ECT Pela... Who? Don't know him! and how Augustine Original Sin has been addressed.

Derf

Well-known member
Obviously... Zechariah 3 is an area where we have differing opinions and some joined thought. I am certain that pushing this issue would simply result in a loop of perspective reiteration on both our parts. I feel like your last post was a high point of discussion here and I am going to leave it at your post.

If you have any further ideas for stimulating discussion here... have at it... and I would enjoy doing so... but I think this thread is quite capped off and the last points we bounced back and forth... really give a depth and simplicity to all of it... that is excellent.

Blindness... on that point specifically... absolutely and then some...

I see Jude 9 being about the children of Israel collective... I.E. as we are the Body of Christ... they are the Body of Moses....

But... Your point remains and stands as outstanding... from either perspective.

:e4e:

My main concern, EE, is the problem of spiritualizing too much of the bible. It's easy to do! Augustine did it quite a bit. Others did, too. My concern with it is that the more a passage is spiritualized, the more one can make it say whatever he wants it to say. So when you complain about Augustine's concept of original sin and Pelagius' dismissal of the same, I wonder whether there's anything left to complain about once the scriptural support is de-spiritualized.

I've notice that you tend to spiritualize stuff quite a bit, the Joshua thing is a case in point. Not that there isn't a spiritual interpretation--there might be--but can your spiritualized interpretation be backed up somehow? Just finding another verse that affirms some of your interpretation is not enough, imo.

And (also imo) over-spiritualization leads to blindness, because we miss what scripture is really telling us, in favor of what we want it to say.

Let's keep each other accountable in this area, ok?
Derf
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
My main concern, EE, is the problem of spiritualizing too much of the bible. It's easy to do! Augustine did it quite a bit. Others did, too. My concern with it is that the more a passage is spiritualized, the more one can make it say whatever he wants it to say. So when you complain about Augustine's concept of original sin and Pelagius' dismissal of the same, I wonder whether there's anything left to complain about once the scriptural support is de-spiritualized.

I've notice that you tend to spiritualize stuff quite a bit, the Joshua thing is a case in point. Not that there isn't a spiritual interpretation--there might be--but can your spiritualized interpretation be backed up somehow? Just finding another verse that affirms some of your interpretation is not enough, imo.

And (also imo) over-spiritualization leads to blindness, because we miss what scripture is really telling us, in favor of what we want it to say.

Let's keep each other accountable in this area, ok?
Derf

Not even close Derf... You said "accountable"... I'm not selling anything... but Jesus name is Linguistically Joshua... and on top of that... there's so many Jesus references in Zechariah 3 that it is odd to me that the theological community can't see it.

Spiritualized? "Few Scriptures"?

Derf?!?

Rv. 12:3-4 to Ezekiel 28:13-17, 2-5 to Isaiah 14:12-15,19 to Genesis 3:1-5, 14-15 to Psalms 89:37-45; Matthew 2:16-18

Rv. 12:5 to Genesis 49:8-12 to Isaiah 7:14-15 to Luke 1:46-55 to Luke 2:4-20
(John 13:33 - John 14:6 parallel with Matthew 26:31-35) to Matthew 27:50-53 to Luke 24:46 to (1 Peter 3:18-20 parallel with Philippians 1:19)

Zechariah 3:1-2 to Jude 1:9 to Deuteronomy 4:20 to Amos 4:11 to Acts 7:56 to Job 2:2-5 to James 2:13

........... Zechariah 3:3-5 to Leviticus 22:3 to Galatians 3:19-26 to John 16:8-11 to Deuteronomy 19:15-21 to Deuteronomy 17:6 to Philippians 2:5-11 to 1 Timothy 2:5-6 to 1 Timothy 3:4-7 to 1 Timothy 3:16 to 2 Timothy 1:8-10 to 1 John 4:6-9 to 1 John 5:7 to John 18:37 to John 19:10, 12 to Ephesians 4:8

Zechariah 3:6-7 to Psalms 2:2, 6-12

Zechariah 3:8 to John 15:1-8 to Hebrews 4:8-16

Zechariah 3:9 to 1 Peter 2:1-10 to Revelation 3:21 to Revelation 3:12 to Revelation 3:5 to Zechariah 3:3 to Revelation 2:17 to Revelation 2:25-29 to Revelation 5:6 to Revelation 12:7-12 to 1 Peter 5:8-9 to Hebrews 2:14 to Revelation 1:8

Zechariah 3:10; 6:9-15 to John 15:1

Zechariah 6:9-15 to Revelation 4:10-11 to Revelation 11:16-18 to Revelation 19:11-12, 21

Hebrews 4:8-9 to Matthew 11:25-30 to Matthew 12:7 to Hebrews 4:10 to Romans 4:4-5 to Hebrews 4:11 to Psalms 95:7-11 to Exodus 17:1-7 to Numbers 20:2-13

Hebrews 4:11 to Deuteronomy 12:9 to Hebrews 4:12-13 to Galatians 3:22 to John 5:39 to John 3:16-17 to Hebrews 4:14-16

Derf... my main concern is that you have a definite bias against what I'm stating. I'm convinced enough by "all" scripture that I'm not spouting worthless rhetoric on this one. It's far from spiritualized babbling.

I'm certain you don't like the idea... but that makes it as "incorrect" as my confidence "makes it correct".

I'm stating a giant agree to disagree on your summation of how I arrived at the conclusion I'm at.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Not even close Derf... You said "accountable"... I'm not selling anything... but Jesus name is Linguistically Joshua... and on top of that... there's so many Jesus references in Zechariah 3 that it is odd to me that the theological community can't see it.

Spiritualized? "Few Scriptures"?

Derf?!?

Rv. 12:3-4 to Ezekiel 28:13-17, 2-5 to Isaiah 14:12-15,19 to Genesis 3:1-5, 14-15 to Psalms 89:37-45; Matthew 2:16-18

Rv. 12:5 to Genesis 49:8-12 to Isaiah 7:14-15 to Luke 1:46-55 to Luke 2:4-20
(John 13:33 - John 14:6 parallel with Matthew 26:31-35) to Matthew 27:50-53 to Luke 24:46 to (1 Peter 3:18-20 parallel with Philippians 1:19)

Zechariah 3:1-2 to Jude 1:9 to Deuteronomy 4:20 to Amos 4:11 to Acts 7:56 to Job 2:2-5 to James 2:13

........... Zechariah 3:3-5 to Leviticus 22:3 to Galatians 3:19-26 to John 16:8-11 to Deuteronomy 19:15-21 to Deuteronomy 17:6 to Philippians 2:5-11 to 1 Timothy 2:5-6 to 1 Timothy 3:4-7 to 1 Timothy 3:16 to 2 Timothy 1:8-10 to 1 John 4:6-9 to 1 John 5:7 to John 18:37 to John 19:10, 12 to Ephesians 4:8

Zechariah 3:6-7 to Psalms 2:2, 6-12

Zechariah 3:8 to John 15:1-8 to Hebrews 4:8-16

Zechariah 3:9 to 1 Peter 2:1-10 to Revelation 3:21 to Revelation 3:12 to Revelation 3:5 to Zechariah 3:3 to Revelation 2:17 to Revelation 2:25-29 to Revelation 5:6 to Revelation 12:7-12 to 1 Peter 5:8-9 to Hebrews 2:14 to Revelation 1:8

Zechariah 3:10; 6:9-15 to John 15:1

Zechariah 6:9-15 to Revelation 4:10-11 to Revelation 11:16-18 to Revelation 19:11-12, 21

Hebrews 4:8-9 to Matthew 11:25-30 to Matthew 12:7 to Hebrews 4:10 to Romans 4:4-5 to Hebrews 4:11 to Psalms 95:7-11 to Exodus 17:1-7 to Numbers 20:2-13

Hebrews 4:11 to Deuteronomy 12:9 to Hebrews 4:12-13 to Galatians 3:22 to John 5:39 to John 3:16-17 to Hebrews 4:14-16

Derf... my main concern is that you have a definite bias against what I'm stating. I'm convinced enough by "all" scripture that I'm not spouting worthless rhetoric on this one. It's far from spiritualized babbling.

I'm certain you don't like the idea... but that makes it as "incorrect" as my confidence "makes it correct".

I'm stating a giant agree to disagree on your summation of how I arrived at the conclusion I'm at.

I don't agree with your "giant agree to disagree". What do you think of that??? :)

No offense meant here, but your list of scripture proofs is mostly just a list of scriptures that apply to Jesus, but not related to the image of Joshua in Zech 3. I could just as easily post the same long list of scriptures and claim that it upholds my side of the debate.

I have one more thing to say about this, and then I'll (try to) leave it alone. And I'll use your words to show your words are wrong, or at least inconsistent. ([Mat 7:2b KJV] with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.)

Zechariah 3:1-2 to Jude 1:9 to Deuteronomy 4:20 to Amos 4:11 to Acts 7:56 to Job 2:2-5 to James 2:13
........... Zechariah 3:3-5
I see Jude 9 being about the children of Israel collective... I.E. as we are the Body of Christ... they are the Body of Moses....

First, I want to say that your interpretation of Jude 9--that the "body of Moses" was the people of Israel rather than the physical body of Moses--makes sense of a passage I've struggled with. When did this event take place that Jude records?? Not obviously in Deut 34:5-6 at the death of Moses--at least it wasn't recorded so for us. Zech 3:2 seems to be the answer--this is the only place in the bible that I know of where an angel of some type called for rebuke of Satan, and he used the exact same words as Jude records. Joshua, the high priest who represents the people of God, stood before a judge-like figure in filthy clothes--as breakers of the law of Moses they had covenanted with God to keep--with Satan accusing him/them, and an angel said, "The LORD rebuke you."

If, then, Zech 3:2 is referring to Joshua as "the body of Moses", then it can't be Jesus, since you make the point that the body of Jesus is not the same as the body of Moses. Thus, sense is made of the passage, where Jesus the son talks to God the Father about the people of God (the body of Moses). It would not make sense, as I said in my previous post, if Jesus talked to the Father about...some other part of the Trinity (curiously also named "Jesus"), or if He talked about Himself.

One more thing. In Zech 3:4, the Angel of the LORD spoke unto Joshua, saying, "Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment." This (note my underlining) is another indication that the Angel of the LORD (vs 1), who is also called "the LORD" (vs 2) is actually Jesus. BUT, if Jude called that entity "Michael", do we now have a conflict?

I always thought it sad that Jehovah's Witnesses insisted that Michael and Jesus are the same person (I still do, since they believe Jesus was a created being). But I was intrigued when reading some of the margin notes in the Geneva Bible (fortunately a modernized version that didn't have those funny f's in place of the s's). The Geneva Bible claimed that Michael, as spoken of in Daniel 10:13, was in fact Jesus. Click here for a pdf of the Geneva Bible page. I wasn't so sure until I reread that Zech 3 passage alongside Jude 9. Now, I'm starting to see it as a good possibility. Here's a whole article on this subject, if you're interested. I'm not endorsing everything the guy says, but it's interesting reading.

Anyway, I think I've at least given credence to my point, that Satan was not accusing Jesus Christ in this scripture (Zech 3).

Now, to try to get back on track with the thread topic, since I think the Zech 3 discussion was a bit red-herring-ish, I think I want to revisit your post right as you were trying to "bow out" and accidently closed the thread temporarily. I'll do that in my next post, and you can help me to see if I'm misunderstanding where you're coming from.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Derf... you are an amazing listener and stellar peacemaker... by God's will! This is clear. As you note... I'm bowing out... but your last response here nailed it! You got my gist. I'll lay it out succinctly to verify your suspicions.
As promised, I wanted to review some of your assertions. I'll call these my "Yes, but" responses.

1. God creates all of His Creations "Innocent" and with "Neutral Free Will".
Yes, but Adam and Eve had a part in creating all of the men and women that followed them. So if God created all of His creations "Innocent" and with "neutral free will", but man created all of his creations with something else, there would be a mixture of the two, somehow. After all, [Gen 5:3 KJV] And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

