The truth will make you free

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why would God "think" like a human being? Why would he need an angel to "strengthen" him?

----------marauder----------

If you don't understand the glory of a God who is strong enough to become vulnerable then it can't be explained to you. Jesus's strength and God's is that he is not afraid to be weak and fragile. Only the insecure and the bri ...[text shortened]... to allow themselves to be weak. God has no need of what the world thinks is "strong".

Doubletalk as usual. If it can't be explained it's because it's illogical and idiotic to speak of an all-powerful being who can fear or who needs lesser supernatural creatures to buck him up. Your entire theology is based on Jesus coming into the world to die on the cross, yet right before it happens the Gospels have him trying to avoid it. This makes utterly no sense in your theology, so either the Gospels got it wrong or your theology is a crock.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]"ThinkOfone already admitted to having zero faith in the words of Christ." E

I never made any such admission.

"What Jesus meant is in no way connected to what I do or don't do. I really hope that you can understand this. What Jesus meant is also in no way connected to what I believe or don't believe." ~ ThinkOfOne

Who do you think you're fooling?[/b]

I wonder if Jesus had anything to say about someone who continually makes false statements about another. The fact that you do so even after being corrected is all the more reprehensible. All you had to do was re-read what I had said in the context that it was written and re-read KM's response. I pointed this out to you. Yet you insist on making this and other false accusations. Do you really think your heart is in the right place? Does this in any way represent the vision that Jesus put forth?

Here's KM's take on what I said:
I understand what you are saying. You are saying that even if I could somehow show you to be a terrible sinner (only joking) this would not change the words of jesus one iota. It has nothing to do with his words. Am I right?

Here was my response to his question:
Yes, Jesus meant whatever He meant. The actions of a give individual won't change that.

Yet you managed to twist this into:
KM, ThinkOfone already admitted to having zero faith in the words of Christ. In light of this, it is obvious that his attempt to separate Christ's church from Christ Himself is driven by a hatred for those who believe in Jesus for their salvation.

You say that I am "driven by hatred for those who believe in Jesus for their salvation." Yet I have no hatred. Yet I have no problem with those who believe in Jesus for their salvation. You make one false statement after another. I can easily point to several more false statements that you've made since you've taken it upon yourself to hound me. Can you not understand what's driving you?

You have eyes but cannot see.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Doubletalk as usual. If it can't be explained it's because it's illogical and idiotic to speak of an all-powerful being who can fear or who needs lesser supernatural creatures to buck him up. Your entire theology is based on Jesus coming into the world to die on the cross, yet right before it happens the Gospels have him trying to avoid it. This makes ut ...[text shortened]... ly no sense in your theology, so either the Gospels got it wrong or your theology is a crock.

This makes utterly no sense in your theology, so either the Gospels got it wrong or your theology is a crock.

-----------marauder-------

I am entirely unphased by your ill thought out comments. It makes perfect sense to me that Jesus had a vulnerable side and could fear death. It makes him much more appealing and human to me. I don't want jesus to be some stony faced Arnie who faces death like some make believe hero. The real heroes are human beings , and they are courageous despite the fear not in the absence of it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This makes utterly no sense in your theology, so either the Gospels got it wrong or your theology is a crock.

-----------marauder-------

I am entirely unphased by your ill thought out comments. It makes perfect sense to me that Jesus had a vulnerable side and could fear death. It makes him much more appealing and human to me. I don't want jesus ...[text shortened]... al heroes are human beings , and they are courageous despite the fear not in the absence of it.

As is usual you keep trying to avoid the points being made. I'll repeat them:

According to your theology, Jesus' essential purpose (and Jesus is God not a mere human being) was to die on the cross as "remission" for everybody's sins for all time. Jesus, being eternal and all-knowing, knew this. Yet, right before it is his time to go to the cross, he asks the Father to intercede and not have him die on the cross. And he makes the point of distinguishing between his will and God's. Finally, an angel has to come down and "strengthen" his resolve.

I ask again what sense that makes. That Jesus' fear makes him more appealing to you is irrelevant; either your theology can answer these contradictions or it can't. I find Salma Hayek appealing, but that doesn't make her God.

You are "unphased" because you have an emotional attachment to these beliefs, not because they can be intellectually defended.

Originally posted by no1marauder
As is usual you keep trying to avoid the points being made. I'll repeat them:

According to your theology, Jesus' essential purpose (and Jesus is God not a mere human being) was to die on the cross as "remission" for everybody's sins for all time. Jesus, being eternal and all-knowing, knew this. Yet, right before it is his time to go to the ional attachment to these beliefs, not because they can be intellectually defended.

The simple answer to your question is that as Jesus goes through his ministry he grows in his awareness of the mission before him. As he gets closer and closer to the day of his death he becomes more and more consumed by it . This is just a normal human response to something unpleasant - namely as the time gets very close we experience increasing anxiety.

