homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » One Atonement (Page 19)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: One Atonement
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
@ Jamat

I very much suspect Karl has never been called there either. Your point is?

What is the nature of the irony meter. I suspect it is about how judgemental my views seem to him which is pretty devastating.
"Ironic" does not mean "judgmental." May I suggest a good dictionary?
Oh, then he should have referred to his judgement meter perhaps?

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Oh, then he should have referred to his judgement meter perhaps?

I'm sure he meant exactly what he said, and said it right.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
All free wills go to hell. Repent, obey Jesus.

Repenting and obeying are choices and as such presuppose free will. Therefore I can't repent and obey without going to hell.

Unless I'm predestined to repent and obey. In which case there's not much point my trying to do anything. That would be injecting my own free will and thus hellworthy.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Oh, then he should have referred to his judgement meter perhaps?

I'm sure he meant exactly what he said, and said it right.
How kind of you to clarify.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Marti 60: his infinitely bigger mindedness.
Just out of interest, if he is infinitely bigger minded than his depiction of himself in his time-limited iterpolatary revelation of himself , then on what basis can you determine ANYTHING about him?
What depiction of Himself? Apart from Jesus? THE basis. Along with ungraspable, ineffable creation.
The depiction of Jesus then. Where do you get it apart from the Bible? Of course, there is the Jesus of the gospels, and the resurrected Jesus and then after that, the visionary Jesus of Revelation. And then there is also the OT Jesus, the one who comes from Bozrah, his garments stained with the blood of his enemies. You know, the one who treaded the winepress alone. Is 63:1-6

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding sheep and goats. One might wonder why they are denoted as nations in Matt:25:32, and on what basis Jesus would choose to separate them into sheep and goats?

One needn't wonder; it's hardly opaque. "The Nations" just means the Gentiles. As to the basis, it's right there in the text: how did you treat the hungry, naked, imprisoned, and so forth?
Yes, I agree it is right there in the text. There are the perpetrators, the nations and there are the receivers the blind etc, the least of HIS brethren. So why is there even a suggestion, that nations do NOT mean just that? as you say, the 'gentile' nations, all separated into their various people groups who answer for the way they have treated the Lord's original people group..the Jews.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
All free wills go to hell. Repent, obey Jesus.

Repenting and obeying are choices and as such presuppose free will. Therefore I can't repent and obey without going to hell.

Unless I'm predestined to repent and obey. In which case there's not much point my trying to do anything. That would be injecting my own free will and thus hellworthy.

it's not saying we don't have a free will, nor that free will plays has no role in our salvation, because of course we make choices. Point is that submission to the will of God is required for salvation. Doing what he wants, not what we want. He didn't set us free to do whatever we please.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's exactly what He did.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And you're not a Lutheran then.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And welcome Aijalon, brought over from your post that might as well be here:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The thread asking why PSA is such a dogma excited me to write my first topic on the boards. PSA seems to make God out to be equal parts love and wrath. But we know that God is more loving, than he is wrathful, yes?

Resolving hard crunchy peanutbuttery questions... I came to the conclusion of late that the Church at large has misplaced the action of atonement as being at the Cross.

Simply put, The Cross is love, but not atonement.Atonement is a ritual to be sure, but it isn't done at the cross. The cross is where God showed his love. Clearly God loves all, but clearly also he doesn't atone everyone's sin.

For starters, John announces Jesus as "The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world". The church may have mistakenly adopted the view of The Lamb being a reference to death, rather than more abstractly just the person of Jesus Christ. Was John merely speaking of the imminent death of Jesus? I think not. The Lamb simply means the humanity of Jesus, or, IOW, the incarnation of God as the servant-man. In reducing the Lamb to a sacrifice alone, the life of Christ is reduced to his suffering death. Thus, the Lamb became on object associated with Christ on the cross, rather than a person.

