Are you a Calvinist? Believe some things are preordained?

I am much more so than when I was younger.

At the center of our Solar system is a giant ball of gas one million times the size of the earth thats on fire.

Although I lean more toward Hobbes, I am in the same boat as you.

Superstition. Does it mean you are not responsible for your actions?

I understand John. Speaking of boats. Sorry about standing you up as to fishing. It was cold. too cold to enjoy being on water.

Maybe that was preordained?

It probably was. No worries about it from this end. I had some "grandpa and grandma needed to tend to grandsons" while you were gone.

Must confess to not knowing much about it.....John Calvi was not a name I gave much thought to till just recently. I'm reading "A Column of Fire" by Ken Follet, and it's all about the struggle between Catholics and Protestants in England and France. Fascinating book, really enjoying it. I knew there was a significant conflict between the two sides,but I never knew just how violent and brutal it really got. Kinda puts things in perspective a bit, when people complain about how bad things are and how we must surely now be in the "end times"....we really haven't seen schitt compared to what has happened before.

Yes

A feller makes his own luck.

At a low point in my life a minister told me to read Romans 8-28

Excellent thoughts - what always appalls me is how "normal" people in the past condoned so much pure brutality as completely natural.

Catholics have tried to destroy anyone who believed in the Bible but not the Pope. This is why the Catholic church made having a bible, if not clergy or royalty, a death penalty. The Pope could say and do anything he wanted to do or say, whether it was sanctioned by scripture or not. And the Popes over the years have put the demons to shame with their crimes. And it continues to this day.

The NY Times and CNN do some space alien nuttery news of Trump being an alien.

Inshallah, for some. Some do make their own luck but Schidt does happen. A persons health and that of their loved ones seems to be the divine crapshoot.


mike r

Modified. Not even Calvin was a total Calvinist in the end. As it is I don’t pretend to know as much as I thought I did at one time. Also don’t take myself as serious as I used to.

Myth. Every Catholic doctrine, every Catholic teaching, is rooted in the Bible. Always had a bible, nobody's threatened to kill me yet.

Not even here on the 'fire?!

I think I was preordained to spend my my entire life waiting at stoplights.

He's not talking modern times when he says having a Bible was forbidden. You believe that everything the Catholic church ever did was rooted in the Bible?

People seem to be more tolerant of heretics these days.

and Hobbist............................ yes.

Mere randomness says I.

Perhaps our own member Calvin will opine.

Paul is supposedly the author of Romans. I avoid Paul, he subverted Jesus' teaching. Like most perjurers he mixes his falsity in with enough truth to make it seem plausible. As to Calvin, he too believed in killing people who dared disagree. Check out the fate of Dr. Michael Servetus.

Not necessarily telling or definitive. As in nature, from some very well understood and supposedly sound roots we have seen grow some very uncharacteristic offshoots.

I am surprised to hear anyone say that about the apostle Paul.

You'll get that sometimes. I believe Paul's books are valuable for a better understanding of the Gospels.

Without Paul, the New Testament would be much shorter.

Interesting thought. Catholicism is the root stock, the 36,000 Protestant denominations are the offshoots (including Calvinism).

I have read a few sermons out this book. One of my keepers.

If youre going to read something, read something good.

Hell with that john greasham old man soap opera BS.

Pass. It’s hunting season.

That's your perspective. Mine is Protestantism goes back to Christianity before Constantine and the Catholic church. Catholicism began with Constantine and both materially deviated from the faith by creating an institution not founded in Christ, but in the Pope. Jesus wanted no institutions and hierarchies, but personal relationships between Him and the believer.

Catholicism goes back to before the crucifixion (as in "Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.") In fact that's the big complaint by Protestants. Sola scriptura. The Church considers the traditions of the time Jesus walked the earth and early practices of the apostles. There were sects with weird ideas but you know that was bound to happen.

Nope the council of Trent signaled Roman Catholicism's rejection of the Gospel in favor of its own entrenched interests and traditions over against the Bible and the holy catholic (little-c) faith.

Protestants didn’t leave Rome; Rome left Protestants.




Historic expressions of Protestantism embrace tradition just not as equal to Scripture. Keep in mind the historical context of Luther & Calvin’s “Sola Scriptura”; the militant individualism of post-enlightenment Evangelicalism wasn’t anywhere near their frame of reference.

More generally related to the OP remember that what we think of as the five points of Calvinism aren’t. They’re technically the 5 COUNTER points made by Calvinists against the Remonstrants in the Dutch churches who were Arminians. Calvinism is much broader than those 5 points, but the Synod of Dort is where they were hammered out.

**Where exactly does the Bible say anything about a man speaking infallibly?

Not now but in the MIddle ages, it was a death sentence for a layman to be caught with a Bible.
In the European wars between Catholics and Protestants, it was all about power. The leaders on neither side were Christians. Just look at what they did. Their actions were in contrast to everything the Bible teaches. If it wasn't for God preserving his word, and that wasn't through the church leaderships, Christianity would have been destroyed by both sides.

I disagree, but that's ok.


The short answer is Matthew 16:19

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

If interesting in thought - good - but I had not thought of or at all intended that Roman Catholicism be seen or conjured as any such root stock. Protestant denominations are not offshoots from, nor were they nurtured by, Roman Catholicism.

if push came to shove i'm kinda sure i could deal w/3 Point Calvinism if not 5 Point Calvinism.

but, who knows? and does it really matter?

Calvinism is not for everyone.

Calvin's Institutes should be read by every serious scriptural Christian. One of the top 10 most impactful books in the history of the world.

Even my good friend John Wesley quoted him directly concerning imputed righteousness.

Nonetheless....

I was predestined to be an Arminian.

I used to lean heavily in the direction of Calvin. He leaned strongly on Augustine. An argument made against Calvin is that he followed Augustine in applying Neo-Platonic reasoning to the idea of predestination. In doing so he introduced error.

Luther stands in contrast by working hard to accept scriptural tension as they are presented. His argument was that he would not use reason to explain away tensions but let them stand. Calvin tended to apply reason run to conclusions that were a bit questionable. If God is God it may be better to let tensions stand and not try to explain those tensions in a way that satisfies the human mind.

Some might argue that both are fiction.


mike r

I had a philosophy professor who was a Catholic Priest. He told me that if I was looking for the truth, I should read more fiction.

Augustine is quoted by Calvin on nearly every other page of the Institutes.
I like Luther very much.

I don't really see how figuring out how old a religion is makes it any more valid. People had crazy ideas way back when too, and a crazy old idea is no better than a crazy new one. I think it's pretty fair to say that back in the day, they were all prone to taking things to the extreme when it came to their religious beliefs, at least for the more popular ones.

The way I heard it there was the Church. Then Martin Luther split off with his theses. Then it all got confusing with no authority to define the true interpretation, scripture meant what you wanted it to mean. So there are 36,000, more or less, conflicting interpretations.

Just because the Catholic Church claimed authority to interpreter scripture at the point of the sword, doesn't make it "the true interpretation"....

So what do you think Matthew 16:19 means? Seems pretty straight forward to me. Point of a sword? Knights of Columbus have their commodore hats and sabers but that's ceremonial.

I don't understand any of this predestination stuff. Metaphysically predestination requires the concept of time. But metaphysically since God made the universe, including time, He cannot be subject to time. Time is irrelevant to Him. (But do we really want to go down this rabbit hole again?)

According to that verse, is it your position that everything the Catholic church has done through the ages was right as good? If not, why not?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I believe every damn bit of this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nope. Calvin was a lowya and about as fuct up as a football bat. We have free-will. That is one of our unique gifts from God and our fates are determined on whether we choose wisely or not. Calvinism's pre-ordaination is heretical and runs counter to the free-will concept.

Even Judas could have been forgiven had he chosen to be and asked. He was given the opportunity.

That's right, if in a low point, kick off whatever is on you, stand up and walk right up out of that hole.

Uhhhm..........not quite. The church of Rome rebelled from the original church founded by Christ and documented in The Acts. They became a politcal player in the west rather than a church

I was always surprised that he didn't go on for his doctorate(s) with dissertation(s).

Yes, and I don't apologize for it.

If Unconditional election and Irresistible Grace are true, then WHY do Calvinists evangelize? If you can't choose or reject, then whats the point?

Just asking

There are verses that support both positions, but given the proposition that God (assuming existence) is omniscient and has perfect knowledge of the end from the beginning, no deviation from that End/Grand Plan is possible, hence all events must necessarily proceed toward that end.

When the pope is speaking ex cathedra, with his full authority, on doctrinal matters, yes. Not if he picks a trifecta at the track. The verse makes no sense if applied to non-doctrinal matters, matters not between heaven and earth, God and man.

You mean they rejected Peter and his successors? News to me.

The apostles chose Matthias as the 13th apostle to replace Judas. Christ chose Saul/Paul. Why is that?

I knew I shouldn't be casting pearls here.

Yes and I believe all things are preordained by a sovereign God.

When you read Romans 8:28, you need to read 8:29 with it. That will give you your answer about pre-destination.

We are commanded to sow the seed (Matthew 28:16-20). It's up to God if that seed falls on good ground or not.(Matthew 13:1:23)



That's funny, right there!

The Son was pre-destined to be the sacrificial lamb, Judas to betray , Peter to deny thrice.

lest you believe it was all by happenstance.




irrelevant to him?...God has a purpose for time and anything he has made He saw that it was good.


is God entirely beyond time, or is it that he extends beyond our limted time of existence and has time/duration perspective way beyond mans?

