'Mousetrails' and the dark side of the Old Testament

reply to post by NOTurTypical
Jesus died in order to save the world from sin, I understand that.
What I want is where it explains how our own personal individual sins are are forgiven on a one by one basis by Jesus paying for them. This is the claim you made and please point out which one of the verses you just posted is the one dealing with that particular issue.
Here is the quote I took from your earlier post that I was asking about.

He shed His blood so we don't have to for our sins.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I take it you didn't bother to read the verses. Others can.

a sample:

Romans 5:9 "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

Ephesians 1:7 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace."

Colossians 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"

We (Christians) are redeemed through Him and for Him, by His shed blood. Our sins are forgiven. This is basic Christian theology.

Are you not a Christian? What is your faith?

reply to post by NOTurTypical
There is a sort of group redemption going on, I already granted that.
I mean your personal sins, committed as an individual. How does Jesus pay for them, to where we can freely sin and they are all taken care of for us?

reply to post by jmdewey60

How does Jesus pay for them, to where we can freely sin and they are all taken care of for us?

Who said we can "freely sin"? What is your faith?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

I'm not sure I understand the "modern" qualifier.

Christian apologetics started with Paul the Apostle. I'm just assuming that you're not his age ...

In that context, yes, I'm an apologist.

I'm confused: in one of your own threads you declare the bible a steamy pile, and a few days later you declare to be an Apologist? Can you explain that?

Sure, I'd love to.

You most likely have me confused with another member.

No, you are confused. Please explain, because you wrote in another thread:

Secondly, you won't get an argument from me in regards to Religion being a steamy pile, I think it is! And the christian version of Religion being the most moist, and highest pile in the noonday sun. (Check my sig)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Here's the sentence before the other line I quoted from your post.

The entire idea is that the Lord died in OUR place.

Just to see what we are talking about.
What I am commenting on is that you seem to belong to a sect that believes that all you have to do is believe.
You don't have to actually do anything yourself because; 1. Jesus has a perfect life which is substituted for our own in judgement. 2. Jesus died the death that we would die if we had to pay for our sins we committed, so just in case the righteousness was not quite enough, then we have a back-up which is we can have Jesus as a substitute and die instead of us.
That is faulty in my opinion and as evidenced in the verses brought forward in defense of such a doctrine.
It does not support anything of the kind.
Jesus died for the sake of the world where God could call forth those he has chosen, to be free to live a righteous life and to make themselves presentable to enter the kingdom where no evil will be allowed to exist.
The blood of Jesus as explained in the Book of Hebrews was the death he died to initiate and put into affect the New Covenant where God directs us through the Holy Spirit to live in a godly manner.
Jesus sacrificed himself in the creation of an atmosphere in which we could continue to live and to prosper and to not fear death. We do not live in a system where we are continually killing animals to atone for our sins because we are now able to become sinless through the power of God to transform the soul. As we strive forward towards this goal, Jesus stands before the throne presenting himself before God as the representative of who we are and who we will be, so the Earth is not already done away with by a burning fire consuming all unfruitfulness in its path.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Jesus died in order to save the world from sin, I understand that.

He did a pretty poor job.

All that nonsense is just to explain why someone divine got taken out. Hmmm, how do we explain teh death of our God? I know, I know! Lets say he died for mankind in some obscure way!

Is the above more believable than some nonsense about sin and then coming back to life after 3 days? Occam...meet razor.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Here's the sentence before the other line I quoted from your post.

The entire idea is that the Lord died in OUR place.

Just to see what we are talking about.
What I am commenting on is that you seem to belong to a sect that believes that all you have to do is believe.
You don't have to actually do anything yourself because; 1. Jesus has a perfect life which is substituted for our own in judgement. 2. Jesus died the death that we would die if we had to pay for our sins we committed, so just in case the righteousness was not quite enough, then we have a back-up which is we can have Jesus as a substitute and die instead of us.
That is faulty in my opinion and as evidenced in the verses brought forward in defense of such a doctrine.
It does not support anything of the kind.
Jesus died for the sake of the world where God could call forth those he has chosen, to be free to live a righteous life and to make themselves presentable to enter the kingdom where no evil will be allowed to exist.
The blood of Jesus as explained in the Book of Hebrews was the death he died to initiate and put into affect the New Covenant where God directs us through the Holy Spirit to live in a godly manner.
Jesus sacrificed himself in the creation of an atmosphere in which we could continue to live and to prosper and to not fear death. We do not live in a system where we are continually killing animals to atone for our sins because we are now able to become sinless through the power of God to transform the soul. As we strive forward towards this goal, Jesus stands before the throne presenting himself before God as the representative of who we are and who we will be, so the Earth is not already done away with by a burning fire consuming all unfruitfulness in its path.

