Can we call a 30 day truce on reporting...

[JonMiller]

You seem to think I am saying that His death did not occur. There is no doubt that He died. It is also true that the task of saving the human race was accomplished before He died. Your assumption is that the animals that died in the sanctuary service did so to provide salvation for somebody thereby making them a type of Christ's death. You need to take a second look at that assumption.

No, my assumption is that the memory or stories of Christ were right on numerous occasions where He said (or implied, or otherwise showed) that He had to be put to death. Additionally, I am looking at the writings of the gospel writers, who surely had more experience with Christ than we do... and they place key importance on His death.

As I said, I am not a sanctuary scholar. My eyes glaze over in the Tall/etc threads.

I don't assume that the animals make any salvation at all. I look at them as a play or something, that is giving a learning experience to those involved of Christ's death (As they don't have Christ's death to read about, as we do). Additionally, I point out that sacrifice was originally given in Genesis...

As I Said, I don't reject a priori that this could be the case. However, you have a lot of evidence that you need to cast doubts on (other than the small bits that are needed for this thoery) or you need to show that all other theories that fit the evidence (the thoughts/etc of the Bible) better are in some way worse than this one.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Can we take a look at those?

Sure, in another thread perhaps?

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Thirty to fifty years after the fact.

And yet you want to base a theory on one verse isntead of on the 60+ that emphasize how important His death was..?

If time is a factor in the uncertainty of the verses, perceptions, etc. Then the uncertainty in that verse is just as strong as the others. And, baring any other information that I don't know of, I would take the 60+ datapoints and throw out the one (if I had to... as I said, I don't think I have to).

JM

 

[sentipente]

And yet you want to base a theory on one verse isntead of on the 60+ that emphasize how important His death was..?

If time is a factor in the uncertainty of the verses, perceptions, etc. Then the uncertainty in that verse is just as strong as the others. And, baring any other information that I don't know of, I would take the 60+ datapoints and throw out the one (if I had to... as I said, I don't think I have to).

JM

It is not time that is the factor. Death as a payment for salvation of the human race does not fit into the reality of creation. How does Christ's death save anybody? Who would require His death? The list of unanswerable questions is too long.

 

[sentipente]

Jesus spent much more time living than He spent dying. It was through His life that He saved us.

 

[AndrewK788]

Jesus spent much more time living than He spent dying. It was through His life that He saved us.

His life was of great importance because he had to be without sin to save us. But ultimately I disagree with your statement. His life was important, but without his death, it would have been meaningless.

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." Isaiah 53:5 (NIV)

 

[sentipente]

His life was of great importance because he had to be without sin to save us. But ultimately I disagree with your statement. His life was important, but without his death, it would have been meaningless.

You don't show why that is so or how his death makes salvation possible. Try starting with why we needed to be saved in the first place. (Don't repeat the popular version -- it ain't true.)

 

[JonMiller]

It is not time that is the factor. Death as a payment for salvation of the human race does not fit into the reality of creation. How does Christ's death save anybody? Who would require His death? The list of unanswerable questions is too long.

Ignoring the majority of your data because it doesn't fit with your theory is even worse...

JM

 

[honorthesabbath]

But your idea of fellowship is "I agree." You reserve the right to call anything we post a debate or argument even if the debate or argument is only in your mind.

Strike to remove your honor--argumentative!

 

[sentipente]

Ignoring the majority of your data because it doesn't fit with your theory is even worse...

JM

You seem unable to interpret the data much less analyse it. Mixed models won't help you here.

 

[JonMiller]

You seem unable to interpret the data much less analyse it. Mixed models won't help you here.

Huh? I am disagreeing with you not including the data into your hypothesis. I did give a possible explanation of the data point, which while not perfect is still reasonable. I haven't addressed the traditional or otherwise beleifs about the Cross, just noted that the 'data' supports it.

Please do so, or give a valid (unique to the data you are ignoring) reason why it is more uncertain than the data that you are using.

JM

 

[sentipente]

JM, texts stating that Jesus had to die do not necessarily mean that His death was necessary for our salvation. His death could be necessary to demostrate the power of the resurrection. The fact is that no argument can be made to show how His death could save us. The first issue being that He did not die; God cannot die. If death was needed for our salvation then we have not been saved.

 

[JonMiller]

See, now you are working.

Now, start a new thread (this one is long enough), and lay out everything clearly and neatly.

JM

 

[thecountrydoc]

Yes senti, JM's request of you would indeed be most interesting to read.

Respectfully,
Doc

mjona3's post:

Now, start a new thread (this one is long enough), and lay out everything clearly and neatly.
JM