Children are sinful

[Lovedtodeath]

1. Shouldn't the words and teachings of Jesus alone have authority, assuming he's quoted correctly in the Gosples (a big assumption given the sinful nature of his human scribes)?

 

 

2. I don't want to get to far afield, but I'll admit I've never understood the mechanism by which killing a sheep was a useful means of atoning for sinfulness or bad acts. Likewise I don't understand how murdering God (or the Son of God) expiates sin. To accept this we'd have to believe that by committing the worst imaginable act, killing God (or one component of the God Trinity) we are rewarded with salvation through an evil murder.

 

Wouldn't it be counter to any norm of justice to reward evil? Honest question.

 

 

 

3. I've studied the Jewish commentaries on the Adam And Eve story, and (without speaking for Judaism) they reject the concept of "original sin" as advanced by Paul. So there is plenty of "context" to suggest this interpretation is open to being questioned .

 

Bill,

 

1. Jesus himself said to listen to the words in the rest of the scripture. So if you don't listen to those then you aren't really listening to what Jesus says either.

 

2. That is something that is hard for many to wrap their minds around and usually takes time and effort for those open to it.

 

3. That is interesting. Is there something you could point me to so that I could find out about this?

 

Carmen

[Greta]

 

1. Jesus himself said to listen to the words in the rest of the scripture. So if you don't listen to those then you aren't really listening to what Jesus says either.

 

But weren't there also instances where Jesus specifically did away with the old teachings? When they wanted to stone a man for working on the Sabbath, he said the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. He said (paraphrasing of course) you've been told 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' but I am telling you to love your enemy; if he steals your coat, give him your cloak also, etc. So I don't doubt that Jesus would advise his followers to read and heed scripture. But to accept it all uncritically?

 

Just asking. This conversation is so fascinating to me, and yet I have so many other things I should be doing right now!!! :D

Edited October 29, 2008 by GretaLynne
spelling error

[Spy Car]

Bill,

 

1. Jesus himself said to listen to the words in the rest of the scripture. So if you don't listen to those then you aren't really listening to what Jesus says either.

 

2. That is something that is hard for many to wrap their minds around and usually takes time and effort for those open to it.

 

3. That is interesting. Is there something you could point me to so that I could find out about this?

 

Carmen

 

Carmen, as to point 1. How does Jesus tell us to listen to "the words in the rest of the scripture" when those words were not written during his time here on earth (assuming you mean the things Paul and others wrote, and not the Hebrew Bible)?

 

On point 2, help me out. Why should mankind be rewarded for killing God? Can man actually kill God? How does killing a sheep atone for sin? My mind is open.

 

On point 3, the writings are vast. I'll try to get back to you with something concise. But it is uncontroversial that Jews don't share the Christian interpretation of "original sin".

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

But weren't there also instances where Jesus specifically did away with the old teachings? When they wanted to stone a man for working on the Sabbath, he said the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. He said (paraphrasing of course) you've been told 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' but I am telling you to love your enemy; if he steals your coat, give him your cloak also, etc. So I don't doubt that Jesus would advise his followers to read and heed scripture. But to accept it all uncritically?

 

Just asking. This conversation is so fascinating to me, and yet I have so many other things I should be doing right now!!! :D

 

Good point Greta. I was thinking of the NT, but as to the Tanakh (OT) doesn't Jesus essentially say don't listen to it anymore as it is no longer valid?

 

Bill

[OnTheBrink]

Bill, Jesus quotes OT scripture in the NT. He's not referring to other NT writings; they hadn't been written yet. He's referring to OT writings, which were written.

[Spy Car]

Bill, Jesus quotes OT scripture in the NT. He's not referring to other NT writings; they hadn't been written yet. He's referring to OT writings, which were written.

 

OK, that's what I figured.

 

Jesus is not giving his "seal of approval" to the writing of Paul, et al, correct?

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

But weren't there also instances where Jesus specifically did away with the old teachings? When they wanted to stone a man for working on the Sabbath, he said the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. He said (paraphrasing of course) you've been told 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' but I am telling you to love your enemy; if he steals your coat, give him your cloak also, etc. So I don't doubt that Jesus would advise his followers to read and heed scripture. But to accept it all uncritically?

 

Just asking. This conversation is so fascinating to me, and yet I have so many other things I should be doing right now!!! :D

 

the Law covenant (and in return, the law itself) became in a sense "obsolete" when God announced by means of the prophet Jeremiah that there would be a new covenant. (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:13) In 33 C.E. the Law covenant was canceled on the basis of Christ’s death on the torture stake (Col 2:14), the new covenant replacing it.—Heb 7:12; 9:15; Ac 2:1-4. Jesus spoke of the new covenant at Luke 22:20

Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: "This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.

Does that cut and paste help?

In addition at John 13:34 he said,"I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another."

But the principles and prophecies in the Hebrew scriptures still applied as he quoted from them.

 

It makes me feel better to know that it's as confusing as I think it is. :)

 

Yeah, It's only the most common question that everyone from different perspectives and backgrounds wants explained. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

In regards to Moira and Jugglin5's discussion (assuming I even know what they were talking about :lol:):

 

I believe that though God has the ability to fore knowledge (bad wording, but ya'll know what I mean) and to control all events (such as the actions of Cyrus of Persia) he chooses not to foresee all events nor does he control them. If he were to do so then this would make free will null and void, and this is not what God wishes.

[Joanne]

But it seems strange to me, because I just don't understand why I should have to accept these things in order to accept Christ. Could a person not accept Christ as their savior, while still believing that the Bible is an imperfect and/or incomplete work created by fallible men? That it contains many spiritual truths, but also contains some errors and some omissions because it was written by imperfect people with limited knowledge? To me, this notion that the Bible is absolutely perfect and absolutely true and absolutely complete is making it into an idol. And it's ironic because idolatry is one of the things that the Bible condemns!

 

Of course you can. Many do. In reality, however, it would also help to accept that many (usually conservative) Christians won't agree with you.

[Lovedtodeath]

OK Bill, this is not nearly enough, yet it seems too wordy and disconnected. It's the best I can do in this forum:

 

 

Adam lost for himself perfect human life on a paradise earth. He also lost this wonderful prospect for all the children he would produce. People, therefore, have been dying because of the sin that was inherited from Adam. How was it possible, then, for the sacrifice of Jesus’ life to free all people from bondage to sin and death?

 

 

A ransom is something that brings the deliverance of a person held captive. It is something that is paid so that he does not lose his life. To avoid any controversy now or later as to the fairness of the ransom price, it would be necessary to sacrifice one perfect human life, that is, the exact equivalent of Adam. Jesus’ perfect human life was given to obtain mankind’s release from bondage to sin and death.

If Adam had died before producing children and God had started over with a new perfect man, then the offspring would be perfect and they would not sin and die. Instead of doing that, God allowed Adam's offspring to live. He then created a perfect man who died before producing any offspring. So it balances the scale,

by voluntarily sacrificing his life, this "last Adam" could pay the wage for the sin of the "first man Adam." Mankind has a chance to choose righteousness and grow to perfection and immortality at God's appointed time. Paying the wage for Adam’s sin provides for the nullifying of the death sentence upon Adam’s offspring! (Romans 5:16) In a legal sense, the destructive power of sin is cut off right at its source. The ransomer ‘tastes death for every man,’ bearing the consequences of sin for all of Adam’s children.

 

To illustrate: Imagine a large factory with hundreds of employees. A dishonest factory manager bankrupts the business; the factory closes its doors. Hundreds are now out of work and unable to pay their bills. Their marriage mates, children, and, yes, creditors all suffer because of that one man’s corruption! Then along comes a wealthy benefactor who pays off the company’s debt and reopens the factory. The cancellation of that one debt, in turn, brings full relief to the many employees, their families, and the creditors.

 

 

More examples of a ransom: Numbers 3:39-51 illustrates how exact the price of redemption was to be. Having rescued the Israelite firstborn from execution at Passover 1513 B.C.E., God owned them. He could thus have required every Israelite firstborn son to serve him in the temple. Instead, God accepted a "redemption price" (pidh·yohm´, a noun derived from pa·dhah´), decreeing: "Take the Levites for me . . . in place of all the firstborn among the sons of Israel." But the substitution had to be exact. A census of the tribe of Levi was taken: 22,000 males. Next, a census of all Israelite firstborn: 22,273 males. Only by the paying of a "ransom price" of five shekels for each individual could the 273 excess firstborn be redeemed, excused from temple service.

 

Exodus 21:28-32 speaks of a bull that gores a person to death. If the owner knew of the bull’s disposition but did not take proper precautions, he could be made to cover, or pay, for the life of the slain one with his own! Yet, what if the owner was only partially responsible? He would need a ko´pher, something to cover his error. Appointed judges could impose upon him a ransom, or fine, as a redemption price.

 

 

I did say it takes time and effort, and most likely, more information than this. If it were easy to understand, then God would not have used The Law Covenant with Israel to "prepare the way".

 

[Lovedtodeath]

As far as animal sacrifices, they did not atone for sin. If they did, the Israelites would no longer die. We know this was not the case. The animal sacrifices were a tool used by God to demonstrate that the people were sinners and needed redemption.

The animal sacrifices that men of faith from Abel onward offered up could not really cover men’s sins, since humans are superior to brute beasts. (Psalm 8:4-8) Paul could thus write that "it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away." Such sacrifices could serve simply as a pictorial, or symbolic, covering in anticipation of the ransom that was to come.—Hebrews 10:1-4.

[The Governess]

On point 2, help me out. Why should mankind be rewarded for killing God? Can man actually kill God? How does killing a sheep atone for sin? My mind is open. Bill

 

I am in way over my head by even attempting to answer this, but I'm going to try anyway. :tongue_smilie:

 

I believe that killing the sheep (calf, whatever other animal) served as an atonement offering because it was considered an innocent animal. The innocent animal's blood would serve as a substitute for the "dirtied" blood of the sinner. The sacrifice was also meant to show that sin has great consequences, results in death, and is just, well, yucky and messy. God, being gracious, spares the sinner's life, substituting the animal in his place.

 

As for man killing God, I think it's a difference of perspective here. Jesus' physical body died, but that is very different from saying that we killed God. The fact that he was resurrected shows that man does not have the power to kill God. Christians believe that Jesus died *for* us, willingly, in our place (because we are all so wretched that we deserve death), and in doing so negated the need for animal sacrifices forevermore. Jesus' blood was clean and innocent, and God accepts it as a permanent substitute for our dirty, sinner's blood. It covers us and makes us acceptable to him, when we place our faith in Jesus. God spares us because of his love for us. Jesus and his willingness to die in our place is a physical manifestation of God's love. As quoted from John 15:13: " Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

 

As for being rewarded....I think that this ultimate act of love says something about God. We in no way deserved the work that was done for us on the cross. The manner of Jesus' death really drives this home. It was a despicable, prideful, merciless act on humanity's part. I believe that the fact that God was willing to let this happen as a means of saving us, of redeeming us, highlights God's love and mercy toward us in an amazing way. So, you're right. We shouldn't be rewarded. But God loves us so much that he does it anyway.

[Lacie]

Originally Posted By Spy Car: Shouldn't the words and teachings of Jesus alone have authority, assuming he's quoted correctly in the Gosples (a big assumption given the sinful nature of his human scribes)?

 

None of the physical authors of the Bible were perfect, they are had faults and they all sinned. But the words written in the Bible are not the words of the men who physically wrote them down… they are the words of God delivered to chosen men by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2)

Acts 1:1-5 - The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he], ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence

(1 Peter 1:24-25 KJV)

For all flesh {is} as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: (25) But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

(Mark 13:31 KJV)

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

(2 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

All scripture {is} given by inspiration of God, and {is} profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

(2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake {as they were} moved by the Holy Ghost.

(Hebrews 4:12 KJV)

For the word of God {is} quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and {is} a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

 

Originally Posted By Spy Car: I don't want to get to far afield, but I'll admit I've never understood the mechanism by which killing a sheep was a useful means of atoning for sinfulness or bad acts. Likewise I don't understand how murdering God (or the Son of God) expiates sin. To accept this we'd have to believe that by committing the worst imaginable act, killing God (or one component of the God Trinity) we are rewarded with salvation through an evil murder.

 

Wouldn't it be counter to any norm of justice to reward evil? Honest question.

 

The sacrificing of a sheep was not to atone for sin, it was to symbolically put the sin away from the people. It was more them following God’s commands than the actual act of killing the sheep that put away their sins. But the sins were not atoned for or forgiven until after the death of Christ.

 

Heb 10: 1-12 - For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

 

 

We are not rewarded for killing Christ. Christ could not have been put to death if he did not willingly give up his life.

 

John 10:17-18 - Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Phil 2:8 - And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross

Heb 7:27 - Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself

Heb 9:26 - For then he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself

 

 

The only rewarded out of this are the ones who obey, the reward is open to all but you must obey to receive it.

 

 

 

[Spy Car]

OK Bill, this is not nearly enough, yet it seems too wordy and disconnected. It's the best I can do in this forum:

Adam lost for himself perfect human life on a paradise earth. He also lost this wonderful prospect for all the children he would produce.

 

Here is where the interpretation of the story needs to be looked at carefully.

 

I would argue that a creature who lacks moral discernment might have an "easier" life, but such a creature would not be fully "human". Dogs and birds have no ability to "sin", because they can't tell right from wrong, but they are not "perfect". So it was for Adam and Eve. They could not sin because they could not distinguish between good and evil, but this lack of moral discretion didn't make them "perfect", but simply "innocently amoral".

 

God in Genesis recognizes the mixed blessing of human consciousness has make mankind more like God. You can't become more like God and less perfect at the same time, can you?

 

Man sufferers because, like my favorite author Paul (little joke) explains we are all torn between acting in accord with what we know is good, and inclinations to do otherwise.

 

But man was not "perfect" prior to eating the fruit, he was "incomplete" in his humanity.

 

If Adam had died before producing children and God had started over with a new perfect man, then the offspring would be perfect and they would not sin and die. Instead of doing that, God allowed Adam's offspring to live. He then created a perfect man who died before producing any offspring. So it balances the scale, by voluntarily sacrificing his life, this "last Adam" could pay the wage for the sin of the "first man Adam."

 

But according to the Genesis story God did kill off all of humanity, save Noah and his family who were supposedly righteous. This genocide would more than pay off any blood-sacrifice debt on the part of an ancestor who disobeyed a command but lacked the moral discernment to understand right from wrong.

 

And I'm still unclear how murdering some form of God is supposed to count in humanities favor.

 

Paying the wage for Adam’s sin provides for the nullifying of the death sentence upon Adam’s offspring! (Romans 5:16) In a legal sense, the destructive power of sin is cut off right at its source. The ransomer ‘tastes death for every man,’ bearing the consequences of sin for all of Adam’s children.

 

Human mortality is the price paid for attaining consciousness in the story, but inheriting responsibility for anothers disobedience I would argue is missing the moral of the story.

 

To illustrate: Imagine a large factory with hundreds of employees. A dishonest factory manager bankrupts the business; the factory closes its doors. Hundreds are now out of work and unable to pay their bills. Their marriage mates, children, and, yes, creditors all suffer because of that one man’s corruption! Then along comes a wealthy benefactor who pays off the company’s debt and reopens the factory. The cancellation of that one debt, in turn, brings full relief to the many employees, their families, and the creditors.

 

But here you are agreeing with me. There were repercussions to the actions of Adam and Eve that humanity has to with, but we are not responsible for our ancestors disobedience any more than the children of the dishonest factory owner are "morally responsible" for the factory owner's evil actions.

 

Exodus 21:28-32 speaks of a bull that gores a person to death. If the owner knew of the bull’s disposition but did not take proper precautions, he could be made to cover, or pay, for the life of the slain one with his own! Yet, what if the owner was only partially responsible? He would need a ko´pher, something to cover his error. Appointed judges could impose upon him a ransom, or fine, as a redemption price.

 

I'm not following this fully. But note that it is the human, who can reason right from wrong, who is held responsible for the bull's actions, and not the bull who (like Adam and Eve prior to gaining moral discretion) can't tell right from wrong.

 

Perhaps you are arguing that God is like the bull-owner, and has to pay a heavy price (though his own death and resurrection) for creating imperfect beings that he had every reason would act badly (much like the bull) and therefore god needed to atone for his irresponsible behavior. That would be a really interesting argument, but I doubt that is a line you are advancing.

 

I am enjoying the discussion.

 

Bill

[beansprouts]

But weren't there also instances where Jesus specifically did away with the old teachings? When they wanted to stone a man for working on the Sabbath, he said the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. He said (paraphrasing of course) you've been told 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' but I am telling you to love your enemy; if he steals your coat, give him your cloak also, etc. So I don't doubt that Jesus would advise his followers to read and heed scripture. But to accept it all uncritically?

 

Just asking. This conversation is so fascinating to me, and yet I have so many other things I should be doing right now!!! :D

 

The teachings Jesus challenged were extrabiblical laws added by the pharisees which took the real purpose of the Sabbath and reduced it to a bunch of rules to be followed. God made the Sabbath for Man to spend a day in rest, in fellowship with his family, and in devotion to God. The Pharisees took their rules and made them more important than even human life, which Jesus challenged by healing on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

 

The "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" was a principle for establishing justice. In other words the punishment should fit the crime. Jesus brings this up merely to show that we are missing the point. If you read Matthew 5-7 Jesus teaches us the real spirit of God's laws. We see that sin is far more than just outward behavior, it has to do with the attitudes in our hearts. Sin begins long before the outward behavior takes place. For example, Jesus says that if we hate our brother we have already murdered him in our hearts. In this passage also Jesus says:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

 

I am tired, and this is not as articulate as I would like it to be, but I hope it helps just a little.

[Jugglin'5]

The teachings Jesus challenged were extrabiblical laws added by the pharisees which took the real purpose of the Sabbath and reduced it to a bunch of rules to be followed. God made the Sabbath for Man to spend a day in rest, in fellowship with his family, and in devotion to God. The Pharisees took their rules and made them more important than even human life, which Jesus challenged by healing on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

 

The "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" was a principle for establishing justice. In other words the punishment should fit the crime. Jesus brings this up merely to show that we are missing the point. If you read Matthew 5-7 Jesus teaches us the real spirit of God's laws. We see that sin is far more than just outward behavior, it has to do with the attitudes in our hearts. Sin begins long before the outward behavior takes place. For example, Jesus says that if we hate our brother we have already murdered him in our hearts. In this passage also Jesus says:

 

I am tired, and this is not as articulate as I would like it to be, but I hope it helps just a little.

 

:iagree: Jesus was correcting interpretation and application of the law, not trashing it.

[Jugglin'5]

But according to the Genesis story God did kill off all of humanity, save Noah and his family who were supposedly righteous. This genocide would more than pay off any blood-sacrifice debt on the part of an ancestor who disobeyed a command but lacked the moral discernment to understand right from wrong.

 

Bill, this doesn't answer your larger question, but the sacrifice had to be of an innocent victim, so the wicked of the pre-flood world can't atone for anything, but need to be atoned for. Hence the symbolism of Jesus as the spotless, sinless lamb. The flood (which I believe was real) symbolized a great washing and cleansing, or baptism, of the world, to start over.

[Lovedtodeath]

But here you are agreeing with me. There were repercussions to the actions of Adam and Eve that humanity has to with, but we are not responsible for our ancestors disobedience any more than the children of the dishonest factory owner are "morally responsible" for the factory owner's evil actions.

 

I was not aware that I was disagreeing with you. I thought you asked for an explanation and I was doing my best to provide it.

 

The idea that eating the forbidden fruit would make Adam more like God was a lie that Satan told the humans. It was not true. If Adam had not eaten the fruit, he would have learned good and bad just as any child who grows and learns does. In saying that they would "be like God, knowing good and bad", the thought conveyed was that they could decide what was good or bad for themselves and not have to listen to God. I am reminded of when my daughter says she wishes she was a grown up so she could do what she wants. I was not signing up for a debate, but I may address more after I read other replies.

[beansprouts]

The idea that eating the forbidden fruit would make Adam more like God was a lie that Satan told the humans. It was not true. If Adam had not eaten the fruit, he would have learned good and bad just as any child who grows and learns does.

 

Adam already knew fruit = bad.

[beansprouts]

Bill, let's assume for a moment that Jesus is God. Do you think we puny humans could kill Him? Don't you think He could have stopped the beatings, the torture, the crucifixion at any moment? Why do you suppose He didn't?

[Lovedtodeath]

Let's imagine we are Adam. "God gave me life. He gave me this garden, my food, my wife that I longed for and an enjoyable job. He fathered me. He says I should not eat that particular fruit. I could show that I love him by not stealing from him the only thing he has not given me freely."

[beansprouts]

Let's imagine we are Adam. "God gave me life. He gave me this garden, my food, my wife that I longed for and an enjoyable job. He fathered me. He says I should not eat that particular fruit. I could show that I love him by not stealing from him the only thing he has not given me freely."

 

And that is it exactly. God did not want a bunch of mindless drones, he wanted people who could love Him. Without free will we can not love. Love is a choice.

[KarenNC]

3. That is interesting. Is there something you could point me to so that I could find out about this?

 

Carmen

 

Carmen, you may want to go back and look at my post (# 62 http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=618882&postcount=62) where I give some information about this from Jewish sources.

 

As to the other posters who brought up the Liar/Lunatic/Lord discussion (often called the trilemma), there are many, many discussions around about whether this argument is sound on logical principles and about the assumptions that are made in proposing it. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_perry/trilemma.html is just one of them.

 

Erica in PA, you wrote: But my point is.... if Jesus is just a character in a great myth *i.e. a story that did not actually happen but was created to convey a truth,* what difference does it make what the myth says he said or did?

 

Most myths are not "created to convey a truth" in the way that I sit down to write this post or than an author writes a book--created with intent out of whole cloth. They come into being over time. The people referred to in them may actually be historical figures even if everything attributed to them or said about them cannot be shown to be part of the historical record.

 

Take for instance the myth of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. There is no controversy about whether George Washington lived or many of the things he did. The cherry tree story is not one that is provable by historical record, but it still conveys information about the way in which George Washington was viewed by the society in which he lived and that that society (at least ideally) holds that truthfulness is desirable in its leaders and further that truthfulness is considered a desirable trait in members of this society. None of these is changed by whether it was an apple or a cherry tree or even whether it actually occurred or not.

Edited October 30, 2008 by KarenNC

[Erica in PA]

John 14:6- "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was, I am!" At this they picked up stones to stone him.

 

"I am" is what God called himself in the Old Testament. Blasphemy was a stoning offense.

 

John 10:30- "I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him.

 

John 10:33- We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you a mere man, claim to be God."

 

John chapter 14 has a lot more of the same kind of thing. In fact the whole book of John refers to Jesus's divinity often enough for it to be a main theme.

 

Yes.. Jesus plainly did claim to be God, and those who opposed Him openly acknowledged His claim, and were outraged by it.

 

Just tonight at youth group we read this passage from John 6:32-40:

 

Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

 

So Jesus here claims... to have come down from heaven, be able to give life to the world, that people will benefit greatly by believing in Him, to be able to grant eternal life, etc.

 

There are so many other examples of where Jesus claims deity, that the list could go on and on. I would suggest to those who think he only claimed to be a good man to reread at least the book of John.

 

Erica

[Spy Car]

Let's imagine we are Adam. "God gave me life. He gave me this garden, my food, my wife that I longed for and an enjoyable job. He fathered me. He says I should not eat that particular fruit. I could show that I love him by not stealing from him the only thing he has not given me freely."

 

Again, you can't "steal" unless you have the capacity to understand that your "taking" is wrong. A bird eating fruit in "my" garden isn't stealing. The bird isn't "sinful".

 

A bird doesn't know right from wrong, neither did Adam and Eve.

 

The story tries to explain how we "became" human and different from other beasts. Our "opened eyes" came at a cost, but without a moral capacity we would be unrealized in our humanity.

[Erica in PA]

Thanks again Erica. I appreciate your final comments. I would love to continue talking, but also was worried that my last post might have been too much, so I don't want to push it even more. So maybe I could PM you later with some questions? I really need to step away from the computer and get something else accomplished, though! :D So maybe another day?

 

Have a good one,

 

Have a great night, GretaLynne. I'd love to chat more anytime!

[Lovedtodeath]

Bill, I was wondering what the point of the story would be if it was not a fall from perfection. Now I know that take.

 

Carmen

[Spy Car]

Yes.. Jesus plainly did claim to be God, and those who opposed Him openly acknowledged His claim, and were outraged by it.

 

Just tonight at youth group we read this passage from John 6:32-40:

 

Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

 

So Jesus here claims... to have come down from heaven, be able to give life to the world, that people will benefit greatly by believing in Him, to be able to grant eternal life, etc.

 

There are so many other examples of where Jesus claims deity, that the list could go on and on. I would suggest to those who think he only claimed to be a good man to reread at least the book of John.

 

Erica

 

I'm getting really confused. Some posters are saying Jesus is not the son of God, rather he is God. And this passage suggests God is the Father of Jesus and he is the Son.

 

I can't keep it straight. Help!

[beansprouts]

I'm getting really confused. Some posters are saying Jesus is not the son of God, rather he is God. And this passage suggests God is the Father of Jesus and he is the Son.

 

I can't keep it straight. Help!

 

He is both :D

[Janna]

Hi again, Bill,

 

Here are some answers/comments to the questions and statements you had:

 

If all the author's of scripture have sinful natures why should we accept any of their words?

 

Shouldn't the words and teachings of Jesus alone have authority, assuming he's quoted correctly in the Gosples (a big assumption given the sinful nature of his human scribes)?

 

At the time Jesus was on earth and speaking, he alone did have authority. After his resurrection, I believe that others were given power by Jesus when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. In Acts 1:8, Jesus says, "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." To me, this is saying that we still don't have any power or authority, Paul included, unless we are filled with the Holy Spirit who does the speaking, writing, exhorting etc...through us. Also, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, it says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (emphasis mine) Because of this verse, many Christians (including myself) believe that the written word we have in the Bible is "approved", for lack of a better word, by God, because it was breathed by Him. So yes, the writers of the Scriptures (OT as well, which Jesus even quoted many times - esp. Isaiah!) are sinful, but they still had the Holy Spirit come upon them to write the words we read today.

 

 

 

 

I don't want to get to far afield, but I'll admit I've never understood the mechanism by which killing a sheep was a useful means of atoning for sinfulness or bad acts. Likewise I don't understand how murdering God (or the Son of God) expiates sin. To accept this we'd have to believe that by committing the worst imaginable act, killing God (or one component of the God Trinity) we are rewarded with salvation through an evil murder.

 

Wouldn't it be counter to any norm of justice to reward evil? Honest question.

 

OK. This is gonna take some time. And to be honest, it really takes an understanding of God's love and desire for reconciliation with us after sin entered the world, which is the story in the Bible, in order to grasp this. So if this isn't something you really want to understand to begin with, all other words from here on out will mean little to nothing. I say that gently.

 

For me, I see the sacrifice of sheep (or any other animal) to atone for sin as useful because it's the only way to show the magnitude, the depth of, our sin. If we see that we have to have *blood* from *killing* an animal to atone for *our sin*, that visually, as well as physically and mentally (imagine the mental preparation for the killing, the physical act of the killing etc) would have a big impact, don't you think? It would be a very fresh reminder of not only how deeply we are sinful, but also that we have a God who could so easily wipe us all off the face of the earth, but doesn't. It's called "Grace".

It is also worth noting that while this became necessary after sin entered the world [an animal had to be killed in order for Adam and Eve to be clothed with "skin" (Gen. 3:21)], in only a few spots was this sacrifice "pleasing" to God (and even then, it wasn't the killing, but rather the repentant heart, the reverence given, the obedience). There are many verses that state that sacrifices were not pleasurable (Hos. 6:6, Matt. 9:13, Ps 51:16) unless they were the sacrifices of the heart - Ps 51:17 - "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." I highly suggest, if you're open to it, that you read Hebrews Ch. 10:1-18. This gives an excellent explanation of sacrifices.

 

In regards to "murdering God", I don't think that's what we did. For one, scripture has pointed to this act needing to happen even back in Genesis. In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus asks that "this cup be taken from him" and then he bowed to the will of the Father. He knew this was coming. Jesus died on his own in accordance to the will of God (his Father) and to scripture. This is not rewarding evil by any means. A simple read of Matthew, Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation will show you what is yet to come and how the evil one will be...removed. ;) To put it as Joseph did in Genesis 50:20 "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." (Joseph is commonly compared to Christ)

 

 

 

I've studied the Jewish commentaries on the Adam And Eve story, and (without speaking for Judaism) they reject the concept of "original sin" as advanced by Paul. So there is plenty of "context" to suggest this interpretation is open to being questioned .

 

Yes, I am familiar with the Jewish faith (not counting Messianic Jews) rejecting the concept of original sin. They also reject Jesus as the Messiah. But respectfully speaking, this doesn't mean it's an interpretation "open to being questioned". It just means that it is being questioned. Do you see the difference?

 

I just want to end with this. If you really *seek* to understand, Bill, scripture says you will find it. Jeremiah 29:13-14 "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you."

 

It is also useful to know that not everything can be understood, nor is it intended to be. That's what faith is all about. Even those who don't "believe", have faith that there is nothing to "believe in".

 

Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him and he will make your paths straight."

 

Respectfully Submitted (again),

Janna

[Jugglin'5]

He is both :D

 

If you want the traditional orthodox (small "o") Christian view, He is both, as Cindy says.

 

Also, if anyone is interested, Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens are sort of doing a debating tour together to promote the book that contains their first debate, "Is Christianity Good for the World?" Obviously, Wilson takes the positive and Hitchens the negative. It sounds like it should be entertaining at least, with two such colorful characters.

 

http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6005

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm getting really confused. Some posters are saying Jesus is not the son of God, rather he is God. And this passage suggests God is the Father of Jesus and he is the Son.

 

I can't keep it straight. Help!

 

Not all who believe in Jesus believe the same thing. Jesus makes this clear.

To religious leaders in his day, Jesus said: "You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition." (Matthew 15:6)

(Matthew 7:21) "Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.

(John 4:24) God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth. and Paul at Romans 10:2, 3 writes: "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge.

 

Restorationists do not believe in the Trinity, or that Jesus = Almighty God

 

I feel like I have been duped. I have missed some earlier posts on this thread. I don't know why you asked how the ransom worked when you did not believe in the original sin to begin with. The Bible states that those who are not drawn to the understanding by God will never get it no matter how many ways it is explained.

Jesus prayed: "I publicly praise you, Father, . . . because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes." (Matthew 11:25) Paul wrote: "Down till today whenever Moses is read, a veil lies upon their hearts." (2 Corinthians 3:15)

 

I just want to end with this. If you really *seek* to understand, Bill, scripture says you will find it. Jeremiah 29:13-14 "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you."

Exactly!

The apostle Paul wrote: "When there is a turning to Jehovah [to do his will], the veil is taken away." (2 Corinthians 3:16)

God gives an understanding of his purposes and personality to those who are sincere and humble in heart. (1 Corinthians 1:26-28)

Edited October 30, 2008 by Lovedtodeath

[KarenNC]

Let's imagine we are Adam. "God gave me life. He gave me this garden, my food, my wife that I longed for and an enjoyable job. He fathered me. He says I should not eat that particular fruit. I could show that I love him by not stealing from him the only thing he has not given me freely."

 

Now I will state upfront (in case anyone missed it) that I am a polytheist and this is one reason. I have trouble with understanding the argument that a God who is, by definition, omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, would create beings with certain characteristics then place them in the precise situation that will set them up to contravene His laws *because* of those characteristics that He chose to give them, knowing as He does so that they will fail that test. And then that He would further require a sacrifice of Himself to Himself to save those beings from Himself because they did exactly what He knew they would do from the beginning by virtue of the way in which He created them.

 

I can buy two of the three characteristics (omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence), but not all three at the same time.

 

And folks think polytheism is complicated (shrug).

[Lovedtodeath]

Now I will state upfront (in case anyone missed it) that I am a polytheist and this is one reason. I have trouble with understanding the argument that a God who is, by definition, omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, would create beings with certain characteristics then place them in the precise situation that will set them up to contravene His laws *because* of those characteristics that He chose to give them, knowing as He does so that they will fail that test. And then that He would further require a sacrifice of Himself to Himself to save those beings from Himself because they did exactly what He knew they would do from the beginning by virtue of the way in which He created them.

 

I can buy two of the three characteristics (omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence), but not all three at the same time.

 

IMO you would be correct! God does not choose to foresee every event. He can foresee what he wills and then cause it to happen. If he did this for every event that takes place then what does this mean?

Eccl. 9:11: "Time and unforeseen occurrence ["chance," NE, RS] befall them all."

Edited October 30, 2008 by Lovedtodeath

[Jugglin'5]

Now I will state upfront (in case anyone missed it) that I am a polytheist and this is one reason. I have trouble with understanding the argument that a God who is, by definition, omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, would create beings with certain characteristics then place them in the precise situation that will set them up to contravene His laws *because* of those characteristics that He chose to give them, knowing as He does so that they will fail that test. And then that He would further require a sacrifice of Himself to Himself to save those beings from Himself because they did exactly what He knew they would do from the beginning by virtue of the way in which He created them.

 

I can buy two of the three characteristics (omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence), but not all three at the same time.

 

And folks think polytheism is complicated (shrug).

 

Well, the classic Christian answer to that is that that is the way God shows both mercy and justice, wrath and sacrificial love, holiness and forgiveness. He had to have something to forgive, a plan to forgive and yet be just, and some way to show his love and sacrifice for his beloved.

[beansprouts]

I was supposed to go to bed a long time ago...

 

Now I will state upfront (in case anyone missed it) that I am a polytheist and this is one reason. I have trouble with understanding the argument that a God who is, by definition, omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent,

 

We live in a universe with at least ten dimensions. Of these we humans directly experience four: length, width, depth, and time. We usually think of God as someone who has lots of time, but in fact he is outside the time domain altogether. He sees the past. present and future all in the same instant.

 

 

would create beings with certain characteristics then place them in the precise situation that will set them up to contravene His laws *because* of those characteristics that He chose to give them, knowing as He does so that they will fail that test.

 

As I explained before, God wanted us to love Him. In order to love we must have free will. God had to give us a choice.

 

And then that He would further require a sacrifice of Himself to Himself to save those beings from Himself

 

God does not condemn people, we are condemned already. God is not trying to save us from Himself, but from ourselves.

 

I can buy two of the three characteristics (omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence), but not all three at the same time.

 

 

I am not familiar with the concept of omnibenevolence. Can someone explain?

[Erica in PA]

I think I understand what you're saying... in essence that stories can still have significant meaning even if they are not historically true.

 

I'm wondering how that principle relates to the issue in this thread.... the topic was "Are children born sinners?" Some posters said that according to the Bible we are sinful from birth. Several people then pointed out that Jesus Himself never mentions that, as if that somehow casts doubt on its truthfulness. That raised the nest question, "So you are suggesting that if Jesus is described as saying it in the Bible, that carries some weight, but if it's said by another person in the Bible, it does not."

 

What is comes down to for me, is that I don't understand how a supposed "myth" about Jesus, that is on the same level as the story of George Washington and the cherry tree, would be sufficient to answer a question of morality such as original sin-- if it's only a story. Stories, myths, legends... none of those things are an objective standard of truth. One might find a grain of truth in them (which in most cases really means that it tickles one's ears and reaffirms the beliefs that one has already chosen for oneself), but they cannot provide the answer to questions such as the one raised in this thread.

 

That's why I don't understand why someone who does not believe the Bible, and does not believe most of what Jesus even said about Himself in the Bible, would honestly turn to Jesus's teaching as a basis for whether or not original sin exists. I have to be honest and say that I think that people often use that tactic as simply a way to discredit a particular biblical teaching-- i.e. "Well, it may be throughout the rest of the Bible, but *Jesus* never mentions XYZ, so it can't possibly be morally right/morally wrong." I'd like to ask those people, "What if Jesus *did* say in the Bible that we are all born with a sin nature?" Would it change people's minds? I am pretty sure that it would not. They would reject His words, if He spoke contrary to their opinions. So it seems hypocritical for people to point to Jesus's silence when it backs up their point, but a the same time other reject His actual words as recorded in Scripture.

 

Erica

[KarenNC]

IMO you would be correct! God does not choose to foresee every event. He can foresee what he wills and then cause it to happen. If he did this for every event that takes place then what does this mean?

Eccl. 9:11: "Time and unforeseen occurrence ["chance," NE, RS] befall them all."

 

Interesting interpretation. I would love to hear from others whether this is a typical interpretation by most denominations of Christians. I know that I was always taught that God knows everything and is in control of everything...period.

 

From my reading of the context of the quotation, the "unforeseen occurrence" is not referring to God, but to humanity. We are not Gods, not omniscient, therefore we cannot know everything that will befall us--only God knows that. Events may appear random from the perspective of humanity, but are all part of God's plan.

 

Ecclesiastes 9 (NIV)

1 So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God's hands, but no man knows whether love or hate awaits him. 2 All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, [a] the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not.

As it is with the good man,

so with the sinner;

as it is with those who take oaths,

so with those who are afraid to take them.

...

11 I have seen something else under the sun:

The race is not to the swift

or the battle to the strong,

nor does food come to the wise

or wealth to the brilliant

or favor to the learned;

but time and chance happen to them all.

 

12 Moreover, no man knows when his hour will come:

As fish are caught in a cruel net,

or birds are taken in a snare,

so men are trapped by evil times

that fall unexpectedly upon them.

[Erica in PA]

I'm getting really confused. Some posters are saying Jesus is not the son of God, rather he is God. And this passage suggests God is the Father of Jesus and he is the Son.

 

I can't keep it straight. Help!

 

 

There are three parts to the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three are God. Only God can forgive sin. Only God comes from heaven. Only God existed before the world began. Only God can require belief in Himself. Only God can grant eternal life. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus claims to be and/or do all of these things, thus He is claiming to be God. And throughout the Gospels, those who opposed Him clearly received His message, and hated him for claiming to be God.

 

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

[KarenNC]

Stories, myths, legends... none of those things are an objective standard of truth. One might find a grain of truth in them (which in most cases really means that it tickles one's ears and reaffirms the beliefs that one has already chosen for oneself), but they cannot provide the answer to questions such as the one raised in this thread.

 

I agree. I don't believe the sacred stories (the mythos) of any religion are "objective standards of truth" by the standards of modern historical research, for instance, but then I also don't think that is the purpose they were ever intended to serve.

 

That's why I don't understand why someone who does not believe the Bible, and does not believe most of what Jesus even said about Himself in the Bible, would honestly turn to Jesus's teaching as a basis for whether or not original sin exists....So it seems hypocritical for people to point to Jesus's silence when it backs up their point, but a the same time other reject His actual words as recorded in Scripture.

 

Agreed that unless one starts from a position of accepting the Bible as a valid authority in one's life, what it says is really only of academic interest. Now as to discussing whether a particular teaching on original sin is consistent within the framework claimed by a religion that *does* accept it as a valid authority, *that* I believe is open to discussion.

[Lovedtodeath]

Omniscient?

 

"In the house of my father there are many abodes. . . . I am going my way to prepare a place for you." (John 14:2) Where did Jesus go? Eventually, he "entered . . . into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us." (Hebrews 9:24)

"Our Father in the heavens,"

"Do look down from your holy dwelling, the heavens, and bless your people."—Deuteronomy 26:15.

Genesis 18: Consequently Jehovah said: "The cry of complaint about Sod´om and Go·mor´rah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy. 21 I am quite determined to go down that I may see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it."

 

The tradition of man teaches many things that I do not agree with.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Lovedtodeath

[OnTheBrink]

I think I understand what you're saying... in essence that stories can still have significant meaning even if they are not historically true.

 

I'm wondering how that principle relates to the issue in this thread.... the topic was "Are children born sinners?" Some posters said that according to the Bible we are sinful from birth. Several people then pointed out that Jesus Himself never mentions that, as if that somehow casts doubt on its truthfulness. That raised the nest question, "So you are suggesting that if Jesus is described as saying it in the Bible, that carries some weight, but if it's said by another person in the Bible, it does not."

 

What is comes down to for me, is that I don't understand how a supposed "myth" about Jesus, that is on the same level as the story of George Washington and the cherry tree, would be sufficient to answer a question of morality such as original sin-- if it's only a story. Stories, myths, legends... none of those things are an objective standard of truth. One might find a grain of truth in them (which in most cases really means that it tickles one's ears and reaffirms the beliefs that one has already chosen for oneself), but they cannot provide the answer to questions such as the one raised in this thread.

 

That's why I don't understand why someone who does not believe the Bible, and does not believe most of what Jesus even said about Himself in the Bible, would honestly turn to Jesus's teaching as a basis for whether or not original sin exists. I have to be honest and say that I think that people often use that tactic as simply a way to discredit a particular biblical teaching-- i.e. "Well, it may be throughout the rest of the Bible, but *Jesus* never mentions XYZ, so it can't possibly be morally right/morally wrong." I'd like to ask those people, "What if Jesus *did* say in the Bible that we are all born with a sin nature?" Would it change people's minds? I am pretty sure that it would not. They would reject His words, if He spoke contrary to their opinions. So it seems hypocritical for people to point to Jesus's silence when it backs up their point, but a the same time other reject His actual words as recorded in Scripture.

 

Erica

 

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

Agreed that unless one starts from a position of accepting the Bible as a valid authority in one's life, what it says is really only of academic interest. Now as to discussing whether a particular teaching on original sin is consistent within the framework claimed by a religion that *does* accept it as a valid authority, *that* I believe is open to discussion.

 

Ah, but we believe that help from the holy spirit is needed to understand. So it is futile to try to come to an understanding without it, and therefore only results in disagreements.

 

Furthermore, the bolded part of your statement sounds as though you are only interested in attacking the Christian faith.

[KarenNC]

Omniscient?

 

"In the house of my father there are many abodes. . . . I am going my way to prepare a place for you." (John 14:2) Where did Jesus go? Eventually, he "entered . . . into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us." (Hebrews 9:24)

 

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Are you saying that Christianity does *not* consider God to be omniscient or that only Jesus was not omniscient (and if so, what does that do to the argument that He is fully God)? Or something else entirely? I thought the omniscience of the Deity was pretty much a requirement for monotheists.

 

I'm afraid I am not getting how the citation ties into this?

[Erica in PA]

I agree. I don't believe the sacred stories (the mythos) of any religion are "objective standards of truth" by the standards of modern historical research, for instance, but then I also don't think that is the purpose they were ever intended to serve.

 

 

 

Agreed that unless one starts from a position of accepting the Bible as a valid authority in one's life, what it says is really only of academic interest. Now as to discussing whether a particular teaching on original sin is consistent within the framework claimed by a religion that *does* accept it as a valid authority, *that* I believe is open to discussion.

 

Sounds like we pretty much agree,then. Even though we really disagree totally on the bigger issue. :001_smile: But we at least agree that if you don't accept the Bible as a valid authority in your life, what it says really doesn't matter much. That's why I think that those who reject Scripture would be more logical and consistent in their argument if they were to avoid using Scripture as a means to defend their own opinions.

 

Erica

[KarenNC]

Ah, but we believe that help from the holy spirit is needed to understand. So it is futile to try to come to an understanding without it, and therefore only results in disagreements.

 

I see and agree that this is what I am usually told. It can only be understood/accepted by those that God chooses to allow to understand/accept it (ie provides the Holy Spirit to them), but if one does not understand/accept it (and it is futile to even try unless God chooses to allow you), then one is condemned by the God who chooses not to allow one to understand/accept it.

 

This is why I don't believe any religion can ever be explained adequately by logic. At root, faith is not logical. It's about one's experience of spiritual reality.

[The Governess]

Interesting interpretation. I would love to hear from others whether this is a typical interpretation by most denominations of Christians. I know that I was always taught that God knows everything and is in control of everything...period.

 

From my reading of the context of the quotation, the "unforeseen occurrence" is not referring to God, but to humanity. We are not Gods, not omniscient, therefore we cannot know everything that will befall us--only God knows that. Events may appear random from the perspective of humanity, but are all part of God's plan.

 

Ecclesiastes 9 (NIV)

1 So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God's hands, but no man knows whether love or hate awaits him. 2 All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, [a] the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not.

As it is with the good man,

so with the sinner;

as it is with those who take oaths,

so with those who are afraid to take them.

...

11 I have seen something else under the sun:

The race is not to the swift

or the battle to the strong,

nor does food come to the wise

or wealth to the brilliant

or favor to the learned;

but time and chance happen to them all.

 

12 Moreover, no man knows when his hour will come:

As fish are caught in a cruel net,

or birds are taken in a snare,

so men are trapped by evil times

that fall unexpectedly upon them.

 

I think there are varying interpretations. Some Christians believe that God is all-knowing - he knows every single thing that will happen until the end of time. Others think that God *could* know all things but chooses not to, in order to allow us free will. Others think that God doesn't know the future but has the ability to control its outcome through divine intervention, so things will end up the way he wants them even if he doesn't always know what is coming. And others believe that God has a plan, but doesn't know what the future holds, including whether or not things are going to work out the way he wants them to.

 

I've read a couple books on the subject and it's actually a really interesting debate. I haven't completely decided where I stand on it....but I lean towards God knowing everything that was, is, and is coming and that no event or person has the ability to surprise him. But at the same time I believe we have free will....and that there is some way for both God's all-knowingness and our free will to exist together. Although now we're getting into a completely different religious discussion. :lol:

[Greta]

Of course you can. Many do.

 

Really? I would be interested in learning more about others that do! Have I misunderestimated, to use a Bush-ism, the number of people who view it this way? I thought it was so rare as to be virtually negligible.

 

In reality, however, it would also help to accept that many (usually conservative) Christians won't agree with you.

 

No problem, I'm used to people not agreeing with me! :D

[Greta]

You were very articulate, beansprouts, and your clarification helped a lot. Thanks!

[KarenNC]

Sounds like we pretty much agree,then. Even though we really disagree totally on the bigger issue. :001_smile: But we at least agree that if you don't accept the Bible as a valid authority in your life, what it says really doesn't matter much. That's why I think that those who reject Scripture would be more logical and consistent in their argument if they were to avoid using Scripture as a means to defend their own opinions.

 

It depends. If one is talking with someone who is trying to tell one that the Bible is the *only* valid authority for anyone's life, whether or not one believes in it (which is basically the stance of most Christians), then it is not out of reason to use Scripture as a common point of reference. I think it is also quite possible to find concepts and teachings of general worth in the sacred stories of a religion even if one does not ascribe to all its tenets.