What if Jesus doesn't come back for another 100,000 years?

reply to post by boncho


Unlikely, most of Islam is at odds with western thought and practice. I don't think religion has to be replaced by anything. If that was true then Atheists wouldn't exist.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I am surprised ! I thought that you didn't think that Jesus died for our sins . The shed blood of Jesus is the atonement for sin .The last acceptable sacrifice .

reply to post by SimonPeter

The shed blood of Jesus is the atonement for sin

Jesus suffered because we suffer.
We suffer because of sin.
That is how and why Jesus died for our sins.

What you are promoting is a theory that the Bible does not support,
which is a blood-for-sins payment system.

reply to post by SimonPeter

I am surprised ! I thought that you didn't think that Jesus died for our sins . The shed blood of Jesus is the atonement for sin .The last acceptable sacrifice .

Christian sin sacrifice theology has nothing to do with Jesus status as messiah. You believe in Jesus sin-sacrifice, I don't. It doesn't change Islamic belief in Jesus as messiah.

Also, if its the "last acceptable sacrifice", then why does the Bible teach that animal sacrifices for sin would resume after the new temple is built? There really was no point in Jesus dying for our sins if the plan was to re-introduce animal sacrifices for sins.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

I am surprised ! I thought that you didn't think that Jesus died for our sins . The shed blood of Jesus is the atonement for sin .The last acceptable sacrifice .

Christian sin sacrifice theology has nothing to do with Jesus status as messiah. You believe in Jesus sin-sacrifice, I don't. It doesn't change Islamic belief in Jesus as messiah.

What do you view Jesus as being Messiah of, then? The reason that Jews rejected Jesus is that they saw the Messiah as a political or military figure who would free Israel from their oppressors. In the time of Jesus, that would have been the Romans, and he clearly didn't fulfill that expectation.

Christians accept Christ as Messiah for his spiritual, rather than political, deliverance, but if you don't accept either one, what do you think he is the Messiah of?

reply to post by adjensen

What do you view Jesus as being Messiah of, then?

The Messiah of those who believe in the One who created him.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen

 

What do you view Jesus as being Messiah of, then?

The Messiah of those who believe in the One who created him.

No, not who, but what? What does he do (or what did he do) that qualifies him as the Messiah foretold in the Hebrew Bible?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n
[Well if you read the bible you would realize that the Jews rejected Jesus and they would still sacrifice animals under the old Law . Does that make sense to you ? Jesus the Son of God came down to earth to become that sacrificial lamb for sin once and for all . He completed the mission of God and shed his blood for us . There is no need of any other intermediary , intercessor or third party for the path to God but Jesus . The path to Jesus is direct . There is no need for talking to Mary or Mohammed to reach Jesus .

reply to post by SimonPeter

Jesus the Son of God came down to earth to become that sacrificial lamb for sin once and for all

This may be a personal interpretation of yours but it never actually says that in the New Testament.
Jesus did in a way sacrifice his life for our benefit.
It was because we were suffering under this feeling of condemnation, that he allowed himself to be condemned too, to demonstrate to us that there is still a path to God despite our human frailty.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I suppose you also read Isaiah 53? Jesus was the final sacrifice for sin . Revelations 7 verse 14 These are they that came out of Great Tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb .

He was on a mission for God to offer Grace and Mercy through his shed blood for the propitiation of sin . Now if you want to degrade that act of love from God to something less than the glorious gift to man it was , so be it . But again you have spoken and we have seen into your utter most beliefs yet again . To say the least you remind me of Revelations chapter 3 verse 15 ." I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot : I would thou were wert cold or hot ." 16 " So then because thou art lukewarm , and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

reply to post by SimonPeter

He was on a mission for God to offer Grace and Mercy through his shed blood for the propitiation of sin

What you are doing is taking three different concepts taught in the New Testament and combining them in a single sentence, to support your theory, something which the NT itself does not do.

Now if you want to degrade that act of love from God to something less than the glorious gift to man it was , so be it

I would say that if anyone was degrading it, it would be you, using it for data mining to create your own verses out of, in order to teach something that the Bible does not.

Jesus is our advocate to reconcile us when we sin, that is what 1John 2:1-2 is saying.
Some people like yourself read more into it than that, maybe because they have heard someone preaching a theory of blood being a payment for sins. That cannot be supported from the NT and requires something like what you are doing, presenting what looks like biblical language, but is just made up.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Are you saying that the shed blood of Jesus Christ means nothing ?

Originally posted by EmmortalKorrupta

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by EmmortalKorrupta

Originally posted by Killcomic
reply to post by EmmortalKorrupta

 

Any evidence on that?

