General Discussion

Choose Your Own Topic

Read 179 times

noncontingent

  • **
  • 538 Posts
    • View Profile
My understanding of the ransom
« on: September 24, 2020, 09:06:55 am »
Adam was perfect until he sinned, once he sinned he lost the right to the perfect life in him and death was the consequence for him as well as his progeny as he did not have the right to pass on perfect life, it was an undeserved kindness that allowed him to live as long as he did and an undeserved kindness that he was allowed to have offspring.

Until God sent his son, man dreamed of a redeemer, but who or what could redeem what Adam lost? No human on earth had the price as these all inherited a fatal debt, no matter how righteous their lives might have been lived.

According to scripture, Jesus as the word in preexisting form was the only being created directly by God and through whom all other things were created. When he was conceived as a human, his perfect life came directly from God, so he was perfect, like Adam was before his deflection. As such he had the right to everlasting life (unless he sinned, which he didn't in word, or deed).

Satan in the book of Job challenged man's integrity as exemplified by Job and his sufferings and by suggestion, God himself in the implication that God created a defective world with defective creatures and moreover the very idea of free will is a failure. Under test all fail.

Certainly all fail, not only after the Adam, but eventually throughout one's existence. These failures Satan argues as God's failures, failures in construction and failures all around. God is himself flawed, from Satan's standpoint and so is his creation.

What could end these charges against God and his rulership and rescue mankind? One might have argued that the word, the son in prehuman form screwed up when he created Adam, and it was his fault for innovating in some small way, however if the word, the son himself is put to the test it's game over for Satan .

The word, the son in prehuman form gave up his heavenly existence to go on a mission. Full trust in his father was required. He would have no memory of his prehuman existence until his baptism at the Jordan river, only his internal sense of his difference from those around him growing up, the stories from his mother and his stepfather Joseph and the scriptures taught to him at home. After his baptism he went into the wilderness for 40 days and was tempted in all manners and passed these tests. Then we have Jesus always and everywhere fulfilling all the scriptures about the messiah, some known, others not known about until his death and subsequent resurrection.

Jesus as the second Adam had the right to a perfect human life. He gave up that perfect life as a human on behalf of all mankind those living and those dead. He proved Satan to be the gross liar that he is.

He used the value of his ransom, his perfect human life to purchase the lives of those living and dead and those who will die eventually as a result of this inherited sin.

The good news of the government that replaces all governments, namely God's Kingdom w/Jesus as his King w/dominion over the earth has dominion now w/those who accept his rulership, but in the future, there will be a finish, when God decides the time has come to end all the rest of these imperfect subsidiary dominions in opposition to this kingdom.

This kingom, by Jesus will rule until God has placed all enemies under his feet until the last enemy - death is done away with.

"24Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For “God has put everything under His feet.”b Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him. 28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all. " 1 Cor. 15:24-28

1

Lucian

  • ***
  • 2587 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2020, 09:23:21 am »

Until God sent his son, man dreamed of a redeemer, but who or what could redeem what Adam lost?

I'm not so sure he did.

2

ArtD

  • ***
  • 3414 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Science as Natural Theology
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2020, 10:18:33 am »
"Adam was perfect until he sinned"
Then he wasn't perfect, was he?
ScienceAsNaturalTheology.org

3

wonderer

  • *****
  • 14999 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2020, 10:20:22 am »
"Adam was perfect until he sinned"
Then he wasn't perfect, was he?

Clearly Adam sinned perfectly.
"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger

4

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4589 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2020, 10:27:34 am »
These failures Satan argues as God's failures, failures in construction and failures all around. God is himself flawed, from Satan's standpoint and so is his creation
If Satan exists and if Satan is part of God's creation, then Satan has a point.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

5
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2020, 10:49:18 am »
Your perspective seems internally coherent and scripturally defensible, except for the part where you say that Jesus as the preexistent word was created by God. Where’s the scriptural support for that?

Also not sure about if Jesus knew of who He was before His baptism; the Gospels are vague enough about that that I suppose you could justifiably believe either way.
"Early morning, April fourth,
Shot rings out in the Memphis sky.
Free at last, they took your life.
They could not take your pride."

6

noncontingent

  • **
  • 538 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2020, 11:03:47 am »
Your perspective seems internally coherent and scripturally defensible, except for the part where you say that Jesus as the preexistent word was created by God. Where’s the scriptural support for that?

Also not sure about if Jesus knew of who He was before His baptism; the Gospels are vague enough about that that I suppose you could justifiably believe either way.

Many scriptures point to this. His existence on earth, his prayers to his father. His submission to God to death on the cross. You know, "let not my will, but yours take place". Colossians speak of him as being the image of the invisible God (we too are made in Gods image), the firstborn of all creation. God resurrected him from the dead. On and on. Jesus was before in heaven a separate creation, but had a special relationship like no other and even though it's not definitive, I believe the personification of wisdom in proverbs is also speaking of Jesus in his prehuman existence as elohim, or God, but not the almighty God, but the master worker, God's son through whom all other things were created.

Now we see him exalted by God to his right hand awaiting God to give him the go ahead to go and complete the conquest.


7
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2020, 11:51:58 am »
Your perspective seems internally coherent and scripturally defensible, except for the part where you say that Jesus as the preexistent word was created by God. Where’s the scriptural support for that?

Also not sure about if Jesus knew of who He was before His baptism; the Gospels are vague enough about that that I suppose you could justifiably believe either way.

Many scriptures point to this. His existence on earth, his prayers to his father. His submission to God to death on the cross. You know, "let not my will, but yours take place". Colossians speak of him as being the image of the invisible God (we too are made in Gods image), the firstborn of all creation. God resurrected him from the dead. On and on. Jesus was before in heaven a separate creation, but had a special relationship like no other and even though it's not definitive, I believe the personification of wisdom in proverbs is also speaking of Jesus in his prehuman existence as elohim, or God, but not the almighty God, but the master worker, God's son through whom all other things were created.

Now we see him exalted by God to his right hand awaiting God to give him the go ahead to go and complete the conquest.

Most of what you just said is evidence that Jesus was a separate Person from the Father (in the Trinitarian sense), but not specifically evidence that he was created by the Father.

Consider that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit could all have existed from eternity past -- no Person created the other Persons -- but they order themselves in subservient roles, so the Spirit answers to the Son and the Son answers to the Father.

You might be right that the Colossians verse about "Image of the Invisible God" is evidence for Jesus being a creation of God -- I'll have to look into that some more to be sure.

I've heard about the connection between Wisdom in Proverbs and Logos in John, there might be a connection in there, or John may be using an unrelated concept from the Old Testament to explain his view of Christ.

Some people say that if you don't believe Jesus was God (in the Trinitarian sense), then you aren't a real Christian, since Christians are required to acknowledge Jesus as God; but the Bible actually says they have to acknowledge Jesus as "Lord" (master and leader), which you seem to be doing, so I don't think your position makes you non-Christian, although it's certainly unorthodox.
"Early morning, April fourth,
Shot rings out in the Memphis sky.
Free at last, they took your life.
They could not take your pride."

8

noncontingent

  • **
  • 538 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2020, 12:27:58 pm »
I'd suggest that it's possible what you say, but I'm disinclined to believe it because the language of Father and Son has the natural sense of one existing before the other.

It also makes little sense to me in terms of the ransom. In my view God put it all on the line by allowing his son to go on this dangerous mission and in so doing demonstrated that Satan was really the gross liar that he became and that Adam could have stood fast. God really did risk losing his son and the son really risked losing his father. We accept Jesus and he becomes to us the second Adam by way of adoption and have the hope of eternal life.

All the promises God made have been made yes, by Jesus.

My view of the resurrection is likewise different from many. I see the kingdom by Christ Jesus as a government pro-tem which acts for 1000 years (if that's not symbolic) and that post armageddon the dead are raised to a judgment period where they get to learn or reject God's government. There won't be any Satanic or demonic influence as these are abyssed. There won't be any more disease. During this time the mental and physical effects of imperfection are removed. We are all regardless of where we were in time, on probation as it were. Once brought to a state of completion (as Adam was post creation/education) we are allowed to be tested. Revelation says Satan is loosed from his prison to mislead the world. If they side w/Satan and against God at that time, they suffer the second death from which there is no resurrection, only nonexistence.

Will it be heaven on earth or earth in heaven or will the two entwine in some manner? It's not clear, but the idea of New Jerusalem coming down and it's description suggests there will be a place of meeting between the physical realms and the spiritual realms. What will be the next project? What will mankind become? Who really knows? I know I'd like to be there to find out.


9
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2020, 08:04:31 pm »
@ noncontingent:

Interesting stuff. I'm sure you've heard these kinds of arguments before, but I'd like to know how you respond to them. (https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Jesus-created.html)
Here's three specific things that seem to imply that the Son was pre-existent with the Father, not created:
1. Jesus forgave sins and received worship, two things which only God can do, and not a created being. (Consider that even lower Elohim such as angels are portrayed in Scripture as rejecting worship, telling mortals who try to worship them to "Worship God alone.")
2. Colossians 2:9 says, "In him all the fullness of the deity dwells bodily."
3. The opening paragraphs of John perfectly summarize the Trinitarian view of Christ:
The pre-existent divine Word was "in the beginning;" the Word was with God, and the Word was God in the beginning; so the Word wasn't created (since it was God) but it's also a distinct Person (since it was with God).

Quote from: noncontingent
I'd suggest that it's possible what you say, but I'm disinclined to believe it because the language of Father and Son has the natural sense of one existing before the other.

Yeah, "father" and "son" usually implies that the son came after the father; but I don't think we're supposed to take the terms that literally when we apply them to God. God the Father doesn't really have a gender, and didn't really impregnate a female to give birth to the Son. I think that demonstrates that "Father" and "Son" are figurative, representing the Father and Son's position and status rather than the idea that one existed before the other.

Quote from: noncontingent
It also makes little sense to me in terms of the ransom. In my view God put it all on the line by allowing his son to go on this dangerous mission and in so doing demonstrated that Satan was really the gross liar that he became and that Adam could have stood fast. God really did risk losing his son and the son really risked losing his father. We accept Jesus and he becomes to us the second Adam by way of adoption and have the hope of eternal life.

I agree that your view of the atonement has some unique aspects to it that my view lacks (such as the idea that there was a real possibility of failure for Jesus), but that doesn't automatically mean your view is correct.
On the other hand, some of the explicitly Trinitarian views of the atonement have advantages over yours. How's this? "Humanity was unable to save themselves and match up to God Almighty's standards of perfection, so the Almighty Himself came to earth in His mercy and sacrifice to pay the price that no created being could ever pay."
(I don't want to pretend like that's the only proper way to understand the atonement; there are plenty of good ways to understand it from different perspectives.)

I'm skipping over responding to your view of the end times, since I don't care too much about the end times one way or the other and haven't formed any strong opinions. I guess I'll find out when it happens lol.

Quote from: noncontingent
Will it be heaven on earth or earth in heaven or will the two entwine in some manner? It's not clear, but the idea of New Jerusalem coming down and it's description suggests there will be a place of meeting between the physical realms and the spiritual realms. What will be the next project? What will mankind become? Who really knows? I know I'd like to be there to find out.

Yeah, me too.
"Early morning, April fourth,
Shot rings out in the Memphis sky.
Free at last, they took your life.
They could not take your pride."

10

noncontingent

  • **
  • 538 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2020, 08:58:04 pm »
On those points, it's easy to explain.

1. Jesus forgave sins and received worship, two things which only God can do, and not a created being. (Consider that even lower Elohim such as angels are portrayed in Scripture as rejecting worship, telling mortals who try to worship them to "Worship God alone.")

Jesus gets "worshipped", but which words are used and in what context?

https://eschaton.org/Worship/3-Greek-Words-for-Worship.pdf

Jesus was empowered to forgive sins. How? (see Col. 1:19)

2. Colossians 2:9 says, "In him all the fullness of the deity dwells bodily."

(Col 1:19) Thus, all fullness dwells in Christ because it "pleased the Father" (KJ, Dy), because it was "by God's own choice." (NE) So the fullness of "divinity" that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father. Further showing that having such "fullness" does not make Christ the same person as Almighty God is the fact that Paul later speaks of Christ as being "seated at the right hand of God."-Col 3:1.

3. The opening paragraphs of John perfectly summarize the Trinitarian view of Christ:
The pre-existent divine Word was "in the beginning;" the Word was with God, and the Word was God in the beginning; so the Word wasn't created (since it was God) but it's also a distinct Person (since it was with God).

Jesus is God, however people use this one scripture and exclude all the other scriptures which ought to modify ones understanding about what sort of God Jesus is. Is it a shell game where an adjective is used as a noun of identity? Mike Heiser makes this point w.regard to elohim. The bible uses "God" multiple times as I previously mentioned. Some times it's God almighty, sometimes its a spirit, sometimes a demon. Elohim is a type of life. A spirit form of life. Jesus as the word was with god and was elohim. Nothing wrong with this.

"On the other hand, some of the explicitly Trinitarian views of the atonement have advantages over yours. How's this? "Humanity was unable to save themselves and match up to God Almighty's standards of perfection, so the Almighty Himself came to earth in His mercy and sacrifice to pay the price that no created being could ever pay."

You totally misread me on the atonement, because this is exactly what Jesus did, only it was Jesus as a separate being who in prehuman form took on this mission to pay that price.

It was to be like for like. God is not a like for like. God cannot be tempted. God's will is self-consistent. God has no soliloquys w/himself. God could never fail. In the situation you described, if it were God himself and not his Son as a fully separate being with a fully separate will, it would make a lot less sense.

God could simply have cancelled the debt. In fact the whole ransom has been ridiculed by atheists because of this self-inflicted wound. It's greek philosophy,  the sort of thing that Paul warned about in Colossians.  2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."



It turns the ransom into confusion.

11

noncontingent

  • **
  • 538 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2020, 12:28:44 pm »
I think this should go here....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzuxyq3ltls

12
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2020, 10:41:47 am »
@noncontingent:


Jesus gets "worshipped", but which words are used and in what context?

https://eschaton.org/Worship/3-Greek-Words-for-Worship.pdf

I'm specifically referring to Proskuneo. This is the word used when an angel tells John in Revelation 22, "You must not worship me."

https://biblehub.com/lexicon/revelation/22-8.htm

Thanks for the link, btw, it was very helpful!

Quote from: noncontingent
Jesus was empowered to forgive sins. How? (see Col. 1:19)

I don't think a created being could be empowered to forgive sins, but I'll let it stand.

Quote from: noncontingent

(Col 1:19) Thus, all fullness dwells in Christ because it "pleased the Father" (KJ, Dy), because it was "by God's own choice." (NE) So the fullness of "divinity" that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father. Further showing that having such "fullness" does not make Christ the same person as Almighty God is the fact that Paul later speaks of Christ as being "seated at the right hand of God."-Col 3:1.

You might be right that the correct translation of that verse is "by God's own choice"; I'd have to look that up. However, the last part of this quote isn't a good argument.
How does Christ sitting at the right hand of God invalidate the idea of the Trinity? First of all, it's a metaphor, but even if it wasn't, Trinitarians accept that the Father and the Son are different Persons, but they are of the same nature (or essence), forming One God. Thus there's no contradiction if one Person supports another Person in a hierarchy.
(I might be wrong about this, but that's my understanding)

Quote from: noncontingent

Jesus is God, however people use this one scripture and exclude all the other scriptures which ought to modify ones understanding about what sort of God Jesus is. Is it a shell game where an adjective is used as a noun of identity? Mike Heiser makes this point w.regard to elohim. The bible uses "God" multiple times as I previously mentioned. Some times it's God almighty, sometimes its a spirit, sometimes a demon. Elohim is a type of life. A spirit form of life. Jesus as the word was with god and was elohim. Nothing wrong with this.

Hold on a second -- this is the New Testament we're taking about. It's the word Theos, not Elohim. Even if Elohim is a general term for "Spiritual beings," that doesn't mean Theos works the same way.

Quote from: noncontingent

You totally misread me on the atonement, because this is exactly what Jesus did, only it was Jesus as a separate being who in prehuman form took on this mission to pay that price.

If Jesus was a created being, and not One with God Almighty, he could not pay the debt humanity had accrued against God Almighty. That's something only God Almighty could pay.

Quote from: noncontingent

It was to be like for like. God is not a like for like. God cannot be tempted. God's will is self-consistent. God has no soliloquys w/himself. God could never fail. In the situation you described, if it were God himself and not his Son as a fully separate being with a fully separate will, it would make a lot less sense.


I don't pretend to be an expert on the Trinity. Since the Trinity accepts separate Persons in the Godhead, there's no contradiction in the Son praying for the Father. Since Jesus was human and divine in the incarnation, He was liable for a time to human weaknesses such as temptation.
I agree with you that it makes less sense, but it's the only way to understand the Bible as a whole. It's also been validated by years of tradition, if you care about that sort of thing.

Quote from: noncontingent

God could simply have cancelled the debt. In fact the whole ransom has been ridiculed by atheists because of this self-inflicted wound. It's greek philosophy,  the sort of thing that Paul warned about in Colossians.  2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."


How is the Trinitarian view of the ransom Greek philosophy? Paul could have been talking about anything in that passage, possibly Gnosticism.

As for why God couldn't just cancel the debt, it's because debts have to be paid and absorbed by someone or something. They don't just disappear.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2020, 11:40:21 am by ChristianInvestigator »
"Early morning, April fourth,
Shot rings out in the Memphis sky.
Free at last, they took your life.
They could not take your pride."

13

noncontingent

  • **
  • 538 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2020, 10:58:29 am »
Pretty much any time you get a point for point quoting and refuting, you can be sure you're in the middle of a debate.





14
Re: My understanding of the ransom
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2020, 11:39:50 am »
Pretty much any time you get a point for point quoting and refuting, you can be sure you're in the middle of a debate.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.
"Early morning, April fourth,
Shot rings out in the Memphis sky.
Free at last, they took your life.
They could not take your pride."