Christians: Where do you draw the line? (Jesus, Creator, Moses)

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by sojourner

That's all I need do, because scripture does not support your claim. At all. Neither does reason. In what way are human beings at fault for the tsunami that ripped through Asia several years ago? Or the tornados that kill people every year? Or the earthquakes that kill people every year? There is nothing definitive in scripture to explain natural disaster as the result of human sin. Nor can disease -- smallpox, plague, etc. be blamed on human sin. It's another example of wishing so badly that there were an answer, that one is willing to find a scapegoat in order to provide that answer.

If you had read my earlier response, you'd have the answer to your question. Read Romans 8.

We have to realize that none of the gospels was an eyewitness account. Mark was written post-70 c.e., from a post-crucifixion POV.

Yes, but so what? The whole Christian community was around to tell him he was full of it if he made a mistake. He obviously made use of already existing Christian tradition when he composed the gospel.

Besides, you can't say "the bible doesn't teach what you're saying" when you think it supports your case, and then say "the bible is inauthentic" when it doesn't. That's special pleading. Either you affirm the scriptural witness or you don't. Once you decide on that, we can move forward.

I don't know what any of this has to do with your Isaiah reference. Isaiah wasn't writing about Jesus. To assume he was is poor scholarship. Nevertheless, Jesus knew he would suffer, because he knew human nature only too well. he knew that his message would not be taken well by the powers-that-be. he knew that, if he carried his message to completion, crucifixion would be the result. Crucifixion was a by-product of his having remained true to his message -- not the point of his message.

When Isiaiah wrote, he didn't have Jesus in mind, that's true. But upon reflection on the events of Easter, it's certainly reasonable to see Jesus' crucifixion as a fulfillment of the passage. That's the way the church has interpreted it for 2000 years, and your complaint does nothing to argue against the point.

The crucifixion was not just the inevitable result of Jesus' message, it was the climax of his ministry. At least, if we take Jesus' interpretation of his vocation seriously. If not, then I suppose we can say what we want about his ministry and message, can't we?

au contraire. The whole point of Jesus' ministry hinges on this statement: "Turn your lives around, for God's imperial rule has come near." The whole point of Jesus' ministry hangs on his assertion that he "came to give them life -- and give it abundantly."

Certainly that was Jesus' call to his hearers (and to us). And in what act did God establish his kingdom? Wasn't it in the resurrection? And how does Jesus give us life? Didn't he have to "go away" so the Holy Spirit could come (John 16), and isn't it the Holy Spirit that regenerates sinners and gives the abundant life Jesus promised? And isn't it the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, thereby facilitating compliance with God's rule? We can't separate Jesus' call to repentance from his death and resurrection. That death and resurrection are the means of bringing about and establishing God's kingdom.

I thought we paid for our own sins. Isn't that what the OT asserts? don't we pay for our own sins by being made to suffer through natural disaster?

The OT says that God "does not deal with us according to our sins." God is merciful.

??? Are you saying that "misery loves company?" Jesus doesn't perpetuate suffering because he is a victim. The whole theological point of the resurrection is that Jesus is not a victim of suffering, but a victor over suffering.

Why either/or? Why not both/and?

What you're saying, ultimately, is that God causes suffering so that God can have something to save us from. That, too, is an easy answer for why we suffer.

Well, in Isiah God says "I bring life and I bring death; I bring prosperity and I bring ruin." God raises up one and deposes another. God is sovereign. However, I'm not saying that God causes suffering in order for him to have something to save us from. It's not suffering we need saving from. Suffering is a symptom of a deeper problem, and God is saving us from THAT. Humankind has rebelled against God, and that has introduced evil and suffering into the world. God subverts the power of evil and suffering by making it a means of the world's redemption. In particular, the suffering of Jesus is important in this regard, but so is the suffering of the people of God. As Paul said, "I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." Colossians 1:24

I guess Paul was lucky in a way because he could see a point in his suffering. Part of your worry is that some suffering seems gratuitous or pointless. And it may seem so. I may have no particular answer for it. But the Christian need not interpret the world so that all suffering makes sense. It's not possible to do so in any case. Rather, we are called to reach out in mercy and compassion to those who suffer. That is, we take up the example of Jesus in his crucifixion in our response to suffering.

Is it just me, or have we taken this thread way off topic?

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

What do you think a person needs to believe to be a Christian? Is there limits to certain interpretations of the Bible?

I was thinking about this some more and for those who draw lines I wonder -
Christian: Who are you to draw the line ?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by stephenw

Christian: Who are you to draw the line ?

One compelled to line drawing, perhaps. Lines are drawn out of fear and to help project a certainty about reality - not so much for the benefit of others, but to aid the line drawer's "self" in ignoring the illusory nature of being.

[sojourner]

Yes, but so what? The whole Christian community was around to tell him he was full of it if he made a mistake. He obviously made use of already existing Christian tradition when he composed the gospel.

Besides, you can't say "the bible doesn't teach what you're saying" when you think it supports your case, and then say "the bible is inauthentic" when it doesn't. That's special pleading. Either you affirm the scriptural witness or you don't. Once you decide on that, we can move forward.

Mark didn't have "the whole Christian community." He had his community.
I'm not saying it's "inauthentic." I'm saying that it can't be taken as an absolute, or from a pre-crucifixion POV, simply because it's "in the Bible" in a certain way. That, too, is a form of "easy answer" to a complicated issue. the entirety of "existing Christian tradition" comes from a post-crucifixion POV, so we don't really know how Jesus (or the disciples) thought prior to that. All I'm saying is that your use of scripture here is not compelling.

When Isiaiah wrote, he didn't have Jesus in mind, that's true. But upon reflection on the events of Easter, it's certainly reasonable to see Jesus' crucifixion as a fulfillment of the passage. That's the way the church has interpreted it for 2000 years, and your complaint does nothing to argue against the point.

It does when one uses Isaiah to proof-text.

Certainly that was Jesus' call to his hearers (and to us). And in what act did God establish his kingdom? Wasn't it in the resurrection?

I thought God's kingdom was established in creation...

And how does Jesus give us life? Didn't he have to "go away" so the Holy Spirit could come (John 16), and isn't it the Holy Spirit that regenerates sinners and gives the abundant life Jesus promised?

In the orthodox POV, God gives life through the reconciliation that happened in the Incarnation.

We can't separate Jesus' call to repentance from his death and resurrection. That death and resurrection are the means of bringing about and establishing God's kingdom.

I disagree.

Why either/or? Why not both/and?

Because the victory trumps the suffering and makes it unimportant. However, that does not inform in nay way why humans suffer. none of this means that suffering somehow brings about redemption. That's ludicrous.

Well, in Isiah God says "I bring life and I bring death; I bring prosperity and I bring ruin." God raises up one and deposes another. God is sovereign.

have youe ver stopped to consider that the theology present in Isaiah does not particularly inform our modern understanding in the way you propose?

God subverts the power of evil and suffering by making it a means of the world's redemption. In particular, the suffering of Jesus is important in this regard, but so is the suffering of the people of God.

This is the crux of the problem. The idea that suffering effects redemption.

That is, we take up the example of Jesus in his crucifixion in our response to suffering.

And that is precisely the only thing redeemable about the crucifixion: The example of perseverance Christ set for us.

Is it just me, or have we taken this thread way off topic?

I dounno. I'm drawing a line with regard to suffering and substitutionary atonement.

[lunamoth]

I prefer the Victory theory of atonement myself, but I don't think we can draw lines around any particular ideas around the 'how' of atonement.

[zeezrom]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

What do you think a person needs to believe to be a Christian? Is there limits to certain interpretations of the Bible?

Christian would be anyone who, willingly accepts the Gospel of christ through Repentance, Baptism by immersion, The gift of the holy ghost by the laying on of hands and enduring to the end and takes his teachings and molds them to their life style. It's easy to say you believe and have faith, but how do you show it...

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by zeezrom

Christian would be anyone who, willingly accepts the Gospel of christ through Repentance, Baptism by immersion, The gift of the holy ghost by the laying on of hands and enduring to the end and takes his teachings and molds them to their life style. It's easy to say you believe and have faith, but how do you show it...

I guess that eliminates pretty much everybody except LDS Christians. I hope you didn't mean to be so exclusionary.

[hoodedhess]

To believe that Christ died to save us. I don't know what else I can say on this subject...it's pretty simple nice insight anggellous. OREGON ROCKS !