Blatant misrepresentation. It is precisely because I HAVE a high opinion of God that I'm sure He wouldn't treat the innocent that way.
Again, divine holiness means that ALL God's actions must be beyond reproach. Subjecting millions or billions of innocents to starvation, disease, death, rape, etc. in their fetal, infantile, or childhood stages is hardly beyond reproach. That is the work of a monster.
My view of Adam affords a solution - the only solution provided in the last 2,000 years, as far as I can see.
My suspicion was correct. You don't have a solution. You prefer to persist in a world view that contradicts the absolute holiness of God. I don't.
That is a concept I have have been looking at lately. Along with the idea the Jews are judged by the law, not Gentiles. But there is this as wellThe terms "end of the age" and "last days" were used by Old Testament prophets to speak of the end of the Old Covenant.
That is a concept I have have been looking at lately. Along with the idea the Jews are judged by the law, not Gentiles. But there is this as well
Ge 49:1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.
The end days for the Sinai covenant, and the prophetic utterances spoken by Moses concerning them.
Again, blatant misrepresentation. YOUR world view blames it on God. MY view of Adam avoids the issue altogether. This is beginning to look like cheap debating tactics.But that's the facts. That's what is occurring. To blame that on God is just weird.
Um...I thought none of us here are infallible. But since your view of God is apparently NOT suspect, then you evidently see yourself as infallible.Problem is, your view on God is suspect.
And you don't see the irony of that statement?Plus, you think you're the smartest guy on the planet for the past 2000 years.
No, actually your world view places the blame squarely on God's shoulders. Mine - and Erickson's - does not.I don't blame God for the world's troubles. I blame man. God is holy.
That is a concept I have have been looking at lately. Along with the idea the Jews are judged by the law, not Gentiles.
Again, blatant misrepresentation. YOUR world view blames it on God. MY view of Adam avoids the issue altogether. This is beginning to look like cheap debating tactics.
Besides, I already told you, I'm not alone here. When you poo-poo my view of Adam, ergo Millard J. Erickson's as well. I take it you are applying all this empty rhetoric to him as well?
No, actually your world view places the blame squarely on God's shoulders. Mine - and Erickson's - does not.
Only the circumcision were subject to the whole law.
John spoke concerning the prophetic utterances of wrath of curses spoken by Moses.Some Gentiles were judged by the law too, those who submitted to it while it was still in effect. Nobody is judged by that law today as it is no longer in effect.
Yes there are a bunch more. They become as if they were native born.We have clear examples of God telling the Jews that if a "stranger" were to submit to the law, he was to be accepted and treated as if he were one of them.
Leviticus 19:34
'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.
Exodus 12:49
"The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you."
Leviticus 24:22
'There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.'"
Numbers 9:14
'If an alien sojourns among you and observes the Passover to the LORD, according to the statute of the Passover and according to its ordinance, so he shall do; you shall have one statute, both for the alien and for the native of the land.'"
Numbers 15:14
'If an alien sojourns with you, or one who may be among you throughout your generations, and he wishes to make an offering by fire, as a soothing aroma to the LORD, just as you do so he shall do.
There are a bunch more.
Obviously. The blame is not explicit, it is by IMPLICATION. It is the unavoidable extrapolation of an inadequate theory of Adam.I have specifically stated I don't blame God for that. You can't pin your misconceptions about what I think on me with all of the foot stomping in the world.
That's hyperbolic - it's yet another misrepresentation of my objection - and thus irrelevant. Ignored.I don't care what some men say about it. I care about what the scriptures say. And they don't say that all of the evil in the world is God's fault.
John spoke concerning the prophetic utterances of wrath of curses spoken by Moses.
Mt 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Lu 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Lu 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Yes there are a bunch more. They become as if they were native born.
Ex 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
Some of those one law commands for strangers are only as long as they are dwelling in the land, not when they are not.
This is what I'm talking about - empty rhetoric. Most theologians ambition to pioneer new findings, insights, and solutions overlooked by previous exegetes. But you are quick to distort my words as a springboard for disparaging rhetoric.Everything is wrong with a pioneering view and the Bible teaches that it's wrong.
This is what I'm talking about - empty rhetoric. Most theologians ambition to pioneer new findings, insights, and solutions overlooked by previous exegetes. But you are quick to distort my words as a springboard for disparaging rhetoric.
What's your point? That you and the rest of the church are infallible? That no one in our present generation, such as I myself, could find something that you - and all preceding generations - missed?You have already yourself admitted that your view is so novel that nobody except you has figured it out in the past 2000 years. Your own words convict you.
Actually I've always characterized my theologizing as brainless work. It's an idiot-level critique of traditional thinking based on the following observation. From what I've seen, all traditional theologians honor the law of non-contradiction only to a point - the point at which it conflicts with their own foundational set of assumptions presumed non-negotiable. A sample set of such assumptions is that God is infinite, immutable, impassible, incorruptible,immaterial, infinitely powerful, omnipresent (etc, etc, etc). These theologians refuse to entertain the possibility that some of these foundational assumptions themselves might be mutually conflicting. That's where I step in. It's brainless work.Plus, you think you're the smartest guy on the planet for the past 2000 years.
Actually I've always characterized my theologizing as brainless work.
Any valid treatment of Adam implies reincarnation. You've opted for a self-contradictory theodicy rather than admit that fact. That's your prerogative.Re-incarnation and other things not taught in the scripture. I'll have to agree with you.
Implicitly. The word Trinity isn't "taught in scripture" - it is IMPLIED by the facts.Re-incarnation and other things not taught in the scripture. I'll have to agree with you.
Yes. The wrath that John preached was coming on the Jew, because they are judged by the law. Gentiles however are also spoken of concerning this because of how the uncircumcised (in heart) nations treat All Israel when the curses comes upon them. We die apart from the law.Which was uttered before the law was abolished through Christ's sacrifice.
Again, before the law was abolished. So those people would be judged by the law they were under and by their refusal to accept the gospel.
