Biblical Scholarship

[grannymh]

Historical accuracy lies not in the text, but in the interpretation - a book not intended to be historical should not be judged as though it were meant to be.

That is one powerful explanation. Bible Christians should embroider that on their foreheads.

 

[grannymh]

Regarding the question – what is your interpretation of Christ on the Cross – not the “picture” but the reality."

Hi, granny. Some interpretation may be appropriate, but not much.

This is not the Christian position.

The ultimate simple truth is that God’s Own perfect justice demands that there be no “pennies from Heaven,” no “free rides.” So, God’s Own perfect justice demanded that grace needed for salvation, the Final Ingredient of mankind, be paid for. God the Son said, “I will.”

And to what did the Son say “I will”? Please explain Final Ingredient of mankind from your personal experience since what you are writing doesn’t sound like traditional Christianity.

God the Father said, “I lovingly accept your loving gift, and lovingly offer you to suffer and die.” And so Christ was born, to suffer and die horribly. Something like that, I think, happened.

It would be appropriate for you to find out the reason Christ was born. One thing about Bible loving Christians – they know what happened.

You can see grace in the form of “the Final Ingredient” typified – that is, symbolized – when the blood and water come flowing out of Christ’s side.

This sounds like you are saying that the Final Ingredient is death. Bible Christians look to something beyond death.

Just as Eve, representing mankind, was drawn out of the side of Adam, who symbolized Christ according to Paul’s unquestionable inspired declaration at Roman’s 5:14, the waters of salvation coming out of Christ’s side on the cross, activated by the sacrificial blood of Christ, followed Eve out of the side of Christ. The Final Ingredient followed Eve out of Christ. Okay?

As a Bible Christian, should I consider the statement “Adam, who symbolized Christ” an insult?

 

[grannymh]

Is there anyone else who reads and studies Scripture within the Tradition of the Catholic Church?

I do. And I love it.

 

[grannymh]

I’m sorry, Deanna, but it’s simply not “the perfect history book.”

And what exactly is your point?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Granny: 'Regarding the question – what is your interpretation of Christ on the Cross – not the “picture” but the “reality.”'

My repitition of the word “real” below is not to be smart-mouthed, gentle soul, but rather to emphasize that I’m not talking about some personal delusion, but rather what I believe to be the objective reality of the thing.

The real reality really is this, friend: Christ was born to suffer brutal torture and death, and so He did suffer brutal torture and death – because the perfect justice of God exacted a terrifying price – what Christ had to endure – to pay for the Final Ingredient, grace, needed for our salvation.

This is what we mean when we say, “Christ died for us.”

When the really real blood-and-water flowed from Christ’s really impaled side as He really hung on the cross, that really was done by God to teach us the really real fact that saving grace really needed for salvation, really intended by God Himself to be symbolized by the water flowing out of Christ’s side, really was activited by the sacrificial blood of Christ, personified by the blood mixed with the water. God really did arrange for the blood and water to gush from the side of Christ, to portray it as following Eve out of the side of Adam, whom the Holy Spirit really does guarantee us to have really been intended as a Christ symbol.

Almighty God Himself really did talk to us with symbols in Christ’s crucifixion.

I answered this, despite my decision in the other thread to avoid you for now, because you seemed to take offense in that other thread, even to my kind words, because I wished to address any confusion generated by your request.

Peter

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Granny: ** ‘And to what did the Son say “I will”?’**

Agonizing torture and death, to lovingly pay the price exacted by God’s Own perfect justice for the Final Ingredient, grace.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Granny: ‘Please explain Final Ingredient of mankind from your personal experience since what you are writing doesn’t sound like traditional Christianity.’

It is traditional Christianity. The Final Ingredient is “grace.” I said this up above, friend. You, yourself, quoted me. Here it is:

**God’s Own perfect justice demanded that grace needed for salvation, the Final Ingredient of mankind, be paid for. God the Son said, “I will.” **

With kindest regards,

Peter

 

[diggerdomer]

It is foolish to assume that whenever there is an apparent contradiction, then Scripture must be inaccurate, unreliable, not historically true, merely a fictional teaching story, or in any way false.

Well…of course! At least, from the perspective of simply (foolishly) “assuming.” However, it may very well be (as the Catholic Church teaches) that the Bible is not 100% historically true, or that it may contain teaching stories, or that it may be “false” if one expects to get an accurate age of the earth out of it, and so on.

