Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thank you for the email.


    Originally Posted by Patman
    I know that God has some future knowledge. I know of no O.V.T. who say otherwise. The mistake made by the S.V. is to take the instances that God exercises foreknowledge and blow it up to mean more than it says.

    This is my beef with the S.V. Don't make it into more than it is. Keep to the word, don't add stuff to it.

    The evidence is that God has limited future knowledge. You point out verses that make his ability to see the future very compellingly extensive. My answer is the S.V. Equation... aka the S.V. Fallacy. All S.V. Evidence is based on these ideas:

    “A” knows the future because “A” accurately predicted “B”.

    “A” knows the future because of the large number of accurate predictions.

    “A” is powerful. Therefore A can do A-Z (i.e. everything).

    These three lines of thinking are all what make up the evidence of an ALL future knowing God... none of which hold up. With this faulty evidence, and the understanding the claims are assumptions based on these rules, along with the fact there are no verses to back up the claims, S.V. should no longer be a view held by any bible believing Christian.
    This is a subject I have been discussing on another tread. I was trying to avoid a direct discussion of free will and foreknowledge with you, because I don’t thing we do much good discussing conclusions, when assumptions and interpretations will really do more to change thinking. The examples of Peter, Judas and John the Baptist can not be rationalized away as God foreordained them or they are “non-prophecy’s” that could be generalized or not even completed with out impact to truth. These are specific individuals making free will choices.
    One issue is O.V. will not allow foreknowledge to be foreknowledge other then foreordained or possible prediction.
    The problem being alluded to is foreknowledge and free will coexisting. They can if we do not limit the definition of free will to specifically exclude foreknowledge which is not supported by scripture.
    If we define Free will: "the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies"(WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University). The agent’s choice is limited (set) by the agent’s choice (that could be known by God) and since the agent herself can not remove free will from herself the choice is a free will choice. We can still have the power to make our choice, which will be the same choice God has seen us make (by some means). It is still our decision we are being held accountable for (God is being just), the sins are ours responsibility, time as far as we are concern is still duration and sequence, righteousness is the same, and everything else seems to be there.
    Foreknowledge (by some miraculous means) could be just perfect information on the future that is not always foreordained.
    This may not seem logical to you but let’s make sure we are talking about the as logic.
    Two different (definitions for) logics: 1. It is just as scientifically illogical to express the idea, that information would travel faster then light ( or God is everywhere) as it is to talk about information traveling from the future back in time. At least it is for me (I have a master in chemistry and took some physics along the way). Our scientific “laws” in our corner of the universe just don’t apply in either situation. 2. There is logic concerning God’s nature, which I think we agree on, these laws of God’s nature would not allow Him to be unjust or remove human free will.

    I am not saying God has complete foreknowledge, but I am not saying there is anything to prove He does not. If God is foreseeing everything (and not living everything) simultaneously then information is traveling back to Him on what all beings have decided to do. That may not mean that the future is an actual place, but God has this very perfect vision of the future that He does not control but is controlled by himself and the agents that will live in the future.


    .....

    Originally Posted by Patman
    The burden/weight of sin is death. It is the punishment of our sins Jesus took on. A punishment that is and was and will be very real for all sinners. In this he bore our sins. The context speaks that we are dead to sin because Jesus died to make us so. It explains this as a side note as possible by the verb "bore." What does it mean, what of sin is one able to bear?

    The definition is below if you want to check me on this....

    bore 4 past of bear 1 . bear 1 |be(?)r| verb ( past bore |bôr|; past part. borne |bôrn|) [ trans. ] 1 (of a person) carry : he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses | the warriors bore lances tipped with iron. • (of a vehicle or boat) convey (passengers or cargo) : steamboats bear the traveler out of Kerrerra Sound. • have or display as a visible mark or feature : a small boat bearing a white flag | many of the papers bore his flamboyant signature. • be called by (a name or title) : he bore the surname Tiller. • ( bear oneself) [with adverbial ] carry or conduct oneself in a particular manner : she bore herself with dignity. 2 support : walls that cannot bear a stone vault. • take responsibility for : no one likes to bear the responsibility for such decisions | the expert's fee shall be borne by the tenant. • be able to accept or stand up to : it is doubtful whether either of these distinctions would bear scrutiny. 3 endure (an ordeal or difficulty) : she bore the pain stoically. • [with modal and negative ] manage to tolerate (a situation or experience) : she could hardly bear his sarcasm | [with infinitive ] I cannot bear to see you hurt • ( cannot bear someone/something) strongly dislike : I can't bear caviar. 4 give birth to (a child) : she bore six daughters | [with two objs. ] his wife had borne him a son. • (of a tree or plant) produce (fruit or flowers) : a squash that bears fruit shaped like cucumbers. 5 [ intrans. ] turn and proceed in a specified direction : bear left and follow the old road.

    This is why I say it is the weight, sin itself is, is what he bore, the death that results. The thing that is and always was and always will be real... not the future undefined actions.
    Good definition, so let me ask you:
    1. If you have unforgiven sins do you bare something?
    2. Can your burden be felt before your sins are forgiven?
    3. At the point of forgiveness can you feel the burden being lifted off?
    4. If this burden is removed at forgiveness where does it go?

    Comment


    • Bling

      Originally posted by bling
      I am not saying God has complete foreknowledge, but I am not saying there is anything to prove He does not. If God is foreseeing everything (and not living everything) simultaneously then information is traveling back to Him on what all beings have decided to do. That may not mean that the future is an actual place, but God has this very perfect vision of the future that He does not control but is controlled by himself and the agents that will live in the future.
      All we need for evidence to prove he does not is one instant, a single example, showing he did not accurately predict a future event. And there are plenty of examples in the word showing so.

      Matthew 12:40
      For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

      Was Jesus really dead three days AND three nights? Crucified on a Friday, one day, dead Friday night, one night. Dead Saturday day and night, 2 days and 2 nights. Dead Sunday, risen on Sunday day.. so that's 3 days.... What about that other night he predicted that he would be dead?

      This is very strong Evidence for a lack of absolute foreknowledge.

      Originally posted by bling
      Good definition, so let me ask you:
      1. If you have unforgiven sins do you bare something?
      2. Can your burden be felt before your sins are forgiven?
      3. At the point of forgiveness can you feel the burden being lifted off?
      4. If this burden is removed at forgiveness where does it go?
      1.Yes. The penalty of sin, death is yours to bare.
      2.Sometimes. If you go to jail for a sin, yo feel the burden. If you are forgiven in jail, your burden was felt before forgiveness. Not all sins tho will be punished through suffering on earth.
      3.The very instant you are forgiven, you no longer have the burden of sin.
      4.The burden is counted with Christ's ultimate sacrifice. It doesn't time travel, it is simply added to the pool of blood that flows to all forever.
      - Changing wineskins, at last.

      - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by patman
        All we need for evidence to prove he does not is one instant, a single example, showing he did not accurately predict a future event. And there are plenty of examples in the word showing so.

        Matthew 12:40
        For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

        Was Jesus really dead three days AND three nights? Crucified on a Friday, one day, dead Friday night, one night. Dead Saturday day and night, 2 days and 2 nights. Dead Sunday, risen on Sunday day.. so that's 3 days.... What about that other night he predicted that he would be dead?

        This is very strong Evidence for a lack of absolute foreknowledge.


        1.Yes. The penalty of sin, death is yours to bare.
        2.Sometimes. If you go to jail for a sin, yo feel the burden. If you are forgiven in jail, your burden was felt before forgiveness. Not all sins tho will be punished through suffering on earth.
        3.The very instant you are forgiven, you no longer have the burden of sin.
        4.The burden is counted with Christ's ultimate sacrifice. It doesn't time travel, it is simply added to the pool of blood that flows to all forever.
        His purpose was greater than suffering! GIT

        Three! Two! One! Cue the Rooster! from Open Theism Apologetics

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Patrick
          Matthew 12:40
          For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

          Was Jesus really dead three days AND three nights? Crucified on a Friday, one day, dead Friday night, one night. Dead Saturday day and night, 2 days and 2 nights. Dead Sunday, risen on Sunday day.. so that's 3 days.... What about that other night he predicted that he would be dead?

          This is very strong Evidence for a lack of absolute foreknowledge.
          Is the Bible fallable?
          Rob
          His purpose was greater than suffering! GIT

          Three! Two! One! Cue the Rooster! from Open Theism Apologetics

          Comment


          • Originally Posted by Patman


            All we need for evidence to prove he does not is one instant, a single example, showing he did not accurately predict a future event. And there are plenty of examples in the word showing so.
            1. There are explanations for every one of those. You may not always like them, but neither do my agnostic friends when I go through the explanations to apparent conflicts with scripture.
            2. I do not say God has or uses His foreknowledge ability all the time.
            3. The reverse maybe truer, in that, all we have to show is that God had foreknowledge of just one human free will decision to prove it is possible. The statement by O.V.ers is, “it is not ever possible.”

            Originally Posted by Patman

            Matthew 12:40
            For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


            Was Jesus really dead three days AND three nights? Crucified on a Friday, one day, dead Friday night, one night. Dead Saturday day and night, 2 days and 2 nights. Dead Sunday, risen on Sunday day.. so that's 3 days.... What about that other night he predicted that he would be dead?

            This is very strong Evidence for a lack of absolute foreknowledge.
            O boy, now you got me going back to my studies of early first century Jewish practices and how the words were used and researching this stuff again. It is a good question that has been asked for centuries.
            First, let understand the issue: prophesies and even the explanation of prophesy afterwards says, Jesus was in the tomb three days and night. Could Matthew not count? How could Matthew say Jesus is a perfect match to Jonah to people who were either witnesses to the whole thing or would have know those that did? There is no reason for Jesus to have to come back early as far as we can tell and there is no conflict with other prophecy. God is in total control of fulfilling this prophecy with no apparent reason to return on Sunday instead of Monday. (Intellectuals might say this was the start of a most unusual Jubilee year. I like all this stuff, but no one knows for sure about how they were, and if they were or could keep up with the Jubilee year, we can not today be sure.) Can God not even control a prophecy; He is in total control of?
            There is another explanation that has been researched extensively by much better men then myself. New evidence has continued to be produced, which I have not kept up with. OK read Lori Eldridge she agrees with me: http://www.loriswebs.com/lorispoetry/crucifix.html
            I usually avoid this discussion, because it is more for the academics. Sabbath days at this time had come to refer to any holy day of rest and worship, it was used to describe the first day of the 7th month and even the entire Jubilee year(the Sabbath year). Rest and worship was not only once a week, rest was when you did not work for yourself (earning money) and worship was when you did stuff for God, any time you spent the whole day doing this was a Sabbath. Read Lori she does a great job. There are may others just get on the net with Thursday crucifixion.



            Originally Posted by Patman

            1.Yes. The penalty of sin, death is yours to bare.
            2.Sometimes. If you go to jail for a sin, yo feel the burden. If you are forgiven in jail, your burden was felt before forgiveness. Not all sins tho will be punished through suffering on earth.
            3.The very instant you are forgiven, you no longer have the burden of sin.
            4.The burden is counted with Christ's ultimate sacrifice. It doesn't time travel, it is simply added to the pool of blood that flows to all forever.
            1. Death is the word for separation, so do we bare separation? Being separated has the idea of missing something not having something. Since one sin given you the “burden of death”, should everyone feel the exact same burden? Has that been your experience?
            2. I don’t know if I would equate any earthly suffering today with sins we have committed. Why is a guilty Christian prisoner standing next to a completely innocent Christian prisoner in prison if it is not for the same reason?
            3. Would the burden increase with more sins?
            4. Peter when talking about Christ baring our burden does not mention blood. Other place mention blood washing away our sins, put Peter seems to be telling us where they go.

            Comment


            • Rob

              Originally posted by RobE
              Is the Bible fallable?
              Rob
              Rob, what do you care? You are going to tell everyone it says something it doesn't, so why would you be concerned if it is fallible or not? You are going to put words in its pages that aren't there and bluntly ignore pleas for proof.

              Debating with you on this issue is becoming annoying. If you are going to debate on biblical issues, you must use the Bible. Since you do not stick to the Bible, there is no way you can be persuaded to its truths.

              I will stick to the word. You have made your decision, I hope you can deal with the judgement that awaits your mishandling of the word. You are only hurting the treasures you were to receive in heaven. Everyone will know the truth of how you knowingly preached words you could not find and will understand perfectly how your heart was hardened to do it anyway.

              OR you could present Biblical evidence to your beliefs.... But I doubt you can.
              - Changing wineskins, at last.

              - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

              Comment


              • Bling

                Originally posted by bling
                1. There are explanations for every one of those. You may not always like them, but neither do my agnostic friends when I go through the explanations to apparent conflicts with scripture.
                2. I do not say God has or uses His foreknowledge ability all the time.
                3. The reverse maybe truer, in that, all we have to show is that God had foreknowledge of just one human free will decision to prove it is possible. The statement by O.V.ers is, “it is not ever possible.”
                Bling,

                I am not one to join the bandwagon. If you are right and O.V.ers say "it is not ever possible" I disagree full heartedly. But I know of no O.V.ers who say so. I would ask you to reconsider things you have head from OV to see if that is what was really said, and not just a misunderstanding.

                MY stand is there are times God can foresee the future, but that future knowledge is not total. Thus I agree with your #2 point. But not the same way you do. You 2nd point seems o say he has complete and total future knowledge to use and that he chooses not to use it at times. The problem is that we have no evidence to say "God has full future knowledge at his disposal." By continuing to hold to this belief you must also say "I have no evidence for this" to whomever you share it with, or risk tainting the words by doing what Rob is doing.

                We mustn't add words to the scripture, or assume things where there is no evidence to support our assumptions.

                As for the scripture about the 3 days and 3 nights. The OV have no problem with this. It is the SV who panic and try to make up an answer where there is no logical explanation.

                I must say that even if there were a logical explanation, I wouldn't be to proud to say I was wrong... And I would also submit a hundred other examples of the same thing.

                But I do not see how anyone could miss this who is reading. The prophecy did not come to pass. God has his reasons for allowing this to happen; because he is in control of the prophecy, not the prophecy in control of him.

                1. Death is the word for separation, so do we bare separation? Being separated has the idea of missing something not having something. Since one sin given you the “burden of death”, should everyone feel the exact same burden? Has that been your experience?

                Separation from God is the second death. It is the punishment for sin. All who sin should feel this burden. Though there are also smaller penalties that result in sin that sometimes people experience. They don't matter in the long run tho, those who are sinners will be punished with death... i.e. the second death, as spoken of in REV.

                2. I don’t know if I would equate any earthly suffering today with sins we have committed. Why is a guilty Christian prisoner standing next to a completely innocent Christian prisoner in prison if it is not for the same reason?

                I can't either. The punishment of sin is too great to bare on earth or anywhere. But the original question you asked deals with how can someone feel earthly punishment, and the answer is sometimes people are punished for their sins on earth, like jail. You didn't ask me how hell might be experienced on earth.... that's not going to happen.

                3. Would the burden increase with more sins?

                Those in hell, the second death, will be punished more harshly who deserve a harsher punishment.

                4. Peter when talking about Christ baring our burden does not mention blood. Other place mention blood washing away our sins, put Peter seems to be telling us where they go.

                We cannot ignore what others have said about the cross. Peter is not talking about time travel, he is saying a simple side thought that the S.V. is blowing way out of proportion and adding way to much to.

                Jesus' death took place of our death. He took the punishment, i.e. he bore our sins. It is really simple... it is the so called "milk" of the gospel. If you can't get this, how can you handle the "meat?"
                - Changing wineskins, at last.

                - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                Comment


                • Originally Posted by Patman

                  I am not one to join the bandwagon. If you are right and O.V.ers say "it is not ever possible" I disagree full heartedly. But I know of no O.V.ers who say so. I would ask you to reconsider things you have head from OV to see if that is what was really said, and not just a misunderstanding.

                  MY stand is there are times God can foresee the future, but that future knowledge is not total. Thus I agree with your #2 point. But not the same way you do. You 2nd point seems o say he has complete and total future knowledge to use and that he chooses not to use it at times. The problem is that we have no evidence to say "God has full future knowledge at his disposal." By continuing to hold to this belief you must also say "I have no evidence for this" to whomever you share it with, or risk tainting the words by doing what Rob is doing.
                  Fore see the future means more then a logical thought-out estimate of what Peter would decide to do , what Judas would decide to do and what an un born John the Baptist would decide to do. It would not be stated by Jesus and the angel as “fact” if it were still being speculated about.


                  Originally Posted by Patman
                  We mustn't add words to the scripture, or assume things where there is no evidence to support our assumptions.

                  As for the scripture about the 3 days and 3 nights. The OV have no problem with this. It is the SV who panic and try to make up an answer where there is no logical explanation.
                  I must say that even if there were a logical explanation, I wouldn't be to proud to say I was wrong... And I would also submit a hundred other examples of the same thing.
                  I was not raised accepting traditional ideas without first studying them and drawing my own conclusions. I studied this three day issues long before there was an O.V. Back then I had to use scholarly books there was no internet. Today you can get a ton of information intently. I find most Biblical scholars that are not steeped in tradition do not accept the Friday crucifixion, so would you mind finding a non traditional Biblical scholar that can support a Friday crucifixion from scripture and Jewish traditions of the time (don’t use early sec. and third church history, thinks got off quickly.)
                  I have a problem with the explanation of the three days and nights being: “God did not know how long Christ would stay in the grave at the time of Jonah spending three days and nights in the fish and to be correct Jonah should have stayed only two days.” Or that Jesus should have said, “in two days I will rebuild this temple” to make a correct prophecy. I think one of the big issues with this is what the two young men said to the risen Jesus on the day of him being raised: Luke 24: 13Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. … And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23but didn't find his body. These men should have said the second day not “third day” for the crucifixion to be on Friday.
                  As usual Patman when sincere truth seeking Christians disagree it usually has to do with defining words: If you define Sabbath as meaning only the seventh day, then you wind up with on Friday. If you define Sabbath as a holy day then it can stand for the seventh day of the week and other holy days like the Passover day. In that case if Passover was the Friday before the seventh day you had back to back Sabbaths. The Passover had to happen some time so we are left with Thurs., Fri. or Sat. What did you think of Lori Eldridge work and can you find any better?
                  Originally Posted by Patman
                  But I do not see how anyone could miss this who is reading. The prophecy did not come to pass. God has his reasons for allowing this to happen; because he is in control of the prophecy, not the prophecy in control of him.
                  You seem to be a little quick to though out a prophecy for the traditional interpretation. This will continue to generate problems for us in the future since I am not very traditional.


                  1. Death is the word for separation, so do we bare separation? Being separated has the idea of missing something not having something. Since one sin given you the “burden of death”, should everyone feel the exact same burden? Has that been your experience?
                  Originally Posted by Patman
                  Separation from God is the second death. It is the punishment for sin. All who sin should feel this burden. Though there are also smaller penalties that result in sin that sometimes people experience. They don't matter in the long run tho, those who are sinners will be punished with death... i.e. the second death, as spoken of in REV.
                  From your comments I see a problem. You seem to be defining “burden” as punishment, while I equate burden with debt. The punishment for the debt is prison (hell for the debt of sin), which is different from the burden (the debt for sin). Just because this burden (debt) is not physical does not mean it is not real and can not be seen with spiritual eyes or felt with the mind, spirit, soul and emotions.

