If Jesus kept his mouth shut......

If I had not written what I wrote then you, dyslexia, would not have replied.

Your reading of my words was the cause of your reply.

If I had not written what I did, you would not have responded the way you did.

My words had an effect on you, the effect in this case was for you to reply by saying "not really".

he got ya there dys.


what?

Re: If Jesus kept his mouth shut......


Catholicism was the main game for many centuries and much of Christian theology was formulated by The Church. Original Sin was certainly part of Catholic ideology from the time of Augustine forward. Martin Luther and John Calvin were highly absorbed by the concept of OS and brought it into the Protestant fold during the Reformation.

Yes, quite right, I had forgotten about the ripple in the pond in china causing tornados in Kansas.

Well, anyone of us has his senior moments...

The butterfly effect...

Re: If Jesus kept his mouth shut......
Jesus could have gone against his father's will. That is a point often overlooked by those who believe he actually was God.

But he was born on earth for a purpose, one which he evidently volunteered for. God must have been pretty sure of him to allow this to take place. For, if Jesus had not sacrificed his earthly life, we would have no redemption.

BTW, Jesus died on the Passover as the antitypical Passover sacrifice. The anniversary of that event will take place this year on March 22.

Before you ask him, you might want to read this post by timberlandko so as to be prepared for his answer.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1258536#1258536

Only if the person who reads them allows it to affect them. :wink:

A few points:

First, for those who totally reject the premises of Christianity, at least be aware of the basic historical facts. There is very basic evidence for the fact that a figure historically existed who taught and was crucified. There is not a whole lot of information, but the ancient historian Josephus makes a reference to him. The bigger question is if this figure did in fact refer to himself as the Son of God, etc. For those questions, one should familiarize oneself with the several "quests for the historical Jesus" that have occurred intermittently over the past few centuries.

Second, if we are going to go with Albert Schweitzer in claiming that our Jesus of history is inextricably embedded in the values we are looking for, and therefore we cannot truly know the historical person, we still have not yet gotten to the point of dismissing the myth. To deny the importance of myths is to miss an essential component of human identity. Myth exists to this day in even secular ideology (the myth of the individual, etc.) I am not claiming that the myth of the Christ of Faith is necessarily a good myth to hold onto (nor that it isn't -- I'm reserving judgment), but it is terribly superficial to simply reject the myth because it is not historically grounded without first determining if anything positive can be salvaged from the "fairy tale" mythology. To put it in Bultmannian terms, can the existential message be de-mythologized?