The Biggest LIE that The Devil ever tricked people into believing: "God is The Destroyer"

a reply to: jmdewey60

I didnt leave you "hanging". You failed to present any logical evidence for your distorted doctrine.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I didnt leave you "hanging". You failed to present any logical evidence for your distorted doctrine.

What you are calling my "distorted doctrine" is just questioning your doctrine that Jesus was (literally) like an animal sacrifice.

What you consider to be proof is nothing but very wide interpretations based on inaccurate readings of scripture with no regard to context.

I whole heartedly and totally agree with your comment, with one minor exception

believer priest is right and you are wrong.

I bet you have heard that in relation your theology often.

God bless you MR Dewey

a reply to: borntowatch

believer priest is right and you are wrong.

About what?
And I don't have a "theology".
I'm just reading the Bible for what it says, instead of trying to bend it to fit a theology, which is these salvation theories.
Like I said earlier,

the righteous are saved and the sinners are lost,

that is what the Bible says, and all these theories are meant to circumvent that reality, and it has to go against what the Bible actually teaches.

a reply to: jmdewey60

I'm just reading the Bible for what it says, instead of trying to bend it to fit a theology...

Now that is hilarious. Seriously, you should look into stand-up comedy.

I dont think I have seen you take one single passage within its literal context. You always make up some loose fitting "symbolic" excuse.

You are the Theology Theorist here.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I dont think I have seen you take one single passage within its literal context. You always make up some loose fitting "symbolic" excuse.

If something was written to be understood metaphorically, then they should be read that way.
Trying to read them as being meant literally is a misinterpretation.
Interpreting something correctly is not theorizing.
It's using your thinking process, which is how you truly understand something, not like turning off your mind and acting like a sponge, such as when watching TV with inane programming.

a reply to: jmdewey60

The key words were "literal context". You seem to have a problem with keeping the bible in context. For example, the phrase, "Lamb of God" is clearly defined by Old Testament context to mean that Jesus was our sacrificial atonement for sin. You dont like the context, so you create your own. This all stems from your anti-semitic bias against the OT Law. YOU CAN NOT SEPARATE JESUS' MINISTRY FROM THE FULFILLMENT OF OLD TESTAMENT LAW. If you do that, you ignore the context, and the end result is a convoluted theory.

Sometimes there just isnt any room for alternate interpretation. Sometimes the bible is just painfully obvious.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

the phrase, "Lamb of God" is clearly defined by Old Testament context to mean that Jesus was our sacrificial atonement for sin.

The phrase, "Lamb of God" in the Bible only appears coming from John the Baptist.
So there is no "literal context" of sacrifice.
If you look at the context of the Greek word that John the Baptist uses, it matches the Greek word in the Septuagint for the Suffering Servant story in Isaiah 53, where it says "like a sheep dumb before its shearers", which Jesus fulfilled when he was on trial.
The phrase, "sacrificial atonement" doesn't come up in a Bible word search.
The Old Testament in Leviticus describes killing a goat (or lamb, if a goat is not available) in order to burn its fat on the fire of the altar in order to create a savory aroma in which then the priest could make atonement.
So there really isn't anything which is an "atoning sacrifice", but a sacrifice in the process of the priestly work of atonement.
Now I realize that there is often the translation "atoning sacrifice" in Romans 3:25, but it doesn't really fit, for the reason just stated, and also there is the fact that it says that it was presented by God, which makes no sense if it is supposed to be a OT type sacrifice.
The Greek word where this phrase comes from, is hilastērion, which is the same word used in the Septuagint for the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant.
This was the conclusion of Martin Luther, that this is what Paul meant, that Jesus was "set forth" as the Mercy Seat by God, which would be the new place where we meet God, replacing the old symbols with the reality that they represented.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

YOU CAN NOT SEPARATE JESUS' MINISTRY FROM THE FULFILLMENT OF OLD TESTAMENT LAW.

OK, let's be literal.
What law says that a human is killed to atone for someone else's sins?
Doesn't the Old Testament expressly say exactly the opposite?
Psalm 49:7
No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them--

Deuteronomy 24:16
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.

This all stems from your anti-semitic bias against the OT Law.

That's pure slander.

Sometimes there just isnt any room for alternate interpretation. Sometimes the bible is just painfully obvious.

There is, and I just gave it to you, and for not the first time.
It may seem obvious to you but you have been cult brain washed.

