A Question for all Christians, from a fellow Christian

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

F.Y,I., I quoted FOUR verses telling you that Christ is the "propitiation for our sins", but I suppose four is the new zero huh??

I did not ask if Jesus was anything like that because that was not what you were talking about.
I was asking for verses to support a single concept that you described in two ways.
One way was, "Jesus died in our place to pay for our sins."
The second way was, "Jesus is our substitute."
What you are translating as, propitiation, can mean anything to create a reconciliation between two parties, no matter how you quote a definition.
To repeat myself, if this was the central concept to salvation, don't you think there would be at least one verse in the Bible saying so?
You seem to be avoiding the question by quoting verses that do not say, "substitute", or "die in our place", or "paying for our sins".

Several times in a few threads I've posted numerous verses that say He "died for us" and "for our sins", and that He is a "propitiation" for our sins. A propitiation is a substitute. A substitute is in place of the other. E.g. A sub in football or basketball, is on the court or field in place of the normal stater.

Heck, I even bolded and underlined phrases like "propitiation", "for us" and "for our sins" to make it clear. Apparently you don't read what people actually say.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Several times in a few threads I've posted numerous verses that say He "died for us" and "for our sins", and that He is a "propitiation" for our sins. A propitiation is a substitute. A substitute is in place of the other. E.g. A sub in football or basketball, is on the court or field in place of the normal stater.

Heck, I even bolded and underlined phrases like "propitiation", "for us" and "for our sins" to make it clear. Apparently you don't read what people actually say.

You are just making this all up, again showing your total disregard for the truth, and your willingness to do anything for the sake of your ideology.
How is hilasmos a substitute?
Jesus did not die for himself, I understand that. Jesus died for us. That does not mean he died in our place.
Jesus died for us because, us being sinful, were condemned to death. So, because of that sin, several steps along, Jesus died. That does not mean Jesus died to Pay for sins.
All you have is a philosophy of distorting scripture to put you at your ease.
I finally clicked on your links on your signature and could get through about ten seconds of the video on "religion". Very disgusting and your fake religion fills me with disgust. I would not care except you do so much to promote the lies of the serpent.

I just read the back and forth between you two, and to be perfectly honest, I don't see what you're fighting about. You both agree that Jesus died for our sins...

Originally posted by graphuto
I just read the back and forth between you two, and to be perfectly honest, I don't see what you're fighting about. You both agree that Jesus died for our sins...

I don't think so.
Jesus died because we were sinful.
We needed some sort of change from the way things were.
Apparently there was one rule at the beginning of our life on this planet as a race.
Disobey, then you die, over, and done.
Jesus came to this planet and became one of our race to change that system.
Jesus did not die to succumb to that old system.
Jesus defeated it and gained the right to put a new system in place where we have faith and that guides us through our lives, following the spiritual law into a righteousness of the spiritual kind.

reply to post by jmdewey60

How is hilasmos a substitute?

I'm not sure you can grasp this concept. We deserve to die for our sins we commit. "The wages of sin is death". We are sinners, therefore we deserve death as our "wages". Yet Christ died for our sins. So if Christ died for us, for our sins, that means what?? We are not dying for our sins, duh. If God was appeased with Christ's death and therefore we are not put to death, then Christ's death was substituted for our own death.

What do you think? Are you assuming that Christ died "for us" as some kind of esoteric example of how to die?? "Hilasmos" means "Appeasement", Christ's death appeased God's wrath for our sins, since Christ's death appeased God's wrath we don't need to die for our sins to appease His wrath and justice.

That's a "substitute".

Jesus died because we were sinful.

Really, that's the only reason? Since we are still sinful, just as sinful as our fathers and fore-fathers were, then Christ's death was for nothing? Christ only died because we "were" sinful (past tense???) Then since we are still sinful what did Christ's death accomplish??

You don't see the glaring logic fail in your claim?

Originally posted by graphuto
I just read the back and forth between you two, and to be perfectly honest, I don't see what you're fighting about. You both agree that Jesus died for our sins...

He doesn't believe Christ is an all-sufficient, personal Savior.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by graphuto
I just read the back and forth between you two, and to be perfectly honest, I don't see what you're fighting about. You both agree that Jesus died for our sins...

He doesn't believe Christ is an all-sufficient, personal Savior.

I never said that.
The thing I did say that is close to that is that Jesus does not pay with his blood each time you sin, as if he bleeds another drop or something.

What does any of this have to do with the OP?
Out of courtesy, head to a PM, don't hijack the thread!

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"Hilasmos" means "Appeasement", Christ's death appeased God's wrath for our sins, since Christ's death appeased God's wrath we don't need to die for our sins to appease His wrath and justice.

Seeing how there is not a verse in the New Testament saying that, then this is a bit of philosophy.
In order for philosophy to work, you need to be able to expound on your theme with some rhetoric, otherwise it is but a hollow shell, outwardly resembling true philosophy but having none of its substance.

Really, that's the only reason? Since we are still sinful, just as sinful as our fathers and fore-fathers were, then Christ's death was for nothing? Christ only died because we "were" sinful (past tense???) Then since we are still sinful what did Christ's death accomplish??

You don't see the glaring logic fail in your claim?

This quote from your post was in response to my writing that (to quote my post), "Jesus died because we were sinful." I wrote this as the counter to your claim of Jesus dying FOR our sins. To answer your question, if this is the only reason, my reply would be, Yes. What other reason could there be for Jesus dying? If we were not in a condition of being sinners, Jesus would have had no reason to die.
A follow-up question could have been, What did Jesus accomplish by dying? Your answer is that Jesus appeased the wrath of God to prevent him from smiting us as our just "payment" for our sins. So, to me, you are creating an unjust situation.
What I am presenting is a just situation where the rules of justice are adjusted to accommodate the situation that mankind finds itself in. This is discussed in the New Testament and is called (amazingly enough) the New Covenant (which by the way, is what the words, new testament, mean). According to the New Testament, blood had to be shed in order to establish, institute, and put into practice, this new covenant, which is this adjusted system of justice to deal with this problem of mankind as a group being in a condition of sin.
How this new system works it that it starts with a premise, and that premise is; we are all in the eyes of the old system of Justice, as good as dead because we have all, in one way or another, fallen afoul of its proscriptions and prohibitions.
There is more to this than just an acknowledgement of a truth, but there is provision for rectifying this situation of failure on our parts. The solution is a thing which for lack of a better term, we could call, Faith, which is not just a thing but a concept and a way of life and it is the very power of God through spiritual means to guide a person into a new form of righteousness which is of a spiritual kind, where the enumeration of laws are not in a written form on tablets of stone but on our very flesh, in our hearts.

Originally posted by Awen24
What does any of this have to do with the OP?
Out of courtesy, head to a PM, don't hijack the thread!

Good question.
I had to look back to page two to see how this got started.
It was michaelwpayton who first brought up the subject, giving his fantasy scenario of a judge who sees the sincerity in an accused criminal and makes a deal with him to take the punishment that he deserved, "if he promised to have a new life" or something like that. Crime and punishment theme from, to me, an Old Testament perspective. I mentioned something about it not being New Testament, which with the reference to a new covenant, caused NOTurTYPICAL to launch into attack mode.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by graphuto
I just read the back and forth between you two, and to be perfectly honest, I don't see what you're fighting about. You both agree that Jesus died for our sins...

He doesn't believe Christ is an all-sufficient, personal Savior.

I never said that.
The thing I did say that is close to that is that Jesus does not pay with his blood each time you sin, as if he bleeds another drop or something.

Watch this:

My bad, I assumed you thought He didn't die for us individually. See how easy that is to apologize when you make mistakes like that??

Anyhow, I've never heard anyone say Jesus bleeds every time we sin. Who thinks that? He shed His sinless blood once and for all for the whole world 2,000 years ago. When He was on the cross the sins of us all was laid on Him. No one is claiming He bleeds another drop, or that Christ continues to shed blood for our sins everyday or everytime we sin. Never heard that taught from anyone.

reply to post by jmdewey60


So when Lexicons and Concordances detail that "Propitiation" means "appeasement" it really doesn't mean that? Do we get to pick and choose which definitions we agree with? Is that how it works?

I wrote this as the counter to your claim of Jesus dying FOR our sins.

