Originally posted by vistesdI don't think Christ could have told the people that stoning the woman was wrong. After all, Mosaic law stated that they had a right to do so. Chirst said that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law which for me is the perfect law of love. I think the Mosaic law, although harsh, was made in the spirit of love. Adultry is akine to a death or killing someone you love via rejection only you are then financially devestated as well in some form or fashion. To help protect those that would be devestated such harsh laws were set in place to help detour such behavior. I think the law was especially important to women of the day who were completely dependent on the man for financial survival. Had anyone stuck around after he told the people to cast the first stone if you are without sin, I think he would have said something to the effect that there was now a better way to handle such sinfulness and devestation and he is the answer. Notice that Christ did not just show her mercy and send her on her merry way. He forwarned her to "Go and sin NO more". Had she continued I don't think she would have faired as well the second time. For me stoning people for certain destructive sins within a society is an attempt to destroy such evil within the society for the greater benefit of society. Through the power of Christ the same goal can be accomplished, only the person can be spared in the process.
I agree.
He refuses condemn the woman. He implicitly condemns those who would stone her—and I think that there was nothing particular about that specific group of would-be executioners that made them worse than any others.
In these stories, Jesus has a nasty habit of up-leveling, or enlarging, the situation. His replies take on an almost “koanic” cha ...[text shortened]... ual evidence that this tale is a later addition to the original text. A good story nonetheless.
As far as the saying about rendering Ceaser what is due Ceaser, Christ said this in light of him knowing they were setting a trap for him. Had he simply stated to pay Ceaser the people probably would have retorted something to the effect that Ceaser was their oppressor and adversary. How then must we serve Ceaser? If he had said not to pay the taxes the poeple probably would have informed the Roman authorities and had him rounded up and arrested for encouraging people not to pay their taxes. The question was akin to asking you to answer yes or no, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If one were to answer yes or no then one would be condemned no matter the answer.
Originally posted by jaywillIs there not still a difference between believers and Jesus. We will be called sons of God, yes. But, we will never be god(s). Jesus is God. Therefore, there is and always will be a profound difference between Him and us. Our relationship with God will never be like the relationship shared among the members of the Godhead. However, as your Biblical quoting has pointed out, His intention would be that believers are one with each other like the members of the Godhead are one with each other, e.g. 3 yet one.
I agree with you concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
[b]"... for You loved Me before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24)
Yes the the Son says that the Father loved Him before the foundation of the world, before the creation, in other words.
However, having recognized that I must conclude that there was a longing in G ...[text shortened]... , was already planned and desired for the many sons to likewise share.[/b]
So, again, I must strongly disagree with the notion that God needed to have a relationship with us. For God to be defficient thus, would negate His Godhead. What kind of God would we serve if He in some way needed us (or anything for that matter) to be complete or to be happy?
Originally posted by jaywillI think you miss the point of the argument. It was never permissible to kill a woman for sleeping with somebody else. That is morally wrong now and it always was. There is no justice in killing a woman for this. So, to the extent that your moral view entails that it is just to execute the adulterss, then you are monstrous. To the exten that Jesus thought the same, he was monstrous.
I think you miss the point of the New Testament. The justice due the adulterous woman was carried out indeed. In the scope of the whole mission and teaching of Jesus , it was carried out on Calvary upon the cross of Jesus.
God has not overlooked man's sins. He has judged them on the cross of Christ. He has not in a sloppy way simply decided to look the ...[text shortened]... or the plan of eternal salvation, let alone him displaying the power to carry it out.
Originally posted by jaywillGod has not overlooked man's sins. He has judged them on the cross of Christ. He has not in a sloppy way simply decided to look the other way. Justice has been imputed for man's iniquity upon the cross of Christ in His redemptive death.
I think you miss the point of the New Testament. The justice due the adulterous woman was carried out indeed. In the scope of the whole mission and teaching of Jesus , it was carried out on Calvary upon the cross of Jesus.
God has not overlooked man's sins. He has judged them on the cross of Christ. He has not in a sloppy way simply decided to look the ...[text shortened]... or the plan of eternal salvation, let alone him displaying the power to carry it out.
And was the judgment (krisis: decision) on the cross not “Father, forgive them because they don’t know what they do”?
