• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Curse of Coniah Done Away by the Blood of Jesus Christ

74x12

Well-Known Member
People already know that Coniah was cursed so that his descendants would never prosper again in Jerusalem as kings. This was so far fulfilled that even though Zerubbabel (his descendant) became governor he was not the king. However this brings up an objection to Jesus' claims as the "Messiah" and King of Israel. How can Jesus reign if He is descendant of Coniah? Which apparently He is. But Jesus never claimed to be King on the earth. Actually He refused to be made King. (John 6:15) And instead told Pilate that His Kingdom was not of this world. (John 18:36)

However one day Jesus will reign on the earth. So Jesus taught us to pray "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed by thy name, thy kingdom come, they will be done on earth as it is in heaven" So then the curse of Coniah must be done away for this to occur.

But that's just the thing that Jesus did. He died hanging on a tree. Taking the curse that was written in the Torah. (Deuteronomy 21:23) Taking the stripes for the back of fools. (Proverbs 19:29) And even the curse of the ground on His head. (Genesis 3:17-18) By dying, He put all these curses to death in His own body. (Colossians 2:14) So it's no surprise that He also put the curse of Coniah to death in His own body. As people already know; they dressed Jesus as King of the Jews before He died to mock Him; but it turns out He may have been taking the curse of Coniah upon Himself. As they truly proclaimed Him King of the Jews. Herod the supposed king; in mockery of Christ gave up the right of Kingship for the One that God had truly chosen. Even Rome consented that Christ was the true King and Pilate ignored Herod's superficial claims to the throne by having Jesus proclaimed "King of the Jews".

So it's no surprise that king Jeconiah before he went to Babylon must have worn a crown of gold. But because of the curse; Jesus wore a crown of thorns. A visible symbol of the tarnished and cursed kingship of the Line of David. "that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing;" But Jesus' resurrection changes all that. For God says "Behold, I make all things new" And Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone of all the new creation of God. David's line is restored in Him once and for all.

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5:21)
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Not moved by dispensationism or substitutionary atonement. There’s something very wrong about a Christ that gives us the keys to the kingdom, granting us the authority to bind and loose here on earth, claiming him as “king,” and yet claiming that he’s not here to answer that claim. Likewise, there’s something creepy about a God who just waits to punish us when we slip up, threatening to punish us forever. I don’t see how much more conditional we can make love than for it to be meted out, only if we’re “good enough.” There’s something even more creepy about a God whose only recourse is to kill someone in our place; killing is killing.

As a corollary to this theological stance is the “knowledge” that Christ’s death is NOT effectual for humanity (as the Bible promises). Because it teaches that grace (which is unconditional) is only meted out to those who perform properly by “believing.” It renders the sacrifice “for our sins” useless for most of the world — and yet, here sit, smug in our sanctuaries, because, after all, we’ve been saved.

What hubris to assume (and not really care!) that good people all over the world will perish because they don’t believe “as we believe.” what hubris to assume that we have all the answers.

Nope. Can’t buy this. I can’t buy the conditions, the assumptions, the hubris or the callousness.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Not moved by dispensationism or substitutionary atonement. There’s something very wrong about a Christ that gives us the keys to the kingdom, granting us the authority to bind and loose here on earth, claiming him as “king,” and yet claiming that he’s not here to answer that claim.
Say what you will; Jesus died and that He said this blood was for the new Testament. He's at the Right hand of the Father. That is a place of authority. Think of it; a human being with all power.

Believe in God's power. He'll do amazing things yet.
Likewise, there’s something creepy about a God who just waits to punish us when we slip up, threatening to punish us forever. I don’t see how much more conditional we can make love than for it to be meted out, only if we’re “good enough.”
There is nothing in the new Testament about being "good enough". There is a reasonable expectation from God that we would show a profit. God invests in us and wants a profit. Even a small profit is enough. (Matthew 25:27) The "profit" God seeks is "fruitfulness". The fruits of the Spirit. The thief on the cross had no time to bear much fruit so the simple act of putting his trust in Jesus and repenting his sins was enough. That's salvation by grace.

But the people of God are in the world for a witness to the world of the love of the Father. Think of it, the world is a spiritual desert and there is only one River of Life flowing from the throne of God. Those who are planted by the River bear fruit and by this; the nations are healed and live.
There’s something even more creepy about a God whose only recourse is to kill someone in our place; killing is killing.
Jehovah is our Shepherd. (Psalm 23) The good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep. (John 10:11-18) According to the scriptures; God is love and greater love has no one than this: that someone lays down their life for their friend. So God Himself laid down His life for us because He is greatest in love. Jesus is God manifest.
As a corollary to this theological stance is the “knowledge” that Christ’s death is NOT effectual for humanity (as the Bible promises). Because it teaches that grace (which is unconditional) is only meted out to those who perform properly by “believing.” It renders the sacrifice “for our sins” useless for most of the world — and yet, here sit, smug in our sanctuaries, because, after all, we’ve been saved.
God is just. So I do not worry that anyone will receive a bad sentence. God will show mercy. God will reward both evil and good. The good news is that we can escape judgment through obeying the gospel. However God will also show mercy on many people. Some will be saved and some will not be saved.

Unfortunately, not everyone will be saved but your concerns about injustice are unfounded.
What hubris to assume (and not really care!) that good people all over the world will perish because they don’t believe “as we believe.” what hubris to assume that we have all the answers.

Nope. Can’t buy this. I can’t buy the conditions, the assumptions, the hubris or the callousness.
I believe God existed before anything and that God was already Love. That's unconditional love. Abiding love that is ineffable. Do you know it's everywhere in the world? Descending down from God? And ascending outward forever ... Those looking down are miserable. But those who look up may see the light. Hard to believe there is light because the darkness. But God's love is so much greater. Have you felt God's love for anyone before?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Think of it; a human being with all power
Apparently, according to you, not here on earth...

There is nothing in the new Testament about being "good enough
That’s right. And yet you use the scriptures to show otherwise. See below.

Even a small profit is enough
That’s a condition, and it shows you believe that there is some measurement of “good enough,” even though it’s very small.

So God Himself laid down His life for us because He is greatest in love. Jesus is God manifest
Killing is killing. If God’s Love is really unconditional (see below), killing wouldn’t be necessary.

I believe God existed before anything and that God was already Love. That's unconditional love.
Not if some won’t be saved, as you claim.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
That’s a condition, and it shows you believe that there is some measurement of “good enough,” even though it’s very small.
It's not anyone who is capable of being good enough. It's that God gives the holy Spirit(by grace, that is undeserved merit). The fruit of the Spirit though must be developed so God doesn't want people to do nothing with what they have been given by grace.

Besides, repentance is necessary also.
Jesus didn't die so we could enjoy our sins. He died to save us from our sins.

It's all in the beatitudes anyway. "Blessed are those who mourn" ... for they shall be comforted.

Killing is killing. If God’s Love is really unconditional (see below), killing wouldn’t be necessary.
The wages of sin is death. God hates death more than you do. But let's consider things as they really are and not as we wish they were. The fact is all die and our ancestors are dead. So we know already that all must face death. Unfortunately that is the truth of all humanity.

So explain death.
Not if some won’t be saved, as you claim.
I say God's love is unconditional because it was already there before anything else.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I say God's love is unconditional because it was already there before anything else
That’s not the definition, though. “Being first” doesn’t constitute “unconditional.”

As for the rest of your post, you seem unwilling to think outside the hard and fast box you’ve built for yourself. Because your answers don’t really even address my comments.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
That’s not the definition, though. “Being first” doesn’t constitute “unconditional.”

As for the rest of your post, you seem unwilling to think outside the hard and fast box you’ve built for yourself. Because your answers don’t really even address my comments.
God will judge people righteously and fairly.

"Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong."
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Maybe rephrase your points.
You said “God’s Love was first” as a “definition” of unconditional love. I replied “first” doesn’t constitute “unconditional.”

Then you posted “God will judge people righteously and fairly. ‘Watch ye, stand fast in the faith...’”.

Which has 0 to do with my comment.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
…Likewise, there’s something creepy about a God who just waits to punish us when we slip up, threatening to punish us forever.

Is that based on some Bible scripture?

I don’t see how much more conditional we can make love than for it to be meted out, only if we’re “good enough.” There’s something even more creepy about a God whose only recourse is to kill someone in our place; killing is killing.

I think that is not belief based on the Bible. Jesus could forgive sins before his death, so it was not required for to forgive.


The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.

Luke 5:21-25

As a corollary to this theological stance is the “knowledge” that Christ’s death is NOT effectual for humanity (as the Bible promises). Because it teaches that grace (which is unconditional) is only meted out to those who perform properly by “believing.” It renders the sacrifice “for our sins” useless for most of the world — and yet, here sit, smug in our sanctuaries, because, after all, we’ve been saved.

It would be nice to know, to what is that teaching based on? Bible tells eternal life is for righteous.


These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

Forgiveness is not useful, if person don’t become righteous, but continues in sin and evilness.

What hubris to assume (and not really care!) that good people all over the world will perish because they don’t believe “as we believe.” what hubris to assume that we have all the answers.

Are there really good people on earth? Difficult to believe that. But according to the Bible, people die because of unrighteousness, not because they didn’t believe “as we believe”.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Is that based on some Bible scripture?
Not so far as I’m concerned.

I think that is not belief based on the Bible. Jesus could forgive sins before his death, so it was not required for to forgive
That’s my point: substitutionary atonement is neither the only, nor the best, theological construct.

It would be nice to know, to what is that teaching based on? Bible tells eternal life is for righteous.
The one you just mentioned. If Jesus’ death can not overcome human unrighteousness, it is not completely efficacious.

But according to the Bible, people die because of unrighteousness, not because they didn’t believe “as we believe
Yes, but who decides what is “righteous?” What if someone disagrees with that particular definition? See what I mean?
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
As it says in Jeremiah, “Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” It is quite clear. No offspring of Coniah (the “this man” of this verse) shall sit on the throne, ever. There’s no clause saying until something else happens. Period.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
You said “God’s Love was first” as a “definition” of unconditional love. I replied “first” doesn’t constitute “unconditional.”

Then you posted “God will judge people righteously and fairly. ‘Watch ye, stand fast in the faith...’”.

Which has 0 to do with my comment.
Well who decides what is unconditional or not? It's just a matter perspective. Anyway it doesn't matter one way or the other.

Please explain how is Jesus descendant of Coniah?
Read His genealogy in the Bible.

As it says in Jeremiah, “Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” It is quite clear. No offspring of Coniah (the “this man” of this verse) shall sit on the throne, ever. There’s no clause saying until something else happens. Period.
God said Adam and Eve would die. So they did die. But the resurrection over turns their death. Do you believe in the resurrection? If so; then you believe that a curse can be done away with after it is accomplished.

So with Jesus the curse was accomplished. He did not prosper reigning in Jerusalem. Instead of prospering He was crucified. Instead of a crown of gold; a crown of thorns. Instead of reigning as King; He was killed. But He rose from the dead. The firstborn of the resurrection.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
…Yes, but who decides what is “righteous?” What if someone disagrees with that particular definition? See what I mean?

The one who used the word, is the one who gives the definition also, if we want to understand what he said. Bible has told that eternal life is for righteous and it explains that righteousness is wisdom of the just. It is like right understanding that makes person do right actions, because person understands it is good and right.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The one who used the word, is the one who gives the definition also, if we want to understand what he said. Bible has told that eternal life is for righteous and it explains that righteousness is wisdom of the just. It is like right understanding that makes person do right actions, because person understands it is good and right.
Yet, the Bible also presents us with differing parameters for “righteousness.”
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Unconditional means “without condition.” Unconditional love means that God loves us, no matter what.
God does love people's souls. Even satan's soul. When God makes something; He loves it. God doesn't love what He doesn't make though. When satan for example chooses to corrupt himself with evil practices; then God is not able to love that.

Of course it matters! The type of love God shows informs much of the theology.
I agree that God's love is an important topic. As previously stated although God loves us all; He cannot be forced to love what we make ourselves into by practicing evil.

God is faithfully true always; so He cannot love anything but what He truly loves.

God's love is also unconditional because He loves those who repent even though He hated their sins. So it's true forgiveness that show's God's love. Not just a half hearted forgiveness like I forgive you(but I still don't like you) kind of thing. It's the true forgiveness of God that He then loves those who sinned.

But whatever ... I don't really see the point of arguing about God's love being unconditional or not. I'd rather argue about the reality of God's love. "Unconditional" is just a term. So we're arguing over terminology. It's a matter of language; rather than the real meat of the matter.
 
Top