Repenting After Death

[OrdinaryClay]

This is an interesting point. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

Now, I'm not sure what you mean by win. He is the Creator so He will not be destroyed so in that sense He will win, but if you mean win in the sense that He will maximize the number of free willed creatures that accept Him as Lord and Creator and love and worship Him then I think He does not need control over free will to achieve this.

 

First, God's sovereignty or omnipotence does not mean He can violate the laws of logic. For example, He can not force a free willed person to love him of his own free will. This is logically impossible. Second, God's sovereignty means He has ultimate authority over which world He chose to create (actualize). I believe He has chosen to create a world in which the optimum number of people are saved so He wins in that sense too even though we have free will. (A heads up, this last point deals with something called Molinism, take a look and ask questions if you like)

Thanks for the link on Molinism, just had time to glance at it, will read it through later. My point was that if God does not predetermine the decisions that creatures will make in their secret "hearts," then there is no guarantee that any will choose God. It also does not follow simply from the attribute creator that a creator cannot be destroyed, and it certainly does not follow that a creator cannot be overcome - look at Dr. Frankenstein! All the attributes that we assign to God of course represent God as never being destroyed and as never being rejected by all creatures, but I question whether those outcomes are guaranteed outcomes if you take God's absolute sovereignty out of the mix. Finally, I think that even foreknowledge of P implies that P cannot be otherwise, so things become incoherent if you try to hold to foreknowledge but deny absolute predestination.

 

This is true. It does not guarantee anyone will choose to love God. This is where Molinism comes into play. God possesses foreknowledge of all possible worlds (not just the world we ended up with). This foreknowledge is called middle knowledge. This knowledge is the knowledge of what every created being would have freely chosen to do given any set of circumstances (these are called counter factuals). Given this unfathomable amount of knowledge He is able to choose an optimal world to actualize. I believe he has chosen the world in which an optional number of free willed agents freely choose to love Him.

 

Think of it as God having a choice in which world He will choose to create. One of those worlds may have been a world in which no one loved Him freely. He choose not to actualize that one. He choose the optimal.

 

Foreknowledge of P really does not imply that P cannot be otherwise. Suppose someone wrote a deterministic piece of software, and they told someone else every possible outcome the software would produce. It is not the knowledge of the outcomes that is driving the results. It is the code itself that is driving the outcomes. The knowledge of what the outcome will be is distinct from the mechanism that drives the outcomes.

 

God's eternal and indestrcutable nature fall from the fact that He is by the defintion the fisrt cause. Really, the only thing indestrucable is an axiomatic first cause.

[par4dcourse]

Or you could just be imaging shit.

[bornagainathiest]

Here I show that Jesus was not necessarily there to offer salvation. The word can simply mean proclaiming or publishing something. The verse does not have enough information for us to conclude why He was there, or what the place was other than a prison for spirits.

 

 

Anyway, the inference in question is this...

 

With the preachers Jonah, John the Baptist, Jesus, the Apostles Peter and John and with the Apostle Paul, we see the same scenario, featuring the same three elements, played out in the same way. First, there is the one who preaches. Second, there is an audience. Lastly, there is, "THE CHOICE". The audience are always called to make a free and conscious choice, based upon the words of the preacher. The thrust of the preacher's words is always the same - make a choice. Three elements. Always.

I'm sorry your inference does not hold. You make two errors: 1) you are assuming far more than we know with regards to that Scripture,

 

Not so. Please read on.

 

2) you ignore the additional information we have regarding repentance after death.

 

No. I do not ignore this additional information, OC.

I acknowledge it, but unlike you, I am not committed to harmonizing scripture. Therefore, if I see what looks like a contradiction in scripture, I make no effort to put the best possible spin on it, so that the offending texts are harmonized.

 

We have other scripture that tells us the dead can not repent. You have a Scripture that says Jesus proclaimed openly some information to spirits in prison. A judge can both explain to an adjudicated person they have a second chance or he can explain they have lost the case and justice must be served. You are simply assuming a choice where none is stated or inferred.

 

Al the people you mention including Christ all proclaimed judgement as well as the good news of salvation. They gave bad news and good news. An example follows ...

