-
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!
Was it any use for jesus to die for sins?
- Thread starter Remté
- Start date
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
God inspired them with true teachings of Christ revelation. What else did God inspire them to have faith with, if the Faith was not with regards to Revelation of Jesus?
How do you know it is 'true'?
Remté
Active Member
Then Bible is not the revelation of jesus.
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
But you really did not answer the question i asked.
God says He inspired them to have faith. He inspired them with a knowledge to have faith. To have faith in what? Faith in God and His Messenger. So, they may submit to God (Moslem). How can a person submit to God?
Only if they know the commandments of God. What knowledge? Obviously knowledge of the of revelation of Christ. What does Revelation of Christ called? Gospel!
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
Because it logically makes sense to me.
Remté
Active Member
It doesn't say anything about knowledge.
He did not die for our sins. At best, He took a three days break for our sins.
Ciao
- viole
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
It does not have to say in one verse every single word.
How does Quran define 'inspiration?. We can know from other verses. Whenever Allah inspired anyone, it means He gave Him knowledge and Wisdom. It has not other meaning. Look at many other examples in other verses. What else inspiring mean?
What does it mean, they became Muslim? It means they must have submitted to God. How would they know what God wants from them, to submit? They would only know, if God inspires them with His commandments and guidance.
We can agree to disagree.
Well it doesn't make any logical sense to me, which is why I lost my faith when I was old enough to question it.
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
What is it that does not make sense to you?
Tumah
Veteran Member
That's what you say. Other than the fact that there's a dead animal, there's nothing that indicates that this was a sacrifice. And a dead animal does not a sacrifice make.
Tumah
Veteran Member
You're conflating the Paschal lamb of the first Passover kept in Egypt, with sin and fault offerings:
- Nowhere in Ex. 12 is there any indication that the Paschal lamb was brought as an atonement for anything.
- There is no requirement to bring subsequent (ie. after that first one in Egypt) Paschal offerings into the house for three days, or to spread their blood on the doorposts. Neither was it even possible to do this after the first time.
- The Paschal offering must be a male lamb or kid (Ex. 12:5)
- The person sin offerings were female lambs or kids (Lev. 4:28, 32).
- The only one who brought a male sin offering was the king and it was a goat, not a sheep (Lev. 4:23)
- The Paschal offering was not eaten whole, the sacrificial fats were brought on the altar (Ex. 23:18). Perhaps you're talking about the prohibition to break it's bones (Ex. 12:46)?
- Paschal offerings were eaten at home by the owners (Ex. 12:46)
- Sin offerings were eaten by the Priests in the Temple, not the sinners (Lev. 6:19).
- There is no requirement to bring subsequent (ie. after that first one in Egypt) Paschal offerings into the house for three days, or to spread their blood on the doorposts. Neither was it even possible to do this after the first time.
- The Paschal offering must be a male lamb or kid (Ex. 12:5)
- The person sin offerings were female lambs or kids (Lev. 4:28, 32).
- The only one who brought a male sin offering was the king and it was a goat, not a sheep (Lev. 4:23)
- The Paschal offering was not eaten whole, the sacrificial fats were brought on the altar (Ex. 23:18). Perhaps you're talking about the prohibition to break it's bones (Ex. 12:46)?
- Paschal offerings were eaten at home by the owners (Ex. 12:46)
- Sin offerings were eaten by the Priests in the Temple, not the sinners (Lev. 6:19).
Tumah
Veteran Member
So Christians believe it took some 3,000 years for G-d to finally get it?
Tumah
Veteran Member
Are you trying to say that Christians don't sin?
Tumah
Veteran Member
No it don't.
Hundreds of years later.
Kind of makes the linkage seem kind of arbitrary.
Last edited:
Tumah
Veteran Member
Sounds like you could just skip out the Jesus part and just...accept the repentance, eh?
Based on what your saying, Jesus can't actually help for "great sins like murder for example"
No it don't.
The fact that G-d commanded chapters and chapters worth of animal sacrifices, proves that G-d's wants there to be chapters and chapters worth of animal sacrifice. What David is saying is that animal sacrifice isn't going to help him without regret for his actions. Jer. 7 pretty much reiterates the same idea.
The sin offering does work for adultery. For murder, exile works.
Your non sequitur aside, what does Christianity teach you about making strawmen for other religions?
Sacrifices can be brought for many sins, including adultery and idolatry. What the sin and fault offerings are generally not brought for are intentional sins great or small. It's not so difficult to understand why the atonement fast-lane should be available for the one who sinned unintentionally and not for the one who sinned intentionally.
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
In Hinduism people take dip in the Ganga river to free themselves of past sins. It gives them a second chance to reform. And so with Jesus who saves souls.
sooda
Veteran Member
Perhaps not, but this is what it says..
Revelation 1:1
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:”
Remté
Active Member
So? It doesn't say "the Bible".