TedM

I don't see any problem. He 'took it back'? Are you referring to resurrection? If you don't understand what the purpose of the resurrection was for by now, you may be beyond seeing it. The purpose was to defeat death. It was confirmation of the inability for death to 'stick' to holiness...sin = death perfection = no lasting death (ie resurrection). Is this a hard concept?

As for Mark 10:17-22, what was Jesus supposed to say Jake: Hey, wait until I die and then believe in me? He said all he could at that point and it was sufficient -- follow the Law (since it was still in effect) and follow me. He hadn't died yet so there is no contradiction.

Sheshbazzar

Jake ya just gotta understand,
its like a Roadrunner cartoon, and Jebus H. Christ is like Wile E. Coyote. he can't stay dead cause it would ruin the cartoon for these kids, and having to confront the realities of life and death gives them nightmares.

TedM

It had salvation value for those that believed in it, whether the resurrection happened or not. I can't say it any more clearly. History doesn't depend on your emotional response to it, yet it sure reads to me like you think it does. It isn't important that you are repulsed by the concept. What is important is whether the people of the time were ALL repulsed by it to the extent that it couldn't have developed out of a simple act of Passover crucifixion.

It's as if you are so bothered by the idea that anyone could find salvation value that you are attempting to alleviate the repulsion by finding an alternative--at all costs. No problem, and maybe you'll come up with something. But, I see pretty clearly now that you are driven by emotional factors and not rational ones, as this explains why you say things like it is a 'big jump' to go from animal sacrifice at passover to human sacrifice at passover. That's an irrational response driven by emotion IMO, and I should have stopped at that point because there is not progress possible with you. In that sense you do remind me of aa (although you are much friendlier and polite).

Please don't confuse my arguments for a historical rational basis for a human salvation sacrifice with my own moral or humanitarian position. They have nothing to do with each other.

Take care.

maryhelena

You know something - I'm having a hard time understanding how any rational person can write what you have written. I just can't fathom the mindset that could even consider such an irrational, immoral and anti-humanitarian idea.

I hope, Ted, that one day you will regret that you wrote these words.

TedM

A verse you still can't explain as you don't see that 'Evil' and 'Wicked' are references to 'sin'. You flounder about and try to find other passages to get around this one. Yet this is the very one that explains WHY Jesus died and was resurrected. It was to overcome sins by overcoming death.

Yes it was. 10:45 proves it.

Yeah the angels at the tomb really confirmed that one, didn't they? 10:45 really confirmed it too, huh? He came to serve and give his life as a ransom for sins. This shows PURPOSE in his life and death. Your little 'synopsis' is devoid of purpose for the death, aa. WHY was he killed? SO that he would come back for revenge? That's hilariously ridiculous and warped. The only verse I have found in gMark that tells us most clearly the PURPOSE of Jesus life and death is 10:45. THAT'S the theological statement. But, the whole book is not a story of revenge, but is a story that justifies his role as redeemer for salvation. aa, in case you didn't know it THAT'S what the Messiah was supposed to do. You might benefit from learning more about what the Messiah was expected to do for Israel: heal the sick...save Israel from it's sins...usher in the new kingdom of God


Seriously, you need to get a bigger picture of what a Messiah was expected to do. Three times Jesus foretold his death and resurrection. It was all part of a PLAN. The plan wasn't silly revenge! It was in 10:45. Realize that John the Baptist was a FORESHADOWING, the one who prepared the way for Jesus, and his greater role as Savior:

TedM

And you just confirmed once again that you really don't understand what I'm talking about. I said 'rational basis'. That doesn't imply 'humanitarian basis', which you erroneously require. You seem unable to distinguish between the two concepts of logic and morality. Logic can be applied to an immoral action (ie someone kills another person out of jealousy. It is logical that they responded in anger. It is immoral that they responded to that extent.) Immoral behaviors can be very logically understood in terms of the emotions involved. Human sacrifice can be seen as beautiful if it saves the world..

Sheshbazzar

Must have been some of that same' rational basis' for human sacrifice used by dozens of other primitive cultures to appease and to 'save' them from their angry God(s)


Kind of funny how they could miss mentioning this, the most famous 'human salvation sacrifice' ever, intended to 'save' men from an insane angry God.

maryhelena

Ted, let me say this once more as clear as I can say it: THERE IS NO RATIONAL BASIS, NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT, FOR A SALVATION VALUE IN A HUMAN FLESH AND BLOOD CRUCIFIXION/SACRIFICE.

You cannot do it, Ted. You are giving yourself an impossible task. And why? For some harebrained theological fantasy that you are twisting yourself in knots trying to justify.

TedM

Once again you fail to directly address even a single statement that I've made. Yelling your same statement doesn't make it true.

maryhelena

For heavens sake, Ted. Why should any rational person address your irrational and anti-humanitarian premise that there is value, salvation value, in a human flesh and blood crucifixion/sacrifice. Your premise is rejected out of hand; rejected on sight; rejected for the abomination it is.