Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

[Gregory Thompson]

Does it?

so we're really back to the garden where the snake saith, did god really say?

in anycase maybe you've forgotten . here is the passage i had in mind

Luke 6

30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.


^^^

36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Where is this parable found in the NT?

the letters. It's quite obvious anything based on the governmental processes of men is vastly inadequate to describe the way God operates. Jesus also spoke of an unjust judge in illustrating how persistence works all the more with God in prayer.

God doesn't change just because he was compared to an unmerciful emperor .. he is merciful . God is love . as the scriptures say .

 

[Clare73]

Just as the final arbiter of the meaning of Jesus' passion is Jesus Christ rather than the various theories of the atonement.

And the final arbiter of all things relating to God is the word of God in Scripture, where the atonement of Jesus Christ is clearly explained in Ro 3:25-26, and for which you have yet to provide an explanation consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture.

The word of God teaches that Jesus died as a ransom for the sins of many (Mt 20:28),
satisfying the justice of God by his propitiatory sacrifice which paid the penalty of punishment (Ro 3:25-26)
due at the Final Judgment on the sin of those who believe in him.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) (4,5) through faith in his blood (6).

He did this to demonstrate his justice (3), because in his forbearance he had passed over (1,2)

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice (3)

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies (7)." (Ro 3:25-26)

1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

2) The "what passed over" consisted precisely of?

3) How did the "what passed over" demonstrate God's justice?

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

7) How is God both just and the one who justifies?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, (John 5:22)

 

[Clare73]

Since Revelation barely made it into the canon in the first place . those curse passages would refer to the book of revelation . because not all bibles had the book of revelation until canonization . and a number of letters seem to be written after the book of revelation from what they refer to .. and other letters do not .

So you don't believe that the words attributed to Jesus in the NT are really the words of Jesus?

You don't believe the Bible?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So you don't believe that the words attributed to Jesus in the NT are really the words of Jesus?

You don't believe the Bible?

Wow .

Looks like the accuser has popped up among us .

 

[Clare73]

so we're really back to the garden where the snake saith, did god really say?

in anycase maybe you've forgotten . here is the passage i had in mind

Luke 6

30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil
36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

1) Was Jesus speaking of the present life or the after life?

2) Jesus is the one who revealed an eternal unmerciful hell (Mk 9:43-48).

 

[Clare73]

So you don't believe that the words attributed to Jesus in the NT are really the words of Jesus?

You don't believe the Bible?

Wow .

Looks like the accuser has popped up among us .

Why did you not answer the question?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

1) Was Jesus speaking of the present life or the after life?

2) Jesus is the one who revealed an eternal unmerciful hell (Mk 9:43-48).

God does not change . so he was speaking of God . one verse does not discount another .

Why did you not answer the question?

well other than the absurd nature of your question in jumping to conclusions, and us not having a relationship in which i am accountable to you at all ..

the premise of the question was blame . the bible teaches from the beginning of it . that this is a false premise in which there is no truth .. and in the end of it leads to death .

 

[Clare73]

1) Was Jesus speaking of the present life or the after life?

2) Jesus is the one who revealed an eternal unmerciful hell (Mk 9:43-48).

God does not change . so he was speaking of God . one verse does not discount another .

Non-responsive.

Do you believe the Bible?

Why did you not answer the question?

well other than the absurd nature of your question in jumping to conclusions, and us not having a relationship in which i am accountable to you at all ..

the premise of the question was blame . the bible teaches from the beginning of it . that this is a false premise in which there is no truth .. and in the end of it leads to death .

That's a "no" answer.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Non-responsive.


That's a "no" answer.

No time to play today . believe what you want about me . it's obvious you already had your mind made up when you began responding .

 

[MoreCoffee]

This time I got your back

Fiddler on the roof - Tradition ( with subtitles ) - YouTube

It's a great video clip expressing an important part of being human in God's world.

Thanks for reminding me, and thanks for getting my back - I've got yours too my friend.

Blessings and long life to you from God.

 

[Clare73]

No time to play today . believe what you want about me . it's obvious you already had your mind made up when you began responding .

Answer still = no.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Answer still = no.

I believe this is goodbye . thanks for the test of my patience

i think i handled it quite well . but God knows .

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe this is goodbye . thanks for the test of my patience

i think i handled it quite well . but God knows .

Kind sir, some appear to believe that typing "non responsive" absolves them of answering questions or dealing with a counter argument.

And some think that typing "straw man" makes a valid argument or point or perspective into a parody of their argument - no doubt the term "straw man" is not well understood in such cases. A "straw man" in argument is a logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down.

So, brother Michael Collum, do not take to heart such accusations regarding your posts unless you actually have engaged in "straw man" argumentation or have written a response that does not respond to what your interlocutor wrote.

God keep you and be with you.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Kind sir, some appear to believe that typing "non responsive" absolves them of answering questions or dealing with a counter argument.

And some think that typing "straw man" makes a valid argument or point or perspective into a parody of their argument - no doubt the term "straw man" is not well understood in such cases. A "straw man" in argument is a logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down.

So, brother Michael Collum, do not take to heart such accusations regarding your posts unless you actually have engaged in "straw man" argumentation or have written a response that does not respond to what your interlocutor wrote.

God keep you and be with you.

I appreciate your encouraging word brother

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by MoreCoffee

Kind sir, some appear to believe that typing "non responsive" absolves them of answering questions or dealing with a counter argument.
​

And some think that typing "straw man" makes a valid argument or point or perspective into a parody of their argument - no doubt the term "straw man" is not well understood in such cases. A "straw man" in argument is a logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down.

So, brother Michael Collum, do not take to heart such accusations regarding your posts unless you actually have engaged in "straw man" argumentation or have written a response that does not respond to what your interlocutor wrote.

God keep you and be with you.
​

I appreciate your encouraging word brother

So would I

1Th 5:11
Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.

1Ti 5:1
Do not rebuke an older man, but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers,

.

 

[brinny]

So would I







.

Beautiful quote, and right from God's own heart. Put yer shades on...i'm reachin' fer mine....cuz He be shinin' real bright from it. May He bless yer socks off amigo (seriously)

 

[MoreCoffee]

So would I

.

You're posts are most informative dear brother LittleLambofJesus

 

[mathetes123]

That says nothing about the Father pouring out His Wrath on Jesus. To be "made sin" means "to be made a sin offering," nothing to do with undergoing God's wrath.


So where are the Biblical texts? Please don't waste our time if you don't actually want to answer the question!

A redeemer does pay the price for sins, but that doesn't mean the redeemer takes the person's place! Many people in Scripture made atonement for sins and it never involved them taking the wrath or punishment in place of the sinner.

You can look all through Scripture and you'll not see any hint of Jesus enduring the Father's wrath.

If Jesus didnt take take our place then what was the purpose of the incarnation and the cross. In your opinion, how is a person saved?

 

[Rick Otto]

So would I .

This is the best I can do for ya at the moment:
Roy Rogers: Home On The Range - YouTube