Let's Talk About True Sacrifice

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Sorry, but I don't see the relevance. Maybe you could run it by me again, verse by verse, and explain how it is connected.

Mark 1:1
The beginning of the gospel . . .

John 1:1
In the beginning . . .

Mark 1:2,4
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet . . .
John the baptizer began preaching . . .

John 1:6
A man came, sent from God, whose name was John.

What I was saying was that you have parallel Gospels. For clarity, let's assume (whether it is really true, or not) that when John was written, the only other Gospel available to the writer was Mark. He decides he wants to do a different version, he is looking at Mark and thinking about how he could make it better, so you end up with a certain amount of similarity, with the emphasis on the dissimilarities.

Where normal Bible interpreters fail is by seeing a parallel between John 1:1-3 and Genesis 1:1.
The Greek word eginito does not mean to create, but is used to introduce an occurrence, like saying, "and it came about that . . .".
What I think is that you already have the deliberate misinterpretation in John 1:14 (another example of twisting the verse to 'prove' a doctrine, and this time, again, the Trinity) of saying "the word became flesh", again with that same Greek word, eginito, so, why not just do more misinterpretation by taking what should have said "and it came about that . . ." in verse 3, and having it say "was created".
The word for "all things", as in what supposedly was 'created' in verse three, is another misinterpretation to support the Trinity, and should mean, "whenever these things like this happens . . .".

reply to post by jmdewey60


I am not deliberately misinterpreting anything. In fact, I fail to see what John or Mark have to do with it, considering researchers have concluded that they had very little to do with the writing of Genesis. It is generally agreed that a handful of authors, which may or may not include the sons of Adam and even Adam himself, compiled what is today called the Book of Genesis.

So I don't know why you keep bringing John into it...except for the couple of lines that his book and the Book of Genesis have in common. But they were not written by the same people, nor in the same time period, were they? I think you're going to need to get a lot more detailed about this if you want me to understand your point of view.

And it would appear that you ignored about 90% of the scripture I provided. If you would address the entirety of the three lines I posted from Genesis, I would appreciate it.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I am not deliberately misinterpreting anything.

I'm not saying that you are, but the people that you would assume are responsible for making interpretations of scripture, then disseminating that information to the congregation.
You are just the ordinary person sitting in the pew, listening to the preacher who you expect to know the proper interpretation through specialized training. The problem is that years past, the hierarchy made decisions to interpret it a certain way in order to support doctrine, then from that point, on, members of the clergy are obligated to forever go along with that decision, for better or worse, and to hold that interpretation as sacrosanct.

So I don't know why you keep bringing John into it...

You quoted it.
Or are you just copying and pasting stuff off of an atheist web site without even knowing where it comes from?

And it would appear that you ignored about 90% of the scripture I provided. If you would address the entirety of the three lines I posted from Genesis, I would appreciate it.

That was John, not Genesis.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Ah. My mistake. Thank you for correcting me. In that case...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

What exactly is meant by 'heavens' in this verse?

Also, using the scripture I provided, could you translate it using YOUR interpretive skills? So we're on the same page? Thank you.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

What exactly is meant by 'heavens' in this verse?

My interpretive methodology is trying to understand it as it would have been by the original intended audience.
You have to look for clues on that by looking into other places in the Bible, but what you end up with is this idea of a preexisting world, but one without order. The "heavens" would be the sun coming up every day and the moon behaving in a regular, predictable manner which you could use to keep time, and the same with the stars.
The earth is normalized where the land stays put, and the seas stay in their sea beds.
It has been universally accepted by reputable Hebrew scholars that the word translated as "created" doesn't mean create as if from nothing, but to shape something, to fashion it into something useful.

reply to post by jmdewey60


So the majority of common Christians are incorrect in saying that the universe was created by "God"?

According to these reputable scholars, what exactly is the nature of "God"? I ask because it appears that some reevaluation is necessary, given the...inaccuracies I mistakenly included in my examinations.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

So the majority of common Christians are incorrect in saying that the universe was created by "God"?

Yes, that is what I am saying.
They are supporting doctrines of the Medieval church, where they were reading a version of the Bible in Latin that was full of errors.

...inaccuracies I mistakenly included in my examinations.

Your mistake is assuming that the version you were familiar with is standard, and that it is also as good as it gets, when really it is more like that you are familiar with a stupid, or rather very unsophisticated version that hasn't progressed since the Dark Ages.

According to these reputable scholars, what exactly is the nature of "God"?

Mostly that sort of thing that I have been studying has to do with the Old Testament god.
As for the New Testament God, He would be like the ideal Emperor, as compared to the bad examples familiar to the NT writers.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Mostly that sort of thing that I have been studying has to do with the Old Testament god.
As for the New Testament God, He would be like the ideal Emperor, as compared to the bad examples familiar to the NT writers.

And is this "ideal emperor" an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent sort of ruler, as would be had by the Old Testament and the New Testament?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

And is this "ideal emperor" an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent sort of ruler, as would be had by the Old Testament and the New Testament?

I was trying to answer your earlier question about what responsable sources thought about God's nature.
Such a thing would be determined by looking at the New Testament.
God would be the great king who saves people by marshaling His forces to engage in battle against the enemies of mankind, and we are 'saved' by defeating those forces that are against us.
It goes beyond just that aspect, and includes how he orders the society in His kingdom, by making things just and fair, and also the giving of gifts.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I was trying to answer your earlier question about what responsable sources thought about God's nature.
Such a thing would be determined by looking at the New Testament.
God would be the great king who saves people by marshaling His forces to engage in battle against the enemies of mankind, and we are 'saved' by defeating those forces that are against us.
It goes beyond just that aspect, and includes how he orders the society in His kingdom, by making things just and fair, and also the giving of gifts.

But should we choose to be independent, to rely on our own power, then we are also condemned, right? Also, you didn't really answer my other question. Is "God" a deity of an all-powerful nature, or not?

AfterInfinity,

Have you persuaded God to commit suicide yet..?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

AfterInfinity,

Have you persuaded God to commit suicide yet..?

That's like sending a Christmas list to the North Pole. If he has a better idea...well, I'm not going anywhere just yet. Let's see if he can find the time to pay me a visit, smack me around a little, give me a firm talking to, and convince me that he has the world's best interests at heart and cares more about the human species than about himself.

the precious lol and this is crazy stuff lolreply to post by smithjustinb

reply to post by AfterInfinity

But should we choose to be independent, to rely on our own power, then we are also condemned, right?

Can you raise yourself out from Hell? If so, then why concern yourself with God?
My guess is that you can't, and will be stuck in Hell forever without God's help.

Also, you didn't really answer my other question. Is "God" a deity of an all-powerful nature, or not?

If God has to go to battle, how could He be those things you mentioned, so I did answer it.
You asked me how other people such as reputable biblical scholars would say it. They are not going to say it in such an undiplomatic sort of way as I would.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Can you raise yourself out from Hell? If so, then why concern yourself with God?
My guess is that you can't, and will be stuck in Hell forever without God's help.

If embracing my imperfection and refusing to subjugated through debt earns me a ticket to hell, then I might as well make it a hell of a ride.

#NoRegrets

If God has to go to battle, how could He be those things you mentioned, so I did answer it.
You asked me how other people such as reputable biblical scholars would say it. They are not going to say it in such an undiplomatic sort of way as I would.

Then they have denied his invincibility in their own vague way? Could you provide documentation?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Such questions attempt to attribute some kind of a weakness to God. In this case, you imply that God can't preserve both Himself and the universe... and he needs to end one to preserve the other.

God can both preserve Himself AND run the universe.

You missed the point of the question. A leader who cannot lose is a leader who cannot sacrifice. He will destroy everything around him before he destroys himself. Such a leader cannot help but always put himself first, as he cannot imagine going without. He must be king. He must be worshipped. You owe him your soul because he always wins. Try beating your own path, finding your own understanding and you'll pay dearly for your insolence. Deny him and your fate is hellfire.

If you can't lose, you can't win. There's no challenge, no triumph, no reward. And if you can't lose, then you never learn anything. Learning is a process of trial and error...but what if even your errors are wins? Perfection has its price.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If embracing my imperfection and refusing to subjugated through debt earns me a ticket to hell, then I might as well make it a hell of a ride.

I don't really get your attitude unless you are mixing up God with a physical institution calling itself church.

Then they have denied his invincibility in their own vague way? Could you provide documentation?

What I am thinking about right now is a book I have called, Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context, that I am using as a source to answer your question, and it is a group of essays, by people like Warren Carter, who is one of the most reputable theological writers today. He is going to draw parallels between the Roman Empire and Gods's 'empire' but is not going to concede that God could somehow loose.
What I am saying is that if there is a war in the first place, then something is wrong with the world, or maybe the universe in general. Why or how could that be? Did God create a bad universe, or is God someone who is concerned about this inherant badness of the universe and wants to mitigate the bad effects on people in whatever way is in His power to do?
I think it is the latter, and not the former.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I don't really get your attitude unless you are mixing up God with a physical institution calling itself church.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - Ephesians 2:8

Christians believe we are saved as a matter of grace, that we don't deserve forgiveness but will be granted amnesty as long as we consign our souls to Jesus and "God". Whether or not this is the correct interpretation of scripture, it is the truth that is being spread through the average church. And the only truth that matters is the common truth.

Perhaps you believe that salvation is completely free, allied with "God" or not, but others do not. And those others are many.

What I am saying is that if there is a war in the first place, then something is wrong with the world, or maybe the universe in general. Why or how could that be? Did God create a bad universe, or is God someone who is concerned about this inherant badness of the universe and wants to mitigate the bad effects on people in whatever way is in His power to do?
I think it is the latter, and not the former.

I think the Taoist philosophy explains the matter pretty well. Wherever there is a candle, there will also be shadow. Part of understanding the candle is understanding the shadow. So when those times come when the candle doesn't seem so bright, you need not fear the shadows because you know exactly what they are and have made peace with them. As such, condemnation is unnecessary because darkness becomes a learning experience to be valued.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

And the only truth that matters is the common truth.

Matters in what? Do you mean what matters in attacking the Christian religion? That what most people in churches believe is what is open for attack, regardless of whether they are right or not, so Christianity is judged good or bad based on all these people who misinterpret the Bible, rather than maybe a small minority of people who take the trouble to understand it correctly?
What you have in churches is a lot of people no better off than cult members because they don't question what they are told by preachers or Sunday school teachers.

Take the text you quoted. The book is one purported to be by Paul, but most likely not written by him, but they use his terminology, so can be understood, though it is written out in a simplistic way that Paul would not do himself.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

Grace is you being called, out of the blue, like The Lord who suddenly told Abraham to get up and leave Ur of the Chaldees and to go to the Land of Canaan.
Saved is the Israelites standing at the foot of Sinai after crossing the Red Sea.
Faith is the constitution of this new institution, as the Law was to the Israelites in the wilderness, when they were given the commission to become a great nation, we are also sanctified to live a holy life, according to Faith.

None of this means that if you just believe in Jesus, you are given an instant, irrevocable ticket to the rapture. Rather it means you are given a opportunity to be part of the new version of God's kingdom, free, that you don't have to gain admission by paying for it or proving a particular bloodline.
You are saved because this spiritual nation is saved, or under the protection of God as His special people.
In this spiritual nation of God, you do not maintain your membership in good standing in it by following a lot of written laws but you follow the spiritual prompting by that new spirit that God gives you, as a member of Christ's body, or the Church. Paul designated this concept of following that divine guidance under the name he chose as a new terminology, Faith.
As long as you are living by Faith, you are 'saved' by remaining as a member in good standing in the 'saved' community who are 'in' Christ.

. . . you need not fear the shadows because you know exactly what they are and have made peace with them.

Christians are not satisfied with being 'at peace' with death, they want to overcome it.
Jesus overcame death.
We overcome death by abiding in Christ and we do that by Faith, which is Christ's 'Law'. The law of life, which is only the law we should be doing anyway, just to be good contributors to society.

reply to post by jmdewey60


None of this means that if you just believe in Jesus, you are given an instant, irrevocable ticket to the rapture. Rather it means you are given a opportunity to be part of the new version of God's kingdom, free, that you don't have to gain admission by paying for it or proving a particular bloodline.

Oh, you mean like getting into a celebrity club? Or maybe the CEO private party held on a large yacht in the middle of a lake they own, buying hookers and discussing economic plot holes in their business plans and making deals with the politicians and media.

As long as you are living by Faith, you are 'saved' by remaining as a member in good standing in the 'saved' community who are 'in' Christ.

Faith, a woo-woo word for "I have these reason to lie to myself, which I consider to be very good, and the reasons you're giving me to be honest with myself are complete rubbish." I liken it to someone standing on the ledge of a tall building while someone on the roof explains to them the laws of physics. You're just reminding them of why they closed their eyes in the first place.

Christians are not satisfied with being 'at peace' with death, they want to overcome it.
Jesus overcame death.

Which means it's not a true sacrifice. When ancient civilizations made sacrifices to the gods, those offerings were destroyed. Consumed. Gone. Why should "God"s sacrifice be anything less? And if Jesus came back from the dead, that means his death was worthless. Death becomes as simple an act as taking a punch in the face for all of mankind.

I can think of a lot of things more impressive than the William Wallace act from Braveheart. Take, for instance, rising from the cave after three days and coming out to the public. Gathering those who had previously sworn their loyalty to him and mark them as his warriors. Set out and display himself as proof of his miracle, and establishing himself as the Son of God and taking his throne right then and there. Let his followers become his subjects and let all others suffer in flames. Who would have dared march against him?

And quite honestly, humans have always responded quite well to that kind of regime. Hell, it's been 2,000 years of evolution and revolution, and we still have religions around. Belief systems have been known to last in excess of 5,000 years. It could be a while before we finally get a chance to free ourselves of the spiritual yoke.