How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (1 Viewer)

[On The Rocks]

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

I would say because it’s a gift that requires receiving. It’s not a payment to have faith.
If the gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss. But receiving it, costs you nothing.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

I would say because it’s a gift that requires receiving. It’s not a payment to have faith.
If the gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss. But receiving it, costs you nothing.

If the gift is freely being given who would "leave it on the table"? Are all of these agnostics, atheists, believers of something else just all too stupid to say sure, "I'll take heaven over hell"? Of course not. Just for whatever reason they are unable to pay the price. The price of faith. Or, if you prefer the "work" of faith. A price, that if we take traditional Christian theology as our guide that is out of reach for the vast majority of the children of God of today, yesterday, and likely tomorrow that God loves so much. Their loss!

Maybe it is time for us believers to have just a little faith in God that when he says he loves his children he means the love is, has always been, and always be unconditional. And that it is us, not God attaching all of the strings that turn this loving God into the evil being that would condemn most everyone to a fire and brimstone eternity for guessing wrong.

ETA: Of course, Ephesians 2:8 explains that faith isn't something we can do anyway. But that just means that the gift of salvation is only available to those that already received the gift of faith. Such "good news" to spread to everyone else.

 

[On The Rocks]

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

I would say because it’s a gift that requires receiving. It’s not a payment to have faith.
If the gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss. But receiving it, costs you nothing.

If the gift is freely being given who would "leave it on the table"? Are all of these agnostics, atheists, believers of something else just all too stupid to say sure, "I'll take heaven over hell"? Of course not. Just for whatever reason they are unable to pay the price. The price of faith. Or, if you prefer the "work" of faith. A price, that if we take traditional Christian theology as our guide that is out of reach for the vast majority of the children of God of today, yesterday, and likely tomorrow that God loves so much. Their loss!

Maybe it is time for us believers to have just a little faith in God that when he says he loves his children he means the love is, has always been, and always be unconditional. And that it is us, not God attaching all of the strings that turn this loving God into the evil being that would condemn most everyone to a fire and brimstone eternity for guessing wrong.

ETA: Of course, Ephesians 2:8 explains that faith isn't something we can do anyway. But that just means that the gift of salvation is only available to those that already received the gift of faith. Such "good news" to spread to everyone else.

I have no idea what any of this means.

 

[dkp993]

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

I would say because it’s a gift that requires receiving. It’s not a payment to have faith.
If the gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss. But receiving it, costs you nothing.

If the gift is freely being given who would "leave it on the table"? Are all of these agnostics, atheists, believers of something else just all too stupid to say sure, "I'll take heaven over hell"? Of course not. Just for whatever reason they are unable to pay the price. The price of faith. Or, if you prefer the "work" of faith. A price, that if we take traditional Christian theology as our guide that is out of reach for the vast majority of the children of God of today, yesterday, and likely tomorrow that God loves so much. Their loss!

Maybe it is time for us believers to have just a little faith in God that when he says he loves his children he means the love is, has always been, and always be unconditional. And that it is us, not God attaching all of the strings that turn this loving God into the evil being that would condemn most everyone to a fire and brimstone eternity for guessing wrong.

ETA: Of course, Ephesians 2:8 explains that faith isn't something we can do anyway. But that just means that the gift of salvation is only available to those that already received the gift of faith. Such "good news" to spread to everyone else.

I have no idea what any of this means.

As a non-believer I’ll offer up my opinion of what I think Bottom is saying (which I agree with if I’m interpreting him correctly). There is “price” of faith. That’s the cost of the “ gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss”. You can’t take the gift without belief or faith. For some of us that’s a huge ask for something that creates more questions then it answers and we are 2000 years past any offers of tangible proof. Hence “faith” is required. Faith in one specific ancient story amongst countless other ancient stories told by humans since the dawn of time. That ask itself doesn’t make sense or seem in line with how an all knowing all seeing God would set something up. Thus, the cost of faith is quite the ask.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

I would say because it’s a gift that requires receiving. It’s not a payment to have faith.
If the gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss. But receiving it, costs you nothing.

If the gift is freely being given who would "leave it on the table"? Are all of these agnostics, atheists, believers of something else just all too stupid to say sure, "I'll take heaven over hell"? Of course not. Just for whatever reason they are unable to pay the price. The price of faith. Or, if you prefer the "work" of faith. A price, that if we take traditional Christian theology as our guide that is out of reach for the vast majority of the children of God of today, yesterday, and likely tomorrow that God loves so much. Their loss!

Maybe it is time for us believers to have just a little faith in God that when he says he loves his children he means the love is, has always been, and always be unconditional. And that it is us, not God attaching all of the strings that turn this loving God into the evil being that would condemn most everyone to a fire and brimstone eternity for guessing wrong.

ETA: Of course, Ephesians 2:8 explains that faith isn't something we can do anyway. But that just means that the gift of salvation is only available to those that already received the gift of faith. Such "good news" to spread to everyone else.

I have no idea what any of this means.

As a non-believer I’ll offer up my opinion of what I think Bottom is saying (which I agree with if I’m interpreting him correctly). There is “price” of faith. That’s the cost of the “ gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss”. You can’t take the gift without belief or faith. For some of us that’s a huge ask for something that creates more questions then it answers and we are 2000 years past any offers of tangible proof. Hence “faith” is required. Faith in one specific ancient story amongst countless other ancient stories told by humans since the dawn of time. That ask itself doesn’t make sense or seem in line with how an all knowing all seeing God would set something up. Thus, the cost of faith is quite the ask.

That's reasonably close to perfect.

To me as a believer faith is just something I have. There was no real expense for me to find that faith (beyond the frustration for the part of my life where I did not want to believe). We could argue whether or not following the faith is a cost or a benefit, but I would like to think that for most believers it is considered a benefit. (Before any talk of heaven and hell.) So, I get why a believer would not see a cost. But we believers are just staying the course we are already on, while suggesting to everyone else that they should change course. To get off the path that they are on. As believers we should of course believe that the benefits of changing course, of changing paths is well worth the costs. But we also should be open enough to that what we are asking has a cost to be paid.

Looking at this from another direction. Let us pretend that a bunch of us just died and are continuing this discussion just outside the pearly gates of heaven. And let us say hypothetically that as we are standing there, we realize that everyone, and I mean everyone is being let in. No distinction for beliefs (or lack of them). As our turn arrives, we learn that indeed Jesus' sacrifice on the cross paid the price for everyone's sin. We believers got that one correct! Do you think that any of the Christians that have spent a lifetime insisting that the gift of salvation required faith would feel slighted at this revelation? Feel cheated? Hypothetically let us say one did. "This is unfair!" Why would we think they might feel this way?

 

[TennesseeJed]

Maybe it is time for us believers to have just a little faith in God that when he says he loves his children he means the love is, has always been, and always be unconditional. And that it is us, not God attaching all of the strings that turn this loving God into the evil being that would condemn most everyone to a fire and brimstone eternity for guessing wrong.

Same god who purportedly destroyed every living land creature bar those that could fit on a boat?

That’s the one that has unconditional love for all his children?


(Or maybe it should be taken literally- and god only loves his only child…)

 

[On The Rocks]

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

I would say because it’s a gift that requires receiving. It’s not a payment to have faith.
If the gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss. But receiving it, costs you nothing.

If the gift is freely being given who would "leave it on the table"? Are all of these agnostics, atheists, believers of something else just all too stupid to say sure, "I'll take heaven over hell"? Of course not. Just for whatever reason they are unable to pay the price. The price of faith. Or, if you prefer the "work" of faith. A price, that if we take traditional Christian theology as our guide that is out of reach for the vast majority of the children of God of today, yesterday, and likely tomorrow that God loves so much. Their loss!

Maybe it is time for us believers to have just a little faith in God that when he says he loves his children he means the love is, has always been, and always be unconditional. And that it is us, not God attaching all of the strings that turn this loving God into the evil being that would condemn most everyone to a fire and brimstone eternity for guessing wrong.

ETA: Of course, Ephesians 2:8 explains that faith isn't something we can do anyway. But that just means that the gift of salvation is only available to those that already received the gift of faith. Such "good news" to spread to everyone else.

I have no idea what any of this means.

As a non-believer I’ll offer up my opinion of what I think Bottom is saying (which I agree with if I’m interpreting him correctly). There is “price” of faith. That’s the cost of the “ gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss”. You can’t take the gift without belief or faith. For some of us that’s a huge ask for something that creates more questions then it answers and we are 2000 years past any offers of tangible proof. Hence “faith” is required. Faith in one specific ancient story amongst countless other ancient stories told by humans since the dawn of time. That ask itself doesn’t make sense or seem in line with how an all knowing all seeing God would set something up. Thus, the cost of faith is quite the ask.

That's reasonably close to perfect.

To me as a believer faith is just something I have. There was no real expense for me to find that faith (beyond the frustration for the part of my life where I did not want to believe). We could argue whether or not following the faith is a cost or a benefit, but I would like to think that for most believers it is considered a benefit. (Before any talk of heaven and hell.) So, I get why a believer would not see a cost. But we believers are just staying the course we are already on, while suggesting to everyone else that they should change course. To get off the path that they are on. As believers we should of course believe that the benefits of changing course, of changing paths is well worth the costs. But we also should be open enough to that what we are asking has a cost to be paid.

Looking at this from another direction. Let us pretend that a bunch of us just died and are continuing this discussion just outside the pearly gates of heaven. And let us say hypothetically that as we are standing there, we realize that everyone, and I mean everyone is being let in. No distinction for beliefs (or lack of them). As our turn arrives, we learn that indeed Jesus' sacrifice on the cross paid the price for everyone's sin. We believers got that one correct! Do you think that any of the Christians that have spent a lifetime insisting that the gift of salvation required faith would feel slighted at this revelation? Feel cheated? Hypothetically let us say one did. "This is unfair!" Why would we think they might feel this way?

I don't think there would be a sense of unfairness. Thinking about what is fair or unfair, is in and of itself a mind thing. Which is why even here on earth, we are told to renew our mind, set our mind on things above, let this mind be in you, etc etc, When we get to heaven our thought life will be one of things that no longer needs renewing or correcting. At least that's my belief.

 

[On The Rocks]

Not that anyone cares......but.....just a disclaimer, I'm new to this thread. I am not in this thread to debate aggressive debaters. If I say something that someone disagrees with, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything, only to share what I believe. So, if I say something and someone responds with a question, or counters with an opposing position that doesn't get answered there are a handful of reasons;

• I haven't logged in to see the response.
• I have no opinion on the topic or care enough about the topic......(for example, end times prophecy, or where did Cain's wife come from, etc etc. The list is long)
• I have seen the response and I'm giving some thought to my reply without a knee jerk response. I fully admit, there have been a number of times I have replied to a post I quickly wish I hadn't or replied with a comment I later either realized I was wrong or later was persuaded to change my opinion.
• I have no interest in engaging with some people that are only looking for a fight to prove they are smarter than me. You may very well be smarter, so ...there you go. You win.

I do hold to the idea that the message of the gospel is a simple message. It gets muddied unnecessarily by people who believe themselves to be intellectuals or smarter than others and most people that want to debate topics like mankind was on earth with dinosaurs, was there a flood, how does a loving God allow so much violence, among many other arguments I've seen are missing the point. Not only debates between believers and unbelievers but debates between and among believers on; creation, evolution, predestination, end times, the list goes on and on, for me personally, none of those conversations have a lot of meaning. They can be fun to respectfully debate, but in the end, they don't really mean much to me and not worth spending a ton of time on.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Not that anyone cares......but.....just a disclaimer, I'm new to this thread. I am not in this thread to debate aggressive debaters. If I say something that someone disagrees with, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything, only to share what I believe. So, if I say something and someone responds with a question, or counters with an opposing position that doesn't get answered there are a handful of reasons;

• I haven't logged in to see the response.
• I have no opinion on the topic or care enough about the topic......(for example, end times prophecy, or where did Cain's wife come from, etc etc. The list is long)
• I have seen the response and I'm giving some thought to my reply without a knee jerk response. I fully admit, there have been a number of times I have replied to a post I quickly wish I hadn't or replied with a comment I later either realized I was wrong or later was persuaded to change my opinion.
• I have no interest in engaging with some people that are only looking for a fight to prove they are smarter than me. You may very well be smarter, so ...there you go. You win.

I do hold to the idea that the message of the gospel is a simple message. It gets muddied unnecessarily by people who believe themselves to be intellectuals or smarter than others and most people that want to debate topics like mankind was on earth with dinosaurs, was there a flood, how does a loving God allow so much violence, among many other arguments I've seen are missing the point. Not only debates between believers and unbelievers but debates between and among believers on; creation, evolution, predestination, end times, the list goes on and on, for me personally, none of those conversations have a lot of meaning. They can be fun to respectfully debate, but in the end, they don't really mean much to me and not worth spending a ton of time on.

i don't think i'm missing the point. i just have a problem when someone wants to teach the bolded to kids in public schools.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

I would say because it’s a gift that requires receiving. It’s not a payment to have faith.
If the gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss. But receiving it, costs you nothing.

If the gift is freely being given who would "leave it on the table"? Are all of these agnostics, atheists, believers of something else just all too stupid to say sure, "I'll take heaven over hell"? Of course not. Just for whatever reason they are unable to pay the price. The price of faith. Or, if you prefer the "work" of faith. A price, that if we take traditional Christian theology as our guide that is out of reach for the vast majority of the children of God of today, yesterday, and likely tomorrow that God loves so much. Their loss!

Maybe it is time for us believers to have just a little faith in God that when he says he loves his children he means the love is, has always been, and always be unconditional. And that it is us, not God attaching all of the strings that turn this loving God into the evil being that would condemn most everyone to a fire and brimstone eternity for guessing wrong.

ETA: Of course, Ephesians 2:8 explains that faith isn't something we can do anyway. But that just means that the gift of salvation is only available to those that already received the gift of faith. Such "good news" to spread to everyone else.

I have no idea what any of this means.

As a non-believer I’ll offer up my opinion of what I think Bottom is saying (which I agree with if I’m interpreting him correctly). There is “price” of faith. That’s the cost of the “ gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss”. You can’t take the gift without belief or faith. For some of us that’s a huge ask for something that creates more questions then it answers and we are 2000 years past any offers of tangible proof. Hence “faith” is required. Faith in one specific ancient story amongst countless other ancient stories told by humans since the dawn of time. That ask itself doesn’t make sense or seem in line with how an all knowing all seeing God would set something up. Thus, the cost of faith is quite the ask.

That's reasonably close to perfect.

To me as a believer faith is just something I have. There was no real expense for me to find that faith (beyond the frustration for the part of my life where I did not want to believe). We could argue whether or not following the faith is a cost or a benefit, but I would like to think that for most believers it is considered a benefit. (Before any talk of heaven and hell.) So, I get why a believer would not see a cost. But we believers are just staying the course we are already on, while suggesting to everyone else that they should change course. To get off the path that they are on. As believers we should of course believe that the benefits of changing course, of changing paths is well worth the costs. But we also should be open enough to that what we are asking has a cost to be paid.

Looking at this from another direction. Let us pretend that a bunch of us just died and are continuing this discussion just outside the pearly gates of heaven. And let us say hypothetically that as we are standing there, we realize that everyone, and I mean everyone is being let in. No distinction for beliefs (or lack of them). As our turn arrives, we learn that indeed Jesus' sacrifice on the cross paid the price for everyone's sin. We believers got that one correct! Do you think that any of the Christians that have spent a lifetime insisting that the gift of salvation required faith would feel slighted at this revelation? Feel cheated? Hypothetically let us say one did. "This is unfair!" Why would we think they might feel this way?

I don't think there would be a sense of unfairness. Thinking about what is fair or unfair, is in and of itself a mind thing. Which is why even here on earth, we are told to renew our mind, set our mind on things above, let this mind be in you, etc etc, When we get to heaven our thought life will be one of things that no longer needs renewing or correcting. At least that's my belief.

I would like to think that you are correct and their won't be any resentment just outside the gates of heaven in this hypothetical, but in this case I know you are not. Hopefully that would be fleeting once passing through, but I have experienced hostility at this thought. And while I am sure you won't even finish reading before you find fault in the primary reason why, if asked the main response is "I earned it. They didn't."

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Maybe it is time for us believers to have just a little faith in God that when he says he loves his children he means the love is, has always been, and always be unconditional. And that it is us, not God attaching all of the strings that turn this loving God into the evil being that would condemn most everyone to a fire and brimstone eternity for guessing wrong.

Same god who purportedly destroyed every living land creature bar those that could fit on a boat?

That’s the one that has unconditional love for all his children?


(Or maybe it should be taken literally- and god only loves his only child…)

I believe that the Old Testament. especially the earlier parts show a very childlike understanding of the world projecting all kinds of childlike behaviors on to God. As the Bible continues God seems to grow up a bit, but I'd argue that the God of the Bible is never fully a mature adult. Paul comes close, but Paul doesn't always seem to fully grasp what he is saying.

Now I would think that for a non believer that this is just something else to scoff at. Especially against those that read all of this literally or insist that every word of the Bible is precisely chosen by and dictated from God to perfectly explain everything.

I am not that kind of a believer. I think that it is not God that is growing up as the Bible progresses, but his people. Those struggling to make sense of the world and their place in it. From the start these people are different. They were left behind as humans began the journey towards being civilized. They were different and they wrote about it. They were inspired to write about it. But right from the beginning there is a common thread of "love", or lack there of.

