Church Vs. God.

[THE W]

we went over this before in another thread. jesus had to shed blood for the sins of man because blood is required for the forgiveness of sins. this is what the old covenant required. without christ's sacrifice there is no atonement for sin other than the old way of dealing with the priests in sacrificing animals and pouring their blood on the alter in the temples.

thats what the sacrifice, the new covenant in christ's blood, is. the final atonement for sin. your view of who jesus is, is based on your personal world view and totally contradictory to the testimony of scripture and as i said, you can reject the testimony but you cant change it.

so you believe the events chronicled in the gospels are incorrect? do you have any historical or journalistic evidence showing the testimony of these documents to be in error? your objection to what's wirtten in the gospels seems to be more about them not agreeing with your personal world view rather than lack of historical or journalistic accuracy.

paul's writings dont contradict what jesus did so there's nothing wrong with what paul wrote.

matthew 23
matthew 10:24-28
matthew 8:21-22
luke 6:24-26
matthew 7:21-23
john 8:23-24
matthew 13:37-43

a mixture of malicious and cold things jesus has said that also show that he absolutely judges people and differentiates.

you ask why he has to do it this way? because thats his decree. if you dont like that, well...thats your problem. whether or not it jives with your world veiw is not relevant. the point is what the scriptures say.

also you did exactly what i pointed out my last post. you look for literla words and phrases and completely ignore contextual reference. clearly you understand what the old and new covenants were and i dont think you as this isnt about peoper exegesis of scripture for you, this is about what jives with your personal world view.

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

Originally Posted by THE W

we went over this before in another thread. jesus had to shed blood for the sins of man because blood is required for the forgiveness of sins. this is what the old covenant required. without christ's sacrifice there is no atonement for sin other than the old way of dealing with the priests in sacrificing animals and pouring their blood on the alter in the temples.

thats what the sacrifice, the new covenant in christ's blood, is. the final atonement for sin. your view of who jesus is, is based on your personal world view and totally contradictory to the testimony of scripture and as i said, you can reject the testimony but you cant change it.

jesus barely followed tradition or rituals. why would he care about this ritual. how is an omnipotent god confined by a law to create a perverse law in which the innocent are punished. was jesus not already disobeying the original law before his sacrifice commenced? how was he able to do this and not sin? is forgiveness of sins not enough.

so you believe the events chronicled in the gospels are incorrect? do you have any historical or journalistic evidence showing the testimony of these documents to be in error? your objection to what's wirtten in the gospels seems to be more about them not agreeing with your personal world view rather than lack of historical or journalistic accuracy.

i believe the gospels were biased and from what ive seen of jesus in the books it seemed to me as if his disciples tried to give to many old testament qualities to jesus. also theres very suspicious moments such as the disciples not recoginising the new "jesus" after he died. also science seems to suggest the miracles are erroneous

paul's writings dont contradict what jesus did so there's nothing wrong with what paul wrote.

christians often have a way of seeing two completely different ways of life and thinking theyre the same. its astonished me how they think the same god who gave jesus to the world is the same one who turned lot's wife to a pillar of salt because she looked back or tells people to stone homosexuals. paul is a very different man. when i read his letters most of the time it made me a more depressed and angry person. it was bad for my health. maybe he doesnt directly contradict jesuss messages but they sound very different. i could show plenty of petty differences such as in Rom 14 paul says jesus is god of the dead but in luke 20:38 luke says that jesus is not god of the dead. in Rom3:24 and Rom 3:28 paul says were justified by jesus' faith and grace and in Matt 12:37 matthew says were justified by our words. (interesting that u can see the transformation from our words justifying us to jesus' sacrifice justifying us).

but what would be the point of showing lots of petty differences. the point is if looked objectively they sound very different.

matthew 23
matthew 10:24-28
matthew 8:21-22
luke 6:24-26
matthew 7:21-23
john 8:23-24
matthew 13:37-43

a mixture of malicious and cold things jesus has said that also show that he absolutely judges people and differentiates.

you ask why he has to do it this way? because thats his decree. if you dont like that, well...thats your problem. whether or not it jives with your world veiw is not relevant. the point is what the scriptures say.

