Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Jesus Really Suffer?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 73 (534407)
11-07-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns
11-05-2009 2:47 PM


The question is: Compared to all of this horrible suffering that runs rampant throughout the world today or then, was Jesus's single sacrifice even meaningful? Furthermore, even God knew that he would rise from the dead; that was his plan, no?
It does smack of self-righteousness. You also forgot to mention that thousands upon thousands of people were crucified by the Romans before, during, and after the time of Jesus in exactly the same manner.
It is also questionable how meaningful God immolating himself really would be given that he's, well, God.
Also, the sacrifice of Jesus makes no sense from a logical perspective. Simply put, why go to the lengths of being killed in order to forgive everyone? Why was it necessary for God to, effectively, commit suicide in order to be able to forgive his own people?
As the hermeneutics of the crucifixion story goes, it is generally said that per the Word of God, God by his perfect nature cannot overlook sin without some sort of atonement. By Jesus dying on the cross, it was supposed to have a couple of different functions.
1. To become the atonement and absolution for everyone's sins, so long as they accept the offering.
2. To become the ultimate sacrifice that would render all lesser sacrifices (burnt offerings and whatnot) moot and ineffectual.
In addition, it makes no sense for an innocent- even God- to die for someone else's sins. That would be like a jury summoning the cousin of a convicted murderer to do the time instead, which is obviously unjust.
Again, as far as the biblical interpretation goes, only Jesus could have accomplished sin offering because he was allegedly morally perfect. He became the ultimate Lamb without blot or defect.
To really understand the inner meanings of it, you have to first acquaint yourself with the Tanakh to understand the symbolism.
So, my question is this: How can Jesus's sacrifice be regarded as the ultimate price and gift to humanity if there are so many today who suffer much worse and gain nothing from it?
It's supposedly about not suffering in hell, not the amount you suffer in the temporal, physical realm.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-05-2009 2:47 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 73 (534408)
11-07-2009 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Peg
11-07-2009 12:06 AM


the result is that all their children were born into the same condition through no fault of their own
Paying for the sins of the father.
This is a first prophecy regarding the 'Seed' who was to come and give his life as a sacrifice. This 'seed' is the Messiah, Jesus Christ and his role was to prove Satans claim false and give the children of A&E an opportunity to live the life that they lost.
The verse is fat to ambiguous to conclusively draw any kind of reasonable comparison, though I agree that it is common to do so.
When Jesus was killed, he maintained perfect integrity to God and therefore was able to prove Satans claim false.
How was God able to tell his story to Moses (or whomever wrote Genesis) that God and Satan had all this dialogue? Or are you taking the authority of the bible on account of itself?
The earth will be goverened by Jesus as Gods spokesman and we will have opportunity to learn perfection. Daniel 2:44 tells us that the 'God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms"
This period of time will be the 1000 year millenial reign, so there will be plenty of time to return to the condition A&E lost.
If God's goal was to unite all his people together, what purpose does it serve to have trillions of people go through the rigors of the physical world? If God's plan was to be the "governor" of us all the whole time, why the delay?
Under chists rulership we will have freedom from all of this... its all thanks to his sacrifice.
Don't ever get the sense that it reads like a fairy tale?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Peg, posted 11-07-2009 12:06 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 11-07-2009 9:36 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 73 (534435)
11-08-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
11-07-2009 9:36 PM


actually we are paying for our own sins. God does not hold A&E sin against us which is why he sent his son in the first place.
All of mankind suffer for their transgressions. Follow the timeline in sequential order and there is not much else to deduce.
1. Adam and Eve sinned when they disobeyed God's command. (Genesis 3:1-6)
2. When Adam and Eve sinned, they separated mankind from the good life God had intended for mankind. (Genesis 3:10, 23)
3. When Adam and Eve sinned, they damaged and altered forever mankind's relationship with God. (Genesis 3:8)
4. When Adam and Eve sinned, they brought physical suffering on mankind. (Genesis 3:16-19)
5. The effects of this single sin were felt not only by the sinners, but also all of mankind who followed. (Genesis 3:15-19)
We therefore pay for their mistakes.
Sin means to go contrary to Gods standards of perfection.
Which we are designed to do. Nothing can happen apart from the will of God, and we certainly didn't create ourselves. There is only one thing left to deduce, and that is that God created us imperfect and then punishes us for those frailties.
True or false: God imparted our natural desires and our predilections for sin.
We all go contrary to Gods standards and therefore we all sin.
Exactly! We were designed to fail, so how can we be held more accountable than the one who created this way?
Genesis 3:15 fortells that Satan would have his head crused by the seed. What human could possibly kill a sprit creature? None of us can so the seed could only have been refering to someone with the power to destroy a spirit creature...they would have to be a spirit themselves.
The Serpent is never described as a "spirit" nor was it ever described in Genesis as Satan, the great evil protagonist. The earliest the name Satan was introduced was in Job. It is therefore unclear as to the authors true intent.
Satan very much evolved throughout the centuries taking on greater meaning and relevance, but was not always a central figure.
the seed is mentioned throughout the OT by the prophets who shed much light on identifying who the seed would be. Isaac’s own son, Jacob, prophesied that the seed would be a ruler called Shiloh, or The One to Whom It Belongs, out of Judah. (Gen. 49:10) Isaiah foretold his being born of a virgin, from David’s house, his humiliation and rejection and his sacrificial death. (Isa. 7:14; 9:6, 7; 28:16; 50:6; 53:5-12) Daniel described him as Messiah the Leader, and foretold the exact dates of his appearing and of his being cut off in death. (Dan. 9:24-27)
I agree that there has almost always been a messianic figure in Judaism who would redeem the Jews. I am simply saying that the passage in Genesis is ambiguous, and indeed, the term "seed" is also ambiguous. "Seed" generally refers to one's progeny or direct line of descendants.
That means that Genesis 3:15 is speaking about Jesus...the one who came to defeat Satan. Satan 'bruised him (jesus) in the heal' when he had him killed, and Jesus will 'crush the serpant in the head' when he delivers the final deathblow.
You are drawing conclusions from a very ambiguous piece of scripture. It may or may not mean that, I am simply saying that to draw a parallel is done so from people who want to see parallels so it can justify New Testament prophecy.
When Moses wrote the account of Job
Can you please explain why you think Moses wrote the book of Job? The last time I checked, authorship is unknown.
The writers did not sit around making up stories. They were merely secretaries for God.
How would you know either way? Do you know how many gnostic scriptures were written all claiming to be divinely inspired? Hundreds of codices have been discovered. It was only after the voting process that the canonized bible is the way it is. The point is that for hundreds or even thousands of years, people revered non-canonized writings as being from God.
What makes you so sure that the canonized bible is completely inspired by God (even the Songs of Solomon) but the Book of Jasher (which is referenced in the bible) is not from God?
How do you know? Or are you simply taking the authority of the Bible on account of itself?
He guided their thoughts and the writers put it down in writing. This makes God the author of the bible, not men. So yes, i do take the bible on its own authority.
My question is how you know this to be true. From where I'm sitting it appears circular.
as i said in my first post, it comes back to Adam and Eve and Satan. They went off course and rebelled against God.
This rebellion is why we are in state we are in. God is not so malicious as to destroy his opposers but he allowed Satan time to state his case.
Allowing him to state his case??? In no uncertain terms, Satan and the "Man of Perdition" are doomed and there is nothing that can be done or said to alter that course according to the scriptures. It's the same thing for Judas, a man who was predestined to betray Jesus in order to prove a prophecy.
So again I ask, what purpose does it serve to have ever created the physical world when it is more than evident, by scripture, that the spiritual world is all that really matters?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 11-07-2009 9:36 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by hooah212002, posted 11-08-2009 6:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 11-09-2009 6:06 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 19 of 73 (534557)
11-09-2009 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
11-09-2009 6:06 AM


We are paying for their mistakes, yes. But not in that God is punishing us. We are living in the consquences of the life they chose.
They didn't choose it, God did. They had no concept of consequence or of sin or of right or wrong BEFORE they ate of the fruit, right? So how can you hold them accountable for something they had no concept for, and what's worse, have the rest of mankind pay for their actions?
It seems clear that very much intended for it and set them up for failure.
For example, if a gambler chooses to spend all the families money and sells the family assets to pay his debts, the family are indirectly suffering for the gamblers mistakes.
Irrelevant since A&E had no idea what they were doing was wrong.
No, we are designed to have freedom of choice and for this reason we CAN sin if we choose to. However it also means we can choose NOT to sin. Gods will is that all mankind return to him and his standards
You are not understanding. God, in his infinite wisdom, could have opted not to have sin at all. It's the same principle as disallowing humans to fly under their own mechanics. Why even create it? And why impart in mankind a desire for it?
How is that mankind's fault and how can you honestly it is a choice? That's like sticking a heroin addict in a room full of heroin and telling them they have a choice. Sure, on some basic level it is technically a choice, but how fair is it to do?
While God gave us our natural desires, he also gave instructions on how to use our freedom. When we go contrary to that instruction we fall into sin and its consequences.
Gosh, what a swell guy! I made you an addict to sin, but I'll give you ambiguous instruction on how to get around it.
No, we were designed to choose.
Is choosing which parent to shoot in the head somehow make the horror of it stop? God at any point in time could have opted to make a world modeled after heaven. The fact that he doesn't makes him complicit in all of mankind's sins.
Man did not create himself. God is omnisicent. So how could God not be faulted for the failings of mankind?
Jesus proved that mankind is capable of remainging sin free.
Peg!?!?! He's God! That proves that God can be capable of remaining sin-free. In fact, the whole purpose of Jesus atoning for man's sins is because man could NOT remain sin free. Think about it, Peg. That was the whole entire point.
Its quite well established that Satan is a rebellious angel. Revelation says that he will be destroyed and mankind set free from his influence.
Why did Satan rebel?
Its not ambiguous when you take into consideration the revealing of the 'seed' in the OT. The jews were waiting for the seed and the prophets explained him in great detail. The christians proclaimed Jesus as the seed so right throughout the bible, you can follow the revealing of who the seed is and whe he would do. Its certainly not ambiguous.
That the Jews have always been awaiting their messiah since the time of David is no mystery. I am saying "seed" in specific reference to Jesus is. As the Jews say today, it is a false parallel.
Im not drawing conclusions, Jesus and the christians testified to the identity of the seed.
It doesn't make it so, especially when Jesus failed to perform the basic requirements laid out in the Tanakh for what accomplishments the mashiach would accomplish.
critics claim that almost all the bible books were written by unknown authors. However there are a few lines of reasoning to conclude that Moses wrote the book.
The oldest jewish and christian traditions say that Moses was the writer and that the book was an inspired writing. The book was written in Hebrew poetry which means it was an original composition and not a copy from another language so only an Ancient isrealite could have written it. The style of writing is very similar to the Pentateuch which is the 'books of Moses' according to many other jewish writers including Jesus and the Christians.
I see far more parallels in Job with the poetic style attributed to Solomon. Not that it matters, since no one knows for sure.
And because of the content being dialogue between God and Satan, it must have been written by an isrealite who was given divine direction.
Must have been an Israelite given "divine direction?"
gnostic scriptures contradict the bible so its clear that the source of information is not from the same source as the bible.
Exactly, which is why it was systematically removed. But many of the books were revered by early Christians and Jews. The point is, they thought it was divinely inspired of God but wasn't. How are you so sure that you are correct in the same assumptions?
Furthermore, the bible contradicts the bible on numerous occasions.
The bible does make mention of other writings that were not inspired such as the 'book of the kings' which would have been an account of the kings of isreal. While it wasnt inspired, it was still an important piece of writing for the nation. However, not all pieces of writing by the isrealites are inspired by default as if being an isrealite means you must be inspired. Remember the nation was not always followers of Gods law and often false teachers were leading them away to worship pagan gods and even succeeded in introducing false worship into the nation at times.
two canonized books in the bible (which means according to you it is inspired God himself) endorses the book of Jasher as a book of wisdom and something to follow.
the writers themselves testify to this Peter said at 2peter 1:20 "no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit."
That does not prove it true, it just means it is in the bible. That's obviously circular. You give the bible authority on account of the authority of the bible.
Prophecy is an evidence of inspiration because its impossible for man to accurately foretell future events. Yes perhaps they can make vague gueses but the bibles prophecies are incredibly detailed.
Nostradamus had far less vagueness than the bible, giving specific dates, and even that is highly questionable. Biblical prophecy is also sometimes not even remotely accurate, such as the prophecy of Tyre.
There is no reason to assume that God wants us in heaven with him. He created us for the purpose of mananging the earth, not living in heaven. And the earth is just as important to him as the heavens are.
Right, which goes back to what I was saying. He obviously would want man on earth. Why there is an earth at all is the question when so much biblical emphasis is placed on the spiritual realm. The bible is silent on that issue.
these scriptures, and many like them, show that mankind was always meant to live on earth...the whole going to heaven thing is a non biblical teaching adopted by the church.
Are you saying that God never intended for man to ever be in heaven, that it's a false insertion made by the "Church?" And if so, what church, as "The Church" is biblically described as the totality of a body of believers?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 11-09-2009 6:06 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Peg, posted 11-09-2009 9:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 24 of 73 (534707)
11-10-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Peg
11-09-2009 9:17 PM


they certainly did know the consequences
Genesis 3:2-3 "Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. But as for eating of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it that you do not die.’"
How can you know what the consequence of death is if you have no comprehension of it, and how can you know it is "wrong" to not listen to God BEFORE you eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil?
Sin is disobedience to Gods standards and laws and requirements.
Its not something that he could give them or plant in them as a desire.
I know what sin is. He gave them not only the ability to sin but a desire to sin. He therefore creates sin. How do you create "evil," and yet plain as day God stated that he creates evil.
Sin is what happened when A&E used their freewill to disobey God. He wanted them to obey him which is why he told them NOT to eat from the tree.
If he did he wouldn't have given the serpent unmitigated access to them, or not warn them of his ways, or give them a desire to sin, etc, etc. A&E were set up so God could prove a point.
Well not every religion beleives that Jesus is God. Mine does not teach that Jesus was God. We teach, as the bible says, Jesus is the 'SON' of God.
[i]"Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, [color=red]I AM[/color=red]!"[/i] - John 8:56-58
Clearly a reference to Exodus.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." John 1
I wonder who they're talking about.
"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." - Isaiah 9:6
Oh dear...
"Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men." -Phillipians 2:6
There are dozens more scriptures clearly describing the Trinity, and therefore my point still stands. God immolated himself and so how much can God suffer when there is no chance he will ever wind up in hell?
The point of Jesus coming was to stand in place of Adam, the first father.
So why not do it when it actually happened? Or even better, why not have set him up for failure from day 1?
Those who look to Jesus and follow him, can be viewed by God as 'sinless' and thus have the opportunity to live forever as God intended.
If that was his true intent, he would have made it a reality and not allowed us to be free of it from the start.
Ezekeil prophetically described 'Satan' in his pronouncement of judgement upon the king of Tyre. In this description, Satan was shown to be a heavenly cherub who was created perfect. However he became unrighteous.
Created "perfect" but became unrighteous? That's an oxymoron. Either he's perfect or imperfect.
Secondly, that verse has nothing to do about Satan and everything to do with the king of Tyre who exalted himself above God. The concept of Satan evolved over time. Nowhere is he mentioned in the Torah, to include the Serpent, as the only parallels of the Serpent being Satan is referenced in the New Testament. The Torah makes no mention of Satan anywhere. He first surfaced in Job, as a facilitator of God by playing the role of "devil's advocate." He only later became the monster by early Christians as there are no outside references.
Make no mistake though, the King of Tyre and Satan bear zero relevance to one another. And if you think they do, please support your assertion. The Ezekiel passage does not correlate to Satan.
the Jews are as wrong today as they were back then.
That's a matter of opinion, now isn't it? Secondly the entire cast of the bible is in fact, Jewish, so...
their idea was that the Messiah would free them from the Roman yolk. Even Jesus diciples thought that he was going to restore the kingdom to Judah and Jesus had to correct them. the Messiahs kingdom was to be a heavenly kingdom, not antother earthly government. Their expectation was wrong, but Jesus fulfilled everything that the OT required.
He was supposed to bring peace, which he didn't. I realize that Christians think the last "week" in Daniel's Seventy Sevens is supposed to represent over 2,000 years to explain why there still is no peace, but suffice it to say that it is certainly debatable.
Problem is, we keep adding topics to discuss as we go. I prophesy that this debate will go off topic
He made us as physical creations because he wanted us to look after his physical creation, the earth.
Look after earth? Who is looking after Pluto, Neptune, Venus, Saturn, etc, etc? The better question is why there is a physical universe at all when so much emphasis is placed on the heavenly realm as the goal.
There was fortold to be a long time of darkness on the earth where the 'light' or truth of the scriptures would be hidden
In Malachi, where the world is waiting for mashiach.
God chose those who were true to the scriptures to pour out his spirit on and they became the new Isreal of God.
How are we supposed to know what is true and what is not true?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Peg, posted 11-09-2009 9:17 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Peg, posted 11-11-2009 2:29 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 30 of 73 (534846)
11-11-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Peg
11-11-2009 2:29 AM


Damning evidence
Of course they had comprehension of death, the animals around them died, so they knew what death was.
Please support this assertion and show me where the animals died around them before the Fall of Man.
God placing the law on the tree was how they knew it was bad not to listen...the law told them what would happen if they disobeyed it.
They had no concept of "law" since they had no concept of right or wrong. True or not true: The point of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil allowed them to understand right from wrong?
Secondly, there was no Law. That was introduced long after them and long after Abraham.
Can you explain how he gave them a desire to sin?
Because nothing can come to pass without the will of God, either his permissive will or his perfect will. It is still his will.
God created man's instincts and his desires, right? Man could not create that on his own, God created it. What left is there to deduce?
Sin and evil are not one in the same.
It is exactly the same. Please view the synonym of evil and tell me what it is.
quote:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I AM!" - John 8:56-58
Clearly a reference to Exodus.
Is it? Many other translations simply say "before Abraham was,I have been" or "I was"
Regardless, Jesus plain as day is saying that he has existed long before mankind. He did not simply begin to exist when Mary conceived. He had stated several times that he's "not of this world," and made other remarks that he's existed either as God or with God.
That's biblical.
So he is not just a man, as you allege. My initial point still stands that no one is perfect, and it is clear that God intended that so he could offer salvation. That's the whole point of salvation, because man by his very nature cannot stop sinning.
We are therefore punished for something God created.
This is in harmony with the words of Genesis 1:26 Let us make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness.
God is clearly speaking to someone here. He is speaking to the one who told the religious leaders.
That verse where God is speaking is about the creation of man. How can he be speaking to a man long before he created man?
there is no trinity. That teaching was developed centuries after the bible had been penned by christians who tried to explain christianity in terms of greek philosophy.
So you say, but I am backing up my assertions with scriptures. The concept of the trinity may be complete malarky (which it probably is), but there is good reason why people assume the trinity from scripture.
Paul (or Timothy) even states that Jesus being considered God is not something that can be fully comprehended, yet it is nonetheless true.
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross!" Phillipians 2:5-8
These verses are very clear that Jesus is God. What church do you attend telling you otherwise?
quote:
The New Encyclopdia Britannica says: Neither the word Trinity
Irrelevant. The word "trinity" is a later description and concept for what is clearly read about in scripture.
John 1:1 has deliberately been translated incorrectly.
If that is so then the bible is not infallible, is it? It can be tampered with, and if that is the case it opens the door to question the entire veracity of it.
if Jesus was God Almighty, why describe him in terms of 'son' and 'child' 'Prince' that is not how Jehovah is ever described in the OT.
An even vastly more important question, if Jesus was not God then why describe him as God?
Its says Jesus is in the 'form' of God...not God himself. It also shows that Jesus is in subjection to God and that he is NOT Equal to him. If Jesus was God, then surely he must be equal to God...this scripture is not saying that though.
In plain language it says he is God, taking the form of man and being found in the appearance of man, humbling himself.
if he corrected things in Eden, You and I would not be alive today. We are from the genes of Adam and Eve. It was their blood line that we have come through...if they produced no children, none of us would be alive today.
Yeah, so?
and yet millions of other angles and 1 other perfect human have remained sinfree...doesnt make sense if we are prone to sin.
Jesus was tested to the extreme and yet remained sin free. Millions of other Angels have remained sin free too so its not impossible.
Peg, Jesus is God and the angels are constantly with God. What temptations are so great for perfected beings? They don't eat, so they can't be gluttons. They don't copulate, so they can't lust. They're in God's presence, so they cannot lie, etc, etc.
Again, the entire point of Jesus is the unblemished Lamb, the ultimate and final Passover. This was done because there are none that are righteous, no, not even one (according to the messianic verse by David).
its the church's who promote heaven, not the bible. The bible speaks endlessly about living on earth in paradisaic conditions. If God wanted us in heaven, he would have made us there.
My question was he wanted it this way at all when it is very clear that the heavenly realm is the ultimate goal.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Peg, posted 11-11-2009 2:29 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Peg, posted 11-12-2009 10:03 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 73 (535164)
11-13-2009 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Peg
11-12-2009 10:03 PM


Re: Damning evidence
Animals are not conscious of God and therefore they cannot break any of God laws or IOW, they cannot sin.
You stated that A&E had a concept of death because animals were dying all around them. That is not supported biblically. So my point still stands that warning man that they would die really means nothing, not to mention they had no concept of right or wrong before they ate of the fruit. That's setting them up for failure.
The tree symbolized Gods right to decide for his creatures what is good and what is bad for them. When A&E took of this fruit, they were turning their backs on their heavenly Father and rejecting his divine guidance and perfect will.
Is it not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Yes, it is. God said, don't eat it or you will surely die. They ate from it and what happened? Immediately they realized good and bad, knowing well after the fact that they had gone against God's commandments, and after the fact realizing the transgression.
When they chose to eat from it, thus disobeying God, they had knowledge of what God viewed as bad.
Yes, understood, but you cannot know that disobedience is bad BEFORE you eat of it, right? It was only after that they felt the sting of conscience and attempted to hide from God.
thats exactly right...you assert though that Jesus is the Almighty God. Yes Jesus existed in heaven before he became a man on earth. He is Gods only begotten son as i have repeatedly stated.
The Trinity is not a hill to die on as it is irrelevant to the greater point I am making. The point of the matter is that he is more than mere human. Jesus has far more of God's influence, being in his direct presence from eternity. So how much can he really suffer and how much of a sacrifice was it comparatively to humans without all that foreknowledge?
this makes no sense at all! why offer salvation for something that is unsavlagable?
It isn't unsalvageable, according to the bible. Follow the sequence of events that led us to this current discussion. You stated that Jesus is just a regular guy, and that he was sinless proves that man can also be sinless.
But that is not so, and it nullifies the entire reason for the need of Jesus. The reason for Jesus' execution on the cross was to save man because man could not save himself. If there is one central theme to summarize the entirety of the gospel, it would be that.
To say that humans are incapable of remaining sin free is being totally defeatist. We are capable of whatever we put our mind and heart to.
If you can name me one human being, other than Jesus, who is completely sinless, please let the world know.
"There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. ALL have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is NO ONE who does good, not even one."
"ALL have fallen short of the glory of God..."
Does none of that ring a bell?
The scriptures do not prove a trinity exists. Im not going to argue about a church dogma that is purely the fabrication of the church. It has nothing to do with scripture as even their own encyclopaedias attest.
As I said earlier, I'm not really trying to prove the trinity (though I do believe there is a scriptural basis for it). My point is that Jesus is not a mere man, never has been, never will be. That being the case in the matter makes it questionable how much he is able to suffer and how much he really gave to mankind.
not at all for the reason that the ancient manuscripts have not changed. If it werent for the ancient manuscripts remaining in tact, perhaps it would not be known that John 1:1 says that 'the Word was A god' who was 'with God in the beginning'
So show me how this was a later insertion.
heaven is not the ultimate goal.
Then why is so much emphasis placed on the "things from above," and why we are asked to be "saved," etc?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Peg, posted 11-12-2009 10:03 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 11-14-2009 6:29 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 73 (535381)
11-15-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
11-14-2009 6:29 AM


Re: Damning evidence
the bible also does not say that God ever imposed a restriction on the animals, or that he told them what would happen if they disobeyed. The bible is a book about mankind...not animal kind. It was only to man that God imposed the restriction so why would we assume that the command also went out to animals?
Because the bible says that "death" entered in to the WORLD when A&E ate of the fruit. There are also strong allusions that God never intended for man to eat animals found in Genesis and also in Isaiah when Jesus perfects the world, where the lion lays down with the lamb. Essentially a world where nothing dies.
You can if you know what the consequences will be.
Then what is the point of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
I think he suffered greatly with that knowledge because he knew just how much was resting on his shoulders. If he failed, the ramifications would have been severe, mankind may have been doomed. Actually if you read the account about him the night before his death, we are told that his sweat became drops of blood.
Yes, but could it have been worse than any of the other thousands of people in human history who died on the cross, especially since he was going back to be with the Lord? That is the question.
Even though he did have a prehuman existence, this did not make him stronger then any other human.
Oh, come on now... No advantage? The mere fact that he either is God or existed with God as the chosen messiah is the greatest advantage of all.
quote:
So show me how this [trinity] was a later insertion.
  —hyroglyphx
It was actually Constantine, a non christian, who proposed the teaching.
Constantine was a Christian, just not a very good one.
The corrup church adopted the idea because they wanted Constantine to keep christianity's status favorable. Many old time christians opposed the teaching and it led the bishops to declare any who opposed their 'offical' teachings as heretics. Many christians were cut off from the church if they rejected this new idea.
This is completely irrelevant to the fact that it is found within the text of the bible itself, which I have shown. What Constantine have to do with what Jesus said about himself and what Paul claimed about Jesus?
Because the 'things from above' are spiritual things. And if one wants to be saved, they must know 'How' and 'Why' they need to be saved.
Right, and so there is a huge emphasis on it. You are making my point for me.
This is the whole purpose of Jesus sacrifice...it was to give mankind the opportunity to rid itself of the effects of sin and death and eventually get mankind back to a condition where they can be reconciled to God again.
Yes, so they can be with God in heaven and not burn in hell for all eternity because man cannot do it on his own.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 11-14-2009 6:29 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 11-16-2009 3:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 73 (535664)
11-17-2009 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peg
11-16-2009 3:55 AM


Re: Damning evidence
That verse you are quoting is from Romans... he doesnt say anything about animals here.
First of all, we have no idea the timeline for how long A&E were in the garden when they ate of the fruit. It could have been within a few minutes, few days, a few weeks, a few years. The bible is silent on that.
What we do know, however, is that A&E did not eat the flesh of animals. So it is reasonable to say that the illustrations meant by Moses in Genesis is that all life on earth lived in the perfect world that God created for man. That includes no death, until they ate of the fruit which changed everything.
this doesnt mean that before A&E they did not die. Nor does it mean that in the prophecies about the repaired earth, will nothing die. Yes the lamb will reside with the lion...but what do these represent?
Like I said, it insinuated that there was no death before the Fall. The bible does not confirm it in either direction.
could they be speaking allegorically? The hebrew writers called some people 'lions' and like Jesus, they called some people 'sheep'
I doubt it since the verse says "lamb" and not "sheep." Secondly Jesus was referred to as both the "Lamb of God" and the "Lion from the tribe of Judah." Does he lay down with himself?
the point of the tree was twofold.
1. It gave A&E a choice. Without the tree, there would have been no free will because there would have been no way to disobey God.
So then God did in fact provide them a way to disobey. He gives them a curious nature, they have no concept of sin before they ate of it, so what is left to surmise?
did you realise that he did not get baptized until he was on his deathbed?
Baptism is not a means of salvation, it is a means of obedience and a symbolic term for the washing of regeneration. It's just a variation of the mikvah, a very ancient practice in many middle eastern cultures.
I dont think he was a christian at all...he was a political ruler who used the church to his own ends the same way that Hitler did.
All one has to do is profess that Jesus is Lord and believe it in their heart and they are saved. Christianity is not synonymous with benevolence and righteousness. I realize that is the goal, but with how many extortionist televangelists and pedophile priests walk the earth, there is no way one could assume otherwise. I know most Christians would like to believe that, but the biblical criteria for salvation and history serves a testament to it not being synonymous.
Those scriptures do not say Jesus is God. If you read the bible without the knowlege you have of churh teaching, you wouldnt read those ideas into those verses....its impossible.
Obviously it is not impossible otherwise 85% of the Church would not think otherwise. Very reputable pastors ascertained the knowledge simply by reading the scriptures. There are countless churches who in no way, shape, or form follow catholicism. Catholicism cannot be blamed from the introduction of the trinity, the writers of the bible should be blamed.
You are also in an extreme minority when it comes to the trinity.
well the bible is a book from God, about God...so you would expect it to say alot about the subject of God. It doesnt mean though that everyone has to get into heaven and thats why it speaks about God.
I never said that everyone was going to heaven, I simply stated that God's goal is to unite everyone in the heavenly realm. But some are goats and some are sheep.
its so they can live forever on earth under the righteous rulerhsip of Gods kingdom....a kingdom for the earth
Matthew 6:10 "Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth"
And yet no one has ever lived on earth forever, so how can that be the goal? The verse you are quoting is temporal. The mere fact that the righteous are raptured to heaven, while all the vile people are not caught up. Then the dead are judged and will either reside in heaven or in hell. That's the endgame for mankind. We either reside in heaven with the Lord and he wipes every tear from our eye, or we weep and gnash teeth for all eternity.
Its so that they can be rid of the effects of death and sin
Revelation 21:4 ...and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away"
Then why did that not come to pass when he died on the cross?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 11-16-2009 3:55 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Peg, posted 11-18-2009 1:22 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 73 (536018)
11-19-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Peg
11-18-2009 1:22 AM


Re: Damning evidence
why would the punishment given to A&E transfere to the animals by default?
The clear allusion from Genesis and other passages in the bible describe the antediluvian world and the pre-Fall Garden of Eden was meant to be, essentially, a heaven on earth where everything was peaceful; and death non-existent until A&E ate of the fruit.
What there definitely is no biblical evidence for is the suggestion that A&E knew and understood the consequence of death.
you think that people of the church's are not being judged? And do you think that once saved always saved???
Neither of these questions bear any relevance to our discussion. You stated that Constantine was not a real Christian. By what definition must one follow to be considered a "real" Christian?
Being a part of the church does not make you 'saved'
I know.
if thats what you think, you need to read up on church history.
I get my information straight from the source; the bible. It has nothing to do with church history, lest of course you think certain groups intentionally tampered with the original manuscripts. But that just opens up a whole new can of worms.
Because that was what God had originally purposed for A&E.
God's purpose for A&E seem to make them the fall guy and then punish all of us for something they had no control over. It's like handing a baby some matches and instructing them not to start a fire.
all those scriptures I provided you about living on the earth and you are still stuck in the 'heaven' mode. Thats indoctrination if ever i saw it lol
I tell you the truth, today you will be in heaven." -Jesus Christ, Son of God; LLC
I'm getting this information straight from the bible, not apologists. If you'd like to talk about indoctination, lets talk about indoctrination a la Charles Taze Russell.
For someone who doesnt beleive in religion, you are certainly programed well.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Jesus prophecies about the last days began earlier this century and they are soon to come to their fulfillment...when that time comes, then Jesus will go into action.
Why then were the apostles so sure that the End Times would be in their generation? Does a generation last more 2 thousand years?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Peg, posted 11-18-2009 1:22 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 5:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 73 (536174)
11-20-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Peg
11-19-2009 5:34 PM


Re: Damning evidence
But unlike Adam, at no time were the animlas given a command, nor did they have set before them the prospect of eternal life.
This is all conjecture because neither of us know one way or the other scripturally, we can only make educated guesses based on other verses.
If you think about it, animals had been living and dying and some becoming extinct, dinosaurs for instance, for many thousands of years before mans creation.
I guess that all depends on the interpretation. Some believe quite strongly in a literal 6-day creation.
the KJV uses the word paradise here, as does many other versions. Paradeisoi means 'garden'
there are no gardens in heaven for its not a phyical place, so if your quote comes from this scripture, then Jesus is actually telling the man that he will live again in paradise on earth.
I specifically chose that verse for a reason, as Jesus stated that today he will be in paradise (heaven), not 2,000 + years from now you'll be back in the Garden of Eden.
Also consider the story of Lazarus: " 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' -- Luke 16:25-26
Is this verse not clear?
I agree that there are some unscriptural beliefs held by different Churches, particularly the RCC, like infant baptism for salvation, but your suggestion that heaven/hell are concoctions of the Church (but somehow your Garden of Eden revisted isn't) is not supported by the scriptures. The only thing remote would be the Revelation verse concerning a New Jerusalem and a New Heaven. But even that falls short of the myriad of verses concerning heaven/hell.
the apostles had the wrong idea on many things. For instance they thought that Jesus kingdom was going to be ruling from Jerusalem in their day, they didnt believe Jesus when he told them he must die or when he told them Jerusalem was soon to be destroyed. But understanding comes from God when he is ready to reveal things. Eventually the apostles did understand that the kingdom was not going to be on earth and the Jesus would die and jerusalem would be destroyed.
Yes but long after Jesus died Paul, Peter, John, etc all made comments that the End of Days was nigh. They were all wrong, and if they were wrong about that (and it made its way in to the bible as "sound doctrine for reproof") what else were they wrong about?
This has been the case with the JW's and they have been willing to change some of their teachings over time.
They all but would have to in order to save face.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 5:34 PM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024