Open View Theism
Muz
Muz
Stephe...@family-news.org
M> From: "Muz" <themu...@gmail.com>
M> What do you guys think of it?
What is "it"?
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.
--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)
Muz
universe where the future cannot be exhaustively known, and thus, in
some respects is open and determined based upon the actions of free
will agents, both God and men.
Michael
Stephe...@family-news.org
my departed one." - "What departed one?" I asked - "Why, my departed
first love," he answered. "Indeed, this is a strange affair. She said: I
shall die. And that very same moment she departed, naturally enough, by
death - else one might have insured her beforehand in the widow's
insurance. Too late! Dead she was and dead she remained; and now I
wander about, as says the poet, vainly seeking the grave of my ladylove
that I may shed my tears thereon." Thus this brokenhearted man who
remained alone in the world, though it consoled him to find her pretty
far along, if not by, yet with another man.
It is a good thing for the girls, thought I, that they don't have to be
buried every time they die; for if parents have hitherto considered a
boy child to be the more expensive, the girls might become even more so!
A simple case of infidelity is not as amusing, by far. I mean, if a girl
should fall in love with someone else and should say to her husband: "I
cannot help it, save me from myself!" But to die from sorrow because she
cannot endure being separated from her lover by his journey to the West
Indies, to have put up with his departure, however - and then, at his
return, be not only not dead but attached to someone else for all time -
that certainly is a strange fate for a lover to undergo. No wonder,
then, that the heartbroken man at times consoled himself with the
burthen of an old song which runs: "Hurrah for you and me, I say, we
never shall forget that day!"
Now forgive me, dear fellow banqueters, if I have spoken at too great
length; and empty a glass to love and to woman. Beautiful she is and
lovely, if she be considered aesthetically. That is undeniable. But, as
has often been said, and as I shall say also: one ought not to remain
standing here, but should go on. Consider her, then, ethically and you
will hardly have
Stephe...@family-news.org
M> From: "Muz" <themu...@gmail.com>
M> Open View Theism (subject line), the concept that God created a
M> universe where the future cannot be exhaustively known, and thus, in
M> some respects is open and determined based upon the actions of free
M> will agents, both God and men.
How does it differ from ordinary theology, if it does?
And if it doesn't, who decided it needed a special name, and why?
Sala kahle
Steve Goltra
initial response is that God has a specific plan, that involves His timing.
Just like the birth of Messiah, this was a pre-ordained time prophesized in
Daniel. All of the Jews that knew their Old Testament knew that Messiah
would come at the exact day of Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem,
riding on a Donkey (as prophesized by Daniel). God is in control here, and
everything will happen according to His plan. We, as His free will agents,
are only along for the ride.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
<Stephe...@family-news.org> wrote in message
news:9toDd.2611$Pm6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Muz
there is no possibility of anything happening other than what God has
declared for every action.
Open View Theism says that the actual individual decisions are not
known because they have not been made, and the future is open.
Muz
Muz
Muz
Steve Goltra
heresy! God is "Omniscient and Omnipresent"!
It appears that the enemies of Truth never sleep. Their new heresy is "open
theism." Open theism, also called "openness" and "the open view," is a
theology that deals with human free will and its relationship to God in
regards to the future. Open theists (OT) teach that God has granted to
mankind free will, and the future free will choices of individuals cannot be
known ahead of time by God, thus denying the Omniscience of God.
While claiming to be orthodox, proponents of this heresy make several
significant changes in the Biblical definition of the nature of God. They
also claim that God changes His mind and that He does not have an infallible
knowledge of the future. Since a growing number of so-called evangelicals
are beginning to embrace (and teach) this heresy, it poses a significant
threat to the orthodox understanding of God. For example, if God does not
know for sure what will happen in the future, then Biblical prophecy can be
wrong. This type of theology is a significant doctrinal deviation from the
Biblical definitions of the nature of God and would undermine thousands of
years of Judeo-Christian beliefs.
OT stresses the ability of man to move the hand of God through prayer.
Unfortunately, the emphasis of OT is shifted from God's ability to answer
prayer to their ability to "pray with power." Now, we are not denying the
need for prayer, but the clay is not here to change the mind of the Potter
(Romans 9:20). Their theology ends up ascribing human attributes to God, and
divine attributes to men. What ever happened to "Not my will, but thine be
done?" You can find the roots of this theology in the teachings of "The
Gospel of Self Esteem" and ""Knowing Who You Are In Christ" birthed in the
1970s. You can even trace the roots of this theology back to ancient Greece,
as it resembles Greek mythology more than it does Biblical Christianity.
God is Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent!
This three-faceted definition of God is the foundation of Christianity. From
their origins, orthodox Christianity and Judaism have embraced these three
attributes of God. Now a new theology has reared its ugly head to challenge
this ancient history. Oddly, the proponents of this view claim to be
orthodox, BUT THEY LITERALLY DENY THE VERY NATURE OF GOD. Several supporters
of this view, including Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William
Hasker, and David Basinger, have even worked together on a volume titled,
"The Openness of God." Other so-called Christian teachers that share similar
views include Greg Boyd, Stephen Davis, Thomas Morris, Ted Haggard, Brent
Parsley, and Richard Swinburne.
So what's the big deal? Christianity can embrace different forms of "truth"
can't it? Not according to II Corinthians 11:4. But God would not care that
much about something like this, would He? Galatians 1:6 says He does care.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:VESDd.1351$Ii4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Steve Goltra
> known because they have not been made, and the future is open."
Steve's response: What "future" are you referring to?
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:VESDd.1351$Ii4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Steve Goltra
THEOLOGICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE OPEN THEISTS
1) No Biblical Prophecy Can Be Infallible If all prophecy is conditional,
then the Bible could not have authoritatively predicted where Jesus would be
born. But Micah did prophetically foretell that Jesus would be born in
Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). The Bible also predicted when He would die (Daniel
9:25-27), how He would die (Isaiah 53), and how He would rise from the dead
(Psalms 16:10 cf. Acts 2:30-31). Either these predictions are infallible
or else they were just guesses on God's part. If they are infallible, then
the OTs are wrong, since according to their view God cannot make infallible
predictions. On the other hand, if it is not infallible, then God was just
guessing.
2) No Such Thing as a False Prophecy if all prophecy is conditional, then
there cannot be any such thing as a false prophecy. The Old Testament,
however, lays down tests for false prophets. One of the Biblical standards
is whether or not the prophecy comes to pass. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If
what a prophet proclaim sin the name of the Lord does not take place or come
true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken
presumptuously." If the OTs are correct, this test cannot be applied.
3) The Bible is Infallible? Says Who?
The OTs' beliefs (that God does not know the outcome of the future) deny
God's omniscience and omnipotence. Their theology also contradicts the
infallibility of the Bible, which the OTs claim to believe. If all such
prophecies are conditional, then we can never be sure that they will come to
pass. Yet the Bible affirms that they definitely will come to pass.
According to the OTs, such pronouncements are not infallible, and they may
be in error. They believe that God is only guessing, so it is reasonable to
assume that some guesses will be wrong. At least they credit God with being
a "really good guesser."
4) God Cannot Guarantee Victory over Satan Since OTs teach that God does not
know the future, then it is logical to assume that there is no guarantee of
ultimate victory over evil. The Bible predicts that Satan will be defeated,
but the OT teaches that God could not know this infallibly. If the OT is
correct, then neither God nor the Bible can be completely infallible. The
problem is, if God does not know what Satan will do, that opens the door for
Satan to have the ability to pull a fast one on God. It almost makes them
equals. Since the OTs teach that God does not know the future, there is no
way for Him to assure us that Satan won't pull the wool over God's eyes on
the Judgement Day. I can just hear their god say, "Wow! I never saw that
coming!" I guess their god has a word in his vocabulary that the God of the
Bible does not: "Whoops!"
5) It Robs God's Children of Their Confidence in His Promises One of the
consequences of making all prophecies conditional is that it undermines
confidence in God's Word. If we cannot be sure that God will keep His Word,
then it undermines our belief in His faithfulness. The Bible, however, says
we can accept God's Word unconditionally. Isaiah46:10 says that He knows
"the end from the beginning." That's why Paul could write, "It does not,
therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy" (Romans
9:16).
6) It Denies God's Ability to Answer Prayer Despite the fact that OTs make
much ado of God's ability to answer prayer, their concept of God actually
undermines our confidence in God. A "god" who does not know the future will
be severely limited in his ability to do things. versus what can be done by
a God who knows every decision that will ever be made by anyone or anything.
Ironically, the OT's god, then becomes a liability to answered prayer.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Steve Goltra" <sgo...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QAZDd.1354$pZ4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Muz, are you sure that you are not related to Drewsk? "Open Theism" is
> pure heresy! God is "Omniscient and Omnipresent"!
>
> It appears that the enemies of Truth never sleep. Their new heresy is
> "open theism." Open theism, also called "openness" and "the open view," is
> a theology that deals with human free will and its relationship to God in
> regards to the future. Open theists (OT) teach that God has granted to
> mankind free will, and the future free will choices of individuals cannot
> be known ahead of time by God, thus denying the Omniscience of God.
>
> While claiming to be orthodox, proponents of this heresy make several
> significant changes in the Biblical definition of the nature of God. They
<Snipped>
Muz
heresy is "open
>theism." Open theism, also called "openness" and "the open view," is a
>theology that deals with human free will and its relationship to God
in
>regards to the future. Open theists (OT) teach that God has granted to
>mankind free will, and the future free will choices of individuals
cannot be
>known ahead of time by God, thus denying the Omniscience of God.
But that doesn't deny omniscience. God knows all things, including
what possible futures may come to pass. The fact that the truth value
of our decisions isn't known until we make them doesn't alter the fact
of God's omniscience.
>While claiming to be orthodox, proponents of this heresy make several
>significant changes in the Biblical definition of the nature of God.
They
>also claim that God changes His mind and that He does not have an
infallible
>knowledge of the future.
Well, it would seem that there is scriptural evidence for both. God
pledges to Moses that He will destroy Israel and start over with him
(Moses), and Mosos prevails upon God to change His mind. In Jeremiah
3:7, we're told that God thought that Israel would return to Him, and
she did not. Both seem to be clear evidence from the mouth of God of
what you say cannot be.
> Since a growing number of so-called evangelicals
>are beginning to embrace (and teach) this heresy, it poses a
significant
>threat to the orthodox understanding of God. For example, if God does
not
>know for sure what will happen in the future, then Biblical prophecy
can be
>wrong. This type of theology is a significant doctrinal deviation from
the
>Biblical definitions of the nature of God and would undermine
thousands of
>years of Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Imagine that this is the year the Luther nailed the 95 theses to the
door of that German church, and you said this. Orthodoxy isn't sacred,
nor is it infallible. Granted it should not be opposed lightly or
without serious study, but where it is found to contradict scripture,
it should be challenged. I realize that there are many who oppose the
Open View, but it is not without exegetical foundation. The fact is
that the orthodox view of God has been changing over the last 20 years
or so, with impassibility almost completely disappearing, and
immutability being reduced mainly to God's nature. Othrodoxy has never
made a firm stand on God's knowledge, because there are many views
concerning it, from Arminius to Molina to Augustine to Calvin to
Aquinas. OVT is just another voice in that Chorus.
Muz
Muz
>1) No Biblical Prophecy Can Be Infallible If all prophecy is conditional,
>then the Bible could not have authoritatively predicted where Jesus would be
>born. But Micah did prophetically foretell that Jesus would be born in
>Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). The Bible also predicted when He would die (Daniel
>9:25-27), how He would die (Isaiah 53), and how He would rise from the dead
>(Psalms 16:10 cf. Acts 2:30-31). Either these predictions are infallible
>or else they were just guesses on God's part. If they are infallible, then
>the OTs are wrong, since according to their view God cannot make infallible
>predictions. On the other hand, if it is not infallible, then God was just
>guessing.
In arguing against OVT, I see a common thread of denying God's
omnipotence. This is one clear example. You say that without
exhaustive divine foreknowledge(EDF), God could not have brought about
the birth of His son in Bethlahem? How weak do you think God is? You
think that without EDF Christ could not have been raised from the dead?
These are clearly both red herrings. (Have you been reading CARM?)
The fact is that OVT says that God knows all the possibilities of the
future, and knows how He can act to bring about His prophecies. It is
OVT's embracing of both omniscience and omnipotence that make this
possible. You seem to want to deny omnipotence.
>2) No Such Thing as a False Prophecy if all prophecy is conditional, then
>there cannot be any such thing as a false prophecy. The Old Testament,
>however, lays down tests for false prophets. One of the Biblical standards
>is whether or not the prophecy comes to pass. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If
>what a prophet proclaim sin the name of the Lord does not take place or come
>true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken
>presumptuously." If the OTs are correct, this test cannot be applied.
