The Cross And The Resurrection

[Prestissimo]

@JayL You can't CHOOSE to believe something. I could never make you believe the earth is a Cube. I could threaten you to go to hell if you don't believe it, but you won't believe it...

The evidence that it's a sphere* (*hope I'm translating this right, English is not my native language) is just too overwhelming to take that seriously.

Now consider it's not me claiming the earth is a triangle-shape, but an old 2,000 year old book.. Makes it even harder right?

That's what position we're in...

 

And you still have two open questions!

 

 

I believe TOE is pointing towards one father, one mother origin for all humanity. So Adam and Eve story seems to stand up pretty well.

You're back to the making of assumptions.The proof will tell you where it's pointing, you already have an opinion about the proof even before I provide it.

Do we keep on playing games? Fine:

"What if TOE is proven and is clearly not pointing towards one father and mother?" Would that finally convince you there were no Adam & Eve, therefor no talking snake, bad trees and fruits.. no need for salvation?!

[JayL]

You can read up in the Epistle to Hebrews. I think the book argues that Mechizedek was HIGHER than 'a high priest'.

 

... tell me Jay ... what other period historical book or writings confirm your stories out of the babble? Do you not think that such INCREDULOUS stories would be backed up in other period writings? People rising from the dead? People walking on water? Miracles of all descriptions?? Why do you accept these PURELY mythological stories happen in other faiths but not in yours?

 

Its called BRAINWASH!

 

 

Long time ago, I became convinced that the Gospel narratives are likely to be eyewitness accounts.

[JayL]

"What if TOE is proven and is clearly not pointing towards one father and mother?" Would that finally convince you there were no Adam & Eve, therefor no talking snake, bad trees and fruits.. no need for salvation?!

 

Existence of sins is readily seen all around us. So there is a need for salvation of some kind. Now when it comes to 'original sin' and 'fallen state of mankind', it may be more controversial.

[Realist]

[Long time ago, I became convinced that the Gospel narratives are likely to be eyewitness accounts.

 

... the word "likely" shows you are not necessarily that certain!

[Prestissimo]

"What if TOE is proven and is clearly not pointing towards one father and mother?" Would that finally convince you there were no Adam & Eve, therefor no talking snake, bad trees and fruits.. no need for salvation?!

 

Existence of sins is readily seen all around us.

Not at all. Sin is just a word. A subjective judgment on an act or behavior. Yes there will still be things happening on the planet that won't serve humanity or the earth.. but only because of the bible do we call it SIN. "Only because of Adam & Eve are we sinful"

 

So my question again:

"What if TOE is proven and is clearly not pointing towards one father and mother?" Would that finally convince you there were no Adam & Eve, therefor no talking snake, bad trees and fruits.. no need for salvation?!"

 

Wait, are you saying you already dropped the Adam & Eve story?! Come to think of it, you only believe in Part II of the holy book right? So the 10 commandments mean nothing to you either.

LOL

[Spectrox]

You can read up in the Epistle to Hebrews. I think the book argues that Mechizedek was HIGHER than 'a high priest'.

 

... tell me Jay ... what other period historical book or writings confirm your stories out of the babble? Do you not think that such INCREDULOUS stories would be backed up in other period writings? People rising from the dead? People walking on water? Miracles of all descriptions?? Why do you accept these PURELY mythological stories happen in other faiths but not in yours?

 

Its called BRAINWASH!

 

 

Long time ago, I became convinced that the Gospel narratives are likely to be eyewitness accounts.

 

Eye witness accounts? You're kidding? Why does 50% of Mark appear in Matthew? And why does 90% of Mark appear in Luke? Why do Matthew and Luke share such other similarities? Hypothetical Q document ring a bell?

 

They are copies of copies of translations of copies with no originals. They were written decades after Jesus' death and not assembled until 325CAE. God is such a plagiariser and such a rubbish script editor. If I'd been God I'd have written a tighter script.

[Realist]

[Long time ago, I became convinced that the Gospel narratives are likely to be eyewitness accounts.

 

... the word "likely" shows you are not necessarily that certain!

 

... I think Jay is on this site looking for answers because he has doubts about what he believes!

[Realist]

[Eye witness accounts? You're kidding? Why does 50% of Mark appear in Matthew? And why does 90% of Mark appear in Luke? Why do Matthew and Luke share such other similarities? Hypothetical Q document ring a bell?

 

They are copies of copies of translations of copies with no originals. They were written decades after Jesus' death and not assembled until 325CAE. God is such a plagiariser and such a rubbish script editor. If I'd been God I'd have written a tighter script.

 

.. and why do different gospels tell a different story of the same account? Which account is believed?

[bdp]

NONE of the 'gospels' are eyewitness accounts, and this can very easily be demonstrated.

[centauri]

Your theology contradicts Peter in Acts 2:38 and Jesus in Matt 25:41-46, along with many other verses.

 

What does repenting mean to you??

It's a conscience act of regret and contrition.

 

What sort of act are you thinking of?

It's a mental act done by the person, it isn't automatically done for them.

It's an affirmative action on the part of the potential believer.

It's required in order to be saved.

The whole gospel message centers on repenting;

 

Luke 5:32

I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

 

Luke 24:47

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

 

When people asked Peter what they should do, the first thing he told them was to repent (Acts 2:38, 3:19).

[centauri]

And it did nothing to validate Jesus as a high priest.

It contradicts God's rules.

 

You can read up in the Epistle to Hebrews. I think the book argues that Mechizedek was HIGHER than 'a high priest'.

Yes it does, and it contradicts God's promise to Moses and Aaron.

It attempts to revise God's rules and create new ones to accomodate the new religion.

Melchizedek was a king/priest that lived prior to Moses and the Levitical priesthood.

The Levitical priesthood superseded all prior forms and was promised exclusively to the Levites.

You can't be a high priest unless you're from the line of Aaron.

That's the law.

The Levitical priesthood is the one that will be recognized in the messianic era (Jer 33:18).

[centauri]

Where does Lev 4 confirm what poster believer claimed?

Where does it say that animal sin sacrifices only provided temporary atonement and forgiveness for a particular sin?

Either the sin was forgiven or it wasn't.

 

My reading of Hebrews passage is that OT sacrifices have to be done over and over again because they only cover past sins.

The sacrifices do not have to be repeated over and over for the same incident of sin.

You don't need to sacrifice over and over for a sin committed in your past.

The forgiveness for that sin is complete.

 

What Jesus has done is totally permanent because it covers future sins as well.

And that doctrine contradicts God's law.

Jesus was not a valid sacrifice for sin.

Also, you can't preemptively atone for sin.

The Day of Atonement is to be practiced every year and is defined as a lasting ordinance in Lev 16.

 

For example, I am born more than 1900 years after Jesus went to the cross. I went out there and committed some sexual sins. However what Jesus has done 1900 years ago covered my sins and I am totally forgiven.

And according to God's law you're not forgiven.

 

Suppose, God forbids, I end up committing adultery with a co-worker in a moment of drunken passion. Later I repent and ask for forgiveness from God. Well that future sin would also be covered by what Jesus has done 2000 years ago. Do you see the difference?? In the OT time, I would have to go to temple and offer new blood sacrifice.

The difference is that The New Testament is revisionist theology which contradicts the teachings and laws set down in the Old Testsment.

 

 

Christians are not bound by the Old Covenant. We are under the New Covenant.

In other words, you've discarded the Old Testament in favor of revisionist theology as provided by the New Testament.

 

The new covenant as defined in the Old Testament is not the same as the revisionist one given in the New Testament.

The original definition of the new covenant is found in Jer 31, and it has nothing to do with a pagan human sacrifice dying for the sin of anyone.

The new covenant is when God will infuse his law directly into the hearts and minds of his people so that they will obey them.

That is the solution for intentional sin in the messianic era.

God will reaffirm his laws under a new contract.

It has nothing to do with Jesus. Zip, Zero, Zilch, and Nada.

If you want to contend otherwise, then please show from the text of Jer 31 where faith in a human sacrifice replaces the need to keep the law.

You've turned your back on what the Bible God originally said and have adopted a new religion, somehow thinking that such behavior is pleasing to him.

[JayL]

Your theology contradicts Peter in Acts 2:38 and Jesus in Matt 25:41-46, along with many other verses.

 

What does repenting mean to you??

It's a conscience act of regret and contrition.

 

What sort of act are you thinking of?

It's a mental act done by the person, it isn't automatically done for them.

It's an affirmative action on the part of the potential believer.

It's required in order to be saved.

 

 

 

Yes, I would agree that repenting as in change of mind is a requirement. With no change of mind, you cannot start to believe.

[JayL]

Where does Lev 4 confirm what poster believer claimed?

Where does it say that animal sin sacrifices only provided temporary atonement and forgiveness for a particular sin?

Either the sin was forgiven or it wasn't.

 

My reading of Hebrews passage is that OT sacrifices have to be done over and over again because they only cover past sins.

The sacrifices do not have to be repeated over and over for the same incident of sin.

You don't need to sacrifice over and over for a sin committed in your past.

The forgiveness for that sin is complete.

 

What Jesus has done is totally permanent because it covers future sins as well.

And that doctrine contradicts God's law.

Jesus was not a valid sacrifice for sin.

Also, you can't preemptively atone for sin.

The Day of Atonement is to be practiced every year and is defined as a lasting ordinance in Lev 16.

 

For example, I am born more than 1900 years after Jesus went to the cross. I went out there and committed some sexual sins. However what Jesus has done 1900 years ago covered my sins and I am totally forgiven.

And according to God's law you're not forgiven.

 

Suppose, God forbids, I end up committing adultery with a co-worker in a moment of drunken passion. Later I repent and ask for forgiveness from God. Well that future sin would also be covered by what Jesus has done 2000 years ago. Do you see the difference?? In the OT time, I would have to go to temple and offer new blood sacrifice.

The difference is that The New Testament is revisionist theology which contradicts the teachings and laws set down in the Old Testsment.

 

 

Christians are not bound by the Old Covenant. We are under the New Covenant.

In other words, you've discarded the Old Testament in favor of revisionist theology as provided by the New Testament.

 

The new covenant as defined in the Old Testament is not the same as the revisionist one given in the New Testament.

The original definition of the new covenant is found in Jer 31, and it has nothing to do with a pagan human sacrifice dying for the sin of anyone.

The new covenant is when God will infuse his law directly into the hearts and minds of his people so that they will obey them.

That is the solution for intentional sin in the messianic era.

God will reaffirm his laws under a new contract.

It has nothing to do with Jesus. Zip, Zero, Zilch, and Nada.

If you want to contend otherwise, then please show from the text of Jer 31 where faith in a human sacrifice replaces the need to keep the law.

You've turned your back on what the Bible God originally said and have adopted a new religion, somehow thinking that such behavior is pleasing to him.

 

 

Well, if you feel that way, you can stick with the Old. I am going with the New.

[JayL]

And it did nothing to validate Jesus as a high priest.

It contradicts God's rules.

 

You can read up in the Epistle to Hebrews. I think the book argues that Mechizedek was HIGHER than 'a high priest'.

Yes it does, and it contradicts God's promise to Moses and Aaron.

It attempts to revise God's rules and create new ones to accomodate the new religion.

Melchizedek was a king/priest that lived prior to Moses and the Levitical priesthood.

The Levitical priesthood superseded all prior forms and was promised exclusively to the Levites.

You can't be a high priest unless you're from the line of Aaron.

That's the law.

The Levitical priesthood is the one that will be recognized in the messianic era (Jer 33:18).

 

 

Yeah, you can stick with the Old Testament if you want. I can't force the New upon you.

[JayL]

[Eye witness accounts? You're kidding? Why does 50% of Mark appear in Matthew? And why does 90% of Mark appear in Luke? Why do Matthew and Luke share such other similarities? Hypothetical Q document ring a bell?

 

They are copies of copies of translations of copies with no originals. They were written decades after Jesus' death and not assembled until 325CAE. God is such a plagiariser and such a rubbish script editor. If I'd been God I'd have written a tighter script.

 

.. and why do different gospels tell a different story of the same account? Which account is believed?

 

 

I think this actually strengthen the view that they are eyewitness accounts. You want as many reliable accounts as possible to get to the truth.

[ShackledNoMore]

The mistake many 'wonderful and loving people' make is that they think they can stand before God based on their own merit. Most of us think we are OK. But what if God has very high moral standards and we fall short?

 

Then I'd say the problem lies squarely with your god's expectations, not with humans.

