Test Of Immortality

[EphremHagos]

FOR DISCUSSION

“Not even death will EVER be able to overcome it.” Matthew 16:18 (Caps for emphasis)

Jesus Christ can neither be called “Son of the living God”, i.e., immortal, nor attributed victory over the Devil and death through his death (Heb. 2:14) if he was himself overcome by death on the cross and in the grave for three days. Can he?

[John Goddard]

FOR DISCUSSION

“Not even death will EVER be able to overcome it.” Matthew 16:18 (Caps for emphasis)

Jesus Christ can neither be called “Son of the living God”, i.e., immortal, nor attributed victory over the Devil and death through his death (Heb. 2:14) if he was himself overcome by death on the cross and in the grave for three days. Can he?

Victory and immortality are after and through resurrection into everlasting life.

The Devil only wins if you go on to everlasting death.

[EphremHagos]

Victory and immortality are after and through resurrection into everlasting life.

The Devil only wins if you go on to everlasting death.

All I am asking for is a solution, if any, for the apparent contradiction between, on the one hand, Jesus Christ as Son of the living God, i.e., immortal and, on the other hand, his death on the cross and in the grave for "three days"!

[John Goddard]

All I am asking for is a solution, if any, for the apparent contradiction between, on the one hand, Jesus Christ as Son of the living God, i.e., immortal and, on the other hand, his death on the cross and in the grave for "three days"!

Since Jesus was resurrected and never dies again, NOW he is immortal after the resurrection.

Who says he was immortal from birth?

[NormATive]

FOR DISCUSSION

“Not even death will EVER be able to overcome it.” Matthew 16:18 (Caps for emphasis)

Jesus Christ can neither be called “Son of the living God”, i.e., immortal, nor attributed victory over the Devil and death through his death (Heb. 2:14) if he was himself overcome by death on the cross and in the grave for three days. Can he?


What-ho? An interesting conundrum, what?

Although your Biblical reference is actually referring to the "faith" of Peter, it is interesting that Jesus is afforded immortal status (immortal being defined as one who always is - i.e.; was never born and can never die), yet "had to die" in order for the hex on the earth to be broken.

For me, this is further evidence that the "bona-fides" of Jesus were created after his death. It appears that two different philosophies existed at one time: a). those who believed Jesus was an immortal, and b). those who believed he became an immortal (such as John Goddard).

The "a" camp seems to have won the popular debate, but I would side with "b" (just to be contrary :teeth: )

NORM

[Bernie]

The problem here as I see it is the same in all those propositions in which finite minds attempt to determine logically what an infinite being can or cannot do, should or should not act, etc.

Seems to me God, who alleges in Scripture to have created all we are and experience, should be able to remain Who the Father is while simultaneous entering matter as immortal Son and allowing Himself to be put to death, only to raise Himself again if it so pleased Him. Faith often stops at the end of the tunnel reason.

[NormATive]

The problem here as I see it is the same in all those propositions in which finite minds attempt to determine logically what an infinite being can or cannot do, should or should not act, etc.
...Faith often stops at the end of the tunnel reason.

Well that doesn't explain the conundrum in the OP.

What does "faith often stops at the end of the tunnel reason" mean?

Who created reason? Why would reason be of no use to understand G-d?

NORM

[Bernie]

What does "faith often stops at the end of the tunnel reason" mean?

Who created reason? Why would reason be of no use to understand G-d?
I didn't state that reason is of no use. I see reason as a tool. When truth is known, it's always found to be reasonable, but human reasoning can't penetrate/know higher things on two counts, 1) it's fragmented into truth and error (imperfection), and 2) the finite/infinite distinction underscores the former's lack of capacity to reach or fully fathom the latter. Seems to me God designed things in such a way reason is useful but insufficient.

As to the OP...

"Jesus Christ can [not] be called “Son of the living God”...immortal, nor attributed victory over the Devil and death through his death (Heb. 2:14) if he was himself overcome by death on the cross and in the grave for three days. Can he? "

....I understand EH to believe the dilemma lies in an infinite being's death being incapable of attaining the atonement by virtue of His having experienced the very death He purported to defeat. Sounds reasonable on the surface because we don't know anyone with the ability to morph his spirit (or some measure thereof) to join with a material form to be persecuted and killed while simultaneously observing this spatiotemporal event from a different vantage point. Then, if this isn't tough enough, rejuvenating to life that same lump of matter--to life.

