Jesus Dying for Our Sins

[Skwim]

Jesus said: "I and the Father are one." 3,000 people were baptized and of these Jesus said: " Father let these be one with me as I am one with you."
John 17:20-22 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.22"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;…"

The bible is claimed to have been a true copy of the scrolls...Have you checked the scrolls to see if the bible matches? There have been many things in the Man made bible that do not match the scrolls.

In other words the Bible can't be relied on to be accurate, which would include John 17:20-22. Thanks for making this clear.


.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Then there are those pieces of scripture that equate Jesus with god.

John 10:30-33,
"I and the Father are one."
John 20:28,
"Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Isaiah 44:6,
"Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
2 Peter 1:1
From Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.
To those who have obtained a faith that is as valuable as ours, a faith based on the approval that comes from our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,.​

Yes, 'in the beginning', but Not ' before ' the beginning. Only God was ' before ' the beginning according to Psalms 90:2 ( No beginning for God )
So, Jesus - Revelation 3:14 B - was Not ' before ' the beginning as God was ' before ' the beginning.

( KJV uses the letter ' a ' at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B, but omits the letter ' a' at John 1 although the same Greek grammar rule applies at both verses )

Didn't Jesus pray at John 17:11 B; John 17:21-23 that his followers be ' one ' as he and his Father are one ? ______ Surely Jesus was Not praying his followers become God.
However, they could be ' one ' in purpose, unity, faith, agreement, belief, goals, objective, etc.

Plus, Jesus already stated that his Father is greater than him - John 10:29 A; John 14:28

I have heard on news broadcasts people say in front of another person " Oh, My God ". They are Not calling or addressing the person in front of them as God.
So, in that sense doubting Thomas is addressing both God and Jesus at John 20:28 .

Doesn't the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still think he has a God over him according to Revelation 3:12 ?_________

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus is Not addressed at Almighty God, but as Mighty God. God is a title and Not necessarily the actual person.
Jesus is to be ' Everlasting Father ' because God gave Jesus the power of the Resurrection 1:18; Acts of the Apostles 24:15
Jesus will resurrect people as Daniel looked forward - Daniel 12:2; Daniel 12:13

Please notice at 2 Peter 1:1 the conjunction word ' and ' from our God ' and ' Savior..... That indicates more than one person
Please notice at 2 Peter 1:2 .....knowledge of God ' and ' of Jesus. Also indicating more than one person.
Please notice at 2 Peter 3:18 how Peter concludes his second letter using the word 'and ' in conjunction to Jesus but Not God.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, 'in the beginning', but Not ' before ' the beginning. Only God was ' before ' the beginning according to Psalms 90:2 ( No beginning for God )
So, Jesus - Revelation 3:14 B - was Not ' before ' the beginning as God was ' before ' the beginning.

How do you know that god wasn't three consubstantial persons from the get go? And if he wasn't, just when did god split into the three?

( KJV uses the letter ' a ' at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B, but omits the letter ' a' at John 1 although the same Greek grammar rule applies at both verses )

And the relevance is . . . . . ?

Didn't Jesus pray at John 17:11 B; John 17:21-23 that his followers be ' one ' as he and his Father are one ? ______ Surely Jesus was Not praying his followers become God.
However, they could be ' one ' in purpose, unity, faith, agreement, belief, goals, objective, etc.

Plus, Jesus already stated that his Father is greater than him - John 10:29 A; John 14:28

I have heard on news broadcasts people say in front of another person " Oh, My God ". They are Not calling or addressing the person in front of them as God.
So, in that sense doubting Thomas is addressing both God and Jesus at John 20:28 .

