Julian

You didn't. You point was valid.

Julian

I do not understand what you mean here? What's public?
Could you point to specific NT examples?
Nobody has been been able to satisfactorily explain what the trinity is. It usually comes across as, "They are one but they are separate." YHWH's curse must be the curse of Jesus as well, right? If they are one in purpose and will?

You must understand that to an atheist your last paragraph sounds almost insane, certainly absurd. Not meant as a personal comment directed at you. I understand that rhutchin didn't make it up personally since I have heard the argument before. I have just never seen good biblical basis for it. It mostly comes across as apologetics.

Julian

rhutchin

Within the context of the Bible, hell is the opposite of heaven. In heaven, one would be in the presence of God; in hell one would be out of the presence of God. However, I agree that at least some of those who do not believe in God will prefer hell to heaven.

It seems to be a major theme in the Bible. Sin entails punishment and this punishment is depicted as being cast into outer darkness as opposed to the light of God. The atonement for sin requires that someone incur this punishment, which is what Christ is said to have done. How this happened given that Christ is God seems to be a mystery.

John A. Broussard

This is very confusing. How can Jesus be completely separated from god when you've already said many times that Jesus is god.

I suppose, since your god is all-powerful, then that god has the power to separate itself from itself. But, that's still is difficult for me to understand.

Please explain.

Equinox

rhutchin wrote:


In other words, it simply doesn't make sense. It continues to amaze me that even after a Christian publically admits something simply doesn't make sense, that they continue to claim to believe it. The fact that a human mind can be rendered so useless is a scary thing to behold - Christianity is indeed powerful.

-Equinox

CJD

The punishment. Consider Dan. 12:2; John 5:28–29; and Acts 24:15. All of these depict physical, bodily "coming to lifes" or "waking from sleep" (resurrections) in which those who persecuted the just will be publicly judged.


Many I think allude to it, but some that speak directly to the idea that being cut off/cast out is tantamount to being separated from YHWH: Matt. 22:13; 25:30; Luke 13:28; John 6:37; Rom. 9:3; 11:22; Gal. 4:30; Heb. 11:11–13

I think the texts push us in the direction that they are one, not as a numerical ens, but in agenda. This still doesn't answer those texts that highly exalt this Jesus (or depict people worshiping him), though. Either the early Jewish Christians were not monotheists, or they understood this Jesus to be somehow wrapped up in the identity of YHWH (aka, "Jesus is Lord"). That's about it. The rest is … :huh:

Though Paul in particular (and even the gospels) is careful to note that sin and death are that which was condemned in Jesus, not Jesus himself. He takes on the curse, not deservedly, but willfully. In other words, it was always YHWH's purpose to deal with the problem Adam started (this is the whole point of the TNK); Jesus comes along and takes on this purpose and makes it his vocation, even to the point of being the object of his father's curse. This is where the "substitute" concept comes in. Jesus personally was not a covenant-breaker, but his fellow comrades were. He takes upon himself what the people as a whole earned (i.e., exile, being cut off). As mentioned previously, "My God, why have you forsaken me?", is an allusion to Ps. 22, and it is a lament that turns into a hopeful anticipation of the coming kingdom of YHWH. This guy Jesus understood his vocation as one with the father's purpose, which was, as various portions of the TNK show, that god's kingdom will come through the suffering of the righteous and that the true king will share in those sufferings. Thus, the option on how to view Jesus is not exactly either Lord or Lunatic; it is either Lord or Megalomaniac. He really thought, according to the text, that he was the true, representative king of Israel.

Of course. But I do think it is internally consistent.

Well, it certainly is often presented in such a matter-of-fact way that I can understand the accusation of apologetics. What I wrote above explains it better, to me, at least.

CJD

CJD

"Mystery" doesn't mean "it doesn't make sense." It means it's beyond human ability to fully comprehend. What continues to amaze me is the audacity skeptics like yourself display when discussing issues about reality, as if you and all your thoughts are understood by you exhaustively.

Hubris, pal, hubris is powerful.

CJD

robto

Julian, I recently came to this conclusion myself. However, I have never read any scholarship that discusses the question. The commentaries on Mark that I've looked in, for instance, completely fail to mention the possibility of a separationist/adoptionist christology. Can you point me to any references that discuss this?

Thanks!

Steven Carr

'Mystery' originally just meant 'secret'. The mystery religions were secret religions.

How a being that is fully God can be separated from God is a mystery in the modern sense of the word.

If Jesus felt seperated from God, why did he on the cross ask God to forgive people? More mysteries....

Chris Weimer

Psalm 22, the corresponding Hebrew "Eli! Eli! Lamah azavtani?"