Jesus is the SON not the Father.

[edpobre]

Friends,

A lot of people mistakenly believe that Jesus is also the Father and therefore believe that "he and the Father are one and the same God."

This is a false belief that can only lead to the lake of fire.

In Matthew 3:17, God said, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased."

In Matthew 17:5, God repeatedly introduces Jesus as His beloved son before apostles Peter, James and John. Moreover, God commands them to listen to him.

Thus, when Jesus asked Peter who he thinks he is, Peter answered: "You are the Christ, the son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16).

What fortune awaits those who truly believe that Jesus is indeed the son of God? Apostle John wrote: "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name (John 21:30).

Those who truly believe that Jesus is the son of God also believe that the Father is the only true God because that's what the son of God revealed as recorded in John 17:3.

If you are in a church or group or congregation that believes in the doctrine that "Jesus and the Father are one and the same God," God says in Rev. 18:4: "Come out of her my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues."

And seek the true path to salvation BEFORE it's too late!

Ed

[ZoneChaos]

A lot of people mistakenly believe that Jesus is also the Father and therefore believe that "he and the Father are one and the same God."


Whew.. good thing Christianity does not accept this idea... ;)

[edpobre]

ZoneChaos,

I wrote: A lot of people mistakenly believe that Jesus is also the Father and therefore believe that "he and the Father are one and the same God."

Your reply: Whew.. good thing Christianity does not accept this idea...

Thanks for proving me right - that Jesus and the Father are NOT "one and the same God."

I guess this also does away with the third option to explain the mistranslated version of Zech. 12:10.

Ed

[ZoneChaos]

Thanks for proving me right - that Jesus and the Father are NOT "one and the same God."


Sorry Ed.. didn't prove you right.

While it is true that Christinaity does not beleive that Jesus is not the Father, Christianity does believe that Jesus is God ;)

What you stated: " Jesus is also the Father and therefore believe that "he and the Father are one and the same God."

We do not beleive. We do not beleive that the Son and the Father are the same person. We do beleive they are the One God. REad the post I put up for Fashala on the Trinity.

[LouisBooth]

Ed, I think you should read up on the concept of the firstborn in Jewish culture..maybe that will help you understand that title a little better. The title son doesn't have ANYTHING to do with a physical realtionship such as father and son (dad and progeiny). God didn't come down and have sex with mary ed, that's not what you believe is it?

[edpobre]

LouisBooth,

You wrote: Ed, I think you should read up on the concept of the firstborn in Jewish culture..maybe that will help you understand that title a little better. The title son doesn't have ANYTHING to do with a physical realtionship such as father and son (dad and progeiny). God didn't come down and have sex with mary ed, that's not what you believe is it?

Whatever your concept is about Father and son Louis, you miss the point completely. The Father says Jesus is His son. Jesus acknowledges that he is the son of God and prays to the Father, telling Him (the Father) that He is the only true God.

If the Father is the only true God, how can the son be also God in addition to the Father? Thus, the belief that Jesus is one God with the Father is false.

Ed

[ZoneChaos]

If the Father is the only true God, how can the son be also God in addition to the Father? Thus, the belief that Jesus is one God with the Father is false.


The "how" is something man will never understand on this earth. Nevertheless, the Son is God and the Father is God and the Spirit is God.

[LouisBooth]

"how can the son be also God in addition to the Father? "

Because the bible says so.

"Whatever your concept is about Father and son Louis, you miss the point completely. "

:lol: you don't know what the concept is but you automatically believe its wrong..:lol: ed, you need to listen to ideas before saying they are wrong. You' just being hard-hearted just like the priests of baal.

[edpobre]

ZoneChaos,

You wrote: The "how" is something man will never understand on this earth. Nevertheless, the Son is God and the Father is God and the Spirit is God.

For centuries, people have been taught that nobody can explain the "mystery" of the Trinity. The people who taught this could not explain it because the Trinity is the product of fertile imaginations that does not find support in the Bible. That's why the Bible was, for centuries, hidden from view.

Today, the Bible is found everywhere and people even swear by it and claim to be their only basis for their faith. The Bible does not support the idea that Jesus, the SON, can be the same only true God as the FATHER (John 17:3) because the Bible does not support the idea that Jesus, the SON is also God, the FATHER.

What I am saying is, the Trinity is no longer as mysterious as many people were led to believe. The truth is, the Trinity has now been exposed as FALSE.


Ed

[edpobre]

LouisBooth,

"how can the son be also God in addition to the Father? "

Because the bible says so.

Show us where in the Bible does it say that the son can alse be God in addition to the Father.

"Whatever your concept is about Father and son Louis, you miss the point completely. "

you don't know what the concept is but you automatically believe its wrong.. ed, you need to listen to ideas before saying they are wrong. You' just being hard-hearted just like the priests of baal.

I have listened to your ideas long enough to know that everything you say is wrong even before you open your mouth. The only reason I keep our conversation going is I'm hoping that one day, you'll run out of crazy ideas and suddenly see the light.

Ed

[drmmjr]

LouisBooth, ...I think you should read up on the concept of the firstborn in Jewish culture..maybe that will help you understand that title a little better. The title son doesn't have ANYTHING to do with a physical realtionship such as father and son (dad and progeiny)....
I've been looking for information on this. Where might I find some?

[ZoneChaos]

The Bible does not support the idea that Jesus, the SON, can be the same only true God as the FATHER (John 17:3) because the Bible does not support the idea that Jesus, the SON is also God, the FATHER.

The Trinity Doctrine has never stated that the Son is the Father. On the ontrary, the Son and the Father are sperate entities within the doctrine of the trinity. The Bible, a you said supporets this, as well as the Trinity, thus:

What I am saying is, the Trinity is no longer as mysterious as many people were led to believe. The truth is, the Trinity has now been exposed as FALSE.

What you are saying is the the Trinty octrine says that the Son and Father ar the same. THis is ont true of the TZrinity Doctrine.. so, the Trinity Doctrine then has not been exposed as flase becasue the item above oyu use to expose it is false.

[LouisBooth]

"Show us where in the Bible does it say that the son can alse be God in addition to the Father. "

"the father and I are one" "everything the father has is mine" "before Abraham I am" "I forgive your sins (paraphrase). Got alone can do and say these things ed. How many times do we have to show you this to get it?

"I have listened to your ideas long enough to know that everything you say is wrong even before you open your mouth. The only reason I keep our conversation going is I'm hoping that one day, you'll run out of crazy ideas and suddenly see the light."

And I'm hoping the same about you Ed, one day you will see the light weather it be here or on the other side :) I hope its sooner then later, that's what I've been praying at least.

[LouisBooth]

drmmjr there is a book called introduction to Judism I have, I'll get you the author, a cultural study is a great place to start too as well as any Jewish history.

[Pastor Carl]

To give answer as to God having sex with Mary - the answer is that in some mysterious way, that is exactly what happened. The angel told Mary that she would conceive when the Holy Spirit came upon her. Since the Holy Spirit is also co-equal with God, the answer would be yes. You see, the blood shed at Calvary could not be merely human blood. No blood, animal or human, could take away the sin of the world. Only God, Himself, shedding His own bloold could do that. God came in the form of a human, not only to die for our sins, but to live, as Hebrews tells us, as a human so that He could truly empathize with man and man's frailties.

When John wrote Reveleation, his guide, you might say, was an angel. When he bowed down to worship the angel, the angel told him not to do it, but rather worship God. We see, in Revelation alone, numerous times where angels and saints alike worshiped Jesus. We also see in the Gospels where the disciples worshiped Jesus. And Jesus did not rebuke them.

As has been pointed out. Jesus said in the Gospel of John, "Before Abraham was, I Am". This is a direct reference to the "I Am" in Exodus, when Jesus spoke through the burning bush to Moses.

When Jesus told the one person he healed, "Your sins are forgiven", the pharisees went berzerk. They said, "No one can forgive sins except God." They are correct in that statement and Jesus did not argue the point. He merely stated to them that He had that authority.

Thomas, upon seeing Jesus after His resurrection said, "My Lord, my God." This was NOT a statement of astonishment, but a declaration of recognition of who he now knew Jesus was.

In Genesis, it says, "In the beginning God(Elohim) created the heavens and the earth." Elohim, on of the Hebrew names for God is in the plural, indicating more than one. "Let us make man in OUR image"(plural) "And God(Elohim) formed man..." Again plural, clearly indicating the co-equal existance of Jesus as God along with the Holy Spirit.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Again indicating Jesus is God.

No Jesus is not the Father, but in essence, in all things they are equal and one. Like water. Water has three forms, liquid, gas and solid(ice). Often on a cold day you can look upon a lake or river and see ice chunks in the lake, along with the liquid form and steam rising off the surface. Three different functions but still one (H20). The Trinity is the same.

[Michael]

>>You see, the blood shed at Calvary could not be merely human blood. No blood, animal or human, could take away the sin of the world. Only God, Himself, shedding His own bloold could do that.

The part about this I have a tough time with is this notion that God needed to satisfy his vengence through blood in some way. Is this what you are trying to suggest Pastor Carl?

>>God came in the form of a human, not only to die for our sins, but to live, as Hebrews tells us, as a human so that He could truly empathize with man and man's frailties.

I actually agree with the last part. The interesting thing however is that most Christians deny Jesus' "humanity", in the sense they do not believe he ever "sinned" or made any mistakes.

>>When John wrote Reveleation, his guide, you might say, was an angel. When he bowed down to worship the angel, the angel told him not to do it, but rather worship God. We see, in Revelation alone, numerous times where angels and saints alike worshiped Jesus. We also see in the Gospels where the disciples worshiped Jesus. And Jesus did not rebuke them.

I think that this idea that Jesus didn't rebuke people "worshiping" him, particularly in prophesy, is hardly a good arguement to refute Jesus himself on the subject. It's not as though he didn't say we were all capable of this same union in God.

>>As has been pointed out. Jesus said in the Gospel of John, "Before Abraham was, I Am". This is a direct reference to the "I Am" in Exodus, when Jesus spoke through the burning bush to Moses.

It shows he believed in "preexistence", but it does not prove he was claiming to be God himself. Again, you are taking a single sentence to build a house of cards when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Why for instance would Jesus be praying to God for help the night before his death? Why would he fear? What would he fear? Why does he pray to God the father and refer to him as the one true God?

>>When Jesus told the one person he healed, "Your sins are forgiven", the pharisees went berzerk. They said, "No one can forgive sins except God." They are correct in that statement and Jesus did not argue the point. He merely stated to them that He had that authority.

Yet in the Lords Prayer Jesus tells us *ALL* to forgive sin.

>>Thomas, upon seeing Jesus after His resurrection said, "My Lord, my God." This was NOT a statement of astonishment, but a declaration of recognition of who he now knew Jesus was.