 

Act 5:9

Then Peter said to her, "Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well."

 

Invalid example.

Annanias and Saphira were judged, but before that they were given the chance and the choice to tell the truth, by Peter. They both made the conscious, informed and free choice to lie, thus sealing their doom. When were the Phulakean spirits informed or given their chance and their choice to do the same? During their mortal lives in the time of Noah, as described in Genesis 4,5 or 6? No!

 

At no point does it say that God interacted in any way to give any of these soon-to-be-drowned people the knowledge of their fate, nor a chance or choice to avoid it. God's expression of regret and his plan to destroy the world are never described as being open knowledge. Just as He and Satan kept Job out of the loop about what was planned for thatb poor man and his family, so God keeps his feelings and his plans secret from everyone except Noah.

 

The principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance_of_the_law assumes that it is possible to know and keep a given law. Applying that to the Phulakeans is impossible, because they were deliberately kept in total ignorance of either God's displeasure or His impending plan to wipe them all out. They were neither informed (as Annanias and Saphira were), nor were they given the chance to make a choice to avoid their punishment.

 

God secretly reached a judgement concerning them and then obliterated them without warning.

 

I have already established that the Phulakean spirits are not in the same state of soul-sleep as the Hadean spirits. They are being actively imprisoned. They are not in passive storage. The inference is clear and obvious. Only active and aware prisoners have the hope of escaping their prison. Inactive, sleeping spirits require no imprisonment.

 

There is no inference that they are faced with a choice. I agree they are active and aware, but that in no way means they were given a choice. It does not follow.

 

Au contraire.

It does follow, OC. They were given the choice they were denied when lived.

If those people who died by God's hand were uninformed and given no chance and no choice to repent during their mortal lives, when else but during their post-death confinement could they be given these things?

 

Therefore, it does make sense to infer that Jesus is doing the right and just thing and preaching salvation to the dead Phulakean spirits. They are not being given preferential treatment - they are being given equal treatment, on a par with Annanias and Saphira.

 

Jesus preaching salvation to the dead is both fair and just. Not having him do that is unjust.

 

BAA.

[OrdinaryClay]

It's also illogical to conclude that traditions and mere claims make something true.

You have no problem relying on Paul, who was instructed by a shining light that claimed to be Jesus.

(It could just as easily have been Satan that Paul encountered, who Paul admits poses as a light being.)

The Bible tells us how to discern spirits of truth.

 

1Jn 4:1-3

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

 

Paul then contradicts the Old Testament by trying to undermine the law and replaces it with a new system revolving around faith in an illegal human sacrifice.

Paul was rank heretic but you have no problem with his blasphemy.

You provided no scripture to back up the rest of your claims so I did not see much point in responding.

Paul was expounding on the doctrines as taught through out scripture including the Old Testament.

 

Act 17:2

And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

[OrdinaryClay]

Not so fast.

You were asked to provide the scriptural proof text from the Old Testament that confirms Satan was an enemy of God, fell from heaven because he rebelled, and has demons as servants.

You provided nothing except a combination of special pleading and circular logic for your doctrine, claiming that because the New Testament says so, it must be true.

The Old Testament books were written over centuries themselves. They build on each other and added teaching as time went on. This has been normal for God's revelation and is unsurprising.

 

I made my case for the satan in the Old Testament here. I explained that the satan of the Old Testament is not some good guy, but is indeed an evil being. He is expounded on further in the New Testament.

http://www.ex-christ...340#entry745204

 

Here's the rest that you ignored, complete with New Testament references, which I previously assumed you were already aware of, being well versed in scripture.

You’re special pleading by saying the New Testament is exempt from being classified as teaching contrary to scripture. It undermines the Old Testament in numerous areas.

It changes the rules for salvation. (Numerous examples of this including Mark 16:16.)

Mar 16:16

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

Salvation through grace as taught by Christ, which fits with the God of the Old Testament given Psalms 34:18, Psalms 51:17, Isaiah 57:15, Isaiah 66:2 and Hosea 6:6.

 

It changes the requirements for a king messiah. (The genealogies in Matt 1 and Luke 3 do not qualify Jesus to sit on the thrione of David, and the virgin birth eliminates his ability to qualify.)

This is not true. Jeremiah 23:5 Christ was foretold extensively in the Old Testament.

 

It changes the priesthood, inventing a new one for Jesus. (Heb 4,7)

No invention needed, The Messiah was the culmination of the priesthood. Matthew 27:50-51

 

It undermines God’s law, claiming that a messianic impostor took it out of the way. (Numerous including, Rom 10:4 Col 2:14)

The Old Testament foretold the Messiah, and Christ preached salvation through grace so no law was undermined. Christ was the fulfillment of the law and prophets. Zechariah 3:8-9

 

It redefines the new covenant, claiming that faith in a human sacrifice replaces the law. (Heb 8)

It promotes an illegal sin sacrifice as providing atonement. (Many examples including, John 1:29, Heb 10)

As Psalms 34:18, Psalms 51:17, Isaiah 57:15, Isaiah 66:2 and Hosea 6:6 show God's desire is for faith more than sacrifice. Christ was the end of sacrifice. He was the culmination as promised in the Old Testament.

 

It makes unsupported claims about Satan, redefining one of God’s created beings, turning it into an enemy of God. (Luke 10:18, Rev 2:13, Rev 12:19, Rev 20:2)

The Old Testament shows satan to be an adversary and accuser. This is an enemy.

 

Abandoning the word and creating new doctrines is what the Hebrew deity told his people not to do.

God also told His people they would be delivered by a Messiah. Isaiah 9:6

[OrdinaryClay]

If it requires the person to take an affirmative action, which it does, then its a work.

You can't claim an act isn't an act simply because it's simple to do.

You are mistaken. You are equivocating on the word work. The Old Testament did not use the term law or work as purely a mental "Action".

[agnosticator]

I have looked at other opinions on the subject. The physiological aspects are well understood, agreed, but the shared visions and complex sequences of experience are not at all explained by any researcher. For science that part is unexplained.

 

Ditto for religionists. It would be wishful thinking to assume otherwise.

[centauri]

Isa 45:7

The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.

 

Isa 45:7 refers to physical disasters. This is not the evil resulting from free. True evil is from the hearts of free willed beings. God created the universe with the laws of nature. Physical disasters happen.

Isa 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

The word "ra" includes ethical evil, not simply physical disasters.

 

I agree the Hebrew word is used for both forms of evil, but the context of the verse is referring to God's majesty with regard to physical creation. This is not a verse addressing ethical issues and sin. There are plenty of verses dealing with sin. This is not one of them

The context is addressing all of creation.

God's works are perfect (Deut 32:4) and creation comes from no other source.

The context is that God created all things, including evil.

You have yet to establish that evil created itself and left God out of the loop.

 

 

The Bible contradicts "free will" in both the Old and New Testaments.

God predestines and manipulates at least some humans.

There is also no free will when punishment is delivered for failure to behave in a certain way.

At best this God gives conditional choice.

Truly free will doesn’t involve ultimatums.

 

The Bible does not contradict free will in either the Old or New Testament.

That's an outright lie told by Christians and it's been refuted dozens of times in this forum over the years.

Free will does not exist when an ultimatum is used to coerce behavior.

The word "free" means without charge.

Both the Old and New Testaments require a particular choice to be made in order to avoid punishment.

Furthermore, God manipulates the behavior of various humans as evidenced in Exodus and Deut.

The New Testament declares that at least some people are predestined according to the will of God.

Predestination makes a shambles of "free will".

 

God possess foreknowledge but knowing something will happen is not the same as making something happen, clearly they are distinct.

God not only knows what will happen, he determines it, sets it in place, and makes it happen.

It's his idea and his plan.

At least some people are subjected to this.

 

Eph 1:4-5,11

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

 

Influencing someone is not the same as forcing them to do something - entrapment is a legal excuse, not a real one. Free will is free. You have the choice.

Under the definition you've provided, when a robber holds a gun to your head demanding your money, they're not forcing you to give them your money, and so they've given you free will.

 

Free will isn't free if the choice is accompanied by an ultimatum and threat.

Free means without charge.

The direct manipulation of humans is also practiced when God takes actions to ensure that a particular decision is made.