'from of old' refers to a particular point or period in time?

Psalm 93:2
"Your throne is established from of old you are from everlasting"

2 Peter 3:8
"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Genesis has God making a variety of things, but no mention of Him making time.

Because creation means going from non-existence to existence, then we have a before and after through a sequence of events.
...A before and after sequence requires time... Time therefore could be said to be a precondition of creating.

The best way to belong to any denomination is to only read the parts of the Bible they want you to. Reading any other parts will just cause you to ask questions.

Discussion of free will is interesting. It seems that the idea is one of free moral agency. Since men are men and God is God we are talking about a pretty high bar when it comes to free moral agency. The nice thing is that we can test our free moral agency. Christ taught that we commit adultry in our heart when we look at a woman and lust. We murder someone when we hate them. His teaching doesn’t seem to indicate an ongoing lust or hate but a single action. That’s the high bar.

To test out free moral agency we can take the two examples that Christ gave and see how far we can make it through the day before we screw up. To test out ability not to contemplate hatred toward someone we can observer ourselves in traffic, while watching the evening news or while reading the fire. To test our ability not to lust we could peruse the pages of the 223 a i thread in the miscellaneous forum. The guy that doesn’t hate and the guy that doesn’t lust is truly a free moral agent.

I’ve already failed one of those today in confirming that the 223 a i thread was the proper thread to reference.

I would venture that Hananiah and Pelatiah would disagree with you!

You just ripped to shreds a straw man of Calvinism very nicely; the issue is much more complicated than determinism vs free will. I as a Calvinist recognize God’s sovereignty in election and man’s free will.

Calvin would agree with your last line completely.

Very well said sir; you make the point beautifully.

I am not a five point Calvinist but believe most of his theology. I didn't come to this believe through study, but through my own experience and experiences I've witnessed. Take the Campfire for example. You will not change the minds of one person in this thread. It won't happen, ever. You're wasting your time. Obviously they have "free will" to change their mind, but it won't happen. There is only one way a person's mind gets changed. Those who he foreknew he also predestined to be confirmed to the image of his Son in order that he might be the first born among many brothers. Those whom he predestined he also called, those whom he call called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Luther and Calvin rely on Paul and disregard Jesus whom Paul contradicts. Jesus in Revelations commended the church at Ephesus in Asia for giving Paul the boot. Paul verified his situation in Asia in 2nd Timothy. Jesus' brother James wrote his contribution to the bible in opposition to Paul. While I believe salvation is gained by the grace of a merciful creator I'm going to accept Jesus and John the Baptist who preached salvation through repentance. And John told some outwardly religious leaders who came to him "bear fruits that befit repentance". Those fruits are works and deeds, not just professed faith.

Lust test?
Where can I find this, again?

Good stuff. People try and make this God thing really hard.
It's not.
You will probably receive a pm from a concerned member though....
if you haven't already.
It's kinda fun, though.


Good day, fellers.

I feel blessed that I dont have a clue what is being argued here.

Truly blessed.

This has been interesting to say the least. I commend all for staying on the high road as we should.
I am a simple man. and some of the discussion is over my head, but that's good, how else can a person learn.

Not to claim to be any kind of authority on the topic, I'll just put out the notion that being predestined, and still a free agent can coexist. Perhaps it is a matter of passing a test of sorts? Test may not be quite right, maybe trial is better?

Thanks good folks.

Well done Clint. God isn't going to force anyone to love, accept, or follow Him.

That is for every person who believes, but certainly does not speak to infallibility. There is only One infallible, and His name is Jesus.

Check out the 5 Calvinistic points, TULIP, on line.

I don't think many Presbyterians or Calvinists are full bore 5 point TULIP advocates. To me some of that theology is a cop out. Just because the Lord may know our ultimate decision, it doesn't take away from the fact we had the freedom and option to decide. It's hard to wrap ones head around infinity and omnipotence.

Arminianism is the antithesis of Calvinism. Check that one out, too.

The P in TULIP is preservation of the saints, or once saved, always saved, a popular Baptist position. The Arminian position is one can be saved and fall from grace, Methodists, etc.

DF

Some do. And they will spend eternity vehemently regretting it.

If you watch a movie a second time are you influencing the movie?

Or get kicked out.

Lol. If you had said “SOOO BLESSED” I’d have though you’d been handing out on Facebook too much!

. . . and it was at this point in my Presbyterian upbringing that I stopped wanting to be a Presbyterian.

Look, I don't mind the idea of an Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent God. That's cool. Also, I can figure that God's got a sneaking suspicion whether or not I'm going Hell-- probably the same way I can tell that my sons ain't gonna be brain surgeons-- a father knows these things. However, if I cannot commit willful apostasy and get myself thrown into the Pit, what's the point? There's got to be Free Will in all this, or else life is freaking meaningless. We have no reason for continued Existence. God is at best apathetic and at worst a Sadist. I won't buy it.

No, I believe that God wants us to make the right choices. He does everything he can to help us. He accepts everyone that seeks Him. He can be pleasantly surprised when we surpass His expectations, and he grieves for us when we screw up. I believe that Faust's only unredeemable mistake was he believed he was unredeemable and refused forgiveness.

I left the Presbyterians at an age before I learned to drive and I have not been back. My parents quit over the Angela Davis dust-up. I stopped, because the Preby's always seemed to think they were among the Elect and somehow you weren't. Growing up in a neighborhood that all went to the same Presby church in an age before air conditioning-- at a time when folks left their windows open on hot summer nights-- I can tell you some of those self-supposed "Elect" ain't. When we moved to a predominantly Catholic neighborhood, folks were far less judgemental.

I also think the Presby's-- at least some of them-- were highly hypocritical. We quietly stopped going to the Presbyterian Church, because they'd thrown in with Angela Davis. We then shortly moved to a new house about 5 miles away. Those Presbyterians sent carloads of folks to our house over 3 years trying to get us to come back. We just stopped answering the front door after dinner for a few years. Look, if I'm a freaking apostate that's run away from the church, and there's this whole double-predestination thing, why send people out to drag you back? I mean it should be obvious to one of the Elect that we were unsaved heathens, but they wanted us back. Most importantly they wanted to know what we were going to do about our pledges. The last batch that came to the house saw me out in the street and asked about us. They obviously didn't recognize me. I recognized them right away.

"No, those people are strange," I replied. "They ain't like you and me-- if you know what I mean." That was the last carload I saw come down the street. We tried another Presby church close by, and didn't have much better luck, so we finally started going to the Methodists.

ya!


5 point (TULIP)

with supralapsarian leanings!


ya!


GWB

Nice dodge meaning you can't explain your position.

John 3:16 is pretty much the Gospel in a nutshell. And “whosoever” means just that.

Don't ya just love religious discussions here on the Fire...

DF

So how do we define time? In science it's in terms of events we can observe. An event is observed "some time" after the causal event occurs. Pull a trigger, a bullet comes out a fraction of a second later. So for us to perceive time there must be a physical reality. So time is an artifact of our reality, creation. God created physical reality which is necessary for us to perceive time yet He existed "before" creation, when there was no time. And since He created time he is not controlled by time, He could un-create it (and our physical reality) if He wished.

More in line with the OP predestination requires a before and after, a pre- and a destination. Time. Since God is exempt from time I don't understand how predestination can relate to God.

To make the assertion that we go from nonexistence to existence requires the presupposition that time exists, It is not an argument that time exists outside our reality.

This is very difficult to wrap your head around because everything we've ever experienced is intimately tied to time. We have no real concept of not-time. Now try to explain this concept to an audience in biblical times. You can't so biblical concepts are cast in terms of our physical reality (and so time) not because that's the way things are but it's the only way to get the point across.

Time is temporal. There is no time in Eternity.

When Moses asked his Name, God's reply, "I AM". Present tense, no reference to past or future tense, both functions of time, just "I AM"...

And, can we comprehend Eternity or infinity from a temporal platform...?

No, we can't...

DF

Really? Have you forgotten the end of the story?

Phil 2:9 God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The most difference between those who believe in election and those who don't is that those who believe man plays a role place way more confidence in man than I do. I totally believe in the "T" total depravity. Man is dead and at enmity with God. All good comes from God. I am cable of nothing good without God. God gets all the glory. I get nothing. I deserve nothing. I am a sorry POS

the whole predestination/free choice thingy is deeper and deeper as one drills down.

western education thought and philosophy has sold us a real bill of goods, for better or for worse.

true, we should be able to perceive on our own, whether to take the left road or the right road at the forks.

most of us can do that, at least most of the time. sometimes we know where we're headed, other times we're exploring.

we believe we were born here without our own choice. (Dr. Paul Johnson, renowned psychologist begs to differ on that point).

anyways, we were all, and i mean all born into time and space at a particular location and point in time. either with or without choice.

we're americans, not of hindu (india) descent, not chinese, not africans, not borne in the swamps of south america near the amazon river.

we attended our closest elementary school, high school, and then chose a college or not, based upon capability or ability to pay the tuition.

so we had choices, but not fully free choice. we were very limited in fact. we had many choices handed to us that we would have never chosen.

but, we can choose whether to buy crisco, or margarine. or corn flakes or rice krispies. but, if our souls belong to god, we're here at his bequest.

