Scholar8200:
In this case, it is a slavery entered into by choice as a free moral agent, not a Divine design. Freedom therefrom also comes by choice for those who will seek the help of the One that did not design them to be slaves!However, many choose to remain slaves rather than engage Divine help to be free!

Let us not forget where the issue of slaves came from.
You said that the reason the prophecy HAD to be fulfilled was because they were slaves, and had no choice.
In other words, they had no free will.
Then you said no, they had free will to stop being slaves.
Then you could never call them slaves in the first place because they had free will to stop being slaves, and NOT fulfill the prophecy, thereby rendering John 3:16, the basis of your religion, invalid.

I have just been repeating the same statements over and over again. Hopefully someone will use logic and admit the flaw in their religion. I have to be patient.

AnonyNymous:

Let us not forget where the issue of slaves came from.
You said that the reason the prophecy HAD to be fulfilled was because they were slaves, and had no choice.
[size=14pt]In other words, they had no free will.[/size]

That's your addition, not my position.

Then you said no, they had free will to stop being slaves.

which they chose not to do!!!

Then you could never call them slaves in the first place because they had free will to stop being slaves, and NOT fulfill the prophecy, thereby rendering John 3:16, the basis of your religion, invalid.

They were slaves by their choice; they knew of possibility of freedom which they chose to reject (not all rejected though eg Job, Enoch, Daniel etc)

The scenario here is :

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.

But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,
Exodus 21:2,5

Now would you still say this slave had no free will? NO!

His being and remaining a slave is a choice not a Divine design. As regards vs 2 if there come a wealthier man and says, "instead of you serving 6 years, I want to pay for your freedom now". If the slave still replies as v5, then indeed he is a slave by choice

Likewise, man became depraved and a slave to sin by the fall, knew that through God he could obtain a release, but chose rather to continue in his depraved condition. In that depraved condition he kills the ones and the One sent to deliver him.

Nothing here was predestinated but a clear case of Divine knowledge of the servant not being greater than his master ( who was a murderer from the beginning)

Scholar8200:
That's your addition, not my position.

which they chose not to do!!!


They were slaves by their choice; they knew of possibility of freedom which they chose to reject (not all rejected though eg Job, Enoch, Daniel etc)

The scenario here is :

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.

But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,
Exodus 21:2,5

Now would you still say this slave had no free will? NO!

His being and remaining a slave is a choice not a Divine design. As regards vs 2 if there come a wealthier man and says, "instead of you serving 6 years, I want to pay for your freedom now". If the slave still replies as v5, then indeed he is a slave by choice

Likewise, man became depraved and a slave to sin by the fall, knew that through God he could obtain a release, but chose rather to continue in his depraved condition. In that depraved condition he kills the ones and the One sent to deliver him.

Nothing here was predestinated but a clear case of Divine knowledge of the servant not being greater than his master ( who was a murderer from the beginning)

I guess its the use of the word 'slave' that is causing confusion. In the example you posed, after the 6th year, he's not a 'slave' anymore, he is a free man that chooses to work for his former master! He's NOT a SLAVE. That free man, has a choice. Likewise, the disciples and every other human being were free men who had a choice. They had a choice NOT to kill Jesus, and therefore, make the prophecy NOT come true. Yes, they did not choose to be good, but the possibility existed. However, stating beforehand, before the event ever happened, with 100% certainty that they would kill Jesus is indicative of saying that they did NOT have a choice. Your bible doesn't say 'God sent Jesus so that they could kill him if they were bad, and leave him if they were good'. No. It says He was going to come to earth, and somebody HAS to kill him (so his blood will wash away your sins). In the event that they all chose to be good, and NOT kill him, then what would happen then? After all, god sent Jesus to be murdered so that his blood can wash up all the sins, right? And you responded to me that they were slaves (not free men with a choice) and they had no choice. Having no choice = no free will.
"Nothing here was predestined"
Actually, it was. it stated clearly in your bible that god sent Jesus to die. So that as his blood is spilled your sins will be washed away.
.
.
Unless you are implying that Jesus did not die FOR our sins, but he died BECAUSE of our sins, and that's a different belief from Christianity.

AnonyNymous:

I guess its the use of the word 'slave' that is causing confusion. In the example you posed, after the 6th year, he's not a 'slave' anymore, he is a free man that chooses to work for his former master!

He remains a slave till he utilises the provision for freedom! That is why Paul said here:
21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather
1 Corinth 7:21

He's NOT a SLAVE. That free man, has a choice. Likewise, the disciples and every other human being were free men who had a choice. They had a choice NOT to kill Jesus, and therefore, make the prophecy NOT come true.
Yes, they did not choose to be good, but the possibility existed. However, stating beforehand, before the event ever happened, with 100% certainty that they would kill Jesus is indicative of saying that they did NOT have a choice.

Not when God Who knows the hearts of man, knows the extent of depravity!

Your bible doesn't say 'God sent Jesus so that they could kill him if they were bad, and leave him if they were good'. No. It says He was going to come to earth, and somebody HAS to kill him (so his blood will wash away your sins).

Because depravity was in the Earth hence that was sure to happen!

In the event that they all chose to be good, and NOT kill him, then what would happen then?

for people who had made depravity their master, that even had a probability of 0. What? I hope you realise that the killing was not instigated by barrabas a criminal but the 'good doers' pharisees an sanhedrin?

After all, god sent Jesus to be murdered so that his blood can wash up all the sins, right? And you responded to me that they were slaves (not free men with a choice) and they had no choice. Having no choice = no free will.

this again is your assumption! For the umpteenth time, they were slaves because they CHOSE to remain so having rejected means of freedom.

"Nothing here was predestined"
Actually, it was. it stated clearly in your bible that god sent Jesus to die. So that as his blood is spilled your sins will be washed away.
.
.
Unless you are implying that Jesus did not die FOR our sins, but he died BECAUSE of our sins, and that's a different belief from Christianity.

Yes Jesus died for our sIns. The original prophesy was that a Man would bruise the serpent and the latter would bruise His heel! Serpent here refers to the real master of the willing slaves of depravity. Meaning, when the Man comes, the real master of depravity would have his subjects kill Him. And remember, the serpent has been a murderer so if God says the Son will be killed, its clear he knows this will be instigated by the serpent.

As per that quote, you appear to misunderstand the statement. What it means is that a slave is bound to obey his master but he in this case can choose to be free from that master provided he uses the means of freedom ! That is why, yes man was sold to sin by the fall, yet we have righteous men like Joseph, Enoch, Job, Samuel, Daniel etc! Who by faith got liberated from that bond to the limit of light available then!

This takes me back to that statement, there is one option not available - neutrality! He who by love of darkness rejects good will fulfill the prophecies of wickedness simply because his rejection of light makes him a servant of darkness the ways of whom are known to God!

Scholar8200:
He remains a slave till he utilises the provision for freedom! That is why Paul said here:
21[b] Art thou called being a servant? care not for it:[/b] but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather
1 Corinth 7:21

Paul made that statement. In a logical sense, I interpret it to mean the use of the word 'servant/slave' was not applicable to them(which is what I have been saying since), because they can be free if they want, therefore they should 'care not for it'
for people who had made depravity their master, that even had a probability of 0
But then at the same time, you say they had a choice to stop making 'depravity' (what caused them to kill Jesus) their master. Then the probability is NOT zero, because, if 'depravity' is not their master, then they wouldn't kill Jesus. Which means there's just as much chance for them to use their choice, which you say they have, to stop serving 'depravity'
.
.
If god could see their future then that means they had no free will. Because seeing the future means its set in stone. At most, logically, the future can only be predicted based on current circumstances. When those current circumstances are able to change at any time, then the best you can do is make a GUESS of what you THINK is the highest probability. But I'm pretty sure you don't believe John 3:16 is a guess of the highest probability.

Scholar8200:
As per that quote, you appear to misunderstand the statement. What it means is that a slave is bound to obey his master but he in this case can choose to be free from that master provided he uses the means of freedom ! That is why, yes man was sold to sin by the fall, yet we have righteous men like Joseph, Enoch, Job, Samuel, Daniel etc! Who by faith got liberated from that bond to the limit of light available then!

This takes me back to that statement, there is one option not available - neutrality! He who by love of darkness rejects good will fulfill the prophecies of wickedness simply because his rejection of light makes him a servant of darkness the ways of whom are known to God!

A slave, by definition, has no rights, no choice, and must obey its master.
When you say a slave is told to do something by his master, and then instead of having to do it, he gets to decide that he wants to leave the master, then you cannot call that person a slave.
As Paul said, in your quote, 'Are you being called a slave, care not for it'.
It doesn't matter what they call you because you are NOT a slave.
Paul disagrees with you.

AnonyNymous:

A slave, by definition, has no rights, no choice, and must obey its master.
When you say a slave is told to do something by his master, and then instead of having to do it, he gets to decide that he wants to leave the master, then you cannot call that person a slave.
As Paul said, in your quote, 'Are you being called a slave, care not for it'.
It doesn't matter what they call you because you are NOT a slave.
Paul disagrees with you.

You left out the key point, a slave has a right and means to freedom!!!

Were you called while a slave? [l]Do not worry about it; [size=14pt]but if you are able also to become free, rather [m]do that[/size].
1 Corinth 7:21

They witnessed slavery firsthand so i bet he knows better than you on this subject.

AnonyNymous:

Paul made that statement. In a logical sense, I interpret it to mean the use of the word 'servant/slave' was not applicable to them(which is what I have been saying since), because they can be free if they want, therefore they should 'care not for it'
for people who had made depravity their master, that even had a probability of 0
But then at the same time, you say they had a choice to stop making 'depravity' (what caused them to kill Jesus) their master. Then the probability is NOT zero, because, if 'depravity' is not their master, then they wouldn't kill Jesus. Which means there's just as much chance for them to use their choice, which you say they have, to stop serving 'depravity'

your personal interpretation is wrong and contradicts both history and other parts of the Epistles. History already occurred and surely, they yielded to their depravity.

.
.

If god could see their future then that means they had no free will. Because seeing the future means its set in stone.

That's your assumption.

At most, logically, the future can only be predicted based on current circumstances. When those current circumstances are able to change at any time, then the best you can do is make a GUESS of what you THINK is the highest probability. But I'm pretty sure you don't believe John 3:16 is a guess of the highest probability.

And that that prediction will be as sure as those circumstances remain constant.

Scholar8200:
You left out the key point, a slave has a right and means to freedom!!!

Were you called while a slave? [l]Do not worry about it; [size=14pt]but if you are able also to become free, rather [m]do that[/size].
1 Corinth 7:21

They witnessed slavery firsthand so i bet he knows better than you on this subject.

A slave does not have a right and means to freedom. Black slaves in America that tried to run free were killed. If you claim to be a slave, and you have the choice of freedom, it means you don't have to obey your masters. Therefore you are not a slave by definition.

AnonyNymous:

A slave does not have a right and means to freedom. Black slaves in America that tried to run free were killed. If you claim to be a slave, and you have the choice of freedom, it means you don't have to obey your masters. Therefore you are not a slave by definition.

our context in this thread on slaves is the Bible times.

That is why all my quotes on slavery and choice and freedom have been therefrom.

You will agree with me that none of those quotes were doctored?

Besides, the black slaves were made so against their choice- DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE ARE SAYING HERE- hence they were more of folks kidnapped and sold.

This context is not applicable to this discourse.

Scholar8200:
your personal interpretation is wrong and contradicts both history and other parts of the Epistles. History already occurred and surely, they yielded to their depravity.

.
. That's your assumption.


And that that prediction will be as sure as those circumstances remain constant.

You mention my personal interpretation being wrong, for being unaligned with history, yet the statement was not made in reference to any historical occurrence. Another problem I have with Christianity, they quote things without bringing the full context of the quote into view.
If someone comes up to you and tells you 'are they calling you a slave? don't worry about it, because you can be free if you want'. That statement ALONE in normal English comprehension is a person telling me not to mind those calling me a slave because I can be free if I want, so I'm not really a slave (why I should no mind them).
NOW HERE'S YOUR STATEMENT
[b]"And that that prediction will be as sure as those circumstances remain constant." [b/]
Yes, if the circumstances remain constant, the prediction remains, but as long as there is free will, then there is NO certainty that the prediction will remain constant, hence, the prediction is nothing but a GUESS

Scholar8200:



our context in this thread on slaves is the Bible times.

That is why all my quotes on slavery and choice and freedom have been therefrom.

You will agree with me that none of those quotes were doctored?

Besides, the black slaves were made so against their choice- DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE ARE SAYING HERE- hence they were more of folks kidnapped and sold.

This context is not applicable to this discourse.

Yes, I will trust that you are honest, and did not alter any of the quotes you presented. In the analogy you presented, that person was a slave for 6 years, and after the sixth year, by definition of English that we are using to communicate now, he was a not a slave, but a free man who chose to continue working for his former master.
Likewise, the men of that time were free enough to NOT kill Jesus.

AnonyNymous:

You mention my personal interpretation being wrong, for being unaligned with history, yet the statement was not made in reference to any historical occurrence. Another problem I have with Christianity, they quote things without bringing the full context of the quote into view.
If someone comes up to you and tells you 'are they calling you a slave? don't worry about it, because you can be free if you want'. That statement ALONE in normal English comprehension is a person telling me not to mind those calling me a slave because I can be free if I want, so I'm not really a slave (why I should no mind them).

Let me get a more contemporary version:


New Living Translation
Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you--but if you get a chance to be free, take it.
NLT


English Standard Version
Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)

Berean Study Bible
Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let it concern you, but if you can gain your freedom, take the opportunity.

Berean Literal Bible
Were you called while a slave, let it not be a care to you; but if also you are able to become free, rather take advantage.


Meaning the reference here is a slave!

You said you have a problem with christianity and here you are reading your meaning to something so clear!

NOW HERE'S YOUR STATEMENT
"And that that prediction will be as sure as those circumstances remain constant." [b/]
Yes, if the circumstances remain constant, the prediction remains, [b]but as long as there is free will, then there is NO certainty that the prediction will remain constant, hence, the prediction is nothing but a GUESS

[size=13pt]Indeed, those circumstances and the response of free morals thereto remained constant!
[/size]
Hence, it was not a GUESS, rather it takes OMNISCIENCE to know that after those centuries the conditions/responses will remain the same!!!

AnonyNymous:

Yes, I will trust that you are honest, and did not alter any of the quotes you presented. In the analogy you presented, that person was a slave for 6 years, and after the sixth year, by definition of English that we are using to communicate now, he was a not a slave, but a free man who chose to continue working for his former master.
Likewise, the men of that time were free enough to NOT kill Jesus.

Indeed so, but like the slave in Exodus 21:5, they chose to remain slaves to depravity (regent to the serpent) and killed Him!

Scholar8200:
Let me get a more contemporary version:


New Living Translation
Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you--but if you get a chance to be free, take it.
NLT


English Standard Version
Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)

Berean Study Bible
Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let it concern you, but if you can gain your freedom, take the opportunity.

Berean Literal Bible
Were you called while a slave, let it not be a care to you; but if also you are able to become free, rather take advantage.


Meaning the reference here is a slave!

You said you have a problem with christianity and here you are reading your meaning to something so clear!



[size=13pt]Indeed, those circumstances and the response of free morals thereto remained constant!
[/size]
Hence, it was not a GUESS, rather it takes OMNISCIENCE to know that after those centuries the conditions/responses will remain the same!!!

You left out some very important things in your argument. I'll explain to you, I'm on my way home now. At least you did not come attacking me like typical bible thumpers do. I appreciate that. Furthermore, do not use my disapproval of Christianity to counter my arguments. When I argue, I view things objectively and logically, regardless of my previous convictions. I am disillusioned with all religions. The friend of mine that even brought up this question is into Eastern/Asian religions. I'm still curious to hear more about his. So please, do not make statements like that. So I'll brb. Once I get home. Peace.

Scholar8200:
Indeed so, but like the slave in Exodus 21:5, they chose to remain slaves to depravity (regent to the serpent) and killed Him!

This is what I've been saying since. They CHOSE to serve depravity, but its a choice nonetheless. Which means there is an equal chance of them choosing to NOT kill him, hence rendering the prophecy useless! Then that means the prophecy is a guess! A guess that they will choose to serve depravity!
.
Lets take it from the top.
Diagram 1
If the future has already been decided, its that future that will happen, irrespective of whatever decision is made. Therefore any form of free will you think you have is merely an illusion that will still lead you up to that final point. In the first diagram you see a straight path leading to ONE outcome. They may be twists and turns in that line, it can curve and bend, but at the end of the day THAT outcome will still happen. In that case, free will is nothing but an illusion, because no matter what you do, you'll still end up at that final point.
.
Diagram 2
If there is more than one possible outcome then this is true free will! No illusions here. Equal chance of one option or the other happening. Therefore when we exercise our free will, each action we make leads to a different outcome. THAT is free will.
.
Diagram 3
Now, we see what could've happened, if we have true free will, and our free will is not an illusion. The first path satisfies the initial prediction, but the second path DOES NOT. What happens then? You said it takes omniscience to know that the first path would've been followed. This is where you're wrong, with the use of that word.
WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION OF OMNISCIENCE
"An omniscient point-of-view, in writing, is to know everything that can be known about a character, including past history, thoughts, feelings, etc. In Latin, omnis means "all" and sciens means "knowing".
Notice how omniscience means everything that CAN BE KNOWN. This does not include the future, only the past and the present. The future cannot be known because of the existence of free will, which means the future can change at any time. If the future is known, we have a diagram 1 type of situation where there is no free will.
ANALOGY
If I am omniscient about football for example. It means I know all the teams, all their past statistics, every player's abilities, everything there is to know about football. I also know their present form. However, with all this knowledge, this does not mean that I know the outcomes of a future match. I canonly speculate on what I think is likely to be the results. Its a well informed guess, but its a guess nonetheless.
==> From this, you can see how saying that the first path would happen is just a guess.
If it is a guess, then that means the probability of the second path happening exists, even if its a very low chance. And in Christianity, the salvation of mankind depends on the first path. In other words, if Judas and everyone else had chosen to do the right thing and NOT kill Jesus but instead mind their business, then mankind would not be saved. Which is why they, by killing Jesus, saved mankind.
...................................................................................
Further clarification, Diagram 4
Another way you tried to say that the first option would happen was by saying that they were slaves, and slaves have no choice.
Yet they can choose to stop being slaves.
[b]==>[/b]Slaves have no choice, we have a diagram1 type situation where there is no free will therefore no blame for their actions.
[b]==>[/b]They can choose to stop being slaves and follow the second path, hence diagram2 type situation.
**********************************************

AnonyNymous:

You've missed my point. My point is not about who specifically carried it out, whether Judas, Peter, Bartholomew or whoever. No.

"Because if there was anyone who would do the assignment, it should not be Judas as he was one of his own."
(Your statement)
It should not be Judas, since he was one of his(Jesus') own, right? But SOMEBODY had to do it to fulfill the prophecy. As you said, Jesus warned him. And he still did it. Since you believe we have free will, what if he did not do it? That's a possibility too, right?
...

"If you are warned against something and you still do it, you deserve punishment, right?
"
(Your statement)
Yes, I agree with this statement. What if everyone else in their time agreed with this statement and decided, they want no punishment, therefore, they won't do it?

...


"I know your next question will be "how would he have died"?. He could have surrendered himself to be killed in due time."
(Your statement)
Surrendered himself? To who? He broke no laws of the land: Christians commonly quote 'Give unto Caesar what is for Caesar'. Therefore he broke no laws! For doing nothing wrong, who, in his right senses, will kill him? Anyone who does that must be mad, and therefore not responsible for their actions.

It appears your submissions agree to a large extent with my views about these biblical events though i am a committed christian.
Somebody must betray Jesus but it must not be Judas. It could be anybody but the betrayal of Jesus was part of the package.
Same goes with some other incidences of life.
Again the freewill we have is not absolute as some of us believe.

The difference between you and i is that while you ll be angry with these your findings, I always accept its reality starring me on the face and ask God for grace to be on.his good side at all times.
The prayer that Jesus asked us to pray comes to mind here (lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil).

honourhim:


It appears your submissions agree to a large extent with my views about these biblical events though i am a committed christian.
Somebody must betray Jesus but it must not be Judas. It could be anybody but the betrayal of Jesus was part of the package.
Same goes with some other incidences of life.
Again the freewill we have is not absolute as some of us believe.

The difference between you and i is that while you ll be angry with these your findings, I always accept its reality starring me on the face and ask God for grace to be on.his good side at all times.
The prayer that Jesus asked us to pray comes to mind here (lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil).

I'm not angry, I just recognize that there are gaps to be filled. I'm not against Christ. No. I don't quite agree with the old testament, but I have found some passages in the new testament that seem morally right to me. I'm all for humans helping one another and working together peacefully. And some of the passages from Christ's time are basically saying that. If Christ existed, then he was a great man who cared for mankind and had good intentions. BUT. The religion Christianity. The bible just doesn't add up. There are statements that contradict each other. And a lot of the doctrines make no logical sense. Thats what I'm pointing out. I'm not an atheist, but I cant say I'm a theist either. Because i feel that nobody can prove for sure, using logic, that god does or doesn't exist. So instead of arguing over religions, I feel that we should be more concerned about our fellow man, who is visible to us.

AnonyNymous:

This is what I've been saying since. They CHOSE to serve depravity, but its a choice nonetheless. Which means there is an equal chance of them choosing to NOT kill him, hence rendering the prophecy useless! Then that means the prophecy is a guess! A guess that they will choose to serve depravity!

A guess is when you are not certain about the future, a projection based on current conditions whose constancy you cannot prove. It takes OMNISCIENCE to know that the conditions will remain the same after a number of centuries. Hence it was not a guess.

.
Lets take it from the top.
Diagram 1
If the future has already been decided, its that future that will happen, irrespective of whatever decision is made. Therefore any form of free will you think you have is merely an illusion that will still lead you up to that final point. In the first diagram you see a straight path leading to ONE outcome. They may be twists and turns in that line, it can curve and bend, but at the end of the day THAT outcome will still happen. In that case, free will is nothing but an illusion, because no matter what you do, you'll still end up at that final point.

The future has been decided not by Divine design but by extant conditions which would not change the knowledge of which is only possible to an Omniscient God Who clearly revealed:

15 That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by.

Ecclesiastes 3:15

So I turned to consider wisdom, madness and folly; for what will the man do who will come after the king except what has already been done?
Ecclesiastes 2:12

That which has been is that which will be,
And that which has been done is that which will be done.
So there is nothing new under the sun.
Eccl 1:9

The knowledge of man's case with depravity as described before and the accurate Prescience that it will still be so after centuries and milleniums is only possible to an Omniscient God!

.
Diagram 2
If there is more than one possible outcome then this is true free will! No illusions here. Equal chance of one option or the other happening. Therefore when we exercise our free will, each action we make leads to a different outcome. THAT is free will.

Refer to the penultimate response. God knew that the P(man will do/react in 5-10 centuries time what he did yesterday in relation to depravity and choice) =1. The important factor here is that NONE will be made or forced to fulfill the predicted outcome as there will be one who in rejecting the Truth will be fulfilling the prophesy there being no neutral option!

Diagram 3
Now, we see what could've happened, if we have true free will, and our free will is not an illusion. The first path satisfies the initial prediction, but the second path DOES NOT. What happens then? You said it takes omniscience to know that the first path would've been followed. This is where you're wrong, with the use of that word.
WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION OF OMNISCIENCE
"An omniscient point-of-view, in writing, is to know everything that can be known about a character, including past history, thoughts, feelings, etc. In Latin, omnis means "all" and sciens means "knowing".
Notice how omniscience means everything that CAN BE KNOWN. This does not include the future, only the past and the present. The future cannot be known because of the existence of free will, which means the future can change at any time. If the future is known, we have a diagram 1 type of situation where there is no free will.

That is wikipedia's limited definition. Here is how God describes the part wikipedia overlooked:

Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done...;
Isaiah 46:10

ANALOGY
If I am omniscient about football for example. It means I know all the teams, all their past statistics, every player's abilities, everything there is to know about football. I also know their present form. However, with all this knowledge, this does not mean that I know the outcomes of a future match. I canonly speculate on what I think is likely to be the results. Its a well informed guess, but its a guess nonetheless.
==> From this, you can see how saying that the first path would happen is just a guess.

That's because you are a man.

If it is a guess, then that means the probability of the second path happening exists, even if its a very low chance. And in Christianity, the salvation of mankind depends on the first path. In other words, if Judas and everyone else had chosen to do the right thing and NOT kill Jesus but instead mind their business, then mankind would not be saved. Which is why they, by killing Jesus, saved mankind.
...................................................................................

But note this:
1. Judas did not kill Jesus
2. Judas had been stealing from the bag, and when he tried to take his covetousness to the next level he betrayed Jesus for 30 silver perhaps thinking they would simply lock Him up like they did John the Baptist. That is why he regretted when he saw the real intention of the true murderers.
3. The P(every one will do the right thing) = 0, God knew this!

Further clarification, Diagram 4
Another way you tried to say that the first option would happen was by saying that they were slaves, and slaves have no choice.
Yet they can choose to stop being slaves.
[b]==>[/b]Slaves have no choice, we have a diagram1 type situation where there is no free will therefore no blame for their actions.
[b]==>[/b]They can choose to stop being slaves and follow the second path, hence diagram2 type situation.
**********************************************

Like I said before, in this case (the master being more of a spiritual entity) the choice of freedom was available for all if they reached out to One more powerful than depravity but they CHOSE to remain in that bond and were bound thereby!

Scholar8200:
A guess is when you are not certain about the future, a projection based on current conditions whose constancy you cannot prove. It takes OMNISCIENCE to know that the conditions will remain the same after a number of centuries. Hence it was not a guess.

The future has been decided not by Divine design but by extant conditions which would not change the knowledge of which is only possible to an Omniscient God Who clearly revealed:

15 That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by.

Ecclesiastes 3:15

So I turned to consider wisdom, madness and folly; for what will the man do who will come after the king except what has already been done?
Ecclesiastes 2:12

That which has been is that which will be,
And that which has been done is that which will be done.
So there is nothing new under the sun.
Eccl 1:9

The knowledge of man's case with depravity as described before and the accurate Prescience that it will still be so after centuries and milleniums is only possible to an Omniscient God!

Refer to the penultimate response. God knew that the P(man will do/react in 5-10 centuries time what he did yesterday in relation to depravity and choice) =1. The important factor here is that NONE will be made or forced to fulfill the predicted outcome as there will be one who in rejecting the Truth will be fulfilling the prophesy there being no neutral option!

That is wikipedia's limited definition. Here is how God describes the part wikipedia overlooked:
[b]
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done...;
Isaiah 46:10


That's because you are a man.


But note this:
1. Judas did not kill Jesus
2. Judas had been stealing from the bag, and when he tried to take his covetousness to the next level he betrayed Jesus for 30 silver perhaps thinking they would simply lock Him up like they did John the Baptist. That is why he regretted when he saw the real intention of the true murderers.
3. The P(every one will do the right thing) = 0, God knew this!

Like I said before, in this case (the master being more of a spiritual entity) the choice of freedom was available for all if they reached out to One more powerful than depravity but they CHOSE to remain in that bond and were bound thereby!

As long as there's free will, probability of ANYTHING can never be 0.
You even completely ignored the diagrams

I don't know how a being can say I will go to endpoint A, and that its 100% certain I will end up there, but yet I have free will to choose either endpoint A or B. It makes no sense at all. But that's what Christianity is based on. I've gotten my answer. Christianity is a religion not based on logic.

Just look at it, a teacher saying that a child will be flogged(hell fire) if he uses his left hand(sin) to write. But the teacher knows that the child is paralysed throughout his right hand/body and cannot use it, no matter how he tries. Yet the teacher still says he has an equal ability to use both left and right and its his free will to choose. And he MUST write or else he'll be flogged (must live, suicide = hell fire). And so the child is forced to use his left hand to write. Then the teacher flogs him (sends him to hell fire) when he uses his left hand, and calls him a bad child. This is Christianity.

AnonyNymous:
Just look at it, a teacher saying that a child will be flogged(hell fire) if he uses his left hand(sin) to write. But the teacher knows that the child is paralysed throughout his right hand/body and cannot use it, no matter how he tries. Yet the teacher still says he has an equal ability to use both left and right and its his free will to choose. And he MUST write or else he'll be flogged (must live, suicide = hell fire). And so the child is forced to use his left hand to write. Then the teacher flogs him (sends him to hell fire) when he uses his left hand, and calls him a bad child. This is Christianity.

If l understand scholar correctly,he is saying though the child is paralyzed in his right hand yet the teacher has offered to help by pulling him up via his right hand, because using the left hand is bad for him and would destroy him. It is not the teacher that destroys him but rather the teacher offers help, the boy rather always choose to use the left hand refusing the teacher's help, and the teacher can always tell that would be the case.

kilo4sure:

If l understand scholar well, he is saying though the child is paralyzed in his right hand yet the teacher has offered to help by pulling him up via his right hand, because using the left hand is bad for him and would destroy him. It is not the teacher that destroys him but rather the teacher offers help, the boy rather always choose to use the left hand refusing the teacher's help, and the teacher can always tell that would be the case.

And if the boy chooses to accept the help from the teacher, its still a waste of time because the teacher has predetermined that the boy will use his left hand, and he can never be wrong, so no matter what efforts the boy makes to accept the teacher's help, some cosmic force of the universe will make him use his left hand since the teacher can never be wrong

Its a simple concept, really. When one outcome must happen, because that outcome can never be wrong, then there is no choice (free will).

If 2+2=4, and it is known in advance, no matter what happens, whether you try to write it in words, or say it out loud, 2+2 will always equal 4. This is known in advance. However, in Christianity, we tried to convince 2+2 not to equal 4 (when it is already known that 2+2=4, and this can never be wrong). And then when we now type 2+2 in a calculator and we get 4, then it is 2+2's fault that it used its 'free will' to equal 4. And that makes sense to them.

AnonyNymous:

And if the boy chooses to accept the help from the teacher, its still a waste of time because the teacher has predetermined that the boy will use his left hand, and he can never be wrong, so no matter what efforts the boy makes to accept the teacher's help, some cosmic force of the universe will make him use his left hand since the teacher can never be wrong

The problem is that you think God predetermines every detail of our life even before we were born, l do not share this view. Rather God is wise enough to state what is most likely in every situation given his wisdom and superior knowledge. The details are under our control, we can alter things also which makes it very interesting. So we have free will and also do not have free will at the same time. We control somethings and do not control others, this of course is ambiguous, l can easily see why you are confused. After all the old testament seem to indicate sometimes that Yahweh could change his mind depending on our reaction. But this is not a view commonly shared in mainstream Christianity.

kilo4sure:

The problem is that you think God predetermines every detail of our life even before we were born, l do not share this view. Rather God is wise enough to state what is most likely in every situation given his wisdom and superior knowledge. The details are under our control, we can alter things also which makes it very interesting. So we have free will and also do not have free will at the same time. We control something's and do not control others, this of course is ambiguous, l can easily see why you are confused. After all the old testament seem to indicate sometimes that Yahweh could change his mind depending on our reaction. But this is not a view commonly shared by mainstream Christianity.

Ehen! Now you're talking. ALL the Christians I have come across say that god has planned everything ni o. . . divine design. . . and it MUST happen in the exact detail he planned it. . .this scholar up here just said it himself that god already knows the end point with 100% certainty, and that is the definition of omniscience. Ok. So in your form of Christianity, god is not scholar-version omniscient/your definition of omniscience agrees with wikipedia, which means NOT knowing the future with 100% certainty. Good. He does not know exactly what will happen, but just says what is most likely. i.e John 3:16 is a guess, albeit a well informed guess. Do you see what that implies? The whole of Christianity is based on a gamble of Judas betraying Jesus so Jesus would be killed. Because according to you guys, Jesus' bloodshed is the ONLY way that you can be saved. Its a well informed, highly probable guess, but its a guess nonetheless. Which means that in the off chance that Judas did the right thing, as well as everyone else, the Jesus would not be killed and mankind would not be saved. So we actually have to appreciate Judas for taking the choosing to do the wrong thing so that god can send 'woe unto him', because by doing that, he facilitated the salvation of mankind.
***********************
Talking with you guys brings me to a conclusion that if this historical figure Jesus actually existed, then he died BECAUSE of our sins and not FOR our sins(the idea of his blood symbolically washing away sins is ridiculous). That's the only way that the whole thing can make sense. However, that is not Christianity.

AnonyNymous:

Ehen! Now you're talking. I don't know what you call mainstream Christianity, but ALL the Christians I have come across say that god has planned everything ni o. . . divine design. . . and it MUST happen in the exact detail he planned it. . .this scholar up here just said it himself that god already knows the end point with 100% certainty, and that is the definition of omniscience. Ok. So in your form of Christianity, god is not scholar-version omniscient/your definition of omniscience agrees with wikipedia, which does not mean knowing the future with 100% certainty. Good. He does not know exactly what will happen, but just says what is most likely. i.e John 3:16 is a guess, albeit a well informed guess. Do you see what that implies? The whole of Christianity is based on a gamble of Judas betraying Jesus so Jesus would be killed. Because according to you guys, Jesus' bloodshed is the ONLY way that you can be saved. Its a well informed, highly probable guess, but its a guess nonetheless. Which means that in the off chance that Judas did the right thing, as well as everyone else, the Jesus would not be killed and mankind would not be saved. So we actually have to appreciate Judas for taking the choosing to do the wrong thing so that god can send 'woe unto him', because by doing that, he facilitated the salvation of mankind.

Even the john 3v16 you quoted still depends on our choice.. WHOSOEVER. Also like scholar has said even if Judas did not betray him maybe he would have died some other way. God giving up his son, simply means God made him mortal, and all mortals die. God's plan through his death is to bring life through him,and Judas betrayal adds little or nothing to this plan. The motive for betraying his master was not to facilitate salvation but for his interest, something which he regretted. Another would have betrayed him if not Judas, and even that person may choose not to if he is pure. After betrayal the person could also choose to repent like peter and not hang himself.

kilo4sure:

Even the john 3v16 you quoted still depends on our choice.. WHOSEVER. Also like scholar has said even if Judas did not betray him maybe he would have died some other way, God giving up his son, simply means God made him become mortal, and all mortals die. God's plan through his death is to bring life through him,and Judas betrayal adds little or nothing to this plan. The motive for betraying his master was not to facilitate salvation but for his interest, something which he regretted. Another would have betrayed him if not Judas, and even that person may choose not to if he is pure. After betrayal the person could also choose to repent like peter and not hang himself.

Good. You accept that John 3:16 is a guess of the highest probability.
The choice I'm talking about is not the 'whosoever believes' choice. That's a story for another day. I'm talking about the statement 'He sent Jesus to die'. Another may have betrayed him instead of Judas, but there is still the chance that NONE of them chose to betray him and get him killed. All mortals die, yes. But not by bloodshed. Christianity is based upon the belief that Jesus was killed and his BLOOD was spilled, and that blood symbolically washes away sin. Its commonly said that Jesus SUFFERED, and was MURDERED, for the purpose of 'washing' away our sins. Yes, Judas' motive was not to facilitate salvation but it was a by product. Assuming he had decided to do the right thing, mankind would not be saved. So people of that time doing the right thing means we would not be saved. You can mistakenly run over a rabid dog while speeding with your car. Your aim was to speed and get to where you're going as fast as possible. But the bystanders who have been troubled by the dog appreciate the fact that you killed the dog.