Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 10:51 AM
38 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Tangle (5 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,580 Year: 3,617/19,786 Month: 612/1,087 Week: 202/212 Day: 17/27 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Author Topic:   What is The Atonement?
iano
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 181 of 202 (252969)
10-19-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by arachnophilia
10-19-2005 12:00 AM


Re: if we have free will, surely god must too
arach writes:

wait, so, accidents can happen, and everybody knows this, therefor nothing is an accident?

Have you got an example of an accident (in which the offended party could not be considered to be in the wrong) the cause of which isn't down to the deliberate actions of another. Remember, ignorance is no defence under law.

iano writes:

I forgive. I take the consequences of your inattention but sacrifice my right to have justice. Sacrifice an Eye for an Eye.

arach writes:

since you keep using the teachings of jesus as "the Law" no, you're not

I don't use the teachings of Jesus so. He explains the options to us (as does Paul). Condemned by Law, Saved by Grace. His law teaching I explain as law and if we get onto grace teaching I'll explain his grace teaching in that light. Jesus tells us the options with regard to our eternal state: "You do (condemnation guarenteed)" vs. "I'll do (salvation guarenteed)"

You chose...

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Here is the juxtaposition of the two ways: Law and Grace. But note Jesus says 'do'. It's impossible to live by grace under our own power. Still no 'try your best' here

iano writes:

I forgive. I take the consequences of your inattention but sacrifice my right to have justice. Sacrifice an Eye for an Eye.

arach writes:

then the sacrifice in god forgiving is him sacrificing his right to justice.

He sacrifices his right to apply his justice to the transgressor - us. But there are still the consequences to be taken on himself. And there are consequences. In this case, it's not a bloody nose, it's sin must be punished.

"predisposition" sounds more accurate i think. but presumably, then, if i don't ever sin, i'm justified by the law and don't need salvation in christ, right? if it's just the sin that's punished...

If you don't ever sin, you will die because of the sinful nature but you couldn't (I reckon) be punished. Except that you have sinned :)

but take note -- eve was the mother of all mankind, including jesus, who was at least half human. eve was the first to sin, though possibly in ignorance. if the tendency and predisposition to sin is part of human nature, jesus had it too.

Except that the line along which sinful nature travelled was Adams. This isn't genetics it's spiritual. No one can be sure that any of Marys genes were in Jesus. Its a bit of a mystery.

This message has been edited by iano, 19-Oct-2005 01:22 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 12:00 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 9:29 PM iano has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 182 of 202 (252986)
10-19-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by arachnophilia
10-19-2005 12:20 AM


Re: the gospel according to jesus
arach writes:

Luk 19:8-9 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore [him] fourfold. And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.

Have alook at the *complete* Zach passage. Note his actions. Go faith-spotting. Faith and consequence of faith.

Mat 19:21-26
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Note the disciples reaction. They were slightly better positioned than us to comment. Jesus is talking of the position of a rich man. The disciples apply the message to all: "who then can be saved" Not all are finacially rich. Why did they apply the message extra-financially?

Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Some will endure to the end. But there is no mention of the means by which they shall endure ie: there is no basis from this to assume that it is by our own efforts that we will endure. Like it's not that Jesus didn't promise to send his spirit as a comforter...

"If God is for us, who can stand against us"

Luk 7:50 "And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace."

Here we have a direct declaration of salvation at work. Not one of those:

"what must I do to be saved / do this" /then-without-biblical-backing-contort-it-into-'trying' verses.

Here we have a woman stated as having beed saved right alongside the very means by which she has been saved.

Faith results in good works - not the other way around. See Zach again. He had faith: he sought Jesus, he obeyed Jesus, he recieved Jesus, he offered his riches up. A man of faith.

The sick woman cured by touching Jesus coat. Why? She had faith that Jesus could cure her.

The centurion with the sick servant saying "only say the word an he shall be healed" "Such faith I have not seen" exclaims Jesus

The thief on the cross - no opporunity to do any works - nothing in his possession but sin unto crucifixion. What has he got? Faith in Jesus. What happens "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in Paradise.

Luk 18:41-42 Saying, What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee? And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight. And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.

