Who is the One New Man Created on the Cross?

[8thdaypriest]

On 10/31/2015, 9:55:29, Wingnut said:

Does God create evil?

Who created ticks, bacteria, viruses, thorns, poisonous plants and animals if it was not God?

Who has the 'nads to argue that God only created butterflies and bambie? 

 

Just had to respond to this one.

God created EVERYTHING "very good". 

God created Satan - very good.  He did not start out selfish.  But he WAS created with free will.  He turned his own thoughts towards envy (of God's Son) and hatred (of God's Son). 

The critical point here is FREE WILL.  You cannot HAVE love, without FREE WILL.  With FREE WILL comes the possibility of EVIL.  Hence - the question.  Did God create evil?  Or did He simply create the possibility of evil?  I believe the latter.  As to whether EVIL was inevitable, given free will - I will ask that one when I get to Heaven.  Then there's the question of whether the final result is "worth it" considering all the pain involved in the process.  If I did not believe that it WILL BE, I would not be worshiping God our Father and His Son.    

WHEN evil entered the world through Satan (whom God allowed to tempt), the world began to CHANGE.  Things began to die.  Hence the need for scavengers - whether bacteria, fungus, or swine.  Weeds with "thorns and thistles" are just "good" plants gone awry because of soil and atmospheric changes. 

THEN God allowed the flood of Noah.  AFTER that flood the entire atmosphere was changed.  And the soil was changed.  It lacked nutrients.  Lack of food forced some animals to become carnivores.  And on and on and on.....

I personally believe the LORD created life on planet earth, within a six day period of time.  The planet probably existed as a lifeless, dark, water covered orb for billions of years BEFORE God created life here. 

From what Wingnut has said in other threads, I think he believes there was life here BEFORE God created Adam and Eve. 

[8thdaypriest]

I would like to focus for a moment upon Israel, and the circumcision of male infants - on the 8th day from their births. 

The male infant officially became a citizen of Israel when circumcised.  His name was written in the Book of Record, which was later kept in the Temple at Jerusalem.  All this without his express consent, or choice. 

I guess female infants automatically and immediately became "citizens" of Israel, though their attachment to their fathers. 

According to the LORD, that child could LATER, as an adult (20 years) be "cut off" from "the people", if he failed to "repent" of the sins he did commit, failed to bring a sin offering, or failed to humble his heart on the Day of Atonement. 

This sounds a lot like what Samie says. 

If Israel is symbolic of the "whole world" then Samie's theory takes on more credence. 

If OT Israel was NOT symbolic of the "whole world", then one is NOT simply born into citizenship. 

It is interesting that the male infant was NOT officially considered a "citizen" UNTIL his circumcision on the 8th day.

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

On 11/2/2015, 10:51:20, Wingnut said:

On 11/2/2015, 10:51:20, Wingnut said:

You are messed up Samie.  Repent!  Embrace the Gospel message you once knew and loved.  Forsake this weird/eastern/new-age mess of a religion which uses the name of Jesus.  I know you think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  I know it gets you a lot of attention.  I am sure you talk about it to all who will listen.  Compared to the real, vibrant, life-giving, saving, Biblical Gospel message, yours is but an empty shell. 

 

 

Yes Wingnut,  your words are harsh.  There IS a time for harsh words, but I'm not sure this is the right time or the right place.  They do not contribute to the discussion.  They END it.  I'm more interested in hearing Samie's responses.  I WANT to understand his theory completely, and I WANT to develop arguments AGAINST it.  But I cannot do that, if all discussion is ended.  

[8thdaypriest]

Pnatt pointed out that we are drawn to God, WHEN we "see" (begin to comprehend) His love for us.  We see" that love in the death of Christ.  We are drawn to Christ, and want to respond to His love.  This is the true basis for conversion, and for obedience to the Law.  But this scenario necessitates one actually "see" (or at least hear about) the physical Jesus and His death.  What about all the people from the Old Testament period, who WERE Israelite ??  They did NOT "see" Jesus.  So how could they have responded to THAT revelation?  It makes me think that very, very FEW from that period will be raised at the SC, as part of Israel redeemed. 

