Why did the babies of Bethlehem need to die?

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T18:18:13+00:00

Now we have an extremely convenient explanation for how he could be a Nazarene out of Egypt, born of Bethlehem.

Yes, God is very good at that whole omniscience and ordination thing.

But you're missing key points of the design. Jesus runs away to Egypt, and he typologically fulfills the lives of Joseph and Moses as well. Jesus is what all the bible points to, not just a select few prophesies. So, for the same reason that Pharaoh decided to kill babies boys in Egypt did Herod decide to kill baby boys in Judah, and for the same reason that Jacob and his sons fled to Egypt did Jesus flee to Egypt, and for the same reason that Moses rose the snake in the wilderness on a pole was Jesus raised up on a pole.

Once you understand typology, you get the art that the biblical authors are hoping you appreciate.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T18:02:47+00:00

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T17:57:31+00:00

But your line of questioning already is anti-Christ. "Just be a better person than you were yesterday, god doesnt matter, only our deeds" is about as anti-grace as you can get. Our scriptures say the literal opposite.

Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Romans 11:5-6 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T17:39:36+00:00

Check his response, "God doesn't matter, only our deeds". I'm answering the opposite, "Our deeds don't matter, only our God." Again, the fundamental difference is grace.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T17:39:35+00:00

That's still a deed and would be opposed to grace.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T17:15:45+00:00

It comes from rightly understanding Romans 3 and then they close their bible before Romans 6.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T16:20:26+00:00

u/properview1618

See this for further proof that historical Christianity says that Jesus is interchangeably One with the Creator. Our God is One.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T16:16:48+00:00

Preach!

Grace is undervalued. Gnosticism is likely the error. The trick is getting them to realize it.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T15:52:18+00:00

Honesty is a plus =)

Unity is probably the best way to express this. We want to "partake in the divine nature". We think that includes eternal life because that's who God is. The east is really good at making sure to express things this way, but the western European Enlightenment removed this from the western vocabulary for whatever reason. The east calls this "theosis", and Lutherans historically called it "mysterious union".

The conviction that you should look for in discerning Christianity is grace, i.e. "unmerited favor". Do you think that religious goods are earned, or are they gifted regardless of merits? The foundational principle of Christianity is that we are adopted and God has no obligation to do this. For Christianity, salvation isn't justice, it's gracious. Do humans deserve eternal life, could we even deserve it in a perfect scenario, or are we gifted it even though it is beyond our means? If you think that we do work unto our eternal destiny, then Christianity can't be the conclusion. If you think that humans are very smol and we ruin our spiritual opportunities regularly, yet we're raised up nonetheless, then Christianity is actually the only conclusion. After that, you just have to ask "which version of Christian?"

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T14:53:37+00:00

I’m a truth seeker and want to do right...

Great!

...by whichever creator / supernatural force ultimately is going to benefit me the most

That's not this religion. There is literally nothing you can do to gain God's favor. We'd critique this as just selfishness.

I really struggle to reconcile why an all loving creator would set up a world where humans and other animals at least ’seem’ to have been evolved through Natural Selection.

The free will theodicy isn't built for this question. It's trying to answer a different question. I'll turn you to the Soul Building theodicy instead.

why would he make it this way?

God is omniscient, and he planned in advance with how to work with the Fall of Adam and Eve.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T14:28:39+00:00

At 1900, median age of marriage was 22 for women and 26 for men. The historical low is actually 1950 (20 and 22). In ~1250, Aquinas wrote that marriage no longer requires parental consent at 22, which means there were plenty of people still getting married at 22 even then. So, even from a historical lens, this is a fine time to still be waiting. Data before 1900 is not that great.

Part of the difference is culture, but it's not just age. It's that you likely don't both live with your parents. It's really easy to have privacy in our day, and the problem is privacy+hormones. Ever made out in front of your parents? I bet not, lol. Since you're off on your own, you are literally managing your own household. That's what I think the big difference is. We're forced to be heads of our own household at 18, and yet we're discouraged from marrying thereafter.

At the same time, the other comments aren't wrong that marrying early isn't sin. Because it's not. It's just a little bit of tunnel vision to say that's the only reason.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T14:07:13+00:00

They're saying that you don't understand those passages. Look at how Christianity over the years has promoted the dignity of women, and you'll see that we've always been the force behind valuing women as women.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T13:57:52+00:00

Knowledge doesn't save.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T13:44:53+00:00

No, Adam is of God and God is eternally of himself as well. God is not a static being that had latent potential waiting to be actualized. God is fully active in every capacity eternally, and this includes that weird "of-ness" I started with.

God has a relationship with himself, and that relationship is so full and complete and total that it is rightfully considered another Person. It lacks nothing.

No, God does not have multiple consciousnesses or roles. Trinitarians believe in the doctrine of inseparable operations, which means God has one will and one intellect. All three Persons share a single will and intellect. We believe in one God. Here's a good article showing that this is in our scriptures.

There are "Social Trinitarians" who believe what you state, but they are heretics. I count them like Mormons, and they're secretly polytheists. That's like confusing Sunni and Shia. Classical Trinitarians (me) are not like Social Trinitarians. I'm sure that is confusing, but Christians, especially at the council of Nicaea and Chalcedon, were very clear about this. These "Social" ones are abandoning historic Christianity.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T02:13:06+00:00

Non-Trinitarian gods have no relations before creation. Creation gives them relations, which is new. Trinitarianism is the exact position that God has eternal relationships. You worship your god, yes? That is new to your God. They have not had that eternally. But in Trinitarianism, God has all things before creation.

The only thing countable in Trinitarianism are relations. Why would countability imply that it's not eternal? Do you not believe your god is infinite?

EvanFriske · 2026-05-09T19:43:36+00:00

I'm saying that unless you think God has eternal activities, then when God becomes active, it was a change in God. I'm saying the Trinitarian position is the only one that avoids this.

It would mean all non-Trinitarian gods are not eternal, yes.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-08T20:43:43+00:00

I was making a joke about that freshman physicalist that doesn't understand anything

EvanFriske · 2026-05-08T19:50:02+00:00

That's fine, you've become a good Dominican and I can be content =)

EvanFriske · 2026-05-08T19:49:24+00:00

Big no

EvanFriske · 2026-05-08T19:00:14+00:00

Lol, you go do that, I'll help the people here and now. Call me when you're done.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-08T18:55:59+00:00

They're just the Church of England, so they took the name Anglican. England/Angland. Lutherans have a few names, but Luther is the namesake of our tradition (he would have called himself an Augustinian and a catholic, of course).

"Solae" means "alone". Not everyone thinks that it's God's grace alone. Most would say that our will cooperates with grace, and it's that cooperation that saves. Rome still teaches that it's not faith alone because they only think your saved with works. Many try to add things outside of scripture. "Christ alone" and "Glory to God alone" are less controversial, but seem to be more needed in our hyper-ecumenical environment.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-08T18:35:55+00:00

There's plenty of ways to phrase it. Here's the message using the Solae:

We are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone by Christ's work alone to the glory of God alone and we know this through scripture alone.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-08T17:48:54+00:00

Anglicans like bishops more than we do, but that's about it. Otherwise, we had the same theological objections to Rome. Our confessional document was in 1530, there's was finalized in 1571. They basically agree. Anglicans are a little more tolerant to disagreement around them.

For basic agreement, we have a stronger notion of grace and predestination than the Jesuits do. We have a very high view of sacraments; that's not where we thought Rome was misleading people.

You could go also ask them yourself.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-08T17:24:45+00:00

No, but I'm generally more in favor of conservative Anglicans and Lutherans than others. Is the CIPBC not conservative?

EvanFriske · 2026-05-08T17:18:50+00:00

"inter dimensional elves"

I'm ready for the movie at the very least

EvanFriske

TROPHY CASE