So I believe that the central message of the Bible, at least how it relates to our day to day lives is that we need to take care of one another. And I believe in that message, which reenforces the belief in God. But I would still believe in that message even if you could somehow "turn off" that belief in God. Yes, I also believe in a lot of the crazy stuff that is Christianity, but what I believe in most of all is "Love thy neighbor." And I hope that this can be believed in universally whether one loves God, hates God, or laughs uncontrollably when one suggests that God is real.

 

[Captain Cranks]

This is Transfiguration Sunday on the traditional worship calendar commemorating one of Jesus' file milestone (baptism, this, crucifixion. resurrection, and ascension). This is the day, that for Jesus' followers where Jesus goes from teacher and profit to being "son of God." Now I believe that they already knew the term and believed that of Jesus, but this day is when the meaning of that took root. Now we are still a long way from the followers having much of a clue about what is happening in their midst, but the idea that being son of God might mean one is made a bit more like God than everyone else starts.

The importance of this is that this idea will grow and grow. It will grow so much that in not too many years there will be those that reject that Jesus was ever human at all, that he was ever anything but a spiritual being that may or maybe not had walked among us for a bit. So much so that some take that since Paul never met Jesus "in the flesh" that Paul's epistles should be read as being about this spiritual Jesus and a metaphorical death on a cross in the spiritual realm. While Gnosticism means something else, a good bit of this thought made it into at least some Gnostic teachings. But the Bible addresses this, but it uses another word for those (plural) promoting this idea in 1 John 4:3 - Anti-Christ.

This seems out of place with some other teachings.

Oh and the Transfiguration is one of those Old Testament prophecies coming true in that Elijah returns briefly. Good thing that we have eye witness testimony from the Gospel writers. Oh wait, the one Gospel writer that was said to be present - John, doesn't write about it all. (Though to be fair it was there to be copied from Mark's, Peters interpreter and also mentioned in 2 Peter.)

Many scholars argue that Jesus likely never claimed to be God. It wasn't until John, which was the last written Gospel, where Jesus calls himself God. The conclusion they reach is that if Jesus really claimed to be God, the writers of the first three Gospels would have mentioned it.

 

[On The Rocks]

Not that anyone cares......but.....just a disclaimer, I'm new to this thread. I am not in this thread to debate aggressive debaters. If I say something that someone disagrees with, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything, only to share what I believe. So, if I say something and someone responds with a question, or counters with an opposing position that doesn't get answered there are a handful of reasons;

• I haven't logged in to see the response.
• I have no opinion on the topic or care enough about the topic......(for example, end times prophecy, or where did Cain's wife come from, etc etc. The list is long)
• I have seen the response and I'm giving some thought to my reply without a knee jerk response. I fully admit, there have been a number of times I have replied to a post I quickly wish I hadn't or replied with a comment I later either realized I was wrong or later was persuaded to change my opinion.
• I have no interest in engaging with some people that are only looking for a fight to prove they are smarter than me. You may very well be smarter, so ...there you go. You win.

I do hold to the idea that the message of the gospel is a simple message. It gets muddied unnecessarily by people who believe themselves to be intellectuals or smarter than others and most people that want to debate topics like mankind was on earth with dinosaurs, was there a flood, how does a loving God allow so much violence, among many other arguments I've seen are missing the point. Not only debates between believers and unbelievers but debates between and among believers on; creation, evolution, predestination, end times, the list goes on and on, for me personally, none of those conversations have a lot of meaning. They can be fun to respectfully debate, but in the end, they don't really mean much to me and not worth spending a ton of time on.

i don't think i'm missing the point. i just have a problem when someone wants to teach the bolded to kids in public schools.

I agree, but I don't have any issue if a public school allows someone to offer an open period or after school program free to anyone that wants to be in let's say a "Bible Study" type setting.
But I also get it if there's a member of the tax paying community that argues that a public school classroom shouldn't be used for an after-school Bible Study program. In my opinion if there are people interested, there's a way it can be done without a public tax payer property.

 

[On The Rocks]

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

I would say because it’s a gift that requires receiving. It’s not a payment to have faith.
If the gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss. But receiving it, costs you nothing.

If the gift is freely being given who would "leave it on the table"? Are all of these agnostics, atheists, believers of something else just all too stupid to say sure, "I'll take heaven over hell"? Of course not. Just for whatever reason they are unable to pay the price. The price of faith. Or, if you prefer the "work" of faith. A price, that if we take traditional Christian theology as our guide that is out of reach for the vast majority of the children of God of today, yesterday, and likely tomorrow that God loves so much. Their loss!

Maybe it is time for us believers to have just a little faith in God that when he says he loves his children he means the love is, has always been, and always be unconditional. And that it is us, not God attaching all of the strings that turn this loving God into the evil being that would condemn most everyone to a fire and brimstone eternity for guessing wrong.

ETA: Of course, Ephesians 2:8 explains that faith isn't something we can do anyway. But that just means that the gift of salvation is only available to those that already received the gift of faith. Such "good news" to spread to everyone else.

I have no idea what any of this means.

As a non-believer I’ll offer up my opinion of what I think Bottom is saying (which I agree with if I’m interpreting him correctly). There is “price” of faith. That’s the cost of the “ gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss”. You can’t take the gift without belief or faith. For some of us that’s a huge ask for something that creates more questions then it answers and we are 2000 years past any offers of tangible proof. Hence “faith” is required. Faith in one specific ancient story amongst countless other ancient stories told by humans since the dawn of time. That ask itself doesn’t make sense or seem in line with how an all knowing all seeing God would set something up. Thus, the cost of faith is quite the ask.

That's reasonably close to perfect.

To me as a believer faith is just something I have. There was no real expense for me to find that faith (beyond the frustration for the part of my life where I did not want to believe). We could argue whether or not following the faith is a cost or a benefit, but I would like to think that for most believers it is considered a benefit. (Before any talk of heaven and hell.) So, I get why a believer would not see a cost. But we believers are just staying the course we are already on, while suggesting to everyone else that they should change course. To get off the path that they are on. As believers we should of course believe that the benefits of changing course, of changing paths is well worth the costs. But we also should be open enough to that what we are asking has a cost to be paid.

Looking at this from another direction. Let us pretend that a bunch of us just died and are continuing this discussion just outside the pearly gates of heaven. And let us say hypothetically that as we are standing there, we realize that everyone, and I mean everyone is being let in. No distinction for beliefs (or lack of them). As our turn arrives, we learn that indeed Jesus' sacrifice on the cross paid the price for everyone's sin. We believers got that one correct! Do you think that any of the Christians that have spent a lifetime insisting that the gift of salvation required faith would feel slighted at this revelation? Feel cheated? Hypothetically let us say one did. "This is unfair!" Why would we think they might feel this way?

I don't think there would be a sense of unfairness. Thinking about what is fair or unfair, is in and of itself a mind thing. Which is why even here on earth, we are told to renew our mind, set our mind on things above, let this mind be in you, etc etc, When we get to heaven our thought life will be one of things that no longer needs renewing or correcting. At least that's my belief.

I would like to think that you are correct and their won't be any resentment just outside the gates of heaven in this hypothetical, but in this case I know you are not. Hopefully that would be fleeting once passing through, but I have experienced hostility at this thought. And while I am sure you won't even finish reading before you find fault in the primary reason why, if asked the main response is "I earned it. They didn't."

I completely agree, as the setting is right now, there are people who would be resentful, but they would be wrong to say they earned it. I was just looking at the "after the entrance" hypothesis.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

I would say because it’s a gift that requires receiving. It’s not a payment to have faith.
If the gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss. But receiving it, costs you nothing.

If the gift is freely being given who would "leave it on the table"? Are all of these agnostics, atheists, believers of something else just all too stupid to say sure, "I'll take heaven over hell"? Of course not. Just for whatever reason they are unable to pay the price. The price of faith. Or, if you prefer the "work" of faith. A price, that if we take traditional Christian theology as our guide that is out of reach for the vast majority of the children of God of today, yesterday, and likely tomorrow that God loves so much. Their loss!

Maybe it is time for us believers to have just a little faith in God that when he says he loves his children he means the love is, has always been, and always be unconditional. And that it is us, not God attaching all of the strings that turn this loving God into the evil being that would condemn most everyone to a fire and brimstone eternity for guessing wrong.

ETA: Of course, Ephesians 2:8 explains that faith isn't something we can do anyway. But that just means that the gift of salvation is only available to those that already received the gift of faith. Such "good news" to spread to everyone else.

I have no idea what any of this means.

As a non-believer I’ll offer up my opinion of what I think Bottom is saying (which I agree with if I’m interpreting him correctly). There is “price” of faith. That’s the cost of the “ gift is left on the table and you leave the party without taking it that’s your loss”. You can’t take the gift without belief or faith. For some of us that’s a huge ask for something that creates more questions then it answers and we are 2000 years past any offers of tangible proof. Hence “faith” is required. Faith in one specific ancient story amongst countless other ancient stories told by humans since the dawn of time. That ask itself doesn’t make sense or seem in line with how an all knowing all seeing God would set something up. Thus, the cost of faith is quite the ask.

That's reasonably close to perfect.

To me as a believer faith is just something I have. There was no real expense for me to find that faith (beyond the frustration for the part of my life where I did not want to believe). We could argue whether or not following the faith is a cost or a benefit, but I would like to think that for most believers it is considered a benefit. (Before any talk of heaven and hell.) So, I get why a believer would not see a cost. But we believers are just staying the course we are already on, while suggesting to everyone else that they should change course. To get off the path that they are on. As believers we should of course believe that the benefits of changing course, of changing paths is well worth the costs. But we also should be open enough to that what we are asking has a cost to be paid.

Looking at this from another direction. Let us pretend that a bunch of us just died and are continuing this discussion just outside the pearly gates of heaven. And let us say hypothetically that as we are standing there, we realize that everyone, and I mean everyone is being let in. No distinction for beliefs (or lack of them). As our turn arrives, we learn that indeed Jesus' sacrifice on the cross paid the price for everyone's sin. We believers got that one correct! Do you think that any of the Christians that have spent a lifetime insisting that the gift of salvation required faith would feel slighted at this revelation? Feel cheated? Hypothetically let us say one did. "This is unfair!" Why would we think they might feel this way?

I don't think there would be a sense of unfairness. Thinking about what is fair or unfair, is in and of itself a mind thing. Which is why even here on earth, we are told to renew our mind, set our mind on things above, let this mind be in you, etc etc, When we get to heaven our thought life will be one of things that no longer needs renewing or correcting. At least that's my belief.

I would like to think that you are correct and their won't be any resentment just outside the gates of heaven in this hypothetical, but in this case I know you are not. Hopefully that would be fleeting once passing through, but I have experienced hostility at this thought. And while I am sure you won't even finish reading before you find fault in the primary reason why, if asked the main response is "I earned it. They didn't."

I completely agree, as the setting is right now, there are people who would be resentful, but they would be wrong to say they earned it. I was just looking at the "after the entrance" hypothesis.

Fair enough. And my point for even bringing this up is that those that are resentful, for at least this brief moment are resentful because they paid some kind of price to "earn it", at least in their thoughts. Even if up to that very moment they never saw it as a "cost". And this is not trying to "win", but to explain what I meant a half dozen posts ago. And when it comes to belief I'm certainly not trying to "win" because outside of the big picture"love thy neighbor" belief, I'm sure I have more details wrong than one can count. Would be nice to know which ones, but it doesn't work that way.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This is Transfiguration Sunday on the traditional worship calendar commemorating one of Jesus' file milestone (baptism, this, crucifixion. resurrection, and ascension). This is the day, that for Jesus' followers where Jesus goes from teacher and profit to being "son of God." Now I believe that they already knew the term and believed that of Jesus, but this day is when the meaning of that took root. Now we are still a long way from the followers having much of a clue about what is happening in their midst, but the idea that being son of God might mean one is made a bit more like God than everyone else starts.

The importance of this is that this idea will grow and grow. It will grow so much that in not too many years there will be those that reject that Jesus was ever human at all, that he was ever anything but a spiritual being that may or maybe not had walked among us for a bit. So much so that some take that since Paul never met Jesus "in the flesh" that Paul's epistles should be read as being about this spiritual Jesus and a metaphorical death on a cross in the spiritual realm. While Gnosticism means something else, a good bit of this thought made it into at least some Gnostic teachings. But the Bible addresses this, but it uses another word for those (plural) promoting this idea in 1 John 4:3 - Anti-Christ.

This seems out of place with some other teachings.

Oh and the Transfiguration is one of those Old Testament prophecies coming true in that Elijah returns briefly. Good thing that we have eye witness testimony from the Gospel writers. Oh wait, the one Gospel writer that was said to be present - John, doesn't write about it all. (Though to be fair it was there to be copied from Mark's, Peters interpreter and also mentioned in 2 Peter.)

Many scholars argue that Jesus likely never claimed to be God. It wasn't until John, which was the last written Gospel, where Jesus calls himself God. The conclusion they reach is that if Jesus really claimed to be God, the writers of the first three Gospels would have mentioned it.

Whether Jesus said it or not, I think that the narrative supports that no one quite gets that message at least pre crucifixion. I've always had mixed feeling about the idea anyway. The biggest one being that I'm a lot less impressed with Jesus not sinning, and making the sacrifice, etc. if Jesus had the ultimate "cheat code". The miracle stuff to me has always been a bit of a distraction. I know why these stories are there, the purpose they serve, but I don't think the goal is to be impressed, but to be as Christ-like as we can be. I think it is harder if we have doubts that Jesus ever struggled with not knowing what was the right thing to do at a given moment. If the possibility of getting it wrong never existed. I don't know that I can follow the all knowing Jesus as God with "super powers" because I can't relate enough, but the fully human version I can at least give it the old college try.

Sorry for the tangent.

 

[dkp993]

This is Transfiguration Sunday on the traditional worship calendar commemorating one of Jesus' file milestone (baptism, this, crucifixion. resurrection, and ascension). This is the day, that for Jesus' followers where Jesus goes from teacher and profit to being "son of God." Now I believe that they already knew the term and believed that of Jesus, but this day is when the meaning of that took root. Now we are still a long way from the followers having much of a clue about what is happening in their midst, but the idea that being son of God might mean one is made a bit more like God than everyone else starts.

The importance of this is that this idea will grow and grow. It will grow so much that in not too many years there will be those that reject that Jesus was ever human at all, that he was ever anything but a spiritual being that may or maybe not had walked among us for a bit. So much so that some take that since Paul never met Jesus "in the flesh" that Paul's epistles should be read as being about this spiritual Jesus and a metaphorical death on a cross in the spiritual realm. While Gnosticism means something else, a good bit of this thought made it into at least some Gnostic teachings. But the Bible addresses this, but it uses another word for those (plural) promoting this idea in 1 John 4:3 - Anti-Christ.

This seems out of place with some other teachings.

Oh and the Transfiguration is one of those Old Testament prophecies coming true in that Elijah returns briefly. Good thing that we have eye witness testimony from the Gospel writers. Oh wait, the one Gospel writer that was said to be present - John, doesn't write about it all. (Though to be fair it was there to be copied from Mark's, Peters interpreter and also mentioned in 2 Peter.)

Many scholars argue that Jesus likely never claimed to be God. It wasn't until John, which was the last written Gospel, where Jesus calls himself God. The conclusion they reach is that if Jesus really claimed to be God, the writers of the first three Gospels would have mentioned it.

Whether Jesus said it or not, I think that the narrative supports that no one quite gets that message at least pre crucifixion. I've always had mixed feeling about the idea anyway. The biggest one being that I'm a lot less impressed with Jesus not sinning, and making the sacrifice, etc. if Jesus had the ultimate "cheat code". The miracle stuff to me has always been a bit of a distraction. I know why these stories are there, the purpose they serve, but I don't think the goal is to be impressed, but to be as Christ-like as we can be. I think it is harder if we have doubts that Jesus ever struggled with not knowing what was the right thing to do at a given moment. If the possibility of getting it wrong never existed. I don't know that I can follow the all knowing Jesus as God with "super powers" because I can't relate enough, but the fully human version I can at least give it the old college try.

Sorry for the tangent.

Yeah where I land on the Jesus thing is I respect the heck out of those who follow and practice his teachings. I don’t think you need to believe in God or that he is the son of God to believe in what he preached or strived for how humans should treat each other. It’s not a binary thing imo.

 

[Paddington]

The slavery in the Bible was indentured servitude. It was voluntary for a period of 7 years to pay off debts. It was a crime punishable by death to steal a man and force him into slavery.

Exodus 21:16 NKJV
[16] “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

That is Hebrew servitude. For heathens (like those suffering the "curse of Ham") there is

Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids

And if slavery is so terrible in the bible, how can all of humanity be enslaved to sin?

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

Yes Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, but in order to apply it to your account you must place your faith in Him and what He did for you. It's just like if the president offers you a pardon for your crimes you have a choice to either accept the pardon or refuse the pardon. God is offering us a pardon but He doesn't force it on us. It must be appropriated by faith. Read this first post.

 

[BlackCrowes]

The slavery in the Bible was indentured servitude. It was voluntary for a period of 7 years to pay off debts. It was a crime punishable by death to steal a man and force him into slavery.

Exodus 21:16 NKJV
[16] “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

That is Hebrew servitude. For heathens (like those suffering the "curse of Ham") there is

Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids

And if slavery is so terrible in the bible, how can all of humanity be enslaved to sin?

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

Yes Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, but in order to apply it to your account you must place your faith in Him and what He did for you. It's just like if the president offers you a pardon for your crimes you have a choice to either accept the pardon or refuse the pardon. God is offering us a pardon but He doesn't force it on us. It must be appropriated by faith. Read this first post.

I didn’t do anything requiring a pardon

 

[dkp993]

The slavery in the Bible was indentured servitude. It was voluntary for a period of 7 years to pay off debts. It was a crime punishable by death to steal a man and force him into slavery.

Exodus 21:16 NKJV
[16] “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

That is Hebrew servitude. For heathens (like those suffering the "curse of Ham") there is

Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids

And if slavery is so terrible in the bible, how can all of humanity be enslaved to sin?

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

Yes Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, but in order to apply it to your account you must place your faith in Him and what He did for you. It's just like if the president offers you a pardon for your crimes you have a choice to either accept the pardon or refuse the pardon. God is offering us a pardon but He doesn't force it on us. It must be appropriated by faith. Read this first post.

I didn’t do anything requiring a pardon

Just being born is enough apparently

 

[Zow]

The slavery in the Bible was indentured servitude. It was voluntary for a period of 7 years to pay off debts. It was a crime punishable by death to steal a man and force him into slavery.

Exodus 21:16 NKJV
[16] “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

That is Hebrew servitude. For heathens (like those suffering the "curse of Ham") there is

Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids

And if slavery is so terrible in the bible, how can all of humanity be enslaved to sin?

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

Yes Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, but in order to apply it to your account you must place your faith in Him and what He did for you. It's just like if the president offers you a pardon for your crimes you have a choice to either accept the pardon or refuse the pardon. God is offering us a pardon but He doesn't force it on us. It must be appropriated by faith. Read this first post.

I didn’t do anything requiring a pardon

Yes you did. You were born as God made you. Which is bad and you will go to Hell for eternity. Unless you place you unwavering faith and trust in this entity that put you in this predicament despite God making you in a way that permits you to think critically and be skeptical.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, but in order to apply it to your account you must place your faith in Him and what He did for you. It's just like if the president offers you a pardon for your crimes you have a choice to either accept the pardon or refuse the pardon. God is offering us a pardon but He doesn't force it on us. It must be appropriated by faith. Read this first post.

Why am I reading the first post? Did you change it? Do you think that God would prefer that I hold a much less of an opinion of him that is required of that post?

As for an analogy, no! "Paid in full" either means "paid in full" or it doesn't. If I have to do something else it is not "paid in full" no matter how its rationalized.

ETA: Not to mention how problematic the whole debt thing is to begin with. Like I said, I understand the point of the miracles but they are ultimately a distraction.

 

[Paddington]

Yes Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, but in order to apply it to your account you must place your faith in Him and what He did for you. It's just like if the president offers you a pardon for your crimes you have a choice to either accept the pardon or refuse the pardon. God is offering us a pardon but He doesn't force it on us. It must be appropriated by faith. Read this first post.

Why am I reading the first post? Did you change it? Do you think that God would prefer that I hold a much less of an opinion of him that is required of that post?

As for an analogy, no! "Paid in full" either means "paid in full" or it doesn't. If I have to do something else it is not "paid in full" no matter how its rationalized.

ETA: Not to mention how problematic the whole debt thing is to begin with. Like I said, I understand the point of the miracles but they are ultimately a distraction.

You have to place your faith in the sacrifice for the payment to be applied to your account it's paid in full, but you must apply it by faith. He gave His life for you, why wouldn't you trust in Him and what He did for you? Submit your life to Him in Faith.

 

[dgreen]

Yes Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, but in order to apply it to your account you must place your faith in Him and what He did for you. It's just like if the president offers you a pardon for your crimes you have a choice to either accept the pardon or refuse the pardon. God is offering us a pardon but He doesn't force it on us. It must be appropriated by faith. Read this first post.

Why am I reading the first post? Did you change it? Do you think that God would prefer that I hold a much less of an opinion of him that is required of that post?

As for an analogy, no! "Paid in full" either means "paid in full" or it doesn't. If I have to do something else it is not "paid in full" no matter how its rationalized.

ETA: Not to mention how problematic the whole debt thing is to begin with. Like I said, I understand the point of the miracles but they are ultimately a distraction.

You have to place your faith in the sacrifice for the payment to be applied to your account it's paid in full, but you must apply it by faith. He gave His life for you, why wouldn't you trust in Him and what He did for you? Submit your life to Him in Faith.

What does that mean? What does it look like? What’s a concrete example of someone placing their faith in the sacrifice for the payment?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It seems like there is a conflation between faith and sal ation/grace. Feels like we're deceiving the later by using the former. That said it also seems like a conflation between what it take to get/have "faith" and how those around us tell that we are practicing it (ie the fruit)

There is absolutely nothing we have to do to receive that gift. If you leave it on the table (analogy above) it's still yours and will always be yours, just sitting on the table.

Sorry if I am reading this incorrectly Once it went sideways, I haven't been in here all that much and haven't read everything.

 

[On The Rocks]

It seems like there is a conflation between faith and sal ation/grace. Feels like we're deceiving the later by using the former. That said it also seems like a conflation between what it take to get/have "faith" and how those around us tell that we are practicing it (ie the fruit)

There is absolutely nothing we have to do to receive that gift. If you leave it on the table (analogy above) it's still yours and will always be yours, just sitting on the table.

Sorry if I am reading this incorrectly Once it went sideways, I haven't been in here all that much and haven't read everything.

Would you not agree that there are those that willingly reject the gift? That's what I meant by leaving it on the table.
We can either receive it, or reject it, but I would agree that it's available to all. If you reject it, it's still there for you to go back to and yours to take.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It seems like there is a conflation between faith and sal ation/grace. Feels like we're deceiving the later by using the former. That said it also seems like a conflation between what it take to get/have "faith" and how those around us tell that we are practicing it (ie the fruit)

There is absolutely nothing we have to do to receive that gift. If you leave it on the table (analogy above) it's still yours and will always be yours, just sitting on the table.

Sorry if I am reading this incorrectly Once it went sideways, I haven't been in here all that much and haven't read everything.

Would you not agree that there are those that willingly reject the gift? That's what I meant by leaving it on the table.
We can either receive it, or reject it, but I would agree that it's available to all. If you reject it, it's still there for you to go back to and yours to take.

Sure. One can reject. But it's still theirs. And I THINK that's BFS' point. Its yours. You have to do nothing for it. What you do with it is up to you. Leave it on the table or take it and run with it.

 

[On The Rocks]

It seems like there is a conflation between faith and sal ation/grace. Feels like we're deceiving the later by using the former. That said it also seems like a conflation between what it take to get/have "faith" and how those around us tell that we are practicing it (ie the fruit)

There is absolutely nothing we have to do to receive that gift. If you leave it on the table (analogy above) it's still yours and will always be yours, just sitting on the table.

Sorry if I am reading this incorrectly Once it went sideways, I haven't been in here all that much and haven't read everything.

Would you not agree that there are those that willingly reject the gift? That's what I meant by leaving it on the table.
We can either receive it, or reject it, but I would agree that it's available to all. If you reject it, it's still there for you to go back to and yours to take.

Sure. One can reject. But it's still theirs. And I THINK that's BFS' point. Its yours. You have to do nothing for it. What you do with it is up to you. Leave it on the table or take it and run with it.

Tha'ts fair. I agree with that.

 

[dgreen]

I'm not sure I understand the possible theological impact of talking about the analogy in this different way. If you think of it as it already being yours while it sits on the table (as opposed to being yours once you pick it up?), what outcome does that change?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'm not sure I understand the possible theological impact of talking about the analogy in this different way. If you think of it as it already being yours while it sits on the table (as opposed to being yours once you pick it up?), what outcome does that change?

Probably flirts most with the idea of "works". If one insists that you have to accept it rather than just having it, that's a "work" and its NOT unconditional. That's for the "literalists" to work through on their own though. In practical terms, it means little.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But it's still theirs. And I THINK that's BFS' point. Its yours.

Assuming that "it" here is the gift of salvation, or simply grace then yes my point is that if the price is paid in full then there is no other price to be paid, if it is entirely a gift that you cannot earn for yourself then there is nothing needed to be done to earn it, or keep it. That if faith is something that we do, rather than another gift we have recieved then it is a "work" or a "price" paid. If faith is a gift for some, then the entire idea of insisting that people must "put their" faith into something seems silly. If faith is a gift for all then I think that there are better approaches to helping non believers find it than threatening them with a hell they don't even acknowledge. So no matter how one slices it, no matter what one believes themselves insisting that you go read the first post, cut and pasted of apologists rationalizing what non believers will see as irrational, linking "preaching to choir" videos all seems awfully counterproductive.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

But it's still theirs. And I THINK that's BFS' point. Its yours.

Assuming that "it" here is the gift of salvation, or simply grace then yes my point is that if the price is paid in full then there is no other price to be paid, if it is entirely a gift that you cannot earn for yourself then there is nothing needed to be done to earn it, or keep it. That if faith is something that we do, rather than another gift we have recieved then it is a "work" or a "price" paid. If faith is a gift for some, then the entire idea of insisting that people must "put their" faith into something seems silly. If faith is a gift for all then I think that there are better approaches to helping non believers find it than threatening them with a hell they don't even acknowledge. So no matter how one slices it, no matter what one believes themselves insisting that you go read the first post, cut and pasted of apologists rationalizing what non believers will see as irrational, linking "preaching to choir" videos all seems awfully counterproductive.

Yep. I can get on board with this. Feels like this other guy is talking about the "fruits" though or he's woefully off base. Not sure which one. If it's the later he has to reconcile the "works" aspect of his position which we are told many times over is not a factor.

 

[Paddington]

Yes Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, but in order to apply it to your account you must place your faith in Him and what He did for you. It's just like if the president offers you a pardon for your crimes you have a choice to either accept the pardon or refuse the pardon. God is offering us a pardon but He doesn't force it on us. It must be appropriated by faith. Read this first post.

Why am I reading the first post? Did you change it? Do you think that God would prefer that I hold a much less of an opinion of him that is required of that post?

As for an analogy, no! "Paid in full" either means "paid in full" or it doesn't. If I have to do something else it is not "paid in full" no matter how its rationalized.

ETA: Not to mention how problematic the whole debt thing is to begin with. Like I said, I understand the point of the miracles but they are ultimately a distraction.

You have to place your faith in the sacrifice for the payment to be applied to your account it's paid in full, but you must apply it by faith. He gave His life for you, why wouldn't you trust in Him and what He did for you? Submit your life to Him in Faith.

What does that mean? What does it look like? What’s a concrete example of someone placing their faith in the sacrifice for the payment?

It means to submit your will to His, Trusting in your heart that His Sacrifice On The Cross Paid for your sins and will get you to heaven. You can confirm this to God with a short prayer like the one in this first post. Read this first post.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Dr Kipp Davis

Interesting insight into how scholars analyze biblical manuscripts to determine dating and authorship.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yesterday was Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. Something that always makes me giggle a bit about Ash Wednesday is when the Gospel reading is Matthew 6. (Or at least a subset of it.) Why I giggle is that this is basically saying to give, pray. etc. in private and not be "look at me". So after hearing that, having a sermon built around it, some years more than others what do we Christian's do?

We have a cross "painted" on our foreheads and go out into the community. Yeah, yeah, yeah I get that we can explain away that it is different, not "look at me" in the same way, but I still giggle every year .

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Dr Kipp Davis

Interesting insight into how scholars analyze biblical manuscripts to determine dating and authorship.

This blog was linked a few months ago, one of the interesting articles was When Were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know?

(I'll check out your video later.)

 

[On The Rocks]

Yesterday was Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. Something that always makes me giggle a bit about Ash Wednesday is when the Gospel reading is Matthew 6. (Or at least a subset of it.) Why I giggle is that this is basically saying to give, pray. etc. in private and not be "look at me". So after hearing that, having a sermon built around it, some years more than others what do we Christian's do?

We have a cross "painted" on our foreheads and go out into the community. Yeah, yeah, yeah I get that we can explain away that it is different, not "look at me" in the same way, but I still giggle every year .

I cringe every time I hear someone quote the Lord's prayer (Matt 6:9-15) when two verses earlier (Matt 6:7) directs us to not pray in vain repetitions or as some translations say, "empty phrases"

 

[Lehigh98]

Yes Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, but in order to apply it to your account you must place your faith in Him and what He did for you. It's just like if the president offers you a pardon for your crimes you have a choice to either accept the pardon or refuse the pardon. God is offering us a pardon but He doesn't force it on us. It must be appropriated by faith. Read this first post.

Why am I reading the first post? Did you change it? Do you think that God would prefer that I hold a much less of an opinion of him that is required of that post?

As for an analogy, no! "Paid in full" either means "paid in full" or it doesn't. If I have to do something else it is not "paid in full" no matter how its rationalized.

ETA: Not to mention how problematic the whole debt thing is to begin with. Like I said, I understand the point of the miracles but they are ultimately a distraction.

You have to place your faith in the sacrifice for the payment to be applied to your account it's paid in full, but you must apply it by faith. He gave His life for you, why wouldn't you trust in Him and what He did for you? Submit your life to Him in Faith.

What does that mean? What does it look like? What’s a concrete example of someone placing their faith in the sacrifice for the payment?

It means to submit your will to His, Trusting in your heart that His Sacrifice On The Cross Paid for your sins and will get you to heaven. You can confirm this to God with a short prayer like the one in this first post. Read this first post.

Done! Heaven here I come!

 

[On The Rocks]

This is Transfiguration Sunday on the traditional worship calendar commemorating one of Jesus' file milestone (baptism, this, crucifixion. resurrection, and ascension). This is the day, that for Jesus' followers where Jesus goes from teacher and profit to being "son of God." Now I believe that they already knew the term and believed that of Jesus, but this day is when the meaning of that took root. Now we are still a long way from the followers having much of a clue about what is happening in their midst, but the idea that being son of God might mean one is made a bit more like God than everyone else starts.

The importance of this is that this idea will grow and grow. It will grow so much that in not too many years there will be those that reject that Jesus was ever human at all, that he was ever anything but a spiritual being that may or maybe not had walked among us for a bit. So much so that some take that since Paul never met Jesus "in the flesh" that Paul's epistles should be read as being about this spiritual Jesus and a metaphorical death on a cross in the spiritual realm. While Gnosticism means something else, a good bit of this thought made it into at least some Gnostic teachings. But the Bible addresses this, but it uses another word for those (plural) promoting this idea in 1 John 4:3 - Anti-Christ.

This seems out of place with some other teachings.

Oh and the Transfiguration is one of those Old Testament prophecies coming true in that Elijah returns briefly. Good thing that we have eye witness testimony from the Gospel writers. Oh wait, the one Gospel writer that was said to be present - John, doesn't write about it all. (Though to be fair it was there to be copied from Mark's, Peters interpreter and also mentioned in 2 Peter.)

Many scholars argue that Jesus likely never claimed to be God. It wasn't until John, which was the last written Gospel, where Jesus calls himself God. The conclusion they reach is that if Jesus really claimed to be God, the writers of the first three Gospels would have mentioned it.

Not to be argumentative but to give an opinion; other scholars would say that the first three books of the NT Matthew, Mark and Luke are "synoptic" gospels. In Matthew he's seen as the King of the Jews, in Mark he's seen as a Servant, in Luke he's seen as "Man", and in John he's seen as "God". In the first three the claim of his divinity is implied rather than explicit as it is in John. For example, in Matthew he walks on water and the disciples say, "truly you are he Son of God", in Mark, (and in Luke) he forgives sins to which the religious leaders reply by saying "who can forgive sins but God?" So, does Jesus make that claim explicitly in those books? No, but it's clearly implied and he says nothing to correct them.

In addition to the clear claims in John, there is the reference in Hebrews 1:3 (which I know, is not Jesus making a claim) stating he is "the exact representation of God"

 

[dgreen]

This is Transfiguration Sunday on the traditional worship calendar commemorating one of Jesus' file milestone (baptism, this, crucifixion. resurrection, and ascension). This is the day, that for Jesus' followers where Jesus goes from teacher and profit to being "son of God." Now I believe that they already knew the term and believed that of Jesus, but this day is when the meaning of that took root. Now we are still a long way from the followers having much of a clue about what is happening in their midst, but the idea that being son of God might mean one is made a bit more like God than everyone else starts.

The importance of this is that this idea will grow and grow. It will grow so much that in not too many years there will be those that reject that Jesus was ever human at all, that he was ever anything but a spiritual being that may or maybe not had walked among us for a bit. So much so that some take that since Paul never met Jesus "in the flesh" that Paul's epistles should be read as being about this spiritual Jesus and a metaphorical death on a cross in the spiritual realm. While Gnosticism means something else, a good bit of this thought made it into at least some Gnostic teachings. But the Bible addresses this, but it uses another word for those (plural) promoting this idea in 1 John 4:3 - Anti-Christ.

This seems out of place with some other teachings.

Oh and the Transfiguration is one of those Old Testament prophecies coming true in that Elijah returns briefly. Good thing that we have eye witness testimony from the Gospel writers. Oh wait, the one Gospel writer that was said to be present - John, doesn't write about it all. (Though to be fair it was there to be copied from Mark's, Peters interpreter and also mentioned in 2 Peter.)

Many scholars argue that Jesus likely never claimed to be God. It wasn't until John, which was the last written Gospel, where Jesus calls himself God. The conclusion they reach is that if Jesus really claimed to be God, the writers of the first three Gospels would have mentioned it.

Not to be argumentative but to give an opinion; other scholars would say that the first three books of the NT Matthew, Mark and Luke are "synoptic" gospels. In Matthew he's seen as the King of the Jews, in Mark he's seen as a Servant, in Luke he's seen as "Man", and in John he's seen as "God". In the first three the claim of his divinity is implied rather than explicit as it is in John. For example, in Matthew he walks on water and the disciples say, "truly you are he Son of God", in Mark, (and in Luke) he forgives sins to which the religious leaders reply by saying "who can forgive sins but God?" So, does Jesus make that claim explicitly in those books? No, but it's clearly implied and he says nothing to correct them.

In addition to the clear claims in John, there is the reference in Hebrews 1:3 (which I know, is not Jesus making a claim) stating he is "the exact representation of God"

The argument I'm familiar with is strictly around what Jesus says or doesn't say. So, having the disciples or the narrator say things that are either explicit or allusions to his divinity don't sway the camp that says Jesus didn't make the claim. They'll concede that Matthew or Mark or Luke make the claim when they eventually write down their account.

But, I think that misses things like when Jesus says, "I will give you rest" because that is most likely Jesus quoting Exodus when God says to Moses, "I will give you rest." At the very least, Jesus is claiming to do for his disciples what God did for Moses and Israel in the wilderness. It puts Jesus in the role of God. Using words, phrases, and concepts/themes is a known way the Bible links stories. Then the big debate is whether it does it in a way that is somehow considering the context of the quote or using the quote out of context. It's a great topic and fun to consider the links.

Also, I've never been a big fan of the argument that, "If Jesus claimed to be God then the NT authors would have made sure to include that." My assumption is that's an anachronistic claim. It's putting requirements on the authors to address our questions. I'm not saying I think it is crazy to assume that they'd have an interest in making sure their audience knew it, but I also just don't think it's absolutely true that that's how they would operate. Even if it is true that they would want to communicate that Jesus is God, they may not do it the way we'd do it. As I said above, they might do it by having Jesus do and say God-like things rather than come right out and say, "Hey, everyone, Jesus was God incarnate. Oh, and he's one part of a trinitarian God. Just thought I'd throw that in there to satisfy the questions you'll be asking in hundreds of years."

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But, I think that misses things like when Jesus says, "I will give you rest" because that is most likely Jesus quoting Exodus when God says to Moses, "I will give you rest." At the very least, Jesus is claiming to do for his disciples what God did for Moses and Israel in the wilderness. It puts Jesus in the role of God. Using words, phrases, and concepts/themes is a known way the Bible links stories. Then the big debate is whether it does it in a way that is somehow considering the context of the quote or using the quote out of context. It's a great topic and fun to consider the links.

I tend to look at the Old Testament references with a grain of salt. Especially from Matthew. Matthew is fighting a losing fight against the Phairisees for the hearts and minds of the Jews of the day. He lis writing for a Jewish audience and has his motives. I don't reject any of it, but do tone way down how important it is.

In addition, from that same blog there is this interesting little tidbit if search for "It's all Greek to Matthew".

a second problem is that Psalm 22 as found in the Greek version of the Old Testament is in fact a mistranslation of the original Hebrew –and this corruption has altered the original meaning. This, in turn, has led to problematic consequences for Matthew’s story. The author of Matthew (a Greek speaking Jew) relies on this mistranslated rendering of the Psalm 22 passage, then transfers this improper context over to his gospel narrative –as if the events he describes were in accordance with scripture.

Later on taking my "grain of salt" beyond where I take it.

From this we discover that Matthew has tipped his hand as to how he constructed his gospel narrative –at least with regard to prophecy. We can observe that Matthew’s telling of the story was not a genuine fulfillment of prophecy (because the Hebrew source text is contextually different from what Matthew inserted into his narrative). What we find instead is that the narrative events depicted in Matt. 27 were derived from what Matthew thought the Old Testament said, and he imported this into the story. Put simply, Matthew created his narrative to comport with Old Testament scriptures, not the other way around. Similar gaffes are sprinkled throughout the gospels.

For me this is all irrelevant. It is like the miracles intended to impress a specific audience in hopes that the real message reaches them. Matthew taking some literary liberties in constructing a narrative for his audience is what I would expect, as long as I expect that this inspired by God and faith, and not dictated by God. Ultimately whether Jesus fulfilled a thousand or zero prophesies, whether he performed miracles or magic tragics, etc. is just not important to me. I get why they are there, but ultimately to me the goal isn't to be impressed by Jesus, but to follow him. Ultimately the Gospel authors are just using this type of stuff to nudge one to follow. Different things work for different folks.

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

 

[On The Rocks]

But, I think that misses things like when Jesus says, "I will give you rest" because that is most likely Jesus quoting Exodus when God says to Moses, "I will give you rest." At the very least, Jesus is claiming to do for his disciples what God did for Moses and Israel in the wilderness. It puts Jesus in the role of God. Using words, phrases, and concepts/themes is a known way the Bible links stories. Then the big debate is whether it does it in a way that is somehow considering the context of the quote or using the quote out of context. It's a great topic and fun to consider the links.

I tend to look at the Old Testament references with a grain of salt. Especially from Matthew. Matthew is fighting a losing fight against the Phairisees for the hearts and minds of the Jews of the day. He lis writing for a Jewish audience and has his motives. I don't reject any of it, but do tone way down how important it is.

In addition, from that same blog there is this interesting little tidbit if search for "It's all Greek to Matthew".

a second problem is that Psalm 22 as found in the Greek version of the Old Testament is in fact a mistranslation of the original Hebrew –and this corruption has altered the original meaning. This, in turn, has led to problematic consequences for Matthew’s story. The author of Matthew (a Greek speaking Jew) relies on this mistranslated rendering of the Psalm 22 passage, then transfers this improper context over to his gospel narrative –as if the events he describes were in accordance with scripture.

Later on taking my "grain of salt" beyond where I take it.

From this we discover that Matthew has tipped his hand as to how he constructed his gospel narrative –at least with regard to prophecy. We can observe that Matthew’s telling of the story was not a genuine fulfillment of prophecy (because the Hebrew source text is contextually different from what Matthew inserted into his narrative). What we find instead is that the narrative events depicted in Matt. 27 were derived from what Matthew thought the Old Testament said, and he imported this into the story. Put simply, Matthew created his narrative to comport with Old Testament scriptures, not the other way around. Similar gaffes are sprinkled throughout the gospels.

For me this is all irrelevant. It is like the miracles intended to impress a specific audience in hopes that the real message reaches them. Matthew taking some literary liberties in constructing a narrative for his audience is what I would expect, as long as I expect that this inspired by God and faith, and not dictated by God. Ultimately whether Jesus fulfilled a thousand or zero prophesies, whether he performed miracles or magic tragics, etc. is just not important to me. I get why they are there, but ultimately to me the goal isn't to be impressed by Jesus, but to follow him. Ultimately the Gospel authors are just using this type of stuff to nudge one to follow. Different things work for different folks.

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

 

[Paddington]

But, I think that misses things like when Jesus says, "I will give you rest" because that is most likely Jesus quoting Exodus when God says to Moses, "I will give you rest." At the very least, Jesus is claiming to do for his disciples what God did for Moses and Israel in the wilderness. It puts Jesus in the role of God. Using words, phrases, and concepts/themes is a known way the Bible links stories. Then the big debate is whether it does it in a way that is somehow considering the context of the quote or using the quote out of context. It's a great topic and fun to consider the links.

I tend to look at the Old Testament references with a grain of salt. Especially from Matthew. Matthew is fighting a losing fight against the Phairisees for the hearts and minds of the Jews of the day. He lis writing for a Jewish audience and has his motives. I don't reject any of it, but do tone way down how important it is.

In addition, from that same blog there is this interesting little tidbit if search for "It's all Greek to Matthew".

a second problem is that Psalm 22 as found in the Greek version of the Old Testament is in fact a mistranslation of the original Hebrew –and this corruption has altered the original meaning. This, in turn, has led to problematic consequences for Matthew’s story. The author of Matthew (a Greek speaking Jew) relies on this mistranslated rendering of the Psalm 22 passage, then transfers this improper context over to his gospel narrative –as if the events he describes were in accordance with scripture.

Later on taking my "grain of salt" beyond where I take it.

From this we discover that Matthew has tipped his hand as to how he constructed his gospel narrative –at least with regard to prophecy. We can observe that Matthew’s telling of the story was not a genuine fulfillment of prophecy (because the Hebrew source text is contextually different from what Matthew inserted into his narrative). What we find instead is that the narrative events depicted in Matt. 27 were derived from what Matthew thought the Old Testament said, and he imported this into the story. Put simply, Matthew created his narrative to comport with Old Testament scriptures, not the other way around. Similar gaffes are sprinkled throughout the gospels.

For me this is all irrelevant. It is like the miracles intended to impress a specific audience in hopes that the real message reaches them. Matthew taking some literary liberties in constructing a narrative for his audience is what I would expect, as long as I expect that this inspired by God and faith, and not dictated by God. Ultimately whether Jesus fulfilled a thousand or zero prophesies, whether he performed miracles or magic tragics, etc. is just not important to me. I get why they are there, but ultimately to me the goal isn't to be impressed by Jesus, but to follow him. Ultimately the Gospel authors are just using this type of stuff to nudge one to follow. Different things work for different folks.

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

So the Ten Commandments has zero place other than an obsolete historical artifiact in any Christian Church not of Israel or Juduh? And similarly the "blood sacrifices" of the Mosaic Covenantt never would be applicable to anyone else?

This is a bigger can of worms than I expected.

 

[dgreen]

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

So the Ten Commandments has zero place other than an obsolete historical artifiact in any Christian Church not of Israel or Juduh? And similarly the "blood sacrifices" of the Mosaic Covenantt never would be applicable to anyone else?

This is a bigger can of worms than I expected.

There are usually a few different ways to see this.

• All followers of Jesus are bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• All followers of Jesus are loosed of the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• Jewish followers of Jesus are still bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel but Gentile followers of Jesus are not.

I'm not sure I know anyone in the first group. Acts 15 is pretty clear on this and Paul argues against this pretty strongly. The second is probably the most common view among modern Christians. This is based on interpretations that Paul is speaking to all followers of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, when he appears to be speaking against the Torah. Unfortunately, this view has created a lot of problems throughout history and led to supersessionist theology and the schism between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. As Gentiles became the majority in the church, they tried to force Jews to no longer be Jewish in order to properly follow Jesus. It's no wonder that Jews stopped following Jesus when they were asked to go against their covenant with YHWH. While I'm not sure I can adequately unpack the full argument, and it is something I'm still learning about, I fall into the third group. I think Jews are to be Jewish and Gentiles are to be Gentiles. We each have our own role in the Kingdom of God. Gentiles don't need to become Jews in order to be grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (being a blessing to the nations) and Jews don't need to leave Judaism (Sinai covenant) to follow Jesus. As one author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles."

 

[dgreen]

This conversation is a good reminder for me to get back to The Epic of Eden by Sandra Richter. I started it a while ago and put it down. Since I'm mostly caught up on other things I was reading, I'll jump back into this.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

So the Ten Commandments has zero place other than an obsolete historical artifiact in any Christian Church not of Israel or Juduh? And similarly the "blood sacrifices" of the Mosaic Covenantt never would be applicable to anyone else?

This is a bigger can of worms than I expected.

There are usually a few different ways to see this.

• All followers of Jesus are bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• All followers of Jesus are loosed of the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• Jewish followers of Jesus are still bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel but Gentile followers of Jesus are not.

I'm not sure I know anyone in the first group. Acts 15 is pretty clear on this and Paul argues against this pretty strongly. The second is probably the most common view among modern Christians. This is based on interpretations that Paul is speaking to all followers of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, when he appears to be speaking against the Torah. Unfortunately, this view has created a lot of problems throughout history and led to supersessionist theology and the schism between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. As Gentiles became the majority in the church, they tried to force Jews to no longer be Jewish in order to properly follow Jesus. It's no wonder that Jews stopped following Jesus when they were asked to go against their covenant with YHWH. While I'm not sure I can adequately unpack the full argument, and it is something I'm still learning about, I fall into the third group. I think Jews are to be Jewish and Gentiles are to be Gentiles. We each have our own role in the Kingdom of God. Gentiles don't need to become Jews in order to be grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (being a blessing to the nations) and Jews don't need to leave Judaism (Sinai covenant) to follow Jesus. As one author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles."

I THINK BFS is pointing out yet another problem with the "literalist" approach, which again, is for the literalist to reconcile.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

So the Ten Commandments has zero place other than an obsolete historical artifiact in any Christian Church not of Israel or Juduh? And similarly the "blood sacrifices" of the Mosaic Covenantt never would be applicable to anyone else?

This is a bigger can of worms than I expected.

There are usually a few different ways to see this.

• All followers of Jesus are bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• All followers of Jesus are loosed of the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• Jewish followers of Jesus are still bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel but Gentile followers of Jesus are not.

I'm not sure I know anyone in the first group. Acts 15 is pretty clear on this and Paul argues against this pretty strongly. The second is probably the most common view among modern Christians. This is based on interpretations that Paul is speaking to all followers of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, when he appears to be speaking against the Torah. Unfortunately, this view has created a lot of problems throughout history and led to supersessionist theology and the schism between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. As Gentiles became the majority in the church, they tried to force Jews to no longer be Jewish in order to properly follow Jesus. It's no wonder that Jews stopped following Jesus when they were asked to go against their covenant with YHWH. While I'm not sure I can adequately unpack the full argument, and it is something I'm still learning about, I fall into the third group. I think Jews are to be Jewish and Gentiles are to be Gentiles. We each have our own role in the Kingdom of God. Gentiles don't need to become Jews in order to be grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (being a blessing to the nations) and Jews don't need to leave Judaism (Sinai covenant) to follow Jesus. As one author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles."

I believe that God is capable of offering many different paths for one to follow to do God's will, so I'm good. Even if this is heretical, heathen talk to the "one way" guys.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I THINK BFS is pointing out yet another problem with the "literalist" approach, which again, is for the literalist to reconcile.

Partially. But painting with that board brush again, non believers, critics, skeptics, etc. since the early days of Christianity have tried to force the evil and immorality of the scriptures that becomes the Old Testament upon us. The "literalist" do just that as you point out. A movement in the early church that was defeated tried to argue that these were two different gods. Since early on though Christainity has argued that these scriptures belong, and it is okay that some, even most read them literally, but they are much more valuable to those that can read them allegorically (I think that was the word used). So since the beginning there was a struggle on how much to couple or decouple these scriptures. As this thread shows, that struggle continues.

The second piece, and the reason I worded it that way a few posts back is Hebrews is one of the most questioned of the epistles. It is questioned (well not really) on whether it is authentic Paul (very unlikely) and more importantly it is questioned as to whether it offers any value at all to Christians. Even the "literalist" as you have called them can be quick to be dismissive of Hebrews as being irrelevant. Especially 8:13.

Finally, I just like that the giant capacitor (originally heard when Chariots of the Gods was a thing - I think) that the people built, the "Ark of the Covenant" to carry the covenant documents ahead of them. The covenant which has been made obsolete and should ultimately disappear in Hebrews 8:13. Those documentsrepresenting the covenant were the stone tablets holding the Ten Commandments. So even if the ten commandments were only a piece, or a representation of the covenant they are now made obsolete and should ultimately disappear. I think Galatians 5:14 and Romans 13:10 among many others may not put it this way, but that is also what they are saying when they say that all of the laws are derived from "Love thy Neighbor". All of them. When the law is reverted back to a source of "freedom" to be good to one another as opposed to the device to "enslave" people that it had become. It is not that I believe that the Ten Commandments are themselves a bad thing, it is just the way people misused them and continue to misuse them to be anything but excellent to one another. (And sorry all of the immediate example popping in mind are political, or at least too political to cite.)

 

[Paddington]

Oh, and if we are allowing Hebrews 1:3, then I want Hebrews 8:13. Opening that can of worms pretty much disentangles us from the Old Testament as a source of our side of the deal with God. Wiping out all of those silly rules created by man in addition to the 10 directly from God. One of the arguments that Matthew lost.

You’ll get no argument from me on Hebrews 8:13!! We’re on the same page there!
I am all about the New Covenant!

ALL of the Covenants are to and for Israel, NOT the Church. Just sayin'

So the Ten Commandments has zero place other than an obsolete historical artifiact in any Christian Church not of Israel or Juduh? And similarly the "blood sacrifices" of the Mosaic Covenantt never would be applicable to anyone else?

This is a bigger can of worms than I expected.

There are usually a few different ways to see this.

• All followers of Jesus are bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• All followers of Jesus are loosed of the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel.
• Jewish followers of Jesus are still bound by the OT covenants that God initiated with Israel but Gentile followers of Jesus are not.

I'm not sure I know anyone in the first group. Acts 15 is pretty clear on this and Paul argues against this pretty strongly. The second is probably the most common view among modern Christians. This is based on interpretations that Paul is speaking to all followers of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, when he appears to be speaking against the Torah. Unfortunately, this view has created a lot of problems throughout history and led to supersessionist theology and the schism between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. As Gentiles became the majority in the church, they tried to force Jews to no longer be Jewish in order to properly follow Jesus. It's no wonder that Jews stopped following Jesus when they were asked to go against their covenant with YHWH. While I'm not sure I can adequately unpack the full argument, and it is something I'm still learning about, I fall into the third group. I think Jews are to be Jewish and Gentiles are to be Gentiles. We each have our own role in the Kingdom of God. Gentiles don't need to become Jews in order to be grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (being a blessing to the nations) and Jews don't need to leave Judaism (Sinai covenant) to follow Jesus. As one author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles."

I believe that God is capable of offering many different paths for one to follow to do God's will, so I'm good. Even if this is heretical, heathen talk to the "one way" guys.

Jesus Christ said otherwise and since He is God and He will judge all men I think He would know.

John 14:6 NKJV
[6] Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.