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   »   » Oblivion   » God's wrath and indignation against us (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: God's wrath and indignation against us
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I wasn't quoting Mark 10:45 in support of any particulr argument or theory of atonement. I was quoting Mark 10:45 to refute your assertion that Christ did not come to give his life willingly, or willingly come to give his life.

He did not give it willingly. The Garden of Gethsemane proves that.


Well, technically it was a willing act, because Jesus conformed his will to the will of the Father; so he did indeed willingly give his life. It wasn't ripped from him reluctantly against his will, if you see what I mean.

What happened in Gethsemane (I think) was his awareness that it was going to smart, and wouldn't it be lovely if there was an alternative! As he said to the blokes falling asleep, the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak - or in his case perhaps naturally shrinking from the task ahead. But the will was still there.

The last time I went to the dentist, I went willingly. No one tied me hand and foot and took me there. I drove myself, in my car, on my own. I did it willingly. Was I scared? Yes I was. Why? Because I don't like pain.

Another example. I went for an MRI scan last year. I drove myself to the hospital, willingly. Did I want to go? Yes. And no. The power of the yes trumped the no. It was the same with Jesus, only much much worse because he was facing a painful death, willingly.

As Hebrews 12:12 says,
quote:
For the joy that was set before him {Jesus} endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Gethsemane was the point at which Jesus wrestled most with the fear of death and the joy of being the willingly saviour, and won. He did it willingly.

[ 14. June 2013, 14:58: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can I just say that although (tempted as I am) I don't want to engage in the discussion, I think this thread is one of the reasons I still hang about SoF. At one and the same time we have interesting discussion about a knotty theological issue AND humorous asides which frequently make me giggle.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
With regard to (a) I think it's a mistake to assume that the physical elements of the human emotional experience evidence that God doesn't know comparable emotions. On the contrary, it would suggest God has chosen to create psychosomatic beings in his image and likeness. It would Gnostic to suggest otherwise, I think.

But it isn't our emotions that put us in God's image and likeness. Animals have emotions too.
I think this is where the concept of religious affections comes into play. By religious affection I mean the experiential response, which includes emotions, to certain spiritual concepts, ideas, propositions, illustrations, parables etc.

quote:
I think it's a mistake to try to imagine the divine psychology. If we want a God we can empathise with, we have Jesus.

Well, that brings us back to a properly Trinitarian theology inasmuch as a theology which doesn't of necessity include the eternal Son, Jesus, isn't a truly Christian theology. Hence, my point about notions of divine child abuse being explained by sub-Trinitiarian theologies in which God is artificially chopped up into separate beings.

[ 14. June 2013, 16:33: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
See last post by Daronmedway


Are you convinced that your biblical references rebut my argument, Daronmedway?

Luke 3:7. As you recognise, these are the words not of Jesus but John the Baptist; and, as I’m sure you are aware, in Matthew 3:7 they are addressed specifically to the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Luke 21:23 is not a reference to the wrath of God against humankind but the wrath of the Romans leading to the destruction of Jerusalem. Note also in the same verse that to the extent is might been seen as God’s punishment it is directed towards “this people” , the Jewish citizens of Jerusalem, not humankind.

John 3: 36. Again, these are words spoken by John the Baptist.

I may be wrong in my suggestion that Jesus and Paul had differing views about human nature and God’s attitude to it, but I don’t think your references prove me mistaken.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apologies! This is the post of Daronmedway to which I was responding!

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
One notes, however, that Jesus’ anger is not directed against humanity in general but to specific instances of inhumanity: the loveless righteousness of the pharisees and the greed of the money changers. ISTM that the notion of God’s wrath directed against humankind is Pauline.
I don't think that's right. John the Baptist spoke of it.
quote:
John said to the crowds coming out to be baptised by him, ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Luke 3:7
And Jesus himself mentions it as well.
quote:
How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. Luke 21:32
and
quote:
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. John 3:36

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
See last post by Daronmedway


Are you convinced that your biblical references rebut my argument, Daronmedway?

