The blood of Jesus

Citizen of the Kingdom · Oct 18, 2021

~Cassia~ said:
The blood of Jesus’ shed blood that was accepted as the blood offering of the lamb/at-one-ment ending sacrifices. It now functions as the blood that cleanses, not of the consequences of sin while on earth, because our flesh isn’t resurrected. It’s the absolution of the conscience.

Basically that’s what it is. But repentence in water baptism Hebrews 6 is walking in newness of life, when it’s possible to be aware. I used to teach my sunday school kids to put their hands on their faces with their fingers spread apart, and hold their hands up whoever thinks that God can’t see them.

Beanieboy said:
I get the symbolism. There are lamb sacrifices in the OT. Abraham was told to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, which is kind of foreshadowing.

Before going any further it should be pointed out that I’m non-liturgical meaning not into rituals at all. But I’ve studied OT rituals. First the acceptance is important because that refers to the first fruit offering that is accepted by God. Forever. It was a yearly thing of God’s acceptance. Iow, discounting further rituals.

But Jesus was also forgiving sins prior to his death. No sacrifice, no blood, just "your sins have been forgiven. Go and sin no more." And if Jesus and the Father are one, maybe Jesus was showing people that their sin had already been forgiven.

That would have been an in the face to the priests who claimed only God an forgive sins.

The concept of sacrificing to God is very alien to us.

Who is us? in comparison to them? are you inferring?

We don't take the best of what we have and burn it as an offering to God the same as we don't believe God lives at the top of a mountain. When I want to forgive my neighbor, I simply forgive. I don't tell him to take his favorite thing and destroy it, or kill his dog. In fact, if Christ's death was necessary, and essential, why not ask the disciples to sacrifice him?

It was necessary to God to move forward. Away from the mountain, feasting, fasting, everyone’s own thing, and other-sacrifices.

A coworker watched The Passion of the Christ. I didn't want to see it because a number of people said the focus was on the violence - the whipping in particular. My co-worker then said "he suffered so much for us." Was that part of the deal? You can't simply give uo your life, but you have to be taunted and tortired first? And she seemed to imply that the suffering made her honor him more. But if someone shot a gun at you, and I stepped in front to protect you, killing me fairly quickly, are you going to say, "yeah, he sacrificed his life for mine, but, he suffer, really, so....(shrug)

Yah I didn’t see it either for the same reasons. I don’t think it was necessary, nor expected as readily as happened, but it accomplished a break thru that had begun with the Time of Gentiles at the captivity and was catapulted into the dispersion of all nations. Totally that would have been a noble act on your part as imaginary as it is. But that is what accomplished His Kingship, not just that but changed the priesthood too.

Someone explained to me that those who were born blind or lame often believed they were curse by God, suffering the sins of the Father, and so, Christ restored sight, and added that their sins were forgiven because no one is punished for the sins of their parents.
Were we today say to someone who has a child who is born blind "your child is cursed for your sins," no one would argue the falseness and cruelty of such a statement.

But, is there something Biblical that asks for a human sacrifice of a human without sin to atone for all mankind? Do Jews believe that a Savior is still coming that must die for their sins?

I don’t know what the Jews believe now but at one point Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice innocent blood was considered friendship with God. Now in the NT self-sacrifice is counselled from God sense the suffering.

These are questions I've never asked, because I was raised believing them. I imagine, to a nonbeliever, they would have similar questions.

I’m sorry, why are you asking?

I don't understand the last part. Why are the fingers spread apart?
And how do you them go forward with the lesson?

You had to be there I guess.

As a child, I was taught that the Father sits up in heaven, looking down on us, and making notes of our sin, while the blood of Jesus is like heavenly WhiteOut.

You forgot about you being present too. Don’t know how anyone would walk away with a clean conscience otherwise.

As an adult, I think, So does the Father see me when I'm sleeping, know when I'm awake, know when I've been good or bad, so be good for haven's sake?

Why bother thinking about it if the gifts don’t matter?

My understanding through the HS is they we are not separate from God, but God expressed himself through me. God lives within me, as does my soul. God breathing into Adam was symbolic of God being as much a part of us as our breath, and without the breath, we die. It's one of my favorite meditations, to simply watch the breath go in and out, and to think of how God is like the breath, within and without.

Adam din’t know he was dead either. The breath that Jesus breathed upon the disciples was for understanding. However they still needed fire to get them moving.

And many people believe Angry Sky God is looking down on them and watching in judgement, and so you get people who feel guilty, sometimes for no reason. But when the person is vulnerable, scared, sad, suicidal, they ask, "Are you there, God? Are you listening?" which is why Fiona Apple sings songs like "God, sometimes you really don't come through.”

The thing is, if your aware that God is watching from the inside all the time second thoughts creep in more often than not. Poof there at the throne of grace again. And you tried so hard to stay away.

Because I believe All is One, God is everything, I can find God within, walking in nature, everywhere. I understand the thoughts that are his vs which are mine. And acknowledge that if the answer ins't an immediate thought, it will come, and usually 3 times where I say, "Yeah, I got it."

"Yeah, I got it."

