Is there life beyond Daniel and Revelation?

[Guest DennisKean]

Can you be more specific, pkrause. I would like to hear your thought on this. I reject Calvinism altogether.

Dennis

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

I am simply referring to scripture stating a belief in predestination. Since the Bible states we have been preordained - I have no other option but to take God's word for what it is. And as I read our prophet's work of The Great Controversy - I have no other option but to take God's word and our prophet's word for it.

I'm not sure I agree that being preordained means the same as predestination, at least the way you seem to be implying.

I'm sorry pk - I misspoke. I thought of them as the same. But scripture clearly states we are predestinated.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

1:8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

[Gustave]

Okay, I see where you are going with this. You looked up in the Bible for the word "Controversy" and found Paul's comment and without even looking up the context of this word in Paul's comments you decided that He was talking about the Great Controversy.

[John317]

Those devils didn't mentioned anything about a "great controversy" ...In fact they said they KNEW what WAS coming for them.

...But then again God already told everyone in the Bible how things would end up.

...It's just that to protect Ellen's semi-Arianism you have to ignore those things.

Do you know what "the great controversy" is? You appear not to.

The "great controversy" is not about the possibility that Christ could fail, although he could have failed. It's about Satan's attacks against Christ and God the Father. It's about sin vs. righteousness. It's about God's character.

Why would the fallen angels have used the words "great controversy" in that situation? There's no reason to expect them to.

The "great controversy" theme in the Bible does not mean the fallen angels aren't sure of what's going to happen to them. The point is, rather, that the evil angels are determined to take as many people with them when they're destroyed. Even when a condemned person knows they've been sentenced to death, they continue to have some hope that they can somehow avoid the inevitable. Rev. 20: 7-9 shows that Satan is so self-deceived that he still thinks that maybe he can win. Sin is self-deceiving and it does the same thing to people.

[phkrause]

I have no problem with the way those verses are using predestination, its the way you think there being used that I have a problem with. Because what's the point of living out our lives if we are predestine to a certain outcome?

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Those devils didn't mentioned anything about a "great controversy" ...In fact they said they KNEW what WAS coming for them.

...But then again God already told everyone in the Bible how things would end up.

...It's just that to protect Ellen's semi-Arianism you have to ignore those things.

Do you know what "the great controversy" is? You appear not to.

The "great controversy" is not about the possibility that Christ could fail, although he could have failed. It's about Satan's attacks against Christ and God the Father. It's about sin vs. righteousness. It's about God's character.

Why would the fallen angels have used the words "great controversy" in that situation? There's no reason to expect them to.

[Woody]

I have no problem with the way those verses are using predestination, its the way you think there being used that I have a problem with. Because what's the point of living out our lives if we are predestine to a certain outcome?

The texts clearly don't say that do they pk. They indicated just as EGW says in The Great Controversy - that a plan was made. Each of us was predestined to be saved through this plan. This is very important. We are saved through this plan. It is up to us to accept or reject God's plan.

[John317]

....scripture clearly states we are predestinated.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

.... 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

The Greek word translated in Eph. 1: 5-11 as "predestinated" is Strong's #4309, the same word that is translated "ordained" in 1 Cor. 2: 7. It's the word "proorizo," which occurs a total of 6 times in the NT.

1. Acts 4: 28-- "determined [or: predestined]before to be done"

2) Romans 8: 29-- "did predestinate [predestined] to be conformed..."

3) Romans 8: 30--"whom he did predestinate [predestined], them he also..."

4) 1 Cor 2: 7-- "which God ordained (lit. pre-ordained; predestined) before the world..."

5) Eph 1: 5-- "Having predestinated us unto the adoption..."

6) Eph 1: 11-- "being predestinated according to the purpose of him"

Standard Greek-English lexicons typically define proorizo as "to limit or mark out beforehand; to design definitely beforehand, ordain beforehand, predestine." Many translations use the words "plan" "planned," or "decided," in place of "predestined."

The question is, does God's plan mean that people are not free to choose? Does God's will or decrees interfere with people's freedom to choose whether to serve God or to reject Him?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

....scripture clearly states we are predestinated.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

.... 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

The Greek word translated in Eph. 1: 5-11 as "predestinated" is Strong's #4309, the same word that is translated "ordained" in 1 Cor. 2: 7. It's the word "proorizo," which occurs a total of 6 times in the NT.

