|
|
 | | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Re: Open View Theism | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 04:37:47 GMT |
|
|
 | Steve Goltra posted on 1/13/05 I posted this:[Exod. 32:9-10]. And the Lord
said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff necked
people. Now therefore let me alone, that
my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may CONSUME THEM: and I will
make of thee a great nation [Exod. 32:9-10].
Muz, on 1/13/05 you posted: "Actually, God could do just that and start
over. The covenant is for a
people who are descendents of Isaac. Moses fits that description justfine.
There is no reason God couldn't wipe out a large number of Israelites who
were violating the covenant and start over with a few or
EVEN ONE that was faithful. (WELL, TWO, I SUPPOSE.)"
Muz's, on 1/14/05 you posted this, on the same subject: Specifically you
said:
"Well, it would seem that there is scriptural evidence for both. God
pledges to Moses that He will DESTROY ISRAEL and START OVER WITH HIM
(Moses), and Mosos prevails upon God to change His mind. In Jeremiah
3:7, we're told that God thought that Israel would return to Him, and she
did not. Both seem to be clear evidence from the mouth of God of what you
say cannot be."
On 1/19/05, on basically the same subject, you posted: "Yet, you already
admitted that He killed 3000 of them in judgment. If God can do that, what
is to prevent Him from doing do to most of them?"
Steve's response to the above 1/19/05 post above- notice how Muz's position
is changing from his first posts of 1/13/05 & 1/14/05.
On 1/20/05 Muz posts this: "I never said it did. Just as all the natural
children of the promise
were all descendents of Jacob, if God wiped out Israel and started over with
Moses, all the natural children of the promise from that point foward would
be descendents of Moses. Wiping out Israe and starting
over with Moses would in no way void the covenant with Abraham! The very
fact that God said that He was going to start over with Moses demonstrates
that God knew His covenant obligations.
Now (1/20/05), since your position is no longer tenable and undefendable,
you change your position to this last post, also on 1/20/05:
"This is a nice assertion, but God isn't threatening to annihilate the
Israelites. He's threatening to rebuild their nation through Moses."
Muz, You are a dishonest poster that is only interested in argument for
arguments sake. You cannot be taken seriously.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" wrote in message
news:JDXHd.1373$r27.516@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >Steve's response: I really wonder if you are serious about this, or
> are just
>>trying to be difficult, or maybe like I said before- too literal. You
> read
>>the words, but lack the spirit of understanding of what the words
> mean. The
>>Tribe of Levi was prophesized entry into the promised land, along with
> the
>>rest of the 12 tribes.-Abrahamic Covenant- Promise of the land Gen
> 12:3;
>>Promise of the land repeated Gen 13:14-17; Abram's descendents to
> inherit
>>the land from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates River- Gen 15:18-21
> [this
>>will be fully fulfilled in the Millennium Isaiah 27:12; Jacob given
> the
>>promises of the Abrahamic Covenant Gen 28:14; The Future of the 12
> Tribes,
>>as prophesized by Jacob- Gen 49:1-28; Prophecy that the scepter,
> referring
>>to the future Messiah, would come from the tribe of Judah- Gen
> 49:10-12; GOD
>>APPOINTED MOSES DELIVERER OF ISRAEL-Ex. 3:10; God promised that Moses
>>would
>>lead Israel out of Egypt- Ex. 6:1-8
>
> Please show us in Genesis where God promises Abraham that 12 tribes
> will enter Israel. (Hint: It's not there. The promise is for his
> DESCDENTS. Moses' offspring would be Abraham's DESCENDENTS.)
>
> I realize that God promised that Moses would lead Israel out of Egypt,
> and by Exodus 32, Moses had ALREADY DONE THAT.
>
>>It should be quite clear to you that you have no position in this
> matter.
>
> Actually, I do. All of this hand waving about blood covenants and
> promises to Abraham about 12 tribes entering Israel is just that: hand
> waving. Yes, the covenant is important generally, but it has no
> bearing on God's actions in Exodus 32.
>
>>God would never annihilate the Israelites, his blood covenant partner,
> ever.
>
> This is a nice assertion, but God isn't threatening to annihilate the
> Israelites. He's threatening to rebuild their nation through Moses.
>
>>You have no understanding of the importance of the Blood Covenant. The
> Old
>>Testament is the "Old Blood Covenant" and the New Testament is the
> "New
>>Blood Covenant". God's plan for fallen man! 12 tribes entered the
> land, 12
>>Apostles were chosen by Christ, and in the New Heaven and New Earth
> Christ
>>reveals to us in Revelation 21-that the great city, the holy
> Jerusalem,
>>descending out of heaven from God, will have the following....
>
> The importance of the blood covenant is found in the crucifixion of
> Christ, who established the New Covenant in His blood. In Exodus 32,
> there was no promise of 12 tribes entering Israel, in fact there is no
> reason for us to believe that God isn't serious about His threat in
> Exodus 32.
>
> And you still haven't answered the question: Is God lying to Moses in
> Exodus 32 in threatening to start over with Moses?
>
>>Try and use scripture, instead of sarcasm and flawed human logic when
>>posting. It would be a breath of fresh air.
>
> I go back to Exodus 32, where we've been stuck for quite some time.
> God makes a statement about His intentions. There is no indication of
> a test, no languge to suggest anything other than God's intent to judge
> the people of Israel. If you have a non-literal interpretation of this
> section that doesn't include God lying to Moses, I'd be glad to hear
> it, but you'll have to explain how God expressing a clear intent to
> Moses that He never intends to follow through isn't lying.
>
> I realize that your systematic theology has problems with the biblical
> exegesis of this passage, however, we cannot go using our own
> constructed systematic theology to go thwarting and ignoring the clear
> text of scripture. If you have an EXEGETICAL reason (meaning something
> in this passage, not some constructed theology) to read this passage
> differently, let's hear it. But if you cannot refute the clear
> exegesis of this passage, then you ought to be reviewing your
> constructed theology, not trying to do your best to ignore or explain
> scripture away.
>
> Muz
>
>
|
|
|
