Can I ask a very basic Christianity question?

[Jean in Newcastle]

This interpretation would mean that the murder of God (in the earthy form of Jesus) was the act of Satan, rather than an act of God willingly sacrificing the human part of one of his personages, yes?

 

Such an interpretation would undo most of what I understand to be a bed-rock of the Christian story.

 

 

 

Sorry, but I just don't see how killing innocent animals strokes for wrong doings. This strike me as very illogical.

 

Bill

 

Okay, I get the internal logic of it if you posit that perfect holiness requires separation from sin. (I don't necessarily agree that humans are inherently sinful, but that is a different point entirely.) But why does perfect holiness require separation from sin? To think that our sinfulness could somehow damage god's perfection seems...wrong is the least contentious word I can think of. To say that our sin irritates god would also seem to impugn god's perfection.

 

Bill and Truscifi, I've read your questions and want to answer but I need to go to bed now. Taking care of Libby (dog with spinal cord injury) is sort of like taking care of a newborn because I have to get up in the middle of the night with her. My brain has just gotten to rutabaga stage.

[Mrs Mungo]

Mrs. Mungo - can you link something about these other denominations that start from a different premise, where man is not divorced from god? I would like to learn more about them.

 

Let me link you to some sites that will explain some of this instead. I am not recommending these or saying that I believe in x or y, I am just offering information.

http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html (Calvinism versus Arminianism)

 

http://www.spreadinglight.com/theology/armvscal.html

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

 

http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

[Spy Car]

And, you are smart enough to know that's not what I'm saying.

 

What are you saying Dawn? That I'm not entitled to enter into the discussion?

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Bill and Truscifi, I've read your questions and want to answer but I need to go to bed now. Taking care of Libby (dog with spinal cord injury) is sort of like taking care of a newborn because I have to get up in the middle of the night with her. My brain has just gotten to rutabaga stage.

 

Sleep well. Sorry about the dog.

 

Bill

[annandatje]

I think this is probably Christianity 101 but I wasn't raised in a church of any kind and my bible study has been sketchy.

 

I just watched the pilot video and it raised a question that I've always had and never understood.

 

How did Christ dying on the cross SAVE a person? Or me, specifically? I don't understand the nature of the sacrifice... Jesus giving eternal life, giving His life for us... I just do not get it. He gave His life for us.. how?

 

Sorry I hope I don't offend with my ignorance and I'm aware that I could ask the question in a church... but right now tonight I'm asking here.

 

For me, the answers I received in reading holy text and apologetics only served to further cement my inability to accept the seemingly illogical paradigm of substitutionary atonement.

[Truscifi]

Bill and Truscifi, I've read your questions and want to answer but I need to go to bed now. Taking care of Libby (dog with spinal cord injury) is sort of like taking care of a newborn because I have to get up in the middle of the night with her. My brain has just gotten to rutabaga stage.

 

Off to bed with you as well. I wish Libby a speedy recovery.

 

Let me link you to some sites that will explain some of this instead. I am not recommending these or saying that I believe in x or y, I am just offering information.

http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html (Calvinism versus Arminianism)

 

http://www.spreadinglight.com/theology/armvscal.html

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

 

http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

 

Ok, I am familiar with Gnosticism, though I have always thought of it as a separate belief system, not a denomination of Christianity. Dh's parents were Calvinists (no longer Calvinists I think) and have always made my head hurt on religious issues, but I have never heard of Arminianism or Pelagianism. I'm bookmarking those as well. Now I need to go to bed too.

[ElizaG]

In the denominations you are familiar with, in their "love" approach, did they also stay away from the "Christ died as a sacrifice for your sins; he took your punishment for you on the cross" approach? None that I'd ever been a part of before had done that, but my experience was limited to evangelical, charismatic, Baptist and independent churches.

Milovany, it's my understanding that the Orthodox also teach that Jesus offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice so that our sins might be forgiven. At least, that's what it says in an Orthodox catechism we have (The Living God, from St. Vladimir's Seminary Press). There are quite a few pages about this, including a whole chapter relating His sacrifice to the story of Abraham, the Paschal lamb, and the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. I can quote some if you're interested.

 

It's true that it's not expressed in a "court of law/punishment" way, but then, not all other Christians use that formulation either. Catholics don't, and neither do Lutherans AFAIK. I think it's more of a Calvinist thing.

 

As for what Catholics teach about why Jesus died for us, we don't have one specific way of explaining it. Like the Orthodox, we believe in Theosis: God became Man, and humbled Himself to experience all the things we do -- pain, suffering, death -- so that men could become like God. Another formulation, which comes from the Early Church Fathers, is that we were captives of the devil (or death, or sin) and Christ ransomed us. It's my understanding that Eastern Catholics tend to teach something along these lines.

 

Western Catholics are more likely to explain it as, "our relationship with God was broken by sin, and Christ took on the sins of the world to mend it." This explanation is used by some Protestants as well. Thus the popular Sunday school/CCD chalkboard illustration of the chasm labeled "sin," with us on one side, God on the other and the cross serving as a bridge.

 

 

For both Catholics and Orthodox, this is also tied in to our celebration of the Eucharist. (ref: Orthodoxwiki) We believe that Christ's sacrifice is an eternal and living one, and we can participate in it at every Mass and Divine Liturgy. How can this be, when He only died once and for all, 2000 years ago, and then rose again? Well, all I feel qualified to say is that God's time is not like our time. :)

[Spy Car]

 

As for what Catholics teach about why Jesus died for us, we don't have one specific way of explaining it. Like the Orthodox, we believe in Theosis: God became Man, and humbled Himself to experience all the things we do -- pain, suffering, death -- so that men could become like God.

 

Wouldn't there be considerable irony if Jesus needed to be killed so "man could be more like God?"

 

The very Genesis story that many Christians interpret as necessitating the killing of Jesus clearly show that man and woman, in gaining the ability to judge right from wrong, became more like God, and were punished for gaining that knowledge.

 

Bill

[Aelwydd]

Milovany, it's my understanding that the Orthodox also teach that Jesus offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice so that our sins might be forgiven. At least, that's what it says in an Orthodox catechism we have (The Living God, from St. Vladimir's Seminary Press). There are quite a few pages about this, including a whole chapter relating His sacrifice to the story of Abraham, the Paschal lamb, and the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. I can quote some if you're interested.

