Friday, April 26, 2024

Two Bad Items of Theology

Melissa Dougherty explodes one and unfortunately expresses the other.

Pastors: Please Stop Using This Popular (and Unbiblical) Analogy.
Melissa Dougherty | 25 April 2024

4:02 Speaking of which, I have in late years from time to time heard another piece of garbage a bit too often.

"He bore the wrath for me" or "God poured out His wrath on Jesus," (in some versions even "momentarily damned Him") so He doesn't need to do it on us.

Apart from this showing a very inconsistent and so to speak incontinent picture of God the Father, it falsifies His relation to His Son, including on Calvary.

There was God's wrath on Calvary. But it was Jesus, who was "treading the wine press of wrath" against the sin He had taken into His own flesh (without consenting to actually committing sins, obviously). It was NOT the Father who was angry with the Son, and it was also NOT the Father who was angry with the man Jesus, in case you had some kind of Nestorian idea of two persons.

Proof that God the Father, on Calvary, was well pleased with His only begotten Son.

Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?
[Romans 6:3]

But as the prequel to this, Jesus was baptised by John.

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17 And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Therefore, the Father remained well pleased in His Son on Calvary too, precisely as Catholic Crucifixion Icons with the Trinity also show.

9:25 Correction.

Assume there was a guy who literally posed as Odin. Assume his son first cooperated with his father's black magic, posed as Thor (Thunder) then repented, came back from the Pagans who had worshipped him, then became a fisherman, then had two fisherman sons.

That is much more faithful to what the Bible actually says. May I tell you why?

It says "he called them Boanerges, because sons of thunder" ...

So, "sons of thunder" is not the title He bestows, it is the reason for the title. The title itself is Boanerges. Now, by "boan" + a nominalised X-erges in Greek, you'd translate as "workers of oxmoanings" or "mooing like bulls" ...

So, let's assume my reconstruction is true. On some occasion, Jesus, as true God, having truly forgiven Zebedee, gently reminds his sons of Zebedee's past, like "you should be able to do that in a lightning, sons of thunder that you are ..." and instead of a guffaw, he elicits their shame and moaning, He tells them, "sorry, I mean Oxmoaners" ....

Because can just be an explanation. And the kind of explanation an etymology would be is ruled out by the disparity of meaning.

9:44 This equation actually involves a little equation with the mothers as well.

Jesus to David = Mary to Itsebeth (if that was her name).

What does this equation imply?

O look upon me, and have mercy on me: give thy command to thy servant, and save the son of thy handmaid.
[Psalms 85:16]

Mother as well as son are serving God. But if this was imperfect in Itsebeth and David, it was perfect in Mary and Jesus. Time to admit Mary is sinless!

12:49 No, you did it!

You pretend God the Father poured out His Wrath on God the Son. NO.

Not only un-Catholic. Not only anti-Biblical, as shown with the argument from Baptism.

It's even a non-Biblical claim, in a theology that claims to be explicitly-Biblical on every at least major or non-negotiable claim.

A Protestant pretended it's in Isaiah 53. It's not.

Here are the relevant words from that chapter:

and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted.

Did you note this? "and we have thought", right? So:

a) it's not the prophet in his own person describing who Jesus really is, he's leaving another collective entity the room to insert their description
b) and that collective, presumably Israel (which means the suffering servant himself is NOT Israel) admits regrettingly to have previously thought Jesus impure and struck by God's wrath.

No comments: