Could Peter have done otherwise?

[CoreyD]

Hey @bling, can you tell me please, what is your understanding of Psalm 5:5, and Habakkuk 1:13.
I just want to better understand your perspective.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Are you able to read this?

Yeah I disagree with it tho because the book of life was mentioned in the OT long before Christ’s ministry which means it was written before Acts.

 

[bling]

Hey @bling, can you tell me please, what is your understanding of Psalm 5:5, and Habakkuk 1:13.
I just want to better understand your perspective.

Psalms 5 is a lament by David. Poetically it describes evil people doing evil things and David asking for their down fall, while also talking about the righteous needing to be blessed.

This is very much as what happened for the righteous among the Jews and the wicked among the Jews and Gentiles.

Not sure what point you are trying to make?

Habakkuk 1 Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;

you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.

Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?

Why are you silent while the wicked

swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

Again, this is a very poetic verse using Biblical hyperboles.

Look at this one phrase: “swallow up those more righteous than themselves”, but does being more “righteous” than an extremely wicked nation make a big difference to God?

God is trying to make the Jewish nation ready to accept Jesus as a baby into it, so how “good” does the nation of Israel have to get and what all will God do to get it there?

The whole Old Testament is addressing the preparation for the Jewish nation to humbly accept Jesus and here we find the very wicked nation of Babilon helping bringing that about.

 

[CoreyD]

Yeah I disagree with it tho because the book of life was mentioned in the OT long before Christ’s ministry which means it was written before Acts.

I'm sorry?
You must have misunderstood.
What does the writing of Acts have to do with this?
Mankind populated the earth before the book of Acts.

 

[CoreyD]

Psalms 5 is a lament by David. Poetically it describes evil people doing evil things and David asking for their down fall, while also talking about the righteous needing to be blessed.

This is very much as what happened for the righteous among the Jews and the wicked among the Jews and Gentiles.

Not sure what point you are trying to make?

Habakkuk 1 Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;

you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.

Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?

Why are you silent while the wicked

swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

Again, this is a very poetic verse using Biblical hyperboles.

Look at this one phrase: “swallow up those more righteous than themselves”, but does being more “righteous” than an extremely wicked nation make a big difference to God?

God is trying to make the Jewish nation ready to accept Jesus as a baby into it, so how “good” does the nation of Israel have to get and what all will God do to get it there?

The whole Old Testament is addressing the preparation for the Jewish nation to humbly accept Jesus and here we find the very wicked nation of Babilon helping bringing that about.

Sorry. I should have been more clear.
You were discussing omnipresence, and all knowing.
I wanted to know how you viewed those scriptures, in relation to these.
One scripture says God' eyes are too pure to look upon evil, and the other says the arrogant cannot stand in God's presence.
How do you see these in relation to God being omnipresent?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm sorry?
You must have misunderstood.
What does the writing of Acts have to do with this?
Mankind populated the earth before the book of Acts.

Yes I did misunderstand and I apologize. I was in a hurry and didn’t read the verse from Acts that you quoted.

 

[CoreyD]

Yes I did misunderstand and I apologize. I was in a hurry and didn’t read the verse from Acts that you quoted.

Cool. So now, do you agree? If not, why do you disagree?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Cool. So now, do you agree? If not, why do you disagree?

No because the term “foundation of the world” seems to be referring to the actual planet not people in my opinion. I also disagree that the word Kosmos is used in reference to people 99% of the time. It’s used 187 times in the NT so that would mean that it’s only used twice in reference to the planet itself which I strongly disagree with.

 

[CoreyD]

No because the term “foundation of the world” seems to be referring to the actual planet not people in my opinion. I also disagree that the word Kosmos is used in reference to people 99% of the time. It’s used 187 times in the NT so that would mean that it’s only used twice in reference to the planet itself which I strongly disagree with.

Okay. I may have upped a notch on the percentage. 95% thereabouts
However, I understand that you have an opinion, but would you not prefer to have a basis for that opinion?
What scriptural basis do you have?

Also, if as you believe, the expression does refer to the actual planet, when was the blood of the prophets spilled before when the planet was created? Luke 11:50-51

 

[bling]

Sorry. I should have been more clear.
You were discussing omnipresence, and all knowing.
I wanted to know how you viewed those scriptures, in relation to these.
One scripture says God' eyes are too pure to look upon evil, and the other says the arrogant cannot stand in God's presence.
How do you see these in relation to God being omnipresent?

Again, these are very poetic messages and could certainly have hyperboles.

Job 1:6 One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Jesus washed Judas’ feet.

Jesus was around lots of sinners, demons and satan on occasions.

Jesus and God were not active participants in any evil.

 

[CoreyD]

Again, these are very poetic messages and could certainly have hyperboles.

Job 1:6 One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Jesus washed Judas’ feet.

Jesus was around lots of sinners, demons and satan on occasions.

Jesus and God were not active participants in any evil.

Okay. Thanks.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Okay. I may have upped a notch on the percentage. 95% thereabouts
However, I understand that you have an opinion, but would you not prefer to have a basis for that opinion?
What scriptural basis do you have?

Also, if as you believe, the expression does refer to the actual planet, when was the blood of the prophets spilled before when the planet was created? Luke 11:50-51

Sorry I’m at work and have to make quick replies but it goes along with what Peter said in 1 Peter 1-2 about God choosing us according to His foreknowledge. I believe the book of life being written before the foundation of the world coincides with that verse.

 

[CoreyD]

Sorry I’m at work and have to make quick replies but it goes along with what Peter said in 1 Peter 1-2 about God choosing us according to His foreknowledge. I believe the book of life being written before the foundation of the world coincides with that verse.

Okay. I'll wait until you answer the last question. Thanks.

 

[Derf]

You are assuming a definition of Omnipresent to include God literally being in your sugar canister, but that does not need to be the definition of "omnipresent", we have to allow God to define what we call "omnipresent" and use His definition for: Jeremiah 23:24 – God Fills Heaven and Earth. “Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?” declares the LORD. “Do not I fill heaven and earth

His omnipresence is limited to what makes sense. He's not in my glove box or toilet. I think it means that He's able to observe everything. You can't hide from Him.

.... All I am saying is the same way God is this omnipresent is the way God is omnipresent throughout time, both being impossible to scientifically reconcile.

You can make the assertion, but it's merely an assertion. You can't back it up with scripture.

Not at all! Read Jerimiah 18 again. If God did not "know" the future of the nation, He would have to state it being contingent "if" you do not repent I will destroy you. The fact that God does know requires a none human definition of God's future actions, stating He will when He might not, so we are to take what God says "He will do some bad" as a warning, and ultimatum to repent or be destroyed.

Nineveh did not know at the time, but God did know at the time what He would do (let them go). Nineveh took God's prophecy of their future as a warning and repented (that is what Jerimiah tell us to do with a prophecy from God, even if it is stated as a firm prophecy).
If I give you my prediction of the future you know to just take it as a warning since I do not know the future, but God does know our future so for Him to speak of His actions in the future we have to invoke Jer. 18 to make it a warning. (God is not lying).

If God knows our future and tells us an incorrect future as a warning, He's still telling us a falsehood, so he's lying in your view.

God knew from the beginning of time what Nineveh would do, so how can He warn them, without invoking Jer. 18 or suggest He does not know?

Did God know from the beginning of time what He would do? Because the text says He changed His mind.
Jonah 3:10 KJV — And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Which fits perfectly with Jer 18.

 

[Derf]

The phrase would identify "I" as an uncreated being.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean timeless.

If Jesus said so (need citation) then the sentence would affirm "I am ..." as consistent with the other verses I cited.

? A being that in very moment "was", and "is", and "is to come" exists in eternity.

Not necessarily. It depends on the context. I could be a being that was, is, and is to come. I currently am at my house, I was at my house yesterday, and tomorrow I will go to town and come to my house again.

God is one in being, two in nature, and three in persons. As He is one in being, Jesus and the Father are one and use the self-referential verb "Am" as applying to their mode of being. "Am" as the present tense of the verb "be".

? I assume that w/o a citation you mean His 2nd coming as reported in Mat 24:36.

If this is your reference, then "Not even the Son ..." begs the question, "Son of whom?" Jesus as "Son of Man", as He referred to Himself, did not know.

"Although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:6-7).​

In his commentary on this verse, Matthew Poole writes, "Nay, I myself, as man, know it not. Nor is it more absurd, or derogating from the perfection of Christ, than for to say, that Christ, as man, was not omnipotent, or omniscient."

I'll leave it to you to explain the mystery that is the nature of God.

Was He ignoring His knowledge? Or was the information inaccessible?

 

[bling]

You can make the assertion, but it's merely an assertion. You can't back it up with scripture.

Since one scientifically unexplainable miracle is true, than a similar unexplainable miracle can be true in the same way. If time is relative like science is showing it is no great stretch to believe time would be totally relative for God.

If God knows our future and tells us an incorrect future as a warning, He's still telling us a falsehood, so he's lying in your view.

You would be right if Jerimiah had not redefined: "A God given prophecy about His future actions". You want to use only your definition of a God given prophecy.

Did God know from the beginning of time what He would do? Because the text says He changed His mind.
Jonah 3:10 KJV — And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Which fits perfectly with Jer 18.

God did not do what was prophesied, but the prophecy was always contingent on the actions of the people (Jer. 18). The "actions" of God, we see as a change from the actual wording of the prophecy, but God know all along what He would do.

If did not know Himself what He would do, than God is totally miss leading us with Jerimiah 18, since His actions should be stated only as contingent and not seemingly fixed.

 

[Derf]

Since one scientifically unexplainable miracle is true, than a similar unexplainable miracle can be true in the same way. If time is relative like science is showing it is no great stretch to believe time would be totally relative for God.

You would be right if Jerimiah had not redefined: "A God given prophecy about His future actions". You want to use only your definition of a God given prophecy.

God did not do what was prophesied, but the prophecy was always contingent on the actions of the people (Jer. 18). The "actions" of God, we see as a change from the actual wording of the prophecy, but God know all along what He would do.

Then God can't repent of what He was going to do. Since God tells us He repented of what He was going to do, you are telling us that God lied both to the Ninevites and is lying to us in the book of Jonah, as well as in Jeremiah 18.

If did not know Himself what He would do, than God is totally miss leading us with Jerimiah 18, since His actions should be stated only as contingent and not seemingly fixed.

You seem to have some odd idea about what Jer 18 is saying. I presume it is based on other presuppositions about God, like that He knows everything about the future from eternity. Why do you think that? Can you give scripture for it?

 

[bling]

Then God can't repent of what He was going to do. Since God tells us He repented of what He was going to do, you are telling us that God lied both to the Ninevites and is lying to us in the book of Jonah, as well as in Jeremiah 18.

You have to define “words” used in scripture by the context. Take the word “hate” which Jesus uses to describe how we are to think about our parents and family, since Jesus tells us to “hate” our family. We understand that when Deity uses the word “Hate”, it does not carry the same meaning as when we use the word “hate”. The same thing happens when deity describes His own actions as “repenting” (turning away from what He said He would do). Deity’s repenting is like man’s repenting, but with man repents from what he did and later does not like what he did, but God said or did what He had to do, but hates He had to say it or do it.

You seem to have some odd idea about what Jer 18 is saying. I presume it is based on other presuppositions about God, like that He knows everything about the future from eternity. Why do you think that? Can you give scripture for it?

Prophecies about what others will do always happen. Prophecies about what God will do (under the truism of Jer. 18) are contingent on man’s actions. Peter, Judas and John the Baptist have some great fulfilled prophecies.

I do see Jer. 18 being very strait forward, so what other meaning could it have?

I also see time as being relative for God and God not being limited by something that is already relative.

Do you believe time is relative?

 

[Derf]

You have to define “words” used in scripture by the context.

Yes, I agree. I don't see you doing that with Jer. 18.

Take the word “hate” which Jesus uses to describe how we are to think about our parents and family, since Jesus tells us to “hate” our family. We understand that when Deity uses the word “Hate”, it does not carry the same meaning as when we use the word “hate”. The same thing happens when deity describes His own actions as “repenting” (turning away from what He said He would do). Deity’s repenting is like man’s repenting, but with man repents from what he did and later does not like what he did, but God said or did what He had to do, but hates He had to say it or do it.

I'll have to think about that a bit.

Prophecies about what others will do always happen. Prophecies about what God will do (under the truism of Jer. 18) are contingent on man’s actions. Peter, Judas and John the Baptist have some great fulfilled prophecies.

I do see Jer. 18 being very strait forward, so what other meaning could it have?

You say it is straight forward, but then you say it means something that I don't see in the text. Your understanding of it is informed by your other understandings of God and mankind. Thus you say that God always knows what the nation's will do, and He doesn't change His mind about their destruction or blessing, but the passage is saying He does change His mind on it.

I also see time as being relative for God and God not being limited by something that is already relative.

Do you believe time is relative?

I believe time is relative, but I also believe that you can't have sequence of actions by an individual without some concept of time. In other words, if God made the birds and fish on day 5 of creation, and animals on day 6 of creation, those days were not all the same time to God. When He created man, it was AFTER He created the dry land on which He lives. God creates in an orderly fashion, which means in the right sequence, because one act (creation of man) is dependent on another act (dry land to live on).

 

[GentleGospeller]

Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same.
— Matthew 26:33-35

Could Peter have stuck to his guns and shown Jesus that He was wrong?

Peter wasn't converted yet, and was simply boastful in self in front of the others, after Jesus made a statement, since it was foretold in the OT ( Psa. 38:11, 69:20, 88:18; Zec. 13:7):

Zec_13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Mat 26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

Luk_22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

If the question is asked in regards a false ideology of 'predestination', this would not be an example to use. God's prophecy, simply foretells what the disciples would choose in that moment, not that they had to choose what they did. It shows how the disciples would choose to react to the arrest and subsequent death of Jesus.