The Whole Jesus Thing

I happen to disagree.. and I can point to some Rabbi commentaries that
willl agree with my interpretation.From http://www.torah.org/learning/ramchal/classes/class40.html At this point Ramchal lays out four term-pairs used in the Torah to depict the two opposing states of G-d shining His light on the transcendent forces and the world at large, which provides goodness; and His withholding His light, which allows for evil.

​

Logically enough, the Torah often uses the term light for example to allude to G-d’s bestowing goodness, and darkness to allude to His allowing for evil. A good example would be the verse that reads, I form light as well as create darkness; I make peace as well as create evil (Isaiah 45:7).

quote:

---

Originally posted by ramoss

​

I happen to disagree.. and I can point to some Rabbi commentaries that will agree with my interpretation.

---

It's OK if we disagree. And after reading through your link, I do still retain my original opinion.Not only do I often find much rabbinical commentary to be highly imaginative, but further, this rabbinical commentary that you linked to doesn't seem to be saying what you claim.In message 87 you asked:

quote:

---

ramoss > message 87

​

If god is 'absolute good' why did he create evil?

---

The rabbinical commentary speaks only of adding an allegorical meaning to the terms "light" and "darkness". And even in the part of the commentary that you supplied in quotation, the rabbi speaks of God "withholding his light" as opposed to any active creation of "darkness" (or evil).Thus, even from the rabbinical perspective of this commentary, God is said to withhold his light, which allows evil imaginings to flourish, which evil imaginings cause conditions antithetical to peaceful existence, i.e. "war, calamity" which is one meaning of the term "rah".It is only by assigning the allegorical meaning of "evil" to the term "darkness" in this verse, and then interpreting the verb "bara" as an active creation event that an interpretation of "God created evil" can be rationalized.However, from the rabbinical perspective, since God didn't actively create the literal darkness, neither did he actively create the allegorical "darkness" (evil). In both cases it is a matter of God withholding the "light" (whether literal or allegorical).And further, neither case (literal or allegorical) changes the meaning of the antithetical terms "peace" and "evil" in the second part of this verse.If "light" and "darkness" are considered allegorically, then the subsequent conditions of peace or calamity are the physical results of God providing or withholding his allegorical "light".Even so, however, I am unconvinced that "light" and "darkness" should be read allegorically in this instance. Consider the context of the chapter:

quote:

---

Isaiah 45:1

​

So says YHWH to his annointed, to Cyrus, whom I have seized by his right hand, to subdue nations before him.

​

Isaiah 45:6-7

​

. . . that they may know from the sunrise to the sunset that there is none besides Me; I am YHWH and there is none else; forming light and creating darkness; making peace and creating (rah) - I YHWH do all these things."

---

So the context of the chapter is God stirring up Cyrus to war against the very Babylon which he formerly implemented against Judah.IOW, the context is not the evil imaginings of man or who created such evil imaginings; the context is war, the state of the nations, and who is ultimately in control of these conditions.And IMO, read in this context, the verse is stating nothing more than that YHWH is singularly in control of such events. He forms the light and causes the darkness, he causes nations to be at peace and he causes nations to be torn by war and calamity.Thus, if you follow the rabbinical perspective (from your commentary) and read "darkness" as "evil", you should also follow the rabbinical perspective that God didn't create the darkness but merely withholds the light. If you follow a more literal meaning, the verses simply speak for themselves.Either way, it is an error to combine an allegorical meaning of the term "darkness" with an active creation sense of the verb "bara" and declare this verse to state that God created evil. And it is also an error to translate the term "rah" as "evil" (in the sense of innate 'badness') when it is used in the second part of this verse as the antithesis to "peace".There are simply better logical readings that are further supported by the context.JMHO, and again, it is alright if we disagree.Amlodhi

Yaro, "How is Jesus dieing for us the 'ultimate gift'?"
Reply For a Christian it is simply so that we could be forgiven of our sins.Yaro,"Was not Jesus God?"
Reply No, He isn't God.Yaro,"So God killed himself so we could go to heven?"
Reply No, He didn't. Jesus died so that we could inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.Yaro,"Couldn't god just make everyone 'saved', why does he need to kill himself for it?"
Reply According to the Old Law, no He couldn't. There had to be a sacrifice (Jesus), so that His words would not be hipocritical. God isn't a liar, so thus to keep with the Old Law, (it is written so it shall be done) it had to be done.

