Well, we see this differently. You say the history remark needs to be ‘unpacked’ I am willing if you are?

The basic premise of modern evangelicals is that the scriptures are written to us… to all who happen upon them or are enlightened by evangelicals. This is the basic premise of evangelical thinking. Jesus is the savior. BUT to have salvation through the savior, we need to do something. Fill in the blank.

My premise is quite simple and easy to understand. YOU do not need to do anything to put yourself in the proper relationship with God. Christ has done that. And that is the stumbling block of many.

Now, our question is what we do with this information. Biblically, we who believe in this 21st century are Priests. The ones who proclaim the righteous reign of the God of the Universe. We are (have become) ambassadors to what God IS as opposed to lowly scoffers who continually put down what the Christ has done. The hordes who continually say that Jesus’ death was not actual redemption, but only possible… Can you ever imagine at some point coming face to face with Jesus and somehow having to explain that you thought he died only for those who knew and believed in him? What about the children who died at birth, the mentally challenged, the people who were unfortunately born in other cultures?

Actually, my thinking is that the afterlife will be an incredible journey.

Look forward to your response.

Love ya.

Jesus referenced “he will be numbered with the transgressors” an Isaiah prophecy, so it may be that allowing Peter to have a sword was necessary for him to manifest as a transgressor by defending Jesus with that sword and cutting the ear off of the soldier arresting Jesus.

Maybe i’m missing something but didn’t Jesus explain this incident “For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in me” “And he was numbered with the transgressors” For the things concerning me have an end" Isa 53.12 (Luke 22.37)

In other words Peter was given a sword so he could ultimately slice the ear off the soldier arresting Jesus and so Peter became a transgressor, fulfilling Isa 53.12

Hmmmm… Too bad you hadn’t been around in the apostle Paul’s day. You could have straightened him out on that point.

Would have bet and won that you would have responded in that way.

Hmmmm Chad… Too bad a certain someone hadn’t been around in the Moses’ day as he could have straightened him out on quite a few more points.

Well, I was not around in Paul’s time, for better or for worse, but I am here in this time… And my understanding of the undisputable doing of Christ is worth saying again and again. He unilaterally took the sin of the whole world upon the crucified body. Enough said it is done.

Who argues with that? What you and others (Davo) cannot seem to grasp or even understand (because of a seriously truncated understanding g of scripture?) is: what that means.
I have continued respect for your right to those theories and to you both personally, of course.

Steve, Peter was rebuked for cutting off the soldier’s ear. I think at that time, many believed that Jesus was going to take the earthly throne of Israel and bring it back to it’s glory days. I’m sure that those in support of this were ready and willing to die in battle to make it happen. However, no earthly king can save.

On another note, there was no cause to sentence Jesus to death since He committed no crime. This makes the people who were responsible for His death guilty of murder as well as treason for killing a legitimate heir to the throne.Those in charge of upholding the Laws of God would then be justified in the use of the sword, as is the case with police authorities today. This is just a thought. Personally, I believe the sword was for self defense purposes.

So what exactly is it Dave are you saying I… “cannot seem to grasp or even understand” that means something

Well… a certain Someone WAS around in Moses’ day, and many years later, when He divested Himself of His divine attributes and became fully human, He DID bring forth the truth about the character of God. While Moses saw God as one who hated Israel’s enemies and killed them, Jesus instructed His disciples to love their enemies and do good to them. He indicated that in so doing, his disciples would truly show themselves to be children of God because God is kind to evil people and to ungrateful people (Luke 6:35).

Thus Jesus did straighten out that false depiction of God as being a violent Being who punished and even killed evil people. He portrayed God as one who loved the wicked and treated them kindly. Then He instructed His disciples to do the same.

The apostle Paul understood this, too. He wrote that God’s kindness is meant to lead us to repentance. (Romans 2:4)

Paidion, Moses did not see God as one who hated Israel’s enemies and killed them. He instructed them in the ways of the Lord. The people who came out of Egypt were give the “manna from heaven”. However, some rebelled.
As Joshua 5:4-6 says, “And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: All the people who came out of Egypt who were males, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way after hey had come out of Egypt. For all the people who were born in the wilderness on the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised. For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people who were men of war, who came out of Egypt were consumed because they did not obey the voice of the Lord.”

Malachi 2:5-7 says this: “My covenant was with him (Levi), one of life and peace, and I gave them to him that he might fear Me; so he feared Me and was reverent before my name. The law of truth was in His mouth, and injustice was not found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and equity, and turned many away from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth; for he is a messenger of the Lord of hosts.”

Back to Joshua 11: 18-19 'Joshua made war a long time with all those kings. There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. All the others they took in battle."

The people of Israel were not to conquer the world through their mighty men of war. They were to be a peaceful people. However, they were allowed to defend themselves against any one who threatened that peace.

Chad, I was speaking of the (non) possibility of conquering Rome via the sword in the first century. Constantine came along quite a little while after that. As to whether it was the church conquering Rome or Constantine co-opting the church as a useful political tool, is another question altogether.

Well, I thank you for the respect, and possibly I ‘do’ think that I grasp what we are talking about. I will go out on a limb here, this is a quagmire, pure and simple.

The (what I call) pantelist / historical view is the view that (IMO) harmonizes what the OT and NT scriptures say and mean to us today. Dave, this ‘view’ has liberated me in ways that I cannot explain. The Idea that Christ’s atonement is ‘actual’ and not conditional has opened up a new world for me. Now I have to figure out a way to tell the people around me about this. So many are tainted with the idea of hell and punishment and a God who somehow will not understand them though they will proclaim the ‘god knows every hair on your head’ scripture. Amazing.

The idea that it is truncated is really an opinion. Though I appreciate your opinion.

Lets have some fun here. Those of you who follow motogp, Qatar is coming up. 200 mph motorcycles road racing at night under the lights. Doesn’t get any better than that!

You may need them, to escape all the zombies. When the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse - finally arrives. ,

To escape the zombies?

Can you explain?

Chad, I used the terminology of ‘not grasping’/‘not seeing’ mischievously, riffing off the same language you and davo have used many times, when you were accusing us of the same.

Hi Cindy, the point that Rome was in essence converted to Christianity and the Roman Church chugged along was indeed a very huge point. A point we should maybe consider. Then we need to realize what that constituted. History!

Well I’m not sure what I said, but your use of ‘mischievously’ is an interesting point.

Look, you do not like the Idea that I think that Christ atoned all sin. ‘No’?

Motorcycle fast. Zombies slow.