Originally posted by whodeyBut did not Jesus himself violate the letter of the law? And—
I don't think Christ could have told the people that stoning the woman was wrong. After all, Mosaic law stated that they had a right to do so. Chirst said that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law which for me is the perfect law of love. I think the Mosaic law, although harsh, was made in the spirit of love. Adultry is akine to a deat ...[text shortened]... wife?" If one were to answer yes or no then one would be condemned no matter the answer.
>> NRS Ephesians 2:15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,
We also know that the dietary regulations, which were also part of the law, were later abrogated, as was the law of circumcision. Would Jesus have agreed with these changes?
>> NRS Hebrews 7:12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.
Is Jesus not referred to in the letter to the Hebrews as the new high priest?
Perhaps what Jesus had in mind was more along the lines of the following—
>> NRS Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Big Mac,
You reply -
Is there not still a difference between believers and Jesus.[?]
Salvation’s ultimate goal is that the regenerated believer would be ”like Him” – ”Beloved, now are we children of God, and it has not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that if He is manifested, we shall be like Him, because we will see Him even as He is” (1 John 1:2)
The is a divine life implanted within the believers working to transform the believers to be like Him. Therefore consider again the prayer of Christ –” … I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one …” (John 17:22) The act of being ”perfected” is the working of the divine life received from the born again experience.
The New Testament tells us that those regenerated are therefore ”partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) The believers are not only onlookers of the divine nature. Nor are they merely worshippers of the divine nature. They are participators, they are partakers of the divine nature. This divine nature transforms the regenerated to be like Him. The believers have been called to His own glory and virtue - ” of Him who has called us to His own glory and virtue” (2 Pet.1:3)
We will be called sons of God, yes. But, we will never be god(s). Jesus is God.
The believers who receive His divine nature and partake of His resurrection life become God in life and nature but not in His Godhead. The very terns ”Wife” and ”Bride” imply that which can match God as a counterpart. What did you think was the purpose of being ”born again”? Life grows. Life matures. Life develops. In the maturity of those ”born of God” they become men and women mingled and united with God.
Not only are they ”born of God” they also are said to have God’s seed within them. In the divine seed is the divine life. And both the seed and the life have no sin:
”Everyone who has been begotten of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God.” (1 John 3:9)
Don’t take this as a teaching on sinless perfection in a wrong sense. The sentence means that the divine seed contains God’s life and nature and that with it growth and maturity the former sinner will eventually be like Christ – a man indwelt by God and expressing God in humanity.
The birth, the seed, the nature all point to the eventual deification of the believer in Christ.
Therefore, there is and always will be a profound difference between Him and us. Our relationship with God will never be like the relationship shared among the members of the Godhead.
The destiny of all the saved is to be corporately deified to become the mingling of God and humanity. ”…that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers” (Romans 8:29) means more than positional sonship. It means “organic” sonship – a matter of life and nature. The Son is organically leading many sons into the glorious expression of the Divine Life and Being: ”For it was fitting for Him, for Whom are all things and through Whom are all things, in leading many sons into glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings …” (Hebrews 2:10)
Christ, in this passage, is organically leading the many born again sons of God into the glorious expression of the divine life. We should not consider this glory as simply an objective and outward shining. It is the glory of the manifestation of the inward divine life from the divine seed, with its sinless and divine nature, from within the saved. From within them this Captain is leading them into this divine expression of life as Joshua led the Isrealites into the good land. That is the analogy in the book of Hebrews.
So, again, I must strongly disagree with the notion that God needed to have a relationship with us. For God to be defficient thus, would negate His Godhead. What kind of God would we serve if He in some way needed us (or anything for that matter) to be complete or to be happy?
You may or may not want to hold to an idea of God needing the saved. However, it is clear from the Bible that the saved are not merely worshippers of the divine nature but ”partakers of the divine nature”. The saved are not merely spectators of the Divine Being. They are sons who inherit the life and nature of the Divine Father to be ”many brothers” of the Son of God.
It may be a philosophical quibble as to whether or not God needs such a relationship. There is no argument that He wants such a relationship. And He obtains it and cannot be stopped from doing so.
