did Jesus go to Jerusalem intending to die?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:48:18 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  did Jesus go to Jerusalem intending to die?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: did Jesus go to Jerusalem intending to die?
#1
yes
 
#2
yes, and it's impossible to be a Christian without believing so
 
#3
no
 
#4
other (explain)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 31

Author Topic: did Jesus go to Jerusalem intending to die?  (Read 3974 times)
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2015, 02:20:06 PM »

I'm not arguing that the resurrected Jesus was composed of spirit. What I'm arguing (or, more accurately, what I believe that Paul was arguing) is that the punishment for living in the flesh is death (which Jesus suffered, as he was spirit made flesh), but the reward for living in the spirit is life that overcomes death (as Jesus proved with his resurrection). You could argue that references to "the flesh" and "the spirit" are metaphorical, but it seems to me that the only reason that you would is if you were attempting to reconcile an attachment to mainstream Christianity with an aversion to dualism.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2015, 03:22:16 PM »

If Jesus is God, then to conform to the Christian view of God would be to know all and to be perfect.

do you not make a distinction between Jesus of Nazareth the historical person and Jesus the risen Christ?

This is the Religion board, not the History board. As such, I assumed you asked this question in a religious context, not a historical context. Aside from that, I'm not sure what to say to your question. Are you implying one should make a significant distinction between Jesus before and after His death? If so, on what basis?

the Gospels (save Mark) and Acts 1 note the significant difference between his 'Resurrection body' and a normal human body.  I believe in John he's able to cross through walls and whatnot.

And pre-resurrection he walked on water.

ok.  what's your point, that the pre-Paschal Jesus performed miracles (too)?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2015, 11:28:57 PM »

You could argue that references to "the flesh" and "the spirit" are metaphorical, but it seems to me that the only reason that you would is if you were attempting to reconcile an attachment to mainstream Christianity with an aversion to dualism.
Adoptionism is hardly mainstream Christianity.  Nor do I see "death" as something that happens only to the flesh.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2015, 09:39:15 AM »
« Edited: May 28, 2015, 10:11:15 AM by Mopsus »

Adoptionism is hardly mainstream Christianity.

No, but I was under the impression that you were defending Pauline Christianity (specifically, from my accusation that it - and thus, mainstream Christianity - merely takes its dualism to a less extreme conclusion than Gnosticism does).
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2015, 04:58:05 PM »

The impression I get from reading Paul is that he uses pneuma-sarx to frame his argument in a form easily digestible by his Greek speaking audience. Had he been writing in Chinese instead I think he'd have used yin-yang for the same purposes, tho it would be just as wrong to overidentify his views as aligning with a strict interpretation of Daoist philosophy. Paul is not Mani, nor is he a Gnostic. I'll grant that many Christians do take a strongly dualistic view of Paul's writings, but I don't agree. It's a mistake to read into Paul concepts that weren't fully developed until after him.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2015, 07:30:29 AM »

The impression I get from reading Paul is that he uses pneuma-sarx to frame his argument in a form easily digestible by his Greek speaking audience. Had he been writing in Chinese instead I think he'd have used yin-yang for the same purposes, tho it would be just as wrong to overidentify his views as aligning with a strict interpretation of Daoist philosophy. Paul is not Mani, nor is he a Gnostic. I'll grant that many Christians do take a strongly dualistic view of Paul's writings, but I don't agree. It's a mistake to read into Paul concepts that weren't fully developed until after him.

Don't these two sentences contradict one another?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 29, 2015, 08:42:57 AM »

No. I said fully developed. My point is not that Paul wasn't making use of spirit-flesh imagery, for he clearly was, but that he wasn't using the Gnostic correspondence of spirit-flesh to good-evil. Rather, he was corresponding spirit-flesh to divine-human. I suppose that if you hold to "total depravity" it might seem like a distinction without a difference. Reading Gnostic ideals into Paul makes about as much sense as reading Methodist theology into the writings of Luther, even tho both Luther and Wesley share Protestant views.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2015, 11:30:56 AM »
« Edited: May 29, 2015, 11:35:50 AM by Mopsus »

...it might seem like a distinction without a difference.

It does. I mean, why would Paul set up a dichotomy between flesh and spirit (or man and the divine) unless he thought that the interests of the two were in conflict? For instance, Paul explained his abandonment of Mosaic Law by writing that said Law was binding on those who lived in the flesh, and so was inapplicable to those who were dead to the flesh and alive in the spirit. Even if we were to read "the flesh" as "the way of man" and "the spirit" as "the way of God", that wouldn't change the fact that Paul belonged to a type of dualism that any Gnostic could appreciate.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 29, 2015, 12:27:59 PM »

I think an honest Gnostic would think that Paul was on the right track but that he hadn't gone far enough. A mistaken Gnostic might interpret Paul as being in full agreement with emself. As for abandonment of the Mosaic Law, I suggest you reread Romans 7, especially verses 7 and 14. What Paul rejected was not the Law itself, but seeking after the Law as an end unto itself rather than as a tool given to Israel as a help unto finding the Way. Incidentally, I think that in much the same way as the Law had become a stumbling block for many to the Way in Paul's time, and the Nehushtan had in the time of Hezekiah, the person of Jesus has become a stumbling block to many today. Many praise Jesus as "Lord, Lord" even as they refuse to travel the Way he came here to help us all tread.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2015, 12:48:22 PM »

I think an honest Gnostic would think that Paul was on the right track but that he hadn't gone far enough.

Which has been my contention all along.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet...

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

These verses (and the verses that follow) make it clear how Paul saw the Law: As something that was intended to guard the faithful from sin until Christ was revealed. Now that that has happened, the Law has been outmoded.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 29, 2015, 01:00:24 PM »

Is the Law truly outmoded, or does it retain usefulness to those who have not yet obtained faith? Paul never does squarely address that point as his epistles are all addressed to those who already have faith.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 29, 2015, 02:43:43 PM »

I'm under the impression that Paul saw the Law itself as inherently just, but because of human shortcomings, he thought that it was destined to yield unsatisfactory results. Therefore, the best thing that a person could do would be to accept salvation though Jesus Christ, but as long as there are people who live in the flesh, they ought to be faithful to the Law.

Potentially relevant verses:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2015, 01:49:06 AM »

I found this 1976 quote from thorn-in-the-side Catholic theologian Hans Kung that seems to point to "no", and thus against theological orthodoxy:

Jesus did not look for suffering, it was forced on him.  Anyone who indulges in self-torture, plainly longing for pain and suffering or even inflicting these on himself, is not truly following the Cross of Jesus.

...perhaps a slight swing at Lither's self-flaggelation in that second sentence,
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 31, 2015, 06:32:17 AM »

How does that quote point to "no"? The question posed in this thread is did Jesus intend to die, not whether he wanted to die.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 01, 2015, 07:43:43 PM »

Yes, option 2.
Logged
twistory123
Rookie
**
Posts: 43
Peru


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2015, 06:43:38 PM »

of course, was to die in Jerusalem, was already written and he knew what was going to happen in the original Bible says that he accepts to death all that was going to happen
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 12, 2015, 02:30:39 PM »

No (normal Jew).
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.044 seconds with 14 queries.