Jump to content


Photo

A Redemptive Saviour?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 December 2012 - 05:35 PM

Are you familiar with the new perspective on Paul? I'd like to see where in Paul's writings that Jesus was offered to appease the wrath of an angry God.


I didn't say that. Where did you get that from? I said that the atonement doctrine is about sacrificial blood. Paul preserved the doctrine.

63:6.4 Very early the Andonic peoples formed the habit of refraining from eating the flesh of the animal of tribal veneration. Presently, in order more suitably to impress the minds of their youths, they evolved a ceremony of reverence which was carried out about the body of one of these venerated animals; and still later on, this primitive performance developed into the more elaborate sacrificial ceremonies of their descendants. And this is the origin of sacrifices as a part of worship. This idea was elaborated by Moses in the Hebrew ritual and was preserved, in principle, by the Apostle Paul as the doctrine of atonement for sin by “the shedding of blood.”

Edited by Bonita, 08 December 2012 - 05:35 PM.


#22 Howard509

Howard509

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 December 2012 - 05:41 PM

I didn't say that. Where did you get that from? I said that the atonement doctrine is about sacrificial blood. Paul preserved the doctrine.

63:6.4 Very early the Andonic peoples formed the habit of refraining from eating the flesh of the animal of tribal veneration. Presently, in order more suitably to impress the minds of their youths, they evolved a ceremony of reverence which was carried out about the body of one of these venerated animals; and still later on, this primitive performance developed into the more elaborate sacrificial ceremonies of their descendants. And this is the origin of sacrifices as a part of worship. This idea was elaborated by Moses in the Hebrew ritual and was preserved, in principle, by the Apostle Paul as the doctrine of atonement for sin by “the shedding of blood.”


I think we need to get to the question of what did Paul actually mean instead of what 2000 years of Christian theology would lead us to mean. I find this short article by C.S. Lewis helpful:

http://homepages.par...lewisatone.html

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


#23 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:01 AM

I think we need to get to the question of what did Paul actually mean instead of what 2000 years of Christian theology would lead us to mean. I find this short article by C.S. Lewis helpful:

http://homepages.par...lewisatone.html


Neither Paul or C.S. Lewis have it right. Although both have teeny, tiny fragments of truth in them, their basic assumptions about sin and sacrifice are about as far wrong as wrong can be. Why don't we talk about the Urantia Book and its teachings about original sin, because there is no such thing as original sin. If there is no such thing as original sin, there's no need for atonement and both Paul's and C.S. Lewis' ideas are, for the most part, useless, unenlightened and primitive. Jesus was not a scapeman for sin.

89:01 Primitive man regarded himself as being in debt to the spirits, as standing in need of redemption. As the savages looked at it, in justice the spirits might have visited much more bad luck upon them. As time passed, this concept developed into the doctrine of sin and salvation. The soul was looked upon as coming into the world under forfeit - original sin. The soul must be ransomed; a scapegoat must be provided. The head-hunter, in addition to practicing the cult of skull worship, was able to provide a substitute for his own life, a scapeman.

92:3.2 The cardinal religious ideas of incantation, inspiration, revelation, propitiation, repentance, atonement, intercession, sacrifice, prayer, confession, worship, survival after death, sacrament, ritual, ransom, salvation, redemption, covenant, uncleanness, purification, prophecy, original sin - they all go back to the early times of primordial ghost fear.

#24 Howard509

Howard509

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:18 AM

It's interesting that you mention the topic of original sin, since the belief that sin is passed down through procreation originated with Augustine, and has never been accepted by the Eastern Church. Instead, Eastern Orthodoxy has always believed that we sin due to our having free will in an imperfect world, that we might be born with a tendency to sin but not with the inborn guilt of sin. When Paul writes that with one man's sin, death entered into the world, he is not saying that with one man's sin, everyone inherited his guilt. Jesus' death and resurrection were to cure the mortality resultant from sin, not to erase an ancestral guilt.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


#25 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:00 AM

You say: " Jesus' death and resurrection were to cure the mortality resultant from sin, not to erase an ancestral guilt. "


Cure mortality? Mortality results from sin? Please provide any supporting text. This is not why Michael came or Jesus stayed for the cross.
Peace be upon you."

#26 Howard509

Howard509

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:06 AM

You say: " Jesus' death and resurrection were to cure the mortality resultant from sin, not to erase an ancestral guilt. "


Cure mortality? Mortality results from sin? Please provide any supporting text. This is not why Michael came or Jesus stayed for the cross.


Jesus came to show us the way to personality survival. Deliberate and conscious sin without repentance and asking of forgiveness leads to extinction. Jesus willingly died as to demonstrate the loving path that we should follow. Jesus refused to fight back against his persecutors and instead forgave them as to reveal the radical forgiveness of God. Regardless of whether Jesus was offered up to appease the wrath of an angry God, does the manner in which he died reveal how man may be reconciled to God and live with God in the hereafter?

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


#27 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:24 AM

What do you mean - "whether Jesus was offered up to appease the wrath of an angry God" ??!! And man needs no reconciliation....just his own recognition of Father within. He either chose or allowed his cruxifiction to demonstrate absolute faith and confidence, not any redemtion or reconciliation. One need not "ask for forgiveness", but to merely accept it and change away from evil/error to truth, beauty, and goodness. There are no words or deeds for man to find God as God has already "found" man. We are not lost nor doomed, we are confused and afraid.....and safe from all harm in fact if not in mind....yet. Repentence is an act of mind, a realization of prior bad motives, priorities, and decisions and a commitment to change the mind Godward. True, many feel deep contrition. But it's ok with Father if we just learn slowly or have an epiphony filled with giggles of reversion instead of deep regrets and remorse....as they are no more real than that which caused them. Or so I believe.
Peace be upon you."

#28 Howard509

Howard509

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:29 AM

What do you mean - "whether Jesus was offered up to appease the wrath of an angry God" ??!!


I mean that nowhere does the Bible itself claim and nowhere did the first Christians actually believe that Jesus died to appease the wrath of an angry God. The meaning and significance of what the Urantia Book teaches about Jesus' death is pretty much in line with what the first Christians taught:

http://en.wikipedia....ry_of_atonement

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


#29 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:54 AM

I mean that nowhere does the Bible itself claim and nowhere did the first Christians actually believe that Jesus died to appease the wrath of an angry God. The meaning and significance of what the Urantia Book teaches about Jesus' death is pretty much in line with what the first Christians taught:

http://en.wikipedia....ry_of_atonement


Which first Christians are you talking about? There were many different groups right from the very beginning.

#30 Howard509

Howard509

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:57 AM

Which first Christians are you talking about? There were many different groups right from the very beginning.


I don't understand why, every time I answer a question, it's followed by another question, as if I am saying things that aren't widely available information. The point is that none of the first Christians believed that Jesus died to appease the wrath of an angry God. There might be certain passages in the New Testament, especially Paul, that would be compatible with a belief that Jesus died for that purpose, but nowhere does the Bible directly say that Jesus died to appease God's wrath. What Anselm and others after him did was string many different Biblical passages together in order to fit their view of atonement.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


#31 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:12 AM

What Anselm and others after him did was string many different Biblical passages together in order to fit their view of atonement.


Howard, Anselm was not a first Christian. He lived in the 11th and 12th century. Paul, who was a first Christian, did connect the death of Jesus to the atonement doctrine.

63:6.4 Very early the Andonic peoples formed the habit of refraining from eating the flesh of the animal of tribal veneration. Presently, in order more suitably to impress the minds of their youths, they evolved a ceremony of reverence which was carried out about the body of one of these venerated animals; and still later on, this primitive performance developed into the more elaborate sacrificial ceremonies of their descendants. And this is the origin of sacrifices as a part of worship. This idea was elaborated by Moses in the Hebrew ritual and was preserved, in principle, by the Apostle Paul as the doctrine of atonement for sin by “the shedding of blood.”

#32 Howard509

Howard509

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:20 AM

Howard, Anselm was not a first Christian. He lived in the 11th and 12th century. Paul, who was a first Christian, did connect the death of Jesus to the atonement doctrine.

63:6.4 Very early the Andonic peoples formed the habit of refraining from eating the flesh of the animal of tribal veneration. Presently, in order more suitably to impress the minds of their youths, they evolved a ceremony of reverence which was carried out about the body of one of these venerated animals; and still later on, this primitive performance developed into the more elaborate sacrificial ceremonies of their descendants. And this is the origin of sacrifices as a part of worship. This idea was elaborated by Moses in the Hebrew ritual and was preserved, in principle, by the Apostle Paul as the doctrine of atonement for sin by “the shedding of blood.”


Like I've said several times in this forum, nowhere does Paul directly claim that Jesus died to appease the wrath of an angry God. In Paul's understanding, Jesus' death was tied to the forgiveness of sin, but not as a requirement to appease the Father's righteous anger, requiring the sacrifice of an innocent victim. On the contrary, Paul saw Jesus as a free agent, willingly offering up himself to the world.

In the manner of Jesus' freely accepting death and his forgiveness of his persecutors, Jesus gave the ultimate disclosure of God's forgiveness and love to the world. Paul may have explained that spiritual truth using the blood atonement terminology of the culture in which he was raised, but nowhere does he directly say that Jesus was offered to appease the wrath of an angry God. I think we should give Paul more credit than that.

I take it that you may not have read the recent scholarly literature on Paul. This is a good starting point:

http://www.amazon.co...ds=paul+crossan

Paul was a flawed man but we shouldn't forget the important role he played in spreading the message of Jesus to the world.

Edited by Howard509, 12 December 2012 - 09:24 AM.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


#33 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:06 AM

Like I've said several times in this forum, nowhere does Paul directly claim that Jesus died to appease the wrath of an angry God. In Paul's understanding, Jesus' death was tied to the forgiveness of sin, but not as a requirement to appease the Father's righteous anger, requiring the sacrifice of an innocent victim. On the contrary, Paul saw Jesus as a free agent, willingly offering up himself to the world.


You've just stated that Paul claimed that Jesus died to forgive sin . . . original sin. And if it's not original sin, then what sin of mine was he forgiving? I haven't committed any sins. Sin is defined as a conscious attitude of the whole personality who knowingly resists cosmic reality, which is the will of God. I'm not conscious of anything like that.

People do not need Jesus to forgive them for their sins as much as they need to learn to forgive others. God forgives sins before they even happen. In fact, God doesn't even recognize sin because it is not a reality; he recognizes the sinner and every sinner has ample mercy credits to allow his/her salvation, if he/she should choose, with or without death on the cross.

2:6.8 God loves the sinner and hates the sin: such a statement is true philosophically, but God is a transcendent personality, and persons can only love and hate other persons. Sin is not a person. God loves the sinner because he is a personality reality (potentially eternal), while towards sin God strikes no personal attitude, for sin is not a spiritual reality; it is not personal; therefore does only the justice of God take cognizance of its existence. The love of God saves the sinner; the law of God destroys the sin. This attitude of the divine nature would apparently change if the sinner finally identified himself wholly with sin just as the same mortal mind may also fully identify itself with the indwelling spirit Adjuster. Such a sin-identified mortal would then become wholly unspiritual in nature (and therefore personally unreal) and would experience eventual extinction of being. Unreality, even incompleteness of creature nature, cannot exist forever in a progressingly real and increasingly spiritual universe.

#34 Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*

Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:36 PM

You've just stated that Paul claimed that Jesus died to forgive sin . . . original sin. And if it's not original sin, then what sin of mine was he forgiving? I haven't committed any sins. Sin is defined as a conscious attitude of the whole personality who knowingly resists cosmic reality, which is the will of God. I'm not conscious of anything like that.

People do not need Jesus to forgive them for their sins as much as they need to learn to forgive others. God forgives sins before they even happen. In fact, God doesn't even recognize sin because it is not a reality; he recognizes the sinner and every sinner has ample mercy credits to allow his/her salvation, if he/she should choose, with or without death on the cross.

2:6.8 God loves the sinner and hates the sin: such a statement is true philosophically, but God is a transcendent personality, and persons can only love and hate other persons. Sin is not a person. God loves the sinner because he is a personality reality (potentially eternal), while towards sin God strikes no personal attitude, for sin is not a spiritual reality; it is not personal; therefore does only the justice of God take cognizance of its existence. The love of God saves the sinner; the law of God destroys the sin. This attitude of the divine nature would apparently change if the sinner finally identified himself wholly with sin just as the same mortal mind may also fully identify itself with the indwelling spirit Adjuster. Such a sin-identified mortal would then become wholly unspiritual in nature (and therefore personally unreal) and would experience eventual extinction of being. Unreality, even incompleteness of creature nature, cannot exist forever in a progressingly real and increasingly spiritual universe.


WOOOOO! -- Bonita, are you saying that we don't have to worry about sin because, there is not sin? and that sin is not real? therefore "dam the torpedoes, full speed ahead"? In your sighting the quote above, you underlined "for sin is not spiritual reality" which to me, means that you imply that sin is unseen or invisible? but the remaining quote reaffirms that mortals are identified with sin. It would appear that the indwelling spirit is unaffected by sin but attempt to adjust the mortal through the recognition of sin to the sinful mortal. Jesus' part is the mercy from the affect of sin, should sin persist in the mortal.

#35 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:40 AM

I should wait for Bonita on this probably but....she did not say there is no sin nor that she had never sinned....I read she does not sin and I don't either. I error plenty still though. Big difference and the definition of sin is specific in text....willful and knowing. She also did not say there is no sin in the world. And, finally, she is quite correct that evil and sin reside but in time and space and is an irrelevancy to spirit and destiny. It's only value lies within the contrast it provides to the ligth of truth, beauty, and goodness for free will to choose better by experience. Sin is its own judge and delivers its own punishments for sin moves the sinner further from God in mind and delivers fear, anger, greed, and other forms of self destructive results. God only forgives by the mercy credits already extended to all who but turn away from sin. It is not case by case or sin by sin....all sin is forgiven by Father. But sin itself is not so forgetful or merciful....one must leave its grasp intentionally and willfully to escape sin and its consequences. Its consequences are not Father's but its own....the inherency of free will should not be considered God's wrath or punishment and needs no atonement or sacrifice. It needs to be left alone like a child learns to stay away from a hot stove...because they will get burned....not by the parent but by the stove. And yes there are plenty of children who are very slow learners and plenty of sin. Or so I understood Bonita's post.

Edited by Bradly aka/fanofVan, 13 December 2012 - 08:42 AM.

Peace be upon you."

#36 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:51 AM

My personal little scale of choice:

1. Do the right thing for the right reason....the Jesus Way.

2. Do the wrong thing but for the right reason....other focused, unselfish and right intent....wrong strategy. Evil/error - not sin.

3. Do the right thing but for the wrong reason....posturing for attention or gain, self focused strategy internally (loud public prayer and public alms) - sin.

4. Do the wrong thing and for the wrong reason. Sin leaning toward iniquity or the willful embrace of the rotten fruit of self serving habits of choice.


The self centered content of intent and act determines the results of choice in spirit progress or regression. I had this scale worked out prior to reading TUB so it is not specific to text although not inaccurate by my understanding of the Revelation.
Peace be upon you."

#37 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:22 AM

WOOOOO! -- Bonita, are you saying that we don't have to worry about sin because, there is not sin? and that sin is not real? therefore "dam the torpedoes, full speed ahead"?


No, that is NOT what I said, or what TUB says. The quote says that sin is not personally real to God. Sin is not a person. It is real to the law of God, however, and there are consequences to sin.

Sin is defined as deliberate disloyalty to deity, meaning God. Disloyalty means refusing to do God's will. There are different levels of disloyalty, but in order for disloyalty to be sin, it must be deliberate and conscious.

89:10.2Sin must be redefined as deliberate disloyalty to Deity. There are degrees of disloyalty: the partial loyalty of indecision; the divided loyalty of confliction; the dying loyalty of indifference; and the death of loyalty exhibited in devotion to godless ideals.

89:10.3 There is no real sin in the absence of conscious disloyalty to Deity.

Many times we are unaware of our disloyalty, we get confused about what is God's will and what is our own will, we sometimes think we know but we procrastinate because we don't think it's important enough to act upon, or that it can wait until a later time. But it's all different degrees of disloyalty and sin. Isn't it wonderful that God is so patient and forgiving?

In your sighting the quote above, you underlined "for sin is not spiritual reality" which to me, means that you imply that sin is unseen or invisible? but the remaining quote reaffirms that mortals are identified with sin.


Whoa Nelly . . . I'm not implying anything. The quote says what it says. Sin is conscious, deliberate disloyalty to God and an unwillingness to do his will. God doesn't see the sin, he sees the person who is fighting against him. And since God is the only true reality there is, the more a person resists to align him/herself with reality, or God, the less real he/she becomes.

It would appear that the indwelling spirit is unaffected by sin but attempt to adjust the mortal through the recognition of sin to the sinful mortal. Jesus' part is the mercy from the affect of sin, should sin persist in the mortal.


I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly, but the Adjuster most certainly suffers from our sins and evil thinking.

108:6.2 Through the bestowal of the divine gifts the Father makes the closest possible approach to sin and evil, for it is literally true that the Adjuster must coexist in the mortal mind even in the very midst of human unrighteousness. The indwelling Adjusters are particularly tormented by those thoughts which are purely sordid and selfish; they are distressed by irreverence for that which is beautiful and divine, and they are virtually thwarted in their work by many of man’s foolish animal fears and childish anxieties.

Mercy comes from God, Jesus is the revelation of God's mercy. But despite a lavish gift of mercy credits, it is possible for a person to become so unreal as to make mercy unattainable. Although God, as a person, has no attitude toward sin because sin is not a person, the law of God does most certainly react to sin.

146:2.5 4. There is a basic law of justice in the universe which mercy is powerless to circumvent. The unselfish glories of Paradise are not possible of reception by a thoroughly selfish creature of the realms of time and space. Even the infinite love of God cannot force the salvation of eternal survival upon any mortal creature who does not choose to survive. Mercy has great latitude of bestowal, but, after all, there are mandates of justice which even love combined with mercy cannot effectively abrogate.

#38 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:25 AM

I really must stop being so surprised by the intersects of threads and Brother Rick's wonderful OPAD - today's seems appropriate to this discussion of evil and sin contrasted with the fruits of truth, beauty, and goodness. The results of free will are not mysterious nor difficult to comprehend....just impossible to avoid.

"...It is forever true, `the just shall live by faith.' Entrance into the Father's kingdom is wholly free, but progress--growth in grace--is essential to continuance therein...." (1682:4) 150:5.2

"...Life in the Father's eternal creation is not an endless rest of idleness and selfish ease but rather a ceaseless progression in grace, truth, and glory...." (1953:4) 181:1.2

"...You who know these truths must yield the increase of the fruits of the spirit and manifest a growing devotion to the unselfish service of your fellow servants...." (1917:1) 176:3.5


"...If professed believers bear not these fruits of the divine spirit in their lives, they are dead; the Spirit of Truth is not in them...." (2054:3) 193:2.2

...The consciousness of the spirit domination of a human life is presently attended by an increasing exhibition of the characteristics of the Spirit in the life reactions of such a spirit-led mortal, "for the fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance...." (381:7) 34:6.12

"...And the fruits of the divine spirit which are yielded in the lives of spirit-born and God-knowing mortals are: loving service, unselfish devotion, courageous loyalty, sincere fairness, enlightened honesty, undying hope, confiding trust, merciful ministry, unfailing goodness, forgiving tolerance, and enduring peace...." (2054:3) 193:2.2




Thanks Rick for all you do here for so many others. Love in action.
Peace be upon you."

#39 Howard509

Howard509

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:05 PM

In the more advanced epochs of planetary evolution these seraphim are instrumental in supplanting the atonement idea by the concept of divine attunement as a philosophy of mortal survival. - Paper 39, Section 5, p. 5-6

I do not see the Urantia Book as teaching that the manner of Jesus' death was insignificant to His purpose of incarnating on earth. Rather than for atonement, as in being sacrificed to an angry God, Jesus' death served the purpose of our attunement with the divine, in revealing the radical forgiveness of God just as Jesus forgave his persecutors and in showing the example we should emulate in our path to God.

Edited by Howard509, 14 January 2013 - 07:06 PM.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


#40 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:20 PM

It is important to understand though that the cross was Jesus' decision to allow or to not escape. The paper on the 40 days is very enlightening on this topic. Michael's bestowal was complete for a Creator Son upon baptism (not by or because of baptism, just the timing was so). His public execution was a powerful example to the apostles and all believers and well demonstrated Michael's faith in Father to all of Nebadon. It has become very symbolic to many. But this voluntary demonstration was not a requirement of His bestowal.....which only makes it all the more wonderful and powerful. TUB says, however, that it is His LIFE and not His death that is our example and inspiration.
Peace be upon you."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users