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

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You said it was never quoted from by any NT author.

What I said earlier was:
"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."

That's bogus, Isaiah 53 is quoted from in Acts 8.

I already said that Acts used the OT. You are coming back by quoting Acts, which reinforces my earlier point.

I suppose that quote just slipped your mind maybe when you spoke earlier.

I had already written off Acts, so wasn't thinking to much about it when I wrote:
"Funny how the writers of the New Testament missed that, and never referred to it or quoted anything from it."
which was in response to you saying:
"Isaiah 53 is the clearest and most concise explanation of the gospel in the OT."
which seemed odd to me since you have the entire New Testament to explain the Gospel, but you have to go to the OT to find an explanation.
Before that, and what got this line of discussion started, was your post saying:
"Isaiah 53:6. "..the Lord hath laid upon Him the iniquity of us all." "
as your defense of the statement that you made before that:
"The Bible says that God the Father placed all our sin on His Son and He died for all our sin. So the Father punished the Son for all our sin."
which is something that is not described in the New Testament.

But it goes on to say in that chapter that Phillip shares the gospel of Jesus Christ with the Ethiopian eunuch from that chapter he was reading from.

I already quoted the relevant verse from Acts where it says that Philip started with that very passage that the eunich had already asked Peter about.

Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

it doesn't say that Philip only used that chapter. Most Likely he would have had a list of verses that he had memorized that he could use as predictions of Jesus.

Isaiah 53 is Messianic, simple as that . . .

People do think of it in that way, for obvious reasons, as I already mentioned, which is in Isaiah 53, you have a character who is unjustly killed.

. . . and confirmed in the NT by Phillip and Luke the author of Acts.

Luke being the Author of Acts is a story, made up later, when people were looking for someone to name as the author of a couple of books that admittedly was not Apostolic. To make it canonical, they picked Luke who was a named companion of Paul. Just placing a story to the books do not really make them properly canonical. There is plenty of evidence that Acts was not written by someone who was an eyewitness but by someone who was a writer of fiction and made up what he thought would make a good story, and has practically no actual historical value.

So don't accuse anyone for teaching that the Lord laid all our sin upon Jesus as "heresy" when that precisely what Isaiah 53 says.

I haven't used that word for at least a month, since I realized that it is not a biblical word but that usage comes from the fourth century, so your quotation marks here are deceptive, making it look like I actually said that, when I didn't.
What I did say was that you should go by what the Bible says rather than what a cult leader says.

reply to post by adjensen


No sir. You have a reading comprehension problem. I'm not citing from Origen's book "First Principle", or his newly discovered Commentaries on the Book of Matthew. LOL

My quotes, and hence my arguments, come very verifiable quotes from Origen's commentary "Contra Celsus". You've been told that numerous times now, but you keep straying to other, non-related writings and apologetics. You can't stay on topic because you have no argument, so you resort to insults and mockery.

reply to post by Dr1Akula

Not even one ancient temple stands now in greece, they have all met the violence of early christianity. only 1% is saved today of the ancient knowlege our ancestors left for us, books related to science , history, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy are lost forever, because some fanatic lunatics who couldn't understand them, thought they were related to Satan, because early christianity preached that all pagans were satan's worshipers!

LOL. A deity that they made up! As well, Christianity co-oped the pagan rituals and observances as their own.

I am leaning toward the belief that the Jesus character of the Bible is a composite figure of numerous messianic figures and his death symbolizes the death of the Jewish temple and all the men, women and children that were killed in the "Jewish Wars."

From Mark 14:10-12:

Mark 14:10 When he (Christ) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

From Plato’s Theaetetus:

Socrates: “In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.”
Protagoras was supposedly the first professional Sophist making his living by teaching for money.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines Sophist as:

1: PHILOSOPHER
2capitalized: any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the fifth century B.C. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning
3: a captious or fallacious reasoner

You can't expect logic from a Sophist.

Originally posted by TheIceQueen
This is something that I've wanted to inquire to people about for a little while now.. Keep in mind, I am not anti-Christian or whatever, and I am just trying to understand the logic behind this..

Jesus's crucifixion is seen as a symbol of god's love and forgiveness and so on.. 'Jesus died on the cross in order for our sins to be forgiven', etc (you get the point). What I don't understand is how and the hell that is supposed to correlate with one another in some sort of way that christians discuss and view as being perfectly logical or something? Has it ever struck anyone that it makes no logical sense what so ever?

