Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Thank you for clarifying your position. However, if your theology is correct, then the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was pointless, and the original Apostles and Paul were fools to lay down their lives for the Gospel. I do apologize for pulling this thread away from its original intent.

---

I will not ask you to explain how you take such meanings from what I have written. You make statements that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.

Perhaps you will explain how God will judge those who act right according to the light that is in them, but who might not have even heard of Jesus. Are the Jivaro all going to Hell because they did not become Christians? Are all Jews Hell-bound because they are not Christians? Is every person who lived before Jesus was born going to Hell because they were not Christians?

My thology is based on a loving, just, and merciful God who will do as he promises to do in the Old and New Testaments. I refute any version of God that makes him a despotic bloodthirsty tyrant who delights in sending people to Hell for something over which they had no control.

Let me set a question to you that was once set by Dr. S. Parkes Cadman, once a famous radio preacher and former president of the Federated Council of Churches of America, over the radio for millions of listeners:

Question -- What, in your opinion, becomes of those souls who in this life had no opportunity of accepting or rejecting the truth as it is found in the Gospels?

Answer -- Those who never heard the name of Jesus since human beings first appeared on the earth constitute the vast majority who have lived and died here. Moreover, hundreds of millions now living are in the same condition. Imagination cannot conceive their endless array.

Even today multitudes exist in Christian lands who because of the circumstances of their birth and upbringing are almost as ignorant of the New Testament faith as were the ancient Greeks who never heard of Christ. Think also of the host of innocent children who pass on before arriving at conscious responsibility for their own lives.

Even when dimly understood, your question would be unbearably oppressive if none except those who have intelligently and voluntarily believed in Christ are hereafter admitted to the Divine Presence. If as we are taught to believe, the incalculable myriads of human beings who have occupied, or, now occupy this life, exist for eternity, and must spend it somewhere, how can we limit the redemptive efficacy of divine love to the brief span of man's mortal existence here?

Consider the issue as it affects the fate of those near and dear to you. Then apply its significance to all mankind. It is our consolation and hope that since God is the Father of us all, not one soul is lost to His sight, and none because of less importance to Him. "His mercy endureth forever." The creeds which confine the operations of that mercy to the life that now is do injustice to its saving virtue, and injure the cause in behalf of which they were set up.

How would you answer Dr Cadman's question?



M:)RGANITE

I could be wrong but where is it that said Jesus died for the Christians? I thought he died for all of us and didn't put any conditions on it either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I could be wrong but where is it that said Jesus died for the Christians? I thought he died for all of us and didn't put any conditions on it either.

---

Personally, I don't think he died for any of us, in the sense that his death was necessary to convince God to forgive our sins and be reconciled to us. But that's another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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?

---

May I ask what religion you are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I could be wrong but where is it that said Jesus died for the Christians? I thought he died for all of us and didn't put any conditions on it either.

---

You make two extremely interesting observations. 1.) For whose benefit Christ died, and 2.) what is required of a person to receive the proffered benefit.

The Bible says that the atonement of Jesus Christ brings about a universal salvation, a universal redemption, which is extended to everyone. Jesus says as much when he gives the motivation behind God’s act of sending his Son into the world to be the sacrificial Lamb.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

The whosoever gives the lie to the false theology that says God has predetermined some to be Heaven bound and others to be Hell bound, and that no matter what any member of each group does they can in no way escape their fate. I cannot accept that, because the Bible does not accept it. Yet with equal passion I reject the unbiblical teaching of sola fides.

I recall the story told by Motley in his “Rise of the Dutch Republic.” When Christianity was taken to the tribes of Europe, Radbod, a Frisian chief, was apparently converted and ready for baptism, but just before the ceremony was to commence he asked, "Where are my dead forefathers at present?"

Bishop Wolfran unwisely and ignorantly replied, "In hell, with all other unbelievers,"

"Mighty well," said the heathen chieftain, "then will I rather feast with my ancestors in the halls of Woden, than with your little starveling band of Christians in heaven."

I believe that you are quite right that the salvation of Jesus Christ is a gift to all, but with the rider that they do have to be obedient to his teachings. That is not a great or onerous price to pay for what is offered, nor should it be denied to those who have lived and died, as Radbod’s ancestors, without knowledge of Jesus and his atonement.

John Milton in “On His Blindness” asks the question, “Doth God exact day labour, light denied?”

The poet’s question strikes at the heart of whether God is a perfect and just God, or whether he is heartless and cruel as some errant theologians have painted him. We might well ask if God loves the world, as Jesus declared, then why does he not love everyone enough to make their salvation possible? The Bible teaches that he both does love all his children (Hebrews 9.12) and that he has made their salvation possible, whether in the world or out of it.

As to the notion of sola fide, that is the belief that salvation comes to those who do nothing more than call on the name of the Lord, accepting him as their saviour and redeemer. Although there is little if anything that a man can do towards his own salvation, he can willingly enter into the embrace of the Lord and be saved, but he has to be obedient.

God has said that he will “[Shew] mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”

Why did Jesus ask, “Why do you call me Lord, but do not do as I command you?” if Christians are not to obey him?

The Lord’s brother, James, said, “You believe in God, and that is good. However, devils also believe in God, yet they tremble.” Believing in God and remaining devilish did not save the devils, and neither will it save any man.

The author of Hebrews wrote: “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” Plain words.

Jesus confirmed: [I]“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” [/ISo Jesus himnself says that calling him‘Lord’ is not the only requirement to our obtaining salvation.

In what is called The Great Commission, Jesus charged the apostles: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Note that salvation or damnation followed rejecting Jesus only when their hearers had heard. There is no mention of the damnation of those who had not heard of Jesus. If no one has heard of Jesus, how could they reject him?

Paul asked some important questions that touch directly on this subject: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” To Paul, 'no hearing of Jesus' meant 'no condemnation.' Paul clearly understood that a man would not be judged an unbeliever unless he had been exposed to the apostolic kerygma. Anything less would be unjustly harsh.

But of those who have had a proper opportunity to acknowledge Jesus, their situation changes. Yet their situation is not automatically to be hoisted to heaven by doing nothing more than uttering the name of Jesus and accepting him as their saviour.

Unless a person is truly touched by the Holy Spirit they might never recognise Jesus as the Son of God. This imposes a serious and unavoidable responsibility on the shoulders of those who undertake to represent Jesus to unbelievers. Hostile advances including threats of eternal damnation, hellfire, and unspeakable depredations do not soften hearts that are closed to receive the good news. Yet that is what we see almost daily, even in this forum, by some hard-right Christians whose pronouncements do more harm than good because their effect is to put peoples’ backs up, not to warm them to open their hearts and minds.

It is my belief that such are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, nor by God, or by Jesus, or by anything other than a desire to foist a twisted message on those whom they regularly offend.

The Great Commission did not include instruction to go out into the world and insult and browbeat unbelievers until they submitted to the message of Christianity. They were sent to represent the God of love in the way of love through the example of love.

Being a Christian, whether clergy or laity, involves conformity to the teachings of Jesus, not mere lip service to them. It is necessary it represent Jesus and his message in the same way that he did. The rich young man that would not follow him nevertheless caused Jesus to love him. “Jesus beholding him loved him…” Jesus did not cause offence to anyone, even when some took offence at him.

Of those who drove the cruel nails through his hands and feet he asked his Father to “ … forgive them, because they know not what they do.” Even in his extreme pain, he did not become brutal or hostile. He did not cures his tormentors with threats of everlasting fire, but meekly asked his Father to forgive them, having already forgiven them because they acted in ignorance of who he really was. Will God be less forgiving, will Jesus, of those who do not know him as their Lord and Saviour?

To his Christian disciples, Jesus said: "If ye love me, keep my commandments." And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."

By these words Jesus promises the Holy Spirit – the Spirit of Truth – to those believers - Christians - who observe to keep his commandments.

There is a simplicity about God and Jesus and Christianity that is often obscured or lost to view by emphasising the wrong things about them, and these become barriers to belief, and stumbling blocks set in the way of faith, to the detriment of the whole human family.



M:)RGANITE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Morganite, I have a question for you. Do you believe that a good person, Moslem, Buddhist, Jewish, etc. has everlasting life in Heaven, Paradise, or elsewhere? You testify to being a Christian, right?

---

As others know, I have made no profession of faith on this forum because I will not be pigeon-holed. I prefer to contribute to discussion from the perspective of how each person in a faith cummunity views his or her own rleigion. So, one time I will defend Romanists against unjust charges made by Protestants, Jews against Muslims, Muslims against Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses against Atheists, and so forth. I do not imagine myself stood in a pulpit when I am sat at my keyboard.

You can make up your own mind about my personal faith and whether you are right or wrong in your selection makes no difference to me. My handle provides an extremely slim clue, but does not cross the 't's or dot the 'i's. Further to that, this deponent saith not.

I repeat, I believe that good people of every and no faith will be welcomed by God.

Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen.


M:)RGANITE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Personally, I don't think he died for any of us, in the sense that his death was necessary to convince God to forgive our sins and be reconciled to us. But that's another thread.

---

Isn't the one thing the same as the other? His dying for us (that you apparently reject), and his effecting our reconciliation with God (that you apparently accept)?

M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Thank you for clarifying your position. However, if your theology is correct, then the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was pointless, and the original Apostles and Paul were fools to lay down their lives for the Gospel. I do apologize for pulling this thread away from its original intent.

---

You are showing an disturbing penchant for misunderstanding the not only the words but also the intent of what I have written, and for finding arguments in what I have written that I have not only not addressed, but would not claim to believe.

I have not misplaced Christ's atonement as you charge. I have failed to write a book, but there are contraints on space here and I also have time constraints that prevent me from pursuing every argument down every highway and byway that someone might, possibly, if they were so inclined, decide to steer them.

Because I have not said something should not be taken as either my believing or not believing what it is I have omitted.

If you want to know my posiiton on the atonement of Jesus, why not ask a question about it. If I have time I might well contribute to the thread. Am I correct in concluding that you are not a Democrat?



M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You mean like the lutheran, protestant, baptists, and methodists? Seems to me this is another similarity between Islam and Christianity and Judaism. When one church(mosque)(synagogue) disagrees on policy or whatever, they form another group and change the name, but still hold the same book dear.Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!! Honestly the more I learn the less that separates them.

---

Tal: Mosque ruling committes have many squabbles and fight over procedure, etc. It reminds me of the truism that when a Welshman is washed ahsore on a deserted island he builds two chapels. One he goes to, and the other he doesn't!

Yaki dah, boyo!


M:)

Quote:

---

If you want to know my posiiton on the atonement of Jesus, why not ask a question about it. If I have time I might well contribute to the thread. Am I correct in concluding that you are not a Democrat?

---

Smart with a sharp sense of humor, LOL!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

Isn't the one thing the same as the other? His dying for us (that you apparently reject), and his effecting our reconciliation with God (that you apparently accept)?

M:)

---

No, I don't think they are the same thing. I think our reconciliation is effected by God's earnest desire to heal the estrangement between us. It was Jesus' life that taught us about that, not his death. The idea that the gruesome suffering and death of an innocent person was required to convince God to forgive the rest of us is abhorrent to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

I will not ask you to explain how you take such meanings from what I have written. You make statements that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.

Perhaps you will explain how God will judge those who act right according to the light that is in them, but who might not have even heard of Jesus. Are the Jivaro all going to Hell because they did not become Christians? Are all Jews Hell-bound because they are not Christians? Is every person who lived before Jesus was born going to Hell because they were not Christians?

My thology is based on a loving, just, and merciful God who will do as he promises to do in the Old and New Testaments. I refute any version of God that makes him a despotic bloodthirsty tyrant who delights in sending people to Hell for something over which they had no control.

Let me set a question to you that was once set by Dr. S. Parkes Cadman, once a famous radio preacher and former president of the Federated Council of Churches of America, over the radio for millions of listeners:

Question -- What, in your opinion, becomes of those souls who in this life had no opportunity of accepting or rejecting the truth as it is found in the Gospels?

Answer -- Those who never heard the name of Jesus since human beings first appeared on the earth constitute the vast majority who have lived and died here. Moreover, hundreds of millions now living are in the same condition. Imagination cannot conceive their endless array.

Even today multitudes exist in Christian lands who because of the circumstances of their birth and upbringing are almost as ignorant of the New Testament faith as were the ancient Greeks who never heard of Christ. Think also of the host of innocent children who pass on before arriving at conscious responsibility for their own lives.

Even when dimly understood, your question would be unbearably oppressive if none except those who have intelligently and voluntarily believed in Christ are hereafter admitted to the Divine Presence. If as we are taught to believe, the incalculable myriads of human beings who have occupied, or, now occupy this life, exist for eternity, and must spend it somewhere, how can we limit the redemptive efficacy of divine love to the brief span of man's mortal existence here?

Consider the issue as it affects the fate of those near and dear to you. Then apply its significance to all mankind. It is our consolation and hope that since God is the Father of us all, not one soul is lost to His sight, and none because of less importance to Him. "His mercy endureth forever." The creeds which confine the operations of that mercy to the life that now is do injustice to its saving virtue, and injure the cause in behalf of which they were set up.

How would you answer Dr Cadman's question?



M:)RGANITE

---

Rom 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(KJV)

The Apostle Paul tells us that a study of creation will lead us toward the Creator. As man accepts the truth he receives, he receives further truth. Was it not so with Abraham? I am willing to leave judgment to God, but if good non-believers (in Christ) have it made, then why the command to carry the Gospel to the world? You make an eloquent case when you quote:
Rom 10:13-14
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
(KJV)

It is obvious to me that one must call (with all the implications) on the Lord in order to be saved. There are some who believe that those who never heard the Gospel will have an opportunity to hear and accept, but I don't know that that is supported by scripture. As to those before Christ, the righteous were saved by faith in that they looked forward to the fulfillment of the promise of God as revealed by the prophets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

No, I don't think they are the same thing. I think our reconciliation is effected by God's earnest desire to heal the estrangement between us. It was Jesus' life that taught us about that, not his death. The idea that the gruesome suffering and death of an innocent person was required to convince God to forgive the rest of us is abhorrent to me.

---

The idea that the Father had or wanted to see His Son suffer and die seems to be a widespread mis-conception. His death is spoken of a redemption or ransom. Think about it. A ransom is paid to a kidnapper! I believe that Satan had kidnapped our race when he deceived Eve and got Adam to commit treason. I believe that when our God determined to buy his creation back, the price demanded by Satan was the Creator's death. Of course, since there was no valid accusation against Him, death could not hold Him. And to answer another point (not yours), Jesus' death was for everyone, but we must validate it on our individual behalf by faith in that substitutionary act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Rom 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(KJV)

The Apostle Paul tells us that a study of creation will lead us toward the Creator. As man accepts the truth he receives, he receives further truth. Was it not so with Abraham? I am willing to leave judgment to God, but if good non-believers (in Christ) have it made, then why the command to carry the Gospel to the world? You make an eloquent case when you quote:
Rom 10:13-14
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
(KJV)

It is obvious to me that one must call (with all the implications) on the Lord in order to be saved. There are some who believe that those who never heard the Gospel will have an opportunity to hear and accept, but I don't know that that is supported by scripture. As to those before Christ, the righteous were saved by faith in that they looked forward to the fulfillment of the promise of God as revealed by the prophets.

---

The apostle is saying that those who hear should call, but he knows that not all hear. What is the disposition of those who do not hear? Will they be condemned for something that is not their fault?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

The idea that the Father had or wanted to see His Son suffer and die seems to be a widespread mis-conception. His death is spoken of a redemption or ransom. Think about it. A ransom is paid to a kidnapper! I believe that Satan had kidnapped our race when he deceived Eve and got Adam to commit treason. I believe that when our God determined to buy his creation back, the price demanded by Satan was the Creator's death. Of course, since there was no valid accusation against Him, death could not hold Him. And to answer another point (not yours), Jesus' death was for everyone, but we must validate it on our individual behalf by faith in that substitutionary act.

---

That theory of atonement is known as the Ransom (or Deception) theory, in which God is said to have tricked satan by letting him believe that when Jesus paid the ransom, that satan would then be able to keep hold of Jesus, but because Jesus was sinless, he could not do so. It is a somewhat old fashoned and latrgely discredited theory because of the implication that God would be involved in deceit and trickery, thus posing an interesting moral problem.

The theory that satan had kdnapped all of humanity is likewise past its sell by date. The Ransom Theory was based, in part, on Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:6, where Origin interpreted the word "ransom" literally, but unwisely.

• Mark 10:45: "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."
  
• 1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who

gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

In Timothy Paul says that Jesus' ransom was a form of mediation between God and Mankind. Why owuld Jesus have to pay satan a red cent?

Morris Cerullo, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, and others in the Word-faith Movement teach a modern-day variation of the Ransom Theory. Their concept is that when Jesus descended into Hell after his death, he was tormented by Satan and all his demons. The suffering that he experienced during this torture was the ransom that God paid to Satan. There is no scriptural support for this theory.

Mediaeval Christanity taught that when Jesus descended inot Hell he harrowed the place and was not harrowed by it, and led the captives free, but these wre the spirits of the dead, as Peter explains.

The Ransom theory, as well as other violence-based atonement explanations, suffer from an inconsistency in Christian teaching. The church has traditionally taught that a person is responsible for their own sin, and that a person cannot morally be punished for the sins of others. Of course, they deviated from this teaching, as when they taught as late as the mid-20th century that modern-day Jews were responsible for the execution of Yahweh. But in general, people were not held responsible for the sins of others.

The church also teaches that the default destination for Adam, Eve, their children, their grandchildren and their descendents to the present time, after death, will be Hell because of the first parents' transgression in the Garden of Eden when they ate the forbidden fruit. All will be tortured in Hell, unless they are saved through sacraments and/or good works and/or faith. The sin of Eve and Adam were imputed to the entire human race.

Most liberal and many mainline Christians believe that Adam and Eve were mythical humans. That is, they didn't exist as actual people. Without that belief, this atonement theory collapses.

Some Christians note that Eve and Adam were created as proto-humans without a sense of sin. After all, they ate the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to develop a knowledge of good and evil. Being without a moral sense, they cannot be responsible for eating the fruit any more than an animal might. Again, if the first parents are not responsible for eating the fruit, the atonement theory collapses.

Phil Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You states that there is no support in the Bible for the concept that Satan has a legitimate claim on sinners. He suggests that the "Biblical word ransom simply means 'redemption-price;' it does not necessarily imply a price paid to Satan."

Several passages in the Bible imply that Christ's death was a ritual sacrifice to God, and thereby not to Satan:
Bullet Isaiah 53:10: "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." King James Version.

Ephesians 5:2: "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour." KJV.

Origen's version requires that God acts in a deceitful manner. That is does not match the traditional Christian belief about the justice, honesty, and truthfulness of God. Many versions of the ransom theory assume that Satan is unaware of the powers of Jesusa. The later version assumes that Satan is deluded into thinking that he is more powerful than Jesus. Yet Satan is portrayed in the Bible as a dedicated, intelligent, and evil angel, not a quasi-deity who is so disconnected from reality that he is unaware of the capabilities of Jesus. Satan is not described in the Bible as suffering from delusions of grandeur.

The entire concept of Satan as a living entity is rejected by many Christians today; they view Satan as a symbol of evil, not as an actual person. If Satan is not an all-evil quasi-deity, Origen's theory collapses.

The Bible identifies Satan as a created being; a fallen angel who disobeyed God. Similarly, humans are commonly portrayed as created beings who have disobeyed God and fallen. There is no obvious rationale for assuming that Satan had control over all of humanity any more than the reverse might have been true.

Since God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneficient, just, and ethical, it is illogical to assume that he would be willing to allow his son to be tortured to death if there were another way to achieve atonement. God might have, for example, simply forgiven Adam and Eve for their sin. According to the gospels, Jesus repeatedly taught that extending forgiveness is to take the moral high road.

Professor of Philosophy Michael Martin writes: "Since, on the ransom theory, after Jesus' death and resurrection, human beings were out of the devil's clutches, it would seem that the way to salvation would simply be to follow a life free from sin so as not to fall under the devil's control. What has faith in Jesus got to do with this? The ransom theory supplies no answer."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Rom 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(KJV)

The Apostle Paul tells us that a study of creation will lead us toward the Creator. As man accepts the truth he receives, he receives further truth. Was it not so with Abraham? I am willing to leave judgment to God, but if good non-believers (in Christ) have it made, then why the command to carry the Gospel to the world? You make an eloquent case when you quote:
Rom 10:13-14
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
(KJV)

It is obvious to me that one must call (with all the implications) on the Lord in order to be saved. There are some who believe that those who never heard the Gospel will have an opportunity to hear and accept, but I don't know that that is supported by scripture. As to those before Christ, the righteous were saved by faith in that they looked forward to the fulfillment of the promise of God as revealed by the prophets.

---

A man can be a non-believer in Jesus and still not be ungodly or unrighteous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

Since God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneficient, just, and ethical, it is illogical to assume that he would be willing to allow his son to be tortured to death if there were another way to achieve atonement. God might have, for example, simply forgiven Adam and Eve for their sin. According to the gospels, Jesus repeatedly taught that extending forgiveness is to take the moral high road.

---

My point exactly. A simple act of forgiveness is perfectly consistent with the concept of God as a loving father. So do you think Jesus' suffering and death was necessary to effect our reconciliation with the Father? If so, why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

A man can be a non-believer in Jesus and still not be ungodly or unrighteous.

---

I Jn 5:10-12
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
(KJV)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I Jn 5:10-12
and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
(KJV)

---

Yet I have life. How do you explain that??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I Jn 5:10-12
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
(KJV)

---

Interesting quote from an ancient man who didn't know the world is round. And his agenda is obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Yet I have life. How do you explain that????

---

John uses (charcteristically) dualistic imagery. He - John - contracts life and death, light and darkness, and above and below. He is not a literalist but a symbolist.

Although he is increasingly shown to be historically reliable, what is important to him is not what happened, but what it means, and this is the structure of his Gospel.

Live long and prosper.

M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I Jn 5:10-12
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
(KJV)

---

As Peter exclaimed when Cornelius had related to him how he was instructed to send men to Joppa:

"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him."

It is a very odd-shaped Christian that looks for reasons to shut men out of heaven.

The idea that some men have formed about the nature of the justice, judgment, and mercy of God, is too foolish for an intelligent man to think of. For example, it is common for many Christians to believe that if a man is not what they call converted, that is, if he dies not knowing Christ then he must remain eternally in hell without any hope. Infinite years in torment must he spend, and never, never, never have an end; and yet this eternal misery is made frequently to rest upon the merest casualty. The breaking of a shoe-string, the tearing of a coat of those officiating, or the peculiar location in which a person lives, may be the means, directly or indirectly of his damnation, or the cause of his not being saved.

Let us suppose a case which is not extraordinary: Two men, who have been equally wicked, who have neglected religion, are both of them taken sick at the same time; one of them has the good fortune to be visited by a preacher man, and is converted a few minutes before he dies. The other sends for three different praying men, a tailor, a shoemaker, and a tinman; the tinman has a handle to solder to a can, the tailor has a buttonhole to work on some coat that he needed in a hurry, and the shoemaker has a patch to put on somebody's boot, none of them can go in time, and the man dies and goes to hel;.

One of thisd pair of men is exalted to Abraham's bosom, sits down in the presence of God, and enjoys eternal, uninterrupted happiness, while the other, equally as good as the first, sinks to eternal damnation, irretrievable misery and hopeless despair, because a man had a boot mend, the button-hole of a coat to work, or a handle to solder on to a saucepan.

The plans of Almighty God are not so unjust, the statements of holy writ so lacking , nor the plan of salvation for the human family so incompatible with common sense as some would have us believe. At such proceedings God would frown with indignance, angels would hide their heads in shame, and every virtuous, intelligent man would recoil.

If human laws award to each man his deserts, and punish delinquents according to their several crimes, surely the Lord will not be more cruel than man, for He is a wise legislator, and His laws are more equitable, His enactment more just, and His decisions more perfect than those of man; and as man judges his fellow man by law, and punishes him according to the penalty of the law, so does God of heaven judge "according to the deed done in the body." To say that the heathens would be damned because they did not believe the gospel would be preposterous, and to say that the Jews would all be damned that do not believe in Jesus would be equally absurd; for "how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher, and how can he preach except he be sent;"

Consequently, neither Jew nor heathen can be culpable for rejecting the conflicting opinions of Christian sectaries, or for rejecting any testimony but that which is sent of God, for as the preacher cannot preach except he be sent, so the hearer cannot believe without he hear a "sent" preacher, and cannot be condemned for what he has not heard, and being without law, will have to be judged without law.

It is shameful that some confessing to be Chritsian messengers are nothing more than ill-informed 'separators' who take delight in condeming people to Hell for no reason that is supported by God, Jesus, or the holy prophets and apostles whose writings we have when we take time and trouble to understand their messages.

Those who practice their Christianity by means of Condemnation and Hell by Prooftext are shameful and devilish, and should repent, and remain silent until they understand the message of the teachings of Jesus.

Henry Ward Beecher, an influential nineteenth century American clergyman, delivered a lecture in Nashville, Tennessee, titled "What Christianity Has Done to Civilize the World," in which he said:

"What has Africa done for the world? She has never produced a sage, a philosopher, a poet nor a prophet, and why not? Because the name of Christ and the influence of Christianity are scarcely known in her dark regions. Millions of her children have lived and passed away without hearing the truth. What will become of them? Will they be forever damned? No, not if my God reigns, for they will hear the gospel in the spirit world."

Did Rev. Beecher know what the Bible taught? He did!

Was he stuck in a little backwater with a collection of two or three prooftexts that distorted his view of the whole of the scriptures? He was not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

My point exactly. A simple act of forgiveness is perfectly consistent with the concept of God as a loving father. So do you think Jesus' suffering and death was necessary to effect our reconciliation with the Father? If so, why?

---

Personally, I think Jesus' death was a ransom paid to Satan.

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.

Quote:

---

John was one of the original Apostles appointed by Jesus Himself.

---

And what would that have to do with this discussion? I don't remember him or any other of his time talking about the earth being round and as a disciple his agenda was promoting the word according to Jesus and he was an ancient man. So exactly what is your disagreement about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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? It's 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

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 within 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.

Perhaps you should discuss this with your pastor.


M:)RGANITE



.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

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.


M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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.


M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

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 hierarchy 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

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?

---

If justice were superior to God, then God would not be God. However, he is a just God and he does not juggle with justice. When the law of justice was established it became an unchangeable eternal principle. Thus justice has demands for infraction that mercy cannot attenuate. However through the grace of God and the mercy of Christ the price was paid. Justice was satisfied, and man was thereby able to be relieved from the consequences of his wrongdoing.

Jesus Christ appeased the demands of divine justice and effected reconciliation between God and man. John taught: "Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:1-2.)

Paul also expounds this doctrine saying, "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” The 'natural' i.e. unredeemed, man is an enemy to God and has been cast out of his presence. But Christians, Paul continues, are "justified freely by [God's] grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." How is it that Christians are justified? It is because "God hath set forth [his Son] to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (Romans 3:23-26.)

Through the atoning sacrifice of Christ and by their faith, men may be ransomed from their state of sin and spiritual darkness and be restored to one of harmony and unity with their Maker. Paul said: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” That is, he has been born again. "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ."

Christ is the Redeemer and Reconciler. His atoning sacrifice opened the door so that men could return to God. And the Lord "hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. That ministry and doctrine is "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them."

Jesus Christ "hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” We are to preach the gospel of reconciliation to the world, inviting all men to return to the Lord and be one with him. "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:17-20.)

Paul also taught that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"; that the saints are "justified by his blood"; and that, accordingly, "we shall be saved from wrath through him." Mercy shall overpower justice in that Christ pays the penalty for our sins. "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son," and "being reconciled, we shall be saved.”"we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” Therefore, (Romans 5:8-11.) Such is the law of reconciliation and redemption achieved not without the blood of Jesus Christ.

A few passages that point out the part played by the blood and suffering of Jesus in the Atonement are subpended wihtout further comment.

~ Ephesians 2.13 - But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

~ Hebrews 9.12-14 - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

~ 1 Peter 1.2 - [To the] Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

~ 1Peter 1.18-23 - Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

~1 John 1.7 - The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

~ Revelation 1.5 - Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.




M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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.

---

Galveston,

Purely out of interest, how would you suggest someone begin their study of the Bible so they can obtain unbiased information? You will admit that the vast majority of biblical commentaries are written to convince readers to one particular viewpoint, most of which are dissimilar in some points, be they great or small, from each other.

In your opinion, would a serious study involve reading scholarly works such as Introduction literature, and do you recommend that readers learn the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine) to make their own translations so they are not sidetracked by bad interpretations of the Bible?

M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

If justice were superior to God, then God would not be God. However, he is a just God and he does not juggle with justice. When the law of justice was established it became unchangeable.

---

If it truly were unchangeable, then reconciliation would be impossible. The question is whether God's mercy and forgiveness is superior to a concept of justice that demands death as the punishment for sin. Jesus' life and example taught us that the Father's mercy and willingness to forgive is fundamental to His nature and will not be held hostage to a legalistic interpretation of justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

Jesus Christ came to appease the demands of divine justice...

---

I'm sorry, but a justice that is appeased by the gruesome suffering and death of an innocent person is not one that is worthy of a loving and merciful Father.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

...and effect reconciliation between God and man.

---

The truth that he lived and taught and the loving Father he revealed was entirely sufficient to effect our reconciliation. Insisting that his suffering and death was the essential element of this reconciliation distorts and negates his message that "The Father Himself loves you".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

Through the atoning sacrifice of Christ and by their faith, men may be ransomed from their state of sin and spiritual darkness and be restored to one of harmony and unity with their Maker. Paul said: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” That is, he has been born again. "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ."

Christ is the Redeemer and Reconciler. His atoning sacrifice opened the door so that men could return to God. And the Lord "hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. That ministry and doctrine is "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them."

Jesus Christ "hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” We are to preach the gospel of reconciliation to the world, inviting all men to return to the Lord and be one with him. "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:17-20.)

---

Again, I have no problem with Jesus as the Redeemer and Reconciler. What I find completely unacceptable is the notion that his suffering and death, rather than his life and the truth he embodied, is the essential element that brings about this reconciliation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

Paul also taught that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"; that the saints are "justified by his blood"; and that, accordingly, "we shall be saved from wrath through him." Mercy shall overpower justice in that Christ pays the penalty for our sins. "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son," and "being reconciled, we shall be saved.” Therefore, "we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Romans 5:8-11.) Such is the law of reconciliation.

---

Yes, even more than some of the other apostles, Paul was intent on representing and interpreting Jesus' life and death in a manner consistent with the Old Testament temple rituals of atonement for sin by animal sacrifice. In doing so, he failed to grasp the truly radical nature of Jesus' ministry and revelation of the Father. The Christian churches of today still labor under the burden of his misunderstanding. It's tragic, really.

I have always figured that Jesus had enough faith to know that as the son of God his suffering was just a part of his truth as he knew he was blessed and his spirit would not die, the very fact his teaching has survived this long is proof to that in my opinion. Though man is hard pressed to teach faithfully, as is the case of Mohammed in Islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

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.

---

galveston disagrees: Deceitful? What Scripture do you find that would show God to be deceitful if what I suggest should be so?

That is the whole point. The Ransom Theory is not found in scripture and hence you are safe in fully rejecting it. It is not the only theory of atonment that is unscriptural. That being so, why would anyone cling to them?

:)

.