Cade_One,
Earlier you wrote that God does not send us to Hell. I asked you who you thought was casting the person into the lake of fire as mentioned in Revelation 20:15? I’d still like to know who you think is doing the casting.
The idea or concept that Jesus had to suffer terribly in order to pay the price for our sins is very disturbing to my heart.
I have no doubt that Jesus has the power and authority to forgive us for our sins, on behalf of our Eternal Father. But I do not feel that he has to endure punishment on our behalf in order to accomplish this.
My conviction is that we are not these temporarily manifested material bodies which are made of transformations of mud and water. Rather, we are eternal spirit souls, just as God is eternal, with no beginning and no end. When we depart from the body, at the time of “death”, the material body no longer shows signs of life, and begins to decompose. But we are eternal spirit souls. We are not these material bodies.
One who understands, by direct perception, that I am not this material body, no longer identifies with the pains and pleasures of the flesh and blood. Therefore he becomes indifferent to material dualities, and becomes situated in the on-going pleasure of the spirit.
Yes, Jesus could endure crucifixion…….even up to the point of being more concerned about those who were crucifying him, and asking God to forgive them, at the same time as he was crucified. This degree of heartfelt compassion and love is because he is not afflicted as you or I would be afflicted if we were crucified.
Therefore my conviction is that to be told that Jesus had to suffer terrible agony because I am a sinner …….. this I cannot accept. I am a sinner. This I accept. And Jesus was crucified. This I accept. But that Jesus, who could perform all manner of miracles, such as walking on water, commanding the wind to stop blowing, healing the sick (even long-distance at times), feeding a great assembly of people with a few morsels of feed, seeing future events (like the crucifixion) with acceptance………such a personality who comes to us, from another world, the spiritual world……….such a personality does not suffer the dualities of the flesh as we would.
My conviction is that Jesus can cleanse us of the reactions of our sins. But he does not have to suffer in order to do this. And, the way in which he cleanses our hearts, is by sharing his love of the Father with us. When we imbibe the taste of love of God through the process of intimate association with Jesus, within our hearts, all attraction to our sinful activities are automatically vanquished, without separate endeavor.
I also believe that going to confession, and then engaging in the same sins repeatedly, is like using Jesus as a door mat. Jesus may forgive us for behaving in this way. But our Heavenly Father, who loves His son, will not. These are my convictions.
Jesus does not want us to feel guilt and shame. Jesus tells us: “Rejoice!” These are my convictions.
One teaching that bothers me is the marital debt. I know this teaching has been misunderstood and abused.
1 Like
Wow Cade! I’m surprised to read your remarks. Does it say that in the Bible, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit (the Holy Ghost?) existed before the angels and the human beings? I didn’t know that. My little understanding is that eternal means eternal. “Eternal” means no beginning and no end. Everything on earth is temporal. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. But spirit is eternal. Never was there a time when we did not exist. The Father, the Son, and all of us. But what I find hard to understand is why we are here instead of in heaven as members of the heavenly host. God would not have us suffer, and make us earn our bread by the sweat of our brow, just because Adam and Eve fell into temptation. That makes no sense to me. What does make sense is that the Garden of Eden is not on planet earth, and that we are all fallen angels who succumbed to the temptation of entertaining a mood of independence. So God puts us here, and asks, “Are we having fun yet?” And He sends His Son to show us the way home. We are all prodigal sons, in rehab. That makes a lot more sense to me, than thinking we have to suffer because Adam and Eve fell into error. I think we fell into error. And that’s why we’re here. But God loves us so much that he sends His Son to gather us and take us home. Of course, some of us are hard core prisoners, and won’t accept the invitation. The material creation is for our rehabilitation. That makes more sense to me than the Adam and Eve narrative. I take that narrative as a metaphor that applies to all of us, who had the idea of being independent of God’s authority. And now we’re here. “Are we having fun yet?” Then Jesus comes, and offers us a second chance. That makes sense of me.
For me, Noah’s Ark, but I’ve gotten to know that story much much better.
Although apparently not an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, I think it is generally taught that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week. I find it challenging/difficult to understand, since the Messiah said that 3 daytimes and 3 night times would be involved with His time in the “heart of the earth”. However, a 6th day/1st day time frame allows for only 2 night times to take place.
Soul,
re: “Friday 3 pm: Jesus dies Friday 3 pm to sunset: Jesus’s Body remained lifeless”
That would be daytime 1.
re: “Saturday: Jesus’s Body remained lifeless”
That would be night time 1 and daytime 2.
re: “Sunday sunset to 5 am: Jesus’s Body remained lifeless-Sunday 5 am: Jesus resurrects”
That would be night time 2 and maybe daytime 3, depending on if 5am was daytime.
So, only 2 night times would be involved.
But isn’t Catholic teaching that the resurrection occurred on Sunday morning?
Soul,
In your post #83 you wrote:
re: “…the Hebraic idiom ‘three days and three nights’ meaning ‘approx. three days, and any event touching upon any part of the third day’”.
What is your source for saying that it’s a Hebraic idiom where “one day and one night” can mean that at least a portion of one daytime and at least a portion of one night time doesn’t have to be involved?
Only one? I can only choose one? I have a problem with a lot of things in our current Bible, however I’m finding out, through more research that The Bible is supposed to make sense. The current one we have out right now, makes no sense and reads like a fairytale, but The Bible is supposed to make sense. And, of course, there’s a reason as to why it doesn’t make sense, because God forbid we can’t use our own intuition or discernment to figure out what is true. We need Theologians and the Church hierarchy to make sense of any of it, but we can’t try to figure this out for ourselves, cause again we’re just sheep right? We’re so stupid and require a shepherd cause the God-given brain we have isn’t good enough apparently.
But one of the biggest errors I see (because of the amount of retranslating we do to this book) is the discrepancy between the Old Testament God and the New Testament Jesus. One of the things Catholic’s believe is that Jesus is the son of God AND is God, and I fail to see a similarity. The Old Testament God was a God who wasn’t afraid of punishing people. He destroyed entire cities, and kills first born children over a feud that didn’t even involve those children to begin with. The Old Testament God was the stereotypical fire and brimstone kind of God.
And then you have this absolutely beautiful being named Jesus Christ, who came down and showed the world mercy. Jesus really was a gift to mankind, He was the gift that kept on giving. Yes, Jesus would get upset at times, like flipping tables in the temple, but He was also very loving. He taught the world what love looked like. He gave so much to the hueman race, and I’m thankful he incarnated down here. He was a loving being in a world that didn’t know much about love.
Catholics state that Jesus is the son of God, but is also God. And if you compare what happened in the Old Testament to what happened in the New Testament, God and Jesus are night and day. The God of the Old Testament, even though He would warn people of what would happen if they didn’t obey, was very much fire and brimstone. And then you had Jesus, who was kind, merciful, and forgiving. So, you have 2 different entities that are both God, and yet both are complete polar opposites. So for the longest time I always thought “Well maybe Jesus is showing the merciful and forgiving part of God, and God in the Old Testament is showing the just part.” But now that I’ve done research on it, it’s no longer a mystery to me. But that was always odd to me, that Jesus is the son of this fire and brimstone kind of parent.
I mean, that and the evil part. Why a God who is just allows all the evil to go on in the world. But, that’s a big one with most people who aren’t Catholic.
But I’m not worried about it. The Bible was a book written by men. It’s mankind’s book, and so, I refuse to base my life on a book that man wrote. God knows what’s in my heart, not man, and that’s good enough for me.
Soul,
re: "I actually said that ‘three days and three nights’, not ‘one day and one night’ is a Hebraic idiom.”
I don’t see the difference. If 3 daytimes and 3 night times doesn’t have to mean that at least a portion of each one of 3 daytimes and at least a portion of each one of 3 night times are involved, why doesn’t 1 daytime and 1 night time have to mean that at least a portion of the night time and at least a portion of the night time are involved?
In that post you wrote -
“Part of a day is a whole day: According to Jewish tradition, part of a day is counted as a whole day…Rabbinic literature: Jewish tradition, including in the Talmud, corroborates the concept that a part of a day can be reckoned as a whole day.”
So, based on that, if someone back then said that they were going to work Monday, daytime and night time, that it would be understood that at least a portion of the night time didn’t have to be included?
Soul,
That didn’t answer my question.
Why doesn’t that work the same way if the ancient Jew says that he’ll be working for one day and one night?
If the ancient Jew says that he’ll be working three days and three nights, why would someone think that he didn’t actually mean it, but not think if he said he would be working one day and one night that he didn’t actually mean that?
BTW, Monday evening would have been over some 6 hours by Monday afternoon. And where did I say anything about 72 hours?
Soul,
re: “What does the idiom ‘three days and three nights’ mean?”
To me, it means that at least a portion of each one of three daytimes and at least a portion of each one of three night times would be involved with at event. And I don’t see what you are basing your idea on with regard to it being an idiom.
Now, please answer my questions to you in post #102.
Soul,
re: “The idiom ‘three days and three nights’ means a period of approximately three days, not a 72 hour period.”
I’ve said nothing about a 72 hour period.
re: “This Jewish idiom, commonly used in ancient texts, counts any part of a day or night as a whole day or night.”
If an ancient Jew said he would be working one day and one night would anyone think that at least a portion of the daytime or at least a portion of the night time didn’t have to be involved?
re: “This Jewish idiom, commonly used in ancient texts, counts any part of a day or night as a whole day or night. For example, an event that occurs on a Friday afternoon, all of Saturday, and Sunday morning would be described as ‘three days and three nights’.”
You say it was common usage. What examples do you have to be saying that it was common? For example to say that a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a night time could be?
As I asked Soul, if an ancient Jew said he would be working one day and one night would anyone think that at least a portion of the daytime or at least a portion of the night time didn’t have to be involved?
What point are you making?
re: “I didn’t say that you did. I was merely explaining that ‘three days and three nights’ is an idiom, and that it doesn’t mean three days and three nights as in a 72 hour period.”
So, what was your purpose in explaining it since it was never mentioned as an issue?
re: "An ancient Jew saying ‘one day and one night’ isn’t using the idiom ‘three days and three nights’ and the latter is what we’re talking about. So, put forth a hypothetical of an ancient Jew using the idiom “three days and three nights”.
You left off the rest of the issue of common use, “where no part of a third night could have been involved”. And I’m not looking for hypotheticals, but only actual examples.
re: “I’ve already pointed to examples in Scripture where the idiom “three days and three nights” has been used.”
Again, you’re leaving off the rest of the issue, "where at least a portion of each one of three daytimes and at least a portion of each one of three night times is/are not involved.
I know Jesus opened the Gates of Heaven for us. My question is did it happen with His Holy Baptism or with His Resurrection?