>>OK.. show me in Isaiah where God says blood atonement is not needed.
Isaiah 1:11: To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and
I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. M>Why would the wages of sin be death?
>>Yes.
Yes? It wasn't really a yes or no question actually.
M>Is that really what a loving parent would do to their children for learning and growing and maturing?
>>I don't see the connection with your analogy. Parents do not cause death. NIether does God. Death is not from God, so why use this analogy?
Why would the punishment for sin be death? What loving parent would do that to their child? If life is from God, then death must be also, don't you think? Without life, there can be no death.
M>According to Isaiah, this was no better than trying to buy your way out of sin
>>And I saiah, being a prophet of God, knew that soon, this would be true, that Jesus would come and end the animal sacrifice once and for all. This passge in Isaiah was not for the time in ehihc it was written, but for a time in the near future when Jesus ould come and die for us.
Now you're really leaning pretty heavily on rationalizations.
You are going to try to tell me that Isaiah isn't condemning it during his day, but only in the future?
In your book, didn't Jesus die for all sin, past present and future?
M>which Martin Luther aposed about the Catholic Church as well.
>>Good for him. Your point?
My point is that Jesus referred to those perpetuating this animal sacrifice as "theives". This suggests they weren't doing anyone any good. Jesus didn't seem to approve of animal sacrifice to "buy themselves clean", any more than did Martin Luther.
M>Isaiah called the practice hollow, and compared the practice to killing human beings.
>>Which it is. It wasn't always so, but it is now. It became hllow and the death of Christ.
All you've done is substituted Jesus in the place of animals. I fail to see how this is any more pleasing to God. I still do not understand why you think God killing himself is somehow "required" to forgive sin. This is ultimately what you seem to believe.
M>Why couldn't God simply forgive sin like any normal human parent?
>>Umm.. who said He doesn't forgive sin? Not me. He does forgive sin.
Ok, then why can't God forgive sin without killing, and without blood? Aren't even we mere humans capable of greater compassion than that? Didn't Jesus command us to have more compassion than that?
M>Jesus had to have been "perfect" in every way, blemish free, and never have made a mistake in his life. Don't you think that's asking a bit much?
>>In order for Jesus to atone for our sins, he had to be sinless.
Why? Suppose it turns out he was a "man" as he claimed to be afterall, and one who'd learned some lessons of his own along the way? Would that destroy your "faith" in God?
>
efine that as you will, but for me, Jesus had to be sinless.
I think you are asking a lot from a "man", and that is how Jesus described himself. I don't see how anyone can have that kind of compassion without understanding the idea of guilt.
M>The root of the word sin comes from the concept of "missing the mark".
>>If that makes you feel better, ok. But since English words have more than one definition most of the time, I chose to use the definition of sin that is in the Bible:
That makes no sense. The OT part of the bible was written by Jews. Their definition of the word is what is important. Who cares about what the word means in a different culture?
M>Sinning is making a mistake, to miss the mark of unity in God.
>>Can yo say the same thing about sin, without adding "of unity with God:?
Yes.
I'm not sure it would convey the entire meaning properly however.
>>I find it intersting you added that at te end of the statement, after trying so hard to show it was also just making a mistake.
The concept of missing the mark was indeed rooted in the notion of unity in God. I'm sure you could define the term in the absense of God, but it would not convey the same meaning.
M>There is nothing in the bible to suggest his childhood was completely "sin free".
>>Only his nature.
Yet even the bible records that the Spirit descended upon him at baptism. What was his "nature" before then?
M>Many Times? How MANY times?
>>Here are a couple times off the top of my head... but really, one one time is enough. Matt 14:33; 28:9
33: Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the
Son of God.
You seem to have missed a word here. The word SON is important don't you think?
28:9: And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
It does not say the worshipped him as God. Again you keep reading in things it does not say.
M>He says we are all capable of this same Union with God that he enjoys.
>>I agree. Whats your point?
My point is that by elevating him to God status, you go directly against Jesus' own teachings. This isn't what Jesus said. He said he was the *SON* of God.
M>he prays to him as son to father
>>I agree. What's your point?
So is Jesus deluded here praying to something outside of himself that doesn't exist?
M>Jesus called himself a "man".
>>But never did He say He was just a man, and nothing more. And never did He say He was not God.
Yes, he certainly did. He said it clearly in John 17 when he refered to God as father, and the only true God.
M>Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Jesus begin that prayer with *OUR* father?
>>You are correct. What's your point?
Why wouldn't say say "pray to me" this way........????
M>It seems to me that untold numbers of Priests since then have felt quite confortable forgiving sin on behalf of God. I fail to see how this alone proves he's God.
>>On behalf of God, but not as God. And for those being forgiven, they had better know it was God forgiving them and ont the priest.
How do you know Jesus did this any differently?
>>Also, Jesus forgave as God, not on behalf of God.
This seems more like your opinion now, unless you can show me where he claims to be God in the first person. I mean in the whole of his ministries, you'd think you could find something to show that Jesus taught others that he was God incarnate. I can find you dozens of first person quotes from Krishna refering to God in the first person. Why wouldn't Jesus do the same thing?
M>Matthew 6:14: For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
>>You don't understand this verse?
I understand the verse. The question is "do you?" Jesus makes it clear many times that we will be judged as we judge others. He also makes it clear that we can all forgive sin.
M>No, it shows he was the Messiah. Would you please look up the term Messiah to the Jews. He was to be a "MAN" sent by God.
>>Heh. Interresting you bring this up.. considering the Jews do not beleive their Messiah has come yet...
Yet they still claim he'll be a "man" sent from God, not God.
M>Or Jesus is unified with God through the presense of the Holy Spirit, and is thereby "divine".
>>Maybe.. but good luck in convincing anyone of it.
It certainly seems rather clear to me.
>>Any other exmaples of someone who is devine and not God?
Sure. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Nelson Mandella. These are all souls who were moved by the Spirit.
>>Forinstance.. the closest thing to Godm as far as a nature goes, wouod probably be Lucifer. Tell me, do you think Lucifer was Devine?
I think Lucifer is another one of those alegories you aught to talk with Archon about.
M>By this definition, then all beings who achieve this union with God are "divine".
>>And by that staement either we cease to exist as independant from God in thought or deed, devoid of any sentient thought, or else there are multiple gods.
You might want to talk to some folks that have gone through a near death experience. They talk about unity and individuality at the same time.
M>From Jewish apocrapha.
>>Sorry, I don't recognize the Jewish Apochrapha's authority on the issue when it conflicts with the Bible.
I'm not talking about conflicts here. I'm simply noting the history behind these beliefs.
M>>Are you saying there are *MANY* Gods? Have you suddenly become a Hindu on us?
>>Maybe I am feeling a litle trigger happy.. I don't know, I have already banned one user from this board for calling myself and others a liar, and/ormis-representing us. I consider the statement above in that category. I never said what you claim I am saying.. so consider this a warning.
Well, what are you saying then exactly? (I know it's been a hard week on everyone, and you must have missed the smiley face)
Who did you ban by the way?
M>It is truth as I percieve it, just as your "truth" is also "subjective".
>>So to answer my question.. you are not sure. You percieve it as so, but can't be certain beyond your perception.
I am sure. You act as though I have not backed up my ideas through the bible as well. How can you be any more sure than anyone else that your "interpretation" of reality is any closer to the truth than anyone elses?
>>So then.. if both truths are based upon perception, then why are you here again? I mean, it is obvious to me, by that bstatement above that we are going to beleive what we want, regardless of what others say we should, so to me, it seems that your think your efforts here are futile.. why bother?
Why bother communicating with anyone over anything?
M>John 3 for starters. Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the only begotten Son of God. He said it goes where it wills, and it would testify for him. Indeed it does.
>>Before you cna use this verse, you mjust establish that the Holy Spirit=Word. Since you never have, you can't us ethis verse to answer my question. Any other verses up your sleeve?
Not off the top of my head. I'll do some research for you though. We seem to be making some progress here however since we both seem to be in agreement that whatever the "WORD" is, it is not a book.
M>In traditional Judaism, all things come from one God, from whom all things are made manifest. This is a basic and a core tenet of Judaism. The Messiah of Judaism was a "begotten" messanger *FROM* God, but was never considered to be God himself. This is a "christian" invention.
>>The idea that Jesus is God would not contradict that core doctrine of Judaism, since God couldn't manifest Himself. The Messiah of Christinaity was not merely a messanger from God, but was God too. You assume that Judaism is more right then Christianity.. why?
I'm simply noting the roots of history here. Jesus was after all the JEWISH Messiah. Judaism understood that there was the manifestor, and the manifested.
M>He constantly referred to God in the third person.
>
id He? Or did Jess refer to the Father, who is God, in the third person?
We're off onto more wild goose chases now. Jesus was quite clear that all his power came from God, and that he was a "man" like you and me.
M>If we were to total up the one of two sayings you are building your case on, and total up all the times he refered to God in the third person, there would be no comparison in terms of numbers alone.
>>So then give me the verses that Jesus refers to God in the third person.
Huh? How about the whole of John 17? Who's he praying to?
M>Yes, it does. It has created a skism within the religion.
>>Lets see.. I am a Christian woh holds to the Trinity doctrine, and I see no skism.
You've heard the expression that one cannot see then the forest for the trees? You may not acknowledge this skism, but it's there none the less.
>>you are not a Christian
I do not fit your personal "definition" of Christian, but only Christ is a fit judge of that statement.
>>and do not hold true the Trinity doctrine.
Not as an exclusive relationship between Jesus and God alone. This is not what Jesus said.
>>. and are in no position to see the alleged skism,
Quite the contrary. I've had about 15+ more years to look at my belief systems than have you. I quite clearly see a skism between the teachings of Jesus and what the church teaches today in his name. I've already outlined the parts I felt were most important.
>>sincethe Trinity in which it exists does not exist to you, thus who are you to say you know Christianity and the Trinity beter than I to judge wether or not there is a skism?
The only way to answer that is that I've shed my own belief systems, not once here, but twice. When I first became an athiest, I finally began to see how I was chained by my beliefs. As God introduced herself to me later on, I began to see how I was again chained by my own ego and beliefs. I think I am in an unique position to see the skisms of various religions. Christianity is certainly not unique in this way.
M>The second coming of Jesus isn't going to be physical in nature.
>>WOW! oh man.. you know what.. When he does come back.. and all the Christians vanish.. please come back and read all the posts in this board.
I'll be long gone by then.