He lets you choose. Quit ignoring scripture. Or do, I don't really care. I'm not the one headed for hell.
Question About Open Theism
- Thread starter Nolan
- Start date
In other words, God arranged the proper circumstances to happen in Peter’s life that would ensure that he absolutely would choose to become a martyr. So because this is a settled future event in God’s mind, can Peter not do anything other?
That math does not work!
The guy who came up with our current callender started it in the wrong place. First of all, he had no year zero and so that automatically puts it off by one year. Also, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus recorded that Herod died shortly after a lunar eclipse and before the Passover. Astronomical records show a partial lunar eclipse on March 13, 4 BC and the next Passover fell on April 11, 4 BC. If Jesus was born before Herod’s death, then 4 BC or slightly earlier is the latest possible date.
This would then mean that the events of 70AD were actually 74+ years after the birth of Christ which throws off the whole theory.
Besides that, Israel was cut off in Acts 9, and animal sacrifices and other temple rites ceased immediately after Christ's death. A LONG time before 70 AD.
Derf
Well-known member
The prophecy about Peter's death could easily have been fulfilled if Peter had later denied the Lord again finally. I'm not sure why it is so interesting a prophecy.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That's what I said.
I'm glad you're not headed for Hell—ofc.
Why was there a possessed serpent in the Garden with them? It wasn't like that was against God's will, that the Ancient Serpent Deceiver was there. That was God's will. He could have arranged to stop the Devil from entering into the serpent, He could have prevented the serpent from then accessing Eve. There are multiple steps along that causal chain for God to intervene but He didn't.
It was quite a bit milder than what He permitted Satan to do to Job, in contrast. The only thing Lucifer was permitted to do to Adam and Eve was talk to them, entice them, tempt them. And that's all it took.
The Scripture doesn't say Trumpets was fulfilled in AD 70, probably, most likely, because [the Bible] was completed by before then. But in the off chance the New Testament was still being written after AD 70 that would mean Revelation might be written after that.
But Mr. 666 was Nero. Nero reigned at the same time as Peter and Paul and both were put to death as red martyrs in Rome under Nero. So it is unsurprising, if Revelation was written in the 60s instead of the scholarly consensus that it was written in the 90s, long after the fall of Jerusalem, for John to write about Nero, while Nero was still alive. The code 666 makes it even less surprising, and it wasn't surprising to being with.
We have the gold (the other association in the Bible with the number 666 is Solomon's gold) coins to prove it. They literally bear his image, and say his name, and Revelation mentions both those things. In Hebrew Caesar Nero equals 666 when written out in Hebrew, which is just another alphabet from Greek and Latin, so it's not that alien a thing, it's not like Trekkies who speak Klingon. Letters were also used as numerals, and you just needed to know the context to know which is which. Usually writing a number in Hebrew wouldn't spell a word, but in the case of Nero, when you spelled his name in Hebrew, you also wrote a number, 666. It's literally his name, it's not just the number of his name. In Hebrew, in the Hebrew alphabet, to write 666 is to write Caesar Nero, it's literally—it's literally in the language itself. It's been there all along, it always spelled Caesar Nero even whenever the first ancient Hebrew ever wrote out the number 666, he also wrote out 'CAESAR NERO', but that wasn't a word yet (it didn't mean anything, it didn't apply to anything), and then, all of a sudden, in the first century, it was.
Mr. 666 Caesar Nero. That puts Revelation possibly before AD 70. And if it is before AD 70, then we don't have Scripture saying Trumpets was fulfilled because Scripture was done before AD 70.
We have both Peter and Paul eagerly anticipating the fulfillment of Trumpets, scholars all agree on that.
And if Trumpets was fulfilled in AD 70, then it's interesting if weeks means years in Daniels's prophecy is all.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Since when do we believe sources outside of the Bible Clete? And if we do permit them, then why only people like Josephus who did NOT believe in Christ? If we allow extra-Biblical primary sources in, then why aren't we also receiving Clement and the Didache and Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp into our discourse on theology?
Then that doesn't even satisfy Josephus, who said it was after a lunar eclipse, and so you're importing the notion that a partial eclipse satisfies that report. Why should we believe that? This is an example of a defeater. If "Astronomical records show" a FULL lunar eclipse then this defeater would not ontologically exist, it would be made up. But the defeater exists, and so now it is your job to take it down. And good luck, because I don't think you can, but I've seen JR use the chat bots to analyze questions like that—maybe it can help you.
So that would mean that 70 years after Christ's birth (the Nativity, aka Christmas), is when both Peter and Paul were put to death, under Emperor Caesar Nero. So they are like the two witnesses in Revelation then, they were both in Rome together for a little while, leading the One Church from there together. Peter as the Pope, and Paul probably as the bishop of Rome.
Where did you get that?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It's not as interesting as the three denial prophecy. It's more interesting just because it indicates John wrote his Gospel AFTER Peter's death, which puts it after c. AD 66—maybe the last book written in the Bible for all we know.
Where is the BC AD calendar system mentioned in the Bible?
And I trust all sorts of sources outside the bible for all kinds of different things.
Who has ever suggested anything similar to "only people like Josephus"?
NO ONE!
What theological point did I make based on Josephus as a primary source?
NONE!
What are you even talking about?
It totally would do so. Josephus makes no mention at all of whether it was total or partial and there was only one. All people (common people) knew back then was the that Moon (or Sun) got dark and most of them believed in was a sign from God. It was only a very few who understood a lunar eclipse had anything to do with the Earth's shadow.
Also, there isn't any need at all for "astronomical records". If none existed at all, we would still know precisely the date and time of every eclipse that has ever happened. There's this extra-biblical source we can use for this information which is all based on mathematics done by a guy who lived 1500 years after the bible was written. And while this person was a Christian, he didn't learn his mathematics from the bible.
Having said all of that, the entire point here is all but totally irrelevant because even if Josephus was referencing the total lunar eclipse that occurred January 10, 1 BC, it still blows up your timeline of Daniel's prophecy being 1 year per prophetic "week" because even if Dionysius Exiguus, the guy who came up with this dating system 500 years after the fact, pegged the birth of Christ exactly, the singular fact the he failed to include a year zero throws the entire system off by one full year. In other words, if your theological contrivance was correct, the events of AD 70 would have happened in AD 69.
Stupidity.
Someone around here was just saying something about using sources outside the bible to formulate their doctrine. Oh wait! That was you, just like five sentences ago!
Hmm. Good question! That seems to have been an error on my part. The Talmud (Yoma 39b) records that for 40 years before the temple’s destruction, certain temple signs (like the scarlet cord turning white) stopped occurring, which is a time frame that begins around the time of Christ's death. I had somehow converted that in my mind to the notion that the offering of sacrifices had stopped. The cessation of such signs would certainly have been an indication that sacrifices were no longer effective, but, in opposition to what I said, historically, the priests did continue offering them anyway. I stand corrected.
That of course does nothing at all to the point that the bible, our primary source for doctrine, clearly teaches that Israel was cut off in Acts 9 - not AD 70 and so Daniel's prophecy would have been paused anyway.
Further, there is no biblical or logical reason to think that Daniel's weeks should be translated to single years. Weeks of years, yes (i.e. seven years per "week") but not single years.
There wasn't and your hideous doctrine on this issue is not biblical at all and down right blasphemous. There are Calvinists who would recoil at the implications of your doctrine.
Lucifer was still an Arch Angel at the time and would have had every right to be in the Garden. His rebellion began with the temptation of Eve. The first sin in all existence was likely when Lucifer, the Arch Angel, deciding to tempt God's newest and greatest creation.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and ALL that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
Last edited:
That would violate their will. ANTIFA and BLM like your statement. You pervert.
Yes, all the scripture was completed, or they would have included the sacking of Jerusalem. Which was not the 70th week. Israel had already been cut off.
No, he hasn't come yet. He makes a peace deal with Israel. Try again. Clown. He is a secular Jew, for the record.
We always do. But outside sources are not authority over the scripture.
He is deploying a strawman, despite being shown other wise over and over and over. Scripture is authority.
And maybe a homo.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The point is that Trumpets may have been fulfilled in AD 70. Both Peter and Paul, both who died around AD 65 or 66, importantly, before AD 70's destruction of Jerusalem and particularly the temple there, anxiously awaited the fulfillment of Trumpets, which had not yet occurred in any of the Pauline or Petrine epistles. And all scholars agree, that they were both expecting the fulfillment of Trumpets, like any day now. But they died in 65-66.
So were they both bonkers? Or were they both right? It's one or the other, just prima facie. There might be a sophisticated defeater which craftily explains how they were both wrong to think Trumpets would be fulfilled soon, but maybe that defeater on closer inspection itself cannot stand too.
It could just be that they were both right, and that therefore all of the Feasts were fulfilled in the first century, and we're not waiting for the fulfillment of any Feasts or Festivals or whatever else the holidays of Leviticus 23 are, along with the Sabbath, which was also fulfilled, as the book of Hebrews tells us (it also tells us Yom Kippur was fulfilled).
Impossible. Literally this is impossible.
Since when do we formulate our doctrines on extra-biblical sources, Idolater? Hmm?
They definitely were NOT expecting any such thing. Had they done so, they would not have agreed with Paul to stay in Jerusalem and minister only to the circumcision. In other words, they understood that Israel, as a nation, had been cut off and their promised kingdom wasn't coming - not anytime soon anyway.
No, you're bonkers if you believe this unbiblical nonsense.
Those of you reading my post, notice how Idolater just moves effortlessly from the flat out lie of "all scholars agree..." to now expecting you to accept that idiotic claim as the gospel truth. My feeling is that he didn't even notice that he had done this when he wrote it. He is conditioned to believe whatever he's told to believe by his priest.
It's prima facia that it's neither!
Such stupidity.
Let's see how this works....
The Wright brothers, both of whom lived in the early 20th century, eagerly anticipated the development of commercial space travel. They both believed that flight technology was advancing rapidly and that human space travel could happen at any time. And all historians agree that they expected further breakthroughs in aviation, like any day now. But they both died before the Moon landing in 1969. So were they both bonkers? Or were they both right?
Do you see how ridiculous your form of argument is? You present a false dilemma based on an appeal to authority fallacy that is also obviously false in an attempt to support a theological idea that has no utility whatsoever and that flat out cannot possibly be true anyway. Is this really the way you do your theology? Present an impossible idea and supported on a stool with two falsehoods for legs?
This conclusion doesn’t follow even from own argument. Even if Peter and Paul expected something to happen soon, that doesn’t prove it did happen. That’s like saying, "Since people in the 1800s expected the end of slavery worldwide, slavery must have been fully eradicated by then." That's obviously ridiculous.
Further,Hebrews speaks about Jesus as the fulfillment of the sacrificial system (e.g., Hebrews 9-10) but does not say that every Levitical feast has been completely fulfilled. Even if Yom Kippur (i.e. the Day of Atonement) finds fulfillment in Christ’s atoning work, that does not mean Trumpets was fulfilled in the first century. Hebrews 4 speaks of a "Sabbath rest" for God's people, but this is clearly pointing to a future, ultimate rest, not saying that the Sabbath was entirely fulfilled in the past. If anything, Hebrews 4:9 suggests that fulfillment is still incomplete.
Hebrews 4:9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God
Also, your argument seems to at least imply that no future prophetic events remain, but do you also believe the resurrection, judgment, and restoration of all things already happened? If so, you're embracing full preterism, which denies fundamental Christian doctrine. If not, then you have no reason to assume the feasts are all fulfilled either because the same logic would apply.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Do you have an event to propose that fulfills the feast of trumpets? Or are you referring to the 7 trumpets in Revelation? If the latter, then do you have 7 events to propose?
The trumpets in Revelation are the fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets.
The feasts in Leviticus 23 were supposed to have all been fulfilled in order with Christ's first coming, and His second coming was supposed to be soon after, within 7 years.
Or this.
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
Question, do you know what a mystery is? That isn't rhetorical. They didn't know, the plans changed. It was not revealed before. It is conjecture to say what fullness of the gentiles even is. I have an idea. And someone else has an idea, and he studies the scripture far more than me. Not the late Bob Hill in this case. Israel was cut off. Temporarily. That is all we know. Well we do know Israel has to be resurrected to be placed in their land. They all had to die first.
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?
Nicodemus was supposed to know. It is prophecy. Point being, it didn't happen. Israel is not occupied by people described in John 3:8, and the Lord Jesus Christ is not ruling from Jerusalem, shouldering the government.
Why is Classic versus Open theism a heaven or hell matter? I really have never participated in debates about these two theologies.
Oh well, here are three examples I like to ponder regarding God's will and his knowing how everything ends and man's gift of freewill.
Queen Esther's uncle once posed this question to her [paraphrased]: Perhaps you were meant for a time like this and if you fail to pick up your destiny God will choose someone else. You will suffer while someone else accomplishes God's will and is rewarded.
After God rejected Cain's form of an offering He asked angry Cain this question, "Do you not know IF IF IF you do well you will be accepted?"
Samson was chosen before he was born to accomplish God's will to rid that area of the Promised Land of the Philistines. Along the way Samson did everything against God's will which should have stopped God's plan for him, but God used him anyway at the very end to kill more Philistines than ever before ...
All three of these smack of the co-existence of God's will and man's will.
Just because God knows how everything is going to turn out in the end does not mean an individual has to take the high road. I a person fails at his purpose from God, God will use someone else.
Personal experience for what ever it is worth. I think it sort of relates to this topic about God's will versus the free will behaviors of men. Our having a free will or refusing to listen to God's will is going to change the end God knows is ahead. [???] Still a seeker of how things work.
While driving my car the still small voice of God said: "Wreck."
I did everything I knew to be safe ... even took a longer but safer way home and remembered to use all my driving signals when needed. I got to my street with signals on for turning toward my house and wham!!! A woman on her phone slammed into the back of my car.
I asked God, "I heard your warning and did all I could to trust you. Why was I still in a wreck? He simply said, "You were listening." And I understood he meant she wasn't. This was an example of how she was living out her will not His; so, we were in a wreck.
Yet, God protected me. Car totaled but I was not hurt. A bit of back strain. The man in the car behind her's stayed until the police came and explained everything to the police. God took care of me even though she was not listening. She was speeding, had just passed him in a right turn lane that was running out, and was on her phone. I had my blinker on for my turn.
Oh well, here are three examples I like to ponder regarding God's will and his knowing how everything ends and man's gift of freewill.
Queen Esther's uncle once posed this question to her [paraphrased]: Perhaps you were meant for a time like this and if you fail to pick up your destiny God will choose someone else. You will suffer while someone else accomplishes God's will and is rewarded.
After God rejected Cain's form of an offering He asked angry Cain this question, "Do you not know IF IF IF you do well you will be accepted?"
Samson was chosen before he was born to accomplish God's will to rid that area of the Promised Land of the Philistines. Along the way Samson did everything against God's will which should have stopped God's plan for him, but God used him anyway at the very end to kill more Philistines than ever before ...
All three of these smack of the co-existence of God's will and man's will.
Just because God knows how everything is going to turn out in the end does not mean an individual has to take the high road. I a person fails at his purpose from God, God will use someone else.
Personal experience for what ever it is worth. I think it sort of relates to this topic about God's will versus the free will behaviors of men. Our having a free will or refusing to listen to God's will is going to change the end God knows is ahead. [???] Still a seeker of how things work.
While driving my car the still small voice of God said: "Wreck."
I did everything I knew to be safe ... even took a longer but safer way home and remembered to use all my driving signals when needed. I got to my street with signals on for turning toward my house and wham!!! A woman on her phone slammed into the back of my car.
I asked God, "I heard your warning and did all I could to trust you. Why was I still in a wreck? He simply said, "You were listening." And I understood he meant she wasn't. This was an example of how she was living out her will not His; so, we were in a wreck.
Yet, God protected me. Car totaled but I was not hurt. A bit of back strain. The man in the car behind her's stayed until the police came and explained everything to the police. God took care of me even though she was not listening. She was speeding, had just passed him in a right turn lane that was running out, and was on her phone. I had my blinker on for my turn.
Right Divider
Body part
Who said that?