Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 22:00:30 GMT -5
We were told to take up our Cross - and follow him. Note: Take up our Cross is a command. For many decades, Mary, people have asked me what I believe that commandment meant. So, I had to reach a conclusion in my own mind before I could ever try expressing a reply to another. Now, as always, I try perceive what it meant when spoken. May I be forgiven for sharing it unasked with you here?
So, this is the answer in my own mind, smile, others can take it or leave it!
A cross is merely the grain of one piece of wood going across and against the grain of another. Until I die my Lord expects me to live going across the grain of my firstborn nature, rather than with it, excusing every vile bit of behavior I likely might otherwise reveal, until gradually it becomes as a second nature, and much superior to the first.
Have I often failed? Yes. Nonetheless not as often as before!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 19, 2015 1:16:14 GMT -5
Why do you need to be saved from a loving God anyway?
That's something I have never understood. If God is all knowing, all loving, all merciful, all powerful and all forgiving, he wouldn't hurt anyone in the first place. He would never allow anyone to be sent to hell. So all this talk about sinning and needing to have a blood sacrifice to have someone else's sins forgiven doesn't make sense to me at all. And, if Jesus is God, why would he die on the Cross so Christians can be saved from his own wrath when all he had to do was forgive them? There was absolutely no reason for his death for salvation when he had a whole bunch of other options. The only reason is the pagan ritual of blood sacrifice to appease an angry God.
It's very obvious but no one seems to understand that once they've bought into being told they are sinners that can displease God and being sent to hell.
That is a great way to stir up peoples guilt and shame and fear. Lots of control in getting people to fear for their eternal afterlife. Hell isn't a place that has always been believed in. But it sure does the trick to get people to worry about it. The Trinity group have kind of got around that by saying they are saved by grace and it is very easy to see why that particular mindset won. No one like to not be assured of something as critical as a good afterlife. But it was not the belief of the early church and there were lots of Christian groups that definitely didn't believe Jesus was God. That is a Catholic thing that some Protestant denominations carried over into their belief systems. A lot of blood was shed on this particular subject, lots of priests and bishops within the church excommunicated and/or executed to try and get this belief mainstream. As an outsider looking in I wonder how people can't see this? Never bothered to research the history of the early churches possibly? However, when I see groups arguing about who is right and who is wrong I can't help but think, leave each other alone to believe whatever comforts them. That's what religion is all about anyway, believing in something that brings them a sense of security and comfort. From where I'm standing it doesn't matter what religions believe because imo none of it is right anyway, so allow others to believe what they want if it brings them peace of mind. In the end it doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. With all the religions in this world the likelihood of being in the only right one isn't good odds. However, it's important to those who do believe in a God to have some peace of mind that comes from them feeling assured that they have it right. Fighting over doctrine seems like fighting over whether white is black or purple. It's pointless and just causes hard feelings. Right Snow. Once people have bought into being told they are sinners & have bought into that idea of original sin, they seem helpless to think for themselves!
While all the time that belief is only left over from thousands of years of primitive pagan religions repeated over & over again & again! It is like they are caught up in a spider's web of self- deceit!
And what does it accomplish? People arguing over petty points of doctrine! Just as we so often see here.
Yes, indeed, "A lot of blood has been shed," and not all necessarily by Jesus but because of the conflicting ideas about Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 19, 2015 2:29:37 GMT -5
Why do you need to be saved from a loving God anyway?
That's something I have never understood. If God is all knowing, all loving, all merciful, all powerful and all forgiving, he wouldn't hurt anyone in the first place. He would never allow anyone to be sent to hell. So all this talk about sinning and needing to have a blood sacrifice to have someone else's sins forgiven doesn't make sense to me at all. And, if Jesus is God, why would he die on the Cross so Christians can be saved from his own wrath when all he had to do was forgive them? There was absolutely no reason for his death for salvation when he had a whole bunch of other options. The only reason is the pagan ritual of blood sacrifice to appease an angry God.
It's very obvious but no one seems to understand that once they've bought into being told they are sinners that can displease God and being sent to hell.
That is a great way to stir up peoples guilt and shame and fear. Lots of control in getting people to fear for their eternal afterlife. Hell isn't a place that has always been believed in. But it sure does the trick to get people to worry about it. The Trinity group have kind of got around that by saying they are saved by grace and it is very easy to see why that particular mindset won. No one like to not be assured of something as critical as a good afterlife. But it was not the belief of the early church and there were lots of Christian groups that definitely didn't believe Jesus was God. That is a Catholic thing that some Protestant denominations carried over into their belief systems. A lot of blood was shed on this particular subject, lots of priests and bishops within the church excommunicated and/or executed to try and get this belief mainstream. As an outsider looking in I wonder how people can't see this? Never bothered to research the history of the early churches possibly? However, when I see groups arguing about who is right and who is wrong I can't help but think, leave each other alone to believe whatever comforts them. That's what religion is all about anyway, believing in something that brings them a sense of security and comfort. From where I'm standing it doesn't matter what religions believe because imo none of it is right anyway, so allow others to believe what they want if it brings them peace of mind. In the end it doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. With all the religions in this world the likelihood of being in the only right one isn't good odds. However, it's important to those who do believe in a God to have some peace of mind that comes from them feeling assured that they have it right. Fighting over doctrine seems like fighting over whether white is black or purple. It's pointless and just causes hard feelings. Right Snow. Once people have bought into being told they are sinners & have bought into that idea of original sin, they seem helpless to think for themselves!
While all the time that belief is only left over from thousands of years of primitive pagan religions repeated over & over again & again! It is like they are caught up in a spider's web of self- deceit!
And what does it accomplish? People arguing over petty points of doctrine! Just as we so often see here.
Yes, indeed, "A lot of blood has been shed," and not all necessarily by Jesus but because of the conflicting ideas about Jesus.
We're not caught in any web, we're caught in a net, I was caught by the spirit of God in my uncle's heart. When he was sent out to be a fisher of men. I think you'll find that a web is where you are caught and devoured. And many in the hands of Satan are devoured this way, tricked, brought in and trapped covering them in his web of deceit. And they don't even know it. Because his poisonous venom has sedated them and they can't see past his web of lies!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 19, 2015 12:37:28 GMT -5
People have been told they are sinners and they have believed the priests etc. They've been told by these people that God doesn't like sinners. Once you believe you're a sinner then it's pretty easy to get you to do just about anything to save yourself from where they say sinners go. I just don't understand why people believe they are sinners in the first place. That's where my understanding ends and it baffles me others see themselves as sinners. There are thousands of different religions, each one has a different idea of what it takes to be saved, what are actually sins and who God really is, or what God really wants. It's a spiritual buffet there are so many. How do you even begin to choose which one is right? You can't really, so you usually choose the one your culture or parents were familiar with. Then you look at all other religions as wrong with silly beliefs and all the while you believe the one you have chosen is the right one and even though you hold similar beliefs to those other religions, your beliefs are not silly like there's are. It's an interesting psychological processing isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jul 19, 2015 14:13:35 GMT -5
People have been told they are sinners and they have believed the priests etc. They've been told by these people that God doesn't like sinners. Once you believe you're a sinner then it's pretty easy to get you to do just about anything to save yourself from where they say sinners go. I just don't understand why people believe they are sinners in the first place. That's where my understanding ends and it baffles me others see themselves as sinners. There are thousands of different religions, each one has a different idea of what it takes to be saved, what are actually sins and who God really is, or what God really wants. It's a spiritual buffet there are so many. How do you even begin to choose which one is right? You can't really, so you usually choose the one your culture or parents were familiar with. Then you look at all other religions as wrong with silly beliefs and all the while you believe the one you have chosen is the right one and even though you hold similar beliefs to those other religions, your beliefs are not silly like there's are. It's an interesting psychological processing isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 20, 2015 0:41:11 GMT -5
Ratz When the crown of thorns were placed on the head of Jesus he would have begun to bleed. When his hands were pierced with nails and his feet more blood would have been shed. Carrying the cross on his back possibly caused abrasions and cuts. My point is I doubt no blood was shed prior to the piercing in his side. My point is that the term 'blood sacrifice' has a specific meaning and it is not bleeding from superficial lacerations such as one might expect from a thorn or surface abrasions. If you were to fall against a thorn bush would you consider that bleeding a blood sacrifice?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 20, 2015 0:45:24 GMT -5
Please people, don't also commit the fallacy of too few options, black and white, wrong or right. Not how our Lord taught us to live, is it?Actually I believe it is the example provided. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.sounds black and white to me.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jul 20, 2015 3:38:37 GMT -5
Ratz When the crown of thorns were placed on the head of Jesus he would have begun to bleed. When his hands were pierced with nails and his feet more blood would have been shed. Carrying the cross on his back possibly caused abrasions and cuts. My point is I doubt no blood was shed prior to the piercing in his side. My point is that the term 'blood sacrifice' has a specific meaning and it is not bleeding from superficial lacerations such as one might expect from a thorn or surface abrasions. If you were to fall against a thorn bush would you consider that bleeding a blood sacrifice? Do you think that the thorns the beatings were not all apart of the blood letting process. His body was broken and torn then the sword in the side finished off the bleed. Why pick hairs and be so exacting? Why does it bother you? I dont know how much blood is classed as a sacrifice. I thought it meant enough to cause death.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 20, 2015 7:10:12 GMT -5
Do you think that the thorns the beatings were not all apart of the blood letting process. His body was broken and torn then the sword in the side finished off the bleed. The sword in the side was, according to the bible, after death. [/quote]Why pick hairs and be so exacting? [/quote]It is a discussion. I would think it would be important to christians since it is really close to the core of their beliefs. The claim is made it was a blood sacrifice. There are specific requirements for a blood sacrifice. I raised the question of whether or not the death of Jesus met these requirements. Why does raising the question bother you? Me too. And it does not seem that the death of Jesus was from loss of blood.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jul 20, 2015 14:14:38 GMT -5
Do you think that the thorns the beatings were not all apart of the blood letting process. His body was broken and torn then the sword in the side finished off the bleed. The sword in the side was, according to the bible, after death. Why pick hairs and be so exacting? [/quote]It is a discussion. I would think it would be important to christians since it is really close to the core of their beliefs. The claim is made it was a blood sacrifice. There are specific requirements for a blood sacrifice. I raised the question of whether or not the death of Jesus met these requirements. Why does raising the question bother you? Me too. And it does not seem that the death of Jesus was from loss of blood. [/quote] Ratz The question didnt bother me. What bothered me was you trying to put a different take on it. Are you suggesting the bible is incorrect? What seems to have caused his death? Heart attack? Lack of oxygen? (I havent read the whole thread)
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jul 20, 2015 14:28:50 GMT -5
I read a few paragraphs on a site describing the death of christ. I found it very upsetting. Heartrenching. Anyone who loves him and has for a long time would. His death was cruel and extremely painful. Agonising. Personally I feel that for someone anyone to bear what he did for my life. He took on the sin of the world in those hours. I get that non believers dont and cant accept it.
I wont say anything else because it will offend. Il read more later. Need sleep
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 20, 2015 22:13:27 GMT -5
Ratz The question didnt bother me. What bothered me was you trying to put a different take on it. No different take. The Jews have established what the requirements of a blood sacrifice are. The question was - does the death of Jesus meet those requirements? While I am suggesting there are many errors in both the OT and the NT that is not the point. The facts in the bible simply do not support the premise that Jests was the victim of a blood sacrifice. Evidence suggests that people who are crucified die from a lack of oxygen caused by the accumulation of fluids caused by hanging from their arms. The point of breaking the legs of crucified people was to hasten their death by preventing them from pushing themselves up to be able to breath and clear their lungs - death through suffocation. Heart failure is also possible.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 20, 2015 22:21:44 GMT -5
I read a few paragraphs on a site describing the death of christ. I found it very upsetting. Heartrenching. Anyone who loves him and has for a long time would. His death was cruel and extremely painful. Agonising. Personally I feel that for someone anyone to bear what he did for my life. He took on the sin of the world in those hours. I get that non believers dont and cant accept it. I wont say anything else because it will offend. Il read more later. Need sleep There were thousands of people crucified and died the same painful death. Many have been killed on many ways. Did Jesus bear more pain than others? Maybe others took on the sins of the world. Non-believers can accept that the death of Jesus, if it took place as described was as bad as the deaths of many of thousands. If you believe it was a sacrifice - how is the death of the others not a sacrifice as well? If you believe he was god and knew he was going to die and did not prevent it it becomes more of a suicide. If he knew that it was just a short time of suffering and then he would be in heaven then the mental anguish would have been far less than the thousands of mortals that did not have the comfort of knowing the future. There are soldiers that have given their lives to save others. Can you explain how the one death of Jesus was different than the others?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 21, 2015 0:32:04 GMT -5
Ratz The question didnt bother me. What bothered me was you trying to put a different take on it. No different take. The Jews have established what the requirements of a blood sacrifice are. The question was - does the death of Jesus meet those requirements? While I am suggesting there are many errors in both the OT and the NT that is not the point. The facts in the bible simply do not support the premise that Jests was the victim of a blood sacrifice. Evidence suggests that people who are crucified die from a lack of oxygen caused by the accumulation of fluids caused by hanging from their arms. The point of breaking the legs of crucified people was to hasten their death by preventing them from pushing themselves up to be able to breath and clear their lungs - death through suffocation. Heart failure is also possible. Quote: The Jews have established what the requirements of a blood sacrifice are. The question was - does the death of Jesus meet those requirements? My husband was talking about this the other day, he said that the sacrifices in the old testament were clean, they were one clean cut, they were not beaten first. And they were done at the hands of Gods people. Yet Jesus was beaten half to death then crucified by a Satan through the hands of men. So how can Jesus be a sacrifice in these conditions to please God. It's all wrong!
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 21, 2015 6:10:05 GMT -5
Quote: The Jews have established what the requirements of a blood sacrifice are. The question was - does the death of Jesus meet those requirements? My husband was talking about this the other day, he said that the sacrifices in the old testament were clean, they were one clean cut, they were not beaten first. And they were done at the hands of Gods people. Yet Jesus was beaten half to death then crucified by a Satan through the hands of men. So how can Jesus be a sacrifice in these conditions to please God. It's all wrong! A couple of things to think about concerning Jesus' sacrifice God hates human sacrifice (Deut 12:31, 18:10). He detests it. There are a few reasons why Jesus' sacrifice doesn't conflict with God's hatred of human sacrifice. First, Jesus wasn't merely human. If he was only human there is absolutely no way one finite completely human life could atone for sin against an infinite God. It's just impossible - it can't work. The only way it can work is if His sacrifice was an infinite one ie "once-for-all time". That means that only God Himself could atone for the sins of mankind. Only God, being an infinite Being, could pay the penalty owed to Himself. This is simply why God had to become a Man and dwell among men (John 1:14). No other sacrifice would suffice. Jesus is Emmanuel - God with is - and as John put it in John 1 "the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth". Second, God did not sacrifice Jesus. Jesus, as the incarnate God sacrificed Himself. No one forced Him - he willingly did it. He said "I lay down it (my life) of my own accord...I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (John 10:18). The Son of God (as God) sacrificed Himself to God the Father and as a result fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. And unlike the temporary sacrifices, Jesus’ "once-for-all-time" sacrifice was followed by His resurrection. He laid down His life and took it up again - so that those who repent, trust and follow Him have a covering for their sin as long as they don't turn away from Him. He did all of this out of love for the Father and for all those the Father had given Him (John 6:37–40) To fully accept Jesus' sacrifice and what He did at Calvary and then in rising again a Christian has to accept who Jesus is. And even if you can't accept that He is God, I know you accept Him as Son of God and that He is divine and from the beginning (ie not just human and not just a perfect man who did great things). So either way you can arrive at a conclusion of how sin and death were dealt with, how the Father's wrath was extinguished or satisfied or dealt with (whichever term a person prefers!) as Jesus died on the cross. And because of His grace in doing it, we need to love and obey Him as much as we possibly can. It's a pretty significant motivation to follow Him - because we can't save ourselves. But I know you know this.... Hope this helps... Blimey Ross, if I wasn't confused before I am now! I just can't see why God would have to come in flesh and sacrifice himself? It doesn't make sense! And yes God was with us, because Jesus showed Gods holy spirit to the full, he was in the absolute image of God. Because he let Gods spirit to live completely through him and gave up his own life for God. Hebrews 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power Colossians 1 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature The following verses show Jesus and God are separate 1 Timothy 2 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus Acts 10 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him I don't think you and I are going to agree on this, but at least we agree on other things, and we both love God
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 21, 2015 6:59:36 GMT -5
Quote: The Jews have established what the requirements of a blood sacrifice are. The question was - does the death of Jesus meet those requirements? My husband was talking about this the other day, he said that the sacrifices in the old testament were clean, they were one clean cut, they were not beaten first. And they were done at the hands of Gods people. Yet Jesus was beaten half to death then crucified by a Satan through the hands of men. So how can Jesus be a sacrifice in these conditions to please God. It's all wrong! I dislike being in a position when I have to agree with you!
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 21, 2015 7:04:55 GMT -5
Quote: The Jews have established what the requirements of a blood sacrifice are. The question was - does the death of Jesus meet those requirements? My husband was talking about this the other day, he said that the sacrifices in the old testament were clean, they were one clean cut, they were not beaten first. And they were done at the hands of Gods people. Yet Jesus was beaten half to death then crucified by a Satan through the hands of men. So how can Jesus be a sacrifice in these conditions to please God. It's all wrong! I dislike being in a position when I have to agree with you! Thanks very much! I'm glad we agree on something if it makes you feel better, it was my husband that said it not me
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jul 21, 2015 7:54:47 GMT -5
I read a few paragraphs on a site describing the death of christ. I found it very upsetting. Heartrenching. Anyone who loves him and has for a long time would. His death was cruel and extremely painful. Agonising. Personally I feel that for someone anyone to bear what he did for my life. He took on the sin of the world in those hours. I get that non believers dont and cant accept it. I wont say anything else because it will offend. Il read more later. Need sleep There were thousands of people crucified and died the same painful death. Many have been killed on many ways. Did Jesus bear more pain than others? Maybe others took on the sins of the world. Non-believers can accept that the death of Jesus, if it took place as described was as bad as the deaths of many of thousands. If you believe it was a sacrifice - how is the death of the others not a sacrifice as well? If you believe he was god and knew he was going to die and did not prevent it it becomes more of a suicide. If he knew that it was just a short time of suffering and then he would be in heaven then the mental anguish would have been far less than the thousands of mortals that did not have the comfort of knowing the future. There are soldiers that have given their lives to save others. Can you explain how the one death of Jesus was different than the others? In answer to your question to explain the death of Jesus being different to others? My answer is that his birth death resurrection was prophecied. Bible prophecies were fulfilled by the persecution and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. 100 prophecies minimum. Now I know that unbelievers dont accept nor believe in the prohecies nor the prophets however that changes nothing.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 21, 2015 12:28:59 GMT -5
A couple of things to think about concerning Jesus' sacrifice God hates human sacrifice (Deut 12:31, 18:10). He detests it. There are a few reasons why Jesus' sacrifice doesn't conflict with God's hatred of human sacrifice. First, Jesus wasn't merely human. If he was only human there is absolutely no way one finite completely human life could atone for sin against an infinite God. It's just impossible - it can't work. The only way it can work is if His sacrifice was an infinite one ie "once-for-all time". That means that only God Himself could atone for the sins of mankind. Only God, being an infinite Being, could pay the penalty owed to Himself. This is simply why God had to become a Man and dwell among men (John 1:14). No other sacrifice would suffice. Jesus is Emmanuel - God with is - and as John put it in John 1 "the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth". Second, God did not sacrifice Jesus. Jesus, as the incarnate God sacrificed Himself. No one forced Him - he willingly did it. He said "I lay down it (my life) of my own accord...I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (John 10:18). The Son of God (as God) sacrificed Himself to God the Father and as a result fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. And unlike the temporary sacrifices, Jesus’ "once-for-all-time" sacrifice was followed by His resurrection. He laid down His life and took it up again - so that those who repent, trust and follow Him have a covering for their sin as long as they don't turn away from Him. He did all of this out of love for the Father and for all those the Father had given Him (John 6:37–40) To fully accept Jesus' sacrifice and what He did at Calvary and then in rising again a Christian has to accept who Jesus is. And even if you can't accept that He is God, I know you accept Him as Son of God and that He is divine and from the beginning (ie not just human and not just a perfect man who did great things). So either way you can arrive at a conclusion of how sin and death were dealt with, how the Father's wrath was extinguished or satisfied or dealt with (whichever term a person prefers!) as Jesus died on the cross. And because of His grace in doing it, we need to love and obey Him as much as we possibly can. It's a pretty significant motivation to follow Him - because we can't save ourselves. But I know you know this.... Hope this helps... Blimey Ross, if I wasn't confused before I am now! I just can't see why God would have to come in flesh and sacrifice himself? It doesn't make sense! And yes God was with us, because Jesus showed Gods holy spirit to the full, he was in the absolute image of God. Because he let Gods spirit to live completely through him and gave up his own life for God. Hebrews 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power Colossians 1 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature The following verses show Jesus and God are separate 1 Timothy 2 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus Acts 10 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him I don't think you and I are going to agree on this, but at least we agree on other things, and we both love God For me, nothing about the Trinity, the crucifixion being a sacrifice giving salvation for sins of everyone, makes sense to me. Jesus was found guilty of treason because crucifixion was the penalty for those the Romans thought were a threat. When Jesus went into the temple and messed with the moneychangers, he came to their attention in a way that would challenge them. They got proceeds from the Sanhedrin, temple priests, and anyone messing with them getting money would not make them happy. It was right after that he was crucified. So it was for a very secular reason he died. Jesus saw himself as a savior to the Jewish people to free them from the Romans. He was in the lineage of David and therefore had rights to be King of the Jews. When his life was taken by the Romans, it ended any mission he might have had and we hear how his apostles just went home after the event. So those who wanted to keep the whole thing going were rather clever actually by using Jesus death as a positive instead of a negative. That's why so many Christians today believe he was God, died on the cross to save everyone from their sins etc. But it makes no sense in so many ways. If he was God he had so many options other than crucifixion to save people from himself. After all, if he is God it's him that decides what is sinful and what is not. He is all powerful so he could have done anything he wanted to make things so people didn't go to hell. But because he was killed damage control needed to happen and happen quickly. Jesus was a Jew and in no way believed the Gentiles should be allowed in the religion and that's what his apostles believed too. It was Paul that decided it was okay to bring Gentiles in without the need to be circumcised and adhere to all the Jewish rituals. And, the original apostles and Paul were very much at odds over this. Paul won the argument which brought huge changes to the new religion. There were many early Christian groups that never believed in many of the things Christians now believe. The Jewish Christians didn't believe in the virgin birth for one thing and there were quite a few other differences. The religion we see today is very much the handiwork of Paul.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 21, 2015 13:46:35 GMT -5
Ross, can you provide reference(s) for this? The one verse in Psalms doesn't do it, imo. That referred to a (necessarily) sinful man, not the perfect Son of God.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 21, 2015 20:27:16 GMT -5
Ross, I have been through all the relevant scripture for the Trinity doctrine. That's not what I was referring to. It's the 2 statements above that I don't see foundation for.
If Jesus' sacrifice was acceptable to God, no argument there, how was it that he could not have been a sinless, perfect offering as a man? It seems Jesus often alluded to the premise that he did the Father's will ALWAYS and not his own.
If God could pay the penalty, why not from heaven? Why did a man have to live on earth to pay it?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 22, 2015 2:04:10 GMT -5
Ross, I have been through all the relevant scripture for the Trinity doctrine. That's not what I was referring to. It's the 2 statements above that I don't see foundation for. If Jesus' sacrifice was acceptable to God, no argument there, how was it that he could not have been a sinless, perfect offering as a man? It seems Jesus often alluded to the premise that he did the Father's will ALWAYS and not his own. If God could pay the penalty, why not from heaven? Why did a man have to live on earth to pay it? Emy, Emy, "you are careful and troubled about many things". (Answer given to my mother to put an end to her questions. )
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 22, 2015 3:35:38 GMT -5
Blimey Ross, if I wasn't confused before I am now! I just can't see why God would have to come in flesh and sacrifice himself? It doesn't make sense! And yes God was with us, because Jesus showed Gods holy spirit to the full, he was in the absolute image of God. Because he let Gods spirit to live completely through him and gave up his own life for God. Hebrews 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power Colossians 1 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature The following verses show Jesus and God are separate 1 Timothy 2 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus Acts 10 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him I don't think you and I are going to agree on this, but at least we agree on other things, and we both love God For me, nothing about the Trinity, the crucifixion being a sacrifice giving salvation for sins of everyone, makes sense to me. Jesus was found guilty of treason because crucifixion was the penalty for those the Romans thought were a threat. When Jesus went into the temple and messed with the moneychangers, he came to their attention in a way that would challenge them. They got proceeds from the Sanhedrin, temple priests, and anyone messing with them getting money would not make them happy. It was right after that he was crucified. So it was for a very secular reason he died. Jesus saw himself as a savior to the Jewish people to free them from the Romans. He was in the lineage of David and therefore had rights to be King of the Jews. When his life was taken by the Romans, it ended any mission he might have had and we hear how his apostles just went home after the event. So those who wanted to keep the whole thing going were rather clever actually by using Jesus death as a positive instead of a negative. That's why so many Christians today believe he was God, died on the cross to save everyone from their sins etc. But it makes no sense in so many ways. If he was God he had so many options other than crucifixion to save people from himself. After all, if he is God it's him that decides what is sinful and what is not. He is all powerful so he could have done anything he wanted to make things so people didn't go to hell. But because he was killed damage control needed to happen and happen quickly. Jesus was a Jew and in no way believed the Gentiles should be allowed in the religion and that's what his apostles believed too. It was Paul that decided it was okay to bring Gentiles in without the need to be circumcised and adhere to all the Jewish rituals. And, the original apostles and Paul were very much at odds over this. Paul won the argument which brought huge changes to the new religion. There were many early Christian groups that never believed in many of the things Christians now believe. The Jewish Christians didn't believe in the virgin birth for one thing and there were quite a few other differences. The religion we see today is very much the handiwork of Paul. Right.
I think that most all biblical scholars agree that it was Paul that made Jesus into the "Christ."
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 22, 2015 4:31:34 GMT -5
For me, nothing about the Trinity, the crucifixion being a sacrifice giving salvation for sins of everyone, makes sense to me. Jesus was found guilty of treason because crucifixion was the penalty for those the Romans thought were a threat. When Jesus went into the temple and messed with the moneychangers, he came to their attention in a way that would challenge them. They got proceeds from the Sanhedrin, temple priests, and anyone messing with them getting money would not make them happy. It was right after that he was crucified. So it was for a very secular reason he died. Jesus saw himself as a savior to the Jewish people to free them from the Romans. He was in the lineage of David and therefore had rights to be King of the Jews. When his life was taken by the Romans, it ended any mission he might have had and we hear how his apostles just went home after the event. So those who wanted to keep the whole thing going were rather clever actually by using Jesus death as a positive instead of a negative. That's why so many Christians today believe he was God, died on the cross to save everyone from their sins etc. But it makes no sense in so many ways. If he was God he had so many options other than crucifixion to save people from himself. After all, if he is God it's him that decides what is sinful and what is not. He is all powerful so he could have done anything he wanted to make things so people didn't go to hell. But because he was killed damage control needed to happen and happen quickly. Jesus was a Jew and in no way believed the Gentiles should be allowed in the religion and that's what his apostles believed too. It was Paul that decided it was okay to bring Gentiles in without the need to be circumcised and adhere to all the Jewish rituals. And, the original apostles and Paul were very much at odds over this. Paul won the argument which brought huge changes to the new religion. There were many early Christian groups that never believed in many of the things Christians now believe. The Jewish Christians didn't believe in the virgin birth for one thing and there were quite a few other differences. The religion we see today is very much the handiwork of Paul. Right.
I think that most all biblical scholars agree that it was Paul that made Jesus into the "Christ."
Well if that's the case, then I feel that most biblical scholars are wrong, Paul was of God, and you can tell from his teachings that he had the spirit of God in his heart. Anyone with the spirit in their hearts will know this, and they will also see Christ through Paul. And I believe it was God who revealed that Jesus was the Christ to Pauls heart. As he did to Peters. Matthew 16 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven So Jesus was revealed as the Christ to Peter well before Paul came along. So Paul didn't "make" Jesus into the Christ at all! Like those of us who truly believe, we know Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. Not just some good man speaking good things like many seem to believe! And Paul was teaching exactly this, that Jesus is the Christ, and that he is the way, the truth and the life. And Paul showed that the only way to God, is through following Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 22, 2015 6:41:49 GMT -5
Ross, I have been through all the relevant scripture for the Trinity doctrine. That's not what I was referring to. It's the 2 statements above that I don't see foundation for. If Jesus' sacrifice was acceptable to God, no argument there, how was it that he could not have been a sinless, perfect offering as a man? It seems Jesus often alluded to the premise that he did the Father's will ALWAYS and not his own. If God could pay the penalty, why not from heaven? Why did a man have to live on earth to pay it? I'll try to explain it as best I can... (which might not be great Jesus could not have been a sinless, perfect offering as a man - it's impossible. Romans 3:9 - There is no-one righteous, not even one. Romans 3 is clear that it is impossible for any human being that was ever created to be righteous. v23 all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Therefore, by definition Christ can't have just been a man here on earth. In terms of God paying the penalty from heaven .... the plan of God from the beginning that the Messiah would come and rescue people from sin. For the law of God to be completely fulfilled the great Messiah had to come (the last Adam) and be born - one who was from Adam and in the line of Abraham to whom God had made great promises (Genesis 12) which were ultimately only fulfilled in Jesus. God's promises could only fulfilled by a human being entering earth. The law which attempted to deal with sin only made people aware of their sin - it did not offer a permanent solution. The permanent solution was Christ's once for all time sacrifice. He had to die to defeat sin but had to rise again in an eternal demonstration of God's power that sin had been dealt with forever. Why the cross? Many have written on and I'm no expert. But it was part of God's plan that Jesus would die this way (Numbers 21, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22) Dying on a cross was the worst kind of death - unimaginable cruelty - the sin of man at its worst, murder, pain, cruelty. So we have a picture that the absolute worst kind of sin was dealt with and defeated by Jesus when he sacrificed his life on the cross. Only God can deal with sin and completely remove the stain of sin. That's why (and based on many other references) that I believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (together as one God) were working intimately and purposefully together to defeat sin and death eternally. However, I think anyone that believes Jesus is the Son of God, is fully divine and human etc has a good understanding of who Jesus is. As long as people don't think he was a perfect sinless man who showed us how to live - that's selling Jesus well short of who He is. But even though workers in my view sometimes over-emphasise Christ's humanity and there should be more emphasis on His divinity I'm quite comfortable that professing folk generally see Christ as fully divine and fully human and yes there are quite a number who also see him as God (as a few workers do). Hope this helps explain it a bit more... Ross I will read this later, sorry, I'm in the middle of making wedding bouquets for my friends daughter But these are my beliefs. And I can't see anything righteous in the crucifixion. Or anything right in the belief that Jesus is God. But I will read it, thanks
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 22, 2015 13:21:08 GMT -5
Ross, I have been through all the relevant scripture for the Trinity doctrine. That's not what I was referring to. It's the 2 statements above that I don't see foundation for. If Jesus' sacrifice was acceptable to God, no argument there, how was it that he could not have been a sinless, perfect offering as a man? It seems Jesus often alluded to the premise that he did the Father's will ALWAYS and not his own. If God could pay the penalty, why not from heaven? Why did a man have to live on earth to pay it? Emy, Emy, "you are careful and troubled about many things". (Answer given to my mother to put an end to her questions. ) Not troubled at all. My questions are to prod someone else to think about it (usually). No I don't know it all, but God, through the Holy Spirit is doing pretty well teaching me.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 22, 2015 13:53:47 GMT -5
I'll try to explain it as best I can... (which might not be great Jesus could not have been a sinless, perfect offering as a man - it's impossible. Romans 3:9 - There is no-one righteous, not even one. Romans 3 is clear that it is impossible for any human being that was ever created to be righteous. v23 all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Therefore, by definition Christ can't have just been a man here on earth. In terms of God paying the penalty from heaven .... the plan of God from the beginning that the Messiah would come and rescue people from sin. For the law of God to be completely fulfilled the great Messiah had to come (the last Adam) and be born - one who was from Adam and in the line of Abraham to whom God had made great promises (Genesis 12) which were ultimately only fulfilled in Jesus. God's promises could only fulfilled by a human being entering earth. The law which attempted to deal with sin only made people aware of their sin - it did not offer a permanent solution. The permanent solution was Christ's once for all time sacrifice. He had to die to defeat sin but had to rise again in an eternal demonstration of God's power that sin had been dealt with forever. Why the cross? Many have written on and I'm no expert. But it was part of God's plan that Jesus would die this way (Numbers 21, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22) Dying on a cross was the worst kind of death - unimaginable cruelty - the sin of man at its worst, murder, pain, cruelty. So we have a picture that the absolute worst kind of sin was dealt with and defeated by Jesus when he sacrificed his life on the cross. Only God can deal with sin and completely remove the stain of sin. That's why (and based on many other references) that I believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (together as one God) were working intimately and purposefully together to defeat sin and death eternally. However, I think anyone that believes Jesus is the Son of God, is fully divine and human etc has a good understanding of who Jesus is. As long as people don't think he was a perfect sinless man who showed us how to live - that's selling Jesus well short of who He is. But even though workers in my view sometimes over-emphasise Christ's humanity and there should be more emphasis on His divinity I'm quite comfortable that professing folk generally see Christ as fully divine and fully human and yes there are quite a number who also see him as God (as a few workers do). Hope this helps explain it a bit more... Jesus could not have been a sinless, perfect offering as a man - it's impossible. Romans 3:9 - There is no-one righteous, not even one. Romans 3 is clear that it is impossible for any human being that was ever created to be righteous. v23 all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.Here are the rest of the verses. Would they apply to Jesus? And Heb. 4:15 says he was without sin. His sinlessness was just as possibly due to his having the Spirit in full measure (as a man) and being the Son of God (in the flesh) which he did not deny, though HE also focused more on his humanity. God's promises could only fulfilled by a human being entering earth. Support for this statement? As long as people don't think he was a perfect sinless man who showed us how to live - that's selling Jesus well short of who He is.I have never said or thought that he was just a man. (I see how you may have construed that from my other post though.) I do believe his life (showing/teaching humanity how to live) is equally important to his death. "Take up your cross; follow me." I believe he held some special characteristics because he was God's Son, created as man through the work of the Holy Ghost. When you find a place where it says he was God the Son, without ambiguity, I will ask you to check out the places where it says the Father was Jesus' God as well as ours.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 22, 2015 14:07:25 GMT -5
There's endless numerous threads on it, emy, now you want another one !!
|
|