The Whole Jesus Thing

sorry, but I don't see it either. Could you point it out to me please?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

In Message 108 you answered several questions from Yaro concerning the sacrifice that Jesus supposedly made for our sins. In the last answer: You state that God could not have done without the sacrifice of a human to save everyone from sin because of what was said in the "Old Law." You have yet to show me where it is stated in the "Old Law." None of the verses you showed me in Message 129 are part of the "Old Law."In Message 111 Yaro also asked where the sacrificial need for human blood was in the "Old Law."And your answer in Message 123 is just that "God said so."All I get is

quote:

---

If you honestly can't see where it fortells of it, then that is fine with me. I see it, and so do millions of others. I guess when/if the time is right, you will be able to see it too.

---

So at the right time, the words should read differently?Of course I haven't had a Christian yet who could truly answer the question about where God shows the need for human sacrifice to cover sins. The supposed prophecies of a coming messiah don't prove a need for human sacrifice to make mankind right with God.Christianity contends that Jesus was a necessary sacrifice to atone for the sins of mankind. Unfortunately they can't back up this claim.Many Christians think of sacrifice, as you mentioned, as giving up oneself for loved ones. Which may be closer to the truth than the sacrifice for sins.Jesus may have let himself be taken and crucified to save the Jewish community from Roman punishment.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

None of which exlusively and implicitly says Jesus said he was god.Besides, this John guy wrote about it decades later, so it is unlikely
he would know what Jesus really said, if he existed at all.

The use of sacrifice for atonement was used as giving something of value up as a token of your commitment. In the Jewish religion, human sacrifice was not acceptable.. so accordign to Jewish tradition , the
sacrifice of a human to sin would be abhorent,.. that is probably one
of the reasons Paul had to go OUTSIDE of judaism for converts.

None of those passages have anything to do with Jesus what so ever. None of those passages, if read in context, has anything to do with any messiah or messiah expections.

The story of barabbas makes the parrell to that clearer too. Oh.. Barabbas , translated from the arameic, means 'Son of the Father'.Wasn't Jesus supposed to be the 'Son of the Father'??

Ah yes, the ISAIAH 53 misiterpretation.If you read it in context (In otherwords, from the previous section), you will see that Isaiah was specifically talking about the nation of ISRAEL, not some messiah.

I don't see how taking mistranslations out of context from a book written by a bronze age people prophecises anything. Sure, you can retrofit it into your belief system, by taking things out of context,
and forcing concepts on it that the writer never had, but if you read the passages honestly, what you claim is there is not there.This message has been edited by ramoss, 11-10-2004 07:37 AM

quote:

---

And yet, millions of others know you are both wrong for reading the bible and not the Koran, andother millions think you should maybe look at the really existing world rather than some dusty tome.

---

I never said that there wasn't? While, unlike others, I do not condone these other views, I do not condemn them either.

quote:

---

In other words, that is not an answer.

---

Yes, I agree that isn't an answer, again, I never said that it was. I had already answered the question, and stated scripture, now if the person reading it doesn't understand it, and I have explained it the best that I could, isn't it ok that I see things differently, and to find your answer elsewhere, (from someone else)? It is not my intent to confuse anyone, if asked a legitimate question, I will answer as best I can, that doesn't mean that my best is always good enough, so I left it at that.

quote:

---

If you calim that you can see it in the text, it is not enough to merely assert that: if you cannot explkain how you come to your conclusion nobody has any reason to take your assertion seriously.

---

It was explained, if you look you will see an explanation. I could care less if you take me serious, I assure you, I will lose no sleep. It seems that a few people that I have discussed with, want me to answer in a way that suits them, and that will never happen. One thing, that you must know about me, is that it is ok for me not to agree with you, and it is ok for you not to agree with me.

---

Angel

quote:

---

sorry, but I don't see it either. Could you point it out to me please?

---

*sigh* Yes, I can point it out, from my viewpoint, simply by telling you to read the scripture that I posted. That doesn't mean that you will see it, though I wish that you could. That's the only explanation that I can give except my personal beliefs, which is never accepted as an answer in discussions such as this.

---

Angel

quote:

---

You state that God could not have done without the sacrifice of a human to save everyone from sin because of what was said in the "Old Law." You have yet to show me where it is stated in the "Old Law." None of the verses you showed me in Message 129 are part of the "Old Law."

---

I beg to differ, the Old Law consists of the entire Old Testament. I say this because there are laws (commandments) in each book. Jesus simply fulfilled the Old Law, therefore making a New Law.

quote:

---

In Message 111 Yaro also asked where the sacrificial need for human blood was in the "Old Law."

​

And your answer in Message 123 is just that "God said so."

---

I see, so would you prefer that I make up a reason? I answered her honestly, from my viewpoint, are you saying that is wrong?

quote:

---

So at the right time, the words should read differently?

---

In a sense, yes. You have understanding of the Bible, when you have the Holy Ghost within you. This is clearly explained in the Bible. I was once just as alot of you are, I would even go as far as saying, that I was moreso against the Bible, than anyone I have ever encountered. Nothing you could possible say could offend me, because nothing you could possible say, isn't something that hasn't already been spoken, from my own mouth.

quote:

---

Of course I haven't had a Christian yet who could truly answer the question about where God shows the need for human sacrifice to cover sins. The supposed prophecies of a coming messiah don't prove a need for human sacrifice to make mankind right with God.

---

Well I beg to differ again, simply because if it didn't happen that would make Him a false prophet, which I strongly disagree with. Now if your question was as the original question, which was why would God choose to do it this way, you could have any answer that you want, but the only answer to be given to that question, that would be an honest answer, is simply I don't know. Just as you can't tell me why I do what I do, because you can't see my thoughts. Therefore if it isn't explained, you can only make assumptions, which does not make them the truth.

quote:

---

Christianity contends that Jesus was a necessary sacrifice to atone for the sins of mankind. Unfortunately they can't back up this claim.

---

Well, sure they can! Have you ever read the Bible with an open mind, or just to try and prove it wrong. I won't go into this futher, I only wanted to say that is an incorrect assumption, from my viewpoint, and any Christian can plainly see that it was necessary.

quote:

---

Many Christians think of sacrifice, as you mentioned, as giving up oneself for loved ones. Which may be closer to the truth than the sacrifice for sins.

---

Good point, but aren't the two the same? I make a sacrifice of myself for my children (figuratively speaking), God made a sacrifice for His children?

quote:

---

Jesus may have let himself be taken and crucified to save the Jewish community from Roman punishment.

---

Dawn, I say this with no sarcastic intent. The problem that I have with this statement is this. When a Christian responds with an answer/comment that includes the word 'may', everyone jumps as fast as they can to say, may? Show me facts....etc.etc.etc. However, when a non-believer says it, it is simply, ok. I accept your 'may' as your belief, in return you should except my 'may' as mine.

---

Angel

Ramoss,You said this:

quote:

---

None of which exlusively and implicitly says Jesus said he was god.

---

And I say, thank you. Jesus in fact wasn't God Himself, and I agree with this statement.

---

Angel

Ramoss,You said this:

quote:

---

None of which exlusively and implicitly says Jesus said he was god.

---

And I say, thank you. Jesus in fact wasn't God Himself, and I agree with this statement.

---

Angel

quote:

---

the sacrifice of a human to sin would be abhorent,..

---

It is a fact that humans in general would not be acceptable as sacrifices because their sin made them imperfect, and only perfect sacrifices were acceptable. Since Jesus was free of sin, Jesus is the only human who could ever be accepted as a sacrifice.

---

Angel

He did not expressly say he was God, but, in saying: John 10:30the Jews clearly understood the implication by their response in John 10:31-33: