Why was Jesus born and not simply arrived

Leroy42

I am having a little trouble with respect to new testament story of Jesus. I get parts of it but others leave me with questions, maybe I just didn't think about much before.

Given that 0 BC was far from the enlightened times that we live in now, well in the Western world at least, it seems somewhat strange that God would take the very risky bet of having Jesus be born, and then live 30 years before starting his mission? Why would God wait that long? Surely he could have sent him down fully formed (a grown man) and ready? What was the purpose of adding this period?

Infant mortality rates would be quite high (I have read some sources saying near 30% but as with all stats it is very open to question) but it would be safe to say that infant mortality would be a risk. Couple that with the long journey that Mary was forced to undertake from Galilee to Bethlehem whilst heavily pregnant would have only increased the likelihood of issues. What would have happened if the baby had arrived during the trek to Bethlehem? It’s roughly around 100 miles, so 8 days walking. Quite an arduous journey to undertake at full term.

Once born, the child then faces a difficult childhood, due to lack of medicines, lack of food and the many threats from wild animals, disease, injury etc that we do not face today. Mary and Joseph were little more than menial workers, although carpenter is used throughout the English bible according to historians such as Reza Aslan, the actual word used means more likely an unskilled, non-trade labourer.

Of course many children born did live long lives, but this was the son of god, sent down for a particular purpose, and learning how to herd sheep, mend fences etc didn’t need to form a part of that so why even take the risk.
Another issue is simply the risk that any one part of the story would not happen.

What if Judas had not handed Jesus in to the authorities? Jesus knew that night what was about to befall him, him even asked that God remove the task from him before accepting it, so does that not signify that everything that happened was pre-destined? So what of Judas free-will? It seems more than cruel to let Judas in to the gang only to have him betray Jesus and the rest and commit suicide based on the guilt. But in reality he never had an option but to play the villain. What of Pontius Pilate free-will? There was never a moment that Pontius Pilate was not going to crucify Jesus, it was already destined. So why the story about Barabbas, the crowd itself must therefore have been already destined to make the choice.

And Jesus told Peter he would deny him 3 times, so God already know’s what we will do in the future, so surely we can’t be held accountable for any actions he has already allowed to happen. Peter is considered a saint yet even though he had first hand direct knowledge of Jesus he still lied about him, yet is forgiven. Are we then supposed to believe that we, with no evidence, will be eternally punished for not accepting him? You can say of course that Peter went on to carry out the work of the Lord and that is what matters, but seems to me a pretty serious thing to deny something you know to be true as opposed to not accepting something for which you have no evidence.

TL:DR : why did God bother with the whole pregnancy/birth/childhood phase when Jesus could just have easily walked out of the desert to start the ministry (which he pretty much did)

To accept the story as detailed in the Bible, it seems to me, that one has to accept that God already knew the plan and therefore removed free-will from those involved. But isn't this notion of free-will the reason man is blamed for evil acts rather than God?

sbsquarepants

Mysterious ways, innit!

But why would anything like infant mortality or lack of medicine be a problem anyway? God is omnipotent, he knew in advance how everything would play out.

You can't apply logic or reason to religion I'm afraid. it's a fools errand to even try do so.

sbsquarepants

Leroy42 wrote: »

To accept the story as detailed in the Bible, it seems to me, that one has to accept that God already knew the plan and therefore removed free-will from those involved. But isn't this notion of free-will the reason man is blamed for evil acts rather than God?

It's a fairly binary issue.
Lets assume that there is a god for the sake of this discussion.

Free will renders god impotent - he doesn't know what's going to happen and he can't intervene to change anything. No point praying to god to keep you safe, he can't stop Jeffrey Dahmer or Larry Murphy doing whatever the hell they want anyway.

No free will renders Jeffrey and Larry innocent - they had no choice but follow gods plan, god is the villain.

It has to be one or the other.

DJ90

It's all just a made up story though

smash

Why was Jesus born and not simply arrived?

Simple. He was a regular man and nothing special. Every story associated with him is myth.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am having a little trouble with respect to new testament story of Jesus. I get parts of it but others leave me with questions, maybe I just didn't think about much before.

Given that 0 BC was far from the enlightened times that we live in now, well in the Western world at least, it seems somewhat strange that God would take the very risky bet of having Jesus be born, and then live 30 years before starting his mission? Why would God wait that long? Surely he could have sent him down fully formed (a grown man) and ready? What was the purpose of adding this period?

Infant mortality rates would be quite high (I have read some sources saying near 30% but as with all stats it is very open to question) but it would be safe to say that infant mortality would be a risk. Couple that with the long journey that Mary was forced to undertake from Galilee to Bethlehem whilst heavily pregnant would have only increased the likelihood of issues. What would have happened if the baby had arrived during the trek to Bethlehem? It’s roughly around 100 miles, so 8 days walking. Quite an arduous journey to undertake at full term.

Once born, the child then faces a difficult childhood, due to lack of medicines, lack of food and the many threats from wild animals, disease, injury etc that we do not face today. Mary and Joseph were little more than menial workers, although carpenter is used throughout the English bible according to historians such as Reza Aslan, the actual word used means more likely an unskilled, non-trade labourer.

Of course many children born did live long lives, but this was the son of god, sent down for a particular purpose, and learning how to herd sheep, mend fences etc didn’t need to form a part of that so why even take the risk.
Another issue is simply the risk that any one part of the story would not happen.

What if Judas had not handed Jesus in to the authorities? Jesus knew that night what was about to befall him, him even asked that God remove the task from him before accepting it, so does that not signify that everything that happened was pre-destined? So what of Judas free-will? It seems more than cruel to let Judas in to the gang only to have him betray Jesus and the rest and commit suicide based on the guilt. But in reality he never had an option but to play the villain. What of Pontius Pilate free-will? There was never a moment that Pontius Pilate was not going to crucify Jesus, it was already destined. So why the story about Barabbas, the crowd itself must therefore have been already destined to make the choice.

And Jesus told Peter he would deny him 3 times, so God already know’s what we will do in the future, so surely we can’t be held accountable for any actions he has already allowed to happen. Peter is considered a saint yet even though he had first hand direct knowledge of Jesus he still lied about him, yet is forgiven. Are we then supposed to believe that we, with no evidence, will be eternally punished for not accepting him? You can say of course that Peter went on to carry out the work of the Lord and that is what matters, but seems to me a pretty serious thing to deny something you know to be true as opposed to not accepting something for which you have no evidence.

TL:DR : why did God bother with the whole pregnancy/birth/childhood phase when Jesus could just have easily walked out of the desert to start the ministry (which he pretty much did)

To accept the story as detailed in the Bible, it seems to me, that one has to accept that God already knew the plan and therefore removed free-will from those involved. But isn't this notion of free-will the reason man is blamed for evil acts rather than God?

At a guess, God willed that Jesus take human form. What informs that Will?