jesus is obviously getting hugely upset. it pains him so much that these priests stop others from loving. if jesus had one form of moral code or judgement it would be "whatever makes a being love is good and whoever loves is good, whatever makes a being not love and whoever doesnt love is bad". but when he loves to his fullest its different because pure love is unconditional. it goes beyond good and evil. it obscures vision so that a person can no longer judge or differentiate. he loves them no matter what. have u ever seen how a mother loves her child no matter what he does even if hes pure evil. that was jesus majority of the time. its why jesus was able to dine with very bad people. jesus got frustrated at the priests. they were his demons of gravity which held people from entering the kingdom of god which is the realm of pure love.

paul doesnt actlike this nor could he understand it

also you did exactly what i pointed out my last post. you look for literla words and phrases and completely ignore contextual reference. clearly you understand what the old and new covenants were and i dont think you as this isnt about peoper exegesis of scripture for you, this is about what jives with your personal world view.

jesus died on the cross in order to show them how to live, not to save them from salvation. the kingdom of god is within urself. it doesnt depend on people hanging on crosses

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

Matt 9:13 Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.'

[THE W]

okay, so i guess im going to have to start going through all of your exegetical errors one by one as you make more and more with every post you make.

jesus barely followed tradition or rituals. why would he care about this ritual. how is an omnipotent god confined by a law to create a perverse law in which the innocent are punished. was jesus not already disobeying the original law before his sacrifice commenced? how was he able to do this and not sin? is forgiveness of sins not enough.

jesus didnt follow any man made rituals or traditions but he did follow the will of God which was to be the final atonement for sin on the cross. since he obeyed God he did not sin so i dont know what you're talking about there. the old covenant was established by God, not man.

read matthew 5:17

i believe the gospels were biased and from what ive seen of jesus in the books it seemed to me as if his disciples tried to give to many old testament qualities to jesus. also theres very suspicious moments such as the disciples not recoginising the new "jesus" after he died. also science seems to suggest the miracles are erroneous

what you or i personally believe is irrelevant. proper exegesis of scriptural texts is not based on beliefs or opinions. you must substantiate what you believe from the texts. jesus tried to give too many old testament qualities to himself. again, read matthew 5:17-20. he also quoted old testament verses on numerous occasions. you're forcing a concept on the text thats not there bro. the disciples not recognizing jesus had to do with their skepticism about him rising from the dead. i dont see how that has anything to do with your point either. science says jesus never existed so whats your point?

christians often have a way of seeing two completely different ways of life and thinking theyre the same. its astonished me how they think the same god who gave jesus to the world is the same one who turned lot's wife to a pillar of salt because she looked back or tells people to stone homosexuals. paul is a very different man. when i read his letters most of the time it made me a more depressed and angry person. it was bad for my health. maybe he doesnt directly contradict jesuss messages but they sound very different. i could show plenty of petty differences such as in Rom 14 paul says jesus is god of the dead but in luke 20:38 luke says that jesus is not god of the dead. in Rom3:24 and Rom 3:28 paul says were justified by jesus' faith and grace and in Matt 12:37 matthew says were justified by our words. (interesting that u can see the transformation from our words justifying us to jesus' sacrifice justifying us).

romans 14 and luke 20:38 speak of those who are in christ or are children of the ressurection whether alive or dead.

romans 3:24-28 and matthew 12:37 are addressing two different subjects. the romans passages mentioned are explaining what christs sacrifice was for and the matthew passage is jesus explaining that whatever is in your heart, whether good or bad, will come out. in this case, it will come out in the way you speak.

there's no conflict between jesus and pauls message whatsoever.

jesus is obviously getting hugely upset. it pains him so much that these priests stop others from loving. if jesus had one form of moral code or judgement it would be "whatever makes a being love is good and whoever loves is good, whatever makes a being not love and whoever doesnt love is bad". but when he loves to his fullest its different because pure love is unconditional. it goes beyond good and evil. it obscures vision so that a person can no longer judge or differentiate. he loves them no matter what. have u ever seen how a mother loves her child no matter what he does even if hes pure evil. that was jesus majority of the time. its why jesus was able to dine with very bad people. jesus got frustrated at the priests. they were his demons of gravity which held people from entering the kingdom of god which is the realm of pure love.

paul doesnt actlike this nor could he understand it

jesus saying woe to the pharisees has nothing to do with them stopping others from loving. it has to do with them keeping others from recognizing jesus as the son of God and from seeing God's plan through his son to establish a new covenant. they're also trying to uphold there reputations as religious authorities, something which jesus ministry was directly opposed to. again, nothing to do with love.

and what about the verse where jesus says he wants to tear families apart and turn them against each other? what about the verse where he tells a guy to forget about burying his father telling him let the dead people bury the dead and to just follow him?

john 8:23-24 doesnt say people will die in their sins if they dont start being more loving. it says they'll die in their sins if they dont believe that he is the son of God and he and God the father are one. what does that mean? it means you can be a very nice and loving person and if you reject christ you reject the father who sent him and WILL NOT enter the kingdom of heaven.

paul understood this fully which is why such a message is all over his letters.

jesus died on the cross in order to show them how to live, not to save them from salvation. the kingdom of god is within urself. it doesnt depend on people hanging on crosses

i guess you plan on starting your own religion because thats not what the bible teaches.

you can reject the testimony of scripture, but you cant change it or bastardize it to suit your world view.

Matt 9:13 Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.'

which is exactly why he gave his life so that those "sinners" he came to call could receive mercy from God the father by jesus taking their place in receiving punishment for their sins.

God did not decide to punish an innocent person for sins others committed, an innocent person volunteered to take God's punishment for the sins other committed.

God the father's justice and Jesus the christ's mercy displayed in one act. now THAT'S loving.

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

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

http://judaism.about.com/od/abcsofju...fices_stop.htm

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

jesus thought the pharisees stopped the connection between the people and god. what is god but love.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[THE W]

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

http://judaism.about.com/od/abcsofju...fices_stop.htm

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

jesus is that temple
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...ersion=NIV1984

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
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...ersion=NIV1984

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.

next..

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 already...next...

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 already...next...

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.

[diggy]

Originally Posted by THE W

God did not decide to punish an innocent person for sins others committed, an innocent person volunteered to take God's punishment for the sins other committed.

So those people who punished Jesus were God?

Originally Posted by THE W

God the father's justice and Jesus the christ's mercy displayed in one act. now THAT'S loving.

Is it justice when an innocent is punished?

Originally Posted by THE W

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.

When Jesus died and was resurected by God.....wait a minuite....If Jesus died, and Jesus is God, then how was it logically possible for God who is dead (no longer existing) to resurrect Jesus???????????

Originally Posted by THE W

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.

Jesus had authority from God? Didn't you write that both were one? Now you're implying they're two!! Why would Jesus, who is God, according to you, need permission from God, who is his self, to forgive sins??????????

Jesus as "the son of God"? Now he's the son of God as well as being God?
God is now the father of Jesus and IS Jesus as well?

[D.projectile]

rakimkoolg is chattin alotta sense

[D.projectile]

Originally Posted by D.projectile

rakimkoolg is chattin alotta sense




THE BIBLE AS SYMBOL


Our first order of business in this quest is to see if we can justify considering the Bible as symbolic rather then literal. We must use the Bible itself.



1.2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. So here is the Bible itself telling us not to take it literally.



God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter (literal interpretation) killeth, but the spirit (allegorical or symbolic interpretation) giveth life. (II Cor. 3.6)


We use great plainness of speech. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost (materialistic). (II Cor. 4.3)


If our earthly house of this tabernacle (the physical body) were dissolved we have a building of God (the astral and mental bodies) a house not made with hands (but constructed by the angelic builders) eternal (the causal body) in the heavens (the super physical planes). (II Cor. 5.1)


Awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead (the physical plane) and Christ shall give thee light. (Eph.5.14)



WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT THAT THE BIBLE IS THE LITERAL WORD OF GOD. But it is all mythology, it’s all symbolic, but you have to understand the meaning of the mythology, in order to grasp what the bible is saying.


2. Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: the definition of a myth includes the term allegory. Here again the Bible tells us it is symbolic.


3. Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: The Bible is saying that all of Jesus statements were symbolic.



4. Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:



5. Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: Here the Bible states that GOD speaks in parables . And what are dark sayings of old. Obviously they are symbolic statements.


6. In the Book of Proverbs describes wisdom. It explains how one becomes wise. Proverbs 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. Dark sayings is mythology



7. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 2 cor.4:3



10. Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak in parables? EZ:20 Here God speaks in parables



11. 1Cr 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory. Here it says god ordained the hidden wisdom, even before the world


12. Eze. 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel. God orders riddles



28. Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.



Here God is saying that his word is like milk to you, as a babe must drink milk before it can eat solid food. God is saying his word is for the one who is ready for meat, in other words, when one is ready for the deeper meaning, this is the meat, for the one full of age (wisdom). Reading Gods word literally is MILK, it is for the unskillful, and they will not understand.



Here the fact that this is all consciousness is made clear. It says to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God. Where is the Kingdom of God ? . (Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.)

http://thehiddenlighthouse.blogspot....pare_4272.html

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

Originally Posted by THE W

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

jesus is that temple
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...ersion=NIV1984

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
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...ersion=NIV1984



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.

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.

that makes absolutely no sense. the law states that sacrifices are to be carried out inside the holy temple.

thats not the same as sacrificing the holy temple itself. sacrificing jesus on the cross is sacrificing the temple to god on the cross.

the law states that sacrifices are to be sacrificed to god inside the temple. logic of the law says that the sacrifice would have to be inside jesus.

so how is destroying the temple in alliance with the law. ur approach is sloppy. i think paul mightve also had the same sloppy approach.

most of the approaches to say jesus sacrificed himself for our sins is sloppy. i remember u saying i wasnt reading those bible verses in context. but the thing is, i was. majority of them said jesus would be killed to fulfill prophecies (not to get rid of sins or even for a sacrifice).

there was only 1 section of jesus speaking u gave that seemed to be in ur viewpoint. which was the last supper in which jesus gave them bread and said this is my body. but even that can be argued against you. he could be saying his disciples are one with his body or that part of him will be inside them after he dies as well as his new covenant (his blood).

the most honest answer would be to say its inconclusive.

and also remember jesus' disciples were terrible at parables and metaphors. they had to ask jesus about the most simple of ones. so how could they possibly understand the metaphor of the cross (and i think its highly improbable that jesus rose from the dead so he wouldnt be able to tell them the truth).

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.

no they made their own rules as well which jesus didnt follow. the one about washing hands b4 a meal isnt in the law of moses it was created by the pharisees.

i suppose u can argue about the sabbath but then it depends on what somebody defines work as.

but verything els was basicly just made up rules. but then if u believe jesus wasnt upholding the laws before the new covenant then surely he was sinning.

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.

i think the bible is the most accurate viewpoint but it is definitely with the bias of the disciples. same way in which portraits of kings and queens of the renaissance era are the most accurate pictures of how they looked but they were drawn with bias to make royalty look beautiful or else the royalty would punish them for making them look ugly.

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.

in one part paul says theres teachers and fathers in the church. jesus said not to call anybody else on earth teacher or father. majority of people would call that contradiction.

it also shows the difference between jesus' anarchistic ideal for christian society and pauls more practical ideal for society which had different levels.

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).

people experience "God" in different ways. people think of him very differently. some see certain characteristics of him more than others. they more or less see different gods. i think paul and jesus saw completely different gods even if they did call him the same name.

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.

in matthew 10 34-39 jesus is saying that if u follow jesus disaster and destruction will come. please show me the bit in which jesus says to stop loving ur father or mother. jesus is the same man who said love ur enemy.

u seem to think if jesus shouts at people he suddenly stops loving them. lol. thats completely incorrect. learn what it means to love ur enemy. ofc he offers no resistance. he would never hit back. he didnt hit anyone in the temple. he just threw all their stuff in the air and chased them out. he was driven by a mad passion of love.

sorry i shouldve made it clear by what i meant when i said that jesus didnt follow traditions. i meant that he didnt do things just because they were a tradition. he wouldnt see any point in burying a dead person because how would burying a dead person bring any benefit to the dead person.

he followed passover not because it was a tradition but as a symbol or metaphor. charity because he loved giving. baptism as metphor/symbol and to fulfill prophecies.

yes i agree that the kingdom of god includes a certain rejection of the physical world and worldly matters.

i heavily doubt that the rich man loved his neighbour to his full extent. he preferred his money and held it above everyone so how could he love people as he loved himself. just because the ruler said he did something doesnt mean he did it.

i dont think jesus' god calls us to submission to his will but rather to act naturally in accordance with his will.

these are two different things.

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.

lmfao thinking the old testament is a book of justice. pure love cant act in accordance with justice but it was necessary for jesus to believe this in the same way it was necessary for the earliest philosophers to believe knowledge is power (also isnt true).

the pharisees follow the law because the law benefits them in their selfish needs. jesus wanted them to follow the law with loving hearts. if they did this they wouldnt be calling him such bad things.

in jesus' absurd childish logic (only children can enter the kingdom of heaven) he wouldve equated not believing in him with not being full of love.

ive read the book of matthew plenty of times

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)

answer me this. if someone was never told about jesus (historical figure) but in his mind he had a huge dedication and belief in an archetype that was an imitation of jesus would he be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. many christians say u have to believe in jesus the nazarene. what do you think. do you have to belief in jesus the nazarene or is it ok to believe in a jesus archetype with absolutely no knowledge of the bible.

your own personal world view = worthless. went over this already...next...

and why isnt yurs or the disciples world view worthless.

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.

sometimes i think that eternal damnation is the right choice in terms of justice but were too cowardly to admit this.

the worst thing would be if jesus ended up being damned for eternity and was tricked by everyone until he finally realised and said "father father why did you abandon me".

i dont believe in eternal damnation so i dont believe this happened but i can see how some people might believe this happened.

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?

my first statement is against scripture but scripture is terrible at explaining moals.

heres a better book
http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Polit...gyofMorals.pdf

how jesus judges is unusual.

love surpasses all judgement.

i guess jesus hadnt reached the stage of absolute love which he wanted to reach.

but there were times when he wouldnt judge. such as when people didnt judge, he wouldnt judge them.

absolute true christianity is a state of not judging. everything becomes equal. man is equal to God through jesus christ. u cant judge anyones sins because everyones sins have been forgiven.

judging is when u make disticntions between people and differentiate between them which therefore makes them unequal as certain qualities are always preferred above others.

i guess to be practical, jesus had to judge to an extent.

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.

sacrifices in the temple is different to the temple as a sacrifice.

love is beyond righteousness.

the rich young man loved his money above his neighbour. its not as simple as loving ur neighbour but rather loving everyone as much as u can.

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

btw w u seem to think that there exists accurate descriptions of jesus.

this isnt true and most of its based on opinion.

an the bible seems to have two conflicting ideas of jesus which wrestle with eachother.

[THE W]

Originally Posted by FMJ

So those people who punished Jesus were God?

i honestly dont know what you're saying here



Is it justice when an innocent is punished?


When Jesus died and was resurected by God.....wait a minuite....If Jesus died, and Jesus is God, then how was it logically possible for God who is dead (no longer existing) to resurrect Jesus???????????






Jesus had authority from God? Didn't you write that both were one? Now you're implying they're two!! Why would Jesus, who is God, according to you, need permission from God, who is his self, to forgive sins??????????

Jesus as "the son of God"? Now he's the son of God as well as being God?
God is now the father of Jesus and IS Jesus as well?

God decreed that jesus would suffer crucifixion at the hands of men. man just played a part of fullfilling that prophesy. man did not make this decree, god did.

the debt for sin had to be paid by someone. jesus offered to pay it and he did in his death.


trinity = the one being God or Godhead comprised of 3 persons. the father, the son, the holy spirit.

understand that definition and what i said makes perfect sense.

[THE W]

this is getting away from the original points of exegetical error so im gonna stick to those points:

- jesus was never ressurected
- the purpose for jesus death and resurrection is not for the sins of man
- the gospels do not depict jesus accurately
- paul seeing jesus as the atonement for sin is not true
- we can be in the kingdom of heaven as long as we love people
- you cant have a God of perfect love and perfect justice or love and justice cannot co-exist


jesus was never resurrected

luke 24. you can read about it there. also john 20.

now if you dont believe biblical testimony and what God basically said was gonna happen then you reject and thus have no part in him.



the purpose of jesus' death and ressurection was not for the sins of man

luke 22:19-20

bread is his body which was to be sacrificed on the cross "my body given for you"

the cup was his blood of the new covenant that would be spilled when they pierced his side on the cross "this is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured our for you"

what is this new covenant?

jerimiah 31:31-34
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...ersion=NIV1984

"for i will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more"

john the baptist called jesus "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (john 1:29-34)

jesus himself said that he had been given the authority to forgive sins(matthew 9:1-8)



the gospels dont depict jesus accurately

well, you dont have any exegitical evidence of this, you dont have any historiacal evidence for this. all you have said is they cant have it right because they didnt understand the parables.

you do know they these documents were written after all this had taken place right? long after jesus had revealed everything to them.

at the end of the day, making this statement means you have rejected biblical testimony.


paul seeing jesus as the atonement for sin is not true

see "the purpose of jesus death and ressurection was not for the sins of man"

it sure was, and paul expands upon this throughout his letters.


we can be in the kingdom of heaven as long as we love people

again, you're getting in on your own righteousness which is no righteousness at all. we are fallen creatures due to the sin of adam.

romans 5:12-20

adam pretty much blew it for all of us. all mankind after adam was dead before God. the old covenant was a band-aid which allowed for our sins to be forgiven and for God not to crush us for our sin but it did not connect mankind back to God as the debt for sin was still not paid.

without the sacrifice there is no atonement. we would have to stick with sacrificing animals for our sins in temples. just being a good loving person didnt work under either covenant.

romans 10:9-10

how can someone say "im a totally kind and loving person but i dont believe in jesus. all that stuff about him rising from the dead, those silly miracles, him being with God from the beginning of creation and having all things created through him. meh, thats a bunch of malarkey. but hey, i sure love my neighbor"


john 8:24


sorry, doesnt work.







you cant have a God of perfect love and perfect justice...or...love and justice cannot co-exist in God.


you're speaking from you world-view when you make this statement and you are certainly entitled to say this.

just understand that the biblical testimony does not uphold this view and such a statement denies the sovereignty of God in his ability to define himself and express himself to his own creation as he pleases.

im not here to change your world view as i dont care about your world view..and neither do the scriptures.

me and paul dont have a "world view". we are slaves to the word of God. God is the author of existance and creator of all things. he can do as he pleases with what he has made.

[diggy]

Originally Posted by THE W

i honestly dont know what you're saying here

Ok. let me repeat. This is what you wrote:

Originally Posted by THE W

God did not decide to punish an innocent person for sins others committed, an innocent person volunteered to take God's punishment for the sins other committed.

You basically said that Jesus' suffering on the cross was God's punishment. But he was punished by people. So you are implying that the people who punished Jesus were God!!! Are they God?

Originally Posted by THE W

the debt for sin had to be paid by someone. jesus offered to pay it and he did in his death.

Has everyone had their sins forgiven because of Jesus' death? Why or why not?

Why does a person need to accept Jesus as their savior if Jesus died for their sins????

Originally Posted by THE W

trinity = the one being God or Godhead comprised of 3 persons. the father, the son, the holy spirit.

understand that definition and what i said makes perfect sense.

Does the word "Godhead" appear in the bible?

Show me "the father, the son, the holy spirit" in the bible!!!

You still did not explain to me how was it logically possible for God who is dead (no longer existing) to resurrect Jesus!!! I'm still waiting!!!

[THE W]

You basically said that Jesus' suffering on the cross was God's punishment. But he was punished by people. So you are implying that the people who punished Jesus were God!!! Are they God?

this is silly. the people were used as instruments to carry out God's will. just like moses was empowered by God and used as an instrument to deliver israel from slavery in egypt. an instrument cant do anything on its own without something controlling it.

Has everyone had their sins forgiven because of Jesus' death? Why or why not?

Why does a person need to accept Jesus as their savior if Jesus died for their sins????

those who believe in him and abide in him have their sins forgiven. if you reject him, you will die in your sins. saying thinss like, " he was never resurrected", "he is not God", "he never performed any miracles", "he does not have the power to forgive sins" is rejecting him as you would be rejecting his own testimony and thus rejecting the one who sent him.

john 14:6-14

jesus' own testimony.

luke 10:1-16

those who didnt believe in the testimony of jesus were doomed for destruction. they were compared to tyre and sidon.

Does the word "Godhead" appear in the bible?

Show me "the father, the son, the holy spirit" in the bible!!!

You still did not explain to me how was it logically possible for God who is dead (no longer existing) to resurrect Jesus!!! I'm still waiting!!!

went over this error in exegesis already. you look for literal words while totally ignoring contextual testimony. the word "trinity" isnt in the bible either. they are words to describe what the bible testifies to.

i'll throw you a bone though,

matthew 28:19-20

there's your father, son, holy spirit reference.

jesus is not praying to himself in john 17, he is praying to the father.

matthew 26:63-64

it would be rather silly for jesus to say he would sit at the right hand of himself. rather he will sit at the right hand of the father.

john 14:28 "the father is greater than i"

john 14:15-17 and john 14:25-26

all jesus' words.


do you reject the testimony and witness of christ? you can if you wish, but you know what that means for you..