Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
31 online now:
GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (4 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus - Wholly Man - Wholly God
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 31 of 105 (862036)
08-30-2019 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Theodoric
08-30-2019 4:40 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Theodoric writes:

I have a BA in History. I am not a historian.

Interesting. The only poster that has actually critiqued what I wrote is Faith. The rest of you have been doing, what you usually do, and try to discredit the source.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 4:40 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 5:20 PM GDR has responded
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2019 5:31 PM GDR has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32922
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 32 of 105 (862038)
08-30-2019 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
08-30-2019 4:04 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
I was trying to get at what you think is the REASON for the incarnation: that is, WHY did Jesus have to be God in human flesh? But you do have a different view of it than the traditional meaning so I have to start by affirming that it's the traditional meaning I accept: Jesus was given the nature of God in Mary's womb, was born with both the nature of God and human nature in one person.

And the main reason for this was that He was to be a Mediator in the "dispute" as it were between humanity and God (this is presented as a legal dispute between God and man in the opening chapters of the Book of Isaiah by the way, where God calls upon Heaven and Earth to witness to His legal complaint against us), and the role of Mediator requires the ability to represent both sides of the dispute to be resolved. No human being can represent God so God had to become a human being to be able to represent Him.

The reason we need such a Mediator is that we are sinners against God's Law and our debt to His Law can't be paid except through a legitimate Mediator. Jesus became that Mediator so that He could intervene in the dispute both on God's side and on our side. He was both, He had both natures so He could perform this duty. (There is a "type" of this function laid out in the character of Boaz in the story of Ruth. Boaz is theologically known as the Kinsman Redeemer as he could claim Ruth to be his wife only when the kinsman closest to her renounced his claim on her, leaving Boaz in the legal position of being able to redeem her by marriage.)

(ABE: Another Old Testament reference is in the book of Job where the whole book is about Job's complaints against God and his inability to fight with God, being a mere human being. it's an unfair fight. But in the end he gives the statement of faith, "I know that my Redeemer liveth and that He will stand upon the earth..." foreshadowing the incarnation of God in Jesus, in the role which makes possible our salvation before a holy God who otherwise could only condemn us all).

Of course Jesus also had to be perfectly sinless and if He'd inherited his human nature from a human father that wouldn't have been possible because sin is passed down through the patriarchy (It is not clear to me how this is derived but it's given as the explanation for why Mary's human nature wasn't a problem). Having God's nature guaranteed His sinlessness however. (And there are Old Testament types for this too, in the sacrificial lamb that had to be completely "unblemished" to qualify for the role).__

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 4:04 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 6:02 PM Faith has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 33 of 105 (862039)
08-30-2019 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
08-30-2019 5:00 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Now you know that is not true. I critiqued your assumption that the jesus character was flesh and blood. Then I criticized what you claim are the sources of your knowledge. You are the one that is putting N.T. Wright up as an expert on history
You are the one putting a Christian propaganda book up as unbiased history. You and your sources are biased. You and your sources are classic apologists,
Have a conclusion and find any semblance of data to support that conclusion.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 5:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 6:09 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7068
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 34 of 105 (862040)
08-30-2019 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
08-30-2019 5:00 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
GDR writes:

Interesting. The only poster that has actually critiqued what I wrote is Faith. The rest of you have been doing, what you usually do, and try to discredit the source.

Do we really need to point this out? Is this objective historicity or religiously motivated invention and blatant preaching?

So in Gethsemane, with this understanding of what was going to happen to Him, he prayed to the father that He wouldn’t have to go through with it. He sweated blood out of pure human fear. Yet, at the end of the day the man Jesus, through prayer and through His total knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, rode the donkey into Jerusalem, overturned the tables of those He denounced as having turned the Temple into a den of thieves, and then suffered through a sacrificial death as a result. He did this with the faith, built on prayer and His understanding of the Scriptures, that this was His vocation, and that God would vindicate His actions. It was the greatest act of faith in human history.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 5:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 6:05 PM Tangle has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 35 of 105 (862043)
08-30-2019 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
08-30-2019 5:19 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
Faith writes:

I was trying to get at what you think is the REASON for the incarnation: that is, WHY did Jesus have to be God in human flesh? But you do have a different view of it than the traditional meaning so I have to start by affirming that it's the traditional meaning I accept: Jesus was given the nature of God in Mary's womb, was born with both the nature of God and human nature in one person.

I am careful about saying that Jesus was God in human flesh. If that were the case you would have Jesus praying to Himself. I understand it by what John says. The "Word" became flesh. In other words, if we want to understand God's nature we look to Jesus. God was still in His heavenly dimension while Jesus the man was walking around on planet Earth.

I don't have the kind of pat answer that you seem to be looking for in the last part of that quote. I find it interesting to consider how it was that Jesus embodied God's nature but I'm not really concerned as to how. The nativity stories are in two of the Gospels and not at all in the Epistles. The narratives do have a rather legendary feel to them. Possibly that is how the incarnation happened. However it seems to me that as Jesus didn't even start His movement until about age 30. it is possibly a more likely scenario that this was more the work of a life of prayer and study that brought Jesus to the understanding of His vocation. The important issue is that when we want to understand the true nature of God we look to Jesus, regardless of the method that Jesus was incarnated with the Word of God.

Faith writes:

And the main reason for this was that He was to be a Mediator in the "dispute" as it were between humanity and God (this is presented as a legal dispute between God and man in the opening chapters of the Book of Isaiah by the way, where God calls upon Heaven and Earth to witness to His legal complaint against us), and the role of Mediator requires the ability to represent both sides of the dispute to be resolved. No human being can represent God so God had to become a human being to be able to represent Him. The reason we need such a Mediator is that we are sinners against God's Law and our debt to His Law can't be paid except through a legitimate Mediator. Jesus became that Mediator so that He could intervene in the dispute both on God's side and on our side. He was both, He had both natures so He could perform this duty. (There is a "type" of this function laid out in the character of Boaz in the story of Ruth. Boaz is theologically known as the Kinsman Redeemer as he could claim Ruth to be his wife only when the kinsman closest to her renounced his claim on her, leaving Boaz in the legal position of being able to redeem her by marriage.)

I'm inclined to think that all of that kinda misses the point. I think that is the result of the human desire for understanding and to put things in neat little boxes. I think that by doing that we often make obscure the big picture. Christianity at its core is simply about living a life based on the sacrificial love that we see in the life, message and death of Jesus, and then confirmed by God in the resurrection.

Faith writes:

Of course Jesus also had to be perfectly sinless and if He'd inherited his human nature from a human father that wouldn't have been possible because sin is passed down through the patriarchy. Having God's nature guaranteed His sinlessness however. (And there are Old Testament types for this too, in the sacrificial lamb that had to be completely "unblemished" to qualify for the role).__

One of the things that I get out of my study of the NT that sin isn't simply about what we have done and what we have left undone. I think that sin is what lies behind our failings. The Bible says that we are to love with our hearts and souls and minds, and of course in many places when it talks about love it is in the context of loving our neighbour. Sin is when we fail to act with a heart, mind and soul that leads to acts that are based on the love of self even at the expense of others. I would say that Jesus lived a life always based on a heart, mind and soul that loved others even at His own expense. We see that more than anywhere else on the cross.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 5:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 6:28 PM GDR has responded
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 6:53 PM GDR has responded
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 7:14 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 36 of 105 (862044)
08-30-2019 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
08-30-2019 5:31 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Tangle writes:

Do we really need to point this out? Is this objective historicity or religiously motivated invention and blatant preaching?

It is simply my "faith and belief" that I put out for discussion. Isn't that kinda what this forum is for? You do it all the time.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2019 5:31 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Tangle, posted 08-31-2019 2:46 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 37 of 105 (862045)
08-30-2019 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Theodoric
08-30-2019 5:20 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Theodoric writes:

Now you know that is not true. I critiqued your assumption that the jesus character was flesh and blood. Then I criticized what you claim are the sources of your knowledge. You are the one that is putting N.T. Wright up as an expert on history

I simply put out one of my sources of my beliefs in response to something that Tangle questioned.

Theodoric writes:

You are the one putting a Christian propaganda book up as unbiased history. You and your sources are biased. You and your sources are classic apologists,
Have a conclusion and find any semblance of data to support that conclusion.

I again am simply putting out my faith and beliefs for discussion as we all do here. I suppose you have no biases.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 5:20 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 7:32 PM GDR has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32922
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 38 of 105 (862046)
08-30-2019 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by GDR
08-30-2019 6:02 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
I am careful about saying that Jesus was God in human flesh. If that were the case you would have Jesus praying to Himself.

No, He's a human being praying to God the Father. Perhaps you have more of a problem recognizing Him as human than I do.

I understand it by what John says. The "Word" became flesh. In other words, if we want to understand God's nature we look to Jesus. God was still in His heavenly dimension while Jesus the man was walking around on planet Earth.

Traditional Christology has no problem seeing Jesus as God in human flesh, that's what the term "incarnate" means, it's perfectly standard. He is also the Logos or the Word made flesh, but Jesus IS God, begotten by God, there is no need to get so "careful" about this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 6:02 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 6:40 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 63 by GDR, posted 08-31-2019 6:11 PM Faith has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 39 of 105 (862047)
08-30-2019 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
08-30-2019 6:28 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
Faith writes:

No, He's a human being praying to God the Father. Perhaps you have more of a problem recognizing Him as human than I do.

Hmmm. I'm not sure of your point here. I was trying to say that it makes no sense to think of Jesus as God praying to Himself. I agree, and I thought that was my point that Jesus as a human being prayed to God the Father. It seems like so many times Christians seem to picture God as leaving His heavenly dimension to come to our earthly one.
Faith writes:

Traditional Christology has no problem seeing Jesus as God in human flesh, that's what the term "incarnate" means, it's perfectly standard. He is also the Logos or the Word made flesh, but Jesus IS God, begotten by God, there is no need to get so "careful" about this.

I guess the question is then of how we understand Jesus as God. I come to my view in the final part of my that talk.

I think that within that talk without being too specific, I am saying that Jesus went to the cross with a human understanding of what would happen to Him as a result of His actions, and with the faith that somehow God was going to vindicate what it was that He was going to do.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 6:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32922
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 40 of 105 (862049)
08-30-2019 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by GDR
08-30-2019 6:02 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
I don't have the kind of pat answer that you seem to be looking for in the last part of that quote. I find it interesting to consider how it was that Jesus embodied God's nature but I'm not really concerned as to how.

Well, that was the point of the formulation that has Him being Wholly God and Wholly Man, and it seems rather a stretch to insist on the term Logos over the fleshly implications of being born in a human womb, but that's what we are told, that he was born in a human womb as flesh and blood so that His being wholly God and wholly Man has that fleshly meaning. That was the whole point of all the theological wrangles that ended up in the Athanasian Creed, that defined His physical being as a "Hypostatic Union."

The nativity stories are in two of the Gospels and not at all in the Epistles. The narratives do have a rather legendary feel to them.

You make me glad I'm only a stupid fundamentalist who doesn't have to second-guess the scriptures, just believe them. And what I believe does seem to be in synch with the history of traditional Christian theology, which is reassuring too.

Possibly that is how the incarnation happened. However it seems to me that as Jesus didn't even start His movement until about age 30. it is possibly a more likely scenario that this was more the work of a life of prayer and study that brought Jesus to the understanding of His vocation. The important issue is that when we want to understand the true nature of God we look to Jesus, regardless of the method that Jesus was incarnated with the Word of God.

That's a rather roundabout or abstract way of "understanding the true nature of God" in Jesus it seems to me, way too intellectualized. But I don't think the incarnation is particularly the key to that understanding anyway, it merely gives us a solid simple understanding that He was "made flesh and dwelt among us." God is happy to save simpletons so He didn't make the scriptures as hard to understand as all that.

Gotta come back to this, sorry.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 6:02 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 7:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32922
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 41 of 105 (862050)
08-30-2019 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by GDR
08-30-2019 6:02 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
And the main reason for this was that He was to be a Mediator in the "dispute" as it were between humanity and God (this is presented as a legal dispute between God and man in the opening chapters of the Book of Isaiah by the way, where God calls upon Heaven and Earth to witness to His legal complaint against us), and the role of Mediator requires the ability to represent both sides of the dispute to be resolved. No human being can represent God so God had to become a human being to be able to represent Him. The reason we need such a Mediator is that we are sinners against God's Law and our debt to His Law can't be paid except through a legitimate Mediator. Jesus became that Mediator so that He could intervene in the dispute both on God's side and on our side. He was both, He had both natures so He could perform this duty. (There is a "type" of this function laid out in the character of Boaz in the story of Ruth. Boaz is theologically known as the Kinsman Redeemer as he could claim Ruth to be his wife only when the kinsman closest to her renounced his claim on her, leaving Boaz in the legal position of being able to redeem her by marriage.)

I'm inclined to think that all of that kinda misses the point. I think that is the result of the human desire for understanding and to put things in neat little boxes.

Well, the types do happen to be simply THERE, in the Old Testament scriptures themselves, in different books from different periods of time too. These interpretations aren't imposed on the text, they are simply there, and they make a marvelous unity of the 66 books of the Bible which you prefer to see as fragmented. There are a lot more types than the few I mentioned, the OT is thick with them, all defining the nature and character of the Messiah to come, and from times when the idea of that Messiah was very vague and far from the reality who finally appeared in the person of Jesus Christ. If anybody put these types in "neat little boxes" it was the Holy Spirit since the people involved had hardly a clue to any of it.

I think that by doing that we often make obscure the big picture. Christianity at its core is simply about living a life based on the sacrificial love that we see in the life, message and death of Jesus, and then confirmed by God in the resurrection.

Taking it on that level is fine, not wrong anyway, but you certainly miss wonderful depths of God's communication that way.

Of course Jesus also had to be perfectly sinless and if He'd inherited his human nature from a human father that wouldn't have been possible because sin is passed down through the patriarchy. Having God's nature guaranteed His sinlessness however. (And there are Old Testament types for this too, in the sacrificial lamb that had to be completely "unblemished" to qualify for the role).

One of the things that I get out of my study of the NT that sin isn't simply about what we have done and what we have left undone. I think that sin is what lies behind our failings. The Bible says that we are to love with our hearts and souls and minds, and of course in many places when it talks about love it is in the context of loving our neighbour. Sin is when we fail to act with a heart, mind and soul that leads to acts that are based on the love of self even at the expense of others. I would say that Jesus lived a life always based on a heart, mind and soul that loved others even at His own expense. We see that more than anywhere else on the cross.

Yes, no problem with that. I think we commit sin all the time, though, without knowing it, especially since Jesus redefined adultery as including lust in the heart and murder as hatred in the heart. We're violating those and all the other commandments at that level all the time. When He said He fulfilled the Law down to its tiniest punctuation marks He implied that the tiniest of sins against the Law would be held against us except for His fulfillment of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 6:02 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 7:40 PM Faith has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 42 of 105 (862051)
08-30-2019 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
08-30-2019 6:53 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
Faith writes:

Well, that was the point of the formulation that has Him being Wholly God and Wholly Man, and it seems rather a stretch to insist on the term Logos over the fleshly implications of being born in a human womb, but that's what we are told, that he was born in a human womb as flesh and blood so that His being wholly God and wholly Man has that fleshly meaning. That was the whole point of all the theological wrangles that ended up in the Athanasian Creed, that defined His physical being as a "Hypostatic Union."

I don't question at all that Mary was His biological mother. The question we were discussing is how Jesus came to embody the true nature of God the Father.

Faith writes:

You make me glad I'm only a stupid fundamentalist who doesn't have to second-guess the scriptures, just believe them. And what I believe does seem to be in synch with the history of traditional Christian theology, which is reassuring too.

I've read numerous posts of yours and although I often disagree with what you write, you are not stupid. I don't see it as second-guessing the Scriptures but a question of how to understand them. It isn't that simple when you read something meant for an audience 2000 years ago and more, and then simply try and overlay a 21st century understanding over it. Certainly the nativity story is pretty consistent with traditional theology. I do still question it though and don't see it as a particularly important issue.

Faith writes:

That's a rather roundabout or abstract way of "understanding the true nature of God in Jesus it seems to me, way too intellectualized. But I don't think the incarnation is the key to that understanding particularly anyway, it merely gives us a solid simple understanding that He was "made flesh and dwelt among us." God is happy to save simpletons so He didn't make the scriptures as hard to understand as all that.

I pretty much agree. We have as part of our service a piece with the line it; so complex so simple, so clear so mysterious.

The Christian message of that as humans we are to follow the Golden Rule. Pretty simple. It is when we build a theology around that it gets more complicated.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 6:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 43 of 105 (862053)
08-30-2019 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by GDR
08-30-2019 6:09 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Never said I did not have any biases. It is very dishonest of you to imply that I feel that way. I have lots of biases. The difference is I am open and honest about them. I am merely pointing out the problems with your sources. They are biased and not historians as you presented them.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 6:09 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 7:48 PM Theodoric has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 44 of 105 (862054)
08-30-2019 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
08-30-2019 7:14 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
Faith writes:

Well, the types do happen to be simply THERE, in the Old Testament scriptures themselves, in different books from different periods of time too. These interpretations aren't imposed on the text, they are simply there, and they make a marvelous unity of the 66 books of the Bible which you prefer to see as fragmented. There are a lot more types than the few I mentioned, the OT is thick with them, all defining the nature and character of the Messiah to come, and from times when the idea of that Messiah was very vague and far from the reality who finally appeared in the person of Jesus Christ. If anybody put these types in "neat little boxes" it was the Holy Spirit since the people involved had hardly a clue to any of it.

Actually I do agree that the OT isn’t completely fragmented. I see the OT as being a narrative that tells the Israel story with their evolving understanding of Yahweh. There were a variety of understandings about the messiah and a number of the passages that are taken as being messianic were really about Israel. In some, (like the suffering servant is Isaiah), Jesus seems to have appropriated them to Himself.
The predominate view, as held by the disciples pre-resurrection and for a short time afterwards was that the messiah, in this case Jesus, would lead them against their enemies and the Jews would become the dominate tribe in the area. Even though He hadn’t mounted an army they still believed it because of the miracles which gave them confidence that God would fight the battles for them. Jesus seems to have sifted the scriptures and fulfilled those which were consistent with His nature and where he could made a point of certain things. A couple of examples would be referring to Himself as the “Son of Man’ and of course riding the colt into Jerusalem.

Faith writes:

Yes, no problem with that. I think we commit sin all the time, though, without knowing it, especially since Jesus redefined adultery as including lust in the heart and murder as hatred in the heart. We're violating those and all the other commandments at that level all the time. When He said He fulfilled the Law down to its tiniest punctuation marks He implied that the tiniest of sins against the Law would be held against us except for His fulfillment of it.

The only problem with that though is the last sentence. I still don’t see it as sins plural, but as sin singular. It is all about what is in our hearts that motivates us. A couple of easy examples of that are in the sheep and goats parable from Matthew 25, and of course the “Good Samaritan”.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 7:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 11:08 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 45 of 105 (862055)
08-30-2019 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Theodoric
08-30-2019 7:32 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Theodoric writes:

Never said I did not have any biases. It is very dishonest of you to imply that I feel that way. I have lots of biases. The difference is I am open and honest about them. I am merely pointing out the problems with your sources. They are biased and not historians as you presented them.

I was merely pointing out that we all have biases and I wouldn't have thought to have to point out that you would feel that you didn't. I'm sure we all take it for granted that we all have biases, and obviously that includes me and those that we have talked about. Once again, This "faith and belief' forum is for our faiths and beliefs that form our biases in the first place. I'm not at all sure why this is any kind of an issue with you.

Yes my sources have biases. All historians have biases. If you disregard those historians who have biased we would no historical accounts at all. We as individuals decide what and who it is that we have faith in, and what we believe.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 7:32 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 8:50 PM GDR has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019