You may not want to take the biblical analogy of the marriage very far. But most men were lonely before they were married. And they were completed in some way when they found a wife. The paradox of the perfect God who seeks nevertheless to be completed in marriage is entirely biblical.
Somehow the revelation of the Bible does not convey to me that God having a good pleasure and longing for His Bride and Wife for eternity takes away from His perfection. To me it is simply one of the mysterious paradoxes of the universe that the Triune God wants and obtains for Himself a glorious Bride to match Him in life and in nature as a collective entity called New Jerusalem at the Bible’s climax.
Originally posted by vistesdSome theologians feel that the very redemptive act that Christ accomplished was the Father's answer to the Son's prayer that He forgive them for they did not know what they were doing.
[b]God has not overlooked man's sins. He has judged them on the cross of Christ. He has not in a sloppy way simply decided to look the other way. Justice has been imputed for man's iniquity upon the cross of Christ in His redemptive death.
And was the judgment (krisis: decision) on the cross not “Father, forgive them because they don’t know what they do”?[/b]
In other words, for God to forgive without redemption would not be righteous of the Father. God is just and sin cannot be freely forgiven. Some believe that in order for the Father to forgive according to the Son's request He had to make the Son's death the substitutionary protitiation. Now He can forgive righteously those who believe based on Christ propitiatory and substitionary death.
From our perspective it appears as "free" forgiveness. But actually from God's perspective there is no such thing as "free" forgiveness. The Father hears and answers the Son's prayer for forgiveness yet still maintains His righteous standard, His just procedure, and His glory. He forgives the believers who believes in the act that Christ accomplished.
My point here is that some hold this view - the redemptive death for man's sins was the answer of the Father to the Son's prayer that He forgive the world.
Originally posted by bbarrI think the point of the argument is warped at best. The conclusion that the argument leads me is that the real heroes of the story was the mob that cried out for the Son of God's crucifixion. After all since you accuse Christ of being a monster you apparently feel the normal response should be for the reader to throw in his lot with the mob that cries out for His death.
I think you miss the point of the argument. It was never permissible to kill a woman for sleeping with somebody else. That is morally wrong now and it always was. There is no justice in killing a woman for this. So, to the extent that your moral view entails that it is just to execute the adulterss, then you are monstrous. To the exten that Jesus thought the same, he was monstrous.
While you come away from the New Testament understanding the real champions are the mob calling for the death of your "monster" some of us come away impressed with other things. For example the seriousness of sin before God and the extent to which He in His love went to take into Himself its penalty that we might be saved.
A radical permissivism assigning Jesus Christ as the villian of the Bible seems rather warped to me.
Originally posted by jaywillSo, you are establishing here that believers will be gods someday. Is that correct?
Big Mac,
You reply -
[b]
Is there not still a difference between believers and Jesus.[?]
Salvation’s ultimate goal is that the regenerated believer would be ”like Him” – ”Beloved, now are we children of God, and it has not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that if He is manifested, we shall be like Him, because we will see ...[text shortened]... in life and in nature as a collective entity called [b]New Jerusalem at the Bible’s climax.[/b]
And you base this on the passages about the Father being in Jesus, Jesus being in the Father, and Jesus being in the believer. Right?
You also refer to "partakers of the divine will" to refer to this same thing. Yes?
Was Jesus a man who achieved deity?
Sorry for the bold type. I don't understand why it did that.
Big Mac,
So, you are establishing here that believers will be gods someday. Is that correct?
First let me state what I do not mean.
I do not mean that the saved will be objects of worship.
I do not mean that the saved will be omniscient.
I do not mean that the saved will be omnipresent.
I do not mean that the saved will be omnipotent.
I do not mean that the saved will be creators universes.
If this can be received by you I will go on to answer your question this way:
The son of a cat is of the cat family.
The son of a horse is of the horse family.
The son of a dog is of the dog family.
And the son of a human being is of the human family.
Now what is a son of God?
The son of God is of the family of God. Perhaps I could borrow the term “species.” Sons of God are of the same “species” as God. What the begetting father is the offspring are.
So sons of God in some sense means that the sons are gods. That is the logical conclusion of the offspring of any begetting progenitor must share the life and nature of that parent.
