1

You manage not to mention the church, that Jesus built, that is His Body, that is the pillar and bulwark of Truth, in your entire thoughtful essay.

2

First, in #29, you say:

...I also believe that certain knowledge about this text was revealed to me, through the immediate revelation of the Holy Spirit...

But then, in #31, you say:

I believe that the whole counsel of God...is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

So in #29 you say that you had a revelation from the Holy Spirit that, in effect, you ADDED to what you took as the counsel of God in your daily decisions -- which flatly contradicts #31. After all, if you are allowed to add your personal revelations to your Bible-based beliefs, why can't others do the same?

The minute you allow for "revelations of the Holy Spirit," on which many Christians claim to base their faith, you explicitly admit that the Bible is NOT "the whole counsel of God."

(Also, isn't there something in Acts about "many other things Jesus did" that aren't in the Bible? It sounds to me that the Bible itself admits that it isn't really the "whole" of God's counsel.)

And why should you refuse to allow "the traditions of men" to add to your understanding of God's counsel? After all, a lot of these men were Christians like yourself, and many of them (Christian and non-Christian alike) were clearly a LOT smarter than the author and all the readers of this blog put together. And they've been thinking about God's revealed counsel, and applying it to the real world, for a LOOOONG time -- shouldn't their experiences and insights count for something?

(I, for one, judge Christianity a "good" and "true" path based on the experiences of other people, who I see trying their best to live according to its teachings; and I interpret and understand the Bible's information based in part on how these people act and what results they get from it. Is this wrong?)

34. I believe that all men have sinned and are rightly deserving of God's eternal wrath and infinitely just punishment.

I'm sorry to sound nasty, but that's the most hateful, deranged, and downright insane thing I've ever heard from any religion. It's also flatly contrary to Jesus' message of love, forgiveness, understanding, and non-judgement. At least Fred Phelps confined his pathological hatred to gays; are you trying to tell us your God is an even more indiscriminate hater?

30. I believe that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative word of God.

Including Leviticus?

Only God himself is "infallible." The minute his counsel is revealed to us imperfect humans, in a man-made written language or any other form understandable to humans, it ceases to be "infallible" or "inerrant" -- especially after it's translated into other languages, like the King James Version was.

(There's also the bothersome historical fact that what you call "The Bible" was compiled by a committee of politicians and clerics long after the many authors had died. Since when was an "inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative" document ever produced by a committee of humans?)

3

What roof do you have on over your man Huckabee? It's now public that he had been fully warned that Wayne Dumond would probably rape and even kill again if he were let out of prison. But for political gain, Huckabee let Dumond out, and Dumond raped and murdered another woman. Since then, Huckabee's been lying like crazy that he didn't have any idea Dumond, a serial rapist, would attack anyone again. It's hard to believe that a self-proclaimed christian would work for such a person. Roof still steady?

4

Raging Bee,

Let me understand this. You seem to concede that God inspired the writers of the 66 books of the Bible, yet you leave no room for Him to inspire and guide the men who decided on what was to be included in the canon? If you don't think God inspired the original texts then it seems silly to point out those texts were compiled and chosen by humans. The canon was pretty well established before it was finalized. Obviously the Old Tesament had been in its current form for a long time. The gospels, and epistles had been used by the early church from at least 100BC forward.
Secondly, your familiarity with the totality of Christ's teachings appear to be gleaned from a Hallmark card. Read the gospels, Christ is clear that there will be judgement and He will be the one doing it. There are a few parables about sheep and goats and wheat and chaff.

5

Oops, I meant 100AD.

6

If you don't think God inspired the original texts then it seems silly to point out those texts were compiled and chosen by humans.

I accept the authors' divine inspiration strictly for the sake of argument here, and point this out to raise the possibility that a) the humans doing the choosing may NOT have been divinely inspired; b) they may have had worldly priorities in mind when they did their compilation (being as they were charged with trying to use power to enforce some sort of order in the temporal sphere at the time); c) it's a bit arbitrary, not to mention unprovable, to pretend that SOME people can be trusted because we claim they had divine inspiration, but other such claims must be rejected.

Many Christians -- and other theists -- claim to have had some sort of revelation that put them on their respective paths. So by what means do we separate "divinely inspired" people from non-inspired people? Is the line really that clear?

