Answer the Question with a Question (6)
- By Philip_B
- Recreation Room
- 22725 Replies
are you saying it is not IT?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Galatians 1:11–13
11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. The mythical archetype of the dream relegation. Apply one large grain of salt. Just like the authorship of the Peter letters.
And neither do I. You are using the notion as axiomatic, that if First Cause is the only First Cause (which is logically necessary, BTW), that it means there are no other causes. You don't show how that is so. You just assert it. But it is false. The "Chains of Causation" demonstrate it rather clearly: Any one thing causes an effect, which itself in turn causes further effects. If God is First Cause, then he not only is at the head of all chains but set up the reality of all effects and their subsequent causing. God "invented" the principle of cause-and-effect.If you are correct, then there is no other causation than first cause, but the Bible does not say this.
I haven't said otherwise.The creation account alone specifies at least 6 distinct interventions by God, or 6 different causes. These causes are probably broken down in reality into multiple smaller interventions by God. Humans at this point don't exist until the 7th cause. God didn't just create a big bang (the true first cause in our universe), he caused the energy and shaped it as he went. That is clear by a reading of Genesis 1.
Define "wanted" when man applies it to God. Are you not engaging in anthropomorphism? God is not like us. We are like him, (though not very much.) But even then, there are even in humans at least two kinds/or phases of "wanting". (For eg, I might want to stay alive, while wishing that I could keep my money from the guy with the gun.) But you want to lump it all into one thing.Man is given many choices in the Bible. None of them imply that he wanted man to choose the wrong thing. Here's what your ideology means.
Not only to die, but he intended them, and their progeny, to need redemption.Genesis 2:16,17 - God warns Adam that he must not eat from the tree, or he will die.
(God intended Adam and Eve to die.)
Does the story of Cain and Abel not glorify God? See the potter in Romans 9:14-21, and read, again, 9:22,23, for the reason he does this. Have you considered the difference between the potter's will and the will of the clay?Genesis 4:6, 7 - God warns Cain not to be angry and submit to sin.
(God intended Cain to murder Abel)
Does he indeed? Have you considered the other translations and the interlinear and the ancient Hebrew mindset, the context of God's abhorrence to ungodliness and perversion of good? Anthropomorphic language, at the least!Genesis 6:5, 7 - Humans were wicked and violent. They must be destroyed.
(God intended man to be violent but destroys them for being so. At least God feels regret in the meantime in verse 6, anthropomorphic language or not.)
You may find it interesting that God (didn't I mention this before?) used foreign rulers to punish Israel (even calls one of them his tool to use against Israel) then turns around and punishes that king for doing so? Intention? Yep, for sure.Genesis 11 - Humans rebel again against God and build a tower.
(God intends them to rebel, but punishes them anyway, and they scatter abroad as he originally intended.)
Pardon me, but I fail to see how whether it would or would not have broken any prophesies, as far as you know, has any relevance to whether he intended or did not intend for them to sin. Are you appealing to that semi-Pelagian notion that God only looks at the big picture, and only has a general end result in mind? And that he (as I put it) flies by the seat of his pants in reaction to what humans do, in order to salvage what he can of that end result? Do you try to glorify God by that amount of smarts he must have to be able to accomplish that, rather than to see him glorifying himself by choosing some for one end and others for another use?Genesis 19 - Sodom and Gomorrah are wicked and are going to be destroyed. Lot's family is warned to leave.
(God intends for Sodom and Gomorrah to be wicked so that he can destroy them dramatically along with Lot's wife who was also destined to become a pillar of salt, maybe to provide an opening for Lot's daughters to have Lot's children.)
Note that if any of the above humans had chosen righteous paths, it would not have broken any prophecies to this point. (Adam and Even sinned before the first prophecy.)
But wait? Are you saying that for 430 years predestination prevails, but not for the rest of history? Why does it prevail there? "That's not fair!" Did those people not have freewill?I will admit at this point that there is a 430-year period where the story is predestined, which follows the prophecies to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; however, it also follows that God is actively intervening throughout. (Joseph's dreams resulting in his brother's jealousy, Potiphar, Pharaoh's dreams, Moses, and the text explicitly saying that Pharaoh's heart was hardened during the 10 plagues.)
What it says is that God intended "IT" (what Joseph's brothers intended for evil), for good. Why leave out the proposition?Now, in this period, we have your scriptural quote:
Now I asked for a quote that suggested that God caused or wants sin and/or evil in the world. This scripture is not it. What it says specifically is that man (Joseph's brothers) intended evil, and God intended good.
Small misrepresentation, as before. What I said was, "God caused that there be evil." Rather obvious what I mean, no? Every effect has a cause. We sin, God caused US.This is again illogical. God caused that there be sin, but he did not sin. The chain of causality suggests that if God did not sin by causing evil,
False. Rather badly false.then man does not sin either by being evil.
Bad comparison. Are you saying that, since Adam's fall, those not born again don't live at enmity with God? Every breath they breathe is at enmity with God. And Romans 1 says that they are without excuse. Where is the "doesn't know any better"?If I give a gun to a small child who doesn't know any better or even know what it is and he points it at someone and pulls the trigger, then who is more guilty? Me or the child?
Funny you don't say, "God wanted the redemption". You are right he planned it. And he wanted it more than he wanted that there be no sin during this temporal existence of ours. You may notice here, that you assess a whole lot more value to this temporal life than God seems to.This says that God planned the redemption, not sin. This says nothing about God wanting evil or sin. Furthermore, he calls those who killed Jesus wicked.
God does not need us. That is true. But he wants those he chose for his own, and he will not lose even one of them. He will accomplish EVERY thing he set out to do. And, logically, it follows then that the specific end he planned and will accomplish, use EVERY little thing he causes to transpire on this temporal "plain", to be MEANS to that end.Whether I sin or not in the end has no impact on God's promises. Even Jesus said this about his disciples:
Luke 19:40 - "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."
God does not need us. He wants us to come to him willingly which we cannot do without free will on our part.
So everyone is still allowed to read the book. Thats what I thought.Oh, so you have to be able to afford to buy it yourself in order to read it? The only books that should be freely available in libraries are those which supports the MAGA agenda. Got it.
So even in the OT:Leviticus 18:28 – the land can “vomit out” its inhabitants
Deuteronomy 28 – exile is a covenant sanction
This is a transfer of covenant status, not just leadership.Matthew 21:43
“The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.”
Jesus does not predict:Matthew 24:2
“Not one stone here will be left upon another.”
Paul deliberately expands the promise beyond Palestine.Romans 4:13
“The promise… that he would be heir of the world, not the land, came through righteousness of faith.”
The physical land was a shadow, not the final reality.Hebrews 11:9–16
The patriarchs sought “a better country, a heavenly one.”
After 70 AD:Hebrews 8:13
“What is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”
That is a direct contrast with earthly Jerusalem.Galatians 4:26
“The Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.”
That statement:According to the New Testament, the land promise to Israel was tied to the old covenant and temple system, which Jesus fulfilled and which was judged and ended by 70 AD. Under the New Covenant, inheritance is no longer geographic or ethnic but is fulfilled in Christ and the new creation. Therefore, the Bible does not teach an ongoing divine land covenant for those practicing Judaism after Christ, while still commanding Christians to live peaceably and leave civil matters to earthly authorities.

This is not from Protzens own writing. From the source I believe you are using:I am going off the same article and it clearly says that Pierre Protzen had done tests. Just after his reference is linked it says "Even though their experiments have been able to shed some light on the techniques".
Because you referred to him. I asked questions about his view and implicitly why you referenced him.That clearly implies they had done tests to support their findings. In fact the author was referencing them as support that despite experiements being done by Protzen and Stella Nair questions still remained. He was using Protzen as a credible source. You referred to him as a credible source when you referred to him. Otherwise why refer to him.
You clearly perceive reality very differently to me.Evidence matters. In Biden's case, he clearly was sharp in 2020 when he completely outclassed Trump in debates, but was not so sharp in 2024. Democrats acted accordingly. When Trump began to show signs of cognitive decline, republicans just doubled down on supporting him. He's clearly having trouble keeping awake, often says things that a bright 6th grader would know are wrong, etc.
It's not a problem I have.I did no such thing. Quit being deceitful in here.
Now you've forgotten how to reply. Sigh.So what if I quoted one word, I still referred to your fatuity in that entire statement. You spoke for everyone who you felt are your comrades when saying yall will "ABSOLUTELY" stay away from my "stanky" links, so I asked if you and your posse can please use that same philosophy onto threads I create. Yep. Yall can ABSOLUTELY stay away from those too.![]()
Words are hard. Someday you will learn how to use them respectfully.I already told you that your word trickery can not work on me.

Yet, she also was surprised at 12 years old Jesus' reply, when they find him in the TempleI believes that through the Sacrifice of her Son, she was preserved from Original Sin. (This is confirmed by many early Church Fathers).
And as a result, she possessed preternatural gifts. So yes, she was well informed of Scripture.
DEI of course.Who to blame?