Beanieboy · Oct 18, 2021

bling said:
Excelent questions and you should ask. The problem is it has to do with atonement which is a huge topic poorly understood.
I have been over this hundreds of times in posts on CF and did not keep all of them and have taught this topic many of times to adult Bible classes. I have never found written support for my ideas so I am thinking about writing my own book, so please feel free to be very challenging of my ideas. I have always had a problem with all the atonement theories, but did not dig into them until I was in a deep discussion with four Muslims and could not help but agree with their logic reasoning and conclusions, but they were just pointing out the huge weaknesses of in all the popular theories of atonement.

I have not solved the problem of where to begin the explanation, but it might be best to go back to the Jewish understanding of atonement learned from actually individually personally going through the atonement process. Christians lack this experience and instead have developed preconceived ideas of atonement from poor theories.

First off: If you are forgiven 100% then there is nothing to pay and if Christ paid 100% there is nothing to forgive.

Penal Substitution is not fair/just where you have the innocent being punished (even if the innocent is willing to be punished) so the guilty can go free. The “payment” would not be just any innocent life, but the life of the person who sinned.

The “Satisfaction Theory of Atonement” put the problem of forgiveness in God’s lap needing Christ to be cruelly, tortured, humiliated and murdered (sounding very blood thirsty) in order to be personally satisfied to forgive.

God would have no problem forgiving, God is totally fair and just, but any rebellious disobedient child needs more then just forgiveness, since if at all possible, a wonderful parent would see to the fair/just Loving discipline of His children for all the benefits discipline provides. Atonement thus is a disciplining process we go through with God and Christ as we are crucified “with Christ”.

The Jews under the Law would have a good understanding of atonement by experiencing atonement for very minor sins which took little disciplining:

Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement has some lite symbolic references to Christ, Lev 5 is a closer representation. I will discuss Lev. 16 if you want to take the time, but it takes some explaining of what and why it was needed by itself. Please read Lev. 5 before going further.

Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 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; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

Lev. 16 takes some explaining:

First off: what “sins” are we talking about? We know from Lev.5 how unintentional sins are to be handled and from other scripture we know how direct disobedience against God sins are handled (death or banishment). Lev. 16 is kind of a catchall for all other possible sins. These sins are ones you are not even sure you committed or are not sure they are even sins. The sins in Lev. 5 are very minor sins you do come to realize as sins, while in Lev. 16 you do not know.

However, Leviticus 16 references the Day of Atonement sacrifices, which is the foreshadowing of Christ.

Shadows are very weak representations of the reality they are a shadow of. Lev. 5 maybe a better shadow of the reality. There is some stuff in Lev. 16 which helps a little in explaining what Christ did on the cross, but Christ is not trying to be the replacement for Lev. 16, since the sacrifice on the day of atonement did very little and would not “save” an individual.

Hebrews 10: NASB

1For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,

but a body you prepared for me;

6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings

you were not pleased.

The Hebrew writer is not praising the day of Atonement as being something really helpful, but does help the people remember how bad they are.

Heb. 9: 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance… 9…not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.

It is only for sins committed in ignorance and it did little.

We are not dealing with some civil legal system written by some “law giver”, but with a very Loving Father and His children. There is a huge difference between Loving disciplining of the child who has humbly willingly lovingly accepted the Parents discipline and the stranger who has refused the loving discipline and is to be punished. Think about this:

There is a, one of a kind, Tiffany vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.

Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair treatment? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?

Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?

Suppose after smashing the vase, repenting and forgiveness, your older brother says he will work with your father putting the vase together, so you can keep up with your social life. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

Suppose Jesus the magician waved his hands over the smashed vase and restored it perfectly to the previous condition, so there is really very little for you to be forgiven of or for you to do. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?

Suppose it is not you that breaks the vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Tiffany vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Try just this small part of it:

There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper, but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay satan.

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible or nothing?

There is one very likely kidnapper and that is the person holding a child back from entering the Kingdom to be with God. When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified (which is described as the ransom payment). If the nonbeliever accepts the ransom payment (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?

Yes, Christ is the ransom payment for all, but the kidnapper can accept or reject the payment. If the kidnapper rejects this unbelievable huge payment, the payers of the ransom are going to be upset with that kidnapper.

There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.

You definitely should write that book. Jews still have a holiday for Atonement, but the most Christians has is giving uo something for Lent, and that's with Catholics.

When I hear atonement, it is usually doing something positive to make up for what you have done.,
If you broke some minor law, you are often sentenced to community work as payment.

But those 4 scenarios are exactly why it sometimes makes no sense, and to question why or how often brings the wrath of church down on you.

It is also why Christians preach stuff like this, and makes no sense:
A Christian man, A Christian woman, and Christian child go on a boat ride with an Atheist Captain. The weather takes a turn for the worst, and the boat begins to sink, but there is a raft on board. Unfortunately, it will only hold 3 people. The Christian man, out if fear, jumps into the raft first, then tried to rationalize, as he will be able to help others onto the raft. The Captain helps the wife and child into the raft before going under and drowning. Does the atheist go to heaven?
Yes, I say.

Oh, no. He hadn't repented of his suns and had Jesus as his Savior.

But he didn't reject God anymore than he rejects Santa Claus. He doesn't believe God exists. But he sacrificed his own life so that the family would be saved, and the Bible says that there is no greater love than he who gives up his life for another.

We can't earn our way into heaven! And his sacrifice was not as great as that of Jesus!

