Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,333 Year: 3,590/9,624 Month: 461/974 Week: 74/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus's motives for performing miracles.
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 5 of 69 (357715)
10-20-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
10-20-2006 9:23 AM


What was the motive of Jesus in doing his miracles?
As Faith said: in order to give people a means whereby they could believe he was the son of God. Evidence. It wasn't only his miracles though. Things that he said and did caused people to wonder about him: he spoke with an authority that their religious leaders didn't have - in fact he regularily left the Religious leaders dumbfounded and at a loss - them slinking away until they could figure out another way to trap him in what he said. They never did.
See the miracles as cherrys on a cake. I mean: imagine for a moment what it would have been like to be around someone who never sinned: never an unrighteously angry word, never spoke a cutting criticism, never an evil notion. Always kind, gentle, compassionate. That would catch your attention. There have been very good men who had this characteristic - and they were attractive to people as he was.
But separating him from those good men he spoke of amazing things - and with total confidence: eternal life. Not an eternal life that had to be earned but which was given as a gift. He assumed the authority of God and said if people "had seen him they had seen the Father" People attracted to him as a good man would now be challenged by this extra element. Others have claimed such things however.
Then come the miracles. This is what sets him apart. He could talk the talk. The miracles showed them he could walk the walk. Others have not been able to maintain that progression. Others have been able to counterfeit all aspects - there are such things as spiritual powers. But no one could achieve all of what he achieved. A totally good man, a man who made the claim that he was God. A man who could back up his claims with miracles. A man who could rise from the dead - the greatest miracle of all.
But folk then as now do not have to believe him. He was accused of deriving his powers from satan. One could accuse him of trickeryThe option to deny was always there. It still is.
Do his miracles invalidate faith in xians because they give what many here at EVC have long asked for: evidence?
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." A Christian today has access to the miraculous. The miracle is not an external one but an internal on. A person who becomes a Christian has a transformation occur to them that is far more impressive than water into wine. Someone changing water into wine can always be passed off as sleight of hand or conspiracy or fraud. You cannot always believe what your eyes tell you. When it goes on within however there is no possible way to deny that that miracle has occurred. No sleight of hand is possible.
A Christian believes because he is given reason to. No one could believe something like this without being totally convinced. That would be irrational
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 10-20-2006 9:23 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 10-20-2006 12:06 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 8 of 69 (357723)
10-20-2006 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
10-20-2006 12:06 PM


Forgot to insert "unrighteous" between the "never spoke a" and "cutting criticism"
Thanks for the heads up sis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 10-20-2006 12:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 24 of 69 (357910)
10-21-2006 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Larni
10-20-2006 7:38 PM


Faith = Evidence
Faith writes:
and it gives a foundation for believing the gospel of salvation.
Larni writes:
I thought the message of the gospel (thanks Iano) was the salvation from the acceptance of ones sin and the acknowledgement of the role of Jesus in our salvation. Rather than an agreement that Jesus was divine by the evidence of miracles. Thats my point. Why miracles?
A couple of points. "Salvation from the acceptance of ones sins": I'm not sure what this means. The gospel message (some of which we have covered so far) is as follows. It gives us the bad news first:
  • every man is born with the nature of being a sinner. And because he is born thus, he will sin. He will act according to nature. It is natural that he will sin
  • God by nature, is holy. He hates sin. He is right to hate it. His hatred isn't bad - it is righteous
  • sinners are seperated from relationship God. They are spiritually dead to God. If they die in this state they will remain in this state for eternity.
  • What God does in time against sin (pours out his wrath) he will do likewise in eternity: pour out his wrath.
  • This is bad news indeed for man. Even worse: man cannot do anything about it. Gods holiness demands that a man be righteous in order to have a relationship with God. A holy God cannot (by nature) have relationship with sinners.
  • Man cannot make himself right with God: not by following Gods law not by anything else.
The Gospel = the Good News
The gospel message is that God (whose nature is not only wrath against sin but also love for us) has done something about this state of affairs. He has provided a way whereby this state of affairs can be rectified for everyone who ever lived or will live. Although man by nature is doomed as he is (objects in motion will continue in a straight line unless acted upon by an exterior force (God), it does not have to be this way. That is good news. Even better, this way of salvation does not rely on man contributing to his salvation as all aspects of it are carried out by God. This way (or mechanism) of salvation takes, in other words, the form of a gift. It is good that man have no part in his gaining salvation: for if it relied on him then that mechanism might not work. Whereas the gospel, being the power of God, if applied to a man is sure to work. It is not sure it will be applied - that is true, but if applied then it will work.
That's the gospel. The workings of the gospel are a subset of that. The gospel is the engine if you like, the specifics of it, how it works are the componant parts of it. They are not so much the good news themselves but how the good news works.
Faith writes:
You can't have faith unless you have evidence.
Larni writes:
I would contend that this is exactly wrong. Evidence removes the need for faith. If your god came down from it's cloud and said " look here you, I'm real" I would sure as hell believe it. Thats evidence, not faith.
We have seen in the Romans thread that what the gospel is and what what salvation is and what righteousness is are what the Bible has to say about them. We should not force our own limitations upon such words. We saw (or will see) that salvation is a multifacetted thing: a man is declared righteous, a man ceases to be an enemy of God and becomes an adopted son, a man receives eternal life. A mans sins are forgiven him. He is placed in Christ etc etc
We have seen that faith can be pictured as a highway along which God transmits the righteousness of Christ to a person. That is its first function in the sense of it acting as a highway carrying goods: the initial transaction that takes place at the point of salvation. But clearly, before anything can be sent along a highway the highway must exist!
We see all over the gospels that a man must repent in order to be saved. We might take one aspect of repentance as genuine acceptance on a mans part that he is a sinner before God. Patently he must be convinced of two things before he can do this.
  • he must be convinced that God exists
  • he must be convinced that he is a sinner.
Another way of saying a man must be convinced is that a man must believe these two things. For man convinced is a man who believes. We have seen from above that man takes no part in his salvation. If this is true then a man believing is not a decision a man makes out of himself. He doesn't just wake up one normal day and believe God exists and that he is a sinner before God. He doesn't suddenly get a shiver down his spine because he decides to belief that the destination of sinners is as it is. No. Any man who believes something has at least some evidence for it. A little evidence then his belief is partial, tentitive. For him to be convinced of something however means he must have compelling evidence of that thing. For a man to believe the two items above he must have evidence.
I was watching 12 Angry Men last night which illustrates the point well. A murder trial jury was sitting determining the sentence for a man accused of murdering his father. 11 of the 12 had the initial conclusion that the man was guilty. He would go to the electric chair. One man dissented and set about convincing the others that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether he did it. The 11 were swung around by only one thing. The evidence which seemed to convict the man all had holes in it. On first sight it looked iron-clad but examining it brought out the holes. They became convinced by the evidence for holes - allowing a verdict of reasonable doubt to be valid. They didn't believe the man was innocent: they believed there was room for reasonable doubt. They came to this view due to the evidence presented that there were potential holes in the concrete evidence.
