Can we call a 30 day truce on reporting...

[StormyOne]

Give me the Scripture.

Joh 17:3-4 And this is everlasting life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. (4) I have glorified You on the earth. I finished the work that You gave Me to do.

 

[JonMiller]

That is what I sorta remembers... however, this is in the garden... this is where Christ decided (or accepted) to do it.

The forces were already in motion, unless He refused the cup, the Cross was the conclusion.

JM

 

[sentipente]

That is what I sorta remembers... however, this is in the garden... this is where Christ decided (or accepted) to do it.

The forces were already in motion, unless He refused the cup, the Cross was the conclusion.

JM

That would suggest collusion between God and the devil.

 

[StormyOne]

That is what I sorta remembers... however, this is in the garden... this is where Christ decided (or accepted) to do it.

The forces were already in motion, unless He refused the cup, the Cross was the conclusion.

JM

so when Jesus says "I have finished the work you gave me to do" what do you think He is referring to?

 

[JonMiller]

That would suggest collusion between God and the devil.

It was Christ understanding the results of choices already made.

Unless He changed things (Which he could have), the choices made by the people/rulers/judas et al. made the conclusion sure.

The work Christ had to do was to reveal God to His followers, and die on the cross. Everything He needed to do to accomplish this was already done. You will notice that He didn't do more work after this, rather just allow the Cross to happen.

JM

 

[sentipente]

It was Christ understanding the results of choices already made.

No question. But the simplest conclusion is that the world was saved before He died. He did not come here to die or He would not have avoided Herod's early offer of death. You are reading in a later teaching into Christ's statement. His death was the work of evil men. It had nothing directly to do with my salvation or yours.

 

[Avonia]

No question. But the simplest conclusion is that the world was saved before He died. He did not come here to die or He would not have avoided Herod's early offer of death. You are reading in a later teaching into Christ's statement. His death was the work of evil men. It had nothing directly to do with my salvation or yours.

Pretty soon you'll be suggesting that we resist evil! That's going to be SO distracting from our efforts to convert people. It's SO much easier to convert evil people than make them good people. Let's just keep our eye on the ball.

 

[JonMiller]

No question. But the simplest conclusion is that the world was saved before He died. He did not come here to die or He would not have avoided Herod's early offer of death. You are reading in a later teaching into Christ's statement. His death was the work of evil men. It had nothing directly to do with my salvation or yours.

But it says that He showed his discples/etc that He must die. It says that several times (last one after His ressurection).

Now, I agree that this might have been just a away of saying that God knew it would happen. And that it wasn't needed, but was just to encourage His followers when it happened (not that it did so...).

But the gospels are pretty clear that He numerous times said that He needed to die. Also, there is the whole lamb of God motif that would be ignored if the Cross wasn't an important part of what He came to earth to do.

I could go on.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

No question. But the simplest conclusion is that the world was saved before He died. He did not come here to die or He would not have avoided Herod's early offer of death. You are reading in a later teaching into Christ's statement. His death was the work of evil men. It had nothing directly to do with my salvation or yours.

Basically, I disagree with you that it is the simpliest conclusion, becasue there are numerous other statements that Christ made that He had to die. You are ignoring all of those...

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Pretty soon you'll be suggesting that we resist evil! That's going to be SO distracting from our efforts to convert people. It's SO much easier to convert evil people than make them good people. Let's just keep our eye on the ball.

We can't make people good people.

Only God can do that.

JM

 

[StormyOne]

Basically, I disagree with you that it is the simpliest conclusion, becasue there are numerous other statements that Christ made that He had to die. You are ignoring all of those...

JM

it goes back to a thread I started... why did Christ have to die? No one has really answered that.... my point? people have always said he had to die, but if he finished the work he had to do before calvary, why did he "have" to die?

 

[JonMiller]

it goes back to a thread I started... why did Christ have to die? No one has really answered that.... my point? people have always said he had to die, but if he finished the work he had to do before calvary, why did he "have" to die?

According to the gospels, He said He had to.

I am not someone who is focused on the sanctuary doctrine, but I do think that it seems reasonable that it was a shadow of what Christ's death meant.

It is also interesting to read what the early Christians thought of it. I beleive that they placed great importance on Christ's death.

To say that His death wasn't important, is ignoring most of the New Testament. I am not saying that such a thing is inconcievable. Merely that I would want a good reason to do so, rather than 'why not'?

You as well as I know that there are many theologies that 'work' or make some sense that place important on His death. I don't think we need to rehash them all here. Just because they aren't perfect doesn't mean that they aren't correct first order approximations.

JM

 

[Avonia]

it goes back to a thread I started... why did Christ have to die? No one has really answered that.... my point? people have always said he had to die, but if he finished the work he had to do before calvary, why did he "have" to die?

I have a feeling the Bible is about to "speak clearly" to you. Someone right now has their finger on the "I'm telling on you" button.

 

[JonMiller]

it goes back to a thread I started... why did Christ have to die? No one has really answered that.... my point? people have always said he had to die, but if he finished the work he had to do before calvary, why did he "have" to die?

He said He had finished the work, when He was in the Garden.

What had happened recently?

Judas had gone to betray Him, and was in the process of doing that. He had the Last Supper. What else stand's out in your mind as something that had happened recently?

Additionally, what was He praying about in the Garden?

JM

 

[StormyOne]

According to the gospels, He said He had to.

I am not someone who is focused on the sanctuary doctrine, but I do think that it seems reasonable that it was a shadow of what Christ's death meant.

It is also interesting to read what the early Christians thought of it. I beleive that they placed great importance on Christ's death.

To say that His death wasn't important, is ignoring most of the New Testament. I am not saying that such a thing is inconcievable. Merely that I would want a good reason to do so, rather than 'why not'?

You as well as I know that there are many theologies that 'work' or make some sense that place important on His death. I don't think we need to rehash them all here. Just because they aren't perfect doesn't mean that they aren't correct first order approximations.

JM

and the gospels were written after the fact... in part to share the story and probably to make sense of what happened... were they correct?

 

[StormyOne]

I have a feeling the Bible is about to "speak clearly" to you. Someone right now has their finger on the "I'm telling on you" button.

lol say it aint so....

 

[sentipente]

But the gospels are pretty clear that He numerous times said that He needed to die. Also, there is the whole lamb of God motif that would be ignored if the Cross wasn't an important part of what He came to earth to do.

Can we take a look at those?

 

[sentipente]

He said He had finished the work, when He was in the Garden.

What had happened recently?

Judas had gone to betray Him, and was in the process of doing that. He had the Last Supper. What else stand's out in your mind as something that had happened recently?

Additionally, what was He praying about in the Garden?

JM

You seem to think I am saying that His death did not occur. There is no doubt that He died. It is also true that the task of saving the human race was accomplished before He died. Your assumption is that the animals that died in the sanctuary service did so to provide salvation for somebody thereby making them a type of Christ's death. You need to take a second look at that assumption.

 

[sentipente]

and the gospels were written after the fact... in part to share the story and probably to make sense of what happened... were they correct?

Thirty to fifty years after the fact.

 

[JonMiller]

and the gospels were written after the fact... in part to share the story and probably to make sense of what happened... were they correct?

Well, but you can't go and make a theory based on one comment or verse, and than argue that others are due to errors just because they dont' fit into your theory.

Rather, you remember that there can be errors anywhere. For the evidence to be useful though, they need to be relatively minor...

You can consider this process like having a data set (all the verses of the Bible). Each data point then would have some uncertainty (due to errors in translation, errors in perception (both ours and the writers), etc). Then you make a theory that fits the data. You don't go look at one or two data points, and make a theory to fit those data points, and than look at all data points that disagree with the theory and say that they are in error.

JM