By Faith. Why?

[dybmh]

If a man lays down his life for a friend, the friend will live a few more years on earth, and be thankful. But Jesus did not lay down his life so that his friends could live a few more years on earth! He laid down his temporal life in order to provide eternal life to those who would follow him.

This actually an interesting idea. To be clear, you're departing from scripture. The verse makes no qualification based on how long the individual lives.

But, ignoring that, it's actually a much greater love to sacrifice one's life knowing that one they're saving has a short limited life span.

Think about it. How can we describe it? A young person who has a long life ahead of them, sacrifices their life for an elderly person crossing the road, compared to an older person sacrificing their life for an infant. Who had the greater love? The younger person, right? Because they value the other person's life over their own even though it's brief.

And this ignores that Jesus didn't really sacrifice anything, if mainstream Christian theology is true.

 

[Audie]

Science has neither proved, nor disproved, the biblical flood.

What's interesting is that the genealogy of Noah, Genesis 10, tells us that he had a son, Ham (who lived through the flood), who begat Cush, who begat Nimrod. So, two generations after the flood Nimrod was king over Babel (Babylon). Archaeologists have discovered, beneath the ruins of Babylon, what appears to be the foundations of the tower of Babel [Genesis 11:4].

Etemenanki (the "Tower of Babel") - Livius

Maybe the use of science will actually end up working against you. Matters of the heart are never going to fall under the scientist's microscope, but the created observable world is there to be studied. In the Bible, there is a 6000 year history to be verified, and a host of prophecies to be understood and explained. To end up with a meaningful theology, one must account for all scripture, and be able to offer an 'unbroken' interpretation.

That takes a truly collossal denial and
ignorance to think world wide flood
has not been disproved.

 

[2ndpillar]

What a very mixed up theology you have!

I could understand you better if you said that you rejected Jesus, but to accept Jesus and reject the church, his body, is a nonsense.

Let me be clear in my own mind. Do you accept all four Gospels as reliable testimony to Jesus Christ?

The gospels of Matthew and John should contain a first-person witness of the message of the son of man. As for Luke, who is he, and is he an associate of the false prophet Paul? He would be more on par with a man on the street, taking time to take 2nd or 3rd hand notes. And who is Mark, and is he a follower of the "worthless shepherd" Peter (Zechariah 11:17), which would lower his value as a witness, if indeed he witnessed anything? As for was anything added to John and Matthew, well apparently all the text do not agree, which leaves the door open for things being added (Revelation 19:18), as the earliest copies lacked discourse found in later copies, along with changes. As stated by Yeshua, you need two witnesses to confirm anything. If something can't be confirmed in the Tanach, then you have to start asking questions. According to Yeshua, the "church"/"house" of God, is built on the "heeding" "words of mine", not nailing it to a cross (Matthew 7:24-27) and following false prophets (Matthew 7:13-15).

 

[Redemptionsong]

I overlooked? Are you sure?

View attachment 70880

View attachment 70881

It doesn't say "no man". That would be some derivative of "anthro". See James 1:13.


Can you bring scripture where Jesus, himself, claims to be salvation? Bonus points if he claims it's"of God".

Jesus, referring to himself as the Son of man, says, 'For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them'. [ Luke 9:56]

He also said, to Zacchaeus, 'This day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost'. [Luke 19:9,10]

In Matthew 1:20,21, the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and said, 'Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary they wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins'.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The gospels of Matthew and John should contain a first-person witness of the message of the son of man. As for Luke, who is he, and is he an associate of the false prophet Paul? He would be more on par with a man on the street, taking time to take 2nd or 3rd hand notes. And who is Mark, and is he a follower of the "worthless shepherd" Peter (Zechariah 11:17), which would lower his value as a witness, if indeed he witnessed anything? As for was anything added to John and Matthew, well apparently all the text do not agree, which leaves the door open for things being added (Revelation 19:18), as the earliest copies lacked discourse found in later copies, along with changes. As stated by Yeshua, you need two witnesses to confirm anything. If something can't be confirmed in the Tanach, then you have to start asking questions. According to Yeshua, the "church"/"house" of God, is built on the "heeding" "words of mine", not nailing it to a cross (Matthew 7:24-27) and following false prophets (Matthew 7:13-15).

If you do not accept any of the four Gospels as a truthful testimony of Jesus, then what right have you to quote Jesus (Yeshua) as authoritative on any issue?

It would be far more honest to ground yourself on the words of the Tanakh alone.

 

[Redemptionsong]

That takes a truly collossal denial and
ignorance to think world wide flood
has not been disproved.

IYO.

The flood recorded in Genesis was widespread but short-lived.

 

[2ndpillar]

Explain to me, line by line, what you think Zechariah 11:10-14 is saying.

Zehariah 11:10 is about the "staff"/"shepherd" the "LORD" called "Favor", as in some guy going around preaching a gospel of grace, in which all who believe it are favored of God and are "saved". It also states that this guy will also be chosen to "break the covenant which I made with all the peoples"/nations/Gentiles, as in the covenant made with the "father of all the people/nations", Abraham, the covenant of circumcision. As for Zechariah 11:11-13, that contains the verse quoted in Matthew 27:9-10, referring to Judas Iscariot, the 3rd shepherd of Zechariah 11:8, who was "annihilated" in the same "month"/generation as Peter, the "worthless shepherd of Zechariah 11:17, and Paul, the staff/shepherd called "Favor". Zechariah 11:14-17 refers to Peter, who was supposedly crucified by the "Cord"/"binding"/"Union from around his own waste, and the subsequent spitting of Judah from Ephraim by his shameful dreams/visions of Zechariah 13:4, and who represented the scattering of the sheep at the time of his denying Christ (Zechariah 13:7), which Yeshua quoted in Matthew 26:31 when Peter denied him 3 times.

Zechariah 11:10 I took my staff Favor and cut it in pieces, to break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples

 

[Redemptionsong]

This actually an interesting idea. To be clear, you're departing from scripture. The verse makes no qualification based on how long the individual lives.

But, ignoring that, it's actually a much greater love to sacrifice one's life knowing that one they're saving has a short limited life span.

Think about it. How can we describe it? A young person who has a long life ahead of them, sacrifices their life for an elderly person crossing the road, compared to an older person sacrificing their life for an infant. Who had the greater love? The younger person, right? Because they value the other person's life over their own even though it's brief.

And this ignores that Jesus didn't really sacrifice anything, if mainstream Christian theology is true.

Mainstream Christian theology argues that Jesus is fully man and fully God.

Jesus sacrificed his own life as a man, in doing the will of his Father. The soul of Jesus was perfectly aligned with the Holy Spirit that rested upon him.

 

[2ndpillar]

So many Christians hate catholics more than they do atheists.

Since I was raised a "Catholic" and my whole family is "Catholic", and I get along with all, which is easy if you don't discuss religion, I would say I neither hate Catholics, nor my next-door neighbor, who is between being an atheist and a simple nonbeliever, who I get along great with. The people I really don't like are the Televangelist, who sell snake oil for money. I kind of don't like the Catholic church, the daughter of Babylon, and her leader, the pope, who also has a political agenda based on Marxism, and leads the "many" to "destruction" which is the coming crash of nations, starting with the famine now starting in Africa and central Asia, the plague, which the people of the great reset, which is funded by Bill Gates, claim is coming in 100 days, keep in mind he claimed a plague 2 months before covid supposedly started, as well as the thermonuclear powers of Iran, Russia, N. Korea, and China are threatening use of nuclear weapons. According to Zechariah 14:1-2, it will all start with the nations coming against Jerusalem. Iran has been making that threats against for years, but a "new temple" is being planned for Jerusalem, which will set off Turkey, Iran, and all the Muslim neighbors, and Iran has missiles, which they are sending to Russia, and they supposedly will have a nuke shortly, or already have one, especially since Russia is broke from their war effort, and are trading technologies to Iran in exchange for Russian weapons.

 

[2ndpillar]

Mainstream Christian theology argues that Jesus is fully man and fully God.

Jesus sacrificed his own life as a man, in doing the will of his Father. The soul of Jesus was perfectly aligned with the Holy Spirit that rested upon him.

"Mainstream Christianity" is wrong as in most of their dogma. If "Jesus" is "fully God", why does he have to sit at the right hand of the LORD? (Matthew 5:35 & Psalm 110:1)

 

[Audie]

Since I was raised a "Catholic" and my whole family is "Catholic", and I get along with all, which is easy if you don't discuss religion, I would say I neither hate Catholics, nor my next-door neighbor, who is between being an atheist and a simple nonbeliever, who I get along great with. The people I really don't like are the Televangelist, who sell snake oil for money. I kind of don't like the Catholic church, the daughter of Babylon, and her leader, the pope, who also has a political agenda based on Marxism, and leads the "many" to "destruction" which is the coming crash of nations, starting with the famine now starting in Africa and central Asia, the plague, which the people of the great reset, which is funded by Bill Gates, claim is coming in 100 days, keep in mind he claimed a plague 2 months before covid supposedly started, as well as the thermonuclear powers of Iran, Russia, N. Korea, and China are threatening use of nuclear weapons. According to Zechariah 14:1-2, it will all start with the nations coming against Jerusalem. Iran has been making that threats against for years, but a "new temple" is being planned for Jerusalem, which will set off Turkey, Iran, and all the Muslim neighbors, and Iran has missiles, which they are sending to Russia, and they supposedly will have a nuke shortly, or already have one, especially since Russia is broke from their war effort, and are trading technologies to Iran in exchange for Russian weapons.

Hmm

 

[Audie]

IYO.

The flood recorded in Genesis was widespread but short-lived.

Interesting. You seem quite confusing.

You agree there was no world wide flood
but say it's just my opinion.

Then your infallible opinion says
the story is not accurately recorded?

Might have been some guys farm
got wet for a day?
Do tell about the hundred year
ark for a short little flood.

 

[dybmh]

Jesus, referring to himself as the Son of man, says, 'For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them'. [ Luke 9:56]

He also said, to Zacchaeus, 'This day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost'. [Luke 19:9,10]

In Matthew 1:20,21, the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and said, 'Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary they wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins'.

Very good, thank you.

 

[dybmh]

Mainstream Christian theology argues that Jesus is fully man and fully God.

Jesus sacrificed his own life as a man, in doing the will of his Father. The soul of Jesus was perfectly aligned with the Holy Spirit that rested upon him.

Um... this has 0% relevance to what I said. Let's try again.

You said that Jesus' love was greater because his sacrifice brought eternal life, and the others who sacrifice their life only brought a limited additional life span (maybe a year or two) to the ones you saved.

This is a logical argument. It doesn't come from scripture. The verse John 15:13 doesn't say anything about the length of life.

I propose that Jesus' sacrifice attempting to save those and granting them eternal life is actually lesser love than a mortal saving a mortal life. Why? Because if we compare a young person who sacrifices their life for an older person, to an older person saving the life of an infant, the younger person has the greater love, because they are valuing the other person's brief life expectancy over their own longer life expectancy.

Can you please address this from a logical perspecive, since you are attempting to make a logical argument?

Thank you,

 

[Audie]

Um... this has 0% relevance to what I said. Let's try again.

You said that Jesus' love was greater because his sacrifice brought eternal life, and the others who sacrifice their life only brought a limited additional life span (maybe a year or two) to the ones you saved.

This is a logical argument. It doesn't come from scripture. The verse John 15:13 doesn't say anything about the length of life.

I propose that Jesus' sacrifice attempting to save those and granting them eternal life is actually lesser love than a mortal saving a mortal life. Why? Because if we compare a young person who sacrifices their life for an older person, to an older person saving the life of an infant, the younger person has the greater love, because they are valuing the other person's brief life expectancy over their own longer life expectancy.

Can you please address this from a logical perspecive, since you are attempting to make a logical argument?

Thank you,

The love quotient (LQ) of any heroic act is directly proportional to the length of life ( LOL)
of the person or persons saved.

There are actuarial tables for this.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is a difference between "masks" and N95 masks, which almost no one but medical staff wear. And the covid vaccine does not produce any type of immunity as touted by the "scientist". It simply lowers the immunity response of the individual which is how covid generally kills, by the immunity system over heating. Now with a lower immunity response, you can look forward to dying from something else, or die of a blood clot stemming from the injection. Herd immunity is the only reasonable path, as China has found out, with Shanghai recently having a 75% positive testing. Normal masks are pretty much worthless with regards to covid, and 6' distancing was a figure pulled out of the blue. Staying indoor is crazy, as it is sunlight, ultraviolet rays, which kills the virus. Science is apparently run by the politically elite, therefore whatever comes out of science is questionable. Should carbohydrates be at the top of the foot pyramid or the bottom? Are fats good for you, or does it matter what kind of fats are bad for you? Are menthol cigarettes good for you, or not? Is sugar and corn syrup good for you or not? It kind of depends on which scientist is getting paid by the merchandizer.

All this is false, radical right wing conspiracy nonsense, and actually not worthy of a response in this thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree that no religion has a monopoly of truth, but l want to add that Jesus Christ is a person and not a religion.

Christianity is the religion that makes the subjective claims that the Bible is what they claim it is. The history of the text of the Bible does not support the claims.

Jesus made a quite extraordinary claim when he said, 'l am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.' [John 14:6]

Jesus did not say, 'no man goeth to the Father' but 'no man cometh to the Father', because Christ is one with the Father!

This claim to be the exclusive way to the Father is a truth claim that cannot be ignored. It is also a truth claim that incorporates the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ to the throne of God. It's a claim, l suggest, that makes a statement about sin and the need for redemption.

If Jesus is not sent as the salvation of God, then how do you see salvation from sin (and death) occurring?

How does salvation occur? Universally in the compassion of God regardless of the exclusive claims of any one religion in the millennia of human history based on ancient questionable scripture like ALL diverse conflicting ancient religions which each claims to be true, and YES, Christianity is a religion. Because of the the evidence you claim remains subjective and anecdotal, and circular argument for 'evidence' that is only accepted by those that believe on faith.

Your entire argument based on belief and faith rests on the subjective claims that the scripture of the Bible is what you claim it is. Unfortunately it lacks the historical evidence provenance that most if not all the scripture represents any sort of original text that can be dated to the time it was supposedly written. In fact the evidence is overwhelming that the entire text of the Bible was compiled, edited and redacted after the times it records. and the authors are mostly unknown

 

[Redemptionsong]

Um... this has 0% relevance to what I said. Let's try again.

You said that Jesus' love was greater because his sacrifice brought eternal life, and the others who sacrifice their life only brought a limited additional life span (maybe a year or two) to the ones you saved.

This is a logical argument. It doesn't come from scripture. The verse John 15:13 doesn't say anything about the length of life.

I propose that Jesus' sacrifice attempting to save those and granting them eternal life is actually lesser love than a mortal saving a mortal life. Why? Because if we compare a young person who sacrifices their life for an older person, to an older person saving the life of an infant, the younger person has the greater love, because they are valuing the other person's brief life expectancy over their own longer life expectancy.

Can you please address this from a logical perspecive, since you are attempting to make a logical argument?

Thank you,

Logic only works when the premises are accepted as true.

The starting point when considering the logic of Jesus' sacrifice must be an acknowledgement of sin and death.

Saving a man who returns to sin and death is a short term blessing at best.

Jesus was not offering eternal life in a prison. He came to set prisoners free, in order that they might know an abundant life lived eternally with God.

There's a very simple logic here. A person enjoying life wants it to continue, but a person hating life wants it to end (or radically change). What matters, therefore, is quality of life, not quantity. The quantity becomes relevant only after the quality is achieved.

 

[dybmh]

Logic only works when the premises are accepted as true.

The starting point when considering the logic of Jesus' sacrifice must be an acknowledgement of sin and death.

Saving a man who returns to sin and death is a short term blessing at best.

Jesus was not offering eternal life in a prison. He came to set prisoners free, in order that they might know an abundant life lived eternally with God.

There's a very simple logic here. A person enjoying life wants it to continue, but a person hating life wants it to end (or radically change). What matters, therefore, is quality of life, not quantity. The quantity becomes relevant only after the quality is achieved.

OK! This is also interesting. What's the premise? "Jesus was not offering eternal life in a prison". Hmmmmmm. Are you sure? Can you bring a quote from Jesus describing eternal life or the kingdom as freedom?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Zehariah 11:10 is about the "staff"/"shepherd" the "LORD" called "Favor", as in some guy going around preaching a gospel of grace, in which all who believe it are favored of God and are "saved". It also states that this guy will also be chosen to "break the covenant which I made with all the peoples"/nations/Gentiles, as in the covenant made with the "father of all the people/nations", Abraham, the covenant of circumcision. As for Zechariah 11:11-13, that contains the verse quoted in Matthew 27:9-10, referring to Judas Iscariot, the 3rd shepherd of Zechariah 11:8, who was "annihilated" in the same "month"/generation as Peter, the "worthless shepherd of Zechariah 11:17, and Paul, the staff/shepherd called "Favor". Zechariah 11:14-17 refers to Peter, who was supposedly crucified by the "Cord"/"binding"/"Union from around his own waste, and the subsequent spitting of Judah from Ephraim by his shameful dreams/visions of Zechariah 13:4, and who represented the scattering of the sheep at the time of his denying Christ (Zechariah 13:7), which Yeshua quoted in Matthew 26:31 when Peter denied him 3 times.

Zechariah 11:10 I took my staff Favor and cut it in pieces, to break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples

The 'three shepherds' of Ezekiel 11:8 appear to have nothing to do with the shepherding of the Church. In two independent commentaries, l see that the interpretation given to the 'three shepherds' is, 'the civil authorities, the priests, and the prophets'.

The complaint made by Zechariah is the same complaint made by Ezekiel about the shepherds of Israel [Ezekiel 34]. It's quite clear in Ezekiel that it is God who is the only Good Shepherd.

Ezekiel 34:15. ' l will feed my flock, and l will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord GOD.'

Ezekiel 34:23. 'And l will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.'

So, the Church is led by the Good Shepherd, which is God in Christ. This means that your interpretation of Zechariah must be wrong. For Christ is the 'chief shepherd' and all other shepherds of his flock come under his authority.
[See 1 Peter 5:1-4]