Belief Statement - jar

Christ's death is not the symbol, the lamb's blood was the symbol.... I didn't say Christ's death was a symbol - I said His blood was a symbol.

Exactly what I said applies to His blood. The blood of the animal sacrifices was the symbol of the Real Thing, which is the blood shed by Christ for our sins.

That's the only significance it has - a sign of God's protection. Blood has no "saving" power.

See Message 214, particularly Hebrews 9:22: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

Jesus' death did nothing but give us a sign? I call that outlandish extravagant waste to allow Him to die just for a sign if, as you claim, his value to us is in His life alone. Does not compute.

... the OT animal sacrifices of all kinds were foreshadowings of His death in our place. The Old Testament animal sacrifices were a food source for the priests.

Yes they were that too. All that ritual just to feed the priests? You do have a knack for imagining the most extravagant waste. The priestly rituals are incredibly elaborate and the center of their work is the sacrifices for the sins of the people. You sure do have to sacrifice a lot (pun intended) to arrive at your weak scenarios.

Jesus died as perfect Man in our place.... Jesus died because He was a man. All men die, regardless of His death.

Not what scripture says. But I understand that you feel free to make up your own scripture as so many do, since the Bible is the only thing that could possibly contradict you, and once you've disposed of that, as you also feel free to do, might as well invent your own religion, right?

Says there that he died for us, to pay for our sins. Says so in so many words. He died because He lived - His sacrifice was His life, not His death. The "remission" of our sins was a fait accompli, which He came to tell us, and He could only tell us effectively in the form of a man.

Don't suppose you could quote chapter and verse on that, could you?How utterly silly. An AMAZING knack you have for reducing the sublime to the ridiculous.

It's simply ludicrous to suggest that God's Son had to shed His blood to pay His Father to forgive us.

So you don't mind contradicting all those apostles and Jesus Himself, whom I quoted in Message 214? Paul and John and Peter and the author of Hebrews and Jesus Himself? Well, some day maybe you'll have the opportunity to make your case in their hearing.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: The blood of the animal sacrifices was the symbol of the Real Thing, which is the blood shed by Christ for our sins.

You have it backwards. Jesus' blood is only symbolic in that it refers back to the blood on the doorposts that signified God's protection.

Jesus' death did nothing but give us a sign?

No. The purpose of Jesus' death was not to give us a sign. The sign is just a symbolism that can be read into His death.

I call that outlandish extravagant waste to allow Him to die just for a sign if, as you claim, his value to us is in His life alone. Does not compute.

Jesus had to die because He was a man. His death was no more a "waste" than any other man's death. As I said, the "sign" was just a symbol, not a purpose.

All that ritual just to feed the priests?

The sacrifices were to feed the priests. The ritual was to impress the faithful. I don't know why you find that strange. Every other "false" religion did exactly the same thing.

The priestly rituals are incredibly elaborate and the center of their work is the sacrifices for the sins of the people.

The rituals were elaborate and the laws were elaborate to keep the people dependent on the priests.

I understand that you feel free to make up your own scripture as so many do, since the Bible is the only thing that could possibly contradict you, and once you've disposed of that, as you also feel free to do, might as well invent your own religion, right?

I've discussed this before in other threads and I don't recall you being there. If you want to get into what the scriptures really say, instead of your pet dogma, feel free to open a thread on the subject.

So you don't mind contradicting all those apostles and Jesus Himself, whom I quoted in Message 214?

I don't mind contradicting your misinterpretation.

An important consideration in reading the Bible is that one's interpretation should not be nonsensical. The idea of God "paying Himself" with his Son's blood is utterly nonsensical. Therefore, it is necessary to find a better interpretation.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I have no desire to argue out the obvious with you elsewhere. Your understanding of the crucifixion is highly subjective and idiosyncratic, just your personal feeling that the traditional meaning is "utterly nonsensical" and requires adjustment to your own personal taste as to what would make a "better interpretation." So, you refuse to submit to the scriptures or the historic understanding of them, but impose your own will on them. The scriptures I quoted don't require any fancy interpretation to understand.

But we've both had our say here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: The scriptures I quoted don't require any fancy interpretation to understand.

I don't propose a "fancy" interpretation. I propose a simple one: blood symbolizes life. Jesus gave His life to tell us that God forgives our debt. He gave up His life because all men do.

Simple.

you refuse to submit to the scriptures...

Yes, I do. The scriptures must submit to the real world and to sensible interpretation. The map is not the territory.

... or the historic understanding of them...

The historic interpretation that brought us slavery and geocentrism? None of that for me, thanks.

... but impose your own will on them.

No, I just try to make some sense of them. That's something the inerrantists and dogmatists never do.

Edited by Ringo, : spelling

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't propose a "fancy" interpretation. I propose a simple one: blood symbolizes life. Jesus gave His life to tell us that God forgives our debt. He gave up His life because all men do.

That's not what the scriptures say.

He could have TOLD us without dying. Silly idea. He could have spent a long fruitful life preaching the forgiveness of sins if he didn't have to die to pay for them.

Simple.

Aargh, jar is now cloning himself?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: He could have TOLD us without dying.

Of course He could have.

But He chose to become a man. That's why He had to die - not to "pay Himself".

He died because He was a man.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

He died because He was a man.

Sez who? Certainly not scripture. A sinless man is immortal. Not even considering the fact that he is also God, just as a sinless Man he was immortal. Scripture makes it plain that he was sinless and did not have to die at all because he was sinless, but CHOSE to die for our sake.

quote:

---

John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

---

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He could have TOLD us without dying. Silly idea. He could have spent a long fruitful life preaching the forgiveness of sins if he didn't have to die to pay for them.

He did tell us and He could have had a long and productive life teaching us, and He didn't have to die for our sins.

But once born He would have died, either from old age or illness or accident or as happened, the fear of His message.

The idea that GOD needs some kind of payment from us is IMHO ludicrous. What can we possibly give GOD beyond just trying to live a good life? Only GOD can forgive, and it's not some commercial transaction.

There is no price to be paid.

That does not mean there was no sacrifice. GOD becoming Man, frail, subject to illness, knowing sorrow and pain and doubt and temptation, knowing that there is death even if there is a belief in ressurection, not knowing if temptation can be resisted, being misunderstood, hated, feared, all of those things that define MAN, was a Great Sacrifice.

All of those things GOD did, to teach us, to show us, to help us.

Jesus died.

Jesus rose from the dead.

Jesus walked with His friends.

Jesus ascended into heaven.

What greater demonstration of the truth of GOD's message could be imagined?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Lfen writes: I don't even know how Christians decide who is a Christian.

Just writing about this silliness fills me with renewed relief that I'm no longer a Christian.

Gut feeling tells me that there is some sort of illogic going on in there but it is too contorted for me to unravel

But then some Christians here seem to be saying Catholics aren't really Christians.

My own view is that God is the person who makes a person a Christian. And he never unmakes one. Being a Roman Catholic doesn't make you a Christian any more than being anything else does. Nor does being a Roman Catholic stop you from being made a Christian by God.

Denominations have nothing to do with it directly.

A charming religion no doubt, but not Christianity. Not a shred of authority for anything you said, and scripture is completely at odds with all of it.

Just so Im clear on your beliefs, Ringo-----Do You believe that Jesus is alive today?

Also, lets consider a couple of scriptures, (perhaps not in context, but oh well....)

1) Matt 26:39-- Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." There is something about the argument concerning behavior that I have not yet settled. Whose will does and/or should operate in our lives? Our will or Gods will?

2) Phil 2:12-13-- Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed-not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence-continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

I suppose that my point is this: IF

1) We become the decisions that we make....and are responsible for our own decisions, is it possible to allow Gods Spirit....His will...to reside within us and through the communion of our relationship with Him, allow Him to work in us to will and to act? (according to His good purpose) In other words, it is no longer I who live but Christ living through me....

Now, we know that humans are human and that such a scenario is and has been fraught with uncertainty...(hence the idea of a spiritual war of sorts throughout history).

I also know that some of you common sense minded folk consider it ludicrous that Gods Spirit is living and active.

Im not sure what you think, Ringo...but as for me, I believe that most, if not all of my better actions were His Spirit in me working and acting according to His good pleasure. My behavior was top notch only because I had let go of my ego, will, and intellect enough to allow God to get the job done.

jar writes: The idea that GOD needs some kind of payment from us is IMHO ludicrous. What can we possibly give GOD beyond just trying to live a good life?

Perhaps we can give ourselves to Him and let Him and His Spirit be the impetus behind our good behavior! Do you honestly think that He expects us to be apt little pupils who listen atentively and then attempt to behave under the accordance of our own will?

If Christ could and did surrender His will to the Father, perhaps that is the message of His teaching that we also need do.

Do you honestly think that He expects us to be apt little pupils who listen atentively and then attempt to behave under the accordance of our own will?

Where have I said anything like that?

GOD gave us the gift of knowing right from wrong. GOD charged us to try to do right, to try not to do wrong, to be honest with ourselves and when we do screw up, acknowledge it and try to do better in the future.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Phat writes: Just so Im clear on your beliefs, Ringo

Y'know, I don't even like to call them "beliefs". It's not the "I do, I do, I do believe in spooks!" that we hear so often from professing Christians. It's more like a way of looking at things.

Do You believe that Jesus is alive today?

I'm not completely convinced that Jesus was ever alive, but it doesn't matter. If God came down to earth as an incarnation 2000 years ago, then no, that incarnation would not exist today. That's not to say the "Jesus aspect" of God isn't still a part of God, but Jesus is not "alive" today in the biological sense of the word "alive".

Whose will does and/or should operate in our lives? Our will or Gods will?

If God gave us "free will", then it is our will that should operate in our lives. God's commandments are for our benefit, not His. He has no "will" for us, other than that we be happy.

In other words, it is no longer I who live but Christ living through me....

No offense, but I would call that meaningless mumbo-jumbo. God gave us brains and He expects us to use them, not be obedient automatons. Christ lives "through us" in the sense that He was our Teacher and our Example. He was not our autopilot.

I believe that most, if not all of my better actions were His Spirit in me working and acting according to His good pleasure.

quote:

---

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

---

God's spirit is in all of us, from our "creation". The knowledge of good and evil is in all of us. Our better actions are the result of those two features of our "design" - not of a hands-on day-to-day "driver".

Quite frankly, your attitude sounds like an excuse: if we don't "do the right thing", it's because God didn't motivate us. We are responsible for what we do and we are also responsible for what we should do, but don't.

My behavior was top notch only because I had let go of my ego, will, and intellect enough to allow God to get the job done.

I'm glad your behaviour is "top-notch". ;) Some of us only aspire to "adequate".

Why do you think God gave you a will if He wants you to let go of it? Do you think God wants you to let go of your hands or your feet and be His puppet?

Why not try to channel your will in constructive directions instead?

The idea of letting go of your intellect is so horrifying that I'm not even going to go there.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Faith writes: A sinless man is immortal.

Jesus was not immortal. He died.

Scripture makes it plain that he was sinless and did not have to die at all because he was sinless, but CHOSE to die for our sake.

He chose to become mortal for our sake. He chose neither the time nor the means of His death.

quote:

---

John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

---

Laying down one's life means devoting one's life, or even risking one's life, not losing it.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC