 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/4/2004 7:23 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom: In response to John’s preaching, priests from Jerusalem asked him about his identity (Jo. 1.21). "Are you Elijah?" they asked. John answered, “I am not.”
Iconoclast: Perhaps it was something else that caused him to say this. Mat 16:15-20: He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
Tom: NOT telling someone who you ARE is not the same thing as telling someone you are NOT who you ARE. 
When faced with a point blank question by Ciaphas, Jesus answered honestly.
Iconoclast: Maybe John wouldn't tell them for the same reason that Jesus forbade His disciples to tell anyone that He was the Christ. Just imagine someone asking Peter if Jesus was the Christ - I assume that right after this command Peter would say no.
Tom: I kinda think he would. I understand Jesus to be commanding the disciples not to go on the offensive with this bit of news, to not actively proclaim him. I doubt he expected them to lie for him.
Iconcolast: And surely John could say that he wasn't Elijah in all honesty in that even if he was Elijah reincarnate he was much more than simply the man Elijah who lived long ago - he had grown in Christ and was one with God in - he also presumably had different DNA than Elijah did and so was also more and different than Elijah the specific man.
John: But the pharisees hardly believed that a "yes" answer to their question entailed John's having the same DNA as Elijah. He wouldn't have been less than honest had he simply answered "yes."
Iconoclast: So why would John and Jesus seek to conceal some things about them? Mat 13:13: This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: 'You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.'
Tom: I suppose something like this would have to be the case if John indeed was Elijah reincarnate. I guess there's a difference between evidence that actually points to his being reincarnate and turning out an explanation of things on the basis of believing he was reincarnate. If there was absolutely no explanation, no understanding of John's being "Elijah who was to come," except that John was Elijah literally reincarnate, then I'd say we'd have to make some changes and consider reincarnation as an explanation. But we're not without options, and reincarnation first appeared in India not earlier than the 9th century BC, and when it later found its way to Plato through Eastern sources, it was different still and quite incompatible with a biblical view of the material world and morality. As I look at the sources of and the worldviews in which reincarnation was born and then housed, I find it really difficult to account for this history if indeed reincarnation is true.
But I'm all ears. Lay it on me over in the reincarnation thread.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
 |
wondering04
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 1/5/2004 3:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Back to Ishmael for a few seconds. One thing that has not been included is the rest of the story. God had promised Abraham a son, and Abraham and Sarah decided to help God along by bringing in Hagar the Egyptian maid to produce the son. God knew that He ultimately would give Abraham the promised son at the right time, when Abraham was 100 years old. Perhaps God knew that Sarah would not want Ishmael around once she gave birth to her son from her own body. That is what happened. Abraham eventually sent Ishmael away, but with saddness because he loved the child. But even God mentioned at the time of the sacrificie, "Take now your son, your only son Isaac...". And I am certain that Hagar taught Ishmael the ways of her childhood, her pagan childhood which is vastly different from the ways that God wanted his people to live.
Given our human nature, is it not possible that God could safely assume that Ishmael would harbor resentment that he was displaced by Isaac? That could account for the predictibility of his behavior in God's eyes.
All humans, have the choice of what they do with their lives. David chose Bathsheba, Saul did not do all that God wanted and let greed get in the way of his destiny. I suspect that human nature, being what it is, causes us to fail somewhat. Even John the Baptist had doubts when he was in prison. He asked if Jesus was the Christ, and Jesus sent back and told him to let John the Baptist know that sick were being healed, the blind saw, etc.
I suspect that we, as humans are way more predictable than we would like to think we are.
Heather | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/5/2004 4:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by wondering04
Given our human nature, is it not possible that God could safely assume that Ishmael would harbor resentment that he was displaced by Isaac? That could account for the predictibility of his behavior in God's eyes.
I suspect that we, as humans are way more predictable than we would like to think we are.
Yes! I agree.
Two things,
1. The predictions about Ishmael and John the Baptist aren't that extraordinary.
About John, the Southern Baptist:
quote:
" he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
A. "He shall be great in the sight of the Lord". God says God will hold John highly; is this extraordinary knowlege?
B. "He shall not drink strong drink." God fills John with the Holy Spirit from birth AND has him born into a pious family. John eschews the ale. Is this extraordinary knowlege?
C. "He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb." God knows God will fill John with the Holy Spirit. Is this extraordinary knowlege on God's part?
D. "He'll go in the power of Elijah to turn the hearts of people...." God fills John with the Spirit and calls him to this special ministry. Is this extraordinary knowlege on God's part?
What's extraordinary is not that God knows what God will do in the future (du-uh) but that God can carry out what God says God will do in the future, using free-moral agents.
2. I think many people are confused about prophecy. They think the nature of prophecy is about God's knowlege of already accomplished future events. It isn't, it's about God's intelligence in predicting how the future will pan out (future tense) AND it's about God's power in being able to bring His purposes about. It takes more power to bring about your will while using free moral agents than it would take by using robots.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/5/2004 5:05 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/6/2004 2:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
Now, on Laika's read on John the Baptist:
TOTALLY agree with you on the nature of prophecy. But the problematic thing is that the prophecy in this instance seems to specify that John will be extraordinarily GODLY -- e.g. preaching and turning the hearts of people. This is a rather strong restriction on morally responsible free will, is it not?
I don't understand the mechanism by which God could restrict John's will as related to moral issues.
Haven't you known some people, so Godly and from a line of such Godly predecessors that they would be easy for God to instruct and direct on a mission? I suppose by their obedience to God's special plan for their life, it appears their will is restricted but is it really?
Jesus is the utmost example of a human will submitted to God, would you say God had a rather strong restriction on his free will? I'd say no.
I think John was so sold out to God that he was not only doing God's special will for him, he was also doing what he himself wanted to do, turn people's hearts back to God. And Jesus said the fields were white with harvest, indicating the readiness of the people in the area for turning to God, given the right impetus.
Not having any training in theology, all the talk of "compatibilistic freedom" just doesn't make sense to me. If it describes people so in relationship with God that their will is in harmony with His, yeah, I can understand that. But if it gets squeezed so much that it means God flipping invisible switches that cause certain actions, then I don't understand that.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 1/31/2004 2:05 AM (GMT -6) | | albert: "I think God choose John for his vocation, not his salvation."
Thank you,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/1/2006 8:46 PM (GMT -6) | |
nofuture said...
Here is a Scripture in Genesis 16:
11And the angel also said, "You are now pregnant and will give birth to a son. You are to name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard about your misery. 12This son of yours will be a wild one--free and untamed as a wild donkey! He will be against everyone, and everyone will be against him. Yes, he will live at odds with the rest of his brothers."
First I'd like to say I know God can't see the future,
Rather than dealing with foreknowledge--which is a fine thing in itself--we should ALSO look at what the meaning addressed in Hebrews is that the author wanted to relate and therefore was behind the selection of the OT text to reference. (Sorry about the think grammar. Sorry.)
The symbolic aspect of grace and works, and of blood and rebirth should be noticed.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
| 35 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:49 AM (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 |
|
|