So, it is not that a man makes a evidentialess decision to believe. Believing something without evidence isn't belief, it is something else. Rather it is that a man is "in a state of belief". "Unless you believe" is not saying that unless we take some action or other we are doomed. No! Read it in this way: "Unless you are in the state of believing then you cannot be saved". It is a condition that man must be in. "Unless you are in a believing condition then you cannot be saved". The locks mechanism must be in the correct state in order for the key to turn in it. Think "state of being" - not "action I must take"
quote:
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
Faith is substance and evidence. In the Romans thread we have seen the initial work that God applies to all men: the call on man through conscience, nature, Gods word. All aimed at turning a man back towards God. Aimed at bringing him to the conviction that he is a sinner. We might see all that work by God as preparing the foundations on the mans side for the highway that God wants to construct between himself and man. But salvation material cannot be transmitted with no highway in place. Foundations are not sufficient. At some point that highway called faith needs to be constructed. How is this achieved? Well, the construction materials of this highway have substance - you need substance to build things. And the nature of that substance is evidence. The highway spans the distance that exists between man and God and when it finally bridges the gap and lands on the prepared foundations on mans side of the divide then then the very first thing that happens is that a man believes totally. Why - because the nature of the highway itself is the very evidence a man needs to believe. And now that he has all the evidence he needs (the link between him and God has been established) he enters the state of belief. And once he enters that state of belief the condition for salvation has been satisfied. The goods involved with salvation can flow via the highway to the man. It's like an electrical circuit. First the circuit needs to be completed then the goods can flow. As with an electrical circuit the whole thing happens instantaniously. As soon as the circuit is completed, current flows.
It fits does it not? Consider:
A man is told he must repent, right? This he patently cannot do by himself. He cannot truly repent without believing. Unbelieving repentance is hollow and empty. Not heartfelt. And it is in the heart of a man this must take place
quote:
Romans 10:9 "...if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
(nb: all the evidence required to enable this heartfelt belief in a man is enabled by that same completed highway constuction project - lest any should worry)
And a man is told to believe too, right? But he cannot believe without evidence. There is no such thing as belief without evidence. We might call such belief "wishful thinking" for that is its proper name. Or "sticking ones head in the sand". No! This belief must be heartfelt. A convinced belief.
So God gives man the evidence required. God constructs the highway of faith (a highway whose building blocks are evidence) and connects it to the man. The man now believes. He is fully convinced that God exists and that he is a sinner before God and all the rest of it. Because heartfelt belief is a requirement for heartfelt repentance a man can now repent in heartfelt fashion. This applies to any other thing that must be done heartfeltedly. He can believe heartfeltedly that Jesus Christ is Lord for example - its no different. It doesn't matter what it is he must believe he will now do so. He can now do it from his heart because he has been convinced and fully believes. It is not a choice on the mans part. He has been connected, by God, to the evidence - belief is as automatic as is current flowing in a completed circuit. And Goddidit.
We may well say then that there are conditions that must be fulfilled in order that a man be saved. This is true. But how often do we hear the works-based-salvationists say that "we must fulfill those conditions"? How gravely mistaken they are. Yes, we must indeed fulfill conditions: we must believe/repent/confess etc. But only in the passive sense. God is the one who takes all the actions that ensures a man fulfills those conditions. Yes, a child who plays the drums is playing the drums. But if his parent is the one holding his hands around the drumsticks and is moving the childs arms so as to beat the drums then we can see who it is who is actually playing the drums on the childs behalf. God does this simply and only because man is unable to fulfill those conditions himself. God does this because he loves man and he does it in this way because God is just. In saving a man the way he does, he doesn't break his own "rules". His rules being simply expressions of who he is. He acts consistant with who he is.
Faith is evidence. It enables salvation because it enables a man to believe: a condition of salvation. And subsequent to that point in time it does other things in like fashion. It enables a believer to trust God implicitly for instance. For having seen once what God has done one tends not to distrust him in their heart again. Sure there can be rough times, there can be doubt - even severe doubt brought about by tough times. But he is very gracious and always willing to rebuild damage caused to that bridge that was once built. He is always ready and willing to touch a person with faith again: to restore their confidence in him. He promises that no matter what happens that highway will never be destroyed. The connection between God and man, once established will last forever. He doesn't break his promises either
quote:
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Quite...
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 10-20-2006 7:38 PM Larni has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 26 of 69 (357921)
10-21-2006 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Legend
10-21-2006 8:53 AM


