Unfortunately, rather than answering my post you have cut and pasted so as to leave out the most challenging points all together and trim crucial justifications, qualifications, support, etc from the other points, leaving you with a straw man of an argument that was easy to knock down. I appologise for sounding terse, but it is a tad frustrating after I have taken time to build a careful argument about something I feel strongly about.
clinzey said:
Yahweh Nissi said:
My point was that the validation that it is really gold and not fool's gold does nothing to alter the gold's actual substance or value - that was already there, the validation just confirmed that this was the case.
Substance and value are 2 different things. The substance is gold - value is not intrinsic but placed on something by someone else.
I know - I acknowledged this; "Now, gold may only have value because we give it value", but then pointed out why this had no effect on the point I was making; "but this is outside of the validation and does not affect the analogy". That is, I realise we place the value on gold but that occurs outside of the analogy - inside the analogy gold is assumed to have value and the validation does not change it.
clinzey said:
Yahweh Nissi said:
And I am afraid that the verse you post here does not really address the point. The crucifiction was as much God's will and plan as the resurrection
The verse I posted does address the point. While the crucifixion is part of the plan, it is not complete until the resurrection. It's a two-part deal.
It does not address the point, that verse said nothing about value, just about who did what - and I pointed out that who did what has no affect upon the value of the actions; "The crucifiction was as much God's will and plan as the resurrection ('But it was the LORD's good plan to crush him and fill him with grief' - Isaiah 53:10a), He just used men to carry out the former, whilst he carried out the latter Himself - of course, because whilst men can crucify someone, resurrection is a miracle which can only be achieved by God. (And don't say 'what about Elijah, etc,' - they just prayed to God and He raised the people). Who actually carried it out has not affect on the value." God used men to crucify Jesus because that is something men could do, He raised Him from the dead because that is something only God could do. I agree it is a "two-part deal" and that God's plan was not complete until the resurrection - as I said "the gospel was not complete without it". But it was the crucifiction and that alone which provided atonement for our sins and that therefore has great instrinsic value of its own. The resurrection then completed the gospel and provided its full value - showing that we will be resurrected to enjoy eternity with God with our sins cleansed, but whilst the crucifiction with no resurrection would not be so bad - our existence would just end and we would not exist to care, the resurrection without the crucifiction would be hideous - eternity with our sins still staining us and outcast from God's presence, without all the good things He provides.
clinzey said:
Yahweh Nissi said:
I agree that the resurrection placed the full value on the crucifiction, the gospel was not complete without it, but not that it gave it all its value and certainly not that, as you stated earlier in #71 "the mainstay of Christian faith - is found not the crucifixion but the resurrection?
Without the resurrection the crucifixion doesn't have the same value - Jesus remains just another martyred good teacher.
What!? Jesus was always the Son of God incarnate - "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58)[NIV]. The resurrection proved this and showed that death had been defeated. Of course, had Jesus not have been resurrected, then it would have shown he had been lying about being God and it would have shown he was just a martyred teacher (not good though, blasphemy is quite serious you know!) - but as He
was resurrected, that prooves what He had always been, the resurrection did not magically change His status, it mearly validated that what He had been saying was true.
clinzey said:
Yahweh Nissi said:
Why is a cross the universally accepted symbol of Christianity across all denominations since ancient times, and not some symbol representing the resurrection?
Because it's kinda hard to wear "empty-tomb" pendants around your neck.
I said "or some symbol representing the resurection" - you could have had a budding vine or tree, a bird in flight, or even a little figure of the risen Christ would be no more awkward then a cross - some of which have Jesus on them anyway. And whilst avoiding a little awkwardness might be factor for modern day, comfortable, western Christians do you think it would be for ascetic monks, for priests/ministers/pastors, for churches under persecution - like the whole early church for over 300 years? Would that matter to them more then choosing the most appropriate symbol for the faith? And it is not just pendants - a little sculpture of an open tomb could stand on an alter just as easily as a cross, why don't they?
And you have still said nothing about why Paul said "For I resolved to know
nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him
crucified.", "May I
never boast except in the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been
crucified to me, and I to the world.", nor about "Why was the whole OT system of religion geared around sacrifices, which mirrored the crucifiction and not the resurection?". Do you really believe that the crucifiction is just a "small issue".
God bless,
YN.