To remain close to the way the Bible utters this we could simply say that the saved are ”children of God” who mature into ”sons of God”. If to say the saved becomes gods or God is too much for one to take, that one should consider the really momentous implications of a term we too easily take for granted – “sons of God”. It is really not a small thing:
”But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
Who were not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but [were born] of God.” (John 1:12,13)
”For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26)
The Fatherhood is uniquely the Father's. But this divine Father is dispensing His life and nature into many sons of God.
And you base this on the passages about the Father being in Jesus, Jesus being in the Father, and Jesus being in the believer. Right?
Right, and on other passages as well. For example the divine life within is also the divine life which will swallow up the believers outwardly. The Apostle Paul says this life is indwelling as the ”treasure in earthen vessels” (2 Cor. 4:7) The saved are the earthen vessel and the life of Jesus is the treasure within the earthen vessel. And Paul also says that this divine and resurrection life which is Christ Himself (John 14:6; 1:4; 11:25; 1 John 5:12; Col. 3:4) will also swallow up the believers:
” … we do not desire to be unclothed, but clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up in life” (2 Cor. 5:4,5)
Inwardly Christ is the life being ”formed” within the believers (Gal. 4:19). And outwardly they are ultimately ”swallowed up” in this same divine life.
If within the divine life is being formed and without the divine life is to swallow up then the salvation of man is to be thoroughly mingled and united with the uncreated and eternal life of the Triune God.
You also refer to "partakers of the divine will" to refer to this same thing. Yes?
No. I refered to 2 Peter 1:4 – “partakers of the divine nature”
Yes, the Apostle Peter says that the Christian disciples are ”partakers of the divine nature.”
Was Jesus a man who achieved deity?
This is not an easy question to answer on a concise forum like this. It involves the mysterious matters of both incarnation and resurrection.
Yes the man Jesus became God. But I do not mean that the truth of the Logos that was God in the beginning according to John 1:1 is nullified by this achievement. The Word who was God became flesh John 1:14). Flesh is an item of creation. Flesh, unlike God, was not always. Flesh and blood are items of creation as God created man. God always was. Flesh had a beginning in creation. God created man (Genesis 1:26,27). In incarnation God clothed Himself in His creation.
But in resurrection, that part of creation in which the Logos clothed Himself, itself became God. This is why the resurrection of Christ is spoken of as a birth. It is not simply a “coming back to life”. It is the birth of a new order. The Only begotten Son of God becomes also the Firstborn Son of God. Firstborn strongly indicates that He is first to be followed by others.
Jesus Christ is God who became a man. He put on Himself creation because man is no doubt an item of creation. ”The Word became flesh …” (John 1:14) Some of us like to put it this way. In incarnation Christ brought God into man. In resurrection Christ brought man into God.
That part of creation which He clothed Himself in was uplifted and glorified in resurrection. Before incarnation God had only the divine nature. After the resurrection God went back to the eternal throne forever wearing the deified and uplifted human nature.
It is important to see that Jesus, in His resurrection, did not simply bring A man into God. Jesus in resurrection, in principle, brought MAN into God. The resurrection of Christ is bringing of man into deification. As such He is the standard model upon which the mass production of sons of God is based.
In resurrection Jesus achieved bringing not only a created man to be God. In resurrection He brought MAN to be God. Man in Christ and in His salvation becomes God in life and in nature but not in His Godhead. God expands and dispenses what He is into the saved.
Originally posted by jaywillIt's really something how humans have the ability to start with nothing and build up such a huge multilayered level of 'knowledge'. Kind of like making an onion from the inside out, starting with absolutely nothing but outright lies by men and only by men proportedly inspired by some god or other, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, whatever, starting with zero realness, adding layer after layer of BS and then proceeding to kill one another based on thousands of years of lies. Amazing.
Big Mac,
[b]
So, you are establishing here that believers will be gods someday. Is that correct?
First let me state what I do not mean.
I do not mean that the saved will be objects of worship.
I do not mean that the saved will be omniscient.
I do not mean that the saved will be omnipresent.
