The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus

[mobkem]

This article contains the following seven arguments which prove that the Bible denies the divinity of Jesus:


1) None of the Bible’s Writers Believed That Jesus is God

2) Evidence From the Acts of the Apostles

3) Jesus is Not All-Powerful, and Not All-Knowing

4) The Greatest Commandment in the Bible

5) Paul Believed That Jesus is not God

6) Evidence from the Gospel of John

7) God and Jesus Are Two Separate Beings



You can follow from here:
http://bit.ly/76KYFb

[Goat]

Actually, I was critiquing Christian belief about God. The claims about God are not rational, logical, or consistent.

And, 'See the need for Calvary' is just yet another inconsistency, since you also claim that God is omnipotent. It seems odd that an omni-everything deity would have to resort to either murder or suicide to 'forgive sin'.

I won't argue the "it seems odd." But it's a little vague. In the interest of furthering the discussion, could you expand a little on what seems odd about it to you?

Why, the entire concept of 'salvation' seems odd to me. The concept that God has to sacrifice himself/his son (who are the one and same), so that other people can be 'forgiven their sins'. If god is 'omnipotent', surely god could forgive sins without having to kill himself as his son in a brutal and barbaric manner.

It's the whole concept of 'substitution punishment' that I find disturbing, and highly misused by many Christians.

[Cathar1950]

Actually, I was critiquing Christian belief about God. The claims about God are not rational, logical, or consistent.

And, 'See the need for Calvary' is just yet another inconsistency, since you also claim that God is omnipotent. It seems odd that an omni-everything deity would have to resort to either murder or suicide to 'forgive sin'.

I won't argue the "it seems odd." But it's a little vague. In the interest of furthering the discussion, could you expand a little on what seems odd about it to you?

Why, the entire concept of 'salvation' seems odd to me. The concept that God has to sacrifice himself/his son (who are the one and same), so that other people can be 'forgiven their sins'. If god is 'omnipotent', surely god could forgive sins without having to kill himself as his son in a brutal and barbaric manner.

It's the whole concept of 'substitution punishment' that I find disturbing, and highly misused by many Christians.

I couldn't agree with you more. It also seems to be a later Christian interpretation and the earliest Christian interpretations do not draw upon the obvious OT or Greek translations of Hebrew writings but were more focused upon Isaiah and the Psalms. His death was first seen in a more Maccabean martyr died for our sin then a substitute or even ransom, this seems to be a later interpretation and even greater reinterpretation for revivals.

[Volbrigade]

Why, the entire concept of 'salvation' seems odd to me. The concept that God has to sacrifice himself/his son (who are the one and same), so that other people can be 'forgiven their sins'. If god is 'omnipotent', surely god could forgive sins without having to kill himself as his son in a brutal and barbaric manner.

It's the whole concept of 'substitution punishment' that I find disturbing, and highly misused by many Christians.

There's a problem-solving technique called simply "The Five 'Whys'" that I'm tempted to employ here.

"It's the whole concept of 'substitution punishment' that I find disturbing..."

Why? Followed by your answer, then another "why?", etc.

But can we agree instead that in terms of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that you wouldn't have chosen to arrange things that way if you were God?

I'm there. I wouldn't have, either. But then I would've done a lot of things differently if I were God. I might've created a planet where the temperature is a uniform 72 degrees, except on the mountain slopes, of course. For skiing. Where there were no tornados or earthquakes or hurricanes or mosquitos. Where my favored little creation "Volbrigade" always had more than enough money, perfect health, and a bevy of beauteous and willing babes at his beck and call.

My creation may have been a little simplistic, however. Especially in comparison with the infinitely complex reality that we face; and which we all, to one degree or another, try to account for.

Allow me to offer the following for your consideration:

an infinite and eternal uncreated spiritual being (whatever "spiritual" is -- all we know is that spirit transcends matter in a manner that is metaphorically similar to the way that a solid body cube transcends a geometric square) that exists in a society of three persons that are an inseparable unity, like a cube consists of six squares that constitute an inseparable unity.

Okay -- I'm sure you're familiar with all of that, I just wanted set the table, so to speak.

For reasons of its own -- perhaps for its own pleasure -- this being resolves to create things other than itself. First, other beings that are spirit, like "Himself," -- then, a material universe.

Why? The reason 'why' there's a universe may be a non-sensical question, for both the scientist and the theologian. But the Christian, at least, can offer the suggestion that perhaps God created matter so that He could spiritualize it; and thus create many "sons" in a manner that would be impossible to do in a purely spiritual realm, for reasons that I have read a brilliant apology for (which I cannot for the life of me find), and which I cannot begin to do justice to without reviewing, so I won't try.

Can we agree that a material universe must have certain "rules" or "laws" if it is to operate as a coherency at all? For instance, that for heat to rise in one place, there must be a corresponding cooling someplace else? Or that the energy transferred when two objects collide must equilibrate, etc.?

And may we further surmise that the enforcement of these laws may at times entail what appears to be the development of favorable conditions for one entity at the expense of another?

And to fast forward a great deal: if it was God's plan to create a universe in order to bring forth a creature -- man -- who was capable of awareness of, and relationship with, Him; and that a condition of that relationship was that man has free will to volitionally enter into that relationship and spiritual union, but upon being deceived irretrievably broke and revoked that relationship through disobedience, and choosing his own will over God's --

and that such was the nature of that relationship -- "spiritual union with God" -- that the breaking of it was catastrophic beyond our understanding, resulting in the condition known as "death" -- an immediate death of the spirit (in man); a progressive death of the soul; an ultimate death of the body (Salvation being, indeed, the reversal of this process -- an immediate justification in spirit; progressive sanctification of soul; and ultimate glorification in body -- just throwing that in -- no extra charge );

So that -- and I'll try to wrap up here -- the former union with God's will that would've allowed man to operate within His plan, and perform the work and purpose for which he had been created, and which would've (presumably -- I suppose we'll never know, this side of Heaven) allowed man to exist in harmony with the afore-mentioned laws governing the material universe, now being broken, have exposed man to the full effects of those laws from within the system -- one of which is that what is beneficial to person or group A is routinely detrimental to person or group B -- and to attacks of hostile forces from "outside the system"; our old nemesis Lucifer or Satan -- for "we do not wrestle against flesh and blood..." (Eph 6:12).

