Christ gave his life as a ransom

Jesusfann777888

Active Member
Mar 28, 2021
284
51
34
manhattan
✟18,921.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And trust him! And pray!
I Trust Jesus, I'm just not so sure I trust whoever this is that might be pretending to be Jesus that has me on a.magic carpet Ride that's destination is hell. Jesus is God, and God is Good. maybe I'm just really a bad person, seriously and that's why God Hate's me and if that's the case then I deserve what's happening. bad people don't generally think their bad. I Have to read The Bible as Much as Possible on Vacation! Thanks
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I Trust Jesus, I'm just not so sure I trust whoever this is that might be pretending to be Jesus that has me on a.magic carpet Ride that's destination is hell. Jesus is God, and God is Good. maybe I'm just really a bad person, seriously and that's why God Hate's me and if that's the case then I deserve what's happening. bad people don't generally think their bad. I Have to read The Bible as Much as Possible on Vacation! Thanks
Is there a Pastor you can talk to?

You could use someone "along side."
 
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,164
2,606
✟877,432.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
My problem is The Bible states satan has blinded the mind of men, but when you understand how The Scripture and the context don't seem honest.

How he does it, makes me question how a human blinded by the devil can be at fault. If it's their choice, that's one thing, bit there are other things that are problatic, yet I know not what God know's so I'm going to shut my mouth and go fishing.

The Bible isn't a toolbox. :D Some things are not mentioned or explained in detail, maybe because we don't need to know?
 
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,164
2,606
✟877,432.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
God's judgment (punishment) is required by God's justice.
They are saved after they have been delivered from his justice on their sin (condemnation--Romans 5:18), through their faith and trust in the atoning work of Christ.

I don't disagree with you, but the Bible also says God is just when He forgives sins.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous/just - dikaios to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
— 1 John 1:9
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't disagree with you, but the Bible also says God is just when He forgives sins.
Because their penalty has been paid, and he can forgive them without sacrificing justice. . .his justice is maintained and applied equally to all.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous/just - dikaios to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
— 1 John 1:9
 
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,164
2,606
✟877,432.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Because their penalty has been paid, and he can forgive them without sacrificing justice. . .his justice is maintained and applied equally to all.

Isn't it like that for everyone that comes to saving faith? We are forgiven, and God is just doing so?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Isn't it like that for everyone that comes to saving faith? We are forgiven, and God is just doing so?
When it comes to our forgiveness, Scripture focuses on his mercy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,164
2,606
✟877,432.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Scripture focuses on his mercy in our forgiveness.

That is true!

I have to think about this before I write more...

But when Simon Peter saw that, he fell down at Jesus’ feet, saying, “Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man!” For amazement had seized him and all his companions because of the catch of fish which they had taken; and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not fear, from now on you will be catching men.” When they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed Him.
— Luke 5:8-11

You may ask what this Bible passage has to do with anything. We all need mercy and forgiveness! Here the reaction of Peter is spot on.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Payer is God - the unblemished of firstborn of the flock is the property of God.

The payment is to redeem the firstborn of his people from the bondage to the pharaoh. The word ransom is english and modern. The greek λύτρον is plainly has to do with slavery.

Exodus 13:13-14 shows the ransom with respect firstlings



>Be more specific. I suspect you once again misunderstand "ransom"

>Be more specific. I recollect no call for discipline of the Israelites in that Abrahamic epoch.
The person is to give to God the first and best of the flock, since if it is God giving it up, the person is not making a sacrifice. As Abraham could not take a gift and make it a sacrifice without costing him something the sacrifice has to be a sacrifice for the person.
Do you feel the brothers of Joseph felt no pain down through the years for selling Joseph into slavery?

A parent if at all possible, will see to the disciplining of their children, but if someone doe not accept fair/just disciplining they will eventually be punished (and not disciplined).

After Joseph died did the Israelites continue to be strong faithful followers of God or did they turn away needing sever disciplining to bring them back?

The word in the Greek scholars translate to come up with the English word ransom, has to do with setting someone captive free. When Jesus talks about being a ransom for many, it is not like purchasing a slave or the slave buying their freedom, but making an unbelievable huge sacrificial payment like is needed to pay off a kidnapper.




The point is Jesus is the Lamb. He is the only begotten Son of God. He is the Male Lamb. OT rules specifies the meaning of his sacrifice. Talking about other animals is impertinent.
A lot of times we take the reality that happened and try to make it fit the shadow, when they are just the shadow of the reality. We should not be trying to make Jesus fit the “Lambs” of the Old Testament rules, but see how these lambs were just a poor representative (shadow) of what Christ did.

The doves, bags of flour, bulls and goats all are shadow sacrifices of the reality in Christ’s sacrifice, which we can learn from, but they have their limits, just as the lamb sacrifice has its limits.

We can certainly take the sin offering lamb or goat in lev. 5 as a shadow example of Christ’s being sacrificed.

The writer tells us the relationship the sinner had with the sacrifice: Lev. 5:6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering.

It is as a penalty or punishment, which since this is a child of God it might best be described as discipline.

Support for this understanding comes from Lev. 5 also: The penalty (hardship/punishment/discipline) is made equal for the sinner by increasing in proportion to the wealth of the sinner. From a bag of flour to a Lamb, depending on the wealth of the sinner. God would not see a wealthy person having more value and the sins are exactly the same.

If we were talking about the lamb or bag of flour being a ransom or substitute for a sinner, then the ransom should be equal, for equal sin and humans being equal.



Once again you misunderstand ransom as the modern meaning. There is no kidnapper per se. The slave owner is sin, the bondage is death. Jesus is the Messiah (Liberator). Liberation from the Sin, who's wages is death. The price of liberation from Sin is death - the ransom. Jesus died (paid the price) as ransom for our freedom from sin.
The New Testament Letters are written to first century readers not always Jews familiar with the OT , especially Christians. We need to know how they best would understand these words, since that is who the author is addressing, we are reading other people’s mail. Ransoming people was heavily done in the first century, because there were no banks holding cash. People would have been familiar with Julius Caesar’s kidnapping and his ransom.

Yes, paying to free a slave was a ransom payment, but that payment was reasonable, not a huge hardship on the person paying, and often the freed slave could pay the ransom payment back.

Sin is an intangible, if you pay it something it does nothing (it cannot change). Sin itself is a description of some act, but it takes a sinner to perform the action. A large list of ways to sin is not the fault for people sinning (Adam and Eve had only one way to sin and sinned). The person is not forced to sin, but sins of their own free will, so we cannot correct/change or do something for the intangible “sin”, but the sinner needs to be helped to change.

Jesus and God are the ones making the huge sacrificial payment the closes similarity would be parents making a huge sacrificial payment for their children, but with Christ he is also the sacrifice itself.

How is Jesus liberating the unbelieving sinner from sin with his death? Does the person quit sinning? Is sin no longer a problem for this converted sinner? Where is this concept presented in scripture? Did Peter talk about this in his wonderful Christ Crucified Sermon (acts 2)?

Do you agree:

We go to the unbelieving sinner trying to get him/her to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and not some message, doctrine, church, book or whatever. If the unbeliever sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, a child is kept out of the Kingdom, but if the sinner accepts, “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, then a child is set free to enter the Kingdom and be with God. Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer describes the huge ransom payment as being “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and that ransom sets a sinner free to enter the Kingdom.

What am I saying wrong?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not that I want to parlay about with "Hath God said?" (Genesis 3:1)
Do you agree:

We go to the unbelieving sinner trying to get him/her to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and not some message, doctrine, church, book or whatever. If the unbeliever sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, a child is kept out of the Kingdom, but if the sinner accepts, “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, then a child is set free to enter the Kingdom and be with God. Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer describes the huge ransom payment as being “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and that ransom sets a sinner free to enter the Kingdom.

What am I saying wrong?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Do you agree:
We go to the unbelieving sinner trying to get him/her to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and not some message, doctrine, church, book or whatever. If the unbeliever sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, a child is kept out of the Kingdom, but if the sinner accepts, “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, then a child is set free to enter the Kingdom and be with God.
Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer describes the huge ransom payment as being “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and that ransom sets a sinner free to enter the Kingdom.
What am I saying wrong?
"HATH GOD SAID?" (Genesis 3:1)

"Jesus Christ and him crucified" is not the gospel.
You are trying to get "acceptance" of a formula.

The gospel is repent and believe the good news.
The good news one is to believe must have content, factual truth regarding Jesus, or there is nothing to believe, no true faith.

We don't "accept" Jesus Christ, we believe and trust in Jesus Christ and his saving work for the remission of our sin and reconciliation with God.

It is true faith which sets a sinner free, and true faith requires content and object.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"HATH GOD SAID?" (Genesis 3:1)

"Jesus Christ and him crucified" is not the gospel.
You are trying to get "acceptance" of a formula.

The gospel is repent and believe the good news.
The good news one is to believe must have content, factual truth regarding Jesus, or there is nothing to believe, no true faith.

We don't "accept" Jesus Christ, we believe and trust in Jesus Christ and his saving work for the remission of our sin and reconciliation with God.

It is true faith which sets a sinner free, and true faith requires content and object.
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Is Jesus Christ and Him Crucified what we should be teaching others, especially the nonbelieving sinner?

Is the content of “true faith”, Jesus Christ and Him Crucified?

The unbelieving sinner is like those invited to the unbelievably wonderful banquet, they must accept and not reject the invitation.

I am against the idea of accepting a formula for salvation, but accepting who Jesus is and what he has done, because of you and to benefit you is needed. The person can “believe” intellectually in Jesus and not direct that faith toward Jesus to become a saving faith and that is why I talk about actually accepting Jesus as their personal savior who died on the cross to benefit of them, which is really good news.

I am still not seeing your problem with what I said:

We go to the unbelieving sinner trying to get him/her to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and not some message, doctrine, church, book or whatever. If the unbeliever sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, a child is kept out of the Kingdom, but if the sinner accepts, “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, then a child is set free to enter the Kingdom and be with God. Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer describes the huge ransom payment as being “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and that ransom sets a sinner free to enter the Kingdom.


What am I saying wrong?

Is the sinner in the parables of the banquet accept or rejecting the invitation?
 
Upvote 0

Chi.C

Active Member
Feb 28, 2021
154
47
Quebec
✟24,747.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The person is to give to God the first and best of the flock, since if it is God giving it up, the person is not making a sacrifice. As Abraham could not take a gift and make it a sacrifice without costing him something the sacrifice has to be a sacrifice for the person.
Do you feel the brothers of Joseph felt no pain down through the years for selling Joseph into slavery?

A parent if at all possible, will see to the disciplining of their children, but if someone doe not accept fair/just disciplining they will eventually be punished (and not disciplined).

After Joseph died did the Israelites continue to be strong faithful followers of God or did they turn away needing sever disciplining to bring them back?

The word in the Greek scholars translate to come up with the English word ransom, has to do with setting someone captive free. When Jesus talks about being a ransom for many, it is not like purchasing a slave or the slave buying their freedom, but making an unbelievable huge sacrificial payment like is needed to pay off a kidnapper.

I avoid opining about the Scriptures. My opinions without basis are useless.

A lot of times we take the reality that happened and try to make it fit the shadow, when they are just the shadow of the reality. We should not be trying to make Jesus fit the “Lambs” of the Old Testament rules, but see how these lambs were just a poor representative (shadow) of what Christ did.

This is open to sophistry. What you or I think is inconsequential

The doves, bags of flour, bulls and goats all are shadow sacrifices of the reality in Christ’s sacrifice, which we can learn from, but they have their limits, just as the lamb sacrifice has its limits.

We can certainly take the sin offering lamb or goat in lev. 5 as a shadow example of Christ’s being sacrificed.

The writer tells us the relationship the sinner had with the sacrifice: Lev. 5:6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering.

The limits are defined by God not the sophistry of man. God demands what God demands. Anything more are sophistries of man

It is as a penalty or punishment, which since this is a child of God it might best be described as discipline.

Support for this understanding comes from Lev. 5 also: The penalty (hardship/punishment/discipline) is made equal for the sinner by increasing in proportion to the wealth of the sinner. From a bag of flour to a Lamb, depending on the wealth of the sinner. God would not see a wealthy person having more value and the sins are exactly the same.

If we were talking about the lamb or bag of flour being a ransom or substitute for a sinner, then the ransom should be equal, for equal sin and humans being equal.

What is written is as per the old testament and the Holy Spirit not for my interpretation without basis. Not whimsical sophistry.

The New Testament Letters are written to first century readers not always Jews familiar with the OT , especially Christians. We need to know how they best would understand these words, since that is who the author is addressing, we are reading other people’s mail. Ransoming people was heavily done in the first century, because there were no banks holding cash. People would have been familiar with Julius Caesar’s kidnapping and his ransom.

The works of the sea are of no interest to God. Slavery to the pagan Rome is different to that of God. It has nothing to do with banks but everything to do with the Law. Also Julius Caesar was before time of Jesus.

Yes, paying to free a slave was a ransom payment, but that payment was reasonable, not a huge hardship on the person paying, and often the freed slave could pay the ransom payment back.

Sin is an intangible, if you pay it something it does nothing (it cannot change). Sin itself is a description of some act, but it takes a sinner to perform the action. A large list of ways to sin is not the fault for people sinning (Adam and Eve had only one way to sin and sinned). The person is not forced to sin, but sins of their own free will, so we cannot correct/change or do something for the intangible “sin”, but the sinner needs to be helped to change.

That is incorrect. The bondage is contractual not constitutional. Sin is sin. Whether you agree with it of not. This is the concept of moral objectivity vs post-modernism.

Jesus and God are the ones making the huge sacrificial payment the closes similarity would be parents making a huge sacrificial payment for their children, but with Christ he is also the sacrifice itself.

How is Jesus liberating the unbelieving sinner from sin with his death? Does the person quit sinning? Is sin no longer a problem for this converted sinner? Where is this concept presented in scripture? Did Peter talk about this in his wonderful Christ Crucified Sermon (acts 2)?

Abraham sacrifice his beloved son to pay tribute to the glory of God. God sacrifice His Only Begotten Son to spare us from death. 2 different type of sacrificies. We drink from the fresh stream of His wisdom and to free us from the slave master sin. A person lives in sin it is our fleshly nature. Sin is always a problem as long as we live. Colossians 1:14
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"
Sin has no meaning as we obey Christ. All apostles and faithful shout it out.

Do you agree:

We go to the unbelieving sinner trying to get him/her to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and not some message, doctrine, church, book or whatever. If the unbeliever sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, a child is kept out of the Kingdom, but if the sinner accepts, “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, then a child is set free to enter the Kingdom and be with God. Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer describes the huge ransom payment as being “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and that ransom sets a sinner free to enter the Kingdom.

What am I saying wrong?
Not sure, you write cryptically. How do you know a false prophet from a true blue one?. By his words , by his acts, by his world view. Truthfulness , trustworthiness and rationality are all attractive traits, a rational , trustworthy seeker of truth will always bias toward Jesus. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Some atheists argue that God is cruel as he created the the temptation of the forbidden fruit and sanctions it. "What loving Father would torture his children so?" My response is "Are you a 65 year old man who says he a 2 year old girl. Do you suckle your thumb and want me to wipe you feces? The answer to these rhetorical questions is a definite no. Accept truth or deny it. Red pill or blue. Up to an adult you.
If the car conforms to the road - yes. If the road must conform to the car. Definitely no
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Is Jesus Christ and Him Crucified what we should be teaching others, especially the nonbelieving sinner?

Is the content of “true faith”, Jesus Christ and Him Crucified?

The unbelieving sinner is like those invited to the unbelievably wonderful banquet, they must accept and not reject the invitation.

I am against the idea of accepting a formula for salvation, but accepting who Jesus is and what he has done, because of you and to benefit you is needed. The person can “believe” intellectually in Jesus and not direct that faith toward Jesus to become a saving faith and that is why I talk about actually accepting Jesus as their personal savior who died on the cross to benefit of them, which is really good news.

I am still not seeing your problem with what I said:

We go to the unbelieving sinner trying to get him/her to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and not some message, doctrine, church, book or whatever. If the unbeliever sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, a child is kept out of the Kingdom, but if the sinner accepts, “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, then a child is set free to enter the Kingdom and be with God. Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer describes the huge ransom payment as being “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and that ransom sets a sinner free to enter the Kingdom.
What am I saying wrong?

Is the sinner in the parables of the banquet accept or rejecting the invitation?
It's a formula, a slick sales job of a cheap substitute, which does not explain atonement--it's meaning, it's purpose, it's consequences, it's appropriation, it's operation, in what its freedom consists. . . .
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I avoid opining about the Scriptures. My opinions without basis are useless.
We do interpret scripture in lite of all other scripture. I teach students who are reading scripture for the first time, they know English as their second language and when I ask them what they read, I get some very interested strait understandings of the verses.



This is open to sophistry. What you or I think is inconsequential
Actually, what we think is extremely important. We have a great deal more then just the words on a page, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide us. Attitude is extremely important understanding scripture: Why do you want to know, intellectual, academic, win an argument, put someone down, or to make some positive change in yourself and hopefully with others. We can pray for help, fast, meditate, study other verses and consult with others of like commitment to the truth.



The limits are defined by God not the sophistry of man. God demands what God demands. Anything more are sophistries of man
It is spelled out what the sacrifice is “a penalty” (punishment/discipline).


What is written is as per the old testament and the Holy Spirit not for my interpretation without basis. Not whimsical sophistry.
My interpretations are not “whimsical”, I have had to learn this to help nonbelievers, my own spiritual growth, and have spent lots of time in studying, pray, meditation, and discussion with other Christians. I teach weekly adults.


The works of the sea are of no interest to God. Slavery to the pagan Rome is different to that of God. It has nothing to do with banks but everything to do with the Law. Also Julius Caesar was before time of Jesus.
Julius Caesar was common history for all the people in the Roman Empire of the first century. All these authors of the New Testament are writing to Jew and gentile (mostly Christians) for their best understanding in the first century. People are God’s top interest.

I learned early of from a New Testament Scholar the five most important things for understanding scripture is: context, context, context, context and context.

That is incorrect. The bondage is contractual not constitutional. Sin is sin. Whether you agree with it of not. This is the concept of moral objectivity vs post-modernism.
All mature adults sin, for good reason which helps humans in fulfilling their earthly objective. Sin is not the problem, but unforgiven sin is a huge problem. If “sin” is literally holding people back from going into the Kingdom and not the person themselves, then God/Christ need to change “sin” and not the person (the person is being held back by sin). Changing the person does not change sin itself, but the person accepts God’s free undeserved charitable gifts as pure charity.

Abraham sacrifice his beloved son to pay tribute to the glory of God. God sacrifice His Only Begotten Son to spare us from death. 2 different type of sacrificies. We drink from the fresh stream of his wisdom and to free us from the slave master sin. A person lives in sin it is our fleshly nature. Sin is always a problem as long as we live. Colossians 1:14
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"
Sin has no meaning as we obey Christ. All apostles and faithful shout it out.
What “death” is being talked about since all mature adults have sinned (experiences spiritual death) and we will all go on to physically die if Christ does not come back before our death. If you are talking about the second death, since people were saved prior to the cross (Ro. 3:25).

Jesus had flesh and did not sin, so are we right to blame our flesh. Answer me this: can the Holy Spirit be involved in sinning? If you are not quenching the indwelling Holy Spirit and involved 24/7 in working together with the Spirit can you sin? Is it sin that is the problem or is it our quenching of the Spirit?



Not sure, you write cryptically. How do you know a false prophet from a true blue one?. By his words , by his acts, by his world view. Truthfulness , trustworthiness and rationality are all attractive traits, a rational , trustworthy seeker of truth will always bias toward Jesus. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Some atheists argue that God is cruel as he created the the temptation of the forbidden fruit and sanctions it. "What loving Father would torture his children so?" My response is "Are you a 65 year old man who says he a 2 year old girl. Do you suckle your thumb and want me to wipe you feces? The answer to these rhetorical questions is a definite no. Accept truth or deny it. Red pill or blue. Up to an adult you.
If the car conforms to the road - yes. If the road must conform to the car. Definitely no
I am asked these questions often by agnostics and atheist, so I address them logically, since they do not believe scripture.

A teacher of God’s word has to be consistent with God’s word.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's a formula, a slick sales job of a cheap substitute, which does not explain atonement--it's meaning, it's purpose, it's consequences, it's appropriation, it's operation, in what its freedom consists. . . .
Very true about this one small part about atonement does not explain it all, but any explanation for atonement has to be consistent with this one truth about atonement.
I did not go into some sales pitch you are making to sell people on Christ and His crucifixion. We have to approach each individual like Jesus aproached people (start from where they are at right then and moving on). There is no one pitch serves all. Again it is not some message, but Christ (who is Love) we are trying to present. The method Christ used was: "very small group mentoring 24/7 over time face to face with one on one sometimes. The "masses" are just the back drop to presenting an example of serving. The nonbelieving sinner today needs to have Jesus physical one on one presence, have Jesus listen to him, have Jesus directly address his personal questions, have Jesus spend time with him, Have Jesus mentor him, have Jesus Love on him, have Jesus correct him, and watch Jesus help others. Jesus now lives in us and through us, so it is He in us, who they either accept or reject. I do not see how that method of presenting Christ is some "formula"?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Very true about this one small part about atonement does not explain it all, but any explanation for atonement has to be consistent with this one truth about atonement.
Any view that sees atonement as "one small part" is a cheap substitute for the real gospel.
I did not go into some sales pitch
Contrare. . .you alter the gospel and press that alteration like a used-car salesman.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chi.C

Active Member
Feb 28, 2021
154
47
Quebec
✟24,747.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We do interpret scripture in lite of all other scripture. I teach students who are reading scripture for the first time, they know English as their second language and when I ask them what they read, I get some very interested strait understandings of the verses.
I agree. But this idea of kidnapping is not Scriptural. It is a conjecture based on history. I render to Caesar what is Caesar's (taxes only) , and to God what is God's (in this case, His Traditions in understanding the word "ransom").

Actually, what we think is extremely important. We have a great deal more then just the words on a page, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide us. Attitude is extremely important understanding scripture: Why do you want to know, intellectual, academic, win an argument, put someone down, or to make some positive change in yourself and hopefully with others. We can pray for help, fast, meditate, study other verses and consult with others of like commitment to the truth.
Intellect is important to the human experience. However, intellect and imagination with repect to the Scriptures may make idols of the mind by which we give
belief. Hence worship. The intellect constrained by Scripture will produce truth. Intellect without constraint will produce magic. I prefer the tree of life than the
tree of knowledge of what is up and down and all around.

It is spelled out what the sacrifice is “a penalty” (punishment/discipline).
Sacrifice means (Merriam-Webster) "an act of offering to a deity something precious". It could be for a penalty (sin offering - female lamb). It could be for
redemption/ransom (Passover - male lamb). It could be for a daily sacrifice (bread). It could be for a holocaust (male lamb).

My interpretations are not “whimsical”, I have had to learn this to help nonbelievers, my own spiritual growth, and have spent lots of time in studying, pray, meditation, and discussion with other Christians. I teach weekly adults.
I am sure you have. But saying every sacrifice is "penalty" takes away the meaning from Passover and the holocaust. Cain had his own understanding of a sacrifice and look where it ended.

Julius Caesar was common history for all the people in the Roman Empire of the first century. All these authors of the New Testament are writing to Jew and gentile (mostly Christians) for their best understanding in the first century. People are God’s top interest.

I learned early of from a New Testament Scholar the five most important things for understanding scripture is: context, context, context, context and context.
I agree context is important. But what is the appropriate context to compare the NT. The law and history of ancient rome or the law and history of the OT. Jesus specifically asked that a donkey be purchased so He can fulfill an OT prophecy. It is written that the interpretations of the NT must conform with OT.

All mature adults sin, for good reason which helps humans in fulfilling their earthly objective. Sin is not the problem, but unforgiven sin is a huge problem. If “sin” is literally holding people back from going into the Kingdom and not the person themselves, then God/Christ need to change “sin” and not the person (the person is being held back by sin). Changing the person does not change sin itself, but the person accepts God’s free undeserved charitable gifts as pure charity.
There is something missing with your recipe. It needs a dash of repentance..make that tablespoons..er..cups...barrels? Sins will be forgiven because we have accepted Christ in our hearts and mind, thus we have a huge capacity to truly repent. Repent and sin no more. We are not the little princelings and princesses of King Jesus inheriting his Perfection by some magical genetics. We are temples so He may dwell in us. Without Him, it is just another body waiting to be a corpse. Sin is not transfigured, our resistence to sin has increased. There is only one sin that is unforgivable, that is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

What “death” is being talked about since all mature adults have sinned (experiences spiritual death) and we will all go on to physically die if Christ does not come back before our death. If you are talking about the second death, since people were saved prior to the cross (Ro. 3:25).

Jesus had flesh and did not sin, so are we right to blame our flesh. Answer me this: can the Holy Spirit be involved in sinning? If you are not quenching the indwelling Holy Spirit and involved 24/7 in working together with the Spirit can you sin? Is it sin that is the problem or is it our quenching of the Spirit?
Death is "as if you were never born". The book with your name on it will be toss into the eternal lake of fire. All information of you will be destroyed. The pages will be ash. The file of your life will be deleted, contents will be overwritten with FF, all links will be overwritten.

Jesus is Perfect and was made flesh. Jesus placed Himslf on the line - His Potency and Majesty - for the sake of humanity. He endured His existence as a defilable creature and still remained without blemish. It is not that the flesh is blameless but the spirit is indomitable. The Holy Spirit and sinning are contradictions in terms. They cannot coexist in logic. They can only coexist in the hearts of humans for a brief period when one shuts the door on the other. Quenching of The Holy Spirit implies sinning in actuality or in potentiality. Sinning means there is no spirit of holiness. Sinning and quenching..., they mean the same.

I am asked these questions often by agnostics and atheist, so I address them logically, since they do not believe scripture.

A teacher of God’s word has to be consistent with God’s word.
No pearls before swine, as it is said. Apologetics with atheists and agnostics use metaphysics and logic to argue. There is no need to share the Scriptures until their worldview is shown to be absurd and cannot survive genuine scrutiny. The food that is the Scriptures is meant for the few that sit at the table of the Lord, not the dogs around the table and especially the swine outside of the courtyard.
Scripture is written not in a vacuum, it was written with the Holy Spirit. It is inerrant. Amen.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0