Originally Posted by THE W
what a mess. its gonna take forever to clean up all this error, but here we go..
jesus is that temple
the temple is his body. it was destroyed by crucifixion and rebuilt in 3 days through the resurrection. the shed blood of jesus is the final blood sacrifice for the sins of man.
jesus had authority from God the father to forgive sins because God gave him that authority. jesus was "the christ" AKA "the son of God". jesus always does what pleases the father.
jesus the christ and God the father are one. if you know jesus then you know the father. jesus always does the will of the father.
that makes absolutely no sense. the law states that sacrifices are to be carried out inside
the holy temple.
thats not the same as sacrificing the holy temple itself. sacrificing jesus on the cross is sacrificing the temple to god on the cross.
the law states that sacrifices are to be sacrificed to god inside the temple. logic of the law says that the sacrifice would have to be inside jesus.
so how is destroying the temple in alliance with the law. ur approach is sloppy. i think paul mightve also had the same sloppy approach.
most of the approaches to say jesus sacrificed himself for our sins is sloppy. i remember u saying i wasnt reading those bible verses in context. but the thing is, i was. majority of them said jesus would be killed to fulfill prophecies (not to get rid of sins or even for a sacrifice).
there was only 1 section of jesus speaking u gave that seemed to be in ur viewpoint. which was the last supper in which jesus gave them bread and said this is my body. but even that can be argued against you. he could be saying his disciples are one with his body or that part of him will be inside them after he dies as well as his new covenant (his blood).
the most honest answer would be to say its inconclusive.
and also remember jesus' disciples were terrible at parables and metaphors. they had to ask jesus about the most simple of ones. so how could they possibly understand the metaphor of the cross (and i think its highly improbable that jesus rose from the dead so he wouldnt be able to tell them the truth).
except the pharisees were following the laws of moses which is why they were called "teachers of the law". its the reason why the pharisees said jesus was blaspheming when he told a paralytic their sins were forgiven. its the reason why they said jesus was breaking the law when he was healing on the sabbath. and its also why jesus said when he was talking about not coming to abolish the law but to uphold it that if your rightiousness doesnt surpass the pharisees and teachers of the law you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
no they made their own rules as well which jesus didnt follow. the one about washing hands b4 a meal isnt in the law of moses it was created by the pharisees.
i suppose u can argue about the sabbath but then it depends on what somebody defines work as.
but verything els was basicly just made up rules. but then if u believe jesus wasnt upholding the laws before the new covenant then surely he was sinning.
so you believe in the account of the koran which is a book totally opposed to the bible's account of jesus(and BTW does not depict your omnibenevolent jesus) and the account of historians who were not there and what they wrote about jesus but you question the account of the people who were with jesus and were discipled by jesus directly all throughout jesus ministry?
nothing contradictory or backwards about that. nope, not at all. the issue with what the authors of the gospels wrote and what paul wrote is not accuracy but rather what i've been saying all along. it doesnt fit with your personal world view. im sorry, but your world view is not valid argumentation against the accuracy of the gospels.
i think the bible is the most accurate viewpoint but it is definitely with the bias of the disciples. same way in which portraits of kings and queens of the renaissance era are the most accurate pictures of how they looked but they were drawn with bias to make royalty look beautiful or else the royalty would punish them for making them look ugly.
i'd already showed you why they're not a contradictions. it doesnt matter what people will perceive, it only matters what the proper exegesis of scripture is.
in one part paul says theres teachers and fathers in the church. jesus said not to call anybody else on earth teacher or father. majority of people would call that contradiction.
it also shows the difference between jesus' anarchistic ideal for christian society and pauls more practical ideal for society which had different levels.
jesus and paul were indeed different men. jesus is the holy son of God the creator who was with the father from the beginning of time and through him all things were created(read john 1). paul was someone who before he had an encounter with christ(read acts 9) he put those who believed in jesus in prison and even had them killed. they were totally different but they both submitted to the will of God the father and were lead by the holy spirit(paul obviously not at first).
