|
Post by hogwash on Nov 13, 2007 15:14:29 GMT -5
What a hogwash of a discussion.
What does it matter whether he could have or not? Some say he could, some say he couldn't. Other say he could but that it was not the will of God, others say that Jesus is God. One guy says that the crucifiction was a hoax. Who are we to believe?
The only conclusion is that, despite the inevitable howls of ain protestations to the contrary, no one here has the foggiest notion about anything to do with the truth of anything!
Which begs the question why anyone should take any notice of what is said here, ex 2x2 or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by wcould have he on Nov 13, 2007 15:21:37 GMT -5
If we take our doctrine from the bible , then it was God that so loved the world that he gave his own son [his son also can be considered as his blood, as the son is begotten by the blood of the true father]
Yes Jesus did prevail on the cross....yet his heart must have been awfully sore vexed, as the scorn continued right up to the end.
In the midst of this scorn, was uttered a most profound question. 'He saved others, let us see if he can save himself'
Certainly a worthwhile question.
Nevertheless, it can be answered.
Certainly he could have. without a doubt.
It was the love of the son to the father, and his willing obedience that he learned by the things he suffered that kept him there. Certainly Jesus did love us enough to come to die for our sins, but ultimately it was the love and obedience to the will of his father that kept him on the cross. That IS a huge love, and make no mistake about it, Jesus love for his father is much stronger than his love for us....yet, it is only Jesus that truely knew how to love his neighbor as himself. [greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his brother. [/
|
|
|
Post by More Hogwash on Nov 13, 2007 16:09:21 GMT -5
I seem to miss the point here.
What would be the point of saving yourself if you knew that within a couple of days you'd be back up bouncing around having been ressurected? Surely that would take some of the grim feeling away. I think even I would have quite looked forward to going over the top at the Somme safe in the knowledge that if some swinehunt of a german machinegunner should strike me down, I'd be back up clowning around in a couple of days. I think the sacrifice would have been much greater if that had been that and there was no ressurection and no ascent up to heaven ..... like Abraham's willingness to sacrfice his son.
|
|
|
Post by perhaps s on Nov 13, 2007 16:14:55 GMT -5
I seem to miss the point here. What would be the point of saving yourself if you knew that within a couple of days you'd be back up bouncing around having going over the top at the Somme safe in the knowledge that if some swinehunt of a german machinegunner should strike me down, I'd be back up clowning around in a couple of days. I think the sacrifice would have been much greater if that had been that and there was no ressurection and no ascent up to heaven ..... like Abraham's willingness to sacrfice his son. No, my friend....faith was that the sacrifice was not in vain, if there was no resurrection, then the sacrifice would have been in vain.
|
|
|
Post by More Hogwash on Nov 13, 2007 16:31:12 GMT -5
My point is that there was no sacrifice. If there'd been no ressurection there would have been. Sacrifice means giving up something for the sake of something. If I sacrifice my pet goat safe in the knowledge that i'm going to get it back Thursday, it isn't a sacrifice. It's only sacrifice if I don't get it back. The point is that Jesus knew he was going to get his life back on the Sunday and he did. Unless of course he didn't rise again and we've all been duped. Of course this would explain the rather startling absence of reference to the ressurection in some of the gospels.
You can either have the sacrifice or the ressurection - you can't have it both ways. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by perhaps s on Nov 13, 2007 16:48:31 GMT -5
Sacrifice means giving up something for the sake of something. If I sacrifice my pet goat safe in the knowledge that i'm going to get it back Thursday, it isn't a sacrifice. You can either have the sacrifice or the ressurection - you can't have it both ways. Sorry! My dad was a simple and profound man of common sense . He taught me some basic lessons in farming, and farmed all his life beginning as soon as he could carry the slop pail. When I began farming with all the modern convienences, he still has on top of his profession.... He lived through the depression, droughts, hail, and many many very good years... As I was seeing the weather to be most suitable to the endeavor of 'fishing, etc' ..but also more profitable to be spent in seeding the crop, he inspired me to consider my labour, a labour of sacrifice, in that I choose to do the very thing that is rooted in most benefit to the 'big picture'' of life....sure I could get run over the minute the crop was seeded, and not be able to realize the fruit of my labour....but if I truely learn to love to do the 'sacrifice' then even in this life, there is at least that enduring hope that the seeded crop perpetuates and enriches those that consider its worthwhileness.....certainly you can be a pessimist, and say that by not 'sacrificing ' the day I may have squeezed, a moment of fun and fishing, but even that is vain. In the end we all have to sacrifice one thing for another thing, it is the wise choices of these sacrifices that determine what we are when we pass on....eh?
|
|
|
Post by my uncles story on Nov 13, 2007 16:57:13 GMT -5
Oh, I forgot my uncles story of wit and wisdom. As we sat leaning against his pickup, he gave me a most 'knowing' and serious look of contemplation. Oh, I was eager to hear his advice. ;D He said, that a wise farmer was asked what the secret to successful farming practice?? You have got to put the seed in the ground. Hey, it always worked for him. Spending 3,000 dollars on seed and fertilizer, was always a sacrifice for me, as at the time, I could have bought a new car {not anymore though} or put it in the ground, knowing that I did what I could, and leave the rest to the earth to take care of it...
|
|
|
Post by Hogwash on Nov 13, 2007 17:12:31 GMT -5
I think you may well have missed the point entirely ........ whether inadvertently or not I know not. However you have raised a more interesting debate and perhaps a less controversial one .... that of the issue of whether to live life for now caring not for tomorrow (the birds of the air have their nests remember) or to sacrifice the joys of today for the hope (vain or otherwise) of greater things tomorrow (pull down my barns and build greater).
Having been raised as a Cooneyite under the strict teachings that it is better to endure 2x2 related suffering and pain (not to mention boredom) today in the hope of a heavenly future (which turned out not to be phoney) than to indulge in the joys of earth for a season, I'm not altogether sold on what you deem the wise choice. Better to have lived and lost than never to have lived at all I say. Better to have had your moment of fun and fishing than never to have seen the crop perpetuate. Better to live in the world and learn about life than to pledge oneself to the teachings of anything as confusing and damaging as a religious belief bestowed upon one solely on the basis of an accident of birth and the lottery of life. But each to their own I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Old Beliefs on Nov 13, 2007 17:27:02 GMT -5
If we take our doctrine from the bible , then it was God that so loved the world that he gave his own son [his son also can be considered as his blood, as the son is begotten by the blood of the true father]This is just because the writers had no idea of the function of blood. As we know now blood, the red cells, do not even carry DNA of the individual. He died. Generally when you die it is not considered prevailing. I think the point is that he did not save himself. Correctly?? Well, if you believe he was omnipotent. Or it could have neem nails driven through his wrists and feet. Again - there were the nails. Many people have died for the good of others. Explain why you think this is different than the father who dies saving his children. So you are saying that a person that dies to save others is showing a love as great as Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by changed mind on Nov 15, 2007 17:08:14 GMT -5
If we take our doctrine from the bible , then it was God that so loved the world that he gave his own son [his son also can be considered as his blood, as the son is begotten by the blood of the true father]
Yes Jesus did prevail on the cross....yet his heart must have been awfully sore vexed, as the scorn continued right up to the end.
In the midst of this scorn, was uttered a most profound question. 'He saved others, let us see if he can save himself'
Certainly a worthwhile question.
Nevertheless, it can be answered.
Certainly he could have. without a doubt.
It was the love of the son to the father, and his willing obedience that he learned by the things he suffered that kept him there. Certainly Jesus did love us enough to come to die for our sins, but ultimately it was the love and obedience to the will of his father that kept him on the cross. That IS a huge love, and make no mistake about it, Jesus love for his father is much stronger than his love for us....yet, it is only Jesus that truely knew how to love his neighbor as himself. [greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his brother. [/[/quot Now today, I see this a little different?? Most likely Jesus could not take himself off the cross, as he was totally comitted to following out his fathers wishes for him to die on the cross for our sins. I see the parallel in the OT example of Isaac allowing him to be bound to the alter of obedience, while Abraham offered him as a love sacrifice to God, [knowing that they would be in Gods will in the end anyways!!
|
|
|
Post by wonderin on Nov 17, 2007 12:39:19 GMT -5
If we take our doctrine from the bible , then it was God that so loved the world that he gave his own son [his son also can be considered as his blood, as the son is begotten by the blood of the true father]
Yes Jesus did prevail on the cross....yet his heart must have been awfully sore vexed, as the scorn continued right up to the end.
In the midst of this scorn, was uttered a most profound question. 'He saved others, let us see if he can save himself'
Certainly a worthwhile question.
Nevertheless, it can be answered.
Certainly he could have. without a doubt.
It was the love of the son to the father, and his willing obedience that he learned by the things he suffered that kept him there. Certainly Jesus did love us enough to come to die for our sins, but ultimately it was the love and obedience to the will of his father that kept him on the cross. That IS a huge love, and make no mistake about it, Jesus love for his father is much stronger than his love for us....yet, it is only Jesus that truely knew how to love his neighbor as himself. [greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his brother. [/[/quot Now today, I see this a little different?? Most likely Jesus could not take himself off the cross, as he was totally comitted to following out his fathers wishes for him to die on the cross for our sins. I see the parallel in the OT example of Isaac allowing him to be bound to the alter of obedience, while Abraham offered him as a love sacrifice to God, [knowing that they would be in Gods will in the end anyways!!OK, we are ''allowed'' to change our minds a few times are we
|
|