Who is "you and yours"?
The 12 disciples and their followers including in early Acts, were looking forward to their (Israel) day of redemption. I am looking back on it, as was Paul. See how easy that is?
ECT why don't you say the Our Father?
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
Who is "you and yours"?
The 12 disciples and their followers including in early Acts, were looking forward to their (Israel) day of redemption. I am looking back on it, as was Paul. See how easy that is?
Was responding to what Chrysostom said against your view sound view; meaning I was responding to how his and those like him; see things - through the same distorted lens - the traditions of men - he obviously sees things through.
Not wording anything to death; your problem is this idea I am putting forth; an idea obviously beyond your comprehension.
Further, I don't answer open ended; seemingly baiting questions. If you want an answer; be specific; quit playing games.
Cross Reference
New member
Open ended baiting questions??!! Who is kidding who? Your "wording to death" is because you have no answer that will stand the scrutiny of an honest criticism. In other words, you are nothing but a "blowhard".
Yes. It is a very powerful metaphor and points to the abundant life we can gain from the death of Jesus.
I just don't focus on the human sacrifice aspects of this theology.
Coming up with our own opinions based on reading 2,000-year-old theological writings is easy enough. The danger is that we often interpret these archaic terms and phrases using our own modern sensibilities.
"The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there."
--J.P. Hartley
Answer what; knucklehead in your belief you are being "objective" - your question was vague.
And I said "seemingly baiting" - Mr "objective."
Yeah, honest criticism on your part - from you - one so clearly blinded by his own subjectivity.
How fitting with the subjective reasoning of the OP of this thread your "objectivity" is.
You just haven't a clue what I am talking about.
But enough of your failure in that - ask your question clearly.
Then why do you so engage in doing just that kind of thing - not only in "Coming up with" your "own opinions based on reading 2,000-year-old theological writings" but in so "often interpreting these archaic terms and phrases using" your "own modern sensibilities"?
Your "give and take" - "interpreting" - of forgiveness being one of these "modern sensibilities" based "opinions" of yours.
Cross Reference
New member
The evidence I read from the Bible gives me an abundance of information regarding different traditions of the term "repentance."
And because the discrepancies and contradictions surrounding repentance are actually IN the Bible, this means that I must read them honestly and take them seriously.
We are all born into God's infinite cherry orchard and since we are merely human, we can only cherry-pick the thoughts and beliefs and opinions that make sense to us.
The gospel authors did the same thing. First came Jesus and then came the interpretation of him by his later followers. Each gospel writer cherry-picked their own Jesus--one that made sense to THEM.
Lay your "evidence" out; let's look at it - "extend your mind."
Your sarcasm is noted. Sarcasm is always a "cover emotion" for anger. It might have been useful to simply admit "I am angry and would like to see your evidence," etc.
There are two contradictory traditions interwoven into the Bible:
1. A God of mercy who demands not a blood sacrifice for sin but only wants us to come before him in repentance and a contrite heart.
2. The newer tradition was one in which a jealous God of justice requires a blood sacrifice for sin.
Jesus and John the Baptizer advocated repentance. Paul, the Aaronite priestly cult in Moses' day and the New Testament gospel of John basically held to Jesus being slaughtered by his father to forgive human sin.
The history of Israel talks about Solomon and David's kingdom being split in two, but the two kingdoms both positioned themselves as the only authority when it came to tradition and religious practice.
In the Bible we often find clear contradictions of the two traditions in close proximity to each other. In Genesis 34 we read that the northern kingdom's capital Shechem was obtained through deceit and then a massacre, but in Genesis 33:18--19 we are told that the land in Shechem was honorably obtained through a purchase.
In Exodus 34 we can see that some priests in Judah decided they could reap an advantage by challenging the understanding of God as merciful. They pushed a God of strict justice requiring blood sacrifice for sin--and that sacrifice could only be done through them.
Leviticus begins by saying that it was to be Aaron's descendants who were to control the use of blood sacrifices.
This was a big break with the much older tradition of a God of great love and mercy.
Read through Deuteronomy and pay close attention to the rules of sacrificial offerings. There is no mention whatsoever of a sacrifice for sin. All sacrifices are in the nature of donations and tithes in grateful response to blessings received.
This evidence is just an early example of the dichotomy between mercy and sacrifice, repentance and the spilling of blood, a God of revenge and justice and a God with an open heart.
But what is more objective than recognizing what is actually IN the Bible and building one's own belief system as a result of the facts, evidence and data in every Bible verse?
Cross Reference
New member
You can 'count' on it.
That's a good question.
I find the answer is... attempt to establish first, a means of objectivity in general, together with a means by which to know with some degree of certainty that one is actually being objective.
Because it is to easy to arrive at a conclusion, in the absence of information which; if also taken into account, might have resulted in different conclusion.
Often, all one gets from others is the sense as to their assertions, that they believe they are right because they believe they are right, and or because they believe they were being objective during their studying out of an issue.
But when pressed to share what principles guided their supposed objectivity, given their obvious errors, they haven't a clue what one is even talking about... other than... that they have been misjudged, or what have you.
Its further downhill with them from there.
But this is an important; a key issue.
Cross Reference
New member
<birthed in conceit and false piety>.
Must be your as yet proven actual "objectivity," as I am not asserting I am above it all - that is you reading your subjectivity into my words.
I know well how proud I can sometimes be when I have seen something that someone else perhaps did not.
I shouldn't let that stop me from posting what needs to be said about this objectivity issue, though.
Even if for my own sake once more - even if all I end up having accomplished was to remind myself of its importance once more; as objectivity is ever a "start over" issue. And in this, it is ever a fascinating one.
Never mind; you have determined your coarse. I leave you to it.
