• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Another look at the moon landing.

I've said no such thing what I said ' Well NASA would have to make it 12'.
Why would NASA have to make it 12?
That sounds like NASA wanted 12 astronauts to walk on the moon and they kept sending people there until they had got that number. As though there was a specific reason they wanted 12 people to walk on the moon.

But you also said that no one has walked on the moon and that NASA are liars and were trying to hide God.
Upvote 0

AI understands the Sabbath and Col 2:16

I asked duckassist the question, if you live in Barrow Alaska, should you keep the Sabbath from sunset to sunset

Here's its answer-
In Barrow, Alaska, where the sun does not set for extended periods during summer, it is suggested to observe the Sabbath from sunset to sunset based on the traditional understanding, but adjustments may be necessary due to the unique daylight conditions. Many people in such regions may choose to follow a local time schedule or consult religious authorities for guidance on how to observe the Sabbath appropriately.


Not a single scripture is quoted. That makes sense, though. I'm not aware of any scripture that says what to do.

God's ways aren't our ways, his thoughts aren't our thoughts :heart:
Upvote 0

The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

Scripture was never intended to serve as some sort of exhaustive, systematic catechism even though many attempt to use it that way. But we cannot conflict with it. And it tells us:

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess 2:15

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” John 21:25

This change, this new way to value and observe the commandment, didn’t happen in a vacuum, as if the whole church world, and not only Catholics by any means, just suddenly, duh, forgot about that one while continuing to uphold the necessity of obeying the commandments. This is simply the way Christian’s did it. And still do it.
The Holy Scriptures are the ONLY God inspired writings. None of the ECF writings are God inspired so what the ECFs teach MUST conform with scripture. The litmus test is the scriptures not the ECF writings.
Upvote 0

The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

It’s not me choosing; the whole church, while holding that the ten commandments must be obeyed did it that way-and continued to down through the centuries. Because that’s what they received from the beginning. A couple of brother Christians put it this way.

We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead. St Justin 90-165 AD

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death St Ignatius of Antioch 50-100 AD

They had the Torah and knew it well, along with the new testament writings that were available before the canon was determined. And in addition to that, they had nearness to the fact, the historical events, themselves; St Ignatius was a disciple of John, for one.
Your church argues the same as my argument except their addition of works for salvation. We don’t keep the commandments because they are in tablets of stone but because these commandments are written in our hearts and we walk in the Spirit not in the law.

The folks that we are arguing with here sre SDA who believe that the 4th commandment is a moral commandment and all that does not worship on Saturday are sinning so consequently, unless we repent, we live in sin. I don’t think your church believes or promotes that, right?
Upvote 0

Hell doesn't exist and there is no eternal suffering, instead bad peolle just cease to exist

Which fallacy, and what straw man? I know you've heard the terms, but how do they apply here?

Fact is, you admit that God wants everyone saved, but you don't He's willing or able to make it happen. Right? Human dimwittery thwarts God's will. I say that's rubbish.
Answer below.

Yeah, it always comes back to "God wants everyone saved, But There's Just Nothing He Can Do".
Emotional fallacy and a Strawman. No one here has argued that at all. The emotional fallacy comes from “attempting” to show an absurdity that is not present.
What good does praying do if God Himself is powerless to save anyone who's too dumb to get with the program?
Strawman. No one here has argued that God is powerless and that people are too dumb.

Learn your fallacies.
Upvote 0

Who then can be saved?

Doing your part is part of sanctification. Sanctification is only possible after we have been justified.
Even if I agreed with that, sanctification is both a necessity and an option, as Rom 6 and 8 make clear. As it is, justification and sanctification are inseparable, are part and parcel of the same thing, sanctification being the proper growth in the justice (righteousness) first received at justification.
If you have to choose Him daily, that suggests that your first “choosing” wasn’t good enough and so you constantly have to be choosing Him.
If I fail to choose Him daily that only means I end up being poor soil, not persevering, not remaining in Him, not valuing the relationship, not appreciating the grace, the love received. Choosing Him daily is only to fullfill His own directive:
Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. Luke 9:23

The whole point of Him choosing you is that that is the only way to salvation that doesn’t rely on your own works since HE does the work. And when HE does the work, you don’t need to rely on your imperfect self, where you constantly have to repeat the process since your works will never be good enough.
He gives grace to all, some will respond and repent and follow, others will not. And unless our imperfect selves improve to one degree or another, unless we wash our robes by and with the power of the Spirit, we won't be seeing Him. Gal 5:13-21, Gal 6:7-8, Rom 8:12-14, Rev 21:6-8, Rev 22:12-15
  • Like
Reactions: Colo Millz
Upvote 0

Should Trump have been banned from running for president?

That's not true either. This ignores third party voters; or those who abstain from voting altogether.

It's true that, by and large, progressives are going to vote Democrat rather than Republican. For reasons already explained in this thread. I vote Democrat, not because I'm a Democrat or even really like the Democratic Party--I vote Democrat because I'd rather choose bland tofu than literal poison.

The only candidate I've genuinely been interested in the past few election cycles is Bernie Sanders, an Independent who has run on the Democratic ticket.

There are very few Democrats that I am genuinely enthused about. Most are milquetoast centrists who are more interested in maintaining the current neo-liberal status quo, and lack any serious backbone to fight against corruption, systemic racism, and plutocracy.

-CryptoLutheran
Ok I concede that non voters don’t count and those that voted for Bernie did not vote democrat.
Upvote 0

Church meeting with minister - can you help?

Thank you for your reply. I have 1 other question and I get what you're saying. I don't want to assume OP's gender, but if they are female, how would they be able to be an Elder? The vast majority of Christian churches do not allow women in that sort of leadership. So how would a woman be the change in that respect?
This is a whole other dilemma that I am not prepared to address due to derailing the subject at hand.

FYI
Paul said women should stay silent.
Upvote 0

Should Trump have been banned from running for president?

"Soft on crime"
"Open borders"
"Remove parental rights"

Are all things I don't think a single Democrat has ever once promoted.

Those sound like Republican lies about what Democrats want.

-CryptoLutheran
Another one living in lala land. Just about every dem DA is pushing for bail reform to eliminate cash bail and other types of bail which has the actual effect of having a revolving door for the habitual criminal. You see this in most of the large blue cities.

The push for most blue states to remove notifying the parents of a child that questions his/her gender. This removes the parents right to parent their children as they see fit. Many red states have added parental right laws to prevent this.

The progressives push for allowing anyone in and pushing for an amnesty for those already here. The effect is the same. This was one of the primary issues that won Trump the election.
Upvote 0

Heating up down under

Scores of people haven't been into Climate Change Panic since way before "MAGA". They rolled their eyes at Al Gore's hyperbole decades ago.

As Christians Jesus commanded us not to worry about the future (Luke 12:22-34). Therefore Christians should not participate in Climate Change Panic.
Another thing Jesus was wrong about.
Upvote 0

Video shows Memorial Hermann nurse telling officers 'I'll let you die' during DWI arrest

"But what about Trump" is not a logical argument. Think about how many times Trump did something and there was a similar "what about Biden" response was given from conservatives. This was no different. A clear deflection from the topic because the topic what not something the poster wants to focus on.
The topic being “random drunk lady says dumb thing”
Upvote 0

Does this worry anyone?

Many people who benefit from government assistance programs continue to vote for candidates like President Trump and other Republicans advocating for smaller government and program cuts. This has been the trend since President Reagan, despite these voters relying on such support.

Over the past 50 years, candidates have frequently announced intentions to reduce government spending and cut social assistance programs. However, upon taking office, many did not implement these reductions after recognizing the significance of such programs for Americans. Consequently, many individuals view these campaign promises as unlikely to be fulfilled.

Now, President Trump is fulfilling his promise by cutting these programs. Voters will experience firsthand the results of policies they've supported for decades, which may help them understand which policies truly matter.

While many on the left view President Trump fulfilling his promises as negative, I believe it signifies a brighter future. America will finally see Republican campaign promises put into action—such as ending free trade, imposing tariffs, getting tough on China, mass deportation, and reducing government programs. These policies will have tangible impacts, and after experiencing them, Americans may be better equipped to debate and decide the nation's direction beyond 2028.
Upvote 0

Video shows Memorial Hermann nurse telling officers 'I'll let you die' during DWI arrest

Wow, this is unbelievable. This is what happens when when one starts listening to the rhetoric of the left.
Weird. I just want like walkable cities and high speed rail and healthcare and stuff. What leftist rhetoric are you listening to?

And reading the article, I don’t even know where you get that she’s a leftist at all. That seems to be your own editorializing.

This stuck out at me lol:

While being driven to the Montgomery County Jail, Tadlock appears to take issue with one officer's heritage.

"You can't speak straight because you have an accent from another country," she says.

When he tries to inform her of her rights, she remarks, "That's because ICE hasn't picked you up yet."
That doesn’t sound very leftist anti-ICE to me.

Mainly she just sounds like a really angry drunk person trying to be as mean as she can to the cops that arrested her that night.
  • Agree
Reactions: RocksInMyHead
Upvote 0

Why do people hate ICE...

Even Trump's plan of deporting more people was enough to spark coast to coast protests and demonstrations. Whereas, Obama did actually do quite a bit of deporting, and the only noteworthy pushback he got was from libertarian think tanks and a few Immigrant advocacy groups.
You say "Obama actually did do quite a bit of deporting" as though Trump didn't also "actually" deport similar numbers of people during his first term. People were opposed to upping deportation numbers and the rhetoric that Trump used; notice that all of the examples of protests you linked were about changes to policy or rhetoric, not the existing policies that remained in place.
And as I noted before, during the Biden admin (despite doing a lot of deporting), the social justice activists opted to focus on other things (BLM-related activism, protesting against Florida book bans, and then Israel/Gaza)
You're trying waaay too hard to make the race card stick on this one.
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Limited vs unlimited atonement?

Ephesians 1 In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

I am not disagreeing with that.

I am speaking of John 6 where Christ speaks of God choosing those who will be saved. Whether or not the word “elect” is used, Christ is clear that God chooses who will be saved and that He, Christ, will only save those whom God has chosen. And that is the definition of the word elect.


None of this is showing I had some problem or was upset, so I have no idea why you spoke about that, as if it was an issue in discussion. I do not disagree with God choosing, but I would if you would say we cannot understand any basis God has in that. Your own definition of elect does not match how it used in the Bible still. And while God alone chooses, God is not willing that any perish, right? Or do you disagree with the passage that says that?
Upvote 0

I Remember...

Ha ha. I remember there was one this guy in my friend group who elected to take home economics. Of course being teenage boys we felt obliged to tease him. "Are you gonna bake us some cookies today?" "You're going to make someone a good little wife someday." Stuff like that. Looking back, I would have benefited from taking it. It's not easy keeping a home.
My mom was the only girl in a Mechanical Drawing class in high school in the forties.
Upvote 0

Who then can be saved?

Nope, I have to do my part in staying true to the relationship, as with any relationship. He's never been interested in robots-or else sin wouldn't have been been possible to begin with, for one thing.
Doing your part is part of sanctification. Sanctification is only possible after we have been justified. If you have to choose Him daily, that suggests that your first “choosing” wasn’t good enough and so you constantly have to be choosing Him. The whole point of Him choosing you is that that is the only way to salvation that doesn’t rely on your own works since HE does the work. And when HE does the work, you don’t need to rely on your imperfect self, where you constantly have to repeat the process since your works will never be good enough.
Upvote 0

Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

I don't understand why it troubles y'all so much to admit that the man was smart and successful.
I'm pretty sure I've said exactly that, so it doesn't trouble me at all.

I don't know why it troubles y'all so much that some people didn't like him in spite of his intelligence and successes.
Upvote 0

Who then can be saved?

Yes, He’s the rest giver not the 4th commandment. The Sabbath is something man does according to God, if that counts Isa 56:2 Exo 20:8-11 its not a commandment for Him to keep so we can profane. God gave rest throughout the Bible, never once does it say it deletes the 4th commandment. In fact, we are told those who enter into Christ rest (where there is no sin) also (which means in addition) ceases from their work as God did Heb4:10 on the seventh day Heb4:4 Exo20:11Gen2:1-3

Why Jesus said Mat 11:28-30 and still kept the Sabbath Luke 4:16 Lev 23:3 as did the apostles Acts 13:42,44 Acts 15:21 Acts 18:4 etc Jesus is our example 1John2:6 1Peter 2:21-22
Jesus fulfilling the law is what makes Him the sabbath rest, so of course he obeyed the law while He was living.
Upvote 0

How do we set aside the grace of God?

Salvation has always been by faith. (Hebrews 11:6)

Salvation has not always been by faith alone (James 2:24, Matthew 24:13, Revelation 14:9-12)

You understand the difference between these 2 statements?
I can ask you the same thing.

As for Hebrews 11: 6: Salvation has always been by faith alone. If salvation was by faith and works, God would be a liar when He let Paul state:

Romans 5:16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. NASU

Romans 4:1 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, NASU


Paul stated that justification is a free gift. To emphasize the point that nobody does anything to earn justification God states it is a free gift. If something is free, you pay or do nothing to earn it. If it is a gift, you pay or do nothing to earn it,

As for James 2:24: If anyone accepts James' statement without investigating as to how he can seem to directly contradict Paul is not very concerned about their salvation.

First of all, James' statement in verse 19 which he seems to describe the faith of a true believer as “believing there is one God.” That is exactly what unbelieving Israel still believes. It does not describe a Christians faith. And yes the demons believe there is one God because they were in heaven with the one God and His son. They hated them both that is why they are not in heaven anymore.

How can James make the statement that seems to directly contradict Paul?

James 2:18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. NASU

He is telling us that the only way we can see if anyone has faith by their works. He is saying that humans can only see faith by seeing works. But he also gives us the clue to determine what He is saying besides the verse above.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God. NASU

Verse 22 Abraham's work perfected his faith. It did not earn his salvation. What earned Abraham's salvation? Verse 23 His believing God. Also, in verse 23 James states Abraham's work fulfilled the statement about his believing God and righteousness was reckoned to him. What does that mean?

Romans 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. NASU

It is obvious that the law of sin and death was fulfilled in Abraham because he was in the Spirit. Did he walk in the Spirit to earn salvation? NO. He walked in the Spirit to continue to have the law of sin and death fulfilled by the Father and live physically. He did not walk in the Spirit to earn salvation.

As for Matthew 24:13 "But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. NASU

It is obvious that Jesus is referring to the end times so I will combine Matthew above with Revelation 14: 9-12.

Revelation 12:17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. NASU

Revelation 14:12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. NASU


Satan is only mad at those who keep the commandments of of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus in chapter 12. Chapter 12 details natural Israel's journey during the time after Jesus died till the time of the great tribulation. Verse 17 of chapter 12 Satan left the natural Israel to chase those who held the testimony of Jesus. The commandments we are to keep are explained in the NT. They are clearly articulated in 1John.

1 John 3:21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. 24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. NASU

John cites the commandments we are to keep above. A lot of people do not believe those are the commandments of God that we are to keep.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. NASU

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." NASU


Above is the way that Jesus stated the commandments to John. Now if we persevere in keeping those 2 commandments, after we reach the point of eternal life, we will have eternal life. In the great tribulation what do we need to do beside keep those 2 commandments?

Revelation 6:17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" NASU

God answered that question in Chapter 7 of revelation.

Revelation 7:14 I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. NASU

Those people who have let Jesus' blood make them clean will stand. That means if we persevere in keeping His 2 commandments and let Him keep hold of us we will stand. But if we open our mouth and declare that Jesus is Lord we will do better than just stand. However, when we have done all that we can do, we need to stand and let Him do for us. That is faith.
Upvote 0

The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

The Hebrew word for "LAW" is "תּוֹרָה", "towrah". This means that you just said;

"Not sure what you mean here, but animal sacrifices for sin go way back before God's Law became God's Law."

That doesn't make much sense.
The Torah or Pentateuch consists of the first 5 books of the bible. It is often referred to as the Book of the Law.
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.


Nevertheless, there was No Commandment of God for man to kill animals "because of their transgressions". This command wasn't "ADDED" to God's LAWS until 430 years after Abraham, at least this is what Paul and the Holy Prophets teach.



4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying "of his gifts": and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Yes, it wasn't an offering Commanded by God "because of their Transgressions", which is the entire premise of your reply. It was a free will offering to God out of respect and honor towards God.
This assumes facts not in evidence. Where is your evidence of this? How does killing a lamb respect and honor God? Are you suggesting that God is honored by killing an innocent creature and burning its carcass on an altar? If so, do you kill and burn a lamb on an altar to honor God? Of course not. Why? Because the lamb that takes away the sins of the world has fulfilled that function. The offering was a sin offering.
That is exactly what Cain was doing. He was a farmer, so he brought his first fruits. Why wasn't God pleased with that?
There was no Commandment from God that they should kill goats, "because of their Transgressions". The AI teaching here doesn't mention that Cain gave a free will offering to God, same as Abel, but it wasn't the best of his increase. I think you have missed the entire point of the Scripture in your attempt to defend and justify the religious philosophy that God's entire Law wasn't "ADDED" until AFTER Transgressions.
Just because those exact words are not written out, it should be obvious to you as to the function of these sacrifices. If they are as you claim, then why do you not carry out such sacrifices to honor God today?
What? How does this refer to Cain bringing his first fruits to the altar.
Yes, a free will offering to God for His Mercy and promises. And to Ratify a covenant God made with Noah, just as Moses in the Ex. 24 verse you referenced that I posted for our discussion and in the hope that you might answer questions asked of you, concerning the teaching you are furthering. There is no mention of a Commandment of God to kill animals, "because of his transgressions". You are making my point for me.
There absolutely is. Animal sacrifice is always what pointed to Christ on the cross. John did not say, "Behold the Avocado that takes away the sins of the world." He said "Lamb."
I think you should read the entire story. And yes, it wasn't about killing animals for the remission of Abraham's sin.


Yes, it was not about Abraham sacrificing Isaac "because of his transgressions". The command by God to kill animals "because of transgressions" was not "ADDED" to God's Laws, Statutes, Commandments and Judgments Abraham obeyed, until 430 years after Abraham.

Again, you are making the point Paul was making. The "LAW" that was ADDED, "Because of Transgressions", wasn't added until after the Golden Calf.
This is rabbit hole theology. We are in biblical wonderland here. Jacob sacrificing Isaac tells the story of God having His own son killed for our sins. "God will provide a lamb." What do you think that means?
Yes, God's Laws existed which defined sin, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) lived by them, and free will offerings to God were offered as expressions of Love and respect for their King. But Israel lost sight of them, and sent Moses to show them once again.
This is incredibly bazaar. You are saying that in order to
But the "LAW" concerning burnt offering and sacrifices "because of transgressions", (Sin) wasn't "ADDED until after Israel broke God's Covenant, and Moses went up the 2nd Time to secure another Covenant.

This is the "LAW" Paul was speaking to, that the required Jews to come to "them" for atonement, and not to Jesus. Paul is telling them that the very reason this "ADDED" Law was given, was to lead them to their True High Priest, the Lamb of God.

The deceiver would have you and I believe that "ALL" of God's Laws defining sin, righteousness, holiness, judgments etc.,, given to Moses, were not given until after Transgressions. But this deception is stupid, given that their is NO Transgression, without LAW.



Remember, we are arguing about what "LAW" was ADDED "because of Transgressions" that the Pharisees were still promoting to the Galatians.

A Law that was to Lead them to their Prophesied, True High Priest. A "Law" that wasn't "ADDED" until 430 years after Abraham.

This World's religious system, and by extension you, because you promote the same philosophy, is that this "LAW" was the entire Law of God, made known to the world through Moses, His Chosen Servant, through the Law and Prophets. And you specifically stated the LAW can not be "parsed", meaning that if I Love the Lord my God with all my heart, I must also kill a goat "because of my transgressions" or I am not obeying God. I tried to show you how the "Priesthood", unlike God's Judgments and Commandments, was temporary from it's conception. And was Prophesied to end. While God's Laws defining sin, righteousness, clean, holy and just, are eternal.
Now lets get out of the rabbit hole and go over some examples.

️ Step 2: Biblical Examples Before the Mosaic Law​

1. Genesis 3:21 – The first shedding of blood

“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”
While not explicitly called a “sacrifice,” this verse implies that animals were slain to cover human shame. The skins would have required the death of an animal — the first recorded death after sin entered the world.
Spiritual meaning: Bloodshed provided covering (Heb. kaphar = atone). This sets the pattern that forgiveness and cleansing from sin require substitutionary death.


2. Genesis 4:3–5 – Cain and Abel

“Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.”
The “firstlings” and “fat portions” indicate a blood sacrifice, unlike Cain’s produce offering.
Hebrews 11:4 interprets this scene:

“By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous.”
Why was Abel’s sacrifice “more excellent”? Because it was an atoning offering — an act of faith that looked forward to the covering of sin through blood (cf. Hebrews 9:22: “without shedding of blood there is no remission”).

So while Genesis doesn’t label Abel’s act a “sin offering,” the New Testament identifies it as a righteous, faith-based, blood sacrifice — a prototype of substitutionary atonement.


3. Genesis 8:20–21 – Noah after the Flood

“Noah built an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour…”
The phrase “sweet savour” (Heb. reyaḥ niḥoach) later appears repeatedly in Leviticus to describe sacrifices that make atonement (Lev. 1:9, 3:5, 4:31).
God’s response to Noah’s offering — “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake” — mirrors the appeasement and reconciliation language of atonement.

Noah’s act has atoning overtones: the world had just been judged for sin, and Noah offers sacrifice representing cleansing and restored favor.


4. Genesis 22:13 – Abraham and Isaac

“And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.”
The substitutionary nature is unmistakable — the ram dies “in the place of” Isaac.
That is the exact logic of a sin offering: one life given to spare another.
Later Scripture confirms the typology:

  • John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.”
  • Romans 8:32: “He did not spare His own Son.”
So while this sacrifice is called a burnt offering, its theological meaning is substitutionary atonement — precisely what a sin offering represents.


5. Job 1:5 and 42:8 – Job’s priestly offerings

“Job… offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned…”
“My servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept… and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering.”
These clearly function as sin offerings — the intent is explicitly to make intercession for sin.
Job lived in the patriarchal period before Moses, showing that substitutionary sacrifice for sin was already known.
Upvote 0

Curious as to what precisely makes Full-Preterism considered an non orthodox heresy?

And you're saying the bible says "He came down physically". Highlight where it says "He came down physically".
So when he sat down to dinner with Abraham and then had a discussion about Sodom and Gomorrah- I don’t know how much more physical it can get.

All those past examples I listed in that article of his coming imply a physical appearance. I don’t think it matters if his coming can be seen with people’s material eyes or only perceived spiritually. The Bible does not seem to make that distinction as far as ITS doctrine of the coming of the Lord. It just prophetically says he is coming, often giving dates or events that demonstrate his coming. Then, listing them historically if it was history.
Upvote 0

Faith/Works

I believe much of what you are saying is in line with what the Lord tells us to abide in Him especially in John 15:1-10. Probably the basic way is when we give alms & pray for ourselves and others ( Matthew 6:1-14 etc.). If a person is poor or with physical disability, then solely prayer ( I would think).


( reply to post #11, for some reason reply prompt didn’t link our posts).
I'd also like to add, spreading the gospel too and guiding others to righteousness.

Edit: To also add as far as a relationship goes, prayer, awaiting his answer and testing the spirits to make sure it was from God and then applying what God said. I am a firm believer than you can sit on a remote island, not have a bible and walk off that island in 20 years being a bible scholar. Because what matters most, is the relationship you have with Christ.
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,876,695
Messages
65,387,547
Members
276,287
Latest member
slaney3