 

 

A lot of criminals in prison do not think they have done anything untoward. They blame the society for oppressing them. Likewise, we think we are Ok - at least for the argument sake. If we look into ourselves honestly, we know we are far from the best we could be.

 

Well of course I am head and shoulders above the god portrayed the bible in terms of morality, but since you think that's self delusion, the same can be said of you, Joe Six Pack, or yes, the criminals in prison. And I am truly loathe to fulfill Godwin's law (it's not something I usually do), but I must point out that with the atrocities committed by and commanded by your god in the bible, which is then surpassed by his sending the vast majority of humanity to eternal torture in the fires of hell, that even Hitler's cruelty and evil pales in comparison with biblegod's.

 

But it's not just a matter of "we're not so bad, biblegod is worse." You have to understand that christianity operates by cultivating a world view that we are decrepit, evil, and destitute so that we can accept that we need to be saved by its god. No, if you sneaked a cookie out of the cookie jar when you were six years old, you do not deserve to spend an eternity in hell, nor for artificial sins like if you ever had a boner before marriage or if you were skeptical of tall tales, or worse, only the right tall tales, notwithstanding they require the same level of credulity to believe other tall tales you are not supposed to swallow.

[ShackledNoMore]

(*hope I'm translating this right, English is not my native language)

 

You write much better than Jay does.

[ShackledNoMore]

@JayL You can't CHOOSE to believe something. I could never make you believe the earth is a Cube. I could threaten you to go to hell if you don't believe it, but you won't believe it...

The evidence that it's a sphere* (*hope I'm translating this right, English is not my native language) is just too overwhelming to take that seriously.

Now consider it's not me claiming the earth is a triangle-shape, but an old 2,000 year old book.. Makes it even harder right?

That's what position we're in...

 

And you still have two open questions!

 

 

I believe TOE is pointing towards one father, one mother origin for all humanity. So Adam and Eve story seems to stand up pretty well.

 

Have you actually read or studied anything about evolution? That is not what evolution says at all. Evolution refers to the adaptive change in life forms over successive generations. It does not say that species, human or otherwise, originate from a single breeding pair.

[JayL]

(*hope I'm translating this right, English is not my native language)

 

You write much better than Jay does.

 

 

I totally agree with that.

[JayL]

Well of course I am head and shoulders above the god portrayed the bible in terms of morality, but since you think that's self delusion, the same can be said of you, Joe Six Pack, or yes, the criminals in prison. And I am truly loathe to fulfill Godwin's law (it's not something I usually do), but I must point out that with the atrocities committed by and commanded by your god in the bible, which is then surpassed by his sending the vast majority of humanity to eternal torture in the fires of hell, that even Hitler's cruelty and evil pales in comparison with biblegod's.

 

But it's not just a matter of "we're not so bad, biblegod is worse." You have to understand that christianity operates by cultivating a world view that we are decrepit, evil, and destitute so that we can accept that we need to be saved by its god. No, if you sneaked a cookie out of the cookie jar when you were six years old, you do not deserve to spend an eternity in hell, nor for artificial sins like if you ever had a boner before marriage or if you were skeptical of tall tales, or worse, only the right tall tales, notwithstanding they require the same level of credulity to believe other tall tales you are not supposed to swallow.

 

 

I would say your conception of God of the Bible is totally wrong. I believe God is Benevolent Love ( 1 John 4). But as we have discussed here several times before, when people say No to God, God respects their decision and separates them from Himself.

[ShackledNoMore]

Well of course I am head and shoulders above the god portrayed the bible in terms of morality, but since you think that's self delusion, the same can be said of you, Joe Six Pack, or yes, the criminals in prison. And I am truly loathe to fulfill Godwin's law (it's not something I usually do), but I must point out that with the atrocities committed by and commanded by your god in the bible, which is then surpassed by his sending the vast majority of humanity to eternal torture in the fires of hell, that even Hitler's cruelty and evil pales in comparison with biblegod's.

 

But it's not just a matter of "we're not so bad, biblegod is worse." You have to understand that christianity operates by cultivating a world view that we are decrepit, evil, and destitute so that we can accept that we need to be saved by its god. No, if you sneaked a cookie out of the cookie jar when you were six years old, you do not deserve to spend an eternity in hell, nor for artificial sins like if you ever had a boner before marriage or if you were skeptical of tall tales, or worse, only the right tall tales, notwithstanding they require the same level of credulity to believe other tall tales you are not supposed to swallow.

 

 

I would say your conception of God of the Bible is totally wrong. I believe God is Benevolent Love ( 1 John 4). But as we have discussed here several times before, when people say No to God, God respects their decision and separates them from Himself.

 

So then what's up with all the killing and vindictiveness in the Old Testament (I know you don't like the OT, but still--same god, so xianity claims) and the concept of sending almost everyone to hell for eternity that developed in the New Testament in exchange for the here and now wrath of the Old Testament god? If the rest of the bible was like 1 John 4 then you might have more of a case, but it most certainly is not. (Even 1 John 4 is tainted--it presents the carrot, the love of god, how he will save you with his sacrificial atonement, how he will give you an out from the self centered fear that has been browbeaten into you with the stick over and over again in the bible and through the meme.) I describe nothing more than a central theme of the bible, so how does that constitute a totally wrong conception of the christian god?

[sdelsolray]

Well of course I am head and shoulders above the god portrayed the bible in terms of morality, but since you think that's self delusion, the same can be said of you, Joe Six Pack, or yes, the criminals in prison. And I am truly loathe to fulfill Godwin's law (it's not something I usually do), but I must point out that with the atrocities committed by and commanded by your god in the bible, which is then surpassed by his sending the vast majority of humanity to eternal torture in the fires of hell, that even Hitler's cruelty and evil pales in comparison with biblegod's.

 

But it's not just a matter of "we're not so bad, biblegod is worse." You have to understand that christianity operates by cultivating a world view that we are decrepit, evil, and destitute so that we can accept that we need to be saved by its god. No, if you sneaked a cookie out of the cookie jar when you were six years old, you do not deserve to spend an eternity in hell, nor for artificial sins like if you ever had a boner before marriage or if you were skeptical of tall tales, or worse, only the right tall tales, notwithstanding they require the same level of credulity to believe other tall tales you are not supposed to swallow.

 

 

I would say your conception of God of the Bible is totally wrong. I believe God is Benevolent Love ( 1 John 4). But as we have discussed here several times before, when people say No to God, God respects their decision and separates them from Himself.

 

1 John 4 is not the entirety of Scripture which describes or reports the behavior of the "God of the Bible". By ignoring other descriptions and behavior of the "God of the Bible" you are ignoring other Scripture. Poster ShackledNoMore does take other Scripture into account. I suspect that an outside observer, using unbiased rational thinking, would conclude that the "God of the Bible" is complicated, inconsistent and curious, among other things. Richard Dawkins wrote a good description of the "God of the Bible". While his description only applies to the God decripted in the Old Testament, it should equally apply to the God decrypted in the New Testament based on the premise that they are the same entity.

 

Dawkins wrote:

 

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infancidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously manevolent bully."

 

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Chapter 2.

[JayL]

 

I would say your conception of God of the Bible is totally wrong. I believe God is Benevolent Love ( 1 John 4). But as we have discussed here several times before, when people say No to God, God respects their decision and separates them from Himself.

 

So then what's up with all the killing and vindictiveness in the Old Testament (I know you don't like the OT, but still--same god, so xianity claims) and the concept of sending almost everyone to hell for eternity that developed in the New Testament in exchange for the here and now wrath of the Old Testament god? If the rest of the bible was like 1 John 4 then you might have more of a case, but it most certainly is not. (Even 1 John 4 is tainted--it presents the carrot, the love of god, how he will save you with his sacrificial atonement, how he will give you an out from the self centered fear that has been browbeaten into you with the stick over and over again in the bible and through the meme.) I describe nothing more than a central theme of the bible, so how does that constitute a totally wrong conception of the christian god?

 

 

The Bible covers the entire time span of human history. There's a lot going on that we have a tough time understanding from our cultural vantage point. That is one reason why people should start at the New Testament. It is a lot easier to understand what is happening. Moreover the OT understanding of God is not as complete as the NT revelation of God.

[JayL]

Dawkins wrote:

 

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infancidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously manevolent bully."

 

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Chapter 2.

 

 

I think he is saying that because he was brought up in a Christian culture. I don't see too many muslims complaining...