1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59You apparently are not reading my replies.
Now give me ONE example of his moral teaching that was new to the
world which we can debate. (As I have asked many times before.)
Just one moral teaching. No quotes, no opinions. Keep it short!
I already circumvented your criteria of the "new" by admitting, as a TYPICAL MAN of course things Jesus taught would have CORRESPONDING parallels in other teachers.
I have made that point at least twice.
So I have already, and preemptively neutralized the effect you hope to make.
Subtracting the miraculous, as a typical man, why would we NOT find many similar words in other men and women who have a conscience?
It is the concentration of these attributes in ONE Person within the short time span of three and one half years which is unique. So you can locate elsewhere AN example of a similar teaching here, and there, and elsewhere, is interesting. You wouldn't be the first to notice this. But it is not that impressive if you want to make light of Jesus Christ.
And forget about any criteria you offer that restricts my choice to use the New Testament as a historical document.
4 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59There is no cause for you to boast that I somehow suddenly now agree with you.
Glad you agree and your initial bold statement was inaccurate.
You wrote:
You posted: "You have no example of an ethicist in history[my bolding]
with as powerful an impression on the moral conscience of
mankind as Jesus Christ."
I asked you to justify this by citing a piece of
morality from JC that was not known of before his time.
Can you do that?
And I did that maintain His unque powerful impact.
The operative words there are "as powerful".
You wished to make it "as original".
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThe enemies of God are either reconciled to God or they are never reconciled to God.
According to your beliefs, what eventually happens to the "enemies" of Jesus who do not believe the claims about His divinity?
The enemies of God that are not reconciled to God, in a parable, Jesus explains that the king commands them to be slain before him. The parable of Luke 19:11-27 concludes with these words:
However, these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me. (v.27)
That is a parable. But in the context of the whole Bible two things are related to this:
1.) The enemies of God are the enemies of truth, of righteousness, and of man himself. It is not simply that Christ's or God's enemies are a PERSONAL affront which calls for some petty PERSONAL vendetta.
To oppose God is to oppose the ultimate goodness and truth of being.
2.) Though God so loves His enemies He will not GIVE UP His righteousness for the sake of that love. For the sake of His love He will not give up His being righteous and just.
The story of the Bible is a story of God coordinating together both His great love and His great justice.
These two aspects of God's character He coordinates together. We cannot expect Him to give up His love for His righteous demand. Otherwise there would only be the Law and condemnation. But we also cannot expect Him to give up His righteous demand for the sake of Him only loving sinners. then there would be unrighteous permissiveness.
He has ordained a way in which we can be viewed by Him as if we had never sinned. He has ordained a way in which our history, or legacy, or record can be nothing less than the Person of Jesus Christ Himself, who was the only man completely satisfying God's righteous demand.
If we reject this Person, the Son, we are unreconciled enemies of God.
No one should want to remain forever an unreconciled enemy of God.
I am a believer and was reconciled to God even while I was an enemy, and saved from the wrath through Jesus -
"But God commends His own love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having been justified in His blood, we will be saved through Him from the wrath.
For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled." (Romans 5:9,10)
The enemies unreconciled are not saved from the wrath.
Do not expect that for the sake of His great love for sinners He will decide that His law will be trampled upon. The wrath will be the eternal realization of God's hatred of sin, as I have written many times.
Originally posted by sonshipYou would have us believe that not having the same religious beliefs as you happen to have, is, in and of itself, a "moral failure"?
How will finding some logical weakness with the New Testament plan of salvation remove the stains upon one's conscience for moral failures committed ?
Originally posted by sonshipAccording to your beliefs, these "enemies" of Jesus who do not believe the claims about His divinity ("unreconciled", as you put it), are eventually tortured in burning agony for all eternity, right, and this would be an example of how he "genuinely loves" them "not only in speech" but in deed as well, have I understood you correctly?
Who genuinely loved His enemies, not only in speech, but in example, as Jesus ?
3 edits
Originally posted by sonshipOK, so let's take this passage of Romans.
"But God commends His own love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having been justified in His blood, we will be saved through Him from the wrath.
For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled." (Romans 5:9,10)
I elaborated in another thread the theory of debt and punishment, but clearly, just like me, you don't have time to read everry thread.
Let us take a very simple example - you owe a certain party A $100. But you don't even acknowledge that the debt is real, and refuse to pay.
However, a friend of yours, say Person B, without your knowledge and consent, pays A the debt on your behalf.
Now no matter what you say, that debt is cancelled. Payment of a debt is a binary situation - it is either paid or due, it cannot be both.
So anybody who claims that you STILL owe that money, is lying. Person A will, upon being questioned, most assuredly confirm that the debt has been paid, and will not insist that you acknwledge that the debt was real in the first place, and somehow thank B for it.
In many scriptures we read that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Even this passage in Romans says so.
So if Paul, or you, or anybody else, says that ALTHOUGH THE DEBT HAS BEEN PAID, there is still something that you have to do to make it "valid", they are wrong.
He saved us all (mankind) from the wrath of God. Paul's letters then go on to explain to us how we should live - and this is squarely in the field of ethics, relationships and simply good manners. Love God and love your neighbour.
Originally posted by sonshipYou have not defined "His great justice" to mean anything other than 'might is right' and the revenge for not believing this particular 'might is right' is unimaginably cruel violence that lasts forever. Thus, you offer nothing credible on "justice" other than these sonship-says-so-because-sonship-read-it-in-a-book assertions.
The story of the Bible is a story of God coordinating together both His great love and His great justice.
4 edits
Originally posted by CalJust
OK, so let's take this passage of Romans.
Go. I'm listening.
I elaborated in another thread the theory of debt and punishment, but clearly, just like me, you don't have time to read every thread.
I think we share a common belief that God has spoken to us through the Scripture. What would you say about Romans 5:9,10?
Let us take a very simple example - you owe a certain party A $100. But you don't even acknowledge that the debt is real, and refuse to pay.
However, a friend of yours, say Person B, without your knowledge and consent, pays A the debt on your behalf.
Now no matter what you say, that debt is cancelled. Payment of a debt is a binary situation - it is either paid or due, it cannot be both.
So anybody who claims that you STILL owe that money, is lying. Person A will, upon being questioned, most assuredly confirm that the debt has been paid, and will not insist that you acknwledge that the debt was real in the first place, and somehow thank B for it.
In many scriptures we read that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Even this passage in Romans says so.
So if Paul, or you, or anybody else, says that ALTHOUGH THE DEBT HAS BEEN PAID, there is still something that you have to do to make it "valid", they are wrong.
He saved us all (mankind) from the wrath of God. Paul's letters then go on to explain to us how we should live - and this is squarely in the field of ethics, relationships and simply good manners. Love God and love your neighbour.
This, I think, is Universalism .
I would say two things about your comment.
1.) The One who paid the dept for the owing party is not entirely a THIRD person B but the One to whom the dept is due. He is God / Man. So it cannot be thought that it is entirely a matter of a non-depted innocent other party B has paid my dept. It is also God Himself become a man who has gone to the uttermost, the UTTERMOST to reconcile the transgressor.
This touches the matter of God being a Triune God - the Trinity.
God in Christ was reconciling the world to Himself.
2.) The redemptive act of Christ is like a blank check upon which any amount of funds may be entered. He died to take away the sins of the whole world for all time, as you affirm.
But the substitution takes place in believing into Jesus Christ.
I purposely do not say merely believing in Jesus Christ.
I say believing INTO the living Person of Christ as a realm, a sphere.
God ordains that when through faith we enter into Him, the substitution of this infinitely valuable blank check takes place on our behalf personally.
Universalist do stress the word "all" in a number of passages to teach their view that NO ONE is left unforgiven in eternity, including the Devil and his angels.
But what I see is God leaves the door open for the sinner. If he or she really does not want to believe into the Son of God, that substitution is not enacted for them personally. They will die in their sins.
The word Substitution I don't think is in the New Testament.
Just like the word Trinity is not there.
But the truth of both is seen.
And Jesus, in establishing the Lord's Table, said that His new covenant was in the shedding of His blood "for many" .
"For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28)
Universalism would like to say "everyone" in place of "the many" . But the new covenant is received by some and rejected by some. So though the blank check is written that can cover everyone (not including Satan, demons and fallen angels) the Substitution of Christ payment for the sinner's payment is enacted for the believers in the Son of God.
1 edit
Caljust,
In light of this, I would ask YOU a question. And it is a genuine one.
Regardless of what specifically the lake of fire is, would it make sense for God to forewarn us that all whose names were not recorded in it would go there? That is if God knows NO ONE will go there because ALL have been forgiven then why would He tell us beforehand -
"And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev. 20:15)
Are you proposing that perhaps God knows now that NO ONE, but NO ONE will suffer that fate, but He just tells us anyway for some reason?
Originally posted by CalJustThat's a nice example, but not all all debts are of that form. Suppose A owes a debt of gratitude or owes an apology to B. If a third person, C, expresses gratitude or apologizes to B on A's behalf, it doesn't discharge A's debt to B. Sometimes a debt can only be discharged by sincerely feeling a certain way, or by coming to see things in a certain way. These debts can't be taken up by another. That's why I'm skeptical of the very notion that Jesus could have taken all our sins upon himself.
OK, so let's take this passage of Romans.
I elaborated in another thread the theory of debt and punishment, but clearly, just like me, you don't have time to read everry thread.
Let us take a very simple example - you owe a certain party A $100. But you don't even acknowledge that the debt is real, and refuse to pay.
However, a friend of yours, sa ...[text shortened]... in the field of ethics, relationships and simply good manners. Love God and love your neighbour.