Modern reformed theology makes it easy to stop short and conclude that the blood sacrifice is equivalent to atonement. Done and Done! The cross looms so large in atonement question it is less necessary to pay attention to Jesus' life in Galilee or Jerusalem.

But however much a lamb is an object of wrath, a Lamb doesn't take away sins, as if God becomes happy with the sinner by looking upon dead lambs? The atonement was the 7th annual feast, not the 1st feast. The ritual requires a priest applying the blood and transferring the sin.

The mediator between God and man facilitates sin removal. So in any regard the whole matter of who does God love vs who does he forgive can be more easily resolved by differentiating between love and atonement. Being the High Priest and The Lamb gave Christ the position and power to be the forgiver of sin.

Hoping this is a worthy introductory post for these boards, there are some witty Brits up in here! [Big Grin]

At-one-ment. Says it all really.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:



The mediator between God and man facilitates sin removal. So in any regard the whole matter of who does God love vs who does he forgive can be more easily resolved by differentiating between love and atonement. Being the High Priest and The Lamb gave Christ the position and power to be the forgiver of sin.

I thought this part was quite interesting, although I don't really understand what it means.

As far as I can see, Christ is the forgiver of sin because of the Trinity and because it is the nature of the godhead to forgive penitent sinners.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And impenitent.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And impenitent.

Not much evidence of that as far as I can see.

The calling is to forgive as we are forgive and that we will be forgiven as others have forgiven us. Hard to do that if impenitent.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Father forgive.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Father forgive.

Mmm. which is odd, when you think about it. He had the power to forgive, so why didn't he?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding sheep and goats. One might wonder why they are denoted as nations in Matt:25:32, and on what basis Jesus would choose to separate them into sheep and goats?

One needn't wonder; it's hardly opaque. "The Nations" just means the Gentiles. As to the basis, it's right there in the text: how did you treat the hungry, naked, imprisoned, and so forth?
Yes, I agree it is right there in the text. There are the perpetrators, the nations and there are the receivers the blind etc, the least of HIS brethren. So why is there even a suggestion, that nations do NOT mean just that? as you say, the 'gentile' nations, all separated into their various people groups who answer for the way they have treated the Lord's original people group..the Jews.
I agree with this entirely.

Apart from other things, at the end the nations will be judged according to their antisemitism.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What antisemitism?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure that the focus on forgiveness in relation to atonement is felicitous The problem is not that one party forgives but that the two parties are reconciled. There are numerous cases where an individual forgives but the forgiveness is unknown to the person forgiven. In relation to the cross, I've argued earlier in the thread that Jesus forgives not because of what her did (died on the cross) but because of who he was (his participation in the trinity), The problem regarding atonement ISTM is the unwillingness of humanity to be reconciled to God, not the reverse. In that context I see the demonstration of God's love on the cross as demanding a response to it from us- others might differ.

Incidentally, PSA is not about forgiveness, because the full price of sin has to be paid to the Father's satisfaction, the laws demands. Forgiveness is about foregoing a debt or penalty.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Father forgive.

Mmm. which is odd, when you think about it. He had the power to forgive, so why didn't he?
Ohhhh, legalism! Let's spend futile screeds over this as with Jamat and Mudfrog now that they've won you over! Or were you always there?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Ohhhh, legalism! Let's spend futile screeds over this as with Jamat and Mudfrog now that they've won you over! Or were you always there?

Calm down, I was just reflecting that this might be something which disagrees with my position.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I agree with this entirely.

Apart from other things, at the end the nations will be judged according to their antisemitism.

You're both wrong. Fairly clearly, the brethren of Christ are those that suffer, are hungry, in prison and forgotten. Nations have nothing to do with it as there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ.

It is extraordinary the lengths some go to to avoid reading the biblical text as stated.

And these same people are those who seem to want to stand on a "biblical" platform, when their whole position is undermined by actually, y'know, reading the bible.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Ohhhh, legalism! Let's spend futile screeds over this as with Jamat and Mudfrog now that they've won you over! Or were you always there?

