Sin

Originally posted by sonship
You could go on making even more of a fool of yourself. True.
And I expect you to.

You asked what more god could have done.
I give you 4 ideas off the top of my head, all of which would have been more.
Your god is as devoid of imagination as you.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You asked what more god could have done.
I give you 4 ideas off the top of my head, all of which would have been more.
Your god is as devoid of imagination as you.

Off the top of your head ?
How many levels down do you go before you hit the cow pasture?

Originally posted by sonship
Off the top of your head ?
How many levels down do you go before you hit the cow pasture?

That was unecessarily mean of me. I apologize wolfgang59.
Its too late for me to erase this.

Originally posted by wolfgang59

Okay, I'll look at these clever gems. What else could God have done to redeem us, in that He, in Christ laid down His life as a man, a God-man for genuinely guilty transgressors.

You obviously lack imagination.

1. He could have sent down twin sons .... maybe even triplets.

The so-called duplicates or "twins" as you imagine are in the plan of God.
They are not intended in His incarnation and birth but in His resurrection and salvation.

This is seen in Christ's analogy of the one grain sent to accomplish death so that the many grains as duplicates may be produced.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." (John 12:24)

The Son of God was unique in His alone ability to be a perfect man. Sending another "twin" perfect man assumes more than one God. There is only one God who was incarnated to come as God the Son, the Perfect Man and therefore the unique Redeemer.

However, through His redemption, in His salvation He produces other saved, sons of God, who will become like Him - "twins" if you wish by the billions in eternity.

Proposing TWO Sons of God is like proposing there were TWO Adams. Each man as the head of a race of humans was unique. And "the second man" or "the last Adam" is God incarnate, the ONE God, shedding blood of redemption for us.

But redemption has as a goal to produce many sons conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son Jesus.

" Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:29)

2. He could have passed on the water to wine trick to the disciples.

The "water to wine trick" as you childishly refer to, John says was "the beginning of signs Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee and manifested His glory, ..." (John 2:11a)

The "beginning of signs" probably means that this first miraculous sign was done to lay down a principle that Jesus wanted to teach. That is that He can turn man's death into divine life. He can turn death into life.

He DID enable the disciples to perform some miracles, mostly while the canon of the New Testament was being compiled. Peter, Paul, Phillip, Stephen the first martyr along with the 70 close followers were endowed by Christ to do some of the things He had done.

First He had to be unique to set up the principle. And to demonstrate the He is uniquely the SOURCE for them of this authority.

3. He could have made a new Sabbath of 3 days thereby promoting a 4 day working week.

This display of you wanting your laziness to be sacred hardly merits a serious reply.

4. He could have made Jesus be born on Christmas Day.

Flight headed zaniness is entertaining for a little while.
After awhile it is like unwrapping a colorfully ribboned box decorated with frills and bows only to discover it is empty inside.

Originally posted by sonship
Okay, I'll look at these clever gems. .

Although flippant my intent is serious.
You asked "What more could he have done?"
And there is obviously more.

Of my original suggestions getting his (JC) birthday right would have been useful.

Think of every theological discussion ... couldn't god have made things clearer?

And why didn't he send a plague of locusts to JCs enemies?

Or redirect the Jordan?

Or any number of OT tricks.

The god in your story could have done a lot more.
The NT writers were just not creative enough.

Originally posted by wolfgang59

Although flippant my intent is serious.
You asked "What more could he have done?"
And there is obviously more.

Of my original suggestions getting his (JC) birthday right would have been useful.

Think of every theological discussion ... couldn't god have made things clearer?

And why didn't he send a plague of locusts to JCs enemies?

Or redirect the Jordan?

Or any number of OT tricks.

The god in your story could have done a lot more.
The NT writers were just not creative enough.

You assume that entertainment is all that was intended.
This may be a sign of just someone who is over entertained to the point that little else matters in life.

It is sad that before your eyes, the Gospels were written only for imaginative entertainment. Tell me, do you expect that last thing you'll see in life will be Porky Pig studdering "thebeda, thebada, thebeda, thebeda, that's all folks!" ?

" ... these things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Although flippant my intent is serious.
You asked "What more could he have done?"
And there is obviously more.

Of my original suggestions getting his (JC) birthday right would have been useful.

Think of every theological discussion ... couldn't god have made things clearer?

And why didn't he send a plague of locusts to JCs enemies?

Or r ...[text shortened]... ay believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." [/b]

You can believe what you want - I don't have to.
I was debating a statement you made.
\you can debate - but you don't have to.

Originally posted by wolfgang59

You can believe what you want - I don't have to.
I was debating a statement you made.
\you can debate - but you don't have to.

The writing of the four Gospels simply don't have the characteristic of a flights of imagination.

Luke for instance, reads like thoroughly researched historical journalism -

"Now in the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Caesar, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zachariah in the wilderness." (Luke 3:1,2)

This is history being written. This is not "Once Upon A Time in a far off land ..." to entertain through fertile imaginations.

Originally posted by sonship

You can believe what you want - I don't have to.
I was debating a statement you made.
\you can debate - but you don't have to.

The writing of the four Gospels simply don't have the characteristic of a flights of imagination.

Luke for instance, reads like thoroughly researched historical journalism -

[quote] "Now in the fiftee ...[text shortened]... This is not "Once Upon A Time in a far off land ..." to entertain through fertile imaginations.

Sounds like history. Is it true?

I know there is scant evidence to back up any historical authenticity in the bible.

Care to share some?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Sounds like history. Is it true?

I know there is scant evidence to back up any historical authenticity in the bible.

Care to share some?

How about instead you provide me documentation within the first 1000 years of history since about 33 AD that shows scholars disputed that one Jesus of Nazareth ever even lived?

If there is "scant evidence" for such a person, surely with the spread of Christianity someone in the first millennium would have objected to this myth making upon a fictional person.

Originally posted by sonship
How about instead you provide me documentation within the first 1000 years of history since about 33 AD that shows scholars disputed that one [b]Jesus of Nazareth ever even lived?

If there is "scant evidence" for such a person, surely with the spread of Christianity someone in the first millennium would have objected to this myth making upon a fictional person.[/b]

The issue is not how popular and successful Christianity has been. The issue is whether or not there is any historical evidence, other than the Bible itself, to support the claims made by Christians (and no one else) about Jesus' divinity and the nature of the Hebrew/Christian God figure?

Originally posted by sonship
How about instead you provide me documentation within the first 1000 years of history since about 33 AD that shows scholars disputed that one [b]Jesus of Nazareth ever even lived?

If there is "scant evidence" for such a person, surely with the spread of Christianity someone in the first millennium would have objected to this myth making upon a fictional person.[/b]

Can you point to an historical document that even mentions Jesus?
(not Christ as there were lots claiming that title ...)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Can you point to an historical document that even mentions Jesus?
(not Christ as there were lots claiming that title ...)

There are lots claiming the name Jesus or Joshua.
There is even another Jesus besides Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament (Col. 4:11).

"And Jesus, who is called Justus; these alone of the circumcision are my fellow workers ... ".

So you have no example of first millennium evidence that someone disputing that Jesus of Nazareth was fictional.

Originally posted by sonship
There are lots claiming the name Jesus or Joshua.
There is even another Jesus besides Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament (Col. 4:11).

I really would like to know what historical record mentions Jesus.

Originally posted by sonship
So you have no example of first millennium evidence that someone disputing that Jesus of Nazareth was fictional.

Personally, I imagine Jesus existed, lived and was executed ~ and clearly a very enduring cult of personality based on his life was created by his followers. People in the first millennium believing that he was 'the son of God' based on the Bible is not "evidence" of Jesus' divinity, and is only "evidence" of what certain people believed.