It is impossible for us to understand what informs that Will - we can perhaps, at best, try to guess why God chose this means of Incarnation.

By being fully human - except for the capacity to commit sin - God by taking human form and suffering the life He suffered wanted to show to Man the depth of His love for His creation.

Maybe God decided that through setting example is the most efficient way to try to teach Man - and therefore by taking human form, God Incarnate Jesus, set the example to teach Man.

sbsquarepants

DJ90 wrote: »

It's all just a made up story though

Seems to be the only outcome of any serious attempt to apply logic or reason to the story.

hinault wrote: »

By being fully human - except for the capacity to commit sin - God by taking human form and suffering the life He suffered wanted to show to Man the depth of His love for His creation.
.

So essentially a robot, no free will Jesus?

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

At a guess, God willed that Jesus take human form. What informs that Will?

It is impossible for us to understand what informs that Will - we can perhaps, at best, try to guess why God chose this means of Incarnation.

By being fully human - except for the capacity to commit sin - God by taking human form and suffering the life He suffered wanted to show to Man the depth of His love for His creation.

Maybe God decided that through setting example is the most efficient way to try to teach Man - and therefore by taking human form, God Incarnate Jesus, set the example to teach Man.

Yes I get all that, and used to agree with that train of thought. But, and this has only recently occurred to me, Jesus knew he was God, so he didn't live the same life as you and I. He knew he was destined to preach, get 12 disciples, crucified, raise from the dead etc. Ever action he took was aimed at arriving at hose points.

The other issue is the lack of any detail regarding his childhood, nobody really knows much if anything about it so why waster the near 30 years? Think of all the sinning that took place during those 30 years which could have been stopped if God acted earlier.

I see many posted that its all made up etc, and thats fine, but the question is really to those that do believe, of which I would hesitantly count myself as one, but with the caveat that I appear to be having more and more questions recently. If you do believe then how does one square the apparent contradiction of man free will and the clear evidence (IMO anyway) of God predetermination throughout the bible?

keano_afc

smash wrote: »

Why was Jesus born and not simply arrived?

Simple. He was a regular man and nothing special. Every story associated with him is myth.

Looks like you wandered into the wrong forum, Dawkins.

sbsquarepants

Leroy42 wrote: »

The other issue is the lack of any detail regarding his childhood, nobody really knows much if anything about it so why waster the near 30 years? Think of all the sinning that took place during those 30 years which could have been stopped if God acted earlier.

Why focus on those 30 years? Why would those 30 years be more of a waste than the 30,000 years which preceded them?
This is the problem when you look at the story - it makes no sense, on any level. I wasn't being facetious when I said you can't apply logic or reason to religion, I'm serious.

You're half way there, but you're desperately trying to cling to the believe that the story is true and therefore you're having trouble with the extreme unlikeliness of how it occured, instead of just taking the leap and saying - you know what, I'm calling shenanigans, this story is clearly nonsense!

Delirium

DJ90 wrote: »

It's all just a made up story though

smash wrote: »

Why was Jesus born and not simply arrived?

Simple. He was a regular man and nothing special. Every story associated with him is myth.

MOD NOTE

Please remember you are posting in the Christianity forum.

There is a mega-thread for athesim/existence of God discussion if you wish to continue that line of discussion.

Please don't derail this thread.

Thanks for your attention.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes I get all that, and used to agree with that train of thought. But, and this has only recently occurred to me, Jesus knew he was God, so he didn't live the same life as you and I. He knew he was destined to preach, get 12 disciples, crucified, raise from the dead etc. Ever action he took was aimed at arriving at hose points.

The other issue is the lack of any detail regarding his childhood, nobody really knows much if anything about it so why waster the near 30 years? Think of all the sinning that took place during those 30 years which could have been stopped if God acted earlier.

That's why I raised the point earlier, it is impossible for us to know the reason why God willed what was willed.

We don't know why Jesus public ministry only began at age 30.

Does this mean that there was no ministry until age 30? At a guess, most probably not. So why doesn't Scripture tell us more about the period 13-29 in Jesus life? I don't know why this is the case. It is obvious that there is no public record, but as to why we don't know.

uck51js9zml2yt

Unlike hinault, there was explanations to these questions

He was born a human as His purpose was to Redeem Mankind. He could only do that as a man.

Adam had sinned and sin has gone through the human race as a result.
God had warned Adam that id he sinned,he would die. It was initially a spiritual death and separation from God. This sin also resulted in death entering into mankind along with sickness.
To redeem mankind the penalty for his sin had to be paid. Someone had to take his place. The only one able to do so was Jesus. Not only was HE human, He was also sinless as HE was God incarnate.


As for Jesus being 30 when he entered into ministry. That was the age were a Jewish male could be recognised as a rabbi or teacher.

ScumLord

I always thought he did it as a kind of undercover boss type scenario. To live and suffer as a human and get some street cred.

Of course knowing he's god means he's never in any real danger and can just resume his life as an omnipotent god. The more you think it out the less sense it makes. God risked very little and presented himself as something he's' not.

If you just ignore all the mysticism and take Jesus as a man he was a very influential person that risked everything to make people think about being nicer to each other. Of course he wasn't the first person to have these insights, I don't think he was even the first privileged ruler to go undercover to see the plight of his people.

Leroy42

Lance Ambitious Taskmaster wrote: »

Unlike hinault, there was explanations to these questions

He was born a human as His purpose was to Redeem Mankind. He could only do that as a man.

Adam had sinned and sin has gone through the human race as a result.
God had warned Adam that id he sinned,he would die. It was initially a spiritual death and separation from God. This sin also resulted in death entering into mankind along with sickness.
To redeem mankind the penalty for his sin had to be paid. Someone had to take his place. The only one able to do so was Jesus. Not only was HE human, He was also sinless as HE was God incarnate.


As for Jesus being 30 when he entered into ministry. That was the age were a Jewish male could be recognised as a rabbi or teacher.

So Adam sinned and condemned mankind to sin from then on, so why did God leave it so long before sending Jesus down to save us? Why not simply replace Adam with a better version? Adam II as it were. Why go through all that Noah ark, Moses leading the Jews from Egypt etc?

His job was to redeem mankind, and he could only do that as a man? Really? On what basis have you arrived at that conclusion? You are putting your rules on God as claiming them as facts. Why would God be limited to any rules?

You say he was born a man, but he was sinless and God incarnate, so which is he. If he is God incarnate, thats not really the same as a normal Joe then is he? Jesus already knew his destiny, already knew the life he had in front of him. It's like knowing the result before an exam. Mary knew he was God's son, so did Joseph. You think they just treated him as any boy?

How do you know the only one who could take his place was Jesus? What you mean is that your understanding is that he was the only one who could take his place. I have read/heard nothing that backs up your claim.

It still doesn't answer the question of free-will. Jesus was sent down, whether as a man, God incarnate or whatever, to take away the sins of the world. His life, and death, were pre-destined. But by extension, so was everyone else who played a part in the story. Judas, Pontius Pilot, the high priests etc, they all had to take the actions they did to allow the sacrifice that Jesus took to happen. So not only did God send his Son, but he took away the free-will of others to make his plan happen. It even led to Judas committing suicide, a sin I understand is considered particularly heinous and therefore would be in hell, all due to an action he couldn't control?

You can try to sidetrack into Adam and other parts, but the very reason I didn't touch on them is they are very open to debate, but the New Testament is considered the word of God, a true reflection of the Life of Jesus. Yes, some people do take the Old Testament as true but a large amount of people who believe in Jesus do not and I think it only serves to sidetrack any debate.

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Adam sinned and condemned mankind to sin from then on, so why did God leave it so long before sending Jesus down to save us? Why not simply replace Adam with a better version? Adam II as it were. Why go through all that Noah ark, Moses leading the Jews from Egypt etc?

His job was to redeem mankind, and he could only do that as a man? Really? On what basis have you arrived at that conclusion? You are putting your rules on God as claiming them as facts. Why would God be limited to any rules?

You say he was born a man, but he was sinless and God incarnate, so which is he. If he is God incarnate, thats not really the same as a normal Joe then is he? Jesus already knew his destiny, already knew the life he had in front of him. It's like knowing the result before an exam. Mary knew he was God's son, so did Joseph. You think they just treated him as any boy?

How do you know the only one who could take his place was Jesus? What you mean is that your understanding is that he was the only one who could take his place. I have read/heard nothing that backs up your claim.

It still doesn't answer the question of free-will. Jesus was sent down, whether as a man, God incarnate or whatever, to take away the sins of the world. His life, and death, were pre-destined. But by extension, so was everyone else who played a part in the story. Judas, Pontius Pilot, the high priests etc, they all had to take the actions they did to allow the sacrifice that Jesus took to happen. So not only did God send his Son, but he took away the free-will of others to make his plan happen. It even led to Judas committing suicide, a sin I understand is considered particularly heinous and therefore would be in hell, all due to an action he couldn't control?

You can try to sidetrack into Adam and other parts, but the very reason I didn't touch on them is they are very open to debate, but the New Testament is considered the word of God, a true reflection of the Life of Jesus. Yes, some people do take the Old Testament as true but a large amount of people who believe in Jesus do not and I think it only serves to sidetrack any debate.

Rather than me replying to your post, I suggest you read Paul's letter to the Romans. It will go into a lot more detail than I could post while dinner was cooking;)

Leroy42

Lance Ambitious Taskmaster wrote: »

Rather than me replying to your post, I suggest you read Paul's letter to the Romans. It will go into a lot more detail than I could post while dinner was cooking;)

What has Paul's letter to the Romans got to do with any of this?

OT, and I don't want to start a debate about it here but Pauls letters are simply Pauls interpretation of the will of God, they are not God words. The only direct evidence we have of God's will is in the stories of Jesus, anything other than that is merely an interpretation. Remember, Paul was on a mission to spread the word, one cannot therefore rely on everything he says as unbiased

Paul only knew Jesus once he started his ministry, he knows nothing of his childhood, nothing of the formative years, in fact the reliance on Paul and the other disciples only proves that Jesus could easily have simply turned up out of the blue and had the same effect, no need for the 30 years waiting and hoping that nothing bad happened.

Why the virgin birth, and the huge scandal that must have caused in the village. Even know if a girl gets knocked up its gossiped about, imagine back then! Why put Mary and Joseph through that ordeal if Jesus was meant to be just a normal Human. The virgin birth kind of sets him apart somewhat.

Leroy42

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Why focus on those 30 years? Why would those 30 years be more of a waste than the 30,000 years which preceded them?
This is the problem when you look at the story - it makes no sense, on any level. I wasn't being facetious when I said you can't apply logic or reason to religion, I'm serious.

You're half way there, but you're desperately trying to cling to the believe that the story is true and therefore you're having trouble with the extreme unlikeliness of how it occured, instead of just taking the leap and saying - you know what, I'm calling shenanigans, this story is clearly nonsense!

Thanks for the reply. Its not the 30 years as such, it's more so that as you mentioned it leaves a rather large hole in the story which seems glossed over.

The bolded bit really rings true. I am having big doubts, but you are right, I am struggling to accept that, lets be honest, my whole life and the lives of my friends and family have all included this story. Some as a major part, some more minor, but it plays a part in them nonetheless.

As I mentioned, I kinda hadn't really thought about much about it until recently and I have started to read things from Reza Aslan etc and its got my thinking.

I don't know if its true or not, but I'm just looking for some answers. Maybe there are no answers, maybe you just 'know'. I used to think I knew, now I'm not so sure

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

What has Paul's letter to the Romans got to do with any of this?

OT, and I don't want to start a debate about it here but Pauls letters are simply Pauls interpretation of the will of God, they are not God words. The only direct evidence we have of God's will is in the stories of Jesus, anything other than that is merely an interpretation. Remember, Paul was on a mission to spread the word, one cannot therefore rely on everything he says as unbiased

Paul only knew Jesus once he started his ministry, he knows nothing of his childhood, nothing of the formative years, in fact the reliance on Paul and the other disciples only proves that Jesus could easily have simply turned up out of the blue and had the same effect, no need for the 30 years waiting and hoping that nothing bad happened.

Why the virgin birth, and the huge scandal that must have caused in the village. Even know if a girl gets knocked up its gossiped about, imagine back then! Why put Mary and Joseph through that ordeal if Jesus was meant to be just a normal Human. The virgin birth kind of sets him apart somewhat.

As I said if you read Romans (just the first 8 chapters) it will explain to you the origin of sin, its effects on mankind and how God dealt with it. If you don't want to read it that's up to you but if you're being honest in saying you're looking for answers then have a read. There are plenty of online bibles if you don't have one.

I agree that the only direct testimony we have of Jesus is in the Gospels. Jesus Himself said he was the embodiment of that which was in the law and was its fulfillment. He put great store in what was written.
Outside of that, Acts is the story of the Churches beginnings and spread. The letters were written to various churches and people in answer to questions or problems they had. Revelation is the revelation of Jesus to John about the future and is allegorical.
Peter who was a witness says that the writings of Paul are to be considered as scripture.
All of it was given by God for various reasons.

Its quiet probable that Paul heard Jesus when he was younger. He would have been in Jerusalem training as a Pharisee and probably would have heard Jesus teachings.

Why did God wait so long? I don't know. The term that often comes up regarding events is " In the fullness of time" , I can only assume this was the case
Why did he choose a virgin? The gospels say that the child was to be holy, a direct descendant of Seth (Adams son). In fact both Mary and Joseph were also direct descendants. Blood lines were important.
It would have indeed been a scandal. Hence the instruction to Joseph to take Mary as his wife and not put her away.

sbsquarepants

Leroy42 wrote: »

The bolded bit really rings true. I am having big doubts, but you are right, I am struggling to accept that, lets be honest, my whole life and the lives of my friends and family have all included this story. Some as a major part, some more minor, but it plays a part in them nonetheless.

As I mentioned, I kinda hadn't really thought about much about it until recently and I have started to read things from Reza Aslan etc and its got my thinking.

In my experience I have noticed that there are 2 types of religious people.

Type 1 are the likes of your old self, they were taught something as true when children and now they just "believe" it. They didn't really think about it so the logical contradictions were never much of an issue. As a simple rule of thumb if your explanation for why you "believe" something is just because you believe it and that's that, then you don't really believe it at all - you've just been too lazy to question it. The future can be bright for type 1's, they can open their eyes and free their minds.

Type 2 are a much stranger bunch, I won't name names but there are a couple of glaring examples hanging about this place. (I'll let you guess who:D) They have thought about, in great depth sometimes, they are usually quite smart (one of lifes great mysteries if ever there was one!), but they're closed minded. The answer is the answer and the facts must bend to suit that answer, no matter how ridiculous the logical gymnastics they need to perform, they are incapable of changing their "beliefs". Somehow they don't see the problem with this madness - intentionally blind to it, they call it faith. Type 2's are doomed - they can't change, they are beyond help!

Leroy42

I never said I didn't read Romans, just that I don't think it adds anything to the answer. I am looking for answers, the bible, whether on-line or not, does not provide them to me so I am asking for peoples opinions on here. Pauls letters and the Acts, while they may be considered to be part of the bible, are clearly interpretations of the life and teachings of Jesus and a way to spread the word of the new church. It is of course true that all of the bible contain some interpretation as they are not directly written by Jesus but, IMO, at least the 4 main bibles are based on first hand recountment of actual happenings. As the writers of the letters and the acts were human, and so suffered from human frailties, one can assume that at least in part the message was put in the best way possible to achieve the aim. Thats why I exclude them when trying to find the true nature of Jesus. I don't dismiss them totally, just from this particular aspect.

So the OP questions still stand. Why would God put Jesus through the long 30 years wait before starting the ministry? If it was so he would be accepted as human then why the virgin birth? The two are contradictory.

Even the trip while heavily pregnant, the childhood, they all introduce significant risks into the outcome. The only thing one can take from it is that at no point was Jesus ever really at risk. The story was pre-destined to happen. So not exactly a normal human. So why the pretense that he was.

Speedwell

There's no real need for the Jesus narrative to have developed in exactly the way it did. If the Jesus of the Bible was a four-year-old who died of diphtheria, the Christian narrative might focus on his innocence and purity and his sweetness and calm under suffering. The redemptive part of the narrative might even gain from the fact that a little child gave his life in such a pathetic way, and all sorts of precocious statements could have been attributed to the little one. The speeches and actions attributed to the adult Jesus could have been performed by disciples in a similar way to how people claim miracles attributed to this saint or that divine intervention. There might be a tradition that a Gospel was written by Mary. Christians could wear a little model of a favorite child's toy around their neck, perhaps a toy wooden boat or wheeled cart or toy lamb, and assign meanings to it consistent with a redemptive message, such as God sending his Fishing Boat to carry the Christian's soul to Heaven. There could be a folk tradition that Joseph made the toy. Catholic hospitals could refuse to prescribe metronidazole on religious grounds. You could easily map nearly every important theological, social, and political aspect of Christianity onto this model, I imagine; you might even find support for it in the prophecies of the Old Testament, if you read them the right way. The whole thing strikes me as the sort of alternate-universe narrative that would make an interesting novel.

sbsquarepants

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the OP questions still stand. Why would God put Jesus through the long 30 years wait before starting the ministry? If it was so he would be accepted as human then why the virgin birth? The two are contradictory.

Even the trip while heavily pregnant, the childhood, they all introduce significant risks into the outcome. The only thing one can take from it is that at no point was Jesus ever really at risk. The story was pre-destined to happen. So not exactly a normal human. So why the pretense that he was.

30 years is not a long wait for an immortal, eternal being!

Also we're talking about a being with the power to create a whole universe from scratch in a week, in 6 days actually - he put his feet up on day 7. And this was the best plan he could come up with? Really? Spend 30 odd years to deliver your message to a tiny circle of largely illiterate nomads in the middle of nowhere?
Think about it -he made the universe in a week, but it took him 30 odd years to have a word with what .000001% of the inhabitants of one infinitesimally small speck of rock within that universe. Hmmmm, yea that sounds absolutely like the plan of the omnipotent creator and not at all like made up nonsense!
I could come up with a better plan in 10 seconds, so could every single one of you reading this. We can't all be smarter than god - so common sense would seem to suggest that perhaps this plan is just not the work of god!

solodeogloria

Good morning!

There's not really much that one can offer you other than speculation on this thread.

God does what He does because He is faithful to His Word.

He declared that the Messiah would be born to a young woman in Bethlehem. He declared that He would live and die for our sins and rise again on the third day.

This was to fulfil the Scriptures in the Old Testament.

God doesn't have to justify what He does to anyone. He does what He does and He mercifully gave us a Saviour because we all need a Saviour from God's rightful wrath for our sin.

I personally have no issue with God's sovereignty and human accountability but I don't see how that issue is linked to how Jesus came to earth. Could you please explain?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

I never mentioned God's sovereignty. I never even raised the question about whether Jesus is the son of god, or if following the word of Jesus is the path to eternal life through God.

God did what he did because God said thats what he'd do. He declared to whom? You could also argue that the bible, written after the scriptures, was made to match the scriptures. So Jesus had to born in Bethlehem, although there is little evidence to actually back up the claim about a census requiring large amounts of people to travel large distances was held. Using the fact that books written years after the scriptures match the scriptures proves nothing.. I could write a book today about the Lord of the Rings, you can't use that as a basis to prove the truth in the original books.

I am not asking God to justify anything, but God did give me a mind and I have the ability to choose between right and wrong, and hence the ability to think. So God gives us the ability but you believe we shouldn't use it to question. I can question the basis behind gravity, doesn't mean I don't accept it as being true.

As sbsquarepants pointed out,, the plan has so many holes in it. This is a God that wiped all living creatures from the face of the earth. That gave all mankind sin due to Adam & Eve taking a bite from an apple (and yes I understand that represents sin rather than just eating an apple). That killed all first born in Egypt to get them to agree to release the slaves. I am only questioning the why, such a different approach was taken in this instance and you would have to say that looking back over the years since Jesus lived it would have to be considered a less that complete success. God cast man out of the garden for one sin. He wipes out all living creatures for their ongoing sins, but nothing has happened since he gave his only son to die for our sins and the majority of the world refuse to believe.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon,

To be brief. This part of your post is referring to God's sovereignty and human responsibility:

And Jesus told Peter he would deny him 3 times, so God already know’s what we will do in the future, so surely we can’t be held accountable for any actions he has already allowed to happen.

It's also worth pointing out what I can and cannot do in this discussion. I can't make God sound more palatable to you by watering down what the Bible says to suit you. I also acknowledge that I can't make you believe. That is only something that God can do.

My function on this forum as I see it is simply put to explain the Christian gospel to the best of my ability and to be gracious to you and faithful to God in doing so.

If you wish to argue that the Old Testament was changed by Christians to suit Jesus that's up for you to demonstrate. I think the manuscript evidence shows that the prophets were written hundreds of years before Jesus walked the earth.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Speedwell

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you wish to argue that the Old Testament was changed by Christians to suit Jesus that's up for you to demonstrate. I think the manuscript evidence shows that the prophets were written hundreds of years before Jesus walked the earth.

My best understanding of the scholarship at present is that the story of Jesus was "spun" to better fit the Old Testament prophecy already in existence. Even when I was a church member, we believed that Jesus deliberately set out to prove he was the fulfillment of prophecy. The debate over why what writings were chosen to be included into the Christian Bible is probably pertinent to this question as well.

Leroy42

Solodeogloria, I understand the misunderstanding of my post on sovereignty. I am not questioning Gods ultimate sovereignty, but when it is placed beside human responsibility it causes a conflict. I have pointed out many occasions where, IMO, God has removed free-will, and therefore removed human responsibility. Has done one accept that but then allow for other human sins to be the fault of humans rather than God as we do not know if God has decided that or not?

I am not asking anybody to water anything down, amend anything, to suit me. I am asking questions, questions that I have gotten from reading the bible. I am looking for other perspectives, for other to give me their thoughts so that I am well see something I am not. Is that not what we are meant to do with the bible? Are we not meant to let us take us on a journey. Did you just accept everything in the bible the first time you read it and have never questioned it since? I really don't think that is what God wants us to do. He created us with a conscious so that we may make our own decisions.

I'm not asking anybody to make me believe, or otherwise. I am merely pointing out some questions I have, things that don't, to me, make sense.

I think you may have picked me up wrong. I am not questioning the scriptures, I have no evidence either way, I am simply saying that the fact the bible matches scripture does not in of itself prove either the bible or the scriptures. What I am doing is question some of the aspects of the bible.

Can you explain to me why you accept that God took away free-will from Judas and then let him suffer the consequences, or is it that you believe that Judas did act on free-will and as such the whole plan of Jesus being crucified and to rise from the dead could have been changed.

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

I never said I didn't read Romans, just that I don't think it adds anything to the answer. I am looking for answers, the bible, whether on-line or not, does not provide them to me so I am asking for peoples opinions on here. Pauls letters and the Acts, while they may be considered to be part of the bible, are clearly interpretations of the life and teachings of Jesus and a way to spread the word of the new church. It is of course true that all of the bible contain some interpretation as they are not directly written by Jesus but, IMO, at least the 4 main bibles are based on first hand recountment of actual happenings. As the writers of the letters and the acts were human, and so suffered from human frailties, one can assume that at least in part the message was put in the best way possible to achieve the aim. Thats why I exclude them when trying to find the true nature of Jesus. I don't dismiss them totally, just from this particular aspect.

So the OP questions still stand. Why would God put Jesus through the long 30 years wait before starting the ministry? If it was so he would be accepted as human then why the virgin birth? The two are contradictory.

Even the trip while heavily pregnant, the childhood, they all introduce significant risks into the outcome. The only thing one can take from it is that at no point was Jesus ever really at risk. The story was pre-destined to happen. So not exactly a normal human. So why the pretense that he was.

I'd take it that you don't really want an answer from us as any answer given has been discounted by you.
If you really want an answer, I'd suggest you ask the One who worked out all these events "according to His own will and purpose".
Alternatively, you could read the Bible and see where He spoke of the coming Messiah and the conditions under which He would be born, the purpose of His and the purpose of His death, resurrection and birth of the Church.
You can discount the Bible, that's your choice, but it was Gods choice to have written what was in it in the way it was written. The New Testament tells us that "All Scripture is inspired by God and suitable for instruction, reproof..etc".

I said earlier why he was 30 when He entered public ministry also why he choose a virgin.
Yes everything was predestined but He also had a choice. The account of Satan tempting Him was real and he could have chosen not to go the way HE did. Temptation isn't temptation if there is no choice to be made. Equally when He asked in the garden that the cup pass from him. He made a choice to accept it. It could have been different but it also would have been the end of any chance for mankind to be redeemed.
By one man sin entered the world, by One man sin and its power in the lives of people was dealt with and broken.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Questioning can be good, if done with the right intention.

Questions along the line of why God didn't do X, Y or Z in a particular way are problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly they are problematic because I can't answer them without speculating heavily. It requires me to say something about God that isn't based on what He has said in His Word. That's problematic for an evangelical Protestant with a sola scriptura understanding of the Bible. It's the same reason why I can't answer the Judas question. We don't know.

Secondly, they are problematic because they are based on an understanding that humans could do better than God. That is problematic because a Christian cannot accept that as being true particularly in what we see in Jesus who didn't even spare His own life for the sake of His enemies.

Thirdly, they are problematic because they are based on an understanding that God is not good but rather he is evil. That is also an understanding that is based on the wrong motivation. If you are determined to regard God as evil and refuse to consider His goodness then of course you won't listen to Him.

Questioning is right and good when we are asking questions for the right reasons. When we are asking them out of humility to know the God who brought this very world into existence and to know the Lord Jesus they are wonderful and good. When you are asking them with the presumption that God is malevolent or to malign Him they aren't good at all and I'd be lying if I said they were.

For the answer to your question on God's sovereignty and human responsibility. The Bible doesn't actually say that we are freely willed explicitly. Rather it says that we can act for good or for ill. It also says that God is supremely knows all things and knows what will happen. The honest answer in terms of reconciliation is that we don't know how they both fit and the Bible doesn't offer an answer. It is beyond our comprehension and given that God is omniscient and we are not it should be expected that we might not understand everything about how He works. A best effort explanation from a Biblical perspective can be found in Romans. Paul writes about it in Romans chapters 9 to 11. I'd thoroughly recommend that you read through the whole letter with an open mind rather than a closed one.

As is the case with everything, the best way to understand Christianity is to become more familiar with the source material in the Bible. That'd be a good position for us to discuss further. If you dismiss reading the source material then nobody here can help you understand it.

I'm not here to "prove" anything to you, I can't. Moreover God doesn't owe you proof. He didn't even owe you His Son, but His grace is there for you if you wish to receive it. It is up to you to consider the accounts of Jesus' life that we do have and decide if you want to follow Him.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

sbsquarepants

Lance Ambitious Taskmaster wrote: »

I said earlier why he was 30 when He entered public ministry also why he choose a virgin.
Yes everything was predestined but He also had a choice. The account of Satan tempting Him was real and he could have chosen not to go the way HE did. Temptation isn't temptation if there is no choice to be made. Equally when He asked in the garden that the cup pass from him. He made a choice to accept it. It could have been different but it also would have been the end of any chance for mankind to be redeemed.
By one man sin entered the world, by One man sin and its power in the lives of people was dealt with and broken.

I'm confused here aren't god and Jesus effectively the same person? 2 of the 3 amigos so to speak. So you're basically saying, he asked himself a question, but somehow didn't know in advance what the answer would be? And not only that but if he answered himself wrong, that was it - we were done for?

That is very indicative of mental illness right there, do you not think?
There were schizophrenics 2000 years ago you know, we just lacked the understanding of what was going on in their heads- we said things like, they're possessed or they're speaking in tongues.
These days when someone wanders out in the desert and talks to a bush, or a donkey, or the devil, or any other non talking entity, we are enlightened enough to know it's one of 2 things - drugs (they didn't have acid in those days, but they did have things like psylocybin and ergot and various others) or a mental illness of some sort.
It's no coincidence that every second patient in your common or garden mental institution either thinks they talk to god, or they actually are god.

uck51js9zml2yt

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm confused here aren't god and Jesus effectively the same person? 2 of the 3 amigos so to speak. So you're basically saying, he asked himself a question, but somehow didn't know in advance what the answer would be? And not only that but if he answered himself wrong, that was it - we were done for?

That is very indicative of mental illness right there, do you not think?
There were schizophrenics 2000 years ago you know, we just lacked the understanding of what was going on in their heads- we said things like, they're possessed or they're speaking in tongues.
These days when someone wanders out in the desert and talks to a bush or a donkey or the devil or some other non talking entity, we are enlightened enough to know it's one of 2 things - drugs (they didn't have acid in those days, but they did have magic mushrooms and ergot) or a mental illness of some sort.
It's no coincidence that every second patient in your common or garden mental institution either thinks they talk to god, or they actually are god.

Have you a point to make ?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Yes, Christians believe that God is a Trinity.

As for your point on mental illness, if you wish to believe that Jesus was mentally ill that's up to you. Don't expect Christians to be rushing to discuss that with you though.

This comes back to my point about asking questions for the right reason.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

sbsquarepants

Lance Ambitious Taskmaster wrote: »

Have you a point to make ?

I've made mine Lance Ambitious Taskmaster. Do you perhaps have one of your own?

Edit: In case you've missed it, i'll clarify.
There is a saying amongst doctors "common things are common" It means when a patient turns up suggesting the have some outlandishly rare ailment, they almost certainly don't, they have something far more common. There are exceptions of course, but they are very rare. That's what makes rare conditions, rare conditions.

If someone turns up claiming to be god, and claiming to have all manner of supernatural occurrences going on, there are 4 possible reasons.

1 - They are god
2 - They are lying
3 - They are on mind altering drugs
4 - They have a mental illness

3 of these things are very common, 1 is extraordinarily rare. It is practically certain that it's one of the 3 common conditions. It makes no sense to even consider the rare explanation, until the common ones have been ruled out. So far, the common ones have never been ruled out.

Speedwell

solodeogloria wrote: »

...As for your point on mental illness, if you wish to believe that Jesus was mentally ill that's up to you. Don't expect Christians to be rushing to discuss that with you though.

This comes back to my point about asking questions for the right reason.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I wasn't mentally ill when I was a Christian and I'm not mentally ill now that I'm no longer one. Religion is not a mental illness. It is something different. Atheists, please leave the "religion etc. is a mental illness" angle out of your arguments; it is irrational, unproductive, and false, as well as being insensitive to people struggling with real mental illnesses. (Christians, atheism is not one either.)

sbsquarepants

Speedwell wrote: »

I wasn't mentally ill when I was a Christian and I'm not mentally ill now that I'm no longer one. Religion is not a mental illness. It is something different. Atheists, please leave the "religion etc. is a mental illness" angle out of your arguments; it is irrational, unproductive, and false, as well as being insensitive to people struggling with real mental illnesses. (Christians, atheism is not one either.)

You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that religion is a mental illness. I'm saying that having full blown conversations with vegetation or animals could well be, hearing voices telling you to do things is a fairly classic symptom, talking incoherent nonsense is a classic symptom, claiming to have special powers is a classic symptom.

Is being religious a sign of mental illness - probably not.
Is claiming to be a supernatural being who has the divine creator of the universe on speed dial a sign - possibly yes. In fact all over the world, asylums are full of people making that exact claim. Thousands of others have only stopped thinking it due to modern medications.

Speedwell

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that religion is a mental illness. I'm saying that having full blown conversations with vegetation or animals could well be, hearing voices telling you to do things is a fairly classic symptom, talking incoherent nonsense is a classic symptom, claiming to have special powers is a classic symptom.

Is being religious a sign of mental illness - probably not.
Is claiming to be a supernatural being who has the divine creator of the universe on speed dial a sign - possibly yes. In fact all over the world, asylums are full of people making that exact claim. Thousands of others have only stopped thinking it due to modern medications.

No, I agree. I will even go further and say that religion is extremely hospitable to mental illness and aspects of it may have arisen from the thoughts of people with mental illnesses (it would be surprising if they hadn't, by now). But a given religious person should not be said to have a mental illness absent a diagnosis by a qualified person.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I'm happy to discuss if Christianity is true or if it isn't.

I'm not happy to discuss whether or not Jesus was mentally ill because it sets the wrong tone for the discussion. Jesus is someone I regard as my Lord and I won't bring His name into disrepute.

I don't think there is any basis for that claim. Anyone who was alive in a lifetine of Jesus could have checked the claims the gospel writers wrote down.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Marhay70

Being religious is not a mental illness, nor is it a natural state, being irreligious on the other hand is a natural state. Religion can only be acquired by being subjected to structured teaching, being irreligious is innate.
I consider myself a good human being, I have always looked after my family, I have never knowingly done any harm to anybody, I have never fallen foul of the law. I have always tried to help those less fortunate than myself, but I have no religion.
My take on the whole God saga is that man cannot easily comprehend the vastness of the universe, and religion, for the time being, has filled that void. Christianity is just one of a multitude of beliefs that have come and gone over the millennia, it has served a purpose, done a lot of good and a lot of bad and it will in time, die away. Much of the reason for the decline in religion worldwide is education and technology, religion tends to be more popular in, shall we say, less advanced countries and has only been maintained in more advanced countries as a power base.
Those who subscribe to any particular religion have to have something that those who don't subscribe don't have and that is faith. If you believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient and yet felt so powerless to change and control that which he created, except by sending a separate manifestation of himself to suffer torture and death, then so be it and I have no argument with you on that score. However, you must realise that to those of us who don't share your faith and look at the whole scenario from a detached and rational (in our world) perspective, then the whole thing is preposterous. It is therefore difficult to explain your position in terms of God's will and predestination to those who have no concept of what those things mean and if you profess to be Christians then, by definition, you should be accepting of that. Logic and reason, combined with physics are the peceptible powers in the universe.

tommy2bad

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am having a little trouble with respect to new testament story of Jesus. I get parts of it but others leave me with questions, maybe I just didn't think about much before.

