|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: God's wrath and indignation against us
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
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)."
This is the nub of the issue, and an avenue well worth exploring. FWIW, I agree that there are obvious statements in John's gospel concerning the Father's motives for ordaining the death of his Son. I think a closer reading of the big picture narrative would help in that regard.
quote:
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.
I agree. The biggest motif concerning Jesus' death in John is the narrative congruence of the crucifixion with the Passover. Maybe this would be something to explore.
[ 17. June 2013, 09:02: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Oops, I meant to say that there are no obvious statements...
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Then it's probably best that we leave it there then.
Yes. I agree. Not much fun talking to yourself.
Watch out W Hyatt, he's coming for you now. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
[ 17. June 2013, 09:31: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There was NO command, no coercion. Jesus freely chose to die at our hand. The Father would have loved Him if He had not. And us. Not that He would not have laid down His life, even knowing that He could not and did not HAVE to.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Indeed. Saying Jesus had to die in order to effect some dubious salvation seems to limit God quite considerably.
God doesn't have to do anything. God is not bound.
[ 17. June 2013, 10:29: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Indeed. Saying Jesus had to die in order to effect some dubious salvation seems to limit God quite considerably.
God doesn't have to do anything. God is not bound.
It's rare that I agree with many people on the ship politically, but theologically I bow to better commentators when I see them... and this is one!
Your post is spot on. I can't see any way round that argument. God can do anything He chooses and He is not bound in any way.
To say Christ "needed" to die to provide us with something is logically reducing God to a litigant!
What would have happened if God has chosen NOT to give us salvation after dying on the cross? Who would have forced him to do so? Who is more powerful than God that can enforce the provision of salvation following the crucifixion?
IMHO Christ died on the cross to show us that death is not the end. He died because he chose to in order to utterly break the disciples. To smash "the way" into a million pieces, scatter them and make them frightened for themselves.
Then the resurection showed them that they were not finished. They had only just begun!
In the armed forces, basic training begins with breaking down the new recruits. It is hard, harsh and uncomfortable. Those who will not make good soldiers are forced out and the remaining few are systematically crushed and smashed. Then they are picked up and remoulded into soldiers.
Once the breaking down has been completed, the remaining recruits are trained, hardened and shown the right way to do things. It is only after the initial stripping away of their previous civilian personas that the new persona of professional soldeir can be built up.
The analogy for me is clear. Christ chose to die in order to finish off the stripping away of the old "civilian" and "jewish" persona's of the disciples. They were smashed and at their lowest.
Then Christ rose and built them up again. The revealing of himself to the chosen disciples, the Pentecostal fire, the orders to create the Church. These are all things that the old disciples would have been unable to do. They needed to be smashed down then rebuilt into people who could do this task. Remember they were humans, not God.
Christ chose to lay down his own life, knowing he could take it up again, in order to make the founders of Christianity into the "solders" of Christ so they could undertake the task he gave them.
God could have done it any way he chose of course. But he did it this way. Why? I have no idea. I suspect because it was the most human way for the human disciples. They would have understood the process. Training soldiers this way is as old as the very mountains they trod. They would have "got it".
But there was no "must" or "needed" or any other legal forcing of God to lay down his life. There cannot have been because "laws" depend on someone or something to enforce them.
If God was contractually obliged to give us salvation because of the crucifixion, then someone or something bigger or more powerful than God must exist to enforce the agreement.
Because there is nothing more poweful than God, then God is not obligated to give us anything. He can CHOOSE to give us things, such as salvation, but it is entirely up to Him how he does that.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
God can do anything He chooses and He is not bound in any way.
To say Christ "needed" to die to provide us with something is logically reducing God to a litigant!
How about if we try to put 'Christ needed to die' in a slightly different way? If Christ's death and resurrection were the only way of rescuing humanity, whom God loves with a perfect, unquenchable love, then God's character would demand that He do whatever was necessary to rescue us. That 'whatever was necessary' was the sending of the Son to earth.
But then, if we accept the dual will thing from upthread, the Son had his own choice to make; accept or reject the will of the Father. Thankfully for all of us, he chose to accept!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There was NO command, no coercion. Jesus freely chose to die at our hand.
