Literary Framework View & Exodus 20:11

[JAL]

@helmut,

You made much ado of Isa 40:28:

"[The Lord] will not grow tired or weary."

You read it as philosophically ideal, viz,. "An infinitely powerful God cannot grow weary." Whereas I read it as pragmatically ideal, "The tasks facing the Lord for all futurity will not weary Him." Interestingly verse 31 is pragmatically ideal:

"Those who wait upon the LORD...will run and not grow weary,"

This principle is indeed reliable but ultimately rooted in practical conditions.

 

[JAL]

@helmut,

Isa 40:31 also confirms that a church prayerfully waiting upon the Lord for revival transitions into a state of ease ("rest"). The contrast is labor versus rest, contrary to your summary of such passages as obedience versus wrath - passages such as Mat 11:28-30 and Heb 4:3-6 and Heb 4:8-10 and Heb 3:18-19.

Actually we're both right. A person under God's wrath is still trapped in labor/suffering and thus is not resting.

11And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image...., “[But the saints] will rest from their labor.” (Rev 14:11-13).

 

[Helmut-WK]

Suffering wasn't the critical part, in your view - basically optional. Sorry, Jesus, you suffered for nothing. All we really needed was your "redeeming power" per Mr. Helmut.

That's enough. Stop twisting my words. I did not even hint that Christ suffered for nothing - and it should be clear that the redeeming power is connected to the suffering.

This is not the first instance that you distort what I say.

And far too much posts. I will not answer you further until you apologize for your dishonesty.

 

[JAL]

And far too much posts.

Posting about twice a day is not a lot. You just haven't been responding.

That's enough. Stop twisting my words. I did not even hint that Christ suffered for nothing - and it should be clear that the redeeming power is connected to the suffering.

I will not answer you further until you apologize for your dishonesty.

Let's review. I touted Rev 5:9-12 as an example of merit, that is, declared "Worthy" base on suffering. The first words of your response were:

"No, you ignore verse 9".

No? Meaning my thesis was wrong? This looked to me like sheer dishonesty. It looked like you were outright DENYING the centrality of suffering. I responded in kind. NOW you come back and protest otherwise. You made much ado of Christ's innocence, but no one denies that prequalification. Three times the passage ties the word Worthy to the suffering/slaughter:

"You are worthy...because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God
persons from every tribe...Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,”

NOT ONCE does the passage clearly tie the word "Worthy" to His innocence. You tunnel-visioned on a mere prequalification, while using the word "NO" to outright DENY my conclusion explicitly indicated three times in the passage. That seemed like sheer dishonesty. I responded accordingly, with sarcasm. I'm sorry you feel that I am the one at fault here.

You could argue that Lamb is a sign of innocence. But the previous part establishes the tenor for the entire passage.

"You are worthy...because you were slain."

This isn't the first time you've strawman-attacked my position, telling me I'm all wrong while you seem to conveniently ignore as many as 50 verses in the immediate context.

 

[JAL]

And far too much posts. I will not answer you further until you apologize for your dishonesty.

Seems I can't win. I can show someone almost a half-dozen places of incomprehensibility/incoherence in the Hypostatic Union alone. Still he will act as if I haven't raised enough objections. But then if I post another half-dozen (or more) places of apparent-contradiction on other topics, I will be told, "Too many posts".

 

[JAL]

@helmut,

Again, you seem to read Rev 5:9-12 as "Worthy...because innocent" - arguably innocent by laboring/suffering against the agony of temptation. That's still merit as I define it.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Posting about twice a day is not a lot. You just haven't been responding.

Posting in a discussion when the other one does not respond destroys the discussion.

"No, you ignore verse 9".

No? Meaning my thesis was wrong? This looked to me like sheer dishonesty. It looked like you were outright DENYING the centrality of suffering.

In a way I do. Take Ph 2:5-11. There is not even mentioning of suffering, it is all about honor and shame. The willingness to put away every honor (or glory, same word in ancient Greek) up to the point of dying on a cross (the utmost shame) is the reason why Christ is glorified by God to the utmost (the most high name, i.e. YHWH).

I responded in kind.

Writing as if I deny the meaning of suffering was not respectful. I said it was not the important point in Rev 5, you react as if said it had no worth at all.

You made much ado of Christ's innocence

No, innocence was not theme. The theme was redeeming power. Is power the same as innocence in your eyes?


How on earth come you to the notion of »innocence« in this context? I never said anything like that.

And this is the problem with you: You often doesn't understand what I really say, and so attack me for things I do not believe and did not say. it seems you hear a »I don not fully agree« always as a »I deny by 100%«.

A person that has so much difficulties to understand what I say should refrain from hasty conclusions and better ask »What do you mean by …«, »How do you reconcile this with …« instead of accusing me of dishonesty.

To sum up:

• I did not deny that the suffering of Christ is important.
• I did not say that the glorification of the lamb was connected to innocence, I did not use that word and made no allusion to this notion.
• You ignored completely what I really said, and this was the base to attack me.
• This was not the first instance of this, I quote from the post you reacted to:

I never said that being handsome was a criterion​

Just because I don't accept your conclusions, this does not mean that I deny your premises.​

What does that question have to do with what I said?​

Like the hasty conclusion "the traditional understanding of Creation does not contain hard word, so it must be a condoning of laziness" - but this is a non sequitur.​

• Which means: Despite of many warnings that your conclusions of what I mean are wrong, you continued with this.​

And then you are astonished that I lost my temper?

 

[JAL]

Posting in a discussion when the other one does not respond destroys the discussion.

My workload varies. I posted when I had free time. You can't expect me to post at your convenience.

In a way I do. Take Ph 2:5-11. There is not even mentioning of suffering, it is all about honor and shame. The willingness to put away every honor (or glory, same word in ancient Greek) up to the point of dying on a cross (the utmost shame) is the reason why Christ is glorified by God to the utmost (the most high name, i.e. YHWH).

First, Rev 5:9-12 is explicit and self-explanatory. Nothing in Ph 2:5-11, as far as I can tell, undermines the suffering-theme of Rev 5:9-12.

Second, I have repeatedly commented on Ph 2:5-11 that shame is just another example of suffering/merit. How many times do I need to point that out. Clearly that passage supports my conclusions, not yours. Yes He was honored - for blond hair and blue eyes ??? For excellent DNA? Or for real merit/suffering?

You'll likely complain, "I NEVER said it was about blond hair and blue eyes!" Duh. I'm well aware of that. But you dance around the suffering issue. You're trying so hard to minimize it because you don't want to admit that self-sacrificial suffering (merit) is God's primary value.

No, innocence was not theme. The theme was redeeming power. Is power the same as innocence in your eyes?

What's that even supposed to mean? How is anyone supposed to understand you? You're trying so hard to dance around suffering/merit that your posts become incomprehensible riddles. And then you have the gall to complain that I "twisted" your words? Here you say it's NOT about innocence. And when I interpreted Rev 5:9-12 as "Worthy....because He was slain", you replied:

"No, you ignore verse 9...It is not the being slain as such (indeed, there are many martyrs who were slain like sheep, cf. Rm 8:36, if you only look on this point Jesus is just one out of many), it is the redeeming power, the "purchasing" (only possible because He was sinless),"

First, your words seem to insinuate that His "redeeming power" was not centered in suffering. (And then complain that I twisted your words about this). Second, you seem to clearly imply that Christ's innocence is what endued Him with "redeeming power." I didn't dispute innocence as a prequalification.

So if the basis of His "redeeming power" is NEITHER the suffering NOR the innocence, what is it, then? And when you finally tell me what the basis is, in your opinion, can you ESTABLISH it either logically or exegetically? Because I'm not primarily interested in your opinions. I'm more interested in what you can plausibly demonstrate to a reasonable degree of certainty.

Actually I sometimes do value opinions - IF they solve problems that no one else has been able to solve. Some of my own doctrines are of that genre.

How on earth come you to the notion of »innocence« in this context? I never said anything like that.

That's exactly what you said, as I cited above.

And this is the problem with you: You often doesn't understand what I really say, and so attack me for things I do not believe and did not say. it seems you hear a »I don not fully agree« always as a »I deny by 100%«.

Ok guy.

A person that has so much difficulties to understand what I say should refrain from hasty conclusions and better ask »What do you mean by …«, »How do you reconcile this with …« instead of accusing me of dishonesty.

When it looks like someone is dancing around and deflecting, I lose patience. It didn't feel hasty to me.

• I did not say that the glorification of the lamb was connected to innocence, I did not use that word and made no allusion to this notion.

And yet Rev 5:9-12 (the glorification of the lamb) was precisely the passage we were discussing when you "rebutted" me via an appeal to His innocence. Cany anyone make sense of this?

• You ignored completely what I really said, and this was the base to attack me.

Seriously?

I never said that being handsome was a criterion​

But you pretend to rebut me! These are the two choices:
....(A) God esteems a person (including Himself) only for his self-sacrificial suffering.
....(B) He esteems a person for innate characteristics such as being handsome.

Time and again, you try to show me passages that count as exceptions to choice A.

Other than choice B, what's left? But when I accuse you of defaulting to choice B, you claim I'm dishonestly twisting your words.

Like the hasty conclusion "the traditional understanding of Creation does not contain hard word, so it must be a condoning of laziness" - but this is a non sequitur.​

Did you establish that's a non-sequitur? How so? I can't recall your argument. Here's mine again. God wants superlative praise for Creation. I assume He's not a hypocrite. If it was a lazy act (an act devoid of draining effort and self-sacrificial suffering), then He condones laziness both for Himself and for us.

And then you are astonished that I lost my temper?

I lose mine all the time. Most of the church hasn't seen a major revival in probably 150 years. That means we're pretty much stuck in the flesh. As such, we're supposed to lose our temper.

 

[Helmut-WK]

First, Rev 5:9-12 is explicit and self-explanatory.

I showed you a quite different explanation. You cannot deny the fact that suffering is not directly mentioned, it is only your interpretation that introduces it. Lamb is symbolic, slain is symbolic (Jesus was not butchered like a lamb).
The context points to an office for which only the lamb is qualified. From the OT I conclude that this is the office of the son of man: the one who comes from earth to God's throne and receives power over all the earth (Dan 7:13-14), and will rule and judge all people.
What does the lamb qualify to be the ruler: The suffering or the acquiring of "a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth"?
I don't say this is the only possible explanation, but it is the one that I regard as most fitting into context. It takes into account verse 9-10, and the whole scene with the seals: Breaking the seals top open the booklet (literally »little scroll«) means enacting the decree written in it. So what you see in the »seal« visions is like the birth-pains of the coming reign of the lamb.
The best approach would be not to separate suffering and »purchasing«, of course. But it is by no means self-explanatory that the suffering is the aspect of being slain that the praise of the lamb refers to.

Second, I have repeatedly commented on Ph 2:5-11 that shame is just another example of suffering/merit.

In a culture of honor and shame, shame is not a feeling but seen as an objective reality, It doesn't depend on you whether you are ashamed ort not, it depends on your neighbors, friends, and relatives.

Yes He was honored - for blond hair and blue eyes ???

Is this real the only alternative to your merit/suffering view? When will you stop arguing with false alternatives?

You're trying so hard to minimize it because you don't want to admit that self-sacrificial suffering (merit) is God's primary value.

The primary value is love. Self-sacrification and letting oneself to be humiliated is a consequence of that, not the primary cause.

And when I interpreted Rev 5:9-12 as "Worthy....because He was slain", you replied:

"No, you ignore verse 9...It is not the being slain as such (indeed, there are many martyrs who were slain like sheep, cf. Rm 8:36, if you only look on this point Jesus is just one out of many), it is the redeeming power, the "purchasing" (only possible because He was sinless),"

Oh, this by-remark was the point you hit on. I was centered on the »purchasing«, and I really forgot that remark.

First, your words seem to insinuate that His "redeeming power" was not centered in suffering. (And then complain that I twisted your words about this).

Had you said »You deny it is centered« I would not have complaint. But you said: »Sorry, Jesus, you suffered for nothing. All we really needed was your "redeeming power" per Mr. Helmut.« Twisting "not in center" into "complete unnecessary".

So if the basis of His "redeeming power" is NEITHER the suffering NOR the innocence, what is it, then?

This question leads away from Rev 5. That chapter is not a theological reflection. It is s scene, highly symbolic: The lamb is the only one who can receive the office of the ruler of the world (as the picture of the scene OT background makes clear, and the book of Revelation escalates this to: ruler of the whole universe). He is praised for that, the kingdom and priests He will rules through (which he purchased). This is the focus: What He achieved.

When it looks like someone is dancing around and deflecting, I lose patience. It didn't feel hasty to me.

»The right way to your aim is not right or left, but straight in the middle» - »You are always dancing between left and right, when argue about your advice to go right, you say you didn't say it, but then you say you didn't say left either«.

But you pretend to rebut me! These are the two choices:
....(A) God esteems a person (including Himself) only for his self-sacrificial suffering.
....(B) He esteems a person for innate characteristics such as being handsome.

I chose choice C, and because you refuse to see it you perceive deflection. Stop dancing round your narrow alternatives and see the whole picture. I wrote about power and mighty deeds, that is why God is praised in the OT.

I have already pointed out that judging from above is a quite different situation than looking from below, where the alternative is accepting the ruler and praising him, or rebellion and grumbling. So your examples are always somewhat off-topic. It is not about a father praising his son, or an employee praising a worker, the adequate picture is a crowd praising their king.

Other than choice B, what's left?

See above. I already said it in many ways, but you refuse to listen.

Did you establish that's a non-sequitur?

You can give no logical way from one to the other. It seems to be an axiom in your view.

God wants superlative praise for Creation. I assume He's not a hypocrite. If it was a lazy act

Lazy is a vice: Not doing what can be done though it would be better to do it. (Somewhat imprecise, but I hope you understand what I mean).
A creation by infinite power is no laziness. Only not creating anything might be called laziness.

 

[JAL]

I showed you a quite different explanation. You cannot deny the fact that suffering is not directly mentioned, it is only your interpretation that introduces it. Lamb is symbolic, slain is symbolic (Jesus was not butchered like a lamb).

Wrong on both accounts. First of all Isaiah 53 predicted the slain Lamb, "He was led like a lamb to slaughter." (Notice it doesn't say He was like a lamb but was LED like a lamb).

Secondly, in a material metaphysics, the divine Word permeating all matter necessarily assumes all known shapes and textures. Hence it's almost impossible to find a valid metaphor for God. He is LITERALLY a Lamb, Bread of Life, Living Water, Flesh and Blood, the true Vine, etc, etc, etc, for example a Dove:

"The Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove" (Lk 3).

"Unless you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood, you have no life no you." (John 6:53-56)

"This Bread I will give to you is my Flesh, which I give for the life of the world." (Jn 6:51).

Again, my thanks to Howard Ervin, since he was the first theologian to awaken me to biblical metaphysics.

You cannot deny the fact that suffering is not directly mentioned, it is only your interpretation that introduces it.

I don't think I'm going to continue debating this topic with you much longer. You are trying so hard to dance around the suffering/merit theme that it's become totally ridiculous. He VOLUNTEERED to be slain. That in itself was suffering having to face the agony of temptation to reject this mission both before the Incarnation, during the incarnation, and during the crucifixion process itself.

I said from the very beginning that you yourself don't really believe the arguments that you are leveraging against me. I said you were just being stubborn and obstinate and now, over 50 posts later, all I see is confirmation.

Again, those angels in Rev 5:9-12 aren't praising Him for blue eyes and blond hair, but for self-sacrificial suffering.

The context points to an office for which only the lamb is qualified. From the OT I conclude that this is the office of the son of man: the one who comes from earth to God's throne and receives power over all the earth (Dan 7:13-14), and will rule and judge all people.
What does the lamb qualify to be the ruler: The suffering or the acquiring of "a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth"?

Horrible logic. The atonement is about justice, not rulership, not priesthood, etc. It's vicarious suffering, not vicarious rulership. There's no logic to your attempt to deviate from the suffering-theme (which includes the Lamb's innocence as a prerequisite).

But it is by no means self-explanatory that the suffering is the aspect of being slain that the praise of the lamb refers to.

Seriously? When Isaiah 53 says, "He was led like a lamb to slaughter", have you read the surrounding verses? Did you read the whole chapter? Let me rephrase the question. What Bible are you reading?

In a culture of honor and shame, shame is not a feeling but seen as an objective reality, It doesn't depend on you whether you are ashamed ort not, it depends on your neighbors, friends, and relatives.

Amazing. Again, the Son of God VOLUNTEERED to depart from a throne of glory into a world of shame where He even washed His disciples dirty feet. Again, He had to suffer the agony of temptation to let us die in our sins.

The primary value is love. Self-sacrification and letting oneself to be humiliated is a consequence of that, not the primary cause.

Unbelievable. What kind of love does the Bible condone? Selfish "love" ??? Or self-sacrificial love? Without the sacrifice, the Bible does NOT call it love. Talk about false dichotomies!

This question leads away from Rev 5. That chapter is not a theological reflection. It is s scene, highly symbolic: The lamb is the only one who can receive the office of the ruler of the world (as the picture of the scene OT background makes clear, and the book of Revelation escalates this to: ruler of the whole universe). He is praised for that, the kingdom and priests He will rules through (which he purchased). This is the focus: What He achieved.

The mission was assigned to ONE person who, as such, is called the Lamb. Your point? In my view, angels could have volunteered and probably some did, but the Son of God preferred to take this mission upon Himself because He had more confidence in Himself to fulfill the mission.

The point is that justice is species-agnostic. It's vicarious voluntary suffering. An angel could have atoned for us as well. I said:

"But you pretend to rebut me! These are the two choices:
....(A) God esteems a person (including Himself) only for his self-sacrificial suffering.
....(B) He esteems a person for innate characteristics such as being handsome."

I was talking about ESTEEM. I gave two choices that seem exhaustive to me.

I chose choice C, and because you refuse to see it you perceive deflection. Stop dancing round your narrow alternatives and see the whole picture. I wrote about power and mighty deeds, that is why God is praised in the OT.

Huh? What is choice C? What else does God ESTEEM in us? At the Judgment seat of Christ, He will express His esteem for us (or lack thereof). Based on blond hair and blue eyes?

I have already pointed out that judging from above is a quite different situation than looking from below, where the alternative is accepting the ruler and praising him, or rebellion and grumbling. So your examples are always somewhat off-topic. It is not about a father praising his son, or an employee praising a worker, the adequate picture is a crowd praising their king.

And I responded that my definition of merit holds in both directions, to all persons including angels, and with no exceptions. I still have no idea what "profound" point you think you're making here.

You can give no logical way from one to the other. It seems to be an axiom in your view.

God esteems upright, unselfish, self-sacrificial behavior (laboring/suffering against the agony of temptation to live a self-serving life). Literally, that's almost the entire message of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. The Incarnate Christ was the perfect embodiment of that ethic. And yet here you insinuate it is a mere "axiom" fabricated in my head alone. Unbelievable.

Lazy is a vice: Not doing what can be done though it would be better to do it. (Somewhat imprecise, but I hope you understand what I mean).

Agreed. Arrogating superlative praise to idle, effortless behavior would indeed be a vice. How many times in your life have you praised the Incarnate Christ for sleeping? Breathing? Heartbeats? Blinking eyes? Oh that's right - you've always praised Him for His self-sacrificial suffering, just like the rest of us do.

(Sigh). I'll say it again. You don't believe the arguments that you are making here. You're just trying to win a debate.

A creation by infinite power is no laziness. Only not creating anything might be called laziness.

You don't understand your own theory of infinite power. Anything is effortless. Arrogating superlative praise to idle, effortless behavior is to esteem laziness. The truth is that even the cross would merit no praise without labor/suffering.

 

[JAL]

I wrote about power and mighty deeds, that is why God is praised in the OT.

And of course we praise Him for the same things in the NT as well. Why do you assume those capabilities are innate? (Sigh). Again, let's take a look, bearing in mind that His deeds require knowledge.

Infinite knowledge isn't something achieved gradually over time and therefore must be defined as part of His definition and thus as innate/immutable. (Precisely as tangibility is part of matter's definition). Which precludes Incarnation as an ignorant fetus in Mary's womb. Moreover that fetus had to acquire knowledge gradually over time.

The data available to us, then, indicates that God's perfections and powers are not innate. On top of that, He would be a jerk if He expected superlative praise for innate qualities.

 

[Helmut-WK]

helmut said:

I wrote about power and mighty deeds, that is why God is praised in the OT.

And of course we praise Him for the same things in the NT as well. Why do you assume those capabilities are innate? (Sigh).

Did I say innate? The deeds are not innate. But God is eternal, and therefore has always been mighty.

And why did you protest when I said that the reason why God is worthy of praise is His power and His mighty deeds, and now you accept this?

Again, let's take a look, bearing in mind that His deeds require knowledge.

Infinite knowledge isn't something achieved gradually over time and therefore must be defined as part of His definition and thus as innate/immutable. (Precisely as tangibility is part of matter's definition). Which precludes Incarnation as an ignorant fetus in Mary's womb.

Non seqhitur. It precludes to ascribe infinits knowledge to the incarnated Christ in Mary's womb, but it does nor preclude incarnation.

The data available to us, then, indicates that God's perfections and powers are not innate.

Which data? You draw a conclusion from the incarnated Christ to the creator of this world? How?

On top of that, He would be a jerk if He expected superlative praise for innate qualities.

These qualities are not wonderful enough to be praised?

 

[JAL]

Did I say innate? The deeds are not innate. But God is eternal, and therefore has always been mighty.

And why did you protest when I said that the reason why God is worthy of praise is His power and His mighty deeds, and now you accept this?

(Sigh). When I praise Him for His deeds, I am really praising Him for the labor/suffering to acquire that skill.

When YOU praise Him, you are praising Him for skills that you THINK are innate. Thereby you insult Him because you characterize Him as unaccomplished, even lazy, thus robbing Him of credit/glory for (evidently) billions of years labor/suffering, and, worse yet, you construe Him as the type of jerk who EXPECTS praise for innate skills.

Could you be any more insulting to Yahweh?

The deeds are not innate. But God is eternal, and therefore has always been mighty.


Non seqhitur. It precludes to ascribe infinits knowledge to the incarnated Christ in Mary's womb, but it does nor preclude incarnation.

Which data? You draw a conclusion from the incarnated Christ to the creator of this world? How?

You're talking in circles. Classifying His properties as "eternal" instead of innate is a distinction without any clear difference. It's the sort of incomprehensible jargon characteristic of most mainstream predicates and assertions such as Atemporality, Hypostatic Union, Immutability, Impassibility, Infinitude, etc.

We've been over this. In order for God to Incarnate, the potential had to be there. An immutable God - or to use your term, a God with "eternal" properties such as infinite knowledge - has no potential to mutate into an ignorant fetus. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

These qualities are not wonderful enough to be praised?

For the millionth time, nobody is disputing that.

However, for the millionth time, since when does God esteem a person (including Himself) for innate traits? Oh that's right. That's what a jerk would do.

And what type of God expects praise (considers Himself worthy of superlative praise) for innate skills? Oh that's right. That's what a jerk would do.

These distinctions are quite clear. You're just in denial about them.

 

[Helmut-WK]

(Sigh). When I praise Him for His deeds, I am really praising Him for the labor/suffering to acquire that skill.

No where in the Bible it is said that God should be praised for acquiring a skill. This is your imagination.

When YOU praise Him, you are praising Him for skills that you THINK are innate. Thereby you insult Him because you characterize Him as unaccomplished, even lazy

No. How on earth can you call Him lazy? Laziness means to refuse to do what has to be done. When I say God has been almighty since eternity, does this imply God refused to do what had to be done?

Stop speaking of laziness where this word is not applicable. This produces only nonsense.

Could you be any more insulting to Yahweh?

Yes, when I put Him on the same level as me, by saying that He had to acquire what He is, that would be a far greater insult.

You're talking in circles. Classifying His properties as "eternal" instead of innate is a distinction without any clear difference. It's the sort of incomprehensible jargon characteristic of most mainstream predicates and assertions such as Atemporality, Hypostatic Union, Immutability, Impassibility, Infinitude, etc.

We've been over this.

You never took it serious and thought about that.

Take atemporality: This means not being in our time. 2.Pt 3:8 proves that God is not in our time, because otherwise the first statement (one of God's day is 1000 years for us) would be a contradiction to the second.

You take »atemporarily« as »being in our time, but time has no influence« and arrive at immutable, and then reject this. This seems to be one source of your errors.

For the millionth time, nobody is disputing that.

For the billionth time: I'm disputing it (and I'm not the only one), because you don't understand the meaning of »eternal«. Just because God is eternal He can incarnate where and when He wants. If He were a part of our universe, this would be different.

Your God is part of this universe, from which it follows he did not create space and time, He is not the creator of our world.

Wrong on both accounts. First of all Isaiah 53 predicted the slain Lamb, "He was led like a lamb to slaughter." (Notice it doesn't say He was like a lamb but was LED like a lamb).

Can't follow you. Jesus was not a lamb that fed on grass and gave milk. So lamb is symbolic, it has to do with the passah lamb.

Secondly, in a material metaphysics, the divine Word permeating all matter necessarily assumes all known shapes and textures.

You did not make a distinction between Creator and created. This is wrong, it will lead to idolatry (Rom 1:25).

Again, my thanks to Howard Ervin, since he was the first theologian to awaken me to biblical metaphysics.

I made a rather thorough search for that guy, besides man false positives (From Robert Ervin Howard to some lawyer named Howard Ervin) I found out that you probably meant a pentecostal theologican. Several pages praised how re made rebuttals on criticism to pentacostalism, but no one told any detail what he preached and taught. I don't know which metaphysics you take as biblical, but it is next to sure that we will disagree on this point.

He VOLUNTEERED to be slain. That in itself was suffering having to face the agony of temptation to reject this mission both before the Incarnation, during the incarnation, and during the crucifixion process itself.

You're dancing around. The question is not whether He suffered. Of course He did. The question is how central this is.

Honor vs. shame is an important theme in the NT. I already pointed to Ph 2. We are taught to confess and not deny, because Jesus will be ashamed of those who are now ashamed to confess Him. We should partake in the shame of the cross, taking our cross daily, and thus we will receive honor when He returns back.
Just count: How often is the honor (or glory) the theme in the NT, and how often suffering? Even in Is 53 it is said that the slave of God was despised.

Again, those angels in Rev 5:9-12 aren't praising Him for blue eyes and blond hair, but for self-sacrificial suffering.

Neither nor. Blond hair and blues eyes are totally off-topic, since Jesus most probably hat dark hair and brown eyes, and I never said he was praised for that.

You are always dancing around the theme power and mighty deeds, producing blond hair and other deflections that have nothing to do with what I say.

Rev 5:9-12 praises Jesus for purchasing people a a result of being slain. Whether „being slain” points to meekness or to suffering, is not clear - but this is not the focus in Rev 5, so we need not to decide it. The focus is on the result.

This is what I say, and you always deflect from this with your »blond hair or suffering«.

Horrible logic. The atonement is about justice, not rulership, not priesthood, etc.

Rev 5:10 is about rulership, priesthood, etc. You may ask whether it is on atonement.

God's plan is not only on atonement of human individuals, the whole creation waits for the renewing. God's plan contains the defeat of Satan, the building of an empire (the Kingdom of God), and the objective is that God will be all in all.

Atonement is one aspect, an important one (especially for us, the objects of atonement), but here are other aspects.

It's vicarious suffering, not vicarious rulership.

Did I speak of vicarious rulership? The rulership begins with the breaking of the seals, and this is not vicarious. The purchasing was done by vicarious suffering …

Seriously? When Isaiah 53 says, "He was led like a lamb to slaughter", have you read the surrounding verses?

No, I noticed the like, which clearly stated this is a comparison, and no literal description.

Did you read the whole chapter?

Did you read it? Why then, did you overlook the honor/shame-theme, as if the whole chapter is only on suffering?

Unbelievable. What kind of love does the Bible condone? Selfish "love" ??? Or self-sacrificial love?

I say the self-sacrifice was a result of God's love to us, and you ask me that? God loved us to the degree that He Himself came in Jesus and sacrificed Himself. This you call "selfish love" as opposed to what you call love?

The mission was assigned to ONE person who, as such, is called the Lamb. Your point?

Yes, I agree to it. The lamb purchased His kingdom and His priest without any help. It was a one-person-mission. Therefore, no other persomn is worthy to break the seals and so enter into His office. Why do I need to stress these self-evident things?

The point is that justice is species-agnostic.

So you think God is not just, because He has mercy to men, but not to angels (Heb 2:16). Species-specific mercy.

An angel could have atoned for us as well.

If this were the case, the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane (»My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me”) could have been answered positively: »Son, you don't need to drink this cup, I will send an angel that will do it for you«. But this was not possible, so the Son said: „Yet not as I will, but as you will”.

I said:

"But you pretend to rebut me! These are the two choices:
....(A) God esteems a person (including Himself) only for his self-sacrificial suffering.
....(B) He esteems a person for innate characteristics such as being handsome."

I was talking about ESTEEM. I gave two choices that seem exhaustive to me.

This is your error: You do not see that your alternatives are not exhaustive. Even when I say what C is (in the very next sentence) you do not see it.

And I responded that my definition of merit holds in both directions, to all persons including angels, and with no exceptions. I still have no idea what "profound" point you think you're making here.

Which is shallow wording, because you were unable to produce any example of praising that was from below. I asked about such a meaningful example, and you always repeated your examples from above.

God esteems upright, unselfish, self-sacrificial behavior (laboring/suffering against the agony of temptation to live a self-serving life). Literally, that's almost the entire message of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. The Incarnate Christ was the perfect embodiment of that ethic.

So the incarnation is the basis to judge us, not some imperfection in God in early times, as you constructed it.

And yet here you insinuate it is a mere "axiom" fabricated in my head alone. Unbelievable.

The axiom I see is „If God is almighty, He is lazy”. You did not even mention it, so the above words are against one of your projections, not against what I said.

(Sigh). I'll say it again. You don't believe the arguments that you are making here. You're just trying to win a debate.

I don't believe what you make out of my arguments.

I praise Jesus for incarnation, that He became an infant that could do nothing than sleeping, sucking His mother's breast and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ting into his napkin. Oh, I forgot breathing!

And before you counter that I see [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ting as praiseworthy: No, that's not the point. Think twice. I have already said why I praise even the little baby.

Arrogating superlative praise to idle, effortless behavior is to esteem laziness.

No. Laziness is always about an alternative. You don't call somewhat lazy that works as good as he can, even when this means less effort than the work of someone who is less gifted.

Calling God lazy implies he could have done better (with mote effort or so).

The truth is that even the cross would merit no praise without labor/suffering.

Even the cross - sounds as if the cross is less that the creation. Did you really want to say that?

The cross merits praise for many reasons. Suffering is one of them, and I do not dispute that it is an important one.

 

[JAL]

Yes, when I put Him on the same level as me, by saying that He had to acquire what He is, that would be a far greater insult.

To call it an insult is a snotty, aristocratic scorn of an innate status. Jerk-values contrary to Yahweh. You don't really believe that.

You never took it serious and thought about that.

Take atemporality: This means not being in our time. 2.Pt 3:8 proves that God is not in our time, because otherwise the first statement (one of God's day is 1000 years for us) would be a contradiction to the second.

There is nothing particularly clear about 2 Pt 3:8. Atemporality is standard incomprehensible Christian jargon.

You take »atemporarily« as »being in our time, but time has no influence« and arrive at immutable, and then reject this. This seems to be one source of your errors.

For the billionth time: I'm disputing it (and I'm not the only one), because you don't understand the meaning of »eternal«. Just because God is eternal He can incarnate where and when He wants. If He were a part of our universe, this would be different.

Mere jargon.

Your God is part of this universe, from which it follows he did not create space and time, He is not the creator of our world.

Stop dishonestly commenting on views you are not aware of and don't understand. Lookup the monistic materialist Tertullian. Show me where he believed what you say.

Can't follow you. Jesus was not a lamb that fed on grass and gave milk. So lamb is symbolic, it has to do with the passah lamb.

Incorrect. That's like saying divine Fire is in all respects the same as natural fire. The truth is that the biblical authors merely needed to find enough similarities to feel justified in calling it "Fire". Such as these:
....it radiates physical Light (Ex 13:21).
....it consumes sacrifices (1 Ki 18:38)
...it has tongues of Flame (Acts 2:3).

Or like saying the divine Dove descending on Christ had to be exactly the same as a natural dove. Just not true.

You're dancing around. The question is not whether He suffered. Of course He did. The question is how central this is.

Honor vs. shame is an important theme in the NT. I already pointed to Ph 2. We are taught to confess and not deny, because Jesus will be ashamed of those who are now ashamed to confess Him. We should partake in the shame of the cross, taking our cross daily, and thus we will receive honor when He returns back.
Just count: How often is the honor (or glory) the theme in the NT, and how often suffering? Even in Is 53 it is said that the slave of God was despised.

Neither nor. Blond hair and blues eyes are totally off-topic, since Jesus most probably hat dark hair and brown eyes, and I never said he was praised for that.

You are always dancing around the theme power and mighty deeds, producing blond hair and other deflections that have nothing to do with what I say.

Rev 5:9-12 praises Jesus for purchasing people a a result of being slain. Whether „being slain” points to meekness or to suffering, is not clear - but this is not the focus in Rev 5, so we need not to decide it. The focus is on the result.

This is what I say, and you always deflect from this with your »blond hair or suffering«.

Rev 5:10 is about rulership, priesthood, etc. You may ask whether it is on atonement.

God's plan is not only on atonement of human individuals, the whole creation waits for the renewing. God's plan contains the defeat of Satan, the building of an empire (the Kingdom of God), and the objective is that God will be all in all.

Atonement is one aspect, an important one (especially for us, the objects of atonement), but here are other aspects.

Did I speak of vicarious rulership? The rulership begins with the breaking of the seals, and this is not vicarious. The purchasing was done by vicarious suffering …

No, I noticed the like, which clearly stated this is a comparison, and no literal description.

I've responded to these statement probably 50 times now.

Why then, did you overlook the honor/shame-theme, as if the whole chapter is only on suffering?

For the millionth time, how is shame not suffering? If your teenage son deliberately spits in your face - in public - has he not wounded your sense of dignity and pride? You would feel nothing? Get real.

I say the self-sacrifice was a result of God's love to us, and you ask me that? God loved us to the degree that He Himself came in Jesus and sacrificed Himself. This you call "selfish love" as opposed to what you call love?

How is that a rebuttal of my merit/suffering thesis? It's not. Then we are agreed.

So you think God is not just, because He has mercy to men, but not to angels (Heb 2:16). Species-specific mercy.

Don't put stupid words in my mouth.

If this were the case, the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane (»My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me”) could have been answered positively: »Son, you don't need to drink this cup, I will send an angel that will do it for you«. But this was not possible, so the Son said: „Yet not as I will, but as you will”.

Non-sequitur.

Which is shallow wording, because you were unable to produce any example of praising that was from below. I asked about such a meaningful example, and you always repeated your examples from above.

I gave examples in both directions. I praise my dad for any labor/suffering he did for the family. He praises me for the same.

The axiom I see is „If God is almighty, He is lazy”. You did not even mention it, so the above words are against one of your projections, not against what I said.

If he ESTEEMS effortless behavior as worthy of superlative praise, then He condones laziness. Your version of God is idle and esteems His inactivity above all. That's lazy enough for my definition. Maybe there's a better word for it, but my point is clear enough.

I praise Jesus for incarnation, that He became an infant that could do nothing than sleeping, sucking His mother's breast and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ting into his napkin. Oh, I forgot breathing!

Deflection. Praising Him for becoming Incarnate is not the same as praising Him for things like sleeping, as an adult man. Nobody does that.

"Oh Lord, how loving of you to sleep and rest! Thank you so much for sleeping!"

The cross merits praise for many reasons. Suffering is one of them, and I do not dispute that it is an important one.

It's the ONLY one that I can think of. Stop trying to minimize suffering. You're insulting Yahweh both in His atoning work AND His creative work:

"And yet His works have been finished since the foundation of the world. 4For somewhere He has spoken about the seventh day in this manner: “And on the seventh day God rested from all His works.” (Heb 4).

 

[JAL]

Can't follow you. Jesus was not a lamb that fed on grass and gave milk. So lamb is symbolic, it has to do with the passah lamb.

Actually He was. The divine Word is the hand of God resting on every particle of matter:
...for tracking purposes.
...for imposing upon it so-called "forces" such as gravity, electricity, magnetism, and electro-magnetism.

This means that everything that a lamb does, God also does. That's simply how a divine Particle tracks and manages a created particle of matter.

I don't know which metaphysics you take as biblical, but it is next to sure that we will disagree on this point.

If you want to assume a traditional, Plato-based metaphysics that flies in the face of all the biblical data - and seems ridden with contradictions - that's your prerogative. Tertullian was wiser than that.

I gave you an example of a contradiction: damage to Christ's tangible body could not have inflicted/impacted an intangible soul with any suffering.

You're dancing around. The question is not whether He suffered. Of course He did. The question is how central this is.

(Guffaw). I almost fell out of my chair on this one. You're really trying to marginalize the role of suffering in the atonement?

Neither nor. Blond hair and blues eyes are totally off-topic, since Jesus most probably hat dark hair and brown eyes, and I never said he was praised for that.

Unbelievable. "Blond hair and blue eyes" is just a stand-in for "innate traits" in general. I think you've gathered this by now but you inconsiderately waste my time over and over again with strawmen-nitpicky replies. It's actually very selfish and unkind.

Did you read it? Why then, did you overlook the honor/shame-theme, as if the whole chapter is only on suffering?

Unbelievably shallow. How am I supposed to regard this as honest debating? You pretend as though "honor" refutes my thesis. That IS my thesis. The Son will be honored for laboring/suffering under the agony of temptation both before creation, during creation, and during the Incarnation.

Likewise you pretend that shame is not a clear example of suffering.

 

[JAL]

@helmut:

Reminder: An infinitely powerful God cannot experience fatigue/exhaustion. You yourself made this argument based on Isa 40. Therefore the combination of labor/fatigue/suffering followed by rest would never apply to Him. And yet Scripture repeatedly ascribes that description to the task of Creation. Here again we can see that your issue is with Scripture, not with me.

 

[JAL]

@hermut,

Call "merit" an axiom if you insist, but it's as intuitive as basic math. Take any two persons (I don't care whether humans, angels, aliens, or divine).

Those two people should always do what is right to the best of their ability. Now suppose they both put in equal effort. Don't they deserve equal credit/praise? Justice by its very nature is supposed to be fair. You can't reasonably claim, then, that the person with the best innate traits "wins". That would be unfair.

Indeed, if the first person put in more effort than the second person, he merits the most credit/praise. He wins.

Asking me to denounce this "axiom" is like asking me to denounce basic math.

 

[Helmut-WK]

To call it an insult is a snotty, aristocratic scorn of an innate status. Jerk-values contrary to Yahweh. You don't really believe that.

Yes, I don't really believe it is snotty. We have got over that.

There is nothing particularly clear about 2 Pt 3:8. Atemporality is standard incomprehensible Christian jargon.

From the fact that you don't understand it does not follow it is incomprehensible. I do understand it (with some involuntary help from Mr. Einstein).

Mere jargon.

No, a logical conclusion from the notion of creator. Remember that the Creator is to our universe as an author is to the universe he »created« for his novel. An author can write a chapter where he himself acts as one figure of his novel. He can freely chose chapter, time, place, circumstance - because He is the author. What you say about God is like: No, an author cannot do it, because he does not live in the world of his novel, but in the real world. Totally illogical.

Stop dishonestly commenting on views you are not aware of and don't understand. Lookup the monistic materialist Tertullian. Show me where he believed what you say.

Tertullian had no access to modern science, so he surely would have difficulties to understand what I said. More than three dimensions? Time being a dimension comparable to space? No real empty space (or in other words: Without matter, no space)?

I'm no expert on Tertullian, but frankly: I can't believe that he subscribed to Democritus' "only atoms and empty space" materialism.

Incorrect. That's like saying divine Fire is in all respects the same as natural fire. The truth is that the biblical authors merely needed to find enough similarities to feel justified in calling it "Fire". Such as these:
....it radiates physical Light (Ex 13:21).
....it consumes sacrifices (1 Ki 18:38)
...it has tongues of Flame (Acts 2:3).

Or like saying the divine Dove descending on Christ had to be exactly the same as a natural dove. Just not true.

Of course there are similarities. You seemed to say that these were not only similarities, but that there is no real difference. I objected to this.

I've responded to these statement probably 50 times now.

Remember that I did not read every posting from you (I don't take the time to do it when I'm flooded by too many postings). I cannot remember that you said anything that was a real argument against these statements. May be one or two points here and there.

For the millionth time, how is shame not suffering?

So is education. You cannot reduce shame to suffering, especially not in a frame work of a culture comparable to the ancient cultures the Bible was written in. An ancient might even respond: »How is suffering not shame?«. It is (to a great deal) the influence of the biblical message that helped to change such an attitude (BTW: urbanization was another factor).

I recommend Jayson Georges: The 3D Gospel which focuses of the different aspects of the biblical message and how they are important (or unimportant) in different types of cultures. I read the German translation.

How is that a rebuttal of my merit/suffering thesis?

It was a rebuttal of your putting words in my mouth or concepts in my mind.

Then we are agreed.

To put it in another way: Your accusing me was ill-founded.

Don't put stupid words in my mouth.

I showed you the consequences of your words. Now you yourself call it stupid what you (implicitly) said.

Non-sequitur.

Really? You said »An angel could have atoned for us as well«, but »So the father could have replaced the son by an angel dying on the cross« is a non-sequitur? Explain why.

I gave examples in both directions. I praise my dad for any labor/suffering he did for the family. He praises me for the same.

And a person that had a happy father has no reason to praise him? It is not only whether suffering is reason to praise (to a major degree it was the Bible that gave raise to this concept), you always argue that there is no other reason - and this is the point I reject.

If he ESTEEMS effortless behavior as worthy of superlative praise

I did not say that he does so. It is not the effortless of the behavior that is praised when God is called worthy of praise.

Your version of God is idle and esteems His inactivity above all.

Nonsense.

If God were idle or snotty, then He would never had come on earth, were He experienced suffering and so learned obedience (Heb 5:8), which implies that suffering and obedience were new to Him.

And to call creation »inactivity« just because the Creator has infinite power, berefts the notion of activity of its sense.

Deflection. Praising Him for becoming Incarnate is not the same as praising Him for things like sleeping, as an adult man. Nobody does that.

Never thought about the sleep of Jesus in the sinking boat? Never seen a reason to thank Him for that?

It's the ONLY one that I can think of.

OK, this a a limitation of your capabilities to think. I can and do think of more than that.

You're insulting Yahweh both in His atoning work AND His creative work:

Calling creation »inactivity« and therefore fancying He might have started as weak as us is no insult?

You praise the cross only for the suffering, I praise it for suffering plus other aspects - and this you call an insult? You're really putting things upside down.

You often criticize me out of reductionism. In my bookshelf there is a book with several articles from C.S. Lewis, it is the translation of Screwtape proposes a toast and other pieces, and the article I recommend to you appeared (according to preface) first in They asked for a paper. The German title is „Umwandluing”, which should be "transformation" in English (but you can never sure whether the title got translated, sometimes the title of the translation is a totally new creation).

Actually He was. The divine Word is the hand of God resting on every particle of matter:
...for tracking purposes.
...for imposing upon it so-called "forces" such as gravity, electricity, magnetism, and electro-magnetism.

This means that everything that a lamb does, God also does. That's simply how a divine Particle tracks and manages a created particle of matter.

No, you don't really believes it. If we change a sinner for the lamb (you said a lamb, there your words were not about Jesus), this means: Whatever the sinner does, God does. Logical implication: God commits sin. No, you don't believe that.

I gave you an example of a contradiction: damage to Christ's tangible body could not have inflicted/impacted an intangible soul with any suffering.

Well, this is not compatible to what Jesus said:
Mt 26,38 Then he said to them, ‘My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.’

I think even the dichotomy between body and soul is misleading. The terms translated as "soul" in the OT denote life, breath and so on, they do not allow to separate the soul from the body. And the NT underlines it: We do not believe in an eternal life of body-less souls, but in the resurrection »of the flesh«.

If your sentence were true, there is nothing to be gained by fasting. And every psychosomatic illness were pure imagination.

The only open question is: Was Tertullian wrong, or did he say something that is somewhat different to what you say?

(Guffaw). I almost fell out of my chair on this one. You're really trying to marginalize the role of suffering in the atonement?

No, it is to central to be marginalized. But you marginalize the shame of the cross, making it acceptable to the »Greek« that demand logical plausibility (1.Cor 1:22-25).

Unbelievable. "Blond hair and blue eyes" is just a stand-in for "innate traits" in general.

Not in German.

And connecting Jesus to traits that are close to the "ideal race" of the Nazis, is something I do not want to swallow.

You pretend as though "honor" refutes my thesis.

It refuses the thesis that suffering is the only reason why the cross is to be praised.

Remember, putting away all own honor is the reason why Christ was exalted to bear the most high name YHWH (Ph 2). No reason to praise Him?

That IS my thesis. The Son will be honored for laboring/suffering under the agony of temptation both before creation, during creation, and during the Incarnation.

You have no proof for suffering »before creation, during creation«. I pointed to Heb 5:8 above that shows suffering and obedience was an experience during the incarnation that was new to Christ.

Likewise you pretend that shame is not a clear example of suffering.

I also "pretend" that education is not a clear example of suffering, despite what Heb 12:5-7 says.

It is this narrow reductionism that I oppose. You cannot simply reduce everything that is related to suffering to nothing more than that.

Reminder: An infinitely powerful God cannot experience fatigue/exhaustion.

But His incarnation can.

An author cannot walk in the fantasy universe he created. No figure in his novel can harm him. But if he »incarnates« as one of the figures in his novel, this figure can walk there and experience harm from other figures in this novel.

You yourself made this argument based on Isa 40. Therefore the combination of labor/fatigue/suffering followed by rest would never apply to Him.

Therefore, your interpretation of the rest of God is wrong. There is a logical alternative to it: God created rest for the sake of man.

@hermut,

My name is Helmut.

Call "merit" an axiom if you insist,

Not merit, when will you learn not to reduce what I say to nonsense?

The axiom is: That merit is the only reason why God can be praised.

Those two people should always do what is right to the best of their ability. Now suppose they both put in equal effort. Don't they deserve equal credit/praise?

Praise for what? For the effort? For the result they achieved? For the benefit it makes to us? You always mix these different measures because you do nor apprehend the differences, or because you are unable to think all of them can be used as reason for praise.

Indeed, if the first person put in more effort than the second person, he merits the most credit/praise. He wins.

Two houses, with the same heating unit, and both units got exactly the same defect. Two plumbers (is this the correct term in English) repair these two heatings. In one house, the first comes, takes some instrument to measure some electricity, apprehends the kind of defect, exchanges the small sub-unit that got defect, and after 5 minutes, with almost no effort, everything is ok.

In the other house, the second plumber comes, but has less instruments and less learning, so he works for 36-hours, and after many trial-and-error working he understands what is to be done, drives to his storage and returns with a greater part he exchanges, which takes half an hour to exchange. But then, everything is ok.

The second one is to be praised, for he worked hard for such a long time, with so much effort that the effort of the other one can be called »nothing« compared to that. The first plumber was a lazy guy.

Only me is so stubborn to praise the first one and thus condone laziness. This is because I prefer a snotty attitude to justice and ignore what you call "math". At least according to what you said despite of any counter-argument.

EDIT: Some typo.

 

[JAL]

@helmut,

Too many shallow responses. I won't reply to every line.

From the fact that you don't understand it does not follow it is incomprehensible. I do understand it (with some involuntary help from Mr. Einstein).

A person is either conscious/alive or dead. Atemporality means the person is not conscious/alive for even one second of time. I pointed this out earlier. You ignored that argument, just like you've been ignoring the one about Christ's tangible body being unable to convey damage/suffering to an intangible soul.

Tertullian had no access to modern science, so he surely would have difficulties to understand what I said. More than three dimensions? Time being a dimension comparable to space? No real empty space (or in other words: Without matter, no space)?

Scientific ergo logical? Please. The Big Bang expands into nothingness? Total nonsense. Einstein's conclusions on time dilation, space, and matter are largely derived from a metaphysically inane "special relativity" theory already disproven by a well-published physicist.

I'm no expert on Tertullian, but frankly: I can't believe that he subscribed to Democritus' "only atoms and empty space" materialism.

Correct. You're obviously not an expert on Tertullian.

You cannot reduce shame to suffering...

Then stop pretending that shame is a rebuttal of my merit/suffering thesis. Reduce? Your words read like this, "The cross is not only about suffering. It's also about a block of wood." This kind of periphery and dancing is a strawman "rebuttal".

Really? You said »An angel could have atoned for us as well«, but »So the father could have replaced the son by an angel dying on the cross« is a non-sequitur? Explain why.

Why do I need to explain this? You make NO EFFORT to read my posts in a fair, charitable, intelligent way. You opt for a strawman-reading for purposes of attack.

Obviously, if God had already DECIDED and SWORN to do the atonement Himself, He couldn't substitute an angel at the last moment. Did I really need to explain that?

And a person that had a happy father has no reason to praise him? It is not only whether suffering is reason to praise (to a major degree it was the Bible that gave raise to this concept), you always argue that there is no other reason - and this is the point I reject.

Although I can't prove anything 100%, my approach to merit is plausible both logically and exegetically. There's no way you can honestly say, "I'm 100% sure it is wrong." Meanwhile it is part of a system that resolves about 15 apparent contradictions in traditional thinking. None of which you've resolved or addressed. If you really were interested in truth, you'd be a little more charitable. You only want to win a debate.

Take me for example. I'm no universalist, but I can't rule it out completely. It's possible that, after a person has served due sentence in hell (maybe 1,000 years), perhaps God will admit him into heaven. I'm not going to sit here and strawman-attack a plausible defense of universalism.

And a person that had a happy father has no reason to praise him?

Irrelevant to the merit/suffering thesis. As explained probably 15 times now.

Never thought about the sleep of Jesus in the sinking boat? Never seen a reason to thank Him for that?

Unbelievably shallow. As always, you're reaching. If the decision to sleep faced the agony/suffering of temptation, then Yes, it merits praise. But once He is already sleep, does the prolonged sleeping merit praise? Don't be ridiculous.

When you have to desperately resort to these kinds of mental gymnastics to find fault with my view, it's clear that my position is plausible.

No, you don't really believes it. If we change a sinner for the lamb (you said a lamb, there your words were not about Jesus), this means: Whatever the sinner does, God does. Logical implication: God commits sin. No, you don't believe that.

How inane. Again, you make NO EFFORT to read my posts in a fair, charitable, way. Obviously the divine Word is not sinning if present only for purposes of tracking and gravity. In fact gravity is what holds the heavenly bodies in their orbits.

Well, this is not compatible to what Jesus said:
Mt 26,38 Then he said to them, ‘My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.’

I think even the dichotomy between body and soul is misleading. The terms translated as "soul" in the OT denote life, breath and so on, they do not allow to separate the soul from the body. And the NT underlines it: We do not believe in an eternal life of body-less souls, but in the resurrection »of the flesh«.

Where in this response is an explanation of how a tangible human body can make a physical impact upon a non-physical soul? Oh that's right. Once again you ignore the issue because you WANT to continue believing in cult-like nonsense and contradiction.

If your sentence were true, there is nothing to be gained by fasting. And every psychosomatic illness were pure imagination.

This is so dishonest. My "sentences" were directed against an immaterial soul. Obviously, these objections do not apply to a monistic materialist like Tertullian and I myself.
Again, you make NO EFFORT to read my posts in a fair, charitable, way.

No, it is to central to be marginalized. But you marginalize the shame of the cross, making it acceptable to the »Greek« that demand logical plausibility (1.Cor 1:22-25).

So dishonest. Shame/suffering/merit is my whole thesis. That's hardly "marginalizing" it.

You have no proof for suffering »before creation, during creation«. I pointed to Heb 5:8 above that shows suffering and obedience was an experience during the incarnation that was new to Christ.

So dishonest. Suffering during creation? He worked/labored and then rested. Scripture tells us this repeatedly.
(Sigh) Suffering before creation? For the millionth time, He suffered the agony of temptation before creation.

It is this narrow reductionism that I oppose. You cannot simply reduce everything that is related to suffering to nothing more than that.

Again, thanks for correcting me here. The cross isn't only about suffering. It's also about nails and a block of wood. Sorry I overlooked the important parts.

The axiom is: That merit is the only reason why God can be praised.

So dishonest. That strawman was not the axiom, as I've reminded you probably 30 times now.

Praise for what? For the effort? For the result they achieved? For the benefit it makes to us? You always mix these different measures because you do nor apprehend the differences, or because you are unable to think all of them can be used as reason for praise.

So dishonest. Again, that strawman was not the axiom, as I've reminded you probably 30 times now.

Two houses, with the same heating unit, and both units got exactly the same defect. Two plumbers (is this the correct term in English) repair these two heatings. In one house, the first comes, takes some instrument to measure some electricity, apprehends the kind of defect, exchanges the small sub-unit that got defect, and after 5 minutes, with almost no effort, everything is ok.

In the other house, the second plumber comes, but has less instruments and less learning, so he works for 36-hours, and after many trial-and-error working he understands what is to be done, drives to his storage and returns with a greater part he exchanges, which takes half an hour to exchange. But then, everything is ok.

The second one is to be praised, for he worked hard for such a long time, with so much effort that the effort of the other one can be called »nothing« compared to that. The first plumber was a lazy guy.

Only me is so stubborn to praise the first one and thus condone laziness. This is because I prefer a snotty attitude to justice and ignore what you call "math". At least according to what you said despite of any counter-argument.

The total period of time was 36 hours. During those 36 hours, did both men put in equal effort toward obeying conscience (whether plumbing or otherwise)? If yes, they merit equal credit/praise. For the millionth time, just ask yourself how those 36 hours will be evaluated at the Judgement Seat of Christ. Obviously, He will assess those 2 men according to my definition of merit.

So dishonest. You KNEW that would be my response. Again, you made NO EFFORT to read my post in a fair, charitable, way. All you want to do here is win a debate at any cost, by any strawman necessary.

Your long-winded plumber analogy is a cry of desperation illustrative of the kind of crazy mental gymnastics needed to question my merit-thesis. This can ONLY mean that my thesis is plausible both logically and exegetically. Shouldn't we transition away from it, then, to some of the other (15 or so) places of incoherence and/or contradictions in traditional thinking?

Not that I really want to spend the time, given all these shallow attacks.