Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Upvote
0
The Reality of Free Will
- By childeye 2
- Christian Scriptures
- 150 Replies
If you mean to describe the act of stealing from a bank, I will acknowledge the act denotes a person who wants money and is willing to break the law to get it. I would not think they want to break the law, but rather they wanted the money and breaking the law was a means to that end.
I can't agree because I don't actually know. There also could be a deficiency of experiential knowledge so that it allowed Adam to be persuaded or misled.
When we work off the premise that it's wrong to disobey God, it concludes with all certainty that Adam's choice/decision was wrong. So, since we're looking at two male and female images of God, without fault in a state of innocence; then as a matter of grace, it's safer for me to say that Adam didn't know what he was doing, than to say he did.
Not willfully as in an intention to cause harm. There could exist that deviation in your paraphrase.
Scripture denotes Adam was put in a situation where he had to choose who to believe, God or Eve. Whether he willfully disobeyed would be contingent on his motive at the time. If the woman ate first and she did not die, but rather had her eyes opened, she could have been persuading Adam through questioning his reasoning to trust God, while seeing her alive and possibly telling him her eyes were opened. I don't know. He may have been focused on questioning his self and he ate to see if he was wrong, rather than he ate because he distrusted God.
So, I typically express that I think he ate reluctantly as if he were unsure about himself. But I don't know, so I go with grace.
I've said this and gave supporting evidence from scripture many times, that the scriptures do NOT denote that Adam was not deceived. You're referring to 1 Timothy 2:14 where Paul is expressing that Eve was the one deceived, not Adam. Of course, we know this would be true simply because the serpent is not depicted as speaking with Adam. Subsequently, we don't actually know if Adam would have fallen victim to the crafty and subtle beguiling of the serpent as Eve did. We only know he hearkened to the woman who was deceived which he most likely didn't know, which denotes that she talked with him, he listened, and he ended up eating.
I'm not disagreeing that Adam knew what God told him. I feel the need to say that just in case you may be equating --> Adam knew what he is doing --> with -->Adam knew God said not to eat --> therefore Adam was not deceived.
.
Like I have already said when we speculate that Adam knew what he was doing when disobeying God, it suggests he either wanted to die, or he was second guessing himself, or he may have misunderstood God, or Adam thought God was not truthful or something not yet thought of.
You're relying on a mischaracterization of Paul's intent in 1 Timothy 2:14 to claim Adam knew what he was doing. If that were the case, then Paul would be asserting a contradiction that the woman who had to be deceived into eating, should follow the man who willfully and knowingly rejected God as untrustworthy.
It's not extreme. There are prominent theologians like Aquinas that have written about the possibility that Adam ate because he didn't want to live without Eve.
It isn't that extreme. By the way, WE are speculating precisely because we don't know. The syntax in Genesis 3 denotes God expressing that Adam hearkened to the woman and therefore the implicature limits the speculation to the exchange between Eve and Adam that was followed by Adam eating. We don't know what that exchange was, but God's judgment suggests that Adam would not have eaten if he had not listened to the woman.
The extreme speculation is actually the one alluding to Adam knowing that God was not being truthful. That claim is that Adam was not misled by believing the woman who was deceived, but that Adam knew exactly what he was doing when he disobeyed God and began to die. And subsequently, it is said that Adam is seen blaming Eve. As I see it, that's all a mischaracterization of the events because God Himself verifies both Adam's and Eve's account that she was beguiled, and in a state of being beguiled, and that she persuaded her husband into eating the fruit.
I can agree we are speculating about what exactly happened when Adam was listening to Eve, and I can agree with the descriptions of the terms willful act and deceived.
This is not accurate. If they mean Adam knew God is a liar, then I don't believe that. If they mean he knew that God commanded him not to eat, then I would not disagree.
It's right here Genesis 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;
The syntactic markers of God's judgment in Genesis 3:17 show Adam believing Eve's persuasion over and against God's command. Hence it was a circumstance where Adam had to make a choice of who to believe.
The unwanted circumstance implies an antecedent event he did not volunteer for. The phrase "listened to" in Genesis 3:17 denotes that Adam was persuaded by his wife and he ate.
Adam and Eve are shown to be believing God right up until the serpent enters the picture and the serpent is notably described as crafty and subtle. God Himself acknowledges the account that the serpent initiated the chain of events through introducing a lie presented to two male female images of God, both pure without fault in a state of innocence. The lie was slander against God, and it was delivered through subtlety.
God specifically told Adam Not to eat. Obviously, when I say Adam was forced to choose who to believe, it acknowledges that. None of these scriptures say Adam willfully disobeyed God.
Simple, since Adam didn't eat of it before the incident with the serpent and Eve, it infers he was believing that God was protecting them from a fruit that would bring death to him and his wife. If he deliberately wanted to disobey God and eat, he would have already done so. It's like a judge will use one's record to show a pattern or an isolated incident.Pardon me?
Please explain how the fact that Adan did not eat the fruit, prior, impress on your mind that Adam did not deliberately or willingly eat the fruit.
By "one's own accord" implies by "one's own initiative". The actual initiative is God's Love based command to obey. Human initiative is typically considered a responsive disposition, not the origin. I do know that Adam's disposition obeyed God right up until the incident with the serpent and Eve.
Then I will say no and the reason why is because there are scriptures that denote God had a plan from the beginning such as “The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. Such scriptures show God’s plan of salvation was set before Adam’s fall and subsequently they indicate Adam could not have altered the events.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Profane to Divine: Does God Drag You Through the Church Doors—or Do You Drag Your Feet?
- General Theology
- 15 Replies
I accidently deleted my original post, not sure how I did that, so I may be more brief on this one.
I appreciate the warm welcome, and agree we need to treasure the Lords day as a holy convocation, but we need to honor the one God said so, no? isn’t that the whole point? I would think it would be the only one God claimed in His own words as My holy day, the holy day of the Lord, meaning there’s just one Isa8:13 and told us to keep holy on a weekly basis Exo20:8-11 Lev 23:3, the only day God sanctified in the entire Bible, as far as I know man can’t sanctify a day or sanctify themselves Isa 66:17 only God can to do this and both of these are only linked to God’s Sabbath Eze20:12 Gen2:3 Exo20:11
Yes the Scriptures and pattern through Jesus and apotles are very plain. I do not think its wise to take this clear pattern and change it to a different day it loses all its value because it becomes a man-made tradition over a commandment of God, coming with His power and sanctification. Something Paul warned about in the same passage you quoted Col2:8
Can you tell me how our Creator and Sanctifier could ever be a shadow of anything? Is the Creator not the Subtance? Sorry this argument doesn't make sense.
Yes, He did. He rested on the seventh day, rose and went back to His Fathers work on the first day. Can you point to the verse that says because He rose on the first day, we no longer need to keep the Sabbath commandment but keep Sunday instead?
His faithful disciples who followed Jesus everywhere kept the Sabbath after His death according to the commandment Luke23:56 they were the first ones to see Jesus after He rose, had there been a change to one of His commandments why would He not tell them or anyone. An argument from silence over the plain written and spoken Word of God does not seem like a good idea to me.
This was an annual feast and there is no Scripture that says Pentecost was on the first day, it could have fallen on any day.
They broke bread daily Acts 2:46 and 1Cor16:2 was not a church offering, it was a one time at home collection to help the needy. Neither of these verses say anything about transferring the 4th commandment to the first day. That would be something only God could do, He already promised in His word He would not Psa89:34 Mat5:18-19
I know this is the go to verse everyone uses to get rid of the 4th commandment but with this serious of warning of Paul’s writing doesn’t it deserve more than just a surface read if we are going to use it against the Testimony of God. Exo 31:18
2 Peter 3: 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
Lets bring in some more context
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Paul is speaking about something that was handwritten and was against and contrary to us.
The weekly Sabbath was written by the finger of God along with the other 9 commandments Deut4:13 Exo31:18 and God singled out the Sabbath in this unit as the one being holy and blessed by God and points to Him as our Creator. Exo20:11 And the God we are to worship in the very three commandments. What God blessed man can’t reverse Numbers 23:20 we would need a thus saith the Lord to get rid of the 4th commandment. God said He would not alter His words Psa89:34 not a jot or tittle Mat5:18-19. Would Paul really be teaching against God? I do not think so… this is what Paul was quoting
2 Cor 33:8 and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers—only if they are careful to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.”