                  2. I don’t know if I would equate any earthly suffering today with sins we have committed. Why is a guilty Christian prisoner standing next to a completely innocent Christian prisoner in prison if it is not for the same reason?
                  Originally Posted by Patman
                  I can't either. The punishment of sin is too great to bare on earth or anywhere. But the original question you asked deals with how can someone feel earthly punishment, and the answer is sometimes people are punished for their sins on earth, like jail. You didn't ask me how hell might be experienced on earth.... that's not going to happen.
                  Please read my above statement.

                  3. Would the burden increase with more sins?
                  Originally Posted by Patman
                  Those in hell, the second death, will be punished more harshly who deserve a harsher punishment.
                  Again punishment and burden are not the same to me.

                  4. Peter when talking about Christ baring our burden does not mention blood. Other place mention blood washing away our sins, put Peter seems to be telling us where they go.
                  Originally Posted by Patman
                  We cannot ignore what others have said about the cross. Peter is not talking about time travel, he is saying a simple side thought that the S.V. is blowing way out of proportion and adding way to much to.

                  Jesus' death took place of our death. He took the punishment, i.e. he bore our sins. It is really simple... it is the so called "milk" of the gospel. If you can't get this, how can you handle the "meat?"
                  I am not stating some S.V. idea, I have not heard them ever use this concept. I have my own issues and understanding. Any debt has to be bore by someone. If the Master wants to forgive the debt then the master bares the debt. If the master can not take on the debt (God can have nothing to do with sin), then someone who can handle the debt must step in, “Christ”.
                  I think I get into the meat of the word, when I challenge the traditional ideas with sound Biblical Scholarship. What am I doing wrong?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by patman
                    Rob, what do you care? You are going to tell everyone it says something it doesn't, so why would you be concerned if it is fallible or not? You are going to put words in its pages that aren't there and bluntly ignore pleas for proof.
                    So you're saying that the Bible is in error!

                    Originally posted by Patrick
                    Was Jesus really dead three days AND three nights? Crucified on a Friday, one day, dead Friday night, one night. Dead Saturday day and night, 2 days and 2 nights. Dead Sunday, risen on Sunday day.. so that's 3 days.... What about that other night he predicted that he would be dead?
                    Patrick: Debating with you on this issue is becoming annoying. If you are going to debate on biblical issues, you must use the Bible. Since you do not stick to the Bible, there is no way you can be persuaded to its truths.

                    Since you submit that the Bible contains errors then how are you able to accept it as truth?

                    Originally posted by Patrick
                    I will stick to the word. You have made your decision, I hope you can deal with the judgement that awaits your mishandling of the word. You are only hurting the treasures you were to receive in heaven. Everyone will know the truth of how you knowingly preached words you could not find and will understand perfectly how your heart was hardened to do it anyway.

                    OR you could present Biblical evidence to your beliefs.... But I doubt you can.
                    Click Here to See the Biblical evidence that I previously submitted!!!

                    Show me again where God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were mistaken in the scriptures. God changing an outcome doesn't prove a mistake. God being grieved because of what happens is not a mistake.

                    Patrick, for your view, to be correct God has to not be in control of His own creation. If you're going to stick with the Bible, then prove to all of us how the bible supports your view that God was wrong, that the word prophecy means 'might happen', and where God did not lie when He foretold the future.

                    Friends,
                    Rob
                    His purpose was greater than suffering! GIT

                    Three! Two! One! Cue the Rooster! from Open Theism Apologetics

                    Comment


                    • Rob E if you get a chance let me have your feed back on:
                      . OK read Lori Eldridge she agrees with me: http://www.loriswebs.com/lorispoetry/crucifix.html
                      I usually avoid this discussion, because it is more for the academics. Sabbath days at this time had come to refer to any holy day of rest and worship, it was used to describe the first day of the 7th month and even the entire Jubilee year(the Sabbath year). Rest and worship was not only once a week, rest was when you did not work for yourself (earning money) and worship was when you did stuff for God, any time you spent the whole day doing this was a Sabbath. Read Lori she does a great job. There are may others just get on the net with Thursday crucifixion.
                      Also read my last post to Pat on the subject of three days and nights. I would like to here your comments on Lori’s web page.

                      Comment


                      • Oops

                        Bling,

                        Let's settle this right now. There is evidence that Christ was crucified on Wednesday. Bob Hill gives a convencing arguement with out twisting math and adding in days on the calander and with out distorting the word.

                        http://www.biblicalanswers.com/quest...ons_4_body.htm
                        Question: When was Jesus crucified?

