Questions from Taffy on "The Divine & Human Nature" - Fulfilled Theology - Preterist2024-03-28T22:27:08Zhttp://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/forum/topics/questions-from-taffy-on-the-divine-human-nature?feed=yes&xn_auth=noHi Taffy,
I don't have a pr…tag:fulfilledtheology.ning.com,2012-06-08:5096844:Comment:62002012-06-08T14:11:37.244ZRiversOfEdenhttp://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/profile/RiversOfEden
<p>Hi Taffy,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't have a problem with finding general applications of scriptural principles after AD 70 because God did tell the Israelites that other peoples could perceive the wisdom in the law and ordinances that He gave exclusively to the Israelites (even though He didn't have any "love" for any other people). Likewise, the human life of the Israelites ("breath of life" and "returning to dust") doesn't seem to be any different than what all human beings experience as…</p>
<p>Hi Taffy,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't have a problem with finding general applications of scriptural principles after AD 70 because God did tell the Israelites that other peoples could perceive the wisdom in the law and ordinances that He gave exclusively to the Israelites (even though He didn't have any "love" for any other people). Likewise, the human life of the Israelites ("breath of life" and "returning to dust") doesn't seem to be any different than what all human beings experience as "life" and "death."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, you simply haven't offered any substantial biblical support for your assumptions about "disembodied spirits" or your version of "God's righteousness". As long as you fail to substantiate these assumptions (that are critical to your interpretations) your views are completely unpersuasive. It's very easy to answer your questions directly from scripture but you don't seem to like the answers and so you ignore them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You also haven't made any effort to answer the numerous objections and questions that others have presented to you. This is further reason to conclude that your perspective is inconsistent and implausible. It seems like you are just trying to "prove" a bizarre version of preterism that you haven't actually derived from considering all of the biblical evidence.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rivers :)</p>
<p><a href="mailto:riversofeden4@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">riversofeden4@gmail.com</a></p> Hi Rivers, these aren't "new…tag:fulfilledtheology.ning.com,2012-06-08:5096844:Comment:65102012-06-08T05:56:35.182ZTaffyhttp://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/profile/Taffy
<p>Hi Rivers, these aren't "new points" but the points I asked you <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>4 times</strong></span> and which you evaded until now with your usual slippery manoeuvres..lol. Thanks for <em>finally</em> responding.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My jaw almost hit the floor reading reading your reply! How anyone can lack such understanding of God's "unchangeable" "nature" and "righteous requirements"/Law…</p>
<p>Hi Rivers, these aren't "new points" but the points I asked you <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>4 times</strong></span> and which you evaded until now with your usual slippery manoeuvres..lol. Thanks for <em>finally</em> responding.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My jaw almost hit the floor reading reading your reply! How anyone can lack such understanding of God's "unchangeable" "nature" and "righteous requirements"/Law <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>so thoroughly</strong></span> — e.g. "sin" is "NOT imputed" where there's no "written" Law Rivers; that was Paul's whole point in Rom 1-5, ONLY the Israelites were condemned by the "written code", but they "sinned " BEFORE it was "<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>added</strong></span>" to them AS DID OTHERS — and be as arrogant as you, beggars belief?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You acknowledge God gives you "life, breath and all things" (#11) but deny He requires anything of the "life" that He gives you? WOW. How stupid, "changeable", and unrighteous is this god of yours! Let's fervently hope we all only have to do with "the god of Rivers".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's so much to say about your daft, unscriptural/unhistorical replies, but I have no time to say it (at least not at present).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[ <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>NB</strong></span> Don, for your own sake, please WAKE UP and stop being led around by the nose by this guy. He may have "transformed" himself into an "angel of light" in your eyes speaking "smooth words" that are pleasing to your ears (such things have ever been so; Gen 3:1, 4), but both root and branch are rotten. I don't ask you to believe what I believe but I have not realised the extent of Rivers' delusion until now. I hope you start to also. ]</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyway, have fun guys.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Take care, Taffy.</b></p>
<p>[ <a rel="nofollow" href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/">Preterism (with Taffy)</a> ]</p> Hi Taffy,
OK, I'll address…tag:fulfilledtheology.ning.com,2012-06-07:5096844:Comment:64352012-06-07T19:44:38.631ZRiversOfEdenhttp://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/profile/RiversOfEden
<p>Hi Taffy,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>OK, I'll address your new points according to the numbers:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. The problem with what you're saying here is that you are assuming that God's "Law" was the same all people. However, scripture plainly states that the Israelites were judged according to their exclusive covenant with God and its laws (Psalms 147:19-20; Amos 3:1-2).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2. In the context of Genesis 17-18, "righteousness and justice" was speaking of "circumcision." Paul…</p>
<p>Hi Taffy,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>OK, I'll address your new points according to the numbers:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. The problem with what you're saying here is that you are assuming that God's "Law" was the same all people. However, scripture plainly states that the Israelites were judged according to their exclusive covenant with God and its laws (Psalms 147:19-20; Amos 3:1-2).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2. In the context of Genesis 17-18, "righteousness and justice" was speaking of "circumcision." Paul explained the same thing in Romans 4:1-10. The rest of the Law was not added "until 430 years later" (Galatians 3:16-19).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3. Abel was "righteous" because he offered the better sacrifice (Hebrews 11:4). Noah was "righteous" because he believed God's warning to build the ark before the flood (Hebrews 11:7). Abraham was "righteous" because he believed God would give his people the Promised Land (Hebrews 11:8-10; Romans 4:3) and obeyed circumcision (Romans 4:11).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>4. Whether there were "transgessions" before the Law was added or not doesn't matter because "sin is not imputed when there is no Law" (Romans 5:13). God's exclusive covenant with the Israelites made them accountable for their sins (Amos 3:1-2).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>5. Again, this questing is irrelevant because "sin is not imputed when there is no Law" (Romans 5:13).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>6. Sometimes they were different, and sometimes they weren't.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>7. In the context of Genesis 4:7, to "do well" would have been to offer the "better sacrifice" (Hebrews 11:4).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>8. Yes, but Jesus was only speaking to fellow Israelites (Matthew 15:24) who were required to "love their neighbor" to fulfill the righteous requirements of the covenant that God made exclusively with them (Psalms 147:19-20; Matthew 5:17-19)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>9. Paul was also only speaking to the Israelites (Romans 4:1; Acts 13:16-17; Acts 13:26) who were accountable to the Law of Moses (Romans 3:19-20).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>9i. No, there isn't any mention of God "loving" anyone before Abraham.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>10. Yes, because all male human beings have the same male "form" as the Israelites and the angels that appeared to them. I don't have any problem with thinking that the "image of God" is the same. In the same sense, women are still able to grow long hair and braid it on their heads (1 Corinthians 11:14-15). There isn't any evidence that any human beings differ in this respect.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>11. Yes, I believe the "breath of life" that we breath in our nostrils today is the "spirit (breath) of God". There's no evidence that any human beings differ in this respect.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rivers :)</p>
<p><a href="mailto:riversofeden4@gmail.com">riversofeden4@gmail.com</a></p> Rivers, I think your cherishe…tag:fulfilledtheology.ning.com,2012-06-07:5096844:Comment:63522012-06-07T06:27:52.245ZTaffyhttp://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/profile/Taffy
<p><span>Rivers, I think your cherished evasive tactics are confusing even you..lol.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>You responded to a set of bullet-points I posted which had NO QUESTIONS attached to them, but the questions I've asked you </span><b><u>4 times</u></b><span> you have NOT responded to (</span><i>see</i><span>, …</span></p>
<p><span>Rivers, I think your cherished evasive tactics are confusing even you..lol.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>You responded to a set of bullet-points I posted which had NO QUESTIONS attached to them, but the questions I've asked you </span><b><u>4 times</u></b><span> you have NOT responded to (</span><i>see</i><span>, </span><a href="http://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/forum/topics/questions-from-taffy-on-the-divine-human-nature?id=5096844%3ATopic%3A6264&page=3#comments">here</a><span>). If you feel you have, please provide the link.</span><br/> <br/><span>Also, I'm afraid I'm not inclined to take advice regrading "exegesis" from someone who in effect dismisses the first 2,000 years of the</span><i> biblical-era</i><span> (i.e. 50% of it). Someone who only pays lips service to it in order to </span><span>establish</span><span> his </span><span>erroneous</span><span> paradigm.</span></p>
<div> </div>
<div>You 'start out' with your, Israel Only, no soul, God is dead, position, then <b><u>force</u></b> EVERYTHING to fit it no matter how unscriptural, unhistorical or preposterous. And then from a great height you condemn others for not attaining your biblical mastery. Incredible!<br/> <br/>Here's an example. You ask where the words "disembodied spirit realm" is found in scripture and condemn it as being "pagan". I respond with, that's what "Hades" referred to (as used by Christ and His apostles) and was <b><u>known</u></b> to refer to THROUGHOUT the Roman Empire, including amongst the Hebrews (hence its use in the LXX). </div>
<div> </div>
<div>You and Don don't like that so you act like spoilt children throwing a tantrum because you think someone may be trying to steal your toys. I could act in like childish way and ask you and Don, where is the word "permanence" found in scripture? As I said, such things are "preposterous".<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, here are my questions for the <b><u>5th time</u></b>. Like I said, if you beleive you've answered these already please provide the link):</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p><span>You agree that men's/God's "nature" hasn't "changed" and that people "sinned" </span><span><strong><u>before</u></strong></span><span> Adam. Good. Such is obvious.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p>1. i/ Against what "Law" did they "sin" (Rom 4:15, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Jn%203.4" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">1 Jn 3:4</a>)? ii/ What do you believe the "penalty" was for their "sin" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%206.23" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Rom 6:23</a>)? iii/ Did the God who "changes not" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mal%203.6" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Mal 3:6</a>, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/James%201.17" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">James 1:17</a>) in fact "change" His "righteous requirements" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%202.26" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Rom 2:26</a>) for <i>pre</i>-adamic peoples (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ps%2011.7" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Ps 11:7</a>)? and once again for <em>pre</em>-Sinai peoples? and then again for <em>post</em>-parousia peoples?</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><br/><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Abraham was to, "..command his children AND his household after him (in addition to circumcising them; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%2017.12" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gen 17:12</a>), that they </font><span><strong><u>keep the way of the LORD</u></strong></span><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">, to </font><span><strong><u><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>do </span><span>RIGHTEOUSNESS</span><span> and justice</span></font></u></strong></span><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">.." (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%2018.19" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gen 18:19</a>). What was the "way of the LORD"? and what "righteousness and justice" is being referred to?</font></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>3. Paul told his brethren, "if there had been a Law given which could have given life, truly <span><strong><u>RIGHTEOUSNESS</u></strong></span> would have been by the Law" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gal%203.21" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gal 3:21</a>). In what way do yo </span><span>believe</span><span> Abel, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham were called "<span><strong><u>RIGHTEOUS</u></strong></span>" even though they weren't "Israelites according to the flesh" and had no "written code" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%207.1" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gen 7:1</a>, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%2015.6" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">15:6</a>, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matt%2023.35" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Matt 23:35</a>, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Heb%207.2" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Heb 7:2</a>)?</span></p>
<div> </div>
<div>4. Paul told the Galatians that the "Law of Moses"/"ministry of death" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Cor%203.7" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">2 Cor 3:7</a>) was only "<b><u>added</u></b>" to the Israelites "<b><u>because of transgressions</u></b>"/"sin" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gal%203.19" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gal 3:19</a>). Against WHAT did they "transgress"/"sin" <em>before</em> it was "<span><strong><u>added</u></strong></span>" to them? </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. i/ Were the "transgressions"/"sins" committed by Israel against God </font><em>before</em><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"> the "Law" was "</font><b><u>added</u></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">" to them different in character to the "transgressions"/"sins" they committed against Him </font><em>after</em><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"> it was "</font><span><strong><u>added</u></strong></span><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">"? ii/ Or was it "</font><span><strong><u>added</u></strong></span><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>" as to "children" needing a "schoolmaster" so they could see what "sin" </span><span>against</span><span> God truly is, "exceedingly sinful" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%207.13" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Rom 7:13</a>)?</span></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>6. Were Israel's "sins" different in character to those of others? Pharaoh (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ex%209.27" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Ex 9:27</a>, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ex%209.34" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">34</a>)? or those in Nod? or Cain for example (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%204.7" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gen 4:7</a>)?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>7. In what way did Pharaoh call the LORD "righteous" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ex%209.27" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Ex 9:27</a>)?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>8. i/ What do you believe it was to "do well" and therefore "be accepted" by YHWH (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%204.7" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gen 4:7</a>)? ii/ Could that be achieved by people apart from Israel?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>9. Jesus said that the <span><strong><u>heart</u></strong></span> of God's "requirements" was "love" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mk%2012.30-31" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Mk 12:30-31</a>) — because "God <span><strong><u>is</u></strong></span> love" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Jn%204.16" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">1 Jn 4:16</a>). Paul also said "love" "fulfilled" God's "Law" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%2013.10" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Rom 13:10</a>, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gal%205.22-23" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gal 5:22-23</a>).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>i/ Was "love" in the world <em>before</em> Adam? ii/ Did that mean God's "Law" was? iii/ Was the "love" of those "ancient peoples" <em>different </em>from that of the Israelites? iv/ Was it different to the "love" used by God as the 'standard' when He externalised/codified its "requirements" on "tablets of stone" for rebellious Israel (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%202.14-15" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Rom 2:14-15</a>, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%202.26" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">26</a>, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Cor%203.3" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">2 Cor 3:3</a>)?</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>10. You claim Adam's "male physical form" took that "form" </span><span>because</span><span> that's how God wanted "angels" to appear. Does that mean that those who went before Adam or who lived in other parts of the world at the same time as him (China, Japan, etc), and those who came after the </span><span><i>parousia</i></span><span><i> </i>also bear God's "image"?</span></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>11. Do you </span><span>believe</span><span> that God gives you </span><span><b><u>personally</u></b></span><span> "life, breath and all things" (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ac%2017.25" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Ac 17:25</a>)?</span></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>[ I </span><span>repeat</span><span>, your comments about the "<a rel="nofollow" href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/p/soul.html">soul</a>" and "Hades" are not only unscriptural and unhistorical, but also ludicrous. But given your day-dreams about "returning to dust" (which your "flesh" will) and nothing more, I fully understand your reasons for making then. (Nothing to worry about in the Rivers household and no-one to "fear" — bliss!) </span></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">Also you misquote 1 Thess 4. There's NO MENTION of being "caught up in the twinkling of an eye". ]</font></div>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Take care, Taffy.</b></p>
<p>[ <a rel="nofollow" href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/">Preterism (with Taffy)</a> ]</p> Rivers, with regards to the "…tag:fulfilledtheology.ning.com,2012-06-06:5096844:Comment:63482012-06-06T05:21:19.374ZTaffyhttp://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/profile/Taffy
<p>Rivers, with regards to the "bullet points", I <b><u>plainly stated</u></b> they were "<span>a snippet from my 'blog' on "</span><a href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/p/death.html" rel="nofollow">Death</a><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>", which <b><u>you know</u></b> are </span><span>different</span><span> to the questions I've asked you 3 times but which you've evaded 3 times. Here they are </span><span>for the 4th time (I've also added…</span></font></p>
<p>Rivers, with regards to the "bullet points", I <b><u>plainly stated</u></b> they were "<span>a snippet from my 'blog' on "</span><a rel="nofollow" href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/p/death.html">Death</a><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>", which <b><u>you know</u></b> are </span><span>different</span><span> to the questions I've asked you 3 times but which you've evaded 3 times. Here they are </span><span>for the 4th time (I've also added a couple at the end)</span><span>:</span></font> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><span>You agree that men's/God's "nature" hasn't "changed" and that people "sinned" </span><span><strong><u>before</u></strong></span><span> Adam. Good.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p>1. i/ Against what "Law" did they "sin" (Rom 4:15, 1 Jn 3:4)? ii/ What do you believe the "penalty" was for their "sin" (Rom 6:23)? iii/ Did the God who "changes not" (Mal 3:6, James 1:17) in fact "change" His "righteous requirements" (Rom 2:26) for <i>pre</i>-adamic peoples (Ps 11:7)? and once again for <em>pre</em>-Sinai peoples? and then again for <em>post</em>-parousia peoples?</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span> </span></font><br/><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>2. Abraham was to, "..command his children AND his household after him (in addition to circumcising them; Gen 17:12), that they </span></font><span><strong><u>keep the way of the LORD</u></strong></span><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>, to </span></font><span><strong><u><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>do </span><span>RIGHTEOUSNESS</span><span> and justice</span></font></u></strong></span><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>.." (Gen 18:19). What was the "way of the LORD"? and what "righteousness and justice" is being referred to?</span></font></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>3. Paul told his brethren, "if there had been a Law given which could have given life, truly <span><strong><u>RIGHTEOUSNESS</u></strong></span> would have been by the Law" (Gal 3:21). In what way do yo </span><span>believe</span><span> Abel, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham were called "<span><strong><u>RIGHTEOUS</u></strong></span>" even though they weren't "Israelites according to the flesh" and had no "written code" (Gen 7:1, 15:6, Matt 23:35, Heb 7:2)?</span></p>
<div> </div>
<div>4. Paul told the Galatians that the "Law of Moses"/"ministry of death" (2 Cor 3:7) was only "<b><u>added</u></b>" to the Israelites "<b><u>because of transgressions</u></b>"/"sin" (Gal 3:19). Against WHAT did they "transgress"/"sin" <em>before</em> it was "<span><strong><u>added</u></strong></span>" to them? </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>5. i/ Were the "transgressions"/"sins" committed by Israel against God </span></font><em>before</em><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span> the "Law" was "</span></font><b><u>added</u></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>" to them different in character to the "transgressions"/"sins" they committed against Him </span></font><em>after</em><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span> it was "</span></font><span><strong><u>added</u></strong></span><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>"? ii/ Or was it "</span></font><span><strong><u>added</u></strong></span><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>" as to "children" needing a "schoolmaster" so they could see what "sin" </span><span>against</span><span> God truly is, "exceedingly sinful" (Rom 7:13)?</span></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>6. Were Israel's "sins" different in character to those of others? Pharaoh (Ex 9:27, 34)? or those in Nod? or Cain for example (Gen 4:7)?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>7. In what way did Pharaoh call the LORD "righteous" (Ex 9:27)?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>8. i/ What do you believe it was to "do well" and therefore "be accepted" by YHWH (Gen 4:7)? ii/ Could that be achieved by people apart from Israel?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>9. Jesus said that the <span><strong><u>heart</u></strong></span> of God's "requirements" was "love" (Mk 12:30-31) — because "God <span><strong><u>is</u></strong></span> love" (1 Jn 4:16). Paul also said "love" "fulfilled" God's "Law" (Rom 13:10, Gal 5:22-23).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>i/ Was "love" in the world <em>before</em> Adam? ii/ Did that mean God's "Law" was? iii/ Was the "love" of those "ancient peoples" <em>different </em>from that of the Israelites? iv/ Was it different to the "love" used by God as the 'standard' when He externalised/codified its "requirements" on "tablets of stone" for rebellious Israel (Rom 2:14-15, 26, 2 Cor 3:3)?</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>10. You claim Adam's "male physical form" took that "form" </span><span>because</span><span> that's how God wanted "angels" to appear. Does that mean that those who went before Adam or who lived in other parts of the world at the same time as him (China, Japan, etc), and those who came after the </span><span><i>parousia</i></span><span><i> </i>also bear God's "image"?</span></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span> </span></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>11. Do you </span><span>believe</span><span> that God gives you </span><span><b><u>personally</u></b></span><span> "life, breath and all things" (Ac 17:25)?</span></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>[ I </span><span>repeat</span><span>, your comments about the "<a rel="nofollow" href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/p/soul.html">soul</a>" and "Hades" are not only unscriptural and unhistorical, but also ludicrous. But given your day-dreams about "returning to dust" (which your "flesh" will) and nothing more, I fully understand your reasons for making then. (Nothing to worry about in the Rivers household and no-one to "fear" — bliss!) </span></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span>Also you misquote 1 Thess 4. There's NO MENTION of being "caught up in the twinkling of an eye". ]</span></font></div>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Take care, Taffy.</b></p>
<p>[ <a rel="nofollow" href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/">Preterism (with Taffy)</a> ]</p> Taffy,
They show up as "bul…tag:fulfilledtheology.ning.com,2012-06-05:5096844:Comment:63462012-06-05T19:58:10.569ZRiversOfEdenhttp://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/profile/RiversOfEden
<p>Taffy,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>They show up as "bullet points" so I just numbered them accordingly.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>P.S. Make sure you stay up to watch the transit of Venus across the sun this evening. It's the last time you'll see it before your "soul" returns to "dust" (Genesis 2:7).</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://venustransit.nasa.gov/transitofvenus/" rel="nofollow">http://venustransit.nasa.gov/transitofvenus/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rivers :)…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Taffy,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>They show up as "bullet points" so I just numbered them accordingly.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>P.S. Make sure you stay up to watch the transit of Venus across the sun this evening. It's the last time you'll see it before your "soul" returns to "dust" (Genesis 2:7).</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://venustransit.nasa.gov/transitofvenus/" rel="nofollow">http://venustransit.nasa.gov/transitofvenus/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rivers :)</p>
<p><a href="mailto:riversofeden4@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">riversofeden4@gmail.com</a></p> Hi Rivers, I don't know how y…tag:fulfilledtheology.ning.com,2012-06-05:5096844:Comment:65012012-06-05T19:00:58.722ZTaffyhttp://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/profile/Taffy
<p>Hi Rivers, I don't know how your reply answers the questions? If you could answer them in order and stick to the numbering that would be helpful. Otherwise it makes it difficult to respond to you. Here they are for the 3rd time:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span>You agree that men's/God's "nature" hasn't "changed" and that people "sinned" </span><span><strong>before</strong></span><span> Adam. Good.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p>1. i/ Against what "Law" did they "sin" (…</p>
<p>Hi Rivers, I don't know how your reply answers the questions? If you could answer them in order and stick to the numbering that would be helpful. Otherwise it makes it difficult to respond to you. Here they are for the 3rd time:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span>You agree that men's/God's "nature" hasn't "changed" and that people "sinned" </span><span><strong>before</strong></span><span> Adam. Good.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p>1. i/ Against what "Law" did they "sin" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%204.15" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Rom 4:15</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Jn%203.4" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">1 Jn 3:4</a>)? ii/ What do you believe the "penalty" was for their "sin" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%206.23" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Rom 6:23</a>)?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>iii/ Did the God who "changes not" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mal%203.6" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Mal 3:6</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/James%201.17" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">James 1:17</a>) in fact "change" His "righteous requirements" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%202.26" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Rom 2:26</a>) for <i>pre</i>-adamic peoples (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ps%2011.7" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Ps 11:7</a>)? and once again for <em>pre</em>-Sinai peoples? and then again for <em>post</em>-parousia peoples?<br/> <br/>2. Abraham was to, "..command his children AND his household after him (in addition to circumcising them;<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%2017.12" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gen 17:12</a>), that they <span><strong>keep the way of the LORD</strong></span>, to <span><strong>do righteousness and justice</strong></span>.." (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%2018.19" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gen 18:19</a>). What was the "way of the LORD"? and what "righteousness and justice" is being referred to?</p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>3. Paul told his brethren, "if there had been a Law given which could have given life, truly <span><strong>RIGHTEOUSNESS</strong></span> would have been by the Law" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gal%203.21" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gal 3:21</a>). In what way do yo </span><span>believe</span><span> Abel, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham were called "<span><strong>RIGHTEOUS</strong></span>" even though they weren't "Israelites according to the flesh" and had no "written code" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%207.1" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gen 7:1</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%2015.6" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">15:6</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matt%2023.35" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Matt 23:35</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Heb%207.2" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Heb 7:2</a>)?</span></p>
<div> </div>
<div>4. Paul told the Galatians that the "Law of Moses"/"ministry of death" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Cor%203.7" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">2 Cor 3:7</a>) was only "<b><u>added</u></b>" to the Israelites because of "transgressions"/"sin" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gal%203.19" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gal 3:19</a>). Against WHAT did they "transgress"/"sin" <em>before</em> it was "<span><strong>added</strong></span>" to them? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>5. i/ Were the "transgressions"/"sins" committed by Israel against God <em>before</em> the "Law" was "<b><u>added</u></b>" to them different in character to the "transgressions"/"sins" they committed against Him <em>after</em> it was "<span><strong>added</strong></span>"? ii/ Or was it "<span><strong>added</strong></span>" as to "children" needing a "schoolmaster" so they could see what "sin" truly is to God, "exceedingly sinful" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%207.13" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Rom 7:13</a>)?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>6. Were Israel's "sins" different in character to those of others? Pharaoh (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ex%209.27" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Ex 9:27</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ex%209.34" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">34</a>)? or those in Nod? or Cain for example (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%204.7" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gen 4:7</a>)?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>7. In what way did Pharaoh call the LORD "righteous" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ex%209.27" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Ex 9:27</a>)?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>8. i/ What do you believe it was to "do well" and therefore "be accepted" by YHWH (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%204.7" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gen 4:7</a>)? ii/ Could that be achieved by people apart from Israel?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>9. Jesus said that the <span><strong>heart</strong></span> of God's "requirements" was "love" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mk%2012.30-31" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Mk 12:30-31</a>) — because "God <span><strong>is</strong></span> love" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Jn%204.16" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">1 Jn 4:16</a>). Paul also said "love" "fulfilled" God's "Law" (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%2013.10" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Rom 13:10</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gal%205.22-23" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Gal 5:22-23</a>).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>i/ Was "love" in the world <em>before</em> Adam? ii/ Did that mean God's "Law" was? iii/ Was the "love" of those ancient "peoples" <em>different </em>from that of the Israelites? iv/ And was it different to the "love" used by God as the 'standard' when He externalised/codified its "requirements" on "tablets of stone" for rebellious Israel (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%202.14-15" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">Rom 2:14-15</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%202.26" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">26</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Cor%203.3" class="lbsBibleRef" target="_blank">2 Cor 3:3</a>)?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>[ Your comments on the "soul" and "Hades" are not only unscriptural, but also ludicrous. I tried starting a thread on "<a href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/p/soul.html" target="_blank">Soul</a>" but Don wound't allow it. Also you misquote 1 Thess 4. There's NO MENTION of being "caught up in the twinkling of an eye". Maybe we'll come back to this after you've answered these questions. ]</div>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Take care, Taffy.</b></p>
<p>[ <a rel="nofollow" href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/">Preterism (with Taffy)</a> ]</p> Hi Taffy,
OK, I'll briefly…tag:fulfilledtheology.ning.com,2012-06-05:5096844:Comment:64222012-06-05T18:33:52.050ZRiversOfEdenhttp://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/profile/RiversOfEden
<p>Hi Taffy,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>OK, I'll briefly address your points again (in order).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. Agreed. However, there is no mention of any historical figures or events of the Bible other than what is found in the canon of scripture.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2. The biblical record provides confirmation that the Israelites understood what "soul" (i.e. the living or dead physical body of a human being or animal) and "hades" (i.e. the unseen realm of the buriel plot) were.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3. …</p>
<p>Hi Taffy,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>OK, I'll briefly address your points again (in order).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. Agreed. However, there is no mention of any historical figures or events of the Bible other than what is found in the canon of scripture.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2. The biblical record provides confirmation that the Israelites understood what "soul" (i.e. the living or dead physical body of a human being or animal) and "hades" (i.e. the unseen realm of the buriel plot) were.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3. Agreed. Jesus and the apostles were Israelites who understood what "soul" and "hades" were. See # 2 above.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>4. History shows that many "souls" have been born after the Parousia (including you and me).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>5. I don't understand what you're getting at here.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>6. Acts 17:26-28 is an allusion to Deuteronomy 32:8 which is talking about "the sons of Israel". They are the "mankind" who were descended from the "one man" who was Abraham (Romans 4:1).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>7. You're misinterpreting Acts 17:26-28. See #6 above (and read Deuteronomy 32:8-9).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>8. God's expectation of "righteousness" was based upon the exclusive covenants that He made with the fathers of Israel (Romans 9:3-5; Amos 3:1-2). It had nothing to do with anyone else.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>9. Both Jesus and Paul plainly stated that "every person" would be resurrected and judged at the Parousia during their generation (Matthew 24:34; Matthew 16:27-28; Romans 11:26; 1 Corinthians 15:23-24) and that God would be "all in all" at that point (1 Corinthians 15:26-28). Thus, by faith, we accept that "all Christians" were taken up the heavenlies at the Parousia (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>10. Yes. This is what 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 is describing in plain language. The phrase "caught up in the twinkling of an eye" means that they were instantly transported to another location (i.e. with the Lord in the heavenlies).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>11. Scripture plainly says that the resurrection was necessary to establish God's Kingdom (1 Corinthians 15:23-26; 1 Corinthians 15:50-53).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>12. Wrong. The scriptures plainly stated that the Christ "the King" would come "sitting on a donkey" (Zechariah 9:9).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rivers :)</p>
<p><a href="mailto:riversofeden4@gmail.com">riversofeden4@gmail.com</a></p> Here's another snippet from m…tag:fulfilledtheology.ning.com,2012-06-04:5096844:Comment:64202012-06-04T18:32:58.102ZTaffyhttp://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/profile/Taffy
<p>Here's another snippet from my 'blog' on "<a href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/p/death.html">Death</a>":</p>
<p></p>
<ul>
<li>Scientific endeavours were prevalent in the ancient world from as early as 3,400BC (<i>see</i>, <a href="http://www.touregypt.net/science.htm">here</a>), as was the chronicling of current events.</li>
<li>But because we nowhere find ancient scientific data that claims to <i>prove </i>the existence of "soul" and "Hades", does…</li>
</ul>
<p>Here's another snippet from my 'blog' on "<a href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/p/death.html">Death</a>":</p>
<p></p>
<ul>
<li>Scientific endeavours were prevalent in the ancient world from as early as 3,400BC (<i>see</i>, <a href="http://www.touregypt.net/science.htm">here</a>), as was the chronicling of current events.</li>
<li>But because we nowhere find ancient scientific data that claims to <i>prove </i>the existence of "soul" and "Hades", does that <b><u>prove</u></b> they didn't exist?</li>
<li>Christ and His "apostles" believe they did. (<i>See</i>, "<a href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/p/soul.html">Soul</a>".)</li>
<li>Did "soul" <i>cease to exist</i> after the close of the inspired record because we <b><u>continue</u></b> to have no hard scientific data for its existence?</li>
<li>It CANNOT have "ongoing reality" and Jesus and His "ministers" were just as deceived by such foolish superstitions as we are!</li>
<li>But to substantiate this charge we first need to find scripture that says the children of those mentioned in places like Ac 17:26-28 would be anatomically <b><u>different</u></b> to their fathers once the <i>parousia </i>had passed.</li>
<li>When we find such scripture, THEN we may have hope of establishing such folly.</li>
<li>We could even go further then and claim God's "righteousness" has also changed and there are no longer consequences for our actions. (How "lovely" is that dream to some here!)</li>
<li>Nor do we find ancient scientific/historical records that make mention of a certain "day" on which <b><u>ALL</u></b> those who called themselves "Christians" simply vanished.</li>
<li>Being "caught up" meant that one minute they were there, the next, like some Houdini act, they disappeared; teeth, toenails, jacket, sandals, n'all.</li>
<li>But to suggest that such a thing was <b><u>necessary</u></b> for the establishment of God's "Kingdom" is on par with the kind of "carnal" mindset present at the coming of Messiah.</li>
<li>Most expected a mighty warrior, but instead He came "sitting on a donkey" (Matt 21:5). </li>
<li>Most expected Him to defy Rome, but He said His "Kingdom" was "NOT of <b><u>this</u></b> world" (Jn 18:36) and that, “The Kingdom of God does <b><u>not come</u></b> with observation.." (Lk 17:20-21).</li>
<li>"Salvation" of the <b><u>complete</u></b> "inner man", BOTH its "spirit" — received at "conversion" (1 Cor 6:11, 2 Cor 5:17), AND the physical <i>aspect </i>of the "flesh" that "clothed" it with a "body"/<i>sōma </i>— received on the "last Day" (Jn 6:39, Lk 20:36, Rom 8:23, 2 Cor 5:2-4, Phil 3:20-21), was an <b><u>internal</u></b> event, and indeed did NOT "come with observation".</li>
<li>[ <i>See</i>, "<a href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/1-Resurrection-1">The Resurrection</a>". ]</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p><b>Take care, Taffy.</b></p>
<p>[ <a href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/">Preterism (with Taffy)</a> ]</p> Hi Don, making such dogmatic …tag:fulfilledtheology.ning.com,2012-06-04:5096844:Comment:64192012-06-04T18:28:00.303ZTaffyhttp://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/profile/Taffy
<p>Hi Don, making such dogmatic one-line statements doesn't make them true.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It always amazes me how some "who claim to be <a href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/"><b>full-preterists</b></a>" deny the <b><u>unchangeable</u></b> "nature"of both man AND God.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Like your mentor says, "we <b><u>must</u></b> take into account ALL available evidence". That INCLUDES the <b><u>unchanging</u></b> "nature" of human and divine natures. Your erroneous…</p>
<p>Hi Don, making such dogmatic one-line statements doesn't make them true.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It always amazes me how some "who claim to be <a href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/"><b>full-preterists</b></a>" deny the <b><u>unchangeable</u></b> "nature"of both man AND God.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Like your mentor says, "we <b><u>must</u></b> take into account ALL available evidence". That INCLUDES the <b><u>unchanging</u></b> "nature" of human and divine natures. Your erroneous paradigm doesn't.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>How come you STILL haven't <b><u>one</u></b> of my original questions yet?</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Take care, Taffy.</b></p>
<p>[ <a href="http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/">Preterism (with Taffy)</a> ]</p>