Thread: Church Vs. God.
View Single Post
Old 11-20-2012, 10:14 PM   #36
THE W's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: in Christ
Posts: 15,482
Rep Power: 49
THE W fist of furyTHE W fist of furyTHE W fist of furyTHE W fist of furyTHE W fist of furyTHE W fist of furyTHE W fist of furyTHE W fist of furyTHE W fist of furyTHE W fist of furyTHE W fist of fury

what a mess. its gonna take forever to clean up all this error, but here we go..

u keep on saying that jesus sacrifing himself was in alliance of the old Law. how can this be so. it didnt follow the custom of the Law of Moses in any way

its a sin to offer sacrifices anywhere other than the temple.
jesus is that temple

the temple is his body. it was destroyed by crucifixion and rebuilt in 3 days through the resurrection. the shed blood of jesus is the final blood sacrifice for the sins of man.

john 14:6-7

jesus the christ and God the father are one. if you know jesus then you know the father. jesus always does the will of the father.

jesus had authority from God the father to forgive sins because God gave him that authority. jesus was "the christ" AKA "the son of God". jesus always does what pleases the father.

yes i agree i was wrong about jesus not following the Law. i remembered that it was the pharisees laws he didnt follow not the Law of moses.
except the pharisees were following the laws of moses which is why they were called "teachers of the law". its the reason why the pharisees said jesus was blaspheming when he told a paralytic their sins were forgiven. its the reason why they said jesus was breaking the law when he was healing on the sabbath. and its also why jesus said when he was talking about not coming to abolish the law but to uphold it that if your rightiousness doesnt surpass the pharisees and teachers of the law you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

how does science say jesus never existed. the koran and other historians at the time talked about jesus. jesus was quoting from the old testament. but his disciples shouldve written his other characteristics better. their accounts are too one sided.

i think the disciples missed jesus so much that they forced themselves to believe he had risen.
so you believe in the account of the koran which is a book totally opposed to the bible's account of jesus(and BTW does not depict your omnibenevolent jesus) and the account of historians who were not there and what they wrote about jesus but you question the account of the people who were with jesus and were discipled by jesus directly all throughout jesus ministry?

nothing contradictory or backwards about that. nope, not at all. the issue with what the authors of the gospels wrote and what paul wrote is not accuracy but rather what i've been saying all along. it doesnt fit with your personal world view. im sorry, but your world view is not valid argumentation against the accuracy of the gospels.

Rom 14 v9 says jesus is lord of the dead. luke 20 v38 directly says that jesus is not lord of the dead. people can see that as contradictory. i don care that much because theyre just one quote and they might be coming from different standpoints. i just think jesus and paul sound like very different men.

rom 13 v9 and matt 22 v37-40 could also be said to be a contradiction. also look at 1 cor 12 v 28 and matt 23 v8.
i'd already showed you why they're not a contradictions. it doesnt matter what people will perceive, it only matters what the proper exegesis of scripture is.

jesus and paul were indeed different men. jesus is the holy son of God the creator who was with the father from the beginning of time and through him all things were created(read john 1). paul was someone who before he had an encounter with christ(read acts 9) he put those who believed in jesus in prison and even had them killed. they were totally different but they both submitted to the will of God the father and were lead by the holy spirit(paul obviously not at first).

jesus saying that families will be torn apart doesnt mean stop loving ur families. jesus loved everyone. even people who persecuted him and even the evil one. he offers no resistance. jesus tells that guy to stop burying his dad because jesus doesnt believe in human traditions. it makes no sense to jesus. after a person dies why bry them. jesus lived in a very different world.
so tell me, what is jesus saying in matthew 10:34-39?

offers no resistance? loves everyone? what were the seven woes to the pharisees about then? why did jesus go ham at the temple?(read john 2:14-16)

jesus telling the man not to bury his father has nothing to do with not following traditions as jesus DID follow traditions.

jesus participated in the passover meal tradition(matthew 26:17-19)
jesus paid the temple tax which is basically a man made ordinance(matthew 17:24-27)
he was baptised by john the baptist, another tradition (matthew 3:13-17)

so it had nothing to do with jesus ignoring traditions. i'll help you out here.

there were two people in the passage that wanted to follow jesus and jesus in different ways told them what it would cost them to follow him. one says he would follow jesus wherever he went and jesus responded saying "foxes have holes and birds have nests but the son of man has no place to lay his head". then theres the part where jesus tells the guy to forget about burying his father. this passage connects with the passage in matthew 10:34-39 in that we must be willing to lay down everything and anything to follow christ.

whether it means forsaking relationships, forsaking wealth or wellbeing, or forsaking worldly worries. these all reflect the passages mentioned. you must lay down ALL to follow christ, if you dont, you are not worthy of him.

another exmaple in matthew 19:16-24

a rich young man who had kept all the commandments including the one which is to "love your neighbor as yourself". jesus then told him to go and sell his possession and follow him. the rich man in refusal turned away sad.

jesus knew what was in his heart in that he valued his wealth more than following jesus. even though the rich man loved his neighbor as he did himself he still was declared by jesus to not be worthy of the kingdom of heaven.

because you see, love is just one part of the total surrender that God seeks. the call of God is not the golden rule. the call of God is to fully and totally submit to his will.

jesus thought the pharisees stopped the connection between the people and god. what is god but love..
first off there are many parts to God character. he is the greatest personification of love but that is not all of his character. another huge part of God's character is justice and you can see this throughout the old testament books.

second, you continue to make the assumption that jesus was mad at the pharisees for the sole purpose of them keeping people from loving each other. there is nothing in scripture that substantiates this assumption.

read john 11:45-48

after jesus had raised lazarus up from the dead some jews there put their faith in while others went and told the pharisees and then they wanted to kill him not because jesus was making people love each other but because their livelihood as priests were at stake because of what jesus was doing.

jesus issue with the pharisees had nothing to do with love or lack thereof. it had to do with them not recognizing or acknowledging that he was the messiah, the son of God, the one for whom their ancient prophesies spoke.

all the times the pharisees tested jesus were not based on trying to make him out to be an unloving person but to make him out to be a hypocrite, a false prophet, a law breaker, and a blasphemer.

i suggest you re-read the book of matthew.

when jesus said to believe in him i thought he meant to believe in his doctrine. it says this in the bible

"[36] "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
[37] And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
[38] This is the great and first commandment.
[39] And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
[40] On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.""

the doctrine is about love not belief. is believing in jesus not believing in this.
went over this in my response to your breaking up of families interprtation.


i think u and paul make a mistake. u think believing in jesus is believing in a historical figure. but i think its different. people may believe in that historical figure but from person to person they see him differently the think of him differently they react to him differently. but is the real jesus not a manifestation of perpetual striving all-encompassing love. what use is a believe in a name and historical figure. i think belief in jesus is deeper than believing a historical person existed. i believe that people who never heard of the person jesus can believe in him.

someone who is wont to love will have full belief and faith in the ever striving perpetual love which is the true jesus.
yet again i already covered this but i'll repeat it again. the rich young did both of those things yet he was not worthy of the kingdom of heaven because he valued his riches over God. believing that God exists does not make you worthy of life. the demons believed that God existed and knew who he was even before the disciple knew it. believing in jesus means that you follow him, to follow him means that you do things he did and it also means surrendering everything you have to him.

being a nice and loving person isnt going to get you into heaven because you are now trying get into heaven by your own rightiousness and works which are worthless before God(read isaiah 64:5-6)

if u follow the 2 greatest commandments (love god and everybody) then u naturally believe in jesus not as name or historical figure but as a metaphysical supplement to the activity of loving.
went over this

i treat the scriptures as i treat everything, i believe some of it and i dont believe other parts of it.

god still shouldnt have sacrificed jesus. thats not true justice.
your own personal world view = worthless. went over this

but then ive often had this thought. what if people relying on jesus for taking away their sins were not really just sickly selfish utilitarians. what if god was testing them and the true course of action is for a person to say to jesus "GET OFF THE CROSS SOMEONE AS INNOCENT AS YOU SHOULDNT BE ON IT. TAKE MY LIFE INSTEAD. I VOLUNTEER". what if god was disgusted at people for using jesus to ty and get into heaven instead of doing the right thing of getting jesus off the cross.

i dont actually believe it but what o u think of it. do u like it or hate it?
totally unbiblical, the scriptures dont support this in any way shape or form.

we're not worthy to atone for the sins of mankind because we are sinful, fallen creatures. the reason jesus was able to do it was because he was sinless, holy, and blameless. a holy sacrifice is the only sacrifice that would do for god to atone for the sins of mankind and redeem us from the sin of adam.

telling jesus to get off the cross is saying that you should pay for your own sins which you cannot do which means you will simply(and justifiably) perish before God's holy justice and be subjected to eaternal damnnation and torment apart from the grace of God forever. while i certainly deserve it, i dont want it and i thank God for LOVE he showed in taking my place. all he asks in return is for us to surrender our lives to him and he will allow us to be in paradise with him and live forever in the kingdom of God.

dont know about you, but i'll take that deal.

and about ur last sentence. love completely transcends and destroys justice.

also i remember u telling me that jesus does judge and u gave examples but what do u think of john 8 v15.

basicly i think u and paul make 2 big mistakes.
your first statement is totally alien to biblical testimony and revelation so uhhhhh cool story bro!

what i think about john 8:15 is that you dont like to read anything in context. tell me what you think of john 5:22-23 and john 5:26-27?

then go read matthew 23:13-39 and tell me how jesus isnt passing judgement?

trying to connect jesus' death on the cross to sacrifices given in the law of moses is sloppy. the only point for you is what jesus said in the last supper about giving his blood to his disciples but theres far too many points against it. the main one being its a sin to offer sacrifices which arent in the temple. forgiveness itself should be acceptable from an omnipotent god etc.

also u turn the doctrine of love to a doctrine of belief. and not even that, the shallow doctrine of belief in historical figure.

everything comes from jesus' 2 greatest commands love god and love everyone.

belief naturally comes from this.

the kingdom of heaven comes from love not belief.
already went over this stuff. jesus is the temple, how you think forgiveness should be handled is based on your personal world view which is, again, worthless to biblical testimony.

being a loving and kind person is based on your own righteousness which is not valid atonement for your sins according to God's decree. without jesus you have no atonement for your sins. you can be the most loving person ever and it will not matter before a holy God because you are a fallen creature worthy of death because of sin.

if you dont believe in jesus you wont surrender you life to him which is what the rich young man didnt do even though he loved his neighbor and was declared not worth of the kingdom.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

Last edited by THE W; 11-20-2012 at 10:18 PM.
THE W is offline   Reply With Quote