False assumption that OVT says that ALL prophecy is conditional. This,
however, is not true. There are some that are implicitly conditional,
such as Jonah's prophecy to the Ninevites, and some that are not, such
as the prophecies about Christ.
So, this is a completely false accusation.
3) The Bible is Infallible? Says Who?
>The OTs' beliefs (that God does not know the outcome of the future) deny
>God's omniscience and omnipotence. Their theology also contradicts the
>infallibility of the Bible, which the OTs claim to believe. If all such
>prophecies are conditional, then we can never be sure that they will come to
>pass. Yet the Bible affirms that they definitely will come to pass.
>According to the OTs, such pronouncements are not infallible, and they may
>be in error. They believe that God is only guessing, so it is reasonable to
>assume that some guesses will be wrong. At least they credit God with being
>a "really good guesser."
This is built upon previous statements shown to be false. OVT embraces
God's omniscience and omnipotence. It is the arguer, here, that has
denied omnipotence.
>4) God Cannot Guarantee Victory over Satan Since OTs teach that God does not
>know the future, then it is logical to assume that there is no guarantee of
>ultimate victory over evil. The Bible predicts that Satan will be defeated,
>but the OT teaches that God could not know this infallibly. If the OT is
>correct, then neither God nor the Bible can be completely infallible. The
>problem is, if God does not know what Satan will do, that opens the door for
>Satan to have the ability to pull a fast one on God. It almost makes them
>equals. Since the OTs teach that God does not know the future, there is no
>way for Him to assure us that Satan won't pull the wool over God's eyes on
>the Judgement Day. I can just hear their god say, "Wow! I never saw that
>coming!" I guess their god has a word in his vocabulary that the God of the
>Bible does not: "Whoops!"
This is your denial of omnipotence, and your red herring. Do you
honestly think that God is not wise enough to keep Satan from pulling
the wool over His eyes? You apparantly deny that God is all-wise, as
well. And you accuse OVT of denying God's attributes?
The fact is that when we believe, all the elements of our salvation are
completely in God's hands. There is nothing Satan can do to prevent
the believer who dies from being saved. Nothing. And EDF is not
required to complete it.
>5) It Robs God's Children of Their Confidence in His Promises One of the
>consequences of making all prophecies conditional is that it undermines
>confidence in God's Word. If we cannot be sure that God will keep His Word,
>then it undermines our belief in His faithfulness. The Bible, however, says
>we can accept God's Word unconditionally. Isaiah46:10 says that He knows
>"the end from the beginning." That's why Paul could write, "It does not,
>therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy" (Romans
>9:16).
OVTs say that God knows the end from the beginning. Because He knows
all the possibilities of the future, He knows what He will do to arrive
at His end from the beginning. EDF not required. Furthermore, while
Romans 9:16 is taken out of context, salvation does NOT depend on the
works of men. Never has, never will, so there is no issue with Romans
9:16.
>6) It Denies God's Ability to Answer Prayer Despite the fact that OTs make
>much ado of God's ability to answer prayer, their concept of God actually
>undermines our confidence in God. A "god" who does not know the future will
>be severely limited in his ability to do things. versus what can be done by
>a God who knows every decision that will ever be made by anyone or anything.
>Ironically, the OT's god, then becomes a liability to answered prayer.
Ah, the biggest red herring of all, and the final and most complete
denial of omnipotence. A God who knows all the possibilities of the
future is the BEST one to ask about what one should do, because He is
able to guide us into the best possible situation.
If God has EDF, then prayer becomes POINTLESS, because the future is
already fixed, and nothing, not even prayer, can change it! If God
ordained that you were going to murder someone, you will murder them.
The fact is that prayer only takes on real meaning in OVT.
BTW, if you cut and paste from someone's site, it's appropriate for you
to cite them.
Muz
Muz
That would be the one that remains with the vast possibilities for all
mankind, but which will include God accomplishing His eteral purpose
through His omniscience and omnipotence and omni-wisdom.
Muz
Steve Goltra
theism:
CONCLUSION
Hermeneutics versus Greek Mythology The art and science of Biblical
interpretation is called hermeneutics. These are the basic guidelines for
interpreting Scripture, especially the difficult passages. One of the major
principles of hermeneutics is that the Old Testament is to be interpreted in
the light of the New Testament. Sometimes because of the
language/translation hurdles, we will come across a passage in the Old
Testament that is difficult to determine the entire scope of its meaning.
But when we look at a New Testament passage, dealing with the same subject,
it can shed light onto the gray areas, making them clearer and easily
understood.
A good example of this is when the Old Testament talks in anthropomorphic
terms about God. Such as He "stretched out his hand" or He took us "under
His wings." These passages use human terms to symbolically describe
something supernatural. Taken literally, God must be part bird! Problem
is, when you take these passages literally, you can also end up turning God
into a man, such as Joseph Smith and the Mormons (As man is, God once was.).
The Open Theists make the same mistake. Jesus made it very clear that "God
is Spirit" and a spirit "does not have flesh and bone." Therefore, the Old
Testament passages that refer to God in human terms are to be seen in the
light of Jesus' teachings that God is a Spirit. Thus, the Old Testament
passages that refer to Goads having wings or arms, are obviously symbolic.
Another example of taking a passage too literally: When God called out to
Adam in the Garden of Eden and asked, "Adam, where are you?" - Did He
actually not know where Adam was? Of course He knew. God was simply
demonstrating that Adam was lost.
Another area that the Open Theists can get confused is what is referred to
as a Christophany. This is a manifestation of the pre-incarnate Christ.
When someone in the Scriptures refer to seeing God in a human form, that is
generally believed to be a manifestation of Jesus Christ. This is where
things can get a bit bizarre with the whole temporal/eternity issue. Since
God lives outside of time, He can manifest Himself in the Old Testament in
the form of Christ, even though Jesus had not yet received his physical
body. It's in the "Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it?
"category. There are certain questions that a finite mind cannot answer.
The Trinity is another good example. John 1:1 says that in the beginning,
Jesus was with God, and He was God. Try wrapping a pea brain around that
one!
These are just a few of the mistakes that the OTs make. There are many
others, but suffice it to say, when you disregard the basic guidelines for
interpreting Scripture, you are going to end up with theological errors at
best, heresy at worse.
The OTs claim to believe that God is omniscient. but they also teach that He
does not know the future. You cannot have it both ways. The two beliefs
are mutually exclusive. A nomniscient god that does not know the future?
Class, can you say. oxymoron? The True God of the Bible does not live in
the temporal dimension of time. HE IS ETERNAL. No beginning. no end. The
God of Scripture says, "I the Lord do not change" (Malachi 3:6). He also
assures us that He "knows the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10). That
is one of the reasons that we can trust Him, and His Word.
This new god of the OTs is NOT the God of the Bible, and therefore must be
rejected as such. Let us all heed the warning of Paul in I Timothy 4:1, "The
Holy Spirit explicitly says that in the latter times some will fall away
from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of
demons." This theology should be denounced for what it is: rank heresy. If
the Open Theists are going to be completely open, we suggest that they start
praying to Zeus, instead of Jehovah. At least that way, it will be easier
to pick out the Believers from the Mythologists.
"Steve Goltra" <sgo...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qsoEd.3073$Ii4...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> This is a continuation of my post from yesterday to "Muz":
>
> THEOLOGICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE OPEN THEISTS
>
>
====Long quotes snipped in order to post message -- Mod.
Steve Goltra
"Openness" or whatever they want to call it:
A few more Scriptures that speak of the Omniscience of God Psalm 139:1-4, "O
LORD, You have searched me and known me.
2) You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thoughts
from afar.
3) You scrutinize my path and my lying down and are intimately acquainted
with all my ways.
4) Even before there is a word on my tongue, behold, O LORD, You know it
all.
Isaiah 42:9, "Behold, the former things have come to pass, now I declare new
things; Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you."
Acts 2:22-23, "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a
man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God
performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 23) this
Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you
nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."
Acts 3:18, "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of
all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled."
Acts 15:16-18, "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is
written, AFTERTHESETHINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE
OFDAVIDWHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILLRESTORE IT,
17) SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THEGENTILESWHO
ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,
18) SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO."
Romans 8:28-30, "And we know that God causes all things to work together for
good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His
purpose.
29) For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to
the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30) and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called,
He also justified;and these whom He justified, He also glorified."
Ephesians 1:3-5, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in
Christ,
4) just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we
would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
5) He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself,
according to the kind intention of His will."
I Peter 1:1-2, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as
aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and
Bithynia, who are chosen
2) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work
of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May
grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure."
I John 3:20, "in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our
heart and He knows all things."
A warning (from God) to the National Association of Evangelicals and the
Open Theists Psalm73:9-19, "They have set their mouth against the heavens,
And their tongue parades through the earth.
10) Therefore his people return to this place, And waters of abundance are
drunk by them.
11) They say, 'How does God know? And is there knowledge with the Most
High?'
12) Behold, these are the wicked; And always at ease, they have increased in
wealth.
18) Surely You set them in slippery places; You cast them down to
destruction.
19) How they are destroyed in a moment! They are utterly swept away by
sudden terrors!"
"Steve Goltra" <sgo...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qsoEd.3073$Ii4...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Steve Goltra
word. Muz has this to say about God's infallible Word:
" 3) The Bible is Infallible? Says Who?"
This view (Muz's view) is necessary for him because the OT (Open Theologist)
is in the "prophecy business". Whenever the OT makes a false prophecy, he
does not want to be held accountable by God's word, that exposes him as a
false prophet (One of the Biblical standards is whether or not the prophecy
comes to pass. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If what a prophet proclaims in the
name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the
Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously." If the OTs are
correct, this test cannot be applied). Previously I posted about the
ramifications of the OT's views, one of them being "False Prophecy". I am
reposting this with a fairly recent example of a false prophecy given by Ted
Haggard, who is the President of the National Association of Evangelicals
and is Pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and is a
practicing OT (Open Theologist):
One of the Biblical standards is whether or not the prophecy comes to pass.
Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord
does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.
That prophet has spoken presumptuously." If the OTs are correct, this test
cannot be applied. In the Old Testament time, false Prophets were stoned to
death. Today, we are only called to expose them. God will take care of them
at the Great
White Throne Judgment for the lost......
2) No Such Thing As a False Prophecy
If all prophecy is conditional, then there cannot be any such thing as a
false prophecy. TheOldTestament, however, lays down tests for false
prophets. One of the Biblical standards iswhetheror not the prophecy comes
to pass. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If what a prophet proclaimsin the nameof
the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has
not spoken.That prophethas spoken presumptuously." If the OTs are correct,
this test cannot be applied.
THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM WAS PERFECTLY EXHIBITED RECENTLY BY TED HAGGARD.
HAGGARD IS NOT ONLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
EVANGELICALS (www.nae.net ) HE IS ALSO THE PASTOR OF THE 10,000 MEMBER NEW
LIFE CHURCH IN COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO (www.newlifechurch.org ). HAGGARD
RECENTLY GAVE A FALSE PROPHECY (WORLDWIDE) STATING THAT GOD WOKE HIM IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND SAID "If you can get a million Christians to pray,
then Sadaam Hussein will go into exile and there will be no war in Iraq."
SHORTLY AFTER HAGGARD PROCLAIMED (on the 700 Club) THAT THEY HIT A MILLION
PRAYERS. THEN, THE WAR STARTED! HAGGARD THEN SIMPLY PROCLAIMED THAT HE DID
NOT GIVE A FALSE PROPHECY...GOD JUST CHANGED HIS MIND! FOR THOROUGH
DOCUMENTATION OF HAGGARD'S FALSE PROPHECY, GO TO: www.in-sheeps-clothing.org
...
ONE OF HAGGARD'S PASTORS AT NEW LIFE CHURCH, BRENT PARSLEY, ALSO ESPOUSES
THE HERESY OF THE OT'S (tapes available from New Life Church - 11/12/03 is a
good example).
Just as the Mormon finds no problem with all of the false Propehecies of
Joseph Smith, or of the additional false prophecies of their current
President, so the OT finds no problem with their own false prophecies, or
the false prophecies of their leaders.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZTwEd.3373$pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<Snipped>
Muz
Psalm 139:1-4: Speaks of the present knowledge of God. However, the
use of psalms needs to be taken under the genre of poetry, which we
would expect to include hyperbole and other literary devices, which
aren't intended to be direct truth.
Isaiah 42:9: OVT acknowledges that God prophesies and declares things
that will be. God brings these things about via his omniscience of the
possibilities of the future, and His omnipotence in bringing them
about. This is NOT a claim of EDF.
Acts 2:22-23, 3:18, Acts 15:16-18: These are not things beyond God's
ability to prophesy and bring to pass.
Romans 8:28-30: There is an exegetical question, here, because all the
verbs are in the same tense, yet some have already happened, and some
have not yet happened (like being glorified.) The conclusion is that
Paul isn't making a statement about time, but that these things have or
will happen, and is NOT making a statement about WHEN.
Ephesians 1:3-5: Again, Paul isn't making a statement about time, but
the fact of predestination. You fill this with meaning regarding time
that isn't there.
I Peter 1:1-2: Chosen at salvation to be raised to eternal life.
I John 3:20: No question there. The item in question is whether our
future decisions are already factual to God, or whether their truth
value can only be known when we make the actual decisions.
A warning (from God) to the National Association of Evangelicals and
the
Open Theists Psalm73:9-19.
Those evil evangelicals!
Personally, I'm not going to presume to speak judgment for God. It's
arrogant.
Muz
Steve Goltra
> door of that German church, and you said this. Orthodoxy isn't sacred,
> nor is it infallible. Granted it should not be opposed lightly or
> without serious study, but where it is found to contradict scripture,
> it should be challenged. I realize that there are many who oppose the
> Open View, but it is not without exegetical foundation.
Steve's response: Are you for real? What Luther was doing to the Pope and
the Catholic Church is the same thing that I am doing right now with you. I
am showing you that scripture disagrees with most of what OT (Open Theism)
stands for, and therefore what you believe in is false, period. Solo
Sriptura!!! Everything that you or I say must be compared to Scripture,
God's INFALLIBLE WORD. Since you conveniently do not think that the Bible is
God's INFALLIBLE WORD, then you think you have a way to wiggle out, but you
don't. You WILL BE JUDGED by God's WORD at the great white throne judgment,
at the end of the 1,000 year reign of Christ on this earth.
The saved will be judged at the Bema Judgment, the Judgment Seat of Christ,
and will only be judged for rewards.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gQwEd.3372$pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Smilie
What we know about God tells us that time binds us, not God. God is the
creator of time, its left to us to decide whether we are for him or against
him. We have only the smallest clue of whats going to happen, God knows it
all..... regardless of possibilities.
To try and grasp the entire intricasies of Gods plan is impossible, we can
only grasp a small portion.
Trust that he has everything in order..... live in faith. Its all we can do.
Job 5
8 I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause:
9 Which doeth great things and unsearchable; marvellous things without
number:
10 Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields:
11 To set up on high those that be low; that those which mourn may be
exalted to safety.
12 He disappointeth the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot
perform their enterprise.
--
Love makes God make the world go round!
:)
Luv Matthew (Smilie) Lyon
Steve Goltra
That is a new one. "Omni-wisdom". Did you just make it up? We know that
wisdom of one of God's attributes: (Psalms 104:24; Romans 11:33; Rev 7:24).
You never cease to amaze me, Muz.
God bless,
Steve
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9UwEd.3374$pZ4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Muz
However, if we're going to say that X is a man-only trait that is
representing something of the nature of God, then we also need to
express what that item anthropomorphizes into. This is something of a
fishing red herring, which doesn't really explain anything, nor does it
make any direct accusation.
Furthermore, asking questions that one already knows the answer to is a
common tactic for determining the response of the person being asked.
Just because God asked "where are you?" doesn't mean He didn't already
know. However, when we come to verses like Gen 22:12 or Jer 3:7, where
God says "Now I know", or "I thought she would come back to me, and she
did not", He is making a direct statement about His knowledge, rather
than using a rhetorical device.
Open View theists have no problem with Christophany or with the
Trinity.
Furthermore, the claim that OVT denies omniscience is spurrious. What
OVT claims is that God only knows the possibilities of the future, and
that the actual future is determined by all free will agents, including
God, angels, and men.
Clearly this author does NOT have a grasp of what it means to be OVT,
or it's claims.
Muz
Steve Goltra
"Well, it would seem that there is scriptural evidence for both. God
pledges to Moses that He will destroy Israel and start over with him
(Moses), and Mosos prevails upon God to change His mind. In Jeremiah
3:7, we're told that God thought that Israel would return to Him, and she
did not. Both seem to be clear evidence from the mouth of God of what you
say cannot be."
Steve's response:
God did not PLEDGE to Moses that He would destroy Israel and start over with
Moses. God was TESTING Moses, and Moses passed the test in flying colors!
Specifically, God SAID to Moses (NO PLEDGES, REMIND YOU- Exodus 32:10-11)
"10. Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them,
and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11.
And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax
hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of
Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Check out the whole story on
this matter in Exodus 32:1-35.
Also, you make the false statement that God thought Israel would return to
Him, and she did not. That is FALSE. God's word tells us that He TOLD Israel
to return to Him. This is specifically what God's infallible Word says in
Jeremiah 3:7: " And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou
unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it."
Like I have said before, Muz, are you sure that you are not related to
Drewsk or Lbrty4us or Lee S. Smith?
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gQwEd.3372$pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> SteveG:>It appears that the enemies of Truth never sleep. Their new
> heresy is "open
>>theism." Open theism, also called "openness" and "the open view," is a
>>theology that deals with human free will and its relationship to God
> in
>>regards to the future. Open theists (OT) teach that God has granted to
>>mankind free will, and the future free will choices of individuals
> cannot be
>>known ahead of time by God, thus denying the Omniscience of God.
<Snipped>
Muz
What we know about God tells us that time binds us, not God. God is the
creator of time, its left to us to decide whether we are for him or
against
him. We have only the smallest clue of whats going to happen, God knows
it
all..... regardless of possibilities.
Nice assertion, but I don't see any scriptural support.
To try and grasp the entire intricasies of Gods plan is impossible, we
can
only grasp a small portion.
Trust that he has everything in order..... live in faith. Its all we
can do.
No problem.
Job 5
If you read the end of the book, you find that God invalidates
everything that Job, his wife and his friends said in the entire book,
when He speaks to Job, so I would be very careful citing Job as a
source of doctrine.
Muz
Muz
It comes from Colossians, where all wisdom is hidden in Christ.
What's so amazing about it?
Muz
Muz
and
the Catholic Church is the same thing that I am doing right now with
you. I
am showing you that scripture disagrees with most of what OT (Open
Theism)
stands for, and therefore what you believe in is false, period. Solo
Sriptura!!! Everything that you or I say must be compared to Scripture,
God's INFALLIBLE WORD. Since you conveniently do not think that the
Bible is
God's INFALLIBLE WORD, then you think you have a way to wiggle out, but
you
don't. You WILL BE JUDGED by God's WORD at the great white throne
judgment,
at the end of the 1,000 year reign of Christ on this earth.
Excuse me, but I have affirmed that the bible IS God's infallible,
inerrant word. I also believe that your exegesis of it is flawed. I
would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth.
Muz
Muz
God's
word. Muz has this to say about God's infallible Word:
" 3) The Bible is Infallible? Says Who?"
This is a lie. I've never said this, nor do I have to say it, and, in
fact, I do not.
This view (Muz's view) is necessary for him because the OT (Open
Theologist)
is in the "prophecy business".
Not it's not my view, nor am I in the "prophecy business".
Whenever the OT makes a false prophecy, he does not want to be held
accountable by God's word, that exposes him as a false prophet (One of
the Biblical standards is whether or not the prophecy comes to pass.
Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the
Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has
not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously." If the OTs are
correct, this test cannot be applied). Previously I posted about the
ramifications of the OT's views, one of them being "False Prophecy".
Once again, a foundlesss claim.
I am reposting this with a fairly recent example of a false prophecy
given by Ted
Haggard, who is the President of the National Association of
Evangelicals
and is Pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and
is a
practicing OT (Open Theologist):
Guilt by association is HARDLY a valid debate tactic.
2) No Such Thing As a False Prophecy
Again, patently false. This was obviously written by someone who
needed to make things up so that they could critisize OVT.
THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM WAS PERFECTLY EXHIBITED RECENTLY BY TED
HAGGARD.
I don't attend his church, nor do I subscribe to his prophecies, so I
don't see the point, here. This particular item with this person has
NOTHING TO DO with Open View Theism. You might as well critisize all
of Christianity with this guilt by association.
Notice this:
ONE OF HAGGARD'S PASTORS AT NEW LIFE CHURCH, BRENT PARSLEY, ALSO
ESPOUSES
THE HERESY OF THE OT'S (tapes available from New Life Church - 11/12/03
is a
good example).
ROFL! Guilt by association with an associate? Are you SERIOUS?
Just as the Mormon finds no problem with all of the false Propehecies of
Joseph Smith, or of the additional false prophecies of their current
President, so the OT finds no problem with their own false prophecies, or
the false prophecies of their leaders
If you want to be taken seriously, try posting real theology and
interacting with OVT, rather than this baseless attack and argument ad
hominim.
Muz
lbrt...@aol.com
> Like I have said before, Muz, are you sure that you are not related
to
> Drewsk or Lbrty4us or Lee S. Smith?
See? You can leave this guy alone for months, & he can still argue &
lie about you personally all by himself. ;-) <bored grin>
Suggestion to Muz: consider not wasting your time...
Steve Goltra
Scripture, and this is the one post you do not respond to. I will try it
again, just to illustrate my point (that you will not respond):
Muz, you are misquoting scripture and are having trouble understanding God
and His infallible Word. Specifically you said:
"Well, it would seem that there is scriptural evidence for both. God
pledges to Moses that He will destroy Israel and start over with him
(Moses), and Mosos prevails upon God to change His mind. In Jeremiah
3:7, we're told that God thought that Israel would return to Him, and she
did not. Both seem to be clear evidence from the mouth of God of what you
say cannot be."
Steve's response:
God did not PLEDGE to Moses that He would destroy Israel and start over with
Moses. God was TESTING Moses, and Moses passed the test in flying colors!
Specifically, God SAID to Moses (NO PLEDGES, REMIND YOU- Exodus 32:10-11)
"10. Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them,
and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11.
And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax
hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of
Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Check out the whole story on
this matter in Exodus 32:1-35.
Also, you make the false statement that God thought Israel would return to
Him, and she did not. That is FALSE. God's word tells us that He TOLD Israel
to return to Him. This is specifically what God's infallible Word says in
Jeremiah 3:7: " And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou
unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it."
Like I have said before, Muz, are you sure that you are not related to
Drewsk or Lbrty4us or Lee S. Smith? They would never respond either!
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Steve Goltra" <sgo...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mFJEd.4032$Ii4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Muz
line with
>Scripture, and this is the one post you do not respond to. I will try
it
>again, just to illustrate my point (that you will not respond):
Sorry, I missed it. Hopefully we can reduce this discussion into a
single post, rather than several in one thread, so we find them all.
Been there, studied the story. Without inserting any theology into the
text, there is no basis for saying that God was testing Moses.
In fact, in verse 14, we see a clear statement about God: "14 So the
Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His
people." This directly opposes what you have said about this verse.
If you have a SCRIPTURAL basis arising from a BIBLICLAL THEOLOGY of
THIS TEXT, for saying that this was a test, please lay it out for us,
because the words of this story do NOT support your assertion.
Steve>Also, you make the false statement that God thought Israel would
return to
>Him, and she did not. That is FALSE. God's word tells us that He TOLD
Israel
>to return to Him. This is specifically what God's infallible Word says
in
>Jeremiah 3:7: " And I said after she had done all these things, Turn
thou
>unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw
it."
Well, if we read a 20th century translation, we see a clearer rendition
of this verse.:
"6 Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, "Have you
seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and
under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. 7 "And I thought,
'After she has done all these things, she will return to Me'; but she
did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it"
The King James is a good translation, but because the english is 400
years old, and its foundation is a greek text based upon 33
manuscriptrs, rather than several thousand, it is quirky at times.
More modern translations make this verse clearer.
And what is clear is that God thought Israel would return, and it
didn't.
Muz
Muz
to Drewsk or Lbrty4us or Lee S. Smith?
If you'll notice from other threads, I was arguing against Drewsk's
hyper-dispensationalism.
Muz
Steve Goltra
tested by God, I offer my own understanding about this matter here
[Exodus 32:7-8].And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy
people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted them
selves. They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded
them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have
sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt [Exod. 32:7-8].
God did not redeem Israel because they were superior, greater, or better
than any other nation. They were none of these things. God said, "I knew
you were a stiff necked people."
[Exod. 32:9-10]. And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people,
and, behold, it is a stiff necked people. Now therefore let me alone, that
my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will
make of thee a great nation [Exod. 32:9-10].
This was a real TEMPTATION to Moses. God is saying, "Moses, I will use you
like I used Abraham, and I will make of YOU a great nation and I will still
be able to make good my covenant with Abraham." Now notice what Moses does.
He realizes that this is just a test, he realizes it and offers one of the
greatest examples of true and honest and earnest prayer in all of Scripture.
[Exod. 32:11]. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why
doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out
of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? [Exod.
32:11].
God asks Moses to "remember." God says, "Moses, get thee down, for thy
people that thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt have corrupted
themselves." Moses, in his prayer, talks back to God and says- "Lord, I
think You made a mistake. I do not recall bringing any people out of
Egypt. And they are not my people; they are Your people. You brought them
out of Egypt and You did it with a mighty hand. I could not bring them out.
You have made a mistake, Lord." Can you imagine talking to God like that?
Moses did, when he prayed to the Lord earnestly.
[Exod.32:12] Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did
he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from
the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil
against thy people [Exod.32:12].
Then Moses tells the Lord, "You brought Your people out of the land of
Egypt, but suppose that You do not take them into the land. The Egyptians
would say that You were able to lead them out of Egypt but not able to take
them into the land. They are Your people, Lord. You promised to bring
them into the land."
Next, Moses gives God a third reason for turning aside from His wrath
against the Israelites.
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by
thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars
of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your
seed, and they shall inherit it for ever [Exod. 32:13].
Moses continues, [Exod. 32:13]."Lord, remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel;
You made a promise to them. You promised to multiply their seed and give
them a land. "
[Exod. 32:14].And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto
his people Exod. 32:14].
This final verse above is written for nothing more than our edification.
God never needs to repent- that is only for us mud balls down here. At this
point, Moses has indeed passed God's test and God continues to use him as a
"type" of Christ, just as "Joseph" was a type of Christ also.
In regards to your statement about the newer versions being superior to the
King James, I will have to differ here from your view. The newer versions
do not rely on the Textus Receptus, but instead have substituted the corrupt
text used in the Catholic Bible- the Latin Vulgate Bible- that relied only
on the Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph . Rasmus had the Vaticanus B & the
Sinaiticus Aleph in his possession, but chose not to use either as they were
indeed corrupt. This corruption in the newer versions today is leading to
the heresy and apostacy that is rampant in the Church, and that has created
your own view of "OPEN THEISM". By looking at God's promises in the Old
Testament to Abraham and understanding that were based upon God's covenant
with Israel, NOT with the performance of the Jewish people-(the salvation of
the Jewish people was based upon God's covenant with Israel, not with
Israel's performance of anything.), then you would understand that your
"NEWER VERSION" of the Bible was not correct, that it was in error. You
would understand that God would never wipe out his people and replace them
with one man, Moses, to start all over.
Gods word tells us that he sustains, governs and cares for the world He has
created. - Matthew 6:26, 28-30 reveals to us- "Behold the fowls of the air:
for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your
heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?..... And why
take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they
grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29. And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not
arrayed like one of these.
30. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is,
and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye
of little faith?
Matthew 10:29-30 gives us more insight- "29. Are not two sparrows sold for
a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your
Father.
30. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered."
I can go on and on about this, but this will have to do for now.
God Bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" > wrote in message ...
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ghaFd.5303$Ii4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Steve:>Well Muz, it is just as I thought. I answered your post, line by
> line with
>>Scripture, and this is the one post you do not respond to. I will try
> it
>>again, just to illustrate my point (that you will not respond):
>
<Snipped>
Muz
Steve>This was a real TEMPTATION to Moses. God is saying, "Moses, I
will use you
>like I used Abraham, and I will make of YOU a great nation and I will
still
>be able to make good my covenant with Abraham." Now notice what Moses
does.
>He realizes that this is just a test, he realizes it and offers one of
the
>greatest examples of true and honest and earnest prayer in all of
Scripture.
There is simply no scriptural basis for this statement. Nowhere is
this incident called a test for Moses, nor is there any implicaiton
that God isn't serious about destroying the nation. In fact, the
evience points to the contrary. God's anger is burning towards them,
because they've made a golden calf to worship.
You continue:
>This final verse above is written for nothing more than our
edification.
>God never needs to repent- that is only for us mud balls down here.
Your interpretation of this scripture leads you to deny the text. The
text says that God repented, and you say that God never needs to
repent. You are in direct conflict with scripture. That should
disturb you.
The fact is that one can "repent" from things other than sin.
"Repent", taken literally, means to turn away from. In this case, God
turned away from what He intended to do, because of Moses' prayer.
This is the text as it reads. Biblical theology and proper
exegesis/hermeneutics demands that we not insert our own theology into
grasping its
meaning.
Steve:>You would understand that God would never wipe out his people
and replace them with one man, Moses, to start all over.
Actually, God could do just that and start over. The covenant is for a
people who are descendents of Isaac. Moses fits that description just
fine. There is no reason God couldn't wipe out a large number of
Israelites who were violating the covenant and start over with a few or
even one that was faithful. (Well, two, I suppose.)
In fact, in the exile, this happens. In the call to return to Israel,
the VAST MAJORITY of Jews choose to remain in exile, happy with their
lives, and only a small remnant return to Israel to rebuild Jerusalem.
While I understand that your systematic theology requires you to place
these things into the text, it simply is not there. In fact, your
biblical theology of this text is very much eisegesis, rather than
exegesis.
>Steve:>In regards to your statement about the newer versions being
superior to the
>King James, I will have to differ here from your view. The newer
versions
>do not rely on the Textus Receptus, but instead have substituted the
corrupt
>text used in the Catholic Bible- the Latin Vulgate Bible- that relied
only
>on the Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph.
Actually, that's not true, anymore. While Wescott and Hort may have
overemphasized A and B, the more recent greek texts rely on all the
available manuscripts, and the Nestle-Aland and UBS greek texts have
rejected the assumptions of Wescott and Hort regarding textual
accuracy, and we have benefitted greatly from that work. You should
read some Bruce Metzger. He's a wonderful theologian and textual
scholar who has written much about the various texts.
Just FYI, The TR was hastily assembled by a Catholic priest who had
access to 33 Byzantine manuscripts, which did not even contain all of
scripture. IN order to complete the work, Erasmus had to translate
several verses from the latin back into the Greek. (Yes, the TR was
compiled by the Catholic Church.) Furthermore, the TR wasn't even
called the Textus Receptus until a major printing of the KJV in 1633,
twenty years AFTER the 1611 KJV was finished.
Don't get me wrong, I use the KJV frequently, because it is a good
formal translation, but there are some issues with it because of the
limited textual sources that it was based upon.
Textual criticism today benefits from literally thousands of
manuscripts and fragments, and the compilation of the text benefits
GREATLY from the archeological work of the early 1900s, which
discovered MANY well preserved works from the first century, including
a fragmet thought to be copied only 30 years after the original.
These are items that neither Erasmus nor Wescott and Hort had availble
to them in their day, and have been instrumental in reestablishing the
Byzantine, Western, and A&B mss as quality sources for reconstructing
the original. In fact, the reconstruction has gone well enough that
there are no significant theological issues that arise from the
possible variant readings of the originals.
Steve:Gods word tells us that he sustains, governs and cares for the
world He has
>created.
I have no disagreement with these scriptures or how you have presented
them. God is omniscient. He sustains our existance. No question
there. Our disagrement is about what is knowable, and, in the
scriptural evidence, is there basis for saying that God changes His
mind, and that God thinks some things will happen that do not.
Proper exegesis (without eisegesis) of these verses tell us that there
is solid ground for both.
Muz
Stephe...@family-news.org
M> From: "Muz" <themu...@gmail.com>
M> Ordinary theology says that God determines all things that happen,
M> and there is no possibility of anything happening other than what
M> God has declared for every action.
M> Open View Theism says that the actual individual decisions are not
M> known because they have not been made, and the future is open.
So that means that God did not create time, but is bound by it?
Sala kahle
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.
--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)
Muz
by it?
Certainly not. It simply means that God created a universe for which
the dimension of time expands along a vector starting at "let there be
light", and each new point on the vector is the next moment in time,
which comes into being as time moves foward.
All God is doing is observing the expansion of His creation along the
dimension of time, omnisciently knowing each moment as it occurs, and
omnisciently knowing all the possibilities of the future.
Muz
Steve Goltra
Jews, I offer the following that might help to clarify this unique
relationship, that does not require works of any kind on the Jews part to
satisfy it and continue in it:
The word "Covenant" is used throughout the Bible (The Old Covenant- the Old
Testament & the New Covenant- the New Testament.
Easton's Bible Dictionary
gives us the following definition of Covenant that might be helpful:
Topics: Cov'enant
Text: a contract or agreement between two parties. In the Old Testament the
Hebrew word BERITH is always thus translated. BERITH is derived from a root
which means "to cut," and hence a covenant is a "cutting," with reference to
the cutting or dividing of animals into two parts, and the contracting
parties passing between them, in making a covenant (Gen. 15; Jer. 34:18,
19). The corresponding word in the New Testament Greek is DIATHEKE, which
is, however, rendered "testament" generally in the Authorized Version. It
ought to be rendered, just as the word BERITH of the Old Testament,
"COVENANT." This word is used :
(1.) of a covenant or compact between man and man (Gen. 21: 32), or between
tribes or nations (1 Sam. 11:1; Josh. 9:6, 15). In entering into a
covenant, Jehovah was solemnly called on to witness the transaction (Gen.
31:50), and hence it was called a "covenant of the Lord" (1 Sam. 20:8). The
marriage compact is called "the covenant of God" (Prov. 2:17), because the
marriage was made in God's name. Wicked men are spoken of as acting as if
they had made a "covenant with death" not to destroy them, or with hell not
to devour them (Isa. 28:15, 18).
(2.) The word is used with reference to God's revelation of himself in the
way of promise or of favour to men. Thus God's promise to Noah after the
Flood is called a covenant (Gen. 9; Jer.l 33:20, "my covenant"). We have an
account of God's covenant with Abraham (Gen. 17, comp. Lev. 26:42], of the
covenant of the priesthood (Num. 25:12, 13; Deut. 33:9; Neh. 13:29), and of
the covenant of Sinai (Ex. 34:27, 28; Lev. 26:15], which was afterwards
renewed at different times in the history of Israel (Deut. 29; Josh. 24; 2
Chr. 15; 23; 29; 34; Ezra 10; Neh. 9).
In conformity with human custom, God's covenant is said to be confirmed with
an oath (Deut. 4:31; Ps. 89:3), and to be accompanied by a sign (Gen. 9;
17). Hence the covenant is called God's "counsel," "oath," "promise" (Ps.
89:3, 4; 105:8-11; Heb. 6:13-20; Luke 1:68-75). God's covenant consists
wholly in the bestowal of blessing (Isa. 59:21; Jer. 31:33, 34).
The term covenant is also used to designate the regular succession of day
and night (Jer. 33:20), the Sabbath (Ex. 31:16), circumcision (Gen. 17:9,
10), and in general any ordinance of God (Jer. 34:13, 14). A "covenant of
salt" signifies an everlasting covenant, in the sealing or ratifying of
which salt, as an emblem of perpetuity, is used (Num. 18:19; Lev. 2:13; 2
Chr. 13:5). COVENANT OF WORKS, the constitution under which Adam was placed
at his creation. In this covenant,
(1.) The contracting parties were (a) God the moral Governor, and (b) Adam,
a free moral agent, and representative of all his natural posterity (Rom.
5:12-19).
(2.) The promise was "life" (Matt. 19:16, 17; Gal. 3:12).
(3.) The condition was perfect obedience to the law, the test in this case
being abstaining from eating the fruit of the "tree of knowledge," etc.
(4.) The penalty was death (Gen. 2:16, 17). This covenant is also called a
covenant of nature, as made with man in his natural or unfallen state; a
covenant of life, because "life" was the promise attached to obedience; and
a legal covenant, because it demanded perfect obedience to the law. The
"tree of life" was the outward sign and seal of that life which was promised
in the covenant, and hence it is usually called the seal of that covenant.
This covenant is abrogated under the gospel, inasmuch as Christ has
fulfilled all its conditions in behalf of his people, and now offers
salvation on the condition of faith. It is still in force, however, as it
rests on the immutable justice of God, and is binding on all who have not
fled to Christ and accepted his righteousness. COVENANT OF GRACE, the
eternal plan of redemption entered into by the three persons of the Godhead,
and carried out by them in its several parts. In it the Father represented
the Godhead in its indivisible sovereignty, and the Son his people as their
surety (John 17:4, 6, 9; Isa. 42:6; Ps. 89:3). The conditions of this
covenant were,
(1.) On the part of the Father (a) all needful preparation to the Son for
the accomplishment of his work (Heb. 10:5; Isa. 42:1-7); (b) support in the
work (Luke 22:43); and (c) a glorious reward in the exaltation of Christ
when his work was done (Phil. 2:6-11), his investiture with universal
dominion (John 5:22; Ps. 110:1), his having the administration of the
covenant committed into his hands (Matt. 28:18; John 1:12; 17:2; Acts 2:33),
and in the final salvation of all his people (Isa. 35:10; 53:10, 11; Jer.
31:33; Titus 1:2).
(2.) On the part of the Son the conditions were (a) his becoming incarnate
(Gal. 4:4, 5); and (b) as the second Adam his representing all his people,
assuming their place and undertaking all their obligations under the
violated covenant of works; (c) obeying the law (Ps. 40:8; Isa. 42:21; John
9: 4, 5), and (d) suffering its penalty (Isa. 53; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13),
in their stead. Christ, the mediator of, fulfils all its conditions in
behalf of his people, and dispenses to them all its blessings. In Heb. 8:6;
9:15; 12:24, this title is given to Christ. (See DISPENSATION.)
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:EgEFd.6665$Ii4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Well, let's start with Moses...
>
Steve Goltra
people became one:
Blood Covenant
Throughout scripture we find the word Covenant. In the Old Testament the
Hebrew word Barius (Covenant) is found 264 times. The word Barius is
translated by Strong's as follows:
Strong's Number: 1285
Transliterated: briyth
Phonetic: ber-eeth'
Text: from 1262 (in the sense of cutting [like 1254]); a compact (because
made by passing between pieces of flesh): -confederacy, [con-]feder[-ate],
covenant, league.
The word Covenant is found 17 times in the New Testament, and the Greek word
Diatheke is translated as follows by Strong's:
Strong's Number: 1242
Transliterated: diatheke
Phonetic: dee-ath-ay'-kay
Text: from 1303; properly, a disposition, i.e. (specially) a contract
(especially a devisory will): --COVENANT, testament.
THE BLOOD COVENANT
Every time in every church before we take the Holy Communion, we hear the
pastor reading a passage from 1 Corinthians 11:24-25:
"24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is
My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup
is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in
remembrance of Me."
When we read our Bible carefully, we notice that since the fall of mankind,
God initiated covenants with man. He made covenants with Noah (Genesis
6:18), with Abraham (Genesis 15:18, 17:2), with David (2 Samuel 23:5), with
the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-34). The
last and yet the most powerful one is the New Covenant or an everlasting
covenant (Isaiah 55:3, 1 Corinthians 11:25).
In its simplest definition, a "covenant" is an agreement between two
parties. We seldom use the word "covenant" today, and only in regards to the
marriage covenant, where it is lightly regarded and it's true meaning not
even understood.
In present society, the word "covenant" is a word that has lost its meaning
and significance. In Old Testament and Biblical times, the word "covenant"
involved a promise, commitment, faithfulness and loyalty even unto death. A
covenant is a union of two parties in which all assets, talents, debts and
liabilities are held mutually.
What is the definition of a covenant?
In English:
Mutual understanding between two or more parties each binding himself to
fulfill specified obligations; a legal contract; a binding agreement; a
written agreement. Also means the conditional promises made to humanity by
God, as revealed in Scripture.
In the Old Testament, The Hebrew Word Beriyth is used 264 times.
- Beriyth: implies the thought of cutting a covenant. The word is also
defined as a covenant, pact or compact. These covenants are made between
men, or between God and men (Jeremiah 34:18).
In the New Testament the Greek word Diatheke is used 23 times.
1. Diatheke: a disposition, arrangement, testament or will. This word
signifies an unequal covenant, where one does all the giving and the other
does all the taking
2. Suntithemai: To put together, place together, make an arrangement. The
animals were placed in a specific arrangement, having been cut down the
backbone and the middle of the head, cutting the animal in two.
Genesis 15:7-18
Then He said to him, "I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the
Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it." And he said, "Lord GOD, how
shall I know that I will inherit it?" So He said to him, "Bring Me a
three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a
turtledove, and a young pigeon." Then he brought all these to Him and cut
them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but
he did not cut the birds in two.
And when the vultures came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold,
horror and great darkness fell upon him. Then He said to Abram: "Know
certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not
theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.
And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come
out with great possessions.
Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried
at a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for
the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." And it came to pass, when
the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking
oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. On the same day
the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have
given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River
Euphrates -".
In this covenant, we see that God initiated the first Blood Sacrifice
Covenant with Abraham. In the modern day we hold a covenant with another
person by his signature on a piece of paper which the person signs in front
of a legal notary or a higher authority or by his 'word'.
Since God is the highest authority, He cannot take an oath to another
supreme authority. He can only guarantee His promises by His own word and by
shedding blood to seal His covenant.
In the ancient Hebrew or Hittite covenant both parties would walk between
the bleeding pieces of cut animals taking an oath of loyalty to the other
partner. God established a covenant with Abraham in the terms that Abraham
could understand, in accordance with the Hebrew covenant ritual, and God,
along with Christ, walked between the pieces of meat. God made this covenant
with God- God did all of the work and made all of the promises, to himself.
Abraham benefited from this covenant, and made no promises to God. The
Abrahamic covenant is an everlasting covenant, as well as an unconditional
covenant!!!
In the Bible, we see in the Old and New Testaments, the Jewish ritual of
making a covenant.
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Steve Goltra
Nowhere is
> this incident called a test for Moses, nor is there any implicaiton
> that God isn't serious about destroying the nation. In fact, the
> evience points to the contrary. God's anger is burning towards them,
> because they've made a golden calf to worship"
Steve's response: This is not an attack on you in any way, only a response
to what you have posted:
Again, you have no understanding of God's Blood covenant relationship with
Israel. The Coveneant that God made with Abraham was a one sided covenant.
God was the only partner that had any obligations, as God walked through the
pool of blood with Christ, while a deep sleep had befallen Abraham. This
special covenant that God made with Abraham was without conditions, in
direct contrast to the blood covenants made between two men, that we read
about throughout the Old Testament.
Also, the law had not yet even been given to the Jews. Moses was on his way
down to do so. It is also very clear from God's word that the purpose of the
law was not to demand perfect conduct based upon the law, and thus earn
their way to heaven, but only to point out to them/us that there was no way
to keep the law- it is an impossibility. The only way to become saved was
through God's GRACE- Gods Riches At Christ's (the Messiah's) Expense. The
Atonement (the 10th day of Tishre) was a time that the Jews were called to
mourn for their sin. They even went into separate rooms to mourn for their
sins that they had committed over the previous year. God's word also tells
us that the blood of sheep and Goats never forgave sin, but only covered
them -and God was not even happy with these offerings. God would only accept
the once and for all final sacrifice for sin, Christ Jesus, to totally
forgive sin, for all time. It is only the believer who is focused on works
that has any belief that doing good deeds, and keeping the law will get
anyone to heaven, or provide them with brownie points. God is the one that
reads the heart, and knows the reasons that we do everything. The "things"
that we do, that are not done to glorify God will be burned before our eyes
like hay and stubble at the Bema Judgment (the Judgment seat of Christ).
Hebrews 10:1-13 tells us: 1. For the law having a shadow of good things to
come, and not the very
image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year
by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2. For then would
they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged
should have had no more conscience of sins.
3. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every
year.4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should
take
away sins. 5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice
and
offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6. In burnt
offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7. Then said I,
Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of
me,) to do thy will, O God. 8. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering
and burnt offerings and
offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which
are offered by the law;
9. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the
first, that he may establish the second.
10. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body
of Jesus Christ once for all.
11. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes
the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12. But this man,
after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,
sat down on the right hand of God; 13. From henceforth expecting till his
enemies be made his footstool.
I pointed out to you the inconsistencies of God's statements to Moses, about
how the Jews were Moses people and that Moses was the one that took the Jews
out of Egypt, etc. I guess that did not compute with you, or ?
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Muz
about
>how the Jews were Moses people and that Moses was the one that took
the Jews
>out of Egypt, etc. I guess that did not compute with you, or ?
I understood what you were trying to say, but it simply isn't supported
by the text. Multiple times throughout the OT, God rejects Israel
because they did not keep the covenant, and were not observing the
sabbath. Hosea takes a prostitute as a wife, and then sends her away
as a symbol of God's rejection of Israel for a time. Jeremiah 3 is the
symbolic story of how Israel left, and God was wooing her back. The
very theme of Israel's existance in the OT is judgment, rejection, and
restoraion.
You are correct in that the covenant with the Israelites is
Suezarian-Vassel, in that the powerful king (God) offers certain
things, if the Vassels (Israel) are loyal to him, and obey His
commands. And Israel agreed (Exo 24:7)
However, in Exo 32, we see Israel violating the covenant by worshipping
another god. At this point, the covenant is broken. The only covenant
that needs to be kept is the promise to Abraham, which God has stated
that He will keep through Moses. In fact, there are no inconsistencies
in God's stated course of action, and, in fact, if there were, God
would be lying to Moses about His intention. You sure you want to
adopt a view of a lying god?
(I noticed that you've dropped Jer 3:7 from the discussion.)
Michael
Stephe...@family-news.org
M> From: "Muz" <themu...@gmail.com>
M> Stephen.H...>So that means that God did not create time, but is
M> bound by it?
M> Certainly not. It simply means that God created a universe for
M> which the dimension of time expands along a vector starting at "let
M> there be light", and each new point on the vector is the next moment
M> in time, which comes into being as time moves foward.
M> All God is doing is observing the expansion of His creation along
M> the dimension of time, omnisciently knowing each moment as it
M> occurs, and omnisciently knowing all the possibilities of the
M> future.
Sorry, I'm a bear of little brain, and have difficulty in understanding words
like "vector" except in the sense that mosquitos are a vector of malaria. I
never did maths beyond high school.
Steve Goltra
Abraham did not enter into a
"Suezarian-Vassel covenant" with a King. They entered into a berius, a
special type of blood covenant (berius), that is identical to the diatheke
covenant, that is found in the New Testament. In this special covenant, God
does all of the giving and Abrahams seed is the recipient.
Also, just to fair to the Jews, they had been in Egypt for over 400 years
and had taken on the ways of their captors. They actually worshipped cows
and were involved in the sexual sin of Egypt, as well as the worshipping of
the many Egyptian Gods.
And finally, due to the Passover, the first Passover, which is a picture of
the final sacrifice made by Christ at the feast of Passover 1500 years
later, and when they left Egypt they all were well , and not sick due to
this experience. They continued being well all the way to their entry into
the promised land. There is more to this, but I don't want to get into it.
I have met Hugh Ross (Huge Loss) before. I actually have gone to hear him
speak twice. The problem I have with Hugh is that his scientific education
has blinded his eyes to God's power. The Jews in the early Church had the
same problem with the Law. They still wanted to keep the Law, eventhough
Christ fulfilled the Law. Going back to Hugh, he cannot set his science
aside and realize that if God created a mature man, an adult, that he could
also create a mature earth, an "older" earth. This whole thread is really
going nowhere and I am finding it quite a waste of time. As long as you and
I both believe that Christ is the Messiah, the Seed of the Woman, that took
away the sin of the world, and we have confessed this with our mouth to
others, we will be in heaven.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oTfGd.7767$pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Muz
>Abraham did not enter into a
>"Suezarian-Vassel covenant" with a King. They entered into a berius, a
>special type of blood covenant (berius), that is identical to the
diatheke
>covenant, that is found in the New Testament. In this special
covenant, God
>does all of the giving and Abrahams seed is the recipient.
These are not incompatible. Suezarian-Vassel covenants can be blood
covenants.
However, if we consider what you say as true, then you have an even
bigger problem with Exo 32, because God clearly threatens to destroy
all of Israel, and is either lying to Moses, or threatening to break
this blood covenant as you have constructed it.
Which is it? God lying, or God breaking covenant?
Muz
Muz
words
like "vector" except in the sense that mosquitos are a vector of
malaria. I
never did maths beyond high school.
A vector is a point that begins a line that extends in one direction.
Michael
Steve Goltra
(vector) have to do with God's word?. Where do you find "vector" in the
Bible- where is the specific reference. What he is trying to say, what I am
trying to say, is that we are on a Christian newsgroup called
christnet.theology. We are not on the newsgroup science.theory.net
God bless,
Steve
P.S. I have no problem with science or current events, as long as they tie
into scripture, and the scripture can been "seen" in the science. I can
hardly see how vector ties in with God's supernatural power- omniscience,
omnipresence, & omnipotence. We don't have to figure out how God does His
work, the miracles that he performs daily in our lives, the prophecy that He
gives us, thousands of years before it is fulfilled. All we have to believe
in Him, just like Abraham did!
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:LCGGd.9665$Ii4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Steve Goltra
the annihilation of His covenant people. The blood covenant ritual "brought
into and made a part of all the children as full covenant partners.
Typically this consisted of boys and girls below the age of majority. In
Israel's case, that was 20 years old. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant,
which is an unconditional covenant, with the only condition that Abraham had
to comply with was to "leave"- Genesis 12:1 tells us "1. Now the Lord had
said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from
thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:"
Abraham complied with his part. From Genesis 12:2-3 we FIND SEVEN (7) "I
WILLS PROVIDED BY GOD (NOT SUZERIAN-VASSEL). There are never any other
requirements required of Abraham: "2. And I will make of thee a great
nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a
blessing: 3. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
That's it, the Abrahamic covenant. Now fast forward to just one of the times
that God threatened to kill all of the Israelites, save Moses. Numbers
14:1-45 tells the story. God chose to let the "little ones" enter the land,
into His Rest (another Bible study). What is the definition of "little
ones"- those under 20 years old. The reference to "little ones" can be found
in Numbers 14:31 and the reference to who will not be allowed in the promise
land can be found in Numbers 14:29. The reason for this is again the
Abrahamic blood covenant ritual [Not "Suezarian-Vassel"]- How in the world
anyone can you compare the berius that God shares with Abraham to a
Suezarian-Vassel "whatever" should be very interesting- I would like to read
it!
[Of note here is that God never has followed through with His threat to
kill all of His people and leave one or two men alive. He has always kept a
remnant alive. The total dispersement took place in 70 A.D., after the Jews
rejection of their beloved Messiah. But God still prophesized that Israel
would be a Nation in one day- look it up in Isaiah 66:8. This is a prophecy
that was fulfilled when the U.N. made Israel a Nation by vote in 1948.
Joseph Stalin cast his tie breaking vote in favor of Israel (no one knows
why, except God), and it was official!- Isaiah 66:8 " 8. Who hath heard
such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring
forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion
travailed, she brought forth her children."]
As I have said before, God, who had a face to face relationship with Moses,
tested him. In the verses quoted above, Moses says a beautiful prayer to God
about this people, and God pardons all of them, even the older ones who will
not enter the promised land. They will be in heaven when we get there- all
of them, the young ones and older ones alike:
Moses prayer starts with Numbers 14:13 but I will only quote the following,
that satisfied the Lord that starts in verse 17. Moses understands that the
Jews are a covenant people, and that he is no better than the rest of them.
His personal relationship with God and his belief in God and the Messiah to
come is what makes him (Moses) righteous in God's eyes. That is something
that you and I need to know with all of our heart. It is so easy to look at
others who are not as "good as" we are, who do not pray as much as we do,
etc. etc. etc. and think that we are "superior" to them. Moses was under
tremendous temptation to feel that way, but time after time he proves to God
that he is not.
"...................17. And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord
be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, 18. The Lord is
longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and
by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon
the children unto the third and fourth generation. 19. Pardon, I beseech
thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy,
and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now. 20. AND
THE LORD SAID, I HAVE PARDONED ACCORDING TO THY WORD: "
That's it, Muz. I will not go any further on this thread. I really do not
expect you to follow this and I do not want to spend any more time with it.
God bless,
Steve
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HCGGd.9664$Ii4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Steve Goltra
Steve's response: Neither!
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Muz
information on Open View Theism?
Muz
Muz
with
<the annihilation of His covenant people. The blood covenant ritual
"brought
<into and made a part of all the children as full covenant partners.
However, the covenant included the promise of the Land of Israel (In
fact, it is the key element), and they lost possession of the land many
times, including during the 70 years exile to Babylon.
>Typically this consisted of boys and girls below the age of majority.
In
>Israel's case, that was 20 years old. In the case of the Abrahamic
covenant,
>which is an unconditional covenant, with the only condition that
Abraham had
>to comply with was to "leave"- Genesis 12:1 tells us "1. Now the Lord
had
>said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred,
and from
>thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:"
>Abraham complied with his part. From Genesis 12:2-3 we FIND SEVEN (7)
"I
>WILLS PROVIDED BY GOD (NOT SUZERIAN-VASSEL). There are never any other
>requirements required of Abraham: "2. And I will make of thee a great
>nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt
be a
>blessing: 3. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
>curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
The covenant comes about in various parts throughout the story of
Abram/Abraham. One of the major key elements in the LAND. Did and
does Israel remain in control of the land from the time the covenant
was established until now?
>That's it, the Abrahamic covenant. Now fast forward to just one of the
times
>that God threatened to kill all of the Israelites, save Moses. Numbers
>14:1-45 tells the story. God chose to let the "little ones" enter the
land,
>into His Rest (another Bible study). What is the definition of "little
>ones"- those under 20 years old. The reference to "little ones" can be
found
>in Numbers 14:31 and the reference to who will not be allowed in the
promise
>land can be found in Numbers 14:29. The reason for this is again the
>Abrahamic blood covenant ritual [Not "Suezarian-Vassel"]- How in the
world
>anyone can you compare the berius that God shares with Abraham to a
>Suezarian-Vassel "whatever" should be very interesting- I would like
to read
>it!
The Siniatic covenant is a subsequent covenant and a fulfillment of
part of the covenant with Abraham, so, in a sense, the children of
Israel are part of two covenants and eventually part of three (four or
five, depending on whether you include the Adamic and Noahic covenants,
the other being the Davidic covenant.) The Siniatic (Mosaic) covenant
is Suezarian-Vassel in nature, and is the one formed directly with the
people of Israel. It is conditional in nature (if people of God do X,
God will do Y.)
>[Of note here is that God never has followed through with His threat
to
>kill all of His people and leave one or two men alive.
I agree. God never followed through on the threat. We're also told
why: He changed His mind.
>As I have said before, God, who had a face to face relationship with
Moses,
>tested him.
Again, you need to provide scriptural evidence for this. It's simply
not in the text, nor is it in any way implied by the text. It is not
beyond the bounds of covenant or reason for God to do exactly as He
threatened to do.
>That's it, Muz. I will not go any further on this thread. I really do
not
>expect you to follow this and I do not want to spend any more time
with it.
I understand what you're trying to say. Unfortunately, it isn't
supported by the text, and winds up being your constructed systematic
theology inserting into scripture, rather than scripture informing your
systematic theology.
Muz
Muz
that
>(vector) have to do with God's word?. Where do you find "vector" in
the
>Bible- where is the specific reference. What he is trying to say, what
I am
>trying to say, is that we are on a Christian newsgroup called
>christnet.theology. We are not on the newsgroup science.theory.net
I understand. I was simply trying to forward a hypothesis about how
God could be outside of the created universe and not subject to its
time, and yet not see all time as eternally present to Him.
Muz
Steve Goltra
I am not "abandoning my position" on anything. It is obvious that this post
is going nowhere. I have absolutely no interest in "Open Theism". Your
position ("Open Theism") places you on the outside of Christian orthodoxy.
Your position is directing your understanding of God's word. Words like
everlasting do not mean everlasting to you. They cannot mean forever, and
ever and ever because that gets in the way of "Open Theism".
I know what you are going through. I read the Bible through 5 times when I
was in the New Age and found what I wanted to find, what my frame of
reference would allow me to find. Not until I became a believer did the
Bible start to have real meaning, and not until I received the Baptism of
the Holy Spirit did God's word come alive to me.
This post could go on forever, but nothing will change your frame of
reference. I can see that it is cast in concrete, the same as mine was. The
Holy Spirit is the one that reveals all truth to the believer. It is quite
clear that what I have posted, as well as other's on this thread, have not
softened your heart or opened your eyes to the truth.
I pray that God does that, through the power of the Holy Ghost.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5wTGd.9144$pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Steve Goltra
This is what God's Word says about the Abrahamic covenant, an EVERLASTING
Covenant". Please note that it is quite clear that is addressed to Abraham
and his descendents (Jews) as an everlasting covenant, FOR THE GENERATIONS
TO COME:
An Everlasting Covenant .
Genesis 17:7-9 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant
between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to
come, to be your God and the God of YOUR DESCENDENTS after you.The whole
land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting
possession to you and YOUR DESCENDENTS after you; and I will be THEIR God."
Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and
YOUR DESCENDENTS after you for THE GENERATIONS TO COME.
Muz, be kind enough to fill us all in on exactly what a Suezarian-Vassel
covenant is? Where is it mentioned in the Bible (exactly) and who was a part
of it. I surely cannot find it in any reference book that I have, and I
cannot find it on the World Wide Web.
God bless,
Steve
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NwTGd.9146$pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Muz
Well, you failed to deal with the obvious contradiction of your own
position, so there was no other logical conclusion.
>I read the Bible through 5 times when Iwas in the New Age
I'm glad you found your way to Christ and the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit. Welcome to the family.
>It is quite
>clear that what I have posted, as well as other's on this thread, have
not
>softened your heart or opened your eyes to the truth.
Ah, yes, the last vestige of the defeated: "God told me that this is
true, so you must be wrong in spite of my obvious lack of knowledge and
inability to deal with the problems of my position."
Honestly, Steve, discussion is about an examination of doctrines. Its
purpose is to bring to the surface the errors and problems with one's
position so that it may be refined. I've opened up and laid out my
case, answered your questions, and have found our discussion
beneficial. I suspect it is you that is unwilling to consider the
problems we've encountered in your position, having cast it in
concrete.
I was not honestly expecting you to change your mind as a result of our
conversation, but I had hoped for something more than this kind of
conclusion.
Muz
Muz
a type of covenant from the ANE.
If you read "Readings from the Ancient Near East" by Arnold and Beyer,
pages 101-103, There you will find the cutting of an animal in a 1st
millennium Suzerain-vassal treaty between Ashurnirari V and Mat'-ilu of
Arpad. -
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2004-March/012476.html
The Abrahamic covenant may also be a Royal covenant, which has some
similarities.
When you spoke of covenant early on, I thought you meant the Mosaic
covenant, and you've made that more clear, recently. The Mosaic
covenant is a more classic Suzerian-Vassal covenant which God
established with Israel.
However, even in the promise to Abraham regarding Exodus. If God
determined that there would be no more descendents of Israel except
those who came from Moses as a judgment against them for their
idolatry, He would STILL have not violated the covenant with Abraham!
Being their God means that He can make those kinds of decisions.
Muz
Steve Goltra
I thought that I was very, very clear in what I was posting when I posted
the Abrahamic Blood Covenant. In that Covenant God swares to Abraham that he
and his descendents (not descendent) would be participants in it. Moses was
well aware of this covenant. Also, just to be crystal clear on this matter,
God has never, ever, not once come against all of his people (the Jews) save
one or two, and annihilated them. Granted, when the law was given three
thousand were killed (by men, not God, but on the orders of God), but at
that time there were approximately 3 million Jews alive. At Pentecost 3,000
believed and were saved and received eternal life. God has used other
nations to judge Israel, but at the same time if those nations were to
severe in that judgment, he came against them. When God chose Abraham, he
chose him and his descendents to covenant with- an everlasting covenant. The
Angel of the Lord has defended the Jews in battle over and over again,
totally annihilating other nations, but the Angel of the Lord has never,
ever come against His Chosen people, regardless of how much idolatry they
were into or how backslidden they were, and annihilated them himself.
I guess my problem with your position on this whole matter is that you would
ever even think that God would annihilate his chosen people. No matter what
the text says, with your understanding of Scripture and God's Covenant
relationship with Israel, how can you come to such a conclusion. It might be
that you are not using your understanding of God's nature and God's plan in
coming to this conclusion. It might be that you are just too "literal" in
your reading of the text, without applying any understanding to God's
Covenant relationship to Israel. Nicodemus had the same type of problem.
This is what God's Word says about the Abrahamic covenant, an EVERLASTING
Covenant". Please note that it is quite clear that is addressed to Abraham
and his descendents (Jews) as an everlasting covenant, FOR THE GENERATIONS
TO COME:
An Everlasting Covenant .
Genesis 17:7-9 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant
between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to
come, to be your God and the God of YOUR DESCENDENTS after you.The whole
land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting
possession to you and YOUR DESCENDENTS after you; and I will be THEIR God."
Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and
YOUR DESCENDENTS after you for THE GENERATIONS TO COME.
Also, in your concern about the land promised to Abraham- All of that land
has never been in the hands of Israel. Even today, they only control less
than 1% of what God promised them. They will receive all of the land during
the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ.
God bless,
Steve
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:K_9Hd.9823$pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Steve Goltra
> position, so there was no other logical conclusion"
Steve's response: For at least one week (since 1/14) I have posted
information on the Blood Covenant ritual, where two people become one. Part
of the ritual involves the exchange of belts between the parties. The belt
did not hold anything other than their weapons. What they were saying is
that each party would defend the other, with their lives, to the death.
Then, each party exchanged their robes. By doing this they were "putting on"
the other covenant partner, they were becoming one by putting on the others
"nature".
Since God had walked through the animals that had been cut down the
backbone, through the pool of blood, with God (Jesus Christ) and Abraham was
placed into a deep sleep, God has entered into a one sided Blood Covenant
relationship with Abraham and his seed. This covenant is an everlasting
Covenant. It was continued with Isaac, and again with Jacob. Jacob had 12
children, that created the 12 tribes. All of these tribes are part of the
covenant, to perpetuity. There is no way that God would ever annihilate his
people and only keep one person, Moses, from the tribe of Levi alive, and
kill everyone else. It is preposterous. God has sworn to defend them all,
forever.
I hope that is clear enough for you to understand. I really don't know what
else to say. This is a full defense of my position. God has never
annihilated his own people, the Jews, like He did to the heathen people of
Sodom and Gomorrah, and He never will.
Like I have said, this thread is going nowhere if you cannot understand this
covenant relationship that God had with Abraham and his seed.
God bless,
Steve
p.s. Please read what I posted on the Blood Covenant Ritual. It is more to
the point than the website that you referred me to.
Muz
posted
>the Abrahamic Blood Covenant. In that Covenant God swares to Abraham
that he
>and his descendents (not descendent) would be participants in it.
Moses was
>well aware of this covenant.
You probably were clear, and I missed it. (Keep in mind that Moses
would have been the father of the covenant nation from that point
foward, thus producing descendents, not just a descendent. Also keep
in mind that through Isaac and Jacob, there was only one descendent per
generation.)
>Also, just to be crystal clear on this matter,
>God has never, ever, not once come against all of his people (the
Jews) save
>one or two, and annihilated them. Granted, when the law was given
three
>thousand were killed (by men, not God, but on the orders of God), but
at
>that time there were approximately 3 million Jews alive. At Pentecost
3,000
>believed and were saved and received eternal life. God has used other
>nations to judge Israel, but at the same time if those nations were to
>severe in that judgment, he came against them. When God chose Abraham,
he
>chose him and his descendents to covenant with- an everlasting
covenant. The
>Angel of the Lord has defended the Jews in battle over and over again,
>totally annihilating other nations, but the Angel of the Lord has
never,
>ever come against His Chosen people, regardless of how much idolatry
they
>were into or how backslidden they were, and annihilated them himself.
And this is your problem. You're inserting your opinion into the text.
You are correct in that God never anihilated them. However, that does
not negate the clear text of scripture in Exodus 32, where God
threatens to do just that. All the hand waving and special pleading in
the world isn't going to change what God said. And, going back to the
text, there is no indication whatsoever of a test for Moses. The text
is clear and straightforward: God was serious in His intent, and was
swayed by Moses' plea.
>I guess my problem with your position on this whole matter is that you
would
>ever even think that God would annihilate his chosen people. No matter
what
>the text says, with your understanding of Scripture and God's Covenant
>relationship with Israel, how can you come to such a conclusion. It
might be
>that you are not using your understanding of God's nature and God's
plan in
>coming to this conclusion. It might be that you are just too "literal"
in
>your reading of the text, without applying any understanding to God's
>Covenant relationship to Israel. Nicodemus had the same type of
problem
Honestly, I bring nothing to the scripture but a desire to read the
text for what it says. You're the one bringing blood covenant
definitions and emotional appeals of "how could God do that" and "God
never did what He threatened to do", etc. etc. etc. I find it
interesting that you accuse me of being "too literal" in reading the
text. I actually accept that as a compliment and a support to my
position, your attempt to tie me to Nicodemus, notwithstanding.
The problem the Pharisees had in Jesus' day was that they had a
particular view of what a Messiah was supposed to be and do, and Jesus
didn't meet their expectations. So, their problem was that they were
reading what they wanted to see in the text, rather than reading the
text and watching for the prophecies to be fulfilled. Sounds more like
you than me.
>This is what God's Word says about the Abrahamic covenant, an
EVERLASTING
>Covenant". Please note that it is quite clear that is addressed to
Abraham
>and his descendents (Jews) as an everlasting covenant, FOR THE
GENERATIONS
>TO COME:
>
>An Everlasting Covenant .
<
<Genesis 17:7-9 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant
>between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations
to
>come, to be your God and the God of YOUR DESCENDENTS after you.The
whole
>land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an
everlasting
>possession to you and YOUR DESCENDENTS after you; and I will be THEIR
God."
>Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you
and
>YOUR DESCENDENTS after you for THE GENERATIONS TO COME.
And exactly what part of wiping out a large group or even most of
Abraham's decendents as a result of judgment against them violates this
Covenant? God is still sovereign, right? If God determined to fulfill
His covenant to Abraham through Moses (as God states He will in Exodus
32), what part of the covenant is broken? You cite the scripture and
want us to make the leap with you from the covenant given to an
implication that God can't judge His people with death, if He chooses.
You've already stated that God wiped out a smll percentage of the
populatiuon of Israel because of rebellion, what difference is there
between .1% and 99%? If God can wipe out a small part in judgment, He
can wipe out a large part in judgment, too, can He not?
Furthermore, if Moses is the only one left, and God produces more
descendents and another nation through him, where is the covenant
broken on God's part? Don't forget, now, that God was going to kill
Moses because He did not circumcize his sons, and only because Moses'
wife did it was Moses spared.
So, maybe the question come back to this: If God can use death as
judgment against His chosen leader for His people, and use it against
3,000 at one time for rebellion, why can He not use it to wipe out
almost all of Israel for Idolotry, preserving the covenant through
Moses? What part of the covenant allows God to wipe out a small part
of the descendents, but not a large part of them?
Muz
Steve Goltra
When the Jews were crying for water to drink in Kadesh (Numbers 20:5)
"5. And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in
unto this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of
pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink."
Moses & Aaron then came before the Lord and received specific instructions
of what to do. Previously Moses had struck the rock with his staff to get
water- a "picture" of the crucifixion of Christ. This time God specifically
instructed him to speak to the rock, and water would come out. This again is
a picture of how we today have access to the Lord, the Holy Spirit that is
provided to us by prayer.
Numbers 20:6-13
"6. And Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly unto the
door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they fell upon their faces:
and the glory of the Lord appeared unto them.
7. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
8. Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron
thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give
forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock:
so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.
9. And Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as he commanded him.
10. And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the
rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water
out of this rock?
11. And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock
twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and
their beasts also.
12. And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not,
to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not
bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.
13. This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove
with the Lord, and he was sanctified in them."
Please note Moses' punishment for not doing what God had instructed Him to
do, for not BELIEVING GOD, and for not treating God as Holy in the site of
the Israelites-it wasn't annihilation, it wasn't excommunication, it was
denial of entry into the promised land. Also of note is that Moses was also
taking the credit with God for fetching the water, when it was actually God
that was doing all of the work.
The Lord's anger has waxed hot against the Israelites many times, but he has
never slayed them, never wiped them out and left just one man because they
are the people of the promise, the blood covenant partners of God Almighty.
However, he has destroyed entire cities because of their iniquity- Sodom &
Gomorrah to name two. At the same time, God's word tells us that he sends
his Prophets to witness of his coming judgment (Just like He sent Jonah to
Nineveh as an example of His mercy). Amos 3:7 tells us of what God does to
warn of impending judgment: " 7. Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but
he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."
God bless,
Steve Goltra
Muz
Him to
>do, for not BELIEVING GOD, and for not treating God as Holy in the
site of
>the Israelites-it wasn't annihilation, it wasn't excommunication, it
was
>denial of entry into the promised land. Also of note is that Moses was
also
>taking the credit with God for fetching the water, when it was
actually God
>that was doing all of the work.
However, the judgment was that Moses wouldn't enter the promised land.
Imagine that! A descendent of Abraham not receiving the promise of the
covenant!
>The Lord's anger has waxed hot against the Israelites many times, but
he has
>never slayed them, never wiped them out and left just one man because
they
>are the people of the promise, the blood covenant partners of God
Almighty.
So, you're saying that God isn't sovereign over His people to judge
them when they break the covenant? Again, you're right that He never
did it. However, either it was an option for God to act as He did in
Exo 32, or He lied to Moses. Which is it?
>However, he has destroyed entire cities because of their iniquity-
Sodom &
>Gomorrah to name two. At the same time, God's word tells us that he
sends
>his Prophets to witness of his coming judgment (Just like He sent
Jonah to
>Nineveh as an example of His mercy). Amos 3:7 tells us of what God
does to
>warn of impending judgment: " 7. Surely the Lord God will do nothing,
but
>he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
Pssst... Did God reveal to Moses what He was going to do? Sounds
like God already fulfilled that requirement in Exo 32.
Muz
Muz
>information on the Blood Covenant ritual, where two people become one.
Part
>of the ritual involves the exchange of belts between the parties. The
belt
>did not hold anything other than their weapons. What they were saying
is
>that each party would defend the other, with their lives, to the
death.
>Then, each party exchanged their robes. By doing this they were
"putting on"
>the other covenant partner, they were becoming one by putting on the
others
>"nature".
And that's good information about the blood ritual. However, it does
little to support your contention that God could not have judged Israel
for breaking the covenant with Him by wiping all of them out except
Moses and starting over again. The covenant promise with Abraham would
still in tact, the future descendents of Abraham would still receive
the promises. You seem to be saying that God gave up sovereignty in
making this covenant!
>Since God had walked through the animals that had been cut down the
>backbone, through the pool of blood, with God (Jesus Christ) and
Abraham was
>placed into a deep sleep, God has entered into a one sided Blood
Covenant
>relationship with Abraham and his seed. This covenant is an
everlasting
>Covenant. It was continued with Isaac, and again with Jacob. Jacob had
12
>children, that created the 12 tribes. All of these tribes are part of
the
>covenant, to perpetuity. There is no way that God would ever
annihilate his
>people and only keep one person, Moses, from the tribe of Levi alive,
and
>kill everyone else. It is preposterous. God has sworn to defend them
all,
>forever
Yet, you already admitted that He killed 3000 of them in judgment. If
God can do that, what is to prevent Him from doing do to most of them?
>I hope that is clear enough for you to understand. I really don't know
what
>else to say. This is a full defense of my position. God has never
>annihilated his own people, the Jews, like He did to the heathen
people of
>Sodom and Gomorrah, and He never will.
This is a very touching appeal, but even in Exodus 32, God wasn't
threatening to annihilate all of Israel, but, rather, to rebuild the
nation of Israel through Moses. So, even if God went through with His
threat in Exodus 32, He would not have done what you are claiming.
>Like I have said, this thread is going nowhere if you cannot
understand this
>covenant relationship that God had with Abraham and his seed.
I understand what you're trying to say, but there are two problems:
1) God wasn't violating the covenant by rebuilding the nation through
Moses. Clearly the covenant is not broken by God judging a group of
people with death, as we see in the death of the 3000. Regardless of
the percentage, God's does not give up His right to judge as many as
He wishes with death, so long as the lineage of Abraham continues.
2) You're trying to defeat scripture with constructed theology. The
Scriptures tell us, without condition or other item to change the
context, that God decided to wipe out Israel and start over with Moses.
You may not like what God was about to do. You may not think that it
was consistent with the covenant, but the fact is that scripture tells
us plainly what happened.
I realize that this story provides major difficulties for your
theology, but when you engage in discussion and debate like this, your
constructed theology isn't what we consider to be inerrant. Mine
isn't, either. It would appear as though your constructed theology
needs some repair.
Muz
Steve Goltra
> would have been the father of the covenant nation from that point
> foward, thus producing descendents, not just a descendent. Also keep
> in mind that through Isaac and Jacob, there was only one descendent per
> generation.)
Steve's response: The above is incorrect. The Abrahamic covenant is an
everlasting covenant. Originally made with Abraham, then passed to Isaac and
his children, then to Jacob (Israel), and his 12 children, thus creating the
12 tribes. Each one of these tribes is part of the everlasting covenant.
Moses was a member of the Levite tribe only. There were still 11 tribes
left, that were and are a part of this never ending covenant.
Muz, where do your conclusions come from? Moses was part of another covenant
with God, the Mosaic Covenant. That Covenant is not an everlasting covenant,
and it did not do away with the Abrahamic covenant.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
P.S. A good book to start with is THE BLOOD COVENANT by H. Clay Trumbull.
This book, written by Dr. Trumbull in 1885. It is a 390 page book that
documents all of the blood covenant rituals around the globe. Also, what I
posted on the Blood Covenant would be helpful as well.
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:G1uHd.61$r2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<Snipped>
Muz
>everlasting covenant. Originally made with Abraham, then passed to
Isaac and
<his children, then to Jacob (Israel), and his 12 children, thus
creating the
>12 tribes. Each one of these tribes is part of the everlasting
covenant.
>Moses was a member of the Levite tribe only. There were still 11
tribes
>left, that were and are a part of this never ending covenant.
What does the fact that it is an everlasting covenant have to do with
whether God could judge those under the covenant with death for
breaking the covenant?
>Muz, where do your conclusions come from? Moses was part of another
covenant
>with God, the Mosaic Covenant. That Covenant is not an everlasting
covenant,
>and it did not do away with the Abrahamic covenant.
I never said it did. Just as all the natural children of the promise
were all descendents of Jacob, if God wiped out Israel and started over
with Moses, all the natural children of the promise from that point
foward would be descendents of Moses. Wiping out Israe and starting
over with Moses would in no way void the covenant with Abraham! The
very fact that God said that He was going to start over with Moses
demonstrates that God knew His covenant obligations.
Do you mean to imply that God would threaten to break His covenant?
Muz
Steve Goltra
long prophecy, and I will only quote part of it here (Gen 49:8), but please
note that it took place over 400 years before Moses even came onto the
scene:
" 8. Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be
in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before
thee.
9. Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he
stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him
up?
10. The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between
his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people
be."
You can also find similar PROPHECIES in Numbers 24:17, 19, Psalms 78:67, 68;
Luke 3:33; Hebrews 7:14; Rev 5:5.
Muz, doesn't this open your eyes to the fact that your position is without
merit? Like I said before, Moses is from the tribe of Levi. With you point
of view that God would wipe the entire Jewish nation out, save Moses is
foolishness. Christ, the Messiah was prophesized to come from the tribe of
Judah.
Give it up, Muz!!!!
God bless,
Steve
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:LoGHd.700$r27...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Steve Goltra
> Imagine that! A descendent of Abraham not receiving the promise of the
> covenant!"
Steve's response: I really wonder if you are serious about this, or are just
trying to be difficult, or maybe like I said before- too literal. You read
the words, but lack the spirit of understanding of what the words mean. The
Tribe of Levi was prophesized entry into the promised land, along with the
rest of the 12 tribes.-Abrahamic Covenant- Promise of the land Gen 12:3;
Promise of the land repeated Gen 13:14-17; Abram's descendents to inherit
the land from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates River- Gen 15:18-21 [this
will be fully fulfilled in the Millennium Isaiah 27:12; Jacob given the
promises of the Abrahamic Covenant Gen 28:14; The Future of the 12 Tribes,
as prophesized by Jacob- Gen 49:1-28; Prophecy that the scepter, referring
to the future Messiah, would come from the tribe of Judah- Gen 49:10-12; GOD
APPOINTED MOSES DELIVERER OF ISRAEL-Ex. 3:10; God promised that Moses would
lead Israel out of Egypt- Ex. 6:1-8.
The promise of the land (blood covenant) was made to Abraham and his seed.
Moses was not prophesized anywhere in the Scripture that he would
specifically ever enter into it. The reason for that is that God already
knew, before time began, exactly what would disqualify Moses from entering
the land. God knows the end from the beginning- He always has and always
will.
It should be quite clear to you that you have no position in this matter.
God would never annihilate the Israelites, his blood covenant partner, ever.
You have no understanding of the importance of the Blood Covenant. The Old
Testament is the "Old Blood Covenant" and the New Testament is the "New
Blood Covenant". God's plan for fallen man! 12 tribes entered the land, 12
Apostles were chosen by Christ, and in the New Heaven and New Earth Christ
reveals to us in Revelation 21-that the great city, the holy Jerusalem,
descending out of heaven from God, will have the following:
11. Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most
precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; 12. And had a wall
great and high, and had TWELVE GATES, and at the gates twelve angels, and
NAMES WRITTEN THEREON, WHICH ARE THE NAMES OF THE TRIBES OF THE CHILDREN OF
ISRAEL:13. On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south
three gates; and on the west three gates. 14. And the WALL OF THE CITY HAD
TWELVE FOUNDATIONS, AND IN THEM THE NAMES OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE
LAMB. 27. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that
defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they
which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Gods plan of redemption for fallen man was in place before the foundation of
the world. The plan has never changed-it is God's plan and it is on time.
God bless,
Steve
P.S.
Try and use scripture, instead of sarcasm and flawed human logic when
posting. It would be a breath of fresh air.
Muz
Please show us in Genesis where God promises Abraham that 12 tribes
will enter Israel. (Hint: It's not there. The promise is for his
DESCDENTS. Moses' offspring would be Abraham's DESCENDENTS.)
I realize that God promised that Moses would lead Israel out of Egypt,
and by Exodus 32, Moses had ALREADY DONE THAT.
>It should be quite clear to you that you have no position in this
matter.
Actually, I do. All of this hand waving about blood covenants and
promises to Abraham about 12 tribes entering Israel is just that: hand
waving. Yes, the covenant is important generally, but it has no
bearing on God's actions in Exodus 32.
>God would never annihilate the Israelites, his blood covenant partner,
ever.
This is a nice assertion, but God isn't threatening to annihilate the
Israelites. He's threatening to rebuild their nation through Moses.
>You have no understanding of the importance of the Blood Covenant. The
Old
>Testament is the "Old Blood Covenant" and the New Testament is the
"New
>Blood Covenant". God's plan for fallen man! 12 tribes entered the
land, 12
>Apostles were chosen by Christ, and in the New Heaven and New Earth
Christ
>reveals to us in Revelation 21-that the great city, the holy
Jerusalem,
>descending out of heaven from God, will have the following....
The importance of the blood covenant is found in the crucifixion of
Christ, who established the New Covenant in His blood. In Exodus 32,
there was no promise of 12 tribes entering Israel, in fact there is no
reason for us to believe that God isn't serious about His threat in
Exodus 32.
And you still haven't answered the question: Is God lying to Moses in
Exodus 32 in threatening to start over with Moses?
>Try and use scripture, instead of sarcasm and flawed human logic when
>posting. It would be a breath of fresh air.
I go back to Exodus 32, where we've been stuck for quite some time.
God makes a statement about His intentions. There is no indication of
a test, no languge to suggest anything other than God's intent to judge
the people of Israel. If you have a non-literal interpretation of this
section that doesn't include God lying to Moses, I'd be glad to hear
it, but you'll have to explain how God expressing a clear intent to
Moses that He never intends to follow through isn't lying.
I realize that your systematic theology has problems with the biblical
exegesis of this passage, however, we cannot go using our own
constructed systematic theology to go thwarting and ignoring the clear
text of scripture. If you have an EXEGETICAL reason (meaning something
in this passage, not some constructed theology) to read this passage
differently, let's hear it. But if you cannot refute the clear
exegesis of this passage, then you ought to be reviewing your
constructed theology, not trying to do your best to ignore or explain
scripture away.
Muz
Steve Goltra
said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff necked
people. Now therefore let me alone, that
my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may CONSUME THEM: and I will
make of thee a great nation [Exod. 32:9-10].
Muz, on 1/13/05 you posted: "Actually, God could do just that and start
over. The covenant is for a
people who are descendents of Isaac. Moses fits that description justfine.
There is no reason God couldn't wipe out a large number of Israelites who
were violating the covenant and start over with a few or
EVEN ONE that was faithful. (WELL, TWO, I SUPPOSE.)"
Muz's, on 1/14/05 you posted this, on the same subject: Specifically you
said:
"Well, it would seem that there is scriptural evidence for both. God
pledges to Moses that He will DESTROY ISRAEL and START OVER WITH HIM
(Moses), and Mosos prevails upon God to change His mind. In Jeremiah
3:7, we're told that God thought that Israel would return to Him, and she
did not. Both seem to be clear evidence from the mouth of God of what you
say cannot be."
On 1/19/05, on basically the same subject, you posted: "Yet, you already
admitted that He killed 3000 of them in judgment. If God can do that, what
is to prevent Him from doing do to most of them?"
Steve's response to the above 1/19/05 post above- notice how Muz's position
is changing from his first posts of 1/13/05 & 1/14/05.
On 1/20/05 Muz posts this: "I never said it did. Just as all the natural
children of the promise
were all descendents of Jacob, if God wiped out Israel and started over with
Moses, all the natural children of the promise from that point foward would
be descendents of Moses. Wiping out Israe and starting
over with Moses would in no way void the covenant with Abraham! The very
fact that God said that He was going to start over with Moses demonstrates
that God knew His covenant obligations.
Now (1/20/05), since your position is no longer tenable and undefendable,
you change your position to this last post, also on 1/20/05:
"This is a nice assertion, but God isn't threatening to annihilate the
Israelites. He's threatening to rebuild their nation through Moses."
Muz, You are a dishonest poster that is only interested in argument for
arguments sake. You cannot be taken seriously.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JDXHd.1373$r27...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Muz
for
>arguments sake. You cannot be taken seriously
Ah, yes. The Ad hominim finish. "Ad hominim and personal attacks are
the most begruding (and satisfying) admission of defeat." - me
In spite of your claims, I haven't changed positions on this. I've
simply pointed out multiple lines of reasoning as to why your assertion
about the covenant is wrong.
Let's review:
Scripture (from what you've already shown) says that God was going to
consume Israel and make Moses a great nation. There is nothing in the
context, either here or elsewhere, to suggest that God isn't serious
about His intent. In fact, God recognizes His covenant responsibility
to Abraham, and has already stated how He will honor that covenant by
producing a nation through Moses. This has been my position all along.
It is consistent with each of my responses to Steve.
Steve, on the other hand, wants us to watch his waving hands and
constructed theology about blood covenants, and insert into the text
that these 12 tribes had to enter the promised land (although no
scripture to support it), and that God gave up the right to judge
Israel when He entered into a covenant with them.
He also wants you to believe that God LIED to Moses in Exodus 32, as a
test. That God never REALLY intended to wipe out Israel, in spite of
what scripture tells us.
Apparantly, when scripture rubs Steve's theology wrong, we have to step
back from the text, and not take it "too literally." Scripture
obviously needs to be adjusted, when it conflicts with Steve's
theology. What's next Steve? Jesus wasn't serious when He said, "it
is finished"? Are we taking THAT too literally?
As for your last cite of me, I was unravelling the semantic game you're
playing with "anihilate." You are correct, in that if God had wiped
out EVERY decendent of Israel, the covenant wouldn't be kept. However,
since God had already decided to keep Moses, the descendents of Israel,
while greatly diminished in number, wouldn't cease to exist. The
covenant is just as valid through one descendent as it is through
thousands, as long as those decendents grow to be great in number
again.
Muz
Muz
A: No:
Gen 25:1 Now Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. 2
And she bore to him Zimran and Jokshan and Medan and Midian and Ishbak
and Shuah. 3 And Jokshan became the father of Sheba and Dedan. And
the sons of Dedan were Asshurim and Letushim and Leummim. 4 And the
sons of Midian [were] Ephah and Epher and Hanoch and Abida and Eldaah.
All these [were] the sons of Keturah. 5 Now Abraham gave all that he
had to Isaac; 6 but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts
while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac
eastward, to the land of the east. 7 And these are all the years of
Abraham's life that he lived, one hundred and seventy-five years.
(Did you ever wonder if Jacob, when he was courting Rachel, ever said,
"Hey, baby... Want to be the mother of a might nation?") ;o)
Muz
Muz
Genesis 49 is Jacob's blessing to his children before his death. It is
not a classic prophecy. Furthermore, if you say that this is absolute
prophecy, then it is a false one.
Before the exile, the kingdom of Israel split in two, and Judah did not
rule the other 10 tribes (Judah had absorbed Benjamin by this time).
Thus, we have the concept of implied conditionality of these kinds of
blessings. Had Israel remained faithful to God, there is no doubt that
Judah would continue to reign in Israel. But, in their rebellion,
Judah did not continue to reign over his brothers.
You really need to consult the history of Israel before making these
kinds of statements, Steve!
Muz
Muz
When did Judah rule Israel? Joshua was from Levi. Which Judge was from
Judah? Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. It would seem that, if
this was indeed a prophecy, that God would choose from Judah, would He
not? Or did God forget? Or did God not keep a prophecy/promise to
Judah?
Not until David do we have a King from the tribe of Judah.
So, while this is later recited as prophecy, it is difficult to see how
you can make this statement in light of the events that followed.
Muz
Steve Goltra
That is ascertained by your style, vocabulary and deceitfulness. The
believer is told to "put on" the mind of Christ. Deceitfulness has nothing
to do with the mind of Christ.
God bless,
Steve
P.S. This is not a personal attack, only the truth of who and what you are
trying to do on this Christian newsgroup. I also notice that all the other
posters have left and it has just been lbrty and me for some time. Others
can see through your smokescreen. I will surely not be responding to any of
Muz's posts, Lbrty's posts, or Drewsk's posts, as they are all one and the
same poster. As Christians, we have been instructed to "put on" Christ.
Deceit has nothing to do with Christ.
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:LX8Id.1607$YD5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
lbrt...@aol.com
> It is as I said so many posts ago, Muz and lbrty4us are one and the
same.
> That is ascertained by your style, vocabulary and deceitfulness. The
> believer is told to "put on" the mind of Christ. Deceitfulness has
nothing
> to do with the mind of Christ.
....it's really time for the guys in the while coats to come with the
straightjacket, yes? ;-) All other posters to christnet who aren't
Goltra are just one evil collective entity with many sock puppets &
fake accounts who are full of lies, right? Talk about
deceitfuness...how sad this guy is...
Hey, maybe _he_ poses as all those people just to argue with & elevate
himself, having run everyone else off in disgust? (joking, I can read
headers)
Muz
can just tell!" More ad hominim to complete your defeat.
No, Steve, to my knowledge I have never posted to christnet.theology or
any other christnet group before late december, this year.
If you'll look around in this group, I argued with Drewsk in a couple
of other threads, opposing his hyper-dispensational views.
Perhaps, in the future, you should take an attitude of discussion,
rather than assuming superiority of theology with those you interact
with. I find that those who take the "I am superior" position have a
problem with pride, and frequently results in the kind of paranoia
you've expressed here.
Muz