It was a recognition of his divinity to be sure. Again however, you are taking a single sentence from the lips of an apostle and raising it to become more important than the teachings of Jesus himself. What do you think he meant then by the whole John 17 prayer?

>>In Genesis, it says, "In the beginning God(Elohim) created the heavens and the earth." Elohim, on of the Hebrew names for God is in the plural, indicating more than one. "Let us make man in OUR image"(plural) "And God(Elohim) formed man..." Again plural, clearly indicating the co-equal existance of Jesus as God along with the Holy Spirit.

"Elohim", as I recall, were themselves "created" beings. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

>>"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Again indicating Jesus is God.

The WORD as I see it is the emination of God's will and love through creation. This is in fact the way Judaism has always described God, as the source from which all things manifest.

>>No Jesus is not the Father, but in essence, in all things they are equal and one. Like water. Water has three forms, liquid, gas and solid(ice). Often on a cold day you can look upon a lake or river and see ice chunks in the lake, along with the liquid form and steam rising off the surface. Three different functions but still one (H20). The Trinity is the same.

The only real complaint I have about the Trinity doctrine is the notion of exclusivity. This implies that only Jesus can achieve this union with God, and that is *NOT* what he himself said in John 17. It is indeed the WORD or Holy Breath, manifesting within Jesus that unified him with the father. The problem here is that Jesus himself said we are *ALL* one in God, and capable of this UNION IN AND WITH GOD.

[ZoneChaos]

The part about this I have a tough time with is this notion that God needed to satisfy his vengence through blood in some way. Is this what you are trying to suggest Pastor Carl?

God has always required blood as atonement for sin. Not becasue of its chemical makeup, or becasue He thinks it looks cool or to satisfy HIs vengence, but becasue blood is life. Blood is the symbol for life. And life must me the patment for sin, which is death.

Animal sacrifice was required, in the Old Testament, so that the blood from the animlams would atone for thier sins, however, this was not a permanent solution.

God sent Jesus to die for us, and by His blood, we have had our sins atoned for. The reason why, is beacause Jeus did not have any sin in which to pay for, thus being more of a sacrifice than any other person, becaue He was sinless. If he had sinned, then HIs blood would not have covered us, because it owuld have needed to atone for His sin, but becasue He had none, it could atone for ours.

The interesting thing however is that most Christians deny Jesus' "humanity", in the sense they do not believe he ever "sinned" or made any mistakes.

First, sinning and mking mistakes are different things. Christinaity holds true, that Jesus was sinless, this does not mean he neve dropped a carving tool while carving. He had to be taught things like anyone else. But through it all, He never sinned.

Second, if sin defines humanity, then what was Adam before He sinned, if not human?

I think that this idea that Jesus didn't rebuke people "worshiping" him, particularly in prophesy, is hardly a good arguement to refute Jesus himself on the subject. It's not as though he didn't say we were all capable of this same union in God.


This is also true in the gospel accounts as well. Many times Jesus was worshipped and He did not rebuke them.

It shows he believed in "preexistence", but it does not prove he was claiming to be God himself.

It shows more than that. "I Am" in Exodus is a name God gave Himself. Jesus was saying He was "I Am" in reference to that name of God in Exodus. He was calling Himself the name that God called Himself.

Yet in the Lords Prayer Jesus tells us *ALL* to forgive sin.

The Lords prayer gives us the right to forgive others of things they have done agaisnt us, but not things they have done against God. The differecne is that, we should forgive those, and not let it be a wall between them ans us, however, if they sinned, that sin is still not forgiven becasue we fofgave them, in God's eyes. He must still forgive them as well. Jesus did this. He said their sins were forgiven. He forgave them their sins, not sins that were commited toward him, but sins in general. Only God can do this.

It was a recognition of his divinity to be sure.

WHich shows He was God. Either Jesus is God, thus He is Devine, or else Jesus is God and their Are more than one God.

Jesus cannot be devine unless He is God. The only way to accept Jesus as Devine is to accept that He is God, or that their are more than one God.

"Elohim", as I recall, were themselves "created" beings.

Recall from what?

The WORD as I see it is the emination of God's will and love through creation. This is in fact the way Judaism has always described God, as the source from which all things manifest.

But is "as you see it" the truth? What verses support what youn say that do not support the fact that the Word is Jesus?

And Judism alo defines GOd as much more that that. And either way, it still does not say that thnk the Word is an emination.

The only real complaint I have about the Trinity doctrine is the notion of exclusivity.[/quote\]

Explain. Is it the notion of exclusivity of being God, or exclusivity of being in union with God?

I the first, then yes, you canot be God, ony 3 persons can.. thus a Trinity. If the later, then no, the rinity does not deny us the union with God, that Jesus s

[Michael]

>>God has always required blood as atonement for sin.

Not according to Isaiah. :)

>>Not becasue of its chemical makeup, or becasue He thinks it looks cool or to satisfy HIs vengence, but becasue blood is life. Blood is the symbol for life. And life must me the patment for sin, which is death.

Why do you use that "slogan"? Why would the wages of sin be death? Is that really what a loving parent would do to their children for learning and growing and maturing?

The symbolism of blood=life, is fine, but blood itself is a life bearing "gift" from God. What does this have to do with violence?

>>Animal sacrifice was required, in the Old Testament, so that the blood from the animlams would atone for thier sins, however, this was not a permanent solution.

According to Isaiah, this was no better than trying to buy your way out of sin, which Martin Luther aposed about the Catholic Church as well. Isaiah called the practice hollow, and compared the practice to killing human beings.

>>God sent Jesus to die for us, and by His blood, we have had our sins atoned for. The reason why, is beacause Jeus did not have any sin in which to pay for, thus being more of a sacrifice than any other person, becaue He was sinless. If he had sinned, then HIs blood would not have covered us, because it owuld have needed to atone for His sin, but becasue He had none, it could atone for ours.

Why couldn't God simply forgive sin like any normal human parent? In order for this concept to work, Jesus had to have been "perfect" in every way, blemish free, and never have made a mistake in his life. Don't you think that's asking a bit much?

M>The interesting thing however is that most Christians deny Jesus' "humanity", in the sense they do not believe he ever "sinned" or made any mistakes.

>>First, sinning and mking mistakes are different things.

The root of the word sin comes from the concept of "missing the mark". It's really one and the same thing. Even if it was a real "sin" in the sense that it was "selfish", we tend to learn and grow from our mistakes. That is a natural part of our learning process, a key design element of our "NATURE" which God herself created. Why would God not understand our hearts when we learn from our selfishness? Sinning is making a mistake, to miss the mark of unity in God.

>>Christinaity holds true, that Jesus was sinless, this does not mean he neve dropped a carving tool while carving. He had to be taught things like anyone else. But through it all, He never sinned.

Of course he stayed around in the synagog, and didn't bother telling his family where he was first. Other than that, we know little about his childhood from the bible. His ministry seems to begin *AFTER* the Holy Spirit descends upon him. There is nothing in the bible to suggest his childhood was completely "sin free".

>>Second, if sin defines humanity, then what was Adam before He sinned, if not human?

You should talk with Archon about this fairytale. This Adam and Eve thing is simply alegory. There is nothing in nature to suggest that any lifeform is born with complete knowledge of reality, or complete understanding of what the repercussions of their actions might be. Adam and Eve would have been no different than any human child, and they "sin" all the time.

M>I think that this idea that Jesus didn't rebuke people "worshiping" him, particularly in prophesy, is hardly a good arguement to refute Jesus himself on the subject. It's not as though he didn't say we were all capable of this same union in God.

>>This is also true in the gospel accounts as well. Many times Jesus was worshipped and He did not rebuke them.

Many Times? How MANY times?

It is not as though we do not have a direct explanation from Jesus himself about all this. He is really direct in John 17. There is no beating around the bush going on. He says we are all capable of this same Union with God that he enjoys. He makes no claim of being the one true God, rather he prays to him as son to father, for brothers and sisters who will eventually comprehend his meaning.

M>It shows he believed in "preexistence", but it does not prove he was claiming to be God himself.

>>It shows more than that. "I Am" in Exodus is a name God gave Himself. Jesus was saying He was "I Am" in reference to that name of God in Exodus. He was calling Himself the name that God called Himself.

If was all Jesus had ever said on the subject, that might be useful here. Since he did say a lot more about his connection to God however, there is no point in denying that part of his teachings either. Jesus called himself a "man". He didn't claim to be "God", and Abraham, I AM also, as are you. All our souls are ancient.

M>Yet in the Lords Prayer Jesus tells us *ALL* to forgive sin.

>>The Lords prayer gives us the right to forgive others of things they have done agaisnt us, but not things they have done against God.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Jesus begin that prayer with *OUR* father?

It seems to me that untold numbers of Priests since then have felt quite confortable forgiving sin on behalf of God. I fail to see how this alone proves he's God.

>>The differecne is that, we should forgive those, and not let it be a wall between them ans us, however, if they sinned, that sin is still not forgiven becasue we fofgave them, in God's eyes. He must still forgive them as well. Jesus did this. He said their sins were forgiven. He forgave them their sins, not sins that were commited toward him, but sins in general. Only God can do this.

Matthew 6:14: For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

Could you explain this to me then?

M>It was a recognition of his divinity to be sure.

>>WHich shows He was God.

No, it shows he was the Messiah. Would you please look up the term Messiah to the Jews. He was to be a "MAN" sent by God.

>>Either Jesus is God, thus He is Devine, or else Jesus is God and their Are more than one God.

Or Jesus is unified with God through the presense of the Holy Spirit, and is thereby "divine".

>>Jesus cannot be devine unless He is God.

Yes he can.

>>The only way to accept Jesus as Devine is to accept that He is God, or that their are more than one God.

No, this is not the way Jesus explained his relationship, and our potential relationship to God. By this definition, then all beings who achieve this union with God are "divine".

M>"Elohim", as I recall, were themselves "created" beings.

>>Recall from what?

From Jewish apocrapha. Are you saying there are *MANY* Gods? Have you suddenly become a Hindu on us? :)

M>The WORD as I see it is the emination of God's will and love through creation. This is in fact the way Judaism has always described God, as the source from which all things manifest.

>>But is "as you see it" the truth?

It is truth as I percieve it, just as your "truth" is also "subjective".

>>What verses support what youn say that do not support the fact that the Word is Jesus?

John 3 for starters. Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the only begotten Son of God. He said it goes where it wills, and it would testify for him. Indeed it does.

>>And Judism alo defines GOd as much more that that. And either way, it still does not say that thnk the Word is an emination.

In traditional Judaism, all things come from one God, from whom all things are made manifest. This is a basic and a core tenet of Judaism. The Messiah of Judaism was a "begotten" messanger *FROM* God, but was never considered to be God himself. This is a "christian" invention.

M>The only real complaint I have about the Trinity doctrine is the notion of exclusivity.

>>Explain. Is it the notion of exclusivity of being God, or exclusivity of being in union with God?

By elevating Jesus to the role of God, it implies that no one else may achieve this same union in God, and with God that he enjoyed. This is *NOT* what Jesus said. He constantly referred to God in the third person. If we were to total up the one of two sayings you are building your case on, and total up all the times he refered to God in the third person, there would be no comparison in terms of numbers alone.

>>I the first, then yes, you canot be God, ony 3 persons can.. thus a Trinity. If the later, then no, the rinity does not deny us the union with God, that Jesus...

Yes, it does. It has created a skism within the religion. It has externalized the connection between God and man when in fact it is an "internal" one. The second coming of Jesus isn't going to be physical in nature. He'll come through our hearts, through the presense of the Holy Spirit within us. Jesus said that in the end we would know that he is in us, we are in him, and we are all one in God. I believe that.

[ZoneChaos]

Not according to Isaiah.

OK.. show me in Isaiah where God says blood atonement is not needed.

Why do you use that "slogan"?

What slogan would that be?

Why would the wages of sin be death?

Yes.

What does this have to do with violence?
[/quot]

What does what have to do with violence?

The symbolism of blood=life, is fine, but blood itself is a life bearing "gift" f

Yes life is a gift.

Is that really what a loving parent would do to their children for learning and growing and maturing?

I don't see the connection with your analogy. Parents do not cause death. NIether does God. Death is not from God, so why use this analogy?

According to Isaiah, this was no better than trying to buy your way out of sin

And I saiah, being a prophet of God, knew that soon, this would be true, that Jesus would come and end the animal sacrifice once and for all. This passge in Isaiah was not for the time in ehihc it was written, but for a time in the near future when Jesus ould come and die for us.

which Martin Luther aposed about the Catholic Church as well.

Good for him. Your point?

Isaiah called the practice hollow, and compared the practice to killing human beings.

Which it is. It wasn't always so, but it is now. It became hllow and the death of Christ.

Why couldn't God simply forgive sin like any normal human parent?

Umm.. who said He doesn't forgive sin? Not me. He does forgive sin.

Jesus had to have been "perfect" in every way, blemish free, and never have made a mistake in his life. Don't you think that's asking a bit much?
In order for Jesus to atone for our sins, he had to be sinless. Define that as you will, but for me, Jesus had to be sinless.

The root of the word sin comes from the concept of "missing the mark".

If that makes you feel better, ok. But since English words have more than one definition most of the time, I chose to use the definition of sin that is in the Bible:

1. Sin is Lawlessness

2. Sin is attitudes that are inconsistant with the law and will of God

3. Sin is any want of conformity, or transgression against the law of God.

Sinning is making a mistake, to miss the mark of unity in God.

Can yo say the same thing about sin, without adding "of unity with God:? I find it intersting you added that at te end of the statement, after trying so hard to show it was also just making a mistake.

There is nothing in the bible to suggest his childhood was completely "sin free".

Only his nature.

You should talk with Archon about this fairytale. This Adam and Eve thing is simply alegory. There is nothing in nature to suggest that any lifeform is born with complete knowledge of reality, or complete understanding of what the repercussions of their actions might be. Adam and Eve would have been no different than any human child, and they "sin" all the time.


We will just drop this since we with never agree on the facts of Adam and Eve.

Many Times? How MANY times?


Here are a couple times off the top of my head... but really, one one time is enough.

Matt 14:33; 28:9

He says we are all capable of this same Union with God that he enjoys.

I agree. Whats your point?

he prays to him as son to father

I agree. What's your point?

Jesus called himself a "man".

But never did He say He was just a man, and nothing more. And never did He say He was not God.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Jesus begin that prayer with *OUR* father?

You are correct. What's your point?

It seems to me that untold numbers of Priests since then have felt quite confortable forgiving sin on behalf of God. I fail to see how this alone proves he's God.

On behalf of God, but not as God. And for those being forgiven, they had better know it was God forgiving them and ont the priest. Also, Jesus forgave as God, not on behalf of God.

Matthew 6:14: For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

You don't understand this verse?

That our heart has to be right with God. And that if we are willing o forgive, then so is He. But if we are not willing to forgve, then why should God forgive us? Part of being a Christian is having the ability to forgive. If you cannot forgive others who do you wrong, then how and why should God forgive you of doing Him wrong?

No, it shows he was the Messiah. Would you please look up the term Messiah to the Jews. He was to be a "MAN" sent by God.

Heh. Interresting you bring this up.. considering the Jews do not beleive their Messiah has come yet... :)

Or Jesus is unified with God through the presense of the Holy Spirit, and is thereby "divine".

Maybe.. but good luck in convincing anyone of it.

Yes he can.

Any other exmaples of someone who is devine and not God? Forinstance.. the closest thing to Godm as far as a nature goes, wouod probably be Lucifer. Tell me, do you think Lucifer was Devine?

By this definition, then all beings who achieve this union with God are "divine".

And by that staement either we cease to exist as independant from God in thought or deed, devoid of any sentient thought, or else there are multiple gods.

From Jewish apocrapha.

Sorry, I don't recognize the Jewish Apochrapha's authority on the issue when it conflicts with the Bible.

Are you saying there are *MANY* Gods? Have you suddenly become a Hindu on us?

Maybe I am feeling a litle trigger happy.. I don't know, I have already banned one user from this board for calling myself and others a liar, and/ormis-representing us.

I consider the statement above in that category. I never said what you claim I am saying.. so consider this a warning.

It is truth as I percieve it, just as your "truth" is also "subjective".


So to answer my question.. you are not sure. You percieve it as so, but can't be certain beyond your perception.

So then.. if both truths are based upon perception, then why are you here again? I mean, it is obvious to me, by that bstatement above that we are going to beleive what we want, regardless of what others say we should, so to me, it seems that your think your efforts here are futile.. why bother?

John 3 for starters. Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the only begotten Son of God. He said it goes where it wills, and it would testify for him. Indeed it does.


Before you cna use this verse, you mjust establish that the Holy Spirit=Word. Since you never have, you can't us ethis verse to answer my question. Any other verses up your sleeve?
In traditional Judaism, all things come from one God, from whom all things are made manifest. This is a basic and a core tenet of Judaism. The Messiah of Judaism was a "begotten" messanger *FROM* God, but was never considered to be God himself. This is a "christian" invention.

The idea that Jesus is God would not contradict that core doctrine of Judaism, since God couldn't manifest Himself. The Messiah of Christinaity was not merely a messanger from God, but was God too. You assume that Judaism is more right then Christianity.. why?

He constantly referred to God in the third person.

Did He? Or did Jess refer to the Father, who is God, in the third person?

If we were to total up the one of two sayings you are building your case on, and total up all the times he refered to God in the third person, there would be no comparison in terms of numbers alone.


So then give me the verses that Jesus refers to God in the third person.

Yes, it does. It has created a skism within the religion.

Lets see.. I am a Christian woh holds to the Trinity doctrine, and I see no skism.. you are not a Christian and do not hold true the Trinity doctrine... and are in no position to see the alleged skism, sincethe Trinity in which it exists does not exist to you, thus who are you to say you know Christianity and the Trinity beter than I to judge wether or not there is a skism?

The second coming of Jesus isn't going to be physical in nature.

WOW! oh man.. you know what.. When he does come back.. and all the Christians vanish.. please come back and read all the posts in this board.. ;) You will find answers there. And when He does return, and oyu are trying to figure out what the heck hapopened.. don't be fooled by the person claiming to be Him...

[Michael]

>>OK.. show me in Isaiah where God says blood atonement is not needed.

Isaiah 1:11: To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

M>Why would the wages of sin be death?

>>Yes.

Yes? It wasn't really a yes or no question actually.

M>Is that really what a loving parent would do to their children for learning and growing and maturing?

>>I don't see the connection with your analogy. Parents do not cause death. NIether does God. Death is not from God, so why use this analogy?

Why would the punishment for sin be death? What loving parent would do that to their child? If life is from God, then death must be also, don't you think? Without life, there can be no death.

M>According to Isaiah, this was no better than trying to buy your way out of sin

>>And I saiah, being a prophet of God, knew that soon, this would be true, that Jesus would come and end the animal sacrifice once and for all. This passge in Isaiah was not for the time in ehihc it was written, but for a time in the near future when Jesus ould come and die for us.

Now you're really leaning pretty heavily on rationalizations. :) You are going to try to tell me that Isaiah isn't condemning it during his day, but only in the future?

In your book, didn't Jesus die for all sin, past present and future?

M>which Martin Luther aposed about the Catholic Church as well.

>>Good for him. Your point?

My point is that Jesus referred to those perpetuating this animal sacrifice as "theives". This suggests they weren't doing anyone any good. Jesus didn't seem to approve of animal sacrifice to "buy themselves clean", any more than did Martin Luther.

M>Isaiah called the practice hollow, and compared the practice to killing human beings.

>>Which it is. It wasn't always so, but it is now. It became hllow and the death of Christ.

All you've done is substituted Jesus in the place of animals. I fail to see how this is any more pleasing to God. I still do not understand why you think God killing himself is somehow "required" to forgive sin. This is ultimately what you seem to believe.

M>Why couldn't God simply forgive sin like any normal human parent?

>>Umm.. who said He doesn't forgive sin? Not me. He does forgive sin.

Ok, then why can't God forgive sin without killing, and without blood? Aren't even we mere humans capable of greater compassion than that? Didn't Jesus command us to have more compassion than that?

M>Jesus had to have been "perfect" in every way, blemish free, and never have made a mistake in his life. Don't you think that's asking a bit much?

>>In order for Jesus to atone for our sins, he had to be sinless.

Why? Suppose it turns out he was a "man" as he claimed to be afterall, and one who'd learned some lessons of his own along the way? Would that destroy your "faith" in God?

>:D efine that as you will, but for me, Jesus had to be sinless.

I think you are asking a lot from a "man", and that is how Jesus described himself. I don't see how anyone can have that kind of compassion without understanding the idea of guilt.

M>The root of the word sin comes from the concept of "missing the mark".

>>If that makes you feel better, ok. But since English words have more than one definition most of the time, I chose to use the definition of sin that is in the Bible:

That makes no sense. The OT part of the bible was written by Jews. Their definition of the word is what is important. Who cares about what the word means in a different culture?

M>Sinning is making a mistake, to miss the mark of unity in God.

>>Can yo say the same thing about sin, without adding "of unity with God:?

Yes. :) I'm not sure it would convey the entire meaning properly however. :)

>>I find it intersting you added that at te end of the statement, after trying so hard to show it was also just making a mistake.

The concept of missing the mark was indeed rooted in the notion of unity in God. I'm sure you could define the term in the absense of God, but it would not convey the same meaning.

M>There is nothing in the bible to suggest his childhood was completely "sin free".

>>Only his nature.

Yet even the bible records that the Spirit descended upon him at baptism. What was his "nature" before then?

M>Many Times? How MANY times?

>>Here are a couple times off the top of my head... but really, one one time is enough. Matt 14:33; 28:9

33: Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

You seem to have missed a word here. The word SON is important don't you think?

28:9: And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

It does not say the worshipped him as God. Again you keep reading in things it does not say.

M>He says we are all capable of this same Union with God that he enjoys.

>>I agree. Whats your point?

My point is that by elevating him to God status, you go directly against Jesus' own teachings. This isn't what Jesus said. He said he was the *SON* of God.

M>he prays to him as son to father

>>I agree. What's your point?

So is Jesus deluded here praying to something outside of himself that doesn't exist?

M>Jesus called himself a "man".

>>But never did He say He was just a man, and nothing more. And never did He say He was not God.

Yes, he certainly did. He said it clearly in John 17 when he refered to God as father, and the only true God.

M>Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Jesus begin that prayer with *OUR* father?

>>You are correct. What's your point?

Why wouldn't say say "pray to me" this way........????

M>It seems to me that untold numbers of Priests since then have felt quite confortable forgiving sin on behalf of God. I fail to see how this alone proves he's God.

>>On behalf of God, but not as God. And for those being forgiven, they had better know it was God forgiving them and ont the priest.

How do you know Jesus did this any differently?

>>Also, Jesus forgave as God, not on behalf of God.

This seems more like your opinion now, unless you can show me where he claims to be God in the first person. I mean in the whole of his ministries, you'd think you could find something to show that Jesus taught others that he was God incarnate. I can find you dozens of first person quotes from Krishna refering to God in the first person. Why wouldn't Jesus do the same thing?

M>Matthew 6:14: For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

>>You don't understand this verse?

I understand the verse. The question is "do you?" Jesus makes it clear many times that we will be judged as we judge others. He also makes it clear that we can all forgive sin.

M>No, it shows he was the Messiah. Would you please look up the term Messiah to the Jews. He was to be a "MAN" sent by God.

>>Heh. Interresting you bring this up.. considering the Jews do not beleive their Messiah has come yet...

Yet they still claim he'll be a "man" sent from God, not God.

M>Or Jesus is unified with God through the presense of the Holy Spirit, and is thereby "divine".

>>Maybe.. but good luck in convincing anyone of it.

It certainly seems rather clear to me.


>>Any other exmaples of someone who is devine and not God?

Sure. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Nelson Mandella. These are all souls who were moved by the Spirit.

>>Forinstance.. the closest thing to Godm as far as a nature goes, wouod probably be Lucifer. Tell me, do you think Lucifer was Devine?

I think Lucifer is another one of those alegories you aught to talk with Archon about.

M>By this definition, then all beings who achieve this union with God are "divine".

>>And by that staement either we cease to exist as independant from God in thought or deed, devoid of any sentient thought, or else there are multiple gods.

You might want to talk to some folks that have gone through a near death experience. They talk about unity and individuality at the same time.

M>From Jewish apocrapha.

>>Sorry, I don't recognize the Jewish Apochrapha's authority on the issue when it conflicts with the Bible.

I'm not talking about conflicts here. I'm simply noting the history behind these beliefs.

M>>Are you saying there are *MANY* Gods? Have you suddenly become a Hindu on us? :)

>>Maybe I am feeling a litle trigger happy.. I don't know, I have already banned one user from this board for calling myself and others a liar, and/ormis-representing us. I consider the statement above in that category. I never said what you claim I am saying.. so consider this a warning.

Well, what are you saying then exactly? (I know it's been a hard week on everyone, and you must have missed the smiley face)

Who did you ban by the way?

M>It is truth as I percieve it, just as your "truth" is also "subjective".

>>So to answer my question.. you are not sure. You percieve it as so, but can't be certain beyond your perception.

I am sure. You act as though I have not backed up my ideas through the bible as well. How can you be any more sure than anyone else that your "interpretation" of reality is any closer to the truth than anyone elses?

>>So then.. if both truths are based upon perception, then why are you here again? I mean, it is obvious to me, by that bstatement above that we are going to beleive what we want, regardless of what others say we should, so to me, it seems that your think your efforts here are futile.. why bother?

Why bother communicating with anyone over anything?

M>John 3 for starters. Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the only begotten Son of God. He said it goes where it wills, and it would testify for him. Indeed it does.

>>Before you cna use this verse, you mjust establish that the Holy Spirit=Word. Since you never have, you can't us ethis verse to answer my question. Any other verses up your sleeve?

Not off the top of my head. I'll do some research for you though. We seem to be making some progress here however since we both seem to be in agreement that whatever the "WORD" is, it is not a book.

M>In traditional Judaism, all things come from one God, from whom all things are made manifest. This is a basic and a core tenet of Judaism. The Messiah of Judaism was a "begotten" messanger *FROM* God, but was never considered to be God himself. This is a "christian" invention.

>>The idea that Jesus is God would not contradict that core doctrine of Judaism, since God couldn't manifest Himself. The Messiah of Christinaity was not merely a messanger from God, but was God too. You assume that Judaism is more right then Christianity.. why?

I'm simply noting the roots of history here. Jesus was after all the JEWISH Messiah. Judaism understood that there was the manifestor, and the manifested.

M>He constantly referred to God in the third person.

>:D id He? Or did Jess refer to the Father, who is God, in the third person?

We're off onto more wild goose chases now. Jesus was quite clear that all his power came from God, and that he was a "man" like you and me.

M>If we were to total up the one of two sayings you are building your case on, and total up all the times he refered to God in the third person, there would be no comparison in terms of numbers alone.

>>So then give me the verses that Jesus refers to God in the third person.

Huh? How about the whole of John 17? Who's he praying to?

M>Yes, it does. It has created a skism within the religion.

>>Lets see.. I am a Christian woh holds to the Trinity doctrine, and I see no skism.

You've heard the expression that one cannot see then the forest for the trees? You may not acknowledge this skism, but it's there none the less.

>>you are not a Christian

I do not fit your personal "definition" of Christian, but only Christ is a fit judge of that statement.

>>and do not hold true the Trinity doctrine.

Not as an exclusive relationship between Jesus and God alone. This is not what Jesus said.

>>. and are in no position to see the alleged skism,

Quite the contrary. I've had about 15+ more years to look at my belief systems than have you. I quite clearly see a skism between the teachings of Jesus and what the church teaches today in his name. I've already outlined the parts I felt were most important.

>>sincethe Trinity in which it exists does not exist to you, thus who are you to say you know Christianity and the Trinity beter than I to judge wether or not there is a skism?

The only way to answer that is that I've shed my own belief systems, not once here, but twice. When I first became an athiest, I finally began to see how I was chained by my beliefs. As God introduced herself to me later on, I began to see how I was again chained by my own ego and beliefs. I think I am in an unique position to see the skisms of various religions. Christianity is certainly not unique in this way.

M>The second coming of Jesus isn't going to be physical in nature.

>>WOW! oh man.. you know what.. When he does come back.. and all the Christians vanish.. please come back and read all the posts in this board.

I'll be long gone by then. :)

[Kevin Carter]

OK, came in on the tale end of this, but haven't seen this posted. This says it clearly enough for me.

John 14
1
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.
2
In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.
3
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
4
You know the way to the place where I am going."
5
Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
7
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
8
Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
9
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'?
10
Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
11
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.


and verse 20

20
On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.
{emphasis mine}

While this doesn't show them as being the exact same entity, it does show that they were intertwined very closely together. We can also be intertwined with the Father, but not in the same way that Jesus was. Jesus will be in us, and since He will be in us, we will also be one with the Father.

Hope that doesn't muddy the waters too much for you.
:)

[Pastor Carl]

Ed,

Yes I am indeed insinuating that blood was necessary for salvation. Why do you think that God had the Jewish people sacrifice animals at the Tabernacle or Temple? Sin needed to be covered. That blood covenant goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve sinned, God, it says, clothed them. Now how did He do that? God killed the first animal. God made the first blood sacrifice and then took the skins and covered Adam and Eve showing that, through His mercy and grace, He would forgive them.

But Hebrews also tells us that the blood of bulls, etc., was not enough to cover sin. It could cover their sins on the Day of Atonement, but was unable to cover the sin of man. That inherited sin gene passed down from Adam. But the blood of Jesus did.

The Bible says, "Without the blood of Christ, there is no remission of sin." "The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

How can you say the Trinity shows exclusivity? According to another thread, one must go to your church only in order to be right with God and know the truth. Now that's being exclusive.

Elohim is not a race of people or gods. El is the Hebrew word for God "ohim" makes it plural. Jesus isn't just worshipped in prophecy. He is worshiped from His birth. The Magi worshiped Him, His disciples fell to their knees and worshiped Him.

In Judges, the parents of Samson, declared that they "had seen God and lived". This is in reference to Christ's appearing, and announcing the prophetic word of thier soon to be conceived son, Samson.

Again, study the Greek text of John 1:1 and the bold statement of Thomas when he said to Jesus, "My Lord; my God." These were titles, not exclamations of of surprise like, Oh my God" such as is used often today. If it were used in that way, then I believe Luke would not have chosen to make Thomas' reply public. But Luke used that statement of Thomas' to prove the very point that Jesus is God.

[Pastor Carl]

It is getting extremly late, but I have one last Scripture to share. In Isaiah 9:6 it says,referring to Jesus, "For unto us a Son is born; unto us a child is given, and the governemtn shall be upon His shoulders. And His Name shall be called: Wonderful, Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, the EVERLASING FATHER, the Prince of Peace."

What more evidence do you want? Scripture is plain here. There is an axiom when reading the Bible that says, "When the plain sense, makes sense, don't try to make any other sense or you will wind up with nonsense.

[ZoneChaos]

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

This verse shows me that God no longer requires the blood of animals as a sacrifice for the atonment of sin. I want you to show me where God does not want blood as the atonement for sin, ever.

The Old Cavanent: GOd wanted animal sacrifice, which He himself gave the first exmaple of.

The New Covanent, Jesus replace animal sacrifice as atonement for our sins.

The verse you state above, first off, says that God no,onger requires animal sacrifice, secdonfly, this verse is part of a vision that Isaiah had of the future.. what he saw was the first coming of Christ.

Yes? It wasn't really a yes or no question actually.

Sorry.. didn't see the "why". And to answer the why:

This is shown in two places in scripture. In Genesis, we see that Adam, who was created perfect, attained the ability to die after commiting the first sin - by taking upon himself a sinful nature. Secondly, we see in Romans that the wages, or cost, of sin is death.

