User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:17:49 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one said anything about being deserving. I didn't need to be in your class this AM, I already concluded that Luke's account is correct. Mark's account gives no details. Luke's account does, and the account gives the exchange that occurred between the theifrebel/whatever that did not persecute God and Jesus, which included that theif's rebuke of the other theif that did persecuted Jesus. Luke 23:39-43, " One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”" Your class must have concluded that God did not say this to guy and Luke, per the eyewitness, was wrong. There is no other alternative logical conclusion. I would guess, because of the rule of accussing folks of sin apriori. I believe the Matt's and Mark's accounts were wrong, because a poor assumption was made from a lack of memory(s). God, by way of Luke's account, wanted this man and his testimony to be remembered and not lost, becaus eit was important to Him. Jesus said the blind man in John 9 did not sin, but the Pharisees accussed him of being "steeped in sin at birth". That's what was lost with the "snip". Happy Easter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You should apologize to <snip> the thief that went to Paridise with God on Good Friday. Neither of them persecuted God either. Nope, you are wrong. You should have been in our Sunday School this morning, as we discussed this very thing. 
Mark 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. The thieves reviled Jesus. Even the one that Jesus was going to Save in a couple of hours was ridiculing Him. But Jesus loved him anyway and Saved him without the thief deserving it. Just like me. No one said anything about being deserving. I didn't need to be in your class this AM, I already concluded that Luke's account is correct. Mark's account gives no details. Luke's account does, and the account gives the exchange that occurred between the theifrebel/whatever that did not persecute God and Jesus, which included that theif's rebuke of the other theif that did persecuted Jesus. Luke 23:39-43, " One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”" Your class must have concluded that God did not say this to guy and Luke, per the eyewitness, was wrong. There is no other alternative logical conclusion. I would guess, because of the rule of accussing folks of sin apriori. I believe the Matt's and Mark's accounts were wrong, because a poor assumption was made from a lack of memory(s). God, by way of Luke's account, wanted this man and his testimony to be remembered and not lost, becaus eit was important to Him. Jesus said the blind man in John 9 did not sin, but the Pharisees accussed him of being "steeped in sin at birth". That's what was lost with the "snip". Happy Easter. We do not have to decide which of the Gospels are "right" and which are "wrong". They are both God's Word and without error. The two thieves were rebuking Jesus, just as Mark recorded. Later, one of them changed his mind and asked Jesus for Him to remember him. Jesus Saved him, just as Luke recorded. That is the commonly accepted explanation of the vast majority of Biblical scholars. If you think God's Word has wrong information in it, then I can't help you. My God is bigger than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:25:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What blows my mind is, so many people knowledgeable of Christ, still religiously celebrate a pagan fertility ritual (ishtar) and xmas (tree worship) as Christian holidays and ignore the true biblical holy days. Ishtar has noting to do with Easter. That's a Facebook post that some believe... Easter has it's beginning in European fertility goddess Eostre (German in origin). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:38:09 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We do not have to decide which of the Gospels are "right" and which are "wrong". They are both God's Word and without error. The two thieves were rebuking Jesus, just as Mark recorded. Later, one of them changed his mind and asked Jesus for Him to remember him. Jesus Saved him, just as Luke recorded. That is the commonly accepted explanation of the vast majority of Biblical scholars. If you think God's Word has wrong information in it, then I can't help you. My God is bigger than that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You should apologize to <snip> the thief that went to Paridise with God on Good Friday. Neither of them persecuted God either. Nope, you are wrong. You should have been in our Sunday School this morning, as we discussed this very thing.
Mark 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. The thieves reviled Jesus. Even the one that Jesus was going to Save in a couple of hours was ridiculing Him. But Jesus loved him anyway and Saved him without the thief deserving it. Just like me. No one said anything about being deserving. I didn't need to be in your class this AM, I already concluded that Luke's account is correct. Mark's account gives no details. Luke's account does, and the account gives the exchange that occurred between the theifrebel/whatever that did not persecute God and Jesus, which included that theif's rebuke of the other theif that did persecuted Jesus. Luke 23:39-43, " One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”" Your class must have concluded that God did not say this to guy and Luke, per the eyewitness, was wrong. There is no other alternative logical conclusion. I would guess, because of the rule of accussing folks of sin apriori. I believe the Matt's and Mark's accounts were wrong, because a poor assumption was made from a lack of memory(s). God, by way of Luke's account, wanted this man and his testimony to be remembered and not lost, becaus eit was important to Him. Jesus said the blind man in John 9 did not sin, but the Pharisees accussed him of being "steeped in sin at birth". That's what was lost with the "snip". Happy Easter. We do not have to decide which of the Gospels are "right" and which are "wrong". They are both God's Word and without error. The two thieves were rebuking Jesus, just as Mark recorded. Later, one of them changed his mind and asked Jesus for Him to remember him. Jesus Saved him, just as Luke recorded. That is the commonly accepted explanation of the vast majority of Biblical scholars. If you think God's Word has wrong information in it, then I can't help you. My God is bigger than that. Moses claimed the divorce laws came from God, and God contradicted that in Matt 19:8. Folks need to determine and differentiate between what God holds and said and what men are claiming God holds, but does not and say. That was what God was teaching in Matt 19:8. Logic and the KISS principle always applies. What the criminal said is inconsistent with a sudden change of heart. It shows the criminal had a keen sense of right and wrong by the law, justice and knew he made a decision to disregard whatever law he violated. That's not something one figures out all of a sudden. He said, "this man has done nothing wrong" and I don't beleve he ever had any nasty words for Jesus whatsoever, at any time. If he had any nasty words, they were for the other criminal and the eyewitness testimony sucked, just as it quite often does, if there was any. So now the choice is clear. either one chooses according to logic or one chooses according to support predeterined outcomes, which further complicate the contradictions regarding God's teachings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:41:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He was sinless and therefore not subject to death which are the wages of sin. He, being divine could have called legions of Angles to protect him. Yes Pilate ordered him executed but Jesus went willingly to his fate. By being falsely accused, convicted, sentenced and executed, he trumps Death and is able to offer redemption to all who will accept it. Yeah, that about sums it up |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:48:52 PM EDT
[#5]
The sacrifice part didn't make sense to me until I understood the concept of what sacrificing lambs meant to the Jews. Jesus came as the literal 'lamb of God' so that the Jews of the day could understand what it meant to RISE from the dead. That is the point that some seem to miss. God sent His son to beat death, and Satan by implication.
So unlike the lamb that died and then was eaten, Jesus rose from the dead in order to prove he is the way the truth and the life. People of the day would have understood what that sacrifice meant once they were convinced he arose from the dead. It's why His disciples were quick to deny Him as Lord before the crucifixion and then risked and gave their lives for being Christians AFTER the resurrection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:51:37 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still not sure what's disingenuous. We can't pay for our sins, but we must pay to get to heaven right? Jesus paid for us, and we can accept his gift. You're making something out of nothing. He said "can't" and I said "must" Just because you must doesn't mean you can. Is there some other way to get to heaven besides paying for sins pre-jesus? Is there some other way to get to heaven besides paying for sins (by accepting jesus's payment) post-jesus? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
... Old_Painless explained that we can't pay for our sins. Jesus represents a new covenant with God; our sins are paid in full, if we will accept the gift, freely given. I'm still not sure what's disingenuous. We can't pay for our sins, but we must pay to get to heaven right? Jesus paid for us, and we can accept his gift. You're making something out of nothing. He said "can't" and I said "must" Just because you must doesn't mean you can. Is there some other way to get to heaven besides paying for sins pre-jesus? Is there some other way to get to heaven besides paying for sins (by accepting jesus's payment) post-jesus? After reading this, I'm reasonably certain your original statement is nothing more than an attempt to troll. However, I could be wrong and it may have been written from a point of sincere misunderstanding. As for your last question, the answer is simply, "No", there is no other way. Not works, or donations to a church, rending your clothes, burning sacrifices, or offering other sacrifices. There is only one way, freely offered. Pretty cool, eh? That is the new covenant. The old covenant(s) was put aside and no longer required, or even of any use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:56:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Moses claimed the divorce laws came from God, and God contradicted that in Matt 19:8. Folks need to determine and differentiate between what God holds and said and what men are claiming God holds, but does not and say. That was what God was teaching in Matt 19:8. Logic and the KISS principle always applies. What the criminal said is inconsistent with a sudden change of heart. It shows the criminal had a keen sense of right and wrong by the law, justice and knew he made a decision to disregard whatever law he violated. That's not something one figures out all of a sudden. He said, "this man has done nothing wrong" and I don't beleve he ever had any nasty words for Jesus whatsoever, at any time. If he had any nasty words, they were for the other criminal and the eyewitness testimony sucked, just as it quite often does, if there was any. So now the choice is clear. either one chooses according to logic or one chooses according to support predeterined outcomes, which further complicate the contradictions regarding God's teachings. No, either God's Word is True and Trustworthy, or it is full of errors. I don't see how anyone that knows Jesus as Savior could believe His Word is full of lies. Believe as you please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:01:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He taugh forgiveness, which is incompatible with punishment, or "paying for sins". It's religious authorities that teach differently, the even killed Him over the differences in their teachings. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not trying to stir things up, I've always wondered this. Jesus was persecuted by the Romans right? Pontius Pilate decided his fate, so why do they say Jesus died for our sins when the decision wasn't his? If you are seriously asking, I will explain. The Bible says that Jesus' death and resurrection was planned by God before the foundation of the earth. He had to pay for our sins, as we had no way to pay for them ourselves. But make no mistake........Jesus was in total control, not the Romans, and not the Jews. He was in total control and did what He did to pay for the sins of those that would trust Him. That's why He said, just before He died, "It is all finished". He had completed His task. Happy Easter. But why does the system work that way, i.e. that we must pay for our sins before we are granted access to heaven? God could have designed it however he wanted... no? He taugh forgiveness, which is incompatible with punishment, or "paying for sins". It's religious authorities that teach differently, the even killed Him over the differences in their teachings. Forgiveness can't even be discussed as a concept w/o a preexisting understanding of justice, punishment, and payment for transgressions. Someone always pays for a transgression. Forgiveness just means that the wronged party bears the burden of the sin. Thus Christs sacrifice was the ultimate form of forgiveness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:04:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ishtar has noting to do with Easter. That's a Facebook post that some believe... Easter has it's beginning in European fertility goddess Eostre (German in origin). Christ overthrows and conquers pagan gods. I find it funny that antis think consecrating what used to be a pagan celebration to Christ is somehow still paganism. I bet the original Christians caused quite a stir by celebrating the Resurrection of our Living God instead of Eostre, on Eostre's day no less- the nerve 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:09:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Christ overthrows and conquers pagan gods. I find it funny that antis think consecrating what used to be a pagan celebration to Christ is somehow still paganism. I bet the original Christians caused quite a stir by celebrating the Resurrection of our Living God instead of Eostre, on Eostre's day no less- the nerve Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ishtar has noting to do with Easter. That's a Facebook post that some believe... Easter has it's beginning in European fertility goddess Eostre (German in origin). Christ overthrows and conquers pagan gods. I find it funny that antis think consecrating what used to be a pagan celebration to Christ is somehow still paganism. I bet the original Christians caused quite a stir by celebrating the Resurrection of our Living God instead of Eostre, on Eostre's day no less- the nerve I'm a Christian and I'm just stating facts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:10:03 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Baptism does not confer salvation - it is rather the act of obedience performed after one is already saved. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:That is absolutely incorrect, the part in red.
Necessity of Baptism . . . 1261As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrustthem to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed,the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus'tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children cometo me, do not hinder them", allow us to hope that there is a wayof salvation for children who have died without Baptism. Baptism does not confer salvation - it is rather the act of obedience performed after one is already saved. This is an unfortunate doctrinal difference amongst Protestants. Baptism does not wash sin, just the dirt behind your ears. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:12:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm a Christian and I'm just stating facts. I understand that, I was referring to the post you replied to on the subject, my apologies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:12:31 PM EDT
[#13]
When Adam sinned in the garden of Eden God was going to kill mankind right then and there.
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Jesus stepped in and said he would die for mans sins and offered himself for our existence. Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. When God puts something in the middle it is of great importance. Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. John 19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. Jesus took Barabbas spot on the cross. Barabbas was supposed to die that day. Barabbas signifies mankind. Bar means son abba means father and it is plural so Barrabbas means son of fathers meaning that he represented ALL of man. So literally Jesus died for ALL of mans sins. This is also the bruising of evil/satans head and just a bruising to the heal of God. So when Jesus died for your sins he really did. But the dying part was just what he had to do to complete the covenant as the last Adam. That is why Jesus had to come to earth, to withstand temptation whereas the first Adam succumbed to temptation. The greatest part that differentiates Jesus apart is that he conquered death and ROSE from the grave signifying life eternal in Him. This is the only way to get to heaven is through Jesus Christ. By calling upon the name of The Lord and asking Him into your life, and heart and repent of your sins, you too can conquer death. Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:14:30 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because easter is a known and historical pagan fertility ritual, that is identified by certain symbols as their icons, and those icons are now used (way out of context to boot) to represent Christs ascension. 
Or maybe the truth matters? And don't forget that thing in the Bible about God telling us not to be like the pagans or mimic their rituals. Truth schmooth, who cares though. Right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why would easter eggs be? I'm trying understand the extent of your "logic." Because easter is a known and historical pagan fertility ritual, that is identified by certain symbols as their icons, and those icons are now used (way out of context to boot) to represent Christs ascension.
Quoted:
Logic, somgic. Who cares. We celebrate Easter at this time of the year because of the Passover. But since it coincides with the pagan celebration of fertility, some folks try to make a big deal out of it. They are grasping for straws. Or maybe the truth matters? And don't forget that thing in the Bible about God telling us not to be like the pagans or mimic their rituals. Truth schmooth, who cares though. Right? I would argue that, were they actually in context - which you admit they are not, you might have a point. Alas, nobody (OK, no Christian) is decorating easter eggs in some sort of fertility ritual for some pagan goddess. They are doing it because it's a fun springtime thing we do at Easter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:15:02 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ishtar has noting to do with Easter. That's a Facebook post that some believe... Easter has it's beginning in European fertility goddess Eostre (German in origin). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What blows my mind is, so many people knowledgeable of Christ, still religiously celebrate a pagan fertility ritual (ishtar) and xmas (tree worship) as Christian holidays and ignore the true biblical holy days. Ishtar has noting to do with Easter. That's a Facebook post that some believe... Easter has it's beginning in European fertility goddess Eostre (German in origin). The romans had venus. It all started somewhere, the babalonians had Astarte. Tammuz', ishtar, etc... were all related to fertility worship. Worshiping the sun or fertility/sex is as old as the day is long. It takes different forms and deities but the icons remain the same; eggs, bunnies, fish sunrises and other signs of procreation. Deuteronomy 12:30-31 NLT Do not fall into the trap of following their customs and worshiping their gods. Do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations worship their gods? I want to follow their example.’ You must not worship the lord your God the way the other nations worship their gods, for they perform for their gods every detestable act that the lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters as sacrifices to their gods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:16:35 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is an unfortunate doctrinal difference amongst Protestants. Baptism does not wash sin, just the dirt behind your ears. I like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:19:51 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The romans had venus. It all started somewhere, the babalonians had Astarte. Tammuz', ishtar, etc... were all related to fertility worship. Worshiping the sun or fertility/sex is as old as the day is long. It takes different forms and deities but the icons remain the same; eggs, bunnies, fish sunrises and other signs of procreation. Deuteronomy 12:30-31 NLT Do not fall into the trap of following their customs and worshiping their gods. Do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations worship their gods? I want to follow their example.’ You must not worship the lord your God the way the other nations worship their gods, for they perform for their gods every detestable act that the lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters as sacrifices to their gods. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What blows my mind is, so many people knowledgeable of Christ, still religiously celebrate a pagan fertility ritual (ishtar) and xmas (tree worship) as Christian holidays and ignore the true biblical holy days. Ishtar has noting to do with Easter. That's a Facebook post that some believe... Easter has it's beginning in European fertility goddess Eostre (German in origin). The romans had venus. It all started somewhere, the babalonians had Astarte. Tammuz', ishtar, etc... were all related to fertility worship. Worshiping the sun or fertility/sex is as old as the day is long. It takes different forms and deities but the icons remain the same; eggs, bunnies, fish sunrises and other signs of procreation. Deuteronomy 12:30-31 NLT Do not fall into the trap of following their customs and worshiping their gods. Do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations worship their gods? I want to follow their example.’ You must not worship the lord your God the way the other nations worship their gods, for they perform for their gods every detestable act that the lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters as sacrifices to their gods. And if we were "burning our sons and daughters as sacrifices to their gods", you would have a valid objection. But dying an egg is not a form of worship in any way. It is just a holiday custom, unrelated to Jesus' death and resurrection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:21:22 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The romans had venus. It all started somewhere, the babalonians had Astarte. Tammuz', ishtar, etc... were all related to fertility worship. Worshiping the sun or fertility/sex is as old as the day is long. It takes different forms and deities but the icons remain the same; eggs, bunnies, fish sunrises and other signs of procreation. Deuteronomy 12:30-31 NLT Do not fall into the trap of following their customs and worshiping their gods. Do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations worship their gods? I want to follow their example.’ You must not worship the lord your God the way the other nations worship their gods, for they perform for their gods every detestable act that the lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters as sacrifices to their gods. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What blows my mind is, so many people knowledgeable of Christ, still religiously celebrate a pagan fertility ritual (ishtar) and xmas (tree worship) as Christian holidays and ignore the true biblical holy days. Ishtar has noting to do with Easter. That's a Facebook post that some believe... Easter has it's beginning in European fertility goddess Eostre (German in origin). The romans had venus. It all started somewhere, the babalonians had Astarte. Tammuz', ishtar, etc... were all related to fertility worship. Worshiping the sun or fertility/sex is as old as the day is long. It takes different forms and deities but the icons remain the same; eggs, bunnies, fish sunrises and other signs of procreation. Deuteronomy 12:30-31 NLT Do not fall into the trap of following their customs and worshiping their gods. Do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations worship their gods? I want to follow their example.’ You must not worship the lord your God the way the other nations worship their gods, for they perform for their gods every detestable act that the lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters as sacrifices to their gods. Except that Christians are not celebrating Easter for what it was, but what it is as a Christian holiday in today's society. The rabbits and the eggs are simply a festive filler to the bigger picture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:28:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Forgiveness can't even be discussed as a concept w/o a preexisting understanding of justice, punishment, and payment for transgressions. Someone always pays for a transgression. Forgiveness just means that the wronged party bears the burden of the sin. Thus Christs sacrifice was the ultimate form of forgiveness. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not trying to stir things up, I've always wondered this. Jesus was persecuted by the Romans right? Pontius Pilate decided his fate, so why do they say Jesus died for our sins when the decision wasn't his? If you are seriously asking, I will explain. The Bible says that Jesus' death and resurrection was planned by God before the foundation of the earth. He had to pay for our sins, as we had no way to pay for them ourselves. But make no mistake........Jesus was in total control, not the Romans, and not the Jews. He was in total control and did what He did to pay for the sins of those that would trust Him. That's why He said, just before He died, "It is all finished". He had completed His task. Happy Easter. But why does the system work that way, i.e. that we must pay for our sins before we are granted access to heaven? God could have designed it however he wanted... no? He taugh forgiveness, which is incompatible with punishment, or "paying for sins". It's religious authorities that teach differently, the even killed Him over the differences in their teachings. Forgiveness can't even be discussed as a concept w/o a preexisting understanding of justice, punishment, and payment for transgressions. Someone always pays for a transgression. Forgiveness just means that the wronged party bears the burden of the sin. Thus Christs sacrifice was the ultimate form of forgiveness. No. Forgiveness is completely incompatible with punishment. When one forgives, the transgression is simply forgiven and that's the end of it. If there's any kind of punishment, there's no forgiveness and any claim that there was is bogus. Jesus gave an analogy with the washing of the feet at the last supper. On simply washes away transgression, One does not punish, then wash, that's only punishment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:29:59 PM EDT
[#20]
Unbelievable. Its right in front of you faces, clear as day and you completely dismiss it.
1) Historical fact, coloring/hiding/giving eggs as gifts are iconic symbols created by and rooted in PAGANISM. 2) Gods direct command: "You must not worship the lord your God the way the other nations worship their gods" |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:31:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Moses claimed the divorce laws came from God, and God contradicted that in Matt 19:8. Folks need to determine and differentiate between what God holds and said and what men are claiming God holds, but does not and say. That was what God was teaching in Matt 19:8. Logic and the KISS principle always applies. What the criminal said is inconsistent with a sudden change of heart. It shows the criminal had a keen sense of right and wrong by the law, justice and knew he made a decision to disregard whatever law he violated. That's not something one figures out all of a sudden. He said, "this man has done nothing wrong" and I don't beleve he ever had any nasty words for Jesus whatsoever, at any time. If he had any nasty words, they were for the other criminal and the eyewitness testimony sucked, just as it quite often does, if there was any. So now the choice is clear. either one chooses according to logic or one chooses according to support predeterined outcomes, which further complicate the contradictions regarding God's teachings. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You should apologize to <snip> the thief that went to Paridise with God on Good Friday. Neither of them persecuted God either. Nope, you are wrong. You should have been in our Sunday School this morning, as we discussed this very thing.
Mark 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. The thieves reviled Jesus. Even the one that Jesus was going to Save in a couple of hours was ridiculing Him. But Jesus loved him anyway and Saved him without the thief deserving it. Just like me. No one said anything about being deserving. I didn't need to be in your class this AM, I already concluded that Luke's account is correct. Mark's account gives no details. Luke's account does, and the account gives the exchange that occurred between the theifrebel/whatever that did not persecute God and Jesus, which included that theif's rebuke of the other theif that did persecuted Jesus. Luke 23:39-43, " One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”" Your class must have concluded that God did not say this to guy and Luke, per the eyewitness, was wrong. There is no other alternative logical conclusion. I would guess, because of the rule of accussing folks of sin apriori. I believe the Matt's and Mark's accounts were wrong, because a poor assumption was made from a lack of memory(s). God, by way of Luke's account, wanted this man and his testimony to be remembered and not lost, becaus eit was important to Him. Jesus said the blind man in John 9 did not sin, but the Pharisees accussed him of being "steeped in sin at birth". That's what was lost with the "snip". Happy Easter. We do not have to decide which of the Gospels are "right" and which are "wrong". They are both God's Word and without error. The two thieves were rebuking Jesus, just as Mark recorded. Later, one of them changed his mind and asked Jesus for Him to remember him. Jesus Saved him, just as Luke recorded. That is the commonly accepted explanation of the vast majority of Biblical scholars. If you think God's Word has wrong information in it, then I can't help you. My God is bigger than that. Moses claimed the divorce laws came from God, and God contradicted that in Matt 19:8. Folks need to determine and differentiate between what God holds and said and what men are claiming God holds, but does not and say. That was what God was teaching in Matt 19:8. Logic and the KISS principle always applies. What the criminal said is inconsistent with a sudden change of heart. It shows the criminal had a keen sense of right and wrong by the law, justice and knew he made a decision to disregard whatever law he violated. That's not something one figures out all of a sudden. He said, "this man has done nothing wrong" and I don't beleve he ever had any nasty words for Jesus whatsoever, at any time. If he had any nasty words, they were for the other criminal and the eyewitness testimony sucked, just as it quite often does, if there was any. So now the choice is clear. either one chooses according to logic or one chooses according to support predeterined outcomes, which further complicate the contradictions regarding God's teachings. My memory is a little sketchy, but didn't the criminal say he was rightly crucified. Even you call him a criminal. It was for the sake of that mans sin, and mine, and every other believer; that Christ was nailed to the cross. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:31:58 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When Adam sinned in the garden of Eden God was going to kill mankind right then and there. ... Genesis is parable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:33:01 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unbelievable. Its right in front of you faces, clear as day and you completely dismiss it. 1) Historical fact, coloring/hiding/giving eggs as gifts are iconic symbols created by and rooted in PAGANISM. 2) Gods direct command: "You must not worship the lord your God the way the other nations worship their gods" Nobody is denying that coloring eggs started in pagan societies. I, for one, am trying to figure out why you think that is connected to worship. I haven't exactly seen colored eggs laid before the altar in any Christian church. Our culture is chock full of things and traditions that started before Christianity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:35:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Gratuitous Wicker Man gif:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:35:59 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unbelievable. Its right in front of you faces, clear as day and you completely dismiss it. 1) Historical fact, coloring/hiding/giving eggs as gifts are iconic symbols created by and rooted in PAGANISM. 2) Gods direct command: "You must not worship the lord your God the way the other nations worship their gods" And once again, coloring eggs is not "worshiping the Lord your God" in any way or fashion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:41:46 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Forgiveness is completely incompatible with forgiveness. When one forgives, the transgression is simply forgiven and that's the end of it. If there's any kind of punishment, there's no forgiveness and any claim that there was is bogus. Jesus gave an analogy with the washing of the feet at the last supper. On simply washes away transgression, One does not punish, then wash, that's only punishment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He taugh forgiveness, which is incompatible with punishment, or "paying for sins". It's religious authorities that teach differently, the even killed Him over the differences in their teachings. Forgiveness can't even be discussed as a concept w/o a preexisting understanding of justice, punishment, and payment for transgressions. Someone always pays for a transgression. Forgiveness just means that the wronged party bears the burden of the sin. Thus Christs sacrifice was the ultimate form of forgiveness. No. Forgiveness is completely incompatible with forgiveness. When one forgives, the transgression is simply forgiven and that's the end of it. If there's any kind of punishment, there's no forgiveness and any claim that there was is bogus. Jesus gave an analogy with the washing of the feet at the last supper. On simply washes away transgression, One does not punish, then wash, that's only punishment. You can steal $100 from me and I can forgive you. I am still out $100. You could repay the $100, but you are still a thief(possibly penitent). Only Christs sacrifice can cover your sin in the eyes of God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:46:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My memory is a little sketchy, but didn't the criminal say he was rightly crucified. Even you call him a criminal. It was for the sake of that mans sin, and mine, and every other believer; that Christ was nailed to the cross. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No one said anything about being deserving. I didn't need to be in your class this AM, I already concluded that Luke's account is correct. Mark's account gives no details. Luke's account does, and the account gives the exchange that occurred between the theifrebel/whatever that did not persecute God and Jesus, which included that theif's rebuke of the other theif that did persecuted Jesus. Luke 23:39-43, " One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”" Your class must have concluded that God did not say this to guy and Luke, per the eyewitness, was wrong. There is no other alternative logical conclusion. I would guess, because of the rule of accussing folks of sin apriori. I believe the Matt's and Mark's accounts were wrong, because a poor assumption was made from a lack of memory(s). God, by way of Luke's account, wanted this man and his testimony to be remembered and not lost, becaus eit was important to Him. Jesus said the blind man in John 9 did not sin, but the Pharisees accussed him of being "steeped in sin at birth". That's what was lost with the "snip". Happy Easter. We do not have to decide which of the Gospels are "right" and which are "wrong". They are both God's Word and without error. The two thieves were rebuking Jesus, just as Mark recorded. Later, one of them changed his mind and asked Jesus for Him to remember him. Jesus Saved him, just as Luke recorded. That is the commonly accepted explanation of the vast majority of Biblical scholars. If you think God's Word has wrong information in it, then I can't help you. My God is bigger than that. Moses claimed the divorce laws came from God, and God contradicted that in Matt 19:8. Folks need to determine and differentiate between what God holds and said and what men are claiming God holds, but does not and say. That was what God was teaching in Matt 19:8. Logic and the KISS principle always applies. What the criminal said is inconsistent with a sudden change of heart. It shows the criminal had a keen sense of right and wrong by the law, justice and knew he made a decision to disregard whatever law he violated. That's not something one figures out all of a sudden. He said, "this man has done nothing wrong" and I don't beleve he ever had any nasty words for Jesus whatsoever, at any time. If he had any nasty words, they were for the other criminal and the eyewitness testimony sucked, just as it quite often does, if there was any. So now the choice is clear. either one chooses according to logic or one chooses according to support predeterined outcomes, which further complicate the contradictions regarding God's teachings. My memory is a little sketchy, but didn't the criminal say he was rightly crucified. Even you call him a criminal. It was for the sake of that mans sin, and mine, and every other believer; that Christ was nailed to the cross. It's right up above in the quote from Luke 23. It doesn't give the law that he was "justly" crucified for. He may have been a rebel, which is righteous, not sinful, but still a crime against the Roman conquerors. As I pointed out, it is not logical htat God killed Himself for anyone's sin and neither God, nor the Bible support that conclusion. Isaiah 63:1-6 gives God's Day of Vengeance and Redemption", which occurred on Good Friday and contains forgiveness only. The vengeance is sarcasm. It's love that motivates God and is hte foundaiton of forgiveness. Isaiah 63:1-6: Who is this coming from Edom, from Bozrah, with his garments stained crimson? Who is this, robed in splendor, striding forward in the greatness of his strength? “It is I, proclaiming victory, mighty to save.” 2 Why are your garments red, like those of one treading the winepress? 3 “I have trodden the winepress alone; from the nations no one was with me. I trampled them in my anger and trod them down in my wrath; their blood spattered my garments, and I stained all my clothing. 4 It was for me the day of vengeance; the year for me to redeem had come. 5 I looked, but there was no one to help, I was appalled that no one gave support; so my own arm achieved salvation for me, and my own wrath sustained me. 6 I trampled the nations in my anger; in my wrath I made them drunk and poured their blood on the ground.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:48:34 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, either God's Word is True and Trustworthy, or it is full of errors. I don't see how anyone that knows Jesus as Savior could believe His Word is full of lies. Believe as you please. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Moses claimed the divorce laws came from God, and God contradicted that in Matt 19:8. Folks need to determine and differentiate between what God holds and said and what men are claiming God holds, but does not and say. That was what God was teaching in Matt 19:8. Logic and the KISS principle always applies. What the criminal said is inconsistent with a sudden change of heart. It shows the criminal had a keen sense of right and wrong by the law, justice and knew he made a decision to disregard whatever law he violated. That's not something one figures out all of a sudden. He said, "this man has done nothing wrong" and I don't beleve he ever had any nasty words for Jesus whatsoever, at any time. If he had any nasty words, they were for the other criminal and the eyewitness testimony sucked, just as it quite often does, if there was any. So now the choice is clear. either one chooses according to logic or one chooses according to support predeterined outcomes, which further complicate the contradictions regarding God's teachings. No, either God's Word is True and Trustworthy, or it is full of errors. I don't see how anyone that knows Jesus as Savior could believe His Word is full of lies. Believe as you please. "lies" is your choice of words, not mine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:56:53 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can steal $100 from me and I can forgive you. I am still out $100. You could repay the $100, but you are still a thief(possibly penitent). Only Christs sacrifice can cover your sin in the eyes of God. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Forgiveness can't even be discussed as a concept w/o a preexisting understanding of justice, punishment, and payment for transgressions. Someone always pays for a transgression. Forgiveness just means that the wronged party bears the burden of the sin. Thus Christs sacrifice was the ultimate form of forgiveness. No. Forgiveness is completely incompatible with forgiveness. When one forgives, the transgression is simply forgiven and that's the end of it. If there's any kind of punishment, there's no forgiveness and any claim that there was is bogus. Jesus gave an analogy with the washing of the feet at the last supper. On simply washes away transgression, One does not punish, then wash, that's only punishment. You can steal $100 from me and I can forgive you. I am still out $100. You could repay the $100, but you are still a thief(possibly penitent). Only Christs sacrifice can cover your sin in the eyes of God. If you forgive, God will forgive you. If you are still going to refer that guy a theif after he gives your money back, you haven't forgiven him. God chose to forgive out of His love for man, He did not kill or torture Himself for such a ridiculous contortion of the concept of forgiveness or love. Logic is a friend; embrace it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:57:41 PM EDT
[#30]
In a nut shell...god demanded sacrifice from man for his sin (Old Testament).....because man had eaten of the forbidden fruit and was a shit head...god destroyed the earth at one point with Noah and the ark because man had screwed things up so bad.....so god finally sends his son to die for us and our sins...and he that believes shall have ever lasting life with forgiveness of his sins....thus god no longer requires sacrifice from man and will never again destroy the earth...he only requires thanks and belief in what Jesus did to wipe our slate clean eternally.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:02:45 PM EDT
[#31]
>You owe me because your great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was a slave owner who owned my ancestor
>Buzz off >You owe Jesus because some people (who you're not affiliated with in any way) killed him ~2000 years ago. > >You need to pay for the sins of your "father" (Adam who took an apple), that debt is now on you (but don't worry Jesus paid for it, if you follow my interpretation of what Jesus said). > |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:03:17 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In a nut shell...god demanded sacrifice from man for his sin (Old Testament).....because man had eaten of the forbidden fruit and was a shit head...god destroyed the earth at one point with Noah and the ark because man had screwed things up so bad.....so god finally sends his son to die for us and our sins...and he that believes shall have ever lasting life with forgiveness of his sins....thus god no longer requires sacrifice from man and will never again destroy the earth...he only requires thanks and belief in what Jesus did to wipe our slate clean eternally. No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:04:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"lies" is your choice of words, not mine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, either God's Word is True and Trustworthy, or it is full of errors. I don't see how anyone that knows Jesus as Savior could believe His Word is full of lies. Believe as you please. "lies" is your choice of words, not mine. Either God's Word is True, or it has lies. Those are the only two options. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:05:23 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And once again, coloring eggs is not "worshiping the Lord your God" in any way or fashion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Unbelievable. Its right in front of you faces, clear as day and you completely dismiss it. 1) Historical fact, coloring/hiding/giving eggs as gifts are iconic symbols created by and rooted in PAGANISM. 2) Gods direct command: "You must not worship the lord your God the way the other nations worship their gods" And once again, coloring eggs is not "worshiping the Lord your God" in any way or fashion. Your not bowing down before the eggs and worsping them no, but you are participating in the exact same customs and acts that the pagans did with those icons. To take a pagan custom and slap Gods name on it is EXACTLY why he forbade us from even enquire about it. We're drawn towards rituals and mystic things, he knew that. I give up. I've never understood how something so obvious is blatantly and willfuly dismissed with tons of excuses. The only way I can understand it is if I imagine a politician dancing around a direct question and never answering it. Unsubscribed, I'm out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:08:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Either God's Word is True, or it has lies. Those are the only two options. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, either God's Word is True and Trustworthy, or it is full of errors. I don't see how anyone that knows Jesus as Savior could believe His Word is full of lies. Believe as you please. "lies" is your choice of words, not mine. Either God's Word is True, or it has lies. Those are the only two options. There's always "re-interpreting" things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:12:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Either God's Word is True, or it has lies. Those are the only two options. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, either God's Word is True and Trustworthy, or it is full of errors. I don't see how anyone that knows Jesus as Savior could believe His Word is full of lies. Believe as you please. "lies" is your choice of words, not mine. Either God's Word is True, or it has lies. Those are the only two options. No. Moses claimed the divorce laws came from God, and God contradicted that in Matt 19:8. Folks need to determine and differentiate between what God holds and said and what men are claiming God holds, but does not and say. That was what God was teaching in Matt 19:8. Logic and the KISS principle always applies. What the criminal said is inconsistent with a sudden change of heart. It shows the criminal had a keen sense of right and wrong by the law, justice and knew he made a decision to disregard whatever law he violated. That's not something one figures out all of a sudden. He said, "this man has done nothing wrong" and I don't beleve he ever had any nasty words for Jesus whatsoever, at any time. If he had any nasty words, they were for the other criminal and the eyewitness testimony sucked, just as it quite often does, if there was any. So now the choice is clear. either one chooses according to logic or one chooses according to support predeterined outcomes, which further complicate the contradictions regarding God's teachings. I do not believe the word lies applies. Jesus never said, Moses lied, He said, "Moses gave you the law, because of hte hardness in the poeple's heart. I believe Moses was mistaken, not a liar. I also believe that man is not sinful or steeped in sin at birth, as some folks claim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:13:24 PM EDT
[#37]
Actually, Jesus DIDN'T die for our sins. He death was a sacrifice to pay off the sins of the JEWISH people. Doing so, closed the books on the "Law" and the former covenant,.His death made it possible for God to address sin under a new accounting system (grace and mercy) going forward. I guess in that sense you can say he died for our sins since he made it possible to benefit from the new covenant. But, technically, he died for the sins of the Jews. At least that's what the Bible says:
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, [5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Heb.9:15 -- And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. So, we have the promise because Jesus died, but the death was a sacrifice for sins PAST -- as all sacrifices in the Bible are -- the end effect is the same in that we have hope because of his death but he actually died for the transgressions under the law and to redeem those under the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:16:51 PM EDT
[#38]
Forgive them for they know not what they do.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:18:51 PM EDT
[#39]
start religious thread in GD and never come back. Troll level? 3
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:20:10 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, Jesus DIDN'T die for our sins. He death was a sacrifice to pay off the sins of the JEWISH people. Doing so, closed the books on the "Law" and the former covenant,.His death made it possible for God to address sin under a new accounting system (grace and mercy) going forward. I guess in that sense you can say he died for our sins since he made it possible to benefit from the new covenant. But, technically, he died for the sins of the Jews. At least that's what the Bible says: Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, [5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Heb.9:15 -- And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. So, we have the promise because Jesus died, but the death was a sacrifice for sins PAST -- as all sacrifices in the Bible are -- the end effect is the same in that we have hope because of his death but he actually died for the transgressions under the law and to redeem those under the law. No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:22:05 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
start religious thread in GD and never come back. Troll level? 3 No. He's the Easter Bunny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:23:30 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get it. Permanent sacrifice for humans, different rules for deity. If it makes sense to you that is great. If Jesus keeps someone who needs to be sober, sober, that is awesome too. I think we make our own heaven or hell right here, kind of along the lines of luke 17:21. If you need Jesus to make this life heaven, then go for it. I personally do not need all the dogma to live a good life and to help others. I am good with the thought that when I die it is over, I am worm food and forgotten. I do not feel the need to strive for eternal life. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quote And AGAIN - back to your original criticism of it not being a real sacrifice: Is it a sacrifice for you to be cut across your back for someone else, since your cut will heal? Quote AGAIN You are talking about something completely different. The whole lamb of god sacrifice is is making an exception to how traditional sacrifices were done for centuries. I make a sacrifice of a lamb to god, I don't get it back. God makes a lamb sacrifice, he gets it back. You were washed in the blood of a lamb that was only loaned, not truly sacrificed. The old testament animal sacrifices were an atonement of men and way to be redeemed. In that way your sacrificial lamb did come back in the form of salvation or atonement. Jesus was the sacrificial lamb for all of mankind for those who believe in and accept His sacrifice, his sacrifice is returned in our salvation. You are discussing a sacrifice in a worldly sense and that is not what the faith of believers is about at all. I get it. Permanent sacrifice for humans, different rules for deity. If it makes sense to you that is great. If Jesus keeps someone who needs to be sober, sober, that is awesome too. I think we make our own heaven or hell right here, kind of along the lines of luke 17:21. If you need Jesus to make this life heaven, then go for it. I personally do not need all the dogma to live a good life and to help others. I am good with the thought that when I die it is over, I am worm food and forgotten. I do not feel the need to strive for eternal life. I hear ya man and respect where you are on this. If it doesn't speak to your heart to have a Savior then it doesn't. I just want to make one little point though about your last sentence, it really isn't something you have to strive for or work for. ...it really is just about a relationship with Jesus. I know that probably sounds weird to a non Believer but it really is that simple. I can tell you it is the best thing that ever happened to me and there is peace like I couldn't imagine. Take care and maybe one day it will speak to you and we can meet in heaven. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:26:32 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Actually, Jesus DIDN'T die for our sins. He death was a sacrifice to pay off the sins of the JEWISH people. Doing so, closed the books on the "Law" and the former covenant,.His death made it possible for God to address sin under a new accounting system (grace and mercy) going forward. I guess in that sense you can say he died for our sins since he made it possible to benefit from the new covenant. But, technically, he died for the sins of the Jews. At least that's what the Bible says: Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, [5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Heb.9:15 -- And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. So, we have the promise because Jesus died, but the death was a sacrifice for sins PAST -- as all sacrifices in the Bible are -- the end effect is the same in that we have hope because of his death but he actually died for the transgressions under the law and to redeem those under the law. No. uh...YES....this is exactly the reason so pull your head out of the mud and open your mind...if there was one thing 8 years of Catholic School and growing up Baptist bashed into my brain...it was this ^^^^^^^ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:27:29 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've never had to work your way through a tough problem and make a hard decision? Christ was the Father's way of experiencing our weakness, so he could be humbled as we are yet still without sin. In human terms, there's knowing, then there's experiencing and in doing so, understanding. The biggest difference between a human doing that and the Father doing that is that the Father is guaranteed to make the right decision because His faith unlike ours never even pauses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When I was a Christian, I never understood it. Pay WHO, exactly? Himself? How does that make any sense? WHO needed to be satisfied? God had to die himself, in order to satisfy himself? You've never had to work your way through a tough problem and make a hard decision? Christ was the Father's way of experiencing our weakness, so he could be humbled as we are yet still without sin. In human terms, there's knowing, then there's experiencing and in doing so, understanding. The biggest difference between a human doing that and the Father doing that is that the Father is guaranteed to make the right decision because His faith unlike ours never even pauses. What religious doctrine claims that the creator of the universe needed to humble himself, so that human beings could go to heaven? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:29:47 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He came to teach. One of the things He taught was forgiveness, which is incompatible with punishment or "paying for sin". It was others that invented and taught the "paying for sin" doctrine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When I was a Christian, I never understood it. Pay WHO, exactly? Himself? How does that make any sense? WHO needed to be satisfied? God had to die himself, in order to satisfy himself? He came to teach. One of the things He taught was forgiveness, which is incompatible with punishment or "paying for sin". It was others that invented and taught the "paying for sin" doctrine. Now I can roll with that. But all of the mainstream Christians say he "paid for our sins". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:32:52 PM EDT
[#46]
I must admit, I only read a few of the post. My take on this; someone had to, because we are assholes.
Bilster PS Fuck Obama Fuck Biden Fuck Holder Fuck Cuomo Fuck Swinestain |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:34:51 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OP- I'm going to throw some pearls here. Be careful what you do with them. Here it is as simply as I can say it. Sin is missing God's perfect mark. (All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God) (The wages of sin is death-but the free gift of God is eternal life through His Son Jesus Christ) God requires a blood sacrifice for the sins of mankind. (Sort of a His Universe-His Rules kind of thing). On Passover, a spotless/sinless lamb was offered up by Jewish families as a sacrifice for their sins. This was done in rememberence of the time when the angel of death "passed over" the houses of those who in obedence sprinkled lambs blood on the doors and lintels of their homes as Moses told them to do. Those who did this lived. Those who did not....died physically. (See the movie The Ten Commandments for more details or read the book of Deuteromony in the old testament.) This way of doing things was a temporary gig until at exactly the right time a more permemnt fix could be put into place. That fix was this dude named Jesus. He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life (thoughts, words, and deeds), was fully God and fully man at the same time. This pissed off the Dudes What in Charge and they decided to kill him. Unknown to them, he came for exactly this reason he freely gave his life up and lovingly sacrificed himself and shed his blood so he could become that perfect sacrifice for EVERYBODY. (Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world) Meh, big deal. Some dude claims to be the Son of God, lives a pretty good life, works some cool magic tricks, and gets himself killed while talking crazy stuff. Happens all the time right? Yep. What makes this dude different is he didn't stay dead. He said he would rise from the dead to prove he was who he said he was....Happy Easter. 
Why does God require himself to sacrifice himself to himself? That doesn't sound like "God's rule", that sounds like something a man thought of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:44:48 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This sees to be the crux of your understanding, but does not seem to be rooted in anything. This was the sacrifice to end all sacrifice, there was nothing "traditional" about it. Nobody has answered my question: Why does God require himself to sacrifice himself to himself, in order to allow humans into heaven? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:48:57 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Pharisees believed they had God all figured out. Christ showed they did not. What one chooses to take from that lesson seems to vary greatly from person to person. And when questioned by the Pharisees, he proclaimed that the greatest commandment was to love God with all of your heart, and to love your neighbors. He didn't mention anything about worshipping the guy standing in front of them. I always found that interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:51:07 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Answer. The. Frickin. Question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Frigging quote tree. It was not remotely a traditional sacrifice because he went "home" to his father. Sure he went through trials and tribulations, but he went back to where he began. Not. a. true. sacrifice. Answer. The. Frickin. Question. Restate it appropriately: Would you take a bullet for the people raping and killing your family, if you knew you were going back to heaven to rule the universe? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