Is there really a firm, unbreachable wall between those who are always guided by God and must never be questioned, and those who never hear from God and must never ask questions?

Christ is clear that there will be judgement and He will be the one doing it.

Yes, and it won't be the sort of indiscriminate judgement implied in the "we're all worthless sinners equally deserving of eternal punishment" hatefulness -- which isn't really "judgement" at all.

Secondly, your familiarity with the totality of Christ's teachings appear to be gleaned from a Hallmark card.

I just told you a small part of where it's gleaned from (including those Gospels that tell us how Jesus actually behaved toward people). If you can't refute it from better sources, then you can't expect to win an argument merely by belittling references to Hallmark cards. That may work in a smoky redneck bar, but it won't work on a blog.

7

Sorry, I forgot to add the possibility that d) the politicians and clerics who compiled what they agreed to call "The Bible" may have also chosen to exclude other documents that were divinely inspired, either by mistake, or by the urgency of some temporal priority over long-term spiritual goals. People push spiritual priorities aside in favor of urgent short-term temporal needs all the time, so this could well have happened here, especially at a time when Roman order was crumbling, no one was safe from brutal barbarian invasions, and a whole continent was desperately crying out for peace and order.

8

Raging Bee,

Tahnks for the advice on winning a blog argument. I don't think its possible, I mean have you ever conceded a point to an opponent on the internet? Perhaps we both can refrain from the name calling.

Just to follow up. I think a good many scholars would agree that there probably were texts that were inspired that were left out. Some of the criteria for inclusion were whether the text was universal in its application and to what extent the text was used by the totality of the church. For example letters from the apostles to a particular church that were either not used by or shared with other churches, or wereviewed as too narrow in thier scope to be included in the canon.

If you are willing to concede, for the purposes of our discussion, the inspiration of the authors then you would have to consider conceding that God directed the creation of the canon through the Holy Spirit working on the hearts of those involved in the process.

Finally, help me understand how you deal with Jesus saying "No man comes to the Father except through me"? Jesus work on the cross is completely indescriminate. All who respond to this supreme act of sacrificial love will be judged righteous and worthy of eternal life. The purpose of the gospel is to bring glory to God through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

9

Hey, Joe, I just saw your man Huckabee on CNN. He is being asked about releasing Dummond.

Someone should tell him to stop blinking his eyes so much-makes him look like he's being dishonest.

10

For example letters from the apostles to a particular church that were either not used by or shared with other churches, or were viewed as too narrow in thier scope to be included in the canon.

Quite possible. It's also possible that some bits were left out because the ideas they contained were too radical to be accepted by Europeans at that time (such as something describing a central role for Mary Magdalene in the early movement), or because they conflicted with the Church's need to enforce moral/political order (such as a writing emphasizing the right of all people to think for themselves). Mind you, I'm not saying any of these exclusions make the Bible false; I'm just saying that we should take this history into account when we think about how to apply the Bible today.

If you are willing to concede, for the purposes of our discussion, the inspiration of the authors then you would have to consider conceding that God directed the creation of the canon through the Holy Spirit working on the hearts of those involved in the process.

I'd consider it, but I'd be very leery of crediting "divine inspiration" to any political body with a political mandate. That leads dangerously close to "divine right of kings." (And what if another conclave disagreed? Would we have to believe they were inspired by Satan? Or would we have to accept the possibility that two groups were inspired by the same God to take two different positions?) And besides, a central message of Christ has always been that a) God gives favor to individuals, not to groups, and b) God's law and wisdom is above all worldly concerns or political offices, and you shouldn't let worldly authorities act as intermediaries between you and God.

Finally, help me understand how you deal with Jesus saying "No man comes to the Father except through me"?

Jesus said it, but it seems other people can and do come to God through other means -- otherwise all of the Pre-Columbian Indians would have gone to Hell through no fault of their own, as would a lot of good and enlightened people who find similar enlightenment in other religions. Oh well, even Jesus wasn't perfect (he did, in a moment of pain and anguish, accuse God of forsaking him, remember?) It's also possible that by "me," Jesus meant "the Spirit you see manifested in me" -- that wouldn't be the only time he spoke of himself in metaphors ("this is my body..."). Was that an answer to your question, or were you asking about something else?

11

Is that where you place your trust Raging Bee, in the belief that Jesus, the son of God, wasn't perfect? Not only is that contradictory to all church-wide understanding, but that would in essence be saying that redemption of mankind through the blood sacrifice was not accomplished since the paschal victim was not unblemished.

Also, it was not metaphor when Jesus said "this is my body..."

12

Raging Bee,

You keep insisting that the creation of the canon was done for political means, or as a result of a political decision. In fact the canon was decided within the authority and under the purview of the early church. The fact is there were mulitple conventions in seperate locations that met and were in agreement about which books should be included.

I don't think you are correct in your interpretation of Christ's central message. In fact as laid out in the book of Hebrews, Christ has replaced the old preisthood that the Jews relied on to intercede between tham and God. Christ is now our heavenly priest who intercedes on our behalf. This is further evidence for the truth of his statement that no man could come to the Father but through Him. Without the cover of his blood, oour sins prevent us from being i the prescence of an infinitely holy God. Only through Christs imputation of righteousness upon us can we stand before God. Therefore those who do not trust in Christ cannot come into the presence of God. Don't you see, Christianity states no one is good, not even the enlightened Buddist, or the kind pre-Colombian Indian. The only way we are justified is through the blood of Christ.
However, as Paul states in Romans, people who die in ignorance of the Law will not be judged by its standard. I put my trust in an infinitely wise and infinitely just God to determine what happens to those people.

I'm interested in why you think Jesus cry at the moment of death was a sign of imperfection? I have always understood that at that moment he was feeling the ultimate wrath and seperation from God in atoning for the sins of the entire human race. Indeed God did forsake Him.

What do you think?

13

Is that where you place your trust Raging Bee, in the belief that Jesus, the son of God, wasn't perfect?

He was at least part flesh -- how could he be perfect? Besides, he falsely accused God of forsaking him, after confidently predicting, in happier times, that he would die and rise again. That is, at the very least, a mistake, which some would consider blaspheny in other circumstances.

Also, it was not metaphor when Jesus said "this is my body..."

So all twelve of the Apostles became cannibals that day? I don't think so. You need to look up "Reformation" in a library: the Catholics' doctrine of literal "transsubstantiation" was explicitly rejected then.

Oclarki: excellent questions, for which I won't have sufficient time until later tonight or (most likely) tomorrow.

14

Raging Bee,

I get the sense that you have some affinity with Gnostic theology. The perfection of Christ is a pretty key doctrine of Christianity. In order for Christs death to atone for the sins of humanity He had to be a perfect sacrifice, without sin.

Again I would have to point out that God really did forsake Christ on the cross. Can you imagine the suffering of a being who had experienced perfect fellowship with the most holy God being cast aside and ejected from that fellowship and on top of that taken the wrath due for the sins of every person that has lived or will live?

15

So all twelve of the Apostles became cannibals that day? I don't think so. You need to look up "Reformation" in a library: the Catholics' doctrine of literal "transsubstantiation" was explicitly rejected then.

I am Catholic, which means I explicitly accept the doctrine.

He was at least part flesh -- how could he be perfect? Besides, he falsely accused God of forsaking him, after confidently predicting, in happier times, that he would die and rise again. That is, at the very least, a mistake, which some would consider blaspheny in other circumstances.

He was perfect because he did not sin, even though he had the option of sinning. And it is you that falsely accuses Christ. Not only did Christ predict he would die, he even told the Apostles explicitly that he would be crucified. He was fully aware of what agony he was going to be suffering through, and he was sorely tempted to avoid it. Because we have not gone through what Christ went through with the crucifiction, we cannot possibly know why he cried out as he did, but if it had been a mistake, or if it had been blasphemy, I doubt he would have been seen resurrected there after.

16

Yes...right...where was I?

In fact the canon was decided within the authority and under the purview of the early church.

And the early Church, in ministering to the needs of its flock and prospective converts, was required to promulgate a code of Christian conduct, both by preaching it and by working with kings and feudal-lords to enforce it on a population that had no other law-regime to keep things in order. Divinely inspired or not, they were forced to tailor their doctrine to the very dire needs of their era, and simply could not afford the luxury of foresight. This does not mean that the doctrine they agreed on is false; it only means that people in subsequent eras need to use their God-given reasoning ability and consider the possibility that what was necessary in post-Roman Europe may not be equally relevant in today's very different circumstances. Jesus himself hinted at such use of reason, when he showed his precociousness by arguing with the town elders -- not scrapping their laws altogether, mind you, just using reason and experience to temper their application and accomodate reality.

The problem with credtiting someone with superior "divine inspiration" is that it tends to wall his/her ideas off from reason and shut down debate -- something Jesus himself never tried to do, even when people were questioning his own integrity. When some audacious bugger questioned the very miracle of his Ressurrection, Jesus went so far to invite him to stick his hand in the friggin' wound, f'cryin out loud! If Jesus could face that kind of skepticism, then those who claim to spread his word should be able to handle reason and skepticism without saying "The people who wrote the Bible were divinely inspired -- end of argument!"

In fact as laid out in the book of Hebrews, Christ has replaced the old preisthood that the Jews relied on to intercede between tham and God. Christ is now our heavenly priest who intercedes on our behalf.

Not quite: Christ is not an intermediary between Man and God -- he IS God, or at least God-like, in that he has the power to read our hearts, judge our souls, hear our prayers, and give us counsel directly. Intermediaries such as the Pope or the old Jewish priesthood were not "replaced" as intermediaries; they were laid off.

Don't you see, Christianity states no one is good, not even the enlightened Buddist, or the kind pre-Colombian Indian.

Sorry, but "Christianity" is just plain wrong there: if a person's actions are good, and/or if his spirit is strong and righteous, then he is, by definition, good. Not perfect, of course; and possibly in need of some more enlightenment; but still good, and certainly not deserving of the uninformed verbal beat-down too many Christians are eager to heap on him. Refusing to acknowledge the goodness of others is not good, it's false witness, and not something a good God would do.

However, as Paul states in Romans, people who die in ignorance of the Law will not be judged by its standard. I put my trust in an infinitely wise and infinitely just God to determine what happens to those people.

Okay, so non-Christians CAN go to Heaven. That leads to some follow-on questions:

1) If (for example) a good-hearted Athenian could go to Heaven after living his life in the service of Apollo, why can't an equally good-hearted American worship the same god, and practice the same good thoughts and actions, and go to Heaven today? Since both of these people acted the same way, in the same spirit, why should they be judged differently because they lived in different eras?

2) What about someone who was taught "the Law" by ignorant or evil people, in such a way that the Law looked stupid to her, thus causing her to dump Christianity and embrace another faith that made more sense to her? Would she be punished for her choice?

I'm interested in why you think Jesus cry at the moment of death was a sign of imperfection?

Because he had already known, and predicted, that he would die, and rise from the dead, and lead others to Heaven -- he knew then that God would NOT forsake him. Therefore, when he said otherwise in a moment of pain and weakness, that was a sign of (perfectly understandable) imperfection. He was flesh, he suffered the torments of flesh, and he briefly lost his confidence and resolve when the going got really tough -- something humans tend to do.

I have always understood that at that moment he was feeling the ultimate wrath and seperation from God in atoning for the sins of the entire human race. Indeed God did forsake Him.

First, I have never seen anything in the Bible that says that. Second, that doesn't strike me as something a just God would do to his own son. If God allowed Jesus to come back, as planned, then he did not forsake him. And he didn't suffer from God's wrath, but from human wrath.

Besides, why all this insistence that Jesus was "perfect?" As I understand it, the whole point of Jesus living among us and dying for our sins was that Man could never hope to be perfect, therefore God had to meet us halfway to save us. That would have meant God meeting Man in a less-than-perfect halfway point, and -- most important to me, at least -- sharing the experience of being human. It takes nothing away from Jesus to say that imperfection kinda comes with the territory he had to enter.

17

Point #14 above says that all humans are "sinful," not because of what we've done, but because of a "dimension" of "sin" which permeates the created order since the Fall. Then smmtheory says that Jesus "was perfect because he did not sin."

Both of these statements are empty and based on abstractions ('dimension known as "sin"'? Gimme a break!), and, in my experience at least, contribute absolutely nothing to the spiritual content of the story of Jesus. Jesus lived as a human, among other humans; he dined with politicians and sinners, fasted in the desert, was tempted by the Devil, suffered and died at the hands of other humans. Trying to pretend he was some perfect Stepford Messiah, who never had terrible-twos, never ogled a girl, never punched a bully, completely robs the entire story of its spiritual depth and significance; while adding nothing to his actual teachings or the lessons of his life, death and Ressurrection. If the teachings of Jesus are valid, then they're valid whether or not he had a wet dream at age 12. This "Jesus did not sin" sophistry only distracts attention from the central point Jesus was trying to make.

Because we have not gone through what Christ went through with the crucifiction, we cannot possibly know why he cried out as he did...

Jesus was not the only person ever crucified; plenty of people went through the same agony; and since the Romans used it as a deterrent, they would have wanted everyone to know how bad it was. And none of that changes the fact that he did indeed ask why God had forsken him, just as ordinary humans do when they're in a tight spot and think, in a moment of fear and distress, that they're alone and God hasn't got their backs. It's a perfectly human phenomenon, it's well documented by people of all faiths, and what else do we need to know to make a reasonable guess here?

...but if it had been a mistake, or if it had been blasphemy, I doubt he would have been seen resurrected there after.

You mean the guy who came from Heaven with a promise of God's forgiveness for our sins, would not have been forgiven by said God for his own sins? I find that rather...inconsistent.

18

Raging Bee,

Thank you for your responses. I can see that we won't be able to agree because you believe things about Christianity that simply aren't true. It's as if we are discussing football and you insist that holding isn't a penalty, or that when a receiver drops a pass it is a fumble. It maybe possible to play the game that way, but you can't insist that it is the correct application of the rules of football.

I'm telling you what Christian theology holds about the character and person of Christ, and the sinful state of man. You can agree with that theology or not. However, it is illogical to argue that it means something other than what it says it means.

Incidentally, I understand how you wrestle with Christ being fully human and at the same time fully God. It is a mystery of the Christian faith, and every Christian thinker has struggled with its implications and paradoxes. However, your argument remains unpersuasive for the reasons I laid out before. That is there is a tremendous amount of scholarship, doctrine and church tradition that has gone into the formation of the theology behind the nature of Christ. When I weigh 2000 years of Christian theology saying one thing about Christ, and your assertions to the contrary, I find your side lacking.
If you'd like to ask me the particulars of my theology, I'd be happy to explain them. What I cannot do is twist Christian theology to fit your misinterpretation of it. You appear to have more than a passing familiarity with the bible, do you mind if I ask what your faith background and current beliefs are?

Thanks for the civil discussion.

19

...You can agree with that theology or not. However, it is illogical to argue that it means something other than what it says it means.

I'm sorry if I was unclear on this: I am arguing based on what Christian doctrine means to me personally, based on my own life-experiences and those told to me by others. I am deriving an interpretation that has the greatest spiritual insight and meaning for myself; and I believe it's right -- for me at least -- for that reason.

When I weigh 2000 years of Christian theology saying one thing about Christ...

If that source works for you in your life's decisions, then that's a result I won't dispute. I don't discount it out of hand myself; I just prefer to take it as useful intel, not as unquestionable dogma. Furthermore, with all due respect, I strongly suspect that many, perhaps most, Christians do the same thing from time to time whether they admit it or not.

As for my "faith background and current beliefs" specifically, that's a bit complicated; and I don't feel commanded by any God(ess) to try to convince others that my belief is right and theirs are wrong; so I'll just list two of my most basic premises:

1) God is too big to fit into one religion. Like a huge and elaborate building that can't be adequately described from only one point of view, God cannot be understood except by the accumulated glipses, revelations, and insights of all cultures all over the world. Even that approach isn't really sufficient, but it's better than automatically discounting every opinion that differs from my own.

2) I believe in taking divine/spiritual wisdom from wherever I happen to find it.

3) The "truth" or validity of other people's beliefs is best judged by the results they get for them, and the behaviors they elicit.

If you think this contrary to Christian theology specifically, consider this: I have found, on more than one occasion, that insights from other faiths have increased my appreciation of certain points of Christian beliefs, ethics or theology, that I had previously found spiritually sterile or ridiculous. I have also found that many non-Christian beliefs are very similar to Christian beliefs, and other faiths sometimes express the same beliefs more clearly or compellingly than does the Bible.

20

Raging Bee,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and opinions. I believe that since God is the author of truth, all truth is God's truth. God has revealed himself to all men so it is only natural that people from different times and places have insight and wisdom from what Christians call general revelation.

21

I would like to point out that several of these are not presuppositions but suppositions. They are belief points given after knowledge gained, not before.

That said, many of them are just plain not falsifiable. A bit weak if you ask me.

22

You mean the guy who came from Heaven with a promise of God's forgiveness for our sins, would not have been forgiven by said God for his own sins? I find that rather...inconsistent.

No, I meant that he would not have come into his glory if his crying out had been blasphemy or a mistake. Without that glorification, redemption for all of us would have been impossible, and the need for him to appear to the Apostles there after would have been null and void.

This "Jesus did not sin" sophistry only distracts attention from the central point Jesus was trying to make.

It is not sophistry, and Jesus became man to do more than just make a point. He did so also to be the perfect paschal victim in a blood sacrifice, solidifying the new covenant between God and us and obliterating all further need for blood sacrifices.

23

I meant that [Jesus] would not have come into his glory if his crying out had been blasphemy or a mistake. Without that glorification, redemption for all of us would have been impossible, and the need for him to appear to the Apostles there after would have been null and void.

If all that has real meaning for you in your life, then it's "right" for you. For me, however, it's nothing but a jumble of abstractions thrown together into a heap of non-sequiturs that contribute nothing to my own understanding or spirituality. Where it came from isn't even relevant; it's not that it's wrong, it's that it's not really ANYTHING. It's the kind of theology that made me an atheist back in my teens.

First, IMHO, "his glory" derives from his actions, the example of his life, his miracles, his teachings, the (voluntary) sacrifice of his death, and his Ressurrection. Whether he "sinned" at any time in this clearly-exemplary life is not only irrelevant, it's a distraction from the central point. His previous sins, if any, have no more to do with his glory than a general's sexual tastes have to do with his ability to win wars.

Second, redemption for us is made possible ENTIRELY by God's decision to offer it to us, and to send his son to deliver the message.

Third, "the need for him to appear to the Apostles there after" was contingent on his mission, not on his past actions.

I really think that the people who insist that Jesus was "sinless" are trying to have their unleavened bread and eat it too. By all accounts, he ate, drank, suffered, bled and died; he probably felt the physiological effects (good and bad) of everything he ate and drank, including the wine (as evidenced by the fact that he grew up); and if he lived as a human and died to atone for our sins, then I see no big stretch in admitting that in so doing, he shared in our "sinful" condition while he was alive. That, again IMHO, is what makes his teachings more real: they came from a guy who shared our condition, not from a distant superbeing who never lived among us. Insisting that he never "sinned" (especially after "defining" "sin" as an essence or condition that "permeates" the Universe, independent of actual deeds) only serves to pile more absurd claims onto an otherwise important story; and to make the story itself look sillier than it should. (Isn't "virgin brith" enough to swallow in one day?)

George Orwell once said that one should always speak in common-sense terms. The minute you start arguing in abstractions, the words you use will rush into the vacuum, take on a life of their own, and do most of your thinking for you. Being a person of somewhat technocratic mindset, and being aware of the enormous amount of evil committed in the name of religious doctrines, I always insist on keeping my spirituality and theology linked to the verifiable real world wherever possible. Every religion (even the ones I like most, can ya believe it?) has its share of idiots, liars, loonies, bigots, haters, and Messiah-wannabees; and the more abstractions there are in one's beliefs, the more opportunity such people have to twist them however they want in order to mislead and manipulate others.

When I hear talk like that quoted above, my first reaction is not "You're wrong," it's "What are you trying to pull?" It's nothing personal, mind you, I just have to learn from experience, cover my six, and function responsibly in the real world, like everyone else.

PS: Where does the phrase "perfect paschal victim" appear in the Bible?

24

Raging Bee,

I rely on the Bible for my view of Christ's sinless nature.

Hebrews 9:14 How much more will the blood of Christ, who, being without sin, made an offering of himself to God through the Holy Spirit, make your hearts clean from dead works to be servants of the living God?

Hebrews 4:15 reads, “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.”

Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 5:21 that “He became sin for us, He who knew no sin.”

In addition Peter spoke of Him as a lamb unblemished and spotless (1 Pet. 1:19).

An familiarity with God's demands about the unblemished nature of animals to be sacrificed for atonement of sins in the Old Testamnet leads us to infer that for Christ's sacrifce to be acceptable to God it would similarly need to be performed by one without blemish i.e sin.

25

Okay, fair enough. But what definition of "sin," exactly, are we using here? If "sin" means significant malicious acts (such as robbery, rape, lying or murder) or thought processes (such as hatred, bigotry, selfishness, ill will or insanity), then I could easily accept that Jesus was "without sin" -- along with huge numbers of ordinary humans. As long as we don't adopt some more nebulous, vacuous, catch-all definition of "sin" -- as either petty vices not worth mentioning, or some "dimension" or "essence" that anyone can accuse everyone else of having without having to prove anything -- then I can sort of accept your point. Although I do think that...

Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 5:21 that “He became sin for us, He who knew no sin.”

...kinda supports my earlier point, in a totally ambiguous, metaphorical, make-of-it-what-you-will sort of way. Sort of.

26

Raging Bee,

Unfortunately, neither you or I get to define what sin is. That is the province of the prefectly holy, perfectly righteous God. Jesus says that if we look at a woman in a lustful way it is if we have committed adultry. Or if we call our brother a fool, it is the same as if we have murdered him.
Instead of reason for despair, this should be reason for great joy. Because of Christs work on the croos, it isn't up to us to try to live a sinless life and fail. We need only receive the gift of His grace by acknowledging that the only way we can be righteous and blameless before God is through Him. No longer am I imprisoned by the law and condemned by it. Rather I am liberated through Christ.
Whereas the logical outcome of your theology forces you to keep score and go through life trying to avoid making a mistake, the person who is in Christ is free from the score keeping and guilt that living under the law neccessitates. The fact that the majority of the Bible was written by murderers is a testament to the fact that there is no sin that can keep us from God's love.

27

PS: Where does the phrase "perfect paschal victim" appear in the Bible?

It does not. Do you believe I only know how to talk about my faith solely by quoting phrases from the Bible?

When I hear talk like that quoted above, my first reaction is not "You're wrong," it's "What are you trying to pull?" It's nothing personal, mind you, I just have to learn from experience, cover my six, and function responsibly in the real world, like everyone else.

Actually, I think I would have more sympathy for you if your reaction were "you're wrong", because when you believe the latter, you are impugning my character without any evidence supporting your suspicions. It may not be personal as you say, considering that you do not know me personally, but it doesn't make for much of an equitable discussion.

28

...when you believe the latter, you are impugning my character without any evidence supporting your suspicions.

No, I'm not, and I thought the "nothing personal" bit was sufficient to clarify that. Sorry if it wasn't. I'm merely saying that abstractions like those you stated set off automatic alarm bells in my head and raise suspicions based on my previous knowledge of religion-based scams and atrocities.

More responses when I have more time, probably Monday...

29

Joe, thanks for the opportunity to take your roof off. Here's a bit of your roof that needs repair:

38. I believe that the cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man and that man, being provided with both Creation and the Gospel as testaments to the Creator's divine nature, is completely without excuse.

39. I believe that the fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision and that in accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen.

Your contradiction-checker must be broken. Have you upgraded all of your software?

30

I believe that restoration does not mean repristination

You Christians are surely a boon to the dictionary industry!

31

One other observation on your list: that's a lot of turtles! Do you really need 50? Why is your worldview so complex? Would the whole stack come crashing down if you removed any one of them?

Are all of them necessary for salvation? Is it possible for a repristinationist to get into Heaven? It seems to me that you could help your missionary efforts with the heathens if you could make your program a little less complicated. You've heard of the KISS rule, right? The average Joe is lucky to pass his drivers exam, how's he expected to remember all 50 of these turtles?

One other question:

42. I believe the human will is free to choose whatever it desires.

Yes, but is it free to choose what it desires?

32

No, I'm not, and I thought the "nothing personal" bit was sufficient to clarify that. Sorry if it wasn't. I'm merely saying that abstractions like those you stated set off automatic alarm bells in my head and raise suspicions based on my previous knowledge of religion-based scams and atrocities.

When you directly referenced what I was saying as triggering a particular reaction (i.e. suspicion of deception), a nothing personal qualifier has practically no meaning. You are associating my character with your supposed prior knowledge of alleged scams and atrocities, and that makes it difficult to believe that you do not mean it personally... especially when you've done it twice in a row. If we actually did know each other, then I might have taken it personally anyway.

33

Unfortunately, neither you or I get to define what sin is.

That's very fortunate indeed, since humans have done such a crappy job of defining it. So...of all the definitions passed on to me by various humans, which one is correct?

Jesus says that if we look at a woman in a lustful way it is if we have committed adultry. Or if we call our brother a fool, it is the same as if we have murdered him.

"The same" in what way, exactly? Not in the sense of similar objective outcomes, obviously.

Whereas the logical outcome of your theology forces you to keep score and go through life trying to avoid making a mistake...

Where do you get that from anything I said?

The fact that the majority of the Bible was written by murderers is a testament to the fact that there is no sin that can keep us from God's love.

You're kidding, right? If that "fact" was literally true, it would be a testament to the hypocritical self-righteousness of a bunch of "murderers" using religion as an excuse to dodge responsibility for their actions and pretend to be more righteous and "divinely inspired" than the rest of us.

When you directly referenced what I was saying as triggering a particular reaction (i.e. suspicion of deception), a nothing personal qualifier has practically no meaning.

I just explained its meaning TWICE, in great detail. If you really can't grasp what I actually said, then it only reinforces my point: that such abstractions as you have offered tend to hinder, not facilitate, clear thought and understanding.

34

Raging Bee,

First, let me enlighten you about the people who wrote the Bible that were literal murderers.

Moses: Killed an Egyptian who was mistreating a Hebrew slave.
David: Committed adultry and impregnated a woman while her husband was away at war, and then had him killed to cover it up.
Paul: Oversaw the persecution of early Christians including the stoning of Stephen.

Literal murderers all. This is what is so compelling about the biblical narrative.

What Christ was doing when he stated that someone who has called his brother a fool had committed muder in his heart was pointing out that God's standard was so high that everyone has sinned. Even the pharisees who followed the letter of the law were still sinners in God's eyes. Even though the objective outcomes of the acts are different, God judges them both as sin. The message of Christ is that, no one can be good through their own efforts, only through Christ can we be forgiven of our sins and come back into fellowship with God.

35

Literal murderers all. This is what is so compelling about the biblical narrative.

Compelling, yes. To be taken literally, and only literally, no. (Besides, Moses killed with good reason and Paul killed as a public official, not on his own initiative. And two of those examples are from the Old Testament, not the New.)

The message of Christ is that, no one can be good through their own efforts, only through Christ can we be forgiven of our sins and come back into fellowship with God.

I have what I think is a more honest and sensible way of phrasing that: the Gods expect us to be less than perfect -- because that's how they knowingly created us -- and they understand that they must forgive us our imperfections in order to help, on the path to righteousness, Heaven, enlightenment, or whatever you want to call it, those of us who sincerely ask them for guidance; just as a parent has to forgive his kids for being kids before he can raise them to be adults.

See? More common sense and compassion, less indiscriminate guilt-tripping, and less lame excuses not to "be good through our own efforts" as well as through asking for divine guidance.

36

You're kidding, right? If that "fact" was literally true, it would be a testament to the hypocritical self-righteousness of a bunch of "murderers" using religion as an excuse to dodge responsibility for their actions and pretend to be more righteous and "divinely inspired" than the rest of us.

Be careful Oclarki, you might drive Raging Bee back to being an atheist since any kind of Christian mysticism makes Raging Bee think you're trying to pull some religiously based scam.

37

Thanks for informing about the book “A Brief History of Time” and the scripts of God, Creation, Man, The Fall, Redemption , The Bible and Ethics are great to know and I thank for this.