got tonkaed wrote:An initial comment that I might make is you are arguing far too emotionally, though perhaps it is understandable given your attempting to make a defense of something incredibly important to you. However I find you could make a more persuasive case if you didn’t refer to things like opening a can of worms, or bringing this upon oneself. While I can see you arguing perhaps even effectively that the sinner is repelled by the light, I would expect that if you were attempting to bring people to what you are calling (at times accurately so) a positive message, that you make far more positive references than negative ones. However I accept the possibility that the very nature of what appears to be your particular blend of the faith can have a difficulty reconciling the desire to bring others to what you’ve found with other perhaps less positive motivations.
You are correct. And it was an incorrect assessment on my part that had me start the post that way. As I mentioned I am on several forums and on the other forums they all have a rule that goes something like this, "Please refrain from posting any text quoted from religious sources UNLESS specifically directed to within a thread." I understand that it is there in an effort to stop people from coming in and just blasting people over the head with the Bible (the so called Bible Thumpers, although there have been times when I have wanted to thump a few people with God's Word LOL). This forum is different in that it is much more open in allowing posts to contain God's Word as well as many other topics without fear of being banned or warned just because you happened to quote the Bible. Therefore, it was my mistake to begin the post with those negative comments and I apologize.
To quickly address the opening paragraph of my post while we are on this subject, I put that there because there are some that are here that are not seeking answers and you can tell that in their posts. And intermixed between them are some people that seem to be genuinely interested in hearing what God might be saying on the subject. I guess, and I have seen this before, I was hoping to stay off people from picking part the post just to make off color jokes or lewd comments and the like. Man, the stories one could tell from this other forum that I used to post about two years ago, but I digress. So, if that paragraph offended anyone that was not my intent and I do apologize.
got tonkaed wrote:To start with your first verse. I believe you have started off on the wrong foot here, as you are making a perhaps inaccurate but necessary assumption. While rule leads to potential choices, the simple creation in the image of something, does not imply that it carries the same capacities as the original, especially if you chose to take it more literally than figuratively (which frequently in your post you tend to do). There is very little if anything from there to take immediately and turn to will, without doing necessary mental gymnastics. I believe you are forcing God into a rather small box by claiming awareness of the desires and wishes of God. Other religions, even Judaism have provisions that suggest we can know far more about a creator than you seem to suggest. While you could argue perhaps from later texts that you can know God, realize it is certainly not the only impression that is drawn from the text you are reading from.
Ok, I lost you where you seem to think that I am limiting or suggesting that there is limited knowledge of God or maybe you are suggesting that by stating that we are made in God's image and that the image is close to God that it limits God? Not sure exactly what you are saying there. But I can clarify what I meant and that might help.
God is God and is infinite and there is no limit to him. We are created, as quoted earlier, in the image and likeness of God. This means that we have a spirit just like God is a spirit.
John 4:24 wrote:24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
-
John 4:24
We were created to have that same spirit which is why God and his spirit can dwell within us when we accept Jesus.
Galatians 2:20 wrote:20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live,
but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
-
Galatians 2:20
1 Corinthians 3:16 wrote:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
-
1 Corinthians 3:16
When we are saved, Jesus and the Holy Spirit come and dwell within our spirit which is made in the image and likeness of God. If it were not, then we could not support God within us and then Jesus could not commune so closely with us as the Word declares. But God wanted to have this close personal relationship with us so that we would never ever walk alone or be forsaken once we accepted Jesus. Then after we accept Jesus, as quoted above, we live in the flesh by faith in Jesus, the Son of God, who loves us. So, this is what is meant when it says that we are made is his image and likeness. This is not figurative language nor is it limiting God in any way because it is a way that God made us on purpose so that He could live with us and within us to help us live our lives for him.
With regards to Adam and Eve, when they ate of the fruit of the tree of life they disobeyed God for the first time (but there is a deeper problem addressed later for now we will look at the surface issue). For the first time, they did something that God deemed evil (disobeying a direct command, although we will see later this is not really the issue) and therefore, they now had the knowledge of what it was to be both good and to be evil. The tree of life was not the sustainer, God was and is. The tree is a symbol. When God removed them from the Garden and separated from him, the life sustainer, they now had the ability to die. They were not created to die and their spirits did not but lived on eternally. And the same is with our spirits, we will live eternally. The only question is where.
got tonkaed wrote:I also believe you verse from Peter can be viewed under a different interpretation. There are many instances throughout the texts that suggest that God was not always long suffering toward all. While you could argue that we have little right to decide what is best or worst in terms of God’s long suffering nature, you frequently in the rest of your post make value laden claims about God’s intentions. While this is understandable given your stance in general, it should be noted that is rather difficult to discuss critically any of religion if we always adopt the stance that it is unnecessary to make allowances for God or to question, because of provisions like these which are paradigmatically assumed to be true, incorrectly so.