2. Evil results from abuse of "Freewill", but is allowed by God to foster sincere Love.
I agree.
3. Evil was present in the Garden
Agree.
4. Adam and Eve were swayed by Evil... away from their innocence.
Agree.
5. God's personal standards of Righteousness and God's Knowledge became a burden that the Devil could impute against mankind... and per 1 Corinthians 15:54-56 ... use to separate a human being from God... as well as kill the flesh.
Yes, but is "separating a human being from God" any different from "killing the flesh"? For instance, if Adam and Eve were separated from God by their act, why did God visit with Cain? This may support your view, but why, then, do we all not have some personal encounter with God, apart from Jesus Christ. It seems that most people, prior to meeting Jesus Christ, do not have any kind of personal relationship with God, so doesn't' that mean they are separate from God?
6. If the subjection of a person to carnal death implies a "tainted nature"... then Jesus would have been with "Sin"... because He "Died"... thus the very idea is defunct and immediately disproven.
Yes, but Jesus died from a different reason than everybody else. (I talked about this before, so no more here)
7. Carnal influence only had sway over Spiritual fate... until Jesus paid our "Ransom".
Not sure what you're getting at, here. Carnal influence has sway over more than spiritual fate, but what is "spiritual fate", anyway?
8. Men like Enoch and Elijah being "taken up... support my "theory"... as they "walked by faith" and were never grasped by Satan. They were never "Sinless"... but they clearly maintained Faith... without waiver... and thus... they maintained "innocence" in the eyes of God from birth to being "taken up".
Yes, but if they were NEVER sinless, then were they not born with sin somehow applied to their accounts??? Why is this different than @Lon's view? And how is it possible that they can have faith before or as they are being born that counteracts, somehow, the sin they are born with? Especially if you think they at some point need to make a choice?
9. All men eventually deviate from the perfection of God... "miss the mark" EXCEPT the Son of God and Man... God the Son.
Yes, but "eventually" seems too open-ended, allowing for people that stay sin-free until they die carnally. If that is the case, then does the death of Christ really apply to them? If so, why? If not, was He really the savior of all mankind? If the Word says "All have sinned...", but it only means "All that have come to the point of sinning have sinned", don't we dilute the gospel, since there then must be people out there that it doesn't really apply to, at least not yet? And some may die before they get to that point.

Or another option is that in order for the "All have sinned" from Rom 3:23 to be true, it would mean that for those that will die early (for whatever cause), God has to MAKE them sin in order to make sure the verse is true, thus becoming the author of sin.

Hebrews 2:14 explains that Jesus freed us from Deaths grasp in us and though carnal death continues... mankind is freed from the Spiritual impact of sin.

Over arching points...

A. Mankind has choice and starts with "innocence
B. Only Jesus lived a life in "the flesh" without committing a single sin or succumbing to the Devil.
Yep!
C. All but Jesus Fail
Yes, but there's still that issue of whether someone can make it some length of time in life before failing--and what if they die before that happens?
D. Jesus was condemned by Satan as a transgressor... and because this made Satan a "False Witness and False Judge"... he lost his "self appointed" "wrongfully usurped" "spiritual reign"... and his reign of this ephemeral "dust" will come to a close... as well.
I think Satan made himself a false witness. Was he ever a judge, or just an accuser?
E. God does not condemn a single soul that is innocent or impute sin to a man before it is legitimately present in thought, word, deed or feeling... and thusly... All men are righteously in need of salvation as all men fail.
Except for babies?? Or young kids? Or even some older folks that just haven't got to the point of failing yet? I think this is where there has to be some kind of recognition that as soon as it is possible to fail, all men fail. And if that is so, it's a pretty good indication of a "nature" of sinning. Is it possible that even in the womb, an infant can make some choices for good vs evil? or is there an "age of accountability" after which it is counted against us?
F. Jesus has always been the origin of Good, the solution to Evil and Loving sustainer of all... That has never changed... from before the foundation.
Halleluyah!
G. All men are righteously given a chance... All men fail... all men are equally in need of salvation and all men are provided access to it... BY GOD and HIS WILL.
I have questions about how men that haven't heard the gospel are provided access to it.

All Grace... In Him,

- EE
I hope you see that your assertions don't seem to line up with each other. If there are no people that ever make it without sinning, then there seems to be an innate drive to sin, because otherwise there would be some that make it for a little while without sinning--that "eventually" factor wouldn't be reached if one dies, say, one second after birth, or one second after one reaches the proposed age of accountability.

And if we think all sin at the very earliest opportunity, aren't we then agreeing with the "Total Depravity" plank of Calvin?

Personally, I'd like it better if we could say that we are all slated to die for the sin of Adam, and most of us have and take multitude opportunities to add our own sins on to that. But whether we add to it or not, we all need a savior--because we all die.

All the best,
Derf
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
[MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] ... how can I add to your post or share more, when our contrasting and unified perspective points give a full 360 degree view of the matter? To be succinct... though we see things slightly different at certain places... the dialogue between us here is currently... perfectly balanced...

I seriously want to affirm the quality of your responses here and say something I don’t usually say...

What more can be said? You’ve said it so well... the closing of this needs to be in your perspective.

I’m sincere here... you capped it off without intending to. I’m not messing with a perfect close. :e4e:
 
Top