 

It's true that it's not expressed in a "court of law/punishment" way, but then, not all other Christians use that formulation either. Catholics don't, and neither do Lutherans AFAIK. I think it's more of a Calvinist thing.

 

As for what Catholics teach about why Jesus died for us, we don't have one specific way of explaining it. Like the Orthodox, we believe in Theosis: God became Man, and humbled Himself to experience all the things we do -- pain, suffering, death -- so that men could become like God. Another formulation, which comes from the Early Church Fathers, is that we were captives of the devil (or death, or sin) and Christ ransomed us. It's my understanding that Eastern Catholics tend to teach something along these lines.

 

Western Catholics are more likely to explain it as, "our relationship with God was broken by sin, and Christ took on the sins of the world to mend it." This explanation is used by some Protestants as well. Thus the popular Sunday school/CCD chalkboard illustration of the chasm labeled "sin," with us on one side, God on the other and the cross serving as a bridge.

 

 

For both Catholics and Orthodox, this is also tied in to our celebration of the Eucharist. (ref: Orthodoxwiki) We believe that Christ's sacrifice is an eternal and living one, and we can participate in it at every Mass and Divine Liturgy. How can this be, when He only died once and for all, 2000 years ago, and then rose again? Well, all I feel qualified to say is that God's time is not like our time. :)

 

Here's my take on the difference between the West and the East.

At a local bus stop:

 

Anglican:

Excuse me, but do you know the way to the new seafood restaurant downtown?

 

Roman Catholic 1:

Sure, I can tell you. But first, I need to discuss it with my fellow Catholics.

 

Roman Catholic 2:

I'm positive you need to take this bus route 2 miles west, and then walk 6 blocks north.

 

Roman Catholic 1:

No, wait. Isn't there an old road block pushed up onto the sidewalk on 2nd Street from the construction several months ago?

 

Roman Catholic 3:

He can just walk around it.

 

Roman Catholic 2:

No way! That block is there for a very good reason--safety! He'll just have to divert around the block down 3rd Street, and walk in from that end.

 

Roman Catholic 3:

But, the construction's done now. Someone just forgot to pick up the road block.

 

Roman Catholic 2:

If that block wasn't supposed to be there, the town council would have ordered it moved.

 

The hapless Anglican then turns to the Orthodox, who appears to be staring at his navel.

 

Anglican:

Do

you

know how to get to the restaurant?

 

Orthodox:

Just follow your nose.

 

 

 

:):):)

Edited September 12, 2011 by Aelwydd

[ElizaG]

Wouldn't there be considerable irony if Jesus needed to be killed so "man could be more like God?"

 

The very Genesis story that many Christians interpret as necessitating the killing of Jesus clearly show that man and woman, in gaining the ability to judge right from wrong, became more like God, and were punished for gaining that knowledge.

 

Bill

Divinization/theosis isn't a matter of trying to become "more like God" in the sense of having more knowledge, or more power. It's becoming like God in the sense of self-abandonment and conformity to His will, so that one is united to Him and reflects His nature. ("Not I, but Christ who lives within me.")

 

You write as though Christians have never thought about the parallel with Genesis. Of course they have.

 

"Created in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully 'divinized' by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to 'be like God,' but 'without God, before God, and not in accordance with God'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 398, quoting St. Maximus the Confessor)

 

If there's any "irony," it's that this didn't work out the way the devil intended. Many of the Church Fathers believed that the person who experiences theosis is even closer to God than human beings were before the Fall. "O felix culpa," and all that. :)

[Celia]

I think this is probably Christianity 101 but I wasn't raised in a church of any kind and my bible study has been sketchy.

 

I just watched the pilot video and it raised a question that I've always had and never understood.

 

How did Christ dying on the cross SAVE a person? Or me, specifically? I don't understand the nature of the sacrifice... Jesus giving eternal life, giving His life for us... I just do not get it. He gave His life for us.. how?

 

Sorry I hope I don't offend with my ignorance and I'm aware that I could ask the question in a church... but right now tonight I'm asking here.

 

I've not read through this thread, so I don't know what others have said, but I'm just going to tell it as I understand it :)

 

I see Christ as our representative (not as our substitute, the difference will become clear as I go on here).

 

I'm sure you're familiar with the verse, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:22,23)

 

We can see that the Bible says that without Christ, we will all die, for we do all sin.

 

The law was intended to be a schoolmaster to lead people to Christ, (Gal. 3), so I'm going to start there. How did it do this? Was it because when a man sinned, something needed to die? Was this to show that he himself deserved to die for that sin? I would suggest not. In fact, there were no offerings for intentional sins. And look at the things David did. Murder. Adultery. The law had nothing to offer but death. Therefore salvation needed to be found outside of the Law.

 

These offering that were being made weren't for God's sake. He didn't need the blood of bulls and goats. It wasn't as a debt that needed to be paid (how would that be forgiveness?). It was to change a man's heart. He was looking for a contrite heart.

 

The law showed us what sin is (for without a law, there is no sin), it showed us the impossible position that we're in without God's intervention. Christ is that intervention.

 

So how did it work? Was it like a transaction? No. This doesn't go with what we see from the lessons that the law has taught us, neither is it consistant with the righteous character of God to make someone else suffer for what another person did. Did it somehow appease the wrath of an angry God, who knew his son was sinless yet still poured out his wrath on him, pretending that all our sins were his. Does that even make any sense? That's not what I see in Scripture.

 

What I see in Scripture is this. Christ died for us, not instead of us. In fact, we're actually commanded to die too! See Romans 6. In a figurative way, we partake in his death through baptism, and such declares that we agree that death is what sin is worthy of. We are to follow in Christ's example. To take up our cross and follow him - to become a living sacrifice (Romans 12).

 

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us,leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: (1 Pet. 2:21)

 

We fail in these things. Christ didn't, but being baptised into Christ, we put on Christ, and through faith and repentance our sins are forgiven as we attempt to serve God.

 

Christ was under the law (Gal 4:4), and the law of death (Gen 3:19). He understands our struggles, having dealt with on a daily basis the temptations we feel. (Heb. 4:15). He's the only one who could truly represent God to man, and man to God (as the high priests role was).

