Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

< Note 104.0 by JOKUR::CIOTO >
                         -< The death of Jesus's body >-
Paul

You are right, it is the oneness with God that gives us the
everlasting life. Yet, the life that died on the cross was more
than just a physical death of a man; rather, it was thae death of
an innocent man who went to that death, willing in compliance
with His father's will for Him. It is the ultimate love that
Jesus followed His Father's will until He joined His Father in
Heaven. The thief on one side of Christ told the other thief that
they deserved their punishment; the man between them did not.

I must admit, I had always thought that death on the cross was
just a transition point for Christ. Until I learned how painful
it was to suffocate to death while hanging on the cross. The
Roman executioners tortured their prisoners to death. After
hearing the lecture about the death of our beloved Lord, I am
ever so moved to make that death meaningful in my life.

calvin

    Paul,
    
>    Jesus taught, over and over again, that the physical world, our
>    material and bodily needs, including our physical bodies, do not
>    matter.
    
    I think this is an overstatement.  We are as much physical beings
    as we are spiritual beings (at the present anyway :) ) and we risk
    distorting the Gospel, losing the impetus for social justice, and
    contemplating "pie in the sky by and by" if we aren't careful!
    
>    That is, his sacrifice is a beautiful, loving, yet graphic and brutal
>    demonstration of how things of this physical/material world do not 
>    matter, the ultimate demonstration of where humanity's treasures truly 
>    lie.
    
    Interesting interpretation, but *not* one that I would espouse at all.  
    I think his cricufixion is a graphic and brutal example of the extent and
    outcome of human sin -- sin that will *kill* one who is totally Loving!!
    *Seeing that contrast* leads us to conviction of our own sin, repentance,
    and faith.
    
    >PS.  Jesus's *life* and teachings are at least as important as his
    >     physical death/resurrection.
    
    I agree.  Without his life and teachings, the significance and impact
    of his death would be trivial.
    
    Added thought:  I do not believe that Jesus knew he would be
    resurrected in any unusual manner.  He simply trusted his Father and
    remained obedient, even unto death on the cross!!
    
    He had no guarantees, otherwise his obedience and his sacrifice 
    would be relatively meaningless.
    
    Nancy

Re:  104.0

Paul,

  >IMHO, the example/sacrifice/demonstration of Jesus, manifesting in physical
  >death and resurrection, was already predestined, predetermined.
    
I agree with you.  Scripture makes the claim numerous times.

  >My question is:  If Jesus embodied the Spirit of God, and was immortal,
  >everlastingly One with the Father, then why does the destruction of
  >Jesus's physical body carry so much literal significance?

My question to you is:  If Jesus' death does not pay the penalty for
sin (yours and mine), then how are we and God ever going to be reconciled?
    
  >Jesus taught, over and over again, that the physical world, our
  >material and bodily needs, including our physical bodies, do not
  >matter.  

I agree with Nancy, this statement goes to far.  You are right in
saying that, in comparison to eternity, the physical does not matter.
(Just like in comparison to loving Jesus, you hate your parents.)

  >Please don't quote me scripture regarding "flesh and blood."  I regard 
  >that material as highly symbolic.

Are you saying that *all* references to flesh and blood that somehow
refer to Jesus' death are symbolic?  If so, why is this the preferred
interpretation?  (i.e. it is not the "obvious" interpretation as the
subject matter around many of these references are not interpreted as
symbolic by most - probably including yourself.)
    
  >However, I am suggesting that Jesus's sacrifice, in the form of the
  >destruction of his physical body, should be put in better perspective. 
  >That is, his sacrifice is a beautiful, loving, yet graphic and brutal
  >demonstration of how things of this physical/material world do not 
  >matter, the ultimate demonstration of where humanity's treasures truly 
  >lie.  And resurrection is part of that demonstration, I think. 

Scripture gives us the reason for Jesus' death many many times.  You
reject it.  You say that it is "symbolic".  You provide your own
reason for Jesus' death.  Are there Scriptures that you can provide to
support this reason?  If not, why should someone else (e.g. myself)
accept your beliefs over Scripture's clear teaching?
    
  >Jesus's *life* and teachings are at least as important as his
  >physical death/resurrection.  Yet Christianity does not place
  >as much emphasis on that.  

One quick rathole response in 2 parts.  1)  Scripture itself teaches that 
the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is the crux of Christianity.  Paul 
makes this clear in I Corinthians 15, for example.  2)  Christianity is
*extremely* concerned with Jesus' life and teachings.  Just last Sunday
the sermon was on "Who was Jesus".  Jesus is our example.  He taught
infallibly.  He lived sinlessly.  Jesus is Christianity.

Collis

Re:  104.2

Nancy,

  >Added thought:  I do not believe that Jesus knew he would be
  >resurrected in any unusual manner.  He simply trusted his Father and
  >remained obedient, even unto death on the cross!!

Mark 8 as well as other gospel accounts have Jesus telling his
disciples beforehand that he would be resurrected on the third day
after his death.  That this was so is confirmed by the actions of
the Sanhedrin which requested a Roman guard around the tomb to prevent
any tampering with the body until after the third day.
    
  >He had no guarantees, otherwise his obedience and his sacrifice 
  >would be relatively meaningless.
    
Does this apply to you and me as well?  That *we* have no guarantees
about what will happen, otherwise our obedience and sacrifices would
be relatively meaningless?  No, I don't believe so.  God has given
us many, many promises - some conditional and some unconditional.  This
does not make obedience and sacrifice relatively meaningless.

Collis

    re: .4, Collis,
    
    We both know my views on this are *not* orthodox (but neither are they 
    unique to me).  You know, too, that I do not believe that all of 
    the writings of the Gospels and all of the words attributed to 
    Jesus really came from him.  :-)
    
>Does this apply to you and me as well?  That *we* have no guarantees
>about what will happen, otherwise our obedience and sacrifices would
>be relatively meaningless?
    
    We do *not* have any guarantees in the sense of "proof."  Because of
    Jesus, we have more *evidence,* more *indications* that our faith is
    valid -- possibly even more evidence and indications than he had!  
    
    But in the end, there is no proof; there is only faith!!  We are saved by
    faith, not by proof!  Isn't this *your* faith, too?
    
    :-)
    Nancy
     

Re:  .6

Nancy,

I am a believer in promise theology.  "What is promise theology", you ask.
Simply this.  God made promises to you and me.  We can be sure that God
will keep his promises because:

  1)  God has integrity.  He does not lie.  What He says He will do, He
      does.
  2)  God is able.  He has the power to do the things that he promises.

  >But in the end, there is no proof; there is only faith!!

Faith in what?  In God?  What does that mean?

I'll tell you what that means.  It means faith in the *promises* of God.

If God did not promise to save you, you have a misplaced faith in God.
Because there is *no* reason to expect that you will be saved.  Certainly
not a reason to base your life on.  But, here's the **good** news.  God
HAS promised to save you.  And me.  And anyone else who will believe
and trust in Him for their salvation.

The Bible records these promises.  God's Word will last forever.  (Is 40:8).

In regards to your first point that your views are *not* orthodox,
this is true.  However, you can expect that when you make statements that
clearly disagree with what Scripture teaches without explicitly acknowledging
that Scripture teaches differently, someone will refute what you state
based on Scripture.  

In notes, you have every opportunity to explain not only what you believe, 
but why.  This, to me, is very important because what someone chooses to
believe (think) at a given moment isn't that important, but the reasons
behind that are quite important.

A lot of people here do not have orthodox theology.  They do not accept
what the Bible clearly says.  However, despite tremendous amounts of
discussion about *what* they believe, there is very little discussion about
*why* they believe it; that is the reasons behind their beliefs.  And even
less discussion about why their belief being logically true.  Evidence is
sorely lacking.

Perhaps you'd rather be in an environment where all share whatever they
think and discernment is not practiced, truth is not valued?  It is because
I value truth that I question what I hear and apply standards.  Although
such an environment may lead to some nice feelings, they don't provide a
basis for belief - either yours or mine.  So, all things considered, I think
I will continue to point out contradictions to what the Scriptures teach
if others don't.  After all, that is a perspective of many Christians.

Collis

    I would like to see an environment where all share whatever they think,
    understand where differences lie, and accept those differences, without
    everyone feeling the need to debate against every single point ever
    expressed that differs from one's own point of view.  In that way,
    'discernment' could be a tool of understanding *where those differences
    of opinion really do lie.
    
    -- Mike

.3  Collis,

     >My question is:  If Jesus embodied the Spirit of God, and was immortal,
     >everlastingly One with the Father, then why does the destruction of
     >Jesus's physical body carry so much literal significance?

   My question to you is: If Jesus' death does not pay the penalty for
   sin (yours and mine) then how are we and God ever going to be reconciled?

Please answer my question.  More specifically:  How does the
destruction of Jesus's physical body "pay the penalty" for
everyone's sins?  

     >Jesus taught, over and over again, that the physical world, our
     >material and bodily needs, including our physical bodies, do not
     >matter.  

   I agree with Nancy, this statement goes to far.  You are right in
   saying that, in comparison to eternity, the physical does not
   matter. (Just like in comparison to loving Jesus, you hate your
   parents.)

You mean you're not going to take that directive literally?! ;)
OK, in what ways does the physical matter?  Why does the physical
world exist?  I think it *does* matter in the sense that it
assists us in understanding, and teaches us a lesson in, the
everlasting essense of the Spirit of God.  The physical world,
including its limitations and finite nature, is essentially a
classroom.

   Are you saying that *all* references to flesh and blood that
   somehow refer to Jesus' death are symbolic?  If so, why is this
   the preferred interpretation?  (i.e. it is not the "obvious"
   interpretation as the subject matter around many of these
   references are not interpreted as symbolic by most - probably
   including yourself.)
 
OK Collis, if you want to quote something, then go for it; I will
react to it.   Otherwise, I am not going to start dissecting
every chapter and verse, as if to honor every sentence, every
word, every syllable, in the Bible as be-all and end-all legal
accuracy.  In other words, IMHO, when one views the gospels as an
indication of the gist of Jesus's life/teachings, then it will
provide a somewhat overall accurate impression of what Jesus's
life and teachings were all about; however, IMHO, when one tries
to dissect the bible word by word, sentence by sentence, clinging
to every syllable the way a supreme court justice devours legal
documents, then I think there is great danger of coming to false
conclusions and assumptions, due to flaws/inaccuracies/biases
written into this 2000-year-old record.  That is the way I
approach the Bible; I know you don't like it, but that's the way
I feel.  I do not feel this way because I am trying to, as you
suggest, define God according to my own self-centered whims; I
feel this way because I sincerely believe that taking the heavy
legalistic approach to the Bible, as you do, is counterproductive
in understanding the nature of God, what God wants.

    >However, I am suggesting that Jesus's sacrifice, in the form of the
    >destruction of his physical body, should be put in better perspective. 
    >That is, his sacrifice is a beautiful, loving, yet graphic and brutal
    >demonstration of how things of this physical/material world do not 
    >matter, the ultimate demonstration of where humanity's treasures truly 
    >lie.  And resurrection is part of that demonstration, I think. 

  ... You provide your own reason for Jesus' death.

There you go again!  You say this sort of thing in nearly EVERY
reply to me.  Actually, I think you keep pretending that your
opinions on God/Christ are't really your own opinions -- but God's
position -- simply because you are afraid that it would place you in
a vulnerable spot while debating these issues with others.
What better way to shut off and discredit the other guy!

My views on Divinity are based on my exposure to what God has
revealed to me, the ways in which God has reached out to me. Most
of it includes non-Biblical revelation.  Some of it includes the
story in the gospels.  I do NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT
NOT NOT create my own convenient, self-centered, self-serving
model of God, with blinders on, shopping around for things that
fit nicely and neatly into my own man-made personal model.  I am
NOT molding God into my own ego-image!  How many times do I have
to explain this before you actually get it?  Can we now please
just state our own opinions about God and Truth, disagree with
the subject matter of each other's viewpoints, and once and for
all get away from this you're-inventing-your-own-God-to-satisfy-self
syndrome?  

  Are there Scriptures that you can provide to
  support this reason?

In terms of "support" much has to do with the way one approaches
the scriptures to begin with.  Your view of and approach to the
Bible differs from mine.  See above.

  If not, why should someone else (e.g. myself)
  accept your beliefs over Scripture's clear teaching?

I do not expect you to accept my beliefs.  Moreover, I do not
believe the scriptures are as "clear" as you believe they are.

    >Jesus's *life* and teachings are at least as important as his
    >physical death/resurrection.  Yet Christianity does not place
    >as much emphasis on that.  

