 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 4:48 PM (GMT -6) |   | Message
ilgwamh
03/30/01 11:30 AM
Before the rooster crows ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have some questions.
From the site: "Open view theists believe that the future exists partly as actualities (future events which God sovereignly determines to bring about) and partly as possibilities (aspects of the future which God sovereignly allows his creatures to bring about). They base their conviction on biblical, philosophical, and experiential evidence."
Where does Matthew 24:31-34 fit in?
"Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written:
"`I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' [Zec 13:7]
But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee." Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will." "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."
Questions. Is this one of those sovereignly determined events? Is it God knowing the actions of free will beings? God knew they would scatter and Peter would deny Jesus because he has "infinite intelligence" (whatever that means)? Was God giving a probability estimate? Is it something else?
Thanks,
Vinnie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/31/01 1:32 AM
RE: Before the rooster crows ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Vinnie great question.
Where does Matthew 24:31-34 fit in?
"Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' [Zec 13:7]
For me this verse means that God sent Jesus into the world at a time when he knew the established order had deified itself and would kill him. And that on this particular night Jesus knew that was about to be actualized. In fact if would have been actualized sooner had Jesus allowed it, there were several times he slipped past them unseen. But on this night the climate was right and he had just seen Judas leave to go get the mob.
"Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will." "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."
I think at this point Peter is expressing his great love and loyalty
but it may have been couched in pride. A little while later he was slicing off a guys ear. He didn't think Jesus could lose. Three days later he wasn't preaching the resurrection he was hiding out. He didn't have the mind of Christ at this moment. I think Jesus was saying you have pride for the wrong reasons, and you are judging others too. Do I love your brothers any less because I know they will not be so brave when I am lost to them and they are scattered? No,
I will understand their fear and confusion. To be my servant you must
be humble and not judge. To help you understand this I tell you now, that you will deny me three times before the rooster crows.
As to how God could have orchestrated this? I don't have any problem with God being able to make a rooster crow on cue. (He made a donkey speak.)And as far as getting three different people to challenge Peter that would have been almost as simple. I believe that God as well as the enemy can speak into our minds. Some people don't recognize either because they have no discernment. So many peoples minds just run on and on with no direction. Like their brains are on idle. I don't think it would be difficult to put notions into people's heads to accuse and question Peter. Jesus knew he would be taken into custody and Peter would be on his own. I think Peter's response came from the desire the keep Jesus out of custody. He wasn't just telling Jesus he wouldn't desert him, I think he was trying to tell Jesus he didn't have to be taken in by the authorities at all cause he would stand by him.
"Is this one of those sovereignly determined events? Is it God knowing the actions of free will beings? God knew they would scatter and Peter would deny Jesus because he has "infinite intelligence" (whatever that means)? Was God giving a probability estimate? Is it something else?"
God knew the mob was on it's way, he knew he was going to go peacably with them. God influenced a rooster to crow and three people to speak a couple of sentences to teach Peter a lesson he wouldn't soon forget.
just a thought
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
03/31/01 12:06 PM
RE: RE: Before the rooster crows ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a question that may be related to this. But were there not times that the Gospel writers "used" certain OT passages for their own theological agendas or biases?
Some feel (especially atheists), that this "distorts the record", but I am not convinced of their arguments against the Gospel writers "manipulating scripture" in this fashion. We can still get an accurate picture of Jesus' life and mission, etc, when this has been done. Besides, this is not the first time this sort of literary technique has/is used in other historical ways.
So, would the Zec 13:7 verse be a use of this sort of manipulation? I know this is the stuff of textual criticism, and I guess what I am asking is, when and where this is being used in the Gospels and to what extent does it affect the OV?
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
04/01/01 7:17 PM
Predictive and Illustrative Prophecy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good interesting stuff Springs and Canada. Good question Igwawhatever
On the predictive prophecy thing: most (but not all) scholars today accept that at least some, if not most, of the "prophecies" that are "fulfilled" in Christ's ministry are meant in an ILLUSTRATIVE, not a PREDICTIVE sense. For example, in Hosea 6 (I believe) the Lord says "out of Egypt I have called my son." His son, all agree, was Israel. The text requires this interpretation. When Matthew (Matt 2 I believe) sees Jesus' trip into Egypt to be a "fulfillment" of Hosea 6, "out of Egypt I have called my son," he is not saying that Hosea 6 PREDICTED and thus REQUIRED that Jesus go into and out of Egypt. He's simply saying that Jesus' passage into and out of Egypt parallels the plight of ancient Israel (a point that is important to Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, trying to show how Jesus is the "new Israel.").
This is why most of the "prophecies" sited in Matthew and John are positively bizzare if taken as predictions. (a fact that skeptics love to take advantage of to make mince meat out of McDowell like apologists!)
One more illustration. When Jesus is given vinegar for water, John sees in this a "fulfillment" of what David writes about in Psl. 69:21. But David says not only say that his enemies gave (or tried to give) him vinegar for water, but also that they tried to put poison in his food! How odd if Jesus HAD to be given vinegar, in order to "fulfill" this "prophecy", but he DIDN'T HAVE to eat poison in order to "fulfill" this SAME PROPHECY.
Now, none of this is a problem, so long as we understand that John is RETROACTIVELY finding something in David's life to be significant in paralleling Jesus' life. It is an ILLUSTRATIVE, not a PREDICTIVE prophecy. It didn't HAVE to happen this way, but GIVEN that it happened this way, John (and Matthew) find it significant.
So too, I submit, with the "prophecy" about scattering the sheep. I don't have time to look up the background to this specific verse, but as I recall, the text in Zechariah refers to the scattering of Israel. In any case, the text in John is simply drawing a parrallel between what WILL IN FACT HAPPEN (with the disciples in the next 12 hours) and a past event, NOT saying that a certain present event MUST HAPPEN because of a past text.
If events didn't happen the way they in fact did, no one would ever be finding anything prophetically significant about these verses. (e.g. NEITHER David's vinegar OR poison would be noticed as messianic).
If I had more time I'd give more specifics. This is off the top of my head, but its all I have time for now.
Blessings,
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
04/01/01 7:26 PM
RE: Predictive and Illustrative Prophecy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I couldn't help it. I had to look up the total context in Zech 13. Read this in context and it shows how the Jesus of John's Gospel is citing this to illustrate a point in his life, not to say the verse was PREDICTING anything. If the verse was suppose to predict something, LOOK AT HOW IT FAILS IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS.
"ON THAT DAY I WILL BANISH THE NAMES OF THE IDOLS FROM THE LAND... I WILL REMOVE BOTH THE PROPHETS AND THE SPIRIT OF IMPURITY FROM THE LAND....AND THAT DAY EVERY PROPHET WILL BE ASHAMED OF HIS PROPHETIC VISION. ... AWAKE, O SWORD, AGAINST MY SHEPHERD, AGAINST THE MAN WHO IS CLOSE TO ME, DECLARES THE LORD ALMIGHTY. STRIKE THE SHEPERD, AND THE SHEEP WILL BE SCATTERED, AND I WILL TURN MY HAND AGAINST THE LITTLE ONES... IN THE WHOLE LAND, DECLARES THE LORD, TWO-THIRDS WILL BE STRUCK DOWN AND PERISH; YET ONE-THIRD WILL BE LEFT IN IT. THIS THIRD I WILL BRING INT O THE FIRE, I WILL REFINE THEM LIKE SILVER AND TEST THEM LIKE GOLD. "
If this passage is predicting -- hence requiring -- certain things about the ministry of Jesus, then how was the rest of the passage fulfilled in Jesus' ministry?
This is no problem if we simply see that one line of this passage illustrates (but doesn't require) what happens to Jesus and his disciples. He is going to be struck and his sheep will be scattered. Had his disciples not been so cowardly, we'd find nothing more significant about this one verse than we do the twelve verses that sandwhich it.
Think about it.
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
04/02/01 1:29 PM
RE: RE: Predictive and Illustrative Prophecy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg said:
“On the predictive prophecy thing: most (but not all) scholars today accept that at least some, if not most, of the "prophecies" that are "fulfilled" in Christ's ministry are meant in an ILLUSTRATIVE, not a PREDICTIVE sense.”
That’s it! That’s the ticket! I think it was G.E. Ladd talked about this as well that I have read.
Also, Greg said,
“This is why most of the "prophecies" sited in Matthew and John are positively bizzare if taken as predictions. (a fact that skeptics love to take advantage of to make mince meat out of McDowell like apologists!)”
Yep. Throw them to the Lions! Go to www.infidels.org for that kinda thing. That's why they are sooo skewd in their responses to McDowell like apologists. These to me are red herring arguments. Thanks Greg. Great response!
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
04/02/01 10:38 PM
RE: RE: RE: Predictive and Illustrative Prophecy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My pleasure Brandon!
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ilgwamh
04/05/01 2:07 AM
RE: Before the rooster crows ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks everyone for your responses. I found very little to disagree with. Springs, I see God orchestrated a lot of things in Peter's denail. So when Jesus told him beforehand he would deny Him three times this is Jesus predicting or having knowledge of what the Father will do? Basically, God kind of made Peter deny him or what? Like the hardening of the pharoah's heart? So, according to the OV, God didn't see Peter denying but was determined to bring it about? I'm not totally getting that yet. Peter did learn a lesson. If I remember correctly he totally broke down after that. I think he even saw Jesus' face at that certain moment! Ouch!!!
Doc said: "Good question Igwawhatever"
I get that a lot. Name is an acronym for "I love God with all my heart." What kind of a name is "Greg Boyd" anyway? Its so unoriginal and unimaginative You should change your name to ilgwamh2 or something I could start up a poll where we can vote on it...
Thanks for the info on the predictive phrophecy thing. Its funny I have been having that problem lately. I was reading phrophecies in the NT that were supposedly given in the OT. To myself I am thinking I have no clue how this was a phrophecy of Jesus. So that made a lot of sense. My response to that is kind of what Brandon said, "Some feel (especially atheists), that this "distorts the record", but I am not convinced of their arguments against the Gospel writers "manipulating scripture" in this fashion." The Bible tends to get treated as a legal document but I think that distorts things just as much if not more.
What impact does that have on inerrancy? I could see it explained and having not much of an impact but it seems to be applying an alternate meaning to what the text actually says. Was this a common thing to do back then?
And speaking of infidels.org (http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/Forum3/HTML/000608.html)/ Stump me if you can
Anyways, I second the great response. Now about that name change....
Peace,
Vinnie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/05/01 11:17 AM
RE: RE: Before the rooster crows ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinnie: checked out your "stump the creationist," page. Sounds like fun. It, however, doesn't surprise me that your rules were broken. I have found, by and large, that opponents of the Bible and Christians tend to not want to dialogue a lot of the time, but prefer labeling and name calling. As such, it is hard many times to have a fruitful dialogue with them...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
04/05/01 12:02 PM
RE: RE: Before the rooster crows ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinnie said:
“And speaking of infidels.org (http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/Forum3/HTML/000608.html)/ Stump me if you can”
Good luck. Getting through to those guys is a nightmare. One could go for months telling one of these guys that black is black and white is white and they will still not believe you. I mean God loves them, and he can get through to them, but they are blinded by false philosophies and the Holy Spirit can only penetrate that. I almost won an atheist over as a result of staying with him for months, but when I invited someone else to come along and help with some of my argumentation the relationship broke and the whole thing fell apart. The other guy was obnoxious, rude, and tough and I made the mistake of inviting that attitude into our forum. Anyhoo, hope you get further.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ilgwamh
04/06/01 10:07 AM
RE: Before the rooster crows ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is hard to discuss things rationally with atheists sometimes and some are easier than others. Flip the script. Imagine an atheist that is a scientist discussing things with a Young Earth Creationist. He will obviously get frustrated. Certain sects of Christians don't make it any easier to discuss. A lot of people jumped on my first thread thinking I was a young earth/global flood proponent. Surprise, surprise.
It may not be even so much the material that is presented but the manner it is presented in. Tact = good! 1 Pet 3:15 -- with gentleness and respect--(Niv)
Welp, I'm now defending a local flood. It should be fun....
Peace,
Vinnie
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|