 

His sacrifices shows us the love of God, declaring His righteousness yet offering us mercy. Not through any contractual obligation where Christ paid a due to an angry God. God accepts from us a symbolic sacrifice as we put sin to death in our own lives, and try to walk in newness of life. This sacrifice pays him nothing, and cost him the death of his son. What appeases the wrath of God is a change in us, and Christ's life of obedience unto death ought to motivate us to not longer serve sin.

 

The grave couldn't hold Christ... the wages of sin is death, and he did no sin. So as by Adam came death, through Christ comes the resurrection of the dead.

[Spy Car]

 

"Created in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully 'divinized' by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to 'be like God,' but 'without God, before God, and not in accordance with God'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 398, quoting St. Maximus the Confessor)

 

If there's any "irony," it's that this didn't work out the way the devil intended. Many of the Church Fathers believed that the person who experiences theosis is even closer to God than human beings were before the Fall. "O felix culpa," and all that. :)

 

What Fall? According to the story people's eyes were opened and they were more like God when they became capable of distinguishing between good and evil. God, in the story, says as much. I don't see how becoming more like God can be seen as a Fall, unless God is not good (which I'm sure isn't your position).

 

What would man and woman be if they were creatures who could not distinguish right from wrong, good from evil? We wouldn't be fully human beings would we? Knowing good from evil is what distinguishes us from other animals.

 

Bill

[Celia]

I'm sorry to intrude, but fyi, this is a Xtian reading/interpretation of the text. The traditional Jewish understanding is *very* different.

 

 

 

Again, I understand this is a Xtian discussion, but since my texts have been referenced, I wanted to make sure it is clear that under no circumstances could a human sacrifice be acceptable under Torah Law.

 

...slipping away again.

 

:leaving:

 

Poking my nose in here... I just can't help but to say that not all Christians see Jesus' death as a human sacrifice in the manner you mean. In my eyes, it's about a lifetime of obedience to God, even obedience unto death. And it's required be everyone who follows Jesus to be a living sacrifice in that manner.

[ElizaG]

What Fall? (...)

Oh, for goodness sake. This forum took enough of my time when I was just reading about curriculum. :D

 

If you're sincerely interested in learning more about myriad theological topics, try the Catholic Answers site. Their forum is full of people who would just love to discuss them with you.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Eleanor

[ForeverFamily]

I think this is probably Christianity 101 but I wasn't raised in a church of any kind and my bible study has been sketchy.

 

I just watched the pilot video and it raised a question that I've always had and never understood.

 

How did Christ dying on the cross SAVE a person? Or me, specifically? I don't understand the nature of the sacrifice... Jesus giving eternal life, giving His life for us... I just do not get it. He gave His life for us.. how?

 

Sorry I hope I don't offend with my ignorance and I'm aware that I could ask the question in a church... but right now tonight I'm asking here.

 

Here is what I believe about the atonement (bear with me because I will need to start at the begginning ;)....)

 

When Adam fell it brought two kinds of death. When he was cast out of the Garden he was seperated from the presence of God. When we are seperated from God's presence it is called Spiritual death.

 

When they were cast out Adam and Eve became mortal which means they became subject to Physical death (the seperation of our body from our spirits, when we die). We are all subject to physical death, meaning we will all die. Jesus Christ was able to overcome Physical death for us when he died and was ressurrected (meaning his spirit and body were re-united). This is a gift given to us whether we are righteous or not. This means we will all be able to be ressurrected (immortality) but it does not guarantee that we will be able to live in his presence.

 

The purpose of coming to earth was so that we could be tested. With the goal to return back to God's presence. However, God knew that we would make mistakes along the way so he provided a Savior. In order to better understand the role of the Savior here is a little story.....

 

There once was a man who borrowed some money from a creditor. He signed an agreement saying he would pay the money back by a set date. If he failed to pay back the loan in full he would be thrown in jail. When it came time to pay the creditor back the man fell short and was unable to pay back the creditor the money he owed. He made an agreement and failed to hold up his end. Justice needed to be served. But as they were taking him to jail the man's friend stepped in. The friend agreed to pay the creditor back for him and his friend could then pay him back instead.

 

We are like the man who took out the loan. When we sin we are taking out a loan that we cannot possibly pay back on our own. But justice has to be served, the price for that sin has to be paid. The Savior is like our friend he stepped in to pay the price for us.

 

God knew we would not be perfect. So he sent a Savior, Jesus Christ, to overcome Spiritual death. He was able to pay for our sins. Because of the atonement of Jesus Christ we are able to overcome Spiritual death through repentence and obedience. The atonement made it possible for us return back to the presence of God. I believe this to be true with all my heart.

 

Hope that Helped.:)

[Onceuponatime]

You will get different answers, with two basic approaches. One approach will be a "court of law" approach, where what Christ accomplished on the cross was his taking our punishment for us (because we sinned, but he never did, so he was an unblemished sacrifice for us so that we could be saved from hell). The other approach is more therapeutic, if you will (Christ became incarnate -- God in the flesh -- like us, and in giving himself up in death showed us the path to salvation; complete dying to ourselves for the sake of others. In living/dying this way, we become like him, and are joined to him in communion).

 

If you would like to read what the earliest of church believed, which is the therapeutic approach described above, here is an article called Ancestral Sin on that.

 

By the way, in the Orthodox church (which ascribes to this therapeutic approach), we don't believe salvation is a one time event, i.e., pray a prayer (or something similar) and in a moment you're saved from hell. Salvation is a process. So your question about "how did Jesus death on the cross save us?" is a different question to the Eastern Orthodox person than it is to someone from the western Christian traditions. Christ provided salvation on the cross because as we now process through life, learning to die to self (like he did as an example for us), we become united with him. And THIS is salvation -- union with Christ.

 

I hope this helps.

 

ETA - Another article from the Orthodox perspective: Christ's Death: A Rescue Mission, Not a Payment For Sins.

 

 

Wow. I've never known that any church taught that. It is similar to what I have come to believe on my own recently.

 

ETA: Whoops. I guess I have heard it before, from here. It was already in my favorites. I must have absorbed without realizing it.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Onceuponatime

[FiveOaksAcademy]

To the OP: I would like to strongly encourage you to pick up your Bible, spend time in prayer asking God for direction and for HIS wisdom, then read His Word in regards to this matter. There is a lot of misinformation throughout this thread about the purpose of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Add to that the fact that there are those chiming in who have a definite bone to pick with Christianity as a whole, and I just don't think this is a good place to get your information. I think the Holy Spirit and God's Word are your very best choice for coming to the truth and not just man's wisdom about the matter.

[Heather in Neverland]

To the OP: I would like to strongly encourage you to pick up your Bible, spend time in prayer asking God for direction and for HIS wisdom, then read His Word in regards to this matter. There is a lot of misinformation throughout this thread about the purpose of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Add to that the fact that there are those chiming in who have a definite bone to pick with Christianity as a whole, and I just don't think this is a good place to get your information. I think the Holy Spirit and God's Word are your very best choice for coming to the truth and not just man's wisdom about the matter.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[simka2]

Wouldn't there be considerable irony if Jesus needed to be killed so "man could be more like God?"

 

The very Genesis story that many Christians interpret as necessitating the killing of Jesus clearly show that man and woman, in gaining the ability to judge right from wrong, became more like God, and were punished for gaining that knowledge.

 

Bill

Here is my very limited belief on this. I do not think Jesus died "so man coud be more like God." I think he lived. ;) I think his life and death were a sacrifice, but I am not entirely sure about typology or relating it back to the old testament.

 

I think he died to conquer death. In Orthodoxy these are 2 sides to one coin. His life and example provide the path of salvation and His death provide the final destination.

 

Also, it is my understanding that Hell is viewed rather differently by EO. Not as a place of burning fire, but as a place of God's constant love (which does not feel like love to those who do not want it). This is a very rough attempt at some deeper theological matters.

 

As my Priest said on Sun. (attempting to be funny) "Who would want to have a person they despise constantly beside them saying, 'I love you! I Looooooovvveeee you! Oh, how I Loooooooooovvveeeee you!' For eternity."

Edited September 12, 2011 by simka2

[simka2]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but some folks were making a connection between Jewish korbanos (offerings), "atonement" (by which we mean very different things, I believe), and the crucifixion of the Xtian messiah.

 

From a Torah viewpoint, there is no such connection. Nothing in your crucifixion narrative connects with the Torah view of korbanos. It is impossible, again from a Torah perspective, for our covenantal obligations to be fulfilled and nullified, impossible for a person (or deity) to be, in any way, a korban.

 

I know that the Xtian interpretation of my Scriptures is very different... but since the link was being made, I wanted to clarify that it does not accurately represent Jewish belief or understanding. It is a Xtian reading of the Torah, and reflects that worldview and belief structure.

 

If I understand you correctly, you are articulating a more metaphoric idea of "sacrifices" (side note: our word "korban" is an offering, it comes from the shoresh (root) karev to draw close - a very different flavor of word). It is a beautiful idea, eloquently expressed... and I don't want to sound dismissive or disrespectful! ...but there is no angle that leaves that act, either the one time one at the center of your faith, or the ongoing ones of individuals, able to replace Torah Law - from a Jewish perspective.

 

From our point of view, we made an eternal covenant with G-d, and we will be faithful to it. For us, there are no sequels, no new Covenants possible, and certainly no altering of the terms.

 

From yours, your system was the one in place from the start, though to us it is not, in any way, recognizable as the same thing.

 

It is, however, fascinating to read this thread and hear the very different viewpoints - I learn so much here![/QUOTE]

 

I agree! Speaking of, would you be willing to shed a little more light on the Jewish understanding of "sacrifice" as we read in the Old Testament. I guess I really am not understanding what the purpose of Kobanos (when you remove my Xtian inferred belief of it).

 

Not a trap!!! I really want to know, feel free to pm if you would like. :D

[Julie in Austin]

Bill,

 

I really appreciate your comments on this thread. One thing I notice about many religious people (including myself here) is that they spend most of their time preaching to the choir, so I've really enjoyed thinking about the questions that you are posing here.

[Orthodox6]

This is just to add some useful information for OP.

 

Not all Christians believe in "substitutionary atonement" theology. It is foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy theology, for example. There have been threads before, discussing how we differ from Western Christianity, because the implications for salvation theology are immense.

[Mrs Twain]

I've never said I was Jewish. I've had a life-long exposure to many Jewish friends, and have done a good dead of study of that faith, but I am not Jewish.

 

Saying that the stories in the Hebrew Bible show men having relationships with God is accurate.

 

I am not religious. But I do have an interest in Mythology and Comparative Theology.

 

Bill

 

I apologize for my mistake about thinking you were Jewish. Thank you for clearing that up.

 

So do you believe in God? Do you have any spiritual beliefs? Or do you just enjoy intellectual discussion of theology?

 

I am just wondering so I can understand your comments in context.

Thanks.

[Ipsey]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but some folks were making a connection between Jewish korbanos (offerings), "atonement" (by which we mean very different things, I believe), and the crucifixion of the Xtian messiah.

 

From a Torah viewpoint, there is no such connection. Nothing in your crucifixion narrative connects with the Torah view of korbanos. It is impossible, again from a Torah perspective, for our covenantal obligations to be fulfilled and nullified, impossible for a person (or deity) to be, in any way, a korban.

 

I know that the Xtian interpretation of my Scriptures is very different... but since the link was being made, I wanted to clarify that it does not accurately represent Jewish belief or understanding. It is a Xtian reading of the Torah, and reflects that worldview and belief structure.

 

If I understand you correctly, you are articulating a more metaphoric idea of "sacrifices" (side note: our word "korban" is an offering, it comes from the shoresh (root) karev to draw close - a very different flavor of word). It is a beautiful idea, eloquently expressed... and I don't want to sound dismissive or disrespectful! ...but there is no angle that leaves that act, either the one time one at the center of your faith, or the ongoing ones of individuals, able to replace Torah Law - from a Jewish perspective.

 

From our point of view, we made an eternal covenant with G-d, and we will be faithful to it. For us, there are no sequels, no new Covenants possible, and certainly no altering of the terms.

 

From yours, your system was the one in place from the start, though to us it is not, in any way, recognizable as the same thing.

 

It is, however, fascinating to read this thread and hear the very different viewpoints - I learn so much here!

 

I really appreciate hearing this.

I think I had to hear this about a dozen times before understanding it.

 

I get long here. . . I’m sorry.

 

When I was a Christian, since I believed in the truth of my religion, and I felt that we had the Jewish scripture and that the Jewish teachings and they melded perfectly with my Christian teaching.

