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.

 

Christian doctrines vs scripture

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 

I gave you examples of how God's name IS his presence.

Christians call God, God.
The name of God, to Christians, is God's character.
Jesus bore God's name my being a manifestation of God's character, and also Jesus bears God's name in that now the name of God is Jesus.
In the Old Testament, there was an angel who appeared to Moses, who when asked by what name his representation of God should be called, he told him to say that the I AM told him to say the things he is telling them.
Jesus presented himself as the I AM (as did the angel of legend, presenting himself as God, call himself the I AM).
We, as Christians, can say that we believe in God through the name of Jesus, as in earlier times, the Israelites could hypothetically have said they believe in God through the name, YHWH.
There is one name given to us by which we are saved, and that is Jesus (the words of anti-christians notwithstanding).
edit on 30-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



Leviticus is the book where the rule of the law is given.


You mean the rule of law which you believe is impossible for the average person to keep? despite statements in the bible about the law being easy?


There's a ban on drinking blood, which he knows, so he offers up wine... So nobody actually ever drinks blood, and that's still wrong to you?


Jesus uses the words "drink my blood" obviously as a metaphor, because he would have been aware of the ban on blood drinking from Leviticus 17.
Yet christians, who frame their doctrines on "blood" and "sacrifices" imagine a connection between Jesus mentioning "his blood" with OT verses of blood.

You present christianity as a religion of blood and sacrifice and death.
But you cant have it both ways. Christianity cant be both "love" AND at the same time, be based off a theology of original sin + sacrifice + bloodshed. You believe God will never forgive unless he sees blood, despite scripture teaching that God is merciful to the humble and the repentant.

There are verses where God completely rejects blood sacrifice and asks for humility and repentance. But, You christians ignore these verses because it nullifies your claims about Jesus' sin sacrifice.


edit on 30-3-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 





As I said, doctrine dictates God is father and is one, and Jesus is son, along with the Holy Spirit. Both doctrines exist and do not contradict each other for we worship God as one and Father, Jesus as son, and the Holy Spirit as our Comforter. That is what we do with it

First, read the verses that detail Jesus' birth in the gospels...
The angel that spoke to Mary said "thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. "
The angel did not say anything about Jesus being fully God and fully man....who would also be a perfect sacrifice, as christian doctrine fasely teaches.


You obviously don't know Christian doctrine. What does the name "Emmanuel" even mean?
He is God with us and even still, just because Gabriel doesn't tell Mary every little thing doesn't make what He didn't say not true. Christ is more than referenced as the sacrificial lamb, savior of the world, etc etc etc

What's your deal
do you just hate Jesus?


Jesus can't be both the biological "son of Mary" and the "begotten son of God".
God created Jesus directly in the womb of Mary, who carried him and gave birth to him.


Why not if he is? What is impossible for our Father?




Jesus was fully God and fully man. He is our perfect sacrifice from God. You are seeing through very humanistic eyes here instead of seeing our Father's divine efficacy at work for we who are made in his image and likeness.

But the idea of a "perfect sacrifice" itself is faulty doctrine.
The scriptures indicate that Jesus "death" was by a Roman execution, it was not a sacrifice to God...


Jesus allowed himself to be taken and be hung. He sacrificed himself for us. He sacrificed, not we sacrificed.




According to your line of reasoning there would be no reason for God to reject the offering of Cain. I mean, he did pour out his sweat on the ground to till the field bringing God the firstfruits

We do know that Cain did something wrong with his offering. Because when Cain was angry at being rejected, God said "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?"

Nothing is really mentioned about what the "right" thing was... so there's no point using Cain and Abel's sacrifice to support the doctrine of "sin sacrifice".


The wrong thing is mentioned but perhaps knowing what's wrong isn't enough for some to see what is right, no?




but God made clothes of animal skin for adam and eve to cover their nakedness (sin/knowledge of sin). This is why we see Abel's offering as pleasing to God because God required blood sacrifice for sin having had been the first to shed blood


Did God ask Adam and Eve to make a blood sacrifice to atone for sin? NO.
God punished Adam and Eve by making their lives difficult...


Absolution wasn't made by making their lives difficult. And again, just because something isn't written doesn't mean it wasn't so. In genesis does it give a reason for bringing offerings at all? no according to you. So then why bring an offering at all? nothing was ever mentioned so obviously they never really brought sacrifices in the first place and genesis is a lie saying they did bring offerings? right.............
come on, why would Abel not bring a live lamb to God as an offering as opposed to sacrificing a lamb (which is the ultimate theme of the whole work of scripture).


You are drawing imaginary connections to instances of animal slaughter. You seem to think, because theres animal blood here and animal blood there, it must all refer to the same thing. Then you take it one step further and say, theres animals being killed for sin and theres Jesus who was also killed and you conclude that the purpose for Jesus' death was a sin sacrifice. In other words, you have reduced Jesus to a mere sacrificial animal.


