First, may you all have peace... and my sincere apologies for abruptly leaving the discussion. It's been pouring here for close to a week and today was the first day of "sunshine" so spent the day with dear husband. Okay, then...
God "set forth" Jesus' bloody and broken body on the cross.
Unfortunately, it sounds like you've combined what you believe you've read in the Bible... with perhaps what you've seen on the big screen, dear Cofty (peace to you!). I'm thinkin' maybe "Apocalypto" (which I saw), or "The Passion of Christ" (which I did not see)... or something similar ("Roots", maybe?). First, my Lord's body was neither bloody nor broken. True, he was scourged and so had scrapes and tears in his skin but his "disfigurement" was the result of his illnesses (or, rather, ours... which he took into his body), not his being beaten. Second, NOT ONE BONE was broken in his body. Not one. He was a "whole" offering, dear one. Third, the Most Holy One of Israel did not require him to BE bloody - rather, his blood was actually poured out, along with water, as a result of the spear wound inflicted on him. I would exhort you to re-read the process for animal sacrifices, as well as the events of his.
AGuest, thank you for your expanded explanation of your being a slave of Christ.
You are quite welcome, dear Trevor, and, again, peace to you!
The confusion centers on the understanding of the word slave.
Yes, it does...
You choose to follow Christ but are free to leave if you choose.
I was invited to do so, yes, and chose to accept that invitation, yes. And I AM free to leave, absolutely.
Slavery involves the loss of the freedom to choose to stay or leave.
Sometimes, in some (even many) circumstances, dear one, yes. But not all.
That is the privilege of servants or those that have won their freedom. To follow Christ is understandable but to be a slave of Christ infers a lack of choice.
As per your understanding, yes. However, the arkangel Michael apparently didn't see it that way, according to the words he spoke to John when that one bowed before him (at least, as far as John relates it):
"At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of [Jesus]. Worship God!" Revelation 19:10
"But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!" Revelation 21:9
If you will bear with me, I will explain. Many, perhaps like you, have bought into the "politically correct" phrase "fellow servant" (and please note, not all servants are free to leave...), but that isn't really what the Greek word "syndoulos" (translated as "fellow servant" in some Bible translations) means. The prefix "syn" means "with", as in "beside", "accompanying", etc. The term "doulos" means... according to Strong's (word G1401), Thayer's [Lexicon], and Vine's [Expository Dictionary of NT Words]:
"1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition a) a slave b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will - those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men c) devoted to anotherto the disregard of one's own interests 2) a servant, attendant"
In fact, according to "Richard C. Trench" (whoever he is, but apparently some believe he's "someone who knows") the ONLY verse in the NT that actually accurately sets forth the word "servant" (Greek "therapon) is Hebrews 3:5... which speaks of Moses as a "servant" in the Household of God. Given all of this, I think my choosing to use any of the definitions under the first item is perfectly fine... and actually accurate.
Being a king or a priest of Christ could appeal to appeal to my ego but the idea of slavery scares me. I guess I am just made of the wrong stuff.
Yes, I can understand that: I am the descendant of slaves, dear one, and there was a time when the word itself struck fear in my heart. I don't know if that makes me made of the "right" stuff or not, but it might provide some perspective. I no longer have such fear, however, because I have learned to cast fear outside... as well as to accept that words really are just words... and can't really harm you. It's the intent BEHIND the word that causes harm. Also, I kind of like the FREEDOM I now have to CHOOSE to be a slave, if I want to... as well as WHOSE slave.
Your humble servant Trevor
Thank you... and I, yours, dear one.
I can think, through reason and evidence. I can only know, through faith.
Wow, dear Tams (the greatest of love and peace to you!). Just... wow. My "cup" runneth over, right now. Your response "filled" me, dear one, as they often do. If I don't tell you this often enough, please know it now.
if you wish to go so far as to eradicate all the hundreds of references to god's demands for blood sacrifice in the OT and all the references to the sacrificial nature of Jesus' death in the NT you have cut so deep into the text there is very little left.
Which is the point underlying my Lord's words in one of those texts "left" to come to HIM, dear Cofty, rather than keep searching the scriptures (because only a few of them are relevant since him, anyway. And the lion's share of those pretty much refer to him, so...).
if this is true, then alas, the bible is a hoax and Jesus may never have existed.
A good deal of it is, dear Trevor, which is why putting one's trust in it is futile (which is why folks who do so are STILL so confused... and still causign confusion... today!). Problem is, many accept it as one continous writing, one complete book... when in fact it is a compilation of 66 separate books, some of which have very similar... or more than just similar... themes. That someone decided to bind them all together and publish them... together... as one... as well as the be-all-end-all of all books... was the beginning of the confusion... and a solidification of the apostasy. Some of the writings it contains even states... or alludes... to that truth.
why reject the thought of a creator completely, instead of just rejecting the false teaching of the misunderstandings of men?
See, Tams, girl?? Another one of those concise, sublime utterances from you. I don't think my heart can bear it! Wait... yes, it can. It certainly can. More, please!!
In the meantime, peace to all of you who commented. I understand that some might not get it; however, I am certain that there are many who did who just didn't see the need to comment... or who just didn't want to wrangle with some of ya'll this weekend. I understand that, too!
A slave of Christ, as dear Michael meant that term,
SA