Why did he choose to provide that extra evidence to only a select amount of people ?
To get the ball rolling. Its rolled ever since. Many since then have been rolled over by it. They didn't need to see miracles with their own eyes - nor did I. Jesus said he would send the holy spirit in his place whose purpose it would be to convict the world of their need of him. His being God established there was no need to establish it again. The miracles go out, the Holy Spirit comes instead.
He considered it a fair trade. So do I. You don't. Your choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Legend, posted 10-21-2006 8:53 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Legend, posted 10-21-2006 9:33 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 28 of 69 (357926)
10-21-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Legend
10-21-2006 9:33 AM


Re: miracles as proclamation of divinity
he could have given us the ball itself. He didn't. Why did he favour those few people over the rest of mankind ?
The ball rolling is the birth and expansion of Christianity. In order for this expansion there had to be a Big Bang. His birth, death, resurrection and all that goes with it.
You don't need a second big bang
He didn't favour anybody. Many saw the miracles and didn't believe. Miracles are evidence of a type. They are aimed at getting people to believe. Some do, some do not. The Holy Spirit aims to convince people today. He offers evidence of a type: some are convinced, some are not.
"Give me the miracles" you say. But if you were back then you might well have been one of those who did not believe them. You don't believe the evidence today when many others do. What's so different?
then why didn't he send it to his followers so that they would be convinced, instead of performing miracles ?
He said that unless he went the spirit couldn't come. Why? I don't know. But if that is what he said then I believe him. I don't think he ever lied or was ever wrong
He did say that those who believe without seeing are blessed, after all!
And they are. They have been. But they are no better than someone then who believed because of miracles. No one can believe without compelling evidence. Miracles, the evidence of faith - it all achieves the same end. And both come from God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Legend, posted 10-21-2006 9:33 AM Legend has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 35 of 69 (357971)
10-21-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by honda33
10-21-2006 3:03 PM


we see Benny Hinn and we believe
What?!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by honda33, posted 10-21-2006 3:03 PM honda33 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by honda33, posted 10-21-2006 4:47 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 38 of 69 (357984)
10-21-2006 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by honda33
10-21-2006 4:47 PM


If I weren't a Christian I'd stick a stake through his heart. An out and out shyster by any reckoning (or worse)
But hey! That's the US for ya...
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by honda33, posted 10-21-2006 4:47 PM honda33 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by iano, posted 10-21-2006 5:10 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 39 of 69 (357987)
10-21-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by iano
10-21-2006 4:56 PM


Oh no. PD contributes to Benny Hinn!!
{AbE: before you ban me PD, it's a gag. There is no warning about banning in your message. Just a request - which was denied in this rare instance)
Just don't make a habit of it.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 10-21-2006 4:56 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 50 of 69 (358467)
10-24-2006 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Larni
10-24-2006 6:13 AM


Re: Motivations
The miracles are a point of certainty.
Miracles are not a point of certainty. Many did not believe. A miracle is evidence of a sort. Only a person who is given the (spiritual) eyes to see the miracle for what it is will take out of it what the miracle is attempting to prove.
If no spiritual sight then the miricle simply cannot be seen for what it is

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Larni, posted 10-24-2006 6:13 AM Larni has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 52 of 69 (358701)
10-25-2006 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Archer Opteryx
10-25-2006 4:06 AM


Re: Yeshua the Healer
A later generation made the miracles about demonstrations of an icon's divinity rather than expressions of a healer's compassion. The shift reflects a more polarized age when a Christian identity separate from that of Judaism was emerging.
From the gospel of John. John the apostle that is. Same generation as Jesus
quote:
22Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,
I think the aim of the miracles is made quite plain by Jesus. As is the fact that miracles ain't the be all and end all when it comes to belief.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-25-2006 4:06 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-25-2006 6:30 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 54 of 69 (358710)
10-25-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Archer Opteryx
10-25-2006 6:30 AM


Re: Yeshua the Healer
If you look at the earliest Gospel accounts written (Mark) and go the latest (John) the fault line becomes evident. John differs from the three earlier Gospels in profound ways and presents a very different portrait of Jesus.
A portraits purpose is to provide a representation of someone. If the purpose of one portrait is to present one aspect of a person and another another then so what? You call it a "generation shift" and a "fault line". I call it stereoscopic vision.
in John, Jesus is the message.
Well spotted. A look at the man from another (a not altogether insignificant angle).
One finds no mention here, as one does in the other Gospels, of people expressing love for God and Jewish law through generosity toward others--regardless of those others' beliefs about Christ or even their general morality.
In the synoptics, one also finds Jesus commanding people as to what they should do. No "trying to do" invoked. Only do. Command-language. And he tells them what happens to people who do not do as he says. If someone has grasped this by the time they get to John they will be in dire need of relief. If no John then no way out of the dilema of not being able to do as they have been told.
Its "Do unto others" not "try to do unto others". A soft, mushy moral teacher-Jesus? Hardly.
Scholars date the writing of the Gospel of John at around 90 ACE. And if you regard the author as John the disciple (the Gospel does not overtly state this, but implies it), you are still left with the early Christian legend that John lived to be 100. The date of 90 ACE doesn't change.
I think both you and I know that this area is one over which there is much debate. Not a strong point.
But is there any mention of 'compassion' in John? No.
I don't see that having compassion and demonstrating divinity must clash. Reading all 4 gospels you are left concluding a compassionate God. As well as a wrathful against sin one. Mission accomplished to my mind
Besides, if Johns gospels purpose is to attentuate Christs divinity then that is the job at hand is it not? There are the other gospels to speak of his compassion.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-25-2006 6:30 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Legend, posted 10-25-2006 8:10 AM iano has replied
 Message 59 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-25-2006 9:20 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 57 of 69 (358721)
10-25-2006 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Legend
10-25-2006 8:10 AM


Re: Yeshua the Healer
The contention seems to be that the compassionate Jesus of the synoptics is absent in John. You are aware of the shortest verse in the Bible and in which gospel it is contained?
John 11:35 writes:
Jesus wept
Its an interesting miracle, the raising of Lazurus from the dead. We have the compassion of Jesus side by side with this statement regarding his motivation.
John 11 writes:
41"Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."
43When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" 44The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Legend, posted 10-25-2006 8:10 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Legend, posted 10-25-2006 9:13 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 60 of 69 (358734)
10-25-2006 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Archer Opteryx
10-25-2006 9:20 AM


Re: Yeshua the Healer
Strip away his divinity and that's all your left with. A great moral, compassionate teacher. Compared to what he is you are left with mush. John prevents that - unless you can find some way (which you seem to have done to your own satisfaction) of dismissing the Jesus of John (and the epistles).
Given the number of fundamentalists we see whose ears perk up when the subject turns to end-time fantasies, and whose eyes glaze over when the subject turns to ending world hunger, I'd say compassionate action is a quality made of stern stuff indeed. Why else would so many professed followers of Jesus shrink from a demand he hammered on?
Why? Because they don't rip out half the pages in their Bible in order to create a god in their own image and likeness. Neither is it the either/or which you seem to suggest - a straw man of your own making.
Your error is to suppose that Jesus instructions have the one dimensional purpose of exhorting mankind to the humanistic endeavor of on and ever upwards. His commands are "do or else". And man cannot do. He can only try to do. Which is not what Jesus commanded.
The story of the rich young ruler is a case in point. He could not do as Jesus commanded. He could only do some of what Jesus commanded. Same as us all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-25-2006 9:20 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-25-2006 2:31 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 63 of 69 (358866)
10-25-2006 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Archer Opteryx
10-25-2006 2:31 PM


Re: Yeshua the Healer
Well, no one has stripped anyone of divinity. And there's nothing trivial about being 'a great moral compassionate teacher,' whatever one decides about Jesus.
In comparison a great moral teacher is a triviality. That the creator of the universe stepped into time as a man and had direct dealing with us renders anything anyone else has to say about morals and meaning not worth the time of day.
Setting to one side the gospel which makes most of his divinity on the grounds that reports of his compassion (which many great moral teachers have shared) are somehow subdued by that account is stripping the import of divinity. Divinity is the main event. He could have been a tyrant in the synoptics and it wouldn't have lessened the main event of his divinity. It just so happens that the divine is compassionate as well
Our good fortune. But a side issue.
Good grounds exist to regard the Synoptic portraits as more accurate historically. I made no argument about how this affects theology, if at all. Readers will decide that for themselves.
The synoptics tell us of a man who performed amazing miracles. This "historical accuracy" gig can only be pushed so far when Matthew says the likes of this:
quote:
2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
I noted only the way Jesus in the Synoptics endorses aggressive action to alleviate human suffering. I contrasted this with the indifference modern fundamentalists display toward even a discussion of world hunger.
I was under the impression that you were suppressing talk of his divinity because it concentrated less on his compassion. As if compassion sat above and was more important than divinity. A compassionate divinity is rendered by all accounts together. The sum of the parts has greater significance for us than each of the individual parts have in themselves.
You do not deny this indifference. You do not deny the contrast. You simply tar any discussion of feeding the hungry with the brush of 'humanistic endeavor.'
If one is talking eternal destination then food on the table is the lesser of the priorities - had one to chose. As it happens one is in no need of doing so. The world is awash with Christian missions which aims to feed body and soul. Not that I think Christians are the sort of super-moral people you seem to require them to be.
Christians are simply bad people who accepted, before God, that they are bad. They are no better than anyone else (unless they have their heads stuck where the sun doesn't shine - their bad)
His commands are "do or else". And man cannot do. He can only try to do. Which is not what Jesus commanded.
Then you have said it yourself. Do, or do not. There is no try. Sell your possessions, and give to the poor.
I cannot. I am too selfish to do so. And so is everyone else. And even if they weren't they would merely fall at some other fence he set before them. No one who grasps what he commands can do as he commands. That's the whole point. Where does one get the fuel in ones tank to even begin to think about doing so. And if you do not do as he commands then to Hell you shall go. Unless....
If you were convinced of this, do you imagine that the phrase "Oh shit!" would enter your vocab? I'd be surprised if it didn't. It did mine.
This acceptance of human weakness is indeed touching... coming as it does on the heels of Jesus' command to sell all one's possessions.
It's not my acceptance of human weakness so much as being pragmatic about it. Humans are weak. They are in need a saviour precisely because they cannot do it.
quote:
”Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbour, “Let me take the speck out of your eye”, while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour’s eye.
Whose judging anyone? I'm telling it like it is. No one can do what Jesus commanded - be they Christian or no. They will all fail. The only difference between a Christian and anyone else is that the Christian has been convinced of the fact they cannot, of themselves, follow the his commands. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone could persist under the illusion that they can, under own steam, do what Jesus commanded.
The only thing that explains that lack of seeing is blindness.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-25-2006 2:31 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-26-2006 10:10 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 65 of 69 (358977)
10-26-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Archer Opteryx
10-26-2006 10:10 AM


Re: Yeshua the Healer
I didn't 'set aside' anything, so I didn't do it on 'grounds.' I pointed out a difference.
Earlier you said this...
Archer earlier writes:
The earliest accounts of Yeshua emphasize his gifts as a healer, storyteller and teacher. A sincere desire to heal strikes me as the most credible motive.
You continue for some reason to suppose an either/or. Either miracles due to compassion or miracles due a demonstrating divinity. You haven't said why there should be an either/or except to assert more or less this...
A later generation made the miracles about demonstrations of an icon's divinity rather than expressions of a healer's compassion. The shift reflects a more polarized age when a Christian identity separate from that of Judaism was emerging.
No one knows when John was written precisely so your either/or depends on a) the date you happen to plump for, for the writing of the gospel and b)the assertion that the times it was written in determined the writing not the situation being reported. One must make a choice I suppose but the synoptics contain evidence of his divinity and John contains evidence of his compassion so your either/or seems to be lost at sea to me
Why not compassionate and divine? The divine would have some characteristic - and compassionate is as good as any.
You have been under many impressions. The word compassion triggers a host of reactions from you. You clearly hear in the word all kinds of unwelcome things about 'soft mushy character,' enthroning a single idea over other cherished beliefs, 'one-dimensional humanistic endeavors,' spiritual blindness, divinity denials, etc. You kick up all this fuss even when--especially when--the word is shown to you straight from your Bible.
I challenge your plumping for the compassionate side of your either/or scenario.
For my part, I'm satisfied to note the difference that exists between the portraits of Jesus we find in the Synoptic writers and in John. The difference is substantial, it can be demonstrated by reference to the texts, it has been noted by countless observers, and it reflects changing historical situations in the first century.
Jesus wept.
Maybe you should concentrate on the similarties instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-26-2006 10:10 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Legend, posted 10-26-2006 11:45 AM iano has not replied
 Message 67 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-26-2006 12:15 PM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024