@JackDouglas if you have a few failed logins ... it was me :)

@swasheck yes, I'd like to restrict ssh access to just your IP if that works for you, but not sure if you need the VM or not ;)

@MonicaCellio Perhaps asking might be the way to go about it. Like Ask, Seek, Knock, that idea. Even email or a search?

@TheodoreA.Jones Hi, thanks for being willing to chat in here.

What's on your mind Jack?

@TheodoreA.Jones I'm just trying to understand your interactions on the site, whether you are finding it OK contributing here or not

Also just reading your answers on C.SE, very interesting.

May I ask whether English is your first language? I am not 100% sure I understand some of what you say, eg:

and particularly:

@TheodoreA.Jones Can you help me understand?

@MonicaCellio @Dan @JonEricson Now I feel like a weirdo because to my eyes that comment makes perfect sense. In fact it's about the only one out of the bunch I thought didn't need a decipher key of some sort. Also @TRiG I'm pretty sure there was a concerted effort in that wording to be as friendly as possible with a hard topic.

1. English is the only language that I speak or write. Not very good at either one, but that's the way it is. 2. Niclas faith no matter what it is is underpinned with the factor of unjust enrichment i.e. substitutionary atonement, died in our place etc. and is an illegality. Do I say this directly to him? Not at this point.

@Jack 3. It is normative that very much trouble arises when the gospel of God is stated according to the record. But when something assumed to be the gospel of God is stated and the same trouble recorded in the record does not happen what has been stated is cannot the gospel of God. My goal on any of these sites is the same. Teach what is true about Jesus' crucifixion because it is not possible that it can be heard in any contemporary church. Do I keep this conclusion under my bonnet? No.

It does not matter to me which site I contribute to. I say the same thing on any of them. Understand?

@Caleb It's the opening Madam. It seems overly polite, and therefore rude, to me, but of course social norms differ from place to place. Furthermore, the rest of the comment seems somewhat dismissive, as if it's saying of course you'll never understand (with a side-order of don't worry your pretty little head about it). Had such a line been directed at me, it would have got my back up. But perhaps I misread it. Most of the writing is somewhat opaque.

I've just gone back and reminded myself of the context, and I have another point to add: it comes out of left field. They're having a technical discussion about the merits of the answer, and suddenly you get this dismissive, almost sneering line which reads to me like an attempt to say Go away and stop bothering me, you silly woman. I don't know how offended @MonicaCellio was (I get the impression she was mainly confused), but I would have been.

@TheodoreA.Jones normative?

^^ So I'm not the only person to read hostility and condescension in his writing style. If you don't intend to be condescending, @TheodoreA.Jones, well, intent is not magic, and it's up to you to watch your words and to monitor how people respond to them.

@TheodoreA.Jones I think so, at least partially. Can you tell me what (in a nutshell) it is about Jesus' crucifixion that you believe but contemporary churches don't? Is it somehow tied up with law (and fulfilment)?

I am not in the classification noted as professionalism. If that is the preponderate; Jesus Christ himself, if he checked in here, would be muzzled. He did not attend school(s) which is one of the complaints against him. And he was not a nice guy toward the religious professionals who were his contemporaries. As matter of fact he loathed them and is recorded to have said so.

@ Jack In a nutshell. His murder, caused by crucifixion, was increased to the level of unilaterally accountable sin by a change of the law. His murder is not a direct benefit.

"He became sin for us" does not mean he became sin in place of us.

@swasheck good point, I have more I want to add to the context section now after thinking more about it also

@JackDouglas you're way too kind and i appreciate your giving nature. i was really just joking when i made that passing comment. reclaim your resources

besides that ... i'm very disappointed ... postgres + go is acting up on my win7x64 machine

takes 31 seconds to complete the first query

@swasheck ha ha, OK, let me know if you change your mind, I'm happy to lend a hand installing 9.3 or apache or anything else non-linguistic if you do ;)

@TheodoreA.Jones so there is no 'atonement'?

@JackDouglas thanks. how's the new home?

I meant to say sorry @Theodore for casting aspersions on your English skills, I am most embarassed!

@swasheck Actually really awesome, thanks!

We can't quite work out how we got so lucky

@JackDouglas that's quite good! congrats on the good move

@JackDouglas simple graces

thanks. Are you happy in your new home?

@ Jack Is this court the religious court of the Sanhedrin or the Inquisition?

@JackDouglas we are. so much happier than the old one

@swasheck yes, the only complication is that we moved much closer to our church, right about the time I started crystallising theological differences with them (our pastor was–actually still is–preaching through Galatians as I think I mentioned, which has caused quite a stir in my thinking)

@TheodoreA.Jones Have I offended you by asking question? If so sorry! Feel no obligation to answer :)

@TheodoreA.Jones that seems an odd question

@swasheck Very glad to hear that

@JackDouglas what is the church like there? here it's like a shopping mall. a church on every corner ... take your pick!

@ Jack You are not the first to ask if I am native to English. It is what it is.

@swasheck There are choices here to be sure, but I'm not sure if any would be happy with my current views

@TheodoreA.Jones I work for a company of translators, most of them are fluent in two or more languages. I'm a bit of a joke there with my none too perfect English :)

@TheodoreA.Jones i think that loathing is a bit strong. i'd say that he lamented them. he would have probably been most closely associated with the Pharisaic school (which his teaching resembled which is why they were always in is presence and his target). his accusations against them were "in-house" disputes

@JackDouglas ah ... that's right ... you're moving toward the NPP

@swasheck Not yet sure exactly what that means, I just bought a book by N T Wright to try and find out

@swasheck And several more in between those two on the corners, but very few, as hold up five fingers and subtract, ever find the gate.

@TheodoreA.Jones but you're clearly a deep thinker, and i appreciate that

(currently half way through chapter 1)

@JackDouglas which?

@TheodoreA.Jones i'm sorry, i don't follow

@swasheck It's called "Paul: Fresh Perspectives"

(I think it was originally published under a different title)

@JackDouglas interesting. what do you think so far?

@swasheck Those who are in Christ have the same mind as Christ. I said lothe didn't I?

@TheodoreA.Jones you did. i was providing a less intense perspective.

@swasheck I've not got into the meat of the N of NPP yet, just some (very interesting) historical context he's suggesting as background so far

I struggle with books tbh, but I know I have to find out if I'm out on a limb or not

so will persevere

@JackDouglas how do you learn best?

@swasheck workwise I plunge in and am generally very intense about it. 'doing' rather than 'analyzing' I guess

works well with databases. people? not so much…

:)

@JackDouglas what about thought processes?

@swasheck how do you mean?

do I have them? :)

@swasheck Friend I've had a lot of time for thinking. The better part of thirty four years on the road in a truck. They are very good for prayer closets. I don't think I'm to be given much credit for I have only done as he said "Continue in My word" and it is a single word that is law.

@swasheck I just took a test, apparently I'm a 'visual' learner :)

@TheodoreA.Jones a single word?

@swasheck Those who are in Christ have the same mind. Understand? He says do not make My words mean less because they cannot be made to mean more. Understand.

@JackDouglas 'Word' in his statement is singular.

@TheodoreA.Jones as it is in Ezekiel 6:1?

@ Jack "Continue in My word" yes 'word' is singular. You see if it is just crucifying Jesus that is the resolution of sins why in the world is the word REPENT the call of God 45 to 50 days later? Selah. Ez. 6:1 more than likely.

@TheodoreA.Jones Perhaps because it is the resolution of sins for those who are also granted repentance?

But it is a good question :)

@ Jack "For the (singular) word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

"Whom you crucified" when the people heard this they were CUT to the heart.

"BROTHERS WHAT SHALL WE DOOOO? about the sin of murdering the only begotten son of the Living God!!!!?

REPENT! of it.

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

It is the singular word of law for them and the same law for the gentile.

Got you. But I'm curious, what church have you attended that has not preached repentance?

Matthew 7:23 has always stood as a warning to those who don't

@JackDouglas good to GoLang ... turns out it was my postgres driver

@JackDouglas God does NOT! respect persons! Either YOU!, like them have the faith to repent of the murder of God's only begotten son or you perish forever by the willful disobedience of the law. There are no exceptions. None. For by an addition to the law it is an unforgivable sin to refuse to obey God in regard to to the sin of Jesus crucifixion. It was a sin to crucify him and by a law it is a greater sin to refuse God's call upon you to repent of it.

"The law was added so that the (singular) trespass of Jesus' crucifixion might increase." rom. 5:20

@swasheck I just made some significant edits and additions. I understand if you don't have time to read

@Dan Point is not a corroborant defense. 1. 1 Cor. 2:8, The Way to become one with God, born again, was not knowable prior to Jesus' crucifixion. Nico was told that he MUST be born again of God, but he was classified as a ruler wasn't he? If actual reason for Jesus' crucifixion were to have been discoverable from any source Jesus would not have been crucified. Your defense has no merit.

You've put yourself in the position of having the scripture argue against itself. To your mind in one place what it says is right the other place it is wrong. Ole' Nico only heard that he MUST be born again, but that does no mean he was born again just by hearing that he need too. 1 Cor. 2:8 is a falsehood if your conjecture is provable to be true. You're not the first to put this sail in the wind so you have not gotten a cherry.

Wow. Looks like I missed out on a discussion!

@MarkAnthonySonger Do you have a comment about what is going on? Word of wisdom perhaps?

@TheodoreA.Jones I think you misunderstood my answer.

@TheodoreA.Jones also keep in mind that this is not a Christian site. We examine the texts academically here, irrespective of religious tradition. I just think you misunderstood because my response does not preclude your interpretation (if I'm understanding you correctly).

@TheodoreA.Jones what is your theological tradition? i'm curious

@swasheck Theological tradition? Do you mean religious affiliation?

@TheodoreA.Jones or that

@MonicaCellio Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides a priest perpetually.

None zilch. All contemporary churches are counterfeits. Jesus Christ is not the head of any of them. What is the count now? 30 to 50 thousand different religious sects all claiming that Jesus Christ is head of them? Scheeze. Only a few, very few, ever find the gate according to him. Religious wise I was raised up attending the nondescript church of my parents. The Lord's table was served every Sunday. 1 Cor. 11: 23-29 The question arose in my mind about 29.

That's one of the references in Hebrews to Melchizedek.

And the one that launches the interpretation in question. Personally, I would like to see if the rabbinic speak of MT, but I never thought of that when I had easy access to them.

@MarkAnthonySonger Were you ever on apologetics.org? I was there from ~2004 to 2007 then it went down. I lost some great essays. It was my fault for not copying my material, but it still hurt.

How and why does one become guilty of the Lord's body and blood by participation at this table? I found out how and why. "Sit! Until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." "Thou preparest a table before Me in the presence of mine enemies."