  One quick rathole response in 2 parts.  1)  Scripture itself teaches that 
  the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is the crux of
  Christianity.

The belief that Jesus's actual literal physical death is the
"crux" of an entire religious system is something I have
difficulty with, as I indicated in 104.0.  You haven't said much
to eliminate this difficulty.

  2)  Christianity is *extremely* concerned with Jesus' life and
  teachings.  Just last Sunday the sermon was on "Who was Jesus". 
  Jesus is our example.  He taught infallibly.  He lived sinlessly. 
  Jesus is Christianity.

Jesus the person, you mean.  The Spirit of God, the ESSENCE of
Jesus Christ -- not a guy who you snuggle up to in a relationship
-- is what Christianity ought to be all about, IMHO.

Paul

Re:  104.8

  >One more time:  Please disagree without questioning my motives. 

I think I've finally figured something out.  I ask you for reasons why
you believe "x".  You tell me to disagree without questioning your motives.
I say I don't question your motives and I don't remember ever explicitly
questioning your motives.  I say that I accept that you sincerely believe
what you say.

I ask you for reasons why you believe "y".  You accuse me of questioning
your motives.

Yes, it's all clear to me now.  I question your motives (in your mind)
when I'm asking for reasons to believe what you say you believe.  Does 
this make sense to you?

  >Please answer my question.  More specifically:  How does the destruction 
  >of Jesus's physical body "pay the penalty" for everyone's sins?  

Excuse me.  I thought that you knew the Scriptural answer to this
and so assumed the Scriptural answer in my reply and responded with a
question based on that assumption.

I'll explain it to you in my words.  If that isn't sufficient, just
let me know and I'll quote the Scriptures that discuss this.

We'll start with the idea that all have sinned (Is 53:6, Rom 3:23) and
that the penalty for sin is death (Rom 6:23).  Therefore, we all deserve
to die.

Jesus' death (on the cross) was a substitionary atonement.  This means
that he died in place of you and me.  "How can this be?", you ask.
Well, God, the judge, has declared the judgment of death on you for
your sins.  Jesus volunteers to pay the penalty so that you may go
free.  You can think of it as a friend paying your speeding ticket
or even spending time in jail for you (which *is* legal in the U.S., by
the way).  This is what Jesus did.

But you have to accept the gift.  You can refuse to have another pay
the ticket or spend the time in jail (as Chuck Colson refused in "Born
Again").  In which case, you pay the penalty.

But the penalty is not simply physical death, it is spiritual death
as well.  (Spiritual death being separation from God.)  Therefore, the
*only* way to get right with God is to accept the payment for the judgment
against you, since you can *never* pay the price yourself.  Only a perfect
person could.  Does this help?

  >OK, in what ways does the physical matter?  

I don't have a well thought-out answer for you.  I will say that God 
made the world for people to enjoy.  

    >>Are you saying that *all* references to flesh and blood that
    >>somehow refer to Jesus' death are symbolic?  

  >...when one tries to dissect the bible word by word, sentence by sentence, 
  >clinging to every syllable...

When one refuses to accept the natural meaning of any reference to flesh
and blood...

Do you see what I'm saying?  The references to the flesh and blood of
Jesus say the same thing.  It's not like there are 5 references that
say this and another 5 that say that.  But when they all say the same
thing and you don't accept it (by choosing to interpret it symbolicly)...

I think it's blowing smoke to say that you capture a larger meaning and
not understand the smaller meanings.  Oh, I think you sincerely believe
you can do this.  But I am equally certain that you can't.  How can
you build a framework of God (partially based on what the Bible says)
on passages which don't mean what they say?  It is like a house with 
no foundation.  It will collapse when tested.

To understand the book, you must understand the chapters.  To understand 
the chapter, you must understand the verses.  To understand the verses, 
you must understand the words.

Now this does not mean that some words are not symbolic or that understanding
the words is all there is to it.  Not at all.  (May it never be as your
namesake says. :-) )  But it *does* mean that understanding the words is
important to understand what is dependent on those words (verses, chapters,
books).

    >>... You provide your own reason for Jesus' death.

  >There you go again!  You say this sort of thing in nearly EVERY
  >reply to me.  

Well, then give me a BASIS for your reasoning.  I'm not questioning
your motives; I'm searching for your reasoning.  What goes through me
head is, "Why does he believe this?" and "Where does THAT belief come
from?", not "This guy Paul is just trying to justify himself."

Can you accept that this is what I think?  Take my word for it?  Even 
though your reasoning indicates that this is not the case?  It is what
I think, whether you choose to believe it or not.

  >My views on Divinity are based on my exposure to what God has
  >revealed to me, the ways in which God has reached out to me. Most
  >of it includes non-Biblical revelation.  

I guess what I'm asking is that you defend your beliefs.  You make a
claim that "x" is true.  I say that I believe "x" is false.  I ask that 
you tell my what basis you have for believing "x" to be true.

Now, my options as I see it are:

  1)  Don't say that "x" is false.  

You'd be surprised at the number of things I don't discuss (from my 
perspective).  But we seem to find disagreement on the "few" things I do 
bring up.  :-)

  2)  Not ask what basis you have for believing "x" to be true.

This would lead to everyone being very "accepting" of each other, if
this was what generally happened.  The problem is that accepting others,
although important, is not all that is important.  God has given us
a mandate in the Scriptures to proclaim truth and expose error.  Now,
I don't see myself as a vigilante in this area.  I think that this type
of activity (seeking the reasons for what is believed) is something that
*everyone* should do.

Now, it may be true that I go overboard at times.  There are times when
it is better to just listen and not question.  However, the usual case
is that we should listen and question.

  >The belief that Jesus's actual literal physical death is the
  >"crux" of an entire religious system is something I have
  >difficulty with, as I indicated in 104.0.  You haven't said much
  >to eliminate this difficulty.

Reply on I Cor 15 (forget what topic) answers that question.

  >The Spirit of God, the ESSENCE of Jesus Christ -- not a guy who you 
  >snuggle up to in a relationship -- is what Christianity ought to be 
  >all about, IMHO.

So, Paul, why do you believe this?

Collis

Re .7  Collis,

I hope Nancy doesn't mind my taking a stab at addressing your
comments in 104.7 and offering my own reaction to what you have
said here.

   I am a believer in promise theology.

How does God communicate his promises to you, and how does he tell
you about the treasures in Heaven, outside of the Bible?  

     >But in the end, there is no proof; there is only faith!!

   Faith in what?  In God?  What does that mean? I'll tell you what
   that means.  It means faith in the *promises* of God.

And where are those promises made?   They were written down in a
book.  Faith in God is more expansive and more penetrating, to me
and others -- more than just applying faith to things written in
any one book.   The nature of God, and the essence of the perfect
peace, safety, eternity found in the kingdom of heaven has a lot
to do with the mystery of faith, mystery of God.  Much of it is
beyond our grasp of comprehension, and much of it *cannot* be and
*is not* articulated in any one book, cut and dry.  For many,
faith leaps beyond anything that we might call "logical."  So to
press others to offer "evidence" and "proof" of their faith in
God strikes me as silly. That's like telling someone that his/her
faith is "misplaced" because he/she cannot describe the color
blue. IMHO, faith is not an intellectual, scholarly exercise that
involves mathematical proofs, Collis.  IMHO, deep faith in God
takes on innocent, childlike characteristics -- an inner
solid-as-a-rock trust in God, which stems from an an inner
knowing, inner sensing, that transcends our earthly physical
senses, an inner knowing that is nearly impossible to describe. 
And I am not talking about worship of Self.  I am talking about
the many ways in which God works inside the hearts of men and
women everywhere, directly.  And this need not involve faith in
certain items written in a book; things written in a book are one
piece of a much larger picuture.  One need not have a PhD in
Bible Studies or ACIM-studies or whatever to have deep faith.  

   If God did not promise to save you, you have a misplaced faith in God.
   Because there is *no* reason to expect that you will be saved.

Listen to yourself.  You seem to be imposing your criteria for
faith -- promises recorded in a book -- on others.  I personally
do not share your notion of "promise," for example.  Yet I am not
going to question how placed or misplaced your own personal faith in
God is, the way you seem to be doing with others.  Just because
Nancy or I or whomever does not interface with God in the precise
way that you do, does not mean that his/her faith is any less
deep.

   God HAS promised to save you.  And me.  And anyone else who
   will believe and trust in Him for their salvation.

Others come to similar realization without holding to your approach,
interpretation, understanding, and treatment of the Bible.  It's
as simple as that.

   The Bible records these promises.

So do a lot of other things in this universe -- people, places,
things, situations, and so forth.  And so much of God's revelation
manifests in inexplicable ways, during prayer and meditation.

   However, you can expect that when you make statements that
   clearly disagree with what Scripture teaches without explicitly
   acknowledging that Scripture teaches differently, someone will
   refute what you state based on Scripture.  

So what?  Everyone expects you to disagree with other viewpoints
and to offer your own viewpoints, based on scripture or whatever. 
That's not the point.  When people make statemetns that you
believe disagrees with scripture, you press others to provide
"evidence" and "sources" and "proof" of their beliefs, asking
them where they hang their spiritual hats.  If those sources are
*not* Biblical, you dismiss the other person's viewpoints by
accusing the other person of inventing his/her own God to satisfy
Self, instead of God.  If those sources *are* Biblical, you press
other person to "acknowledge that scripture teaches differently,"
but if they don't acknowledge it ... well, then you say he/she is
redefining the "word of God" to suit his/her own self-centered
whims.  Either way, the net result is the same.  That's the
pattern.  That's the way you "refute" others in my eyes, Collis. 
Hardly a healthy difference of opinion.  It is unfortunate you
cannot see this pattern clearly.  If I have been reluctant to 
tell you about my personal experiences with God -- why I believe the
things I do -- this is the main reason.

   In notes, you have every opportunity to explain not only what you
   believe,  but why.  This, to me, is very important because what
   someone chooses to believe (think) at a given moment isn't that
   important, but the reasons behind that are quite important.

My experience has been that you do not ask "Why do you believe X,
Y, or Z," so much as you question/speculate on someone's motives
in the way I just described.  

   A lot of people here do not have orthodox theology.  They do not
   accept what the Bible clearly says.  However, despite tremendous
   amounts of discussion about *what* they believe, there is very
   little discussion about *why* they believe it; that is the
   reasons behind their beliefs.

Well, do you *really* want to know why?  Can you accept someone's
responses and just say, "that's not for me," stating why your beliefs
are different, and just leave it at that, without speculation over the 
other persons's self-serving motives?  I doubt it.  

   And even less discussion about why their belief being logically
   true.  Evidence is sorely lacking.

And this is part of the problem Collis.  IMHO, faith is NOT
logical, in the sense that you mean it, in the sense that you can
construct a legal case, based on logical "evidence."  Faith is
childlike, as I mentioned previously.  When someone's deep faith
is based on innocent childlike inner-knowledge, an inner sensing,
it seems silly to talk about "logical evidence."  Describe the
color blue, then give me logical evidence that will *prove* that
your description of "blue" is constitutes Truth.  Arrrgh.    

  Perhaps you'd rather be in an environment where all share  
  whatever they think and discernment is not practiced, truth is
  not valued? It is because I value truth that I question what I
  hear and apply standards.

Question all you want until the cows come home, I don't care.  I
ask many questions of you and Jamey to find out where you are at.
For reasons I stated previously, much of the time, I dont' think 
you are engaging in healthy give-and-take or "discernment."   

   So, all things considered, I think I will continue to point out
   contradictions to what the Scriptures teach if others don't.

If you go beyond what I consider healthy disagreements, in the ways 
I mentioned, I will call you on it every time.

Paul                        

    Excuse me ... my resonses in .10 were based on Collis entry in .6,
    not .7.  Sorry bout that.
    
    Paul
    

    re: .6, Collis,
    
>I'll tell you what that means.  It means faith in the *promises* of God.
    
    Surprise, Collis - I agree!  But it is still faith, not proof.  That's
    all I was saying -- that faith is different from proof and that
    faith is all we have -- but it *is* enough!
    
    Collis, I don't mind at all that you "point out contradictions to what
    the Scriptures teach."  In fact, I'd think you were mad at me if you
    suddenly stopped!! :-)
    
    I cannot *prove* -- by Scripture, by logic, or any other way -- my
    ideas on how Jesus perceived himself, what his self-consciousness was.
    Those ideas are *consistent* with my views of Scripture and how it was
    written, and with my understanding of the nature and character of God
    (which, in turn, is based on what Scripture tells me about Jesus),
    but they are extrapolations, deductions, etc.  I cannot prove to you
    that they are correct.
    
    Furthermore -- and this is  probably the most critical difference
    between us -- it is not essential to faith or salvation to have a
    "correct view" of this!!  I can say, "I think perhaps Jesus understood
    himself and his role *this* way" while I still marvel at the mystery
    of his sacrifice and of God's plan for salvation!
    
    Your sister in Christ,
    Nancy
    

Re:  104.10

  >How does God communicate his promises to you, and how does he tell
  >you about the treasures in Heaven, outside of the Bible?  

To name a few:

  The heavens (skies) declare the glory of God.

  God came to earth in the form of a man, Jesus.

  God speaks to me through His Spirit.

  >And where are those promises made?   They were written down in a
  >book.

It is true that many of God's promises were written down.  Most of
them were declared orally and later recorded.  God also makes promises
to individuals or groups that are not written done in the Bible or
anywhere else.  Let's not limit God to only being what is revealed in
the Bible.

However, the specific discussion here is *saving* faith, i.e. a faith
that will make you acceptable to God.  These promises definately are
recorded in the Bible and they are available for you to claim.  Since
God does not lie and is the same yesterday, today and forever, the
promises that God made in the Bible are still true today.  They tell
you and me how we can be acceptable to God.  Jesus made it clear that
all who know Him know the Father and no one knows the Father who does
not know Him.  Jesus is the narrow path.

  >So to press others to offer "evidence" and "proof" of their faith in
  >God strikes me as silly. 

I do not ask you for evidence or proof of your "faith".  I ask you for
evidence or proof for the basis of what you believe.  If the basis is
"I had this experience", then just say so (even without telling me the
experience).  If this basis is, "I read this book which made sense to
me", then say so.  If you're not aware of why you believe what you
believe, then say so.

I agree with much of what you are saying.  There is much to God that
we don't understand.  I agree.  However, you are going *far* beyond that
in saying that God *has not* revealed through His Word what a "saving"
faith is.  You say that you *have* discovered what a "saving" faith is
(at least, one that is a saving faith for you).  And yet you have
consistently avoided answering the question, "why is what you believe
a saving faith?" (which is what I am asking when I ask for the basis of
your belief).  Do you understand why I ask this question?  Why your
claims to having a "saving" faith need to be closely examined, especially
by yourself?

  >You seem to be imposing your criteria for faith -- promises recorded in 
  >a book -- on others.  

It is not my criteria, it is Scripture's.  Wherever I misrepresent
Scripture, please accept what Scripture says and deny what I say.  A
more accurate statement would be:

  You seem to be claiming that God's criteria for faith is promises
  recorded in the Bible and that everyone has to accept these promises.

This is close to what I'm saying.  I am saying that God made promises
and that they were recorded.  You can accept those promises or reject
them.  If you accept them, then it is faith that allows you to believe
and *continue* to believe them *despite* the circumstances you find
yourself in here on earth.

  >Others come to similar realization without holding to your approach,
  >interpretation, understanding, and treatment of the Bible.  It's
  >as simple as that.

No, it is *not* as simple as that.  I agree that people have many ideas
about what is true.  You need to realized that most of these are wrong
(to some extent) because they all contradict (to some extent) with other
people's ideas.  We need to go beyond the fact that people have different
ideas and come to grips with the fact that some ideas are correct and
some are incorrect - and try to sort out the correct from the incorrect.

Not speaking about faith, here, but just a question in general.

Would you rather to continue to believe what you believe even if it was
wrong, or would you rather go through the process of coming to a realization
of the truth?

This is the question we all must ask ourselves.  Many answer this question
on a daily basis (by their choices) that they would rather cling to their
current beliefs rather than admit they may be wrong and be forced to go
through a painful readjustment.

It is precisely because I *am* willing to admit I'm wrong and grow that
I am where I am today.  On issue after issue, I believe differently today
than I believed 10 or 15 years ago.  Abortion.  Premarital sex.  Women
in the church.  The Bible.  Homosexuality.  Etc, etc.  Why?  Because
I was open to talking not only about *what* I believed but *why*.  I
was open to grow.  And I still am.

I believe that someone who thinks that he or she can grow best by
themselves without the insight and advice of others is like a lawyer
who represents himself.  A fool.  That is one reason why I share much
of what I'm thinking and listen to what others say.  In this conference, I
often disagree with what others say.  But I'm willing to say why I disagree
and listen to why they believe what they do believe.  And admit a need to
change if they have valid reasons for believing what they do believe.

  >If those sources are *not* Biblical, you dismiss the other person's 
  >viewpoints by accusing the other person of inventing his/her own God to 
  >satisfy Self, instead of God.  

Paul, you have made this accusation many times now.  I asked you once to
show me just one quote from me that explicitly says this.  I ask you now
a second time.  Please provide one quote from me that explicitly says this.

  >but if they don't acknowledge it ... well, then you say he/she is
  >redefining the "word of God" to suit his/her own self-centered whims

This one qualifies too.  Please provide one quote from me that explicitly
shows me accusing someone of redefing Scripture BECAUSE OF his/her own
self-centered whims.

I don't believe I have explicitly questioned peoples motives in this
way.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  (I certainly don't remember everything that
I write.)

  >It is unfortunate you cannot see this pattern clearly.

I do see the pattern, Paul.  Some people say that they reject what
Scripture says in a particular area.  I ask why.  I often get no
answer.  Sometimes I get the answer that the person doesn't accept
Scripture as the inerrant Word of God.  But this, again, is not an
answer because it gives no reason why this particular Scripture is *not*
accepted while another Scripture *is* accepted.  I can not remember a
time in this conference where someone has given an explicit reason
why a verse should not be accepted.  Sometimes there are general reasons
(that's in the Old Testament, for example).  But they themselves accept
other verses in the Old Testament.  And even if they didn't, they accept
parts of the New Testament that quote the Old Testament and this, by
implication, accept part of the Old Testament.

You see the problem, Paul.  No one has yet defined a guideline as to
which Scripture is acceptable and which is not.  Much less provide a
rational reason for that guideline.

Do you think that everyone should simply believe what happens to strike
them as true (for whatever reason) and not try to determine what *is*
true?  (assuming that some things are true and some things are not)
Or should we all try to grow into truth?  I believe the second.



  >Can you accept someone's responses and just say, "that's not for me," 
  >stating why your beliefs are different, and just leave it at that, 
  >without speculation over the other persons's self-serving motives?  
  >I doubt it.

Can I simply accept someone's response?  Not usually.  Because we're not
dealing with something that is unimportant or something where one personal
opinion is as good as another.  We're dealing with what is the most important
issue in the universe - Who God is.  If you'd like to ask for supportive
replies only, Paul, I'm willing to not ask you questions either for
one reply or for all your replies.

  >When someone's deep faith is based on innocent childlike inner-knowledge, 
  >an inner sensing, it seems silly to talk about "logical evidence."  

Does this mean that faith has no reasons when it deals with a specific
issue?  For example, some people by faith say that a specific verse in
the Bible is not breathed by God (or is not true).  If they are willing
to say that they believe this because they have an innocent childlike
inner-knowledge that tells them this is the case and that is the basis
for their belief, I will accept that as an answer.  I will also say that
I believe there are other reasons to believe it *is* true which are much
more compelling than theirs.  But at least we're dealing with *why* they
believe what they believe.

Collis

Re: .9 Collis

>You can think of it as a friend paying your speeding ticket
>or even spending time in jail for you (which *is* legal in the U.S., by
>the way).

Really?  This is the first I've heard of it.  If one of Charlie Manson's
friends volunteered to go to prison in Charlie's place, do you thing they'd
let Charlie go free?  Could you give some examples of where someone in the
U,S. has spent time in jail in someone else's place?

				-- Bob

Re:  104.12

  >I cannot *prove* -- by Scripture, by logic, or any other way -- my
  >ideas on how Jesus perceived himself, what his self-consciousness was.
  >Those ideas are *consistent* with my views of Scripture and how it was
  >written, and with my understanding of the nature and character of God
  >(which, in turn, is based on what Scripture tells me about Jesus),
  >but they are extrapolations, deductions, etc.  I cannot prove to you
  >that they are correct.

Thanks, Nancy, for saying that.  People are like this.  They take a little
bit here and a little bit there and come to a conclusion on what is true,
without really knowing why - it just fits in with the other things they
think.  We do this all the time.  I do this all the time.

I think this methodology is necessary for us to make decisions in life.
However, I also think that this methodology is filled with flaws.  It
tends to primarily reproduce what we already have believed - which we
likely believe not because we came to a studied conclusion that it was
true, but rather because it just seemed to make sense at the time.

I have found in my life that many things that seem to make sense at the
time were way off (some 180 degrees, some 150, some only 90 or 30).  It
is for this reason that I question not only what I believe, but also
what others believe and try to find out why they believe it.
    
  >Furthermore -- and this is  probably the most critical difference
  >between us -- it is not essential to faith or salvation to have a
  >"correct view" of this!!  

Oh, I agree.  At least in terms of salvation.  We're not talking about
the basic Gospel message (I Cor 15:1-3) here.  You can disagree with a
lot of Scripture and still be saved.  You'd be wrong, but saved.  :-)

Collis

Re:  serving another's jail term

The first I heard of it was in Chuck Colson's book "Born Again" where a
close Christian friend of his (a Senator) found this provision in the laws
(*extremely* rarely used, by the way) and made the offer to Chuck.  Now,
it may require the judge's permission (I don't know).  But, it was a
legal option in Chuck's case, so it is probably a federal law (I think
it was a federal prosecution).

Collis

    Collis,
    
    To answer your question in .13:
    
         -< Are we getting anywhere?  Only time will tell... >-
    
    
    I think we are.  Your replies .13 and .15 were very helpful to me
    in understanding where you are coming from and why you question as
    you do.  I especially enjoyed the following because I can certainly
    identify with it.
    
>>
It is precisely because I *am* willing to admit I'm wrong and grow that
I am where I am today.  On issue after issue, I believe differently today
than I believed 10 or 15 years ago.  Abortion.  Premarital sex.  Women
in the church.  The Bible.  Homosexuality.  Etc, etc.  Why?  Because
I was open to talking not only about *what* I believed but *why*.  I
was open to grow.  And I still am.
    
>>I have found in my life that many things that seem to make sense at the
time were way off (some 180 degrees, some 150, some only 90 or 30).  It
is for this reason that I question not only what I believe, but also
what others believe and try to find out why they believe it.<<
    
    
    Thank you Collis for your openness and honesty.  I haven't written
    much, but I do read most of what is here.  I don't often agree with 
    your views, but I *heart*ily agree and respect what you've stated
    in these notes.  I believe this is how community is formed.
    
    Peace,
    
    Ro
    

Re: .16 Collis

This is truly bizarre.  Ah well, you learn something every day.

Thanks.

				-- Bob

    Bob, (re 18)
    
    There are a group of volunteers who have offerred to trade places
    with the hostages in Iraq in exchange for the release of the
    hostages.
    
    Richard

Re: .19 Richard

That's a different situation, since it is an attempt to reason with a tyrant
whereas Collis was talking about an arrangement under U.S. law.

The law Collis is talking about is similar to what was allowed during the
Civil War, where a rich man who was drafted into the army could pay a poor
man to take his place.

				-- Bob

    Bob,
    
    The poor are still fighting wars started by the rich. ;-)
    
    Richard

    re: .13, Collis,
    
>I can not remember a
>time in this conference where someone has given an explicit reason
>why a verse should not be accepted. 
    
    Sometimes when you question *me*, I can vaguely recall "stuff" I
    learned in seminary and I may think to myself that if I had the time
    and energy I might dig up the applicable scholarship.  But I do well
    to put the amount of time into notes that I do, and the thoughts of
    undertaking a research project are exhausting.  
    
    Moreover, however, I believe it would be never-ending.  I think if I
    *did* do the research that you would *probably* counter with some other
    research from a more conservative scholar.  The various Biblical
    scholars we might quote would probably both have excellent credentials
    and would probably disagree with each other!  So what would we have
    accomplished? 
    
    (On the other hand, I could also be wrong in any given instance and be
    rejecting a verse that shouldn't be -- but my own faith and belief do
    not require that legalistic approach.)
    
    Hope this helps you understand *why* I haven't given you reasons!
    Nancy

    re: 15, Collis,
    
>I think this methodology is necessary for us to make decisions in life.
>However, I also think that this methodology is filled with flaws.  It
>tends to primarily reproduce what we already have believed - which we
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>likely believe not because we came to a studied conclusion that it was
>true, but rather because it just seemed to make sense at the time.
    
    You could be right, Collis, and it is certainly something I should
    consider.  However, I used to believe very much as you do, so my
    present beliefs about Jesus are *quite* different.  My whole
    understanding of God and Jesus has changed.  
    
    I've mulled over how Jesus may have understood himself and his role in
    God's plan for quite awhile and I still puzzle over it!!  Things I have
    learned in recent years about people who have started and led various
    kinds of movements (religious and otherwise) and about the people who
    have responded to those leaders have impacted my thinking.  BTW, these
    thoughts are not centered on *God's plan of reconciliation* but on how
    much of that plan Jesus really comprehended and what he thought about
    all this! 
    
    Nancy

Re:  104.22

  >I think if I *did* do the research that you would *probably* counter with 
  >some other research from a more conservative scholar.  
  >The various Biblical scholars we might quote would probably both have 
  >excellent credentials and would probably disagree with each other!  

We should not believe something because a scholar supports it.  We should
believe it only if it is true.

How to know if something is true?  That's a hard question.  Although
it is not infallible, I have learned that the more we understand the
reasons "why" we believe something, the more we are willing to modify
our beliefs to what makes sense (depending on our defense mechanisms).
If we don't question "why", we continue to believe what suits us without
much of a foundation.  (Now don't get me wrong - those that do question
"why" also believe what suits them - but they have more of a foundation.)

So, although questioning "why" does not guarantee a true answer or even
necessarily a better answer, it generally does lead to a truer and
better answer.

Again, it is not the quoting of scholar's opinions that carries a lot of
weight (although it does and should carry some), it is rather the reason
for their opinions.

And you are right, Nancy.  This requires effort.  It also requires an
openness to change your mind which most people strongly resist (myself
among them).  But, personally, I fight this resistance.  And I put forth
the effort (somewhat).  Because I care about what is true.

You are also right, Nancy, that I would question scholars you might
quote.  Discussions have gone on in either the Christian or Religion
conference about, for example, form criticism.  I think evidence based
on form criticism is next to worthless because form criticism is, after
all these years, an unproven methodology (i.e. it has not be verified to
yield accurate results and verified to not yield inaccurate results).
Once form criticism methodology is verified (which I seriously doubt it 
ever will be because it truly is an inaccurate methodology, in my opinion), 
I *will* accept it's results as important and pertinent.

But if we never discuss these things (such as the accuracy of form
criticism), then we will believe experts who base their findings on them
and (possibly) miss out on believing what is true.  So it is true that
one discussion tends to lead to another, because that is what a search for
truth entails.  This is what Socrates and Plato did.  Now, I'm not in
their class.  But I do have a desire like they did (and like many others
do) of knowing what is true.  Because it *is* important.  And knowing
what is false, because that is important to know as well.

Collis

    Collis, the problem is that you may often have different goals in notes
    participation than others do.  Many of us simply have no interest in
    becoming enmeshed in a playground for endless debates over every minor
    detail of ideology and theology.  We have seen this phenomenon over and
    over again in many notes files, and we don't care for participating in
    it ourselves.  The fact that some of us won't play along with that
    apparently seems to bother you a great deal.

    I am interested in sharing and discussing.  This means accepting that
    there are differences of opinion, and living with them.  I get the
    impression that you have a great deal of difficulty with this, in
    particular given your repeated comments about finding the "truth".  It
    seems that you want to force your version of the quest for "truth" on
    the rest of us, for our own good, and if we don't want to play along,
    in effect you try to bait us into noting according to *your* style of
    participation.

    I am interested in understanding where differences of opinion lie.  I
    am not interested in having those who don't or can't tolerate the
    existence of those differences push their version of the "search for
    truth" onto me.  If others want to play that game, that's their
    prerogative.  But some of us have better things to do than constantly
    re-invent the wheel with others who haven't been where we have been in
    our spiritual journeys.

    -- Mike

Mike,

There is some truth in what you say.  (See, I'm harping on truth again.  :-) )

You are right that different people have different objectives in sharing
in the notes file.  I use it as a forum to discern truth.  Others want
a supportive environment where they may feel free to share without
being questioned about their beliefs.  Maybe I should change my focus?
Possibly.  I'm willing to change if that is what's best.

I'll process this for awhile.  Comments welcome.

Collis

    Collis, I don't mean to imply that differences of opinion cannot or
    should not be expressed here.  That would be impossible anyway, given
    the great diversity in views that the participants here have, and if I
    gave that impression, I want to clarify it.  I only ask that all of us
    understand that there are not only differences of opinion here, but
    also differences of purpose in participating.
    
    -- Mike

    
    .0
    
    Paul,
    
    I haven't read the subsequent notes (just so I could participate, even
    if repeating some other's comments).
    
    You are straining the life and purpose of Jesus through your
    metaphysical strainer, no doubt.
    
    First of all, Jesus did not teach over and over (to the exlusion of
    everything else) that only eternity matters.
    
    Secondly, Jesus lived on this earth as both a *human* and as God.  I
    know - it is a mystery - but the truth remains.  Being human must
    include a physical human body.  We are made in the image of God.  And
    after God's creation of Adam and Eve - He was pleased with what He
    made.  Our bodies are good and necessary in this earthly realm.  It is
    God's will that humans should experience life on earth in this form.
    What is more feared than DEATH?  Who does not love his own flesh?
    Jesus's sacrifice of His physcial body was not a symbol - it was
    reality along with all of the pain the anguish of dying a horrible
    death in innocence.  Then add the greater burden of carrying the sins
    of the universe in your body, for a sacrifice to God, being God -
    perfection (from His viewpoint that is - which is infinitely
    transcendant above ours).
    
    God had Jews sacrificing animals - because He wants it that way.  God
    says that the "life is in the blood".  And that blood must be shed
    (life that is) in order to cover sins.  No animal sacrifice ever
    permanently covered sins (they were recurring).  However, Jesus - God
    Himself - His blood is a totally different matter.  He paid a debt
    that no one else could pay and one that He did not owe.  But He
    demonstrated His love for us that while we were still sinners - He died
    for us.  
    
    So you see, Jesus's physical death was required and is important - very
    important.  In fact, without it we would still be without a Savior.  
    
    If there, however, is no acceptance of the reality of sin and its
    requirements (from God's perspective)  then one cannot accept or even
    grasp the importance of Jesus's physical death.  I believe that this is
    where you have difficulty.
    
    jeff

    Collis,
    
    How have I given you the impression that I do not question "Why?" 
    Also, how have I given you the impression that I cling to certain
    beliefs because I am reluctant to admit that I am wrong?  Is this what
    you think?  If so, I would say you are way off the mark.  Since the day
    I was born, I have questioned sources of authority.  I have rigorously
    questioned anything offered to me as "truth."  Also when I come to a
    realization that I am wrong, I have no misgivings about admitting it.
    
    I am not yet convinced you are sincerely interested in knowing *why* I 
    believe the things I believe.  You seem more interested in refuting the
    believer rather than the beliefs.  It seems that too often, when I
    do attempt to explain my reasoning -- and I have attempted to do so --
    you tell me that I am either acting "unscholarly" or ignoring the truth
    by conveniently molding God into my personal notion of what God ought
    to be. 
    
    Each of us approaches the world differently, bringing with us certain
    criteria and attitudes and mindsets and methods that can, in varying
    degrees, help us us discover "truth."  I essentially agree with what
    Mike says in .25, that in a way you seem bent on discrediting the
    the other person's approach to the world around him/her, as well as 
    the criteria/methods that he/she uses to search for truth.  I mean, if 
    you want me to play this little game, I too can point out why I think 
    YOUR approach to the world, to God, to the Truth, is deficient.  How YOU 
    have set yourself up for accepting authoritative sources, without 
    questioning WHY.  Do you want me to play this game too?  I don't want to.
    I would rather share our beliefs with each other -- including the reasons 
    for those beliefs, including honest disagreements of opinion, including
    tough questions regarding what each other believes.  Truth and falsehoods, 
    IHMO, will surface on their own, in the process, and will all come out in 
    the wash.  You *need not* get others to *think* the way YOU do, Collis.
    In the final analysis, this is, IMHO, precisely what you have been 
    trying to do.  
    
    Convince me that you really want to know why I believe the things I
    believe, and I will be happy to accommodate your questions.  Otherwise,
    why should I get baited into being called unscholarly, or my beliefs
    called self-serving?
    
    Paul 
                                                   

Re:  104.29

  >How have I given you the impression that I do not question "Why?"

Where did I say this?

  >Also, how have I given you the impression that I cling to certain
  >beliefs because I am reluctant to admit that I am wrong?  

Who doesn't?  I certainly do.  I don't remember accusing you specifically
of this (anymore than anyone else, that is.)

It seems like we continue to have a failure to communicate.  I say some
things and you ask questions (like the two above) which, as far as I can
tell, are not based directly on what I say but rather your impressions
of the general content of what I say which, in my opinion, have often
been off the mark.  If you could please refer to specific comments that
I made when asking questions like the above, perhaps we'll find that
either I said something inappropriate or you misunderstood what I said.
But when you ask questions which don't reflect back (in my mind) on what
I said, then I'm somewhat at a loss as to how to respond.

  >I am not yet convinced you are sincerely interested in knowing *why* I 
  >believe the things I believe.  You seem more interested in refuting the
  >believer rather than the beliefs.  

It's your choice to believe this if you desire.  Just so that it's clear,
I prefer to agree with you than to disagree.  But above all, I prefer
to find the truth.

  >...you tell me that I am either acting "unscholarly" 

I once (not twice, just once) told you that the way you accepted some
evidence while ignoring other evidence without a reason that you would
(or could) present was unscholarly.  I still believe that to be true.
You have still not presented any reason why some evidence should be
accepted and other evidence should be rejected.  If that is unreasonable
of me, then I'm unreasonable.

  >...or ignoring the truth by conveniently molding God into my personal 
  >notion of what God ought to be. 

For the third time, I ask you for an explicit statement of this from
me.  (You neither believe me when I say that I did not say this nor
provide the statement that you refer to.  What do you want me to do?)  :-(

  >...I too can point out why I think YOUR approach to the world, to God, to 
  >the Truth, is deficient.  

In other words, you could share with me why you think I'm wrong.  I think
that's a very reasonable thing to do.  Not in harshness or in anger, but
in love.

  >Convince me that you really want to know why I believe the things I
  >believe, and I will be happy to accommodate your questions.  

No, Paul, I'm not interested in doing that.  I've told the truth all my
life and if you choose not to believe me, that's not my issue.

Collis

    I have read some of the replies in this note and I have to agree with
    Collis on the matter of seeking the truth.  When I read the opening 
    note the idea that a use of the Bible, ie. verses, was not wanted in 
    reply is very closed minded is it not?  I do not always agree with 
    Collis, but if we are not able to talk about our beliefs and debate
    them then why bring up a topic in a debate style as seen in the opening
    note?  If a person is seeking truth why would he want to close a door
    on a possible source of truth?  I hold that the KJV is the word of God
    in english, and yes I will not change my belief in this, but I do own
    and read a copy of the NIV.  I do not say I will not change my belief
    on the KJV out of a fast and unlearned stand.  I had studied the
    topic of the Scriptures for 5 years before I came to believe that the
    KJV is the word of God in english.  That was 12 years ago.  
      As far as notes that let people say what they believe without fear of
    a debate, I have started such notes.  I started notes where people can
    praise God in their own words or in the words of others.  People knew 
    that type of note was not for debate but for giving God glory.  Where I
    just wanted to state what I believe , I did that too.  Others replied
    and debated after the base note, but so what.  I just did not reply
    again in that note.  What is so hard?
    
    
                                      Marshall 

    REPLY TO .0
    
    If you hold to the doctrine of the sin nature of man, and you hold that
    the price for that sin nature is death and the shedding of blood.  If
    you hold that it would take a sinless replacement to save you from that
    price to be payed.  If you believe the Word became flesh for the one
    perpose to be that replacement, without which you would have to pay
    the price, then it would be as clear as glass that the physical death
    is of the most importance.
    
    
                                    Marshall

    re:.32
    Marshal,
    	what if you don't hold to the ludicrous(IMO) "sin nature" of man ?
    What if you don't hold that the price for the (unacknowleged) "sin
    nature" is death and the shedding of blood ?  What if you believe that
    the core of Christ's teaching was love ?  If this is true then you
    would need a truely warped glass to see that physical death was
    neccesary to confirm his teachings. The only value that death had was
    to galvanize those who would spread that word.