elected4ever
New member
When are you going to learn that you are not your own and are bought with a price. You were never your own before you were saved and you are not your own after you were saved. so where is this so called freedom?Knight said:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
themuzicman
Well-known member
Clete said:I won't get into this issue here but suffice it to say that you have to draw the line somewhere and the NIV has about 12 stikes against it (that I know of). It is not a Bible. It contains Biblical truths to be sure, but so does the Koran. Is the NIV as bad as the Koran? No, its worse. It pretends to be the Word of God, whereas everyone knows that the Koran is of Satan.
Now on with Open Theism.
By this standard, there is no English bible.
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
Bob Hill said:
Jesus was sinless. There was no justification for His death. Thus, God was allowing a truly unjust act to be committed against His son. That's forsaking.
Spiritual death is eternal damnation. Christ is NOT eternally damned.
Because dead bodies don't cry out after they die, Bob! Jesus is proclaiming what's about to happen, and the next thing that happens is that Jesus dies. Do you really think Jesus had to wait until after giving up His spirit to cry out?
Being forsaken is a relational thing, not a physical/spiritual thing, and spiritual death is eternal, so it cannot end.
Sorry, Bob, but God's just nature was demanding that Christ be saved from this wholly unjustified murdering of His Son, and did not. Christ was truly forsaken by God on the cross when God let Him die. It is a relational forsaking related to a physical death. There is no spiritual death involved.
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
Bob Hill said:
You sure those in prison were dead? Or were they the ones who were alive and living in Israel?
Muz
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
Hebrews 7:16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.
Yet Scripture says Job did not sin in what he said, and what he said is just what you hold cannot happen, what he said is what you call blasphemous when I say it. The Bible says that saying this is not a sin.
Yet Scripture tells us directly who was the cause of what happened to Job:
Job 42:11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
But how then did God plan the cross, where he knew people would sin, and bring it about, without being an agent in that sinning happening?
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days…
Matthew 26:24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.
Mark 9:13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.
Matthew 17:12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.
These would all involve sin, the betrayal, which was predicted, the sufferings of John the Baptist, and the following sufferings of Jesus, all written, and in the plan of God, so through his wounds, we can be healed.
Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
This also was sinful for men to do.
2 Peter 2:12 But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand.
Let us note that Peter does not then say “But that’s all right, because they are unaware of this.”
1 Timothy 1:13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.
And we may note here that mercy implies a sin, that must be forgiven.
These verses also have not been answered:
Romans 5:20-21 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 11:32 For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone.
Clearly God is the cause here, and these resulting sinful actions are in his plan. I am not perhaps surprised that the answer has been to skip these verses, for they are indeed clear, and unanswerable.
Blessings,
Lee
Yes, yes indeed.themuzicman said:
Hebrews 7:16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.
Patman said:
Yet Scripture says Job did not sin in what he said, and what he said is just what you hold cannot happen, what he said is what you call blasphemous when I say it. The Bible says that saying this is not a sin.
Yet Scripture tells us directly who was the cause of what happened to Job:
Job 42:11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
Patman said:
But how then did God plan the cross, where he knew people would sin, and bring it about, without being an agent in that sinning happening?
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days…
Possibly without the cross, but not without man sinning in crushing the Son of God, in causing him suffering, in wounding him.God_Is_Truth said:
Matthew 26:24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.
Mark 9:13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.
Matthew 17:12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.
These would all involve sin, the betrayal, which was predicted, the sufferings of John the Baptist, and the following sufferings of Jesus, all written, and in the plan of God, so through his wounds, we can be healed.
Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
This also was sinful for men to do.
Yet if saying God caused sin when he doesn’t cause it is wrong, then what Job said was blasphemy (as Patman indeed is correctly insisting), and though it may have been unwitting blasphemy on Job’s part, yet making a blasphemous statement is a sin.God_Is_Truth said:
2 Peter 2:12 But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand.
Let us note that Peter does not then say “But that’s all right, because they are unaware of this.”
1 Timothy 1:13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.
And we may note here that mercy implies a sin, that must be forgiven.
These verses also have not been answered:
Romans 5:20-21 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 11:32 For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone.
Clearly God is the cause here, and these resulting sinful actions are in his plan. I am not perhaps surprised that the answer has been to skip these verses, for they are indeed clear, and unanswerable.
Blessings,
Lee
Last edited:
Your answer has nothing to do with my response.elected4ever said:
Think of it this way....
An Italian man is an Italian man. I happen to be Italian. I cannot choose to be anything other than Italian. My choices are limited in that respect. However, I still have my own will. I can choose chocolate ice cream, or I can choose vanilla ice cream. I have my own will and can choose my own path of life within the boundaries and limitations of the will.
I'm gonna start a store, and call it "The Future." It'll be open 24/7.
elected4ever
New member
As a human, responsive to the world we live in, I couldn't agree with you more but if you are saved then this worlds choices have no more meaning in the world of the spiritual. We are of the Spirit and not of the flesh and we are no longer subject to the flesh. Wont not, taste not have no more meaning. You cannot sin because you are no longer in the condition of sin. A person who is off the flesh, the condition into which Adam plunged us, is no longer us. You do not sin because you are no longer a sinner. It is not a choice that you have the ability to make. If you are subject to the deeds of the flesh then you are not saved. You continue to be subject to the law and will be judged by it. The law kills. the Spirit gives life. There is no life in the death brought about by law. Only judgement.Knight said:
God_Is_Truth
New member
lee_merrill said:
All it says is that the son of man would go as written. It's not saying that the betrayal was part of it. In fact, that it is mentioned afterwards suggests that it's adding to what was written already.
I have no idea what verse states that Elijah would come and suffer. Do you? Further, Jesus is saying that at that point, it was certain that the men would do harm to him, not that it was that way from the beginning.
Foreknowing that he would be rejected is far from saying that it was determined that he would be rejected.
To speak it when you have reason not to speak it, that is wrong. To speak when you have no other knowledge, is not. Job had not seen Jesus. He didn't know of Satan at all. To his mind, it had to be God. Again, being wrong isn't a sin.
Those men had no excuse because they lived in the time of the supreme revelation of God--Jesus. They should have understood, unlike Job. It's not the same situation.
God gave the law knowing that men would not be able to keep it. That's what Paul is saying in Romans 5. Giving the law is not a sin. Romans 11 speaks about Israel being cut off and therefore being equal to the gentiles. God was concluding all of them in unbelief on the same level so he could have grace to them all on the same level. Concluding Israel in unbelief because she didn't believe is not a sin at all. He is simply working with what already exists to bring about a good (Romans 8:28). He is not condoning sin, determing sin, or planning sin. He is only expecting it, seeing it, and working through it.
Christ certainly was not eternally damned but that very simply cannot be what it means to be spiritually dead. We were all spiritually dead before we turned to Christ for salvation.themuzicman said:
Romans 7:8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
Spiritual death is simply separation from God. Just as when your spirit departs from your body, your body dies, so your spirit is dead when it is separated from the Father. If, as you have already plainly stated, Jesus was forsaken by the Father then He died Spiritually, which seems only logical seeing as how our problem isn't merely a physical one but a spiritual one as well. It would seem consistent with simply common sense that if Jesus was to die in our place that He would need to die in the same manner as we do.
How am I wrong?
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever
New member
:up:Clete said:
themuzicman
Well-known member
Clete said:
OK, well. now you're getting into a symbolic meaning of "spiritually dead" which doesn't involve death at all. In fact, within the context of Romans (and elsewhere), Paul uses "spiritual death" to refer to the sentence of eternal wrath which hangs over all those who are not saved. If you go over to Eph 2:1, you find that Paul refers to "dead in our sins", and then says that we formerly walked while we were dead. This is a similar symbolic use of the same metaphor. In our culture today, we refer to someone who is on death row and headed for the execution chamber a "dead man walking." Paul would identify closely with this idea.
Muz
I don't think it is as strictly symbolic as you suggest. In fact, your position here puts all sorts of vital Pauline teachings into jeopardy.themuzicman said:
Galatians 2:19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
Is this also symbolic or is this not clearly speaking of spiritual truths that are absolutely critical for the Christian to believe and understand if he is to live a life worthy of the calling of God?
Notice in the above passage that verse 20 is a repetition and expansion of the verse 19. Paul likens that which happened at the cross to that which happened to him through the law. The Tree of Calvary is a symbol of the law, as was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil thus the saying "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree".
Do you believe that Adam died spiritually when he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.
Do you believe that through Christ we have been reconciled with God?
Romans 5:11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
What are these passages talking about if not spiritual life and death? We certainly have not yet been reconciled with God physically, what else is there but spiritually? And if we have been reconciled to God spiritually then how would that have been accomplished accept that Jesus suffered a spiritual separation from God the Father in our stead?
Resting in Him,
Clete
patman
Active member
elected4ever said:
It is false to say that future knowledge is never casual. It would be incredibly unwise to have certain future knowledge and not act on it. Our God is wise. When he knows something is about to happen, he acts with wisdom.
I do not think I need to explain this to you, surely you must see that if God created man with the foreknowledge of man's fall, man's fall was at least 'OK' with God. And surely you know God is limitlessness in his abilities. If man's decision to eat of the tree of knowledge was influenced by how he was made, God was the maker, who knew this influence and created it anyway.
A million causes that stem from the first cause. God made the first cause. Did he know his first cause would cause sin? Or did God think, "maybe it won't."
We know from scripture God does think "perhaps" sometimes. Why not with man's creation? "Perhaps man will love me."
lee_merrill
New member
Hi God_Is_Truth,
Mark 9:12 Jesus replied, "… Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?”
John 13:18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.'
Mark 8:31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
“Must” here is “it is necessary,” not "it is foreseen," Jesus' sacrifice and death at the hands of sinful men was necessary, and in the plan of God.
2 Peter 2:5-6 ... if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly…
2 Peter 2:15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness.
Blessings,
Lee
Involving unjust suffering, involving events similar to the ones that happened to John the Baptist.God_Is_Truth said:
Mark 9:12 Jesus replied, "… Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?”
This was predicted too, though:
John 13:18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.'
Yet Jesus was not mistaken in his reading of Scripture, and maybe we could check some commentaries to start with, Alan Cole says Jesus associated the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 with both himself and John the Baptist. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary says this: “’They have done to him everything they wished’ is a reference to his treatment by Herod, i.e., his imprisonment and death. ‘Just as it is written about him’ refers to what the OT says about Elijah in his relationship to Ahab and Jezebel (cf. 1 Kings 19:1-2). Herod and Herodias were foreshadowed in Ahab and Jezebel. “
But this was in God’s plan, was it not? And how can God foreknow this? Does everyone have a really free choice?God_Is_Truth said:
Mark 8:31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
“Must” here is “it is necessary,” not "it is foreseen," Jesus' sacrifice and death at the hands of sinful men was necessary, and in the plan of God.
But Peter is also talking about people long ago: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.” (2 Pt. 2:1).
2 Peter 2:5-6 ... if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly…
2 Peter 2:15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness.
That’s odd, what I thought I read was that God gave the law so that sin would increase…
I agree, unbelief, however, is a sin, and God caused this, binding people over to unbelief, in order to have mercy on them. For a reason!
Blessings,
Lee
patman
Active member
lee_merrill said:
Lee, I am not calling Job's statement blasphemous, I am calling your saying "God is the author of sin" blasphemous. Along with your calling God the one "water-hosing" the earth with evil blasphemous.
Trust me, those two statements you make are a far cry from what Job said.
You deny the words of scripture. GOD SAID SATAN DID IT but you insist on saying God did it because of some stretch of the words of Job? Is Job more powerful than God to you?
You just want God to be the author of sin. So you makeup whatever you can.
Hi Bob and Sentientsynth,
Concerning your previous remarks about how could God forsake himself upon the cross... I have some opinions and will jump right in to share them.
MY THOUGHTS:
Christ’s perception did most certainly reflect reality, but it is mankind’s conclusions about the reality of the situation and about what Jesus meant by his words that are incorrect.
Someone did forsake Jesus, but it was not God the Father. I believe that Jesus was God in mortal flesh, so I do believe that the life in the body of Jesus had to be withdrawn from the body so that it could die … but like the two of you - the idea that God can or would forsake HIMSELF does not make sense to me either.
I found my theory concerning the words of Jesus upon the cross one day while reading the book of I Samuel. There is a great account concerning the High Priest Eli and his sons. Jesus, being God, knew first hand about all the events occurring during the days of Priest Eli.
Watch what I discovered:
I Sam. 2:12 …
Eli’s sons knew not the LORD. They totally disregarded the rules for the priests to take a certain portion of the sacrificed meat. They didn’t want it boiled … They didn’t want the fat burned off … but rather wanted it raw and for roasting. Later we read that they, even being married at the time, committed adultery with maidens that were serving the cooked sacrifices in the temple for the people to eat. They misused their power and positions to get their own way. God was even upset that Eli did not seem to try to correct his sons.
Because of all of these things God sent a prophet to Eli the priest concerning him and his family (sometimes called – ‘his house’). This was a pivotal point in the history of Eli and the entire priesthood of Israel that followed Eli … even unto the days of Jesus!
WATCH: slightly paraphrased … and my extra comments are inside […] and (…)
I Sam. 2:27…
There came a man of God unto Eli, who said: “Thus saith the LORD, “Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house?
[This would have been the house of Levi and specifically the house of Aaron, who was first appointed as a prophet unto Moses and later as the first High Priest of Israel.]
And did I choose him (Aaron) out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? And did I give unto the house of thy father (Aaron) all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel?
So why do you (Eli and your sons) kick at (disrespect) my sacrifice and kick at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation (tabernacle); and why do you (Eli) honor your sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?”
[Now, watch the momentous change God makes because Eli had forsaken HIM.]
And the LORD God of Israel said, “ I said indeed that thy (Eli’s) house and the house of thy father (Aaron), should walk before me for ever: BUT NOW THE LORD SAITH, ‘Be it (these promises) far from me; for (now only) them that honor me will I honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed (by ME).’
Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine (Eli’s) arm (descendents), and the arm(descendents) of thy father’s (Aaron’s) house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house.
Questions:
Who was Eli?
ANSWER: He was the last official priest of Israel whom God acknowledge simply because he was a descendent of Aaron. Acknowledging Eli had nothing to do with his merit … it was just due to his lineage from Aaron.
Why did the LORD turn his back on the house of Aaron and the house of Eli and his son’s?
ANSWER: Eli had forsaken the LORD and disrespected his commands.
Did the LORD totally ignore the priesthood from that time forward?
ANSWER:
No, not totally, but from this point forward the LORD only planned to honor those among them who honored him … so the judges and the prophets became more important as time went on. King Saul was more concerned with seeking Samuel’s advice than he did the priests that served in the tabernacle before him. Saul was finally the one to kill off a majority of the priests when he accused them of helping David.
CONTINUED … I Sam. 2:32… Next comes a combination of the LORD telling Eli what was going to happen to him and his descendents along with telling Eli about the ONE coming to take the place of Aaron and Eli as an eternal High Priest.
The LORD said, “Thou shall see an enemy in my habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be an old man in thine house for ever.
And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart: and all the increase of thine house (Eli a descendent of Aaron) shall die in the flower of their age.
And this (that I am about to say) will be a sign unto thee (that these things will come true) - that shall come upon thy two sons, Hophnie and Phinehas … in one day they shall die both of them.
And I will raise me up a faithful priest (I think this is a prophecy about Jesus Christ … a descendent of both David and Levi), that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.
And it will come to pass, that every one that is left in thine house (you and yours being descendents of Aaron) shall come and crouch to him (Jesus the Christ) for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, ‘Put me, I pray, into one of the priests offices, that I may eat a piece of bread.’”
QUESTION:
Now, who do you say had forsaken the Lord?
ANSWER: Eli Eli – why have you forsaken me?
MORE EVIDENCE:
As Jesus hung on the cross … and spoke those words: Eli, Eli, why have you forsaken me, which also might be interpreted as - My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? Notice what the crowd actually thought about what he had said.
Matt. 27:47 Mark 15:35 And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “This man (Jesus) is calling Eli-jah (another man - known about from the OT)
Matt. 27:49 Others said, “Wait, let us see whether Eli-jah (a man) will come to save him.”
MY THOUGHTS:
They all thought that Jesus was calling on the NAME of an OT person… not any of them thought he was calling out to God.
The name Eli or Eleazar means: God has helped. So the phrase could be interpreted as One whom God has helped, One whom God has helped, why have you forsaken me?
QUESTIONS:
Who was it that God first helped?
ANSWER:
Eli … a descendent of Aaron who were all predestined to be a high priests unto the LORD in his habitation.
Who was it that had forsaken the OT LORD and had again forsaken our NT Lord upon the cross?
THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS:
The Ones whom God has helped … had forsaken HIM… the remnant of the priesthood of Levi, Aaron, and Eli.
Eli, Eli why have you forsaken me?
The one whom I, as God, have helped, the one whom I, as God, have helped, why have you - (the priesthood of Levi, Aaron, and Eli) forsaken me?
It was man that forsook Jesus ... not God.
Concerning your previous remarks about how could God forsake himself upon the cross... I have some opinions and will jump right in to share them.
MY THOUGHTS:
Christ’s perception did most certainly reflect reality, but it is mankind’s conclusions about the reality of the situation and about what Jesus meant by his words that are incorrect.
Someone did forsake Jesus, but it was not God the Father. I believe that Jesus was God in mortal flesh, so I do believe that the life in the body of Jesus had to be withdrawn from the body so that it could die … but like the two of you - the idea that God can or would forsake HIMSELF does not make sense to me either.
I found my theory concerning the words of Jesus upon the cross one day while reading the book of I Samuel. There is a great account concerning the High Priest Eli and his sons. Jesus, being God, knew first hand about all the events occurring during the days of Priest Eli.
Watch what I discovered:
I Sam. 2:12 …
Eli’s sons knew not the LORD. They totally disregarded the rules for the priests to take a certain portion of the sacrificed meat. They didn’t want it boiled … They didn’t want the fat burned off … but rather wanted it raw and for roasting. Later we read that they, even being married at the time, committed adultery with maidens that were serving the cooked sacrifices in the temple for the people to eat. They misused their power and positions to get their own way. God was even upset that Eli did not seem to try to correct his sons.
Because of all of these things God sent a prophet to Eli the priest concerning him and his family (sometimes called – ‘his house’). This was a pivotal point in the history of Eli and the entire priesthood of Israel that followed Eli … even unto the days of Jesus!
WATCH: slightly paraphrased … and my extra comments are inside […] and (…)
I Sam. 2:27…
There came a man of God unto Eli, who said: “Thus saith the LORD, “Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house?
[This would have been the house of Levi and specifically the house of Aaron, who was first appointed as a prophet unto Moses and later as the first High Priest of Israel.]
And did I choose him (Aaron) out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? And did I give unto the house of thy father (Aaron) all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel?
So why do you (Eli and your sons) kick at (disrespect) my sacrifice and kick at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation (tabernacle); and why do you (Eli) honor your sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?”
[Now, watch the momentous change God makes because Eli had forsaken HIM.]
And the LORD God of Israel said, “ I said indeed that thy (Eli’s) house and the house of thy father (Aaron), should walk before me for ever: BUT NOW THE LORD SAITH, ‘Be it (these promises) far from me; for (now only) them that honor me will I honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed (by ME).’
Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine (Eli’s) arm (descendents), and the arm(descendents) of thy father’s (Aaron’s) house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house.
Questions:
Who was Eli?
ANSWER: He was the last official priest of Israel whom God acknowledge simply because he was a descendent of Aaron. Acknowledging Eli had nothing to do with his merit … it was just due to his lineage from Aaron.
Why did the LORD turn his back on the house of Aaron and the house of Eli and his son’s?
ANSWER: Eli had forsaken the LORD and disrespected his commands.
Did the LORD totally ignore the priesthood from that time forward?
ANSWER:
No, not totally, but from this point forward the LORD only planned to honor those among them who honored him … so the judges and the prophets became more important as time went on. King Saul was more concerned with seeking Samuel’s advice than he did the priests that served in the tabernacle before him. Saul was finally the one to kill off a majority of the priests when he accused them of helping David.
CONTINUED … I Sam. 2:32… Next comes a combination of the LORD telling Eli what was going to happen to him and his descendents along with telling Eli about the ONE coming to take the place of Aaron and Eli as an eternal High Priest.
The LORD said, “Thou shall see an enemy in my habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be an old man in thine house for ever.
And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart: and all the increase of thine house (Eli a descendent of Aaron) shall die in the flower of their age.
And this (that I am about to say) will be a sign unto thee (that these things will come true) - that shall come upon thy two sons, Hophnie and Phinehas … in one day they shall die both of them.
And I will raise me up a faithful priest (I think this is a prophecy about Jesus Christ … a descendent of both David and Levi), that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.
And it will come to pass, that every one that is left in thine house (you and yours being descendents of Aaron) shall come and crouch to him (Jesus the Christ) for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, ‘Put me, I pray, into one of the priests offices, that I may eat a piece of bread.’”
QUESTION:
Now, who do you say had forsaken the Lord?
ANSWER: Eli Eli – why have you forsaken me?
MORE EVIDENCE:
As Jesus hung on the cross … and spoke those words: Eli, Eli, why have you forsaken me, which also might be interpreted as - My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? Notice what the crowd actually thought about what he had said.
Matt. 27:47 Mark 15:35 And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “This man (Jesus) is calling Eli-jah (another man - known about from the OT)
Matt. 27:49 Others said, “Wait, let us see whether Eli-jah (a man) will come to save him.”
MY THOUGHTS:
They all thought that Jesus was calling on the NAME of an OT person… not any of them thought he was calling out to God.
The name Eli or Eleazar means: God has helped. So the phrase could be interpreted as One whom God has helped, One whom God has helped, why have you forsaken me?
QUESTIONS:
Who was it that God first helped?
ANSWER:
Eli … a descendent of Aaron who were all predestined to be a high priests unto the LORD in his habitation.
Who was it that had forsaken the OT LORD and had again forsaken our NT Lord upon the cross?
THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS:
The Ones whom God has helped … had forsaken HIM… the remnant of the priesthood of Levi, Aaron, and Eli.
Eli, Eli why have you forsaken me?
The one whom I, as God, have helped, the one whom I, as God, have helped, why have you - (the priesthood of Levi, Aaron, and Eli) forsaken me?
It was man that forsook Jesus ... not God.
sentientsynth
New member
Hello Ps82.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I found them interesting. Very unique. But I cannot agree with what you've written.
In Matt.27:46, the transliterated Aramaic "Eli, Eli" is translated as "My God (form of theos), My God." This proves that Jesus was calling to God, and not to the man Eli, or to Elias, as some in the crowd thought.
46 but about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
So I can't agree with you regarding that.
But when you say...
SS
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I found them interesting. Very unique. But I cannot agree with what you've written.
In Matt.27:46, the transliterated Aramaic "Eli, Eli" is translated as "My God (form of theos), My God." This proves that Jesus was calling to God, and not to the man Eli, or to Elias, as some in the crowd thought.
46 but about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
So I can't agree with you regarding that.
But when you say...
... I agree totally.
SS
Bob Hill
TOL Subscriber
First I want to be sure you all realize I wrote this!
I see no basis for Jesus Christ being forsaken by the Father while on the cross.
That doesn't mean the Son did not feel that way, though.
The cross had to happen after the Son talked to His Father when He was praying to the father about having the cup pass in Mat 26:39-42.
He said in Mat 26:42 Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”
He willingly gave Himself for us.
Bob Hill
I see no basis for Jesus Christ being forsaken by the Father while on the cross.
That doesn't mean the Son did not feel that way, though.
The cross had to happen after the Son talked to His Father when He was praying to the father about having the cup pass in Mat 26:39-42.
He said in Mat 26:42 Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”
He willingly gave Himself for us.
Bob Hill
- Status