Re: In regards to waltzing with dogmatic ambiguity - Part 2 (of 3)
iano writes:
A sign of an honest debater would be one who admitted the non existence of such a verse, if that were the case.
Not having a photographic memory the best I can do is say that I don't recall Jesus ever referring to himself as a sacrifice.
I can't for the life of me understand what positional advantage you think such an admission could give you.
-
Before he was murdered, Brother Joshua poured out his wisdom to teach every man and woman how sins are removed (Matisyahu 6:14; Luke 5:19, 7:47, etc.); however, Joshua never discussed any penal substitution method whatsoever.
Ditto above. The stripped down deck you're dealing from demands you conclude works. If God isn't doing the removal then the only other show in town is you.
-
... it's simply not in man's range of abilities to live like Jesus said he should live.
How great is your faith!!
Of biblical proportions it would seem. Jesus way of living didn't include sinning - indeed, he is quoted as saying to folk that they should go away and sin no more.
Do you suppose anyone ever followed that instruction? Do you suppose they ever will?
Question for you (and an outline summary in plain speak would be appreciated): under what circumstance would you see yourself as arriving in Hell instead of Heaven?
-
You are suggesting that 'the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God' which 'are but foolishness to' them when they hear or read the words attributed to Joshua the Anointed One - who's words were understood clearly and concisely as need be for him to ascertain a large enough following to threaten the authoritative power of the ruling sects of Yuhdea into a sense of justification condoning the Prophet's murder; but that the 'things' which 'are but foolishness to' the 'the natural (unsaved) mans mind' are more clearly understood when they hear or read the writings attributed to uncle Paul - which the apostle Peter testified contained certain 'things in these letters {that} are hard to understand'? Is that what you are saying??
Yes.
This just keeps getting more and more interesting. Who is your 'savior' again?
Er...Christ.
First things first: the natural man can't understand a darn thing - not of Christ and not of Paul. The saved mind however, will understand Christ a lot better when he first understands the mechanism of salvation. Paul is the one to go to if understanding mechanism is your interest.
-
You'd agree that if we're reading from two hymnsheets then discussion is rather pointless?
Perhaps if we read the One Himsheet, before skipping ahead to the latter commentary, you wouldn't incur this sense of pointlessness ...
But my one hymnsheet includes things your one hymnsheet doesn't - for instance, those commentaries you refer to. What now?
-
Also, when one constantly refuses to address specific points of debate by way of ignorance, nullification and obsfucation, debate may become impotent.
Hang on a sec - aren't you attempting to circumvent issues with your attempts to ringfence the discussion? Take the first couple of points at the top of this post. "Did the Anointed One (the whole Anointed One and nothing but the Anointed One) say.."
...as if something is being established thus?
-
Matthew 12:7 has Jesus direct these comments at the Pharisees in what appears to be a straightforward condemnation of legalism (ie: works).
Please stop with the high caliber long jumps.
This passage is a clear condemnation of sacrificial blood rites by way of animal sacrifice.
Er...the passage itself actually condemns Religious legalism if you were to take the time to quote it - and not a pletora of verses scattered hither and thither to make the case you make.
Besides...
These resentful priests claimed Joshua's murder would serve as a ritual atonement killing - a human animal sacrifice, which would facilitate three goals ...
* salvage the Yerusalem Temple from the Roman Empire
* salvage the Yuhdean's nation from the Roman Empire
* gather together into one the children of God who are scattered in all the world
This is an evident false prophecy, for if it were not, the Yuhdean's nation - and the Yerusalem Temple would not have been destroyed; yet, they were.
...the NT "commentaries" are replete with a parallel imagery comparing physical nation Israel/spiritual nation Israel and physical chosen people/spiritual chosen people and physical Jew and spiritual Jew. Their assertion is that Christs sacrifice was aimed at a spiritual end and not a physical one.
No wonder the legalist/works religionists prophecy wasn't fulfilled in the physical. It was never intended that it would.
I can't countenance your not being aware of this spiritual-level parallel and so wonder why it is you halt where you halt. You know the theology and merely strip it from your deck
And move from grace to works. Why?
-
The reference both here and in Hosea would have me suppose that God isn't truly interested in man's sacrifices at the expense of humane treatment of others.
So, let me get this straight ...
Your God would rather maintain a sacrificial system of penal substitution, than see mankind being trea nicely by the pharisaical priests?
You honestly believe that?? In other words, God desires priestly sacrifice more than humanity??
Please tell me you mistyped here.
The Matthew passage condemns legalism. Legalism applies the letter of the law without reference to it's heart/purpose. You've seriously mis-read.
-
Which is an altogether different thing to God being uninterested in his own sacrifice, ie: the lamb of God. Which reminds me: what kind of parallel do you yourself suppose for this expression, "the lamb of God"? Are you suggesting there is no sacrificial element involved despite it being so apparently obvious?
Iano - please, stop diverting. I have told you plainly what I believe and why.
Btw, Joshua never referred to himself as a lamb anyway.
Please, feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Fair enough - John the Baptist was presumably mistaken when he announced Jesus as he did.
I'd take the time to resinstate the point about God's interest in his own provision by way of sacrifice not being the same as any interest he may/may not have in one's supplied by man - in the (contested) case that he provides a sacrifice.
The two would clearly be different things about which God could have a wildly differing view.
-
... the magic involving how you might square the notion of universal unconditional love with the requirement that you do something in order to ensure you continue receiving it.
How would anyone do anything to receive unconditional love? It is, by definition, unconditional!
You might:
a) have to follow certain commandments and when you failed to do so..
b) ensure you repented of your failure and subsequent sin.
It would appear that failure to follow these steps would result in the withdrawal of a P.A.O. Could you explain how God's love can be unconditional (you say) whilst at the same time (you appear to argue) demanding that you fulfil conditions for it's continued flowing in your direction?
-
In the end of the matter, you did not deny p-sub at all.
That much has been established ..
phew!
-
You, rather, negated and nullified how Joshua and others state that sins were forgiven instead (forgiveness, bold faith, abundant love, repentance, etc.).
As ever, it's a question of whether or not you can juggle the balls of the Bible. Stripping away that which is inconvenient to you (with John the Baptist apparently being the latest casualty) is one way to juggle a reduced set.
-
Neither do I see how something relying on Jesus death and resurrection in anyway diminishes the purity of the grace directed us-wards
Perhaps you could tease out for me why you think purity would be diminished - I'm getting curious about the depth of your arguments.
Stating false prophecies to gullible practitioners to condone the murder, in an attempt to maintain a temple, a nation and an economy, diminish the purity.
Joshua, as innocent as they come, being mutilated on a torture stake further negate any purity factor as far as I'm concerned.
?
Grace refers to something that comes from God. The purity of that grace isn't affected by the false/misunderstood prophecy of men, nor by the murder by men for own nefarious reasons.
Perhaps you could argue why Gods provision of sacrifice and punishment of same (were that the case) in any way affects the grace we receive in purity terms?
-
I have not been ambiguous throughout our debate.
Perhaps not . But you have avoided certain questions I wouldn't have minded seeing a response to.
Re: In regards to waltzing with dogmatic ambiguity - Part 3 (of 3)
iano writes:
First the conviction, then the changing of mind ...
Abraham was convinced that his former pagan religion in Ur was erroneous. He repented and believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.
Is this so? Not being an OT scholar I was under the impression that Abraham believed God on the issue of God promise of an heir and that that belief what credited as righteousness.
I mean, anyone who believes that murder is wrong believes God. That doesn't mean that they are credited with righteousness.
-
Study the greek word metanoia. To repent is to make a paradigm shift in one's world view and turn to God and trust God.
Yes, yes. But the contention is that the paradigm shift doesn't happen in a vacuum. The contention is that repentance is the result of something prior happening, which results in the turn around occurring. In your example above: what would cause Abraham to conclude his former pagan religion erroneous if not some or other revelation from God to indicate it erroneous. Does not...
... commoner garden logic and experience tells you that..
..repentance is a result of a previous action. Not a stand alone action in itself? No credit need accrue to one who repents - they repented because of information they were exposed to which caused a change of heart. It's the person who doesn't repent in the face of sufficient evidence who gets the credit for their suppressing action. For it is only suppression of evidence that would prevent repentance occurring.
Suppression of evidence is equivilent to refusing to love the truth.
-
Abraham didn't first repent btw ...
Yes, he did. Abraham left the former pagan world view of his ancestors that he was born into
Because of an act of God - first. Conviction by action of God then > repentance by man. That is the sequence. Otherwise you've repentance in a vacuum. And nature abhors such non-sense.
-
Nothing like you. Abraham did not rely on p-sub as any sort of 'operative mechanism' through which God could otherwise not apply his own grace.
Exactly like me. Abraham comes to the Father through Christ - just like I do. Whether or not we are agreed on how that occurs (mechanically) isn't relevant to the fact that we both do.
Unless Jesus saying so isn't included in your canon?
-
Hymnsheets - issue stalemated.
Stop being dishonest please. There is no stalemate.
There is stalemate when we don't agree whose arguments are to be considered authorititive. Quite how you expect fruitful discussion when vast swathes of the Bible aren't held authorititive by you is completely beyond me.
-
Perhaps. Although it's looking increasingly unlikely given our respective canonika.
Nonsense. The premise of your canon initiates with the letters of a single Pharisee. The premise of mine initiates with the booklets of the Nevi'im.
Paul was a paradigm shifted Pharisee you'd agree. And what problem his being single? Is there some kind of safety in numbers?
I can't quite understand your conclusion 'nonsense' either when Pauls writings dovetail with Jesus and the OT and render salvation by grace in the face of a world awash with works based religions. Is it the very singularity of that mechanism of salvation that causes such ire?
-
We are brothers through a believe that Joshua is the Anointed One. In both cases, our 'canonika' is the common bible.
Except that a heavy reliance in placed on your ability to safely arrive at the conclusion that this section is more authorititive than that section of the Bible. Sure enough, I'd do the same with what the RC church includes in it's (works)canon - but you're talking vast swathes of the NT being set aside in your case.
I'm not sure quite what sort of brothers that makes us - nor quite sure what we hold Jesus to be anointed for.
-
Remember Paul was a ToRaH observant Jew who accepted Joshua as the Anointed One. Learn what the Pharisees that murdered Joshua, as well as the Sadducees, taught that the ToRaH was.Consider, then, what Joshua taught in regards to an interpretation of ToRaH. If Paul accepted Joshua as the Anointed One, and understood Joshua's interpretation accurately, than Paul the Jewish Pharisee won't contradict his leader.
Fair enough..
-
Try to understand Paul's letters from the view of a ToRaH observant Jew within the Pharisaic traditions who had made a realization that his former interpretation of ToRaH was erroneous. There is no reason to accept someones view of Paul as a lawless pagan. Think about it iano.
Could you spell this out for me? I'm in agreement that Pauls former (legalistic salvation) interpretation was erroneous. I'm not of the opinion that his rejection of that erroneous view should lead anyone to conclude him lawless. I've not heard that view - neither would I accept it if I heard it.
Paul is extremely concerned with the law. But it's his view of the function of the law which changes so dramatically. Rather than being something lost men adhere to in order to be saved (the law of sin and death), it's something meant to lead lost men to Christ. And when they are saved, to be changed in heart to observe the law (the law of the Spirit of life) from heart. That said, the law will condemn a lost man in the case he appears before God at Judgement in that lost state.
It's the same law in the sense of what you should and shouldn't do. It's a different law completely in terms of why you should consider obeying it.
There is no contradiction with his leader here that I can see.
-
Translation = Ineffective farm animal sacrifices are replaced human animal sacrifices..
The claim that men's hearts are changed, by any animal sacrifices, carries little weight.
Animal sacrifice? Er..Jesus was God. Translation: ineffective (albeit it shadowing the effective in type) animal sacrifices are replaced by effective God sacrifice.
-
Did the ritual atonemet killing of Joshua, prophesied by Yosef Bar Kayafa, change any of those Yuhdean nationalist's hearts?
Please, draw your answer, regarding these Yuhdeans attitudes at the time of the murder, from the common bible.
Your ringfencing again for reasons I cannot comprehend. Christ as mechanism operates before, during and after his death and resurrection. Abraham saved in him, Paul saved in him, me saved in him.
-
After all, I do not even contend that Joshua need have ever been murdered in order for my reception towards such abundant grace to be accomplished.
Of course you wouldn't. A works-based salvation relies upon YOU doing - not Him doing.
-
However, there is a sense that you are indeed promoting predestination. Due to ambiguity, I am not sure if this is what you actually beleive though.
Do you disagree that you have suggested that you are under no obligation to obey any laws concerning ethics or morality, in order to acquire a POA?
I've mentioned elsewhere where it is I think predestination applies: certain things are predestined to occur to those who are saved. I don't consider predestination to mean that this one is sure to be saved (not matter what) and that one is predestined to be lost (no matter what). The latter view is an abomination in my view.
I am not obligated to obey any law of sin and death simply because such law has no juristiction over me in the place where I currently reside (in Christ). Each and every one of my transgressions lands at the foot of [i]his/i cross.
I am captive to the law of Spirit of life that is in Christ Jesus however so I'm not free to sin as I like. I have the Holy Spirit within who balks at such a notion and wars against my sinning. Beside, it's not as God doesn't discipline those whom he loves - unto death as Paul points out. God will not be mocked - whether you're a child of his or not: a man reaps as he sows.
If your suggesting that the fact of my sure salvation means I'd thumb my nose up at Gods requirements of me then you'd be sorely and somewhat ludicrously mistaken. Remember that I'm fully aware of the existance of an Almighty (and I mean Almighty) God. Can you imagine how BIG he is? Working out my salvation with fear and trembling ...indeed.
-
Whether fifty goats, twenty five lambs or One human, the law of sin and death is, almost by definition, murdering animals to attain God's favor.
It's becoming evident that you don't consider Jesus to be God. I know, I know... "where did the Anointed One say that he was God"
-
If there's a spanner thrown into the works at some point in my travels I'm sure I'll notice something grinding to a halt - such is the nature of mechanisms.
Again, you lost me ...
The mechanism of salvation .. indeed God's general purpose and plan can be examined .. mechanistically. When examined so, a point is reached where certain foundational elements are in place and you form an understanding as to it's movement and working. So when James says something like "faith without works is dead" it's looks at first flush as if a spanner has been thrown into the well-functioning by-grace-alone mechanism. Until you realise that the faith established by grace alone is intended to be made manifest, is intended to be worked out (with proper awestruck fear), is intended to be stood like a lamp on the top of a hill. Indeed, it's the very exhortation typically contained in the second half of the Pauline epistles. To paraphrase:
"..in the light of what God has done for you and the status you now occupy as a result, it is fitting that you should do this.."
So if I get around to something in Mark that appears to throw a spanner in any central work I'll question whether it truly belongs in the word of God. Until that time, the weight of the mechanism rolls smoothly enough on.
-
I offered truthlover a commendation based purely on his willingness to promote a religious tradition that recognizes a certain value to humanitarian values.
Fair enough. It's just that previous dealings with Truthlover have revealed works-at-the-core of salvation.
-
As can likely be seen, one may quicker identify my tradition as a 'repentance based salvation'.