It's not "my claim" that Jesus died "for our sins". That's what the Bible says:


"But he was wounded for our transgressions (sins); he was crushed for our iniquities (sins); upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed." Isaiah 53:5

"He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification" Romans 4:25

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," 1 Corinthians 15:3

"With it he touched my mouth and said, "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for."" Isaiah 6:7

" We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

"He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?" Romans 8:32

"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." 1 Corinthians 5:17

(Christ has been raised, so we are not still in our sins)

"And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." 2 Corinthians 5:15

"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21



Notice the terms "for us" and "for our sins"?

Originally posted by MitchL61
There is a scripture in the Old Testament, Book of Malachi, chapter 4, verses 5 and 6

5 ¶Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Does anyone know if Elijah has returned, and if so, when and where?

Again. He returned as John the Baptist.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by MitchL61
There is a scripture in the Old Testament, Book of Malachi, chapter 4, verses 5 and 6

5 ¶Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Does anyone know if Elijah has returned, and if so, when and where?

Again. He returned as John the Baptist.

Yes and no. John the Baptist had the spirit and anointing of Elijah, but the prophecies indicate the literal Elijah will return during the Great Tribulation week. He'll be one of the two prophets mentioned in Revelation. There is some disagreement to the identity of the other prophet. Some say Moshe and others say Enoch.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear. Matthew 11:11-15, NIV

The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?" Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. Matthew 17:10-13, NIV

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It's not "my claim" that Jesus died "for our sins". That's what the Bible says:

"But he was wounded for our transgressions (sins); he was crushed for our iniquities (sins); upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed." Isaiah 53:5

"He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification" Romans 4:25

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," 1 Corinthians 15:3

You have only these three verses which say "for our sins".
First of all, it means Jesus died for all the sins of all the people of the world, wholesale so to speak, as in not dying for individual sins.
Second, is that the one verse is the story of the "Suffering Servant " of Isaiah.
There is nothing in the Suffering Servant story about this character taking on sins in order to pay for them. Nor is it about transferring sins from others upon himself. The Suffering Servant story is about a character who takes on the degraded status of a sinner and more specifically, the status of a rebel against his Lord.
The other two verses are from the New Testament but are referencing the Suffering Servant theme from Isaiah, where the one in 1 Corinthians actually spells it out by saying "according to the scriptures" which when the New Testament was written meant the Old Testament, since the New Testament was not yet considered "scripture".
If you look at the word translated as, For, in 1 Corinthians 15:3 the Greek word is, uper. Think of the English word, upper. An example of this concept can be found in Mathew 10:24 "The disciple is not above his master nor the servant above his lord"
Here the word translated as, Above, is this Greek word, uper. So this is referring to the theme of the Suffering Servant story of Isaiah, where the character in the story takes on this appearance of rebellion in order to lift up the status of all of the others who are likewise cast into the lot of the rebels. So Paul in 1 Corinthians is saying that Jesus lifted our being grouped together as this lot who are bound to destruction, and elevating us to where we have a value and are worth saving.
So there is none of this philosophizing in these verse about Jesus paying a sin dept and substituting himself to take the punishment so that we do not have to. There is a difference and it could be that to some people it is too subtle a difference for them to take notice or to comprehend the implications.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Again. He returned as John the Baptist.

I agree, since of course this is right.
There is an agenda to ignore the power of Jesus and what he has accomplished, as if it was meaningless. This is why I go to the trouble to debate this issue of Old Covenant versus New Covenant, because the evil interpretation of it is to make regeneration superfluous and redundant, since this coming Messiah in the sky will instantly transform sinners into non-sinners. This is a cruel trick created by Satan to make people never attempt to become better persons.
Elijah has come, so all this future apocalyptic nonsense is just that, a diversion from what we are tasked to be doing right now.

reply to post by jmdewey60


The "suffering servant" is Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

The "suffering servant" is Jesus Christ.

It's something in Isaiah. That was my point. People can make different things of it and Paul used it to illustrate the concepts to describe what Jesus did.
These are the facts.
If you want to take it as literally being Jesus, that is your interpretation, but there is at least a loose correlation between the person described by Isaiah, and the person described in the Gospels.

wow...there are some strange "christian beliefs" out there....hint, hint, jmdewey60....