• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus Lives!

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It could have been any of the disciples. He was the weakest link.
Why did he need to be betrayed? Why did any of the disciples have to be written in as the villain? He could simply have handed himself into the authorities.
the world-wide consequences of man's evil imagination is worse that a nuclear bomb.
First, I note no particular difference in history in man's evil imagination before as compared to after 30 CE.

Second, an argument is available that nuclear weapons are a major reason why WW2 was the last SuperWar.
he defeated death, hell and the grave.
Theologically the Trinitarian Jesus was never in danger from death or the grave, was he?
With your responses (if I can call it that since it is filled with unbelief, sarcasm, and skepticism ) convince me why I would share a pearl with you.
That's completely a matter for you. It's not likely we'll ever coincide, but if we do, I'm happy to buy the first coffee.
as is the propensity to murder, peodophelia, lieing, adultery, and everything else...
I've seen numerous surveys in the past of the number of US clergy who are gay. The highest was 30% but I find that hard to believe; still, I've never seen a result that put the figure lower than 10%. Even that may be affected by a higher response rate among gay clergy than others, but one way or another there are a lot of gay clergy out there. (I recall reading an interview with an Irish RC priest who said the clergy had been the natural home for gay men in Ireland for as long as he could recall.)

Meanwhile in the last three or four decades the pedophilia scandal did more damage to the church every hour than I could do in a lifetime of being sarcastic here. It's cost the churches enormous losses of money, authority and prestige, though I trust good will come of it at last. Hating gays has simply had the churches tripping rather horribly over their own feet.

Yes, I know the great majority are good people, but putting the protection of the institution ahead of the protection of the parishioner has run up that danged big bill. And giving all the power to people over 70 isn't the most promising way forward either.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Yes, a point on which I should be clear. It's clear from the biochemistry that the human brain is an extremely complex thing that has evolved to work in particular ways, which we're still exploring, describing and endeavoring to explain. It makes many kinds of decisions, and for most the brain processes involved are understood in principle. We make decisions as the result of complex and interacting chains of cause+effect. In that sense there is no such thing as free will anywhere, since the sole alternative is randomness.

But theology asserts free will, and as I understand it attributes it to 'the spirit'. While I've read numerous accounts of the processes by which brains make decisions, I've never seen an explanation of the processes by which 'spirit' makes decisions. Again, the basis for those processes appears to me to be necessarily between cause+effect or randomness, because there's no third choice.

That's my view. But here I'm enquiring into the Christian view, and how it can relate to the idea of an omnipotent being in charge of the universe. What did that being intend to achieve by the death of Jesus? Why choose that method if you're omnipotent and thus can bring about any state of affairs you like, with a metaphorical snap of the fingers?
Not quite. The explanations of physics, about which we appear to be in substantial agreement, are not the same as the explanations of theology, and it's to that that I direct my enquiry.
Well, one thing to know, or learn more on, is that randomness and causality can work together quite well (and it looks more and more plausible/likely that is exactly what is happening on the elementary particle level) -- simply because (in a quick nutshell), large numbers of randomly behaving objects act in predictable ways an an ensemble. They will usually act in a predictable way. That's enough.

This connects immediately to the free will question.

Because free will needn't be only or solely (or even at all possibly!) dependent on a supernatural spirit. It can be something pretty much what we call 'free will' in the sense of not being predetermined in principle even on just physics (that is, of course, quantum effects, chemistry, etc., the works), alone.

Even just on physics alone (see bell test comment below), it looks like human actions are likely to be truly unpredictable, even for a computer with total information and unlimited processing power (or for instance truly large processing power like some think a quantum computer could in principle achieve).

Also, for clarity, by "unpredictable" I don't mean usually unpredictable. But simply at least occasionally unpredictable. A human could be predictable for example 99.6% of the time to God, yet still unpredictable. Just being occasionally unpredictable is all it takes to break total determinism (fixed, predetermined futures) for human action. Even just from physics alone, even without any effect from spirit. That looks to be the likelihood, as I understand, from Bell Test experimental results (though a ardent true believer could still try to hold on even today, by pure blind faith in a 'super determinism' -- the loop holes may not get 100% closed -- but that's not a belief without proof I would put my bets on).

