> It depends on whether you accept substitutionary atonement or not. > Its a doctrine I lean towards (on a scale of 10 i would say about 8) > "He that was without sin became sin for us"
Substitutionary atonement makes no sense at all. If I commit a murder and you get hanged for it, what kind of justice is that?
Justice does not require that someone should pay the price of a transgression, it requires that the transgressor should be punished.
Robert M. Price writes:
'Here is the logic as I see it: Look, we've got an explanation for the death of Jesus that says he can't have died for sins of his own, so it must have been for someone else's. This means these others must have needed him to die for them. So their sin must have been something more serious than the Jewish concept of "spot sins" that could be dealt with by "spot forgiveness" here and there. Otherwise, why go to the trouble to send a divine savior? Again, Galatians: if things are still as they were under Judaism, then what was the point of Christ dying? It must have been necessary, so let's posit a condition serious enough to require it! That's original sin, total depravity, something going way beyond the Yetzer Harah (evil imagination) that Judaism ascribes to human nature.
'Ironically, redemption theology only begins to make sense once you drop the expectation that it makes sense! That is, you only begin to see what's really going on once you recognize that it is not theoretically coherent. You can stop looking for the logic of the thing and start looking for the "psycho-logic" that went into it. It is not an inference inductively arrived at. It is an after-the-fact rationalization. You stop looking for the reasons that account for it, for there are none. You seek instead for what the atonement is rationalizing. E.P. Sanders recognizes this. He observes that Paul "thought backwards, from solution to plight, and his thinking in this, as in many respects, was governed by the overriding conviction that salvation is through Christ. Since Christ came to save all, all needed salvation.... Paul did not begin by analyzing the human situation" (Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 68).' <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/damnable.html>
>> It depends on whether you accept substitutionary atonement or not. >> Its a doctrine I lean towards (on a scale of 10 i would say about 8) >> "He that was without sin became sin for us"
> Substitutionary atonement makes no sense at all. If I commit a murder and > you get hanged for it, what kind of justice is that?
> Justice does not require that someone should pay the price of a > transgression, it requires that the transgressor should be punished.
If you think the cross was about "Justice" then you are much mistaken. The cross is about mercy and forgiveness. The unsaved will get Justice, they won't like it.
> Robert M. Price writes:
> 'Here is the logic as I see it: Look, we've got an explanation for the > death of Jesus that says he can't have died for sins of his own, so it > must have been for someone else's. This means these others must have > needed him to die for them. So their sin must have been something more > serious than the Jewish concept of "spot sins" that could be dealt with by > "spot forgiveness" here and there. Otherwise, why go to the trouble to > send a divine savior? Again, Galatians: if things are still as they were > under Judaism, then what was the point of Christ dying? It must have been > necessary, so let's posit a condition serious enough to require it! That's > original sin, total depravity, something going way beyond the Yetzer Harah > (evil imagination) that Judaism ascribes to human nature.
There was an annual sacrifice and scape goating for sin, as I am sure you are aware. Lev 16.
The priest laid hands on the scape goat and thus transfered the guilt to it and it was the expelled from the nation. The lamb was sacrificed to atone for the sin.
That is a substitution is it not? Unless you think that the sheep were guilty and sinful? Did they have really wicked sheep back then?
"The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place;"
> 'Ironically, redemption theology only begins to make sense once you drop > the expectation that it makes sense! That is, you only begin to see what's > really going on once you recognize that it is not theoretically coherent. > You can stop looking for the logic of the thing and start looking for the > "psycho-logic" that went into it. It is not an inference inductively > arrived at. It is an after-the-fact rationalization. You stop looking for > the reasons that account for it, for there are none.
Of course if you had read the OT you would already be famailiar with the ideas of both substitution and atonement. Or you could pretend that they didn't exist and write this sort of gibbersish above.
