The Whole Jesus Thing

Yeah I guess I am waving. Had the intention of being on topic, it's just the method I think of things. Terribly sorry about that. I suppose I am still on the general subject though since I started thinking about heaven, who could enter and the definition of a sin.But how can anyone know the difference of right and wrong? It's something that is taught to a infant. Should you teach him stealing is right, and encourage him to steal from others. He won't learn it's wrong, and will carry on doing so for the rest of his life, because you taught him that was right. What I mean to say is, what's the difference between right and wrong?I can understand some of their reasonings, but I cannot condule any of their actions, for those are evil in my eyes.Btw, Satan isn't a God, but a fallen angel if you follow mythology. This message has been edited by Harrism, 10-16-2004 04:29 PM

---

If you cant prove just one side, then why not try proving both?

I think that I understand what you are saying. I once saw a National Geographic show that highlighted this tribesman who was from a tribe that worshipped the volcano. His job in life was to mine sulpher from near the mouth of the sleeping mountain. His passion in life was to make a better way for his kids. The Bible says that everyone intuitively knows enough to make a choice in their heart, despite never hearing the religious stuff. I saw a good piece on the narrowness of Christian truth. I guess the question that I would ask at this point is whether EVERYONE is given a chance to hear the TRUTH? My quick answer is that I believe that everyone gets a chance before they are judged, since one cannot be judged without knowing what they are guilty of. This whole "Jesus thing" breaks it down into four basic premises.

quote:

---

Principle One: God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.

---

How do we know? What do YOU think?

quote:

---

Principle Two: All of us are sinful and separated from God. Therefore we cannot know and experience God's love and plan for our life.

---

One person I know has issues with this one. I don't think that He believes in God as defined, so He asserts rules for God to follow on one hand, and uses scripture to back his own assertions, daring anyone to out think him.

quote:

---

Three: Jesus Christ is God's only provision for our sin. Through him we can know and experience God's love and plan for our life.

---

Again, a matter of Belief. It makes sense to me that God is represented in a character that we can understand. IF the spiritual battle described in the Bible actually is real, it would follow that many mere humans with great minds but no heart would try and themselves raise up with the answers. They will denounce Jesus whenever they can, yet assert that their path of logic is surely the REAL answer. Indeed, they often use scripture to justify themselves.

quote:

---

Four: We must individually accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our life.

---

I have accepted Him. I am glad that I did. To those who have not done so, I will not try and convince you, because everyone should be allowed to think and reason through their choices in life. At any rate, the "Jesus Thing" is not a religion. It is a relationship. Anyone is free to pursue other relationships in life as well. So try proving my point for me, Harrism. Just for grins. Have you ever watched an infant? There are times when they do something that they know is wrong, because it has been instilled as a wrong by their parents. Other times, they have yet to learn what is right/wrong.
There is an age of accountability. Five year olds never go to prison.
Much of this debate also centers on truth as absolute or as a relative concept. Some things in life are absolutes. Gravity is a good example. One could assert that gravity is non absolute in space.
One could also assert that Love is an absolute. One could suggest that Hell, by definition, is a place where love is a non absolute. The very existence of the spirit of rebellion manifested in Lucifer made the relativistic alternative thought processes in our minds
spring to life. The question, then, is whether one should seek one or another. Like the cars in that massive parking lot. Which one gets you anywhere?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 10-18-2004 05:46 AM

You're hearing me perfectly. and the only way I can reply is with a well played.

---

If you cant prove just one side, then why not try proving both?

Christian theology says that God created a universe with certain rules (he did this because he is an orderly being - it's integral to his God-ness). Because God is 100% (infinite) good, he cannot be in the presence of evil without obliterating it; again, this is an integral aspect of Godness. He gave people free will; they excercised that will and sinned.
God then set up a system of sacrifice whereby people could defer that wrath - ostensibly. In reality, the system was there mostly to set up the appearance of Jesus.
Jesus is God's loophole. He is both God and a perfect person; as such he is the only truly suitable sacrifice (in the above system), and only by his sacrifice can God's (necessary and just) wrath be averted.
God created the universe and gave us free will; we messed it up and he graciusly gives us a chance fix it.
To respond point-by-point: Jesus didn't "die" insofar as he ceased to exist; he only died in a sense; enough to fill the requirement for sacrifice, which was necessitated by God's inherant orderliness and goodness (which necessitates destruction of evil/sin).

Hi EasyPriest and welcome, In other words, God had himself killed, to appease himself and stop himself from killing us. How does that even make sense? When you say he 'died in a sense' I presume you mean in the physical sense. In my eyes, this is a bit of a cop out. If Jesus was God, then, for all we know, he didn't suffer at all. It could all have been a theatrical performance. What is the point of a sacrifice if nothing is lost ? To me, this is absurd : God sacrificed piece of himself (but not really), so he could seem to abide by the requirements that he imposed on Himself ??!!Also your statement above seems to imply that evil and sin would be cleansed from this world by means of this sacrifice. This clearly hasn't happened.So, the way I see it, the only point of the whole Jesus saga is that we don't get instantly killed by God when we sin (like in the O.T), but rather be denied a chance in the afterlife. It's only the method of punishment that's changed, nothing else.This message has been edited by Legend, 11-02-2004 06:43 AM

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Well, sacrifice when attoning sin was not required. What come from the lips and the heart was more important that the actual Prayer can take the place of sacrifice (see Hosea 14:3 in any Jewish translation, the KJV sort of screwed that one up.. suprise!)There were 3 principles when dealing with 'sacrifices' or 'Offerings' (Qorban transliterated from the Hebrew). One, the person has to be giving up something. So, the sacrifice of a domestic animal in the temple of your own personal belonging is one thing, a wild animal (that does not belong to anybody) is not acceptable. Or, the offering of food made from flour (which took a substantial amount to prepare) is another offering (I.e. .. it does not have to be a blood sacrifice)The next concept is the concept of subsitution..,, the item being substituted for the person making the offering, as a token of asking
for forgiveness. The 'sacrifice' is punished instead of the person,
as a measure of gods mercy. This is the concept that the early christians probably used the cruxifiction for.. however, sacrifices
had to be in the temple, the offering unblemished (scorging does blemish someone), and the story of Issac and Abraham was/is taken
as God would never demand a human sacrifice.
In addition, it is the person who was GIVING the sacrifice who's sin was forgiven.And of course, the most important part is the offering is a way to get closer to god, to live a 'sanctified life'.

Well, in that time period (and this was before there was a concept of a 'CHristian god", lambs were one of the most common domestic animals. Since it has to be somethign that is PERSONALLY owned by the person giving the offering, that is the most likely animal for sacrifice.

According to ezikiel, god created evil.

That is, of course, if you follow the Christian mythology and concept of Satan. The Jewish concept of Satan is different. In the Jewish mythology, shaitan (the accusor) as an angel , does not have free will.
His job is to provide the opportunity to do wrong, so that people will have a chance to choose to do right, and therefore become close to god and live a sanctified life.

Satan was an angel weather he had free will or not I don't know, but he must have had some form of free will, because it came to his mind that he could exalt himself to the height of God. There was war in heaven. A third off the angels were cast out. A matter of legallity was brought up. Satan thought it was in the nature of the creation to rebel. I think he may have even accused God, saying God would have sinned in the right cirumstance. Thus we are hear to settle the battle. Evidence of this legal fight is in Job. When God said to Satan have you tried Job he is upright, and Satan said let me at him and he will curse you.

quote:

---

Job 2:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
Job 2:4 And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.
Job 2:5 But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.

---

Legend,
It makes sense in the context of the whole thing. Let me try to sum it all up...God made a universe with a set of rules - he had to create it in that way because of his nature as God. Humans broke the rules, so God created a loophole (Jesus) which allowed him to prevent us from being punished.
The focus is on the fact that WE do not have to go to hell under the system. There is no appeasement - it's not like God is demanding blood or anything; his very nature demands that sin be destroyed.
How does this even make sense?
1)God must destroy sin.
2)God cannot be destroyed.
.: By becoming taking the punishment for our rule-breaking, God can prevent ANYONE from dieing.How is it a cop-out if there's no suffering? This assumes that God is bloodthirsty, which can't be shown. But in this case there would have been suffering; you've forgotten that Jesus was fully human and simultaneously fully God. The human bit suffered.If I implied that sin would instantly dissapear it was a mistake on my part.

quote:

---

So, the way I see it, the only point of the whole Jesus saga is that we don't get instantly killed by God when we sin (like in the O.T), but rather be denied a chance in the afterlife. It's only the method of punishment that's changed, nothing else.

---

You've lost me here. How would this deny us a chance in the afterlife? How did this change the method of punishment? However you're right on the spot about preventing "sudden death" (though God didn't "instantly kill" everyone in the OT for sinning); the doctrine called 'general grace' says that Jesus's death was enough to absorb (even retroactively) God's necessary destruction of sin.

quote:

---

it makes sense in the context of the whole thing. Let me try to sum it all up...God made a universe with a set of rules - he had to create it in that way because of his nature as God. Humans broke the rules, so God created a loophole (Jesus) which allowed him to prevent us from being punished.

---

This makes even less sense -
a) God is bounded by the physical laws of the universe (and therefore can't be god)
b) God had to look for a loophole? I thought God could see the start,middle and end? Why does he not built this in from the start
c) Prevents us from being punished? remind me again - who created the punishment?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-03-2004 04:50 AM

quote:

---

This assumes that God is bloodthirsty, which can't be shown.

---

Sure it can or do you think it's right to send bears to rip small children to pieces?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-03-2004 04:51 AM

How is that different from 'God had himself killed, to appease himself and stop himself from killing us' ? But WE didn't have to be killed or go to hell before the system came into place, either. We could just repent and accept that we sinned. That's exactly what I'm saying: It's only the method and timing of the punishment that's changed. Before Jesus, if we sinned we were killed and rotted in hell (not always, but that's another absurdity for another thread). After Jesus, if we sin and don't accept Jesus we rot in hell after we die.You're making it sound as if the system was already in place by someone else and unchangeable, so God had to find a 'loophole', in order to exploit the system. This contradicts God's alleged omnipotence and omniscience. He designed the system, he could change it anytime and on, top of that, he already knew about the system's weakness when he put it in place, so he could have designed it properly to begin with. I meant suffering on Jesus's part. If he was man AND God, then, for all we know, he could be feeling no physical pain while being nailed to the cross. After all we know he exhibited super-human powers (miracles, etc.). And how does God destroy sin in the O.T? By wiping out whole tribes! So, God did demand blood. When you sinned you paid with blood.
In contrast, after Jesus, it seems that 'his very nature demands that sin be destroyed' is no longer in force, as sin hasn't been destroyed. That always struck me as a highly ambiguous and absurd doctrine.
Does it mean that :
people who lived before Jesus and sinned are in hell now?.
people who lived before Jesus and sinned and repented are in hell now?.
people who lived before Jesus and sinned and got killed by God for it are in hell now?.
people who lived before Jesus and sinned and didn't get killed by God for it are in hell now?
people now, who haven't heard of Jesus and have no concept of the Christian sin, go to hell when they die ?
If Jesus has absorbed God's necessary destruction of sin, then sin doesn't have to be destroyed any longer ?
I could go on, but I'll stop at these, although the ambiguity is endless.To sum it all up, what was Jesus's purpose ? Why couldn't we live as before and be saved if we repented ? How can an omnipotent and omniscient God have to send a 'patch' for his system ? Hope you get the drift.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

That attitude makes God looks like a egotistical , obnoxious brat."Beleive in me the way I want, Or I will burn you in hell forever".Riggghhtt."Jesus loves you and gives you are free gift of eternal life, unless you don't believe in him, then burns you in hell forever"Riiiight.