Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Connie Sue]

Jesus was called God, but was he God his Father? :no:

Matthew 3:16, "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and , lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: Verse 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying This if my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." We see then while Jesus was on earth, his Father was in heaven.

 

[roberto]

G-D never said tht sin "should be paid for in blood".

There were sacrifices for many reasons.There were sacrifices for festive events, giving thanks, and all sorts of reasons. Sins was only one reason.

Also since there is not Temple in jeruslalem anymore sacrifices are no longer alowed. Jews deals with sins by repenting and trying to not do it again.

The burden of dealing with sins is our own. No one can do it for us.

According to the messianic prophesies as found in Michah 4:3 an Ezekiel 37, when the messiah actually comes, the following will occur

• All the jews will be brought to Israel
• All the jews will stay in Israel
• World peace
• The temple in jersalem will be rebuilt and stand forever.

The 2nd coming stuff is all made up christian theology.

It has NOTHING to do with judiasm, jewish scripture, or the G-D that jews believe in.

What's Pessa?

As far as the reliance on anyone but the one G-D...

I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from Me there is no savior. (Isaiah, 43:11)


quote=roberto;2973245]If someone agrees to pay money on/in your stead for debt , then that person has taken the burden of debt on him/herself.
The Father defined in the "old testament" that sin should be paid for in blood, not so ?[That is avon and hatat sin]
The Sota definition in the "old testament" of what happens to a wayward/whoring bride describes what the Messiah came to do.
The Messiah paid the "price" on "our" behalf and by dying he can/could now marry his wayward/whoring bride[Northern tribes] again.
"our"behalf"> [Northern tribes and their sojourners] That is why I call myself a sojourner to 10 Israel.
I might add that there is no attonement for Pessa sin. Pessa sin according to Torah requires death penalty. [That is why the Messiah had to die on our behalf]
Now why do we still pray for forgiveness of sin ? Because those sins are the first two sins meantioned > Avon and hatat sins.]
Hope that helps.
Please note : The Messiah was not sent for Judah/the Jews.
.

Ok, ok , so I made a spelling mistake......sorry !

It should read "Pesha sin" ...........>> as if you did not know ?

If the following is true.....>
Please note : The Messiah was not sent for Judah/the Jews...... [So why are you interfering with the goiish viewpoints on sin ?]
Please note : The Messiah was not sent for Judah/the Jews.
Please note : The Messiah was not sent for Judah/the Jews.
Please note : The Messiah was not sent for Judah/the Jews.

....The 2nd coming stuff is all made up christian theology.

Oh yeah ? Ever hear of the two Messiah "Jewish theory" ?
.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Perhaps if you'd be little more specific with your rants, things like this wouldn't happen, and you wouldn't end up having to apologize for making a mistake.

It was necessary because you seem to be able to explain something away by adding the caveat 'Well I don't do/think/believe that'. It's not about you. Especially when you are making up your own philosophy.

Thanks for the jab. Full of yourself much?

I am pretty awesome, but this wasn't a jab. it was a direct observation: your faith listing is specific only to yourself, therefore it could mean or claim anything. It could change midstream and nobody would be the wiser because nobody actually knows what it is; only you. I am talking mainstream xtianity. Continually trying to disqualify my arguments by switching to whatever 'Celtic Christianity' is, does not apologize for the big daddy one. Though you try this.

1) You're not qualified to make such a judgment,

Sure I am. You're here voluntarily arguing points of it; I observe and conclude.

2) "Christian" is a pretty broad term and does not (happily) conform to the criteria you select.

lol, I "select"

Of course not. But you do continue to deliver personal jabs. Most people learn how to work and play well with others in Kindergarten.

Once you get out of school, and meet people in the real world, you eventually realize most of them don't deserve your respect.

"Vast majority" is mostly a vast overstatement. Most mainline xtians agree with me on this point.

lol, they do? They agree that

Since I don't remotely view the Bible in that way (the bible is not the "ultimate authority," nor is it infallible),

lol! I don't think then that you are aware of what even your colleagues right here on this forum think, much less the 'mainstream'.

To take the texts "literally, in total" is irresponsible and a dishonest treatment of the texts.

Yet the fact that a very loud 'majority' whom we see in all media, think it is literal in total - except when they are commanded by it to stone disobedient daughters of course, hence my point - proves my point.
They pick and choose, yet claim it is infallible and of a whole piece when it suits, especially when demanding that others conform to it.

Again, contrariety, simply for it's own sake.

 

[roberto]

....
Yet the fact that a very loud 'majority' whom we see in all media, think it is literal in total ....

Rule #6: “If the Plain Text Makes Perfect Sense, Seek No Other Sense.”

 

[roberto]

:sorry1: Idea, I could pick holes all through that message on Baptism that you post for me.!

Whos babtism you wanna pick/poke now Connie ?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Rule #6: “If the Plain Text Makes Perfect Sense, Seek No Other Sense.”

I found it very odd to hear that a holy text may not be taken literally at the parts where it lists laws. When someone is telling a parable, sure, perhaps. But, the lists of laws?

 

[sojourner]

It was necessary because you seem to be able to explain something away by adding the caveat 'Well I don't do/think/believe that'. It's not about you. Especially when you are making up your own philosophy.

If you think this is something unique to me, and that it is "made up" philosophy, you certainly need to get out more.

your faith listing is specific only to yourself, therefore it could mean or claim anything. It could change midstream and nobody would be the wiser because nobody actually knows what it is; only you.

This aspect of my faith expression has nothing to do with my approach to the Biblical texts. Frankly, I don't know why you're making such a big deal out of it. It's a smoke-screen or something. Any number of reasonably intelligent, well-studied Xtians (A_E, Kathryn, Luna, to name a few) here would likely agree with how I approach the texts.

I am talking mainstream xtianity.

So am I. BTW, fundamentalism certainly isn't "mainstream" Xy.

Continually trying to disqualify my arguments by switching to whatever 'Celtic Christianity' is, does not apologize for the big daddy one. Though you try this.

You are soooo in the dark here.

Sure I am.

Riiight. Perhaps we could find a quadriplegic imbecile who's qualified to play piano for the Met, while we're at it.

Once you get out of school, and meet people in the real world, you eventually realize most of them don't deserve your respect.

How sad for you.

I don't think then that you are aware of what even your colleagues right here on this forum think, much less the 'mainstream'.

See my first statement above.

Yet the fact that a very loud 'majority' whom we see in all media, think it is literal in total - except when they are commanded by it to stone disobedient daughters of course, hence my point - proves my point.
They pick and choose, yet claim it is infallible and of a whole piece when it suits, especially when demanding that others conform to it.

Again, contrariety, simply for it's own sake.

Three or four fat, sweaty ******** on TV do not constitute a "majority of mainstream Xtians." They're simply more visible.

I agree with you. They're annoying and infuriating. But they're not remotely "most Xtians."

 

[sojourner]

I found it very odd to hear that a holy text may not be taken literally at the parts where it lists laws. When someone is telling a parable, sure, perhaps. But, the lists of laws?

It depends on what you mean by "take literally." I assumed you meant "following the laws literally, as they appear on the pages." Of course those laws were meant to be literally followed, but not by all people in all places. These laws were meant for the ancient Hebrews, not for post-moderns. Or are you claiming that, since these things are written in the Bible, they can't be changed, adapted, edited, etc?

 

[roberto]

It depends on what you mean by "take literally." I assumed you meant "following the laws literally, as they appear on the pages." Of course those laws were meant to be literally followed, but not by all people in all places. These laws were meant for the ancient Hebrews, not for post-moderns. Or are you claiming that, since these things are written in the Bible, they can't be changed, adapted, edited, etc?

Sleeping with ones daughter is still not a favorite, I believe ?

 

[sojourner]

Paul said, "All things are legal, but not all are beneficial." What good would it do to marry one's daughter? You end up with a kid with three eyes and an IQ to match, and a horrible mother-in-law.

This is what happens with canonization. The texts become intractable. If one reads them literalistically.

 

[Connie Sue]

:sorry1: Idea, I could pick holes all through that message on Baptism that you post for me.!

You asked who's baptism I wanted to pick holes in. "No one's"

I thought we were having a bible discussion on what the bible teaches concerning baptism? I am not interested in hearing about one's personal conversion!!

Shouldn't you be concern with what the bible says concerning baptism and how and where your message is wrong?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It depends on what you mean by "take literally." I assumed you meant "following the laws literally, as they appear on the pages." Of course those laws were meant to be literally followed, but not by all people in all places. These laws were meant for the ancient Hebrews, not for post-moderns. Or are you claiming that, since these things are written in the Bible, they can't be changed, adapted, edited, etc?

I think 'it depends' is the Biblical excuse of convenience.

Cherry pickling. It's established. Let's move on.

 

[Thief]

I think 'it depends' is the Biblical excuse of convenience.

Cherry pickling. It's established. Let's move on.

Now, let's not be shallow.
Was it not you just a few posts ago, claiming we should consider ALL of scripture...and not pick and choose the portions we are suited to?

And you not are using the catch phrase as a derogatory?

'Cherry picking' must be allowed....whether you approve or not.
The technique exposes which portion is greater and which is not.
Attempting to abide by ALL of scripture would be insurmountable.
And which collection of scripture would be best?
Immediately the choices arise.

You can call it 'cherry picking' and label the technique as shallow....if you want to.

But all are guilty by default.
No one can practice and report ALL of the words written about God.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Now, let's not be shallow.
Was it not you just a few posts ago, claiming we should consider ALL of scripture...and not pick and choose the portions we are suited to?

And you not are using the catch phrase as a derogatory?

Ye-es, and?

'Cherry picking' must be allowed....whether you approve or not.
The technique exposes which portion is greater and which is not.
Attempting to abide by ALL of scripture would be insurmountable.

Yet that is what is required.
I agree that that makes it insurmountable; proving the insistence of that, by God, is illogical. How can one fairly demand what is impossible?

And which collection of scripture would be best?
Immediately the choices arise.

You can call it 'cherry picking' and label the technique as shallow....if you want to.

But all are guilty by default.
No one can practice and report ALL of the words written about God.

Then... case dismissed.

 

[sojourner]

I think 'it depends' is the Biblical excuse of convenience.

Cherry pickling. It's established. Let's move on.

What you "think" establishes nothing. Again: Cherry picking only takes place when the aforementioned criteria are met.

 

[bnabernard]

The sons date with the cross was to prove that a sinless man would not could not die, he showed.
However to say that the likes of Enoch and Elijah et al were sinless is anotherthing.
The son of God however in retaining his life passsed something on to the rest of mankind, his blood poured out into the dust, ( which is where we were at the time)

So the son did not sacrifice his life, else he would no longer have it, what he did do was share it out.

bernard (hug)

 

[F0uad]

Why don't people consider the direct contradiction of human-sacrifices? Its clearly forbidden in the law that Jesus(p) was upholding or made.

 

[Thief]

Apparently this case is not closed.

 

[waitasec]

Why don't people consider the direct contradiction of human-sacrifices? Its clearly forbidden in the law that Jesus(p) was upholding or made.

don't you know, god can always change his mind...?
as he has nothing to answer to...not even the rational concept of consistency.

but i would guess there are those that believe inconsistency is a god like quality, why? i have no idea.

 

[F0uad]

don't you know, god can always change his mind...?
as he has nothing to answer to...not even the rational concept of consistency.

but i would guess there are those that believe inconsistency is a god like quality, why? i have no idea.

What has Mormonism to do with anything?