|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Belief Statement - jar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Blood of Christ is compared to the blood of the lamb from the OT. The blood of the lamb was a mark at passover that protected the Jews. The Blood of Christ and His death on the cross is what made it possible for us to be passed over and forgiven of our sins. This is correct, but the lamb had to die and its blood is what saves. This is what a sacrifice is, you know. The door frame on which the blood was smeared is considered a type of the altar too, which God instructed the Israelites to construct later. And this is only one of the types of Christ. All the sacrifices of all the animals in the sacrificial system given by God to Israel, as the Letter to the Hebrews says, are fulfilled in Christ.
Faith writes: Funny I hadn't realized how mealymouthed Lewis can be. Must have something to do with the liberal (it means Bible-compromising basically) trends in the Anglican/Episcopal church. Well. Lewis was only an English tutor at Oxford. Actually he is anything but mealymouthed. It just happens that he doesn't agree with some of your positions. Well, what else could the blood be that has to be shed to save us if not a payment, a sacrifice in our place? I can't think of how we are saved by his death otherwise. To avoid noticing that seems to take a euphemistic fastidiousness to my mind. {Edit: He offers himself, his own blood, in the Holy of Holies as High Priest, as the high priest of the Israelites offered the blood of animals for the sins of the people. I quoted this. The parallels are awfully evident I would think. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : edit noted
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
... what else could the blood be that has to be shed to save us if not a payment, a sacrifice in our place?
It's a symbol, refering back to the blood of the Old Testament lambs. The lambs' blood signified who was protected and who was not - it had no saving power in itself. Christ's death is not the symbol, the lamb's blood was the symbol, otherwise known as a type, the symbol or type of Christ's very real sacrifice of his own blood in our place, just as the OT animal sacrifices of all kinds were foreshadowings of His death in our place. God being God, He created symbols of His great plan of salvation centuries before its fulfillment in Christ, painted prophecies in the very history He created with His chosen people, besides the direct prophecies to His prophets.
It's simply ludicrous to suggest that God had to shed His own blood to pay Himself to forgive us. Jesus is God AND Man. God has no blood to shed. Jesus died as perfect Man in our place, the unblemished or spotless lamb the law of sacrifice of the spotless lamb foreshadowed.
I can't think of how we are saved by his death otherwise.
Nobody is saved by Jesus' death. We benefit from His life, but we are saved by God's grace. Not according to the scripture verses I quoted in Message 214. Says there that he died for us, to pay for our sins. Says so in so many words. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. What all Christians are agreed on is that it does work.
Actually I don't think we're that far apart so maybe we can agree with the quoted statement and agree to disagree on the theory although I'll be the first to admit that you're view is more clearly defined. OK, but what other theories can there possibly be, if it is agreed that Jesus had to die to put us right with God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Christ's death is not the symbol, the lamb's blood was the symbol....
I didn't say Christ's death was a symbol - I said His blood was a symbol. Exactly what I said applies to His blood. The blood of the animal sacrifices was the symbol of the Real Thing, which is the blood shed by Christ for our sins.
That's the only significance it has - a sign of God's protection. Blood has no "saving" power. See Message 214, particularly Hebrews 9:22: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Jesus' death did nothing but give us a sign? I call that outlandish extravagant waste to allow Him to die just for a sign if, as you claim, his value to us is in His life alone. Does not compute.
... the OT animal sacrifices of all kinds were foreshadowings of His death in our place.
The Old Testament animal sacrifices were a food source for the priests. Yes they were that too. All that ritual just to feed the priests? You do have a knack for imagining the most extravagant waste. The priestly rituals are incredibly elaborate and the center of their work is the sacrifices for the sins of the people. You sure do have to sacrifice a lot (pun intended) to arrive at your weak scenarios.
Jesus died as perfect Man in our place....
Jesus died because He was a man. All men die, regardless of His death. Not what scripture says. But I understand that you feel free to make up your own scripture as so many do, since the Bible is the only thing that could possibly contradict you, and once you've disposed of that, as you also feel free to do, might as well invent your own religion, right?
Says there that he died for us, to pay for our sins. Says so in so many words.
He died because He lived - His sacrifice was His life, not His death. The "remission" of our sins was a fait accompli, which He came to tell us, and He could only tell us effectively in the form of a man. Don't suppose you could quote chapter and verse on that, could you?How utterly silly. An AMAZING knack you have for reducing the sublime to the ridiculous.
It's simply ludicrous to suggest that God's Son had to shed His blood to pay His Father to forgive us. So you don't mind contradicting all those apostles and Jesus Himself, whom I quoted in Message 214? Paul and John and Peter and the author of Hebrews and Jesus Himself? Well, some day maybe you'll have the opportunity to make your case in their hearing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have no desire to argue out the obvious with you elsewhere. Your understanding of the crucifixion is highly subjective and idiosyncratic, just your personal feeling that the traditional meaning is "utterly nonsensical" and requires adjustment to your own personal taste as to what would make a "better interpretation." So, you refuse to submit to the scriptures or the historic understanding of them, but impose your own will on them. The scriptures I quoted don't require any fancy interpretation to understand.
But we've both had our say here. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't propose a "fancy" interpretation. I propose a simple one: blood symbolizes life. Jesus gave His life to tell us that God forgives our debt. He gave up His life because all men do. That's not what the scriptures say. He could have TOLD us without dying. Silly idea. He could have spent a long fruitful life preaching the forgiveness of sins if he didn't have to die to pay for them.
Simple. Aargh, jar is now cloning himself? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
He died because He was a man. Sez who? Certainly not scripture. A sinless man is immortal. Not even considering the fact that he is also God, just as a sinless Man he was immortal. Scripture makes it plain that he was sinless and did not have to die at all because he was sinless, but CHOSE to die for our sake.
quote: Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
A charming religion no doubt, but not Christianity. Not a shred of authority for anything you said, and scripture is completely at odds with all of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
"Laying down" means "devoting"? Normally it means "dying." Reinventing the English language is the only way liberal Christianity can make its case. They'll sacrifice anything to crucify the truth. Interestingly similar, perhaps, to the problem of how "logic" gets redefined, according to the politically correct position of the moment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: A sinless man is immortal. Ringo writes: Jesus was not immortal. He died. As I quoted from scripture, he died because he chose to die. No mortal man can choose death. He died with the sins of all those who believe on Him placed on Him as if they were His own. That's the only way He, sinless in Himself, could have died.
Scripture makes it plain that he was sinless and did not have to die at all because he was sinless, but CHOSE to die for our sake.
He chose to become mortal for our sake. He chose neither the time nor the means of His death. God the Father chose the time and means, but Jesus the God/Man chose to die. Wonderful how you know stuff about Jesus that is the negation of what scripture says about Him. Some sort of reverse prophetic gift there?
John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Laying down one's life means devoting one's life, or even risking one's life, not losing it. The latest version of Newspeak perhaps? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: No mortal man can choose death. No mortal man needs to "choose" death. It's a given. This is false, but all we are doing is repeating ourselves. I will repeat myself one more time then if nothing new comes up you can go on all you like. As I've said over and over, death is impossible for a sinless man, which is shown in multiple ways in scripture. Death is the wages of sin, says scripture. No sin, no death. Jesus was without sin, says scripture. He says in scripture that he chose death, that no man had that power over him otherwise. You have answered these scriptural truths with nothing but your own wild assertions.
God chose life, in the form of Jesus. Death was the inescapable conclusion. Not for the sinless perfect Man and Son of God.
Wonderful how you know stuff about Jesus that is the negation of what scripture says about Him.
As I said, nonsensical conclusions (such as yours) are not what scripture "says". If you're so confident of what scripture says, why do you run away from discussions of scripture? Odd thing to say when I'm the only one here who has quoted scripture -- quite a bit of it Message 214. You have been doing nothing but a subjective completely unscriptural spiel.
Laying down one's life means devoting one's life, or even risking one's life, not losing it.
The latest version of Newspeak perhaps? Soldiers lay down their lives when they knowingly (and more-or-less voluntarily) put themselves in harm's way. The sacrifice is in what they do, not in their death. Death is an unfortunate byproduct. That is false. It is not how the term is used. It is used of someone who gave his life as a soldier, that is, died, not just put himself in harm's way.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - Attributed to General George S. Patton Jr. That hardly illuminates the problem of your misuse of the language of laying down one's life.
Death is an inevitable - and usually unplanned - part of life. It is not an accomplishment. That is true for sinful mortals such as you and me. It is interesting that you have ignored all the scripture I have quoted to demonstrate that it is not true for Jesus.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024