Doesn't the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still think he has a God over him according to Revelation 3:12 ?_________

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus is Not addressed at Almighty God, but as Mighty God. God is a title and Not necessarily the actual person.
Jesus is to be ' Everlasting Father ' because God gave Jesus the power of the Resurrection 1:18; Acts of the Apostles 24:15
Jesus will resurrect people as Daniel looked forward - Daniel 12:2; Daniel 12:13

Please notice at 2 Peter 1:1 the conjunction word ' and ' from our God ' and ' Savior..... That indicates more than one person
Please notice at 2 Peter 1:2 .....knowledge of God ' and ' of Jesus. Also indicating more than one person.
Please notice at 2 Peter 3:18 how Peter concludes his second letter using the word 'and ' in conjunction to Jesus but Not God.

The inconsistency isn't mine to justify. What you can't do is just blow off the contradictory passages as if they don't exist, at least not if you consider yourself a principled person. But hey, if nothing else they're useful for cherry picking. Regard Jesus and god as separate entities when the need arises, and regard them as one in the same when the need arises. Got your pick.


.


.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The inconsistency isn't mine to justify. What you can't do is just blow off the contradictory passages as if they don't exist, at least not if you consider yourself a principled person. But hey, if nothing else they're useful for cherry picking. Regard Jesus and god as separate entities when the need arises, and regard them as one in the same when the need arises. Got your pick.
.

From the ' get go ' Creator is singular - Revelation 4:11. According to Scripture God is un-created - Psalms 90:2
The relevance is that KJV added a letter 'a' at one verse, and omitted the letter ' a ' at another verse, although the same Greek grammar rule applies at both verses.
Doing so does Not make Jesus as God. As John wrote: No man has seen God - John 1:18; 1 John 4:12 which is in harmony with Exodus 33:20. People saw Jesus.

It is Not ' cherry picking ' because the Bible can be studied and researched by subject and topic arrangement.
The Bible is Not written ABC as a dictionary is. But by comparing what the Bible writers wrote on one subject, or one topic, at a time gives us an harmonious picture of what the Bible really teaches.

 

[Skwim]

From the ' get go ' Creator is singular - Revelation 4:11. According to Scripture God is un-created - Psalms 90:2

Neither says a thing about the nature of god: triune or not.

The relevance is that KJV added a letter 'a' at one verse, and omitted the letter ' a ' at another verse, although the same Greek grammar rule applies at both verses.

But you still haven't shown how this necessarily makes Jesus and god separate entities

Doing so does Not make Jesus as God.

Perhaps not, but there are plenty of passages that do equate Jesus with god.

It is Not ' cherry picking '

Sure it is.

because the Bible can be studied and researched by subject and topic arrangement.

So what?

The Bible is Not written ABC as a dictionary is. But by comparing what the Bible writers wrote on one subject, or one topic, at a time gives us an harmonious picture of what the Bible really teaches.

Cherry picking can tend to do that for a person.

 

[viole]

The following came to mind when I was reminded that Easter was approaching. It got me thinking. . . . .

If I remember correctly, Jesus was put on Earth to save sinners from Hell and insure they could go to heaven.

And, as I recall, Jesus was one of three consubstantial expressions (a term I took from the definition of the trinity) of god.

So, in fact, god put himself on Earth to save sinners from the Hell he had created for them, or at least permitted it to exist.

God therefore went about his work on earth in the guise of a human, and being omniscient knew what lay ahead---the impending betrayal, crucifixion, and resurrection from his human form.

Knowing how his earthly life was to play out, and purposely orchestrating the whole thing, insuring that he would be betrayed, arrested, crucified, etc. why do people find his "suffering" on the cross and his resurrection so admirable? I don't get it.

First of all, he created Hell (or if you prefer, exclusion from Heaven), but why? The only answer I've been able to come up with is that he wanted his creatures, us, to need him. Need him to get us out of the predicament he set up for us. However, he didn't need it for quite a few years, during which time he sent millions of people to his Hell. Then he comes along and offers a way out to some of his creatures, but only if they sing his praises for being a good guy who had himself killed.

In light of the foregoing, isn't Christianity simply an insurance policy that demands that one buy into the notion that the crucifixion and all was some kind of true sacrifice, when, in fact, it appears there was no actual sacrifice at all? It is all a ploy to get people to praise him, and those who don't can go to H - E - double hockey sticks.

If I've missed some critical aspect of the story please bring me up to speed.


.

I think that to say that Jesus died for our sins is an exaggeration. It would be more appropriate to say He had a very bad weekend for our sins.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Domenic]

In other words the Bible can't be relied on to be accurate, which would include John 17:20-22. Thanks for making this clear.

You are correct, the bible cant be relied on. {QUOTE}


You are correct...the bible can't be relied on.
You are correct...the bible can't be relied on. The scrolsl are Gods written word. The bible is not. The man made bible is a tool of Satan to lead man away from God. It is designed to make people believe things that are not true. People judge God by the bible. Anyone with half a brain would turn away from God if they based what was true on the bible. Ther are over fifty scrolls. Constantine put only four in his bible, and then they even change many of the scriptures in those...leave a word out here, change one there, etc. true the bible has some true scriptures, but not major one's...the one's that count. These religious leaders Constantine used to build his bible were the same kind as those who murdered Jesus...all they wanted was money and power.

Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action - MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of God" into existence. (I wish to thank Brian Show for pointing out in his rebuttal to this article that the final version of the Christian Bible was not voted on at the Council of Nicaea, per se. The Church leaders didn't finish editing the "holy" scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed. However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine! This fact is revealed in the second counter-rebuttal to Brian Show's first rebuttal to this article. This counter-rebuttal makes the following important statement and backs it up with FACTS - "Therefore, one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use."
Constantine was a lifelong pagan who was baptized against his will on his deathbed.
Constantine made Christianity the official Roman religion solely for political gain.
Christianity is a hybrid religion, the result of Constantine's fusing the pagan cult of Sol Invictus with Christianity.
This blending can be seen in Constantine's changing the Christian day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
Under Constantine's influence, the Council of Nicea, by a small majority, turned a mortal prophet into the divine Son of God.
Constantine ordered the making of the Bible that would reinforce the Council's decision to make Jesus the divine Son of God, and at the same time ordered the destruction of opposing documents.

Constantine was a lifelong pagan who was baptized against his will on his deathbed.
Constantine made Christianity the official Roman religion solely for political gain.
Christianity is a hybrid religion, the result of Constantine's fusing the pagan cult of Sol Invictus with Christianity.
This blending can be seen in Constantine's changing the Christian day of worship from Saturday
Constantine ordered the making of the Bible that would reinforce the Council's decision to make Jesus the divine Son of God, and at the same time ordered the destruction of opposing documents.

 

[Skwim]

You are correct, the bible cant be relied on

Stick with me and you'll seldom go wrong.


.

 

[dawny0826]

The following came to mind when I was reminded that Easter was approaching. It got me thinking. . . . .

If I remember correctly, Jesus was put on Earth to save sinners from Hell and insure they could go to heaven.

And, as I recall, Jesus was one of three consubstantial expressions (a term I took from the definition of the trinity) of god.

So, in fact, god put himself on Earth to save sinners from the Hell he had created for them, or at least permitted it to exist.

God therefore went about his work on earth in the guise of a human, and being omniscient knew what lay ahead---the impending betrayal, crucifixion, and resurrection from his human form.

Knowing how his earthly life was to play out, and purposely orchestrating the whole thing, insuring that he would be betrayed, arrested, crucified, etc. why do people find his "suffering" on the cross and his resurrection so admirable? I don't get it..

First of all, he created Hell (or if you prefer, exclusion from Heaven), but why? The only answer I've been able to come up with is that he wanted his creatures, us, to need him. Need him to get us out of the predicament he set up for us. However, he didn't need it for quite a few years, during which time he sent millions of people to his Hell. Then he comes along and offers a way out to some of his creatures, but only if they sing his praises for being a good guy who had himself killed.

In light of the foregoing, isn't Christianity simply an insurance policy that demands that one buy into the notion that the crucifixion and all was some kind of true sacrifice, when, in fact, it appears there was no actual sacrifice at all? It is all a ploy to get people to praise him, and those who don't can go to H - E - double hockey sticks.

If I've missed some critical aspect of the story please bring me up to speed.


.

Hell wasn't intended for us. Hell was intended for the adversary and his fallen.

Christ's sacrifice was for all - not some. At the heart of it was perfect love.

God loved me so much that instead of leaving me to spiritual death, he paved a way for eternal spiritual life.

It's still a choice as it was in the beginning. He comes to the believer in Spirit because the believer desires Him.

It's a loving relationship that is nurtured. It's often a roller coaster of ups and downs. It's a daily learning experience.

It's very much a spiritual relationship. That's the crux of it.

 

[Skwim]

Hell wasn't intended for us. Hell was intended for the adversary and his fallen.

So what? He uses it for us now.

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."
(Matthew 5:22)

"I'll show you the one you should be afraid of. Be afraid of the one who has the authority to throw you into hell after killing you. Yes, I tell you, be afraid of him!"
(Luke 12:5)

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?"
(Matthew 23:29-33)​

Christ's sacrifice was for all - not some. At the heart of it was perfect love.

Sacrifice? Knowing how his earthly life was to play out, and purposely orchestrating the whole thing, insuring that he would be betrayed, arrested, crucified, etc. and then returning to heaven, is hardly a sacrifice. God, in the guise of a human, made sure he would be crucified because that's what he wanted. That's no sacrifice

God loved me so much that instead of leaving me to spiritual death, he paved a way for eternal spiritual life.

Which is pretty nice I guess, especially after he set you, and everyone else, to go to go hell by default. And personally, I would hardly call such a set-up, "love."

It's still a choice as it was in the beginning. He comes to the believer in Spirit because the believer desires Him.

And what of those who were never aware of the choice because they never got the notice?

It's a loving relationship that is nurtured.

Believe what you need to, but I wouldn't count on selling it to anyone else.


.

 

[viole]

Hell wasn't intended for us. Hell was intended for the adversary and his fallen.

This is the moral equivalent of saying: I did not buy this rifle against humans. It was just for hunting. But I noticed it came handy when I needed to slain people, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dawny0826]

So what? He uses it for us now.

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."
(Matthew 5:22)​

​

Hell is reserved for those who are genuinely wicked and do not desire God. Those who neglect to live in love and sin without repentance.

Verse 5:22 alone reads as if God throws folks in hell for petty offenses. Matthew 5:22 should be read with it's preceding verse which reads as follows:

​

21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=KJV​

The type of anger referenced in Matthew 5:22 is that of hatred, not your typical tiff or annoyance with another. It's the type of anger and disdain for another that lends to murder.

"I'll show you the one you should be afraid of. Be afraid of the one who has the authority to throw you into hell after killing you. Yes, I tell you, be afraid of him!"
(Luke 12:5)
​

Luke 12:5 should be examined at least with verses 4, 6 & 7 for better context:

Jesus Teaches the Fear of God

4 “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!

6 “Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12&version=NKJV

Yes, Christ does make mention of hell to demonstrate the importance of fearing God. Verse 7 is intended as an encouragement. If you explore this Chapter of Luke further, you'll find in verses 22-34 additional encouragement from Christ about not worrying and trusting in God.

In other words, fear God, not man. In faith, hell is a non issue.

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?"

(Matthew 23:29-33)

In Matthew 23, Christ is directly addressing the Pharisees and calling them out on their hypocrisy and evil. These weren't good people.

​

Sacrifice? Knowing how his earthly life was to play out, and purposely orchestrating the whole thing, insuring that he would be betrayed, arrested, crucified, etc. and then returning to heaven, is hardly a sacrifice. God, in the guise of a human, made sure he would be crucified because that's what he wanted. That's no sacrifice

I respectfully disagree.

Which is pretty nice I guess, especially after he set you, and everyone else, to go to go hell by default. And personally, I would hardly call such a set-up, "love."

I believe it was the adversary who set us up to be hell bound, not God.

And what of those who were never aware of the choice because they never got the notice?

Believe what you need to, but I wouldn't count on selling it to anyone else. .

Romans 13 describes that when we love, we fulfill the law to the fullest. I don't believe that those who have never had the opportunity to choose are damned.

I've no desire to "sell" my faith to anyone. I'm merely offering my perspective, which I fully expect folks to take or leave.

 

[dawny0826]

This is the moral equivalent of saying: I did not buy this rifle against humans. It was just for hunting. But I noticed it came handy when I needed to slain people, too.

Ciao

- viole

I would agree if no way was paved for man to avoid the fate of Satan.

 

[Skwim]

​

Hell is reserved for those who are genuinely wicked and do not desire God. Those who neglect to live in love and sin without repentance.

Verse 5:22 alone reads as if God throws folks in hell for petty offenses. Matthew 5:22 should be read with it's preceding verse which reads as follows:

​

Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=KJV​

The type of anger referenced in Matthew 5:22 is that of hatred, not your typical tiff or annoyance with another. It's the type of anger and disdain for another that lends to murder.

"I'll show you the one you should be afraid of. Be afraid of the one who has the authority to throw you into hell after killing you. Yes, I tell you, be afraid of him!"
(Luke 12:5)
​

Luke 12:5 should be examined at least with verses 4, 6 & 7 for better context:

Come on dawny, stop running around the barn as if it meant something. You made a simple statement

"Hell wasn't intended for us. Hell was intended for the adversary and his fallen."​

In effect meaning that hell has no relevance to us mortals. So I said

"So what? He uses it for us now."

​

And now you come out with irrelevancies. Nice I guess, but in as much as they are irrelevant, I can't care. Let's stick to the issue at hand.

In other words, fear God, not man. In faith, hell is a non issue.

Might want to ask those who "neglect to live in love and sin without repentance" because they haven't heard one has to do so in order to avoid hell.

In Matthew 23, Christ is directly addressing the Pharisees and calling them out on their hypocrisy and evil. These weren't good people.

So what?

​

I respectfully disagree.

Fine, but this hardly makes for stimulating conversation here.

I believe it was the adversary who set us up to be hell bound, not God.

So either god didn't care that he did or god didn't care that he did. Nice god. NOT!


.

 

[dawny0826]

Might want to ask those who "neglect to live in love and sin without repentance" because they haven't heard one has to do so in order to avoid hell.

Are there not douche bags who willfully do heinous things without care as to how their actions impact others or what type of repercussions they may be owed? When I think of hell bound people, these are the types that come to mind.

So what?

Let me repeat: They were evil.

Consider my contributions as irrelevant as you want. My reason for sharing additional scripture was to provide additional context - context which further clarified that hell is reserved for the wicked.

​

So either god didn't care that he did or god didn't care that he did. Nice god. NOT! .

Clearly, God does care and such care is demonstrated throughout the bible. How stimulating can a conversation be here, Skwim, if this boils down to you digging your heels into the ground, insisting that God sucks?

 

[viole]

I would agree if no way was paved for man to avoid the fate of Satan.

Cool. Did He prevent entrance to Hell to anyone who is not Satan?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dawny0826]

Cool. Did He prevent entrance to Hell to anyone who is not Satan?

Ciao

- viole

Anyone hell bound is deserving of such fate.

 

[viole]

Anyone hell bound is deserving of such fate.

Who is hell bound?

Am I hell bound, for instance?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dawny0826]

Who is hell bound?

Am I hell bound, for instance?

Ciao

- viole

I've already answered your first question in this thread.

I don't know your personal spiritual business.

 

[viole]

I've already answered your first question in this thread.

I don't know your personal spiritual business.

My spiritual business is that I have no spiritual business. There is no God, no Allah, no Apollo, no Great Juju at the bottom of the sea and no Jesus. These are just products of human's infancy.

So, am I hell bound?

Ciao

- viole