(July 15, 2015 at 1:46 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(July 15, 2015 at 12:09 am)Randy Carson Wrote: The answer to "why" is because God is also perfectly just. And perfect justice demands a redress.

Consequently, at the cross, perfect justice and perfect mercy met.

There is neither justice nor mercy in the cross.

God set Adam up. For him to then condemn the whole human species for the so-called sin of a man who had no concept of good and evil is injustice.

It's not mercy to forgive people who should never have been condemned in the first place.  

To believe that this is justice is to believe that might makes right with god. To believe god had a great plan in sacrificing Jesus, you have to believe that the end justifies the means.

You've been misinformed by a very poor teacher.

(July 15, 2015 at 3:37 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(July 15, 2015 at 12:00 am)Randy Carson Wrote: This is a somewhat common misinterpretation, so let's take a closer look. Here is the passage in context:


Luke has pulled together a number of related thoughts in this passage. In vv. 20-21, Jesus asks the disciples who they think that he is. Peter answers, "God's Messiah", and Jesus warns them not tell anyone. In v. 22, he goes on to predict his own death and describes the cost of discipleship in vv. 23-26.

THEN, in v. 27 Jesus tells the disciples that some of them will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God. But does the "kingdom of God" refer back to the previous verses? No. Jesus is referring to the birth of the Church in general (which occurred on Pentecost) as well as the destruction of Jerusalem in particular. The downfall of the city (AD 70) will mark a turning point in salvation history that signals the end of the Old Covenant kingdom and the establishment of the New Covenant.

Hope this helps.

It's really astounding the hoops people will jump through to explain how "it doesn't say what people think it says, and only WE know the real answer".  Basing their lives on a bunch of brainless, mistranslated fairy tails that they believe are literal truth and actual history.  There are lots of reasons why I don't accept this interpretation. There are better reasons why I won't waste any more of my time on this.  Be well.

So, first you ask for my interpretation in an attempt to trip me up, then you get pissed when I give a reasonable explanation that does not allow your argument to work?

(July 16, 2015 at 8:09 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: So, first you ask for my interpretation in an attempt to trip me up, then you get pissed when I give a reasonable explanation that does not allow your argument to work?

You have it backwards.  You are unwilling to see the demise of your argument and thus find fault with everyone except yourself.

(July 16, 2015 at 11:26 am)Godschild Wrote:

(July 15, 2015 at 10:11 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: You really are fucking thick, aren't you? More right to be here than others? No. The right to my own feelings, thoughts and beliefs without you ass-hats telling me what they are? Abso-fucking-lutely. You're right about my anger toward ass-hats like you and the others I've named. Just try to remember the reason for it, if that's not too difficult for you.

Because you hate God, a perfectly reasonable answer. This goes for all who answered my last post.

GC

Your name fits you perfectly GC. Your argument has shown that you are definitely no further emotionally or logically developed than a child.

(July 16, 2015 at 8:36 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 8:09 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: So, first you ask for my interpretation in an attempt to trip me up, then you get pissed when I give a reasonable explanation that does not allow your argument to work?

You have it backwards.  You are unwilling to see the demise of your argument and thus find fault with everyone except yourself.

If you feel my interpretation of the passage Dr. Fuzzy referenced is incorrect, please provide your own exegesis, and I'll take a look. Thanks.

(July 16, 2015 at 8:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: No.

At the cross, God’s justice was meted out in full (upon Christ), and God’s mercy was extended in full (to all who believe).

So God’s perfect mercy was and is exercised through His perfect justice.

So, to recap: god's perfect justice was meted out to an innocent individual and not those who had actually garnered it (which is unjust) in order to extend mercy to those who did deserve justice (which is, according to the severity of the justice required in the narrative... unjust). Still don't see the problem?

(July 16, 2015 at 9:04 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 8:36 pm)Kitan Wrote: You have it backwards.  You are unwilling to see the demise of your argument and thus find fault with everyone except yourself.

If you feel my interpretation of the passage Dr. Fuzzy referenced is incorrect, please provide your own exegesis, and I'll take a look. Thanks.

So is it possible to produce a post that doesn't agree with the view you already hold that you'll accept as an exegesis, rather than dismissing as an eisegesis?

Don't think we haven't played this game before, Randy.

(July 16, 2015 at 9:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 8:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: No.

At the cross, God’s justice was meted out in full (upon Christ), and God’s mercy was extended in full (to all who believe).

So God’s perfect mercy was and is exercised through His perfect justice.

So, to recap: god's perfect justice was meted out to an innocent individual and not those who had actually garnered it (which is unjust) in order to extend mercy to those who did deserve justice (which is, according to the severity of the justice required in the narrative... unjust). Still don't see the problem?

Nope. Because there isn't a problem.

Jesus is God, and He volunteered for the mission.

I can't remember whether you told me that you were a Christian or just your wife was, but have you ever actually read a book about Christianity written by a Christian that explains what Christians believe?

(July 16, 2015 at 9:21 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 9:04 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If you feel my interpretation of the passage Dr. Fuzzy referenced is incorrect, please provide your own exegesis, and I'll take a look. Thanks.

So is it possible to produce a post that doesn't agree with the view you already hold that you'll accept as an exegesis, rather than dismissing as an eisegesis?

Don't think we haven't played this game before, Randy.

It would depend on the strength of the post and its pedigree.

I'm teachable, but I have to know who my teacher is.

(July 16, 2015 at 9:29 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Nope. Because there isn't a problem.

Jesus is God, and He volunteered for the mission.

Well, what you've said doesn't resolve what I pointed out. If you want to go deeper than "nuh uh," be my guest, but as it stands this isn't even a rebuttal.

Quote:I can't remember whether you told me that you were a Christian or just your wife was, but have you ever actually read a book about Christianity written by a Christian that explains what Christians believe?

My wife was a christian, as are her family. As such, I'm not nearly naive enough to believe that I could find a book, even a collection of many books, that would tell me "what christians believe." That subject is as varied as there are christians. The thousands of different sects and denominations attests to that perfectly, even though a lot of christians seem to assume that what they believe is the only set of beliefs christians have.

Quote: It would depend on the strength of the post and its pedigree.

This is the correct answer.