BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[Clete]

RobE,

In post 321 I made the false accusation that you are a liar. It has come to my attention that I was responding to something other than what I thought I was responding too. More detail than that is not necessary, just know that I have removed that remark and offer you my apologies and request your forgiveness. I do not believe that you are a liar.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[patman]

A Long one for Bling

A Long one for Bling

Bling,

I do believe Christ bore our sins. But not to the extreme nature that you do. You read this verse, and you see every sin from all over the world from all time being placed on Christ. I do not read all that into the verse. Jesus bore our sins means that our sin, in general, was bore by Christ. I don't take it to the extreme. I do not see a reason to. But you do see a reason... you gotta defend the open view for one. You also like the idea of Jesus thinking of you while he was on the cross. I would like that idea too if I thought it were possible.

I wish you would not read so much into a simple verse. But that explanation should adequately explain my view on it, and should easily be viewed as A-OK. And it should be pretty obvious how it does not present a problem to the Open View.

Our faith in the Cross works the same. You just think of the cross in the scope of the Settled View and read verses such. And I, being a former Settled Viewer, understand where you are coming from. I hope you will see the path I took away from the S.V. and find the O.V. soon.

You had 6 Questions. I will attempt to answer them briefly. Each one may require deeper conversation, I hope for the sake of conversation we can address each point one at a time as needed.

1. Was the objective of the Garden completed or was it a failure?

To answer question, you must first know the objective of the Garden. It is often thought of as a test for man. I do not think it was a test per say. It was their life. The Garden was given to them by God to live there and tend to it. It was meant for them to be a place for them to spend their lives in communion with God.

Man, at that time was dependent on God. God provided their food, their home. God loved man, and man... seemed to be sticking around. But was it love? The only for God to know was to give them a way out.

What better way out than a path to knowledge of good and evil? If man knows these things, he doesn't need to ask God, he doesn't need to depend on God any more. And it shows that man would rather have the desires of his heart rather than hang out with God. So God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden.

If man eats, he is telling God that he wants to break up. If he does not eat, and every day walks past it without eating of it, he is telling God he loves him enough to stay.

So, the hope was that Adam would stick around. But he didn't.

What was the objective of the Garden? To give a place for man to commune with God forever and in return to receive the wealth of God's favor. It was an utter failure. Man left the place, it was shut off from man, it was a very lonely place afterwards.

2. Do you see Adam and Eve being better off outside the Garden or inside the Garden (before they sinned)? Why?

Adam and Eve would have forever received God's blessings had they stayed in the garden. And that seems good. But Adam and Eve made their choice... They wanted out. They were plainly told death would meet them, but they doubted God, whom they knew.

The following story is something I made up in an attempt to symbolize why we have free will and why God doesn't always step in. It is not an attack on any particular theology, simply a "what if." I hope it makes you think and then thank God for free will at the level we have it.

Eve, after having been tempted by Satan, as she reached for the tree and was about to grab the forbidden fruit, was suddenly surprised to see the tree completely vanished. Then God appeared and said, "I stopped you from eating of this tree for your own good." What would Eve think?

She was just about to eat the fruit that would make her like God. And God took it away? Satan must have been right! God is afraid of what I might become, he doesn't really care about me.

God would then pick up on her thoughts. And to prevent her from doubting God in order to protect her, he would try to talk her out of thinking that way. But still the shadow of doubt is there.

God is left with no choice, out of love, he tells Eve he is going to fix her. She is going to fall into a deep sleep, and he is going to make her think the right things, and everything she used to think would be gone, her thoughts would be utterly changed, the way she thinks would be made into something else.

Eve cries NO. But then falls asleep. The old Eve dies in a sense, but a new Eve is born. Adam watches shacking. When Eve awakens, she is completely different. She doesn't laugh at the same jokes Adam tells any more, she is not her analyzing self anymore.

Adam asks God what he did to Eve. She is someone else now. Adam's heart is full of resentment. He misses how Eve was, despite her short coming. God reads Adam's mind. He see's where his doubts are taking him. Adam demands that God not reprogram him. Adam demands the tree. He wants away. But God tells Adam that way is too harmful for him. Adam falls asleep. He is reprogramed. And man never fell, but he never loved either.

God didn't want this. He gave us freewill so that love might be given freely, and thus making that love real. God didn't trap them in the garden.

My answer form knowing the outcome of the choices they made in the garden and knowing that they really didn't want to remain in the garden is that they were better off being free to leave and following through with that.

Eve didn't want God, she wanted to be like God. Adam didn't want God, he wanted his wife and to be like God as well. So they became like God, knowing good and evil, and they had everything they needed to leave.

They were better off in that they were not forced to be somewhere they didn't want to be. But the reality of the situation is that they numbered their days, causing death to fall on the world. But still, in their minds they were better off without God, and God was right to let them be free.

Your question is were they better off outside the garden? For the sake of their body's and home, children, and children's children, no... they got into a bad situation. But for the sake of their souls... yes. God could win them back easier without force, and the same goes for the rest of the world to follow.

It was best to let them make their own minds for the sake of their souls.

3. What lesson do you learn from this garden story, which could not be told another way?

I do not believe the garden story is meant to give a lesson as much as it is to give an account of the events. Though we do learn a lot about God, his allowance of free will, and we see from the beginning that he had a plan to save man "through the woman's seed."

If there is a lesson per say, I would imagine it is that there are paths away from God, and paths to God, and the choice on what path we take is ours.

4. What is man’s purpose in relationship to God and what is God’s purpose in relationship to man?

You said it twice. Relationship. God made us to have a happy and healthy relationship with him and one another. But in order to keep the happy and healthy part, it is man's choice to stay in the relationship.

5. What is satan’s purpose and why is he continuing to live here?

Satan was not a creation of God. Lucifer was tho. Lucifer fell because of his envy for God, and was no longer called Lucifer, but Satan. Lucifer's purpose was also to have a healthy and happy relationship with God and his other creation. Lucifer was given some major duties in heaven too. But, not as a part of God's plan, he fell. His high position in heaven was not enough, he wanted the very throne of God.

Satan, as he has become, is now on a war against God. He whispered the words of doubt in Eve's ear, and has been in on all sorts of temptation ever since. Satan know's his limits tho. There are lines he does not cross, at the risk of being locked away with other demonic spirits in the middle of the earth, which will be unlocked later in history, as revealed in the book of Revelation.

Satan's personal purpose is to hurt God and gain a big enough following that he may think of himself as being like God.

Satan's heavenly purpose is non-existant. God does not wish for Satan to be as he is. God will not force him to change. He does however help those who will to fall away to do so, which helps make up minds. But still, God does not wish for anyone to perish.


God will not just erase him from existence because justice must be served onto Satan. In the mean time, Satan does his work. One day, if that day has not already come, Satan will be bound, not to be let loose until the end of the 1000 year kingdom. Then he will unwittingly serve a purpose to God, which is to get those who do not know who to follow to make up their mind.

6. How do you define a Godly HOPE and a Godly believe?

I am not getting this question. Do you mean how do I define God's hope and God's beliefs? or Godly hope in that A man has a Godly hope?

I am guessing you mean God's hope and God's beliefs.

God's ability to hope means despite what could happen, he still wishes for the best outcome

God's ability to believe is his thinking something will happen despite the lack of evidence.

This was a long one Bling. Hope it helps some.

 

[patman]

RobE, Huh?

RobE, Huh?

How about to Enoch, Abraham, Noah, and the millions before Christ?

I am not getting the point. Unless these are all good buddies of yours, alive and well today, these all died before Christ, he would have knowledge of their sins. The "said problem" is how can Christ die for sins in a future that is unknown, is it not?

I liked my answer to Bling, it was simple. Since I answered him after this post, here is what I said:

I do believe Christ bore our sins. But not to the extreme nature that you do. You read this verse[2 Peter 2:24], and you see every sin from all over the world from all time being placed on Christ. I do not read all that into the verse. Jesus bore our sins means that our sin, in general, was bore by Christ. I don't take it to the extreme. I do not see a reason to. But you do see a reason... you gotta defend (i meant to say defeat) the open view for one. You also like the idea of Jesus thinking of you while he was on the cross. I would like that idea too if I thought it were possible.

I wish you would not read so much into a simple verse. But that explanation should adequately explain my view on it, and should easily be viewed as A-OK. And it should be pretty obvious how it does not present a problem to the Open View.


Are you saying that humans can create new things or ideas apart from Him?

What on earth, and where on earth did you come up with that? That just shows me how bad you are reading me, RobE. All I said is that predicting human action is different from predicting the path of a moving object, and because it isn't a physics problem, human actions aren't predictable. Creating new things? That's a different thread.

You do a nice job of twisting everything I say around.

This is what I say, using my own words, and not yours (against you)

If God starts a program knowing that program will sin because of the way he made it, and knowing it would be possible for him to start a different program that does not sin, God, in effect, predestined man to sin. If God designs a man to sin, God predestined him to fall. I do not understand how that deniable.

I would like to think that God would have used a better debugger if he did start this program to act like it does.

If God, not knowing the outcome, made man a certain way in hopes he will be good, and yet man on his own becomes bad... God didn't do it. Man did. God didn't give man a nature to sin according to the O.V., we earned that on our own. Yet it seems clear that there is no other way to explain man's sin in the S.V. other than the all knowing God created it to happen that way, or that God created time such that events happen exactly the way he said they would.

That's the two options I am seeing being presented by the S.V.

You didn't like my car analogy a while back. It was a straight forward story. We can assume from the story the father felt the son could handle the car, otherwise why tell it? But you picked it apart and failed to see it's meaning, you added your own rules to it and made it meaningless.

Allowing sin is not a sin. If a friend is going to a bar to pick up a lady of the night, If I allow him to do it, I am not sinning. That is because I can't prevent it with in reason. Sure, if he is smaller than me, I could take him out... but that's a sin. Sure, I could talk to him, and should do that, but that's about as far as I can go.

The open view never said that God just stands by and lets sin happen and never-ever does anything about it. The Bible is full of stories where God takes action or exercises justice. I hope you read my story of the garden I posted to Bling. It should make you think, and I hope, see what the O.V. thinks about God being over controlling.

Yet even today, God through his book, is making a stand on right and wrong. He has taught his people to make the moral voice heard! His book has influenced nations to make just laws (but even the nations are made up of humans who mess up. That's not God's fault, tho).

I do not understand how you can say God is just standing by? He will not utterly prevent sin, but he will do and has done what he can to get us to choose the right thing! He gave us so much, a savior, his word, his signs, and so much more! Yet we still sin.

RobE, God, the one who does not know the future, is not responsible for sin when he does and has tried to help the world get away from it through the ages! This is especially true today, when we can look back to Jesus' suffering on the Cross!

 

[Mustard Seed]

The incarnation would still make the invisible God visible (we reject that the Father has flesh and bones). It would reveal more of the character and nature of the infinite God to finite beings. He would still be the full revelation of the Father whether He died or not.

But what would be the purpose of such a revelation. If no one had died and no one had sinned what difference would it make. If the earth remained perfect what would it do to have God incarnate on it?

 

[moose]

Still waiting for Bob's surprise. He said that it would be posted right after the tenth round. Then when someone asked about it he answered that it would appear the middle of this past week when he got back from his trip. So...where is it?

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Patman,

Read the rest of 2 Kings. Note the lack of mention of Neb invading Egypt!

Well yes, it's essentially a history of Israel, not Egypt.

Had the prophecy come true, it would have used another river... such as the Nile instead of the Brook of Egypt.

Yes, and I would hold that the prophecy could have been fulfilled after this.

And our modern Maps would reflect it because Egypt and Babylon kept pretty good history books.

Modern maps do not describe Babylonian conquests, though! Nor need we suppose that conquering a country invariably makes it part of an empire, again, as in America winning WWII.

... this was all supposed to happen before Isreal was taken to Babylon! 21 "On that day I will make a horn [d] grow for the house of Israel, and I will open your mouth among them. Then they will know that I am the LORD."

Well, that's fine, I don't mind, no record (especially in archaeology) doesn't mean no event!

And please see that History agrees with the Bible in the land that belonged to Nebuchadnezzar, please see that God said he would give Neb the land of Egypt several times...

But again, giving a land to Neb doesn't mean it became part of the Babylonian Empire.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

But what would be the purpose of such a revelation. If no one had died and no one had sinned what difference would it make. If the earth remained perfect what would it do to have God incarnate on it?

The goal here is not to become gods, but to know the Living God in spirit and truth.

For an ant to know and understand a human, it would help if the human became an ant an lived among them. Likewise, God with a face (Jesus) allows us to know Him better (vs invisible, abstract, aloof deity).

Your question is speculative and moot. The fact is that He did incarnate out of redemptive necessity.

 

[Mustard Seed]

The goal here is not to become gods, but to know the Living God in spirit and truth.

The goal is to gain all that the Father hath, that's what's been promised to the faithful.

For an ant to know and understand a human, it would help if the human became an ant an lived among them. Likewise, God with a face (Jesus) allows us to know Him better (vs invisible, abstract, aloof deity).

Your question is speculative and moot. The fact is that He did incarnate out of redemptive necessity.

It's not moot. What would we need to learn about God if he did not need to provide redemption from death and hell? If we had remained in a perfect state how would an incarnate God augment that perfection? There would have to be a necesity in coming, otherwise God is practicing an exercise in vanity.

 

[godrulz]

The goal is to gain all that the Father hath, that's what's been promised to the faithful.



It's not moot. What would we need to learn about God if he did not need to provide redemption from death and hell? If we had remained in a perfect state how would an incarnate God augment that perfection? There would have to be a necesity in coming, otherwise God is practicing an exercise in vanity.

Your god is too small. The character and attributes of God are vast and require an eternity to plumb. There is more to God than redemption history. The Bible is a snapshot of His character and ways. Hebrews 1 reminds us that God spoke in the past through prophets and law, but now His fuller revelation is in the Son (cf. Jn. 14:9 see me= see Father; Col. 2:9 fullness of Deity in bodily form).

 

[Mustard Seed]

Your god is too small. The character and attributes of God are vast and require an eternity to plumb. There is more to God than redemption history. The Bible is a snapshot of His character and ways. Hebrews 1 reminds us that God spoke in the past through prophets and law, but now His fuller revelation is in the Son (cf. Jn. 14:9 see me= see Father; Col. 2:9 fullness of Deity in bodily form).

What copout.

Since you can't counter the logical problems of your view you resort to the childish statement that translates your ignorance as to what you worship into a claim of your God being greater and more "unsearchable". You do no different than the great philosophers such as Augustine did when they run into logical roadblocks, you just trumpet how great God is and that takes care of ever having to admit that the logical conclusions of your beliefs lead to sticky problems.

 

[RobE]

How about to Enoch, Abraham, Noah, and the millions before Christ?

I am not getting the point. Unless these are all good buddies of yours, alive and well today, these all died before Christ, he would have knowledge of their sins. The "said problem" is how can Christ die for sins in a future that is unknown, is it not?

I included them because I'm trying to comprehend God if he only lived in the present, not in the past or future. 'Outside of time', so to speak.

I do believe Christ bore our sins. But not to the extreme nature that you do. You read this verse[2 Peter 2:24], and you see every sin from all over the world from all time being placed on Christ. I do not read all that into the verse. Jesus bore our sins means that our sin, in general, was bore by Christ.

Not to ridicule, but did you say here that Jesus bore our sins which means Jesus bore our sins for the most part, but not completely?

You also like the idea of Jesus thinking of you while he was on the cross. I would like that idea too if I thought it were possible.

I really never considered Jesus thinking of me on the cross. It would make it more personal, but I always figured he was thinking about the Father's will and resisting the temptation to remove himself from the cross. It would seem a simple task compared to defeating death and overcoming the gates of hell.

I wish you would not read so much into a simple verse. But that explanation should adequately explain my view on it, and should easily be viewed as A-OK. And it should be pretty obvious how it does not present a problem to the Open View.

I think the problem occurs when you start thinking about how He 'generally' atoned for all sin past and present.

All I said is that predicting human action is different from predicting the path of a moving object, and because it isn't a physics problem, human actions aren't predictable. Creating new things? That's a different thread.

Let's not talk about crowing roosters quite yet, ok.

This is what I say, using my own words, and not yours (against you)

If God starts a program knowing that program will sin because of the way he made it, and knowing it would be possible for him to start a different program that does not sin, God, in effect, predestined man to sin. If God designs a man to sin, God predestined him to fall. I do not understand how that deniable.

God created man 'Good'. As you pointed out in your last post it would be impossible to start any program which includes free will(choices); if in reality, there is no choice. Now, factor into that program the millions of people who have been born into the world. What's the probability that a wrong choice wouldn't be made. Zero. If free will exists, so do wrong choices(sin)!

I would like to think that God would have used a better debugger if he did start this program to act like it does.

If God, not knowing the outcome, made man a certain way in hopes he will be good, and yet man on his own becomes bad... God didn't do it. Man did. God didn't give man a nature to sin according to the O.V., we earned that on our own.

See my previous statement on this one plus add in the fact that God was 'surprised' by man(i.e. a new thing) and also figure in that God's apparent predictive ability(Peter's Rooster) was usurped for a moment.

Yet it seems clear that there is no other way to explain man's sin in the S.V. other than the all knowing God created it to happen that way, or that God created time such that events happen exactly the way he said they would.

Allowing sin is not a sin. If a friend is going to a bar to pick up a lady of the night, If I allow him to do it, I am not sinning. That is because I can't prevent it with in reason. Sure, if he is smaller than me, I could take him out... but that's a sin. Sure, I could talk to him, and should do that, but that's about as far as I can go.

Allowing sin is not a sin.

Whether you foresee the sin or not, right?

The open view never said that God just stands by and lets sin happen and never-ever does anything about it.....

......I do not understand how you can say God is just standing by?

I didn't. I said it's no more true than God authoring sin, didn't I?

He will not utterly prevent sin, but he will do and has done what he can to get us to choose the right thing! He gave us so much, a savior, his word, his signs, and so much more! Yet we still sin.

RobE, God, the one who does not know the future, is not responsible for sin when he does and has tried to help the world get away from it through the ages! This is especially true today, when we can look back to Jesus' suffering on the Cross!

Patman, God, the one who does know the future, is not responsible for sin made through your own free will, even if it saddened him when he foresaw it. He's not responsible for your choices, now or ever; but he did suffer and die for them, before you drew your first breath, so you could exercise your free will and have an opportunity to choose life.

Patman-Robe Rule 1: God is not responsible for sin whether he knows the future or not.

Can we agree to this at least, please. I do.

Deut. 18:18
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.

Question: If what a prophet says does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord hasn't spoken. What does this mean to you in relationship to the unfulfilled prophecies used by the OVers to state their case against traditional Christianity.

 

[patman]

Lee...

Lee...

I am truly speechless. I give you a million bible verses that state the exact thing I argue time and time again! And you do not take them seriously, you just write them off for your bias' sake.

Granted, you do not know me from Adam. But I presented reliable sources, I presented you bible verses. Things that should be as a light bulb to you, so you will realize that this is all right! What will it take?

Fact 1. God proclaimed doom on Tyre. They would be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.

Fact 2. God, by his own admissions, says Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre.

Fact 3. Egypt started to help Israel against Nebuchadnezzar. Thus...

Fact 4. God proclaims that Egypt would go into captivity for 40 years, and that the nation would in shambles. After 40 years, it will restored but will be the weakest of the nations.

Fact 5. Nebuchadnezzar did not take Egypt into captivity, He did not own it's land, he did not occupied it.

Fact 6. Egypt was not and is not the weakest of the nations from that time on.

Lee, I hate to say, but your bias has blinded you to the point that it is embarrassing.

You say that the verse I found in 2 Kings is not final. Things could have changed afterwards such that Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom could have been expanded. And you add that Nebuchadnezzar's taking over of Egypt doesn't mean Egypt would have been added to that map. I hear you words, I understand your points.

You compare Nebuchadnezzar's alleged invasion of Egypt to US defeating Japan in WWII. We won, but Japan wasn't ever made into a US territory. Sure, that happens. But you are ignoring the scripture. And you are comparing two very different countries. Nebuchadnezzar is != (not equal to) FDR.

WWND?
What Would Nebuchadnezzar Do if he defeated Japan? That's the relative question.

So what if when a nation wins a war the nation is not always added to it's territory. What about Nebuchadnezzar? Would he invade a great nation such as Egypt, take into captivity for 40 years, and just say... ahhh, don't add it to the map?

Well, when Nebuchadnezzar went to war against Israel and took them into captivity, darn tooten' he took that land!

And remember, Egypt's captivity was supposed to happen before Israel's captivity! God was going to use their captivity as a warning to his people. Keep that in mind. Israel was to go into captivity after Egypt did.

Now we have the 2 Kings 24: 7 verse depicting the empire Nebuchadnezzar took from Egypt, which became the Babylon kingdom. Right after that verse Israel is smashed. They are all carried off to Babylon... but Egypt is not!

So when did it happen? It didn't.

The verses give us a specific time frame for these events to happen.

Lee, my case against you is very strong. Every point fits. Your case simply wishes away my points.

You say Egypt could have been taken! Where is the proof? You say Nebuchadnezzar could've just not wanted Egypt as his kingdom after he allegedly utterly destroyed it and took all its people into captivity...

I will say it again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you have none, you only have hopes fed by bias!

Lee, this isn't such a bad thing! God said he would change his mind if the nation he said he would destroy repented of their sins. Did Egypt repent?

God was furious with Israel. He wanted them to go into captivity in Babylon. But then along comes Egypt. Egypt says, hey good buddy Israel, I see you got a bully, want me to take care of him for you? Israel says sure. And that makes God mad at Egypt. Egypt is nosing in where they shouldn't. God then declares doom on them.

Egypt goes in anyway. They occupy Israel and require payment. The Pharaoh even goes up to the Euphrates to fight Babylon, and looses! And God again tells Pharaoh again, by name, that he will face worst loses in his home land, in his capitol city. He threatens the very life blood of Egypt, the Nile.

Afterwards, Nebuchadnezzar heads down to Israel. He starts kicking the Egyptian occupation out. Pharaoh finally gets it. As Israel gets a new king Pharaoh decides not to help this time. He never leaves Egypt again, as recorded in 2 Kings. Pharaoh repented. So God honors his word in Jeremiah, that he would not bring the disaster he thought to bring to the repentant kingdom, and skips the entire plan of captivity of the Egyptians for 40 years, and goes right on to the original plan.

And Israel was destroyed. They, as foretold, went into captivity for 70 years.

This is everything that happened Lee in brief.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Patman,

Fact 2. God, by his own admissions, says Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre.

Actually, it says Neb did not get much reward for all his effort there, which is a bit different.

Fact 5. Nebuchadnezzar did not take Egypt into captivity, He did not own it's land, he did not occupied it.

Yes, all this would be fine, in my interpretation, though I do hold that Neb had to defeat the Egyptians and take away treasure.

Fact 6. Egypt was not and is not the weakest of the nations from that time on.

But the prediction here is not that Egypt will be the lowliest of nations forever, rather, them being the lowliest of nations at one time, and then never again ruling other nations would fulfill the prophecy.

So what if when a nation wins a war the nation is not always added to it's territory. What about Nebuchadnezzar? Would he invade a great nation such as Egypt, take into captivity for 40 years, and just say... ahhh, don't add it to the map?

Well, I don't know Neb that well.

Well, when Nebuchadnezzar went to war against Israel and took them into captivity, darn tooten' he took that land!

Yes, and why was that? Unless we know the reason, we can't say if he would always do this. From this link: "it's likely that the Babylonians, who had now conquered the west, were interested in Anatolia, where iron was to be obtained." Was there iron or some other such resource found in Egypt?

And in many cases, conquered countries were required to pay tribute, but the conquered country was not considered a newly annexed part of the victorious kingdom (see for example, Judges 3:18, 2 Sam. 8:2, 2 Kings 17:3, 2 Chr. 26:8). So I don't think the conclusion that a conquered country would certainly have been added to an empire is required.

They are all carried off to Babylon... but Egypt is not!

But Ezekiel said they would be scattered (Eze. 29:12), which is different than being deported.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[bling]

Thank you for your answers:

Patman said:
Jesus bore our sins means that our sin, in general, was bore by Christ….I wish you would not read so much into a simple verse.

I do not want to belabor the point. It has a lot to do with how I view sin and the cross. Maybe, you can help me with that. Sin I see requiring: a sinner, action, it becomes an event, and punishment. God cannot participate in sin or really have anything to do with sin, yet Jesus to takes on sin and become burden with human’s sins requiring God to look away, forsake, Christ. If Christ does not take actual sins from humans on himself at the cross then why would God have to forsake Him?

As far as reading to much into a simple verse: do you think that is what the seduces said to Jesus when He picked out only one little verse in the first 5 books that you could find to show by just the tenses of the words that there is an after life. It only takes one and Peter is talking about something we are to have burned into our memory. We are to remember both the blood and the body!



1. Was the objective of the Garden completed or was it a failure?

Patman said:
What was the objective of the Garden? To give a place for man to commune with God forever and in return to receive the wealth of God's favor. It was an utter failure. Man left the place, it was shut off from man, it was a very lonely place afterwards.

We are real far apart with the Garden, objectives, man and God, but we both see God as be love and that is where we can start from. I do want to thank you for your lengthy response which just generates more questions:
1a. What do you say to people that say: “ If God really loved us, He would not have done this or allowed that.”? In general they are saying, a loving God would put them in a Garden situation without the tree or Satan. They can still have choices (what to have for lunch, what to call this animal, etc.), so what is the problem?
1b. Would you rather be in a situation where: a. your eternal close relationship with God was total dependent on your obedience to God’s command(s). Or b. Your eternal close relationship with God was totally dependent on God’s mercy?



2. Do you see Adam and Eve being better off outside the Garden or inside the Garden (before they sinned)? Why?

Patman said:
They were better off in that they were not forced to be somewhere they didn't want to be. But the reality of the situation is that they numbered their days, causing death to fall on the world. But still, in their minds they were better off without God, and God was right to let them be free.

Your question is were they better off outside the garden? For the sake of their body's and home, children, and children's children, no... they got into a bad situation. But for the sake of their souls... yes. God could win them back easier without force, and the same goes for the rest of the world to follow.

It was best to let them make their own minds for the sake of their souls.

2a. Do you really think Adam and Eve did not want to be in the Garden?

Paul in Romans tell us how easy it is not to sin??? Do you always do what you want to and if so, does Adam and Eve have more or less then you or Paul?

2b. You understand how people are, if you only had knowledge of people and the power of Satin would you expect a person put in the Garden situation for a long period of time not to sin, by his own power?

In the Garden:
Humans must maintain their eternal close relationship with God by obedience. Outside the Garden they will dependent on God’s mercy for an eternal relationship.
2c. In the Garden humans can not experience forgiveness, “ he who is forgiven of much loves much” since they have not sinned, is there a problem with this?
2d. In the garden there are no needy people (those Adam can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs of humans, His agape love is being showered on them, but they can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46, can they?
2e. We love then we obey, does our developing agape love require needy people?
2f. Adam and Eve can not see the full extent of God’s love without the cross. Does agape love begin with the realization of being forgiven of much (for humans) Luke 7: 36-50?
2g. Did Adam and Eve have the indwelling Holy Spirit? Why?
2i. I see these as huge problems, do you think God could not see these as a huge problem, even before He made Adam?


3. What lesson do you learn from this garden story, which could not be told another way?

Patman said:

I do not believe the garden story is meant to give a lesson as much as it is to give an account of the events. Though we do learn a lot about God, his allowance of free will, and we see from the beginning that he had a plan to save man "through the woman's seed."

If there is a lesson per say, I would imagine it is that there are paths away from God, and paths to God, and the choice on what path we take is ours.

The Garden is the place were God really desire to put man, we can be assured of His heavenly promises since that is where He wants man. The problem with the Garden which we all need to realize early on is it is not the place to fulfill our objective, so God hold’s back His desire for man in order to help man fulfill man’s objective. God’s love is so great for man that He will do virtually everything to help man fulfill his objective. Could God show His love any better?


4. What is man’s purpose in relationship to God and what is God’s purpose in relationship to man?

Patman said:
You said it twice. Relationship. God made us to have a happy and healthy relationship with him and one another. But in order to keep the happy and healthy part, it is man's choice to stay in the relationship.

The development of agape love requires all this earth has, had and it will have. It is not like any other love. It comes from God, it must be accepted as a gift, it requires real true alternatives, it is a thought-out freewill choice to love, it can grow and/or be taken back by God.
I describe our objective as; Here to develop agape love for God, for humans, and hate sin. God’s objective, in relation to humans, is to help humans fulfill their object. The question is what kind of world is best to fulfill the objective?

5. What is satan’s purpose and why is he continuing to live here?

Patman said:
Satan's heavenly purpose is non-existant. God does not wish for Satan to be as he is. God will not force him to change. He does however help those who will to fall away to do so, which helps make up minds. But still, God does not wish for anyone to perish.

Patman you are not answering the question for me.
5a. Is God not strong enough to do away with Satan now?
5b. Do you think God is arbitrary, has no purpose for satan?
5c. Does God have hope for satan?
5d. What can satan do that God can not do and would there be any purpose in this?



6. How do you define a Godly HOPE and a Godly believe?

This is really another whole subject we can talk about later. I will try to word it better.

 

[patman]

RobE, Bling, and Lee,

RobE, Bling, and Lee,

I am going to have to ask for your patience on the replies. Things are getting a little busy this side of cyberspace. I have in mind what I want to reply, but typing it and gathering proofs takes longer than I have right now. I hope by Friday I can have an answer for all of your questions.

Thanks for the replies!

Pat :wave:

 

[bling]

I am going to have to ask for your patience on the replies. Things are getting a little busy this side of cyberspace. I have in mind what I want to reply, but typing it and gathering proofs takes longer than I have right now. I hope by Friday I can have an answer for all of your questions.

Thanks for the replies!

Pat :wave:

Take your time, I hope we are both thinking about what each of us says and studies for an answer. We definitly have another life. God be with you!

 

[lee_merrill]

God be with you!

Amen, Bling, and Patman, and everybody...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[RobE]

To Patman

To Patman

No problem, Patman. We all have busy lives.

I was wondering if Bling or Lee had an opinion on the following verse and what it means to OV'ers:

Deut. 18:18
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.

Question: If what a prophet says does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord hasn't spoken. What does this mean to you in relationship to the unfulfilled prophecies used by the OVers to state their case against traditional Christianity.

And I was wondering if Lee and Bling believe God is responsible for sin whether he foresees the future or not----And, of course, why?

Questioningly,

RobE

 

[Clete]

RobE,

All prophecy is subject to Jer. 18.

Jeremiah 18:7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

So then the Scritpural test would be that if what is spoken does not come to pass when no such repentence is in evidence then the prophet is a false prophet.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

Ezekiel 29 NIV(patman's question) A prophecy against E

Ezekiel 29 NIV(patman's question) A prophecy against E

Deut. 18:18
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.

Question: If what a prophet says does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord hasn't spoken. What does this mean to you in relationship to the unfulfilled prophecies used by the OVers to state their case against traditional Christianity.

Ezekiel 29 NIV

A Prophecy Against Egypt

So in Patman's example, you would say that Egypt repented according to your reply below? Or would you say that since there is no evidence that Egypt repented that Ezekiel is a false prophet? Or something else?

I'm really just asking,

RobE

RobE,

All prophecy is subject to Jer. 18.

Jeremiah 18:7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

So then the Scritpural test would be that if what is spoken does not come to pass when no such repentence is in evidence then the prophet is a false prophet.

Resting in Him,
Clete