BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes! I do know!

It's the same reason Jesus would not have been wrong had Peter remained faithful and not denied Christ three times.

Resting in Him,
Clete

BINGO! :up:

 

[lee_merrill]

Well, if I may...

Do you, in your own opinion beleive that God was wrong when he said through the prophet Jonah, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?

They were overthrown, yet not by judgment, but by repentance! The same word ("overthrown") is used in several places, of God changing human hearts, one such place being here:

Psalm 105:25 ... whose hearts he turned ['overthrew'] to hate his people, to conspire against his servants.

The point is that I don't believe Jesus would have been mistaken about Peter any more than you believe God was mistaken about Ninevah and that there is therefore no contradiction in what we or Bob have said.

God is invincible, unless he fails? Jesus could not be mistaken, expect when he was mistaken? It seems the Open View tries to have it both ways...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Quirt]

I was just wondering if anyone read Sams last pathetic post and realized that he hoped we would all just try to forget about the questions that Bob asked. Sam wants us to know that he does not care about how poorly he did in the debate the important thing is that he is right even when proven wrong.

 

[Balder]

I would not be apposed to exploring the issue with you. I believe that our theologies must be of sound reason and so if you can show me, either here or on the other thread, how time is dependent upon timelessness for its coherence, then I would be interested to read what you have to say.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hi, Clete,

I will post something now on the Open View Time thread.

Best wishes,
B.

 

[bling]

Need Help

Need Help

Brother Enyart, I am done reading the debate and started reading these treads which are huge. I have respond and asked some questions on other treads, but I have not got a strait answer to the following, so maybe you can help me. . Peter 2:24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree,
Also In Heb. 13: 11The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. Using JONAH and your, “Literal interpretation is best, and correct when it fits the immediate and greater contexts, and is consistent with the nature of God.” The questions:
Should we take 1 Peter 2:24 literally? If not why not?
We know Jesus blood washes away our sins. In 1 Peter 2:24 Does it not suggest, Jesus bore at least some Christians sins on the cross?
Do you believe your sins were bore by Christ on the cross?
Can Christ bare something that does not and may not exist?
You have shown at least some of Samuel Lamerson’s theology to be in error, but does that me yours is all right?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The point is that I don't believe Jesus would have been mistaken about Peter any more than you believe God was mistaken about Ninevah and that there is therefore no contradiction in what we or Bob have said.

In Round 2 Bob Enyart said:

"But still I answer, “yes,” Jesus’ prophecy about Judas could have failed."

So it is clear that Bob is saying that God Himself could have been mistaken about His beliefs in regard to the actions of Judas.However,Sam asked Bob:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

To which Bob answered:

"No."

It is beyond me how anyone can say that "there is therefore no contradiction in what we or Bob have said."

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Clete]

In Round 2 Bob Enyart said:

"But still I answer, “yes,” Jesus’ prophecy about Judas could have failed."

So it is clear that Bob is saying that God Himself could have been mistaken about His beliefs in regard to the actions of Judas.However,Sam asked Bob:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

To which Bob answered:

"No."

It is beyond me how anyone can say that "there is therefore no contradiction in what we or Bob have said."

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

I just explained it to you Jerry. Was God wrong or did He hold any false beliefs when He prophecied the detruction of Ninevah in Jonah chapter 3?
If you answer yes to that question then you defeat your own objection by your own words and if you say no to that question then you must concede that there is no contradiction in Bob's position because Jesus' prediction could have not come true for the same reasons that God's prediction about Ninevah did not come true as stated. Either way, your position is defeated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I just explained it to you Jerry. Was God wrong or did He hold any false beliefs when He prophecied the detruction of Ninevah in Jonah chapter 3?
If you answer yes to that question then you defeat your own objection by your own words and if you say no to that question then you must concede that there is no contradiction in Bob's position because Jesus' prediction could have not come true for the same reasons that God's prediction about Ninevah did not come true as stated. Either way, your position is defeated.

Clete,

I answer "no" to the question regarding Ninevah because those passages are not to be taken literally.The prediction in regard to Judas is to be taken literally.So my position is not defeated.

Here again are Bob's words:

"But still I answer, “yes,” Jesus’ prophecy about Judas could have failed."

So it is clear that Bob is saying that God Himself could have been mistaken about His beliefs in regard to the actions of Judas.However,Sam asked Bob:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

To which Bob answered:

"No."

Bob clearly contradicts himself.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Clete]

Jerry,

You've crossed over from debating to lying. I'm done. :wave2:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Clete,

I am getting used to this.Whenever someone defending Bob Enyart cannot give a "reasonable" answer to the mistakes of Bob Enyart they revert to character assassination.Now I am a "liar"!

I challenge you to quote my words where I lie.Did I lie when I said that Bob Enyart said the following?:

"But still I answer, “yes,” Jesus’ prophecy about Judas could have failed."

Did I lie when I said that Sam asked the following question to Bob?

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

Did I lie when I stated that Bob answered:

"No."

Did I lie when I stated my opinion that the verses in regard to Ninevah are not to be taken literally:

I answer "no" to the question regarding Ninevah because those passages are not to be taken literally.The prediction in regard to Judas is to be taken literally.So my position is not defeated.

Where did I lie,Clete?

If you are going to accuse someone of lying then the least that you can do is to provide "evidence" that he lied.Where is your evidence,Clete?

 

[Clete]

Clete,

I am getting use to this.Whenever someone defending Bob Enyart cannot give a "reasonable" answer to the mistakes of Bob Enyart they revert to character assassination.Now I am a "liar"!

It has nothing to do with Bob Enyart. It has to do with you intentionally ignoring what you know to be the truth in order to keep your staw man argument in tact.

I challenge you to quote my words where I lie.

Clete,

I answer "no" to the question regarding Ninevah because those passages are not to be taken literally.The prediction in regard to Judas is to be taken literally.So my position is not defeated.

Here again are Bob's words:

"But still I answer, “yes,” Jesus’ prophecy about Judas could have failed."

So it is clear that Bob is saying that God Himself could have been mistaken about His beliefs in regard to the actions of Judas.However,Sam asked Bob:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

To which Bob answered:

"No."

Bob clearly contradicts himself.​

Every word of that was a lie because you present the argument with full understanding of why it is invalid. You thereby present information which you know is false or at the very least misleading and you do so intentionally. That's a lie, Jerry and you are guilty of it and you know it. Intellectual dishonesty is still dishonesty.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Well, if I may...

You always "may" but in this instance you're wrong.

They were overthrown, yet not by judgment, but by repentance! The same word ("overthrown") is used in several places, of God changing human hearts, one such place being here:

Psalm 105:25 ... whose hearts he turned ['overthrew'] to hate his people, to conspire against his servants.

The burden of proof is on you to show that "overthrow" has the meaning you want it to in this Jonah passage. Just because "hfk" (the hebrew word we're dealing with) is used elsewhere in a different context, does not PROVE that it has the same intended meaning in Jonah. You MUST show why that meaning should be taken in Jonah 3:4.

The problem is that you won't be able to. In fact, the context of the entire chapter of Jonah 3 goes completely against what you're saying. The reason you hold to this is not because it's the natural reading of the text, it's your "Commitment to Augustinian Tradition." (I like that!) Nor was it the natural reading of the Ninevites and their king. Let's look at the entire chapter.

Jonah 3:4
4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day's walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

If Jonah was really stating that God is prophesying that the people of Ninevah will repent in 40 days, how would you expect them to react? Would you expect them to be completely frightened, quit eating, and to cover every man and animal in sackcloth and ashes? That's foolish. If the "traditional" view on God's foreknowledge were held by Jonah and the Ninevites, wouldn't they want to be as evil as they could for the next 40 days since God looked into His crystal ball and foresaw their repentance? I would. What's the point of God telling them they will "repent" in 40 day? BTW, if that's the case, God's prophecy went unfulfilled as they repented BEFORE 40 days. We read on...

Jonah 3:5
5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them.

Why did they react so quick lee merrill? Were they trying to prove God wrong? "God said 40 days, let's prove Him wrong and do it sooner!!"

6 Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water.

Pretty weird reaction to a prophecy of repentance wouldn't you say lee?

8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands.

Uh oh lee, apparently the city of ninevah was a wicked city and the king took Jonah's (God's) words as meaning "destruction", not "repentance" like you want us to believe. The King immediately wanted the city to turn from his evil way. Why you ask? Let's read on...

9 Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?

And the final nail in lee's "theological" coffin. God is angry lee, and will cause them to "perish" if they don't repent. It was a prophecy of destruction.

Oh yeah, one more thing, "hfk" is used to describe Sodom and Gomorrah as well. Make sure you list all the verses, not just the ones that fit your "theological" position.

Please repent lee or my destruction come upon you!!! j/k :LoJo:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Every word of that was a lie because you present the argument with full understanding of why it is invalid.

Clete,

First you accuse me of being a liar and then you fail to give any evidence that I lied.

It may be your "opinion"that I presented my argument with a full understanding that it is invalid,but your "opinion" is not evidence.

You thereby present information which you know is false or at the very least misleading and you do so intentionally.

I did no such thing.You continue to accuse me of being a liar despite the fact that you have no evidence that I ever lied.

That's a lie, Jerry and you are guilty of it and you know it. Intellectual dishonesty is still dishonesty.

Again,you fail to give any evidence that I ever lied.

I will give you one more chance to tell me where in my post where I lied.In fact,I challenge you to quote my words where I lie.Did I lie when I said that Bob Enyart said the following?:

"But still I answer, “yes,” Jesus’ prophecy about Judas could have failed."

Did I lie when I said that Sam asked the following question to Bob?

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

Did I lie when I stated that Bob answered:

"No."

Did I lie when I stated my opinion that the verses in regard to Ninevah are not to be taken literally:

I answer "no" to the question regarding Ninevah because those passages are not to be taken literally.The prediction in regard to Judas is to be taken literally.So my position is not defeated.

Where did I lie,Clete?

 

[Clete]

Clete,

First you accuse me of being a liar and then you fail to give any evidence that I lied.

You forget that everyone can still my last post Jerry. You just lied again! :doh:

It may be your "opinion"that I presented my argument with a full understanding that it is invalid,but your "opinion" is not evidence.

It is self evident Jerry. You'd have to be stupid not to see it. So which is it, are you stupid or a liar?

I did no such thing.You continue to accuse me of being a liar despite the fact that you have no evidence that I ever lied.

Again, you leave us with the following choice. Is Jerry lying (now a third time) or is he simply not smart enough to see what he is doing?

Again,you fail to give any evidence that I ever lied.

I quoted your own words Jerry. It's right up there about 20 inches or so above this line of text.

I will give you one more chance to tell me where in my post where I lied.In fact,I challenge you to quote my words where I lie.Did I lie when I said that Bob Enyart said the following?:

The entire post is a lie Jerry, the entire post. It is an intentionally misrepresentation of Bob's position and it is intellectually dishonest, as I have explained to both you and to RobE.

I will not go through this will you any longer. It's a waste of my time. Good bye.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Clete,

Here is your basis for saying that I lied:

It has nothing to do with Bob Enyart. It has to do with you intentionally ignoring what you know to be the truth in order to keep your staw man argument in tact.

How do you know that I am ignoring what I know to be the truth,Clete?

Can you read my mind?

Despite the fact that you cannot read my mind that does not stop you from calling me a "liar".

You forget that everyone can still me last post Jerry. You just lied again!

Everyone can still me last post?

I think that you are losing it,Clete.If you ever had it together to begin with.

It is self evident Jerry. You'd have to be stupid not to see it. So which is it, are you stupid or a liar?

You say that it is "self evident",but you refuse to say exactly what is self evident--only that I am intentionally ignoring what I know to be the truth.

But you provide no evidence to support your assertion.

I quoted your own words Jerry. It's right up there about 20 inches or so above this line of text.

Yes,you quoted my words but you did not say which of those words were lies.

The entire post is a lie Jerry, the entire post. It is an intentionally misrepresentation of Bob's position and it is intellectually dishonest, as I have explained to both you and to RobE.

So I misrepresented Bob's position by quoting his own words,did I?And when I asked you to be specific as to how I lied or misrepresented Bob's position you gave nothing specific.

Instead,all you do is pretend that you can read my mind and say that I am ignoring what I know to be the truth.

I will not go through this will you any longer. It's a waste of my time. Good bye.

This will not be the first time that you have run away when you cannot answer.Earlier I said:

"If the setting up the the kingdom and the return of the Lord Jesus was conditional then why would the Lord Jesus be promising to return to set up His kingdom before Israel made a choice as to whether or not to accept the King? "

To which you replied:

Because He knew of the comming "fertilization" of the Holy Spirit and expected the fig tree to bare it's fruit. But it did not and so God cut it down and grafted in the gentiles instead.

If the Lord Jesus "expected" that the fig tree would bear fruit then He obviously "believed" that.

But Bob Enyart said that God does not hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.Sam asked Bob the following question:

Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?

And Bob answered,saying:

No.

So according to you the Lord believed that "the fig tree would bear its fruit" but He was wrong about that belief.But Bob said that God cannot hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.

And despite the fact that you told me to confront the real issue as a man and that the tactics which I use make me out to be "childish" and "scared" it is you who did not respond.

So it does not surprise me that you call me a "liar" and then question whether or not I am "stupid" and "childish" and "scared".

 

[Bob Enyart]

Is it time for SP, or is that too drastic a measure for BR X?

Is it time for SP, or is that too drastic a measure for BR X?

Okay, I have a question for Zakath.

Or for that matter, for Flipper, Taoist or Huey. (Huey! Hey, what ever happened to Heusden and his invisible mice?)

It seems that Sam has left the Coliseum leaving behind a number of unanswered questions. I’m wondering if any of you think (or anyone else for that matter) that this situation calls for Sodium Pentothal (truth serum, for those not familiar with SP or BR VII).

Thoughts?

-Bob

 

[Clete]

Okay, I have a question for Zakath.

Or for that matter, for Flipper, Taoist or Huey. (Huey! Hey, what ever happened to Heusden and his invisible mice?)

It seems that Sam has left the Coliseum leaving behind a number of unanswered questions. I’m wondering if any of you think (or anyone else for that matter) that this situation calls for Sodium Pentothal (truth serum, for those not familiar with SP or BR VII).

Thoughts?

-Bob

:chuckle:

I can't wait!

 

[MyshrallBayou]

To what extent is the will of man really "free"?

To what extent is the will of man really "free"?

Bob, you said:

Mythology: The Greek gods showed partiality. They inflicted suffering on people without cause. They had no semblance of a just and wise counsel. They were self-centered. They were the invention of a darkened culture. (However, much of Greek mythology is a twist, that is, a perversion, of actual history as reported accurately in Scripture.)

Scripture: The God of the Bible is insulted by the accusation that He shows partiality. And He only wills for good to all His creatures. (The vast majority of the early Christian church fathers prior to Augustine agreed with this next sentence.) It is the will of those creatures (humans and angels) that determines whether they freely accept God's goodness toward them, or endure His judgment.

We agree that Adam had a "free will" before the fall. Was there any change in that will after the fall, and if so how was it changed? I'd like to discuss this with you one brief step at a time. If you don't respond, I'll understand that you don't have time or a need to respond to someone such as myself, and I promise I won't take it as your conceding anything to me, unlike what you did to Sam.

John

 

[Bob Enyart]

That's big of you

That's big of you

Bob...
If you don't respond, I'll understand that you don't have time or a need to respond to someone such as myself, and I promise I won't take it as your conceding anything to me, unlike what you did to Sam.
John

MyshrallJohn, that's big of you. (I think.)

-Bob

 

[bling]

In round 6 Bob Enyart gives us His view of God with scriptures from the whole Bible.
This generated many questions. To begin with:

1. If God’s plain A failed and B and C and so on, what plan are we on?

2. Was the Garden of Eden plain A?

3. Was the objective of the Garden completed or was it a failure?

4. Do you see Adam and Eve being better off outside the Garden or inside the Garden (before they sinned)? Why?

5. What lesson do you learn from this garden story that could not be told another way?