Who said he was trying to earn his way into heaven? He didn't believe in God, so he wouldn't believe i heaven, nor a reward. So when the atheist chose to sacrifice his life, he believed that when he died, that was the end. That is a lot to sacrifice, and he acted the most Christlike of the 4, not because a book told him to, a God told him to, but because he felt it was the right and honorable thing to do, even if it meant the end of his own life. I understand people panic and make selfish choices like the Christian man, but what are trying to teach? A Christian man saves himself over his own wife and child, but is saved because he is Christian, and the Atheist who gave his life for another, acted the most Christian in the group, and did so believing there is no afterlife, then goes to hell?? It makes heaven sound like people that have questionable ethics that just use Jesus as a get out of hell free card.

This is why I ask question like this, because that kind of story is seriously confusing

hedrick · Oct 18, 2021

One problem with this area is that the NT has many different explanations. (I'm not implying that you have to pick one. They can all be true.) A second is that people read their own views into the explanations.

I think the most prominent are Jesus as covenant sacrifice, Paul’s participatory model, and Is 53

* Both the Words of Institution and Heb 9-10 see Jesus’ death as a covenant sacrifice. Ex 24:8 is the OT model for a covenant sacrifice. Heb 9 quotes that passage and says Christ died to establish the new covenant of Jer 31:31. Christ’s own words also say “this is my blood of the new covenant”, thus also invoking Ex 24:8 and Jer 31:31

* In Rom 6, Paul proposes that through our union with Christ, we die with him and rise to a new life where sin’s power no longer controls us.

* Is 53 lies behind several NT passage. However I would point out that while it speaks of someone suffering to heal the people, it doesn’t say how that is accomplished.

In the OT, sacrifices are used for several different purposes: to show the seriousness of one’s repentance, to establish a covenant, and for fellowship with God. I’d argue that the key to the first two is not vicarious punishment, but rather demonstrating the serious of a commitment or repentance. Since the sacrifice can be grain, vicarious punishment doesn’t make sense.

But the prophets made it clear that sacrifice isn't actually necessary for forgiveness. See Ps 51:6 or 40:6 (quoted from LXX slightly altered by Heb, somewhat out of context). That doesn't mean they are pointless. I see sin sacrifice in effect a sacrament, demonstrating and sealing the commitment behind repentance.

Thatgirloncfforums · Oct 18, 2021

But, we have no sacrificing customs. If my friend wrongs me, I'm not going to tell him to shed the blood of his dog and be forgiven. Even if he came to me and said,"I killed my dog. So you have forgiven my sins?" the blood has no special properties. If anything, I am only forgiving another when we "are even."

I wonder what Scripture means when it says, 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness' Thoughts?

Many times in the Gospel, Christ forgave sins while still living. He said He was the Truth, the Light and the Way while living and addressing a crowd. He didn't tagline it "pending my upcoming crucifixion and
resurrection."

Good point.

hedrick · Oct 18, 2021

Thatgirloncfforums said:
I wonder what Scripture means when it says, 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness' Thoughts?

Remember, it says "under the law." The point being made is that after Christ's death that is no longer true. One traditional way to understand that is that the OT sacrifices were pointers to Christ's death.

The quotation is from Heb 9:22. Vs 18-21 talks about sprinklng blood as part of the ceremony establishing the covenant. Ex 24:6 ff. I'm not going to comment on deeper explanations of why this makes sense, but that's the OT background.

Thatgirloncfforums · Oct 18, 2021

Did Christ's blood establish a covenant? If so, how?

hedrick said:
Remember, it says "under the law." The point being made is that after Christ's death that is no longer true. One traditional way to understand that is that the OT sacrifices were pointers to Christ's death.

The quotation is from Heb 9:22. Vs 18-21 talks about sprinklng blood as part of the ceremony establishing the covenant. Ex 24:6 ff. I'm not going to comment on deeper explanations of why this makes sense, but that's the OT background.

hedrick · Oct 18, 2021

Thatgirloncfforums said:
Did Christ's blood establish a covenant? If so, how?

That's certainly not the way the OT worked. I see the OT sacrifices as basically sacraments, that symbolize and seal spiritual things. What establishes a covenant is the commitment of the two parties. But the sacrifice and consecration are the visible signs of this.

Of course when applied to Christ it's more complex, because blood is in itself a symbolic way of talking about his death. Death alone doesn't create the new covenant. After all, lots of other people have died without doing so. Why his death in particular did is the subject of the atonement. But certainly his death was, among other things, a sign of God's commitment to bring us into a new covenant.

Beanieboy · Oct 18, 2021

~Cassia~ said:
Before going any further it should be pointed out that I’m non-liturgical meaning not into rituals at all. But I’ve studied OT rituals. First the acceptance is important because that refers to the first fruit offering that is accepted by God. Forever. It was a yearly thing of God’s acceptance. Iow, discounting further rituals.

And I believe I may have misunderstood my post and response, which was not to discount what you said. Quite the opposite.

That would have been an in the face to the priests who claimed only God an forgive sins.

A huge lightbulb went on with that, so thank you. That makes a lot of sense, as well as, simply forgiving them without some required atonement the brought to the priest. It would seem heretical.

Who is us? in comparison to them? are you inferring?It was necessary to God to move forward. Away from the mountain, feasting, fasting, everyone’s own thing, and other-sacrifices.