Such was the case with Pharaoh and the king of Heshbon.

 

The fact that there are consequences to those choices does not mean you have no choice.

Choices made under threat and ultimatum are not free choices, it's coercion.

Coercion is manipulation.

[centauri]

This is not proclaimed by Peter to be a prophecy. This is not proclaimed by Peter as a word of God. In context He is simply warning his brothers and sisters that Christ may come at any time. No one knows the time and place as Christ said so Peter can not be prophesying as to when.

 

Mat 24:36

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Peter predicted that the end of all things was near.

Is prophecy a form of prediction?

It’s supposed to be the word of God by virtue that it’s in the Bible, or so Christians have told me.

So are you saying that it wasn’t authorized by God for Peter to predict this?

You’re also trying to rewrite scripture.

The text does not say:

The end of all things could come at any time.

 

It says the end of all things was at hand.

 

1 Peter 4:7

But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

 

"At hand" means near or soon.

 

You omitted the key verse where Jesus tells his audience that it would happen during their lifetimes.

 

Matt 24:34

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

 

Is all prediction prophecy? Peter could not have been predicting prophetically the end of days because Christ told us no one knows the day or time.

Jesus did stipulate that while the exact day or time was not known, it would happen within the lifetimes of his associates.

 

Matt 16:27-28

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

Peter was one of those being addressed here, so he did know that the end would be happening within the next few decades.

Peter's claim that the end of all things was at hand wasn't true.

It's ~2,000 years later and still no Jesus or the end of all things.

It's a failed prediction/prophecy.

 

Peter was telling them to be sober and watch. He is telling them to pay attention and be mindful because things could happen at any time.

And it was going to happen before all of the immediate disciples of Jesus were dead.

 

It is inspired of God if it's in the Bible. Prophecy, as in foretelling the details of the future, is a subset of what is contained in the Bible.

Then God inspires failures.

Rev 1:1-3

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

This uses the same sense of urgency that Peter applied in his prediction.

Neither prediction came true.

 

I'm not rewriting scripture. I taking it in context.

 

As the Greek and context combined show Mat 24:34 was referring to the Jewish people as a race

 

Context shows that Jesus was addressing his disciples privately, not the nation.

They asked Jesus for a sign, which he gives in verse 30.

Then Jesus says:

 

Matt 24:33

So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

 

Jesus did not say "they", he said "you", a direct reference to his immediate audience.

They were part of the generation that would have to face the end.

 

Matt 24:34

Verily I say unto you, This generation (their generation) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

[centauri]

It's also illogical to conclude that traditions and mere claims make something true.

You have no problem relying on Paul, who was instructed by a shining light that claimed to be Jesus.

(It could just as easily have been Satan that Paul encountered, who Paul admits poses as a light being.)

The Bible tells us how to discern spirits of truth.

 

1Jn 4:1-3

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

 

The Old Testament doesn't support this.

Truth is to be based on the word and the law, not confessing that a man is from God and has the title of "Christ".

Jesus was never anointed king and the title of "Christ" in this case has little meaning.

 

centauri

Paul then contradicts the Old Testament by trying to undermine the law and replaces it with a new system revolving around faith in an illegal human sacrifice.

Paul was rank heretic but you have no problem with his blasphemy.

 

OC

You provided no scripture to back up the rest of your claims so I did not see much point in responding.

 

Paul was expounding on the doctrines as taught through out scripture including the Old Testament.

 

Act 17:2

And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

It was Paul that declared Jesus was the end of the law in Rom 10:4 and Col 2:14.

Where does the Old Testament confirm that a king messiah would do this?

[par4dcourse]

Damn my scroll finger is tired getting past all that drivel. An d my middle one too.

[Astreja]

Jesus is God. The Creator is Holy. His works glorified the Creator.

 

I don't believe you.

• If Jesus was your one-and-only big-G god, then when he died at Golgotha he would've stayed dead. If he came back to life on his own, he did not die in any meaningful sense. I think that Jesus is either 100% mythical or a mythologized non-supernatural teacher who is now quite thoroughly dead.
  
• The word "Holy" is fucking meaningless when applied to a hissy-fit deity that drowns planets, demands blood sacrifices and creates places of eternal torture.
  
• And the "works" of this Jesus character involved dissing his own mother, insulting a Canaanite woman, telling his disciples to steal someone's colt, killing a fig tree and destroying a village's herd of 2,000 pigs. This is obviously some strange new definition of the word "glorify" that I wasn't previously aware of.
  

And don't bother quoting Bible verses at Me, as I find them somewhat less convincing than Gulliver's Travels or Moby Dick.

White Robe per the Wayreth convention, freelance seiðkona, and Gygaxian alignment Chaotic Frilly. )

I'm not familiar with these.

 

Good. That essentially renders you defenseless against Me.

[centauri]

Not so fast.

You were asked to provide the scriptural proof text from the Old Testament that confirms Satan was an enemy of God, fell from heaven because he rebelled, and has demons as servants.

You provided nothing except a combination of special pleading and circular logic for your doctrine, claiming that because the New Testament says so, it must be true.

The Old Testament books were written over centuries themselves. They build on each other and added teaching as time went on. This has been normal for God's revelation and is unsurprising.

And they do not give a single instance where Satan disobeys God.

Nor does it say Satan rebelled or is the Devil.

 

 

I made my case for the satan in the Old Testament here. I explained that the satan of the Old Testament is not some good guy, but is indeed an evil being. He is expounded on further in the New Testament.

http://www.ex-christ...340#entry745204

Those verses from Zech and Job say absolutely nothing about Satan being an enemy of God.

Satan is one of God's many sons, who serves as man's accuser in God's court.

Satan tests people and points out their flaws.

It was God that recommended Job as a candidate for torture and Satan followed the conditions for testing Job set down by God.

The New Testament redefined Satan into an evil Devil, in keeping with the pagan dualism that influenced Christian theology.

[Ouroboros]

Words, words, words. Christians can't provide any other "evidence" that their never-ending flood of words.

[OrdinaryClay]

The context is addressing all of creation.

God's works are perfect (Deut 32:4) and creation comes from no other source.

Th context is that God created all things, including evil.

You have yet to establish that evil created itself and left God out of the loop.

Evil is not created so "all of creation" does not apply to evil. Evil is not a thing. Evil is the lack of willingness to do God's will. Cold is not created either. Cold is a lack of heat.

 

That's an outright lie told by Christians and it's been refuted dozens of times in this forum over the years.

Free will does not exist when an ultimatum is used to coerce behavior.

The word "free" means without charge.

Both the Old and New Testaments require a particular choice to be made in order to avoid punishment.

Furthermore, God manipulates the behavior of various humans as evidenced in Exodus and Deut.

The New Testament declares that at least some people are predestined according to the will of God.

Predestination makes a shambles of "free will".

Free means "Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes." You are claiming to have positively refuted free will on this site. Free will has not been refuted here or anywhere else in science. Please cite a scientific paper demonstrating the refutation of free will.

 

God not only knows what will happen, he determines it, sets it in place, and makes it happen.

It's his idea and his plan.

At least some prople are subjected to this.

 

Eph 1:4-5,11

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

God chose a specific instance of an actualized world based on His knowledge of all possible counter-factuals. He knew what you would do under every possible circumstances. In this sense we are predestined. This does not mean the result is not a choice of our own. We still make the choice. God foreknew and actualized a world for us to choose.

 

See here for my explanation.

 

It would be silly to conclude we have no free will based on a single passage given the enormous number of verses in the Bible describing how we have a choice, as you demonstrated when you were trying your works argument. You are contradicting yourself.

 

Under the definition you've provided, when a robber holds a gun to your head demanding your money, they're not forcing you to give them your money, and so they've given you free will.

 

Free will isn't free if the choice is accompanied by an ultimatum and threat.

Free means without charge.

The direct manipulation of humans is also practiced when God takes actions to ensure that a particular decision is made.

Such was the case with Pharaoh and the king of Heshbon.

 

Not free will actions as it is logically impossible for a free willed agent to be made to do something. It is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as a square circle.

Every year people die not giving into armed robbery so obviously they have free will. There are countless people who believe in God and don't accept Him and reject His "coercion" as you put it.Pharaoh is an example.

 

Choices made under threat and ultimatum are not free choices, it's coercion.

Coercion is manipulation.

People who pretend under coercion are not saved. I already demonstrated He knows our heart. He knows when people are faking, and they are not saved as we already establish via James 2.

[mymistake]

Good. That essentially renders you defenseless against Me.

 

He hasn't been able to defend his ideas from anybody.

[Ouroboros]

Evil is not created so "all of creation" does not apply to evil. Evil is not a thing. Evil is the lack of willingness to do God's will. Cold is not created either. Cold is a lack of heat.

So cold wasn't created. Evil wasn't created. But heat and good was? Or is heat and good non-created as well?

 

If heat was created to make heat. Then it means that everything was cold before the heat was created. If that's true, that means cold is eternal, but heat is only made. If the same applies to good and evil, then evil is eternal, and good is temporal. How odd is that?

 

Or... if heat was eternal, then cold must've been eternal as well (since neither was created, and heat is just a relative term to cold), and cold is still eternal (together with heat). And if the same applies to good and evil, that again suggests that evil was eternal...

 

Either way, Satan and evil are then on the same level of eternal existence as God.

 

Christianity is so creepy because it keeps on twisting things up.

[agnosticator]

Words, words, words. Christians can't provide any other "evidence" that their never-ending flood of words.

 

Yeah, that's it! Too bad the Word isn't just one word. If God was Love, then love would be all we need. Love is all you need! That would be the end of the story.

 

But instead, we get words, words, words....contradictory, vague, manipulative, and on and on. A Babel of confusion.

[Astreja]

I already demonstrated He knows our heart. He knows when people are faking, and they are not saved as we already establish via James 2.

 

Then your hypothetical god already knows exactly why I have refused "salvation" and supposedly will condemn Me to eternal torment for not consenting to let an innocent man die in My place, and for not worshipping a torturer-god.

[centauri]

Here's the rest that you ignored, complete with New Testament references, which I previously assumed you were already aware of, being well versed in scripture.

You’re special pleading by saying the New Testament is exempt from being classified as teaching contrary to scripture. It undermines the Old Testament in numerous areas.

It changes the rules for salvation. (Numerous examples of this including Mark 16:16.)

Mar 16:16

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

Salvation through grace as taught by Christ, which fits with the God of the Old Testament given Psalms 34:18, Psalms 51:17, Isaiah 57:15, Isaiah 66:2 and Hosea 6:6.

 

Salvation in the Old Testament has nothing to do with believing in Jesus as a requirement for salvation.

 

It changes the requirements for a king messiah. (The genealogies in Matt 1 and Luke 3 do not qualify Jesus to sit on the thrione of David, and the virgin birth eliminates his ability to qualify.)

 

This is not true. Jeremiah 23:5 Christ was foretold extensively in the Old Testament.

Jer 23:5 tells of an expected king.

Jesus has no paternal biological link to David, which is required.

Jesus also never sat on the thone and never reigned as king.

 

Jer 23:5

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

 

Jesus never fulfilled this.

 

It changes the priesthood, inventing a new one for Jesus. (Heb 4,7)

 

No invention needed, The Messiah was the culmination of the priesthood. Matthew 27:50-51

Not even remotely true.

The priesthood and office of high priest was promised exclusively to Aaron and his descendents (Exo 40:15, Num 25:13).

The Levites were promised the office of high priest and Jesus wasn't a Levite.

Jesus had no tribal affilation, being born of a virgin with no biological father.

 

It undermines God’s law, claiming that a messianic impostor took it out of the way. (Numerous including, Rom 10:4 Col 2:14)

 

The Old Testament foretold the Messiah, and Christ preached salvation through grace so no law was undermined. Christ was the fulfillment of the law and prophets. Zechariah 3:8-9

Jesus was not "the Messiah".

He wasn't qualified according to the stipulations laid down by God in the Old Testament.

Jesus never sat on the throne.

Jesus never ushered in the messianic era.

Jesus never brought the people into complete compliance with the law.

Jesus undermined the dietary law of God in Mark 7.

