Questions from Taffy on "The Divine & Human Nature"

[Donald]

Guys,

 

Taffy gave me a list of questions and some of them I am not sure how to answer. He said go ahead and post here. I thought you might be willing to answer or something to discuss.

 

1. Do you believe human "nature" was different before Adam's time (4,000BC)? If yes, in what way?

 

2. Do you believe human "nature" was different after the parousia? e.g. in the children of the "church" or those referred to in Ac 17:26-28 who lived past the judgements? If yes, in what way?

 

3. Do you believe God's "nature" was different before 4,000BC? If yes, in what way?

 

4. Do you believe God's "nature" is different after 70AD? If yes, in what way?

 

5. Scripture says the "Law is spiritual" (Rom 7:14). When did humans first become "spiritual" and accountable for their actions? At Sinai, Ur, the Flood, the Garden, Gobekli Tepe, Africa, etc, etc?

 

6. Are humans still "spiritual"?

 

7. Do you believe men "sinned" before 4,000BC? If yes, against what "Law"? and what were their "wages"?

 

8. Do you believe men "sin" today? If yes, against what "Law"? and what are their "wages"?

 

9. Did the "righteous requirements" (Rom 2:26) of God's "spiritual" Law cease in 70AD? If yes, please point me to the scriptures. If no, what does that mean?

 

10. Scripturally there is a "profound silence" about ancient events; ice-ages, dinosaurs, continental shift, etc (just as there's a "profound silence" about post-parousia events). Does that mean there was no "ongoing reality" prior to 4,000BC?

 

11. I believe God's the "author" of human life as He is is of everything else (Ac 17:25) and He DOESN'T "change". He's the same NOW as He's ever been (Mal 3:6, James 1:17). If He DOESN'T "change" and scripture says He's "righteous" (Ex 9:27) and His "Law" is "spiritual" (Rom 7:14), what do you think that meant for pre-adamic "peoples" and also for post-parousia "peoples"?

His blog is in http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/p/death.html

[Taffy]

Hi Don, as I showed in my 'thread' over on Ken Palmer's old site, the 'Israel Only' paradigm unfortunately is a shallow one.  It doesn't take much scratching to see that what lies beneath the surface is erroneous.  (Like all such novelty schemes; Mormonism, JW's, etc.)

 

As you agreed before, when I get a chance I'll re-post that 'thread' here.  There are over 50 questions in it and I don't think Rivers got through half a dozen of them before giving up.  Maybe you guys will have better luck.

 

Like you, I also am a full-preterist and believe scripture teaches Israel's "special" place before God as His "servant" (Lev 25:55, 2 Cor 5:18).  And that part of the apostles "ministry" included "reconciling" both "houses" of Israel, circumcised and uncircumcised (although there was no "mystery" in that), and that "ALL things" relating to the "old covenant" dispensation were "fulfilled" by 70AD.

 

But please think hard about the questions I've asked above WITHOUT trying to force them (and God) into your box.  Without sound answers to questions like these NO view can stand.  Mine, yours, or anyone else's.

 

Modern-man has lived on this planet for at least 200,000 years.  The Bible only covers a tiny portion of his journey, about 4,000 years (and even half of that Rivers only pays lip service to because it refutes his 'narrow' framework).  Israel as a "holy" nation only lasted for about 1,500 years of that time.

 

Anyway, I won't say any more right now, I look forward to your replies.  (Although I won't hold my breath...lol.)

 

Take care, Taffy.

[ Preterism (with Taffy) ]

[Taffy]

Hi Don, I didn't think anyone holding to the 'Isarel Only' view would rush to answer these questions...lol.

 

But you said, "Taffy gave me a list of questions and some of them I am not sure how to answer."

 

Ok, which ones are you are able to answer?

 

Cheers, Taffy.

[ Preterism (with Taffy) ]

[RiversOfEden]

Hi Donald and Taffy,

 

Taffy needs to define what "nature" and "spiritual" is before any of his questions can even be considered relevant.

 

Rivers :)

[e-mail]

[Taffy]

Hi Rivers, you have the same Bible and access to the same historical data as me.

 

I'm not intersted in playing word games.  I don't have the time right now.

 

Use whatever definition seems right to you and start answering the questions from there (1-11).  Let's see how you get on.

 

This seems easy enough to me.

 

(Don, I'm still waiting for a reply.)

 

Cheers, Taffy.

[ Preterism (with Taffy) ]

[Donald]

Rivers,

 

Good point.

[RiversOfEden]

Taffy,

 

When you assume your own definition of "nature" and "sin" and "spiritual" then all of your questions are merely "loaded" questions that lead to unpersuasive "circular" argumentation.   It is not simply a matter of "word games". 

 

 You need to substantiate your assumptions about the meaning of those terms (since you keep quoting them in your questions).  Otherwise, we might be talking about "apples and oranges."

 

Rivers :)

[e-mail]

[Taffy]

Rivers, that's a weak argument.

 

My definition of a man's "spirit"/"heart" is that its the seat of his higher faculties; intelligence, morality, etc (Gen 20:5, 26:35, 41:8, Ex 28:3, 35:21, Numb 5:14, Lev 19:17, Deut 9:4, Matt 5:3,12:34).

 

You can disagree with this if you wish, that's ok, but that doesn't stop you answering the questions according to your own understanding of it.

 

Cheers, Taffy.

[ Preterism (with Taffy) ]

[Taffy]

Don, please stop hiding in Rivers shadow (I thought you would have grown out of that by now?) and answer the question I asked you before.  Here it is again:

 

You said, "Taffy gave me a list of questions and some of them I am not sure how to answer."

 

Ok, which ones are you are able to answer?

Like I said to Rivers, use whatever definition seems right to you and start answering the questions from there (1-11).  Let's see how you get on.

 

If your 'Israel Only' paradigm is as fool-proof as you like to make out this should be easy for you.

 

Cheers, Taffy.

[ Preterism (with Taffy) ]

[Donald]

Taffy,

 

I am not hiding behind Rivers. He usually got a lot of good points that I didn't think of after you posted some "loaded questions." Anyway I can learn something from you and Rivers. If I have something to add, I'll post it.

 

 

[RiversOfEden]

 

Hi Taffy,

 

OK, here's how I would answer your questions:

 

1.  No.

 

2.  No.

 

3.  No.

 

4   No.

 

5.  All human beings are "spiritual" because they all have the "breath (spirit) of life" from God in their nostrils (Job 12:10).  However, the biblical geneaologies pertained only to the "generations of Adam" (Genesis 5:1; Luke 3:23-38).   The "spiritual Law" (Romans 7:14) pertained only to the Israelites (Amos 3:1-2; Psalms 147:19-20) who received it through Moses (John 1:17; Romans 5:13; Galatians 3:16-19).

 

6.  Yes.

 

7.  Yes, but not against the "spiritual Law" (Romans 7:14) to which only the Israelites were accountable (Romans 3:19-20; Romans 4:1).

 

8.  Yes, but they are not accountable to the "spiritual" Law of Moses which passed away at the parousia when "all sin" was removed from Israel (Matthew 5:17-20; Romans 11:27).

 

9.  Yes.  The Law of Moses (John 1:17; Romans 7:14) passed away at the parousia when "all sin" was removed from Israel (Matthew 5:17-20; Romans 11:27).

 

10.  The "mankind" that Paul is referring to in Acts 17:25 is an allusion only to the "mankind" who are specifically identified as "the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 32:8) in the Law.   Paul plainly stated that "the message (gospel) of salvation" was specifically for "the sons of Abraham's family" (Acts 13:26) who were "the chosen people of Israel" (Acts 13:16-17).

 

Rivers :)

[e-mail]

[Taffy]

Don, no "loaded questions".  They may 'appear' to be in your mind becaue you've saturated it with errors (only my opinion) and you'll looking for an excuse not to answer.

 

Rivers, if those kind of answers are sufficient for you that's all that matters.  Given that you need to protect your 'Israel Only' error at all costs I fully understand.  There's much I could respond with and if I get a chance I will.  (I've explained in an email to Don why I'm up to my eyes in stuff right now.)  But for now thanks for your reply.

 

Now that you've "eased the way" for him maybe Don can now start thinking for himself and be so kind as to provide us with his own thoughts on the questions.  How about it?  1-11 like Rivers?

[ Don, might this have been more truthful of you, "Taffy gave me a list of questions and I am not sure how to answer ANY OF THEM". ]

 

Cheers, Taffy.

[ Preterism (with Taffy) ]

[Donald]

Taffy,

 

I think Rivers answered your questions are good enough for me. As for #11, the Bible doesn't mentioned about those "peoples" in pre-Adamic and post-parousia.