Luke 3:7. As you recognise, these are the words not of Jesus but John the Baptist; and, as I’m sure you are aware, in Matthew 3:7 they are addressed specifically to the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Luke 21:23 is not a reference to the wrath of God against humankind but the wrath of the Romans leading to the destruction of Jerusalem. Note also in the same verse that to the extent is might been seen as God’s punishment it is directed towards “this people” , the Jewish citizens of Jerusalem, not humankind.

John 3: 36. Again, these are words spoken by John the Baptist.

I may be wrong in my suggestion that Jesus and Paul had differing views about human nature and God’s attitude to it, but I don’t think your references prove me mistaken.

I think you're right about John 3:36. It's not Jesus speaking. But it's not John the Baptist either. It's actually John, the author of the gospel. John's gospel is well known for the way voices blend into one another. So, good point!

As for your point about Jerusalem, I grant Jesus is saying that God's wrath is directed at a particular group of people at a particular point in history via the agency of a pagan Empire (as it is in so often in the OT), but it is nonetheless God's wrath.

[ 14. June 2013, 17:13: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Anselmina: Well, technically it was a willing act, because Jesus conformed his will to the will of the Father; so he did indeed willingly give his life. It wasn't ripped from him reluctantly against his will, if you see what I mean.
I usually compare this with people like Martin Luther King for example.

MLK didn't want to die. Yet he knew that his activities could lead to his death. He didn't seek death. But he couldn't abandon his people either.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Anselmina: Well, technically it was a willing act, because Jesus conformed his will to the will of the Father; so he did indeed willingly give his life. It wasn't ripped from him reluctantly against his will, if you see what I mean.
I usually compare this with people like Martin Luther King for example.

MLK didn't want to die. Yet he knew that his activities could lead to his death. He didn't seek death. But he couldn't abandon his people either.

I don't think that analogy works. Jesus is explicitly recorded as having said that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). And this passage from John's gospel, Chapter 10 says it very clearly indeed:
quote:
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.’

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jesus came here to serve as "King of the Jews." He was in the bloodline at a time when they needed leadership.

I don't think God suffers fools gladly. Something went wrong.

Then there was the promise that Jesus would return to govern "the Kingdom of God" with an iron rod.

Again, something went awry because--instead--we got the crusades, the inquisition and the genocidal conquest of the West--hardly a manifestation of the Kingdom of God described for example at Psalm 37.

So, something is amiss. The precession of the equinoxes having been completed for this cycle and the Age of Pisces being over, what we apparently have is a ~MESS~ of predatory and parasitic elites dominating and exploiting this planet ...

NOT God's Will, certainly.

I think we need to stop pretending that "it'll all just work out" and let's smell the coffee brewing.

Our history apparently has gone off in another direction, albeit the Will of God ABOUT JESUS HIS SON is still embedded in our cultures.

Lift your heads up and look, is the counsel I get.

Emily [Smile]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

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


Are you convinced that your biblical references rebut my argument, Daronmedway?

Luke 3:7. As you recognise, these are the words not of Jesus but John the Baptist; and, as I’m sure you are aware, in Matthew 3:7 they are addressed specifically to the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Luke 21:23 is not a reference to the wrath of God against humankind but the wrath of the Romans leading to the destruction of Jerusalem. Note also in the same verse that to the extent is might been seen as God’s punishment it is directed towards “this people” , the Jewish citizens of Jerusalem, not humankind.

John 3: 36. Again, these are words spoken by John the Baptist.

I may be wrong in my suggestion that Jesus and Paul had differing views about human nature and God’s attitude to it, but I don’t think your references prove me mistaken.

Daronmedway. I think you're right about John 3:36. It's not Jesus speaking. But it's not John the Baptist either. It's actually John, the author of the gospel. John's gospel is well known for the way voices blend into one another. So, good point!

As for your point about Jerusalem, I grant Jesus is saying that God's wrath is directed at a particular group of people at a particular point in history via the agency of a pagan Empire (as it is in so often in the OT), but it is nonetheless God's wrath.

Daronmedway, thank you for your fair reply. I was not seeking to deny that God was incapable of being angry or wrathful, as far as one can articulate his nature. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that a being who is the quintessence of love could be indifferent to the harmful consequences of sinful actions. That is, however, not to agree with Paul’s argument in the first two chapter of Romans that God is wrathful towards humans as a species.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think, Kwesi, that the answer to your problem may lie in the fact that Paul was rabbinically schooled, and the OT usage of God's Wrath was almost always relating to eschatological judgement. A lot of the passages that seem to be different are in Romans, and I think it's fair to say that at that time the Roman church was more a Jewish community than a gentile one. Or at any rate - judging by other passages - Paul feels he has to address the Jewish members of that church.

As I said earlier, someone from this background would be well versed in using metaphors as shorthand. The problem Paul had lay elsewhere. For example in Rom 9:22, it doesn't make a lot of sense unless you think of a Jewish congregation wondering about how Jesus could be a messiah without the expected judgement at the beginning of the age to come. I think Paul's usage of wrath there has its roots more in the OT usage of that word (insofar as wrath is a correct translation of course).

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I ent read nuthin yet. Much. All I KNOW is, Jesus saves. At TYriangle tonight ... drink has been taken, my co-workers adjourned for the God Slot whilst 'Animal', with COPD, a shadow on his lung, probable MS, crippling arthritis, crept off leaning on his bike.

I watched him go past my Passat. I went upstairs to the God Slot and everybody was sharing in how grateful they were. I looked out the window for 'Animal' and he'd barely moved.

So I went down - and he's a BIG, I mean BIG, hard, ex-soldier with PTSD (he was the first guy I spoke with four years ago when I hid behind the counter, he'd just had his sofa shot up by drug dealers from Nottingham, nothing personal. I had to stand between him and some other guy he was going to kill with his bare hands two years ago - he couldn't go past me because "You're old school you are". I'm not sure whether that was before or after he collapsed on me in pain. It was all I could do to slow his descent) to boot - and drove the 20 yards he'd gone past my motor and said 'Get in the FUCKING car!'. It's the only language he understands. He did.

He told me not to cry.

I got back just in time to take a transgender friend home. With his/her trichotillomania and PTSD.

So tell me about the wrath of God. What is it? Is it something I should be bothered about? Does it make a difference?

And what does Jesus have to do with it? I know He's going to fix Marc and Jason and Drew and Sunil and Lizzie and Tony and Syria. Where does this wrath come in ?

--------------------
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 
I mean I wasn't allowed to give out another Pot Noodle. So I just emptied my pocket of change. (Kept the notes of course, I'm not THAT stupid ...).

So if there's any wrath going, any indignation, it's at myself and the rest of the sorry fucking mess of Christianity. Holding NOTHING in common. If God is the bastard that virtually every theist adores Him being, then I look forward to Hell. With Jesus. In whose express image the Father is.

Like punishment, I do not understand wrath. And yes I was glad that poor sick murdering bastard in Manchester was banged up till the next life, but he needs love and healing NOW too.

I mean REALLY, wrath? Indignation? After all this, we need THAT?!

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

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

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
daronmedway: I don't think that analogy works. Jesus is explicitly recorded as having said that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). And this passage from John's gospel, Chapter 10 says it very clearly indeed:
Oh, I don't know. He could have sensed that His death was inevitable, and have reminisced about it in this way.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Also there is enough stuff in the Bible that is clearly wrong.

The mere men who wrote it down must have misunderstood.

[ 14. June 2013, 23:32: Message edited by: deano ]

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Anselmina: Well, technically it was a willing act, because Jesus conformed his will to the will of the Father; so he did indeed willingly give his life. It wasn't ripped from him reluctantly against his will, if you see what I mean.
I usually compare this with people like Martin Luther King for example.

MLK didn't want to die. Yet he knew that his activities could lead to his death. He didn't seek death. But he couldn't abandon his people either.

I don't think that analogy works. Jesus is explicitly recorded as having said that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). And this passage from John's gospel, Chapter 10 says it very clearly indeed:
quote:
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.’

I think the analogy of MLK works perfectly.

Neither the ransom idea nor the John passage contradict that.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Also there is enough stuff in the Bible that is clearly wrong.

The mere men who wrote it down must have misunderstood.

this point if view , to have any integrity, must surely come with the following caveat: you won't quote scripture in support of your arguments.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Also there is enough stuff in the Bible that is clearly wrong.

The mere men who wrote it down must have misunderstood.

this point if view , to have any integrity, must surely come with the following caveat: you won't quote scripture in support of your arguments.
Tosh. That assumes that all of scripture is of equal character and worth; that if one part is wrong the whole of it is worthless. Besides, in discussion with someone who does believe that the Bible is inerrant, what better source to quote from? If I were arguing with a devout Muslim, it would be appropriate to quote the Qu'ran, even though I don't believe it be accurate.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Martin PC
quote:
So tell me about the wrath of God. What is it? Is it something I should be bothered about? Does it make a difference?

And what does Jesus have to do with it? I know He's going to fix Marc and Jason and Drew and Sunil and Lizzie and Tony and Syria. Where does this wrath come in ?

Is someone going to respond to Martin PC's questions?
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 
Thanks Kwesi ... yours is the only response there can be [Smile]

deano - Paul, that's the apostle Paul, completely agrees with you.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Martin PC
quote:
So tell me about the wrath of God. What is it? Is it something I should be bothered about? Does it make a difference?

And what does Jesus have to do with it? I know He's going to fix Marc and Jason and Drew and Sunil and Lizzie and Tony and Syria. Where does this wrath come in ?

Is someone going to respond to Martin PC's questions?
I'll have a go.

I've got a sledgehammer in my shed. I've got some tissues in my study.

I don't use the sledgehammer to wipe away my children's tears.

But that doesn't make it wrong to own a sledgehammer.

The sledgehammer and the tissues are mine and I use them for different things.

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Anselmina: Well, technically it was a willing act, because Jesus conformed his will to the will of the Father; so he did indeed willingly give his life. It wasn't ripped from him reluctantly against his will, if you see what I mean.
I usually compare this with people like Martin Luther King for example.

MLK didn't want to die. Yet he knew that his activities could lead to his death. He didn't seek death. But he couldn't abandon his people either.

I don't think that analogy works. Jesus is explicitly recorded as having said that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). And this passage from John's gospel, Chapter 10 says it very clearly indeed:
quote:
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.’

I think the analogy of MLK works perfectly.

Neither the ransom idea nor the John passage contradict that.

I not talking about the ranson idea, Evensong. I'm talking about your assertion that Jesus didn't die willingly, whereas Mark 10:45 and John 10:17-18 both have Jesus saying that he did die willingly, especially John 10:17-18. What do you have to say about that? Here are his words again. And here are my questions:

1) Why does the Father love Jesus? (v.17)
2) Who can take Jesus' life from him? (v18b)
3) By whose accord was Jesus' life laid down?
4) Who commanded Jesus to lay his life down and take it up again? (v.18c)
5) Did Jesus obey that command of his own accord (i.e. willingly)?

quote:
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.’

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You're getting caught up in the semantics of what willingly means.

He didn't want to suffer and die but he had a job to do (proclaim the Kingdom) so he decided to do it. He decided it himself (he laid down his own life). He decided to go through with the inevitable of Jerusalem being the place where prophets died.

quote:
Matthew 20.18:

‘See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death;

quote:
Matthew 23.37:

‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

But its irrelevant anyways. His death happened. You just want to interpret it your way with no reference to the Gospels.

There is no notion of Jesus being punished by God instead of us in the Gospels.

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The decision making faculty of the soul is called the will, from which we get the word willing. Jesus was willing to die. He died willingly.

Now, how about answering my questions in my previous post one at a time from the text?

[ 15. June 2013, 11:20: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The decision making faculty of the soul is called the will, from which we get the word willing. Jesus was willing to die. He died willingly.

Fair enough.

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

Now, how about answering my questions in my previous post one at a time from the text?

Ok. But I'm in the middle of making dinner. Give me a bit.

And how bout answering my charge of modalism on your understanding of the atonement about two pages back in the meantime? You never did.

[ 15. June 2013, 11:32: Message edited by: Evensong ]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Jesus came here to serve as "King of the Jews." He was in the bloodline at a time when they needed leadership.


So when he told Pilate that 'my kingdom is not of this world', he meant what?

Of course, one may consider this a quote attributed to him by biographers with a message of their own to prove, rather than a literal remark. Though my own view, fwiw, is it sounds pretty consistent to how Jesus actually behaved and the coherent gist of the body of his teaching and tradition.

It appears that some people acknowledged him as 'King of the Jews', but I can't find anything that suggests he considered himself as here to serve as King of the Jews.

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So daronmedway, you take the sledgehammer to your Son to spare the naughty pets and wipe away His tears ?

--------------------
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 
Was it God's will that Jesus should die the way he did?

As far as I am aware the only place where Jesus discusses this is in the Parable of the Vineyard Owner, included in the three synoptic gospels. (Matthew 21: 33-46; Mark 12: 1-12; and Luke 20: 9-19). From these accounts one is led to conclude:

1. It was not the intention of God that the son should be killed.
2. That being the case, his death was not required by the father. There is nothing in this parable remotely indicating substitutionary atonement.
3. The death of the son, as with the prophets, is occasioned by the disobedience of sinful men.
4. That the "wrathful" anathema was not directed against humanity in general but the Pharisees and Chief Priests. (Matt. 21: 45: "When the chief priests and Pharisees heard his parables, they knew he was speaking about them).

That Jesus was willing to surrender his life neither proves nor disproves his death was a matter of substitutionary atonement. As has been pointed out in the case of Martin Luther King and, for that matter, other Christian martyrs, obedience to God led to violent premature death, but that should not be taken to mean it was willed by the creator.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Kwesi,

Perhaps you'd like todo the same bible study as Evensong. Here it is:

quote:
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. John 10:17-18
1) For what reason does Jesus say the Father loves Him? (v.17)
2) According to Jesus, is anyone taking his life from him? (v18b)
3) By whose accord does Jesus say his life is laid down?
4) By whose authority does Jesus die and rise again? (v18c)
4) Who commanded Jesus to lay his life down and take it up again? (v.18c)
5) Did Jesus obey that command of his own accord (i.e. willingly)?

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What a singular interpretation of a bad translation.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What a singular interpretation of a bad translation.

I'd be happy to discuss these verses in pretty much any translation you want.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What's to discuss?

--------------------
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 
Daronmedway, my anwer is on the lines of Evensong, where she argues; “You are getting caught up in the semantics of what “willingly” means. He didn’t “want” to suffer and die but he had a job to do (proclaim the kingdom) so he “decided” to do it. He decided it himself (he laid down his own life). He decided to go through with the inevitable of Jerusalem being the place where prophets died.” Your quotation, John 10: 17-18, does not contradict her argument, nor does it refute my reading of the Parable of the Vineyard Owner. Neither Evensong nor myself have any problem with John 10: 17-18, what we disagree with is your interpretation which goes well beyond the text and does not seem to us, at least, compatible with the gospels. I note that you do not address my interpretation of Jesus’ parable.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's the sort of thing I'm getting at:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Kwesi,

Perhaps you'd like todo the same bible study as Evensong. Here it is:

17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. John 10:17-18

quote:
1) For what reason does Jesus say the Father loves Him? (v.17)

According to Jesus the reason the Father loves him is that he lays down his life - only to take it up again.
quote:
2) According to Jesus, is anyone taking his life from him? (v18b)

No. According to Jesus, no-one is taking his life from him.
quote:
3) By whose accord does Jesus say his life is laid down?

Jesus says that he lays his life down of his own accord.
quote:
4) By whose authority does Jesus die and rise again? (v18c)

According to Jesus he has the authority to lay his life down - only to take it up again.
quote:
5) Who commanded Jesus to lay his life down and take it up again? (v.18c)

According to Jesus the Father commanded him to lay his life down and to take it up again.
quote:
6) Did Jesus obey that command of his own accord (i.e. willingly)?

Yes, Jesus had the authority to lay his life down - only to rise again - of his own accord. He did this in direct obedience to the command of his Father.

Thoughts?

[ 15. June 2013, 21:59: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Daronmedway, I apologise that I don’t seem to be getting my point across, and am somewhat at a loss as to how I can make myself clear to you. As I have said, I have no problem with the verses you quote from John’s Gospel which indicate that Jesus is willingly prepared to die in order to remain faithful to his Messianic mission. That is in conformity with the Parable of the Vineyard owner. Clearly, there is something in the text from John’s gospel which you consider I have failed to understand and recognise. It would help if you could be explicit in pointing that out. [Confused]
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evensong:
But you cannot take one verse or even two verses. You have to take them all - including 'The Son of man came not to be served but to serve and give his life a ransom for many.

quote:
Any god who declares himself to be good and loving and then has no opinion on the evils men do, no requirements for them to change their behaviour, no justice to mete out to the impenitent, is neither good nor loving.
Our lives--and God's Dominion--are full of contradictions and paradoxes.

Are we to believe that God is unable to come to terms with conflicts and disputes over His Will?

If that were so, the Universe would have ended in Chaos long ago.

45 87 99 [Smile]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@daronmedway: Laying down one's life isn't quite the same thing as dying. "Laying down" something can refer the act of offering it as a gift, e.g. to a monarch, to see if it is accepted.

Many soldiers have been willing to die for their country. Some died, some did not, but you could say they each laid down their life for their country when they chose to defend it. And the ones who died did not want to die, even though they were willing to die. In some cases, soldiers have even chosen to do things that they knew for certain would end in their death but with the intent of saving their comrades. They might even have said that they died willingly, but death was not their purpose and it was not their will: it was something they were willing to offer for the sake of something more important to them than their own life.

It seems to me that the passages you quote can be taken in a similar way, as well as being taken in the way you view them.

Personally, I think that Jesus was willing to die because it was the way to overcome his enemies without destroying them.

[ 15. June 2013, 22:50: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When you think about the hardy nature of a Soul, then you realize,

Laying down one's life is simply leaving the battlefield so you can ascend and go to something more comfortable.

Remember the tune, "Freedom's just another word for NOTHING LEFT TO LOSE.

Laying down one's life is quitting being human because being human is just too uncomfortable to deal with.

No nation benefits when its soldiers lay down their lives ... quit ... and go off to a heavenly reward or some other reward.

What a nation, a community, a family benefits from is the one who sticks it out, who stays for the end of the conflict. And only then can one say, they USED THEIR LIFE to benefit society. They went the distance.

45 87 99 [Smile]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
@daronmedway: Laying down one's life isn't quite the same thing as dying. "Laying down" something can refer the act of offering it as a gift, e.g. to a monarch, to see if it is accepted.

The writer of John's gospel uses the term to lay down one's life to describe dying willingly as an act of loving sacrifice. In John 10:11 Jesus says, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

The language of "laying down" and "taking up" one's life in John 10:17 is about death and resurrection, not merely living sacrificially. The whole trajectory of the book is towards the death of Jesus. That's also the meaning of Jesus in John 15:13,
quote:
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
To suggest that this merely means to live sacrificially is to do an injustice the the whole structure of the narrative, which is all about Jesus being in absolute sovereign control of his destiny, including his death.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't disagree with anything you say in your last post, and I agree that "living sacrificially" does not adequately describe what Jesus did. But neither does it adequately describe the soldier who dies to save her comrades.

It seems to me that the question is where the necessity of Jesus' death originated. There is a big difference between the Father saying "I need you to die for what has happened in the past (i.e. to atone for human sin)" and "I need you to let them kill you for the sake of what will then happen in the future (i.e. his enemies would be subdued, but still around)." Did Jesus have to die because the Father required an atoning sacrifice or because the power of evil was so strong? My point is that the passages you quote can be taken either way - they don't necessarily support only the atonement view of his death.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Isn't "God's wrath" just another expression for [self-imposed] karma? ... the--

"what goes around, comes around" outcome and the

"reap what you have sown" destiny of man?


EEWC 45 87 99 [Smile]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
@daronmedway: Laying down one's life isn't quite the same thing as dying. "Laying down" something can refer the act of offering it as a gift, e.g. to a monarch, to see if it is accepted.

The writer of John's gospel uses the term to lay down one's life to describe dying willingly as an act of loving sacrifice. In John 10:11 Jesus says, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

The language of "laying down" and "taking up" one's life in John 10:17 is about death and resurrection, not merely living sacrificially. The whole trajectory of the book is towards the death of Jesus. That's also the meaning of Jesus in John 15:13,
quote:
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
To suggest that this merely means to live sacrificially is to do an injustice the the whole structure of the narrative, which is all about Jesus being in absolute sovereign control of his destiny, including his death.

Well yes. The gospel of John's depiction of Jesus is quite different from the Synoptics in this regard. In the gospel of John Jesus is almost superhuman. From memory, that's one of the reasons it almost didn't make the canon.

In John you have no soul despairing anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane, that part of the scene is omitted entirely.

In John you have no cry of dereliction of the cross.

In John Jesus is entirely in control and just says "it is finished" on the cross and is all very blase'.

What is the point of Jesus being in absolute, sovereign control of his destiny in your mind? I don't see its importance.

It just strikes me as making him out to be Superhuman. Which is why it borders on gnosticism.

But that's the problem with your atonement theory - you are discounting Jesus' humanity and making him into only God on earth - not human. That's why you don't have any trouble with the idea that God murdered Jesus. Because Jesus to you wasn't really human was he?

Straight modalism.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
daronmedway, you uniquely interpolate and in fact misinterpret that God the Father commanded Jesus to sacrifice Himself.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953

 - Posted      Profile for The5thMary   Email The5thMary   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
How effectively does God's wrath and anger toward sinners turn those self-same sinners toward God?

Because those poor wretches are afraid they're gonna burn, burn, burn, burn in the fires of Hell.
Wow. I sure am glad I jettisoned all that Divine Wrath crap about twenty plus years ago!

--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.

Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
That's why you don't have any trouble with the idea that God murdered Jesus. Because Jesus to you wasn't really human was he?

Straight modalism.

On the contrary. It is precisely the idea of "God" murdering "Jesus" that I utterly reject, as I clearly said right at the beginning of the thread. Such notions are deeply sub-trinitarian and give rise to precisely the sort of charges of divine child abuse that some on this thread have raised. To be honest, it seems to me that the objections to substitutionary theories of the atonement, couched in terms such as "God" killed "jesus', are actually rooted in Arianism

However, the heresy that you're trying to pin on me isn't really modalism, it's actually docetism, but as I said, a quick read of the thread will show you that I'm nowhere near that ball-park.

Now, how about answering those questions of mine, from the text?

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:


Now, how about answering those questions of mine, from the text?

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

1) Why does the Father love Jesus? (v.17)
2) Who can take Jesus' life from him? (v18b)
3) By whose accord was Jesus' life laid down?
4) Who commanded Jesus to lay his life down and take it up again? (v.18c)
5) Did Jesus obey that command of his own accord (i.e. willingly)?

1) Because he lays down his life for his sheep
2)No one
3) His own

4) The command seems to be related to the authority to take up and lay down Jesus' life. This is the context of the preceding verse. One can infer it is a command to lay down his life from God because of verse 17, but commanding him to take up his life again makes no sense here. The scriptures are fairly unanimous is saying it is God that raises Jesus from the dead, not Jesus. I suspect the taking up is not a reference to resurrection as you presume but control of his destiny. He can run away from death if he wants to.

5) Yes. If by willingly you mean he thought that's what God wanted him to do and he reluctantly agreed to do it. But as I said above, that's the synoptic angle, the Johannine angle is much less fully human and emphasises the "God and I are one" bit alot more. As Richardus says, this is probably why the early church had debates over whether Jesus had only one will or two in the 600's. They decided he had two, one human, one divine that corresponded to his two natures.


Now how about you stop pussy footing around and explain your point? Whatever that is? [Razz]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Evensong, my point is this:

The Father commanded Jesus to lay his life down - only to take it up again. By faith, Jesus knew he would rise. Jesus, therefore, had the authority to lay his life down. This he did of his own accord in willing obedience to the command of his Father.

Now, if we can agree that this is what John 10:17-18 is saying we can move on to discuss why the Father might command such a thing.

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
daronmedway, you uniquely interpolate and in fact misinterpret that God the Father commanded Jesus to sacrifice Himself.

Uniquely? Really? I'm the only person to hold that view of John 10:18?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evensong, my point is this:

The Father commanded Jesus to lay his life down - only to take it up again. By faith, Jesus knew he would rise. Jesus, therefore, had the authority to lay his life down. This he did of his own accord in willing obedience to the command of his Father.

Now, if we can agree that this is what John 10:17-18 is saying we can move on to discuss why the Father might command such a thing.

I don't know if we agree. You just keep restating your opinions and not engaging with mine.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Then it's probably best that we leave it there then.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
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