how do you determine what is the right interpretation?
Could God forgive without crucifixion?
- Thread starter Predi
- Start date
You can translate the bible better than those who did the New King James?
That's interesting!
Which translation is it that you prefer? There are 24 different English language translations of the bible on BibleGateway.com. Pick whichever translation you deem to be superior and I'll quote the same verses from that.
I'll tell you in advance that it won't change anything but if you don't like the New King James, then I'll prove the same point again with whichever translation you pick.
And as for interpretation, I didn't interpret anything! I simply quoted the verses verbatim. If the simple reading is insufficient then it is up to you to demonstrate that not only is an interpretation needed but that yours in the correct interpretation.
Finally, you didn't answer the question. How do you answer the question you posed in the opening post?
Why couldn't God have just forgiven people and been done with it? Why did Jesus have to die?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Predi
New member
Using my brain and seeing if the interpretation is consistent with the rest of the Bible.
so why did you pick those passages
-if
-your interpretation of those passages didn't address the question
your brain should tell you that you need information that is not contained in the bible
Predi
New member
I don't know the original languages well enough to translate, but there are others, who do.
Even though if I compared my knowledge with knowledge of the translators of the original 1611 KJV, who knows...
Among these 24 translations I would choose YLT... sometimes sounds awkward, and sometimes... too literal
- but it has the least amount of added theology... but Clete... if you state right away, "it won't change anything" I don't think there's a point...You must have, even by choosing just that very passage. Without interpreting a verse you can't tell what it means. It would be great if all words meant the same thing to all people, but it's not happening.
Why couldn't God have just forgiven..? Perhaps He could have.
Why did Jesus have to die? I can't remember a verse literally saying He had to die. And the shortest answer to the questions, "Why did Jesus die?" is "because the Jews killed him."
It doesn't make sense to me, that He had to die in order to forgive sins. I think it's too early for me to make statements, I'm still looking, therefore... I started this thread.
...how much more shall the blood of the Christ (who through the age-during Spirit did offer himself unblemished to God) purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And because of this, of a new covenant he is mediator, that, death having come, for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, those called may receive the promise of the age-during inheritance...
(Hebrews 9:14-15 YLT)
(Hebrews 9:14-15 YLT)
The blood of Christ is for the firstborn of the Father just as it was symbolically in Egypt where the blood was applied to the lintel and doorposts in the form of a cross. The blood is a sign of preservation of the life of the firstborn who may die physically but not spiritually which is the second death. The firstborn are passed over with regard to eternal death. They are given eternal life by grace because of the Lamb's blood.
Cross Reference
New member
Forgiveness doesn't always require death, but it always requires cost.
This is one of the most, if not the most, rudimentary truths of God. People want a god who simply waves a wand and, just like that, all things are forgiven and water under the bridge.
But that is not a god who is Holy, that is a very human, fallible god. People want God to be both, and it's just not possible. This is why the crucifixion of Christ is so important, because without it we would all be as Babylonians destined for the flames.
This is one of the most, if not the most, rudimentary truths of God. People want a god who simply waves a wand and, just like that, all things are forgiven and water under the bridge.
But that is not a god who is Holy, that is a very human, fallible god. People want God to be both, and it's just not possible. This is why the crucifixion of Christ is so important, because without it we would all be as Babylonians destined for the flames.
genuineoriginal
New member
There is a difference between something you could do and something you would do.
God could just forgave sins without any requirement, but He would never do that.
Finding out why God would never forgive sins without any requirement is easy.
Just look at how children end up when their parent lets them get away with everything.
The main two ways of looking at it that I find credible is that Jesus dies as part of the sacrificial system or Jesus died as a test of obedience.
With either of these, Jesus had to die.
Look at the sacrificial system.
An animal is brought forth, the sinner puts his hand on the animal's head, and then the animal is killed as a sacrifice for the sinner's sins.
Most people cannot make sense of it, but those that can make sense of it understand that the purpose is to show the sinner how bad the sin is in order to get the sinner to have remorse.
The system did not turn out that way in the long run, because the people killing the animals treated it like it was a bribe to a corrupt official instead of an object lesson about their sins.
The other option is the test of obedience.
Abraham was ordered to kill his favorite son, Isaac, in order to prove his faith through his obedience.
Jesus went to the cross and gave up His own life in order to prove his obedience.
This option makes a lot more sense to me than Jesus being a human sacrifice and has a lot of support in scripture.
The following verses make more sense using the test of obedience than with the sacrificial system.
Romans 5:19 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. |
Philippians 2:8 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. |
Hebrews 5:8 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; |
Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.” ’ (Exodus 4:22-23)
The Bible is about Israel and Israel's relationship to Christ, their God.
Cross Reference
New member
Enough already. G'bye.
A 'messiah' is fundamentally someone sent forward to resolve a problem, especially for a particular people.
Gandhi, for example, was a messiah.
'The Messiah', however, is Christ. He is the 'universal' Messiah, as he was expected to be specifically for the Jews but turned out to be for much more than just them.
Because he is divine, neither Satan or mankind is capable of seeing through to a failure of his mission. Jesus was taken all the way to the cross and accomplished the goal, having paid the ultimate blood price for man's curse at large.
Predi
New member
Exactly, merely to show the sinner... and that's it. I agree. God is not blood thirsty!
And sacrifices were only "working" for unintentional sins!
There is not a verse that states that they actually do anything (for example that God forgives sins through them), and there are many verses that say then don't matter as regards to what's between God and us (for example Hebrews 10:4).
How do you understand "test?" I can test someone to find out how they will react as I don't know that now, but does God need to find out anything?
If God is Love, how could God have a problem forgiving people? The reason given for “penal substitution” is God cannot forgive us without Jesus being our substitute, but that makes God out to having a problem, lacking in Love someway, and being almost blood thirsty.
What is the relationship between “forgiveness” and punishment of the individual for a transgression? (most theories of atonement like to talk about “sin” needing punishment yet sin cannot be “punished”, only people can be punished.)
Would the perfect parent (the one you would like to be and be like God) see to the punishment or discipline of his/her children in order to have the Love to forgive those children?
The best parent does not “punish” (discipline) their children in order for the parent to have the love to forgive, they punish (discipline with time out or something) their children for the benefit that discipline provides?
God does not have a “problem” forgiving us, but we need to be disciplined somehow in order to obtain the benefits from being disciplined. So God somehow need to see to our discipline for our transgressions without killing us and yet be fair, just and show us His concern/Love.
What are the “benefits” to being fairly (disciplined) for our transgressions?
Answers:
Deterrent for the person being disciplined and others aware of the discipline which keeps them from repeating the action.
It places the value on the transgression (the greater severity to the disciplining the greater the transgression), sometimes we do not know how much pain it has caused until we know the how we will be disciplined for the transgression.
It shows fairness and justice, the parent/judge needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent/judge.
It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime.
It also should strength and improves the relationship between the parent and the child it is a teaching moment.
We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love if at all possible, so if our parents do not discipline us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.
Just as the father wanted his sons to be like himself in the prodigal son story, God wants us to choose to humbly accept His Love and become like He is. The only initial way for humans to obtain Godly type Love is as a free gift automatically “...He that is forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt will automatically have an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love)”. That Love can later grow with use, but cannot be developed independently or instinctively possessed by the individual. Thus the need for sin and likely alternatives on earth (the perceived pleasures of sin).
God the Father is doing everything God can do to help willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective which includes (at great personal cost to God) the allowing a willing Christ to go to the cross.
Christ is not trying to “pay off the debt created by our sins” since our sins created an impossible debt to pay. That “debt” cannot be paid (it is totally irreconcilable) but it can be “forgiven”. God’s Love can allow Him to forgive our huge debt without Christ going to the cross. Christ is not trying to make “restitution” for us (that is not possible), but is providing a way for us as children to be disciplined (disciplining is not bringing about restitution) so the disciplining does not have to equal the “restitution” or hell for those that refuse the disciplining in this life. Discipline is not punishment although in scripture negative discipline is often translated punishment.
What is the relationship between “forgiveness” and punishment of the individual for a transgression? (most theories of atonement like to talk about “sin” needing punishment yet sin cannot be “punished”, only people can be punished.)
Would the perfect parent (the one you would like to be and be like God) see to the punishment or discipline of his/her children in order to have the Love to forgive those children?
The best parent does not “punish” (discipline) their children in order for the parent to have the love to forgive, they punish (discipline with time out or something) their children for the benefit that discipline provides?
God does not have a “problem” forgiving us, but we need to be disciplined somehow in order to obtain the benefits from being disciplined. So God somehow need to see to our discipline for our transgressions without killing us and yet be fair, just and show us His concern/Love.
What are the “benefits” to being fairly (disciplined) for our transgressions?
Answers:
Deterrent for the person being disciplined and others aware of the discipline which keeps them from repeating the action.
It places the value on the transgression (the greater severity to the disciplining the greater the transgression), sometimes we do not know how much pain it has caused until we know the how we will be disciplined for the transgression.
It shows fairness and justice, the parent/judge needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent/judge.
It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime.
It also should strength and improves the relationship between the parent and the child it is a teaching moment.
We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love if at all possible, so if our parents do not discipline us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.
Just as the father wanted his sons to be like himself in the prodigal son story, God wants us to choose to humbly accept His Love and become like He is. The only initial way for humans to obtain Godly type Love is as a free gift automatically “...He that is forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt will automatically have an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love)”. That Love can later grow with use, but cannot be developed independently or instinctively possessed by the individual. Thus the need for sin and likely alternatives on earth (the perceived pleasures of sin).
God the Father is doing everything God can do to help willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective which includes (at great personal cost to God) the allowing a willing Christ to go to the cross.
Christ is not trying to “pay off the debt created by our sins” since our sins created an impossible debt to pay. That “debt” cannot be paid (it is totally irreconcilable) but it can be “forgiven”. God’s Love can allow Him to forgive our huge debt without Christ going to the cross. Christ is not trying to make “restitution” for us (that is not possible), but is providing a way for us as children to be disciplined (disciplining is not bringing about restitution) so the disciplining does not have to equal the “restitution” or hell for those that refuse the disciplining in this life. Discipline is not punishment although in scripture negative discipline is often translated punishment.
genuineoriginal
New member
There are two ways I find credible for looking at whether God needs to find out anything.
The first is that God already knows the outcome and that the test is for the person being tested to find out.
The second is that God has given mankind the divine power of free-will, and while God may be reasonably certain of the outcome, He cannot guarantee the results of a free-will decision without divine intervention.
The free-will explanation is the one I believe has the most support in scripture (preponderance of evidence test).
So, now comes reconciling either of these with the death of Jesus as a test of obedience.
If Jesus is God Himself come to earth to sacrifice Himself to satisfy His own ideals of justice, then there is no need for a test of obedience.
Both of the ideas, God sacrificing Himself for His own ideals of justice and God giving Himself a test of obedience, would be equally pointless, in my opinion.
So, if we accept that the death of Jesus was a test of obedience based on the evidence in scriptue, we must look at the relationship of Jesus to the Father a bit differently than is taught by strict Trinitarians.
If Jesus is the Messiah (Christ), the Son of God, as is frequently mentioned throughout scripture and not God Himself, then a test of obedience could be justified.
From what I read in the Bible, when Jesus went around Judea and Samaria, He did it with nothing more than any other man had available.
All the power Jesus showed came from God through the Holy Spirit as a direct result of Jesus' faith as shown to God through prayer and fasting.
With all the power that Jesus displayed, what could justify giving Jesus a test of obedience to see if He would give up His life on the cross?
Romans 5:6-8 6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. |
Revelation 5:9 9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; |
The power to grant eternal life to whoever He wanted was the ultimate goal of Jesus' mission.
This power was so great that it warranted the greatest test of obedience as anything seen before.
Jesus is not unique in having His faith tested unto death.
Hebrews 11:36-38 36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 38 (Of whom the world was not worthy: ) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. |
Jesus is unique in having the full power to stop it at any time, but still going through with it with full knowledge of what would be done to Him.
Matthew 26:53-54 53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? |
The choice to go through with it was very difficult for Jesus, but He went through with it anyway.
Luke 22:41-44 41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. 43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. |
As with any test of obedience, it is only valid if the person being tested has the full ability to choose to disobey, which Jesus did.
His reward was greater than anyone else has ever been rewarded with.
Philippians 2:5-11 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. |
Predi
New member
That's a very interesting theory, I haven't heard of it. It seems to shed light to a few verses I was always puzzled about...
That's true...
But to understand your theology fully I need to know who you understand Jesus is. Not God, but Son of God, but what does it mean? How is He different than us?
genuineoriginal
New member
I try to take the scriptures at face value, which is commonly known as the literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic.