And there are the children, and the pagans who never HEARD.  They did not "see" Jesus, and begin to comprehend God's love for us.  They could NOT be converted by this means. 

For me - this means they MUST be resurrected at a later time.  The unreached pagans must "see" Jesus.  The children must mature to the point where they can "see", when they HEAR of Jesus.  And even some of the OT Israelites must "see" Jesus.  Then they can be "drawn" to Him, be converted, and be "born again".   There is NO OTHER WAY to be saved. 

 

[Wingnut]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Yes Wingnut,  your words are harsh.  There IS a time for harsh words, but I'm not sure this is the right time or the right place.  They do not contribute to the discussion.  They END it.  I'm more interested in hearing Samie's responses.  I WANT to understand his theory completely, and I WANT to develop arguments AGAINST it.  But I cannot do that, if all discussion is ended.  

I apologise again to Samie.  I like him, I dislike his theory.  Samie, I hope you are safely back from Bankok  

By all mean discuss his theory further.  You were always free to comment, just as you have here.

 

I will say, without excusing myself, that the software here sucks in that it does not allow one to edit or delete posts after a short while.  I often regret what I write and wish I could pull the whole post.  But noooo

This is the 21st century, and every other forum I have been on allows unlimited editing.  Allow us the chance to repent please, and undo what we write.

[Wingnut]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

 

From what Wingnut has said in other threads, I think he believes there was life here BEFORE God created Adam and Eve. 

Hi Rachel, thanks for asking.

 

I believe the universe was created 13.75 billion years ago.  Suns formed and burned for billions of years.  These stars exploded spreading stardust.  

Stardust gathered into earth 5 billion years ago. Earth underwent many mass extinctions, till we come to the second-last one over 6000 years ago, which left earth "without form and void". There were leftover beasties from millions of years back like crocodiles which could survive the darkness and wet conditions.

Then in 6 days God replenished the earth, placing Adam and Eve in Eden. Each time God replenishes the earth after a mass extinction, there is a completely new set of organisms from the ones before. This is why I don't believe in evolution - only multiple replenishings by God.

Then 4400 years ago came the last mass-extinction called "Noah's flood".

And before God created Adam He had experimented with Neanderthals, and Homo erectus, and Homo heidelbergensis etc. till He had a hominid made in His image, able to barter, love and give.  

The fossil record shows animals eating each other long before Adam.  Death was a part of life.  Ancient hominids ate meat.  And these proto-humans show how God was experimenting and learning.

I believe even God learns and perfects and gets things right by trial and error. Making a working human is not easy. Making a working universe is not easy. To know how hard it was to make a fully functioning human, I look at the multitude of Australopithecean and Homo erectus types of hominids, and that tells me how hard it was for God to make a human.  Each one had to be tried by God and tweaked.

This latest one H. naledi had half the brain size compared to us, yet it seemingly buried its dead, so it had the concept of remorse at the passing of a fellow, or perhaps it was religious.  Either way, with half our brain size, it seemed to function well. I am sure God learned from this experiment too. Brains burn 9 times the energy of other tissues. So with big brains comes big energy need. So fire is needed to cook food. This enables a big brain and small gut.

Earth is God's footstool, or His shed, where He passed millennia experimenting.

That's my theory of everything.

As to the question of God creating evil.  Who is the One creating this evil in Gen 3?  

 

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

 

[pnattmbtc]

Wingnut, I think you are underestimating God's intelligence.  How smart must God be to create a cell?  Think of how complex a cell is.  How intelligent is a being who can create the billions of galaxies?  Or create the human brain?

Do you believe in evolution?  I would infer you do by the amounts of time you are using.  But you also mention Noah's flood.  So you simultaneously believe in long ages (and possibly evolution), and Noah's flood.  I don't think I've seen this before.  So you deserve the same hats-off as Samie.