The bottom line: we're in a mess. A glance at a newspaper, newscast, or newsmagazine confirms that beyond contradiction.

We're also in a perfect Catch-22. We need restoration to our state of spiritual union with God. But because of our fallenness from it, we cannot either acheive, or even properly desire it.

And so the consequences of our disobedience, and now rebellion -- sin and death -- continue to mount. If there is to be an atoning for that circumstance, then someone who has the resources will have to pay the atoning. Only one has those resources -- God. And He paid it on the Cross.

Now, we are able to utilize our free will to join in that "substitution punishment" or atonement, through faith. To join in the "substitution(ary)" death -- and in the substitutionary resurrection.

I know -- it's a lot to accept. And a strange tale, and account for things.

But it seems to me that in terms of accounting for the existence that we inhabit, we're surrounded by strange tales on every side. One of those strange tales, for instance, that is presented as an account for our present reality is that the universe burst into existence on its own (or has existed in one form or another eternally, and perhaps in multitude), and has proceeded from its early form to more complex ones, eventually achieving a form capable of cognizance of itself -- in violation of its own laws, as observed by that cognition.

So: one thing I think we can agree on -- this world is strange. And seems to get stranger upon closer examination. So strange, in fact, that this persistent and consistent Judeo-Christian explanation may just indeed be the Truth?

[Cathar1950]

Why, the entire concept of 'salvation' seems odd to me. The concept that God has to sacrifice himself/his son (who are the one and same), so that other people can be 'forgiven their sins'. If god is 'omnipotent', surely god could forgive sins without having to kill himself as his son in a brutal and barbaric manner.

It's the whole concept of 'substitution punishment' that I find disturbing, and highly misused by many Christians.

There's a problem-solving technique called simply "The Five 'Whys'" that I'm tempted to employ here.

"It's the whole concept of 'substitution punishment' that I find disturbing..."

Why? Followed by your answer, then another "why?", etc.

Yes why indeed? Why does God demand or need a sacrifice? What does it actually do and why would it please God? Then tell us what the problem you are trying to solve? It looks more like you got a solution and are looking for a problem. In this case Goat, and other such as me have a problem with the solution. You are making the problem the solution and making justification and rationalization the solution to a new problem by making up a new story.

But can we agree instead that in terms of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that you wouldn't have chosen to arrange things that way if you were God?

Others did. Not everyone saw the death of Jesus as a sacrifice. Who is he sacrificing to and for what? How does this sacrifice actually atone? At one as in bringing back together as one or do you mean ransom or redemption? Atoning has various meanings, which do you mean?

Allow me to offer the following for your consideration:

an infinite and eternal uncreated spiritual being (whatever "spiritual" is -- all we know is that spirit transcends matter in a manner that is metaphorically similar to the way that a solid body cube transcends a geometric square) that exists in a society of three persons that are an inseparable unity, like a cube consists of six squares that constitute an inseparable unity.

Your post amounts to a reinterpretation and invention of a new story as more of a rationalization for the doctrines you hold where you leave out most of the mythical details in order to make the abstractions your concrete reality.

You invent a problem which you have already decided the solution. The first problem I see is you start out with an unknown as if it was known and then try to fit all the details, that which is actually known such as the universe, and make your unknown center of your focus and valuing for interpretation which is then projected upon what is known.

I tend to see “spirit “ as life and all our abstractions arising from the bottom up and not the top down.


I see spirit as transcending matter only because it is grounded in matter, take away the matter there is no spirit, but then I guess I am a radical empiricist. I think you have the cart before the horse of are committing what Whitehead would call the fallacy of misplace concrescence. You are presupposing spirit over matter. I suggest you might start from the bottom up working you way from matter to spirit rather then claiming what you think you know about spirit to interpret matter.

Okay -- I'm sure you're familiar with all of that, I just wanted set the table, so to speak.

I think your table is missing.

For reasons of its own -- perhaps for its own pleasure -- this being resolves to create things other than itself. First, other beings that are spirit, like "Himself," -- then, a material universe.

So you say.

Why? The reason 'why' there's a universe may be a non-sensical question, for both the scientist and the theologian. But the Christian, at least, can offer the suggestion that perhaps God created matter so that He could spiritualize it; and thus create many "sons" in a manner that would be impossible to do in a purely spiritual realm, for reasons that I have read a brilliant apology for (which I cannot for the life of me find), and which I cannot begin to do justice to without reviewing, so I won't try.

Perhaps?

Can we agree that a material universe must have certain "rules" or "laws" if it is to operate as a coherency at all? For instance, that for heat to rise in one place, there must be a corresponding cooling someplace else? Or that the energy transferred when two objects collide must equilibrate, etc.?

I think we can agree that the universe has certain "rules" or "laws", not “must�.
Those rules or laws seem to be emergent properties that are manifestation of relationships. You seem to be taking what is descriptive as proscriptive. I would think even God is subject to the laws or rules.

And may we further surmise that the enforcement of these laws may at times entail what appears to be the development of favorable conditions for one entity at the expense of another?

Why do you assume enforcement? You seem to be saying the laws or rules wouldn’t work unless they are enforced by some outside force while I see no reason to think tey don’t need to be forced as they just happen do to relationships and changes in relationships.

And to fast forward a great deal: if it was God's plan to create a universe in order to bring forth a creature -- man -- who was capable of awareness of, and relationship with, Him; and that a condition of that relationship was that man has free will to volitionally enter into that relationship and spiritual union, but upon being deceived irretrievably broke and revoked that relationship through disobedience, and choosing his own will over God's --

See this is what I mean by inventing a new story.
Hartshorne would say you are making humans the center of God’s value make two gods where you are the most important. Again you are presupposing the solution as you try and create a problem.

and that such was the nature of that relationship -- "spiritual union with God" -- that the breaking of it was catastrophic beyond our understanding, resulting in the condition known as "death" -- an immediate death of the spirit (in man); a progressive death of the soul; an ultimate death of the body (Salvation being, indeed, the reversal of this process -- an immediate justification in spirit; progressive sanctification of soul; and ultimate glorification in body -- just throwing that in -- no extra charge );

This is another place where you seem to have you ideas not fit the facts. Death is a part of life. All things alive die. There is no broken relationship with God that brought death as there has been death for millions of years before humans arrived.
There is the progressive life of the human and like all living things must eventually die.

So that -- and I'll try to wrap up here -- the former union with God's will that would've allowed man to operate within His plan, and perform the work and purpose for which he had been created, and which would've (presumably -- I suppose we'll never know, this side of Heaven) allowed man to exist in harmony with the afore-mentioned laws governing the material universe, now being broken, have exposed man to the full effects of those laws from within the system -- one of which is that what is beneficial to person or group A is routinely detrimental to person or group B -- and to attacks of hostile forces from "outside the system"; our old nemesis Lucifer or Satan -- for "we do not wrestle against flesh and blood..." (Eph 6:12).

The bottom line: we're in a mess. A glance at a newspaper, newscast, or newsmagazine confirms that beyond contradiction.

I see no former union with God; I see where we evolve, mature or grow and that might lead us to God but there is no real indication we are fallen or have a broken relationship as much as we develop one. Again you are creating a PROBLEM FOR YOUR SOLUTION.

We're also in a perfect Catch-22. We need restoration to our state of spiritual union with God. But because of our fallenness from it, we cannot either acheive, or even properly desire it.

And so the consequences of our disobedience, and now rebellion -- sin and death -- continue to mount. If there is to be an atoning for that circumstance, then someone who has the resources will have to pay the atoning. Only one has those resources -- God. And He paid it on the Cross.

What did he pay and what was the debt?

Now, we are able to utilize our free will to join in that "substitution punishment" or atonement, through faith. To join in the "substitution(ary)" death -- and in the substitutionary resurrection.

I know -- it's a lot to accept. And a strange tale, and account for things.

I think Paul would mean that it wasn’t belief (Faith?) where you “join� but faithfulness (pistis) is where you participate.

You have a “perfect Catch-22� not us.
There is no restoration, there is development.
There is no fallen, we mature. You give a problem that has no solution because there is no problem. The ancients came up with all kinds of ways to atone (what ever you might mean by atonement) and just because Paul didn’t feel justified doesn’t mean we can’t.
What did Jesus actually pay? Are you saying that Jesus died for us and also rose for us so we don’t really need resurrection either? I don’t think you know what substitution actually is all about.

But it seems to me that in terms of accounting for the existence that we inhabit, we're surrounded by strange tales on every side. One of those strange tales, for instance, that is presented as an account for our present reality is that the universe burst into existence on its own (or has existed in one form or another eternally, and perhaps in multitude), and has proceeded from its early form to more complex ones, eventually achieving a form capable of cognizance of itself -- in violation of its own laws, as observed by that cognition.

What violations?

So: one thing I think we can agree on -- this world is strange. And seems to get stranger upon closer examination. So strange, in fact, that this persistent and consistent Judeo-Christian explanation may just indeed be the Truth?

Just because it is strange doesn’t mean you need a strange myth. Your story just doesn’t fit the facts and Judeo-Christian explanation is not an explanation; it is an unfounded claim that doesn’t fit the fact or seem to be related to any real human problems.

Unlike later Pauline interpretations even Paul didn’t see Jesus as a substitute, he was an example. The death of Jesus would have been seen as a martyr’s death. Jesus was faithful unto death and was vindicated and it wasn’t that he died in place of you. As the believer becomes one with Christ in baptism he raises with Christ as the new humanity or new Adam and shares with Christ the new life. Granted there are substitution ideologies in the Hebrew writings but they seem to play a small part in sacrifices. Sacrifices were celebratory where humans could commune with the gods and they were also for finding favor with the god or correcting a right relationship. If there were wars, plague or famine that caused great death they would sometimes kill or sacrifice their children to make it right with the gods, including Yahweh, in a preemptive death after all the gods much like death or there wouldn’t be so much of it. Hen there were fertility sacrifices where you sacrificed the “first born�, “believed�, and only begotten, the first to open the mother’s womb in order to gain the gods’ pleasure and have many future children. I believe this was the intent of the sacrifice of Isaac where in the original story Abraham actually sacrificed Isaac and Abraham is bless with children where they will be more numerous then the sands or stars. Later the story gets change to one of the sacrifice, obedience and faithfulness in a test to fit the evolving Jewish sensibilities just as the neighbors were doing. Then there was the sacrifice of the first born or beloved by the king, and sometimes for the king of the gods, to insure your dynasty. I sometimes wonder if the Davidic dynasty was one build upon the sacrifice of the “beloved� which seems to be the meaning of “David� the beloved.
This is just to give you an idea behind all the complex ideas involved in sacrifice.
Some of the later laws are related to these older practices where the afterlife of the ideology long outlived the practice. I don’t think it is unrelated that a child was sacrifice or given to Yahweh on the eighth day and also circumcised. It became a substitution even though tit appears to have been a rite where the bridegroom was circumcised on the wedding night to appease the goddess of the womb that also bleeds. We see traces of this practice in the ancient stories such as Moses being possessed by a spirit, Yahweh or a Shaddi god desires to kill his son and his mother-in-law saves the day.
Later when the first born was allowed to be redeemed or ransomed, possible after the prophets or even the exile, we might see some ides of substation but we can see it much earlier in other ancient cultures were even the king might be substituted with a fake king in order to please the gods. I don’t see where you really make a connection between why the death of Jesus is a substitution or sacrifice in some way that would please God. Or for why it might be pleasing…
It would seem a substitute would be standing in for the real sacrifice and you have yet to show why God needs a sacrifice in the first place. At least the Jews moved on.
I think the last supper was more celebratory before it was used to remember his death. It isn’t that Christians are a better Judaism, it is more like they are reverting to a more repulsive notion of sacrifice, a human that after the sacrifice become a god much as we see in much older religions. Then there are those that insist he was a god before his death which is still anciently familiar.

