The Atonement Doctrine (Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?)

[meghanwaterlillies]

~;> literally what we mean is we are clarifying our stand unto the written words of god
as simple as that


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

okay

 

[Shad]

You need to have your eyes checked. The NT makes it clear he was King of the Jew's. Secular history denies that the Jew's were ever in Egypt, and that the Exodus never occurred.

Secular historians deny I am the king of France.... Your logic is impressive. Jesus being king of anything is a faith position. I have no idea why you deny this

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

A person may call themselves a fence post, that doesn't make them one.

He WAS/IS King of the Jews

A person may call themselves a king, that doesn't make them one.

He was accepted by the Apostles. The Disciples were afraid of him because, being good Pharisee, he had been murdering Christians at the behest of the Jewish leadership.

Being terrified of someone is a strange definition of "acceptance".

Please, you and I have debated at length your obsession with abiogenesis. I mean that your lifestyle choice is condemned in the Bible, but you knew that

Lots of people's lifestyles are condemned in the bible, such as not killing bratty children.

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> christjesus is not the king jews
who doesnt want him to be their king
thats why
christjesus is the king of kings

and also
being a king of this world doesnt fit
christjesus
for he is the only begotten son of god
our lord and saviour

as they say
the one with the father from everlasthing doesnt need anything that is made from any material thing
because
All things were made through him.
Without him was not anything made that has been made.
as it is written
:read:
John 1:3
All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made.


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

 

[shmogie]

A person may call themselves a king, that doesn't make them one.


Being terrified of someone is a strange definition of "acceptance".


Lots of people's lifestyles are condemned in the bible, such as not killing bratty children.

Disciples and Apostles are different groups. Apostles were the leaders

 

[shmogie]

Secular historians deny I am the king of France.... Your logic is impressive. Jesus being king of anything is a faith position. I have no idea why you deny this

Well of course it is a faith position. My point is that Jewish history is also based on faith.

 

[viole]

Please, you and I have debated at length your obsession with abiogenesis. I mean that your lifestyle choice is condemned in the Bible, but you knew that

Is believing in abiogenesys a lifestyle? And I am not sure where it is condemned in the Bible. Unless you literally believe that Adam and Eve existed and that water could exist before the first stars. And whomever does not share those beliefs has a lifestyle that is condemned by the Bible. In that case the Bible says a lot of things that would turn any decent scientist in a person whose lifestyle is condemned by the Bible. Unless you demote all those things to "allegorical", of course, as science advances.

Incidentally, being born from dust is also pretty a-biogenetical. Therefore, abiogenesis does not entail atheism.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

Now you are playing games. A belief in abiogenesis is not a lifestyle, you know this. If you are a homosexual/lesbian, THAT lifestyle is condemned in the Bible. Don't conflate the two. It began with your statement about talking to a tree, I interposed that life created itself from chemicals was just as bizarre. You decided to word parse that, so I made it clear that abiogenesis is just as nonsensical. Actually much more so, as one can talk to a tree, the tree and persons exist. Abiogenesis does not exist, there is no proof it ever existed, it is a totally impossible concept.

 

[viole]

Now you are playing games. A belief in abiogenesis is not a lifestyle, you know this. If you are a homosexual/lesbian, THAT lifestyle is condemned in the Bible. Don't conflate the two. It began with your statement about talking to a tree, I interposed that life created itself from chemicals was just as bizarre. You decided to word parse that, so I made it clear that abiogenesis is just as nonsensical. Actually much more so, as one can talk to a tree, the tree and persons exist. Abiogenesis does not exist, there is no proof it ever existed, it is a totally impossible concept.

So, now I am totally puzzled. You started this "my lifestyle being condemned in the Bible", not me. And provably so.

What lifestyle of mine were you then addressing? Since I am not a lesbian, I have really no idea what you were referring to. Or was that just another case of a-thinking-genesis?

By the way, if abiogenesis is totally impossible, then from what materials did God create life?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

Well of course it is a faith position. My point is that Jewish history is also based on faith.

Then you have no reason to reject secular historians since your view is one of faith rather than history. You want history to treat your faith as a fact and got bothered that this hasn't been done this way for centuries. As you said they deny X and Y? Now why would they deny this if it is only a faith position? Oh right a lack of evidence and people are not obligated to follow your particular religious views just because you believe in it.

 

[shmogie]

Then you have no reason to reject secular historians since your view is one of faith rather than history. You want history to treat your faith as a fact and got bothered that this hasn't been done this way for centuries. As you said they deny X and Y? Now why would they deny this if it is only a faith position? Oh right a lack of evidence and people are not obligated to follow your particular religious views just because you believe in it.

I never asked anyone to follow my particular religious views. There are certain historical positions held by the overwhelming majority of scholars that are almost irrefutable. To deny these facts is done purely on the basis of faith. Don't tell me what I want, I couldn't care less what anyone else believes, that is their problem. You need to be specific as to "faith positions" and "historical positions" e.g. believing Christ was resurrected is a matter of faith, denying that he ever existed is a position not supported by those very same scholars. Unless, of course, you believe the only truth is what you see, or hear. If that is the case, then I propose to you that George Washington never existed.

 

[Shad]

I never asked anyone to follow my particular religious views.

False since you claim secular historians "deny" Jesus was King of the Jews. By using the word deny you are claiming a fact position regarding your belief.

There are certain historical positions held by the overwhelming majority of scholars that are almost irrefutable. To deny these facts is done purely on the basis of faith.

Jesus being King of anything is a faith position thus not a historical one as he was never actually a King just as I am factually not the King of France. Again you created your faith as something that is a fact.

Don't tell me what I want, I couldn't care less what anyone else believes, that is their problem.

I was pointing out your loaded and irrelevant questions. The only reason for bring your theology up is that you want to communicate it as a fact.

You need to be specific as to "faith positions" and "historical positions" e.g. believing Christ was resurrected is a matter of faith, denying that he ever existed is a position not supported by those very same scholars.

I was quite clear that Jesus being king of anything is a faith position not one of history. I said nothing about the ressurection, denying his existences or anything else along these lines. Your point is irrelevent

Unless, of course, you believe the only truth is what you see, or hear. If that is the case, then I propose to you that George Washington never existed.

Irrelevant since I never said Jesus is a myth not took a position as per the above. You have created a strawman as a dodge due to your irrational thinking and inability to get over that people disagree with your religious view.. Try again son.

 

[shmogie]

So, now I am totally puzzled. You started this "my lifestyle being condemned in the Bible", not me. And provably so.

What lifestyle of mine were you then addressing? Since I am not a lesbian, I have really no idea what you were referring to. Or was that just another case of a-thinking-genesis?

By the way, if abiogenesis is totally impossible, then from what materials did God create life?

Ciao

- viole

If you are not a homosexual or a lesbian, then this particular issue does not apply. I don't know what material he created most life from. Humanity is said to be created from soil, and a preconceived design, with the power and ability to complete the design. Abiogenesis is based upon the the accidental coming together of chemicals in the right proportions, in an environment that is absolutely perfect for these chemicals to combine and become a living organism. First, the mathematical odds of this happening is considered virtually impossible. second, and most importantly, this has never been observed, recreated, and the overall recipe is unknown.

 

[shmogie]

False since you claim secular historians "deny" Jesus was King of the Jews. By using the word deny you are claiming a fact position regarding your belief.



Jesus being King of anything is a faith position thus not a historical one as he was never actually a King just as I am factually not the King of France. Again you created your faith as something that is a fact.



I was pointing out your loaded and irrelevant questions. The only reason for bring your theology up is that you want to communicate it as a fact.



I was quite clear that Jesus being king of anything is a faith position not one of history. I said nothing about the ressurection, denying his existences or anything else along these lines. Your point is irrelevent



Irrelevant since I never said Jesus is a myth not took a position as per the above. You have created a strawman as a dodge due to your irrational thinking and inability to get over that people disagree with your religious view.. Try again son.

Goodness, an example is an EXAMPLE. Do you really not understand that ? e.g. means "example given". Well of course Jesus being the king of anything is a matter of faith, but for some a faith position represents fact to them. So, being a Christian I have every right to express this fact. You or anyone else may deny it, but that doesn't change my statement. I never claimed that Christ being a king was a historical "fact", " . The thread that you are commenting on is about my theology, so why are you here? The thread is about the atonement doctrine, I ask again, why are you here ? At least those folk self identified as Jewish have a stake in the discussion, based upon the Christian doctrine. My thinking is irrational ? When some is unable to discern the concept of an example, and what that means, I think that persons thinking is irrational, or just uneducated. I spent 25 years preparing evidence for court, and many juries have disagreed with my position, it is no problem. Try again boy

 

[Shad]

Goodness, an example is an EXAMPLE. Do you really not understand that ?

You never stated examples. You made claims that historians reject your point of view in order to further discredit historians, nothing more. Bart does not deny Jesus was a person so you point is irrelevant. It is just slander, nothing more.

Well of course Jesus being the king of anything is a matter of faith, but for some a faith position represents fact to them.

Do not expect others to accept your faith as a fact then whine when they don't

So, being a Christian I have every right to express this fact.

You can state any opinion you want. It still isn't a fact.

You or anyone else may deny it, but that doesn't change my statement.

I deny your views are facts rather than strong held opinions. See the difference? You can not avoid during a faith into a fact then claiming everyone should accept it because you do.

I never claimed that Christ being a king was a historical "fact", " .

Yes you did since you claim historians are denying something....

The thread that you are commenting on is about my theology, so why are you here?

I read the thread then saw your rant about historians not catering to your religious view. Nothing more. You rant merited a response.

The thread is about the atonement doctrine, I ask again, why are you here ?

Again I was just reading until I saw your over the top dismissal of any historian that doesn't cater to your views. Avoid the rants and you wouldn't have any issues from me.

At least those folk self identified as Jewish have a stake in the discussion, based upon the Christian doctrine.

So?

My thinking is irrational ?

Yes since you conflate religious belief with fact as if everyone needs to accept your views as a fact.

When some is unable to discern the concept of an example, and what that means, I think that persons thinking is irrational, or just uneducated.

You examples were not examples but claims in order to dismiss any historian's view that does not align with your own.

I spent 25 years preparing evidence for court, and many juries have disagreed with my position, it is no problem. Try again boy

To bad your rant is obvious that you can not accept view of historians that does not confirm your religion. Also a court of law has nothing to do with religious nor history..... More so juries are laymen so their opinion is worthless in history and religion...

Like I have said before you tap dance between faith and fact when it suits your needs.

 

[shmogie]

You never stated examples. You made claims that historians reject your point of view in order to further discredit historians, nothing more. Bart does not deny Jesus was a person so you point is irrelevant. It is just slander, nothing more.



Do not expect others to accept your faith as a fact then whine when they don't



You can state any opinion you want. It still isn't a fact.




I deny your views are facts rather than strong held opinions. See the difference? You can not avoid during a faith into a fact then claiming everyone should accept it because you do.



Yes you did since you claim historians are denying something....
I DO NOT claim everyone should accept what I believe, you simply are stating something not in evidence. Whining ? Again you resort to baseless hyperbole.


I read the thread then saw your rant about historians not catering to your religious view. Nothing more. You rant merited a response.



Again I was just reading until I saw your over the top dismissal of any historian that doesn't cater to your views. Avoid the rants and you wouldn't have any issues from me.
So , I claim historians are denying something, so what ? They deny Robin Hood ever existed, by saying that does that mean I believe he did ? Saying historians deny something means, historians deny something, a fact. I dismiss any historian that doesn't cater to my views ? Where did you get that from ? More baseless hyperbole. Some historians believe Europeans came to North America along the ice floe's about the same times as Asians doing the same thing. Some historians believe they are wrong, If I say they are right, is that whining or a rant ? What if I have believe they are right, does that now become dancing between faith and fact ? You sir are like Don Quixote, believing you are a powerful knight, when in reality you are confused and wear a pot on your head and attack windmills thinking they are giants. Exaggeration seems to be your closest ally.


So?



Yes since you conflate religious belief with fact as if everyone needs to accept your views as a fact.



You examples were not examples but claims in order to dismiss any historian's view that does not align with your own.



To bad your rant is obvious that you can not accept view of historians that does not confirm your religion. Also a court of law has nothing to do with religious nor history..... More so juries are laymen so their opinion is worthless in history and religion...

Like I have said before you tap dance between faith and fact when it suits your needs.

 

[shmogie]

My "rant" makes it obvious that I cannot accept the view of historians that doesn't confirm to my religion, why should I ? Try and follow this; My Jewish friend was making much of the fact that some historians don't confirm some facts about Christ, using this as a tool to discredit my religion, He is a Jew, not a Christian. I responded by giving the EXAMPLE of some historians denying the truth in the Torah about events or people, here is where it gets difficult ; I was neutralizing his use of some historians to score points about his position by impeaching the historians he cited to score points against Christianity by citing historians regarding his faith of Judaism. If he accepts one, then why not the other ? Was this too difficult for you ? It is a common debate practice. A court of law has everything to do with determining fact, and weighing evidence, what you must do to establish a belief system, or simply to live

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

My religion says I should worship TRUTH. So, if historians have more evidence than the bible, then guess which one I have to focus on?

 

[Thief]

My religion says I should worship TRUTH. So, if historians have more evidence than the bible, then guess which one I have to focus on?

so your religion would have you think like some historian?

I kinda thought religion is what you do about your spiritual belief
not your knowledge of history

 

[atpollard]

... so what was the question, I lost track about 10 pages ago ...
Oh, yeah. There it is. "Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?"

For MY sins, yes.
For YOUR sins, I don't know.
(He made the offer, but whether or not you shake hands and close the deal is really between you and Him ... I don't get a commission.)