God Lives vs. Literalism

[bennyboy]

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I'll probably make another thread about this, but this is also one of my questions. If Jesus is God, then that sentence means that God is the mediator between God and men. That makes me feel a little confused. Am I misunderstanding?

 

[jasoncran]

that is called the trinity.
and it isnt contradictory, just hard to completely grasp.

 

[bennyboy]

We all have Worldly obligations we must attend to, but it is how we perceive them that is the problem. Its really not a matter to a point!, what we own, but what owns us. Anything that stands between us, and what God may ask of us, becomes an Idol, and the Idol becomes sin, and sin separates man from God which is death.

I like your explanation very much, and I think that's a sensible interpretation of what Jesus said; I totally agree that attachment to things can interfere with a sense of what's right or a willingness to act even if it means some sacrifice. However, how can I be sure that it wasn't literal, and that I should definitely sell all my stuff and give it away? If Jesus was talking about material attachment, why didn't He just say something like, "You can own things, but if that ownership prevents you from following God, you'll never see heaven" ?

 

[bennyboy]

that is called the trinity.
and it isnt contradictory, just hard to completely grasp.

OIC

I'll search this forum a bit; I bet there's been lots of posts about the trinity already.

 

[Mysteryman]

that is called the trinity.
and it isnt contradictory, just hard to completely grasp.

OIC

I'll search this forum a bit; I bet there's been lots of posts about the trinity already.

Hi

You can count on it ! :yes

But logic is thrown under the table when it is discussed.

Why have a go between, when there would be no rational reason to have a go between ? In otherwords, why even have a mediator between , when there is no between. Okay, I am getting a headace just trying to express myself here , LOL -

 

[Mike]

Hi

You can count on it ! :yes

But logic is thrown under the table when it is discussed.

Why have a go between, when there would be no rational reason to have a go between ? In otherwords, why even have a mediator between , when there is no between. Okay, I am getting a headace just trying to express myself here , LOL -

Well MM, after shaking hands, it didn't take long to find another dispute!

Bennyboy, as Jason said, this is the Trinity. Along with the Holy Spirit, the Son and the Father are One, 1 God. This is not intercessory or a mediator, since Jesus is God. The Trinity is a mystery which is almost impossible to fully understand, but we can apprehend it. Mysteryman's flippant comments about throwing logic aside, the Trinity is True, and Jesus IS God. Read the evidence on both sides of the Trinity threads/debates, pray on it, and read about it in the Bible.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi

You can count on it ! :yes

But logic is thrown under the table when it is discussed.

Why have a go between, when there would be no rational reason to have a go between ? In otherwords, why even have a mediator between , when there is no between. Okay, I am getting a headace just trying to express myself here , LOL -

Well MM, after shaking hands, it didn't take long to find another dispute!

Bennyboy, as Jason said, this is the Trinity. Along with the Holy Spirit, the Son and the Father are One, 1 God. This is not intercessory or a mediator, since Jesus is God. The Trinity is a mystery which is almost impossible to fully understand, but we can apprehend it. Mysteryman's flippant comments about throwing logic aside, the Trinity is True, and Jesus IS God. Read the evidence on both sides of the Trinity threads/debates, pray on it, and read about it in the Bible.

Good morning Mike :D

I have a son that lives in Toledo Ohio, which is not that far from where you live. I actually live in Vermont. If I were to send my son over to visit with you, I believe I would still be here in Vermont, while my son was visiting you in Mich. That is because , my son is not me, and I am not my son. But, if I were to send him, he then would represent me, as it was I, his Father, who sent him. < Sound familiar with the Word of God ?

Have a nice day Mike ! :yes

 

[Mike]

I have a son that lives in Toledo Ohio, which is not that far from where you live. I actually live in Vermont. If I were to send my son over to visit with you, I believe I would still be here in Vermont, while my son was visiting you in Mich. That is because , my son is not me, and I am not my son. But, if I were to send him, he then would represent me, as it was I, his Father, who sent him. < Sound familiar with the Word of God ?

Have a nice day Mike ! :yes

Directing this back to bennyboy... bennyboy, Mysteryman isn't God and his son is terrific I'm sure (sorry he lives in Toledo ;) ), but he's not God, thus the nature of their relationship can not be compared to that of the Son and the Father within the Triune God. All earthly analogies to our God fall short of His True nature. While we can try to use our existence to wrap our arms around the concept, we have a limited point of reference. I realize you aren't complaining to God as Job was, but if you read a few chapters of Job, starting with Job 38, he makes it clear in His response to Job that His ways are far above that which we can grasp.

Bennyboy, you have several topics listed here, and if people continue to respond to everything, this thread could get very convoluted. This is a worthy, MOST WORTHY, question in and of itself. You should post it yourself in the Theology Forum: Is Jesus God?

I'm in my home office staring out the window at a sunny 80 degree day, so it's kinda taunting me, but I'll have a nice one. You do the same, Mysterman! :yes

 

[Free]

Seeing as how there are a couple of ongoing threads on the Trinity and how involved they get, let's keep this one on topic and not discuss the Trinity here.

 

[samuel]

I like your explanation very much, and I think that's a sensible interpretation of what Jesus said; I totally agree that attachment to things can interfere with a sense of what's right or a willingness to act even if it means some sacrifice. However, how can I be sure that it wasn't literal, and that I should definitely sell all my stuff and give it away? If Jesus was talking about material attachment, why didn't He just say something like, "You can own things, but if that ownership prevents you from following God, you'll never see heaven" ?

If the Rich Ruler had agreed to go, and sell all that he had. Jesus would not have required him to do so, and just bid him to follow him immediately. As he did the young man that wanted to bury his father first. When he told him to leave the dead to bury the dead, and follow him. That young man had no problem with doing so, and Jesus knew he didn't.

So it was his attachment to his riches, not the riches themselves, that prevented him form following Jesus. Just as many today allow money, homes, cars, and other people, just to mention just a few of our modern Idols; from following Jesus.
So if all your possessions are standing in the way of your following Jesus, you would be better off selling them. But the problem with that is our sincerity is not based on our works, but on our heart condition.

 

[happyjoy]

Jesus said "I am the Truth, the Life, and the Way". By no other way, may a man approach God. That's all that needs to be said! in answer to this question.

Just to be clear Jesus didn't say the By no other way, may a man approach God. One should not put words in Jesus mouth.


What that quote means is certainly up to interpretation.

Yes He did
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The verse is still up to interpretation.

 

[Free]

Just to be clear Jesus didn't say the By no other way, may a man approach God. One should not put words in Jesus mouth.


What that quote means is certainly up to interpretation.

Yes He did
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The verse is still up to interpretation.

How so?

 

[samuel]

happyjoy wrote:
watchman F wrote:
happyjoy wrote:
Just to be clear Jesus didn't say the By no other way, may a man approach God. One should not put words in Jesus mouth.


What that quote means is certainly up to interpretation.
Yes He did
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.



The verse is still up to interpretation.

This is probably a waste of time, and words. But that verse is not open for interpretation, because it needs none, it interprets its self. Only the blind stagger along roads, and fall into ditches.

 

[Free]

Let me make my point more clear: He was telling the truth that no one comes to the Father but by him with no ego involved. The very basis for that is his dying for everyone.

 

[happyjoy]

Let me make my point more clear: He was telling the truth that no one comes to the Father but by him with no ego involved. The very basis for that is his dying for everyone.

Well then everyone goes to heaven if he died for everyone.

 

[Vic C.]

Promotion of UR is prohibited.

I said all posts unrelated to the OP would be deleted and I meant it. So, sorry to those who wasted their time responding to HJ.

 

[bennyboy]

If the Rich Ruler had agreed to go, and sell all that he had. Jesus would not have required him to do so, and just bid him to follow him immediately. As he did the young man that wanted to bury his father first. When he told him to leave the dead to bury the dead, and follow him. That young man had no problem with doing so, and Jesus knew he didn't.

So it was his attachment to his riches, not the riches themselves, that prevented him form following Jesus. Just as many today allow money, homes, cars, and other people, just to mention just a few of our modern Idols; from following Jesus.
So if all your possessions are standing in the way of your following Jesus, you would be better off selling them. But the problem with that is our sincerity is not based on our works, but on our heart condition.

This is the thing I'm having trouble with. I can't see how the passage in the Bible supports the idea that Jesus was just testing the man. The statement itself looks pretty simple: "Sell your stuff, or never see heaven."

There are 3 possibilities that I can think of: 1) he was talking to one person, giving a test as it were, but not really expecting him to follow it; 2) he was giving "advice" to one person, telling him if he wanted to achieve his goal of seeing heaven, he had to sell his stuff; 3) his lessons apply to all of us, all the time, so he was stating a truth that applies in all cases to all people.

That's my struggle here: if not everything is taken as case (3), then how do we know which ideas are meant for us, or just for Jesus' audience 2000 years ago? And if Jesus was not being literal, i.e. if he had a purpose to saying things other than what the words themselves actually say-- it seems we are going to get lost interpreting His motivations, and every man will guess different motivations, and take Jesus' words to have a different meaning. Does this mean that 1 person will "guess" right, and the others will all be condemned?

 

[happyjoy]

That's my struggle here: if not everything is taken as case (3), then how do we know which ideas are meant for us, or just for Jesus' audience 2000 years ago? And if Jesus was not being literal, i.e. if he had a purpose to saying things other than what the words themselves actually say-- it seems we are going to get lost interpreting His motivations, and every man will guess different motivations, and take Jesus' words to have a different meaning. Does this mean that 1 person will "guess" right, and the others will all be condemned?

There is no one interpretation so there is no right guess.

 

[bennyboy]

That's my struggle here: if not everything is taken as case (3), then how do we know which ideas are meant for us, or just for Jesus' audience 2000 years ago? And if Jesus was not being literal, i.e. if he had a purpose to saying things other than what the words themselves actually say-- it seems we are going to get lost interpreting His motivations, and every man will guess different motivations, and take Jesus' words to have a different meaning. Does this mean that 1 person will "guess" right, and the others will all be condemned?

There is no one interpretation so there is no right guess.

So you believe we are free to interpret the Bible as we see fit, depending on particular circumstances? I take it you would also say that Adam and Eve and certain other parts of the Bible are metaphor or parables, and not literally true?

 

[happyjoy]

That's my struggle here: if not everything is taken as case (3), then how do we know which ideas are meant for us, or just for Jesus' audience 2000 years ago? And if Jesus was not being literal, i.e. if he had a purpose to saying things other than what the words themselves actually say-- it seems we are going to get lost interpreting His motivations, and every man will guess different motivations, and take Jesus' words to have a different meaning. Does this mean that 1 person will "guess" right, and the others will all be condemned?

There is no one interpretation so there is no right guess.

So you believe we are free to interpret the Bible as we see fit, depending on particular circumstances? I take it you would also say that Adam and Eve and certain other parts of the Bible are metaphor or parables, and not literally true?

You are correct.