BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Topic started by: journeyman on August 22, 2022, 11:32:28 AM
-
Except for the NT, I know little of church history. Secondly, I ended the title of this thread with a question mark, as it is unimaginable to me that a follower of our Lord would harm anyone.
Recently, I looked for a reputable source of information on this subject and beliece I found one in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (ushmm.) This organization has articles by various historians which describe the persecution of Jewish people by both Catholics and Protestants.
Without detail, what I took away from what I read, is that persecution of Jews by people claiming to follow Jesus began after Christianity became the state religion.
There is also a belief that said persecution (or at least the "seeds" of this hatred began as early as the late 1st century. The reasoning behind this is that in the gospel of John, the accusation of contempt for Jesus isn't confined to certain Jews (such as some religious leaders), but just "the Jews", inferring that all, or most Jews hated Jesus.
Personally, I believe Johns' gospel was originally written in Hebrew, or Aramaic, as his ministry was in Israel. Also, I don't believe John would have broadly described people in that way, but I have no physical evidence to support my disbelief. My sole reason for feeling the way I do is that all of the apostles loved their countrymen.
One other thing I read from ushmm was how Martin Luther began as a supported of Jews, but later wrote disparaging things about them.
Lastly, I do believe evil conduct by people naming our Lord, has kept Jewish people from recognizing Jesus as the Messiah.
-
Christians (nominal or otherwise) have persecuted Jews for centuries.
Evil men, regardless of their claimed faith, have never needed and excuse for blaming the Jewish people for all the evil in the world.
-
Without detail, what I took away from what I read, is that persecution of Jews by people claiming to follow Jesus began after Christianity became the state religion.
If not before.
There is also a belief that said persecution (or at least the "seeds" of this hatred began as early as the late 1st century. The reasoning behind this is that in the gospel of John, the accusation of contempt for Jesus isn't confined to certain Jews (such as some religious leaders), but just "the Jews", inferring that all, or most Jews hated Jesus.
Yes, this speaks to the idea that the Romans crucified Jesus but it was the Jews who got him killed (and are therefore to blame).
My sole reason for feeling the way I do is that all of the apostles loved their countrymen.
He did. That doesn't stop the abuse of Scripture.
One other thing I read from ushmm was how Martin Luther began as a supported of Jews, but later wrote disparaging things about them.
The Nazis loved Luther almost as much as Protestants do.
Lastly, I do believe evil conduct by people naming our Lord, has kept Jewish people from recognizing Jesus as the Messiah.
Christians are probably responsible for more rejections of 'Jesus' than any other group in history.
-
Christians (nominal or otherwise) have persecuted Jews for centuries.
Yes, but under the leadetship of the apostles, congregations in gentile terriitories had faithful men in charge. It doesn't seem like they would have tolerated a member of the church engaged in criminal behavior.
Evil men, regardless of their claimed faith, have never needed and excuse for blaming the Jewish people for all the evil in the world.
That's true, but I think anyone in the early church doing hateful things toward the Jews would have been excomunicated.
-
Yes, this speaks to the idea that the Romans crucified Jesus but it was the Jews who got him killed (and are therefore to blame).
Yes, but the early church understood that while evil men had a plan, the Messiah also had a plan, which was to thwart their plan without raising a fist and be willing to forgive everything done to him. For this reason, it seems impossible that the church would even think about harming the Jews in any way. It doesn't make sense.
He did. That doesn't stop the abuse of Scripture.
I agree. I also remember one instance in the KJV from Deuteronomy where the text was obscured.
The Nazis loved Luther almost as much as Protestants do.
I never heard that, but anyone who would disparage a race is someone who should have his Bible doctrine microscoped.
Christians are probably responsible for more rejections of 'Jesus' than any other group in history.
I don't think that's true in most cases. The early church lost their lives for the good news of the God of the Jews. I'm confident most and quite possibly all of the reasons for rejecting Jesus is the result of non Christian people.
-
Christians (nominal or otherwise) have persecuted Jews for centuries.
Yes, but under the leadetship of the apostles, congregations in gentile terriitories had faithful men in charge. It doesn't seem like they would have tolerated a member of the church engaged in criminal behavior.
Evil men, regardless of their claimed faith, have never needed and excuse for blaming the Jewish people for all the evil in the world.
That's true, but I think anyone in the early church doing hateful things toward the Jews would have been excomunicated.
Being anti-semitic is ungodly and stupid, but it hardly criminal.
I'm not aware of any early church fathers that wrote anything antisemitic.
-
Yes, this speaks to the idea that the Romans crucified Jesus but it was the Jews who got him killed (and are therefore to blame).
Yes, but the early church understood that while evil men had a plan, the Messiah also had a plan, which was to thwart their plan without raising a fist and be willing to forgive everything done to him. For this reason, it seems impossible that the church would even think about harming the Jews in any way. It doesn't make sense.
He did. That doesn't stop the abuse of Scripture.
I agree. I also remember one instance in the KJV from Deuteronomy where the text was obscured.
The Nazis loved Luther almost as much as Protestants do.
I never heard that, but anyone who would disparage a race is someone who should have his Bible doctrine microscoped.
Christians are probably responsible for more rejections of 'Jesus' than any other group in history.
I don't think that's true in most cases. The early church lost their lives for the good news of the God of the Jews. I'm confident most and quite possibly all of the reasons for rejecting Jesus is the result of non Christian people.
I would disagree. In my experience, not only Jews, but also normal human pagans reject Jesus because of the poor example that Christians live than for any other reason.
The church is its own worst enemy and worst PR.
-
I don't think that's true in most cases. The early church lost their lives for the good news of the God of the Jews. I'm confident most and quite possibly all of the reasons for rejecting Jesus is the result of non Christian people.
I'd be really interested in you expanding upon this idea, that is why are you confident that most - quite possibly all of the reasons for rejecting Jesus is the result of non Christian people?
-
Being anti-semitic is ungodly and stupid, but it hardly criminal.
Hating people because of their race is criminal to God, because our Savior said,
whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment Mt.5:22
I'm not aware of any early church fathers that wrote anything antisemitic.
It couldn't have happened unless they wandered away from Jesus.
I would disagree. In my experience, not only Jews, but also normal human pagans reject Jesus because of the poor example that Christians live than for any other reason.
The church is its own worst enemy and worst PR.
The church is the body of believers, not the tares among them.
-
I'd be really interested in you expanding upon this idea, that is why are you confident that most - quite possibly all of the reasons for rejecting Jesus is the result of non Christian people?
Because there is nothing to condemn, for those who walk by the Spirit,
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 1Jn.3:14
-
I'd be really interested in you expanding upon this idea, that is why are you confident that most - quite possibly all of the reasons for rejecting Jesus is the result of non Christian people?
Because there is nothing to condemn, for those who walk by the Spirit,
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 1Jn.3:14
perhaps i'm reading this incorrectly, are you saying that Christians (that is people who walk by the spirit) do not ever engage in any behaviors that may cause harm to other people or otherwise condemnable behavior? Can a person be a Christian and also perhaps lash out in anger in a high stress moment and say something that emotionally wounds another person? I guess its not clear to me if you are suggesting that Christians are people who no longer fall victim to the same sorts of damaging human foibles and weaknesses that the rest of us do.
-
Yes, but the early church understood that while evil men had a plan, the Messiah also had a plan, which was to thwart their plan without raising a fist and be willing to forgive everything done to him. For this reason, it seems impossible that the church would even think about harming the Jews in any way. It doesn't make sense.
Well, no matter how you got to the end of your thoughts, anti-Jewish sentiment, as far as I'm aware, largely began developing in the 4th century. Before that, going back to the earliest Christian communities, there was no serious anti-Jewishness to speak of. So no, it doesn't make sense and as far as I'm aware we don't see it within Christian communities for at least a couple of hundred of years.
I agree. I also remember one instance in the KJV from Deuteronomy where the text was obscured.
Yeah 22:5, that was me though.
I never heard that, but anyone who would disparage a race is someone who should have his Bible doctrine microscopes.
It's worth a look into Luther's anti-Semitic writings. And 'interesting' things like the Kristallnacht happening on Luther's birthday, the Nazi celebration of Luther's 450th birthday with a 'German Luther day', and so on.
For example, https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/image/nazi-propaganda-depicting-martin-luther
I don't think that's true in most cases. The early church lost their lives for the good news of the God of the Jews. I'm confident most and quite possibly all of the reasons for rejecting Jesus is the result of non Christian people.
Take it from someone who the church has nearly entirely alienated, a church filled with Godly well meaning devout Christians ----------------------- Christians are the bad PR, as RK put it. There is no 'true Christian', ein Volk ein Kirche ein Gott fallacy to be had here.
-
perhaps i'm reading this incorrectly, are you saying that Christians (that is people who walk by the spirit) do not ever engage in any behaviors that may cause harm to other people or otherwise condemnable behavior?
No. What I meant was, when professing Christians do bad things, it's because they're not following our Lord.
Can a person be a Christian and also perhaps lash out in anger in a high stress moment and say something that emotionally wounds another person?
Yes. We know that James and John wanted to kill the adversaries by calling fire down on them. They needed to learn and boy did they learn.
I guess its not clear to me if you are suggesting that Christians are people who no longer fall victim to the same sorts of damaging human foibles and weaknesses that the rest of us do.
Well, we're being made into the image of the Messiah, who showed the heart he and his Father have for sinners.
I would like to ask you Oscar Kipling, how you would respond in Jesus' place, to someone who slapped you in the face? I find it mind blowing how our Creator endured all that sin against himself, without vengeance.
-
Well, no matter how you got to the end of your thoughts, anti-Jewish sentiment, as far as I'm aware, largely began developing in the 4th century. Before that, going back to the earliest Christian communities, there was no serious anti-Jewishness to speak of. So no, it doesn't make sense and as far as I'm aware we don't see it within Christian communities for at least a couple of hundred of years.
I think you're right. I think it took some time to wander away from the truth.
Yeah 22:5, that was me though.
The one I was talking about is Deu.32:43. Iwas reading Heb.1:6 and looked for the citation but couldn't find it. I finally found it in the Septuagint, which I've heard is the text that 1st century Jews used.
It's worth a look into Luther's anti-Semitic writings. And 'interesting' things like the Kristallnacht happening on Luther's birthday, the Nazi celebration of Luther's 450th birthday with a 'German Luther day', and so on.
For example, https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/image/nazi-propaganda-depicting-martin-luther
Take it from someone who the church has nearly entirely alienated, a church filled with Godly well meaning devout Christians ----------------------- Christians are the bad PR, as RK put it. There is no 'true Christian', ein Volk ein Kirche ein Gott fallacy to be had here.
Thanks. I'll look at the information you provided.
I think congregations are made up of believers and unbelievers. Only God knows the difference.
-
No. What I meant was, when professing Christians do bad things, it's because they're not following our Lord.
Well, not to be a Nitpicking Nancy, but is a Christian that does something bad immediately transformed into a non-Christian until they ask for forgiveness...because like this sort of just defines Christians out of the possibility of ever doing anything wrong without accepting responsibility for the wrongs that Christians can perpetrate...that is you can say well 21 minutes ago I was a Christian, but 20 minutes ago when I kicked grandma down the stairs I was a non-Christian but 19 minutes ago I sincerely repentented and am Christian again...like technically within this paradigm no Christian did anything wrong but like only technically.
Yes. We know that James and John wanted to kill the adversaries by calling fire down on them. They needed to learn and boy did they learn.
So when they had these impure thoughts they were still Christians or no?
I would like to ask you Oscar Kipling, how you would respond in Jesus' place, to someone who slapped you in the face? I find it mind blowing how our Creator endured all that sin against himself, without vengeance.
If I had a nickel for every time i've been slapped and a dime for every reaction I've had to said slap i'd have enough money to buy a 2 liter cherry vanilla coke if it was on sale. Anyway I can say that I never drowned every organism on earth save for one family and 2 of every kind of animal, I never destroyed a town or turned anyone into a salt pillar, I never genocided whole peoples or brought multiple plagues upon a country and I haven't killed a single first born son, I never made anyone wander in the wilderness ...you get the point, just saying God has been pretty temperamental at times and so have I, but in a game of never have I ever with the creator of the universe I think I'd come out looking like the more eventempered of the 2.
