Abba not Father....

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have asked on several occasions and the was absolute silence. Not one single Christian was willing to even attempt an answer.
So lets see how you do.
Who was Christ buying our adoption from and what currency was he using? Why do people in the old testament also consider themselves to be sons of God or is it one of those 'time is irrelevant' cases?
Wh ce can learn and understand science. The same is not apparently true for religious ideas.

Who was Christ buying our adoption from and what currency was he using?

The Greek word for "adoption", uioqesia, has a few distinct meanings, biblically speaking. First it refers to the relationship which God has established with the Israelites. Second it can refer to the relationship which God establishes with all true disciples of Christ when they receive His Spirit. And third it can refer to the future salvation event.

What God is adopting people from is condemnation under the law; from a life of slavery to sin. The "currency" which he uses is the blood of Christ poured out on the cross. When a person chooses to believe in that sacrifice, God imputes His righteousness to that person and pours out His Spirit into him or her. This is primarily what is implied by the term, "adoption."

Why do people in the old testament also consider themselves to be sons of God or is it one of those 'time is irrelevant' cases?

The Israelites are the sons of the 'adoption' because of the faith of Abraham. Being an adopted child of God implies sonship, as noted above. Jesus Christ's distinction is that He is the "only begotten" Son of God. That distinction implies absolute preeminence.

What do you actually mean when you say Jesus died?

Jesus died on the cross. Dying on the cross was the purpose of His incarnation. It was the hope of Moses and Elias, and all faithful Israelites, that the Messiah would come and die. God's promise was that the Messiah would set people free from condemnation under the law, and in order to do so He had to die. If Christ did not die, then there would be no forgiveness of sins. It is faith in that propitiatory death that saves a person.

I have never figured out how to tell what the 'true form' of the Gospel is so I have no idea if it has been explained to me.

First, it is a choice to believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; a choice made regardless of doubts, strictly on the trustworthiness of scripture (i.e. the trustworthiness of God). But before one does so, one must "count the cost". Are you willing to do what it takes to be a disciple of Christ? Christ says, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matt. 16:24). "Denying oneself" is the great "cost" of discipleship; only by denying oneself can a person put God and others before himself. When a person declares faith in Jesus Christ, he or she is born again; declared righteous in God's eyes. Legally speaking, in God's eyes, that person has died with Christ on the cross and has been raised with Him into heavenly places, justified. The new life in Christ is one of appropriating the power of God in order to manifest the legal reality of that freedom in Christ, within the very life of the believer, i.e. evident victory over the power of sin and death through a life abundant with joy and thanksgiving. This is accomplished through the "cost" of discipleship, i.e. "denying oneself", coupled with the outworking of grace and power in the Spirit of Christ.

Originally posted by knightmeister
God's "radiation" is his holy justice that cannot just turn a blind eye to sin and pretend it's nothing. It's like a judge who shows compassion on a criminal and lets him off his punishment . He can do this but the law and justice require that the fine be paid in full and that justice runs it's full course. The criminal has no money so the judge pays the fine for him. Justice has been satisfied and so has mercy.

I think this is the heart of why I do not understand you. You do not understand the criminal justice system or the purpose of punishment in it. You demonstrated that quite clearly in your wayward robot thread and you are demonstrating it here. So when you use it to try and explain your understanding of Christianity it completely confuses me because you are assuming that I understand the criminal justice system in the same incorrect way that you do.
If the judge pays the fine out of his own pocket then justice has not 'run its full course' at all. In fact he is making a mockery of the justice system and should immediately be removed as judge as he clearly does not understand it at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think this is the heart of why I do not understand you. You do not understand the criminal justice system or the purpose of punishment in it. You demonstrated that quite clearly in your wayward robot thread and you are demonstrating it here. So when you use it to try and explain your understanding of Christianity it completely confuses me because you ar ...[text shortened]... system and should immediately be removed as judge as he clearly does not understand it at all.

If the judge pays the fine out of his own pocket then justice has not 'run its full course' at all. In fact he is making a mockery of the justice system and should immediately be removed as judge as he clearly does not understand it at all. WHITEY

And this is the point about the cross being an expression of God's love and mercy and compassion. God DOES in a way make a mockery of the justice system because he lets us off the penalty. He knows we cannot pay whatever we do and he knows we also cannot bear the justice. He understands that we are made of clay and judges us accordingly.

Originally posted by knightmeister
And this is the point about the cross being an expression of God's love and mercy and compassion. God DOES in a way make a mockery of the justice system because he lets us off the penalty. He knows we cannot pay whatever we do and he knows we also cannot bear the justice. He understands that we are made of clay and judges us accordingly.

Now I am getting thoroughly confused. First you say that it is all about ensuring justice prevails. Then you give a worldly justice system example in which justice does not prevail but you claim it does. Then you admit that justice does not prevail even in the case of God and Jesus.
But you still don't explain what the whole point is. When the judge pays the fine for the criminal he not only makes a mockery of the system but he does something that is of absolutely no value whatsoever. By paying the fine he does not make the crime go away, he doesn't forgive the crime (through the payment), he doesn't punish the crime, in fact the only reason he might do it that I can think of is because he wants to cheat the system created by his employers (society) and is thus committing a crime himself.

If as you say the judge realized that the criminal in question was likely to be unable to pay the fine or was physically or mentally unsound and thus unable to serve a prison sentence without harming him beyond a reasonable amount, then he would merely change the sentence hopefully to one that still serves the original purpose. Paying the fine himself does not serve the original purpose and is as I say an attempt to cheat the system and a sign that the Judge does not understand or does not agree with the system - hence my conclusion when you suggested it, that you did not understand the system.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
What God is adopting people from is condemnation under the law; from a life of slavery to sin. The "currency" which he uses is the blood of Christ poured out on the cross. When a person chooses to believe in that sacrifice, God imputes His righteousness to that person and pours out His Spirit into him or her. This is primarily what is implied by the term, "adoption."

I am sorry but if you want me to understand even a little bit of what you are saying you will have to translate it into English with your secret decoder ring as I don't have one.
That is essentially what I am asking knightmeister. Christians frequently talk as if what they are saying is self evident but after an inquiry it becomes apparent that 90% of the key words being used mean something totally different to you than their dictionary definitions.

Jesus died on the cross. Dying on the cross was the purpose of His incarnation. It was the hope of Moses and Elias, and all faithful Israelites, that the Messiah would come and die. God's promise was that the Messiah would set people free from condemnation under the law, and in order to do so He had to die. If Christ did not die, then there would be no forgiveness of sins. It is faith in that propitiatory death that saves a person.
I see you misunderstood my question. Again, the word die, death etc clearly means something different to Christians so I was trying to clarify what it means to you. Instead you have simply repeatedly used it without explaining it at all.

First, it is a choice to believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; a choice made regardless of doubts, strictly on the trustworthiness of scripture.
So you are essentially saying that someone like me who is absolutely convinced that scripture is not trustworthy can never know what is the 'true form' of the gospel nor which of you is telling the truth about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am sorry but if you want me to understand even a little bit of what you are saying you will have to translate it into English with your secret decoder ring as I don't have one.
That is essentially what I am asking knightmeister. Christians frequently talk as if what they are saying is self evident but after an inquiry it becomes apparent that 90% of th r know what is the 'true form' of the gospel nor which of you is telling the truth about it.

I see you misunderstood my question. Again, the word die, death etc clearly means something different to Christians so I was trying to clarify what it means to you. Instead you have simply repeatedly used it without explaining it at all.

Well, in this instance the dictionary definition will suffice:

1. the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism.

Christ died a real, physical death on the cross, and would have stayed dead permanently (as any typical dead person would) except the Lord raised Him from the dead three days later.

So you are essentially saying that someone like me who is absolutely convinced that scripture is not trustworthy can never know what is the 'true form' of the gospel nor which of you is telling the truth about it.

No, it is possible for anyone to grasp the true form of the Gospel, and whether I or anyone else is misrepresenting it to you (which I am not). What is eminently less certain is whether you will be able to actually believe the word of God.

Here's the ultimate example of what I mean.

Do you believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead? The word of God declares that such an event did, in fact, occur. Not only that, but the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ expounded by the apostles is based on its occurrence. Of Jesus Christ literally rising from the dead you have no proof, and concerning His resurrection you will find no corroboration in any science textbook or medical journal, nor, at last, in your own rational thought. Nevertheless, the word of God is adamant that it happened.

This is what I mean by trusting the word of God, despite doubts: in the face of all the opposing evidence (i.e. that dead men stay dead), will you believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead? By doing so you would be affirming that (1) God's word is true and (2) that God has the power to raise people from the dead.

Can you grasp how this would revolutionize your world view?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now I am getting thoroughly confused. First you say that it is all about ensuring justice prevails. Then you give a worldly justice system example in which justice does not prevail but you claim it does. Then you admit that justice does not prevail even in the case of God and Jesus.
But you still don't explain what the whole point is. When the judge pays ...[text shortened]... e system - hence my conclusion when you suggested it, that you did not understand the system.

Then you give a worldly justice system example in which justice does not prevail WHITEY

Yes it does in the sense that the penalty has been fulfilled by the judge paying the fine. It also performs another justice in the sense that the fine is one that the criminal could never pay himself. He cannot atone or pay reparation , he has not got the funds and never will have so it would be unfair (or unjust) for the judge to expect him to. Also the judge understands that the criminal is made of clay and cannot be expected to stay clear of crime.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now I am getting thoroughly confused. First you say that it is all about ensuring justice prevails. Then you give a worldly justice system example in which justice does not prevail but you claim it does. Then you admit that justice does not prevail even in the case of God and Jesus.
But you still don't explain what the whole point is. When the judge pays ...[text shortened]... e system - hence my conclusion when you suggested it, that you did not understand the system.

Then you admit that justice does not prevail even in the case of God and Jesus. WHITEY

Well in one sense you are right because we do not get exposed to the full judgement of God's holiness because Christ does instead (radiation suit) but on another level it still works as justice because it would be unfair of God (and therefore unjust and unholy) to just leave us in sin and not give us any way out. We would rightly protest saying " but we are but clay and we did not choose to be born into sin or have a sinful nature from birth so it's not right that you expose us to your full judgement".

God of course knows this and Jesus comes so that we are given a way out unable to say "I had no choice and no way out" . This is why the Bible says that all judgement has been handed to christ because he knows what it is to be human and tempted.

So in one sense God lets us off (unjust) but in another its only right that he does let us off. The first part is about satisfying the demands of holiness and the second is about justice, love and mercy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now I am getting thoroughly confused. First you say that it is all about ensuring justice prevails. Then you give a worldly justice system example in which justice does not prevail but you claim it does. Then you admit that justice does not prevail even in the case of God and Jesus.
But you still don't explain what the whole point is. When the judge pays ...[text shortened]... e system - hence my conclusion when you suggested it, that you did not understand the system.

When the judge pays the fine for the criminal he not only makes a mockery of the system but he does something that is of absolutely no value whatsoever. WHITEY

It has value because it sets the criminal free from a burden which he cannot possibly pay. He is liberated and forgiven but has a good understanding of the cost of being set free. He can approach the judge without the weight of this burden on him.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now I am getting thoroughly confused. First you say that it is all about ensuring justice prevails. Then you give a worldly justice system example in which justice does not prevail but you claim it does. Then you admit that justice does not prevail even in the case of God and Jesus.
But you still don't explain what the whole point is. When the judge pays ...[text shortened]... e system - hence my conclusion when you suggested it, that you did not understand the system.

By paying the fine he does not make the crime go away, he doesn't forgive the crime (through the payment), he doesn't punish the crime, in fact the only reason he might do it that I can think of is because he wants to cheat the system created by his employers (society) and is thus committing a crime himself. WHITEY

I think this is the bit where I start to question the integrity of your pedantry here. You know full well that an analogy of any kind will not always work on every single level . This analogy works on the level that the man's debt and burden is being paid on his behalf by one who can pay for one who can't . If you want to take it further then there's no guarantee that the analogy will hold up on all levels nor did I ever say it would. You are just looking for ways in which it does not work rather than hearing what is said to you. Similarly the radiation suit analogy has holes in it because one might say that Jesus is not made of silver reflective material.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now I am getting thoroughly confused. First you say that it is all about ensuring justice prevails. Then you give a worldly justice system example in which justice does not prevail but you claim it does. Then you admit that justice does not prevail even in the case of God and Jesus.
But you still don't explain what the whole point is. When the judge pays ...[text shortened]... e system - hence my conclusion when you suggested it, that you did not understand the system.

If as you say the judge realized that the criminal in question was likely to be unable to pay the fine or was physically or mentally unsound and thus unable to serve a prison sentence without harming him beyond a reasonable amount, then he would merely change the sentence ......WHITEY

You don't see it do you? That's what the cross is. It's God changing the sentence except that God does it in a different way. You see even a merciful judge cannot overlook the gravity of what has been done. One can change the sentence but this does not mean that one pretends that a crime has not taken place. If a mentally ill man shoots someone then a family is still left grieving every bit as much as they would if it had been done in cold blood. The wrong has still taken place. Atonement is still needed. A good and perfect judge cannot pretend that the crime has not happened or that harm has not taken place so by paying the fine himself he is BOTH not turning a blind eye to the wrong done AND changing the sentence as well by setting the man free from the burden(which is the only right thing to do in the circumstances).

He can't ask the man to pay because that would be unfair on a man who was mentally ill but at the same time he can't ignore or pretend that nothing has happened , a crime HAS taken place.

Originally posted by knightmeister
By paying the fine he does not make the crime go away, he doesn't forgive the crime (through the payment), he doesn't punish the crime, in fact the only reason he might do it that I can think of is because he wants to cheat the system created by his employers (society) and is thus committing a crime himself. WHITEY

I think this is the bit where I st ...[text shortened]... has holes in it because one might say that Jesus is not made of silver reflective material.

That's why analogies are weak ways of arguing a position.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think this is the bit where I start to question the integrity of your pedantry here. You know full well that an analogy of any kind will not always work on every single level . This analogy works on the level that the man's debt and burden is being paid on his behalf by one who can pay for one who can't . If you want to take it further then there's n ...[text shortened]... y has holes in it because one might say that Jesus is not made of silver reflective material.

But as far as I can tell the analogy doesn't work in any way at all. You are (I hope) trying to explain to me the reasoning behind one person paying for another mans sins. If we were talking about (as you now imply claim) monetary debts then we would be talking about bankruptcy law, forgiveness of debts etc not judges and criminals. You chose the judge analogy precisely for its 'pay for crime' value and are now saying that that is precisely where it doesn't work and you accuse me of pedantry?
I am genuinely trying to understand the reasoning behind Jesus' sacrifice. I do admit that I am skeptical about there being any actual reasoning as the majority of people I ask about it shy away from the question altogether. I am however hopeful that you can do better. You expressed your worry that I might attempt to ridicule your core faith and as a result I will do my best not to try to insult in any way the person of Jesus for the duration of this thread. But I do think that analyzing your argument is valid as it helps me to understand what you are saying. Maybe you can find an analogy that better suits what you are trying to explain?

Originally posted by knightmeister
You don't see it do you? That's what the cross is. It's God changing the sentence except that God does it in a different way. You see even a merciful judge cannot overlook the gravity of what has been done. One can change the sentence but this does not mean that one pretends that a crime has not taken place. If a mentally ill man shoots someone then a ...[text shortened]... e same time he can't ignore or pretend that nothing has happened , a crime HAS taken place.

I am not talking about God here but the human made criminal justice system.

Do you believe that it is just or sensible or meaningful in any way for a judge, when punishing a crime to apply the sentence or punishment to anyone other than the criminal? Do you believe that punishment is a form of just payment for a crime in a currency sort of way and not that its purpose is to correct behavior and discourage further criminal acts? Do you believe that punishment actually rights a wrong?

I am trying to get to the root of the differences between human concepts of justice and the heavenly justice you are trying to explain to me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not talking about God here but the human made criminal justice system.

Do you believe that it is just or sensible or meaningful in any way for a judge, when punishing a crime to apply the sentence or punishment to anyone other than the criminal? Do you believe that punishment is a form of just payment for a crime in a currency sort of way and not ...[text shortened]... nces between human concepts of justice and the heavenly justice you are trying to explain to me.

I am not talking about God here but the human made criminal justice system. WHITEY

I'm sorry , but I was under the misapprehension that God was precisely what we were talking about.