Given that 0 BC was far from the enlightened times that we live in now, well in the Western world at least, it seems somewhat strange that God would take the very risky bet of having Jesus be born, and then live 30 years before starting his mission? Why would God wait that long? Surely he could have sent him down fully formed (a grown man) and ready? What was the purpose of adding this period?

OK first off the problem with squaring the incarnation and the redemption is assuming the incarnations purpose was the redemption. It wasnt, even if the fall never happened, the incarnation was always the plan. So God being born as a man and living his life as one of us, fully and completely is part and parcel of what the incarnation is. It is not a means to an end, its an end in itself.

Infant mortality rates would be quite high (I have read some sources saying near 30% but as with all stats it is very open to question) but it would be safe to say that infant mortality would be a risk. Couple that with the long journey that Mary was forced to undertake from Galilee to Bethlehem whilst heavily pregnant would have only increased the likelihood of issues. What would have happened if the baby had arrived during the trek to Bethlehem? It’s roughly around 100 miles, so 8 days walking. Quite an arduous journey to undertake at full term.

Indeed and a journey that all mankind born at the time undertake.

Once born, the child then faces a difficult childhood, due to lack of medicines, lack of food and the many threats from wild animals, disease, injury etc that we do not face today. Mary and Joseph were little more than menial workers, although carpenter is used throughout the English bible according to historians such as Reza Aslan, the actual word used means more likely an unskilled, non-trade labourer.

Of course many children born did live long lives, but this was the son of god, sent down for a particular purpose, and learning how to herd sheep, mend fences etc didn’t need to form a part of that so why even take the risk.
Another issue is simply the risk that any one part of the story would not happen.

It was a huge part of the plan, living and suffering and dying as a human was the plan. Do you think being crucified was necessary for our redemption? Do you think if Jesus had lived a long life and died of a debilitating disease or suddenly in an accident, redemption would not have been possible?

What if Judas had not handed Jesus in to the authorities? Jesus knew that night what was about to befall him, him even asked that God remove the task from him before accepting it, so does that not signify that everything that happened was pre-destined? So what of Judas free-will? It seems more than cruel to let Judas in to the gang only to have him betray Jesus and the rest and commit suicide based on the guilt. But in reality he never had an option but to play the villain. What of Pontius Pilate free-will? There was never a moment that Pontius Pilate was not going to crucify Jesus, it was already destined. So why the story about Barabbas, the crowd itself must therefore have been already destined to make the choice.

Not destined, foreknown! destined implies forced. Form our time bound perspective its hard to understand how we can have freewill and yet God knows the outcome of our decisions but that's how it works. We are completely free to chose what we do, God sees all time simultaneously and knows the entire sequence all the time but we only see it sequentially.

And Jesus told Peter he would deny him 3 times, so God already know’s what we will do in the future, so surely we can’t be held accountable for any actions he has already allowed to happen. Peter is considered a saint yet even though he had first hand direct knowledge of Jesus he still lied about him, yet is forgiven. Are we then supposed to believe that we, with no evidence, will be eternally punished for not accepting him? You can say of course that Peter went on to carry out the work of the Lord and that is what matters, but seems to me a pretty serious thing to deny something you know to be true as opposed to not accepting something for which you have no evidence.

TL:DR : why did God bother with the whole pregnancy/birth/childhood phase when Jesus could just have easily walked out of the desert to start the ministry (which he pretty much did)

To accept the story as detailed in the Bible, it seems to me, that one has to accept that God already knew the plan and therefore removed free-will from those involved. But isn't this notion of free-will the reason man is blamed for evil acts rather than God?

It's a long post so sorry for replying in bold rather than splitting it up, time pressure.

solodeogloria

Marhay70 wrote: »

Being religious is not a mental illness, nor is it a natural state, being irreligious on the other hand is a natural state. Religion can only be acquired by being subjected to structured teaching, being irreligious is innate.
I consider myself a good human being, I have always looked after my family, I have never knowingly done any harm to anybody, I have never fallen foul of the law. I have always tried to help those less fortunate than myself, but I have no religion.
My take on the whole God saga is that man cannot easily comprehend the vastness of the universe, and religion, for the time being, has filled that void. Christianity is just one of a multitude of beliefs that have come and gone over the millennia, it has served a purpose, done a lot of good and a lot of bad and it will in time, die away. Much of the reason for the decline in religion worldwide is education and technology, religion tends to be more popular in, shall we say, less advanced countries and has only been maintained in more advanced countries as a power base.
Those who subscribe to any particular religion have to have something that those who don't subscribe don't have and that is faith. If you believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient and yet felt so powerless to change and control that which he created, except by sending a separate manifestation of himself to suffer torture and death, then so be it and I have no argument with you on that score. However, you must realise that to those of us who don't share your faith and look at the whole scenario from a detached and rational (in our world) perspective, then the whole thing is preposterous. It is therefore difficult to explain your position in terms of God's will and predestination to those who have no concept of what those things mean and if you profess to be Christians then, by definition, you should be accepting of that. Logic and reason, combined with physics are the peceptible powers in the universe.

Good afternoon!

There are a couple of assumptions in your post that Christianity doesn't accept. Let me walk through a few of them and you can come back at me. I like you, believe that robust and honest discussion between Christians and atheists is a good thing.

Firstly - religion can be acquired by curiosity. The reason I am an evangelical Christian today is because I read the Bible out of curiosity. I know quite a lot of people who became Christians whilst at university. It isn't always true that people are only Christians because of their parents. That is somewhat of a genetic fallacy. From a Biblical perspective people become Christians simply because God draws them to Himself (John 6:44).

Secondly, Christianity doesn't permit the assumption that we are good inherently because it isn't true. In fact humanity as a whole act in ways that are pretty wretched. If we're honest that's true of our own hearts. Give me 5 minutes alone and I see all kinds of ungodly selfish motivations in my heart. The Bible says that we've all sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). That is the fundamental piece in the logic of Biblical Christianity. We've all sinned and rightfully deserve God's wrath and we desperately need a Saviour. I suspect the only reason you can declare you are good is because you define what good is, and if you define what good is then you can even declare evil good. Good and evil are meaningless then. I suspect the reason why we like to rig the game is because we're too proud to accept that we need God's mercy in His Son. This section of your post comes across like the rich young ruler in Mark 10.

Thirdly - I think many Christians will agree with you that we can't understand everything about the universe. I've conceded that I can't understand everything about God. That is an altogether different question from what we do with the history of Jesus. The eyewitness accounts we have in the New Testament. What do we make of what He said in history? What do we make for the fact that nobody can account for the bones on the third day? What do we make of someone coming from outside the world itself to tell us about the most important things of all? I can concede quite happily that I don't understand everything in the universe without rejecting the clear evidence that the gospels are not written as fairy stories.

Fourthly - I reject the assumption that educated people who live in "advanced" countries aren't Christians or can't be. I'm university educated and I'm working as a software engineer. Should I logically be an atheist? Of course not. I really don't like this argument as it's based on arrogant willy waving. Jesus is for everyone, the poor and the rich, the uneducated and the scholars and for every race under heaven. My status isn't based on whether or not I'm clever to you, but because of the fact that I'm in Jesus.

Fifthly - I reject the idea that Christianity is based on blind faith. It is based on a rational consideration of the eyewitness accounts we have from the first century. Faith is simply trust. It isn't just a leap into the dark and I blame Soren Kierkegaard for that silly assumption. I also reject the idea that atheism is neutral or rational. I'm not going to accept your assumptions about unbelief. At the end of the day for the Christian it is nothing but a futile rebellion against God. Now, what I can say is I respect your liberty not to believe and I respect you as a person but I don't respect your unbelief and I won't give untruthful privilege to it as being more rational than Christianity because that just isn't true.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

tommy2bad

Good post solodeogloria.

I would quibble with the statement that Christianity doesn't permit the assumption that we are good inherently. I would say christianity is based on the assumption that we are inherently good, all the wretched evil nasty stuff is a corruption that will be redeemed and made good again.

solodeogloria

tommy2bad wrote: »

Good post solodeogloria.

I would quibble with the statement that Christianity doesn't permit the assumption that we are good inherently. I would say christianity is based on the assumption that we are inherently good, all the wretched evil nasty stuff is a corruption that will be redeemed and made good again.

Good afternoon!

I agree that we are righteous in Jesus because of what He has done if we believe! That's the wonderful gospel.

However I don't think we are good on our own account.

I'm Christ-righteous or rather only-by-the-blood-of-Jesus righteous, not self-righteous.

Hope that clarifies things!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

uck51js9zml2yt

tommy2bad wrote: »

Good post solodeogloria.

I would quibble with the statement that Christianity doesn't permit the assumption that we are good inherently. I would say christianity is based on the assumption that we are inherently good, all the wretched evil nasty stuff is a corruption that will be redeemed and made good again.

Quiet the opposite.
The psalmist says that the heart of man is evil from his youth.
There is also reference to getting a new heart through the process of redemption and regenerative.
God says He puts a new heart and a new spirit in us. Born out by the parable of the new wineskin being needed for the new wine.
God doesn't just patch us up, He makes us brand new, hence the reason for the Second Birth.

tommy2bad

Lance Ambitious Taskmaster wrote: »

Quiet the opposite.
The psalmist says that the heart of man is evil from his youth.
There is also reference to getting a new heart through the process of redemption and regenerative.
God says He puts a new heart and a new spirit in us. Born out by the parable of the new wineskin being needed for the new wine.
God doesn't just patch us up, He makes us brand new, hence the reason for the Second Birth.

Not the same thing though,
Genesis 1:31New International Version (NIV)

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

tommy2bad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I agree that we are righteous in Jesus because of what He has done if we believe! That's the wonderful gospel.

However I don't think we are good on our own account.

I'm Christ-righteous or rather only-by-the-blood-of-Jesus righteous, not self-righteous.

Hope that clarifies things!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Our goodness is credited to god but our evil is all our own fault? you can see why this is a hard sell never mind a catch 22 and logically flawed.

uck51js9zml2yt

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not the same thing though,
Genesis 1:31New International Version (NIV)

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

And then came the fall of man and sin and death entered the human experience. The only way out was to send One who had the power to redeem.

solodeogloria

tommy2bad wrote: »

Our goodness is credited to god but our evil is all our own fault? you can see why this is a hard sell never mind a catch 22 and logically flawed.

Good afternoon!

It's a bloody hard sell. But I'm not selling anything. I'm simply presenting the Biblical position. I don't make people believe. Only God can.

I don't think it is a catch 22 to say that we have sinned and have fallen short of God's glory.

Can humans do some things which are good? Yes. However we are broadly speaking still guilty of sin before God. In that sense we simply aren't good. We need Jesus and His rescue.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I agree that we are righteous in Jesus because of what He has done if we believe! That's the wonderful gospel.

However I don't think we are good on our own account.

I'm Christ-righteous or rather only-by-the-blood-of-Jesus righteous, not self-righteous.

Hope that clarifies things!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

So do you believe in original sin, that every person born is born evil and only through Christ can they be saved?

So what of the large amount of people throughout time that have not believed in Christ. They may have no belief at all, or simply be borne into a different belief system (Hindu, Muslim etc). Do you believe that these people are destined to hell?

tommy2bad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It's a bloody hard sell. But I'm not selling anything. I'm simply presenting the Biblical position. I don't make people believe. Only God can.

I don't think it is a catch 22 to say that we have sinned and have fallen short of God's glory.

Can humans do some things which are good? Yes. However we are broadly speaking still guilty of sin before God. In that sense we simply aren't good. We need Jesus and His rescue.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Broadly speaking but this is an important distinction, we are redeemed, forgiven and welcome in the kingdom of God, all we have to do is accept that.
I dont think it helps if we have to give God credit for everything good thing we do while taking the blame for all the bad. That sounds like an abusive relationship. The classic " now look what you made me do? " excuse of every bully ever.
We celebrate the gospel, we rejoice in our salvation we sing alleluia!

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

So do you believe in original sin, that every person born is born evil and only through Christ can they be saved?

So what of the large amount of people throughout time that have not believed in Christ. They may have no belief at all, or simply be borne into a different belief system (Hindu, Muslim etc). Do you believe that these people are destined to hell?

Good evening!

This is my last post for the day.

I believe in sin in general. We are guilty of the sin we commit on a daily basis. I also believe that humanity is guilty and inclined towards sin by the fall and that this is because of Adam (Romans 5:12). So yes, I do believe in original sin but original sin isn't what I'm talking about when I say we sin. We actively rebel against God daily in our actions and in our words. That's what we need saving from. God's righteous wrath at our sin. That's why Jesus was crucified.

It isn't my place to say who will or who won't be saved. That is God's job.

The Bible says what we need to believe in Jesus and His saving death and resurrection for us to stand justified in the last day (Romans 5:8-9). If we didn't need salvation through Jesus, He simply wouldn't have been crucified.

Do you notice that I keep referencing the book of Romans? It would be very helpful to you if you read it through.

tommy2bad, what do these verses mean?

Ephesians 2:8-10 ESVUK wrote:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria