Good News Of Great Joy. Oh?

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
â—� Luke 2:8-12 . .And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.

. . . But the angel said to them; "Don't be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today, in the town of David, a savior has been born to you; he is Messiah, the Lord."

Not every Christian denomination heralds a Xmas message that qualifies as "good news of great joy". Several announce a version that is neither good nor joyful at all; but is actually bad news indeed because their message-- although adequately announcing the reality of divine retribution --fails to tell of a guaranteed fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, bad behavior-proof, apostasy-proof, reprobate-proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God. Roman Catholicism, the very centerpiece and public image of Christianity, can't even guarantee safety for its own Popes nor for its outstanding nuns.

Friday, April 8, 2005; millions of Catholics around the world-- including Cardinals, Bishops, and Monsignors --prayed for Karol Wojtyla during his funeral. Let me point out something that should go without saying: if someone has already gone on to eternal life; is it really necessary to continue praying for them? Of course not. They'd be home free. The millions of Catholics left behind would be the ones in need of prayer; not Mr. Wojtyla. But the sad reality is: no Catholic, not even a Pope, knows for sure where they're going when they cross over to the other side.

If Popes and super duper nuns like Mother Teresa are in danger of missing out on eternal life, then what "great joy" does news like Rome's gospel have to offer John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer? None, no joy at all. The best they can do is cross their fingers and pray for the best while in the backs of their minds dreading the worst.

The angel announced the birth of a savior. Webster's defines a "savior" as one who rescues. You've seen examples of rescuers-- lifeguards, firemen, cops, emergency medical teams, Coast Guard units, snow patrols, and mountain rescue teams. Rescuers typically save people who are facing imminent death and/or grave danger and utterly helpless to do anything about it.

Of what real benefit would the rescuer of Luke 2:8-12 really be to anybody if he couldn't guarantee a fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, bad behavior-proof, apostasy-proof, reprobate-proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God? He'd be of no benefit to anybody. No; he'd be an incompetent ninny that nobody could rely on.

But, if a rescuer were to be announced who guaranteed anybody who wants it, a completely free of charge, no strings attached, guaranteed fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, bad behavior-proof, apostasy-proof, reprobate-proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God, and full-time protection from future retribution; wouldn't that qualify as good news of great joy? I think just about everybody would have to agree with me that news like that would not only most certainly be good; but also cause for celebration, and for ecstatic happiness.

/[/font]

[Divine Insight]

But, if a rescuer were to be announced who guaranteed anybody who wants it, a completely free of charge, no strings attached, guaranteed fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, bad behavior-proof, apostasy-proof, reprobate-proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God, and full-time protection from future retribution; wouldn't that qualify as good news of great joy?

It would also violate the idea that Christianity has anything at all to do with morality, justice, or moral responsibility.

Only those who have no sense of moral responsibility or justice could see this as "good news". And they would also need to feel like they were personally in dire need of such a "savior". Otherwise, why would they see this as being such good news?

[OnceConvinced]

If you're talking about an innocent man being put to death for the abominations of the guilty, I wouldn't call that good news at all.

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
I grew up a Catholic boy and attended catechism to the level of Confirmation. I must not have been paying attention to the nuns who taught the classes because for quite a few years I was under the impression that Christ was a tragic victim of circumstances beyond his control and that his crucifixion served no practical purpose except to make me pity the man.

I mean; every Sunday I looked around the church at the gloomy stations of the cross hanging on the walls. How was I supposed to derive good news of great joy from those? And it seems that every artistic representation of Jesus' mom-- the statues and the paintings --depict her as blue, sorrowful, forlorn and depressed. Not even so much as a lick of optimism.

The lack of cheer in Catholicism is prevalent at every turn: even the communion service is a downer; and it really shouldn't be. According to John 6:54, Jesus' flesh and blood is supposed to endow people with eternal life. I should think that would certainly make people happy, but no; it doesn't. They all return to their seats looking like they were just sentenced to ten years in prison for bank robbery.

Well; you can imagine my delight, as well as my relief, to finally learn that the purpose of Christ's death was to satisfy justice on my behalf in such a way as to spare me the inconvenience of dying for my sins in the reservoir of brimstone depicted at Rev 20:11-15 where people are on track to be terminated by a mode of death akin to a foundry worker falling into a kettle of molten iron.

According to Dan 12:2 and John 5:28-29, there is only one resurrection allotted per person; which means that people sentenced to death in the lake won't be coming back because they will have used up their one resurrection to face justice at the Great White Throne event.[/font]

[font=Georgia]FYI[/font][font=Verdana]: Though people will die in the lake, their remains won't be totally incinerated but instead will be preserved as perpetual nourishment for a curious species of fire-proof worm.

†. Isa 66:22-24 . . All humanity will come to worship me from week to week and from month to month. And as they go out, they will see the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against me. For the worms that devour them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never go out. All who pass by will view them with utter loathing.

A worm that thrives in fire is pretty amazing, but not unreasonable. The 4-inch Pompeii worm lives in sea water temperatures of 176° Fahrenheit: hot enough to kill salmonella and sanitize an egg. So I guess if God could create a worm like the Pompeii, it shouldn't be too difficult for Him to create worms that like it even warmer.

But then, the properties of fire are easily circumvented by the genius who created them. For example: fire totally incinerated the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah but left unscathed a desert shrub that Moses encountered in the Sinai outback while tending his father-in law's sheep. (Ex 3:1-3)

Compare Dan 3:8-27 where a blistering hot fire didn't even so much as singe the clothing of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego while slaying the guards that threw them in the furnace.

Isa 66:22-24 suggests that the worms will never run out of something to eat; which means that the human remains upon which they'll feed will never be used up. How so?

There are incidents in the Bible where small amounts of foodstuffs were miraculously extended. One example is 1Kgs 17:8-16 where a tiny bit of flour and oil nourished Elijah and a widow woman, and her son, for a good many days during a time of prolonged drought.

Another incident is at 2Kgs 4:1-7 where a certain widow's husband died and left her deeply in debt. God extended her last pot of oil sufficiently to sell off enough to retire her debts, thereby saving her two sons from slavery.

All those human remains floating around out there in the lake of brimstone will likely resemble a ghastly cranberry bog at harvest time. That should be quite a scene to behold.

/[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
I was loyal to Rome and its doctrines until I was 24. But though I cast a vote of confidence in Rome's doctrines, I was mostly lapsed and didn't practice them.

My eldest brother went on to become a priest, and today he's a semi-retired Friar who is no longer confident that a hell exists. I don't know why he feels that way; we don't talk much about things like that.

But unlike my eldest brother, I have never even one single moment in my entire 72+ years doubted the existence of hell and eternal suffering. Ironically, it was my dread of that very thing that led me to part company with Rome.

President Obama published a book in October of 2009 whose title includes the words: The Audacity Of Hope.

The usual understanding of hope is something like crossing your fingers and praying for the best while in the back of your mind dreading the worst. An audacious hope is sort of like that. It's a hope against hope; viz: an irrational pursuit of something out of reach on the slim chance you might get lucky and actually attain it.

The apostle Peter's understanding of hope was very different.

â—� 1Pet 3:15 . . Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope.

The Greek word for "hope" in Peter's command is elpis (el pece') which means to anticipate (usually with pleasure) and to expect with confidence. Note the elements of anticipation, and expectation, and confidence.

In other words: Peter's hope wasn't audacious. No, he wasn't crossing his fingers and praying for the best while in the back of his mind dreading the worst and/or irrationally pursuing something out of reach on the slim chance of attaining it. Not Peter, no, he looked forward to an excellent afterlife; and he fully expected to get it; no problem.

So, unless someone knows for proof-positive, beyond even the slightest glimmer of sensible doubt, that their afterlife future is safe and secure, then of course it is impossible for them to comply with Peter's instructions seeing as they would not yet have the kind of hope about which he wrote.

â—� Rom 12:12 . . Rejoicing in hope.

When people are praying for the best, while in the back of their mind dreading the worst, they have absolutely no cause for rejoicing; no; but they do have plenty of cause to fear the unknown.

Writing to his friends in Ephesus, the apostle Paul said:

"Remember that at one time you, Gentiles in the flesh, were without hope"

How many hopeless Gentiles are we talking about? Well, for starters; as of 2014, there were approximately 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide. None of them, not even the Pope, had the kind of hope that Peter had. In point of fact, Catholics are not allowed to believe themselves to have heaven in the bag.

Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16: If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

To top that off: according to the Catechism, CCC 1035, Catholics are just inches from the worst, because should they leave this life with just one un-absolved mortal sin on the books, they go directly to Hell and eternal suffering; no stop-over in a purgatory. No, their trip is a direct flight. Even if they've been a faithful Catholic for 49 years, they will miss the boat just as if they had been a Hindu, or a Muslim, or an atheist. All their years as a faithful Catholic will be stricken from the record and count for naught.

I am pretty much forced to conclude from Peter's and Paul's writings about elpis hope that Roman Catholicism is a religion very much like the one described in Rev 3:14-22 where Christ is depicted standing outside a church banging on the door trying to get someone's attention to let him in because a church without elpis hope is a church without God.

â—� Eph 2:11-12 . .Remember that at one time you, Gentiles in the flesh, were without hope and without God in the world.

/[/font]

[OnceConvinced]

WeberHome I know I'm wasting my time trying to debate with you, as you are not on this debating website to debate, but just to preach, however I will put my arguments forward so that other members can see a different point of view, rather than just you preaching.

[font=Verdana]-
I grew up a Catholic boy and attended catechism to the level of Confirmation. I must not have been paying attention to the nuns who taught the classes because for quite a few years I was under the impression that Christ was a tragic victim of circumstances beyond his control and that his crucifixion served no practical purpose except to make me pity the man.

Christ supposedly volunteered himself to die for us. So no, he wasn't a tragic victim, but nevertheless, I don't see how it can be considered good news that he died for the abominations of scum. Good news is perpetrators paying for their crimes. Not someone innocent paying for them.

The lack of cheer in Catholicism is prevalent at every turn: even the communion service is a downer; and it really shouldn't be. According to John 6:54, Jesus' flesh and blood is supposed to endow people with eternal life.

I personally do not see how its good news that evil people should be forgiven and get to live eternal life. Hitler himself could have potentially asked Jesus for forgiveness and seen the errors of his way before he died. He could be forgiven and in Heaven right now. Jesus will have died for his sins. Hitler could be experience eternal life in paradise right now.

Would you consider that good news, if that were the case? Would you be shouting with joy that you will get to rub shoulders with Hitler in Heaven? Imagine all the other people who committed horrible abominations who have now been forgiven and endowed with eternal life. You will be loving those people in Heaven. Do you consider that good news?

I certainly wouldn't. I would be horrified.

In fact what makes it worse is that those Jews that Hitler murdered would be in Hell burning alive at God's hands, all because they rejected Jesus. Meanwhile Hitler lives it up in Heaven. I would consider that horrific news.

Likewise if murderers are forgiven, then they go to Heaven while their victims might potentially be burning in Hell. I would find that to be horrific news too.

I should think that would certainly make people happy, but no; it doesn't.

No of course not. No one would be happy about an innocent man suffering for the abominations of others, even if he wanted to. Evil people should be paying for their own sins. That would be the good news.

Well; you can imagine my delight, as well as my relief, to finally learn that the purpose of Christ's death was to satisfy justice on my behalf...

Now for all I know you could be guilty of all sorts of heinous crimes. I can't see how it would be good news for the rest of us that you get away with all those heinous crimes. I don't see how it would be good news for anyone but you.

in such a way as to spare me the inconvenience of dying for my sins...

If you committed heinous acts, don't you think you should pay for those acts? Or are you looking to escape justice? You are actually fine with an innocent man suffering on your behalf? I wouldn't be. I would find it hard to live with myself knowing that Jesus had suffered for my sins.

One thing I would not be at all happy about is if you are getting away with abominations and an innocent man was suffering on your behalf. That would be an abomination from my perspective. I would want you to pay the price for your atrocities, not Jesus.

Compare Dan 3:8-27 where a blistering hot fire didn't even so much as singe the clothing of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego while slaying the guards that threw them in the furnace.

Do you consider it good news that God has created such a malevolent place as Hell? That we are all in danger of going there? That the only way to get out of there is to have an innocent being suffer on your behalf? I certainly don't.

What of this is good news to anyone but the horrible person who committed the heinous acts?

[WebersHome]

-

[font=Georgia]I know I'm wasting my time trying to debate with you, as you are not on this debating website to debate, but just to preach[/font]

[font=Verdana]According to the third Announcement down from the top of the Topics list, Rambling Ramblings is set up for soap boxes. It is not set up for debating. [/font]

[font=Georgia]If you committed heinous acts, don't you think you should pay for those acts?[/font]

[font=Verdana]Christ's crucifixion is commonly referred to as a vicarious substitutionary sacrifice. But that's a misnomer because the Bible does not allow for substitutions. The soul that sins; it shall die in its own place rather than another soul in its place because that would not be justice; in point of fact, that would be a miscarriage of justice. No; people themselves have to die for their sins in order to satisfy the law of sin and death which reads like this:

†. Ezek 18:20 . .The one who sins shall die.

†. Rom 6:23 . . For the wages of sin is death

So; in order for Christ's crucifixion to rescue people from a death sentence in the lake of brimstone depicted at Rev 20:10-15, it has to be, in some way, accounted as their own crucifixion as well as his; and God has invented an ingenious way for them to do that very thing by means of a baptism that involves neither clergy nor H₂O.

†. 1Cor 12:12-13 . . For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Seeing as how this particular baptism is supernatural rather than physical, then of course it's to be expected to make no sense whatsoever. However, in a nutshell; what this particular baptism does is make people participants in Christ's crucifixion instead of merely observers.

†. Rom 6:3 . . Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

†. Rom 6:6 . . Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him

†. Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ

†. Col 3:3 . . For you died when Christ died

/[/font]

[OnceConvinced]

-

[font=Georgia]I know I'm wasting my time trying to debate with you, as you are not on this debating website to debate, but just to preach[/font]

[font=Verdana]According to the third Announcement down from the top of the Topics list, Rambling Ramblings is set up for soap boxes. It is not set up for debating. [/font]

Yes, Random Ramblings allows you to post without debating. This is however still a debate site, not a preaching site. There is little point in anyone reading your posts and replying if you aren't willing to debate.

As for the rest of your post, it's simply just more preaching. No effort whatsoever to respond to my individual points. Nothing you have posted in any way backs up your claim of good news. It's all bad news as far as I can see. I would love to hear your own personal justifications for how you can say it's good news for the rest of us, if you personally have committed abominations and an innocent man is going to be punished instead of you. I just can't see how an innocent man being punished for your atrocities is good news for anyone but yourself. Even then, you would have to be able to sleep at night knowing that an innocent man had to suffer greatly for your despicable acts. I don't think I could.

Seriously, just imagine if Charles Manson repented and became a Christian. That means he will be in Heaven and you will love him like a brother. Do you think that would be good news for anyone other than Charlie himself?

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
Your brooding resentment brings to mind the parable of the workers where the guys who worked all day didn't get any more pay than the guys who only worked for an hour.

Also the parable of the wayward son who wasted his life on loose living. Upon returning home, his dad made him a feast while having never made a feast for the good son who stayed home and kept his nose to the grindstone.

â—� Matt 20:15 . . Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?

I'm pretty sure I would be happier i heaven with ten Charles Mansons and fifteen Ted Bundys rather than even just one toxic jerk like you going around spoiling everyone's day with your perpetual griping.

â—� Luke 15:7 . .There will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

/[/font]

[OnceConvinced]

I can preach too:

Imagine if you will, there is a man. He is a child rapist, torturer and murderer. This man is put on trial and found guilty without a shadow of a doubt and then sentenced to say death by electric chair. But then an innocent man steps up and says “Hey, I love this guy. I don’t want to see him die, so I’ll take his place and die on the electric chair on his behalf.� Now say the judge allowed this and this innocent man went to the chair and was executed on behalf of the guilty guy. The guilty guy was then released back into the community with a slate wiped clean.

I wonder how many of us would be enraged by that. I’m guessing the majority of us. We’d be screaming out saying how dare they let an innocent man take the punishment for the crimes of that monster? How dare they let that scum bag free?

Imagine if instead of just one rapist/torturer/murder, there are a hundred of them and this innocent man requests to take the electric chair for all of them. It would be even more of an immoral unjust situation. 100 pedophiles released back into society and ONE man paying the price. Imagine if it was a thousand of them. Or maybe a million of them? How about a billion child rapist/torturer/murders being released back into society while one man pays the price for their crimes? What a horrible horrible unjust atrocity that would be. Imagine the outcry!

I’m betting even Christians would be horrified by this, but yet each and every one of them rejoices on a regular basis for the fact that an innocent man died for THEIR atrocities. In fact the sins for every single human being on this planet, including billions that have died and perhaps billions to come. They say it’s good news. They say it’s wonderful, but yet how can any Christian with any integrity be happy about this?

An INNOCENT man died the horrible death that YOU should have suffered. It makes no difference whether he volunteered to take your punishment for you. If you had any shred of decency and integrity… if you had any morals you would refuse to accept that. You should be standing your ground and admitting that you are guilty of your crimes and you should have to pay for those crimes yourself. How moral is it to accept the ruthless slaughter of a human being, offered up as a human sacrifice to your God when it should be YOU paying that price?

Good news? Are you kidding? Billions and billions of evil people being let into Heaven all at the expense of a single innocent being? That is not good news. It is horrific and immoral. Everyone should be taking responsibility for their own actions and should not be rejoicing that an innocent man paid the price for their atrocities.