1. Acts 4: 28-- "determined [or: predestined]before to be done"

2) Romans 8: 29-- "did predestinate [predestined] to be conformed..."

3) Romans 8: 30--"whom he did predestinate [predestined], them he also..."

4) 1 Cor 2: 7-- "which God ordained (lit. pre-ordained; predestined) before the world..."

5) Eph 1: 5-- "Having predestinated us unto the adoption..."

6) Eph 1: 11-- "being predestinated according to the purpose of him"

Standard Greek-English lexicons typically define proorizo as "to limit or mark out beforehand; to design definitely beforehand, ordain beforehand, predestine."

Thanks John. Excellent and most beautiful ain't it. God is Good

[Gerr]

Can you see that? Is that clear enough or shall we go into denials and rationalizations? There are no such things as CONDITIONAL Prophecies. Prophecies are God's plans. Otherwise we would see Daniel's prophecies to be rather spotty, some things fulfilled and others NOT! I hope that is clear enough, Gerry.

Originally Posted By: cheddar

I have to agree with dennis on this. I don’t see prophecy as being conditional either. That’s like saying that God’s word is conditional on the actions of man. Man is dependent upon God not the other way around. How could we ever put our faith and trust in God’s word if there’s a chance it might not happen or come true. He either knows the end form the beginning or he doesn’t and that includes all the actions of man in between.

;ESV Je 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

ESV Dt 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil.16 If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 17 But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,

ESV Je 18:7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

The prophets prophesied all kinds of wonderful things for literal Israel that were never fulfilled because Israel failed to comply with the conditions.

If you want to jump through hoops to explain away the unfulfilled prophecies without recognizing the conditional nature of some prophecies, be my guest.

[John317]

The prophets prophesied all kinds of wonderful things for literal Israel that were never fulfilled because Israel failed to comply with the conditions.

If you want to jump through hoops to explain away the unfulfilled prophecies without recognizing the conditional nature of some prophecies, be my guest.

Yep, God never takes people's ability to choose away from them. That's what Christ's death is all about: it guarantees people the right and ability to choose whether to serve God or to serve the Devil. No one will be forced into heaven. It's a choice that we make every day of our lives.

[phkrause]

The texts clearly don't say that do they pk. They indicated just as EGW says in The Great Controversy - that a plan was made. Each of us was predestined to be saved through this plan. This is very important. We are saved through this plan. It is up to us to accept or reject God's plan.

Exactly Predestint yes, but not predestination.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

The texts clearly don't say that do they pk. They indicated just as EGW says in The Great Controversy - that a plan was made. Each of us was predestined to be saved through this plan. This is very important. We are saved through this plan. It is up to us to accept or reject God's plan.

Exactly Predestint yes, but not predestination.

I fail to see a difference. But perhaps you have looked them up in the dictionary. I haven't. Christ has predestined that all be saved. The plan and provision has been made. That is predestination in my book.

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote:

Babylon is a merchant city and a seafaring city so the description is accurate. I think that Babylon will be so big and powerful in the last days that it will share many of the same characteristics of the ancient enemies of Israel.

Historical Babylon was just a tiny, pitiful empire, hardly the superpower that is described in Last Days prophecies. If, after a great resurrection, the now-living rulers of Babylon conquer the whole world with power given to them by those not from this world, the prophecies will then be fulfilled. As I see it, Babylon will not only be sea faring, but space faring as well, using technology beyond our capability. Babylon, then, overruns and captures one of the space faring cities of YHVH, polluting it with every known evil that exists. Babylon the city rules the whole world---for a limited time.

Why does Babylon set out to acquire the goods of the planet? Perhaps its for trade, or, perhaps it's an attempt to salvage merchandise from a doomed planet. Too bad the merchants from Earth don't realize their world will soon be destroyed. They were just glad to make a few bucks.

Also, post resurrection, three other superpowers arise in sequence as predicted. Not the tiny little historical kingdoms of Persia and Greece, but Persia and Greece on steroids, now superpowers, backed by beings from beyond this world.

Finally, the Last Kingdom arises, hell-bent on destroying the great cities of the world. This Fourth Kingdom, I believe, may be a mix of humans and extraterrestrials. The human weaklings are, of course, no match for the more powerful and intelligent extraterrestrials. This Fourth Beast slaughters nearly half of the world's population at that time, uncounted billions.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Denniskean

Okay, I see where you are going with this. You looked up in the Bible for the word "Controversy" and found Paul's comment and without even looking up the context of this word in Paul's comments you decided that He was talking about the Great Controversy.

No, I quoted that Scripture so that you would have it straight from the Bible...

...That "GOD" was what manifested in the flesh.

...Not something less than fully God.

No! You are now deceiving yourself. We were talking about the Great Controversy, and I was not denying that the Savior was not God! I believe in that. What have you been sipping on, over the weekend, Gustave?

This is such a severe disconnect that I would recommend you check in for some therapy. You have no ability to follow an idea and discuss it rationally! You are so far out there away from the center of the discussion that you are scaring me.

I'm hitting you with nuclear weapons and you are throwing wet firecrackers at me. And since they are not exploding you are screaming BOOM hoping to even the odds! Are you alright, dear friend? Can you count to 10? Cool down compose yourself and read the posts again. There is nothing for me to add to this because you missed the boat! I don't even know how to help you get back in. This is a fatal disconnect, Gustave.

I must have misjudged you at the beginning. I thought you were able to carry on a dialog, but now I understand why you disconnect and go on your own merry way to talk about irrelevant things we never included in our dialogue. You have to stop talking to your self between our posts, because your imagination is infusing material which is not coming to you from the outside. Those "..." three dots you use indicate the mental scatter taking place in your mind. Your ideas are not connected in a threaded catena. Without a catenous thread you cannot construct a serious concept, my friend. So, you are attempting to use some numeric aggregate of supposedly correct statements in the latter part of this post to credit yourself.

But without catena disparate ideas do not sum up to an aggregate whole, Gustave. I presented you with a catenous argument which is even properly sequenced for you to grasp things easier. But you refuse to follow the threads employing disconnected dismissals of each part individually. So, it is no wonder that you did not feel the big boom! The intellectual boom depends on the ability to follow the ideas.

So, in this state you are not able to dialogue with me, Gustave. And your barking is not going to be effective with me, dear friend. When you grasp the ideas I presented to you it will have the shock you need to come to attention. But it will be pleasant, I promise.

I realize that you have a zeal of your own, but if you were a trained Jesuit with some serious skills we could actually have some serious discussion, perhaps. But this is not fair to you, Gustave. I would gladly talk to you more, but with these disconnects I have to work hard to diagnose the kind of disconnect you are applying and you do not even see it so you just keep harping as if nothing happened. That's not going to work for me, friend. Please find another thread or go to. Or if you need to be an interruptus, be my guest!

My best wishes friend,

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

The question is, does God's plan mean that people are not free to choose? Does God's will or decrees interfere with people's freedom to choose whether to serve God or to reject Him?

Very good question, John317.

One thing is for sure. If predestination is how God deals with sin, then the Judgement is a farce, since everything was decided long ago. Double predestination has this nasty outcome and Christians need to lend their minds to reasoning this out.

I believe that Adventists cannot subscribe to that idea. And the SDABC makes an effort to redirect Paul's comments. Were they successful? Their goal and understanding is correct, but they do not dismiss Paul's implications properly.

Here is a snippet from an article on my website, which discusses predestination. There is lots of detail but this one is relevant to Paul's comments which you are discussing John317.

Quote:

Some Christians use Romans chapters 8 and 9 to defend their views about predestination. Studying these chapters, we are compelled to conclude that Paul is a predestinist. This is beyond dispute. Contrary to the opinions of many bright and/or good willing Christians, there is nothing which reason can counter to transform Paul's arguments. These are not indirect and abstract explanations. The following verses clearly expound the predestinist view.

Quote:

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

In the Adventist Bible Commentary the concluding remarks, on predestination, interpret Paul's words to imply that every person is predestined to be saved. This idea is often called preelection.

Quote:

Salvation is offered freely to all, but not all accept the gospel invitation. S.D.A Bible Commentary Vol. 6 p. 575

Their assessment, of what Paul is saying, is "if one chooses evil, then, this predestination will be canceled". Reading Paul, one wonders how such a conclusion can be extracted from his writings. "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate." The words "For whom" clearly convey the idea of exclusion, from a greater set. The next verse takes up this issue and decides that those who have been predestined will also be glorified. This interpretation of the S.D.A.B.C. that 'All men are predestined', coupled with Paul's comments, could backfire. One might gain a false confidence that everyone will be saved, since everyone is predestined. The SDABC anticipates this misconception and supplies the explanation that "Many are called but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14), to drive the point.

Quote:

Mat_22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

This last correction is quite reasonable. It makes sense, though it does not elucidate how Paul really felt about this. The fly in the ointment is that, according to Paul, Esau was predestined for perdition, before he was born. Here, however, it becomes difficult to weave in the global aspect of preelection. The best that we could make out of this is to propose that everyone is predestined for salvation except Esau!

Quote:

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Romans 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

That conclusion, however, is not convincing. The Preelection idea has this terrible difficulty. Consequently, we are compelled to question if the SDABC's interpretation of Paul is reasonable. Is Paul really saying that all are predestined? It does not seem so, though this is critical in the SDABC's argument.

Realizing that predestination interferes with the foundation of free willing service, the SDA Bible Commentary makes another bold attempt to buffer Paul's view. Asserting that Paul, in no way, says that God bypasses the will of the individual, to achieve the goals of predestination, seems to qualify Paul's view as a candidate of sound doctrine. The following text points this out.

Quote:

Salvation is not forced upon us against our will. If we choose to oppose and resist God's purpose, we shall be lost. Divine foreknowledge and divine predestination in no way exclude human liberty. Nowhere does Paul, or any other Bible writer, suggest that God has predestined certain men to be saved and certain others to be lost, regardless of their own choice in the matter. The purpose of this verse seems to be a practical one. Paul is trying to comfort and assure the affected people of God that their salvation rests in His hand and that it is in the process of being accomplished in accordance to His eternal and changeless purpose for them. Salvation is of course dependent also upon their perseverance, but this is not Paul's point of emphasis now. S.D.A Bible Commentary Vol. 6 p. 575

The purpose of this defense is well meant, but the argument is flawed with gross inaccuracy. Paul does not suggest, he states explicitly, that the individual has no choice in the matter. According to Paul, the will or the doing of man is irrelevant.

Quote:

Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

How anyone can propose that, "Nowhere does Paul, or any other Bible writer, suggest that God has predestined certain men to be saved and certain others to be lost, regardless of their own choice in the matter."(S.D.A B.C. Vol. 6 p. 575), is bewildering. Ignoring or deflecting verse 16 is useless. Paul means what he says! Desperate attempts, to help him, don't accomplish anything more than embarrassment. Paul actually believes that God can obviate man's will and raise one man to be good and another to be bad! We find that in the next verse:

Quote:

Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Clearly, "it is not of him that willeth to change or avail anything. Paul says that Pharaoh had no choice in the matter. God raised him and gave him authority for that purpose. Verse 17 is used as vital support for the former assertions of Paul. His view is that, God's mercy is the vortex around which the future of all spins. His understanding of God's mercy is, somewhat, preemptive. Salvation is not based on the acts of a person and man's will is subject to modifications. It can be altered and tailored according to God’s will.

Quote:

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

The question, "Who hardens the heart of Pharaoh?" is conveyed without confusion. There is no lack of clarity here! Paul advances that, God hardens Pharaoh's heart--"whom he will he hardeneth." This view is consistent and confirms Paul's former assertion that, man's will is irrelevant. To contend otherwise, is difficult, at this point, though many well-meaning believers may not like the implications.

Rather than looking for complicated answers, to this enigmatic proposition, let's ask the obvious question. "Is this fair?" To the dismay of many good and well-intentioned people, this is clearly not fair! The human will is critical for all those who have tasted slavery or oppression. Having believed that all the disciples knew everything and believed everything just right, this realization comes to us with hard lumps.

We may want to question if we are on the right track with this reasoning? Is it possible that Paul views things this way? Does Paul understand that God should not fault someone that He predestined to do something? Predestination implies a takeover of the subject. Is this a point that he considered? If, according to predestination, Pharaoh has no power to resist God's will, then, why does God yet find fault in Pharaoh's actions?

Quote:

Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Here, however, we can no longer deny what Paul is saying. The obviation of the will is clear, "For who hath resisted His will?" Paul is talking about a conflict of wills! Paul anticipates the listeners' questions because he believes in the dominance of God's will and predestination. Men cannot resist the overriding will of the all-powerful God. He seems to have discussed this argument before. This is not a reasonable way of conducting the affairs of a world, but clearly, Paul has no answer to this enigma. For him, this is so baffling that he does not know how to make it work. He had this discussion with others before and many people did not like his view. After straining to understand this matter, he concludes that God has the right to do this, and who is man to question Him on this matter?

Quote:

Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

This strange incrimination of the hypothetical inquirer "Who art Thou?" is worth noticing. Interestingly, Paul does not answer his own questions. Verse 20 is not an answer to verse 19. It is not a resolution of this difficult idea, which he has placed on the table. It is a threat against those who would ask that question. As reason demands, Paul's answers run out in verse 19, yet, rather than abandoning the subject, he chooses to explain it away the best way he knows how.

Quote:

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Clearly, the honor and dishonor, here, are descriptive of the moral state of man. We are not talking about honor for Olympic achievements or mastery in sciences. This context is underscored further within the next verses. Paul proposes that, God makes some fitted for destruction and others unto glory.

Quote:

Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Romans 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

As we read more and more from Paul's text, the evidence that Paul believes in the crude form of predestination, which bypasses human will, is overwhelming and incontrovertible. This view is consistent throughout his expositions. In his letter, to the Philippians, he discusses the same ideas. Now that we have read and understood chapter nine, we can understand where Paul is coming from in the following idea.

Quote:

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.

To close the eyes or hold this issue at bay is pointless. Paul is not God! His contribution was great, yet he did not enjoy the privilege of walking and talking with the Master, every day. Paul disagreed with the disciples in certain points, and clashed with Peter. The idea of man's relationship with God was not easy to understand in that time. The early Christians were barley able to grasp the overwhelming events which just transpired. The immensity of Calvary has occupied the minds of great and humble men for 2 millennia. To imagine that the early church had flawless understanding of every spiritual idea is not to be aware of the greatness and broad implications of those events.

Finally, other minds have dealt with this issue. The issue of free will rarely escapes any deep thinker. With the privilege of owning the entire scriptures, commentaries and views of many other thinkers, and seeing many more events fulfilled than Paul, another member of God's people concludes on what Paul said in philipians but with a contrary conclusion;

Quote:

Holy Spirit Does Not Take Place of Will. -- The Spirit of God does not propose to do our part, either in the willing or the doing. This is the work of the human agent in cooperating with the divine agencies. As soon as we incline our will to harmonize with God's will, the grace of Christ stands to cooperate with the human agent; but it will not be the substitute to do our work independent of our resolving and decidedly acting. Therefore it is not the abundance of light, and evidence piled upon evidence, that will convert the soul it is only the human agent accepting the light, arousing the energies of the will, realizing and acknowledging that which he knows is righteousness and truth, and thus cooperating with the heavenly ministrations appointed to God in the saving of the soul. EGW Lt. 135, 1898.

I understand how upsetting this may be to some readers, but the truth is the truth and we need to understand the nature of the comment which the Savior made, when He said.

Quote:

Mat_4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

For the careful reader the words, which proceed from the mouth of God, are far more sober to those which are NOT shown to proceed originally from the mouth of God.

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

Jasd,

You sneaky fox, what have you brewed up since I last posted to you? Let's check this fabrication of yours! Aha! I see!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:DennisKean

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

"Remit" in John 20:23 is an aorist active subjunctive -- which is completely contrary to the following:

Lu 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached...

...which is aorist passive infinitive. Jesus Christ, was speaking of an entirely different matter in Luke 24:47 from that which He spoke in John 20:23. One cannot conflate the two texts to derive a silk purse.

Come to Papa, my dear friend. This is exactly where I wanted you!

Quote:

Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

And In John we find the very same description of of that event!