I do not mean that the saved will be omnipotent. ...[text shortened]... fe and in nature but not in His Godhead. God expands and dispenses what He is into the saved.[/b]
Well I guess there has to be SOME limit on the population growth. It complements tobacco and drunk driving but has to top those numbers ten to one in the number of deaths caused by fanatics of all faiths fighting one another. See here is my main point: All these diametrically opposed religions cannot ALL BE RIGHT. So by default, it would appear to me THEY ALL ARE WRONG and not a little bit wrong but CRIMINALLY wrong.
Originally posted by jaywillNow He can forgive righteously those who believe based on Christ propitiatory and substitionary death.
Some theologians feel that the very redemptive act that Christ accomplished was the Father's answer to the Son's prayer that He forgive them for they did not know what they were doing.
In other words, for God to forgive without redemption would not be righteous of the Father. God is just and sin cannot be freely forgiven. Some believe that in order fo n's sins was the answer of the Father to the Son's prayer that He forgive the world.
My question becomes: What about those who don’t believe because “they don’t know what they are doing?”
To put another light on it—the root meaning of soterias is healing, preserving, making well or making whole. Although salvation as a juridical concept certainly finds expression in the Bible, soterias itself is not a juridical term, and one finds the healing motif as well. This latter seems to have had prominent expression in the early church (and today in the Orthodox churches).
Ultimately, salvation has to do with theosis—a point I think we have been agreed on. I might say that it is a process of well-making toward theosis. And as you note in another post, the soteriological activity of God begins in the incarnation (not simply at the cross). As one of the early church fathers (I think it might have been Gregory Nanzianzen), said: “What is not assumed [in the incarnation], cannot be healed”—in reference to the whole of human nature being assumed by the Christ (which was in debate at the time).
If sinfulness is best viewed as a “disease,” or illness or spiritual impairment, then it may be that very impairment that stands in the way of belief. (Again, this is a view prominent in the Eastern churches.) And, if that is the case, it is that very impairment that needs to be healed before one can begin to believe—at least enough for the patient to assist the general healing process.
So, if one’s impairment means that one doesn’t know what he is doing, is God’s grace active anyway? Is God still drawing such a person toward salvation? When does God cease the effort? (Some in Orthodoxy—and a few in the West as well—have suggested that what we call “hell” is a final “divine surgery” before ultimate salvation.) Do the actions and sacrifice of the Christ mean that all will be ultimately reconciled to the God who will be all-in-all, as Paul put it? Does God fail to save anyone? Is there anyone that God does not will or desire to save?
Originally posted by whodeyYou appear to believe that to stone a woman for adultery is a just punishment and that Jesus also considered it just. The fact that you or Jesus may forgive the perpetrator through love does not take away from the fact that you still consider the punishment just.
To help protect those that would be devastated such harsh laws were set in place to help detour such behavior.
I and many other people do not consider such a punishment to be just, so if the law came from God as you say then God is not just in my books.
Originally posted by vistesdOf course the suggestion that everyone is ultimately 'saved' begs the question as to why go through the whole process to begin with. Why not just send everyone to heaven immediately?
So, if one’s impairment means that one doesn’t know what he is doing, is God’s grace active anyway? Is God still drawing such a person toward salvation? When does God cease the effort? (Some in Orthodoxy—and a few in the West as well—have suggested that what we call “hell” is a final “divine surgery” before ultimate salvation.) Do the actions and sacrifi ...[text shortened]... ut it? Does God fail to save anyone? Is there anyone that God does not will or desire to save?
Originally posted by sonhouseSome people react to the simplier statemetns of the Bible unfavorably. They say it can't be that simple. So they embark to ask more and more penetrating questions about the faith.
It's really something how humans have the ability to start with nothing and build up such a huge multilayered level of 'knowledge'. Kind of like making an onion from the inside out, starting with absolutely nothing but outright lies by men and only by men proportedly inspired by some god or other, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, whatever, starting with zero real ...[text shortened]... lt, it would appear to me THEY ALL ARE WRONG and not a little bit wrong but CRIMINALLY wrong.
Then they shift around and complain that it is all too intricate and multi-layered. Why so complicated? they ask.
So you are suspicious of simple answers and you are also suspicious of "multi-layered" answers. Either way you are sure the wool is being pulled over your eyes.
Oh well. There are SO MANY forms of skepticism concerning the historical Christ, that I guess they all must be wrong.
See? Works for me too.