God wrote the Ten Commandments which included the Sabbath commandment, its under His mercy seat, was written by the Holy Spirit of Truth, man cannot edit this as there is no one greater than He. Moses hand wrote all the other laws that included the animal sacrifices, annual feast days, that some were also annual sabbaths that had to do with food and drink offerings the context of this passage and was placed besides the ark there as a witness against Deuteronomy 31:24-26 so clearly this is what Paul is quoting and the shadow he was pointing to Heb10:1-10 Heb9:10-15.
The weekly Sabbath started at Creation Exo20:11 when God made everything according to His perfect plan, before a need of a plan of salvation so its not a shadow of anything, it points to our Creator, Exo20:11 our Sanctifier Eze20:11 and the God we are to worship Rev 14:7
Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man Mark2:27- what God made for man is not against man, so this teaching that it’s about God’s Sabbath is really an attack on the character of God.
Jesus in His own words said the Sabbath would be kept up to His Second Coming Mat24:20 and for eternity Isa66:23 so obviously Col 2:16 cannot be about God’s holy Sabbath day. Again as we see in the life of the apostles keeping every Sabbath with both Jews and Gentiles just as Jesus said Isa56:6-7 decades after the Cross.
There is no first day pattern in all of Scripture. The apotles did things daily, doesn’t mean it starts deleting the commandments of God.
Please re-read the Biblical pattern with plain Scriptures provided to you in the post you are replying to. This is God’s will, not doing something different. Making a common day as a holy day never worked out before for anyone Eze22:26. I do not think it will again.
PS: Jason in Japan, I love Japan, only went there once, loved it, hope I can go back again once day soon.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Young earth vs Old earth?
- By Job 33:6
- Theistic Evolution
- 93 Replies
I understand that the word "make" is used as an English translation. But again, the Hebrew word in Ezekiel 21:19 is "bara" which is the same word in Genesis 1:1. I'm not eisegeting anything, I'm exegeting out of the Hebrew text. And English translations vary, but the Hebrew is what the text actually is written in, and thus it is more authoritative than translations. We aren't debating english translations, (which vary widely) we are debating the hebrew word bara and its usage.However, dust had no immortal soul. The creative act is God breathing life into lifeless matter. You'll note that the website's facility of providing biblical references with the corresponding text does not support your claim:
The website's text facility:
19 “And son of man, appoint for yourself two ways for the sword of the king of Babylon to go; both of them shall go from the same land. Make a sign; put it at the head of the road to the city.
I am not a YEC and so have no position to defend. However, I think your exegesis may have a bit more of eisgesis in it that one should avoid.
[Psalm 51] A lament, the most famous of the seven Penitential Psalms, prays for the removal of the personal and social disorders that sin has brought. The poem has two parts of approximately equal length: Ps 51:3–10 and Ps 51:11–19, and a conclusion in Ps 51:20–21. The two parts interlock by repetition of “blot out” in the first verse of each section (Ps 51:3, 11), of “wash (away)”.
Psalms, PSALM 51
Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.bible.usccb.org
I submit that "removal", "blot out" and "wash away" are not creative acts but remedial as in correcting or improving something that has gone wrong (reforming).
In Ezekiel 21:19, Ezekiel is instructed to bara a sign post. A human being is the subject of the verb and he will create the stop sign. He will bara it. And Ezekiel obviously isnt making a sign appear out of thin air. He is using pre existing material.
And regarding Adam, again, nothing material comes into existence. The dust of the ground is already there before God creates Adam.
And I can repeat this all day until people come to terms with the reality of the old testament. Nothing material is coming into existence. And I can give dozens of examples throughout the old testament if I need to.
Again, the point here is that nothing material is coming into existence.
1 Samuel 2:29 is another example:
1 Samuel 2:29 NASB2020
[29] Why are you showing contempt for My sacrifice and My offering which I have commanded for My dwelling, and why are you honoring your sons above Me, by making yourselves fat with the choicest of every offering of My people Israel?’
The Hebrew word in this verse is "bara" to create. The passage is saying, "creating yourselves fat".
Again, it's not about material origins. It's about getting fat. And anyone who does a word study on bara can plainly see this. It's just a fact of the text. God baras objects, people bara objects too. God creates. So do people. And never, in the old testament does it mean ex nihilo creation.
New testament authors describe ex nihilo creation of a later Greco roman context. But you'll never find this concept of ex nihilo creation in the old testament.
Again, the point here is that nothing material is coming into existence. In all of the instances of bara throughout the old testament, this is consistently true. The physical material is already there.
Upvote
0
