[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[Plotinus]

Jesus only minds if you listen to Frankie Goes To Hollywood while weightlifting.

I'll get to the other stuff as soon as I can...

 

[Agent327]

Lovely. Although that answer does beg the question.

I'm arguing that either it's not cannibalism because it's actually just bread and wine or it's not cannibalism (or perhaps it's a truly exceptional kind of cannibalism, if you want to splice your definitions like that) because the consumed party is alive and unharmed by the ritual.

Well, if it's not real then there's no issue, is there? That wasn't the question though.

 

[tetley]

My questions for Stump the Theologian.

1). Ananias and Sapphira. Why was what they did so serious? They didn't have to give a dime to the church. But they did--okay, so they got a little bit more for the land than they said--and so they DIED??

2) Romans 11:19 says the branches were broken off to make room for me. And then Paul goes on to say that is true. Why would there be only so much room on the tree? Does Heaven have a quota or something?

3). James says God cannot be tempted, nor does He tempt. But Jesus was tempted, and He is supposed to be God. Contradiction?

4). Who is Babylon the Great?

 

[timtofly]

My questions for Stump the Theologian.

1). Ananias and Sapphira. Why was what they did so serious? They didn't have to give a dime to the church. But they did--okay, so they got a little bit more for the land than they said--and so they DIED??

2) Romans 11:19 says the branches were broken off to make room for me. And then Paul goes on to say that is true. Why would there be only so much room on the tree? Does Heaven have a quota or something?

3). James says God cannot be tempted, nor does He tempt. But Jesus was tempted, and He is supposed to be God. Contradiction?

4). Who is Babylon the Great?

1). God sees lying as a dead end.

2). God removes dead branches, and puts new ones in. God is limitless, and so is the tree. Sin is a dead branch, and removed.

3). Jesus was tempted as a man, to prove he was not God. The attempt failed, because God cannot be tempted. Jesus faced what every human faces, on God’s behalf. We already see, that the accuser was "testing" God, even in the OT. Humans see no way out of temptation, yet there is. The point is God cannot go against God. God is the only way out of temptation, and it is impossible for God to sin against God.

4). The human world system united against God.

 

[tetley]

I don't think 1) and 2) suffice.

1) Why doesn't EVERYBODY die when they lie, then?

2). Yes, God is allegedly limitless, but the branches were removed to MAKE ROOM for me. And Paul says that is true. Is God limitless, but Heaven is not? Is there a quota? So there wasn't room before, but because the branches were cut off, now there is?

 

[Agent327]

1). God sees lying as a dead end.

How original.

3). Jesus was tempted as a man, to prove he was not God. The attempt failed, because God cannot be tempted. Jesus faced what every human faces, on God’s behalf.

You just said Jesus couldn't be tempted, because he was God. I hope you realize this does not make much sense, when discussing the temptation of Jesus as a man.

 

[Arakhor]

This is Plotinus' thread, but I think that it is generally accepted that (4) probably applies to the Roman emperor Nero, given what was going around the time that the Revelation of St John the Divine was being compiled.

 

[tetley]

but I think that it is generally accepted that (4) probably applies to the Roman emperor Nero,

Not at all. Lots of camps here: the USA, Jerusalem, Rome, the Vatican, literal Babylon, a non-literal allegory for a corrupt system, et. al.. Timtofly's answer most closely fits the latter.

 

[Arakhor]

The USA?? Isn't that manifest destiny spun WAY out of control? (Why not throw in the Empire from Star Wars too?)

 

[tetley]

The USA?? Isn't that manifest destiny spun WAY out of control?

Not unless it's a different manifest destiny we are talking about. The end fate of Babylon the Great is not a good one.

 

[Arakhor]

Not much worse than anyone who wasn't in the 144,000, as I recall.

 

[tetley]

Not much worse than anyone who wasn't in the 144,000, as I recall.

Not really true. Revelation 7, starting with verse 8. In fact, it says John saw people from EVERY nation, and EVERY probably means people from Babylon, too. The fate of Babylon itself is chapter 18.

 

[timtofly]

I don't think 1) and 2) suffice.

1) Why doesn't EVERYBODY die when they lie, then?

