Why crucified?

[Pentecost]

Or doing a poor job of it. Just because some one has a incomplete understanding of how to phrase it, does not automatically mean they have an herectical veiw of the Trinity. Plenty of people use horrible analogies of the Trinity that amount to the Modalist heresy, but they aren't really modalists.

I feel like I see more horrible analogies that seem to amount to Arianism. I guess we frequent different areas. :P

[apostoli]

I am aware of your belief that the OT Law which God gave to Moses nevertheless does not reflect God's will. Small wonder that you side with Darfius on this matter. But no, the Law does not include "institutionalized murder" since murder is unlawful killing, and the that which the law sanctions cannot be unlawful, by definition, so your question proceeds from false assumptions. Matthew 12 is not criticizing the OT law, but rather the "fence" of non-biblical Sabbath rules which the Pharisees had constructed around the law. Jesus is pointing them back to God's law and its purpose as a challenge to their own rules.

It seems you are unaware of God's standards eg: What was God's verdict in respect of Cain after his murder of Adam. Ditto, God's direction to Noah concerning the shedding of another man's blood. Moses ignored the example set by God and instead followed the law of the nations (most notably his father-in-law's teaching, the priest of the Midianites Jethro - scripture is quite open on the matter - see Exodus 18).

A further point is that Christians are not obligated to (can 100% ignore) Moses' ordinances, which is understandable given they were not God ordained merely God sanctioned (allowed because of the Israelites hardness of heart). If such were God ordained we would be obligated to them (even though, they, historically, without the intervention of some crafty leaders (eg: Hilliel) would have led to the moral, social and financial collapse of the nation. Also, it is worth noting that King David ignored Moses' ordinances and broke most of the Ten Commandments with apparent immunity.

As for Mt 12:5-8 it would be advisable for you to actually read what the scriptures actually say rather than get carried away with your own imagination...

"...have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day..." The priests profaned the Sabbath by carrying out the sacrifices!!! So, as should be as plain to you as the nose on your face, Jesus' context is the sacrifices not the Pharisees' fence around the law...(also have a read of the previous verses where we have King David directly ignoring Moses' ordinances).

For all your holier than thou rhetoric you seem very ignorant of what scripture actually has to say. I'll remind you of your rant concerning the witch of Endor which you initially insisted proved life after death. However, after my prompting from scripture you finally read what was written and discovered that Saul never saw nor heard Samuel. He was totally reliant on whatever the witch said. We ended up agreeing (speculating on the basis of what was actually written in scripture) that it was YHWH orchestrating the whole event.

Now, in your earlier post to Darfius, you cited 2 Cor 5:21. Obviously you are unaware that all orthodox commentators (and a considerable number of protestants) recognise that the text is a Jewish idiom that parallels Lev 4, and is a reference to the "sin offering", wherein the high priest would metaphorically bestow the sins of whomever upon the animal about to be sacrificed. It is obvious that the sin offering was not infused with sin, simply because if it was it would no longer be unblemished, and therefore unacceptable to God... So sin could not be actually bestowed upon Jesus before or during the sacrifice else he would have been blemished and his sacrifice would be unacceptable to God. Also, he couldn't have been actually bestowed with sin on his entry into Hades, as sin ceases to exist upon death!!!

[apostoli]

As per your request, Sparko. Jesus Christ is the One and Only God who is forever praised.

OK, sorry I misread what you were saying.

Do you believe in the Trinity though?

I believe that the Father is God, that the Son is God, that the Holy Spirit is God and that they are one.

Do you believe in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?

Is that hard to answer? A modalist could answer what you did above. Or a mormon since they redefine "one" as "one in purpose"

At this point, you seem to be evading the answer by being vague.

Guess he is very unorthodox and adheres to something like a oneness pentecostal belief.

Just as a thought: Maybe we should simply use the Nicean Creed as the bench mark for who is orthodox or not. Just a logical suggestion, after all it has been the ultimate benchmark for nealy 1700 years.

Another thought: In orthodox Trinitarian circles we differentiate between the theological constructs of the economic Trinity and the ontological Trinity. Many "Christians" have never heard of these two discussions, even though they are paramount to orthodoxy. So a quick review of my understanding...

The economic Trinity refers to the biblical witness of God the Father's interaction with his creation, especially as the originator of the “economy of salvation” which teaches the unified participation of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Referring to John 14 & 16 we find distinction in their superficial activities but singularity of the three's principle activity in their overriding objective.

Imu, this teaching, in the West, was taken from Tertullian’s distinction between the divine substantia (ousia) and divine oikonomia (dispensations or activities).

The ontological Trinity. Well it gives a lot of people a lot of difficulty as it is purely a philosophical construct. eg: if the Son is truely son then he is whatever his father is...That is: he has the same ousia and is therefore homoousius with the Father.

[37818]

Why did Jesus have to be crucified for our salvation? Can this be put simply, as if explaining to a child who equates God with love. Thank you.

Why would God demand a perfection He did not create in us and instead make us incapable of it to the degree we aren't worthy enough to even live? Thank you.

The kingdom of God is for children.
". . . little children . . . for such is the kingdom of God." -- Luke 18:16.

And to become as a child is the prerequisite for salvation.
"Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." -- Luke 18:17.

When God made Adam and Eve, God made them good.
". . . God created . . . male and female created he them. . . . and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." -- Genesis 1:26-31.

Now on account of Adam's disobedience the whole human race needed to be redeemed. (Romans 5:12, 13). By reason men die for there own sins. Not Adams. ". . . death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: ( (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. . . . )

"In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins." -- 1 John 4:9, 10.

". . . If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. " -- 1 John 1:10-2:2.

". . . this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. . . ." -- 1 John 3:23.

". . . God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." -- Romans 5:8

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." -- John 3:16.

And it is the resurrection which makes this into the good news. Little children do not have a problem with this. The unsaved adults do.

That is why,
". . . Except a man be born over, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -- John 3:3.

[apostoli]

...the Law does not include "institutionalized murder" since murder is unlawful killing, and the that which the law sanctions cannot be unlawful, by definition...

So it was argued at Nuremburg!!! Do you defend the holocaust directly, or just accidently?

[RBerman]

So it was argued at Nuremburg!!! Do you defend the holocaust directly, or just accidently?

Didn't take long to fulfill Godwin's Law, eh? But the Shoah was against God's law. The Mosaic Law, on the other hand, was not against God's law; it was God's law.

[RBerman]

It seems you are unaware of God's standards eg: What was God's verdict in respect of Cain after his murder of Adam. Ditto, God's direction to Noah concerning the shedding of another man's blood. Moses ignored the example set by God and instead followed the law of the nations (most notably his father-in-law's teaching, the priest of the Midianites Jethro - scripture is quite open on the matter - see Exodus 18).

You have claimed this before, but I still find your explanation highly problematic. The Pentateuch describes the Mosaic law as coming from God. The New Testament says Moses received it from angels. The only advice Jethro gave to Moses was to set up a series of sub-leaders rather than trying to adjudicate every squabble himself. That seems quite reasonable.

A further point is that Christians are not obligated to (can 100% ignore) Moses' ordinances, which is understandable given they were not God ordained merely God sanctioned (allowed because of the Israelites hardness of heart). If such were God ordained we would be obligated to them (even though, they, historically, without the intervention of some crafty leaders (eg: Hilliel) would have led to the moral, social and financial collapse of the nation.

Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law, as explained in the book of Hebrews, but the moral law given to Moses (e.g. the Ten Commandments) still reveals God's best for men, and we ignore that law at our peril.

Also, it is worth noting that King David ignored Moses' ordinances and broke most of the Ten Commandments with apparent immunity.

Do you count the death of his son as immunity? How about the strife that arose subsequently in his family? It's true that David did not die for his crimes, but God himself arranged other penalties for the king.

As for Mt 12:5-8 it would be advisable for you to actually read what the scriptures actually say rather than get carried away with your own imagination...

"...have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day..." The priests profaned the Sabbath by carrying out the sacrifices!!! So, as should be as plain to you as the nose on your face, Jesus' context is the sacrifices not the Pharisees' fence around the law...(also have a read of the previous verses where we have King David directly ignoring Moses' ordinances).

Jesus claims his divine right to interpret the OT, using the examples of David and of the temple priests as precedents. Since Jesus claims to be greater than them, he feels free to follow their example when circumstances warrant. I wouldn't take that as a declaration that David never followed Moses' ordinances, though.

For all your holier than thou rhetoric you seem very ignorant of what scripture actually has to say. I'll remind you of your rant concerning the witch of Endor which you initially insisted proved life after death. However, after my prompting from scripture you finally read what was written and discovered that Saul never saw nor heard Samuel. He was totally reliant on whatever the witch said. We ended up agreeing (speculating on the basis of what was actually written in scripture) that it was YHWH orchestrating the whole event.

I am certainly no holier than you are; I am a sinner saved by grace. I don't remember the specific discussion about the witch of Endor, of which you speak. Is there some question whether there is life after death?

Now, in your earlier post to Darfius, you cited 2 Cor 5:21. Obviously you are unaware that all orthodox commentators (and a considerable number of protestants) recognise that the text is a Jewish idiom that parallels Lev 4, and is a reference to the "sin offering", wherein the high priest would metaphorically bestow the sins of whomever upon the animal about to be sacrificed. It is obvious that the sin offering was not infused with sin, simply because if it was it would no longer be unblemished, and therefore unacceptable to God... So sin could not be actually bestowed upon Jesus before or during the sacrifice else he would have been blemished and his sacrifice would be unacceptable to God. Also, he couldn't have been actually bestowed with sin on his entry into Hades, as sin ceases to exist upon death!!!

I see a lot of assumptions in your comments here. There is a parallel with the Levitical offering, but you miss the point when you say that sin would blemish the animal. Well, sure. That's why it had to be unblemished in the first place!

[JimL]

Moderator's notice: This section is for Christian participation only.

[apostoli]

Didn't take long to fulfill Godwin's Law, eh? But the Shoah was against God's law. The Mosaic Law, on the other hand, was not against God's law; it was God's law.

If the Mosaic ordinances (which were not the Law, but the fence guarding God's Law = the Decalogue) were God's law then we would be obligated to them! According to the NT, Christians are not obligated to the Mosaic ordinances in any shape or form. Logical conclusion, the Mosaic ordinances were not ordained by God.

As for Godwin's law which wiki defines as when "an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches..." In your absurd statements the comparison is natural, given you almost cite word for word one of the Nuremberg defenses. The reality is, various nationalist bodies devise religious and/or populist laws which are deemed by a wider world audience as morally wrong. Hence, we now have the world court to keep people and nations in check.

Imo, it is very difficult to criticize the Taliban and like, when all they do is replicate Mosaic policy and law...

Moses' ordinances fail several tests. Notatably, his imposing of the death penalty for various offenses that are not subscribed to by God. In fact, if you actually do get around to reading YHWH's decree to Noah concerning the shedding of a person's blood, you will note that Moses is in direct contravention of YHWH's standard.

As for the Shoah, what about Moses' ordering of genocide that his own people couldn't bear to carry out, so they ignored him! Never forget, Moses was never permitted to enter the Promised Land. There are many reasons for this...

[apostoli]

You have claimed this before, but I still find your explanation highly problematic. The Pentateuch describes the Mosaic law as coming from God. The New Testament says Moses received it from angels. The only advice Jethro gave to Moses was to set up a series of sub-leaders rather than trying to adjudicate every squabble himself. That seems quite reasonable.

You really should learn to read scripture before you start typing. Jethro in Exodus 18 is attributed with three events: 1. He established the sacrifices (he was the first to offer a thanksgiving for the Isrealites rescue Ex 18:7-12). 2. He advised Moses to establish the Judges (Ex 18:13-21. 3. He instructed Moses (Ex 18:16 & 20) to teach God's stautes and laws - note that these already existed and were familiar to Jethro, Moses later ordinances were merely additions...

Ex 18:24 "So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said."

[Just Some Dude]

Having read through much of the first five books recently - and that in the Septuagint, mind you, so the version most oft quoted in the New Testament - I find it extraordinarily strange, apostoli, that you hold to the view that Moses made all the commandments given to Israel, as opposed to him receiving them by God.

Yes, the law was only a school teacher and we are no longer obligated to it, and yes, some things in it were given because of the hardness of Israel's heart (like the laws concerning divorce); but even the book of Acts says that it was received by the disposition of angels. It wasn't something that came out of Moses' heart, he received it and faithfully commanded Israel to follow it as what they had received at that time.

The genocides were ordered by God. He can do with His own as pleases Him, seeing as how all things are created by His hand. Yet He gave those people time to repent, but they never did, even burning their children on the altar to their abominations. This, and other things like it, is why God commanded Israel to be merciless to the people they were dispossessing. It also served as a warning to them that the like would happen to them if they disobeyed God.

I will also remind you that Moses was forbidden from entering the Promised Land because He dishonored God during one of the miracles shown to rebellious Israel, having been provoked into doing so by rebellious Israel (from my reading of the Scriptures, he was furious with Israel and acted very incorrectly in his anger). Not because he advocated genocide and murder.

I may agree with you against the penal substitution model as the reason for why Christ had to be crucified, but for all your holier-than-thou rhetoric, you seem very ignorant of what Scripture actually has to say.

[37818]

I believe that the Father is God, that the Son is God, that the Holy Spirit is God and that they are one.

One what? They are one God. And they are not one Person.

So if you were to explain the meaning of the following five views of the Godhead:
1) Trinitarianism
2) Tritheism
3) Modalism
4) Unitarianism
5) Arianism

And then what truths, if any, each denies. Error being the denial of some truth.

Biblical Trinitarianism does not deny any truths of the Godhead.

Source: TheologyWeb Campus FAQ

Trinity
There is one living and true God, Creator of all things, eternally existing in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

© Copyright Original Source

[apostoli]

Having read through much of the first five books recently - and that in the Septuagint, mind you, so the version most oft quoted in the New Testament - I find it extraordinarily strange, apostoli, that you hold to the view that Moses made all the commandments given to Israel, as opposed to him receiving them by God.

In your reading apparently you weren't paticularly attentive. God's commandments, statutes, and laws were known by Abraham and he was rewarded for obeying them (Gen 26:4-5). So we find that God's commandments, statutes, and laws did not originate with Moses, merely Moses' ordinances which are completely ignorable according to the NT.

You might do well to reread Exodus starting from chapter 15. I trust you agree that people cannot obey a law etc unless someone knows about it, and so again we have evidence that God's laws and statutes predate Moses' ordinances, for in Exodus 15:23-26 "And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah. And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink? And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD shewed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet: there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them, And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee."

Now pop forward to Exodus chapter 21 wherein we have a set of ordinances which deal almost exclusively with slavery. What on earth was the need for these ordinances only a few months after the start of the Exodus. Such make sense in a permanent settlement but not in a nomadic setting. Apart from that, what need did the Israelites have for slaves let alone Hebrew slaves which the ordinances specifically address? Especially, when ?God was suppling everything necessary for sustenance???

I don't reject the idea that YHWH tolerated (sanctioned) Moses' ordinances (makes sense of why Jesus had to experience humanity), my only contention is that on the scriptural evidence at hand, YHWH did not formulate them!

[37818]

In your reading apparently you weren't paticularly attentive. God's commandments, statutes, and laws were known by Abraham and he was rewarded for obeying them (Gen 26:4-5). So we find that God's commandments, statutes, and laws did not originate with Moses, merely Moses' ordinances which are completely ignorable according to the NT.

You might do well to reread Exodus starting from chapter 15. I trust you agree that people cannot obey a law etc unless someone knows about it, and so again we have evidence that God's laws and statutes predate Moses' ordinances, for in Exodus 15:23-26 "And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah. And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink? And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD shewed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet: there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them, And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee."

Now pop forward to Exodus chapter 21 wherein we have a set of ordinances which deal almost exclusively with slavery. What on earth was the need for these ordinances only a few months after the start of the Exodus. Such make sense in a permanent settlement but not in a nomadic setting. Apart from that, what need did the Israelites have for slaves let alone Hebrew slaves which the ordinances specifically address? Especially, when ?God was suppling everything necessary for sustenance???

I don't reject the idea that YHWH tolerated (sanctioned) Moses' ordinances (makes sense of why Jesus had to experience humanity), my only contention is that on the scriptural evidence at hand, YHWH did not formulate them!

[BTW, good to see you are back.]

Wait! First you claim Abraham followed those commandments of the LORD. (Genesis 26:5, ". . . Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.") Then you claim Law, the Torah to be "Moses' ordinances." Your explanation as given seems contradictory. You might want to further qualify what you mean.

Besides that, the Law as given through Moses (John 1:17) was given 430 years (Galatians 3:17) after the promises were given to Abraham (Genesis 13:15).

[RBerman]

You really should learn to read scripture before you start typing. Jethro in Exodus 18 is attributed with three events: 1. He established the sacrifices (he was the first to offer a thanksgiving for the Isrealites rescue Ex 18:7-12). 2. He advised Moses to establish the Judges (Ex 18:13-21. 3. He instructed Moses (Ex 18:16 & 20) to teach God's stautes and laws - note that these already existed and were familiar to Jethro, Moses later ordinances were merely additions...

Ex 18:24 "So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said."

The clear context of "all that [Jethro] said" is the previous speech by Jethro in verses 17-23. Not the second half of Exodus, and not the whole book of Leviticus.