Why would the punishment for sin be death?

Death is not the punishemnt for sin.. it is the result of sin.

What loving parent would do that to their child?

Don't thnk a parent would kill a child for sinning.

If life is from God, then death must be also, don't you think?

Not at all.

Without life, there can be no death.

With life there can be no death. Without life there is death.

You are going to try to tell me that Isaiah isn't condemning it during his day, but only in the future?

Isaiah didn't write these things to condemn the resent poeple but to warn the poeple of what was coming.

In your book, didn't Jesus die for all sin, past present and future?

Yes he did. The animal sacrifice for atonement was only a temprary solution, until Jesus could come and die as a permenent one.

Jesus didn't seem to approve of animal sacrifice to "buy themselves clean", any more than did Martin Luther.quote]

Of coarse he didn't approve. He was the sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was no longer needed. They could stop now. Jesus was that sacrifice.

All you've done is substituted Jesus in the place of animals. I fail to see how this is any more pleasing

And, the difference between animal sacrifice and the sacrifice of Jesus is that Jesus sacrificed Himself as a man. A willing sacrifice. The animlas were not willing in their sacrifice.. they didn't even know they were going to be sacrificed, or what it meant to die. Jesus did, that is why it is more important.

I still do not understand why you think God killing himself is somehow "required" to forgive sin.

Just the way God wanted it done.

This is ultimately what you seem to believe.


In its simplest way.. yes. Although.. I don't thikn God was suicidal.

Ok, then why can't God forgive sin without killing, and without blood?

Who said God kills becasue of sin?

Why? Suppose it turns out he was a "man" as he claimed to be afterall, and one who'd learned some lessons of his own along the way? Would that destroy your "faith" in God?


I agree that He was a man. I also beleive that He was sinless.

I don't see how anyone can have that kind of compassion without understanding the idea of guilt.

Who said anything about guilt?

That makes no sense. The OT part of the bible was written by Jews. Their definition of the word is what is important. Who cares about what the word means in a different culture?

That's my point. You claim the definition is "mising the mark" That definition is not in the OT. I choose to beleive sin, in this context, is of the definition found in the Bible.

I'm not sure it would convey the entire meaning properly however.[/quoe]

So, to convey the entire meaning you are trying to convey, the answer would be "no".

Yet even the bible records that the Spirit descended upon him at baptism. What was his "nature" before

Sinless

You seem to have missed a word here. The word SON is important don't you think?


I didn't miss it, but it does not excuse their worshipping Him if He was not God.

It does not say the worshipped him as God. Again you keep reading in things it does not say.

But if they worshippped anything else, then they would be worshipping a false idol, which God tols them not to do, so either Jesus was God, or Jesus was a false god. Since Jesus didn't rebuke them.. which was the case?

My point is that by elevating him to God status, you go directly against Jesus' own teachings. This isn't what Jesus said. He said he was the *SON* of God.


How do I go against His teachings? I do not deny that He was the Son of God, I only acept theay He was God at the same time. The Father is God, thus Jesus is the Son, but Jesus is also God. In either case.. we were tlaking about union here.. why did you change the subject?

So is Jesus deluded here praying to something outside of himself that doesn't exist?


Agian, who said that the Father does not exist? I didn't.

Yes, he certainly did. He said it clearly in John 17 when he refered to God as father, and the only true God.

So He talked about the Fathetr there... what bout my question? He never stated He was not God, wohch all these worshipping poeple obviouly beleived. Why didn't he correct them?

Why wouldn't say say "pray to me" this way........????


Becasue the prayer was not just for those on the earth at the time of Chrsit, but for us too. Since God is in Heaven, we pray to God in heaven. At the time Chrsit gave the prayer to us, only the Father was in Heaven, so the prayer is stated as so.

How do you know Jesus did this any differently?

Jesus always forgave sin by Himself and never on behalf of God.

This seems more like your opinion now, unless you can show me where he claims to be God in the first person. I mean in the whole of his ministries, you'd think you could find something to show that Jesus taught others that he was God incarnate. I can find you dozens of first person quotes from Krishna refering to God in the first person. Why wouldn't Jesus do the same thing?

Been there, done that. You didn't see it.

I understand the verse. The question is "do you?" Jesus makes it clear many times that we will be judged as we judge others. He also makes it clear that we can all forgive sin.


Well, you asked what it meant to me and I told you.

It certainly seems rather clear to me.

Yes, I know it does.

Sure. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Nelson Mandella. These are all souls who were moved by the Spirit.


Oh my goodness.. now they were devine too? HA!

Divinity:
1. The nature or quality of being God. It belongs to God alone.
2. Having the nature of or being a deity.

These are the definitions I apply to God, and thus apply to Jesus as God. Are you saying these definitions can also apply to others?

Well, what are you saying then exactly? (I know it's been a hard week on everyone, and you must have missed the smiley face)


Smiley face or no, Hard week or no, retractg the statement, or show where I said it.

Who did you ban by the way?

edpobre. I temp banned him to cool him off. I have since lifted the ban, and he has yet to return to give an apology.

I am sure. You act as though I have not backed up my ideas through the bible as well. How can you be any more sure than anyone else that your "interpretation" of reality is any closer to the truth than anyone elses?

he differecne is that I can back up my beliefs without dismissing any of the Bible, where as you dismiss most of it.

Why bother communicating with anyone over anything?

When you know the outcome? exactly.

I do not fit your personal "definition" of Christian, but only Christ is a fit judge of that statement.

Tis true, He is the final Judge. So, do you consider yourself a type of christian?

Not as an exclusive relationship between Jesus and God alone. This is not what Jesus said.

Why do you insist on blending the relationship desscribed in the Trinity as the one Jesus talks about when He says we can have union with God? Both are possible. Botyh are real. Both exist, and neitehr contradicts the other. We can have Union with God, as Jesus talked about. The Trinity does not exclude that union, nor does it make that union exclusice to Jesus. Why do you keep saying it does?

I quite clearly see a skism between the teachings of Jesus and what the church teaches today in his name. I've already outlined the parts I felt were most important.


You create one in my view.

I'll be long gone by then.

Gone where?

[ZoneChaos]

Good verse in Isaiah, PastorCarl ;)

[Michael]

John 14:1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.

You might notice Kevin, that even here in John 14, Jesus uses the phrase "*also* in me", denoting a distinction between Jesus and the Father. Jesus didn't for instance say, "Trust in God, and trust in me for I am God incarnate". This would have been the apropriate thing to do under these circumstances too, since he's spending his last night with his apostles, and there is no reason to hide anything from them.

20: On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

Jesus is very specific both in John 14 and in John 17 that we are *ONE* *IN* God. Jesus does *NOT* describe this union in God as an exclusive one between himself and God. Quite the contrary, he suggests that we must all learn to love our enemies and be made perfect *IN* God.

[Michael]

>>Yes I am indeed insinuating that blood was necessary for salvation.

What specifically about "blood" is pleasing unto God?

>>Why do you think that God had the Jewish people sacrifice animals at the Tabernacle or Temple?

I don't think he did. I agree with Isaiah, that these are barbaric acts. How is this payment of sin by sacrificing animals any different than what Martin Luther railed against? Why did Jesus call the animal vendors and money changers, theives?

>>Sin needed to be covered.

Sin needs to be "forgiven". Why is violence and revenge necessary if God is loving and there is grace in the universe?

>>That blood covenant goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

It probably was a pagan idea handed down from prehistoric times alright.

>>When Adam and Eve sinned, God, it says, clothed them. Now how did He do that? God killed the first animal.

Let me ask you this. Do you really believe the earth is just 6 thousand years old? Do you believe there was a literal Adam and Eve?

>>God made the first blood sacrifice and then took the skins and covered Adam and Eve showing that, through His mercy and grace, He would forgive them.

As far as I can tell, this is just purely a metaphor to explain how we got here as a species. They didn't understand much about evolution back then.

>>But Hebrews also tells us that the blood of bulls, etc., was not enough to cover sin. It could cover their sins on the Day of Atonement, but was unable to cover the sin of man.

Isaiah rails against this false "sacrifice" of blood. He is quite clear that "sacrifice" of self was required, not blood. Why don't you accept Isaiah when he condemns this practice?

>>That inherited sin gene passed down from Adam. But the blood of Jesus did.

Guilt by birth eh? That hardly seems fair if you ask me. I'm not responsible for Adam's sin.

>>The Bible says, "Without the blood of Christ, there is no remission of sin." "The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

Without applying his teachings, there can be no "salvation". On that much we agree. My question to you though is what about his blood specifically was pleasing to God? Why does God need blood? What would God do with blood? What about blood puts God in a good mood?

>>How can you say the Trinity shows exclusivity? According to another thread, one must go to your church only in order to be right with God and know the truth. Now that's being exclusive.

You are confusing me with Ed. I believe in universal salvation by the way.

>>Elohim is not a race of people or gods. El is the Hebrew word for God "ohim" makes it plural. Jesus isn't just worshipped in prophecy. He is worshiped from His birth. The Magi worshiped Him, His disciples fell to their knees and worshiped Him.

He was surely worshipped as Messiah, but that's a long way from saying Jesus is God.

>>In Judges, the parents of Samson, declared that they "had seen God and lived". This is in reference to Christ's appearing, and announcing the prophetic word of thier soon to be conceived son, Samson.

You seem to be jumping from God to Christ here. If they had seen God and lived, wouldn't this contradict other parts of the bible that say God is a Spirit and no one has seen God?

>>Again, study the Greek text of John 1:1 and the bold statement of Thomas when he said to Jesus, "My Lord; my God." These were titles, not exclamations of of surprise like, Oh my God" such as is used often today.

Sure, I can't ignore the reality of what Thomas said. I must however put it in context with what Jesus himself said about this complex subject too. It's totally possible that Thomas was simply recognizing him as Messiah, and his *unity with God". Jesus said that in the end we would know that he is in us, we are in him, and we are all one in God. Compared to where Thomas was hanging out, Jesus' unity with God, and the distinction between Jesus and God might have seemed quite indistinguishable in that moment. Philip however was asking Jesus to show them the Father the night before his death. Even at this late date, there is clear evidence they believed him to be the Messiah, but not God the father.

>>If it were used in that way, then I believe Luke would not have chosen to make Thomas' reply public. But Luke used that statement of Thomas' to prove the very point that Jesus is God.

I think you are absolutely right. I think Paul and his friends wanted to promote this concept, whether Jesus believed it or not. Fortunately we have the book of John to give us a more complete picture of Jesus' teachings on this subject as well. John himself says in 1st John, "WE ARE OF GOD". He's not preaching exclusivity as it relates to unity in God.

[Michael]

>>In Isaiah 9:6 it says,referring to Jesus, "For unto us a Son is born; unto us a child is given, and the governemtn shall be upon His shoulders. And His Name shall be called: Wonderful, Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, the EVERLASING FATHER, the Prince of Peace."

I find it interesting that you too accept "parts" of what Isaiah says, but not others. I've been clear that I don't believe *ALL* of the bible to be completely "inspired", but you seem to believe the bible is flawless do you not? Why then will you only hear part of his message, yet ignore his condemnation of animal sacrifice? In chapter 66, he compares it to killing people. How are you deciding how to pick and chose which parts of his message to put value in, and which parts to ignore?

[Michael]

>>This verse shows me that God no longer requires the blood of animals as a sacrifice for the atonment of sin. I want you to show me where God does not want blood as the atonement for sin, ever.

Are you trying to tell me that God changes his mind? If Isaiah claims God delights not in these things, why would he ever delight in these things?

>>The Old Cavanent: GOd wanted animal sacrifice, which He himself gave the first exmaple of.

Isaiah is OT material isn't it? You are again accepting the prehistoric legends at face value as I see it. Just because the Israelites believed this to be true, it's rather clear that Isaiah didn't much value the practice. Psalms 51 explains clearly that it's an INNER sacrifice that is pleasing unto God, not animal blood. How do you rationalize away Psalms 50 again?

Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God.
I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me.
I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds.
For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine.
If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.
Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?

>>The New Covanent, Jesus replace animal sacrifice as atonement for our sins.

As I see it, you have a pagan belief worming it's way into a new "religion". This has nothing to do with "truth". What value is there in blood? What value is there in killing?

>>The verse you state above, first off, says that God no,onger requires animal sacrifice, secdonfly, this verse is part of a vision that Isaiah had of the future.. what he saw was the first coming of Christ.

Well, that's a very nice rationalization that ignores what he actually said. He was speaking after all to Sodom and Gamora.

>>This is shown in two places in scripture. In Genesis, we see that Adam, who was created perfect, attained the ability to die after commiting the first sin - by taking upon himself a sinful nature. Secondly, we see in Romans that the wages, or cost, of sin is death.

Let's have a reality check here for a moment. What DNA sequence on the planet, past present or future was ever designed to last forever? Even if it did, these physical bodies are frail. Even if human dna lasted forever, what happens when someone falls off a cliff or suffers a great physical injury? I hardly see how you can suggest that we as a species were ever "immortal".

M>Why would the punishment for sin be death?

>:D eath is not the punishemnt for sin.. it is the result of sin.

How can you say that given the realities of physical reality as we understand it? What physical life form is immortal?

>:D on't thnk a parent would kill a child for sinning.

Me either. :)

M>If life is from God, then death must be also, don't you think?

>>Not at all.

Well, unless you have some explanation as to why no physical being is immortal, I'll have to assume that spiritual life is a gift from God, but physical life is by design transitory by nature.

M>Without life, there can be no death.

>>With life there can be no death. Without life there is death.

In a "spiritual" sense, I agree with you. In a physical sense I do not. I don't believe physical reality was ever meant to be perminent.

M>You are going to try to tell me that Isaiah isn't condemning it during his day, but only in the future?

>>Isaiah didn't write these things to condemn the resent poeple but to warn the poeple of what was coming.

It seems to me he was trying to explain the failures of the people he was addressing at the time. He was very much speaking to a contemporary audience.

M>In your book, didn't Jesus die for all sin, past present and future?

>>Yes he did. The animal sacrifice for atonement was only a temprary solution, until Jesus could come and die as a permenent one.

Again, I fail to see how you can simply ignore Psalms 51 and Isaiah outright here. Isaiah totally condemns the practice of animal sacrifice, calling instead for inner sacrifice. Jesus does much the same, claiming we must *DO* as he commanded, not simply give him lip service alone. Blood itself doesn't seem to be the key here to anything useful that I can see. It is the application of Christs teachings that seem to matter. He taught and lived a live of "self" sacrifice.

M>Jesus didn't seem to approve of animal sacrifice to "buy themselves clean", any more than did Martin Luther.

>>Of coarse he didn't approve. He was the sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was no longer needed. They could stop now. Jesus was that sacrifice.

But the blood alone has no value to God. Jesus didn't say we could simply do his words lip service and find salvation through his blood. He commanded us to love our enemy and be perfect. I fail to understand the value of blood to God.

M>All you've done is substituted Jesus in the place of animals. I fail to see how this is any more pleasing to God.

>>And, the difference between animal sacrifice and the sacrifice of Jesus is that Jesus sacrificed Himself as a man. A willing sacrifice.

This is right on the nose. Jesus was talking about "self" sacrifice, not blood covering sin. Jesus was a willing participant. He "sacrificed"(verb) himself, but he was not a "sacrifice" (noun) to appease an angry God.

>>The animlas were not willing in their sacrifice.. they didn't even know they were going to be sacrificed, or what it meant to die. Jesus did, that is why it is more important.

So what again is the author of Psalms 50 trying to say here?

M>I still do not understand why you think God killing himself is somehow "required" to forgive sin.

>>Just the way God wanted it done.

God theatrics? God's mad so he goes to earth to become a human sacrifice to himself and be put to death by sinning humans? I fail to see the logic in that.

M>This is ultimately what you seem to believe.

>>In its simplest way.. yes. Although.. I don't thikn God was suicidal.

Well, since physical reality doesn't define "life", the term "suicidal" has little meaning here. I still don't follow your logic here of why God has to come to earth to be put to death by ingorant humans just so he can forgive sin. Wouldn't stupid, sinning humans killing him just make him madder still?

M>Ok, then why can't God forgive sin without killing, and without blood?

>>Who said God kills becasue of sin?

This seems to be what you are saying. Must animals die for sin to be forgiven? Must anyone die for sin to be forgiven?

M>Why? Suppose it turns out he was a "man" as he claimed to be afterall, and one who'd learned some lessons of his own along the way? Would that destroy your "faith" in God?

>>I agree that He was a man. I also beleive that He was sinless.

All I'm saying ZC, is that you are setting yourself up for a big disappointment if it turns out he was human after all. I fail to understand why you require this of him. I am perfectly willing to accept a fully "human" Messiah, with human faults and everything.

M>I don't see how anyone can have that kind of compassion without understanding the idea of guilt.

>>Who said anything about guilt?

What motivates people to change behaviours that hurt others?

M>That makes no sense. The OT part of the bible was written by Jews. Their definition of the word is what is important. Who cares about what the word means in a different culture?

>>That's my point. You claim the definition is "mising the mark" That definition is not in the OT. I choose to beleive sin, in this context, is of the definition found in the Bible.

It is in the bible ZC. It's engrained into the very words used. Hebrew is a very complex, and wonderful language. It's very letters, and arrangement of letters convey meaning. The word sin, as found in hebrew, conveys the idea of missing the mark. That is in fact the definition of the word in Hebrew.

>>So, to convey the entire meaning you are trying to convey, the answer would be "no".

I cannot convey the *ENTIRE* meaning as separate from God. I can convey the vast majority of it, but comparing actions to the notion of "selfishness" vs. "selflessness", even in the absense of God. Unity is the key in a definition devoid of God.

M>Yet even the bible records that the Spirit descended upon him at baptism. What was his "nature" before this?

>>Sinless

Perhaps. Perhaps he was quite human after all.

M>You seem to have missed a word here. The word SON is important don't you think?

>>I didn't miss it, but it does not excuse their worshipping Him if He was not God.

You are suggesting that "worship" takes only a single form. The reality however is that people could surely "worship" Jesus as the Messiah, yet not as God the Father.

M>It does not say the worshipped him as God. Again you keep reading in things it does not say.

>>But if they worshippped anything else, then they would be worshipping a false idol, which God tols them not to do, so either Jesus was God, or Jesus was a false god.

Except it's not really that simple when you look at the fact that Jesus himself said that we would find UNITY IN GOD.

>>Since Jesus didn't rebuke them.. which was the case?

This is like me saying that reincarnation must be true because Jesus didn't rebuke his disciples for suggesting he was a reborn prophet.

M>My point is that by elevating him to God status, you go directly against Jesus' own teachings. This isn't what Jesus said. He said he was the *SON* of God.

>>How do I go against His teachings? I do not deny that He was the Son of God, I only acept theay He was God at the same time.

But that's *NOT* what he said. He said he was ONE WITH the Father, but he never claimed to be the FATHER.

>>The Father is God, thus Jesus is the Son, but Jesus is also God.

This is the part that defy's Christs own teachings. In John 17, Jesus calls the Father the ONLY TRUE GOD. He describes himself in terms of being a SON of God, and claims others would achieve UNION WITH God. The exclusivity you seem to be imposing here by elevating him to the status of God, is not what Christ himself taught.

>>In either case.. we were tlaking about union here.. why did you change the subject?

I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm simply discussing the connection between God, Holy Spirit, and man.

M>So is Jesus deluded here praying to something outside of himself that doesn't exist?

>>Agian, who said that the Father does not exist? I didn't.

You seem to want to gloss over the fact that in his hour of greatest need, Jesus is on his knees praying to God like any human being. He's feeling fear, as any normal human being would be doing at that point. What does God have to fear? Why do you elevate him to a status he didn't claim?

M>Yes, he certainly did. He said it clearly in John 17 when he refered to God as father, and the only true God.

>>So He talked about the Fathetr there... what bout my question? He never stated He was not God, wohch all these worshipping poeple obviouly beleived. Why didn't he correct them?

Because they were "worshipping" him as the living Messiah. Why should he correct them?

Why didn't Jesus correct the disciples when the suggested that he was a reborn prophet?

M>Why wouldn't say say "pray to me" this way........????

>>Becasue the prayer was not just for those on the earth at the time of Chrsit, but for us too. Since God is in Heaven, we pray to God in heaven. At the time Chrsit gave the prayer to us, only the Father was in Heaven, so the prayer is stated as so.

We seem to be going round and round now with the idea that God splits himself up into father, son and holy Spirit.

M>How do you know Jesus did this any differently?

>>Jesus always forgave sin by Himself and never on behalf of God.

And priests do this even today. What's the difference? Jesus was after all, the living Messiah. What other "MAN" has that right anyway?

M>This seems more like your opinion now, unless you can show me where he claims to be God in the first person. I mean in the whole of his ministries, you'd think you could find something to show that Jesus taught others that he was God incarnate. I can find you dozens of first person quotes from Krishna refering to God in the first person. Why wouldn't Jesus do the same thing?

>>Been there, done that. You didn't see it.

You've not shown me a single sentence where Jesus simply says: I AM GOD THE FATHER or I AM YOUR CREATOR, or I AM God. Why is that? I can show you verse after verse where he claims to be the son of God, incapable of anything without the help of the Father.

M>Sure. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Nelson Mandella. These are all souls who were moved by the Spirit.

>>Oh my goodness.. now they were devine too? HA!

It would depend on how you defined "divine" exactly.

Divinity:
1. The nature or quality of being God. It belongs to God alone.

Martin Luther King taught unity and love. Jesus did the same. Do these qualities belong to God alone?

2. Having the nature of or being a deity.

This is a bit more vague I'm afraid. What does that mean?

>>These are the definitions I apply to God, and thus apply to Jesus as God. Are you saying these definitions can also apply to others?

#1 sure seems to apply to others. I'm not sure about #2. You'll have to elaborate some.

M>Who did you ban by the way?

>>edpobre. I temp banned him to cool him off. I have since lifted the ban, and he has yet to return to give an apology.

Ed is much closer to your brand of "christianity" than I am. He seems to believe in hell, and atonement, even if he shares some of my views about the connection between God and Jesus. For what it's worth, from my perspective, you seem to be "reactive" at times when I'm not trying to offensive.

M>I am sure. You act as though I have not backed up my ideas through the bible as well. How can you be any more sure than anyone else that your "interpretation" of reality is any closer to the truth than anyone elses?

>>the differecne is that I can back up my beliefs without dismissing any of the Bible, where as you dismiss most of it.

The fact of the matter is, like it or not, that the bible was written by human beings. I am not dismissing the teachings of Jesus, nor am I limiting my search for truth to a single book. If you feel it's somehow a benefit to be this restricted in your spirituality, I can't stop you. All I'm saying is that I can most certainly back up my beliefs through the teachings of Christ himself. All the rest is really just "interpretation" anyway.

M>Why bother communicating with anyone over anything?

>>When you know the outcome? exactly.

How can anyone know the "outcome" of these conversations yet? Who knows what affects is will have on us both over the years?

M>I do not fit your personal "definition" of Christian, but only Christ is a fit judge of that statement.

>>Tis true, He is the final Judge. So, do you consider yourself a type of christian?

I try to follow Christs teachings in my life. In this sense, I am every bit as "Christian" as anyone on the planet. I do not subscribe however to all "Christian" dogma. It's not a yes or no question really.

>>Why do you insist on blending the relationship desscribed in the Trinity as the one Jesus talks about when He says we can have union with God?

Because that is what Jesus said in John 17, and in John 14. He doesn't claim this to be an exclusive "union with" God, in any way. In fact he goes out of his way in John 14 to say that others would do greater things, presumably with his help and blessings.

>>Both are possible. Botyh are real. Both exist, and neitehr contradicts the other.

If you do not allow for others to achieve this same union with God, then you go against what Jesus himself said about it in John 17. I can't do that!

>>We can have Union with God, as Jesus talked about. The Trinity does not exclude that union, nor does it make that union exclusice to Jesus. Why do you keep saying it does?

Because it does. It creates a "separation" between Jesus and us that did not exist, and he did not teach.

M>I quite clearly see a skism between the teachings of Jesus and what the church teaches today in his name. I've already outlined the parts I felt were most important.

>>You create one in my view.

And from my perspective, I'm simply noting them.

M>I'll be long gone by then.

>>Gone where?

Back to the loving arms of God from where I came.

[ZoneChaos]

Psalms 51 explains clearly that it's an INNER sacrifice that is pleasing unto God, not animal blood. How do you rationalize away Psalms 50 again?


Show me "inner sacrifice".

Psalm 50 is an inditement against Israel. They had gotten to a point where their sacrifices were nothing more than wrote sacifices, lacking in maning or in faith if what sacrifce was for.

At the very end of Psalm 51, Asaph wites: "Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar." He is saying that only after we recognize the truth about sacrifice, and atonement, and salvation, can the sacrifices have meaning to God.

IN verses 1-6, Asaph explains to Israel that the Lord is coming, or the Lord has a message., and He isn't happy. Notice in verse 5, the ones He is not happy with are the saints.

IN verse 7, Asaph begins to tell Israel why God is unhappy. First, off, The Lord will not rebuke the sacrifices. The Lord is not upset with their sacrifices.. all the steps were there. They were done write, but heart behind the Israelite's sacrifice was not there. What God is upset with is their attitude of sacrifice. They would sacrifice, but afterward, they would go about with their sinning, forgetting that they just ask for forgivness of their sins. In verses 9-13, God isn't saying he doe snot want sacrice. He is saying that He does not just want sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, but He wants sacrifice for the sake of thanksgiving and faith in Him toward Salvation. He says that He doe snot need us to feed Him. God sees the sacrifices as hollow, and serving no more purpose than to kill an animla. The Israelites heart was not in it, and the meaning behind the sacrifice was gone. In the second hald of Psalm 50, God changes the subject, and then begins to talk to the wicked about their deeds.

As we move into Psalm 51, we read about forgivness and repentance. This is David's response to God, about Asaph's message from God. Psalm 51 brings back to heart, the reason for sacrifice. And sacrifice is then re-affirmed at the end of the Psalm.

Psalm 5 says nothing about an inner sacrifiece, and on the contrary, does mention animal sacrifice in the temple at the end, as acceptable unto God, as long as the heart and reason for sacrifice is there.

[Michael]

>>Show me "inner sacrifice".

"Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness."

>>Psalm 50 is an inditement against Israel. They had gotten to a point where their sacrifices were nothing more than wrote sacifices, lacking in maning or in faith if what sacrifce was for.

You are right, there was no INNER meaning. What value is there then in external events?

>>At the very end of Psalm 51, Asaph wites: "Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar." He is saying that only after we recognize the truth about sacrifice, and atonement, and salvation, can the sacrifices have meaning to God.

On the contrary. What he's saying is that when we have done the "INNER" sacrifice, then and only then will this "burnt offering" of self have any value.

"For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

Burnt offering here refers to the sacrifice of a "broken spirit", or "self-ishness" turned into "self-less" service to God. It is our burnt "self" that is pleasing to God. Cleansed by the fire of "self" sacrifice.

>>Psalm 5(1) says nothing about an inner sacrifiece, and on the contrary, does mention animal sacrifice in the temple at the end, as acceptable unto God, as long as the heart and reason for sacrifice is there.

I disagree, I think the whole thing is about becoming "cleansed" of selfishness.

"Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit."

This is about inner change, and inner peace, and sacrifice of selfishness to the will of God.

[Kevin Carter]

Michael, you and I have been down that road many times, I'm not about to do it again. :)

Take from that verse what you will, that is fine with me. I'm learning to move beyond my doctrinal ideas and into what scripture says and drop behind things we've added.

[ZoneChaos]

This is about inner change, and inner peace, and sacrifice of selfishness to the will of God.

Why stop their.. now that you have let go of your will, and have given your life to God.. why stop there? There is more to do. You must now atone for your sins, in order to finish the will of God in your life.

[Michael]

>>Why stop their.. now that you have let go of your will, and have given your life to God.. why stop there? There is more to do. You must now atone for your sins, in order to finish the will of God in your life.

And how would one "atone" for one's sin? Accept your personal dogma?

[ZoneChaos]

Anyone you see fit to.. I am asking you, Michael.. how do you atone for your sins? What makes oyu aco****able unto them? What is the penalty for your sins and how do you avois that penalty?

If sacrifice is nothing more than finding eternal peace, then what good is it? if sacrifice, in order to pay for something oyu cannot payfor on your own is not there, how do you pay for youre sins? What are the wages of sin?

[Michael]

>>Anyone you see fit to.. I am asking you, Michael.. how do you atone for your sins? What makes oyu aco****able unto them? What is the penalty for your sins and how do you avois that penalty?

I simply have faith in the love and compassion of God ZC, how about you? There is no way I can change my past sins, nor completely set right everything I have done wrong. No one can. If we can however learn to love and forgive one another, we can rise above it. If God cannot simply forgive, like all of us, what hope is there for anyone?

>>If sacrifice is nothing more than finding eternal peace, then what good is it?

Are you really asking me what good is finding eternal peace? If I gain the world, but lose my own inner peace, what have I gained?

>> if sacrifice, in order to pay for something oyu cannot payfor on your own is not there, how do you pay for youre sins? What are the wages of sin?

You seem to be suggesting that God simply cannot forgive sin like any mere human. Is that what you are really trying to suggest? If we have learned from our mistakes, and changed internally as a result, what purpose is there for tormenting someone eternally anyway? What kind of compassion is that? This certainly isn't the kind of God Jesus talked about. He said we should forgive one another as we would have God forgive us. Why would you believe God cannot forgive?

[LouisBooth]

"I simply have faith in the love and compassion of God ZC, how about you? There is no way I can change my past sins, nor completely set right everything I have done wrong. No one can. "

First micheal God is Holy, not just love and compassion. Secone, there is a way to change your past sins. That's what the blood of Christ is all about.

"If I gain the world, but lose my own inner peace, what have I gained?"

Umm..nothing..but there is more to it then inner peace micheal :)

"You seem to be suggesting that God simply cannot forgive sin like any mere human. "

Um...ALL sin is ulitmately against God so no, no mere human can forgive it. Only he can and he can't just forgive it without incuring a "punishment" for it because he is a Holy. But because he is Just we must pay for our sins, but he is also loving so he came to die for us because only he could atoine for our sins because they are ultimatly against him and him alone. So the blood covers us and by faith in Christ we are saved.

[Pastor Carl]

Michael,

I didn't have you confused with Ed. The answer was for Ed. Sorry for the confusion.

Yes, blood is necessary for salvation. However, there must be a line drawn somewhere here. I need to know. Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Is it, as Scripture claim, literally God-breathed, annointed, infallible, etc.? Because if you do not believe it to be such, then we are already going to have a real problem. I Corinthians 1:18 says, "For the word of the cross to them that are perishing, foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleaverness of the clever I will set aside.'"

Therefore, there is no common ground on which we have to stand if you have already rejected the Word of God as myth or merely allegories, metephors, etc. For you will argue from the worlds point of view while I will argue from God's point of view.

I can show you many Scriptures on the blood, especially that of Christ's precious sacrifice. I can show you Scripture after Scripture concerning the Diety of Christ and further that of the Holy Spirit. But if you reject the Word of God, if you reject the blood sacrifice of Christ, then you have denied the whole reason Christ came in the first place.

I will answer a few of your questions.

(1) Yes, I believe in the literal six day creation story.

(2) Isaiah's remarks about the sacrifices was not directed at the sacrifices themselves, but rather at the people who used the Day of Atonement merely as a ritual(at the least) or used it as a license to atone for sin and then keep on sinning. Isaiah also went further and showed that the sacrifices of animals was insufficient, and that a perfect sacrifice was needed. He outlines that One in Isaiah 53.

(3) Jesus called those selling in the temple, "thieves" because (1) they sold blemished animals to people which was not what God required and (2) because they were overcharging the poor for these blemished animals. He wasn't condemning the sacrifice of animals. If you know anything about Jewish beliefs and the Old Testament, all Hebrew males were requiried to present themselves at the temple in Jerusalem at least three times a year for the feasts which included Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). Jesus, being male, obviously attended these every year and only twice (His last two times there) did He act in that manner (correctly, I might add). But my point is that Jesus offered an animal sacrifice every year He lived up until He became the Passover Lamb Himself.

(4) Yes, God is loving and full of mercy and grace, but grace did not come cheaply. Christ paid with His blood for that grace.

(5) Yes, sin is inherited. And, yes, we are all guilty. The Bible says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." In Romans it tells us "That by one man's sin, sin came into the world, and sin passed to all men." Again, only the blood of Jesus can cleanse us of our sins. You see, our sin and sins are not just forgiven when we accept Christ. They are blotted out. It is as though we never sinned. The debt of sin was paid in full at the cross.

(6) I was not jumping from God to Christ. In the Old Testament, anytime the term, "the angel of the Lord" appears, it is always a referrence to the Messiah's preincarnate existance. When Samsons parents saw Christ appear to them and tell them about Samson, they declared, "For we have seen God, and have lived." They recognized that Christ was God even in the Old Testament. Jacob wrestled with Christ, Abraham fed Christ on His way to Sodom and Gommorah, Moses met Jesus in the burning bush. It was Jesus who was the "cloud by day" and the "pillar if fire" by night that guided Israel for 40 years in the wilderness.

(7) You miss the whole point of Messiah. If the Messiah were only a man, he could not be the Messiah. Jesus had no earthly father when it came to His conception. As the angel, Gabriel told Mary, "And you shall conceive after the Holy Spirit has come upon you." Yes, I believe in the Virgin Birth also. Scripture tells us that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus.

(:cool: You are correct about Phillip. He asked Jesus to show them the Father. Remember Jesus answer? "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."

[ZoneChaos]

simply have faith in the love and compassion of God ZC, how about you?

Yes I do.

There is no way I can change my past sins, nor completely set right everything I have done wrong.

No, you can't change them.. but you can set right the things oyu have done wrong, in the eyes of God.

If we can however learn to love and forgive one another, we can rise above it.

We can rise above eachother, but not above God.

If God cannot simply forgive, like all of us, what hope is there for anyone?


The hope is that Jesus paid for and atoned for our sins.

Are you really asking me what good is finding eternal peace?

Yes... what good is it? what can it do for you, or though you? Eternal peace can't save you.. so oyu have it.. good for you.. it isn't a bad thing, but it isn't good enough to save you.

If I gain the world, but lose my own inner peace, what have I gained?


The world I guess. First, since you didn't start with inner peace.. if you never have it, you don't lose it... second, you are mis-quoting a scripture there...

You seem to be suggesting that God simply cannot forgive sin like any mere human.

That's right... humans cannot forgive sin... we can forgive the intent behind it, but once the sin is done, i tis a part of us. We can't forgiv ethat person of their sin. They are still going to be held aco****able for that sin unto God, when He judges you.

If we have learned from our mistakes, and changed internally as a result, what purpose is there for tormenting someone eternally anyway?

You must not only learn from your mistakes, but you must have a faith in God, and a will not to want to repeat it again. There ar emany who got the first part down, but their will is not right with GOd, also, they do not accept Him as a savior and redeemer. They will face God with this sin still on their heart, and GOd will reject them becasue of it.

This certainly isn't the kind of God Jesus talked about. He said we should forgive one another as we would have God forgive us.

Tresspasses Michael. We can only forgive the act of sin, and only GOd can forgive the sin itself.

Why would you believe God cannot forgive?

Not saying God can't forgive.. I am sugesting that you do no tunderstand what forgiveness of sin is.

[Michael]

>>Yes, blood is necessary for salvation.

Why? What specifically about blood is important here?

>>However, there must be a line drawn somewhere here. I need to know. Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Is it, as Scripture claim, literally God-breathed, annointed, infallible, etc.? Because if you do not believe it to be such, then we are already going to have a real problem.

Well, it might get interesting then. :) I thought you and I had already discussed this a while back. I do not believe it was God's will for Israelites to kill children any more than I believe it was really God's will to bomb innocent civilians in New York last week. Joshua and Osama Bin Laden both claim to have been inspired by God when killing innocent men women and children. How would you *objectively*, and conclusively prove one was really inspired and the other was not?

>>I Corinthians 1:18 says, "For the word of the cross to them that are perishing, foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleaverness of the clever I will set aside.'"

I hope you don't take this wrong, but the church hierachy seems convinced it's got all the answers, but when you really look at some of the belief systems of Christianity, they simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

For instance, you might explain why a loving God would mercilessly and ruthlessly punish someone for the whole of eternity with not even a glimmer of hope for salvation? What point is there in perpetual torment if there can be no hope for redemption? Is this the kind of "loving your enemy", and being perfect that Jesus talked about?

Babies, and young children understand the power of love. Adults tend to get lost in power games and "religious" dogma. Jesus also pointed out that we must become as little children if we are to understand God and find salvation. What do you think he meant by that?

>>Therefore, there is no common ground on which we have to stand if you have already rejected the Word of God as myth or merely allegories, metephors, etc. For you will argue from the worlds point of view while I will argue from God's point of view.

I fully accept the teachings of Christ recorded in the bible. Admittedly I would not interpret him the same as you might at times, but there is at least common ground in our faith in Jesus. The rest of the book, I pretty much consider human dogma.

>>I can show you many Scriptures on the blood, especially that of Christ's precious sacrifice.

You can show me many human quotes recorded in the bible. Paul probably did try to extracate the notion of animal sacrifice from early Christianity in this way. That has nothing to do with God's will. Paul also said it was a *SHAME* for women to speak in chruch. Would you have me believe that bit of wisdom was "God breathed" as well?

>>I can show you Scripture after Scripture concerning the Diety of Christ and further that of the Holy Spirit. But if you reject the Word of God,

The LIVING WORD of God, is the Holy Spirit. I most certainly do *NOT* reject the Holy Spirit. The bible is a religious book, as is the Koran. They were both written by humans. Jesus was clearly enlightened, other authors less so. The bible has a lot of different authors.

>>if you reject the blood sacrifice of Christ, then you have denied the whole reason Christ came in the first place.

Quite the contrary. I think I honor his true "SACRIFICE" (the verb). He sacrificed his life to teach us of unconditional love. In some ways we are as blind to that truth today as 2000 years ago.

>>I will answer a few of your questions.
(1) Yes, I believe in the literal six day creation story.

And how would you explain Dinosaur fossils? Did God put them in the ground just to fool us? How about all the geologic and astronomical evidence that the universe began some 15 billion years ago? How old would you say earth is?

>>(2) Isaiah's remarks about the sacrifices was not directed at the sacrifices themselves, but rather at the people who used the Day of Atonement merely as a ritual(at the least) or used it as a license to atone for sin and then keep on sinning.

Bingo. I agree. They had made no *INTERNAL* change. Their actions were therefor hollow, and meaningless.

>>Isaiah also went further and showed that the sacrifices of animals was insufficient, and that a perfect sacrifice was needed. He outlines that One in Isaiah 53.

A perfect sacrifice of "selfishness", yes.

>>(3) Jesus called those selling in the temple, "thieves" because (1) they sold blemished animals to people which was not what God required

Oh, you mean God wanted only the most hardy and best specimens of the species to be slaughtered in cold blood? If they had been in better shape, or cost less, it would have been ok?

>>and (2) because they were overcharging the poor for these blemished animals.

So that was it, the price was just too high, and the animals just not "good" enough eh? You don't think he was maybe complaining about the same thing Isaiah railed against?

>>He wasn't condemning the sacrifice of animals.

Isaiah 66:3 "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not."

How do you explain this then?

>>If you know anything about Jewish beliefs and the Old Testament, all Hebrew males were requiried to present themselves at the temple in Jerusalem at least three times a year for the feasts which included Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). Jesus, being male, obviously attended these every year and only twice (His last two times there) did He act in that manner (correctly, I might add). But my point is that Jesus offered an animal sacrifice every year He lived up until He became the Passover Lamb Himself.

What do you suppose a young boy of 12 might be argueing with the Temple Priests about? I don't recall seeing that information recorded in the bible by the way. Are you suggesting it's ok to look outside the bible for spiritual truth as well?

>>(4) Yes, God is loving and full of mercy and grace, but grace did not come cheaply. Christ paid with His blood for that grace.

Explain to me the motives here of God please. If you believe that Jesus was actually God, then how could physical self abuse be pleasing unto God? What exactly do you mean by this meaning of "blood" here as it relates to forgiveness of sin?

>>(5) Yes, sin is inherited. And, yes, we are all guilty.

Condemned at birth? Is that really how a loving parent treats their beloved child? Make them all guilty until proven innocent?

>>The Bible says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Sure, we all make mistakes. I've made plenty in my life, I'm sure I'll make plenty more. The question here is how specifically does blood (presumably his own as you see it) please God in a way that causes forgiveness of this sin? I don't follow that logic.

>>In Romans it tells us "That by one man's sin, sin came into the world, and sin passed to all men."

Do you also believe that women should not speak in church? Shall we put Paul on a pedestal now too? Why would God hold a grudge against an infant Hindu child unless they abandon the faith and the family he placed their soul into?

>>Again, only the blood of Jesus can cleanse us of our sins.

How does "blood" *CLEANSE* anything? I fully understand how applying his teachings can cleanse us from sin, but I fail to grasp the concept of blood causing forgiveness of sin.

>>You see, our sin and sins are not just forgiven when we accept Christ. They are blotted out. It is as though we never sinned. The debt of sin was paid in full at the cross.

When you talk about a debt being paid, you suggest that God is violent and destructive. Is that what you believe?

>>(6) I was not jumping from God to Christ. In the Old Testament, anytime the term, "the angel of the Lord" appears, it is always a referrence to the Messiah's preincarnate existance.

And yet an ANGEL OF THE LORD came to adminster to Jesus in the garden the night before his death. Angels seem to have taken many forms in early Judaism.

>>(7) You miss the whole point of Messiah. If the Messiah were only a man, he could not be the Messiah.

But Judaism itself, describes the Messiah, as a "messanger from" God. It does not suggest this messanger is also God. He was the Jewish Messiah after all. Christians seemed to have missed that part.

>>Jesus had no earthly father when it came to His conception. As the angel, Gabriel told Mary, "And you shall conceive after the Holy Spirit has come upon you." Yes, I believe in the Virgin Birth also. Scripture tells us that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus.