3 Theological Mysteries

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I follow most of the Christian traditions and ideals. I read the Bible. I pray the Lord's Prayer. I go to church. Many have asked me why I'm not a Christian and its because of three main ideas which simply don't make sense to me that form the very basis of the Christian theological tradition:

1) The first idea is that Jesus died for our sins. Why did he have to do this and what did it change? What specifically about this theological idea makes it necessary that God needs this little "trick" per se in order to forgive people? Why did God need to incarnate himself and die in order to forgive people? I've heard it said that Jesus made a sacrifice but I've also heard it said that its more like Jesus fell on the grenade to save humanity but he (as God) pulled the pin in the first place to start the whole calamity. If you pull the pin on a grenade, chuck it at someone and then dive to save the person, did you really make a big sacrifice or are you just as much to blame for the whole situation?

2) Why did Jesus have to rise from the dead? Is it just so that prophecy could be fulfilled? Is it just to make a point that he's special? Because the symbolic curtain tore when Jesus breathed his last breathe symbolizing people no longer needed the medium of the holiest of holies in the temple to reach God. But he hadn't resurrected yet. I don't understand the purpose of the resurrection.

3) Why does Jesus have to be God in order for this all to take place? The Jewish people of the time did not think the Messiah was going to be God, that wasn't part of the prophecy and Jews to this day do not think their Messiah will be God incarnate. If Jesus wasn't God, could Jesus still not have done all these things simply by being in a "close relationship" with God or being "enlightened" or on a different "spiritual level"? Why does Jesus have to be God? And what does that phrase even mean? God is everywhere and in everything is he not? So we are all sons and daughters of God just as Christ is a son of God (or, a Son of Man as he is most often referred to).

 

[LWB]

I look to John chapter 15 to understand some of these mysteries.

It is difficult to explain my intuition, which is the only way I can begin to grasp spiritual ideas, but my impression is that we are an extension of the Logos, Christ. Like a branch can grow from the main stem of a plant, and is intimately connected to the whole organism, so we are connected to Christ. I believe our consciousness and very life really belongs to the Lord, and is lent to us to see what we'll do with it.

God the Father is like the gardener or plant breeder, who is seeking to attain a new kind of specimen. One that is bountiful in the fruit of love. But as with nature, sometimes mutations are not so beneficial. Sometimes a plant can suffer a disease or a plague of aphids, so if the plant is to be saved, along with all the hard work that has gone into its propagation, drastic action is needed.

So in order to bring us into existence, God's own body - Christ Jesus, the Logos, had to bear us. Much like a mother bears her infant in the womb. So Christ could have severed us from him, like we might amputate a gangrenous limb, but he chose instead to save us. To find a way to effect our cure.

That's my answer for one, though I fear it may be unintelligible.

2. Jesus, or the Logos had to rise from the dead because he is life itself. As I read someone mention on this forum recently: God, or the Logos doesn't merely exist, the Logos IS existence. God was not limited to the person of Jesus, for God transcends person hood. We are taught that God is more than one person, so we have the doctrine of the Trinity.

3. What could be more fitting than the very one that Israel was called by, the very one that contended with Israel through all her rebellion and adultery, finally came down in person to redeem her? How could the Messiah be anyone else but God?

Okay, so God is everywhere and in everything - yes, I agree that God interpenetrates the universe on every level. I believe that we are profoundly connected to God. And although I said God transcends person hood, still, somehow, God is the Father, the designer of all reality, who has a single will and plan. His son, who shares his will perfectly, the Logos, has manifested himself only in the person of Jesus. I don't understand how this works, but I'm able to know these concepts enough to just accept them. They give me an insight into God that I cannot put into words, it is just this understanding I have. A leap of faith is required to just take such tenets and run with them.

 

[Tim Myers]

"What specifically about this theological idea makes it necessary that God needs this little "trick" per se in order to forgive people?"

God does not need it.....we do.....

 

[singpeace]

1) Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.


2) Matt 12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.

3) John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ 31 I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.”
32 And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. 33 I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”

1) Without the shedding of innocent blood, there is no remission of sins. So Christ's innocent blood had to be shed.

2) Jesus bodily rose from the grave as a sign to the unbelieving first century Jews. Because that evil and wicked generation required a sign(see also 1 Cr 1:22).

3) John the baptist said that Christ was the Son of God. 1 John 5:20 says that the Son of God is the one true God.

 

[razeontherock]

1) The first idea is that Jesus died for our sins. I've heard it said that Jesus made a sacrifice but I've also heard it said that its more like Jesus fell on the grenade to save humanity ... did you really make a big sacrifice or are you just as much to blame for the whole situation?

While I won't say that everything you can hear on the subject is necessarily true, I will say that for eternity itself we could gaze into this truth with utmost clarity and still never take it all in. So it's not a "this or that" thing. One facet of it, is it is G-d taking responsibility; Jehovah Jireh.

2) Why did Jesus have to rise from the dead?

1) In another discussion I'm participating in, it was asked how we know G-d is actually good and not rather that He is evil and we just have everything backwards. My answer is the resurrection.

2) Romans 1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:"

3) Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it."

I don't understand the purpose of the resurrection.

4) that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)

5) This might make more sense if you also put the Ascension in it's proper place? I'm amazed how many overlook that ...

3) Why does Jesus have to be God in order for this all to take place? Why does Jesus have to be God? And what does that phrase even mean?

I encourage you to make the last one your #1 question. Not until what it means is answered to your satisfaction, do the answers to the other questions make sense. Obviously what it does not mean, is that G-d was ever reduced to a finite mortal. Personally, I see this as being why the virgin birth is so important (I also see other religions having the idea of a virgin birth as G-d speaking to us, preparing people for Christ, and for scoffers to use it as an argument against Christianity to be ... dense.)