Calm down, I was just reflecting that this might be something which disagrees with my position.
Ah go on! It's my only pleasure. Above all the yeah but conditionality, in unconditional, active, healing, therapeutic, restituting, cathartic, all-redeeming, endless, patient, transformative love after death there is unconditional forgiveness.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
M Cheesy: you're both wrong. Fairly clearly, the brethren of Christ are those that suffer, are hungry, in prison and forgotten. Nations have nothing to do with it as there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ
Well, that the text of Matt 25:32 says 'nations,' is undeniable. If the argument is that there is neither Jew nor gentile in Christ then really it is a vain attempt to force a remark by Paul in Gal 3:28 about the inclusiveness of Jews and gentiles in the church, into another context entirely.

This is just at best terribly flawed in that it violates context completely, or, it is a piece of intellectual dishonesty. Matthew 25 is really about the judgement at the end of the age a very different situation to Galatians 3 where Paul is emphasising that believers in Christ are united by their common faith more than they are separated by ethnic differences.

In Matt 25, the reference is to the gentile nations,certainly not the church and to 'these, my brethren' who could be Christians certainly, but in this context are much more likely to be Jews.

We have in Matt 25 two clearly separated groups which means the 'one in Christ' comment by Mr Cheesy even less credible if that were possible.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mr cheesy
quote:
Fairly clearly, the brethren of Christ are those that suffer, are hungry, in prison and forgotten. Nations have nothing to do with it as there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ.

Much as one would like to accept that interpretation, mr cheesy, I don't think it is accurate. The context in which Jesus spoke these words begins at the start of Matthew 24 and is part of a discourse he delivers in private to the disciples. The balance of opinion seems to be that "the least of these my brethren" (Matthew 25:40) is a reference to the disciples.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Marti 60: his infinitely bigger mindedness.
Just out of interest, if he is infinitely bigger minded than his depiction of himself in his time-limited iterpolatary revelation of himself , then on what basis can you determine ANYTHING about him?
What depiction of Himself? Apart from Jesus? THE basis. Along with ungraspable, ineffable creation.
The depiction of Jesus then. Where do you get it apart from the Bible? Of course, there is the Jesus of the gospels, and the resurrected Jesus and then after that, the visionary Jesus of Revelation. And then there is also the OT Jesus, the one who comes from Bozrah, his garments stained with the blood of his enemies. You know, the one who treaded the winepress alone. Is 63:1-6
Still curious,Martin60
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The only Jesus I know, like anyone, is the one who spat in the gospels.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding sheep and goats. One might wonder why they are denoted as nations in Matt:25:32, and on what basis Jesus would choose to separate them into sheep and goats?

One needn't wonder; it's hardly opaque. "The Nations" just means the Gentiles. As to the basis, it's right there in the text: how did you treat the hungry, naked, imprisoned, and so forth?
Yes, I agree it is right there in the text. There are the perpetrators, the nations and there are the receivers the blind etc, the least of HIS brethren. So why is there even a suggestion, that nations do NOT mean just that? as you say, the 'gentile' nations, all separated into their various people groups who answer for the way they have treated the Lord's original people group..the Jews.
I agree with this entirely.

Apart from other things, at the end the nations will be judged according to their antisemitism.

So we can mistreat Arabs, blacks, Inuit, Native Americans, Aborigines, but it's only Jews that matter at the end.

If I have you right, your God is a racist.

[ 26. May 2017, 11:46: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem with arguing against the 'anti-semitism' interpretation of the dispensationalist position is that it can make one sound anti-semitic oneself in trying to debunk it.

But debunk it, in this context, we must - as it is a total red-herring.

The alternative to it isn't anti-semitism, of course, although it's pretty obvious that Christianity has been woefully guilty of that down the centuries.

Anyhow, that's a tangent ...

On the wrath of God thing, I think we are going round in circles there and possibly all talking past each other ...

I don't have any issue whatsoever with the idea of God being wrathful or angry - provided we don't anthropomorphise it into some kind of pique, or offended dignity or some kind of human expression of anger.

God in his very nature isn't angry and wrathful - but that doesn't mean he is incapable of ire or righteous anger - as it were - against sin, injustice and things that cause harm ...

To be fair to Jamat, I don't think his view of God is that of some cosmic ogre - although how his theology can work out in practice could certainly incline that way.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gamaliel
quote:
God in his very nature isn't angry and wrathful - but that doesn't mean he is incapable of ire or righteous anger - as it were - against sin, injustice and things that cause harm ...
So, God is wrathful towards abstractions, but what about his attitude towards the perpetrators of these 'sins', 'injustices' and 'people who cause harm'? I can see his wrath towards 'terrorism' but what is his attitude towards the 'terrorist'?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Gamaliel
quote:
God in his very nature isn't angry and wrathful - but that doesn't mean he is incapable of ire or righteous anger - as it were - against sin, injustice and things that cause harm ...
So, God is wrathful towards abstractions, but what about his attitude towards the perpetrators of these 'sins', 'injustices' and 'people who cause harm'? I can see his wrath towards 'terrorism' but what is his attitude towards the 'terrorist'?
I can't see His wrath at all. Ever. This side of death or the other. Only ours projected. I don't understand what purpose divine wrath could possibly serve and how it would be implemented. If God is wrathful He must follow the money. It ends up on Him.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Much as one would like to accept that interpretation, mr cheesy, I don't think it is accurate. The context in which Jesus spoke these words begins at the start of Matthew 24 and is part of a discourse he delivers in private to the disciples. The balance of opinion seems to be that "the least of these my brethren" (Matthew 25:40) is a reference to the disciples.

Well there you go, I was unaware that Matt 25 could be interpreted two such daft ways.

Who are Jesus' brethren? Who did he say our neighbours were? The Jews? His disciples? Or the man knocked down in the street?

Who was the one who showed Christ-like loving kindness to his enemy? Was it the Levite? Or was it the scum-of-the-earth dirty Samaritan?

I'm sorry, I'm putting that in the box of "stupid theology" where it sits alongside Jamat's craziness.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:



The mediator between God and man facilitates sin removal. So in any regard the whole matter of who does God love vs who does he forgive can be more easily resolved by differentiating between love and atonement. Being the High Priest and The Lamb gave Christ the position and power to be the forgiver of sin.

I thought this part was quite interesting, although I don't really understand what it means.

As far as I can see, Christ is the forgiver of sin because of the Trinity and because it is the nature of the godhead to forgive penitent sinners.

I think God put on display the whole Hebrew storyline for an example of sorts, and shows us - the world at large - how he operates. He's very much into laws.

I call God the master technicalities.

Technically, the murder of a person requires by law a response by the administration of the law. In other words, murder necessitates the action of the penal code.

Murder of the Lamb, necessitates the Penal laws of death for those that murdered Jesus.

You can look at the law of the "avenger of blood" as one example of this penal code. Or use the "eye for an eye" policy.

Being as Jesus was unrightly killed, to make that right, the Lamb is given the power over life and death against those who killed him.

The cool technicality is that somehow the whole world is blamed for the death because God made Jerusalem the "center of the earth", and the Hebrews like a representative government for the world to interface to God.

The world was invited to participate in the Hebrew Commonwealth, and, also can opt out. Opting out could disastrous for one's eternal health. Trying to opt in while rejecting the Lamb, likewise disastrous.

I'm not sure why "the trinity" means anything toward forgiveness (I'm not really trinitarian anyway) but I agree it is in God's nature to forgive. But it is also in God's nature to craft a system of administration. He's not just sort of forgiving people on an Ad Hoc basis all the time.

The whole procedure for slaying the Lamb was pretty carefully set up.... ya know? A lot of effort when into this. [Cool]

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

I'm not sure why "the trinity" means anything toward forgiveness (I'm not really trinitarian anyway) but I agree it is in God's nature to forgive. But it is also in God's nature to craft a system of administration. He's not just sort of forgiving people on an Ad Hoc basis all the time.

Fair enough, I think the Trinity is basic and at the centre of the nature of the atonement. So we don't have much ground for discussion there.

I also don't think God is a solicitor or an accountant. So I reject that understanding too.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Martin60, thanks for the welcome.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

At-one-ment. Says it all really.

I can buy into the idea of all sin of all time being atoned, but I would then need to differentiate between atonement and forgiveness. Jesus clearly threatens the Jews in various ways that God will not forgive their sin unless they themselves forgive, etc.

So if all sin is atoned for, sure, fine, easy. But then we have this issue of repentance to deal with.

The attitude of national repentance was a prerequisite for performing the ritual. If you are not repentant you get kicked out of the country. - Lev 23:29.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mrcheesy. As far as the history of man, God does display some accountant like tendencies, but that isn't all he is. At a trivial level, while building a relationship with man, he's demonstrated that he WILL use math as a means of proof, isn't arithmetic sort of unavoidable? I see no reason to become offended that some accounting goes on upstairs.

Of course that is not the crux of who God is, I think his aim is for qualitative improvement of man which isn't measured numerically. Accounting systems at church get us into a lot of trouble. Men are always trying to measure their success or each other by some metric, and botching it.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Gamaliel
quote:
God in his very nature isn't angry and wrathful - but that doesn't mean he is incapable of ire or righteous anger - as it were - against sin, injustice and things that cause harm ...
So, God is wrathful towards abstractions, but what about his attitude towards the perpetrators of these 'sins', 'injustices' and 'people who cause harm'? I can see his wrath towards 'terrorism' but what is his attitude towards the 'terrorist'?
Well, as God is Love then his attitude towards the terrorist would be one of love and compassion. Which doesn't mean handing out free passes or 'Get out of Jail Free' cards for acts of terrorism.

Heck, I've known even the most fundamentalist of Pentecostals say, 'The same sun that softens the wax hardens the clay ...'

So, if our God is a 'consuming fire' then one might expect not only that 'Aslan isn't safe' but that there are consequences for our actions ...

'It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God': Hebrews 10:31

http://biblehub.com/hebrews/10-31.htm

That doesn't mean that we are to envisage God as Jonathan Edwards appeared to do in his notorious sermon, 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' - where the Almighty takes a delight in tormenting people just as a cruel schoolboy might in dangling a spider over an open flame ...

No, no, no, a million times now.

But that doesn't mean that God winks at sin or brushes it all under the carpet as if it isn't important.

There're extremes at both ends. On the one hand you almost get the impression from some pundits that God is rubbing his hands with glee just waiting for the opportunity to dole out eternal punishment ...

On the other you can get the impression that God is completely indifferent to sins and transgressions ...

'So he blew up a bunch of innocent people ... big deal ... they're all going to die one day ...'

There's a balance.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Then there's the third, orthogonal way. In which all will be well.

God being trans-infinite means His immanence is local. Personal. And scales up with our relationships and groupings. His immanence of me is not felt throughout His trans-infinity. He is obviously impassible of me beyond my acquaintance, my effects on others. And He is impassible with respect to all of the emotions we project on Him. He's omnipathic in that He can't not feel what we feel, but all of Him doesn't feel what I feel. He may well react with emotion to what He feels, again locally. Not in His trans-infinite whole being. And His reaction is not like ours. He obviously lets it all go, flow. He will only begin to react in a way that we experience in the resurrection. To make us well. Fit for purpose. All of us. Individually and in all of our effects on others on out. There is no indifference. No wrath. Apart from as therapy, theatre. Only healing, growth of us each individually, together. Salman Abedi and his 22 victims and those with life changing injuries of body and mind and their grieving, traumatized loved ones. Hindley and Brady and their circles of victims. In every sense, saved.

Either that or oblivion.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I admit to being prone to looking at modern history through a lens that sits in the distant past, basically Sinai forward. I feel most are looking at it the other way.

I grew up very conservative, Martin, no bones about it, but I'm not following what you're saying there on account of the vast amounts of wrathful language in the Scriptures.

Okay, so I said "language". Does the wrath talk equate to a wrathful god? I suppose you are saying no. I presume we agree God hasn't changed himself over the eons, but he has changed his dealings with man via revelation and progress.

How do you reconcile the wrathful events and language of scriptures with God having no wrath? I'm interested because I think I would fail in that attempt. Want to see what's up your sleeve there.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
sorry, should add that I meant to say I grew up conservative and have since moved toward libertarian, far away from the wrathful guilt my parents and church put on me, but off the grid.

A

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I mean NOT off the grid. Whooops, and what is the time allowed for editing the posts here? [Mad]

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
How kind of you to clarify.

Wow, I thought you said you weren't sarcastic. Clearly you were mistaken.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
as you say, the 'gentile' nations, all separated into their various people groups who answer for the way they have treated the Lord's original people group..the Jews.

I did not say the gentile nations, I said the gentiles. And there is nothing in there about separation into people groups; you are reading that in.

The Greek εθνος (ethnos) is variously translated "nations" and "gentiles" in the NT. But it's the same word. Consider in the Magnificat in Luke 2:32, "A light unto the gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel." This is ethnos. There is a clear distinction there between ethnos and Israel. Sometimes it's translated "nations." But the dichotomy is clear from the text, whichever English word you use.

In Matthew 25:32, our Lord has before him all the nations. The word is ethnos. Not gentile nations. Either "the gentiles" or "the nations" depending on who is translating it. But "the nations" is an ambiguous and therefore dangerous translation of the word that is used elsewhere in the NT to mean "the gentiles." To gather the nations is to gather all of the gentiles.

We know from elsewhere that the twelve tribes of Israel will be judged by the Apostles.

There is no indication he is judging nations as a unit rather than individuals. He is not separating flocks. It does not say he put the flocks of goats on his left and the flocks of sheep on his right.

Your interpretation is not supported by the data.

[ 26. May 2017, 16:48: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

There is no indication he is judging nations as a unit rather than individuals. He is not separating flocks. It does not say he put the flocks of goats on his left and the flocks of sheep on his right.

Your interpretation is not supported by the data.

What he said. One of the most ridiculous and preposterous ways to interpret the bible that I've ever heard, and I've heard lots of stupid stuff.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aijalon, I'm working on a reply, until then, have a good day. And keep your powder dry [Biased]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mr cheesy
quote:
Who are Jesus' brethren? Who did he say our neighbours were? The Jews? His disciples? Or the man knocked down in the street?
'The brethren' referred to here appear to be the disciples: 'these my brethren', who are being spoken to in private. It anticipates the privations and persecutions they will experiences in spreading the gospel. 'The man knocked down in the street' does not seem to be the subject of this text however much you and I may wish it. I'm not pushing any line merely trying the clarify the text. The question of 'who is my neighbour?' of course, is discussed in the gospels but not here.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
'The brethren' referred to here appear to be the disciples: 'these my brethren', who are being spoken to in private. It anticipates the privations and persecutions they will experiences in spreading the gospel.

Well I think you're reading that into it. A plain reading of the text is that anyone in trouble is brethren of the Lord - and that is supported by the breadth of teaching in the NT.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427

 - Posted      Profile for Nenya     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I want to thank everyone who is contributing to this thread. Mr Nen and I are part of a discussion group in our church and the next subject will be The Atonement. We're using as our starting place the book "Cafe Theology" by Michael Lloyd. Has anyone here read it? His stance on the atonement seems to be strongly PSA, which is the position I held for years but am uncomfortable with it now. I don't know whether to be looking forward to the next discussion evening or dreading it as I can't argue as powerfully as people here.

--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.

Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
'The brethren' referred to here appear to be the disciples: 'these my brethren', who are being spoken to in private. It anticipates the privations and persecutions they will experiences in spreading the gospel.

Well I think you're reading that into it. A plain reading of the text is that anyone in trouble is brethren of the Lord - and that is supported by the breadth of teaching in the NT.
Mr Cheesy, Mousethief's admirable etymological analysis of the word ethnos in Matt 25:32 is one thing I might borrow. However, his and your interpretation is eisigesis, the time honoured art of ignoring what it says in favour of what you want it to say. One must read for context and holistically.

The translators use the word nations or gentiles. The gentiles are who? The non Jewish people groups..or the nations. Ethnicities are clearly in view. If we look for support elsewhere in the Bible, we do not have to look far. Joel 3 describes how God intends to bring the nations into the valley of Jehoshaphat and judge them there.

For what? For the way they treated Israel. Now there is, of course, what The Chaldeans did in 586 BC. But then there remains a future application since that particular gathering of nations/gentiles into the valley of Jehoshaphat, as mentioned by Jesus in Matt 25, has not yet ever occurred. Elsewhere that same valley is thought by some expositors to be mediggo or the place of Armageddon I think.

The point is, that there is much support for a judgement of nations over the whole Bible. For you to call it daft suggests your limited understanding.

As for the 'these the least of my brethren' in Matt 25, only a universalist would describe them as the 'poor' in general terms. Jesus was in fact Jewish. In his first coming he states he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When they rejected him he built his church and of course it is not ethnic in nature.

But in Matt 25, if one defines 'the least of these my brethren' as Christians, then it is obvious that is not an interpretation his hearers, the disciples could have understood at that time. Nevertheless, those very disciples were both the first Christians and also Jews. Furthermore they were most likely part of a wider audience who were included and would have been mainly Jews. It is entirely reasonable to conclude Jesus was referring to the Jewish nation here. If one's theological lens doesn't like that then maybe that lens needs adjusting.

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Gamaliel
quote:
God in his very nature isn't angry and wrathful - but that doesn't mean he is incapable of ire or righteous anger - as it were - against sin, injustice and things that cause harm ...
So, God is wrathful towards abstractions, but what about his attitude towards the perpetrators of these 'sins', 'injustices' and 'people who cause harm'? I can see his wrath towards 'terrorism' but what is his attitude towards the 'terrorist'?
I can't see His wrath at all. Ever. This side of death or the other. Only ours projected. I don't understand what purpose divine wrath could possibly serve and how it would be implemented. If God is wrathful He must follow the money. It ends up on Him.
Martin 60 You seem to be arguing from a moral compass entirely within your own head. If we do not have the Bible as a reference, we have only subjective speculation. Surely you can see that.

Romans1 mentions that God has wrath against sin and against evil caused by sin. Obviously, his wrath is not like yours or mine but if as you say you don't see it then it is because you simply refuse to. It will not go away though and one day your fingers will be forced out of your ears.

Of course I do not think the victims of terrorist acts are necessarily under that wrath. All that stuff is again your assumption. When Jesus specifically called little children to himself, surely, he was affirming their lack of guile as well as his concern for them.

[ 26. May 2017, 19:32: Message edited by: Jamat ]

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So mr cheesy's theological lens needs adjusting whilst you have 20/20 lenses in your frames, Jamat?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
I want to thank everyone who is contributing to this thread. Mr Nen and I are part of a discussion group in our church and the next subject will be The Atonement. We're using as our starting place the book "Cafe Theology" by Michael Lloyd. Has anyone here read it? His stance on the atonement seems to be strongly PSA, which is the position I held for years but am uncomfortable with it now. I don't know whether to be looking forward to the next discussion evening or dreading it as I can't argue as powerfully as people here.

It's easy here Nenya. You don't have to say owt. I shook my head once to vile damnationism and got pointed at and called a heretic.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools