Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Jesus Really Suffer?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 46 of 73 (536003)
11-19-2009 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peg
11-19-2009 5:24 AM


Re: Damning evidence
They were told clearly that they shouldnt eat from the tree because if they did, they would die.
Its like me telling my child "dont touch the stove because it will burn you"
One point, if the child did not know what being burnt was, the statement has no meaning. Similarly how would Adam & Eve know what death was since, according to your scripture, there was no death before the Tree of Knowledge fruit eating incident? One could correlate that A&E whwere as children, that is ignorant.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 5:24 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 8:53 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 47 of 73 (536008)
11-19-2009 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by bluescat48
11-19-2009 8:27 AM


Re: Damning evidence
bluescat48 writes:
One point, if the child did not know what being burnt was, the statement has no meaning. Similarly how would Adam & Eve know what death was since, according to your scripture, there was no death before the Tree of Knowledge fruit eating incident? One could correlate that A&E whwere as children, that is ignorant.
as i mentioned earlier, there is no reason to assume that the animals did not die.
the scriptures only speak about mankind dieing because it is the consequence of sin.
Animals cannot sin since they have no consciousness of Gods laws... And yet they die, so it should be concluded that they always did die and therefore A&E knew what death was.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by bluescat48, posted 11-19-2009 8:27 AM bluescat48 has not 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

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 49 of 73 (536074)
11-19-2009 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2009 10:02 AM


Re: Damning evidence
Hyroglyphx writes:
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.
yes it does and I agree that it will be again
But unlike Adam, at no time were the animlas given a command, nor did they have set before them the prospect of eternal life.
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.
Hyroglyphx writes:
I tell you the truth, today you will be in heaven." -Jesus Christ, Son of God; LLC
you didnt mention the reference to the scripture, so im guessing it might by this one Luke 23:42-43 where Jesus told the man next to him on the torture stake
And he went on to say: Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom. 43And he said to him: Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.
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.
Hyroglyphx writes:
Why then were the apostles so sure that the End Times would be in their generation? Does a generation last more 2 thousand years?
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.
Christians including the JW's have had the wrong expectations at times too and have not always fully understood the scriptures. This does not mean the scriptures were wrong, it means that their understanding was wrong. Eventually God provides understanding and teachings become clearer. This has been the case with the JW's and they have been willing to change some of their teachings over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2009 10:02 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2009 8:52 AM Peg has not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 50 of 73 (536093)
11-19-2009 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peg
11-19-2009 5:24 AM


Please Stop Dodging the Questions
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Yes, but he was the one who made that rule up for the sake of having a rule. You have provided no adequate reason, Peg. Please stop avoiding the question.
The reason was clearly given to them in the verse i quoted.
here it is again
Genesis 2:16, 17 "as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die"
They were told clearly that they shouldnt eat from the tree because if they did, they would die.
You are missing the point: God is the one that made the Tree and gave it the properties of endowing death on whoever ate of it in the first place!
Whatever properties the tree has, God is responsible for.
Peg writes:
Its like me telling my child "dont touch the stove because it will burn you"
Irrelevant. God made the stove and then gave it the ability to burn. He could have easily done otherwise, but he did it anyway just to prove a point.
Peg writes:
should the child need more explaination then that??? What more could i say to them to show that touching the stove is dangerous and should be avoided???
What if the child does not know what "burning" is in the slightest? What if they are literally incapable of imagining the consequences?
Have you heard of qualia? They are the idea that there are certain things that people can not know until they have experienced them: betrayal, loss of someone close, love, the color red, and so on.
A&E had no sin qualia. There was literally no such thing until it came into existence after they ate the fruit!!
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
It's no wonder the Church condemned heretics like you
the church condemned heretics like me because they spoke out against false teachings...they showed how the church had twisted the meaning of scripture to instill fear
You missed my point; I was talking sarcastically. Please try to read completely into my posts without skimming and looking for points out of context.
Peg writes:
Teaposts&unicorns writes:
Revelation 14:10-11
can you explain this verse and show how this means people will suffer physical punishment in hell?
"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night..."
--The Bible, Revelation 14:10-11 (KJV)
The condemned will taste God's wrath, which is undilutedly given to those who are damned. The damned will be forever tortured with burning fire and brimstone while being watched stoically by both Jesus and the angels of God. The evidence of their torture will always be present and the process will be forever and continuous.
Is that plain English? Need I explain more? Torture implies physical punishment or at least extreme pain of some kind which is intentionally caused.
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell THE GRAVE, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Think about it.... the greek word for 'grave' is translated as 'hell'
The meaning of the greek word for 'grave' is the 'pit' or the place of burial...its the place where we get buried when we die.
Peg, if you are so convinced that 'hell' means 'grave,' please give a link to an expert with a non-christian agenda to verify this as such. In addition, 'death' with 'unquenchable fire' is, at least to my feeble and unlearned mind, if not the same as 'hell' then at least 'Erebus/Tartarus.'
Peg writes:
So clearly the writer is simply saying that it is better for you to enter into life with only one hand, then have to go to your 'grave' with two.
No, the writer is clearly saying that it would be better to mutilate the sinning limb rather than be whole and sinful. In other words, self-mutilation may be necessary for salvation. It's been seen in many ancient religions where the priests believed that the less body and flesh they possessed, the closer they were to their gods.
Nothing in my quote points toward your unfounded idea which is completely uncomprehendable anyway. Please, explain it to my obviously inferior mind.
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
this is not a story Jesus gave about a real person. It was an allegory about the spiritual condition of those who became his followers. The man in 'hell' was in spiritually 'dead' condition while Lazaraz/Jesus diciples enjoyed being close to Abraham/God
Whether the person was real or not, the implications were obvious. Are those spiritually "dead" in torment always, seeing Jesus' followers and Abraham in eternal pleasure while they suffer?
Bringing this back on topic, how does Jesus' measly 'sacrifice' possibly compare to these eternal torments that I have, over and over again, consistenly demonstrated to you exist and are completely founded with Scripture?
Peg writes:
this scripture is not a good one to use if you are trying to prove what hell is.
Why, to the contrary my dear Peg. Every one of my posts have demonstrated the existence and climate of an eternal torment- hell. There is no possible reconciliation of this fact with the idea of Jesus' 'ultimate' sacrifice.'
Please Peg, just for once try to answer my points logically and thoroughly.
T&U
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 5:24 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Peg, posted 11-20-2009 6:25 AM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 51 of 73 (536156)
11-20-2009 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Teapots&unicorns
11-19-2009 7:40 PM


Re: Please Stop Dodging the Questions
Teapots&unicorns writes:
A&E had no sin qualia. There was literally no such thing until it came into existence after they ate the fruit!!
You are only speculating on that point. Why do you assume the animals never died in the garden? I know the bible does not say anything like that, so why do you assume that is the case?
Teapots&unicorns writes:
The condemned will taste God's wrath, which is undilutedly given to those who are damned. The damned will be forever tortured with burning fire and brimstone while being watched stoically by both Jesus and the angels of God.
well this places Hell, not below the earth, but in heaven because thats where the Angels and Jesus reside. Can you now show me scriptures that say that this place of 'hell' is located in heaven?
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Peg, if you are so convinced that 'hell' means 'grave,' please give a link to an expert with a non-christian agenda to verify this as such.
Collier’s Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says: Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word ‘hell,’ as understood today, is not a happy translation.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276) noted: Sheol was located somewhere ‘under’ the earth.... The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and the bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentilesall slept together without awareness of one another.
Brynmor F.Price and Eugene A.Nida noted: The word occurs often in the Psalms and in the book of Job to refer to the place to which all dead people go. It is represented as a dark place, in which there is no activity worthy of the name. There are no moral distinctions there, so ‘hell’ (KJV) is not a suitable translation, since that suggests a contrast with ‘heaven’ as the dwelling-place of the righteous after death. In a sense, ‘the grave’ in a generic sense is a near equivalent, except that Sheol is more a mass grave in which all the dead dwell together.... The use of this particular imagery may have been considered suitable here [in Jonah 2:2] in view of Jonah’s imprisonment in the interior of the fish.A Translators Handbook on the Book of Jonah, 1978, p. 37.
Teapots&unicorns writes:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-19-2009 7:40 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-24-2009 4:13 PM Peg 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

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 53 of 73 (536588)
11-24-2009 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns
11-05-2009 2:47 PM


JUC writes:
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?
The way Christians find the answer to this question is by looking at what the Bible says about Jesus. And the Bible clearly says that Jesus is God:
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'
16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Because Jesus is God, then His substitutionary atonement for mankind's sins provides salvation to all who believe that He is God.
Juc writes:
Death with resurrection is not a suitable sacrifice.
Death without resurrection is not a suitable sacrifice. Death without resurrection can be achieved by humans too. Resurrection proves Jesus' deity! Would you want God to "die" for your sins or would you rather a human die? Which one would be "true atonement"? Jesus was fully man and fully God. Meaning that while He had the power to become alive after death, He did receive excruciating pain, loss, suffering and trauma through His death on the cross. Any human can never bear the pain Christ bore because Christ bore the full cup of God's wrath (meaning the punishment for EVERY SINGLE SIN that all saved believers past, present, and future have/are/and will commit--all in one death, and on one man: Christ.)There is more than a physical aspect to Christ's death, in fact the physical pain is absolutely zilch compared to His separation from God--when God the Father looked at Him as a sinner.
Juc writes:
The only thing that could come close to the sacrifice morally justified would be Jesus taking all of our place's in Hell for all eternity, suffering everything that we would have. That would be true love, not this giving away of something that you know you'll get back in 36 hours.
Jesus didn't even have to suffer one second for your sin. True love hates. God hates sin=God hates JUC. At the same time, God loves JUC enough to give him/her a chance. God cannot totally love and totally judge and claim to be just. He loves= He sends Christ to die in your place. He judges= He prepares Hell for those who reject Christ. That Christ should live in hell and bear our punishment there was not God's plan because Christ didn't even have to suffer for your sin in the first place. He loves you, but He is also the great Judge of the universe. (and when I say He, I refer to Jesus Christ). The Bible says that Jesus will judge every single person according to their deeds. How can He be in hell and do that?
JUC writes:
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?
Heb 9:11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritancenow that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
A very clear explanation why righteous blood needs to be shed for atonement of sin: God says so in His law. And His law was established even before you or I were born.
And on a side note, Jesus did not commit suicide. Jesus willingly obeyed God the Father's decree that He must die:
Luke 22:39-46
[39] Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. [40] On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not fall into temptation." [41] He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, [42] "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." [43] An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. [44] And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.
JUC writes:
At the very least, this implies that God is under threat from a more powerful being that controls sin, and the only way to win is to die. 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. An objection could arise that the cousin could willfully go to prison to protect his cousin; however, this action does not stop the murderer from continuing to commit crimes and is thus ineffectual.
So you infer with the twisted understanding characteristic of your little mind. However, please note that the Bible says God is the most supreme, sovereign, and mighty being.
And if you would rather die for your own sins, then , by all means, try it out and let us know what its like to do such a thing. (I'm really interested). {and of course, I make this statement assuming that JUC can resurrect.}
JUC writes:
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?
Because Jesus is God (and we know this from the Bible, not from some random Dr.Sing), His vicarious atonement for sin pays the price the God that Father has set in time immemorial and all who admit that Christ died for their personal sin, receive redemption from judgement.
I will also say this. On the contrary, if one does not regard Christ as God, and does not acknowledge the need for shedding of blood to cover sin, and does not believe in a literal heaven and hell, Christ's suffering, indeed, is meaningless to him/her.
JUC writes:
In addition, how, from a logical and lawful perspective, does Jesus's substitution make sense?
Logical. Dr. Sing sins, Dr. Sing pays for it.
Bible. Dr. Sing sins. God will not accept Dr. Sing's payment because Dr. Sing's payment doesn't measure upto God's demand. Because God is love, He send His Son (who is also God) to pay for Dr. Sing's sin. All of Dr. Sing's past, present and future sin has now been attributed to Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ sheds His blood on the cross in repentance of DR.SING'S sin, and now when God looks at Dr. Sing's record, He is actually looking at Jesus's Christ record (because Dr. Sing acknowledges and accepts Christ as her God). Welcome to God's love, law and judgment.
Hebrews 9:22 (New International Version)
22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-05-2009 2:47 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-24-2009 10:43 AM Pauline has replied
 Message 55 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-24-2009 3:59 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4943 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 54 of 73 (536629)
11-24-2009 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Pauline
11-24-2009 5:51 AM


PLEASE DON'T MISQUOTE ME!
Hi Dr Sing
Please note that in message 53 you are replying to Teapots&Unicorns, not to JUC.
Although, I would of course fully support T&U's argument.
In fact, as I say on another thread, it is Judas who is the one who suffers for our "sins", not Jesus. Judas is presumably still burning in the fires of Hell and will do so for evermore. Just because he helped to fulfil a prophesy. Jesus, meanwhile, relaxes in Heaven with his feet up. It's good to have friends in high places.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Pauline, posted 11-24-2009 5:51 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Pauline, posted 11-25-2009 2:19 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 55 of 73 (536714)
11-24-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Pauline
11-24-2009 5:51 AM


