Posted on 09/06/2001 2:23:00 PM PDT by malakhi
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 138
ROFLOL!!!
The sex thing can be seen not in that they suddenly had sex, but that they had control over their instincts, they could use them as the vitally necessary urge they are as part of the gift of life, or they could abuse them. Control to use, deny or misuse instincts.
Adam and Eve, mankind then knew the god-like power over animal, physical, instincts. With it came both power and responsibility - and the possibility for both moral and immoral acts.
Animals are not capable of shame, they do not realize they are naked.
"The Greeks are going mad!"
angelo | "convert" to Judaism |
allend | convert to Catholicism |
steven | convert to nondenominational Christianity |
XeniaSt | convert to nondenominational Christianity |
The_Reader_David | convert to Orthodox Christianity |
Becky | convert to nondenominational Christianity |
JHavard | convert to nondenominational Christianity |
AlguyA | convert to Catholicism |
D-fendr | convert to Catholicism |
RnMomof7 | convert to Protestantism |
tiki | convert to Catholicism |
5 of the top 7 posters on dignan3's list from Thread 101 are converts to their present faith. Possible reasons?
A. Converts tend to be more informed about their beliefs than are those born into the faith.
B. The "zeal" of the convert.
C. Converts feel a need to justify their conversion.
D. All of the above.
Would that it were so. Unfortunately, the Jews were portrayed in a rather negative light by Matthew and expecially by John. While we know historically this was related to the animosity that arose between the Jewish and the Jewish Christian communities circa 90 C.E., it had the unfortunate effect of providing ammunition for later bigots to act on their prejudices.
NOTE: I did not say that Christians follow a Jewish God (implying some sort of tribal possession). I said that Christians believe that God is a Jew. Jesus, the man whom Christians believe is God incarnate, was/is a Jew.
Thanks bass! So, no conflict then between the two accounts. Another "mystery" solved!
I would say (using Christian theological categories) first that God's eternal being is part of His nature. Adam was created immortal, but his immortality was not part of his "intrinsic" being. Rather, like all of us, his very existence was contingent upon God. By sinning, he separated himself from his very source of being.
Has anyone ever wondered at the seemingly arbitrariness of the whole sacrificial system regarding expiation for sins? Now, it seems logical to me that once a sin is committed some sort of 'makeup' needs to be made. But what I have trouble with sometimes is thinking of the following facts that seem incongruous:
A man sins. And that sin offends God -- despite the fact that it was not against God personally. God is love. And yet, that same God of love requires that an animal, a creature completely lacking sentience, needs to be slaughtered, put through unimaginable pain and anguish and have its life snuffed out, in order to make up for the sin. Does this strike anyone else as kinda arbitrary? I mean, why pain and bloodshed to make up for a sin? Granted, its' an animal - but it still feels pain. And what did it do to deserve that kind of treatment? Furthermore, with Christianity, we have God reincarnating as His only Son, and having to die on a Cross to become the perfect sacrifice for all of our sins. Doesn't that seem kind of arbitrary as well? I mean, this is the God of the Universe - the definer of reality. Why does He have to become Man in order to die a bloody, horrible death on a cross. And how does that make up for sin, exactly? I mean, cause and effect, it just doesn't seem to add up in my head. If I take a book off a shelf, the way to replace it is to put it back on the shelf. If I take a book, and then to replace it I decide to inflate a balloon and sing the Happy Days theme song -- this remedy would obviously be a totally incongruous action. And for some reason, I just get the same feeling when I think about sacrifice atoning for sin - whether it be animals in the Old testament, or Christ in the New Testament.
----
Anyway, I'd be really curious to hear people's take on this... :-)
I disagree with this. I think sin is against God personally. As I said a couple of threads back, sin is, at its very essence, the claim that humanity knows better than God what to do with itself. A holy God takes that personally.
And yet, that same God of love requires that an animal, a creature completely lacking sentience, needs to be slaughtered, put through unimaginable pain and anguish and have its life snuffed out, in order to make up for the sin.
The wages of sin is death. The ultimate result of sin (both spiritually and materially) is death. The death of the animal is in place of the death of the offerer of the sacrifice. Still thinkin on the rest...
No converting going on over here. Makes me wonder what I'm doing here (my wife has been wondering for quite some time).
I don't know much about Zahn or Lightfoot, but I would think Harnack's and Funk's methodologies would force them to the shorter version no matter what the case. One of the top rules of the Bib-Crits is the shorter the text, the more likely its original. Not the most objective standard, but at least they seem to be consistent.
Harnack is famous, among other things, rejecting major doctrines of Christianity such as the Virgin birth, the deity and pre-existence of Jesus, the Resurrection of the body, the possibility of miracles, the existence of demons, exorcism and Jesus as the promised Messiah. But, other than that, he's a good Proddie.
Funk is the founder of the Jesus Seminar. Next.
Lightfoot has good credentials (as far as I can see) and is quite the language expert.
Zahn - not Paula, I suppose. Not finding much in the way of Zahnian Biblical scholarship.
----
I WRITE: Well, yes, I agree with this. But I don't think that it's self-evident. I mean, if I punch Joe Smith, I don't punch God. I don't harm God. I don't cause injury to God. Well, I guess indirectly I do -- because God cares for Joe Smith, and is displeased with seeing Joe Smith sustain pain. So to make up for this sin, it would be necessary for me to apologize to Joe Smith, offer him a bag of ice and do whatever I can to help heal the injury. And also I ought make amends with whomever was indirectly harmed by my punching Joe Smith, including God. But does it make sense that I should have to sacrifice an animal to accomplish this? Do the 2 even seem remotely linked? And furthermore, does it necessitate God becoming Man and dying on a cross to make up for that sin? Exactly why *A* I incapable of making up for that sin? And when you say "A holy God takes that personally" - that seems kind of glib and doesn't really satisfy my questioning. "Takes it personally" - so what? Why? That sounds so cliche and so inappropriate a description to ascribe to the Creator of the Universe -- I mean, it's an old stand-by movie quote for any jaded cop who's fighting crime all by himself "That's it - he killed my dog. I'm taking THIS case personally."
----
YOU WROTE: The wages of sin is death. The ultimate result of sin (both spiritually and materially) is death. The death of the animal is in place of the death of the offerer of the sacrifice.
----
I WRITE: You're not telling me anything I don't already know. My question is WHY. Why is the wages of sin death? Does that make sense to you? I call you a 'fool' and that deserves death? Wouldn't an apology do? Or do you think you should kill me in retribution?
Let me say that I understand the rationale behind the entiree sacrifical system. I understand how it all prefigures Christ's perfect sacrifice that atoned for all sin. What I don't understand is the necessary connection and the necessity of death to atone for sin. It just strikes me as so arbitrary.
----
Try Theodor Zahn - he's a big name in Evangelical biblical scholarship. Surprised you never heard of him.
I've thought on the same issue often and I believe it relates to the salvation by faith/works issue.
I also believe that in order to answer questions like yours we need to lean heavily on what we know of God's nature...it would be difficult to answer by just quoting scripture.
I don't have time right now to go into this but would love the opportunity to discuss it in a few hours time.
Grace and peace to you all.God bless
CGTGOC: Convert BACK to Catholism.
I think that could be said about all converts to Catholism.
And Converts to Protestantism are Conversions AWAY from Catholism.
'Cause if you are of European descent, chances are your forefathers were Catholic.
I guess that might NOT be true if you are of Oriental descent, or southern African, but for the majority of people, at least in America, to convert to Catholism is to convert BACK to the faith of our Forefathers.
Otherwise, I would answer your question: ALL OF THE ABOVE.
Encyclopedia Britannica
ALERT TO ALL PRODDIES: You gotta straighten your fellow Protestant historians that work for that Encyclopedia Britannica (which is considered the most authoritative in the world) out!!
Im not sure why you are referring to that letter. The letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaens is the one that speaks of the Catholic Church.
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."(2)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.