Jesus could and did forgive sins before the cross. What changed after the cross?

[John Mullally]

Sorry you feel that way. . .

Same response twice in a row. Does Polly want a cracker? At least idiot AI does not consistently do that and I studied AI long ago.

Earlier you said I need to have the scriptures explained to me - to which you should know better by now as I am very conversant on scripture and to which you did not apologize, Obviously this latest quote is a canned response as you repeat your last response. The repeat proves you are inauthentic. I notice you give a lot of inauthentic canned responses like when challenged saying "Good for you!" or "that is beyond my pay grade" to many besides myself. Its a bunch of arrogant inauthentic nausea. How about ditching the arrogance and giving thoughtful responses from the heart. You may think I am just being adversarial to be adversarial, but I am well meaning - like our God who desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).

I will not respond to continued canned responses, but the non-response should not be construed admission to any point.

 

[Clare73]

I will not respond to continued canned responses,

Sorry you feel that way. . .

 

[concretecamper]

Jesus could and did forgive sins before the cross. This took place in the OT or otherwise known as a time under the old/first covenant. How could he forgive sins without the shedding of blood?

What changed after the cross? (his death and shed blood ushered in the new covenant)

Jesus forgave sins many times before His shedding of blood. The gospels bear witness to that. What changes after the cross is that He now acts through His Church. He set up His Church as the Sacrament of Salvation.

 

[John Mullally]

Sorry you feel that way.

Polly want a cracker. Third consecutive response without an intelligent response. Truly vacuous.

 

[concretecamper]

Polly want a cracker. Third consecutive response without an intelligent response. Truly vacuous.

Ignore her and she will go away.
1Cor4:12 Rom 2:4 Eph4:1 Mat 5:3 1Tim2:12

 

[John Mullally]

Ignore her and she will go away.
1Cor4:12 Rom 2:4 Eph4:1 Mat 5:3 1Tim2:12

Thank you. I was raised Roman Catholic, but became a non-Catholic Charismatic in my teens. I won't go back to becoming a Roman Catholic, but in exchanges here, I have grown in appreciation of the Roman Catholics, Blessings and love. Note: Protestant Calvinists believe God hates many from birth as per the Calvin, God has assigned many to hell from birth as the following is a quote from Calvin himself.

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

 

[Mark Quayle]

A curt assertion and a laundry list of scripture quotes is not an argument. How do those many referenced scriptures fit into the assertion? Doing what I say allows progress as it allows others to better understand how scripture supports the assertion and to allow others to intelligently object. If objections come, then Clare can counter the objection without demanding something from the other. It gets things moving. Personally, I make a reasonable effort to explain my positions, but sometimes I do just merely reference scriptures on small points of my argument. Unlike Clare when questioned, I provide additional explanation when challenged - instead of immediately throwing out an ad-hominem or demanding the other do what I am unwilling to do (i.e. thoughtfully explain a position beyond making an insulting one-liner). Clare has the habit of demanding others do what she is unwilling to do (i.e, parse through her "proof texts" she does not explain and make a more formal argument) before she will respond. SHAME! Its like she is saying I am willing to spend 5 minutes to make an assertion, but demands others must spend hours to object. No the onus is on CLAIRE who makes the assertion - which she frequently will not do. Is that above her pay grade?

I don't think anyone is going sinless in this temporal life and did not argue that Mark - try listening, Clare said that believers have "died to sin" and then attached 8 scriptures without explaining her position in any depth or explaining how scripture supports her position. Technically, if "one has died to sin", one cannot sin - thus that is the position Clare took and you on the record agreed to (as part of her amen choir that marks "agree"). Again, try listening! But Paul said we are to consider ourselves dead to sin (Romans 6:11) as the strategy for the believer. John explains what we should do if we sin in 1 John 1:9. Always try understanding before resorting to arrogant flaming. I agree that Christians can sin and that we are to consider ourselves dead to sin (Romans 6:11) in order to reduce sin. Chill out!

Ok, to be fair, I did snidely take you saying you disagreed, to be in reference to the scriptures she posted, (since that was the sequence of comments and responses), and not to be disagreeing with her use of them (which she had shown in a couple or three earlier posts). I also did not think you were saying anyone goes sinless. But you are saying that is what @Clare73 was saying, which you should know by now is not what she was saying. I've never heard her claim that. If you haven't realized that by now, as many times as you have interacted with her, you should "try listening"!

If my memory serves, and without reviewing the whole line to be sure I've got the timeline right, Claire had made the assertion, and had shown the texts that themselves 'demonstrate' the same (so that you won't object to me saying that "the texts say the same", and had even given a little explanatory reasoning, sufficient for me to follow her argument, anyway, and by the time you rang in, she was done. But she answered you all the same, even restated her position, apparently out of simple respect.

On top of that, the fact that she didn't explain to your satisfaction, when it was someone else she was talking to, really doesn't obligate her to explain it to your satisfaction.

When you want to show me I'm wrong, do so. Enjoy. But I think I've gotten far enough down into the weeds with you on this.

 

[John Mullally]

Ok, to be fair, I did snidely take you saying you disagreed, to be in reference to the scriptures she posted, (since that was the sequence of comments and responses), and not to be disagreeing with her use of them (which she had shown in a couple or three earlier posts). I also did not think you were saying anyone goes sinless. But you are saying that is what [USER..=309690]@Clare73[/USER] was saying, which you should know by now is not what she was saying. I've never heard her claim that. If you haven't realized that by now, as many times as you have interacted with her, you should "try listening"!

If my memory serves, and without reviewing the whole line to be sure I've got the timeline right, Claire had made the assertion, and had shown the texts that themselves 'demonstrate' the same (so that you won't object to me saying that "the texts say the same", and had even given a little explanatory reasoning, sufficient for me to follow her argument, anyway, and by the time you rang in, she was done. But she answered you all the same, even restated her position, apparently out of simple respect.

On top of that, the fact that she didn't explain to your satisfaction, when it was someone else she was talking to, really doesn't obligate her to explain it to your satisfaction.

When you want to show me I'm wrong, do so. Enjoy. But I think I've gotten far enough down into the weeds with you on this.

X