edit on 18-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Or he just died because a bunch of Jews thought he was a dangerous nutcase and grassed on him to the Romans who happily killed him. If he existed (which is a possibility) his death had no influence on the laws of the physical universe but you Christians can happily continue to make stuff up to justify the death of some obscure Jew thousands of years ago.

reply to post by AllIsOne

I'm confused: in one of your own threads you declare the bible a steamy pile..

Yes, you're quite confused.


I never said the "Bible" was a steamy pile, RELIGION is.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

 

Secondly, you won't get an argument from me in regards to Religion being a steamy pile, I think it is! And the christian version of Religion being the most moist, and highest pile in the noonday sun. (Check my sig)

I then said to "check my sig" where there is a short video explaining the enormous difference between "Religion" and "Redemption".

Jesus Christ was the most anti-"Religious" man to ever walk the Earth.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Interesting you bring up Hebrews JM, Hebrews, along with Romans and Galatians is based upon Habakkuk 2:4, "the just shall live by faith". The core teaching of Christianity since the first century is that we are saved by grace, through faith. That we are not saved BY our works, but we are saved TO our works. Christ says that we were chosen to produce fruit and that our fruit for the kingdom should remain. (John 16:16) We are not saved by what we do or don't do, we're saved by what Jesus has done. That's what "penal substitutionary atonement" is JM. He stood in our stead when God judged sin at Calvary, He became sin for us so that we would become the righteousness of God in Him.

We've already been declared righteous, that's what it means to be "justified". However, justification and "Sanctification" are two entirely different things. Sanctification is a lifelong process of the Holy Spirit's work and conviction in our lives. We're called to live by the Spirit and not our flesh. All who place their trust in Christ's work are justified, He paid the price, the payment was with His innocent shed blood. But that's not the end of the race, that's merely the beginning! We're called to a lifetime of good works for God's glory and our joy. That's why there are rewards to be won or lost when a Christian is judged. Hebrews and Romans are not contradictory, neither is Romans and James. They simply take the same message of the gospel in a different direction. Heck, if they were contradictory they wouldn't be scripture because God is not the author of confusion.

Why are you apparently ashamed to tell me your faith/denomination? It's a simple question.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I started this whole thread because I had a simple question regarding the Old 7 New Testaments which, to any non-indoctrinated person, shows that the so-called 'God' is either not just one 'God' or has a mulitple-personality disorder.

All I've received is absolute rubbish that attempts to explain that it only shows 'God's wrath' or that the people concerned actually deserved their fate......

I think that the people who believe these books are not bad people but, for some reason which is usually upbringing (or indoctrination), they totally believe that this is real and they cannot think outside of their beliefs.

I really don't care what any of you believe and I didn't come here to change your views.

Reading through these replies you have given me is very, very sad because the majority of you have simply attacked me for daring to question the contents of the Old Testament. Just because I dared to do that, I was talked down to, talked to as if I were a child and belittled for simple questions.

I tried not to insult anyone but, to me, you have shown that the majority of you cannot even use your brains anymore. The only way you can think is by your religion...............automatically you think in defence of your religion when, maybe, there is no attack.

Thank you for all your input - it's been interesting..........

Originally posted by JonU2
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I started this whole thread because I had a simple question regarding the Old 7 New Testaments which, to any non-indoctrinated person, shows that the so-called 'God' is either not just one 'God' or has a mulitple-personality disorder.

What 7 New testaments are you talking about? I'm confused. Secondly, that's a false dilemma, there are not two possibilities and we've attempted to show you there is a third possibility.

All I've received is absolute rubbish that attempts to explain that it only shows 'God's wrath' or that the people concerned actually deserved their fate......

We speak from a Biblical worldview. That's how we see the world, from the standpoint of scripture. The Bible says we are all sinners, by nature, by commission and by omission. And it's accurate to not only show that God has wrath against unrighteousness, but He also has mercy, grace, justice, holiness and righteousness.

To look at only His wrath is not the complete picture.

I think that the people who believe these books are not bad people but, for some reason which is usually upbringing (or indoctrination), they totally believe that this is real and they cannot think outside of their beliefs.

What about those of us who were born again late in life?

Reading through these replies you have given me is very, very sad because the majority of you have simply attacked me for daring to question the contents of the Old Testament. Just because I dared to do that, I was talked down to, talked to as if I were a child and belittled for simple questions.

Who "attacked" you? Disagreeing with what you say is one thing, attacking you as a person is another thing. Do you expect starting this thread that no one would disagree with your premises and conclusions?

I tried not to insult anyone but, to me, you have shown that the majority of you cannot even use your brains anymore. The only way you can think is by your religion...............automatically you think in defence of your religion when, maybe, there is no attack.

That's pretty prejudicial. You assume we cannot use our brains because we disagree with what you've laid out in this thread? Start a blog then, you can delete any response that doesn't agree with you.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Apologies, '7' should have been upper-case which is:'&'.............

reply to post by JonU2


Gotcha, if it's your opinion that I was attacking you I apologize. It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable. It wasn't my intention to make you feel attacked, but I had serious issues with your premises, not you as a person.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That's what "penal substitutionary atonement" is JM.

As in the theory of . . ?
The doctrines of men?
There would be no need for a "doctrine" if it was clearly spelled out in the Bible, which it is not.
Giving the theory a name and acting like ". . .Of Course!" is not legitimate back-up for me, sorry.
My suggestion is that when you talk about no judgement and the impossibility of ever not being saved, that you give the disclaimer, "of course you have to understand, this is a theory but one a lot of people endorse, has a name and you can look it up."

reply to post by NOTurTypical
No I am not ashamed and you are using that to deflect from your own religion.
I have said it over and over and the long time posters on this forum know it well and I have done whole threads on it more than once.
I pretty much have my own slant on religion but the church I am actually a member of is the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I don't say that so much because I am not endorsing it, or encouraging others to join it, and am not the best example of one of its adherents. I am fourth generation SDA, meaning my great grandmother, a Prussian immigrant, was SDA, and handed it down to her daughter, and from her to her son, who is my father. So it is kind of in the family like how the Mormon religion is with a lot of Mormons.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

I'm confused: in one of your own threads you declare the bible a steamy pile..

Yes, you're quite confused.


I never said the "Bible" was a steamy pile, RELIGION is.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

 

Secondly, you won't get an argument from me in regards to Religion being a steamy pile, I think it is! And the christian version of Religion being the most moist, and highest pile in the noonday sun. (Check my sig)

I then said to "check my sig" where there is a short video explaining the enormous difference between "Religion" and "Redemption".

Jesus Christ was the most anti-"Religious" man to ever walk the Earth.

edit on 18-7-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

What is the baseline for the Christian religion? Attention: It's a trick question ...

reply to post by JonU2


Your thread was prone to attract fundamentalists from the beginning. You will never have a meaningful discussion with any fundi. They're not here to learn, or even question their own belief.

But I'm sure you knew that ...

reply to post by AllIsOne


Actually no, I only wrote my thread to mirror conversations I had with my convent-schooled, 75 year old mother. I guess I was too naive to think that I could converse on the same level with people who didn't realise that I'm merely curious.

reply to post by JonU2

Why does this God need all these riches? Sounds like a modern-day tyrant to me - maybe he wasn't actually a God after all?

I don't see Jesus defending the God as described in the Old Testament genocidal mode. There is this little odd reference to the Jews by Jesus in John 4 when addressing the Samaritan woman at the well. Not sure how accurate this is, but a quick glance at the old (pre-zionist era) Bible commentaries tell an interesting story. Jesus said to the woman, you do not know what you worship. Seems the Samaritans accepted the Books of the O.T. with all the slaughter and theft of lands and goods, but rejected the Prophets where you can find stories of a better time when all people can live together in Peace.
So Jesus was not endorsing Judaism wholesale but was giving a back-handed complement and meant that neither religion understood God properly and he was there to tell everyone that the real God is all about love and the good things in life.