[bernee51]

If the pattern had been different, if the Christian missionaries always behaved as liberators and agents of enlightenment, there would be no resentment. However, since they have more often come as agents of cultural imperialism, the resentment is merited and thoughtful Christian missionaries realize that there is a great deal of lost trust that must be regained.

That's a fair point, McC. If only those who claimed to be Christians actually were Christian in every case, the world would be considerably closer to perfect than it currently is.

This is the old ‘they were not ‘true christians’(tm) argument – and just doesn’t cut it.

The fact that Christian missionaries -- some of which, we may speculate, were Christian in name only -- came along with European conquerors, venture capitalists, and exploiters, has undoubtedly done great harm to the cause of Christian evangelism worldwide.
Still -- and I hope you appreciate the reference here, bernee -- there was a white dot of good, even in the bad.

And if Christians had brought the benefits claimed – education, health care etc – without attachment to the outcome – i.e. conversion of the ‘heathens’, they would not have created the situations I have witnessed.

Quote:
Yet we have god waiting to see what Job would do and then he spoke to him.


Correct again. Just as He -- who from His standpoint, which transcends time, and who can therefore see your life, as well as all history, in toto -- is waiting to see what you will do with His offer of Grace. Amazing, isn't it? A Divine paradox?


Yet he already knows. I cannot surprise him. He cannot change the outcome, nor can I.

That sounds like the somewhat troublesome doctrine of Predestination. "If you want to be 'predestined', it's very simple. Choose Christ as your Savior."

There is nothing for me to saved from...surely your god, if it existed, must know that of me.

Volbrigade wrote:

But -- what is "evil" and what is "good"? Specifically as it relates to the example you bring up.

Good results from acting skilfully – evil results from acting unskilfully.

Aren't you just moving the question back a step by exchanging terms? What is "skillful? What is "unskillful?"

Any action that is mindful of the happiness and well-being of all without attachment to the outcome I regard as skilful. From this you can judge what I hold to be ‘unskilful’.

In answer to your last question, I can only claim to speak (qualifiedly) in terms of Christianity. I think that because Christians believe that they have an intimate relationship with a Personal God -- a God who is a person -- who is the creative and governing power behind the universe, behind existence; and that this God walked the roads of Palestine in the form of a man in order to accomplish a work of redemption that required his substitutionary and atoning suffering and death on the Cross at Calvary; and that as a result all men have the opportunity to share in that redemption through faith in those facts –

That is all well and good – however that is their ‘belief’ it does not represent the ‘reality’ of those to which they minister.

Native Australians hold(held) that the ‘creative energy’ was the ‘Rainbow Serpent’. Hindus hold that Shakti is the ‘creative energy’ behind the universe. That is their ‘reality’ – why is it not as valid as yours?

...that as a result of the above, their faith is uniquely true, and the Truth, and therefore they have an obligation to share that faith with their fellow men.

Again it is merely a ‘belief’ – unsubstantiated and unproven as an ‘ultimate reality’. To enforce it on others through bribery, coercion or worse is a verging on being a criminal act, an act of violence – a violation.

That all other faiths are inferior in their reliance on dumb idols that don't talk; anthropomorphic pantheons of gods and demi-gods; nature spirits; the Nirvana of the renunciation of existence; the sub-personal deity of pantheism; and the unspiritual -- and thus impoverished -- belief that nothing exists except matter.

And thus we see the evidence of the narcissistic personality disorder that IS christianity.

But you asked "On what grounds do (they) assume that their way of doing things is somehow better than those they wish to violate?"

Well, the term "violate" aside -- an emotionally charged one -- I think its on the grounds that -- not coincidentally, in my opinion -- they come from a culture which is informed by the beliefs cited above, and has achieved far superior technology -- so that their way of doing things is better.

i.e. the cult of ego...

For instance, you mention societies that have existed at or near "subsistence levels"; that have "been essentially a feudal state for a millennia."

And...?

A question: which most nearly represents the "good", or the "skillful":

You have a message of Hope and Salvation, glad tidings of the deliverance from the bonds of sin that have resulted in the sad tale of man on this planet, and of a restoration of the eternal relationship with the God of Heaven and Earth.

Along with this message, as a by-product, you have techniques to share that will substantially alleviate the millennia-long toil and drudgery and poverty and ignorance and disease of human life; and bring agricultural bounty, labor-saving devices, communication, and sanitation.

Should you share these gifts with those who are without them?

Or leave them alone?

Before sharing these ‘gifts’...

You should ask what effect the sharing will have on the happiness and well-being of the ‘target audience’.

You should ask what interest the giver has in the outcome.

On what grounds i.e. why, must the sharing of knowledge and abundance linked to the ‘good news’.

[bernee51]

. But then I would've done a lot of things differently if I were God. I might've created a planet where the temperature is a uniform 72 degrees, except on the mountain slopes, of course. For skiing. Where there were no tornados or earthquakes or hurricanes or mosquitos. Where my favored little creation "Volbrigade" always had more than enough money, perfect health, and a bevy of beauteous and willing babes at his beck and call.

And thus you have clearly expressed the source of unhappiness. T he seeking of “happiness� creates unhappiness.

an infinite and eternal uncreated spiritual being (whatever "spiritual" is -- all we know is that spirit transcends matter in a manner that is metaphorically similar to the way that a solid body cube transcends a geometric square) that exists in a society of three persons that are an inseparable unity, like a cube consists of six squares that constitute an inseparable unity.

Please define ‘spirit’ and how it can be a ‘being’ – especially an ‘infinite and uncreated’ one. Then mesh this into the ‘spirit’ attributed to man.

For reasons of its own -- perhaps for its own pleasure -- this being resolves to create things other than itself. First, other beings that are spirit, like "Himself," -- then, a material universe.

Pleasure seeking implies need – how can an infinite being – which, by definition, must be perfect – have needs to be sated?

Why? The reason 'why' there's a universe may be a non-sensical question, for both the scientist and the theologian. But the Christian, at least, can offer the suggestion that perhaps God created matter so that He could spiritualize it; ...

Thus ‘god the gap filler’ is created...I don’t know’ becomes ‘goddidit’.

Can we agree that a material universe must have certain "rules" or "laws" if it is to operate as a coherency at all? For instance, that for heat to rise in one place, there must be a corresponding cooling someplace else? Or that the energy transferred when two objects collide must equilibrate, etc.?

These are ‘laws’ only because sentient beings have observed them and defined them as such.

And may we further surmise that the enforcement of these laws may at times entail what appears to be the development of favorable conditions for one entity at the expense of another?

‘Enforcement’ implies an enforcer.

And to fast forward a great deal: if it was God's plan to create a universe in order to bring forth a creature -- man -- who was capable of awareness of, and relationship with, Him; and that a condition of that relationship was that man has free will to volitionally enter into that relationship and spiritual union, but upon being deceived irretrievably broke and revoked that relationship through disobedience, and choosing his own will over God's – and that such was the nature of that relationship -- "spiritual union with God" -- that the breaking of it was catastrophic beyond our understanding, resulting in the condition known as "death" -- an immediate death of the spirit (in man); a progressive death of the soul; an ultimate death of the body (Salvation being, indeed, the reversal of this process -- an immediate justification in spirit; progressive sanctification of soul; and ultimate glorification in body -- just throwing that in -- no extra charge );

Yep as previously noted – belief systems are designed to provide meaning and legitimacy in the case of apparent suffering (i.e. the transitory nature of existence) .

What you have described fits the bill perfectly.

The bottom line: we're in a mess. A glance at a newspaper, newscast, or newsmagazine confirms that beyond contradiction.

Man’s seeking of heaven has made a hell of this abundant paradise.

We're also in a perfect Catch-22. We need restoration to our state of spiritual union with God. But because of our fallenness from it, we cannot either acheive, or even properly desire it.

Or realise the perfection that is our natural state of being....in order to find god you must first lose god.

And so the consequences of our disobedience, and now rebellion -- sin and death -- continue to mount. If there is to be an atoning for that circumstance, then someone who has the resources will have to pay the atoning. Only one has those resources -- God. And He paid it on the Cross.

Now, we are able to utilize our free will to join in that "substitution punishment" or atonement, through faith. To join in the "substitution(ary)" death -- and in the substitutionary resurrection.

I know -- it's a lot to accept. And a strange tale, and account for things.

Just one of many...

But it seems to me that in terms of accounting for the existence that we inhabit, we're surrounded by strange tales on every side. One of those strange tales, for instance, that is presented as an account for our present reality is that the universe burst into existence on its own (or has existed in one form or another eternally, and perhaps in multitude), and has proceeded from its early form to more complex ones, eventually achieving a form capable of cognizance of itself -- in violation of its own laws, as observed by that cognition.

How could it be “in violation of its own laws�?

So: one thing I think we can agree on -- this world is strange. And seems to get stranger upon closer examination. So strange, in fact, that this persistent and consistent Judeo-Christian explanation may just indeed be the Truth?

Only until another ‘truth’ emerges.

[Volbrigade]

Nicely retorted, Cathar. Alas, the certainty with which you express your points is not merited by the points themselves.

First, however -- may I assume that the repeated references to "you", as in "it looks more like you got a solution and are looking for a problem" are in fact references to the assertions I present? After all, none of the items we're addressing are original with us. This is an old, old discussion, we're having -- even in terms of the modern manifestations of it. The arguments that I advance are, to the best of my ability, doctrinally correct in terms of Christianity. I submit them to the approval of more instructed Christians than I in any case where I stray from orthodoxy.

Just a point of clarity.

You invent a problem which you have already decided the solution. The first problem I see is you start out with an unknown as if it was known and then try to fit all the details, that which is actually known such as the universe, and make your unknown center of your focus and valuing for interpretation which is then projected upon what is known.

I tend to see “spirit “ as life and all our abstractions arising from the bottom up and not the top down.


I see spirit as transcending matter only because it is grounded in matter, take away the matter there is no spirit, but then I guess I am a radical empiricist. I think you have the cart before the horse of are committing what Whitehead would call the fallacy of misplace concrescence. You are presupposing spirit over matter. I suggest you might start from the bottom up working you way from matter to spirit rather then claiming what you think you know about spirit to interpret matter.

This is a nicely stated expression of the continental divide which separates the believer from the unbeliever. All experience, knowledge, and data will seek its source depending on which side of the divide it falls -- just as water will seek it's level depending on which side of the Rockies it falls.

As an editorial aside, for the believer everything eventually empties into the infinite ocean of God; for the unbeliever, the "water" of their knowledge and experience evaporates into the dry creek beds of false belief.

We have a fundamental, foundational, and primary divide in terms of our interpretation of reality. You believe, as nearly as I can tell, that spirit is in some sense a manifestation of matter -- may we say, "nature?" I believe that spirit is inexpressibly transcendent of, and superior to, nature (or matter) -- that indeed the former existed before the latter, and the latter's existence is in every way dependent on the former. IOW, spirit is in every sense possible "supernatural."

Every item on which our respective beliefs are based are therefore movements in opposite directions, like water flowing down opposing sides of a pyramid.

I think we can agree that the universe has certain "rules" or "laws", not “must�.
Those rules or laws seem to be emergent properties that are manifestation of relationships. You seem to be taking what is descriptive as proscriptive. I would think even God is subject to the laws or rules.

A good example of what I was referring to. And of how often the unbeliever is both right and wrong in his formulations. Anything that God was subject to would transcend Him, and therefore be God itself. The Laws would be God (which is, essentially, the basic tenet of materialism).

Rather, God transcends the laws. He created them: those that govern supernature (whatever they are), nature (which we may determine, being as they are themselves determined by, and a reflection of, a rational and ordered Creator), and human affairs.

He may, and has, directly superseded those laws in regard to the natural order of things at His discretion. We call that "Miracle."

"...and that such was the nature of that relationship -- "spiritual union with God" -- that the breaking of it was catastrophic beyond our understanding, resulting in the condition known as "death" -- an immediate death of the spirit (in man); a progressive death of the soul; an ultimate death of the body (Salvation being, indeed, the reversal of this process -- an immediate justification in spirit; progressive sanctification of soul; and ultimate glorification in body -- just throwing that in -- no extra charge );"

This is another place where you seem to have you ideas not fit the facts. Death is a part of life. All things alive die. There is no broken relationship with God that brought death as there has been death for millions of years before humans arrived.
There is the progressive life of the human and like all living things must eventually die.

"The bottom line: we're in a mess. A glance at a newspaper, newscast, or newsmagazine confirms that beyond contradiction."

I see no former union with God; I see where we evolve, mature or grow and that might lead us to God but there is no real indication we are fallen or have a broken relationship as much as we develop one. Again you are creating a PROBLEM FOR YOUR SOLUTION.

Apparently the confidence that my claim in regard to "being in a mess" as itself being self-evidently "without contradiction" was misplaced.

I submit that you would be hard-pressed for evidence that we, as a (human) race, are indeed "evolving" in a sense that represents "good" (but then, what is "good", right?)

It appears to be quite the contrary; as we have "evolved" to the point of being at the precipice of global catastrophe, if not annihilation, with any number of potential flashpoints primed to spark an out-of-control explosion.

Do you perhaps ascribe to the notion that whatever "is" is perforce "good" based on the fact of its existence? That "a slum or a cancer is a manifestation of good, if we could only see it from the proper point of view?"

I reject that notion. And am at somewhat of a loss as to how to proceed with someone who doesn't acknowledge the "problem" involved with the human condition: that we are aware of the good; can express it and even codify it; but cannot obtain or conform to it except sporadically, despite our best efforts (either individually or corporately), and as a result experience persistent suffering in the form of wars, disease, mental anguish, etc. -- and death.

This is another place where you seem to have you ideas not fit the facts. Death is a part of life. All things alive die. There is no broken relationship with God that brought death as there has been death for millions of years before humans arrived.
There is the progressive life of the human and like all living things must eventually die.

"The wages of sin is death." The question of 'why, or how, death before the Fall' is of course an impetus behind the Creation Science movement, whose interpretations do not require "millions of years" of death.

Christian "Evolutionists" are forced to accept that God allowed death in the animal kingdom until he guided the "development" of a form which was capable of containing a spiritual element. Or that the tsunami of Original Sin sent spiritual shockwaves through all Creation in a manner unbound by time.

Any of those explanations are more valid and credible than the concept mentioned in my last post, and inexplicably lost on both you and bernee, that a material universe that created itself proceeded to organize itself -- in violation of the laws of entropy and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics -- into more and more complex structures, eventually into a biological form (man) that has cognizance of both itself as a creature, and the universe as a reality. Thus, in essence, the universe produced cognizance of itself, through an endless series of mathematically impossible lucky random events, beneficial mutations, and natural selection.

I see no reason to accept that construct of myths, other than as an alternative to belief in God.

I think Paul would mean that it wasn’t belief (Faith?) where you “join� but faithfulness (pistis) is where you participate.

You have a “perfect Catch-22� not us.
There is no restoration, there is development.
There is no fallen, we mature. You give a problem that has no solution because there is no problem. The ancients came up with all kinds of ways to atone (what ever you might mean by atonement) and just because Paul didn’t feel justified doesn’t mean we can’t.
What did Jesus actually pay? Are you saying that Jesus died for us and also rose for us so we don’t really need resurrection either? I don’t think you know what substitution actually is all about.

"Atone" means to make amends or reparation; to reconcile.

"What did Jesus actually pay?" The price for every sin that you or I, or anyone else who ever lived. ever did or will do. All sin is a result of our broken relationship with God, and of our desire to place ourselves before Him. That was the choice upon which the shipwreck of free will was made possible.

Jesus has reconciled us by paying the price for that sin, which is death. We participate in (good call), as well as join with, that death through faith in Him; just as we participate in and join with His resurrected life by and through that same faith.

There is nothing we can do in regard to accepting this atonement, this gift -- no actions, no rites, no rituals -- other than to confess our sins, repent of them, and accept the gift of salvation through faith. Which you may do this moment, if you like.

Why the need for sacrifice? I'm pretty certain there's no answer that I can give to that question that would be satisfactory to you. It may be like asking "why the narrow parameters for biological life?", or "why billions of galaxies?"

I think -- and this is my opinion -- that just as faith, hope, and choice are necessary parts of life, even secular life; that sacrifice is, as well. Good almost always, and perhaps always, requires a sacrifice of self. The mother sacrifices for her child; the father for his wife and family; we might sacrifice our financial security for our friends; we do sacrifice some of our finances for charity, disaster relief, etc.

The "greatest sacrifice is that one would lay down his life for his friend(s)." That is what Christ did for us. Sin is death. God instituted a sacrificial system among the Hebrews as a picture of this reality. The sins were placed on the sacrificial animal, which was offered in atonement for them.

Jesus Christ is "The Lamb of God" who takes away the sin of the world. His perfect sacrifice is "once for all" -- which is why no further sacrifice is necessary or efficacious.


The last part of your post makes some interesting points that I see mainly as interpretations based on the premise that God doesn't exist, and the Bible is not true.

For instance, you maintain that there is an "earlier" version of the story of Abraham and Isaac. According to who? I am highly suspicious of such claims, which nearly always turn out to be in support of an anti-Christian agenda, and usually are of a similar nature to such things as a fragment of fossilized bone from which is extrapolated (erroneously) the entire animal.

But even assuming there were such an earlier version -- what of it? It would be easy to hi-jack such a tale and change it to suit a particular purpose -- if you were an Edomite or Ammonite, for instance -- or a modern Seminarian.

What we do know is that the tale in its present form was ancient when it was referenced by the writer of Hebrews, and has remained extant to this day, in the "God breathed" pages of the Holy Bible.

[/quote]

[bernee51]

Volbrigade, it has been an interesting discussion over the past few weeks – one much appreciated.

I have no doubt of your sincerity – you clearly write what you believe and believe what you write – just as did the writers of the gospels.

I sense from you the expression of the inexplicable joy you feel in the truth you perceive in your belief in the words of the bible and the knowledge of the nature of existence you assume from it. Not surprisingly, Sanskrit has a word for this...satchidananda...which in Vedantic philosophy is a synonym of the three fundamental attributes of Brahman...i.e. existence, consciousness and bliss – (father, son, holy spirit?) or truth, knowledge and joy.

The Jewish yogi described it thus...I am the way, the truth and the life.

I understand your view, and the reasons for it, that these earlier expressions of ‘god nature’ are mere glimpses of a truth which came to fruition in the form of Jesus. I hope you can understand why I might see it as an evolving understanding of the nature of being – consciousness evolving. And this evolution does not stop because of beliefs.

You mention the following in a reply to Cathar...

....that a material universe that created itself proceeded to organize itself -- in violation of the laws of entropy and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics -- into more and more complex structures, eventually into a biological form (man) that has cognizance of both itself as a creature, and the universe as a reality.

Perhaps this is better placed in the science forum...though it has been discussed at length already.

While I am no expert in physics (are you?) you would be appearing to be making a claim that does not stack up. I have mentioned before Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit palaeontologist, a scientist who understood the ramifications of ‘comlexification’ with regard to the ‘laws’ you claim this process violates.

On what grounds do you make this claim...science or the pseudoscience of the ‘special creation’ brigade?

As an editorial aside, for the believer everything eventually empties into the infinite ocean of God; for the unbeliever, the "water" of their knowledge and experience evaporates into the dry creek beds of false belief.

Such editorial bias is understandable – but inaccurate. Speaking from my own experience – and that of fellow travellers –the understanding of the nature of being developed through a spiritual practice is far from being the dry creek bed you suppose it to be – it is nothing less than the direct and intimate experience in life itself.

While 'scripture' can come with charm and gems of wisdom, it inherently implies that truth is absent and needs to be found...a 'belief' that is culturally ingrained whether we are religious or not. Having been forced into the social mind with male authority as "God's" word and the like, it becomes a fixed assumption that is impossible to remove except by understanding its non-necessity.

As to accusations of ‘false belief’...

There are hundreds of paths up the mountain, all leading in the same direction, so it doesn’t matter which path you take. The only one wasting time is the one who runs around and around the mountain, telling everyone else that their path is wrong.

We have a fundamental, foundational, and primary divide in terms of our interpretation of reality. You believe, as nearly as I can tell, that spirit is in some sense a manifestation of matter -- may we say, "nature?" I believe that spirit is inexpressibly transcendent of, and superior to, nature (or matter) -- that indeed the former existed before the latter, and the latter's existence is in every way dependent on the former.

And it is a belief that is not grounded in evidence, whereas the alternative – spirit being an evolutionary development is logically supported.

IOW, spirit is in every sense possible "supernatural."

If spirit is manifest in the natural world it, by definition, is natural.

I submit that you would be hard-pressed for evidence that we, as a (human) race, are indeed "evolving" in a sense that represents "good" (but then, what is "good", right?)
It appears to be quite the contrary; as we have "evolved" to the point of being at the precipice of global catastrophe, if not annihilation, with any number of potential flashpoints primed to spark an out-of-control explosion.

Human nature is not fixed: humans are able, when forced by life conditions, to adapt to their environment by constructing new, more complex, conceptual models of the world that allow them to handle the new problems. The theory of Spiral Dynamics sets out the path of human development that may bring light to the dilemma you see mankind being in.

And am at somewhat of a loss as to how to proceed with someone who doesn't acknowledge the "problem" involved with the human condition: that we are aware of the good; can express it and even codify it; but cannot obtain or conform to it except sporadically, despite our best efforts (either individually or corporately), and as a result experience persistent suffering in the form of wars, disease, mental anguish, etc. -- and death.

And religions such as the monotheisms which seek to perpetuate the illusion of individual selfhood - in the case of Christianity, personal salvation through Jesus - are ultimately no answer and in the short term, divisive and only propagate the problem it seeks to answer.