 

It redefines the new covenant, claiming that faith in a human sacrifice replaces the law. (Heb 8)

It promotes an illegal sin sacrifice as providing atonement. (Many examples including, John 1:29, Heb 10)

 

As Psalms 34:18, Psalms 51:17, Isaiah 57:15, Isaiah 66:2 and Hosea 6:6 show God's desire is for faith more than sacrifice. Christ was the end of sacrifice. He was the culmination as promised in the Old Testament.

Jesus was under the law of God when he died and the New Testament claims he was a blood/animal sacrifice.

A human is an illegal sacrifice for sin according to that law.

Sacrifice will not end in the messianic era. (Jer 33:18)

 

It makes unsupported claims about Satan, redefining one of God’s created beings, turning it into an enemy of God. (Luke 10:18, Rev 2:13, Rev 12:19, Rev 20:2)

 

The Old Testament shows satan to be an adversary and accuser. This is an enemy.

An adversary and accuser of humans, not God.

Satan is God's servant in the Old Testament.

 

Abandoning the word and creating new doctrines is what the Hebrew deity told his people not to do.

 

God also told His people they would be delivered by a Messiah. Isaiah 9:6

Jesus wasn't a king messiah and didn't fulfill the job functions.

He never ushered in the messianic era, never led people into great compliance with the law, and never sat on the throne of David.

[Ouroboros]

A Babel of confusion.

Very true. Christianity is the Tower of Babel. It represents humans' attempt to reach God, but fails, and only confusion and incessant stream of words come out of it.

[centauri]

deleted

[OrdinaryClay]

Evil is not created so "all of creation" does not apply to evil. Evil is not a thing. Evil is the lack of willingness to do God's will. Cold is not created either. Cold is a lack of heat.

So cold wasn't created. Evil wasn't created. But heat and good was? Or is heat and good non-created as well?

 

If heat was created to make heat. Then it means that everything was cold before the heat was created. If that's true, that means cold is eternal, but heat is only made. If the same applies to good and evil, then evil is eternal, and good is temporal. How odd is that?

 

Or... if heat was eternal, then cold must've been eternal as well (since neither was created, and heat is just a relative term to cold), and cold is still eternal (together with heat). And if the same applies to good and evil, that again suggests that evil was eternal...

 

Either way, Satan and evil are then on the same level of eternal existence as God.

 

Christianity is so creepy because it keeps on twisting things up.

 

 

Matter is required for the notion of cold or heat to be expressed. Matter is created. So "before everything" is a meaningless concept from the standpoint of heat. In the same sense volition is required for either good or evil. Before creation there were no created beings who could express a lack of good and hence be evil.

[OrdinaryClay]

Then your hypothetical god already knows exactly why I have refused "salvation" and supposedly will condemn Me to eternal torment for not consenting to let an innocent man die in My place, and for not worshipping a torturer-god.

If I may ask, what does your path offer after death?

[centauri]

The context is addressing all of creation.

God's works are perfect (Deut 32:4) and creation comes from no other source.

Th context is that God created all things, including evil.

You have yet to establish that evil created itself and left God out of the loop.

Evil is not created so "all of creation" does not apply to evil. Evil is not a thing. Evil is the lack of willingness to do God's will. Cold is not created either. Cold is a lack of heat.

Evil is created.

God told you so in Isa 45:7, but you don't want to believe him.

 

Isa 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things

 

That's an outright lie told by Christians and it's been refuted dozens of times in this forum over the years.

Free will does not exist when an ultimatum is used to coerce behavior.

The word "free" means without charge.

Both the Old and New Testaments require a particular choice to be made in order to avoid punishment.

Furthermore, God manipulates the behavior of various humans as evidenced in Exodus and Deut.

The New Testament declares that at least some people are predestined according to the will of God.

Predestination makes a shambles of "free will".

 

OC

Free means "Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes."

Free means without charge or coercion.

Ultimatums are not free will choices.

That's the issue here.

The Christian God in particular gives conditional choice, using threats to coerce behavior.

 

You are claiming to have positively refuted free will on this site. Free will has not been refuted here or anywhere else in science.

Your Bible refutes it by declaring that at least some people are predestined to make certain choices and by God manipulating the decision making process.