At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
In this time of "politically correct" it seems that there is a general good feel attitude about religion. "You're OK, I'm OK" pretty well expresses it. Folks say it doesn't matter how you serve God, because we are all His children. I submit for your consideration this: the God of the Bible is not the same as Allah. Discussion anyone?
Morganite, I do not want people to go to Hell. That is why I continually point toward Jesus. You seem to be hung up about those who have never heard about Jesus. You have an obligation to do whatever you can to see that they get a chance to hear. No one reading these posts can say they have never heard. As to proof texts, I could give you a much longer list, but you know them as well as I. Your argument is not with me.
And should we take your word about your book that you believe in or can we be good humans without your book to guide us? Its a little far fetched to believe the only ones who know God are christians, as well as closed minded and prejudicial. One reason I suppose that you cannot conceive of God and Allah being one, which is the basic point of this discussion, not what and who says what in Mecca Judea, or Cleveland.
Personally, I think Jesus' death was a ransom paid to Satan.
The Ransom Theory requires God to be duplicitous. Although it was generally believed during the first Christian millennium, it fell from favour when its unsafe foundations were probed. Initially by Anselm, but since then it has been shown to be unsatisfactory. God cannot be deceitful and still be a moral God.
The Ransom Theory requires God to be duplicitous. Although it was generally believed during the first Christian millennium, it fell from favour when its unsafe foundations were probed. Initially by Anselm, but since then it has been shown to be unsatisfactory. God cannot be deceitful and still be a moral God.
I appreciate your debunking of the ransom theory, but I am genuinely interested in your answer to the question of whether the suffering and death of Jesus was required (by God) in order to effect reconciliation between God and his children. I know the doctrine is biblical, being perfectly consistent with the sacrificial model of forgiveness embodied in the Jewish temple ritual, but that by itself is not convincing to me.
In answer to Talaniman, the wordsredeemedredemption in the Bible refer to something or someone being bought back, As a slave could be redeemed from his slavery, or a piece of property could be redeemed back to the original owner. For this to be so, the person or property must be possessed by or controlled by someone other than the lawful owner. This to explain my thought. I'm not going to argue about it, but to me it makes more sense than to believe that the Father needed to see His Son suffer before He could forgive sinners.
And should we take your word about your book that you believe in or can we be good humans without your book to guide us? Its a little far fetched to believe the only ones who know God are christians, as well as closed minded and prejudicial. One reason I suppose that you cannot conceive of God and Allah being one, which is the basic point of this discussion, not what and who says what in Mecca Judea, or Cleveland.
OK. I challenge you to make a serious study of the Bible with reference to the many prophecies which were literally fulfilled years or generatons later. Please do it for your own information.
OK. I challenge you to make a serious study of the Bible with reference to the many prophecies which were literally fulfilled years or generatons later. Please do it for your own information.
I have nothing against the bible but don't believe your interpretation, so it would be futile. Please stop using the book as a means to tiptoe around direct questions as in my post#80
The Ransom Theory requires God to be duplicitous. Although it was generally believed during the first Christian millennium, it fell from favour when its unsafe foundations were probed. Initially by Anselm, but since then it has been shown to be unsatisfactory. God cannot be deceitful and still be a moral God.
The deceit is self-evident withing the ransom theory itself. Perhaps you are thinking of a different theory?
Take a look at The Temptation of Christ and the Motif of Divine Duplicity in the Corpus Christi Cycle Drama by David L. Wee, in Modern Philology, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Aug., 1974), pp. 1-16.
A United Methodist minister writes concerning this theory:
Sunday, February 05, 2006 - THOUGHTS ON ATONEMENT....pt.2
THOUGHTS FROM POPE ST. GREGORY "THE GREAT".
In medieval times the common view of "the atonement", or what transpired through Jesus' death on the cross, was known as the "RANSOM THEORY". Pope Gregory "The Great" laid out its clearest form around 600 CE. Gregory used many images to explain the effect of Christ's death on the cross upon humanity, but his favorite one was the cross as the "fishook" upon which God placed the "bait" of Jesus Christ in order to snare the devil and free humanity held captive by him. According to Gregory,
".... matching deceit with deceit, Christ frees man by tricking the devil into overstepping his authority. Christ becomes a "fishhook": his humanity is the bait, his divinity the hook, and Leviathan [Satan] is snared. Because the devil is proud, he cannot understand Christ's humility and so believes he tempts and kills a mere man. But in inflicting a sinless man with death, the devil loses his rights over man from his "excess of presumption," Christ conquers the devil's kingdom of sin, liberating captives from the devil's tyranny. Order is reinstated when man returns when man returns to serve God, his true master."
My initial thought about this theory [continues the minister] is, does God really have to take on the persona of "The Trickster" to "outwit" Satan? Is it me or does this theory seem to bring God down to Satan's level- "I have to result to deceit to deceive the great deceiver."