"What did Jesus actually pay?" The price for every sin that you or I, or anyone else who ever lived. ever did or will do. All sin is a result of our broken relationship with God, and of our desire to place ourselves before Him.

In that case I am not a sinner – as I have no broken relationship with god.

[Volbrigade]

Volbrigade, it has been an interesting discussion over the past few weeks – one much appreciated.

I have no doubt of your sincerity – you clearly write what you believe and believe what you write – just as did the writers of the gospels.

I thank you, bernee -- though you have tempted me with the sin of Pride with your high praise.

I have enjoyed this exchange, as well -- and the lack of rancor that has accompanied it. It's refreshing to engage in an exchange of ideas without resorting to the ad hominem attacks that so frequently mar them.

I hope I have addressed some of the very salient points presented by you, Cathar, and Goat -- I may be leaving out somebody -- in objection to my expression of the Christian faith. If not, I will try to do so -- perhaps on another thread, if not this one. As the pages mount on this one, I'm afraid I may have overlooked a valid objection or two, or attempted generalized responses to them -- there are only so many hours in a day.

I will leave you -- for now -- with this generalized observation, taken from my morning devotional reading, and which I think applies to our conversation: specifically, the view that there is nothing to be "saved" from; hence, there is no need for salvation.

In Matthew 19: 16-28, the Parable of the Rich Young Man (with which I'm sure you're all familiar), the young man asks Jesus what good things he must do to gain eternal life. Jesus tells him he must obey the commandments not to murder, lie, steal, commit adultery, and he must honor his mother and father. The young man replies that he has observed all of these things from youth.

Jesus then tells him that if he wants to be perfect, to sell all of his possessions, give the money to the poor, and "Follow me."

Of course, the young man leaves in sadness, because he had "great wealth."

The passage that follows this parable, and comments on it, is the famous "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

What does a rich man need Jesus for? His riches can provide all of the fine things that make this life worthwhile; as well as putting him in a position of superiority to his fellow men that encourages that most fatal of sins -- pride. Riches, then, can be a great impediment to the realization of our utter dependence on God, "in whom we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17)

I have long thought one of the primary reasons for the decline of Christianity in the West is our abundance of riches. Our creatures comforts and ease of life (due to labor saving devices, division of labor, market economies, etc.), access to transportation, entertainment, information, healthcare, and our overall affluence in general, is beyond the wildest dreams of the kings of old.

We are rich beyond measure. What do we need with God?

Except: in the midst of our cultural affluence, we are still beset by emptiness, shallowness, depression, boredom, lack of purpose, "living to work, working to live", envy, spite, discord of every sort --

And perhaps the cruelest trap of all -- the realization that sets in when one realizes that there are problems that no amount of money will solve -- such as when one realizes that there is no escape from self. See "Ecclesiastes", or any of the supermarket celebrity tabloids for reference.

Is there a solution? Is there a way out of this "mortal jam"?

I suggest there is.

"Follow Me."

[bernee51]

I hope I have addressed some of the very salient points presented by you, Cathar, and Goat -- I may be leaving out somebody -- in objection to my expression of the Christian faith.

Personally I have no objection to your expression of your Christian faith – my objection would be to any claims that it is the ONLY path to follow in order to live a life guided by loving kindness.

I will leave you -- for now -- with this generalized observation, taken from my morning devotional reading, and which I think applies to our conversation: specifically, the view that there is nothing to be "saved" from; hence, there is no need for salvation.

In Matthew 19: 16-28, the Parable of the Rich Young Man ... "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."
What does a rich man need Jesus for? His riches can provide all of the fine things that make this life worthwhile; as well as putting him in a position of superiority to his fellow men that encourages that most fatal of sins -- pride. Riches, then, can be a great impediment to the realization of our utter dependence on God, "in whom we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17)

One of my teachers was often asked this very question (or a very similar one) – in order to overcome those things which hold us back from ‘being perfect’ (as if we were not already perfect!) was it necessary to become a renunciate i.e. reject the world and its attractions in order to self realize. His answer was that even in renunciation the attraction to those things may remain and distract from the ‘true’ path. So it is not the wealth etc that is the issue it is the attraction to it.

The bottom line...it is not only possible but perhaps even necessary for some(most?) to live in the world AND overcome those limiting factors.

I have long thought one of the primary reasons for the decline of Christianity in the West is our abundance of riches. Our creature comforts and ease of life (due to labor saving devices, division of labor, market economies, etc.), access to transportation, entertainment, information, healthcare, and our overall affluence in general, is beyond the wildest dreams of the kings of old.

We are rich beyond measure. What do we need with God?

I would suggest that the need then is not for god itself but for what the concept of god brings with it.

Except: in the midst of our cultural affluence, we are still beset by emptiness, shallowness, depression, boredom, lack of purpose, "living to work, working to live", envy, spite, discord of every sort –

So clearly – for many the god concept is not fulfilling the need for meaning and legitimacy to the extent it may have – the afflictions you mentioned have always been a characteristic of the human experience. In fact having a ‘Christian ideal’ as a goal and falling short of the mark (or being told, or believing, one is) may even exacerbate these afflictions.

And perhaps the cruellest trap of all -- the realization that sets in when one realizes that there are problems that no amount of money will solve -- such as when one realizes that there is no escape from self.

This is where you, IMHO, are wrong.

There certainly is the possibility of escape from self.

Why are we unhappy?

Because 99.9 per cent of everything we think, and of everything we do, is for our self — and there isn't one

Is there a solution? Is there a way out of this "mortal jam"?

I suggest there is.

There are I suggest many paths up the mountain, all leading in the same direction, so it doesn’t matter which path you take. The only one wasting time is the one who runs around and around the mountain, telling everyone else that their path is wrong