Hi Dr Sing,
Sing writes:
JUC writes:
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?
The way Christians find the answer to this question is by looking at what the Bible says about Jesus. And the Bible clearly says that Jesus is God:
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'
16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Because Jesus is God, then His substitutionary atonement for mankind's sins provides salvation to all who believe that He is God.
So God sacrificed himself so he could forgive sins?
In other words: So God stabbed himself so he could scream?
Why couldn't he have forgiven people anyway? The Bible clearly says that the decision to die and forgive was God's, so why didn't he just skip the 1st part?
Sing writes:
Juc writes:
Death with resurrection is not a suitable sacrifice.
Death without resurrection is not a suitable sacrifice. Death without resurrection can be achieved by humans too. Resurrection proves Jesus' deity! Would you want God to "die" for your sins or would you rather a human die? Which one would be "true atonement"? Jesus was fully man and fully God. Meaning that while He had the power to become alive after death, He did receive excruciating pain, loss, suffering and trauma through His death on the cross. Any human can never bear the pain Christ bore because Christ bore the full cup of God's wrath (meaning the punishment for EVERY SINGLE SIN that all saved believers past, present, and future have/are/and will commit--all in one death, and on one man: Christ.)There is more than a physical aspect to Christ's death, in fact the physical pain is absolutely zilch compared to His separation from God--when God the Father looked at Him as a sinner.
Actually, yes; death w/o resurrection is almost suitable by itself; it's where we get the idea of a 'martyr.' What you are saying is that resurrection proves his deity; why does he need to prove who he is in order to help? Resurrection is the restoration of power and life; hardly a sacrifice. As per his pain, he had no more than any other criminal who had been killed on the cross.
Furthermore, so God directed his wrath at himself? What is he, emo? And, in addition, he cut himself in two? Yeah, I can see where that might be painful, but hardly 'ultimate.'
Did God sacrifice himself to forgive sins? Could he have just forgiven them in the first place?
Sing writes:
Juc writes:
The only thing that could come close to the sacrifice morally justified would be Jesus taking all of our place's in Hell for all eternity, suffering everything that we would have. That would be true love, not this giving away of something that you know you'll get back in 36 hours.
Jesus didn't even have to suffer one second for your sin.
Oh, so Jesus didn't have to suffer for sin? Thanks for clearing that up.
Sing writes:
True love hates. God hates sin=God hates JUC. At the same time, God loves JUC enough to give him/her a chance. God cannot totally love and totally judge and claim to be just. He loves= He sends Christ to die in your place. He judges= He prepares Hell for those who reject Christ.
I don't really understand this at all: does God hate us or love us? You cannot have both. He can have mercy, which is hardly likely, but he cannot love us. The two terms are mutually exclusive: it's like saying black and white. If you add white, it's not black, but gray.
Also, justice and hate are hardly similar.
Furthermore, why does he have to infinitely punish those who reject him? That's like a kid throwing a tantrum because his parents are giving him the silent treatment. Why can't he just extend this wonderful gift to everyone? Or, could he at least not punish those who refused it? Wouldn't that be "just?"
Sing writes:
That Christ should live in hell and bear our punishment there was not God's plan because Christ didn't even have to suffer for your sin in the first place. He loves you, but He is also the great Judge of the universe. (and when I say He, I refer to Jesus Christ). The Bible says that Jesus will judge every single person according to their deeds. How can He be in hell and do that?
So if Jesus doesn't have to suffer for our sins, then why was he crucified as a 'sacrifice?' You're getting really inconsistent hear, Sing. You're really kind of making my point for me: there was no point in Jesus' crucifiction.
As for being in Hell and judging, what I said was that I would respect it more ifi that was the case. If he was experiencing everyone's pain so that they could go to heaven, then Christianity would have a lot more emotional appeal to me: a true martyr in a religion does that. That's obviously not the case, though, and thus I do not really particularly respect; that's why I made this thread in the first place!
Sing writes:
JUC writes:
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?
Heb 9:11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritancenow that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
A very clear explanation why righteous blood needs to be shed for atonement of sin: God says so in His law. And His law was established even before you or I were born.
And on a side note, Jesus did not commit suicide. Jesus willingly obeyed God the Father's decree that He must die:
Luke 22:39-46
[39] Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. [40] On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not fall into temptation." [41] He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, [42] "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." [43] An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. [44] And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.
Is Jesus God or is he separate? If he is God, then God committed suicide; if they are separate, then God sacrificed an innocent for the greater good; also, both cases could be resolved easily without sacrifice.
Sing writes:
JUC writes:
At the very least, this implies that God is under threat from a more powerful being that controls sin, and the only way to win is to die. 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. An objection could arise that the cousin could willfully go to prison to protect his cousin; however, this action does not stop the murderer from continuing to commit crimes and is thus ineffectual.
So you infer with the twisted understanding characteristic of your little mind. However, please note that the Bible says God is the most supreme, sovereign, and mighty being.
And if you would rather die for your own sins, then , by all means, try it out and let us know what its like to do such a thing. (I'm really interested). {and of course, I make this statement assuming that JUC can resurrect.}
Before we continue, please try not to quote the Bible much in this vein as most here don't take the Bible on its own authority- that's circular.
In addition, if God is supreme and mighty, why did he have to require a sacrifice and potentially damn billions of people?
And, no, I would prefer not to die for my sins; for one thing, I don't believe in them, but also, 'dying' for sins is completely a waste and accomplishes nothing if you can just forgive them anyway.
Sing writes:
JUC writes:
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?
Because Jesus is God (and we know this from the Bible, not from some random Dr.Sing), His vicarious atonement for sin pays the price the God that Father has set in time immemorial and all who admit that Christ died for their personal sin, receive redemption from judgement.
Dr Sing, just above you said that Jesus did not die for our sins. Make up your mind. Also, you have refused to answer this: why did God require a price for the forgiveness of sin and then pay it himself?
Sing writes:
I will also say this. On the contrary, if one does not regard Christ as God, and does not acknowledge the need for shedding of blood to cover sin, and does not believe in a literal heaven and hell, Christ's suffering, indeed, is meaningless to him/her.
Why is there a need for sacrifice?
How does any of what you just said impact Jesus' suffering; if anything, it alleviates it.
Oh, and if you think it becomes meaningless, tell that to Peg.
Sing writes:
JUC writes:
In addition, how, from a logical and lawful perspective, does Jesus's substitution make sense?
Logical. Dr. Sing sins, Dr. Sing pays for it.
Bible. Dr. Sing sins. God will not accept Dr. Sing's payment because Dr. Sing's payment doesn't measure upto God's demand. Because God is love, He send His Son (who is also God) to pay for Dr. Sing's sin. All of Dr. Sing's past, present and future sin has now been attributed to Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ sheds His blood on the cross in repentance of DR.SING'S sin, and now when God looks at Dr. Sing's record, He is actually looking at Jesus's Christ record (because Dr. Sing acknowledges and accepts Christ as her God). Welcome to God's love, law and judgment.
Hebrews 9:22 (New International Version)
22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Why does God require that price when he could just forgive the sin?
So let's see how this goes:
Dr. Sing goes to God to buy a t-shirt; God says that Dr Sing doesn't have enough $. Because God knows the good Dr really wants the shirt, he pays himself the necessary money and calls it even, but only if Sing knows that he both wants the shirt, God is the only one who can give him the shirt, and worships God for 'giving up' his own $ (to himself) so that he can have the shirt- but only finds this all out as true when he leaves the store for good.
Oh, and as JUC said, my name is T&U. Please remember it for 2 reasons: 1st, I'll be the one ruling over all of you soon, and 2nd, I don't like identity theft
T&U
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Pauline, posted 11-24-2009 5:51 AM Pauline has not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 56 of 73 (536718)
11-24-2009 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Peg
11-20-2009 6:25 AM


Re: Please Stop Dodging the Questions
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
A&E had no sin qualia. There was literally no such thing until it came into existence after they ate the fruit!!
You are only speculating on that point. Why do you assume the animals never died in the garden? I know the bible does not say anything like that, so why do you assume that is the case?
Peg, where did I say that sin was linked to death. It's very simple: God tells A&E that disobeying is bad and bad is 'sin.' A&E did not know what 'bad' was before eating the apple. Therefore, the only thing that could possibly influence them in this case was the arguments of one or more people: they were effectively puppets of whoever spoke to them.
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
The condemned will taste God's wrath, which is undilutedly given to those who are damned. The damned will be forever tortured with burning fire and brimstone while being watched stoically by both Jesus and the angels of God.
well this places Hell, not below the earth, but in heaven because thats where the Angels and Jesus reside. Can you now show me scriptures that say that this place of 'hell' is located in heaven?
How do you know that Jesus and the angels are always in Heaven? Also, 'watching' in this case doesn't necessarily require being present. It could be metaphorical or metaphysical like God 'watching over' Satan. And Hell's location doesn't change the fact that it is real.
Peg writes:
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Peg, if you are so convinced that 'hell' means 'grave,' please give a link to an expert with a non-christian agenda to verify this as such.
Collier’s Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says: Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word ‘hell,’ as understood today, is not a happy translation.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276) noted: Sheol was located somewhere ‘under’ the earth. . . . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and the bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentilesall slept together without awareness of one another.
Brynmor F. Price and Eugene A. Nida noted: The word occurs often in the Psalms and in the book of Job to refer to the place to which all dead people go. It is represented as a dark place, in which there is no activity worthy of the name. There are no moral distinctions there, so ‘hell’ (KJV) is not a suitable translation, since that suggests a contrast with ‘heaven’ as the dwelling-place of the righteous after death. In a sense, ‘the grave’ in a generic sense is a near equivalent, except that Sheol is more a mass grave in which all the dead dwell together. . . . The use of this particular imagery may have been considered suitable here [in Jonah 2:2] in view of Jonah’s imprisonment in the interior of the fish.A Translators Handbook on the Book of Jonah, 1978, p. 37.
I do know if I've said this yet but all my sources are the New Testament! Unless you are a Jew, you are forced to accept my sources as more accurate than the books of Psalms and Job. Furthermore, just because it is called 'Sheol' doesn't change that it is called a place of pain and torture. They could just be different frames of reference and, being a Christian, you must take my sources as more primary.
Also, just something I'm wondering; If there is no heaven/hell, then why follow God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Peg, posted 11-20-2009 6:25 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Peg, posted 11-25-2009 4:20 AM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 57 of 73 (536768)
11-25-2009 12:42 AM


TU writes:
So God sacrificed himself so he could forgive sins?
Why couldn't he have forgiven people anyway? The Bible clearly says that the decision to die and forgive was God's, so why didn't he just skip the 1st part?
Because God’s just nature requires that punishment be given to the guilty, a price be paid for sin. God is just. If He forgave people anyway, would that not be injustice? If you were a judge and a murderer was brought before you, would you convict him guilty and punish him, or would you let him go free? Which action would prove you to be a judge-an arbiter of justice, an upholder of law?
TU writes:
why does he need to prove who he is in order to help?
So that idiots would have no chance to disprove His deity. His resurrection was not aimed at proving His deity even though it serves that purpose very well. His resurrection and ascension into heaven demonstrates that those who die to sin and live in Christ, will one day rise and live with God in heaven. And for the record, Jesus wasn’t helping. The fate of the universe is in His hands!!!!!! He was having mercy on wretches like you and me.
As per his pain, he had no more than any other criminal who had been killed on the cross.
Wow!!!! how come I never of you before! Man! I’m glad to meet you! You were the one who crucified my Lord! Not only crucified, but measured his pain, and the pain of all people who’ve ever been crucified. Pleased to meet you. Thank you for helping fulfill God’s plan. As a believer, I glory in Jesus’s death on the cross. Jesus’s death is no sad thing to mourn over. It the ultimate demonstration of true love and the door to heaven which otherwise, would forever be closed.
Furthermore, so God directed his wrath at himself? What is he, emo? And, in addition, he cut himself in two? Yeah, I can see where that might be painful, but hardly 'ultimate.'
Yes, isn’t that amazing! God directed the wrath that you deserve, at Himself!!!! Because He knows that TU can never bear that wrath. He needed someone holy, as holy as himself to pay for you sins. Invoking your T-Shirt illustration here, TU doesn’t have enough money to ever buy that T-Shirt from God. But God wants TU to have the T-Shirt even though TU doesn’t deserve it. So what does God do? HE pays the price and gives TU the T-Shirt. Isn’t that amazing!! Talk about unselfish grace. And buddy, please do some research before starting discussions. When I said Jesus was separated, I mean, from God. Do you anything about Trinity?? If not, this will probably not make sense. Anywho, you don’t need to understand trinity to have faith in Jesus.
Did God sacrifice himself to forgive sins? Could he have just forgiven them in the first place?
No. Because that would violate His rules. You say, why do we need rules? Why not just have mercy because we’re dealing with billions of innocent people? Son, He DID have mercy!! Christ’s dying on the cross is mercy! His offering the gift of salvation to you is mercy! No, He will not extend that mercy to entire mankind because then, He would become an unjust God if He did. You don’t realize that mankind has sinned against God, do you??? If you did, you would understand the concepts of sin, guilt, judgment, mercy, propitiation, redemption, imputation, and so on.
Seems to me, (and please don’t take offense), that you have molded God (the concept) to fit your expectations! (agree with me or not, it is highly evident in your posts) You want him to be a puppet in your hands: to not have a nature of His own, to be like men, to do what appears good on the outside. Let me tell you, that’s exactly the wrong way to approach the God of the Bible.
Oh, so Jesus didn't have to suffer for sin? Thanks for clearing that up.
Ah, way to twist the meaning of words! (or to misunderstand) Think about it this way, Jesus doesn’t have to pay for your T-Shirt its you who need it, therefore you must pay for it. But, Jesus payed for your T-Shirt because He knows ****you don’t have enough money**** (****and you will never have enough****). Similarly, Jesus suffered all the pain that sinful men deserve, when in fact, He didn’t need to! Thank you for putting out your misconceptions and helping me clear them up.
Me writes:
True love hates. God hates sin=God hates JUC. At the same time, God loves JUC enough to give him/her a chance. God cannot totally love and totally judge and claim to be just. He loves= He sends Christ to die in your place. He judges= He prepares Hell for those who reject Christ.
TU retorts:
TU writes:
I don't really understand this at all: does God hate us or love us? You cannot have both. He can have mercy, which is hardly likely, but he cannot love us. The two terms are mutually exclusive: it's like saying black and white. If you add white, it's not black, but gray.
Alright.
1 God loves people. But God hates sin and punishes sinners.
2 Dr.Sing is a creation of God’s. God loves Dr. Sing. But Dr. Sing is a sinner. God hates Dr. Sing’s sin and should punish Dr. Sing. (The punishment is —eternal life in hell).
You tell me, how can God to justice to Dr. Sing? Propose a prospective method by which to keep God’s integrity and save Dr. Sing because God loves Dr. Sing.
Why can't he just extend this wonderful gift to everyone? Or, could he at least not punish those who refused it? Wouldn't that be "just?"
Definition of Justice
One, He does extend eternal life to all. It is WE who reject Him.
Two, why should He not punish those who reject Him? He offers heaven to people who originally deserve hell, some people reject heaven, therefore, they get hell. Fair? Indeed.
So if Jesus doesn't have to suffer for our sins, then why was he crucified as a 'sacrifice?' You're getting really inconsistent hear, Sing. You're really kind of making my point for me: there was no point in Jesus' crucifiction.
It is more likely that a sword from the Atlantic ocean came and sawed me in half than for me to have proven your point, son. Far from it. Anyway, I already cleared up your what words of mine you misconstrued. Refer to an earlier quote.
TU writes:
As for being in Hell and judging, what I said was that I would respect it more ifi that was the case. If he was experiencing everyone's pain so that they could go to heaven, then Christianity would have a lot more emotional appeal to me: a true martyr in a religion does that. That's obviously not the case, though, and thus I do not really particularly respect; that's why I made this thread in the first place!
Christ experienced everyone’s pain so that they could go to heaven. Just not in the way you propse/expect/hope/wish/like/fancy/makeup farcical expectations/waste people’s time etc. Oh, I see the real reason you made this thread, bud. I’m glad I’m getting to tell you the truth.
TU writes:
Is Jesus God or is he separate? If he is God, then God committed suicide; if they are separate, then God sacrificed an innocent for the greater good; also, both cases could be resolved easily without sacrifice.
You tell me, is Jesus God? What have you done with the very first few verses I quoted from the bible? I know you didn’t think about them, but I’m curious to know what exactly you plan to do with EVERY SINGLE SUPPORT I give for my arguments.
Before we continue, please try not to quote the Bible much in this vein as most here don't take the Bible on its own authority- that's circular.
I’m sorry for those who don’t regard the Bible as truth. Since the Bible is EVERYTHING I depend upon in my faith, I’m sorry that I cannot argue with you if you are so closed-minded and mannerless enough to put bars on my freedom. One could prove to you that Jesus is God and make sense out of all the mess you’ve created using the Bible and only the Bible. Whether you are willing to listen or not is your choice.
In addition, if God is supreme and mighty, why did he have to require a sacrifice and potentially damn billions of people?
Heb 9:22
And, no, I would prefer not to die for my sins; for one thing, I don't believe in them, but also, 'dying' for sins is completely a waste and accomplishes nothing if you can just forgive them anyway.
From this I understand two very pertinent points about where you’re coming from:
1. You do not believe in the concept of sin (neither are you willing to look at yourself as a sinner) ---no wonder you’re having a rough time getting my points!
2. You absolutely do not understand the concepts of justice, propitiaton, and imputation.(since all of these are based on the concepts of sin)
And, you see, you yourself are not willing to die for your own sins. Christ dies for them. And you still do not realize the magnitude of mercy there?! Really?!
Dr Sing, just above you said that Jesus did not die for our sins. Make up your mind. Also, you have refused to answer this: why did God require a price for the forgiveness of sin and then pay it himself?
Excuse me, I never said that Jesus did not die for our sins. Jesus died for our sins. What on the planet are you misconstruing my words for?!
I’m getting sick and tired of answering the same question again and again. Have you checked your IQ recently?
God requires a price to be paid for sin because He hates sin. Sin is disobedience again God, not even against law/order/conscience/ or anything! And God pays the price Himself because only He can. Let me ask you, have you ever read the Old Testament? Or any part of the Bible?
Why is there a need for sacrifice?
How does any of what you just said impact Jesus' suffering; if anything, it alleviates it.
Oh, and if you think it becomes meaningless, tell that to Peg.
There is need for sacrifice because there is a GREAT need for you to THINK. Again. Heb 9:22. Without shedding of blood (sacrifice), there is NO REMISSION (no forgiveness) for SIN. Get it, kid?
And who is Peg?
-------
Hebrews 9:22 (New International Version)
22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Why does God require that price when he could just forgive the sin?
I’m sorry. God doesn’t just forgive sin because if He did that would make Him a liar. That would be like a judge letting a murderer go free even after the murderer took the lives of innocent people. Are you presenting that Christ's sacrifice was unwarranted?
So let's see how this goes:
Dr. Sing goes to God to buy a t-shirt; God says that Dr Sing doesn't have enough $. Because God knows the good Dr really wants the shirt, he pays himself the necessary money and calls it even, but only if Sing knows that he both wants the shirt, God is the only one who can give him the shirt, and worships God for 'giving up' his own $ (to himself) so that he can have the shirt- but only finds this all out as true when he leaves the store for good.
Ah, a few words that actually are coherent at last. Thank you.
In your illustration, does Doc Sing leave the store without buying the T-Shirt from God with God’s money?
Oh, and as JUC said, my name is T&U. Please remember it for 2 reasons: 1st, I'll be the one ruling over all of you soon, and 2nd, I don't like identity theft
Alright, nice to meet you TU- future monarch of planet earth. Let me urge you to learn a concept called, cognition. It might help when ruling over us all. Thanks!
A few things, do you believe in a literal heaven and hell? and have you read any other Scriptures like the gita, or Quran?
Edited by Dr. Sing, : added words
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-25-2009 2:33 PM Pauline has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 58 of 73 (536780)
11-25-2009 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-24-2009 10:43 AM


Re: PLEASE DON'T MISQUOTE ME!
JUC writes:
Hi Dr Sing
Please note that in message 53 you are replying to Teapots&Unicorns, not to JUC.
Apologies. I had earlier responded to one of your threads, hence the confusion. Sorry 'bout it.
Although, I would of course fully support T&U's argument.
In fact, as I say on another thread, it is Judas who is the one who suffers for our "sins", not Jesus. Judas is presumably still burning in the fires of Hell and will do so for evermore. Just because he helped to fulfil a prophesy. Jesus, meanwhile, relaxes in Heaven with his feet up. It's good to have friends in high places.
You bet Christ is in heaven! Right where He deserves to be, as God, ruler of the universe from time immemorial! Judas intention was never to "pay for your sins". Furthermore, you do not understand the need for HOLY (and by holy, I do not mean pious) blood to be shed for forgiveness of sin. You somehow think that Christ should suffer lifelong in hell. If this was the case, I would immediately stop believing in Christ. Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven,serves as an example of how when I die, I will be resurrected, and ascend into heaven (because I believe Jesus is my personal Savious and God). Seems to me that you would prefer to live in hell than in heaven..hence your farcical belief in Judas's death. Both Jesus and Judas died, but only one rose again. Both live eternally (because Judas was created in God's image). Both live in different places: heaven and hell respectively. The death of both conveys a message. Jesus conveys a message of love and "life". Judas', disobedience and "Death". I don't see how Judas' message is attractive to you at all. Salvation is not just about propitiation. This is where you are right now, you just think about propitiation and end the matter there. Not so at all. What about sin, imputation, resurrection, eternal life and death? How does Judas' death relate to all these doctrines?
Can you answer this question, how would Judas's death allow YOU to gain access to heaven? Then I'll show you how Christ's death gives me (and any believer) access to heaven.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : more words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-24-2009 10:43 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-25-2009 3:21 AM Pauline has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4943 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 59 of 73 (536781)
11-25-2009 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Pauline
11-25-2009 2:19 AM


Re: PLEASE DON'T MISQUOTE ME!
Seems to me that you would prefer to live in hell than in heaven
Yep! I'd rather burn for eternity than spend 5 minutes in the presence of that *$@# you call God.
All Judas did was help put Jesus in the position where he suffered (for a few hours).
If nobody had helped nail Jesus to the cross, he'd never have been able to take all the glory, or all our sins away (although quite how he did that or why it was necessary for him to be nailed to a cross to do it, I've no idea).
By the way, what sort of a father sacrifices his son instead of himself? (Not that Jesus was actually sacrificed of course, as T&U points out in his opening message.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Pauline, posted 11-25-2009 2:19 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Pauline, posted 11-25-2009 3:45 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 60 of 73 (536783)
11-25-2009 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-25-2009 3:21 AM


Re: PLEASE DON'T MISQUOTE ME!
Yep! I'd rather burn for eternity than spend 5 minutes in the presence of that *$@# you call God.
Maybe so. How true is 1 Cor 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
All Judas did was help put Jesus in the position where he suffered (for a few hours).
If nobody had helped nail Jesus to the cross, he'd never have been able to take all the glory, or all our sins away
Precisely so! Isn't it amazing how God can make someone who is against Him to contribute to fulfill God's own plan. All the characters, elements, and entities that contributed to Christ's death, right from the smallest thorn in His brow to the mighty governor Pilate's command to execute Him, were all installed, controlled and orchestrated by God himself to fulfill His plan. And do you know have any idea what his plan was? It was to save you from hell!
(although quite how he did that or why it was necessary for him to be nailed to a cross to do it, I've no idea0
Read the Bible.
By the way, what sort of a father sacrifices his son instead of himself? (Not that Jesus was actually sacrificed of course, as T&U points out in his opening message.)
A Father that loves His creatures as much as He loves His own Son. You do not understand Trinity, hence your misconceptions about God the Father's plan to make Jesus pay for the world's sin and Jesus' willing submission to God's decree.
T&U creates a lot of farcical ideas. Tomorrow, he probably will point out (based on his own interpretations) that the earth revolves around the moon, that spiders are made of butter, computers eat cheeseburgers and that the best way to build a house is to spend 50 days slapping your face left and right. Will you agree with him/her? Why not agree with what the Bible says? Ohhh, what the Bible says is more ludicrous than what TU says, right?
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-25-2009 3:21 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-25-2009 3:58 AM Pauline 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