-
Take it from someone who the church has nearly entirely alienated, a church filled with Godly well meaning devout Christians ----------------------- Christians are the bad PR, as RK put it. There is no 'true Christian', ein Volk ein Kirche ein Gott fallacy to be had here.
I've seen you mention this a few times and I'm very curious about your current conflicts with your Christian community, but I don't want to dig into this and cause you even more stress/pain (knowing that I don't always display a great deal of emotional intelligence)...so do you feel like discussing this in detail with me? I completely understand if not of course.... To be clear i'm interested in how this all developed (your story I suppose), what other Christians are saying/doing, your take on the biblical position you are in, if you have a support system/ community, what would be a Christian resolution to this set of circumstances..idk stuff like that.
-
Well, not to be a Nitpicking Nancy, but is a Christian that does something bad immediately transformed into a non-Christian until they ask for forgiveness...because like this sort of just defines Christians out of the possibility of ever doing anything wrong without accepting responsibility for the wrongs that Christians can perpetrate...that is you can say well 21 minutes ago I was a Christian, but 20 minutes ago when I kicked grandma down the stairs I was a non-Christian but 19 minutes ago I sincerely repentented and am Christian again...like technically within this paradigm no Christian did anything wrong but like only technically.
My view is God gives people time to grow. That's what our Lord taught, when he said,
leave it alone for one more year and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. Lk.13:8
If I had a nickel for every time i've been slapped and a dime for every reaction I've had to said slap i'd have enough money to buy a 2 liter cherry vanilla coke if it was on sale.
You'd have enough for a 2 liter if the Jews beat you, but the Romans beat Jesus, so you could probably get three 2 liters. Messiah doesn't get a drop of cherry vanilla, because he didn't seek retribution. Personally, I would have ended their lives quickly and I'm grateful he didn't.
Anyway I can say that I never drowned every organism on earth save for one family and 2 of every kind of animal, I never destroyed a town or turned anyone into a salt pillar, I never genocided whole peoples or brought multiple plagues upon a country and I haven't killed a single first born son, I never made anyone wander in the wilderness ...you get the point, just saying God has been pretty temperamental at times and so have I, but in a game of never have I ever with the creator of the universe I think I'd come out looking like the more eventempered of the 2.
I think most people who take offense at other drivers would agree with you. 😊 But seriously, considering who Jesus is, was and always will be, I don't believe any other human with that kind of authority would have endured a fraction of the abuse our Savior bore.
-
Let us imagine that this is the Christian stance: it is, in fact, not Christians who cause people to reject Christ, but unbelievers who may merely think they are Christians, claim to know Christ but actually don't, and so on:
think congregations are made up of believers and unbelievers. Only God knows the difference.
Obviously, this is an immediate dead end. If only God knows the difference, then the person who rejects Christ does so because of the actions or stated beliefs of people they believe are Christian. They don't know any better, so the difference is immaterial -- only God knows the difference, and He's not yet sharing. To us, a real Christian and a pretend Christian look the same unless it's really very painfully obvious. Even then, what we think are differences (e.g., thinking that everyone liberal must not be Christian) might not matter to God. It's difficult to judge these things. Impossible, even.
So, the Christian stance says, "No it definitely wasn't us. Oh, our proof? Well, look at how that person acted; it definitely wasn't us". But why should anyone believe that? And more to the point, are Christians immune from acting unwisely or being wrong, or doing anything any person with agency could possibly do? How is Christian PR in the US going at the moment?
"No true Christian would..."
I've seen you mention this a few times and I'm very curious about your current conflicts with your Christian community, but I don't want to dig into this and cause you even more stress/pain (knowing that I don't always display a great deal of emotional intelligence)...so do you feel like discussing this in detail with me? I completely understand if not of course.... To be clear i'm interested in how this all developed (your story I suppose), what other Christians are saying/doing, your take on the biblical position you are in, if you have a support system/ community, what would be a Christian resolution to this set of circumstances..idk stuff like that.
The short version is that at present, I'm effectively transitioning (male-to-female), having spent ~30 years trying to come up with an alternative solution to the gender dysphoria I experience, or my gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence, or whatever we want to call it. Why now? Two reasons:
1. Because I started having "fleeting thoughts of suicide". I ran out of time trying to figure out a solution that was effectively a kind of self-denial for the sake of Christ.
2. I was unable to continue standard treatment for (male) hypogonadism, having tried for a couple of years.
2. is bigger than it seems and should be well understood by anyone who has been hypogonadic for any extended period of time (I'm talking years). I'm not able to live without HRT of some kind, so I couldn't stop even if I wanted to. (I could but it's a very bad time, over decades.) Well, if TRT (testosterone replacement) is making me worse, and I'm trying to treat three serious medical issues, then why not try e2/p4 (estradiol/progesterone) to see what the impact is?
That's where I'm at. I'm not espousing some transgender ideology. I'm not neck deep in 'gender ideology'. I haven't suggested a free-for-all abandonment of 'biblical sexuality'. I haven't become a postmodernist absurdist neo-Marxist, anarcho-capitalist disciple of Lyotard raising my fist at Satre! I haven't mutilated a healthy body. But yeah, I'm on hormones, my body shape is different, my skin is softer, my hair is longer, I have breasts now, my clothes look funny, and I look funny in them, and if you're being a dick, I'll be one back and harass you about names and pronouns, so on, and so on. Hormones have consequences, and people, even Christians, make egregious assumptions. I used to look murderous, and now I'm merely complicated to be around.
But I'm not hypogonadic anymore (for now). I'm not suicidal anymore. My dysphoria/whatever you want to call it isn't a problem anymore. I have emotions, and I can actually project empathy, and I smile, and I'm not miserable to be around, and I'm happy to be alive, and I don't go to bed wishing I would die in my sleep. The hormones were a last-ditch effort. The thing I had done everything to avoid. I was losing myself and my family. I didn't know what else to try, and the best I got out of the church was, "uh well, don't do that, just pray some more". Or I'd get the "theological" answer that wasn't "pastoral" because that was a different question.
And you see, no true Christian would transition or do anything that might look like transition, and so I'm no true Christian; because no true Christian would contravene the plans of God, and transitioning is a contravention. No true Christian would ignore what's clearly taught in Scripture, and to transition is to do just that. No true Christian would spit in the face of Christ concerning their own creation, and transitioning does just that. No true Christian would engage in perversion, sexual deviancy, intentional sin, etc.
It's not fake Christians. It's Christians who read Deuteronomy and Paul and Jeremiah and think they're doing what they've been taught. It's good, God-fearing, mainline, 'conservative' Christians.
Note that I'm a bit ranty today as I have COVID. I can go into my history more if you're interested, but that might be more suitable to a DM.
-
The irony.
Athanasius is undergoing a purely medical protocol related to his hypogonadism (which is the result of a childhood issue, so this is decades long), the hormonal imbalance of which was destroying his mental health. So, doctor prescribed medication (hormone therapy) with testosterone resulted in a physically and mentally more harmful outcome. Change lanes and go with the opposite hormonal treatment and everything works much better, except for Christian societal acceptance.
So, although Athanasius has not undergone ANY surgical procedures, and has no intention of doing so, at least clothed, Athanasius has secondary sexual attributes of a female -- enlarged breasts, less facial hair, softer skin and hair.
From a non-Christian societal perspective, Athanasius is a girl. Athansius' appearance in society is feminine, yet his female wife knows otherwise in private. Athansius is not a lesbian because Athansius is married to a cis-gendered female.
I have a friend who, as a last resort in treatment of his stage 4 prostate cancer, endured both oncological chemo and female hormonal treatment, and it did the trick. It also grew him a nice pair of C-cups, eliminated his need for shaving, and radically changed his emotions.
Yet no one (at least to his face) accused him of "violated God's plan for humanity."
By and large, the church is extraordinarily shallow and unthinking and unequipped to deal with serious medical issues and their consequences. The fact that our society is currently consumed with transgenderism only makes this more difficult for folks with serious medical conditions the treatment of which results in significant issues with secondary sexual characteristics, as the assumption is that any observable change is desired by the person for the worst possible reasons.
Christians can be ridiculously unloving. So a man married to a woman is A OK, but if that same man undergoes hormone therapy for underlying medical conditions and the result is that his outward public appearance changes to female, people in the church assume that he is now thinking that he's a lesbian? Good Lord, people can be dense.
This is a bit of a side discussion.
But the real issue is, yes, Christians are often their worst PR because they believe their own PR.
-
The irony.
Athanasius is undergoing a purely medical protocol related to his hypogonadism (which is the result of a childhood issue, so this is decades long), the hormonal imbalance of which was destroying his mental health. So, doctor prescribed medication (hormone therapy) with testosterone resulted in a physically and mentally more harmful outcome. Change lanes and go with the opposite hormonal treatment and everything works much better, except for Christian societal acceptance.
So, although Athanasius has not undergone ANY surgical procedures, and has no intention of doing so, at least clothed, Athanasius has secondary sexual attributes of a female -- enlarged breasts, less facial hair, softer skin and hair.
From a non-Christian societal perspective, Athanasius is a girl. Athansius' appearance in society is feminine, yet his female wife knows otherwise in private. Athansius is not a lesbian because Athansius is married to a cis-gendered female.
I have a friend who, as a last resort in treatment of his stage 4 prostate cancer, endured both oncological chemo and female hormonal treatment, and it did the trick. It also grew him a nice pair of C-cups, eliminated his need for shaving, and radically changed his emotions.
Yet no one (at least to his face) accused him of "violated God's plan for humanity."
By and large, the church is extraordinarily shallow and unthinking and unequipped to deal with serious medical issues and their consequences. The fact that our society is currently consumed with transgenderism only makes this more difficult for folks with serious medical conditions the treatment of which results in significant issues with secondary sexual characteristics, as the assumption is that any observable change is desired by the person for the worst possible reasons.
Christians can be ridiculously unloving. So a man married to a woman is A OK, but if that same man undergoes hormone therapy for underlying medical conditions and the result is that his outward public appearance changes to female, people in the church assume that he is now thinking that he's a lesbian? Good Lord, people can be dense.
This is a bit of a side discussion.
But the real issue is, yes, Christians are often their worst PR because they believe their own PR.
i'm curious, what are the worst possible reasons? from my perspective this post expresses an attitude that directly contravenes the ostensible intention of the post....which is actually, dramatically and colloquially ironic. What a time to be alive!
-
The “worst possible reasons” would be a desire to intentionally reject God and His plan for human sexuality for the purpose of the gratification of one’s own lusts.
Many people claiming to be Christian start from a default position of “anything that does not line up with every jot and tittle of my personal opinion” = an intentional act of knowing rebellion against God
-
The “worst possible reasons” would be a desire to intentionally reject God and His plan for human sexuality for the purpose of the gratification of one’s own lusts.
Many people claiming to be Christian start from a default position of “anything that does not line up with every jot and tittle of my personal opinion” = an intentional act of knowing rebellion against God
fair enough, perhaps i've been too harsh in my assessment.
-
So, the Christian stance says, "No it definitely wasn't us. Oh, our proof? Well, look at how that person acted;
I disagree. To me, the Christian stance is, "Look at how I acted", because the purpose of the law is to show me that I'm the sinner, so to condemn anyone only makes me a hypocrite.
I was unable to open the website you provided on Luthers' anti-Jewish writings, but I did look up Kristallnacht. It kind of reminded me of the Rodney King debacle, where store owners properties were vandalized and citizens of unlike color were beaten because of mistreatment of a few police officers. Of course there are differences, but the point is, we have no right to harm people who have done nothing to us. Above this, our sweet Jesus didn't harm people who did mistreat him. That's the true gospel.
-
So, the Christian stance says, "No it definitely wasn't us. Oh, our proof? Well, look at how that person acted;
I disagree. To me, the Christian stance is, "Look at how I acted", because the purpose of the law is to show me that I'm the sinner, so to condemn anyone only makes me a hypocrite.
I was unable to open the website you provided on Luthers' anti-Jewish writings, but I did look up Kristallnacht. It kind of reminded me of the Rodney King debacle, where store owners properties were vandalized and citizens of unlike color were beaten because of mistreatment of a few police officers. Of course there are differences, but the point is, we have no right to harm people who have done nothing to us. Above this, our sweet Jesus didn't harm people who did mistreat him. That's the true gospel.
I agree that there are parallels between the king riots and Kristallnacht, but reducing the actions and reactions down to what a few police officers did or what a single assasin did sort of misses the broad social/political cultural and historical influences and interactions that filled the powder keg so that a spark could ignite an explosion of truly egregious behavior or idk maybe you do see it and you just didn't calibrate your statement as I might have.
-
I disagree. To me, the Christian stance is, "Look at how I acted", because the purpose of the law is to show me that I'm the sinner, so to condemn anyone only makes me a hypocrite.
But that's also to highlight how the other person acted. There's no getting around it.
I'm not sure where you're going with your thoughts on Kristallnacht. My point was that it fell on Luther's birthday and Nazi propaganda made a point of that fact.
-
I agree that there are parallels between the king riots and Kristallnacht, but reducing the actions and reactions down to what a few police officers did or what a single assasin did sort of misses the broad social/political cultural and historical influences and interactions that filled the powder keg so that a spark could ignite an explosion of truly egregious behavior or idk maybe you do see it and you just didn't calibrate your statement as I might have.
I see it and our calibrations aren't the same, because sin is egregious to God regardless of number or time,
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth Mt.23:35
Why on earth would they be guilty killing Abel? And guess what...so are unrepentant Nazis'.
-
But that's also to highlight how the other person acted. There's no getting around it.
You understand I'm speaking from the standpoint of judgment, right? It's only to highlight to God...how the other person acted,
Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight; so you are right in your verdict and justified when you judge. Psa.51:4
What about Uriah? David murdered him. So to sin against another human being is to sin against our Lord.
I'm not sure where you're going with your thoughts on Kristallnacht. My point was that it fell on Luther's birthday and Nazi propaganda made a point of that fact.
Thanks. The article I read just talked about the excuse for which it happened...a young Jewish man kills a Diplomat after seeing government oppress his people.
What happened to innocent Jews in the aftermath was horrific, but that's pretty much how Jesus' stay on earth went. Except our Lord overcame all their sin against him by rising from death. 😊
-
My view is God gives people time to grow. That's what our Lord taught, when he said,
leave it alone for one more year and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. Lk.13:8
yeah so it is still not clear to me how this reconciles the idea that it is non Christians that are the main influencing factor in leading people away from Jesus, is it possible to explain yourself without simply referring to a bible verse that we may not interpret in the same way?
You'd have enough for a 2 liter if the Jews beat you, but the Romans beat Jesus, so you could probably get three 2 liters. Messiah doesn't get a drop of cherry vanilla, because he didn't seek retribution. Personally, I would have ended their lives quickly and I'm grateful he didn't.
I am having a difficult time interpreting this generously, but that may very well be beside the point. If I am allowed to seperate myself into "Hero Oscar" and "Calamity Oscar" I too could claim that "Hero Oscar" has never once sought retribution because everytime he was slapped he de-escalated or showed restraint and empathy. I think that would be about as dishonest as claiming that Jesus who is also God (and also some kind of other nebulous ghost thing too) never once rained down fury and devastation on human transgressors (as well as animals animals that surely cannot be blamed for all the offensive sex, debauchery and idol worship people were apparently engaged in).... all that to say that if I don't get to seperate out all of the times that I was really cool, mature and understanding about the slings and arrows directed at me into another personage that can be discussed as having separate responsibilities than the personage that reacted with violence and fury then there is no way that Jesus is off the hook for turning a dude's wife into salt for looking back at the town that Jesus was also mercilessly turning into ash and rubble.
I think most people who take offense at other drivers would agree with you. 😊 But seriously, considering who Jesus is, was and always will be, I don't believe any other human with that kind of authority would have endured a fraction of the abuse our Savior bore.
To me this is about your claims and how they don't even maintain consistency even when reasoning within your framework. Jesus didn't let every transgression slide without meting out justice...sure he didn't leap off of the cross and Jackie Chan all of the Romans (though I would pay to see that movie), but literally anything that anyone does that doesn't fall under the constraints of what the creator of the universe has laid out as acceptable thought/behavior and/or repentance for failure to think/behave has wages and those wages are exceedingly dire. No one gets away with anything, not a jot nor a tittle gets past the great auditor...So what do I mean really? Who cares if Jesus didn't curse out the joker that gave him vinegar to drink right there on the spot because he created a universe that demands payment one way or the other... I can say that there are some people that slapped me that have gotten off totally scott free, at least when it comes to personal retribution by me...Jesus is not nearly as chill as you seem to want to paint him in this discussion.
-
yeah so it is still not clear to me how this reconciles the idea that it is non Christians that are the main influencing factor in leading people away from Jesus, is it possible to explain yourself without simply referring to a bible verse that we may not interpret in the same way?
Sure. A Christian is someone who leads others toward Jesus, not away from him.
I am having a difficult time interpreting this generously, but that may very well be beside the point. If I am allowed to seperate myself into "Hero Oscar" and "Calamity Oscar" I too could claim that "Hero Oscar" has never once sought retribution because everytime he was slapped he de-escalated or showed restraint and empathy. I think that would be about as dishonest as claiming that Jesus who is also God (and also some kind of other nebulous ghost thing too) never once rained down fury and devastation on human transgressors (as well as animals animals that surely cannot be blamed for all the offensive sex, debauchery and idol worship people were apparently engaged in).... all that to say that if I don't get to seperate out all of the times that I was really cool, mature and understanding about the slings and arrows directed at me into another personage that can be discussed as having separate responsibilities than the personage that reacted with violence and fury then there is no way that Jesus is off the hook for turning a dude's wife into salt for looking back at the town that Jesus was also mercilessly turning into ash and rubble.
I never said the preincarnate Son never killed sinners. I also never said Jesus will never bring anyone to judgment.
I thought you understood I was referring to the Messiah while he walked as a human among us, because the Judge of all living and dead said,
I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. Jn.12:47
Then added that the word he spoke would judge later.
To me this is about your claims and how they don't even maintain consistency even when reasoning within your framework. Jesus didn't let every transgression slide without meting out justice
Yes he did. What you're saying is contrary to,
God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 2Cor.5:19
...sure he didn't leap off of the cross and Jackie Chan all of the Romans (though I would pay to see that movie), but literally anything that anyone does that doesn't fall under the constraints of what the creator of the universe has laid out as acceptable thought/behavior and/or repentance for failure to think/behave has wages and those wages are exceedingly dire. No one gets away with anything, not a jot nor a tittle gets past the great auditor...So what do I mean really? Who cares if Jesus didn't curse out the joker that gave him vinegar to drink right there on the spot because he created a universe that demands payment one way or the other... I can say that there are some people that slapped me that have gotten off totally scott free, at least when it comes to personal retribution by me...Jesus is not nearly as chill as you seem to want to paint him in this discussion.
I guess Jesus descending from the cross would make anyone who abused him care.
But to answer your objections, the Messiah showed us how patient (not short suffering, but how) longsuffering his Father is toward the worst type of sin imaginable on a daily basis. To become a son is to be trained by God and the training is experience. The only begotten Son was trained that way, but only as an example to adopted sons, because he didn't need the training...because he knew what it felt like to be sinned against before he was born into this world.
Our Savior plainly taught that judgment falls on the unrepentant when he decides.
-
Sure. A Christian is someone who leads others toward Jesus, not away from him.
such sticky territory this, If i'm repelled from the very idea of Jesus by your posts here then does that give me the power to determine your Christianity? Or lets say its more subtle than being repelled, let's say your posts are not well calibrated to my sensibilities or level of biblical understanding because you answer questions with bible verses that are essentially inscrutable to me and that leads me to conclude that Christianity is vacuous gibberish with no application to modern life much less my life. I don't personally blame you for quoting the bible or anything, but we must admit that quotations and pithy statements are not necessarily the height of communicating ideas, sort of like in Enter the Dragon your Christian-ness would seem to some degree to depend on my ability to recognize that you are trying to point out the moon instead of getting me to look at your finger. Just saying even if you aren't doing anything inherently sinful you can be a total failure at leading people towards Christ.
I never said the preincarnate Son never killed sinners. I also never said Jesus will never bring anyone to judgment.
I thought you understood I was referring to the Messiah while he walked as a human among us, because the Judge of all living and dead said,
I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. Jn.12:47
Then added that the word he spoke would judge later.
You're right , you never said that I just assumed it because like if you weren't then it's really not analogous to any human reaction to getting slapped because God always reacts...seems inconsequential that God/Jesus didn't do anything right then in the moment or for his whole life (which is eternal) because everything the Romans did was judged and the verdict had eternal consequences. It's more like if someone slapped me and I didnt do anything right then, but 50 years later I show up at their deathbed and demand a sincere apology or failing that I slap them.
Yes he did. What you're saying is contrary to,
God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 2Cor.5:19
Oh word? So what happened to all of those transgressors that didn't repent and become followers of Jesus? Were they judged & what were the wages of their sins? Was it eternal life or the other thing?
I guess Jesus descending from the cross would make anyone who abused him care.
It would at least freak them out lol
But to answer your objections, the Messiah showed us how patient (not short suffering, but how) longsuffering his Father is toward the worst type of sin imaginable on a daily basis. To become a son is to be trained by God and the training is experience. The only begotten Son was trained that way, but only as an example to adopted sons, because he didn't need the training...because he knew what it felt like to be sinned against before he was born into this world.
Our Savior plainly taught that judgment falls on the unrepentant when he decides.
What does it even mean to be long suffering as an eternal being? Say "Eternal Oscar" tolerates someone being rude and disrespectful for 70x7 days if I literally always have and always will exist was that a long time? Like I could tolerate it until the end of time and still there would be an infinite existence of me not tolerating it...There is only one way to be long suffering as an eternal being and that is to not ever do anything about it, never demand repentance or justice, anything short of that is mathematically insignificant. Also all sin costs the same, so what difference does it make? does God not find all sin equally anathema, if he doesn't why does he charge the same price for all sins? The degree of sin is as meaningless a concept as long suffering in relation to God. God in Jesus form or in Ultimate Final form or in Ghost form is really just a bit of sleight of hand because God can only pretend he's not God, You cannot actually kill him, a lifetime of suffering is a dimensionless slice sandwiched between eternities as God. God cannot suffer enough to be an analogy to human suffering because God gets to go be God afterwards, its roleplaying like undercover boss or living like a homeless person for a week so that you can "really understand the plight of the underprivalidged". If God would have died on that cross and stayed dead then I'd call that a sacrifice, short of that its histrionics.
-
You understand I'm speaking from the standpoint of judgment, right? It's only to highlight to God...how the other person acted,
Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight; so you are right in your verdict and justified when you judge. Psa.51:4
What about Uriah? David murdered him. So to sin against another human being is to sin against our Lord.
You disagreed and now you're agreeing with me -- which is it?
Thanks. The article I read just talked about the excuse for which it happened...a young Jewish man kills a Diplomat after seeing government oppress his people.
What happened to innocent Jews in the aftermath was horrific, but that's pretty much how Jesus' stay on earth went. Except our Lord overcame all their sin against him by rising from death. 😊
Alright, well, the point at which we become divorced from reality is the point at which I leave you to it.
-
such sticky territory this, If i'm repelled from the very idea of Jesus by your posts here then does that give me the power to determine your Christianity?
Of course. That's how sound doctrine continues and also how false doctrine arises.
Or lets say its more subtle than being repelled, let's say your posts are not well calibrated to my sensibilities or level of biblical understanding because you answer questions with bible verses that are essentially inscrutable to me and that leads me to conclude that Christianity is vacuous gibberish with no application to modern life much less my life.
That's pretty much how many of the 'teachers" saw the Messiah and his disciples. I think it's amazing how the scribes devoted their lives to learning scripture, but didn't recognize him.
