|
theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (5/11/2008 7:28:53 PM)
|
TO THEO'S REMARK: "We are gods."
YOU RESPONDED: Be careful how you define that word "gods."
THEO'S RESPONSE: Actually I did not "define that word gods." Jesus is the one who said it in John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..."
And Jesus was quoting the 82nd Psalm - "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." [Psa 82:6] If Jesus said "he called them gods," Be careful how YOU Perceive "Gods."
YOU WROTE: You still have yet to answer the question "Where was God BEFORE He submitted?"
THEO'S RESPONSE: No I don't. There was no such question waiting when I posted so where did it come from? If it is a new question, say so. Do not say "You still have yet to answer" if it was not already a question.
YOU WROTE: To submit is an action requiring time.
THEO'S RESPONSE: I am glad to see you understand that verbs require time for their action to be expressed.
"I AM" tells us both who and what. "I" is Jehovah God. "AM" is the 1st person singular present indicative of the verb "BE."
"BE" is a verb and auxilliary verb;
present singular 1st person "AM;" 2nd person "are;" 3rd person "is."
present plural, "are"
past singular - 1st person "was;" 2nd person "were; 3rd person "was."
Since "BE" is a verb of existence, existing REQUIRES time in which to function; to occupy a place or position.
I fail to understand why you defend a man made doctrine like "God created time" when scripture not only does not say he did, but logic demands that he did not.
"Before" and "after" are both references to time. Since the sun, moon, and stars were not created until the fourth day, there were at least three "days" prior to their creation, so the creation of the sun, moon, and stars was not the creation of time. it was the creation of those heavenly bodies by which we measure or regulate time. But time itself, already existed prior to the fourth day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And there was activity occurring prior to the Genesis account of creation. "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth [third day], nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." [Prov 8:22-31]
And in all this telling, God never tells us "where he was" so your question is our of order.
YOU WROTE: If God submitted Himself to something, then logically before He submitted Himself He was indeed not submitted to it. The ONLY answer you can possibly give is that God was always and eternally submitted to it.
THEO'S RESPONSE: But my friend, I have already given you my response to that. Therefore, your assertion that "The ONLY answer you can possibly give is that God was always and eternally submitted to it," is also out of order. That is YOUR logical conundrum, not mine.
My response was likened to one who submits himself to a different system of time accountability. And it is not only a valid illustration, it is to the point.
YOU WROTE: If that is so, the question now becomes "So does God not have a free will?" You have a lot of questions you need to answer, but frankly you can't, neither can I.
THEO'S RESPONSE: But as you can see, "that" is not so.
As for your argument limiting God by "free will" so that he cannot commit himself to his own covenant, again your entire line of logic is out of line. He can "submit himself" to anything he wants to commit himself to.
And I certainly believe it is true, "You" cannot answer the "lot of questions" you reference.
YOU WROTE: And no, you CAN NOT possibly understand the Essence of God Almighty, PERIOD.
THEO'S RESPONSE: True. "Essence of God" is not found in scripture. Why would I try to understand a man made doctrine?
As for my assertion that I can understnad whatever God expresses in his revelation for my understanding, I hold to it. Otherwise God issues futile commands for ulterior purposes. Punishing people for failing to do what he commands them to do when they cannot do it is cruel. THAT is not God, that is man's attempt to make something of God that he is not.
YOU WROTE:The only other way to get yourself out of this hole is to somehow prove time is an aspect of God, such as His holiness, love, etc.
THEO'S RESPONSE: I am so happy YOU are not assigned to tell me how to get out of holes made for me by you. I am not in the hole of your own creation. Your conclusions are errors of logic, and doctrines of men.
It is easy to defeat an opponent if you can tell them what their argument should be and then invent its limiting parameters. But your parameters and limitations are no part of my argument.
YOU WROTE; But the Bible says God is unchangeable. In order for time to exist, something must happen, resulting in a change from what was to what is. But God doesn't change, ( For I am the LORD, I change not )
THEO'S RESPONSE: Time existed for God to "BE. Therefore, time is not an aspect nor attribute of God. To quibble over "when" God acted in time is futile, for God does not tell us the "when" of things in the beginning, except to indicate by the use of "beginning" that it was very early in his reckoning of things.
TO THEO'S REMARK: "So all those "infinite capabilities" and "attributes" that are ascribed to God, come from doctrines of men, not from God himself....they are in no way binding on our understanding..."
YOU RESPONDED: Oh really? Note the scriptures below.
2Ch 2:5 & 6 And the house which I build is great: for great is our God above all gods. But who is able to build him a house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him a house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?
1Ki 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have built?
Jer 23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.
1Jn 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?
Psa 145:3 Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.
THEO'S RESPONSE: To say something is "unsearchable" is a reference to our own ability to force the issue and find out under our own wfforts and strangth. We cannot "find out" anything at all about God.
But if God expresses himself to us in revelation ("Search the scriptures"), in prophecies, in dreams, in confrontations, any of the many ways God communicated to men through history, then we can certainly understand those things about God for which he punishes us for not understanding and doing.
Again, it is refreshing to see you refer to scriptures instead of telling me "God is omni-whatever."
YOU WROTE: These "infinite capabilities" are in God's words of which He inspired men to write. The "omni's" that you detest are indeed scriptural. If the previous scriptures do not prove God's omnipresence ("behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee"), omnipotence ("but the thunder of his power who can understand?"), and omniscience ("For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."), then what is your explanation?
THEO'S RESPONSE: My "explanation" is simple. You choose to use words not found in scripture, to define doctrines that ARE found in scripture. I do not subscribe to that practice, nor to that creed.
The reference questions you use are not questions of what is revealed, but rather references those things God used to demonstrate man's limited understanding and ability. Do not expect me to attempt to respond to those questions God asked to show man's inability to respond. And I still do not respond to the Latin doctrines of men.
YOU WROTE: The reason you have a problem accepting the "omni's" of God is that once you do, you must accept the fact that you are not as smart as you had hoped. You want to understand God, but you can't, and your ego now becomes your bias, even though scripture, as shown, clearly proves you wrong.
THEO'S RESPONSE: How wrong and terribly unjust your accusations are. I am not smart enough to build God in my own image. Perhaps you are. And I can and DO understnad God as he revealed himself to me in his word. If you do not it is either because you need to get out of the Latin and into the humility of spirit required, or you need to quit basing your knowledge of God on doctrines of men who are stuck in "voluntary humility."
YOU WROTE: God is, in all definitions of the word, INEFFABLE. Using man made words to understand something we CAN NOT understand (Job 26:14) is FOOLISH!
THEO'S RESPONSE: Then why do you insist he is (manmade)Omni- anything at all? Why say God is omniscient if we cannot understand his omniscience? it is an exercise in "look what I can invent; surely God loves me above common men."
YOUW WROTE: Sir (or Madam), with all due respect, when you used Isaiah 1:18 "Come, let us reason together", you took that WAY out of context. You, my friend, are leading people astray, whether naively or purposely, and this I take personally. The context of that verse and passage is repentance and getting your heart right with God, NOT philosophy. If you would read more than what you need to prove your argument, you will see that the passage speaks of Judah transgressing God's law. "Come, let us reason together" can be said “Come, let us settle the matter” or “Come, let us settle our differences.” It is a call to a trial, where God offers forgiveness to those (Judah) who have sinned. It has NO implication to reasoning God's Essence! It has NOTHING to do with theology. Again with all due respect, you are bordering on heresy, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were simply careless. I would hate to assume you knew the context of that passage and yet chose to twist it your way.
THEO'S RESPONSE: It is YOU who are out of context my friend. The context under attack by you is simply showing that if one will repent, he can reason with God himself. And that is not "philosophy" that is God speaking.
And you are at least correct in saying "it has no implication to reasoning God's essence." "God's Essence" is not a scriptural consideration. It is found no where in scripture. It is a man made concept. And I will never attempt to understand the "essence of God" because it is nonsense.
|
|
|
|