So, that's one thing, and perhaps plenty. (Also, fyi, this fits to scripture quite well also, just for anyone that cares to know. That is, if a person reads fully, instead of partially; reads with listening instead of insisting on seeing an idea ahead of time -- there are quite a few places the unpredictability of humans are shown, which add up together to strongly suggest free will combined with God foreseeing anything He Himself chooses to make happen.)

-------
About your separate question regarding motive, many think God wants those that are willing to trust (aka take a leap of "faith") and also willing to love, because these 2 qualities are so extremely valuable for harmony and peace in a mutual eternal life later on -- they are the minimum requirements for peaceful coexistence over time.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Why did he need to be betrayed? Why did any of the disciples have to be written in as the villain? He could simply have handed himself into the authorities.

fulfill scripture

First, I note no particular difference in history in man's evil imagination before as compared to after 30 CE.

Second, an argument is available that nuclear weapons are a major reason why WW2 was the last SuperWar.

this, really, is a strawman. The issue was that some know it is a suicide mission.

Theologically the Trinitarian Jesus was never in danger from death or the grave, was he?

all he had to do was sin once.


I've seen numerous surveys in the past of the number of US clergy who are gay. The highest was 30% but I find that hard to believe; still, I've never seen a result that put the figure lower than 10%. Even that may be affected by a higher response rate among gay clergy than others, but one way or another there are a lot of gay clergy out there. (I recall reading an interview with an Irish RC priest who said the clergy had been the natural home for gay men in Ireland for as long as he could recall.)

Meanwhile in the last three or four decades the pedophilia scandal did more damage to the church every hour than I could do in a lifetime of being sarcastic here. It's cost the churches enormous losses of money, authority and prestige, though I trust good will come of it at last. Hating gays has simply had the churches tripping rather horribly over their own feet.

Yes, I know the great majority are good people, but putting the protection of the institution ahead of the protection of the parishioner has run up that danged big bill. And giving all the power to people over 70 isn't the most promising way forward either.

yes. wrong choices but not that they were born that way.

I think the biggest problem is the mandate that they must be celibate.

But if you ask because of an enquiring mind... that is one thing.. If you are commenting with your mind already made up... please don't waste my time.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Because free will needn't be only or solely (or even at all possibly!) dependent on a supernatural spirit. It can be something pretty much what we call 'free will' in the sense of not being predetermined in principle even on just physics (that is, of course, quantum effects, chemistry, etc., the works), alone.
Yes, quantum randomness is handled statistically.
Even just on physics alone (see bell test comment below), it looks like human actions are likely to be truly unpredictable, even for a computer with total information and unlimited processing power (or for instance truly large processing power like some think a quantum computer could in principle achieve).
But to the extent that they're thereby uncaused in classical terms, that only makes them a mix of determinism and randomness. Nowhere in there is the idea of free will as human decisions derived independently of the physics of the human.
(Also, fyi, this fits to scripture quite well also, just for anyone that cares to know. That is, if a person reads fully, instead of partially; reads with listening instead of insisting on seeing an idea ahead of time -- there are quite a few places the unpredictability of humans are shown, which add up together to strongly suggest free will combined with God foreseeing anything He Himself chooses to make happen.)
Offhand I can't think of any examples earlier than the 17th century (eg Hobbes, Descartes) where the human is considered a machine in the modern sense (though the Greeks, hence the classical world, had tales of ichor-powered human-made 'men' and of metamorphoses.)
About your separate question regarding motive, many think God wants those that are willing to trust (aka take a leap of "faith") and also willing to love, because these 2 qualities are so extremely valuable for harmony and peace in a mutual eternal life later on -- they are the minimum requirements for peaceful coexistence over time.
Noted. First, that approach (as I said) is used by con-men all over the world, as God should well know. Second, it goes to the question of how we define 'truth'. I favor the 'correspondence' view ─ that truth is a quality of statements, and that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
fulfill scripture
It's the relentless use of that outlook by the author of Mark and the gospel authors who followed him that give rise to serious doubt whether an historical Jesus existed at all. If you can write a story by moving your character through parts of the Tanakh it pleases you to think of as messianic prophecy, scene by scene, ticking off each 'fulfillment' as you go, you don't need a real human at all.
this, really, is a strawman. The issue was that some know it is a suicide mission.
A suicide mission is preparing to take a serious risk of death in order to achieve a tactical goal for your cause. But Jesus' mission was simply to be killed.