I think that history speaks for itself.
Today, we use little to no logic. We have smart phones and the internet to do it for us.

Ahh it was obviously a lot better when we nailed people to a cross for being a bit mental. Or let lions rip them apart for our entertainment.

Logic and reason in biblical times.

lol

We have electric chairs, executions, and the UFC. lol

How is the UFC illogical?

reply to post by SimonPeter

[Well if you read the bible you would realize that the Jews rejected Jesus and they would still sacrifice animals under the old Law . Does that make sense to you ? Jesus the Son of God came down to earth to become that sacrificial lamb for sin once and for all . He completed the mission of God and shed his blood for us . There is no need of any other intermediary , intercessor or third party for the path to God but Jesus . The path to Jesus is direct . There is no need for talking to Mary or Mohammed to reach Jesus .

The problem is that in Ezekiel we read that God Himself calls for animal sin sacrifices to return.
So whats the point of Jesus dying as the sacrificial lamb for sin once and for all if God is going to reinstate animal sacrifices?

reply to post by SimonPeter

Are you saying that the shed blood of Jesus Christ means nothing . . .

You are creating extra meaning by attaching it to unrelated themes.
Jesus died, that is a significant fact.
How that becomes useful information for us is when we realize that Jesus was and is of God, and that his being given to us was a gift from God.
God gave us His only son because He loved us.
Besides that, Jesus as a man, gave up what could have been argued as his rightful inheritance on earth, to go to Heaven to ensure our inheritance as sons of God.
The fact that Jesus did die was a contributing factor to his acceptance into Heaven.
Our acceptance is based on what we do with this opportunity that is presented to us, in light of the love of God for us, and the acceptance of and promotion to Lordship of a representative of the same mankind that he lived among as a member.

Let me quote something from,
Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible) by Robert Jewett, ©2007
page 363,
"Nowhere does Paul link the blood of Christ with remission of sins, as some maintain."

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

The problem is that in Ezekiel we read that God Himself calls for animal sin sacrifices to return.
So whats the point of Jesus dying as the sacrificial lamb for sin once and for all if God is going to reinstate animal sacrifices?

Ezekiel was written by a member of the Judeans taken into captivity, in Babylon.
He was talking about a restored temple in in a figurative way, with the idea that it was going to be even better than before.
People may feel disappointed in the splendor of Herod's temple, in comparison, but in comparison to the real world, it was the greatest temple of any kind that has ever existed.

reply to post by jm dewey 60

That's your problem you read any commentary you can get about the bible . Every man is opinionated and See's things his way with his twist and you accept it as fact . Remember about the144,000 virgin Jewish men of the 12 tribes of Israel in Revelations 14 verse 5 . In their mouths was no GUILE . God wanted them completely opinionated so that they would deliver the true Gospel of Jesus without mixture . These commentaries are produced by people who have personal opinions and then you add your opinion to it .
Again in Revelations 7 verse 14 John talks about the multitude who washed their unclean robes in the blood of the Lamb and made them white . I guess that means nothing to you !
You word your questions carefully to avoid being answered . You read a book a month but are you just processing words ? You don't seem to comprehend what is being said .

reply to post by SimonPeter

Again in Revelations 7 verse 14 John talks about the multitude who washed their unclean robes in the blood of the Lamb and made them white . I guess that means nothing to you . . .

The multitude from out of the nations, it says were the ones who came out of the tribulation.They washed their robes in blood.
I would say that in the tribulation, they died, and the blood was their own, with "the Lamb" being symbolic of those believers who had joined the new Israel of the church of Christ.
Just as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 represented the old Israel, and described as like a lamb to the slaughter, so the new Christian church, symbolically Israel, is the lamb of the Christian prophet, John.

Originally posted by EmmortalKorrupta

Originally posted by Killcomic
Religion is an artefact of past societies. We're moving towards a class 1 civilisation (globalization) where logic and reason are essential requirements to survive. Chances are that religion will not survive the move.

Logic and reason was more prevelant in past societies than society today.

Yeah i don't even think crazy's like Nero or Caligula would back a company like Monsanto. But hey science can do no wrong

reply to post by jm dewey 60


I am sorry to give up on you but you are hopeless . You have the constitution of a wet dish rag . Again you process a lot of words but you lack reading comprehension .If you don't believe the bible why waste your time on it . Not either Hot or Cold but lukewarm . You seem to have a problem with Jesus dying for your sins and shedding his own blood for you as a final sacrifice for sin . You have a problem also with the Lords supper and celebrating the Lords Supper . Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said " Take , eat this is my body Jesus took the cup and gave it to them saying Drink Ye all of it: For this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins. What gives with your Blood of Christ denial thing .