To Arsenious: Serious question: So God humbling himself to become like us in every way, is not God, first, reconciling Himself to our humanity?
I do not deny that he draws us. I am only saying that his act of reconciliation began when God approached us in our circumstance, when He, first, reconciled himself to our finiteness, to our humanity, to our weaknesses and sufferings. And why is that important? For the profoundly simple reason that reconciliation works best when it happens within family, amongst brothers, between father and son.
While "Father," in a familia sort of way, is not a pronounced Old Testament teaching, it certainly is in-and-throughout the New Covenant dispensation.
Man's sinful nature was obvious, before the "fall," btw. He challenged the truthfulness of God before the fall. He lusted for the fruit, before the fall. The thought of being like God was appealing, before the fall. His capability for sin was ever present, before the fall. His willingness to serve or respect Satan was present, before the fall. And Romans 5:12, as I read that passage, tells us that the Adamic sin's consequence has force in our lives, "because we have all sinned."
Because of our own complicity, there is nothing "original" in Adam's sin, except, of course, that his was the first violation of stated law. Babies, for example, are not born in sin and in need of salvation from sin. If you agree that sin, in our personal lives, is a deliberate departure from God's revealed will (which was the reality in the Adamic sin circumstance), then you might agree.
In fact, sin and the sheer weakness of our insoluble, human condition, is that very thing that invited God into our suffering.
Today, Resurrection Sunday, is when we remember that God, the Father, had not forsaken his Son. And when Jesus of Nazareth uttered those words, "Why hast thou forsaken me," he was only declaring the whole truth of the 22nd Psalm. TFTn5280 has something to say about this, but I could not find it, last week, when I went looking. It was a great point and included what I am saying, now . . . . . . . . that those Jews who heard him say, "Why hast thou forsaken me," knew, full well, the reality of Psalm 22, that it is not a declaration of defeat, or a question as to God's desertion of the sinner, but the beginning of the proclamation that is found in Ps 22:24, "For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the Afflicted One; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help."
Again, this is not my idea, but 5280 is currently in hidding, so you will have to suffer with my wording.
The fact remains, that God's reconciliation began with the humility of Christ as described in Philip 2, extended to his human suffering on the cross and, finally, in the vindication of Christ in the Resurrection. In Christ, it is "God to man" and "Man to God."
"It is not within man to direct his own steps."
ReplyDeleteSo, God is the cause of all the killing in religious wars through the ages.
Manifest Destiny. God's plan. Millions killed. Perpetual unrest.
Yes, I think this plan could be improved upon.
Of course not, but let me ask you this question: Which atheistic culture and leader(s) has influence the world for good, ministered to the poor an raised people from poverty? Answer that question, Slick.
DeleteHappiest, safest, and most prosperous countries with the best healthcare are also the least religious. Poorest countries tend to be more religious, less educated.
DeleteFACT
Anonymous submitted a comment that challenged the Resurrection beginning with its opening line: "
ReplyDeleteResurrection as depicted in the bible, did not follow Roman law and procedures, was not fatal and probably was faked . . . ." I could not find a single point made, by this admitted atheist, that had any foundational confirmation, except for the claim of "resurrection," itself. Because of the disturbing lack of reason and historical fact, in the article, I have decided to not publish. This is a blog that deals and supports reality. Such is one of the reasons I work against the Utopian beliefs of the current crop of Alinsky - ites.
Coward. Let the readers judge for themselves. He runs from the inconvenient truth.
ReplyDeleteWhen you are off your meds and write irrationally, I am actually doing you a favor by not publishing babble based in drivel birthed from a post-modern dream that you are your best authority.
DeleteBut you find it damaging enough to your belief structure that you are threatened enough by the facts I have stated that you won't even let your readers decide. That is insecurity and cowardice. Prove you are secure in your position, and refute the facts I have stated.
DeleteTo argue that Christ did not die and that the crucifixion took place in a garden, are so absurd as to deny intelligent debate. So, no, I will not insult the intelligence of my readers, believers and unbelievers alike. Usually, you do better, but, when it comes to your denial of the crucifixion/resurrection, you really are out of your league.
DeleteIt should be interesting to note that the story of the resurrection did not exist in the earliest manuscripts. It is historically illogical because the Sanhedrin had the right to pass death sentences. They did not need Pontius Pilate. Further, if they had wanted Jesus to be killed, he would have been stoned to death, not crucified. Crucifixion was exclusively used by Rome to execute the enemies of Rome. It was never a Jewish form of capital punishment. If he really was crucified, he did something to provoke Roman wrath, not Jewish wrath.
DeleteThe three Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being arrested and condemned by the Sanhedrin on the night of the passover. This could not be real history because the Sanhedrin, by Judaic law, were forbidden to meet over Passover. The Gospels state that the arrest and trial occurred at night, but the Sanhedrin “were forbidden to meet at night, in private houses, or anywhere outside of the precincts of the temple”.
Another historical impossibility in the crucifixion story is the removal of the body of Jesus from the cross. According to Roman law at the time, a crucified man/woman was denied burial. The person was left to the elements, birds, and animals, which completed the humiliation of this form of execution.
There is no verification of a significant crucifixion in the writings of historians such as Philo, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Epictectus, Cluvius Rufus, Quintus, Curtis Rufus, Josephus, nor the Roman Consul, Publius Petronius. The crucifixion also was unknown to early Christians until as late as the Second Century.
The story is historically inaccurate, a fraud.
One more time and for the last time on this rant of yours: You historical "witesses" were all non-believers and did not write about the early history of the Christian church, save for a few mentions in Josephus. OF COURSE they did not write about the Resurrection. They also did not mention the existence of native American Indians, who were very much alive at the time,
DeleteBTW, we have fragment of Mark that is dated 50 AD, the earliest of the gk papyri.
You write this bit of nonsense, "The crucifixion also was unknown to early Christians until as late as the Second Century," as if Paul did not give witness to the Resurrection in his I Corinthian letter and the "Cross" was the central message of the First Church. No one of any scholastic stature at all, denies this, whether they believe in the Resurrection or not.
Actual witnesses to the resurrection of Christ include the following:
1. To Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:11-18)
2. To the other women (Matt. 28:8-10)
3. To Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5)
4. To the two men on the road to Emmaus (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13-35)
5. To eleven of the disciples (except Thomas—Luke 24:33-49; John 20:19-24)
6. To the twelve a week later (John 20:24-29; 1 Cor. 15:5)
7. To seven disciples by the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1-23)
8. To five hundred followers (1 Cor. 15:6)
9. To James (1 Cor. 15:7)
10. To the twelve at the ascension (Acts 1:3-12)
None of these were ever challenged. More than, the twelve men who we call the "12 Apostles" all died for their faith in the risen Lord . . . . . . all of them. Don't forget that on the Day of Pentecost, 3,000 men (plus their wives and families) were converted. One of the converts was a man identified as the Ethiopian Eunuch . . . that puts the gospel in Africa. Paul preached the gospel in Rome, the gateway into Europe.
The Bible, itself, is the most textually verified manuscript in human history, with nothing coming close to the thousands and thousands of confirming documents. There are more Christians in China than registered Communists, in that country. Ask them. They will tell why they believe and it will include the Cross and Resurrection . . . . . . . . the same witness of all Christian for 2000 years.
As to the Sanhedrin: a trial that condemned a man, according to Jewish law, which you quote, (oorly informed, I might add) took three days from trial to time of the earliest possible execution date. That members of the Sanhedrin were involved, is true, but this was not a trial by the Sanhedrin, proper. Rather, it was a town lynching.
Because you are an atheist and do not recognize the authority of either Jewish or Christian writers, I see no point in my dealing with your misinformed use of same.