A Dialogue with Emmet....

[Guest]

Sorry for the delay, Emmet.

Furthermore, some "modern scholars" may have a less exacting threshold when it comes to "affirm[ing] the biblical record" than many laypeople imagine. That is, an archaeologist may find a proximal correspondence between archaeological evidence and biblical record to be remarkable, whereas many laypeople are imagining precise correspondence.

True. Archeology has a limited range of application when trying to verify specific historical truths, though it can be helpful in giving us a snapshot of the past - especially with respect to ancient cultural practices. Some of our greatest "finds" have not arrived by way of archeology but rather, at the hands of laymen or adventurers. The Dead Sea Scrolls were a find of this sort and teach us quite a bit about copyist practices. This goes a long way in dispelling the popular notions of uninformed bible critics who liken the handing down of scripture to a childhood game of 'telephone."

I don't get TV in my home, unless it is available over the 'net.

I can't say this is entirely unfortunate.

Participating in a dig can be a viable vacation activity in the holy land. You might be able to arrange to share in a few weeks' labor at a reasonable cost.

I'd actually consider such a proposition but Oscar will have to knock on my door first - or at least a top 20 box office finish.

Ah HA! Perhaps I was not so far off the mark when I spoke of "legal fiction and camouflage." Oh, that "mysterious" hogwash. But no matter how you baptize a pig, even if it's thrice-immersed, it's still treyf.

No, you're still pretty far off the mark. Like I previously stated, salvation is a multi-facted thing and the "legal" aspect of acquittal from sin is just one aspect that has been pushed to the forefront and has led to a great number of false conversions.

We are saved from eternal judgement (whatever that entails) by turning from sin and turning to God. We are saved from being slaves of sin by following Christ's teachings. Christ's death on the cross accomplished a great number of things and I believe one of those things was the legal acquittal of sin for those who have faith. Like Steve G sometimes says, "It's a free gift but there are strings attached."

Are you angry, Emmet, that God has shown a high level of mercy by offering salvation by faith? I'm always curious when people take offense to the notion that God is merciful to sinners.

As to why God does not see your past sins ... that is because they are past. When you put them away, they are no longer a part of you.

There are some deep philisophical problems with this, I'm afraid. Let's say someone breaks a few laws, stole some things, lied under oath, etc. This person gets tossed in front of a judge and pleads thusly, "Sir, all of these accusations against me are true...however, I commited those years ago. I've done a lot of good things since then." Should the judge just let him go because those events were in the past?

Turning from our sins in repentence is necessary for salvation but why should becoming a more righteous person negate our past sins? I think God says, "I will forgive those past sins but only because I've decided to absolve you, through my own son taking your penalty upon himself. But because he did this, you must do everything he commands of you because he's your lord now."

I realize this is not how substitutionary atonement is taught nowadays but it's exactly what the bible teaches. Most Christians, unfortunately, are not biblically literate. Christ indeed purchased us from death and in doing so, became ruler and lord of the Kingdom of God. I'm now a slave of righteousness and not a slave of sin. The grass is much greener where I now sit and I give God the credit.

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your reply.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were a find of this sort and teach us quite a bit about copyist practices. This goes a long way in dispelling the popular notions of uninformed bible critics who liken the handing down of scripture to a childhood game of 'telephone."

Hmmm... have you researched much of the textual evidence yielded by the Dead Sea Scrolls? I recommend The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (linked here) as an accessible eye-opener in this department. For every armchair-bible-critic who "liken[s] the handing down of scripture to a childhood game of 'telephone'," we might find three biblicists who overimagine the confirmation lent to the biblical text by the DSS.

kaufmannphillips: Ah HA! Perhaps I was not so far off the mark when I spoke of "legal fiction and camouflage." Oh, that "mysterious" hogwash. But no matter how you baptize a pig, even if it's thrice-immersed, it's still treyf.

JC: No, you're still pretty far off the mark. Like I previously stated, salvation is a multi-facted thing and the "legal" aspect of acquittal from sin is just one aspect that has been pushed to the forefront and has led to a great number of false conversions.

We are saved from eternal judgement (whatever that entails) by turning from sin and turning to God. We are saved from being slaves of sin by following Christ's teachings. Christ's death on the cross accomplished a great number of things and I believe one of those things was the legal acquittal of sin for those who have faith. Like Steve G sometimes says, "It's a free gift but there are strings attached."

Curious stuff here. I have little difficulty with the material in blue, and I can even extend a tenuous and limited acknowledgment of the material in purple. But please bear with me: how is said legal acquittal obtained; and how does the mechanism not employ legal fiction and/or camouflage?

A "free gift" with "strings attached" doesn't sound altogether free, of course.

Are you angry, Emmet, that God has shown a high level of mercy by offering salvation by faith? I'm always curious when people take offense to the notion that God is merciful to sinners.

I think my soteriological thought involves a great deal of divine forbearance toward human imperfection. Many Christians would say it involves too much divine mercy.

I am offended by soteriology that makes God out to be unfaithful to truth.

kaufmannphillips: As to why God does not see your past sins ... that is because they are past. When you put them away, they are no longer a part of you.

JC: There are some deep philisophical problems with this, I'm afraid. Let's say someone breaks a few laws, stole some things, lied under oath, etc. This person gets tossed in front of a judge and pleads thusly, "Sir, all of these accusations against me are true...however, I commited those years ago. I've done a lot of good things since then." Should the judge just let him go because those events were in the past?

Turning from our sins in repentence is necessary for salvation but why should becoming a more righteous person negate our past sins?

I prefer the following illustration: the person tossed in front of the judge says, "Sir, let the court be aware that the person who committed these crimes is no longer among the living. I have inherited that person's estate, however, and I am determined to pay proper restitution out of that estate, so far as possible."

So, "the wages of sin are death," right? Either you collect the wages as one who is a partner to sin... or you pay out the wages yourself, in terminating the person (i.e., the former self) who partners with sin.


But on the other hand, how's about ol' Zeke? "But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed, and has kept all my statutes and has done what is just and right: he will surely live; he will not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed will be remembered against him; in the righteousness that he has done, he will live."

I think God says, "I will forgive those past sins but only because I've decided to absolve you, through my own son taking your penalty upon himself.

Or perhaps God might say something like: "The righteousness of the righteous is upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked is upon himself."


Shlamaa,
Emmet


P.S.: edited once to alter my last sentence...