In verse 38 this same man cried out "Jesus, son of David have mercy on me" Whilst many saw miracles with their own eyes and didn't believe this physicallty blind man has faith that Jesus is the messiah (referred to as being the Son of David in the OT). He makes an act of faith before he has proof of anything.

Its the same thing over and over and over again

Where's death in all this. The Cross. People then had faith in Jesus being able to save them, to forgive them. But the forgiveness all happened at the cross: for people before him, with him then and after him - who have faith in him. "He that abides IN me" compare with "no condemnation for those IN Christ.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 12:20 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 9:52 PM iano has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1535 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 183 of 202 (252987)
10-19-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by arachnophilia
10-19-2005 12:29 AM


Re: Law To Be Kept Perfectly
Love God with all your heart...
quote:
nitpick: that's more or less the same thing as "no other gods before me." just kind of a reinterpretation/elaboration of the same concept.
Maybe the same concept but not part of the Law to which the Jews were held accountable and not a reasonable replacement for the original.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, according to Hillil, is a summary of the Torah, but the Jews are accountable to the details of the Law not the summary.

Unfortunately Christians don't have knowledge of the Oral Torah, which includes many of these finer points that Jesus was teaching people how to follow.

Talmud-Bava Mezia 58b: One who shames the face of his fellow, it is as if he has murdered him. (character assassination)

Talmud-Kallah,Ch. 1: One who gazes lustfully upon the small finger of a married woman, it is as if he has committed adultery with her.

These are rules that were already added by man since the "giving" of the Torah. Jesus was teaching Judaism, nothing new.

I guess my point of Message 126 is that these verses don't state that God expects the Law to be followed perfectly (without flaw). Since God provided for repentence and forgiveness, he expected people to screw up. After one is forgiven, one is righteous again.


"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 12:29 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 9:54 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 2800 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 184 of 202 (253056)
10-19-2005 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by iano
10-18-2005 7:05 AM


Re: Atonement vs. Resurrection of Christ for Sins
Actually, Jano, 'tis your feedback (and *firm footing*) in the gospel of *Christ's vicarious sufferings for our sins* vs. *resurrection of Christ* I had hoped to inquire upon (without getting off topic).

Essentially, I strongly *suspect* that my believing/professing Christ's Atonement is fallacious without being *born into Christ's resurrection/ascension*. And the gospel MUST proclaim Christ’s Resurrection emphatically (I COR 15).

I agree that Christ's Atonement is the raw-mechanism of all sacrificial-forgiveness and brotherly love, but *vibrant-faith* in that Atonement seems impossible without the Holy Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead. See below:

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1Pe 1:3 …begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus
1Co 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Likewise Sadducees and Devil(s) might perhaps believe in the Atonement for sin(s), but without benefit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by iano, posted 10-18-2005 7:05 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 1:51 PM Philip has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 185 of 202 (253081)
10-19-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Philip
10-19-2005 12:20 PM


Re: Atonement vs. Resurrection of Christ for Sins
Philip writes:

*Christ's vicarious sufferings for our sins* vs. *resurrection of Christ*

Off topic away Philip. But I don't see much in the way of a direct question to answer - if you would be so kind. As to the above, I don't see any versus myself. One picture and each part playing it's part. I have not got a strong grounding in the Gospel I'm afraid but will endeavour to comment if I can.

Essentially, I strongly *suspect* that my believing/professing Christ's Atonement is fallacious without being *born into Christ's resurrection/ascension*. And the gospel MUST proclaim Christ’s Resurrection emphatically (I COR 15).

Absolutely. Part 1: old man crucified with him/ Part 2 raised with him to new life. You can't have one without the other, ie: I strongly suspect that you wouldn't believe/profess Christs atonement at all without being born into his resurrection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Philip, posted 10-19-2005 12:20 PM Philip has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Philip, posted 10-21-2005 1:02 PM iano has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 186 of 202 (253212)
10-19-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by iano
10-19-2005 7:33 AM


Re: stupid question
We don't see time as sequential. Time is sequential.

this makes your problem worse.

