The SPIRITUAL sacrifice has to be, divine, ie CANNOT be just a Rabbi so forth

[Desert Snake]

No scripture necessary for this argument.

Simply explain how a SPIRITUAL sacrifice, can be done in this manner, [JESUS says that He does this of His own accord, IF JESUS isn't GOD.

It can't be done, and makes no sense.

JESUS HAS TO BE GOD INCARNATE, not even a subortinate, THE MANIFESTATION OF GOD.

JESUS'S REAL NAME IS GOD.

 

[Desert Snake]

And this discussion is subject specific.

 

[Desert Snake]

This also of course is why Emmanuel is said to have the same meaning, as JESUS.

in other words, this is telling us that Jesus's nature is direct divine.

 

[Ellen Brown]

No scripture necessary for this argument.

Simply explain how a SPIRITUAL sacrifice, can be done in this manner, [JESUS says that He does this of His own accord, IF JESUS isn't GOD.

It can't be done, and makes no sense.

JESUS HAS TO BE GOD INCARNATE, not even a subortinate, THE MANIFESTATION OF GOD.

JESUS'S REAL NAME IS GOD.

There isn't much of what you say that I agree with, but let's keep it civil? The scripture that says, "I and the Father are one" merely says that He and the Father agree, in my opinion. I am a non-trinitarian and have been since I first believed in 1974. There are lots of names used for Jesus. Yeshua, Joshua, Isa PBUH (Muslim name in Arabic) It would be interesting to see what the Christians in Northern Syria, who still speak Aramaic but live amongst Arabic speakers would call him.

In my opinion a spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God would have to be a lot of service, and one would need to be wholly devoted to pleasing God.

 

[Desert Snake]

In my opinion a spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God would have to be a lot of service, and one would need to be wholly devoted to pleasing God.

I believe that much of Christianity is wrong about this, and actually always was. In fact the Scripture even does give a subjective portrayal, of the sacrifice. Differences in the Gospels, so forth. I believe this to be more of a concept that either could be, in accordance with the general idea, or can't be.

 

[shunyadragon]

No scripture necessary for this argument.

Simply explain how a SPIRITUAL sacrifice, can be done in this manner, [JESUS says that He does this of His own accord, IF JESUS isn't GOD.

It can't be done, and makes no sense.

JESUS HAS TO BE GOD INCARNATE, not even a subortinate, THE MANIFESTATION OF GOD.

JESUS'S REAL NAME IS GOD.

. . . so forth? This is a matter of your assertion based on what you believe, nothing else.

 

[viole]

No scripture necessary for this argument.

Simply explain how a SPIRITUAL sacrifice, can be done in this manner, [JESUS says that He does this of His own accord, IF JESUS isn't GOD.

It can't be done, and makes no sense.

JESUS HAS TO BE GOD INCARNATE, not even a subortinate, THE MANIFESTATION OF GOD.

JESUS'S REAL NAME IS GOD.

Are you carrying graven Images of Jesus, aka God, by any chance?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

No scripture necessary for this argument.

Simply explain how a SPIRITUAL sacrifice, can be done in this manner, [JESUS says that He does this of His own accord, IF JESUS isn't GOD.

It can't be done, and makes no sense.

JESUS HAS TO BE GOD INCARNATE, not even a subortinate, THE MANIFESTATION OF GOD.

JESUS'S REAL NAME IS GOD.

I’m not getting what you’re after here, sorry.

But didn’t the Jewish religion have a sacrificial system for a long time prior to Jesus? It was animal sacrifice, and it was prescribed by God, so it must have been spiritual. And the animals were not divine. Am I off here? Or just lost, as usual?

 

[Desert Snake]

I’m not getting what you’re after here, sorry.

But didn’t the Jewish religion have a sacrificial system for a long time prior to Jesus? It was animal sacrifice, and it was prescribed by God, so it must have been spiritual. And the animals were not divine. Am I off here? Or just lost, as usual?

Yes, the sacrifices for sins, basically. However, that is a very specific thing, and doesn't seem to match what Jesus did. It really can't in any literal way match the sacrifice idea by Jesus, because all of the things associated with that aren't present, in the sacrifice by Jesus. Like, Jesus does this of His own accord, this isn't a priestly sacrifice, and, directly, because the sacrifice is for believers, then that is not a priestly sacrifice. No it just doesn't really make sense.

I believe that the metaphors or literal ideas presented, used by churches traditionally are either sometimes, actually referring to a different type of religion [not judaism, or, mistaken ideas concerning the nature of the sacrifice, the sacrifice is conditional, for example, not for everyone. Here is where they make a mistake on that, they read , 'For God so loved the world'. Sure, however that doesn't mean the sacrifice is for everyone, it obviously isn't John 3:36, it just means that there is nothing preventing anyone from accepting Jesus, so that's ' the world'.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Why is this a General Religious Debate? Who, other than Christians, believes that anyone needs to be sacrificed? I don't even believe in sins!

 

[Desert Snake]

The alternatives to the premise are that, religiously speaking, of course, Jesus is a prophet who is selected at the time of baptism, or, pre'existence on earth. Now, that is just bizarre. Could it mean that, if one reads divinity of Jesus, as metaphor? Yes, however the churches or denominations that teach that are teaching a very strange idea.

A sacrifice of another divine being, which is basically what some teach. Now, book of Matthew, the words interpreted as 'father why have you forsaken me', and yes they presumably could mean that, are actually, 'G- d why have you forsaken', the word there is a name of G- d. You derive two different g- ds, not what churches directly taught, in other words. So, it most likely really is referring to a person named Eli, like in the book of Mark, that's what they thought it meant, at the time.

 

[Desert Snake]

Matthew 27:46

The meaning of what is said, is given, though actually no inference as to what is meant, by it. In other words, it's just literally telling us what the words mean in Aramaic, from a general perspective.

 

[Desert Snake]

Are you carrying graven Images of Jesus, aka God, by any chance?

Ciao

- viole

It isn't traditional, for me.

 

[shunyadragon]

Matthew 27:46

The meaning of what is said, is given, though actually no inference as to what is meant, by it. In other words, it's just literally telling us what the words mean in Aramaic, from a general perspective.

Your response does not make sense.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Yes, the sacrifices for sins, basically. However, that is a very specific thing, and doesn't seem to match what Jesus did. It really can't in any literal way match the sacrifice idea by Jesus, because all of the things associated with that aren't present, in the sacrifice by Jesus. Like, Jesus does this of His own accord, this isn't a priestly sacrifice, and, directly, because the sacrifice is for believers, then that is not a priestly sacrifice. No it just doesn't really make sense.

I believe that the metaphors or literal ideas presented, used by churches traditionally are either sometimes, actually referring to a different type of religion [not judaism, or, mistaken ideas concerning the nature of the sacrifice, the sacrifice is conditional, for example, not for everyone. Here is where they make a mistake on that, they read , 'For God so loved the world'. Sure, however that doesn't mean the sacrifice is for everyone, it obviously isn't John 3:36, it just means that there is nothing preventing anyone from accepting Jesus, so that's ' the world'.

Of course, Jesus came for everyone.

But free choice means, each person is responsible for his/her choice. Choose the Lord or choose self.

 

[Desert Snake]

. . . so forth? This is a matter of your assertion based on what you believe, nothing else.

You have a better argument? No argument, no explanation, no idea as to why this is a priestly sacrifice, so forth.

 

[Desert Snake]

Of course, Jesus came for everyone.

But free choice means, each person is responsible for his/her choice. Choose the Lord or choose self.

Great. Why don't you explain how this is a priestly sacrifice.

 

[shunyadragon]

You have a better argument? No argument, no explanation, no idea as to why this is a priestly sacrifice, so forth.

I do not try to take sides nor judge in the various diverse conflicting divisions of Christianity. It is simply they all, including yours, represent very fallible human different beliefs as Christians as they believe based on the same scripture.

In terms of the 'priestly sacrifice' that is up to the beliefs of the diverse churches and divisions of Christianity. I believe the concept of the 'priestly sacrifice' is an ancient world of the relationship between humans and God, and no relevance to the contemporary relationship between humanity abd God.