                        24 Apr 2000 16:03

                        Name: Nathan Hoe

                        When was Jesus crucified? Friday as I believe(Passover is Friday right?) or Wednesday as some say(three days and nights-24 hours)

                        Answer: (click here to view the answer)


                        Nathan,

                        I believe Christ was crucified on Wednesday, the day of Preparation for the Passover according to John 19:14: “Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, ‘Behold your King!’” All the gospels agree that our Lord was laid in His tomb on the Preparation Day. Mat 27:62 On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate. Mk 15:42 Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath. Lk 23:54 That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near. John 19:42 So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby. This day was Nisan 14. This was just before Nisan 15, the High Sabbath, John 19:31 “Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.” It was called a High Sabbath because of Lev 23:5-7 (The bold words beloew.) “On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the Lord’s Passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; seven days you must eat unleavened bread. 7 On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it.

                        Notice, I said “I believe”. I’m convinced, and it answers the problem of the 3 days and 3 nights of Mat 12:39,40, “But He answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” I believe it is an interesting study. If you have any reasons you do not agree with this, please send them.

                        In our risen Christ,

                        Bob
                        So I retract my last point. It is easy to admit when your evidence is wrong, just say it. But there is other evidence to support the O.V. Claim.

                        p.s. I don't understand why you won't talk about it here. The "academics" are everywhere, I consider myself smart enough to understand evidence you present. I am sorry that I didn't agree with her approach, I try to avoid anything that rests all your belief in a hope that could be very wrong. It turns out the answer is in the scripture, not in some "Oh please oh please let these conditions be right."
                        - Changing wineskins, at last.

                        - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bling
                          Fore see the future means more then a logical thought-out estimate of what Peter would decide to do , what Judas would decide to do and what an un born John the Baptist would decide to do. It would not be stated by Jesus and the angel as “fact” if it were still being speculated about.

                          .....

                          I am not stating some S.V. idea, I have not heard them ever use this concept. I have my own issues and understanding. Any debt has to be bore by someone. If the Master wants to forgive the debt then the master bares the debt. If the master can not take on the debt (God can have nothing to do with sin), then someone who can handle the debt must step in, “Christ”.
                          I think I get into the meat of the word, when I challenge the traditional ideas with sound Biblical Scholarship. What am I doing wrong?
                          Bling, I worry that sometimes you argue just to be arguing. I have no idea why you are debating the meaning of debt... the bible itself tells us the wages of sin are death... and we later find out that it means the second death, hell, then what is the issue? You can call it "debt" all day long, but I went straight to the heart of what that debt really is.

                          That is what Christ died for us. This is very basic stuff we both agree with, why are we even talking about it if you don't use this verse as a S.V. proof?

                          You ask what you are doing wrong... I do not accuse you of misunderstanding the cross, but I ask that you consider that we might agree on more things than you think, you just want me to say it like you do. But then it wouldn't be coming form my heart would it?

                          You point out that "foresee" means more than a logical conclusion to an outcome. And sometimes it does. If I were to say, "I foresee trouble if we go to war," well it doesn't mean I have supernatural powers. It can mean both. We shouldn't fight over words like this.

                          The word "foresee" isn't used in any of those verses you refer to anyway. We just use it in our explanations, so it isn't even worth discussing the meaning of the word.

                          True or false. It is POSSIBLE for God to predict the denial of Peter and the betrayal of Judas without actually seeing those events in the future?

                          If you say true, why do you assume it required seeing those future events before it happened? What verse lead you to that conclusion?

                          If you find yourself struggling to find the answer, then perhaps you will see why I do not attribute this as evidence for absolute foreknowledge. Not only because the answer isn't there, but because it also is fallible thinking to assume the accurate prediction of one future event, be it a difficult event to predict or not, means that that person has the ability to predict all future events.
                          - Changing wineskins, at last.

                          - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                          Comment


                          • Originally Posted by Patman
                            So I retract my last point. It is easy to admit when your evidence is wrong, just say it. But there is other evidence to support the O.V. Claim.

                            p.s. I don't understand why you won't talk about it here. The "academics" are everywhere, I consider myself smart enough to understand evidence you present. I am sorry that I didn't agree with her approach, I try to avoid anything that rests all your belief in a hope that could be very wrong. It turns out the answer is in the scripture, not in some "Oh please oh please let these conditions be right."
                            This is fine, but the two young men on the road: Luke 24: 13Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. … And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23but didn't find his body. These men should have said the fourth day not “third day” for the crucifixion to be on Wednesday. Do you think they just messed up?

                            As far as academics, I really don’t care when you think Christ was crucified, unless your using it as some prove text. I like to talk about objectives, the role of the Spirit, the role of sin, love, faith, teaching the lose, raising a family and why the world is the way it is. I like to be prepared to answer with questions those that ask me with Spiritual concerns.

                            Comment


                            • Originally Posted by Patman
                              Bling, I worry that sometimes you argue just to be arguing. I have no idea why you are debating the meaning of debt... the bible itself tells us the wages of sin are death... and we later find out that it means the second death, hell, then what is the issue? You can call it "debt" all day long, but I went straight to the heart of what that debt really is.
                              I make a distinction between the debt of sin and the punishment for sin, because I see them as two totally separate things. Sin does separate us from God, a kind of death, but for some that is not a problem or concern until they experience physical death. Debt is a burden (for some more then others), but punishment hurts everyone equally. I am of the opinion, no one today experience the punishment for sin while on earth. The suffering and bad stuff that happens to bad people on earth is to help them as discipline and others servers for them. This all relates to my understanding of the world I live in.