The name God gave himself when Moses asked him "who shall I say sent me?" was "I AM" I AM is present tense, eternally present tense. Every moment in our time is present tense to God

Not that anyone can fully get their head around eternity

allow me to blow your mind a little, then.

when god gives moses his name, and says "i am that i am." sort of. in some particular hebrew verbs, tense is controlled by the vowels -- which are missing from the original hebrew text.

it could be translated just as well as "i was" or "i will be" or any combination of the three. "i am what i was" could imply continuing the abramic covenant, and "i am what i will be" could be considered prophecy. take your pick -- but that present tense was picked to reflect the dogmatic sense of eternity, where the ambiguous hebrew grammar does it better.

Nearly...its not "God hates us"...it's "God hates our sin". And whoever has the sin in them will feel the wrath if they possess it.

right, so god hates us. i'm sorry, love and compassion just don't work that way.

"For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son so that whosoever would believe in him would not die but have eternal life"

That's how much God loves us...he sacrificed his son. It is easy to skip over this in debate but I ask you to face it. There is the proof of his love for us. What more do you want (without contrdicting his wrath and just-ness)

scroll up a bit buddy, you're a little behind. i quoted john 3:17, the very next verse, quite a few posts back, where it specifically talks about the kind of faith john 3:16 speaks of.

Try Romans 1:18
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness OF men..." Not on man but on something man possesses.

try something jesus said. consider it a challenge. i've posted the closest thing i can find, can you do better? keep in mind here that jesus > paul.

Have you got an example. The only person the bible talks about who was without sin was Jesus. No other.

i provided one, job. look, this is really simple. the bookend story of job phrases it as a test, and the middle bit (all the ranting) is set as an ancient rebutal to the wisdom movement. job's two counterparts insist again and again that if bad things are happening to job, it's because of sin.

in the end, job says that god is so pure, that the very sight of him would make him confess sins he had not committed -- this is what ends up happening.

the axiom of the book of job is the first line: job is sinless, and perfect in every way. if job had sinned, ever, than the other two were right, and there was no test; it was just punishment. the book of job makes no sense if job has sinned.

job, therefor, did not sin. remove the axiom, the book falls down.

John 3:3/5"I tell you the truth, unless a man is born from above/again/of the spirit he will never see the kingdom of heaven"

John 3:6 "That which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit"

you missed the "of water" bit of it. it's talking about baptism. is baptism a requirement for salvation? john says jesus thinks so. relate this to the ritual cleansing on leviticus, and the sons of light who kept the library at qum'ran.

also, it seem to separate people into two groups, flesh and spirit -- the people of flesh are flesh. according to that line, they have no soul, they just die. kind of borks that hell fire idea if people don't have a spirit to be eternal punished.

(don't post verses unless you know what they mean)

Now the question is how is one born of the spirit?

glad you asked, because i answered that above (baptism), as well as a few posts back. nicodemus asks the same question, and the response jesus makes, about how to get saved, i posted above:

quote:
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

belief in the name, ie the power and authority, not the death.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 7:33 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by iano, posted 10-20-2005 7:23 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 187 of 202 (253217)
10-19-2005 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by iano
10-19-2005 7:52 AM


Re: if we have free will, surely god must too
Jesus is God. If God says "the law says don't commit adultery but I say if a man so much as lusts after a woman he has commited adultery in his heart" then law it is. He also summed up all the law for us in two commandments

You can insist on your version of the law is. It makes no difference to the law as God decides it is.

i'm sorry, they look like every other midrashim, ever. they are commentary on what the law says -- something like the talmud or the oral law, which are not "The Law" captial L.

and even supposing jesus is god, not everything god says is the law, either.

We are made in his image and likeness. Have you got wrath and compassion in you? A significant difference with us that our versions can be unrighteous. God is always righteous in his ways.

only because god defines righteos. we are not judge other people, let alone god. but, yes, we do have wrath and compassion both. and we're only instructed to use one of them -- the other is considered one of the 7 deadly sins (dogma).

know what else we have?

free will. we can choose to use wrath or not use wrath. see the sub-thread title. if both things are in god's nature, can't he choose to use one and not the other like we are supposed to?

according to jesus's "law" anyways? (or, heck, it's in the other law too, jesus didn't make this stuff up)

Where did you get your sense of justice if not from God. But Gods sense of justice is, you may agree, of a different order than yours. Your justice takes into account a limited amount of the total. God's takes into account everything relevant to the case. If God says it's justice then it's justice, if you say it's injustice it's only the view of a very, very limited creature

uh, no. it's in the definition.

quote:
Main Entry: jus·tice
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&s
Function: noun

1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments [...] c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity


impartial? god so loved the world...
merited rewards and punishments? no man is justified by the law in the sight of god
administration of law? Jjsus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

sorry, but it's the OPPOSITE of justice. if it's about freedom from the law, and punishments being avoided, and god playing favorites, it's NOT justice.

