If our interpretation of scripture sidesteps common sense, did we get it right?

[Wrangler]

The short answer is it's a figure of speech.

This is what I find so funny about those who are adamant about literal translations. The book is highly figurative.

 

[Wrangler]

It would have been pretense, an absurd act empty of meaning.

I agree it would have been pretense IF we were not supposed to follow the lord in how to live life.

Compare the significance and similarities between baptism and communion. IF being baptized and taking communion mean the Spirit is in you, you are of the Spirit, etc, then there is no need for both as one will do. And given that the bread and wine are Jesus, you could claim Jesus partaking of communion was equally pretense, an absurd act empty of meaning - except for the practical:

1. We follow Jesus
2. It was part of Jesus' literal last meal.

 

[Mr E]

"If that were true?" You see what I did, I got you to admit your errors. You don't believe He was born without sin and did not sin, nor do you believe in the deity of Christ.
Jesus didn't tell us how He created the universe either because we couldn't grasp that concept, Einstein couldn't. See, I set you up again, to admit more flaws in your thinking.
It appears that you have things to sort out. His baptism was done "to fulfill all righteousness" You need to figure out what that means.

Do you have kids? If so, when they were very young, you taught them what was right and wrong, and gave them certain rules to abide by to prepare them for life. You also taught them to do and learn certain simple things first before they can move onto the next step, level of understanding and ability.
I think God works with us in a similar ways, gives us first basic things and concepts (milk) we can handle in order to understand later, more complex and deeper spiritual things ( meat that we are capable of chewing and digesting).
But some kids just never grow up. They can't seem to handle the difficult things that most mature adults can.

Your response indicates to me that you don't understand the difference between the spirit and the flesh. One is not the other. There is the heavenly man and the earth man. Maybe you don't believe that Jesus was really a man like us. Scripture says he was like us in every way. Maybe you just don't believe that? It is the heavenly son, that is perfect, while all flesh is corrupted. Jesus was born. The son of God descended. One is physical, the other is spiritual.

This is the unorthodox section of the forum first of all, and secondly- just because you can't or don't make the distinction between the holy and sinless and perfect spirit and the corruptible, corrupted, sinful flesh-- doesn't mean everyone misses it like you do-- even if that has become (sadly) the orthodox understanding after some two thousand years beyond his teachings.

"Jesus" was flesh. "Jesus" didn't create the world. "Jesus" was born in Bethlehem. When you speak about creation, it occurred long before that baby they named "Jesus" was born to Joseph and Mary. You are mixing terms you obviously don't understand, saying things that are offered without thought in an attempt to make them true by simple repetition. Your mistake is in ignoring that the man Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven that descended upon him-- and that spirit is the spirit of Christ. The spirit of anointing-- the power and presence of God- in him. Don't confuse the wine with the wineskin.

 

[Mr E]

I'm guessing there is a third option we are overlooking.
I don't think these two make much sense.

/

The two ideas make sense, but they are incompatible with one another. That's another way of saying that if one is true, the other is not.

Orthodoxy is given to ignoring things in scripture that don't comport with orthodox understanding of scripture. People tend to ignore that orthodoxy is simply a set of beliefs about things that while they might be common views that are accepted by the masses, that doesn't make them true. Popularity isn't the measure of truth.

 

[Mr E]

I agree it would have been pretense IF we were not supposed to follow the lord in how to live life.

Compare the significance and similarities between baptism and communion. IF being baptized and taking communion mean the Spirit is in you, you are of the Spirit, etc, then there is no need for both as one will do. And given that the bread and wine are Jesus, you could claim Jesus partaking of communion was equally pretense, an absurd act empty of meaning - except for the practical:

1. We follow Jesus
2. It was part of Jesus' literal last meal.

I don't accept the premise you propose. Your "IF" isn't something that scripture supports. Where does it say that being baptized or taking communion mean the Spirit is in you?

In what way was Jesus partaking in communion a pretense? They were celebrating Passover and sharing the Passover meal as Jews had done for centuries as commanded by Moses to remember when God delivered the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt. Since you understand that the book is highly figurative and not to be taken literally-- why then do you say things like "given the bread and wine are Jesus?"

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Maybe you don't believe that Jesus was really a man like us. Scripture says he was like us in every way

Physically he was, but not spiritually. We call Him the God/man. God became flesh and dwelt among us.( John 1:14) He was born without the sin passed down from Adam since His mother was a virgin who was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

It is the heavenly son, that is perfect, while all flesh is corrupted. Jesus was born. The son of God descended. One is physical, the other is spiritual.

Jesus was without sin at birth and throughout His life. ( Heb. 4:15; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22)

Jesus" was flesh. "Jesus" didn't create the world

The pre-incarnate Jesus is the great I AM, God who spoke to Moses (Exodus 3:14). He gave Moses a brief introduction, "Tell them I AM sent me to you". He would reveal Himself to Israel by His divine love, truth, guidance, law, and promises and later personally in the flesh through Jesus.
A study for you!
I am the Way, the Truth and the Life ...
What does this mean?
a. He is the only way to Salvation.
b. Truth means what is real, realty, the Word, all knowledge and wisdom
c. Life > the source of life, physical and spiritual. In Him all things consist ( are held together). He is the Creator (John 1:1-14, Col. 1:16-17)
I am the Light of the world ...
I am the Good Shepherd ...
I am the Bread of resurrected Himself and
I am the Door ...
I am the Vine ...
I am the Alpha and Omega
I am He ...
I am the resurrection ...
He is the Savior, the Messiah, All Mighty God.

>> Notice Jesus is trying to tell them that I am He, the Messiah, the Savior, the one who has always been there for them.
The Old Testament identifies God as the only Savior.
For I am the Lord your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I gave Egypt for your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in your place. Isaiah 43:3
I, even I, am the Lord, And besides Me there is no savior.
Isaiah 43:11
>> Are we to believe that there is someone else, a different Savior?
In another passage He says "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" Matt.23:37
It is He, the pre-incarnate Christ who has always been there since the beggining.

"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." Col. 1:16-17

 

[St. SteVen]

The two ideas make sense, but they are incompatible with one another. That's another way of saying that if one is true, the other is not.

But isn't your analysis built on the assumption that Jesus was receiving the baptism of repentance from John?
Maybe that assumption is incorrect. Which would nullify the conflict.

It may have been a model for the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Especially in light of what happened when Jesus cam up out of the water.
John witnessed the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus.

At Pentecost Peter directed the crowd to... “Repent and be baptized,
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So, still a baptism of repentance, but in Jesus' name. (not John's baptism)
Which included the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

/

 

[Peterlag]

But isn't your analysis built on the assumption that Jesus was receiving the baptism of repentance from John?
Maybe that assumption is incorrect. Which would nullify the conflict.

It may have been a model for the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Especially in light of what happened when Jesus cam up out of the water.
John witnessed the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus.

At Pentecost Peter directed the crowd to... “Repent and be baptized,
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So, still a baptism of repentance, but in Jesus' name. (not John's baptism)
Which included the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

/

The authority (in the name of Jesus Christ) is where receiving the spirit of Christ comes from. Water and soup and apple butter mean nothing.

 

[Peterlag]

This is what I find so funny about those who are adamant about literal translations. The book is highly figurative.

The authority (in the name of Jesus Christ) is where receiving the spirit of Christ comes from. Water and soup and apple butter mean nothing.

 

[Mr E]

Physically he was, but not spiritually. We call Him the God/man. God became flesh and dwelt among us.( John 1:14) He was born without the sin passed down from Adam since His mother was a virgin who was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was without sin at birth and throughout His life. ( Heb. 4:15; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22)

The pre-incarnate Jesus is the great I AM, God who spoke to Moses (Exodus 3:14). He gave Moses a brief introduction, "Tell them I AM sent me to you". He would reveal Himself to Israel by His divine love, truth, guidance, law, and promises and later personally in the flesh through Jesus.
A study for you!
I am the Way, the Truth and the Life ...
What does this mean?
a. He is the only way to Salvation.
b. Truth means what is real, realty, the Word, all knowledge and wisdom
c. Life > the source of life, physical and spiritual. In Him all things consist ( are held together). He is the Creator (John 1:1-14, Col. 1:16-17)
I am the Light of the world ...
I am the Good Shepherd ...
I am the Bread of resurrected Himself and
I am the Door ...
I am the Vine ...
I am the Alpha and Omega
I am He ...
I am the resurrection ...
He is the Savior, the Messiah, All Mighty God.

>> Notice Jesus is trying to tell them that I am He, the Messiah, the Savior, the one who has always been there for them.
The Old Testament identifies God as the only Savior.
For I am the Lord your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I gave Egypt for your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in your place. Isaiah 43:3
I, even I, am the Lord, And besides Me there is no savior.
Isaiah 43:11
>> Are we to believe that there is someone else, a different Savior?
In another passage He says "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" Matt.23:37
It is He, the pre-incarnate Christ who has always been there since the beggining.

"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." Col. 1:16-17

Well I certainly don't call him the God/man so you should identify who the "we" is when you say "we." By the way-- scripture doesn't call Jesus the God/man either, so that's thin ice. Scripture repeatedly refers to the son of God and states that Spirit gives birth to spirit (not flesh) so then the son of God is spirit (and not flesh).

You've drawn conclusions that ignore their exclusion in scripture.

 

[Mr E]

But isn't your analysis built on the assumption that Jesus was receiving the baptism of repentance from John?
Maybe that assumption is incorrect. Which would nullify the conflict.

It may have been a model for the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Especially in light of what happened when Jesus cam up out of the water.
John witnessed the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus.

At Pentecost Peter directed the crowd to... “Repent and be baptized,
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So, still a baptism of repentance, but in Jesus' name. (not John's baptism)
Which included the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

/

That's an extraordinary effort required to make it make sense. Why not consider the plain and simple explanation that requires no mental gymnastics? (the simple solution is most often the correct one).

John went into all the region around the Jordan River, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. To the crowds, to the tax collectors, to the soldiers that came to him asking what they should do, he taught all of them-- stop doing the wrong things you've been doing, repent-- and do right.

From which gospel account do you get the idea that Jesus was getting some different kind of baptism from John?

People from the whole Judean countryside and all of Jerusalem were going out to him, and he was baptizing them in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins.

Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized.

Jesus came from Galilee to John to be baptized by him in the Jordan River, but John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you come to me?” Jesus replied to him, “Let it happen now, for it is right for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John yielded to him.

Now in those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan River.

 

[St. SteVen]

That's an extraordinary effort required to make it make sense. Why not consider the plain and simple explanation that requires no mental gymnastics? (the simple solution is most often the correct one).

John went into all the region around the Jordan River, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. To the crowds, to the tax collectors, to the soldiers that came to him asking what they should do, he taught all of them-- stop doing the wrong things you've been doing, repent-- and do right.

From which gospel account do you get the idea that Jesus was getting some different kind of baptism from John?

People from the whole Judean countryside and all of Jerusalem were going out to him, and he was baptizing them in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins.

Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized.

Jesus came from Galilee to John to be baptized by him in the Jordan River, but John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you come to me?” Jesus replied to him, “Let it happen now, for it is right for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John yielded to him.

Now in those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan River.

Does that mean that Jesus paid his own death penalty for sin on the cross?

What did it mean when John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God?

/

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Well I certainly don't call him the God/man so you should identify who the "we" is when you say "we." By the way-- scripture doesn't call Jesus the God/man either, so that's thin ice. Scripture repeatedly refers to the son of God and states that Spirit gives birth to spirit (not flesh) so then the son of God is spirit (and not flesh).

You've drawn conclusions that ignore their exclusion in scripture.

Okay Mr E if that is all you can discern from that post, than there is nothing more to say.

 

[Mr E]

Does that mean that Jesus paid his own death penalty for sin on the cross?

What did it mean when John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God?

/

We read in scripture that the penalty for sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. Jesus died. We who see God as faithful place our hope in Him because though he died, God rose Jesus from the dead. If the requirement was sinlessness, what kind of example would Jesus have been for sinful men? His death would have been nothing more than theater and his resurrection meaningless.

But he is our example and our hope because he was made just like us and it is the hope of Christ in us that promises us eternal life though we are sinful flesh. It is by and through the spirit that though we die, we will be raised.

John had a dream.

 

[Wick Stick]

Does that mean that Jesus paid his own death penalty for sin on the cross?

If he didn't sin, why would he have a penalty to pay for himself?

What did it mean when John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God?

Some are justified (by faith), and others are redeemed after they are judged. A sacrifice doesn't justify, it redeems.

 

[St. SteVen]

John had a dream.

Counting sheep? - LOL

/

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
Does that mean that Jesus paid his own death penalty for sin on the cross?

If he didn't sin, why would he have a penalty to pay for himself?

Right.
That's what I was driving at.

Some are justified (by faith), and others are redeemed after they are judged. A sacrifice doesn't justify, it redeems.

I agree.
There will be an age of judgment>correction>restoration>redemption.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Do we really need to check our brain at the door when we go to church?

Read the topic OP if you haven't yet. Thanks.

/

 

[Ezra]

Do we really need to check our brain at the door when we go to church?

Read the topic OP if you haven't yet. Thanks.

/

you should have a open mind and follow in the Bible and not on the Big screen. always follow the preacher in the Bible .

 

[St. SteVen]

you should have a open mind and follow in the Bible and not on the Big screen. always follow the preacher in the Bible .

What do you mean when you write; "follow in the Bible and not on the Big screen"?

/