I am curious as to what different interpretations you have on this verse?
As to the greater portion of your statement, I will admit to not be a great scholar of the religions of the world because you don't continue to search for something once you have found it. If I am looking for a hammer, I will stop when I found the hammer. So, with reference to my stance, it will come from the Bible because this is where I have found God to be and know him to be real. Now, I have had many discussions (and this can be one of them) with many who are still seeking to find God and have not found him yet and are searching in other faiths. I understand that need and desire because we all have it.
To get back to your point that started your comment about my stance and the critically discussion of religion and God, the Bible is clear that God is long suffering. Even in the case of the flood, it says that the sins of the world had gone on long enough (
Genesis 6:1-8) or with Sodom and Gomorrah that the city had gone so far into depravity that it was beyond the ability to be saved (
Genesis 19:1-24). In fact, every time God stepped in and did act, He had waited a long time before he did so and the same is with us now that he has given Jesus as our propitiation and waits, longing for us to accept him.
got tonkaed wrote:I believe the Satan story you bring up is one of the weaker elements of your post. You make too many claims here that are completely conjecture at best in my opinion and at least from my perspective is a quite intellectually dishonest way to present God. In as far as I have ever had it explained, the creation and purposes of cherub angels and human are conceived of differently in Christian thought. Yet you bridge the gap between them entirely if not more so, by positing correctly that it is understood that Lucifer was seen to be blameless. To assume that God had foreknowledge of all of the actions of the morning star and yet only offered to counsel him seems inconsistent. IF angels did not have free will, and had a purpose of servitude, why would God allow Satan to corrupt so many. Did God care so little for the other creation? Also within the context of what we claim to know (from the judeo-christian framework at least) the greatest punishment of sin is separation from God (hence the name). To assume that God did something benevolent when in fact under our framework this is the least benevolent thing that could have done, seems to reflect a great amount of fudging of the doctrine to fit an argument.
There are several points here I need to address.
First, I mentioned, and if I didn't state this correctly I apologize, the concept that God might have counseled Satan about his actions and his intentions to rebel are merely mine own suppositions and wonderings about God. I wonder this because God knows all things and I am sure he knew what Satan was up to. Even if you say that God does not know all things, he knows the future (as is evident in the word) and therefore would have known what Satan was planning to do. Either way, God had knowledge of what was going to happen. The reason that I believe he did not stop him is, I believe, the same reason that he does not stop us from doing the wrong thing.
Second, Angels have freedom of choice. We can see this in the scripture that I quoted above in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 where Satan, the anointed Cherub and Morning Star, decided to rebel against God. We can further see this in the fact that he convinced a third of the angels to join him. Imagine this. You are an angel of God and you see the splendor of God every day and yet you still choose to side with Satan. He really is the father of lies as the Bible declares.
Third, God only offer to counsel him. Maybe, maybe not. The reason why I guess this and why he would not have stomped him out then is because God is love (
1 John 4:8) and God loves all of his creation including the devil. This means that even though he has done terrible things, he desires that he would have turned from these wicked things. Just like God desires this for us. This is why God will save the one who does the most terrible things here on earth because God loves us all. Now, that does not mean that there are not consequences for your actions.
Galatians 6:7 wrote:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
-
Galatians 6:7
So, God desired that Satan and all the angels he was speaking with would stop what they were doing and turn from their wicked ways and return to him. However, when it became apparent that was not going to happen, then God had to do something.
Fourth, God banished them from heaven as a benevolent act. Yes, I see this as benevolent. God could have destroyed them and made them go away, vanish for all time. Just like God could make all of us who refuse to follow him just vanish. But he doesn't. He patiently waits for us to make the choice to serve him and if we do not then he lets us have what we wanted, eternal separation from him in hell. Even though it will break his heart to send us there. Creflo Dollar said it this way, "God loves you so much that if you don't want to accept him, he will take your hand and walk you to the gates of hell open the door and cry as he lets you walk in and close the door behind you." Banishment instead of vaporization is benevolent. Yes, we see hell as the pinnacle of punishments and perhaps on some scale it is, but utter destruction has to be worse. Especially since right now the devil and his angels/demons are not suffering that does not come until they are thrown into the lake of fire at the end days.
And an interesting side note to that is that they were banished in that they are not allowed to reside within heaven anymore, but we do see in Job that the devil does come before God and still speaks with him (
Job 1:6-7). We are also told that he accuses the brethen, Christians, day and night before the Lord (
Revelation 12:10). So, it appears that the devil can come before the throne of God to seek and audience to bring accusations against humanity; however, he no longer calls heaven his home because he was cast out. This is why we need Jesus because his blood washes away our sins (
Revelation 1:5) giving the enemy nothing to accuse us of.
Finally, I don't see this as fudging to get anything to "fit" into what I want it to and I hope my explanations have cleared that up. If not, let me know where you see the wholes and I will attempt to plug them.
got tonkaed wrote:While you may wish to immediately dismiss the many pragmatic but not necessarily strong theological objections to the garden of Eden story, that doesn’t mean they cannot be discussed. In the interest of brevity, it is not simply the creation of a tree of knowledge that implies that God did not always choose to act benevolently or was not always omniscient. Rather it is the failure (an astonishing claim I know) of the creator to deal with the insurrection in a fashion that would allow for God to remain in communion with the beloved creation, along with a failure to be attuned to the location in which humans resided, along with the enacted punishment for as you suggest (at least under your framework) acting in a way that was consistent with the idea of being in the image of a creator. Surely if God thought free will so important in its own perspective to bestow it on a creation, he would not punish it in the first opportunity it had to manifest itself? Nor would God so greatly overreact to punish the entire following history of his favorite creation because the first two individuals were 0/1 in good decision making? Again the only real answer to this is to give a free pass or make unnecessary qualifications that don’t fit within how the story is originally presented.
Another place where there are several points to address and they are all good questions!!
First, what theological objections to the garden of Eden story? I have heard many secular objections and many differing theological interpretations of what the garden's intent was. But I am not entirely certain where you were going with your statement so before I attempt to answer, I thought it best to ask especially since we are no longer being brief
Second, the tree of life/knowledge was a tree that was not so much about the tree as much about obedience. God could have chosen to have them not eat the Corn Stalks of Life, but that is not what God happened to choose. The point was that God had given them and infinitely beautiful place with basically an infinite choice of things to eat from and only one to not eat from. It is a boundary that God set just like any good parent would set, and while Adam and Eve were formed as adults they were basically like children in that they were just made and new. So, God set a boundary and at the first test they blew it. This is what the tree was about and not so much about the tree itself.
Third, you mention the thought that God did not always choose to act benevolently and I disagree. I think the problem is that we want God to act within our parameters of what we want to define as benevolent. By this, I mean that God is holy (
Leviticus 11:45, and others) and he is just (
Isaiah 30:18) and love (
1 John 4:8) and he operates within all of these parameters with a heirarchy of understanding that can be seen throughout the Scriptures. Now, with respect to sin, his holiness can not have sin in his presence and therefore he must have it removed and expelled from where he is. This is why he banished the devil and will not allow anyone in heaven who has the stains of sin on them. However, God is love which is why he sent Jesus to atone for our falling away and entering into contract with the devil and redeemed us back to him. The problem comes when we apply our concepts of holy and justice and love and expect them to be God's. I mean just take a look at what God says love is and then compare it to what we would call love today:
1 Corinthians 13:4-8a wrote:4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails
-
1 Corinthians 13:4-8a
Think about our world today with disposable marriages and see if God's idea of love stated here matches with our idea of love. It doesn't, but then think of what it would be like if people really got a hold of this kind of love because it is available. Think about what would happen to marriages where the spouses were loving in a way that they bore all things, believe all things about each other, hoped all things about each other, did not provoke each other, did not seek their own, did not act unbecomingly, were patient and kind and never failed each other. They would certain never get divorced and it would like a honeymoon everyday of their married life. But in our world, we have moved away from God's ideas of things long ago and yet now we want to apply our "new" terms of love and justice and even holiness to God who is the same yesterday, today and forever (
Hebrews 13:8) and then we don't understand why things don't add up. So, this is why you can look at God being benevolent and not see it because our ideas of what justice and compassion and love are have gotten off from the true meanings and we need only go back to the source, God, to find them again. Just look at love as our example.
