Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2013 14:43:09 GMT -5
Just wondering, Some time ago, I noticed a discussion of whether or not Jesus actually died for our sins. Took our place and so forth. I was surprised at a number of individuals whom I've felt are deep abiding Christians felt that no, he didn't actually die the death of our sins. God raised him up again as we sing. Yikes! it's sort of like "He died for our sins!!! All praise and thanksgiving" And then later, Uhhhm, well not exactly. Anyway, just was wondering. Any conclusions here, any doubts? Almost seems like all the "doctrine" issues are insignificant compared to this one.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 25, 2013 22:07:43 GMT -5
Just wondering, Some time ago, I noticed a discussion of whether or not Jesus actually died for our sins. Took our place and so forth. I was surprised at a number of individuals whom I've felt are deep abiding Christians felt that no, he didn't actually die the death of our sins. God raised him up again as we sing. Yikes! it's sort of like "He died for our sins!!! All praise and thanksgiving" And then later, Uhhhm, well not exactly. Anyway, just was wondering. Any conclusions here, any doubts? Almost seems like all the "doctrine" issues are insignificant compared to this one. They are. If Jesus didn't die for our sins what did he die for, to amuse atheists?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 25, 2013 22:27:38 GMT -5
Just wondering, Some time ago, I noticed a discussion of whether or not Jesus actually died for our sins. Took our place and so forth. I was surprised at a number of individuals whom I've felt are deep abiding Christians felt that no, he didn't actually die the death of our sins. God raised him up again as we sing. Yikes! it's sort of like "He died for our sins!!! All praise and thanksgiving" And then later, Uhhhm, well not exactly. Anyway, just was wondering. Any conclusions here, any doubts? Almost seems like all the "doctrine" issues are insignificant compared to this one. They are. If Jesus didn't die for our sins what did he die for, to amuse atheists? He was crucified for sedition. That was quite clear. He challenged the positions of the Sanhedrin and the Romans and anyone who did that was crucified. There were many Messiahs crucified for exactly that right around the same time as Jesus was crucified. It was quite common actually.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 25, 2013 23:54:45 GMT -5
Just wondering, Some time ago, I noticed a discussion of whether or not Jesus actually died for our sins. Took our place and so forth. I was surprised at a number of individuals whom I've felt are deep abiding Christians felt that no, he didn't actually die the death of our sins. God raised him up again as we sing. Yikes! it's sort of like "He died for our sins!!! All praise and thanksgiving" And then later, Uhhhm, well not exactly. Anyway, just was wondering. Any conclusions here, any doubts? Almost seems like all the "doctrine" issues are insignificant compared to this one. They are. If Jesus didn't die for our sins what did he die for, to amuse atheists? Lee, why do you think that anyone, atheist or otherwise would be "amused" at someone that is hanged on a cross to die?
Just what kind of crazy ideas do you have about atheists?
We are people who just believe in one less GOD than you do!
What is your reasoning that you paint us as such terrible people?
Your mouth, (or mind) needs a good washing out with soap!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 0:27:00 GMT -5
They are. If Jesus didn't die for our sins what did he die for, to amuse atheists? He was crucified for sedition. That was quite clear. He challenged the positions of the Sanhedrin and the Romans and anyone who did that was crucified. There were many Messiahs crucified for exactly that right around the same time as Jesus was crucified. It was quite common actually. What is sedition?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 0:36:45 GMT -5
They are. If Jesus didn't die for our sins what did he die for, to amuse atheists? Lee, why do you think that anyone, atheist or otherwise would be "amused" at someone that is hanged on a cross to die?
Just what kind of crazy ideas do you have about atheists?
We are people who just believe in one less GOD than you do!
What is your reasoning that you paint us as such terrible people?
Your mouth, (or mind) needs a good washing out with soap!
You are terrible people. You execrate the soul or the living essence (the I of every human being) of any hope of living again in whatever form that may be. More than that you teach that life is a uni-dimensional, non-referential, linear progression .... "Only what happened" as Rational says, without a hint of curiosity over the "What happened?".
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 26, 2013 0:38:17 GMT -5
He was crucified for sedition. That was quite clear. He challenged the positions of the Sanhedrin and the Romans and anyone who did that was crucified. There were many Messiahs crucified for exactly that right around the same time as Jesus was crucified. It was quite common actually. What is sedition? Oh gosh -- is the word too small for your dictionary?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 0:42:59 GMT -5
Define it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 26, 2013 0:45:43 GMT -5
Just wondering, Some time ago, I noticed a discussion of whether or not Jesus actually died for our sins. Took our place and so forth. I was surprised at a number of individuals whom I've felt are deep abiding Christians felt that no, he didn't actually die the death of our sins. God raised him up again as we sing. Yikes! it's sort of like "He died for our sins!!! All praise and thanksgiving" And then later, Uhhhm, well not exactly. Anyway, just was wondering. Any conclusions here, any doubts? Almost seems like all the "doctrine" issues are insignificant compared to this one. That Jesus died to save us from our sins is a development from Greco-Roman influence in early Christian doctrine. It was bolstered in importance by the influence of Saint Augustine's doctrine of original sin, which was not adopted by neither the Eastern Orthodox nor the Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 26, 2013 0:51:20 GMT -5
rebellion against the state. Jesus was accused of rebelling against the Roman government.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 0:58:58 GMT -5
Why is the Roman government a point of reference? Who are they that it should matter that they are defied?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 1:02:13 GMT -5
Just wondering, Some time ago, I noticed a discussion of whether or not Jesus actually died for our sins. Took our place and so forth. I was surprised at a number of individuals whom I've felt are deep abiding Christians felt that no, he didn't actually die the death of our sins. God raised him up again as we sing. Yikes! it's sort of like "He died for our sins!!! All praise and thanksgiving" And then later, Uhhhm, well not exactly. Anyway, just was wondering. Any conclusions here, any doubts? Almost seems like all the "doctrine" issues are insignificant compared to this one. That Jesus died to save us from our sins is a development from Greco-Roman influence in early Christian doctrine. It was bolstered in importance by the influence of Saint Augustine's doctrine of original sin, which was not adopted by neither the Eastern Orthodox nor the Muslims. Just so you know Ettu, those of us who are in the know know that the sacrifices God commanded of the Israelites had nothing to do with Christ: nothing at all. And we know that.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 1:03:27 GMT -5
EO's don't believe in Christ? Come again?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 26, 2013 1:30:55 GMT -5
Lee, why do you think that anyone, atheist or otherwise would be "amused" at someone that is hanged on a cross to die?
Just what kind of crazy ideas do you have about atheists?
We are people who just believe in one less GOD than you do!
What is your reasoning that you paint us as such terrible people?
Your mouth, (or mind) needs a good washing out with soap!
You are terrible people. You execrate the soul or the living essence (the I of every human being) of any hope of living again in whatever form that may be. More than that you teach that life is a uni-dimensional, non-referential, linear progression .... "Only what happened" as Rational says, without a hint of curiosity over the "What happened?". THAT IS BULLsh- !! lee, and you either know it or you are demented. EXECRATE MEANS TO "to declare to be evil or detestable OR to detest utterly" NEITHER OF WHICH atheists DO.
You are constantly accusing the atheists of something that you make up in your own mind & is nothing at all about what we believe!
non-referential is another of your made up words, not found in the dictionary-
So, you make up your own dictionary and your own encyclopedia!
"The Gospel according to Lee"
YOU ARE MAKING YOURSELF INTO A GOD.
I HOPE YOU DON'T FIND ANYONE WHO WILL FALL DOWN AT YOUR FEET AND WORSHIP YOU and your despicable religion that you have created.
1
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 26, 2013 1:31:33 GMT -5
EO's don't believe in Christ? Come again? They don't believe in the doctrine of original sin. That distorts in a manner their concept of the need for Jesus' sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 26, 2013 1:33:10 GMT -5
Why is the Roman government a point of reference? Who are they that it should matter that they are defied? Be someone you defied them in that day and you would soon find out why it mattered!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 26, 2013 1:33:49 GMT -5
Why is the Roman government a point of reference? Who are they that it should matter that they are defied? The Romans ruled Palestine, and Jesus was on the side of the rebels who wanted the Romans booted out.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 26, 2013 1:36:54 GMT -5
Why don't you just look up the definition of the the word in your own made up dictionary, lee?
That way you'll get the "definition" that you like!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 1:38:40 GMT -5
Why is the Roman government a point of reference? Who are they that it should matter that they are defied? The Romans ruled Palestine, and Jesus was on the side of the rebels who wanted the Romans booted out. No he wasn't. His concept of a kingdom, God's Kingdom, involved but transcended this world's immediate kingdoms at once.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 1:40:11 GMT -5
Why don't you just look up the definition of the the word in your own made up dictionary, lee?
That way you'll get the "definition" that you like!
So your definition wasn't created, it is eternal? Dmmichgood, meet God.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 26, 2013 1:43:14 GMT -5
That Jesus died to save us from our sins is a development from Greco-Roman influence in early Christian doctrine. It was bolstered in importance by the influence of Saint Augustine's doctrine of original sin, which was not adopted by neither the Eastern Orthodox nor the Muslims. Just so you know Ettu, those of us who are in the know know that the sacrifices God commanded of the Israelites had nothing to do with Christ: nothing at all. And we know that. ettu, just warning you- lee "knows everything there is to be knowed" a lot like Mr. Toad!
And should he not know it, he fakes it and makes up his own words & his own definitions!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 1:43:39 GMT -5
EO's don't believe in Christ? Come again? They don't believe in the doctrine of original sin. That distorts in a manner their concept of the need for Jesus' sacrifice. Hmmm... but they believe in sin? Sounds like the doctrinal differences between east and west are semantic.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 1:46:19 GMT -5
Just so you know Ettu, those of us who are in the know know that the sacrifices God commanded of the Israelites had nothing to do with Christ: nothing at all. And we know that. ettu, just warning you- lee "knows everything there is to be knowed" a lot like Mr. Toad!
And should he not know it, he fakes it and makes up his own words & his own definitions!
Wow! An atheist who believes there is universal meaning in the universe? Awesome!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 26, 2013 1:50:39 GMT -5
Why don't you just look up the definition of the the word in your own made up dictionary, lee?
That way you'll get the "definition" that you like!
So your definition wasn't created, it is eternal? Dmmichgood, meet God. So, you do think that you are GOD?!!
So I guessed right didn't I? I don't much like that GOD!
He is so swollen with his own importance I'm afraid he will burst and all the pieces of him will fly off into space!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 1:54:29 GMT -5
Thankfully I have many brothers and sisters .... the one and the many united.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 26, 2013 1:57:01 GMT -5
ettu, just warning you- lee "knows everything there is to be knowed" a lot like Mr. Toad!
And should he not know it, he fakes it and makes up his own words & his own definitions!
Wow! An atheist who believes there is universal meaning in the universe? Awesome! You are far from "Awesome" lee! I have words that are better not put on paper that I feel describes you.
Now I have to leave this sandbox where you have fun kicking sand all over everyone.
I've got serious work to do, Bye, bye!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 26, 2013 2:03:12 GMT -5
The Romans ruled Palestine, and Jesus was on the side of the rebels who wanted the Romans booted out. No he wasn't. His concept of a kingdom, God's Kingdom, involved but transcended this world's immediate kingdoms at once. The Romans cared not a whit about Jesus' kingdom of heaven -- he came riding into Jerusalem to the praise of throngs of people (all of whom hated the Romans), he railed on every Jew who kissed up to the Romans, and he caused a riot in the face of high Roman security. You think the Romans thought he was coming in peace?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 26, 2013 2:05:51 GMT -5
They don't believe in the doctrine of original sin. That distorts in a manner their concept of the need for Jesus' sacrifice. Hmmm... but they believe in sin? Sounds like the doctrinal differences between east and west are semantic. I didn't say they don't believe in "sin" -- I said they don't believe in the "doctrine of original sin". That's not a semantic difference, it's a difference in the concept of human nature.
|
|