Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
yeah, i can understand resisting arrest.
it's our constitutional right to protect ourselves.
Never understood adding it as another charge on top of what one is being arrested for.
I don't even follow stuff on Mel Gibson, he only come up because holywood has more authority if you are orthodox.
As if the prophets weren't or something
Yeah, when that tear came outta the sky, when I was watchin' the other night, I immediately thought that's bogus where did that come from?
No prophecy anywhere about it, or the Holy Spirit would have brought it to my remembrance.
Yet you've not offered them, or any reason why they would be better.
I have offered them, you may not have read the posts in which they were offered.
In fact others have also offered alternatives.
I have offered them, you may not have read the posts in which they were offered.
In fact others have also offered alternatives.
I haven't seen anything from you in response to me save for supposition, conjecture, and evasiveness. Please post something concrete, or this discussion is moot.
Not quite.yeah, can understand resisting arrest.
it's our constitutional right to protect ourselves.
Never understood adding it as another charge on top of what one is being arrested for.
And in the absence of an explanation of Ro 3:25-26 consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture, you are in no position to make that assertion, based as it is in ignorance of Ro 3:25-26 where it is clearly presented.I reckon that the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory is a case of human beings reasoning Godown to their size. Making him small and somewhat petty.That is simply human reason at work, measuring God by ourselves and expecting him to be like us, instead of taking him at the plain words of Ro 3:25-26, for which passage you have no explanation consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture (as shown [post=63164645]here[/post] and [post=63167342]here[/post]).Folk can believe the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) theory but to do so does raise questions about what sort of being God is and what kind of justice God represents.
Are you sure about that?Ridiculous. . .
It wasn't a sin, and yet it required a sin offering. . .hmmm. . .looks like your view doesn't explain it either.You're projecting way too much on Rom 3:25, all based on a faulty pre-existing misunderstanding of the Biblical term "Atonement".
Your view cannot explain texts like Leviticus 12:6-7, where a woman has to sacrifice two animals after giving birth, making atonement, which makes no sense if this is about Penal Substitution since giving birth isn't a sin and certainly not deserving of the death penalty.
Your blustery posturing with it grand sweeping statements regarding Scripture betray your unfamiliarity with them.Never ever is atonement in Scripture described in terms of transferring punishment.
It's hard to imagine that you do not understand the plain meaning of Isa 53:4-5, showing transference of our punishment onto Christ:
"Surely he took up our infirmities (sins),
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace (with God) was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed."
God made Christ the equivalent of the "mercy seat" that by faith in His blood, God's wrath might be held back.
Mercy Seat has meant "removal of sin by expiatory sacrifice" since the OT was translated into Greek 300 years before the birth of Christ.
The Jewish translators of the OT into the Greek (Septuagint, LXX) stated a propitiatory sacrifice in their translation of "Mercy Seat" into the Greek words hilasterion epithema.
Hilasterion epithema refers to the lid or cover of the Ark of the Covenant, called kapporeth in the Hebrew.
In the Hebrew it meant the covering of, or the removal of sin (Ps 32:1) by means of expiatory (animal) sacrifice, which they translated as epithema (cover) in the Greek.
They added hilasterion, which is an adjective signifying the propitiatory, thereby translating Mercy Seat as hilasterion epithema.
Eventually, the Greek word hilasterion stood for both Greek words hilasterion (propitiatory sacrifice) and epithema (cover).
So the OT Hebrew kapporeth = Greek OT hilasterion epithema since ~300 years before the birth of Christ = English NT sacrificial expiatory propitiation of Christ's atonement in Ro 3:25-26.
The meaning of "Mercy Seat" as "sacrificial expiatory propitiation" in Christ's atonement of Ro 3:25-26 is neither a faulty "misunderstanding" nor new to the Greek Scriptures, having been its meaning since they originated.
It is "misunderstanding" or new only to those who do not know the history of its translation, relying instead on the history of theology.
The NT has always presented Christ's atonement as a propitiatory sacrifice (Ro 3:25-26), never as a "standing in the gap" of sin.
So "sacrificial expiatory propitiation" has been the NT meaning of Christ's "atonement" in Ro 3:25-26 since the Greek NT was written, being taken from the Greek OT (LXX), which was translated from the Hebrew ~300 years before the birth of Christ.
You are the one using a human definition of Christ's "atonement," instead of going back to its Jewish translators' meaning in kapporeth and hilasterion, which is "sacrificial expiatory (kapporeth) propitiation (hilasterion)," no "standing in the gap" involved.
You are the one desperately equating Christ's atonement of Ro 3:25-26 with Moses, Aaron and Phinehas, which equating is nowhere found in Scripture.
And finally, for a plain example in Scripture of punishment being transferred, Isa 53:5 is a good place to start.
Not every post I write is addressed to you.
I do not intend to repeat things that are already in the thread from both myself and others.
Thekla has provided some alternatives.
Check out this image for some alternative atonement theories.
From the same source we have these brief explanations:
[*]Christus Victor. Popularized by Irenaeus, Jesus' life is a victorious struggle against evil. While many would place this at the Resurrection, Irenaeus would place the locus at the Incarnation and God existing before time as part of the Trinity.
[*]Incarnational Atonement. Popularized by Fredrick Schleiermacher, something about the way Jesus is invites us into ideal humanity, made possible simply because of the Incarnation. God becoming flesh atones humanity in that instant, and all that matters is that God became human. This is also one of the stated ponderings in the Hacking Christianity article "Christmas, Not Lent, Should be about Atonement."
[*]Moral Exemplar. Popularized by Abelard, Jesus' life and death is a powerful enough example of love and obedience to influence sinners to repent of their sins and improve their lives.
[*]Solidarity. Popularized by Tony Jones and Jurgen Moltmann, Jesus' life stands as testimony that he always stood with the marginalized, the poor, the prostitutes and the tax collectors. His death was the result of his life. We are called to identify with Christ's suffering and to stand with those whose experience of being forsaken parallels Christ on the cross.
[*]Healing Servant. Popularized by some interpretations of John Wesley (though his own atonement is much harder to pin down), this perspective sees sin as disease and grace as healing, referencing Christ as the Great Physician.
[*]Penalty Satisfaction/Substitution. Popularized by Augustine/Anselm, the death of Jesus on the cross is the paying of a debt (or satisfying a debt) caused by humanity's sinful nature offending God's honour. Also framed as Jesus taking the place (substituting) for humanity on the Cross.
[*]Last Scapegoat. Popularized by Rene Girard, tribal human societies needed a release valve to let off the pressure of increasing rivalry and violence, so a scapegoat victim is sacrificed, thus relieving the pressure of violence. Jesus' death as a "visible victim/scapegoat" shows the injustice and inherent immorality of the scapegoating system on display.
[*]Ransom Captive. Popularized by Origen, Jesus' death is the ransom paid to the devil (or evil powers) to free humans from the bondage of sin. Its locus is the Resurrection as that's when the Devil was tricked and he didn't have any control over Christ at all. RC has gained some traction in the post-modern world when you substitute "Satan" with "the powers" as popularized by Walter Wink and Gustav Aulen.
Well, God is obviously wrong.Except the "scapegoat" was instituted by God.(Leviticus 16:10) So this calls God immoral and unjust. (Blasphemous)MoreCoffee said:Last Scapegoat. Popularized by Rene Girard, tribal human societies needed a release valve to let off the pressure of increasing rivalry and violence, so a scapegoat victim is sacrificed, thus relieving the pressure of violence. Jesus’ death as a “visible victim/scapegoat” shows the injustice and inherent immorality of the scapegoating system on display.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?