• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pope Francis Basically Just Admitted There May Not Be a God

RevDeac06 said:
Somewhat. First of all, I never said that I struggle with why a "loving" God would demand blood atonement. For one, I've read the OT and understand the context. Secondly, I'm not going to make weak arguments based on sentimentality. Rather, I was wondering why the Creator of the Universe is bound by customs of the Ancient Near East when it comes to atonement theology.

But my point is that atonement, even seeing Jesus as the final lamb to be sacrificed to God for a sin sacrifice, is a legitimate and Biblical interpretation of the cross. But, at the same time, I'm saying that the need for a blood sacrifice is not the reason why Jesus died on the cross. Jesus died because he pissed people off and he was unwilling to relent from his radical message. That was the cause. The effects were many, and one is atonement.
Click to expand...
I'm just not sure how atonement can be a legitimate and Biblical interpretation of the Cross, if you're also saying that's not why Jesus went to the Cross. In other words, is atonement necessary, or isn't it? If it's a legitimate interpretation, but not the only one, does that mean those who do not believe atonement for sins was necessary are equally legitimate? How can both be true?

In a related vein, what are your positions on Jesus' divinity and his own view of his mission?
 
997m8XN.jpg
 
You just can't help yourself from name calling and insults. It's speaks deeply about your character.

As to the subject, there are hundreds of books and papers by scholars hypothesizing that Jesus may have gone to India or China during his "lost years" of ages 12-29.
 
RJKarl said:
You just can't help yourself from name calling and insults. It's speaks deeply about your character.

As to the subject, there are hundreds of books and papers by scholars hypothesizing that Jesus may have gone to India or China during his "lost years" of ages 12-29.
Click to expand...

You've got a loose definition of "scholar."
 
I'm comfortable with a definition that excludes anyone who takes seriously the claim that Jesus travelled to India, either during the "lost years" or after swooning on the cross. The "lost years" claim originated with a two-bit Russian journalist who admitted to fabricating the evidence.

You don't have to take my word for it. Bart Ehrman said:

"Today there is not a single recognized scholar on the planet who has any doubts about the matter. The entire story was invented by Notovitch, who earned a good deal of money and a substantial amount of notoriety for his hoax."

I swear, if people had half the faith in God as they did in this kind of Dan Brown shit, we wouldn't have any atheists among us.
 
Junebug said:
I'm comfortable with a definition that excludes anyone who takes seriously the claim that Jesus travelled to India, either during the "lost years" or after swooning on the cross. The "lost years" claim originated with a two-bit Russian journalist who admitted to fabricating the evidence.

You don't have to take my word for it. Bart Ehrman said:

"Today there is not a single recognized scholar on the planet who has any doubts about the matter. The entire story was invented by Notovitch, who earned a good deal of money and a substantial amount of notoriety for his hoax."

I swear, if people had half the faith in God as they did in this kind of Dan Brown shit, we wouldn't have any atheists among us.
Click to expand...

The difference between you and about 90% of the board is the rest of us can have a civil discussion. You immediately go to name calling and insults.

Your last statement is baseless and silly. Firstly, no one here is speaking about Dan Brown. That's a pure red herring.

Next, why would any atheist have faith in God? That's a preposterous comment.
 
The bible suggests that before he began his "mission" he was a carpenter or builder or something similar in Galilee.
 
DeacDaddy said:
I'm just not sure how atonement can be a legitimate and Biblical interpretation of the Cross, if you're also saying that's not why Jesus went to the Cross. In other words, is atonement necessary, or isn't it? If it's a legitimate interpretation, but not the only one, does that mean those who do not believe atonement for sins was necessary are equally legitimate? How can both be true?

In a related vein, what are your positions on Jesus' divinity and his own view of his mission?
Click to expand...

Something can have meaning, even if that wasn't the cause. Lots of examples, but think of the Star Spangled Banner. It was written during a specific time with specific influences, but that doesn't mean that the only viable interpretation is the one that Francis Scott Key had in mind. Maybe he wrote something without even being aware of the connection. But this is the sort of what metaphorical writing is like- a real event reminds someone of a larger meaning. I'm not sure what's so confusing about this- didn't you all take literature courses at Wake? The Bible is a a form of literature.

Re: Jesus- Yes, Divine. View of own mission- dunno, never talked to the guy. But it's pretty clear from Scripture that his purpose was the Kingdom of God, not being worshiped.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Something can have meaning, even if that wasn't the cause. Lots of examples, but think of the Star Spangled Banner. It was written during a specific time with specific influences, but that doesn't mean that the only viable interpretation is the one that Francis Scott Key had in mind. Maybe he wrote something without even being aware of the connection. But this is the sort of what metaphorical writing is like- a real event reminds someone of a larger meaning. I'm not sure what's so confusing about this- didn't you all take literature courses at Wake? The Bible is a a form of literature.

Re: Jesus- Yes, Divine. View of own mission- dunno, never talked to the guy. But it's pretty clear from Scripture that his purpose was the Kingdom of God, not being worshiped.
Click to expand...

Rev, sorry to jump in, but can you explain more what you mean by divine? Are you talking about orthodoxy's view of the incarnation of Jesus as fully God and fully man? Or is it something different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top