+++
That duplicity is an essential element in the Ransom Theory. No deceit, no Ransom Theory. That is why I reject it out of hand, because it is ungodly to be deceitful. I am surprised to find anyone actually still hanging on the coat tails of this theory that was largely abandoned a thousand years ago for obvious reasons.
I appreciate your debunking of the ransom theory, but I am genuinely interested in your answer to the question of whether the suffering and death of Jesus was required (by God) in order to effect reconciliation between God and his children. I know the doctrine is biblical, being perfectly consistent with the sacrificial model of forgiveness embodied in the Jewish temple ritual, but that by itself is not convincing to me.
If this question is asked from a Trinitarian perspective, then the question becomes meaningless, since it is really asking Whether the suffering and death of Jesus was required by Jesus. To ask that question one has to accept that Jesus and God are separate persons. From that perspecive mym answer is that it was not required by God, but that justice required sinful humanity to be redeemed (or saved) from the consequences of their wrongdoing. Our sins separate us from God. Unless we can be rid of the consequences of sin, we cannot enter God's heavenly kingdom. We are 'bought' [redeemed] by the suffering, blood, and death of Jesus.
In answer to Talaniman, the wordsredeemedredemption in the Bible refer to something or someone being bought back, As a slave could be redeemed from his slavery, or a piece of property could be redeemed back to the original owner. For this to be so, the person or property must be possessed by or controlled by someone other than the lawful owner. This to explain my thought. I'm not going to argue about it, but to me it makes more sense than to believe that the Father needed to see His Son suffer before He could forgive sinners.
I believe this explanation of yours identifies what I would consider a wrong idea about why the redemption was necessary. It is not true that Satan has power over the souls of mankind, for Satan can have no power over us unless we willingly become his slaves. It is by our sins that we offend God and put distance between him and us. Since salvation only becomes reality when we live with God eternally, some means has to be provided to overcome the effects of sin. That price was the death of Jesus Christ. We could not save ourselves so a Savior was provided. That Savior is the Son of God.
The sacrifice and its effects is better referred to as The Atonement, because it reconciles man to God and man to man. That reconciliation is effected by expunging the effects of sin on us, cleansing us, so that we can enjoy God's presence.
Satan did not have us, never had, except as we serve him by deliberately fighting against God and doing wicked things. God gave nothing to Satan except a black eye [or two] because Satan believed that he could thwart God's purposes. He cannot.
1 Corinthians 10.13:
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
No one is bound to Satan against his or her will. If he has slaves, they are willing workers for him, voluntarily entering his service. Therefore, no ransom is either necessary or due to the dark lord.
If this question is asked from a Trinitarian perspective, then the question becomes meaningless, since it is really asking Whether the suffering and death of Jesus was required by Jesus. To ask that question one has to accept that Jesus and God are separate persons. From that perspecive mym answer is that it was not required by God, but that justice required sinful humanity to be redeemed (or saved) from the consequences of their wrongdoing.
Hmmm. Not required by God, but by "justice"? No, I don't think so. Is this "justice" something superior to God, that imposes requirements on Him against His will? Isn't God the author of the Law, and of what constitutes justice in interpreting and applying it? If God is willing to forgive our sins and be reconciled to us when we repent and humble ourselves and ask for forgiveness, what power could possibly prevent Him from doing so? No, if the suffering and death of Jesus was required at all, it was required by God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
Our sins separate us from God. Unless we can be rid of the consequences of sin, we cannot enter God's heavenly kingdom.
No question about that, but to make the leap from there to...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
We are 'bought' [redeemed] by the suffering, blood, and death of Jesus.
is more than I can do. I have no problem with the Jesus as the Redeemer, the Mediator, the Reconciler. But all these purposes were accomplished by his life, his example, and his teachings. His suffering and death was not instrumental in any of it.
What his suffering and death did do was provide a shocking and graphic demonstration of the consequences of bigotry and spiritual pride. Two recurring themes in his ministry were that: 1) God's mercy and forgiveness is extended to individual persons, not to groups, and that membership in a favored group is not required in order to be reconciled to God, and 2) No human intermediary, no ritual, priest, pastor, or intercessor other than Christ himself is necessary to effect the reconciliation. These ideas were anathema to a culture built on the notion of being the "chosen people", who were specially favored by God. They were also profoundly threatening to a religious heirarchy built on the intercession of a priesthood and a temple ritual that placed itself firmly between the individual and God. Small wonder that they were willing to do whatever it took to discredit and rid themselves of this threat.
I find it supremely ironic that the Christian Church in most of its branches and denominations has not really accepted either of these precepts of Jesus' life and teachings.
RGANITE
Linear Mode