2). Yes, God is allegedly limitless, but the branches were removed to MAKE ROOM for me. And Paul says that is true. Is God limitless, but Heaven is not? Is there a quota? So there wasn't room before, but because the branches were cut off, now there is?

1) There would be nobody left on earth.

2). 19 So you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 True, but so what? They were broken off because of their lack of trust. However, you keep your place only because of your trust. So don’t be arrogant.

This was probably the start of the whole we are Jew haters, because they were pulled out, and we got in. That is not what Paul was saying. In fact God gets very choosy according to Paul, and the claim is made that even branches broken off can be replaced. Paul only makes that claim about the Jews though. That would tend to also make people hate the Jews, because they will always be a part of God, no matter what they do, even if God kills them when they lie to God in front of other people. It seems the Jews only get this preferential treatment. If Hitler was actually a Jew..... but I digress. This isn't even a male power dominance driven way of life, because Jews count themselves a Jew through their mother's lineage.

Heaven and God are not a quota system. It is a choice based on what a person wants to do; technically, Jews evidently don't have a choice (according to Paul). Trust God to be the way, or find your own way, which will only get you as far as your own physical observation. The branches were broken off because God removed them, for lack of Trust. New branches are added only based on a Trust in God. Assumingly those outside of Jewish lineage are not chosen by God. They are called/invited, but the choice is up to them.

So no, the broken off branches are like Ananias and Sapphire. They are broken off, but not to make more room and not to be kept from eternal life. They will be added back in later. It is not just about a spiritual pruning. There are secular Jews and even atheistic Jews. It would seem their earthly life is lived but as dead branches. All branches are broken off at the end of their physical life on earth. It technically represents a physically living tree that has dead (spiritual) branches, along with live (spiritual) branches. If a person is dead physically they are removed, because they are no longer part of the living tree. Paul warns those who were grafted in that they could also be broken off at any time. Being part of the tree, does not guarantee your life will not end early. When it comes to eternal life though, it would seem unless you were at one time a part of the tree, all the other trees would be destroyed. Even grafted branches could still be part of the tree and appear dead. So being dead on the tree, does not seem to be a reason to be broken off, nor a reason to be eternally destroyed. Eternal life is dependent on ever being part of the tree.

This would also tend to refute the notion that there was a set amount of souls (quota system) at the beginning of time. When those have all been accounted for one way or the other, human existence would end. It does not make any sense as reproduction is seemingly endless, just like God. The only thing that will stop the process is God, not a quota system. The tree was not the only tree, there were other wild ones, which represent the whole of humanity and their souls. Technically Christianity did not replace Judaism. Nor does the tree represent religions. God only has one tree, and all other trees are wild, regardless of a religious name tag. The tree is a combination of people chosen by God and those people who chose God.

You just said Jesus couldn't be tempted, because he was God. I hope you realize this does not make much sense, when discussing the temptation of Jesus as a man.

If you want to get technical, James said God could not be tempted of evil, in context give into evil. Satan is not the poster child of evil. That was Adam. Satan represents power, and the ability to do a better job than God. What Satan tempted Jesus with was not evil, but life itself free from evil. But, even Satan knew God would not give into that. It was still the temptation of Jesus. If there is a contradiction it would be, Jesus would not even be able to make a choice against himself as God. Yet we see Jesus the human seemingly "question" his mission on earth at the end.

 

[Birdjaguar]

1) There would be nobody left on earth.

2). 19 So you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 True, but so what? They were broken off because of their lack of trust. However, you keep your place only because of your trust. So don’t be arrogant.

This was probably the start of the whole we are Jew haters, because they were pulled out, and we got in. That is not what Paul was saying. In fact God gets very choosy according to Paul, and the claim is made that even branches broken off can be replaced. Paul only makes that claim about the Jews though. That would tend to also make people hate the Jews, because they will always be a part of God, no matter what they do, even if God kills them when they lie to God in front of other people. It seems the Jews only get this preferential treatment. If Hitler was actually a Jew..... but I digress. This isn't even a male power dominance driven way of life, because Jews count themselves a Jew through their mother's lineage.