[Wingnut]

15 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Wingnut, I think you are underestimating God's intelligence.  How smart must God be to create a cell?  Think of how complex a cell is.  How intelligent is a being who can create the billions of galaxies?  Or create the human brain?

Do you believe in evolution?  I would infer you do by the amounts of time you are using.  But you also mention Noah's flood.  So you simultaneously believe in long ages (and possibly evolution), and Noah's flood.  I don't think I've seen this before.  So you deserve the same hats-off as Samie.

Hi pnattmbtc

 

Folks may think I am diminishing God somehow by imagining Him to be like us.  But is that not what He said, that we are in His image and likeness.  And of course His wisdom and power are beyond comprehension.

But science is hard.  Stuff has to be figured out.  Folks naively imagine God just somehow "knows" everything.  That is not how we work.  We figure things out as we go along.  God has perfect memory, perfect maths etc. so what we find hard is easy for Him.  But some stuff is hard even for God.  

The fossil record is for me a record of God figuring stuff out.  No I don't believe in evolution, but in God experimenting.  With the dinosaurs, He was seeing how far He could push the limit size-wise.

Everything was created with man in mind.  

After billions of years, God finally had good enough conditions on earth, all was stable climate wise, all the pretty, soft and cuddly animals which mankind would like to pet, were on the drawing board.  So God wiped out the larger, vicious animals incompatible with mankind, and in 7 days made the current ecosystem.  

I even believe that something was not working quite right, so God again tweaked earth with Noah's flood.  Pre-flood folks were just not responding as God expected they would.  Doesn't this verse alone tell us that God learns?

Genesis 6:6

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

 

 

 

[Samie]

On 11/3/2015, 2:34:19, pnattmbtc said:

First of all, there is some confusion as to what happens when an unbeliever exercises faith.  Samie's thought is that God gives the unbeliever the faith of Jesus, and the unbeliever uses that, but if one things about what faith actually is, this idea doesn't make sense.  Faith is an act of the mind, involving our thinking, so how would God give us that?  God provokes our thoughts by revealing Christ to use, with the Holy Spirit convicting us of sin and righteousness, and we may choose to respond by repentance and faith in Christ, but our response is not Jesus Christ taking possession of us and exercising His faith in us, but is our responding to what God has revealed to us.  So to say that God gives us the faith of Jesus, and that is the faith we exercise can be seen not to make sense, and is certainly not what Paul had in mind, which is evident by reading what he wrote in context.

Faith is the ability to respond to God. It is the "exercise of faith" (or believing) which constitutes an act of the mind.  I am simply pointing out that the faith we have (ability to respond to God) is the faith of Jesus that God gave or dealt to every man (Rom 12:3).  The use or non-use and mis-use of this God-given ability (faith) is man's responsibility. Being part of the Body of Christ, man's ability to respond (faith) is the ability of Jesus (faith of Jesus).  A believer (one who exercises faith) in God may have NOT personally known Christ, yet the faith he has is the faith of Jesus.  So whether one is born before or after the cross, he is accountable to God Who gave him that ability.

As to who constitute the body of Christ,  Scriptures say that the body of Christ is the church and that God purchased the church with His own blood, which is the blood of Christ.   Therefore all the redeemed constitute the church of God.  Who did Christ redeem at the cross?  I believe everyone was.  And it simply follows that all of us, being all redeemed, constitute the church. Yet many had been removed from membership by being blotted from the BOL.

 

[pnattmbtc]

1 hour ago, Wingnut said:

Hi pnattmbtc

 

Folks may think I am diminishing God somehow by imagining Him to be like us.  But is that not what He said, that we are in His image and likeness.  And of course His wisdom and power are beyond comprehension.

But science is hard.  Stuff has to be figured out.  Folks naively imagine God just somehow "knows" everything.  That is not how we work.  We figure things out as we go along.  God has perfect memory, perfect maths etc. so what we find hard is easy for Him.  But some stuff is hard even for God.  

