Who is the One New Man Created on the Cross?

[pnattmbtc]

4 minutes ago, Samie said:

The issue is about God and that whether He knows before He created this world that Adam will fall into sin.

The argument I presented is regarding whether there is such a thing as "the future".  I argued that the future is comprised of possibilities, that there is no such thing as "the future", a single thing that must happen.

[pnattmbtc]

5 minutes ago, Samie said:

You refused to answer that question saying that is just like the question "have you stopped beating your wife?". But you never explained how.

Sure I did.  I explained it's assuming the false premise that there is such a thing as "the future", as opposed to the future being comprised of things which may happen.

[Samie]

Just now, pnattmbtc said:

The argument I presented is regarding whether there is such a thing as "the future".  I argued that the future is comprised of possibilities, that there is no such thing as "the future", a single thing that must happen.

That's why I can't understand why you refuse to answer my question saying that is based on a false premise.  There is a future. And only God knows what it is, for He alone knows what lies ahead. He could modify it for our own benefit.

[Samie]

1 minute ago, pnattmbtc said:

Sure I did.  I explained it's assuming the false premise that there is such a thing as "the future", as opposed to the future being comprised of things which may happen.

The Bible speaks of the future.  Therefore, there is a future. But it is not fixed. God can modify events the way He wants best.

[Samie]

And back to my question: Before the creation of this world, did God already know Adam will fall into sin?

[Samie]

You contend that my question is based on a fixed future. I say the future is not fixed. Why insist I based my question on your position, when I based it on my own position? How can my question be the same as asking "have you stopped beating your wife"?

[Samie]

And why should I base my question on your own premise and not base it on my own? And my premise is that the future is NOT fixed. God knows the future but He does not fix it. He can modify events the way that would best benefit us.

[Wingnut]

27 minutes ago, Samie said:

We are all adults at our SS Class. And what I am always emphasizing is overcoming evil with good, because only overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL.  Even if they are already in the life-raft they can still be blotted out from the BOL.

Are SDA's not naturally into "overcoming" since they take righteousness more seriously than most?  They lead stricter lifestyles than most.

[pnattmbtc]

16 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

The argument I presented is regarding whether there is such a thing as "the future".  I argued that the future is comprised of possibilities, that there is no such thing as "the future", a single thing that must happen.

Quote

That's why I can't understand why you refuse to answer my question saying that is based on a false premise. 

Because I think your question is based on a false premise, you can't understand why I refuse to answer your question by saying that it is based on a false premise.  That doesn't make sense.

Quote

There is a future.

Then one cannot have incompatibilistic free will, also know as libertarian free will, which is the Arminian position.

Quote

And only God knows what it is, for He alone knows what lies ahead. He could modify it for our own benefit.

This is logically self-inconsistent.  Obviously God cannot change "the future" because then it wouldn't be "the future", it would be merely a possibility (which is MY position!).  So your assertion here is actually agreeing with me (that God could change the future), even though you are not perceiving this.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

You contend that my question is based on a fixed future. I say the future is not fixed. Why insist I based my question on your position, when I based it on my own position? How can my question be the same as asking "have you stopped beating your wife"

You just said a moment ago that there is a future and God knows what it is.  When you say there is "a future" that's what it means to say the future is fixed (or determined or certain, to give a couple of synonyms).  I didn't insist you based your question on my position.  Your question is the same as asking "have you stopped beating your wife" because it's a yes/no question which is based on a false premise.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

And why should I base my question on your own premise and not base it on my own?

You shouldn't.  You can and should have your own premises, but ask open-ended questions instead of closed ones, and you avoid the problem of asking a question that cannot be answered because it's based on a false premise.  For example, "What did God foresee when He created Adam and Eve?"

Quote

And my premise is that the future is NOT fixed.

Yes it is.  As soon as you say things like "the future", you are articulating this position.

Quote

God knows the future but He does not fix it.

The issues isn't if God fixed the future, but if it is fixed.  If you speak of "the future", then you are viewing it as fixed.

Quote

He can modify events the way that would best benefit us.

Then what you referring to as "the future" is NOT the future.  "The future" is, by definition, that which will happen.  That which will happen cannot be changed, or else it's not that which will happen, but something else, which, by the way, is, once again MY position.  The fact that God can modify things (and so can we!!!) means the future is not fixed, which is to say there is no such thing as "the future".  What there is are things which may happen.

[Samie]

56 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

This is logically self-inconsistent.  Obviously God cannot change "the future" because then it wouldn't be "the future", it would be merely a possibility (which is MY position!).  So your assertion here is actually agreeing with me (that God could change the future), even though you are not perceiving this.