You were found in possession of it by a legal agent weren't you? You will be tried on that basis. The point of arrest is to arrest you...that's all. The case is made on the evidence. And the evidence is you possessed.

10/10ths of the law

but i don't possess it anymore, i gave the cop the burden of my si-- er, possesion. i don't have it, i can't be punished for it.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 7:52 AM iano has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 188 of 202 (253223)
10-19-2005 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by iano
10-19-2005 8:21 AM


Re: if we have free will, surely god must too
Have you got an example of an accident (in which the offended party could not be considered to be in the wrong) the cause of which isn't down to the deliberate actions of another. Remember, ignorance is no defence under law.

not good with definitions today?

quote:
Main Entry: ac·ci·dent
Pronunciation: 'ak-s&-d&nt, -"dent; 'aks-d&nt
Function: noun

1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE


I don't use the teachings of Jesus so. He explains the options to us (as does Paul). Condemned by Law, Saved by Grace. His law teaching I explain as law and if we get onto grace teaching I'll explain his grace teaching in that light. Jesus tells us the options with regard to our eternal state: "You do (condemnation guarenteed)" vs. "I'll do (salvation guarenteed)"

You chose...

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Here is the juxtaposition of the two ways: Law and Grace. But note Jesus says 'do'. It's impossible to live by grace under our own power.

so, if jesus tells us to do something, and it suits your purpose, it's The Law captial L.

but if jesus tells us to do something, and it doesn't suit your purpose, it's "an option."

Still no 'try your best' here

uh, no. it's intent. have good intentions. the point, which so barely missed, is that The Law capital L ALLOWS for retribution, justly, but that we should have compassion, and love, and not take the retribution.

that's a "try to do the right thing, not just what the law says" statement. it's at the very heart of my point.

iano writes:

I forgive. I take the consequences of your inattention but sacrifice my right to have justice. Sacrifice an Eye for an Eye.

arach writes:

then the sacrifice in god forgiving is him sacrificing his right to justice.

He sacrifices his right to apply his justice to the transgressor - us. But there are still the consequences to be taken on himself. And there are consequences. In this case, it's not a bloody nose, it's sin must be punished.

so, continuing the analogy, you playing god, you do what? go home and whip yourself? where is the additional sacrifice here? my breaking your nose MUST be punished too, so feel free to take it out on yourself. i suggest knocking out some teeth. or, better yet, follow jesus's "option" and ask me to hit you again. that'll REALLY punish me for breaking your nose.

"predisposition" sounds more accurate i think. but presumably, then, if i don't ever sin, i'm justified by the law and don't need salvation in christ, right? if it's just the sin that's punished...

If you don't ever sin, you will die because of the sinful nature but you couldn't (I reckon) be punished. Except that you have sinned :)

suppose for a second that someone never did. let's call this someone "joshua" for the purpose of argument. joshua was a perfect human being, did everything god asked, lived according to the law without flaw, saved some lives, and turned a lot of peoples' hearts to the lord. we're talking on the order of millions -- let's go for overkill. joshua is not only perfect in every way, he goes above and beyond the call of duty for god.

let's say, for the point of example, that josh isn't saved in the traditional manner, according to the precepts of paul. joshua is jewish, and orthodox, let's say. just confuse matters a bit, lets say his mother was a follower of christ; he's been baptized and circumcised, but not "born-again."

does joshua die?

supposing even more hypothetically here that joshua didn't have that sinful nature, does he still die? we've brought it down to this question, does death=sinful nature and vice versa?

and why do christians die today?