The fossil record is for me a record of God figuring stuff out.  No I don't believe in evolution, but in God experimenting.  With the dinosaurs, He was seeing how far He could push the limit size-wise.

Everything was created with man in mind.  

After billions of years, God finally had good enough conditions on earth, all was stable climate wise, all the pretty, soft and cuddly animals which mankind would like to pet, were on the drawing board.  So God wiped out the larger, vicious animals incompatible with mankind, and in 7 days made the current ecosystem.  

I even believe that something was not working quite right, so God again tweaked earth with Noah's flood.  Pre-flood folks were just not responding as God expected they would.  Doesn't this verse alone tell us that God learns?

Genesis 6:6

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

 

 

 

I've got the same reaction, that you're seriously underestimating God's intelligence, but will add the important caveat that I don't disagree with your working premise.  I just think you've got the specifics wrong. To be more specific, I think knowing how big to make creatures, and things like that, would be child's play to God, as easy as tic-tac-toe is for us.  What's difficult for God is knowing what people will do, which I think if fascinating, and is what the verse you cited is getting at.  I think any verse you find will be similar (i.e., that the sum of difficult things for God all involve relating to people).  

And this is because of the miracle of free will.  Even people you know very well can surprise you.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Faith is the ability to respond to God.

This is incorrect, but it makes the rest of what you're writing understandable.  You're confusing "faith" with "the ability to exercise faith", which are two different things.  That you are confusing these terms is clear by simply looking at how the word "faith" is actually used.  It's used hundreds of places, so this is easy to do, and in so doing you will see that "faith" is always used as an act of the mind, not as the ability for the mind to act in a certain way.  To name just a couple of hundreds which pop into my mind, to the lady in Luke 7, Jesus said, "Your faith has saved you." not "Your ability to exercise faith has saved you."  Jesus spoke of faith being able to more mountains; clearly this isn't referring to the ability to exercise faith, but the actual exercising of faith.

Quote

It is the "exercise of faith" (or believing) which constitutes an act of the mind. 

Which is what the Bible calls "faith".  All you have to do is get a concordance and see how the word is used.

Quote

I am simply pointing out that the faith we have (ability to respond to God) is the faith of Jesus that God gave or dealt to every man (Rom 12:3). 

If "faith" means "the ability to exercise faith", then what you are writing here means, "I am simply pointing out the ability we have to exercise faith (to respond to God) is the ability of Jesus that God gave or dealt to every man."  Is this what you mean?  The ability we have to respond to God is the ability that God gave to Jesus to be able to respond to God?

By the way, if you look at the context of Romans 12:3, it has nothing to do with what you're talking about!

Quote

The use or non-use and mis-use of this God-given ability (faith) is man's responsibility.

Once again, you're confusing the ability to exercise faith with faith.  Faith is an act of the mind.  Faith is not the ability to perform an act of the mind.  The word "faith" is never used the way you are suggesting in Scripture.

Quote

Being part of the Body of Christ, man's ability to respond (faith) is the ability of Jesus (faith of Jesus).

And the "body of Christ" is never used the way you are suggesting in Scripture.  The "body of Christ", as used in Scripture, means "the body of believers in Christ."  See 1 Cor. 12, for example.  Or Wiki.  Even Wiki knows this. 

Quote

 

A believer (one who exercises faith) in God may have NOT personally known Christ, yet the faith he has is the faith of Jesus.  So whether one is born before or after the cross, he is accountable to God Who gave him that ability.

As to who constitute the body of Christ,  Scriptures say that the body of Christ is the church and that God purchased the church with His own blood, which is the blood of Christ.   Therefore all the redeemed constitute the church of God.  Who did Christ redeem at the cross? I believe everyone was.  And it simply follows that all of us, being all redeemed, constitute the church. Yet many had been removed from membership by being blotted from the BOL.

 

The word "church" is never used this way either.  The word "church", in Scripture, means the same thing as "the body of Christ", which refers to those who are believers, like John 1:12.

Quote

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

These are they who constitute the "body of Christ" or "the church", also referred to in Scripture as "saints".

If you use terms like "body of Christ" and "church" and "faith" in unique ways, you are destined to be misunderstood.  Basically what you are saying is that God has given everyone the ability to respond to Him, which is true, and few would disagree with.  But you state it in such an odd way that virtually no one can agree (e.g. God has attached everyone to the body of Christ by the cross, everybody has faith, everyone is in the church, things like that).

[pnattmbtc]

Wingnut, I realized I wasn't as clear as I could have been, when I said I agree with your working premise, as I didn't specify what I had in mind by that.  What I had in mind is I don't disagree with the idea that God learns things.  Actually I think this is one of the most amazing things about God, being so intelligent, that He was able to figure out how to make things which would be so complex that He could learn, by which I mean principally beings with free will, able to love and be loved.

[Wingnut]

5 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

Wingnut, I realized I wasn't as clear as I could have been, when I said I agree with your working premise, as I didn't specify what I had in mind by that.  What I had in mind is I don't disagree with the idea that God learns things.  Actually I think this is one of the most amazing things about God, being so intelligent, that He was able to figure out how to make things which would be so complex that He could learn, by which I mean principally beings with free will, able to love and be loved.

Some folks have never considered that God might actually learn as He goes along.  They think He is too bright for that, and doesn't it somewhere say He knows everything?  It also says somewhere in scripture that we know everything.

But think of the brightest person you know.  Does that person learn things?  Yes, and a lot faster than we do.

God is forever learning.  But ask physicists - science is complicated.  God is forever challenging Himself with harder and harder tasks.

No doubt making man has been the most challenging project to date.

At times I see God's utter frustration with man,  He has to leave them alone, but at the same time He is itching to help them, just as a Father watching his toddler stand up and fall down.  And very bright folks look on really dumb folks do really dumb things which ruin their lives and they ask themselves "How could that ever have seemed like a good idea?".  Like you watch a teen about to take their first drug and you know this could ruin them. Or a Youtube video of a teen deliberately driving a quad bike into a cactus.

Likewise God watches us children whom He loves do really dumb things, but He has to let it play out, because of the principle of free will.

Something was wrong pre-flood that so few got saved.

Something was wrong with the Old Covenant that mostly all it produced were Pharisees.

I don't rule out the possibility that God "discovered" that man does not respond well to threats (like death), but that he only responds to love.  Folks have been flocking into the kingdom since Christ died for us to show us His love.  They respond badly to being told they will be stoned for adultery, cheeking parents, blasphemy, witchcraft and a host of other things.

And I believe the Father is a lot more intolerant of sin and stupidity than Christ is.  That is why the Father placed a buffer (Christ - the High Priest) between Himself and us.  We are just naturally infuriating creatures at times, and if I were the Father, I could feel like smiting me some times.  

There was a time when God's frustration reached boiling point, and He stood up in heaven and SHOUTED "They shall NEVER enter my kingdom".  There was a stunned silence in heaven at this outburst from God.  They seldom saw God this furious.  So furious was He that this event is recorded below.

Hebrews 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.

He said this of the adults leaving Egypt at the Exodus.  He did not mean the promised land either, but His eternal rest.  "I am done with that generation forever" God shouted.  And the heavenly host were startled, but fully understood His frustration with them.

 

[LifeHiscost]

1 hour ago, Wingnut said:

Some folks have never considered that God might actually learn as He goes along.  They think He is too bright for that, and doesn't it somewhere say He knows everything?  It also says somewhere in scripture that we know everything.

 

 And I believe the Father is a lot more intolerant of sin and stupidity than Christ is.  

That doesn't seem to square with this.

…8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." 9Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '? John 14

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Wingnut]

11 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I would like to focus for a moment upon Israel, and the circumcision of male infants - on the 8th day from their births. 

The male infant officially became a citizen of Israel when circumcised.  His name was written in the Book of Record, which was later kept in the Temple at Jerusalem.  All this without his express consent, or choice. 

I guess female infants automatically and immediately became "citizens" of Israel, though their attachment to their fathers. 

According to the LORD, that child could LATER, as an adult (20 years) be "cut off" from "the people", if he failed to "repent" of the sins he did commit, failed to bring a sin offering, or failed to humble his heart on the Day of Atonement. 

This sounds a lot like what Samie says. 

If Israel is symbolic of the "whole world" then Samie's theory takes on more credence. 

If OT Israel was NOT symbolic of the "whole world", then one is NOT simply born into citizenship. 

It is interesting that the male infant was NOT officially considered a "citizen" UNTIL his circumcision on the 8th day.

 

 

Or maybe the Old Covenant (OC) with its 613 laws just serves to show that one cannot legislate nice people. Most OC laws are not too different to our state laws today.  We comply with them, but these laws leave us unchanged.

Nice people have to be regenerated from the inside out - which is what the New Covenant does.

Circumcision is a covenant God made with Ab which precedes the OC.  As such, Paul deals with circumcision as separate from the OC.  Gentiles for instance were not required to circumcise, but WERE required to keep a few of the OC laws such as abstaining from blood and things strangled.

We are all automatic citizens of this world, circumcision or not.

There is no automatic citizenry of the world to come.  That is why it cannot be earned, but is a gift of God by grace.  We have all earned the wages of sin which is death.  That is the default state for OC Israel as it has been for all mankind down through all ages.

Rachel, a question you might like to examine is where did God anywhere promise eternal life to anyone keeping the OC?  It just cannot be found.

[Wingnut]

13 minutes ago, LifeHiscost said:

 

 

That doesn't seem to square with this.

…8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." 9Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '? John 14

God is Love! Jesus saves!

This is a foolish "proof" but worth considering.  If Christ and the Father are identical, then logic suggests that one of them might be redundant.

To me the Bible story shows them performing different tasks and having somewhat different personalities, and very different powers.  Christ for instance has learned obedience, something the Father never had to.

[Wingnut]

45 minutes ago, LifeHiscost said:

 

 

That doesn't seem to square with this.

…8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." 9Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '? John 14

God is Love! Jesus saves!

I have been following the Trinity thread and I know that Rachel could do a far more thorough job than I could in listing all the ways that Christ differs from the Father.  Rachel?

Yes the Father and Christ are one just as the sun and moon appear the same size in the sky, not a coincidence by the way, but a miracle of cosmic engineering.  God did this to provide an analogy.  The father is the originator of light, power, spirit.   Christ reflects this so brightly that at times the moon can be confused for the sun.  If you have seen the one, you have seen the other.  But their glories (brightnesses) differ.

[LifeHiscost]

24 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

This is a foolish "proof" but worth considering.  If Christ and the Father are identical, then logic suggests that one of them might be redundant.

To me the Bible story shows them performing different tasks and having somewhat different personalities, and very different powers.  Christ for instance has learned obedience, something the Father never had to.

I don't give "proof" texts but choose to let the principles speak for themselves. I find it somewhat unsettling that anyone would look at God's Word as being foolish. The fact that I don't see the Word He provided as making it possible for me to establish the fullness of His completeness, only reveals my lack, not His. One always has a right to disbelieve the Word.

37"For nothing will be impossible with God.".....Luke 1

39"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.…John 5

…5and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST." 6Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, 7He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS."…..Hebrews 4   Emphasis theirs'  LHC

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[LifeHiscost]

5 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

I have been following the Trinity thread and I know that Rachel could do a far more thorough job than I could in listing all the ways that Christ differs from the Father.  Rachel?

Yes the Father and Christ are one just as the sun and moon appear the same size in the sky, not a coincidence by the way, but a miracle of cosmic engineering.  God did this to provide an analogy.  The father is the originator of light, power, spirit.   Christ reflects this so brightly that at times the moon can be confused for the sun.  If you have seen the one, you have seen the other.  But their glories (brightnesses) differ.

Interesting that that is considered the story of the Son and Father, both being seen as God from the Word.

5In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very nature^a God,

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

7rather, he made himself nothing

by taking the very nature^b of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

by becoming obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.....Philippians 2

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

 

[Wingnut]

5 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

I don't give "proof" texts but choose to let the principles speak for themselves. I find it somewhat unsettling that anyone would look at God's Word as being foolish. The fact that I don't see the Word He provided as making it possible for me to establish the fullness of His completeness, only reveals my lack, not His. One always has a right to disbelieve the Word.

 

If you are referring to me saying "This is a foolish "proof" but worth considering" that if both the Father and Christ are identical, then one of them may be considered to be redundant - then I am not saying God's word is foolish, but rather giving notice that I Wingnut am about to make a somewhat foolish argument.  Or as Paul might say "I speak as a fool..."

[Samie]

13 hours ago, Samie said:

Faith is the ability to respond to God

13 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

This is incorrect, . . .

In another thread, you gave one definition of faith as the ability to respond. You are now saying that that definition is incorrect.

So in which thread are you sure you are correct, in that earlier thread, or in this thread now?

I ask because if your definition of faith in that thread is correct that faith is the ability to respond, then that makes my position you are trying to discredit in this thread, correct.  But if I were to believe what you are saying now that that definition is incorrect, then my position in the other thread stands.

Remember, my position in that thread and in this thread remains the same.

[pnattmbtc]

57 minutes ago, Samie said:

In another thread, you gave one definition of faith as the ability to respond. You are now saying that that definition is incorrect.

So in which thread are you sure you are correct, in that earlier thread, or in this thread now?

I ask because if your definition of faith in that thread is correct that faith is the ability to respond, then that makes my position you are trying to discredit in this thread, correct.  But if I were to believe what you are saying now that that definition is incorrect, then my position in the other thread stands.

Remember, my position in that thread and in this thro,

58 minutes ago, Samie said:

In another thread, you gave one definition of faith as the ability to respond. You are now saying that that definition is incorrect.

So in which thread are you sure you are correct, in that earlier thread, or in this thread now?

I ask because if your definition of faith in that thread is correct that faith is the ability to respond, then that makes my position you are trying to discredit in this thread, correct.  But if I were to believe what you are saying now that that definition is incorrect, then my position in the other thread stands.

Remember, my position in that thread and in this thread remains the same.

 

[pnattmbtc]

Sorry, software problems.  I'll respond to your last post without the quote.  You're not being clear in what you said.  You said some things which I viewed as incorrect, so I addressed those.  It looks like you are saying what I responded to is not what you really believe, but what you actually believe is something else(?).  If this is the case, I suggest you write what you actually believe instead of something you don't.

Regarding me, I've never said that faith is the ability to respond. I'd hardly argue this was incorrect if I had, would I?  Your memory has been really, really bad in what I have said, which is one of the reasons I have repeatedly requested you quote things I've written and respond to those.

What I have said is that faith involves appreciation, thankfulness, and gratitude, that faith is an act of the mind, a response from man to the love of God, and that God has given the ability to respond to everyone.  I've argued against your idea that Romans 12:3 is saying that God made believers of everyone, which seems to be what you are saying, because 1.It doesn't make sense logically, since faith is an act of the mind; God cannot force others to be believers without overriding their free will 2.You are not considering the context of Romans 12 in what you're writing.

And this is a general concern, is that your method is to pluck verses from here and there, string them together in creative and unique ways, without regards to the context.  That this is a poor and inadequate method is testified by you yourself in that you think John was incorrect n what he wrote in John 1:12 and 1 John 1:9.  I John 1:9 is like many, many, many texts in Scripture which teach that forgiveness is conditional.  If you are going to say this text is wrong for this reason, what about all the others?  Why not take the better premise that Scripture is OK, and if we arrive at conclusions which lead us to think it needs to be correct, that it is actually our positions which need to be corrected?  Much better!

[8thdaypriest]

9 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Or maybe the Old Covenant (OC) with its 613 laws just serves to show that one cannot legislate nice people. Most OC laws are not too different to our state laws today.  We comply with them, but these laws leave us unchanged.

Nice people have to be regenerated from the inside out - which is what the New Covenant does.

Circumcision is a covenant God made with Ab which precedes the OC.  As such, Paul deals with circumcision as separate from the OC.  Gentiles for instance were not required to circumcise, but WERE required to keep a few of the OC laws such as abstaining from blood and things strangled.

We are all automatic citizens of this world, circumcision or not.

There is no automatic citizenry of the world to come.  That is why it cannot be earned, but is a gift of God by grace.  We have all earned the wages of sin which is death.  That is the default state for OC Israel as it has been for all mankind down through all ages.

Rachel, a question you might like to examine is where did God anywhere promise eternal life to anyone keeping the OC?  It just cannot be found.

There is outward, observable "keeping", which can arise from fear, or custom, etc.  And there is inward "keeping" which rises from true heart belief, love, agreement.  The inward keeping, is only possible by the indwelling (constant interaction) of the Spirit of Christ upon the mind.  The human observer cannot really tell the source (in the mind) of the (outward) behavior.  God is judge BECAUSE God "knows the heart".  He can know the "thoughts and intents of the heart".  This goes FAR BEYOND merely "intelligence".   That is why Jesus could say, "I know My Sheep."  He "knows" the persons with whom He is interacting, and their responses to Him.

CONCERNING WHAT GOD KNOWS:  I believe our God (the Father) sees the future, as you or I see things that happen around us.  God told Abraham:

Genesis 15:13 "Then the LORD said to him, 'Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. ¹⁴ But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions'" (NIV).

400 years to the very day, Abraham's descendants came out of Egypt, with great substance.  Which means that the LORD made this promise to Abraham on what would later be The Feast of Unleavened Bread.  Isaac would not even be born for another 15 years. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

THE CURSES OF GOD

Did God Himself cause thorns to grow, or was this the natural result of changes within the soil, and atmosphere, which resulted from Noah's flood.  Were they caused by Satan's experimentation? 

Was the domination of female by male, caused by God, or was it the result of changes within the heart of man? 

There is a study at my website titled "The Wrath of God - A Different View":  http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/10-The%20Wrath%20of%20God.pdf

There are a handful of things described in Scripture, which I believe God Himself DID directly.  Nadab and Abihu - consumed by the fire of God.  The 250 princes.  Korah et al.  The army of Gog/Magog finally consumed by "fire" from God.  Most things I see happening because of the LOSS of God's direct protection, or input of energy.   You could say that God indirectly caused these things - like the flood of Noah - by withdrawing His Spirit, but that is different from destroying something directly.  Withdrawing His Spirit would be the indirect "cause". 

Which leads to the question:  Why did the LORD withdraw His Spirit?  I think Job 22:15-17 gives the reason.  The LORD will not stay where He is not wanted. 

Job 22:15 "Will you keep to the old path that the wicked have trod?  They were carried off before their time, their foundations washed away by a flood. ¹⁷They said to God, 'Leave us alone! What can the Almighty do to us?'" (NIV)

The laws of God, governing the natural world, require the constant input of divine energy and intervention.  When that is withdrawn, the system begins to "die".  By "system" - this could be a system as small as a cell, or a system as large as a universe of galaxies.  Everything slows down, runs down, and breaks down.  That's God's Law.  God withdrew (except from a boat with 8 people) - and a giant asteroid crashed into planet earth, causing the flood of Noah.  Certainly a system of human interaction - families, clans, nations - would break down without the constant input of divine direction and intervention. 

When God said, "Dying you will die", He was NOT just talking about individual human death - Adam's death, or Eve's. 

This earth is dying.  Only the restoration of God's uninhibited Spirit, can heal it.  Man's weaponry and most of his inventions are hastening it's death.  I believe this earth WILL DIE, and will remain DEAD (uninhabited) for a thousand years, until Jesus resurrects and restores it.