What has changed between then and now?

[David Timm]

Barry wrote:


Hey David,
Great discussion, really!

As with many a subject, "either, or" will not answer the whole of the matter.

The reality that the child lives in is different from the reality that the adult lives in. The parent has no choice but to adapt to the reality of that fact.
Whether that is playing in the sandbox with the same toys or explaining a little about life to come using the toys as a prop.

If Daddy say, it's time to take away the toys now, we can say God changed his mind. In a sense he did. In another sense there is a larger scheme of things to take into account.

Here is a some of the larger scheme of things from some questions I ask:

When Adam eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, who changed their mind first?
Imo view it is clearly Adam. Then God related to where Adam where Adam was in his thinking. God did not have a problem with Adam, or his nakedness. But God met Adam where he was at in his problem with nakedness.
This book is about an evolution of consciousness, and not either or's as we try to think of them in retrospect.

Is the concern of God, that he himself would thus have to Change his mind about Adam, if Adam would have had the opportunity to eat from the tree of life? Or is God's concern that it was not the time for Adam to have that change of mind?

God did not need the tree of life, Adam did.

Would God have then related to Adam differently if Adam would have had such an opportunity to eat from the tree of life which he now needed? Yes, but it was not the time. That is why he was not permitted to have it.

God is thus seen to be pacified from within the process of the change.
Hbr 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Christ died for the sins committed by the children. The children that are in a designated time of childhood.

God did not "become" love through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
God does not need Jesus to transform and find love and forgiveness.

The sin that Christ bore is not the wrong doings of the people as we tend to think of it. It was their very consience about those matters. When Jesus cried out, "my God my God why have you forsaken me", it was experience of "consience" that Christ had. God got into the sand box with the children and got dirty and then said, "I'm taking your sand box away, and all the toys you are playing with. Its time to grow up."

Jesus bore the sins of the people because he bore their consience, thus the experience of their shame, their disgrace, their abandonment, in their reality of consciousness. Because of his love he became like his brethren in all things, but without sin (without sin consience, of his own).
And this could only be done by the "Man" Christ Jesus, born of a women, born under the law.
God never abandoned him and never forsook him. He cried out the consciousness of the people that he took and to experience. Not even that of his own. Jesus had never known sin conscience up until this time. This permitted move toward a perfection of the conscience.

This is a "revelation" in human history, where the process is played out in human history.
It's played out in a way that the child who goes through an identity crises is never abandoned or forsaken. Father was always there every step of the way.

But a lot of what they thought about God was based upon where they were at in their identity crises.

Now we can say that there is still an identity crises taking place. Yes, but our toys are taken away.
Our law was taken away. We are realizing it.
Our kings were taken away. We are realizing it.
Our sectarianism was taken away. We are realizing it.

It is a movement from shadows to substance. And within that movement Christ died for the transgression committed under the "first" testament.

Does all this show the love of God? Absolutely.

JMO

Amie wrote:


David,

How do you believe that God used to see humanity? There's a basic issue I have with my own conclusions/thinking relevant to your view, but I want to be sure that I even understand your point of view before I go sharing it .

Amie

Barry, I think the analogy you wrote is very interesting and for me it clarifies the views that you are leaning towards or hold. I think you wrote a very good post even though I don't agree with it completely. It both answers and raises some questions in my mind.

Amie, you raise a very important question and I look forward to discussing the topic.

I writing because I want y'all to know that I'm not ignoring what you've written to me. I'm very interested in continuing these discussions, and I think both of your posts relate to the same issues. Between now and next Friday I have a lot on my plate, but I'll still be around here briefly. Because I believe that these are both important posts, I want to be able to focus on my response to them. So next weekend will be the earliest for me to respond.

Thanks :)

[Amie]

David (and anyone interested),

I have seriously been thinking about your point of view concerning God having changed his view of humanity. I like to sit with things for a while - even things that I don't agree with, lol!

Anyhow, I remember seeing some of that come out in the texts and I shared it in a Baytown presentation a while back. To me, Adam and Eve became fractured via the fruit of the ToK. They looked at a part of themselves and disapproved ("lawbreaker") and the story has people working to disown fractured parts all through it. I related it to "plucking out the eye and throwing it". I remember that Mike Williams was there that year because he touched on that very same verse (isn't it weird how stuff like that happens?).

So, I thought of a way that our views can both be correct (more weirdness, I know). What if creation were fractured pieces of God? Perhaps there were some pieces that God had trouble with? If they were a part of God, then they were loved. And could have been parts of God that God struggled accepting.

Like I shared in that prez, this was invoked by Jesus at the cross:


Psa 22:1 To the Chief Musician, on the deer of the dawn. A Psalm of David. My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me, and are far from My deliverance, from the words of My groaning?
Psa 22:2 O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer; and in the night, and there is no silence to Me.
Psa 22:3 But You are holy, being enthroned on Israel's praises.
Psa 22:4 Our fathers trusted in You; they trusted, and You delivered them.
Psa 22:5 They cried to You, and were delivered; they trusted in You, and were not ashamed.
Psa 22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of mankind, and despised by the people.
Psa 22:7 All who see Me scornfully laugh at Me; they open the lip; they shake the head, saying,
Psa 22:8 He rolled on Jehovah, let Him deliver Him; let Him rescue Him, since He delights in Him.
Psa 22:9 For You are He, My Taker from the womb; causing Me to trust on My mother's breasts.
Psa 22:10 I was cast on You from the womb, from My mother's belly, You are My God.
Psa 22:11 Be not far from Me; for trouble is near; because no one is there to help.
Psa 22:12 Many bulls have circled around Me; strong bulls of Bashan have surrounded Me.
Psa 22:13 They opened their mouth on Me, like a lion ripping and roaring.
Psa 22:14 I am poured out like waters, and all My bones are spread apart; My heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of My bowels.
Psa 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and My tongue clings to My jaws;
Psa 22:16 and You appoint Me to the dust of death; for dogs have encircled Me; a band of spoilers have hemmed Me in, piercing My hands and My feet.
Psa 22:17 I count all My bones; they look, they stare at Me.
Psa 22:18 They divide My garments among them, and they made fall a lot for My clothing.
Psa 22:19 But You, O Jehovah, be not far off; O My Strength, hurry to help Me!
Psa 22:20 Deliver My soul from the sword, My only one from the paw of the dog.
Psa 22:21 Save Me from the lion's mouth; and from the horns of the wild oxen. You have answered Me.
Psa 22:22 I will declare Your name to My brothers; I will praise You in the midst of the assembly.
Psa 22:23 You who fear Jehovah, praise Him; all the seed of Jacob, glorify Him; and all the seed of Israel, fear Him.
Psa 22:24 For He has not despised nor hated the affliction of the afflicted; and He has not hidden His face from Him, but when He cried to Him, He heard.
Psa 22:25 My praise shall be of You in the great assembly; I will pay My vows before those fearing Him.
Psa 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek Jehovah shall praise Him; your heart shall live forever.
Psa 22:27 All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn back to Jehovah; and all the families of the nations shall worship before You.
Psa 22:28 For the kingdom is Jehovah's; and He is the ruler among the nations.
Psa 22:29 All the fat ones of the earth have eaten, and have worshiped; all those going down to the dust shall bow before Him; and He kept not His own soul alive.
Psa 22:30 A seed shall serve Him; it shall be spoken of the Lord to the coming generation;
Psa 22:31 they shall come and shall declare His righteousness to a people that shall yet be born; for He has done it.

If these are the inner workings of Jesus at the cross, and if seeing him we see the father, then wouldn't this have been a moment of God coming to terms with himself and all of his parts?

Thoughts?

Amie

[Amie]

I just want to add that it is important (imo anyhow) to keep in mind what Laren shared a while ago:


He that loveth not, knoweth not god:

hmmm

God the murderer:

1 God drowns everyone of earth (except Noah and his family) Genesis 7:23

2 God rains fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, killing everyone.
Genesis 19:24

3 Lot's wife for looking back
Genesis 19:26

4 Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord"
Genesis 38:7, 1 Chronicles 2:3

5 Onan for spilling his seed
Genesis 38:10

6 A 7 year, world-wide famine
Genesis 41:25-54

7 7th Egyptian Plague: Hail
Exodus 9:25

8 God kills every Egyptian firstborn child.
Exodus 12:29-30

9 God drowns Egyptian army
Exodus 14:8-26

10 God and Moses help Joshua kill the Amalekites
Exodus 17:13

11 Israelites for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf
Exodus 32:27-28, 35

12 God plagued the people because of the calf that Aaron made
Exodus 32:35

13 Aaron's sons for offering strange fire before the Lord
Leviticus 10:1-3; Numbers 3:4, 26:61

14 A blasphemer
Leviticus 24:10-23

15 God burned people to death for complaining
Numbers 11:1

16 God sent "a very great plague" for complaining about the food.
Numbers 11:33

17 God killed ten scouts with a plague.
Numbers 14:35-36

18 A man who gathered firewood on the sabbath
Numbers 15:32-36

19 Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (and their families)
Numbers 16:27

20 Burned to death for offering incense
Numbers 16:35

21 For complaining
Numbers 16:49

22 Massacre of the Aradites
Numbers 21:1-3

23 For complaining about the lack of food and water, God sent fiery serpents to bite the people.
Numbers 21:6

24 God delivers the Bashanites into Moses' hands and Moses kills them all
Numbers 21:34-35

25 Phinehas impales a mixed-race couple having sex
Numbers 25:6-8

26 Israelites for "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab"
Numbers 25:9



If Jesus is one with the Father, and revealed the Father; and God never changes ???



??

A murderer from the beginning?? God or satan

Time and time again God is recorded to have said through the prophets that he was not known, ie:

Hos 2:16 And at that day, says Jehovah, you shall call Me, My husband; and you shall no more call Me, My Baal.

He was being confused for Baal - the bronze calf made in the wilderness. The new covenant has a specific promise that he would be known:


Heb 8:8 For finding fault, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be,
Heb 8:9 not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day of My taking hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not regard them, says the Lord.
Heb 8:10 Because this is the covenant which I will covenant with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord, giving My Laws into their mind, and I will write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."
Heb 8:11 "And they shall no more teach each one their neighbor, and each one his brother, saying, Know the Lord; because all shall know Me, from the least of them to their great ones.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousnesses, and I will not at all remember their sins and their lawless deeds." LXX-Jer. 38:31-34; MT-Jer. 31:31-34

David brought up some verses that suggest that God did not know some people (I wish I could remember where and I would post that too!). To me, when a person is busy hiding their sort of true self from God and instead working to become some perfect image of themselves, then they are not allowing God in. And, there's a verse somewhere about how much more a person can be known by that which indwells them -- anyone remember where???

Anyhow, I am open. I don't really need to draw a conclusion either, lol!

Amie

[davo]

As I see it, there is no discrepancy or fractured-ness with God… but such typically is found in [i]our struggles to comprehend Him, and in so doing typically framing God along human lines – it is a natural thing to do, but we have to keep in mind it is but that, "natural".

For instance… it is easy to raise supposed or apparent logical contradictions about God e.g., "God is/must be a murderer" – well NO He's not. "Murder" per se is one human unrighteously killing another human.

But even then that is NOT the end of the story from God's perspective… we can sometimes question God's apparent violence as per various peoples being annihilated at the hand of Israel, but such an end was NOT "the end" for such ones – NOT IF you hold to the inclusiveness of God where "the spirit returns to Him who gave it" etc.

IOW, yes there does seem to be a lot of unanswered "injustice" relative to THIS LIFE, but "this life" is NOT the whole or end of the story.

[David Timm]

I want to try and break this subject in parts and see where the discussion goes. I see a lot of similarity among what has been shared and yet also some major differences.


For instance… it is easy to raise supposed or apparent logical contradictions about God e.g., "God is/must be a murderer" – well NO He's not. "Murder" per se is one human unrighteously killing another human.

Davo, I agree.


I just want to add that it is important (imo anyhow) to keep in mind what Laren shared a while ago

Amie and Laren, the question that was mentioned by Laren was, "A murderer from the beginning?? God or satan" When it says Satan was a murderer from the beginning, I don't believe this specific reference refers to Satan committing physical murder. Satan was a murderer because at the beginning he lied with the following:
"The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!" (Gen 3:4)
Adam and Eve did die. Satan murdered them because they believed his lie and chose to eat of the TOK. Adam and Eve experienced sin death/relational death that day. In 70AD Jesus destroyed forever both Satan and his works, which includes sin death.

I don't believe that everything in the list that Laren put together was commanded by God. I also feel that some of them are misrepresented. For example, Onan spilling his seed was not the problem IMO, it was Onan's disobeying of God's command to produce offspring for his brother.

But I do think the Torah is very clear that it was God who commanded Israel to attack the nations before her as she entered the promised land. Both Paul and Stephen, inspired by the Holy Spirit, confirm this without a doubt in the following passages IMO. Also in like manner, Jesus stated that He and the apostles would judge the tribes of Israel in 70AD. Are we to believe that the physical destruction of Jerusalem did not occur as a result of the 2nd coming of Christ, but rather it just happened to randomly occur at the time of His coming? We also will see that God did command sacrifices, but the problem was that the Israelites attention was frequently being pulled away towards false gods.

Acts 13:16 Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: 17 "The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He led them out from it. 18 "For a period of about forty years He put up with them in the wilderness. 19 "When He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land as an inheritance--all of which took about four hundred and fifty years. 20 "After these things He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet. 21 "Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. 22 "After He had removed him, He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, `I HAVE FOUND DAVID the son of Jesse, A MAN AFTER MY HEART, who will do all My will.' 23 "From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, 24 after John had proclaimed before His coming a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

Acts 7:35 "This Moses whom they disowned, saying, `WHO MADE YOU A RULER AND A JUDGE ?' is the one whom God sent to be both a ruler and a deliverer with the help of the angel who appeared to him in the thorn bush. 36 "This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years. 37 "This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel, `GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN.' 38 "This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you. 39 "Our fathers were unwilling to be obedient to him, but repudiated him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt, 40 SAYING TO AARON, `MAKE FOR US GODS WHO WILL GO BEFORE US; FOR THIS MOSES WHO LED US OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT --WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM.' 41 "At that time they made a calf and brought a sacrifice to the idol, and were rejoicing in the works of their hands. 42 "But God turned away and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, `IT WAS NOT TO ME THAT YOU OFFERED VICTIMS {animals (NKJV)} AND SACRIFICES FORTY YEARS IN THE WILDERNESS, WAS IT, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL ? 43 `YOU ALSO TOOK ALONG THE TABERNACLE OF MOLOCH AND THE STAR OF THE GOD ROMPHA, THE IMAGES WHICH YOU MADE TO WORSHIP. I ALSO WILL REMOVE YOU BEYOND BABYLON.' 44 "Our fathers had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as He who spoke to Moses directed him to make it according to the pattern which he had seen. 45 "And having received it in their turn, our fathers brought it in with Joshua upon dispossessing the nations whom God drove out before our fathers, until the time of David.


David brought up some verses that suggest that God did not know some people (I wish I could remember where and I would post that too!).

Amie, it may have been when I was talking about the separation. I think you brought up an excellent example with Jesus' statement of "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME ?" (Mt 27:46) Jesus, who knew the unconditional love of the Father, was still separated from the Father when "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin" (2 Cor 5:21). IMO humanity under the old order was distant from God. A few passages that I can think of at the moment about the former separation between God and humanity include:

Ecclesiast. 5:2 Do not be hasty in word or impulsive in thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God. For God is in heaven and you are on the earth; therefore let your words be few.

Isaiah 59:1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not so short That it cannot save; Nor is His ear so dull That it cannot hear. 2 But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear. 3 For your hands are defiled with blood And your fingers with iniquity; Your lips have spoken falsehood, Your tongue mutters wickedness.

Heb 9:24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us

2 Thess 1:9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power

Matthew 25:12 "But he answered, `Truly I say to you, I do not know you.'

1 Cor 8:3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

Galatians 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?


How do you believe that God used to see humanity? There's a basic issue I have with my own conclusions/thinking relevant to your view, but I want to be sure that I even understand your point of view before I go sharing it .

First I'd like to share the following that I've written elsewhere, and then comment more on it:

Even before the fall their was no order or revelation of love without condition. Adam and Eve were given a command before the fall. They were both naked and unashamed and thus at a point of decision about which way their status with God would go. By eating of the TKOG&E they would be bringing in more commandments through knowledge and be putting on filthy garments that were made up of deeds (Isaiah 64:6), or by eating of the tree of life which was also in the garden they would have then IMO put on white garments of salvation/eternal life (those who ate of it would live forever). Once the TOK was chosen, the tree of life couldn't be approached due to the change in humanity's status. God drove humanity out of His garden (Gen 3:24). The only way the filthy garments could then be removed, and the beautiful garments put on were via what Christ accomplished. The state of humanity IMO has not returned to the condition of pre-fall but rather something much better. I see no example in scripture of a return to nakedness in the new age (especially for those in the new Jerusalem), but rather a wearing of righteous garments (Isa 52:1; Isa 61:6-11 with Isa 51:6-8; Rev 3:4-5, 18; Rev 19:8).

God has always been perfect and complete IMO. But, spiritually speaking, everything has not always been of His nature. I believe that if Adam and Eve had eaten of the tree of life in the garden of Eden, humanity then would have gained eternal life/perfection. God would have at that time became all in all. The tree of life was in the garden (Gen 2:9), and I believe it was then available to Adam and Eve because God said "...from any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat..." (Gen 2:16-17). Instead of choosing God's way and becoming one with Him then, humanity chose their own way...the hard way of learning that they are incomplete apart from God. Prior to God becoming all in all, unlike Christ, humanity was not an "exact representation of His {God's} nature" (Heb 1:3). God knew humanity was not perfect like Him, and thus they were separate from Him. He is righteous, but humanity was clothed in filthy rags and had to be made new. God loved those in the world (Jn 3:16), but He hated the condition they were in because of the separation from Him it caused. Some examples that humanity was not always perfect:

Philipp 3:12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

Matthew 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Love (God) can not be joined with evil (deeds) (Jn 7:7). There was a separation between Him and the old creation. The two could not mix or become one. For example:

Revelation 3:20 `Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. (conditional during the transition)

Romans 9:13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

I believe it could also be stated as "JACOB love LOVED, BUT ESAU love HATED."

Revelation 2:6 `Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

I believe it could also be stated as "Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which love also hates."

Let's start with this, and later I'd like to discuss my current thoughts on the role of the conscience with the transition.

[Barry]

Hey David and everyone.
I can only speak for what I've said thus far.
Sin "separation" from God was itself a type. Albeit an anti-type. A lesson from childhood to relate to children.

God was very willing to deal with his offspring where they were at for His grand scheme of things.
Where they were at is in the "knowledge of good and evil".

The presentation so far as I see it is akin to:
If a volcano explodes is it a natural occurrence or is it God?

The answer is both. That is why God said, do not eat from that fruit.

Does God send the rain or does he not?
Well the bible says implicitly that he does.

Well then if I receive rain and you do not that must then say something about both you and I right?
Yes if we are in the knowledge of good and evil. (old covenant)
No it does not if we are not. (new covenant)

Christ was the vehicle out of that knowledge that is why it looks like God changed his mind.
"An eye for an eye"
"But I say to you"

The issue was the "consience". How God allowed consience to have precedence and how He took it out of the picture.

If Adam was a type or figure then so was sin. Shadows types and figures do not have substance.
God does not dwell in temples made with hands.
But I can find a few verses that says that he does.

So then did he or did he not ever dwell in temples? Only as a shadow of a greater reality.
A reality that could not be grasped without first the sand box and the toys.

For every verse that one says they have that proves that God dwelled in tabernacles, I got one that says he never did.

The point is not either or. The point is shadows and substance as pertains to the greater sphere of relationship. A relationship that was always there.
You can tell your children about the tooth fairy and Santa claus as long as you tell them that it part of their growing up and that you will explain things better when they get older.

1Cr 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
1Cr 13:5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
1Cr 13:6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
1Cr 13:7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
1Cr 13:8 Love never fails;

Separation from God was a perceived stage of growth. And God spoke to that consciousness for his own purposes. Man cannot be indepentent from God except in the mind. Independence is a false idenity that can and does bear not resemblence to reality.

The destruction of cities were types and figures. War in childhood was as inevitable as earthquakes and rain falling from the sky. The kids are going to break out in fights in the sand box. You can organize such things so as to finally put an end to it or you can just stop it all by force and take away the childhood.

Point being, not everything from the analogy of childhood to adult hood works in parallel between us and God as an analogy.
Raising "gods" is different from raising human children as we see it.
So the analogy works as long as those differences are taken into account.

Just a few thoughts.
No real time this morning to develop them. Off to work.
Barry

[Laren]

Hey David and everyone.
Just a few thoughts.
No real time this morning to develop them. Off to work.
Barry

Appreciate your thots Barry, definitely helps me in understanding this topic.

[ozark]

I agree. Very well said, Barry. Paul said the Law was a tutor that led to Christ. At the right time, those who heard what it was saying came to Christ. It does seem that by giving the Law, God provided the very veil that separated him from his people. Yet, we cannot impose the 21st century western world on the ancient world. We have to trust at the right time Christ revealed himself. In other words, when humanity was ready, God got rid of the tutor.

[Amie]

As I see it, there is no discrepancy or fractured-ness with[in] God
I don't see fracturedness as descrepancy - or at least that isn't the way I'm meaning it. I am talking about the possibility that everything in existence is made up of God. Our own children are literally cells from the bodies of mom and dad, yet they are as individual as can be.


Jesus, who knew the unconditional love of the Father, was still separated from the Father

As I see it, Jesus was feeling abandoned. As Barry put, "Man cannot be indepentent from God except in the mind."

I brought up that maybe God was going through emotional growth 'himself', but I can't get past that God said that he was not known when all of the things suggesting that God was thinking/feeling differently were written.

David, you are seeming to suggest that the motive for God's choices was that God really was so furious with humanity that he had no problem killing them seemingly heartlessly.


but such typically is found in our struggles to comprehend Him, and in so doing typically framing God along human lines – it is a natural thing to do, but we have to keep in mind it is but that, "natural".

For instance… it is easy to raise supposed or apparent logical contradictions about God e.g., "God is/must be a murderer" – well NO He's not. "Murder" per se is one human unrighteously killing another human.

But even then that is NOT the end of the story from God's perspective… we can sometimes question God's apparent violence as per various peoples being annihilated at the hand of Israel, but such an end was NOT "the end" for such ones – NOT IF you hold to the inclusiveness of God where "the spirit returns to Him who gave it" etc.
I hear this as (my hearing can be a mishearing for sure!) we lowly humans are incapable of comprehending love. I'm tired of the answers that put us down or put us in our place ("You just don't question God.")

When I think about "means to an end" type of thing (not that this is what anyone here is putting forth, just sharing thoughts), I think about different and numerous tools out there to reach our own children in guiding them. Some tools are cruel and unusual. There are parents out there that thing force feeding their children bleach is a good teaching tool and they use it. Just because it works to teach a lesson doesn't mean that it is the best choice to make. To reason that something works to teach a lesson and so it is justified on that basis alone is circular reasoning.


But I do think the Torah is very clear that it was God who commanded Israel to attack the nations before her as she entered the promised land.

Act 13:16 And rising up, and signaling with his hand, Paul said, Men, Israelites, and the ones fearing God, listen.

Act 13:17 The God of this people Israel chose out our fathers, and exalted the people in their stay in the land of Egypt. And with a high arm, He led them out of it.
Act 13:18 And as forty years time passed, He tenderly bore them in the wilderness. Deut. 1:31
Act 13:19 And He pulled down seven nations in Canaan land, and gave their land to them as an inheritance. Deut. 7:1

Edit "God" for "Love": Love pulled down seven nations in Canaan land, and gave their land to them as an inheritance. Any "inheritance" afforded by Love would be via consequences of choices, IE:


Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

"Reap what you sow".. stuff like that. I'm just saying that some things in the old testament can be reframed using "spiritual eyes" and misunderstandings on the part of people can be spotted. It wasn't going to be any different for Israel, no one in Acts was pulling something irrelevant out of the air.


`[b]IT WAS NOT TO ME THAT YOU OFFERED VICTIMS {animals (NKJV)} AND SACRIFICES FORTY YEARS IN THE WILDERNESS, WAS IT, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL ?[/b[ 43 `YOU ALSO TOOK ALONG THE TABERNACLE OF MOLOCH AND THE STAR OF THE GOD ROMPHA, THE IMAGES WHICH YOU MADE TO WORSHIP. I ALSO WILL REMOVE YOU BEYOND BABYLON

Exactly! They raised up a false image and worshipped it as if it were God. They did not know God. THEY were wrong in thinking:


Exo 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods (Elohim), O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

WHY translators chose to translate "Elohim" as a plural in this case and otherwise elsewhere is beyond me. Maybe it will be filed under "Why we chose to transliterate the word satan" somewhere.


Mat 15:9 But in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." Isa. 29:13

They were "precepts of men" because the law wasn't understood properly until Jesus.

And of course God "does not hear" and "does not know" a person who is trying to make themselves righteous via works. They were FAKES and they knew it. No one was without sin - not one person threw a stone. When you walk into a car dealership, do you ever feel like you are hearing or knowing the real person when you talk to the salesman? I would think not. The majority of their name tags read "Nice to meet ya, I'm Fake Fakerton", lol! IF they stopped the sales tactics and dropped the facade, then we could say that we know them and hear them.


Love (God) can not be joined with evil (deeds) (Jn 7:7).

"Evil deeds" here is not subjective though! There is an explanation for the verses that you list off that make God seem hateful and angry, but I don't want it to seem like I am arguing with you. I just want you to know that it is possible they be logically/theologically made sense of.

AND --

Even though people will have misunderstood the law and who God was, IF God were in charge the whole time then God will have expected it - which makes Barry on par imv - God wasn't murdering people, people's wrong perceptions were murdering people and God was allowing it. I don't even think that it was easy for God to allow.

Amie

[Barry]

Evolution (development) of consciousness is not a easy thing to raise.
It looks very different from childhood to adult hood.

I don't know a parent that does not chase away the monsters that in the child's room that lurk in the darkness.

You can leak out the adult hood realizations from time to time like there is no such thing as monsters and it was just a dream and a figment of your imagination but to handle the reality of where the child is you are going to have to chase those monsters away because the child understands the security that the parent brings to the moment. And that is the meaning of the law and the prophets once the monsters are gone forever.


Just a thought.
Barry

[Paige]

To put it in simpler terms for my simple mind...

There was a time when the culture, in it's infancy, needed to know that it's Dad could beat up all the other Dads. I think God allowed Israel to see Him as they needed to at the point of maturity they were at. Eventually, Israel needed to see that there was only one Dad, and that He was everyone's Dad. (And maybe even everyone's Mom, too.)

Paige

[David Timm]

I don't see fracturedness as descrepancy - or at least that isn't the way I'm meaning it. I am talking about the possibility that everything in existence is made up of God. Our own children are literally cells from the bodies of mom and dad, yet they are as individual as can be.

Amie, I still occasionally consider something similar to this myself but I have not yet embraced it. I don't know much at all about quantum physics, but I've heard in a philosophy course that on the subatomic level matter isn't physical at all. It supposedly actual takes on the behavior patterns of thoughts. This may sound way out there, but I've considered that while we are not God, we and everything else that is not God could possibly be the thoughts of God. I don't believe God has ever had any flaws, but the scripture about God becoming all in all could refer to quite a few things IMO. It fits well with my theology that fulfillment and wrath were primarily from God's perspective and not humanity's perspective.


I brought up that maybe God was going through emotional growth 'himself', but I can't get past that God said that he was not known when all of the things suggesting that God was thinking/feeling differently were written.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. When God says he did not know or was not known, I don't believe it is referring to God's knowledge but rather the incomplete relationship He had with humanity. IMO, all our views are similar in that relationship between humanity and God was the main issue in some manner and that it contained problems or was not mature prior to 70AD. Whether this was from God's perspective, humanity's perspective, or the perspectives of both is where the disagreement seems to be IMO.


David, you are seeming to suggest that the motive for God's choices was that God really was so furious with humanity that he had no problem killing them seemingly heartlessly.


Even though people will have misunderstood the law and who God was, IF God were in charge the whole time then God will have expected it - which makes Barry on par imv - God wasn't murdering people, people's wrong perceptions were murdering people and God was allowing it. I don't even think that it was easy for God to allow.

I'm not suggesting this at all. God was not furious with humanity, He was furious with the old self. He loved those in the world, but He hated the world. He loved the spirit, but hated the soul (according to the old age). I don't believe God murdered anyone either. I agree with Davo when he wrote, ""Murder" per se is one human unrighteously killing another human."

To me the message is clear, God's anger was towards the old self. The self that was not love, that which was not like God. Jesus I believe couldn't be any clearer when He said the following:

Mt 22:7 "But the king {God} was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire.

Rev 2:18...The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze, says this: 19 `I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first. 20 `But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 `I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. 22 `Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. 23 `And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.

Their are many passages in scripture I'd rather not believe were true, but I can't change what was/is true just because I don't like it. In the old testament God had to remove the nations before Israel so they could be established in their land so the promises then and the promises to come could be fulfilled with them. These were wicked nations that even sacrificed their children that Israel destroyed. Are we to believe that Israel survived all these battles without God's assistance? Are we to believe that God didn't use the Babylonians to send Israel into captivity and it just happened by chance? Are we to believe that all the promises of Christ that Jerusalem would be physically destroyed in His generation had nothing to do with His coming in judgment but just happened to occur because God allowed it? And are we to believe that the flood in Noah's day had nothing to do with God making sure it rained 40 days and nights, or did it just happen to rain that long by chance because God didn't make it rain but just allowed it to rain. IMO the answer is clear, God was angry because love saw evil because that is what His creation was clothed in. Love was not yet all in all.


IT WAS NOT TO ME THAT YOU OFFERED VICTIMS {animals (NKJV)} AND SACRIFICES FORTY YEARS IN THE WILDERNESS, WAS IT, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL ?[/b[ 43 `YOU ALSO TOOK ALONG THE TABERNACLE OF MOLOCH AND THE STAR OF THE GOD ROMPHA, THE IMAGES WHICH YOU MADE TO WORSHIP. I ALSO WILL REMOVE YOU BEYOND BABYLON


Exactly! They raised up a false image and worshipped it as if it were God. They did not know God. THEY were wrong in thinking

Yes, they were wrong in thinking by worshipping the idols. But with God's statement that "it was not to me that you offered" IMO shows that God had intended them to offer these things to Him. Otherwise the sacrifice of Christ and the spiritual sacrifices of the NJ priests make no sense IMO.

Acts 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death


And of course God "does not hear" and "does not know" a person who is trying to make themselves righteous via works. They were FAKES and they knew it. No one was without sin - not one person threw a stone. When you walk into a car dealership, do you ever feel like you are hearing or knowing the real person when you talk to the salesman? I would think not. The majority of their name tags read "Nice to meet ya, I'm Fake Fakerton", lol! IF they stopped the sales tactics and dropped the facade, then we could say that we know them and hear them.

Exactly, there was no genuine relationship between God and humanity under the old order...only frustration and anger. This is the core of the issue IMO.

[Barry]

22 `Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. 23 `And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.
This is a convert of the Judaizers about to judged in her consience in the very things that she believes in the consequence of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Her "children" are killed with death in the second death.

Just a thought,
Barry

[David Timm]

There was a time when the culture, in it's infancy, needed to know that it's Dad could beat up all the other Dads. I think God allowed Israel to see Him as they needed to at the point of maturity they were at. Eventually, Israel needed to see that there was only one Dad, and that He was everyone's Dad. (And maybe even everyone's Mom, too.)

Paige, thanks for sharing this.

Everyone interested in this thread, I need to consider this in my study because one of the main issues I have against the view that humanity went from infancy to maturity is the frequent anger God shows in the old testament. I cannot accept an angry Father playing with His children in the sandbox. I know that this is not being taught here, but IMO it would have to be a necessary conclusion if the belief is true.

JMO

[David Timm]

This is a convert of the Judaizers about to judged in her consience in the very things that she believes in the consequence of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Her "children" are killed with death in the second death.

Just a thought,
Barry

Barry, I stand corrected with that comment I made. Thanks for sharing.:)

[Barry]

Barry, I stand corrected with that comment I made. Thanks for sharing.:)

Correcting? :) Just sharing :)

[davo]

I am talking about the possibility that everything in existence is made up of God.I guess what I'm saying, as I understand it, is that framing it like that [from my perspective] sounds an awful lot like saying God is literally panteistic i.e., in everything -- that wouldn't be how I would understand Paul's "all in all" etc. This may be seen by some as touching a number of applications, but God's calling into being of that which did not exist doesn't mean that such was some aspect of God's being.

This at least is how I'm currently viewing it.

[Amie]

I guess what I'm saying, as I understand it, is that framing it like that [from my perspective] sounds an awful lot like saying God is literally panteistic i.e., in everything -- that wouldn't be how I would understand Paul's "all in all" etc. This may be seen by some as touching a number of applications, but God's calling into being of that which did not exist doesn't mean that such was some aspect of God's being.

My understanding of pantheism is that everything actually IS God - identity wise. I believe that God was the first 'thing' to exist and is the source for everything. Rather than a "something from nothing" creation, I see it as a "something from something" creation. However, unlike pantheism I do not believe that the trees actually are God. Rather, imv, God was able to create separate lives from/out of 'himself'.

For love to give itself, and to create relationship, it had to first create separate consciousness. Like I said to David, our children are made up literally of our cells yet they are not us.

Also, if we are the images of God, then another heretical thing comes into view and that is the inclusiveness of the things around us. Love sees outside/beyond itself imo. I don't think that makes a cow into a person, but a good quote that I heard recently by a woman who has transformed over half of the slaughter houses here in the US: "These animals are here for us, the least we can do is to give them respect while they're here."

Anyhow, that's my belief about creation and if God were upset with something in a person then I would see it as something that God wasn't accepting in himself -- as creater in the least. I mean, is it possible that God went through a process of self acceptance through identification with humanity via coming in the flesh.. and when was that?

Your seeing things differently only helps me to learn :).

Amie

[Amie]

I'm not suggesting this at all. God was not furious with humanity, He was furious with the old self.

Ah-hah! I'm glad that I inquired! See, I don't distinguish the "old self" from humanity. In my view the "old self" is akin to the "toddler self". It was a limited and ignorant perspective and a part of our childhood.


Mt 22:7 "But the king {God} was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire.

Firstly imo, it's important to consider "HOW". How did "love" send armies? Just for a second try and imagine this without any magical thinking. I am not asking that you dismiss or not believe stuff in the old testament (That was suggested in Baytown but not by me! lol!). I'm asking that you imagine this playing out differently. Barry puts it "historically".

If you've seen the movie "10,000 bc", it stands as a fantastic example of a story of how love overcame false gods.

To me an example of a desire to remove a delusion with mixed feelings of anger and love is from "Gone with the Wind":


Rhett rages to her about his romantic rival, Ashley: "Of course, the comic figure in all this is the long-suffering Mr. Wilkes! - Mr. Wilkes who can't be mentally faithful to his wife - and won't be unfaithful to her technically. Why doesn't he make up his mind?" Aggressive and confrontational, Rhett menaces Scarlett by putting his powerful hands on both sides of her head as if between a vise in order to squeeze Ashley's image out of her head:

Observe my hands, my dear. I could tear you to pieces with them, and I'd do it if it'd take Ashley out of your mind forever. But it wouldn't. So I'll remove him from your mind forever this way. I'll put my hands so - one on each side of your head - and I'll smash your skull between them like a walnut, and that'll block him out.

There was an utter helplessness in the above on the part of Rhett. Considering the passionate love of God, and who "satan" really was, how much more the challenge to squeeze the enemy from the heads of people without killing them!


This is a convert of the Judaizers about to judged in her consience in the very things that she believes in the consequence of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Her "children" are killed with death in the second death.

The fall of their delusion at the hands of armies meant their own suffering because their own refusal to hear mercy marked their consciences.

BTW -- To me "all in all" is revealing unconditional love to "all Israel" having made it revealed to "all humanity" itself.


But with God's statement that "it was not to me that you offered" IMO shows that God had intended them to offer these things to Him. Otherwise the sacrifice of Christ and the spiritual sacrifices of the NJ priests make no sense IMO.

It was never my intent to suggest that God didn't require sacrifice period. I have said before that God did require sacrifice but not for himself, he required sacrifice for the people. It was their consciences that required blood at that time. With love in view, those sacrifices will have been obsolete because they will have no longer needed blood for the cleansing of their consciences. Love/God was not in view though imo.


When God says he did not know or was not known, I don't believe it is referring to God's knowledge but rather the incomplete relationship He had with humanity. IMO, all our views are similar in that relationship between humanity and God was the main issue in some manner and that it contained problems or was not mature prior to 70AD. Whether this was from God's perspective, humanity's perspective, or the perspectives of both is where the disagreement seems to be IMO.

Maybe you're onto something :). As well, I see it as a relational issue between God and humanity in this life only. That might be another difference?

I don't think that God pretended not to know humanity ("old self") because he was ticked at them. I think that he literally couldn't know them because they were putting on a falsetto. AND, I think that they were putting on the falsetto because they didn't know him either. Definately there was a rift (separation even, lol) there.

Amie

[David Timm]

Ah-hah! I'm glad that I inquired! See, I don't distinguish the "old self" from humanity. In my view the "old self" is akin to the "toddler self". It was a limited and ignorant perspective and a part of our childhood.

This is all helping me understand your perspective better and I appreciate it. I believe the old self was a "covering" upon humanity due to there choice in the garden, but it wasn't humanity itself.

Isa 25:7 And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, Even the veil which is stretched over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken.

God saw humanity through this "lens" if you will, and this is how humanity did...and largely still does see themselves. Many still believe God's love is conditional. I don't believe the biblical story is about a maturity process that humanity went through though, but I'm open to considering it.

Barry, I'm wondering that if according to your view judgment of sin was "between the ears" of individuals, was sin itself then also "between the ears"?

[Barry]

Yes, sin is the perceived attribute of a false sense of independence and separation.
Now the fact that God related to that level of consciousness (and clothed it historically) and then brought it to a covenantal end is also quite clear to me, that is, from my perspective.

Barry

[David Timm]

Yes, sin is the perceived attribute of a false sense of independence and separation.
Now the fact that God related to that level of consciousness (and clothed it historically) and then brought it to a covenantal end is also quite clear to me, that is, from my perspective.

Hebrews 10:17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."

No law=no knowledge of sin

Is God remembering no more something that He already knew never existed? Or if He is just saying this due to the conscience level of His audience, isn't He encouraging a lie or false belief? I have a difficult time believing God would do this.

How would we know what this and other passages are actually saying or what method of interpretation to use?

[Barry]

Hebrews 10:17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."

No law=no knowledge of sin

Is God remembering no more something that He already knew never existed? Or if He is just saying this due to the conscience level of His audience, isn't He encouraging a lie or false belief? I have a difficult time believing God would do this.

How would we know what this and other passages are actually saying or what method of interpretation to use?

What explains what is really going on here?
Phl 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, [that they are] the enemies of the cross of Christ:
Phl 3:19 Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.

The either or, of God telling the truth or lieing will not work imo.
Not when the artist who can paint a beautiful land scape with all the perspective in it can put down his canvas pick up a pencil and paper and help his child draw a 2 dimensional stick man.
Not when the astronaut can be on earth and relate to up and down and then go to outer space where there is no up and down. But he cannot relate to his children in terms of there being no up and down.

Sin is "in the box". If you get out of the box or remove the box there is no more sin. Sin is equivalent to a 2 dimensional being functioning in dualism.

Love without condition is equivalent to 3 dimensional living.

Sin conscience within the scaffolding of an absence of love without condition (where there can be no law as law is a figment of separation which is a figment of independence) is a designated time of childhood.

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.
Col 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in [your] mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

In what way was peace being made here?
Why is it prior to this peace that they were enemies in their "mind"?

While there is more going on here than "ether or" the core issues are imo the consience of man and God relating to that perception for a time because it was part of our development and cannot be separated from our development as God saw fit.

Childhood enforced from this point here:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Healing was purposely kept from him just as healing was kept from apostate Israel.

Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Gal. 3:23, 4:4

Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

Let the unjust be unjust still. As Adam was kept from the tree of life so to was Apostate Israel.

2Th 2:9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

So not only is there an enforced childhood away from the tree of life, there is an enforced measure of falsehood that is to be believed in relation to the time when true was being revealed within the transition of the ages.

The knowledge of good and evil:
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

The knowledge of good and evil that God possessed was an "in the box" knowledge.
Like an astronaut knows about up and down.
Like an artiste who knows his perspective can draw a 2 dimensional stick man.

Man coming to the knowledge was death in his consience. Love without condition had not been revealed. No need to reveal it at this point. Perhaps no way to reveal it at this point. No way then to comprehend it.

Off topic a bit, personal thought and observation:
The vast majority of misunderstanding about scripture when we approach it from the consciousness of love, is to make it all about the individual. It's where universalists go and where spiritualizing every last detail goes and so on.
God has a collective or corporate agenda with humanity. And he will drag humanity kicking and screaming in a temper tantrum through the mud if that is what it takes. And that is love.
What he won't do is senseless, meaningless pain a and hurt that has no love agenda behind it.

Raising gods is tough!
The power that they will yield in creation is enormous!
Preparations have to be made. And God was always willing to step into the sand box and meet the needs of such a task.
Just some thoughts
Barry

[Amie]

This is all helping me understand your perspective better and I appreciate it. I believe the old self was a "covering" upon humanity due to there choice in the garden, but it wasn't humanity itself.

That covering was actually a symptom imo, of the state of humanity beneath it. Though we might all do it as adults from time to time, we recognize, for example, that it is childish to pass blame.

As I understand you better, I think that we're actually coming together more so. Humanity was in a childish state and already had the love of God. That was true the entire time. However following the eating the forbidden fruit, their hearts became buried beneath stone. That encasement is what I believe that you are calling the covering.

If you think about it, putting on a false air is a form of self protection and a means of maintaining keeping the self hidden. That's how I was saying that God didn't know especially the people keeping the law through their own openness.

At the same time, I don't think that God lost sight of who humanity really was - even though there was nothing going on as for an authentic relationship.


God saw humanity through this "lens" if you will, and this is how humanity did...and largely still does see themselves. Many still believe God's love is conditional.

The difference imo is:


Rev 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

I don't see the "beast" literally as the man Moses. I do see it as what the body of Moses had become. There were many great wonders which did validate the belief that they were the only and special people of God, having power and authority to determine who would be in and who would be out. Nowadays, preachers at the pulpits preach the same stuff but only have their own hot air to validate the belief.

The validation of the "covering" has been removed because unconditional love has been made known and it does take authority over any falsehood or professed standard.

Even the things humanity creates reflect that thinking if you think about it.. books, movies, art, and music. Free thinking tells the tale from the heart of love superceding law, and it doesn't poo-poo the importance of law as it does that. We can all have our standards, yet to leave ones' sheep to die in a pit on the Sabbath is heartless.

Amie

[Amie]

The vast majority of misunderstanding about scripture when we approach it from the consciousness of love, is to make it all about the individual. It's where universalists go and where spiritualizing every last detail goes and so on.
God has a collective or corporate agenda with humanity. And he will drag humanity kicking and screaming in a temper tantrum through the mud if that is what it takes. And that is love.
What he won't do is senseless, meaningless pain a and hurt that has no love agenda behind it.

I still think that once the story is read in context, that there are things that can be drawn to benefit the individual. I think that doing that out of order is a common practice and mistake.

IE rather than learning why it was that the disciples were commanded to love one another and then deciding what that means for humanity or "me", the first conclusion is to believe that they must keep the commandment. The reason for keeping that commandment becomes about self glorification imo, rather than God's glorification via the resurrection.

Amie

[David Timm]

That covering was actually a symptom imo, of the state of humanity beneath it. Though we might all do it as adults from time to time, we recognize, for example, that it is childish to pass blame.

As I understand you better, I think that we're actually coming together more so. Humanity was in a childish state and already had the love of God. That was true the entire time. However following the eating the forbidden fruit, their hearts became buried beneath stone. That encasement is what I believe that you are calling the covering.

I agree that our views are actually quite similar but some of the terminology and means of application are different. I don't see the covering as a symptom of engaging in the former state, but rather as the result of a decision in the garden. I do agree that humanity has always been loved by God, but I don't believe they were ever in a process of maturing from child to adult. Rather, they were removed from one world and put into another.


At the same time, I don't think that God lost sight of who humanity really was - even though there was nothing going on as for an authentic relationship.


The validation of the "covering" has been removed because unconditional love has been made known and it does take authority over any falsehood or professed standard.

Even the things humanity creates reflect that thinking if you think about it.. books, movies, art, and music. Free thinking tells the tale from the heart of love superceding law, and it doesn't poo-poo the importance of law as it does that. We can all have our standards, yet to leave ones' sheep to die in a pit on the Sabbath is heartless.

I agree :)


The either or, of God telling the truth or lieing will not work imo.
Not when the artist who can paint a beautiful land scape with all the perspective in it can put down his canvas pick up a pencil and paper and help his child draw a 2 dimensional stick man.
Not when the astronaut can be on earth and relate to up and down and then go to outer space where there is no up and down. But he cannot relate to his children in terms of there being no up and down.

Barry, I think we are to a degree saying the same things but just differently. I believe God has always been perfect, and in Him there never is sin. But God was not of the world that had sin, the world that was not perfect. In that world their truly was as in your example,"up and down", or what I would understand as sin. In God, their was never any "up and down" but yet He knew the world of "up and down" was real...it was just not in Him. God was relating to humanity in terms of the world they lived in, and IMO everything He said about that world was reality and not just part of the conscience. IMO He didn't allow humanity to mature out of childhood, as I don't think maturity was an issue, but rather He Himself had to drastically step into the picture to remove the futile path humanity had chosen for righteousness. IMO their were two realities, that which was in God and that which was not in God. In 70AD God consumed that which was not in God, so everything is now in God (God is now all in all).

To use your analogy, God was able to visit where their was "up and down", but within Himself their was no "up and down". God brought everything within Himself and thus destroyed all the places were "up and down" existed.

Colossians 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds

IMO, what this is saying is that not that they were separated from God due to a false thinking, but rather they were alienated and hostile in mind because they falsely believed righteousness could be attained apart from God and via works. They were not believing the truth.

I disagree with your perspective on the garden because I believe the tree of life was freely available until they chose of eat of the ToK. It was only after the fall that it became guarded.

Barry, I believe your view does have some strong arguments though and I want to remain open-minded to it. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

[Amie]

I don't see the covering as a symptom of engaging in the former state, but rather as the result of a decision in the garden.
What do you mean by "engaging in the former state"? I was saying that basically reaching for a covering at all was a sign of immaturity.

1Co 13:11 When I was an infant, I spoke as an infant, I thought as an infant, I reasoned as an infant. But when I became a man, I caused to cease the things of the infant.

I'm not disagreeing about the affect of their decision, I'm just looking at the reasoning behind their decision and stuff -- the cause.


Rather, they were removed from one world and put into another.

My understanding is that there was a single world created in the beginning, yet that world was made new through a new revelation. I guess you already know that my "circles" are not separate on my chart, but one is inside the other -- they're concentric.

http://www.chemeddl.org/collections/tsts/McMahon/McMahonImages/McMahon9thru12/jawbreaker.jpg

That would mean a qualitative "new" world.

Amie

[David Timm]

What do you mean by "engaging in the former state"? I was saying that basically reaching for a covering at all was a sign of immaturity.

I may misunderstand what you are saying, but I think the covering was not projected due to a childlike perception but was rather a literal type of covering that was placed upon humanity at the fall and thus influenced in a very literal sense their relationship with God (not just in perception). Regarding 1 Cor 13, I must admit the language seems to refer to a process of maturity, but yet the NT writers use many different examples to explain the transition.


My understanding is that there was a single world created in the beginning, yet that world was made new through a new revelation.

I agree, the form of the world is what passed away. The new though IMO was not made via revelation in itself, but rather by God becoming all in all. This was what was being revealed. God was literally making all things new. The world became "in Him".

[Eric B]

I had just been writing down what I intended to be a concise version of all the thoughts I have been sharing; sort of a quick answer to anyone who questions my views.


Evangelical futurism (and other "orthodox" theologies) believes man is still condemned under the Law and has to choose Christ to have His blood cover them

Divided into two forms of justifying this:

Free will (synergistic): man knows he is a sinner and needs to call out to God to be saved. Therefore, there is "no excuse", even for those who have never heard or were simply unconvinced or don't see enough evidence of God.
The goal then is getting everyone to change world views, and hopefully from that, to improve their lifestyles or behavior.

Calvinistic (monergistic): God sovereignly ordains creatures to salvation and destruction unconditionally, and destruction seems to be just as much a part of "His glory" as salvation, so no rationale about "man's responsibility" is needed for why so many remain lost.
The goal then is to call the "sheep" who are really already predetermined as such.

Many Calvinists can't buy this much, and so take elements of "free will" to maintain mans's "fault" in being condemned, though ultimately, it is still all about God's decrees in an equally "glorifying" salvation and destruction. But what you end up with is a "script" where men are basically trapped into sinning, and then being left under "just" condemnation for it.


All of these standard theologies ignore that the reason faith and repentance are seen mandated in the NT is that the two covenants overlapped, and each person had to choose which he would follow, and persevere in it until the Old Covenant was finally removed. Hence, a "race" they were running, with an END in their reach; not ongoing for millennia to come.
So man was in a state of condemnation in the old covenant, and had to have physical blood applied (esp. in the original "Passover" incident, then in atonement rituals).

In the NT period, after the Cross, this became spiritual, pointing to Christ's sacrifice. But they were still partly under the Law.

So whenever a futurist preaches about man's condemnation, and tries to hit him with his sin and need to turn or burn, what he's really saying is that man is still under the Law by default, and that Law and Grace have continued side by side to the present, and to cross to the other side, needs to have blood [spiritually] applied. (and regular "full preterists", while still insisting the Law ended AD70, nevertheless continue its condemnation on the "nonelect", but now forever, in this "new Heavens and earth").

Problem is, while they did continue side by side for the four decades the NT was written in, the system of Law was finally abolished in AD70.
And when other groups, such as so-called "Lawkeepers" accuse those same evangelicals of "disobedience" themselves for not keeping sabbaths and dietary laws (which are just as much apart of the Law), then they will claim the Law is abolished.

So the issue is not that man is not a sinner (as it is with theological liberals and unbelievers), but whether God is counting our sins against us. (2Cor. 5:19)

What basis does one have to insist that the Law didn't end, and that He still is counting our sins against us unless we meet a condition? The most common will be the assumption that all the sin and decay that remains in the physical universe still continues on. In the standard view, condemnation of the Law only ends when this ends. However, the scriptures do not actually say that.
Connected with this; the other argument you might hear is that since sin does continue, if God just saved everyone regardless of their choice, people would not be motivated to repent, believe and change their lives, and total lawlessness would reign. But look around. 2000 years of trying to scare people into obedience not only did not create any golden age of righteousness anywhere (though many will try to romanticize certain times and places, such as early USA, as though it were such), but it actually made the situation so much WORSE, in that you had fearful placation or pretense, corruption of the religious institutions that naturally reaped the power over the people from such teaching (and then religious offices and church growth becoming something everyone covets for their own ends, leading to dissension, schism, watering down to increase numbers, etc), and then a white-hot backlash against the church for all of this in more modern times, which has pushed society even further away from God than it would have been if they had instead come to associate God with free, unhitched Grace. (Of course, conservatives just blame others, for softening down. But their hard-nose approach never worked for more than a few generations).

Such an argument also betrays works-righteousness (we have to DO something --fear Hell and then turn to God in response; in order to earn that grace), even though most will deny works-righteousness in theory.

This would also explain why God no longer does obvious miracles, or shows other SPECIAL signs of revelation. (General revelation, conscience, distantly past special revelation, and the claims of various modern groups to be continuing acts of special revelation are just not certain enough for man in his limited knowledge to be held accountable on. Remeber, "to whom MUCH is given, much is expected, and the people under condemnation in Biblical times (especially those who saw God in the OT, or Christ in the NT) were given much, but that has clearly changed by our time).

[goes to show that a theology that leaves so many lost only makes sense under a premise where damnation is just as much a part of God's plan as salvation. However, that is no longer "good news"]

[davo]

Good stuff Eric…

It is also interesting how "salvation" according to typical religianity means "getting to heaven when you die" – yet when men first began to call on the name of the Lord i.e., "save us" I'd be inclined to think that such pleas were relative to the struggles, strains and toxicities of THIS LIFE and not so much deliverance from some supposed fiery calamity post mortem.

[Barry]

I had just been writing down what I intended to be a concise version of all the thoughts I have been sharing; sort of a quick answer to anyone who questions my views.


Evangelical futurism (and other "orthodox" theologies) believes man is still condemned under the Law and has to choose Christ to have His blood cover them

Divided into two forms of justifying this:

Free will (synergistic): man knows he is a sinner and needs to call out to God to be saved. Therefore, there is "no excuse", even for those who have never heard or were simply unconvinced or don't see enough evidence of God.
The goal then is getting everyone to change world views, and hopefully from that, to improve their lifestyles or behavior.

Calvinistic (monergistic): God sovereignly ordains creatures to salvation and destruction unconditionally, and destruction seems to be just as much a part of "His glory" as salvation, so no rationale about "man's responsibility" is needed for why so many remain lost.
The goal then is to call the "sheep" who are really already predetermined as such.

Many Calvinists can't buy this much, and so take elements of "free will" to maintain mans's "fault" in being condemned, though ultimately, it is still all about God's decrees in an equally "glorifying" salvation and destruction. But what you end up with is a "script" where men are basically trapped into sinning, and then being left under "just" condemnation for it.


All of these standard theologies ignore that the reason faith and repentance are seen mandated in the NT is that the two covenants overlapped, and each person had to choose which he would follow, and persevere in it until the Old Covenant was finally removed. Hence, a "race" they were running, with an END in their reach; not ongoing for millennia to come.
So man was in a state of condemnation in the old covenant, and had to have physical blood applied (esp. in the original "Passover" incident, then in atonement rituals).

In the NT period, after the Cross, this became spiritual, pointing to Christ's sacrifice. But they were still partly under the Law.

So whenever a futurist preaches about man's condemnation, and tries to hit him with his sin and need to turn or burn, what he's really saying is that man is still under the Law by default, and that Law and Grace have continued side by side to the present, and to cross to the other side, needs to have blood [spiritually] applied. (and regular "full preterists", while still insisting the Law ended AD70, nevertheless continue its condemnation on the "nonelect", but now forever, in this "new Heavens and earth").

Problem is, while they did continue side by side for the four decades the NT was written in, the system of Law was finally abolished in AD70.
And when other groups, such as so-called "Lawkeepers" accuse those same evangelicals of "disobedience" themselves for not keeping sabbaths and dietary laws (which are just as much apart of the Law), then they will claim the Law is abolished.

So the issue is not that man is not a sinner (as it is with theological liberals and unbelievers), but whether God is counting our sins against us. (2Cor. 5:19)

What basis does one have to insist that the Law didn't end, and that He still is counting our sins against us unless we meet a condition? The most common will be the assumption that all the sin and decay that remains in the physical universe still continues on. In the standard view, condemnation of the Law only ends when this ends. However, the scriptures do not actually say that.
Connected with this; the other argument you might hear is that since sin does continue, if God just saved everyone regardless of their choice, people would not be motivated to repent, believe and change their lives, and total lawlessness would reign. But look around. 2000 years of trying to scare people into obedience not only did not create any golden age of righteousness anywhere (though many will try to romanticize certain times and places, such as early USA, as though it were such), but it actually made the situation so much WORSE, in that you had fearful placation or pretense, corruption of the religious institutions that naturally reaped the power over the people from such teaching (and then religious offices and church growth becoming something everyone covets for their own ends, leading to dissension, schism, watering down to increase numbers, etc), and then a white-hot backlash against the church for all of this in more modern times, which has pushed society even further away from God than it would have been if they had instead come to associate God with free, unhitched Grace. (Of course, conservatives just blame others, for softening down. But their hard-nose approach never worked for more than a few generations).

Such an argument also betrays works-righteousness (we have to DO something --fear Hell and then turn to God in response; in order to earn that grace), even though most will deny works-righteousness in theory.

This would also explain why God no longer does obvious miracles, or shows other SPECIAL signs of revelation. (General revelation, conscience, distantly past special revelation, and the claims of various modern groups to be continuing acts of special revelation are just not certain enough for man in his limited knowledge to be held accountable on. Remeber, "to whom MUCH is given, much is expected, and the people under condemnation in Biblical times (especially those who saw God in the OT, or Christ in the NT) were given much, but that has clearly changed by our time).

[goes to show that a theology that leaves so many lost only makes sense under a premise where damnation is just as much a part of God's plan as salvation. However, that is no longer "good news"]

Great points and nicely written.
The law did not end for the believer only. Simply not possible imo.

1Jo 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jo 2:16 For all that [is] in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but is of the world.
1Jo 2:17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.
1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour;
Barry

[Amie]

Eric,

I can't help but to "amen" you! (Amen!)

I'm curious and if you feel comfortable of course -- how has your shift in theology effected your life and what even made you open to this sort of universalistic idea?

Amie

[David Timm]

Eric, this is an excellent and clearly written post! You brought up quite a few very important points. And like you said, a major problem with Christianity today is the belief that the transition period is a permanent issue and that believers today are also members of the church.

[Paige]

Joining the chorus! :clap2:

[Eric B]

Thanks everyone!

Eric,

I can't help but to "amen" you! (Amen!)

I'm curious and if you feel comfortable of course -- how has your shift in theology effected your life and what even made you open to this sort of universalistic idea?

Amie
Been kind of delayed, first by this ongoing political debate on a Christian board, where people actually believe that America was virtually founded by God, and that so-called "lazy grasshoppers" (from a modern take on Aesop's old fable that is insinuated towards minorities) are draining the economy. They refuse to consider how corporate greed is where most of the money is going, and Obama is even blamed for the auto bailouts!

Already irritated by that, then, my remaining grandmother died. Just got back yesterday. I'm usually emotionless at funerals, and was hardly even sad when my other grandmother passed 21 years ago. But she was basically a nice church lady who had a fairly peaceful life, while this other one had a rough life, and was miserable (and hard to deal with by the family). It could be argued she did it to herself by living a wild life earlier on, but when hearing more about her life, I came to feel very sorry for her. Her life and death was basically symbolic to me of all that is wrong with the world.

My rationale for being so un-emotional with the first grandmother was that she was likely "saved", and what was the point of being sad? She lived her life, and was time to go and be with the Lord (though I always held to soul-sleep until the future resurrection). With this other one; I knew I would be more upset. Yet, thankfully, by now, believing in CG, I do not have the dreaded sense that "she is in Hell now" after all of this (or having to hope she "received Christ" right before death, which did not seem likely, yet you would have to speculate "you never know"; etc).
So the doctrine has really helped me in this regard, as well as my own uncertainties in my own faith.

I thought I had revealed throughout my posts how I came to make the change. Perhaps it was lost in the volumes of many of the posts.

I just came to grow frustrated with futuristic evangelicalism, and all the endless unresolvable debates on what scripture really teaches about practically everything. I'm in a rather charismatic environment that believes heavily in "personal devotions", but I have always had problems with that, largely because of my attention span, and just frustrations about life, and what God is doing in it today. Some even claim that is our entire "relationship with God", and if you're not doing that, you've basically fallen away.

And then, the Calvinist-Arminian debate.
And then, popular teaching in general, suggesting that all our pain is sent by God to make us grow.
And then, on the Christian boards, with doctrines such as "Once Saved, Always Saved", and the Catholics, Campbellists and sabbatarians arguing against it, and they do seem to have a lot of good verses on falling away, that we have never answered.
Likewise, there were many other unanswered questions, like how Christ's "soon" stretches out to 2000 years, with nothing but false alarms in world events. And I'm just impatient waiting for this new literal kingdom.

So finally, I encounter preterism, but this is the "regular" kind that brags about taking away our "future literal kingdom", yet leaves this same world, with all its pains, and people dying and going to Hell, forever, yet does not replace it with anything substantial, other than Heaven when the saved die, but now this has all its descriptions removed and symbolically applied to the "spiritual" kingdom, now. So it seemed like the worst of both worlds!
So I begin fighting against that, and eventually encounter Lou on Planet Preterist (and at first assumed that he was just another regular full preterist). I then discover the old forum here, and one of King's articles, and begin thinking on it.
Suddenly, a lot of these broken pieces in doctrine begin fitting together. As I had recently pointed out regarding type theory; I'm intuitive, so I like to piece things together, and now things were finally fitting. Like the two covenants overlapping explaining why "believe to be saved [from the penalty of the Law]" would continue to be preached in the New Testament, and a so-called "race" of "perseverance" that seemed to contradict salvation not being by works.
This is what all of those OSAS debates were about. And of course, being a more solid answer for all the "time" statements.

I still don't believe in absolute universalism (every single soul ever born will be in Heaven). I believe that some did perish; what ever exactly that means. I saw no way around various scriptures on that, such as Judas. But I look at that as the principle of "to whom much is given, much is expected". Judas and others in the NT saw Christ (and his miracles) directly. After Christ, they had the Apostles, and a unified, divinely empowered church. In the OT, they had God's direct manifestations. So they had a lot they could be judged on.
Today, we do not have any of that, so it was extremely hard for me to go around preaching that God is holding people just as "responsible", using stuff like conscience and "general revelation" as the proof that "they really know the truth, and have no excuse not to 'act on it'".

I actually started out with a position that was almost universalistic, but not completely (Armstrongism, which said most people are simply not called now, but wouild be in the resurrection, and the only ones lost are those called now who refuse).

So one thing I did not do, is start out saying "I think it would be cruel for a God of love to send people to Hell, so everyone must be saved". That's usually how people arrive at universalism. I had forced myself to believe that in one form or another for 20 years. Partly, because of anger at the world for my own frustrations. But I have been growing, and realizing that Hell is not the solution for the evils of the world. Christ told His disciples "you do not know what spirit you are of, for Christ came not to destroy men's lives", when they suggested a temporal fiery punishment of a group of people. Conventional theology insists He will go on and do precisely that, but for eternity, just for not making a "right choice".
So the theological bankruptcy of futurism, with all its endless disputes on how to put together contradictory (in their system) verses, that drove me to CG.