Fourth, you mentioned the thought that God was not always omniscient. Just because God did not stop them from making a the choice does not mean that God did not know what was going on and really there is no evidence to support that God is not omniscient. However, given all the prophetic writings that have been verified to have been written before Jesus' time and Jesus fulfilled, we do have evidence that God is omniscient.
Fifth, with regards to the failure comment, the problem is not with God failing. You see, the Bible tells us that God came and walked in the garden in the cool of the day (
Genesis 3:8) looking for Adam and Eve. Now, remember that God is spirit (see above) and for God to walk in the garden, the garden would have to be in the spirit realm or on the same plane of existence with heaven where God resides. Therefore, as stated above, God being holy can not abide with sin because it would cause him to become unpure. It is likened to this. Imagine if you had a can of white paint and then you added a drop of black paint to the white paint. Is it white anymore? The answer is no because of the black paint that is now part of the mix. Well, the same is with God. He is the white paint that can not have any sin of any kind within him and therefore he can not have any black paint. Since Adam and Eve chose to disobey and sin they had to be removed from God's presence and were expelled from the garden (Genesis 3) and moved to the physical plane of existence where we all live.
Sixth, which brings me to the importance of what actually happened when they made that fatefull decision. God gave humanity the earth to rule over giving us dominion (
Genesis 1:26). The catch, so to speak, was that it was a contract that we had with God to oversee his creation and rule over it. When the devil came in and deceived Adam and Eve, they choose to follow the devil instead of God and therefore entered into a covenant and contract with the devil to give him rulership of the humanity and therefore the earth causing humanity to share in his death, or eternal damnation (
Romans 5:12-15,
Romans 6:1-20). Therefore, much more happened in the garden that day then they just took a cookie from the cookie jar. This caused God to have to expell them from the garden and have to have a full plan of redemption to win back humanity and buy back the contract from the devil. This is what Jesus did on the cross because without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness of sins (
Leviticus 17:11,
Hebrews 9:22). However, God also requires that the one whose blood is shed be spotless (
Deuteronomy 17:1) and we, who need the redemption, are not spotless. This is why Jesus had to be born they way he was (mentioned in earlier post) and live a life without sin so that he could go to the cross and pay the price on our heads and buy the contract back from the devil for humanity and the earth. This is why the Bible declares that all authority was return to Jesus (
Matthew 28:18). It was not a failure of God, but a loving allowance of God to let us have our choice and then God's awesome plan to redeem us from the mistake of our choice.
Finally, I understand our desire to want to put on God that he should have just let them slide and if it was a simple cookie from the cookie jar incident I would agree. However, as I am telling my children all the time, you have to see the bigger picture. There was much more going on then meets the eye on the surface, and I believe that I hit that subject. The only real way God could have prevented it was to have overriden their free choice and God is a God of his word and will not do that. So, God had to allow them to make the choice and then he came up with the great plan to redeem us and get us back. All of which operates within the parameters of who God really is and how much he truly loves us with a pure and honest love.
got tonkaed wrote:Moving on again we have to make a choice about how much to look the other way in terms of God’s actions towards the creation. We are told to accept a story (that while intricate, especially in the chain of events) forces us to acknowledge a far more selfish, less benevolent creator than anyone would like to take on first glance. Consider the following: Humans are first created, perhaps with or without free will. They are in state of eternal communion where the creation is supposedly in union with the creator and the creator in union with it. Instead of continuing on in what would seemingly be (from our perspective) eternal bliss, God chose to allow the fall, with certainly some knowledge of the failure that was imminent if not complete knowledge of it, so that God could make what would otherwise be an unnecessary sacrifice that would never reconcile the union completely, forcing individuals into eternal separation. In the wisdom of lolcatish grammar “wat?”. Whilst there are certainly theological defenses for this, I don’t really believe you are presenting very many of them. All of these chains of events (certainly taken from the perspective of a non-believer) seem to suggest if not imply that for these events to occur either God is not always benevolent or God is not omniscient. It would be possibly that God could still be omnipotent, but given the flipping nature of God’s will out of such a starting chain of events, why should the individual assume that God will be consistent. It certainly seems inconsistency is a far easier position to maintain than consistency in the initial stages of God’s relationship with the creation.
I handled most of this in the previous section. I do want to point out that you state that I did not present my case very well for my stance on God as benevolent and omniscient. In my original post, I my goal was to present the plan of redemption as to answer why God had to deal with original sin from the original post in this thread. So, I may not have been as thorough on this topic. I do think I was more complete in my response above. Of course, that does not mean you will agree with my answer
got tonkaed wrote:At this point I believe we reach a more difficult impasse as we are no longer throwing around more theological concepts and now dealing with actual miracles which take far more faith to believe. Essentially you are hinging everything on one individual in history meeting a specified number of prophecies, and I am assuming until stated otherwise that he must meet them all. While you cite the spontaneous birth of a virgin as the main example, under your logic I believe he would have to fulfill all of them, some of which are on more shaky ground (as is my understanding at least) in historical circles. There regrettably isn’t a whole lot I can say on this subject (and probably in much more of the post), as you are riding everything on a prophecy that I believe does not stand up to critical inquiry. However this is quite likely to be the critical point for you so I will no belabor it, but I believe you must realize this is far less set in stone than you are claiming.
I will grant that Jesus being born of a virgin can not be verified and has to be taken on faith. However, there are prophecies that do not take that kind of faith because if I remember correctly Jesus fulfilled something like 300 Old Testament prophecies. Some of them are easier to prove or disprove then others. And some are even recorded in extra-biblical writings like Josepheus and Philo (although not as direct with Philo). Here is a short list of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled that he did not have direct control over.
His being sold for thirty pieces silver ( Prophecy:
Zechariah 11:12, Fulfillment:
Matthew 26:15 )
His price being given for the potter's field ( Prophecy:
Zechariah 11:13, Fulfillment:
Matthew 27:7 )
The intensity of his sufferings ( Prophecy:
Psalm 22:14-15, Fulfillment:
Luke 22:42-44 )
His being smitten on the cheek ( Prophecy:
Micah 5:1, Fulfillment:
Matthew 27:30 )
His visage being marred ( Prophecy:
Isaiah 52:14, 53:3, Fulfillment:
John 19:5 )
His being spit on and scourged ( Prophecy:
Isaiah 50:6, Fulfillment:
Mark 14:65 John 19:1 )
His hands and feet being nailed to the cross ( Prophecy:
Psalm 22:16, Fulfillment:
John 19:18 20:25 )
Gall and vinegar being given him to drink ( Prophecy:
Psalm 69:21, Fulfillment:
Matthew 27:34 )
His garments being parted, and lots cast for his vesture ( Prophecy:
Psalm 22:18, Fulfillment:
Matthew 27:35 )
His Death ( Prophecy:
Isaiah 53:12, Fulfillment:
Matthew 27:50 )
That a bone of him should nbe broken ( Prophecy:
Exodus 12:46 Psalm 34:20, Fulfillment:
John 19:33,36 )
His being pierced ( Prophecy:
Zechariah 12:10, Fulfillment:
John 19:34,37 )
His being buried with the rich ( Prophecy:
Isaiah 53:9, Fulfillment:
Matthew 27:57-60 )
His flesh nseeing corruption ( Prophecy:
Psalm 16:10, Fulfillment:
Acts 2:31 )
His resurrection ( Prophecy:
Isa 26:19, Fulfillment:
Luke 24:6,31,34 )
And of course, there is more. But as you suggested, I did stated that some of this has to be taken on the basis of faith and belief that God is indeed God and that he did send Jesus whom he spoke about through the prophets ahead of time. But then in any religion there is a portion that has to be taken on faith.
got tonkaed wrote:Im also curious about your particular religious history here, as the way that you refer to Jesus after the birth suggests that you do not equate him to be part of a three person trinity. While I suppose I could be incorrect in my analysis and you are using a few different verses where Jesus refers to his father to justify the way you are posting, the manner in which you refer to Jesus’s divinity seem unorthodox.
I am not sure what I said that gave you the impression that I did not equate Jesus as being part of the Trinity because I do. Yes, Jesus is most definitely part of the Trinity. For those who may not be away, God is three parts in one. There is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They exist separate and yet all part of the same whole God. It is like water. Water exists in three form: liquid, gas and solid and yet it is all still water. It is the same with God. He is one God but exists in three forms; Father, Son and Holy Spirit (or some say Holy Ghost). To give you another example, we humans are one and yet we are the triune being because we exist as three parts. We are a spirit (the part that is eternal), we have a soul (mind will and emotions), and we live in a body, and yet we are one person (
1 Thessalonians 5:23). It is the same with God. Three parts, yet one God. But yes, I totally believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is part of the Trinity.
An interesting thing about the Trinity and our spirits is that the Trinity comes to reside within us. The way this is comes from the fact that Jesus said that He and the Father are one (
John 10:30) and we know that Jesus lives within us when we are saved (
Galatians 2:20). That means that if Jesus lives or resides within us, the Father lives within us too because Jesus and the Father are one. And we know that the Holy Spirit, the helper of promise, dwells within the believer (
Ephesians 1:13,
1 Corinthians 3:16). Therefore, all three parts of the Trinity reside within your spirit when you are saved which makes sense if you think about it since God is one.
got tonkaed wrote:I find your justification of Jesus eventual claim that no one comes to the father but by me all the more remarkable given the way you describe Jesus triumphant birth. If Jesus has broken the communion with the Devil, which would have to assume is under the express desire of He and the Creator (either as part of a trinity or not) to reconcile the gulf between God and the Creation, why on earth would there be a restipulation? Seemingly the benevolent action of the creator is immediately countered by something that is at its essence not at all benevolent. Wise men said to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results is madness, if God is hinging what we assume must be the most important of all commitments (as many were taught the loving paternal aspects of the relationship between God and Humans) on free will after it clearly did not work the first time around, what does that imply about God, or at the very least about our perceptions of him? Also, where was the authority before, why would God cede such an important authority, even for a moment, if this is the most beloved of all creations? I believe this could be further noted as far as the perhaps misconception that a Christian God is necessarily a benevolent one.
Ok, we have several points to hit here.
First, and I have touched upon this already, Jesus' virgin birth separated him being under the covenant that Adam and Eve made with the devil when they sold out to him in the garden because the Holy Spirit of God overshadowed Mary when she became pregnant (
Luke 1:34-35). Yes, this takes faith to believe and yes this is possible because I remind you that:
Luke 1:37 Amplified wrote:37 For with God nothing is ever impossible and no word from God shall be without power or impossible of fulfillment.
-
Luke 1:37
So, nothing is impossible with God and having a virgin become pregnant is possible. Yes, again, it takes faith, but then the Bible does tell us that by faith we believe (
2 Corinthians 5:7). But that special virgin birth separated Jesus and had him not under the covenant with the devil and allowed him to be an offering. Why was this necessary, because as stated, the garden affair was more then just a cookie from the cookie jar, it was the loss of our rulership to the devil. To gain this back, Jesus had to come the way he did and live a sin free life and go to the cross as a lamb without blemish or spot. Why? Because the terms of the contract we made with the devil required a high price to be paid for us to be bought back and this was the price. You say that God's actions are all askew because you think he operated incorrectly but I think your assumptions are wrong. God created man and gave him free will and dominion. Man sold our birthright and dominion to the devil. The devil then demanded a high price to be paid to get us back. It was not God who demanded this price, he was just the one who paid it to get us back. It was the only way to do it without overriding and violating his word and integrity. This is why God had Jesus born of a virgin so he was not under that contract and sent him to the cross so that the debt could be paid. And look at what the Bible tells us that Jesus went through for us and sit and watch "The Passion of the Christ" movie and get an idea and he did this because this was the demanded price to be paid to get us back and God paid it for us with his own blood. We really shouldn't be mocking him but praising him and running to him. Honestly!
Second, you make the statement that wise men say to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results is madness. God is not doing the same thing again. First time, God gave man authority and dominion and we sold it. Second time, Jesus bought it back and Jesus now holds the authority and dominion. The awesome thing about our God is that God makes that authority and dominion and power available to us after we become saved for the asking through Jesus name and the working of God's Holy Spirit and the manifesting of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (
1 Corinthians 12). So, God is not doing the same thing again. With I guess the exception that he still has not overriden our free will. We still have the choice to choose God and Jesus or to not choose him (and not making a choice is not choosing him).
Third, why would God cede such authority? Good question and the simple answer is because God loves us so much and that is what true love does. True love (see above) does not seek it's own but it will share what it has. God owns everything (
Psalm 24:1) and that was never going to change, but God loved us so much that he wanted us not just to live here but to rule here and that is why he gave us the authority. We were the ones who messed that up. Did God know that we would do this, yes. Did he do it anyway, yes. Why? Because love is bigger then that and because he loved us with such a great love he could see beyond the mistake in the garden to the greatness of the cross the and millions who would come to love him and serve him through what Jesus did and that was worth the heartache of seeing humanity fall instead of forcing them to not have the freedom. Because, again, that is how true love is and how God is.
Finally, I think a lot of this comes back to really understanding that God is love. By this, I mean that God doesn't just have love or doesn't just show love although he does those things, but that God IS LOVE. That the very essence of God is love through and through. In fact, there is not a part of God that is not love. This is why the Bible says that God is love (
1 John 4:8) which means that it is impossible for God not to love. The difference is that God's love is a pure unadulterated love that we can see a glimpse of in 1 Corinthians 13 (quoted above) and is vastly different from the perverted and touchy feely love we experience down here. And since the enemy has worked really hard at twisting our concept of love, we, as a people, are very disconnected to understanding what God is and how he operates. However, God has not left us without hope. He has given us his word and it really is all there. In the Bible, it tells us about this love and how this love created this plan of redemption. How his heart is so big and his love so great that he loves us with everything he has and that is why he had to get us back from the devil and make a way and why he sits at the edge of his throne calling to all of us to just come and accept Jesus. And why it breaks his heart at everyone who does not accept him but decides for whatever reason to go another way. It is all there and all we have to do is take a look and have just a bit of faith that if we search, we will find God in there and when we do that God shows up every time.
got tonkaed wrote:The gift of heaven is not a free one, as it requires choice. A free gift would resemble a more universal election with less condition. To require something, even the choice (bolstered perhaps by election as it was – though this clearly presents problems unless it’s a universal election)means that this is not so much something that is given as it is bartered for. While theres nothing wrong with this I suppose on its own, that isn’t how it is really presented. Certainly there are many arguments that can be made against this however, but considering we are talking more about deliverance instead of some of the other potential forms of salvation understanding, it seems prudent not to try and add to an already tl;dr.
Actually, this is incorrect. Salvation is a gift. Jesus has bought and paid for it already, as mentioned above. All that remains with this gift is to accept it. That is a choice, but look at it this way. If it was your birthday and I bought you a present and wrapped it in a box with a bow and came to your party with it and walked up to you and extended my arms out with the present and said happy birthday, what would you have to do? You would have to accept and take the present. The fact that you have to by choice receive my gift does not change the fact that it is a gift that I got for you or that it is free. It is the same with Jesus. He has done all the work for salvation by going through the cross and taking all the sins of the world on him there and paying the price demanded for our failures. By doing so, he put your salvation in a box with a bow and has shown up to your place and has extended his arms and said, "Here it is for the free taking, just accept me." And all you have to do is accept him.
Romans 10:9-10 wrote:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
-
Romans 10:9-10
Yes, it is a choice to accept him and salvation, but that does not change that it is a free gift that we can all have by just speaking out a prayer confessing that Jesus is Lord and that God did raise him from the dead and thank him for what he did and accept him into our lives and believe that in our heart when we pray it and then we are saved. That is all. Of course, once we do that, we will find that the Jesus that comes to live within us is really cool and can show us awesome things in the Bible, his word, and even connect us to really cool other Christians and even make church fun. But that is just extra icing on the cake and none of it is required.
got tonkaed wrote:While I understand anecdotal stories are incredibly important to issues of faith, they do not make a communion with a creator involving free will make. I have known many people of faith and those who are not faithful who have had wonderful and terrible things happen to them. I know many more who have had enriched lives through faith and equal numbers of those who have done so without. I believe while you make an impassioned case that it doesn’t mean that this case need be accepted nor that we need to accept the implications of it.
I can say that I have lived without Jesus and I have lived with Jesus and I have found that I wasn't really living until I got saved and started living with and for Jesus. There was so much more that God had in store for me and opened up the world to me in ways I would have never imagined on my own that is so amazing that I wish I could express for everyone here. Because there simply is no greater joy then living for Jesus to be found anywhere.
Well, I guess that should be about it for the first post. LOL! I look forward to seeing what tonkaed responds when he gets the time.
JH
. The cannon as you describe above was established by the Catholic church at the council of Nicea and your explanation is simply their justification of why other contradictory gospels were discarded, the 4 gospels that made the cut have authoriship just, if not more ,shaky in fact. You may argue that your faith in Catholicism is reason enough to believe all it says so no doubt you agree with this;