thanks. What she says doesn't completely do away with penal substitution and at least she acknowledges the importance of the atonement as substitutionary, which is better than I expected. I suspect there is some implicit waffling on the meaning of terms involved but for now I'll just take it at face value.
I can't even figure out how anyone calls mainstream Protestant traditional Christianity a "cult." The list of well known Christians in Message 777 ought to be enough to put this nonsense to rest, but nothing is ever enough for that at EvC.
By your standard there could never be a body of doctrine that wasn't a cult.
There are no "liberal Christians" on that list, go ahead and check, but there will always be minor points of disagreement. And there were Catholics in the history of Christianity who WERE Christians, or there could never have been a Reformation which was brought about by Catholics. But I don't think there are any Catholics on my list.
I'm still flabbergasted at your irrational idea that a body of doctrine has to be a cuit. And Judaism DOES have a body of doctrine. There is no organized institution on the planet that doesn't have a coherent body of doctrine.
I don't want to diminish her presentation of the cross as instrument of humiliation and degradation and shame as well as torture because it sounds like she did a good job of it, but I get the impression she's just discovered it, or those in her theological camp haven't been aware of it and need her to bring it to their attention, although it is biblical and preached on quite a bit in my theological camp..
why does Paul go on about not being ashamed to preach a crucified messia
The obvious answer is because he failed. He wasn't the messia. That why the Jews are still waiting. It's why the ressurection story had to be invented and why it's now so important for Christians. The simple facts are that a man was killed, stayed killed and the claims he made about a second coming didn't happen. The whole thing failed. Hence Paul's shame - he was flat out wrong but had to carry on with the claim.
He's was just doing what Faith does now believing something despite the evidence and spinning stories to make it fit the belief.
GDR is right: Paul mentions shame because crucifixion was such a shameful way to die and both the Jews and the Greeks considered the whole idea of a dying Messiah to be absurd.
The idea that the disciples made any of this up is even more absurd since they were quite intimidated by Jesus' death and stayed secluded for fear until Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, and then they knew the truth about His death and resurrection, after which they boldly proclaimed it.
The Second Coming, by the way, is still future, but a lot of us feel it can't be very far off.
There is a problem with the word "generation" in that in Jesus' day it was not always used in the same sense we use it. It is often used to refer to a whole tribe of people, those descended from an identifiable forbear, such as the Jews (or even a class within the Jews perhaps who share an ideology, such as the believers in Christ or the Pharisees who are called a "generation of vipers" and so on). This use occurs in many places but one that comes to mind is Noah's being described as "perfect in his generations," which suggests his progeny extended into the future. (I see from the reference I give below that it can also refer to his practice of righteousness, but then I wonder why the plural).
Some also interpret this passage to be Jesus' referring to the generation alive at the time of the events He's prophesying. I don't think this works very well for a number of reasons but the idea is that He's been talking exclusively about future events and the phrase occurs in that context, but also He can't mean the present generation because He's referring to so many events they couldn't all occur within one generation in the sense we use it. Wars and rumors of wars, famines and pestilences. There COULD be a lot of those in one short generation but it doesn't seem like the likely context.
This online Bible Dictionary interprets "generation" in Jesus' discourse to refer to those present at the time, but it also gives other ways the term is often used:
Generation [S] Genesis 2:4 , "These are the generations," means the "history." 5:1 , "The book of the generations," means a family register, or history of Adam 37:2 , "The generations of Jacob" = the history of Jacob and his descendants 7:1 , "In this generation" = in this age. Psalms 49:19 , "The generation of his fathers" = the dwelling of his fathers, i.e., the grave. Psalms 73:15 , "The generation of thy children" = the contemporary race. Isaiah 53:8 , "Who shall declare his generation?" = His manner of life who shall declare? or rather = His race, posterity, shall be so numerous that no one shall be able to declare it.
In Matthew 1:17 , the word means a succession or series of persons from the same stock. Matthew 3:7 , "Generation of vipers" = brood of vipers 24:34 , "This generation" = the persons then living contemporary with Christ. 1 Peter 2:9 , "A chosen generation" = a chosen people.
The Hebrews seem to have reckoned time by the generation. In the time of Abraham a generation was an hundred years, thus: Genesis 15:16 , "In the fourth generation" = in four hundred years (Compare verse 13 and Exodus 12:40 ). In Deuteronomy 1:35 and 2:14 a generation is a period of thirty-eight years.
First, it is objective fact that the word "generation" had different meanings, I didn't invent that. The question is which applied.
Second, Jesus' prophecy points in part to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, for instance that no stone would be left standing upon another, and the warning to those in Judea to flee to the mountains, anticipating the armies of Rome under Titus. And that specific generation did indeed witness all that.
The problem is that the passage also refers to the second coming as well, and that's what needs sorting out.
Third, we know He is coming again no matter what timing is implied in that particular discourse, which means His coming is yet future. There are too many other passages that make that clear.
If I were to pray to have water turned into wine and it happened, (hasn't worked so far), it wouldn't be me performing the niracle but God working through me.
Yes they did
Even you must know he can't possibly have meant Jesus had no part in it or that he himself would have had no part in the miracle he postulated. Maybe he will come along and correct me but, although his wording is unfortunate, when we speak of God working through us we are doing the actions but God is supplying the power. The missionary preaches the gospel but if the person converts it is God's power that has delivered the message to his heart. The disciple tells the paralyzed man to get up because he's healed, but it's God's power working through the disciple that did the healing. Jesus told the boy to distribute the bread and fish but it was God's power working in Jesus that multipled the food for the crowd.
And, as you say, I really don't care what's written in your book or what apologists or phd students say about what's written in it. Until and unless the book itself can be shown to be a verified factual account of real history, it's just another book of fiction, like all the rest.
There are so many references in scripture to real historical people and events I would think that might cause you to consider it historical. I suppose you just figure the writers stuck in some facts to make it seem real though, right?
I was just impressed with this fact as I've been participating on the thread about the end times and the book of Daniel which is full of references to real historical facts, real kings of real empires and so on. But then I realize that someone with a determination to view it as fiction will find a way to view it as fiction anyway. Like the "scholars" who refuse to believe in prophecy and since Daniel is full of real fulfilled prophecy about real times and places they just mangle the text and make Daniel a liar to suit their prejudices by insisting it wasn't written when he says he wrote it, although historically that's the time he lived in, oh well, they put the prophecies after the actual events, take Daniel out of his own time and somehow or other pretend he didn't live when we know he lived and those weren't real prophecies and so on and so forth. It takes so much ingenuity to turn the realities of scripture into fiction that ought to make anyone appreciate how unlikely it is any of the ordinary men who followed Jesus could have written fiction. Not to mention of course that they had no motive for it, which GDR has been writing about, but that doesn't mean anything to you either. So the actual historical reality of the scriptures which is apparent to a simple honest reader is utterly lost in a welter of prejudices. Oh well.