_____
DISPENSATIONAL HERMENEUTICS: The Grammatico -Historical Method
... First, according to Ram, literal interpretation encompasses the idea of assigning to every word the same meaning it would have in its normal usage, whether employed in speaking, writing, or thinking.
... Second, literalism resists going beyond what is written. Because literalism resists “going beyond the facts,” when interpreting a given text, literal interpreters resist the temptation to import foreign ideas from outside the text.
... Grammatical interpretation observes the impact that grammar plays in any given text. Thus, bible interpreters must correctly analyze the relationship that words, phrases, or sentences have toward one another.
... Historical interpretation takes into account historical context, setting, and circumstances in which the words of Scripture were written.
DISPENSATIONAL HERMENEUTICS: The Grammatico -Historical Method
... First, according to Ram, literal interpretation encompasses the idea of assigning to every word the same meaning it would have in its normal usage, whether employed in speaking, writing, or thinking.
... Second, literalism resists going beyond what is written. Because literalism resists “going beyond the facts,” when interpreting a given text, literal interpreters resist the temptation to import foreign ideas from outside the text.
... Grammatical interpretation observes the impact that grammar plays in any given text. Thus, bible interpreters must correctly analyze the relationship that words, phrases, or sentences have toward one another.
... Historical interpretation takes into account historical context, setting, and circumstances in which the words of Scripture were written.
(In an amusing twist, this is the hermenutic method that caused me to reject Dispensationalism because it failed to meet the test)
So, for Christology, the study of who Christ is, I take the literal phrases of the Bible stating who He is, then take into account the grammar of the text and the historical context of the writing.
I look for what Jesus is explicitly stated to be, then for what Jesus is implied to be, and finally I look for what Jesus must be to make the statements about Him to be true statements.
You may notice that this is in the exact opposite order than is used by most other people, but I believe it is the only correct order to do it.
Jesus is explicitly stated to be the Son of God and God's only begotten Son.
Therefore, these are things I must believe about Jesus.
Jesus is implied to be the Word made flesh, and the Word is explicitly stated to be God.
Jesus explicitly stated that He and the Father are one, but Jesus also prayed that all believers would be one in the manner that Jesus and the Father are one.
There is a strong enough implication that Jesus is God that the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE declared that Jesus was "very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
However, historical evaluation of John 1:1 shows it is talking about a Greek philosophical concept called the Logos, which refers to a purpose, and the Logos being made flesh is a statement that God's purpose took on a human form when Jesus was begotten, not that God Himself took on human form.
Jesus has the power to forgive people for sins against God, raise people from the dead, and grant eternal life to others.
This is enough other evidence in the Bible that shows Jesus assuming a role that only God has, even to the point of being called Lord.
To contrast this are the statements that Jesus made about the power and authority He has was given to Him by God and is not His own power.
From the statements about Jesus in the Bible appears to be an acceptable spectrum of belief of who and what Jesus is that ranges from Him being God's human son and right hand man who God exalted above the angels (Hebrews 1) to being God Himself.
Jesus being God's human son and right hand man who God exalted above the angels satisfies the condition for what Jesus must be to make the Biblical statements true with little contradiction.
Jesus being God requires a significant number of the Biblical statements to be stretched to fit with a lot of contradiction, and the only way I can see of reconciling them is to assume that when God became Jesus, He had nothing more than any other human had from the time of conception to the time He ascended to the Father, which would match up with the statement in Philippians 2:7.
Even though I know that it is possible that Jesus is God Himself in human form, I find that looking at Jesus as a man with a special ability to communicate with God makes it a lot easier to understand the scriptures in the manner they were intended to be understood.
That includes being able to see that the death on the cross was a test of Jesus' obedience instead of God doing something strange and apparently unnecessary.
Predi
New member
This is soooo interesting. And difficult, and complicated, but still - interesting.
And I like it that you don't make any dogmas... any theological statements... To simply say, "Jesus = God" brings many problematic verses. So does "Jesus is just a man".
A man with special abilities... that seems to make sense, even though it's not easy to understand.
I'll keep thinking.. And now I need to come back to your previous post about the test of obedience.
And what you said about hermeneutics... I am usually for literalism, too, but what always puzzles me that there are many examples where the apostles interpreted the Old Testament in a totally non-literal way. They should know better