Posted on 03/13/2005 7:16:00 PM PST by churchillbuff
It is either god is still around or not? The idea of asking somebody to kill his son is so stupid, and void of ANY LOVE! It reflects on a needy god that is so jealous of a guy who loves his son, and wants a proof that this dude MUST love him more.
If god is so powerful, he does not need our love that bad. The scripture tells us that there are all kinds of "angels" sitting around and doing nothing but chanting YOU ARE WORTHY! I have not seen any dictator who is more egotistical than this OT's god.
Gotta read it in Hebrew anyway, but this refers to the "sign", not the identity of the Messiah.
Was Abram obedient to God? Was he a pious man?
Sure was ~ took his kid right out to sacrifice him, much as any god-fearing, obedient man of his day would, and did!
There's an echo of this in Homer's work (which dates from a more recent period, of course).
What Abram did was to allow the Angel of God to stay his hand.
The story is quite interesting ~ you have God, Himself, ordering Abram to sacrifice his son. On the other hand, you have one of God's agents, an Angel, staying his hand. So who does Abram obey ~ is it God, or is it the Angel?
Fortunately for Abram, and his son (whoever he was), Abram stopped and God awarded him a new name of Abraham.
Now I recognize that's a slightly skewed reading of the story, but archaeological research allows us to put Abram into his own context so that we no longer need to judge him in terms of our own context where we slaughter over a million babies a year for no reason whatsoever.
At least Abram and the men of his time thought they were bowing to the demands of a worthwhile god.
Who are the barbaric people?
I don't think so.
So I think your questions are healthy and valuable. And, IMHO, indicate that the Hound of Heaven is close by your tail.
Is God testing you? I have my own answer based on my experience; it would be interesting to discuss what yours is as well.
And I agree with you that it is possible to view the OT exactly as you have described it. I had the same adamant response and criticism with religious folks as you, I know what you are seeing.
So perhaps it's possible we are on the same trajectory. In that hope, I'll just tell you a bit about my experience through this. It may not mean anything to you, but I don't know how else to respond.
I have not seen any dictator who is more egotistical than this OT's god.
An important change for me was realizing that God is not (necessarily) what anyone tells me God is. It was useful to throw out what views others had of God that I was railing about, and to realize that if God exists, He exists. God is what God is - no matter what anyone else says about God. We can know God personally, without any words, sometimes best going beyond what words and concepts are limited to. We can, with grace, know God personally, experience God's presence personally. For me, this was as as big a difference as that between reading a menu in a foriegn language and eating the meal. I know what the food is, without any words.
Second, and more closely related to your OT discussion. I think you may be missing two possible components. First, its historical context. Genesis occurs in the context of, if you can believe it, even worse concepts of "gods."
Mel Brooks says that "religion" was born when man first said, "We don't know who you are or what you are, but quit hitting us with that lightning!"
In the time and place of the early OT, gods were capricious and unreasoning. They willy-nilly destroyed and created, man was just a gnat in the way. Man's only hope was to distract or bribe the gods - taking things of value and burning them to send the smoke and ashes upward to where they thought the gods lived.
This was man trying to make some sense and meaning, have some control and purpose in this existence he found himself conscious of. And, at first, it seemed that the forces in control were all powerful and didn't need him at all.
If god is so powerful, he does not need our love…"
Exactly.
Contrast this with Jesus's very important message: "God is love; God loves you." If we look at this context, we can see why it was so dramatic at the time while it seems so obvious to us today.
In between this beginning and ending view of God we have views of God's nature ranging from capricious/uncaring/jealous to involved in man's history, making covenants or agreements, giving guidelines and laws, punishing and rewarding, caring for our happiness, valuing goodness, beauty, truth, loyalty, love…
It seems there are three different ways to interpret this:
1) God changed. I think most would rule this out at least as it applies to God's fundamental being and nature.
2) God treated man differently in history, interacted with man differently. I think there is some truth to this, when looked at as parenting a child differently depending on the child's nature, age and level of understanding.
3) Man understanding and knowledge of God changed and increased in the great span of time between Adam and Jesus. This, for me, makes reading the scriptures more valuable and informative. And the growth of man's understanding over a long time also parallels each individual's understanding as well.
I don't know you well, and have little idea of your spiritual life. So, I may well have said things that totally miss the mark for you. If so, I hope you'll understand.
thanks for your reply.
The woman had a role? I do believe that Christ was capable of doing that on his own.
Please forgive me, what's up, but I don't see anywhere in Romans Chapter 3 where Christ is called sinless.
Do you really need my forgiveness? LOL.
but I think the fact that Jesus is implied to be excluded in Romans 3 also implies a POSSIBILITY of another.
Not another human UNDER THE LAW, I'm afraid. 3:19
And using other parts of Scripture, we can infer that Yes, Jesus is sinless. However, it also is feasible that Mary is, as well.
Good. I'm glad you admit that Jesus's sinlessness...righteousness...whatever you want to call perfection...is mentioned somewhere other than Romans 3! However....feasible...that's the word you use? Hmmm...strange word to use for such a major dogma in the Catholic church.
Jewish thought was that the MAN carried and passed the seed to form the next generation.
Where do you get this anyway? I've heard from other sources that it was the woman's line that was considered the most credible among Jews. Anyway, the kingdom of Israel had not yet come into being, and God obviously here was telling Eve that HER seed (Mary is not mentioned) would produce the Savior which would destroy the devil.
There is not a text in close proximity to explain the ALL how you explain it.
I think that you and I both know that the faith in Jesus mentined throughout which brings righteousness is because Jesus is righteous don't we? That does explain the ALL. The constant reference to righteousness by faith in Christ which permeates the chapter sort of excludes Jesus from the ALL wouldn't you say? We can quibble about the word "sinless" but that's childish and is splitting hairs...the meaning is there, is it not?
I like your response. Thanks.
I loved your articulation. Thank you very much for trying to explain some of the mysteries.
Your attitude is precisely WHY I didn't want to discuss anything with you. It is a total waste of time. Pearls to swine.
"The woman had a role? I do believe that Christ was capable of doing that on his own."
Who said he wasn't? But without Mary, there would have been no Jesus. No Mary; no Jesus. Is that hard to understand?
I suppose you could say that King David had a role too then...or Sampson...or even evil Nebuchadnezzar because without his chastening Israel wouldn't have survived. But it is only Jesus who saves because he alone is the rightous one.
First, thanks for the civil discussions. Other people on this board are having a difficult time with that...
"Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to consider Mary as this WOMAN who would have some role in her Son's defeat of the serpent.
The woman had a role? I do believe that Christ was capable of doing that on his own."
Of course. But God chose to undo what was done by Adam and Eve. In both cases, there is a head of humanity (Jesus and Adam) whose work alone is sufficient and necessary, joined by an inferior SHARER, (Eve and Mary) whose work alone is not sufficient by itself - yet - whose participation was willed by God, not just as a bystander.
This is the line of thought of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (I'll spare the quotes!)
From this line of thought begins Mary's sinlessness (since the other three were born sinless, God would make the 4th sinless as well, if He was to undo what was done). Such was God's will, to untie the knot in the opposite manner it was tied (Tertullian, not mine!), thus the "need" for Mary to correspond to the other three in this matter. Again, strictly speaking, Mary was not needed.
To give an analogy that I have found helpful when I teach this stuff, imagine a mother and daughter, 3 years old, making cookies. The mother doesn't need the girl at all to help do the job. And honestly, the kid can't do it herself. Yet, she allows the girl to "help" mix the batter, put the cookies on the tray, etc. So in a real sense, the child DID help make the cookies (though she wasn't needed). The motive? The parent's love for the child. And so with God and humanity. We, too, are co-redeemers, in a sense. We help bring others to Christ, for example. (This is in James, btw, about covering a multitude of sins). Paul says we suffer for the sake of the Body, the Church, in Col 1:24. Our help isn't needed, but God chooses to use our useless selves as instruments - just like He used Moses, Joshua, etc....
Thanks again for your time,
Regards
"Hmmmm. Will you be taking off your clothes and streaking past the Cathedral this evening, or on a different day? (ROTFLMAO ~ I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to actually defend antimonianism before)."
So quoting Scripture leads to this from you?
Regards...
Jesus geneaology back to David is included because......?
BTW, the same term is spelled several different ways, so if you had difficulty finding them, just try again.
"I suppose you could say that King David had a role too then...or Sampson...or even evil Nebuchadnezzar because without his chastening Israel wouldn't have survived."
But those three were not mentioned in God's eternal decree in Gen. 3:15.
" But it is only Jesus who saves because he alone is the rightous one."
Straw man. No one ever said anyone other than Jesus is the Savior. Any participation by anyone else in his saving work depends entirely on their membership in his Body.
Jesus geneology is traced all the way back to the beginning, not just to David.
But those three were not mentioned in God's eternal decree in Gen. 3:15.
Neither was Mary.
No one ever said anyone other than Jesus is the Savior.
You didn't complete my thought...He is Savior because he is the ONLY righteous one among men.
If you want to know if the Messiah is at hand look to the slaughter of the innocents and the pregnant virgins ~ we have them by the millions these days.
The Messiah is near at hand.
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.