I don't personally blame you for quoting the bible or anything, but we must admit that quotations and pithy statements are not necessarily the height of communicating ideas, sort of like in Enter the Dragon your Christian-ness would seem to some degree to depend on my ability to recognize that you are trying to point out the moon instead of getting me to look at your finger. Just saying even if you aren't doing anything inherently sinful you can be a total failure at leading people towards Christ.
For most, quotations and pithy statements are the height of communicating ideas, because,
in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1Cor.1:21
You're right , you never said that I just assumed it because like if you weren't then it's really not analogous to any human reaction to getting slapped because God always reacts...seems inconsequential that God/Jesus didn't do anything right then in the moment or for his whole life (which is eternal) because everything the Romans did was judged and the verdict had eternal consequences. It's more like if someone slapped me and I didnt do anything right then, but 50 years later I show up at their deathbed and demand a sincere apology or failing that I slap them.
It wasn't inconsequential to me.
Oh word? So what happened to all of those transgressors that didn't repent and become followers of Jesus? Were they judged & what were the wages of their sins? Was it eternal life or the other thing?
They died in their sins and await final judgment.
It would at least freak them out lol
Apparently not.
What does it even mean to be long suffering as an eternal being? Say "Eternal Oscar" tolerates someone being rude and disrespectful for 70x7 days if I literally always have and always will exist was that a long time?
Longsuffering pertaining to the lifespans of men, as suffering in that enviorment is a long time, but in light of the eternal, you're right, because,
our light affliction, which is but for a moment 2Cor.4:17
And,
the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. Isa.65:20
So as unpleasant as the mistreatment believers are subjected to is, a hundred years compared to eternity was a drop in the ocean.
Like I could tolerate it until the end of time and still there would be an infinite existence of me not tolerating it...
Not for the person inflicting the damage.
There is only one way to be long suffering as an eternal being and that is to not ever do anything about it, never demand repentance or justice, anything short of that is mathematically insignificant.
Not for God in human form...or for those being comformed to his image.Of course, you're free to assume such suffering as insignificant.
Also all sin costs the same, so what difference does it make? does God not find all sin equally anathema, if he doesn't why does he charge the same price for all sins? The degree of sin is as meaningless a concept as long suffering in relation to God. God in Jesus form or in Ultimate Final form or in Ghost form is really just a bit of sleight of hand because God can only pretend he's not God, You cannot actually kill him, a lifetime of suffering is a dimensionless slice sandwiched between eternities as God. God cannot suffer enough to be an analogy to human suffering because God gets to go be God afterwards, its roleplaying like undercover boss or living like a homeless person for a week so that you can "really understand the plight of the underprivalidged". If God would have died on that cross and stayed dead then I'd call that a sacrifice, short of that its histrionics.
And what do you get to be afterwards?
-
You disagreed and now you're agreeing with me -- which is it?
I disagreed that Christians should judge people outside the church. Of course within the church, judgment should be motivated by compassion. Even when someone was excommunicated, it was for their welfare,
that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1Cor.5:5
Alright, well, the point at which we become divorced from reality is the point at which I leave you to it.
I don't know why you think David realizing he sinned against God by murdering Uriah, is being divorced from reality, as the prohibition against murder is one of the 10, but, ok.
-
I disagreed that Christians should judge people outside the church.
But I never said they should.
I don't know why you think David realizing he sinned against God by murdering Uriah, is being divorced from reality, as the prohibition against murder is one of the 10, but, ok.
Divorced from the reality of what we were talking about. We were talking about Nazi propagandizing Luther in light of Luther's anti-semitic writings, and you've wound up talking about Uriah and the sin of murder.
-
But I never said they should.
I know, so we agree on this point, yes?
Divorced from the reality of what we were talking about. We were talking about Nazi propagandizing Luther in light of Luther's anti-semitic writings, and you've wound up talking about Uriah and the sin of murder.
Right. So who was the Nazis' atrocities against?
-
Btw Oscar Kipling,
Are you a Christian?
-
Of course. That's how sound doctrine continues and also how false doctrine arises.
I don't understand how this relates because if your actual status as a Christian, that is to say what determines whether you are a Christian or not is whether or not some third party is lead to Christ by you...doctrine is not the only factor here, sound doctrine poorly communicated or poorly received (among other things) makes or breaks a Christian under this paradigm you are describing.
That's pretty much how many of the 'teachers" saw the Messiah and his disciples. I think it's amazing how the scribes devoted their lives to learning scripture, but didn't recognize him.
So, I guess even Jesus didn't meet the criteria of being a Christian...for me I'd say that makes the criteria suspect.
For most, quotations and pithy statements are the height of communicating ideas, because,
in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1Cor.1:21
lol, nice one.
It wasn't inconsequential to me.
I meant inconsequential to your point, that being that Jesus/God didn't do anything to or about his transgressors because we can take if for granted that they either came to Jesus bent the knee and begged forgiveness or were judged and given the wages of sin or will be judged and given the wages of sin at some point...so unless you are suggesting that they have and will forever get away without repentance or judgement then the mere fact that they were not immediately struck down does not mean that God did nothing about those sins, just that he did nothing in the moment...which again would be akin to me seeking justice for a slap at a later time as opposed to never seeking it. Jesus may have turned the other cheek but he also demands ultimate justice so we cannot have it both ways either God always gets his due in wages or repentance or people get away with sin scott free...which is it?
They died in their sins and await final judgment.
So will Jesus' turn of cheek free them from judgement or will they be weighed and measured? It is my understanding that Jesus turning the cheek does not in itself mean that the sin is forgiven; the offending mortal must beg forgiveness and sin no more (until the next time they sin, which is a whole other bag of tomatoes).
Apparently not.
Did I miss the part of the bible where Jesus straight up jumped down off of the cross because that is not how the story I read went.
Longsuffering pertaining to the lifespans of men, as suffering in that enviorment is a long time, but in light of the eternal, you're right, because,
our light affliction, which is but for a moment 2Cor.4:17
And,
the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. Isa.65:20
So as unpleasant as the mistreatment believers are subjected to is, a hundred years compared to eternity was a drop in the ocean.
cool, we agree.
Not for the person inflicting the damage.
Sure, but you were pointing out the longsuffering sacrifice that God endured to illustrate your point. That people and God are in entirely different categories in this regard was my point.
Not for God in human form...or for those being comformed to his image.Of course, you're free to assume such suffering as insignificant.
I'm not assuming, this is derived from the proposed attributes of God. Could God have died on the cross never to return because he got stabbed with some spears and beaten up? Was there a risk that God may have died from heat stroke and dehydration never to return? Was it an actual possibility that the creator of the universe could have slumped over and died from blood loss and drifted off into the inky blackness of oblivion forever? or, was this series of events God's perfect plan all along, to have a meat puppet die, then Go to hell and beat up the devil then come back a few days later do a victory lap and then go back to heaven? Could God's plan have failed? When was the last time you thought with tears in your eyes "a part of me died that day.....but 3 days later it came back and i'm fine now"?
If I create a game that I cannot lose under any circumstances is anyone surprised when I become the world Oscarball champion? What significance would such a title hold, would you come to the parade and gush about how amazing a feat it was that I beat everyone at the game that I created and couldn't possibly lose even though I gave every challenger a billion point head start? You can say God was at a disadvantage in human form but the mere fact that we are talking about a being that can take on different forms just illustrates the superhuman, supernatural, incomprehensible power of said being.
And what do you get to be afterwards?
Lets go back to the greatest game of all time: Oscarball. If I were to change the rules of Oscarball so that I could lose to another player then it wouldn't be Oscarball because a defining feature of Oscarball is that the Oscar always wins...So you see if it were any other way it would deprive the world of the very game of Oscarball. Does this fact suddenly make the favorite international passtime of Oscarball a fair game? I'd argue it doesn't, the game is the game and it's not fair. Similarly just due to the fact that God is eternal and all powerful, that puts him in a category of things that can't actually make sacrifices or suffer in a manner analogous to humans. Merely because we don't get anything out of a situation where God could die doesn't suddenly mean that a theatrical dramatization of death by the eternal all powerful ruler of all existence now becomes analogous to humans that can actually die and not slap around the devil and come back 3 days later then go back to being Ultimate Form God. God is in a catch 22, he cannot be diminished or injured or maimed or killed or made less perfect by anything and if he could he wouldn't be God, that's just the rules of the game.
-
Btw Oscar Kipling,
Are you a Christian?
Well, I think that depends on whether or not the things i've said have lead you toward christ or not doesn't it?
-
I know, so we agree on this point, yes?
You tell me, you're the one who disagreed.
Right. So who was the Nazis' atrocities against?
Again, what does this have to do with what we were talking about regarding Luther? The Nazis committed atrocities against very many things, including God.
-
[You tell me, you're the one who disagreed.
Ok, lets do it this way,,,here's your quote,
So, the Christian stance says, "No it definitely wasn't us. Oh, our proof? Well, look at how that person acted;
The Christian stance isn't "look at how someone other than me acted." As far as condemnation goes, the law should be pointed at self. Only Jesus could throw a stone, ya know?
Again, what does this have to do with what we were talking about regarding Luther? The Nazis committed atrocities against very many things, including God.
My point is the "very many things" were also committed against God, which doesn't seem to matter to you.
-
Well, I think that depends on whether or not the things i've said have lead you toward christ or not doesn't it?
Yes. So how long have you been a Christian?
-
The Christian stance isn't "look at how someone other than me acted." As far as condemnation goes, the law should be pointed at self. Only Jesus could throw a stone, ya know?
I said:
"Christians are the bad PR, as RK put it. There is no 'true Christian', ein Volk ein Kirche ein Gott fallacy to be had here."
You replied:
"I think congregations are made up of believers and unbelievers. Only God knows the difference."
I then replied (in part):
"So, the Christian stance says, "No it definitely wasn't us. Oh, our proof? Well, look at how that person acted; it definitely wasn't us". But why should anyone believe that? And more to the point, are Christians immune from acting unwisely or being wrong, or doing anything any person with agency could possibly do? How is Christian PR in the US going at the moment?"
I'm talking about your suggestion that it's not Christians within the church who are responsible for the bad PR, but unbelievers who claim to be Christian, who only God knows are, in fact, unbelievers. I raised the question: how can we make this claim if only God knows? I suggest that one option, though not without its shortcomings, is to look at how someone acts -- which you agree with, within the context of the church, which is what I was talking about.
My point is the "very many things" were also committed against God, which doesn't seem to matter to you.
We were talking about the bad PR of the church and the role Christians play in turning people away from Jesus, and you've somehow ended up talking about how sin is sin against God. Yeah, okay? It's simply not what we were talking about. I'm telling you what my experience with the church is, and you're talking about Uriah.
-
Well, I think that depends on whether or not the things i've said have lead you toward christ or not doesn't it?
Yes. So how long have you been a Christian?
i was being cheeky, I actually do not self identify as Christian. is my status relevant to your assertions?
-
I answered this post of yours yesterday, but somehow it got deleted.
I don't understand how this relates because if your actual status as a Christian, that is to say what determines whether you are a Christian or not is whether or not some third party is lead to Christ by you...doctrine is not the only factor here, sound doctrine poorly communicated or poorly received (among other things) makes or breaks a Christian under this paradigm you are describing.
It's not difficult when it's communicated this way,
let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. 1Jn.3:18
then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday: Isa.58:10
So, I guess even Jesus didn't meet the criteria of being a Christian...for me I'd say that makes the criteria suspect.
It makes the scribes understanding suspect.
lol, nice one.
It's just apparent...Heb.1:1, Jer.25:4, etc.
I meant inconsequential to your point, that being that Jesus/God didn't do anything to or about his transgressors because we can take if for granted that they either came to Jesus bent the knee and begged forgiveness or were judged and given the wages of sin or will be judged and given the wages of sin at some point...so unless you are suggesting that they have and will forever get away without repentance or judgement then the mere fact that they were not immediately struck down does not mean that God did nothing about those sins, just that he did nothing in the moment...which again would be akin to me seeking justice for a slap at a later time as opposed to never seeking it. Jesus may have turned the other cheek but he also demands ultimate justice so we cannot have it both ways either God always gets his due in wages or repentance or people get away with sin scott free...which is it?
It plainly says the Messiah gives sinners time to turn to God before judgment,
except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Lk.3:13
I gave her space to repent Rev.2:21
So will Jesus' turn of cheek free them from judgement or will they be weighed and measured? It is my understanding that Jesus turning the cheek does not in itself mean that the sin is forgiven; the offending mortal must beg forgiveness and sin no more (until the next time they sin, which is a whole other bag of tomatoes).
"The next time" is the same as,
they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. Heb.6:6
Did I miss the part of the bible where Jesus straight up jumped down off of the cross because that is not how the story I read went.
You missed the part where he left an empty tomb.
Sure, but you were pointing out the longsuffering sacrifice that God endured to illustrate your point. That people and God are in entirely different categories in this regard was my point.
Your point doesn't include the Spirit groaning by reason of our weakness. You seem to think God is without feeling, instead of feeling more deeply.
I'm not assuming, this is derived from the proposed attributes of God. Could God have died on the cross never to return because he got stabbed with some spears and beaten up? Was there a risk that God may have died from heat stroke and dehydration never to return? Was it an actual possibility that the creator of the universe could have slumped over and died from blood loss and drifted off into the inky blackness of oblivion forever? or, was this series of events God's perfect plan all along, to have a meat puppet die, then Go to hell and beat up the devil then come back a few days later do a victory lap and then go back to heaven? Could God's plan have failed? When was the last time you thought with tears in your eyes "a part of me died that day.....but 3 days later it came back and i'm fine now"?
You don't seem to understand that Jesus beat the devil up during his ministry.
If I create a game that I cannot lose under any circumstances is anyone surprised when I become the world Oscarball champion? What significance would such a title hold, would you come to the parade and gush about how amazing a feat it was that I beat everyone at the game that I created and couldn't possibly lose even though I gave every challenger a billion point head start? You can say God was at a disadvantage in human form but the mere fact that we are talking about a being that can take on different forms just illustrates the superhuman, supernatural, incomprehensible power of said being.
Lets go back to the greatest game of all time: Oscarball. If I were to change the rules of Oscarball so that I could lose to another player then it wouldn't be Oscarball because a defining feature of Oscarball is that the Oscar always wins...So you see if it were any other way it would deprive the world of the very game of Oscarball. Does this fact suddenly make the favorite international passtime of Oscarball a fair game? I'd argue it doesn't, the game is the game and it's not fair. Similarly just due to the fact that God is eternal and all powerful, that puts him in a category of things that can't actually make sacrifices or suffer in a manner analogous to humans. Merely because we don't get anything out of a situation where God could die doesn't suddenly mean that a theatrical dramatization of death by the eternal all powerful ruler of all existence now becomes analogous to humans that can actually die and not slap around the devil and come back 3 days later then go back to being Ultimate Form God. God is in a catch 22, he cannot be diminished or injured or maimed or killed or made less perfect by anything and if he could he wouldn't be God, that's just the rules of the game.
Nothing stopping anyone from asking to be traded to a better team.
-
I said:
"Christians are the bad PR, as RK put it. There is no 'true Christian', ein Volk ein Kirche ein Gott fallacy to be had here."
You replied:
"I think congregations are made up of believers and unbelievers. Only God knows the difference."
I then replied (in part):
"So, the Christian stance says, "No it definitely wasn't us. Oh, our proof? Well, look at how that person acted; it definitely wasn't us". But why should anyone believe that? And more to the point, are Christians immune from acting unwisely or being wrong, or doing anything any person with agency could possibly do? How is Christian PR in the US going at the moment?"
I'm talking about your suggestion that it's not Christians within the church who are responsible for the bad PR, but unbelievers who claim to be Christian, who only God knows are, in fact, unbelievers. I raised the question: how can we make this claim if only God knows? I suggest that one option, though not without its shortcomings, is to look at how someone acts -- which you agree with, within the context of the church, which is what I was talking about.
And the church teaches,
Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. 1Jn.3:15
It's between God and the individual,
For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 1Jn.3:20
We were talking about the bad PR of the church and the role Christians play in turning people away from Jesus, and you've somehow ended up talking about how sin is sin against God. Yeah, okay? It's simply not what we were talking about. I'm telling you what my experience with the church is, and you're talking about Uriah.
And I'm saying if your experience is that people in the church sinned against another member, it's no different from Uriah bearing Davids' sin, or Joseph bearing his brothers sins, or the prophets being murdered, except that no excuse can be accepted for sinning against the truly innocent. You understand how Jesus bore the sins of men, yes?
-
i was being cheeky, I actually do not self identify as Christian. is my status relevant to your assertions?
Of course. I wouldn't expect anyone who isn't a follower of Christ to understand him.
-
I answered this post of yours yesterday, but somehow it got deleted.
Such a bummer when that happens.
let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. 1Jn.3:18
then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday: Isa.58:10
are you saying that a real Christian that is following Christ will alway lead people toward Christ because they simply exude the undeniable quintessence of Jesus's glory because a life lived for Christ and by his will is like that of a pure shining beacon of righteousness in a world of darkness?
It makes the scribes understanding suspect.
are you saying that leading one toward Christ is not a perfect process in that the "world" will have a perfect understanding of it , but the perfection is in Christ either through his person or through those that truly live by his will exemplifying righteousness even when it is not understood? the deal is to live right and you will be pointing in the right direction despite if people mistake where or to what you are pointing?
It's just apparent...Heb.1:1, Jer.25:4, etc.
are you saying that everything that is needed to come to the lord is distilled in his word, but the worldly forces and desires cause the sinner to misconstrue it as foolishness to be dismissed or ignored even though it is complete and sufficient spiritual nutrition?
It plainly says the Messiah gives sinners time to turn to God before judgment,
except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Lk.3:13
I gave her space to repent Rev.2:21
The opportunity to repent was never at issue, it is the demand for it. It is undeniably demanded or the wages are paid...like you cannot be disagreeing with that...at best it feels like you want me to consider the opportunity given as a mitigating factor as in We are given an opportunity to seek forgiveness that we don't deserve as if that is analogous to not seeking justice or repentance at all... as in the case of turning the other cheek and that is full stop end of story when slapped.
"The next time" is the same as,
they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. Heb.6:6
That is what I meant, you can sincerely promise and intend not to do it again, and then do it again and then repeat the same repentance process, for me that is another problematic aspect of God's sense of justice but I felt it was out of the scope of our discussion so a whole other bag of tomatoes.
You missed the part where he left an empty tomb.
If the descriptions in the Gospels are an accurate depiction of a sequence of events then it is neither true nor useful to assert that leaving the tomb was essentially Jesus jumping down off of the cross...That simply didn't happen, the bible doesn't assert that it happened and it is my understanding that the way that it did happen was exactly as God intended it to happen for a purpose so even intimating a different sequence is to corrupt the intended message...Jesus was taken off of the cross as a corpse , entombed and then rose from the dead and exited that tomb...he did not jump down off of the cross. is what the bible actually said happened important?
Your point doesn't include the Spirit groaning by reason of our weakness. You seem to think God is without feeling, instead of feeling more deeply.
Not without feeling, but different in some very significant ways. If I ever had a point it was that these arguments are always perilous because God isn't like us. Let's take your assertion and treat it as true that Gods feelings are like a human feelings multiplied by infinity, and taken to the depth of forever, and still that is only a shadow of a whisper of a glimpse of how deeply our lord feels. If that is the case you can always ask, why not less? would an undeserved pin prick or an unearned snide remark directed at Jesus have not been infinitely more painful to our perfect lord than all the torture and anguish of all past and future human existence? Probably, because it had nothing to do with how little or much the lord suffered and everything to do with what a human understands as suffering, that is to say it was performative, a show put on for our benefit no matter how you slice it. Indulging in the amount of agony isn't even the point imo.
You don't seem to understand that Jesus beat the devil up during his ministry.
I don't? His death and defeat of the devil and subsequent return to the world of the living wasn't a part of his ministry? if it wasn't then in your view what was the point of all this anguish and agony and defeating death stuff about if not closing statements of a long ministerial argument?
Not sure you understand how sports work, If you don't like playing basketball then getting traded to another basketball team will still have you playing basketball. I don't simply want to be traded to another basketball team, I see people playing a game that they keep calling basketball but there is no hoop and they are playing it with a shuttlecock and a racket on a baseball diamond and I'm in the bleachers reading a comic book because I don't want to play and I suck at sports anyway...or something.
-
i was being cheeky, I actually do not self identify as Christian. is my status relevant to your assertions?
Of course. I wouldn't expect anyone who isn't a follower of Christ to understand him.
Weird, I wonder how one becomes a follower then. oh nevermind, not through understanding but by faith, but then you understand, but will never be able to explain it? like a club you have to join before you even know what the club is really you just have to find its members irresistibly attractive in a deeply spiritual and righteous way.....is that it?
-
are you saying that a real Christian that is following Christ will alway lead people toward Christ because they simply exude the undeniable quintessence of Jesus's glory because a life lived for Christ and by his will is like that of a pure shining beacon of righteousness in a world of darkness?
Yes,
You are the light of the world. Mt.5:14
in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation Phl.2:15
Of course, children need to grow.
are you saying that leading one toward Christ is not a perfect process in that the "world" will have a perfect understanding of it , but the perfection is in Christ either through his person or through those that truly live by his will exemplifying righteousness even when it is not understood? the deal is to live right and you will be pointing in the right direction despite if people mistake where or to what you are pointing?
The world is still being told and some have believed it, some haven't. I don't know how someone I share the gospel with doesn't understand that I'm pointing at the God of the Jews.
are you saying that everything that is needed to come to the lord is distilled in his word, but the worldly forces and desires cause the sinner to misconstrue it as foolishness to be dismissed or ignored even though it is complete and sufficient spiritual nutrition?
We've covered how God transmits his word. Of course to follow the way of our Lord is foolish to people who want it their way.
The opportunity to repent was never at issue, it is the demand for it. It is undeniably demanded or the wages are paid...like you cannot be disagreeing with that...at best it feels like you want me to consider the opportunity given as a mitigating factor as in We are given an opportunity to seek forgiveness that we don't deserve as if that is analogous to not seeking justice or repentance at all... as in the case of turning the other cheek and that is full stop end of story when slapped.
I thought we were past the truth that God demands repentance.
I showed you where Messiah left no doubt about that. It's kind of like your best friend saying, Don't drive down that road...there's a cliff at the end. So you, the passenger tell your friend the driver to stop, but he doesn't want to. He's going anyway. So you get out and over he goes.
That is what I meant, you can sincerely promise and intend not to do it again, and then do it again and then repeat the same repentance process, for me that is another problematic aspect of God's sense of justice but I felt it was out of the scope of our discussion so a whole other bag of tomatoes.
It's problematic if you wrongly assume a new believer is ready for war,
Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, “The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.” Exo.13:17
If the descriptions in the Gospels are an accurate depiction of a sequence of events then it is neither true nor useful to assert that leaving the tomb was essentially Jesus jumping down off of the cross...That simply didn't happen, the bible doesn't assert that it happened and it is my understanding that the way that it did happen was exactly as God intended it to happen for a purpose so even intimating a different sequence is to corrupt the intended message...Jesus was taken off of the cross as a corpse , entombed and then rose from the dead and exited that tomb...he did not jump down off of the cross. is what the bible actually said happened important?
Lol of course it is, but coming down from the cross early would have been the end of the suffering sinners were inflicting on him and the next event would judgment day. Besides,
there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet Mt.12:39
Not without feeling, but different in some very significant ways. If I ever had a point it was that these arguments are always perilous because God isn't like us. Let's take your assertion and treat it as true that Gods feelings are like a human feelings multiplied by infinity, and taken to the depth of forever, and still that is only a shadow of a whisper of a glimpse of how deeply our lord feels. If that is the case you can always ask, why not less? would an undeserved pin prick or an unearned snide remark directed at Jesus have not been infinitely more painful to our perfect lord than all the torture and anguish of all past and future human existence? Probably, because it had nothing to do with how little or much the lord suffered and everything to do with what a human understands as suffering, that is to say it was performative, a show put on for our benefit no matter how you slice it. Indulging in the amount of agony isn't even the point imo.
Maybe it's because you're not being conformed to his image now.
I don't? His death and defeat of the devil and subsequent return to the world of the living wasn't a part of his ministry? if it wasn't then in your view what was the point of all this anguish and agony and defeating death stuff about if not closing statements of a long ministerial argument?
I'm talking about the sufferings of Christ which continue in believers. His resurrection goes without saying.
Weird, I wonder how one becomes a follower then. oh nevermind, not through understanding but by faith, but then you understand, but will never be able to explain it? like a club you have to join before you even know what the club is really you just have to find its members irresistibly attractive in a deeply spiritual and righteous way.....is that it?
People can understand some things about God, without understanding others. Christians grow in knowledge. Like the knowledge that our Savior wants us to join a club that will cost us our lives.
-
Yes,
You are the light of the world. Mt.5:14
in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation Phl.2:15
Of course, children need to grow.
Great!
[quote author=journeyman link=topic=326.msg6959#msg6959 date=1661655
The world is still being told and some have believed it, some haven't. I don't know how someone I share the gospel with doesn't understand that I'm pointing at the God of the Jews.
[/quote]
Maybe the God of the Jews is a very specific and well defined thing, but the descriptions and interpretations of the God of the Jews can vary by quite a margin.
[quote author=journeyman link=topic=326.msg6959#msg6959 date=1661655
We've covered how God transmits his word. Of course to follow the way of our Lord is foolish to people who want it their way.
[/quote]
I mean it's covered to your satisfaction I suppose, but I wouldn't say we've covered it. I'm not even talking about following, merely understanding. Is it possible to understand these things and not want to follow? There doesn't seem to be consensus on whether non-christians can/do understand but reject anyway or they reject because they don't understand or they don't understand because they want to reject (the trickiest one of all imo).
[quote author=journeyman link=topic=326.msg6959#msg6959 date=1661655
I thought we were past the truth that God demands repentance.
I showed you where Messiah left no doubt about that. It's kind of like your best friend saying, Don't drive down that road...there's a cliff at the end. So you, the passenger tell your friend the driver to stop, but he doesn't want to. He's going anyway. So you get out and over he goes. [/quote]
I guess then I don't understand what your initial point was, what is the significance of Jesus not reacting to the abuse while he was on the cross? What was the comparison of my reactions to transgressions to Jesus' reactions meant to illustrate?
[quote author=journeyman link=topic=326.msg6959#msg6959 date=1661655
It's problematic if you wrongly assume a new believer is ready for war,
Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, “The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.” Exo.13:17
[/quote]
I don't know what you mean, but i'm happy to drop this tangent.
[quote author=journeyman link=topic=326.msg6959#msg6959 date=1661655
Lol of course it is, but coming down from the cross early would have been the end of the suffering sinners were inflicting on him and the next event would judgment day. Besides,
there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet Mt.12:39
[/quote]
okay, that is settled.
I do not understand what this means or how it would make a difference, and I'm not confident you will bother trying to explain it.
I must have missed your point again.
[quote author=journeyman link=topic=326.msg6959#msg6959 date=1661655
People can understand some things about God, without understanding others. Christians grow in knowledge. Like the knowledge that our Savior wants us to join a club that will cost us our lives.
Again, right over my head, I'd ask you to try rephrasing or explaining this in a different way, but I suppose it could be that my non-christian-ness is blocking me from understanding your posts...How can you tell when you need to try explaining something in a different way or in more detail and when a person's lack of faith is blocking them from understanding a clear and rich explanation?
-
Maybe the God of the Jews is a very specific and well defined thing, but the descriptions and interpretations of the God of the Jews can vary by quite a margin.
What we can and do know is unchanging. We learn as we walk along with him.
I mean it's covered to your satisfaction I suppose, but I wouldn't say we've covered it. I'm not even talking about following, merely understanding. Is it possible to understand these things and not want to follow?
Yes. Mk.10:21-22 is a good example.
There doesn't seem to be consensus on whether non-christians can/do understand but reject anyway or they reject because they don't understand or they don't understand because they want to reject (the trickiest one of all imo).
There's nothing complicated about being too busy to go to a wedding, or Jonah telling Assyrians judgment is coming.
I guess then I don't understand what your initial point was, what is the significance of Jesus not reacting to the abuse while he was on the cross? What was the comparison of my reactions to transgressions to Jesus' reactions meant to illustrate?
If I understand you correctly, you believe our Lords' sacrifice is meaningless, since the unrepentant will ultimately face annihilation, but because of his propitiation, I'm not facing damnation.
I do not understand what this means or how it would make a difference, and I'm not confident you will bother trying to explain it.
It simply means the Messiah showed mercy to people who hated him and some people don't want to be conformed to that image.
I must have missed your point again.
My point is, some people were conformed to Christs' image,
Of whom the world was not worthy Heb.11:15
Again, right over my head, I'd ask you to try rephrasing or explaining this in a different way, but I suppose it could be that my non-christian-ness is blocking me from understanding your posts...How can you tell when you need to try explaining something in a different way or in more detail and when a person's lack of faith is blocking them from understanding a clear and rich explanation?
I simply meant God only wants what is best for us, which is to put him first. Simple as it gets.
-
What we can and do know is unchanging. We learn as we walk along with him.
fundamental disagreements within christianity would appear to be at widdershins with this, but I suppose if any and all consequential disagreement is chalked up to "Real Christians" vs "Not real Christians" then you can believe this.
Yes. Mk.10:21-22 is a good example.
I guess then people are just giving the benefit of the doubt when they suggest that someone doesn't /wouldnt/ couldnt understand as opposed to understanding perfectly but not wanting to follow. Or understand what is being said, and would accept it except it doesn't actually appear to be true by their honest reckoning.
.There's nothing complicated about being too busy to go to a wedding, or Jonah telling Assyrians judgment is coming.
no, i suppose there isn't, not sure why that is relevant tho.
If I understand you correctly, you believe our Lords' sacrifice is meaningless, since the unrepentant will ultimately face annihilation, but because of his propitiation, I'm not facing damnation.
Not meaningless, theatrics. The idea that there was some threshold of suffering that needed to be reached is incoherent whether you assert that God felt it more deeply or less deeply than a human would, God isn't a human and never actually could be, God didn't die as even you intimated if God had actually died then stuff would have stopped existing or something...there was no point where that was a possible thing. The best I can give it is that God performed a dramatic enactment of death to make a point that he really cares about humans, but the idea that there was some amount of suffering that was enough to satisfy anything other than his own sense of what was enough is inchoate at least as I see it. IOW dying in an apparently horrific way was meant to be shocking and amazing to human sensibilities and it doesn't really matter how much or little it actually hurt if at all because that wasn't the point like...Like a parent telling a dying kid if I could take your place I would, but they can't actually do that so they make sure to put on a big show to prove how much they love them in a way the child could understand... All of this suffering stuff to me is like arguing that it mattered what time of day the vanilla bean was picked that was used in the extract in the ice cream cake that the parent bought to celebrate the kid's last birthday...it's just not even the point, the parent got the kid's favorite cake. God gave humanity the thing that resonated with the sensibilities of many people then and many people now, That is the image of suffering the worst things people's imagination could muster, all while never having done anything to deserving such suffering and humiliation...its a powerful image, but the point is the image, its rhetoric, its an argument, its an analogy. That's the most generous I can be to the whole concept.
I do not understand how this addresses my questions, I still don't understand what your initial point was, what is the significance of Jesus not reacting to the abuse while he was on the cross? What was the comparison of my reactions to transgressions to Jesus' reactions meant to illustrate?
It simply means the Messiah showed mercy to people who hated him and some people don't want to be conformed to that image.
You don't know what happened/ will happen to those people, If I slap you 10 years after you slap me is it an act of mercy that I gave you 10 slap free years in the interim but still collected my due? If that's all you mean then fine, I cannot extract any great admiration from it but that's just me.
My point is, some people were conformed to Christs' image,
Of whom the world was not worthy Heb.11:15
Again, I guess if you believe that since we didn't deserve anything then any gesture is worthy of celebration then thats your deal. I feel like if I help someone, for instance I feed a hungry person I don't expect them to fall all over themselves with praise and devotion because they didn't earn or deserve a sandwich, you help people to help them. I think it would be especially weird to make my help contingent on them following my will.
I simply meant God only wants what is best for us, which is to put him first. Simple as it gets.
Yeah, that seems simple.
-
fundamental disagreements within christianity would appear to be at widdershins with this, but I suppose if any and all consequential disagreement is chalked up to "Real Christians" vs "Not real Christians" then you can believe this.
The Bible plaunly says of God,
there is no variation or the slightest hint of change. Jas.1:17
People may change. So did angels (not for the better), but the Eternal doesn't change. It's possible not to know this characteristic of God and still be saved, but given time Christians come to know it.
no, i suppose there isn't, not sure why that is relevant tho.
It pertains because when Jonah went to Nineveh, those who were going to perish repented and,
a greater than Jonah is here. Mt.12:41
Not meaningless, theatrics.
His blood being spilled is theatrics? Maybe the reason you feel this way is because our Lords' sacrifice isn't personal to you.
Maybe it would help if you thought of Jesus as someone closely related to you, a mother, brother, child.
And your child went to help people, but was falsely accused of a crime and flayed. The theater wouldn't enter your mind.
The idea that there was some threshold of suffering that needed to be reached is incoherent whether you assert that God felt it more deeply or less deeply than a human would, God isn't a human and never actually could be
This is what most Jewish people and Jehovah Witnesses believe. I disagree.
God didn't die as even you intimated if God had actually died then stuff would have stopped existing or something...there was no point where that was a possible thing.
The Messiah wasn't only composed of flesh, so you're wrong.
The best I can give it is that God performed a dramatic enactment of death to make a point that he really cares about humans, but the idea that there was some amount of suffering that was enough to satisfy anything other than his own sense of what was enough is inchoate at least as I see it.
There's two reasons why Gos was satisfied. Besides the Son showing perfect love and some people responding, he proved the indifference and contempt of others.
IOW dying in an apparently horrific way was meant to be shocking and amazing to human sensibilities and it doesn't really matter how much or little it actually hurt if at all because that wasn't the point like...
It's apparent that most people weren't shocked at all, as most regarded Jesus as just another man. So your point is senseless, because in the ancient Roman empire, horrific suffering was commonplace. But believers who suffer horribly for their faith in God are being conformed into the Messiahs' image, which is why it says,
Precious in the sight of the LORD
Is the death of His saints. Psa116.15
Like a parent telling a dying kid if I could take your place I would, but they can't actually do that so they make sure to put on a big show to prove how much they love them in a way the child could understand...
Oh no my friend, you have the gospel backwards. God didn't become like us only to show how he can feel our pain, but so we would know his pain also,
You will indeed drink My cup, Mt.20:23
All of this suffering stuff to me is like arguing that it mattered what time of day the vanilla bean was picked that was used in the extract in the ice cream cake that the parent bought to celebrate the kid's last birthday...it's just not even the point, the parent got the kid's favorite cake. God gave humanity the thing that resonated with the sensibilities of many people then and many people now, That is the image of suffering the worst things people's imagination could muster, all while never having done anything to deserving such suffering and humiliation...its a powerful image, but the point is the image, its rhetoric, its an argument, its an analogy. That's the most generous I can be to the whole concept.
I think the point is, God created and lent to mankind and many said, "Is that all?"
I do not understand how this addresses my questions, I still don't understand what your initial point was, what is the significance of Jesus not reacting to the abuse while he was on the cross?
Well, withholding judgment is a reaction.
What was the comparison of my reactions to transgressions to Jesus' reactions meant to illustrate?
Sometimes the apathy of people.
It simply means the Messiah showed mercy to people who hated him and some people don't want to be conformed to that image.
You don't know what happened/ will happen to those people, If I slap you 10 years after you slap me is it an act of mercy that I gave you 10 slap free years in the interim but still collected my due? [/quote]Please excuse me, but the mercy would be when I came to you and appologized for sinning against you.....and you forgave me. It's not rocket science.
If that's all you mean then fine, I cannot extract any great admiration from it but that's just me.
Ok.
Again, I guess if you believe that since we didn't deserve anything then any gesture is worthy of celebration then thats your deal. I feel like if I help someone, for instance I feed a hungry person I don't expect them to fall all over themselves with praise and devotion because they didn't earn or deserve a sandwich, you help people to help them. I think it would be especially weird to make my help contingent on them following my will.
Understandable. What isn't understandable ist hat after you gave someone the sandwich, someone else came over and knocked your teeth doen your throat...or your moms throat.
Yeah, that seems simple.
Hey, it's much less complicated than water polo with a hockey stick in one hand and a comic book in the other. 😷
-
And the church teaches,
Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. 1Jn.3:15
It's between God and the individual,
For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 1Jn.3:20
Mhmm...
And I'm saying if your experience is that people in the church sinned against another member, it's no different from Uriah bearing Davids' sin, or Joseph bearing his brothers sins, or the prophets being murdered, except that no excuse can be accepted for sinning against the truly innocent. You understand how Jesus bore the sins of men, yes?
Do you understand how patronising this is?
-
The Bible plaunly says of God,
there is no variation or the slightest hint of change. Jas.1:17
People may change. So did angels (not for the better), but the Eternal doesn't change. It's possible not to know this characteristic of God and still be saved, but given time Christians come to know it.
Well....okay
It pertains because when Jonah went to Nineveh, those who were going to perish repented and,
a greater than Jonah is here. Mt.12:41
Well....okay
His blood being spilled is theatrics? Maybe the reason you feel this way is because our Lords' sacrifice isn't personal to you.
Maybe it would help if you thought of Jesus as someone closely related to you, a mother, brother, child.
And your child went to help people, but was falsely accused of a crime and flayed. The theater wouldn't enter your mind.
In a way you are correct. If my Mother jumped in front of a speeding train to push me off of the tracks then I would rightly say she risked her life to save mine because in all likelihood a speeding train would kill my mother if it hit her, it would kill any human I'm aware of. The difference is that a speeding train cannot kill God no matter how fast it is moving, If my mother was God and jumped in front of that train to push me out of the way she is in no actual danger from that train. If My God/mother then started talking about how she risked her life to jump in front of that train then there would be nothing wrong with pointing out that she was never in any actual danger from that train.... God isn't like my actual mother because my actual mother isn't the all powerful creator of the universe, my mother can't bring her body back to life...pretending that Jesus and my mom are the same is an exercise in delusion. God didn't die on the cross God was fine and still sustaining the universe and executing plans and doing all the stuff the God can do while the meat suit was temporarily entombed....unless you are saying that when Jesus died that God ceased to exist for 3 days?
This is what most Jewish people and Jehovah Witnesses believe. I disagree.
I understand that you disagree, you are of course free to do so, just as I am free to point out that your idea incoherent.
The Messiah wasn't only composed of flesh, so you're wrong.
I'm wrong? Even though I've been doing nothing but making the point that Jesus/God wasn't and couldn't be a human subject to death because he's an eternal all powerful being....Humans do not have a component or other form or a different personage that is also the eternal all powerful creator of the universe....I've been very consistent in my insistence that The Messiah wasn't just composed of flesh and even if I conceded that run of the mill humans are also composed of an immortal soul, those immortal souls are not also all powerful.
There's two reasons why God was satisfied. Besides the Son showing perfect love and some people responding, he proved the indifference and contempt of others.
Did human contempt and indifference need Jesus to prove? I'd argue it didn't. Did God fail to show perfect love previously? If so, was it a lack of capacity or lack of desire? Anyway your illustration of what was enough and why is not incompatible with my statement.
It's apparent that most people weren't shocked at all, as most regarded Jesus as just another man. So your point is senseless, because in the ancient Roman empire, horrific suffering was commonplace. But believers who suffer horribly for their faith in God are being conformed into the Messiahs' image, which is why it says,
Precious in the sight of the LORD
Is the death of His saints. Psa116.15
So after spending all of this time trying to argue that the crucifixion was some inconceivably great and painful sacrifice that I should personally identify with as if it were my own mother or child, now you are going to pretend that it isn't one of the main points that like every Christian ever has used to sell Christianity ...Like it is THE go to example for how much God loves us , that he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son!?! Like there are dead Jesus' on crosses imagery all over churches, in the figgin windows, statues & carvings.... it is a brand image that is more widespread and well known than mickey mouse ears, the nike swoosh, the american flag and the Coca-Cola font combined.....Moreover crucifixion even in Roman times was definitely something no one wanted to happen to them because they fully recognized that it was a terrible way to go, especially if you were innocent. Let's also not pretend that people thought that crucifiction wasn't a spectacle I mean it is designed as spectacle , they could have crucified people in some private dungeon somewhere but they did it in public for a reason, it was long and painful and humiliating AND public. Are you really going to disagree with that?
Oh no my friend, you have the gospel backwards. God didn't become like us only to show how he can feel our pain, but so we would know his pain also,
You will indeed drink My cup, Mt.20:23
This is not really different than what i've been saying, it was a SHOW , a display, an analogy, a dramatization communicated in a language that we could understand, it was meant to get some ideas across. The real difference is that God cannot feel our pain, not like we do, the stakes for God are different because God is not a human. If there can be any point it isn't that the pain that sin causes to God is actually crucifixion, it's an analogy or a metaphor, as if to say that being crucified while not deserving it is the closest thing that the human imagination can get to how sin feels to God. Either way you are talking about a depiction.
I think the point is, God created and lent to mankind and many said, "Is that all?"
Is that what many are saying? I'm not sure if I've crossed paths with anyone that has said they aren't Christians because Jesus didn't suffer enough, heck, i'm not even saying that, I'm saying the degree of suffering isn't the point , just a useful way to express an idea...unless i'm just misunderstanding this post. Please try to explain it to me in a different way if I have misunderstood this post.
Well, withholding judgment is a reaction.
Fine, but it's not the only reaction. The way you framed it was as if that was all to the story because you wanted to make a comparison , but I wanted to make sure that I pointed out that the comparison was not apt due to the fact that there was or will be more reaction , judgement will come.
Sometimes the apathy of people.
pretty long, confusing and convoluted walk to get to a thing that I already agree with...yep sometimes people are apathetic.
Please excuse me, but the mercy would be when I came to you and appologized for sinning against you.....and you forgave me. It's not rocket science.
You don't know that he forgave any of those people. Also you can forgive someone for something without them seeking it, God doesn't do that though. But alright I don't have a problem with calling that mercy, just a problem with you holding those people up as examples when you don't actually know that they were or will be forgiven. You're right, It's not rocket science, there aren't 1000 mutually exclusive interpretations of the rocket equation and the results of the rocket equation are always consistent for everyone and you do not have to even believe that the rocket equation is your lord and savior or have faith in delta V for it to get you those consistent results.
Understandable. What isn't understandable ist hat after you gave someone the sandwich, someone else came over and knocked your teeth doen your throat...or your moms throat.
I consider this a slight tangent off of my main point, but unfortunately I'm quite familiar with people falling victim to undeserved random acts of violence, even people that were doing good in their communities. Still lets say I did get my teeth kicked in by the same hungry person I just fed, I don't think that my undeserved brutalization would grant me any special ability to then forgive some random 3rd party for some random act of violence that they commited. I don't think that undeserved suffering can be transferred or cashed in to forgive some third party....I don't think that forgiveness is something that requires undue suffering of innocents, I do not think it's something that must be earned, I can forgive someone because I recognize that nobody is perfect, I can forgive because I don't want to carry bitterness or anger or fear or vengeance around with me anymore, True I can forgive because someone apologised, but I can also just forgive someone because I want to. The idea that God can forgive only because he suffered the worst suffering on the cross and died just doesn't add up to me...so for me the best I can do is speculate on a meta-narrative that the antecedent of the gospels was a story meant to illustrate that you can forgive even the most brutal offenses even when you didn't deserve it and even when the offenders don't deserve it...I think the Jesus story fails in that it puts a bunch of supernatural structure around forgiveness that muddies the idea of gratuitous forgiveness. I think all of the metaphysical horsetrading and torment calculus make more sense as revisions, reconciliations or rationalizations that developed because people find it so difficult to forgive without some sense of ultimate justice or payment so some sort of payment was the only way to sell the idea or make sense of gratuitous forgiveness to many people.
Hey, it's much less complicated than water polo with a hockey stick in one hand and a comic book in the other. 😷
woah, I see you're familiar with the rules of Oscarball lol
-
Ah, the obscure reference to Calvinball earns you megapoints... :o
The king of all sports, nu?
As to "Can God die?"
Of course, orthodox Christianity holds to the hypostatic union, a concept that is mystery and that although it can be explained in human language, it cannot be fully understood, being partially logical and partially metaphysical.
Jesus, in orthodoxy, is 100% deity and 100% human. In separable. Can't explain it, won't try to, because it cannot be done. It is not half and half, or some other ratio, or sometimes God and sometimes human. The theoanthropos -- the God/man. In our minds, 100% + 100% = 200%, but not in this equation.
So, clearly -- taken an orthodox Christian position -- we can clearly see the 100% human "part" die at the crucifixion. The question is "what happened to the 100% God "part" of Jesus at that moment?
Well, we know from Scripture that "Jesus became sin for us, who knew no sin."
We know that God the Father forsook Jesus, whatever that means, and however one member of the Godhead can forsake another part.
We know that the ultimate sacrifice was paid for the price of rebellion against God, and that Jesus vicariously and voluntarily took on that task for my benefit -- so that I wouldn't have to suffer a penalty that I could not pay in all of eternity.
In some mysterious, metaphysical way, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit determined a method of sacrifice in which one of them would die for humans, and the other two would resurrect the third one from the dead.
I have no idea how that worked. The logical part of me can see the nuance and the brilliance of the plan, but how that worked I have no idea. How long was Jesus dead? Three days? A nanosecond? Somewhere in between? No idea.
I have to take the metaphysical by faith. James 1:17 is speaking of a change of character, that is, God is not arbitrary or capricious like the Greek and Roman "gods" were in the eyes of the people.
The incarnation is a mystery, and we as humans either believe it by faith or not.
-
Mhmm...
Well, it seems John was intimating that if our hearts condemn us, so will God. Do you agree?
Do you understand how patronising this is?
At one time I fhought it was, because I thought the guy who asked me the same question was a nut. I spent 2 decades in a Protestant church and Mr. Nutball was talking down to me? But he wasn't talking down to me, the way I'm not being condescending toward anyone, because we're all human. We're the same. I'm no bdtter than you, or you me. The point is, he explained the gospel in a way I'd never seen and I'm only sharing what made more sensr to me.
The point is, we (you and I) know that punishing an innocent man in place of a guilty man is wrong. So what would happen to our current understanding of the gospel, if we applied what we know is wrong to it?
-
Ah, the obscure reference to Calvinball earns you megapoints... :o
The king of all sports, nu?
As to "Can God die?"
Of course, orthodox Christianity holds to the hypostatic union, a concept that is mystery and that although it can be explained in human language, it cannot be fully understood, being partially logical and partially metaphysical.
Jesus, in orthodoxy, is 100% deity and 100% human. In separable. Can't explain it, won't try to, because it cannot be done. It is not half and half, or some other ratio, or sometimes God and sometimes human. The theoanthropos -- the God/man. In our minds, 100% + 100% = 200%, but not in this equation.
So, clearly -- taken an orthodox Christian position -- we can clearly see the 100% human "part" die at the crucifixion. The question is "what happened to the 100% God "part" of Jesus at that moment?
Well, we know from Scripture that "Jesus became sin for us, who knew no sin."
We know that God the Father forsook Jesus, whatever that means, and however one member of the Godhead can forsake another part.
We know that the ultimate sacrifice was paid for the price of rebellion against God, and that Jesus vicariously and voluntarily took on that task for my benefit -- so that I wouldn't have to suffer a penalty that I could not pay in all of eternity.
In some mysterious, metaphysical way, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit determined a method of sacrifice in which one of them would die for humans, and the other two would resurrect the third one from the dead.
I have no idea how that worked. The logical part of me can see the nuance and the brilliance of the plan, but how that worked I have no idea. How long was Jesus dead? Three days? A nanosecond? Somewhere in between? No idea.
I have to take the metaphysical by faith. James 1:17 is speaking of a change of character, that is, God is not arbitrary or capricious like the Greek and Roman "gods" were in the eyes of the people.
The incarnation is a mystery, and we as humans either believe it by faith or not.
Ah a fellow sporting man lol
Unfortunately I cannot see the nuance or brilliance of the plan, vicarious atonement seems to be at odds with the edict that we should forgive...so much so that I tend to find it plausible that there may have been a historical Jesus figure that preached forgiveness and the concept that it can and should be given freely without conditions, but this didn't sell well after his death (or probably during his life, I mean he only had like 12 schmucks that were into his schtick)...so vicarious atonement is not just a rationalization of the meaningless death of a pretty chill dude, but a rationalization of forgiveness and justice itself because the idea of simply forgiving people without them ever having to pay for it is just a bridge too far. IOW from my perspective the logic of forgiveness within Christianity is fundamentally broken due to the kludge used to reconcile gratuitous forgiveness and the intrinsic human appetite for justice or fairness. The metaphysical handwaving of vicarious atonement (sorry that's how it looks to me) and all of the consequent epicycles and patches thereof allows Christians to claim that forgiveness and the salvific gift is both free and unfathomably costly. Don't get me wrong that's not the only reconciliatory kludge in the abrahamic religions or anything, I just happen to be talking about this particular aspect right now. I enjoy thinking about the metaphysics and the logic and poking at the reasoning and the logical consequences of this or that conception of the supernatural assertions people promote, but I do think that there are ideas underneath it all that could be useful if there wasn't an overarching need to make it all hang together...I sometimes think that this is sort of what some people mean by having faith, but it seems an unnecessarily unparsimonious step in order to get something out of it imo.
-
Careful, or you will be required to sing the Very Sorry Songg, unless you are posting in a No Song Zong or touching the Opposite Pole, in which I will have to sing.
Granted that the 12 disciples were indeed schmucks, there were also an addition 58, plus an addition 50 plus in the Upper Room, plus, well, as the Thessalonian citizens complained, they "turned the world upside down."
I guess for me, the ultimate issue is the sin issue. I've studied a gazillioni (that's a brazillian, will 3 extra zeroes) world religions (granted, which a pre-existing Christian bias), and I can't find any that deal adequately with the eternal evilality/evilness of sin.
If there is a God, and I'm fine on that issue, and if there is evil, and I'm quite sure about that, then there has to be a way to resolve the seemingly incomprehensible discrepancy with their co-existence, and the Christian ethic of vicarious atonement is the only one that gets there for me. Everything else ends with evil still either having power or co-existing with good.
But that's me.
I think that's 6 3/4 points, subject to revisions as the rules change, since we can only use the rules twice except for the rules that we can use more than twice.
-
Yes,
You are the light of the world. Mt.5:14
in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation Phl.2:15
Of course, children need to grow.
Great!
[quote author=journeyman link=topic=326.msg6959#msg6959 date=1661655
The world is still being told and some have believed it, some haven't. I don't know how someone I share the gospel with doesn't understand that I'm pointing at the God of the Jews.
Maybe the God of the Jews is a very specific and well defined thing, but the descriptions and interpretations of the God of the Jews can vary by quite a margin.
[quote author=journeyman link=topic=326.msg6959#msg6959 date=1661655
We've covered how God transmits his word. Of course to follow the way of our Lord is foolish to people who want it their way.
[/quote]
I mean it's covered to your satisfaction I suppose, but I wouldn't say we've covered it. I'm not even talking about following, merely understanding. Is it possible to understand these things and not want to follow? There doesn't seem to be consensus on whether non-christians can/do understand but reject anyway or they reject because they don't understand or they don't understand because they want to reject (the trickiest one of all imo).
[quote author=journeyman link=topic=326.msg6959#msg6959 date=1661655
I thought we were past the truth that God demands repentance.
I showed you where Messiah left no doubt about that. It's kind of like your best friend saying, Don't drive down that road...there's a cliff at the end. So you, the passenger tell your friend the driver to stop, but he doesn't want to. He's going anyway. So you get out and over he goes. [/quote]
I guess then I don't understand what your initial point was, what is the significance of Jesus not reacting to the abuse while he was on the cross? What was the comparison of my reactions to transgressions to Jesus' reactions meant to illustrate?
[quote author=journeyman link=topic=326.msg6959#msg6959 date=1661655
It's problematic if you wrongly assume a new believer is ready for war,
Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, “The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.” Exo.13:17
[/quote]
I don't know what you mean, but i'm happy to drop this tangent.
[quote author=journeyman link=topic=326.msg6959#msg6959 date=1661655
Lol of course it is, but coming down from the cross early would have been the end of the suffering sinners were inflicting on him and the next event would judgment day. Besides,
there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet Mt.12:39
[/quote]
okay, that is settled.
I do not understand what this means or how it would make a difference, and I'm not confident you will bother trying to explain it.
I must have missed your point again.
[quote author=journeyman link=topic=326.msg6959#msg6959 date=1661655
People can understand some things about God, without understanding others. Christians grow in knowledge. Like the knowledge that our Savior wants us to join a club that will cost us our lives.
Again, right over my head, I'd ask you to try rephrasing or explaining this in a different way, but I suppose it could be that my non-christian-ness is blocking me from understanding your posts...How can you tell when you need to try explaining something in a different way or in more detail and when a person's lack of faith is blocking them from understanding a clear and rich explanation?
It seems what you're saying is, if someone lives after being killed, his sacrifice is meaningless. If I understand you correctly, consider hiw the Messiah said,
nothing shall by any means hurt you. Lk.10:19
whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Jn.11:26
But this doesn't make his followers sacrifices meaningless, or Jesus' for sure.
-
Careful, or you will be required to sing the Very Sorry Songg, unless you are posting in a No Song Zong or touching the Opposite Pole, in which I will have to sing.
Granted that the 12 disciples were indeed schmucks, there were also an addition 58, plus an addition 50 plus in the Upper Room, plus, well, as the Thessalonian citizens complained, they "turned the world upside down."
I guess for me, the ultimate issue is the sin issue. I've studied a gazillioni (that's a brazillian, will 3 extra zeroes) world religions (granted, which a pre-existing Christian bias), and I can't find any that deal adequately with the eternal evilality/evilness of sin.
If there is a God, and I'm fine on that issue, and if there is evil, and I'm quite sure about that, then there has to be a way to resolve the seemingly incomprehensible discrepancy with their co-existence, and the Christian ethic of vicarious atonement is the only one that gets there for me. Everything else ends with evil still either having power or co-existing with good.
But that's me.
I think that's 6 3/4 points, subject to revisions as the rules change, since we can only use the rules twice except for the rules that we can use more than twice.
Look, I'll put the flag back, but i'm not singing the song because I already made an opposite-opposite declaration by not declaring it.
I won't pretend to have studied even a brazilian religions much less a gazillion, though I did once watch a youtube video of a missionary guy trying to explain the Christian afterlife to an indigenous fellow in the amazon and amusingly he was having none of it. Not to go on too much of a tangent,but I've seen several instances where indigenous hunter gatherers seem to dismiss the idea of an afterlife or simply assert that they don't know which I think is an interesting bit of pragmatism...or something.
I guess I am not burdened with those particular issues with sin and evil, that is that they need to be dealt with in some ultimate way. From my perspective it seems pretty clear that sin and evil (such as it is) both have power and coexist with good (such as it is) sometimes in the same person, sometimes in the same moment or action. Anyway your dissatisfaction driven by the need for their to be some resolution to the discrepancy you described is both common and personally familiar, it's also exactly why I believe (at least in part) the concept of substitutiary atonement came into being, or why killing an animal could make up for missing your kid's birthday or why saying a prayer for every bead in a special necklace makes up for checking out your bosses wife at the Christmas party. Not for nothing I read something somewhere about the effects of something I believe is called moral priming, or ethical priming maybe, anyway its about how thinking about rules or ethics can prime folks to be less disposed to engaging in rule breaking behaviors. The rituals and traditions and concepts that make us think about doing the right thing probably predisposes us toward doing the right thing, I mean like some percentage above replacement. To me that makes actual sense, but when I think about it in the Christian context, that all of these mysteries and plans are supposed to be real it really starts to fall apart...Like even if I handwave away the issue of foresight, that is the problems with the idea of God enacting a plan for a universe that he "hopes" will succeed but knows will fail almost immediately and is sort of constantly coming up with patches and reboots, I cannot fathom how God ever thought it would work in the first place, like if he had asked me i'd have been like 'oh, no, no, nope, nah, this isn't going to do what you want it to". Like it really had no hope of succeeding and the solution makes even less sense than the problem ...like the only value I can see in the bible is in the metatextual sense because it literally cannot be taken literally or you wind up with folks like who are reasonable and probably good salt of the earth folk, except they can't see that sin and evil and good are things that people think and do, and life is not ultimately fair and death is not ultimately fair and forgiveness is a choice you can make without anybody being crucified and no one deserves eternal anything and that doesn't matter because no one gets eternal anything anyway. idk
Legal Disclaimer:
The opinions regarding Scientology expressed in this post are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of bibleforums.us or its members. The designations of Scientology's obvious stupidity, shady financial motives & the absurdity of Lor Xenu employed in this post and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of bibleforum.us concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.
-
Also, our Lord said,
Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you Jn.15:20
So people can know how the ones who condemned Jesus were wrong when they thought God was exacting judgment against him,
Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.
But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. 1Pet.4:12-13 😊
-
Where to begin? The Crusades? The Inquisition? The blood libels? The forced conversions? The expulsions? Martin Luther's screeds?
-
Kanye
-
Kanye
I appreciate the humor but it's really a serious and sad topic.
-
Most of you have probably never heard of this sad phenomena.
Host Desecration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration)
Host desecration is a form of sacrilege in Christian denominations that follow the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It involves the mistreatment or malicious use of a consecrated host—the bread used in the Eucharistic service of the Divine Liturgy or Mass (also known by Protestants simply as Communion bread).
Specifically-
Accusations of host desecration (German: Hostienschändung) leveled against Jews were a common pretext for massacres and expulsions throughout the Middle Ages in Europe.
and
The penalties for Jews accused of defiling sacred hosts were severe. Many Jews, after accusations and torture, "confessed" to abusing hosts, and the accused Jews were condemned and burned, sometimes with all the other Jews in the community, as happened in Beelitz in 1243, in Prague in 1389, and in many German cities, according to Ocker's writings in the Harvard Theological Review. According to William Nichol, over 100 instances of Jews pleading guilty to the desecration of sacred hosts have been recorded.
-
I've reached a point in my life that the depth of evil of mankind is no longer a surprise at any level.
When one is evil, any excuse to commit evil is deemed justification.
Satan is either still pissed that he failed to destroy the bloodline of Jesus and is now just vengeful, or he thinks the Messiah is yet to come through the Jewish people. The fact that Satan drives evil men to commit evil deeds is not unexpected.
Of course, one one believes that flour and water becomes magic bread, that kind of religious delusion leads those holding to the magic bread theory to commit all sorts of evil ostensibly in the "name of Jesus" in order to protect the delusion of the magic bread.
-
When one is evil, any excuse to commit evil is deemed justification.
Topic of discussion is "Persecution Of Jews By Christians." Did Christians persecute Jews? Yes.
-
Ah, so now is the call to be anti-racist? It is no longer sufficient to merely not be racist?
Is there any suggestion that non-anti-semitic Christians must now embrace their inherent anti-semitism, declare themselves anti-anti-semites, and repent in sackcloth and ashes (or would that be considered cultural appropriation?)
Seriously, bro, I don't understand the point of this thread.
Have Jews been persecuted since Abraham pulled the U-Haul our of Ur? yes.
Have SOME Christians persecuted Jews since the morning of the resurrection of Jesus? Yes.
Is persecution of the Jewish people consistent with a true Christian world view and ethic? No
-
I believe that's the /thread.