Themes are inferred from parallels are they not? Throughout scripture Jesus is referred to the sacrificial lamb of God or is John guilty of anthropomorphism too when He refers to the Lamb's Book of Life or when in John 1:29 we read, "The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"?

Stop already with the eyes of flesh and see with the eyes of your heart, brother. Do you not see how God has been showing us what was to happen even from the very beginning? How from the beginning he has longed to reconciles us through the blood of the lamb?




edit on 30-3-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
If you read the Septuagint version, it explains it more, and it looks like Cain had an attitude, being the oldest, that everything should be automatic for him, so was not careful in how he divided the offering. By The Lord accepting his younger brother's and not his, he took it as if his inheritance was of no account, so he insured his succession by killing his brother.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

(Regarding original sin)

How is it when I provide scripture it is ambiguous and invalid while you can claim recurring biblical themes, presumably based on scripture too, yet you provide none? When has the righteousness of man apart from God ever been anything other than filthy rags before our Father?


Please read the verse about the righteousness of man being "like filthy rags" in proper context. Just the verse before it says about God-

"You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways. But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved?"

Does that sound like God treats people as if they are all sinners by default?

In the next verse, Isaiah is lamenting that the people became corrupt and that their righteousness was tainted like filthy rags. It does not mean that all people are under original sin.

God maintains a distinction between sinners and righteous people, as I mentioned in the OP.
As one example, read through Ezekiel 33:11-19. The idea is that if you will be "righteous" or a sinner" depending on your deeds. God does not club everyone as "sinners" tainted by original sin. Even in the new testament, Zechariah and Elizabeth are considered as "righteous"....
Like I said, its a recurring theme throughout the bible.

The bible shows that God judges people over what they do and that people become "sinners" only with their actions

edit on 29-3-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

God has always judged righteousness by faithfulness to He wants and what He has decided.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

That is from Ephesians, which is not likely written by Paul though it was written to look like he wrote it, or perhaps edited later by a cleric, from an older manuscript that was by someone who was writing along a familiar vein of thought influenced by Paul. The point being, not to take it as authoritative and as a compressed, interpretive view that leaves out all the intermediary steps along the road to final salvation and the passing of God's judgment at the end of each person's life.
edit on 30-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





You present christianity as a religion of blood and sacrifice and death.
But you cant have it both ways. Christianity cant be both "love" AND at the same time, be based off a theology of original sin + sacrifice + bloodshed. You believe God will never forgive unless he sees blood, despite scripture teaching that God is merciful to the humble and the repentant.


Yes, those are elements of the faith. Look, I don't know what kind of believe you subscribe to, but you're not arguing scripture with scripture. You're interpreting the scripture with your own borderline Gnostic beliefs. I'm not going to sit here and explain God to you. I'm actually questioning if you even HAVE read the Bible.

EDIT: Why are you so hung up on the sacrificial concept? Yeshua fulfilled the law. The law in effect now, is simply love.
edit on 30-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 
Again, you are spreading your gospel of the anti-christ in order to subvert Christianity to make it useless, and to coax people to forsake their belief in it.
Ignoring whatever you said, I will present some real Gospel of the real Christ, who is Jesus, the Lord.
Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, which includes the record of the sayings of Moses, who prophesied that there would be one like him, who would come and that The Lord would have him say the words that He wished to be spoken. Jesus said he was in fact that person Moses spoke of.
Jesus never claimed to have come in order to fulfill all the numerous laws that were written out in the books that the Jews of his time held to be in force, in fact he claimed to be exempt from them, in the same way as God is. There were things within those books that Jesus saw as pertaining to his actions as the Messiah, which he was very careful to fulfill.
The idea that the Law that Jesus fulfilled is the law of blood, is what I see as being behind this anti-christ gospel, and is the tool in the hands of those who seek to destroy the Church which Jesus founded.
Jesus said, 'This is my body which is broken for you.'
He was killed at the hands of violent gentiles and was in no way a holy fulfillment of Levitical Law, or any acknowledgement of any sacrificial laws spelled out in the Old Testament. God Himself sacrificed His son to the forces of evil in order to vanquish them. God was not paying tribute to any authority over God who demanded payment from Him.
edit on 31-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


" And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." - Luke 22:20

When the New Covenant was established, the laws changed. Yeshua only said that he had not come to change the Mosaic law or deny it's divine inspiration. He was constantly accused of breaking the law, but there is never one instance of him ignoring the Tanakh or the Mitzvot. He is never mentioned saying he was in accordance of Levitical law or must follow, but there are only mentions of him following the law. Conversely he never says he is exempt, and there are only instances of him following them.

You and sk0rpi0n are so fixated on the concept of blood. Animal sacrifice is a part of the law, but it was not the law. The law is not blood. The symbolic meaning of the blood sacrifice can be seen in Leviticus 17:11.


edit on 31-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 

You and sk0rpi0n are so fixated on the concept of blood.

First of all, you are an anti-christian and don't have any business even discussing Jesus.
In fact you are talking about a fictional character who you made up to substitute in for Jesus.
What I have a "fixation" on is people who take the death of Jesus and try to put it into a Levitical context.
Jesus did not die to appease some blood-thirsty god, apparently the one you worship.
Jesus was accursed, according to the Law, something Paul pointed out.
Despite all that, the real God vindicated him, and through his sharing in our identity, we can share in that same vindication by being united with him, something symbolized in baptism and communion.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 



"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

Those are the words of Paul.
Paul CANNOT counter the words of God in, say Ezekiel 33:11-19... which teaches that you will be "righteous" or a sinner" depending on your deeds.




I'm actually questioning if you even HAVE read the Bible.

I know my way around the bible, thank you very much.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



You and sk0rpi0n are so fixated on the concept of blood. Animal sacrifice is a part of the law, but it was not the law. The law is not blood. The symbolic meaning of the blood sacrifice can be seen in Leviticus 17:11.


Actually, you are the one obsessed with blood and blood rituals....so much so that you turn the execution of an innocent man (Jesus) into a ritual sacrifice to take away YOUR sins, as your doctrine teaches.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

Actually, you are the one obsessed with blood and blood rituals....so much so that you turn the execution of an innocent man (Jesus) into a ritual sacrifice to take away YOUR sins, as your doctrine teaches.

I think you have that wrong.
This is a doctrine being suggested to Christians to adopt, in order to "put Jesus in his place" so as not to have people trampling on his beliefs, which corresponds with Judaism, who hold as their own private possession, Godhood and Messiahship.

edit on 2-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Why are people hung up on levitical laws?

Jesus abolished most of those laws... and gave two laws which encompass ALL of the previous laws given... and destroy many of the levitical laws...

I find it very frustrating that some "christians" don't understand this...

Its also why i made THIS thread...




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


God is beyond any religion, so christians cant claim God to be their own.

God is beyond human comprehension, and cannot be dragged into any religion.




edit on 2-4-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

God is beyond any religion, so christians cant claim God to be their own.

I'm not talking about Christians.
I mean Jews claim the right to God and the Messiah, and resent Christians for appropriating those from them.
People sympathetic to the Jews but hateful towards Christians imagine they can gain points in this world by steering Christians to a belief that strips Jesus of those titles.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

That is from Ephesians, which is not likely written by Paul though it was written to look like he wrote it, or perhaps edited later by a cleric, from an older manuscript that was by someone who was writing along a familiar vein of thought influenced by Paul. The point being, not to take it as authoritative and as a compressed, interpretive view that leaves out all the intermediary steps along the road to final salvation and the passing of God's judgment at the end of each person's life.
edit on 30-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


If salvation was by works there would have been no need for Christ. There would be nothing in the Words in Red about being the forgiver of sin. There would be no parables of the Master showing grace to workers or receiving again the prodigal. Plus much more.

The point being, it is of no regard what flesh put to paper those words in Ephesians 2 because the Spirit of the message, and the truth of the message along with scripture is accurate according even to the Words in Red.

Hear Jesus: "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 



"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

Those are the words of Paul.
Paul CANNOT counter the words of God in, say Ezekiel 33:11-19... which teaches that you will be "righteous" or a sinner" depending on your deeds.




I'm actually questioning if you even HAVE read the Bible.

I know my way around the bible, thank you very much.


You're joking right? Ezekiel 33:12-13: "...the righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression...neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth. When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it."

The law was fulfilled in Christ. We cannot "restore the pledge" (v15) but by faith in Christ who fulfilled the law.

Even still, the direct context of this particular scripture is specifically to Israel in a day before the sacrifice of Christ wherein were the days of being made right through the law of sacrifice (v19).

Jesus did die for our sins: yours and mine and everybody's for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4: 10-12

Do you not see wherein you err, skorpion?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You're a radical. I don't want to waste my time arguing with a radical.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



You and sk0rpi0n are so fixated on the concept of blood. Animal sacrifice is a part of the law, but it was not the law. The law is not blood. The symbolic meaning of the blood sacrifice can be seen in Leviticus 17:11.


Actually, you are the one obsessed with blood and blood rituals....so much so that you turn the execution of an innocent man (Jesus) into a ritual sacrifice to take away YOUR sins, as your doctrine teaches.


Says the person whose ignoring what the Bible actually says



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join