Did Jesus Struggle Like you Do?

[look3467]

Look3467, why the breaking heart?

Have you ever loved someone so much and then have them not acknowledge you for it?
What if you paid a price and bailed someone out of jail and that individual never even give you thanks?
What if you had the resources to make someones life better and they refused it?
What if information was available, that would help prevent undo metal anguish and suffering, but didn't know it?

The breaking heart depicts the heart of God whose sole intention is to love us, help us, and give us life forever, but yet many nothing knowing about it, wanting it, giving thanks for it, and having to suffer needlessly without it.

So His heart breaks as picture of how much He loves us.

My heart also breaks when I hear some deny the existence of the very giver of life, speak of Him as if He were just a figment of someones imagination, give Him no thanks and or accept His loving help.
So I have adopted it as a testimony of my feelings towards all others whose views are different than mine. That rather than condemn their views, I listen, communicate and exchange information that may be useful to them.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Remember though, God does not confine himself to human expectations and/or parameters of belief.

Indeed, a key point in any attempt at understanding this. I see three ways to approach it, courtesy of Michael Shermer:

1. The conflicting worlds model: science and religion are mutually exclusive ways of knowing things, only one of them can be right. This is the position of extremists on both sides.

2. The same world model: science and religion are complementary ways of knowing about things, and as both progress to a deeper understanding each will find that the other is true at the core. The late Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama are in this camp, if I've read them right.

3. The separate worlds model: Science and religion deal with different things, there's no intrinsic conflict, they are what the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould called "non-overlapping magisteria." Science has taken over the job of explaining the natural world, which renders a lot of religious stories obsolete, at least in any literal sense, but religion retains its original purposes as an institution for social cohesion and a guide to finding personal meaning and spirituality.

The first two I don't think work at all as a resolution, though I confess (hear my confession, Father ;-) ) that I've taken the first position on more than one occasion, and usually regretted it later. It just creates animosity and closes minds, including mine and that's not what I want to be like. I'm not very happy with the third one either, it seems too much like an attempt to have it both ways and explain away conflicts with word games. It's the most logically satisfying to me, but I still have a lot of issues with it, mostly because I have such difficulty with the implicit premise that there *is* a god. Most days I flip-flop between the first and third positions, depending on, I dunno, the phase of the moon or my biorhythms or something. Anybody know a fourth one? Unlike most atheists, however, or theists for that matter, I've actually read the Bible carefully several times, and some things stick in my mind, like this from Isaiah:

55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

In other words, yep, things are mysterious; deal with them. So I try, with widely varying degrees of success.

 

[look3467]

Indeed, a key point in any attempt at understanding this. I see three ways to approach it, courtesy of Michael Shermer:

1. The conflicting worlds model: science and religion are mutually exclusive ways of knowing things, only one of them can be right. This is the position of extremists on both sides.

2. The same world model: science and religion are complementary ways of knowing about things, and as both progress to a deeper understanding each will find that the other is true at the core. The late Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama are in this camp, if I've read them right.

3. The separate worlds model: Science and religion deal with different things, there's no intrinsic conflict, they are what the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould called "non-overlapping magisteria." Science has taken over the job of explaining the natural world, which renders a lot of religious stories obsolete, at least in any literal sense, but religion retains its original purposes as an institution for social cohesion and a guide to finding personal meaning and spirituality.

The first two I don't think work at all as a resolution, though I confess (hear my confession, Father ;-)) that I've taken the first position on more than one occasion, and usually regretted it later. It just creates animosity and closes minds, including mine and that's not what I want to be like. I'm not very happy with the third one either, it seems too much like an attempt to have it both ways and explain away conflicts with word games. It's the most logically satisfying to me, but I still have a lot of issues with it, mostly because I have such difficulty with the implicit premise that there *is* a god. Most days I flip-flop between the first and third positions, depending on, I dunno, the phase of the moon or my biorhythms or something. Anybody know a fourth one? Unlike most atheists, however, or theists for that matter, I've actually read the Bible carefully several times, and some things stick in my mind, like this from Isaiah:

55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

In other words, yep, things are mysterious; deal with them. So I try, with widely varying degrees of success. >>>Dexter

If I may vote on those three, I would vote for number 2.

One verse: Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Science then is in the things that are made, that clearly state of a superior intelligent source, that leaves us without an excuse to its existence.
We can only willfully deny its existence, other than that, it changes not whether we believe it or not.


Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If I may vote on those three, I would vote for number 2.

That one doesn't work for me, because in order to accept science you must accept one of its core ideas, that a claim must be falsifiable. There has to be some way to test it that could show it to be false, because if there isn't, then the evidence in its favour doesn't matter either, it's invulnerable to any kind of evidence. On the matter of god's existence, we'd have to generate a precise definition of god and measurable criteria that will let us arrive at a testable conclusion about his existence. All evidence so far offered for god's existence falls well short of science's empirical standards; given the usually presumed nature of god, no such definition or test is possible. The only resolution I can see is to postulate that body and soul exist in different realities, which is essentially what John Paul II's 1996 encyclical, Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, tried to do. Not very successfully, in my opinion.

 

[gopher]

As I wrote in the second post, Jesus did not struggle as that would entail that he had no choice in the matter.

 

[BitWhys]

I don't follow your logic. Not using the power of angels only adds depth to the sacrifice.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I don't see that logic either. Just because you can choose not to struggle doesn't necessarily mean you don't. We're long past being able to verify any of this stuff, all we've got is hearsay, but maybe he did choose to struggle. Would his self-sacrifice have meant anything if he'd chosen not to? I've always understood that one of the reasons he was sent was so god could be seen sharing human suffering as a human being.

That's part of the logic of it anyway, but I don't actually believe any of it.

 

[snfu73]

Can anyone actually live on earth without struggle?

 

[snfu73]

In other words the very same question applies to you or I.

How so? I mean, I think the thing is, you can feelings of grandeur and still be able to function. I don't know. Are you sensing that you are the son of god? I think that is the key here.

 

[snfu73]

Lol...oh man, I am pissing people off lately. I got a comment on my reps that says "blasphemy". Oh well...that's me it seems.

 

[BitWhys]

How so? I mean, I think the thing is, you can feelings of grandeur and still be able to function. I don't know. Are you sensing that you are the son of god? I think that is the key here.

You never said anything about delusions of grandeur in the post I was responding to.

 

[snfu73]

You never said anything about delusions of grandeur in the post I was responding to.

Oh...well...I mentioned it in another post earlier on...I apologize. Anyway, that is what I am refering to...the fact that one can be mentally ill...and with that mental illness have delusions of grandeur and yet not appear to be...ill. It's funny, they say that one of the first signs of schizophrenia is denial...which means...well...maybe we ALL are schizophrenic?

 

[BitWhys]

there's very little in the words of Nazarene to support accusations of delusions of grandeur.

 

[look3467]

Life-what is it about it that when the spirit leaves the body dies? Where does this spirit come from?
And what gives life to the plants and trees that they also die?
Is that not what that verse I quoted that said "by the things that are made"?

Seems to me that a logical answer would be that there is a God, if life exists apart from the body.

It just doesn't make sense that life should exist all around me and there not be a power, a source by which all life could be sustained.
That would be to me a very hopeless situation, then why should i care about anything?

So, my appeal is to the heart of humanity for there is where life really is.

I identify the heart with God, for life is a gift and honorable and worthy to be lived.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[gopher]

Why did not Jesus not struggle because of his access to angels?

Read the Bible's many references to angels -- they are immensely more powerful than humans and have supernatural powers such as the ability to provide manna, sustenance, kill enemies, and alleviate unwanted elements. A struggle suggests not having any such access. For example, you struggle by crossing a desert and by braving the elements. Since Jesus had access to angels who could easily have kept away any such hindrances, he did not struggle. Struggle clearly implies suffering involuntarily. He 'suffered' voluntarily and therefore, logically speaking, it was not a struggle.

 

[gopher]

I've always understood that one of the reasons he was sent was so god could be seen sharing human suffering as a human being.

The Bible tells us in Isaiah 45:7 that God is the exclusive creator of ALL evil. Therefore, there is no actual logic to the entire biblical scheme: on the one hand God tells us that man is inherently evil. On the other we are told that God creates all evil. On the one hand we are told Jesus had to be sacrificed because of mankind's sin. On the other we are told that God creates all sin.

There simply is no logic to all this.

Jesus did not have to be sacrificed. People are not responsible for the presence of evil. God is. Don't believe me? Look it up in Isaiah 45:7.

 

[look3467]

As I wrote in the second post, Jesus did not struggle as that would entail that he had no choice in the matter.

But because He had a choice He struggled? Right?

Now here is the logic for His struggle.

Struggling is a designed ingredient given to mankind as a consequence of being in the flesh.
Say for example that you had the power to breathe life into a clay vessel of your making.
You wanted that clay vessel to be in character just like you.
So, you endow it with the ability to choose by giving it a standard; that being the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Now upon receiving knowledge it finds out that it can lord over others, have power, to build or destroy, give life and also to take life; Thus as like a god.

This knowledge you gave it brought separation between you and it, for your requirements would be so high on the chain of obedience that that poor soul could never achieve it in the flesh. Therefore it brought death between you two.

The only way then for that soul to be in your presence would be for you to go down there and meet your own requirements of righteousness for all mankind.

If say for instance that “gop” meant you, your name, and “her” meant your salvation, then your earthly name would be gopher, meaning your salvation.

The struggle that Jesus had was intended, premeditated and without stops, so that the full requirement of Gophers law was met in full as payment for the creation of the flesh.

I don’t expect a favorable response to what I said, but that is the jest of His mission.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[look3467]

Jesus did not have to be sacrificed. People are not responsible for the presence of evil. God is. Don't believe me? Look it up in Isaiah 45:7>>>gopher

You are partially right by me. Jesus did have to be sacrificed in that the state God placed us in, He alone could rectify it.
Which brings me to the next sentence of your which properly states whose responsibility it was

“People are not responsible for the presence of evil. God is.”>>>Gopher

So God could not expect mankind to save itself simply by righteous behavior, only by the righteousness behavior of God Himself in the flesh could mankind be expected to be saved.

Therefore, Jesus becomes the sacrificial lamp by which all mankind can be saved.

It was a must, determined, predestined and completed to the exact fulfillment of every dot and title of God own requirements.

And your right-on, on that verse.

The first creation status for mankind ended at the cross, the second creation status started after the cross.

That is what the big picture is all about that I have been trying to paint for all of you.

To some, it might make sense, and to others well, it’s foolishness.

But one thing for sure about my thinking, is that I am able to see passed all the religious rhetoric, all the non-religious scholarly explanations for the non-existent God, and still be able to see clearly to love all of them as I would love myself.

And that is the determined result for the existence of mankind without the penalty of totally being non-existent after existing in the flesh.

Nobody can top that, unless God is with you.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[snfu73]

there's very little in the words of Nazarene to support accusations of delusions of grandeur.

He says he was the son of god...nowdays, if you say you are the son of god...what happens to you?

 

[BitWhys]

He says he was the son of god...nowdays, if you say you are the son of god...what happens to you?

He said God was his Father. Not particularly exceptional.

CHRISTIANS say he's the son of God.