IN SHORT... The Bible is clear, and it is consistent: one person cannot die for the sins of another. In other words, the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the punishment given to another. In Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks Gd to punish him for the sin committed by the people in regards to the Golden Calf. Gd tells Moses that the person who committed the sin is the one who must receive the punishment.
www.whatjewsbelieve.org...

a reply to: jmdewey60

Right, Jesus was set forth on the mercy seat, where the "Blood of the Lamb" was sprinkled. This was done, because Jesus atoned for our sins. The word "hilasterion" literally means propitiation. This is how the Helenistic Greeks used the word. Sprinkling blood of an acceptable sacrifice on the mercy seat implies propitiation. So, setting Jesus on the mercy seat implies that He was an acceptable sacrifice for the permanent atonement of sin.

You can read all about propitiation here:
www.evidenceunseen.com...

Click on the link and educate yourself.

We have had this conversation before, and each time, the Word of God has proven you absolutely wrong.

Look, there is no getting around it. Jesus paid for our sins. If you do not believe that, then you are not going to heaven. That's the simple truth. That is what the Bible teaches.

There is NO debate to be had over this issue. You either believe what is written in scripture or you dont. Substituting your own reality for scripture is NOT Christianity, its cult theology. The bible doesnt teach it, and neither did Jesus.

You really should wake up, time is running out. You'll see soon enough.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Right, Jesus was set forth on the mercy seat, where the "Blood of the Lamb" was sprinkled.

What in the world!!
Jesus is the Mercy Seat.
It does not say that he was put on it.
Your reference to sprinkling is a description of what the High Priest did, in the Book of Hebrews.
The writer was making an analogy of what Jesus did, being killed, then later going to Heaven to meet God, with what the High Priest did on the Day of Atonement.
The High Priest was never offered himself, but he would bring the blood of a bull to sprinkle befor him as he approached the ark to sort of ward off reactions to any unknown sin that might be in him.
The writer of Hebrews was saying that Jesus metaphorically had something better than the blood of a bull.
Literally, his blood was all over Jerusalem, from the house of the priests to the courtyard of Pilate, through the streets, out the gate and to Galgotha.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

This was done, because Jesus atoned for our sins.

"Atone" just means to make right, smoothing things over, fixing injured relationships.
The breakup was mankind pulling away from God, and to fix that, God sent Jesus to draw man back to God.
It isn't paying for anything.
It is God reaching out to man, not the other way around.
We cannot offer Jesus to God.
So none of this matches up with killing goats in the Old Testament.

The word "hilasterion" literally means propitiation. This is how the Helenistic Greeks used the word.

Paul was not Greek. He was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin.
Like I already said, the Jews, in the Greek version of the Old Testament, used it to mean the Mercy Seat.
Propitiation means conciliation.

Sprinkling blood of an acceptable sacrifice on the mercy seat implies propitiation.

I already explained why propitiation doesn't fit in Romans 3:25.
The ceremony that the High Priest performed was done to fix the tabernacle itself because of all the sacrificing that had been done over the course of the year, so the analogy in Hebrews is not perfect, as is the case with most analogies, which serve a narrow purpose for a point.
The main point that the writer of Hebrews was making was that we have a better thing with Christianity and Jesus, than the Jews had with their temple.

We have had this conversation before, and each time, the Word of God has proven you absolutely wrong.

Each time your arguments get weaker and the less Bible verses there are.

Look, there is no getting around it. Jesus paid for our sins. If you do not believe that, then you are not going to heaven. That's the simple truth. That is what the Bible teaches.

It teaches none of that.
So far you have demonstrated that it does.
You have to really torture the verses to make it say that, by taking verse fragments from disparate places in the Bible and splicing them together to create a whole new verse.

There is NO debate to be had over this issue. You either believe what is written in scripture or you dont.

Go right ahead and quote that verse that says that.
Of course you never will because there isn't any.
The whole idea is very strange to the Bible and comes from Augustine who was a trained pagan priest before being recruited by the church.

Substituting your own reality for scripture is NOT Christianity, its cult theology.

It is hardly "cult" but comes from the most mainstream Christian commentaries I can get my hands on.

The bible doesnt teach it, and neither did Jesus.

Righteousness?
Seriously, you are telling me that the Bible does not teach righteousness?

You really should wake up, time is running out. You'll see soon enough.

Oooooh!

a reply to: jmdewey60

So far you have demonstrated that it does.

I just noticed a typo.
I shouldn't have been typing at 3:00 AM, probably, but I wanted to say that BELIEVERpriest had not so far demonstrated that his theory is valid.
That is the theory that sins have to be somehow paid for.
Not only can no scriptural evidence be found for that in the New Testament, but you can not show that there was such a principle in the Old Testament.
Sacrifices are not described in terms of being a payment, at least not to some demanding cosmic entity keeping a ledger sheet to balance the karma of the universe (though there was built into it a payment to the priests for their services).
Like I mentioned, these were pagan ideas that were introduced into the church by a priest who had served previously in the pagan temple.

a reply to: jmdewey60

The sprinkling of Lambs Blood on the Mercy Seat was propitiation. The sacrifice had to be acceptable to atone for sins.

Numbers chapter 3 illustrates the idea of redemption via sacrifice and payment.

Again the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Now, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the sons of Israel instead of every firstborn, the first issue of the womb among the sons of Israel. So the Levites shall be Mine. 13 “For all the firstborn are Mine; on the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, from man to beast. They shall be Mine; I am the LORD.”

God sanctified the first born of Israel to Himself (the same way the Church is sanctified). Because they were sanctified, God required that they be redeemed by blood sacrifice and ransom.

44 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 45 “Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the sons of Israel and the cattle of the Levites. And the Levites shall be Mine; I am the LORD. 46 “For the ransom of the 273 of the firstborn of the sons of Israel who are in excess beyond the Levites, 47 you shall take five shekels apiece, per head; you shall take them in terms of the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), 48 and give the money, the ransom of those who are in excess among them, to Aaron and to his sons.”

Human sacrifice was prohibited by the Law because: 1) Involuntary sacrifice is murder. 2) Humans are unclean as sinners.

Jesus was sinless and willingly went to the cross.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The sprinkling of Lambs Blood on the Mercy Seat was propitiation. The sacrifice had to be acceptable to atone for sins.

Leviticus 16 seems to be the place to find the description of what went on during the Day of Atonement.
There's no lamb's blood involved.
Bull's blood goes before the Mercy Seat.
That takes care of himself (the High Priest).
Next is some of the blood from one of the two goats.
That atones for the physical structure itself and its furnishings.
The sin of the people is taken away by the scapegoat into the wilderness.

Numbers chapter 3 illustrates the idea of redemption via sacrifice and payment.

It says that instead of taking the first born of all women, The Lord changed it to taking the Levites.

God sanctified the first born of Israel to Himself (the same way the Church is sanctified). Because they were sanctified, God required that they be redeemed by blood sacrifice and ransom.

It's talking about silver shekels.
What it looks like to me is that The Lord went to kill all the firstborn in Egypt, but didn't, for the Israelites, so they owed Him for all the living firstborn.
Except The Lord was willing to make a deal, to just take ownership of the one tribe, as long as it was even, if not, it would be made up for with money.
So the direct payment was giving up the one tribe, with the money being ancillary.

Human sacrifice was prohibited by the Law because: 1) Involuntary sacrifice is murder. 2) Humans are unclean as sinners.

Jesus was sinless and willingly went to the cross.

Moses was willing to trade his life for The Lord sparing the Israelites.
Jesus was "unclean" (by the manner of his execution) per Paul in Galatians.

a reply to: jmdewey60

No. You just dont get it. The shekels were a ransom payment. Egypt represented the bondage of sin. Israel was not set free until the lamb was slain on Passover night (forshadowing the cross). Then when Israel was set free, the first born were to be redeemed from sin (Egypt) by atonement and ransom. This is a picture of what Jesus paid for.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

No. You just dont get it. The shekels were a ransom payment. Egypt represented the bondage of sin. Israel was not set free until the lamb was slain on Passover night (forshadowing the cross). Then when Israel was set free, the first born were to be redeemed from sin (Egypt) by atonement and ransom. This is a picture of what Jesus paid for.

I get that people may think that.
When I was looking at the verses, on biblehub, they have commentaries in the public domain below them, and there was an explanation very similar to what you are saying here.
I don't see any sort of direct connection between this division of ownership with the concept of atonement.
You can imagine some connection but it is unsubstantiated in terms of these historical accounts of what happened concerning Moses and the Israelites.
The shekels was a way to even out the contribution of the individual tribes towards setting up a priesthood for Israel.