people experience "God" in different ways. people think of him very differently. some see certain characteristics of him more than others. they more or less see different gods. i think paul and jesus saw completely different gods even if they did call him the same name.
so tell me, what is jesus saying in matthew 10:34-39?
offers no resistance? loves everyone? what were the seven woes to the pharisees about then? why did jesus go ham at the temple?(read john 2:14-16)
jesus telling the man not to bury his father has nothing to do with not following traditions as jesus DID follow traditions.
jesus participated in the passover meal tradition(matthew 26:17-19)
jesus paid the temple tax which is basically a man made ordinance(matthew 17:24-27)
he was baptised by john the baptist, another tradition (matthew 3:13-17)
so it had nothing to do with jesus ignoring traditions. i'll help you out here.
there were two people in the passage that wanted to follow jesus and jesus in different ways told them what it would cost them to follow him. one says he would follow jesus wherever he went and jesus responded saying "foxes have holes and birds have nests but the son of man has no place to lay his head". then theres the part where jesus tells the guy to forget about burying his father. this passage connects with the passage in matthew 10:34-39 in that we must be willing to lay down everything and anything to follow christ.
whether it means forsaking relationships, forsaking wealth or wellbeing, or forsaking worldly worries. these all reflect the passages mentioned. you must lay down ALL to follow christ, if you dont, you are not worthy of him.
another exmaple in matthew 19:16-24
a rich young man who had kept all the commandments including the one which is to "love your neighbor as yourself". jesus then told him to go and sell his possession and follow him. the rich man in refusal turned away sad.
jesus knew what was in his heart in that he valued his wealth more than following jesus. even though the rich man loved his neighbor as he did himself he still was declared by jesus to not be worthy of the kingdom of heaven.
because you see, love is just one part of the total surrender that God seeks. the call of God is not the golden rule. the call of God is to fully and totally submit to his will.
in matthew 10 34-39 jesus is saying that if u follow jesus disaster and destruction will come. please show me the bit in which jesus says to stop loving ur father or mother. jesus is the same man who said love ur enemy.
u seem to think if jesus shouts at people he suddenly stops loving them. lol. thats completely incorrect. learn what it means to love ur enemy. ofc he offers no resistance. he would never hit back. he didnt hit anyone in the temple. he just threw all their stuff in the air and chased them out. he was driven by a mad passion of love.
sorry i shouldve made it clear by what i meant when i said that jesus didnt follow traditions. i meant that he didnt do things just because they were a tradition. he wouldnt see any point in burying a dead person because how would burying a dead person bring any benefit to the dead person.
he followed passover not because it was a tradition but as a symbol or metaphor. charity because he loved giving. baptism as metphor/symbol and to fulfill prophecies.
yes i agree that the kingdom of god includes a certain rejection of the physical world and worldly matters.
i heavily doubt that the rich man loved his neighbour to his full extent. he preferred his money and held it above everyone so how could he love people as he loved himself. just because the ruler said he did something doesnt mean he did it.
i dont think jesus' god calls us to submission to his will but rather to act naturally in accordance with his will.
these are two different things.
first off there are many parts to God character. he is the greatest personification of love but that is not all of his character. another huge part of God's character is justice and you can see this throughout the old testament books.
second, you continue to make the assumption that jesus was mad at the pharisees for the sole purpose of them keeping people from loving each other. there is nothing in scripture that substantiates this assumption.
read john 11:45-48
after jesus had raised lazarus up from the dead some jews there put their faith in while others went and told the pharisees and then they wanted to kill him not because jesus was making people love each other but because their livelihood as priests were at stake because of what jesus was doing.
jesus issue with the pharisees had nothing to do with love or lack thereof. it had to do with them not recognizing or acknowledging that he was the messiah, the son of God, the one for whom their ancient prophesies spoke.
all the times the pharisees tested jesus were not based on trying to make him out to be an unloving person but to make him out to be a hypocrite, a false prophet, a law breaker, and a blasphemer.
i suggest you re-read the book of matthew.
lmfao thinking the old testament is a book of justice. pure love cant act in accordance with justice but it was necessary for jesus to believe this in the same way it was necessary for the earliest philosophers to believe knowledge is power (also isnt true).
the pharisees follow the law because the law benefits them in their selfish needs. jesus wanted them to follow the law with loving hearts. if they did this they wouldnt be calling him such bad things.
in jesus' absurd childish logic (only children can enter the kingdom of heaven) he wouldve equated not believing in him with not being full of love.
ive read the book of matthew plenty of times
yet again i already covered this but i'll repeat it again. the rich young did both of those things yet he was not worthy of the kingdom of heaven because he valued his riches over God. believing that God exists does not make you worthy of life. the demons believed that God existed and knew who he was even before the disciple knew it. believing in jesus means that you follow him, to follow him means that you do things he did and it also means surrendering everything you have to him.
being a nice and loving person isnt going to get you into heaven because you are now trying get into heaven by your own rightiousness and works which are worthless before God(read isaiah 64:5-6)
answer me this. if someone was never told about jesus (historical figure) but in his mind he had a huge dedication and belief in an archetype that was an imitation of jesus would he be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. many christians say u have to believe in jesus the nazarene. what do you think. do you have to belief in jesus the nazarene or is it ok to believe in a jesus archetype with absolutely no knowledge of the bible.
your own personal world view = worthless. went over this already...next...
and why isnt yurs or the disciples world view worthless.
totally unbiblical, the scriptures dont support this in any way shape or form.
we're not worthy to atone for the sins of mankind because we are sinful, fallen creatures. the reason jesus was able to do it was because he was sinless, holy, and blameless. a holy sacrifice is the only sacrifice that would do for god to atone for the sins of mankind and redeem us from the sin of adam.
telling jesus to get off the cross is saying that you should pay for your own sins which you cannot do which means you will simply(and justifiably) perish before God's holy justice and be subjected to eaternal damnnation and torment apart from the grace of God forever. while i certainly deserve it, i dont want it and i thank God for LOVE he showed in taking my place. all he asks in return is for us to surrender our lives to him and he will allow us to be in paradise with him and live forever in the kingdom of God.
dont know about you, but i'll take that deal.
sometimes i think that eternal damnation is the right choice in terms of justice but were too cowardly to admit this.
the worst thing would be if jesus ended up being damned for eternity and was tricked by everyone until he finally realised and said "father father why did you abandon me".
i dont believe in eternal damnation so i dont believe this happened but i can see how some people might believe this happened.
your first statement is totally alien to biblical testimony and revelation so uhhhhh cool story bro!
what i think about john 8:15 is that you dont like to read anything in context. tell me what you think of john 5:22-23 and john 5:26-27?
then go read matthew 23:13-39 and tell me how jesus isnt passing judgement?
my first statement is against scripture but scripture is terrible at explaining moals.
heres a better book
how jesus judges is unusual.
love surpasses all judgement.
i guess jesus hadnt reached the stage of absolute love which he wanted to reach.
but there were times when he wouldnt judge. such as when people didnt judge, he wouldnt judge them.
absolute true christianity is a state of not judging. everything becomes equal. man is equal to God through jesus christ. u cant judge anyones sins because everyones sins have been forgiven.
judging is when u make disticntions between people and differentiate between them which therefore makes them unequal as certain qualities are always preferred above others.
i guess to be practical, jesus had to judge to an extent.
already went over this stuff. jesus is the temple, how you think forgiveness should be handled is based on your personal world view which is, again, worthless to biblical testimony.
being a loving and kind person is based on your own righteousness which is not valid atonement for your sins according to God's decree. without jesus you have no atonement for your sins. you can be the most loving person ever and it will not matter before a holy God because you are a fallen creature worthy of death because of sin.
if you dont believe in jesus you wont surrender you life to him which is what the rich young man didnt do even though he loved his neighbor and was declared not worth of the kingdom.
sacrifices in the temple is different to the temple as a sacrifice.
love is beyond righteousness.
the rich young man loved his money above his neighbour. its not as simple as loving ur neighbour but rather loving everyone as much as u can.