 

[drich0150]

1) The first idea is that Jesus died for our sins. Why did he have to do this and what did it change?

Because above all else God is righteous. Righteousness demands a sacrifice for sin.
Say if someone came and brutally murdered your family (all of them) you would feel a need for justice would you not? For God this need translates to a demand. This demand is paid by the blood of Christ for the murder as well as the liar or gossip.

What specifically about this theological idea makes it necessary that God needs this little "trick" per se in order to forgive people? Why did God need to incarnate himself and die in order to forgive people?

Because True righteousness demands an account for sin. We are told that this account for any and all sin is death. There was Only one sacrifice that could be made for the whole of humanity that was suitable. That is why the Son had to die for your sins.

I've heard it said that Jesus made a sacrifice but I've also heard it said that its more like Jesus fell on the grenade to save humanity but he (as God) pulled the pin in the first place to start the whole calamity. If you pull the pin on a grenade, chuck it at someone and then dive to save the person, did you really make a big sacrifice or are you just as much to blame for the whole situation?

Your analogy does not really work here. Primarily because it does not to take into account for the reasons why God allowed sin to be introduced to man.
True Choice.

2) Why did Jesus have to rise from the dead? Is it just so that prophecy could be fulfilled?

If for no other reason this cements His claim to deity, the resurrection points to the truth in the nature of all that He claimed and promised. This includes our resurrection.

Is it just to make a point that he's special? Because the symbolic curtain tore when Jesus breathed his last breathe symbolizing people no longer needed the medium of the holiest of holies in the temple to reach God. But he hadn't resurrected yet. I don't understand the purpose of the resurrection.

The curtain was torn at the death of Christ because at that moment the barrier between God and His people was breached.

The resurrection was a separate event. As i pointed out, one of the reasons for the resurrection was to point to the deity of Christ. People often ask How do we know that Christianity is the one true religion? It is because Christ/God established it. We know Christ was God because He said He was, and this is confirmed by the resurrection.
What other "prophet" rose from the grave?

3) Why does Jesus have to be God in order for this all to take place?

Because only God can be in His own Expressed Will (without sin) all of the time. A sinless sacrifice is what is required to pay the sin debt of the world. As established by the animal sacrifices of the OT something innocent/without sin has to die for the guilty/sinful.

The Jewish people of the time did not think the Messiah was going to be God, that wasn't part of the prophecy and Jews to this day do not think their Messiah will be God incarnate.

The reason they thought this was because they held to tradition and traditional interpretations over that of what God was doing. In a sense they valued their personal understandings of God more than how God was actually working in the world. Their was a sin of pride in that they thought they knew God, through their traditions, and rituals. when in fact they only knew their traditions and rituals. When God move past these traditions and rituals they did not.

They were always taught that they were the "chosen," but to God this means something different than what they are taught. Theirs is a doctrine of genetic exclusivity, and introducing a "Messiah" that breaks that doctrine is not, or was not accepted. So they look for a physical savior because theirs is a doctrine that preserves tradition rituals and blood line above all else. (The physical aspects of spiritual purity.)

Originally this was important so that the linage of Christ could be established. The Jews were Chosen. In that they were God's people who were to bring the savior to all of the world. they weren't chosen to perpetuate tradition and ceremony forever and ever for no reason.

If Jesus wasn't God, could Jesus still not have done all these things simply by being in a "close relationship" with God or being "enlightened" or on a different "spiritual level"?

We are told by Christ that John the baptist was the most righteous man born to woman. John in his own words said He was not worthy to even untie the sandals of Christ. So no, a spiritual leader or a simple prophet would not be able to do what Christ did.

Why does Jesus have to be God?

Who else would have the authority to remove the sin debt of the world?

And what does that phrase even mean?

You are a being that dwells in a body. This being is your conscientiousness, or your soul. Christ was a man who conscientiousness was God, or rather the Son of God the Father.

God is everywhere and in everything is he not?

This is a very simplistic way of describing what we know to be the omni presents of God. Also know the "Omni" Aspects of God as they are taught and described today do not appear in scripture. In this case the ever presents of God as described by the definition of the Omni Presents of God is an attempt to describe what the writers of the bible struggled to put into words. God has A presents in all aspects of Creation. This does not mean that His presents would be akin to a presents we would know or recognize, let alone define with a one word term. The bible description of the "Omni presents" of God may at first glance may seem overly simplistic, but i have found we often have to resort to broad definitions and simple descriptions to describe what it is we truly do not understand. It's been a few thousand years and I still do not believe that "we" can describe the attributes of God any better or more accurately than what has already been said in scripture.

So we are all sons and daughters of God just as Christ is a son of God

Actually no. It is through Christ and His atoning sacrifice that you are made to be a son or daughter to God. You are not like Christ in that in your conscientiousness resides in a soul, not another form of God.

(or, a Son of Man as he is most often referred to).

Which only describes one aspect of His being.

 

[oi_antz]

Hi leftrightleftrightleft, it's the first time we have conversed! Well, I hope we will be able to discover something by thinking together. Let me begin by sharing what you have inspired me to think of and then I'll address your questions.

The king of Babylon, the morning star, the prince of the air, Lucifer, Satan, the devil. These are names given to Jesus' enemy who also happens to be the enemy of mankind. What makes him the enemy of mankind? The fact that he deceived Adam and Eve to disobeying God and thereby letting the curse of the knowledge of good and evil into the world, and he has since been the antagonist for evil deeds, preying upon the weakened human heart to deceive the nations into working for his own good pleasure and wanting to gain the position of worship that is due to God. The humans who work for Satan also do so for their own good pleasure because there is a lot of money and power involved in the religious industry. What makes him Jesus' enemy? The fact that he would rather run the world his own way which is not in accordance with God's law. God sent prophets and even His own son to try to get a message through to the religious leaders but they refused to listen because the temptation of sin is so great:

Matthew 21:33-45

Specifically notice the following verses:

35 “The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.

38 “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

So now that I have established with you the basis of the dispute between Satan and Jesus, let's see how this relates to your three questions.

I follow most of the Christian traditions and ideals. I read the Bible. I pray the Lord's Prayer. I go to church. Many have asked me why I'm not a Christian and its because of three main ideas which simply don't make sense to me that form the very basis of the Christian theological tradition:

1) The first idea is that Jesus died for our sins. Why did he have to do this and what did it change? What specifically about this theological idea makes it necessary that God needs this little "trick" per se in order to forgive people? Why did God need to incarnate himself and die in order to forgive people? I've heard it said that Jesus made a sacrifice but I've also heard it said that its more like Jesus fell on the grenade to save humanity but he (as God) pulled the pin in the first place to start the whole calamity. If you pull the pin on a grenade, chuck it at someone and then dive to save the person, did you really make a big sacrifice or are you just as much to blame for the whole situation?

Very good question. There must have transpired an enormous amount of contention between Jesus and the religious leaders at the time when all this happened, so much in fact that the religious leaders would have wanted to kill Him so they could claim God's kingdom (see verses quoted above). Furthermore, we see in John 8:11 that Jesus has the right to forgive sins even without the need of the sacrifice. Paul writes a lot about how Jesus' crucifixion was the final atoning sacrifice in Hebrews 9, where His blood established a new covenant with God doing away with the temple sacrifices. Some Jews don't believe in the new covenant.

2) Why did Jesus have to rise from the dead? Is it just so that prophecy could be fulfilled? Is it just to make a point that he's special? Because the symbolic curtain tore when Jesus breathed his last breathe symbolizing people no longer needed the medium of the holiest of holies in the temple to reach God. But he hadn't resurrected yet. I don't understand the purpose of the resurrection.

I understand that He needed to be resurrected so He can perform His duty, which is found in Hebrews 10:

Hebrews 10
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

That's a rather intense piece of scripture to consider, please do spend some effort to understand it well since it also relates to question 1.

3) Why does Jesus have to be God in order for this all to take place? The Jewish people of the time did not think the Messiah was going to be God, that wasn't part of the prophecy and Jews to this day do not think their Messiah will be God incarnate. If Jesus wasn't God, could Jesus still not have done all these things simply by being in a "close relationship" with God or being "enlightened" or on a different "spiritual level"? Why does Jesus have to be God? And what does that phrase even mean? God is everywhere and in everything is he not? So we are all sons and daughters of God just as Christ is a son of God (or, a Son of Man as he is most often referred to).

Read John 1, it says the Word was with God and the Word was God, and the Word became human and dwelled with us. So the Word of God physically took on a human form. I think if you take the parable of Matthew 21:33-45, you will see that Jesus is the last messenger that God will send. So on one hand Satan's grip on the kingdom of God has become stronger by killing Jesus, but on the other hand it only takes one straw to break a camel's back, and each person who overcomes the enemy is another straw on the camel's back. This is the meaning of the parable of the bags of gold, you are invited to work for Jesus. At some stage God will draw the line and will send Jesus to return and harvest earth. Then the devil will be put away and the new earth will become the dwelling for all of God's people forever and ever, but we would all like to see you saved before time is finished. Can you let me know your thoughts about these answers?

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

I follow most of the Christian traditions and ideals. I read the Bible. I pray the Lord's Prayer. I go to church. Many have asked me why I'm not a Christian and its because of three main ideas which simply don't make sense to me that form the very basis of the Christian theological tradition:

1) The first idea is that Jesus died for our sins. Why did he have to do this and what did it change? What specifically about this theological idea makes it necessary that God needs this little "trick" per se in order to forgive people? Why did God need to incarnate himself and die in order to forgive people? I've heard it said that Jesus made a sacrifice but I've also heard it said that its more like Jesus fell on the grenade to save humanity but he (as God) pulled the pin in the first place to start the whole calamity. If you pull the pin on a grenade, chuck it at someone and then dive to save the person, did you really make a big sacrifice or are you just as much to blame for the whole situation?

2) Why did Jesus have to rise from the dead? Is it just so that prophecy could be fulfilled? Is it just to make a point that he's special? Because the symbolic curtain tore when Jesus breathed his last breathe symbolizing people no longer needed the medium of the holiest of holies in the temple to reach God. But he hadn't resurrected yet. I don't understand the purpose of the resurrection.

3) Why does Jesus have to be God in order for this all to take place? The Jewish people of the time did not think the Messiah was going to be God, that wasn't part of the prophecy and Jews to this day do not think their Messiah will be God incarnate. If Jesus wasn't God, could Jesus still not have done all these things simply by being in a "close relationship" with God or being "enlightened" or on a different "spiritual level"? Why does Jesus have to be God? And what does that phrase even mean? God is everywhere and in everything is he not? So we are all sons and daughters of God just as Christ is a son of God (or, a Son of Man as he is most often referred to).

Trying to reason out spiritual things with man's logic simply will not work. My suggestion is to get on your knees and humble yourself before the Lord, beg that he will give you spiritual eyes to see, and spiritual ears to hear. Only with the guidance of the Holy Spirit will you understand.

 

[elman]

I follow most of the Christian traditions and ideals. I read the Bible. I pray the Lord's Prayer. I go to church. Many have asked me why I'm not a Christian and its because of three main ideas which simply don't make sense to me that form the very basis of the Christian theological tradition:

1) The first idea is that Jesus died for our sins. Why did he have to do this and what did it change? What specifically about this theological idea makes it necessary that God needs this little "trick" per se in order to forgive people? Why did God need to incarnate himself and die in order to forgive people? I've heard it said that Jesus made a sacrifice but I've also heard it said that its more like Jesus fell on the grenade to save humanity but he (as God) pulled the pin in the first place to start the whole calamity. If you pull the pin on a grenade, chuck it at someone and then dive to save the person, did you really make a big sacrifice or are you just as much to blame for the whole situation?

2) Why did Jesus have to rise from the dead? Is it just so that prophecy could be fulfilled? Is it just to make a point that he's special? Because the symbolic curtain tore when Jesus breathed his last breathe symbolizing people no longer needed the medium of the holiest of holies in the temple to reach God. But he hadn't resurrected yet. I don't understand the purpose of the resurrection.

3) Why does Jesus have to be God in order for this all to take place? The Jewish people of the time did not think the Messiah was going to be God, that wasn't part of the prophecy and Jews to this day do not think their Messiah will be God incarnate. If Jesus wasn't God, could Jesus still not have done all these things simply by being in a "close relationship" with God or being "enlightened" or on a different "spiritual level"? Why does Jesus have to be God? And what does that phrase even mean? God is everywhere and in everything is he not? So we are all sons and daughters of God just as Christ is a son of God (or, a Son of Man as he is most often referred to).

I don't think God is everywhere and in everything. God is where ever He wants to be, but can also not be somewhere if that is His desire. We are not all sons and daughters of God if we do not love. Only one who loves others can be a child of God.

 

[bling]

I follow most of the Christian traditions and ideals. I read the Bible. I pray the Lord's Prayer. I go to church. Many have asked me why I'm not a Christian and its because of three main ideas which simply don't make sense to me that form the very basis of the Christian theological tradition:

1) The first idea is that Jesus died for our sins. Why did he have to do this and what did it change? What specifically about this theological idea makes it necessary that God needs this little "trick" per se in order to forgive people? Why did God need to incarnate himself and die in order to forgive people? I've heard it said that Jesus made a sacrifice but I've also heard it said that its more like Jesus fell on the grenade to save humanity but he (as God) pulled the pin in the first place to start the whole calamity. If you pull the pin on a grenade, chuck it at someone and then dive to save the person, did you really make a big sacrifice or are you just as much to blame for the whole situation?

You are asking a lot of Good questions, none of which can be answered with a sentence.

The reason these questions bother you is because you have heard all the standard “Christian” answers and find flaws in all of them. I have also found flaws in all the standard answers that is why I came up with my own answers and can defend them. We have broken off our discussion in the past, because you did not have time, so do you have time now?

I would prefer to just ask you questions have you answer them and move on with more questions until you find your answer (not just give you my answer since that is all it is), so do you want to take the time to find out?

Others can also address these questions:

Do you see God as a great and wonderful (perfect) parent?

If a child transgresses is it at least partly the parent’s duty/obligation to see to the discipline (punishment) of the child?

If a parent does not see to the discipline/punishment (when the parent can) of their child when the child also realizes he has transgressed is the parent neglecting His responsibility?

When the Child knowingly transgresses and the parent steps in to see to his discipline does the child feel that he is a child of that concerned parent and actually feel loved?

Does discipline/punishment help deter the child (and even others aware of it) from transgressing again?

Do parents need to “punish” their children in order to forgive them? Do they discipline/punish their children not for forgiveness, but to help the child, be consistent and help others?

If you (as a child) have done a transgression worthy of punishment and receive discipline from your parents does that help you mentally with your relationship with your parents (the mental barrier has been removed)?

Can parents see to the punishment of one child and not punish the other for the same transgression and still be fair and just? Would the children feel the parents are consistent, fair and just?

Do you think God is aware of all the benefits that come from seeing to the just punishment/discipline of the transgressor?

Is the objective of the child never to transgress and is that a reasonable objective? Would that be the objective you would give your children? What would you make their objective?

Is the human objective: “never sin”? If not what is it? (Please do not just say glorify God since a tree does that neither does not sin, but how do we glorify God?)

Do you agree with the concept “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”?

If “Loving much” is part of man’s objective would it be better to be forgiven of a huge debt or an insignificant debt?

How could God show that sin is not insignificant and creates a huge debt one that you could not ever hope to pay even a fraction of it back?

If you humble correctly accept God’s forgiveness as Charity (that is what it is) will you Love much?

Is one of the problem Jesus might be called upon to help with in God’s Love to forgiven you or could it be in “justly” disciplining you (to gain all the benefits of discipline) without killing and destroying you?

There is also the issue of showing sin to be a huge debt, could Jesus help with this?

If we question God’s Love to be great enough to forgive us (since we are really bad), would it help if God showed Love way beyond any human Love like: Allowing His willing, wonderful, totally innocent son to be tortured, humiliated, murdered and somehow spiritually have deity take on sins in the spiritual realm for some spiritual time length for the sake of those that did this to Him?

Let me try one more example:

There is battle going on and you as an old man leave you post. The crime is punishable by 40 lashes or the equivalent, but that will kill you. Your young innocent son offers to take your place and explains to the judge/general that 40 lashes on him will cause you tremendous pain and anguish. The judge refuses because it would not be just to punish an innocent for the guilty. The innocent son then says: “I will go over to the enemy’s camp and they will beat me and imprison me until the end of the war”. The Judge/general says he cannot stop the young man and the father will receive just punishment for his transgression. You plead for the punishment and try to stop your son, but there is no other way and have you live.

Thoughts?

 

[cobweb]

The whole purpose of Christ's Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection was to destroy spiritual death. It was not to appease a blood thirsty god who was throwing a temper tantrum. That is not who God is.

St. John Chrysostom wrote:

Enjoy ye all the feast of faith: Receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness. let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Savior's death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

There's a lot to reply to, I'll see how much I can get to.

1) Without the shedding of innocent blood, there is no remission of sins. So Christ's innocent blood had to be shed.

So this is from the Old Testament. Its a Jewish idea. A Jewish symbol. Why does (or did) blood have to be shed exactly? Not to be offensive, but that sounds a little barbaric to me. Is it just a symbol or is it truly the mechanism and a necessity?

2) Jesus bodily rose from the grave as a sign to the unbelieving first century Jews. Because that evil and wicked generation required a sign(see also 1 Cr 1:22).

So it was just to prove a point? It didn't take on any spiritual or theological significance?

3) John the baptist said that Christ was the Son of God. 1 John 5:20 says that the Son of God is the one true God.

But why did he have to be God? I don't care if someone says Obama is God anymore than I care if John the Baptist said Jesus is God. Does Obama have to be God in order to save the world? Does Jesus?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Because above all else God is righteous. Righteousness demands a sacrifice for sin.
Say if someone came and brutally murdered your family (all of them) you would feel a need for justice would you not? For God this need translates to a demand. This demand is paid by the blood of Christ for the murder as well as the liar or gossip.

Where's the line between justice and just plain revenge? I see God as a forgiving and loving entity. There was once a story of a black, poor, African woman in apartheid-era South Africa who had her entire family murdered by a group of white, racist, men. After apartheid was brought down, Nelson Mandela set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in which people were allowed to come and essentially confess their sins to the world and get off without a trial. During this time, the white men came forward and confessed that they had brutally murdered this woman's husband, raped her two daughters and mutilated her son. They told all this with her in the room with them. After their confession, the woman walked up to them with tears in her eyes and said, "I love you and God loves you and God forgives you." The men got off without a jail sentence and without any punishment and the women did not seek any revenge or court case. Was justice served?

I think this story is more along the lines of what God, as exemplified by Jesus, should represent. A total and unconditional willingness to love and forgive without punishment.

So in answer to your question, if someone came and brutally murdered my family I would probably, being human, want justice served but I think the response of the woman in the above story is the ideal to strive towards. I don't believe justice via punishment is the ideal. I don't believe an eye-for-an-eye mentality is the ideal. I think being unconditionally loved is the most just response to any infraction.

Because True righteousness demands an account for sin. We are told that this account for any and all sin is death. There was Only one sacrifice that could be made for the whole of humanity that was suitable. That is why the Son had to die for your sins.

Circular explanation. Why could there only be one sacrifice? Why did there have to be a sacrifice in the first place?

Your analogy does not really work here. Primarily because it does not to take into account for the reasons why God allowed sin to be introduced to man.
True Choice.

So God let us have free will. He let us decide whether to choose his will or another's will. And when we, seemingly inevitably, eventually chose another's will instead of his, he throws a fit. Then, instead of just forgiving us (which is what a loving parent would do) he, seemingly for no reason, sends his Son as a messenger and deliverer to die and rise again and, by some unknown process, this brings about forgiveness.

The resurrection was a separate event. As i pointed out, one of the reasons for the resurrection was to point to the deity of Christ. People often ask How do we know that Christianity is the one true religion? It is because Christ/God established it. We know Christ was God because He said He was, and this is confirmed by the resurrection.
What other "prophet" rose from the grave?

If reincarnation is true, then all of them

Because only God can be in His own Expressed Will (without sin) all of the time. A sinless sacrifice is what is required to pay the sin debt of the world. As established by the animal sacrifices of the OT something innocent/without sin has to die for the guilty/sinful.

Why?

You are a being that dwells in a body. This being is your conscientiousness, or your soul. Christ was a man who conscientiousness was God, or rather the Son of God the Father.

I like this idea. But it still raises the question as to whether this could is necessarily a unique phenomenon. Could it not happen again? Did the Buddha have the conscientiousness of God within him? Do I?

(Also, I'm not sure if conscientiousness is the right word, but I'll roll with it because I know what you mean )

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Trying to reason out spiritual things with man's logic simply will not work. My suggestion is to get on your knees and humble yourself before the Lord, beg that he will give you spiritual eyes to see, and spiritual ears to hear. Only with the guidance of the Holy Spirit will you understand.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit is guiding me in ways different then you would expect. Just as the Pharisees did not understand Jesus because he broke the mould, perhaps the Holy Spirit is working in me and in others like me, in a way that breaks the mould so that the tradionalists don't get it.

Just sayin'.

Also, I'm a geophysicist and a mathematician. If God wanted me to not use logic he would have guided me into a different profession and would have not given me the spiritual gifts of solving math problems and loving the logic of math at a young age. Perhaps I should've changed course when I was 7 years old and forced myself to pursue the more emotive passions of the arts but alas, I guess when you're 7 you don't realize that your actions are shaping everything about you that makes you you. My bad.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

1. To provide the atoning sacrifice for our sin.
2. His death conquered death. His resurrection allows us to partake of His nature and divinity.
3. Because only God could bridge the gap between human and divine.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I would prefer to just ask you questions...

Sure. I will answer your questions to the best of my abilities. But, even if I can kind of see where you're going with the questions, I will simply answer the questions at face value without trying to apply extra meaning to the questions.

Do you see God as a great and wonderful (perfect) parent?

I think one of the best descriptions of God I've found is as follows:
"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. " (Albert Einstein)


I don't see God as just a parent. I think that is too simplistic an analogy.

If a child transgresses is it at least partly the parent’s duty/obligation to see to the discipline (punishment) of the child?

It largely depends on the subjective role of the parents. If a parent thinks its utterly abhorrent for the child to write with his left hand and the parent catches the child doing as such and beats the kid for three hours straight, then we have a problem. Parents are subjective and their authority and motives should be questioned.

If a parent does not see to the discipline/punishment (when the parent can) of their child when the child also realizes he has transgressed is the parent neglecting His responsibility?

Yes, but the discipline or punishment must be proper and effective. I am a fan of negative punishment (the removal of a desired stimulus; ex. no lunch money if you don't do your chores) over positive punishment (the presentation of an aversive stimulus; ex. spanking if you don't do your chores). Kids do need to be disciplined in some form otherwise you end up with that one raging kid running all over the supermarket screaming while the parent blissfully ignores them.

When the Child knowingly transgresses and the parent steps in to see to his discipline does the child feel that he is a child of that concerned parent and actually feel loved?

Tough question. I'm not entirely sure. There seems to be a fine line between disciplining a child enough so as to have them be respectful but not uncontrollable but also not disciplining them too much as to cause them to become resentful and rebellious. In one sense, disciplining a child shows that you love them more than just ignoring them regardless of their behavior. But then again, beating your child as a form of discipline doesn't really do much good in the "feeling loved" department either.

Does discipline/punishment help deter the child (and even others aware of it) from transgressing again?

Generally yes. Ideally the desire to not transgress again should be motivated by respect for the parent and wanting to make them happy (a selfless ideal). But too often the desire to not transgress is largely driven by fear of the parent or fear of the consequences (a selfish motivator).

Do parents need to “punish” their children in order to forgive them?

No I don't see how the two things are related.

Do they discipline/punish their children not for forgiveness, but to help the child, be consistent and help others?

Ideally, yes. Ideally, the parent can forgive the child regardless of punishment. And ideally the parent is punishing and disciplining the child for the child's ultimate benefit later on in life.

If you (as a child) have done a transgression worthy of punishment and receive discipline from your parents does that help you mentally with your relationship with your parents (the mental barrier has been removed)?

Ideally, yes. But it depends on the type of punishment. As stated earlier, there's a fine line between good discipline and bad discipline which can lead to mutual respect or all-out rebellion. And, parents' motives need to be questioned when dealing out punishment. Also, parents' definitions of what is punishable in the first place needs to be questioned in any scenario.

Can parents see to the punishment of one child and not punish the other for the same transgression and still be fair and just? Would the children feel the parents are consistent, fair and just?

No to both questions. Consistency is one of the hallmarks of good parenting I think. There is nothing more frustrating (especially to a teenager) than inconsistent rules for different siblings.

Do you think God is aware of all the benefits that come from seeing to the just punishment/discipline of the transgressor?

By definition, God should be aware of that.

Is the objective of the child never to transgress and is that a reasonable objective?

Not at all! Children must learn from their mistakes. I despise "bubbles" and the worst thing a child can do is live in the bubble of their parents worldview for their whole life. Children must rebel in some form, especially as teenagers; its a vital component of self-development, personal growth and breaking free of the constraints of your parents worldview to form your own, adult personality.

Would that be the objective you would give your children?

Nope.

What would you make their objective?

I'm not sure. I value rational thinking and making your own decisions. I do not want my children to blindly follow me and my worldview without an ounce of personal commitment or self-exploration. I would rather see my children take five, ten or twenty years to really contemplate their worldview and proceed to totally reject everything I've taught them based off their own careful reasoning. Even if they reject everything, at least I know it came about by their own personal convictions rather than blindly following me like a lemming (because we all know I'm headed for the big cliff ).

Is the human objective: “never sin”? If not what is it?

No. I have no idea what the human objective is. I carry around a shred of paper in my wallet that says: "The purpose of life is God". I like this statement, despite being unsure of what it actually means. I could say the more worldly objective is to be content but this smacks of hedonism. I think the main objective (and this is based off nothing except my own opinion and thought processes) is to strive to complete the infinite puzzle that is God and the Universe. We've all got some pieces and we're all missing a lot more pieces and if we work together we can get more pieces in their places. And through this striving for the infinite, we will be content not with the conclusion, because conclusions are rare and can always be disputed, but with the active search and the active process and the whole endeavor in and of itself.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Do you agree with the concept “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”?

I do think that if you have grudges or leave things left unsaid they ultimately bring you down and make you more and more bitter. If you forgive those who do you wrong, you will ultimately lead a happier, more selfless, more loving life. However, if someone forgives you (which is what I think you're getting at), I don't know if this causes the receiver of forgiveness any benefit. I can forgive someone and never tell them and they have no idea, they might not even know they had wronged me. So I guess, if I am forgiven much, I don't think it has any bearing on how much I will love others

If “Loving much” is part of man’s objective would it be better to be forgiven of a huge debt or an insignificant debt?

I'm not sure if loving much is part of man's objective. I also don't really think being forgiven will change how much I love. It might make me happy, but only if I was aware of it. For example, if tomorrow a random person on the street came up to me and said, "Everyday for the last ten years, you, and only you, have just barely cut across my lawn's far corner and trampled and killed the grass in that corner and every year I've had to buy grass seed in order to fix that corner and, over ten years, this has cost me over $300. But I forgive you for it and won't ask you for the $300 payment." I would probably say, "Ok, thanks, I guess. But to be honest, I had no idea this whole time I was causing so much grief to you!"

How could God show that sin is not insignificant and creates a huge debt one that you could not ever hope to pay even a fraction of it back?

I have no idea how God could show that. Perhaps he could write me an essay and leave it on my bedside table detailing how and why sin is not insignificant? I'm not sure how one creates a debt though. He could alter my account balance so that I owe 19 trillion dollars to my local bank and every penny I make will just go to paying the interest.

If you humble correctly accept God’s forgiveness as Charity (that is what it is) will you Love much?

Not sure of what the objective and universal "correct" way of doing this is. Also not sure why I need to accept it in the way prescribed by any particular sect. Also not sure if that will ultimately cause me or anyone else to love any more of less.

Is one of the problem Jesus might be called upon to help with in God’s Love to forgiven you or could it be in “justly” disciplining you (to gain all the benefits of discipline) without killing and destroying you?

There is also the issue of showing sin to be a huge debt, could Jesus help with this?

Not sure what you're getting at here.

If we question God’s Love to be great enough to forgive us (since we are really bad), would it help if God showed Love way beyond any human Love like: Allowing His willing, wonderful, totally innocent son to be tortured, humiliated, murdered and somehow spiritually have deity take on sins in the spiritual realm for some spiritual time length for the sake of those that did this to Him?

I agree that God's love is great and that God wants to forgive us and that a good way of showing that forgiveness would be to love us in a way that is way beyond human love. I agree with you up to there. But I'm not sure why sending his son to be tortured and crucified in a standard Roman crucifixation 2000 years ago in the backwaters of Palestine knowing that 3 days later the son he sent would rise and continue living out eternity at God's right hand shows this love. Doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice especially if the physical, wordly pain that Jesus suffered was completely trumped by the glories that Jesus has got to experience for all eternity since the beginning of time with God. I mean, Jesus was on the cross for what, like 6 hours? 6 hours of physical, worldly pain with the promise of an eternity of spiritual, divine bliss afterwards? Seems like a decent tradeoff. Also, no one really knows what exactly Jesus did for those 3 days. Reminds me of a song by the emo band Brand New from their album The Devil and God are Raging Inside Me from the single titled "Jesus":

So what did you do those three days you were dead?​

Because this problem's gonna last​

More than the weekend​

(Full lyrics here, they sum up much of my questions: http://artists.letssingit.com/brand-new-lyrics-jesus-crzsxnrhttp://artists.letssingit.com/brand-new-lyrics-jesus-crzsxnr)

 

[drich0150]

Where's the line between justice and just plain revenge? I see God as a forgiving and loving entity. There was once a story of a black, poor, African woman in apartheid-era South Africa who had her entire family murdered by a group of white, racist, men. After apartheid was brought down, Nelson Mandela set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in which people were allowed to come and essentially confess their sins to the world and get off without a trial. During this time, the white men came forward and confessed that they had brutally murdered this woman's husband, raped her two daughters and mutilated her son. They told all this with her in the room with them. After their confession, the woman walked up to them with tears in her eyes and said, "I love you and God loves you and God forgives you." The men got off without a jail sentence and without any punishment and the women did not seek any revenge or court case. Was justice served?

Justice and righteous are not the same thing. Justice is the rule of man that he has set for himself to determine a fair weight and measure of crime and punishment. Righteousness is the Measure of 'right ness' God used to determine one's degree of purity to the standard He has set for us in His Expressed Will.
Justice was not served in that there was a crime that was committed that no punishment had been delivered. However God's righteousness was served In the Woman's life (alone) when she forgave the sin debt two fellow servants owed her.
Per the story Jesus tells of the unmerciful servant.

I think this story is more along the lines of what God, as exemplified by Jesus, should represent. A total and unconditional willingness to love and forgive without punishment.

But in order to hold God to this standard you have created for Him you must Judge the actions of God and unmercifully hold Him to the standard you have created. Otherwise you would simply yield to the nature of God described in the bible. How is it you can expect God to have an unconditional willingness to love when you do not?

So in answer to your question, if someone came and brutally murdered my family I would probably, being human, want justice served but I think the response of the woman in the above story is the ideal to strive towards. I don't believe justice via punishment is the ideal. I don't believe an eye-for-an-eye mentality is the ideal. I think being unconditionally loved is the most just response to any infraction.

May you never be a position to unconditionally love, to the standard in which you demand others to Love.

Circular explanation. Why could there only be one sacrifice? Why did there have to be a sacrifice in the first place?

Because true righteousness demands it.

So God let us have free will. He let us decide whether to choose his will or another's will. And when we, seemingly inevitably, eventually chose another's will instead of his, he throws a fit. Then, instead of just forgiving us (which is what a loving parent would do) he, seemingly for no reason, sends his Son as a messenger and deliverer to die and rise again and, by some unknown process, this brings about forgiveness.

The process is only as unknown as you want it to be.

If reincarnation is true, then all of them

What if recantation is not true? If you suppose it is then where is the proof?

Why?

Name someone else who could meet the requirements.

I like this idea. But it still raises the question as to whether this could is necessarily a unique phenomenon. Could it not happen again? Did the Buddha have the conscientiousness of God within him? Do I?

If you are asking this question then your answer is no.

 

[Elionai]

Hi not sure if I'm adding anything new but...

1) Your approach seems to miss out on the personal covenant relationship between G-d and man. I strongly recommend reading the book "Covenant Relationships" by Asher Keith Intrater to get a deeper look into this. Also be careful when assigning responsibility, like G-d pulling the pin, as my point below continues, G-d didn't disobey, that was us.

2) The view I agree with is this... When Adam and Eve lost their personal relationship with G-d, it was because of giving in to a temptation however it was their choice and the devil did not force their hand. G-d could not directly punish the devil because of this indirect action, but He warns the devil that the woman's 'seed' will crush his head. From that point on the devil looked VERY closely on humanity to see which 'seed' would be the one to finish him. When Cain and Abel were born, he would have recognised Abel's obedience to G-d and thought he was the one, since he was directly Eve's 'seed', so he must have rejoiced when Cain killed his brother.

Fast forward to Jesus, and we see the devil confronting Him in the desert IMMEDIATELY after His baptism during which both G-d and John the Baptist identify Him as the one. This confrontation is hugely significant as at least a strong suspicion by the devil and each of his temptations to Jesus fail as Jesus refutes him each time. So then we see other people persistently try to capture Jesus and fail. Eventually, Jesus is literally waiting for His captors in the garden of Gethsemane. Now fast forward to the crucifixion, we have the devil thinking he's taken care of the situation, and we are told the curtain tore into from top to bottom, much like a father would tear their robes upon the death of a son at that time. We are told that Jesus went to hell and why is that significant?

...Because now Jesus was on the devils own turf, and he had a field day and why not, we're told hell is place of torment, no? If it happened this way then the devil signed his own death warrant because he directly raised his own hand against Jesus! Oops! Just like that, the devil has betrayed himself and THAT is why he is defeated.

Now, Jesus' purpose for being their was to take back what was His, the Key to life AND death, also to redeem the birthright of Lordship of the earth back to it's rightful heirs, US. Not only that but pay the price for ALL sin and restore the covenant relationship between G-d and man. You when two like G-d and Abraham or David and Jonathan entered into a covenant, they would sacrifice an animal and cut it in two and make an aisle between the two halves and walk through it (we're told G-d appeared as a burning torch which proceeded through this aisle for Abraham) and what that illustrates is both participants saying that "If I break this covenant, I will end up like this animal" and G-d will NOT break covenant so it is only us that get it wrong and he holds us to it. G-d's passion is such that He loves us so much He cannot kill us like the animal in the covenant demands, so he in a very real sense, paid this penalty Himself in order to restore the covenant that WE broke.

If Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, how on earth would we know that anything was restored?! Also not wanting to pick holes too much but it was a very real curtain that tore to symbolise that all reconciled to G-d.


3) Thank you for asking this question... I understand the question and why many people have it, but we have a Bible with Jesus being recorded as saying "I and the father are one" and "before Abraham was born, I AM". So while both sides of the argument make 1+2=3, it is a different 3 we come to somehow and at some point you just have to pick which result you believe.

The Covenant was between G-d and mankind, so having just ONE man die would not redeem all humanity since we all fall short and we all sin either in thought or deed, action or inaction, no matter what people might say about how 'good' they are. Also the Bible talks of people who were VERY close to G-d, yet they were not the Anointed for this purpose.

When Jesus rose again, He told us He needed to return to the father, so that the counsellor, The Holy Spirit could come, which He did at Pentecost, and it is though the Holy Spirit that we gain discernment on matters just like this. We test everything, and hold on to what is true and good.

---
I hope one of us has helped shed some light on your questions.

 

[bling]

Thank you for responding so quickly.
For the most part you are following along very well. I agree discipline/punishment has to be just/fair.

I'm not sure. I value rational thinking and making your own decisions. I do not want my children to blindly follow me and my worldview without an ounce of personal commitment or self-exploration. I would rather see my children take five, ten or twenty years to really contemplate their worldview and proceed to totally reject everything I've taught them based off their own careful reasoning. Even if they reject everything, at least I know it came about by their own personal convictions rather than blindly following me like a lemming (because we all know I'm headed for the big cliff ).

I agree we are to help them develop good opportunities, think, reason, have good judgment, take on responsibility, care about others, and be good parents themselves. All this might be included in Godly type Love.

No. I have no idea what the human objective is. I carry around a shred of paper in my wallet that says: "The purpose of life is God". I like this statement, despite being unsure of what it actually means. I could say the more worldly objective is to be content but this smacks of hedonism. I think the main objective (and this is based off nothing except my own opinion and thought processes) is to strive to complete the infinite puzzle that is God and the Universe. We've all got some pieces and we're all missing a lot more pieces and if we work together we can get more pieces in their places. And through this striving for the infinite, we will be content not with the conclusion, because conclusions are rare and can always be disputed, but with the active search and the active process and the whole endeavor in and of itself.

Think about this:

There is this all powerful, super intelligent being that has been around for a long time (forever) and this being has developed all the best of the best qualities (which He probably would since He could).

One of those qualities is the ultimate perfect “Love”.

The measurement of someone’s “Love” for another in the amount and degree they are willing to sacrifice or how unselfish they are toward another.

If God is the ultimate “Lover”, He is also totally unselfish?

So whatever God does it would be for the sake of others and not His own sake.

God would not “need” anything, but would be giving and the greatest thing God could give would be this “Love” since it is the force that compels Him to do all he does. If we had this Love we would be like God himself.

The problem with this Godly type of Love in cannot be instinctively placed in man or the Love would be robotic and it cannot be force on humans (Love me or I torture you) for that would not be Loving on God’s part and the “love” would not be Godly type of Love. Jesus defines this Love in word and deed and you can use 1 Cor 13 and 1 John 4.


This Godly type Love has to thus be the result of a free will decision by the agent that has likely alternatives. Those likely alternatives for humans while on earth are the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.


God quenches His own “desires” to provide willing humans with the greatest opportunity to accept Godly type Love.


Part of being a human is the desire to exist (self preservation) which is good and useful, but that also creates self awareness, egos and selfishness. Our egos (or even pride) makes it very difficult for us to accept Charity, especially if the giver of the charity had to pay a huge price for the gift to us. It takes humility to accept Charity properly and accepting the gift correctly is the only way to complete the transaction (since it cannot be forced on us).


The human “Mission Statement” is given as the greatest command “Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and energy, and Love others”. To fulfill that mission we must obtain Godly type Love (that becomes our objective, but it is not an “objective” you work at to complete, but it is more stop trying and trust God [faith] so you can accept it).

The easiest (and really only way) for humans to initially accept God’s charity is in the form of accepting God’s forgiveness (mercy/grace). So God allows us to sin, be burden by the feeling of hurting others, so we will seek relieve from that burden in the form of trusting our creator to Love us enough to forgive us. God is right there wanting to forgive us.