Quote:

Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Joh 20:20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

So, by this alone it is evident that either you are not familiar with the Bible or that you are in denial. Now, I know that you are an old fox and astute, from prior experience, so I favor the latter. You are hoping to be able to deny that this is the VERY SAME EVENT, Jasd.

And in a like manner, you have opted to load up more denials on your plate, in light of the fact that Luke was an educated man and far more fit to record the details of what transpired than John. Luke reported precisely what the disciples' impressions were.

So on your own recognizance you have chosen to use your reputation as a linguistic expert to thread a camel through the eye of a needle. But the camel died in the process! And so did your attempt to make this stick.

And here are the consequences of this sly effort. Next time you post I will take you through the eye of the needle and test all of your assertions, rather than give you any gentlemenly leeway to make a point.

It does not pay to thread a camel through the eye of a needle, Jasd!

This was the same event described in both John's Gospel and in Luke's Gospel. They map perfectly and it is clear that Luke was correct. The Savior gave us 4 witnesses for the Gospel because of this very reason. Being witnesses, and not prophets, the disciples had to report what they saw UN-COERCED!!! Can you grasp that concept? And if they made mistakes it does not matter. All those objections about the Gospels not agreeing are futile efforts at dismissing them. God already thought the problem through. Errors are the very evidence that they experienced the same events and that they interpreted the events genuinely from within their own perceptions! This accomplishment could only have been achieved by God in His great wisdom. Man fears "OH ERRORS ARE DISASTROUS", while God has the wisdom to see past the human inexperience. Only God can achieve perfection with imperfection so well!

I have argued this point when I was younger and the Gospels are genuine and believable as they could be. God is faster and far smarter than man. We thank God that He worked this out and that the differences in perception have been shown.

So, now, as you have done before, you can recollect yourself and continue in your denials and imagined esoterics. But we have a witness account of what transpired in the days of the disciples which testifies to a solid foundation that God never conveyed the power to forgive sins to the disciples. Because only an inexperienced young man reported this incorrectly. And this doctrinal idea is not found anywhere else in the Bible. Keep in mind that two witnesses are required to establish a truth. And so it is with Scriptures. You need two independent sources to ascertain a doctrinal truth. As things stand, you have ZERO!

My point stands solid, Jasd.

About your "aorist passive infinitive" Sorry, Jasd that one put me to sleep.

And, yes, you are right, Jasd, I am rather different from the rest. The weaknesses which you exploit with less experienced Protestant Christians are not effective here. I value far more the words of God than other words in the Bible. Yes, the very words which roll off Gods lips. God's words give us greater flexibility and coherence, dear friend. When you can establish a point with God's own words, the truth is unmovable. ....Jasd.

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

Jasd,

I forgot to address this for you... Sorry.

Quote:

No, St John is not changing his mind. In the one instance he speaks of "having no sin" (inherent), whereas, in the other instance he speaks of the act of "sinning" (acquired).

Are you kidding me? You are just yanking my chain... right?

So, let me get this straight. Forgiven sins are not forgotten with God! Is that the idea? God holds on to them in the JIC file (Just In Case file)??? Do you know the difference between the book of life and the other book which God reserves for the judgement? In which book will god keep the sins which He has erased?

Jasd, I know that the RC church never forgets sins of the victims, but God is not like that. And that is why God does not remit this duty to men! God promises that our sins are forgotten.

Quote:

Mic 7:18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.

Mic 7:19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

Mic 7:20 Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.

Dennis

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:DennisKean

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

"Remit" in John 20:23 is an aorist active subjunctive -- which is completely contrary to the following:

Lu 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached...

...which is aorist passive infinitive. Jesus Christ, was speaking of an entirely different matter in Luke 24:47 from that which He spoke in John 20:23. One cannot conflate the two texts to derive a silk purse.

>>Come to Papa, my dear friend. This is exactly where I wanted you!

Sometimes, you're so precious

Quote:

Quote:DennisKean

Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

And In John we find the very same description of of that event!

Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Joh 20:20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

>>So, by this alone it is evident that either you are not familiar with the Bible<<

Sadly, that is true -- entirely insufficiently familiar...

>>or that you are in denial.<<

Been known to "denial" too.

>>Now, I know that you are an old fox and astute, from prior experience, so I favor the latter. You are hoping to be able to deny that this is the VERY SAME EVENT, Jasd.<<

Non, non, DennisKean, same event; however, it is irrelevant as I spoke of matter, ie: "an entirely different matter" -- whereas you speak of "event".

I know that you've hosted dinner parties, everyone has. Have you not noticed that the dinner party is an event where a number of different matters are discussed?

It is as I've already noted that: the active subjunctive and the passive infinitive do not conflate. Moreover, St John provides us with the text:

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Perhaps, the small matter of Gd-breathed Holy Ghost, was beneath Doctor Luke's consideration as author?--or were different matters separated by the act of Jesus Christ breathing the HS upon the Desciples -- after which He uttered the imperative, "Whose soever sins ye remit..."

It is only by predisposional or wishful esegesis that one attempts to construct a mysterium profundum -- contradicting the explicit words of Jesus Christ. It is dishonest treatment of Writ.

[jasd]

>>in light of the fact that Luke was an educated man and far more fit to record the details of what transpired than John. Luke reported precisely what the disciples' impressions were.<<

Indeed, Doctor Luke's CV seems more impressive than does that of St John; however, one must bear in mind that it was St John to whom Jesus Christ entrusted His mother, which, among other indicators, gives reason to believe that St John was Jesus Christ's particular friend, and therefore, more privy to greater particulars.

We might bear in mind the fact that the books of John and Luke are not synoptic.

One can woulda, coulda, shoulda, if, and, but -- but the words remain, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them." And, as I already noted. two parts of the Gd-head are in the act of confession -- the HS and Jesus Christ Redeemer and Judge.

>>So on your own recognizance you have chosen to use your reputation as a linguistic expert<<

Ha, ha, ha... --DennisKean

There are, however, genuinely linguistic experts of the list. They never bother about my linguistics, as they realize that a hopeless case is just that -- not to mention 'old dog'.

>>your attempt to make this stick.<<

One cannot convince the satisfied mind.

Next time you post I will take you through the eye of the needle and test all of your assertions, rather than give you any gentlemenly leeway to make a point.<<

Don't neglect "gentlemenly" aspects.

>>It does not pay to thread a camel through the eye of a needle, Jasd!<<

But it's done.

>>But we have a witness account of what transpired in the days of the disciples which testifies to a solid foundation that God never conveyed the power to forgive sins to the disciples.<<

John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.

>>Because only an inexperienced young man reported this incorrectly.<<

Sure and begorrah! Eisegesis is a self-emollient.

>>And this doctrinal idea is not found anywhere else in the Bible. Keep in mind that two witnesses are required to establish a truth. And so it is with Scriptures. You need two independent sources to ascertain a doctrinal truth. As things stand, you have ZERO!<<

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

How many other texts repeat the above?--yet, the entire history of man unravels from this one text.

>>My point stands solid, Jasd.<<

Okay.

>>About your "aorist passive infinitive" Sorry, Jasd that one put me to sleep.<<

It is details that provide a roast turkey rather than crow pie for Thanksgiving. It is bemusing to wax lyrical about the shapes of drifting clouds which compass the entire sky, but in the end who gives a rat's fundament, or what purpose does it serve should you see ice cream castles in them?--one wants to know whether or not they bring rain... It is spelled d-e-t-a-i-l-s.

Discarding details in favor of generalities in exegetical studies will usually yield 30,000-plus and counting..., Protesting .orgs -- going left, heading South -- lacking the necessary specifics -- like shifting clouds. Too overarching without the necessary supporting structures, which are spelled d-e-t-a-i-l-s.

It was Jesus Christ who, in John 20:23, spoke as plainly as the most febrile amongst us might understand -- no parabolicism there, no ellipsis, no wing nuts, no swinging hinge, nada -- just plain easily understood language -- except for the epistemological Rube Goldberg.

[jasd]

>>I forgot to address this for you... Sorry.<<

Quote:

Quote:DennisKean

1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

1Jn 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Quote:

Quote:Dennis Kean

1Jn_1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

>>Am I crazy or is John changing his mind, suddenly!<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

No, St John is not changing his mind. In the one instance he speaks of "having no sin" (inherent), whereas, in the other instance he speaks of the act of "sinning" (acquiring).

>>Are you kidding me? You are just yanking my chain... right?

No, not yanking any chains.

>>So, let me get this straight. Forgiven sins are not forgotten with God! Is that the idea? God holds on to them in the JIC file (Just In Case file)??? Do you know the difference between the book of life and the other book which God reserves for the judgement? In which book will god keep the sins which He has erased?<<

1 John 1:6-10 necessitates recognizing the conditional contrasts. It is written in symmetry, sorta a chiastic symmetry. If this, then this (presented in the negative). Contrastingly..., If this, then this (presented in the positive). The following texts present the recurring theme.

vs 6 negative

vs 7 positive

vs8 negative

vs9 positive

vs10 negative

A quintain.

Pretty good for St John, simple man, yes? That is not pretty good, it is brilliant!

>>Jasd, I know that the RC church never forgets sins of the victims, but God is not like that. And that is why God does not remit this duty to men! God promises that our sins are forgotten.<<

Well, score one for deathbed confessions. Per "Gd does not remit..." -- as I've already shown, Gd is in the 'confession'. The 'confession' is not unattended nor unshepherded by Gd.

[Gustave]

No! You are now deceiving yourself. We were talking about the Great Controversy, and I was not denying that the Savior was not God! I believe in that. What have you been sipping on, over the weekend, Gustave?

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

I'm not the one claiming Jesus is God in one breath....

...Then affirming "God" could have taken an eternal dirt nap.

...Despite the fact God told us that simply couldn't happen.

Why don't you tell me what rubric would allow God the Father to be annihilated by God the Son...

...Put your money where your mouth is given you boast Jesus is God.

...I kind of doubt you will pull that one off given that Ellen White said.

...It would be impossible for The Father to die, cease to exist, etc.

Go ahead.

Gustave,

Wake up! I already check mated you on that one. But you are in denial! The fact is that the Savior was AFRAID and asked His Father to remove this thing from Him if possible. How many times should I repeat that for you? So, your theory of God not being able to die is just a childhood imagining! And the Savior did die, in case you did not notice! Unless you want to say that it wasn't for real. Wake up already!

You are trying to impose childish ideas in a serious discussion and cannot see the difference! Like all children you dabble in childish hyperbole of which there is galore and all of which are un-ascertainable in their childish context. And you want to use that in a debate like this? You have to be kidding me! Do you have anything of substance to contribute to what we were talking about, Gustave? Because this is just a distraction... you know that? Of course not...

However, I have noticed that you have copied my former post mannerism and I want to thank you for that. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I think you got the point, now, though you are in denial and will never admit it. For next time, hold back the urge to imitate.

And I got it too. The reason you are attempting to hijack the discussion into the trinity issue is because you are at a loss for words. You could not find your way out, so you recoiled back into your favorite claim, which we now have discovered to be based on childish idealism "God cannot die!". God died, Gustave! He gave all He had to save us, Gustave! He risked it all to save us, Gustave. By being childish you slander the gift of God, Gustave. So, tell me again, Gustave... Why can't God die, Gustave?

Now we are both clear, but you should have been honest. Because every post you are sending now is confirming your situation more and more. That reply I gave you was a bear trap, Gustave. And the leg of your doctrine is not coming out of that trap. You don't know how to open it.

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

Dear Overaged,

I meant no insult to the messages of Daniel and Revelation. I love to study them with a great passion. I just believe that there is more than just Daniel and the Revelation. Isaiah through Malachi all have great contributions to make to Daniel and Revelation. There is so much there and we just read and try to resolve Daniel and Revelation with a bigger and bigger eye loop hitting the boundary of resolution. But God has given us so much more to help us resolve Daniel and Revelation with greater accuracy.

Dennis

[Woody]

Dear Overaged,

I meant no insult to the messages of Daniel and Revelation. I love to study them with a great passion. I just believe that there is more than just Daniel and the Revelation. Isaiah through Malachi all have great contributions to make to Daniel and Revelation. There is so much there and we just read and try to resolve Daniel and Revelation with a bigger and bigger eye loop hitting the boundary of resolution. But God has given us so much more to help us resolve Daniel and Revelation with greater accuracy.

Dennis