Why not when God sees it as one He will change? Is that not possible with God? It is, even though you cannot yet understand it now.

[Samie]

49 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

You shouldn't.  You can and should have your own premises, but ask open-ended questions instead of closed ones, and you avoid the problem of asking a question that cannot be answered because it's based on a false premise.  For example, "What did God foresee when He created Adam and Eve?"

It is open-ended, you are not able to comprehend its open-endedness yet. What to you is impossible is possible with God. You are trying to squeeze God into your own understanding. You ask your own question. And don't dictate what I want to ask. I don't take commands even from a Ph.D. I take commands from a Carpenter in Nazareth.

[Samie]

54 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Then what you referring to as "the future" is NOT the future.

It is the future.

54 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

"The future" is, by definition, that which will happen.  That which will happen cannot be changed, . . .

It can. Nothing is impossible with God. And that which will happen is that God will change the future if it is for our best benefit.

54 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

 but something else, which, by the way, is, once again MY position.

Which is wrong, by not calling it future, even if it has not happened yet.

54 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

The fact that God can modify things (and so can we!!!) means the future is not fixed, . . .

Which is what I had been pointing out but you turn a deaf ear.

54 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

which is to say there is no such thing as "the future". 

There is. A year from now is still future. What will happen then is the future.

54 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

What there is are things which may happen.

What there is are things that God knows will happen but God can modify for our best interest.

[Samie]

1 hour ago, pnattmbtc said:

You just said a moment ago that there is a future and God knows what it is.

Yes, of course. Why would He not? He is God. He knows everything including the "future" you say does not exist.

^NRS Romans 4:17 as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations") -- in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

 

 

1 hour ago, pnattmbtc said:

When you say there is "a future" that's what it means to say the future is fixed (or determined or certain, to give a couple of synonyms).

 

That's the meaning you want to attach to it. I attach another meaning that it is not fixed (not determined, not certain) because God can modify it for our best benefit.

1 hour ago, pnattmbtc said:

I didn't insist you based your question on my position.

And even if you insisted I won't give in.

 

1 hour ago, pnattmbtc said:

Your question is the same as asking "have you stopped beating your wife" because it's a yes/no question which is based on a false premise.

You call it a false premise because it's your only way of escape from the pan to the fire.

For new visitors to this thread, here's my question which Pnatt says is based on a wrong premise:  "Before this world was created, did God know that Adam will fall into sin?"

Just like the question, "Before He died, did Jesus know He will be resurrected by God?"  Ask Pnatt and he will tell you, "that's the same as asking "have you stopped beating your wife?"!

I am expecting more from one who's got a Ph.D. among his credentials.

[Wingnut]

My stand on the future is that God and man make it up as they go along.

Should I make a cup of tea and then write a post, or vice versa?  Turns out I chose to write first.

But wait, let me put the kettle on.....

....OK kettle is on, now where was I?

Oh the future.  I don't have a clue what I will be doing in 2 hours time.  No wait, I will be watching Judge Judy - if I remember.

And now a statement which will shock you all - neither does God have a clue what I will be doing 4 hours from now, 6 hours from now etc.

Unless God manufactures a crisis for me, only then will I have to respond.

Kettle has boiled...

...back with tea, but only after unexpected chat with family.  Oh yes, I left you thinking "Is Wingnut speaking blasphemy saying that even God does not know what he will be doing 4 hours from now?  What a terrible impression of God, Wingnut seems to have".  Don't worry, I am thinking the same about you who think God is such a control freak that He wants every second of every day for all eternity nailed down, and cast in concrete.  I think Satan would love that because he possesses and compels.  God draws or woos.  These are such different styles.

I say that if I don't know what I will be doing in 4 hours, and I am the one with free will to decide, then how could God know?  Does that diminish God?

Does it diminish you as a parent to give your toddler an empty box and watch her play for as long as it amuses her, in any way it amuses her?

Why do you or God HAVE to know what she will be doing ten minutes from now, as long as she is safe?

 

Now to the point.  Christ told Peter that the [censored] would not crow twice till Peter had denied Him thrice".

This is like Pnatt showing the book of the future to someone.  All that someone has to do is to not deny Christ for the next 12 hours.  Could Peter avoid his fate?  The rest is history.

 

Point proven.  Samie's right. Next topic.

Or could Peter have taken heed and not fallen into Satan's trap?

Peter did not heed Christ's advice to watch and pray, so this time, the prophecy proved correct.

Or like Nineveh, God may just have to be thought of as fickle for sparing them after telling them in 40 days they were toast.

 

One last riddle for all.

Genesis 37:9

And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

Who was the "moon" in this prophecy?

[Samie]

3 hours ago, Wingnut said:

One last riddle for all.

Genesis 37:9

And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

Who was the "moon" in this prophecy?

The next verse, v10, seems to give the identity not only of the "moon" but of the sun and the 11 stars.  Problem is, Rachel, Joseph's mother was already dead that time.  Matthew Henry notes that the phrase "sun, moon and 11 stars" could have simply meant the whole family of Jacob will be dependent upon Joseph, and which actually turned out to be the case.

[Samie]

4 hours ago, Wingnut said:

This is like Pnatt showing the book of the future to someone.

Actually, I can safely say that the book of the future exists. And I will be glad watching Pnatt apply his proof against it. Here it is:

^KJV Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

                                                                                              

But I'm not sure whether he has the guts to actually apply his proof against this book of the future, since somewhere in this book of the future, its Author says:

 

^KJV  Revelation 22:18-19   ¹⁸ For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:  ¹⁹ And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

[Wingnut]

36 minutes ago, Samie said:

The next verse, v10, seems to give the identity not only of the "moon" but of the sun and the 11 stars.  Problem is, Rachel, Joseph's mother was already dead that time.  Matthew Henry notes that the phrase "sun, moon and 11 stars" could have simply meant the whole family of Jacob will be dependent upon Joseph, and which actually turned out to be the case.

Rachel was not dead when this was given.  She died giving birth to Benjamin long after Joseph was taken to Egypt.  At the time Joseph dreamed, he was the youngest (and favourite).  Later Benjamin takes this spot in Jacob's heart.

And you are right that the next verse identifies the moon as Rachel.

Matthew Henry, like many had to invent a reason why this prophecy failed in that Rachel (the moon) never bowed down to Joseph.

For me it's easy.  God changed His mind and wanted her dead for some reason - presumably her sin.  The same reason Paul mentioned in 1 Tim 2:15.

 

[Wingnut]

1 hour ago, Samie said:

 

Actually, I can safely say that the book of the future exists. And I will be glad watching Pnatt apply his proof against it. Here it is:

^KJV Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

                                                                                              

But I'm not sure whether he has the guts to actually apply his proof against this book of the future, since somewhere in this book of the future, its Author says:

 

^KJV  Revelation 22:18-19   ¹⁸ For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:  ¹⁹ And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Pnatt is the one who says we have to have heard of the historical Jesus, believe in the historical Jesus, be baptised, publicly commit to the historical Jesus and obey the historical Jesus, to be saved.

Quoting Rev 22:18-19 strikes me as highly ironic coming from you.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

 

Me: This is logically self-inconsistent.  Obviously God cannot change "the future" because then it wouldn't be "the future", it would be merely a possibility (which is MY position!).  So your assertion here is actually agreeing with me (that God could change the future), even though you are not perceiving this.

Samie:Why not when God sees it as one He will change? Is that not possible with God? It is, even though you cannot yet understand it now.

 

 
I don't know what you meant by the last sentence, but if God is looking into the future, and is going to change something, what He is seeing is not the future, but something which might happen.  You are not being consistent with your terminology.

If there is such a thing as "the future" which can be seen (it is immaterial who sees it; it doesn't need to be God), then that thing is unchangeable, just as unchageable as the past, and this is the whole point.  MY position is that the future is NOT like the past, it is fundamentally different, being comprised of things which may happen.  The past, on the other hand, is comprised of things which did happen, and there is only one past (although there were many other possibilities which could have happened, but didn't).  Given the future is comprised of possibilities, God, who sees things as they are, in looking to the future, would see that there are a bunch of possibilities.  Of course He can foresee what He will do in the future, and He is able to accomplish that which He wishes to accomplish.  But any time He is seeing Himself changing something, what He is seeing is not "the future" (one given thing, which I've been arguing does not exist), but a bunch of possibilities, which is, again, MY position.

[pnattmbtc]

2 hours ago, Samie said:

 

Actually, I can safely say that the book of the future exists. And I will be glad watching Pnatt apply his proof against it. Here it is:

^KJV Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

                                                                                              

But I'm not sure whether he has the guts to actually apply his proof against this book of the future, since somewhere in this book of the future, its Author says:

 

^KJV  Revelation 22:18-19   ¹⁸ For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:  ¹⁹ And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Samie, you should avoid from ad hominem.  What is your purpose?  Do you wish to make people angry at you?  Do you think that is a nice thing to do?  Do you like it when people are mean to you?

Regarding the things which will come to pass, there are certain things which will happen, but there are different scenarios under which they may occur.  For example, Jesus will come again.  This will happen.  But how or when is not written in stone.  Ellen White wrote on several occasions that Jesus could have already come.  If that had happened, the future as of Revelation 1:1 would have happened, but not in the same way that it will happen now.  There is nothing in Revelation 1:1 which contradicts the idea that the future is comprised of possibilities.

Regarding Revelation 22:18-19 I don't know what you want done.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

 

Me:You shouldn't.  You can and should have your own premises, but ask open-ended questions instead of closed ones, and you avoid the problem of asking a question that cannot be answered because it's based on a false premise.  For example, "What did God foresee when He created Adam and Eve?"

Samie:It is open-ended, you are not able to comprehend its open-endedness yet. 

 

Open-ended means it's not a yes/no question.

Quote

Me:What to you is impossible is possible with God. 

Your asking a yes/no question instead of an open-ended one has nothing to do with what is possible with God.

Quote

You are trying to squeeze God into your own understanding. You ask your own question. And don't dictate what I want to ask. I don't take commands even from a Ph.D. I take commands from a Carpenter in Nazareth.

You asked me a question, so I answered it.  You asked why should you not ask questions according to your own premises, and I said you should, but that they should be open-ended questions.  Why are you taking offense at this?  Regarding taking commands from a Carpenter, I'm sure that Carpenter is not commanding you to say mean things.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

 

Me:Then what you referring to as "the future" is NOT the future.

Samie:It is the future.

 

What is?  You're not being clear by what you mean by "the future".  You are using this phrase in different ways, ways which are not logically consistent.

Quote

 

  10 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
"The future" is, by definition, that which will happen.  That which will happen cannot be changed, . . .

Samie:It can. Nothing is impossible with God. And that which will happen is that God will change the future if it is for our best benefit.

 

If God changes what will happen, then that thing was not "the future", but was something which could have happened.  You're not being consistent with how you are using the term "the future".  If God sees the future as a single thing, then that's what it is, because God sees things as they are.  If God sees the future as something contingent (which is what I've been arguing, and you are saying the same thing here) then it is not a single thing, but is comprised of possibilities.

Quote

 

  10 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
 but something else, which, by the way, is, once again MY position.

Which is wrong, by not calling it future, even if it has not happened yet.

 

This didn't make sense.  Please try again.  What were you trying to say?

Quote

 

  10 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
The fact that God can modify things (and so can we!!!) means the future is not fixed, . . .

Samie:Which is what I had been pointing out but you turn a deaf ear.

 

This was the whole point of the book argument, that the future is not fixed.  If you agree with my position, you should just say you agree.

Quote

 

  10 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
which is to say there is no such thing as "the future". 

Samie:There is. A year from now is still future. What will happen then is the future.

 

What does "the future" mean in the sentence I wrote which you are commenting on?

Quote

 

  10 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
What there is are things which may happen.

Samie:What there is are things that God knows will happen but God can modify for our best interest.

 

What you have written is imprecise.  Something which "will happen" cannot be modified.  Something which "might happen" can be modified.

[8thdaypriest]

ABOUT THE WHOLE TIME THING, AND WHAT GOD "KNOWS" OR "SEES" :

Matthew 24:36  "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only."

First: I would point out that even the Holy Spirit did not "know", which suggest the Spirit either is NOT a divine being, OR if He is a Being, that He does not "know" what the Father knows. 

Second:  If the Father already "knew" the day and even the hour WHEN "heaven and earth" would "pass away" - that brings up a question.  Does this age END because the Father suddenly yells "Times up", OR does it END because of circumstances which come to exist on this earth - in the hearts of men.  The circumstance would be, that every witness for the truth is silenced, and no more people can be saved by hearing the truth.  

If it's just "times up", then maybe God just "knows" when the big asteroid will slam into earth, knocking it "out of its place". 

Pnatt,

I'm not totally against your logic, I'm just trying to understand the "how" of God's "knowing". 

According to the prophecies, Jesus would be born of David's line, through Solomon, but NOT of Jehoiachin's line. 

According to the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 22:28-30) no descendent of Jehoiachin would ever prosper “reigning on David’s throne.”  

    The Messiah must be born to a virgin descendant of David, not descended from Jehoiachin, who must marry (before the birth of her son) a man descended from David’s royal line through Solomon (to give her son a legal claim to the throne of David).  God didn't have too many choices - existent in Judea, at the time Christ was to be born - much less righteous ones.