Oh I agree. There was no coercion. There was a command. I agree that Jesus freely chose to die at our hand. He did it at the Father's command. Commands aren't coercive.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I think it useful to look at the context of the couple of verses from John's Gospel we were invited by Daronmedway to discuss:
quote:
John 10: 11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 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.”
My reading of the text is as follows:
Jesus, the Good Shepherd, is contrasting his behaviour to that of the hired shepherd (seemingly the pharisees and religious leaders). Whereas the hired shepherd runs away at the first sign of danger, the good shepherd puts his life on the line to defend the sheep against the ravening wolves, which might (and does in the case of Jesus) lead to his death. The father is impressed by the selfless, willing, act of the son. It would seem that the son is empowered by the father to act autonomously both with respect to his defence of the sheep and to raise himself from death.
We note that there is no suggestion that the death of the son was demanded by the father as some sort of substitutionary atonement. The sheep are already safely within the pen. Indeed, there is no evidence that this passage is about atonement at all. Apart from the granting of permission for the son to do as he wishes, there is no evidence of any transaction between the father and the son, except that as a by-stander the father is moved by the son’s selfless defence of the flock. There is no reference to God’s wrath. Wrath and violence are the preserve of the wolves and to some extent the defensive actions of the shepherd.
I guess I’m struggling to see what this has to do with a thread about God’s wrath.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Indeed. Saying Jesus had to die in order to effect some dubious salvation seems to limit God quite considerably.
God doesn't have to do anything. God is not bound.
Because there is nothing more poweful than God, then God is not obligated to give us anything. He can CHOOSE to give us things, such as salvation, but it is entirely up to Him how he does that.
True. And the Apostles have told us how he chose to do it. Here's my dilemma: I can either believe you, or I can believe them. Do you see the problem? ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I guess I’m struggling to see what this has to do with a thread about God’s wrath.
Nothing.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yes. You're trapped in a false dichotomy.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
True. And the Apostles have told us how he chose to do it. Here's my dilemma: I can either believe you, or I can believe them. Do you see the problem?
No they haven't.
I don't pretend to any great skill in biblical proof texting, but I don't think the Apostles have explicitly confirmed any kind of force being applied to God in order to "judicially" compel Him to give us salvation. I am struggling to think of any part of the New Testament that confirms, without doubt or equivocation, the theory of substitutional atonement.
I - and others I'm sure - await your quotation to show this.
If the quotation is woolly, or can be interpreted in a way that is completely opposite to your point of view of course, or can be nullified by an alternative quotation, then the quote doesn't count towards your argument.
Otherwise it's just you and your interpretation vs me and my interpretation and I'm right... just because!
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nice one deano. And very much so on your boot camp analogy. But! (LOOOK Miss! LOOK! I emboldened for emphasis!) - in the spirit of taking no prisoners either way - have at you: God can't not choose to save us. Whereas Jesus didn't have to sacrifice Himself for us. Thinking of that, I could hear the Father say, "You don't have to do this you know.". Something the Apostles left out. Which bayonets back daronmedway's way: what did the Apostles know that we don't?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
True. And the Apostles have told us how he chose to do it. Here's my dilemma: I can either believe you, or I can believe them. Do you see the problem?
No they haven't.
I don't pretend to any great skill in biblical proof texting, but I don't think the Apostles have explicitly confirmed any kind of force being applied to God in order to "judicially" compel Him to give us salvation.
That's not my suggestion.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
God can do anything He chooses and He is not bound in any way.
To say Christ "needed" to die to provide us with something is logically reducing God to a litigant!
Only if the "need" is a legal need.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
This post by Lamb Chopped on The Gospel of John, a verse at a time thread in Kerygmania is pretty much where I'm coming from on he issue of the Father commanding the Son to lay down his life.
PSA doesn't feature in this passage, but that's not issue at the moment. The issue is simply reaching an agreement that the mission of Jesus, given to him by his Father, involved the laying down of his life.
If we can agree on that much, we can then start to explore why the Father might have "commanded" the Son to lay down his life.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Evensong
quote:
quote:
Original post, Kwesi:
I guess I’m struggling to see what this has to do with a thread about God’s wrath.
Evensong Reply: Nothing.
This post is supposed to be about the wrath of God. As far as I can make out we are now discussing something entirely different. Perhaps someone can indicate why the present discussion is relevant to the thread or clarify what we are now on about.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
God can do anything He chooses and He is not bound in any way.
To say Christ "needed" to die to provide us with something is logically reducing God to a litigant!
Only if the "need" is a legal need.
Fair enough, but a "need" is counterbalanced by something that "must" happen if the "need" is not met.
I need to breathe oxygen. If I don't then I die.
I need to pay my taxes. If I don't then I get sent to prison.
To take the SA view...
Christ needed to die. If He didn't then we would not be granted Salvation. The gates of Heaven would remain firmly shut to us.
It's an IF/THEN/ELSE construct.
This "else" option - to me anyway - sets up up binding obligation on God. That isn't allowed in my little worldview.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Daronmedway quote:
If we can agree on that much, we can then start to explore why the Father might have "commanded" the Son to lay down his life.
Daronmedway, I really am getting confused by your argument, especially in relation to John 10: 17-18: 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.”
As you have argued ad nauseam, Daronmedway, the son does what he has to do willingly and the text indicates he has been given autonomy in the matter by the father. In that case it's difficult to see how the father has "commanded" the son. The command from the father is that he has been given free choice in the matter. How can it be otherwise?
If you now want to discuss whether Jesus might have been instructed to get himself killed for whatever purpose, then I suggest you come up with the appropriate biblical texts. John 10: 17-18 doesn't do the business.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
This post by Lamb Chopped on The Gospel of John, a verse at a time thread in Kerygmania is pretty much where I'm coming from on he issue of the Father commanding the Son to lay down his life.
PSA doesn't feature in this passage, but that's not issue at the moment. The issue is simply reaching an agreement that the mission of Jesus, given to him by his Father, involved the laying down of his life.
If we can agree on that much, we can then start to explore why the Father might have "commanded" the Son to lay down his life.
But we have one word "command" that is the cornerstone of your argument. As I said earlier, I am no Biblical scholar, but perhaps the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic understanding of the word would help here.
Personally I think it means he has receieved the "ability" to take his life up again from the Father. I have been given the "key", the "authority", the "command", the "secret magic words", or what have you.
I wouldn't even be surprised if somewhere along the tortuous road of translation the word was "commission", which to me makes more sense. But hey ho, that's my own wishful thinking there.
I'm more of a mind to think that the Father gave Christ the mission, and Christ made his own decisions on how to complete the mission, and that willingly giving up His life on the cross was his own decision to complete the mission, rather than having to do something else.
Dying is a very human act - the most human act - and perhaps He thought that it was the best way to reach humans, to fully prepare them for the "next things".
[ 17. June 2013, 16:22: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The biggest motif concerning Jesus' death in John is the narrative congruence of the crucifixion with the Passover. Maybe this would be something to explore.
I would point out that the Passover sacrifice was not an atonement sacrifice. I believe the only purposes stated for it were to provide blood to mark the doorways and to provide food for a meal.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.
First and foremost, the reason why the Father loves Jesus is because He is His Son (Mark 1:11).
This verse gives another reason why the Father loved the Son: because the Son was prepared to lay down his life. But this is different from wanting or commanding Him to die.
Going back to my MLK example: one of the reasons why whe love him, is because he was prepared to lay down his life for others. But this doesn't mean we wanted him to die.
quote:
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.
When Jesus, who is God, came to Earth to side with the weak against power, it was inevitable that power would try to seek a way to destroy Him.
Jesus could have prevented this. When they put Him on the Cross, He could have summoned the angels to carry Him away (Matthew 4:5), but He chose not to do this. This would be to overcome power with more power.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I would point out that the Passover sacrifice was not an atonement sacrifice.
No but its purpose was to deflect wrath.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
LeRoc,
Jesus says, quote:
This command I received from my Father.
What command from his Father do you think Jesus is talking about in this verse?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: What command from his Father do you think Jesus is talking about in this verse?
The command (I prefer to say: agreement) not to do anything supernatural to save Himself from the Cross.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
On the word "command" ( ἐντολή )
Here is the Strong's info from Blue Letter Bible.
Here's the Liddell/Scott/Jones definition.
It sure doesn't seem to give credence to the idea that it means Jesus received the ability from the Father. Rather he received the command, order, or decree.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I guess it must have been difficult for Jesus at times to try to put the inter-Trinitarian communication into human words.
--------------------
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
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I would point out that the Passover sacrifice was not an atonement sacrifice.
No but its purpose was to deflect wrath.
That's a good point.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
God can do anything He chooses and He is not bound in any way.
To say Christ "needed" to die to provide us with something is logically reducing God to a litigant!
Only if the "need" is a legal need.
I've been doing some thinking lately along the lines of evil being so powerful, even God can't just magically wave it away but must die in the struggle against it--not to fight to the death would be allowing death the final victory. Exactly how God uses death to defeat death and evil is a mystery to me, but it seems to require passing through death and out the other side--there's no stepping around it.
So God's death is not a legal requirement, but it seems to be the only way to win the battle, and thus is necessary.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
God can do anything He chooses and He is not bound in any way.
To say Christ "needed" to die to provide us with something is logically reducing God to a litigant!
Only if the "need" is a legal need.
I've been doing some thinking lately along the lines of evil being so powerful, even God can't just magically wave it away but must die in the struggle against it--not to fight to the death would be allowing death the final victory. Exactly how God uses death to defeat death and evil is a mystery to me, but it seems to require passing through death and out the other side--there's no stepping around it.
So God's death is not a legal requirement, but it seems to be the only way to win the battle, and thus is necessary.
I'm not sure I see the point of worshipping a God who has to die to defeat evil!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jade Constable: I'm not sure I see the point of worshipping a God who has to die to defeat evil!
I do see the point however in worshopping a God who has decided to become weaker than evil to defeat it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Jade Constable: I'm not sure I see the point of worshipping a God who has to die to defeat evil!
I do see the point however in worshopping a God who has decided to become weaker than evil to defeat it.
That's a good point, hmmm.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess it must have been difficult for Jesus at times to try to put the inter-Trinitarian communication into human words.
The Jesus of John's gospel is pretty darn good at it though, wouldn't you say?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
On the word "command" ( ἐντολή )
Here is the Strong's info from Blue Letter Bible.
Here's the Liddell/Scott/Jones definition.
It sure doesn't seem to give credence to the idea that it means Jesus received the ability from the Father. Rather he received the command, order, or decree.
The Apostle Paul seems to agree: quote:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age according to the will of our God and Father to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Galatians 1:3-5
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Jade Constable: I'm not sure I see the point of worshipping a God who has to die to defeat evil!
I do see the point however in worshopping a God who has decided to become weaker than evil to defeat it.
More or less, yeah. God in effect says to evil "okay, do your worst" and, by defeating that worst weapon through the resurrection, emerges the victor.
This is not to imagine that God is weaker than we'd like to think -- it's rather that evil is more powerful than we often realize, and that (to jump to another metaphor) the surgery needed to excise it needs to go very deep.
And turning power relations upside down to confound and disarm seems to be one of God's specialities.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Whatever Paul had to say in Galatians cannot be used to interpret the text from John. The text from John (John 10:18) does not say that Jesus received a command from God to lay down his life. Rather the reverse, the instruction from the Father is that the son has been given autonomy to make his own decision: that is the command.
If you want to argue that Jesus received a command from God to die on the cross then present the relevant biblical texts.
I still want someone to tell me how all this relates to God's wrath, the subject of this thread.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: What command from his Father do you think Jesus is talking about in this verse?
The command (I prefer to say: agreement) not to do anything supernatural to save Himself from the Cross.
Well, it's certainly true that Jesus did refuse to save himself through supernatural means when he was on trial under Pontius Pilate, but on other occasions he seems to have done just that, interestingly we have an example in John 10:39.
Furthermore, on the issue of the Father's involvement in Jesus death, Jesus says at his trial, recorded in John 19:11: quote:
Jesus answered, ‘You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.’
This seems to suggest that Pilate's power over Jesus, and more specifically his power to sentence Jesus to crucifixion, is ascribed ultimately to the Father (i.e. "from above").
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well, it's certainly true that Jesus did refuse to save himself through supernatural means when he was on trial under Pontius Pilate, but on other occasions he seems to have done just that, interestingly we have an example in John 10:39.
That's disingenuous. Le Roc most specifically said to save himself from the cross. Jesus didn't save himself from the cross in John 10.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Perhaps Christ new that to defeat evil he needed to get onto the "field of battle" with evil.
His death was the way to the field of battle. We never saw the battle itself, only the result - the resurection. Christ won.
That it also helped the disciples to become weaker in order to allow a better tempering later in the pentecostal fire was also a benefit.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Again deano, not bad mate. You use command with the same nuance that I see.
From the Blue Letter Bible:
1) an order, command, charge, precept, injunction
a) that which is prescribed to one by reason of his office
as in military rank, one is not commanded in duty at the highest rank, as C-in-C, one commands.
Jesus was given, appointed to the highest command, the commanding position, the highest rank of, to command.
Not be commanded.
And LeRoc, He couldn't have agreed not to supernaturally save Himself as He couldn't do anything supernatural at all.
Lothiriel, aye.
--------------------
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
quote:
mousethief: That's disingenuous. Le Roc most specifically said to save himself from the cross. Jesus didn't save himself from the cross in John 10.
I agree, and what's more: John 10:39 doesn't state that Jesus used supernatural means to escape. He might have just pulled Himself free and ran.
quote:
daronmedway: This seems to suggest that Pilate's power over Jesus, and more specifically his power to sentence Jesus to crucifixion, is ascribed ultimately to the Father (i.e. "from above").
I read it in this way: neither the Father nor the Son will use their superhuman Almighty ways to prevent Pilate from sentencing Jesus.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Whatever Paul had to say in Galatians cannot be used to interpret the text from John.
I'm not using it to interpret John 10:18, I'm offering it as another biblical text which presents a very similar idea.
quote:
The text from John (John 10:18) does not say that Jesus received a command from God to lay down his life. Rather the reverse, the instruction from the Father is that the son has been given autonomy to make his own decision: that is the command.
I just can't see that in the text. It just sounds like you're trying to avoid an interpretation which doesn't fit your theology.
quote:
If you want to argue that Jesus received a command from God to die on the cross then present the relevant biblical texts.
How about Galatians 1:3-4?
quote:
I still want someone to tell me how all this relates to God's wrath, the subject of this thread.
Because 1) you won't be able to discuss models of the atonement if you don't understand the Trinity, and 2) because if we can agree on texts like John 10:18 and Galatians 1:4 we can move on to discuss why Jesus' death was the will of God the Father (e.g. Was it to conquer evil? Was it to satisfy justice? Was to provide an example? etc.)
[ 17. June 2013, 21:31: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well, it's certainly true that Jesus did refuse to save himself through supernatural means when he was on trial under Pontius Pilate, but on other occasions he seems to have done just that, interestingly we have an example in John 10:39.
That's disingenuous. Le Roc most specifically said to save himself from the cross. Jesus didn't save himself from the cross in John 10.
Fair call. I wasn't trying to be disingenuous. It was a mistake. But Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because 1) you won't be able to discuss models of the atonement if you don't understand the Trinity
Well, nobody does. They might think they do, they may even believe that they do. But they don't.
The Trinity is a human construct to try to explain what has been observed. It isn't something God given, or stated. People looked at Christ's actions and in trying to make sense of them devised the trinity as a concept.
We really have no idea whether it represents God or not, only that humans can use it to explain the actions and events notated in the Bible.
It's like Richard Feynman's description of quantum physics...
quote:
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't ..."
God is just so far outside of our experience and ability to conceptualise Him, that we have to resort to simplified models such as The Trinity to be able to reduce Him down to our levels of understanding.
So how do attonement theories stand up when we remember that the Trinity is merely a simplified model that may or may not be even remotely correct.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: But Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
Like I said, He didn't seek death.
--------------------
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
@deano
I suppose the straight answer - if your point of view is true - is that it's pointless trying to establishing any kind of objective Christian truth. We can all just use orthodoxy as a foil for the theologies we just make up as we go along.
[ 17. June 2013, 21:52: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: But Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
Like I said, He didn't seek death.
Get behind me Satan. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Mark 8:31-33 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. ‘Get behind me, Satan!’ he said. ‘You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.’
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: We can all just use orthodoxy as a foil for the theologies we just make up as we go along.
I'd go even further, and say that orthodoxy is also a theology we made up as we stumbled along. That doesn't mean it's without value though.
--------------------
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
|
|
Printer-friendly view