> You seek instead for what the atonement is rationalizing. E.P. Sanders > recognizes this. He observes that Paul "thought backwards, from solution > to plight, and his thinking in this, as in many respects, was governed by > the overriding conviction that salvation is through Christ. Since Christ > came to save all, all needed salvation.... Paul did not begin by analyzing > the human situation" (Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 68).' > <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/damnable.html>
>> It depends on whether you accept substitutionary atonement or not. >> Its a doctrine I lean towards (on a scale of 10 i would say about 8) >> "He that was without sin became sin for us"
> Substitutionary atonement makes no sense at all. If I commit a murder > and you get hanged for it, what kind of justice is that?
> Justice does not require that someone should pay the price of a > transgression, it requires that the transgressor should be punished.
I agree. Of course, on the basis that all sin is ultimately down to the Creator, then it is right that the Creator should accept the punishment!
> E.P. Sanders > recognizes this. He observes that Paul "thought backwards, from solution > to plight, and his thinking in this, as in many respects, was governed > by the overriding conviction that salvation is through Christ. Since > Christ came to save all, all needed salvation.... Paul did not begin by > analyzing the human situation" (Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 68).' > <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/damnable.html>
I agree that the early Church worked out its theology backwards, as it were; from experience to reason. In the same way I think the Gospels were written backwards; that is, the first thing that concerned people was the story of the crucifixion and resurrection. Even now that takes up a huge part of each Gospel. Only then did people start to evince interest in the person of Jesus, his teaching and them, later, what could be known or guessed or theorised about his biography.
But the fact that something was worked out in this way doesn't have to mean that the theology is not correct. After all, doesn't most knowledge begin with examining what one experiences, and then seeking to understand how and why it should be so?
In some way Saul of Tarsus became convinced of the resurrection of Jesus, which made nonsense of his existing belief in a general resurrection at the end of time; unless that is he could see that resurrection as some kind of first fruits, of a great divine act of redemption in the here and now. The experience led to a new understanding.
The Gospels do suggest that Jesus himself had some understanding (though not necessarily a full one) of what he was doing. This might well be another example of reading back, but it is not impossible that some reflection on Isaiah's suffering servant should be in the mind of Jesus during his life.
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
> Insulting people without just cause: Mark 7:26. > > | Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth. > | And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. > | And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, > | for it is not right to take the children's bread > | and throw it to the dogs."
I have selected this to consider first because the two Johannine passage can be taken together.
If Jesus was fully human, he would naturally have the attitudes of his people. It is a moot point whether or not that constitutes sin in itself, especially if it does not result in any actual harm being done.
Equally Jesus may have been simply quoting a current attitude in order to prepare for the opportunity to reject it in fact.
My own guess is the first of the above, and that this was in fact a learning experience for him that led to a change of attitude.
> | Jesus said to them, "[...] Go to the feast yourselves; > | I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet > | fully come." [...] But after his brothers had gone up > | to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but > | in private.
> <insulting people without just cause> > And John 8:44:
> | [Jesus said ...]<snip> "Why do you not understand what I say? It is > | because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the > | devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a > | murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, > | because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according > | to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, > | because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. [...]"
Both of these bear all the hallmarks of Johannine theologising after the event. Possibly there are some actual dominical words behind these stories, but I don't think we can recover them. And if he spoke sharp words to his opponents, there may well have been just cause, in view of where that opposition led.
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
> I agree that the early Church worked out its theology backwards, as it > were; from experience to reason. In the same way I think the Gospels > were written backwards; that is, the first thing that concerned people > was the story of the crucifixion and resurrection. Even now that takes > up a huge part of each Gospel. Only then did people start to evince > interest in the person of Jesus, his teaching and them, later, what > could be known or guessed or theorised about his biography.
You got that one right!
> But the fact that something was worked out in this way doesn't have to > mean that the theology is not correct. After all, doesn't most knowledge > begin with examining what one experiences, and then seeking to > understand how and why it should be so?
If I may quote Robert Price again...
'You see, Christianity did not bring into the world an answer to an ancient longing, a long-delayed salve for a festering wound. No, it created the problem to be able to peddle the solution. You only think you have the problem the Christian gospel will solve if you already accept the Christian bill of goods. Karl Barth put it euphemistically by saying that we are so blinded by sin that we do not even know the right question to ask till we hear the answer. But I think Dietrich Bonhoeffer was more to the point when he said Christianity survives by circling like a vulture, trying to make the healthy believe they're sick so they will buy the patent medicine we have to sell. Like asbestos in your basement: the stuff's only toxic once the environmental experts get there to remove it and start stirring up the dust of death.'
If you make Christian assumptions, chances are you will come to Christian conclusions, and of course the theology will appear to you entirely correct. Once you have reached that state, the whole thing validates itself.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:26:52 GMT, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >John R (Ripon43) wrote:
>> It depends on whether you accept substitutionary atonement or not. >> Its a doctrine I lean towards (on a scale of 10 i would say about 8) >> "He that was without sin became sin for us"
>Substitutionary atonement makes no sense at all. If I commit a murder >and you get hanged for it, what kind of justice is that?
>Justice does not require that someone should pay the price of a >transgression, it requires that the transgressor should be punished.
Imagine for one moment there is a God. Now this God, becuase he loves you, wants you to come into his Kingdom. This God is holy and righteous and cannot abide wrongdoing. You think that you're not that bad but know in your heart that you cannot match his standards.
Because he knows that you could never attain to those standards and should be punished for it, he decides to take that punishment on himself instead. The only way for him to do that is to die in your place.
One night he shows you this and offers you the chance to turn away from that old way of life and live a life worthy of him. Because he has already paid that price you are able to do. Because he is a just God, he offers you the choice but doesn't force it on you.
If you choose not to, then there is nothing more he can do for you, except maybe try again every so often.
>Robert M. Price writes:
something I couldn't really get to grips with. He seemed to reject original sin but then say it was beyond our comprehension what Jesus died for, just one of those mysteries.
I reject the theory that because of original sin we are damned before we are born but accept that the desire to sin is ingrained in each and every one of us, and theres nothing we can do about it ourselves. The help comes from above.
<philip.saund...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >There was an annual sacrifice and scape goating for sin, as I am sure you >are aware. Lev 16.
>The priest laid hands on the scape goat and thus transfered the guilt to it >and it was the expelled from the nation. The lamb was sacrificed to atone >for the sin.
>That is a substitution is it not? Unless you think that the sheep were >guilty and sinful? Did they have really wicked sheep back then?
>"The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place;"
I have only ever heard this preached on once. Thanks for reminding me about it.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:03:01 GMT, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >If you make Christian assumptions, chances are you will come to >Christian conclusions, and of course the theology will appear to you >entirely correct. Once you have reached that state, the whole thing >validates itself.
You only make christian assumptions once you become a christian!
But how do you get there in the first place? If you can, read up about Nicky Cruz. God turned that young mans life around in a radical way. For those of us that have had conversion experiences, thats how it all begins.
> If you think the cross was about "Justice" then you are much mistaken.
Why the scare quote around 'justice'?
> The cross is about mercy and forgiveness.
Having the wrong man executed is a strange way of showing mercy and forgiveness!
> The unsaved will get Justice, they won't like it.
Perfect justice would reward the good and punish the bad. This is the case in Judaism and Islam, though God is here too inclined to show forgiveness where He thinks it is deserved.
Those religions that teach karma uphold a system of perfect justice, where it is inevitable that you get punished in a future life for your transgressions, if not in this one.
A religion that teaches perfect mercy and forgiveness on the other hand maintains that all are saved. Once could say that justice is compromised in such a system.
A religion that teaches that some are condemned and others acquitted without regard to what they actually did is compromised in both the justice and mercy departments. I fail to see that any right-minded person could believe in such a system.
> There was an annual sacrifice and scape goating for sin, as I am sure you > are aware. Lev 16.
Yes. Such primitive and superstitious thinking!
> The priest laid hands on the scape goat and thus transfered the guilt to it > and it was the expelled from the nation. The lamb was sacrificed to atone > for the sin.
Modern Jews do something similar with a chicken before Yom Kippur. More enlightened Jews say: 'Jewish chicken-killing ritual "Kapparot" is "illegal, inhumane and unnecessary. It is animal cruelty.' <http://www.upc-online.org/kaparos/92906kaparotpress.html>
> That is a substitution is it not? Unless you think that the sheep were > guilty and sinful? Did they have really wicked sheep back then?
You are quite right, substitutionary atonement is part of traditional Judaism. I'm sure early Christians would have been aware of that.
> "The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place;"
Hilarious, isn't it, to think of Jesus as an old goat!
> Of course if you had read the OT you would already be famailiar with the > ideas of both substitution and atonement. Or you could pretend that they > didn't exist and write this sort of gibbersish above.
Did I ever say that the ideas of substitution and atonement were unknown in the Old Testament? What is true is that Christianity gave the ideas a new twist, and some Christians made them the central plank of their religion.
On 5 Nov, 22:25, Robert Billing <uncle...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> As an author I know that lack of originality can be compensated for by > causing as much offence as possible. To do this safely it is important > only to offend groups that do not fight back.
Why is it particularly offensive to imagine Jesus coming back as a transsexual? Would there be anything to stop Jesus coming back as a black woman?
John R (Ripon43) wrote: > Imagine for one moment there is a God. Now this God, becuase he loves > you, wants you to come into his Kingdom. This God is holy and > righteous and cannot abide wrongdoing. You think that you're not that > bad but know in your heart that you cannot match his standards.
Fine. I do not pretend to be as good as (your hypothetical) God.
> Because he knows that you could never attain to those standards and > should be punished for it,
Not at all. If the best I can do is not good enough for God, then I should not be punished. After all, who made me the way I am? Wouldn't you say it was God?
> he decides to take that punishment on himself instead.
This is where you go seriously wrong. All He needs to do is remit the punishment. It just disappears into thin air. You think God can't do that?
> The only way for him to do that is to die in your
> place.
Sorry, but this is total rubbish, and you can only accept it because you have swallowed the whole Christian package.
> One night he shows you this and offers you the chance to turn away > from that old way of life and live a life worthy of him. Because he > has already paid that price you are able to do.
With an omnipotent God there is no need for anyone to pay the price. He only needs to decide that it should be so.
> Because he is a just > God, he offers you the choice but doesn't force it on you.
I have argued several times in this newsgroup that ultimate free will is an illusion, drawing on Galen Strawson's argument. So far nobody has been able to draw attention to a fault in my (and Strawson's) reasoning.
Let me put it this way: If God is the First Cause, then everything that occurs has its cause in Him, whether He is supposed to like it or not. (That God is the cause of evil is amply attested in the Bible.)
> If you choose not to, then there is nothing more he can do for you, > except maybe try again every so often.
If I choose not to, it is still God's responsibility because He is the cause of my existence and of the way I am. Every choice I make is determined by the way I currently am, and the way I am now is determined by the way I was before and possibly some outside event. Ultimately, God is the cause of both.
>> Robert M. Price writes:
> something I couldn't really get to grips with. He seemed to reject > original sin but then say it was beyond our comprehension what Jesus > died for, just one of those mysteries.
It's a good guess that any historical Jesus died for insurrection against the Roman authorities.
According to Price, Original Sin was invented by Jesus' followers in order to justify His death.
> I reject the theory that because of original sin we are damned before > we are born but accept that the desire to sin is ingrained in each and > every one of us, and theres nothing we can do about it ourselves. The > help comes from above.
I reject the theory that Original Sin is the product of ourselves alone. If there is such a thing, then only God can be the cause of it.
>> | Jesus said to them, "[...] Go to the feast yourselves; >> | I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet >> | fully come." [...] But after his brothers had gone up >> | to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but >> | in private.
> Was that an untruth, or did he just change his mind?. Some versions > have the word yet, but its ambiguous as to whether it should be there > or not.
Yes, it's possible that it should say "not yet going up", or that he changed his mind. But note that there can't be much lapse of time between his saying "no" and his going up, since v2 says the feast was "at hand" when his brothers came calling.
>> Insulting people without just cause: Mark 7:26.
>> | Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth. >> | And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. >> | And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, >> | for it is not right to take the children's bread >> | and throw it to the dogs."
> This may well come across as a weak excuse, so feel free to dismiss > it. I am giving an explanation after reading the Matthew version. .. > I read the story as Jesus having the conversation with a twinkle in > his eye.
Possible, I suppose. The plainest reading seems to be otherwise.
> Compare it with John 4, the samaritan woman at the well. No issues > there with a "foreigner" but notice that the disciples weren't there. > I get the feeling Jesus had to work within the constraints of the > society he was living in.
According to the gospels he was -- how shall I say this? -- not particularly noted for always working within those constraints.
>> | [Jesus said ...] "I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and >> | you do what you have heard from your father." They answered him, >> | "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's >> | children, you would do what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill >> | me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is >> | not what Abraham did. You do what your father did." They said to >> | him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even >> | God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love >> | me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own >> | accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is >> | because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the >> | devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a >> | murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, >> | because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according >> | to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, >> | because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. [...]"
> In verse 31 Jesus tells them "If you hold to my teaching, you are > really my disciples" It seems that they (or some) wanted to argue the > point.
If the people he was addressing thought they were his disciples (maybe I'm misunderstanding you here -- but FWIW I don't find it plausible that they were objecting to being called his disciples) then it's surely not credible that they wanted to kill him, one of the accusations he makes in the course of telling them that they're children of the devil.
(I'm not sure that he's talking to the same people in verse 31 as later in verse 44, though.)
> There then appears a series of objections. I can't see all of them > objecting otherwise these verses wouldn't make sense. The > conversation appears to get more strained after each objection. Jesus > knew their hearts (latter part of verse 43)
Obviously he cannot possibly be convicted of acting on insufficient provocation if he's deemed to have known what was in his hearers' hearts and he claimed to know that they wanted to kill him. But let me suggest that, in the absence of a prior conviction that he was able to read minds (or at least hearts), it would not be at all clear from this conversation that they really had any such wish or intention.
> I was quite surprised at your original comment. It was a mischievous > dig at christianity and I didn't expect it from you. I have every > respect for your non belief but the comment you made gave me the > impression you felt you had to re-inforce it.
I do make mischievous digs on occasion, when they seem relevant; a discussion in which the alleged sinlessness of Jesus is an important point would be an example of where this one is relevant.
(But if by "mischievous" you mean to suggest "insincere", or if by "dig" you mean to suggest "malicious", I plead not guilty.)
> You only make christian assumptions once you become a christian!
That's a circular assertion; no doubt there are several stages involved, some of which probably differ from person to person. I believe that one of the early stages is the consciousness of sin and of the need for salvation. A proper scientific investigation is in all probability not possible.
A lot of us were brought up as Christians, in which case these assumptions can almost be regarded as built in.
> But how do you get there in the first place? If you can, read up > about Nicky Cruz. God turned that young mans life around in a > radical way. For those of us that have had conversion experiences, > thats how it all begins.
Quite a few drug barons in Rio de Janeiro have had Evangelical conversions, but they have not given up their day job. They may howeverl have become less violent; perhaps we should bs thankful for small mercies. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/brazil-drugs-rio-de-janeiro>
>> 'Protesters lit candles, sang hymns and brandished placards saying: >> "Jesus, King of Kings, Not Queen of Heaven" and "God: My Son Is Not A >> Pervert." But the play's writer and sole performer Jo Clifford, who is >> herself transgender and a committed Christian, has been deeply shocked >> by the reaction to the play.'
When we transcribed the alien script we found that John R (Ripon43) had written:
> Because he knows that you could never attain to those standards and > should be punished for it, he decides to take that punishment on himself > instead. The only way for him to do that is to die in your place.
I still don't think "should be punished" is the right model. If you think of God as the fireman who rescues us from a burning building, but is himself killed, I think you are closer to it.
-- I am Robert Billing, Christian, author, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover. "It burned me from within. It quickened; I was with book as a woman is with child." Quality e-books for portable readers: http://www.alex-library.com
When we transcribed the alien script we found that Ian had written:
> On 5 Nov, 22:25, Robert Billing <uncle...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> As an author I know that lack of originality can be compensated for by >> causing as much offence as possible. To do this safely it is important >> only to offend groups that do not fight back.
> Why is it particularly offensive to imagine Jesus coming back as a > transsexual? Would there be anything to stop Jesus coming back as a > black woman?
Nothing at all. Offence is an event in the minds of those offended, not an external reality. Unfortunately it is an event that sells books.
If I could write something "controversial" I could retire in luxury to Tonga.
-- I am Robert Billing, Christian, author, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover. "It burned me from within. It quickened; I was with book as a woman is with child." Quality e-books for portable readers: http://www.alex-library.com
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:31:32 GMT, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >John R (Ripon43) wrote:
>> You only make christian assumptions once you become a christian!
>That's a circular assertion; no doubt there are several stages involved, >some of which probably differ from person to person. I believe that one >of the early stages is the consciousness of sin and of the need for >salvation. A proper scientific investigation is in all probability not >possible.
My comment was slightly tongue in cheek, but it is true. Theres a verse that says that. I can't find it but its something like without Christ our minds are set on worldly things but with Christ our minds are set on spiritual things.
Your comments above are spot on imo.
>A lot of us were brought up as Christians, in which case these >assumptions can almost be regarded as built in.
I was nominal growing up, mainly C of E. At the age of 15 I stopped believing in God after reading in the bible that Adam & Eve had 2 children and one of them married Ruth. No explanation as to how Ruth got there. It wasn't until 1985 that I actually met Jesus for the first time.
>> But how do you get there in the first place? If you can, read up >> about Nicky Cruz. God turned that young mans life around in a >> radical way. For those of us that have had conversion experiences, >> thats how it all begins.
>Quite a few drug barons in Rio de Janeiro have had Evangelical >conversions, but they have not given up their day job. They may howeverl >have become less violent; perhaps we should bs thankful for small mercies. ><http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/brazil-drugs-rio-de-janeiro>
A quote from that report
"The lives we lead – we know they aren't right," he stuttered, pulling up outside a local sweet shop so he could stock-up on candy. "But we're not knocking on anyone's door to sell them anything. Those who want drugs buy them. We don't sell them to children."
And how did he manage to control such a large area? "It's God!" he replied, without hesitation. "We know that God doesn't approve of selling drugs but, like I told you, everybody has their dreams of being happy."
So if they know it aint right in God's eyes, why are they doing it?
This is the problem non christians have (and an understandable one)
They look at someones who claims they are a christian, but not living a transformed life, and judge all christians by that standard.
<ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote: >On 5 Nov, 22:25, Robert Billing <uncle...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> As an author I know that lack of originality can be compensated for by >> causing as much offence as possible. To do this safely it is important >> only to offend groups that do not fight back.
>Why is it particularly offensive to imagine Jesus coming back as a >transsexual? Would there be anything to stop Jesus coming back as a >black woman?
>Ian
Yep, every eye will see *him* coming on the clouds in glory.
>>> | Jesus said to them, "[...] Go to the feast yourselves; >>> | I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet >>> | fully come." [...] But after his brothers had gone up >>> | to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but >>> | in private.
>> Was that an untruth, or did he just change his mind?. Some versions >> have the word yet, but its ambiguous as to whether it should be there >> or not.
>Yes, it's possible that it should say "not yet going up", >or that he changed his mind. But note that there can't be >much lapse of time between his saying "no" and his going up, >since v2 says the feast was "at hand" when his brothers >came calling.
I see it as your wife saying to you, "Gareth, i'm popping to the pub to meet so and so, are you coming" You say no (and mean it) but half an hour later have a change of heart and go.
Was that an untruth on your part?
>>> Insulting people without just cause: Mark 7:26. >> I read the story as Jesus having the conversation with a twinkle in >> his eye.
>Possible, I suppose. The plainest reading seems to be otherwise.
>> Compare it with John 4, the samaritan woman at the well. No issues >> there with a "foreigner" but notice that the disciples weren't there. >> I get the feeling Jesus had to work within the constraints of the >> society he was living in.
>According to the gospels he was -- how shall I say this? -- not >particularly noted for always working within those constraints.
Yes, and I thought of that. But from what we know of Jesus he was not in the habit of deliberately insulting the (wo)man on the street. This is the only recorded case we have. Everything else about him speaks of his compassion for them.
>>> And John 8:44: >> In verse 31 Jesus tells them "If you hold to my teaching, you are >> really my disciples" It seems that they (or some) wanted to argue the >> point.
>If the people he was addressing thought they were his disciples >(maybe I'm misunderstanding you here -- but FWIW I don't find it >plausible that they were objecting to being called his disciples) >then it's surely not credible that they wanted to kill him, one >of the accusations he makes in the course of telling them that >they're children of the devil.
>(I'm not sure that he's talking to the same people in verse 31 >as later in verse 44, though.)
I agree.. I think in a round about way thats what i was saying.
>> There then appears a series of objections. I can't see all of them >> objecting otherwise these verses wouldn't make sense. The >> conversation appears to get more strained after each objection. Jesus >> knew their hearts (latter part of verse 43)
>Obviously he cannot possibly be convicted of acting on insufficient >provocation if he's deemed to have known what was in his hearers' >hearts and he claimed to know that they wanted to kill him. But >let me suggest that, in the absence of a prior conviction that he >was able to read minds (or at least hearts), it would not be at all >clear from this conversation that they really had any such wish >or intention.
True. Its my opinion he had foreknowledge of his death and who it was (the Jews) who wanted him killed.
>> I was quite surprised at your original comment. It was a mischievous >> dig at christianity and I didn't expect it from you. I have every >> respect for your non belief but the comment you made gave me the >> impression you felt you had to re-inforce it.
>I do make mischievous digs on occasion, when they seem relevant; >a discussion in which the alleged sinlessness of Jesus is an >important point would be an example of where this one is relevant.
>(But if by "mischievous" you mean to suggest "insincere", or if >by "dig" you mean to suggest "malicious", I plead not guilty.)
Fair enough, I accept that. The way it was written, as a throwaway remark, gave me that impression.
John R (Ripon43) wrote: > At the age of 15 I stopped > believing in God after reading in the bible that Adam & Eve had 2 > children and one of them married Ruth. No explanation as to how Ruth > got there.
Where did you read that? I thought Adam and Eve had many children, including Seth, and Boaz married Ruth.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:50:01 GMT, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >John R (Ripon43) wrote: >> At the age of 15 I stopped >> believing in God after reading in the bible that Adam & Eve had 2 >> children and one of them married Ruth. No explanation as to how Ruth >> got there.
>Where did you read that? I thought Adam and Eve had many children, >including Seth, and Boaz married Ruth.
Ooops, sorry. For many years it was always Ruth that I had in mind. (not the one the book is named after)
To my shame I read the early chapters again a few weeks ago.
Yes I was a bit ambiguous above. I know he had many children but at that point in time there was only mention of Cain and Abel, then Cain lay with his wife.
Reading that as a 15 year old made a lasting impression :-)
> Yes I was a bit ambiguous above. I know he had many children but at > that point in time there was only mention of Cain and Abel, then Cain > lay with his wife.
Oh right, the consensus seems to be that Cain married one of his sisters.
|