But if we allow the mind to rest a few moments on what kind of being the God who created the universe must be, the powers and capabilities, faculties and potential such a being must have utterly denies us the the ability to comprehend that Being's abilities or motives on any more than a base level.

Anyway, I don't see this as much of a mystery. If Christ descended in spirit as Peter describes: "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison" (1Pet 3:18-19) before rejoining His resurrected body, He only suffered physical death, and the alleged conundrum vanishes. When Christ told us "Believe in Me and you will never die", He didn't say we would not die physically. At any rate I think we all pretty well figured that out by now.

In the final analysis, all regeneration is life brought forth from the midst of death. A good is produced from an evil, which in the end renders the evil illusory. There is no controversy in the OP as I see it.

[NormATive]

... Seems to me God designed things in such a way reason is useful but insufficient.

...In the final analysis, all regeneration is life brought forth from the midst of death. A good is produced from an evil, which in the end renders the evil illusory. There is no controversy in the OP as I see it.

Those are nice sounding words, but you still haven't addressed the OP.

The Bible in one instance says that Jesus did not attain immortality until after he was dead and resurrected (gospels). Yet, the Church teaches that Jesus was ALWAYS immortal, and this is the common understanding among evangelical Christians. John 1:1 is often quoted as proof as well as Colossians 1:15-20.

So, which is it? Was Jesus always immortal as stated in Colossians and John 1, or are the gospels correct and Jesus didn't become immortal until after the resurrection?

As to your past two posts; I disagree that G-d designed things with the intention of keeping us out of the loop. Quite the contrary. I believe that G-d fully intends for us to figure things out using the reasoning capabilities It placed within us. It's part of what makes us human. If you believe your scriptures; that is the very image of G-d.

NORM
Imago Dei

[EphremHagos]

Since Jesus was resurrected and never dies again, NOW he is immortal after the resurrection.

Who says he was immortal from birth?

It is altogether “another Jesus” who is immortal only after resurrection.

The Jesus Christ of the Gospels, in all his timeless existence, has never been anything other than the very personification of “resurrection and life” (“I Am Who I Am”), i.e., sustainable and self-sufficient source of life as, once-and-for-all, demonstrated by his works in the bush on fire but not burning up and also right at his death on the cross in terms of exclusively life-transforming, free-will and power over the Devil and death, open-house for self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ for personal visions; reproductions of his immortality as author of and final authority on faith; and free worship of God, as he is, i.e., in Spirit and truth!

If this sounds too mysterious, difficult and diacritical it’s because it really is! Without vision of the immortal Christ at his death on the cross, just as presented, one has absolutely no rights to “life in all its fullness” (John 3: 14-21; 10:10; 11: 25-26).

Finally, “Who says he was immortal from birth”? Isaiah, for one, called the child to be born and the son to be given, “Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (9:6). The Bible is not at all short of other witnesses who described Jesus as immortal at and before his birth, e.g., John the Baptist, “He comes after me, but he is greater than I am, because he existed before I was born” (John 1: 15, 30); the author of the fourth gospel, (Before his incarnation) “the Word already existed, was with God and was the same as God” (John 1: 1, 14), etc.

[GOD BLESS THEOLOGY WEB FOR BRINGING OUT THE BEST IN AND FOR ALL OF US! THIS FORUM IS, BY FAR, THE BEST!]

[EphremHagos]

Well that doesn't explain the conundrum in the OP.

What does "faith often stops at the end of the tunnel reason" mean?

Who created reason? Why would reason be of no use to understand G-d?

NORM

Indeed, this is an interesting conundrum with a built-in, perfect solution to the mystery of life, viz.: “life in all its fullness” --just as Jesus Christ came to solve and to give, not as “a pie in the sky”, but as a clearly labeled and prescribed gift of immortality here-and-now and at-and-after-death (John 10:10; 11: 25-26) even if we have chosen to turn a blind eye to it! We should all reconsider our positions!

Let us not be afraid to explore the realm of the spiritual, i.e., the Kingdom of God, complete with its own powerful logic of eternal Laws, Principles and
Applications described all over the Holy Bible and packed in, e.g., the teaching of Jesus Christ on Prayer (Matt. 6:9-11 summarized in verse 33 –the key to miracles past, present and future). How else can one obey the greatest and most important commandment of all: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37). Just imagine how infinitely sustainable faith would be if built on such knowledge

[EphremHagos]

What-ho? An interesting conundrum, what?

Although your Biblical reference is actually referring to the "faith" of Peter, it is interesting that Jesus is afforded immortal status (immortal being defined as one who always is - i.e.; was never born and can never die), yet "had to die" in order for the hex on the earth to be broken.

For me, this is further evidence that the "bona-fides" of Jesus were created after his death. It appears that two different philosophies existed at one time: a). those who believed Jesus was an immortal, and b). those who believed he became an immortal (such as John Goddard).

The "a" camp seems to have won the popular debate, but I would side with "b" (just to be contrary :teeth: )

NORM

Consider the following alternative.

The pronoun “it” (Matt. 16:18) refers not to the immediately spurious faith of Peter but rather to the divine identity of Jesus Christ, as “Son of the living God”, i.e., himself immortal, revealed in the immediate and ultimate contexts exclusively by the Father in heaven; redefined as Jesus Christ’s “church” or the new temple, his body –“the way, the truth and the life” (Matt. 16: 13-28; John 2: 21-22; 14:6).

As clearly drawn in principle, the distinction between immortality by right and by grace is one of source and issue, respectively, pending the practice or virtual demonstration at the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Asked to identify himself, Jesus said:

(I am) “What I have told you from the very beginning,
… the Father …”

“When you lift up the Son of Man, you will know
That ‘I Am Who I Am” (John 8: 21-28)

“I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes
in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives
and believes in me will never die.” (John 11: 25-26)

One has to be very careful, therefore, what one sides for or against.

Immortality is ours here-and-now and at-and-after death if we believe by experiencing (or knowing) Jesus Christ in his divine power and glory as immortal, self-sufficient life or “resurrection and life” right at his death on the cross. Outright denial, as well as, gullible acceptance can be a source of bitter disappointment even in this life!

[Bernie]

Hi Normative,

Those are nice sounding words,
Thank you. Your words are nice-sounding, too.

you still haven't addressed the OP.
I must be dense and don't get what EH is saying, then, because I addressed what I thought his point was. Apparently you've been able to glean more from the OP than I.

The Bible in one instance says that Jesus did not attain immortality until after he was dead and resurrected (gospels). Yet, the Church teaches that Jesus was ALWAYS immortal, and this is the common understanding among evangelical Christians. John 1:1 is often quoted as proof as well as Colossians 1:15-20.
I typically don't participate in or even read Trinity debates, so though I feel reasonably familiar with the Bible itself, am not familiar with the purported proofs you speak of in the gospels of Jesus' immortality.

So, which is it? Was Jesus always immortal as stated in Colossians and John 1, or are the gospels correct and Jesus didn't become immortal until after the resurrection?
I believe Jesus was always immortal. I believe He was the Father incarnate who has the ability to live while simultaneously allowing the material portion of Himself we call "Christ" to die physically. In this I believe He was an actor on His own stage, suffering His own death out of love for all mankind. Sorry, I don't see the conundrum you see.

I disagree that G-d designed things with the intention of keeping us out of the loop.
You seem to have an uncanny ability to repeatedly misinterpret my posts, Normative. I believe we took ourselves out of the loop, and I have never stated what you seem to have "heard" me say.

I believe that G-d fully intends for us to figure things out using the reasoning capabilities It placed within us.
If by this you mean we may, by the power of our exercised human reason, discover all mysteries in this life, I would expect nothing less from a libertarian. I politely disagree all the same.

[Bernie]

Indeed, this is an interesting conundrum with a built-in, perfect solution to the mystery of life, viz.: “life in all its fullness” --just as Jesus Christ came to solve and to give, not as “a pie in the sky”, but as a clearly labeled and prescribed gift of immortality here-and-now and at-and-after-death (John 10:10; 11: 25-26) even if we have chosen to turn a blind eye to it! We should all reconsider our positions!

Let us not be afraid to explore the realm of the spiritual, i.e., the Kingdom of God, complete with its own powerful logic of eternal Laws, Principles and
Applications described all over the Holy Bible and packed in, e.g., the teaching of Jesus Christ on Prayer (Matt. 6:9-11 summarized in verse 33 –the key to miracles past, present and future). How else can one obey the greatest and most important commandment of all: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37). Just imagine how infinitely sustainable faith would be if built on such knowledge
Ephrem, I feel like the chicken ranch dude who, having been asked by Napoleon Dynamite if the chickens had sharp talons, replied, "I don't understand a thing you said." Do you have a plain english version?

[NormATive]

Hi Normative,


Thank you. Your words are nice-sounding, too.


I must be dense and don't get what EH is saying, then, because I addressed what I thought his point was. Apparently you've been able to glean more from the OP than I.... Sorry, I don't see the conundrum you see.
.

OK, let me just spell it out then: The Bible says two different things: 1. Jesus is immortal 2. He died on the cross (not immortal).

Either the Bible is wrong, or we need some mental gymnastics (you've been doing quite nicely on the balance beam so far) to "fix" the contradiction.

In this instance, Occam's Razor is useful; where the simplest answer is usually correct. I think two different camps wrote the divergent texts in the Bible and in their haste to establish "God's Church on Earth," the architects of the Christian-Faith-As-We-Know-It overlooked the contradiction.

Case solved.

NORM

[NormATive]

NORM Said:


I disagree that G-d designed things with the intention of keeping us out of the loopTo Bernie's post:


.. Seems to me God designed things in such a way reason is useful but insufficient.Sorry, but when you tell me that G-d intentionally keeps things hidden from us, I interpret that in modern day parlance as keeping us "out of the loop."

I disagree.

So, I don't understand where

You seem to have an uncanny ability to repeatedly misinterpret my posts, Normative. I believe we took ourselves out of the loop, and I have never stated what you seem to have "heard" me say.comes from.

Either you believe that G-d took us out of the loop as you said in your earlier post, or WE took ourselves out of the loop quoted here in your rebuttal.

Which is it?

NORM

[Bernie]

OK, let me just spell it out then: The Bible says two different things: 1. Jesus is immortal 2. He died on the cross (not immortal).
Only He did not die on the cross is the point. Falsity dies and Jesus' Spirit is and ever always was pure Truth. Human spirit dies, God's Spirit does not. Matter doesn't count; it's just atoms whose glue [spirit] has leaked out. Christ as the Immortal Spirit of God never died. The matter the human mind is drawn to as Christ was falsified (tortured and killed) and His Spirit emptied from it. God allowed Himself to die physically as a sacrifice for us.

Either the Bible is wrong, or we need some mental gymnastics
You keep saying this, but your saying the Bible is wrong substantiates nothing. You've actually posted verses which teach what you claim the church wrongly teaches, but have provided nothing but opinion to this point that the gospels teach otherwise. As stated earlier, I'm ignorant of these arguments. Repeatedly telling me the gospels teach something different than the verses you posted supporting the "immortal" view just doesn't mean anything to me.

NORM Said:


I disagree that G-d designed things with the intention of keeping us out of the loop
To Bernie's post:


.. Seems to me God designed things in such a way reason is useful but insufficient.
Sorry, but when you tell me that G-d intentionally keeps things hidden from us, I interpret that in modern day parlance as keeping us "out of the loop."

I disagree.

So, I don't understand where


You seem to have an uncanny ability to repeatedly misinterpret my posts, Normative. I believe we took ourselves out of the loop, and I have never stated what you seem to have "heard" me say.
comes from.

Either you believe that G-d took us out of the loop as you said in your earlier post, or WE took ourselves out of the loop quoted here in your rebuttal.
Okay I see where you're coming from now.

Which is it?
Both. It's compatibalism. God provided pure choice in perfection, Adam declined. God foreknew and all that follows from the fall is His foreordained design to bring us back to square one.

In His overall design, we operate in a fallen state where reason, as much fun and as great a tool as it is, is insufficient to master an understanding of existence. Case in point: modern minds reject dualism because it's "problematic". In fact, the real problem lies not in dualism itself but in man's inability to figure out how God designed a system in which the corporeal and incorporeal are simultaneously united yet irreconcilable in nature.

How human reason can ever attain to a substantial understanding of God's essence--which we'd need to understand fully in order to state with any sort of precision what He can and cannot do-- when we can't even figure out the pattern He uses in His design of existence should be obvious to anyone willing to think it through.

[NormATive]

You keep saying this, but your saying the Bible is wrong substantiates nothing. You've actually posted verses which teach what you claim the church wrongly teaches, but have provided nothing but opinion to this point that the gospels teach otherwise. As stated earlier, I'm ignorant of these arguments. Repeatedly telling me the gospels teach something different than the verses you posted supporting the "immortal" view just doesn't mean anything to me.

Well, first of all, I didn't say that the Church teaching is wrong. We are talking religion here. There is no right or wrong - only opinion and conjecture. I disagree with the teaching of the modern Christian church, but I've never said that they were wrong. I prefer my interpretation and understanding because it makes sense to me. I post in forums like this one in order to try to justify my position (as much for myself as anyone else) because it is enjoyable to debate.

But a contradiction is a contradiction. The reason I didn't post any specific verses in the Gospels is because we all know the story: Jesus is born, teaches humanism, heals some folks, gets in trouble with the law, and is crucified, whereupon he DIES. The Bible narrative is pretty clear on this. Nowhere is it said that Jesus is immortal Nowhere in the gospels does it discuss the immortality of Jesus one way or the other. This script isn't written until Paul's epistles. I suppose you could say that it is an argument from silence, but it would be a very odd thing to keep silent.

Thus, the Gospels (except for the preamble to John's Gospel - the 1:1 verse) presume Jesus is human up until the resurrection. Only until Paul's wonderful construction in Colossians 1: 15-20 do we see this second interpretation. Since John was written well after Paul's letter to the Colossians, perhaps that was what was being alluded to in the first chapter since it seems to come from nowhere, nor relate to anything else in the Gospel narrative portion of John.

Hence, the conundrum. There are definitely two competing ideas. How is it that you don't see this? Are you suggesting that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's Gospel portion MEANT to say that Jesus was immortal but just forgot to include it in the narrative? That doesn't seem likely to me.

.It's compatibalism.

Is that a word?

.God provided pure choice in perfection, Adam declined. God foreknew and all that follows from the fall is His foreordained design to bring us back to square one.

There's that balance beam again!

.In His overall design, we operate in a fallen state where reason, as much fun and as great a tool as it is, is insufficient to master an understanding of existence. Case in point: modern minds reject dualism because it's "problematic". In fact, the real problem lies not in dualism itself but in man's inability to figure out how God designed a system in which the corporeal and incorporeal are simultaneously united yet irreconcilable in nature.

I don't believe that the Bible teaches a "fallen state." All indications are that the created order as it exists is what G-d intended. It is our interpretation that changes, and something like creation, fall and redemption is a good human construction for trying to explain why bad things happen.

I believe that bad things are part of the natural order of things. My people learned this the hard way during the holocaust. "Where was G-d?" everyone was saying. How could G-d allow this unspeakable evil to happen to his chosen people?

The answer: G-d had nothing to do with it. It was the consequence of all kinds of competing human ideals and prejudices that came to a head at a certain point in history. Had the Assyrians evolved to be a "different" people, perhaps they would have been the scapegoats of Hitler's hatred.

Did the universe change? No. Did something snap inside of the human conscience of mankind to make the holocaust happen? No. It was the normal consequence of the actions in play at the time - no different than an earthquake or a tornado. Some would say that a tornado is a judgment of G-d. I disagree. I think a tornado is the consequence of a cold front colliding with a warm front in a particular way - no curse involved.

.How human reason can ever attain to a substantial understanding of God's essence--which we'd need to understand fully in order to state with any sort of precision what He can and cannot do-- when we can't even figure out the pattern He uses in His design of existence should be obvious to anyone willing to think it through.

At some point, I believe, we evolve different permutations of our gods as it becomes convenient to our existing lifestyles and the necessities of the times. Once upon a time we needed an angry god to punish our enemies. And, at times, we will bring this god back (the angry god does seem to be making a comeback these days).

The G-d of my ancestors is loving, forgiving, just and merciful, law-giving, life- sustaining and awe-inspiring - "a lamp unto my feet."

NORM

[Bernie]

oops....inadvertantly hit enter before I was finished.....

[Bernie]

Been hoping EH would weigh in here to see if where you're taking this is what he intended in the OP, but he's chosen to remain silent. Of course, you may be both Norm and EH for all I know...

Well, first of all, I didn't say that the Church teaching is wrong. We are talking religion here. There is no right or wrong - only opinion and conjecture.
Or possibly it's only conjecture that truth doesn't exist in religion, if this is what you mean. Yes, you're correct: you didn't say church teaching is wrong directly but seemed to impy it pretty strongly.

I prefer my interpretation and understanding because it makes sense to me. I post in forums like this one in order to try to justify my position (as much for myself as anyone else) because it is enjoyable to debate.
Understood. This seems a noble motive and pursuit.

But a contradiction is a contradiction. The reason I didn't post any specific verses in the Gospels is because we all know the story: Jesus is born, teaches humanism, heals some folks, gets in trouble with the law, and is crucified, whereupon he DIES. The Bible narrative is pretty clear on this.
The contradiction you contend for is one imo only if you compartmentalize the Bible/NT and force interpretations on each 'compartment' without regard for the whole. Yes, we all know the story, but notions like 'Jesus teaches humanism' seem forced on the story by presupposition. When I read Christ's teachings in the gospels, I see little of value in human nature as taught by the Lord except what He builds, or promises to build, therein.

Again, the whole Bible is a story of death and destruction to sin adn evil from which life is brought forth. If you want to focus only on a compartmentalized physical death--which all the Bible conspires to teach is in the end powerless and illusory--so you can create a seeming contradiction, that is your right. It makes for interesting debate, I'll agree.

the Gospels (except for the preamble to John's Gospel - the 1:1 verse) presume Jesus is human up until the resurrection.
Or, God the Father chose (not unwisely it seems; people in their fallen state hate truths they have not been cleansed to "hear") to represent Himself as a human and did not press the issue of His true Self until the proper time as allusions to it served to sting the horrible thing within the hearts of His detractors. This happened at the proper time, from which they were incited to put Him to death to serve His preordained design: to suffer physical death for all mankind such that this atonement would render death the same illusion for us it was naturally for Him.

Is that a word?
Yeah, a misspelled one. Does this mean I lose my status as a purveyor of nice sounding words?

I don't believe that the Bible teaches a "fallen state." All indications are that the created order as it exists is what G-d intended.
Don't have much memory these days, but I'm sure we've discussed this before.

Some would say that a tornado is a judgment of G-d. I disagree.
Here we're in agreement. Though if I recall, the best explanation I've yet heard is one called the rationally esoteric construction of reality, which regards even natural disasters as a peripheral consequence of a fallen natural state. I.e., the fall introduced falsity (imperfection) to an otherwise true (perfect) state. in the Eden condition, human spirit and act, all biological processes--even the weather--would have existed in a perfect state, serving the purpose God created each to perform perfectly, as designed. God's anger is not directed in this view to the sin of individuals...He's much too far above this....but to the imperfection which fuels sin and ruins His creation.

The G-d of my ancestors is loving, forgiving, just and merciful, law-giving, life- sustaining and awe-inspiring - "a lamp unto my feet."
Well here's something we can both fully agree on...we're at least talking about the same God.

[NormATive]

Been hoping EH would weigh in here to see if where you're taking this is what he intended in the OP, but he's chosen to remain silent. Of course, you may be both Norm and EH for all I know...

Nope. EH is EH. I have enough on my plate just being NORM.


you didn't say church teaching is wrong directly but seemed to imply it pretty strongly.

Lest you or anyone misunderstand, I think that all Biblical exegesis is influenced by a number of things: where one is born and under what circumstances, the denomination or religious training received as a child (probably most important element), economic circumstances, life experiences, etc.

This is why I try to avoid making judgments as to the "correctness" of one's interpretation of the religious book contemplated.

You are right, however, when you suggest that I have a somewhat low opinion of how modern Christian evangelicals view and understand the historic Christian faith. It is my opinion that many have sacrificed an intimate knowledge and understanding of the philosophical and humanistic core of the biblical narrative and the historic Christian experience. They approach scripture like a high school text book or some kind of "required reading" parsing single verses as though they were fortune cookie snippets. They've reduced the faith to a series of political and moral arguments set against a pretend "corrupt world" - one in which they partake of with full vigor and milk for all it's worth while continuing to rail against it.

In my view, it all boils down to a single, yet profoundly important problem. Most modern evangelical Christians view the eastern worldview of the Bible with western spectacles.

The Bible is viewed as a sort of textbook of Christian Values, Rules and History rather than a rather random collection of eastern philosophical works compiled in an almost similarly random fashion - the result of several divergent cults vying for inclusion in what they correctly presumed would become a significant cultural and economic monolith. The Bible as an anthology is what you get when you design a book by committee.

The Gospels, for example, when viewed from an eastern (Jewish) perspective, are nothing more than weekly liturgical haggadah designed to tell the story of Jesus (which is why Jesus is a human in the gospels) as the Moschiach. In fact, when read in order, they perfectly align with the Jewish calendar from Rosh Hashanah through Peshach. It is so important to keep in mind that the first Christians were the Unorthodox Theology crowd in the Jewish community. Had those following Paul not insisted in making Jesus a god-man, they might very well have successfully reformed Judaism.

I see little of value in human nature as taught by the Lord except what He builds, or promises to build, therein.

On the contrary! Jesus is nothing if not a champion of the common man. Remember "G-d made the sabbath for man, not man for the sabbath?" Remember "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" Remember the blind man at Breikhat Hashiloah‎ (the pool of Siloam)? Recall how Jesus reached out to the lowliest of G-d's creation? The leper, the peasant, the blind and the lame? Recall how he sought to break down the barriers that kept women as second class citizens?

I think we tend to view Jesus with the gloss of apocolyptic fervor that was sripted for him by those who sought to build a lasting Christian Empire.

Again, the whole Bible is a story of death and destruction to sin adn evil from which life is brought forth.

It might describe such a world view, but in the end; life to the fullest wins.

If you want to focus only on a compartmentalized physical death--which all the Bible conspires to teach is in the end powerless and illusory--so you can create a seeming contradiction, that is your right. It makes for interesting debate, I'll agree.

I did not create the contradiction. The Biblical writers did.


Or, God the Father chose (not unwisely it seems; people in their fallen state hate truths they have not been cleansed to "hear") to represent Himself as a human and did not press the issue of His true Self until the proper time as allusions to it served to sting the horrible thing within the hearts of His detractors. This happened at the proper time, from which they were incited to put Him to death to serve His preordained design: to suffer physical death for all mankind such that this atonement would render death the same illusion for us it was naturally for Him.

Now, this is a theory with some legs. I can see this as a possibilty without resorting to needless exegetical gymnastics. It certainly makes more sense than all that goobledy-gook about dual realities and such.

...the best explanation [for tornados] I've yet heard is one called the rationally esoteric construction of reality, which regards even natural disasters as a peripheral consequence of a fallen natural state.

Pure bunk. Tornados are simply the result of certain meterologic conditions. Noting more. The fact that humans sometimes get in the way is merely coincidental. Before people started building suburban communities on the Kansas plain, tornados happened with little consequence. Hardly G-d's wrath. More like human stupidity. One could say that hurrcanes are G-d's wrath rather than the folly of building houses on beachfront property.

all biological processes--even the weather--would have existed in a perfect state, serving the purpose God created each to perform perfectly, as designed.

Tornados today perform perfectly as they were designed. Given the right set of circumstances, a tornado will form - JUST AS DESIGNED. But, one would be well advised not to build a house where tornados happen frequently.

NORM

[EphremHagos]

ATTENTION: ALL

Test of Immortality

I believe that the OP has now served its purpose well.

Fifteen respondents, excluding the OP and clarifications, were more or less evenly divided into two camps, viz.: “Claim” and “Disclaim” of the central conundrum (mystery) in the Gospel of Jesus Christ –not necessarily a contradiction! The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is, actually, the test of immortality.

Here is how for your personal confirmation.

The “Death of Jesus Christ on the Cross” –the seal of the “new covenant” (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff) and, by far, the most important, all-inclusive, central event in the whole of Scriptures (Acts: 2; Rom. 6: 3-5; 1 Cor. 1: 18-31; 2: 1-5; Gal. 3: 1-2; Eph. 1: 15-23; Phil. 3: 10-11;Col. 1: 18-20; 2: 2-3; 1 Tim. 3: 14-16; 2 Tim. 1: 10; 2: 8-13; Heb. 2: 9-15; 10:19-25; 12:2; Rev. 5) is a diacritical death with the following dramatic change that can be experienced indefinitely by posterity (Ex. 3: 1-15; John 8: 21-28).

What is at stake is nothing less than the self-revelation of God in the “Lamb standing in the centre of the throne … (that) appeared to have been killed”, i.e., obvious reference to Jesus Christ in his death with dramatic change in appearance revealing power, wealth, wisdom, honor, glory and praise (Rev. 5: 6-14)!

That is not all! For your personal confirmation, you stand to gain immortality yourself (John 11: 25-26). Can anyone design a better test of Immortality?