What if Jesus is the DECEPTION?

reply to post by SimonPeter

The Commandments given to man was not the LAW

At the time of Christ, they were one and the same, whatever was written in the Torah.

The LAW was the Judean faith and practices to atone for sin through sacrifices

Where do you find support for that theory, that the law only meant this one very narrowly defined thing?

Paul is saying that the old testament sacrificing for sin does not apply to Christianity because the acceptable sacrifice for sin made by Jesus did away with the rituals of the law

The ritual laws never truly cleansed anyone from sins to start with. It is not as if at one time they did, and then all of a sudden they didn't.
I don't see how Jesus' dying was an atonement in a sense that this was somehow paying for sins in order to be forgiven them. Jesus was a propitiation, meaning a gift that is given to another to make peace between them, in this case, Jesus was a gift from God to us who we can look to as an example to follow away from sin and into righteousness.
Jesus, a man like us in most ways, was righteous in the opinion of God, even though he was made sin for us, suffering in all the ill affects of sin including death, was raised by God and proclaimed His very own son, and was taken up into heaven to share in the kingdom that has now come upon us.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I still don't understand why sacrifices are necessary to atone for sins. Like, an act of violence is needed to atone for an act of violence? Why not one act of selfless kindness for every sin committed? That's not a sacrifice, that's a public service.

The ancient idea apparently was that blood was a way of transference of things, like life, for one, and also other things, an example being putting leaches on people to draw the illness from someone through the blood as if it was some entity in the blood that could be drawn out. There was this idea that evil was something like that, an entity of spiritual power that could be transferred through blood from one person to another animal or from an animal to a thing. Priests apparently had a great power reserved only to the holy, which only the priests could ever have, since it had to start with a particular bloodline, and then purifying rituals that only priests could be part of. Then they could transfer this entity through the laying on of hands, to take sin from one person, and put it into an animal, and then through the blood, put it onto a holy object that would neutralize its power.

According to the Seventh Day Adventist theory of atonement, the process is not complete until all the sins of all the world, from the beginning, to the end of the Judgment, has been placed onto Satan, and then he has to be dealt with, first by being the scapegoat in the wilderness for a thousand years, and then as the other goat which is killed, and that will be the final end of Satan, along with all the sins that he played a part in having been committed.
Of course this is a source of accusation of heresy against the SDA church, but to me who was brought up to believe in it, it makes perfect sense. But it does make Satan the ultimate atonement, to some people who look at it from the outside. I think of it more in a metaphorical sense, rather than the literal, and it only means that the whole thing is not over until everyone eventually gets to a state of faith and righteousness that we no longer live in a world plagued by evil running rampant.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Romans 6:23 - "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

If you want to disagree with the Word of God, that's between you and Him.

Paul was comparing what the system of sin had to offer with what the system set up by God had to offer. He was not comparing debt with "payment" since both were about what you got, and not about what you somehow owe the system.

This isn't about us putting anyone to death, but about eternal death. These are not the same thing.

You were giving the Old Testament as an example. Where does it talk about eternal life in there?
Those verses you quoted mention nothing about Jesus dying in order to pay a sin debt, or that his death was directly responsible for us not now having to die.

I listed quotes from Romans and 1 Peter; both are in the New Testament. However, you can look in Isaiah for some very clear references to Jesus. Check chapter 53. The Old Testament has many references to the Savior.

Isaiah 53:5 - "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Originally posted by Rex282
You have not made any valid points and that is why I did not address them.You can't even stay on point .You just quoted scripture and acted like it means something.Why should I explain t to you what the wages of death are when you can't even explain it.All you have done is quote scripture and church doctrine.That is not making making valid points to be answered.

I made many valid points, backed with clear Biblical references. Where are YOUR references for any of your claims? Upon what do you base your ideas? You don't provide any references, no backup, and expect people to believe every word you say. Now, you are entitled to your opinion, but if you can't back it with the Bible, you shouldn't claim it's an accurate representation of what the Bible says.

Originally posted by Rex282
I said you know nothing of the scriptures or God and that is true.That is not a personal attack.Your statements in this thread are proof you are the one who attacks.I have no desire to do that at all.You are ignorant of the scriptures and don't know God and that is very apparent by the foolish things you write.That is a true statement and that's all it is.

Not even close. I offered accurate and relevant verses, and you offered nothing but your own words. Seems clear to me who has knowledge of Scriptures in this case. If you want to discuss the Bible, then offer the portions that you wish to discuss, that support your position, instead of simply pretending the person that does this somehow has less knowledge than you. The evidence here shows otherwise.

Originally posted by Rex282
The only thing I said of salvation is Yahoshua.The savior of ALL mankind..even including you who don't know God yet you say I question your salvation.I am not the one condemning anyone to eternal hell.I completely understand your frustration.You are very wrong and it is the only thing you can do to defend yourself and your wrong beliefs.However if you can't restrain yourself and have a rational conversation without pfffts and moaning and groaning and false accusations and childish sarcasms and quoting scriptures you know nothing about Please do ignore me as I will ignore you.

edit on 14-7-2013 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)

Again, the Hebrew for Jesus is Yeshua. From what source do you obtain a different spelling?

I am not condemning anyone to Hell, either. Those that go will do so because of their own disobedience, as God sets the rules. Nor do I have any frustration. Are you perhaps projecting your feelings? I simply state what the Word of God states, in support of my beliefs, which are based upon those words. You state opinions, and offer no foundation. Claiming that I "don't understand" something, while failing to state WHY you believe this is true, is simply not rational debate. It's pointless and illogical. So, back what you claim, or be prepared to be shown to be incorrect, based on God's own Word.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by WhoKnows100

 

The Commandments given to man was not the LAW . The LAW was the Judean faith and practices to atone for sin through sacrifices . Paul is saying that the old testament sacrificing for sin does not apply to Christianity because the acceptable sacrifice for sin made by Jesus did away with the rituals of the law .

You are correct, but there is a lot of deception here, and I don't expect much in the way of positive response. However, His word never comes back to Him empty, so someone will hear the truth!

reply to post by jmdewey60


I don't believe transference is nearly so easy as that. In the balancing of energies, what you are doing is not nearly as important as how you're doing it. How you were doing it is where the intention comes in, where the intention becomes clear. In the process of redirecting energy you are also putting energy out. It's not very efficient if you are putting out negative energy at the same time you're trying to create positive energy. That's why using sacrifices to atone for negative acts doesn't make any sense. Devoting destruction to the erasure of destruction just doesn't work.

A blood sacrifice is a carnal practice that invokes primal energies more commonly associated with lower functioning purposes. Basically an animal practice for an animal deed. Dark magic.

reply to post by SimonPeter


Wrong. The law is the 10 commandments, that is unless Jesus' commandments (which covered the law) also included sacrifice, and we both know it didn't.

Paul never said Jesus ended the rituals of the law, he said it ended the law. Period.

Another classic case of twisting what scripture says to fit your preconceived notions.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You are indeed special !

reply to post by AfterInfinity


God knows we fear death and it would be a better incentive to not sin than donate a veggie for your sin . Even though you were supposed to sacrifice your best lamb the Jews started selling sacrificial lambs and such at the alter that probably was not with out blemish and had no attachment to . The Jewish sacrifices became an abomination to God and they went right back to their sin . This is why God gave the Gospel of Jesus to the Gentile to serve him .

reply to post by AfterInfinity

That's why using sacrifices to atone for negative acts doesn't make any sense.

No kidding!
I'm not defending it, just explaining the ancient rationale for the practice.
We don't need to do bloody sacrifices, just like we don't need to be 'bled' to cure a fever.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by SimonPeter

The Commandments given to man was not the LAW . The LAW was the Judean faith and practices to atone for sin through sacrifices . Paul is saying that the old testament sacrificing for sin does not apply to Christianity because the acceptable sacrifice for sin made by Jesus did away with the rituals of the law .

afterinfinity
I still don't understand why sacrifices are necessary to atone for sins. Like, an act of violence is needed to atone for an act of violence? Why not one act of selfless kindness for every sin committed? That's not a sacrifice, that's a public service.

Why is Judean faith and law the ONE AND ONLY; look at what you have done, by this premise allowed 100 more potencial belief systems to have been created in faith to disprove/nullify yours. Christianity takes sin time wise backwards/forwards, as many times Ive asked, no adequate answer, can I commit murder now because Jesus forgives/forgave my sins, past present and future? I am untouchable because I have been potencially forgiven of forethought, afterthought and the act of attrition, sin committed.

reply to post by vethumanbeing


You can potentially believe what you want but we Gentiles are not under the law . The Jews who accept Jesus and his sacrifice for sin are under the Grace and Mercy of Jesus Christ .Why else would Jesus Christ be offered as a blood sacrifice for sin . Why also did God rent the Veil of the Temple when Christ died . He was telling the Jews that the old animal sin sacrifice was outmoded . Then the Temple was destroyed and the Jews scattered .
But explain the uninspired Babylonian TALMUD and how it changed the Jews and how Jesus saw the Pharisees as of the Synagogue of Satan . What was going on there and why did God say he would make a people out of no people meaning the Gentile . Was God sick of the perpetual sin and sacrifice of a rebellious people . I think so ! Has he discarded them ? No ,he will deal with them later .
The Commandments are the law given to all by God .

Originally posted by Jusvistn
I honestly do not want to start a holy war or all out religious cyber fight.

Hahaha , 20 pages later.

If Jesus or your God is the Deception and A GOD truly exists then you would be idolizing a false God , no? So what is the charge in your religion for idolizing a false God?

Who would be fault, you for idolizing a false God or GOD for allowing you to be tricked into idolize a false God, or both?

reply to post by SimonPeter

What was going on there and why did God say he would make a people out of no people meaning the Gentile

It took me a while to figure out what you are quoting, and the closest match seems to be
Romans 10:19,
Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."
(2011 NIV)
which according to the 2011 NIV notes, cross-references
Deuteronomy 32:21,
They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols. I will make them envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.
(2011 NIV)
The point of these verses are to point out that there was no intrinsic superiority of those chosen as Israel, but that they were carried on as a people for the sake of the promises made to the Patriarchs.
In Deuteronomy, the problem with those people was idolatry, and in Romans, there was a similar problem, which was though they knew the Law, and could recite it, they did not follow it, with the implication that those who professed faith in Jesus did so from out of their heart. With the conclusion being the proof of Paul's argument that there was no difference between Jew or gentile as having any advantage over the other.

reply to post by SimonPeter

You can potentially believe what you want but we Gentiles are not under the law

this statement above seems to me to contradict your other statement below

The Commandments are the law given to all by God

Christians are not tasked to follow any of the Old Testament. We are commanded to keep one commandment from Jesus
John 13:34
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
(2011 NIV)
The old commandments were the covenant with Israel to be a nation of priests to The Lord.
Christians are under the New Covenant made by Jesus.

reply to post by SimonPeter

The Jews who accept Jesus and his sacrifice for sin are under the Grace and Mercy of Jesus Christ

It is not as if those who did not believe in Jesus were then left to be free to follow the old religion that was around before Jesus came. To be obedient to God at that point meant to believe in His son. There was no longer a being OK with God after that while ignoring Jesus.

Why else would Jesus Christ be offered as a blood sacrifice for sin

Sacrifices to The Lord of the Jerusalem temple were not necessarily "for sin", at least not on an individual basis. Most of what we might think of today as "sin sacrifice" in the Old Testament was reserved for the priesthood to be able to retain the proper amount of holiness to perform their duties. A person making amends for a sin, under the auspices of the temple would make a payment to the victim, and seal the deal with a token offering, more probably to pay for the venue and the labor of the priest's part in the transaction.
The Passover, which is connected to Jesus' death by many people, was not really a sacrifice, at least in its original incarnation, but was a meal, in remembrance of the deliverance from the angel of death in Egypt, and had nothing to do with a person's sin other than maybe Pharaoh's.

reply to post by SimonPeter

Why also did God rent the Veil of the Temple when Christ died . He was telling the Jews that the old animal sin sacrifice was outmoded . Then the Temple was destroyed and the Jews scattered

It showed that their house was made desolate, an empty temple with no god in it, while the real god was being crucified by the leaders of the temple cult.
What you are doing is repeating a myth of the Free Grace cult which assumes that the sacrifices were for payment of sin while it may be more true that none of them did.
The New Testament book of Hebrews mentions the old sacrificial system and how it did not make people better, but it does not say that being better had anything to do with their sins being "paid for". So, really, the old system was never of any use to make people "better" other than it was a sign of their relationship with the particular god who they made offerings to.

But explain the uninspired Babylonian TALMUD and how it changed the Jews and how Jesus saw the Pharisees as of the Synagogue of Satan .

The Talmud wasn't written until later.
The "Synagogue of Satan" is in Revelation in regards to a particular group of people in a certain church and we don't know exactly what their crime was other than to understand it as them making themselves out to be better than other people not claiming to be Jews.

Was God sick of the perpetual sin and sacrifice of a rebellious people

Again, this is following the Free Grace cult mythology that sacrifices in the OT system was to "pay" for sins, when the reality was that overt sin would immediately exclude you from the 'fold' so to speak.
The scriptural bases for this part of the myth comes from
1 Samuel 15:22
Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
(2011 NIV)
There are other places in Hebrews and Romans that gets into it in detail, so there is a bases, but it gets a twist by the cult by making out that it is the repetition of the sacrifices that makes God weary, so it injects this concept that God would be happier if there could just be one big sacrifice and get it over with. The real message in these verses is that God is unhappy with people constantly disobeying His commandments.

I think so ! Has he discarded them ? No ,he will deal with them later

This looks to me to be typical dispensationalist propaganda that somehow "Israel" is going to become a kingdom again with a literal king sitting on a literal throne and being the world capital for God.
Paul says that "all Israel will be saved" which is obviously not talking about the Jews as we know that term today, since most of them are not "saved" in the commonly held Christian sense of the word, so Paul would have meant what he alluded to with the "remnant" who did believe, which would mean the existence of a spiritual Israel constituted by those who believe in and follow Jesus, which would be in literal terms, the church.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

You can potentially believe what you want but we Gentiles are not under the law . The Jews who accept Jesus and his sacrifice for sin are under the Grace and Mercy of Jesus Christ .Why else would Jesus Christ be offered as a blood sacrifice for sin . Why also did God rent the Veil of the Temple when Christ died . He was telling the Jews that the old animal sin sacrifice was outmoded . Then the Temple was destroyed and the Jews scattered .
But explain the uninspired Babylonian TALMUD and how it changed the Jews and how Jesus saw the Pharisees as of the Synagogue of Satan . What was going on there and why did God say he would make a people out of no people meaning the Gentile . Was God sick of the perpetual sin and sacrifice of a rebellious people . I think so ! Has he discarded them ? No ,he will deal with them later .
The Commandments are the law given to all by God .

I dont command a 'belief system', I am a free thinker. You say that blood sacrifice for animals is condonned, why was a human offered as a blood sacrifice furthering this tradition allowed. This is supreme inprint overlay of EVIL LOCKED INTENT to fool the human into some sort of bizarre misunderstanding of its GODFORM. You swallow the human sacrifice business as a complete understanding of SIN and its forgiveness of?? Its all backwards and sideways. NONE OF IT makes sense. GKOD creates perpetual sin by allowing Jesus to forgive all sin present, past and future. Are you NOT PAYING ATTENTION to the dicotomy of this circumstance? IT means you can commit all sin as you wish as long as you have NO DOUBT as you have already been forgiven of it.

reply to post by jmdewey60


With each post you tell me more about yourself . I think I understand where you are coming from . I don't agree with you but I see where your feet are planted .

In the first place the Talmud/ Mishnah /Oral law existed in it's many forms before Christ in one form or another . The Talmud is the manifestation of Oral Law is it not .
The synagogue of Satan referred to the sinful Pharisees who were not of the lineage of Aaron as they were supposed to be .They were not up to standards and Jesus knew it .
Your free grace cult argument is your calling card . Again John 15 tells you all about being grafted into the vine and your not bringing forth fruit .
The Covenant with the Jews involve sacrifice for sin . The 10 commandments define sin . The Law is a Jewish recompense for having sinned . Which could really never be kept completely.
Jesus died for our sins . John 3:16 .

reply to post by vethumanbeing


I do believe you need to read the bible rather than rhetoric from your kindred souls whom you confer with . That way you would know that you can be backslidden and be dealt with by John 15 one of the lesser read chapters . So there goes your free Grace argument .
I suppose you remember Cain and Able and the two sacrifices or offerings to God for thanksgiving for prosperity . God favored the sacrifice of the lamb with out blemish and did not favor the veggies Cain offered . God decided he favored blood sacrifices . Jesus was not taken and killed . He gave his life freely and his blood was spilled for all man kind . Some instead spit on his gesture of Grace and Mercy and others receive it with thankfulness .