What is "The Good News?"

[EBA]

Tell me, what is "The Good News?"

Peace be to all.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 178 by shnarkle]

How is sacrfice "ritualized" today? I suppose one could say that it is in the RCC, in the form of the Eucharist.

The other sense of the word "sacrifice" you are alluding to, are froms of sacrifice that have nothing to do with bloodletting. Offering one's life in service, yes, is metaphorical "sacrifice". But that has nothing to do with blood atonement for the forgiveness of sins.

Again, why would Almighty God, whom Jesus describes as a merciful Father, need blood in order to give himself permission to forgive the contrite?

Spirits do not need blood. And God is Spirit.

I already answered this question. I pointed out that "blood" is a mytonymy for the sacrifice which is a mytonymy for death which is the price one pays for sin. It has nothing to do with the fluid itself. This is simply what people who have no idea what they're talking about are reduced to saying because they don't recognize the figure, nor does it even agree with their theology. The wages of sin isn't blood, it's death.

The communal meal isn't just a Catholic phenomenon either. It is a ritualized meal signifying the sacrifice of self. They then see that Christ is in them and they are in Christ, and this can only happen when they are able to make the same sacrifice of self that Christ makes. Those who would prefer to save their life will lose it. Those who willingly set it aside gain eternal life. They're the ones who see Christ in their neighbor. They're the ones who sit down to a meal with a stranger and see Christ in the stranger's eyes. This is the gospel message.

[jgh7]

I don't reject large chunks of the bible to suit my own interpretation. I don't accuse apostles of being misguided, of inventing their own religions, of lying and misleading others on what Jesus said. Ultimately, I don't accuse them of being false prophets.

Don't misrepresent what I am saying. You and I no doubt disagree, but I do not believe the Apostles wrote any of the Gospels. The actual authors were not eyewitnesses. Most schloars are in agreement on this.

The Apostles didn't mislead us, but the authors of Matthew, Mark Luke and John may well have. And posibly Jesus too, but I doubt this was intentional on Jesus part.

And yes, conventional Christians do reject large chunks of the Bible to suit your Pauline blood theology.

Or else, where is there any mention of any of Jesus actual teachings in the Apostles or the Nicean Creed?

Paul was charged by God with delivering the Message to the Gentiles. You believe he spread a false doctrine and in doing so invented a whole distorted religion of Christianity. You ultimately believe him to be a false prophet. You by your own words are skeptical on teachings throughout the Gospels if they go against your personal belief system, especially the Gospel of John. What sense is there in providing you with scripture if your inevitable response is to ignore it because its contrary to your cherry-picked biblical belief system? It seems pointless.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 178 by shnarkle]

OK, Shnarkle.

You have given me something to think about, regarding the distinction between intenional vs unintentional sin.

Let me see if I have this right.

It seems you are attempting to explain the anti-sacrifice verses by claiming that those passages indicate that God does not want sacrifice in those particular cases simply because the sins in question have not been repented of?

So, then, if the sin is eventually repented of, the contrite should still offer sacrifice? Or in this day and age, affirm Jesus "sacrifice"?

One problem with that. The anti-sacrifice verses don't seem to make that distinction. They are categorical rejections of the notion of blood sacrifice.

"To obey is better than sacrifice" reads a verse from one of the Samuels.

And other qualities, such as thanks and praise, knowledge of God, (knowing God, relationship with Him), repentance, humility and the willingness to forgive others are more desirable to God than blood sacrifice.

And if these Spiritual qualities are more desirable, then doesn't that render blood sacrifice superfluous...at best? If not, why not.

So uninteional sin is covered by sacrfice. Intentional sin needs to be repented of...first and then atoned by blood? What about the verses which indicate that Spiritual qualities such as repentance, love etc are sufficient?

Don't worry, just because some of us discount the necessity of blood for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness, does not mean that we have contempt for what Jesus suffered. His execution can still be viewed a the martyrdom of a beloved Spiritual leader.

Also, what do you think of Maimonodes theory regarding blood sacrifice? I don't think you or other supporters of the institution have addressed that point. Basically, that God only tolerated such practices as transitional.

[Elijah John]

I don't reject large chunks of the bible to suit my own interpretation. I don't accuse apostles of being misguided, of inventing their own religions, of lying and misleading others on what Jesus said. Ultimately, I don't accuse them of being false prophets.

Don't misrepresent what I am saying. You and I no doubt disagree, but I do not believe the Apostles wrote any of the Gospels. The actual authors were not eyewitnesses. Most schloars are in agreement on this.

The Apostles didn't mislead us, but the authors of Matthew, Mark Luke and John may well have. And posibly Jesus too, but I doubt this was intentional on Jesus part.

And yes, conventional Christians do reject large chunks of the Bible to suit your Pauline blood theology.

Or else, where is there any mention of any of Jesus actual teachings in the Apostles or the Nicean Creed?

Paul was charged by God with delivering the Message to the Gentiles. You believe he spread a false doctrine and in doing so invented a whole distorted religion of Christianity. You ultimately believe him to be a false prophet. You by your own words are skeptical on teachings throughout the Gospels if they go against your personal belief system, especially the Gospel of John. What sense is there in providing you with scripture if your inevitable response is to ignore it because its contrary to your cherry-picked biblical belief system? It seems pointless.

Pitting Scripture against Scripture here is part of honorable debate. Speculating on another poster's motives, is not.

But you're right about one thing. As beautiful as some of Paul's writings were, and at times quite wise, I do not consider him a true apostle. And some of the actual apostles had trouble accepting him as well, as one of their own.

My reasons?

-Paul never met Jesus in the flesh.
-Also his errant theology of atonement.
-His adding conditions for salvation, namely the condition of believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. (Jesus never preached this as a condition for salvation). "believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead"...easy for him to say, after all, he believed that he encountered the Risen Christ. Most of us have not been so fortunate.-
-His contempt for the Law as a "curse". This in contrast to the Law being considered life-affirming all thoughout the Hebrew Bible.
-His non-seqitors. "If we could be saved by the Law, then Christ died in vain".."If Christ is not raised form the dead, your faith is in vain, and you are still in your sins"
-Instead of YHVH, Paul, for all intents and purposes, worships "Christ". "Christ" is Paul's God, he only seems to pay lip service to Father YHVH.

In short, Paul took the religion of Jesus, and turned it into the religion about Jesus. Or at least his imaginary Jesus. More charitably put, his "Christ of Faith" the "Risen Christ".

He seems to have little interest in the actual, flesh and blood historical Jesus.

Regarding Pauline Christinaity, I think Thomas Paine said it best. "Instead of God, a man is preached".

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 178 by shnarkle]

OK, Shnarkle.

You have given me something to think about, regarding the distinction between intenional vs unintentional sin.

Let me see if I have this right.

It seems you are attempting to explain the anti-sacrifice verses by claiming that those passages indicate that God does not want sacrifice in those particular cases simply because the sins in question have not been repented of?

That would be one good reason. What point is there in offering a sacrifice when one doesn't care in the first place. It's just for show. It's convenient for some to just toss some money at the priest and have them sacrifice a lamb for them, and go right back to sinning. The other reason is for those sins one commits that are intentionally committed. God obviously doesn't accept that without sincere repentance and restitution.

So, then, if the sin is eventually repented of, the contrite should still offer sacrifice? Or in this day and age, affirm Jesus "sacrifice"?

That's the idea.

One problem with that. The anti-sacrifice verses don't seem to make that distinction. They are categorical rejections of the notion of blood sacrifice.

Which verses? My suspicion is that they're dealing with those who I just mentioned who are simply offering sacrifices without repentance. They don't care. They don't feel bad for what they've done.

"To obey is better than sacrifice" reads a verse from one of the Samuels.

This is a completely different situation altogether. There is the law which is to supposed to be obeyed. This would be ideal. Then there is the situation where the law is violated which is being equated with sacrifice as the means of atonement. Here again, the idea is that it's better to be obedient than to get into a mind set where one expects to sin and offer sacrifice as a loophole. It's like large corporations who are give a slap on the wrist for violating the law. When regulations are lax, it is easier to just pay the fines than to fix the problems. An example would be oil pipelines that are in disrepair. It costs more to have employees inspect them for cracks than it does to just wait for one to rupture and polluted the environment. The fine is less than it would cost to prevent it from cracking in the first place. God would say that it's better to pay the added cost to make sure it doesn't rupture in the first place.

And other qualities, such as thanks and praise, knowledge of God, (knowing God, relationship with Him), repentance, humility and the willingness to forgive others are more desirable to God than blood sacrifice.

Of course. No one is disputing that it's better not to sin in the first place than to sin intentionally or unintentionally.

And if these Spiritual qualities are more desirable, then doesn't that render blood sacrifice superfluous...at best? If not, why not.

They're not superfluous because no one is perfect. Mistakes are going to be made. Accidents happen. The sacrifice shows the gravity of the issue. It is supposed to show that sin is deadly and not to be taken lightly.

So uninteional sin is covered by sacrfice. Intentional sin needs to be repented of...first and then atoned by blood? What about the verses which indicate that Spiritual qualities such as repentance, love etc are sufficient?

What about them? You just pointed out the distinction yourself. What makes you think God isn't referring to the apropriate category? Do you think these people don't know what they're referrring to? If so, why? If you think I don't know what I'm talking about, why would that be? This distinction is fundamental to the law. Why would they ignore it?

Also, what do you think of Maimonodes theory regarding blood sacrifice? I don't think you or other supporters of the institution have addressed that point. Basically, that God only tolerated such practices as transitional.

I'm not a supporter of the institution. I'm simply pointing out some fundamental facts. Obviously the Christian view is that it's transitional as well. Christ's sacrifice does away with the sacrificial system. Maimonodes would also agree that those who are motivated by the love of God to keep the law are in no need of offering sacrifice. This is in the prophetic books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. They both point out that a day will come when God will put a new heart into his people and it is for the express reason of giving them the ability to keep his law. When the law is kept there is no need for sacrifice anymore. No sin=no sacrifice. This is to be preferred.

[otseng]

Evidently you either didn't catch it, or have chosen to igrnore it. Why shouldn't I assume this isn't a pattern for you?

Moderator Comment

Please avoid commenting on another person. If you just left out this part, your post would've been sufficient.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[onewithhim]

Tell me, what is "The Good News?"

Peace be to all.

It's pretty easy to discern, actually, because it was the theme of Jesus' preaching and the thing that he referred to most often in his sermons.....God's Kingdom.

It was the fist thing he told us to pray for, after the sanctification of God's name. "After this manner pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." (Matthew 6:9)


He said, "Also to other cities I must declare the good news of the Kingdom of God, because for this I was sent forth." (Luke 4:43)

"And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations." (Matthew 24:14)



So, it is THE KINGDOM that is the good news. God's own government. It is a real government that will rid the planet of all wickedness, and will guide all people on it into real and lasting peace and security---unlike man-made governments. (See Isaiah 9:6,7 and Daniel 2:44.)

[Checkpoint]

Tell me, what is "The Good News?"

Peace be to all.

It's pretty easy to discern, actually, because it was the theme of Jesus' preaching and the thing that he referred to most often in his sermons.....God's Kingdom.

It was the fist thing he told us to pray for, after the sanctification of God's name. "After this manner pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." (Matthew 6:9)

He said, "Also to other cities I must declare the good news of the Kingdom of God, because for this I was sent forth." (Luke 4:43)

"And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations." (Matthew 24:14)



So, it is THE KINGDOM that is the good news. God's own government. It is a real government that will rid the planet of all wickedness, and will guide all people on it into real and lasting peace and security---unlike man-made governments. (See Isaiah 9:6,7 and Daniel 2:44.)

Very good summary.

But there is so much more to the good news of the kingdom.

God's own government has always been, ruling in the midst of it's enemies.

The good news that Jesus proclaimed was that it was now near, within reach to all who were doing the will of God on earth.

Ever since, the kingdom has been here and now as well as yet future.

Not a government in waiting but a government in acting according to the will of God for this present age in preparation for the age to come.

Not a kingdom operating according to the ways of this world's governments, but one operating to the ways and will of God.

[JehovahsWitness]

God's own government has always been, ruling in the midst of it's enemies.

That is true, it has been ruling in the midst of his enemies since it started ruling in 1914. As we can see Satan has continued to influence the world, human governments have not handed over their powers and yet in the middle of all that the heavenly government has started to operate.

The good news that Jesus proclaimed was that it was now near, within reach to all who were doing the will of God on earth.

So true , of course the Kingdom itself wasn't going to take control of the planet for many thousands of years but when Jesus walked the earth in the first century, as the head or King of that coming the kingdom was right there as represented by Jesus.

[JehovahsWitness]

Ever since, the kingdom has been here...

Well of course that Kingdom goverrnment hasn't yet taken control of the planet and wiped out world hunger, sickness, war and death (we still have war in Syria and countless refugees suffering) but if you mean the HOPE of the kingdom has been here with us, in hour hearts, since Jesus first proclaimed it, that is correct .

... the kingdom has been here and now ...

Yes its is "here and now" if you mean that God's kingdom is presently operating, right here (as in exercising its powers on believers) and now (as in at the present timeà then I can agree. We believe it has been in the "here and now"since 1914.

Ever since, the kingdom has been ... yet future.

Yes, even though Jesus has been ruling since 1914 he has not yet destroyed all governments and replaced them with his own heavenly one. That as you said is indeed an event yet in the future. We refer to that as "the second coming" by that we mean Jesus returning in full kingdom power to jugde all those living.

After that the meek will inherit the earth - Good news indeed!


JW