 

However, I finally realized what my Jewish friends were saying about me having a different understanding when I put it into my own context. My faith was not the same as theirs. My belief—about their beliefs—were wrong.

 

I’m going to try to make an analogy that I created in my head to help me understand.

 

So, say there’s a new religion in a thousand years. These people have new rituals and different beliefs than Christians, but claimed theirs was actually what Christianity meant and that their religion was the fulfillment of the Christian belief.

 

So, the New Religionists look like this:

 

Maybe they would all sell all of their earthly goods and live communally and say this was the way the true God-worshippers were to live, and that the Church in the Book of Acts showed us that, but we couldn’t recognize it until the right time.

 

Or that original Christians had misunderstood the concept of the Holy Spirit (as the Jews supposedly did the Messiah) and that the Holy Spirit was actually a living physical being from another planet, who has cloned offspring that inside of them and takes over their whole lives and beings, and speaks to them audibly in their heads.

 

Or that the original Christians simply refused to believe the truths revealed by the New Religion because they really didn’t understand their Christian faith.

 

If a New Religionist were to say this, Christians would say—why, this is a completely different religion. This does not come from us. This is not our faith!

 

Here is the one that really got me.

 

According to the prevailing Jewish understanding, of the Messiah, thoughtout history. The Messiah does not die. He is not sacrificed! It is not even possible! Cannot happen. Is not sacrificed. It doesn’t even go with the religion’s understanding of anything.

 

This would be similar to the New Religion saying, “Jesus, who is married to the Whore of Babylon, comes to reign over the world, and makes the non-believers his chosen people because it was only those who doubted who were the only ones truly intellectually faithful.

Christians would say, “That’s not Christianity!†That can’t even be!

 

That helped me to understand what my Jewish friends were saying.

 

And. . . what if this New Religions belief became one of the most popular in the world, and had the dominant say about what the Christians (now a stark minority of the population, as Jews are today) actually believed? The New Religions voice was the one who got to say what original Christians actually believed?

 

It was just interesting.

 

It’s not a perfect analogy, and I’m not trying to do anything here except share something about my own experience in recognizing the Christian understanding I had of scripture and Judaism than actual Jewish people had of their own Scriptures and cultural foundations.

 

I didn’t get to remake their entire religion because my religion co-opted it, redefined it, and nearly wiped it off the planet.

 

Eliana, you don’t have to feel obliged to reply, but if you feel my analogy is incorrect, please let me know, and I’ll fix it or remove it. I don’t want to step on toes if I’ve wrongly understood some of the Jewish objections to Christianity, and if I can improve my understanding, I’d love to.

[Onceuponatime]

Sorry, but I just don't see how killing innocent animals strokes for wrong doings. This strike me as very illogical.

 

Bill

 

I think one would need to believe the words of Paul, to make this connection. If I remember right, you are not too fond of Paul. :D Paul makes the point that the blood of animals cannot take away sin. Perhaps it had not occurred to the Jews that a sacrifice was supposed to take away sin, until Paul preached that.

 

I've also heard it said that taking the life of an animal:

1. Reminded the Jews of the certainty of death and how short our own life is.

2. Used to be a real sacrifice in the economic/social sense, a show of willingness to give something up for God.

 

I wonder how much of the Old Testament sacrifices were viewed (at that time) by Jews the way sacrifices were viewed by pagans, as a way to appease God's wrath *because* of sin. It seems that King Saul took that viewpoint and was punished for it, being told that obedience was the sacrifice God preferrred. In this case it doesn't seem to matter why God told them to do things a certain way, only that they obeyed. Maybe willing obedience is the only point to sacrifice.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Onceuponatime

[Ipsey]

 

As my Priest said on Sun. (attempting to be funny) "Who would want to have a person they despise constantly beside them saying, 'I love you! I Looooooovvveeee you! Oh, how I Loooooooooovvveeeee you!' For eternity."

 

This is an interesting take:)

It reminds me of Lewis's The Great Divorce a bit.

It also makes me wonder about the concept of Hell in EO (I know very, very little about EO).

I don't actually hate gods. I just don't believe it any of them. I don't hate Jehovah any more than I hate Atik or Elsh.

In my background, I'm going to hell.

Do atheists not go to hell in EO?

 

After all, I believe in my husband, who I can feel, touch, see, hear, make breakfast for, and who can speak so everyone hears him say the same thing, and who everyone who knows him can identify him clearly, etc, and he says "I love you," to me. For these reasons and others I believe my husband exists.

 

If a god could present itself to me in the same way in and say "I love you!" in that way, I'd believe. Would that get me out of hell? :)

 

Don't mean to hijack, PM me if you like!

 

That just tickled me :)

[livingnlearning]

Thanks everyone, lots to read with my cup of coffee this morning!

[Ellesmere]

To the OP: I would like to strongly encourage you to pick up your Bible, spend time in prayer asking God for direction and for HIS wisdom, then read His Word in regards to this matter. There is a lot of misinformation throughout this thread about the purpose of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Add to that the fact that there are those chiming in who have a definite bone to pick with Christianity as a whole, and I just don't think this is a good place to get your information. I think the Holy Spirit and God's Word are your very best choice for coming to the truth and not just man's wisdom about the matter.

 

I think, just like any forum, this is a tough thing to discuss without getting into a lot of other potentially complicated discussions because some of us are using the same words to mean different things. Some will come in with a sectarian view and some won't. Some will be polite, some won't. The OP asked a somewhat loaded (but very genuine, sincere, and important) question that definitely leads to a lot of different topics.

 

 

(FiveOaksAcademy, the rest springing off from what you said, but not directed just at you. Just sharing, not arguing :))

 

Some will say just spend time in the Bible and prayer and I won't argue the importance of that. I really do agree. Just personally, reading things (in no particular order) like articles posted by the Eastern Orthodox people here, talking with people from a variety of Christian and non-Christian backgrounds, reading a book like Mere Christianity, delving into the Catholic catechism (my interest in Catholicism isn't a secret, but I'm not going to suggest that path to the OP if there's no interest), and a variety of other things is healthy. I've also had many discussions with Methodists, fundamentalist Christians, Catholics, and others. I'm very close friends with some evangelical fundamentalist conservative Christians (all tricky labels, but going by how they self-identify). While I'm not going to join a church or make decisions based on just what I hear on a forum (any forum), I appreciate that I could come here and ask some questions that I had a hard time discussing IRL and sometimes it led to some helpful talks with people I know. Sure, there will be misinformation and maybe it might lead someone to think incorrectly about something but I think that someone who is genuinely searching (even if in doubt) will think critically, pray, and will be led by God. (That does make some Christians uncomfortable because they believe there needs to be a date after the age of accountability that someone is born again, finally a Christian, saved forever no matter what, and then eligible to be baptized.)

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but some folks were making a connection between Jewish korbanos (offerings), "atonement" (by which we mean very different things, I believe), and the crucifixion of the Xtian messiah.

 

From a Torah viewpoint, there is no such connection. Nothing in your crucifixion narrative connects with the Torah view of korbanos. It is impossible, again from a Torah perspective, for our covenantal obligations to be fulfilled and nullified, impossible for a person (or deity) to be, in any way, a korban.

 

I know that the Xtian interpretation of my Scriptures is very different... but since the link was being made, I wanted to clarify that it does not accurately represent Jewish belief or understanding. It is a Xtian reading of the Torah, and reflects that worldview and belief structure.

 

If I understand you correctly, you are articulating a more metaphoric idea of "sacrifices" (side note: our word "korban" is an offering, it comes from the shoresh (root) karev to draw close - a very different flavor of word). It is a beautiful idea, eloquently expressed... and I don't want to sound dismissive or disrespectful! ...but there is no angle that leaves that act, either the one time one at the center of your faith, or the ongoing ones of individuals, able to replace Torah Law - from a Jewish perspective.

 

From our point of view, we made an eternal covenant with G-d, and we will be faithful to it. For us, there are no sequels, no new Covenants possible, and certainly no altering of the terms.

 

From yours, your system was the one in place from the start, though to us it is not, in any way, recognizable as the same thing.

 

It is, however, fascinating to read this thread and hear the very different viewpoints - I learn so much here!

 

Eliana, the OP asked for the Christian answer to specific questions. Of course Christians are going to give their interpretation of what happen to be OUR Scriptures also.

[Ipsey]

Eliana, the OP asked for the Christian answer to specific questions. Of course Christians are going to give their interpretation of what happen to be OUR Scriptures also.

 

I don't think Eliana is saying that Christians shouldn't reply, or that it was not addressed to Christians.

 

She's explaining that the original interpretations of HER scriptures differs from what people of a different religion are saying about her scriptures (although they use the same scriptures). If you have to go to another person's religious scriptures to explain your position, it's only fair that the original faith position has a say too, explaining where the two disagree.

 

The Christian version of the Jewish Scriptures shouldn't be the only one that counts, Eliana made it clear that she was Jewish and wasn't trying to pass off her version as Christian.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't think Eliana is saying that Christians shouldn't reply, or that it was not addressed to Christians.

 

She's explaining that the original interpretations of HER scriptures differs from what people of a different religion are saying about her scriptures (although they use the same scriptures). If you have to go to another person's religious scriptures to explain your position, it's only fair that the original faith position has a say too, explaining where the two disagree.

 

The Christian version of the Jewish Scriptures shouldn't be the only one that counts, Eliana made it clear that she was Jewish and wasn't trying to pass off her version as Christian.

 

I know that and I have no problem with her having her views. But the OT is not only the sacred writings of Jewish people. They are shared by Christians also, though I know that they are interpreted very differently in many ways. If I came into an LDS thread that has different doctrinal views than mine and said that they could only quote from the Book of Mormon and not from the Bible because "we" had it first with our interpretation, it would be legitimately seen as argumentative and offensive.

[livingnlearning]

Understood, there is reading and IRL research to do still for me, obviously.

 

For me, everything that I've read and thought about and prayed about so far absolutely leads me away from the concept that Christ died for my sins. :confused: I've never heard it explained nor read about it in any way to resonate with me. But I am having revelations and breakthroughs about God and religion, confirming ideas and thoughts that I have never had before... so I'm not sure what to do with that. Maybe God is taking it slowly with me. :D

 

ETA I appreciate all the info here too, it's quite possible that though I asked a Christianity question I may not be pulled toward Christianity for my religion. I need to learn more about Judaism.

Edited September 12, 2011 by livingnlearning

[Ipsey]

I know that and I have no problem with her having her views. But the OT is not only the sacred writings of Jewish people. They are shared by Christians also, though I know that they are interpreted very differently in many ways. If I came into an LDS thread that has different doctrinal views than mine and said that they could only quote from the Book of Mormon and not from the Bible because "we" had it first with our interpretation, it would be legitimately seen as argumentative and offensive.

 

Yes, it is Christian Scripture too.

That's fine.

 

Responding to your comment:

 

I don't see where Eliana said people could only quote from the OT, or that hers was the only correct version. (She said her version was the Jewish version, and other were a more Christian rendering). Can you explain how Eliana sharing her version was argumentative and offensive? It appeared that she was sharing her perspective on her scriptures.

 

I'll go back and look, maybe I missed it.

 

But, if you don't have a problem with a non-LDS Christian pointing out a discrepancy between the Bible and the Book of Mormon on a Mormon inspired thread, I don't see why you have one here.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Ipsey
clarification

[Orthodox6]

FiveOaks, one of the strengths of threads such as this is that the multiple versions of Christianity have the opportunity to share their beliefs with an OP who has asked a question which is worded without any pre-conceived inclinations or biases. Christians who agree with you would consider posts such my earlier one to be "misinformation." Similarly, Christians who disagree with you would consider your post here to be "misinformation." It is good that the varying beliefs are being posted to this thread without rancor. It would be "misinformation" indeed to let the OP think that there is uniformity of belief among Christians.

 

 

To the OP: I would like to strongly encourage you to pick up your Bible, spend time in prayer asking God for direction and for HIS wisdom, then read His Word in regards to this matter. There is a lot of misinformation throughout this thread about the purpose of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Add to that the fact that there are those chiming in who have a definite bone to pick with Christianity as a whole, and I just don't think this is a good place to get your information. I think the Holy Spirit and God's Word are your very best choice for coming to the truth and not just man's wisdom about the matter.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Yes, it is Christian Scripture too.

That's fine.

 

Responding to your comment:

 

I don't see where Eliana said people could only quote from the OT, or that hers was the only correct version. (She said her version was the Jewish version, and other were a more Christian rendering). Can you explain how Eliana sharing her version was argumentative and offensive? It appeared that she was sharing her perspective on her scriptures.

 

I'll go back and look, maybe I missed it.

 

But, if you don't have a problem with a non-LDS Christian pointing out a discrepancy between the Bible and the Book of Mormon on a Mormon inspired thread, I don't see why you have one here.

 

What bothered me is that she kept saying that it was the Christian point of view. Of course it was the Christian point of view! That was what was asked for!

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Christ died so He could go down to Hades and "trample down death by death." He could have saved himself form the cross if he wanted to but then he would not have done the greater work of destroying death. Death cannot hold the holy and perfect God.

 

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life are both the cross and are revealed when the thief sees Jesus on the cross and knows that Jesus is good and the giver of life.

 

The sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is in the tradition of: Abel's sacrifice (he was good), Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac (he was obedient) and the passover sacrifices (as a form of identification or something to be marked with). None of these have anything to do with compensation for sin. God knew Jesus was going to die and he revealed its meaning hundreds of years in advance.

 

The idea that life is born from death is all around us. If a grain of wheat does not fall to the ground and die it will not produce life. To deny that death leads to life is to deny nature.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Father of Pearl

[FiveOaksAcademy]

FiveOaks, one of the strengths of threads such as this is that the multiple versions of Christianity have the opportunity to share their beliefs with an OP who has asked a question which is worded without any pre-conceived inclinations or biases. Christians who agree with you would consider posts such my earlier one to be "misinformation." Similarly, Christians who disagree with you would consider your post here to be "misinformation." It is good that the varying beliefs are being posted to this thread without rancor. It would be "misinformation" indeed to let the OP think that there is uniformity of belief among Christians.

 

I never pointed out the misinformation in my prior post. I just stated that it is there. I stand by my statements. If one goes the route of trying to get information from other humans on this topic, the likelihood of just getting human doctrine and human wisdom is more likely than not. That's why God's Word is the only reliable source for this.

 

As far as misinformation,I will say that anything that dethrones Christ or His sacrifice in any way is most definitely misinformation!! It can be subtle, to be sure...but misinformation nonetheless.

Edited September 12, 2011 by FiveOaksAcademy

[simka2]

I never pointed out the misinformation in my prior post. I just stated that it is there. I stand by my statements. If one goes the route of trying to get information from other humans on this topic, the likelihood of just getting human doctrine and human wisdom is more likely than not. That's why God's Word is the only reliable source for this.

 

As far as misinformation,I will say that anything that dethrones Christ or His sacrifice in any way is most definitely misinformation!! It can be subtle, to be sure...but misinformation nonetheless.

This is kinda like the old adage, "Which came first the chicken or the egg?"

 

Which came first, the Church or the Bible? (and which Bible at that)

 

Ducking, running and hiding :leaving:

 

:D

[milovany]

This is kinda like the old adage, "Which came first the chicken or the egg?"

 

Which came first, the Church or the Bible? (and which Bible at that)

 

Ducking, running and hiding :leaving:

 

:D

 

LOL, Simka ~ you don't need to run and hide. I have been so thankful to realize that the Church came first and that the Bible is a gift from the Church; that the Church that is the "pillar and foundation of truth," not the Scriptures. I know it's a shocking (shocking!) statement to the ears of many Christians in this day and age, but it's true nonetheless. We honor and revere the Scriptures as the written word of God; they're just not the only way the Lord communicates with his people. He's not limited by words on a page. Er, maybe I should join you in your cave. :D

[proverbs356lady]

I haven't had a chance to read any of the comments yet, but wanted to give a link for you to consider reading. It's not terribly long.

 

http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl/

[Orthodox6]

I won't hide in a cave! My point remains that OP deserves to know there is marked difference of viewpoints among groups called "Christian." She asked an honest question, and I'll give an honest answer. I'll stand until the end, and beyond, with what I accept as true. I'll stand just as staunchly for OP's free will and her right to seek God without me commanding her. I may make information available; I never, ever should exert force.

 

 

LOL, Simka ~ you don't need to run and hide. I have been so thankful to realize that the Church came first and that the Bible is a gift from the Church; that the Church that is the "pillar and foundation of truth," not the Scriptures. I know it's a shocking (shocking!) statement to the ears of many Christians in this day and age, but it's true nonetheless. We honor and revere the Scriptures as the written word of God; they're just not the only way the Lord communicates with his people. He's not limited by words on a page. Er, maybe I should join you in your cave. :D

[beccad777]

You're going to get a variety of answers - just warning you. . .

 

God is perfectly holy. In His holiness, He can only allow perfect righteousness to be with Him.

 

When Adam sinned, there was a rift between man and God. Death entered as a consequence of sin: spiritual death that was immediate and cut off the relationship between Adam and God, and physical death as a process which started at that moment and culminated years later when Adam's body died. After Adam and Eve, all children born were born with a sinful nature and without a relationship with God.

 

God prepared Jesus Christ as the solution to sin, way back in Eternity Past. Jesus Christ is the God-Man: he is 100% God and 100% man together in one person. He was not born with a sinful nature so that even in His humanity he was sinless. When Jesus Christ went to the cross, he died with no sin. As He was on the cross, He was judged for every sin as a substitute for us - for all the sins of the world, past, present and future. I believe that this happened during the 3 hours of darkness while he was on the cross and was done when He yelled out "It is finished". After that, he physically died.

 

He died physically so that He could be resurrected. When Jesus Christ rose from the dead, He now had a resurrection body, the same kind of resurrection body that Christians will have when they are resurrected after the Judgment.

 

When someone accepts what Jesus Christ did on the cross for them, they are given many invisible things. One of those things is eternal life. Another one of those things is God's righteousness. Now we are able to have a relationship with God, not because of anything we did, but because of what He did for us.

 

 

:iagree: This is a great answer!

[Lovedtodeath]

Disclaimer: (I didn't read the responses, so I hope no one assumes I am stepping on toes, just wanted to add my two cents, since this was something I was researching recently, and I am very enthusiastic, lol.) This is a complex issue with more than one answer. Jesus' death was not a simple transaction, like some seem to teach. These answers, scriptures and links might help, and I am also sending you a PM with a link to another forum that I follow, but I am pulling out the answers that have meant the most to me and quoting them here. This is probably a good place to start for someone with this question: http://oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=20 (I am not Orthodox at this point, I am stauncly non-denominational, but sometimes they have good answers!) More along those lines: Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

 

http://whitneymcilvain.blogspot.com/2010/04/jesus-conquered-death-fear-of-death-and.html

 

2 Corinthians 5:18-19 God has done it all! He sent Christ to make peace between himself and us, and he has given us the work of making peace between himself and others. What we mean is that God was in Christ, offering peace and forgiveness to the people of this world. And he has given us the work of sharing his message about peace. (CEV)

 

God is just as pure as He ever was. The difference is that we are no longer impure because he has washed us clean. It wasn't just a sacrifice involving the blood of a perfect innocent human was it? In that case Jesus would have spent less time on the earth. He was perfect, sinless and innocent as a child, was he not? So there must be something missing from the idea of an innocent sacrifice.

 

Jesus grew into an adult human before starting in the ministry, then taught us for 3 and a half years before the sacrifice and 40 days afterward. He even said, "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." His purpose then was to teach us about His perfect love so that we will choose to have communion with Him. This communion is what washes us clean.

An incident that took place several years ago in California illuminates what Jesus did on the cross in order to solve the problem God had with dealing with the sin of humanity. A young woman was picked up for speeding. She was ticketed and taken before the judge. The judge read off the citation and said "Guilty or not guilty?". The woman replied, "Guilty". The judge brought down the gavel and fined her $100 or ten days. Then an amazing thing took place. The judge stood up, took off his robe,walked down around in front, took out his billfold, and paid the fine. What's the explanation of this? The judge was her father. He loved his daughter, yet he was a just judge. His daughter had broken the law and he couldn't simply say to her "Because I love you so much, I forgive you. You may leave". If he had done that, he wouldn't have been a righteous judge. He wouldn't have upheld the law. But he loved his daughter so much that he was willing to take off his judicial robe and come down in front and represent her as her father and pay the fine. (Josh McDowell, More Than A Carpenter, Tyndale House Publishers, 1977, pgs 114-115)

I have a good friend who has owed me $520 for several years. I recently removed this debt from Quicken, as he will likely not be able to pay it anytime soon because of the economy. I have forgiven this debt. What you seem to miss is that I am out $520. I can't just forgive the debt without paying the price myself. My net worth the moment I forgave the debt in Quicken shrunk by $520. Now imagine it is a life. The cost of just one sin is eventual loss of life (in addition to spiritual separation from God). Death is the price, the cost. In order to pay that price, a life has to be given, and that life has to be the life of the person forgiving the debt. It makes absolute, 100% perfect sense.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[twoforjoy]

My own view is a bit of Christus Victor, a little bit of the EO healing view, and a whole lot of mystery.

 

It's definitely not a basic or easy question, though! Quite honestly, I'd probably assume that anybody who thought there was just a simple, pat answer to the question probably isn't very knowledgeable about church history, theology, or other branches of Christianity outside of their own.

 

Wikipedia actually has a not-too-bad series on various views of atonement, although the emphasis is on Protestant theories, and EO/RC theories get short shrift.

[Lovedtodeath]

When someone accepts what Jesus Christ did on the cross for them, they are given many invisible things. One of those things is eternal life. Another one of those things is God's righteousness. Now we are able to have a relationship with God, not because of anything we did, but because of what He did for us.

:iagree:1 John 5:13 "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

 

"Jesus answered and said to her, 'If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.'” compare Revelation 22:17 Jesus was preaching THE GOSPEL to this woman.

 

See also Romans 8:9-11 and context

Edited September 12, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[FiveOaksAcademy]

LOL, Simka ~ you don't need to run and hide. I have been so thankful to realize that the Church came first and that the Bible is a gift from the Church; that the Church that is the "pillar and foundation of truth," not the Scriptures. I know it's a shocking (shocking!) statement to the ears of many Christians in this day and age, but it's true nonetheless. We honor and revere the Scriptures as the written word of God; they're just not the only way the Lord communicates with his people. He's not limited by words on a page. Er, maybe I should join you in your cave. :D

 

The quoted part makes me shudder. I've seen enough of the failings of the church to know that I certainly cannot hold it up as truth. A group of humans, no matter how large or small, who attempt to serve God WILL fail. I thank Him for His Word and His perfection...to those only can I look to as a guide and a light.

[simka2]

The quoted part makes me shudder. I've seen enough of the failings of the church to know that I certainly cannot hold it up as truth. A group of humans, no matter how large or small, who attempt to serve God WILL fail. I thank Him for His Word and His perfection...to those only can I look to as a guide and a light.

But how did you get His WORD? If that group of men cannot be trusted serve God as He wills (speaking of the early church fathers) then how can they be trusted to have put together the canon of scripture? If they are not trustworthy, then what they put together is not as well.

[FiveOaksAcademy]

:iagree:1 John 5:13 "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

 

"Jesus answered and said to her, 'If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.'†compare Revelation 22:17 Jesus was preaching THE GOSPEL to this woman.

 

See also Romans 8:9-11 and context

 

:iagree: And Jean's response was awesome!!

 

One of my kids has a cd with scriptures to songs. All morning, the song version of "Christ died for our sins, the third day according to the scriptures" has been going through my mind. :lol: It's basic but important. God even uses my children's songs to remind me of His Word!! I love that about Him!!! :D

[FiveOaksAcademy]

But how did you get His WORD? If that group of men cannot be trusted serve God as He wills (speaking of the early church fathers) then how can they be trusted to have put together the canon of scripture? If they are not trustworthy, then what they put together is not as well.

 

 

God gave them that Word. They didn't pull it out on their own. They were sinful just like the rest. He used humans from the beginning of time to put His Word in written form...never were we to hold those humans up in such a way as that.

[simka2]

God gave them that Word. They didn't pull it out on their own. They were sinful just like the rest. He used humans from the beginning of time to put His Word in written form...never were we to hold those humans up in such a way as that.

But how did we get the Canon of Scripture?

 

Please know, I have suffered some of the most horrid abuse at the hands of a Bible beleiving minister. I KNOW how dangerous it is to give earthly men to much authority. It is for precisely this reason that I know longer believe in Scripture alone. It is much safer to have Scripture and the accountability of the teachings from the early church Fathers. No minister can twist scripture to mean what they want it to in a particular moment. There are checks and balances.

Edited September 12, 2011 by simka2