                              Originally Posted by Patman
                              That is what Christ died for us. This is very basic stuff we both agree with, why are we even talking about it if you don't use this verse as a S.V. proof?
                              This goes back to the concept of “he who is forgiven of much loves much”. There is that which we owe separate from the punishment, (we will receive for that which we owe). There is a difference between sin and punishment, between sin and the wages of sin. No sin means there will be no punishment. You could sin, be forgiven of that sin and receive no punishment. Not all debtors go to jail and you are a debtor before you go to jail.

                              As far as S.V. proof text, that is not the point, but if you ask issue I have with accepting the O.V. view it would include changing my concept of Christ baring my sins on the cross, which would include the idea of the information of my sins traveling back in some form of time to the cross to be bore by Christ.
                              Part of the proof text for Universal Salvation is the idea that Christ bore sin in general on the cross. I have confronted this idea well before I heard of the OVT.

                              Originally Posted by Patman
                              You ask what you are doing wrong... I do not accuse you of misunderstanding the cross, but I ask that you consider that we might agree on more things than you think, you just want me to say it like you do. But then it wouldn't be coming form my heart would it?
                              Patman, I want you to be honest and when you can challenge me. As I said before, I have changed some of my thinking and have considered more ideas, but not always to the liking of the O.V.ers here.

                              Originally Posted by Patman
                              You point out that "foresee" means more than a logical conclusion to an outcome. And sometimes it does. If I were to say, "I foresee trouble if we go to war," well it doesn't mean I have supernatural powers. It can mean both. We shouldn't fight over words like this.
                              I definitely agree if any human says, “I foresee” it is an educated guess at best.

                              Originally Posted by Patman
                              The word "foresee" isn't used in any of those verses you refer to anyway. We just use it in our explanations, so it isn't even worth discussing the meaning of the word.
                              Like you say foresee could have many meanings.

                              Originally Posted by Patman
                              True or false. It is POSSIBLE for God to predict the denial of Peter and the betrayal of Judas without actually seeing those events in the future?
                              With God all things are possible, but that might also mean how we define “seeing”. I have much more difficulty with Peter’s denial and with Judas killing himself, verse predicting Judas’ betrayal. At best I interpret any passage, with the out, “this is the most likely alternative to me at this point in my spiritual growth.” If you or anyone else wants to help me with choosing a better alternative, I will need more then conclusions, I need assumptions and interpretations and faults in my assumptions and interpretations.

                              Originally Posted by Patman
                              If you say true, why do you assume it required seeing those future events before it happened? What verse lead you to that conclusion?
                              My understanding of: free will, God’s desire and willingness, Peter, Judas, Jesus’ statements, the purpose of sin, the role of Satan, the complexity of the situation, and I wind up choosing the most likely alternative. I also do not see it any differently then other prophecies like the angle prophesizing John the Baptist free will decisions.

                              Originally Posted by Patman
                              If you find yourself struggling to find the answer, then perhaps you will see why I do not attribute this as evidence for absolute foreknowledge. Not only because the answer isn't there, but because it also is fallible thinking to assume the accurate prediction of one future event, be it a difficult event to predict or not, means that that person has the ability to predict all future events.
                              The same can be asked of you. If it is not inpossible for god to "see" the future then what compelling reason do you have to say He could not?
                              I agree that it would be an assumption at best to say, God can predict all future evens when we have only a few future events being prophesied. I think especially in the N.T. prophecies there are really good reasons for the prophecies that are given. The issue arises from how at least some O.V.ers defining free will and foreknowledge to be exclusive of each other, it makes even rare foreknowledge a contradiction of God’s nature.

                              Comment


                              • Recounting Bob's BEQ1 Immutability questions and Sam's answers

                                I'm just now posting this summary so that I could link here from the radio broadcast that I did with TOL's James Hilston.

                                BEQ1 [Bob Enyart's Question #1]: Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change (for example, as [anti-openness author Bruce] Ware says, especially to allow for true relationship)?

                                SAL-BEQ1 [Sam Lamerson Answers Bob Enyart's Question #1]: This question depends upon what one means by “utter immutability.” Since Bob cites Dr. Reymond’s text, I will say that the doctrine as it is set forth by Reymond does not need total reformulation.

                                [NOTE: I did not cite Dr. Reymond's definition of immutability. This seems to be just a dodge, as admitted by James Hilston on our BEL radio broadcast of May 1, 2006! So, in the second round, I asked again:]

                                BEQ7: Sam, since your answer (SLA-BEQ1) restated my question, I am asking you to answer it again, without using the word “total.” You answered, “Since Bob cites Dr. Reymond’s text, I will say that the doctrine as it is set forth by Reymond does not need total reformulation.” My question is, “Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change (for example, as Ware says, especially to allow for true relationship)?”

                                SLA-BEQ7-In order to answer this question, I set forth a definition (as used by Dr. Reymond). Bob asks me to agree that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs to be totally [Bob's bold emphasis] overhauled. (Sam, I’m sure you just misread my question. So, let’s try this again.) If Bob would give me a definition of “utter immutability” I would be glad to answer.

                                BEQ9: Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs to be clearly taught as now reformulated in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change, even if only, for example, as Ware says, to allow for true relationship?

                                SLA-BEQ9: If by this you mean that the doctrine that God is “timeless” needs to be reformulated, I have already agreed. I am not sure that the classic doctrine of immutability would always be seen as not allowing God to have a true relationship.

                                [Note: Although I appreciate it whenver any Calvinist admits that God is NOT timeless, this is another dodge as Hilston termed this non-responsiveness. I didn't ask about timelessness. Oh and by the way, on that BEL radio show, Histon not only agreed that, Yes, God does change, but also, that the truth of God changing is foundational to the story of the Bible! So, now we're getting somewhere, Lamerson, Reymond, et. al, admiting that God is NOT timeless, and Hilston, Bruce Ware, etc., admitting that Yes, God does change!]

                                [So, I get back to my still unanswered question again:]

                                BEQ17: Sam, In the tradition of BEQ1, BEQ7, and BEQ9, I ask: Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
                                A: within the Trinity?
                                B: with His creatures?

                                SLA-BEQ17 This has been asked and answered. God can and does have true relationships with his creatures. [That's not what I asked.] God is not timeless. [That's not what I asked.] All that I have asked you for is an As [sic] to Reymond’s position, you are the one who brought up the systematics. It seems poor form to me to bring up the book as an example of what should not be taught, and the refuse to specifically cite what is wrong with it.

                                [Lamerson has almost completely lost me with this dodge. I'm just asking him a direct question, and he's pretending that my question is somehow so entwined with Reymond's 1,200-page text book that Lamerson teaches from -- which I've hardly mentioned, and not in connection to this question -- that therefore Lamerson can't possibly answer my question, because I'm not revealing something or other. I think it was that Hilston guy who said it right: Dodge!
                                And then again, with longsuffering, I asked:]

                                BEQ27: In the tradition of BEQ1, BEQ7, BEQ9, and BEQ17, I ask: Sam, is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
                                A: within the Trinity? and,
                                B: with His creatures?

                                SLA-BEQ27: As I have mentioned there are a variety of different meanings for the word change. He can certainly have a relationship within the Trinity [I didn't ask that] and with his creatures [I didn't ask that]. I have affirmed that, perhaps not as clearly as I should have.

                                [Still no answer: a yes or no would have helped! And if there are different definitions for the word change, that is preventing Sam from answering, than he should just offer a definition, and ANSWER!]

                                BEQ31: As per BEQ1/7/9/17/27, Sam, I accept that you say you believe that God can have relationships, but I’m asking you something different: Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
                                A: within the Trinity?
                                And as part two of the same question,
                                B: with His creatures?

                                BEQ34: Sam, can you identify any curriculum resource at Knox (Reymond’s text, etc.), that explicitly affirms to your students that God is able to change?

                                SLA-BEQ34: We all teach that depending upon what a person means by change, God is able to have a relationship with his creatures, and thus able to change.

                                [I'd LOVE to see any teaching to that effect in any of the Knox curriculum!]

                                BEQ35: Sam, to my question, “Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship,” you answered “yes” but added “depending upon what one means by the word change,” and then you withheld from the readers whatever you mean by change! Please clarify.

                                SLA-BEQ35: You were the one who asked the question, would you please clarify what you mean by change?

                                -END OF BRX BEQ1 EXCERPTS-

                                And after 35 questions, my first question was never answered without equivocation. For here the dodge ended, with a final dodge. SLA-BEQ34 was the closest thing to a direct answer, but it left a huge loophold (depending what a person means by change - as though there's any actual disagreement over that, and if there were, Sam should have defined it himself as I asked him to). It reminds me of Sam's typical calvinist statement earlier in the debate, that he believes in free will, and when I pressed for a clarification (which occurred on the radio and the transcript entered into BR X), that he admitted that he believes that God has utterly predestined everything a man will ever do, and he can NOT do anything but what has been predestined, and to Sam and countless Calvinists, that is called "Free Will." That reminds me of Mormons who tell unsuspecting listeners that they believe in one God (aside, that is, from all the others). So, because Sam chose to speak in such a manner, his loophole in SLA-BEQ34 is big enough to drive a tractor-trailer through, and I still don't know his answer to my question: whether Sam Lamerson agrees with Bruce Ware, and so many others, that the classical doctrine of immutability needs to be reformulated to acknowledge that God can change in relationship!

                                BR X may have other Qs and As and comments directly related to BEQ1 that I missed in this round up. If you find any, please post them below and I'll add them here (eventually ).

                                Thanks, -Bob Enyart
                                The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X