Jesus on Non-Violence

[Drew]

Jane and God do not equate. It's much simpler than that. So easy any child can understand.

You have evaded the force of the analogy and added a bit of patronizing insult to boot. The point, which I am confident cannot be refuted is that there is a clear, principled distinction between asserting that an agent's (e.g. God or Jane) character remains the same even if their particular actions evolve and change.

You cannot really challenge this - it is really self-evidently true. So, it appears, you choose to evade and insult instead.

Plus ca change......

 

[Drew]

The covenants of God against evil and in behalf of good have not changed either.

This statement is a little to general to deal with. What, exactly are you saying?

In any event, that God's plan is a dynamic and evolving one is really quite clear.

Among many other things that have changed, we have, as of the Cross, Jesus installed as lord over all creation. Jesus' status in this respect fundamentally changed.

Among many other things that have changed, we have, the defeat of evil and the reversal of the curse as of the Cross.

Among many other things that have changed, we have, the dissolution of the Jew-Gentile distinction as of the Cross.

A vague, general statement like the one you make needs to be re-examined in light of these assertions.

Which of the above assertions do you deny. It appears you need to deny all three to sustain your position.

 

[smaller]

You have evaded the force of the analogy and added a bit of patronizing insult to boot.

Let me put it to you another way. IF God changes as you surmise, then He can also change from what you surmise. There is no way to win a chessmatch with God. It can't be done.

I would say God is The Ultimate Victor of any match. In this way also HE DOES NOT CHANGE.

The point, which I am confident cannot be refuted is that there is a clear, principled distinction between asserting that an agent's (e.g. God or Jane) character remains the same

There is no God vs. Jane in such equations. Who can say God = X when there is no such available measures of God to any 'thing' in His creation. Such formulas are nonsense anyway.

So, again, God does not = anything that is created

In this way also GOD DOES NOT CHANGE.

Want to go on?

even if their particular actions evolve and change.

I have already conceded that the only variables are the subjective in time components. God does not change. The subjective components change. So what? A hundred years from now God will deal the same way with your offspring, if you have any, even though they are different than you.

And even in that 'they' were genetically 'in you' to start with just as the writer of Hebrews shows Levi paying vicarious tithes to Melchizedek, being in the 'loins' of Abraham.

Even in 'subjectivity' of us as individuals, from a 'natural man' perspective we were ALL in the loins of ADAM including the flesh seed of Jesus from Mary's side of the equation.

You cannot really challenge this - it is really self-evidently true. So, it appears, you choose to evade and insult instead.

I really don't know why you see the need to try and change God other than by imposing your own subjective views upon Him and particularly when scripture says flat out otherwise, that God changes NOT.

This to me would seem quite futile.

s

 

[Drew]

As stated prior, God always upholds good and works adversely with evil.

The scripture also said, by Gods Own Words, that He doesn't change, regardless of any claim to the contrary.

Obvious strawman. No one is saying that God changes; What is being asserted is that God's plan is evolving and there are changes to the "what" and the "how" in respect to the work of this unchanging God in the world.

 

[smaller]

This statement is a little to general to deal with. What, exactly are you saying?

You've heard the simplicity of this matter several times now and you still don't get it.

God upholds the good and resists evil. And has so from the beginning and has not changed in this regard.

In any event, that God's plan is a dynamic and evolving one is really quite clear.

God is plan may well be evolving. That still does not mean God changed.

If God had/has a Perfect Plan one might suppose that Plan has been Perfect from the Originator and will be Perfect upon completion by His Own Hand.

His Ultimate Final Quest is found in 1 Cor. 15:28. So when that happens did God change? No. He was before the beginning and will be forever and ever regardless of any 'thing' in His Creation in between goal posts for Himself that don't even exist as to having beginning or ending.

If God happens to 'exercise' His Rule did, for example in the creation process, does that mean God changed? No. He has always been The Creator.

There is always a unique distinction between Creator and created/creation.

There is no logical stack up of equating these two components.

Among many other things that have changed, we have, as of the Cross, Jesus installed as lord over all creation. Jesus' status in this respect fundamentally changed.

If God 'expresses' His Eternal Nature in those matters did His Eternal Nature change? No.

Eternal Mercy remains Eternal Mercy regardless of any particular exercise of same that transpires in the expression. And the same could be said of any of His Eternal Attributes. The Attributes do not change. Their expression in time is always different to our perceptions because they transpire within the realm of subjectivity and creation.

Among many other things that have changed, we have, the defeat of evil and the reversal of the curse as of the Cross.

Defeat of evil is nothing more than a current fancy/fallacy. Look around you for about a millisecond.

Among many other things that have changed, we have, the dissolution of the Jew-Gentile distinction as of the Cross.

There is certainly a difference between a natural expression and a spiritual one, yes. God certainly did not change in that matter either.

A vague, general statement like the one you make needs to be re-examined in light of these assertions.

For what purpose? To change God to your intentions? To make His Eternal Attributes different today then they have always been?

Why?

Which of the above assertions do you deny. It appears you need to deny all three to sustain your position.

The only thing I see in play is a subjective view by a subjective component in time and I would relegate my own views to the same on the ground of respect for the Creator, understanding He doesn't change.

The fact is Drew that only God can really know and say the sum of what He Is and Consists of. We do not have all the information that He does to make any kind of those levels of determinations. Simple logic would tell this to any observer. But you wouldn't be the first guy to try to force God into a subjective box canyon of his own making.

I gave up on that.

s

 

[Drew]

As just one particularity of this: before the cross, the Law of Moses was to be followed by the Jews; after the cross the Law is set aside. If I recall you believe the Law continues just as before. Well, frankly, such a position is clearly indefensible from a Biblical perspective, but I am happy to get into that again, if you like.

That would only be you having that view.

Paul certainly didn't, and sums up every command in the entire text being applicable to believers in Romans 13:8-10 in quite simple and open fashion. So simple a child could follow every jot and tittle of any command in the entire Bible.

A common strategy: When the Biblical case is against one, insult the intelligence of the other person. However, as stated, I am more than happy to make the case that the Law of Moses has been set aside.

From Ephesians 2:

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit

Paul tells us that the Gentiles were "excluded from Israel and foreigners to the covenants". Up to this point in the Biblical narrative, it is the Jews - those circumcised in the flesh - who appear to be heirs to the covenant promises. So there was at least the appearance of two classes of people. Paul then springs his argument: Jew and Gentile have been “made one†through….what? Answer “abolition of the lawâ€.

How can this not be the Law of Moses? It is precisely the Law of Moses that was given to Jews and Jews only and which, by God’s own words (Leviticus 20) established the Jews as a “special people set apart from the nationsâ€! If one abolished the Law of Moses, one would be effectively saying: the distinction between Jew and Gentile has been dissolved.

Which is clearly what the author of Ephesians is saying. Conclusion: Although the text does not explicitly say “the Law of Moses†has been abolished, the hypothesis that it is indeed the Law of Moses is obviously the hypothesis that makes sense in context: the abolition of the Law of Moses, not the abolition of some other law, takes aways the Jew-Gentile distinction.

No doubt you will deny this. And this is where one has to trust to the sense of the reader to spot an unworkable position. In all candour, any reader who is not tenaciously gripping the “this cannot be the Law of Moses that is being dissolved†position will see how a “Law of Moses†reading of verse 15 snaps into place perfectly with the rest of the author’s argument.

Here’s the rub: The term “law†in verse 15 is not clearly specified – we do not know, from verse 15 alone, that this unqualified law is the Law of Moses, or some other law. If you are going to deny that a “Law of Moses†reference is intended, you are effectively saying “I reject the resolution of this unqualified reference to “law†as a reference to the Law of Moses, despite the undeniable fact that such a resolution makes a perfect fit in contextâ€. In short, one cannot convince someone against their will to accept the proposition that authors (such as the author of Ephesians) make coherent arguments where the various pieces fit together sensibly. I cannot imagine any other resolution of “law†in verse 15 that make more sense in context than a Law of Moses interpretation. But please, offer another option, if you like.

Note to moderators: If you think the last two paras cross a line, please inform me.

 

[smaller]

A common strategy: When the Biblical case is against one, insult the intelligence of the other person. However, as stated, I am more than happy to make the case that the Law of Moses has been set aside.

I might suggest a reading of Romans 13:8-10 if you think that the case. We've done this deal before. Your case is true only if The Law of Moses is 'Drew's subjective view of same' but that is not the case Paul laid out in Romans 13:8-10 or in Galatians 4 for example as prior noted and many times noted to you.

If the Law of Moses is 'only as Drew thinks it is' then you merely have a case in your own mind.

s

 

[Drew]

If the Law of Moses is 'only as Drew thinks it is' then you merely have a case in your own mind.

Well, please go ahead and engage the argument in my preceding post, and I will address the texts you have cited.

 

[smaller]

Well, please go ahead and engage the argument in my preceding post, and I will address the texts you have cited.

I consider everyone is entitled to their own reflections Drew. See what you want to see.

s