Predestination

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
I read this again but you are making a circular argument and not making an argument from the text . Both Hebrews 8:6 and 1 John 4:7 use the same verb estin and the syntax is the same. So from looking at both texts I don’t see how you can make an argument for one and not the other since they are constructed the same. I believe you are letting your ideas interfere with what is being said .

Jim is Father
Johnny is my son
Jackie is my wife
Joanne in our grandmother

How can any of those people no longer be my present relatives ?

BINGO!
Why does forever mean forever if present doesn’t mean in the present ?
Excellent observation!(y)
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
Are you actually reading anything you are asking me to write? Are you.
You asked why we need a high priest forever and I told you the High Priest is the only one who can take us into the Holy of Holies in heaven, then you ask exactly the same question?
Huh?
Why do we need that when everything was already accomplished on the cross including his mediation ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
you are on the right track, but you are missing one point.

You are not the "teacher" here, Seth.
It is not your place to "evaluate" people depending on whether they agree with your ERRANT opinion.

The job of a court mediator is to bring two parties into agreement so they can make a covenant. Once they are in a greement, the court mediator job is finished

Where does Scripture teach that Christ is a "court mediator"?
Chapter and verse, please?

And are you aware that no analogy is 100% perfect?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes he is. Just insert “false” and you’ve got it.

🤣

I did want to mention, I must have a little bit of "CDO" in me (that's how we spell "OCD"), as part of your signature bothers me a little:


Free will has carried many souls to hell, but yet never a soul to heaven.”
--Charles Spurgeon

"Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
-- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Great quotes, but why did you cite Spurgeon's name differently?

It reminds me of when I was reading a book, I thought it was Dave Hunt's "What Love is This?", but when I went back later to check, I couldn't find it, so maybe it was another author.

There were two citations for different quotes:
1) Martin Luther, "On the Bondage of the Will"
2) Martin Luther, "De Servo Arbitrio"

And I looked at that, and I wondered, "Does Dave not know that those two citations refer to the same book, one with the English title, and one with the Latin title? It was also clear to me that his book was based on secondary and tertiary (anti-Calvinist) sources, rather than him actually having READ "Bondage of the Will", and other sources he listed. He simply quoted the citation from his secondary sources.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
That is doubtful that you have any idea what you are talking about and instead are just making an ungrounded opinion be what you rely on.
You do not seem to understand much about how language is used.
That is of course an exaggeration on my part, but just the fact that you have no idea what a court mediator is or what the metaphoric meaning of cuddle up is.

Jesus is not a court mediator and your suggestion that he is, diminishes his Godhood. He is THE Mediator. Past. Present, and Future.

I'm a professional teacher seth. I have taught college level classes for students struggling with the basic rules of grammar. I must tell you that your grammar skills could use improvement. Of note is your inability to understand the concept of "to be". You do this every time you try to make a distinction. regarding tenses. I detest sloppy English because it is not instructive and it is often just plain ignorant. I don't mean the word 'ignorant' as an insult, it simply means you are uninformed. "I be, She Be, They Be, You Be" are all profoundly wrong. It should be "I am, I will be, I was" All time dependent, yet you ignore this when it comes to scripture.

Now come the double negatives. I have an entire list of such errors. "I ain't got no problem" "I don't have nothing", Here are examples from Grammarly:
  • That won't do you no good.
  • I ain't got no time for supper.
  • Nobody with any sense isn't going.
  • I can't find my keys nowhere.
  • She never goes with nobody.
  • John says he has not seen neither Alice or Susan all day.
  • I didn't steal nothing.
  • He ain't never told no lies.
  • You can't see no one in this crowd.
  • There aren't no presents left to open.


Now, notice that knowing the difference between present tense, past tense, future tense matters.

I don't think you are particularly guilty about the double negatives, but there is a reason I posted them. It matters.

You are promoting the misuse of grammar in both the English and the Greek. You are allowing your own beliefs to rule over basic parts of speech communication rules.

We have people here who understand the Greek language (I'm not one of them). When they correct you with the proper tense of a Greek word, you should listen and learn.

Don't even get me started on dangling participles.

Sad that here in America we allow such displays of grammar ignorance.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I'm a professional teacher seth. I have taught college level classes for students struggling with the basic rules of grammar.

Isn't it amazing that he makes these basic mistakes, yet refuses to accept correction from professional teachers?

You are promoting the misuse of grammar in both the English and the Greek. You are allowing your own beliefs to rule over basic parts of speech communication rules.

Yes, and I've seen this in others as well, such as KJV-Only's.
They actually believe their incorrect usage is correct, since it supports their theology.
And that's absolutely SCARY to me.

Don't even get me started on dangling participles.

I was watching "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" last week, for maybe the 10th or 12th time, and I happened to be paying closer attention to Spencer Tracy's final speech to everyone. There were at least three places where he could have ended a sentence with a preposition, but managed not to. Since his character was a newspaper editor, I found that particularly significant.

One of my favourite quotes from "The Big Bang Theory:

Leonard: "Your English is very good."
Korean protege: "So is yours. But the thing that annoys me is how many people end their sentences with prepositions."
Leonard: "What are you talking about?"
Korean protege: "That."
 
Last edited:

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
🤣

I did want to mention, I must have a little bit of "CDO" in me (that's how we spell "OCD"), as part of your signature bothers me a little:


Free will has carried many souls to hell, but yet never a soul to heaven.”
--Charles Spurgeon

"Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
-- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Great quotes, but why did you cite Spurgeon's name differently?

It reminds me of when I was reading a book, I thought it was Dave Hunt's "What Love is This?", but when I went back later to check, I couldn't find it, so maybe it was another author.

There were two citations for different quotes:
1) Martin Luther, "On the Bondage of the Will"
2) Martin Luther, "De Servo Arbitrio"

And I looked at that, and I wondered, "Does Dave not know that those two citations refer to the same book, one with the English title, and one with the Latin title? It was also clear to me that his book was based on secondary and tertiary (anti-Calvinist) sources, rather than him actually having READ "Bondage of the Will", and other sources he listed. He simply quoted the citation from his secondary sources.
I think when I copied and pasted those two quotes I also included the name, because iirc, I did a google search of his quotes, and one must’ve not included his middle name when it cited him as the quote source. Anyhoo, I corrected it by adding Haddon to the one, so they’re not lopsided. I have a bit of CDO, too.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Well, the priest is the mediator between God’s ppl and God. He represents His ppl before God as a mediator, whether it was an OT high priest or Jesus Himself.
The priest is the intermediary,
The Bible never says that a priest is a mediator.
And yes a mediator is an intermediary, but a specific kind
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Jesus is not a court mediator and your suggestion that he is, diminishes his Godhood. He is THE Mediator. Past. Present, and Future.

I'm a professional teacher seth. I have taught college level classes for students struggling with the basic rules of grammar. I must tell you that your grammar skills could use improvement. Of note is your inability to understand the concept of "to be". You do this every time you try to make a distinction. regarding tenses. I detest sloppy English because it is not instructive and it is often just plain ignorant. I don't mean the word 'ignorant' as an insult, it simply means you are uninformed. "I be, She Be, They Be, You Be" are all profoundly wrong. It should be "I am, I will be, I was" All time dependent, yet you ignore this when it comes to scripture.

Now come the double negatives. I have an entire list of such errors. "I ain't got no problem" "I don't have nothing", Here are examples from Grammarly:
  • That won't do you no good.
  • I ain't got no time for supper.
  • Nobody with any sense isn't going.
  • I can't find my keys nowhere.
  • She never goes with nobody.
  • John says he has not seen neither Alice or Susan all day.
  • I didn't steal nothing.
  • He ain't never told no lies.
  • You can't see no one in this crowd.
  • There aren't no presents left to open.


Now, notice that knowing the difference between present tense, past tense, future tense matters.

I don't think you are particularly guilty about the double negatives, but there is a reason I posted them. It matters.

You are promoting the misuse of grammar in both the English and the Greek. You are allowing your own beliefs to rule over basic parts of speech communication rules.

We have people here who understand the Greek language (I'm not one of them). When they correct you with the proper tense of a Greek word, you should listen and learn.

Don't even get me started on dangling participles.

Sad that here in America we allow such displays of grammar ignorance.
Yes. Jesus is not literally a court mediator. Just as you did not literally cuddle up with anyone here.
you are demeaning something that Christ did Himself, comparing Himself to a variety of different things to teach truth about Himself.
Paul compares Jesus to a mediator and you claim he doesn't
 
Last edited:

Sethproton

Well-known member
I never heard of one the New Testament. Can you direct me to the passage about the court mediator ?
I think I already have several times.
But remember I told you that one of your issues is vocabulary?
There is a Greek word that means a court mediator. It gets translated into English as just mediator.
It is strange that we have been talking about that over dozens of posts and you suddenly forgot our conversation
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes. Jesus is not literally a court mediator. Just as you did not literally cuddle up with anyone here.

You keep bringing up YOUR insulting comment about "cuddle".
It's almost as if you felt guilty about it.
But you still refuse to apologize.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I think I already have several times.

You would be wrong.

But remember I told you that one of your issues is vocabulary?

No, that is one of YOUR issues.
But you refuse to admit it, since you think you're never wrong.

There is a Greek word that means a court mediator.

Why do you keep making FALSE claims, especially since you don't know the first thing about "Greek"?

Are you referring to "μεσιτης"?


Strong's:
3316. μεσίτης mesites, mes-ee´-tace; from 3319; a go-between, i.e. (simply) an internunciator, or (by implication) a reconciler (intercessor): — mediator.

(No mention of "court mediator".)

Thayer:
3316.
μεσίτης; mesitēs, mesitou, ho (mesos), one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or to form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant: a medium of communication, arbitrator

(No mention of "court mediator".)

Louw & Nida:
31.22 μεσίτηςa, ου m: (derivative of μεσιτεύω ‘to bring about an agreement,’ 31.21) one who causes or helps parties to come to an agreement, with the implication of guaranteeing the certainty of the arrangement

(No mention of "court mediator".)

BDAG:
μεσίτης
, ου, ὁ
one who mediates betw. two parties to remove a disagreement or reach a common goal, mediator, arbitrator, of Christ (Mithras as μεσίτης: Plut., Mor. 369e) w. gen. of the pers. betw. whom he mediates μ. θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων mediator between God and humans (Iren. 3, 18, 7 [Harv. II 100, 7]; cp. TestDan 6:2) 1 Ti 2:5; w. gen. of the thing that Jesus mediates: κρείττονος Hb 8:6, καινῆς 9:15, νέας διαθήκης 12:24 (s. διαθήκη 2. AssMos. fgm. a, Denis 63, 10=Tromp p. 272], Moses calls himself τῆς διαθήκης μεσίτης). Of the law διαταγεὶς δι᾿ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου ordered through the angels, by the hand of a mediator Gal 3:19 (Moses, as mediator betw. God and the people, called μεσίτης e.g. Philo, Mos. 2, 166, Somn. 1, 143; Betz, Gal [Hermeneia] ad loc.). The sense of vs. 20, ὁ δὲ μ. ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν an intermediary does not exist for one party alone, is disputed. It prob. means that the activity of an intermediary implies the existence of more than one party, and hence may be unsatisfactory because it must result in a compromise. The presence of an intermediary would prevent attainment, without any impediment, of the purpose of the εἷς θεός in giving the law.—NKZ 39, 1928, 21–24; 549–52; 552f; HStegmann, BZ 22, ’34, 30–42; Straub 67.—DELG s.v. μέσος B. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq.


(No mention of "court mediator".)

It gets translated into English as just mediator.

That's because that's what it MEANS.
It means "mediator".
It does NOT mean, "court mediator".

It is strange that we have been talking about that over dozens of posts and you suddenly forgot our conversation

That's because you refuse to accept what words mean, and feel the need to arbitrarily REDEFINE them.
 
Top