Heaven and God are not a quota system. It is a choice based on what a person wants to do; technically, Jews evidently don't have a choice (according to Paul). Trust God to be the way, or find your own way, which will only get you as far as your own physical observation. The branches were broken off because God removed them, for lack of Trust. New branches are added only based on a Trust in God. Assumingly those outside of Jewish lineage are not chosen by God. They are called/invited, but the choice is up to them.

So no, the broken off branches are like Ananias and Sapphire. They are broken off, but not to make more room and not to be kept from eternal life. They will be added back in later. It is not just about a spiritual pruning. There are secular Jews and even atheistic Jews. It would seem their earthly life is lived but as dead branches. All branches are broken off at the end of their physical life on earth. It technically represents a physically living tree that has dead (spiritual) branches, along with live (spiritual) branches. If a person is dead physically they are removed, because they are no longer part of the living tree. Paul warns those who were grafted in that they could also be broken off at any time. Being part of the tree, does not guarantee your life will not end early. When it comes to eternal life though, it would seem unless you were at one time a part of the tree, all the other trees would be destroyed. Even grafted branches could still be part of the tree and appear dead. So being dead on the tree, does not seem to be a reason to be broken off, nor a reason to be eternally destroyed. Eternal life is dependent on ever being part of the tree.

This would also tend to refute the notion that there was a set amount of souls (quota system) at the beginning of time. When those have all been accounted for one way or the other, human existence would end. It does not make any sense as reproduction is seemingly endless, just like God. The only thing that will stop the process is God, not a quota system. The tree was not the only tree, there were other wild ones, which represent the whole of humanity and their souls. Technically Christianity did not replace Judaism. Nor does the tree represent religions. God only has one tree, and all other trees are wild, regardless of a religious name tag. The tree is a combination of people chosen by God and those people who chose God.



If you want to get technical, James said God could not be tempted of evil, in context give into evil. Satan is not the poster child of evil. That was Adam. Satan represents power, and the ability to do a better job than God. What Satan tempted Jesus with was not evil, but life itself free from evil. But, even Satan knew God would not give into that. It was still the temptation of Jesus. If there is a contradiction it would be, Jesus would not even be able to make a choice against himself as God. Yet we see Jesus the human seemingly "question" his mission on earth at the end.

How do you reconcile your interpretation of Romans with 1 Corinthians 15: 20-28? ? There it says all will be saved.

 

[Perfection]

An important element in theology seems to be a sense of awe. What (if anything) gives you a sense of awe?

 

[Bkeela]

Why did God bother to create individuals when he desires everyone to rigidly obey his commandments or else be absorbed into the likeness of Christ?

Wasn't Nietzsche right in despising Christianity for it being a crutch for the powerless (adherents appealing to their Big Daddy in the sky to sooth their angst) and actually impeding our means of self discovery and fulfillment of potential? Pursuing selfhood seems to be the cardinal sin in the Abrahamic religions - Adam wanting to go his own way was the great sin. So why did God bother with this fiasco of Creation if all he wanted was obedient to death clones of his eternal son, and not individuals who sought their own way?

 

[timtofly]

An important element in theology seems to be a sense of awe. What (if anything) gives you a sense of awe?

Personally all of Creation.

How do you reconcile your interpretation of Romans with 1 Corinthians 15: 20-28? ? There it says all will be saved.

The verse does not say "saved". In Christ all "will be made alive". There is no annihilation. The last thing that was defeated was Death. This verse is not talking about separation from God for eternity. This verse is talking about being reconnected with God. All have been re-connected with God, but all do not have to accept that connection. God still reserves the right to fix a humans mind, where they never will be "saved". They will have an eternity of separation though. That is the second death. Humans still do not have access to an eternal physical form. That is the first death, that happened as a result of Adam's choice. That is the limited life span that humans have. That death was what Christ changed. Even that death will be subjected to the final death and eternal separation from God. Issues arise when the attributes of one death are confused with the attributes of the other death. Revelation 20:6 explains that those who are resurrected in Christ are not affected by the Second death. Even though all humans are made alive by the death of Christ, it does not mean that all humans are forced against their will to opt out of the second death.

Why did God bother to create individuals when he desires everyone to rigidly obey his commandments or else be absorbed into the likeness of Christ?