And therefore the questions are, If God is omnipotent, why was bloodshed necessary at all? And, how was reality different after Jesus death?
all he had to do was sin once.
Mark's Jesus ─ the one original biography of Jesus ─ was an ordinary Jew who had to have his sins washed off him by JtB; and at that point God adopted him as [his] son as [he]'d done with David (Psalm 2:7). So Jesus began as a sinner.
yes. wrong choices but not that they were born that way.
When our kids were in primary school, a boy who lived down the street used to come and play with them at our place. My wife and I compared notes after a while, and we each had the thought he was going to be gay. And so it happened. He and our family were in contact for many years ─ I recall drinks at our place when he graduated. He was, and I trust is, a decent, capable, intelligent and witty human.

That's one example of what I mean by inclusion.

I take it you regard Bishop Gene Robinson as an unregenerate sinner, a soul willfully self-doomed to the outer darkness for eternity, a shocking, indeed disgusting, example to his fellow humans?
I think the biggest problem is the mandate that they must be celibate.
Yes, I agree that's a real part of the problem, and one very easy to fix if they found the will. Somewhere between the ongoing fall in vocations and the dying off of the present generation of ancient cardinals they'll have to face up to it.

Meanwhile, as the Irish clergyman observed, the church is a natural home for some gay men and women. Seriously, from your point of view, how could that be if God hadn't intended it?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I've never understood just what the reason was. Perhaps you can help me?
Why was Jesus on a suicide mission from the start? (Mark 2:20, Mark 14:36 and so on).
What did Jesus' death actually accomplish? What aspect of reality was different afterwards?
Why did it need a death? Why couldn't an omnipotent God have effected any change [he] wished with one snap of [his] omnipotent fingers?

I find that Jesus was Not on a suicide mission. The ' cup ' mentioned at Mark 14:36 is that Jesus did Not want to die with the label as blasphemer.
Jesus' claim to Messiahship was said to be blasphemy, and instead of examining Jesus as Messiah he was charged with blasphemy before Pilate.
- see Mark 14:61-65; Mark 15:1-5; Mark 15:10. Matthew 26:65 is in the opinion of the corrupted high priest.

Sinless Jesus accomplished what none of can.
Sin leads to death. We can't resurrect oneself or another, but because of sin-less Jesus' faithful death Jesus can and will resurrect people.
Jesus balanced the scales of justice for us. Jesus could undo the damage Satan and Adam brought upon us.
A snap of a finger could show power but Not necessarily justice.