How is god sending his 'only son' to earth, to be betrayed and then brutally massacred in order for him to forgive the sins of his own creation (human beings- us) logical what so ever? I just don't understand.. Christians use/discuss/preach about this constantly as if it makes any logical sense.. Why and the HELL would god choose to/need to/DESIRE to send his only son to earth to be killed in order to forgive us?

I mean jesus, (ironically expression is on topic here) that's pretty brutal and as some would say 'hardcore'.. Why would he have the desire, let alone need to do such a thing AT ALL let alone in order to forgive beings that he created, allegedly, to be exactly as they are (as christians also say)? It makes little sense to me, what do you think? Christians/etc can you please make sense of this for me?

The death on the cross is symbolic, it didn't actually happen.

The death on the cross symbolizes the death of the 5 senses and the move into higher conscious.

How many injuries did he have?

5 one in both hands, one in both feet and one in the side.

The bible was written by mystics and showed you things by numerology and symbolism, hence the 5 injuries.

The number 9 in the bible is also important it actually means higher consciousness hence why 144,000 (1+4+4=9) people where saved, you see these numbers many times over and if you study numerology all of this becomes very apparent and easy to understand.

There is also another story with Jesus fishing and he says fish to the right side of the boat and they did and caught 153 fish. Again this was symbolic of the brain and the right side of the brain hence 153 fish (1+5+3 =9) and was showing again in a symbolic way higher consciousness.

I suggest maybe it's something you start to look into?

Hope this helps.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Dr1Akula

 

Not even one ancient temple stands now in greece, they have all met the violence of early christianity. only 1% is saved today of the ancient knowlege our ancestors left for us, books related to science , history, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy are lost forever, because some fanatic lunatics who couldn't understand them, thought they were related to Satan, because early christianity preached that all pagans were satan's worshipers!

LOL. A deity that they made up! As well, Christianity co-oped the pagan rituals and observances as their own.

I am leaning toward the belief that the Jesus character of the Bible is a composite figure of numerous messianic figures and his death symbolizes the death of the Jewish temple and all the men, women and children that were killed in the "Jewish Wars."

When did the Parthenon fall?

Originally posted by TheIceQueen
This is something that I've wanted to inquire to people about for a little while now.. Keep in mind, I am not anti-Christian or whatever, and I am just trying to understand the logic behind this..

Jesus's crucifixion is seen as a symbol of god's love and forgiveness and so on.. 'Jesus died on the cross in order for our sins to be forgiven', etc (you get the point). What I don't understand is how and the hell that is supposed to correlate with one another in some sort of way that christians discuss and view as being perfectly logical or something? Has it ever struck anyone that it makes no logical sense what so ever?

How is god sending his 'only son' to earth, to be betrayed and then brutally massacred in order for him to forgive the sins of his own creation (human beings- us) logical what so ever? I just don't understand.. Christians use/discuss/preach about this constantly as if it makes any logical sense.. Why and the HELL would god choose to/need to/DESIRE to send his only son to earth to be killed in order to forgive us?

I mean jesus, (ironically expression is on topic here) that's pretty brutal and as some would say 'hardcore'.. Why would he have the desire, let alone need to do such a thing AT ALL let alone in order to forgive beings that he created, allegedly, to be exactly as they are (as christians also say)? It makes little sense to me, what do you think? Christians/etc can you please make sense of this for me?

I do consider it unfortunate that Christianity went down that road. It was something that never made sense to me. The logic behind it made me search for other answers. I found answers that worked for me in the Urantia Book. Especially the part on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Understand that it was his followers, not Jesus, who started teaching the "he died for your sins" doctrine. It was actually Paul who started the Atonement doctrine and he never met Jesus while he was in the flesh. Jesus only taught about God and Heaven. He always denied attempts by his followers to glorify him. He would say things like" don't glorify me, glorify him who sent me".

Here is another thing we need to remember as well. What we call Christianity today started out as a sect within Judaism and the concept of sacrifice runs deep in Judaism (the shedding of blood to atone for sins). Also, it was first century humans who started this. Even the Apostles of Jesus struggled with his concepts and Jesus was constantly rephrasing things so they would understand. That is why, among other reasons, Jesus ended up teaching in parables so that each would take for themselves that which finds a reception in their heart. Once something becomes legend or tradition it is hard for modern people to let it go even if it doesn't make sense. Just like many modern people still knock on wood for good luck even though there is no proof that helps.

