You disparage the most beautiful gift to mankind ever given.
Jesus and his sacrifice is Satan’s test of man’s morality. Justice is when the guilty is punished. Injustice is when the innocent is punished.
Jesus, if you accept him as your savior, is you punishing the innocent instead of the guilty.
He chose to take my punishment on Himself, which never even entered my mind. He said He chose it Himself, that He had the power to lay down His life and take it up again, and He did this so that those who would otherwise go to Hell wouldn't have to. I do feel very sorry for all my ugly sins that piled on Him on my behalf, but I'm also very grateful for His sacrifice because I certainly couldn't have saved myself.
Most, perhaps all Christians believe the dogma that says that it is good to accept Jesus’s sacrifice.
ALL Christians believe this, you aren't a Christian if you don't. "Good to accept" is a funny way of putting it. If I don't accept it I go to Hell.
That is exactly like saying that it is good to somehow gain from punishing an innocent man.
But it is in this case, a very great good. And again, He chose to do this for us without any of us ever imagining such a thing. He also said you can be forgiven for your horrendous abuse of His great generosity if you also would like to be saved from Hell.
If you believe the Christian dogma of substitutionary atonement, then you pass Satan’s test and are ready for hell.
The antigospel according to GIA I guess. We're all ready for Hell since birth. We're born into the sin nature and we don't waste any time adding our own miserable sins to the mix. You aren't any different from the rest of us, and in fact with your outrageous self-righteousness that even presumes to judge God you may be worse than some of us. Probably not worse than me though. Anyway we start out our lives headed for Hell and it only gets worse as we continue to live. We also get some punishment for our sins in this life, believe me I know personally about that. But what a great gift I've been given that I don't have to spend eternity being punished for them because Jesus chose to take my punishment for me. I'm eternally grateful. And in fact I'm sure I will spend eternity thanking Him for it.
1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
Father Son and Holy Spirit all agreed of course. But also any part of the Bible has to be read in the light of every other part:
John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
HE laid it down. He chose to lay it down. Obedient to the Father, yes, but He nevertheless chose to do it. Presumably He could have refused.
Further, Jesus always said that he was doing his fathers work and not his own.
He said that in the context of His obedience during His life, because He was being the Perfect Man for our sake, giving the example of obedience and human righteousness, but of course He was obeying the Father in dying for us too. "I lay down my life for the sheep." That doesn't mean He didn't choose to do it.
You say, that his forgiveness was a gift. Was his condemnation of you that made him have to sacrifice himself in the first place also a gift?
Would you condemn someone and then turn around and die for them using an immoral tenet that says that people should profit from the punishment of an innocent person instead of a guilty one?
We violated God's law. Condemnation is the just response. The gift is to save us from our deserved just condemnation.
In context, that refers to a shepherd risking his life for his sheep, not actually dying. A dead shepherd is no use to the sheep.
O come on; analogies and metaphors aren't meant to be stretched to fit reality exactly. This particular dead "shepherd" is of immense use to the "sheep" since He was perfectly sinless and therefore could not die Himself no matter how many people's sins He bore on the cross. He died in our place for our sins, us poor miserable sinful sheep who are destined to Hell, and then rose again to a new form of life which we will inherit through believing on Him.
Seems like a lot of merely distracting ado about nothing to me. He identified Himself with God as the Shepherd of His people and expanded the metaphor to include His own dying as the Good Shepherd. Ringo is just insisting on an irrelevant logical point of his own, or at best holding to the original OT context for no useful reason.
Hone my argument? Against GIA who thinks Jesus was made a sacrifice against His will? The point that He chose to lay down His life ought to be sufficient to answer that without whatever point you are trying to make, which simply eludes me and makes me sleepy.
If I don't accept it (Jesus' sacrifice) I go to Hell
Where do you get this from? What I mean by that is where does it say that if you do not accept that Jesus died for our sins means that you are going to Hell? From a logical standpoint, if Jesus in fact did die for our sins it does not make sense that unbelief in that act would condemn a person to hell - assuming you are saying unbelief is sin and that any sin puts a person in Hell. If unbelief is sin, is that sin not also not accounted for by the sacrifice of Jesus?
The idea is that we are all ALREADY condemned to Hell because of our sins, but salvation is possible through Christ if we accept it. If we don't, we are still condemned to Hell.
These are the most direct quotes I could locate:
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
1 Thessalonians 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
However, if you know the gospel and refuse it you are in a worse position than someone who never heard it; at least if you accepted it and lived it before giving it up:
Hebrews 10:28-29: He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
It's not right of you to misrepresent me, GDR. You know very well that I strenuously disagree with the slanderous statement that I worship the Bible. You, however, since you discard parts of the Bible you don't happen to like, discarding parts of God's own revelation to us -- all of it, every part of it His revelation to us, our only source of knowledge of the things of God-- that means you can only be following a Jesus of your own invention rather than the true Jesus revealed in God's word. Jesus was and is God incarnate and He knew He would die and He knew why, because it was determined at the foundation of the world, and He was there, and He did die, bearing the sins of those who believe on Him so that we do not have to bear the eternal punishment they deserve.
I do find it odd that two devout believers in the same book can disagree so strongly about what it means. Given that this is supposed to be the most important story ever told and to be the actual word of God, how come it wasn't written in a way that Is impossible to disagree about?
Um, it's human fallibility, not the book, that is at fault in this regard. GDR simply doesn't like parts of the Bible, that's GDR's, not the Bible's fault. But in general, the very idea of any writing that couldn't be disagreed about in this world is pretty funny really.
It supposedly had a purpose - to save us - and it was so important to God that He sent he son to give us this Word so how come it's such tosh that anyone can make anything they like up about it?
That same Bible tells us we're fallen, sin-prone, not hard to see how such a creature would be willing to change things around to suit himself, even God's own word. Once you've decided to ignore parts of the Bible you can't very well claim to be committed to it as God's word.
Of course neither GDR nor Faith are making up their own stories, they're simply regurgitating stories about the bible that have been refined for centuries by various apologists and have chosen their preferred interpretations. But both apparently have them confirmed by God himself through prayer.
Well, GDR's reading comes from a very liberal recent line of thought, in fact one particular theologian he happens to like, Somebody Wright. I can of course say I stick to the traditionalists who go back first to the Reformation and then by a more circuitous route (due to the corruptions of Roman Catholicism) to the Apostles, which to my mind has more validity than the thought of a recent revisionist, but nothing I say is going to convince anyone who has a mind not to be convinced.
An disinterested observer of all this would be asking himself how they can reconcile these things.
A truly disinterested observer would have to study the situation in great depth to have any chance of getting it right, but outsiders are usually content with superficial impressions.
First, it is not right to characterize my beliefs according to your opinion without noting that I see it completely differently.
I know you disagree Faith but the most obvious example is the fact that you can reconcile the belief that Jesus taught that we are to love our enemy, turn the other cheek and that our weapon against evil is love with the idea that Yahweh commanded genocide and public stoning for petty offences such as pick up firewood on the Sabbath. Those positions are irreconcilable.
This is completely wrong. You misread the Bible. The OT also wants us to be kind to our fellow man. You simply refuse to accept that God Himself has the right to JUDGE SIN. He uses nations for that purpose sometimes, and He used His own nation for that purpose sometimes, but He also used foreign nations to punish His own nation. People who understand the Bible also believe that the Civil War was God's judgment on America for slavery, and many other examples could be suggested. What you call "genocide" is God's judgment of a whole nation for their collective sins, which had accumulated over hundreds of years. We are supposed to understand this as a revelation of judgment to come, and of Hell. Without these realities there would have been no reason for Jesus to die for us.
If you had any respect to God's word you wouldn't trivialize anything in it as you do. Picking up firewood on the Sabbath was a terrible violation of God's command that no work is to be done on the Sabbath. Picking up firewood on the Sabbath is an act of faithlessness toward God who promised to take care of the people through the Sabbath without their resorting to fleshly means. He also promised to preserve the manna through the Sabbath. Such an act of disbelief corrupts the entire meaning of the Sabbath, which is a picture of the rest believers look forward to through Christ. Not to punish this act of faithlessness would corrupt all the people's trust in God's commands.
You put your faith in the Bible ahead of your faith in Jesus.