What is the Gospel?

glorydaz

Well-known member
You jump to the conclusion that they were bitten because they were sinners.
Since all men are sinners, all should have been bitten.
But all were not bitten.
Why?
Why were some not bitten?
Who do the ones not bitten represent?

Why do you add "consider" when it is not in the verse?????

The verse clearly says those that are not sick do not need healing.
Moses was not sick from a snake bite and needed no healing.

So, if 'being bitten' was suppose to be representative of sinners, and all of mankind are sinners, then Moses should have been bitten too.
But he wasn't.
Why was Moses not bitten?

He won't (or can't) answer. So I will. We might as well get some actual Bible reading in here rather than just Evil's diatribes.

Those who were bitten were those without faith in God. They were the gripers and doubters.
When they looked, they were exhibiting their faith in what Moses told them.

I'm sure Caleb wasn't bitten. ;) The spies being sent out to check out the land of Promise, is another example. Some claimed the men were so large that "we were.... like grasshoppers" to them.

Numbers 13:28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. 29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan. 30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it. 31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we. 32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. 33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.​
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Deuces

Deuces

1z7r98.jpg


 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
You jump to the conclusion that they were bitten because they were sinners.
Since all men are sinners, all should have been bitten.
But all were not bitten.
Why?
Why were some not bitten?
Who do the ones not bitten represent?

Why do you add "consider" when it is not in the verse?????

The verse clearly says those that are not sick do not need healing.
Moses was not sick from a snake bite and needed no healing.

So, if 'being bitten' was suppose to be representative of sinners, and all of mankind are sinners, then Moses should have been bitten too.
But he wasn't.
Why was Moses not bitten?

There is a Body of Moses (Jude 1:9) and a Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27)...

Moses was a typification of Jesus... (Colossians 2:17)...

The answer to your question is in dispensational awareness that acknowledges John 5:39...

The end result that is biblical is what we see in 2 Corinthians 5:21...

2 Cor. 5:21 For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ​

So the reason Moses wasn’t “bitten” as you ask... is plain as Day and backs up Sonnet... even further...

But... anyone who uses subterfuge to cover up that Jesus died for all humanity... out of Love... will vehemently argue against anything of this sort... thus... I almost feel like I’m wasting my breath...

However... others will read this and understand... so consider my post “rhetorical”... as I have no intention of addressing your dishonest response that will no doubt come forth...
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
What is your POINT?

Are you ON DRUGS?

Dude! Jesus died for all! Don’t get sucked into the muck and mire of AMR following that is blossoming here. You and I both know that Jesus died for all and all are given the free will to accept or reject what He did for them!

That’s my point!

No... I’m not on drugs... but at this point... if you have some good ones... hit me up. I’m pretty sure Glorydaz is out of her stash or maybe she wouldn’t be such a witch! If you have a spare “J” for GD... please pass it to her... I don’t dislike anyone here... but I loath Limited Atonement theology and do not stand by while people blaspheme the measure of Christ’s... aka God’s LOVE!

That’s my point, Willis!
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There is a Body of Moses (Jude 1:9) and a Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27)...

Moses was a typification of Jesus... (Colossians 2:17)...

The answer to your question is in dispensational awareness that acknowledges John 5:39...

The end result that is biblical is what we see in 2 Corinthians 5:21...
2 Cor. 5:21 For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ​

So the reason Moses wasn’t “bitten” as you ask... is plain as Day and backs up Sonnet... even further...

But... anyone who uses subterfuge to cover up that Jesus died for all humanity... out of Love... will vehemently argue against anything of this sort... thus... I almost feel like I’m wasting my breath...

However... others will read this and understand... so consider my post “rhetorical”... as I have no intention of addressing your dishonest response that will no doubt come forth...
Nope.
What a mess.

Moses was not the only one not bitten.
Who did all those Israelites that were not bitten represent?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I have seen no response to #640 which was my response to your assertion.
I answered you explaining what the discussion with Nicodemus was all about. You deny the answer wondering why Jesus even used the OT to declare it teaches all about Him, Jesus. I just recently explained the serpent account a few post above....again. You simply refuse to see it as it as I have described. I have also explained why you will never see it given your present state of affairs. You have no eyes to see, nor ears to hear. Want to see and hear? Call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Do it...now. Then let's talk.

AMR
 

Ask Mr. Religion

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
{pix deleted here}....
One cannot have a serious discussion on weighty matters when constantly confronted with mixed media content that presumes to be relevant, rather than just diverting from the topic at hand. Are you able to actually just type out your thoughts without these "crutches"? Perhaps it is because of your youth or affinity with the eye candy available on the internet, or your desire to appear "with it", "clever", etc. But this is just not how discussion takes place. Visual "aids" are not needed. What is needed is serious discussion when weighty matters are on the table.

AMR
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Dude! Jesus died for all! Don’t get sucked into the muck and mire of AMR following that is blossoming here. You and I both know that Jesus died for all and all are given the free will to accept or reject what He did for them!

That’s my point!
Easter is the Good News. What should we do? Trust Easter. There's literally nothing else that is anybody's business, if they don't first trust Easter. Everything else is someone else's emails. It's your emails, when you trust Easter.
No... I’m not on drugs... but at this point... if you have some good ones... hit me up. I’m pretty sure Glorydaz is out of her stash or maybe she wouldn’t be such a witch! If you have a spare “J” for GD... please pass it to her... I don’t dislike anyone here... but I loath Limited Atonement theology and do not stand by while people blaspheme the measure of Christ’s... aka God’s LOVE!

That’s my point, Willis!
There's unlimited time to delve into every other element of the Good News of the Lord Jesus; Who He is, what He's done, and what's in store for us because of Him. But the gate's Easter---He is risen! 'You don't believe that, then you might as well pound sand as far as I'm concerned, if people are going to grill me on this or that angle of the Christian faith. Trust Easter first, and then we'll have a nice long chat about the finer details. :idunno: If you don't receive Easter as Good News, then you're not going to "get" anything else, so let's not waste each other's time.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If one follows the logic of your argument and make unbitten Israelites part of Jesus's analogy then Jesus would be teaching that some men are without sin and do not need Him to save them.

Matthew 9:12-13 merely teaches that those who consider themselves not sick (even though they are Romans 3:23) are not those whom Jesus calls. Jesus was rebuking the self-righteous Pharisees.
You are missing the lesson provided. You are attempting to extend it beyond what was intended in its use when discussing matters with Nicodemus. You deny my explanation of that discussion with Nicodemus, so it is no wonder you miss the point being made by Jesus. You continue to lose sight of the Nicodemus aspect of the entire matter. That is where the discussion must take place. You want to transport all matters back to the wanderings of the Israelites and omit the connection Jesus is making about re-birth with Nicodemus.

This event described by Jesus in the discussion with Nicodemus typifies both the sacrifice of Christ and the faith of His people. It is an Old Testament type, a foreshadowing of the coming our Jesus. These types and shadows were one of the means by which the saints in the OT were brought into the Kingdom. They were saved just as New Testament saints are saved, by faith in the only One person by which all all saved. Jesus Christ.

Just as the bronze representation of the poisonous serpent is lifted up, so Christ, as one born “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), will be lifted up (John 3:14). The snake-bitten afflicted Israelites had no other means of rescue other than to look at the bronze snake, just as sinners have no hope for salvation except faith in the crucified Christ (John 3:15-16).There is nothing in the account to warrant claiming each and every bitten Israelite actually even looked and was cured. The most we may claim is that only those that did so were cured. Moreover, the curing of those bitten in no way assumes each and every Israelite cured from snake bite was to be considered a born-again believer, for we know from this bronze serpent later becomes the object of idolatrous worship (2 Kings 18:4). Given these plain facts, you clearly press the use of the OT account by Jesus beyond what He intended in the discussion with Nicodemus in John 3.

What you are doing is simply not the point of the Nicodemus account. The Nicodemus account (nor the OT in Numbers) does not teach that those who were not bitten were already saved. It is not an account that all those that looked were considered born-again believers. The account in the discussion between confused Nicodemus and Jesus is solely about Who is the remedy for the sins of mankind and how they may be recover from this dire state of sin.

Nicodemus could not understand what Jesus was teaching him. Nicodemus assumed he bore some personal responsibility for his own re-birth, yet Jesus was teaching him exactly the opposite idea. Nicodemus cannot be born again by his own efforts, for his re-birth is from the power of God alone. You want to be saved? You have to look to the One who has been lifted up. Look!

AMR
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Just as Jesus marveled that a smart fellow doesn’t understand (John 3:10).

The problem (John 3:11) is that, even though he is hearing our reliable testimony, Sonnet doesn’t “receive” the testimony. He is not yet (or may never be) among the number described in John 1:12— “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.”

We have taken him as far as we can by way of explanation. He cannot go any higher. “If we have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if we tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12)

In effect, we, like Our Lord must say, “Sonnet, you keep pressing us for deeper and higher explanations of the new birth. But a heart of unbelief, an unregenerate heart, can’t ascend to the kinds of truth that we have to give you about the new birth.”

There are more obstacles to his entering the kingdom than merely his need to be born again. Something has to happen to remove the wrath of God so that he will release the power of the Spirit to cause Sonnet to be born again (see John 3:36). That’s what the Son of Man came to do (John 3:13).

Explaining what he came to do, Jesus picked an analogy, but it is shocking that he would pick it to describe his own work (John 3:14-15).

The shocking analogy used by Jesus relied upon the account of Moses who lifted up the serpent in the wilderness (Numbers 21:4–9); likewise must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Jesus compares himself with a snake. Shocking.

- Note that the snake on the pole does not prevent anything at all. Rather it is for bitten people (Numbers 21:8). The poison is in them, and without divine intervention they will die.

- Also observe that the snakes in the camp are from the Lord. God sent them (Numbers 21:6). The wrath of God is on this people for their sin of ingratitude, murmuring, and rebellion.

- Further, we see that the means God chooses to rescue the people from his own curse is a picture [a type] of the curse itself.

- Now all the bitten ones have to do in order to be saved from God’s wrath is look at God's provision hanging on a pole. Now Moses is not being treated here as the rescuer, a savior. In Numbers, the one who saves is God by means of the snake. And in the Gospel of John, the one who saves is God by means of Jesus.

Of course we already know from Scripture's recording of Jesus' own words that he read the Old Testament believing that it was all pointing to him (John 5:39). There were types and foreshadows throughout the Old Testament. Jesus, in the place of the snake, is the source of healing, the source of rescue from the poison of sin and the wrath of God.

Yet observe that Jesus in the place of the snake is portrayed as evil and a curse. Shocking. The snake is evil. The snakes were killing people. The snake on the pole is a picture of God’s curse on the people. So it was with Jesus.

Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:2, “For our sake [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” And in Galatians 3:13, Paul writes, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.” In becoming like the snake, Jesus was the embodiment of our sin, and the embodiment of our curse. And in becoming sin and curse for us, Jesus took ours away.

Jesus gives us eternal life via the cross. John 3:14-15: “The Son of Man must be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”

All of this Jesus is saying to Nicodemus in John 3, yet Nicodemus (Sonnet) is very confused about the new birth and how it happens. The above is what you say to a person who is not born again. Why? They are dead and blind and God ordains to open the eyes of the blind when they have something to see—a compelling picture of Jesus crucified for sinners.

And what should you do, Nicodemus (Sonnet)? What should you do today?

Believe in him. John 3:15: “that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” What does that mean? What does it involve? What, in this comparison with the snake on a pole, does believe in him mean? It means look to Jesus. The grace of the new birth is our seeing Christ lifted up. We behold his glory as he is lifted up, and in that look we receive grace.

Nicodemus (Sonnet), do you want the grace of the new birth? Look!


AMR
If you don't trust Easter, then the above means nothing, it's someone tangentially rambling about their fantasy football or assault weapon collection. On the other hand, trusting Easter, and then reading the above, answers so very many questions for one who trusts Easter, as to what Easter means; now that we trust. What does it mean to be a Messianist; a Christian. It means A LOT. And NONE of that means anything to someone who doesn't believe the Lord Jesus Christ is risen, 6-6-6, verses, Matthew 28, Mark 16, and Luke 24.
 

Sonnet

New member
They do and they don't. What they say is that since we don't know who God will choose for salvation, anybody that we come in contact might be one that God will choose (has chosen). Thus, in terms of how applicable Jesus' sacrifice is to a particular person--we only know if they believe or don't believe during their life. Since their life isn't over, and our knowledge is limited, they may or may not be one of the chosen.

If that bothers you, then you don't have to believe in Calvinism--that would be my recommendation, and the path I took. But rejecting the gospel as you seem to understand it (not Calvinism) because of how someone that you disagree with (a Calvinist) believes is foolish in the extreme.

That any Christian would interpret Romans 9:11-13 in the way Calvinists do remains shocking.

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Of course, the claim is that neither God's character nor the man's freewill is compromised here but, as the Westminster Confession admits, no explanation is forthcoming. The Arminian position is equally problematic.

Even so, Calvin's interpretation of Romans 9 has to be wrong; Paul's conclusion at vv. 30-32 is pretty clear.

I used the word "twiddle" as a way of being vague enough to be accurate. I may have a hard time defining "twiddle". You may have the same difficulty with "implanting". For instance, if God used "30 pieces of silver" in 3 passages in the Old Testament, and the priests knew the Old Testament front to back, does that count as "implanting" in someone's mind? Were other factors at play to make them offer 30 pieces, such as the going rate for betrayal in Jesus' time?

Okay - but in this instance we have, possibly, at least three correlation: 30 pieces of silver, the throwing of the money and the purchase of the potter's field.

Is Judas necessary in the scenario? From how far back? Seems like Jesus knew it at least as early as when He chose the 12 (John 6:64, 70-71). Maybe Jesus even chose him because He knew his heart. And maybe he knew exactly the things to say that would cause Judas to betray Him, based on his inclinations, but it was only external stimulation (not internal twiddling). Jesus knew before the other disciples that Judas was pilfering from the money bag. And He knew Nathaniel had no guile in him, so He likely knew that Judas had some guile, and knew what kind it was. Maybe Jesus gave him charge of the money bag because it would fan the greedy flame in his heart, and maybe Jesus caused the money bag to be empty right at the right time (and perhaps some investment of Judas's to fail) at exactly the right time for him to need some quick cash. And maybe, just to enflame Judas's mind with a desire to get the money however he could, a young woman might bring an expensive vial of perfume and "waste it" on Jesus in front of Judas (John 12:3-7). Maybe Jesus's rebuke of Judas's fake concern for the poor was enough to send him over the edge to go immediately to the chief priests and ask for money for betrayal (Mat 26:13-14)*.

Interesting. We might speculate that at any moment after Jesus declared that Judas would betray Him (Luke21) , Judas could have changed his mind or circumstances could have made such betrayal impossible. Yet Jesus knew for certain that the betrayal would occur - just as God appears to know even counterfactuals such as 1 Samuel 23:12.

And here we have the problem of compatibilism.

Are Judas's intentions necessary? Is it possible there were factors from his parents or grandparents or friends or some disagreement between him and other disciples, or...or...or...?

Would it have been possible to do it a different way and still fulfill the prophecies?

What if the priests captured Judas and tortured him, and he was too weak to withhold the info they wanted (where to find Jesus away from crowds)?

I don't know the answer to these questions, and I suspect neither do you. To suggest we have found or can find a way to show that God isn't the way He says He is is likely a fool's errand.

Judas tortured so isn't Judas the betrayer though is he?

Is it then possible that your preconceptions have clouded your judgment of the creation story and even Balaam's talking donkey?

Yes.

Maybe I should ask this way: Do you see anything impossible in the creation story?

Not impossible, no. Many Christians don't take it literally and some speculate about a gap between verses 1 and 2 to accommodate the fossil record.

I'm certainly not trying to offer an alternative plan of salvation. All I'm saying is that our whole heart and soul and mind and strength should be involved in our trusting and believing Jesus. And that isn't necessarily at the very beginning of our belief--it should grow into a wholehearted, whole-minded, whole-souled (whatever that means), and whole-strengthed trust.

Ok.

-----------------------
* To continue the story:
Maybe the reason the young woman poore such an expensive vial of perfume on Jesus' head is because she was so grateful for some great service Jesus had done for her or her family.

Maybe that service was that he raised her brother from the dead.

