Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

bob_2 · 04-10-09 10:00 pm

Elaine said: But John doesn't agree at all with the other three gospels. So, which is on the "True" one? Make your points, guarantee you they are petty differences, that can be chalked up to another view or vantage point.

pilgrim99 · 04-10-09 10:04 pm

Elaine, Start with John, each of the Gospels has a different perspective. Assuming that John Alfke, Neal, Bob and Renie had spent a three year period with you; if someone were to ask John Alfke, Neal, Bob and Renie to write an account of the three year period, it would be logical for each account to be written from a different perspective. Each account would also focus on different aspects of the period. Devon (Message edited by pilgrim99 on April 10, 2009)

bob_2 · 04-10-09 11:10 pm

Elaine said: OTOH, the writer of Eccelesiastes is more realistic: "Go then, eat your bread in happiness, and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works...For this is your reward in life...for there is no activity or planning or wisdom in Shel where you are going." Odd, how seldom this is quoted today. Note this from the Intro to Eccl in the NIV version of the Bible: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:... Ecclesiastes provides instruction on how to live meaningfully, purposefully and joyfully within the theocratic arrangement—primarily by placing God at the center of one’s life, work and activities, by contentedly accepting one’s divinely appointed lot in life, and by reverently trusting in and obeying the Creator-King. Note particularly 2:24–26; 3:11–14,22; 5:18–20; 8:15; 9:7–10; 11:7—12:1; 12:9–14 (see also any pertinent notes on these passages). <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Your summary is a little different from Eccl 12:9-14, again it must be those skeptical books you have been reading!!!

bob_2 · 04-10-09 11:12 pm

<a href="http://www.ibsstl.org/niv/studybible/ecclesiastes.php" target=_top>http://www.ibsstl.org/niv/studybible/ecclesiastes. php</a> Here is that link to the NIV intro to Eccl.

bob_2 · 04-10-09 11:21 pm

Elaine said: How else should we think of God when we read in the OT that he repented for creating man and destroyed them all, save 8? You, John, Neal and maybe others have asked this, maybe even shaking your fist in the air at God, easy answer: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Gen 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> To top it off, it is speculated that the Nephilim had some connect with Lucifer and his angels. If their blood got mixed with man's, and God's plan was to save man, when the Holy Spirit moved on Mary, he want it matched with man not Lucifer's blood.

elaine · 04-10-09 11:24 pm

John, written several decades after the three synoptic gospels, says nothing of a virgin birth, which both Matthew and Luke record. In addition, most of the stories found in John are not found in the synoptics (it is the only one that writes of Lazarus and his being resurrected). In John, there is no reference to Jesus' birth in Bethlehem; there are no temptations in the wilderness; Jesus does not preach the coming kingdom of God, and he never tells a parable. He never casts out a demon. There is no account of the Transfiguration. He does not cleanse the temple when coming to Jerusalem (he did that already in John 2). He does not institute the Lord's supper (instead he washes the disciples feet), and he does not have any kind of official trial before the Jewish council. John tells of Jesus performing miracles, but the miracles are never called that, but "signs." Signs of what? Seven signs are told in the Gospel of John, most of them not found among the miracles of the Synoptics, except walking on water and feeding the multitudes. Some only told in John are turning the water into wine, healing the man born blind, and raising Lazarus from the dead. The idea that Jesus preexisted his birth and that he was a divine being who became human is found ONLY in the Gospel of John. Only by conflating the views in Matthew and Luke is the traditional view that is told. In John, Jesus repeatedly says "I am" the bread of life, the light of the world, the only way to God, and in fact is equal with God "I and the Father are one." In Mark's Gospel, Jesus had his disciples prepare the Passover meal, and ate it with them before being arrested, taken to jail for the night, tried the next morning, and executed at nine o'clock a.m. on the Passover day. But not in John. In John, Jesus dies a day earlier, on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon. IN Mark, Jesus eats the Passover medal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In John, Jesus does not eat the Passover meal, but is crucified on the day before the Passover meal was to be eaten. In John, he is not condemned until noon and then he is taken out and crucified. In John's Gospel, on three occasions Pilate excpressly declares that Jesus is innocent, does not deserve to be punished, and ought to be released. In Mark, Pilate never declares Jesus innocent. At Jesus' death, Mark records that he cried "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" In Luke, Jesus asks his father to forgive them (no mention of his being forsaken), and tells the thief that today you will be with me in Paradise. In John's Gospel, he tells the disciple "Woman, behond your son" and "I am thirsty" and "It is finished." Signifying a plan? Unlike Mark's Gospel where he felt totally rejected by his father. John is the only Gospel in which Jesus is explicitly identified as divine. He is the preeixtent Word of God. If Jesus claimed he was divine it seems strange that Matthew, Mark and Luke all failed to say anything about it. Did they just forget to mention that part? Did they also forget to mention the most amazing miracle--the resurrection of Lazarus? None of the Gospels report observing Jesus' resurrection, only the empty tomb. And in Matthew there were two women, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary who came to an empty tomb and an angel told them to go and tell his disciples and meet him in Galilee. In Mark, three women, two named above and Salome came to the tomb and saw a young man sitting in white robes in the tomb. "And after that, he appeared in a 'different form' to two of them. In Luke two men appeared telling the women that he has risen. In John, only Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw the stone removed and ran to Peter and told him they have taken the Lord away. But Mary, standing outside the tomb saw two angels and then Jesus spoke to her and asked why she was weeping. Did Jesus remain eight, or forty days after his resurrection before ascending? There are multiple discrepancies. John neglects telling of his ascension, but that after the resurrection he and his disciples went fishing, and was seen three times after he was raised from the dead.

pilgrim99 · 04-11-09 12:12 am

A horse can be led to the water, but not forced to drink. How foolish it would be for a thirsty horse, standing at the edge of the water, to critique the pure water, freely offered, instead of simply drinking. One can only assume that the horses belief in their own ability to critique the water is greater than their thirst. Pure water can only satisfy those who are thirsty. It's like someone placing more value in studying the structure of a text, instead of what the text is trying to teach them. I guess that must stroke the ego. How sad, when the Word is meant to provide knowledge of the only One who can give life.

pilgrim99 · 04-11-09 12:28 am

Elaine, my suggestion was to actually study the Gospel of John. After 5 weeks, our fellowship is only up to verse 9 of Chapter 1. Maybe our pastor is too dimwitted to realize that we should have been finished with the entire book by now. We, the congregation must be even more dimwitted, since we come back each week, looking forward to more of God's word.

pilgrim99 · 04-11-09 12:47 am

Please think about what this passage is trying to tell us. Everyone can research the historical context and structure of the text. Not all will seek for what God is telling them personally, through this passage<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: “Hey, all who are thirsty, come to the water! You who have no money, come! Buy and eat! Come! Buy wine and milk without money and without cost! Why pay money for something that will not nourish you? Why spend your hard-earned money on something that will not satisfy? Listen carefully to me and eat what is nourishing! Enjoy fine food! Pay attention and come to me! Listen, so you can live! Then I will make an unconditional covenantal promise to you, just like the reliable covenantal promises I made to David. Look, I made him a witness to nations, a ruler and commander of nations.” Look, you will summon nations you did not previously know; nations that did not previously know you will run to you, because of the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he bestows honor on you. Seek the Lord while he makes himself available; call to him while he is nearby! The wicked need to abandon their lifestyle and sinful people their plans. They should return to the Lord, and he will show mercy to them, and to their God, for he will freely forgive them. “Indeed, my plans are not like your plans, and my deeds are not like your deeds, for just as the sky is higher than the earth, so my deeds are superior to your deeds and my plans superior to your plans. The rain and snow fall from the sky and do not return, but instead water the earth and make it produce and yield crops, and provide seed for the planter and food for those who must eat. In the same way, the promise that I make does not return to me, having accomplished nothing. No, it is realized as I desire and is fulfilled as I intend.” Indeed you will go out with joy; you will be led along in peace; the mountains and hills will give a joyful shout before you, and all the trees in the field will clap their hands. Evergreens will grow in place of thorn bushes, firs will grow in place of nettles; they will be a monument to the Lord, a permanent reminder that will remain. Isaiah 55 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> One of my favorite passages, especially encouraging in times of personal doubt.

pilgrim99 · 04-11-09 1:15 am

Elaine, If you would like to learn from a non agnostic, teacher who is not a blind guide, teach through the Gospel of John, please visit <a href="http://www.pbc.org/message_sets/4152" target=_top>The Gospel of John</a> The studies are available in various formats. If you do decide to follow the studies, I would encourage you to be a good Berean and not just blindly accept what is being taught. Search the Scriptures for yourself, to see if what is being taught is true. I truly pray that you will take the time to engage with the Word. Personally, neither I nor PBC have anything to gain from your study. Perhaps, your eyes will be opened, and you will be able to come back and share some insight that was revealed to you. If so that would be great. If not, perhaps someone else will lead you to the water, and you will then freely drink and in so doing, find what your soul has always desired. The choice as always remains yours. All I ask is that you choose with wisdom. Last thought for tonight, when people who handle cash are trained on how to spot counterfeits, they don't study the counterfeits, but are trained to become intimately familiar with the genuine. Counterfeits are easy to spot, if one truly knows what is genuine. So it is with God's Word. Knowing the genuine is like insurance against deception. Please know that I did not say, knowing ABOUT the genuine, but actually truly coming to know the genuine.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart. Hebrews 4;12 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Peace

elaine · 04-11-09 12:31 pm

You are assuming I am unfamiliar with the Gospel of John. Have you studied the history of the NT and how and why the gospels are quite different? Have you considered that each had a particular audience and chose to emphasize certain points? Are you able to explain those differences, or simply overlook them? John's Gospel was the latest, along with Revelation, to be written and included in the NT. Paul, and the three other gospels were written earlier, and thus the marked difference. In John, you will find the most anti-semitic of the gospels, where Jesus declares that the Jews are not children of God but "children of the Devil." This is the reason that on three occasions Pilate expressly declares that Jesus is innocent, does not deserve to be punished, and ought to be released. The birth of anti-semitism? Why does John's Gospel introduce the idea and concept for the very first time that Jesus was in the beginning with God? Something never mentioned by any of the earlier NT writers? He is establishing a higher Christology than all the rest. Why? Was he revealed information unavailable to all the other writers? Mark, the first gospel writer, begins at Jesus' baptism, with nothing about his conception or birth. Did he know nothing about it? Paul, writing before Mark, seems totally unaware of the virgin birth or Jesus' divinity. Does this not demonstrate a gradual developing Christology, that was not culminated until the fourth century when the virgin birth and incarnation were canonized in the Nicene Creed, and the Council of Chalcedon? It is good to study the Bible, but it is important to understand how and when and by whom it was written, as there are such various descriptions and impossibilities that no one consistent story can be deducted. IOW, the Gospels were creations of the writers, and not verbally inspired. How could they be with so many discrepancies? They are also neither inerrant or infallible, but products of man and often a very creative imagination, just as books written today. Not all books written about the Bible are inspired; why then does anyone believe that human writers were inspired to write errors? Simply because someone writes about Jesus and it was incorporated in the Bible does not mean that it is inerrant, unless, of course, one believes that man makes no mistakes.

bob_2 · 04-11-09 2:33 pm

The birth of antisemitism is in the minds of the Jews. Anything said negative about the Jews, the Jews, in an overly sensitive way want to label the person with this term. I'm sorry, the Jews made decisions that they have to live with, and I'm not against them, but will insist history is told correctly, not like my Jewish neighbor, who wants the Romans blamed for Christ's death. The fact that Pilate publicly washed his hands, didn't take away his or the Jews or our responsibility in His death.

bob_2 · 04-11-09 2:40 pm

At the cross, Elaine who did Jesus ask to take care of His mother, John, right?? <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:John 19:26-27 (New International Version) 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> You don't think if this happened that they didn't have some intimate conversations that other disciples were not privy to????? Think Elaine, don't just list things out of one of your skeptical books. It's convenient but you aren't thinking, but reciting.

bob_2 · 04-11-09 2:47 pm

Elaine, to what do you suggest man turn to as you deconstruct the Bible, that outlines the way to salvation? Answer that question.

elaine · 04-11-09 2:54 pm

Bob, you are assuming far too much. First, that man had an eternal quest for "salvation." Truth be known, most men throughout history have been concerned with the necessities for bare survival. Only the wealthy have ever had time, until recently, to pursure such philosophical inquiries. During most of the history of Christianity, the clergy taught the people the fear of H*ll and that the church, alone, offered the fire escape. With most everyone illiterate, this is the prime movitator that prevailed most of the time. Do you still believe that, or has your idea of Christianity accepted the last several centuries development?

bob_2 · 04-11-09 3:28 pm

That didn't answer my question, Elaine: to what do you suggest man turn to as you deconstruct the Bible, that outlines the way to salvation? Whe are talking here and now not then, some time ago. What is your purpose in deconstructing the way to salvation???

john8verse32 · 04-12-09 12:14 am

maybe Whe are talking here and now... and how we can make this a better place.... in the here and now in part by not killing those who disagree... and not scaring our kids by telling them that our loving God will burn them to death if they don't listen to the truth as explained by EGW or even Bob...

bob_2 · 04-12-09 1:04 am

John, you have written that kind of script from what you have learned in life? You have only yourself to blame. I haven't written that kind of script for my kids or those I come in contact with. What a shame, John and Elaine. Visualization is a self act, and making EGW relevant is a self act, and controlling your inner voices is a self act, a self choice. However, you don't make the here and now better by believing anything that comes along, any author, any gospel, ther is only ONE GOSPEL, and you can't improve on it. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" border=0> (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 12, 2009) (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 12, 2009)

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#51 04-10-09 10:00 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#52 04-10-09 10:04 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#53 04-10-09 11:10 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#54 04-10-09 11:12 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#55 04-10-09 11:21 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#56 04-10-09 11:24 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#57 04-11-09 12:12 am

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#58 04-11-09 12:28 am

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#59 04-11-09 12:47 am

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#60 04-11-09 1:15 am

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#61 04-11-09 12:31 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#62 04-11-09 2:33 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#63 04-11-09 2:40 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#64 04-11-09 2:47 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#65 04-11-09 2:54 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#66 04-11-09 3:28 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#67 04-12-09 12:14 am

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#68 04-12-09 1:04 am

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

Board footer