Except that the line along which sinful nature travelled was Adams. This isn't genetics it's spiritual. No one can be sure that any of Marys genes were in Jesus. Its a bit of a mystery

wait, what? no. did jesus have a human parent? unless mary wasn't jesus's MOTHER at all, and just an incubator, that wouldn't be the case. and if she was just an incubator, why bother with conception, why not just plop jesus down fully formed?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 8:21 AM iano has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 189 of 202 (253228)
10-19-2005 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by iano
10-19-2005 9:28 AM


Re: the gospel according to jesus
Have alook at the *complete* Zach passage. Note his actions. Go faith-spotting. Faith and consequence of faith.

not faith in death. faith in teachings -- he was afterall following the teachings of christ.

Note the disciples reaction. They were slightly better positioned than us to comment. Jesus is talking of the position of a rich man. The disciples apply the message to all: "who then can be saved" Not all are finacially rich. Why did they apply the message extra-financially?

because some of them were pretty wealthy, supposedly. some were dirt poor, but matthew was a tax collector, that's a pretty good position. and look at how the book is attributed to.

why did they ask who can be saved? the tradition at the time was that sacrifices were largely monitary. you paid for them, gave money, etc. jesus LITERALLY turned that set of traditions on its side -- it's no suprise that it suprised a lot of people. most of them had been taught the other way of thinking their entire lives.

i think you'll find "the first shall be last and the shall be first" and "blessed are the poor" to get the same reactions. clearly, the poor are NOT blessed. god hates them, otherwise they'd be rich. see the post above about the wisdom movement and job, it's the same crowd.

Some will endure to the end. But there is no mention of the means by which they shall endure ie: there is no basis from this to assume that it is by our own efforts that we will endure.

it's speaking of persecution as a test.

Here we have a direct declaration of salvation at work. Not one of those:

"what must I do to be saved / do this" /then-without-biblical-backing-contort-it-into-'trying' verses.

Here we have a woman stated as having beed saved right alongside the very means by which she has been saved.

yes, i thought it was a good example, much like the other similar ones i posted.

Faith results in good works - not the other way around. See Zach again. He had faith: he sought Jesus, he obeyed Jesus, he recieved Jesus, he offered his riches up. A man of faith.

no under debate. we're talking about faith in WHAT.

he sick woman cured by touching Jesus coat. Why? She had faith that Jesus could cure her.

and that faith saved her -- not faith the death he hadn't died, and the resurrection that hasdn't happened yet.

The centurion with the sick servant saying "only say the word an he shall be healed" "Such faith I have not seen" exclaims Jesus

The thief on the cross - no opporunity to do any works - nothing in his possession but sin unto crucifixion. What has he got? Faith in Jesus. What happens "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in Paradise.

seems to be faith in the name of christ -- the authority, the power, and maybe the divinity that does it, doesn't it? now where's the talk of faith in his DEATH saving people?

In verse 38 this same man cried out "Jesus, son of David have mercy on me" Whilst many saw miracles with their own eyes and didn't believe this physicallty blind man has faith that Jesus is the messiah (referred to as being the Son of David in the OT). He makes an act of faith before he has proof of anything.

ben-david would make jesus the rightful KING of judah and israel. i might note that this has nothing to do with his death either. the jews were not expecting a messiah in that way of speaking -- they were expecting a king, on the throne, who would oust herod and the romans.

i think you'll find contempt of outsiders a running theme in the bible. do i need to quote specific verses, or is the reference to commiting genocide on 7 canaanite nations, lest the israelites fall prey to their influence good enough?

ts the same thing over and over and over again

Where's death in all this. The Cross.

not in any of the above ones, it's not. there's no mention of death on a cross anywhere in those. it's not even HINTED at in calling jesus the messiah, like i'm sure you think it is.

People then had faith in Jesus being able to save them, to forgive them.

and he did. on the spot.

But the forgiveness all happened at the cross: for people before him, with him then and after him - who have faith in him.

don't you find it the least bit suspicious that people runn up to jesus and say "i believe you can heal me!" and jesus says "you're healed by your faith in me." with no mention of be forgiven pre-hoc-propter-hoc on the cross?

the forgiveness happened with THEIR FAITH. to them, the non-eternal beings, the crucifixion had not happened yet for them to have faith in, so it's impossible that that kind of faith saved them. faith of some other kind saved them.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 9:28 AM iano has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 190 of 202 (253229)
10-19-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by purpledawn
10-19-2005 9:28 AM


Re: Law To Be Kept Perfectly
Maybe the same concept but not part of the Law to which the Jews were held accountable and not a reasonable replacement for the original.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, according to Hillil, is a summary of the Torah, but the Jews are accountable to the details of the Law not the summary.

well, i don't mean anyone's held accountable to it, but it's a good commentary and elaboration on the law. it's a midrash, but not exactly a huge leap.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by purpledawn, posted 10-19-2005 9:28 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 202 (253238)
10-19-2005 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by iano
10-19-2005 6:56 AM


Re: Receiving The Atonement
The thief on the cross had no other option than simply to acknoledge Jesus as savior and lord, which he did. He had no life to live and no chance to get messed up after conversion. On the other hand, we see all these people making a profession of faith and seemingly falling on rocky soil to go no place from there but eventual denial. Had they been apprised on some rather simple doctrines at by the one/one's evangelizing, they would likely have had a better chance at understanding. Your points are, nevertheless well taken.


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 6:56 AM iano has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 202 (253242)
10-19-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by ramoss
10-18-2005 2:05 PM


Re: Sin Against God
quote:
The concept of sin being 'corrupt' and dirty is absent from the Jewish concept. The idea that man is this inherently evil being (orginal sin), does not exist at all. Man is viewed at inherently good, not inherently evil. There is the urge to do good' balanced by the 'urge to do evil'.

There's a big difference between Jews who were once into their religion with all the required sacrifices and atonements needed for their sins and the modern Jew who does not experience all this. A never ending shedding of blood being required, they had to have had an appreciateion for the evil of sin to require all this from a holy sinless God when they, in obedience, did all this. Even way back when they worshipped false gods, abandoning the true god, Jehovah, they passed their children through the fires et al to try and atone for their sins. They lost their concept at times, however as to what was considered sinful by God and what was not, as do careless Christians today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by ramoss, posted 10-18-2005 2:05 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 11:15 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 193 of 202 (253243)
10-19-2005 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Buzsaw
10-19-2005 11:06 PM


Re: Sin Against God
A never ending shedding of blood being required, they had to have had an appreciateion for the evil of sin to require all this from a holy sinless God when they, in obedience, did all this.

sacrifice is not required, nor is it practiced today. why?

Even way back when they worshipped false gods, abandoning the true god, Jehovah,

if you're gonna get all "one true god" on us, try to spell his name right. :P

they passed their children through the fires et al to try and atone for their sins.

and the moral of that story is that sacrificing your children to atone for sins is bad.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2005 11:06 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 194 of 202 (253277)
10-20-2005 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by arachnophilia
10-19-2005 8:49 PM


Re: stupid question
arach writes:

when god gives moses his name, and says "i am that i am." sort of. in some particular hebrew verbs,

What about NT greek. Does the same occur there? The Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus simply because he called himself I AM (AbE: presumably in Aramaic)

right, so god hates us.

The mother of a junkie. Loves him, hates what he does. The junkie steals stuff from the house to feed his habit. With pain and a torn heart the mother reports him to the police and banishes him from the house. And the mothers job happens to be a prison warder too. It's kind of like that

scroll up a bit buddy, you're a little behind. i quoted john 3:17, the very next verse, quite a few posts back, where it specifically talks about the kind of faith john 3:16 speaks of.

I don't see faith mentioned here?

try something jesus said. consider it a challenge. i've posted the closest thing i can find, can you do better? keep in mind here that jesus > paul.

You quoted John. Jesus > John too. Why Paul excluded? Jesus is greater than John/paul etc. But Jesus teaching isn't his own - it comes from God. He said so himself, on a number of occasions. The bible is either the word of God for the purposes of this discussion or it's not. If not word of God, Jesus words are irrelevant - we can't trust that they are his. If word of God, how can you differentiate in authority between one of Gods words and another.

i provided one, job.

We'll have to sort out Paul first. No Paul, no John. No John, no jesus. No discussion... as far as I can see

it seem to separate people into two groups, flesh and spirit -- the people of flesh are flesh. according to that line, they have no soul, they just die. kind of borks that hell fire idea if people don't have a spirit to be eternal punished.

There are two groups indeed. Of flesh and of spirit. And Romans explains fairly well what this entails. It doesn't mean born without spirit, it means born with a dead spirit, A dead spirit is not = to no spirit no more so than a dead body is not= to no body

(don't post verses unless you know what they mean)

Which makes the yet-to-be-substantiated statement that you do.. :)

Anyway. Paul. Can we deal with that. A lot flows from it...or not

This message has been edited by iano, 20-Oct-2005 04:25 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 8:49 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by arachnophilia, posted 10-20-2005 9:41 PM iano has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 195 of 202 (253549)
10-20-2005 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by iano
10-20-2005 7:23 AM


Re: stupid question
What about NT greek. Does the same occur there? The Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus simply because he called himself I AM (AbE: presumably in Aramaic)

trivia for the day: aramaic doesn't have passive verbs. actually, i don't think hebrew does, either. hayah ("am") is really "exists" or "happens."

so what jesus actually said, who knows. but nt greek is a translation of the aramaic, which is a translation of the hebrew reference. so it kind of doesn't matter about nt greek.

The mother of a junkie. Loves him, hates what he does. The junkie steals stuff from the house to feed his habit. With pain and a torn heart the mother reports him to the police and banishes him from the house. And the mothers job happens to be a prison warder too. It's kind of like that

uh, no. it's kind of like the mother is the judge, jury, and executioner, and overlooked rehab.

I don't see faith mentioned here?

alright, sorry, i made a mistake. it was the second of two verses -- john 3:18.

quote:
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

it's bad to look up just the verse someone mentions. read at least a few of the surrounding ones, or the chapter.

You quoted John. Jesus > John too. Why Paul excluded? Jesus is greater than John/paul etc.

paul's not excluded, he's just not quoting jesus directly: it's not an account of jesus's life and teachings. it doesn't count as something "jesus said."

jesus may not have actually said what john reports (if you compare to the other gospels, it's pretty different) but at leat it's actually being attributed to him.

But Jesus teaching isn't his own - it comes from God.

uh huh. {God > jesus} > paul. so says jesus anyways, according to john.

quote:
Jhn 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

The bible is either the word of God for the purposes of this discussion or it's not. If not word of God, Jesus words are irrelevant - we can't trust that they are his. If word of God, how can you differentiate in authority between one of Gods words and another.

why is the bible all-or-nothing? if there are things that paul wrote that are not the word of god, but the word of paul, then it kind of breaks the whole bible for you, doesn't it?

it's really too bad then that paul indicates at least once that something he's writing is his opinion and not divine:

quote:
1Cr 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:

so first corinthians 7:12 is not the word of god, but paul's opinion: the word of paul. so what's the rest of it, exactly? did paul think he was writing the word of god? did he think he spoke for god? even if he did, what's to say he was right?

There are two groups indeed. Of flesh and of spirit. And Romans explains fairly well what this entails. It doesn't mean born without spirit, it means born with a dead spirit, A dead spirit is not = to no spirit no more so than a dead body is not= to no body

there's a problem with this that you don't realize. the jews at the time (and maybe today too?) didn't believe in an afterlife. when jesus speaks of eternal life, it's a new idea, and he uses it in sharp contrast to the lasting physical death most expected.

the jewish reading of the eden story is that adam and eve born mortal -- they would need the tree of life to live forever. the did not "die spiritually" because there was no spirit in the christian sense to kill. they use the word differently. to them, a spirit is the breath of life, the bit that god breathed into us to make us alive. living things are all spirits, and when that spirit was killed, so where they. without a spirit, man is only clay.

all people, when they die, figuratively go to sheol -- "hell." literally, a grave.

what jesus is basically describing had precedent with enoch and elijah. he was talking of everlasting life, ascent to the kingdom of heaven, and access to the tree of life.

Anyway. Paul. Can we deal with that. A lot flows from it...or not

which do you think should be more important to christianity, the teachings of jesus, or the teachings of paul?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by iano, posted 10-20-2005 7:23 AM iano has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019