Maybe that brother was dead because Jesus had taken so long to go see him after He had heard that he was sick.

Maybe Jesus took so long to go see him because He wanted him to die so that God would be glorified, and not God only, but Jesus as well.

Is it possible, then, that Jesus had multiple things in mind when He delayed going to see Lazarus, the young woman's brother? 1. that the religious rulers would have no excuse, because even Lazarus was sent back from the dead (Luke 16:19-31), and 2. that it would trigger Judas to do what was necessary at the right time for Jesus to be put to death during the passover?

And what about a third: Is it possible that Mary was not fully committed to Jesus--that she had a faith issue? I get this from a few pieces of information:
1. Mary's limited confession in Jhn 11:32, vs. Martha's full-orbed (though of limited understanding) confession in Jhn 11:21-27.
2. Jesus' admonition to Martha that Mary had chosen the good thing in sitting and listening to Him instead of serving others (Luk 10:38-42). AND
3. Mary's very emotional response to Jesus' presence in Jhn 12:3.

I'm speculating on some of this stuff, but it seems to me that Jesus was providing the necessary events for Mary (and Martha and Lazarus), and the disciples (including Judas), and even the chief priests and pharisees (Jhn 11:45-47) (brothers of the rich man in Luk 16:28?) to grow their faith in Him from whatever point their faith was at. Note that it was not effective in all cases (as Jesus had predicted in Luk 16).

Jesus meets us where we are. He came for sinners and for those whose faith is weak. Even though Abraham was unwilling to send Lazarus back from the dead, Jesus WAS willing, and many believed because of this, probably resulting in the triumphal entry--Jhn 12:9-13. But He knows men's hearts, whether they be open or closed to Him.

It's a good prayer to pray for more faith--you're giving God the permission to provide the evidence, from whatever wonderful storehouses He has, of His love and plans for good for you, if you will accept them.

And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. [Mar 9:24 KJV]

Very interesting thanks Derv. I hadn't realised it was the same Mary who poured the oil. The John 11 raising from the dead has always been a favourite. And it is another instance of knowing the future - just as with Judas's betrayal:

23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

Perhaps the most intriguing thing about this story is none of Jesus's enemies denied the veracity of it.
 

Derf

Well-known member
"No, perra, significa que Jesús murió por todos"

giphy.gif

Can I suggest, EE, that while your message is an important one, your delivery is that of a reviler? 1 Cor 5:11

Can you imagine, if Jesus was having a hard time convincing Nicodemus of the importance of His message in John 3, that He would resort to such language as you have?

Can you acknowledge that as you are a teacher, of sorts, here on TOL, just as most of us claim that role here to some degree when we post, we bare a heavier responsibility? James 3:1

Would you try, then, to show gentleness and respect when you give an answer for the hope that lies within you? 1 Pet 3:15

I know you can do this--I've see you in action!
 

Derf

Well-known member
That any Christian would interpret Romans 9:11-13 in the way Calvinists do remains shocking.

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Of course, the claim is that neither God's character nor the man's freewill is compromised here but, as the Westminster Confession admits, no explanation is forthcoming. The Arminian position is equally problematic.

Even so, Calvin's interpretation of Romans 9 has to be wrong; Paul's conclusion at vv. 30-32 is pretty clear.
Good! keep searching into it to figure out what it all means! But don't use Calvin's mistaken ideas, if they are such, as a personal stumbling block to the gospel.


Okay - but in this instance we have, possibly, at least three correlation: 30 pieces of silver, the throwing of the money and the purchase of the potter's field.
As if I could figure out all of the ways God works things together to meet His purposes. Hah! But it shows that He does. Can you acknowledge that God is involved here? The passage in Ezekiel most certainly was written well prior to Jesus betrayal. Does it impress you? Do you need to know how God does these kind of things to believe that He does them? Or put another way, is it possible for the Bible (or at least these words of Ezekiel) to get such things right and not be from God?


Interesting. We might speculate that at any moment after Jesus declared that Judas would betray Him (Luke21) , Judas could have changed his mind or circumstances could have made such betrayal impossible. Yet Jesus knew for certain that the betrayal would occur - just as God appears to know even counterfactuals such as 1 Samuel 23:12.
Are you talking about the counterfactual of the people of Keilah handing David over, when David was no longer among them? To me, that means God knows the thoughts and intentions of the people of Keilah, but God is not peering into some crystal ball to see the future.

And here we have the problem of compatibilism.
We all try to make sense of what is obviously both a complicated thing done by a super-human mind.



Judas tortured so isn't Judas the betrayer though is he?
Would you check your sentence structure and ask this again?


Not impossible, no. Many Christians don't take it literally and some speculate about a gap between verses 1 and 2 to accommodate the fossil record.
I challenge you to consider it literally. You might have to put aside some preconceptions about the age of the earth and the fossil record, and how it is most often interpreted today. Doing so is rather exhilarating.


Very interesting thanks Derv. I hadn't realised it was the same Mary who poured the oil. The John 11 raising from the dead has always been a favourite. And it is another instance of knowing the future - just as with Judas's betrayal:

23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

Perhaps the most intriguing thing about this story is none of Jesus's enemies denied the veracity of it.
I appreciate what you're saying here. I think it tells us a lot about how Jesus and the Father know the future. Jesus was planning to raise Lazarus from the dead. So it wasn't hard for Him to "know the future" when He was about to create the future, if you will.

Many of the biblical prophecies are just such prophecies--God says what will happen, and then He makes it happen. God doesn't just predict the future--He makes it.

This is Reformed thinking at its core. And it makes much more sense than thinking God just looks into the future to figure out something, since changing it brings about the counterfactual conundrum you've brought up a couple of times.

But it also brings about a different conundrum when applied to EVERYTHING. If God creates the future by making everything happen, including our own thoughts and desires, whether good or bad, there is little meaning to our lives, beyond God's own pleasure. Certainly His pleasure is a worthy reason for Him to create the world and humans, but it doesn't seem like His son would need to become a human for all eternity just to bring Himself pleasure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Sonnet

New member
You jump to the conclusion that they were bitten because they were sinners.

I haven't said so.
The snakes were sent, it seems, as a punishment for their complaints.
Since Jesus's analogy is not focused on this part of the story then I assumed I need not either.

Since all men are sinners, all should have been bitten.
But all were not bitten.
Why?
Why were some not bitten?
Who do the ones not bitten represent?

If you are going go down this path, why stop there? Why not speculate also about what the snakes represent, the relevance of Moses raising the serpent and that the story was set in the wilderness?

Jesus restricts His analogy to nothing but dying Israelites who need a cure.

Why do you add "consider" when it is not in the verse?????

Because Jesus was not saying they were not sick in terms of their state of sin.
I see no relevance of Mat. 9 to the analogy.

The verse clearly says those that are not sick do not need healing.
Moses was not sick from a snake bite and needed no healing.

So, if 'being bitten' was suppose to be representative of sinners, and all of mankind are sinners, then Moses should have been bitten too.
But he wasn't.
Why was Moses not bitten?

Moses status is excluded from the analogy so why speculate? Jesus limits the scope Himself:

Source
1. Bitten Israelites about to die
2. Bronze serpent raised on a pole
3. Israelites looking at the serpent and living

Target
1. Sinful humanity heading for eternal hell
2. Jesus crucified
3. People believing Jesus for eternal life
 

Sonnet

New member
I answered you explaining what the discussion with Nicodemus was all about. You deny the answer wondering why Jesus even used the OT to declare it teaches all about Him, Jesus. I just recently explained the serpent account a few post above....again. You simply refuse to see it as it as I have described. I have also explained why you will never see it given your present state of affairs. You have no eyes to see, nor ears to hear. Want to see and hear? Call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Do it...now. Then let's talk.

AMR

If you consider that I cannot see or hear as you suggest then, of course, there would be no point in you continuing.

It should be noted that citing such a scripture as you and Calvinists do is not underpinned by scripture (seeing as Judas is considered a reprobate):

Mark 4:10-12
When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,

“ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

Okay AMR - no more debating.
 
Last edited:

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
...Certainly His pleasure is a worthy reason for Him to create the world and humans, but it doesn't seem like His son would need to become a human for all eternity just to bring Himself pleasure.
Ergo unitarianism via Occam's razor.
 
Top