---

Angel

quote:

---

Yaro,"Couldn't god just make everyone 'saved', why does he need to kill himself for it?"
Reply According to the Old Law, no He couldn't. There had to be a sacrifice (Jesus), so that His words would not be hipocritical. God isn't a liar, so thus to keep with the Old Law, (it is written so it shall be done) it had to be done.

---

Where in the OT is this stated?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Hello Angel, welcome to EvC.Could you use the "standard" way of quoting others.For example; If you use the red raw text button at the botton of this post you will see how I did that.When you are editing there is link on the left of the screen - UBB Code is ON" that will give you all the different tags you can use.

Hey angel, thanks for the reply. It's been ages since I have been active in this topic, good to see people are still interested in the question. How does a man's brutal torture and execution take away our sins? If this is god we are dealing with, im sure he could come up with a less grusome way. I thought he was god made flesh? Isn't that the point of the story? Are you suggesting that Jesus and god were different enteties all together?If so, how does this affect traditional christian theology? Why did he need to die, if not to apease an angry diety? Furthermore, if Jesus was this diety incarnate, then esentialy we have a diety killing himself to apease himself. So... which old law says there has to be a human sacrifice to keep god happy? this is god we are talking about, why the hell would he care if we kill a goat and burn it, much less murder a man and string him up.What is the point of sacrifice to god? Why did he want the Hebrews to kill sheep, and why did he want the romans to kill a man?

Hi Angel and welcome!You wrote: Can you please reconcile your statement in light of these New Testament verses:In John 10:30, Jesus says:John 20:28-29 says: Collosians 1:13-17:John 1:1-5:

According to Catholic teachings, the sacrifice was ritualized and symbolic as a atonement for sin; to do away with once and for all the need for blood sacrifices as in the old testiment. Jesus who was according to the bible without sin was sacrificed in order to remove the stain of sin from mankind. Rather than resorting to blood sacrifice hence forth sin will be obtained and forgiven though the acceptance of Jesus. According to the teachings Jesus took on all the sin of man upon himself. He was God but he was also a man. God became a man and experienced what it was to be human and what it was to suffer as a human. Blood sacrifice as described in the old testiment and Judiac law was applied in the spirit and flesh of Jesus. It is through transubstantiation that wine and bread become the flesh and blood of the Christ, by confession, contrition and receiving this sacrament one is forgiven ones sins.My question is: Why was sin ever even a issue? The whole concept of a redeemer hinges on this concept of original sin. It all hinges on what happened in the Garden of Eden. The temptation of Eve from Satan. If God created these creatures with free will and they made a descision to disobey why punish them? And if the stain of original sin is what followed then God became flesh to wash away the sin he allowed into the world? I dont get it.

I guess my whole problem is the idea that god needs a methodology at all. A god dosn't need rules. He needs no particular methods to do anything.So saying that he HAD to kill jesus to remove sin is stupid. He dosn't HAVE to do anything. He's omnipotent he can do anything he wants. So the idea that we even need a reedemer is absurd.Furthermore, why would blood be an atonemnet for sin? What does god gain from spilled blood that removes his anger or wrath tword the sinner?Again its a question of methodology, a real god does not need to take steps.

You are 100% correct. God is not limited in any way, shape, or form. It is man's tendency to limit God because of our limited and closed minds.Allow me to throw in my two cents.Although God does not have to do anything, the fact that he did do something is significant in the sense that it must have had a purpose (not many would argue that God is an arbitrary god). The motivation in which He chose to do this "something" may or may not be evident in the Bible or any religious text. On the same premise that God does not have to do anything, God does not have to reveal His purpose.From a mortal's perspective attempting to probe the mind of God, my answer to why God would choose to redeem mankind through the blood of Christ might be because of God's desire to express His love in the ultimate way; that is the death of His Son. Such a sacrifice evokes a stronger desire to seek and worship God because of it's implications. Who would not be eternally grateful that another's life was given in place of your own? Most Sunday worship music revolves around the cross and how God chose to express His love. I am sure that God knew this response to His system of atonement when He decided to carry out His will in such a way.Paul also preaches that if it were not for the resurrection of Christ, then a Christian's faith would be in vain. I am sure that the resurrection also played a key role in God's purpose for the death of Jesus. Despite the torture and humiliation that Christ had to endure, His glorification through the resurrection was a showcase of the power of God and fulfillment of prophesy.Perhaps the death and resurrection was God's way of expressing His love and power, respectively. God was not subject to doing it, but it was the course of action he predetermined for humanity.

So then whats the point of him doing anything symbolic on earth if he's not gonna reveal his purpose?He may as well not exist if we will never understand his meaning or desires. Then, for all practical intents and purposes, he is arbitrary and irelevant. But Jesus's death was meaningless. God was gonna see him in heaven anyway, why would it be tragic in any way? There is nothing tragic about the story, for tragedy something must be lost, nothing was lost in jesus death so why should I feel greatfull for what was done "for me".Personaly I don't want to think anyone was sent to his death for my sake, and would I have been asked I would have said no thank you. For Christianity to come around after the fact and ask me to be greatfull for some poor guy god killed 2000 years ago, I think is insulting.Im not going to be greatfull for a good mans death, especialy when it accomplished nothing and could have been avoided. Jesus death was ultimetly unecissary and meaningless. God proved no point with it rather than he is bloodthirsty.Many inocents have died worse deaths than Jesus in the times before and since his existance. His death rings no more special to me than all the other wrongfull murders in the name of ideology. They are not a testament to gods grace, but rather a condemnation of the human condition.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-08-2004 04:01 PM

* DUPLICATE POST *This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-08-2004 03:58 PM

I see no reason to insist that Jesus's death was meaningless. God set the standard for which He would redeem humanity. I acknowledge that, yes, he could have gone about it another way and thus could of been avoided, however it would be less effective in drawing more people to Him through the circumstances that we find ourselves in.It is in our human nature to be mournful of death and the end of a life. God knew this because He created us in this way. Therefore, assuming God's purpose is to establish a loving relationship with His creation, it is a plausible conclusion that having Jesus die was the most efficient way in carrying out His purpose.Yes, 'innocents' have died in the past. However, if you believe the story in the Gospels, then you know that Jesus was the only one who could redeem mankind because of His perfect state. No 'innocent' had or ever will have the capacity to take on such a burden.I am sure that you have heard all of this before, but I fail to see a reason why you should feel insulted. God's course of action was not in vain. He did express His love to mankind and millions of people express their love back to Him every Sunday.Did He have to do it the way He did? No. Was it the most effective way of accomplishing His goals given the circumstances He chose to put us in? I sure think so.Will we ever know for sure? Maybe.-ApollyonThis message has been edited by Apollyon, 11-08-2004 03:41 PM

Yaro, I am surprised at you. I never heard you talk like this before. It is apparent that you do not believe that God exist at all, so questioning the methods of a diety you do not believe in is superfulous. IMO. These stories are traditions based on a collection of books assembled over centuries. A entire religion is based on them. Saying the tenets of the faith are stupid is very well your right but it could be taken as offensive to those who subscribe to that religion. It is one thing to question the logic of something illogical. It is quite another to criticize and degrade.
You are a very intelligent woman with good questions.

Sorry, I wasn't saying that christianity was stupid, only that the reason and/or justification was ... well... dumb.I mean, it dosn't make sense. It may have been to harsh a word. My apologies.I will do more on this topic later. Gotta finish up here at work.