[Morganite]

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:)

[Morganite]

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!

[galveston]

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.

[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.

[talaniman]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[Morganite]

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.

[ordinaryguy]

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.

[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.

[galveston]

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.

[talaniman]

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

[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



.

[Morganite]

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:)

[Morganite]

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:)

[ordinaryguy]

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.

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...

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.

[Morganite]

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:)

[Morganite]

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:)

[ordinaryguy]

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.

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.

...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".

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.

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[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?

:)

.