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.

 

Jesus Died On the Cross For Our Sins.. WHERE is the logic?

page: 12
27
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 


The initial sin of man is what separated them from God. God gave man his law and they could not keep that law to bridge the gap back to God. So he sent his son to do what humans could not do.

Makes perfect sense to me really. kinda like when mother used to send me to help my brother and sister pour themselves cereal when they were kids (even though she had already showed them how to prepare cereal they still coudln't do it) they would begin to cry and moan at me because they thought i was trying to take the milk and cereal away from them.


You don't have to understand it or believe it... you have the choice of just ignoring it and not believing it. God gives you that choice and isn't twisting your arm to believe it.




posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Jesus affirmed Isaiah.
He paraphrased a couple of lines from Isaiah, according to Luke, and quoted some from Isaiah as a criticism, according to Matthew. That would have been necessary to persuade the Jews to accept him as being an agent of God, according to how they understood what God was. That is not the same as applying everything Isaiah ever said to himself.

And the apostles taught Christianity from the OT. The NT wasn't even written yet when they began the church.
According to Acts, the earliest Christians were giving speeches to Jews which used allusions from the Old Testament. In the actual writings of real Apostles, they don't play such a prominent role.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Now you denigrate to personal attacks.
What do you expect when you seem so far off into some delusional world, believing in magical Nephilim, and pretending like no "normal" people were killed in the flood.
edit on 30-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Jesus affirmed Isaiah.
He paraphrased a couple of lines from Isaiah, according to Luke, and quoted some from Isaiah as a criticism, according to Matthew. That would have been necessary to persuade the Jews to accept him as being an agent of God, according to how they understood what God was. That is not the same as applying everything Isaiah ever said to himself.

And the apostles taught Christianity from the OT. The NT wasn't even written yet when they began the church.
According to Acts, the earliest Christians were giving speeches to Jews which used allusions from the Old Testament. In the actual writings of real Apostles, they don't play such a prominent role.


Isaiah 53 is the clearest and most concise explanation of the gospel in the OT.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Now you denigrate to personal attacks.
What do you expect when you seem so far off into some delusional world, believing in magical Nephilim, and pretending like no "normal" people were killed in the flood.


Well, because Genesis 6 says God sent the flood to kill the Nephillim.

And I expect people to resort to pithy personal attacks when they can't address the arguments themselves. Or if the person with the opposing position is immature.
edit on 30-6-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
My god, my god......why have you forsaken me?


or


Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?


LITERALLY just read this before coming on ATS a few minutes ago: My God,My God,why hast Thou Forsaken Me?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Well, because Genesis 6 says God sent the flood to kill the Nephillim.
No, it doesn't, no matter what your cult leader tells you.

And I expect people to resort to pithy personal attacks when they can't address the arguments themselves.
I was not making a personal attack. I said I was sorry that you are still stuck in a cult of demons, worshipping space creatures and things.
If you can not deal with people pointing that out to you, then you should get out of that cult.

Or if the person with the opposing position is immature.
You don't have a position to oppose anyone, just cult teachings paper thin with nothing holding them up but worship of your cult leader.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Isaiah 53 is the clearest and most concise explanation of the gospel in the OT.
Funny how the writers of the New Testament missed that, and never referred to it or quoted anything from it.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
This has always been one of my main problems with the religion and one reason I deconverted. Why is God needing more bloodshed to resolve, essentially, his screw-up in how he created the world? And if Jesus = God, then who cares? He killed himself in order to appease himself so he could forgive us? But it only works if we a. know about it at all; and b. believe in it? Whaa? It just doesn't make any sense.

Why do I need God to forgive my sins? My sins aren't hurting God, they're hurting other humans. God obviously isn't bothered by my sins if he can torture me for eternity later anyway. (Which BTW, is psychotic.)

The other thing is the Jesus worship. I'm supposed to have a personal relationship with a guy who's been dead for 2000 years and saved me from...what? The God that I am supposed to worship and love also? That is a pretty dysfunctional family, seriously. The devil isn't the one putting me in hell. God is. Good going, solving that problem, God! You sure punished that devil guy by um...making him the king of hell and just allowing him all kinds of freedom to make humans suffer, which he apparently enjoys immensely?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Deirdre
 


Most succinctly put, sir. Quite amusing.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


More of the same.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Isaiah 53 is the clearest and most concise explanation of the gospel in the OT.
Funny how the writers of the New Testament missed that, and never referred to it or quoted anything from it.


"Never referred" to it?

I suggest reading Acts 8:26-40.

Phillip tells the eunuch reading Isaiah 53 that the passage is about Jesus Christ and shares the Christian gospel to him from it.


edit on 30-6-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
"Jesus died for your sins... how does one affect the other? I ****ing hit myself in the foot with a shovel for your mortgage. I don’t get it. And if there is a correlation, why would you do that? Why would you die for someone sins? Your sins are the only interesting thing about you dreary, bleak mother*******. Your sins are what make you fantastic. You should wear your sins on your sleeve."

~ Doug Stanhope



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xaphan
 


Bordering on Taoist philosophy there, buddy.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
Do you have a copy of the B. W. Butterworth translation of Origen's "First Principles, where that quote is cited to have come from?

No, I do not, so I am unable to verify that the quote is accurate. I suspect that you also do not have a copy of it.

Here is an online version, kindly point out where it says anything positive about reincarnation: De Principiis (Origen)

Barring anything specific that you can cite, I think that we're done with this discussion -- you are rejecting the historical conclusion that Origen believed in the pre-existence of the soul, but outrightly rejected reincarnation, directly rebuking those who taught it, on the basis that pro-reincarnation Internet sites claim that Origen did what the historical evidence indicates that he did not.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ganjoa
 

Your postulate is absolutely correct: the entire concept just doesn't make any logical sense - but you'll just have to take tat on faith!
Anyone who does is having faith in a cult rather then what the Bible says.
There is a theory and you can look it up in Wikipedia, which is called "penal substitutionary atonement theory".
....

Looked it up... didn't find said article. Found however an article about Propitiation



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deirdre
This has always been one of my main problems with the religion and one reason I deconverted. Why is God needing more bloodshed to resolve, essentially, his screw-up in how he created the world? And if Jesus = God, then who cares? He killed himself in order to appease himself so he could forgive us? But it only works if we a. know about it at all; and b. believe in it? Whaa? It just doesn't make any sense.

Why do I need God to forgive my sins? My sins aren't hurting God, they're hurting other humans. God obviously isn't bothered by my sins if he can torture me for eternity later anyway. (Which BTW, is psychotic.)

The other thing is the Jesus worship. I'm supposed to have a personal relationship with a guy who's been dead for 2000 years and saved me from...what? The God that I am supposed to worship and love also? That is a pretty dysfunctional family, seriously. The devil isn't the one putting me in hell. God is. Good going, solving that problem, God! You sure punished that devil guy by um...making him the king of hell and just allowing him all kinds of freedom to make humans suffer, which he apparently enjoys immensely?

By extension, is the devil the best thing that ever came around in this world, or the one to come? I'm thinking that you might answer in the affirmative.

But I like the last para. written, in that you seem to be simulating a prayer to God in it.

The bible says that:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.1 Corin. 1:18 NKJV

Believe it or not, it's OK to question God... God is not miffed by it. He understands that we might have some questions and/or reservations as such. What to do then?? Hmmm...??? I've got a suggestion!! ASK GOD...what He thinks of this whole scheme. Everybody is here, talking and talking back to each other, while God is looking down... and wants to be included in the conversation. But no one asked Him yet. You need to get out of cross is foolishness rut ASAP. Let God help you out of it.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 



Adam was perfect. He made a perfect decision to disobey god. He died and as such all after him die. Jewsish tradition does hold that he felt repentant and walked with god after ejection from the garden, but the damage was done. So through one man sin entered into the world. No imperfect man can equal Adam as no one after Adam was perfect until Jesus. Jesus went to earth willingly to show that a perfect man, like Adam, can make a perfect decision to submit to the will of god, evem under extreme stress.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


I guess that means the quotes from your Christian site where he supposedly argues against reincarnation were fabricated as well, right? Of course a Christian site like the one you linked to wouldn't post that quote, it would be against their argument.

Have you gone through all of Origen's works and have verified that they aren't part of them? If not, you are only assuming based on your bias. Prove they aren't contained in his actual works and you may have a point.

edit on 1-7-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MarkJS
 

Looked it up... didn't find said article. Found however an article about Propitiation

There is a rather long article under Penal substitution.

Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, . . .
en.wikipedia.org...

The point I was trying to make is that it is one theory and not one that all Christians follow.
I don't because the theory is based on a really bad interpretation of scripture and is probably more connected to the old Roman system of justice than the New Testament.




top topics



 
27
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join