I suppose we could think of two (2) realities accomplished by Jesus death:
1) Those who died before Jesus' died could have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection. - John 3:13; Acts of the Apostles 24:15
2) They way to heavenly life was later opened up for people like those of Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18.
So, whether having a heavenly calling for some, or called to be part of the majority to inherit the Earth as Jesus promised - Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:9-11,
the opportunity to live forever, everlasting life, as was originally offered to Adam before his downfall is now open to us and soon to be realized.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I find that Jesus was Not on a suicide mission. The ' cup ' mentioned at Mark 14:36 is that Jesus did Not want to die with the label as blasphemer.
None of the gospels appears to agree with you. None mentions blasphemy in this context. And as Mark 2:20 makes clear, his death was the plan from the start.
Jesus' claim to Messiahship was said to be blasphemy
Only his followers agreed with that claim. From the Jewish point of view, Jesus was not a messiah, being neither a civil nor military nor religious leader nor anointed by the priesthood.
Sinless Jesus accomplished what none of can.
In Mark, the first gospel, Jesus isn't 'sinless'. He's an ordinary Jew who has his sins washed off him by JtB; and only at that point does he become 'son of God' and then simply in the same way that David became son of God (Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33). The authors of Matthew and Luke reinvent that part of the story, as you know.
Sin leads to death.
Nope. Creatures die whether or not offenses against the behavioral norms of their societies are attributed to them. Each has suffered irreversible failure of the body's life-supporting systems and each is as dead as the others.
Jesus balanced the scales of justice for us. Jesus could undo the damage Satan and Adam brought upon us.
If you're referring to the Garden of Eden, it doesn't mention sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer ─ nothing of that kind. The version you speak of is a reinvention, not what the story actually says. For a start, sin isn't heritable, according to Ezekiel 18 (passim, but not least verse 20).
A snap of a finger could show power but Not necessarily justice.
Spilling blood is justice? Spilling apparently innocent blood is justice? I don't get it.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It's not my burden, as I said.
Are you contending that cannibalism does leave an anatomical or physiological trace on the brain?[/QUOTyou made the claim - your burden - as I said
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It's the relentless use of that outlook by the author of Mark and the gospel authors who followed him that give rise to serious doubt whether an historical Jesus existed at all. If you can write a story by moving your character through parts of the Tanakh it pleases you to think of as messianic prophecy, scene by scene, ticking off each 'fulfillment' as you go, you don't need a real human at all.
A suicide mission is preparing to take a serious risk of death in order to achieve a tactical goal for your cause. But Jesus' mission was simply to be killed.

And therefore the questions are, If God is omnipotent, why was bloodshed necessary at all? And, how was reality different after Jesus death?
Mark's Jesus ─ the one original biography of Jesus ─ was an ordinary Jew who had to have his sins washed off him by JtB; and at that point God adopted him as [his] son as [he]'d done with David (Psalm 2:7). So Jesus began as a sinner.
When our kids were in primary school, a boy who lived down the street used to come and play with them at our place. My wife and I compared notes after a while, and we each had the thought he was going to be gay. And so it happened. He and our family were in contact for many years ─ I recall drinks at our place when he graduated. He was, and I trust is, a decent, capable, intelligent and witty human.

That's one example of what I mean by inclusion.

I take it you regard Bishop Gene Robinson as an unregenerate sinner, a soul willfully self-doomed to the outer darkness for eternity, a shocking, indeed disgusting, example to his fellow humans?
Yes, I agree that's a real part of the problem, and one very easy to fix if they found the will. Somewhere between the ongoing fall in vocations and the dying off of the present generation of ancient cardinals they'll have to face up to it.

Meanwhile, as the Irish clergyman observed, the church is a natural home for some gay men and women. Seriously, from your point of view, how could that be if God hadn't intended it?
so your mind is already made up :) however wrong you are. :)
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Valjean said:
It's not my burden, as I said.
Are you contending that cannibalism does leave an anatomical or physiological trace on the brain?[/QUOTyou made the claim - your burden - as I said
????

I made no such claim. Did you read my post?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
so your mind is already made up :) however wrong you are. :)
Indeed I have a view, which I derived by looking at the data.

And I'm open to reasoned argument based on evidence. The evidence in this case is the text of the NT, examined as any other ancient document would be examined.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Indeed I have a view, which I derived by looking at the data.

And I'm open to reasoned argument based on evidence. The evidence in this case is the text of the NT, examined as any other ancient document would be examined.
logic and reason

What are the odds that any man living from the day of these prophecies down to the present time? To get this answer, we divide our 10 to the 28th power by the total number of people who have lived since the time of these prophecies. At the time this book was published we come up wit 88 billion people or 8.8 X 10 to the tenth power. To simplify it let’s round it off to 10 to the 11th power. The odds of any one man who lived from the the the prophecies were made until the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10 to the seventeenth power.


The Odds of Eight Messianic Prophecies Coming True - Berean Publishers
 
Top