Why is Christ not dead / in Hell

[Inkfingers]

There never was a set price. The only "price" is what God says it is, and was fulfilled for whatever it was.

Rubbish, the price is either eternal death or eternity in the lake of fire (depending on interpretation).

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Christ was the sacrificial lamb. he fulfilled atonement law for those who would be the LORD's people. the unblemished blood sacrifice of the Son of Man was greater than that of an animal.

review the books of Hebrews.

 

[Landon Caeli]

For an actual "price" there is a seller and a buyer. When God is both the seller and the buyer, then God gets to decide what he pays himself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I haven't browbeaten anyone.

I'm waiting for someone to actually address the point I've made rather than their own tangential version of it which ignores what I've said.

There's no point to address if you haven't yet established it. All that has happened so far is you've created an OP containing a challenge to others to consider your unfounded assertions (and supposed dilemma). The onus is on you; you've made the initial assertion, and you have to establish it FIRST for us to fully consider it. It's not our responsibility to dismantle a conclusion that is not clearly founded---i.e. your simple presentation of assertions ABOUT the Bible "don't cut it."

 

[Landon Caeli]

Rubbish, the price is either eternal death or eternity in the lake of fire (depending on interpretation).

That's just your own abstract thinking. There is no such contract that says so, nor any reason to assume so

 

[Inkfingers]

There's no point to address if you haven't yet established it. All that has happened so far is you've created an OP containing a challenge to others to consider your unfounded assertions (and supposed dilemma). The onus is on you; you've made the initial assertion, and you have to establish it FIRST for us to fully consider it. It's not our responsibility to dismantle a conclusion that is not clearly founded---i.e. your simple presentation of assertions ABOUT the Bible "don't cut it."

Why won't people address this problem head on? Why do they insist on trying to reframe the questions in their own tangent that ignores the questions being asked?

I'll spell it out real simple like.

1) The price of sin is either eternal death (annihilation) or eternal torture in the lake of fire (depending on which interpretation you hold to) - that is the price WE pay for sin

2) Scripture says Jesus paid the price of sin for us

3) Jesus is not either eternally dead or eternally in the lake of fire

So....

Either:

a) Jesus did not pay the full price, he only paid part of it (in which case he did NOT pay the price for sin)

or

b) The Father intends to let everyone off the hook the same way (and thus the real price is not really eternal death / torture after all because God is going to lessen the punishment in line with what Jesus received).

Which is it?

 

[HatGuy]

I'm waiting for someone to actually address the point I've made rather than their own tangential version of it which ignores what I've said.

It's possible you're conflating "eternal" with a concept that is not actually in the scriptures.

 

[Inkfingers]

It's possible you're conflating "eternal" with a concept that is not actually in the scriptures.

So the price of sin is not either eternal death / torture? That's a whole other thread in itself. Here I'm taking the standard line that the price is one of those two things.

 

[Landon Caeli]

So the price of sin is not either eternal death / torture? That's a whole other thread in itself. Here I'm taking the standard line that the price is one of those two things.

Do you take the bible to mean that "price" is a form of payment? Like money?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Jesus was not a payment.

 

[Inkfingers]

Do you take the bible to mean that "price" is a form of payment? Like money?

Right, you are not making any attempt to answer my question but are just posting bizarre comments. Kindly toddle off and do it someplace else.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Right, you are not making any attempt to answer my question but are just posting bizarre comments. Kindly toddle off and do it someplace else.

You think Jesus was like a bag of coins, don't you? Intended to just be a payment of equal proportions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why won't people address this problem head on? Why do they insist on trying to reframe the questions in their own tangent that ignores the questions being asked?

I'll spell it out real simple like.

1) The price of sin is either eternal death (annihilation) or eternal torture in the lake of fire (depending on which interpretation you hold to) - that is the price WE pay for sin

2) Scripture says Jesus paid the price of sin for us

3) Jesus is not either eternally dead or eternally in the lake of fire

So....

Either:

a) Jesus did not pay the full price, he only paid part of it (in which case he did NOT pay the price for sin)

or

b) The Father intends to let everyone off the hook the same way (and the price is not really eternal death / torture after all).

Which is it?

You don't get to offer proposition 1 without establishing it from Scripture (as you do with proposition 2). Your inconsistency is glaring! Furthermore, you've made up a false dilemma that we need not be concerned about. THAT is why we don't have be bothered with it. In fact, your (apparent) lack of ability to recognize that your argument, even if seemingly valid, is without soundness is truly amazing [assuming this isn't a put on by you]. So, I'm out, and I'll just pass the baton on to my brothers and sisters in Christ here who feel they'd like to waste further time with your unnecessarily overwrought attempt at a dilemma.

We've all given you the appropriate answers needed, and that without the necessary accounting that is really required on YOUR part.

So, have a great July 4th!

 

[HatGuy]

So the price of sin is not either eternal death / torture? That's a whole other thread in itself. Here I'm taking the standard line that the price is one of those two things.

John 17:3
Now this is eternal life--that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

Note carefully how Jesus defines "eternal life" and note he does not equate it to a period of time but a state of being.

The opposite of eternal life then, eternal death, is not about a period of time. It's complete separation from God.

Philosophically, eternity isn't really a time either.

So the point is to note that Jesus could suffer eternal death - separation - and yet be raised if he bridged that separation in the "price" (death) itself.

If "eternal" meant "forever" you would have a point. But does it? And what is "forever" anyway?

I believe if you want to engage by asking a good question, you ought to ask good questions of your own assumptions too . So you need to question what you mean by "eternal life" and provide a definition for the discussion.

 

[Inkfingers]

You don't get to offer proposition 1 without establishing it from Scripture

So you are saying that the price of sin which we pay is not eternal death / torture*

you've made up a false dilemma

No, I've pointed out an actual dilemma which people are now trying to deflect as much as they can.





*depending on which interpretation you hold to

 

[Inkfingers]

John 17:3
Now this is eternal life--that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

Note carefully how Jesus defines "eternal life" and note he does not equate it to a period of time but a state of being.

The opposite of eternal life then, eternal death, is not about a period of time. It's complete separation from God.

Philosophically, eternity isn't really a time either.

So the point is to note that Jesus could suffer eternal death - separation - and yet be raised if he bridged that separation in the "price" (death) itself.

If "eternal" meant "forever" you would have a point. But does it? And what is "forever" anyway?

I believe if you want to engage by asking a good question, you ought to ask good questions of your own assumptions too . So you need to question what you mean by "eternal life" and provide a definition for the discussion.

I take eternal as being about time, as most people do.

Taking it as something else is not the usual interpretation and beyond the subject matter of this thread.

 

[megan_26]

If you already have a view and refuse to sway it, then why ask the question? You claimed earlier that no one was addressing your point, but everyone is.

The reality is that you either choose to believe Jesus paid for our sins and we have a chance to have a relationship with God, or he didn't pay for our sins and we have no chance of reaching Heaven to be with our Father.

 

[Inkfingers]

If you already have a view and refuse to sway it, then why ask the question? You claimed earlier that no one was addressing your point, but everyone is.

No, they are not. They are trying to change the subject matter of the question and thus avoid what I'm asking.

The reality is that you either choose to believe Jesus paid for our sins and we have a chance to have a relationship with God, or he didn't pay for our sins and we have no chance of reaching Heaven to be with our Father.

And the price of sin, the price WE all would have to pay, is either eternal death or eternal torture (depending on which interpretation you go with). Jesus is not eternally dead and he isn't going in the lake of fire.

SO HOW CAN YOU SAY HE PAID THE PRICE WHEN HE DID NOT?

 

[Landon Caeli]

If you already have a view and refuse to sway it, then why ask the question? You claimed earlier that no one was addressing your point, but everyone is.

The reality is that you either choose to believe Jesus paid for our sins and we have a chance to have a relationship with God, or he didn't pay for our sins and we have no chance of reaching Heaven to be with our Father.

Likely, it was never a question meant for us to answer. More like an attempt to plant some kind of seed.

 

[megan_26]

No, they are not. They are trying to change the subject matter of the question and thus avoid what I'm asking.



And the price of sin, the price WE all would have to pay, is either eternal death or eternal torture (depending on which interpretation you go with). Jesus is not eternally dead and he isn't going in the lake of fire.

SO HOW CAN YOU SAY HE PAID THE PRICE WHEN HE DID NOT?

He conquered death, which has been said before. Meaning he didn't have to pay the full price. Again, you either believe there's no hope for us or there is. It's up to you.