[Guest]

Hmmm... have you researched much of the textual evidence yielded by the Dead Sea Scrolls? I recommend The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (linked here) as an accessible eye-opener in this department. For every armchair-bible-critic who "liken[s] the handing down of scripture to a childhood game of 'telephone'," we might find three biblicists who overimagine the confirmation lent to the biblical text by the DSS.

I've only seen mathmatical figues showing the percentage of textual variants between the DSS and the earliest manuscripts. The numbers were imperssive, considering that nearly a millenia seperates them. However, like most things, the truth probably lay somewhere in the middle. I'll pick up the book you mentioned.

how is said legal acquittal obtained; and how does the mechanism not employ legal fiction and/or camouflage?

Perhaps you should define "legal fiction" and "legal camouflage?" A judge can have mercy, or not.

A "free gift" with "strings attached" doesn't sound altogether free, of course.

I'm stealing this example from Steve G but.... Imagine that your name is randomly selected by Target and they call you up stating that a free gift is waiting for you at the store. You say, "Great, but can you send it to my house?" They reply, "No, sir... I'm afraid you'll need to come into the store to claim your gift."

Question: Is the gift no longer free because you have to go down to the store to claim it?

The other patrons of Target must pay for the same item, yet you can have it for free by just walking into the store. If you decide to stay at home you won't receive the gift but you couldn't claim it's not free. Hence, the gift is free but there are strings attached.

Many Christians would say it involves too much divine mercy.

Too much for whom? I have no problem with God's level of mercy.

I prefer the following illustration: the person tossed in front of the judge says, "Sir, let the court be aware that the person who committed these crimes is no longer among the living. I have inherited that person's estate, however, and I am determined to pay proper restitution out of that estate, so far as possible."

If someone violates a bunch of innocent people (be it murder, rape, theft, etc) and then tells the judge the part of him that did those things is dead - what reaction might this elicit? What if you were the judge?

What this does, in my opinion, is to claim we deserve something that we really don't deserve... as if we were "settling up" with God. To borrow another example, imagine if I give you the keys to a $500,000 car and say, "It's yours, take it" and you respond by saying, "I couldn't accept such a wonderful gift so, instead, let me give you five pennies and that way, we'll be even." This would be entirely offensive to the giver because, in the very act of trying to "settle up," you've devalued the gift itself.

I believe that when we try to earn grace, we become guilty of this same offense. Good works and a charitable heart should spring from the desire to please a gracious and loving God. Such things shouldn't spring from a desire to "settle up."

But on the other hand, how's about ol' Zeke? "But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed, and has kept all my statutes and has done what is just and right: he will surely live; he will not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed will be remembered against him; in the righteousness that he has done, he will live."

This is one of my favorite passages (and chapters) in all of scripture. But no one repents without faith. Why would you follow Ezekiel's mandate if you don't believe the promise?

Or perhaps God might say something like: "The righteousness of the righteous is upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked is upon himself."

Each man will be judged according to his works, according to the scriptures. So how is it that we're saved by faith? Simply put, our works reveal whether or not we have faith.

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your reply.

I've only seen mathmatical figues showing the percentage of textual variants between the DSS and the earliest manuscripts. The numbers were imperssive, considering that nearly a millenia seperates them. However, like most things, the truth probably lay somewhere in the middle. I'll pick up the book you mentioned.

Statistics can be a great cosmetic, when used artfully. A friend once gave me a book entitled How to Lie with Statistics (linked here) .

kaufmannphillips: how is said legal acquittal obtained; and how does the mechanism not employ legal fiction and/or camouflage?

JC: Perhaps you should define "legal fiction" and "legal camouflage?" A judge can have mercy, or not.

(aleph) West's Encyclopedia of American Law: [Legal fiction is a]n assumption made by a court and embodied in various legal doctrines that a fact or concept is true when in actuality it is not true, or when it is likely to be equally false and true.

(beth) "Legal camouflage" is not a technical term. Let us say that legal camouflage consists of using legal maneuvers to mask the true state of things.

(gymel) "A judge can have mercy, or not." A judge may be merciful, but an upright judge will not betray either justice or truth. Such a judge may show leniency in sentencing, but may not assign an unjust sentence or yield a fictitious verdict.

kaufmannphillips: A "free gift" with "strings attached" doesn't sound altogether free, of course.

JC: I'm stealing this example from Steve G but.... Imagine that your name is randomly selected by Target and they call you up stating that a free gift is waiting for you at the store. You say, "Great, but can you send it to my house?" They reply, "No, sir... I'm afraid you'll need to come into the store to claim your gift."

Question: Is the gift no longer free because you have to go down to the store to claim it?

The other patrons of Target must pay for the same item, yet you can have it for free by just walking into the store. If you decide to stay at home you won't receive the gift but you couldn't claim it's not free. Hence, the gift is free but there are strings attached.

Even though it comes from Steve, it's a lousy example. God asks for more than coming to the store to pick up a parcel of redemption. What God requires is more like a lifetime contract.

A more proper analogy would have Target offering the "gift," but upon receipt the claimant must: accept 24-hour lifetime employment with Target; faithfully fulfill such employment; and avoid investing into any of Target's competitors. Violation of these terms would result in the repossession of the "gift."

You don't have to be an econ major to recognize that such a "gift" is hardly "free." It's rather more like a benefit package that kicks in upon date of hire.

kaufmannphillips: Many Christians would say [my soteriological thought] involves too much divine mercy.

JC: Too much for whom? I have no problem with God's level of mercy.

Too much for those who think God won't forgive somebody without blood being spilt.

kaufmannphillips: I prefer the following illustration: the person tossed in front of the judge says, "Sir, let the court be aware that the person who committed these crimes is no longer among the living. I have inherited that person's estate, however, and I am determined to pay proper restitution out of that estate, so far as possible."

JC: If someone violates a bunch of innocent people (be it murder, rape, theft, etc) and then tells the judge the part of him that did those things is dead - what reaction might this elicit? What if you were the judge?

I can imagine what reaction it would elicit from most people. But if I were the judge, it would prompt an assessment of the individual's claim, and then a verdict and sentence based upon the individual's present condition.

What this does, in my opinion, is to claim we deserve something that we really don't deserve... as if we were "settling up" with God. To borrow another example, imagine if I give you the keys to a $500,000 car and say, "It's yours, take it" and you respond by saying, "I couldn't accept such a wonderful gift so, instead, let me give you five pennies and that way, we'll be even." This would be entirely offensive to the giver because, in the very act of trying to "settle up," you've devalued the gift itself.

I believe that when we try to earn grace, we become guilty of this same offense. Good works and a charitable heart should spring from the desire to please a gracious and loving God. Such things shouldn't spring from a desire to "settle up."

The metaphor is misapplied, because the fundamental issue is not gift-giving, but rather justice. Justice involves the fulfillment of what is deserved, not the circumvention of what is deserved. God is giving, but he is also just, and the fulfillment of the former aspect of his character does not take place in such a way as to betray the fulfillment of the latter.

Some people imagine God as eclipsing justice with mercy, but this may come from an inadequate understanding of both justice and mercy. In actuality, neither operates contrary to the other, and neither overrules the other. Rather, each is necessary for the fulfillment of the other.

kaufmannphillips: But on the other hand, how's about ol' Zeke? "But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed, and has kept all my statutes and has done what is just and right: he will surely live; he will not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed will be remembered against him; in the righteousness that he has done, he will live."

JC: This is one of my favorite passages (and chapters) in all of scripture. But no one repents without faith. Why would you follow Ezekiel's mandate if you don't believe the promise? ...

Each man will be judged according to his works, according to the scriptures. So how is it that we're saved by faith? Simply put, our works reveal whether or not we have faith.

(aleph) You favor this passage; so how do you square it with your understanding of atonement, particularly in relation to the death of Jesus?

(beth) Could I trouble you for your definition of "faith"?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet, I apologize for not responding sooner... this past week has been a hectic one.

A judge may be merciful, but an upright judge will not betray either justice or truth. Such a judge may show leniency in sentencing, but may not assign an unjust sentence or yield a fictitious verdict.

I hold that God forgives a sinner based on his repentence and faith (which I'll define later). However, I believe a mediator is needed to even get to that point. Moses, and the Aaronic priesthood, served as mediator between God and man in a somewhat symbolic fasion. Jesus, I believe, is the true mediator between God and man because he represents both parties (being God in nature, with humanity added by his creative power) and his death institued a covenant will, since a will is only enacted once the party is deceased. Such a view does not constitute legal fiction. Your view of justice is not shaped by Torah because Moses himself taught legal mediation.

A more proper analogy would have Target offering the "gift," but upon receipt the claimant must: accept 24-hour lifetime employment with Target; faithfully fulfill such employment; and avoid investing into any of Target's competitors. Violation of these terms would result in the repossession of the "gift."

An analogy, for purposes such as this, should express a scenerio that can actually happen in the real world. You've made an illustrative allegory, which I don't necessarily disagree with, in principle... I just think Steve's analogy is more apt since it corresponds with reality. A gift can still be free (or, better yet, undeserved), even if there are strings attached. Either way... I still shop at Target.

JC: Too much for whom? I have no problem with God's level of mercy.
Emmet: Too much for those who think God won't forgive somebody without blood being spilt.

How do you know what God requires to forgive someone? You told me earlier that you practice Torah but that now seems completely non explicit and purposely ambiguous. This is what makes it difficult for an objectivist to relate to a subjectivist. You make numerous objective statements and when pressed to give a reason for such, it always falls back on subjective standards. I've read the Torah. Many times. I don't find your views expressed there. Perhaps you could educate me in what you find objective... not those things you DON'T find objective.

(aleph) You favor this passage; so how do you square it with your understanding of atonement, particularly in relation to the death of Jesus?

I hold that we are saved by repentence and faith, but only because a mediator made that possible. Jesus made it possible to all people throughout history to be saved by faith in God. However, I don't believe that those who reject him will be saved - though, obviously, many saints who've never heard his name have been saved. Moses and Abraham are two of this sort, and there are many more like them. Christians use the term "saved on credit" and that's one catechism I actually like.

The Hebrew Scriptures teach us that God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble. Therefore, the humble and lowly are those who end up coming into salvation while the proud and arrogant are left outside, comforted only by their ego. I could be wrong but this is my understanding.

(beth) Could I trouble you for your definition of "faith"?

Get prepared to be underwhelmed. My definition of faith is simply a total trust in someone or something. I'll use an illustration I like....

A famous tightrope artist performed a series of impressive strolls across Niagara Falls as a large crowd looked on. He hopped across the slender rope on one foot, juggled while crossing it blindfolded, and even did cartwheels all the way to the other side.

The tightrope artist then stepped down and addressed the crowd. Pointing to a large barrel, he said, "How many of you presume that I can push this barrel across the mouth of the falls to the other side without falling to my death?" Every hand in the crowd shot up, accompanied by bewildered stares... they had already seen him perform much greater stunts. The tightrope artist then said, "Great... I'll need a volunteer to sit inside the barrel." Every hand went down.

The kind of faith I'm talking about, Emmet, is the one which prompts you to enter the barrel. This is the difference between belief and faith. Faith is when you trust someone enough to act on it, even with your life.

[Guest]

Hi, JC,

Thank you for your reply.

I apologize for not responding sooner... this past week has been a hectic one.

No problem. I have responses that are months overdue in certain threads here.

I hold that God forgives a sinner based on his repentence and faith (which I'll define later). However, I believe a mediator is needed to even get to that point.

Why, in your view, is a mediator necessary?

Moses, and the Aaronic priesthood, served as mediator between God and man in a somewhat symbolic fasion. Jesus, I believe, is the true mediator between God and man because he represents both parties (being God in nature, with humanity added by his creative power)...

I'll defer on responding to these items until I have your thoughts on the necessity of a mediator.

...and his death institued a covenant will, since a will is only enacted once the party is deceased. Such a view does not constitute legal fiction.

I've encountered this theory before, but since I am not familiar with it, please do me the favor of explaining it in detail.

Of course, one may question the validity of a will when the deceased has been resuscitated.

Or, for that matter, when the deceased has not really died. If Jesus is God, can God die? Or was it only the human part of Jesus that died? If it was only the human part, then would it not be accurate to say that Jesus was not actually dead, but only an amputee?

As for "legal fiction," that would apply to treating a living person as if they were dead. Or to treating Jesus' righteousness as if it were someone else's. Or to treating a sinner's unrighteousness as if it were Jesus'.

Your view of justice is not shaped by Torah because Moses himself taught legal mediation.

Further discussion of this in one direction will await your comments on the necessity for a mediator.

But elsewise - my view of justice is not heedless of Torah, but neither is it delimited to Torah. Torah is a beginning to understanding, and not an end.

kaufmannphillips: A more proper analogy would have Target offering the "gift," but upon receipt the claimant must: accept 24-hour lifetime employment with Target; faithfully fulfill such employment; and avoid investing into any of Target's competitors. Violation of these terms would result in the repossession of the "gift."

JC: An analogy, for purposes such as this, should express a scenerio that can actually happen in the real world. You've made an illustrative allegory, which I don't necessarily disagree with, in principle...

My scenario can actually happen in the real world. It's called "slavery." Your James did not balk at calling himself "a slave of God."

I just think Steve's analogy is more apt since it corresponds with reality. A gift can still be free (or, better yet, undeserved), even if there are strings attached.

(aleph) If Steve's analogy corresponded to reality, then one could go to a church, pick up their free salvation, then go home and never have anything to do with God again - just like I might do with a free toaster from Target.

(beth) Gifts that require obligation are not "free."

(gymel) As for "undeserved," here one may venture upon criticizing the judgment of God. If God did not feel that certain humans were worth saving, would he invest time and effort into saving them?

How do you know what God requires to forgive someone?

I don't "know." And neither do you. You believe.

But I find my theological paradigm plausible.

You told me earlier that you practice Torah but that now seems completely non explicit and purposely ambiguous.

May I trouble you to clarify here?

This is what makes it difficult for an objectivist to relate to a subjectivist. You make numerous objective statements and when pressed to give a reason for such, it always falls back on subjective standards.

Hence the term "subjectivist"?

(aleph) Who said they were "objective statements"? Being a subjectivist does not mean that I have no concern for my subjectivity making an impact on your subjectivity.

(beth) I can understand a distaste for subjectivism, but objectivity is an illusion (for humans, that is). So really we are all subjectivists - it's just that some of us subjectively imagine to be objective.

I've read the Torah. Many times. I don't find your views expressed there.

(aleph) I've read The Heart is a Lonely Hunter a number of times. Also The Forever War.

(beth) Ever practiced the Torah? It's a point of personal annoyance that so many Christians know what the Torah is all about, without having experienced it for a single day of their life. (Not that it can be experienced in a single day, anyway.) For my part, I have a couple decades of past experience as a Christian to inform my perspectives in that department.

(gymel) Regarding my views and the Torah, I addressed that point above.

kaufmannphillips: You favor [Ezekiel 18]; so how do you square it with your understanding of atonement, particularly in relation to the death of Jesus?

JC: I hold that we are saved by repentence and faith, but only because a mediator made that possible.

I'll defer on the mediator bit, as above. But where does Ezekiel 18 speak of a mediator?

Jesus made it possible to all people throughout history to be saved by faith in God. However, I don't believe that those who reject him will be saved - though, obviously, many saints who've never heard his name have been saved. Moses and Abraham are two of this sort, and there are many more like them. Christians use the term "saved on credit" and that's one catechism I actually like.

How lucky for Moses and Abraham. They didn't actually have to choke down the theological premises of Christianity to reap its benefits.

The Hebrew Scriptures teach us that God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble. Therefore, the humble and lowly are those who end up coming into salvation while the proud and arrogant are left outside, comforted only by their ego. I could be wrong but this is my understanding.

(aleph) Could I trouble you for a definition of "grace"?

(beth) Recognizing truth is not pride, and humility that goes beyond truth is not a virtue.

Get prepared to be underwhelmed. My definition of faith is simply a total trust in someone or something. I'll use an illustration I like....

The kind of faith I'm talking about, Emmet, is the one which prompts you to enter the barrel. This is the difference between belief and faith. Faith is when you trust someone enough to act on it, even with your life.

I prefer faithfulness over faith. Faithfulness puts you in the barrel whether you trust or not.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet, thank you for your patience. The coming weeks may prove to be even more time consuming but I'll do my best to check in.

Why, in your view, is a mediator necessary?

In the Torah, as well as my own scriptures, we see that God often sanctions a point-man to mediate between himself and the rebels that he seeks to draw to himself. Why he does so has not been revealed to me but it seems obvious enough that God requires mediation. Nearly all ancient religions sacrificed animals to appease their gods in order that their sins might be overlooked, which I find curious. Either they all copied one another in this respect or all people were designed with an internal need to offer animals as a form of mediation.

As to my earlier point which prompted your question - I wasn't trying to make a philosophical argument but a biblical one. You and I have very little common ground with which to begin a discussion on these things... but we do have some. Namely, we are both theists. Granted, our views are still worlds apart but we both have a healthy appreciation for the scriptures. If you didn't, you wouldn't find them worthy of such in-depth study.

The scriptures (both yours and mine) point to the necessity of a mediator to bring people to God. Again, I don't claim to know what it is in God's nature that compels this rule... I just say it's biblical. It makes sense in a legal aspect as well, but only as a means of allegory since the spiritual aspect of atonement is not an exact parallel. I'm willing to accept the mystery, so long as it's biblical. I suppose I could conjur up some heady philisophical argument as to why mediation is necessary but that would be bordering on disingenuous.

I've encountered this theory before, but since I am not familiar with it, please do me the favor of explaining it in detail.

The idea that God enacted a covenant will at the Messiah's death is pretty widely held, I think. If you're asking me why the Messiah's death was needed to enact the will - I think it's simply drawing a legal parallel. It's not an exact parallel since we're comparing spiritual matters to terrestrial. The legal examples are only meant to take us so far, I believe. When we start jumping into whether or not Jesus was a spiritual amputee, I think we've crossed over into the realm of silly. But since I don't mind placating... Jesus rose bodily. Regarding the sense in which he died, I believe his body died while nailed to the crossbeam and his spirit was released for a period of three days. After that, his spirit moved back into his body and rose into the heavens as a single unit.

In other words, I hold that Jesus died in the same way that we die. Namely, his spirit left his body. He was simply the first to rejoin the two - but that happens to us all one day.

My scenario can actually happen in the real world. It's called "slavery." Your James did not balk at calling himself "a slave of God."

You honor me by calling James my own. He was a Godly man, surpassing me in every way.

(aleph) If Steve's analogy corresponded to reality, then one could go to a church, pick up their free salvation, then go home and never have anything to do with God again - just like I might do with a free toaster from Target.

This is incorrect, I'm afraid. In Steve's analogy, the Target patron is offered a gift that he didn't work for. He can claim it simply by showing up. Likewise, eternal life is a gift that is too expensive for us to purchase on our own so God offered us a way to claim it anyway because it pleases him. His method is faith... the kind of faith that prompts action. Therefore, anyone possessing a genuine faith will show it in their actions, yet the actions are not what enable them to attain the gift - it's merely what happens to those who believe. It is our beliefs that prompt our actions, thus Jesus could boldly assert that one is known by his fruit.

(beth) Gifts that require obligation are not "free."

It's free in one sense and costly in another sense. The gift we're speaking of is eternal life. It's offered to all people as something we can't buy, but the gift is only claimed when faith is present. Hence, it's free because we can't buy it but it's costly because it cost God a great deal. Since God bought the gift for us, he can still say "I'll give you this present but only if you clean your room." The fact that the gift cost God something makes it incredibly worthwhile. If it were given to him free of charge and he merely "re-gifted" then it would take on a different meaning.

(gymel) As for "undeserved," here one may venture upon criticizing the judgment of God. If God did not feel that certain humans were worth saving, would he invest time and effort into saving them?

God does see humans as worth saving, but he defines the terms - not us. If we pull God out of the abstract and, rather, think of him as a father... the parallel becomes easier to grasp. Our father made us and knows what's best for us. When we tell him, "Thanks for everything but I'll take it from here" we are severing that relationship. If I reject my earthly father, it doesn't matter if he wants reconciliation because it's still up to me whether or not that happens. You might say "who's rejecting God here?" I say that willful sin is the same as rejecting our heavenly father. Can we repent? Sure. But why does one repent in the first place? Is it not because of faith? One only repents if they believe that doing so will please God. That's the same thing as coming to God in faith. Do you now see why I don't make such a distinction between faith and repentence? They are different things, but also married together. So I still claim we come to God by faith in him. The "gift" is eternal life and "coming to the store to claim the gift" is repentence and faith. For this reason I say it's a free gift, with strings attached.

Me: You told me earlier that you practice Torah but that now seems completely non explicit and purposely ambiguous.
Emmet: May I trouble you to clarify here?

You want me to clarify my comment that your comments were ambiguous? Wouldn't that create some kind of rip in the space-time continuum? Let's err on the side of caution here, Emmet.

(beth) I can understand a distaste for subjectivism, but objectivity is an illusion (for humans, that is). So really we are all subjectivists - it's just that some of us subjectively imagine to be objective.

Ah, but objectivism is not an illusion for humans. I can state quite objectively that gravity exists and can prove it by having someone step off the edge of a high-rise building. I define objective truth as that which corresponds to reality independent of any opinions about it. I don't care if you don't like the theory of gravity or think it's an outdated theory... it's objectively true. For this reason, very few people doubt it anymore. I choose to make a certain logical leap here: If our observable, physical world contains objective truths - so also it's creator. I believe Pslam 19 and Romans 1 state this quite plainly. Observing nature can give us great insight into the mind of the one who thought it up. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that an impersonal being would create personal beings or that an abstract creator would form the universe in such a concrete, physical way.

(beth) Ever practiced the Torah? It's a point of personal annoyance that so many Christians know what the Torah is all about, without having experienced it for a single day of their life.

It's also annoying when former Christians make certain assumptions about those who didn't choose to flee camp when the torrents struck. I'm almost certain that, when you were a Christian, you held many beliefs that were contrary to those I hold. Don't criticize others for lumping people into categories and then do the exact same thing. It's annoying on both sides. As to whether or not I've practiced Torah - can you tell me what it means to practice Torah? Perhaps I've done so without being mindful of it and perhaps I've never so much as tried it.

But where does Ezekiel 18 speak of a mediator?

That's a good question, and a topic deserving it's own thread. I'll start one shortly.

How lucky for Moses and Abraham. They didn't actually have to choke down the theological premises of Christianity to reap its benefits.

I'll take this comment as charitably as possible. Moses and Abraham only knew as much as God wanted them to know at the time. They believed God and it was credited to them as righteousness. Hence, their righteousness came by faith. We are still saved by faith to this present day, but God has revealed more light to us. Moses could've favored Baal over Jehovah, but didn't. God sent his people prophets over many, many years to reveal light to them. Finally, he send his son. You know the rest.

(aleph) Could I trouble you for a definition of "grace"?

Grace, in the context I used it, means God's favor. In other words, God favors the humble and resists the proud.

(beth) Recognizing truth is not pride, and humility that goes beyond truth is not a virtue.

I agree.

I prefer faithfulness over faith. Faithfulness puts you in the barrel whether you trust or not.

I'm not so sure about that but don't care to offer a finer distinction. God bless you and your family, Emmet. I pray that you are favored by God. As Steve says, "We'll continue our discussion..."

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response.

In the Torah, as well as my own scriptures, we see that God often sanctions a point-man to mediate between himself and the rebels that he seeks to draw to himself. Why he does so has not been revealed to me but it seems obvious enough that God requires mediation.

Sanction is not the same as requirement.

Nearly all ancient religions sacrificed animals to appease their gods in order that their sins might be overlooked, which I find curious. Either they all copied one another in this respect or all people were designed with an internal need to offer animals as a form of mediation.

Nearly all ancient religions were polytheistic, so we should be cautious of what we infer about sacred design from patterns of human piety. But there is also a difference between an offering and a mediator.

The scriptures (both yours and mine) point to the necessity of a mediator to bring people to God. Again, I don't claim to know what it is in God's nature that compels this rule... I just say it's biblical. It makes sense in a legal aspect as well, but only as a means of allegory since the spiritual aspect of atonement is not an exact parallel. I'm willing to accept the mystery, so long as it's biblical. I suppose I could conjur up some heady philisophical argument as to why mediation is necessary but that would be bordering on disingenuous.

Very well, then: where is the biblical indication that a mediator is necessary?

The idea that God enacted a covenant will at the Messiah's death is pretty widely held, I think. If you're asking me why the Messiah's death was needed to enact the will - I think it's simply drawing a legal parallel. It's not an exact parallel since we're comparing spiritual matters to terrestrial. The legal examples are only meant to take us so far, I believe.

Technically, since the victim was resuscitated, wouldn't the will be set aside? And given biblical precedent, a covenant surely could have been enacted without the Messiah's death.

When we start jumping into whether or not Jesus was a spiritual amputee, I think we've crossed over into the realm of silly. But since I don't mind placating... Jesus rose bodily. Regarding the sense in which he died, I believe his body died while nailed to the crossbeam and his spirit was released for a period of three days. After that, his spirit moved back into his body and rose into the heavens as a single unit.

In other words, I hold that Jesus died in the same way that we die. Namely, his spirit left his body. He was simply the first to rejoin the two - but that happens to us all one day.

We have a different theological anthropology. Perhaps I might have better anticipated your understanding on this point.

You honor me by calling James my own. He was a Godly man, surpassing me in every way.

Out of curiosity, whence do you derive your appraisal of James' character?

kaufmannphillips: If Steve's analogy corresponded to reality, then one could go to a church, pick up their free salvation, then go home and never have anything to do with God again - just like I might do with a free toaster from Target.

JC: This is incorrect, I'm afraid. In Steve's analogy, the Target patron is offered a gift that he didn't work for. He can claim it simply by showing up. Likewise, eternal life is a gift that is too expensive for us to purchase on our own so God offered us a way to claim it anyway because it pleases him. His method is faith... the kind of faith that prompts action. Therefore, anyone possessing a genuine faith will show it in their actions, yet the actions are not what enable them to attain the gift - it's merely what happens to those who believe. It is our beliefs that prompt our actions, thus Jesus could boldly assert that one is known by his fruit.

Now, your James would object that the demons "believe" - and shudder. So we should be careful about our diction when it comes to "faith" and "belief."

But the analogy is inadequate. Target requires only an incidental response with minimal attendant investment, while God requires a continuing response with comprehensive attendant investment.

kaufmannphillips: I can understand a distaste for subjectivism, but objectivity is an illusion (for humans, that is). So really we are all subjectivists - it's just that some of us subjectively imagine to be objective.

JC: Ah, but objectivism is not an illusion for humans. I can state quite objectively that gravity exists and can prove it by having someone step off the edge of a high-rise building. I define objective truth as that which corresponds to reality independent of any opinions about it. I don't care if you don't like the theory of gravity or think it's an outdated theory... it's objectively true. For this reason, very few people doubt it anymore. I choose to make a certain logical leap here: If our observable, physical world contains objective truths - so also it's creator. I believe Pslam 19 and Romans 1 state this quite plainly. Observing nature can give us great insight into the mind of the one who thought it up. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that an impersonal being would create personal beings or that an abstract creator would form the universe in such a concrete, physical way.

And how do you know that a person has stepped off the building? Through subjective observation. Your eyes may be deceiving you. And if someone corroborates your observation, how do you know that they have done so? Through subjective perception. Your ears may be deceiving you. You may, in fact, simply be dreaming it all. It is possible that nearly everything we think we perceive is delusion.

Beyond this, a person tumbling off a building a trillion times over does not suffice to demonstrate the objective truth of the law of gravity. It is possible that the phenomenon is produced by other means entirely. The law of gravity is a theoretical construct that seems to account for observed phenomena, but it is at best only a human theory, and someday we may be as amused by it as we are by the "flat earth" today.

kaufmannphillips: Ever practiced the Torah? It's a point of personal annoyance that so many Christians know what the Torah is all about, without having experienced it for a single day of their life.

JC: It's also annoying when former Christians make certain assumptions about those who didn't choose to flee camp when the torrents struck. I'm almost certain that, when you were a Christian, you held many beliefs that were contrary to those I hold. Don't criticize others for lumping people into categories and then do the exact same thing. It's annoying on both sides. As to whether or not I've practiced Torah - can you tell me what it means to practice Torah? Perhaps I've done so without being mindful of it and perhaps I've never so much as tried it.

Steadfastness is not a virtue when the camp is built in an arroyo to begin with.

I could take months explaining the Torah. If you are really interested, I'd be happy to start a thread with periodic installments on Torah praxis. Or, you can just read Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers and see if the paradigm fits your behavior.

Moses and Abraham only knew as much as God wanted them to know at the time.

And why, pray tell, would God have kept them in the dark? Why would he not, at least, have explained his triunity to them?

kaufmannphillips: Could I trouble you for a definition of "grace"?

JC: Grace, in the context I used it, means God's favor.

I am surprised by your response; I concur. Many Christians would define grace as "getting something you don't deserve," but this is not borne out by Greek diction. Favor can be merited or unmerited, as the case may be (cf. Luke 2:52).


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet, thank you once again for extending your knowledge base to others. You're a much more enjoyable "foe" than, say, Richard Dawkins.

Nearly all ancient religions were polytheistic, so we should be cautious of what we infer about sacred design from patterns of human piety. But there is also a difference between an offering and a mediator.

I was appealing to your view of anthropology, which seems to be centered on the fact that man and myth develop alike, each evolving together. One finds it helpful to account for similarities in such a view, though I obviously don't believe those pagans knew anything at all about their Creator. In fact, my view is that they drifted from the knowledge of God, yet clung to certain notions which were accidentally correct. I wouldn't call their views enlightened.

Very well, then: where is the biblical indication that a mediator is necessary?

Galations 3:19, with respect to the Mosaic law, 1 Timothy 2:5 is as clear as one could hope for, Hebrews 8:6 speaks of Jesus being a superior mediator to the old one, Hebrews 9:15 speaks of convenant mediation through Christ and this is echoed again in 12:24. I'd actually point to the entire book of Hebrews for a comprehensive overview of mediators and covenants.

I usually don't quote scripture in my conversations with you, since I'm aware of your views on its authenticity... but you did ask. It'd hard to deny that covenant mediation is taught in scripture.

Technically, since the victim was resuscitated, wouldn't the will be set aside? And given biblical precedent, a covenant surely could have been enacted without the Messiah's death.

Again, I don't think we are to stretch the metaphor too far. In fact, if you stress ANY metaphor too far it becomes utterly worthless. The scriptures, in my view, communicate certain things about God's character without bothering to explain them to us in a way that satisfies our curiosity. I've already stated that I have no idea why God requires mediation, only that his written revelation to his children speaks of it. I'm content with this, not based on a philisophical understanding of God's mind but, rather, on my high opinion of scripture. That high opinion of scripture is best delineated in the works of Francis Schaeffer, William Lane Craig, and Steve Gregg.

Out of curiosity, whence do you derive your appraisal of James' character?

I base it on the epistle he wrote and the attestation of the earliest apostles. Regarding the latter, the book of Acts places him as a major leader in the Jerusalem church. This was at a time before corruption had crept into the leadership so the fact that he was appointed to this role speaks of his character. Paul also seemed to greatly respect James' opinion.

Now, your James would object that the demons "believe" - and shudder. So we should be careful about our diction when it comes to "faith" and "belief."

Well, according to Emmet, we should ALWAYS be careful of our diction. Actually, James telling his readers that demons believe in God should be kept in context. He's making the argument that faith and deeds are tied together. How this relates to demons is altogether different because we know almost nothing about demons, other than the fact that they are a great nuisance.

But the analogy is inadequate. Target requires only an incidental response with minimal attendant investment, while God requires a continuing response with comprehensive attendant investment.

Again, one shouldn't press a metaphor or an analogy too far. If Steve's anology fails to impress you, this is not a hill I'm going to die on. I will say that I agree with you that God requires a continuing investment, but it's not a difficult one for people who love God. It's only difficult if one tries to appease God in an emotionless void of duty. Though it's not exactly easy to maintain obedience, it's far easier than the alternative... which is rejecting God in disobedience. I've tried both and will stick by what I've written.

And how do you know that a person has stepped off the building? Through subjective observation. Your eyes may be deceiving you. And if someone corroborates your observation, how do you know that they have done so? Through subjective perception. Your ears may be deceiving you. You may, in fact, simply be dreaming it all. It is possible that nearly everything we think we perceive is delusion.

You know, there's an entire group of people who do hold that everything is illusory - Hindus. But guess what... they still look both ways before crossing the street. Why? Because they know that when a speeding vehicle smashes into their body it hurts really, really, bad. People who define subjectivism the way you do never live consistently with this view. It's impossible. How do you even know you're communicating with a real person here, Emmet? Subjectively, you'd have to say, "I can't be certain." Objectively, I can state that you are.

I'm not against subjectivism, only it's inconsistent use. You have made numerous objective statements on this board, but then claim everything is subjective. The only reason you don't go all out and define yourself as a Hindu is because you DO hold some objective views. You'd actually have to in order to practice Torah the way you've described.

Steadfastness is not a virtue when the camp is built in an arroyo to begin with.

The arroyo camp is the one which was extinguished during the seige of Titus. The Jews who left prior to that are mostly what we call Christians. The temple fell and the Mosaic system fell with it. Thousands of Jews then became the living camp. I'm a product of those Jews and now partake in the Abrahamic promises. You did too... for a time.

I could take months explaining the Torah. If you are really interested, I'd be happy to start a thread with periodic installments on Torah praxis. Or, you can just read Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers and see if the paradigm fits your behavior.

I'm mainly curious about where authority is given and on what grounds. Secondly, I'm interested in the actual day to day practice of Torah. I can assert that my behavior fits a Christian understanding of Torah. Beyond this, I'm doubtful.

I'd be just as curious to know what your theological assumptions were when you were a Christian. What were your views of things like eternal salvation and the end times?

And why, pray tell, would God have kept them in the dark? Why would he not, at least, have explained his triunity to them?

The same reason Jesus didn't explain the triunity to his aposltes. It might be that it's simply hard for us feeble-minded humans to grasp. Regarding Abraham and Moses, they knew only as much as they needed to. I'm absolutely certain that we will ALL be surprised on judgement day when it comes to seeing God's full nature.

I am surprised by your response; I concur. Many Christians would define grace as "getting something you don't deserve," but this is not borne out by Greek diction. Favor can be merited or unmerited, as the case may be (cf. Luke 2:52).

Yes, I hold that favor can be merited or unmerited, depending on the circumstance considered. Peace to you, Emmet.

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response.

Emmet, thank you once again for extending your knowledge base to others. You're a much more enjoyable "foe" than, say, Richard Dawkins.

I'm not so familiar with Richard Dawkins, but it's nice to have someone to cite re: my "enjoyable 'foe'"ness. Not everybody is such a fan.

I was appealing to your view of anthropology, which seems to be centered on the fact that man and myth develop alike, each evolving together. One finds it helpful to account for similarities in such a view, though I obviously don't believe those pagans knew anything at all about their Creator. In fact, my view is that they drifted from the knowledge of God, yet clung to certain notions which were accidentally correct. I wouldn't call their views enlightened.

I can imagine a strictly naturalistic origin for the practice of sacrifice, apart from divine ordination. It is a common practice to use gifts of food or other items of esteem as a means for ingratiation between individuals. Offering such items to the powers-that-be, then, would be a natural psychological extension for humans despite their potentially different cultural settings.

But to return to my previous distinction: is such a sacrifice actually a "mediator," or rather an "offering"? Perhaps here I would benefit from your definition of mediation.

kaufmannphillips: Very well, then: where is the biblical indication that a mediator is necessary?

JC: Galations 3:19, with respect to the Mosaic law, 1 Timothy 2:5 is as clear as one could hope for, Hebrews 8:6 speaks of Jesus being a superior mediator to the old one, Hebrews 9:15 speaks of convenant mediation through Christ and this is echoed again in 12:24. I'd actually point to the entire book of Hebrews for a comprehensive overview of mediators and covenants.

(aleph) How does Galatians 3:19 indicate that a mediator is necessary?

(beth) How does 1 Timothy 2:5 indicate that a mediator is necessary?

(gymel) How does Hebrews 8:6 indicate that a mediator is necessary?

(daleth) How does Hebrews 9:15 indicate that a mediator is necessary?

(hey) How does Hebrew 12:24 indicate that a mediator is necessary?

(vav) On a related point, where is the biblical indication that a covenant is necessary?

I usually don't quote scripture in my conversations with you, since I'm aware of your views on its authenticity... but you did ask. It'd hard to deny that covenant mediation is taught in scripture.

(aleph) Of course, you might find more traction with me if you can produce biblical indication from the Torah, rather than your scriptures. Elsewise, I can just chalk the notion up to another Christian innovation. It is common salesmanship to create a "problem" that can "solved" by one's product.

(beth) There is a difference between the idea that "covenant mediation is taught in scripture," and that "covenant mediation is taught [ to be necessary ] in scripture."

kaufmannphillips: Out of curiosity, whence do you derive your appraisal of James' character?

JC: I base it on the epistle he wrote and the attestation of the earliest apostles. Regarding the latter, the book of Acts places him as a major leader in the Jerusalem church. This was at a time before corruption had crept into the leadership so the fact that he was appointed to this role speaks of his character. Paul also seemed to greatly respect James' opinion.

(aleph) As you may be aware, some scholarly thought would challenge attributing the epistle of James to James HaTzaddyq. The epistle itself does not explicitly indicate his authorship.

(beth) On what basis do you note that "Paul also seemed to greatly respect James' opinion"?

Well, according to Emmet, we should ALWAYS be careful of our diction.

Gratifying to see my hard work paying off....

kaufmannphillips: And how do you know that a person has stepped off the building? Through subjective observation. Your eyes may be deceiving you. And if someone corroborates your observation, how do you know that they have done so? Through subjective perception. Your ears may be deceiving you. You may, in fact, simply be dreaming it all. It is possible that nearly everything we think we perceive is delusion.

JC: You know, there's an entire group of people who do hold that everything is illusory - Hindus. But guess what... they still look both ways before crossing the street. Why? Because they know that when a speeding vehicle smashes into their body it hurts really, really, bad. People who define subjectivism the way you do never live consistently with this view. It's impossible. How do you even know you're communicating with a real person here, Emmet? Subjectively, you'd have to say, "I can't be certain." Objectively, I can state that you are.

I'm not against subjectivism, only it's inconsistent use. You have made numerous objective statements on this board, but then claim everything is subjective. The only reason you don't go all out and define yourself as a Hindu is because you DO hold some objective views. You'd actually have to in order to practice Torah the way you've described.

(aleph) If a patient experiences pain when they move their arm, even though it may be diagnosed as psychosomatic, one can easily understand if they prefer not to move their arm anyway. It is desirable to avoid even subjective pain.

(beth) Are you arguing from the perspective that recognition of subjectivity needs result in apathy or paralysis? If so, this is not the case. I may not be communicating with a real person; such was the case for John Nash ("A Beautiful Mind"), for example. I must consider such a possibility, but such does not preclude my acting upon my subjective understanding.

(gymel) In my argumentation, then, I may appeal to logic, to experience, to history, to evidence. All of these things carry a certain weight in personal analysis and decision-making. But I must also acknowledge that the entirety of these grounds for argumentation is substantially dependent upon human filters of perception and thought.

Although I do not deny objective reality, at the end of the day, my apprehension of it cannot help but be subjective. I may hope that my understanding of it is proximal to objective reality, but my understanding cannot be anything but human, and as such, subject to the limitations and fallibilities of human nature.

Unless, of course, I am not really human, in which case the limitation and fallibility of what I actually am would seem to be demonstrated by my delusion that I am a human being. Or so my reason would suggest, though it too may be illusory. But that doesn't stop me from employing the argument, for what it is worth.

(daleth) So "[t]he only reason don't go all out and define [my]self as a Hindu" is not "because DO hold some objective views," but because my subjective understanding prefers concepts other than those commonly espoused within Hinduism.

The arroyo camp is the one which was extinguished during the seige of Titus. The Jews who left prior to that are mostly what we call Christians. The temple fell and the Mosaic system fell with it. Thousands of Jews then became the living camp. I'm a product of those Jews and now partake in the Abrahamic promises. You did too... for a time.

So you will argue that the destruction of the temple was the destruction of the Mosaic system. But do you actually believe this? Do you not rather believe that the Mosaic system was defunct following the passion of Jesus? But the temple stood for two generations thereafter - not that it much matters, because the Torah nowhere requires a temple.

And of course, it was not the first time that a temple had been destroyed. Did the Mosaic system fall when Babylon wrought its devastation of the Solomonic temple?

Beyond this, it appears that somewhere along the line prior to the advent of Jesus, the ark of the covenant went missing-in-action. Accordingly, the ritual of Leviticus could not be fulfilled completely during Jesus' own lifetime. But this deficit generally is not held to have rendered the Mosaic covenant defunct. How much less so should the loss of a temple - itself not required by the Torah - have sufficed to nullify the covenant?

A more substantial challenge is posed by the question of how Abrahamic promises extend to persons who treat a mere human as if he were God. It is laughable that such persons should strain at gnats of ritual celebration while swallowing the camel of idolatry.

kaufmannphillips: I could take months explaining the Torah. If you are really interested, I'd be happy to start a thread with periodic installments on Torah praxis. Or, you can just read Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers and see if the paradigm fits your behavior.

JC: I'm mainly curious about where authority is given and on what grounds. Secondly, I'm interested in the actual day to day practice of Torah. I can assert that my behavior fits a Christian understanding of Torah. Beyond this, I'm doubtful.

(aleph) What issue(s) of authority are you addressing?

(beth) The actual day-to-day practice is rather straightforward: one does what one is told to do; and one does not do what one is told not to do. Where the commandment is closely-defined, its fulfillment is simple; where it is open-ended, one has the liberty to pursue its fulfillment in various ways, but the responsibility to do so according to the leading of the holy spirit.

(gymel) A "Christian understanding of Torah" will vary depending upon the Christian. Some more definition here would be useful.

I'd be just as curious to know what your theological assumptions were when you were a Christian. What were your views of things like eternal salvation and the end times?

My views differed at different times. Earlier on, I believed what I was told in the Baptist context where I was raised. My views on eternal salvation shifted in my first graduate program, when I came into a more holistic view of salvation from a Wesleyan holiness vector (with a garnish of Eastern Orthodoxy). That first graduate program was a venue for encountering more diverse theological perspectives in the Christian tradition, which led to reconsideration of my inherited views, including atonement theory. My soteriology ultimately ended up being practically-driven, rather than forensically-driven. My thoughts on holistic redemption and an understanding of atonement as effectual rather than effective remained Christian for some time, but they did pave the way for a transition into non-Christian theology.

Regarding the end times, these were engaged ambivalently in my early years. There was some interest, but it was counterbalanced with some manner of caution. It may have been Steve Gregg (directly or indirectly) who introduced me to amillenial/preterist perspectives, which I favored at some point, but I doubt that I properly established an eschatological construct before the close of my Christian period.

The same reason Jesus didn't explain the triunity to his aposltes. It might be that it's simply hard for us feeble-minded humans to grasp. Regarding Abraham and Moses, they knew only as much as they needed to. I'm absolutely certain that we will ALL be surprised on judgement day when it comes to seeing God's full nature.

Or perhaps Abraham and Moses knew nothing of it - and perhaps Jesus did not explain it to his apostles - because the concept is a falsehood, a later innovation and theological phantasy.


Shlamaa,
Emmet


P.S.: edited for grammar and convention and for color