Might I suppose that sterling effort is required in order to ensure that you've not a whole lot of repenting to do. Surely it's not sufficient to live as you please wrt the law, then spend a brief moment repenting?
The greatest lies (with respect) are those that align themselves closely with the truth. Works based is works based - no matter how you dice it.
-
On the basis of different hymnsheets I'll ignore subsequent discussion based around that difference for timesake
Translation = I'm a dishonest debater with little to no respect for the truth, whatsoever, when it interfers with my theology; I nullify the prophets meanderings, so please - by all means, shit in your hat.
How does an "Anointed One only" and one who appears to believe that Jesus isn't God ..say such a thing with a straight face?
-
Er... I didn't say we're all saved. I said you don't have to do anything/avoid doing anything in order to be saved.
You refer to this as something other than 'lawlessness' though, right?
I refer to it as salvation by Gods grace alone. You do nothing to contribute.
-
I wish some type of formal outline was visible in your posts, as it would probably help your case, in whole - and in regards to specifics, to say the least.
There is a post dealing with your specific question. Perhaps there is the place to interrogate and request specifics and not this generalist posting?
Nice rehearsal. How about using your own words iano - or would that be too much to ask?
God uses his children in the process and mechanism of salvation. This isn't unusual in that he has a long history of dealing with sinful man through other men - including through the God/man Christ. The power of salvation remains his - we become the medium.
That's one reason to spread the gospel. To expand the medium whereby salvation and a knowledge of Jesus comes. As to your own model whereby: forgiveness and other such deeds? It's the result of a stripped down canon and we've said enough on that subject
-
So by your own admission, you offering up a human sacrifice implemented by the high priest of Yuhdea, Yosef Bar Kayafa, is a 'work'.
Er.. Jesus is God and I didn't offer him up. God did.
-
You condone the ruthless murder as righteous and offer it to God, as a means of reconciliation, in an attempt to procur a PAO.
There were certain kids who, when called in for their tea, take the ball home with them. Such a practice isn't fitting in adults and so I remain in possession of a Bible indicating Jesus to be the lamb of God. On this is my argument based - not on your stripped down canon.
And concerning Gods lamb. God was the one doing the killing then. That the implement of death used was mens owen evil is a side issue to God being the one who planned and executed. God pulled the trigger - those who murdered him were merely the gun.
-
That is predestination, and so, along the lines of Antinomianism, no??
Hopefully you'll be clear that predestination isn't on my agenda here. Nor antinomianism for the reasons stated earlier.
-
And not doing by way of a "refusal to love" is something that results in your damnation - so can't be considered relevant to your getting a positive afterlife outcome either.
Again, just know that you are the only one fooled by your rhetoric.
You don't appear to have offered any rebuttal of what I say. I've tidied up the definition of what a work-for-salvation is so as to make clearer how the grace mechanism works. Is an (impoverished) attempt to equate Jesus death to a human sacrifice all you could come up with in response?
-
For the record, I am not the one who has continually ignored the request, or rather - challenge, to provide any portion of scripture, apocrypha or otherwise, wherein Joshua the Anointed One refers to himself as a sacrifice. That has been your interesting challenge repeatedly kicked to the curb.
Jobs done.
As I say, I can't think of what possible benefit such a thing would prove to be to your position. I await that revelation with interest.
Hi iano and thanks for the exchange ... I hope thinks have been well for you.
Our previous exchange, while drifting far from the topic at times, has proved enlighteneing to me in various respects, and so, thanks for that ...
However, I've made the decision to forgo any further response, for the time being, to the majority of our previous debate. Your consistent inability, hesitancy and - overall, unwillingness to answer simple question(s) such as, 'How many chapters are currently within the booklet of Mark that you employ?' in Message 64 and Message 73, appear to go a long way towards showing what length you will entertain towards supporting your contentions.
I will say, there is the sense that my abundance of sarcasm/lack of patience (ie. a dishonest debater will nullify the truth when it interfers with their theology, suggesting that - by all means, their opponent should shit in their hat, etc.) and brutish unambiguity speak of my opinion (ie. the high priest Yosef Bar Kayafa as a false prophet, etc.), to the same degree that your personal rational (ie. a ritual atonement killing involving blood magic is akin to a helicopter engine, etc.) and ever increasing ambiguity speak towards your own opinion (ie. the high priest Yosef Bar Kayafa as a genuine prophet, etc.).
That said, I would like to highlight the focus of our further discussion where I believe our traditions seem to differ beyond reconciliation.
These variant traditions will rest upon the premise that 'works' do not secure a PAO, unless you will then disagree and suggest that repentance is a 'work'.
I have made the assertion that a ritual atonement killing of a human or of the divine - directly involving blood magic was, is and will always be completely unnecessary to accomplish a 'positive afterlife outcome' (PAO) or procure salvation or enter the Kingdom of Heaven; however one would word this.
On one hand, I contend that a repentant heart and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms', if I may borrow one of your terms, that are necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
On the other hand, you have asserted that a ritual atonement killing involving blood magic and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms' necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
If you'd be so kind, I was hoping you might move forward, establishing your contention(s) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments ...
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
That said, I would like to highlight the focus of our further discussion where I believe our traditions seem to differ beyond reconciliation.
That's fine by me.
-
These variant traditions will rest upon the premise that 'works' do not secure a PAO, unless you will then disagree and suggest that repentance is a 'work'.
My position is that your 'works' do not secure a PAO. Repentance, as you appear to consider it, would be considered a 'work' also - such a thing stemming from the will of a man and not from the prior work of God. All 'works' find their source in the heart of man and so the glory for a mans salvation can be (part) attributed to man - contrary to the movement of the NT indicating all the glory due to God. The contrasting positions are highlighted thus;
Man's part + God's part = salvation
quote:On one hand, I contend that a repentant heart and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms'..
- Bailey
VERSUS
God's part only leads to salvation
quote:Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
- Romans 2:4
-
On one hand, I contend that a repentant heart and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms', if I may borrow one of your terms, that are necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
On the other hand, you have asserted that a ritual atonement killing involving blood magic and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms' necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
If you'd be so kind, I was hoping you might move forward, establishing your contention(s) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments ...
I'm of the opinion that forward movement won't be possible. You've got a way of accomodating the likes of..
quote:1 Cor 6; Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeastas you really are.For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
..which differs wholesale from mine. Would not the simplest thing be to state that your position is arrived at by excluding as Gods word, those portions of scripture which state Christ a sacrifice? And mine position arrived at by doing the opposite?
Thanks for the exchange iano ... I hopr things are good with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Our previous exchange, while drifting far from the topic at times, has proved enlightening to me in various respects, and so, thanks for that ...
However, I've made the decision to forgo any further response, for the time being, to the majority of our previous debate. Your consistent inability, hesitancy and - overall, unwillingness to answer simple question(s) such as, 'How many chapters are currently within the booklet of Mark that you employ?' in Message 64 and Message 73, appear to go a long way towards showing what length you will entertain towards supporting your contentions .....
That said, I would like to highlight the focus of our further discussion where I believe our traditions seem to differ beyond reconciliation.
These variant traditions will rest upon the premise that 'works' do not secure a PAO, unless you will then disagree and suggest that repentance is a 'work'.
My position is that your 'works' do not secure a PAO.
So then, as long as you make a valid attempt to keep from misrepresenting my position as you seem to have done below, the above premise should hold.
I am considering that you have performed this misrepresentation of my veiw in regards to repentance for one of two reasons.
The first one being that, such a mischaracterization was a seemingly feeble attempt to avoid any debate whatsoever of the levitical doctrine of sacrifice initiated within the alleged corruption of the ToRaH of Moses, which doctrine was further propagated by the final biblical initiator of Joshua's venemous murder, the high priest and supposed prophet Yosef Bar Kayafa - who apparently disagreed with the prophet Yirmiyahu that the ToRaH was indeed corrupted after being forged by levite scribes of the first Yerusalem Temple, and so, accordingly contended that the Almighty Father, according to the ToRaH of Moses, required sacrifice - or rather legalistic 'works', as opposed to the Father's requirement of faith and mercy, in order for the Yuhdeans, along with their nation state and second Yerusalem temple, as well as all of the children of God deriving from the goyim, to secure the procurement of salvation.
Or secondly, providing I'm reading too far into your tendencies, you have performed this specific mischaracterization inadvertently.
At this point, in order to better clarify my position in regards to repentance, I'll expound a bit ...
Repentance, as you appear to consider it, would be considered a 'work' also - such a thing stemming from the will of a man and not from the prior work of God.
Repentance, as I understand it, is an ongoing project - a joint venture if you will, that the Father continuously works on TOGETHER with his children.
First, consider the author below, one speaking as a representative of ancient Yisrael, who the Father has been working with for many years ...
Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the energy - even power, of the Father who raised him from the dead.
So then, as I understand it ...
Repentance is initiated by the Father's insistence and kindness, but not without the children's assistance and recognition of the Father's kindness and trustworthiness. Whether you, then, consider something that one does, with their Father and brother - and family as a whole, as overseers, a 'work' is then - finally, your perogative. As for my tradition, it is the absorption of a personal ego and pursuit, into the ego and pursuit of One (John 13:30, 17:20-21).
Within the tradition I have been adopted into, repentance is an endeavor that the Father has been pursuing from the ancient of days. It is a thing that won't be forced upon any person, as choice and love, by their own definition and nature, are not inclined to employ the force of guilt's aggression.
As uncle Paul states, providing a certain contrast towards your suggestion that 'a guilty conviction by the Holy Spirit' is responsible for leading one to repentance, and so, salvation - it would quicker seem that, the Father's kindness, forbearance, and patience leads one to begin forming a genuine repentant heart, together, with the Father - and God's faith in our trust towards His unadulterated and unlimitedpower then provide for salvation ... (Romans 2:4, 2nd Corinthians 6:1, Phillipians 2:13, etc.)
Hopefully this will clear up the matter and allow us to progress.
All 'works' find their source in the heart of man and so the glory for a mans salvation can be (part) attributed to man - contrary to the movement of the NT indicating all the glory due to God.
Since you are intent on steering this conversation back towards 'works' at every bend we encounter, and have employed the fourth verse of the second chapter of Romans to accomplish that task this time around, it seems befitting and proper to nestle it within it's surrounding context for a moment ...
Please pay special attention to the passages that proceed from the verse you pulled from it's natural habitation.
Therefore, you are without excuse, O' man - everyone of you who judges.
For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things.
2 ~ Now we know that the Father's righteous discernment is based on truth against those who practice such things.
3 ~ And do you think this, O' man - the one who judges,
When you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the Father's righteous discernment?
4 ~ Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, being unaware that the Father's kindness leads you to repentance?
5 ~ But because of your hardness and your unrepentant heart,
You are storing up wrath for yourselves towards the day of wrath and unveiling of the righteous discernment of the Father,
6 ~ WHO WILL RENDER EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS:
7 ~ Eternal life to those who by perseverance in good worksseek glory and honor and immortality,
8 ~ but wrath and anger to those who from selfish ambitiondo not keep the truth, but rather are persuaded to obey unrighteousness.
9 ~ Suffering and distress on every soul of the one who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Goyim,
10 ~ But even glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and also the Goyim.
Considering the above discourse, especially in conjunction with the better part of the sixth chapter of second Corinthians ...
It seems quite dangerous to set out convincing others that 'works' are 'useless' and/or an 'insult to God's grace' iano. This portion of uncle Paul's theology should, hopefully, go a long way towards showing you just how integral he contended, instructed and felt 'works' were to one's complete salvation.
According to his theology, it is those who 'practice mercy' and who 'love their neighbour' that are justified in our Father's sight, as opposed to some others who - like Paul before his conversion and repentance, hear the ToRaH and practice breaking it by, for example, being proponents and propagaters of ruthless, unjustified venomous murders like Paul once was. How and why, would you argue against the fact that uncle Paul indeed acknowledges that it is those who follow the true, unforged and unmolested ToRaH of our Father while putting it into living practice who are justified? It is my hope you won't ...
While deeds are certainly not the power that accomplish salvation, they are most certainly the substance by which one will be discerned accordingly.
For not the hearers of the law are righteous before the Father but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.
Uncle Paul then compares dogmatic religious men - in this case those of Yuhdean traditions who, like him, were circumcised and had a written ToRaH code, with someone who had no common bible or written ToRaH code and yet kept the requirements of our Father by showing mercy and loving ones neighbor, etc.. If a dogmatic religious practitioner is a law breaker, as Paul once was, then, he concludes, a religious man is ‘unsaved' while an ‘unreligious man' - uncircumcised and not in possession of the written ToRaH code or common bible, who yet keeps the requirements of our Father, will then be justly discerned ‘religious' by the Father and considered saved; for it truly ismercy God requires and not the legalistic religious sacrifices laid out in the written ToRaH code.
This theology of uncle Paul's contrasts sharply with the traditional Levitical Christian interpretation of Romans, which teaches that the ‘nonreligious' with ‘no common Bible' are automatically damned to 'hell', or that showing mercy cannot save anyone; for it is often alleged that Paul condemned the behavior of the non-religious as inadequate in God's sight. That Paul never taught this doctrine, among others attributed to him by forced theological interpretations, can be evidenced, quite obviously, upon even a cursory glance of his letters of encouragement, and by anyone who is willing to consider these passages.
Those who do right, Paul states, are ‘a law unto themselves' and are counted as ‘saved' since ‘it is mercy that God requires, and not religious sacrifices'.
For circumcision has its value if you practice the ToRaH, but if you should be a transgressor of the ToRaH, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 ~ Therefore, if the uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the ToRaH, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
Reflecting on his own experience in regards to Joshua's torturous crucifixion, as it related to his admonition of murdering early followers of Joshua's tradition, uncle Paul reminds his Yuhdean and Goyim listeners who have been convinced Joshua deserved to die that the whole point of the exercise must have been to lead people to repent, for if they will not be convinced that Joshua's bloody and venemous murder was unjust, and so, convinced of their own sins and repent - instead becoming stubborn while they rely on falsehoods, all they accomplish is securing a storehouse of wrath for themselves.
Why then, uncle Paul asks his listeners, do so many presume to judge others - no doubt confident in their religion, when they are in fact law breakers themselves? As this pharisee indicates, they even went so far as to judge those who were not even law breakers, strictly on the grounds that they were ‘uncircumcised' in the flesh; in otherwords, for a violation of an orthodox dogma of the day, rather than for any actual reasons of authentic real justice. Uncle Paul ‘saves' those the religious would certainly have condemned, which has hopefully been illustrated above. Everyone will be discerned by a complete and trustworthy righteous standard by the Father on the basis of what they have done, Paul insists, not based on who they are - or who they think they are.
So then, justification in our Father's sight - according to Paul's theology, is found in genuine repentance, and righteousness in our Father's sight is keeping the requirements of God's authentic ToRaH, and not the corrupted written code. Uncle Paul tempers his call to keep the requirements of our Father by acknowledging the ever so real fact of human weakness and that no one is perfect; even while striving and struggling not to, he finds that he often falls short of the mark. Failure can lead to feelings of guilt and guilt can lead to fear of punishment, and so, these dynamics can lead to a collapse of faith - the very faith Paul makes every attempt to instill within his listeners; for the righteous, he constantly insists, strive and struggle to live by that very faith ...
That peaceful and quiet, complete confidence and trust in God.
The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before the Father.
Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
While uncle Paul makes attempts to keep one from boasting their works - or others, as a means of salvation, he also takes great strides towards keeping one from condemning themselves - or others, as a means of damnation. This latter task is accomplished by personifying sin as a separate and foreign entity at work inside a man, rather than a man personifying evil and being at work in this corrupted world. Speaking of his own failings, uncle Paul notes that ...
For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want — instead, what I hate, this I do.
16 ~ But if I do what I don’t want, my conscience must be in agreement that the law is good.
17 ~ But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me.
18 ~ For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For to wish is present within me, but not to do it.
19 ~ For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want!
20 ~ Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me.
21 ~ So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me.
22 ~ For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
In the end of the matter, being that I enjoy the theology found within the booklets of the radical prophetic traditions which are in accordance with Joshua's theology, as one who was murdered for not promoting the doctrine of sacrifice, as well as Paul's theological view from the other side of the fence, as one who formerly murdered those who wouldn't promote that same doctrine - along with being one who enjoys my coffee sweetened, while not enjoying it black; I'd say that if salvation could ever be likened to a pleasant cup o' mocha java, grace and works would be akin to sugar and cream my friend.
iano writes:
weary writes:
On one hand, I contend that a repentant heart and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms', if I may borrow one of your terms, that are necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
On the other hand, you have asserted that a ritual atonement killing involving blood magic and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms' necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
If you'd be so kind, I was hoping you might move forward, establishing your contention(s) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments ...
I'm of the opinion that forward movement won't be possible. You've got a way of accomodating the likes of..
quote:1 Cor 6; Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeastas you really are.For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
..which differs wholesale from mine.
It seems that where we differ 'wholesale' is that you contend the Father requires sacrifice and His power is limited without blood revenge, and I don't.
That is, all blood sacrifices are legalistic regulations, or 'works'. As far as boasting's concerned regarding the accomplishment of salvation, I may easily agree with uncle Paul that boasting is excluded - not on the basis of 'works', but rather on the principle of faith (Romans 3:27). That is, I contend, one may be considered righteous in our Father's sight, regardless whether those who are dogmatic religious practitioners - or otherwise, consider them the same.
For any further boasting rights, I'd happily forward one towards Yirmiyahu 9:24.
Would not the simplest thing be to state that your position is arrived at by excluding as Gods word, those portions of scripture which state Christ a sacrifice? And mine position arrived at by doing the opposite?
Perhaps things would be much easier if that were indeed the truth. However, that doesn't seem to be the case, but rather just another misrepresentation.
Perhaps it would be more correct to suggest that your tradition is arrived at by parroting the tiring and seemingly senseless dogmas propagated by the wealthy overseers of the mainstream church. And my tradition is arrived at by many hours of bible study and a God given faith, that have produced the knowledge that sacrificial blood rites were implemented into the ToRaH through scribal forgeries, just as Isaiah suggests and Yirmiyahu plainly states, and that Joshua was murdered under the unjustified guise of a 'Leviticus whole offerings sacrifice to pay for sins', as suggested by Yosef Bar Kayafa, Augustine and the likes as ‘the fulfillment of the Levitical whole offerings sacrifice, as God commanded the Yisraelites when they came out of Egypt', because - as the Anointed One, he would not confirm, or even state, that sacrifices or penal substitution were acceptable or necessary to forgive sins in our Father's sight.
If you could possibly concede that the ritual atonement killing of Joshua as a whole offering sacrifice was a legalistic regulation of the ToRaH of Moses ...
Perhaps, then, we could make progress; granted, I understand that, for those with more faith in doctrine than in God, this is not an easy task. Yet...
With God, all things are possible. You are in my prayers iano. In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : pnct.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
I am considering that you have performed this misrepresentation of my view in regards to repentance for one of two reasons.
Let's look..
-
The first one being that, such a mischaracterization was a seemingly feeble attempt to avoid any debate whatsoever of the levitical doctrine of sacrifice initiated within the alleged corruption of the ToRaH of Moses, which doctrine was further propagated by the final biblical initiator of Joshua's venemous murder, the high priest and.....
Discussion on Christ's sacrifice is being avoided for reasons of 'different hymnsheets' - you implying his sacrifice wasn't one ("show me where Christ/the Father said he was a sacrifice" to paraphrase you) by excluding those pieces of scripture which say it was.
It's fairly simple Bailey: when language isn't common, discussion can't take place.
-
Or secondly, providing I'm reading too far into your tendencies, you have performed this specific mischaracterization inadvertently.
At this point, in order to better clarify my position in regards to repentance, I'll expound a bit ...
Sounds good to me.
-
So then, as I understand it ... Repentance is initiated by the Father's insistence and kindness, but not without the children's assistance and recognition of the Father's kindness and trustworthiness. Whether you, then, consider something that one does, with their Father and brother - and family as a whole, as overseers, a 'work' is then - finally, your perogative. As for my tradition, it is the absorption of a personal ego and pursuit, into the ego and pursuit of One (John 13:30, 17:20-21).
1) You've not exactly cleared up the chicken & egg situation that persists as to the source of a mans repentance (unto salvation). My position is that action on Gods part convinces him and that conviction leads to a changing of his mind. Gods action followed by his repentance. The credit goes to God for his salvation. Unless of course a mans suppresses the evidence that would convict him - in which case the credit for his damnation is his alone.
Your description above appears to fudge things. Repentance is initiated by the father, but...
This act of will on the childrens part, that bit which stems from themselves is the "work" I'm referring to. Something for which the (supposed) child can pat themselves on the back for come salvation. "Thank God (and me) that I am saved - my salvation was a joint effort"
2) Your quotations from Paul fail to acknowledge that the (Paulian)salvation transaction has already occurred at this point and that when Paul addresses 'you' at these points in his letters he is addressing those who are saved through faith. Repentance unto salvation is history at this stage - not that your point about co-operation is lost. There is indeed cooperation but God is the instigator it being his Spirit that drives the sanctifying work in his adopted children.
-
Within the tradition I have been adopted into, repentance is an endeavor that the Father has been pursuing from the ancient of days. It is a thing that won't be forced upon any person, as choice and love, by their own definition and nature, are not inclined to employ the force of guilt's aggression.
Agreed*. Repentance unto salvation is decline-able, the tradition into which I've been adopted indicating a mans will limited to expression in the negative direction only, if it is to be expressed at all. His salvation relies on him doing nothing at all - let's call it contributing by doing no work at all.
*almost. Given the alternative, I don't see it as contra-God's love that he utilise guilt as a way of levering us into repentance. And so long as his levering so is resistable and decline-able I don't see how our element of choice is diminished.
Refusal to love the truth is indicated as the means of damnation at 2 Thessalonians 2:10. Refusal being a thing we chose to do.
-
As uncle Paul states, providing a certain contrast towards your suggestion that 'a guilty conviction by the Holy Spirit' is responsible for leading one to repentance, and so, salvation - it would quicker seem that, the Father's kindness, forbearance, and patience leads one to begin forming a genuine repentant heart, together, with the Father - and God's faith in our trust towards His unadulterated and unlimited power then provide for salvation ... (Romans 2:4, 2nd Corinthians 6:1, Phillipians 2:13, etc.)
Hopefully this will clear up the matter and allow us to progress.
Kindness, forbearance and patience aren't sentimental things. I consider it a kindness that God utilised pain to bring me to my knees - pain being his design-in indicator to tell us that something is amiss. And seeing as nothing could be more amiss than our faulty relationship with him pre-salvation it is not unreasonable to expect severe degrees of pain involved in diverting us from our doomed path.
It should be clear by now where it is I view your 'work'. It lies that fuzzy chicken & egg area of "together, with the Father" above, the implication being a sort of hand-in-hand, side-by-side, together-WE-did-it kind of salvation. Not quite man on the throne but not quite God on the throne either.
Nearly by grace..but not quite.
-
Since you are intent on steering this conversation back towards 'works' at every bend we encounter, and have employed the fourth verse of the second chapter of Romans to accomplish that task this time around, it seems befitting and proper to nestle it within it's surrounding context for a moment ...
Please pay special attention to the passages that proceed from the verse you pulled from it's natural habitation.
6 ~ WHO WILL RENDER EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS:
It seems quite dangerous to set out convincing others that 'works' are 'useless' and/or an 'insult to God's grace' iano. This portion of uncle Paul's theology should, hopefully, go a long way towards showing you just how integral he contended, instructed and felt 'works' were to one's complete salvation.
Speaking of natural habitation.
The danger referred to is eliminated when you drop your gaze a couple of verses to see who Paul is addressing himself to in this section of yours:
quote:Romans 2 17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19..
The Jew (and every other Religious legalist) is relying on his law-abiding to ensure right standing with God. And he will be judged according to that works-based system. He will be stood up alongside the Gentile (who Paul has just told us, has the law of God written on his conscience and so can too be measured by his work) and will be found wanting. Found wanting because no one will actually meet the standard of the law by working - Paul concludes at the end of this section.
quote:Romans 3 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
It's from this point (Romans 3:20 on) that Paul set's out how salvation is actually wrought - the good news given to counter the bad news he's just been delivering.
Romans up to 3:20 isn't the good news Bailey.
-
According to his theology, it is those who 'practice mercy' and who 'love their neighbour' that are justified in our Father's sight, as opposed to some others who - like Paul before his conversion and repentance, hear the ToRaH and practice breaking it by, for example, being proponents and propagaters of ruthless, unjustified venomous murders like Paul once was. How and why, would you argue against the fact that uncle Paul indeed acknowledges that it is those who follow the true, unforged and unmolested ToRaH of our Father while putting it into living practice who are justified? It is my hope you won't ...
The above should illuminate why I argue against.
Paul concludes that such attempts to work for your salvation are bound for failure. For the reason that the intention of the law isn't that you be justified by keeping it but rather, that you become conscious of the fact that you're a sinner.
-
This theology of uncle Paul's contrasts sharply with the traditional Levitical Christian interpretation of Romans, which teaches that the ‘nonreligious' with ‘no common Bible' are automatically damned to 'hell',
Do folk actually interpret Romans that way? Gosh!!
It appears obvious to me that Pauls intention in these early chapters is to merely to lump the Gentiles and Jews into one big pot containing lost, law-breaking sinners. A pot from which a singular subsequently described ladle called Salvation by Grace can remove them.
-
Those who do right, Paul states, are ‘a law unto themselves' and are counted as ‘saved' since ‘it is mercy that God requires, and not religious sacrifices'.
This is a curious grafting of notions onto one another given Pauls conclusion at 3:19. The section regarding the gentiles and the law tells us that the gentiles have the law of God available to them - just as the Jews do. And that they keep it here and break it there - their consciences bearing witness to that fact.
How could they be saved by 'doing right' by the law when Paul tells us that no one will be declared righteous by keeping the law?
-
Reflecting on his own experience in regards to Joshua's torturous crucifixion, as it related to his admonition of murdering early followers of Joshua's tradition, uncle Paul reminds his Yuhdean and Goyim listeners who have been convinced Joshua deserved to die that the whole point of the exercise must have been to lead people to repent, for if they will not be convinced that Joshua's bloody and venemous murder was unjust, and so, convinced of their own sins and repent - instead becoming stubborn while they rely on falsehoods, all they accomplish is securing a storehouse of wrath for themselves.
Where is this view supported by Paul?
-
Why then, uncle Paul asks his listeners, do so many presume to judge others - no doubt confident in their religion, when they are in fact law breakers themselves? As this pharisee indicates, they even went so far as to judge those who were not even law breakers, strictly on the grounds that they were ‘uncircumcised' in the flesh; in otherwords, for a violation of an orthodox dogma of the day, rather than for any actual reasons of authentic real justice.
As mentioned earlier: Paul is lumping the Jew with the Gentile.
Consider his purpose: the haughty Jew (haughtiness being the natural by-product of legalistic religion) is convinced the Gentile is a godless dog. If Paul successfully aligns the Jew with the godless dog in the only way it matters: his rightstanding before God, then this renders the Jew equivilent to a godless dog too. In the only way it matters.
Which could be expected to work towards producing an effect in one convinced of Pauls argument.
-
Uncle Paul ‘saves' those the religious would certainly have condemned, which has hopefully been illustrated above. Everyone will be discerned by a complete and trustworthy righteous standard by the Father on the basis of what they have done, Paul insists, not based on who they are - or who they think they are.
Cold comfort that.. is his conclusion at 3:19-20
-
So then, justification in our Father's sight - according to Paul's theology, is found in genuine repentance, and righteousness in our Father's sight is keeping the requirements of God's authentic ToRaH, and not the corrupted written code. Uncle Paul tempers his call to keep the requirements of our Father by acknowledging the ever so real fact of human weakness and that no one is perfect; even while striving and struggling not to, he finds that he often falls short of the mark. Failure can lead to feelings of guilt and guilt can lead to fear of punishment, and so, these dynamics can lead to a collapse of faith - the very faith Paul makes every attempt to instill within his listeners; for the righteous, he constantly insists, strive and struggle to live by that very faith ...
Unfortunately for this position, it's been plucked out of a vacuum. You can't conclude anything such thing from Romans 1,2 or 3 (up to 3:20). All that's been talked of is condemnation and measurement of mens works under Gods law, with all; Jew and Gentile alike, concluded to be found wanting.
So far, so terrifying - if you happen to be relying on your work.
-
Romans 14:22
The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before the Father.
Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
While uncle Paul makes attempts to keep one from boasting their works - or others, as a means of salvation, he also takes great strides towards keeping one from condemning themselves - or others, as a means of damnation. This latter task is accomplished by personifying sin as a separate and foreign entity at work inside a man, rather than a man personifying evil and being at work in this corrupted world. Speaking of his own failings, uncle Paul notes that ...
Er.. you've taken a giant leap past a lot of Romans - especially those bits dealing with the basis by which a person is saved. The "you" he is addressing at Romans 14 isn't just any old you, it's you who've been saved by grace. This is standard Paulian structure: 1st half of the epistle lays out the doctrine, the 2nd half lays out application of doctrine or "how you should live in the light of the doctrine"
-
Similarily,
Romans 7:15
For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want — instead, what I hate, this I do.
16 ~ But if I do what I don’t want, my conscience must be in agreement that the law is good.
...see's us parachuting into the middle of an argument unpacking how the law does what Paul said it's aim was to do back at Romans 3:20.
He said then that the law is intended to make us conscious of sin and Hey Presto! in the section dealing with that very subject, he gives us an illustration of a man undergoing this very same thing. This man is very conscious of sin indeed. Convicted of it one could say..
That man concludes with the acknowledgement that he is wretched in sin and in need of rescuing from his wretchedness. Can we agree that could be called "a changing of the mind"?.
Repentance in other words.
-
In the end of the matter, being that I enjoy the theology found within the booklets of the radical prophetic traditions which are in accordance with Joshua's theology, as one who was murdered for not promoting the doctrine of sacrifice, as well as Paul's theological view from the other side of the fence, as one who formerly murdered those who wouldn't promote that same doctrine - along with being one who enjoys my coffee sweetened, while not enjoying it black; I'd say that if salvation could ever be likened to a pleasant cup o' mocha java, grace and works would be akin to sugar and cream my friend.
Plucking your beans at random points through Romans as you do makes me wonder how you suppose yourself to be drinking coffee at all.
-
It seems that where we differ 'wholesale' is that you contend the Father requires sacrifice and His power is limited without blood revenge, and I don't.
My position on Christ as sacrifice is considered scriptural by me because I consider eg: Paul to be a mouthpiece of God. Once equipped I set about understanding why it is as it is and find no real issues of concern. Christ-as-sacrifice 'fits' the burgeoning mechanism just fine.
Considering this objection of yours below to once have been mine we can look at a possible answer:
quote:That is, all blood sacrifices are legalistic regulations, or 'works'.
Firstly there is a confusion between our works (legalistic regulations to which we must adhere) and Gods work. In Christs case, the work would be Gods work. I (and scripture) have no objection to God working for my salvation. Scripture only objects to me working for my salvation.
As to God's power limited? I think yes, for the same reason his power is limited in his being unable to create an object too heavy for him to lift. Not even God can forgive a transgression without paying the price for the the transgression himself. The nature of forgiveness stems, like so many other things, from the nature of God.
God limited by his nature isn't God's power limited in any sense that matters.
-
As far as boasting's concerned regarding the accomplishment of salvation, I may easily agree with uncle Paul that boasting is excluded - not on the basis of 'works', but rather on the principle of faith (Romans 3:27). That is, I contend, one may be considered righteous in our Father's sight, regardless whether those who are dogmatic religious practitioners - or otherwise, consider them the same.
The place of your work was highlighted above. If saved then both you and God achieved it. Both your efforts/will contributed to that happy outcome.
-
Would not the simplest thing be to state that your position is arrived at by excluding as Gods word, those portions of scripture which state Christ a sacrifice? And mine position arrived at by doing the opposite?
Perhaps things would be much easier if that were indeed the truth. However, that doesn't seem to be the case, but rather just another misrepresentation.
Perhaps it would be more correct to suggest that your tradition is arrived at by parroting the tiring and seemingly senseless dogmas propagated by the wealthy overseers of the mainstream church. And my tradition is arrived at by many hours of bible study and a God given faith, that have produced the knowledge that sacrificial blood rites were implemented into the ToRaH through scribal forgeries, just as Isaiah suggests and Yirmiyahu plainly states, and that Joshua was murdered under the unjustified guise of a 'Leviticus whole offerings sacrifice to pay for sins', as suggested by Yosef Bar Kayafa, Augustine and the likes as ‘the fulfillment of the Levitical whole offerings sacrifice, as God commanded the Yisraelites when they came out of Egypt', because - as the Anointed One, he would not confirm, or even state, that sacrifices or penal substitution were acceptable or necessary to forgive sins in our Father's sight.
Er.. I was referring to Paul as God's words. Or God's mouthpiece if you prefer. Is his writing a scribal forgery? Or is there some other way you deal with his saying as he says? And what of John the Baptist - was he incorrect in his stating what he stated about Jesus?
-
If you could possibly concede that the ritual atonement killing of Joshua as a whole offering sacrifice was a legalistic regulation of the ToRaH of Moses
Perhaps, then, we could make progress; granted, I understand that, for those with more faith in doctrine than in God, this is not an easy task.
My lack of faith only extends to your doctrine - you appearing to miss the fact that your objections are centred around your doctrine which runs counter to mine. There's not a whole lot of point claiming to be inspired in argument by the Holy Spirit - given that both can do that. Which leaves us to argue the doctrine supporting our case.
I'm afraid Christ as atoning sacrifice fits too well to set be set aside on a (not very compelling) say so of yours. I mean no insult, but apart from objecting (wordily) about how reprehensible you find the notion & excluding scripture that inconveniently says it's so - I haven't seen much content to your argument.
Christs sacrifice was a requirement of the justness of God - mirrored in type by the animal sacrifice legally demanded by the Torah of Moses.
Thanks for the exchange iano ... Hope things are well with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
... I would like to highlight the focus of our further discussion where I believe our traditions seem to differ beyond reconciliation.
These variant traditions will rest upon the premise that 'works' do not secure a PAO, unless you will then disagree and suggest that repentance is a 'work'.
My position is that your 'works' do not secure a PAO.
So then, as long as you make a valid attempt to keep from misrepresenting my position as you seem to have done below, the above premise should hold.
I am considering that you have performed this misrepresentation of my veiw in regards to repentance for one of two reasons.
The first one being that, such a mischaracterization was a seemingly feeble attempt to avoid any debate whatsoever of the levitical doctrine of sacrifice initiated within the alleged corruption of the ToRaH of Moses, which doctrine was further propagated by the final biblical initiator of Joshua's venemous murder, the high priest and supposed prophet Yosef Bar Kayafa - who apparently disagreed with the prophet Yirmiyahu that the ToRaH was indeed corrupted after being forged by levite scribes of the first Yerusalem Temple, and so, accordingly contended that the Almighty Father, according to the ToRaH of Moses, required sacrifice - or rather legalistic 'works', as opposed to the Father's requirement of faith and mercy, in order for the Yuhdeans, along with their nation state and second Yerusalem temple, as well as all of the children of God deriving from the goyim, to secure the procurement of salvation.
Or secondly ...
Discussion on Christ's sacrifice is being avoided for reasons of 'different hymnsheets' - you implying his sacrifice wasn't one ("show me where Christ/the Father said he was a sacrifice" to paraphrase you) by excluding those pieces of scripture which say it was.
To put matters straight, refer to Message 56. We both agree that ...
quote: Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice - not in the roman scripture texts, nor even within any apocrypha.
However, the Anointed One consistently referred to his decision to forgo aggressive self-defense and be mutilated on a torture stake as that of a ransom.
What I've suggested is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
For the record - I'm working under the premise that Joshua is the Anointed One. Previous and latter authors in relation to his testimony are not.
I contend that a ransom is different than a sacrifice; you equivocate. For further reference to my position, please refer to Message 72 ...
quote:Please provide a biblical reference where Joshua discusses any penal substitution method whatsoever or honestly and kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
I don't recall denying p-sub other than to mention it not being mentioned in a particular passage ...
You were shown exactly where that inclusive doctrine originated and how it was originated by Joshua's legalistic murderers within the follow up message.
Rest assured, theology does not save anyone and does not interfere with God's power; it only provides a certain comfort in the intermediary period.
Nonetheless, I know you like your idea of 'different hymnsheets' iano. However, we aren't really working from 'different hymnsheets' at all.
We are both drawing our information from three sources ...
* the common roman bible
* CE historical data
* reality
If then, it could be considered that we are working from 'different hymnsheets', it would be when one of those sources was being nullified in some fashion.
I'm able and willing to admit that I don't place the same amount of faith in documented forgeries that you do. I also admit that I don't know everything.
If any at all, what are you able and willing to admit as your nullifications, as well as, the motivating impulses that cause them?
(ie. 'Because it would cause my theology to undergo reconstruction, documented forgery does not exist as long as I do not acknowledge it', etc.)
It's fairly simple Bailey: when language isn't common, discussion can't take place.
Discussion is taking place good friend.
iano writes:
weary writes:
So then, as I understand it ...
Repentance is initiated by the Father's insistence and kindness, but not without the children's assistance and recognition of the Father's kindness and trustworthiness. Whether you, then, consider something that one does, with their Father and brother - and family as a whole, as overseers, a 'work' is then - finally, your perogative. As for my tradition, it is the absorption of a personal ego and pursuit, into the ego and pursuit of One (John 13:30, 17:20-21).
1) You've not exactly cleared up the chicken & egg situation that persists as to the source of a mans repentance (unto salvation).
You appear to be making an issue where there is none.
My position is that action on Gods part convinces him and that conviction leads to a changing of his mind. Gods action followed by his repentance. The credit goes to God for his salvation. Unless of course a mans suppresses the evidence that would convict him - in which case the credit for his damnation is his alone.
I'm not sure what you are arguing.
When a personal ego and pursuit are surrendered to a greater authority, any form of credit can only be given to that greater authority.
Your description above appears to fudge things. Repentance is initiated by the father, but...
Given the statement above, hopefully you can better understand that there is no 'but'.
2) Your quotations from Paul fail to acknowledge that the (Paulian)salvation transaction has already occurred at this point and that when Paul addresses 'you' at these points in his letters he is addressing those who are saved through faith.
Don't take this the wrong way, please.
Isn't is awkward enough that you place limitations on the Father's power ...
It seems that where we differ 'wholesale' is that you contend the Father requires sacrifice and His power is limited without blood revenge, and I don't.
As to God's power limited? I think yes ...
God limited by his nature isn't God's power limited in any sense that matters.
... without placing further restrictions on the power of your blood sacrifice?
I wasn't under the impression that you were being inclusive, but rather I was working under the premise that you agreed with Paul that all are saved.
In fact this is why we work hard and struggle - even suffering reproach,
Because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of ALL people, especially of believers.
Please don't tell me you disagree with uncle Paul, being persuaded that the Father is a respector of persons who would let even one perish.
Repentance unto salvation is history at this stage - not that your point about co-operation is lost. There is indeed cooperation but God is the instigator it being his Spirit that drives the sanctifying work in his adopted children.
I'm glad to see that we are on the same level here and in various other places.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Within the tradition I have been adopted into, repentance is an endeavor that the Father has been pursuing from the ancient of days. It is a thing that won't be forced upon any person, as choice and love, by their own definition and nature, are not inclined to employ the force of guilt's aggression.
Agreed*. Repentance unto salvation is decline-able, the tradition into which I've been adopted indicating a mans will limited to expression in the negative direction only, if it is to be expressed at all. His salvation relies on him doing nothing at all - let's call it contributing by doing no work at all.
*almost. Given the alternative, I don't see it as contra-God's love that he utilise guilt as a way of levering us into repentance. And so long as his levering so is resistable and decline-able I don't see how our element of choice is diminished.
Again, I'm glad to see that we are, to some degree, on the same level here and in various other places. However ...
I don't perceive the Father that way; yet, the Father has revealed himself to many people in many ways. That you serve a God of guilt is fine by me.
I only ask you to allow the Father to reveal himself to others in the way he sees fit, as opposed to the only way you are willing to see and know.
Refusal to love the truth is indicated as the means of damnation at 2 Thessalonians 2:10. Refusal being a thing we chose to do.
'A thing we choose to do', as in a 'work'. Yet, according to your theology, when we choose not to refuse, it isn't a 'work', but 'grace'. Whatever dude.
If you can help it, please make a valid attempt to not bring up the 'refusal to love the TruthTM' bit again as a means of your theological salvation ...
At least until you are willing to address the fact that the ToRaH was forged by Levite scribes and stare other documented forgeries head on.
Suppression of evidence is equivilent to refusing to love the truth.
It seems completely hypocritical and senseless to measure another's risk of damnation upon something that you are not prepared to do yourself.
Again, theology does not save anyone and does not interfere with God's power; it only provides a certain comfort in the intermediary period.
iano writes:
weary writes:
As uncle Paul states, providing a certain contrast towards your suggestion that 'a guilty conviction by the Holy Spirit' is responsible for leading one to repentance, and so, salvation - it would quicker seem that, the Father's kindness, forbearance, and patience leads one to begin forming a genuine repentant heart, together, with the Father - and God's faith in our trust towards His unadulterated and unlimitedpower then provide for salvation ... (Romans 2:4, 2nd Corinthians 6:1, Phillipians 2:13, etc.)
Hopefully this will clear up the matter and allow us to progress.
Kindness, forbearance and patience aren't sentimental things. I consider it a kindness that God utilised pain to bring me to my knees - pain being his design-in indicator to tell us that something is amiss.
That you're able to perceive pain as kindness is your perogative and I'd assume not judge that perception. In the same regard, I would hope you may offer someone else a similiar courtesy providing they choose to perceive kindness as kindness, as opposed to forcing your theological interpretation upon them.
And seeing as nothing could be more amiss than our faulty relationship with him pre-salvation it is not unreasonable to expect severe degrees of pain involved in diverting us from our doomed path.
It should be clear by now where it is I view your 'work'. It lies that fuzzy chicken & egg area of "together, with the Father" above, the implication being a sort of hand-in-hand, side-by-side, together-WE-did-it kind of salvation. Not quite man on the throne but not quite God on the throne either.
Nearly by grace..but not quite.
I understand that you are having trouble with this. I have told you that repentance, as it has been revealed to me, is initiated by the Father's insistence and kindness, but not without the children's assistance and recognition of the Father's kindness and trustworthiness. You agreed that there is indeed a cooperative measure at work between the Father and his children.
I've also stated that repentance, as I understand it, requires the absorption of a personal ego and pursuit, into the ego and pursuit of One (John 13:30, 17:20-21). Earlier in this post I attempt to clarify that statement by asserting that when a personal ego and pursuit are surrendered to a greater authority, any form of credit can only be given to that greater authority.
And so, if you're unable and unwilling to recognize that repentance in this understanding doesn't have an option to claim any boasting rights, I'm at a loss.
Apparently, repentance, in this understanding, will be considered as some type of 'work' by certain individual's in certain instances - yet not as such by others, just as your 'refusal to love the TruthTM' will be considered a type of 'work' by certain individual's in certain instances - yet not as such by others.
Seeing as the veiw of repentance I've set forth can plainly be seen to not be a 'work' on our behalf, we are, then, back to the substance of Message 78 ...
These variant traditions will rest upon the premise that 'works' do not secure a PAO .....
I have made the assertion that a ritual atonement killing of a human or of the divine - directly involving blood magic was, is and will always be completely unnecessary to accomplish a 'positive afterlife outcome' (PAO) or procure salvation or enter the Kingdom of Heaven; however one would word this.
On one hand, I contend that a repentant heart and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms', if I may borrow one of your terms, that are necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
On the other hand, you have asserted that a ritual atonement killing involving blood magic and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms' necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
If you'd be so kind, I was hoping you might move forward, establishing your contention(s) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments ...
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : pnct.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
If then, it could be considered that we are working from 'different hymnsheets', it would be when one of those sources was being nullified in some fashion.
I'm able and willing to admit that I don't place the same amount of faith in documented forgeries that you.
My apologies for scrolling down past so much (well formatted) posting to arrive at the nub of the issue. Consider it my 'cutting to the chase'.
The reason for your singing from a different hymnsheet to me isn't the point of interest. The fact that we are singing so, is.
In case temptation to shift the discussion to "who wrote what bits of the Bible" raises it's head, know that that topic holds about as much interest for me as does discussion on quantum mechanics.
I'm drawing a slightly longer line under this paragraph for a reason.
___________
I contend that a ransom is different than a sacrifice; you equivocate.
I've a pretty good memory for these things and don't recall equivocating on the difference in meaning between ransom and sacrifice. The basic meanings of both are reasonably clear. As to their application?
Jesus as ransom: deals with an element of salvation that sees us released from our captivity to sin. Paul deals with this in depth, but the basic idea is that the saved are release from their former enslavement to both Sin and sins stimulator; the law of sin and death.
Jesus as sacrifice: deals with an element of salvation that sees us forgiven by God. I've outlined this before in stating that the forgiver is the one who has to pay the price of the transgression against him - so won't address it here again.
We need a release from captivity and we need forgiveness for our transgressions. Thus we need a ransom and a sacrifice.
-
Discussion is taking place good friend.
Not on the issue of whether Jesus is a sacrifice or not. But I've no problem discussing the place/need for a sacrifice, it being a part of the mechanism of salvation I'm positing.
-
When a personal ego and pursuit are surrendered to a greater authority, any form of credit can only be given to that greater authority.
The question is whether you decided to surrender to authority when you considered it possible to fight on (works) or whether you surrendered to that authority when you were completely defeated (grace). I've expanded on this further on in this post.
-
I wasn't under the impression that you were being inclusive, but rather I was working under the premise that you agreed with Paul that all are saved.
The weight of scripture indicates that all are not saved. That this or that verse needs attention as to it's meaning doesn't mean we should throw the weight of scripture, or such verses, out.
The point made remains: Paul addressing 'you' at the point in question refers, contextually, to the saved-by-faith.
-
I don't perceive the Father that way; yet, the Father has revealed himself to many people in many ways. That you serve a God of guilt is fine by me.
I only ask you to allow the Father to reveal himself to others in the way he sees fit, as opposed to the only way you are willing to see and know.
I didn't perceive the father at all during the time that guilt and shame were being used in bringing me to salvation.
Guilt and shame post-conversion arise, I think, out of immaturity/failure to seek forgiveness. Like, how can you entertain guilt for something you are declared innocent of? I see no problem in the father using guilt and shame in order to discipline and grow those whom he loves. Which is not to say this is the only attribute of God I see revealed.
As to anothers experience of Gods way of drawing them to himself?
I'd note that the scriptural model is inevitably one whereby folk come to God via severe distress of one sort or another: pain, guilt, fear, outcasted-ness, shame, worry, sickness, despair. I was about to say that there are perhaps some neutral examples which would impinge on my use of the word 'inevitable', my mind turning to the Ethiopian eunach. Until a realisation of the psychological damage caused to a man by his being castrated stayed my hand.
Off the top of my head: the woman with a bleeding issue, the blind, the lepers, the centurian, the thief on the cross, the prostitutes, publicans and tax collectors, the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the ethiopian eunach, the persecutor Saul...
Perhaps you can think of some biblical example which would divert me from my view? Some examples of nice conversions or an occasion where someone was being drawn to God from more pleasant surroundings?
-
A thing we choose to do', as in a 'work'. Yet, according to your theology, when we choose not to refuse, it isn't a 'work', but 'grace'. Whatever dude.
As pointed out previously, I reject the notion that lost men can chose 'not to refuse' - arising from my rejection of the notion that lost men have the free will to do so. Pauls description of mans "enslavement to sin" and statements describing the heart of man to be capable of 'only wickedness all the time' put paid to that novel, if commonly discussed idea.
My suggestion was that any movement towards 'good' on our part is powered by God - for 'only God is good'. Conscience is his force: we are pulled to good ends by it - or we pull the other way via ban application of our sinful will.
Remember the fisherman story? Either the fishermans' will lands fish OR the fishes will escapes hook.
-
If you can help it, please make a valid attempt to not bring up the 'refusal to love the TruthTM' bit again as a means of your theological salvation ...
At least until you are willing to address the fact that the ToRaH was forged by Levite scribes and stare other documented forgeries head on.
As before:
The thread is, in essence, about salvation mechanisms. And I'm positing one based on the Bible. I'm not interested in positing a mechanism based on a canon arived at by you.
-
That you're able to perceive pain as kindness is your perogative and I'd assume not judge that perception.
Can you imagine the state of your teeth if God wasn't kind enough to provide you with a sense of pain?
Your withholding judgment or not isn't my concern. I'm merely indicating how I consider the mechanism to work - given a scriptural tendency to illustrate the conditions under which others were led to repentance.
Jesus said himself that it involved being heavily burdened and a certain yearning for rest. You've been asked to provide examples befitting an alternative, 'nicer' model of kindness from scripture (as it hints to pertain to salvation). I'll await your response to that request.
-
I understand that you are having trouble with this. I have told you that repentance, as it has been revealed to me, is initiated by the Father's insistence and kindness, but not without the children's assistance and recognition of the Father's kindness and trustworthiness. You agreed that there is indeed a cooperative measure at work between the Father and his children.
I have agreed that cooperation ensues post salvation on receipt of the Holy Spirits indwelling - him being the instigator and encourager of such cooperation. I wouldn't spin things to suggest that any such cooperation exists pre-salvation. Nor that cooperation is involved at the 'tipping point' at which a person tumbles from their lost position into salvation. Cooperation after Bailey, only after. That is my position.
Nor have I agreed that lost folk are children of God. In case you're reading things that way of me. Adoption as children occurs on being saved. It's one of salvations consequences.
-
I've also stated that repentance, as I understand it, requires the absorption of a personal ego and pursuit, into the ego and pursuit of One (John 13:30, 17:20-21). Earlier in this post I attempt to clarify that statement by asserting that when a personal ego and pursuit are surrendered to a greater authority, any form of credit can only be given to that greater authority.
And so, if you're unable and unwilling to recognize that repentance in this understanding doesn't have an option to claim any boasting rights, I'm at a loss.
I've commented above on this by way of enquiry into the nature of your salvation mechanisms' form of surrender. Shifting the analogy to the business merger environment we can say that two modes of merging competing companies exist:
the first merger sees the weaker competitor recognising the strength of his rival and choosing to 'surrender' sovereignty from a postition of some strength. I say 'some strength' because whilst both know the stronger competitor can press on and destroy the weaker rival, they also know that it's better for the stronger that destruction not happen. So we have surrender - but no unconditional surrender.
the second kind of merger sees' the stronger competitor rejecting all attempts at brokering a cease fire on the way. Instead he presses on until the total destruction of his competitor is complete. The kind of surrender that occurs here is total: the weaker is completely vanquished and can only plead for mercy that it's battered remnants be put to even the most lowly use in the stronger companies service. The surrender is unconditional - it doesn't involve a choosing to do so, it's merely an acknowledgement as to what has occurred
The former merger illustrates the existance of remnents of ego, the latter merger illustrates the complete shattering of ego. So long as your cooperation is required your surrender of ego then you are talking about the first kind of merger.
No cooperation on your part is required for the second. If your services are retained after your defeat then it is only by grace that they are so.
-
Apparently, repentance, in this understanding, will be considered as some type of 'work' by certain individual's in certain instances - yet not as such by others, just as your 'refusal to love the TruthTM' will be considered a type of 'work' by certain individual's in certain instances - yet not as such by others.
Central to the mechanism I posit is the (scripturally supported) notion that man hasn't free will in the direction "choosing for the things of God". It isn't all relevant what a persons view is regarding "a refusal to love" if the mechanism suggested precludes ones working for. They'd have to figure out how someone, who is by nature antagonistic to God could will for the things when left to their own devices.
-
Seeing as the veiw of repentance I've set forth can plainly be seen to not be a 'work' on our behalf, we are, then, back to the substance of Message 78 ...
This conclusion awaits some clarification regarding the nature of your surrender.
-
Baileys earlier message writes:
I have made the assertion that a ritual atonement killing of a human or of the divine - directly involving blood magic was, is and will always be completely unnecessary to accomplish a 'positive afterlife outcome' (PAO) or procure salvation or enter the Kingdom of Heaven; however one would word this.
On one hand, I contend that a repentant heart and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms', if I may borrow one of your terms, that are necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
As already pointed out, I'm not interested in investigating a mechanism of salvation that is based on a stripped-to-a convenient-bone Bible. No more than I am in interrogating Mormon salvation or Islamic salvation. My interest is limited to revealing the works based nature of it in order to support my earlier contention that there is but one way that is by grace.
That said: I'd be interesting in hearing how can you describe the love of God as unconditional when there is a requirement on your part to fulfill. And how does unconditional love condemn some. Perhaps your mechanism can ponder on this for me?
No, really though - I'm sayin', 'let us cut to the chase'.
Thanks for the exchange iano ... Hope things are well with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
I am considering that you have performed this misrepresentation of my veiw in regards to repentance for one of two reasons.
The first one being that, such a mischaracterization was a seemingly feeble attempt to avoid any debate whatsoever of the levitical doctrine of sacrifice initiated within the alleged corruption of the ToRaH of Moses, which doctrine was further propagated by the final biblical initiator of Joshua's venemous murder, the high priest and supposed prophet Yosef Bar Kayafa - who apparently disagreed with the prophet Yirmiyahu that the ToRaH was indeed corrupted after being forged by levite scribes of the first Yerusalem Temple, and so, accordingly contended that the Almighty Father, according to the ToRaH of Moses, required sacrifice - or rather legalistic 'works', as opposed to the Father's requirement of faith and mercy, in order for the Yuhdeans, along with their nation state and second Yerusalem temple, as well as all of the children of God deriving from the goyim, to secure the procurement of salvation.
Or secondly ...
Discussion on Christ's sacrifice is being avoided for reasons of 'different hymnsheets' - you implying his sacrifice wasn't one ("show me where Christ/the Father said he was a sacrifice" to paraphrase you) by excluding those pieces of scripture which say it was.
To put matters straight, refer to Message 56. We both agree that ...
quote: Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice - not in the roman scripture texts, nor even within any apocrypha.
However, the Anointed One consistently referred to his decision to forgo aggressive self-defense and be mutilated on a torture stake as that of a ransom.
What I've suggested is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
For the record - I'm working under the premise that Joshua is the Anointed One. Previous and latter authors in relation to his testimony are not .....
For further reference to my position, please refer to Message 72 ...
quote:Please provide a biblical reference where Joshua discusses any penal substitution method whatsoever or honestly and kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
I don't recall denying p-sub other than to mention it not being mentioned in a particular passage ...
You were shown exactly where that inclusive doctrine originated and how it was originated by Joshua's legalistic murderers within the follow up message.
Rest assured, theology does not save anyone and does not interfere with God's power; it only provides a certain comfort in the intermediary period.
Nonetheless, I know you like your idea of 'different hymnsheets' iano. However, we aren't really working from 'different hymnsheets' at all.
We are both drawing our information from three sources ...
* the common roman bible
* CE historical data
* reality
If then, it could be considered that we are working from 'different hymnsheets', it would be when one of those sources was being nullified in some fashion.
I'm able and willing to admit that I don't place the same amount of faith in documented forgeries that you do. I also admit that I don't know everything.
If any at all, what are you able and willing to admit as your nullifications, as well as, the motivating impulses that cause them?
(ie. 'Because it would cause my theology to undergo reconstruction, documented forgery does not exist as long as I do not acknowledge it', etc.)
My apologies for scrolling down past so much (well formatted) posting to arrive at the nub of the issue.
No worries and thank you for the compliment, as I - and many others, do find that an assemblance of coherency is integral to discussion and debate.
Consider it my 'cutting to the chase'.
It is easier considered as what it plainly seems; that being, your - not so unique, way of evading debate and discussion as it pertains to challenging issues.
The immediate issue being what, if any at all, you are able and willing to admit as your nullifications, as well as, the motivating impulses that cause them ...
The former issue and actual matter of debate being clearly presented, for the third time, at the bottom of this post.
The reason for your singing from a different hymnsheet to me isn't the point of interest. The fact that we are singing so, is
If you were interested in the notion that we were 'singing from a different hymnsheet', you would address that issue. Instead, as seen above, you do not.
You appear to evade some issues outright and casually divert others, as is customary for conservative apologetic discourse, as you demonstrate below.
In case temptation to shift the discussion to "who wrote what bits of the Bible" raises it's head, know that that topic holds about as much interest for me as does discussion on quantum mechanics.
All things considered, I'll quickly afford you the defense that such an issue, as the one above, is off topic. However, the matter of actual debate is not.
Another diversionary tactic it seems - the issue has never been 'who wrote what bits of the bible', but rather what is written within the pages of the bible.
You've made it abundantly clear that you find no value in the genuine authorship, editing and redacting that has occured throughout various biblical manuscripts over the centuries; instead, relying on and working from the premise of the doctrine of sola scriptura which, again, is understandable considering the customs of conservative apologetic discourse that you have adapted to.
While that bothers some people, it does not bother me at all; however, what is bothersome is when, instead of reading the bible from front to back and arriving at a conclusion, many seem to be convinced by some sectarian division of levitical christianity of a certain conclusion and then attempt to employ the common roman bible and various unevidenced doctrine(s) to support their contention(s).
What's even more troubling is they will, often times, not even make any forthright attempt to support their contention(s), as you seem to be demonstrating quite effectively. The issue raised in Message 82 was that we do not 'sing from different hymnsheets', as you suggest. The 'hymnsheets' that we are working from are the common roman bible, CE historical data and reality. As I stated in that message ...
quote:If then, it could be considered that we are working from 'different hymnsheets', it would be when one of those sources was being nullified in some fashion.
I'm able and willing to admit that I don't place the same amount of faith in documented forgeries that you do. I also admit that I don't know everything.
If any at all, what are you able and willing to admit as your nullifications, as well as, the motivating impulses that cause them?
(ie. 'Because it would cause my theology to undergo reconstruction, documented forgery does not exist as long as I do not acknowledge it', etc.)
As can be seen, evidently, by anyone who reads the exchange, you evaded the issue entirely and diverted to irrelevant issues, again - as is customary with conservative apologetic discourse, instead of admitting any form of nullification or attempting to identify the correlating motivating impulses behind them.
The rest of your post seems to be, plainly, a further diversion from the actual issue that's been repeatedly brought towards your attention within Message 78 and Message 82, and then subsequently diverted by you in the reponses you've provided to those messages; those being Message 81 and Message 83.
While I certainly don't mind straying off topic to discuss alternate content from time to time and have assuredly enjoyed our various exchanges immensely, your diversionary tactics seem - even if unintentional, to be quite exhaustive, tiring and transparent, and so, rather than affording you the continued opportunity to perform this way, I am - at this point, insisting that you focus on the actual issue at hand, or kindly admit that you cannot or will not do so.
Before engaging in discussion with you any further, I am pleading that you ...
Do your best to present yourself to the Father as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
At this moment, I refuse to accept the overwhelming sense that you may not be debating fairly.
With that said, if you'd be so kind, I was hoping you may move forward, establishing your contention(s) (sacrificial blood revenge techniques performed through religious rites are reguired by God in order to attain the forgiveness of sins, Joshua's venemous murder on a torture stake is a ritual atonement killing that effectively employs blood magic to atone for and forgive sins through a 'mechanism' referred to as penal substitution; then allowing those who justify the murder to enter 'heaven', etc.) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments, or kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
Thank you for your undivided attention in this matter. You are in my prayers; in the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you iano.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
In case temptation to shift the discussion to "who wrote what bits of the Bible" raises it's head, know that that topic holds about as much interest for me as does discussion on quantum mechanics.
Bailey writes:
All things considered, I'll quickly afford you the defense that such an issue, as the one above, is off topic. However, the matter of actual debate is not.
Perhaps it might assist if I explain what the matter of actual debate is, from my perspective as opposed to yours. My intention in the thread is to posit the mechanism of salvation as I consider it found in the Bible to which I hold (the common, 66 book Bible), this from the perspective of one who holds all that text inspired. Whilst welcoming counter-viewpoints which challenge my understanding of the text - insofar as such challenges throw spanners in the mechanism posed, I am not interested in:
- discussing from another canon whether judaic, islamic or yours. - discussing whether certain bits do or don't belong in the Bible, especially not if they don't concern themselve with the mechanism posed. - discussing from a viewpoint which hold one piece of scripture to more authorititive than another.
Not interested. And never was interested. So what you call..
Another diversionary tactic..
..is actually another attempt to spell my position out to you. This conversation isn't going to head down in the direction you insist it goes in, Bailey, and no amount of leaning on the rudder is going to change that.
But in case I have misunderstood your intentions and the above exclusions don't apply to what it is you are after (for I find your writing as obtuse at times as you do mine diversionary) let me pose the follow 'qualifying' question for you in the light of what you request below.
With that said, if you'd be so kind, I was hoping you may move forward, establishing your contention(s) (sacrificial blood revenge techniques performed through religious rites are reguired by God in order to attain the forgiveness of sins, Joshua's venemous murder on a torture stake is a ritual atonement killing that effectively employs blood magic to atone for and forgive sins through a 'mechanism' referred to as penal substitution; then allowing those who justify the murder to enter 'heaven', etc.) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments, or kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
Qualifying Question:
Do you accept that Pauls writings (which describe Christs death as a sacrifice and detail various salvation-mechanical aspects associated with that sacrifice) are effectively the words of God and are as authorititive as anything attributed to the Father or Christ directly?
If the answer is 'yes' we can discuss further (although I'd not be quite sure about the question you are asking anymore). If the answer is 'no' then I would:
a) point you to the exclusions up top and the rational behind them b) cite irreconcilable difference re: the hymnsheets we sing from c) request that we agree to end the discussion amicably.
I've been thinking about the nature of heaven, and realized that I do not know exactly how one gets in. Any answer I try to get is usually just a slippery contradiction. So please, how do you get into heaven in your faith.
The whole notion of "going to Heaven" is a superficial understanding of my Christian faith. Going to a happy place, going to Heaven, or getting into Heaven, is mostly a natural concept of man. It is not unique to Christianity.
So first I would want to tell you the in my faith as a Christian, God's eternal destiny for the saved is not Heaven as a place to go to in that regard. Rather the "going" is a transformation of the person. And the "place" is a Person - the Triune God. Salvation is a transformation into a union, a mingling, a blending of God and man into one entity.
It is true that the term "kingdom of heaven" is in the gospel of Matthew. But a close examination reveals that this should be considered as "the kingdom, the SOURCE of which is Heaven" rather than "the Kingdom, the location of which is in Heaven."
In John 14 where Jesus says that He goes away to prepare a place for His disciples, upon careful study it is revealed that the place is a living place within a living Person. The "Father's house" is a living Person in that chapter. And the many abodes in the Father's hows are people in whom the Father and the Son have come into to make an "abode" with them (John 14:23).
The unfortunate translation - "In My Father's house are many mansions" (John 14:2) in the KJV is better rendered "In My Father's house are many abodes" (John 14:23).
The plural form of the same Greek used in verse 2 as singular, is used in verse 14.
Please compare:
"In My Father's house are many abodes; if it were not so I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you I am coming again and will receive you to Myself, so that where I am you also may be." (vs.2,3)
"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (v.23)
In brief, this chapter is not saying that Jesus went to Heaven to fix up fancy "mansions" for His people, and that a couple of thousand years latter He would physically return and take them to these heavenly mansions of the Father's house in heaven.
This chapter is saying that Jesus is going to the cross - into death to accomplish redemption so that a standing in God can be created for His redeemed people. Then He is coming in resurrection to receive them to Himself. Then He and His Father will come to make an abode with each of them. This constitutes the receivers of the Father and the Son the "many abodes" in the Father's house.
The saved then can be with Him where He is a man united with the Father - God-man. They become the expansion of the universal mingling of God and man expressed in Christ. They become His enlargment and His corporate Body. The many abodes are the many men and women indwelt with by the Triune God - the Divine "WE" Who as the Holy Spirit brings the Father and the Son into man.
If there were not many abodes in the living house of God Jesus would have told us. This means if He was the only human who could be united with God, indwelt with by God, in a blended union with God, and mingled with God - He would have told us.
Jesus goes to the cross to prepare a way that all redeemed sinners may be united with the living God, in a blended incorporation with God, and in an organic union with God producing God-men.
These God-men collectively and corporately compose the Father's house which is really the enlargement of Christ and the expansion of Christ.
In this post I have no spoken too much about the HOW of getting into Christ. I have spoken to address the contrast between the revelation of the New Testament over against the human natural thought of "going to Heaven" or "getting into Heaven".
The saved are going into a living Person, or even being transformed into a mingling of themselves with that Person much more than going to or getting into a happy pleasant place.
In regards to an early biblical foundation for penal substitution ...
Hi iano and thank you for the exchange ... I hope things are well with you and yours.
iano writes:
weary writes:
You've made it abundantly clear that you find no value in the genuine authorship, editing and redacting that has occured throughout various biblical manuscripts over the centuries; instead, relying on and working from the premise of the doctrine of sola scriptura which, again, is understandable considering the customs of conservative apologetic discourse that you have adapted to.
While that bothers some people, it does not bother me at all; however, what is bothersome is when, instead of reading the bible from front to back and arriving at a conclusion, many seem to be convinced by some sectarian division of levitical christianity of a certain conclusion and then attempt to employ the common roman bible and various unevidenced doctrine(s) to support their contention(s).
What's even more troubling is they will, often times, not even make any forthright attempt to support their contention(s), as you seem to be demonstrating quite effectively. The issue raised in Message 82 was that we do not 'sing from different hymnsheets', as you suggest. The 'hymnsheets' that we are working from are the common roman bible, CE historical data and reality.
The rest of your post seems to be, plainly, a further diversion from the actual issue that's been repeatedly brought towards your attention within Message 78 and Message 82, and then subsequently diverted by you in the reponses you've provided to those messages; those being Message 81 and Message 83.
Perhaps it might assist if I explain what the matter of actual debate is, from my perspective as opposed to yours.
Thank's for taking the time to do this. Now, correct me if I am mistaken; the topic of the thread and original matter of debate is 'how to get into heaven'.
You posit that entrance into that place is arrived at through grace, which the Father applies by way of a 'mechanism' commonly referred to as penal substitution. So then, the matter of debate has become - does penal substitution, as a potential 'mechanism', maintain any valid basis in scripture?
I'm sensing that you feel penal substitution is unevidenced or disproven in some fashion within the original testament texts or you are unprepared.
If that's not so, do you feel that requesting you to provide biblical evidence in support of p-sub from within the former Yuhdean texts (ie. original testaments) first, before attempting to further evidence and promote p-sub through latter added Yuhdean texts (ie. newer testaments) is unreasonable?
My assumption is that you feel the request is unneccesary, but I would like to know if you find the request unreasonable.
Honestly, as I stated in our last exchange, I would rather you ...
Do your best to present yourself to the Father as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
... and just start building your case from the beginning of the common roman bible.
My intention in the thread is to posit the mechanism of salvation as I consider it found in the Bible to which I hold (the common, 66 book Bible)...
I've only asked that this be accomplished by starting from the beginning of the common roman bible, as opposed to beginning from the back of that book. Honestly, that's all I've requested of you within Message 78, Message 82 and Message 84, as opposed to working from only 13 or so latter testaments.
... this from the perspective of one who holds all that text inspired.
As I said in Message 84, I have no problem at all working from the premise of sola scriptura. Indeed, I am willing to work from that very same doctrine. However, I do raise an issue when someone attempts to work their conclusions and proposiitons by beginning towards the end of the common roman bible.
One concern is no different than Pete's, that being that Paul's letters are difficult to understand, and so, easily and often abused - even if unintentionally.
Other concerns being, naturally, that many aren't accustomed to reading books from back to front or reaching conclusions from conclusion to premise.
Whilst welcoming counter-viewpoints which challenge my understanding of the text - insofar as such challenges throw spanners in the mechanism posed, I am not interested in:
- discussing from another canon whether judaic, islamic or yours.
That is understandable and I share your concern in regards to working from a 'personal' or incomplete canon (ie. the letters of a single pharisee, etc.). Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation - not of yours, mine or even Paul's; much less is scripture a matter of privately interpreting others.
Also, I have no interest, especially for the purpose of this debate, in basing any of our discussion from a separate canon whether it be Yuhdean, Islamic or another. As I've stated in numerous messages, if your canon is the completecommon roman biblein its entirety, then, the premise of our canon is identical.
Perhaps, it is, much more simply, our final conclusions that are differing at this point.
- discussing whether certain bits do or don't belong in the Bible, especially not if they don't concern themselve with the mechanism posed.
Whether 'certain bits do or don't belong in the Bible' is an issue that I have not raised iano. Indeed, that is not my intention in any way.
However, there is an important issue here and it is not at all whether 'certain bits do or don't belong in the Bible'.
Wouldn't you quickly agree that if 'certain bits' canonized within the common roman bible may seem to speak against p-sub, in some regard, that those portions of scripture text must be included in one's consideration and given their proper weight before any reasonable and valid conclusion may be drawn?
And please, don't attempt to shift this discussion to 'Well, where might those portions of scripture be found?'; if anything, a simple yes or no.
- discussing from a viewpoint which hold one piece of scripture to more authorititive than another.
That seems to be exactly what a proper and reasonable debate should prevent.
This is the type of behavior we should be avoiding. Is it not fair to suppose that you're attempting to maintain 'discussion from a viewpoint' that is 'holding one piece of scripture' - ie. the unique letters of encouragement attributed to uncle Paul that are 'hard to understand' - as 'more authoritative than others'?
iano writes:
Not interested. And never was interested. So what you call ...
weary writes:
Another diversionary tactic ...
... is actually another attempt to spell my position out to you.
Rest assured, I've understood your position from the start.
However, in terms of support, your position seems to be 'p-sub is a fact because I can display Paul's letters in a way that ambiguously say so'.
It should be clear that I am attempting to establish more evidence than that bit of say so.
This conversation isn't going to head down in the direction you insist it goes in, Bailey, and no amount of leaning on the rudder is going to change that.
I'm sort of lost as to where you think I'm trying to lead things?? Anyway ...
Whether you are unable to provide evidence or support of your claim is one thing. Whether you're unwilling to 'lean your rudder' in that direction is another. This conversation should 'head down a direction' that provides evidence and support for the participant's claims, which is what is being asked of you.
iano writes:
But in case I have misunderstood your intentions and the above exclusions don't apply to what it is you are after ...
From your response, I'm receiving an overwhelming sense that you've misunderstood me completely.
I've been asking you to build a case for p-sub starting with the original testaments.
(for I find your writing as obtuse at times as you do mine diversionary)
I am not sure what you mean by obtuse; yet, in my attempts to be concise, I may often over explain things.
A more succinct and salient delivery is, perhaps, something I need to work on for a variety of reasons.
... let me pose the follow 'qualifying' question for you in the light of what you request below.
weary writes:
With that said, if you'd be so kind, I was hoping you may move forward, establishing your contention(s) (sacrificial blood revenge techniques performed through religious rites are reguired by God in order to attain the forgiveness of sins, Joshua's venemous murder on a torture stake is a ritual atonement killing that effectively employs blood magic to atone for and forgive sins through a 'mechanism' referred to as penal substitution; then allowing those who justify the murder to enter 'heaven', etc.) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments, or kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
Qualifying Question:
Do you accept that Pauls writings (which describe Christs death as a sacrifice and detail various salvation-mechanical aspects associated with that sacrifice) ...
What you have stated in regards to this interpretation of Paul's writings seems to be a matter of opinion. Paul wrote in a unique style.
In a proper debate, it seems we shouldn't be taking things for granted, but rather examing evidence as it relates to claims such as this one.
Perhaps, if you are able and willing to begin building your case through the original testaments, we can eventually examine this claim.
are effectively the words of God and are as authorititive as anything attributed to the Father or Christ directly?
You've stated you're not an ot scholar, so there seems to be little to no reason at all for anyone to accept your personal interpretation of Paul's letters.
In regards to any special pleading as it may relate to any single person's testimony - especially one that the bible plainly states is prone to corruption:
1) This is what's referred to as an argument from authority and it is frowned upon within debate. I have accepted your premise of sola scriptura.
Please, let that be our authority - the completecommon roman biblein its entirety; as opposed to a personal interpretation of Paul.
2) It's also an attempt to base your support from a 'personal' or incomplete canon (ie. 13 or so of the 66 books of the common roman bible, etc.).
We have both agreed that this is an unacceptable method to reach a proper conclusion.
iano writes:
If the answer is 'yes' we can discuss further ...
I hope you will not forgo any further discussion if I do not agree to the exact terms you've put forth - that is what I'm sensing. Anyway, my answer is ...
I believe only Joshua speaks exactly what the Father speaks (John 8:28, etc.); there are scriptures where Paul stands alone (1st Cor. 7:25, etc.).
However, this is not to imply that I find uncle Paul to be divided in opinion from Joshua or the Father.
Rather that some things in his letters are hard to understand - things that are often misunderstood, whether unintentionally or otherwise. Under the authority I've agreed to offer sola scriptura, I'll state that Paul's letters - and the witness stating the reputation they accrued, were canonized for a reason.
Whether that reason was to assist towards evidencing p-sub remains to be seen.
(although I'd not be quite sure about the question you are asking anymore)
The question I would be asking is the same question I've been asking ...
Will you show when the Father first requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments?
If you cannot, then there seems to be little reason to believe you that Paul was promoting any variation of such methods either, as you keep suggesting.
In fact, if you can't, it would almost seem much wiser to consider that this is how his various letters may have been misappropriated to begin with.
In otherwords, it seems that if one cannot display that the subject of penal substitution has a valid basis in the original texts that Gamaliel trained Paul up in, they certainly have no basis to further promote that idea through the letters of Paul that we currently have at our disposal.
Conversely, it would seem reasonable that if one could show that 'penal substituition, as an atonement theory, has a valid basis in early Yuhdean scripture texts' - the very scripture texts Paul was trained in, than a conclusion such as 'uncle Paul was a proponent of penal substitution' would follow more naturally.
If you can't provide a solid foundation for this 'mechanism' of penal substitution in the Yuhdean scriptures that Joshua and his advocates - uncle Paul in this particular case, were drawing from (ie. three parts of the TaNaKh, etc. - the ToRaH (Law), the Nevi'im (Prophets) and the Tehellim (Psalms) - Matisyahu 5:17; 7:12; 22:40, Luke 16:16; 24:44, etc.), there's reason to suspect you may be misinterpreting the writings of Paul, whether unintentionally or otherwise.
This is a reason you are being requested to construct and provide some sort of an early biblical foundation for the 'mechanism' of penal substitution from the Yuhdean scriptures that Joshua and his advocates - uncle Paul in this particular case, were drawing from. Work from premise to conclusion, etc..
If the answer is 'no' then I would:
a) point you to the exclusions up top and the rational behind them
I have, hopefully, addressed your exclusions and correlating rational satisfactorily.
b) cite irreconcilable difference re: the hymnsheets we sing from
Unless you are willing to state that your 'personal' canon is less than the 66 books of the common roman bible, than this is not an issue or option.
c) request that we agree to end the discussion amicably.
If you would like to discontinue this discussion I will not press the issue and it will be amicable, in terms of a peaceful end.
However, it may be seen as your admission that, apart from the writings of uncle Paul - which the bible plainly testifies are difficult to understand and often abused, you're unable and/or unwilling to provide evidence or support of penal substitution as a valid 'mechanism' by which the Father applies grace. Selah.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Re: In regards to an early biblical foundation for penal substitution ...
Hi Bailey,
Apologies for the delay in replying
Thank's for taking the time to do this. Now, correct me if I am mistaken; the topic of the thread and original matter of debate is 'how to get into heaven'.
You posit that entrance into that place is arrived at through grace, which the Father applies by way of a 'mechanism' commonly referred to as penal substitution. So then, the matter of debate has become - does penal substitution, as a potential 'mechanism', maintain any valid basis in scripture?
With the sticking point being the issue of what constitutes scripture.
-
... do you feel that requesting you to provide biblical evidence in support of p-sub from within the former Yuhdean texts (ie. original testaments) first, before attempting to further evidence and promote p-sub through latter added Yuhdean texts (ie. newer testaments) is unreasonable?
My assumption is that you feel the request is unneccesary, but I would like to know if you find the request unreasonable.
If, on entering a library, I'm told that I mustn't go to the sector which might best deal with the issue at hand, but must instead progress my search, beginning at the shelves beside the door then yes, I'd consider that unreasonable.
-
Honestly, as I stated in our last exchange, I would rather you ...
... be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have ...
And I'd rather you'd take your tongue out of your cheek
The idea of quoting scripture you don't (necessarily) find authorititive.. so as to have the authority of scripture encourage me to move in your preferred direction. Well, let's just say that it raises a smile.
(I note that you appear to have clarified your position to be "all scripture inspired" for the purposes of discussion.)
-
Wouldn't you quickly agree that if 'certain bits' canonized within the common roman bible may seem to speak against p-sub, in some regard, that those portions of scripture text must be included in one's consideration and given their proper weight before any reasonable and valid conclusion may be drawn?
And please, don't attempt to shift this discussion to 'Well, where might those portions of scripture be found?'; if anything, a simple yes or no.
Certain parts of the Bible seem to speak for a works-based salvation - and I'm not at all suggesting they be ignored. So, Yes.
-
This is the type of behavior we should be avoiding. Is it not fair to suppose that you're attempting to maintain 'discussion from a viewpoint' that is 'holding one piece of scripture' - ie. the unique letters of encouragement attributed to uncle Paul that are 'hard to understand' - as 'more authoritative than others'?
These 'unique letters of encouragement' happen to be choc-full of doctrine Bailey. And if doctrine is to theology what blueprints are to mechanical engineering then I fail to see why you'd want to concentrate your search for mechanical understanding anywhere else.
Question: if Paul is considered (for the purposes of discussion) as authorititive as Jesus or the Father, then why the persistant (from the get-go in fact) demand regarding the Fathers'/Jesus' mention of a sacrifice when Pauls' mention of it would do just as well?
quote:while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments, or kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this. (emphasis mine - iano)
-
Much ado has been made of my interpretation of Pauls writings when in fact most of the effort has been spent attempting to shift you from the above "Jesus/Father only" postion. Let me re-phrase my question then - removing references to my opinion that Paul describes Jesus death as a sacrifice.
Do you accept (for the purposes of discussion) that Pauls writings are as authorititive as anything attributed to the Father or Jesus directly - on this or any other matter?
Re: In regards to an early biblical foundation for penal substitution ...
Hi iano and thank you for the exchange ... I hope things are well with you and yours.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Thank's for taking the time to do this. Now, correct me if I am mistaken; the topic of the thread and original matter of debate is 'how to get into heaven'.
You posit that entrance into that place is arrived at through grace, which the Father applies by way of a 'mechanism' commonly referred to as penal substitution. So then, the matter of debate has become - does penal substitution, as a potential 'mechanism', maintain any valid basis in scripture?
With the sticking point being the issue of what constitutes scripture.
I disagree good friend - what constitutes scripture, for the purposes of this debate, has already been stated in numerous messages such as Message 87.
That is, the completecommon roman biblein its entirety - all sixty six books, rather that just Prophetic booklets or thirteen or so pharisaical letters alone.
Considering that the theory of sola scriptura has also been offered up as a certain doctrine that may also be employed in the discussion, it seems much easier to consider that the 'sticking point' is what it always is within a debate scenario of this nature, which is, what the scriptures are indicative of.
Which is to say, 'What do the scriptures indicate?'. As stated in Message 36, which applies as freely to one's understanding of sola scriptura ...
quote:The situation we face is one where people believe they know their bibles - after all we can quote verses at the drop of a hat as if that were somehow evidence. That is not the same as understanding one's own bible and without understanding, there is not knowledge. Without understanding and knowledge there can not be evaluation. Let's be absolutely clear: everyone interprets scripture.
And so, every stance taken on scripture is an interpretation. There is no value-free understanding of scripture.
Which is to say that, the scriptures are open to interpretation, not a matter of private interpretation, and so, not locked into one's preferred understanding at all; whether that be, regarding one's understanding of what the Father is making known through sola scriptura, uncle Paul, the Prophets or Joshua ...
Or any other matter that comes into dispute through these ancient texts, for that matter.
In truth, the real 'sticking point'; you have not and apparently will not display evidence outside of uncle Paul's letters - or as you say, a ' personal canon'.
iano writes:
weary writes:
I'm sensing that you feel penal substitution is unevidenced or disproven in some fashion within the original testament texts or you are unprepared.
If that's not so, do you feel that requesting you to provide biblical evidence in support of p-sub from within the former Yuhdean texts (ie. original testaments) first, before attempting to further evidence and promote p-sub through latter added Yuhdean texts (ie. newer testaments) is unreasonable?
My assumption is that you feel the request is unneccesary, but I would like to know if you find the request unreasonable.
If, on entering a library, I'm told that I mustn't go to the sector which might best deal with the issue at hand, but must instead progress my search, beginning at the shelves beside the door then yes, I'd consider that unreasonable.
The issue is, you're wanting students to presuppose all knowledge of fossils and their record, as you attempt to teach them about evolutionary science.
The analogy you provide, again, seems to presuppose your claim. As stated in the last message to you ...
quote:What you have stated in regards to this interpretation of Paul's writings seems to be a matter of opinion. Paul wrote in a unique style.
In a proper debate, it seems we shouldn't be taking things for granted, but rather examing evidence as it relates to claims such as this one ...
Will you show when the Father first requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments?
If you cannot, then there seems to be little reason to believe you that Paul was promoting any variation of such methods either, as you keep suggesting.
In fact, if you can't, it would almost seem much wiser to consider that this is how his various letters may have been misappropriated to begin with.
In otherwords, it seems that if one cannot display that the subject of penal substitution has a valid basis in the original texts that Gamaliel trained Paul up in, they certainly have no basis to further promote that idea through the letters of Paul that we currently have at our disposal.
Conversely, it would seem reasonable that if one could show that 'penal substituition, as an atonement theory, has a valid basis in early Yuhdean scripture texts' - the very scripture texts Paul was trained in, than a conclusion such as 'uncle Paul was a proponent of penal substitution' would follow more naturally.
If you can't provide a solid foundation for this 'mechanism' of penal substitution in the Yuhdean scriptures that Joshua and his advocates - uncle Paul in this particular case, were drawing from (ie. three parts of the TaNaKh, etc. - the ToRaH (Law), the Nevi'im (Prophets) and the Tehellim (Psalms) - Matisyahu 5:17; 7:12; 22:40, Luke 16:16; 24:44, etc.), there's reason to suspect you may be misinterpreting the writings of Paul, whether unintentionally or otherwise.
This is a reason you are being requested to construct and provide some sort of an early biblical foundation for the 'mechanism' of penal substitution from the Yuhdean scriptures that Joshua and his advocates - uncle Paul in this particular case, were drawing from.
In this light, you display your reasoning is circular and not evident or progressive; which is why the request I made is necessary. Teach me about fossils.
Perhaps then you can display to someone how your take on the fossil evidence may support your evolutionary theories. Work from premise to conclusion.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Honestly, as I stated in our last exchange, I would rather you ...
... be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have ...
And I'd rather you'd take your tongue out of your cheek
The idea of quoting scripture you don't (necessarily) find authorititive.. so as to have the authority of scripture encourage me to move in your preferred direction.
Perhaps one should take their thumb out of their eye (or perhaps wipe the grin off their face)? Although, not necessarilly in that order ...
And maybe, on second thoughts, leave the grin ... after all, it would seem folly, joy and sarcasm, all, maintain some medicinal properties.
The 'preferred direction', which is not to propose a 'works doctine', was also plainly stated in our last exchange ...
quote:
I'm sort of lost as to where you think I'm trying to lead things?? Anyway ...
I've been asking you to build a case for p-sub starting with the original testaments.
I've only asked that this be accomplished by starting from the beginning of the common roman bible, as opposed to beginning from the back of that book. Honestly, that's all I've requested of you within Message 78, Message 82 and Message 84, as opposed to working from only 13 or so latter testaments.
One concern is no different than Pete's, that being that Paul's letters are difficult to understand, and so, easily and often abused - even if unintentionally.
Whether you are unable to provide evidence or support of your claim is one thing. Whether you're unwilling to 'lean your rudder' in that direction is another. This conversation should 'head down a direction' that provides evidence and support for the participant's claims, which is what is being asked of you.
Will you show when the Father first requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments?
The request made, or as you say the 'preferred direction' I've moved in, was repeated in Message 87; including this message, it makes five. As also stated in that last message, in terms of support, your position seems to be 'p-sub is a fact because I can display Paul's letters in a way that ambiguously say so'. Now - news flash, anybody can do that, just as anybody can, with a little bit of say so, prove a 'works' doctrine from those very same letters of encouragement.
It should be more than reasonably clear at this point in the debate that I am attempting to have you establish more evidence than a repeated bit of say so.
Your preferred direction seems to be accepting your claims without support. Perhaps you should maintain your discussions in an apologetic forum.
Well, let's just say that it raises a smile.
I wish I could share in your satire and say your exhaustive defense for not supporting your claim has raised a smile; it has not though.
It has become very cumbersome.
(I note that you appear to have clarified your position to be "all scripture inspired" for the purposes of discussion.)
Thanks for noting that. Although it doesn't concern me, hopefully you afford distinctions between inspiration and impartation.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Whether 'certain bits do or don't belong in the Bible' is an issue that I have not raised iano. Indeed, that is not my intention in any way.
However, there is an important issue here and it is not at all whether 'certain bits do or don't belong in the Bible'.
Wouldn't you quickly agree that if 'certain bits' canonized within the common roman bible may seem to speak against p-sub, in some regard, that those portions of scripture text must be included in one's consideration and given their proper weight before any reasonable and valid conclusion may be drawn?
Certain parts of the Bible seem to speak for a works-based salvation - and I'm not at all suggesting they be ignored. So, Yes.
I might be equally interested in seeing evidence for portions of scripture which 'seem to speak for a works-based salvation'. However, I'm assuming you'd no quicker provide that, than you've provided evidence for the claims you've already made and continually refused to support. Then again, maybe I'm wrong - after all, attempting to provide evidence of the former may give you another lofty excuse to delay original testament support for your p-sub claims.
But I digress ...
I am, at least, encouraged we agree on the notion that one would be wise to consider and examine original testament information, whatever your reason.
However, a lil' confused that you have not, as requested, provided any to support your claim.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
Whilst welcoming counter-viewpoints which challenge my understanding of the text - insofar as such challenges throw spanners in the mechanism posed, I am not interested in:
- discussing from a viewpoint which hold one piece of scripture to more authorititive than another.
This is the type of behavior we should be avoiding. Is it not fair to suppose that you're attempting to maintain 'discussion from a viewpoint' that is 'holding one piece of scripture' - ie. the unique letters of encouragement attributed to uncle Paul that are 'hard to understand' - as 'more authoritative than others'?
These 'unique letters of encouragement' happen to be choc-full of doctrine Bailey. And if doctrine is to theology what blueprints are to mechanical engineering then I fail to see why you'd want to concentrate your search for mechanical understanding anywhere else.
Another crafty attempt at evasive diversion; instead of providing an answer, you pick a lil' bit and expound - nice play chap.
Is it not fair to suppose that you're attempting to maintain 'discussion from a viewpoint' that is 'holding one piece of scripture' - ie. the unique letters of encouragement attributed to uncle Paul that are 'hard to understand' - as 'more authoritative than others'? The exact accusation you raise against me ...
In this light, Pete’s words were prophetic and were intended as a preemptive strike against the heretics to come. A significant principle is seen here; the primary proof texts used for faith and practice ought to be the clear passages that are undisputed in their meaning - which Paul's writings are not, as scripture plainly indicates. Heresy, and hear say, is as often built on obscure texts today as it was in the first century when the letters were penned.
It is for reasons such as these that your failure 'to see why' someone might 'want to concentrate' a 'search for mechanical understanding' regarding p-sub 'anywhere else' is quite irrelevant. Finally, the very fact that you are unable and unwilling to do so after being asked five times is very revealing.
The truth is, Paul only ever places Joshua's work in relation to the 'mercy seat' one time in all of his letters; the author of the Hebrew epistle, also, once.
And that, directly before stating, 'Now is not the time to speak of these things in detail.', perhaps suggesting the author hasn't the time - or even a clue, as to the ritualistic symbolism that they're attempting to explain or understand. That the author is not in a position (ie. lacks specific 'mechanical details', etc.) to attempt a meaningful or sensible explanation, as to the subject at hand, however, in no way prevents others from pleading their case as well, as we see.
In the end of the matter, above and beyond these two examples, one will not find any reference to the Hebrew term kapporeth or its Greek equivalent, hilastrion, within the church testaments - apart from ambiguous special pleading projected by the use of forced theological interpretation or rhetoric.
Please, demonstrate otherwise.
Question: if Paul is considered (for the purposes of discussion) as authorititive as Jesus or the Father, then why the persistant (from the get-go in fact) demand regarding the Fathers'/Jesus' mention of a sacrifice when Pauls' mention of it would do just as well?
Do your best to present yourself to the Father as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
At this moment, I refuse to accept the overwhelming sense that you may not be debating fairly.
With that said, if you'd be so kind, I was hoping you may move forward, establishing your contention(s) (sacrificial blood revenge techniques performed through religious rites are reguired by God in order to attain the forgiveness of sins, Joshua's venemous murder on a torture stake is a ritual atonement killing that effectively employs blood magic to atone for and forgive sins through a 'mechanism' referred to as penal substitution; then allowing those who justify the murder to enter 'heaven', etc.) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the FATHER requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the ORIGINAL TESTAMENTS, or kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
(capitalized emphasis iano's)
Firstly, for the reasons stated in numerous messages thus far and then also repeated above. Secondly, uncle Paul's letters were unique and spoke to a specific culture in a specific time. You have already displayed a sense, within Message 81 and others, that you do not likely understand that culture, and so, it seems unreasonable that you fully understand Paul's writings. In the message preceding that response, that being Message 80, it was asserted that ...
quote:Reflecting on his own experience in regards to Joshua's torturous crucifixion, as it related to his admonition of murdering early followers of Joshua's tradition, uncle Paul reminds his Yuhdean and Goyim listeners who have been convinced Joshua deserved to die that the whole point of the exercise must have been to lead people to repent, for if they will not be convinced that Joshua's bloody and venemous murder was unjust, and so, convinced of their own sins and repent - instead becoming stubborn while they rely on falsehoods, all they accomplish is securing a storehouse of wrath for themselves.
To that you asked, 'Where is this view supported by Paul?'. The fact that you do not know the answer to that question and, indeed, that you are even asking it seems to suggest the immense possibility that you are, perhaps, simply using the letters to support various contentions as you have been persuaded by apologetic sources and are not as familiar with Paul's letters as you would have some believe or, plainly, do not understand what he is saying in them.
I'm going to gander further and assume that you're truly not familiar with the tradition as he was indeed trained up in by the grandson of Hillel and that, to further complicate matters, you're likely not educated - if only in the slightest, concerning the rival traditions that were present in first century CE between Gamaliel, his grandfather and their most eminent contemporary and halakhic opponent, the Av Beit Din, and later president, of the Sanhedrin, Shammai.
Now, rather than display it to you in Paul's letters, it seems much wiser to display this veiw to you in another fashion and it should also evidently support the fact that this was the message being preached by all the other apostles as well; that is, the whole point of the Father allowing Joshua's venemous murder to occur was to lead people to repent and accept the standards of forgiveness set forth within Joshua's three and a half years of ministry ...
For if one will not be convinced that the Anointed One's bloody and venemous murder is unjust, and so, convinced of what sin is and be led to repent - instead becoming stubborn while relying on falsehoods, all one accomplishes is securing a storehouse of wrath for themselves. That said ...
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.
5 ~ Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven residing in Yerusalem.
6 ~ When this sound occurred, a crowd gathered and was in confusion, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
7 ~ Completely baffled, they said, Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans?
8 ~ And how is it that each one of us hears them in our own native language?
9 ~ Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Yuhdea and Cappadocia, Pontus and the province of Asia,
10 ~ Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene, and visitors from Rome,
11 ~ both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs — we hear them speaking in our own languages about the great deeds the Father has done!
12 ~ All were astounded and greatly confused, saying to one another, What does this mean?
13 ~ But others jeered at the speakers, saying, They are drunk on new wine!
14 ~ But Peter stood up with the eleven, raised his voice, and addressed them:
You men of Yuhdea and all you who live in Jerusalem, know this and listen carefully to what I say.
15 ~ In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning.
According to this booklet, Pete then goes on to assert that what the people of Yuhdea are experiencing is a fullfillment of Joel 2:28-32.. He then continues ...
Brothers, I can speak confidently to you about our forefather David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
30 ~ So then, because he was a prophet and knew that the Father had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne,
31 ~ David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Anointed One, that he was neither abandoned to Sheol, nor did his body experience decay.
32 ~ This Joshua the Father raised up, and we are all witnesses of it.
33 ~ So then, exalted to the right hand of the Father, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father,
He has poured out what you both see and hear.
As this booklet testifies, Pete then follows with one of the most often-cited original testament passages found within the church testaments, Psalms 110:1, most always employed to establish Joshua's affirmation and confirmation as the Father's righteous and appointed priest - even the Anointed One.
Up until this point, Pete has testified as a witness that 'you killed {Joshua} by nailing him to a cross at the hands of lawless men', but that 'this Joshua the Father raised up, and we are all witnesses of it.', suggesting that Joshua's venemous murder was contemptuous and that the occurence was nothing short of an act of evident lawlessness that the Father was not willing to condone or support by the Romans justification of ius gladdi; nor by any justification.
Therefore, we find Pete addressing those within the Beit Shammai tradition, as well as, those within the Beit Hillel, telling them both quite frankly ...
... let all the house of Yisrael know beyond a doubt that the Father has made this Joshua whom you crucified both Master and One who has been Anointed.
It is at this point in the scriptures where one may learn that the competing Yudeans' traditions, who demanded the blood of Joshua be placed upon their heads during his execution at the hands of Caesar's militia (Matisyahu 27:25), are pierced to the heart - within their very minds, as their seeds of shame come to fruition within their realities; those seeds, as the scriptures testify, earlier sowed by the vile contempt that was promoted by Yosef Bar Kayafa.
At this point in Pete's discourse it would begin to seem abundantly clear that it was nothing short of an unendingly jealous and incorrigible perversity that caused this alleged prophet and acting high priest of the Yuhdean province to set in motion (John 11:48-53) the plan to have Joshua murdered for the economic prosperity, security and Temple treasures of the Yuhdean province within Rome; which, said province, was decimated only a short time later.
And so, it is also at this point that the guilt, of those who once begged for Joshua's blood to be spilled - being persuaded such an unruly request was a dire necessity, is simply too much to bear which is why they now begin to plant their seeds of repentance by sincerely asking Pete and the rest of the eleven ...
Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Joshua the Anointed One for the forgiveness of your sins,
And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 ~ For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the the Master our Father will call to himself.
40 ~ With many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, Save yourselves from this perverse generation!
41 ~ So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand people were added.
42 ~ They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43 ~ Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles.
44 ~ All who believed were together and held everything in common,
45 ~ and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need.
46 ~ Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house,
Sharing their food with glad and humble hearts,
47 ~ praising the Father and having the good will of all the people. And the Master was adding to their number every day those who were being saved.
iano writes:
Much ado has been made of my interpretation of Pauls writings when in fact most of the effort has been spent attempting to shift you from the above "Jesus/Father only" postion.
Thanks for the honesty iano.
Now, when I said you were being diversionary in regards to the original question asked, I meant nothing other than what you have admitted above.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : reformatted 1 post into 2 ...
Dear friend, Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...
Hi iano and thank you for the exchange ... I hope things are well with you and yours.
iano writes:
Let me re-phrase my question then - removing references to my opinion that Paul describes Jesus death as a sacrifice.
Do you accept (for the purposes of discussion) that Pauls writings are as authorititive as anything attributed to the Father or Jesus directly - on this or any other matter?
That's irrelevant '(for the purposes of discussion)', as the actual purpose of the discussion was for you to ...
' ... show when the FATHER first requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the ORIGINAL TESTAMENTS?'
However, I'm asking - at this point, you just let it go, as it's evident you're unable and/or unwilling to do so, which is fine. I'd rather close out participation in this thread, for now, with another way to consider the concept of atonement. One that, as far as I can reason, fits intimately with uncle Paul's explanation of Joshua's venemous murder and subsequent resurrection, while taking strides towards supporting a perspective of redemption and transformation.
That said, as the Gospels are read through the lens of a covenantal relationship between the Father and his children, one may gain a sense that Joshua's mission was neither substitutionary - as you suggest through your interpretation of Paul's unique letters of encouragement, nor as much exemplary as others posit, but rather more plainly and simply, mediatorial in nature. Some may, no doubt, find this too simple and offensive, but I hope not.
You see, the thing is - we are told, the Anointed One was, is and will continue to be the great mediator of a unique promissory covenant. One that is, was and will continue to exist for all time between the Father and that part of his handiwork which is created in his image - mankind. There seems to be wisdom in the understanding that this covenant was not effectuate by the ToRaH or Christian doctrine, but by the gracious fulfillment of a promise the Father made.
Now, this promise was not made directly to Yuhdeans or Christians - though some will claim otherwise, but rather it was made, we are told, to a single man referred to as Abraham - a man with faith the size of a mustard seed. There seems to be wisdom in the understanding that this unique promissory covenant was made roughly four hundred years or so before the ToRaH was put into a written code and thousands of years before the 'Good News' of the ransom theory, the satisfaction theory and the moral influence theory were ever peddled upon our kind. According to the way that uncle Paul understood things ...
The ToRaH that came four hundred thirty years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by the Father, so as to invalidate the promise.
18 ~ For if the inheritance is based on the ToRaH, it is no longer based on the promise, but the Father graciously gave it to Abraham through the promise.
So then, this particular covenant gave Yuhdeans and Goyim alike the right to become children of Abraham and inheritors of all that the Father had promised through the Anointed One. Accordingly, Joshua was the promised mediator of this covenant and the Father indeed fulfilled it, just as promised, to Abraham.
Curiously enough, when the early church testament authors and uncle Paul laid out their carefully worded explanations for Joshua's venemous murder and subsequent witness of resurrection for the newly evolving traditions, they used covenantal language that would have been familiar to all the Yuhdean hearers and listeners; however, terms such as 'substitutionary' and 'satisfaction' - matter of factly, never even show up in the church testament texts.
According to those texts, the key used to unlock an understanding regarding these events related to Joshua was, is and will always be the covenant between the Father and all of mankind, as well as, Joshua's role as the mediator of that unique promissory covenant originally delivered to Abe. Uncle Paul explained that the Father is more than faithful to the Father's covenant promises and because of that fact we can all be more than conquerors. The Father's covenant is not a conditional contract bilaterally concluded by two parties, but rather a unilateral commitment or promise on the Father's part to act toward the Father's chosen covenant partner with overwhelming kindness and generosity. The Father made a commitment to fulfill this gracious purpose at any ...
Even every, cost.
Thus, as Paul explained, when the Father exercises saving mercy toward scumbags like us, the Father is simply fulfilling the covenant promise. However, Joshua - as the firstfruits of a new creation, is the Father's first son, the Anointed One who faithfully carried out just what divine love had pledged to do. And so, Paul’s argument to those within Yuhdean and Goyim traditions was this: by Joshua accepting his murderous fate - and dying, at the hands of lawless Goyim and Yuhdean pigs, Joshua bore all the curses derived from the transgressions caused by abiding by and in ritualistic behavior and rhetoric (ie. following a corrupted written ToRaH code, alleging false prophecies, submerging scriptural truths under the weight of inclusive polemical argument, etc.).
However, he supposed that the Father fulfilled the covenant promises to restore all people to a right relationship with the Father - and each other, through the resurrection. With this simple argument, uncle Paul bridged the scriptural gulf between the Yuhdean and the Goyim, vindicating the rights of the Goyim under the concept of justification apart from the ToRaH. Paul assured newly evolving church traditions the covenant not only promises a believer forgiveness and acceptance into the Father's favor, but it guaranteed salvation without keeping to ritualistic ToRaH as the religious Yuhdeans had come to accept and even completely apart from the written ToRaH code, as well as, adherence to later inclusive doctrines dreamed up by the Goyim's Play-Doh Fun FactoryTM.
How dissapointing to Yuhdean's and Christian's that cling so tightly to religious nationalism, as well as, all that would extort funds under such pretense ...
However, one thing that ol' uncle Paul does not offer up to those he encourages, contrary to popular opinion, is free license and reign to be a juvenile, lawless pagan, which is evident, as we're told - when a Goyim obeys their conscience, they become a law unto themselves. Anyone who studies uncle Paul's letter's for more then five minutes is likely to come away with a veiw that his understanding of justification had less to do with individual righteousness through understanding symbolic mysteries that can't even be explained or keeping the ToRaH - and ritualistic garble in general, and much more to do with becoming part of a faith based community. And so, it seems that for Paul, the covenant was the context for all people to be accepted into this community.
It seems quite reasonable to suppose that the Father's justice is based on the Father being true to what he promised in his gracious covenant. If the Father is to be just, then he must hold true to the commitment to help and save wretched, undeserving people. This biblical idea of justice, first presented in the Prophetic traditions within the original testaments, is beautiful and powerful in its simplicity. Nevertheless, Western theology insists that justice must somehow be related to what a person deserves; that is to say, they contend any god worth it's salt would would employ their sense of justice - the same one they operate through governmental affairs, etc.. Now, the thing is, in order to preserve this supposed justice of god, Western theology has had - and indeed must continue, to resort to legal manipulation within an act of atonement in which the god is forced to respect the principle of distributive justice.
The satisfaction theory and it's cousin p-sub draw primarily from the works of Anselm of Canterbury, who was truly inspired by Augustine - the father of original sin, just war and other great hits. His special brand of atonement is perhaps best understood through a lens of medieval feudalistic conceptions of authority, sanctions and reparation and, one may as well note, Anselm - a Benedictine monk and Italian medieval philosopher, amongst other things, indeed suffered an apparent psychosomatic illness at a fairly young age. Towards the end of the eleventh century, after gettin' all better they say, he began promoting the veiw that Joshua's sufferings were as a substitute of sorts on behalf of mankind, thus somehow satisfying the demands of a just and merciful god's honor and - believe it or not, this 'satisfaction' veiw was held by Anselm as a distinct step up from the apparently boring and outdated ransom theory.
It was in a similar fashion and succession that Anselm's shiny new theory was then put through the further refinements of Thomas Aquinas and the attorney John Calvin who appropriated Anselm's ideas, while modifying the terminology to that of criminal law, a few hundred years later. They finally introduced the awesome and great idea that only unadulterated, raw punishment - apparently enacted through bands of lawless dogmatic savages, could ever possibly meet the demands of divine justice. It seems where Anselm's brand contrasts with penal substitution is, Anselm perceived his 'satisfaction' as a restitution of sorts and as an alternative to punishment, whereas it's cousin 'p-sub' views the punishment itself as the actual means of satisfaction.
It is inevitable for distributive justice (i.e. giving to everyone what is due) - that which is the opposite of mercy, to become equated with a god’s act of punishing people for their sins. This human invention and understanding of justice - what the ToRaH's written code, medieval perceptions of justice and most modern day penal codes are based on, suggests that if forgiveness is extended to any part of mankind, it is only because other punishment fell on another, such as Joshua, as the substitutionary victim. In this dim light, the Anointed One's venemous and unruly murder is called 'justice' (according to the traditional interpretation of Romans 3:25,26), while the pardon granted the believer is then referred to as 'mercy'; hence, the classical Latin theory of the atonement. It reinforces the idea that a god’s justice must be akin to what real manly men must always prescribe, and that is to say - primarily punitive.
However, when uncle Paul writes about the good news of a justice which bypasses the ToRaH altogether, a justice which is grounded in a promise given to Abe well before the ToRaH, he is faithful to Joshua's plain teachings. You see, when Joshua preached about the Good News of the Kingdom, Joshua spoke about a divine justice that refuses to conform to the canons of legal justice. In fact, his parables teach us that love and grace do the surprising, daring - and even 'foolish' things; such as the employer who rewards latecomers with a full day’s pay and the father who welcomes the prodigal as if he were a hero.
The resurrection then becomes, at least, one's metaphor for the triumph of divine justice over alienation, mistakes and their wages - death. In this light, Joshua faithfully completed the covenantal transaction that began with Abraham and culminated in the resurrection. It opened the door to a new covenant relationship with all people based not on Yuhdean, Medieval or Western concepts of law, but rather on a promise. Again, the only mechanism that this veiw relies on is the Father's raw, unadulterated and unlimited energy, love and power, combined with an infinite sense of true divine justice; iow, One promise.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Dear friend, Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...
™ Version 4.2