I can speak only for myself and the Lutheran teachings I was taught, as well as fellow Lutherans I've talked to. In college, I was required to take a denominations and sects class I learned that the Lutheran church believes in a form of predestination, but a bit confusing. If you have accepted Christ, it was bc the HS opened your heart, not your own doing. But if you close your heart to God, it is your own fault, which begs the question, how do you close a door that is already closed? I asked a friend who I wss studying with, and asked if they believed that. They said, "I've never thought about it." Then I read that God only accepts a baby into his family once it os baptized. It's a baby. It no more knows right from wrong than differentiating itself from anything else. I asked again Same response. I soon understood my friend. They were raised Lutheran, and just believed what they were taught, and never really thought about it. It is a very easy way to live until someone who isn't Christian asks you to explain it to them.
And when I look at how the Biblical history progresses, it seems man's understanding of what God is is what changes, not Hod himself.

Yah I didn’t see it either for the same reasons. I don’t think it was necessary, nor expected as readily as happened, but it accomplished a break thru that had begun with the Time of Gentiles at the captivity and was catapulted into the dispersion of all nations. Totally that would have been a noble act on your part as imaginary as it is. But that is what accomplished His Kingship, not just that but changed the priesthood too.

I don’t know what the Jews believe now but at one point Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice innocent blood was considered friendship with God. Now in the NT self-sacrifice is counselled from God sense the suffering.

Right. That's the only lens I have to understand, one in which we self-sacrifice, such as giving more than asked and asking nothing in return, or asking the HS to reveal what need to give up because it is harmful to me or to others.

I’m sorry, why are you asking?

That is a really good question. I guess I've never thought about it, never looked at my teachings objectively.

And it's not like turning 9, and thinking, "ok, so, how does Santa reach the homes of billions of children in one night?," where you question whether Santa is real.

It's more like one day, the question popped into my head. Because I don't confess my sins to a priest and given what to do as atonement as Catholics, don't kill a lamb as people in the OT, the question popped into my head:

How did Jesus dying atone for sins? What about his blood takes away my sin?

From there, I wonder if it was allowed, or required for our Salvation. I was taught that Jews were exempt because they are the Chosen people).

So why do I ask? Because it is a very important principle in Christianity, so if I am talking to someone who isn't Christian, As well as wanting to understand it better myself, I want to be able to offer a better answer than "I don't know. I've never thought about."

You had to be there I guess.

Here is where I was certain I had offended you. You are a teacher and you have the students covering their face with their fingers spread, and ask them to raise their hand if the believe God can see them.

So, when I read it, if you said it to 5 year olds, it would be similar to peek a boo. If the kids are younger than that, they've done studies where babies think that when a toy is covered, it's literally gone.
Is the spread fingers to allow other students to see who did and didn't raise their hands?
If this were high school students, I would assume the lesson be very different.
It was an innocent, honest question. My assumption would be to make students aware that God is always present.

And I was trying to compare it to how Santa is used by parents - You're not going to bed? Ok. Going to have to call Santa.

And similarly, I had very strict parents and grandparents. The emphasis was on God watching you always, and seeing your every sin, and taking notes. There was less of a teaching that God is a part of us, is with us always, experiences life with us, and also aware of our kindnesses. As a result, I put unrealistic expectations on myself. In 1st grade, We took a math test with 100 problems. I felt so much shame when I brought it home that I had hidden it. My mom said she found something in the entry way, and asked why I had hidden it. I cried. I said I would try harder. I was crying because I had gotten 4 wrong, got a 96%, and so afraid and full of shame that it wasn't perfect. My parents told me that they were proud that I got 96 right.

Often, when God is presented as angry, judging, punishing, you live a life of fear, walking on eggshells hoping not to anger him. It doesn't help being taught we are evil and the only good within us is Jesus, because it starts to make you believe you are unworthy of love, live in constant shame for not being perfect. And them one can start putting that impossible bar of perfection upon others, and condemn them when they show imperfection.

Over the years, I've had to unlearn, Yes, God is aware of all of our imperfections, as well as every way we express love for another. God loves us with our imperfections, not despite them. He accepts us as we are, and we evolve through God's love, but God's love is unconditional, not based on our actions. We do good - God loves us. We sin - God loves us. It is a constant, not earned, not lost. We also punish ourselves. If we lie all the time, others distrust us. That is the punishment. If your daughter gets cancer, it's because something caused cancer, not because someone sinned and you are being punished. To claim the parents or person with cancer is being punished by God us bringing wrath upon oneself.

You forgot about you being present too. Don’t know how anyone would walk away with a clean conscience otherwise.

Why bother thinking about it if the gifts don’t matter?

Adam din’t know he was dead either. The breath that Jesus breathed upon the disciples was for understanding. However they still needed fire to get them moving.

I was referring to God's breath to Adam, and the fire and tongues of the HS would be similar, which I've never thought about, but when did Jesus breathe upon the disciples?

The thing is, if your aware that God is watching from the inside all the time second thoughts creep in more often than not. Poof there at the throne of grace again. And you tried so hard to stay away.

"Yeah, I got it."

It's not second thoughts, nor doubt, but seeking understanding. I don't believe there is any trespass for asking about something you have been taught, and suddenly, for the first time, ask why, and don't know. And while regardless of my questions, my faith remains. I would like to answer someone better than "I've never thought about it."

Lauren Daigel got a lot criticism performing on Ellen, and when asked about whether she believed homosexuality was a sin, said she knew a lot of gay people, and it is different than what is portrayed on the Bible, but once we draw lines around who we can approach and not approach, who we can be kind to and who we don't, we have missed the heart of God. So, at this point, I don't know, and would say to look to the Scriptures and pray about it, and when you figure it out, let me know.

Saying "I don't know" was a very humble, brave thing to say. Chastising her for singing on Ellen where she reached millions of viewers, confused me.

The people I distrust the most are those who claim to have all the answers, because their hearts are closed, believe their understanding is the mind of God himself, and anyone in disagreement is simply wrong is making one's self into God.

hedrick · Oct 18, 2021

Hebrews does give one explanation, 9:10. I’m not sure quite what to make of it. It seems to have some similarity to Rom 6:7, but it’s too late at night for me to think about just what that means, and just how much of the explanation the author thinks it is.

Fervent · Oct 18, 2021

Thatgirloncfforums said:
I wonder what Scripture means when it says, 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness' Thoughts?

One thing of note, this is a slight translation issue because the Greek word is stronger than "forgiveness." The force of the word in Greek would be similar to the English expression "forgive and forget," rather than simply forgive as it is a complete removal of the offense as if it never happened not simply a release of culpability.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Oct 18, 2021

Propitiation toward reconciliation was not possible before the cross.

Leviticus 23:6-8, Leviticus 23:14, 1 Corinthians 15:20-23

There could be no edification from the firstfruits until they had been waved before the Lord and accepted by Him. Once accepted the nation could be sustained for another year. Jesus, as the reality of the firstfruits, came to fulfill this everlasting ordinance by providing a means thru which all sinners could be forgiven, in repenting, to receive the gift of everlasting life. What this means is that for the OT believers is that the means had not yet been opened to them because God had not yet accepted the offering that was foretold in the ritual. The offering had not yet been accepted. John 20:17, John 6:35, John 6:48,

John 5:39-40

“You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

The Lamb offering

Leviticus 23:12

On the day you wave the sheaf, you must sacrifice as a burnt offering to the Lord a lamb a year old without defect,,

Exodus 12:3-5

Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats.

The significance of the waving of a sheaf offering of the first-fruits is its newness as the very first of the first-fruits of the harvest.

Leviticus 23:14

You shall eat no bread or parched grain or fresh ears until that very day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your settlements.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

Accepting Christ as our Passover, we should also accept him as the first-fruit offering. This leads up to “The Feast of First-Fruits” otherwise known as “Pentecost”.

John 20:1

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.

John 20:11-17

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Here we see that the Messiah had not yet risen to the Father. He had not yet become the first-fruit of all mankind.

The symbolism of the wave offering is the ascension of Jesus Christ to our Father as first of the first-fruits.

The timing of the ascension to the Father of Jesus Christ, and the sacrifice of the unblemished first-fruits lamb occurred at the same time. Just as the timing of the Messiah giving his life for mankind occurred at the same time as the unblemished Passover lamb was sacrificed.

The single male lamb without blemish is a commanded sacrifice on only two set apart feast dates. One being the Passover lamb and the other being, the Wave Offering lamb.

1 Peter 1:18-21

You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish. He was destined before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of the ages for your sake. Through him you have come to trust in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are set on God.

notes: https://nebula.wsimg.com/31add2f969...32A45CB098432D4AD&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Propitiation toward reconciliation was not possible before the cross.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Oct 18, 2021

Beanieboy said:
And I believe I may have misunderstood my post and response, which was not to discount what you said. Quite the opposite.

The last post was how I understand atonement in light of propitiation of sins.

A huge lightbulb went on with that, so thank you. That makes a lot of sense, as well as, simply forgiving them without some required atonement the brought to the priest. It would seem heretical.

That’s great

I can speak only for myself and the Lutheran teachings I was taught, as well as fellow Lutherans I've talked to. In college, I was required to take a denominations and sects class I learned that the Lutheran church believes in a form of predestination, but a bit confusing. If you have accepted Christ, it was bc the HS opened your heart, not your own doing. But if you close your heart to God, it is your own fault, which begs the question, how do you close a door that is already closed? I asked a friend who I wss studying with, and asked if they believed that. They said, "I've never thought about it." Then I read that God only accepts a baby into his family once it os baptized. It's a baby. It no more knows right from wrong than differentiating itself from anything else. I asked again Same response. I soon understood my friend. They were raised Lutheran, and just believed what they were taught, and never really thought about it. It is a very easy way to live until someone who isn't Christian asks you to explain it to them.And when I look at how the Biblical history progresses, it seems man's understanding of what God is is what changes, not Hod himself.

Right. That's the only lens I have to understand, one in which we self-sacrifice, such as giving more than asked and asking nothing in return, or asking the HS to reveal what need to give up because it is harmful to me or to others.

One which I understand nothing about.

That is a really good question. I guess I've never thought about it, never looked at my teachings objectively.

And it's not like turning 9, and thinking, "ok, so, how does Santa reach the homes of billions of children in one night?," where you question whether Santa is real.

It's more like one day, the question popped into my head. Because I don't confess my sins to a priest and given what to do as atonement as Catholics, don't kill a lamb as people in the OT, the question popped into my head:

How did Jesus dying atone for sins? What about his blood takes away my sin?

From there, I wonder if it was allowed, or required for our Salvation. I was taught that Jews were exempt because they are the Chosen people).

So why do I ask? Because it is a very important principle in Christianity, so if I am talking to someone who isn't Christian, As well as wanting to understand it better myself, I want to be able to offer a better answer than "I don't know. I've never thought about.”

Propitiation would be a good place to start looking things up maybe.

Here is where I was certain I had offended you. You are a teacher and you have the students covering their face with their fingers spread, and ask them to raise their hand if the believe God can see them.

No offence taken.

So, when I read it, if you said it to 5 year olds, it would be similar to peek a boo. If the kids are younger than that, they've done studies where babies think that when a toy is covered, it's literally gone.
Is the spread fingers to allow other students to see who did and didn't raise their hands?
If this were high school students, I would assume the lesson be very different.
It was an innocent, honest question. My assumption would be to make students aware that God is always present.

The kids remember things more with little rituals like that, especially when it reflects on an idea that they falsely hold (that God can’t see what they do, and make them aware spiritually that yes He can.

And I was trying to compare it to how Santa is used by parents - You're not going to bed? Ok. Going to have to call Santa.

And similarly, I had very strict parents and grandparents. The emphasis was on God watching you always, and seeing your every sin, and taking notes. There was less of a teaching that God is a part of us, is with us always, experiences life with us, and also aware of our kindnesses. As a result, I put unrealistic expectations on myself. In 1st grade, We took a math test with 100 problems. I felt so much shame when I brought it home that I had hidden it. My mom said she found something in the entry way, and asked why I had hidden it. I cried. I said I would try harder. I was crying because I had gotten 4 wrong, got a 96%, and so afraid and full of shame that it wasn't perfect. My parents told me that they were proud that I got 96 right.

Often, when God is presented as angry, judging, punishing, you live a life of fear, walking on eggshells hoping not to anger him. It doesn't help being taught we are evil and the only good within us is Jesus, because it starts to make you believe you are unworthy of love, live in constant shame for not being perfect. And them one can start putting that impossible bar of perfection upon others, and condemn them when they show imperfection.

Over the years, I've had to unlearn, Yes, God is aware of all of our imperfections, as well as every way we express love for another. God loves us with our imperfections, not despite them. He accepts us as we are, and we evolve through God's love, but God's love is unconditional, not based on our actions. We do good - God loves us. We sin - God loves us. It is a constant, not earned, not lost. We also punish ourselves. If we lie all the time, others distrust us. That is the punishment. If your daughter gets cancer, it's because something caused cancer, not because someone sinned and you are being punished. To claim the parents or person with cancer is being punished by God us bringing wrath upon oneself.

I was referring to God's breath to Adam, and the fire and tongues of the HS would be similar, which I've never thought about, but when did Jesus breathe upon the disciples?

It's not second thoughts, nor doubt, but seeking understanding. I don't believe there is any trespass for asking about something you have been taught, and suddenly, for the first time, ask why, and don't know. And while regardless of my questions, my faith remains. I would like to answer someone better than "I've never thought about it."

Lauren Daigel got a lot criticism performing on Ellen, and when asked about whether she believed homosexuality was a sin, said she knew a lot of gay people, and it is different than what is portrayed on the Bible, but once we draw lines around who we can approach and not approach, who we can be kind to and who we don't, we have missed the heart of God. So, at this point, I don't know, and would say to look to the Scriptures and pray about it, and when you figure it out, let me know.

sounds like a good plan to always check scripture and interpretation until you personally understand the meaning.

Saying "I don't know" was a very humble, brave thing to say. Chastising her for singing on Ellen where she reached millions of viewers, confused me.

Jesus said if they are talking about Him it’s still all good.

The people I distrust the most are those who claim to have all the answers, because their hearts are closed, believe their understanding is the mind of God himself, and anyone in disagreement is simply wrong is making one's self into God.

Only God is God.

Thanks for the chat

I just noticed that you signed up on Cf 10 days before I did!

Beanieboy · Oct 18, 2021

hedrick said:
That's certainly not the way the OT worked. I see the OT sacrifices as basically sacraments, that symbolize and seal spiritual things. What establishes a covenant is the commitment of the two parties. But the sacrifice and consecration are the visible signs of this.

Of course when applied to Christ it's more complex, because blood is in itself a symbolic way of talking about his death. Death alone doesn't create the new covenant. After all, lots of other people have died without doing so. Why his death in particular did is the subject of the atonement. But certainly his death was, among other things, a sign of God's commitment to bring us into a new covenant.

An interesting difference I have noticed between Catholicism and Protestants is Catholics have a crucifix - Jesus being crucified on the cross, whereas, Protestants have an empty cross, focusing on the resurrection.

One Catholic told me that when they go up for Eucharist/Communion, Christ is sacrificed, atoning for sin, as opposed to a ritual that remembers Christ sacrificed.

It's a very big distinction.

Maria Billingsley said:
This was the only way to restore the Holy Spirit to every believer. His ressurection conquered the second death and when He ascended He released His Spirit so that all ,who wish to,can join Him in His Kingdom forever.

hedrick said:
One problem with this area is that the NT has many different explanations. (I'm not implying that you have to pick one. They can all be true.) A second is that people read their own views into the explanations.

I think the most prominent are Jesus as covenant sacrifice, Paul’s participatory model, and Is 53

* Both the Words of Institution and Heb 9-10 see Jesus’ death as a covenant sacrifice. Ex 24:8 is the OT model for a covenant sacrifice. Heb 9 quotes that passage and says Christ died to establish the new covenant of Jer 31:31. Christ’s own words also say “this is my blood of the new covenant”, thus also invoking Ex 24:8 and Jer 31:31

* In Rom 6, Paul proposes that through our union with Christ, we die with him and rise to a new life where sin’s power no longer controls us.

* Is 53 lies behind several NT passage. However I would point out that while it speaks of someone suffering to heal the people, it doesn’t say how that is accomplished.

In the OT, sacrifices are used for several different purposes: to show the seriousness of one’s repentance, to establish a covenant, and for fellowship with God. I’d argue that the key to the first two is not vicarious punishment, but rather demonstrating the serious of a commitment or repentance. Since the sacrifice can be grain, vicarious punishment doesn’t make sense.

But the prophets made it clear that sacrifice isn't actually necessary for forgiveness. See Ps 51:6 or 40:6 (quoted from LXX slightly altered by Heb, somewhat out of context). That doesn't mean they are pointless. I see sin sacrifice in effect a sacrament, demonstrating and sealing the commitment behind repentance.

And in modern day, we often forgive another without asking some form of atonement.

It is common for someone to say they are sorry, and that they wil make it up to them, or atone.

There is also a common idea of getting even, to harm another in a way that seeks revenge, even within Christians. This one I believe is very dangerous. I moved into apartment, and one of the tennets was convinced that someone in my apartment had told the landlord that she had a dog. I may have put my foot in my mouth, saying "We can have dogs?!", when we can't, but regardless, she was convinced we had wronged her. From there, it spread to the neighborhood watch I was accused of spying on some woman in the shower (I'm gay so that makes no sense), and then we were supposedly drug lords. Their ethics went out the window, thinking they were the good guys. The next door neighbor would go up on his roof to see into my bedroom to watch me, in case I was doing something bad. Finding nothing over months of survellance, his security camera faced our bathroom window. Our apartment would have it's trashcan lid torn off, an Amazon package was intercepted by someone who lied and said they lived in my apartment and would give it to me (I asked all the tennant at home, no one had i, and left at my door an hour later.

So, revenge starts making believe that all the terrible things you are doing to yhe other are justified, you getting even, and it's never enough.

There is another forgiveness, forgiving someone who lied, but not agreeing to stay in the relationship because of broken trust. While it would be very difficult to forgive a drunk driver who killed your spouse I can't imagine anything that would be an atonement for that action - not killing their spouse, not the death penalty. Nothing is going to be able

~Cassia~ said:
The last post was how I understand atonement in light of propitiation of sins.

That’s great
One which I understand nothing about.

Propitiation would be a good place to start looking things up maybe.

No offence taken.

The kids remember things more with little rituals like that, especially when it reflects on an idea that they falsely hold (that God can’t see what they do, and make them aware spiritually that yes He can.

sounds like a good plan to always check scripture and interpretation until you personally understand the meaning.

Jesus said if they are talking about Him it’s still all good.

Only God is God.

Thanks for the chat

I assume you were teach kids, and so I get it, and started laughing. I remember being about 8, and being told "God is always watching." I asked my mom "Um, always??" She said most assuredly, always, so, I would suddenly be alone ready to take a shower, or going to the bathroom, and thinking God was watching me. Freaked me out.

I've never heard of propitiation, so that why I ask, and i'm thankful for the answer. I'll check it out,

Citizen of the Kingdom · Oct 18, 2021

Beanieboy said:
An
I've never heard of propitiation, so that why I ask, and i'm thankful for the answer. I'll check it out,

Romans 3:25
whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,

Hebrews 2:17
Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Oct 18, 2021

I assume you were teach kids, and so I get it, and started laughing. I remember being about 8, and being told "God is always watching." I asked my mom "Um, always??" She said most assuredly, always, so, I would suddenly be alone ready to take a shower, or going to the bathroom, and thinking God was watching me. Freaked me out.

That would creep me out too. God with us isn’t like a fly on the wall tho. God with us is Christ in us, yet also in the things we see and hear hopefully if we’re spiritually inclined. Don’t like that the angels of light can be found there. I still need to discern carefully those dudes.

coffee4u · Oct 18, 2021

Beanieboy said:
If Christ's death was necessary, why not allow Herod to kill Jesus as an infant?

I know these are weird questions, but had I never heard of Christianity, a lot of it would not make sense.

Well for one he had to be tempted and pass.

The Old Testament has a lot of shadows pointing to things to come. You mentioned one, the blood on the doorways. This was a picture of Christs blood and why they ate lamb. Because Christ is the lamb of God.
"Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

So in the garden of Eden, Adam was tempted and failed.
In the new testament the second Adam (Jesus) was tempted and succeeded.
1 Corinthians 15
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

A baby can't be tempted and overcome, but the Christ, the savior had to.

coffee4u · Oct 18, 2021

Beanieboy said:
A Christian man, A Christian woman, and Christian child go on a boat ride with an Atheist Captain. The weather takes a turn for the worst, and the boat begins to sink, but there is a raft on board. Unfortunately, it will only hold 3 people. The Christian man, out if fear, jumps into the raft first, then tried to rationalize, as he will be able to help others onto the raft. The Captain helps the wife and child into the raft before going under and drowning. Does the atheist go to heaven?
Yes, I say.

Oh, no. He hadn't repented of his suns and had Jesus as his Savior.

But he didn't reject God anymore than he rejects Santa Claus. He doesn't believe God exists. But he sacrificed his own life so that the family would be saved, and the Bible says that there is no greater love than he who gives up his life for another.

We can't earn our way into heaven! And his sacrifice was not as great as that of Jesus!

Who said he was trying to earn his way into heaven? He didn't believe in God, so he wouldn't believe i heaven, nor a reward. So when the atheist chose to sacrifice his life, he believed that when he died, that was the end. That is a lot to sacrifice, and he acted the most Christlike of the 4, not because a book told him to, a God told him to, but because he felt it was the right and honorable thing to do, even if it meant the end of his own life. I understand people panic and make selfish choices like the Christian man, but what are trying to teach? A Christian man saves himself over his own wife and child, but is saved because he is Christian, and the Atheist who gave his life for another, acted the most Christian in the group, and did so believing there is no afterlife, then goes to hell?? It makes heaven sound like people that have questionable ethics that just use Jesus as a get out of hell free card.

This is why I ask question like this, because that kind of story is seriously confusing

I think they are trying to teach that good deeds are not how a person makes it to heaven.
But it is a poor example and sounds like something you would find in one of those questionable hand out cartoon booklets.

I would question the motives of whoever wrote that more so than anything else. There is a name for that type of manipulation, where you are offered a scenario with no truly good outcome but you are told to pick the correct one. It creates an emotional disconnect.

hedrick · Oct 19, 2021

Beanieboy said:
I've never heard of propitiation, so that why I ask, and i'm thankful for the answer. I'll check it out,

In my opinion propitiation is by definition something that can't apply to God. It is an act intended to get a god to treat us favorably, with an implication of appeasing their anger. Webster refers in the definition to appeasement. But that can't apply to God, because he has already decided to treat us favorably, and doesn't need appeasement. Jesus' death is God's action reconciling us. You wouldn't use the term propitiation for an act done by God to reconcile his children.

The NRSV translation doesn't use it. The AV uses it for Rom 3:25, 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10. All three use variations of a word that refers to the OT sacrificial altar. A neutral translation would be atonement or atoning sacrifice, because that is reconciliation, but doesn't specify just how the reconciliation with God works. Propitiation suggests a particular concept of God's attitude that I don't think fits Jesus' teaching about him, and at any rate goes beyond what's in the text.

bling · Oct 19, 2021

Beanieboy said:
You definitely should write that book. Jews still have a holiday for Atonement, but the most Christians has is giving uo something for Lent, and that's with Catholics.

When I hear atonement, it is usually doing something positive to make up for what you have done.,
If you broke some minor law, you are often sentenced to community work as payment.

But those 4 scenarios are exactly why it sometimes makes no sense, and to question why or how often brings the wrath of church down on you.

It is also why Christians preach stuff like this, and makes no sense:
A Christian man, A Christian woman, and Christian child go on a boat ride with an Atheist Captain. The weather takes a turn for the worst, and the boat begins to sink, but there is a raft on board. Unfortunately, it will only hold 3 people. The Christian man, out if fear, jumps into the raft first, then tried to rationalize, as he will be able to help others onto the raft. The Captain helps the wife and child into the raft before going under and drowning. Does the atheist go to heaven?
Yes, I say.

Oh, no. He hadn't repented of his suns and had Jesus as his Savior.

But he didn't reject God anymore than he rejects Santa Claus. He doesn't believe God exists. But he sacrificed his own life so that the family would be saved, and the Bible says that there is no greater love than he who gives up his life for another.

We can't earn our way into heaven! And his sacrifice was not as great as that of Jesus!

Who said he was trying to earn his way into heaven? He didn't believe in God, so he wouldn't believe i heaven, nor a reward. So when the atheist chose to sacrifice his life, he believed that when he died, that was the end. That is a lot to sacrifice, and he acted the most Christlike of the 4, not because a book told him to, a God told him to, but because he felt it was the right and honorable thing to do, even if it meant the end of his own life. I understand people panic and make selfish choices like the Christian man, but what are trying to teach? A Christian man saves himself over his own wife and child, but is saved because he is Christian, and the Atheist who gave his life for another, acted the most Christian in the group, and did so believing there is no afterlife, then goes to hell?? It makes heaven sound like people that have questionable ethics that just use Jesus as a get out of hell free card.

This is why I ask question like this, because that kind of story is seriously confusing

First and foremost

God judges the heart of the person to determine His children. We do not know why this atheist is an atheist, but he could have been influenced by some hypocrites.

The Christian hopefully was ready for heaven so death has no sting for him. The Christian should have explained to the atheist that he had no problem with dying and would happily give up his seat to allow the atheist to have more time to make his choice and asked the atheist to take time to truly check out the alternatives to atheism.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Oct 19, 2021

coffee4u said:
I think they are trying to teach that good deeds are not how a person makes it to heaven.
But it is a poor example and sounds like something you would find in one of those questionable hand out cartoon booklets.

I would question the motives of whoever wrote that more so than anything else. There is a name for that type of manipulation, where you are offered a scenario with no truly good outcome but you are told to pick the correct one. It creates an emotional disconnect.

It’s also giving assent to the lies without one’s own investigation into the truth.

The blood of Jesus

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Attachments

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads