience to them then it follows that they were not originally created with a conscience.
Now, part of the temptation to turn was the spoken truth that this tree would make one
like God, that is
wise. And God confirmed that this was the truth when He said, while still in that counsel session Peter referred to, "Perceive! They have become like One of Us
knowing the difference between good and evil." or "...they have become like One of Us for aquiring a conscience."
So, true innocence would be defined as
not knowing the difference between good and evil.
Therefore, I agree that they were in a 'good' but
neutral state. An aware existence that we cannot truly comprehend for our having in us a conscience informing us of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong.
Therefore I agree with you that they were incomplete, that is not perfect
ed.
Jesus said to the Jews which knew the law: "You be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." That word perfect is the Greek word
teleios and it means 'to be brought to completion'.
Now, with that said, I can answer your first question:
Quote from: DocHow could they have gained more virtue than they already had?
My answer is that, at this point, they had no virtue
at all because they were neutral or truly innocent for not having a conscience,
yet. Virtue needed to be gained, first. And virtue is not quantitative: You can't be more or less virtuous or have less or more virtue, by the very definition of
virtue.
You either are virtuous or you are not.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisAnd so the conscience we now have is weak to keep us from Sin because Sin which has made it's home in us keeps us sinning, whether we know it or not; and even when we don't want to for being aware of it. We sin because we try to impulsively satisfy our bodies desires for food, shelter, sex, power over our destiny and a comfortable life all of which cause harm to not only ourselves, for this impulsive behaviour, but harms others as well, even the innocent. Truly a vain pursuit!...
...We are not free from sin. That is the problem! And that is why the creation was subject to vanity, without it's consent, when The Adam turned, so that we humans would know that we are not free to do as we damm well please! But are, instead, slaves to our impulses.
Because the only choice we have to make through our so called 'free-will ' is to sin, some more than others and to keep refusing the pull of the spirit of God, Who is dragging all humans to 'the foot of the cross' so they will come to realize their need for His forgiveness.
Some are brought there willingly and gladly through the heralding of the Gospel, these are the firstfruits as Paul called us. For those who sin less than others are foreknown to God for His constantly searching the hearts of men through spirit.
Thus he finds those, in each generation- in each new 'crop' of humans, so to speak, who recognize the purpose of a conscience in us as well as understanding God's righteousness through their interactions with others and through what is known of God by what He created. As well as perceiving the futility of our trying to be good that comes with this realization for living in a creation subject to vanity.
Exactly. We are either slaves to sin or to Christ. And we can only refuse the pull of the spirit of God for so long.
See! I'm not
quite the loony after all!
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisThese are the ones who come to love the God they know this way and thus love righteousness in their inner man as Paul said:
For I am gratified with the law of God as to the man within,..
And these ones of whom He is aware before He designates beforehand to receive His justification even as Paul said:
Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also.
Does not designation beforehand require foreknowledge?
Yes it does. However the real question to ask in order to gain understanding, is, "What did the original writers mean for using the word
proginosko or 'to know before'?" In other words, "What is it
exactly that the original writers said Jehovah knows before?" And it is not the future, as a fact.
Did you read through all of that three-part post I made?
Because with a whole bunch of words I systematically argued that Calvin's idea of
proginosko- which is, by unwitting assimilation, also
your idea of
proginosko, Doc-specifically that Jehovah knows the future, as a fact, is not the truth.
Jehovah searches human hearts through spirit. And with this knowledge gained, simultaneously, of each and every individual human He can, 'know before', what any
one human will and won't do given the 'right' (or 'wrong') circumstances
and what they are capable of doing; whether that be responding to the Gospel or suicidally crashing jet airplanes, loaded with human beings, into tall buildings, also filled with human beings, thus killing thousands at one time from an evil sense of 'righteousness'.
In other words, for knowing all human hearts, intimately and simultaneously, Jehovah can gain knowledge of the
immediate and
possible future.
And it is
this idea for
proginosko that is in full agreement with His giving human beings room to repent; for often enough they may actually surprise Him and change their hearts and thus receive His mercy for their act of repentance.
It is
Calvin's idea of 'foreknow' that is in contradiction to Jehovah actually being recorded as giving humans room to repent because it is logically absurd for Jehovah to even
consider offering this so- called, 'room for repentance' if it is a truth that He 'foreknows' the future, that is,
as a fact.In other words Calvin's God is an absurd God and baloney will always be baloney no matter how you slice it.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisNow not everyone will be of the firstfruits for some will be dragged 'to the foot of the cross' through having to be evaluated, in the Day of Evaluation as needing to be brought to justice first and thus be destroyed as their spirits are purified of dross by unquenchable, holy fire, before they can receive His forgiveness and be restored to God through Jesus who is praised forever and worthy to receive the reward for His suffering!!! US!!
Agreed.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisAnd it is exactly this way also for those covenanted ones who have the Mosaic Law. Because all the law can do is develop in us a keen awareness of Sin, not stop us from sinning.
And that is because a conscience needs spirit to be the powerful living thing it was intended to be in us.
Nothing in particular to disagree with here.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisThat is something we would have had now, had the world not been disrupted when The Adam gained a conscience before They gained virtue. Even as we have exactly that now through faith; a clean and powerful conscience gained through the rebirth of spirit and that through faith in Jesus the Christ who gave Himself that He might free us from Sin and thus deliver us from Death- not 'came to save us from hell' or 'came to save us so we could go to heaven' or 'came to save us to be His Bride'- but to complete in us what was left uncompleted, so long ago the Garden, by manumitting us from Sin to live lives of righteousness even as He is righteous; a thing once impossible before, but, now, made possible even as Jesus said in context: "All things are possible with God." Halleluiah!!
And that is why Jesus said you must be begotten anew, of spirit, before you can perceive the kingdom of God.
This is where I'm not really tracking with you. You seem to be suggesting that Adam was incomplete in the Garden (The incompleteness I don't particularly disagree with in and of itself) because they gained conscience before virtue. But I ask again, what virtue did they not already have before the fall that they would not have needed a fall to gain? God called all He created, "good".
Blessings,
Doc
Everything I've written, up to this point has been to give you, Doc, the ability to answer your own question:
Quote from: Doc...what virtue did they not already have before the fall that they would not have needed a fall to gain?
From
my understanding.
So, now I'm going to ask some questions for you to ponder.
The first is to ask: "Why
exactly is God virtuous?"
The next is to ask: "Can
any being be virtuous that does not also have a
genuine choice to
not be virtuous?"
And the last is to ask the question that I imagined God asked Himself: "How can I (God) create a virtuous human?"
Keep on being good Doc, even as you were created to be!
Dennis!
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 03, 2009, 10:07:37 PM
OK! Here we go!
END OF PART ONE
Well, I see what I consider a major problem with this understanding of things so far. It carries with it the underlying assumption (I believe it to be an unrecognized assumption) that God can make mistakes.
So to my mind, the only way that God could not have foreknown that the fall would happen is if He can actually make mistakes. God could have chosen to make us perfect to begin with, but He did not. The only thing I can logically conclude from this is that God had a plan which at the very least included a contingency for something going awry. Satan, in some form was already in existence; Both trees were placed in the garden. An instruction was given not to eat of ToKoGaE. You have explained its presence by stating that God
did intend for them to eat from it at the appropriate time. The problem is that this is an argument from silence/ ignorance. There is no scriptural evidence (in Genesis, at least) that God ever intended for them to eat of it under any circumstances. We hear only of the presence of the tree of life in the context of Adam post fall being barred from it, but no instruction on what they were to have done with it previously. I am therefore led to the conclusion that your explanation of why the ToKoGaE was placed in the garden is a stretch. We know that both trees were intentionally placed there. The only thing we aren't told is why. The simplest explanation is that God planned for Adam to fall, because He could have easily prevented it by simply not placing the offending tree there. Remember, this story is about God and his glory, not ours. He will share that glory with no one. If we could have brought about righteousness by our obedience, then the glory would be ours, not God's.
Are you aware of the distinction between God's stated will (thelo) and his ultimate intention (boulemai)? Many things go (for a time) against God's stated will, yet ultimately work toward his ultimate intention.
A contextual case can be made for how the word Ra should be translated as calamity, etc. in that Isaiah passage, but there are other places where God is spoken of as doing similar things. All of them cannot be explained away so easily as, "well, it's our fault." Ra can be translated as many different things, but the two most common are bad and evil. God has, and has taken, the ultimate responsibility for His creation, and I conclude from that that He is in fact ultimately responsible. We can be held
accountable for our individual actions, but God has made it clear that His is the ultimate
responsibility.
How can all those bad things happen you ask? Well, that's a question many of us wrestle with, but there is a purpose in all of it, or God wouldn't allow it. The present suffering will be nothing in light of the weight of aionian glory.
Don't mean to butt in but just had to say AMEN Doc. :thumbsup:
CHB
I'll admit I pieced together some previous writings to make this post. Though it is future looking, it clarifies the nature of God our foundation. There's not only what was and is, but also what will be. To understand where we're headed facilitates that purpose being put into effect now.
_______________________________
Everything immersed and filled with the Holy Spirit will be and do perfectly by nature so need not be subject to anything but are free. There is then no more Ruler. All will be gathered together into one and re-headed with Christ.
In this revelation, Paul by the Holy Spirit says, (1 Co 15:24 CLV): "...thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power." While it continues, going into, "...placing all His enemies under His feet," I am certain that it is not only enemy sovereignty, enemy authority and power that are in view, though that is included. What we are coming to is where there is no sovereignty but the many membered Son in Whom we will fully be and Who will fully be in us. We are coming to where there is no authority and power except the many membered Son Himself and we are in total union with Him. This entity will subject all to itself. Then He gives "up the kingdom to His God and Father." "...that God may be All in all" (vs. 28)
When, "The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea" (Hab 2:14) and it is fulfilled, that He has, "...ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things" (Eph 4:10), then everything will by nature be perfect and will freely do everything perfectly. With all existing completely filled with God and immersed in God, nothing will have to rule and nothing will need to be instructed or ruled over in the "glorious liberty" that is opened already in the ascended Jesus. Paul in Romans 8 includes all creation in this "glorious feedom of the children of God." This freedom is why "every sovereignty and every authority and power" has to be eliminated, even that of The Sonship Realm. Sovereignty, authority and [it's] power imply something external to another, subject to another. This will cease in the Absolute Liberty inherent in Total Oneness.
So many caught up all their lives in being an audience for a few professionals seem incapable of understanding "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." For what else would they want liberty? The very idea of personal freedom is something that research suggests was brought to the world by Jesus. Yet it remains something difficult to comprehend by many people even today. They seem to only hear descriptions of freedom as rebellion or anarchy. Jesus as head of the church, while preventing any other among us from being over us, seems to disappear into a vacuum in some believers heads.
In the longest passage quoted in Greek from the Hebrew God says His new covenant "will not be like that when I took you by the hand and lead you out of Egypt." Yet people almost 3,000 years later are still singing, "Precious Lord, take my hand; lead me on, let me stand..." The NEW covenant is not "new" as in different so much as it has the continual quality of "newness," or, "young." That's why it can't be in external writings. It is of life in immediacy. No more being bossed around, even by God. It is something written in our hearts and minds; meaning, we know and understand within ourselves the will of God, delighting in it with our own hearts, choosing it without being told to. We become one with Him. Not leadings!!! But, beings!!!
According to Ephesians 1:9-11 "...the secret of His will (in accord with His delight, which He purposed in Him)" (vs.9) is, "To head up THE ALL in the Christ." (vs.10) When all has been subjected to Him it is important to continue on into the manifestation of God as God has made known in, "...saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is OUTSIDE OF HIM Who subjects all to Him." (1 Co 15:28) Therefore, subsequently He must give "up the kingdom to His God and Father" (vs.28) because nothing will remain outside Him. For a Royal Priesthood to be reigning over others there must be a subjecting of those beneath and external to who rules. This must cease when consumed by God. With no kingdom there can be no royalty, no kings. Priestly intercession is between two; but, the two must be made one. Intercession defines boundaries that must not prevail against the consummation. Of necessity there can be no more Royal Priesthood because of the freedom of the glory! "Whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him," and it is so, '...that God may be All in all" (1 Co 15:28) which is "INWARDLY AND OUTWARDLY: THE DEIFICATION OF EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE."
PERFECT EVERYTHING!!!
TOTAL LIBERTY!!!
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 03, 2009, 10:14:05 PM
PART TWO
From my understanding.
So, now I'm going to ask some questions for you to ponder.
The first is to ask: "Why exactly is God virtuous?"
The next is to ask: "Can any being be virtuous that does not also have a genuine choice to not be virtuous?"
And the last is to ask the question that I imagined God asked Himself: "How can I (God) create a virtuous human?"
Keep on being good Doc, even as you were created to be!
Dennis!
1)God is "virtuous" by nature. For example, He IS love. If God ever ceased to be virtuous, then He would cease to be God and then cease to exist; so 2) He does not have a choice not to be virtuous.
3)God could theoretically create humans however He wanted to.
A couple of specific points I felt I needed to add/ address.
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 03, 2009, 10:14:05 PM
Again I've heard this before, actually in a conversation I had once with some UR minded folk.
However, before I answer I need to correct this point first. A conscience (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscience) is knowing the difference between good and evil.
And so, as I said earlier, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could also be called the Tree of Conscience.
Therefore, it is logical to asssume that if the fruit of this tree was intended to impart a conscience to them then it follows that they were not originally created with a conscience.
Now, part of the temptation to turn was the spoken truth that this tree would make one like God, that is wise. And God confirmed that this was the truth when He said, while still in that counsel session Peter referred to, "Perceive! They have become like One of Us knowing the difference between good and evil." or "...they have become like One of Us for aquiring a conscience."
So, true innocence would be defined as not knowing the difference between good and evil.
Therefore, I agree that they were in a 'good' but neutral state. An aware existence that we cannot truly comprehend for our having in us a conscience informing us of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong.
Therefore I agree with you that they were incomplete, that is not perfected.
Then my question stands. They would not have needed a conscience without knowledge of good and evil, because they go together. They had innocence. God told them not to eat of the tree of conscience, which tells me He didn't 'want' (stated will,
thelo) them to know good and evil. But He knew they had to to go on to perfection/ completion (ultimate intention,
boulemai)
Quote
Jesus said to the Jews which knew the law: "You be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." That word perfect is the Greek word teleios (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5046&t=KJV) and it means 'to be brought to completion'.
Now, with that said, I can answer your first question:
Quote from: DocHow could they have gained more virtue than they already had?
My answer is that, at this point, they had no virtue at all because they were neutral or truly innocent for not having a conscience, yet. Virtue needed to be gained, first. And virtue is not quantitative: You can't be more or less virtuous or have less or more virtue, by the very definition of virtue.
You either are virtuous or you are not.
Perhaps I phrased that badly, in that case. I'll agree they didn't have virtue according to these definitions, so I'll rephrase: What could they have gained that they didn't already have? They were in the Garden, they walked and talked and had a great relationship with God. They were innocent, not knowing the difference between good and evil. So they were "good" as God declared them to be, but they were not yet perfect/ complete.
So, then, how does one gain virtue, unless there is an alternative to virtue? At this point, the only opposition to virtue WAS the tree of conscience. So even though they didn't have virtue, how could they have gained virtue unless there was something to oppose it? Therefore, the ONLY way they could have gained virtue was from
eating of the tree, which means that God must have planned for them to do it...and
not after they gained virtue, because there was no alternative (only goodness and innocence) unless they ate from the tree! And you have already admitted that there is no virtue without conscience/ knowledge of good and evil.
Which all means...that God
planned (and hence foreknew) for them to eat from the tree that he told them not to eat of, because he knew that was the
only way that they could move from innocence to perfection. Even Jesus Christ
learned obedience from the
things that he suffered and he was sinless! So you see, that is God's pattern, His design. The seed must fall into the ground and die to produce life. Adam
had to die to be perfected!
How do you get a kid to do something? Tell them not to do it!
Talk about a great illustration of the difference between God's stated will and intention....
Blessings,
Doc
Hi Dennis! Well, I finally got around to doing that extra research on "serpent" (nachash), and I found something interesting. I'm going to post some quotes here from a paper I've found:
This is an article by Michael S. Heiser, PhD. of the Dept. of Hebrew and Semitic studies at UW-Madison. The title of the paper is
The Nachash and His Seed:
Some Explanatory Notes on Why the "Serpent"
in Genesis 3 Wasn't a Serpent.
As readers of The Façade already know, my view of the fall narrative in
Genesis 3 is quite different than the usual theological or exegetical
fare. As different as it is, it is based on (1) sound Hebrew grammar;
(2) the context of the Hebrew Bible's descriptions of Eden with the
vocabulary of the meeting place of the divine council in wider ancient
near eastern terms and motifs (see the earlier newsletter issue with
that specific PDF file); and (3) sound reasoning that springs from the
first two considerations. In that regard, my explanation provides a
coherent answer for why Eve was not at all surprised that a "serpent"
(a nachash)1 was speaking to her.
In this lesson, I'd like to lay out in more detail, with at least a little
visual help, my translation of the word in Gen. 3 usually translated
"serpent" in Genesis 3 – hannachash . I'll also trace a few
references to the "seed" of hannachash in the Old Testament. Some
of what follows will be familiar, as my goal is to try and tie a few ends
together a bit more tightly for readers.
The Translation of the Word
The Hebrew word is actually an adjective; meaning "bright",
"brazen [as in shiny brass]) with the prefixed article (ha - the word
"the" in Hebrew). Thus the word is formed #$xfnF + ha for #$xfn@Fha (a dot is
added in the second letter from the right when an article is attached).
The whole word then, in the Hebrew text is #$xfn@Fha, hannachash
(nachash is pronounced "nakash").
What is different about this approach is that I view the base word,
nachash, as an adjective, not a noun. The NOUN spelled nachash in
Hebrew can mean: snake / serpent or one who practices of divination.
The adjective means "bright, brazen" and is itself the base word for
other nouns in Hebrew, like "shining brass" - t#$exon; (nechoshet). In
Hebrew grammar, it is not unusual for an adjective to be "converted"
for use as a noun (the proper word is "substantivized").2 A common
example would be "holy one" (with or without the article). If we take
#$xfn@Fha as deriving from the adjective rather than as a noun, the
translation becomes "the shining one", which is quite in concert with
descriptions of the satan figure in the Old Testament. For example, in
Isa 14:12-15, he is called Helel ben-shachar – "The shining one, son of
the dawn." Elsewhere, divine beings are described as "shining" or
luminous, even by use of the adjective #$xfnF. For example:
Daniel 10
4Now on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was by
the side of the great river, that is, the Tigris, 5I lifted my eyes
and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen, whose
waist was girded with gold of Uphaz! 6His body was like beryl,
his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like
torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze
(t#$exon; ; nechoshet) in color, and the sound of his words like the
voice of a multitude.
Personally, I tend to think that, in light of the serpentine appearance
of divine beings in Yahweh's presence (see that PDF file), what we
have in Genesis 3 is wordplay using all the meanings of the #$xfnF
semantic range. That is, Eve was not talking to a snake. She
was speaking to an bright, shining upright being who was
serpentine in appearance, and who was trying to bewitch her
with lies.
Interestingly, The author takes a literal view of the fall event, while he views the ensuing curse as more metaphorical.
You can read the article in its entirety at: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/nachashnotes.pdf
What I was arguing originally regarding this word is not too dissimilar, although less exact and detailed. We as Western English speakers are frequently unaware of things like this; that often (as in this case) the Hebrew nouns are taken from the adjectives rather than the other way around. So the Strong's definition that I gave is basically, as this scholar confirms, the more primary meaning of the word nachash.
I also found this on an online encyclopedia : The Hebrew word for serpent is na(c)hash. The root of the word are the Hebrew letters Nun, Het and Shin - "to decipher, to find out". (hence to "divine", and some of the other definitions from Strong's, i.e. prognosticate, learn by experience, etc.)
Hence, I maintain my position that the serpent in the Garden was not a literal snake, but rather the "shining one" who (may have) presented a serpentine appearance, but was not an actual, literal 'snake'.
Doc!
You've posted as I was writing this, so this post won't be as poignant as it would have been for what I've read in your posts.
However I'm going to let it stand, as it was written, in reply to your first post, because to try and change it now would stunt our discussion.
Quote from: Doc on October 04, 2009, 10:27:07 AM
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 03, 2009, 10:07:37 PM
OK! Here we go!
END OF PART ONE
Well, I see what I consider a major problem with this understanding of things so far. It carries with it the underlying assumption (I believe it to be an unrecognized assumption) that God can make mistakes. So to my mind, the only way that God could not have foreknown that the fall would happen is if He can actually make mistakes.
Hey Doc!
Well, as you wish!
Did you think that I hadn't thought this might be seen as a problem in my logic, if I was misunderstood? This understanding I have isn't something I decided I wanted to believe and then
misused logic to make The Words say what I wanted them to say. And it certainly isn't something that is derived from ulterior motives. My conscience is clean on that.
I am familiar with the conclusions that will be drawn when what I am trying to say in not understood. You are certainly not the only human who holds
Calvin's idea of 'foreknowledge' as the truth. And I am the only one I know who has concluded that it is a lie- and that from a careful study of the Original Text.
Therefore, I will point out that if you take the time to try and answer, honestly, without dissimilitude, the three questions at the end of my second post you may grasp the understanding I have and will then know that what you have stated here is not accurate.
Not having 'foreknowledge', so-called, of a singular and
very unique event in human history, that I maintain Jehovah could not know the
definite outcome of, does not equate to God 'making a mistake'.
NOTE:
I see that you have answered those questions, but you have done so from your understanding. Perhaps you should try and answer them, now, from how you perceive my understanding.I have demonstrated that I understand your point of view of Gen 1-3, but you have not done the same; possibly from assuming that understanding equates to agreement.
You may disagree with my conclusions but you should at least know what you are disagreeing with, first.
Quote from: DocGod could have chosen to make us perfect to begin with, but He did not.
This is an axiom, not a fact. And its only proof is in circular reasoning.
Therefore it is unknowable, at best, whether He could have made us "perfect" to begin with. Check out the link I provided in my prior post to a place where I answered this question before.
Quote from: DocThe only thing I can logically conclude from this (my understanding? Ed.) is that God had a plan which at the very least included a contingency for something going awry.
Exactly as I have concluded. Which means that something
didn't happen that was supposed to. Are we in agreement here?
Quote from: DocSatan, in some form was already in existence;...
Yes.
Quote from: DocBoth trees were placed in the garden
Yes.
Quote from: DocAn instruction was given not to eat of ToKoGaE.
Yes.
Quote from: DocYou have explained its presence by stating that God did intend for them to eat from it at the appropriate time.
More accurately,
with His permission, after passing the test; a seed idea I got from C.S. Lewis.
Doc, what I'm going to type here may clear the way for your understanding what I am saying and why I am saying it; it may 'open your eyes'.
Here is why this is a very important point. Comprehend that permission to eat, after they gained virtue, would remove any previous doubt they had that Jehovah's intention was to keep something from them. And it was
that idea in them that became another component of the temptation; for The Satan came to know that this doubt was in their minds for how Ishsha changed the exact warning that Jehovah gave to include something He
didn't say, specifically, "...eat of it,
nor touch it lest
you die";
and for not repeating the exact phrase "in dying you will die".
The other component of the temptation was, of course, the offer to become
like God, or wise, apart from Him- a thing impossible to be, but they didn't know
that.
And so, overcoming this doubt, through trust in Jehovah, is what would have made them virtuous- with doubt, of course, being the very thing in them that would
corrupt the work of the fruit designed to impart to them what God Himself has, a conscience.
For virtue
cannot be gained without having a genuine choice to
not be virtuous, including all the consequences thereof, for good or bad, one way or another.
In the day they ate, exactly what Jehovah said would happen
did. In dying to true innocence,
this way, by eating from the tree against a command not to and that with doubt and distrust, they died to what they were intended to become, specifically, like God knowing of evil objectively for knowing good first.
Physical Death came later, much later, but it came nonetheless, because they were now denied access to the replenishing properties of the Tree of Life; A tree whose fruit was designed to sustain them in a physical world for ages of time. Even as 'Trees of Life' make a return appearance in the Unveiling with a little more description given, specifically, that each has 12 fruits growing in a yearly cycle and that each has leaves that are for the
therapy of all human's i.e. 'the nations'.
Which indicates that some kinds of physical harm can come to humans in the physical world that will be The New Heavens with its New Earth. Sounds like adventure to me!
So, with the permission to eat granted, after the test of virtue was successful, the doubt and distrust in them of Jehovah's motives would be immediately removed and the work of the fruit would still have done its job of ending their true, but
useless innocence.
However, instead of awakening to shame for their nudity, and that for the Turning of their sexuality, as well as awakening to Death; "...in dying you will die.", would now be changed to, "in dying you will live"! They would have awakened to understanding good and evil the way God does, that is to say knowing of
evil objectively by knowing of
good experientially! And thus gained an appreciation of their very powerful sexuality, including its proper 'care and maintenance', for knowing the difference between right and wrong
exactly the way Jehovah does by knowing of evil objectively and that through being good!
Stop here for a second, Doc and imagine a world where humans respect theirs and each other's sexuality.
Men and Women would create all those little humans as they were intended to, united into a compound unity through the very sex that they create these little humans with, but
only within the confines of a loving and committed marriages. And for that, those marriages would be glorious things indeed for us being like God, Who is agape, that is fondness and affection.
So, for having gained this wisdom, after acquiring virtue first, it would be very easy for them to
continue being virtuous, that is knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to do right always, just as The Father does... And
exactly what He
now re-sires us to be!
Humans who are virtuous!
And so the reason things had to be done this way is because this is the only way God could think of to create virtuous humans, one way or another, which is His ultimate goal.
For some things can only be done right, once, that is
the first time. After that a lot of work is required to make it right again; a thing impossible for us, but, with God, even this is possible.
All of this is totally consistent with His 'foreknowledge' as I have demonstrated what the scriptures say of exactly how He
gains this foreknowledge, is the truth,
not Calvin's idea shoe-horned into the Original Text.
And it is also consistent with God's sovereignty over His creation- All souls truly belong to Him and the soul that sins it will (and must) die; and with Him being revealed as a Father to us, through Jesus; and with His being agape; and with His allowing humans 'room to repent'; and with His patiently enduring our sins, even while He
feels every one of them personally; and with His giving Jesus a reward for His sufferings on our behalf, at the Father's request, after that specific counsel Peter mentioned, to become our Savior, namely the firstfruits of Believers who are to become His 'Bride' (YEA!!)- remember, Jesus is
now a glorified human being, which is something He
wasn't before (now
there's a logical conclusion that will mess with your mind!); and the need to recreate Heaven and Earth for this one having to be sacrificed to the process of redeeming turned humans i.e. being cursed into entropy and thus wearing out for being made hostile to the humans it was
originally designed to sustain for eons of time.
Now
there's some new thoughts, eh?
Quote from: DocThe problem is that this is an argument from silence/ ignorance.
No its not. The presence of the Tree of LIFE (What's in a name, eh?) is proof that something that was supposed to happen didn't; exactly because they ended up being banned from it. And therefore I conclude that the command to not eat of the 'ToKoGaE' was a 'preparation' to accomplish what was
intended to happen, specifically that they refuse the 'offer' to become like God by acquiring a conscience apart from Him.
Simply then, I maintain that if He knew as a fact that they were going to turn then this thing He did in the Garden was a set up to fail; a truly cosmic 'sting operation'. And God is capricious and megalomaniacal as I have logically shown Him to be.
And if He did not know, as a fact, that they were going to turn then this thing He did in the Garden was preparation for a successful completion of the first pair of humans to be like God, that is
virtuous- the same thing we will be when God, through Jesus the Christ, is ALL and in ALL.
Of course, it is
this idea that
seems anathema for exactly how Calvin defined foreknowledge for you, the English reader, to believe so you would buy into His crap about hell.
Doc you said once, in essence, that without 'foreknowledge' God is not sovereign.
And I agree. For I have never denied that Jehovah doesn't have the ability to foreknow, only that Jehovah does not foreknow the future,
as a fact, for how I have shown the scriptures say He
gains this foreknowledge, specifically, by being acquainted intimately with all humans heart of thoughts, simultaneously and that through spirit. This is what Paul was saying in Romans 8; and Romans 8 is where that SOB, Calvin, twisted the scriptures to lead you to conclude that Jehovah foreknows the future,
as a fact.
I have demonstrated, twice now, the absurdity that results when this idea, which is the popular one, is taken to its logical conclusion, even as you used the word 'planned' -as in Jehovah actually planned for us to fall so we could learn about good objectively. In other words, that God creates evil that good may come.
You have yet to do the same with my logic, that is, demonstrate its absurdity by taking it to its logical conclusion. I'm not saying it can't be done and I would like you to try because the effort might show us both a thing and two.
Quote from: DocThere is no scriptural evidence that God ever intended for them to eat of it. (The ToKoGaE)
What is correct is that there is no direct statement in The Words declaring His intention one way or another.
I presented, in my last post, a preponderance of indirect evidence that suggests something that was
supposed to happen
didn't, just as the word
katabole or 'disruption' implies; evidence that you have not replied to directly by saying whether you agree or disagree and why.
Quote from: DocWe hear only of the presence of the tree of life in the context of Adam post fall being barred from it,...
That is not correct.
"And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and to be desired for food;
the tree of life also in the center of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ... Gen 2:9
Quote from: Doc...but no instruction on what they were to have done with it previously.
This is also not correct.
"And God said, 'See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the land and
every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food'." Gen 1: 29 AMP
And
"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of
every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, in dying you will die. Gen 2:16 & 17.
Quote from: DocI am therefore led to the conclusion that your explanation of why the ToKoGaE was placed in the garden is a stretch.
Perhaps you might want to reconsider then, given that some of your statements are factually inaccurate. And that surprisingly so, Doc, given the good arguments you've made in the past.
Quote from: DocWe know that both trees were intentionally placed there.
Yes.
Quote from: DocThe only thing we aren't told is why.
Correct. God has never made a statement, in effect, saying, "OK, you humans, listen up! I'm gonna tell you
why I placed a tree, whose fruit would create a conscience in your Parents, where they could get at its fruit easily and then
why I commanded your Parents not to eat from it- besides that warning thingy I gave them; you remember, "...in the day you eat of it, in dying you will die."
Therefore it is left, by Him, for us to
deduce why. And
that is what this is all about!
Which is why I maintain that Genesis was intended to be understood literally. Jehovah
wants us to deduce why He did things this way because the process of understanding will reveal more than mere words can. And besides, being the contrary things we are to truth- before we come to know Him and are re-sired by Him- wouldn't we just gainsay it?
Therefore, I assume, axiomatically, that all the information that I need to deduce His motive is there and that the account was
meant to be understood, literally.
And for these assumptions, I've drawn some pretty darn good conclusions that are apparently difficult to argue against, given the massive silence from the Tentmakers who seem to be leaving you alone, Doc, to 'bear the burden' of disputing my claims; for I know that you are speaking for the many here.
(As of this writing there have been well over 500 hits to this thread. I can account for about 35 of them. So I know there is a... 'interest', among the Tentmakers in what we are discussing, even as I must know that there are not a few who wish they could give me a piece of their mind concerning the things I am typing! Which begs the question, "Why aren't they?")
I have demonstrated that your conclusion and indeed, the popular one, is derived from
Calvin's idea of 'predestination' and 'foreknowledge'; ideas of his that I have proven were shoe-horned into the Text and thus were translated into existence, right along with that peculiar hell he loved so much.
And I have stated that my understanding is gained from purging my heart of all the pre-conceived 'Christian' notions put there by all those 'Godly men of old' and then asking the hard questions while I searched The Original Text for answers while trusting that truth is knowable and for knowing that I am willing to concede to these 'Godly men of old', should I find that any of the things they conclude are truth, apart from their saying they are.
Like I said, my conscience is clean concerning ulterior motives.
END OF PART ONE
PART TWO
Quote from: DocThe simplest explanation is that God planned for Adam to fall, because He could have easily prevented it by simply not placing the offending tree there.
Again this is circular reasoning for assuming, axiomatically, that because, "Jehovah can do
anything"
we can imagine Him to do, He must have just choose not to do 'it' that way.
The truthful thought is that Jehovah can do all things that are possible to do, which includes a whole bunch of things that are
impossible for us to do, including restoring a rich man to Himself. But even He cannot do things that are inherently contradictory; that is, He cannot make a rock so big that He can't lift it.
The facts are that He placed both trees in the Garden at the same time. And so, either He was setting them up to fail or He was preparing them for success.
Which conclusion you choose will lead you to conclusions that will either be contradictory to, or complimentary with, an accurate understanding of the rest of scripture. Just as I have made claim, above, to having done just that with my understanding.
Quote from: DocRemember, this story is about God and his glory, not ours. He will share that glory with no one.
Well, even apart from the story you say you believe your God is writing for us that we may be learning good, objectively, through experiencing evil first- there is a glory we
can know for ourselves
that is His... more on that later.
Quote from: DocIf we could have brought about righteousness by our obedience, then the glory would be ours, not God's.
Yes, but obedience to what? Law? I agree. So why was law given? To show what sin is and in so doing show us how weak we are when it comes to being good, even when we truly
want to be good! Something you agreed with in my last post; for being good and being righteous is one and the same!
"So may you walk in the way of good men, and keep to the paths of the righteous; for the upright shall dwell in the land and the men of integrity, blameless and complete, shall remain in it; but the wicked shall be cut off from the earth and the treacherous shall be rooted out of it." Prov 2:20-23
"As children of light be walking (for the fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth), testing what is well pleasing to the Lord." Eph 5: 9-10
Doc , Righteousness is not a 'thing'; it is not an object. Righteousness is a state of being
gained through obedience! Specifically, for our current age, still living under a curse because of Sin, it is
obedience that fosters our
individual righteousness;
obedience to the spirit of Jesus Who is making His home in us, who, in this age, while we yet live, are learning
by obedience to His spirit to be
righteous and that by
loving and
doing good! Even as Paul said here:
"Are you not aware that to whom you are presenting yourselves as slaves for obedience, his slaves you are, whom you are obeying, whether of Sin for death, or of Obedience
for righteousness?" Rom 6:16
And here:
"Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God
being made known to all nations for faith--obedience to the only, and wise God, through Christ Jesus, be glory for the eons of the eons. Amen!" Rom 16: 25-26
And here:
"Now I myself also am persuaded concerning you, my brethren, that
you yourselves also are bulging with goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to be admonishing one another." Rom 15:14
And the writer of Hebrews here:
"And we may be considering one another
to incite to love and ideal acts, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves, according as the custom of some is, but entreating, and so much rather as you are observing the day (of Evaluation) drawing near. For at our sinning
voluntarily after obtaining the recognition of the truth, it is no longer leaving a sacrifice concerned with sins, but a certain fearful waiting for judging and fiery jealousy, about to be eating the hostile." Heb 10:25
And especially Peter here:
Simeon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
to those who are chancing upon an equally precious faith with us, (What's this 'chancing' thingy?) in the righteousness of our God, and the Savior, Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the recognition of God and of Jesus Christ, our Lord!
So has all of His divine power, that tends to life and devoutness, been presented to us through the recognition of Him -> Who calls us to His own glory and virtue<-; through which have been presented to us the precious and greatest promises, that through these you may become participants of the divine nature, fleeing from the corruption which is in the world by lust.Now for this same thing also, employing all diligence, in your faith supply virtue, yet in virtue (supply) knowledge, yet in knowledge (supply) self-control, yet in self-control (supply) endurance, yet in endurance (supply) devoutness, yet in devoutness (supply) brotherly fondness, yet in brotherly fondness (supply) love. 2 Pet:1-7
(Did you get that? Does it sound like something I might write from my understanding?)
And this obedience of ours is definitely to the Glory of Jehovah,
through us, as Paul said here:
"For all is because of you, that the grace, increasing through the majority, should be superabounding
in thanksgiving to the glory of God." 2 Cor 4:15
And here:
"... And this I am praying, that your love may be superabounding still more and more in realization and all sensibility, for you to be testing what things are of consequence,
that you may be sincere and no stumbling block for the day of Christ, (the Day of Evaluation) filled with the fruit of righteousness that is through Jesus Christ for the glory and laud of God." Phil 1: 9-11
And here
"For whatever promises are of God, are, in Him "Yes." Wherefore through Him also is the "Amen"
to God, for glory, through us." 2 Cor 1:20
And not only does the glory of Jehovah come back to Him
through us His Glory is also
for us to receive!!! Way cool! As Paul said here:
"You are witnesses, and God, how benignly and justly and blamelessly we became to you who are believing, even as you are aware how we were to each one of you, as a father to his own children, consoling and comforting you and attesting unto you
to be walking worthily of God, Who calls you into His own kingdom and (His own) glory." 1 Thess 2: 10-12
And here:
"Yet wisdom are we speaking among the mature, yet a wisdom not of this eon, neither of the chief men of this eon, who are being discarded, but we are speaking God's wisdom in a secret,
wisdom which has been concealed, which God designates before -- before the eons, for our glory, which not one of the chief men of this eon knows, for if they know, they would not crucify the Lord of glory." I Cor 2:6-8
And here:
"Being, then, justified by faith, we may be having peace toward God, through our Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom we have the access also, by faith,
into this grace in which we stand, and we may be glorying in expectation of the glory of God." Rom 5:1-2
No offence intended, Doc, but I really think you should reconsider what you said. It sounds good, but it is quite specious for assuming that obedience toward being good, by doing good, something you agree He makes it possible for us to do, is
the same thing as trying to be righteous through obedience to the law.
Quote from: DocAre you aware of the distinction between God's stated will (thelo) and his ultimate intention (boulomai)?
Well, I am now! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Here is a synopsis of what I discovered:
I see that
boulomai (Strong's#1014) is fairly consistently translated as 'intended', 'intention' and 'intend' in the CLV.
And
thelo (Strong's#2309) is mostly translated with 'willing'.
There are two quotes that use both words in one sentence:
Matthew 1:19: Now Joseph, her husband, being just and not willing (
thelo) to hold her up to infamy, intended (
boulomai) covertly to dismiss her.
And
Acts 17: 20 For strange is what you are bringing to our hearing. We are resolved (
boulomai), then, to know what this is wanting (
thelo) to be."
Quote from: DocMany things go (for a time) against God's stated will, yet ultimately work toward his ultimate intention.
What you have said seems truthful, as much as my reflection on it has been and for now I find nothing to disagree with, after examining the words you asked me to examine. However, let me illustrate my understanding of these words with this:
I would say that His intention (
boulomai), from the beginning, to create virtuous humans, right off the bat, by giving them a chance to be virtuous first, that is, to know objectively what evil is by being good- the way God knows of evil- made Him willing (
thelo) to take the risk on Himself, should they fail where He intended (
boulomai) for them to succeed. And this risk He took, of course, was because He could not know, as a fact, whether or not they would pass or fail. And so, after the outcome became our new reality, at the Turning, He and whatever Jesus was before He became Human, knew that, in order to restore us to Himself, Jesus would have to accomplish the forgiveness of our sins and then find and restore as many as are willing (
thelo) to become the firstfuits, both in Hades and on The Earth, even as His spirit draws all to the Truth, so that they may be re-sired to be what He originally intended for them to be, that is, good. And for the rest who are
not willing (
thelo) and resist His spirit right into The Day of Evaluation, they will be separated out during the Day of Evaluation with it being God's intention (
boulomai) for them to endure that aionios fire that He never intended for them to have to endure; for it being created for The Satan and His angels and that in front of Jesus their savior, Who's face they will be observing, before they will become willing (
thelo) to be restored through repentance.
Arguing then, from your understanding that Jehovah foreknew the Turning and using these same words, while incorporating the things you have said in support of your view- I would say His intention (
boulomai) all along was for them to fail, indeed He even planed for them to fail, because He foreknew they would. And so He was willing (
thelo) to create all these failed humans so He could force them to learn good,
the only way they could, objectively, by creating lots and lots of evil for them to learn from, even though He Himself knows of evil, objectively, for being good. Of course His intention (
boulomai), from the foundation of the world, was to foreordain whatever Jesus was before He conceived of this 'Plan A' to become a willing (
thelo) Human sacrifice and die for the sins He intended (
boulomai) even
planned for us to commit; all done so He could forgive us all of them. The first ones to believe, the firstfruits, must have been the ones He liked better, or 'foreknew' and thus He predestined these to become good 'willingly' (
thelo) without having to endure the aionios fire He had previously prepared for the Satan and His angels, but, found another use for. He, of course, planned for there to eventually be a Day of Evaluation in which He intended (
boulomai), from the foundation of the world, for all those other humans he foreknew and
didn't predestine to become good, willingly (
thelo), to
become willing (
thelo) while being purged in this fire, He foreknew they would have to endure, in front of Jesus, their savior, while observing His face, before they would be, well, 'willing'(
thelo). Of course all of this was done so He could rescue us from all this predestined evil and then receive for Himself, from us, the glory for such a magnanimous act.
No, Doc, I'm not trying to be clever here or even facetious. Nor am I trying to demean what you believe. God forbid.
What I
am trying to do is illustrate to you how to take the foundational ideas, the axioms you put your faith in, to a logical conclusion. Then you can examine
the conclusions to see if they are an accurate reflection of reality. And
then, when you can do that, you will know whether the axioms you hold to be truths are indeed truthful, that is, that they accurately reflect reality.
I have presented my understanding here. You seem to grasp it. So, why don't you try to do the same thing with my understanding that I have done with yours, that is, take my foundational axioms to their logical conclusion so that I may perceive my thoughts from your understanding of them?
Quote from: DocA contextual case can be made for how the word Ra should be translated as calamity, etc. in that Isaiah passage,
I'm glad you see that.
Quote from: Doc...but there are other places where God is spoken of as doing similar things.
Could you let me know where those places are so that I might examine your claim even as I have provided scripture
and lots of it, to verify the claims I make?
Quote from: DocAll of them cannot be explained away so easily as, "well, it's our fault."
I won't know anything you say is a fact until I know what scriptures you are referring to and how you use them to arrive at your conclusions.
Quote from: DocRa can be translated as many different things, but the two most common are bad and evil.
And because of that I will remind you that context is
everything; even as I provided the context to demonstrate that the scripture you used to show that God creates evil, as in, 'that good may come' cannot be used to support your claim. And you now agree that I have made my case well for that scripture.
Quote from: DocGod has, and has taken, the ultimate responsibility for His creation, and I conclude from that that He is in fact ultimately responsible. We can be held accountable for our individual actions, but God has made it clear that His is the ultimate responsibility.
Doc,
where has He made this clear? What scripture quotes provided the axioms that you built on? What are the logical steps you used to arrive at this conclusion? You have shared here what you think but you have not shared much on
why you think it- as I have. You just state your conclusions as 'facts' and leave it at that.
I'm not trying to say, "Your conclusions are wrong!", don't misunderstand. What I am wanting to do is point out that I have been transparent here. Every axiom I claim as truthful I have backed up with scripture and that mostly from an agreed on source, the CLV. I have laid my logic down step by step for you to examine, backing up each step with scripture to show you how I arrived at the conclusion I hold to be truth, specifically, that Jehovah did not know,
as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them. And then I have demonstrated how, with that being understood, several 'mysteries' of the faith like 'predestination' and 'free will' and Jehovah giving humans 'room to repent', despite this peculiar 'foreknowledge' Christians think He has, are not mysteries at all, but just stupid contradiction and the logical result of ulterior motivated deliberate mistranslations that incorporated lies into what is Truth.
I have also taken what I perceive to be the axioms you build your understanding on and unceremoniously illustrated their absurdity by taking them to their logical conclusions. And I did so, unceremoniously, because there is no way to be 'nice' about absurdity. I'm sorry about that, but I think you understand that I wasn't saying that
you were absurd.
What I'm asking then, at this point, is that you return the 'favor', do your best to disprove my understanding and champion yours, besides just stating your conclusions as facts 'everyone knows'.
Quote from: DocHow can all those bad things happen you ask? Well, that's a question many of us wrestle with, or God wouldn't allow it. The present suffering will be nothing in light of the weight of aionian glory.
I agree with the last sentence.
I can't agree, though, that I 'wrestle' with why all those bad things happen because of what I know from scripture that began with a truthful and therefore
better idea about what Paul and Peter meant when they wrote the Greek words that the KJV interpreters translated with the deliberately misleading, even inaccurate words, 'predestinate', 'foundation', 'foreknow', 'foreknew', 'foreknowledge' and 'foreordained'.
Thanks Doc for reading, I do appreciate it. And I thank you also for hanging with me. I only hope that you are gaining as much from our exchanges as I am.
Be good!
Dennis!
P.S. I'll reply to the other posts you made after I ponder them awhile. They're some good ones!
Dennis,
It is clear you have put a alot of time and energy into your posts. They are very thought provoking. I have not read them all but the page and a ahalf that I have read is interesting.
Blessings...
Quote from: reFORMer on October 05, 2009, 08:27:49 AM
I'll admit I pieced together some previous writings to make this post. Though it is future looking, it clarifies the nature of God our foundation. There's not only what was and is, but also what will be. To understand where we're headed facilitates that purpose being put into effect now.
_______________________________
Everything immersed and filled with the Holy Spirit will be and do perfectly by nature so need not be subject to anything but are free. There is then no more Ruler. All will be gathered together into one and re-headed with Christ.
In this revelation, Paul by the Holy Spirit says, (1 Co 15:24 CLV): "...thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power." While it continues, going into, "...placing all His enemies under His feet," I am certain that it is not only enemy sovereignty, enemy authority and power that are in view, though that is included. What we are coming to is where there is no sovereignty but the many membered Son in Whom we will fully be and Who will fully be in us. We are coming to where there is no authority and power except the many membered Son Himself and we are in total union with Him. This entity will subject all to itself. Then He gives "up the kingdom to His God and Father." "...that God may be All in all" (vs. 28)
When, "The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea" (Hab 2:14) and it is fulfilled, that He has, "...ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things" (Eph 4:10), then everything will by nature be perfect and will freely do everything perfectly. With all existing completely filled with God and immersed in God, nothing will have to rule and nothing will need to be instructed or ruled over in the "glorious liberty" that is opened already in the ascended Jesus. Paul in Romans 8 includes all creation in this "glorious feedom of the children of God." This freedom is why "every sovereignty and every authority and power" has to be eliminated, even that of The Sonship Realm. Sovereignty, authority and [it's] power imply something external to another, subject to another. This will cease in the Absolute Liberty inherent in Total Oneness.
So many caught up all their lives in being an audience for a few professionals seem incapable of understanding "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." For what else would they want liberty? The very idea of personal freedom is something that research suggests was brought to the world by Jesus. Yet it remains something difficult to comprehend by many people even today. They seem to only hear descriptions of freedom as rebellion or anarchy. Jesus as head of the church, while preventing any other among us from being over us, seems to disappear into a vacuum in some believers heads.
In the longest passage quoted in Greek from the Hebrew God says His new covenant "will not be like that when I took you by the hand and lead you out of Egypt." Yet people almost 3,000 years later are still singing, "Precious Lord, take my hand; lead me on, let me stand..." The NEW covenant is not "new" as in different so much as it has the continual quality of "newness," or, "young." That's why it can't be in external writings. It is of life in immediacy. No more being bossed around, even by God. It is something written in our hearts and minds; meaning, we know and understand within ourselves the will of God, delighting in it with our own hearts, choosing it without being told to. We become one with Him. Not leadings!!! But, beings!!!
According to Ephesians 1:9-11 "...the secret of His will (in accord with His delight, which He purposed in Him)" (vs.9) is, "To head up THE ALL in the Christ." (vs.10) When all has been subjected to Him it is important to continue on into the manifestation of God as God has made known in, "...saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is OUTSIDE OF HIM Who subjects all to Him." (1 Co 15:28) Therefore, subsequently He must give "up the kingdom to His God and Father" (vs.28) because nothing will remain outside Him. For a Royal Priesthood to be reigning over others there must be a subjecting of those beneath and external to who rules. This must cease when consumed by God. With no kingdom there can be no royalty, no kings. Priestly intercession is between two; but, the two must be made one. Intercession defines boundaries that must not prevail against the consummation. Of necessity there can be no more Royal Priesthood because of the freedom of the glory! "Whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him," and it is so, '...that God may be All in all" (1 Co 15:28) which is "INWARDLY AND OUTWARDLY: THE DEIFICATION OF EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE."
PERFECT EVERYTHING!!!
TOTAL LIBERTY!!!
Amen! That energized my spirit while reading!
To The Tentmakers:
Through my studies I have come to think disdainfully of the theologies of Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin and their interprtetation of the Original Text that bore their theology to the world, namely the King James Bible.
And I'm sure you've noted that, for that disdain, I have been uncompromisingly ruthless in my langauge when I refer to these humans.
That will stop as of now.
My God has made it clear to me that it is not for me to use such language against another human being, dead or alive.
And so I apologize to all of you for the unkind adjectives and nouns I have used to smear the character of these men. History is its own witness and so it is not for me to evaluate them this way by using such language, that is to say, for me it is a sin.
And so I ask your forgiveness in this. And while I will continue to argue against thier theologies and the work they made of The Words, because I perceive that it is not according to truth, but is misleading and deceptive, I will no longer disparage them personally.
It is for God to evaluate what belongs to Him, namely all souls, including mine and yours and that of Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin.
Thank you for your forgiveness in advance.
Working at being good through obedience to the spirit of Jesus in me, exactly as I was re-sired to do,
Dennis!
Your replies are getting too long. I have to post my response to just part 1 in two parts!
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 06, 2009, 09:30:30 PMHey Doc! Well, as you wish! Did you think that I hadn't thought this might be seen as a problem in my logic, if I was misunderstood? This understanding I have isn't something I decided I wanted to believe and then misused logic to make The Words say what I wanted them to say. And it certainly isn't something that is derived from ulterior motives. My conscience is clean on that.
Which is why I said that this was not intentional, but unconscious. I didn't really know whether you were aware of that aspect or not, which is why I pointed it out, and gave you the benefit of the doubt on having ulterior motives, which I'm certain you don't have.
QuoteI am familiar with the conclusions that will be drawn when what I am trying to say in not understood. You are certainly not the only human who holds Calvin's idea of 'foreknowledge' as the truth. And I am the only one I know who has concluded that it is a lie- and that from a careful study of the Original Text. Therefore, I will point out that if you take the time to try and answer, honestly, without dissimilitude, the three questions at the end of my second post you may grasp the understanding I have and will then know that what you have stated here is not accurate. Not having 'foreknowledge', so-called, of a singular and very unique event in human history, that I maintain Jehovah could not know the definite outcome of, does not equate to God 'making a mistake'. NOTE: I see that you have answered those questions, but you have done so from your understanding. Perhaps you should try and answer them, now, from how you perceive my understanding. I have demonstrated that I understand your point of view of Gen 1-3, but you have not done the same; possibly from assuming that understanding equates to agreement. You may disagree with my conclusions but you should at least know what you are disagreeing with, first.
Ok. I'll give it a go. I believe you re-address this area later in the post, so I'll try to re-address it there.
QuoteThis is an axiom, not a fact. And its only proof is in circular reasoning. Therefore it is unknowable, at best, whether He could have made us "perfect" to begin with. Check out the link I provided in my prior post to a place where I answered this question before.
It's no more circular than I believe some of the things you have said are. If God can perfect us at all, it stands to reason that we could've been created already perfected. That's how I see it. If God is already perfect, then I believe it's not a stretch in reason to say that it is likely He could create a perfect creation from the start.
Quoteonly thing I can logically conclude from this (my understanding? Ed.) is that God had a plan which at the very least included a contingency for something going awry. Exactly as I have concluded. Which means that something didn't happen that was supposed to. Are we in agreement here?
Sort of. This gets muddier later, but I agree to the point of saying that something went against God's
stated will, but not necessarily his intention. I'll get into that more specifically when I address the point about God making mistakes.
QuoteI have explained its presence by stating that God did intend for them to eat from it at the appropriate time. More accurately, with His permission, after passing the test; a seed idea I got from C.S. Lewis.
Ok. But I'm going to ask a question of you here similar to one you ask of me later (and a point is made about this later in the post). Where is the specific evidence that God intended for them to eat of that tree at all? The only explicit instruction given regarding the Tree of Knowledge is that they not eat of it. Now, I know you say later that the presence of the tree of Life is evidence of this, but I'll try to address that more specifically when we get there.
QuoteDoc, what I'm going to type here may clear the way for your understanding what I am saying and why I am saying it; it may 'open your eyes'. Here is why this is a very important point. Comprehend that permission to eat, after they gained virtue, would remove any previous doubt they had that Jehovah's intention was to keep something from them. And it was that idea in them that became another component of the temptation; for The Satan came to know that this doubt was in their minds for how Ishsha changed the exact warning that Jehovah gave to include something He didn't say, specifically, "...eat of it, nor touch it lest you die"; and for not repeating the exact phrase "in dying you will die". The other component of the temptation was, of course, the offer to become like God, or wise, apart from Him- a thing impossible to be, but they didn't know that. And so, overcoming this doubt, through trust in Jehovah, is what would have made them virtuous- with doubt, of course, being the very thing in them that would corrupt the work of the fruit designed to impart to them what God Himself has, a conscience. For virtue cannot be gained without having a genuine choice to not be virtuous, including all the consequences thereof, for good or bad, one way or another.
I think I've already agreed with you that virtue cannot be gained without having a genuine choice not to be virtuous. The problem in the logic of how this plays out, I believe, is related to your similar point that virtue cannot be gained without conscience, which cannot happen apart from knowledge of good and evil. More on that later, as I think you get to the relevant item later in the post.
QuoteIn the day they ate, exactly what Jehovah said would happen did. In dying to true innocence, this way, by eating from the tree against a command not to and that with doubt and distrust, they died to what they were intended to become, specifically, like God knowing of evil objectively for knowing good first. Physical Death came later, much later, but it came nonetheless, because they were now denied access to the replenishing properties of the Tree of Life; A tree whose fruit was designed to sustain them in a physical world for ages of time. Even as 'Trees of Life' make a return appearance in the Unveiling with a little more description given, specifically, that each has 12 fruits growing in a yearly cycle and that each has leaves that are for the therapy of all human's i.e. 'the nations'.
This seems like assumption to me, but perhaps I missed something in your reasoning here. The tree of Knowledge carries the knowledge of both good and evil, and there does not appear to be any "order". In other words, you eat the fruit, you get the knowledge of
both good and evil simultaneously.
QuoteSo, with the permission to eat granted, after the test of virtue was successful, the doubt and distrust in them of Jehovah's motives would be immediately removed and the work of the fruit would still have done its job of ending their true, but useless innocence. However, instead of awakening to shame for their nudity, and that for the Turning of their sexuality, as well as awakening to Death; "...in dying you will die.", would now be changed to, "in dying you will live"! They would have awakened to understanding good and evil the way God does, that is to say knowing of evil objectively by knowing of good experientially! And thus gained an appreciation of their very powerful sexuality, including its proper 'care and maintenance', for knowing the difference between right and wrong exactly the way Jehovah does by knowing of evil objectively and that through being good!
I'm still not seeing where in scripture you're getting this idea of Adam and Eve getting permission to eat should they avoid temptation to do so against God's command.
QuoteSo, for having gained this wisdom, after acquiring virtue first, it would be very easy for them to continue being virtuous, that is knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to do right always, just as The Father does... And exactly what He now re-sires us to be! Humans who are virtuous! And so the reason things had to be done this way is because this is the only way God could think of to create virtuous humans, one way or another, which is His ultimate goal.
Are you telling me that you seriously think that God, the most supreme, wise, intelligent, etc. being in the universe could only think of one way to do something? Didn't we just say in the previous posts and in a different way in this one, that you can't have virtue without conscience (knowledge of good and evil)? If so, then how can virtue be gained first? Let's look at our definitions again: A conscience is knowing the difference between good and evil. vir⋅tue [vur-choo] Show IPA –noun 1. moral excellence; goodness; righteousness. 2. conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude. 3. chastity; virginity: to lose one's virtue. 4. a particular moral excellence. Compare cardinal virtues, natural virtue, theological virtue. 5. a good or admirable quality or property: the virtue of knowing one's weaknesses. 6. effective force; power or potency: a charm with the virtue of removing warts. 7. virtues, an order of angels. Compare angel (def. 1). 8. manly excellence; valor. So, according to these definitions, conscience is a pre-requisite for virtue. You can't perform a virtuous act or be virtuous without knowing the difference between good and evil (otherwise, it's not virtue, it's innocence). Yet, you're telling me that God's plan was for the Adam to gain virtue
first, before knowing good and evil, by sheer obedience. But this is a logical impossibility. Your claim here seems to be that virtue can be gained through sheer obedience, without conscience. But that is a logical absurdity.
On to part two of part one.
Part two of reply to part one:
QuoteAll of this is totally consistent with His 'foreknowledge' as I have demonstrated what the scriptures say of exactly how He gains this foreknowledge, is the truth, not Calvin's idea shoe-horned into the Original Text. And it is also consistent with God's sovereignty over His creation- All souls truly belong to Him and the soul that sins it will (and must) die; and with Him being revealed as a Father to us, through Jesus; and with His being agape; and with His allowing humans 'room to repent'; and with His patiently enduring our sins, even while He feels every one of them personally; and with His giving Jesus a reward for His sufferings on our behalf, at the Father's request, after that specific counsel Peter mentioned, to become our Savior, namely the firstfruits of Believers who are to become His 'Bride' (YEA!!)- remember, Jesus is now a glorified human being, which is something He wasn't before (now there's a logical conclusion that will mess with your mind!); and the need to recreate Heaven and Earth for this one having to be sacrificed to the process of redeeming turned humans i.e. being cursed into entropy and thus wearing out for being made hostile to the humans it was originally designed to sustain for eons of time. Now there's some new thoughts, eh?
I think you raise the point of how God gains his foreknowledge elsewhere, so I will attempt to address that there.
QuoteThe problem is that this is an argument from silence/ ignorance. No its not. The presence of the Tree of LIFE (What's in a name, eh?) is proof that something that was supposed to happen didn't; exactly because they ended up being banned from it. And therefore I conclude that the command to not eat of the 'ToKoGaE' was a 'preparation' to accomplish what was intended to happen, specifically that they refuse the 'offer' to become like God by acquiring a conscience apart from Him.
I wouldn't call it proof, I would call it circumstantial evidence. I maintain that it is an argument from silence: A conclusion based on a lack of contrary evidence. Genesis doesn't tell us that the tree of knowledge was
ever to be eaten from, yet you conclude from the presence of the tree indicates that it
was there to be eaten from under
special circumstances which do not appear in the scripture.
QuoteSimply then, I maintain that if He knew as a fact that they were going to turn then this thing He did in the Garden was a set up to fail; a truly cosmic 'sting operation'. And God is capricious and megalomaniacal as I have logically shown Him to be.
God would not be capricious and megalomaniacal though if we can see that He did this because He knew that as a being not yet perfected, Adam had to fall and die in order to be perfected.
QuoteAnd if He did not know, as a fact, that they were going to turn then this thing He did in the Garden was preparation for a successful completion of the first pair of humans to be like God, that is virtuous- the same thing we will be when God, through Jesus the Christ, is ALL and in ALL.
Or alternatively, this was exactly how God planned to accomplish this, as we have seen that virtue comes after knowledge of good and evil, not before.
QuoteDoc you said once, in essence, that without 'foreknowledge' God is not sovereign. And I agree. For I have never denied that Jehovah doesn't have the ability to foreknow, only that Jehovah does not foreknow the future, as a fact, for how I have shown the scriptures say He gains this foreknowledge, specifically, by being acquainted intimately with all humans heart of thoughts, simultaneously and that through spirit. This is what Paul was saying in Romans 8; and Romans 8 is where that SOB, Calvin, twisted the scriptures to lead you to conclude that Jehovah foreknows the future, as a fact.
I'm going to put this as simply as I can, in bottom-line terms. If God does not know the "future" (from our perspective) as a fact, then He cannot declare it. If He cannot declare it, then we can't trust prophecy, and we can't know that God will be able to deliver on his promises, because He can't know this information, either. That includes the Universal Restoration.
QuoteI have demonstrated, twice now, the absurdity that results when this idea, which is the popular one, is taken to its logical conclusion, even as you used the word 'planned' -as in Jehovah actually planned for us to fall so we could learn about good objectively. In other words, that God creates evil that good may come. You have yet to do the same with my logic, that is, demonstrate its absurdity by taking it to its logical conclusion. I'm not saying it can't be done and I would like you to try because the effort might show us both a thing and two.
I have attempted to do so in this response to your post. Your way of approaching it winds up logically coming to a perhaps somewhat unique, but essentially Arminian theology, in which God is sovereign in name only (God is sovereign, but...).
QuoteThere is no scriptural evidence that God ever intended for them to eat of it. (The ToKoGaE) What is correct is that there is no direct statement in The Words declaring His intention one way or another. I presented, in my last post, a preponderance of indirect evidence that suggests something that was supposed to happen didn't, just as the word katabole or 'disruption' implies; evidence that you have not replied to directly by saying whether you agree or disagree and why.
I now have, above.
QuoteThat is not correct. "And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and to be desired for food; the tree of life also in the center of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ... Gen 2:9
Ok, but that isn't the point.
QuoteThis is also not correct. "And God said, 'See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the land and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food'." Gen 1: 29 AMP And "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, in dying you will die. Gen 2:16 & 17.
Again, Ok... my point was they were not specifically instructed
to eat of it, and why.
QuotePerhaps you might want to reconsider then, given that some of your statements are factually inaccurate. And that surprisingly so, Doc, given the good arguments you've made in the past.
Hey, I was tired. And the factual mistakes are beside the point anyway. They had no specific instruction to eat of the tree of life, only permission to.
QuoteCorrect. God has never made a statement, in effect, saying, "OK, you humans, listen up! I'm gonna tell you why I placed a tree, whose fruit would create a conscience in your Parents, where they could get at its fruit easily and then why I commanded your Parents not to eat from it- besides that warning thingy I gave them; you remember, "...in the day you eat of it, in dying you will die." Therefore it is left, by Him, for us to deduce why. And that is what this is all about!
Which is also why I maintain the argument from silence comments earlier in the post.
QuoteWhich is why I maintain that Genesis was intended to be understood literally. Jehovah wants us to deduce why He did things this way because the process of understanding will reveal more than mere words can. And besides, being the contrary things we are to truth- before we come to know Him and are re-sired by Him- wouldn't we just gainsay it? Therefore, I assume, axiomatically, that all the information that I need to deduce His motive is there and that the account was meant to be understood, literally. And for these assumptions, I've drawn some pretty darn good conclusions that are apparently difficult to argue against, given the massive silence from the Tentmakers who seem to be leaving you alone, Doc, to 'bear the burden' of disputing my claims; for I know that you are speaking for the many here. (As of this writing there have been well over 500 hits to this thread. I can account for about 35 of them. So I know there is a... 'interest', among the Tentmakers in what we are discussing, even as I must know that there are not a few who wish they could give me a piece of their mind concerning the things I am typing! Which begs the question, "Why aren't they?") I have demonstrated that your conclusion and indeed, the popular one, is derived from Calvin's idea of 'predestination' and 'foreknowledge'; ideas of his that I have proven were shoe-horned into the Text and thus were translated into existence, right along with that peculiar hell he loved so much. And I have stated that my understanding is gained from purging my heart of all the pre-conceived 'Christian' notions put there by all those 'Godly men of old' and then asking the hard questions while I searched The Original Text for answers while trusting that truth is knowable and for knowing that I am willing to concede to these 'Godly men of old', should I find that any of the things they conclude are truth, apart from their saying they are. Like I said, my conscience is clean concerning ulterior motives. END OF PART ONE
I'll remind you again, I don't think you have any ulterior motives. However, ideas similar to Calvin's don't make me a calvinist, nor do your Arminian-like ideas make you an Arminian. I appreciate that you have searched the original text for answers, but my point is that there are those who also have done so that have come to the opposite conclusions that you have.
I probably won't get to part two (your part two) until at least tomorrow. I've got a lot on my plate right now. Until then...
Hi Eleutheros,
This is just my understanding at this time and I don't believe any of us has ALL THE TRUTH. It is not possible in this life time. The more I learn the more I realize I don't know much.
I have been reading some of your posts and if I am understanding you correctly it sounds to me as if you are saying God doesn't know everything? Is this a misunderstanding on my part?
I don't mean to be a smart alec or anything but from reading your post it seems you know more than God. You say..............
only thing I can logically conclude from this (my understanding? Ed.) is that God had a plan which at the very least included a contingency for something going awry. Exactly as I have concluded. Which means that something didn't happen that was supposed to. Are we in agreement here?
You are right, in saying this is YOUR conclusion.
(Rom 11:33) O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how UNSEARCHABLE are his judgements, and his WAYS PAST FINDING OUT!
Everything that happened in the garden of Eden was suppose to happen or God may have some surprises that he isn't prepared to handle further down the road.
One other thing, Eve sinned before she ever partook of the tree of good and evil. The tree of good and evil was just a law giving thing. It was a way of bringing law into the picture.
(Jer. 1:5) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.
If God created us and knew us before the foundation of the world as it says, then he would know our minds, what we think, and what we are going to do from second to second.
(Psalms 73:11) And they say, how doth God know? and is there knowledge in the most High? Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.
I have explained its presence by stating that God did intend for them to eat from it at the appropriate time. More accurately, with His permission, after passing the test; a seed idea I got from C.S. Lewis.
So, if you agree that God did intend for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of good and evil at the appropriate time, then you have to acknowledge that God did have a foreknowledge of the situation, or else he couldn't have known the APPROPRIATE TIME?
Since God is our creator and he created our minds and he knows all about us, our thoughts, our hearts, how could he not know what man would do from the beginning? If you create something you know everything about it, right? You create it to be the way you want it to be.
CHB
Thanks for that, CHB. Sometimes it takes a second set of eyes. I especially liked the Jeremiah reference. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 07, 2009, 06:11:05 PM
To The Tentmakers:
Through my studies I have come to think disdainfully of the theologies of Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin and their interprtetation of the Original Text that bore their theology to the world, namely the King James Bible.
And I'm sure you've noted that, for that disdain, I have been uncompromisingly ruthless in my langauge when I refer to these humans.
That will stop as of now.
My God has made it clear to me that it is not for me to use such language against another human being, dead or alive.
And so I apologize to all of you for the unkind adjectives and nouns I have used to smear the character of these men. History is its own witness and so it is not for me to evaluate them this way by using such language, that is to say, for me it is a sin.
And so I ask your forgiveness in this. And while I will continue to argue against thier theologies and the work they made of The Words, because I perceive that it is not according to truth, but is misleading and deceptive, I will no longer disparage them personally.
It is for God to evaluate what belongs to Him, namely all souls, including mine and yours and that of Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin.
Thank you for your forgiveness in advance.
Working at being good through obedience to the spirit of Jesus in me, exactly as I was re-sired to do,
Dennis!
Sweet,
We just love these types of post...
Spank the theology, not the person! :spank:
Paul
Dennis,
Now I just wanted to add a quick- bit, I am mot trying to team up against you in any kind of way, as I know you and Doc are mainly holding this discussion. But as I posted last night, your posts and debates have at least made me think more about things.
You say that if the fall in the garden was planned than it was a sting operation by a megalomaniac. Here's my issue;
We all agree that the law does not bring life, but kills, showing the sins of the flesh, correct?
Yet when God set before the Israelites the blessings and cursings, the law, with fire and thunder coming from the mountain. He said through Moses that if they were to obey all these things, that they would be kings and prietsts. Of course we know that Israel said they would do them, and meant it, but they didn't; nor could they on their own.
But wasn't that apart of God's, plan and could not that also be considered a type of set up? They were fulfilling God's purpose, just not the way they thought. Pharoah did as well, he just did not know it at the time.
I believe the fullness of times is already in us, Christ in each and every person. They are just revealed in their own order. So it's like are flesh is playing catch-up to the realization of what is already there.
I don't think we are robots: we certainly have a will, just not the will to chose and understand spiritual things. Yet I believe he is intimately in everything. He chose my family, my wife, my job. He makes us willingly do what he wishes.
To be honest, I think if labels were non existant, there would be a lot less debates and division. When we try to go to in depth in catagorizing what we see, we come up with words like trinity, calvinism, armainism, oneness, etc. If we did not have these things as blockers, we could hear the language of the spirit more clearly, which is sometimes almost impossible to articulate with human words.
Grace and peace,
Brandon
Hey!
Your latest posts were a good 'un Doc because I perceive that we are making progress in understanding. Your challenges are getting more specific and to the point and that is very useful.
In this reply to your earlier post I respond with clarifications and with challenges of my own that bear on some of the things in your later two-part reply to the first part of my last two part post... (How much longer can this go on! LOL!)
I think you will pick up on which parts go where. And I will help by referring you back to this, if needed, when I reply to your latest two part post!
Quote from: Doc on October 05, 2009, 10:41:48 PMA couple of specific points I felt I needed to add/ address.
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 03, 2009, 10:14:05 PMAgain I've heard this before, actually in a conversation I had once with some UR minded folk.
However, before I answer I need to correct this point first. A conscience (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscience) is knowing the difference between good and evil.
And so, as I said earlier, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could also be called the Tree of Conscience.
Therefore, it is logical to assume that if the fruit of this tree was intended to impart a conscience to them then it follows that they were not originally created with a conscience.
Now, part of the temptation to turn was the spoken truth that this tree would make one like God, that is wise. And God confirmed that this was the truth when He said, while still in that counsel session Peter referred to, "Perceive! They have become like One of Us knowing the difference between good and evil." or "...they have become like One of Us for acquiring a conscience."
So, true innocence would be defined as not knowing the difference between good and evil.
Therefore, I agree that they were in a 'good' but neutral state. An aware existence that we cannot truly comprehend for our having in us a conscience informing us of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong.
Therefore I agree with you that they were incomplete, that is not perfected.
Then my question stands. They would not have needed a conscience without knowledge of good and evil, because they go together. They had innocence. God told them not to eat of the tree of conscience, which tells me He didn't 'want' (stated will, thelo) them to know good and evil. But He knew they had to to go on to perfection/ completion (ultimate intention, boulemai)
Doc, I see that I am not communicating again or you, likely, would not have said this. Let me try to offer up this clarification:
A conscience
is by definition 'knowing
the difference between good and evil'. Not 'knowing '
of good' and '
of evil', as if 'good' and 'evil' were 'things' to become acquainted with
by experience.
Do you see the difference?
If not, then consider this: Jehovah has never had to do something,
anything at all, evil in order to become acquainted with what is wrong
to do.
I think you will agree that this is a self-evident truth.
But why is this a truthful thing to say of Him?
Because it is assumed by us that He knows
the difference between what is good to do what is evil to do; that is to say it is assumed that
He has a conscience. And so, for His
knowing the difference between what is good to do and what is wrong to do He
always chooses to do what is good and right and righteous and moral to do and He
never chooses to do what is bad or wrong or wicked or immoral to do. And it is His consistently right choices, for His
knowing the difference between good and evil, that is for having a conscience, that make Him virtuous.
And that consistent choice is made because He
is agape, or 'fondness and affection' and therefore, desires good and pleasant and winsome and happy and joyful and beautiful things to be the result of His choices. Which He knows will
never come to be, if He
ever does what He knows is wrong to do. And yes God knows a whole Universe full of 'more' than I ever will.
So, that is the answer to my first of three questions: "Why exactly is God virtuous?" Answer: Because He knows the difference between good and evil. And because He is agape He always chooses to do what is good and right to do.
And so the answer to my second question, "Can any being be virtuous that does not also have a genuine choice to not be virtuous?" is simply, "No." Regardless of whether that being is God, or a human, or an angel.
And so I imagined God asking Himself (
I'm assuming a few things about His goodness here that would motivate Him to ask this question, things I have not discussed here): "How can I create a virtuous human?"
However, after careful consideration of this, your reply, I think I will change my question a bit to this:
"How can I create virtuous humans, who 'resemble' or 'are like Me', that is, who will know the difference between good and evil and choose to be good always,
without them having to experience the consequences of doing evil first?"
My answer is: "State what will happen, plainly and truthfully and then give them a genuine choice to be virtuous first, through trusting Me and
being obedient to my command, when tested,
before I grant them a conscience."
And that is my answer because that is what I perceive was Jehovah's motive, derived from what I know of His goodness and His virtue, that explains, without any contradiction whatsoever, when understood, the events as they were played out in the Garden.
I say 'when understood' and by that mean 'for
not approaching Genesis 1-3 with the idea firmly planted in your heart of thoughts that Jehovah
knew they were going to fall all along'.
It was much later, long after this conclusion was reached, that I discovered the deception fostered on us by the King's interpreters as I examined the Greek words translated,
in key places, with our words 'predestined', 'foreknow', 'foreknew', ' foreknowledge', 'foreordained' and especially 'foundation'.
For from these studies it became apparent to me that Jehovah does not have foreknowledge of the future,
as a fact, but, rather what He can 'know before' comes by knowing intimately and simultaneously, through spirit, the heart of thoughts in each and every human being. Thus what He does know of what will happen in the future is gained through this intimacy.
Which, of course, leads logically to the conclusion that Jehovah
could not know and therefore did not know,
as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them.
An idea totally consistent with what I had concluded before. As well as having the added bonus of causing the mystery in the question, "Why does Jehovah give humans 'room to repent' if He already knows,
as a fact, that they won't?" to vanish with a *pouf!*
As I said before, there is nothing in the Genesis account that will lead one to conclude that Jehovah 'knew before',
as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them.
Nothing.
And of a fact, a literal reading of Gen 1-3 will actually lead one away from that conclusion, assuming they can dare to approach the text without the 'fact' firmly planted in their minds that Jehovah
must have foreknown the 'fall', as a fact,
or He couldn't be God!
Now, Doc, I'm gonna ask you: "Don't you think I know how wild and bizarre even 'blasphemous' this idea seems to those who were weaned on the ideas about God given us by King James' interpreters?
And for having to spend their hearts trying to figure out how all these things can be, don't most throw up their hands and declare it a divine mystery we can't know? And for concluding it a mystery we can't know, don't many consider it arrogant and unworthy of a lowly, sin-bedraggled human to even
dare to try and comprehend it
unless that comprehension includes the fact that we are arrogant, unworthy and lowly sin-bedraggled humans with corrupt minds unable to even come close to fathoming what He gave for us to study?
For in thinking this, it is possible to mask their minds to the absurdity and the ugliness in the logical conclusions derived from the axioms planted into their hearts as 'truth' by the King's English.
Do you remember how
circumspect I was at the beginning of this thread? Well, now you know why.
Because the reason I came here to the Tentmakers with this is because the humans here are already familiar with exactly how the KJV interpreters translated that peculiar hell into existence. And it was my
hope that because I was using the same logic they are familiar with for their uncovering 'the truth about hell' and for their grasping the scriptural truth that Jehovah is going to restore everything to Himself including
all human beings who have lived, who are living and who have yet to be born, that the Tentmakers, above all the Christians on the planet,
might just be able to grasp what I am trying to present here.
Again I state, I'm not asking anyone to agree with it and it is not my goal to convince anyone, but I
was hoping that I might find someone who could at least
comprehend what I'm saying and why and interact with me so that I could deeply test this idea for truth in my own heart of thoughts by having them ask questions of it,
once it was understood.
It seems that person might be you Doc. Though, at this point, I don't think you have grasped my understanding, even as I will try to present it here more clearly so that you
may.
Please know that I do appreciate the time you are spending trying to convince me that I'm a loony. :happy3:
Truly, it has been good for my heart of thoughts.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisJesus said to the Jews which knew the law: "You be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." That word perfect is the Greek word teleios and it means 'to be brought to completion'.
Now, with that said, I can answer your first question:
Quote from: DocHow could they have gained more virtue than they already had?
My answer is that, at this point, they had no virtue at all because they were neutral or truly innocent for not having a conscience, yet. Virtue needed to be gained, first. And virtue is not quantitative: You can't be more or less virtuous or have less or more virtue, by the very definition of virtue.
You either are virtuous or you are not.
Perhaps I phrased that badly, in that case. I'll agree they didn't have virtue according to these definitions, so I'll rephrase: What could they have gained that they didn't already have? They were in the Garden, they walked and talked and had a great relationship with God. They were innocent, not knowing the difference between good and evil. So they were "good" as God declared them to be, but they were not yet perfect/ complete.
Yes, I agree with you, Doc and
exactly as you have said it. Does that surprise you?
We agree then that there was something
more that needed to be accomplished; for true innocence is a completely useless thing- Except for... preparing them to acquire virtue before they acquire a conscience.
Regardless, we are agreed that true innocence had to come to an end, one way or another, for them to be completed by... what?
I think you would say- incorporating some of your own typed out words toward this idea of completion- by eating of the forbidden fruit and falling from innocence into Sin. Just as Jehovah foreknew they would, so we could begin the process of learning good, objectively, by experiencing evil first, with Jehovah Himself creating all the evil we would need to see this process to its conclusion. And this is OK because He will eventually restore all of these fallen humans to Himself by sacrificing His only begotten Son to forgive us of all the Sin He planned for us to do during this process of redeeming us and restoring us all To Himself through Jesus Christ, who was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, foreordained by God in His foreknowledge to be the Sacrifice needed for 'our sins'.
That sounds so ugly when I say it
that way, doesn't it? And it's not the first time you've had to endure reading something like this from me about the God who foreknew that The Adam was going to fall before He created them, is it?
It's no wonder I'm not liked much for my constantly restating what most here believe-like
that!
Well, this dislike of me and my ideas is something I had foreknowledge of, from the foundation of this thread, so I don't take it personally.
So, Doc, how would you sum up this process of completion we both agree was imminent, according to your understanding, so it
doesn't sound as ugly as I have made it sound?
Because
I would say they were to be completed by refusing the offer to become like God, apart from Him, through trust in Him, despite their doubts, thus acquiring virtue.
And once that was accomplished, Jehovah would then grant them permission to eat from the 'forbidden' tree, removing all previous doubt from their minds of His intentions. And by eating the fruit,
then, they would assimilate a conscience and become wise, exactly like God is, for His own knowing of the difference between good and evil. And thus they would begin to know of evil objectively instead of good, by experiencing all the good Jehovah planned for them to know. Their 'eyes would be opened' to understanding and wisdom and knowledge and they would comprehend that they were naked, but, would not be ashamed (or else they would retain the 'light' that I hear tell was around them 'clothing' them; an idea I like) and Jehovah would enable her womb with His blessing (instead of with a curse) and we would all be born into fully resembling God for
not only being created to resemble Him in being Male and Female but also for being virtuous, that is, knowing the difference between good and evil and having not only
the power to choose to be good (which Paul and John say He brings to us,
now, through the spirit of Jesus 'making its home in us' [Paul] and acting like 'sperm' meeting an ovum to create a new human inside of us that 'partakes of the divine nature'[John]), but the
will to because we would also be agape, fondness and affection, just like Him.
And that's a pretty good thing to be, don't you think? Not at all blasphemous, for concluding that Jehovah
could not have foreknown their choice and therefore did not know,
as a fact, that they were going to turn before He created them!
But that didn't happen.
Rather than trusting God, they were deceived by the
nachash (notice I didn't type 'serpent') into believing that their doubts were the truth.
She ate first, in one swift motion, plucking a fruit from the tree and biting into it. Then, while she was yet chewing, she turned and handed it to Ish, who was right beside her, as mute and silent as a man can ever be for witnessing a sin in the making. And seeing her arm outstretched to him with the bitten fruit in her hand and perceiving that the
nachash was eying Him also, He stood and stared for a few long moments... and as he perceived that she wasn't dying for even
touching it... and now, for knowing that there was no turning back, as he watched her swallow and heard her say, "Here, take it" he looked hopelessly at the grinning
nachash, who nodded... and then he sealed his fate to hers, his beautiful, beloved and precious Ishsha by taking it from her hand... and taking a bite, he himself ate.
And with tears for the world I know we lost, I too watch, in my mind, as the world Jehovah intended for
me to know was disrupted.
The process of completion would now have to come through a much more painful and arduous path, both for us and for Him.
It was then decided, in counsel among Himself, that The One from among Himself that was 'Jesus' before He
permanently became Jesus, should come to enter the world of men and women by being born through a deposit of divine sperm into a virgin's womb, thus circumventing the weakness we all inherited through father Adam.
He would then grow up as a Human, growing into knowing what it's like to be a human and to die as a Human, so that Justice's righteous demands of vengeance on all of us, for the horrible things even He could not imagine we would be capable of doing to each other, would be satisfied. And since they were now turned away from Him
and for His knowing from the time before what they might be capable of, for what happened in the previous manifestation of this earth, when there were only angels, they could not be allowed anymore access to the replenishing properties of Tree of Life, lest they live on into the ages in an incomplete and corrupted state; which also meant that Sheoul would now have open its gates to receive them when they eventually did die.
And the rest is history.
OK. So, do you think you could do the same with my understanding as I have done with yours? Can you take my understanding and putting it into your own words, incorporating my words against me; make my understanding sound as ugly as I can make yours?
No, you're right; it doesn't prove anything even if you did. And certainly no more than what I was able to do 'disproves' your understanding. But, the exercise might be revealing, don't you think?
END OF PART ONE
PART TWO
Quote from: DocSo, then, how does one gain virtue, unless there is an alternative to virtue?
Do you mean to choose evil? Well that is the only other functional side to virtue because all the other alternatives I can think of to being virtuous is to either be innocent, like a human baby, or to be stupid like a fool, or to be dumb like an animal, or simply, to be evil.
Quote from: DocAt this point, the only opposition to virtue WAS the tree of conscience.
Careful, Doc I'm thinking that you're really not that far now from grasping my understanding.
And for that, I would say that the Tree of Conscience was not in
opposition to them acquiring virtue but was a part of the
process needed for them to acquire virtue.
It cannot be undone what the work of the fruit was supposed to accomplish in them, that is, end their innocence and give them a conscience.
There was only one shot at 'getting it right the first time', so to speak. After that it would require God to, one by one, seek and save each of us, changing us, one by one, through the spirit of Jesus, one way or another, into what He intended for us to be all long, through The Adam Completed.
And this is what Jesus meant when He said of the seeming
impossibility of a rich man to take hold of the kingdom of God, "With God, all things are possible." That is to say, God
can restore this rich man to Himself... and will.
Quote from: DocSo even though they didn't have virtue, how could they have gained virtue unless there was something to oppose it?
Do you mean here the
nachash?
Quote from: DocTherefore, the ONLY way they could have gained virtue was from eating of the tree, which means that God must have planned for them to do it...
OK so, you don't mean the
nachash. Actually Doc I don't think you are grasping what virtue is.
I can only hope that I clarified that previously in this reply.
Quote from: Docand not after they gained virtue, because there was no alternative (only goodness and innocence) unless they ate from the tree!
Actually there
was an alternative...
obey Jehovah, who they personally knew to be really great God; a God Who walked and talked with them... and maybe even raced with Ish down to that tree yonder and back while Ishsha flagged the winner...
and trust Him and don't eat the fruit of
that tree.
Virtue, Doc, is all about being free to choose that which is correct and right to do in any situation.
And for choosing 'right', for choosing to trust this awesome God, they and we would know things...
Like, of evil, objectively, for experiencing and doing good.
Quote from: DocAnd you have already admitted that there is no virtue without conscience/ knowledge of good and evil.
Wow. I'm sorry, cause if I actually said that
exactly as you say I did, then I'm not communicating well, am I? So, could you provide me with the place where I said
exactly that that so I can see if I can salvage the damage done?
Cause what I know I would have
meant was that by acquiring virtue first, through making a choice to trust Jehovah against doubts not to, they could then acquire this conscience, with His permission -which permission would alleviate all doubts in their mind about Him- and thus, through eating, they would not only gain a conscience but have wisdom like God's for knowing the difference between good and evil so that they would know of evil objectively while being and doing good; just like the God Who made them to resemble Him.
Quote from: DocWhich all means...that God planned (and hence foreknew) for them to eat from the tree that he told them not to eat of, because he knew that was the only way that they could move from innocence to perfection.
So says you! LOL! :grin: :happygrin: I don't agree that having them eat of the tree, against His command not to, "was the
only way that they could move from innocence to perfection".
Obedience to His command would have accomplished the same thing, don't you think?
And consider this, doesn't He still expect us to be obedient to His commands? Didn't His Son say, "If you love me you will keep my commands?"
Has not He Himself declared several humans to be righteous, even 'perfect' exactly because they do what they are asked to do or what they know to do and thus are obedient to His commands?
So, why would He
not expect them to keep this command? Because He foreknew they would fall and therefore had to insure it by giving them a command He knew they would disobey? Indeed why would He command any of us to do anything He already foreknows we either
couldn't or
wouldn't do? So he could insure His foreknowledge is right? For His
glory? OK. But I'll have to say, "Thanks, but no thanks" to
this God. Of course he'll likely smite me for being so arrogant even as I know some humans reading this would like for Him to do, or perhaps do it for Him, in His name.
I'm not saying this to be rude or disrespectful. Instead I'm saying these things so that, in all seriousness, I can ask, "Why haven't any of you asked these kinds of questions of yourselves?"
Are you aware that the 'lost' are asking these kinds of questions and rejecting
this (your) God because you can't answer them with a good answer?
Quote from: DocEven Jesus Christ learned obedience from the things that he suffered and he was sinless!
Hummm... this is an interesting thought! Let me ponder it a bit...
:JCThink:
...OK I'm back. You're quoting Hebrews 5:8. Here it is with its context:
"For every chief priest obtained from among men is constituted for men in that which is toward God, that he may be offering both approach presents and sacrifices for sins, able to be moderate with the ignorant and straying, since he also is encompassed with infirmity, and because of it he ought, according as for the people, thus for himself also, be offering for sins.
And not for himself is anyone getting the honor, but on being called by God even as Aaron, also.
Thus Christ also does not glorify Himself by becoming a chief priest, but He Who speaks to Him, "My Son art Thou! I, today, have begotten Thee," according as in a different place also He is saying, "Thou art a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek," Who, in the days of His flesh, offering both petitions and supplications with strong clamor and tears to Him Who is able to save Him out of death, being hearkened to also for His piety, even He also, being a Son, learned obedience from that which He suffered. And being perfected, He became the cause of eonian salvation to all who are obeying Him, being accosted by God "Chief Priest according to the order of Melchizedek,"..."
What I'm reading here is that what His sufferings as a human taught Him was how hard it is to be an obedient human, that is, obedient to God,
as a human, despite Him being the very Son of God...
I'm thinking here of His painful , gut-wracking, moment-of-doubt filled, blood- pressure-raising- to- the-point- of-sweating- great-drops-of-blood, words in Gethsemane...
And therefore He was perfected by remaining in obedience to His Father's desires for Him to become the Lamb that takes away the Sins of the World even though it caused Him great physical suffering, in more ways than we can know by simply reading words, so that He could become a
sympathetic and therefore
eternally effective Chief Priest for being able to sympathize with us,
through experience, how hard it is to be obedient to God,
as a human.
Remember Jesus was something else with God before He
permanently left that state and became, forever, a glorified Human on our behalf, at the behest of His Father. Talk about us screwing things up cosmically! God truly is agape to have done this for us... I am in awe as I contemplate it.
I think then, Doc, that is somewhat out of context to say that what is meant here as an explanation of how, despite Him being The Son of God, the
unique and very difficult sufferings of Jesus, that came to Him for being obedient to the Fathers' desires, obedience that perfected Him to become a Human who can be a sympathetic and eternal Chief Priest, able to forgive the sins of mankind forever,
equates to saying that the
only way anyone can
ever learn obedience is by suffering, whether it be for their own sins or the Sins of All... is a bit...
disrespectful of what Jesus did for us.
As well as being unflattering of the nature of God.
Just as Peter said here:
For what credit is it if, sinning and being buffeted, you will be enduring it? But if, doing good and suffering, you will be enduring, this is grace with God. For for this were you called, seeing that Christ also suffered for your sakes, leaving you a copy, that you should be following up in the footprints of Him Who does no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; Who, being reviled, reviled not again; suffering, threatened not, yet gave it over to Him Who is judging justly, Who Himself carries up our sins in His body on to the pole, that, coming away from sins, we should be living for righteousness; by Whose welt you were healed. 1 Pet 2: 20-25
And here also:
Christ, then, having suffered for our sakes in flesh, you also arm yourselves with the same thought, for he who is suffering in flesh has ceased his sins, by no means still to spend the rest of his lifetime in the flesh in human desires, but in the will of God. 1 Pet 4: 1-2
As the writer of Hebrews says here:
"For take into account the One Who has endured such contradiction by sinners while among them, lest you should be faltering, fainting in your souls. Not as yet unto blood did you repulse, when contending against sin. Heb 12: 3-4
And as Paul said here about His sufferings and what they mean for us ALL:
For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also, Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God, nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father. So that, my beloved, according as you always obey, not as in my presence only, but now much rather in my absence, with fear and trembling, be carrying your own salvation into effect, for it is God Who is operating in you to will as well as to work for the sake of His delight. Phil 2:5-13
Quote from: DocSo you see, that is God's pattern, His design. The seed must fall into the ground and die to produce life.Adam had to die to be perfected!
Yes, Doc I do 'see' what you are saying. I have all along.
(The 'seed' thingy is also taken out of context, by the way, for it being said in reference to His own death multiplying to life for all, but you can check that out for yourself)
All I can say to this, after much pondering of what I can say to help you 'see', is that if you understood your God you would realize just how... unaware... and
unpleasant this conclusion is.
It is
logical yes, to arrive at this conclusion
if it is an axiomatic truth that Jehovah 'foreknew',
as a fact, that The Adam was going to turn before He created them.
I understand that logic. I see your point. I know where you are coming from. Been there, done that. I
dig. As do countless scores of other Christians, worldwide.
But, it is as I said before, understanding does not equate to agreement.
For I also perceive that you do not grasp how detrimental and maligning this logical conclusion is to the character of your God. As do, also, countless scores of other Christians.
Or do they? There are many, many humans who have experienced His forgiveness and re-siring and know Him to be agape.
Maybe
the truth is that they just don't know what to say against this logic? For they too believe what the brilliant logician, John Calvin, made them believe,
through the King's English, specifically, that, through His
foreknowledge of the future, Jehovah
foreordained His Son, from the
foundation of the world, to be the Lamb slain in sacrifice for our sins.
Are there any Christians in the room, besides me, who would disagree with this thought,
exactly as I have stated it?
So, do you
now see, Doc, that, of a truth, this thought, as I have stated it, was a quite brilliant and therefore deliberate deception, just as I have shown it to be?
And the reason this thought was translated into existence was because it well-served Augustine's and Calvin's hell-based theology to have
YOU, the
English reader, logically conclude, from
his mistranslation of key words,
without Him actually having to say such an ugly thing directly, that Jehovah
must have then 'foreknown' that the Adam was going to 'fall' before He created them.
And then to clinch
this conclusion firmly into our heart of thoughts,
we came to understand that this conclusion
must be true because without God having the ability to know of the future before it happens He could not be sovereign over His creation;
which is a truth that I have not denied in any of my writings, at anytime.
Instead, what I have shown is
exactly how Jehovah gets His knowledge of the future, according to the correct usage of those key words that Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin deliberately
mistranslated to support their hell-based theology.
You said "Adam
had to die to be perfected!" And that your very own physical death is therefore "...God's pattern, His design." And so it must have been His intention, all along, for Adam and his wife and their sons and their son's sons, through to millions, all the way up to and through the flood and then all over again on up through many, many more millions right on into October 8th, 2009 A.D. and beyond,
to die.
Why? Because, as you say, this is, "God's pattern, it is His design".
I understand. Really, I do.
It's funny isn't it? Because this is also what Ish and Ishsha also came to believe; that He is a God of Death. They too came to believe that the good God that they knew, would punish them with death if they so much as even
touched the fruit of the 'forbidden' tree.
When
exactly what their truly good God said to Ish was, "... in the day that you eat of it (nothing about touching it) in dying, you will die."
Which words I have come to conclude, because of what did happen when they ingested the fruit, was
supposed to happen. For the fruit did what it was created to do- when swallowed, it ended their useless innocence and imparted to them a conscience. But, without a choice made by them to be virtuous, first, by trusting in Jehovah and His goodness, which was his good will for them and His intention, even if they may not have known what virtue was themselves, it was the distrust of Him that was in their heart of thoughts, at that time, that corrupted the work of the fruit. And the world that was intended for them and us to know was disrupted.
And so instead of a clean and useful conscience, useful for knowing of evil, objectively, for both being and experiencing good, just like how their God and ours knows of evil, they and we, must now learn, because of this disruption, of good objectively for experiencing evil; and that of our
own making, not God's.
And as I said before, the rest is history.
Quote from: DocHow do you get a kid to do something? Tell them not to do it!
Talk about a great illustration of the difference between God's stated will and intention....
Blessings,
Doc
Wouldn't it be great, Doc if every human child born to us, didn't have to be taught to tell the truth?
Thank you, Doc.
And blessings to you as well.
P.S. I'll be pondering your other replies and will give an answer soon enough. And while I have found the 'serpent thingy 'fascinating for the things I'm reading- very educational, thank you for bringing it to my attention- I would like to ask you if I could refrain from replying to that post; unless you just want me to give you my nascent thoughts, for your own benefit, because,
for you, I will do that. Truly, you have been a blessing!
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 06, 2009, 09:38:41 PM
PART TWO
P.S. I'll reply to the other posts you made after I ponder them awhile. They're some good ones!
Rather than going through and trying to answer part two point by point, I'll just write out here what I hope will cover all those bases.
Here we go:
There would be no Christ to kneel before had not sin invaded the world. And where would be the Crucified One without Romans practiced in that terrible art? And what becomes of His resurrection without an Adversary to ensure His death?
I would like, at this time, to make two statements. Some will consider these heretical, for they are logical; logic, we know is the enemy of all religion. Nevertheless: 1) Since there can be no salvation without something to be saved from, sin is necessary, and 2) Since "all is of God" (2nd Cor. 5:18) and sin exists, then sin must be of God.
Wait.
Sin means "to miss the mark". Does God ever miss the mark? No, never. Therefore, God never sins. He cannot. I am not saying that God sins. But if God meant for sin to enter the universe, then He did not miss the mark when it came. He would only be a sinner if He didn't mean for sin to come, but it came anyway.
Some religious people, attempting to read this, will unfairly accuse me of making God a sinner. But have I called Him that? Not once. I have only said that sin must be of God. I reached this conclusion by logic, based on the scripture that says "all is of God".
I am a champion of the responsibility of God for whatever has entered His universe. Others would prefer to say: "God is not responsible." What a frightening doctrine--the irresponsibility of God.
But we like it.So how did sin come about then?
By stealth and trickery, apart from God's original intention.I don't suppose you see what you've done.
Do we ever?You have made God a sinner.
We would never do that.You do it indirectly by making Satan sovereign in sin. God never intended for sin to mar His universe, according to you. Your unavoidable conclusion is that Satan disrupted God's original intention, forcing God into plan B. God missed His original mark and settled for less. That's sin.
We're only trying to help God, to erase all the bad things from his resume.I know, but you're a public relations nightmare. By attemptin to excuse God for doing what you cannot see a purpose for, you have booted Him from His throne.
How can you say that?Everyone who tries to shield God from the consequences of His own creation inadvertently--yet inevitably--makes Him a sinner.
Are you trying to get logical on us?I want you to see that anyone who attempts to relieve God of responsibility for sin, ends up making Him the very thing they try to avoid.
Katabole does not mean what you think it does. It literally means to throw down or lay down, as in laying down a foundation. (Rev. 13:8)
You say man's sin forced God back to His drawing board for a contingency plan: Christ. How demeaning to the Son of God. This is what the teaching of "Adam blew everything" leads to. By Christ's sacrifice predating Adam's sin, we know that God had sacrificial love in His heart from the beginning. Yet there can be no revelation of this apart from human failure. Christ was no afterthought. Jesus was not a good idea come late. Satan did not inspire Calvary/ Golgotha by forcing God's hand.
Why can't we believe Isaiah 45:7? Neither good nor God can be revealed without opposition. Since there was a time when no opposition existed in the universe, God had to create it. "all is of God", remember?
Yet what you believe leads to the conclusion that long ago, God lost control of His universe, and He has been struggling ever since to salvage some of it.
In the scripture, God is always getting humans into scrapes so that He can get them out of scrapes and show His power. You say, "No, God isn't getting humans into scrapes, humans are getting themselves into scrapes." Well, that theory works fine until you consider accounts such as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. More on that in a minute. God delights in making things humanly impossible before He sets to work. The blind man at the pool of Siloam. Oh, I think I'll put some mud on the blind guy's eye's. That'll help him see. Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Israel (These are God's chosen people?...) Joseph (Gen. 50:20: you thought evil against me, but God
meant it unto good. Romans 11:8 God
gave the nation of Israel a spirit of stupor. Not satan. Why? Romans 11: 11,12 tells us; "In their offense is salvation to the nations...their offense is the world's riches." Romans 3:5 "Our injustice is commending God's righteousness." Then there's the story of Gideon. Talk about impossible odds. Abraham and Sarah.
Exodus 4:21 has God saying "
I will harden Pharaoh's heart". To make sure we can't miss it, God then repeats this phrase throughout the account. Then Paul brings it home in Romans 9:17-18, to make sure nobody forgets it: "For the scripture is saying to Pharaoh that 'For this selfsame thing
I rouse you up, so that
I should be displaying in you My power, and so that
My name should be published in the entire earth.' Consequently, then, to
whom He will, He is merciful, yet
whom He will, He is hardening."
But Pharaoh hardened his own heart...Except that
before Moses even went into Egypt, God said in Exodus 4:21 that
He would harden Pharaoh's heart.
Psalm 105:25 says, "God turned their (Egyptians) heart to hate his people."
Isaiah 63:17 says, "Why, O Lord, do you cause us to stray from Your ways, and harden our heart from fearing You?" Romans 11:8 backs this up when Paul writes that "God gives Israel a spirit of stupor".
Ok, I think I've said enough for now.
I wish I could attribute this post to myself, but I can't. These are all excerpts from writings of Martin Zender.
But hey, I included more scripture this time... :icon_king:
Quote
Doc, I see that I am not communicating again or you, likely, would not have said this. Let me try to offer up this clarification:
A conscience is by definition 'knowing the difference between good and evil'. Not 'knowing 'of good' and 'of evil', as if 'good' and 'evil' were 'things' to become acquainted with by experience.
Do you see the difference?
If not, then consider this: Jehovah has never had to do something, anything at all, evil in order to become acquainted with what is wrong to do.
I think you will agree that this is a self-evident truth.
But why is this a truthful thing to say of Him?
Because it is assumed by us that He knows the difference between what is good to do what is evil to do; that is to say it is assumed that He has a conscience. And so, for His knowing the difference between what is good to do and what is wrong to do He always chooses to do what is good and right and righteous and moral to do and He never chooses to do what is bad or wrong or wicked or immoral to do. And it is His consistently right choices, for His knowing the difference between good and evil, that is for having a conscience, that make Him virtuous.
And it appears to assumed by you that we can have the same principle applied to ourselves as created, finite beings the same way that God, a self existent Creator being can.
Quote
And that consistent choice is made because He is agape, or 'fondness and affection' and therefore, desires good and pleasant and winsome and happy and joyful and beautiful things to be the result of His choices. Which He knows will never come to be, if He ever does what He knows is wrong to do. And yes God knows a whole Universe full of 'more' than I ever will.
So, that is the answer to my first of three questions: "Why exactly is God virtuous?" Answer: Because He knows the difference between good and evil. And because He is agape He always chooses to do what is good and right to do.
And so the answer to my second question, "Can any being be virtuous that does not also have a genuine choice to not be virtuous?" is simply, "No." Regardless of whether that being is God, or a human, or an angel.
But you're ignoring the fact that if God ceased to be what He is ("virtuous") He would un-define Himself and cease to exist at all. So, I disagree, God does not have a genuine choice. You were the one who said that God cannot do logically impossible things.
Quote
However, after careful consideration of this, your reply, I think I will change my question a bit to this:
"How can I create virtuous humans, who 'resemble' or 'are like Me', that is, who will know the difference between good and evil and choose to be good always, without them having to experience the consequences of doing evil first?"
My answer is: "State what will happen, plainly and truthfully and then give them a genuine choice to be virtuous first, through trusting Me and being obedient to my command, when tested, before I grant them a conscience."
And that is my answer because that is what I perceive was Jehovah's motive, derived from what I know of His goodness and His virtue, that explains, without any contradiction whatsoever, when understood, the events as they were played out in the Garden.
And that would be a good answer, assuming that your question as stated above was provably what God asked Himself and not a total assumption... :mblush:
QuoteAgain I state, I'm not asking anyone to agree with it and it is not my goal to convince anyone, but I was hoping that I might find someone who could at least comprehend what I'm saying and why and interact with me so that I could deeply test this idea for truth in my own heart of thoughts by having them ask questions of it, once it was understood.
It seems that person might be you Doc. Though, at this point, I don't think you have grasped my understanding, even as I will try to present it here more clearly so that you may.
Please know that I do appreciate the time you are spending trying to convince me that I'm a loony. :happy3:
Truly, it has been good for my heart of thoughts.
Right on. :thumbsup:
QuoteYes, I agree with you, Doc and exactly as you have said it. Does that surprise you?
We agree then that there was something more that needed to be accomplished; for true innocence is a completely useless thing- Except for... preparing them to acquire virtue before they acquire a conscience.
Regardless, we are agreed that true innocence had to come to an end, one way or another, for them to be completed by... what?
I think you would say- incorporating some of your own typed out words toward this idea of completion- by eating of the forbidden fruit and falling from innocence into Sin. Just as Jehovah foreknew they would, so we could begin the process of learning good, objectively, by experiencing evil first, with Jehovah Himself creating all the evil we would need to see this process to its conclusion. And this is OK because He will eventually restore all of these fallen humans to Himself by sacrificing His only begotten Son to forgive us of all the Sin He planned for us to do during this process of redeeming us and restoring us all To Himself through Jesus Christ, who was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, foreordained by God in His foreknowledge to be the Sacrifice needed for 'our sins'.
That sounds so ugly when I say it that way, doesn't it? And it's not the first time you've had to endure reading something like this from me about the God who foreknew that The Adam was going to fall before He created them, is it?
It's no wonder I'm not liked much for my constantly restating what most here believe-like that!
Well, this dislike of me and my ideas is something I had foreknowledge of, from the foundation of this thread, so I don't take it personally.
So, Doc, how would you sum up this process of completion we both agree was imminent, according to your understanding, so it doesn't sound as ugly as I have made it sound?
It doesn't surprise me that you agree to that extent. Where we disagree is in how God actually went about accomplishing what we do agree on. How would I sum it up? See my last post above this response, if you haven't already read it.
QuoteBecause I would say they were to be completed by refusing the offer to become like God, apart from Him, through trust in Him, despite their doubts, thus acquiring virtue.
And once that was accomplished, Jehovah would then grant them permission to eat from the 'forbidden' tree, removing all previous doubt from their minds of His intentions. And by eating the fruit, then, they would assimilate a conscience and become wise, exactly like God is, for His own knowing of the difference between good and evil. And thus they would begin to know of evil objectively instead of good, by experiencing all the good Jehovah planned for them to know. Their 'eyes would be opened' to understanding and wisdom and knowledge and they would comprehend that they were naked, but, would not be ashamed (or else they would retain the 'light' that I hear tell was around them 'clothing' them; an idea I like) and Jehovah would enable her womb with His blessing (instead of with a curse) and we would all be born into fully resembling God for not only being created to resemble Him in being Male and Female but also for being virtuous, that is, knowing the difference between good and evil and having not only the power to choose to be good (which Paul and John say He brings to us, now, through the spirit of Jesus 'making its home in us' [Paul] and acting like 'sperm' meeting an ovum to create a new human inside of us that 'partakes of the divine nature'[John]), but the will to because we would also be agape, fondness and affection, just like Him.
And that's a pretty good thing to be, don't you think? Not at all blasphemous, for concluding that Jehovah could not have foreknown their choice and therefore did not know, as a fact, that they were going to turn before He created them!
But that didn't happen.
Well, it's a nice
sounding theory...
QuoteRather than trusting God, they were deceived by the nachash (notice I didn't type 'serpent') into believing that their doubts were the truth.
She ate first, in one swift motion, plucking a fruit from the tree and biting into it. Then, while she was yet chewing, she turned and handed it to Ish, who was right beside her, as mute and silent as a man can ever be for witnessing a sin in the making. And seeing her arm outstretched to him with the bitten fruit in her hand and perceiving that the nachash was eying Him also, He stood and stared for a few long moments... and as he perceived that she wasn't dying for even touching it... and now, for knowing that there was no turning back, as he watched her swallow and heard her say, "Here, take it" he looked hopelessly at the grinning nachash, who nodded... and then he sealed his fate to hers, his beautiful, beloved and precious Ishsha by taking it from her hand... and taking a bite, he himself ate.
And with tears for the world I know we lost, I too watch, in my mind, as the world Jehovah intended for me to know was disrupted.
The process of completion would now have to come through a much more painful and arduous path, both for us and for Him.
It was then decided, in counsel among Himself, that The One from among Himself that was 'Jesus' before He permanently became Jesus, should come to enter the world of men and women by being born through a deposit of divine sperm into a virgin's womb, thus circumventing the weakness we all inherited through father Adam.
He would then grow up as a Human, growing into knowing what it's like to be a human and to die as a Human, so that Justice's righteous demands of vengeance on all of us, for the horrible things even He could not imagine we would be capable of doing to each other, would be satisfied. And since they were now turned away from Him and for His knowing from the time before what they might be capable of, for what happened in the previous manifestation of this earth, when there were only angels, they could not be allowed anymore access to the replenishing properties of Tree of Life, lest they live on into the ages in an incomplete and corrupted state; which also meant that Sheoul would now have open its gates to receive them when they eventually did die.
And the rest is history.
OK. So, do you think you could do the same with my understanding as I have done with yours? Can you take my understanding and putting it into your own words, incorporating my words against me; make my understanding sound as ugly as I can make yours?
No, you're right; it doesn't prove anything even if you did. And certainly no more than what I was able to do 'disproves' your understanding. But, the exercise might be revealing, don't you think?
END OF PART ONE
Again, see my previous post. I'll get to part two a bit later...possibly this weekend sometime.
You said God didn't know the events of 9/11 would occur until He saw the thought of it in Osama Bin Laden's mind. I don't know why it would be thought that would be what made Him to know what would happen on that day. The idea God knew something happening on a certain day when or before the creation was manifested doesn't seem difficult to accept for me. How does He make me see or know things that will happen before they do? He has to know them before. I understand Him to be in dimensions beyond the space/time continuum. Like the observer on the ground sees the parade going by only in a limited way. It is each section and the performers immediately passing by his place on the ground that he perceives. When he climbs to the top of the many floored apartment building and goes out on the roof he can see the entire parade. From start to finish, it's all viewed by him becouse of his vantage point.
I suspect Jesus would've died even if Humankind had not partaken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. One way of viewing creation is God created it in wisdom (Bk of Proverbs) before it was lowered into manifestation. The Lamb (physical Sonship realm) is that aspect of God in manifestation that died in order that a place could be available for something to come into manifestation other than God. I have not been able to know for sure, as some say, that the "disruption" of the world was when sin entered into this creation or if it was when the creation emerged physically from the higher realm of God's consciousness, though I prefer the latter for nowl
Quote from: Eleutheros
If not, then consider this: Jehovah has never had to do something, anything at all, evil in order to become acquainted with what is wrong to do.
Are you serious? The crucifixion of Christ was the most evil thing that has ever been done, and it was planned before the world begin. Here was Jesus a perfect man sinless and did every thing his Father asked but what did his Father do? Allowed and even planned his crucifixion. All the good works of Christ God did not consider, that should tell us something about works.
God had to experience evil in order to show us what evil is. In this one action God showed his negative and positive grace.
A lot more I could say but will not.
CHB
Hey, Brandon!
I thank you for your patience in waiting for my reply.
Quote from: aspiring son on October 07, 2009, 04:28:45 AM
Dennis,
It is clear you have put a alot of time and energy into your posts. They are very thought provoking. I have not read them all but the page and a ahalf that I have read is interesting.
Blessings...
Thank you for noting that. I appreciate it. Yes, I do put a lot of time and energy into these posts. And I'm pleased that you find them thought provoking; it is my hope that I can continue to be so here, in this, my reply.
I recognize that what I'm presenting here is certainly a 'new' thing for many, maybe even all. And so I do strive to be as accurate and concise as I know how to be. And for it, I perceive that Doc and I have attracted the attention of many other Believers. So, I'm
doubly studious for that knowing.
That's why my replies are so long in coming!
Quote from: aspiring son on October 08, 2009, 04:32:57 AM
Dennis,
Now I just wanted to add a quick- bit, I am mot trying to team up against you in any kind of way, as I know you and Doc are mainly holding this discussion. But as I posted last night, your posts and debates have at least made me think more about things.
Thank you. They are unique in that, aren't they? Certainly no one else I know of holds this understanding. Or if they do, I don't think they would dare to speak it publically for how sacrosanct these 'facts' I'm attempting to counter are!
However,
if this understanding is truthful then it's really nothing 'new'.
And don't worry about any perceptions of me that you may have. I can get frustrated at times, with myself, but other than that, I'm pretty much insult-proof!
Quote from: aspiring sonYou say that if the fall in the garden was planned than it was a sting operation by a megalomaniac.
The operative word is "planned"; so, Yes.
However, let me pause here, Brandon. I need to make absolutely sure that you understand
why I said this because, as you said earlier, you have only read a small portion of my posts. And so, since I have no reason to think you have read more, as of this writing, I want to offer you this synopsis:
Its been said of logic that it's a way of arriving at a wrong conclusion with certainty! A joke but nonetheless true.
So, what I have been doing is demonstrating how to examine logic for truth; for logic works independent of truthfulness. (I wrote of this in some earlier posts.)
By taking statements designed to reflect truth and putting them together with facts you are
compelled, by logic, to a certain and
unique conclusion. It is then, by examining this conclusion, that one can determine if the statements intended to reflect truth are indeed accurate. Because if the conclusion does not reflect reality and all the
facts are accurate, then the statement is false.
In Logic these 'statements designed to reflect truth' are called 'axioms'.
Speaking only through logic then, when the facts recorded in Gen 1-3 are combined with the Christian axiom, (the 'statement of fact'), that 'Jehovah foreknew the turning of the first humans before he created them', then one is compelled by logic to the certain realization that the character of this God is best described with the words 'capricious' and 'megalomaniacal'; an absurd conclusion, of course, but a
logical one.
Like I said, logic works independent of truthfulness.
So, I simply took this much believed statement of 'fact' to its logical conclusion to illustrate that this axiom,
derived from a source proven to be tainted with theological bias, namely the KJV translation, is false
exactly because it is absurd.
Historically speaking, then, The King's English interpretation of The Original Text was designed to support the hell-based theologies of Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin.
And a necessary component of their theology is the need for that 'statement of fact', that
axiom to be 'the truth'. Therefore, this 'statement of fact' was
translated into existence right along with
and in exactly the same way as that peculiar hell they wanted us to believe in, by taking the Greek word
katabole and translating it with our English word 'foundation', while
at the same time, knowing that the Greek language
already has a word that means 'foundation' and that word is
themelios.
Katabole means 'disruption'.
Themelios means 'foundation'.
This, then, is what I want you and really, everyone else, to grasp:
This 'fact' that 'Jehovah foreknew the turning of the first humans before he created them' was, of truth, translated into existence by
mistranslating certain key words in certain key quotes to make us believe that The Word of God teaches that 'Jesus is the lamb slain in sacrifice from the 'foundation' (
katabole) of the world'.
This is a mistranslation intended to lead
you, the English reader, to conclude,
through the compelling nature of logic, that the above stated 'scriptural truth'; 'Jehovah foreknew the turning of the first humans before he created them', is
the truth.
These two 'facts' then- that peculiar 'hell' and this peculiar idea of 'foreknowledge' -support each other in John Calvin' original systematic theology of double predestination.
They are therefore
inseparable. And since it has been proven that they were
both translated into existence, they are
both false; they are
both lies.
Therefore, speaking logically,
any and
all thoughts that begin with the 'fact' that 'Jesus is the lamb slain in sacrifice from the foundation of the world' will, through the compelling nature of logic, lead to false conclusions.
That is, these conclusions will not accurately reflect reality- they will not be truthful- they will be lies.
Exactly then, if it is a fact that 'Jesus is the lamb slain in sacrifice from the foundation of the world', then it
is logical to conclude that He knew of the turning of the first humans
before He created them. Just as John Clavin wanted you and every other Bible-reading, Bible-believing, hell-minded Christian to conclude.
And so, if this conclusion is applied to the facts recorded in Genesis 1-3, then it is logical to conclude that the events in the garden were a 'sting operation'; a set up to
ensure failure.
Does that sound ugly to you?
Because this is
exactly what many Christians believe is the truth, even if they
may balk at it being said this way. And really, I can't blame them for believing this because this is exactly what the KJV interpretation of The Original Text
teaches Christians to believe.
And so, that is why I was illustrating the absurdity of this 'truth' by continuing to logically apply this 'truth' to the facts of History as recorded in the Bible, thus demonstrating that if this fact is 'the truth' then the God of the Bible's
character can be accurately described as 'capricious' and 'megalomaniacal'.
These conclusions, of course,
do not reflect reality and are, in actuality, absurd. God's character is not capricious and megalomaniacal, He is agape. And
that is the truth.
So, Brandon, what happens,
logically, when you take the
real truth revealed in the Original Text which is this statement of fact that 'Jesus is the lamb slain in sacrifice from the
disruption (
katabole) of the world' and apply it to the facts recorded in Genesis 1-3.....? Well,
that is what this thread is all about!
Now, with that synopsis given for understanding, we'll move on!
Quote from: aspiring sonHere's my issue;
We all agree that the law does not bring life, but kills, showing the sins of the flesh, correct?
Let's keep going...
Quote from: aspiring sonYet when God set before the Israelites the blessings and cursings, the law, with fire and thunder coming from the mountain. He said through Moses that if they were to obey all these things, that they would be kings and prietsts. Of course we know that Israel said they would do them, and meant it, but they didn't; nor could they on their own.
I'm tracking with you. You say "on their own"... However, I will add that, among the Israelites and even among Gentiles, there were many, many humans- 7,000 Jews we are told once- who
did obey Jehovah and were declared righteous. How is this possible if we
cannot be obedient to Jehovah, "on our own"?
Quote from: aspiring sonBut wasn't that apart of God's, plan and could not that also be considered a type of set up?
No. All I can say, for now, is that there are a lot of underlying assumptions that drive this simple statement, many of which I don't hold as truthful; specifically that God knows of everything,
as a fact, from the 'foundation' of the world, or even that God
planned everything to happen, as it has, from the 'foundation' of the world.
As I said, these ideas were derived from a deliberate mistranslation of the Greek word
katabole as well as the deliberate misapplication of the English words 'foreknow' and 'foreknew' for the Greek word
proginosko. I have already made several posts on these words.
And so
katabole means 'disruption' not 'foundation'; which when the word 'disruption' is inserted where 'foundation' used to be, in those certain key verses, the text reveals that something that was intended to happen did not happen. And this alone demonstrates that the idea derived from the KJV text, namely that everything was known in advance, as a fact, or even that everything was
planned to happen, from before the world began and specifically that Jesus was to be crucified for our sins as a part of God's
original 'plan for man', is a false idea also.
Quote from: aspiring sonThey were fulfilling God's purpose, just not the way they thought. Pharoah did as well, he just did not know it at the time.
This is a tricky sentence to handle because I know what is in your mind when you say they were fulfilling 'God's purpose' even as I am familiar with what Modern (Augustinian) Christian thought says about 'God's purpose' and 'Gods plan'.
However I also know that you don't know what
I mean when I say 'God's purpose' and God's plan'. And I shouldn't expect you to.
The best thing I can think to say of this is that because the world was disrupted, that is, that something happened that wasn't supposed to happen, 'God's purpose' was going to take longer and be a whole lot harder to accomplish, even to the point of requiring Him to permanently change the nature of His own plurality to accomplish His purpose-- an
incredibly humbling thought, in my mind, for the understanding in my heart.
Whatever Jesus was before the disruption He is no longer. He is now and
permanently a Glorified Human bearing
permanent and beautiful scars for His efforts on our behalf. Glory be to God! For His ways are truly not ours...
As for the Pharaoh of the Exodus: It is difficult to understand this incredibly complex story from any one 'angle' of Christian thought.
However, everyone still has their 'take' and for what it's worth here is mine:
The first thing I notice is that this is a story of Jehovah, the
righteous and
virtuous God, Who has a
conscience and knows the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, bringing a recalcitrant and incredibly stubborn and 'powerful' human male, who, in truth, 'owns ' this God's covenanted people, to a place where this 'powerful' man, among men, is
willing to do what Jehovah has set His mind for and purposed Him to do, namely, set the Israelites free
and do so in such a way that He maintains His own virtue while exercising His own sovereign ownership of
all souls, including Pharaoh's soul, to accomplish His purpose of getting Him to
willingly give up his own 'ownership' and let His people go; and that with great compensation for their centuries of slave labor.
The key is, 'willingly'; for certainly Jehovah could have set them free by simply killing every Egyptian (He owns them too!) and saying to the Israelites, "Get their stuff and come on! Let's get out of here before the bodies begin to stink!"
(So, why
didn't He do it this way? Part of my answer is here.)
So, my 'take' on this story is to note that Jehovah began the adventure of freeing His people by directing Moses and the Elders of Israel to engage Pharaoh with His command to give Him His people for only a short time, three days journey away, so that they could sacrifice to Him in the wilderness; a 'right' that a 'God' can reasonably claim and one that Pharaoh would have a hard time saying, 'No' to, given the importance of the gods of Egypt in his heart of thoughts.
This opening move built quickly into a move-countermove 'chess-game' of wills pitting Jehovah against Pharaoh
and his magicians who represented the very real and evil powers behind the gods of Egypt; a battle of wills that included Jehovah exercising His own
superior right of ownership and hardening this stubborn, recalcitrant, 'powerful' human male's heart of thoughts.
Brandon, I want to pause here a second and ask you to think about something.
If I say to you that what I am writing here is, 'from my heart' you will know what I am talking about.
But if I ask you, "What is the
heart?" What would be your answer?
I'll tell you what your answer will be, after a lot of false starts and pauses and :Chinscratch: it will be- :mshrug: "I don't know".
In my previous posts I give an actual working definition of what the human heart is:
"It is the sum total of the thoughts in you from which you will speak, react and act."
So, if you change the
thoughts-- you change the
heart.
"For as he thinks in his heart, so is he." (Prov 23:7a)
Now, given that, I'm going to ask you this about the issue of Jehovah's hardening of Pharaoh's heart
of thoughts.
Did Jehovah
make him think anything He wasn't disposed to already thinking?
For the scriptures say that He
hardened Pharaohs heart. Not that He
changed Pharaoh's heart
of thoughts.
Jehovah did not
make him think anything other than what he was
already disposed to think, which was, in essence, "There is
no way I am
ever going to let this Hebrew God get the best of me! These slaves aren't going
anywhere!"
Jehovah, simply enough, provided him with
incentive to keep on believing his own lie, when He became weak and that against his own will to not want to, or as the scriptures say, He
hardened Pharaoh's
heart of thoughts.
I hope you find that thought provoking.
Let's move on, then and pick up where we left off-
END OF PART ONE
PART TWO
So why was Jehovah doing all this,
this way?
He was intending to show the Israelites that He was, undoubtedly,
their God; that He was
for them and that there is none like Him Who can deliver so
righteously and so mightily.
Thus He planted a permanent memory in them and in the remembrance of the world, that endures to this day. He was
their God and through them He would keep this turned world, turned away from Him,
mindful of Him,, thier Creator, which is exactly what happened. The world is remaining mindful of Him, for what He did here, even to this day.
And I should note, also, that, from my understanding, having to do this was
not part of His original 'plan for man'. Israel came into existence as part of a subsequent strategy for dealing with the direction the world took after
the turning, a direction Jehovah never intended to
have to go in order to accomplish His purpose.
Which purpose, by the way, just so you will know what I perceive it to be is
to create virtuous humans, humans who will resemble Him in every way, one way or another.So, Brandon, if you are willing, I would ask, as a means to further provocation, that you go back, sometime soon and re-read the story of the Exodus with this understanding I've presented to you in your mind.
And if I'm right, I think you will hear a lot of *clicking* in your head.
Quote from: aspiring sonI believe the fullness of times is already in us, Christ in each and every person. They are just revealed in their own order. So it's like are flesh is playing catch-up to the realization of what is already there.
Well... I've heard this before. And I understand the logic behind this belief, as you stated it and can say, definitely, that I do not agree that this is a truthful conclusion. That is to say that I don't perceive it to be an accurate reflection of reality.
Quote from: aspiring sonI don't think we are robots: we certainly have a will, just not the will to chose and understand spiritual things. Yet I believe he is intimately in everything. He chose my family, my wife, my job. He makes us willingly do what he wishes.
I
do understand what you are saying. I am familiar with the logic.
Listen, if what 'He wishes' means to you that you have repented from your sinfulness and have come to realize that you have the ability to identify sin in you, via the spirit of Jesus making its home in you- through your faith- and as a result you have
stopped sinning and have
started being righteous, then you understand what 'He wishes'.
And if this is so, then you will be mindful that in the day when Jesus evaluates the world you will be held accountable for that which you are truly not ignorant of. Don't read anything suggestive into this Brandon, but instead understand that Jehovah knows your heart of thoughts and the most important reason He sent Jesus to accomplish the forgiveness of sins is to give
you the power to stop sinning so that
you may stand blameless before Him on that day, which 'that day' is
on its way and has not
yet happened.
So, if what you believe
also includes the thought that all sins are now done away with and what we humans are doing now is not 'sinning' but 'learning from our mistakes to be better people and make a better world through the presence of Jesus', then know that your belief is, in effect, justifying Sin.
However, if you have stopped sinning and are practicing righteousness by doing good, out of love, bearing the sins of others against you and around you, with patience (which means you can feel their sins as a 'weight' to be born), then you
are a re-sired human with God's own divine nature in you. For God does not sin. And if
you are His re-sired child then
you also will not continue to sin. And when you
do sin you will feel it in you as defilement and will want to confess it
quickly so that you may receive forgiveness and rid yourself of it.
I will say boldly, then, for your benefit, that if this describes your experience then you are acquainted with truth.
But if what you have put your faith in, in anyway nullifies this, then know that you are in agreement with it and are justifying Sin with what you believe.
If it seems good to you, as a way of demonstrating how to compare conclusions and you would like to have your thoughts provoked further concerning this, then try this:
Take this scripture and read it in the light of your own understanding - what you believe-and then note what you think of it from that understanding.
Then take this same scripture and read it in the light of the understanding I presented here and note also what you think of it from that understanding.
Then compare the two conclusions in your thoughts and I think you will see how different they are; not 'right' or 'wrong', but different and most importantly, you will know
why they are different.
Here is the scripture:
"Indeed, then, condoning the times of ignorance (before Jesus came), God is now charging mankind that all everywhere are to repent, forasmuch as He assigns a day in which He is about to be judging the inhabited earth in righteousness by the Man Whom He specifies, tendering faith to all, raising Him from among the dead..."
Acts 17: 30-31 CLVQuote from: aspiring sonTo be honest, I think if labels were non existant, there would be a lot less debates and division. When we try to go to in depth in catagorizing what we see, we come up with words like trinity, calvinism, armainism, oneness, etc. If we did not have these things as blockers, we could hear the language of the spirit more clearly, which is sometimes almost impossible to articulate with human words.
I've heard this before as well. And while I do understand what you mean about the 'labels' we give to Christian concepts and theologies, labels that sometimes hinder us in our discussions for the perceptions associated with these 'labels', I have never known them to keep me from perceiving the truth in The Words.
Like I said before, don't read anything suggestive into this, but I have also come to recognize that some 'labels' like, 'righteous', 'wicked', 'moral', 'immoral', 'wise', 'fool', 'knowledgeable', 'ignorant', 'humble', 'arrogant', 'good', 'evil ',etc. are
very useful toward perceiving the truth in The Words. And that is so because, for good or bad, all of these 'labels' can, through evaluation, be applied to various humans.
So, you make sure that the good ones can be applied to
you by being obedient to the spirit of Jesus that came to be inside
you, through
your faith, repentance and baptism
Quote from: aspiring sonGrace and peace,
Brandon
And Jehovah's heart-peace to you as well.
Know that I very much appreciate you entering this discussion. I learned a
lot from giving you this reply and I hope you find it to be as beneficial to you. Thank you for your time.
Dennis!
Quote from: CHB on October 07, 2009, 08:24:21 PM
Hi Eleutheros,
Hi CHB,
Quote from: CHBThis is just my understanding at this time and I don't believe any of us has ALL THE TRUTH. It is not possible in this life time. The more I learn the more I realize I don't know much.
Nor do I clam to know ALL THE TRUTH. And at my age I am certainly aware of what I don't know!
I just have a different understanding than I've ever heard before. And because of how I actually derived this understanding; the method and logic of which has been presented here for public scrutiny; if it's of truth, then it is not a 'new' understanding at all, but a resurrection of a much older one, older even than Augustine of Hippo himself, who, by the way, hated Greek and gave us hell.
Quote from: CHBI have been reading some of your posts and if I am understanding you correctly it sounds to me as if you are saying God doesn't know everything? Is this a misunderstanding on my part?
Yes! Absolutely!
Quote from: CHBI don't mean to be a smart alec or anything but from reading your post it seems you know more than God.
Good thing perception isn't often reality or I would conclude you
were meaning to be a smart alec. Thanks for letting me know the truth. I'll keep it in mind.
Quote from: CHBYou say.............. Quote from: Dennis
only thing I can logically conclude from this (my understanding? Ed.) is that God had a plan which at the very least included a contingency for something going awry. Exactly as I have concluded. Which means that something didn't happen that was supposed to. Are we in agreement here?
You are right, in saying this is YOUR conclusion.
Yes, I'm glad you can see that.
Do you have a conclusion?
Quote from: CHB(Rom 11:33) O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how UNSEARCHABLE are his judgements, and his WAYS PAST FINDING OUT!
(Deut 29:29) The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, BUT THE THINGS WHICH ARE REVEALED BELONG TO US and to our children FOREVER, that we may do all of the words of this law.
Quote from: CHBEverything that happened in the garden of Eden was suppose to happen or God may have some surprises that he isn't prepared to handle further down the road.
Except for that one thing that didn't happen, their obedience to His command not to eat.
Quote from: CHBOne other thing, Eve sinned before she ever partook of the tree of good and evil.
Sinned? Hummm... Interesting point to ponder. I'll think about it. Thanks for bringing it up!
Sinned... :Chinscratch: I wonder.... :angelharp: :angelharp: :angelharp:
*Are
thoughts sins?* *Is
wondering why Jehovah commanded them not to eat...
a sin?* *Did they change their perception of His exact words
on purpose?* *Isn't sinning a
conscious act?* *Or was it out of a sense of fear or respect associated with this
wondering that led them to a misperception of His words?* *How
did their perception of His words get changed?* *Perhaps He intended for them to wonder about it so they would be ripe for... a temptation?* *Hummm...* *Can true innocence sin
without a temptation?*
Quote from: CHBThe tree of good and evil was just a law giving thing. It was a way of bringing law into the picture.
OK. You
do have a conclusion of YOUR own.
Quote from: CHB(Jer. 1:5) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.
Yes. You should check out what I wrote
here.Quote from: CHBIf God created us and knew us before the foundation of the world as it says, then he would know our minds, what we think, and what we are going to do from second to second.
I agree.
So, what would be the change in this, YOUR logical conclusion, if
katabole doesn't mean '
foundation'? What if it means '
disruption'?
Quote from: CHB(Psalms 73:11) And they say, how doth God know? and is there knowledge in the most High? Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.
Wow. I wish I were as free to take The Words out of their context and make them say what
I want them to say! Are you
sure you're not meaning to be a smart alec? 'Cause I could perceive that you're something else if you're truly not meaning to be a smart alec.
Quote from: CHBQuote from: DennisI have explained its presence by stating that God did intend for them to eat from it at the appropriate time. More accurately, with His permission, after passing the test; a seed idea I got from C.S. Lewis.
So, if you agree that God did intend for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of good and evil at the appropriate time, then you have to acknowledge that God did have a foreknowledge of the situation, or else he couldn't have known the APPROPRIATE TIME?
Perhaps if you read the whole quote you quoted you would know
how it was I said He would have known the APPROPRIATE TIME.
Quote from: CHBSince God is our creator and he created our minds and he knows all about us, our thoughts, our hearts, how could he not know what man would do from the beginning? If you create something you know everything about it, right?
I
almost agree.
Quote from: CHBYou create it to be the way you want it to be.
CHB
So, according to YOUR understanding, what exactly
did God create us to be, at the beginning?
I say, "To be good!"
That is what we were created to become -
at the beginning.
What's wrong with that?
(Besides, of course, that it's not the truth)
Dennis!
P.S. You might want to calm down a bit before you hit that 'Quote' button and start typing out your reply, or else I might perceive, next time, that you
are meaning to be a smart alec.
Hi, reFORMer!
I thank you for taking the time to make this reply! And also for waiting patiently for it.
Quote from: reFORMer on October 09, 2009, 08:34:39 AM
You said God didn't know the events of 9/11 would occur until He saw the thought of it in Osama Bin Laden's mind.
That is correct.
Quote from: reFORMerI don't know why it would be thought that would be what made Him to know what would happen on that day.
I understand. The best idea I can think to give you to add to what I wrote about the Greek idea behind
proginosko is to point out that there is a subtle but
definite difference, in English, between the phrase 'know before' and 'knew before' and the compound words, 'foreknow' and 'foreknew'.
When you read my post through did you 'catch' that there were two places in The Original Text where the writers used
proginosko in reference to humans? And in those places
proginosko was not translated with the words 'foreknow' or 'foreknew' but, rather, with the phrase 'know before' or 'knew before'.
The reason the KJV interpreters weren't consistent here is exactly because of that subtle difference between the phrases and the words. They needed to reserve the words 'foreknow' and 'foreknew' for those key quotes that they had to twist in order to make you believe that John Calvin's theology is the truth, according to (the KJV version of) The Word of God.
Quote from: reFORMerThe idea God knew something happening on a certain day when or before the creation was manifested doesn't seem difficult to accept for me.
Again, I understand. And for most Christians the kind of discussion were having here seems pointless and futile. And that is because they know their God and they know He is agape, by expereience. And so, if (the KJV version of) the 'Word of God' says He knew from the foundation of the world that Jesus was going to be the lamb slain in sacrifice for our sins, they simply trust Him and keep on loving Him. And there is never,
ever, anything wrong in simply
trusting God and
loving Him, no matter what
any of these 'logical conclusions' are that we are discussing.
He knows Who He is and so the ugly lies that are a logically arrived at for John Calvin shoe-horning his theology into The Original Text, mean nothing to Him because most of those humans who truly know Him either refuse to believe these lies or simply throw their hands up and declare it all 'a mystery' and keep right on chugging along entrusting their lives to Him and the goodness they know of Him, from their experiences with Him.
Some stubborn ones, though, like Doc and I, gotta dig till we get
something that makes sense of the truthful lies we are thinking.
Quote from: reFORMerHow does He make me see or know things that will happen before they do? He has to know them before.
Yes, I agree. And I repeat that I have
never said Jehovah doesn't have the ability to know things before they happen. All I am doing is showing what The Original Text reveals about how He gets his knowledge of the future. It reveals that He is intimately acquainted with the thoughts of all humans simultaneously, through spirit. And for this I conclude He can know what is going to happen before it does.
Quote from: reFORMerI understand Him to be in dimensions beyond the space/time continuum. Like the observer on the ground sees the parade going by only in a limited way. It is each section and the performers immediately passing by his place on the ground that he perceives. When he climbs to the top of the many floored apartment building and goes out on the roof he can see the entire parade. From start to finish, it's all viewed by him becouse of his vantage point.
Yes. This is actually a very good way of perceiving how He can know the future. The only thing I would change, to turn this analogy toward my understanding, is to say that, rather than it being a parade He is watching, it is a crowd, like at Grand Central Station, with everyone milling about trying to get their objectives accomplished. And because He can know, simultaneously, the thoughts of all in that crowd; when He becomes aware of a thought He needs to do something about He can 'zoom in' from His position and influence that person through his/her spirit with a thought. (This would be
especailly true of those humans who have the spirit of Jesus at home in them.)
Or, if something physical needs to be done He can send a messenger (an angel) at 'the speed of light' (I would imagine) with specific directions on what He wants them to accomplish.
Remember reFORMer, this is just an analogy, adapted on the fly, from yours to help you perceive this understanding. I cannot make claim that this 'explains everything', even as I perceive its shortcomings.
Quote from: reFORMerI suspect Jesus would've died even if Humankind had not partaken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I'm sorry, but I can't acknowledge that as the truth.
Quote from: reFORMerOne way of viewing creation is God created it in wisdom (Bk of Proverbs) before it was lowered into manifestation. The Lamb (physical Sonship realm) is that aspect of God in manifestation that died in order that a place could be available for something to come into manifestation other than God. I have not been able to know for sure, as some say, that the "disruption" of the world was when sin entered into this creation or if it was when the creation emerged physically from the higher realm of God's consciousness, though I prefer the latter for now!
This is what I will say. This makes sense to you, but I can't pretend I fully understand what you are saying, even though your words leave an impression on my mind of goodness.
However, it is clear that you have thought this through and this is the answer that satisfies your heart for the mysteries you perceive in The Words. For I perceive, also, that you know your God and you know Him to be good. And so, for this, you are content with what you have concluded.
My blessings on it.
For I see that you are also a seeker for saying, "I prefer the latter
for now!"
So, If something I have said here speaks to you, then ask me a question or two about it. It is my pleasure to give answer for what I believe and why, because I learn more each and every time I do; with the hope always in me that others will maybe find something in what I say that will answer the questions they have thought of, on thier own, but never dared to speak before for knowing before the kind of reviling responses they will get.
Know then, reFORMer that I appreciate you addressing your thoughts to me.
Be good!
It is what you were created to be!
Dennis!
Quote from: EleutherosAnd I should note, also, that, from my understanding, having to do this was not part of His original 'plan for man'. Israel came into existence as part of a subsequent strategy for dealing with the direction the world took after the turning, a direction Jehovah never intended to have to go in order to accomplish His purpose.
Hello!! This is God we are talking about here. :mshock:
Eleutheros, if I hadn't said "I don't mean to be a smart alec" you probably wouldn't even have given it a thought. :laughing7:
As far as Eve sinning, she lusted, coveted, and had pride. all in this verse (Gen. 3:6). And when the woman saw that the tree was good for fruit...and that it was pleasent {a desire} to the eyes...and a tree to be desired to MAKE ONE WISE.
You ask Brandon "what is the heart"? One explaination is, "the heart is decieteful above all things and desperately wicked who can know it"?
Quote from: Eleutheros
I'm not saying this to be rude or disrespectful. Instead I'm saying these things so that, in all seriousness, I can ask, "Why haven't any of you asked these kinds of questions of yourselves?"
Ahhhhh...ohhhhhh!!! sounds like something I said. I am just trying to be funny here. :bigGrin:
Quote from: EleutherosHowever, if you have stopped sinning and are practicing righteousness by doing good, out of love, bearing the sins of others against you and around you, with patience (which means you can feel their sins as a 'weight' to be born), then you are a re-sired human with God's own divine nature in you. For God does not sin. And if you are His re-sired child then you also will not continue to sin. And when you do sin you will feel it in you as defilement and will want to confess it quickly so that you may receive forgiveness and rid yourself of it.
