Do you really believe that Jesus died for our sins?

[Bennettresearch]

I don't suppose that you recognize the irony of your statement.

Perhaps you would prefer that I don't use colors?

So in other words I am right but you just won't admit it. I get that from Penguin a lot.

If you insist, I will make my point.The OT references to the son of man, means a prophet. The son of man is a prophet as used by prophets in the OT like Ezekiel. To draw any other meaning from this is to misinterpret it's original meaning. I've had people point out that it is capitalized. That's nice. The original text was written without capitalization, chapters, or verses. This is a modern invention and prone to idosyncratic interpretations.

 

[footprints]

</p>
This is where we started. It clearly shows that you addressed and challenged me. Now you are whining like some kind of victim of my assault upon you. Puleeeeeease.
Why don't you make sure you have your facts straight before you make accusations? You have been pressing the issue and I have responded. You arrogantly psychoanalyze me and have invented the construct.
I believe that this personal attack only shows the fact that you really have no point and a very weak argument.

I can understand why you have derived the conclusions you have, not really good at research are you?

The post you referred to was post 34, this was in reply to your post 30, which was in reply to my response (post 14) to the OP which was your post 1.

After my response to the OP, post 14, you have continually posted back to me. I have merely answered. The full sequence of events is, Post 1, was from you to all who would reply. I replied to the OP in post 14. You challenged that post in post number 30, which I answered in post 34 which was the post you highlighted completely missing everything which came before that. Since then it has gone in sequence, starting with you from post 41, me post 44, you post 58, me post 64, you post 103, me post 109, you post 110, me post 117, you post 120, and now this reply from me which is post 122.

At this point now we are even, unless of course you wish to challenge me again.

 

[Bennettresearch]

I can understand why you have derived the conclusions you have, not really good at research are you?

The post you referred to was post 34, this was in reply to your post 30, which was in reply to my response (post 14) to the OP which was your post 1.

After my response to the OP, post 14, you have continually posted back to me. I have merely answered. The full sequence of events is, Post 1, was from you to all who would reply. I replied to the OP in post 14. You challenged that post in post number 30, which I answered in post 34 which was the post you highlighted completely missing everything which came before that. Since then it has gone in sequence, starting with you from post 41, me post 44, you post 58, me post 64, you post 103, me post 109, you post 110, me post 117, you post 120, and now this reply from me which is post 122.

At this point now we are even, unless of course you wish to challenge me again.

You are confusing debate with a challenge. I questioned your post. Yes. You gave your response. OK fine. At this point you are demanding more than just a point of debate, you are now responding with some kind of psychoanalysis instead of making your point where you disagree with me. It shows that your position is weak, otherwise you would have a counter point that would refute what I said. Isn't this supposed to be a debate?
Quit whining and defend your position of being a follower of Paul.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no proof that John the Apostle wrote Revelation. After spending many years with this prophecy I believe he did write it well before 95 CE when it first appeared.

Wait... so if you do agree that John of Revelation and John the Apostle were two different people, then how does Revelation have any bearing on whether John and Paul were friends?

Sorry, I don't consider a propaganda quote from the last supper to qualify as a quotation from Jesus.

You asked where Paul quotes Jesus. I showed you exactly where he does. Whether or not you think it's false, the fact of the matter is that Paul (or, if we don't want to make assumptions, simply the writer of the First Letter to the Corinthians) gives us a statement and attributes it to Jesus.

Whoever wrote that epistle tried to imply a link between Paul and Jesus, presumably through the surviving apostles.

How about all of the doctrinal aspects of Paul that have been incorporated into the church that originate from Paul, and not Jesus?

What about them?

I have trouble getting through an epistle of Paul without getting mad.

Then why did you ask about them?

 

[Oberon]

Look at what John Dominic Crossan has to say on the subject, as he is considered the premier historical Jesus scholar and has the actual educational backing to support his ideas. And he's a Christian.

He's not a christian in the sense that most people use the word. He believes, for example, that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs, not resurrected. In a debate between Crossan and W. L. Craig, Crossan pretty much stated that God only exists because we believe in him, and does not operate in the world:

Crossan: We know God only as God has revealed God tu us; that's all we could ever know in any religion.

Craig: During the Jurassic age, when there were no human beings, did God exist?

Crossan: Meaningless question.

Craig: But surely that's not meaningless. It's a factual questions. Was there a being who was the Creator and Sustainer of the universe during that period of time when no human beings existed? It seems to me than in your view you'd have to say no.

Crossan: Well, I would probably prefer to say no...

My problems with Crossan are that he seems to fall into the all too common trap of creating a historical reconstruction based on what he wants: Jesus because an egalitarian cynic-type philosopher. The "Jewishness" of Jesus is only paid lipservice to. Additionally, some of his analyses of non-canonical texts are less scholarly and more works of a vivd imagination (particularly his cross gospel). He is certainly a brilliant and educated man, but I think his historical methodology (like many of the late new questors) is out of date.

Also, look at Bart D. Ehrman, who is also a highly respected authority on the subject of the New Testament.

He's a great textual critic, certainly. However, his book on the historical Jesus was a bad rehash of Schweitzer. Of course, this could be because it intended more for a popular audience.

 

[footprints]

You are confusing debate with a challenge. I questioned your post. Yes. You gave your response. OK fine. At this point you are demanding more than just a point of debate, you are now responding with some kind of psychoanalysis instead of making your point where you disagree with me. It shows that your position is weak, otherwise you would have a counter point that would refute what I said. Isn't this supposed to be a debate?
Quit whining and defend your position of being a follower of Paul.

What a lot of whinging and whining and self praised justification. Couldn't just admit you were wrong as the evidence provided says. Little wonder you are so confused, and your own intelligence stops you from learning.

Learn to research properly. The path of enlightenmnt left by Lord Jesus, explains it all.

 

[fallingblood]

He's not a christian in the sense that most people use the word. He believes, for example, that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs, not resurrected. In a debate between Crossan and W. L. Craig, Crossan pretty much stated that God only exists because we believe in him, and does not operate in the world:

He's a great textual critic, certainly. However, his book on the historical Jesus was a bad rehash of Schweitzer. Of course, this could be because it intended more for a popular audience.

I will agree that both of these scholars are not infallible. They do have, as you said, have some problems. My biggest problem with Crossan is his dating of scriptures (non-canonical). Now, he may be right, but he certainly has the burden of proof.

I think as you would agree though, no one scholar has it all, so it becomes a must to search out different ones. I will admit that Crossan and Erhman are by far my favorite. Part of it is because they were the first that I really studied. Erhman especially, because I enjoy his writing style and he is genuinely a nice person to deal with. On his advice, I've ended up studying quite a few other scholars that he suggested to me (I emailed him inquiring about further material to study as I did not want to wade through the garbage, and he pointed me to some credible source).

I will admit that they can be wrong though. However, that is why I also depend on other scholars as well.

 

[averageJOE]

He never really died if he just came back to life. So he didn't really sacrafice anything, more like he had a bad day.

 

[berrychrisc]

The mantra goes like this; God gave His only begotten Son to die for our sins so that we may have life.
A human sacrifice as a scapegoat for our sins? Jesus has die so that we can have life? We can’t have life without Jesus around? This all sounds rather sinister when you look at it.

Something as significant as the Crucifixion has many levels of meaning. I don't think that it was as simplistic as a human sacrifice performed to placate a holy, offended God. I don't think we will ever plumb the depths of the mystery of the birth of God as a man or his death. I am convinced, however that somehow the underlying theme of both is Love.

 

[footprints]

Something as significant as the Crucifixion has many levels of meaning. I don't think that it was as simplistic as a human sacrifice performed to placate a holy, offended God. I don't think we will ever plumb the depths of the mystery of the birth of God as a man or his death. I am convinced, however that somehow the underlying theme of both is Love.

And an Unconditional Love at that.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

He never really died if he just came back to life. So he didn't really sacrafice anything, more like he had a bad day.

First of all, before God resurrected Jesus he was buried in hell [gravedom] Acts 2:27,31; Ecc 9:5. Jesus would have believed according to John 11:11-14 that he would be in a deep sleep-like state until God resurrected him.

There is No Scripture that says Jesus just came back to life by himself.
Jesus was totally dependent on God resurrecting him.

Jesus sure did have a bad day. Unlike a person that is captured and tortured against their will, Jesus willingly laid down the value of his sinless life to balance the scales of justice for us and undo what Adam brought upon us.

Once we sin we die. If we could live without sinning we would not die.
Although death frees or acquits us from sin, see: Romans 6:7, that still leaves us with the problem that we can not resurrect oneself or resurrect another.
This is where the value of Jesus ransom for us (Matt 20:28) can be applied so that we will be brought back to life to live either in heaven or on earth during Jesus peaceful 1000-year rule over earth starting when Jesus ushers in Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill.
-see: Matthew 25:31,32;46; 16:27.

 

[S-word]

First of all, before God resurrected Jesus he was buried in hell [gravedom] Acts 2:27,31; Ecc 9:5. Jesus would have believed according to John 11:11-14 that he would be in a deep sleep-like state until God resurrected him.

There is No Scripture that says Jesus just came back to life by himself.
Jesus was totally dependent on God resurrecting him.

quote]

Correct! Acts !7:31; "For he (God our saviour. see 1st Timothy 1: 1) has fixed a day in which he will judge the whole world with justice by means of a man he has chosen. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that man from death."

 

[Bennettresearch]

Wait... so if you do agree that John of Revelation and John the Apostle were two different people, then how does Revelation have any bearing on whether John and Paul were friends??

I didn't say they were two different people, I said there is no proof as in recorded history. The theme of Revelation really does point towards John the apostle, at least the parts that haven't been added.

You asked where Paul quotes Jesus. I showed you exactly where he does. Whether or not you think it's false, the fact of the matter is that Paul (or, if we don't want to make assumptions, simply the writer of the First Letter to the Corinthians) gives us a statement and attributes it to Jesus.?

Your tendency to pick hairs is incredible. Paul is affecting the doctrine of christianity in his letters and not quoting Jesus about doctrinal issues!!! Only lame quotes that are actually irrelevant to what he is preaching.


As to the rest, Paul is a self appointed apostle. The propaganda piece called Acts doesn't prove any connection between Paul and Jesus and it certainly doesn't prove that emanations of Paul's imagination are originating from Jesus. You aren't giving Paul the same scrutiny that you are attempting to put me under here. That is hypocritical isn't it?

I get mad at the letters because Paulis preaching like a converted Pharisee and not giving us a substantial representation of Jesus. This is John's objection in Revelation.

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: Revelation 2:2

 

[Bennettresearch]

What a lot of whinging and whining and self praised justification. Couldn't just admit you were wrong as the evidence provided says. Little wonder you are so confused, and your own intelligence stops you from learning.

Learn to research properly. The path of enlightenmnt left by Lord Jesus, explains it all.

I said OK fine. What do you want? Several huzzah huzzahs about your really lame argument here. It doesn't matter when who said what, only what was said and you aren't providing an argument about that, only where and when a post was made? What am I supposed to say to that and what sense does that make?

You deserve my slam about your state of enlightenment.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Something as significant as the Crucifixion has many levels of meaning. I don't think that it was as simplistic as a human sacrifice performed to placate a holy, offended God. I don't think we will ever plumb the depths of the mystery of the birth of God as a man or his death. I am convinced, however that somehow the underlying theme of both is Love.

Relegating it to mystery only allows a doctrine to be enforced that is not supportable otherwise. Scriptures also support that Jesu and God are not the same entity.

Love is all good, but what about someone else having to suffer to cleanse your sins? Is this a valid doctrine?

 

[Bennettresearch]

What a lot of whinging and whining and self praised justification. Couldn't just admit you were wrong as the evidence provided says. Little wonder you are so confused, and your own intelligence stops you from learning.

Learn to research properly. The path of enlightenmnt left by Lord Jesus, explains it all.

I had to respond again here. Your arrogance is incredible. What have you provided that makes you so superior? You are only challenging me, not answering the question of thread. Your points havent been anything other than petty argumentative statements. You are supporting Paul? Then how can you claim to have the wisdom of Jesus from that?

I'm not going to waste my time giving citations at this point because you don't deserve it. Believe me, I have source work and you are overstepping calling me ignorant just because we disagree. It is this kind of namecalling that justifies what I have said to you. Why don't you set an example of just how enlightened you are instead of petty insults?

 

[berrychrisc]

Relegating it to mystery only allows a doctrine to be enforced that is not supportable otherwise.

The Crucifixion is indeed a great mystery. But I am not concerned with doctrine, or the enforcing of it. Doctrine, tradition, ritual and moralism are what spring up when an enlightened being's teachings are institutionalized into a religion.

Scriptures also support that Jesu and God are not the same entity.

I agree, to a point. When Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man, he is speaking of his humanity. When he refers to himself as the Son of God, he is speaking of his divine awareness. But he also says that we can become sons of God, and he lived his life showing us how to do that.

Love is all good, but what about someone else having to suffer to cleanse your sins? Is this a valid doctrine?

Again, I'm not interested in doctrine, but in Christ consciousness and a relationship with God. As I said before, I don't think the Crucifixion was as simplistic as a human sacrifice. I don't require blood to be shed in order to forgive my children, so I can't imagine that God, who is infinitely more forgiving and loving than me, would find such an act absolutely necessary. I think there was some redemptive element in the Crucifixion, but I don't believe that Christ's blood is the only thing shielding me from God's mighty wrath.

 

[S-word]

Relegating it to mystery only allows a doctrine to be enforced that is not supportable otherwise. Scriptures also support that Jesu and God are not the same entity.

Love is all good, but what about someone else having to suffer to cleanse your sins? Is this a valid doctrine?

quote=Bennettresearch; Scriptures also support that Jesu and God are not the same entity.

Correct! 1st Timothy 1: 1; From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by order of God our saviour and Christ Jesus our hope.

Acts 3: 13; The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has given divine glory (Showing that it was a gift from God) to his servant Jesus.

Acts 17: 31; "For he, (The God of our ancestors) has fixed a day in which he will rule the whole world with justice by means of a man he has chosen. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that man from death."

Deuteronomy 18: 18; "I will send them a prophet just like you from among their own people; I will tell him what to say and he will tell the people everything I command. He will speak in my name etc."

That Jesus was the man that was chosen to speak in the name of the Lord is confirmed by Peter in acts 3: 22;, For Moses said, "The Lord your God will send you a prophet, Just as he sent me, and he will be one of your own people etc, etc."

Jesus was the human body that God had prepared through suffering, to be obedient to his indwelling spirit, and when he became perfect in his obedience, the spirit of
God's only begotten Son, (The Son of Man, which is the spirit that is now developing within the body of mankind and the spiritual being to who all the sins of the physical body in which he develops is ascribed) who came down through time in the form of a dove and filled the body that his God had prepared for him.

The only exception of all mankind who was carried to heaven and stripped of his mortal garments and anointed with the sweet smelling ointment of God which shone with the brilliance of the sun, who, clothed and girded with fire, was chosen to serve God before the body of Adam/mankind into all eternity, was the one who came down, even the Son of Man who is in heaven. See John 3: 13. The word Christ means &#8220;The anointed one.&#8221;

Hebrew 10: 5; When the anointed one was about to come into the world, he said to God, &#8220;You do not want sacrifices and offerings, but you have prepared a body for me etc.&#8221; That body was the obedient Jesus, who had leant to be obedient to his indwelling spirit and to do, nor say anything on his own authority, but only that which he was commanded by the Lord who had descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to Say, &#8220;You are My son, Today I have begotten you.&#8221; See the more ancient and uncorrupted authorities of Luke 3: 22.

Hebrew 5: 7-10; When he was made perfect and had learnt to be obedient and do and say only that which he was commanded by the Lord: the Lord could then reveal himself to the world and the great sacrifice that he makes through his servant who was obedient even unto his cruel death on the cross, God declared him to be high priest in the line of succession to Melchizedek. Hebrew 5; 5; But Jesus did not take upon himself the honour of high priest, instead, after he had been brought to perfection by his obedience to his indwelling spirit, God made him high priest with these words, &#8220;You are my Son, today I have become your Father&#8221; as he rose from the baptismal waters and was filled with the spirit of the Son of Man, the only begotten Son of God.

Paul states that a woman is saved by bringing to fruition the child that formes within her body, and the spiritual Son of Man who is now developing within the body of mankind, cried out in Psalms 51: 5; "Behold, I was shapen in ininquity and in sin did my mother (Body) conceive me."

Did the People of his day believe that Jesus was the Lord? No! For they who walked in the front of Jesus as he made his triumphant entry into Jerusalem on the colt of a mule, cried out, &#8220;Praise to David&#8217;s son! God bless him who comes in the name of the Lord! Praise be to God.&#8221; They saw him as the fulfilment of the prophecy of the Lord in Deuteronomy 18: 18; as verified by Peter.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.....I don't believe that Christ's blood is the only thing shielding me from God's mighty wrath.

First of all, 1st john 1:7 B says the blood of Jesus Christ his [God's] Son cleanses us from all sin. But Jesus ransom does not cover all, but covers 'many'. - Matt 20:28. [ Matt 12:32; Hebrews 6:4-6]

In order to come under the shielding or protection of God's wrath we need to follow accordingly as 1st Peter 2:21 states using Jesus as our model or teaching example to follow in his footsteps closely.
Matt 28:19,20; 24:14.

Shielding Christian armor to wear is described at: Ephesians 6:11-17.
And cultivating the nine fruits of God's spirit is listed at: Galatians 5:22,23.

Matthew 25:32-40 shows what the righteous sheep-like are doing on earth at the time Jesus, as find Shepherd, comes in glory to take action against those who are bent on practicing evil.

 

[Bird123]

Do you know that God counts on you to sin????? Bad choices brings consequences to teach you what your choices mean. Could we ever attain real wisdom without a few mistakes??? I can't wait for my next big screwup. It's going to be glorious!! Just think how much I'll learn from it.