Wasn't Nietzsche right in despising Christianity for it being a crutch for the powerless (adherents appealing to their Big Daddy in the sky to sooth their angst) and actually impeding our means of self discovery and fulfillment of potential? Pursuing selfhood seems to be the cardinal sin in the Abrahamic religions - Adam wanting to go his own way was the great sin. So why did God bother with this fiasco of Creation if all he wanted was obedient to death clones of his eternal son, and not individuals who sought their own way?

I am not sure why you think that God is not capable of both creation and desire. Rigidly obeying commands is part of God's covenant with the chosen people the Jews/Hebrews. As a Jew being absorbed into the likeness of Christ is what one would call the full experience. It is not an "or" situation. One can be strict in obeying the Law, and still enjoy the Grace of Christ. Neither would accepting the Grace of Christ be a means to break the law and live in disobedience. But neither Grace or the Law prevent humans from being as moral or even as immoral as they so choose to be. God claimed a willingness to not let all humans suffer, not that that there is a willingness that all be in bondage or servitude. God did not force Adam to place the humans under a condition of servitude. Satan claimed that God would loose out if humans were allowed their freedom of choice. While the punishment involved not being subjected to the Glory and as some claim the Worship of God, it is the freedom from being forced into that condition, that God allowed humans through Adam to experience.

The command to serve only God, and worship God was not a command to all of humanity. The Jews hardly have a choice as they as a group are bound by a covenant, but even a covenant can be broken on an individual basis. If one holds that the New Testament was a covenant with the rest of mankind, it was not. It was for all of mankind. But it is a covenant of choice, not one that was part of the birthright of every Hebrew/Jew. The Jews have two covenants. One by birth, and the other by choice.

Disobeying God is and always has been the cardinal sin, but each individual has one command from God that is the cardinal sin for them. What Adam did was hardly "pursuing selfhood". Adam already had a life and an identity and was complete. The act was an outward disobeying of a simple command. There was no "need" to disobey God. All of mankind are free to do their own thing as long as they are alive in this physical form.

Nietzsche was hardly the only one to despise the Religion that is known as Christianity. It was Constantine's desire to turn it into a kingdom on earth to help keep humans under a subjugation that was not intended by the Act of Christ. Humans subjugating other humans hardly needs an "unknown" deity, but since religion works on a deeper level than the normal rule of governance, it is a better control mechanism. To apply Nietzsche's despite to the first humans who were called Christian would not make sense as they all knew that this life was fleeting, and that there was an eternal life, and even rewards for those who suffered the most in this life. People were even martyrs, giving up even nice things in life for their beliefs. I suppose that yes; giving up a pursuit of earthly goals would be acts of unselfishness, but the natural part of being human is the pursuit of everything that relates to the physical universe. It was that way even before Adam disobeyed. The Garden was not a prison. It does not seem that even though the other humans/sons of God knew what good and evil was that the earth was actually experiencing evil. The knowledge was there, but the reality of such knowledge was not necessarily being experienced. It would not seem that Adam himself felt pressured to experience this "forbidden fruit". If there was a choice between God and the spouse, it seemed that Adam went with the spouse, but that hardly should be an excuse to blame the spouse, yet that is what happened. Humans still blame those whom they think are weaker in decision making. That hardly should give those in authority a reason to subjugate others, or even get away with immoral acts themselves.

 

[tetley]

How do you reconcile your interpretation of Romans with 1 Corinthians 15: 20-28? ? There it says all will be saved.

Romans 11:26 says in this way, all Israel shall be saved. In what way? Well...that would be in the first 25 verses. Branches are grafted in--and broken off. Verses 4 and 5 show that God saved 7,000 as a remnant of Israel. But most of Israel got pruned off--particularly in this case, the Israel trying to slay the prophets. That's because, in God's book, they never were Israel. That was by their own free will, and they had to go. How much more cursed it is to be on the tree and pruned off, than never to have been on the tree to begin with.

 

[timtofly]

Romans 11:26 says in this way, all Israel shall be saved. In what way? Well...that would be in the first 25 verses. Branches are grafted in--and broken off. Verses 4 and 5 show that God saved 7,000 as a remnant of Israel. But most of Israel got pruned off--particularly in this case, the Israel trying to slay the prophets. That's because, in God's book, they never were Israel. That was by their own free will, and they had to go. How much more cursed it is to be on the tree and pruned off, than never to have been on the tree to begin with.

The Jews were always the natural branches. They may have been cut off, but in nature a cut off branch is rarely replaced in the same tree. That would seem to indicate a human died and was brought back to life again. That is why the concept of eternal security is hard to reconcile. A dead branch is dead whether it is on the tree or cut from the tree. The issue is not leaving, but being able to be part of the tree at all. A curse is really only good in this life though. A dead branch is not a dead person. Paul also claimed that a choice was final. If a branch that is grafted in dies, that is a person changing their mind about being a part of the tree. Their life may be cursed as just being a dead branch. Being cursed seems to be they are divided in their thinking and probably not happy no matter how much they do to please the flesh. The question is if a branch is never part of the tree but grafted in and dies, did it ever fully become a part of the tree? There are wolves in sheep's clothing. There are seeds sown in stony ground, and other places where they spring up, but then wither away. Only God knows if a person is part of the process completely or just going through the motions. A Grafted in branch that is dead and cursed may be ok, because they are not of a double mind. A natural branch that is dead and cursed is of a double mind, and the curse will make them miserable. Having a free choice in the matter is not God grafting you in, it is you yourself grafting into the tree on your own volition, through the power of God. God calls, but does not make the choice.

Paul seems to indicate that once a part of the tree one can never change that. They can be dead on the tree, thus living a cursed miserable life. The tree represents actual physical life, that is why whenever a branch is broken off, it does not signify a quota or an available opening, like an actual physical olive tree would represent. A branch that has fallen off signifies the end of that person's physical life on earth. Sure the tree could keep getting bigger and bigger and fuller and fuller, but that would not be the same as an actual olive tree either. The part about being grafted back in was a future reference. It may be claimed as God once again establishing Israel as a Nation used by God, just as Christians have been in the personal sense, not the religion of Christianity, used by God. But it is going to happen in a day, just like it happened at the time of Moses where the nation as a whole was given the covenant. The process is not as complicated as humans may want to make it out to be. Now if you want to say that the Olive tree is no longer producing the Jewish people, and the church is only the natural branches, that is probably a false teaching.

There is a theology being taught today that the church replaced the Jews. I am not sure that is something to teach, because Paul said it is just as easy to replace the church and put Israel back in as it was to take away Israel as a Nation. Theologically that is a logical teaching, but not a very smart one. Better it is to have never been part of the tree, than a replacement that has been replaced. It is true that the Jews lost their nation and ability to rule other nations, although even through all that, they have still had a tremendous influence on the world. For those of you who hold that God uses evolution, the evolution of the Jewish state over the last half century may back you up. God says they will be "saved" in a day. I suppose some can view that as a failure on God's part, but perhaps the process is still just the desires of humans, and we have not yet seen God at work as was promised.

 

[Agent327]

If you want to get technical, James said God could not be tempted of evil, in context give into evil. Satan is not the poster child of evil. That was Adam. Satan represents power, and the ability to do a better job than God. What Satan tempted Jesus with was not evil, but life itself free from evil. But, even Satan knew God would not give into that. It was still the temptation of Jesus. If there is a contradiction it would be, Jesus would not even be able to make a choice against himself as God. Yet we see Jesus the human seemingly "question" his mission on earth at the end.

No, I don't want to get technical. If Jesus = God during the so-called temptation, then, by the definition of God being impossible to tempt, there was no temptation. (And I'm not quite sure what "Jesus would not even be able to make a choice against himself as God" means.)

There is a theology being taught today that the church replaced the Jews. I am not sure that is something to teach, because Paul said it is just as easy to replace the church and put Israel back in as it was to take away Israel as a Nation. Theologically that is a logical teaching, but not a very smart one. Better it is to have never been part of the tree, than a replacement that has been replaced. It is true that the Jews lost their nation and ability to rule other nations, although even through all that, they have still had a tremendous influence on the world. For those of you who hold that God uses evolution, the evolution of the Jewish state over the last half century may back you up.

Not to worry, God doesn't use evolution: evolution works quite well on its own. (Not that that has anything to do with the current state of Israel.) I don't know of any "theology being taught today that the church replaced the Jews". Nor is it a "theologically logical teaching; something is either logical or a theological teaching. In this case, I'd say neither applies..