Posted on 10/10/2001 10:57:30 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 | Thread 155 | Thread 156 | Thread 157 |
| Thread 158 | Thread 159 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 160
I wasn't talking about invoking his divinity, my point was about the fact the he was God on the Cross. It sounds like you are saying all God was doing was trying to prove that we can save ourselves.
That was the point of Jesus' sacrifice - a ransom once and for all, and taking men out of the loop.
This is contrary to your other statement above.
He denounced tradition and rules of men.
Like the authority of the Chair of Moses?
He denounced those who looked for outward signs.
Like the Magi? Or Thomas?
Do the miracles of Christ Birth, Death, and Resurrection have anything to do with His teaching and our salvation?
If you are asking what I think you are asking, of course Jesus birth death and resurecction had to do with his teachings, and our salvation. That was the whole point of his birth death and resurection.
Becky
If you are asking what I think you are asking, of course Jesus birth death and resurecction had to do with his teachings, and our salvation. That was the whole point of his birth death and resurection.
Becky
You are confusing the two and saying something I didn't even come close to saying or even hinting at. Jesus denied his divinity and made his decisions as a man in order to prove that men can make the decisions to do the right thing - which is to follow and cling to the will of God in all things. Jesus proved it could be done. If he hadn't, we'd have no sacrifice for sin. Period.
My prior quote:
That was the point of Jesus' sacrifice - a ransom once and for all, and taking men out of the loop.
This is contrary to your other statement above.
It isn't contrary, it follows from the prior statement. If Jesus as a man had not kept clean of sin, there would be no perfect sacrifice. If he had used divinity to accomplish it, he would have admitted that men could not do what he commands of them, obey his will. That too would void the cross.
Like the authority of the Chair of Moses?
The laws of God were long written and in effect by the time of the arrival of Jesus. Men were adding their own ideas to that which Moses gave from God. And that is what Jesus criticized. Who were they to add to God's law - as if to make themselves God. Nobody. Exactly right. And Jesus called them on it.
Like the Magi? Or Thomas?
What did Jesus say to Thomas? Read it. Thomas didn't believe the resurrected Jesus till he touched Him. Jesus said touch and be not faithless - blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. In other words (smack! "Here's your sign"). We have the coined phrase "doubting Thomas" from the incident because he was too faithless and dense. And the Magi were not seeking a sign, they saw one and responded. Ehem. Read it and call me a liar. They were going about their business, were knowledgeable enough in the word of God that when they saw the sign, they knew what it meant. They proceeded on. They didn't seek a sign, they ran across it and were spiritually awake enough to discern it for what it was. TWO VASTLY DIFFERENT THINGS.
We are to accept the Lord on faith; but, we are not to trust men they must prove themselves in their words and in their walk continually. We are not to be seekers of signs; but, doers of the Word and will of God - hearers and obeyers.
All early Christians were Baptists - they just called themselves Believers or Christians. Your "Catholic Church", with its error of infant baptism, came along hundreds of years later. That is TRUTH!
I'll see your miracles and up the anty. Are we saved by these alone or in fulfillment of faith in the instances? You wish to argue that I'm saying miracles don't play a role. That's not what I said. Miracles don't prove anything. When one has faith in Jesus, a miracle is fullfilled in that faith. That doesn't mean that everyone who wants a miracle gets one. Nor does it mean that all faith is fullfilled in the time and manner we wish it to be.
If one can't understand things of the spirit, one sure as heck aren't going to understand a sign given of the spirit. And that is What Jesus derided the Pharisees and Saducees about in Matthew 16. They were too full of their own rules, and self righteous philosophy that they were clueless regarding things of the spirit. That is the reason Jesus spoke to them in riddles. The spirit could walk up and slap them senseless - yet they were too dense to know where it was coming from or what it meant. They were blinded of the devil and it angered them to hear the truth from him. They were enraged that he could speak such things and they were powerless to shut him up. I'm sure they called him every name in the book. But he stuck to his Guns because he was in God's will. And as God expected, they ultimately did Murder him for it. People who speak the truth long and loud tick off those with agendas to protect and usually end up being attacked till they are - in one way or another - destroyed or killed. He told the truth and stuck by God. So too do I. As for me and my house, we will hear and obey the Lord!
You remind me of those pharisees and saducees that approached Jesus with questions trying to trip him up. I suggest my brothers and sisters don't respond to crap like this. This is pure gobblygook.
Chapter and verse please.
No ambilical cord, no belley button. I think I read that somewhere in Jerome.
If Jesus was taking men out of the loop, then what was he trying to prove? That they can save themselves? how would that be taking them out of the loop?
In other words (smack! "Here's your sign"). We have the coined phrase "doubting Thomas" from the incident because he was too faithless and dense.
Havoc, what was it he would not believe? A miracle?
And the Magi were not seeking a sign, they saw one and responded.... They didn't seek a sign, they ran across it and were spiritually awake enough to discern it for what it was.
So was it still a sign or not?
I hope I misunderstood your point about "two gods."
In the event I did not, consider the following statements attributed to Jesus:
"I and my Father are one." (Jn 10:30)
"...He that hath seen me hath seen the Father..."(Jn 14:9)
"...I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." (Jn 14:20)
Jesus took priests out of the loop. He himself became the priest offering himself to God as the perfect and last sacrifice. That was taking man out of the loop between us and God. There is no longer a middleman, God put himself in that gap. Priests were too busy screwing it up - as were the fleshly kings of Israel. God gave 'em both the boot and filled both positions himself.
And are you thinking about this.. I may not have fully clarified my statement earlier; but, using your logic, if one takes man out of the loop, how then can a question like, "That they can save themselves?" come into play? If they aren't in the loop, they couldn't possibly save themselves as they would be entirely hands off. That wasn't my argument and is not my argument. Are you reading the stuff or just being reactionary?
Havoc, what was it he would not believe? A miracle?
A miracle - no. It wasn't about a miracle, it was about whether Jesus was indeed risen. You have to seperate the two. Wrecking a car can be an accident but not every wreck is an accident nor every accident a wreck. The two can be the same and yet viewed seperately. This was about Jesus being the Messiah and fullfilling prophecy. Thomas was doubting a risen Messiah unless he could physically touch him. You're really fixated on miracles aren't you.
So was it still a sign or not?
So, yes it seems it is true, you are seeking appearance over substance. Never mind the facts. How can you make it look if you work hard enough at it and stretch and strain it for all its worth. Scripture either supports you or it doesn't. And here again it doesn't. Nothing personal; but, if you have to torture, stretch and break it to make it work, it isn't scripture, it's rigging. The duct tape betrays it.
Just out of curiosity, you haven't created any stark revelations in your examination of the witness, is there a point somewhere in our future?
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you know that the Christian scriptures are inspired by God because the very scriptures themselves assert divine inspiration?
I'm with you in part, but I have a question. If signs are not proof, then why would Jesus have performed any signs at all? If it were in fulfillment of faith, rather than to show authority or inspire faith, then it were unnecessary. Only people who have no need for a sign can get a sign?
Believe it because I say it is never a legit argument.
Let me ask you the same question I asked Becky: how do you know that the Christian scriptures are divinely inspired?
Do you believe that the rest of us are born with a sinful nature? If so, is your understanding of this similar or different from the Catholic doctrine of original sin?
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.