You mean the Peter that after Jesus said "on this rock I shall build my church", and then turned around and called him Satan? That Peter?

God is no respecter of persons. We should all know that, even when it may not be comfortable.

Peter was blessed with the revelation from God that Jesus was the Messiah. Every person that so believes the same thing is also blessed. And every person so blessed is the rock Jesus will build His church on.

In this present darkness, there are many discouraged catholics embarrassed by their church and it's leaders for many reasons, not the least of which are the priest molestations. The present pope admitted recently, there is corruption in Rome, but also that he was ok with that. Those discouraged catholics may very well be saved. Those proud of the present catholic church may face a bridge too far.

The Lord never wanted a huge hierarchical church. But as ruler of Rome, Constantine did. And then so did every succeeding "pope", because power is not only corrupting, but also addictive.

I believe he meant, "in this life". Considering that, you are both right.

God made time for us, not Him.

God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.’

I can comprehend that I will comprehend. That suffices.

If, as you say, GOD is not bound by time.....

Is HE bound by, to, anything???

His word. He takes His covenants pretty seriously.

I know the end of the story very well. God will not force anyone to love or accept him. There will be a day when those naysayers will be forced to acknowledge who He is, for sure, and they will face judgement for their choices.

Sure. Truth, love and justice.

Is HE bound by HIS word???

Let me give a couple thoughts, not arguments.


So Jesus seems confused, Peter is good or Peter is bad. A principle of interpretation is that scripture must be internally consistent. Perhaps it's a rebuke, as in you're so wrong that's what satan would have you believe.


The Church, run on Earth by people, has always had corrupt elements and always will, but the gates of hell will not prevail against it. This guy Francis is not articulate. I think he meant to say there are corrupt elements in the Church and he accepts that there are. NOT that he approves of it. You have to accept that corruption exists before you can remedy it.


Well he did have a hierarchy of 12, one above the other 11. And those 11 had people in charge of distant communities. So what were those epistles about if not giving instruction to deacons? And the 12 were instructed to evangelize all which caused the Jews no end of consternation. They thought the Messiah was to establish an earthly kingdom and put the chosen people above all others. Jesus popped that pretty little bubble, salvation is for all of humanity. And obviously a big organization is needed to get the word out.

People out of avarice, as is the wont of humanity, bent the Church bureaucracy to corruption to some degree from time to time. we've had some rotten popes. But, as Jesus promised, it's still there and still doctrinally pure. All the power and wealth is in the bureaucracy so that's where corruption lies, not in doctrine. The gates of hell have not prevailed against it.

I'd state that a little differently. God cannot be bound by truth, love and justice. Or anything else. He IS truth, love and justice. (And infinite in mercy else we're all screwed.)

if it's happening, it's because of the hand of god.

of course it could be by evolution according to some.

if so, the games wild, the tables are open, and the game is on.

god either is sovereign and saves whomever he so chooses, or not.

the arguments get deep and run deeper very quickly. but god is god.

i would probably just hate to believe some folks could be lucky, or do things by default,

or say things (even believe things) that turned out to give them salvation by default.

to attempt to wrap strings, ropes, or doctrines around a sovereign god could be treacherous?

Yes He is. He started the ball rolling. And what will screw with your mind is wondering if he still takes a hand in the game. Something wonderful and highly unlikely happens (perhaps evolution). Divine intervention or statistically a lotto win? Does anybody really know? How could anybody tell?

There are confirmed miracles but the confirmation is a total lack of scientific explanation. That does not foreclose the condition that a scientific explanation will not be available in the future.

what a few think, (maybe more than a few?), is that god (creator) is slowly working with humans to turn the advancement of the human condition on urth over to the humans.

in the beginning god created, and started the biology/consciousness/machine into motion. add-on all kinds of speculations, and suppositions.

but over time, humans learned how to farm, treat disease, follow the astronomical processions, govern themselves (at least sort of), and develop technology.

it's a god-human cooperative venture.

over time the plan? if there is one, is to continue to turn the management of the Urth over more and more to the humans. (how are we doing so far?)

so, it's a co-creation process. one could rightfully assume that at some point (in the far, far future?), the Earthlings would become responsible for their own dominion?

they'd have to have and possess free will for that to occur, right. or not?

His Word is Truth.

so, the the People are in God's hands,

or

they're running on free will,

or

it's in the hands of a partnership between God & the People.

do we want to do things with God or make it on our own, without God.

since god is our creator, is it even possible to engage in things he hasn't ordained?

i would just hate if god put me here, and at the end of the day he told me i didn't do my job.

well, God, just what in the hell job would that have been, pray tell? i only have one vote, and i do vote.

Gus, gotta disagree with that, (your post before your last one)just a little. I see a division of labor, God handles the supernatural stuff and leaves the drudge work for us. (being a bit facetious, God has a sense of humor. Just Google Walmart People and look at all the funny looking people He made.) But yeah, it's a cooperative effort. If people would take the Gospel (Or any other moral guide) as an instruction book and actually follow it urth would be a much nicer place.

IF we could actually agree on WHICH moral code and WHAT it means. No luck with the bible, something like 36,000 different interpretations.

i don't have much of a problem with god handling the supernatural stuff, and the lowly biological humans with a consciousness handling the mundane.

humans on earth, what a concept.

so, why do i have to believe stuff that many others do, and many others don't?

this borderline between the natural & the supernatural? how fine is the dividing line?

ol shakespeare loved theatre & drama. reckon his manuscripts are buried in oak island?

if god finally did hand off responsibility of life on earth to humans, could we handle it, maybe?

Why not? saw that show a couple times and they seemed to think everything else was buried there, and at the end of each episode only inches away.


Are you kidding? Have you seen the news? There are estimates that more people are persecuted for their faith today than ever before, for example. And a report that more people are being trafficked for sex and employment today than ever before including African slave days.

How are we handling it now? The worlds on fire, lacks of food, water, jobs, medicine, peace and love. People being killed over nothing. Children without parents, or hope. Those are the human accomplishments.

well, there it is. it's the way it is, with god himself in control. with god out of control (not in control), no tellin' what might happen next.

btw, i think those folks on oak island have found a way to make a good living sellin' entertainment about the oak island hole, or whatever it is.

Now don't go blaming God for this mess, the stars are still in the sky and water still runs downhill. Supernatural stuff still works. He even gave us road maps like the ten commandments or which ever moral guide you choose. Every civilization has at least one. We dunderheads choose to ignore the good advice making a mess of things.

is that mostly due to an imperfect design, or more to an imperfect implementation of the design?

i don't know, that's why i'm going out on a limb and asking.

There's a long answer to that. Short answer is it's due to the terrible and wonderful gift of free will. We can turn to our transcendent nature, a reflection of God (made in His image and likeness) or we can turn the other way and wallow in carnal desires. Some of us are into that to the point of being international criminals.

[/quote]
How are we handling it now? The worlds on fire, lacks of food, water, jobs, medicine, peace and love. People being killed over nothing. Children without parents, or hope. Those are the human accomplishments. [/quote]

Sure,there's plenty of negative if your want to look at it that way, but all in all things are pretty good for a whole lot of people. The world is not on fire, does not lack food, water isn't probably more available and better quality than at many times in the past, medicine had improved almost unbelievably, and there is plenty of peace and love out there if you are willing to acknowledge it. Many of out not too distant ancestors would have thought they'd died and gone to heaven if they could live in the peace and prosperity we live in now.

Exactly, so are we going to believe when the Word says 'soon'............

If we can disregard HIS Words regarding time, then we can disregard others also.

You have a point. If I had been born 50 years before I was I probably wouldn't have lasted a week.

If determinism is true, the ability to have chosen or done otherwise in any given instance in time does not exist because all events proceed as determined by conditions both in the external world and within the subjective mind of the decision maker.

That's about the dumbest thing I've read in a month.

You should have a look at this for some truth - https://www.amazon.com/Where-Bible-Debt-Catholic-Church/dp/0895557967

Some of ou guys are ate up on Jack Chick. :|

About as much as I believe that everything anybody you can mention did. But the Church more than all others.

It's one of the Top 10 stupidest ideas of all time. It directly conflicts with our reason for being.

Time is a rate of change....if God exists and has thoughts and actions, that is time.

Thanks good folks, interesting inputs.

Predestination... Yes... but not how most people understand it... God predetermined the people who would go to heaven... Being the people who believed, confessed, repented, were baptized and followed his commandments... not predetermining little Suzie, little Stevie (not individual people), not individuals but the individuals who followed his commands would go to heaven... God predetermined the plan, not the man

Just read the bible.....

Hebrews 2:9... 9 But we see Jesus, who was made [a]a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

Hebrews 9:12 ...12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Matthew 11:28 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

God Predetermined the plan... not the man....

The bible clearly states that God makes, amongst other things, 'vessels fitted for destruction.'

if it is clear... please give me book, chapter, verse... if you are referring to Romans 9:22 that is a common misuse of the verb tense there... and does not fit context of the passage or the Bible as well. Also how in the world would a God create a being and then say no, even if you want to be saved, you cannot since I have not chosen you...

the passages shown above clearly state Jesus died for all and that God wants all to be saved... 1 Timothy 2:3-4 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. SO either 1 Timothy 2:3-4 is a lie or the Bible COntridacts itself or the passages you refer to are not understood properly by you or taken out of context...

But follow this thought line.. if what you are trying to say is actually true (and in context that God makes people who he plans on sending to hell since he did not Choose them to be saved) then the Bible contradicts itself (which it does not)... and if you argue it does, then the bible is not God-Breathed and without error... and thus if the Bible is not without error and not God-breathed, it is no use to us as there is no way to know what if any is true.

We have free choice... if not, why would God want all of us to be saved (as he would know we could not be)... 1 Timothy 2:3-4

To post bits and pieces of scripture at the campfire is futile. There are very respected theologians on both sides of the predestination argument. Four of the five greatest theologians of all time take the position of predestination. Are they correct? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact that 4 of the 5 agree on it definitely means there's a possibility they are correct. That said, they could potentially be wrong, there are many great theologians who disagree. As for me, I'm basing my belief on my own personal experience and the experience of several close family and friends. We had zero to do with our salvation. To God we give ALL the glory.

There is no ''common misuse in the verb tense'' in Romans 9:22, the verse says what it says and the meaning is not only clear but relates to other verses that say the same thing, including that God is the Author of Evil.

There is no doubt as to the meaning of the verse:

''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory'' - Romans 9:21-23




Regardless of what some verses say, there are other verses that undeniably say other things, which leads to cherry picking some verses and ignoring those that are inconvenient....or claiming mistranslation or such things as ''common misuse in the verb tense.''




It doesn't matter what you choose to believe, there are undeniable verses that state God as the Author of Evil and strife:


"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4


"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11

Nor does 'evil' in this verse mean 'natural disaster' or calamity, it means 'Evil.'


"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

How's that? The way I learned it, about second grade was
6. Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.

The rest is Metaphysics 101. It is irrational to assert that one can be governed by what he creates. He may choose to subject himself to what he created but he may choose otherwise. Or simply destroy his creation. Predestination requires a pre- and a destination. Time.

The best grasp on predestination I can get is it's like reading a book and skipping ahead to the last chapter to see how it all ends. You've got that much but it doesn't say anything about how things got there.

How it got there is written in the pages being skipped over....a set of described events that do not alter one bit because they are being skipped over.

How would you know that if you don't look? A sort of Schrodinger's Cat paradox.

What is written in a book is not in Superposition.

Consider Romans 9:9-24. There is clear direction there that would indicate that God calls us and makes us as we are. The potter analogy with honourable and dishonourable vessels is very clear. We may think that we have free will, but do we really?

DBT, Sorta is, you don't know what it says unless you look. Could be any course of events you could imagine and more. So while God knows the outcome perhaps He leave open the choices that will lead to that outcome. So you have pre-knowledge which is not the same as predestination. (told you I didn't get it )

To believe in free will is to deny that God is sovereign over all things and to put His workings into our hands.

The trouble with this debate and many others is that we try to figure out God through our frail and limited human minds. We can never understand God fully. We may not agree with what He does, but who are we to disagree?

If we didn't have free will what would be the point? That would reduce God to the level of a kid playing with his toy soldiers.

Free will denies God nothing. In fact it glorifies him by giving people the choice of following Him or not. It is magnanimous, a great gift.

Different choices lead to different actions which lead to different outcomes, which means the world is a very different place....had someone decided to kill Hitler when he was rising to power, etc, etc....

And the objects and events of macro world exist whether you are there to observe, or not.

The definition of omniscience is perfect and complete knowledge, therefore there are no surprises.

Nor is human behaviour that hard to predict. To a Being capable of creating a universe, our behaviour would be no mystery.

I'm not a Calvinist but like you (much more so than when I was younger) tend to question whether people choose to be believers or whether God chooses them. Some people come to God out of the depths of hell on earth where in the natural course of things they should never have a chance. Others are raised in church by good Christian parents and should be a shoo in for salvation but utterly reject the Gospel and become God haters.

It makes one ponder.

It’s a difficult subject to navigate and one which has caused a lot of problems throughout the history of the church. Important issues tend to do so.

I agreed with the Calvinistic view of election for some years. However, it comes with its baggage. I’m learning that any theological view should be scrutinized by running it out to the end of reason. With Calvinism the natural end is to come to the idea of double predestination. Some are born to go to Hell and some to go to Heaven. Then we end up with the question of why Christ had to come and die if the choice was already made.

Romans 9 is used as the end all argument to address individual election. However, with in the context of the chapters that surround it a better understanding of that text is that the analogy of Esau and Jacob is speaking about the Gentiles and Jews rather than individual people. That makes better sense considering that Paul speaks about the two being made one, believing Jew and Gentile together being Spiritual Israel.

As I’ve studies Luther’s/Melancthon’s view it makes more sense. On election they leave scripture in its natural tension. Maybe this can best be seen by considering verses that say such things as God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. It is not God’s will that any should perish. All that (the Father) has given me will come to me. No man can come to me unless the Father draws him. These verses stand in tension with each other. I believe that we as humans err when we try to take some of the mysteries that surround the Gospel and insist on understanding them.

Again you anthropomorphize God. You can't comprehend infinity therefore use your limited information base to judge God.

It is actually very clear... you either believe the Bible is without error or you do not... you either believe the Bible contradicts itself or you do not... if it does, we should throw it away as it is truly not from God.... THe Bible clearly states that God wants all to be saved....

The only proper understanding of predestination that does not contradict what the bible says is.... God predetermined the plan of who would be saved... not the individual person.


People like Calvin had some serous misunderstandings... Another example is once saved aways saved.... Apostacy is clearly taught in the bible... THink of this... once saved always saved means you can get saved, then go do anytihng you want the rest of your life... and infact do not do what the Bible says... example.. do not follow Gods commands which we are called to do.... so to get around this, people who believe once saved always saved like to claim the people who do this were never saved... Read Hebrews 5&6

I believe the Bible contains lots of errors. It also contains lots of good stuff and truth. God would like us to be smart enough to tell the difference. Otherwise, why would there be thousands of different denominations, and different versions of the Bible, all of which disagree with each other in some aspects?

After all, God did not write the Bible or determine what should be in it. Nor did Jesus or even Paul or Peter. Some medieval Catholic bishops who lived 300 years after Jesus did, bishops who would probably be considered pretty ignorant today.

As for this predestination stuff, while I have not read all these posts, I think it is hooey. If you believe in it, why wouldn't Judas be considered a "good guy," doing just what God made him do, and without whom we could not have had the crucifixion, resurrection, and Christianity? One could make the same comment about Hitler doing God's will.

Personally, I don't think God wanted Hitler to do what Hitler did. If anyone thinks Hitler did God's will, your God is not my God.

People make Christianity too complicated.

Straw man; there is a big difference between biblical predestination and rationalistic determinism.

Quite circular, if you really think about it.
God must have created evil as well. Created Lucifer knowing he would be full of evil.
Then wanted to sit back and watch the movie play out, knowing the ending?

I am glad that who goes to heaven is determined by God and is not determined by men.

It could just be that evil is the lack of Good. Good being defined by the characteristics and nature of God.

You can if you want but it seems to me to be more productive to simply understand His "soon" may not be ours due to time vs eternity.

Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

It may be an overly simple way to put it, "The Lord works strange, and in mysterious ways?

Sako, you are so confused.

I believe that we ‘do’.

Absolute truth and from the beginning, it has been GOD who has worked to rectify our first father’s choice in Gen 3. Anyone who reads the scriptures in its entirety has to recognize that God has sought to save for Himself a people, and those same people have snubbed Him at every opportunity.

Praise God for His grace in Christ and for seeing fit to write a whole book about it!

X2 ...... sorry

Why? What's wrong with what he said?

God tells us He sends a deluding influence on those who wish to believe a lie.

After all, God did not write the Bible or determine what should be in it. Nor did Jesus or even Paul or Peter. Some medieval Catholic bishops who lived 300 years after Jesus did, bishops who would probably be considered pretty ignorant today.[/quote]

Apparently you're not aware of the history of at least the New Testament. The Old Testament was translated into Latin at least 250 years prior to Jesus arrival, so it was not adjusted after that. Consider Doc Rocket's post below. I am posting this without either's permission.



24hourcampfire.com

Originally Posted By antlers
If ones personal faith and belief in The Messiah is threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain...then maybe the problem isn't with what others say or believe, or with what ancient manuscripts contain.
Answered by Doc Rocket

Well, you're kind of right about this, on a basic level.

However, it appears you are not up to speed on the history surrounding the Canon of New Testament scripture, nor the Judeo-Christian tradition of debate over minutiae! Don't worry, you're not alone. I doubt that 1 Christian in 10 in the USA knows even the basic history of the First Century Church. Nonbelievers, maybe 1 in 1000.

The first thing, i.e., why are we Christians so quick to argue about What others say and believe about the Christian faith, is because what we ALL say about our faith matters to EVERY Christian believer. The traditions of Judaism, outlined in the Torah and multiple rabbinical texts, argue that discussion of every new viewpoint on Scripture is not just desirable, but a mandatory exercise in the Jewish religion. And Christianity, which is nothing more nor less than the fulfillment of the Jewish religion in the person, life works, and teachings of Jesus, has followed that tradition for millennia.

So that's why we argue about it. It's our tradition. If you don't like our tradition, butt out and go take care of your own traditions. I'm not being mean or angry here, I'm just sayin'.

The second thing: why does every new "ancient" text or artifact that pops up stir up immediate opposition by so many Christians? Well, it's because our faith is founded on a very carefully selected set of writings from the first century A.D. While some non-Christians (i.e., outsiders who don't "get" our traditions) may take delight in promoting "new" texts that appear to contradict the Canon of Scripture--because they're mostly ch!tt-disturbers, in my experience--these texts are almost always the same old crap that's been popping up since the 2nd or 3rd century, and which has been cataloged in the Pulp Fiction aisle of the theological library for the better part of 2000 years.

99% of Christians are largely ignorant of the history of the early Church, from the time of the Acts of the Apostles to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This was a time of enormous expansion of the Church, but the very cool part about it was that while the number of Christians exploded over the course of a few decades, the geographic expansion was very small. This meant that pretty much EVERYone knew somebody who actually knew, was taught by, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And the Jews, who comprised the early majority of Christians, were/are real sticklers for THE TRUTH.

This means nobody could bullsh!t about the Gospel of Christ. Posers were recognized and cast out immediately. You couldn't hide behind an internet handle in those days. You were either the real deal, or you got stoned to death. Sometimes you even got stoned to death if you WERE the real deal, so being a poser wasn't exactly a high-paying gig, you know what I'm saying? Oh, and keep in mind that in the First Century it wasn't like today, when any schmoe can write a book and publish it online... if you wrote a book then, the only way it got published was if other people agreed that it was really good stuff, and copied it out by hand for other folks to read.

So the people who actually wrote down the life, words, teachings, and miracles of Jesus were guys who actually knew him. If someone didn't really know him and TELL THE TRUTH as it was known by hundreds of first-hand witnesses, their scribblings would've been ignored. If not burned and the author stoned to death. By the early 2nd Century, the de facto Canon of Scripture we know as the New Testament had been pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Church leaders and scholars, based on a very tight-knit history they all shared.

Mark wrote his Gospel first, probably within about 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. John's gospel was probably written within a few years of the Fall of Jerusalem, Matthew and Luke somewhere in between. Lots of other folks wrote down their memories of the events, too, but for the most part these were ignored by the Church because the majority of the Churches thought they were incomplete, contained too many untruths, or were flawed in other ways. The four main Gospels were endorsed and widely circulated as a result.

Now, there were some dissenters (as there always are in human affairs) and they started up their own versions of church that were anywhere from slightly wonky to batsh!t-crazy. And by the early 3rd Century, enough of these outliers existed that the orthodox Church had no choice but to lay down the law--in keeping with ancient Judeo-Christian traditions of heterodoxy--and they held a series of councils in which the majority of Christian leaders and scholars said what was the truest material in keeping with the historical writings of Church Fathers. All of batsh!t-crazy gospels were ch!tt-canned at that time, but all manner of non-believers keep bringing them up as "proof" against the Christian religion.

So that's why we care about somebody resurrecting (pun intended) some piece of batsh!t-crazy "Christian" writing from the 6th Century. Our forefathers worked really, really hard to clean up the true story about Jesus for us. They paid for it with their blood and their very lives, and we owe them a debt for that.

And that's why we tend to be derisive and dismissive about "ancient" texts that get "discovered" that were written at least 500 years after the Biblical texts we endorse. It's part of our tradition.

People who aren't Bible-believing Christians can say and think what they like for themselves, but they can't expect us not to defend our religion, our tradition, our history is something precious to us, and we don't care to have fools who are ignorant of our tradition and our history to pass off their ignorance as valid opinion.

God did create evil as well as everything that has been created. As far as sitting back. Take a look at some of the kings. You see God sending an evil spirt a few times to hassle things.

I'll see your KJV an raise you a AMP: "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing peace and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things."

Come down to how you translate the Hebrew word ra and in this context the great majority of scholars go with natural disasters, not moral evil.

Not scripture, but help me, I understand God is love, all things good. Evil is the opposite of good. I know God created all, but just how could evil be created by good? Scratching my head on that.

With a little thought, say if evil is a total lack of good, then it might make some sense.

Here's some more dumb stuff for you to read:

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned...”

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”

wabigoon, God was very confused that day.

Metaphysically if God had a purpose in creating good, a fair assumption, God creating evil which opposes good makes no sense. He would be defeating his own purpose.

That's why in choosing how to translate ancient texts where words often have imprecise meaning depending on context you look for internal consistency and to logic, does it make sense. You even see that in translating "Caesar's Gallic Wars" in Latin class and Caesar was an exceptionally clear writer.

He created Lucifer as well. Do you believe God did not know Lucifer would become Satan and take 1/3 of the angles with him, to Hell? Do you believe God knows all that will happen? Every single thing? I do. Jesus told us God knows every hair on our heads. That wouldn't be a big trick with me, but every hair on every head that ever lived is a pretty good trick. But it's no trick. That is Omniscience. God is the only Omniscient Being there is. Omniscient means knowing everything. That's a lot!

He has a plan, and that plan fairly obviously requires the presence of evil for the time being. When there is no more time there will likely be no more evil, and God's plan will result in the perfection only an Omniscient God could achieve.

God didn't create Lucifer as evil, that was Lucifer's choice. God gave him the ability to choose as he did for us. Sure he knew what Lucifer would do, He let Lucifer have what Lucifer wanted even though it was against Him. Pretty cool dude if you ask me. You want it, you got it. Toyota. Choose wisely.

You dare to hold something other than the KJV up against it?!

Yep and that’s one thing upon which all of historic Christianity agrees; God is NOT in ANY way the author of evil.

He uses it to bring Himself glory yes, but He did NOT create it.

Neither do the great majority of the "scholars" believe in God.

ra': adversity
Original Word: רַע
Part of Speech: Adjective; noun masculine; noun feminine
Transliteration: ra'
Phonetic Spelling: (rah)
Definition: bad, evil
Brown-Driver-Briggs
I. רַע226 adjective bad, evil

Who did?

Isn't it said of Jesus in John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. The interlinear does not include "things" That's filler for understanding. So what it says and means is that Jesus created ALL. Everything. Even evil.

Otherwise, tell me who created evil and how that would not make Jesus a liar, which of course He is clearly not.

How did Lucifer come to be? Did God not know what he would become? Obviously, God did. Otherwise, He would not be truly Omniscient, but He is.

God had to create evil in exactly the way and pattern to support His plan. God is in control and will always be.

That's only half the story.
The Council of Toulouse did ban the possession of vernacular Bibles for the laity without a license; not because the Church wished to discourage the people from reading Scripture, but because mistranslations of the Bible were used as a tools for the promotion of the Albigensian heresy. For these reasons, some very poor and incorrectly translated bibles were burned. Both of these councils were provincial councils, assembled for the purpose of addressing local heresies. Think of it this way, how would you like it if someone distributed New World Translation bibles at your church?

One thing that most people seem to forget is that the Bible is the Catholic Church's. Created by the Catholic Church, translated by the Catholic Church, published and distributed by the Catholic Church.
Think of how an author would act if someone rewrote his book, claimed it was written by the original author and then distributed it. Think they'd get sued? Think they'd get a court order that every unauthorized copy be confiscated and destroyed? Of course.

John Wycliffe was a heretic who published his own corrupted translation to support his heresies. His heresies were similar to that of the Lollard's and local councils pointed out 45 of his teachings as being erroneous, notoriously heretical, blasphemous, seditious and some just offensive to pious ears.

Ah, local councils - that should settle it once and for all.

You are willingly misled.

No, the word is 'evil' - which happens to relate to other verses that say essentially the same thing; that God (assuming existence) is responsible for both good and evil. That God made all things, including evil.


As for the translation of the word 'evil' into 'disaster;


Quote:
''Understandably, the New International Version translators saw fit to alter the prophet’s words by rendering the offensive Hebrew word רָע (rah) as “disaster” instead of correctly translating it as “bad” or “evil.” The New International Version Bible therefore mistranslates Isaiah 45:7 to read:

“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”

The word “disaster” inserted by the New International Version is misleading and purposely ambiguous so that the uninformed reader could conclude that this word refers to natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes and hurricanes. This dubious translation was deliberately forged to conceal the prophet’s original message. As mentioned above, the King James Version correctly translates this verse, and renders the Hebrew word רָע (rah) as “evil.”

if we could just somehow find a cost effective, and efficient way of weeding out the heresies.

the heresies have plagued us for so long, that it's looking like time to have a catharsis?

I'm sorry but I did respond to the wrong post. Please disregard my above post.

Inherit character is not chosen. What we are being basically shaped by an interaction of genetics and environment. Besides, Judaism has Satan working for God. A rebellion in Heaven is a Christian idea, the book of Enoch, etc.

let's see if i have this right, for the neophytes who walk amongst us.

YHWH established his people on earth. he wrote out a set of laws and gave it to Moses.

Moses came down the mtn and found his people reverted to celebrating a golden calf. (gold is sought after everywhere?).

he wrote another set of laws.

jesus was miraculously born of a young teen age essene virgin.

mainstream jews, mostly sadducees and pharisees didn't like the story.

conflict erupted, and the roman conquerors did what they could to keep the peace.

the romans utilized troops from all over the kingdom, even found fit to install a few chaldean archers.

jesus and his kind were found to be such riff-raff, that is trouble makers (truth-bringers?), that the mainstream ruled them out.

a split in the religion occurred, and different folks went on their way. and life as occurred ever since.

later, there was a riff between the catholics, and a group called the pro-testants. the baptists were always separate.

and now the religion of peace is offering us all a chance at redemption before they move ahead and forcibly convert us all.

is that about it, for an early sunday morning school lesson with 5-7 year olds?

Satan can do nothing without permission and empowerment from God,... If God don't approve it , then it can't happen.
that makes satan Gods attack dog...

evidenced by the deal struck between God and Satan to inflict both natural and moral evils on Job.
(one can call them disasters, calamities or evils, ..which ever bible translation makes you happy.)

Jobs servants were murdered, thus a moral evil, calamity or disaster, no different to a military leader suffering
a military campaign disaster of his men being wiped out in battle.



what Lucifer wanted is part of Gods plan ...God already had purpose For Lucifer after his fall.
instead of destroying Lucifer , God cast him out and gave him a mission sanctioned by God Himself.

fallen Lucifer didn't want the task God gave him on earth, his ambition was to win the heavenly battle and displace God.
but having lost that battle, he then did what God told him to do....

is Satan obedient to God ?.., yes he is..!
He did no more to Job than God allowed him to do,..and when God called satan to heaven for a council with God,
Satan obeyed and turned up as commanded.

Now ask yourself , why would an all knowing God appoint an angel in heaven as his most cherished,
with the knowledge that angel would lead a rebellion?...God could have appointed an angel which he knew would not rebel,
thus spare heaven from rebellion and the world from evil.

One can only conclude that it was Gods will that rebellion would take place in heaven and that the defeated challenger
would then continue to serve a predestined purpose for God by having dominion over the earth, as authorised by God.

in others words, evil sprouted from a seed[angel] that God made and appointed , and that God knew was going to be rotten
even before he made and appointed such an angel to such prominent position in heaven.

With God having such supreme power authority and foreknowledge how can he not be the author/creator/designer of evil?





further sources ...

https://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/45-7.htm

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7451b.htm

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7455.htm


Strongs concordance:
Title: Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
Edition: Third


H7451
רע רעה
ra‛ râ‛âh
rah, raw-aw'
From H7489 ; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun:
—adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great,
grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please,
sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong.
[Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]

I think not but I am at the time in my life where I do not want to learn anymore. I spun for 30+ years, time over. I am good with where I currently stand.

Either God (assuming existence) lost control of His creation or He knowingly created the world the way it was, with the worm in the apple: a naive couple led astray by a cunning creature (not Satan), set to fall with the full knowledge of God....like a parent knowingly setting up their children to fail then punishing them when the inevitable happens. Someone might say that the children have 'free will' but that is absurd as a rationale.

For mankind to exercise Free-Will , God would have to make available the options [both alternatives] ...would he not?

ie;......good [tov] and evil [ra]

In the days of the early Christian Church, there was Manacheasim and Zoroastrianism which each shared the view that there were
essentially two gods, one who was all good and one who was all bad, in constant conflict, and neither showed a stronger hand.
That would be unacceptable to Isaiah and to later Jewish religious thinkers, hence why Isaiah 45:5, 6, 18,

make the point "I am the Lord, and there is none else"

In Genesis darkness and light is under the Lords creative command, but some folks don't like to accept that good and evil is also under
Gods creative command....God is a universal, all-powerful, all-creating God until [insert clause] He no longer is such when its
inconvenient for some to acknowledge and believe so.

the same Hebrew "ra" [evil] in Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) is used in Genesis 3:22 (KJV) and Deuteronomy 30:15 (KJV)

****




Proverbs 16:4

[NASB]
The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.
[KJV]
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.


So nothing exists unless God made it for good reason, or are there exceptions?

Again, if you wrote a book, would you let someone change it & distribute it? The word "licensed" refers to the translations, not to the peasants.

Oh, and Wycliffe was not the first vernacular translation in Britain. There were many before him.

Yes, but the underlying mechanism is free will.

That's a pretty good description. Time is a creation of God. Predestination effectively denies that. A very limited, primitive view of God.

The book of Enoch is not in the Bible. But Revelation is. And it mentions the rebellion.

One of the names for Satan given is "serpent", so again you show your lack of information.

I didn't say that the book of Enoch is the bible, I said the concept of a rebellion in heaven is in the book of Enoch....and what is in Revelation is different matter altogether.

That's not an argument. Just saying that indicates that you have no idea about the history of the development of the concept of 'Satan' or the 'Devil.'

The concept of Satan is different between Christianity and Judaism. Genesis describes the serpent in the Garden not as a supernatural entity but a beast in the Garden who was punished for its part in the drama.

Ringman, for your information;


''Introduced as “the most clever of all of the beasts of the field that YHWH God had made,” the serpent in the Garden of Eden is portrayed as just that: a serpent. Satan does not make an appearance in Genesis 2–3, for the simple reason that when the story was written, the concept of the devil had not yet been invented.''

''The noun satan, Hebrew for “adversary” or “accuser,” occurs nine times in the Hebrew Bible: five times to describe a human military, political or legal opponent, and four times with reference to a divine being. In Numbers 22, the prophet Balaam, hired to curse the Israelites, is stopped by a messenger from Israel’s God YHWH, described as “the satan” acting on God’s behalf.''


''The concept of the devil begins to appear in second and first centuries B.C.E. Jewish texts. In 1 Enoch, the “angel” who “led Eve astray” and “showed the weapons of death to the children of men” was called Gadreel (not Satan). Around the same time, the Wisdom of Solomon taught that “through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who are on his side suffer it.” Though this may very well be the earliest reference to Eden’s serpent as the devil, in neither text, nor in any document we have until after the New Testament, is satan clearly understood as the serpent in Eden. At Qumran, though, Satan is the leader of the forces of darkness; his power is said to threaten humanity, and it was believed that salvation would bring the absence of Satan and evil.

By the first century C.E., Satan is adopted into the nascent Christian movement, as ruler over a kingdom of darkness, an opponent and deceiver of Jesus (Mark 1:13), prince of the devils and opposing force to God (Luke 11:15–19; Matthew 12:24–27; Mark 3:22–23:26); Jesus’ ministry puts a temporary end to Satan’s reign (Luke 10:18) and the conversion of the gentiles leads them from Satan to God (Acts 26:18). Most famously, Satan endangers the Christian communities but will fall in Christ’s final act of salvation, described in detail in the book of Revelation.''

Luke 22 mentions satan entering Judas influencing his actions , thus it could be that satan similarly worked through
the conduit of the gardens serpent...Satan being extremely wise and clever would select the most clever craftiest
and capable of the gardens creatures to assist him.....[we know snakes can talk but sheep can't type]...

satan is a spiritual entity and does not take or manifest in flesh form...I am unaware of any instances where he does such.





Too much information for many christians....the simple black /white or hero and villain script of God vs the devil
is where they like to keep it.

I believe in simplicity, reduce problems to the simplest possible solution.

Do unto others,as you would have them do unto you.

All other theology represents humans attempting to control others.

YMMV


mike r

lot's of non-mainstream discussion of the "reptilians" and i reckon snakes are just that?

the fact they were on urth walking/crawling around with adamah and havah makes me wander.

that is, the two first humans were in the garden, and all is paradise. well, except for a minor detail or two.

now was the snake air-lifted in to the garden after adam and eve were installed, or just the reverse occurred?

it's important that a good story be kept on plot, not meander too much, and make sense to the rank & file of oral listeners.

History is not simple. Determining truth is not as simple as believing. Ideas and beliefs develop over time. The people at the time of the writing of genesis had a different set of beliefs than those who came later. Even the usage of word 'Satan' changed over time.

What is said in the NT is not what the people at the time of the writing of genesis believed or wrote about.

Again you are showing your ignorance of the Bible. Let me help you.

Revelation 12:7-9
"And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angles waging war with the dragon. And the dragon and his angles waged war, and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."

the genesis people didn't even know about the stuff the nt people wrote, and talked about and believed.

mainly that's because a lot of time had passed between the writing down of genesis and the writing of the new testament. a lot of history has transpired, a lot of technology and doctrine had developed. and likely yhwh had left the earth in the interim time span. yhwh had a lot of territory to oversee, manage, and keep in harmony. i don't know how many angels it took to help him to run the universe but i suspect it was a pretty large number to keep the hierarchy in synchrony.

You read what others write when it agrees with your preconceived notion. You and I are the same. We are like parrots. We read what others says and either reject it or accept it based on our world view. I don't agree with what you are quoting. It makes no difference that you are appealing to authority. Your authority is flawed.

They burned Hus alive also a Constance

That's just an excuse to ignore actual research and objective scholarship. What I read and what I quote is reliable research by people qualified in the field. Some on the other hand prefer biased Christian sources and sites.

It is quite clear that the Satan of the book of Job is not the Satan of Christian theology, never mind earlier beliefs.

The satan/devil of the O.T. and N.T. became connected in the Vulgate,[4th century A.D. translation of Hebrew Bible into Latin]

Isaiah 14 refers to an earthly king as Lucifer,[“bearer of light,”] who falls from heaven.
Jesus confirms such in Luke 10:18: “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning.”

..come the Middle Ages / 5th century, writers began to apply the Vulgate term for Isaiah’s [flesh-blood] Lucifer
to the rebellious angel [spiritual entity] in Book of Revelation.

Yes, indeed.

[quote=DBTThat's just an excuse to ignore actual research and objective scholarship. What I read and what I quote is reliable research by people qualified in the field. Some on the other hand prefer biased Christian sources and sites.

It is quite clear that the Satan of the book of Job is not the Satan of Christian theology, never mind earlier beliefs.[/quote]

Because you believe it is good scholarship does not make it so. Many of the authors are just as biased as you are. Appealing to authority is not working.

You are still asserting your own belief. Which is a claim rather than a reasonable, rational argument.

The qualifications of the author of the article are provided in the article.

Has anyone tested their free moral agency? :-)

I’ve been reading more Luther as of late and listening to LCMS pastors and this is tough to argue with.

Bondage of the Will is remarkably similar to Calvin’s thoughts. Many of the erroneous ideas bandied about here & assigned to Calvin came from his “followers”.

At any rate good conversation I think I’m headed in your direction.

Have you been listening to some of the guys at 1517?

An excellent movie showing what the catholic church was doing to many Bible believing Christians is "A Lamp in the Dark: The Untold History of the Bible. If you have Rocu and TUBI, you can watch it there free. Or you can go on Amazon and have it sent to you. It's such an excellent movie, and quite long (nearly 3 hours) that I ordered it along with Tares Among the Wheat which is a sequel to A Lamp in the Dark and also Bridge to Bablylon, which is also very good, on Tubi and available through Amazon.

I have not heard of those guys is that a podcast?

I really like “Table Talk Radio” And one of its participants’ YouTube channel Bryan Wolfmueller:

About 4 years ago I a friend put me on to the Whitehorse Inn broadcast/podcast. I kept hearing these Lutherans and what they said sounded a bit different but I didn’t have a reference.

In early 2016 I realize that one of the Lutherans, Rod Rosenbladt, along with some other guys from Concordia at Irvine were doing their own podcast, The Thinking Fellows. Their first episodes are a little rough as they work on the audio but it’s a good place to start. They cover the major points in Melancthon’s Loci. Another good one is “Banned Books” where Gerharde Forde’s “On Being a Theologian of the Cross” is covered.

Calvinism as a framework for reflection is good but how about reforming and continuing to reform?

Limited atonement simply is not scriptural.

Thanks for the references.
Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast.
Well documented.

One only needs reform until Christ is is actual found at the center of the Gospel. After that reform becomes about self and remembering what was found at the center of the Gospel.

Faith Alone
Grace Alone
Scripture Alone
Priesthood of all Believers.
Christ Alone the one mediator and one head of the Church
One finished and perfect blood atonement, not to be repeated
Grace cannot be earned, bought or bartered.

Here I stand
God help me
Amen

Those things certainly help us try to wrap our heads around the matter in the here and now. Well. To the degree that we can.
In that day all we will have is Christ.

I’m leery of the sola scriptura when combined with the Priesthood of Believers. It seems that in modern context,’maybe it’s a Merican thing, people lean toward this giving the liberty for personal interpretation. To one degree or another, a personal interpretation of the text. The idea has become a bastard son.

Huge +1!

My experience is that serious Protestants are studious, and generally focused on Romans.
I think that is a good thing.
Private interpretation... I get your concern, but they used that directly against Luther Himself.

Always keep the eye on the ball, or prize. I this case, the Cross.

Why so many different interpretations of verses and numerous contradictory beliefs in Christianty and other religions?

I can’t answer for other religions but assume it to be the same as in Christianity. People feeling special like they have personal knowledge that’s special to them. They find a “new thing” and it’s off to the races.

True. It sounds so easy. But we sure can mess it up.



Fortunately Luther didn’t actually do that or pass on that concept/practice. He soon found that the masses, even the converted priests, now pastors, didn’t understand scripture. They went about remedying this with the small and large catechism and other aids. The idea that the “priesthood” were of the same here with no Mavericks running wild.

Romans’ is good and necessary if understood correctly. Seeing Christ in all of the Old Testament is vital also. I’ve see. Too many instances where reformed circles are too focused on doctrine and Biblical knowledge, Christ getting lost in the middle of it all.

Predestination is quite clear throughout the Bible. The whole Bible is full of people who were called of God to do His will starting with Adam, Moses, David, Mary, Jesus, The 12, Paul and on and on. Lazarus' example is one of my favourites. He was dead, bound, rotting in the grave with had no control whatsoever over his own situation until the Lord called [CALLED] him out to live again. This sounds much like our situation before God calls us.


I've never seen a sheep yet determine it's own path.

I'm about a 50/50 split between Calvin & Arminian.

Did you choose that path or was it thrust upon you?

I chose. Actually it was confirmed once I began an institute of higher learning. I had no idea, prior to that, who Calvin or Arminius even were. Once I heard their tenets I then decided that I was "a little bit Country & a little bit Rock & Roll."

I did not feel as though I was compromising my station in any manner by adopting a mix of their points. Given the way I was raised I refuse to allow any muse to be thrust upon me.

it's just really difficult imagining a human saving themselves through actions, works, faith or beliefs.

but maybe in some combination it's quite possible.

or just let god do it, since it's his job?

And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation

“How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “ LORD, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭10:14-17‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/rom.10.14-17.nkjv shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “ LORD, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭10:14-17‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/rom.10.14-17.nkjv

So will those chosen to be unconditionally selected NOT be selected if they are never preached to, or hear about the Gospel?????

They have either been selected or they haven't! Why go through the effort if you can't change the outcome of anyone, selected or not????

If evangelism is required, then their selection is NOT unconditional!

I've read through the thread with great interest, as this is one subject (election/predestination) that somewhat baffles me. First of all, if it's in the Bible, I believe it, as I believe the book is the word of God, period. I also believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, and when it appears that way we just do not entirely understand what we're reading/interpreting.

My lovely bride of 34 years grew up in a very, VERY disfunctional family. She was the first to ever even graduate from high school, much less college, which she also did. Never grew up in church, went to church, or had any family members that took her there. Yet, she became a fine Christian lady, against all odds, as if God plucked her from a terrible environment and helped change her future family tree. Awesome lady. I also do not believe that God, knowing his character, would create people doomed for hell. As someone pointed out earlier, there are many verses that state God wants everyone/all to go to heaven. I believe that too. It's admittedly a somewhat confusing subject.

Because neither you or I know who will accept the word, or reject it, so you deliver the message to any and everyone. It's God's responsibility to touch their heart, it's man's free will to accept it, or ultimately reject it.

Wonder if the early first century followers of Jesus were exposed to this line of thinking (predestination) during the 15 or 20 years or more after Jesus’ death, and before the first Christian text that became part of the New Testament was even written...?

Good question.

The way we think determines the decisions we make. How we think is determined by our brain architecture/genetics interacting with our environment. Which in practice means that some folk are satisfied believing what it says in this or that holy book, while others are not. Some question beliefs and claims while others find comfort in their faith. Which has absolutely nothing to do with 'free will'

Why were they warned about 'falling away' if it were not possible!?!?!?!?

It is a pleasure to discuss spiritual matters with fine gentlemen, thank you all. One of the good parts of this forum.

Off to bed, see you in the morning, and May God bless us all.

The bible contradicts itself. You can find verses that support numerous interpretations. Denominations, sects, cults......

The Book of Hebrews (and the ‘falling away’ verses) was written during the latter half of the 1st century. I’m talkin’ about the time period after Jesus’ death, and before ANY of the Christian texts that became the New Testament were even written...!

Jesus having the task of sorting sheep from the goats ,[Matthew 25]
would indicate God created with the knowledge that some are doomed.

25:34 "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:"

25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels:"



sounds like a lofty ideal that God has, but full well knowing its not going to happen.

Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 , show there are those beast worshippers that are not written in the Lambs Book of Life
from the foundation of the world. ....followed by....

[Revelation 20:15] "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire".

And once again:


"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4

It is certainly easy to draw that conclusion but there are other potential answers. If we are created, fallen and fallible as scripture teaches, the blame for interpretation falls at the feet of the man who errs in reading.

The words say what they say and mean what they mean. Given what the words say and mean, using non controversial definitions, the contradictions are there. Some try to rationalize them away with semantics.

You've never translated anything to English, have you.

The former pastor of a church we attended, who happens to be a Calvinist, which I am not, was skilled in reading the Greek and Hebrew. We were discussing the Greek text and how it translates into English. His comment was that the text comes alive in a much more dynamic way when read in the original language. The point being made that the doesn’t translate well into any language. The best understanding coming from reading the original text within its original context. The test within context is not popular because people are kept from their personal interpretations.

So God knowingly made man so stupid that he would not be able understand the written words of God?

and being stupid, its only natural fallible man also misinterpreted what God was saying before writing it down,
thus the Hebrew and Aramaic text can't be trusted, nor the Apocrypha, the Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate , etc

Then of the 50+ English translations drawn from a varying mixture of the above sources , we have formal equivalence and
dynamic equivalence translations coming from the list.. and Bibles with mIx of both formal and dynamic.

Then you have modern day Christtian readers who having a personal bias - pick the version/s they like most ,
only to then interpret them in their own personal way.

Yet they claim they are reading the infallible words of God in whatever questionable version they prefer , and of course
their version of book and interpretation is superior to that of the plethora of other halfwit sheep.

****

As much a people today are still largely clueless as to what they are actually reading, consider that Prior to the literacy
levels of our modern world, folks were for millennia largely illiterate, so they had to rely on crap bag self interest driven
clergy to tell them what God is saying , wants them to believe and what to do, ..and many brain dead folk in the 21st century
still prefer it that way.

Lets remember that Christians have been divided - highly factionalised since the very early centuries following Christ,
learn about the fierce Christian rivalry conditions leading to the council of Nicaea 325 and the corrupt dirtbag way in which
proceedings were held.
and you can see what a clusterfck the human church of Christianity was and continues to be to this day.

Greek text O.T. (Septuagint) was translated from Hebrew, then catholics like Jerome [commissioned by Pope Damasus 4th century],
used the Septuagint(Greek) to translate into Latin (Vulgate) but then Jerome decided Septuagint was not satisfactory, so he translated
Hebrew O.T. into Latin.

6th century- a complete Bible was commonly used., containing Jerome’s O.T. translation from Hebrew, except for Psalms; his Gallican Psalter;
his translation of the books of Tobias (Tobit) and Judith (apocryphal in the Jewish and Protestant canons); and his revision of the Gospels.
but the remainder of the N.T. was taken from older Latin versions,..whille certain other books found in the Septuagint—the Apocrypha for Protestants
and Jews; the deuterocanonical books for Roman Catholics—were included from older versions.....Various editors and correctors then produced
revised texts of the Vulgate over the years.

How many folks actually know the full source or mix of what they are reading in their own particular choice of Bible?

How many christians are ever going to bother to delve into Hebrew, Greek , Latin,.. to better understand what they are reading in English?

For all the discussion let us never forget the meaning of the Cross. Jesus died on the Cross for our sins.

We don't know that. Some believe it because that is what it says in the Gospels. The story is not rational. Just consider one factor, how likely it is that a Being capable of creating a Universe would think like the ancient people who wrote the stuff, people who believed in blood sacrifice for atonement or favour from god, a common belief, Babylonians, Aztecs, etc, etc.

Q./ Which Bible says Jesus died on a cross?

Many Bibles simply say pole, stake or tree,

if you look at the Greek it says; Stauros (σταυρός)

The Imperial Bible-Dictionary: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·rosʹ], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling,
on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground.





Christian hope is based on the claim that Jesus was raised back to life, not that he died on a piece of wood of questionable shape.

There is no description in the Bible of the specific 'stauros' on which Christ died. If it were important for us to know its shape, God would have provided
additional information?..However, the fact that the cross figures so prominently in earlier pagan religious custom ought to give pause for thought.

Christians have adopted other pagan symbols and festivities and called them their own, so I don't think they would stop at adopting a pagan cross.

So let's ignore Roman history entirely. Not everything need be in the bible, nor can be.

Romans did a lot of impaling or fixing onto simple wooden stakes/poles... or Stauros.

and scripture indicates Jesus was to be killed and removed according to Hebrew law/ritual, which does not specifically involve a cross.
(Scripture makes repeated mention of Jesus in a tree.)

It wasn't until the 4th century that the cross symbol was heavily promoted and really took off for christians.

How would we really know if we make up our own minds or God causes us to think or act in a particular fashion? We would never know for sure either way.

These debates are excellent, but in the end it's us mortals trying to figure out God, sometimes trying to put Him in a box we can understand.

Jesus was killed under the authority Pilot and Roman law allowed crucifixion. A very effective deterrent and Rome wanted control, domestic peace makes for more to tax. Needn't have been the ideal cross seen in churches of course.

iF the death/punishment of Jesus was solely under Roman durastictional law he would not have been taken down when he was.
hence he was taken down according to Hebrew ritual.

since when did the Romans (in their specifically most tortuous form of punishment]) only leave people fixed to a wooden pole
for six hours.?

Romans generally allowed the people of occupied territories to follow their traditions, but Joseph of Arimathea, still earnestly requested
of Pilate permission to take down Jesus’ body.

Pilate's goal was to keep Judaea peaceful and profitable lest Rome take it personally. There was tension and violence with the Jewish population and the trial and execution of Jesus, as it is described biblically and historically, was an accommodation to the Jewish hierarchy to keep peace. I've never heard anyone dispute this.

Nobody here is questioning Pilates reasons.

and did not Pilate offer Jesus to the Jews to do with him as they wish?

but they insisted the Romans punish him?

The Jewish hierarchy wanted to be rid of Jesus who they saw as a challenge to their power and wealth. Under Roman law only the governor could make that happen. Otherwise it would be rebellion against Rome which would not be a smart move. On the other hand if the Jews got rambunctious Pilot would have to answer to Tiberius which definitely would not be pleasant. So Pilot was tractable to making a deal. Execute Jesus under Roman law and we'll make sure that the Jewish population doesn't cause trouble. Offer you can't refuse.

I know it. Too bad for you.

You really can't get over yourself. The Being Who created the universe does not think like you. You don't realize we are in a spiritual warfare. The devil loves to deceive and you are a prime example of one who is doubly so.

Not directed at anyone, just an observation. Many who don’t believe usually have pretty good reasons for *not* believing. You gotta give people room to not believe. Even some of the people who were with Jesus did *not* believe until *after* the Resurrection.

As stated already, the Romans often allowed people of occupied territories to carry on with their own system
And in the time of Jesus it is no different , with him having gone on trial before the Sanhedrin Rabbi judges
before any Roman law process.

So how do you come to the conclusion that only the Roman prefect/governor implementing Roman law
could deal with/get rid of Jesus?

that is not strictly true.



if a firm deal has been struck to execute Jesus under Roman law (following the Sanhedrin trial before a bench of Rabbis),
then Its unlikely Pilate would then have sent Jesus to face trial under Herods jurisdictional court covering Galilee.

The Jews wanted Jesus put to death for blasdsphemy specifically, but the magnitude of a death penalty In Roman rule
provinces could only be sanctioned by the Roman magistrate as sole representative of the imperial authority – the imperium.
but the catch was - Roman legal system did not have the capital offence of blasphemy..so charge of high treason was put up.
which meant Jesus was now accused of Subverting Roman rule.

Though for such charge capital punishment was a possibility, you could alternatively be exiled (among other optional penalties)
Local magistrates such as legates, prefects, and procurators had power of life and death in their hands in the various Roman
provinces... thus Pilate, as the Prefect, had ultimate discretionary and as I understand - exclusive authority to implement capital
punishment withiin the larger Roman Judaea Province.

****
Now with Herod being a client 'King of Judea' under Rome - elected by the Roman Senate, . in actual fact he was a Tetrarch or ruler
of a principality within the larger Roman province of Judea under Pilate, and under heavy influence from such.
..WITH THAT the official legal system shifted from the Hebrew 'laws of the fathers' [Torah] to Roman law...meaning the once
autonomous powers of the Sanhedrin passed to Herod...that does not mean Herod was silly enough to dissolve the Sanhedrin,
but he did undermine their power....and where possible intervened in the administration of justice when it didn't risk revolt.

However, I am not aware of Herod having the power under Roman law to sanction a death penalty for Jesus, this power still rested
exclusively with Pilate as the prefect of Roman Judea province....hence I don't understand why Pilate sent Jesus to Herod
If he was seriously attempting to do his best to honor a deal with the Jews to see that Jesus receive the death penalty.

When Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate, the unos was now on Pilate to decide the fate of Jesus,
and as we know he was not enthusiastic about implementing capital punishment on the man.

Then why bring him before Pilot at all? Just stone him.

Rome allowed some level of autonomy to the Sanhedrin, not total level of autonomy,
as evidenced by scripture.
For the [particularly extreme] penalty they insisted on, the Jews acknowledged Roman authority - that it required Pilate.

John 18:31

NASB
So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.”
The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death,”

NLT
“Then take him away and judge him by your own law,” Pilate told them.
“Only the Romans are permitted to execute someone,” the Jewish leaders replied.

KJV
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him,
It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:



Sanhedrin’s authority covered legislation, administration and justice. There was religious, civil, and criminal jurisdiction.
but during the time of Jesus, they had relinquished to Rome the power of capital punishment, ie;... jus gladii.

We have no first hand account of Jesus, the trial and execution of Jesus or anything else. Only what is written in the Gospels, and they were written decades after the events they describe.

You believe you know it. Which is not the same as actually knowing it....like we do with something that is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Nothing to do with me. It's not personal.

Logic is either valid or invalid regardless of who expresses it. Believing that something is true because it says so in the Bible, Quran, Gita or whatever does not make what is said in this or that 'holy book' true.

This has nothing to do with how I happen to think or how some proposed 'God' - whatever that may be - happens to think. It's just basic logic.

Fight or dont fight...The battle is already won is is not?..ie; the result is predestined = God wins.

God can't trust humans to back him in any situation...and God wouldn't create an adversary capable of defeating Him.

If a God exists and there is 'spiritual warfare,' the world is the way it is because God the All Knowing created it to be that way.

You need to examine the evidence, primarily the specific and detailed prophecies concerning Christ, given by Isaiah, Daniel and David, hundreds of years in advance.

Why would that be considered evidence? Besides the issue of that what it says in the source material is not evidence that the claims being made in that material are true and factual - eg, claims made in the Quran, Gita, etc, etc - the so called prophesies are open to interpretation. Plus the Christian interpretation is disputed by Judaism.

For example;
Prophecies to Identify the Messiah, Which Jesus Does Not Fulfill
1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means “God with us.” Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.
2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.
3) Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus, hence this is another Messiah prophecy not fulfilled.