Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[sojourner]

God does keep track of offenses.

God does? Really! How do you know that?

If he didn't, all enter Heaven regardless, and there is no Hell.

I've been saying this for years. Thank you!

Nor any need for even the concept of sin.

Just because God doesn't choose to remember sin doesn't mean that we haven't placed ourselves in that position.

 

[sojourner]

Nah, the Hebrew moschiach does not die until his work is fulfilled. All of it. There is no 'coming back' to get it right. Also, he's just a man. A great man; he is considered great because of all he does as a mere man. Jesus, if 200% God, cheated.

That's the older picture of the messiah. The newer one is different.

 

[sojourner]

So you have faith,could you move the mountains?

I love the way you twist things around.

i guess if they
could do so,then that will be a good evidence for the world to believe that
jesus is god,what they are waiting for?

It's not up to humanity to manifest God. It's up to God to manifest God.

So can you walk on water or do faithful christians walk on the water,why they dont
do so to help us to believe that jesus is god.

see above.

can we then come back to life again after death as jesus did.

That's what we have been promised.

Yes,i dont have faith, i cant walk on water but you can

I never said that. You say that.

 

[FearGod]

I love the way you twist things around.

and i love the person who admit the truth without fear

It's not up to humanity to manifest God. It's up to God to manifest God.

You said that with faith we can do greater things even greater than Jesus himself,
which means that we can do greater things than god

That's what we have been promised.

We are talking about resurrection after death similar to Jesus on next day
and not after a million year.

I never said that. You say that.

You said that i cant do things that Jesus did because i dont have the faith,
so since you have the faith,then you could walk on the water

 

[jamesmorrow]

Once again, if God was sitting in a chair perfectly still for eternity, he never began to sit, so there was never a moment before he sat. So logically, there could not be any moments AFTER he sat. So therefore, there was no time. No, the very act of God sitting in a chair doesn't imply time. It would imply time only if he began to sit. But of course, this is not the argument. So before you respond to anything else, explain how could God have existed in time if there was never any moments leading up to his existence??? In fact, this very idea is absurd, because we know that time couldn't possibly be infinite. Time had a beginning, and it could only be created by a being that transcends it.

it does not matter whether god was sitting perfectly still in a chair or playing musical chairs. ANY ACTION REQUIRES/IMPLIES TIME......sitting, standing, thinking, breathing,creating, it does not matter. even the simple act of existing requires time....if god always existed, time always existed.......to say that god created time the instant he moved out of his chair is false, because it implies a time before god moved(thus creating time)..... was god not sitting in a chair BEFORE he moved? yes he was. time does not require a starting point to exist. the fact that god never began to sit, but always sat, does not affect the existence of time one bit as time is implied either way.....time is described either way. ......the fact that there was a time before god moved out of his chair DESTROYS ykour claim that time did not exist before god moved and created it.

 

[jamesmorrow]

Continuing to do something does not imply beginning to do something.
c

both, continuing and beginning, imply time....... god's existence implies time. god's continuing existence implies time, god's movement AFTER continuing to sit perfectly still implies time......if time didnt exist before god moved out of his chair, then god never sat in his chair.....

 

[jamesmorrow]

oh, and besides that, when were you planning on responding to our other discussion on your violation of occams razor? or will you just keep ignoring it?

 

[Thief]

Pentecost had to do with Jesus.
Pentecost was the start of the Christian congregation.
Since Pentecost the 'Israel of God' became a 'spiritual nation'. -1st Pt. 2 v9
'Spiritual Israel' is by heart not by fleshly code. - Romans 2 vs 28,29
Since Pentecost both Jew and non-Jew can be part of the spiritual Israel of God.
The modern nation of Israel exists as a national group or nation not as God's spiritual nation.
Messiah is a 'Christian king' who will reign over earth. -Psalm 72v8;Rev. 20v6

This looks like a jig-saw puzzle badly assembled.

 

[Thief]

Time exists as a conccept, at the very least.

1. We have the distance, however far space expanded from the singularity (point 1) to the actual singularity point/event (point 2)

2. If space is expanding, that is obviously the relative motion

3. We have the number system to identity the points.

Conclusion: We have everything you ask for.

I agree, infinity presents itself, but only potentially

Jesus didn't die for our sins?? Can you provide evidence for this?

The discussion of time is thoroughly covered here at the forum.
Perhaps you could entertain yourself with a search.

And yes, you are responsible for the things you say and do.

Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you....
is fair warning.

No one having died, has freed you from your responsibilities....
or the consequences.

 

[sojourner]

You said that with faith we can do greater things even greater than Jesus himself

I said that's what Jesus said.

which means that we can do greater things than god

Not so sure about that. Not sure that's implied in the context.

We are talking about resurrection after death similar to Jesus on next day
and not after a million year.

Who says we're not?

You said that i cant do things that Jesus did because i dont have the faith,

No. I didn't say that.

since you have the faith,then you could walk on the water

I didn't say that, either.

Let me reiterate:

I love the way you twist things around.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

it does not matter whether god was sitting perfectly still in a chair or playing musical chairs.

ANY ACTION REQUIRES/IMPLIES TIME......sitting, standing, thinking, breathing,creating, it does not matter. even the simple act of existing requires time....if god always existed, time always existed.......to say that god created time the instant he moved out of his chair is false, because it implies a time before god moved(thus creating time)

You are making statements based on what you strongly believe to be true as opposed to seriously thinking about whether or not it is actually true. If THERE WERE NO MOMENTS LEADING UP TO A POINT, there is no moment after the point. Once you take out before and after, you are taking out two very important concepts of time. There is just no getting past this.

..... was god not sitting in a chair BEFORE he moved? yes he was.

He was sitting in a chair, but there were no moments leading to his sitting in the chair. HOW COULD THERE POSSIBLY BE TIME "BEFORE" HIS SITTING, IF HE NEVER BEGAN TO SIT???

time does not require a starting point to exist.

Yes it does and here you are COMPLETELY wrong because the definition of time is:

"a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events."

So of course, you are wrong because you dont know the definition of the word "time", which is why you seem to think that time doesn't require a starting point. How can you distingiush any point if there is no beginning point of reference???

the fact that god never began to sit, but always sat, does not affect the existence of time one bit as time is implied either way.....time is described either way.

Either way? What way? Ok, if time is infinite as you seem to think, and God created the universe, how much time lead up to God creating the universe? If we identify the creation account as just one single event on an infinite time scale, and if you travel back in time equal distance from that point, what point will you stop and how much time will that have been??

......the fact that there was a time before god moved out of his chair DESTROYS ykour claim that time did not exist before god moved and created it.

No, you havent established anything. All you did was give strong convictions, which turns out to be strong WRONG convictions. Answer the questions above please, and if you fail to answer the questions I take that to mean you really dont have a clue what is going on here and you just want to try and flex your muscles in the conversation.

 

[jamesmorrow]

You are making statements based on what you strongly believe to be true as opposed to seriously thinking about whether or not it is actually true. If THERE WERE NO MOMENTS LEADING UP TO A POINT, there is no moment after the point. Once you take out before and after, you are taking out two very important concepts of time. There is just no getting past this





He was sitting in a chair, but there were no moments leading to his sitting in the chair. HOW COULD THERE POSSIBLY BE TIME "BEFORE" HIS SITTING, IF HE NEVER BEGAN TO SIT???




Yes it does and here you are COMPLETELY wrong because the definition of time is:

"a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events."

So of course, you are wrong because you dont know the definition of the word "time", which is why you seem to think that time doesn't require a starting point. How can you distingiush any point if there is no beginning point of reference???



Either way? What way? Ok, if time is infinite as you seem to think, and God created the universe, how much time lead up to God creating the universe? If we identify the creation account as just one single event on an infinite time scale, and if you travel back in time equal distance from that point, what point will you stop and how much time will that have been??



No, you havent established anything. All you did was give strong convictions, which turns out to be strong WRONG convictions. Answer the questions above please, and if you fail to answer the questions I take that to mean you really dont have a clue what is going on here and you just want to try and flex your muscles in the conversation.

i will try not to flex too hard so as not to scare you away as happened multiple times before in this thread....im still awaiting your response on the other topics.


time can have many forms, it is not restricted to our known "space time". so if you are going to argue that space time had a beginning, then yes, i agree, because our universe had a beginning, but there was a time leading up to its beginning. and that is the time i am referring to.

if a POINT exists, that point had a duration of time leading up to it and a duration of time leading away from it. you can assign/label that duration of time any value you want it is a label of time nonetheless....in our case it is an unknown duration of time leading up to the point in question which is gods movement...there was a time before god moved(namely, the time he sat) and there was a time after he moved.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

God does? Really! How do you know that?

have you read the bible?

Don't pretend to be absurd. We both know what your doctrine is. If he does not keep track, please explain Hell, judgment, and sin?

I've been saying this for years. Thank you!

You're welcome.
Unfortunately neither the mainstream of your general faith, nor the doctrine nor writings, nor the clergy, nor the vast majority of the followers, nor God, apparently, agree with you. So basically you are making excuses for your faith which the faith itself does not follow, nor want. So, since we are arguing about actual doctrine and not your personalized rewriting of it, Im afraid I am correct.

Just because God doesn't choose to remember sin doesn't mean that we haven't placed ourselves in that position.

this sentence has no meaning; God does remember sin.
And we did not place ourselves in that position if he created us with sin. He placed us there.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That's the older picture of the messiah. The newer one is different.

There is no newer one. There are no rewrites of God's prophecies. God is immutable, and does not change his mind. Since Jesus did not meet all the qualifications of the moschiach, he was not that personage, and thus, had no authority to offer some new covenant. Not that the moschiach was ever authorised to do so himself, in any case.

Are you not familiar with Hebrew scripture?

 

[Thief]

God does remember sin.
And we did not place ourselves in that position if he created us with sin. He placed us there.

Sin is a rather large term for such a small word.
But assuming for the moment we both know what it is....

Jesus did not die for our sins....I think we agree.
God remembers sin....I think we agree.

However, sin is something to deal with, and it's not God's fault.

But maybe we don't agree about what sin is...after all?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Mm, possibly.
But either or, it is his fault. We are only rats in the maze. God built the maze, and raised the rats.

 

[FearGod]

You said that with faith we can do greater things even greater than Jesus himself

I said that's what Jesus said.

which means that we can do greater things than god

Not so sure about that. Not sure that's implied in the context.

We are talking about resurrection after death similar to Jesus on next day
and not after a million year

Who says we're not?

You said that i cant do things that Jesus did because i dont have the faith,
No. I didn't say that.

since you have the faith,then you could walk on the water
I didn't say that, either.

Let me reiterate:
I love the way you twist things around.

Then watch Ron White,Thats funny

[youtube]fL6wbsGx9qw[/youtube]
Official Ron White - You Can't Fix Stupid - YouTube

 

[filthy tugboat]

This is completely false. You can call the actual expansion orderly all you want to (whatever that means), but on your view there was no order to the actual energy within the space any more than there is order in you having a deck of cards and tossing all the cards in the air and letting them fall to the floor. There is no order.

What are you talking about, tossing cards is perfectly orderly, just because you do not know or can predict the order does not make it disorderly. The cards follow strict rules and the way they land depends on the way they were thrown and tier position in the deck. Nothing in this example happens randomly, it all follows a causal chain.

There was no "energy" input on a naturalistic view. First of all, the universe is a closed system, so on there was nothing outside to give it any kind of energy input (of course, this is according to the Standard Model). If you ASSUME that there was energy input, then you are postulating a pre-big bang model, which is fine, but any pre-big bang model cannot be shown to be infinite and are plagued with different problems either from a philosophical standpoint or scientific. We have been discussing the Standard model thus far, so there is no since in trying to jump ship to another model once the going gets tough (my prediction).

Not trying to jump ship, hypothesizing potentialities. The very expansion itself may have been either the result of or the cause of the lowering of entropy within the universe, taking it from equilibrium to low entropy levels. As I've stated many times now, we simply don't know enough about the singularity to confirm or out-rule potential options.

Ok. But explain to me how a males reproductive system just happen to be compatible with a females? This is not something that can happen over millions of years as you naturalists believe that evolution did. This was something that had to take place at or around the same time. If it took a females reproductive system hundreds, thousands, or millions of years to become compatible with the males, then how could any reproduction take place in between that time? You not only have to provide an answer for humans, but for all animals, including insects and aquatic creatures. I will patiently wait for an answer.

Whoever stated they evolved separately? I'm not answering the question because I don't know but I don't think anyone is seriously postulating the evolution of sexual organs happened separately for males and females, especially given those sexual organs are what make them males and females.

Does your heart have a purpose in your body?? Its purpose is to pump blood throughout your body, right? Do your eyes have purpose? The purpose is for your eyes to provide you sight, right? That is purpose. Purpose is a plan, an agenda. During this blind, unguided, and un-intellectual process, you believe that purpose came out of it. There can be no purpose behind something that is unguided and unintelligent. For anyone to believe this is to believe in absurdities. It is not ok to believe in absurdities when it comes to everything else in life, but once it comes to believing in God, all of a sudden non-theists feel it is ok to believe in absurdities. It blows my mind.

My eyes do provide me with sight, I have no idea what you mean about purpose. Physical things have properties and act according to those properties, purpose is a subjective term and has no meaning objectively and therefore does not apply to the process of evolution.

What?? Wait a minute, first of all, there is value to a universe that permits life. Scientists recognize this. This is not something that is new.

What? How? What scientists? Value is subjective, nothing can be intrinsically valuable, in order for something to be considered valuable it has to be valued by someone. That is what makes something valuable.

The probability of our universe being able to permit life is more improbable than not. If you have small pieces of paper in a hat and each piece is numbered from 1-100, shake the hat up, and toss the hat in the air and watch all the pieces of paper fall randomly to the ground, it is HIGHLY unlikely that each paper will fall to the ground in numerical order.In fact, if I was rich crazy enough to bet you a million dollars by taking the position of each piece falling in numerical order, if you want to make an easy million dollars you would certainly accept the bet, because you would recognize the odds against my position. Certain parameters had to be met before any life permitting universe could exist, so yes, our universe has value. This is nothing something I am making up, or something that is new. These are well established FACTS in cosmology and astrophysics. So to deny this either means you are out of touch with science, or in denial of how far science has come in the past 100 years. I guess the motto is "Do not believe in absurdities, except if the conclusion will lead you to theism".

I am not denying that life is dependent upon certain things existing, I am denying the method you are using to determine the probability of this universe existing. Look at it this way, forget all this ************ about "life permitting universe," it's meaningless, subjective and does not contribute to the argument. Look at it instead from an objective perspective. This universe is the way it is, these are it's laws and the degree of those laws. Every other possible universe has it's own laws and different degrees of those laws and they are the way they are. Is this universe more or less likely to exist than any other possible universe? Why? If all other universe have the same amount of laws but different degrees of those laws then they are all equally probable to exist. So we now have a tub of black balls, trillions of them. Pull one out and what is the likelihood that it would bee our universe? Why, it would be 1 in several trillion, what was the chances of that? Well it was the same chance as any other universe.

Because the black balls represent life PROHIBITING universes, and the white ball represents a life PERMITTING, thats why. The odds are against life permitting universes, but they aren't against life permitting universes. After the expansion, any universe could have been created, but that doesn't mean it would have been a life permitting one.

What's the big deal with life permitting universes? I don't understand this obsession with the relevance of it. You are grouping them up subjectively and then deciding the probability. Try looking at all possible universes from their basics and no individual universe is more or less probable than another.

Ordered events have more probability to become disordered than disordered events have a probability to become ordered. That is why the entropy levels had to have been low from the singularity and beyond. Just like why when you were born from a baby and childhood, you were young a full of energy. Once you get older, you become full of less energy and your body starts to break down. In the same way, the energy in our universe is winding down and this universe will soon suffer a heat death. Cars are created, and over time, they break down, unless someone "outside" it keeps renovating it.

The very process you talk about when you suggest everything is turning to disorder is an orderly process. That's why order and disorder is a bad example for entropy because order has many subjective connotations. Usable energy on the other hand is the scientifically accurate term.

 

[filthy tugboat]

No, what I am saying is, God supernaturally created life by using elements of nature to create it. I dont for one second believe in macroevolution or abiogenesis. I am saying that God created nature, and used nature as a means of creating every thing else.

Could God have used macro-evolution and abiogenesis to create and evolve life? If not why not?

First of all, I still dont know what part of "SCIENCE CANNOT BE USED TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF ITS OWN DOMAIN" dont you understand. This goes beyond just saying "so far, science cannot explain the origins of nature", this is saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for science to provide a answer.

When did I say that it could explain the origin of it's own domain? Do you think life and intelligence is the origin of the scientific domain? Don't be silly, science goes further than that, sciences domain is existence itself, the universe.

Now, if you have a problem with this kind of logic, I want you to explain to me how your computer began to exist, without using intelligent design. And the answer has to lie within the computer. You have to use your computer to explain the origins of your computer.

Go for it!

I would like for you to do that for me, since you are making it seem as if my stance is illogical. Lets see how logical yours is. As far as abiogenesis is concerned, good luck with having faith that science will some day be able to provide an answer as to how you can get life and intelligence from inatimate objects.

Theology seems to think you can, humans from dust and all that jazz.

Well, I dont see anything potential or possible about it. As I said, trace the origins of zygotes and intelligent humans back to its origin point, and eventually you will reach a point of a non-zygote reality and a non-intelligent reality. So how do you get these things from materials that doesnt have these things.

Scientists are working on that now.

Lol. Hey, I cant help it if your position is absurd.

Same to you buddy.

If his thoughts never changed, how could his thoughts be in time? If God never moved, how could his "actions" be in time?

Because time isn't dependent on thinking or movement.

You are assuming that God was changing his thoughts. His thoughts never changed.

Without time they weren't capable of change.

And that is why I said above that God was content in his being or state, because I knew you were going to try to drive home the "you cannot move or do anything" bit, but if you are content in your being it doesnt matter that you cant move....second, you are wrong when you say you cant think, because you are assuming that his thoughts changed, and my point is his thoughts never changed, his thoughts was fixed, he knew from all eternity what he was going to do and at what point he was going to do it. There was no change.

Fair enough, it's irrelevant to the point whether he was content or not, he had no choice in the matter. Of course there was no change, without time their couldn't be. If God did not exist in time then God could not create time, God couldn't create anything. Whether he wanted to or not, only when time began could God begin creating. So where did time come from?

If I had the eternal will to move my leg when I moved it, it was not something that I "BEGAN" to think. I always knew that I was going to move it, it was just a matter of moving it.

Something that could not occur without time.

The difference is, you say "I don't know" while maintaining a closed mind in regards to Intelligent Design. If you dont know, why are you so hestitate in even considering intelligent design??? You try to maintain a fake agnostic approach but when you take away the fluff and feathers, you are a down right atheist.

I have never stated that intelligent design is wrong, it just has nothing supporting it, it's a hypothesis, not even that, it's unscientific. It's theology, not science. It may be true but I have no reason to believe that it is.

 

[sojourner]

have you read the bible?

Cover-to-cover. Dissected it, exegeted it, studied it, written papers on it.
Have you? Or have you simply given it a cursory read?

Don't pretend to be absurd. We both know what your doctrine is.

Don't pretend to be a know-it-all. You have no idea what my "doctrine" is. Xtians can legitimately hold different doctrines and beliefs about the same topics, you know.

If he does not keep track, please explain Hell, judgment, and sin?

Hell=metaphoric literary device.
Judgment=primitive way of conceptualizing God and our relationship to God.
Sin=spiritual separation from God -- turning our gaze from God to something more selfish.

Unfortunately neither the mainstream of your general faith, nor the doctrine nor writings, nor the clergy, nor the vast majority of the followers, nor God, apparently, agree with you.

The same was said of Jesus...
(BTW, I am clergy.)

So basically you are making excuses for your faith which the faith itself does not follow, nor want.

The movement has grown larger than its parent religion. Universalism is growing among more liberal sectors of Xy.

So, since we are arguing about actual doctrine and not your personalized rewriting of it, Im afraid I am correct.

We're not talking about "my personalized 'rewriting.'" We're talking about a legitimate and widely-accepted interpretation. I'm afraid that, in this case, you're quite incorrect, with regard to how I (and others) choose to "see it."

this sentence has no meaning; God does remember sin.

Jeremiah 31:34. God chooses to "remember our sin no more." It's right there in black-and-white.

And we did not place ourselves in that position if he created us with sin.

Quite Augustinian, aren't you? "Original sin" is bunk. God created us good. Sin is something we've heaped upon ourselves.

There is no newer one.

Well, I beg to differ. Xtians believe that Jesus is the messiah, and he presents a far different picture from the one the 1st century Jews believed would come.

There are no rewrites of God's prophecies. God is immutable, and does not change his mind.

But we are not immutable and we do grow and change our perspective of God and the world.
(BTW: Read your Bible -- God does, in fact, change God's mind.

Since Jesus did not meet all the qualifications of the moschiach, he was not that personage, and thus, had no authority to offer some new covenant.

Of course Jesus didn't meet the criteria. the criteria were wrong. God's kingdom =/= the Davidic kingdom. There is no archaeological support for, and lot against, the Davidic kingdom, as presented in the bible.

Are you not familiar with Hebrew scripture?

Are you not familiar with textual and historical criticism of the Hebrew texts?