PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: Thread Theft (docrob and Knight)



docrob57
November 16th, 2005, 12:27 PM
I felt compelled to respond to the following post in a current 1 on 1, and since I am not a participant, I will do it on this here thread. As to the open view and prophecy, Knight says -


Two main ways....

1. God predicts future events and then brings those events to pass.

2. God knows everything knowable (including human intention) and therefore can predict future events with a high degree of accuracy.

Knight's counter question...
If God ordains every event for all of time, OR if God has seen every event for all of time (prior to it happening) why would any prophecy ever not come to pass?

I was interested in point 1. This is a possibility, however, in order to act in this manner, it would seem to entail a considerable violation of free will. It would also entail the ability of God to correctly foresee the results of "bringing events to pass."

Armed with the right information, people can predict future events with a high degree of accuracy as well. There is no reason to think that God is so limited.

The examples given of "unfulfilled prophecies" are invalid. I know I'm wasting keystrokes here, as I have explained this many times, but for the new folks, I will proceed. The prophecies that are always set forth as examples are implicitly conditional in nature, taking the form "You are doing X, therefore I will do Y." Implicit is the statement "If you stop doing X, I will not do Y." Open view advocates even point to passages in Jeremiah which explain the conditional nature of this type of statement, apprently oblivious to the fact that the passage destroys their argument.

Jonah appears to be the favorite example. God said he would destroy Nineveh, Nineveh repented, and God did not destroy it. It is claimed that the prophesy was not fulfilled since Nineveh was not destroyed. The truth is that the only way the prophesy would go unfulfilled is if Nineveh had not repented and it was not destroyed.

Knight
November 16th, 2005, 12:58 PM
I felt compelled to respond to the following post in a current 1 on 1, and since I am not a participant, I will do it on this here thread. As to the open view and prophecy, Knight says -



I was interested in point 1. This is a possibility, however, in order to act in this manner, it would seem to entail a considerable violation of free will. It would also entail the ability of God to correctly foresee the results of "bringing events to pass."Don't you yourself "bring events to pass" all the time in your life?

If you can do it without removing anyones freewill why can't God do it?


Jonah appears to be the favorite example. God said he would destroy Nineveh, Nineveh repented, and God did not destroy it. It is claimed that the prophesy was not fulfilled since Nineveh was not destroyed. The truth is that the only way the prophesy would go unfulfilled is if Nineveh had not repented and it was not destroyed.:hammer:

Please tell us....

Was the following prophesy fullfilled? (YES or NO)

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

Lucky
November 16th, 2005, 01:01 PM
I was interested in point 1. This is a possibility, however, in order to act in this manner, it would seem to entail a considerable violation of free will.
There are ways of influencing people (in order to bring something to pass) without messing with their free will. For instance, I chopped down a tree that fell and blocked a road. Now I've stopped anyone from passing through there, but I didn't have to deny someone's free will to do so.

It would also entail the ability of God to correctly foresee the results of "bringing events to pass."
That process of overseeing it all would occur in the present, by an active, living God. And that doesn't go against the OV at all.

Armed with the right information, people can predict future events with a high degree of accuracy as well. There is no reason to think that God is so limited.
As opposed to saying God can only "predict" what he's already seen? Now that sounds like being limited.

docrob57
November 16th, 2005, 01:55 PM
Don't you yourself "bring events to pass" all the time in your life?

If you can do it without removing anyones freewill why can't God do it?

:hammer:

Please tell us....

Was the following prophesy fullfilled? (YES or NO)

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

Yes, under the terms that I previously specified.

docrob57
November 16th, 2005, 01:57 PM
There are ways of influencing people (in order to bring something to pass) without messing with their free will. For instance, I chopped down a tree that fell and blocked a road. Now I've stopped anyone from passing through there, but I didn't have to deny someone's free will to do so.
Of course you did. Think! Don't just react.


That process of overseeing it all would occur in the present, by an active, living God. And that doesn't go against the OV at all.

As opposed to saying God can only "predict" what he's already seen? Now that sounds like being limited.

The weatherman can predict, foreknowledge is a much more powerful tool than the ability to predict.

Knight
November 16th, 2005, 02:25 PM
Yes, under the terms that I previously specified.Nineveh was overthrown in 40 days?

What Bible are you reading?

docrob57
November 16th, 2005, 02:39 PM
Nineveh was overthrown in 40 days?

What Bible are you reading?

You may kill me for saying this if you like, but you are tetering on the brink of intellectual dishonesty. You know quite well that in discussing these matters Bob Enyart likes to cite the following from 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 relent 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 relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

This states quite clearly that prophecies such as that you quote are conditional, they will occur only in the absense of repentance. You either are incapable of understanding this, which I don't beleive to be true, or you simply don't want to see the implication here. The ONLY way God's prohesy through Jonah could be unfulfilled is if the people did not repent and they were not destroyed.

Knight
November 16th, 2005, 02:41 PM
One way God can influence people is simply tell them to do as He wishes.

God told Jonah to go to Nineveh. Jonah didn't want to. God turned up the heat and finally Jonah went to Nineveh. None of this removed Jonah's freewill. Afterall.... if God was going to remove Jonah's freewill to get him to go to Nineveh couldn't He done so without the whole belly of the fish exercise?

Think about it. :)

Knight
November 16th, 2005, 02:43 PM
You may kill me for saying this if you like, but you are tetering on the brink of intellectual dishonesty. You know quite well that in discussing these matters Bob Enyart likes to cite the following from Jeremiah 18:Of course! But so what????

Was Nineveh overthrown in 40 days or not?

Why wont you answer?

Knight
November 16th, 2005, 02:44 PM
This states quite clearly that prophecies such as that you quote are conditional, they will occur only in the absense of repentance.Do you believe the future is "conditional" for God?

docrob57
November 16th, 2005, 02:45 PM
One way God can influence people is simply tell them to do as He wishes.

God told Jonah to go to Nineveh. Jonah didn't want to. God turned up the heat and finally Jonah went to Nineveh. None of this removed Jonah's freewill. Afterall.... if God was going to remove Jonah's freewill to get him to go to Nineveh couldn't He done so without the whole belly of the fish exercise?

Think about it. :)

That is a good point. Like I said, and even PM'd you, your first point in the 1 on 1 was interesting. I just don't know how God could not have perfect exhaustive foreknowledge. I just makes no sense to me.

docrob57
November 16th, 2005, 02:46 PM
Of course! But so what????

Was Nineveh overthrown in 40 days or not?

Why wont you answer?

I have answered. No it was not. This does not falsify the prophesy for reasons I have stated too many times already.

docrob57
November 16th, 2005, 02:46 PM
Do you believe the future is "conditional" for God?

I seriously don't understand the question.

Knight
November 16th, 2005, 02:52 PM
I just makes no sense to me.Did ya ever think that is the way God want's it?

Maybe God didn't want a scripted future?

Maybe God wanted you to choose to love Him on your own freewill?

Knight
November 16th, 2005, 02:54 PM
I seriously don't understand the question.Is the future conditional for God?

In other words...
Are there things in the future (for God) that depend on other "yet to be determined" events?

Or....
Is the future completely settled and nothing is conditional upon anything else?

docrob57
November 16th, 2005, 02:57 PM
Did ya ever think that is the way God want's it?

Maybe God didn't want a scripted future?

Maybe God wanted you to choose to love Him on your own freewill?

1. Did ya ever wonder why the open view is such a minority viewpoint?

2. Of course He didn't, not relevant, though I know you guys don't accept/understand that.

3. Of course He did, see 2 above.

docrob57
November 16th, 2005, 02:58 PM
Is the future conditional for God?

In other words...
Are there things in the future (for God) that depend on other "yet to be determined" events?

Or....
Is the future completely settled and nothing is conditional upon anything else?

Good question, I am not sure.

Knight
November 16th, 2005, 03:08 PM
1. Did ya ever wonder why the open view is such a minority viewpoint?Lots of truths are.

Knight
November 16th, 2005, 03:09 PM
Good question, I am not sure.Let me help you then....

If anything in the future is conditional then by definition the future cannot be settled.

That is why Jer 18 is utterly devestating to the settled view.

You do believe in a settled future.... do you not?

God_Is_Truth
November 16th, 2005, 04:26 PM
Jonah appears to be the favorite example. God said he would destroy Nineveh, Nineveh repented, and God did not destroy it. It is claimed that the prophesy was not fulfilled since Nineveh was not destroyed. The truth is that the only way the prophesy would go unfulfilled is if Nineveh had not repented and it was not destroyed.

1. Fulfilled means brought to pass
2. The prophecy was that Ninevah would be destroyed.
3. Ninevah was not destroyed
4. Therefore the prophecy was not fulfilled.

Now it seems that you are disputing point number 2. You seem to say that the prophecy was not only a explicit command, but also an implicit one. The problem is that something implicit is not part of the explicit. That is, the condition of God turning away from his declaration is not itself a part of the declaration. It is seperate and distinct. The one represents a principle of God (the implicit) whereby he repents when they repent. The other is a declaration of intent upon the people (the explicit). They are not the same thing and one is not contained in the other. Both are from God, but they are inherently seperate.

Thus, while the implicit was always there, it was not part of the explicit prophecy declared to Ninevah. Instead, the people relied (or hoped) on that principle (the implicit) to escape the explicit prophecy. The explicit prophecy therefore did not come to pass because of the principle of God (which was implicitly known).

It is therefore incorrect to say that the prophecy was fulfilled or came to pass.

logos_x
November 17th, 2005, 12:42 AM
Did ya ever wonder why the open view is such a minority viewpoint?


Lots of truths are.

Amen!

Delmar
November 17th, 2005, 05:59 AM
I felt compelled to respond to the following post in a current 1 on 1, and since I am not a participant, I will do it on this here thread. As to the open view and prophecy, Knight says -



I was interested in point 1. This is a possibility, however, in order to act in this manner, it would seem to entail a considerable violation of free will. It would also entail the ability of God to correctly foresee the results of "bringing events to pass."

Armed with the right information, people can predict future events with a high degree of accuracy as well. There is no reason to think that God is so limited.

The examples given of "unfulfilled prophecies" are invalid. I know I'm wasting keystrokes here, as I have explained this many times, but for the new folks, I will proceed. The prophecies that are always set forth as examples are implicitly conditional in nature, taking the form "You are doing X, therefore I will do Y." Implicit is the statement "If you stop doing X, I will not do Y." Open view advocates even point to passages in Jeremiah which explain the conditional nature of this type of statement, apprently oblivious to the fact that the passage destroys their argument.

Jonah appears to be the favorite example. God said he would destroy Nineveh, Nineveh repented, and God did not destroy it. It is claimed that the prophesy was not fulfilled since Nineveh was not destroyed. The truth is that the only way the prophesy would go unfulfilled is if Nineveh had not repented and it was not destroyed.

So the Prophesy of Jonah was...
If you don't repent in 40 days you will be destroyed.
but if you do repent, in 40 days you will not be destroyed.

So if I understand correctly you are saying that Jonah predicted one of those two things was going to happen (depending how the people responded) and one of those two things did happen! This confirms the settled view how?

Knight
November 17th, 2005, 11:11 AM
So if I understand correctly you are saying that Jonah predicted one of those two things was going to happen (depending how the people responded) and one of those two things did happen! This confirms the settled view how?I don't think docrob ever pondered the theological consequences of accepting a "conditional" future . . . until now. :cool:

docrob57
November 18th, 2005, 07:43 AM
Lots of truths are.

As are lots of untruths

docrob57
November 18th, 2005, 07:50 AM
Let me help you then....

If anything in the future is conditional then by definition the future cannot be settled.

That is why Jer 18 is utterly devestating to the settled view.

You do believe in a settled future.... do you not?

Not necessarily. My only contention is that God must have "perfect exhaustive foreknowledge" if He is God. Which I think we would both beleive that He is. I do not beleive that God changes His mind, though I do know the Bible speaks as if He does at times. I believe that the Bible puts things that way for purposes of human understanding, not because God actually changes His mind.

Jer 18 in no way suggests that God changes His mind. I beleive the open view contention that some prophecies are false seriously undermines God. Not intentionally, of course, but it seems to be an attempt to "bring God down to our level."

As to the settled nature of the future I am unclear. If not settled, the extent to which it is open must be bounded because I do believe that Christ will return, and I assume you beleive this as well.

docrob57
November 18th, 2005, 07:54 AM
So the Prophesy of Jonah was...
If you don't repent in 40 days you will be destroyed.
but if you do repent, in 40 days you will not be destroyed.

So if I understand correctly you are saying that Jonah predicted one of those two things was going to happen (depending how the people responded) and one of those two things did happen! This confirms the settled view how?

It doesn't confirm the settled view. You guys are hung up on the open/settled thing, I really don't care about that. I do care about God being made to look indecisive and overly subject to human limitations which I believe that the open view does.

Also, it bothers me that it appears the goal becomes more to win believers to the open view than to win the lost for Christ. Hopefully this isn.t true, but it begins to look that way.

God_Is_Truth
November 18th, 2005, 12:08 PM
docrob,

did you see my post?

docrob57
November 18th, 2005, 12:21 PM
docrob,

did you see my post?

Yes I did. No offense, but it just seemed to be quibbling.

God_Is_Truth
November 18th, 2005, 12:29 PM
Yes I did. No offense, but it just seemed to be quibbling.

I don't take offense that you disagree. But can you refute it?

Lucky
November 18th, 2005, 01:10 PM
As are lots of untruths
Which is why arguing "X is true because the majority says" or that "Y is true because the majority disagree and the majority is wrong" is usually a bad idea.

docrob57
November 18th, 2005, 01:25 PM
Which is why arguing "X is true because the majority says" or that "Y is true because the majority disagree and the majority is wrong" is usually a bad idea.

True, however, arguing an obscure theological position that I have never heard anyone but the participants of this forum support is a little different. Plus, there are certain aspects of the idea whichto me make no sense and which I have never seen credible arguments to support.

docrob57
November 18th, 2005, 01:28 PM
I don't take offense that you disagree. But can you refute it?

There is nothing to refute really. If we have to ignore the whole content of the statement, including the implied content, then I guess you are right, You you have demonstrated to your own satisfaction that God either made a false statement or that he was unable to carry out His threat.

I don't see what you gain by that.

seekinganswers
November 18th, 2005, 02:48 PM
[QUOTE=Knight] 1. God predicts future events and then brings those events to pass.

2. God knows everything knowable (including human intention) and therefore can predict future events with a high degree of accuracy.{/QUOTE]

The first statement is false, because God does not predict the future, for the future is wrapped up in God. The god of Knight is a god who is found in time and space, not the God who encompasses time and space and brings them into being. Knight's understanding of Creation is that it is an entity that has a distinct reality appart from God, so that if God ceased to exist than the Creation could continue as if nothing happened. God, however, is not an entity that we exist appart from, but is rather the one "in whom we live and move and have our being". God is not the cause of existance but is the source. We do not live separate from God, but in God (and we are darkened in our understanding if we think otherwise).

The second statement is false because, once again, knight has distinguished knowledge and God, so that knowledge (or truth, I suppose you could say) is an abstract principle that resides alongside God. God is not the great knower (like the god of Whitehead who is the ultimate being, a great monad with a window to see and influence and be influenced by other monads) who relates to lesser knowers in the Creation (i.e. the God who simply knows more about knowledge than we do). God is knowledge (God is truth). To set knowledge appart from God is to make the mistake of process theology (who set God and the Creation with a distinct realm known as relationship).

The god of Knight is not the Christian God, for the god of Knight is not the God in whom "we live and move and have our being."

Peace,
Michael

seekinganswers
November 18th, 2005, 02:49 PM
Was the following prophesy fullfilled? (YES or NO)

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

YES!!!!!

Tell me, at the end of the story, where do we find the King of Nineveh?

Peace,
Michael

seekinganswers
November 18th, 2005, 02:51 PM
YES!!!!!

Tell me, at the end of the story, where do we find the King of Nineveh?

Peace,
Michael

In fact, where do we find all of the inhabitants of Nineveh?

seekinganswers
November 18th, 2005, 02:51 PM
In fact, where do we find all of the inhabitants of Nineveh?

Peace,
Michael

Delmar
November 18th, 2005, 04:06 PM
YES!!!!!

Tell me, at the end of the story, where do we find the King of Nineveh?

Peace,
Michael
Nineveh was distroyed but not after 40 days, It was later. Why was that?

Delmar
November 18th, 2005, 04:13 PM
Not necessarily. My only contention is that God must have "perfect exhaustive foreknowledge" if He is God...Why do you limit God to your view of what God must be?

seekinganswers
November 18th, 2005, 10:47 PM
Nineveh was distroyed but not after 40 days, It was later. Why was that?

The text does not say that Nineveh will be destroyed (not even out of the words of Jonah). It uses a word that can mean destroy, but in fact means turned or overturned. The ending I was speaking about comes in the text itself (I was not asking about the ultimate end of Nineveh many decades later). The king dethrones himself, and the people (and the animals) dress up in sack cloth and ashes and pray to God for mercy. This is called repentance, and so the people were turned and Nineveh was overturned. Prophesy is not about telling the future. It is about the present actions of a people, and tells you what will come about if there is no repentance, however, the purpose of the prophesy if to incite people to repent. The people of Nineveh repent of their sins, and thus Nineveh is overthrown (not through fire and brimstone as many seem to think must be involved in prophesy and judgment). Neither prophecy nor judgment are exclusively tied to fire and brimstone. Judgment is simply the entrance of truth (the entrance of God) into the Creation so as to make quite clear what the natural order of things is.

Now if we look to Jonah in this, we find that Jonah was not free at all, but was a stubborn fool who ran from God, and wanted to think that he knew what was best for the city of Nineveh. He isn't free, but is a slave to his own pride, and to the pride of a people who have fogotten where they come from. He says at the very end that he knew God was merciful and would not be harsh with the Ninevites, and that is why he ran in the first place. The truly free people are the ones who when confronted with God they acknowledge God and obey (i.e. the sailors on the boat to Tarshish, and the Ninevites).

Peace,
Michael

Delmar
November 19th, 2005, 02:01 AM
1. God predicts future events and then brings those events to pass.

2. God knows everything knowable (including human intention) and therefore can predict future events with a high degree of accuracy.


The first statement is false, because God does not predict the future, for the future is wrapped up in God. I'm not sure what that means
The god of Knight is a god who is found in time and space In time yes, In space no!
not the God who encompasses time and space and brings them into being. God did, in fact, bring space into being! Time, on the other hand, is merely a sequence of events. God actually does things and he does them in order! He created the Heavens and Earth before he created man. He kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden before Noah's flood. To experience events in order is not some sort of prison, even for God! It is simply reality!
Knight's understanding of Creation is that it is an entity that has a distinct reality apart from God, so that if God ceased to exist than the Creation could continue as if nothing happened. This statement is just weird and not true!
God, however, is not an entity that we exist apart from, but is rather the one "in whom we live and move and have our being". God is not the cause of existence but is the source. We do not live separate from God, but in God (and we are darkened in our understanding if we think otherwise). What does that mean?


The second statement is false because, once again, knight has distinguished knowledge and God, so that knowledge (or truth, I suppose you could say) is an abstract principle that resides alongside God. God is not the great knower (like the god of Whitehead who is the ultimate being, a great monad with a window to see and influence and be influenced by other monads) who relates to lesser knowers in the Creation (i.e. the God who simply knows more about knowledge than we do). God is knowledge (God is truth). To set knowledge apart from God is to make the mistake of process theology (who set God and the Creation with a distinct realm known as relationship). My brain is beginning to hurt!


The god of Knight is not the Christian God, for the god of Knight is not the God in whom "we live and move and have our being."

Peace,
Michael

Delmar
November 19th, 2005, 02:32 AM
The text does not say that Nineveh will be destroyed (not even out of the words of Jonah). It uses a word that can mean destroy, but in fact means turned or overturned. That is interesting because the King of Nineveh sure took it to mean he was in serious trouble! Jonah, himself, seemed to think the word he was speaking meant to destroy! Otherwise he would not have been ticked off when God didn't destroy Nineveh.
The ending I was speaking about comes in the text itself (I was not asking about the ultimate end of Nineveh many decades later). The king dethrones himself, and the people (and the animals) dress up in sack cloth and ashes and pray to God for mercy. This is called repentance, and so the people were turned and Nineveh was overturned. Prophesy is not about telling the future. It is about the present actions of a people, and tells you what will come about if there is no repentance, however, the purpose of the prophesy if to incite people to repent. The people of Nineveh repent of their sins, and thus Nineveh is overthrown (not through fire and brimstone as many seem to think must be involved in prophesy and judgment). Neither prophecy nor judgment are exclusively tied to fire and brimstone. Judgment is simply the entrance of truth (the entrance of God) into the Creation so as to make quite clear what the natural order of things is.

Now if we look to Jonah in this, we find that Jonah was not free at all, but was a stubborn fool who ran from God, and wanted to think that he knew what was best for the city of Nineveh. He isn't free, but is a slave to his own pride, and to the pride of a people who have fogotten where they come from. He says at the very end that he knew God was merciful and would not be harsh with the Ninevites, and that is why he ran in the first place. The truly free people are the ones who when confronted with God they acknowledge God and obey (i.e. the sailors on the boat to Tarshish, and the Ninevites).

Peace,
Michael

seekinganswers
November 19th, 2005, 11:45 AM
That is interesting because the King of Nineveh sure took it to mean he was in serious trouble! Jonah, himself, seemed to think the word he was speaking meant to destroy! Otherwise he would not have been ticked off when God didn't destroy Nineveh.

If you're gonna use Jonah to understand that word, than you are a fool. Here are the words of the wise Jonah, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live."

Jonah thinks it is better to die at the hands of a gracious God than it is to suffer at the might of a God who is harsh and cruel. He would rather follow the God who is threatened by evil than he is to follow the God who can be patient in the face of evil.

Nineveh was destroyed after forty days, it just wasn't destroyed in the way that Jonah or, apparently, you expected. God doesn't come in judgment simply to reign down fire and brimstone because people have a vendetta against their adversaries. If this were true, than God would have killed the humans in the garden (as God said he would; and don't give me the crap about how they did die, because a soul doesn't die, and a relationship with God is never lost) and God would have killed Cain for the crime he committed in cold blood against his brother Abel. God's judement does not come because God has to pay back what our enemies have taken from us. There is a reason why we hand vengance over to the LORD, because the LORD isn't after our vendettas, but is after true justice.

Now if you would actually read the story of Jonah, you would discover that even the most conservative translations (i.e. the NIV) do not translate the word as "destroy." It says in the NIV: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned." In my translation found in the parallel English of the TANAK, it says "overthrown" as it does in the NRSV. Your translation of "destroyed" is not accepted by any of the major translations of the scriptures (even one as terrible as the NIV).

In the Hebrew the root of the word is haphach, which means to turn, to overturn, or to destroy. And in its form as found in this passage (nehpachet) it is in one of the derived stems of Hebrew, and I would guess is an imperfect (seeing how I am only in my third month of Hebrew, I am not an expert on the Hebrew, but I know some things). The Tanak English parallel is probably the most literal translation we have, and it uses "overthrown" as a translation.

So if you would like to bring to question my Hebrew abilities, go right ahead, but don't just say I'm wrong.

The word means more than to destroy. So when a king descends from his throne, and puts on rags, and covers himself in ashes, along with all of his people, then the city for all intents and purposes is overthrown. When the king is humbled, the king is defeated (and God didn't even have to come in God's might for the people of Nineveh to realize this; even the pagan sailors had to see God's strength against God's own to believe). God did come in God's might with Jonah, and Jonah is still as stubborn as he was when he left for Tarshish instead of Nineveh (and God doesn't seem to be any closer to killing Jonah).

If to you this story is all about Nineveh and how a people were saved by the skin of their teeth, this story has gone right over your head (in fact it had pleanty of clearance). The people of Nineveh are secondary to this story, for the story really concerns Jonah (and more importantly God). First we see Jonah as representative of a people who have forgotten how they became a people and for what purpose, i.e. a people delivered from Egypt by YHWH to a land in which they could dwell, that they might be a blessing to the nations. Jonah is the one being judged here (along with all of whom he represents, i.e. Israel), not Nineveh and the pagan sailors. Secondly, we see a God who from the very beginning (by implication of what Jonah says at the end) is gracious and merciful, and longs for the restoration of God's Creation. God at the end need not overturn Nineveh, for Nineveh has already overturned itself, and if you want to hear the words worth hearing (those that come from the king rather than Jonah) than they would be: "No man or beast -- of flock or heard -- shall taste anything! They shall not graze, and they shall not drink water! They shall be covered with sackcloth -- man and beast -- and shall cry mightily to God. Let everyone turn back from his evil ways and from the injustice of which he is guilty. Who knows but that God may turn and relent? He may turn back from His wrath, so that we do not perish."

These are the words of the true prophet, for Jonah has failed miserably from beginning to end. The prophets never declare, "Your destruction is certain and there is nothing you can do about it!!!!" (because prophets come from within the people being judged, not from without; and they declare their own doom as well as that of the peoples). Notice how Jonah sits outside the city to watch the "fireworks" at the end. Jonah is detatched from these people all throughout. Jonah never proclaims a true prophesy, for God doesn't give God's prophets to seal the doom that God brings (God simply comes and the truth is revealed; God doesn't need an entrance). Prophets are given because the future destruction is not certain. God gives warning that a people might repent and reveal the truth for themselves so that God does not have to. And this is exactly what Nineveh does (in almost an absurd fashion, for even the animals, here, are forced to dress in sackcloth and ashes, and to fast, and to cry out to their God, and to repent). Nineveh reveals the truth that even Jonah cannot seem to grasp, that God is God, and we as members of the Creation serve the one true God. And the truth of God lived out in the Creation is justice and mercy and righteousness. God turned from God's wrath (a overturning by means of destruction and doom) because the people has already been overturn by God (an overturning of repentance).

And if we hear the words of Jonah that he declares at the end, that he knew from the beginning that God was gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, then we have to ask, where was this revealed in the prophesy of Jonah? Jonah did not tell the truth, for Jonah knew a lot more than he revealed. God's judgment does not mean destruction. It means truth is coming in justice, and righteousness, and peace.

You are a fool to listen to Jonah, for you have thrown in your lot with a sad people, who have forgotten their place in this world, and who have forgotten their purpose. Jonah wasn't "ticked off" because God didn't destroy Nineveh, but because he knew from the beginning that this was exactly what God was going to do (read the words that come from the horse's mouth!).

Peace,
Michael

seekinganswers
November 19th, 2005, 12:28 PM
In time yes, In space no!... God did, in fact, bring space into being! Time, on the other hand, is merely a sequence of events. God actually does things and he does them in order! He created the Heavens and Earth before he created man. He kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden before Noah's flood. To experience events in order is not some sort of prison, even for God! It is simply reality!

You are a fool and an idolator if you think that god "experiences" the world like humans do. What you have done is set up time as god, and set the Creator and Creation within a greater reality, over which neither have control. If this is true, you are a fool for listening to the scriptures at all, for god is not LORD, nor is god sovereign. God is simply like us, and is not worthy of our alegiance. You're a fool for understanding god in the way that you do and equating that to the way YHWH is revealed in the scriptures.

God doesn't sit back in a recliner in heaven with popcorn in hand to see what happens on earth. This is the god of men, who must let the world go by them as they sit back and watch, or try to take it by force. This is the god of sports, who shows power through brute force and does it all for a good show.

Before there was time, there was God. You are locked into a horrible translation, which would translate en arche as "in the beginning" (and, yes, that is pretty much all of the translations, and if they are good, they will admit their folly in a footnote). The Hebrew and the Greek do not relate to time at his point, but to preminence, for arche signifies head or power or ruler, not simply beginning. God is the one who surrounds the Creation and moves the Creation and completes the Creation, not time. The scriptures identify God as the arche and telos, not time. So in God both time and space consist, and, yes, the entire Creation.

If you don't understand my words, you don't understand the words of Paul to the Athenians put forth in Acts. That is where Paul states, "For 'In God we live and move and have our being.'" (Acts 17:28) God takes this phrase from the Greeks, and reinterprets it, for it originally had a pantheistic sense (i.e. that God was in the Creation). Instead, Paul states that the Creation is in God, so that God is other and transcendent, but God is also immanent, as God pervades all of the Creation. We are found in God, not God in us.

Your understanding of time is so funny, because the early Jews could care less about time as you have talked about it. In chapter 1 humans are created (and yes it is a singular noun that is understood in a comprehensive sense, not as a single man named Adam, but as humanity which includes males and females [Gen. 1:27]). And already here at the beginning of Genesis we see the end, so that in God all come together. What we experience as successive events are united in God.

And then after giving the whole story, the Jews dive back into it again, and rearrange the elements, so that in chapter two humanity is created before the plants and before the animals. Now tell me, oh wise one, what chronology are the Jews understanding here, because when they say that humans are the last thing created in Genesis 1, what do they mean when humans are created before plants and animals in the second chapter? Your understanding of time is not God's. God sees a thousand years as a day (and if you are at all familiar with the Hebrew understanding of a thousand, or even a Hebrew understanding of a thousand while using the Greek, than you know that a thousand just means a bunch, because a thousand signifies tribe, and nation, as well). A thousand years means an age. The Jews don't count like you do. They go 999, a bunch. And then they say, 1 bunch, 2 bunches, ..., 99 bunches, a hoard!!! They aren't exactly concerned with accuracy, because acuracy did not come with ease in this time, and I doubt they had the patience to acurately account for people in the same way that an emperor does, because the number of people for an emperor means how much tax he is able to exact, and it doesn't mean that for the Jews.

If you want to place god in time, then you worship an idol and have divorced yourself from the God that is revealed in the scriptures and that is revealed in Christ (in whom both the aarche and the telos are wrapped up (beginning and end) so that both Christ and God stand outside of time and time unfolds with God, not god within time.

Peace,
Michael

Knight
November 19th, 2005, 12:49 PM
Not necessarily. My only contention is that God must have "perfect exhaustive foreknowledge" if He is God.Why?


Which I think we would both beleive that He is. I do not beleive that God changes His mind, though I do know the Bible speaks as if He does at times. I believe that the Bible puts things that way for purposes of human understanding, not because God actually changes His mind.The Bible is filled with stories that describe a conditional future.

The Bible is filled with stories of God displaying He knows everything knowable.

The Bible is filled with stories of God knowing our intentions.

The Bible does not describe or define God as having exhaustive foreknowledge.


Jer 18 in no way suggests that God changes His mind. I beleive the open view contention that some prophecies are false seriously undermines God. Not intentionally, of course, but it seems to be an attempt to "bring God down to our level."On the contrary... it is us that are flawed! God simply reacts to our flaws in a perfect and majestic way.


As to the settled nature of the future I am unclear. If not settled, the extent to which it is open must be bounded because I do believe that Christ will return, and I assume you beleive this as well.I hate to do this but I must hold your feet to the fire.... I asked you if you believed in a conditional future and you haven't answered.

Is the future conditional for God? (in any way whatsoever)

Knight
November 19th, 2005, 12:52 PM
The god of Knight is not the Christian God, for the god of Knight is not the God in whom "we live and move and have our being."

Peace,
MichaelMicahel I am going to ignore you.

I do not appreciate your assertion that my God is not the God of the Bible.

seekinganswers
November 19th, 2005, 01:32 PM
Micahel I am going to ignore you.

I do not appreciate your assertion that my God is not the God of the Bible.

The god who is within time and who interacts with the Creation no differently than what is in the Creation is not the God of the scriptures, the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. You don't have to appreciate my assertion, you have already divorced yourself from the scriptures in thinking that your understanding of god is God at all.

Prophesy is not forcasting or fortune telling (as if God were inside time just waiting for time to unfold). Prophesy is the proclamation of God's coming, so that time is brought to completion in the perfection of God's Creation. Time does not encompass God and Creation, but is held within God, in whom the arche and the telos come together, alpha and omega, first and last, beginning and end. God is not inside time; God encompasses time and space and, in fact, the entire Creation. This is the God that Paul proclaims in Acts 17:28, the God "in whom we live and move and have our being".

I can assure you, the many in Israel who heard the message of the prophets would have said the same as you have just now. They thought their understanding of god was God, but, in fact, their understanding of god was shown for what it was, nothing!

Peace,
Michael

Delmar
November 19th, 2005, 07:15 PM
If you're gonna use Jonah to understand that word, than you are a fool. Here are the words of the wise Jonah, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live."

Jonah thinks it is better to die at the hands of a gracious God than it is to suffer at the might of a God who is harsh and cruel. He would rather follow the God who is threatened by evil than he is to follow the God who can be patient in the face of evil.

Nineveh was destroyed after forty days, it just wasn't destroyed in the way that Jonah or, apparently, you expected. God doesn't come in judgment simply to reign down fire and brimstone because people have a vendetta against their adversaries. If this were true, than God would have killed the humans in the garden (as God said he would; and don't give me the crap about how they did die, because a soul doesn't die, and a relationship with God is never lost) and God would have killed Cain for the crime he committed in cold blood against his brother Abel. God's judement does not come because God has to pay back what our enemies have taken from us. There is a reason why we hand vengance over to the LORD, because the LORD isn't after our vendettas, but is after true justice.

Now if you would actually read the story of Jonah, you would discover that even the most conservative translations (i.e. the NIV) do not translate the word as "destroy." It says in the NIV: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned." In my translation found in the parallel English of the TANAK, it says "overthrown" as it does in the NRSV. Your translation of "destroyed" is not accepted by any of the major translations of the scriptures (even one as terrible as the NIV).

In the Hebrew the root of the word is haphach, which means to turn, to overturn, or to destroy. And in its form as found in this passage (nehpachet) it is in one of the derived stems of Hebrew, and I would guess is an imperfect (seeing how I am only in my third month of Hebrew, I am not an expert on the Hebrew, but I know some things). The Tanak English parallel is probably the most literal translation we have, and it uses "overthrown" as a translation.

So if you would like to bring to question my Hebrew abilities, go right ahead, but don't just say I'm wrong.

The word means more than to destroy. So when a king descends from his throne, and puts on rags, and covers himself in ashes, along with all of his people, then the city for all intents and purposes is overthrown. When the king is humbled, the king is defeated (and God didn't even have to come in God's might for the people of Nineveh to realize this; even the pagan sailors had to see God's strength against God's own to believe). God did come in God's might with Jonah, and Jonah is still as stubborn as he was when he left for Tarshish instead of Nineveh (and God doesn't seem to be any closer to killing Jonah).

If to you this story is all about Nineveh and how a people were saved by the skin of their teeth, this story has gone right over your head (in fact it had pleanty of clearance). The people of Nineveh are secondary to this story, for the story really concerns Jonah (and more importantly God). First we see Jonah as representative of a people who have forgotten how they became a people and for what purpose, i.e. a people delivered from Egypt by YHWH to a land in which they could dwell, that they might be a blessing to the nations. Jonah is the one being judged here (along with all of whom he represents, i.e. Israel), not Nineveh and the pagan sailors. Secondly, we see a God who from the very beginning (by implication of what Jonah says at the end) is gracious and merciful, and longs for the restoration of God's Creation. God at the end need not overturn Nineveh, for Nineveh has already overturned itself, and if you want to hear the words worth hearing (those that come from the king rather than Jonah) than they would be: "No man or beast -- of flock or heard -- shall taste anything! They shall not graze, and they shall not drink water! They shall be covered with sackcloth -- man and beast -- and shall cry mightily to God. Let everyone turn back from his evil ways and from the injustice of which he is guilty. Who knows but that God may turn and relent? He may turn back from His wrath, so that we do not perish."

These are the words of the true prophet, for Jonah has failed miserably from beginning to end. The prophets never declare, "Your destruction is certain and there is nothing you can do about it!!!!" (because prophets come from within the people being judged, not from without; and they declare their own doom as well as that of the peoples). Notice how Jonah sits outside the city to watch the "fireworks" at the end. Jonah is detatched from these people all throughout. Jonah never proclaims a true prophesy, for God doesn't give God's prophets to seal the doom that God brings (God simply comes and the truth is revealed; God doesn't need an entrance). Prophets are given because the future destruction is not certain. God gives warning that a people might repent and reveal the truth for themselves so that God does not have to. And this is exactly what Nineveh does (in almost an absurd fashion, for even the animals, here, are forced to dress in sackcloth and ashes, and to fast, and to cry out to their God, and to repent). Nineveh reveals the truth that even Jonah cannot seem to grasp, that God is God, and we as members of the Creation serve the one true God. And the truth of God lived out in the Creation is justice and mercy and righteousness. God turned from God's wrath (a overturning by means of destruction and doom) because the people has already been overturn by God (an overturning of repentance).

And if we hear the words of Jonah that he declares at the end, that he knew from the beginning that God was gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, then we have to ask, where was this revealed in the prophesy of Jonah? Jonah did not tell the truth, for Jonah knew a lot more than he revealed. God's judgment does not mean destruction. It means truth is coming in justice, and righteousness, and peace.

You are a fool to listen to Jonah, for you have thrown in your lot with a sad people, who have forgotten their place in this world, and who have forgotten their purpose. Jonah wasn't "ticked off" because God didn't destroy Nineveh, but because he knew from the beginning that this was exactly what God was going to do (read the words that come from the horse's mouth!).

Peace,
Michael
All that because I implied that Jonah knew the translation of the words that came out of his own mouth!

By the way. I'll bet you a shinny new dime that there won't be 3 people who actually take the time to read all that! No I take that back. It would really surprise me if anyone takes the time to read the whole thing.

seekinganswers
November 19th, 2005, 08:37 PM
All that because I implied that Jonah knew the translation of the words that came out of his own mouth!

Do you even realize how ignorant a statement you have just made? "Jonah knew the translation of the words that came out of his own mouth!" ???? And I suppose you know the translation of what you just said in Hindi? Jonah spoke at least one language, but most definitely did not speak English, nor would he have known which English interpretation of his words was best. I spoke out of the Hebrew and the way in which the word is used in various ways throughout the Hebrew text, which you have continued to ignore, showing your ignorance. Look at the word horn in English, that cannot be locked into a one to one corrospandance to another language. Horn can mean the object protruding from an animal's head, it can signify the object used to produce an annoying sound in the front of cars, it can also signify an object that holds fruit that is sentimentally attatched to a North American Celebration that ushers us into the orgy of spending in preparation for another celebration that has been coopted by Santa Claus, the man who gets kids whatever they want.

Those who do not understand the English language would have no idea whatsoever how to use the nuance of the language. Translations are not translations at all, because they interpret, and thus distort the text always. Anyone who thinks they understand something from the Bible who is locked into a North American English context will be like the Pumpkin King in the "Nightmare Before Christmas." They will think they understand, when, in fact, they have simply fit the story into their own way of life.

By the way. I'll bet you a shinny new dime that there won't be 3 people who actually take the time to read all that! No I take that back. It would really surprise me if anyone takes the time to read the whole thing.

And I'll give you a penny for how much I really care. Do you think I come on this thread to be liked? It sharpens me, because there are some people actually worth listening to (those who are truly Christian). You can throw what I say away, but you throw away more than what I say, i.e. the entire Christian tradition that came before the "Enlightenment." You are an idolator, who actually believes that what he thinks about god is God.

Peace,
Michael

Lighthouse
November 19th, 2005, 08:42 PM
Form now on thou shalt be known as seekingattention.

seekinganswers
November 19th, 2005, 08:48 PM
Form now on thou shalt be known as seekingattention.

And I suppose this is the 11th commandment, maybe an early draft of God's ten commandments before he had spell-check?

Mr. 5020
November 20th, 2005, 12:29 AM
And I suppose this is the 11th commandment, maybe an early draft of God's ten commandments before he had spell-check?How is that a commandment? That's no more a commandment than "Jacob, from now on thou shalt be known as Israel."

seekinganswers
November 20th, 2005, 12:41 AM
How is that a commandment? That's no more a commandment than "Jacob, from now on thou shalt be known as Israel."

:hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

Johnny
November 20th, 2005, 01:04 AM
1200 words is apparently beyond the attention span of many here. Thank you for your insightful posts. Although you will likely continue to be subjected to the childish retorts of many here, your posts are a much needed breeze of fresh air in a place that has grown stagnant with the hardened hearts and minds of those who do not wish to hear. Do not be discouraged, Michael!

Delmar
November 20th, 2005, 06:21 AM
1200 words is apparently beyond the attention span of many here. Thank you for your insightful posts. Although you will likely continue to be subjected to the childish retorts of many here, your posts are a much needed breeze of fresh air in a place that has grown stagnant with the hardened hearts and minds of those who do not wish to hear. Do not be discouraged, Michael!
You refer to that angry rant as a breath of fresh air?

Johnny
November 20th, 2005, 05:20 PM
You refer to that angry rant as a breath of fresh air?I was referring to Michael's posts in a more general sense. Nonetheless, yes, I rather liked his post. I am inclined to believe that you actually did read his post but couldn't muster up a response other than your comment about the attention span of your peers. I find the tactic of casting negative light on an argument with petty side-comments for lack of an intellectual response reminiscent of my early childhood.

Delmar
November 20th, 2005, 06:22 PM
I was referring to Michael's posts in a more general sense. Nonetheless, yes, I rather liked his post. I am inclined to believe that you actually did read his post but couldn't muster up a response other than your comment about the attention span of your peers. I find the tactic of casting negative light on an argument with petty side-comments for lack of an intellectual response reminiscent of my early childhood.Good one!

Charity
November 20th, 2005, 06:55 PM
Did Jonah say that he new God would not destroy the men of Nineveh. Jonah 4; 1,5
and yet asked him to prophey that he would destoy them in 40 days
It would be not a wounder that Jonah ran knowing that if any prophet claimed to speack from God and if prophesy failed to happen then he should be put to death.
He feared their respnse.
After delivering the messaege he sat out side the city waiting to see if the men of niniveh would be distroyed by God,
and suffered so much that he desired that God would take his life now.
God was faithfull and they new and repented of evil, and did not seek to revenge Jonah.

charity

Lighthouse
November 20th, 2005, 07:20 PM
Did Jonah say that he new God would not destroy the men of Nineveh. Jonah 4; 1,5
and yet asked him to prophey that he would destoy them in 40 days
It would be not a wounder that Jonah ran knowing that if any prophet claimed to speack from God and if prophesy failed to happen then he should be put to death.
He feared their respnse.
After delivering the messaege he sat out side the city waiting to see if the men of niniveh would be distroyed by God,
and suffered so much that he desired that God would take his life now.
God was faithfull and they new and repented of evil, and did not seek to revenge Jonah.

charity
I just read Jonah chapter 4, and I can't find any indication, not even in verses 1 or 5.:nono: And so I scanned the rest of Jonah, and nothing.:nono:

Charity
November 20th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Hi lighhouse
Jonah 3 .10
God rpents of the Evil he was going to do,
meaning they were not going to be destroyed, so how did Jonah feel and look after saying in 40 days destruction would happen to these men,
either a fraud, or they may see the purpose of God
He still dose not now in ch 4 .1 the out come but knows GOD has mercy

And inpleys to his first flee by saying in verse CH 4 . 2
O lord was this not my say yet when i was in my own country?Therefore i fleed to Taarshish.for i knew you art a gracious God slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of evil,
This was Jonahs mind on fleeing the reqest of God,

charity

Lighthouse
November 20th, 2005, 08:13 PM
Hi lighhouse
Jonah 3 .10
God rpents of the Evil he was going to do,
meaning they were not going to be destroyed, so how did Jonah feel and look after saying in 40 days destruction would happen to these men,
either a fraud, or they may see the purpose of God
He still dose not now in ch 4 .1 the out come but knows GOD has mercy

And inpleys to his first flee by saying in verse CH 4 . 2
O lord was this not my say yet when i was in my own country?Therefore i fleed to Taarshish.for i knew you art a gracious God slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of evil,
This was Jonahs mind on fleeing the reqest of God,

charity
You forgot the t in my screenname.

Now, what I meant was that I found no indication that Jonah knew God wasn't going to destroy Nineveh, before they repented.

And I also don't see any reason for Nineveh to doubt that Jonah's meassage was truly from God, since it didn't happen. It served to show that God is true to His word, because He had previously stated that if He determined to destroy a place for its wickedness, and they repented when He proclaimed His plan to destroy them, that He would repent of His plan and let them be.

seekinganswers
November 20th, 2005, 09:11 PM
You forgot the t in my screenname.

Now, what I meant was that I found no indication that Jonah knew God wasn't going to destroy Nineveh, before they repented.

And I also don't see any reason for Nineveh to doubt that Jonah's meassage was truly from God, since it didn't happen. It served to show that God is true to His word, because He had previously stated that if He determined to destroy a place for its wickedness, and they repented when He proclaimed His plan to destroy them, that He would repent of His plan and let them be.

You are blind then. Here is the smoking gun:

But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. He prayed to the Lord, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish, I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity" (Jonah 4:1-3).

It would appear that Jonah does not perceive a change in God's actions when God does not bring the calamity on Nineveh. And here Jonah declares that he knew God's compassion would extend even unto the Ninevites before he even proclaimed his prophesy (which makes you wonder, why is it that Jonah didn't proclaim it before?), and he refused to go because of God's compassion.

Apparently you are the one who can't seem to imagine a God whose compassion extends before, through, and even after God's coming in truth and thus in judgment. You automatically assume that judgment means condemnation, that overturning is destruction. You think that God has to take revenge on evil people, because you can't imagine a God who is more powerful than the wicked, who does not respond to the wicked according to their sins, because their sins are not a threat to God. You understanding of God is about as amazing as our president Bush, who is really powerful, who tries to get into "relationship" with people, and when he cannot he goes to war, because otherwise the evildoers are threat to his power. You actually think that you have something to withhold from God. And you are a fool for even dreaming it up.

You are like Jonah, and would in fact take Jonah as your role-model, that leads to stubborness in the face of God. You think that God coerced Jonah to preach. And you are wrong, because Jonah went as far as he could to escape God, and could not. Have you even read the "prayer" of Jonah in the second chapter (the one surrounded by being swallowed and then spewed up)? The first two stanzas are accusations against God, and a false sense of piety in a distressful situation. Jonah tried to escape God, even into Sheol (the place of the dead, the place where life stops). And now that Jonah has failed, his piety kicks in, and he interprets the entire situation as the Lord's affirmation of his heritage in Israel. "I called to you, LORD. I was faithful. But you hurled me into the deep, though I was looking to your temple. The waters were there trying to engulf me, and seaweed surrounded me, and I sank into the abyss. And now you saved me. When my life was nearly gone, I remembered you. My mind was set on your temple, and my prayer rose to you there. Those wicked idolators (could he be speaking of the pagan sailors who had "feared the Lord" after their encounter with YHWH?), they cling to things that aren't God. Your grace comes to them, but they give it up (might he be contemplating the response of Nineveh to God's prophesy through him?). But I give thanks to you; I offer up an animal and burn it all in thanks to you. I will do what I vowed, for salvation is from the Lord! (if it is my own salvation)" And what is God's response? SPLEEEEEECH!! God couldn't stomach Jonah's pray so he causes the fish to violently spew Jonah up. That word for spew is not a pretty one in the Hebrew. Of couse its not quite transmitted in our word "spew"; a better translation would be "And God caused the fish to blow chunks".

Jonah is not our role model in these texts. He is a false Israel, who thinks that God is his and that God resides in his temple (and he has forgotten the God who named Godself YHWH, meaning, "I am whatever I am" not "I am whatever you want me to be"). The role models for us in this narrative are the sailors who when God shows up worship God (they feared the Lord). The other role models are the Ninevites, who in response to the impending coming of God, repent of their evil ways and humble themselves and God spares them. And where is Jonah at the end of all of this? Well, Jonah is left in limbo, in the question that God asks (could this possibly be a question addressed to the Isreal of this period, who were so wrapped up in the temple that they failed to see those right next to them who truly feared God?). The question is this: "You have been concerned about this vine (and remember that the image of the vine is a symbol for the nation of Israel), though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well (God is concerned for the animals too? Ain't that a kicker). Should I not be concerned about that great city?"

You are reading the text poorly if you think you can read it out of your own context, because the text does not affirm your way of life. It is rooted deeply in the life of a people who are called out by God, to be the people of God and to do so for the blessing of all.

Peace,
Michael

seekinganswers
November 20th, 2005, 09:26 PM
1200 words is apparently beyond the attention span of many here. Thank you for your insightful posts. Although you will likely continue to be subjected to the childish retorts of many here, your posts are a much needed breeze of fresh air in a place that has grown stagnant with the hardened hearts and minds of those who do not wish to hear. Do not be discouraged, Michael!

Thank you for reading what I have to say with an open mind. What I have not told any before this is that over the summer I spent a number of weeks preparing a sermon that I gave on a Sunday night at my home church. The sermon was grounded deeply in a passage from Jonah, in fact, the passage was the prayer of Jonah in chapter 2. What I have said here is not just my own opinion on the passage, but is the result of intense study, of prayer, and of the comments that come from many commentaries on Jonah (those who have committed a good portion of their lives to the study of this book). So I just have to wonder how intensly the scoffers have studied Jonah to make them so certain of their understanding of it? I do not claim that my study makes me an expert, but I do have to ask whether the others were so concerned in their interpretation of this passage to actually apply what they had to say (like I had to do in my sermon) as opposed to just being right about it? There is a big difference between the arrogance of those who think they have mastered Jonah after reading it through once or twice, and those who after a lifetime of study have only discovered that Jonah has mastered them.

Peace,
Michael

Lighthouse
November 20th, 2005, 09:30 PM
You are blind then. Here is the smoking gun:

But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. He prayed to the Lord, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish, I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity" (Jonah 4:1-3).

It would appear that Jonah does not perceive a change in God's actions when God does not bring the calamity on Nineveh. And here Jonah declares that he knew God's compassion would extend even unto the Ninevites before he even proclaimed his prophesy (which makes you wonder, why is it that Jonah didn't proclaim it before?), and he refused to go because of God's compassion.

Apparently you are the one who can't seem to imagine a God whose compassion extends before, through, and even after God's coming in truth and thus in judgment. You automatically assume that judgment means condemnation, that overturning is destruction. You think that God has to take revenge on evil people, because you can't imagine a God who is more powerful than the wicked, who does not respond to the wicked according to their sins, because their sins are not a threat to God. You understanding of God is about as amazing as our president Bush, who is really powerful, who tries to get into "relationship" with people, and when he cannot he goes to war, because otherwise the evildoers are threat to his power. You actually think that you have something to withhold from God. And you are a fool for even dreaming it up.

You are like Jonah, and would in fact take Jonah as your role-model, that leads to stubborness in the face of God. You think that God coerced Jonah to preach. And you are wrong, because Jonah went as far as he could to escape God, and could not. Have you even read the "prayer" of Jonah in the second chapter (the one surrounded by being swallowed and then spewed up)? The first two stanzas are accusations against God, and a false sense of piety in a distressful situation. Jonah tried to escape God, even into Sheol (the place of the dead, the place where life stops). And now that Jonah has failed, his piety kicks in, and he interprets the entire situation as the Lord's affirmation of his heritage in Israel. "I called to you, LORD. I was faithful. But you hurled me into the deep, though I was looking to your temple. The waters were there trying to engulf me, and seaweed surrounded me, and I sank into the abyss. And now you saved me. When my life was nearly gone, I remembered you. My mind was set on your temple, and my prayer rose to you there. Those wicked idolators (could he be speaking of the pagan sailors who had "feared the Lord" after their encounter with YHWH?), they cling to things that aren't God. Your grace comes to them, but they give it up (might he be contemplating the response of Nineveh to God's prophesy through him?). But I give thanks to you; I offer up an animal and burn it all in thanks to you. I will do what I vowed, for salvation is from the Lord! (if it is my own salvation)" And what is God's response? SPLEEEEEECH!! God couldn't stomach Jonah's pray so he causes the fish to violently spew Jonah up. That word for spew is not a pretty one in the Hebrew. Of couse its not quite transmitted in our word "spew"; a better translation would be "And God caused the fish to blow chunks".

Jonah is not our role model in these texts. He is a false Israel, who thinks that God is his and that God resides in his temple (and he has forgotten the God who named Godself YHWH, meaning, "I am whatever I am" not "I am whatever you want me to be"). The role models for us in this narrative are the sailors who when God shows up worship God (they feared the Lord). The other role models are the Ninevites, who in response to the impending coming of God, repent of their evil ways and humble themselves and God spares them. And where is Jonah at the end of all of this? Well, Jonah is left in limbo, in the question that God asks (could this possibly be a question addressed to the Isreal of this period, who were so wrapped up in the temple that they failed to see those right next to them who truly feared God?). The question is this: "You have been concerned about this vine (and remember that the image of the vine is a symbol for the nation of Israel), though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well (God is concerned for the animals too? Ain't that a kicker). Should I not be concerned about that great city?"

You are reading the text poorly if you think you can read it out of your own context, because the text does not affirm your way of life. It is rooted deeply in the life of a people who are called out by God, to be the people of God and to do so for the blessing of all.

Peace,
Michael
I'm not going to read all of what you wrote, because it's too long, and your point was made in the first paragraph.

Now, even though you are on my ignore list, I checked just to see what you had said. And I was not going to respond, but then felt compelled to, so I am going to.

First, show me where Jonah said what He said at home. Can you? So we can maybe clear this up a little?

Secondly, the only thing I can see is that Jonah thought that Nineveh might repent, and knowing God's earlier promise, knew that if they did then god would not destroy them. And he [Jonah] was bothered by the fact that that might happen, because He did not like Nineveh, and wanted them to perish for their evil. He did not want them to be forgiven, because He felt they deserved the consequences of their actions. Which is why Jonah's not God.

And, from this, I can see that Jonah believed it was possible for God to change His mind, if the circumstances mitigated it. This shows that Jonah believed the future was open, and that there were different possibilities. Just like David when He prayed that God would spare His child. Except that God did not change His mind in that case.

seekinganswers
November 20th, 2005, 09:35 PM
I'm not going to read all of what you wrote, because it's too long, and your point was made in the first paragraph.

Now, even though you are on my ignore list, I checked just to see what you had said. And I was not going to respond, but then felt compelled to, so I am going to.

First, show me where Jonah said what He said at home. Can you? So we can maybe clear this up a little?

Secondly, the only thing I can see is that Jonah thought that Nineveh might repent, and knowing God's earlier promise, knew that if they did then god would not destroy them. And he [Jonah] was bothered by the fact that that might happen, because He did not like Nineveh, and wanted them to perish for their evil. He did not want them to be forgiven, because He felt they deserved the consequences of their actions. Which is why Jonah's not God.

And, from this, I can see that Jonah believed it was possible for God to change His mind, if the circumstances mitigated it. This shows that Jonah believed the future was open, and that there were different possibilities. Just like David when He prayed that God would spare His child. Except that God did not change His mind in that case.

You are fool along with Jonah, because you don't even see Jonah's foolishness. Jonah says himself in Jonah 4:1-3 that he knew God would do exactly what God did. They are not the narrator's words, but are words that Jonah himself speaks. Jonah says that he knew this would happen even back at home, and it was the reason he fled to Tarshish. It's right there in Jonah 4:1-3, and I quoted those verses in the previous post in the NIV. So you are the one ignoring the text, not I.

Peace,
Michael

Lighthouse
November 20th, 2005, 09:40 PM
You are fool along with Jonah, because you don't even see Jonah's foolishness. Jonah says himself in Jonah 4:1-3 that he knew God would do exactly what God did. They are not the narrator's words, but are words that Jonah himself speaks. Jonah says that he knew this would happen even back at home, and it was the reason he fled to Tarshish. It's right there in Jonah 4:1-3, and I quoted those verses in the previous post in the NIV. So you are the one ignoring the text, not I.

Peace,
Michael
:doh:

Have you ever said, "I knew that would happen!" Huh? I have. And I didn't actually mean that I knew it. I meant that I figured it would happen. And Jonah meant the same thing, for how coudl Jonah have known for certain what would happen? How could he have even known what God was thinking, unless God told him? And God did not tell him, for the scripture does not show that God told him. And, judging from what Jonah said, in chapter 4, it is obvious that God did not tell him, because Jonah was upset. If God had told Jonah, then Jonah would have no reason to be upset. If he had known exactly what was going to happen, he would have no reason to be upset. But, because he knew what could possibly happen, and didn't want that to happen, and yet it did, he was upset.

seekinganswers
November 20th, 2005, 10:15 PM
:doh:

Have you ever said, "I knew that would happen!" Huh? I have. And I didn't actually mean that I knew it. I meant that I figured it would happen. And Jonah meant the same thing, for how coudl Jonah have known for certain what would happen? How could he have even known what God was thinking, unless God told him? And God did not tell him, for the scripture does not show that God told him. And, judging from what Jonah said, in chapter 4, it is obvious that God did not tell him, because Jonah was upset. If God had told Jonah, then Jonah would have no reason to be upset. If he had known exactly what was going to happen, he would have no reason to be upset. But, because he knew what could possibly happen, and didn't want that to happen, and yet it did, he was upset.

You are going to lecture me on the nuances of what Hebrew means? You who would use the logic of English to support your point? In the words of Dib, the bigheaded boy on "Invader Zim," who is about to be blown up by the alien menace, "This is stupid. This is stupid, stupid."

Despite what you may think, "I knew" does not work the same way in Hebrew that it does in English. If you want to listen to a better rendering of the Hebrew into English, in the TANAK English-parallel it states, "O LORD! Isn't this just what I said when I was still in my own country? That is why I fled beforhand to Tarshish." Jonah didn't like it from the beginning, and if you had read the prayer of Jonah that is his own personal affirmation of himself, than you have seen a man who is a complete fool. He would run from God in the first place because he knew God would show compassion, and then when God punishes him, he thinks that God would do the same against Nineveh, "Those evil idolators who reject the grace given to them." Jonah assumed that Nineveh, not being Israel, would be rejected by God, because they are a bunch of idolators. And God responds by causing the fish to blow-chunks.

In the words of Jesus, "Let the one who has an ear hear, let that one hear!"

Peace,
Michael

seekinganswers
November 20th, 2005, 10:17 PM
Let's try that quote from Jesus again (and I should add, "Let the one who can speak, speak"), "Let the one who has an ear to hear, listen."

Peace,
Michael

Lighthouse
November 20th, 2005, 10:23 PM
You are going to lecture me on the nuances of what Hebrew means? You who would use the logic of English to support your point? In the words of Dib, the bigheaded boy on "Invader Zim," who is about to be blown up by the alien menace, "This is stupid. This is stupid, stupid."

Despite what you may think, "I knew" does not work the same way in Hebrew that it does in English. If you want to listen to a better rendering of the Hebrew into English, in the TANAK English-parallel it states, "O LORD! Isn't this just what I said when I was still in my own country? That is why I fled beforhand to Tarshish." Jonah didn't like it from the beginning, and if you had read the prayer of Jonah that is his own personal affirmation of himself, than you have seen a man who is a complete fool. He would run from God in the first place because he knew God would show compassion, and then when God punishes him, he thinks that God would do the same against Nineveh, "Those evil idolators who reject the grace given to them." Jonah assumed that Nineveh, not being Israel, would be rejected by God, because they are a bunch of idolators. And God responds by causing the fish to blow-chunks.

In the words of Jesus, "Let the one who has an ear hear, let that one hear!"

Peace,
Michael
:sozo2:Have you, for one second, thought that maybe the English is a translation of what was meant, and not what was said!?

If it had been what was said, then we wouldn't understand it, because figures of speech, idioms, and many other things are too different!

How could anyone be so ignorant?!:bang:

seekinganswers
November 20th, 2005, 11:40 PM
:sozo2:Have you, for one second, thought that maybe the English is a translation of what was meant, and not what was said!?

If it had been what was said, then we wouldn't understand it, because figures of speech, idioms, and many other things are too different!

How could anyone be so ignorant?!:bang:

You are going to let a bunch of liberal protestants determine your understanding of the scriptures? You do realize they are the ones who have translated our scriptures into English (and almost any other language of the Bible we currently possess). I currently am able to muddle my way through the Greek and it is enough to show me that the translators, though very capable in their language abilities, took certain ideological paths to come to their final interpretation (because translation is not perfect and ultimately is nothing more than an interpretation). I am extremely capable in the Spanish language, and even in a language so extremely close to English, I cannot translate the entirety of Spanish over to English or vice versa. In my current Hebrew studies, it becomes quite apparent that the gaps between English and Hebrew (a language over 3,000 years old) are much greater than Spanish and English. And you are going to question my assertion that to use the English to understand the Hebrew is idiotic?

The fact that the NIV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV, and the Tanak Enlish-parallel versions of the Bible all vary to some extent here shows how wonderfully difficult it is to preserve the essence of the Hebrew in the English language. Have a look at the Psalms sometime, and compare translations. You will be amazed by how much they vary. The word davar in the Hebrew is translated very often into the English as "word," which is unfornuate for us, because the English "word" does not carry the same meaning as davar. Davar can mean a spoken phrase (never a single word, because words that were written in Hebrew did not have spaces between them or punctuation or even vowels; a "word" was a phrase, which is an idea that can be inferred from the English, but is not primary to the English understanding of "word"). Davar, however, also carries the nuance of matter and thing as well. Now why would this be? Because the only true word for a Hebrew was one that accomplished what was said. The 10 commandments for the Jews are not the commandments but are "10 words".

Only an ignorant fool would accuse another of ignorance without anything to back up his statement. I, at least, am beginning my pursuits in the Hebrew language to understand it directly, as I showed evidence of in the previous postings. I do not stand on the crutch of some interpretation of the scriptures handed to me through some lens of a translator who was more wrapped up in his "quest for the historical Jesus" or for his "preservation of family values" or for his affirmation of the English state than with the actual text.

Get something to stand on, lighthouse (a most ironic name for the one who in the previous posting grounded his assumptions on someone else's "lighthouse").

Peace,
Michael

Lighthouse
November 20th, 2005, 11:46 PM
Are you Catholic?

You know what, forget it. I'm done with you. You're not worth my time. Hopefully God can use someone else to show you the light.

seekinganswers
November 21st, 2005, 12:00 AM
Are you Catholic?

You know what, forget it. I'm done with you. You're not worth my time. Hopefully God can use someone else to show you the light.

And the lighthouse switches off to let the ship crash on the crags (that is if the lighthouse was really standing on anything at all). You are the ignorant one, because you think that my statement against "protestant liberals" makes me a Roman Catholic. You do realize that the current evangelical movement is a response against the protestant liberals, the liberals who do their scholarship mainly in the mid to late 18th century into the early 19th century. One does not need to be Roman Catholic to be against the protestant liberals.

My qualm with my own tradition (which is evangelical) is that we don't react strongly enough because we still have a foundation in the principles of the liberals (in the Enlightenment), though we are "conservative", which might give us a clue as to the utter absurdity of the two categories "liberal" and "conservative," because ecumenical "conservatives" in the United States are found in the center of the "liberalism" known as the project of the nation-state, with principles grounded in the Enlightenment (principles that are quite liberal).

Your response would be almost commical, if it just weren't so terribly ignorant.

Peace,
Michael

chrysostom
November 21st, 2005, 04:02 AM
Michael, how many people do you need to accuse you of being Catholic before you see it as a sign?

Delmar
November 21st, 2005, 04:58 AM
...It would appear that Jonah does not perceive a change in God's actions when God does not bring the calamity on Nineveh. And here Jonah declares that he knew God's compassion would extend even unto the Ninevites before he even proclaimed his prophesy (which makes you wonder, why is it that Jonah didn't proclaim it before?), and he refused to go because of God's compassion....



I would say it differently but I think we are sort of in agreement here. I do agree that Jonah knew that if they repented, God would not destroy them. I would agree that Jonah did not perceive this as a change in God righteous character!

Delmar
November 21st, 2005, 05:28 AM
...Jonah is not our role model in these texts...
Of coarse not! Jonah wanted Nineveh destroyed! God wanted them to repent!

I simply don't understand your assertion that anyone thinks Jonah is a good role model.

seekinganswers
November 21st, 2005, 09:51 AM
Of coarse not! Jonah wanted Nineveh destroyed! God wanted them to repent!

I simply don't understand your assertion that anyone thinks Jonah is a good role model.

Lighthouse seemed to think that he was.

Peace,
Michael

seekinganswers
November 21st, 2005, 10:03 AM
Michael, how many people do you need to accuse you of being Catholic before you see it as a sign?

I just think its funny that I'm accused of being a Roman Catholic, when all I am doing is tying myself to the Christian tradition (not just back to the Roman Catholic/Protestant split, but to the church catholic, which includes the East and looks back to before the first split and before Constantinianism). I'm still an evangelical (because I agree with the evangelical response to the liberal protestant scholasticism of the 18th and 19th centuries, I just don't think they've gone far enough). I hardly see the ridicule from people on this site to be a sign to convert to Catholicism. Many of the people on the site adhere to a radical evangelicalism known as dispensationalism, which I think is a complete and total foolishness on the part of evangelicals, an attempt to understand the scriptures in their own way, using the same foundational principles as the liberal protestants in the 18th and 19th centuries (and I would consider myself as part of this movement).

The Church of the Nazarene has its own issues, but within the scholarship of the church, within its schools and its seminary, there are some good things happening that help me to see hope for the church.

Roman Catholicism has its own issues, ever since the first Christiandom (which is the height of the church that has been in decline ever since). And now with the New Christendom, the church has found itself helpless in the face of the distortions of the state. The pope no longer holds authority over his people (because his word has been left to the conscience of individual people).

Peace,
Michael

Lighthouse
November 21st, 2005, 09:30 PM
And the lighthouse switches off to let the ship crash on the crags (that is if the lighthouse was really standing on anything at all). You are the ignorant one, because you think that my statement against "protestant liberals" makes me a Roman Catholic. You do realize that the current evangelical movement is a response against the protestant liberals, the liberals who do their scholarship mainly in the mid to late 18th century into the early 19th century. One does not need to be Roman Catholic to be against the protestant liberals.

My qualm with my own tradition (which is evangelical) is that we don't react strongly enough because we still have a foundation in the principles of the liberals (in the Enlightenment), though we are "conservative", which might give us a clue as to the utter absurdity of the two categories "liberal" and "conservative," because ecumenical "conservatives" in the United States are found in the center of the "liberalism" known as the project of the nation-state, with principles grounded in the Enlightenment (principles that are quite liberal).

Your response would be almost commical, if it just weren't so terribly ignorant.

Peace,
Michael
Hold on. Wait a minute. Are you calling me a liberal?

Lighthouse
November 21st, 2005, 09:32 PM
What in the world made you think I thought Jonah was a role model?:liberals:

seekinganswers
November 21st, 2005, 11:02 PM
What in the world made you think I thought Jonah was a role model?:liberals:

By "role-model" I mean that you feel sorry for Jonah, and that you place youself in his position. That is not what the story calls us to do. The story brings us out of Jonah and into the faithful outside of Israel, so that we can see that Israel hasn't been that faithful. Jonah doesn't drive the story, God does.

Peace,
Michael

seekinganswers
November 21st, 2005, 11:14 PM
Hold on. Wait a minute. Are you calling me a liberal?

Yes you are a liberal, and you don't even know it. The philosophical and theological roots for the evangelical brand of protestantism comes from the Niebuhr's and Paul Tillich. If you actually look at what they ground their endeavors in, it is the Enlightenment (which is a liberal response to the monarchy, which would be conservative). You are not a conservative at all when it comes to politics, but are in fact on the left, just not all the way to the left.

That's why I think the two categories of liberal and conservative are simply inappropriate and say nothing in the end. You still ground yourself in the principles and ethics of the Enlightenment and both Democrats and Republicans are given over to the liberal project of the Nation-state.

You are a liberal and you don't know it, because you don't know where the ideas you have been taught come from. In the last few years I have been influenced by a professor who studied under Stanley Haurwas. Now Haurwas comes in the line of Barth, and is a strong voice in the Radical Orthodoxy in the Evangelical world. Barth falls along the line of the Niebuhr's and Tillich, but in fact goes much further than they do, because they will denounce the liberal protestantism of the 19th and 20th centuries, but they continue to ground themselves in the mythology of the Enlightenment. Barth goes further.

Now Bonhoeffer may have been in the mix had Bonhoeffer not been put to death in WWII. But this is the response to the prostenant liberals as a whole, of which the evangelical movement is only a part. But the evangelicals continue to ground themselves in the liberal foundation of the Enlightenment.

Peace,
Michael

Lighthouse
November 21st, 2005, 11:25 PM
1] If you think you know what I believe, you're off your rocker. Of course, I've thought you were off you rocker for quite some time.
2] I am an ultra-conservative, so much so that I hate the state of the US. The only positive I can find is that I have the freedom to state my mind. There isn't even a political party that I would support, because none of them are conservative enough for my tastes, and none of them support God's plan for governing authority.:nono: I support God's plan for a monarchy, you dolt. And if you had any substance as a human being you would have investigated my position by reading my other posts. And what makes you think I buy into "Enlightenment?"

Knight
November 21st, 2005, 11:32 PM
Ummm..... Docrob? Post #44 when you get a chance. :)

chrysostom
November 22nd, 2005, 02:58 AM
I just think its funny that I'm accused of being a Roman Catholic, when all I am doing is tying myself to the Christian tradition (not just back to the Roman Catholic/Protestant split, but to the church catholic, which includes the East and looks back to before the first split and before Constantinianism). I'm still an evangelical (because I agree with the evangelical response to the liberal protestant scholasticism of the 18th and 19th centuries, I just don't think they've gone far enough). I hardly see the ridicule from people on this site to be a sign to convert to Catholicism. Many of the people on the site adhere to a radical evangelicalism known as dispensationalism, which I think is a complete and total foolishness on the part of evangelicals, an attempt to understand the scriptures in their own way, using the same foundational principles as the liberal protestants in the 18th and 19th centuries (and I would consider myself as part of this movement).

The Church of the Nazarene has its own issues, but within the scholarship of the church, within its schools and its seminary, there are some good things happening that help me to see hope for the church.

Roman Catholicism has its own issues, ever since the first Christiandom (which is the height of the church that has been in decline ever since). And now with the New Christendom, the church has found itself helpless in the face of the distortions of the state. The pope no longer holds authority over his people (because his word has been left to the conscience of individual people).

Peace,
Michael
I believe you are on the right side of wrong if that makes any sense.
Wouldn’t you agree that the evangelical movement is a big step back to the Catholic Church even though it is not your intention?
Why do you say the pope no longer has authority? The pope today has the same authority that was given to Peter.

seekinganswers
November 22nd, 2005, 01:32 PM
I believe you are on the right side of wrong if that makes any sense.
Wouldn’t you agree that the evangelical movement is a big step back to the Catholic Church even though it is not your intention?
Why do you say the pope no longer has authority? The pope today has the same authority that was given to Peter.

An authority is no authority at all if it cannot command it. Jesus performs the miracles he performs and the response is, "This man truly has authority." Jesus forgives sins, but he also heals where no one else can. You see, authority cannot simply be a nominal thing. Christ says that Peter will have authority to "loose or bind things in Heaven" whatever he can loose or bind on earth, for he says "whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven", and before that, "the gates of hates will not prevail against you." The authority of Peter is not absolute, for it only has an authority in Heaven in as much as Peter has authority on earth. Now if the pope is seen as nothing more than a figurehead of the church, and has been undermined by the state, I have to ask, where is his authority? How does he have anymore power than the queen of England? Its nothing more than basking in the glory of those who came before. The state has dictated exactly what the Pope can and cannot do. You know what Peter did when the Roman Empire tried to command that kind of authority it had over him? He died on a cross, and the same authority that Christ held on the cross was the authority he held over his brothers and sisters, who would take the obedience he held unto death and look to Christ and know that Peter was the one with authority in his crucifixion and not Rome, for Peter has declared in his crucifixion that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of God." You see Peter's confession of Christ was only made true in his willingness to die with Christ (because you will find that in the following passage Peter is very ignorant about what he himself had said). It is not until he is willing to go the way of death with Christ that confession will be true and that his action on earth will be bound in Heaven.

Later on in Matthew Jesus makes this statement about binding and loosing once again and says it unto all of the disciples. And here the authority is found not in the individual (Peter) but in the gathering. "Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask it will be done for you by my Father in Heaven. For where two or three gather in my name I am there with them." The Pope is not the locus of God's action in the world, but only where there are people gathered in Christ's name. Now I am not trying to deny the Pope's authority over those who gather with him, but to say that the Pope has authority over an invisible "world-wide" church, a mystical body of Christ, that is where I have problems. Because the gathering cannot and should not be made invisible (unless you want to give in to the state). For the Catholics it is almost as if the gathering has become simply a sign of an inward reality (kind of like the Eucharist has become for us protestant evangelicals), and not important as a real practice. The gathering isn't important in itself, but becomes a sign of the individual Christian's participation and membership to an invisible body known as the "Body of Christ," yet no one gathers for it. What becomes more important is the magic performed on the stage (which one cannot participate in fully).

You are right in hearing the return to catholicity in the evangelical movement in what I am saying (though I don't know if it can be stated in such an all-inclusive way as you have put it, for I don't think that all people in the movement of evangelicals would see themselves as moving towards catholicity, Pat Robertson, for example). I am not trying to move to the present Catholic Church, but I am trying to remember the life of the church in its early years, thus finding myself in unity with the current Catholic tradition, even though I do not blindly follow everything the Catholic Church says. I cannot cease to be a member of the church, as long as Baptism is not something that a priest does, but is what God proclaims about me. Even in the Roman Catholic Church, baptism must be recognized if it is done by a Christian in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Ghost, and in water. That is because the church does not control baptism, but is called to baptize (every member of the church has that calling, though it is not recommended that all go out and start baptizing left and right). Now you can try to say that I was baptized by an infidel, but I know the one who baptized me, and his life is dedicated to the service of Christ. Even Jesus' disciples were faced with this question when they found others performing miracles in Christ's name, who were not a part of them, and Christ told them, "whoever is not against us is for us." So I am a baptized Christian, a member of a gathering of people who gather in the name of Christ, and I have not forsaken that.

Now the question is whether you are willing to accept that or not. Do you agree with Christ that "whoever is not against us is for us"? If you do, then to call me an infidel, and to tell me to stop is in direct violation of what Christ has said. We are not fighting one another; we are just not seeing the same cause that unites us. I follow Christ and you follow Christ and we are one in as much as we are willing to be one, living in the peace of Christ that he has given to us in his very example. When I say "peace" I mean it. It's not just a filler word.

Peace be unto you from our Lord, Jesus Christ,
Michael

chrysostom
November 23rd, 2005, 03:59 AM
Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and that is where his authority ends. The pope does not and should not have any authority over the state. He does exert a moral influence as has been demonstrated and that is good. To get to heaven we need only listen to what the pope says because even if he is wrong and he can be, what he says will be honored in heaven and that’s the way it is.

seekinganswers
November 23rd, 2005, 09:05 AM
Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and that is where his authority ends. The pope does not and should not have any authority over the state. He does exert a moral influence as has been demonstrated and that is good. To get to heaven we need only listen to what the pope says because even if he is wrong and he can be, what he says will be honored in heaven and that’s the way it is.

Then why did Peter go to his death on the cross? I'm not saying that the pope should control the coercive forces of the state, but that the pope rules by a power that is much more powerful than the coersion used by the state. The state controls the bodies of its members through violence. "We have the power to take your life!" is what rulers say to their subordinates. Because the state has the power to take life, it thinks it has "real" power. But the power of God is not what the state tries to enforce in its members, and, in fact, the power of the state is completely undermined in Christ, for God raises the dead.

Peter's power in gaining the keys of Heaven was very much wrapped up in his confession of Jesus as the "Christ, the Son of God" in the same way that the church has its power in its confession of Jesus as the Christ (those who gather in his name). Peter does not have the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven if he does not live as a subject of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is an established reign of God, under the lordship of Christ, lived out among the members of the real Body of Christ, i.e. the church. So when Peter denies Christ's death, that Jesus must go to the cross, Peter is the adversary of Christ (Satan) not his fellow coworker in the Kingdom. Peter does not gain the power the Kingdom until he goes to his death on a cross, and then he gains the power of the witness, the testimony to Christ, which empowers the church to live faithfully in the midst of a world that would like to destroy the church.

We currently live (and have always lived) in a world that is trying to destroy the church, because the world wants to relegate the church entirely to an invisible realm found within the individual, and will not submit to the reign of Christ on the Earth. You do realize that your model for the pope's infuence over the members of the church is a very recent occurance in the Catholic Church under the model of New Christendom? This was the attempt by the Catholic Church to deal with the rise of the secular fascist, communist, and democratic nation-states in Europe. Instead of separating the church from the coersive powers of the state and allowing it to survive in Europe, however, it disembodied the church altogether so that the church was no longer a body that stood in witness to Christ and that resisted the coersive powers of the state, but was instead a helpless invisible union (kinda like a club) that could do nothing but stand back and watch as the state individuated and totured its members into submission in the state (look at Chile under Pinochet, and you will find how effective your model of the pope is). The church as an invisible body is helpless. That is why we have no power to bind or loose things until we come together in the name of Christ, visible in this world. The martyrs are our witnesses to Christ, and they empower us to live faithfully to Christ in this world. Bonhoeffer is a good martyr in this respect, because of what he does in the church in Germany during WWII while his contemporaries speak out but flee in the face of Hitler. Bonhoeffer stays, so that his critique of the church stands firm and he can lead the members of the church in faithfulness to Christ even in the face of such drastic evil.

This is the church, and it is in the line of Peter, who in wanting to witness to Christ faithfully, is willing to hand himself over to death, so that the members of the church will be empowered to live faithfully in the midst of an idolatrous world.

Peace,
Michael

Lighthouse
November 23rd, 2005, 08:17 PM
chrysostom-
The Pope was never given authority by God. And, actually, Peter wasn't given the type of authority you seem to think he was. He was not made to be head of the church. Christ is the Rock on which the church was built, for Christ is the Truth, and Truth is the foundation. When Christ called Peter a rock, He used the word "petros," which is the Greek word for pebble. Then, He said He would build His church upon the "petra," which means boulder, and it also means Truth. Jesus was speaking of the Truth, which is what, as I said, the church is built on. And, by the way, Peter was married. If Peter was the first Pope, why are Popes, and Priests, and Nuns not supposed to be married?

Charity
November 23rd, 2005, 08:27 PM
I refuse to worship the Pope
But will gather in the name of Christ.

Hi lighthouse here's that t I owe you

charity

Lighthouse
November 23rd, 2005, 08:45 PM
Hi lighthouse here's that t I owe you
:chuckle:

seekinganswers
November 23rd, 2005, 11:16 PM
chrysostom-
The Pope was never given authority by God. And, actually, Peter wasn't given the type of authority you seem to think he was. He was not made to be head of the church. Christ is the Rock on which the church was built, for Christ is the Truth, and Truth is the foundation. When Christ called Peter a rock, He used the word "petros," which is the Greek word for pebble. Then, He said He would build His church upon the "petra," which means boulder, and it also means Truth. Jesus was speaking of the Truth, which is what, as I said, the church is built on. And, by the way, Peter was married. If Peter was the first Pope, why are Popes, and Priests, and Nuns not supposed to be married?

You, Lighthouse, have no idea what you're talking about. Petras in my Analytical Greek Lexicon does not at all mean truth. It has two distinct uses in the New Testament, as foundation stone or as a piece of a stone. Peter's name does not mean pebble, but is a proper name quite common in the first century Rome, and it is a word distinctly related to the word petras. Their root is very much the same. To make a distinction like you do is absurd. Petros means stone and petras is a stone that is part of a foundation, or cornerstone. A stone can be part of the foundation and still be called a stone. Paul himself talks about the foundation of the church being the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cheif cornerstone. Peter is at the foundation whether you like it or not.

As far as Peter being succeeded by single successors, this is a no-brainer. Apostolic succession cannot come by birth. That would be absurd (like the succession of kings!). So the appointing of Bishops and Priests and Nuns has nothing to do with whether they are the blood relative of the previous so-and-so. Even protestant denominations understand the appointing of leaders in this way. The one who follows leadership must pay heed to his or her successor in some way. They are not simply placed there to forget everything that came before (although sometimes I wonder in evangelical circles). The one who comes after will somehow continue in the glory or infamy of the one who came before, and will have to build off of that foundation (and if one does not lead in this way, they will be very poor leaders).

And now for my critique of my own tradition: why is it that pastors must be married? It is the bane of my existance as I pursuit ordination. People assume I'm getting married. My former pastor's wife asked me when I was going Seminar whether I had a wife lined up or not. It is sickening to me and wrong, because it appears that single men in the church are relegated to youth ministry until they get married (or even while their married) until they work their way up to senior pastor. And there are many other things I could critique of my own tradition, but I will save those for now, seeing how I was simply responding in kind to your absurd question about Catholic leaders being single.

Peace,
Michael

Charity
November 24th, 2005, 12:56 AM
[QUOTE=seekinganswers]You, Lighthouse, have no idea what you're talking about. [
seekinganswers great interesting posts you have.

But Dats wayyyyy to angry !!!!!!!!

charity

chrysostom
November 24th, 2005, 02:21 AM
I hereby give thanks that I have Michael to fight by battles. I will sit back and relax and watch.

Charity
November 24th, 2005, 02:34 AM
Oh Yerrrr is Dat da way its gonna be?

chrysostom
November 24th, 2005, 03:42 AM
We do not worship the pope. And that's the way it is

Charity
November 24th, 2005, 03:58 AM
To get to heaven we need only listen to what the pope says because even if he is wrong and he can be, what he says will be honored in heaven and that’s the way it is.

sorry Dats bad bad bad !!!!!!
I prefer to follow christ to get to heaven.
Thanks anyway

chrysostom
November 24th, 2005, 04:05 AM
How do you follow Christ?

Charity
November 24th, 2005, 04:47 AM
How do you follow Christ?
Come as you are!
The basic start is
Worship is to give attention to
Stop doing evil ( evil is revenge, defending ourselves,
starts in the heart so there you find it before it bears fruit.
Each time you resist temptation to revenge you die day by day
understanding is to depart from evil .
Doing this you become a peace maker, at a cost (carring your cross)

charity

chrysostom
November 24th, 2005, 04:54 AM
Ok but do we have to suffer?

Charity
November 24th, 2005, 05:10 AM
Ok but do we have to suffer?
Parable of the seeds
Some are excited and start there walk and soon the suffering gets to much and they turn back
But if you keep going your suffering becomes rejoicing when we see the changes inside,
we can change the out side but it is only the power of God that can change the inside
So therfore I rejoice in your suffering for i know what is coming after

charity

chrysostom
November 24th, 2005, 05:30 AM
blessed are those who suffer

Charity
November 24th, 2005, 05:35 AM
blessed are those who suffer
:first:

Lighthouse
November 27th, 2005, 04:23 PM
You, Lighthouse, have no idea what you're talking about. Petras in my Analytical Greek Lexicon does not at all mean truth. It has two distinct uses in the New Testament, as foundation stone or as a piece of a stone. Peter's name does not mean pebble, but is a proper name quite common in the first century Rome, and it is a word distinctly related to the word petras. Their root is very much the same. To make a distinction like you do is absurd. Petros means stone and petras is a stone that is part of a foundation, or cornerstone. A stone can be part of the foundation and still be called a stone. Paul himself talks about the foundation of the church being the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cheif cornerstone. Peter is at the foundation whether you like it or not.
Either way Christ was referring to Himself as the Petras on which the church would be built, not Peter.


As far as Peter being succeeded by single successors, this is a no-brainer. Apostolic succession cannot come by birth. That would be absurd (like the succession of kings!). So the appointing of Bishops and Priests and Nuns has nothing to do with whether they are the blood relative of the previous so-and-so. Even protestant denominations understand the appointing of leaders in this way. The one who follows leadership must pay heed to his or her successor in some way. They are not simply placed there to forget everything that came before (although sometimes I wonder in evangelical circles). The one who comes after will somehow continue in the glory or infamy of the one who came before, and will have to build off of that foundation (and if one does not lead in this way, they will be very poor leaders).
Knock knock, sa. Christ is the High Priest. There is no succession. There is only the downward authority. And the Pope has no role, because the papacy is treated as though it were the role of God Himself. It isn't. Only God has the authority to make rules and regulations, and to recant His word. No one else has that authority, especially not the Pope.

And what are you smoking that made you think I thought church leadership should be by birthright? As you can see below, God doesn't care whether church leaders are single or married, and neither should we.


And now for my critique of my own tradition: why is it that pastors must be married? It is the bane of my existance as I pursuit ordination. People assume I'm getting married. My former pastor's wife asked me when I was going Seminar whether I had a wife lined up or not. It is sickening to me and wrong, because it appears that single men in the church are relegated to youth ministry until they get married (or even while their married) until they work their way up to senior pastor. And there are many other things I could critique of my own tradition, but I will save those for now, seeing how I was simply responding in kind to your absurd question about Catholic leaders being single.

Peace,
Michael
I don't care if a pastor is single or not. Paul was single. Peter wasn't. As you can see, God didn't care. And neither should we.

seekinganswers
November 27th, 2005, 10:33 PM
Either way Christ was referring to Himself as the Petras on which the church would be built, not Peter.

That's interesting, but what is your support for such an interpretation? Jesus gives no indication that he is speaking of himself at this point. You have a nice theory but no support for that theory.


Knock knock, sa. Christ is the High Priest. There is no succession. There is only the downward authority. And the Pope has no role, because the papacy is treated as though it were the role of God Himself. It isn't. Only God has the authority to make rules and regulations, and to recant His word. No one else has that authority, especially not the Pope.

There is a hierarchy of authority in the church whether you like it or not. We do not have Christ who sits on his earthly throne to sit over us and tell us what to do (and if you are going to proclaim an invisible Christ in Heaven who rules over each one individually I just have to laugh, because there is a different Christ for each person, and people will make Christ into whomever they want him to be). Christ does not reign invisibly but in the visible witness of the church (leaders and all). The Pope rules over a gathering of people who follow Christ in this world and that gives him an authority over them (along with the bishops and cardinals and priests under the pope). And I can assure you that he and they are probably more faithful to the gathering than many pastors are within the evangelical tradition. But the pope and those under him are not the visible rulers of the invisible body; they are the rulers of those who gather with them. Since I do not gather with the pope or those under him I am subject to a different authority (that authority being the chain of leadership in the Nazarene Church). That leadership is ordained of God just as the pope and those under him are called to orders. And they have authority from Christ to rule over us. The pope is not God (and has never made any such claim). The pope speaks for the church (to give it a catholic [i.e. universal] sense) so that the church might be protected from heresy and division. The pope only loses that authority when he tries to use it for a different end. The problem with evangelicals is that they have lost any sense of catholicity, so that instead of listening to the pope who enforces his rule with the coercive powers of the state, they, instead, listen to George Barna with his capitalistic marketing strategies for the church. Both are extremes, and both are quite distorted.


And what are you smoking that made you think I thought church leadership should be by birthright? As you can see below, God doesn't care whether church leaders are single or married, and neither should we. I don't care if a pastor is single or not. Paul was single. Peter wasn't. As you can see, God didn't care. And neither should we.

Just because say it is this way does not mean that it is this way!

Peace,
Michael

docrob57
November 29th, 2005, 11:56 AM
Why?

Because God has perfect knowledge of the past and present, and, as Creator, perfect knowledge of causality, accordingly, by definition, he must have perfect exhaustive foreknowledge. If you would rather think of this as a perfect ability to predict the future, I have no problem with that, I would argue that the 2 are the same.



The Bible is filled with stories that describe a conditional future.

The Bible is filled with stories of God displaying He knows everything knowable.

The Bible is filled with stories of God knowing our intentions.

The Bible does not describe or define God as having exhaustive foreknowledge.

On the contrary... it is us that are flawed! God simply reacts to our flaws in a perfect and majestic way.

I hate to do this but I must hold your feet to the fire.... I asked you if you believed in a conditional future and you haven't answered.

Is the future conditional for God? (in any way whatsoever)

I would think so. I would only argue that God knows how to act in such a way as to guide the course of human events in the direction He desires.

Knight
November 29th, 2005, 12:07 PM
I would think so. I would only argue that God knows how to act in such a way as to guide the course of human events in the direction He desires.Are you actually arguing that the future is BOTH settled and conditional from God's perspective? :shocked:

docrob57
November 29th, 2005, 12:12 PM
Are you actually arguing that the future is BOTH settled and conditional from God's perspective? :shocked:

I am not arguing that the future is settled. I have no idea, and truthfully don't care. I am arguing that God knows what the future is regardless of whether or not it is settled.

I do think that time is more complex than we think. I am studying that a bit.

I will say this, and hopefully this will not make you mad, because I do not intend it too. But I think all of this focus on the sellted/unsettled etc. does not do much to further the cause of Christ. I used to enjoy the BEL TV show much more than the more recent programming (though I often like that too) because he would not deal with theological issues and instead concentrated on winning the lost. I would like to see that emphasis restored.

Sozo
November 29th, 2005, 12:15 PM
I am not arguing that the future is settled. I have no idea, and truthfully don't care. I am arguing that God knows what the future is regardless of whether or not it is settled.


Based on that statement, it would have to be settled to God, even if it is not for you.

Would you agree?

docrob57
November 29th, 2005, 12:38 PM
Based on that statement, it would have to be settled to God, even if it is not for you.

Would you agree?

It depends on what you mean by "settled."

Sozo
November 29th, 2005, 12:39 PM
It depends on what you mean by "settled."

What did you mean by it when you said it?

docrob57
November 29th, 2005, 12:51 PM
What did you mean by it when you said it?

My understanding is that the term means that things must happen a certain way, or that the future events actually have happened, or are happening now, which I think is argued by some.

The future could be settled from God's standpoint, but I truthfully don't have an opinion on it. I do beleive that God knows who will be saved and who will not, from before their birth. I don't know if this is the same as "predestination," I tend to think that it is not.

Knight
November 29th, 2005, 12:58 PM
I am not arguing that the future is settled. I have no idea, and truthfully don't care. I am arguing that God knows what the future is regardless of whether or not it is settled.If God knows the future exhaustively how can it not be settled?

In this case "settled" would mean that there is nothing in God's foreknowledge about the future that isn't settled, He knows it all (exhaustively) isn't that what you believe?


I do think that time is more complex than we think. I am studying that a bit.

I will say this, and hopefully this will not make you mad, because I do not intend it too. But I think all of this focus on the sellted/unsettled etc. does not do much to further the cause of Christ. I used to enjoy the BEL TV show much more than the more recent programming (though I often like that too) because he would not deal with theological issues and instead concentrated on winning the lost. I would like to see that emphasis restored.With all due respect I didn't start this thread.

Please don't challenge me in a thread and then later tell me all of this doesn't help the cause of Christ when you struggle to defend yourself.

I am not mad, I love talking about this stuff, but I do get a bit testy when you say stuff like you have now.

docrob57
November 29th, 2005, 01:07 PM
If God knows the future exhaustively how can it not be settled?

In this case "settled" would mean that there is nothing in God's foreknowledge about the future that isn't settled, He knows it all (exhaustively) isn't that what you believe?

With all due respect I didn't start this thread.

Please don't challenge me in a thread and then later tell me all of this doesn't help the cause of Christ when you struggle to defend yourself.

I am not mad, I love talking about this stuff, but I do get a bit testy when you say stuff like you have now.

I don't struggle to defend myself at all. I and numerous others have explained numerous times why foreknowledge is necessarily not the same as settled, at least, as Sozo suggests, from our perspective. I guess I keep trying to deal with this issue in hopes that I will understand why it is important. As yet I have not. But you are right, I did start the thread, so my remark was not appropriate.

Do you feel that you and the other DBC members have perfect understanding of God and Christian theology?

Knight
November 29th, 2005, 01:10 PM
I don't struggle to defend myself at all. I and numerous others have explained numerous times why foreknowledge is necessarily not the same as settled, at least, as Sozo suggests, from our perspective. I guess I keep trying to deal with this issue in hopes that I will understand why it is important. As yet I have not. But you are right, I did start the thread, so my remark was not appropriate.I have been clear all along that I am referring to the future from God's persepctive (not ours).

Is the future settled from God's perspective OR is the future unsettled and conditional. It cannot logically be both. So please tell me which it is in your best estimation based on what you believe.


Do you feel that you and the other DBC members have perfect understanding of God and Christian theology?No.

Knight
November 29th, 2005, 01:36 PM
Let's keep in mind that this entire line of questioning started when docrob said...
This states quite clearly that prophecies such as that you quote are conditional, they will occur only in the absense of repentance. You either are incapable of understanding this, which I don't beleive to be true, or you simply don't want to see the implication here. The ONLY way God's prohesy through Jonah could be unfulfilled is if the people did not repent and they were not destroyed.Clearly doc you were appealing to an unsettled - conditional future when you typed the above paragraph.

And that is why we are where we are in this thread.

You have appealed to a unsettled - conditional future from God's perspective YET your theology relies entirely on a NON-conditional, settled future from God's perspective.

It's time to jump off that fence docrob, what's it gonna be?

docrob57
November 29th, 2005, 02:58 PM
Let's keep in mind that this entire line of questioning started when docrob said...Clearly doc you were appealing to an unsettled - conditional future when you typed the above paragraph.

And that is why we are where we are in this thread.

You have appealed to a unsettled - conditional future from God's perspective YET your theology relies entirely on a NON-conditional, settled future from God's perspective.

It's time to jump off that fence docrob, what's it gonna be?

No time for a thorough response now. I have seen nothing whatsoever, including the Battle Royale, that would lead me to accept the open view. So I am not on the fence with respect to that. Beyond that, I will have to reply more later.

Knight
November 29th, 2005, 03:11 PM
I have seen nothing whatsoever, including the Battle Royale, that would lead me to accept the open view.That isn't really the topic is it?

Can you please try to stay on track?

When you have time....

Please directly respond to my question I asked earlier....

Is the future settled from God's perspective OR is the future unsettled and conditional. It cannot logically be both. So please tell me which it is in your best estimation based on what you believe.

docrob57
November 29th, 2005, 03:33 PM
That isn't really the topic is it?

Can you please try to stay on track?

When you have time....

Please directly respond to my question I asked earlier....

Is the future settled from God's perspective OR is the future unsettled and conditional. It cannot logically be both. So please tell me which it is in your best estimation based on what you believe.

Actually it can, but I will get to that later. In the meantime, since we are asking for reponses, please render your opinion on this:


Because God has perfect knowledge of the past and present, and, as Creator, perfect knowledge of causality, accordingly, by definition, he must have perfect exhaustive foreknowledge. If you would rather think of this as a perfect ability to predict the future, I have no problem with that, I would argue that the 2 are the same.

Knight
November 29th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Actually it can, but I will get to that later.I have been waiting for some time now for you to take a stab at this. When do you think your going to take a shot at it? And why are you waiting so long to respond to it?


....since we are asking for reponses, please render your opinion on this:It seems to be a bit of a non-statement if you ask me.

What would you like me to comment on?

Assuming God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge it doesn't matter how He gets it i.e., through perfect knowledge of causality or whatever, the bottom line is IF God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge the future is settled and NOT conditional. How can you possibly argue against that?

Now... I seem to keep responding directly to you but you seem to never respond directly to me. :think:

Please respond directly to...

Is the future settled from God's perspective? OR is the future unsettled and conditional? Logically it cannot be both. So please tell me which it is in your best estimation based on what you believe.

docrob57
November 29th, 2005, 04:57 PM
I have been waiting for some time now for you to take a stab at this. When do you think your going to take a shot at it? And why are you waiting so long to respond to it?

It seems to be a bit of a non-statement if you ask me.

What would you like me to comment on?

Assuming God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge it doesn't matter how He gets it i.e., through perfect knowledge of causality or whatever, the bottom line is IF God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge the future is settled and NOT conditional. How can you possibly argue against that?

Now... I seem to keep responding directly to you but you seem to never respond directly to me. :think:

Please respond directly to...

Is the future settled from God's perspective? OR is the future unsettled and conditional? Logically it cannot be both. So please tell me which it is in your best estimation based on what you believe.

God knows the future perfectly. If that makes it settled so be it. I contend that God knows what the future will be, but that it is a future that could have been worked out differently had different choices been made.

I do not think that settled vs. conditional is a legitimate set of opposites. In fact, I am really not sure that the question "is the future conditional" is a legitimate question? Conditioned on what? is a question that I think that would need to be answered before proceding along that line.

You folks always like to resort to "how could you possibly believe that" as if that demonstrates something. The question really is not whether the future is settled, but whether people have a free will. To this I would say yes, though I am sure you don't know how I could possibly think that since I contend and have pretty well demonstrated to those capable of understanding the demonstration that God has perfect foreknowledge.

Lighthouse
November 29th, 2005, 04:59 PM
Let me get this straight...
Those who believe God knows exactly what is going to happen in the future say that OVers are limiting God, all the while believing God to be impotent to stop bad things from happening.:think:

docrob57
November 29th, 2005, 05:02 PM
Let me get this straight...
Those who believe God knows exactly what is going to happen in the future say that OVers are limiting God, all the while believing God to be impotent to stop bad things from happening.:think:

Who ever says that God is impotent to stop bad things? Many times He does not want to. This is why the failure to give God's sovereignty its proper place is such a serious problem for the OVers. All 20 of them!

Lighthouse
November 29th, 2005, 05:10 PM
God is sovereign. I know that. But to believe God delegates child molestation, or has known that it was going to happen since before He created the Earth, shows that one does not know, or understand God's character. The only way God is powerless to stop something is if He doesn't know it's going to happen. And that falls into the idea that God is sovereign.

Knight
November 29th, 2005, 05:25 PM
I do not think that settled vs. conditional is a legitimate set of opposites. In fact, I am really not sure that the question "is the future conditional" is a legitimate question? Conditioned on what? is a question that I think that would need to be answered before proceding along that line.Doc, your wearing me out. I didn't bring up the conditional future argument - YOU DID! :D Remember?

I am simply showing you that if the future is conditional upon future events then the future CANNOT be settled because it is reliant upon the yet-to-be-determined-conditional events. Get the point?

If you would like to acknowledge now that the future is NOT conditional I will consider it a victory and remind you every time in the future when you bring up "conditional prophecy" as you did early in this thread.

docrob57
November 30th, 2005, 12:07 PM
Doc, your wearing me out. I didn't bring up the conditional future argument - YOU DID! :D Remember?

I am simply showing you that if the future is conditional upon future events then the future CANNOT be settled because it is reliant upon the yet-to-be-determined-conditional events. Get the point?

If you would like to acknowledge now that the future is NOT conditional I will consider it a victory and remind you every time in the future when you bring up "conditional prophecy" as you did early in this thread.

You guys consider virtually everything a victory. Yes, the future is conditional (as best as I understand what you mean by that). Yes God knows exactly what will happen. He interacts with man to bring about the outcome that he knows will happen. He needs to do this because man does have a free will.

And you aren't the first person I've worn out. Just ask my ex-wife. :)

Knight
November 30th, 2005, 01:48 PM
Yes, the future is conditionalConditional upon what?

Lighthouse
November 30th, 2005, 07:28 PM
You guys consider virtually everything a victory. Yes, the future is conditional (as best as I understand what you mean by that). Yes God knows exactly what will happen. He interacts with man to bring about the outcome that he knows will happen. He needs to do this because man does have a free will.

And you aren't the first person I've worn out. Just ask my ex-wife. :)
Hold on. God knows exactly what will happen in a conditional future, and he interacts with us to bring about what he knows will happen, therefore making it happen, but we have a choice?:dizzy:

Can you explain this to me: For God to know what will happen, He has to see it, correct? And to see it, it has to exist somewhere, correct? And if it already exists it's already happened. And if it's already happened, then we will do exactly what has already happened. Therefore we can't do anything other than what has already happened, aka what we've already done. So we've done it, before we've done it. We've already made the choice before we even knew of the possibility of the choice. IS that what you're saying? Because it would have to be that wya for what you say to be correct. And so where does it exist? How long has it existed? How many times has it happened? How many times will it continue to happen?:dizzy:

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 10:45 AM
Conditional upon what?

Okay, let's step back because this is getting silly. My purpose in this thread, to which you have frequently referred, is to challenge the idea that God has ever made false or unfulfilled prophecies. An idea which I frankly consider blasphemous. Your argument is that God has done this because, as in the case of Jonah, God said that Nineveh would be destroyed and it was not. My argument is that this is an overly restrictive view of the prophesy in that here and elsewhere, the implication is that if the object of the prophesy repents, the punishment will not be carried out. This is the conditional part. To point out that a statement did not prove literally true, such as in Jonah, is an unfulfilled prophesy only if we ignore the conditional nature of the statement.

That is how I brought the idea of "conditional" into the conversation. How this translates into the question "is the future conditional" I don't know. Ultimately it is not, but this does not mean that God will not act in a given way based on what he knows will be the reaction of the person(s) acted upon. To that extent, I am sure there are "conditional" events out there, just as there were in Biblical times.

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 10:59 AM
Hold on. God knows exactly what will happen in a conditional future, and he interacts with us to bring about what he knows will happen, therefore making it happen, but we have a choice?:dizzy:

Can you explain this to me: For God to know what will happen, He has to see it, correct? And to see it, it has to exist somewhere, correct? And if it already exists it's already happened. And if it's already happened, then we will do exactly what has already happened. Therefore we can't do anything other than what has already happened, aka what we've already done. So we've done it, before we've done it. We've already made the choice before we even knew of the possibility of the choice. IS that what you're saying? Because it would have to be that wya for what you say to be correct. And so where does it exist? How long has it existed? How many times has it happened? How many times will it continue to happen?:dizzy:

I can understand why you would be dizzy, given your limited comprehension of the concepts we are discussing. :chuckle: Just kidding.

No, my argument for many moons is that God does NOT have to "see it" to know what will happen. I addressed that earlier in this thread and many times in other threads. That really addresses all of the other questions as well.

Delmar
December 1st, 2005, 11:03 AM
Okay, let's step back because this is getting silly. My purpose in this thread, to which you have frequently referred, is to challenge the idea that God has ever made false or unfulfilled prophecies. An idea which I frankly consider blasphemous. Your argument is that God has done this because, as in the case of Jonah, God said that Nineveh would be destroyed and it was not. My argument is that this is an overly restrictive view of the prophesy in that here and elsewhere, the implication is that if the object of the prophesy repents, the punishment will not be carried out. This is the conditional part. To point out that a statement did not prove literally true, such as in Jonah, is an unfulfilled prophesy only if we ignore the conditional nature of the statement.

That is how I brought the idea of "conditional" into the conversation. How this translates into the question "is the future conditional" I don't know. Ultimately it is not, but this does not mean that God will not act in a given way based on what he knows will be the reaction of the person(s) acted upon. To that extent, I am sure there are "conditional" events out there, just as there were in Biblical times.
In the last Battle Royale Bob Referred to these conditional statements as Non- prophesies. Does that term work better for you?

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 11:08 AM
In the last Battle Royale Bob Referred to these conditional statements as Non- prophesies. Does that term work better for you?

Maybe, tell me more about it. I stopped reading the battle about halfway through.

Delmar
December 1st, 2005, 11:20 AM
Maybe, tell me more about it. I stopped reading the battle about halfway through. You are the one with the PHD. Please don't make me read it again so I can try to explain it to you! :D If I find the post and link it will that work for you?

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 11:21 AM
You are the one with the PHD. Please don't make me read it again so I can try to explain it to you! :D If I find the ost and link it will that work for you?

Yes wise guy. :)

Knight
December 1st, 2005, 11:33 AM
Okay, let's step back because this is getting silly. My purpose in this thread, to which you have frequently referred, is to challenge the idea that God has ever made false or unfulfilled prophecies. An idea which I frankly consider blasphemous. Your argument is that God has done this because, as in the case of Jonah, God said that Nineveh would be destroyed and it was not. My argument is that this is an overly restrictive view of the prophesy in that here and elsewhere, the implication is that if the object of the prophesy repents, the punishment will not be carried out. This is the conditional part. To point out that a statement did not prove literally true, such as in Jonah, is an unfulfilled prophesy only if we ignore the conditional nature of the statement.

That is how I brought the idea of "conditional" into the conversation. How this translates into the question "is the future conditional" I don't know. Ultimately it is not, but this does not mean that God will not act in a given way based on what he knows will be the reaction of the person(s) acted upon. To that extent, I am sure there are "conditional" events out there, just as there were in Biblical times.You are one of the best question avoiders I have ever met. :)

Let me summarize what you are trying to say and you can agree or disagree or clarify if you like OK?

I think you believe....
The future IS NOT conditional from God's perspective, yet it appears conditional from man's perspective. The future cannot actually be conditional in reality because the future is settled in God's mind.

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 11:38 AM
You are one of the best question avoiders I have ever met. :)

Let me summarize what you are trying to say and you can agree or disagree or clarify if you like OK?

I think you believe....
The future IS NOT conditional from God's perspective, yet it appears conditional from man's perspective. The future cannot actually be conditional in reality because the future is settled in God's mind.

I guess, but I like this "non-prophesy" idea that dear delmar brought up. Is the idea that statements such as that made through Jonah are really warnings and not meant to be taken as literal predictions? If so, I have no problem with that.

And thanks, perhaps I should run for public office!

Knight
December 1st, 2005, 11:44 AM
I guess, but I like this "non-prophesy" idea that dear delmar brought up. Is the idea that statements such as that made through Jonah are really warnings and not meant to be taken as literal predictions? If so, I have no problem with that.I don't think that the prophecy to Nineveh was a "non-prophecy" do you?

Let's look at what God told Jonah (the prophet) :) to tell Nineveh....

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

Was this prophecy fulfilled? YES or NO?

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 11:46 AM
I don't think that the prophecy to Nineveh was a "non-prophecy" do you?

Let's look at what God told Jonah (the prophet) :) to tell Nineveh....

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

Was this prophecy fulfilled? YES or NO?

I already answered that one, yes it was.

(picturing Knight tearing his hair out)

Knight
December 1st, 2005, 12:07 PM
I already answered that one, yes it was.

(picturing Knight tearing his hair out)Nineveh was not overthrown in 40 days. Where you aware of that? :freak:

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 12:19 PM
Nineveh was not overthrown in 40 days. Where you aware of that? :freak:

I was, and I have already explained why this prophesy was fulfilled at least twice in this thread, and I really don't feel like doing it again.

Delmar
December 1st, 2005, 12:30 PM
I guess, but I like this "non-prophesy" idea that dear delmar brought up. Is the idea that statements such as that made through Jonah are really warnings and not meant to be taken as literal predictions? If so, I have no problem with that.

And thanks, perhaps I should run for public office!

OK I found it in 7B of the battle (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=855042&highlight=non-prophesy#post855042) although it appears that Bob may have introduced the idea earlier than that. It also seems as I glanced at it that Bob was not talking about the same thing we are discussing here. I am sorry if I muddied the water!

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 12:51 PM
OK I found it in 7B of the battle (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=855042&highlight=non-prophesy#post855042) although it appears that Bob may have introduced the idea earlier than that. It also seems as I glanced at it that Bob was not talking about the same thing we are discussing here. I am sorry if I muddied the water!

No problem. The water is pretty muddy as it is. The problem with this whole discussion, in my never humble opinion, is that the OV side wants to force the "opponent" into answering questions on their terms. This is probably a good debate tactic, but it doesn't help lead to any understanding.

Knight asked "Was Nineveh destroyed?" No it wasn't, but (once again, and again, and again) this overlooks the conditional nature of the prophesy, which both he and Mr Enyart and others accept, when convenient. So I really don't accept the relevance of Knight's question. But to answer more completely.

Did Jonah's statement as recorded lliterally come true? No.
Does this mean the prophesy was unfulfilled? No, for reasons too many times stated.

Knight
December 1st, 2005, 01:25 PM
Knight asked "Was Nineveh destroyed?" No it wasn't, but (once again, and again, and again) this overlooks the conditional nature of the prophesy, which both he and Mr Enyart and others accept, when convenient. So I really don't accept the relevance of Knight's question. But to answer more completely.LOL docrob, you are a trip! Let me help you out here...

Us OV'ers accept conditional prohecy! And conditional futures!

Don't act as though we only accept conditional prophecies when convient because that simply is a misrepresentation of the argumnet.

Conditional futures and prophecies are one of open theisms best evidences.

Conversely conditional prophecies and a conditional future is the death nail for the settled view. Logically the future can not hinge upon a yet-to-be-determined event (conditional) and also be settled at the same time.

Let me know if you have anything further you would like to discuss in this thread.

Delmar
December 1st, 2005, 01:47 PM
LOL docrob, you are a trip! Let me help you out here...

Us OV'ers accept conditional prohecy! And conditional futures!

Don't act as though we only accept conditional prophecies when convient because that simply is a misrepresentation of the argumnet.

Conditional futures and prophecies are one of open theisms best evidences.

Conversely conditional prophecies and a conditional future is the death nail for the settled view. Logically the future can not hinge upon a yet-to-be-determined event (conditional) and also be settled at the same time.

Let me know if you have anything further you would like to discuss in this thread.
Thing is I do think that Doc really believes that the future is actually open...
...and still believes God knows it ahead of time!

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 02:17 PM
Thing is I do think that Doc really believes that the future is actually open...
...and still believes God knows it ahead of time!

YES!!! Thank you DD for that clarification. The only stipulation I would make is that I am not sure about the true nature of time, but I am looking into it.

Delmar
December 1st, 2005, 02:26 PM
YES!!! Thank you DD for that clarification. The only stipulation I would make is that I am not sure about the true nature of time, but I am looking into it.
That is to say you are not sure if God perceives things in chronological order?

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 02:39 PM
That is to say you are not sure if God perceives things in chronological order?

No, I am aware of theories in physics suggesting that everything happens simulaneously, so that the future does in fact exist now. This seems counterintuitive, but I am interested in looking into it.

Knight
December 1st, 2005, 02:47 PM
Thing is I do think that Doc really believes that the future is actually open...
...and still believes God knows it ahead of time!All I am trying to show him is a "settled viewer" cannot appeal to a conditional future and remain logically consistant to a settled future.

Which is what he has been trying to in this thread.

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 02:57 PM
All I am trying to show him is a "settled viewer" cannot appeal to a conditional future and remain logically consistant to a settled future.

Which is what he has been trying to in this thread.

Not really, what I was really trying to get to was the foreknowledge thing.

Delmar
December 1st, 2005, 03:23 PM
YES!!! Thank you DD for that clarification. The only stipulation I would make is that I am not sure about the true nature of time, but I am looking into it.
I think part of the reason that we ( the OVers ) and you are butting heads is that we are not able to accept each others termonolgy and it therefore gets confusing as to exactly where the dissagrement lyes.

The core of my disagreement with you, as I see it, is this.

I believe That since the future is truly open it must mean that God does not know all of the future.

You believe that since the future is truly open and since God must know the future, that it must be possible for both to be true.

Is that about right ?

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 03:28 PM
I think part of the reason that we ( the OVers ) and you are butting heads is that we are not able to accept each others termonolgy and it therefore gets confusing as to exactly where the dissagrement lyes.

The core of my disagreement with you, as I see it, is this.

I believe That since the future is truly open it must mean that God does not know all of the future.

You believe that since the future is truly open and since God must know the future, that it must be possible for both to be true.

Is that about right ?

Well, as I have said before, I have no strong opinion on the open v. settled thing.

However, I do contend that the future can be completely open, and God would still know exactly what would happen.

On another matter, I think Calvin gets trashed too much around here. I have not read him, but just skimming the institutes, very little of it deals with election or predestination. I think most of us would agree with most of what Calvin had to say.

Knight
December 1st, 2005, 03:37 PM
Not really, what I was really trying to get to was the foreknowledge thing.That is the same thing.

The entire discussion revolves around God's foreknowledge. Is His foreknowledge complete i.e., settled? Or is His foreknowledge not complete i.e., conditional upon yet to be determined events (unsettled)?

Knight
December 1st, 2005, 03:38 PM
However, I do contend that the future can be completely open, and God would still know exactly what would happen.:hammer:

Delmar
December 1st, 2005, 03:40 PM
Well, as I have said before, I have no strong opinion on the open v. settled thing.

However, I do contend that the future can be completely open, and God would still know exactly what would happen. I'm going to have to agree with Knight that your view is not logically consistant, but I'm sure you are not shocked by that


On another matter, I think Calvin gets trashed too much around here. I have not read him, but just skimming the institutes, very little of it deals with election or predestination. I think most of us would agree with most of what Calvin had to say. If you are saying that Calvanism is not consistant with Calvan I won't yell at you too loud for that!

docrob57
December 1st, 2005, 03:48 PM
I'm going to have to agree with Knight that your view is not logically consistant, but I'm sure you are not shocked by that If you are saying that Calvanism is not consistant with Calvan I won't yell at you too loud for that!

It is logically consistent, however, as yet I have been able to effectively communicate that. If I think of some new way to do it, I will try.

As to Calvin, I am saying that he wrote a whole bunch of theology that has nothing to do with predestination. I also don't think he ever contended that all matters are predestined, only that there is an elect who God foreknows.

Knight
December 1st, 2005, 06:00 PM
It is logically consistent, however, as yet I have been able to effectively communicate that. If I think of some new way to do it, I will try.Attempting to explain that it is logical to draw four sided triangles is futile.

Essentially, that is your dilemma.

The future cannot be BOTH settled and also conditional (reliant upon future yet to be determined events) at the same time. Those two descriptions of the future are logically contradictory to one another.

A conditional future is un-set, a conditional future cannot be set until certain "conditions" are met. If the outcome of these conditions are met then they are no longer conditions at all. When the outcome of conditions are known the "conditions" become reality and the event becomes determined (settled).

A settled future contains no "conditions" since a settled future is reliant upon NO yet to be determined events. A settled future is just that . . . settled.

docrob57
December 2nd, 2005, 09:40 AM
Attempting to explain that it is logical to draw four sided triangles is futile.

Essentially, that is your dilemma.

The future cannot be BOTH settled and also conditional (reliant upon future yet to be determined events) at the same time. Those two descriptions of the future are logically contradictory to one another.

A conditional future is un-set, a conditional future cannot be set until certain "conditions" are met. If the outcome of these conditions are met then they are no longer conditions at all. When the outcome of conditions are known the "conditions" become reality and the event becomes determined (settled).

A settled future contains no "conditions" since a settled future is reliant upon NO yet to be determined events. A settled future is just that . . . settled.

Your dilemma is apparently that you have no idea what I am talking about, since you keep raising irrelevant considerations. Would you like to discuss, or merely go on with this ping pong match thing.

Knight
December 2nd, 2005, 10:08 AM
Your dilemma is apparently that you have no idea what I am talking about, since you keep raising irrelevant considerations. Would you like to discuss, or merely go on with this ping pong match thing.doc we have all been waiting since the start of this thread for you explain how the future can be BOTH conditional AND settled.

The ball is in your court and has been for weeks now.

docrob57
December 2nd, 2005, 10:11 AM
doc we have all been waiting since the start of this thread for you explain how the future can be BOTH conditional AND settled.

The ball is in your court and has been for weeks now.

And I have said for weeks that I don't care. My point in the thread was that God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge regardless of whether the future is settled or not.

Knight
December 2nd, 2005, 03:20 PM
And I have said for weeks that I don't care. My point in the thread was that God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge regardless of whether the future is settled or not.Dude.... :nono:

I think I have learned a valuable lesson in this thread. :think:

docrob57
December 2nd, 2005, 03:34 PM
Dude.... :nono:

I think I have learned a valuable lesson in this thread. :think:

. . .which is?

Knight
December 2nd, 2005, 03:49 PM
. . .which is?Ok... I answer only because you asked.

Doc, I learned that there is no reason for me to invest any time discussing stuff with you because when push comes to shove you tell me you really don't care. Personally I think that is a bit rude and not to mention odd since it was you who started this thread in the first place.

If I challenged you in a thread (like this) and asked you to invest your time responding to me, I would never blow you off like you have me.

docrob57
December 2nd, 2005, 03:54 PM
Ok... I answer only because you asked.

Doc, I learned that there is no reason for me to invest any time discussing stuff with you because when push comes to shove you tell me you really don't care. Personally I think that is a bit rude and not to mention odd since it was you who started this thread in the first place.

If I challenged you in a thread (like this) and asked you to invest your time responding to me, I would never blow you off like you have me.

No, I said I don't care about whether the future is open or closed, which was not the reason I started the thread. I guess the problem is that you see the question of God's foreknowledge as tied up in the open/closed question, whereas I do not.

I think the foreknowledge question is important, because if God does not at least have the ability to predict the future perfectly, then this is a much more severe limitation that I think you realize.

Anyway, sorry if I came off as rude. It wasn't intentional.

Knight
December 2nd, 2005, 04:03 PM
I think the foreknowledge question is important, because if God does not at least have the ability to predict the future perfectly, then this is a much more severe limitation that I think you realize.If God has the ability to predict the future perfectly why doesn't He do just that in every instance?

docrob57
December 2nd, 2005, 04:08 PM
If God has the ability to predict the future perfectly why doesn't He do just that in every instance?


Well, at least we have worked our way around to the beginning again. Okay, do you really believe that God thought He would destroy Nineveh but was mistaken?

Knight
December 2nd, 2005, 05:31 PM
Well, at least we have worked our way around to the beginning again. Okay, do you really believe that God thought He would destroy Nineveh but was mistaken?No.

I believe that God INTENDED to overthrow Nineveh in 40 days, but God repented (changed His mind) because the people of Nineveh repented.

Why do I believe such a silly thing? Well... because that is what the Bible says. :)

Please respond to me directly or this will be the last time I post in this thread....

If God has the ability to predict the future perfectly why doesn't He do that in every instance?

docrob57
December 2nd, 2005, 08:48 PM
No.

I believe that God INTENDED to overthrow Nineveh in 40 days, but God repented (changed His mind) because the people of Nineveh repented.

Why do I believe such a silly thing? Well... because that is what the Bible says. :)

Please respond to me directly or this will be the last time I post in this thread....

If God has the ability to predict the future perfectly why doesn't He do that in every instance?

I'm sorry, I simply can't accept your premise. You asked earlier . . . did I really think this was a "non-prophesy." This is what I think. It was a warning. It was not intended to be a prediction or descriptive statement of a future event. If it was anything other than a warning, if God meant literally what he said, and there was no implied statement, why did Jonah object to delivering the message? And for that matter, why did Nineveh repent?

I think these are legitimate questions. If you do not, feel free not to answer.

But I have to say .... I AM SO HAPPY!!! :):):)

I got a + rep from Bob Enyart :):):):)

(No, not for a post on this thread)

Knight
December 3rd, 2005, 12:11 AM
This is what I think. It was a warning. It was not intended to be a prediction or descriptive statement of a future event.Isn't the entire point of any warning an attempt to change the course of predicted events?

Clearly you don't think God is into idle threats do you?

How could this help your argument?


If it was anything other than a warning, if God meant literally what he said, and there was no implied statement, why did Jonah object to delivering the message? And for that matter, why did Nineveh repent?The implied statement is.... you better repent!

And they did!

That doesn't help your case because you cannot have both a conditional future (dependent on yet to be determined events) and also have a settled future.

In Isaiah God states....

Isaiah 5:2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

If God has exhaustive foreknowledge why was God expecting good grapes from Israel when in reality the produced wild grapes?

docrob57
December 3rd, 2005, 08:52 AM
Isn't the entire point of any warning an attempt to change the course of predicted events?

Clearly you don't think God is into idle threats do you?

How could this help your argument?

The implied statement is.... you better repent!

And they did!

That doesn't help your case because you cannot have both a conditional future (dependent on yet to be determined events) and also have a settled future.

In Isaiah God states....

Isaiah 5:2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

If God has exhaustive foreknowledge why was God expecting good grapes from Israel when in reality the produced wild grapes?

Of course the implied message is you better repent, That is what I have been saying all along. This being the case, how can you call this a "prediction" and if it is, how can you say it didn't "come true."

You are right, there is no point in continuing the discussion. You offer evidence to defeat your argument and then claim victory, as I have said from the beginning. We agree on most things, so that is good.

Knight
December 3rd, 2005, 11:22 AM
Of course the implied message is you better repent, That is what I have been saying all along. This being the case, how can you call this a "prediction" and if it is, how can you say it didn't "come true."The point is it wasn't fulfilled!

When God said...
"Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

He meant it! It wasn't an idle threat as you would have us believe.


You are right, there is no point in continuing the discussion. You offer evidence to defeat your argument and then claim victory, as I have said from the beginning. We agree on most things, so that is good. In Isaiah God states....

Isaiah 5:2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

If God has exhaustive foreknowledge why was God expecting good grapes from Israel when in reality the produced wild grapes?

docrob57
December 4th, 2005, 05:02 PM
You win!! Merry Christmas!!! Early New Years resolution, I won't engage in discussions on this topic again.

NEXT WEEK'S AVATAR THEME: FAMOUS RESIDENTS OF HELL!

Knight
December 5th, 2005, 11:56 AM
New Years resolution, I won't engage in discussions on this topic again.Can I ask why?

docrob57
December 5th, 2005, 12:24 PM
Can I ask why?

Because there is no point. You guys are not open (no pun intended) to the idea that you might be wrong, and I am not open to the idea that you might be right. The latter is not completely true, but I have been is several of these discussions, and, on this matter, I have never even seen an argument that I would consider remotely persuasive.

The future may indeed be open, but I really can't accept that God makes mistakes and/or changes His mind.

Knight
December 5th, 2005, 12:34 PM
Okay.