Nothing Short Of Perfection

It seems as if the thread has basically become an argument over Atonement theories. So for what it's worth...http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/atonement-theories.165563/

Saint Frankenstein said:

It seems as if the thread has basically become an argument over Atonement theories. So for what it's worth...http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/atonement-theories.165563/

Click to expand...

Hello,

A fundamental difference in understanding of the atonement is a base divide between us. Master Billiards is a follower of the Penal Substitution Model. I find Calvin's thought on the subject both repelling and irrational. Billiards and I were engaged in an earlier thread, I did something similar to your work: atonement theories

Billiardsball said : " Your questions are changing the argument. We have to start not with "How then did Jesus become sin?" or "Don't you know some early church sources would find this heresy?" but with the following:
1) Does the Bible say Jesus became sin for others?
2) Does it matter what the Bible says if one rejects the Bible as infallible and has no clear marker as to which portions of the Bible are true, which are literal, and which metaphorical? "


The argument remains the same :

You described your theory that God punished a morally perfect Jesus and lets evil doers go without punishment and without repentance of evil on their part, (they are free to continue evil but are guaranteed heaven). This base theory describes an evil/amoral and unjust God.

You have attempted to Justify the Punishment of Jesus by offering us your personal interpretation that Jesus becomes evil “sin”. Thus justifying God for having punished a morally innocent and perfect being. This additional "supporting" theory creates a morally imperfect Jesus who becomes evil sin.

Your interpretation maintains that Jesus became evil “sin” whereas the early Christian textual interpretation maintains a Jesus who is innocent of sin and who does NOT become evil "sin". Your personal religion and your personal interpretation on this specific point are different than early Christian textual witnesses.

You have spent more than 20 pages of attempting to offer argument supporting your theory and, so far, have been unable to support it by any rational, logical and historically accurate data. Point upon point you have made have been shown to be laden with various types of errors. The fact that you have to offer 20 pages of illogical, irrational and historically inaccurate data to support your theory is good evidence against your personal theory on this point.

The question and the argument have not changed.


Billiardsbsll,

1) Why is your personal interpretation and your personal theory to be preferred over the early Christian interpretation that Jesus remained a sinless and innocent sacrifice?

2) What advantage is there in abandoning or changing this earlier Christian doctrine and witness on this point and adopting your religious theory and it's interpretation?


Clear
ειτζεισεω

Orontes said:

Master Billiards,


I thought this had come to an end.


To your comment: the word the King James translate as propitiation (the RSV translates as expiation) does not entail a necessity of sacrifice. The Greek is hilasterion. The Greek is where you should look to understand the meaning. The word has cultic (religious) use in the larger Greco-Roman Classical world, but (and this is particularly the case in Koine Greek) was a much more commonly used word, with no religious ties at all. If we just take its verb form hiaskomai: it simply means to be conciliatory or to appease. The notion does not require or have any necessary connection to sacrifice itself. The typical references made to mercy seat (kapporeth) by those who want to tie it to sacrifice, are anachronistic*. It's a misunderstanding of the rite that occurred in the First Temple**. Second Temple Period Jews would not have understood that reference, neither would any Greco-Roman audience.



* This move to conceptually bind the mercy seat to God's dealing with the problem of sin was adopted as a later Christian typology.

**The rite was about purification of the temple, not a forgiveness of people's sins.

Click to expand...

The mercy seat and sin are linked in the OT and the Talmud. And also as Christian typology, yes.

The rite was not about person's sins? Why does Wikipedia disagree--and from the original languages--with your stance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_seat

Orontes said:

Hello,

A fundamental difference in understanding of the atonement is a base divide between us. Master Billiards is a follower of the Penal Substitution Model. I find Calvin's thought on the subject both repelling and irrational. Billiards and I were engaged in an earlier thread, I did something similar to your work: atonement theories

Click to expand...

I guess we have to lean on the word FOR where it says Christ died, the just FOR the unjust. Do I misunderstand FOR, THEREFORE, ON BEHALF OF, BECAUSE OF?

And if your interpretation is correct, why does every Christian mainline, non-denom, evangelical, Protestant and Catholic sect or offshoot agree with my stance? I understand some follow ransom theory, etc. and not penal substitution, however, all Christians have Christ dying FOR sinners, not as an example, but as a sacrifice. Do you disagree?

Clear said:

Billiardsball said : " Your questions are changing the argument. We have to start not with "How then did Jesus become sin?" or "Don't you know some early church sources would find this heresy?" but with the following:
1) Does the Bible say Jesus became sin for others?
2) Does it matter what the Bible says if one rejects the Bible as infallible and has no clear marker as to which portions of the Bible are true, which are literal, and which metaphorical? "


The argument remains the same :

You described your theory that God punished a morally perfect Jesus and lets evil doers go without punishment and without repentance of evil on their part, (they are free to continue evil but are guaranteed heaven). This base theory describes an evil/amoral and unjust God.

You have attempted to Justify the Punishment of Jesus by offering us your personal interpretation that Jesus becomes evil “sin”. Thus justifying God for having punished a morally innocent and perfect being. This additional "supporting" theory creates a morally imperfect Jesus who becomes evil sin.

Your interpretation maintains that Jesus became evil “sin” whereas the early Christian textual interpretation maintains a Jesus who is innocent of sin and who does NOT become evil "sin". Your personal religion and your personal interpretation on this specific point are different than early Christian textual witnesses.

You have spent more than 20 pages of attempting to offer argument supporting your theory and, so far, have been unable to support it by any rational, logical and historically accurate data. Point upon point you have made have been shown to be laden with various types of errors. The fact that you have to offer 20 pages of illogical, irrational and historically inaccurate data to support your theory is good evidence against your personal theory on this point.

The question and the argument have not changed.


Billiardsbsll,

1) Why is your personal interpretation and your personal theory to be preferred over the early Christian interpretation that Jesus remained a sinless and innocent sacrifice?

2) What advantage is there in abandoning or changing this earlier Christian doctrine and witness on this point and adopting your religious theory and it's interpretation?


Clear
ειτζεισεω

Click to expand...

1. I'm sorry you find Bible scripture as you put it "rational, logical and historically accurate." It is inappropriate of you IMHO to quote early church leaders in an attempt to support your doctrine without holding to the Bible THEY loved as holy and inerrant as holy and inerrant!

2. My personal interpretation is to be preferred if it is the correct Bible doctrine. It so happens in this case that I am correct.

3. Because this earlier Christian doctrine (Catholic doctrine) is rejected by every evangelical group, ever, in history. Rome put to death hundreds of thousands if not millions of Bible believers for holding onto these doctrines!

Clear said (#83) : “You described your theory that God punished a morally perfect Jesus and lets evil doers go without punishment and without repentance of evil on their part, (those who do evil are free to continue evil yet are guaranteed heaven). Your modern base theory describes an evil/amoral and unjust God.

You have attempted to Justify the Punishment of Jesus by offering us your personal interpretation that Jesus becomes evil “sin”. (Thus justifying God for having punished a morally innocent and perfect being.) This additional "supporting" theory creates a morally imperfect Jesus who becomes evil sin.

Your interpretation maintains that Jesus became evil “sin” whereas the early Christian textual interpretation maintains a Jesus who is innocent of sin and who does NOT become evil "sin". Your personal religion and your personal interpretation on this specific point are different than early Christian textual witnesses.

You have spent more than 20 pages of attempting to offer argument supporting your theory and, so far, have been unable to support it by any rational, logical and historically accurate data. Point upon point you have made have been shown to be laden with various types of errors. The fact that you have to offer 20 pages of illogical, irrational and historically inaccurate data to support your theory is good evidenceagainst your personal theory on this point.

The question and the argument have not changed.


Billiardsball,

1)Why is your personal interpretation and your personal theory to be preferred over the early Christian interpretation that Jesus remained a sinless and innocent sacrifice?

2)What advantage is there in abandoning or changing this earlier Christian doctrine and witness on this point and adopting your religious theory and it's interpretation?


Billiardsball responded (# 86) : “ I'm sorry you find Bible scripture as you put it "rational, logical and historically accurate."
Ooookaay….


Billiardsball responded (# 86) : “ It is inappropriate of you IMHO to quote early church leaders in an attempt to support your doctrine without holding to the Bible THEY loved as holy and inerrant as holy and inerrant!. “
This is another strange, irrelevant complaint. None of my prior posts in this entire thread referenced any “early church leader".


Billiardsball responded (# 86) : My personal interpretation is to be preferred if it is the correct Bible doctrine. It so happens in this case that I am correct.
This is simply a repetition of a naked claim that your interpretation is correct. You statement is void of data or logic.

Since YOU brought up early "church leaders", one can, in the same vein say that the interpretations of the earliest Christians who were taught by original prophets and apostles of the original Jesus movement is preferred and represents a more authentic version of Christianity since they were in a position to best understand the Apostles and writers of the New Testament. Clement, an actual colleague-convert of Peter the apostle, likely understood Peters teaching to him better than your theory of what Peter might have meant.

You have not told us why your modern Christian interpretation is to be preferred over the interpretation of early Christian witnesses that tell us Jesus was sinless and never became anything evil (e.g. “sin”).

For example, You theorize that Jesus became an evil thing (i.e. sin), yet the writer of Hebrews says “we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.” (heb 4:15). Your religious theory says Jesus became evil “sin”, however the same writer in Heb 7:26 describes Jesus as “”--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.” Why is your conflicting theory that Jesus became evil “sin” to be preferred? What advantage does your theory have over the earlier doctrines?

You say that Jesus became evil (i.e. “sin”) but 1 Peter 2:22 says of Jesus : “"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." What is there about such verses that make you think Jesus became something evil (and thus deserved punishment from God).? 1 John 3:5 says, of Jesus “…in him is no sin.” Yet your interpretation and theory has Jesus actually become the evil thing of “sin” itself.

What advantage is there in abandoning early Christian interpretation and religion described by the earlier Christians and to adopt your new interpretation of an evil Jesus who is punished by God while God guarantees heaven to individuals who remain committed to doing evil? Why are you so averse to considering that repentance, has any place in this religious theory you are creating?


Billiardsball responded (# 86) “ Because this earlier Christian doctrine (Catholic doctrine) is rejected by every evangelical group, ever, in history.

Your fixation on defaming Catholicism is another irrelevant tangent that has little to do with your own theory being viable. Whether the Catholics are correct or if they are incorrect, it will save your personal religious theory (that Jesus becomes evil) from its illogic, it irrationality and it will not make your interpretation become consistent with the early Christian textual witnesses.

Clear

Clear said:

Clear said (#83) : “You described your theory that God punished a morally perfect Jesus and lets evil doers go without punishment and without repentance of evil on their part, (those who do evil are free to continue evil yet are guaranteed heaven). Your modern base theory describes an evil/amoral and unjust God.

You have attempted to Justify the Punishment of Jesus by offering us your personal interpretation that Jesus becomes evil “sin”. (Thus justifying God for having punished a morally innocent and perfect being.) This additional "supporting" theory creates a morally imperfect Jesus who becomes evil sin.

Your interpretation maintains that Jesus became evil “sin” whereas the early Christian textual interpretation maintains a Jesus who is innocent of sin and who does NOT become evil "sin". Your personal religion and your personal interpretation on this specific point are different than early Christian textual witnesses.

You have spent more than 20 pages of attempting to offer argument supporting your theory and, so far, have been unable to support it by any rational, logical and historically accurate data. Point upon point you have made have been shown to be laden with various types of errors. The fact that you have to offer 20 pages of illogical, irrational and historically inaccurate data to support your theory is good evidenceagainst your personal theory on this point.

The question and the argument have not changed.


Billiardsball,

1)Why is your personal interpretation and your personal theory to be preferred over the early Christian interpretation that Jesus remained a sinless and innocent sacrifice?

2)What advantage is there in abandoning or changing this earlier Christian doctrine and witness on this point and adopting your religious theory and it's interpretation?


Billiardsball responded (# 86) : “ I'm sorry you find Bible scripture as you put it "rational, logical and historically accurate."
Ooookaay….


Billiardsball responded (# 86) : “ It is inappropriate of you IMHO to quote early church leaders in an attempt to support your doctrine without holding to the Bible THEY loved as holy and inerrant as holy and inerrant!. “
This is another strange, irrelevant complaint. None of my prior posts in this entire thread referenced any “early church leader".


Billiardsball responded (# 86) : My personal interpretation is to be preferred if it is the correct Bible doctrine. It so happens in this case that I am correct.
This is simply a repetition of a naked claim that your interpretation is correct. You statement is void of data or logic.

Since YOU brought up early "church leaders", one can, in the same vein say that the interpretations of the earliest Christians who were taught by original prophets and apostles of the original Jesus movement is preferred and represents a more authentic version of Christianity since they were in a position to best understand the Apostles and writers of the New Testament. Clement, an actual colleague-convert of Peter the apostle, likely understood Peters teaching to him better than your theory of what Peter might have meant.

You have not told us why your modern Christian interpretation is to be preferred over the interpretation of early Christian witnesses that tell us Jesus was sinless and never became anything evil (e.g. “sin”).

For example, You theorize that Jesus became an evil thing (i.e. sin), yet the writer of Hebrews says “we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.” (heb 4:15). Your religious theory says Jesus became evil “sin”, however the same writer in Heb 7:26 describes Jesus as “”--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.” Why is your conflicting theory that Jesus became evil “sin” to be preferred? What advantage does your theory have over the earlier doctrines?

You say that Jesus became evil (i.e. “sin”) but 1 Peter 2:22 says of Jesus : “"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." What is there about such verses that make you think Jesus became something evil (and thus deserved punishment from God).? 1 John 3:5 says, of Jesus “…in him is no sin.” Yet your interpretation and theory has Jesus actually become the evil thing of “sin” itself.

What advantage is there in abandoning early Christian interpretation and religion described by the earlier Christians and to adopt your new interpretation of an evil Jesus who is punished by God while God guarantees heaven to individuals who remain committed to doing evil? Why are you so averse to considering that repentance, has any place in this religious theory you are creating?


Billiardsball responded (# 86) “ Because this earlier Christian doctrine (Catholic doctrine) is rejected by every evangelical group, ever, in history.

Your fixation on defaming Catholicism is another irrelevant tangent that has little to do with your own theory being viable. Whether the Catholics are correct or if they are incorrect, it will save your personal religious theory (that Jesus becomes evil) from its illogic, it irrationality and it will not make your interpretation become consistent with the early Christian textual witnesses.

Clear

Click to expand...

I think we are way beyond the OP and need to return. The early church doctrine you enjoy is almost wholly Catholic in origin and outlook. Many persons have died for millennia attempting to rescue Bible doctrine from Rome and contend for the faith delivered to the apostles.

Let us please return to the OP? My intention in making a post about Jesus imparting of His wonderful perfection to us was to share the news of salvation with others. What am I to think is your state of grace when you assault me for trumpeting good news of salvation to the forum members? I haven't really "defended" anything here for 20 pages, because, like on the LDS thread I was invited to as a guest, I'm mostly asking questions and trying to be polite and respectful. Again, most Christians in the world believe that Jesus died for them, on their behalf, not as an example, and what makes an evangelical Christian evangelical is adherence neither to Protestant or Catholic doctrine or Calvinist or Augustinian ideas but rather a belief in salvation via trust and faith, and not works and repentance. I'm comfortable with not only substitutionary atonement theory but also ransom theory and rescue theory, etc. because they are all in the Bible, but I'm having trouble understanding how it is that you are a lover of Jesus but fighting with me incessantly. It's almost like you were personally dissatisfied when our thread was shut down by forum mods--enough to pursue me here. Why the inquisition? Are we not all Christians seeking to bless and honor God and share good news with others?

1. I do not agree with the "early Christians" (at times) of the first centuries following Christ, but I always try to agree with the earliest Christians. The earliest Christians included the authors of the scriptures, and I'm claiming my doctrines are found within.

2. You need to examine your syllogism far more closely. Every time you ask me, "Why should we take your personal version of doctrine above that of early Christians?" I feel like responding, "Why should I take the opinions of people who lived and wrote three centuries after Christ above the scriptures written by Christ's eyewitnesses?" I'm sorry, but your consistent appeal to church fathers hundreds of years after the time of Christ, who are supposedly basing all their doctrine on scriptures you find confusing and contradictory is really awkward.

Again, the intent of the OP is to explore not theories of atonement--since I think we all agree (?) Jesus atoned, but rather the proclamation that anyone trusting Jesus Christ for salvation will not be disappointed, for whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved! Whoever trusts in what Jesus did for them in a horrible death by torture and glorious resurrection will receive eternal life!

FORUM MEMBERS :

We’ve gone from the OP premise of “Jesus didn't do anything wrong to deserve death, and by torture…. when the time comes, He will impart His perfection to me..“ and journeyed through the premise of “when God condemned His innocent Son, it is right. Do you really disagree....” in post #56, to Jesus “became sin for us.” in post #57.

One problem with creating an irrational and illogical base theory without reference to historical context is that, in defending it, one may tend to create other supporting theories, which themselves are irrational, illogical, non-historical and may ultimately undermine and complicate the original premise. This thread is a good example of this. We’ve gone from a “perfect” Jesus, to one whom the Father “punishes” for sin Jesus did not commit, and on to an evil “sin” Jesus who is not perfect at all.

Why not simply keep original Christian historical interpretation that does not have these faults?


1) SUMMARY OF THE THREAD

The OP : “Jesus didn't do anything wrong to deserve death, and by torture….having trusted Jesus for salvation, when the time comes, He will impart His perfection to me--I'll be ready!”
Post #2 Clear asked : When you say that Jesus "will impart His perfection to me", can you explain what you mean by this.

Post #3 Leibowde84 asks a parallel question
Post #11 Billiardsball repeats the theory in different words
Posts #12 &14 Billiardsball doesn’t answer the question but says (#14) “God and Jesus are separate entities and Jesus's desires are not God's or God HAD to suffer
Post #20 Billiardsball offers : “I think we can understand in the Bible how it is that Christ substituted for us. I think you can certainly understand how to take on the responsibility of someone else's wrongdoing.” This is another bare claim, not an explanation.
Posts #21 & 22 Billiardsball doesn’t explain the mechanism, but refer to irrelevant tangents,
Post # 24 Orontes re-explains the root question, saying : “I think you missed the thrust of Clear's question. You asserted Jesus "will impart His perfection to me". If perfection entails a moral component, and morality of necessity includes free will, how then does one impart a moral attribute to another?“
Post #25 Leibowde and Clear agree with Orontes description of the base problem. Thus, three posters ask the same question.
Posts # 27, 28, 33, 34, & 35 Billiardsball doesn’t explain how his theory might work.
Post #38 the Question is again explained by Orontes saying : “Aside from bald assertion, there is no mechanic whereby one can transfer or impose moral awareness or moral standing. Looking at the latter first, moral standing refers to the sum of free acts made by a subject where good and evil are meaningful. It is thereby person specific, by definition. Such cannot be transferred because the ethical free decisions of a subject, are the subject's. Any lauding or condemning of those decisions relate to the acting subject. To apply a judgment to one outside the rubric of choice, would be unjust. If Bob stole your bike, it is unjust to punish Larry. Likewise, if Leroy excelled at passing a test, it would be unjust to give the high marks to Stan. “
Posts # 39,40 & 41 Billiardsball doesn’t provide the answer.
#43 Orontes RE-EXPLAINS the base problem with the theory saying : “Your question indicates you didn't understand my last post. As to why it would be unjust to punish Larry when Bob is the thief: this comes from a base understanding of the meaning of justice. Justice is to render what is owed. Larry is under no obligation to perform or suffer any kind of redress. He didn't steal the bike. Therefore to punish him for an act he didn't commit is unjust.”
Posts # 45, 46 Billiardsball doesn’t answer the question
Post #47 Billiardsball repeats the theory saying : “Once I give Jesus my trust, He gives me His perfection. Yes, I think that helps. However, this repeat of the claim does NOT help explain the question regarding how this theory works.
Posts # 51, 52, & 53, Billiardsball does not explain the theory.

To that point, the thread spent 53 posts seeking supporting logic and rational data without obtaining support for the original basic question regarding how moral perfection can be “imparted” from one moral being to another moral being.
Post #55 I pointed this failure to offer any support for your OP theory and commented that it is similar to the lack of logical and rational support for the theory that God the Father punished a morally perfect Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit.


2) THE SUBJECT CHANGED FROM JESUS IMPARTING MORAL PERFECTION TO US BY JESUS TO THE PUNISHMENT OF JESUS’ MORAL IMPERFECTION BY GOD.

Post #56, Billiardsball said to Orontes : “…Sometimes, as when God condemned His innocent Son, it is right. Do you really disagree with the Father punishing the Son?”
Post 57 Billiardsball offered a new theory that the “Perfect” Jesus “became sin for us.”

Thus the new theory that a perfect being became evil “Sin” entered the discussion and we start to repeat the pattern of lack of relevant, logical or historical support for another theory.

Posts # 58, 62, 63 & 65 by Billiardsball : Do not offer rational/logical/historical support that a perfect Jesus became evil “sin”.
Post #67 : Clear explained the historical meaning underlying 2 Cor 5:21 and it’s usage in Scriptures and the post offers more than 20 examples of this historical usage just in the 4th chapter of Leviticus alone.
Posts # 68, 69, 73, 74, 76, 78, 84, 85, & 88 by Billiardsball did not support this new theory


We are approaching 100 posts without rational, logical nor historical support for the theories :
1) A PERFECT JESUS IMPARTS HIS PERFECTION TO US
2) AN IMPERFECT JESUS BECAME EVIL "SIN" AND THUS, WAS JUSTLY PUNISHED BY GOD.


This thread reminds me of the early Judeo-Christian proverb where a donkey tied to a mill may walk a hundred miles in one day and yet at the end of the day, he is in the same place where he started. IF one starts with an illogical, irrational, non-historical premise, one cannot use any logic or rational thinking or historically accurate data to progress toward better data. Failure to progress is not the only problem with such theories.

These new and modern theories and new interpretations of Jesus are not as good as the original Christian interpretations where Jesus offers his entire life and his body’s life as a willing and morally perfect sacrifice, who then inherits a kingdom from his Father and offers a new covenant to individuals who will have a living faith in him and obey him.



BILLIARDSBALL :

There is nothing personal between us. I love you and am quite fond of your desire to be faithful to your Christianity. However, it is naïve to think that you can offer up a New theory on a religious forum and not have anyone examine it, especially in a forum frequented by historically aware individuals who recognize your theory is not the same religion as early Christianity. The comparisons between your theories and interpretations versus the theology and interpretations witnessed by the authentic early Christian movement are bound to crop up.

It feels like we are having a discussion where you are attempting to sell forum members on this theory, and when flaws in your theory are pointed out, you are simply unable to admit lack of data and logical support (though this is already quite clear to readers…)

Post one of two

Post two of two


3) THE USED CAR SALESMAN
This situation is like imagining a used car salesman trying to sell a new line of cars. A prospective buyer looks at the shiny new vehicle and can hardly believe his luck in finding an apparently wonderful looking car at so cheap a price.


Salesman : “Yeah, quite a beauty, isn’t she? And the price, you won’t find anything this nice for less money, I guarantee it!”

Prospect : “Wow, she really is great. Beautiful too!”

Salesman : “Yep, patent leather seats, convertible option, nice, deep metalflake blue paint. Can’t you just see yourself sitting in this baby? Hey, your not catholic are you? ”

Prospest : “Catholic? No, I’m not, but what has that got to do with anything?”

Salesman : “The Catholic church is bad, Their cars are bad too. They should switch to driving this car!”

Prospect : “oookaay. Hm. Lets look under the hood, I’d like to see the engine.”

Salesman : “ Did I mention it comes in 5 colors and has a satellite radio?”

Prospect : “That’s nice….how about the engine? (lifting the hood)

Salesman : “ Well, just remember that the gas mileage on this car is unbeatable by anything Japan has to offer”.

Prospest : (Staring at an empty engine bay…) What, no engine? Where’s the engine?

Salesman : “Now, don’t be too picky, the car is a beaut! Nice wheels too! Jus' lookit those aluminum wheels would ya!”.

Prospect : Yeah, they are nice, but the motor….

Salesman : “ Just imagine yourself in this car, listening to the radio, with all the girls just…

Prospect : “HANG ON. THE MOTOR...! WHAT ABOUT THE MOTOR???!!

Salesman : “Your not one of those irresponsible racing idiots that has to have a BIG motor, are you?”

Prospect : “NO, I’m just a guy wanting to drive a car with a MOTOR in it!!” How can you sell the car without a motor?!

Salesman : “There MAY be an option of a motor at some point, but don’t let that bother you at this point…Lookit how the sun shines off that pretty paint!” (Another Car drives by) See that old car, that’s a catholic car. They are BAD and OLD. They kill people. Think of the safety record of this vehicle. It’s NEVER been in an on-road accident. Not one in the history of this company.

Prospect : “Well, yeah. IT’S GOT NO MOTOR!!”


This thread is a parallel to this sort of interchange since your new religious theory has a huge mechanical defect is that it cannot answer the most basic question that can move your theory forward. Like the home-network kitchen implement claiming that “it slices, it dices” etc, your theory makes promises that are not supported by logic, by reasoning, by historical Christian interpretation. It’s not as good as the original Christian textual interpretations that actually did provide a logical and reasonable covenant which, through mechanisms such as repentance, which partly justified the bestowal of mercy and undeserved favor and assistance to imperfect moral creatures who want and are willing to improve morally. Also, it doesn’t help anything to bad talk Catholicism since criticizing them or any other religion doesn’t assist your theory.



ALL OF US ARE CREATING PERSONAL MODELS OF THEOLOGY

Billiardsball,

All of us are in the process of making models of the existence (or non-existence) of God and what the nature of God might be, his purposes in creation and our relationship to him and his purposes.

To simply assume that one’s current personal model is THE correct model and that there are no errors in it and to therefore hold to that model without allowing for corrections is naïve. Why is it so difficult to assume that we all have some degree of error in the personal models we all create? Why not allow yourself to consider modifying specific bits of your current model, especially if the current model is obviously irrational, illogical and historically inaccurate? It does Christianity no real service to simply offer an inaccurate model and make promises in Jesus' name and then assume that we are doing Christ service.

You claim to have training in religious history and greek. If this it true, then why not consider the earliest Christian interpretations FIRST, and then, if they are somehow faulty, abandon them and create substitutions for them. What is so wrong with a theology where Jesus remains a morally perfect being and where his life and death are a self-sacrifice rather than a punishment by a God of wrath who is satisfied by punishing the innocent Jesus and then lets evil individuals go free without repentance or willful change?

Clear
eieisetwtz

BilliardsBall said:

The mercy seat and sin are linked in the OT and the Talmud. And also as Christian typology, yes.

The rite was not about person's sins? Why does Wikipedia disagree--and from the original languages--with your stance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_seat

Click to expand...

Master Billiards,

I think the rule from Ancient Greek works on dialectics, and found in Aristotle's "Rhetoric" is: anyone who cites Wikipedia has thereby ceded the argument to the other side.


I am guessing you didn't read my follow up post where I noted:




*Note: Romans was written before the destruction of the temple.


If you want to respond to my counters, you must deal with the four points I brought up. Appeals to Wikipedia will not do.

BilliardsBall said:

I guess we have to lean on the word FOR where it says Christ died, the just FOR the unjust. Do I misunderstand FOR, THEREFORE, ON BEHALF OF, BECAUSE OF?

And if your interpretation is correct, why does every Christian mainline, non-denom, evangelical, Protestant and Catholic sect or offshoot agree with my stance? I understand some follow ransom theory, etc. and not penal substitution, however, all Christians have Christ dying FOR sinners, not as an example, but as a sacrifice. Do you disagree?

Click to expand...

Master Billiards,

You are confused. Your position is the penal substitution model. The vast bulk of Christendom rejects this view. It did not exist until the 16th Century and has only held sway among some portions of Reformed Christian sects. If you are trying to appeal to numbers to bolster your position, then your stance would fail on those grounds.


Per the meaning of "for"" if you assume a single preposition is the key: you are in dire straits. The meaning of the preposition includes: 'for the sake of', 'instead of. ''in place of' 'on behalf of' etc. All Christians hold Christ died for man. Personally, I have no issue in stating Christ died for me. It does not follow an innocent was punished so the guilty could go free. Self sacrifice and punishment are not the same thing. I have explained to you previously a whole series of different atonement theories. The Penal Model is perhaps the most repugnant of them all. I have explained why. If I take those failures and mix them with some of your assertions the base problems are:

Your system is unjust
Your God is amoral or immoral
Your system is irrational
Your system is unbiblical


These come from post 79 that you did not respond to. Any one of these criticisms is sufficient to undo your stance. You have not dealt with any of these problems. Therefore, it is an untenable position.

BilliardsBall said:

1. I'm sorry you find Bible scripture as you put it "rational, logical and historically accurate." It is inappropriate of you IMHO to quote early church leaders in an attempt to support your doctrine without holding to the Bible THEY loved as holy and inerrant as holy and inerrant!

2. My personal interpretation is to be preferred if it is the correct Bible doctrine. It so happens in this case that I am correct.

3. Because this earlier Christian doctrine (Catholic doctrine) is rejected by every evangelical group, ever, in history. Rome put to death hundreds of thousands if not millions of Bible believers for holding onto these doctrines!

Click to expand...

Master Billiards,


Just so you are aware:

Inerrancy is a relatively new idea. It did not exist in early Christianity. It mostly finds sway in some Protestant circles. In the U.S. these are often Evangelical groups.

Early Christian belief etc. is not the same as Catholicism (Papal doctrine). Rome was not a player during the first phases of doctrinal development. The early Ecumenical Councils all occurred in the East. Rome didn't even have a representative at the Council of Nicaea.

Per the idea of Rome putting to death vast numbers of Bible believers: Protestants were equally adept at killing Bible believing Catholics, as well as other Protestants they didn't happen to agree with. Sectarian violence was bloody on both sides. It's inappropriate and inaccurate to only point a finger in one direction.

Orontes and Billiardsball :

Re your discussion about koine greek “hilasterion” :

I’ve not followed your discussion on this word other than to notice Orontes' point that “hilasterion” does not necessitate a sacrifice. I had never looked at the specific usage of this word in Koine greek before, but did a quick check of its uses in the greek in the peri-c.e. era.

You two are speaking not of the base word, but of a compound word. Deissmann in BS (p. 124) concludes that this compound is NOT a specific technical term for כפרת / kapporeth (or “cover”, as in the ark of the covenant), but as an adjective meaning “of use for propitiation”. He offers, as evidence, the many similar word formations such as σωτηριον and καριστηριον in their reference to votive offerings. Lightfoot had, long ago, made similar connections.

The base term in “hilasterion”, as a term for “propitiation” does not require sacrifice. For example, Ιλασχομαι meant to “render propitious to oneself” and multiple examples of similar usage exist in classical greek as well. For examples, In Syll 641.5 (end of iii b.c.) “…αμεινον αυτοις ιλασκομενοις και τιμωσιν…” and “…τιμαν δε και ιλασκεσθαι και αγαθον Δαιμωνα..” and Michel 1211.5 (ofapprox. I b.c.) shows similar usage where it is combined with the concept of value / honor. None of these uses is associated with sacrifice, nor could I find an example of a necessity of sacrifice with this word.

Thus, the base association is not of sacrifice, but of being merciful and propitious.

In both the NT and LXX , ιλασκομαι is rendered correctly as “be propitious”, or “be merciful”. Thus in Hebrews 2:17 the use of the verb refers to the thing for which propitiation is made or for which mercy is given : ιλασκεσθαι τας αμαρτιας, that is, propitiation or mercy “for sins”.

However, the pagans used this word in this same way for things unrelated to sin. For example, in Syll 633.14 it is used in the directions for a sanctuary honoring the God Men Tyrannus (c.f. Deissman, BS. P 255). Thus Molton himself reminds us not to force theological implications into this word as it appears in biblical greek.

For example, in Cos 81, the votive-gift of the people of Cos was erected as a ιλατηριον (hilasterion) for the Emperor Augustus. Lightfoot gives a similar example at Cos 347. The use of ιλαστηριος as an adjective is well established by other non-religious uses. For example, P Fay 337.i.3 (of ii a.d.) , in a text concerning the gods, uses this word multiple times in a philosophical vein.

So, in reference to the probable meaning of Ιλαστηριον as a “place of propitiation” or mercy (as opposed to the “propitiation of a place”), it can be “mercy-seat” as in the LXX of the Pentateuch. I did not find it associated with the sacrifice of a life in its common (koine) usage. I don’t know how this bit of information will fit into your discussion, but I hope it is helpful for historical context.

I hope you two have a good spiritual journey,


Clear
ειτωφυτζω

There is nothing personal between us. I love you and am quite fond of your desire to be faithful to your Christianity.

Click to expand...

That is nowhere evinced in your posts or this discussion. Stop headhunting me and go elsewhere--use your great brain to witness to atheists on these forums, perhaps.

Orontes said:

Master Billiards,


Just so you are aware:

Inerrancy is a relatively new idea. It did not exist in early Christianity. It mostly finds sway in some Protestant circles. In the U.S. these are often Evangelical groups.

Early Christian belief etc. is not the same as Catholicism (Papal doctrine). Rome was not a player during the first phases of doctrinal development. The early Ecumenical Councils all occurred in the East. Rome didn't even have a representative at the Council of Nicaea.

Per the idea of Rome putting to death vast numbers of Bible believers: Protestants were equally adept at killing Bible believing Catholics, as well as other Protestants they didn't happen to agree with. Sectarian violence was bloody on both sides. It's inappropriate and inaccurate to only point a finger in one direction.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. Inerrancy is taught in scripture itself.

You might also tag Protestant rulers as killers, but Rome is a religious organization that killed millions.

Clear said:

Orontes and Billiardsball :

Re your discussion about koine greek “hilasterion” :

I’ve not followed your discussion on this word other than to notice Orontes' point that “hilasterion” does not necessitate a sacrifice. I had never looked at the specific usage of this word in Koine greek before, but did a quick check of its uses in the greek in the peri-c.e. era.

You two are speaking not of the base word, but of a compound word. Deissmann in BS (p. 124) concludes that this compound is NOT a specific technical term for כפרת / kapporeth (or “cover”, as in the ark of the covenant), but as an adjective meaning “of use for propitiation”. He offers, as evidence, the many similar word formations such as σωτηριον and καριστηριον in their reference to votive offerings. Lightfoot had, long ago, made similar connections.

The base term in “hilasterion”, as a term for “propitiation” does not require sacrifice. For example, Ιλασχομαι meant to “render propitious to oneself” and multiple examples of similar usage exist in classical greek as well. For examples, In Syll 641.5 (end of iii b.c.) “…αμεινον αυτοις ιλασκομενοις και τιμωσιν…” and “…τιμαν δε και ιλασκεσθαι και αγαθον Δαιμωνα..” and Michel 1211.5 (ofapprox. I b.c.) shows similar usage where it is combined with the concept of value / honor. None of these uses is associated with sacrifice, nor could I find an example of a necessity of sacrifice with this word.

Thus, the base association is not of sacrifice, but of being merciful and propitious.

Click to expand...

Clear,

I completely agree. I pointed out in post 71

"The word has cultic (religious) use in the larger Greco-Roman Classical world, but (and this is particularly the case in Koine Greek) was a much more commonly used word, with no religious ties at all. If we just take its verb form hiaskomai: it simply means to be conciliatory or to appease. The notion does not require or have any necessary connection to sacrifice itself."*

*It's fun when one gets to quote oneself.

BilliardsBall said:

I respectfully disagree. Inerrancy is taught in scripture itself.

You might also tag Protestant rulers as killers, but Rome is a religious organization that killed millions.

Click to expand...

Master Billiards,


This is not correct. Inerrant doesn't appear in the Bible. Inerrancy really begins to come to the fore within Protestantism under the notion of Sola Scriptura. The 1618 Synod of Dort is a good example. Recall when this notion was brought up previously, I mentioned there is a vast number of contradictory statements within the corpus of the Bible. Let me give two simple ones:

a) They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him: Matt. 27:28
b) The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe. John 19:2

Scarlet and purple are not the same color. Inerrant means without flaw. It does not allow for any contradiction, however small. The text does not support your assertion.



Per the Catholic Church killing millions: what is this number based on?

My statement about sectarian violence between Protestants and Catholics wasn't simply focused on Protestant rulers, but to all who killed other Christians under the name of a religious banner. I'll give you two examples.

a) The 1525 Peasants War in Central Germany.
b) The Thirty Years War (1618 to 1648)

Both of these events (there are others that could easily be looked at) were bloody sectarian affairs.

leibowde84 said:

But, by this logic, either God and Jesus have a separate consciousness, and Jesus felt sorry for us, or God is limited in that God had to suffer in order to open the gates of heaven. That is counter-intuitive.

Click to expand...

Do you think Christianity would have won over the hearts and minds of men, become a foundation of moral society, inspired millions to acknowledge their sin, strive to redeem, sanctify themselves - without Jesus Christ? without his example of ultimate sacrifice?