Jesus tried to get his Apostles to understand the deeper meanings of his teachings, but 4 years with them was not enough to erase the deep seeded notions of the Jewish religion. Once Jesus was no longer with them to guide them they quickly fell back to their old ideas and changed the religion of Jesus into the religion about Jesus and how he died for our sins. That he was the sacrifice to end all sacrifice.

The good thing about it is that it is the natural progression of the religious sacrifice concept. Humans used to be sacrificed, then Moses directed that animals be substituted for humans. Then Jesus became the one to end all future sacrifice. I for one have never understood the concept of sacrifice, but I understand it from a history of religion point of view.

It boils down to your concept of God. Those who hold a more primitive religious concept of God humanize him and that leads to all kinds of problems. That is another area that the Urantia Book has helped me. My concept of God has enabled me to come to terms with the Universe and my place in it. I highly recommend it to anyone who struggles with religion.

To be clear, the Urantia Book is not a religion. Its more of a guide book that will help the individual discover their own religion. In the end we all have our own personal religious concepts.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

No sir. You have a reading comprehension problem. I'm not citing from Origen's book "First Principle", or his newly discovered Commentaries on the Book of Matthew. LOL

What are you talking about? This is what I was responding to, posted by you:

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?

Why are you criticizing me because I responded to your question?

My quotes, and hence my arguments, come very verifiable quotes from Origen's commentary "Contra Celsus". You've been told that numerous times now, but you keep straying to other, non-related writings and apologetics. You can't stay on topic because you have no argument, so you resort to insults and mockery.

Since you can't seem to draw the connection between what you're quoting and why it's wrong, let's "dumb things down" a bit.

You are quoting Contra Celsus, a work by Origen. Who was Celsus? He was a Greek philosopher who was against Christianity, and who wrote a book against it, called The True Word.

Now, was Origen writing to espouse his agreement with Celsus? Obviously not -- "Contra Celsus" means "Against Celsus". If that wasn't enough, he spells it out in the opening paragraph of Book I:

I know not, my pious Ambrosius, why you wished me to write a reply to the false charges brought by Celsus against the Christians, and to his accusations directed against the faith of the Churches in his treatise; as if the facts themselves did not furnish a manifest refutation, and the doctrine a better answer than any writing, seeing it both disposes of the false statements, and does not leave to the accusations any credibility or validity.

Fine, so we have a text, written by Origen, against a Platonic philosopher, Celsus. Hopefully we can agree on that.

Now, we must turn to the passage that you are quoting:

Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions?

What is Origen addressing here? Reincarnation? No. If you read the chapter that the quote appears in, Origen is speaking of Jesus in that passage, not souls in general, and he is addressing the claims of Census that Mary had an affair with a Roman named Panthera and covered it up by lying to Joseph.

And if we bookcase your quote with the lines around it:

And I will ask of them as Greeks, and particularly of Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a lawful marriage?

and

It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say "all"), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.

It becomes patently obvious that your quote, put back into context, has nothing to do with reincarnation.

As for your second quote, which contains the text "They are ever vanishing and ever reappearing", as I told you earlier, that phrase does not appear in the writings of Origen, and a google search of it returns a bunch of pro-reincarnation sites, not sites associated with the writings of Origen, so it is suspect.

I have seen numerous instances in the recent past of people just flat out fabricating quotes to support one cause or the other, and like minded people copy and repost it and before long, non-critical thinkers just accept the fabrication as fact.

So, once again, I would request that you find that passage in the works of Origen, as posted on Early Christian Writings, which is a scholarly and unbiased source (which you must agree with, as you have posted links to that site,) at which time I will be happy to discuss the passage in context.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I understand why people think that, but it probably causes more problems than it solves.

i dunno. talmudic jews, if i recall, don't support the claim that daniel was a prophet, so any prophetic utterances in the book of daniel, would be viewed in a different light.

reply to post by adjensen

Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions?

What is Origen addressing here? Reincarnation? No. If you read the chapter that the quote appears in, Origen is speaking of Jesus in that passage, not souls in general, and he is addressing the claims of Census that Mary had an affair with a Roman named Panthera and covered it up by lying to Joseph.

And, here's where your entire argument falls apart. How you get the soul of Jesus out of "every soul" is beyond me.

Let me dumb this down for you. Origen is basically saying here: "Isn't it more reasonable to suppose that EVERY SOUL is introduced into a body according to it's deserts and actions?"

Meaning that the past actions of any given soul dictates the body it will REincarnate into.

Originally posted by Fraudfinder

Many people blame God for the earth's current condition, murder, theft, rape hungar, etc.......Are you not aware of the fact that this world belongs to Satan? That Satan rules this world! Where does it say that? In the bible.

You are blaming the wrong individual - It is Satan's rule and way of life on this rock.

There is a way to escape this.....and it is up to you not God. There are many people escaping the punishment that many see in this world. They are protected because they are God's children - those who follow the teachings of the prophets and Jesus are being taken care of by the one true God. Those who fall away and want to rebel will be held responsible.

By that logic (sic) then Satan is an equal god thereby rendering the concept of ONE god false. It is the lack of consistancy that makes Christianity so very lacking.

God gambling with Satan (see the book of JOB) destroying a good man's life for sport - that's sick.

reply to post by FyreByrd


No, Satan didn't create the world. He usurped authority from Adam at the fall. So he is certainly no god, he's a created being.

reply to post by undo

i dunno. talmudic jews, if i recall, don't support the claim that daniel was a prophet, so any prophetic utterances in the book of daniel, would be viewed in a different light.

It's in the Jewish canon, under misc. rather than as one of the prophets. Normally, the requirement of being recognized as a proper prophet, you would have to live in Palestine, which Daniel, if he was an actual person rather than a fictional character, clearly did not. Ezekiel is in the same situation, where he did not live in Palestine or was even anyone know historically and rather the document just showed up without any provenance.
Daniel is retained as a sort of interesting story, and was not used as a prophetic source to foretell future events when you would have expected it to be so used, when the Maccabees were fighting against the Greek rule.
I don't see it as especially a Christian document other than it seems that the Gospel writers picked up on a couple of terms from it, like the angelic name, Gabriel, the Son of Man, and the Abomination of Desolation.
Revelation uses a couple of the same attributes for the beast as was used by Daniel, like the lion, bear, and leopard, but that to me is not especially helpful.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, Satan didn't create the world. He usurped authority from Adam at the fall. So he is certainly no god, he's a created being.

Here's a question for y'all!

Satan was cast down by God for wanting to take his crown out of jealousy. He was originally Lucifer, angel of fire, and was jealous of the prized humans who were made out of dirt. So he expressed his desire to usurp the god who prized the earth beings over the angel of fire, and he was cast out as a result.

WHY...why didn't "God" create an alternate universe and make Lucifer the god of that universe under one condition: Lucifer was never, ever to leave that universe. Once inside it, once instated as god of that universe, he was to be stuck there for all of eternity. Lucifer gets his wish, and "God" gets his peace.

Building on that suggestion, who is to say that this isn't Lucifer's universe? I mean, maybe when we die, we get the choice to either reincarnate in the universe we died in, or switch over to the other universe. Die in Lucifer's universe, choose to reincarnate in "God"s universe. Rinse, repeat. Heaven and hell. Heaven is "God"s universe, a reality governed by his preferred methods, and Hell is Lucifer's universe, governed by his preferred methods.

Why not?

To help make it a bit more clear what the New Testament writers would have been dealing with regarding Isaiah 53, I typed out the translation of the Septuagint by NETS of the entire chapter.

Lord, who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2. He grew up before him like a child, like a root in a thirsty land;
he has no form or glory, and we saw him, and he had no form or beauty.
3. But his form was without honor, failing beyond all men, a man being in calamity and knowing how to bear sickness;
because his face is turned away, he was dishonored and not esteemed.

4. This one bears our sins and suffers pain for us,
and we accounted him to be in trouble and calamity and ill-treatment.
5. But he was wounded because of our acts of lawlessness and has been weakened because of our sins;
upon him was the discipline of our peace; by his bruise we are healed.

6. All we like sheep have gone astray; a man has strayed in his own way, and the Lord gave him over to our sins.

7. And he, because he has been ill-treated, does not open his mouth;
like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb is silent before the one shearing it, so he does not open his mouth.
8. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away. Who will describe his generation?
because his life is being taken from the earth, he was led to death on account of the acts of lawlessness of my people.
9. And I will give the wicked for his burial and the rich for his death,
because he committed no lawlessness, nor was deceit found in his mouth.

10. And the Lord desires to cleanse him from his blow.
If you offer for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived offspring.
And the Lord wishes to take away 11. from the pain of his soul,
to show him light and fill him with understanding,
to justify a righteous one who is well subject to many, and he himself shall bear their sins.
12. Therefore he shall inherit the many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong,
because his soul was given over to death, and he was reckoned among the lawless,
and he bore the sins of many, and because of their sins he was given over.

So it should be obvious, taking it as a whole, it is talking about Israel in general as the servant of the Lord, suffering under the oppression by the nations, like the Babylonians who wrecked their city and temple and led the upper class people off into captivity.
My own opinion is that it focuses a bit on the leadership in particular, in this chapter, who were including the priesthood who suffered personally the exile, but did not complain (even though in their own minds, they had done no wrong, but were included in a general punishment brought down on them by the common people who were negligent of their obligatory reverence for the sanctity of the one temple) or loose faith but returned when the opportunity arose, to go right back to their priestly duties.

Originally posted by TheIceQueen

Originally posted by Kreyvic
reply to post by TheIceQueen

 

It wasn't just for forgiveness,but to thwart the devil and to release those who were in Hades/ shoals /paradise.

Err, okay.. EVEN BETTER. So, let me rephrase part of my initial question.. Why did god feel the need/desire to send his son to earth to be betrayed, tortured, and then crucified in order to a: forgive us for our sins b: "thwart the devil"

c: "release those who were in hades/ (actually the name of one of greek mythology's 'gods' and where he ruled) "shoals"(?)/paradise ?

HOW would sending his only son to be tortured and then killed on a cross do the above? I just don't understand.. Am I missing something? God + Son ÷ Sending one to be tortured and killed, knowingly= God being able to or having the cause/desire to forgive humans of their sins (which he created them with), the thwarting of the devil, and the release of individuals who are in another mythological god's underworld/shoals/paradise? That equaton just seems a bit... err... inconsequental to me...

From your statements it is very clear that you have NEVER completely read the entire bible, have you? Otherwise you would not these questions unless you are trying to "bait" someone into an argument.

So........let me guess.....you are a Wiccan..or NEW AGE follower?

If you are honest and truly "lost" about the truth........many good men and women are standing by to help you. I would advise you "hurry" because ........ "your life is on the line".

How does that go again?............ it is YOUR choice!

May God bless you and your family. I pray that God reveals himself to you and in Jesus's name may he forgive you of apostasy.

Originally posted by TheIceQueen
This is something that I've wanted to inquire to people about for a little while now.. Keep in mind, I am not anti-Christian or whatever, and I am just trying to understand the logic behind this..

Jesus's crucifixion is seen as a symbol of god's love and forgiveness and so on.. 'Jesus died on the cross in order for our sins to be forgiven', etc (you get the point). What I don't understand is how and the hell that is supposed to correlate with one another in some sort of way that christians discuss and view as being perfectly logical or something? Has it ever struck anyone that it makes no logical sense what so ever?

How is god sending his 'only son' to earth, to be betrayed and then brutally massacred in order for him to forgive the sins of his own creation (human beings- us) logical what so ever? I just don't understand.. Christians use/discuss/preach about this constantly as if it makes any logical sense.. Why and the HELL would god choose to/need to/DESIRE to send his only son to earth to be killed in order to forgive us?

I mean jesus, (ironically expression is on topic here) that's pretty brutal and as some would say 'hardcore'.. Why would he have the desire, let alone need to do such a thing AT ALL let alone in order to forgive beings that he created, allegedly, to be exactly as they are (as christians also say)? It makes little sense to me, what do you think? Christians/etc can you please make sense of this for me?

I hope you came prepared to receive numerous lengthy biblical reasons to your query, and no actual logical explanation. Because there is none. You're right. It doesn't make sense. None of it. The fact that Christianity is a religion that revolves around suffering, submission, allegiance and guilt should be a clue that it's illogical to begin with. Spirituality is supposed to be about unconditional love. You can pretty much close the book after that.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions?

What is Origen addressing here? Reincarnation? No. If you read the chapter that the quote appears in, Origen is speaking of Jesus in that passage, not souls in general, and he is addressing the claims of Census that Mary had an affair with a Roman named Panthera and covered it up by lying to Joseph.

And, here's where your entire argument falls apart. How you get the soul of Jesus out of "every soul" is beyond me.

Because he is talking about Jesus in that passage, as regards his refutation of Celsus' arguments about his birth. No Christian, and Origen specifically, believes that Jesus was or has been reincarnated, so it's ludicrous to claim that a bit of text that is specifically about Jesus is talking about reincarnation.

Meaning that the past actions of any given soul dictates the body it will REincarnate into.

How can you possibly read reincarnation into a book that is against Platonism? As you've been shown repeatedly, Origen believed in the pre-existence of the soul, and wrote against reincarnation, so your restatement of what he wrote, which reflected of the pre-existence of the soul (which would have "deserts and former actions") as being in support of reincarnation, is irrational, supported by your opinion and refuted by the facts.

Unless you can demonstrate a writing of Origen that clearly specifies reincarnation and is clearly not about the pre-existence of the soul, all you're doing is fabricating evidence in favour of a viewpoint that Origen obviously did not agree with.

I think this thread has gotten Way off track.

The OP's question is an old and valid question for those of us that live in this world today.

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

I think You would have to understand Sin in and of itself.

Sin is for most people an evil doing .. or a "bad choice" against the workings of God.

However .. Sin is Not like that at all.

Sin is basically "Missing a bulls eye" on the Spiritual game of arrows. IF You dont hit the bulls eye .. then you SIN. Its not a "bad" thing .. its what was Promised. You are a Bad Marksman !

Well Duh !!

Ok . you want this in simple terms .. I can understand that. I will do it for you if you care to read further ..

Lets say your on a gun range .. and the Range Master sets a target so small .. so distant that you could not Possibly Hit the target on a perfect clear day ( oh yea .. the wind is blowing at like 40 knots and changes directions every 5 seconds ).

You can try and try and try .. but you will NEVER hit the Mark. .. .. That is Sin. Not Hitting the Mark. ( Yes its a setup for you .. you will never ever win )

Kinda like the Kobayashi Maru in the Star Trek series .. its an unbeatable situation.

So in the Long term the whole thing is a Setup. Your participation is up to you now.

The old way is No longer required. You dont have to build temples and sacrifice your Best of the best wheat and livestock.

Your in .. Your in !!

So the ONE person that Could hit the Mark Showed us all that you can be/will be directly connected to the One .. again ... It does not matter at this point. It is what it IS NOW !

Be who you are .. Dont confuse Yourself on religion .. dont confuse yourself on How the Programer "hit the Enter Button" . .. The Program is running .. Dont try to understand the program .. understand that the Enter button was pushed.

JG.

Originally posted by DigitalKid

Originally posted by TheIceQueen
This is something that I've wanted to inquire to people about for a little while now.. Keep in mind, I am not anti-Christian or whatever, and I am just trying to understand the logic behind this..

Jesus's crucifixion is seen as a symbol of god's love and forgiveness and so on.. 'Jesus died on the cross in order for our sins to be forgiven', etc (you get the point). What I don't understand is how and the hell that is supposed to correlate with one another in some sort of way that christians discuss and view as being perfectly logical or something? Has it ever struck anyone that it makes no logical sense what so ever?

How is god sending his 'only son' to earth, to be betrayed and then brutally massacred in order for him to forgive the sins of his own creation (human beings- us) logical what so ever? I just don't understand.. Christians use/discuss/preach about this constantly as if it makes any logical sense.. Why and the HELL would god choose to/need to/DESIRE to send his only son to earth to be killed in order to forgive us?

I mean jesus, (ironically expression is on topic here) that's pretty brutal and as some would say 'hardcore'.. Why would he have the desire, let alone need to do such a thing AT ALL let alone in order to forgive beings that he created, allegedly, to be exactly as they are (as christians also say)? It makes little sense to me, what do you think? Christians/etc can you please make sense of this for me?

The death on the cross is symbolic, it didn't actually happen.

The death on the cross symbolizes the death of the 5 senses and the move into higher conscious.

How many injuries did he have?

5 one in both hands, one in both feet and one in the side.

The bible was written by mystics and showed you things by numerology and symbolism, hence the 5 injuries.

The number 9 in the bible is also important it actually means higher consciousness hence why 144,000 (1+4+4=9) people where saved, you see these numbers many times over and if you study numerology all of this becomes very apparent and easy to understand.

There is also another story with Jesus fishing and he says fish to the right side of the boat and they did and caught 153 fish. Again this was symbolic of the brain and the right side of the brain hence 153 fish (1+5+3 =9) and was showing again in a symbolic way higher consciousness.

I suggest maybe it's something you start to look into?

Hope this helps.

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

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

You are leading people to hell.....please stop spreading false truths.

I can see your life is without God, son and holy spirit ........ hell is guiding and misdirecting you. STOP this New Age religion teachings. It is full of half truths and teachings from demons.

Your life is full of confusion, hate, and fear.

In Jesus name I ask that God release these heavy burdens that are upon you and your family and may you be set free.

AMEN