• 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.

Ascension/Assumption of Moses blatantly teaches that Open Theism is wrong

True Science

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2015
689
68
✟1,301.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Ascension/Assumption of Moses blatantly teaches that Open Theism is wrong


By Original Truth Movement


Saturday, March, 5, 2016



All quotes from the Ascension/Assumption of Moses are from the biblicalaudio.com version found at this link: http://www.biblicalaudio.com/ascension.html.



Dear reader(s), please read the following with emphasis on the bolded and especially underlined parts:


1:10Therefore, Moses spoke to Joshua, “Keep this word, and promise me that you will2 do everything which has been commanded in such a way that you will be blameless. 1:11 Therefore, this is what the Lord of the universe has decreed. 1:12 For he created the universe on behalf of his people; 1:13 but from the beginning of the universe, he did not make this design of creation openly known, in order that the nations might be found guilty, yes, that they might abjectly declare themselves guilty by their own deliberations.


1:14“Therefore, he3 has designed and devised me, I, who have been appointed4 before the founding of the world, to be a mediator of his covenant. 1:15 But now, I shall reveal it to you, because the years of my life have come to an end; and, in the presence of the entire community, I am going to the resting-place of my fathers. 1:16 But take this writing, so that, later, you will remember how to preserve the books which I shall entrust to you. 1:17 And you shall arrange them, and anoint them with cedar, and deposit them in earthenware jars in the place which God has chosen from the beginning of the creation of the universe, 1:18 a place where his name may be called upon until the day of recompense when the Lord shall visit them in the consummation of the end of the days.


[. . .]


12:1 And when he had finished speaking these words, Joshua again fell at the feet of Moses. 12:2 And Moses grasped his hand and raised him into the seat before him; and responding to him, he said, 12:3 “Joshua, do not despise yourself, but free your mind from care and pay attention to my words. 12:4 All the nations in the universe, God has created, along with us. And he has foreseen both them and us from the beginning of the creation of the universe even to the end of the age. And nothing, even to the least thing, has been overlooked by him. But rather, he has seen everything, and he is the cause of everything. 12:5 [The Lord] has foreseen everything which might come to exist in the universe; and, behold, they have come to pass […12:6 The Lord has] established me for them, and [appointed me to pray] for their sins, and [to make intercession] on their behalf. 12:7 Yet, this is not on account of either my strength or weakness, but simply that his mercies and longsuffering have descended upon me.


12:8“For I say to you, Joshua: it is not on account of the piety of this people that you shall drive out the nations. 12:9 However, everything of the heavens, the firmaments of the world, have been created and approved by God, and are under the ring15 of his right hand. 12:10 Therefore, those who truly fulfill his commandments will flourish and will prosper. 12:11 But those who sin by disregarding the commandments will deprive themselves of the good things which were previously mentioned, and they will be punished by the nations with many tortures; 12:12 but it is not possible for the nations to completely drive them out or to completely leave them. 12:13 For God, who has foreseen all things in the ages, will go forth; and his covenant has been established, and by the oath which […]”


[. . .]


[Footnotes:


2 possible emendation “[Be strong] and of a good courage, so that you may”

3 Lat / Gk “God”

4 Gk / Lat “prepared”]


[. . .]


15 emendation / manuscript “nothing””


I don’t think I need to exegete this for anyone with any understanding, even an Open Theist. If I do, I feel really sorry for that person. It is very clear what this is teaching. It blatantly teaches that God before the creation already foreknew the whole future and he predetermined everything that would happen in all the ages, he decreed all that was to come to pass. For anyone who believes the entire Bible, this should be enough. The reason is, Jude clearly endorsed this Book as authoritative holy writ in Jude, when he wrote:


1:8Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. 1:9Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”” (NKJV)


He is clearly alluding to and quoting this part of the Book:


CONCLUSION


[[The remainder of this book is non-extant; but a possible summary has been composed using the surviving fragments, most which derive from the quotations of various early writers who had this book still in their possession.]]


And Moses said to Joshua son of Nun, “Let us go up into the mountain.” And when they had gone up, Moses saw the land ofpromise and said to him, “Go down to the people and tell themthat Moses is dead.”


And Joshua began to go down toward the people, but Moses came to the end of his life. When Moses died on the mountain, Sammael the slanderer tried to bring his body down to the people so that they might make it a god, but Michael the chiefmessenger, commanded by God, came with other messengers to take it, in order to have it buried. But Sammael would not allow him to remove the body to be buried. Wishing to deceive, he resisted him, and they argued.


The slanderer said, “The body is mine, for I am the master of material things.”


And the messenger said, “For by a holy spirit of his were we all created; and from the face of God, his spirit went forth and the world was made.”


The slanderer also said, “God has lied by bringing Moses into the land which he swore he should not enter.”


Michael answered and said, “For the serpent, which you inspired, was the cause of the transgression of Adam and Eva.”


The slanderer also slandered Moses, proclaiming, “Moses is a murderer; he struck a man in Egypt and hid him in the sand.” And because of this, the slanderer would not allow him to receive the honorable burial.


Michael the chief-messenger did not tolerate the revilement against him. Yet, since he lacked authority, he dared not bring a reviling judgment against him; instead, he declared to the slanderer, “The Lord rebuke you, slanderer!”


Then Michael prayed to God. And the Lord, in answer, sent thunder and lightning out of the heavens. And so the slanderer, being defeated, suddenly took flight and disappeared.


It seemed that, then, some cloud or shining light came upon the place, obscuring it and walling it off from the onlookers, so that they might not know the location of his grave. But Joshua son of Nun saw this spectacle from above, when he, along with Caleb, was lifted up by an unseen-power.16


Two Moseses became visible: indeed, one was alive in the unseen-power,17 but the other was dead in the body. Indeed, the one went along with the messengers as their companion, where a new name was given to him in the heavens: Melchi. But the other, by the command of God, was removed by the chiefmessengerMichael and committed to the earth, being honoredwith a burial in the ravines on the mountains, where Michaelburied him with his own hands. And the messengers who hadburied the body of Moses were not made unclean18 by touchingthe holy body.


Instead, both Joshua and Caleb did not behold this in the same way. Instead, indeed, one descended with greater speed, (asif the weight he carried was greater); while the other, on descending after him, subsequently described the glory which he had been looking at, (since, being purer than the other, he was able to perceive more).19


[. . .]


[Footnotes:


16 may also be translated “spirit” or “wind”

17 may also be translated “spirit” or “wind”

18 literally “common”

19 parenthetical clauses may be comments made by the quoter, rather than part of the original text]


[. . .]”


I understand however that this will not convince most Open Theists, as they, like most “Christians”, hold to the biased and baseless view of the 66 Books of the Protestant Bible being the only true authoritative Word of God, even though it contradicts that very Bible of theirs itself because that Bible clearly has no such doctrine in it and also there are things that clearly teach, like what I have showed here, that there are extra-biblical books of Scripture. But these people have to use vain twisted and hoop jumping logic to reason away what is absolutely clearly taught in their Bible and to prop up and defend what is absolutely taught nowhere in their Bible. This will only convince and settle the matter for those who fully believe the Bible. For those who are Open Theists but know the Truth about the Canon, you must change your views and reconcile your biblical “proof” texts with this Apocryphon just like how those on the other side of this debate reconcile their biblical proof texts with your supposed ones. There is just no real way out of this. No real way to wrest this in favor of Open Theism.
 

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟24,319.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It blatantly teaches that God before the creation already foreknew the whole future and he predetermined everything that would happen in all the ages, he decreed all that was to come to pass.

The phrase "before the creation" does not occur in the passages you cited; that is your own addition, and reveals your interpretative biases (so much for not needing to exegete the passages...). The most common phrase is "from the beginning of the creation of the universe". There is a mention of "before the founding of the world", but is not necessarily equivalent with the creation of the universe.

This is important as one could interpret "from the beginning of the creation of the universe" as pertaining to the domain of God's knowledge which is related to a creation which is understood as having an existence that is concomitant with God's knowledge of it. Within such a rendering, an Open Theist certainly has room to articulate their point of view without openly contradicting the text.

For anyone who believes the entire Bible, this should be enough.

Many anyone who has the same presuppositions as you do. As I briefly mentioned above, even this text leaves open the possibility for alternative renderings.

I understand however that this will not convince most Open Theists, as they, like most “Christians”, hold to the biased and baseless view of the 66 Books of the Protestant Bible being the only true authoritative Word of God, even though it contradicts that very Bible of theirs itself because that Bible clearly has no such doctrine in it and also there are things that clearly teach, like what I have showed here, that there are extra-biblical books of Scripture.

This is not a relevant argument. As I showed above, even the text you quoted is open to interpretation.

But these people have to use vain twisted and hoop jumping logic to reason away what is absolutely clearly taught in their Bible and to prop up and defend what is absolutely taught nowhere in their Bible. This will only convince and settle the matter for those who fully believe the Bible. For those who are Open Theists but know the Truth about the Canon, you must change your views and reconcile your biblical “proof” texts with this Apocryphon just like how those on the other side of this debate reconcile their biblical proof texts with your supposed ones. There is just no real way out of this. No real way to wrest this in favor of Open Theism.

If I were an open theist, I would have no problem reconciling my beliefs with these passages.
 
Upvote 0

True Science

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2015
689
68
✟1,301.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
"The phrase "before the creation" does not occur in the passages you cited; that is your own addition, and reveals your interpretative biases (so much for not needing to exegete the passages...). The most common phrase is "from the beginning of the creation of the universe". There is a mention of "before the founding of the world", but is not necessarily equivalent with the creation of the universe.

This is important as one could interpret "from the beginning of the creation of the universe" as pertaining to the domain of God's knowledge which is related to a creation which is understood as having an existence that is concomitant with God's knowledge of it. Within such a rendering, an Open Theist certainly has room to articulate their point of view without openly contradicting the text."


You are making a moot point here. The text clearly teaches that God knew everything that would happen in all the ages and ordained it all.
 
Upvote 0

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟24,319.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Anything is reconciliable then, LOL.

Perhaps, but you have not convincingly shown that this particular theological perspective is irreconcilable. Your own conclusions go well beyond what the text says, and you resorted to an additive summary of the text in order to show how OT is incompatible. However, this contradicts your own assertions that the text itself precludes OT from serious consideration.
 
Upvote 0

True Science

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2015
689
68
✟1,301.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
"Your own conclusions go well beyond what the text says, and you resorted to an additive summary of the text in order to show how OT is incompatible. However, this contradicts your own assertions that the text itself precludes OT from serious consideration."

This is the OT. The same mainstream Christians use to reconcile biblical books should be used for the Apocrypha. But it is not.

My conclusions do not go well beyond what the text says. They are very much in keeping with the clear mindset the author has.
 
Upvote 0

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟24,319.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The fact that this guy today said that this is reconciliable with Open Theism is the reason why I have avoided debates and discussions with most people. It is just an unfruitful waste of time, energy and resources for the most part.

Lol, you are the one who invited comments by posting in a public forum. If you are not willing (or are unable) to engage with serious challenges to your opinions, perhaps you should stay away.
 
Upvote 0

True Science

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2015
689
68
✟1,301.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Lol, you are the one who invited comments by posting in a public forum. If you are not willing (or are unable) to engage with serious challenges to your opinions, perhaps you should stay away.

I see any serious challenge. When I do, I usually end up writing about it or making a video to address it. You can't answer every single falsehood and flaw of man in this world. I reserve the right to selectively address who I want and when I want as I see fit.
 
Upvote 0

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟24,319.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It helps others to see and not go down the exhausting and annoying waste of time and energy road that I went on

Interesting. I typically see complaining as a lack of ability for critical thought. To each his own, I guess.
 
Upvote 0

True Science

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2015
689
68
✟1,301.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Interesting. I typically see complaining as a lack of ability for critical thought. To each his own, I guess.

Your opinion sounds much like the thinking of modern scholarship but this reasoning doesn't sound like that of the Scripture. Have you ever seen how Paul reasons and makes his point in Galatians? Most scholars today would point out all sorts of "flaws" in his reasoning. He is very emotion driven, complains about his opponents, curses them, and doesn't leave room for any continued dialogue but finishes by telling people not to bother him about the matter anymore.
 
Upvote 0

AionPhanes

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2015
841
430
Michigan
✟25,674.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Do all open theist embrace the idea of Biblical infallibility where they would have to accept every Old Testament statement like that as being literally accurate?

Couldn't an open theist say the majority of verses don't require God to have perfect foreknowledge and the few that do are probably misleading. They represent the ancient Jewish community/s7, and the author's, best attempt to express the mystery of God but they are not infallible**. The fact that a good number of verses among different books of the Bible flat out contradict one another would point to this being the case.

** At least when interpreted literally or historically. They might not contradict when interpreted according to say a less obvious Kabbalistic or allegorical method.
 
Upvote 0

True Science

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2015
689
68
✟1,301.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Do all open theist embrace the idea of Biblical infallibility where they would have to accept every Old Testament statement like that as being literally accurate?

Couldn't an open theist say the majority of verses don't require God to have perfect foreknowledge and the few that do are probably misleading. They represent the ancient Jewish community/s7, and the author's, best attempt to express the mystery of God but they are not infallible**. The fact that a good number of verses among different books of the Bible flat out contradict one another would point to this being the case.

** At least when interpreted literally or historically. They might not contradict when interpreted according to say a less obvious Kabbalistic or allegorical method.

Wouldn't surprise me. I have found Open Theists to be quite liberal, so I wouldn't put it past some of them. I think there are a lot of different versions of the belief though. But anyway, the belief is not historical. It is very novel. I never believe a doctrine that doesn't have basis pre-Nicea in history of Judaism and (at least or) Christianity. That will help a person to really narrow down what the truth is.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
 
Upvote 0

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟24,319.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Do all open theist embrace the idea of Biblical infallibility where they would have to accept every Old Testament statement like that as being literally accurate?

It's questionable, however, what "literally accurate" actually means. When we are speaking of God's relationship to the universe, we can only speak in measured terms as our understanding is boundary-limited by the subjectivity of our contingent minds. So I see that these passages are not "self-evident contradictions of OT", even when we apply the most literal of interpretations to the text.
 
Upvote 0

AionPhanes

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2015
841
430
Michigan
✟25,674.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
It's questionable, however, what "literally accurate" actually means. When we are speaking of God's relationship to the universe, we can only speak in measured terms as our understanding is boundary-limited by the subjectivity of our contingent minds. So I see that these passages are not "self-evident contradictions of OT", even when we apply the most literal of interpretations to the text.

I didn't mean specifically verses about foreknowledge when it came to contridictions. Just that some statements would conflict with others if one stuck to a literal interpretation of each.
 
Upvote 0