No one here is assuming anything, at least from what I’ve read. Do you think some messages here are “foolishly assuming”?

 

[DeannaMarie]

I’m sorry, Deanna, but it’s simply not “the perfect history book.”

Peter, I am heart broken. By your “logic”, the Bible is not a reliable book of faith and morals, either.

 

[DeannaMarie]

From Gottle of Geer:
Historical accuracy lies not in the text, but in the interpretation.

I agree with granny, this is a powerful and accurate statement. Thanks.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Granny: 'Regarding the question – what is your interpretation of Christ on the Cross – not the “picture” but the “reality.”'

My repitition of the word “real” below is not to be smart-mouthed, gentle soul, but rather to emphasize that I’m not talking about some personal delusion, but rather what I believe to be the objective reality of the thing.

The real reality really is this, friend: Christ was born to suffer brutal torture and death, and so He did suffer brutal torture and death – because the perfect justice of God exacted a terrifying price – what Christ had to endure – to pay for the Final Ingredient, grace, needed for our salvation.

This is what we mean when we say, “Christ died for us.”

When the really real blood-and-water flowed from Christ’s really impaled side as He really hung on the cross, that really was done by God to teach us the really real fact that saving grace really needed for salvation, really intended by God Himself to be symbolized by the water flowing out of Christ’s side, really was activited by the sacrificial blood of Christ, personified by the blood mixed with the water. God really did arrange for the blood and water to gush from the side of Christ, to portray it as following Eve out of the side of Adam, whom the Holy Spirit really does guarantee us to have really been intended as a Christ symbol.

Almighty God Himself really did talk to us with symbols in Christ’s crucifixion.

I answered this, despite my decision in the other thread to avoid you for now, because you seemed to take offense in that other thread, even to my kind words, because I wished to address any confusion generated by your request.

Peter

Wow - awesome. I so agree with you. Also, outside the Bible, there is the Catholic Church’s veneration of Mary - which is so rich and deep - the universal mother.

 

[grannymh]

Regarding Post 51 answer to Peter Dawson.

Wow - awesome. I so agree with you. Also, outside the Bible, there is the Catholic Church’s veneration of Mary - which is so rich and deep - the universal mother.

As a Bible Christian, this cranky granny is still confused by some of Peter Dawson’s comments. Maybe you can help me.

For example, Peter writes: “out of the side of Adam, whom the Holy Spirit really does guarantee us to have really been intended as a Christ symbol.” How can Adam, who has a human nature, be a “Christ symbol” when Christ has a Divine nature?

Blessings,
granny

All humanity is worthy of profound respect.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Regarding Post 51 answer to Peter Dawson.

As a Bible Christian, this cranky granny is still confused by some of Peter Dawson’s comments. Maybe you can help me.

For example: "out of the side of Adam, whom the Holy Spirit really does guarantee us to have really been intended as a Christ symbol. " How can Adam, who has a human nature, be a symbol of Christ Who has a Divine nature?

Blessings,
granny

All humanity is worthy of profound respect.

I think Peter is a little over the top sometimes, but there is a direct analogy between Christ and Adam. I don’t think Adam has the same nature of Christ, but there is a huge correlation between them:

[1 Cor 15:45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

[1 Cor 15:47] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

[Rom 5:18] Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The Bible divides men into two classes, those that are ‘in Adam’, and those that are ‘in Christ’. [1 Cor 15:22] ‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.’ All of us, the day we entered this life, were in Adam. But the day that we were born again – born from above, regenerated – we ceased to be in Adam, and are now in Christ. Judicially, in God’s sight, we died with the Lord Jesus on the cross, were buried with Him, and are resurrected in Christ. We were identified with Him. We are in Him.

As we inherited mortality from the first Adam, we have eternal life from the last Adam. [Rom 5:15b] ‘For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many’. We can praise God that the ‘gift by grace’ provides us with not only life out of death, but righteousness out of unrighteousness. [Rom 5:19] ‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous’.

Note that the Lord Jesus is called the last Adam, but the second man. [1 Cor 15:47] ‘The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven’. Why the last Adam, but the second man?

He is the last Adam, because there will never be another man that heads up a whole new race on earth as Adam and Christ have done. But since the Lord Jesus is the head of a new race of men who will all have new, glorified bodies such as He now has, He is only the second man. There will be more like Him.

from: mysteryofgod.net/html/two_men.html