I don't see anything particularly illogical or unreasonable about this. He is a human being but faithful to his father also. He does not ask his father to change his mind and change the mission , rather he asks if there is another way that it can be achieved. When his father offers no alternative he obeys perfectly.

I will say one thing about Christian theology in that it has tended to over play Jesus' divinity and misses the fact that he was also human. We forget that he played with children , wept over Lazarus and enjoyed a good breakfast.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Take communion. From what I can tell, Jesus basically gave disciples a ritual to "remember [him]". I haven't seen where he goes into an explanation that necessarily gives the act more significance than that. So I called it a "ritual". What more do you want me to say?

------------------think of one----------------


I don't want you to say anythin ...[text shortened]... look into if only you will look. It's disingenuous to say that there isn't.

Earlier I got the impression that you believe that a person cannot follow Jesus without taking communion. I also got the impression that you believe that the very act of taking communion is required for salvation. Jesus says it is simply to "remember [him]". That's good enough for me.

That's not to say that the symbolism is completely lost on me. Jesus points to dying for forgiveness of sin, but He doesn't point to it extending to one being entitled to continue sinning.

Forgiveness of sin and being entitled to continue sinning do not logically have to be inseparable. I get the impression that in your mind you can't have one without the other.

How about instead of only picking out a couple of lines from my posts, you address them in their entirety?

Originally posted by knightmeister
From what I can tell, Jesus basically gave disciples a ritual to "remember [him]". I haven't seen where he goes into an explanation that necessarily gives the act more significance than that.

--thinkof ONe-------------

BTW- Did you miss the bit where he said this..........?

"Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh o ...[text shortened]... ificant to me. Could the direct parallels with communion be accidental I wonder? Mmmmm....

Do you really think He's talking about eating wafers and drinking wine here?

Let's face it, if communion actually imparts people with the essence of Jesus, it seems to have little if no effect as evidenced by the RCC and George W and millions of other "Christians".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Earlier I got the impression that you believe that a person cannot follow Jesus without taking communion. I also got the impression that you believe that the very act of taking communion is required for salvation. Jesus says it is simply to "remember [him]". That's good enough for me.

That's not to say that the symbolism is completely lost on me. Jesu ...[text shortened]... d of only picking out a couple of lines from my posts, you address them in their entirety?

I have no idea why you would think I would subscribe to the idea that communion is neccessary for salvation. There's nothing magic about wafers and wine either. The magic is the living Jesus. All the wine drinking and ritual in the world means nothing if Jesus is not invited to live in you. That's the whole point of communion. It's a spiritual thing.

The symbolism then becomes very apparent. We are to take Jesus into ourselves (bread and wine) as part of the new covenant. He is to live in us (which is what he said) and remain in us. All this happens via the Holy Spirit (another teaching of Jesus). The spirit of God himself is on the move when communion is taken.

This is not an entitlement to sin or a blank cheque , it's just a provision for sin so that we are not under condemnation. Forgiveness is not given on the provision that sin is overcome , it is given in order that it might be overcome.

One problem here is that you find it difficult to embrace what Jesus taught about his death and communion and the Holy Spirit because you get anxious over where it might take you. You start looking down the path before you take any steps. You judge jesus's teachings on communion etc not on face value but on the perceived direction they will take you.

This is why you rationalise away his direct and explicit references to prophecy , Jewish symbolism and the purpose of his death . You have no coherent explanation of why Jesus would talk about his death in this way and nothing to say on whether the Holy Spirit exists or not.( Jesus said it did). You won't say if you think he was ressurected and you fight tooth and nail to hang on to the idea that communion is just some ritual.

Communion was the last thing Jesus did with his disciples before he died. He could have chosen a whole myriad of things that he should be remembered for . This was his big last chance to reinforce his message and give something to his followers to latch onto , to remember him by. Something that would out last him by centuries.

So what did he choose to reinforce and leave his disciples with? What was the concept that jesus himself decided to embed once and for all in his followers? That concept was his blood shed and body broken for forgiveness of sin and the new covenant. He chose that we should remember his sacrifice and death and what it was to achieve. It was virtually his last wish.

That my friend is significant , very significant. You have tried to gloss it over and claim that Christianity places too much emphasis on it but the extrapolation is logical nevertheless. Jesus set the whole thing in motion.

Let's say that for arguments sake that a whole lot of people got the wrong impression from what Jesus said about himself and went off thinking that the whole deal was for him to live in us and his death was to be the new covenant via the Holy Spirit. We could then ask who's fault that is. Did Jesus bungle it ? Did his father?

Can we really blame the early Christians for thinking what they thought? Of course not , you may say it's an "extrapolation" but it's not the point. Jesus came to build a church and according to you it went wrong and they got completely the wrong idea and extrapolated a fantasy. Some church! But in your view Jesus must take a lot of the blame because the way he spoke leant itself very neatly with the way St Paul et al spoke about him. According to you he left his church in a mess and even the Holy Spirit (another clear teaching of Jesus ) was not able to guide them back into "truth".

This I find hard to believe. It's not consistent with Jesus's theology of a father who has everything planned out.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you really think He's talking about eating wafers and drinking wine here?

Let's face it, if communion actually imparts people with the essence of Jesus, it seems to have little if no effect as evidenced by the RCC and George W and millions of other "Christians".

Let's face it, if communion actually imparts people with the essence of Jesus, it seems to have little if no effect as evidenced by the RCC and George W and millions of other "Christians".

--------thinkof one----------------

Ah ! but you pick on the crappy parts of Christendom . I could introduce you to people who have been imparted with the essence of Jesus. Not by wafers but by Jesus himself. He did say that he would be present with believers did he not?

I grant you that there are millions of Christians out there who promote war and hate and who I feel ashamed to share a religion with , but what does that prove. It only proves that man can twist anything to his own ends , even the message of christ. People like GW make good headlines , there is a silent majority out there.

BTW- You forgot MLK , William Wilberforce , Bono and many others. Never mind .

Originally posted by no1marauder
As is usual you keep trying to avoid the points being made. I'll repeat them:

According to your theology, Jesus' essential purpose (and Jesus is God not a mere human being) was to die on the cross as "remission" for everybody's sins for all time. Jesus, being eternal and all-knowing, knew this. Yet, right before it is his time to go to the ional attachment to these beliefs, not because they can be intellectually defended.

And as usual you display a galling lack of understanding of scripture, no1. I'm sure you're a great lawyer and may be quite proficient in other realms of knowledge, but scriptural exegesis is obviously not one of them. Apparently you lack the capability to objectively grasp the contents of scripture in context, though more likely it is a conscious refusal to do so on your part.

The meaning of scripture can be objectively distinguishable, if understood in context -- you don't even need a "secret decoder ring" to do so. What you do need is a little more in depth study and a fundamental rollback of your prejudices.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have no idea why you would think I would subscribe to the idea that communion is neccessary for salvation. There's nothing magic about wafers and wine either. The magic is the living Jesus. All the wine drinking and ritual in the world means nothing if Jesus is not invited to live in you. That's the whole point of communion. It's a spiritual thing. ...[text shortened]... not consistent with Jesus's theology of a father who has everything planned out.

Forgiveness is not given on the provision that sin is overcome , it is given in order that it might be overcome.

Can you support the above with the words of Jesus or prophecy?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Forgiveness is not given on the provision that sin is overcome , it is given in order that it might be overcome.

Can you support the above with the words of Jesus or prophecy?[/b]

No I can't , it's an extrapolation based on "the son will set you free" and " I will be in you as you will be in me " amongst other things. It's also a revelation of the Holy Spirit to believers and based on the idea that if we are enslaved to sin we need to be set free from sin by something/someone. It's clear that jesus was prepared to lay down his life for Simon Peter long before he overcame.

Love is the very power of God . It makes no sense that he would withhold such power from us just when we need it to become free. Any good parent knows that a child needs love and acceptance to overcome their struggles , what no child needs is to be told " overcome this then I wil love you". All the evidence tells us that this is destructive parenting. I have to believe God is a better parent than that.

Love is what sets us free. We are loved by God before we change because it's love that causes us to change. We cannot win God's love because God has shown that he is prepared to take the first step. Afterall , he laid down his life for me long before I was even born. This is the nature of love , it gives freely and abundantly with no conditions.

BTW-------- What's most interesting about this post of yours is that you saw fit to admonish me about taking small sections of your posts rather than responding to your posts in their "entirety" and yet here I find you doing exactly the same thing to me. Once again it's one rule for ToO and one rule for KM . When are you going to start playing fair and hold yourself to the same rules you expect others to play by? It's chess and draughts again.

Go back , read again and give me the complete response to my post , you expected nothing less from me.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are "unphased" because you have an emotional attachment to these beliefs, not because they can be intellectually defended.

And this, my unbelieving friend, is what is called "faith".

Something you obviously wouldn't be caught dead having.

Too bad for you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And this, my unbelieving friend, is what is called "faith".

Something you obviously wouldn't be caught dead having.

Too bad for you.

Now, now, we all have faith in something. However, No1 only has faith in....well.....no1. That is, me, myself and I.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
And as usual you display a galling lack of understanding of scripture, no1. I'm sure you're a great lawyer and may be quite proficient in other realms of knowledge, but scriptural exegesis is obviously not one of them. Apparently you lack the capability to objectively grasp the contents of scripture in context, though more likely it is a conscious refu ...[text shortened]... you do need is a little more in depth study and a fundamental rollback of your prejudices.

When you have no argument, try to personalize matters. Any time you want to respond to the points raised, feel free.

That goes for you too, whodey.