Dennis, How can any one stop sinning while in these fleshly bodies? The flesh itself is sin. :dontknow:
Now, when we confess our sins as to the reality that Christ died for them, then we are no longer sinners, we have been crucified buried and resurrected with Christ and are now sitting on the right hand of God in Jesus Christ. If we keep right on confessing our sins, it is like crucifying Christ all over again (Rom. 6:2-6) Please read these verses. :happy3:
Well, I did respond, didn't want you to think we here at Tentmaker didn't have an answer or was afraid to respond to your theory.
I don't believe the God I know, would leave any thing to chance.
CHB
Hey, Doc!
Quote from: Doc on October 09, 2009, 03:35:51 AM
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 06, 2009, 09:38:41 PM
PART TWO
P.S. I'll reply to the other posts you made after I ponder them awhile. They're some good ones!
Rather than going through and trying to answer part two point by point, I'll just write out here what I hope will cover all those bases.
Here we go:
There would be no Christ to kneel before had not sin invaded the world. And where would be the Crucified One without Romans practiced in that terrible art? And what becomes of His resurrection without an Adversary to ensure His death?
I would like, at this time, to make two statements. Some will consider these heretical, for they are logical; logic, we know is the enemy of all religion. Nevertheless: 1) Since there can be no salvation without something to be saved from, sin is necessary, and 2) Since "all is of God" (2nd Cor. 5:18) and sin exists, then sin must be of God.
Wait.
Sin means "to miss the mark". Does God ever miss the mark? No, never. Therefore, God never sins. He cannot. I am not saying that God sins. But if God meant for sin to enter the universe, then He did not miss the mark when it came. He would only be a sinner if He didn't mean for sin to come, but it came anyway.
Some religious people, attempting to read this, will unfairly accuse me of making God a sinner. But have I called Him that? Not once. I have only said that sin must be of God. I reached this conclusion by logic, based on the scripture that says "all is of God".
I am a champion of the responsibility of God for whatever has entered His universe. Others would prefer to say: "God is not responsible." What a frightening doctrine--the irresponsibility of God.
But we like it.
So how did sin come about then?
By stealth and trickery, apart from God's original intention.
I don't suppose you see what you've done.
Do we ever?
You have made God a sinner.
We would never do that.
You do it indirectly by making Satan sovereign in sin. God never intended for sin to mar His universe, according to you. Your unavoidable conclusion is that Satan disrupted God's original intention, forcing God into plan B. God missed His original mark and settled for less. That's sin.
We're only trying to help God, to erase all the bad things from his resume.
I know, but you're a public relations nightmare. By attemptin to excuse God for doing what you cannot see a purpose for, you have booted Him from His throne.
How can you say that?
Everyone who tries to shield God from the consequences of His own creation inadvertently--yet inevitably--makes Him a sinner.
Are you trying to get logical on us?
I want you to see that anyone who attempts to relieve God of responsibility for sin, ends up making Him the very thing they try to avoid.
Katabole does not mean what you think it does. It literally means to throw down or lay down, as in laying down a foundation. (Rev. 13:8)
You say man's sin forced God back to His drawing board for a contingency plan: Christ. How demeaning to the Son of God. This is what the teaching of "Adam blew everything" leads to. By Christ's sacrifice predating Adam's sin, we know that God had sacrificial love in His heart from the beginning. Yet there can be no revelation of this apart from human failure. Christ was no afterthought. Jesus was not a good idea come late. Satan did not inspire Calvary/ Golgotha by forcing God's hand.
Why can't we believe Isaiah 45:7? Neither good nor God can be revealed without opposition. Since there was a time when no opposition existed in the universe, God had to create it. "all is of God", remember?
Yet what you believe leads to the conclusion that long ago, God lost control of His universe, and He has been struggling ever since to salvage some of it.
In the scripture, God is always getting humans into scrapes so that He can get them out of scrapes and show His power. You say, "No, God isn't getting humans into scrapes, humans are getting themselves into scrapes." Well, that theory works fine until you consider accounts such as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. More on that in a minute. God delights in making things humanly impossible before He sets to work. The blind man at the pool of Siloam. Oh, I think I'll put some mud on the blind guy's eye's. That'll help him see. Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Israel (These are God's chosen people?...) Joseph (Gen. 50:20: you thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good. Romans 11:8 God gave the nation of Israel a spirit of stupor. Not satan. Why? Romans 11: 11,12 tells us; "In their offense is salvation to the nations...their offense is the world's riches." Romans 3:5 "Our injustice is commending God's righteousness." Then there's the story of Gideon. Talk about impossible odds. Abraham and Sarah.
Exodus 4:21 has God saying "I will harden Pharaoh's heart". To make sure we can't miss it, God then repeats this phrase throughout the account. Then Paul brings it home in Romans 9:17-18, to make sure nobody forgets it: "For the scripture is saying to Pharaoh that 'For this selfsame thing I rouse you up, so that I should be displaying in you My power, and so that My name should be published in the entire earth.' Consequently, then, to whom He will, He is merciful, yet whom He will, He is hardening."
But Pharaoh hardened his own heart...
Except that before Moses even went into Egypt, God said in Exodus 4:21 that He would harden Pharaoh's heart.
Psalm 105:25 says, "God turned their (Egyptians) heart to hate his people."
Isaiah 63:17 says, "Why, O Lord, do you cause us to stray from Your ways, and harden our heart from fearing You?" Romans 11:8 backs this up when Paul writes that "God gives Israel a spirit of stupor".
Ok, I think I've said enough for now.
I wish I could attribute this post to myself, but I can't. These are all excerpts from writings of Martin Zender.
But hey, I included more scripture this time... :icon_king:
Well, Doc, I think this is about the most fantastic thing I've ever read.
Seriously, I was in so much emotional distress after reading it that I had to leave it for a day to let the profound sadness in my heart of thoughts dissipate before I could dare approach it again with a reasonable frame of mind.
And while I'm sure you may agree with Martin Zender's... 'antilogic'... I'm
very grateful that you didn't write it yourself.
And for that I think it may be close to the time for me to move on.
I want to ask you some questions, Doc and your answers will let me know if we have reached a point in our discussion when all we will be doing is bantering and repeating the same things over again.
Martin Zender said:
QuoteI would like, at this time, to make two statements. Some will consider these heretical, for they are logical; logic, we know is the enemy of all religion.
Do you believe this to be a truthful statement? Yes or No.
He also said:
QuoteI want you to see that anyone who attempts to relieve God of responsibility for sin, ends up making Him the very thing they try to avoid.
Do you agree with his conclusion as he stated it here? Yes or No.
If No then please let me know why you think it is not correct.
He also said:
QuoteKatabole does not mean what you think it does. It literally means to throw down or lay down, as in laying down a foundation. (Rev. 13:8)
What does the Greek word
katabole mean?
Does it mean 'foundation'?
Or does it mean 'disruption'?
Choose one.
Your answers will tell me whether I should be moving on or not.
And know, my friend, that I truly do appreciate all the time you have spent with me. You are
literally a gift, sent from God.
Blessings,
Dennis!
I love that Martin Zender. Thanks for posting this Doc.
I just thought of something else, don't know if Doc already brought this up or not.? If foundation means disruption then Christ was a disruption because HE is our foundation. (1Cor. 3:11) "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". If the word means what Eleutheros says it does, wouldn't that mean our foundation is unstable, broken apart, not reliable?
CHB
Quote from: CHB on October 11, 2009, 12:45:42 AM
Quote from: EleutherosAnd I should note, also, that, from my understanding, having to do this was not part of His original 'plan for man'. Israel came into existence as part of a subsequent strategy for dealing with the direction the world took after the turning, a direction Jehovah never intended to have to go in order to accomplish His purpose.
Hello!!
Hi!!
Quote from: CHBThis is God we are talking about here. :mshock:
Yes, CHB. It is.
Quote from: CHBEleutheros, if I hadn't said "I don't mean to be a smart alec" you probably wouldn't even have given it a thought. :laughing7:
This statement is an attempt to justify yourself because I demonstrated that you did mean to be a smart alec. If you hadn't of said, "I don't mean to be a smart alec..." you wouldn't have been lying and I wouldn't have been able to write what I did to show that you were being a smart alec.
Quote from: CHBAs far as Eve sinning, she lusted, coveted, and had pride. all in this verse (Gen. 3:6). And when the woman saw that the tree was good for fruit...and that it was pleasent {a desire} to the eyes...and a tree to be desired to MAKE ONE WISE.
I understand, from your logic, why this is a 'truth'; for I was taught the same things you were.
I also perceive that you have not grasped my logic
and that you don't care to. So, if I were to present my answer to this, again, given your smart alec attitude, I foreknow that I would be perceived by you as just gainsaying; and I would be found to be wasting my time.
Quote from: CHBYou ask Brandon "what is the heart"? One explaination is, "the heart is decieteful above all things and desperately wicked who can know it"?
So, CHB, is your heart
still deceitful above all things and desperately wicked? Because, if it is, according to the Words of God through John, you are not a begotten anew child of God. (
John 3:3)
"Yet he who is doing sin is of the Adversary, for from the beginning is the Adversary sinning. For this was the Son of God manifested, that He should be annulling the acts of the Adversary. Everyone who is begotten of God is not doing sin, for His seed is remaining in him, and he can not be sinning, for he is begotten of God. In this are apparent the children of God and the children of the Adversary: everyone who is not doing righteousness is not of God, and who is not loving his brother. (
1 John 3:8-10 CLV)
The Greek word translated 'seed' here is:
sperma.
I won't present to you my conclusion, given your disposition toward me, because through logic I'm sure you can draw your own.
Quote from: CHBQuote from: Eleutheros
I'm not saying this to be rude or disrespectful. Instead I'm saying these things so that, in all seriousness, I can ask, "Why haven't any of you asked these kinds of questions of yourselves?"
Ahhhhh...ohhhhhh!!! sounds like something I said. I am just trying to be funny here. :bigGrin:
I was being sincere; you were not.
I would appreciate it, then, if, in the future, you wouldn't take my words out of context so you can be 'funny'.
It is not good for how others will perceive you.
Quote from: CHBQuote from: EleutherosHowever, if you have stopped sinning and are practicing righteousness by doing good, out of love, bearing the sins of others against you and around you, with patience (which means you can feel their sins as a 'weight' to be born), then you are a re-sired human with God's own divine nature in you. For God does not sin. And if you are His re-sired child then you also will not continue to sin. And when you do sin you will feel it in you as defilement and will want to confess it quickly so that you may receive forgiveness and rid yourself of it.
Dennis, How can any one stop sinning while in these fleshly bodies? The flesh itself is sin. :dontknow:
Through Jesus Christ who came that he should be nullifying the works of the Adversary.
Quote from: CHBNow, when we confess our sins as to the reality that Christ died for them, then we are no longer sinners, we have been crucified buried and resurrected with Christ and are now sitting on the right hand of God in Jesus Christ. If we keep right on confessing our sins, it is like crucifying Christ all over again (Rom. 6:2-6) Please read these verses. :happy3:
"What, then, shall we declare? That we may be persisting in sin that grace should be increasing?
May it not be coming to that! We, who died to sin, how shall we still be living in it? Or are you ignorant that whoever are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into His death? We, then, were entombed together with Him through baptism into death, that, even as Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father, thus we also should be walking in newness of life. For if we have become planted together in the likeness of His death, nevertheless we shall be of the resurrection also, knowing this, that our old humanity was crucified together with Him, that the body of Sin may be nullified, for us by no means to be still slaving for Sin, for one who dies has been justified from Sin. (Romans 6: 1-7 CLV)
Done.
Can you now present for my understanding, the logic you used to take what you asked me to read and from which you concluded this:
Quote from: CHBIf we keep right on confessing our sins, it is like crucifying Christ all over again (Rom. 6:2-6) Please read these verses. :happy3:
Given this scripture:
"If we should be saying that we have no sin we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we should be avowing our sins, He is faithful and just that He may be pardoning us our sins and should be cleansing us from all injustice." (1 John 1:8-9 CLV) ?
How do you reconcile the two with your understanding? For they seem not only disparate but contradictory.
This is your chance, CHB, your invitation, to add something more to the discussion than words written with a smart alec attitude.
Quote from: CHBWell, I did respond, didn't want you to think we here at Tentmaker didn't have an answer or was afraid to respond to your theory.
Thank you. Know then, that I truly do appreciate what you wrote because I recognize that it was a courageous thing for you to do, given the threat you perceive my theory to be. Courageousness is courage, regardless of perception.
Quote from: CHBI don't believe the God I know, would leave any thing to chance. CHB
I don't either.
Dennis!
Jesus, being the way (movement, "C2,") the truth (reality, "M,") and the life (quickening, "E,") it seems He would know Himself. The creation exists by means of God's approving awareness of it, though much of is perhaps in Him something like our subconsciousness is to us. His locus is in the person of Jesus and what is focused on by Him. Jesus is the wisdom of God and His foundation.
"The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens." Proverbs 3:19 (AV)
(To have sin is not the same as to do sin.
I would've quoted the CLT if I could've found my copy.)
Quote from: CHB on October 11, 2009, 09:22:42 PM
I love that Martin Zender. Thanks for posting this Doc.
I just thought of something else, don't know if Doc already brought this up or not.? If foundation means disruption then Christ was a disruption because HE is our foundation. (1Cor. 3:11) "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". If the word means what Eleutheros says it does, wouldn't that mean our foundation is unstable, broken apart, not reliable?
CHB
Hi CHB ,
not exactly , the english translations of word meanings seem to get in the way of progress
in every way
to me Jesus is it ! , we are all humbled by His presence
and he makes the new creatures in Christ by His seed/ Word of God that is everlasting /uncorruptible .. and make new
seems the dividing or "break apart ' by disruption , but the strongs is not saying that ?
here is what katabole means in the greek :thumbsup:
Strong's G2602 - katabolē
καταβολή
Transliteration
katabolē
Pronunciation
kä-tä-bo-lā' (Key)
Part of Speech
feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
from G2598
Outline of Biblical Usage
1)
a throwing or laying downa)
the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb
b) of the seed of plants and animals
2) a founding (laying down a foundation)
Strong's G2598 - kataballō
καταβάλλω
Transliteration
kataballō
Pronunciation
kä-tä-bä'l-lō (Key)
Part of Speech
verb
Root Word (Etymology)
from G2596 and G906
Outline of Biblical Usage
1)
to cast down
a) to throw to the ground, prostrate
2) to put in a lower place
a) to lay (down) a foundation When we look to Him ! we see Him , very humbling indeed for Jesus Christ is the Wisdom of God and Power of God ..
.. :HeartThrob:
rose
I am still trying to "catch up " with Eleutheros / freeborn 's
posts ! he has done a very through and complete study on much of this stuff!! wow !! lots to read ....... :icon_flower:
Quote from: Eleutheros
I was being sincere; you were not.
Eleutheros,
It seems that not only can you read God's mind but mine also. :laughing7:
Sorry to disappoint you but you cannot read minds, you do not have that ability.
I was not trying to be a smart alec, even though it might have sounded that way.
Quote from: Elutheros
I foreknow that I would be perceived by you as just gainsaying; and I would be found to be wasting my time.
So, by the above are you saying you can foreknow things but God cannot?
Apparently you did not understand nor care to know what I was saying either. We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".
It isn't by any thing I have done but by the things Jesus did that makes me sin free. Christ only had to die once to accomplish this, not many times like the Priest who had to go back and sacrifice all the time to get forgiveness for their sins. It is a done deal.
I am sorry Eleutheros if I offended you in any way, that was certainly not my intention. I don't want to hurt another human beings feelings for nothing in the world, not intentionally. :girlheart: As far as my heart being wicked and deceitful, of course it is, BUT Christ has taken care of that for me.
CHB
Quote from: CHB on October 12, 2009, 12:42:51 AM
Quote from: Eleutheros
I was being sincere; you were not.
Eleutheros,
It seems that not only can you read God's mind but mine also. :laughing7:
Sorry to disappoint you but you cannot read minds, you do not have that ability.
I was not trying to be a smart alec, even though it might have sounded that way.
Quote from: Elutheros
I foreknow that I would be perceived by you as just gainsaying; and I would be found to be wasting my time.
So, by the above are you saying you can foreknow things but God cannot?
Apparently you did not understand nor care to know what I was saying either. We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".
It isn't by any thing I have done but by the things Jesus did that makes me sin free. Christ only had to die once to accomplish this, not many times like the Priest who had to go back and sacrifice all the time to get forgiveness for their sins. It is a done deal.
I am sorry Eleutheros if I offended you in any way, that was certainly not my intention. I don't want to hurt another human beings feelings for nothing in the world, not intentionally. :girlheart: As far as my heart being wicked and deceitful, of course it is, BUT Christ has taken care of that for me.
CHB
As you wish!
Dennis!
Quote from: rosered on October 11, 2009, 10:46:34 PM
Quote from: CHB on October 11, 2009, 09:22:42 PM
I love that Martin Zender. Thanks for posting this Doc.
I just thought of something else, don't know if Doc already brought this up or not.? If foundation means disruption then Christ was a disruption because HE is our foundation. (1Cor. 3:11) "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". If the word means what Eleutheros says it does, wouldn't that mean our foundation is unstable, broken apart, not reliable?
CHB
Hi CHB ,
not exactly , the english translations of word meanings seem to get in the way of progress
in every way
to me Jesus is it ! , we are all humbled by His presence
and he makes the new creatures in Christ by His seed/ Word of God that is everlasting /uncorruptible .. and make new
seems the dividing or "break apart ' by disruption , but the strongs is not saying that ?
here is what katabole means in the greek :thumbsup:
Strong's G2602 - katabolē
καταβολή
Transliteration
katabolē
Pronunciation
kä-tä-bo-lā' (Key)
Part of Speech
feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
from G2598
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a throwing or laying down
a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb
b) of the seed of plants and animals
2) a founding (laying down a foundation)
Strong's G2598 - kataballō
καταβάλλω
Transliteration
kataballō
Pronunciation
kä-tä-bä'l-lō (Key)
Part of Speech
verb
Root Word (Etymology)
from G2596 and G906
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to cast down
a) to throw to the ground, prostrate
2) to put in a lower place
a) to lay (down) a foundation
When we look to Him ! we see Him , very humbling indeed for Jesus Christ is the Wisdom of God and Power of God ..
.. :HeartThrob:
rose
I am still trying to "catch up " with Eleutheros / freeborn 's
posts ! he has done a very through and complete study on much of this stuff!! wow !! lots to read ....... :icon_flower:
Hi rosered,
Eleutheros said that katabole was the right word for foundation which meant disruption, That is why I said, if that is what it meant wouldn't we be standing on a shaky, unstable foundation, one that could break apart. You are right, about the meaning of the word.
CHB
Quote from: CHB on October 12, 2009, 12:42:51 AM
Quote from: Eleutheros
I was being sincere; you were not.
Eleutheros,
It seems that not only can you read God's mind but mine also. :laughing7:
Sorry to disappoint you but you cannot read minds, you do not have that ability.
I was not trying to be a smart alec, even though it might have sounded that way.
Quote from: Elutheros
I foreknow that I would be perceived by you as just gainsaying; and I would be found to be wasting my time.
So, by the above are you saying you can foreknow things but God cannot?
Apparently you did not understand nor care to know what I was saying either. We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".
It isn't by any thing I have done but by the things Jesus did that makes me sin free. Christ only had to die once to accomplish this, not many times like the Priest who had to go back and sacrifice all the time to get forgiveness for their sins. It is a done deal.
I am sorry Eleutheros if I offended you in any way, that was certainly not my intention. I don't want to hurt another human beings feelings for nothing in the world, not intentionally. :girlheart: As far as my heart being wicked and deceitful, of course it is, BUT Christ has taken care of that for me.
CHB
If you don't mind, I'd like to add some additional comments to the Post:
You said: " We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".
I would like to add to the above comment as follows:
It is not merely that your heavenly Father does not see your sins; neither can the evil one persist with his legal/rightful power to pay you the wages for them because Jesus bore the wages justly due to you.
By His love He forgives; by His grace He forgets. (very similar to an earthly parent, ay?)
Quote from: CHB on October 12, 2009, 12:42:51 AMQuote from: Eleutheros
I was being sincere; you were not.
Eleutheros,
It seems that not only can you read God's mind but mine also. :laughing7:
Sorry to disappoint you but you cannot read minds, you do not have that ability.
I was not trying to be a smart alec, even though it might have sounded that way.
OK. Yes, You did
sound that way.
No, I cannot read minds and neither can you; so, know that it is through your saying things like
this that you come to be perceived as a 'smart alec', even if its not your intention.
Remember, all I have to know about you is what you type and first impressions are lasting ones.
So, for that, I would say if you
feel sincere when you type out your replies, you will type with sincerity.
Likewise if you
feel sardonic when you type out your replies, you will sound sardonic through your typing.
Quote from: CHBQuote from: Elutheros
I foreknow that I would be perceived by you as just gainsaying; and I would be found to be wasting my time.
So, by the above are you saying you can foreknow things but God cannot?
No.
CHB, I have to assume one of two things here for you saying this: Either you have not read my posts, or if you have, your emotions kept you from seeing that, several times, I have stated
emphatically that I am not denying that Jehovah has the ability to 'know before' of things that are going to happen.
Instead I have absolutely agreed that unless He can know of things before they happen then He cannot be sovereign.
I use the words 'foreknow' and 'foreknew' like this, in my posts, as a device to illustrate, by usage, not only
how these words are to be understood in the Greek, but also to show that they are not 'sacred words'
that only apply to Jehovah, just as I have shown that the Greek word
proginosko is also used in The Original Text to describe a humans ability to 'know before'.
Quote from: CHBApparently you did not understand nor care to know what I was saying either.
I understand why you would think that. And I will say, for the record, that I do understand what you are saying; I was raised
immersed in modern Medieval Christian thought.
However your perceived 'smart alec' reply was a check against me giving you more 'fodder' to use against me, even as I observed you took a scripture out of context to 'proof text' me and took my own words out of context in a similar fashion to use against me and for saying things that you would not have said if you had read my posts,
with understanding.
So, given all this can you blame me for assuming that you were wanting to be a smart alec and thus engage me in a 'battle of emotions', despite your claim that you were not?
Quote from: CHBWe are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".
It isn't by any thing I have done but by the things Jesus did that makes me sin free. Christ only had to die once to accomplish this, not many times like the Priest who had to go back and sacrifice all the time to get forgiveness for their sins. It is a done deal.
I too was taught this
exactly as you say it.
All I will say to you in reply, for now, is that my eyes were opened, many years ago, when I realized that The Words were telling me that, not only was it was
possible for me to stop sinning- for having the 'spirit of Jesus making its home in me', as Paul put it, or, for being 're-sired by the sperm of Jehovah', as John put it- but that it was
expected, by God and
reasonably so, that I stop sinning and
start being righteous
exactly because I now have the very Nature of God in me; His
own Divine Nature, imparted to me in similar fashion as an earthly father passes
his nature on to his children.
And from
that understanding, over the years, my eyes became opened even further to the understanding I am attempting to present here, openly and publically, among fellow Believers and fellow humans that I 'foreknew' would be resistant to it, that I may test it for truth in my own heart of thoughts.
Quote from: CHBI am sorry Eleutheros if I offended you in any way, that was certainly not my intention. I don't want to hurt another human beings feelings for nothing in the world, not intentionally. :girlheart:
Thank you for saying this. Your apology is accepted and I too offer my apologies as well for my simply replying, "As you wish" before I modified this post to give you a better answer. I should have taken a break to let your post 'sink in' before my initial reply.
I will endeavor, CHB, from this point forward, to respond with more understanding for perceiving you in a better light, now that I know more about you for what you have typed here.
I am delighted by how much I am learning from my interactions here, including the miscues.
Quote from: CHBAs far as my heart being wicked and deceitful, of course it is, BUT Christ has taken care of that for me.
CHB
I agree.
But in an even more
complete way than your current understanding makes it possible for you to imagine! (Though you can
experience it without
understanding it)
So, for that, I will say, "Be good, CHB!"
"Exactly as you were
re-sired to be!"
Dennis!
Hey, reFORMer!
Quote from: reFORMer on October 11, 2009, 09:55:53 PM
Jesus, being the way (movement, "C2,") the truth (reality, "M,") and the life (quickening, "E,") it seems He would know Himself. The creation exists by means of God's approving awareness of it, though much of is perhaps in Him something like our subconsciousness is to us. His locus is in the person of Jesus and what is focused on by Him. Jesus is the wisdom of God and His foundation.
You are taking the equation that shows matter and energy are equivalent and applying it to your understanding of Jehovah's relationship among Himself! This is very interesting!
I don't know, yet, if I can agree with it, but I'd certianly like to understand it better. Could you let me know more?
Quote from: reFORMer"The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens." Proverbs 3:19 (AV)
Question: By what name was 'Jesus' called before He forever became Jesus? Answer: Wisdom!
Now
there's a thought for ya!
Quote from: reFORMer(To have sin is not the same as to do sin.
I would've quoted the CLT if I could've found my copy.)
Could I ask you to be persistent and provide the CLT quote from which you derive this?
I would appreciate it!
Be good!
Dennis!
Quote from: Eleutheros
All I will say to you in reply, for now, is that my eyes were opened, many years ago, when I realized that The Words were telling me that, not only was it was possible for me to stop sinning- for having the 'spirit of Jesus making its home in me', as Paul put it, or, for being 're-sired by the sperm of Jehovah', as John put it- but that it was expected, by God and reasonably so, that I stop sinning and start being righteous exactly because I now have the very Nature of God in me; His own Divine Nature, imparted to me in similar fashion as an earthly father passes his nature on to his children
Well, the way I am understanding this quote is, you believe it is up to you to stop sinning on your own. If that is possible what did Jesus need to die for? If you are referring to St John to prove that you can stop sinning on your own, you have to remember that John was written before Jesus was crucified. There was no Savior at that time. If you are referring to John 1 2 or 3, then these were written to the Israelites, people who were under Moses' law and the New Covenant. Paul was given the final revelation of salvation which was first to the Jew's then finally to the Gentiles. We Gentiles are not under any laws. Paul says we are in Christ and are NOW sitting in heaven in him on the right hand of God. So, spiritually we are not sinners but physically we are. Hope you can understand what I am saying here. I am not the best at explaining things, I am a smart alec remember?? :laughing7: Seriously!!! but only in fun :laughing7:
You keep saying that we were created to be good and you are right but not in this lifetime. Jesus said "no man is good except one that is God" (Luke 18:19). I believe we are learning the good from the bad which will take a lifetime and it is God who will have to perform that in us we can't do nothing on our own. Didn't Jesus say, "of mine own self I can do nothing"? Are we more powerful than Jesus was? When we become immortal then we can say we are good. Just the way I see things. :happy3:
CHB
Quote from: Gilbert on October 12, 2009, 03:47:47 AM
Quote from: CHB on October 12, 2009, 12:42:51 AM
Quote from: Eleutheros
I was being sincere; you were not.
Eleutheros,
It seems that not only can you read God's mind but mine also. :laughing7:
Sorry to disappoint you but you cannot read minds, you do not have that ability.
I was not trying to be a smart alec, even though it might have sounded that way.
Quote from: Elutheros
I foreknow that I would be perceived by you as just gainsaying; and I would be found to be wasting my time.
So, by the above are you saying you can foreknow things but God cannot?
Apparently you did not understand nor care to know what I was saying either. We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".
It isn't by any thing I have done but by the things Jesus did that makes me sin free. Christ only had to die once to accomplish this, not many times like the Priest who had to go back and sacrifice all the time to get forgiveness for their sins. It is a done deal.
I am sorry Eleutheros if I offended you in any way, that was certainly not my intention. I don't want to hurt another human beings feelings for nothing in the world, not intentionally. :girlheart: As far as my heart being wicked and deceitful, of course it is, BUT Christ has taken care of that for me.
CHB
If you don't mind, I'd like to add some additional comments to the Post:
You said: " We are all sinners but by the righteousness of Christ, his death and resurrection makes us sin free in the eyes of the Father. In other words, when the Father looks at me he doesn't see my sins....even though I have them... he only sees Christ. He doesn't count our sins against us, even though we sin. (2Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".
I would like to add to the above comment as follows:
It is not merely that your heavenly Father does not see your sins; neither can the evil one persist with his legal/rightful power to pay you the wages for them because Jesus bore the wages justly due to you.
By His love He forgives; by His grace He forgets. (very similar to an earthly parent, ay?)
Thanks Gilbert for adding that.
CHB
Quote from: CHB on October 12, 2009, 05:58:56 PM
Quote from: Eleutheros
All I will say to you in reply, for now, is that my eyes were opened, many years ago, when I realized that The Words were telling me that, not only was it was possible for me to stop sinning- for having the 'spirit of Jesus making its home in me', as Paul put it, or, for being 're-sired by the sperm of Jehovah', as John put it- but that it was expected, by God and reasonably so, that I stop sinning and start being righteous exactly because I now have the very Nature of God in me; His own Divine Nature, imparted to me in similar fashion as an earthly father passes his nature on to his children
Well, the way I am understanding this quote is, you believe it is up to you to stop sinning on your own.
If that is possible what did Jesus need to die for? If you are referring to St John to prove that you can stop sinning on your own, you have to remember that John was written before Jesus was crucified. There was no Savior at that time. If you are referring to John 1 2 or 3, then these were written to the Israelites, people who were under Moses' law and the New Covenant. Paul was given the final revelation of salvation which was first to the Jew's then finally to the Gentiles. We Gentiles are not under any laws. Paul says we are in Christ and are NOW sitting in heaven in him on the right hand of God. So, spiritually we are not sinners but physically we are. Hope you can understand what I am saying here. I am not the best at explaining things, I am a smart alec remember?? :laughing7: Seriously!!! but only in fun :laughing7:
You keep saying that we were created to be good and you are right but not in this lifetime. Jesus said "no man is good except one that is God" (Luke 18:19). I believe we are learning the good from the bad which will take a lifetime and it is God who will have to perform that in us we can't do nothing on our own. Didn't Jesus say, "of mine own self I can do nothing"? Are we more powerful than Jesus was? When we become immortal then we can say we are good. Just the way I see things. :happy3:
CHB
Good Morning!
Thank you, CHB, for replying and providing me with these challenges derived from your understanding.
Like I said before, I was raised with this understanding exactly as you have said it here and so I do understand why you think what you think; you're going to have to trust me that I am telling you the truth.
However, before I attempt to provide you an answer can I ask if you have read my two posts that begin here (http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6555.msg74517#msg74517) and here (http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6555.msg76490#msg76490)
with understanding- remember
understanding does not equate to
agreement.
In the meantime, while I await your answer I will be contemplating the best reply I can give you to your challenge here and while I'm doing that I would like to ask you to contemplate something.
I think it's safe to assume that you no longer hold that peculiar hell that John Calvin gave us through the KJV interpretation of The Words actually exists because if you did you wouldn't be here on Tentmaker.
I think it also safe to assume that you were not raised to believe what you now know to be the truth; in fact, you were raised believing that peculiar hell was as real as the God you used to believe created it to punish sinners for eternity.
But now you don't.
Why?
What convinced you that what you used to believe was a truth is now, in fact, a lie? Was it intuition? Was it from knowing your God and realizing that this couldn't be a truth because of your experiences with Him? Was it
everything else The Words said that weren't about 'hell'? Was it because you read an article or a book wherein someone presented a logical argument against hell? Was it through the difference you perceived in a Christian friend who does believe in hell and one who doesn't? Was it from reading the CLV translation? Or was it a combination of these things that led to where you are now, a poster, in good standing, on Tentmaker?
I'm not necessarily asking you to tell me your story, unless you want to share it here- I'd love to read it. Instead, what I'm asking you to do is contemplate your story as you read or are even re-reading the things I've written; while also holding, in your mind, that understanding does not equate to agreement; for you, as a human being, already understand a lot of things that you don't agree with.
Awaiting your reply!
Be good!
Dennis!
First of all, I found it very VERY heart warming to read the comments of Poster "Eleutheros". Unfortunately, many have not obtained a similar confession and their Christian experience becomes the stressful monotony of a eternal 'flood insurance' policy; continuously treading water in the frantic hope of somehow escaping the swallowing depths.
Sad to say, some of these same sincere Christians were rightfully quick to discard the 'fire insurance' of the ET'rs but insist to remain captivated to the 'flood insurance' that we all remain helpless sinners until death.
For those treading water, to them death isn't an enemy; it's a friend.
A Christian who remains inwardly connected with sin is a double-hearted man, and "that person must not suppose that a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways, will receive anything from the Lord", (James 1:7). Neither must he suppose that he will grow into a perfect and ripe fruit. His heart, in its unfertile and rocky condition, is incapable of producing the good fruit.
For the faithful of the New Covenant, perfection, (not righteousness), is the final goal: growing up and developing in the spiritual world where the child of God lives. The New Covenant offers a possibility for spiritual growth and for reaching the full maturity of spiritual manhood.
The average Christian would perhaps answer the question of by Jesus, "Would you be perfect?", (Matt 19:16), by saying that he expects to be a sinner until he dies; that the best he can do is to muddle through.
An evangelical would probably reject the question by saying that one should be humble, that his daily prayer is for a contrite heart and a broken spirit. He thinks perfection will come after death, not before. Merely asking a question like this already shows an annoying lack of balance. Aren't we all respectable Christian sinners?
For the modern Christian the mere idea of perfection is absurd and unacceptable. People who ask this kind of question are oftentimes scorned and accused of 'perfectionism' or 'sinlessness'.
So, you would do well to answer the same question that Jesus asked of the rich young ruler: "Would you be perfect?", (Matt 19:16).
What Jesus meant is this: "Wouldn't you like to go beyond the limits of the Old Covenant? Wouldn't you like to seek for something better and achieve a higher purpose? If so, I'll show you the upward way to the heavenly places". There is a gospel of the kingdom of heaven, and it offers unprecedented opportunities. Never before had this gospel been preached, but it was revealed by Jesus. To be perfect, not just to become perfect after death, the young man would have to surrender all his earthly securities. His heart would have to be strengthened by grace, not by wealth and possessions. He would have to enter into the unseen Kingdom of God and lay up treasure there which cannot be consumed by either moth or rust, nor stolen by thieves. In that Kingdom he would have to live by faith only. That is why the Lord told him: "Sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me".
Following Jesus means accepting and keeping his words, living in keeping with his ways of thinking, thinking as He thought, speaking as He spoke and acting as He acted. It means being prepared to relinquish everything in order to achieve the heavenly inheritance of forgiveness of sin and childhood of God, of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit, of becoming partakers of the divine nature and propagating the love of God which seeks man's freedom, healing and restoration, and of conquering the powers of darkness. Then even Death and Hades will be conquered enemies, no more to be seen or tasted. These treasures are invisible to the' human eye. They can only be found by faith. They are the inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled and unfading, kept in heaven for us (1Peter 1:4).
Jesus guaranteed the young man these heavenly treasures provided he was able to let go of earthly security. The young man had many possessions about which he never stopped caring and worrying. He had more than just money. He had to consider his prestige, his status, the ceremonies of the Old Testament religion; then there were his sincerity and integrity, his long prayers, the sacred garments and the entire structure of outward religion with its fasts, its Sabbaths, its precepts and solemn occasions.
"Give it to the poor", the Lord advised him. "Give your money to those who need it for their subsistence, and give all the outward religious pomp to the Pharisees 'and scribes who need it to maintain themselves on the religious scene. Follow Me to be able to hear the truth without care and worry and to lay up real treasure" in the Kingdom of God".
The rich young man was unable to make the switch from earth to heaven; from the visible to the invisible. He did not follow Jesus but went away sorrowful.
All of us Christians have to make this choice: a religious life after the pattern of the Old Testament or a life which makes perfection its purpose by faith and by the renewal of the mind.
You wrote:
"Well, the way I am understanding this quote is, you believe it is up to you to stop sinning on your own. If that is possible what did Jesus need to die for?"
[/quote]
In Mark 16.16 Jesus said: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved". The word 'saved' means that the believer will be enabled to completely fulfill God's purpose with man. Not only that he will be justified and born again, but also continuing on the road of salvation, that he will partake of the glory of sonship. This salvation culminates in a Christian's perfection and maturity. For he is an heir of God and a co-heir with Christ, (Rom 8:17). He partakes of the divine nature, (2Pet 1:4), and is predestined to reign on the throne of God over all the works of his hands, (2Tim 2:12 & Rev 5:10).
The gospel of Jesus "trains in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work", (2Tim 3:16). Jesus brings about His word, also when He says: "You, therefore, must (or: will) be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect", (Matt 5:48). Christ loved his church and gave Himself up for her, "that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to Himself in splendor; without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish", (Eph 5:25-27). The apostle also wrote: 'For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son", (Rom 8.29). This is the purpose which the apostle sought to attain, and he pressed on to make it his own. He testified: "Christ in us, the hope of glory".
Will the church attain this purpose? God says: "Yes!" and the devil says: "Never!"
John saw a rider on a black horse, (Rev 6:5-6). This horseman does not give life, but causes death because he does not hand out the word of God, the bread of life. This black horse is galloping through many sincere churches today; teaching things of the denominational fathers which are squarely opposed to the intent of the teachings of Jesus, which is perfection.
Not a wonder the Lord prophesied there would be famine. The meager food that was given could not help anybody to reach the maturity mentioned in Eph 4:13.
During the last fifty years erroneous teachings developed among those who say they love Scripture and endeavor to hand out the right kind of spiritual food. These teachings concerning the future keep the children of God from going the high road through the heavenly places, even when dealing with the time of the end. These doctrines sprang up in England and America. The people that adhere to them fill their WebSites and magazines with articles about the natural people of Israel, but at the same time they deny that the promise of the latter rain has been given to the church of God. Therefore they have to deny God's purpose with his church and are unable to accept God's promise that the "wife of the Lamb" will prepare herself to meet her "husband." For they do not believe in the gifts of the spirit as a means to reach this goal. The movement that sprung from this doctrine therefore did not form sound churches, notwithstanding the words of Paul: "that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places" (Eph 3:10).
You wrote:
"You keep saying that we were created to be good and you are right but not in this lifetime. Jesus said "no man is good except one that is God" (Luke 18:19). I believe we are learning the good from the bad which will take a lifetime and it is God who will have to perform that in us we can't do nothing on our own. Didn't Jesus say, "Of mine own self I can do nothing"? Are we more powerful than Jesus was? When we become immortal then we can say we are good. Just the way I see things".
Simultaneous with the prophecy concerning the destruction of the unfaithful church of the Old Covenant, the Lord also pictured the development of the unfaithful church of the New Covenant. The Jerusalem of the Old Covenant, which was about to go under, was a shadow of the great Babylon in the new dispensation, which was now developing. Although the leaders of Jesus' time called themselves children of Abraham, in the heavenly places they were children of the devil, (John 8:44).
In the same way many would come "in the name of Jesus." They would call themselves "of Christ," or "Christian," but they would lead the people away from the gospel of Jesus and make them fail the purpose of faith, which is perfection.
As such, they would prove themselves to be co-operators with the evil one. They would even say: "The time is near", (Luke 21:8), before the plan of God with man had been revealed. Then they would teach that the Lord might come any day, that nothing would be able to resist Him, notwithstanding the fact that the church would not have attained perfection, but would be soiled, wrinkled, and rumpled. Jesus taught: "The earth produces of itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come", (Mark 4:28-29). They would teach: "The time is near," and "Jesus will soon come," while the grain was not ripe. James, however, wrote: "Behold, the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient over it until it receives the early and the late rain", (James 5:7). The falling of the late rain is not even taken into account. Concerning these false teachers, who lose sight of God's purpose with his people, the warning is heard: "Do not follow after them".
But Jesus added: "But the end is not yet!".Let all those who pay attention to the "signs of the times" heed these words of Jesus. Wars, rumors of wars, persecutions, and falling away are not signs that the end is nigh. The end has not yet arrived for the church. The Greek word for end is: 'telos', which means the attaining of a purpose, the fulfillment for which one yearns. This purpose is the perfection of the wife of the Lamb, the completion of the congregation, the revelation of a church which has attained her purpose.
The love and the gifts of the Holy Spirit form a "still more excellent way", (1Cor 12:31).
When the end of all things is nigh, (I Peter 4.7), then the holy ones will be holier still, and the filthy will be filthier still. Paul uses the word 'telos' when he says: "The aim of our charge is love that Issues from a pure heart", (1Tim 1:5), and also Peter in this verse: "What will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?", (1Peter 4:17). In Matt 26:58 this word 'telos' is translated by 'end."
So for example, in the sermon on the Mount of Olives Jesus means to say: this is not the end of my church; this chaos is not her finish. The true church will separate herself from these things and develop as the light of the world, and, as a city on top of a mountain, she will not remain hidden.
The teaching that the church could be caught up any moment, as unprepared individuals out of chaos, is diametrically opposed to the sayings of Jesus. He said: "The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." So the Lord will treat the unfaithful church as He has treated the temple: He will deliver her to fire, this time not natural fire, but to the powers of darkness. The powers of sin will completely lose their grip on the true believers and "then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father", (Matt 13:41-43).
It does not say, as many seem to believe: "Gather the wheat first by being caught up in a moment, in the twinkling of the eye" but rather: "Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, (delivered to the powers of darkness), but gather the wheat into my barn", (Matt 13:30).
For instance, in our current world we see the evidence of the ecumenical influences gathering and bundling the unfaithful church; but the believers are gathered into the "barn," an parable image of the faithful church.
For many sincere Christians these days the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel is not expected. They have failed to comprehend the ultimate purpose and intent of God for their lives and therefore have shut spiritual growth and development from their lives. They therefore cannot grow spiritually and come into maturity. The striving for perfection of which the Scripture speaks, is for them an idle fancy. The laws of the Spirit are not written in their heart and therefore cannot function within them. Because of this they have turned back to the law of Sinai which can never give life because it kills. The first law was not faultless and could not make anyone faultless, (Heb 8:7). For such Christians the men of God of the Old Testament are their ideal of a Christian. They are calling for an Elijah or someone like John the Baptist. However, the apostle wrote: "Be imitators of me, Just as I also am of Christ", (1Cor 11:1).
Jesus pointed to the fact that the least in the Kingdom of God, the most insignificant, is more than John the Baptist and more than Elijah.
There are also many who did receive the Spirit of God but did not allow themselves to be led by the Spirit and to accept His teaching. A person who reaches forward for the baptism of the Holy Spirit must also save himself from a crooked generation which does not know this baptism and blocks the way of God with errors and false doctrines, (Acts 2:40). For instance, one who believes in the teaching of predestination, is actually even hindered in repenting. He will not reach out for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Those who have received the Spirit of God but hold on to the teaching of original sin, can never obtain faultlessness because 'sin is with them all the time'. One who holds to so-called fundamentalist 'maranatha-teaching', believes that the Lord could even come tonight to gather His church. In this case He will not present the church to Himself in splendor and faultlessness, because her members will be immature and full of spots and wrinkles. A person who adheres to the teaching of restoration of the natural Israel, continues to look at the world to see how far this restoration has advanced. He will not look to the heavens, the unseen world from which he must expect his deliverance and perfection. Because of this, he is always connecting the spiritual with the unspiritual, something which the apostle rejects, (1Cor 2:13). This teaching does not make the Christian a full grown, spiritual co-worker in the Kingdom of heaven, but this vision blinds him to the earth and all that happens there.
Is it any wonder that the charismatic movement, which accepts the baptism of the Holy Spirit and its utterances while holding on to and being fervently involved in the doctrines of the old churches, will never gain sight of spiritual maturity and completeness and will never reach the purpose of God? On the contrary, this movement will prepare the way for the antichrist, who will plunder the great Babylon in order to use it for his own purposes and afterward to burn it with fire.
Thankfully, the faithful children of God will have gone out before that time.
The early and the latter rain are indispensable. However, without the good seed in the soil and therefore without the teaching which Jesus Himself brought, these rains are purposeless. They are meant for the good seed in order to produce the desired result before God.
The true followers of Jesus will be filled with power. The result of this will be that they will be worthy and skillful co-workers of God. With great zeal they pass on the gospel of the Kingdom over the whole earth and the Lord will again co-operate with the power of signs and wonders. We read: "And I will give portents in the heavens," (Joel 2:30).
Just like the Master, they will go about "doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil," and through the power of the Holy Spirit many lives will be renewed by a marvelous restoration. All these wonders are brought about through the supernatural world because the church of the endtime is truly a "partaker of the heavenly calling." Her citizenship, walk and field of work is not on earth but in heaven.
The church of Jesus Christ does not wind up in decline, but she ends in a climax. Throughout the centuries the church has lived in spiritual Babylon. She resembles the faithful remnant in the Old Covenant which was exiled in Babylon together with the disobedient people, longingly looking forward to the return to its own country and land. Prophets as Daniel and Ezekiel were exiled as well as the erring people among which they were living.
The church of God is like a child which is still hidden in its mother's womb. The woes of labor pains push it out into the visible world. "The woman was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth", (Rev 12:2). The actual woes start at the fifth trumpet which announces the first woe, (Rev 9:12).
At the sixth trumpet the second woe begins, (Rev 11:14), while the third woe follows closely after the last trumpet. When this trumpet is blown the world will behold, a church which is completely restored, having reached perfection in spirit, soul, and body. The third or lost woe produces the afterbirth. The character of the anti-Christian church then becomes evident when the seven bowls of the wrath of God are poured out over her.
Great post, Gilbert.
Genesis 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Perfection is the completeness we achieve in union with the Lord. It is a state of being in relationship to God.
Hebrews 7:19
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
"perfect"
H8549
תּמים
tâmîym
taw-meem'
From H8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth: - without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (-ly), whole.
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 11, 2009, 05:23:56 PM
Hey, Doc!
Well, Doc, I think this is about the most fantastic thing I've ever read.
(Tongue-in-cheek) If it is, then you definitely need to read more... :winkgrin:
QuoteSeriously, I was in so much emotional distress after reading it that I had to leave it for a day to let the profound sadness in my heart of thoughts dissipate before I could dare approach it again with a reasonable frame of mind.
And while I'm sure you may agree with Martin Zender's... 'antilogic'... I'm very grateful that you didn't write it yourself.
And for that I think it may be close to the time for me to move on.
The truth is sometimes hard to swallow. Be that as it may...
QuoteI want to ask you some questions, Doc and your answers will let me know if we have reached a point in our discussion when all we will be doing is bantering and repeating the same things over again.
Martin Zender said:
QuoteI would like, at this time, to make two statements. Some will consider these heretical, for they are logical; logic, we know is the enemy of all religion.
Do you believe this to be a truthful statement? Yes or No.
This is a sarcastic statement that he made intentionally to make a point. Neither Martin or I believe that logic is the enemy of all religion (faith-based belief system); although I will say that it is the enemy of all
Religion (with a capital R) If you get my meaning.
QuoteHe also said:
QuoteI want you to see that anyone who attempts to relieve God of responsibility for sin, ends up making Him the very thing they try to avoid.
Do you agree with his conclusion as he stated it here? Yes or No. If No then please let me know why you think it is not correct.
I agree with His statement as stated, yes; understanding that he means they only make God so in the eyes of those viewing Him through that lens as a logical conclusion of viewing God through that lens.
QuoteHe also said:
QuoteKatabole does not mean what you think it does. It literally means to throw down or lay down, as in laying down a foundation. (Rev. 13:8)
What does the Greek word katabole mean?
Does it mean 'foundation'?
Or does it mean 'disruption'?
Choose one.
Well, actually, that was my bit, not his. I was trying to personalize it to the discussion based on elements of your previous post.
Anyway my answer is that it means what I said it meant in the rest of that part of the post, and what others have confirmed it means in subsequent posts above. I'll repost it here for ease of reference:
here is what katabole means in the greek
Strong's G2602 - katabolē
καταβολή
Transliteration
katabolē
Pronunciation
kä-tä-bo-lā' (Key)
Part of Speech
feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
from G2598
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a throwing or laying down
a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb
b) of the seed of plants and animals
2) a founding (laying down a foundation)QuoteYour answers will tell me whether I should be moving on or not.
And know, my friend, that I truly do appreciate all the time you have spent with me. You are literally a gift, sent from God.
Blessings,
Dennis!
I haven't responded to at least one of your posts to me here yet, but if you feel you need to move on after reading my answers here, that is of course your prerogative.
There was one other point I had intended to address previously that slipped my notice until something in your response to reformer's post, I think it was, jogged my memory. Bear with me here for a moment. I can't scroll back far enough on this page to get to that post, so I'm going to go back and look at it and edit this post with that particular thought. Back in a tic...
Ok... Adam and Eve's disobedience was the vehicle through which sin was brought into the world, yes? Where was it before it was brought in? It had to have existed already for them to bring it in, right? Adam and Eve therefore, did not create sin; they only brought it into the world. Now granted, sin and evil are not the same thing, though they often go hand in hand. The fact remains though, that we were
created with the ability to
miss the mark. That 'design decision' was therefore intentional, and thus part of God's plan.
One more edit... sorry, I just had to bring this up as well. You keep saying this throughout your various posts:
Quote
I think it's safe to assume that you no longer hold that peculiar hell that John Calvin gave us through the KJV interpretation of The Words actually exists because if you did you wouldn't be here on Tentmaker.
You speak as if Calvin is solely responsible for giving us "that peculiar hell". Now, I know you've got it in for Calvin; and I agree that the Turkey created a lot of theological problems with his doctrines. But I have to remind you that Calvin was not, by a longshot, solely responsible for "that peculiar hell". Augustine gets at least as much credit, and there are quite a large number in the rogue's gallery. Calvin was, relatively speaking, a latecomer to this whole affair. He played his role in propagating the whole mess, certainly, but I don't think in all fairness we can lay the blame squarely with him, eh?
And for what it's worth, I have also enjoyed our discussions so far. They've made me dig in a bit and think and rethink. So thanks for the challenge!
Blessings,
Doc
Hi Eleutheros,
I read one post and most of the other one you ask about. You keep mentioning John Calvin and how he believes that God foreknew that Adam was going to fall. Well, so what, John Calvin got one right as we all do. Every one of us is not 100% right but everyone of us has some truth, Calvin just happened to have a bit of truth as all the rest of religion does. The Baptist has some truth, so do Seventh day Advents, even UR's, only thing is, I feel UR is the closest to the truth.
I am aware and agree that the KJV has some mistakes in it, but so do all the others, just like with the religions of the world.
Now, back to your original idea which is I understand, is that God did not know that Adam would fall. You base your idea on one word "katabole", I use the whole Bible and what it tells me is, God created Adam without any experience of sin and put him in the garden with a serpent and a tree that he should not eat from. For God not to know that he would eat from it would be foolish thinking on God's part. Even I a human, if I put my child in a room full of candy and told him not to eat any, it would be stupid of me to think he wouldn't touch it.
You ask if I use to not believe the things I believe now. I grew up in a Baptist environment. Went to the Seventh Day Advent Church a while. Even attended Pentecostal meetings. Joined the World Wide Church of God. Last, I was shown the knowledge about the salvation of all. It was all God's doing. God brought me through all
these beliefs for a purpose. I did not learn about the salvation of all through my own doing, you cannot find that any of the disciples or apostles came to Christ on their own, they were all chosen. You were chosen, believe it or not, to know what you know whether it be right or wrong. So was I. I have nothing to brag about as far as knowing anything. Isn't this what Paul said also?
I see Doc is back so I will let you two hash it out. :happy3: It has been nice communicating with you. You seem very intelligent and have done a lot of studying on this one word.
CHB
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 09, 2009, 02:43:26 AM
PART TWO
Quote from: DocSo, then, how does one gain virtue, unless there is an alternative to virtue?
Do you mean to choose evil? Well that is the only other functional side to virtue because all the other alternatives I can think of to being virtuous is to either be innocent, like a human baby, or to be stupid like a fool, or to be dumb like an animal, or simply, to be evil.
I'm with you so far, I think.
QuoteQuote from: DocAt this point, the only opposition to virtue WAS the tree of conscience.
Careful, Doc I'm thinking that you're really not that far now from grasping my understanding.
And for that, I would say that the Tree of Conscience was not in opposition to them acquiring virtue but was a part of the process needed for them to acquire virtue.
Well, we certainly agree on this point. What we seem to disagree on is the particular role that this tree played in the process of acquiring virtue.
QuoteIt cannot be undone what the work of the fruit was supposed to accomplish in them, that is, end their innocence and give them a conscience.
There was only one shot at 'getting it right the first time', so to speak. After that it would require God to, one by one, seek and save each of us, changing us, one by one, through the spirit of Jesus, one way or another, into what He intended for us to be all long, through The Adam Completed.
Except that I think that this was the plan from the beginning...
QuoteAnd this is what Jesus meant when He said of the seeming impossibility of a rich man to take hold of the kingdom of God, "With God, all things are possible." That is to say, God can restore this rich man to Himself... and will.
Quote from: DocSo even though they didn't have virtue, how could they have gained virtue unless there was something to oppose it?
Do you mean here the nachash?
Quote from: DocTherefore, the ONLY way they could have gained virtue was from eating of the tree, which means that God must have planned for them to do it...
OK so, you don't mean the nachash. Actually Doc I don't think you are grasping what virtue is.
I can only hope that I clarified that previously in this reply.
Quote from: Docand not after they gained virtue, because there was no alternative (only goodness and innocence) unless they ate from the tree!
Actually there was an alternative... obey Jehovah, who they personally knew to be really great God; a God Who walked and talked with them... and maybe even raced with Ish down to that tree yonder and back while Ishsha flagged the winner... and trust Him and don't eat the fruit of that tree.
Virtue, Doc, is all about being free to choose that which is correct and right to do in any situation.
And for choosing 'right', for choosing to trust this awesome God, they and we would know things...
Like, of evil, objectively, for experiencing and doing good.
Quote from: DocAnd you have already admitted that there is no virtue without conscience/ knowledge of good and evil.
Wow. I'm sorry, cause if I actually said that exactly as you say I did, then I'm not communicating well, am I? So, could you provide me with the place where I said exactly that that so I can see if I can salvage the damage done?
Cause what I know I would have meant was that by acquiring virtue first, through making a choice to trust Jehovah against doubts not to, they could then acquire this conscience, with His permission -which permission would alleviate all doubts in their mind about Him- and thus, through eating, they would not only gain a conscience but have wisdom like God's for knowing the difference between good and evil so that they would know of evil objectively while being and doing good; just like the God Who made them to resemble Him.
Sigh... But virtue cannot be acquired without the knowledge of good and evil. If Adam and Eve had made a choice for simple obedience in their innocence, they could not have acquired virtue this way; under your model, this was the requirement for obtaining virtue. But since they had no knowledge of good and evil yet, they could not obtain virtue without first knowing the difference, viz. knowing good and evil.
QuoteI don't agree that having them eat of the tree, against His command not to, "was the only way that they could move from innocence to perfection". Obedience to His command would have accomplished the same thing, don't you think?
And I obviously don't agree that obedience to his command would have accomplished the same thing, for reasons I've already outlined here and elsewhere. We appear to be at an impasse on this one.
QuoteAnd consider this, doesn't He still expect us to be obedient to His commands? Didn't His Son say, "If you love me you will keep my commands?"
I don't know If I'd use the word "expect". It is certainly His stated will, and as it is also his ultimate intention, so it will be for every individual, someday.
The statement you quoted there is a statement of fact, not a command or statement of expectation. If you love me YOU WILL keep my commands.
If we keep His commands, then we show that we love Him. In other words, He's telling us what will be the natural result of our love for Him
QuoteHas not He Himself declared several humans to be righteous, even 'perfect' exactly because they do what they are asked to do or what they know to do and thus are obedient to His commands?
They are righteous because he has declared them so, not because of anything they did of themselves. They could not have been obedient if God had not placed it in their hearts to do so.
QuoteSo, why would He not expect them to keep this command? Because He foreknew they would fall and therefore had to insure it by giving them a command He knew they would disobey? Indeed why would He command any of us to do anything He already foreknows we either couldn't or wouldn't do? So he could insure His foreknowledge is right? For His glory? OK. But I'll have to say, "Thanks, but no thanks" to this God. Of course he'll likely smite me for being so arrogant even as I know some humans reading this would like for Him to do, or perhaps do it for Him, in His name.
I'm not saying this to be rude or disrespectful. Instead I'm saying these things so that, in all seriousness, I can ask, "Why haven't any of you asked these kinds of questions of yourselves?"
I have asked myself these kinds of questions. Again, we're back to stated will vs. ultimate intention.
QuoteAre you aware that the 'lost' are asking these kinds of questions and rejecting this (your) God because you can't answer them with a good answer?
I am aware of this, but the good answer does not come from disagreeing with scripture. In fact, that's where the "bad answers" have come from!
QuoteQuote from: DocEven Jesus Christ learned obedience from the things that he suffered and he was sinless!
Hummm... this is an interesting thought! Let me ponder it a bit...
:JCThink:
...OK I'm back. You're quoting Hebrews 5:8. Here it is with its context:
"For every chief priest obtained from among men is constituted for men in that which is toward God, that he may be offering both approach presents and sacrifices for sins, able to be moderate with the ignorant and straying, since he also is encompassed with infirmity, and because of it he ought, according as for the people, thus for himself also, be offering for sins.
And not for himself is anyone getting the honor, but on being called by God even as Aaron, also.
Thus Christ also does not glorify Himself by becoming a chief priest, but He Who speaks to Him, "My Son art Thou! I, today, have begotten Thee," according as in a different place also He is saying, "Thou art a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek," Who, in the days of His flesh, offering both petitions and supplications with strong clamor and tears to Him Who is able to save Him out of death, being hearkened to also for His piety, even He also, being a Son, learned obedience from that which He suffered. And being perfected, He became the cause of eonian salvation to all who are obeying Him, being accosted by God "Chief Priest according to the order of Melchizedek,"..."
What I'm reading here is that what His sufferings as a human taught Him was how hard it is to be an obedient human, that is, obedient to God, as a human, despite Him being the very Son of God...
I'm thinking here of His painful , gut-wracking, moment-of-doubt filled, blood- pressure-raising- to- the-point- of-sweating- great-drops-of-blood, words in Gethsemane...
And therefore He was perfected by remaining in obedience to His Father's desires for Him to become the Lamb that takes away the Sins of the World even though it caused Him great physical suffering, in more ways than we can know by simply reading words, so that He could become a sympathetic and therefore eternally effective Chief Priest for being able to sympathize with us, through experience, how hard it is to be obedient to God, as a human.
Remember Jesus was something else with God before He permanently left that state and became, forever, a glorified Human on our behalf, at the behest of His Father. Talk about us screwing things up cosmically! God truly is agape to have done this for us... I am in awe as I contemplate it.
I think then, Doc, that is somewhat out of context to say that what is meant here as an explanation of how, despite Him being The Son of God, the unique and very difficult sufferings of Jesus, that came to Him for being obedient to the Fathers' desires, obedience that perfected Him to become a Human who can be a sympathetic and eternal Chief Priest, able to forgive the sins of mankind forever, equates to saying that the only way anyone can ever learn obedience is by suffering, whether it be for their own sins or the Sins of All... is a bit... disrespectful of what Jesus did for us.
As well as being unflattering of the nature of God.
Well, how do your children learn obedience? Are we not all in some sense, God's children? (Even if we individually do not attain to sonship? teknon vs. huios). Will not everyone suffer the discipline of being salted with fire in obedience or disobedience?
But notice the point that this is what perfected Him. I think we can stretch it at least to those who will be called sons. Are you implying here that Adam could've done what Christ did, become perfected through obedient suffering?
QuoteJust as Peter said here:
For what credit is it if, sinning and being buffeted, you will be enduring it? But if, doing good and suffering, you will be enduring, this is grace with God. For for this were you called, seeing that Christ also suffered for your sakes, leaving you a copy, that you should be following up in the footprints of Him Who does no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; Who, being reviled, reviled not again; suffering, threatened not, yet gave it over to Him Who is judging justly, Who Himself carries up our sins in His body on to the pole, that, coming away from sins, we should be living for righteousness; by Whose welt you were healed. 1 Pet 2: 20-25
And here also:
Christ, then, having suffered for our sakes in flesh, you also arm yourselves with the same thought, for he who is suffering in flesh has ceased his sins, by no means still to spend the rest of his lifetime in the flesh in human desires, but in the will of God. 1 Pet 4: 1-2
As the writer of Hebrews says here:
"For take into account the One Who has endured such contradiction by sinners while among them, lest you should be faltering, fainting in your souls. Not as yet unto blood did you repulse, when contending against sin. Heb 12: 3-4
And as Paul said here about His sufferings and what they mean for us ALL:
For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also, Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God, nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father. So that, my beloved, according as you always obey, not as in my presence only, but now much rather in my absence, with fear and trembling, be carrying your own salvation into effect, for it is God Who is operating in you to will as well as to work for the sake of His delight. Phil 2:5-13
I think that last sentence from Phillippians sums up the obedience question rather well.
QuoteFor I also perceive that you do not grasp how detrimental and maligning this logical conclusion is to the character of your God. As do, also, countless scores of other Christians.
Or do they? There are many, many humans who have experienced His forgiveness and re-siring and know Him to be agape.
Maybe the truth is that they just don't know what to say against this logic? For they too believe what the brilliant logician, John Calvin, made them believe, through the King's English, specifically, that, through His foreknowledge of the future, Jehovah foreordained His Son, from the foundation of the world, to be the Lamb slain in sacrifice for our sins.
Are there any Christians in the room, besides me, who would disagree with this thought, exactly as I have stated it?
So, do you now see, Doc, that, of a truth, this thought, as I have stated it, was a quite brilliant and therefore deliberate deception, just as I have shown it to be?
And the reason this thought was translated into existence was because it well-served Augustine's and Calvin's hell-based theology to have YOU, the English reader, logically conclude, from his mistranslation of key words, without Him actually having to say such an ugly thing directly, that Jehovah must have then 'foreknown' that the Adam was going to 'fall' before He created them.
And then to clinch this conclusion firmly into our heart of thoughts, we came to understand that this conclusion must be true because without God having the ability to know of the future before it happens He could not be sovereign over His creation; which is a truth that I have not denied in any of my writings, at anytime.
Instead, what I have shown is exactly how Jehovah gets His knowledge of the future, according to the correct usage of those key words that Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin deliberately mistranslated to support their hell-based theology.
You said "Adam had to die to be perfected!" And that your very own physical death is therefore "...God's pattern, His design." And so it must have been His intention, all along, for Adam and his wife and their sons and their son's sons, through to millions, all the way up to and through the flood and then all over again on up through many, many more millions right on into October 8th, 2009 A.D. and beyond, to die.
Why? Because, as you say, this is, "God's pattern, it is His design".
I understand. Really, I do.
It's funny isn't it? Because this is also what Ish and Ishsha also came to believe; that He is a God of Death. They too came to believe that the good God that they knew, would punish them with death if they so much as even touched the fruit of the 'forbidden' tree.
When exactly what their truly good God said to Ish was, "... in the day that you eat of it (nothing about touching it) in dying, you will die."
Which words I have come to conclude, because of what did happen when they ingested the fruit, was supposed to happen. For the fruit did what it was created to do- when swallowed, it ended their useless innocence and imparted to them a conscience. But, without a choice made by them to be virtuous, first, by trusting in Jehovah and His goodness, which was his good will for them and His intention, even if they may not have known what virtue was themselves, it was the distrust of Him that was in their heart of thoughts, at that time, that corrupted the work of the fruit. And the world that was intended for them and us to know was disrupted.
And so instead of a clean and useful conscience, useful for knowing of evil, objectively, for both being and experiencing good, just like how their God and ours knows of evil, they and we, must now learn, because of this disruption, of good objectively for experiencing evil; and that of our own making, not God's.
And as I said before, the rest is history.
Wouldn't it be great, Doc if every human child born to us, didn't have to be taught to tell the truth?
Thank you, Doc.
And blessings to you as well.
P.S. I'll be pondering your other replies and will give an answer soon enough. And while I have found the 'serpent thingy 'fascinating for the things I'm reading- very educational, thank you for bringing it to my attention- I would like to ask you if I could refrain from replying to that post; unless you just want me to give you my nascent thoughts, for your own benefit, because, for you, I will do that. Truly, you have been a blessing!
Well, it's funny, because I see your view being just as detrimental to the character of God.
Hmm, Yes I was rather looking forward to your response to the nachash post. Whatever response you can give there is appreciated.
Quote from: Doc on October 13, 2009, 01:29:01 AM
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 09, 2009, 02:43:26 AM
PART TWO
Quote from: DocSo, then, how does one gain virtue, unless there is an alternative to virtue?
Do you mean to choose evil? Well that is the only other functional side to virtue because all the other alternatives I can think of to being virtuous is to either be innocent, like a human baby, or to be stupid like a fool, or to be dumb like an animal, or simply, to be evil.
I'm with you so far, I think.
QuoteQuote from: DocAt this point, the only opposition to virtue WAS the tree of conscience.
Careful, Doc I'm thinking that you're really not that far now from grasping my understanding.
And for that, I would say that the Tree of Conscience was not in opposition to them acquiring virtue but was a part of the process needed for them to acquire virtue.
Well, we certainly agree on this point. What we seem to disagree on is the particular role that this tree played in the process of acquiring virtue.
QuoteIt cannot be undone what the work of the fruit was supposed to accomplish in them, that is, end their innocence and give them a conscience.
There was only one shot at 'getting it right the first time', so to speak. After that it would require God to, one by one, seek and save each of us, changing us, one by one, through the spirit of Jesus, one way or another, into what He intended for us to be all long, through The Adam Completed.
Except that I think that this was the plan from the beginning...
QuoteAnd this is what Jesus meant when He said of the seeming impossibility of a rich man to take hold of the kingdom of God, "With God, all things are possible." That is to say, God can restore this rich man to Himself... and will.
Quote from: DocSo even though they didn't have virtue, how could they have gained virtue unless there was something to oppose it?
Do you mean here the nachash?
Quote from: DocTherefore, the ONLY way they could have gained virtue was from eating of the tree, which means that God must have planned for them to do it...
OK so, you don't mean the nachash. Actually Doc I don't think you are grasping what virtue is.
I can only hope that I clarified that previously in this reply.
Quote from: Docand not after they gained virtue, because there was no alternative (only goodness and innocence) unless they ate from the tree!
Actually there was an alternative... obey Jehovah, who they personally knew to be really great God; a God Who walked and talked with them... and maybe even raced with Ish down to that tree yonder and back while Ishsha flagged the winner... and trust Him and don't eat the fruit of that tree.
Virtue, Doc, is all about being free to choose that which is correct and right to do in any situation.
And for choosing 'right', for choosing to trust this awesome God, they and we would know things...
Like, of evil, objectively, for experiencing and doing good.
Quote from: DocAnd you have already admitted that there is no virtue without conscience/ knowledge of good and evil.
Wow. I'm sorry, cause if I actually said that exactly as you say I did, then I'm not communicating well, am I? So, could you provide me with the place where I said exactly that that so I can see if I can salvage the damage done?
Cause what I know I would have meant was that by acquiring virtue first, through making a choice to trust Jehovah against doubts not to, they could then acquire this conscience, with His permission -which permission would alleviate all doubts in their mind about Him- and thus, through eating, they would not only gain a conscience but have wisdom like God's for knowing the difference between good and evil so that they would know of evil objectively while being and doing good; just like the God Who made them to resemble Him.
Sigh... But virtue cannot be acquired without the knowledge of good and evil. If Adam and Eve had made a choice for simple obedience in their innocence, they could not have acquired virtue this way; under your model, this was the requirement for obtaining virtue. But since they had no knowledge of good and evil yet, they could not obtain virtue without first knowing the difference, viz. knowing good and evil.
QuoteI don't agree that having them eat of the tree, against His command not to, "was the only way that they could move from innocence to perfection". Obedience to His command would have accomplished the same thing, don't you think?
And I obviously don't agree that obedience to his command would have accomplished the same thing, for reasons I've already outlined here and elsewhere. We appear to be at an impasse on this one.
QuoteAnd consider this, doesn't He still expect us to be obedient to His commands? Didn't His Son say, "If you love me you will keep my commands?"
I don't know If I'd use the word "expect". It is certainly His stated will, and as it is also his ultimate intention, so it will be for every individual, someday.
The statement you quoted there is a statement of fact, not a command or statement of expectation. If you love me YOU WILL keep my commands.
If we keep His commands, then we show that we love Him. In other words, He's telling us what will be the natural result of our love for Him
QuoteHas not He Himself declared several humans to be righteous, even 'perfect' exactly because they do what they are asked to do or what they know to do and thus are obedient to His commands?
They are righteous because he has declared them so, not because of anything they did of themselves. They could not have been obedient if God had not placed it in their hearts to do so.
QuoteSo, why would He not expect them to keep this command? Because He foreknew they would fall and therefore had to insure it by giving them a command He knew they would disobey? Indeed why would He command any of us to do anything He already foreknows we either couldn't or wouldn't do? So he could insure His foreknowledge is right? For His glory? OK. But I'll have to say, "Thanks, but no thanks" to this God. Of course he'll likely smite me for being so arrogant even as I know some humans reading this would like for Him to do, or perhaps do it for Him, in His name.
I'm not saying this to be rude or disrespectful. Instead I'm saying these things so that, in all seriousness, I can ask, "Why haven't any of you asked these kinds of questions of yourselves?"
I have asked myself these kinds of questions. Again, we're back to stated will vs. ultimate intention.
QuoteAre you aware that the 'lost' are asking these kinds of questions and rejecting this (your) God because you can't answer them with a good answer?
I am aware of this, but the good answer does not come from disagreeing with scripture. In fact, that's where the "bad answers" have come from!
QuoteQuote from: DocEven Jesus Christ learned obedience from the things that he suffered and he was sinless!
Hummm... this is an interesting thought! Let me ponder it a bit...
:JCThink:
...OK I'm back. You're quoting Hebrews 5:8. Here it is with its context:
"For every chief priest obtained from among men is constituted for men in that which is toward God, that he may be offering both approach presents and sacrifices for sins, able to be moderate with the ignorant and straying, since he also is encompassed with infirmity, and because of it he ought, according as for the people, thus for himself also, be offering for sins.
And not for himself is anyone getting the honor, but on being called by God even as Aaron, also.
Thus Christ also does not glorify Himself by becoming a chief priest, but He Who speaks to Him, "My Son art Thou! I, today, have begotten Thee," according as in a different place also He is saying, "Thou art a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek," Who, in the days of His flesh, offering both petitions and supplications with strong clamor and tears to Him Who is able to save Him out of death, being hearkened to also for His piety, even He also, being a Son, learned obedience from that which He suffered. And being perfected, He became the cause of eonian salvation to all who are obeying Him, being accosted by God "Chief Priest according to the order of Melchizedek,"..."
What I'm reading here is that what His sufferings as a human taught Him was how hard it is to be an obedient human, that is, obedient to God, as a human, despite Him being the very Son of God...
I'm thinking here of His painful , gut-wracking, moment-of-doubt filled, blood- pressure-raising- to- the-point- of-sweating- great-drops-of-blood, words in Gethsemane...
And therefore He was perfected by remaining in obedience to His Father's desires for Him to become the Lamb that takes away the Sins of the World even though it caused Him great physical suffering, in more ways than we can know by simply reading words, so that He could become a sympathetic and therefore eternally effective Chief Priest for being able to sympathize with us, through experience, how hard it is to be obedient to God, as a human.
Remember Jesus was something else with God before He permanently left that state and became, forever, a glorified Human on our behalf, at the behest of His Father. Talk about us screwing things up cosmically! God truly is agape to have done this for us... I am in awe as I contemplate it.
I think then, Doc, that is somewhat out of context to say that what is meant here as an explanation of how, despite Him being The Son of God, the unique and very difficult sufferings of Jesus, that came to Him for being obedient to the Fathers' desires, obedience that perfected Him to become a Human who can be a sympathetic and eternal Chief Priest, able to forgive the sins of mankind forever, equates to saying that the only way anyone can ever learn obedience is by suffering, whether it be for their own sins or the Sins of All... is a bit... disrespectful of what Jesus did for us.
As well as being unflattering of the nature of God.
Well, how do your children learn obedience? Are we not all in some sense, God's children? (Even if we individually do not attain to sonship? teknon vs. huios). Will not everyone suffer the discipline of being salted with fire in obedience or disobedience?
But notice the point that this is what perfected Him. I think we can stretch it at least to those who will be called sons. Are you implying here that Adam could've done what Christ did, become perfected through obedient suffering?
QuoteJust as Peter said here:
For what credit is it if, sinning and being buffeted, you will be enduring it? But if, doing good and suffering, you will be enduring, this is grace with God. For for this were you called, seeing that Christ also suffered for your sakes, leaving you a copy, that you should be following up in the footprints of Him Who does no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; Who, being reviled, reviled not again; suffering, threatened not, yet gave it over to Him Who is judging justly, Who Himself carries up our sins in His body on to the pole, that, coming away from sins, we should be living for righteousness; by Whose welt you were healed. 1 Pet 2: 20-25
And here also:
Christ, then, having suffered for our sakes in flesh, you also arm yourselves with the same thought, for he who is suffering in flesh has ceased his sins, by no means still to spend the rest of his lifetime in the flesh in human desires, but in the will of God. 1 Pet 4: 1-2
As the writer of Hebrews says here:
"For take into account the One Who has endured such contradiction by sinners while among them, lest you should be faltering, fainting in your souls. Not as yet unto blood did you repulse, when contending against sin. Heb 12: 3-4
And as Paul said here about His sufferings and what they mean for us ALL:
For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also, Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God, nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father. So that, my beloved, according as you always obey, not as in my presence only, but now much rather in my absence, with fear and trembling, be carrying your own salvation into effect, for it is God Who is operating in you to will as well as to work for the sake of His delight. Phil 2:5-13
I think that last sentence from Phillippians sums up the obedience question rather well.
QuoteFor I also perceive that you do not grasp how detrimental and maligning this logical conclusion is to the character of your God. As do, also, countless scores of other Christians.
Or do they? There are many, many humans who have experienced His forgiveness and re-siring and know Him to be agape.
Maybe the truth is that they just don't know what to say against this logic? For they too believe what the brilliant logician, John Calvin, made them believe, through the King's English, specifically, that, through His foreknowledge of the future, Jehovah foreordained His Son, from the foundation of the world, to be the Lamb slain in sacrifice for our sins.
Are there any Christians in the room, besides me, who would disagree with this thought, exactly as I have stated it?
So, do you now see, Doc, that, of a truth, this thought, as I have stated it, was a quite brilliant and therefore deliberate deception, just as I have shown it to be?
And the reason this thought was translated into existence was because it well-served Augustine's and Calvin's hell-based theology to have YOU, the English reader, logically conclude, from his mistranslation of key words, without Him actually having to say such an ugly thing directly, that Jehovah must have then 'foreknown' that the Adam was going to 'fall' before He created them.
And then to clinch this conclusion firmly into our heart of thoughts, we came to understand that this conclusion must be true because without God having the ability to know of the future before it happens He could not be sovereign over His creation; which is a truth that I have not denied in any of my writings, at anytime.
Instead, what I have shown is exactly how Jehovah gets His knowledge of the future, according to the correct usage of those key words that Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin deliberately mistranslated to support their hell-based theology.
You said "Adam had to die to be perfected!" And that your very own physical death is therefore "...God's pattern, His design." And so it must have been His intention, all along, for Adam and his wife and their sons and their son's sons, through to millions, all the way up to and through the flood and then all over again on up through many, many more millions right on into October 8th, 2009 A.D. and beyond, to die.
Why? Because, as you say, this is, "God's pattern, it is His design".
I understand. Really, I do.
It's funny isn't it? Because this is also what Ish and Ishsha also came to believe; that He is a God of Death. They too came to believe that the good God that they knew, would punish them with death if they so much as even touched the fruit of the 'forbidden' tree.
When exactly what their truly good God said to Ish was, "... in the day that you eat of it (nothing about touching it) in dying, you will die."
Which words I have come to conclude, because of what did happen when they ingested the fruit, was supposed to happen. For the fruit did what it was created to do- when swallowed, it ended their useless innocence and imparted to them a conscience. But, without a choice made by them to be virtuous, first, by trusting in Jehovah and His goodness, which was his good will for them and His intention, even if they may not have known what virtue was themselves, it was the distrust of Him that was in their heart of thoughts, at that time, that corrupted the work of the fruit. And the world that was intended for them and us to know was disrupted.
And so instead of a clean and useful conscience, useful for knowing of evil, objectively, for both being and experiencing good, just like how their God and ours knows of evil, they and we, must now learn, because of this disruption, of good objectively for experiencing evil; and that of our own making, not God's.
And as I said before, the rest is history.
Wouldn't it be great, Doc if every human child born to us, didn't have to be taught to tell the truth?
Thank you, Doc.
And blessings to you as well.
P.S. I'll be pondering your other replies and will give an answer soon enough. And while I have found the 'serpent thingy 'fascinating for the things I'm reading- very educational, thank you for bringing it to my attention- I would like to ask you if I could refrain from replying to that post; unless you just want me to give you my nascent thoughts, for your own benefit, because, for you, I will do that. Truly, you have been a blessing!
Well, it's funny, because I see your view being just as detrimental to the character of God.
Hmm, Yes I was rather looking forward to your response to the nachash post. Whatever response you can give there is appreciated.
Because of the massive quantity of green 'quotes' accompanying this Post, I suggest we might want to name it the 'St.Patrick Day Post' for future reference. :laughing7:
Hey, Doc!
Quote from: Doc on October 12, 2009, 10:12:26 PM
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 11, 2009, 05:23:56 PM
Hey, Doc!
Well, Doc, I think this is about the most fantastic thing I've ever read.
(Tongue-in-cheek) If it is, then you definitely need to read more... :winkgrin:
No thanks. I value the peace in my heart
way to much to keep on exposing it to this kind of blasting :Shoot:
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisSeriously, I was in so much emotional distress after reading it that I had to leave it for a day to let the profound sadness in my heart of thoughts dissipate before I could dare approach it again with a reasonable frame of mind.
And while I'm sure you may agree with Martin Zender's... 'antilogic'... I'm very grateful that you didn't write it yourself.
And for that I think it may be close to the time for me to move on.
The truth is sometimes hard to swallow. Be that as it may...
No! Say it isn't true! :megashock:
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisI want to ask you some questions, Doc and your answers will let me know if we have reached a point in our discussion when all we will be doing is bantering and repeating the same things over again.
Martin Zender said:
QuoteI would like, at this time, to make two statements. Some will consider these heretical, for they are logical; logic, we know is the enemy of all religion.
Do you believe this to be a truthful statement? Yes or No.
This is a sarcastic statement that he made intentionally to make a point. Neither Martin or I believe that logic is the enemy of all religion (faith-based belief system); although I will say that it is the enemy of all Religion (with a capital R) If you get my meaning.
Yes I do. And the point is taken. So the answer is, "No", you do not agree with his statement because it was intended to be sarcastic.
So, it is reasonably safe to say that you embrace his logic and his logical conclusions as accurate reflections of reality, that is they are the truth.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisHe also said:
QuoteI want you to see that anyone who attempts to relieve God of responsibility for sin, ends up making Him the very thing they try to avoid.
Do you agree with his conclusion as he stated it here? Yes or No. If No then please let me know why you think it is not correct.
I agree with His statement as stated, yes; understanding that he means they only make God so in the eyes of those viewing Him through that lens as a logical conclusion of viewing God through that lens.
The answer then is, "Yes"- with a... 'clarification'; and I would add, one worthy of John Calvin himself.
I'm sorry, Doc but I gotta pause here and add that what I perceive coming from Martin is a logical attempt to justify what, to my perception, cannot be justified because it is a lie; namely that God foreknew of the fall, as a fact, before it happened.
Doc, truly I was not being hyperbolic when I described the effect Martin's words had on me. "Ugly" was my initial word of choice, but I withdrew it and inserted "fantastic" out of respect for your appreciation of this man. For it is not my intention to demean Martin in your eyes, but I also want you to know that my emotional reaction to his words was genuine- given the glibness I know you intended only in fun. No offense was taken and I hope you perceive none for these words.
That being said, I certianly know that both you and he and many others, do not perceive it that way. And in fact, Martin does sound brilliant for his logic (The Q & A thingy was very clever).
But so was Calvin.
And I too know how logic works even as I have tried to share that knowledge here by demonstrating how to discern if the logic is truthful by examining the conclusions for accuracy; assuming one is really looking for truth; for logic itself is neutral and works independently of the truth in the statements that drive it.
So, if his logic satisfies your heart of thoughts, for believing, with all your heart, that The Bible teaches us that God foreknew the fall before He created Adam and Eve- then it does. And I will not be found gainsaying it.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisHe also said:
QuoteKatabole does not mean what you think it does. It literally means to throw down or lay down, as in laying down a foundation. (Rev. 13:8)
What does the Greek word katabole mean?
Does it mean 'foundation'?
Or does it mean 'disruption'?
Choose one.
Well, actually, that was my bit, not his. I was trying to personalize it to the discussion based on elements of your previous post.
Anyway my answer is that it means what I said it meant in the rest of that part of the post, and what others have confirmed it means in subsequent posts above. I'll repost it here for ease of reference:
here is what katabole means in the greek
Strong's G2602 - katabolē
καταβολή
Transliteration
katabolē
Pronunciation
kä-tä-bo-lā' (Key)
Part of Speech
feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
from G2598
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a throwing or laying down
a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb
b) of the seed of plants and animals
2) a founding (laying down a foundation)
So the answer is, "I choose 'foundation'".
OK, then.
Some closing thoughts: Strong's 'definitions' of Greek and Hebrew words was derived from their usage in the KJV text,
not from the original languages. Thus the 'definitions' are self-referencing.
This is like defining a 'machine' as "anything that contains machinery".
The truth cannot be known from what is said in the definition because what is said refers back to the word itself for understanding.
The only thing Strong did to help ease the burden Calvin made The Words carry, given the severe bias that produced the KJV, was to list the usages in order such that,
usually, the last definition or two listed is the one that is not accurate.
One final question asked for thoughtful purposes only: Are Strong's definitions for
aion and
aionios also just as accurate? Because if they are, then the Tentmaker's arguments against Strong's definitions are inaccurate and that peculiar hell really does exist, exactly as the King's English says it does.
My final word on this, then, is to sate the fact that
everything I have written here depends on
katabole meaning 'disruption'; just like it is a fact that what you have written here depends on
katabole meaning 'foundation'.
And Doc: You and I know this.
So, I think you will agree that we have reached the inevitable impasse.
I say then, sincerely, thank you for answering these questions with honesty even as you have demonstrated an honorable spirit throughout our discussions; you are a rare find, indeed, Doc. And that is why I consider you a gift from God Himself.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisYour answers will tell me whether I should be moving on or not.
And know, my friend, that I truly do appreciate all the time you have spent with me. You are literally a gift, sent from God.
Blessings,
Dennis!
I haven't responded to at least one of your posts to me here yet, but if you feel you need to move on after reading my answers here, that is of course your prerogative.
There was one other point I had intended to address previously that slipped my notice until something in your response to reformer's post, I think it was, jogged my memory. Bear with me here for a moment. I can't scroll back far enough on this page to get to that post, so I'm going to go back and look at it and edit this post with that particular thought. Back in a tic...
Ok... Adam and Eve's disobedience was the vehicle through which sin was brought into the world, yes? Where was it before it was brought in? It had to have existed already for them to bring it in, right? Adam and Eve therefore, did not create sin; they only brought it into the world. Now granted, sin and evil are not the same thing, though they often go hand in hand. The fact remains though, that we were created with the ability to miss the mark. That 'design decision' was therefore intentional, and thus part of God's plan.
Please, Doc, don't take this as a sardonic reply because, really, it is with a somber spirit that I say this, but, I perceive that you have learned well from Martin.
I'm sorry, Doc, but this idea you present is repulsive to me. You truly believe that Sin is a pre-existent 'thing'? And that God intentionally
designed us to... 'miss the mark' in order to introduce Sin...
so He could later fix us? (That
is His plan, right?)
And I noted, in past posts, that you seem to think of 'good' and 'evil' as 'things' also that He
created... Truly, I am sorry Doc, but the very
idea that Sin is a pre-existent 'thing', created by
my God for our Parents to 'introduce' into the world and that 'good' and 'evil' are also 'things'; with 'evil' being created by Him
for our benefit because He 'knows' that the only way that we can know
of 'good' is objectively, for having to
experience 'evil' first, is... something I understand... and don't wish to become better acquainted with.
All I have left to say, as I bring this reply to a close, is that, of truth, just as you and Martin have demonstrated it to be, this is exactly what one will come to
logically think about their God for believing what The Bible teaches us; that Jesus is, "...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8 KJV).
Put your faith then in what you will and call it understanding; but I have to turn away from this for the ugliness I see.
Quote from: DocOne more edit... sorry, I just had to bring this up as well. You keep saying this throughout your various posts:
Quote from: DennisI think it's safe to assume that you no longer hold that peculiar hell that John Calvin gave us through the KJV interpretation of The Words actually exists because if you did you wouldn't be here on Tentmaker.
You speak as if Calvin is solely responsible for giving us "that peculiar hell". Now, I know you've got it in for Calvin; and I agree that the Turkey created a lot of theological problems with his doctrines. But I have to remind you that Calvin was not, by a longshot, solely responsible for "that peculiar hell". Augustine gets at least as much credit, and there are quite a large number in the rogue's gallery. Calvin was, relatively speaking, a latecomer to this whole affair. He played his role in propagating the whole mess, certainly, but I don't think in all fairness we can lay the blame squarely with him, eh?
I agree. Your summation is a good one and your question a fair one.
The reason I single John Calvin out for particular scrutiny is because of Calvin's
unique contribution to modern Medieval Christian thought, namely his theology, given into the mind of the world through the Latin-to-English King James Bible.
He gave us a systematic and highly logical way of appreciating the fact of a foreknown and even planned, eternal damnation of recalcitrant humans in an ever-burning hell by laying the sole responsibility for human sin at the feet of God through the... 'concept' of 'double predestination'.
Thus, it was found that his hellish theology was promulgated into popularity, with the help of the ecumenical leaders, right into the time of King James' truly brilliant strategy for undermining the power of the Holy Roman Church, while transferring that power to himself- through his loyal 'Reformers'- by giving the mostly ignorant and certainly unsuspecting commoners The Words of Calvin shoehorned into The Word of God, in their own language.
What my posts have been
all about is trying to undo the damage Calvin has done to our thoughts about God by exposing the translational trickery his interpreters employed to ensure that Calvin's theology was, 'The Truth, according to The Bible'.
And going even one better, I also offered a well thought out 'alternative theology' derived through the compelling nature of logic, for the change in meaning presented when
katabole is translated with 'disruption' instead of 'foundation'.
What's in a word?
Quote from: DocAnd for what it's worth, I have also enjoyed our discussions so far. They've made me dig in a bit and think and rethink. So thanks for the challenge!
Blessings,
Doc
In closing, then, I let you know that your words are worth a lot to me. Thank you Doc, I am quite pleased to know that I was able to challenge you toward understanding even as you did me. Good thing, though, that I didn't come here to convince anybody of anything, eh?
I have a few promises to keep, including giving you a reply to the 'serpent thingy'. After that I will be likely moving on... with this exchange, so far, as my happiest moment:
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisBecause I would say they were to be completed by refusing the offer to become like God, apart from Him, through trust in Him, despite their doubts, thus acquiring virtue.
And once that was accomplished, Jehovah would then grant them permission to eat from the 'forbidden' tree, removing all previous doubt from their minds of His intentions. And by eating the fruit, then, they would assimilate a conscience and become wise, exactly like God is, for His own knowing of the difference between good and evil. And thus they would begin to know of evil objectively instead of good, by experiencing all the good Jehovah planned for them to know. Their 'eyes would be opened' to understanding and wisdom and knowledge and they would comprehend that they were naked, but, would not be ashamed (or else they would retain the 'light' that I hear tell was around them 'clothing' them; an idea I like) and Jehovah would enable her womb with His blessing (instead of with a curse) and we would all be born into fully resembling God for not only being created to resemble Him in being Male and Female but also for being virtuous, that is, knowing the difference between good and evil and having not only the power to choose to be good (which Paul and John say He brings to us, now, through the spirit of Jesus 'making its home in us' [Paul] and acting like 'sperm' meeting an ovum to create a new human inside of us that 'partakes of the divine nature'[John]), but the will to because we would also be agape, fondness and affection, just like Him.
And that's a pretty good thing to be, don't you think? Not at all blasphemous, for concluding that Jehovah could not have foreknown their choice and therefore did not know, as a fact, that they were going to turn before He created them!
Well, it's a nice sounding theory...
High praise indeed!
And thank you for saying so, 'cause I, too, think it is... that is, of course, for something logically derived from my believing that The Words teach that Jesus is, "...the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world" (Rev 13:8 CLV).
Which is why I continue to urge you and every one else to be good, 'cause, logically speaking, it's what you were
originally created to be!
Well, according to
my logic anyway. :popout:
The 'last word' is your's, Doc.
And receive my blessings as well,
Dennis!
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 13, 2009, 07:38:27 PM
Hey, Doc!
The answer then is, "Yes"- with a... 'clarification'; and I would add, one worthy of John Calvin himself.
:laughing7: Somehow, I knew you were going to say that....
If I ever wanted to find you, I expect all I'd need to do is call around to the universities and find Professor Eleutheros teaching "Calvin bashing, 101" :winkgrin:
QuoteI'm sorry, Doc but I gotta pause here and add that what I perceive coming from Martin is a logical attempt to justify what, to my perception, cannot be justified because it is a lie; namely that God foreknew of the fall, as a fact, before it happened.
Doc, truly I was not being hyperbolic when I described the effect Martin's words had on me. "Ugly" was my initial word of choice, but I withdrew it and inserted "fantastic" out of respect for your appreciation of this man. For it is not my intention to demean Martin in your eyes, but I also want you to know that my emotional reaction to his words was genuine- given the glibness I know you intended only in fun. No offense was taken and I hope you perceive none for these words.
That being said, I certianly know that both you and he and many others, do not perceive it that way. And in fact, Martin does sound brilliant for his logic (The Q & A thingy was very clever).
But so was Calvin.
And I too know how logic works even as I have tried to share that knowledge here by demonstrating how to discern if the logic is truthful by examining the conclusions for accuracy; assuming one is really looking for truth; for logic itself is neutral and works independently of the truth in the statements that drive it.
So, if his logic satisfies your heart of thoughts, for believing, with all your heart, that The Bible teaches us that God foreknew the fall before He created Adam and Eve- then it does. And I will not be found gainsaying it.
This approach leads to a logical conclusion that you cannot accept. I understand that perfectly, because the logical end to your approach leads to conclusions I cannot accept, either. And for the record, as much as you may think so, it's not because of Calvin's theology. I arrived at these things in the same way you arrived at yours, through study and logic. The last four years (continuing on) have been a time of reflection and serious re-evaluation for me, including the revelation of UR. I have left virtually no stone unturned, and my theology now (collectively) is nearly 180 degrees from where it was 4 or 5 years ago. Martin just happens to reflect my thoughts on this area rather well, and says some things better than I could. That said, I don't agree with Zender on everything, particularly when it comes to eschatology. You might actually find a lot of agreement with him yourself on other topics, because he is a literalist and a champion of the Concordant Literal Version.
QuoteOK, then.
Some closing thoughts: Strong's 'definitions' of Greek and Hebrew words was derived from their usage in the KJV text, not from the original languages. Thus the 'definitions' are self-referencing.
This is like defining a 'machine' as "anything that contains machinery".
The truth cannot be known from what is said in the definition because what is said refers back to the word itself for understanding.
The only thing Strong did to help ease the burden Calvin made The Words carry, given the severe bias that produced the KJV, was to list the usages in order such that, usually, the last definition or two listed is the one that is not accurate.
The problem with this theory is that there are other expositors that are more rigorous, who also agree with these definitions; so you can't just blame Strong and the KJV and Calvin for everything.
I agree that Strong did not always get it right, nor does the KJV, nor does any other translation always get it right. There are a huge number of reasons for this that could probably take up their own 6 page thread.
QuoteOne final question asked for thoughtful purposes only: Are Strong's definitions for aion (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G165&t=KJV) and aionios (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G166&t=KJV) also just as accurate? Because if they are, then the Tentmaker's arguments against Strong's definitions are inaccurate and that peculiar hell really does exist, exactly as the King's English says it does.
A fine example of what I was just talking about. As I said, no one always gets it right.
QuoteMy final word on this, then, is to sate the fact that everything I have written here depends on katabole meaning 'disruption'; just like it is a fact that what you have written here depends on katabole meaning 'foundation'.
And Doc: You and I know this.
So, I think you will agree that we have reached the inevitable impasse.
The problem is, that it doesn't only depend on one word. UR does not depend solely on the meaning of aion and its derivatives, nor does what we're discussing rely only on the meaning of katabole, which is what I've been trying to say all along; As much as I know you'll disagree with that statement.
QuoteI say then, sincerely, thank you for answering these questions with honesty even as you have demonstrated an honorable spirit throughout our discussions; you are a rare find, indeed, Doc. And that is why I consider you a gift from God Himself.
And I thank you as well.
QuoteAnd know, my friend, that I truly do appreciate all the time you have spent with me. You are literally a gift, sent from God.
Blessings,
Dennis!
Likewise.
QuotePlease, Doc, don't take this as a sardonic reply because, really, it is with a somber spirit that I say this, but, I perceive that you have learned well from Martin.
I'm sorry, Doc, but this idea you present is repulsive to me. You truly believe that Sin is a pre-existent 'thing'? And that God intentionally designed us to... 'miss the mark' in order to introduce Sin... so He could later fix us? (That is His plan, right?)
And I noted, in past posts, that you seem to think of 'good' and 'evil' as 'things' also that He created... Truly, I am sorry Doc, but the very idea that Sin is a pre-existent 'thing', created by my God for our Parents to 'introduce' into the world and that 'good' and 'evil' are also 'things'; with 'evil' being created by Him for our benefit because He 'knows' that the only way that we can know of 'good' is objectively, for having to experience 'evil' first, is... something I understand... and don't wish to become better acquainted with.
All I have left to say, as I bring this reply to a close, is that, of truth, just as you and Martin have demonstrated it to be, this is exactly what one will come to logically think about their God for believing what The Bible teaches us; that Jesus is, "...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8 KJV).
Apart from Him, nothing could exist--at all. He is the creator of all. All is of God, remember? That's scripture. Everything has been made by and for Him. What else could I possibly conclude? Unless all doesn't really mean all...
QuotePut your faith then in what you will and call it understanding; but I have to turn away from this for the ugliness I see.
I'm sorry that you see it that way. I can't expect that everyone will see things the same way. In the body of Christ, we have many parts. We can't all be eyes or ears, etc. So we're not going to see things the same way until...well until we become like Him when we all see Him as He is.
QuoteI agree. Your summation is a good one and your question a fair one.
The reason I single John Calvin out for particular scrutiny is because of Calvin's unique contribution to modern Medieval Christian thought, namely his theology, given into the mind of the world through the Latin-to-English King James Bible.
He gave us a systematic and highly logical way of appreciating the fact of a foreknown and even planned, eternal damnation of recalcitrant humans in an ever-burning hell by laying the sole responsibility for human sin at the feet of God through the... 'concept' of 'double predestination'.
Thus, it was found that his hellish theology was promulgated into popularity, with the help of the ecumenical leaders, right into the time of King James' truly brilliant strategy for undermining the power of the Holy Roman Church, while transferring that power to himself- through his loyal 'Reformers'- by giving the mostly ignorant and certainly unsuspecting commoners The Words of Calvin shoehorned into The Word of God, in their own language.
What my posts have been all about is trying to undo the damage Calvin has done to our thoughts about God by exposing the translational trickery his interpreters employed to ensure that Calvin's theology was, 'The Truth, according to The Bible'.
And going even one better, I also offered a well thought out 'alternative theology' derived through the compelling nature of logic, for the change in meaning presented when katabole is translated with 'disruption' instead of 'foundation'.
What's in a word?
I understand. I should remind you however, that the translators were not "Calvin's". The KJV was not translated until after Calvin's death, and was the third official translation into English. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Calvin had a direct hand in the translation of any versions of scripture.
QuoteIn closing, then, I let you know that your words are worth a lot to me. Thank you Doc, I am quite pleased to know that I was able to challenge you toward understanding even as you did me. Good thing, though, that I didn't come here to convince anybody of anything, eh?
I have a few promises to keep, including giving you a reply to the 'serpent thingy'. After that I will be likely moving on... with this exchange, so far, as my happiest moment:
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisBecause I would say they were to be completed by refusing the offer to become like God, apart from Him, through trust in Him, despite their doubts, thus acquiring virtue.
And once that was accomplished, Jehovah would then grant them permission to eat from the 'forbidden' tree, removing all previous doubt from their minds of His intentions. And by eating the fruit, then, they would assimilate a conscience and become wise, exactly like God is, for His own knowing of the difference between good and evil. And thus they would begin to know of evil objectively instead of good, by experiencing all the good Jehovah planned for them to know. Their 'eyes would be opened' to understanding and wisdom and knowledge and they would comprehend that they were naked, but, would not be ashamed (or else they would retain the 'light' that I hear tell was around them 'clothing' them; an idea I like) and Jehovah would enable her womb with His blessing (instead of with a curse) and we would all be born into fully resembling God for not only being created to resemble Him in being Male and Female but also for being virtuous, that is, knowing the difference between good and evil and having not only the power to choose to be good (which Paul and John say He brings to us, now, through the spirit of Jesus 'making its home in us' [Paul] and acting like 'sperm' meeting an ovum to create a new human inside of us that 'partakes of the divine nature'[John]), but the will to because we would also be agape, fondness and affection, just like Him.
And that's a pretty good thing to be, don't you think? Not at all blasphemous, for concluding that Jehovah could not have foreknown their choice and therefore did not know, as a fact, that they were going to turn before He created them!
Well, it's a nice sounding theory...
High praise indeed!
I'm glad you took it that way.
QuoteAnd thank you for saying so, 'cause I, too, think it is... that is, of course, for something logically derived from my believing that The Words teach that Jesus is, "...the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world" (Rev 13:8 CLV).
Which is why I continue to urge you and every one else to be good, 'cause, logically speaking, it's what you were originally created to be!
The 'last word' is your's, Doc.
And receive my blessings as well,
Dennis!
And so we all will be, someday.
I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the
nachash paper.
Hey there!
Quote from: CHB on October 12, 2009, 05:58:56 PMQuote from: Eleutheros
All I will say to you in reply, for now, is that my eyes were opened, many years ago, when I realized that The Words were telling me that, not only was it was possible for me to stop sinning- for having the 'spirit of Jesus making its home in me', as Paul put it, or, for being 're-sired by the sperm of Jehovah', as John put it- but that it was expected, by God and reasonably so, that I stop sinning and start being righteous exactly because I now have the very Nature of God in me; His own Divine Nature, imparted to me in similar fashion as an earthly father passes his nature on to his children
Well, the way I am understanding this quote is, you believe it is up to you to stop sinning on your own. If that is possible what did Jesus need to die for?
Now CHB, you know darn good and well that I wasn't saying any such thing and that your question is a facetious one! (Remember, I know,
now that you're a 'smart alec' :icon_jokercolor:).
But, just for the record and for your sake also, I will say plainly that I do not believe that it is possible for me to stop sinning
on my own.
I need Jesus' spirit in me
first, just like you do. And that is what Jesus had need to die for so that He, through spirit, could do just that, enter us, through faith.
Then He and I
together can start to accomplish what once was impossible for me to do
on my own, namely to start being righteous through my being obedient to His spirit's promptings.
And when I am being obedient to His spirit guess what? I'm not sinning!
And do you know how He speaks to me, how He prompts me? Through my cleansed conscience; that still, small voice inside me that says what is right and wrong to do. And that cleansed conscience can really work wonders in a person who has received a deposit of divine sperm within that re-sires us and imparts the Divine Nature of God the Father to us, even as that fresh new human begins to grow inside of us, where Jesus said the kingdom of God is.
I bold faced my quote above so you might now perceive what I actually wrote.
Here are some of the scriptures that spoke these things into my heart of thoughts. There are a lot of them. (NOTE: Mostly I present the scriptures without the artificial chapter/ verse divisions. However since I can't quote whole letters and historical accounts I try to limit the quotes to whole thoughts so the context might be understood; with the success of that, for my choosing where to start and stop, to be for you to decide.)
And I will say, CHB, up-front, that if you are truly desiring to understand what I am saying (remember
agreement and
understanding are not the same things), you will read them with what I said remaining in your mind so that you may perceive 'where I am coming from'.
Then you will better be able to discern the differences and argue against me more effectively, if that is your wish, or understand
with me from the desire to comprehend a brother in Christ who is sharing his heart of thoughts with you.
Likewise, if you don't care to understand, or if your motive is just to gainsay me, you will likely just skip past them, maybe reading one or two short ones as you scroll, but for the most part you will ignore them because you already 'know' what they're going to say and what you're going to say against it, from your understanding.
And for your 'knowing already' what they're going to say and what you will say to counter them--CHB, I cannot 'clear away' the coloring your understanding will bring to them, (yes, I know, it's
my perception that's colored not
yours...) but for me they are as plain as language can be (of course I know already what you think about St. John and John's 3 letters for having read your post through...).
Here we go:
"Everyone who is doing sin is doing lawlessness also, and sin is lawlessness.
And you are aware that He was manifested that He should be taking away our sins, and in Him is no sin.
Everyone who is remaining in Him is not sinning. Everyone who is sinning sees Him not, neither knows Him.
Little children, let no one be deceiving you. He who is doing righteousness is just, according as He is just.
Yet he who is doing sin is of the Adversary, for from the beginning is the Adversary sinning. For this was the Son of God manifested, that He should be annulling the acts of the Adversary.
Everyone who is begotten of God is not doing sin, for His sperm is remaining in him, and he can not be sinning, for he is begotten of God.
In this are apparent the children of God and the children of the Adversary: everyone who is not doing righteousness is not of God, and who is not loving his brother." 1 John 3: 4-10
"So has all of His divine power, that tends to life and devoutness, been presented to us through the recognition of Him Who calls us to His own glory and virtue; through which have been presented to us the precious and greatest promises, that through these you may become participants of the divine nature, fleeing from the corruption which is in the world by lust.
Now for this same thing also, employing all diligence, in your faith supply virtue, yet in virtue knowledge, yet in knowledge self-control, yet in self-control endurance, yet in endurance devoutness, yet in devoutness brotherly fondness, yet in brotherly fondness love.
For your possessing these and increasing is constituting you not idle nor yet unfruitful in the recognition of our Lord, Jesus Christ." 2 Pet 2:3-8
"Jesus answered them, "Verily, verily, I am saying to you that everyone who is doing sin, is a slave of sin.
Now the slave is not remaining in the house for the eon. The son is remaining for the eon.
If ever, then, the Son should be making you free, you will be really free." John 8: 34-36.
"Or are you not aware that the unjust shall not be enjoying the allotment of God's kingdom? Be not deceived. Neither paramours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards; no revilers, no extortioners shall be enjoying the allotment of God's kingdom.
And some of you were these, but you are bathed off, but you are hallowed, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the spirit of our God." 1 Cor 6:9-11
"What then? Should we be sinning, seeing that we are not under law, but under grace? May it not be coming to that!
Are you not aware that to whom you are presenting yourselves as slaves for obedience, his slaves you are, whom you are obeying, whether of Sin for death, or of Obedience for righteousness?
Now thanks be to God that you were slaves of Sin, yet you obey from the heart the type of teaching to which you were given over.
Now, being freed from Sin, you are enslaved to Righteousness." Rom 6: 15-17
"A wretched man am I! What will rescue me out of this body of death? Grace! I thank God, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Consequently, then, I myself, with the mind, indeed, am slaving for God's law, yet with the flesh for Sin's law. Nothing, consequently, is now condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. Not according to flesh are they walking, but according to spirit, for the spirit's law of life in Christ Jesus frees you from the law of sin and death.
For what was impossible to the law, in which it was infirm through the flesh, did God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sin's flesh and concerning sin, He condemns sin in the flesh, that the just requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who are not walking in accord with flesh, but in accord with spirit.
For those who are in accord with flesh are disposed to that which is of the flesh, yet those who are in accord with spirit to that which is of the spirit. For the disposition of the flesh is death, yet the disposition of the spirit is life and peace, because the disposition of the flesh is enmity to God, for it is not subject to the law of God, for neither is it able.
Now those who are in flesh are not able to please God.
Yet you are not in flesh, but in spirit, if so be that God's spirit is making its home in you. Now if anyone has not Christ's spirit, this one is not His.
Now if Christ is in you, the body, indeed, is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is life because of righteousness. Now if the spirit of Him Who rouses Jesus from among the dead is making its home in you, He Who rouses Christ Jesus from among the dead will also be vivifying your mortal bodies because of His spirit making its home in you." Rom 7:24-8:10
"Let him who steals by no means still be stealing: yet rather let him be toiling, working with his hands at what is good, that he may have to share with one who has need.
Let no tainted word at all be issuing out of your mouth, but if any is good toward needful edification, that it may be giving grace to those hearing.
And do not be causing sorrow to the holy spirit of God by which you are sealed for the day of deliverance.
Let all bitterness and fury and anger and clamor and calumny be taken away from you (along) with all malice, yet become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate, dealing graciously among yourselves, according as God also, in Christ, deals graciously with you. Become, then, imitators of God, as beloved children, and be walking in love, according as Christ also loves you, and gives Himself up for us, an approach present and a sacrifice to God, for a fragrant odor.
Now, all prostitution and uncleanness or greed -- let it not even be named among you, according as is becoming in saints -- and vileness and stupid speaking or insinuendo, which are not proper, but rather thanksgiving.
For this you perceive, knowing that no paramour at all or unclean or greedy person, who is an idolater, has any enjoyment of the allotment in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Let no one be seducing you with empty words, for because of these things the indignation of God is coming on the sons of stubbornness.
Do not, then, become joint partakers with them, for you were once darkness, yet now you are light in the Lord.
As children of light be walking (for the fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth), testing what is well pleasing to the Lord.
And be not joint participants in the unfruitful acts of darkness, yet rather be exposing them also, for it is a shame even to speak of the hidden things occurring, done by them." Eph 4:28-5:12
"Having then, brethren, boldness for the entrance of the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by a recently slain and living way which He dedicates for us, through the curtain, that is, His flesh, and a great Priest over the house of God, we may be approaching with a true heart, in the assurance of faith, with hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience, and a body bathed in clean water.
We may be retaining the avowal of the expectation without wavering, for faithful is He Who promises.
And we may be considering one another to incite to love and ideal acts, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves, according as the custom of some is, but entreating, and so much rather as you are observing the day drawing near.
For at our sinning voluntarily after obtaining the recognition of the truth, it is no longer leaving a sacrifice concerned with sins, but a certain fearful waiting for judging and fiery jealousy, about to be eating the hostile.
Anyone repudiating Moses' law is dying without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, are you supposing, will he be counted worthy who tramples on the Son of God, and deems the blood of the covenant by which he is hallowed contaminating, and outrages the spirit of grace?" Heb 10:19-21
"If we should be saying that we are having fellowship with Him and should be walking in darkness, we are lying and are not doing the truth.Yet if we should be walking in the light as He is in the light, we are having fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, His Son, is cleansing us from every sin.
If we should be saying that we have no sin we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
If we should be avowing our sins, He is faithful and just that He may be pardoning us our sins and should be cleansing us from all injustice.
If we should be saying that we have not sinned, we are making Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1 John 1:6-10
"Now I am saying, walk in spirit, and you should under no circumstances be consummating the lust of the flesh.
For the flesh is lusting against the spirit, yet the spirit against the flesh. Now these are opposing one another, lest you should be doing whatever you may want.
Now, if you are led by spirit, you are not still under law.
Now apparent are the works of the flesh, which are adultery, prostitution, uncleanness, wantonness, idolatry, enchantment, enmities, strife, jealousies, furies, factions, dissensions, sects, envies, murders, drunkennesses, revelries and the like of these, which, I am predicting to you, according as I predicted also, that those committing such things shall not be enjoying the allotment of the kingdom of God.
Now the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control: against such things there is no law." Gal 5:16-23
Thanks for reading all that. There is a good handful more but these are the ones I think do a good job of explaining my understanding.
Here I want to pause a second and explain why I am going to shorten these quotes that follow to the artificial chapter/verse divisions: I want to emphasize the word
conscience (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4893&t=KJV). Read through them keeping in mind what I said I believe, so you can understand my understanding and better refute it from your own understanding.
"Then those who heard, being convicted by conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the middle." John 8: 9
"In this, I am exerting myself also, to have a conscience which is no stumbling block toward God and men, continually." Acts 24:16
"... who are displaying the action of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying together and their reckonings between one another, accusing or defending them,... "Rom 2:15
"The truth am I telling in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifying together with me in holy spirit,..."Rom 9:1
"Wherefore it is necessary to be subject, not only because of indignation, but also because of conscience."Rom 13:5
"But not in all is there this knowledge. Now some, used hitherto to the idol, are eating of it as an idol sacrifice, and their conscience, being weak, is being polluted." 1Cor 8:7
"For if anyone should be seeing you, who has knowledge, lying down in an idol's shrine, will not the conscience of him who is weak be inured to the eating of the idol sacrifices?" 1Cor 8:10
"Now in thus sinning against brethren, and beating their weak conscience, you are sinning against Christ." 1 Cor 8:12
"Everything that is sold at the meat market be eating, examining nothing because of conscience." 1 Cor 10:25
"If anyone of the unbelievers is inviting you, and you want to go, be eating everything that is placed before you, examining nothing because of conscience.
Yet if anyone should be saying to you, "This is a sacred sacrifice," do not eat, because of that one who divulges it, and conscience.
Yet conscience, I am saying, not that of yourself, but that of another. For why is my freedom being decided by another's conscience?" 1Cor 10:27-29
"For our boasting is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and sincerity of God, not in fleshly wisdom, but in the grace of God, we behaved ourselves in the world, yet more superabundantly toward you." 2 Cor 1:12
"But we spurn the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor yet adulterating the word of God, but, by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in God's sight." 2 Cor 4:2
"Being aware, then, of the fear of the Lord, we are persuading men, yet we are manifest to God. Now I am expecting to be manifest in your consciences also." 2 Cor 5:11
"Now the consummation of the charge is love out of a clean heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith,..." 1 Tim 1:5
"...having faith and a good conscience,..." 1Tm 1:19
"...having the secret of the faith in a clear conscience." 1Tim 3:9
"...in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized;..." 1 Tim 4:2
"Grateful am I to God, to Whom I am offering divine service from my ancestors with a clear conscience, as I have an unintermittent remembrance concerning you in my petitions, night and day,..."2Tim 1:3
"All, indeed, is clean to the clean, yet to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is clean, but their mind as well as conscience is defiled." 1Tim 1:15
"... which is a parable for the present period, according to which both approach presents and sacrifices are being offered, which can not make the one offering divine service perfect as to the conscience,..."Heb 9:9
"...how much rather shall the blood of Christ, Who, through the eonian spirit offers Himself flawless to God, be cleansing your conscience from dead works to be offering divine service to the living and true God?" Heb 9:14
"Else would they not cease being offered, because those offering divine service, having been once cleansed, are having no longer any consciousness of sins?"Heb 10:2
"...we may be approaching with a true heart, in the assurance of faith, with hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience, and a body bathed in clean water." Heb 10:22
"Pray concerning us, for we are persuaded that we have an ideal conscience, in all wanting to behave ideally." Heb 13:8
"...for this is grace, if, because of consciousness of God, anyone is undergoing sorrows, suffering unjustly."1 Pet 2:19
"... having a good conscience, that, in what they are speaking against you as of evildoers, they may be mortified, who traduce your good behavior in Christ." 1 Pet 3: 16
"...the representation of which, baptism, is now saving you also (not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience to God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,..." 1 Pet 3:21
That's all 32 of the NT chapter/verse quotes that contain the Greek word,
sün-ā'-dā-sēs.
END OF PART ONE
PART TWO
Now CHB, I'm not 'bombarding' you with all these scriptures out of insincere motives. God forbid. My conscience is clean concerning my motives.
I selected and cut and pasted and 'cleaned up' all those scriptures for posting because I truly do want you to perceive that it is possible for you to
stop sinning by
starting to be righteous and
that through being obedient to the spirit of Jesus inside you that re-sired you and now speaks to you through your cleansed conscience; 'cleansed by the blood of Jesus' as we are want to say.
Many years ago, long before I began to develop my understanding of Genesis 1-3, I made a list like this (but with the context). And as I read through it I was struck by the importance Paul and Peter attached to their conscience for their
knowing that they were walking with God and pleasing Him in that walk. They speak of it as if it is a 'reference point' from which you can measure your 'walk'. Thus I was struck soundly with understanding by how much they
depended on it.
Yet I had never, ever, even to this day, heard a teaching or a sermon or even came to know of a book that expounded on this. It's like our conscience is ignored by modern Medieval Christians. Pun intended.
And really why
shouldn't it be ignored? Given that medieval theologies were devised to shift the onus for Sin squarely onto God and away from the men and women who commit them; at least in our understandings, our theologies, but not in truth.
The effect on me and my understanding was startling. I began to realize that there was something here that I had never heard before from modern Medieval Christian theology, a way of understanding that was older than Augustine and therefore beyond a modern Christians ability to comprehend, exactly because of their modern Medieval Christian theologies. (What's that? I did, didn't I? I just stepped in poop! I'm not sure, but I think I just claimed to know more about the Word of God than all those Godly men of old!)
Listen, CHB, I know you don't like the 'me' you perceive through my typing, I understand that. But try to get past that, if you're willing and grasp that it is not only possible for you to be set free from Sin in this life so that you stop sinning but it is
expected by your God that you
start the learning of righteousness in this life
exactly as He has made it possible for you to do through
His grace and
your faith in Jesus Christ,
your repentance and
your baptism.
So, yes, you can know that you are pleasing to God because "...all of His divine power that tends to life and devoutness has been presented to YOU through the recognition of Him Who calls YOU to His own glory and virtue"!
In other words, He has given y-o-u, YOU the ability,
now, through your faith, repentance and baptism to be righteous because you are now begotten anew, (exactly like Jesus said you needed to be in order to perceive the kingdom of God) through His own deposit of Divine Sperm that you might receive His Divine Nature, which is virtuous because He chooses good over evil consistently even as He too has a conscience that tells Him the difference between what is right to do and what is wrong to do.
"Now of well doing and contributing be not forgetful, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." Heb 13:16
"For the rest, then, brethren, we are asking you and entreating in the Lord Jesus, that, according as you accepted from us how you must be walking and pleasing God (according as you are walking also), that you may be superabounding yet more, for you are aware what charges we give to you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God: your holiness. You are to be abstaining from all prostitution; each of you is to be aware of his own vessel, to be acquiring it in holiness and honor, not in lustful passion even as the nations also who are not acquainted with God.
No one is to be circumventing and overreaching his brother in the matter, because the Lord is the Avenger of all these, according as we said to you before also, and certify, for God calls us, not for uncleanness, but in holiness. 1 Thess 4:1-7
"Wherefore, accepting an unshakable kingdom, we may have grace through which we may be offering divine service in a way well pleasing to God, with piety and dread, for our God is also a consuming fire.
Let brotherly fondness be remaining.
Be not forgetting hospitality, for through this some were oblivious when lodging messengers.
Be mindful of those bound, as bound together with them; of those maltreated, as being yourselves also in the body.
May matrimony be honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, for paramours and adulterers will God be judging.
May fondness for money not be your manner, being sufficed with what is present, for He has declared: 'Under no circumstances may I be lax regarding you, neither by any means may I be forsaking you'."Heb 12:28-13:5
OK. There is my answer given for your understanding of my understanding.
So, now, I would ask you, with all the sincerity I can type "What is wrong in this understanding, according to your understanding?"
Quote from: CHBIf you are referring to St John to prove that you can stop sinning on your own, you have to remember that John was written before Jesus was crucified. There was no Savior at that time.
This is really new news to me. But, what of that? Most everything I quoted is from Paul and Peter.
Quote from: CHBIf you are referring to John 1 2 or 3, then these were written to the Israelites, people who were under Moses' law and the New Covenant.
After reading what I wrote above do you still think John 1, 2 & 3 don't apply to you?
Quote from: CHBPaul was given the final revelation of salvation which was first to the Jew's then finally to the Gentiles.
OK. So, you're on the tail end of it all, unless your Jewish, then, of course, your positioned closer to the butt. :winkgrin:
But what of that? I remember someone somewhere saying that there is no partiality with God.
There are lots of quotes from Paul in there, CHB.
However... Am I perceiving correctly that you're trying to eliminate as much scripture as possible from applying to you? Just my impression.
Quote from: CHBWe Gentiles are not under any laws.
How convenient! :wink2:
No Old Covenant laws, Yes. Never were. Instead we all, Jew and Gentile alike, have a new law to obey: the spirit's law of life in Christ Jesus, which obedience to
this law brings righteousness; something the Mosaic law could not do because without Him inside of us; without that sperm thingy going on; all the Mosaic Law could do is let us know just how awful we really are, that is, of course, before He came into our life and imparted the Virtue-loving Nature of His own Father to us, Who is
agape or 'fondness and affection'.
Quote from: CHBPaul says we are in Christ and are NOW sitting in heaven in him on the right hand of God.
CHB, I did a NT word search with 'right hand' and 'are in Christ' and could not find a quote that said this. Could you help me to know where you got this from?
Quote from: CHBSo, spiritually we are not sinners but physically we are.
Ever hear of
Presence.tv? 'Cause this sounds like something the folks over there would say.
Quote from: CHBHope you can understand what I am saying here.
Yes I do understand. And I hope the same thing.
However, could you confirm, for my understanding, if you are reading stuff from the folks at Presence and also provide me with the scripture reference you are referring to about the 'right hand' thingy? Seriously I couldn't find any quote that said we are in Christ and are now sitting in heaven in Him on the right hand of God.
Quote from: CHBI am not the best at explaining things, I am a smart alec remember?? :laughing7: Seriously!!! but only in fun :laughing7:
Yea, I know you're a 'smart alec', but your also smart. And you're doing fine.
So, now that I know you better I think we can have some fun while learning more from each other than either one of us can learn on our own- as long as we're honest and keep our conscience's clean concerning what we say. :wink3:
Quote from: CHBYou keep saying that we were created to be good and you are right but not in this lifetime.
Would you believe me if I told you that I foreknew you were going to say that! :grin:
Quote from: CHBJesus said "no man is good except one that is God" (Luke 18:19).
I am familiar with your understanding; and for that you're thinking that what Jesus is
really doing here is humbling Himself for, in essence, saying, "
Everyone is bad, when compared to God; even Me, His only sex-born Son; only God is
truly good, certainly not Me... "
Does that sound right? If it doesn't, why not? How would you restate your understanding of this verse besides simply quoting it?
Well this verse, like so many, because of those artificial chapter/verse divisions is a favorite for proof texting. That being said, have you ever had anyone put this verse in context for you? If not, let me try and you be the judge as to whether or not I am giving you the truth.
Jesus was addressing Himself to a mixed crowd composed of His detractors and those Jewish humans who just didn't know what to think about Him. And as usual, He was not making any friends among the Jewish leaders who were always watching Him, even as He did and said things that defied their traditions, in public and on purpose,
literally, just to piss them off so the people would come to perceive the hypocrisy of their traditions.
Jesus was done conversing with them and was leaving, literally getting 'on the road again', when a chief among the Jews, a ruler and a rich young one at that, came hurriedly up to Him and kneeling before Him asked Him a very insightful question.
Let's look at the initial Q & A from all three accounts:
"And lo! one coming to Him said, 'Teacher, what good shall I be doing that I should be having life eonian?' Yet He said to him, 'Why are you asking Me concerning good? One is good. Yet if you are wanting to be entering into life, keep the precepts'." Matt 19:16-17
"And at His going out into the road, lo! one certain rich man, running toward Him and falling on his knees before Him, inquired of Him, 'Good Teacher! What shall I be doing that I should be enjoying the allotment of life eonian?' Now Jesus said to him, 'Why are you terming Me good? No one is good except One, God. With the precepts you are acquainted'..." Mk 10:17-19
"And a certain chief inquires of Him, saying, 'Good Teacher, by doing what should I enjoy the allotment of life eonian?' Now Jesus said to him, 'Why are you terming Me good? No one is good except One, God. With the precepts you are acquainted'..." Luk 18:18-20
This Jewish ruler, this rich, young prince among men, understood, from the Scriptures, that doing good was tied intimately with eonian life; which means
he believed in the resurrection. And resurrection
is of God. Now, putting aside the possibility of some sly reference to the Midrash here, I want you to note that in this CLV translation one of the 'one's' is capitalized as 'One'; and especially note the question in Matthews account: "
Why are you asking Me concerning good? One is good.
What He was saying, in essence, to this very sincere young man who was humbling himself before Him, was, 'Why are you asking Me about goodness?' Or 'Why give me the title "Good"? Only God is "Good"'.
In other words, 'Don't ask me what single thing you need to be doing to inherit your allotment of eonian life, ask God'.
Simply enough, then, Jesus was confronting this man with His own Divinity.
And this is supported by what follows, because the Greek intimates, in all three accounts, that Jesus was saying something like this after, "However, if you still want an answer, then..."; for He knew this man did not believe Him to be God, despite giving Him the title, 'Good'.
Even so, my Savior and LORD had compassion on Him for His sincerity and for knowing that He was not lying about keeping the commandments; for Mark adds this: Now Jesus, looking at him, loves him, and said to him, "Still one thing you are wanting. Go. Whatever you have, sell, and be giving to the poor, and you will be having treasure in heaven. And hither! Follow Me, picking up the cross."
Of course the man walks away dejected because He was really,
really rich.
But don't worry too much because Jesus will still do the impossible and restore this rich man to The Father.
CHB, I would ask you, now, to ponder this: To His disciples, during His 'Sermon on the Mount' Jesus said this "You then shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5:48 (The verb tense is in the present, tense, not the future; "You shall be" not "You shall be made").
Why would He command them, with a command of expectation, for that is what this is, if He couldn't reasonably expect them to do it, that is be perfect?
What do you think Jesus meant by
perfect?
Quote from: CHBI believe we are learning the good from the bad which will take a lifetime and it is God who will have to perform that in us we can't do nothing on our own.
Well, certainly we can't stop sinning
on our own! But we can with Him inside of us, can't we? Wouldn't it be much better for you and those around you and for your allotment of eonian life in the resurrection if you could just do good when you have the opportunity to do bad because you
can, now, rather than have to keep sinning and keep learning from it not to sin?
But wait! You can't stop sinning anyway, can you? So what good are the lessons in Sin if you can't learn from them anyway, even given a lifetime? Now there's a poser to ponder!
CHB, The Words say that not only is it possible for you to be set free from Sin but it is expected of those who are truly re-sired of Jehovah to be righteous and do good consistently, in other words, to be virtuous.
Quote from: CHBDidn't Jesus say, "of mine own self I can do nothing"?
Here is the quote in context:
"And He (The Father) gives Him (The Son) authority to do judging, seeing that He is a son of mankind. Marvel not at this, for coming is the hour in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and those who do good shall go out into a resurrection of life, yet those who commit bad things, into a resurrection of judging. "I can not do anything of Myself (like raise the dead and evaluate them). According as I am hearing (from My Father) am I judging; and (so) My judging is just, for I am not seeking My will, but the will of Him Who sends Me. (John 5:26:30)
In context this quote is referring to His intimate relationship with The Father and how the two of them will work together in the resurrection to divide those resurrected into two groups; those who literally did good while in this life and those who literally did bad while in this life, with the judging being done shared between the Human Jesus, who is able to identify with our weaknesses, while reaming sinless Himself and the Spirit Father through whom He gets His ability to understand each humans heart of thoughts
so that the evaluation judgments are accurate or 'just'.
It does not mean that Jesus, the Human Being, needs the Father to know how to be good as you are quoting it to mean.
Here is a challenge for you: Before you post a quote look it up and read it till you get the context. I've found prayer and a sincere motive to understand the truth works well toward this. Then decide if you think that is a useful quote for conveying your understanding. 'Cause you gotta know, by now, that I 'm gonna look it up too!
Quote from: CHBAre we more powerful than Jesus was?
My answer is, "No, we are not more powerful than Jesus is." But we can be
parallel with Him in our ability to be good
by being obedient to His spirit that has made it's home inside us, where the kingdom of God is.
Quote from: CHBWhen we become immortal then we can say we are good. Just the way I see things. :happy3:
CHB
Well, I can say that I have the ability to say, with truthfulness, for having a clean conscience before my God, that I am good
before I am 'immortal'. And that my 'immortality' is dependent on what I do with what reamains of my life after my re-siring.
So, why is that a wrong or even blasphemous thing for me to say? Because its not truth? Well, why is it not truth?
CHB, do you see things differently now for what I've written, at least with enough understanding to show me where I am wrong, according to your understanding?
For I have laid it all out openly and stand ready to be shown that what I believe is a lie. My motives are good, as God is my witness, because I do not want to be found in that day of Christ's unveiling, when he is separating the good humans from the bad humans, that I am evaluated as bad because what I believed and thus lived my life from, was a lie that proved to be justifying my continued sinning and thus squelched my conscience.
Besides, what have I got to loose, anyway, for thinking I can do good in this life? Besides my life.
Be good!
Dennis!
P.S. I'm working on my reply to your other post but wanted to get this out there so you'll know that I'm still hanging around till I can keep my promise to all and provide an answer to all who would ask it of me.
Hi Dennis,
Hope you don't mind if I call you dennis?
Quote from: EleutherosThen He and I together can start to accomplish what once was impossible for me to do on my own, namely to start being righteous through my being obedient to His spirit's promptings.
That word TOGETHER, is where I find a problem with your quote. The way it is written, you make it sound as if Christ needs your help to accomplish your righteousness or sinlessness. I keep thinking about this verse (Phil. 2:13) For it is GOD which WORKETH IN YOU BOTH TO WILL AND TO DO of HIS GOOD PLEASURE". You see I don't think it is you doing anything but God working in you. God is accomplishing his good pleasure, not yours.
Most of the scriptures you posted are New Covenant teaching, and was written to the Israelites, I don't think we are under any Covenant. We don't have any laws to perform, Christ did it all.
Here is the way I see it. Jesus sent his disciples to preach to the Jew's. (Matt. 10:5-6) {Verse 5} Go not into the way of the Gentiles. When Paul first started preaching he too went to the Jew's but later to the Gentiles. The New Covenant was directed toward the Israelites but not the Gentiles, we have the Mystery that Paul talked about which was a better revelation than the New Covenant. The Mystery that was given to Paul showed that we don't need to be attached to Israel, we are of the family of God, not Israel. We don't have to keep days, or be baptised or any of those things that the Jew's do. It is not by any thing that we do now but all of Jesus Christ. End of answers to part one.
[ quote author=Eleutheros]
After reading what I wrote above do you still think John 1, 2 & 3 don't apply to you?[/quote]
I think the whole Bible is for our learning and admonition but most of it was written to and for Israel.
Quote from: Eleutheros
CHB, I did a NT word search with 'right hand' and 'are in Christ' and could not find a quote that said this. Could you help me to know where you got this from?
(Eph. 1:20) Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and SET HIM AT HIS OWN RIGHT HAND IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES.
(Col. 2:12-13) We are buried with him in baptism, {his baptism} wherein also YE ARE RISEN WITH HIM through the faith of the OPERATION OF GOD. (Verse 13) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, HATH HE QUICKENED TOGETHER WITH HIM.
(Col . 3:1) If ye then BE RISIN WITH CHRIST, seek those things which are above, WHERE CHRIST SITTETH ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD.
(Col. 3:3) For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ.
If we are dead and our life is hid in Christ then we have no more works to perform, Christ does them all. If we are in Christ and Christ is sitting on the right hand of the Father, wouldn't we be there also if we are in Christ?
(Matt. 5:48) You quoted this verse to prove that we must be perfect now but read (Col. 1:28) Paul said that we may present EVERY MAN PERFECT IN JESUS CHRIST. Notice, it says we are perfect IN Jesus Christ. If every man is in Jesus Christ then we are all perfect spiritually. As long as we are in these bodies we are sinful flesh and the flesh cannot please God, but Christ did. When the Father looks at me he only sees his Son not my sin.
Quote from: Eleutheros
OK. So, you're on the tail end of it all, unless your Jewish, then, of course, your positioned closer to the butt.
Yea, that's me, I always get the tail end of everything. :laughing7: :laughing7:
What is wrong with this blame quoteing situation? The words in the quote box keep jumping up every time I try to type, it is so annoying. Are you having this problem as well? I will have to finish this later, it is getting on my nerves trying to type and you can't see what you are typing. :btantrum: The smilies are screwed up as well. :sigh:
CHB
Quote from: CHB on October 13, 2009, 12:40:28 AMHi Eleutheros,
Hey, CHB!
Quote from: CHBI read one post and most of the other one you ask about. You keep mentioning John Calvin and how he believes that God foreknew that Adam was going to fall. Well, so what, John Calvin got one right as we all do. Every one of us is not 100% right but everyone of us has some truth, Calvin just happened to have a bit of truth as all the rest of religion does. The Baptist has some truth, so do Seventh day Advents, even UR's, only thing is, I feel UR is the closest to the truth.
I am aware and agree that the KJV has some mistakes in it, but so do all the others, just like with the religions of the world.
Yep. You're reading the stuff the folks at Presence are putting out. Truly then I do understand 'where you are coming from' and truly I disagree with it.
As for John Calvin- I've already presented my arguments for how he got nothing right and
exactly how he did it.
However, let me try out this story I've been pondering to explain what he did to truth:
There was a woman who wanted to bake a delicious cake. So she called up her friend and asked her for a new cake recipe. Her friend was from another country and told her of a wonderful cake her mother used to bake when she was a little girl. The woman decided she wanted this recipe and asked her friend if she could get it for her. So her friend, knowing she couldn't say no, called up her mother in the other country and got the recipe, writing it down exactly as her mother gave it to her in her mother's original language.
However she later thought to herself, "I don't want my friend to have this delicious recipe. I want it for myself. I'll let her think she has the right recipe." So, while copying the recipe into her friend's language she deliberately made some changes that would make the cake seem like her mother's cake while she knew it would not taste the same.
She then passed the changed recipe on to her friend who, not knowing the recipe was tampered with, baked the cake. The cake, while edible, was not the cake it was supposed to be, but not knowing any better, she kept right on baking the cake for a very long time and serving it to her friends because really it wasn't a bad cake.
Then one day her friend's mother came to visit her daughter and baked one of those cakes for her. Well, the woman, knowing of the visit, dropped by. And seeing the cake on the table started to talk about it. Of course she was served a piece by her friend's mother and when she bit into it she realized that this was not the cake she had been baking and serving all that time. She began asking questions of her friend and soon saw that the more she asked about the recipe the more agitated her friend became.
So, knowing something was wrong, but not what, she let the subject drop. Later while her friend was in the bathroom and her friend's mother was in the kitchen she got the mother's overseas phone number from her friend's address book.
She later found a friend who spoke the mother's language and made the costly long distance call. And so, through her friend's truthful translation, she got the true recipe and soon saw where the changes had been made.
When she baked the cake with this, the true recipe, it was the most delicious cake she had ever tasted, exactly like the one she had tasted at her friend's house during her mother's visit.
Needless to say she figured out her friend's deception and never spoke with her again. And so with a renewed vigor, for having the true recipe, she baked these cakes and gave them to as many as would want to try some. And if they asked, she gladly gave them the recipe, freely, for wanting everyone to know how they too could bake such a delicious cake themselves.
It's not a parable, I'm not Jesus. But it does get the idea across of what John Calvin did to truth, don't you think?
As for the 'some truth in all religions' thingy you brought up; let me continue my 'recipe analogy' by asking you a question:
Would a good truthful recipe be useful if some ingredients were left out?
No, you would get something else, a mess, but not a cake. It takes the
whole recipe
all at once to make a cake.
A somewhat limited analogy, I know, but really I don't want to get in a debate over this point because I already know it's a fruitless one, given the understanding of the Presence folk.
Quote from: CHBNow, back to your original idea which is I understand, is that God did not know that Adam would fall. You base your idea on one word "katabole", I use the whole Bible...
Yes, I do too.
In fact and of truth, I discovered the deception perpetrated through the deliberate mistranslation of
katabole by the Kings interpreters a long time after I had already concluded, from using the whole Bible, that there was no way Jehovah could have known as a fact that the Adam was going to turn before He created them,
despite what I read in Matt 13:35, 25:34, Lu 11:50, Jn 17:24, Eph 1:4, Heb 4:3, 9:26, 1 Pet 1:20, Rev 13:8 and 17:8; for I knew there was something seriously wrong with Calvinism a long time before I found out what it was.
One Baptist summer camp evening, my friend 'gave his life to the LORD'. Now my friend and I were partiers, as much as teenagers can be back then and I knew he wasn't sincere. He was just scared. When I asked him about it he said "You know, I just wanted to be on the safe side- I'm saved and going to heaven;
it's up to Jesus now to do the rest." It was then that I began to see that there was something wrong with Calvinism, the theology I was taught in my Baptist High School Bible Class.
Jesus was supposed to make a difference in your life, I was taught, but I was also taught that if you make a confession of faith, an emotional one being preferred, then you are saved for all eternity and no matter what you do you can't be plucked from the Fathers hand- no matter what you do- with the unspoken caveat being- even sin.
Of course he and I continued partying for several years after right up to my entrance into the USAF where I got in trouble and later had a real 'face to face showdown' with Jesus such that I weep to this day when I try to tell about it. That was my beginning.
And as I read The Bible on my own I began to realize that not only was it possible for me to stop sinning, it was
expected of me by my God that, after my re-siring, I should
start being righteous for being obedient to the promptings of the spirit of Jesus that had made it's home in me through my faith in Him.
Do you realize that sentence took me over 25 years to learn how to write?
And I note that what I just wrote is rejected by those who believe it a truth that, "Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world".
And really, why shouldn't it be rejected, given the centuries the Kings English had to shape our thoughts about God? The overwhelming majority of believers are unaware that the foundation that they build their understanding of The Bible on, which foundation is found in the sentence, "Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" was a foundation laid to disrupt truth so that John Calvin's theology would
appear to be supported by The Word of God and therefore
appear to be the truth; for
katabole means 'disruption', not 'foundation'.
So, given everything I had concluded during those 23 years before I uncovered the truth about
katabole,which was not long after I was introduced to UR and was convinced, by its logic, that the peculiar hell of the KJV was actually
translated into existence, it was but a happy confirmation of my understanding,
not a revelation to my thinking.
And for that, I will state, again, what has
not been disproven during my discussions:
The
exact same logic used by the Tentmakers themselves to prove that Strongs is unreliable for understanding
aion and
aionios I took and applied to the understanding Strongs brings to
katabole.
Themelios means 'foundation'.
Katabole does not.
Katabole means 'disruption'-- Just like
aiodios means 'eternal' and
aion and
aionios do not.
Aion and
aionios mean 'age' and 'age-enduring'.
I just wanted you to know the history here so you would not think that I am ignoring the rest of the Bible just to focus on one word.
However, I do recognize the importance of that one word to Christian understanding even as you and everyone reading this does. For I have heard that sentence over and over again, "Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world", slung down in happy defiance, like a trump card, whenever I've tried to discuss my understanding of salvation with my fellow believers.
But what
really surprised me, as I began to hang with UR folk, was how much they
loved playing that trump card! Even more so than the Baptist I used to hang with, who at least are beginning to perceive that, among other things, it is the ugliness one is lead to believe about God, for believing this foundational sentence is the truth, that is turning the world off to them.
Quote from: CHB"... and what it tells me is, God created Adam without any experience of sin and put him in the garden with a serpent and a tree that he should not eat from. For God not to know that he would eat from it would be foolish thinking on God's part. Even I a human, if I put my child in a room full of candy and told him not to eat any, it would be stupid of me to think he wouldn't touch it.
YES! CHB, I was wondering if this was
ever going to be brought up; just as I was waiting for it to see if anyone was being inspired enough by what I wrote to point this out. (Doc, I think you were on the track to this with the 'will vs intention' thingy but you didn't state anything specific; you just left it for me to 'discover' what you were wanting to say).
Specifically, though, what I agree with is that it would be foolish thinking on God's part to not
anticipate that they might disobey Him. And God is no fool. He foreknew the risk He was taking (not
gambling that is a different idea altogether) and He had good reason to think that the risk was minimal,
for something He couldn't know the outcome of as a fact.(Remember, the humans in the Garden where not initially like us. Everything was fantastically different and therefore it is a mistake to try and understand the literal account of creation without employing a literal imagination. In other words what we know now, as humans turned away from God, is no indication of what it was like before that moment when Ishsaha and Ish ate.)
Their
true innocence, defined as not having a conscience, His creating the Tree of Life that He later had to ban them from, which makes its creation an act of optimism, by the way, (Why create something He knew He was going to have to ban them from? What's in a name?) and the fact that Death and later,
murder, was introduced with Sin at the turning, all point to the idea that He always intended and even planned for them to be obedient to His command through trust in Him- Something they
were capable of doing.
I've been holding this scripture back just to answer this question when it was brought up.
"And in the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground. And Abel brought of the firstborn of his flock and of the fat portions. And the Lord had respect and regard for Abel and for his offering, but for Cain and his offering He had no respect or regard. So Cain was exceedingly angry and indignant, and he looked sad and depressed."
"And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why do you look sad and depressed and dejected? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin crouches at your door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." And Cain said to his brother, "Let us go out to the field." And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him." Gen 4:3-8.
God was displeased with Cain's offering because it did not involve the death of an innocent animal: a model set for them when God Himself killed two rams and made clothing of skins for Adam and Eve. (Another reason why I conclude something that was supposed to happen didn't; God had to
kill, on their behalf, because the world was disrupted)
But notice the words of the LORD to Him and note also that God was
still talking to them directly.
"If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin crouches at your door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."
How do you understand these words in light of the fact that Jehovah knew, as a fact, from the foundation of the world, that Cain was going to murder his brother Abel?
While pondering that I will give you my take:
"If you do well, will you not be accepted?"
Cain knew what was right for Him to do; offer an animal of his own.
"And if you do not do well, sin crouches at your door;..."
This is obviously a word-picture warning of what will happen if he 'opens the door'-- Sin will leap in and devour him.But why give him a warning if Jehovah already knows, as a fact that He's going to murder his brother?
So, why
do we warn our children of dangers?
Because we don't want them to get hurt! And so, when we
do give them a warning, don't we expect them to hear us and
obey even as we sometimes scare them with our warning so they will fear for their own safety?
And if your child
trusts you, aren't they more likely to listen to you and do as you say?
"... its desire is for you, but you must master it."
Whoa. Why would He say this if it wasn't possible for Him to do? That's like saying to your son, at 5 years old, "I expect you to get a job and earn money now." It is simply something he can't do and you are not a good parent for asking that of him.
So this must have been something God reasonably expected for him to be able to do; it was not something impossible, but
very possible,
if Cain would hear Jehovah and be obedient to His valid warning:
Valid because Jehovah did not know what He was going to do, as a fact, but He
knew it would be bad if Cain kept on allowing himself to feel this way.
Sound like any parents you know? And their children?
And now let's turn from Cain to Abel,
who pleased God with his obedience...
Enough said.
OK, since the world was disrupted by the turning and because of how I understand Jehovah actually gets His knowledge of the future, it is logical to expect that, because of the direction the world took, that Jehovah was going to have to learn how to deal with these
unexpected humans, even while He knew, from its disruption on, what would be needed to fix them, a sinless sacrifice.
Yes, that's right... I said He was going to have to
learn how to deal with these turned human beings. :faint:
I'll stop here and let the shock die down... :wacko2:
Better now?
OK. Do you understand that your shock came because you believe that Jehovah foreknew the fall as a fact? And you beleive
that because you believe that Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world?
OK. Now stop and consider all of Jehovah's interpersonal dealings with the Israelites after He brought them up out of Egypt.
Do you know what He sounds like to me? A Father frustrated with His children's recalcitrant ways, even while He's
learning how to deal with them.
OK. Now let me ask you, which idea makes the most sense of all those events and Jehovah's 'mysterious' words during those events, as He led His people to the promised land with an
unplanned generation-long, detour along the way:
That He foreknows the future, as a fact?
Or that He learns of future possibilities by being intimately acquainted with the thoughts and hearts of humans, through spirit?
So, His 'plan A' was for them to obey Him exactly as we parents expect the same from our children; with the only difference being that He had every good reason to believe that The Adam, in their innocence, would trust Him and
not eat from the Tree of Conscience, when tempted: While we, often (not always though) have good reason to beleive that our children
won't obey us given our own lives of disobedience and our own experiences with our children, exactly because,
through disobedience, our Parents were corrupted and the world was disrupted.
Our own children have inherited the corruption of Father Adam. And so for ourselves also, who inherited this corruption, we can't help but fail to imagine what it could have been like to live in the world Jehovah intended to have happen, had Our Parents been obedient,
except for what we can discern for inverting our experiences in our imaginations.
So yes, from where we are now, about 6,000 years removed from those events in Eden, we know it would indeed be stupid of us to put our child into a room full of candy and expect them to obey our command not to eat any of it.
In fact, CHB, because of where we are now, corrupted by 6,000 years of sin and foolishness, if we even
heard of a parent doing this we would consider it nothing short of a cruel 'sting-operation'
designed to get that parent's children 'into trouble' with them!! And then, if we asked the parents why they did it and they said, "So we could punish them and teach them not to disobey us", we would call such parents capricious and megalomaniacal.
Yet isn't that what we say God did? Because we believe that Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world?
And why do we say that? Because we believe
katabole means 'foundation'; just as we were meant to believe it, so John Calvin's theology would be the truth, according to The Bible.
CHB, do you grasp the idea that it is only with imagination that we can conceive what it was like to be Adam and Eve?
They were uselessly innocent. What do you think that was like? Ever look at your son when He was a baby and wonder what he was thinking before he could communicate?
My point is that the world before the turning is beyond our ability to grasp,
except for what the ancient words of Genesis 1-3 tell us
and for what we can imagine the world might be like, if there were no sin.
Therefore, I perceive that it is irrational to assume that He would command them not to eat if He couldn't reasonably believe that they could refuse a temptation to disobey Him. For Jehovah did not lie to them about what would happen if they ate the fruit; He just told them not to eat it
without telling them why he didn't want them to. And it is on
that point that I build my case. His silence is just as revealing to me as I perceive it to be irrational and ugly to conclude that God actually
willed for them to fall,
foreknew they would fall, or
planned for them to fall.
(The funny thing is, if He foreknew that they would fall then the other two statements have to be assumed to be true, simultaneously. And that means that it was Man who actually chose God's purpose for Him
the instant He created Man. Which means the will of God was subject to Man and that makes Man more powerful than God since Man's foreknown disobedience
made it be the will of God to rescue Man from himself!-- Hey, Doc, there's one for you and Martin! :winkgrin: love you, man!)
END OF PART ONE
PART TWO
Here is the gist of it all, CHB. If
katabole means 'foundation' in Matt 13:35 & 25:34, Lu 11:50, Jn 17:24, Eph 1:4, Heb 4:3 &, 9:26, 1 Pet 1:20 and Rev 13:8 & 17:8 then logic will lead you to certain
unique conclusions about the events in the Garden
and about the rest of scripture for The Bible declaring that Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
These are the very conclusions Doc and Martin Zender and 99% of modern Medieval Christians hold as truth-- and that you do as well, CHB: for I sat in on a Presence-sponsored meeting and I know how
very needful it is to their understanding that it be a truth that Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world; Preterism aside.
However if 'disruption' is inserted in the above verses for
katabole, as the CLV does, then logic compels us toward another and different but still
unique conclusion, even one that I have presented here for it being logical to conclude that Jehovah did not know of the turning, as a fact, but only as a possibility, for The Words declaring that Jesus was the lamb slain from the disruption of the world.
Quote from: CHBYou ask if I use to not believe the things I believe now. I grew up in a Baptist environment. Went to the Seventh Day Advent Church a while. Even attended Pentecostal meetings. Joined the World Wide Church of God. Last, I was shown the knowledge about the salvation of all. It was all God's doing. God brought me through all these beliefs for a purpose. I did not learn about the salvation of all through my own doing, you cannot find that any of the disciples or apostles came to Christ on their own, they were all chosen. You were chosen, believe it or not, to know what you know whether it be right or wrong. So was I. I have nothing to brag about as far as knowing anything. Isn't this what Paul said also?
I think I've said enough. I thank you, CHB, for sharing with me your story. How many are they who begin Baptist and must move on, eh?
Needless to say I understand why you say, "... they were all chosen. You were chosen, believe it or not, to know what you know whether it be right or wrong. So was I. I have nothing to brag about as far as knowing anything. Isn't this what Paul said also?"
And I won't gainsay it. For if you are helping those in need, as you can when you can, while keeping yourself unspotted from the world (Jam 1:27) then you're religion is undefiled before God. And because He knows, in truthfulness, through spirit, what you know and what you don't know He will fairly evaluate you, on that day when He judges the living and the dead.
Quote from: CHBI see Doc is back so I will let you two hash it out. :happy3: It has been nice communicating with you.
Same here CHB. You are very perceptive to have asked me that question about the kid in a room full of candy, very insightful. But be careful, though, when you quote scripture to make sure you are quoting it in context, very important that.
Quote from: CHBYou seem very intelligent and have done a lot of studying on this one word.
CHB
Thank you for your very kind word. Know that I appreciate your studiousness and especially your initial courage to speak up; for I know you must have felt some apprehension about 'squaring off' with me for how 'intelligent' you
think I am. Courage is as it does.
And trust me when I say that I am a 'nobody' both in the world and in Christendom, any perceived 'intelligence' aside.
Even so, I hope you found out that I'm really toothless and declawed with an
abysmal roar.
And that I can appreciate a
good smart alec.
Yes, I have done a lot of studying on and thinking about this one word, after it became known to me, because I perceive what a difference a single word can make
in just the right place, just as I've tried to present that difference here.
Be good!
Dennis!
To All:
I'm going to be away from my computer for a few days while on a trip. I'll be back to reply to Doc on the serpent thingy, as promised and to CHB if she has anymore questions.
I'm pretty much done debating, though, my heart is satisfied that I can give a good answer, from my understanding, in defense of it.
Which means that I'm desiring to move on.
So, unless there is anyone here who is convinced that 'I'm onto something' and wants to study it further with me with the goal in mind of stregthening this understanding, not debating it, then I will be moving on soon enough.
Be good!
Dennis!
Hi Dennis,
Why don't you stick around and join us in some of the other discussions? You might have something else to contribute other than what we have been discussing.
CHB
I would like to hear more from you too Dennis and all
:icon_flower:
Inlove rose :HeartThrob:
Hey, Doc!
As promised, here is my reply to the serpent thingy.
Quote from: Doc on October 06, 2009, 01:17:13 AMHi Dennis!
Well, I finally got around to doing that extra research on "serpent" (nachash), and I found something interesting. I'm going to post some quotes here from a paper I've found:
This is an article by Michael S. Heiser, PhD. of the Dept. of Hebrew and Semitic studies at UW-Madison. The title of the paper is
The Nachash and His Seed:
Some Explanatory Notes on Why the "Serpent"
in Genesis 3 Wasn't a Serpent.
As readers of The Façade already know, my view of the fall narrative in
Genesis 3 is quite different than the usual theological or exegetical
fare. As different as it is, it is based on (1) sound Hebrew grammar;
(2) the context of the Hebrew Bible's descriptions of Eden with the
vocabulary of the meeting place of the divine council in wider ancient
near eastern terms and motifs (see the earlier newsletter issue with
that specific PDF file); and (3) sound reasoning that springs from the
first two considerations. In that regard, my explanation provides a
coherent answer for why Eve was not at all surprised that a "serpent"
(a nachash)1 was speaking to her.
In this lesson, I'd like to lay out in more detail, with at least a little
visual help, my translation of the word in Gen. 3 usually translated
"serpent" in Genesis 3 – hannachash . I'll also trace a few
references to the "seed" of hannachash in the Old Testament. Some
of what follows will be familiar, as my goal is to try and tie a few ends
together a bit more tightly for readers.
The Translation of the Word
The Hebrew word is actually an adjective; meaning "bright",
"brazen [as in shiny brass]) with the prefixed article (ha - the word
"the" in Hebrew). Thus the word is formed #$xfnF + ha for #$xfn@Fha (a dot is
added in the second letter from the right when an article is attached).
The whole word then, in the Hebrew text is #$xfn@Fha, hannachash
(nachash is pronounced "nakash").
What is different about this approach is that I view the base word,
nachash, as an adjective, not a noun. The NOUN spelled nachash in
Hebrew can mean: snake / serpent or one who practices of divination.
The adjective means "bright, brazen" and is itself the base word for
other nouns in Hebrew, like "shining brass" - t#$exon; (nechoshet). In
Hebrew grammar, it is not unusual for an adjective to be "converted"
for use as a noun (the proper word is "substantivized").2 A common
example would be "holy one" (with or without the article). If we take
#$xfn@Fha as deriving from the adjective rather than as a noun, the
translation becomes "the shining one", which is quite in concert with
descriptions of the satan figure in the Old Testament. For example, in
Isa 14:12-15, he is called Helel ben-shachar – "The shining one, son of
the dawn." Elsewhere, divine beings are described as "shining" or
luminous, even by use of the adjective #$xfnF. For example:
Daniel 10
4Now on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was by
the side of the great river, that is, the Tigris, 5I lifted my eyes
and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen, whose
waist was girded with gold of Uphaz! 6His body was like beryl,
his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like
torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze
(t#$exon; ; nechoshet) in color, and the sound of his words like the
voice of a multitude.
Personally, I tend to think that, in light of the serpentine appearance
of divine beings in Yahweh's presence (see that PDF file), what we
have in Genesis 3 is wordplay using all the meanings of the #$xfnF
semantic range. That is, Eve was not talking to a snake. She
was speaking to an bright, shining upright being who was
serpentine in appearance, and who was trying to bewitch her
with lies.
Interestingly, The author takes a literal view of the fall event, while he views the ensuing curse as more metaphorical.
You can read the article in its entirety at: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/nachashnotes.pdf (http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/nachashnotes.pdf)
What I was arguing originally regarding this word is not too dissimilar, although less exact and detailed. We as Western English speakers are frequently unaware of things like this; that often (as in this case) the Hebrew nouns are taken from the adjectives rather than the other way around. So the Strong's definition that I gave is basically, as this scholar confirms, the more primary meaning of the word nachash.
I also found this on an online encyclopedia : The Hebrew word for serpent is na(c)hash. The root of the word are the Hebrew letters Nun, Het and Shin - "to decipher, to find out". (hence to "divine", and some of the other definitions from Strong's, i.e. prognosticate, learn by experience, etc.)
Hence, I maintain my position that the serpent in the Garden was not a literal snake, but rather the "shining one" who (may have) presented a serpentine appearance, but was not an actual, literal 'snake'.
First I want to thank you for introducing this subject. It has been a real blessing to my understanding to have read the writings of Michael S. Heiser; especially his literal views on The Divine Council, Psalm 82, John 10:22-33, Deut 32:8-9 and Psalm 8.
If any reading this have not read the writings of this man you should Google his name and do so.
So, let me begin by saying that I did not come to this discussion believing that the
nachash was 'a snake' in the sense that we speak of a snake today,
post-cursed.
You once mentioned the 'cartoonish literal understanding' of a snake most Christians hold to and to which I added that I did not imagine the
nachcash as a Sunday School flannel-graph snake dangling from a tree branch while tempting Eve to eat.
I've always worked the curse backward, from a literal understanding, so that what little I could imagine of the
nachcash, just from the account itself, was that it was a slender, upright being that walked and talked and that this was not something out of the ordinary to The Adam.
And this ability to walk and talk was for some reason other than what could be discerned from the account itself. Then there was the fact that the scriptures teach that somehow, in some way I did not comprehend, this being was, of truth, The Satan, but also
not The Satan.
And given the textual support I gave in my original post these are very logical things to conclude.
So, the question to my mind has always been how this intelligent being called the
nachcash came to be in the garden; for I recognized that it's presence was necessary to bring about the time of testing, given my understanding of the purpose for which we were created.
(Specifically we were created to be virtuous, as Jehovah is virtuous, that is, to have a conscience
and a desire to consistently choose what is right and good to do from that powerful conscience gained through the independently virtuous, singular choice of choosing,
first, to trust Jehovah's intentions for them, given a temptation not to.)
OK, so after reading and understanding Michael's logic I find myself in agreement with his contention that there were beings called 'the sons of God' that were not angels nor where they humans. And that this being, the
nachcash, was
once one of them and that he had a bright, shiny, serpentine appearance.
Therefore it's presence in the fantastic but now lost world of Eden, as a subtle (wise and/or crafty) creature with the ability to communicate with this truly strange and
new kind of created being (strange from the
nachcash's point of view) that were actually
two independent
sexual beings, existing as One through their sexuality and called, together, The Adam, was not something 'unusual' for that world.
I came to realize, through Michael's writings, that the key to understanding this creatures motives in allowing itself to be entered by Satan, for that is what happened, was that he saw in this weird, dual-creature called The Adam- a creature weaker than the
nachcash was for them being created a little lower than itself,
yet surrounded by Jehovah with a glory- was to be given the honour to rule over
all of this re-created earth and
everything on it, maybe even including the
nachcash itself.
So jealousy and envy was its motive.
As well as possibly being desirous of Ishsha for her incredible physical beauty-remember the Nephilim.
Another thing that assisted my understanding was the important role The Adversary fills in the Divine Council- that of an accuser. This particular article was very helpful for uncovering some truly fantastic truths.
Therefore, I perceive that it was known before, by Jehovah, that The Satan would attempt to 'bring down' this new kind of creation that He, Jehovah, delighted in and had put His own faith in for believing it possible for them to resist the temptation to distrust Him and gain virtue
before they were given a conscience, unlike the sons of God who were created with a conscience
already in place with the result that many turned against God.
For it became apparent to me, as Michael explained Psalm 82 and Deut 32, that these created sons of God all had a conscience; that is, they were given to know the difference between good and evil
at their creation. And for this, despite the fact that Jehovah expected them to be righteous, they, all too often, choose
not to be righteous but pursued wickedness. Hence, because of the wickedness of these created sons of God, which were numerous both in number and in number of sins, the initial creation of this heavens and its
then earth was overturned by Jehovah with a flood of water and plunged into deep darkness.
Of course, after this, Jehovah asked Himself the question I always imagined He asked as we are told He brooded over that ancient, wasted and emptied sphere, "How can We create beings who will know the difference between good and evil and yet choose consistently to do good?
Answer: Let's create them to resemble Us!
We'll make this New One as
two sexual beings, Male and Female, by splitting the essence of Ourselves between them so that, through their sexuality, they will exist of like kind, independent of each other, but, in Unity, even as We are. In this way they will come to know all of the Loves, as We know them,
experientially!
And by giving them the ability to share in Our own ability to create sentient beings through this unifying sexuality,
all of the Loves will be passed on to generations of them!
But, before We enable them to reproduce, We will give them a chance, this time, to gain virtue
first, before they are granted a conscience...
And it almost worked.
This is how I see it:
One day, a long time after they were created, The Adam were walking near The Tree of Conscience, perhaps to eat a fruit from The Tree of Life for feeling the need to and were contemplating the Tree of Conscience for being so near to it.
Now by this time the exact words of Jehovah that Ish told to Ishsha about the Tree of Conscience had been transformed, at least in
her thoughts, to become a belief that if she even so much as touched it's fruit she would actually, physically die- something she likely did not know of experientially, yet, by witnessing death, but knew it meant, 'to cease to exist.'
Now, while they're standing next to the tree, along comes the
nachcash, possessed of The Satan through the
nacahsh's jealousy.
Previously The Adam had seen the meetings of the sons of God in the Garden but they didn't have a lot to do with these other created beings because, mostly, these other created beings had nothing to do with Ish and Ishsha- even while they admired Ishsha's physical beauty.
But, The Adam were innocent and didn't even know that they were. What they did know, though, was that they both knew they loved each other deeply and preferred each other rather than the company of these rather daunting 'sons of God.'
When the
nachcash approaches them it gives no introduction but simply addresses it's words to the beautiful, desirable Ishsha and asks her a question that, to them, must have been a strange question, indeed, coming from one of these sons of God:
"Is it true that God has said you cannot eat the fruit of any of the trees in the Garden?"
The question is asked to feign ignorance; something that can only be accomplished successfully if Ish and Ishsha had every reason to believe that this other created being might have heard something from God differently than they did and was coming to them to ask for clarification.
And so, thinking she was correcting the
nachcash's error in understanding, she answers, "No, that's not true. God said we may eat freely from all the trees in the garden except the one in the middle. He told us not to eat from that tree or to even touch it because if we do, we will die."
At this point I imagine that Ish must have been a little taken aback by these words for He knew that was not what Jehovah said.
However, The Satan, elated to hear these words and recognizing the thought behind them, moved quickly to entrap her before Ish can recover and respond, given his hesitancy for this authoritative being's presence and for not understanding, yet, why these wrong words were spoken by Ishsha, The Satan seizes the opportunity by stating the truth to her in much the same way journalists lie to us when they tell us the truth.
It said, with all the authority of one who was superior to them, "Trust me. You will not die as you say because the truth is that God knows that when you eat this fruit you will become wise like God is for knowing of the difference between good and evil."
And so, prompted to believe the lie that sounds just like truth, for her own wrong thinking about what Jehovah actually said, she considered the goodness that could be hers, goodness she now believes God was keeping them from and -- she quickly plucks a fruit. And after biting into it, while still chewing, she holds it outstretched in her hand to a stunned Ish who watches her as she finishes chewing it and swallows. And upon hearing her say, "Here, take it!" He sees there is no turning back and decides to join his fate to hers, for not wanting to live apart from her and taking it from her hand, he too, bites, chews and swallows.
And the rest is history: The
nachcash was cursed to become the snake, even the snake as we know it today, with a future fulfillment of the prophesy/curse pronounced over it yet to be fully realized for its extreme wickedness; and we... we were cursed
for our benefit.
The world Jehovah intended for us to know was disrupted by disobedience and the history that would have been, now becomes a history of redemption and restoration because God loved this world that He created so very much that He sent His only unique Son, the only other One of His Kind, to be born Human, of a virgin woman, so that He would know what it was like to be a Human and thus, being made sympathetic toward us, through His obedience to The Father, despite suffering horribly for it as He accomplished the forgiveness of the Sins of the world, He proceeded to redeem us all, every single one of us, one by one, for His making it possible to be that, whosoever should be believing on His Name, which Name The Father is making the Name above all Names for His willingness to permanently leave His position as co-regent with The Father and become, forever, a Glorified Human Being, would not perish because of Sin but would, instead, inherit that promised aionian life intended for me to know as a virtuous and good human being, exactly as Jehovah intended for me to be, from the very beginning, even as that is what I am now re-sired by Jehovah to become through my faith, repentance and baptism into His unique Son Who's spirit has come and made His home inside me, where this Son of Man said that the Kingdom of God is.
~
Doc, I've gone back and re-read what I've just written and truly it sounds fantastic. Yet this is where my thoughts lead me, logically, for the things I have learned.
I can't describe the effect this has had on me.
However, know that I have no problem putting my faith in the fantastic things I can conclude from Truth: It's the contradictory and ugly things I can conclude from wrong thoughts, like the one that teaches us that Jehovah knew, as a fact, that the Adam was going to turn before He created them, that I can't put my faith in. Just like Ishsha had a wrong thought about The Words of God and it was used against her.
I began my understanding by believing that there existed a truthful and therefore
singular understanding of The Words that, when grasped, would explain what has been revealed for us to know in a good and beautiful way.
Now I'm not saying, at this point, that I've got a full grasp of Genesis 1-3; for God knows how many times I've changed Creation Hymn over the years from when I first started writing it; but I will say this: For the first time since I began this journey of discovery, I have an answer to all of the questions I once had.
And right now, I can't seem to think of any more to ask.
Doc these thoughts are nascent and so likely you'll be able to poke a few holes in them from your understanding; and I will say that would be a welcome thing, that I may test it for truth and adjust these thoughts accordingly.
And I will add that I didn't find anything in what Michael wrote that disproved my original assertions concerning the two words Strongs # 5172 and Strongs # 5175 that I discovered when I first gave you answer to your inquiry about the serpent.
However, know that I will be referring to this being as the
nachcash in my future writings rather than as 'the serpent' because that is a lot less misleading, given the literal curse on this real-time, brightly shining, upright-walking, wise and crafty, conscience-bearing
nachcash that was literally turned from a son of God into a snake for its wickedness.
It's no wonder to me that we hate snakes so much.
Again I thank you for introducing this. Like I said, you are a gift from God.
Be good, Doc!
It is what you were created to be, after all.
And blessings as well!
Dennis!
Dennis!
As it happens, I do have a few comments to make about your response; but sadly, I will not have time to get to it until probably next week. I have continuing education to slog through all day Thursday through Sunday. You have made some interesting comments, and your understanding is somewhat different than I understood it to be initially.
Until then!
Quote from: CHB on October 16, 2009, 02:52:33 AM
Hi Dennis,
Hi, CHB!
QuoteHope you don't mind if I call you dennis?
No, not at all! In fact
you can call me any name you want! :laughing7:
Quote from: CHBQuote from: EleutherosThen He and I together can start to accomplish what once was impossible for me to do on my own, namely to start being righteous through my being obedient to His spirit's promptings.
That word TOGETHER, is where I find a problem with your quote. The way it is written, you make it sound as if Christ needs your help to accomplish your righteousness or sinlessness.
I understand. I think I can clarify by pointing out that only Jesus and Jesus only was
sinless. I have
never nor will I
ever be able to say the same for as long as I dwell on this earth.
However, there is a thing called 'repentance' which is what I am expected to do when I encounter the Truth in Jesus. Repentance means, 'to flip around', to 'do a 180', or an 'about face' and thus start heading in the
opposite direction. And the opposite direction from doing sin is to do righteousness.
However, because you are equating
righteousness with
sinlessness, I can see why you would have a problem with what I wrote.
Quote from: CHBI keep thinking about this verse (Phil. 2:13) For it is GOD which WORKETH IN YOU BOTH TO WILL AND TO DO of HIS GOOD PLEASURE". You see I don't think it is you doing anything but God working in you. God is accomplishing his good pleasure, not yours.
Again I understand where you are coming from; like I said I was raised believing as you do.
Here is the entire sentence of which vs. 13 is the latter half:
"So that, my beloved, according as you always obey (
obey... what?), not as in my presence only, but now much rather in my absence, with fear and trembling, (
you) be carrying your own salvation into effect, for it is God Who is operating in you to will as well as to work for the sake of His delight."
I see from this whole thought then that
my part is to be obedient and
do whatever the God Who is operating in me both to will
as well as to work for the sake of His delight and that with a sense of fear and trembling about me (for incurring His displeasure) as *I*, Dennis, carry my own salvation into effect through my obedience, which is to say through
my doing what
He tells me to do!
Quote from: CHBMost of the scriptures you posted are New Covenant teaching, and was written to the Israelites, I don't think we are under any Covenant. We don't have any laws to perform, Christ did it all.
Here is the way I see it. Jesus sent his disciples to preach to the Jew's. (Matt. 10:5-6) {Verse 5} Go not into the way of the Gentiles. When Paul first started preaching he too went to the Jew's but later to the Gentiles. The New Covenant was directed toward the Israelites but not the Gentiles, we have the Mystery that Paul talked about which was a better revelation than the New Covenant. The Mystery that was given to Paul showed that we don't need to be attached to Israel, we are of the family of God, not Israel. We don't have to keep days, or be baptised or any of those things that the Jew's do. It is not by any thing that we do now but all of Jesus Christ. End of answers to part one.
What answer, then, do you give to these scriptures that seem to contradict your understanding?
"Now if some of the boughs are broken out, yet
you, CHB, being a wild olive, are grafted among them, and became a joint participant of the root and fatness of the olive, be not vaunting over the boughs. Yet if you are vaunting, you are not bearing the root, but the root you.
You will be declaring, then,
"Boughs are broken out that I, CHB, may be grafted in."Ideally! By unbelief are they broken out, yet you, CHB, stand in faith. Be not haughty, but fear.
For if God spares not the natural boughs, neither will He be sparing you, CHB!
Perceive, then, the kindness and severity of God! On those, indeed, who are falling, severity, yet on you, CHB, God's kindness, if you should be persisting in the kindness: else you, CHB, also will be hewn out." Rom 11:17-22
"For His achievement are we,
being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them.
Wherefore, remember that once
you (CHB), the nations in flesh -- who are termed 'Uncircumcision' by those termed 'Circumcision,' in flesh, made by hands -- that
you, (CHB), were, in that era, apart from Christ,
being alienated from the citizenship of Israel, and guests of the promise covenants, having no expectation, and without God in the world.
Yet now, in Christ Jesus, you, CHB, who once are far off, are become near by the blood of Christ.
For He is our (mine and CHB's) Peace,
Who makes (both Jew and Gentile) one, and razes the central wall of the barrier (the enmity in His flesh), nullifying the law of precepts in decrees,
that He should be creating the two, in Himself, into one new humanity, making peace; and should be reconciling both in one body to God through the cross, killing the enmity in it." Eph 2:10-16
"Thus we (Believers) also, when we were minors, were enslaved under the elements of the world.
Now when the full time came, God delegates His Son, come of a woman, come under law, that He should be reclaiming those under law, that we (Believers) may be getting the place of a son.
Now, seeing that you are sons (and daughters), God delegates the spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying "Abba! Father!" So that you are no longer a slave, but a son. Now if a son, an enjoyer also of an allotment from God, through Christ.
But then (before you, CHB, were, 'grafted into Israel'), indeed, having no perception of God, you, (CHB) were slaves of those who, by nature, are not gods.
Yet now, knowing God, yet rather being known by God, how are you turning back again to the infirm and poor elements for which you want to slave again anew? Days are you scrutinizing, and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, lest somehow I have toiled for you feignedly." Gal 4:3-11
Quote from: CHBQuote from: Eleutheros
After reading what I wrote above do you still think John 1, 2 & 3 don't apply to you?
I think the whole Bible is for our learning and admonition but most of it was written to and for Israel.
OK. So what few
remaining parts do specifically apply to you and not to Israel? And how do you determine which parts do?
Quote from: CHBQuote from: Eleutheros
CHB, I did a NT word search with 'right hand' and 'are in Christ' and could not find a quote that said this. Could you help me to know where you got this from?
(Eph. 1:20) Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and SET HIM AT HIS OWN RIGHT HAND IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES.
"Therefore, I also, on hearing of this faith of yours in the Lord Jesus, and that for all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you, making mention in my prayers that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may be giving you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the realization of Him, the eyes of your heart having been enlightened, for you to perceive what is the expectation of His calling, and what the riches of the glory of the enjoyment of His allotment among the saints, and what the transcendent greatness of His power for us who are believing, in accord with the operation of the might of His strength,
which is operative in the Christ, rousing Him from among the dead and seating Him at His right hand among the celestials, up over every sovereignty and authority and power and lordship, and every name that is named, not only in this eon, but also in that which is impending: and subjects all under His feet, and gives Him, as Head over all, to the ecclesia which is His body, the complement of the One completing the all in all." Eph 1: 15-22-
The whole sentence.
I see from this that our allotment is to be among the saints that are set apart for Him and that Jesus
and Jesus only, is seated,
by The Father at His right hand which is to be
His place among the celestials (the sons of God),
not ours.
I do not read that
we are seated at The Father's right hand with Him.
Quote(Col. 2:12-13) We are buried with him in baptism, {his baptism} wherein also YE ARE RISEN WITH HIM through the faith of the OPERATION OF GOD. (Verse 13) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, HATH HE QUICKENED TOGETHER WITH HIM.
"And you are complete in Him, Who is the Head of every sovereignty and authority, in Whom you were circumcised also with a circumcision not made by hands, in the stripping off of the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ.
Being entombed together with Him in (your Gal 3:27) baptism, in Whom you were roused together also through faith in the operation of God, Who rouses Him from among the dead, you also being dead to the offenses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He vivifies us together jointly with Him, dealing graciously with all our offenses, erasing the handwriting of the decrees against us, which was hostile to us, and has taken it away out of the midst, nailing it to the cross, stripping off the sovereignties and authorities, with boldness He makes a show of them, triumphing over them in it." Col 2:10-15
Two sentences and the whole thought.
I see that we are
complete in Him through a 'circumcision' that is not physical and that we are identified with His burial and resurrection through our baptism. I see that The Father makes us alive, then, jointly with Him. And so He can deal graciously with all of our offences for us having been made dead with Him and also alive with Him so that the sovereignties and authorities lawful decrees over us are stripped off of us and made show of in triumph!
But I don't see that we are seated at The right hand of The Father with Him, a place He
and He alone has earned for what He did to make us alive again unto God, even as Paul is declaring it here.
Quote(Col . 3:1) If ye then BE RISIN WITH CHRIST, seek those things which are above, WHERE CHRIST SITTETH ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD.
"If, then, you were roused together with Christ, be seeking that which is above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God." Col 3:1 See! Paul
can write a short sentence! :laughing7:
OK. I still don't see where
we have been made to be seated at the right hand of God, with Jesus. Only that
if we are risen with Christ then
we are to be seeking
the things of heaven, where Jesus
is Who has been seated at the right hand of God, by God the Father-- not the
position of being seated at the right hand of the Father! God forbid!
Quote from: CHB(Col. 3:3) For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ.
If we are dead and our life is hid in Christ then we have no more works to perform, Christ does them all. If we are in Christ and Christ is sitting on the right hand of the Father, wouldn't we be there also if we are in Christ?
No.
CHB I don't think you grasp what is being said here, nor what Jesus went through to be given this position by the Father. This is a
powerful position of rule and authority, far and
farther above
any 'rule or authority' that we will be given to us for being
under Him.
He is 'accountable' only to the Father. Every single human and every other of the son's of God will be
under Him. This position at the right hand of The Father
is not our place as a redeemed human, even though
we, the firstfruits, will belong to Him.
Let me illustrate what I am saying:
Suppose you were married to a prince, a son of the King. And one day the King declares that your husband was to become His co-regent and rule with all His power and authority, being accountable only to the King.
And to show this, for all the court to see, the King caused Him to be seated at His right hand.
What do you think would happen to you if you
dared to try and say that you, too, were 'seated at the King's right hand with His Son'
just because you were married to him?
Exactly.
This issue was addressed once before:
"Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him with her sons, worshiping and requesting something from Him.
Now He said to her, "What are you wanting?" She is saying to Him, "Say that these, my two sons, should be seated, one at Thy right and one at Thy left, in Thy kingdom."
Now answering, Jesus said, "You are not aware what you are requesting. Are you able to be drinking the cup which I am about to be drinking?" They are saying to Him, "We are able."
He is saying to them, "My cup, indeed, you shall be drinking. Yet to be seated at My right and at My left is not Mine to give, but is for whom it has been made ready by My Father." Matt 20:20-23.
Just like the seat of power on the Divine Council, at the right hand of God, is for God to give to Whom He chooses, so are the right and left hand seats next to Jesus set aside by The Father, for Whom the Father chooses. And just like He chose Jesus to receive it
after He accomplished the forgiveness of our Sins;
which is something you did not do so these positions on Jesus' right and left are for those who have accomplished much
and suffered much while being obedient to The Father.
Quote from: CHB(Matt. 5:48) You quoted this verse to prove that we must be perfect now but read (Col. 1:28) Paul said that we may present EVERY MAN PERFECT IN JESUS CHRIST. Notice, it says we are perfect IN Jesus Christ. If every man is in Jesus Christ then we are all perfect spiritually. As long as we are in these bodies we are sinful flesh and the flesh cannot please God, but Christ did. When the Father looks at me he only sees his Son not my sin.
"I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for you, and am filling up in my flesh, in His stead, the deficiencies of the afflictions of Christ, for His body, which is the ecclesia of which I became a dispenser, in accord with the administration of God, which is granted to me for you, to complete the word of God-- the secret which has been concealed from the eons and from the generations, yet now was made manifest to His saints, to whom God wills to make known what are the glorious riches of this secret among the nations, which is: Christ among you, the expectation of glory --
Whom we are announcing, admonishing every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we should be presenting every man mature in Christ Jesus; for which I am toiling also, struggling in accord with His operation, which is operating in me with power." Col 1:24-29
Who does Paul say is doing the presenting here of every man
mature in Christ Jesus?
And how does a human become
mature in Christ Jesus?
This is what I said of Matt 5:48:
Quote from: DennisCHB, I would ask you, now, to ponder this: To His disciples, during His 'Sermon on the Mount' Jesus said this "You then shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5:48 (The verb tense is in the present, tense, not the future; "You shall be" not "You shall be made").
Why would He command them, with a command of expectation, for that is what this is, if He couldn't reasonably expect them to do it, that is be perfect?
What do you think Jesus meant by perfect?
Before I give you a reply to this that you stated could you answer my question first so that I may know what you think Jesus was
really saying here? :wink:
Quote from: CHBQuote from: Eleutheros
OK. So, you're on the tail end of it all, unless your Jewish, then, of course, your positioned closer to the butt.
Yea, that's me, I always get the tail end of everything. :laughing7: :laughing7:
:shakepoint: Much better though is that we Believers are all a part of His functioning body with Him as 'the Brain' or 'the Head'. :icon_king:
Quote from: CHBWhat is wrong with this blame quoteing situation? The words in the quote box keep jumping up every time I try to type, it is so annoying. Are you having this problem as well? I will have to finish this later, it is getting on my nerves trying to type and you can't see what you are typing. :btantrum: The smilies are screwed up as well. :sigh:
CHB
Well, it got through! And here is my reply. Sorry it took so long...
I appreciate you CHB.
I've tasted your heart and it is good.
So, believe better things of your God than what the Presence folk are telling you. And if you're
not getting these things from them, then the thought is still the same because I believe that
you can, indeed,
Be good!
Just like you were created to be!
(And so does your God!)
Dennis!
Quote from: CHB on October 18, 2009, 01:57:11 AM
Hi Dennis,
Why don't you stick around and join us in some of the other discussions? You might have something else to contribute other than what we have been discussing.
CHB
Quote from: rosered on October 18, 2009, 02:37:32 AM
I would like to hear more from you too Dennis and all
:icon_flower:
Inlove rose :HeartThrob:
Thank you, both of you for these heart-felt words. You honour me with your gracious invitations.
However, posting replies takes a lot of time and energy from me that I cannot maintain without sacrificing other things I need to do, like sleep.
Right now in my life I have some time, from my God, to do this but all things change with time, even as they are.
However to honour your gracious invitations I will say that if there is something on Tentmaker that you would really like to hear 'my take' on, PM me with a link and I will consider a reply, no promises though. OK?
Know that you, rosered and you, CHB, have my utmost respect and my heartfelt appreciation for the things you've contributed to this thread.
Blessings to you,
Dennis!
Quote from: Doc on October 22, 2009, 12:22:22 AM
Dennis!
As it happens, I do have a few comments to make about your response; but sadly, I will not have time to get to it until probably next week. I have continuing education to slog through all day Thursday through Sunday. You have made some interesting comments, and your understanding is somewhat different than I understood it to be initially. Until then!
Hey, Doc!
OK. I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by that but I'm certinaly willing to wait for your reply, when you have the time to make it.
Until then,
Be good!
And get good grades, 'cause the future's so bright you gotta wear shades!
Dennis!
Hi Dennis,
Here is an article that explains what I was referring to about the New Covenant and the Mystery.
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d920501.htm
Who are the Presence folks as you referred to? I have never heard of them.
Quote from: Eleutheros
CHB, I would ask you, now, to ponder this: To His disciples, during His 'Sermon on the Mount' Jesus said this "You then shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5:48 (The verb tense is in the present, tense, not the future; "You shall be" not "You shall be made").
Why would He command them, with a command of expectation, for that is what this is, if He couldn't reasonably expect them to do it, that is be perfect?
What do you think Jesus meant by perfect?
We are perfect IN CHRIST.
You said sitting on the right hand of the Father was only for Christ but Don't we inherit what Christ inherits? (Rom. 8:17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, AND JOINT-HEIRS WITH CHRIST.
CHB
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 21, 2009, 08:43:56 PM
Hey, Doc!
As promised, here is my reply to the serpent thingy.
First I want to thank you for introducing this subject. It has been a real blessing to my understanding to have read the writings of Michael S. Heiser; especially his literal views on The Divine Council, Psalm 82, John 10:22-33, Deut 32:8-9 and Psalm 8.
If any reading this have not read the writings of this man you should Google his name and do so.
So, let me begin by saying that I did not come to this discussion believing that the nachash was 'a snake' in the sense that we speak of a snake today, post-cursed.
You once mentioned the 'cartoonish literal understanding' of a snake most Christians hold to and to which I added that I did not imagine the nachcash as a Sunday School flannel-graph snake dangling from a tree branch while tempting Eve to eat.
I've always worked the curse backward, from a literal understanding, so that what little I could imagine of the nachcash, just from the account itself, was that it was a slender, upright being that walked and talked and that this was not something out of the ordinary to The Adam. And this ability to walk and talk was for some reason other than what could be discerned from the account itself. Then there was the fact that the scriptures teach that somehow, in some way I did not comprehend, this being was, of truth, The Satan, but also not The Satan.
And given the textual support I gave in my original post these are very logical things to conclude.
So, the question to my mind has always been how this intelligent being called the nachcash came to be in the garden; for I recognized that it's presence was necessary to bring about the time of testing, given my understanding of the purpose for which we were created.
So we're more on the same page so far...
Quote(Specifically we were created to be virtuous, as Jehovah is virtuous, that is, to have a conscience and a desire to consistently choose what is right and good to do from that powerful conscience gained through the independently virtuous, singular choice of choosing, first, to trust Jehovah's intentions for them, given a temptation not to.)
I think you're still reading this into the text, and we've already discussed the problems with this arrangement.
Quote, so after reading and understanding Michael's logic I find myself in agreement with his contention that there were beings called 'the sons of God' that were not angels nor where they humans. And that this being, the nachcash, was once one of them and that he had a bright, shiny, serpentine appearance.
Therefore it's presence in the fantastic but now lost world of Eden, as a subtle (wise and/or crafty) creature with the ability to communicate with this truly strange and new kind of created being (strange from the nachcash's point of view) that were actually two independent sexual beings, existing as One through their sexuality and called, together, The Adam, was not something 'unusual' for that world.
I came to realize, through Michael's writings, that the key to understanding this creatures motives in allowing itself to be entered by Satan, for that is what happened, was that he saw in this weird, dual-creature called The Adam- a creature weaker than the nachcash was for them being created a little lower than itself, yet surrounded by Jehovah with a glory- was to be given the honour to rule over all of this re-created earth and everything on it, maybe even including the nachcash itself.
So jealousy and envy was its motive.
As well as possibly being desirous of Ishsha for her incredible physical beauty-remember the Nephilim.
Another thing that assisted my understanding was the important role The Adversary fills in the Divine Council- that of an accuser. This particular article was very helpful for uncovering some truly fantastic truths.
Therefore, I perceive that it was known before, by Jehovah, that The Satan would attempt to 'bring down' this new kind of creation that He, Jehovah, delighted in and had put His own faith in for believing it possible for them to resist the temptation to distrust Him and gain virtue before they were given a conscience, unlike the sons of God who were created with a conscience already in place with the result that many turned against God.
For it became apparent to me, as Michael explained Psalm 82 and Deut 32, that these created sons of God all had a conscience; that is, they were given to know the difference between good and evil at their creation. And for this, despite the fact that Jehovah expected them to be righteous, they, all too often, choose not to be righteous but pursued wickedness. Hence, because of the wickedness of these created sons of God, which were numerous both in number and in number of sins, the initial creation of this heavens and its then earth was overturned by Jehovah with a flood of water and plunged into deep darkness.
Of course, after this, Jehovah asked Himself the question I always imagined He asked as we are told He brooded over that ancient, wasted and emptied sphere, "How can We create beings who will know the difference between good and evil and yet choose consistently to do good?
Answer: Let's create them to resemble Us!
As if God didn't already know how to create such beings.
QuoteWe'll make this New One as two sexual beings, Male and Female, by splitting the essence of Ourselves between them so that, through their sexuality, they will exist of like kind, independent of each other, but, in Unity, even as We are. In this way they will come to know all of the Loves, as We know them, experientially! And by giving them the ability to share in Our own ability to create sentient beings through this unifying sexuality, all of the Loves will be passed on to generations of them!
But, before We enable them to reproduce, We will give them a chance, this time, to gain virtue first, before they are granted a conscience...
And it almost worked.
Oops; there we go making God a sinner again. It almost worked, but he missed the mark...
QuoteThis is how I see it:
One day, a long time after they were created, The Adam were walking near The Tree of Conscience, perhaps to eat a fruit from The Tree of Life for feeling the need to and were contemplating the Tree of Conscience for being so near to it.
Now by this time the exact words of Jehovah that Ish told to Ishsha about the Tree of Conscience had been transformed, at least in her thoughts, to become a belief that if she even so much as touched it's fruit she would actually, physically die- something she likely did not know of experientially, yet, by witnessing death, but knew it meant, 'to cease to exist.'
Now, while they're standing next to the tree, along comes the nachcash, possessed of The Satan through the nacahsh's jealousy.
Previously The Adam had seen the meetings of the sons of God in the Garden but they didn't have a lot to do with these other created beings because, mostly, these other created beings had nothing to do with Ish and Ishsha- even while they admired Ishsha's physical beauty.
But, The Adam were innocent and didn't even know that they were. What they did know, though, was that they both knew they loved each other deeply and preferred each other rather than the company of these rather daunting 'sons of God.'
When the nachcash approaches them it gives no introduction but simply addresses it's words to the beautiful, desirable Ishsha and asks her a question that, to them, must have been a strange question, indeed, coming from one of these sons of God:
"Is it true that God has said you cannot eat the fruit of any of the trees in the Garden?"
The question is asked to feign ignorance; something that can only be accomplished successfully if Ish and Ishsha had every reason to believe that this other created being might have heard something from God differently than they did and was coming to them to ask for clarification.
And so, thinking she was correcting the nachcash's error in understanding, she answers, "No, that's not true. God said we may eat freely from all the trees in the garden except the one in the middle. He told us not to eat from that tree or to even touch it because if we do, we will die."
At this point I imagine that Ish must have been a little taken aback by these words for He knew that was not what Jehovah said.
However, The Satan, elated to hear these words and recognizing the thought behind them, moved quickly to entrap her before Ish can recover and respond, given his hesitancy for this authoritative being's presence and for not understanding, yet, why these wrong words were spoken by Ishsha, The Satan seizes the opportunity by stating the truth to her in much the same way journalists lie to us when they tell us the truth.
It said, with all the authority of one who was superior to them, "Trust me. You will not die as you say because the truth is that God knows that when you eat this fruit you will become wise like God is for knowing of the difference between good and evil."
And so, prompted to believe the lie that sounds just like truth, for her own wrong thinking about what Jehovah actually said, she considered the goodness that could be hers, goodness she now believes God was keeping them from and -- she quickly plucks a fruit. And after biting into it, while still chewing, she holds it outstretched in her hand to a stunned Ish who watches her as she finishes chewing it and swallows. And upon hearing her say, "Here, take it!" He sees there is no turning back and decides to join his fate to hers, for not wanting to live apart from her and taking it from her hand, he too, bites, chews and swallows.
Not a bad conceptualization. It's a different form with more detail than something I've heard before (as to Adam's reaction) but still; quite good.
QuoteAnd the rest is history: The nachcash was cursed to become the snake, even the snake as we know it today, with a future fulfillment of the prophesy/curse pronounced over it yet to be fully realized for its extreme wickedness; and we... we were cursed for our benefit.
Now here's where Dr. Heiser would disagree with you. In the paper, he makes it plain that He does not believe that the nachash was cursed to become a literal snake, that the terms of the curse were metaphorical, which was something I attempted to bring out awhile back. The terms of the curse of the "serpent" are not literal, but they are real spiritual things.
QuoteThe world Jehovah intended for us to know was disrupted by disobedience and the history that would have been, now becomes a history of redemption and restoration because God loved this world that He created so very much that He sent His only unique Son, the only other One of His Kind, to be born Human, of a virgin woman, so that He would know what it was like to be a Human and thus, being made sympathetic toward us, through His obedience to The Father, despite suffering horribly for it as He accomplished the forgiveness of the Sins of the world, He proceeded to redeem us all, every single one of us, one by one, for His making it possible to be that, whosoever should be believing on His Name, which Name The Father is making the Name above all Names for His willingness to permanently leave His position as co-regent with The Father and become, forever, a Glorified Human Being, would not perish because of Sin but would, instead, inherit that promised aionian life intended for me to know as a virtuous and good human being, exactly as Jehovah intended for me to be, from the very beginning, even as that is what I am now re-sired by Jehovah to become through my faith, repentance and baptism into His unique Son Who's spirit has come and made His home inside me, where this Son of Man said that the Kingdom of God is.
Quote
~
Doc, I've gone back and re-read what I've just written and truly it sounds fantastic. Yet this is where my thoughts lead me, logically, for the things I have learned.
I can't describe the effect this has had on me.
However, know that I have no problem putting my faith in the fantastic things I can conclude from Truth: It's the contradictory and ugly things I can conclude from wrong thoughts, like the one that teaches us that Jehovah knew, as a fact, that the Adam was going to turn before He created them, that I can't put my faith in. Just like Ishsha had a wrong thought about The Words of God and it was used against her.
I began my understanding by believing that there existed a truthful and therefore singular understanding of The Words that, when grasped, would explain what has been revealed for us to know in a good and beautiful way.
Now I'm not saying, at this point, that I've got a full grasp of Genesis 1-3; for God knows how many times I've changed Creation Hymn over the years from when I first started writing it; but I will say this: For the first time since I began this journey of discovery, I have an answer to all of the questions I once had.
And right now, I can't seem to think of any more to ask.
Doc these thoughts are nascent and so likely you'll be able to poke a few holes in them from your understanding; and I will say that would be a welcome thing, that I may test it for truth and adjust these thoughts accordingly.
And I will add that I didn't find anything in what Michael wrote that disproved my original assertions concerning the two words Strongs # 5172 and Strongs # 5175 that I discovered when I first gave you answer to your inquiry about the serpent.
However, know that I will be referring to this being as the nachcash in my future writings rather than as 'the serpent' because that is a lot less misleading, given the literal curse on this real-time, brightly shining, upright-walking, wise and crafty, conscience-bearing nachcash that was literally turned from a son of God into a snake for its wickedness.
It's no wonder to me that we hate snakes so much.
Again I thank you for introducing this. Like I said, you are a gift from God.
Be good, Doc!
It is what you were created to be, after all.
And blessings as well!
Dennis!
Always glad to help clarify things, even if the conclusions from them are different.
Quote from: CHB on October 22, 2009, 08:01:45 PMHi Dennis,
Hi CHB!
Quote from: CHBHere is an article that explains what I was referring to about the New Covenant and the Mystery.
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d920501.htm
Thank you for that link. I read the article through and understood it.
And while I find there is somewhat I can agree with, what I don't agree with would be found in the difference between conclusions drawn for translating
katabole with 'disruption' rather than 'foundation'.
And while the author's logic is sound for believing that 'foundation' is the correct word choice for
katabole, the difference I perceive is significant enough that I cannot agree that the author is presenting the
entire truth, at least from my understanding for my believing
katabole means 'disruption'.
Of course, I'm sure that the author, for his believing with all his heart that he is reading an accurate translation of The Words, isn't aware of the different road his logic would take if he were to believe that
katabole means 'disruption' in these passages.
To illustrate, here is Eph 1: 3-11, an entire thought, from the KJV, which the author uses:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who (The Father) hath blessed us (Believers) with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he
hath chosen us (Believers) in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him (The Father) in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his (The Father's) will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us (Believers) accepted in the beloved.
In whom we (Believers) have redemption through his (Christ's) blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his (The Father's) grace; wherein he (The Father) hath abounded toward us (Believers) in all wisdom and prudence; having made known unto us (Believers) the mystery of his (The Father's) will, according to his (The Father's )good pleasure which he (The Father) hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fullness of times he (The Father) might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him (Christ) : in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him (The Father) who worketh all things after the counsel of his (The Father's) own will: that we should be to the praise of his (The Father's) glory, who first trusted in Christ.
In the KJV I am led to perceive that all that Paul is
about to say was God's
only plan,
ever, from before the foundation of the world was laid. And that we Believer's were, likewise,
pre-chosen to be Believers, in Christ, again, before the foundation of the earth was laid.
Note the verb tense that I emphasized here with italics.
So, it is logical then to assume that if we Beleiver's were
pre-chosen to become Believers,
before He laid the foundation of the earth that must mean, by default, that He chose some
not to be Believers from before He laid the foundation of the earth. Rather, then, He chose them to suffer the aionian fire they will have to endure in order to be restored to Him.
Logically speaking, this is the truth. And if it is indeed,
the truth then we
still have Calvin's double pre-destination to put our faith in, except without an
eternal hell, just an
age-lasting one, till these ones He
pre-chose to suffer like this will repent and willingly bow their knee in worship and confess with joy that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of The Father.
Of course the logical question to ask then is: If this 'all-powerful' God, Who, by
our definition of 'all powerful' can do anything we can
imagine Him to be able to do (doesn't
that sound presumptuous!), can pre-choose
some humans to become Believer's before the foundation of the world was laid, then why didn't He choose
all of us humans to become Believers, without
any of us humans having to undergo the purging of aionian fire that His only unique Son said was prepared for The Satan and his angels, not for us?
So, once more, even though all these humans will eventually be restored, they are being restored to a capricious and megalomaniacal God. For He is the same One Who pre-chose
some of us, for some unknown reason, to be restored to Himself without
us having to go through that purging fire His unique Son said was originally created for The Satan and his angels, but not for us.
Doesn't that just sound so ugly when I say it like that?
And now here is the same quote in the CLV with the same verb tense likewise emphasized:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who blesses us (Believers) with every spiritual blessing among the celestials (the sons of God), in Christ, according as He (The Father)
chooses us (Believers) in Him (Christ) before the disruption of the world, we (Believers) to be holy and flawless in His sight, in love designating us (Believers) beforehand for the place of a son for Him (The Father) through Christ Jesus; in accord with the delight of His (The Fathers) will, for the laud of the glory of His (The Father's) grace, which graces us (Believers) in the Beloved: in Whom we (Believers) are having the deliverance through His (Christ's) blood, the forgiveness of offenses in accord with the riches of His (the Father's) grace, which He (The Father) lavishes on us (Believers) ; in all wisdom and prudence making known to us (Believers) the secret of His will (in accord with His [The Father's] delight, which He [The Father] purposed in Him [Christ]) to have an administration of the complement of the eras, to head up all in the Christ -- both that in the heavens and that on the earth -- in Him (Christ) in Whom our (the Believers) lot was cast also, being designated beforehand according to the purpose of the One (Jehovah)Who is operating all in accord with the counsel of His (The Father's) will, that we (Believers) should be for the laud of His (The Father's) glory, who are pre-expectant in the Christ.
I see a significant difference in the impact of these two for that one single word.
When I read it in the CLV, keeping in my mind these two things: the first being that God was not 'taken by surprise' for their turning, even while He fully expected them to keep their trust in Him and refuse the temptation: and the second being that He originally intended for us to be this earth's rulers or sovereigns,
which is something that we now are not; I perceive that it
became God's plan, because of the disruption of the world that he will
now be choosing us, who first believe in Christ, through Jesus's sacrifice and the Fathers
prognosis to be holy and flawless in His (The Father's) sight; which was His original purpose for us before the disruption of the world came and we humans headed in a different direction, away from The Father's intended purpose for us- which now requires us to be restored to Him, one way or another, one-by-one, through the same Jesus who created us, in order to accomplish His intention for us to be son's of God among the Celesatials, had Our Parent's kept their trust in Him.
~
In quantum physics there is a concept known as the wave function whereby a wave of energy goes out and seeks a particle to join with. And once the 'connection' is made to the nearest and most available complementary particle the wave collapses on itself and the two particles connect and a transfer of energy is then
retroactively made in the form of a particle. This is really weird.
For this would be something like your car sending out 'feelers' from your driveway that finds the shortest way between where you are and where you want to be and once the two points are established, your car's 'feelers', 'quit feeling', and you are
instantaneously transported from your driveway to where you want to be. I told you it was weird.
The implication then is that, until the connection is made,
every point from your driveway is accessible and
every reality for you and your car is therefore possible. But, once the connection is made
that reality become fixed and you are at your destination.
Now, for understandings sake only, by way of illustrating,
only somewhat, how I perceive this enigmatic passage in Ephesians, I will say that Our Parents were on the brink of 'two' possible realities, depending on what they did after Jehovah's command. But, once the choice was made, in this case, against Jehovah, the once 'only possible' reality that Paul described in this quote
became reality and the other reality that we could have known became
impossible for this current reality being 'chosen' in distrust and disobedience.
You see, it was creating our Parents without a conscience already in them, unlike He did previously, with the sons of God, that made these 'two' then
parallel realities equally possible- both realities, however, will ultimately result in the same purpose being accomplished.
So do you see, if this illustration helps, that God always had
a plan in mind, one way or another, for us to become son's of God, different from the
other son's of God for us knowing, experientially, all the Loves as He does, which, apparently, these Loves are not something that is well known to the others of the son's of God.
The idea is that one way or another God determined that He was going to be All and in All that he created; and we are, one way or another, going to be
willingly found to be exactly as He intended for us to be from the beginning, like Him, knowing of the difference between good and evil and choosing
always to be good, exactly as He originally created us to be.
Quote from: CHBWho are the Presence folks as you referred to? I have never heard of them.
They are folk who say what they believe, CHB, in almost exactly the same way you say what you believe. Here is a
link to their website; I think you will find a kinship with them.
Quote from: CHBQuote from: Eleutheros
CHB, I would ask you, now, to ponder this: To His disciples, during His 'Sermon on the Mount' Jesus said this "You then shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5:48 (The verb tense is in the present, tense, not the future; "You shall be" not "You shall be made").
Why would He command them, with a command of expectation, for that is what this is, if He couldn't reasonably expect them to do it, that is be perfect?
What do you think Jesus meant by perfect?
We are perfect IN CHRIST.
Yes, I agree, but what I perceive in my thoughts, when I hear those words, is not what you perceive in yours.
So, if you still care to understand what I am saying I would point out here that the Greek word translated 'perfect' was given in the link I provided in my prior post; and from that I would ask, "Did you study that word?"
If you did, then can you state, in your own words, what you perceive that word means in the Greek?
I will assist by pointing out that The CLV translates it with 'perfect' and 'mature'.
So what idea is Jesus trying to convey here by choosing
this Greek word over, say
akribus, or
kataritizo, or even
teleioo?
Quote from: CHBYou said sitting on the right hand of the Father was only for Christ but Don't we inherit what Christ inherits? (Rom. 8:17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, AND JOINT-HEIRS WITH CHRIST.
CHB
Not
exactly, no.
"Now those who are in flesh are not able to please God.
Yet you are not in flesh, but in spirit, if so be that God's spirit is making its home in you. Now if anyone has not Christ's spirit, this one is not His.
Now if Christ is in you, the body, indeed, is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is life because of righteousness.
Now if the spirit of Him Who rouses Jesus from among the dead is making its home in you, He Who rouses Christ Jesus from among the dead will also be vivifying your mortal bodies because of His spirit making its home in you.
Consequently, then, brethren, debtors are we, not to the flesh, to be living in accord with flesh, for if you are living in accord with flesh, you are about to be dying. Yet if, in spirit, you are putting the practices of the body to death, you will be living.
For whoever are being led by God's spirit, these are sons of God.
For you did not get slavery's spirit to fear again, but you got the spirit of sonship, in which we are crying, "Abba, Father!"
The spirit itself is testifying together with our spirit that we are children of God.
Yet if children, enjoyers also of an allotment, enjoyers, indeed, of an allotment from God, yet joint enjoyers of Christ's allotment, if so be that we are suffering together, that we should be glorified together also.
For I am reckoning that the sufferings of the current era do not deserve the glory about to be revealed for us." Rom 8: 8-18
CHB, if you truly desire understanding you have got to quit, 'proof texting' me with these short 'sound bits'. This is exactly what journalists and 'news'
casters do to make you believe what they want you to believe.
Context is everything. If you don't stop to grasp the context first, then The Words you quote will be able to say anything you want them to say and you have, in effect, made the Bible into a 'book of magic' that can transform anything you
want to believe into 'the truth' by simply finding a 'string or words' to 'support' any logical conclusion you want to believe.
This then is what I read is the meaning behind this quote you lifted from its context.
If we are led by the spirit of God which is the spirit of life through righteousness, which righteousness spoken of here is nothing more than us doing right, then we are the sons of God and our enjoyment as children of God is in our allotment from God. And those also of us who are the firstfruits given to Jesus as the reward for His obedience to The Father, Who sent Him to accomplish the forgiveness of sins, is to enjoy His allotment from God as well, for our sufferings in this age and that for putting our faith in Him- sufferings
similar to how Christ suffered on our behalf.
So, to continue my analogy from my prior post: You, CHB as a citizen of the kingdom will come to enjoy your allotment from the King of the benefits of His rule. But you, CHB, are
also married to the Prince who has been named co-regent with the King. So, you not only get to enjoy the allotment from the King that is yours for simply being in His kingdom, but you also get to enjoy the extra allotment given to
your husband by the King for
His being seated at King's right hand, reigning as co-regent with the King!
However, this idea of suffering being a determing and
proportional part in our allotment is not to be taken lightly. Suffering at the hands of the wicked in this age is expected; and endurance under persecution, for maintaining trust in Jehovah, will not be
lightly rewarded.
Well, that's about as clear as I can make my understanding of this quote.
If you understand what I am saying and still don't agree with it then there is really nothing more I can say.
Except...
Be good!
Just as you were created to be!
Dennis!
Quote from: Doc on October 23, 2009, 12:43:24 AM
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 21, 2009, 08:43:56 PM
Hey, Doc!
As promised, here is my reply to the serpent thingy.
First I want to thank you for introducing this subject. It has been a real blessing to my understanding to have read the writings of Michael S. Heiser; especially his literal views on The Divine Council, Psalm 82, John 10:22-33, Deut 32:8-9 and Psalm 8.
If any reading this have not read the writings of this man you should Google his name and do so.
So, let me begin by saying that I did not come to this discussion believing that the nachash was 'a snake' in the sense that we speak of a snake today, post-cursed.
You once mentioned the 'cartoonish literal understanding' of a snake most Christians hold to and to which I added that I did not imagine the nachcash as a Sunday School flannel-graph snake dangling from a tree branch while tempting Eve to eat.
I've always worked the curse backward, from a literal understanding, so that what little I could imagine of the nachcash, just from the account itself, was that it was a slender, upright being that walked and talked and that this was not something out of the ordinary to The Adam. And this ability to walk and talk was for some reason other than what could be discerned from the account itself. Then there was the fact that the scriptures teach that somehow, in some way I did not comprehend, this being was, of truth, The Satan, but also not The Satan.
And given the textual support I gave in my original post these are very logical things to conclude.
So, the question to my mind has always been how this intelligent being called the nachcash came to be in the garden; for I recognized that it's presence was necessary to bring about the time of testing, given my understanding of the purpose for which we were created.
So we're more on the same page so far...
Does that mean I'm not a total loony? :grin:
Quote from: DocQuote from: Dennis(Specifically we were created to be virtuous, as Jehovah is virtuous, that is, to have a conscience and a desire to consistently choose what is right and good to do from that powerful conscience gained through the independently virtuous, singular choice of choosing, first, to trust Jehovah's intentions for them, given a temptation not to.)
I think you're still reading this into the text, and we've already discussed the problems with this arrangement.
Well the silence of Jehovah also gives an answer as well for my seeking an
alternate answer to the question, "Why didn't He tell them why He didn't want them to eat from the Tree of Conscience?"
Your answer would be because He wanted them to be disobedient and fall exactly because He knew, as a fact, that they were going to anyway.
So, don't you see Doc, that this answer is
also from reading something into the text? And just as I do you also claim to use the entire Bible to support your supposition with the only differences boiling down to which English word we choose for
katabole and how we understand Jehovah gets His ability to know things before.
Quote from: DocQuote from: Dennis, so after reading and understanding Michael's logic I find myself in agreement with his contention that there were beings called 'the sons of God' that were not angels nor where they humans. And that this being, the nachcash, was once one of them and that he had a bright, shiny, serpentine appearance.
Therefore it's presence in the fantastic but now lost world of Eden, as a subtle (wise and/or crafty) creature with the ability to communicate with this truly strange and new kind of created being (strange from the nachcash's point of view) that were actually two independent sexual beings, existing as One through their sexuality and called, together, The Adam, was not something 'unusual' for that world.
I came to realize, through Michael's writings, that the key to understanding this creatures motives in allowing itself to be entered by Satan, for that is what happened, was that he saw in this weird, dual-creature called The Adam- a creature weaker than the nachcash was for them being created a little lower than itself, yet surrounded by Jehovah with a glory- was to be given the honour to rule over all of this re-created earth and everything on it, maybe even including the nachcash itself.
So jealousy and envy was its motive.
As well as possibly being desirous of Ishsha for her incredible physical beauty-remember the Nephilim.
Another thing that assisted my understanding was the important role The Adversary fills in the Divine Council- that of an accuser. This particular article was very helpful for uncovering some truly fantastic truths.
Therefore, I perceive that it was known before, by Jehovah, that The Satan would attempt to 'bring down' this new kind of creation that He, Jehovah, delighted in and had put His own faith in for believing it possible for them to resist the temptation to distrust Him and gain virtue before they were given a conscience, unlike the sons of God who were created with a conscience already in place with the result that many turned against God.
For it became apparent to me, as Michael explained Psalm 82 and Deut 32, that these created sons of God all had a conscience; that is, they were given to know the difference between good and evil at their creation. And for this, despite the fact that Jehovah expected them to be righteous, they, all too often, choose not to be righteous but pursued wickedness. Hence, because of the wickedness of these created sons of God, which were numerous both in number and in number of sins, the initial creation of this heavens and its then earth was overturned by Jehovah with a flood of water and plunged into deep darkness.
Of course, after this, Jehovah asked Himself the question I always imagined He asked as we are told He brooded over that ancient, wasted and emptied sphere, "How can We create beings who will know the difference between good and evil and yet choose consistently to do good?
Answer: Let's create them to resemble Us!
As if God didn't already know how to create such beings.
And so one day Dennis asked himself, "How can I cause Doc to perceive what I perceive?"
Answer: "You can't, so don't even try. It would require a pardigm shift in his thinking, Dennis. And pardigm shifting is beyond your abilities." :icon_jokercolor:
Seriously, I was being rhetorical, Doc, not literal; for obviously God needs only Himself for inspiration and can answer His own 'questions'.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DocWe'll make this New One as two sexual beings, Male and Female, by splitting the essence of Ourselves between them so that, through their sexuality, they will exist of like kind, independent of each other, but, in Unity, even as We are. In this way they will come to know all of the Loves, as We know them, experientially! And by giving them the ability to share in Our own ability to create sentient beings through this unifying sexuality, all of the Loves will be passed on to generations of them!
But, before We enable them to reproduce, We will give them a chance, this time, to gain virtue first, before they are granted a conscience...
And it almost worked.
Oops; there we go making God a sinner again. It almost worked, but he missed the mark...
And my answer is the same as before: It is
not 'a mistake' or 'falling short' or 'missing the mark' or 'sinning' when He couldn't know the definite outcome of an event that was unique and unduplicatable in our history.
It's a lot different thing to have handed any of your children the car keys at the door on the day one of them got into a horrible auto collision that you couldn't possibly have foreknown was going to happen, than when you hand one of your children the car keys the door saying "Be careful now!" on the day you foreknow, as a fact, that they are going to be in a horrible auto collision.
Did you read what I wrote to CHB on Ephesians?
The choice of which direction we would go to accomplish His intentions for us was given to our Parents because this was a necessary step in establishing them as virtuous and loving beings, just like He is.
So, He is now, with this reality that we caused to be through disobedience and lack of trust, ensuring that His intentions for us, despite our own disobedience, becomes reality because what He wants is good for ALL and that is because He
is agape, or fondness and affection.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisThis is how I see it:
One day, a long time after they were created, The Adam were walking near The Tree of Conscience, perhaps to eat a fruit from The Tree of Life for feeling the need to and were contemplating the Tree of Conscience for being so near to it.
Now by this time the exact words of Jehovah that Ish told to Ishsha about the Tree of Conscience had been transformed, at least in her thoughts, to become a belief that if she even so much as touched it's fruit she would actually, physically die- something she likely did not know of experientially, yet, by witnessing death, but knew it meant, 'to cease to exist.'
Now, while they're standing next to the tree, along comes the nachcash, possessed of The Satan through the nacahsh's jealousy.
Previously The Adam had seen the meetings of the sons of God in the Garden but they didn't have a lot to do with these other created beings because, mostly, these other created beings had nothing to do with Ish and Ishsha- even while they admired Ishsha's physical beauty.
But, The Adam were innocent and didn't even know that they were. What they did know, though, was that they both knew they loved each other deeply and preferred each other rather than the company of these rather daunting 'sons of God.'
When the nachcash approaches them it gives no introduction but simply addresses it's words to the beautiful, desirable Ishsha and asks her a question that, to them, must have been a strange question, indeed, coming from one of these sons of God:
"Is it true that God has said you cannot eat the fruit of any of the trees in the Garden?"
The question is asked to feign ignorance; something that can only be accomplished successfully if Ish and Ishsha had every reason to believe that this other created being might have heard something from God differently than they did and was coming to them to ask for clarification.
And so, thinking she was correcting the nachcash's error in understanding, she answers, "No, that's not true. God said we may eat freely from all the trees in the garden except the one in the middle. He told us not to eat from that tree or to even touch it because if we do, we will die."
At this point I imagine that Ish must have been a little taken aback by these words for He knew that was not what Jehovah said.
However, The Satan, elated to hear these words and recognizing the thought behind them, moved quickly to entrap her before Ish can recover and respond, given his hesitancy for this authoritative being's presence and for not understanding, yet, why these wrong words were spoken by Ishsha, The Satan seizes the opportunity by stating the truth to her in much the same way journalists lie to us when they tell us the truth.
It said, with all the authority of one who was superior to them, "Trust me. You will not die as you say because the truth is that God knows that when you eat this fruit you will become wise like God is for knowing of the difference between good and evil."
And so, prompted to believe the lie that sounds just like truth, for her own wrong thinking about what Jehovah actually said, she considered the goodness that could be hers, goodness she now believes God was keeping them from and -- she quickly plucks a fruit. And after biting into it, while still chewing, she holds it outstretched in her hand to a stunned Ish who watches her as she finishes chewing it and swallows. And upon hearing her say, "Here, take it!" He sees there is no turning back and decides to join his fate to hers, for not wanting to live apart from her and taking it from her hand, he too, bites, chews and swallows.
Not a bad conceptualization. It's a different form with more detail than something I've heard before (as to Adam's reaction) but still; quite good.
Why thank you, Doc! Seriously this is high praise and I recognize it as such.
As to Adam's imagined reaction, that is just proof that I
do use the whole witness of The Words to, 'unpack', the information in the Genesis account.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisAnd the rest is history: The nachcash was cursed to become the snake, even the snake as we know it today, with a future fulfillment of the prophesy/curse pronounced over it yet to be fully realized for its extreme wickedness; and we... we were cursed for our benefit.
Now here's where Dr. Heiser would disagree with you. In the paper, he makes it plain that He does not believe that the nachash was cursed to become a literal snake, that the terms of the curse were metaphorical, which was something I attempted to bring out awhile back. The terms of the curse of the "serpent" are not literal, but they are real spiritual things.
I agree. But I also think I can say, with a good deal of certainty, that Dr. Heiser also believes that The Bible teaches us that Jehovah knew as a fact that the Adam was going to turn before He created them, which, of course, I don't. So my logic
will vary somewhat from his for that difference.
Quote from: DocQuote from: DennisThe world Jehovah intended for us to know was disrupted by disobedience and the history that would have been, now becomes a history of redemption and restoration because God loved this world that He created so very much that He sent His only unique Son, the only other One of His Kind, to be born Human, of a virgin woman, so that He would know what it was like to be a Human and thus, being made sympathetic toward us, through His obedience to The Father, despite suffering horribly for it as He accomplished the forgiveness of the Sins of the world, He proceeded to redeem us all, every single one of us, one by one, for His making it possible to be that, whosoever should be believing on His Name, which Name The Father is making the Name above all Names for His willingness to permanently leave His position as co-regent with The Father and become, forever, a Glorified Human Being, would not perish because of Sin but would, instead, inherit that promised aionian life intended for me to know as a virtuous and good human being, exactly as Jehovah intended for me to be, from the very beginning, even as that is what I am now re-sired by Jehovah to become through my faith, repentance and baptism into His unique Son Who's spirit has come and made His home inside me, where this Son of Man said that the Kingdom of God is.
~
Doc, I've gone back and re-read what I've just written and truly it sounds fantastic. Yet this is where my thoughts lead me, logically, for the things I have learned.
I can't describe the effect this has had on me.
However, know that I have no problem putting my faith in the fantastic things I can conclude from Truth: It's the contradictory and ugly things I can conclude from wrong thoughts, like the one that teaches us that Jehovah knew, as a fact, that the Adam was going to turn before He created them, that I can't put my faith in. Just like Ishsha had a wrong thought about The Words of God and it was used against her.
I began my understanding by believing that there existed a truthful and therefore singular understanding of The Words that, when grasped, would explain what has been revealed for us to know in a good and beautiful way.
Now I'm not saying, at this point, that I've got a full grasp of Genesis 1-3; for God knows how many times I've changed Creation Hymn over the years from when I first started writing it; but I will say this: For the first time since I began this journey of discovery, I have an answer to all of the questions I once had.
And right now, I can't seem to think of any more to ask.
Doc these thoughts are nascent and so likely you'll be able to poke a few holes in them from your understanding; and I will say that would be a welcome thing, that I may test it for truth and adjust these thoughts accordingly.
And I will add that I didn't find anything in what Michael wrote that disproved my original assertions concerning the two words Strongs # 5172 and Strongs # 5175 that I discovered when I first gave you answer to your inquiry about the serpent.
However, know that I will be referring to this being as the nachcash in my future writings rather than as 'the serpent' because that is a lot less misleading, given the literal curse on this real-time, brightly shining, upright-walking, wise and crafty, conscience-bearing nachcash that was literally turned from a son of God into a snake for its wickedness.
It's no wonder to me that we hate snakes so much.
Again I thank you for introducing this. Like I said, you are a gift from God.
Be good, Doc!
It is what you were created to be, after all.
And blessings as well!
Dennis!
Always glad to help clarify things, even if the conclusions from them are different.
Yes, I can appreciate that.
Dennis!
Dennis,
Please read this article and tell me what you think. I have to go, will be back maybe tomorrow or Sunday and respond more.
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d950101.htm
CHB
Quote from: CHB on October 24, 2009, 03:59:23 AM
Dennis,
Please read this article and tell me what you think. I have to go, will be back maybe tomorrow or Sunday and respond more.
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d950101.htm
CHB
I'm not Dennis, but I enjoyed the article :thumbsup:.
Quote from: CHB on October 24, 2009, 03:59:23 AM
Dennis,
Please read this article and tell me what you think. I have to go, will be back maybe tomorrow or Sunday and respond more.
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d950101.htm
CHB
Hey!
A Divine lottery, eh? At least the author doesn't beleive in an eternal hell- that's good. And the author
does claim, emphatically even, that God's lottery was unbiased and unfixed. That's good too. I wouldn't want to think that God was rigging His lottery of souls.
The logic is easy enough to follow and I understand how he got to his conclusion, but is his conclusion the truth?
Well, CHB, what I
think is that if what this gentleman with a Phd wrote is what you want to believe so that you can make sense of the God who foreordained His Son to be crucified from the foundation of the world (1 Pet 1:19-20 KJV) then it is for you.
Beyond that, my views are well enough known by now that I don't see a need to repeat them again through a lengthy blow-by-blow counter-argument.
Thanks, but I'll pass on this one, if you don't mind. :Peace2:
Be good!
Dennis!
To All:
My experience here on Tentmaker has brought me to completion.
When I came here I was not that confident in my understanding of The Words for knowing exactly how antithetical it was to the modern medieval understanding that is officially called Calvinism, even though it was Augustine of Hippo who deserves the credit.
And even though I know you would disagree, it is an understanding that I perceive is clung to even more tenaciously among UR folk, for having eliminated from your thinking the less offensive component of his understanding, namely, 'hell', than I've ever known it to be among the Protestant Churches from which I came.
Seriously, I knew I was challenging over 18 centuries of Christian thought that had bent itself on making some logical sense of Augustine's idiosyncratic idea of hell and predestination; and when I said I'm a 'nobody', both in this world and in Christendom, I was not just being humble.
When I came here, I was scared.
Since then, I've learned a lot from all of you, more than you will ever know, as I worked out my answers to all of your challenges. And for that I am now quite confident that this which I've put my faith in is a considerably more beneficial and truthful understanding than can be found in any of those understandings that have been derived, over the centuries, from the 1611-1728 interpretation of The Words of God called the King James Bible.
A interpretation that even you, yourselves, have come to distrust for having discovered, for yourselves,
exactly how the hellish theology of John Calvin et. al. was shoe-horned into The Original Text; a theology that, on most every other point, except the ones that I presented familiar arguments against, you, yourselves, have proven false, to your own satisfaction.
As was said, amazingly enough,"... so John Calvin got one right"!
I believe that this statement pretty much sums up the thoughts of the majority of the Tentmakers; as well as the thoughts of all those others who's websites also promote the ancient truth that is older than Augustine of Hippo himself, namely that Jesus Christ is becoming the Savior of all men and women; those who have lived, those who are living and those who are yet to be born.
Well, from my understanding I can say, with all confidence in the truth I perceive, that you've got one right.
'Cause really, why should I find fault with anyone, given the centuries of influence, who is trying to make some kind of logical sense out of the strange things The King James Bible was premeditated to teach us? It is, after all, a subtle, shrewd and very beautiful adaptation of The Words of God.
It's a good thing for me, then, that I didn't come here to convince anybody of anything.
For it is a truth, just as I have said it several times before; understanding doesn't equate to agreement.
And so I find that I must be moving on.
I can say, honestly, that I have enjoyed my time here.
Doc, as I said before, I say it again-you were a gift from my God. I could almost wish that I had been able to convince you that I'm 'onto something' because I perceive that you would have been quite an asset in helping to strengthen this loony understanding of mine. Regardless, though, our ping-pong exchanges were quite exciting even as we, apparently, provided some entertainment for the Tentmakers- if the hit counter is any indication of the interest we aroused. Truly I am grateful for your 'taking up the paddle' in defense of the Tentmaker's majority understanding. Bravo! :clapping: :handshake:
And I also thank you for introducing me to a key puzzle piece that was missing before in my understanding; the logical and truthful conclusions of Dr. Heiser.
Likewise, CHB, your team volleys were also much appreciated. I thank you for the courage you showed in challenging this... this... '
Person'... who
dared to say such things about your God! We had some fun, eh? :tease:
And Molly, the first one to speak with the minority voice here; I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your encouraging words. I want you to know that your words came at a critical time and helped me to overcome the trembling fingers I was typing with then. You, too, were a gift from my God. :ty:
And rosered- You're heart was like a breath of fresh air! I thank you for your encouragement and for your input; I loved the feeling of goodness that I got from you. May God bless you for the sincerity you hold in your heart of thoughts. :giveheart:
And to Brandon; I thank you for asking me
sincere questions. :wink1:
And for all the others who posted on this thread, I thank you as well for taking the time to post your thoughts. They were all read and they were all appreciated, even if I didn't personally reply to all of them. Know then that, in order to avoid rabbit trails and the time they take to follow, I had decided to limit myself to only responding to those who replied directly to me.
And so, even if you don't agree with it, I hope you at least understand now what I mean when I say,
Be good!
It's what you were created to be.
Dennis!
P.S.I leave you all with this poem I wrote about what it meant to me to be born again:
Once Born, Again
Once, long ago,
as we measured time then,
you seduced me.
You enticed me with your promises,
but, it was your unrelenting desire
that gradually drew me,
until my heart overruled my mind
and not knowing what to expect,
I finally surrendered myself to you.
You swore vows to me then
as you embraced me;
vows I soon learned I could trust.
My guilt ravaged spirit
trembled with new emotion
as you skillfully aroused in me desire
unlike any I'd ever known,
preparing me
for what you were about to do.
Suddenly, you entered me.
That moment seared itself
into my conscience
as I cried in anguish
from the exquisite pain;
my spirit receiving you;
virgin in this infant desire,
but far from innocent.
And in that moment,
when you engulfed me,
and possessed me
and released into me
your sperm-
as I felt it's warmth
spread through my soul,
joining itself to me
and creating a new life-
the pain was gone.
Replaced by tears of joy
as I wept uncontrollably
to feel your presence
deep inside me.
In that moment, time ceased
and there was just you and me.
As you intended,
in your knowing wisdom,
the memory of that moment
has lasted till this day.
That new life
you conceived and birthed in a second
grew inside me,
day after day,
experience after experience,
changing me
into someone
I never thought I wanted to be;
changing me
into someone
that you could love forever;
changing me
into your bride.
Now, we are here together,
alone again,
at last.
Your body,
scarred and beautiful,
close to mine,
your marked face glowing,
filling me with light;
your eyes, filled with desire,
looking deep into mine;
your hands,
pierced, but bloodless,
caressing me,
drawing me into you.
There is now no Sex
that separates us
into just Male and Female.
there is nothing anymore
that can ever separate us
as the gratitude in my soul
and the love in my spirit
and the desires in this brand new body
overwhelm me
as we enter into each other,
setting my emotions free to soar,
feeling my spirit once again
joined to yours.
This time,
my Savior and my Lord,
The Lover of my soul,
Forever.
Dennis Martin
John 3:1-6, I John 3:9
March 5, 2006
Quote from: Eleutheros on October 23, 2009, 11:07:33 PM
Does that mean I'm not a total loony? :grin:
It at least means we agree on some things.
Quote(Specifically we were created to be virtuous, as Jehovah is virtuous, that is, to have a conscience and a desire to consistently choose what is right and good to do from that powerful conscience gained through the independently virtuous, singular choice of choosing, first, to trust Jehovah's intentions for them, given a temptation not to.)
I think you're still reading this into the text, and we've already discussed the problems with this arrangement.
Well the silence of Jehovah also gives an answer as well for my seeking an alternate answer to the question, "Why didn't He tell them why He didn't want them to eat from the Tree of Conscience?"
Your answer would be because He wanted them to be disobedient and fall exactly because He knew, as a fact, that they were going to anyway.
So, don't you see Doc, that this answer is also from reading something into the text? And just as I do you also claim to use the entire Bible to support your supposition with the only differences boiling down to which English word we choose for katabole and how we understand Jehovah gets His ability to know things before.
I think it comes down to which is the more reasonable scenario based on everything we know about God. As I've said, it doesn't just boil down to one word.
QuoteAnd so one day Dennis asked Himself, "How can I cause Doc to perceive what I perceive?"
Answer: "You can't, so don't even try. It would require a pardigm shift in his thinking, Dennis. And pardigm shifting is beyond your abilities." :icon_jokercolor:
Seriously, I was being rhetorical, Doc, not literal; for obviously God needs only Himself for inspiration and can answer His own 'questions'.
I see.
QuoteAnd my answer is the same as before: It is not 'a mistake' or 'falling short' or 'missing the mark' or 'sinning' when He couldn't know the definite outcome of an event that was unique and unduplicatable in our history.
It's a lot different thing to have handed any of your children the car keys at the door on the day one of them got into a horrible auto collision that you couldn't possibly have foreknown was going to happen, than when you hand one of your children the car keys the door saying "Be careful now!" on the day you foreknow, as a fact, that they are going to be in a horrible auto collision.
I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. I don't think we can use such a simple analogy when it comes to God's knowledge and wisdom vs. a human parent's.
QuoteDid you read what I wrote to CHB on Ephesians?
No. Perhaps I should?
QuoteThe choice of which direction we would go to accomplish His intentions for us was given to our Parents because this was a necessary step in establishing them as virtuous and loving beings, just like He is.
So, He is now, with this reality that we caused to be through disobedience and lack of trust, ensuring that His intentions for us, despite our own disobedience, becomes reality because what He wants is good for ALL and that is because He is agape, or fondness and affection.
If God gave us a choice (or choices) without knowing what the outcome would be, that would mean that God actually lost control of His creation, and that there are things that are truly out of His control. That would make Him equal to or even weaker than we are. I can't accept this.
QuoteI agree. But I also think I can say, with a good deal of certainty, that Dr. Heiser also believes that The Bible teaches us that Jehovah knew as a fact that the Adam was going to turn before He created them, which, of course, I don't. So my logic will vary somewhat from his for that difference.
Yes. That's the problem. Logic has to be consistent within its own set of premises. The problem is guaranteeing that the premises are true.
I don't know if you'll see this response, because it sounds like you're leaving, but I wish you the best.
Tim
Hi Dennis,
I see you are leaving or have left already so I see no need in continuing on with questions or answers. Just know that you are in my prayers and may God guide you in all your endeavors.
CHB
Nice poem Dennis , Thanks for sharing it with us all .
God bless and keep you always where ever you are and where ever you go . you can stick around awhile too :HeartThrob:
God could be great enough to set up an enclosed environment(kosmos and aion) within which free will operates. Yet the will operates in response to certain principles and elements in continual action(as God has set them in motion) within that sphere. We are chosen and elect according to the foreknowledge of God- a perspective we do not have. He knows the end from the beginning. Jesus learned obedience through the things He suffered because He also did not have, while here bound in "kosmos and aion", that perspective.
We need not question the potter, "Why have you made me thus?". For, "Who has known the mind of the Lord and who has given to Him that He should repay". We will always see through a glass darkly in this mortal time, which is a stewardship, given to us in order that we might, "learn obedience through the things that we suffer". We are called to "choose each day whom we shall serve", and exhorted, "Today, if you hear His voice, harden not your hearts, as they did in the wilderness and saw my works 40 years". Yet, we can do nothing without Him and have nothing that was not given us- so we can judge(condemn, pronounce final sentence) no one- yet, as we grow in love and wisdom, we judge(discern) everyone.
All is grace; the consciousness of missing the mark, the desire to obey and the will to obey and the strength to obey. The obedience in its purest essence is rest, "labor diligently to enter His rest". Ceasing from my own works-say no to myself and join the dying(pouring out) so that life can come forth. Seeing the light as growing harmony of my will with His on a daily experiential basis....not just as a theological one. Embracing the grace and the love, which are the POWER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, and confessing when I fail in the pursuit to the one who will embrace me and restore me so that I can grow in progressive sanctification- a PROCESS of love and grace.
This grace process is transforming me and then flowing through me as I grow from baby child(receiver) of God to servant son(distributor) of God. Katabole to me is the "overthrow" of the "foundation" of the veil of the flesh/carnal mind- darkened in understanding, sitting beneath the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and eating it and dying, "separated from the life that is in God" and "hostile toward the God.... for it does not subject itself to the law of God, nor can it". Divisive. Gnostic. Legalistic. The law of God is "the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus" which has set us free from the law of sin and death-a consciouness of sins- and set us free into "the glorious liberty of the sons of God"-a consciousness of love and grace and an explosive desire to flow in the grace of God towards all. "Behold.....I make all things new.....If any man be in Christ Jesus he is a new creature.....For all those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His son." Therefore there is no condemnation for those who who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit....they are eating from the tree of life, "For if we walk in the light as He is in the light we have fellowship(koinonea, oneness, union, harmony) and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin". As long as I rule from my mind in gnostic religion and until Christ rules in my heart as a partaker of the divine nature, the katabole of God will work on me to destroy every lofty tower that exalts itself against the true knowledge of God. The chastising of sons, and many trials set in motion by the Father for purifying faith in the fire (that fire the Lord counciled the Laodiceans to get) will continue. But no fear, after we have suffered a little while God Himself will confirm, strengthen and establish us.
Rom 6:14-19 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.(grace reproduces the divine nature) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.(If you love Christ use liberty to serve, not to sin) Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey(the self or the Lord, love or self-will, grace or self righteousness), his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience(nevertheless not my will but Yours) unto righteousness(love and grace)? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin(in the old man before we crucified him through faith in Christ and submission to His Lordship), but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine(1 Pet 1:22-25) which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have(in the past) yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity(progressive wickedness); even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness(progressive purity).
that form of doctrine
1Pe 1:22-23 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, (23) for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.
Joh 13:34-35 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
1Jn 1:6-10 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness(not loving, hating, seeking dominion) we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
The grace and the truth are there. We grow in grace where we once grew in iniquity. The grace is the means, through the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus - we grow now in purity,(unfeigned love from a pure heart) as our Lord demonstrated in His life and on the cross.
Php 3:13-15 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, (14) I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (15) Let us therefore, as many as are perfect(mature), have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you;
The words, "If in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you" for me, define "katabole".
Col 3:3-16 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him-- a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
I could so see this pattern by your last post , thank you for placing it here ........
we are gatherers as to what is growing within us wheat and tares
and it is the Lord that comes and seperates this within us
and as you stated we die creating a new creature in Christ born of the Holy Thing that declares the Truth and Grace that Jesus is the father of (source) / firstfruits of Gods Increase creating the new offspring sons of God to be revealed ...... Glorifying God in perfect union / One Spirit
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
:HeartThrob: