Prophecy vs Free will

Biblically speaking I dont think it does. It is my belief that even at this point, Satan could still repent of his course and actions, but his hatred, pride and revenge is so intense, that it has blinded to to not only his actions, but the fact that he actually believes God will not follow through with his warnings and propheciesLest we forget he had a relationship with God, probably like that of no other creature. this relationship of love and friendship probably lasted eons, in our timeI dont think he thought God would actually reject him, so his hatred an anger is unimaginableAt any rate, I believe he could still evenat this point exiercise freewill to circumvent that eventuality. he just wont.Just a thoughtDawn Bertot

there is no reason to believe they could not. As In the case of Peter, I believe in that moment could have changed his actions, because in that moment he knew what was right and wrong in the same moment, as is indicated by his anger and denialIt would be silly to assume, he did not know the right thing to do.One could contrast the two occasions of Nenivah and Peter. In one instance freewill circumvented the prophecy, in another it did notWe already know our fate if we do not repent presently, you can change the outcome of prophecy for yourself. Prophecy isnt always written in stone, freewill seems to have precendence in some instances

I know its tempting for you to move to the accuracy of this or that, but this is a discussion on the correlation of what the Bible (old and New) and maybe other sources, have to say on freewill and prophecyIf the stories are to be understood as true, how does one affect the other, do they cancel eachother out, etc.it is interesting how you would know accurately what excally is happening in heavenly places. can I go on the next trip? Maybe you could simplfy what you are saying in this quote How exacally did this happenDawn Bertot

Again IMJ, its a philosophical inquiry, assuming initially and for all intents and purposes the prophecy is TRUE. Its not a question of whether a specific prophecy is true, but what would be the consequences on freewillIn this instance, the definition of what constitues a prophecy and how is it tested is waviedHe is bothering because it is a valid philosophical inquirySo since angels demons and the such like do not exist in your view can we assume youclaim the same for prophesy. Not real, not to be worried about? Your disputing something that is being taken for granted for the sake of argument? Your a hard man IMJ.Incidentially you directly indicated that you knew there were no such things as demons, angels and conflicts in heavenly places. From a Biblical perspective however this clearly not trueThat being the case how can absolute control and authority not constitue a violation or interference of freewill? Elevation of what and elevation by who? How does this apply to whether it contradics or circumvents freewill?Where and when would there ever be an example of someone never being tested. Im not sure I see the correlation between the two, since one seems like a vitual impossibilityDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

this is, as I am sure are aware, an assertion, it needs to be demonstrated. When in fact all the evidence indicates, that in any instance I can choose the information I choose to accept or rejectChoices dont always have to be immediate or life threating as your quote implies. There are very time consuming and well thought out CHOICES. Outside influences are only part of the scenerio, with freewill in the lead Point for another thread This seems to be contradictory. If there is only duality and no opposing force, how can the one tested be greater than anything, especially one never tested?How can there be any greater at all, arent you just verbosely advocating subjectiveness nonesense I think in this instance Frako was implying the law or prophecy of God, as beign undestood as absolute. He did not directly state this in his OP, and if I am wrong he can correct meIs your intimation that if god exists and he is the standard of absolute morailty, his law would be an intrusion? If I am missing what you are saying, let me know You seem to talk out both sides of your mouth. One moment there is the cold physical universe, with nutrality, then you imply there may be "some underlying reason"being tested by natural forces is really no test at all is it, atleast from a moral perspectiveThere are no morals to constitue it as a test to begin with, correct?Maybe part of the problem is that you bounce back and forth and use morality as it suits you current argumentHere is what I mean. You said Then you stated: If we do not know the purpose of creation, and the purpose of a messiah is to direct us to morality, why would you think the laws of the Old Testament, would serve us any better in that connectionWhy are they somehow majestic? Its almost as if you wish them to be spiritual without stating it. Why are these laws not self-preserving? because you like them?You seem to hold them in high regard, but then with the same breath claim all is relative, because we really know nothingSeems a bit contradictory or fallaciousDawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box.

This is the only semblence in your post that actually relates to the topic of the thread, so I will address it.Because of you hatred for the NT, it is easy to see you do not even understand they are in perfect agreement in teaching."Turn the other cheek", is exact in character to "A soft answer turneth away wrath", which is I believe from the old law or prophets teaching, correct?Both testaments manifest, (evidence) themself in reality, as I just demonstrated.Claiming that the principles of the NT have no application to reality is not the same as demonstrating itPlease demonstrate how mercy, love ect, negate freewillDawn Bertot

This is a statement not an argument. if there is an argument in it, please proaduce it your still speaking out both sides of your mouth. One moment you insist there is no absolute, nothing provable, then turn right around and use such terms as, honesty, moral and evil.IMJ, if there are no absolutes, then you stand in contradiction of accusing christians of morals you do not agree with, because your other tenets concerning morality are for the most part subjective ramblings Which is it IMJ, are there absolutes or notYou have to think things through to thier logical conclusion, before taking positions and throwing around terms and ideas Turning the other cheek does not mean ignoring evil behavior it simply means deal with it in love, not angerPaul said "give place to wrath" He did NOT approve of it or ignore it. Gods law says it is wrong long before I am presented with the situation to deal with it Yes from both testaments and the same God. Did you expect God to change his characteristics, simply because delt with people differently? Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

IMJ writes: To keep this thread on track, I would like to begin here and move backwards tword the topic.IMJ, most of the TEXTUAL laws you say were adoted by society, were actually eixsting intrinsic laws already in the heart of man, long before the written code. ie, "who told you you were naked", because they were ashamed.Those laws as you call them were already in eixistence immediately following the fall. "Where is your brother Able". He knew murder and llying was wrong , intrinsicallyIf you actually believe moral, ethical and judiciary rules were given by God in the book, non absolutes, then it would follow logically that any other rmoral precepts he has advocated in another testament, would be as binding and VALIDAt bare minimum, you do not have the right to call one MORAL PRECEPT a law, and valid as a law, then suggest that another moral precept in another place, is not actually a law, until you have defined who you think actually gave the law to begin with.Depending on the source, one believes the law derived, will determine the validity of the law in the first place as an absolute. Speaking strickly about moral and religious laws, society would not be the determing factor, whether they are helpful or not It would depend on who one believes gave the command or statement to begin with. If the above are not absolutes because man gave them, then it would follow logically that some other moral code given in another book, by men, are not absolutes either, even if a society did adopt them, even if they are helpfulThe implication should be obvious. depending on whom one believes gave the law , will determine if the statement, "no salvation through me', is valid as an absolute, I hate to break the news to you IMJ, you are not the standard and proclaiming they are not absolutes, because society has not always accepted them, is not the same as demonstrating it logical formI think you see your problem.1. Those laws were in place before the Jewish writings2. Your now forced to choose between God and nature as the source3. if God, then it would follow that another set of rules, statements or laws would be just as valid and absolute4. If nature, nothing is absolute or better in the sense of absolute5. Simply your declaration, as to something not being absolute will not suffice ans is not equal to something being valid, a law or absoluteSee how logic will take you where you need to go?As was indicated in Jar's bungling of the topic or thread, 'Did Jesus fulfill any of these Prophecies', freewill uaually has little or nothing to do with Prophecy Prophecy usually concerns God himself and his specific plans, which dont involve a specifc persons plans or decisionsAnd has already been indicated, human plans and decisions can alter Prophecy, due to the general nature of prophecySimply because God knows the future, does not mean he directs every detailThis discussion will move naturally move twords discussions of freewill, and the nature and purpose of prophecy, which I hope admin will see applies to the general discussionSince Franko/Frako has abandoned, atleast temporarily, this thread, I am assuming he means prophecy from a God and Biblical perspectiveDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

lets do this simply, before we get to far into a discussion and we are going in two different directionsDo YOU believe God exists? Not can it be proved, do you believe it?Do you believe God is the author of the scriptures, OLD TEST? Please no disortations Well Im not sure how that applies to anything I said the words "must have at its core" are an absolute statement. Which means that you can prove your OT prophecies are from God and absolute in thier truthfulness. Otherwise your statement and its absolute categorical enphasis are worthless.Your speaking about miracles as if you have absolute truth of thier characteization. How dio you know what the rules are for miracles. Are you deciding this because you favor the Old testament This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread IMJ, your statement s are to categorical. buying a and choosing a car is not a moral issue you could not for your life show why both are not a choice. there is no mystery IMJ. Humans had to start with the simple first. the simple remains and is added upon as the grow in understanding"In the fullness of time God sent for his Son into the world" Galatiansthe laws of the Gospel are as active in thier place and for what God intended them, as they ever were.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Crucial to any discussion involving a text from the scriptures, especially those involving prophecy and its relation to freewill is ones personal beliefs concerning the things also in the text that describe the source of the prophecy, ie, God said this or that, God did this or thatIf I cant define whether you actually believe God was the author of the prophecy, it matters little whether it affects freewillThe logical implication of such a belief is that if God dictates every move, then freewill is circumventedIs God the author and finisher of those prophecies? Please no rehtoric Im sure you believe all the schalorship concerning the OT, as well do I accept for example FF Bruce as a credible source for the dating of the NT, which would confound your premises above.That was not my point. Your categorical contention was that a prophecy or miracle must have a credible impact on all of humanity, not a single person, for it to be a true and valid miracleI believe you make this distinction due to favoring the OT. if not, what is your cirteria for demanding a prophecy follow your guidelines? Is God its author? Equivalent values have very little to do with the actual nature of a choice. To demonstrate what you originally intended, you would have to demonstrate that a mental process was not employed and involved. The only way to demonstrate this is to show a choice never took place. There was never any consideration concerning anything. You cant do thatIf I make a decision (choice) to jump off a building, believing I wont hit the ground, that wont change the law of gravity. In the same way, values have nothing directly to do with what the nature of a choice is. It is what it is just like gravityThis is where the skeptic gets in to logical trouble, in acusing God of Evil, even if he did create freewill. Your making the same logical errorFor them to prove God as evil, they would need to show that freewill does not involve equal ability to do the right thing as well as the wrong. thats the nature of freewill. Of course there is no way to do that, so thier accusation falls to the ground Your hatred for xtianites tenets notwithstanding, you seem unable to remember the point to which I am responding. your contention was that they have been around a long time and accepted by society. You called this a mystery.I reponded by saying Humans needed to start somewhere, why not the basics. Did you expect God (Moses) to bring down all the Levitical laws from the mountain? The basics were simply repeated and canonized. Like the NT he gradulized the people to the more involved tenetsContrasting purposes for Old and NT laws does not prove that the latter is not in place, accepted or of no value. Your missing the purpose of the nature of education"God who in different ways and in different methods, in times past, spoke to us from Moses and the prophets, but hathin these last days spoken unto us by his Son Jesus Christ"HebrewsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Exxxxxxxxcellent as Mr Burns would say, now we may proceed. Sure we do, we have the writings themself. Then we have the Apostolic fathers and early Christian writers, some of which were contemporaries with the ApostlesCould all of that been corroborated, forged and fantasy. Only the person holding thier hands tightly over thier ears would deny the weight of evidence concerning these peoples existence.Im sure you are aware there is much more proof corroborating the NT writings, than the old, correct? Even though I believe in thold as the word of God as well Again you are making rules up as you go. Who defines frivilous?Jesus said, "If you do not believe the words that I speak, then believe me for the miracles sake, because they testify of me"Confirming his sonship and that he is from God is frivilous? Which of the prophets that performed miricles in private for one or a few people would you call vain or frivirlous?Dont sit down to soon and rest your backside (case), you have some splain to do lucy"which is it easier to do, tell the man to take up his bed and walk or tell him his sins are forgiven" Dont both prove he is God? I agree, but you havent demonstrated or shown form reason or the NT, why any prophecy or miracle was in vain or personal vanity. Unless you are saying God is vain Reuniting man to God is a failure? Assisting people to see that he was God in the flesh, is a failure?Why is water into wine different than a burning bush? In each instance God is trying to impress upon his Apostle (Moses in solitude or the Apostles by themself in a boat), who and what he was, as he walked on the waterWerent both the Apostles, Moses and the others isolated in such instances. I see no vainityDawn BertotGod doesnt deal in the trivialPs I noticed you left by the wayside my last argument of the definition and explanation choice, and freewill.freewill is like gravity, it is what it is, even if i defy it temporarily. its properties are the same irregardless, correct. Choice doesnt need equivalent values, to be a choice, wouldnt you agree?Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You always make categorical statements, but never show why the comparisons, in this instance specific prophecies contradict eachotherYou make a statement as if we are suppose to accept, simply because you stated it You reasoning always seems to be a few degrees off. freewill and choice are what they are irregardless of what I do. the actual principle doesnt change, it cant, even if I doEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Again, I will repeat it for affect. You have not demonstrated other than to assert why any prophecy or miracle in the NT is frivirlous.It cannot be because it did not relate to humainity or have a purpose in humanity, it didQuote it, then show why from Gods perspetive, since that is its source, why it would be vain Then why do not all people follow Judaism. If its that obvious, why are there others besides Judaism Your original contention was that we have no evidence of who wrote the books of the NT. Your examples of the OT only confirm they are not completely unreliable. They do not confirm authorship, as you intimated about the NT.The NT can boast all the same archeological accuracy and has independant sources to corroborate, characters in said books"We have NOTHING whatsoever of proof of anything in the NT", is more of an unobjective response, than an educated oneMy original point or line of reasoning was to demonstrate whether you believed God was the author, of atleast the OT. You confirmed that in the positive There were many religions prior to Judaism, shouldnt we follow thier tenets based on your line of reasoningIt only remains for you to demonstrate why the Prophecies and miracles are vain and pointlessIf the Apostle Paul said, "the Law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ", why should I go with your assertion that the NT miracles are vain and pointless, because they did not conform to some theory about impacting humanity, as you suggestPaul tells us the OT miracles and prophecies were the BASICS to get us to a higher plane and they did that very thing according to history and observation History said millions didI must still insist on a response concerning my definition of Freewill (choice) as opposed to your intimation that choices are only choices, with equivalent valuescan you demonstrate why a choice is not as I described it?thats why the world is in the mess we are today, taking simple understandable and demonstratable principles, such as freewill and confounding thier meanings, so as to cause confusion and doubtYou know the ole, "Woe unto him that calleth evil good and good evil", principleDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Dont get me wrong, I agree with what you are saying in PRINCIPLE. They do not however prove authorship. it only proves that the writer had knowledge of such events, while composing that text.One of the first proofs is to demonstrate that it is not completley unreliable. This you have done and can be done w/ the NT The writers of the NT mention many officials such as Herod and Pilot. Josephus, and even roman historians reference names and events with regard to Christ, the brother of James, the crucifixtion and other contemporary events.It only means the writers and historians were aware of these events. It means the writer is not unreliableYou avoided my point. Should we adopt and follow the oriental religions, due to the fac that they are older and can be corroborated and have had a devastating impact on humaity Try and stick to the point. Growth is an important point in Gods plan for man. If your only contention is that it did not impact humaity, then I would have to say you are on shaky ground One example should sufficeWrong atleast according to the old Testament. At every place and every circumstance they were in opposition to Gods will and plansConstanly in captivity and eventually dispersed. A simple reading of 1 and 2nd Kings will demonstrate this pointIt seems that God does not agree with Mr ChurchillWhat is important to God is not as important to man. "I desire mercy rather than sacrifice"I suppose you could replace the word sacrifice with survival and the sentence would have the same meaningYour quoted fellas will play the political card, God will notI personally would hold the oriental up to any surving race. But they dont get mentioned enough because they are not as associated with the ancient texts as are the JewsEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Interestingly enough it is God and your own text that describes the Jewish people, as a people, not christianity or historyGod rejected them long before any Christian did. Was it Christians that placed them in repeated captivity. Was it Christians that forced thier disobedience? Of course this is not all I mentioned and you know it. The writings of the earliest Christians of the same time period, place the books at the time they claim and you know it.What do you call the roman historians, that cross reference these events?the earliest apostolic fathers, first century, nearly reproduce the entire NT. How did they do this, from imaginary documents. Much earlier than the fourth century wouldnt you agreeMost of these people did not know eachother directlyThose numerous writers had nothing to gain and were certainly not aware they were accomplishing some forgery, with persecution and death square in the faceDo you honestly believe the items you mentioned prove authorship and inspiration for the Old TestThey do prove he was reliable enough to read onDawn Bertot