It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
It's a disaster because the concept is nonsensical. God sets up a rule that requires blood sacrifice. He sends his son to earth and accepts him as a blood sacrifice (instead of just eliminating the sacrifice requirement). It's laughably absurd.
Really, Socrates grasped the seemingly impossible dilemma. Just forgiving without penalty would compromise God's righteousness.
“It may be that the Deity can forgive sins, but I do not see how,” ~ Socrates, BC
Here you are quoting a pagan philosopher to describe Justice according to your own philosophy, instead of using the New Testament to understand how it is we can be saved.
Here you are doing a round-about explanation that I would classify as a blood-for-sins transaction where Jesus is the payee, and God is the recipient of such payment.
This was attacking the OP where he is describing a book he read called "Mousetrails", and the OP is asking why Christians don't talk about the atrocities perpetrated in the name of God in the OT.
Oh that's pretty neat, I don't think it meant that nonsense either.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Oh that's pretty neat, I don't think it meant that nonsense either.
What I am quoting above, in this post, is what you just wrote last night.
This was your response to my post yesterday where I said:
"I don't think it meant sanctioning genocide to kill innocent women and children for idolatry to a city or national god who did not happen to go by the name, YHWH."
What I was talking about here was a comment you made months ago, on page 1 of this thread to Nammu.
To quote him:
"Seems to me its all a huge excuse for the ancient Israeli's murdering, raping and enslaving anyone that believed differently to them. "
So this shows to me that you do believe exactly as I described, where I am saying what I do not think the verse in Genesis (that you gave to Nammu to explain why people do the killing for God, instead of God doing the killing Himself) is giving sanction to. So either you have repented of your earlier belief or you did not bother to look at your own post I was commenting on and were just making random remarks to disagree with whatever I said.
There are no "innocent" people in the Bible other than Jesus and the holy angels.
Job disagrees.
Are you saying that you have a special knowledge of how God views people that comes from someplace other than the Bible?
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60
Job disagrees.
Sorry, I should have clarified. There are none "innocent" from God's perspective other than Christ and the holy angels. We humans tend to judge on a curve.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Are you saying that you have a special knowledge of how God views people that comes from someplace other than the Bible?
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60
Job disagrees.
Sorry, I should have clarified. There are none "innocent" from God's perspective other than Christ and the holy angels. We humans tend to judge on a curve.
Are you now greater than all the Prophets who have gone before and the Apostles, and The Lord's anointed including David and Solomon and Jesus himself?edit on 19-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
Common sense. Sin passed to all mankind through Adam. That was the reason for the virgin birth. If we all have son then none of us are innocent from God's perspective. He compares us to Christ. We humans grade on a curve, we compare each other to each other.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Common sense. Sin passed to all mankind through Adam. That was the reason for the virgin birth. If we all have son then none of us are innocent from God's perspective. He compares us to Christ. We humans grade on a curve, we compare each other to each other.
So what makes sense to you trumps the word?
Regardless of the circumstance surrounding his conception, Jesus was still by lineage a son of Eve. Jesus was a human being. Are you saying The Messiah did not come in the flesh?
In Genesis it gives a justification for the flood by saying that all the people did nothing but evil all the time. The idea is that there were some especially bad people and the ones who replaced them, after the flood, would not be as bad. What you are doing is removing that justification by claiming that we are the same as those people The Lord killed in the flood.edit on 19-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
No, you have the cause and effect backwards. I believe its common sense BECAUSE OF the Word. It says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The only sinless person in the Bible is Jesus.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 1nOne
Where do you get this Yeshua name?
Is that in the Nag Hammadi Library.
Maybe you are discounting the Greek New Testament that calls Christ by his given name, Jesus.
Jesus said he was the I Am, meaning the one who carries on this planet the name of God.
Jesus is the new YHWH, based on that title, but not the same person as who had that title earlier.
Jesus came from Heaven, Not: wandering the earth striking down nations.
That was someone else.
Jesus said no one has seen the Father.
That excludes the person formerly going by YHWH.edit on 19-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
In Greek (and Latin, and Hebrew and Aramaic) there is no "J" sound.
I suggest re-reading what I said, it appears you've missed a few details.
According to this, then there is no such thing as murder since there is no innocent people according to what you said this morning.
Murder means taking innocent life.