|
BrandorKP posted:That's not far off the argument actually. I would not argue that these things prepared for the Christian spiritual tradition. But I would argue that these things prepared for the event of Jesus as the Christ. The "event that is Christ" is in the Christian spiritual tradition. You still haven't explained what you mean by "the event that is Christ" outside of that quote which is basically "Christ is a metaphor." BrandorKP posted:And the early church used the word kairos to talk about Jesus to communicate this. At the very least it's not incorrect to say that the early Christians believed and argued that these concepts prepared the way for Jesus... Soter doesn't carry the connotations you think it does, I gave two examples in an earlier post. And saying "well the Christians thought this," is a circular argument: you're claiming something is Christian because Christians said is was. It's like someone trying to argue that ancient shipmaking is about Christ because Christians said Noah's ark represents Christ, therefore boats do. You're also presupposing that a Christian context is the best context to use, which isn't immediately obvious and is a method that's rejected in all history and philosophy that isn't explicitly apologia. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Dec 11, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Schindler was a savior You are getting the concept I'm trying to communicate. That's pretty close to how that epithet was used as I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Jesus was quoting the first verse of Psalm 22, which is prophetic of his sufferings. No it isn't. The Psalmist felt abandoned by God. Jesus can't feel that because he can't abandon himself. "He is God" you said. Man, it's almost as if this nonsensical cornerstone of Christian theology is complete rubbish and has been since it was first devised!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You are getting the concept I'm trying to communicate. That's pretty close to how that epithet was used as I understand it. The difference being the effects these people have in reality as 'saviors' versus the religious implication of 'saving people in the afterlife' One has a real and tangible effect, the other is a claimed and unproven effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You are getting the concept I'm trying to communicate. That's pretty close to how that epithet was used as I understand it. Then you don't understand it well. quote:In 278 BC the Gauls broke into Anatolia, and a victory that Antiochus won over these Gauls by using Indian war elephants (275 BC) is said to have been the origin of his title of Soter (Gr. for "saviour").
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:he can't abandon himself If I can I'm sure he can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:No it isn't. The Psalmist felt abandoned by God. Jesus can't feel that because he can't abandon himself. "He is God" you said. Man, it's almost as if this nonsensical cornerstone of Christian theology is complete rubbish and has been since it was first devised! Jesus at all times, presumably (certainly by the time he was fixing to get crucified) knew he was God, full, entire, complete, totally equal and synonymous with God the father, so on and so forth. He had perfect knowledge of all events past, present, and future. He got down on his knees and asked God to take this cup away from his lips if it was his will. Leaving aside the question of "Why did he fear pain" - we might reasonably say that Jesus's human body would bleed, lead him to cry out when jabbed with a spear, and so forth, but there would be no reason for him to "fear" it, especially since he knew exactly what would happen - what was the point of the entire speech in the garden, then? Why did he pray like that? Was he putting on a show for the benefit of future posterity? If so, why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The difference being the effects these people have in reality as 'saviors' versus the religious implication of 'saving people in the afterlife' I see what's going on now. Yeah I'm not using it in the sense of soters 'saving people in the afterlife'. You haven't read the whole thread: "I would argue that much of early Christianity was mortalist. And mortalist largely because of the greek influence." http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?goto=post&postid=438184034
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I see what's going on now. Yeah I'm not using it in the sense of soters 'saving people in the afterlife'. You haven't read the whole thread: Then begs the question: What is the point in a religion promising you eternal salvation or damnation if its own apostles didn't buy it. And begs ANOTHER question: What is the point in your fervent defense of it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
It's about salvation and damnation right now in an immediate sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's about salvation and damnation right now in an immediate sense. You guys don't get it. Its about ethics in biblical journalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's about salvation and damnation right now in an immediate sense. This makes it sound like a pyramid scheme more than a theology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Philosophy isn't real, BrandorKP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:what was the point of the entire speech in the garden, then? Why did he pray like that? To show his perfect obedience to the will of His Father, which redeems us from original sin: CCC 612-615 The cup of the New Covenant, which Jesus anticipated when he offered himself at the Last Supper, is afterwards accepted by him from his Father's hands in his agony in the garden at Gethsemani, making himself "obedient unto death". Jesus prays: "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. . ." Thus he expresses the horror that death represented for his human nature. Like ours, his human nature is destined for eternal life; but unlike ours, it is perfectly exempt from sin, the cause of death. Above all, his human nature has been assumed by the divine person of the "Author of life", the "Living One". By accepting in his human will that the Father's will be done, he accepts his death as redemptive, for "he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree." Christ's death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world", and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the "blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities". Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
First I wanna apologize because I know the "respond to posts line/paragraph by line/paragraph" is annoying and I probably do it too much but this is the easiest way I know to respond to posts like these that make multiple separate points. Anyway.CowOnCrack posted:Can we get Truth from other sources besides God? That really depends on what you mean by truth, and I should have brought this up before. If you mean truth as I mean it, which is that which most accurately comports to reality, then yes absolutely you can get truth from other sources besides God. In fact God on this front God is batting .000. If you define truth as some sort of ethereal force of the universe rather than as a concept then I don't know if you can get truth from any other source, and I don't know that you can get it from God either. CowOnCrack posted:If we define the concept of God as including Truth (as well as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) the answer is no. If we reduce the concept of God to less than Truth, the Way, the Light, then God is no longer God. Yes, when you define something as something else then of course it is that thing which you have defined it as. If you define the concept of God as including lemon-line soda then you can't get a can of Sprite without God either. Now, you already kinda admitted that you realize this is a huge copout (there is no "perceived" about it) so it makes me wonder why even bring this up at all? You can't simply define things into existence no matter how hard you try or how fervently you believe it to be so. Also, you assert that if we define God as not encompassing truth then he is no longer God. How do you know this is the case? By what mechanisms did you verify this? Why wouldn't such a being still be God? CowOnCrack posted:Answering these questions for yourself carries a risk - that you become your own God. Like Plato, in response to the presocratics, you agree there is a Truth, and like him, through dialectic you arrive at the "Truth". But it is the Truth, or is it Plato's truth? Again, and granted I wasn't very clear, I do not believe in some fundamental force called capital T 'Truth'. I believe that statements and observations can be labelled as true when they most accurately reflect reality. But this does not make me my own God in any form that I would accept is a useful definition of God. But let's say it does make me m own God; so what? CowOnCrack posted:You still haven't achieved the absolute, unshakable foundation that a being like God would provide, defined as he is traditionally conceived. You cannot have absolute, unshakeable certainty in something and also have faith in that same thing, those terms are mutually exclusive. And I don't accept that absolute certainty is even possible, let alone that God is sufficient for it. I'm using certainty here synonymously with your usage of foundation because I'm not quite sure your statement makes any sense otherwise. Unless, I suppose, you are saying something about how God is absolute and if truth is God then truth is absolute. To which I would again say, so what? That statement sounds nice but it doesn't actually mean anything because you have no way of knowing if that is actually the case or not. At least when I say that the boiling point of water at sea level is 100°C I can demonstrate this to be accurate. Can you demonstrate both that God is real and that he/she/it is also synonymous with Truth? I doubt you can, which makes your foundation pretty drat shaky. CowOnCrack posted:The question is whether there ever existed a man who spoke the Truth, and the Word. Either you believe, or you don't. There is no way to be certain, except to be convinced yourself by carefully studying the Word. The only way anyone can be convinced is through reason and/or evidence. What you're talking about here is, and I'm just gonna be blunt, simply deluding yourself. CowOnCrack posted:In the meantime, be cautious with your answers and the truth you have constructed for yourself. Even if your truth is virtuous and Christ-like in its conception, as a rhetorical being your truth has influence on the world around you and you are in an act of never-ending persuasion with others that your truth will overturn theirs, even if you are living a good life and only occasionally defending your views. Good, I love defending my views, I greatly enjoy it. Everyone should. Why would you phrase this as a bad thing? -EDIT- Jesus' sacrifice wasn't great, he even reneged on it three days later. At least when Elvis died for my sins he had the good tact to stay dead. And what is a day's worth of suffering to a being of infinite vastness and power? It couldn't have been less of a sacrifice because nothing meaningful was ever given up! Who What Now fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Jolly Jumbuck posted:A genuine question: How do you justify the fact that tribes, such as the ancient Native Americans, or precursors to Australian aborigines, who lived in complete isolating and could not possibly have heard of Jesus within a generation of his coming, are doomed to spend eternity in Hell? Do you feel that God has an absolute moral code, and that makes it okay for them to suffer, or is there some other explanation? CCC 633-634 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom": "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell." Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him. "The gospel was preached even to the dead." The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption. and CCC 846-848 "Outside the Church there is no salvation" How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:To show his perfect obedience to the will of His Father, which redeems us from original sin: I also do not understand this business with the perfect sacrifice. What was lost exactly, what was gained? So he completed the system he created in the first place. And for this I need to stop masturbating? If God created us with perfect knowledge of how everything was going to go in the first place, I don't think we owe anything to him. To each other, certainly, and perhaps we owe God thanks for creating us even if he made us imperfect, apparently, when he could have made us far more perfect far more easily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jesus' sacrifice wasn't great, he even reneged on it three days later. At least when Elvis died for my sins he had the good tact to stay dead. And what is a day's worth of suffering to a being of infinite vastness and power? It couldn't have been less of a sacrifice because nothing meaningful was ever given up! No, this is monophysitism: the belief that Christ had a single, divine nature, not separate human and divine natures. This is heretical. Christ was both fully human and fully divine. His sacrifice was thus both completely of his human life, and touched by the divine and therefore infinite. Christ's resurrection was also not to human life, CCC 646 Christ's Resurrection was not a return to earthly life, as was the case with the raisings from the dead that he had performed before Easter: Jairus' daughter, the young man of Naim, Lazarus. These actions were miraculous events, but the persons miraculously raised returned by Jesus' power to ordinary earthly life. At some particular moment they would die again. Christ's Resurrection is essentially different. In his risen body he passes from the state of death to another life beyond time and space. At Jesus' Resurrection his body is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit: he shares the divine life in his glorious state, so that St. Paul can say that Christ is "the man of heaven"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No, this is monophysitism: the belief that Christ had a single, divine nature, not separate human and divine natures. This is heretical. Christ was both fully human and fully divine. His sacrifice was thus both completely of his human life, and touched by the divine and therefore infinite. However, this sacrifice was merely 'touched by the Divine'? Are you saying Christ was not fully and truly Divine? It sounds like you're saying Christ's mortal form was slain but that his God-side, for want of a better term, was completely untouched (how could it not be; he knew it was all coming from the very beginning, and also, was God). Is Jesus now limited to his human form in order to set this example? Was he limited to it beforehand? How does the Holy Spirit work into this, for that matter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Is Jesus now limited to his human form in order to set this example? Was he limited to it beforehand? How does the Holy Spirit work into this, for that matter? Don't worry, he's got a quote for this 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Nessus posted:However, this sacrifice was merely 'touched by the Divine'? Are you saying Christ was not fully and truly Divine? It sounds like you're saying Christ's mortal form was slain but that his God-side, for want of a better term, was completely untouched (how could it not be; he knew it was all coming from the very beginning, and also, was God). Christ was fully human and fully divine. Therefore his sacrifice is a divine sacrifice - even though his divine nature could not suffer or die - because his human nature was unified with his divine nature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Don't worry, he's got a quote for this Cavaradossi posted:Christ was fully human and fully divine. Therefore his sacrifice is a divine sacrifice - even though his divine nature could not suffer or die - because his human nature was unified with his divine nature. Except that the billionaire losing a dollar is losing an actual portion of a finite (if very large) quantity, while Jesus was yielding up a finite fraction of infinity. Nessus fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Frankly I'm happy to hear them. This entire system seems like it would work better with minor things different (say, Christ voluntarily covered all his Godliness before incarnating as the Baby Jesus, allowing some to come back after his baptism and all of it to return once he died on the cross). This sounds like Nestorianism: the claim that Mary bore only Christ's human nature. This divides Christ into two persons. Unfortunately this is also a heresy: Christ was one person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Gotta love God taking human form in order to sacrifice himself for reasons so that, also for reasons, his original plan would be fixed because it wasn't working out so well. Also if you don't believe this story you'll be tortured forever after I force you to watch me beat the final boss which I could have done at any time or even better, not allowed the final boss to ever appear in the first place. I mean, a 4 year old that dies goes to Heaven, right? I mean of course they do. Why do those souls win the Heaven lottery while Johnny Native American #5,732,132, born in modern day Iowa in AD 840, goes straight to Hell because no Jesus. Makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:This sounds like Nestorianism: the claim that Mary bore only Christ's human nature. This divides Christ into two persons. Unfortunately this is also a heresy: Christ was one person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Gotta love God taking human form in order to sacrifice himself for reasons so that, also for reasons, his original plan would be fixed because it wasn't working out so well. The question being: If he has total control of all creation and his realm, why even sacrifice himself? And in such a vague and unconnected manner?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Then how could he be fully human, except in the sense that as being God is infinite, it also (by definition) includes every aspect of human nature? Besides which, it sounds like he was God on his Father's side, so to speak, in practice if not literally. it's gnostic mystery religion bullshit, it's not supposed to make sense
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No, this is monophysitism: the belief that Christ had a single, divine nature, not separate human and divine natures. This is heretical. Christ was both fully human and fully divine. His sacrifice was thus both completely of his human life, and touched by the divine and therefore infinite. That doesns't change the fact that the sacrifice of a single human life is completely meaningless to a being of infinite power. What does God care? If he really wanted to he could just create another fully human body to inhabit. E: Cavaradossi posted:Christ was fully human and fully divine. Therefore his sacrifice is a divine sacrifice - even though his divine nature could not suffer or die - because his human nature was unified with his divine nature. God retained his divine nature, so it was not sacrificed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Gotta love God taking human form in order to sacrifice himself for reasons so that, also for reasons, his original plan would be fixed because it wasn't working out so well. Also if you don't believe this story you'll be tortured forever after I force you to watch me beat the final boss which I could have done at any time or even better, not allowed the final boss to ever appear in the first place. they go to purgatory, the Catholics have this theology all sorted out. you only go to hell if you don't get baptized before you die and the adult society isn't Christian
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Then how could he be fully human, except in the sense that as being God is infinite, it also (by definition) includes every aspect of human nature? Besides which, it sounds like he was God on his Father's side, so to speak, in practice if not literally. CCC 479 At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:it's gnostic mystery religion bullshit, it's not supposed to make sense e: OK, now we're introducing the Word here. Is the Word the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or a fourth character heretofore not present in this discussion? Is it really a quadrility?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Christ was fully human and fully divine. Therefore his sacrifice is a divine sacrifice - even though his divine nature could not suffer or die - because his human nature was unified with his divine nature. Show me something that's fully red and fully white at the same time, once I see that it will make believing in something fully human and fully divine a little easier. Nessus posted:Frankly I'm happy to hear them. This entire system seems like it would work better with minor things different (say, Christ voluntarily covered all his Godliness before incarnating as the Baby Jesus, allowing some to come back after his baptism and all of it to return once he died on the cross). It seems like the most perverse and overcomplicated explanation for all these events has been chosen. Resolving contradictory texts and interpretations through committee will get you that. I mean, people have suffered worse than Jesus, and if you're a Christian, their souls were unharmed, so why isn't their sacrifice as great as Christ's?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That doesns't change the fact that the sacrifice of a single human life is completely meaningless to a being of infinite power. What does God care? If he really wanted to he could just create another fully human body to inhabit. He doesn't need to, he's achieved the redemption of all mankind through Christ's sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice is the literal opposite of meaningless: as this thread should tell you, "there is only one thing that matters and it is Jesus Christ".
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:they go to purgatory, the Catholics have this theology all sorted out. you only go to hell if you don't get baptized before you die and the adult society isn't Christian Nope, not then. Pretty hard to go to hell in the Catholic paradigm, and it's not certain that anyone does. In fact it is hoped that nobody does, and one is free to believe that nobody will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Nessus posted:e: OK, now we're introducing the Word here. Is the Word the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or a fourth character heretofore not present in this discussion? Is it really a quadrility? John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Why does God impede my exercise of free will when I want to fly around like Superman, yet he doesn't impede it when I want to punch babies?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Why does God impede my exercise of free will when I want to fly around like Superman, yet he doesn't impede it when I want to punch babies? You already KNOW the answer to this: God works in mysterious ways...
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:it's gnostic mystery religion bullshit, it's not supposed to make sense Nestorianism was neither gnostic nor a mystery religion and isn't even contemporarily considered heretical and its kind of an antiquated slur to use today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Nestorianism was neither gnostic nor a mystery religion and isn't even contemporarily considered heretical and its kind of an antiquated slur to use today. right, nessus was asking how the orthodox explanation makes sense, not nestorianism
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:He doesn't need to, he's achieved the redemption of all mankind through Christ's sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice is the literal opposite of meaningless: as this thread should tell you, "there is only one thing that matters and it is Jesus Christ". God could have just redeemed all mankind with a snap of his fingers. The whole riggamaroll with Jesus was unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:55
|
|