Non-OSAS belief - undermines the cross

[KingJ]

I've already done that. It's a false premise. It's not accept me or die. It's everyone is going to die. But hey, I have a life preserver here if you're interested. Remember, Paul said, the "wages" of sin is death. He didn't say the penalty for sin is death. People earn death because of their sin. It's not God's fault people sin. So, they've earned death, that is their reward. However, God steps in and says, that death doesn't have to be permanent. It's an act of mercy, not one of wrath. God essentially is handing out "get out of jail free cards" for those who interested.

The problem you have is that you do not see how evil it is to not give a highly intelligent creation true free will. Free will to live with their choices. We are not merely some candid random creation. We are created in the image of God Gen 1:27 and can grasp good and evil as He can Gen 3:22.

The gospel is: 'live in heaven or live in hell' / 'Choose this day whom you will serve' Josh 24:15. This gives a human the freedom to choose. If the gospel was live in heaven or die, there is no freedom to choose. As I said, this then creates adverse pressure on all to act against their will. Those that get to heaven you want to be referred to as the 'lucky ones' as opposed to the 'bride of Christ' Eph 5:22-23?

It paints God as a sick Being. If we were dogs or pigs, your justification for God not being evil would hold some water.

If you did a poll, you would find 99% of people would say God is evil with your belief. Not sure why you don't get it or how you think your reply here suggests God is a good God who is righteous in all His ways Psalm 145:17.

It's all about perspective my friend. There are more perspectives than you are aware of. As Christians we would all do well to listen and consider and not be so quick to dismiss things we don't know of. Remember, Paul praised the Bereans for going to the Scriptures to see if what he said was true, as opposed to the Jews who didn't.

Perspective? No Butch. Here is your belief:

I adopt two children. One likes to clean my kitchen and one does not. The one that likes to clean my kitchen will get a free pass to stay with me forever. The one that does not, will be shot dead.

Many unrepentant sinners are guilty only of venial sins. There are many unrighteous barely not saved as there are many righteous barely saved 1 Pet 4:18. If perhaps the other, stabbed her sister to death, sure, maybe death penalty is fitting. The thought that God would give all the unrighteous the same punishment for their sin is shocking.

According to your belief God perverts justice as all the wicked get the same punishment and He is evil as He does not give highly intelligent creations true free will. The ability to choose to not be with Him and live with their choice.

No, it didn't debunk anything. As I pointed out it was full of fallacies. Maybe if one is irrational, it makes sense. But to those who are rational critical thinkers it is a joke. It's clearly biased and full of fallacies. The author made no attempt whatsoever at making an objective argument. If one believes it was a good article it is simply because it is reinforcing errors already believed. No, they will also be destroyed. Aion does not mean eternal.

They explained how with your belief God would not be eternal. The deal breaker however / what you don't want to accept is the fact that every translation says eternal. I will not argue this anymore with you.

You may believe that but it's not the case. Going in circles, do you mean like this thread?

Person 1: Aion means eternal.
Person 2: Jesus said the aion ends.
Person 1: Aion means eternal.

Person 1: People are spiritually dead.
Person 2: Where do we find that in Scripture?
Person 1: People are spiritually dead.

I could so easily turn this on you.

That's not what I'm asking. let me clarify. Was His death a payment to God?

I know you believe it has everything to do with it. That's why I asked you to explain

No, I'm not. Penal Atonement holds that Jesus' death for sin was to appease God's wrath toward the sinner. If that is the case, there is no forgiveness. If you can't answer, it's better to just say, I don't know.

Yes, that's what Penal Atonement claims. It's also how the pagans worshipped their gods. However, you still have a problem. The Scriptures say that Jesus died for "all". John the Baptist said, 'behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world'. The apostle John spoke of Jesus saying he is the propitiation for our sins, and not ours only but for the sin of the whole world.

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Jn 2:2.

So, once again, the Penal model runs afoul of Scripture. So, how do you reconcile that with the idea of only repentant sinners? Do you believe that the "whole world" is repentant sinners?

His blood is a cup on the table that anyone in the whole world can pick up and drink from John 6:53.

You're just sidestepping the issue. You can't pay and forgive the same debt. The two are mutually exclusive. If Jesus paid God for sins, then sins are not forgiven, there is no way around this. It doesn't matter how you try to explain. It's a basic law of logic.

I don't say God lies. That's the only logical conclusion of Penal Atonement. Both aren't true. If you study the different theories, you'll see that. As I said, you can't have both payment and forgiveness of sins, the two are mutually exclusive. It just can't be.

No sidestep. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Example: Jesus paid our debt, yet Christians can still sin and go to heaven.

But we could also take the view that Jesus paid the debt for all our sins, past, current and future.

This is all a silly waste of time discussion. I am done with this. I wish you would just make your underlying point and explain the relevance / how you use it to arrive at support for whatever it is you want to imply.

But isn't there only one God? If He died who raised Him? You really would do well to avoid that site. The author didn't even make a case for how Jesus is God praying to God. He speaks of an eternal Son, which defies logic, Scripture, and the historic faith. He calls Jesus a God-man. That's funny because John said the word became flesh. He didn't say the word became a God man. Paul said that Christ emptied Himself and was in all ways made like His brothers. I don't know you, but I know I'm not a God-man. I'm just a man.

The trinity is hard to understand. But it is a fact Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I don't beat up anyone trying to defend and explain it. You should not mock gotquestions that much. We are ants compared to God. You ask '' who raised Jesus''. Let me ask you, where does God come from? Who made God?

I don't believe any human can properly understand the exactness of the trinity. But it does exist. Scripture is clear on it. To ever state Jesus is not Lord, is to make a complete mockery of Christianity. According to Paul such a belief is evidence of not having the Holy Spirit 1 Cor 12:3.

So the best answer I can give you is ''God the Father raised God the Son''. Imagine the puzzlement of those who ask God the question of where He comes from and He says ''I am''.

Because they didn't believe in a Trinity. At least not as Christians do today. The Nicene Creed, which is what the early Church believed says that Jesus is true God "out of" true God. In other words, He is the Son of God because He literally came out of God. Thus, He, as person, is not eternal. This modern idea of the Trinity being three coequal, coeternal persons as one God is a product of the 5th century. Many attribute it to the Catholic theologian Augustine.

Not sure how that is possible when Isa 9:6 is OT, Jesus said 'I and the Father are one' in John 10:30 and Paul said we will call Jesus, Lord with the Holy Spirit 1 Cor 12:3.

I'm not saying God punished His Son for our sins. I'm saying there is no payment to God for sins. Where in Scripture do we find that God requires payment for sins? The wages of sin is death. We "earn" death because of our sins. We will all die because of our sins. However, God has offered a second chance if we're willing to meet the conditions. Belief in Christ is that second chance. We all will die. But if we enter into this covenant with God, He has promised to raise us up to a life that will not end. However, we don't get to bypass the consequences of our sin, we will die. If Jesus paid a price to God for sins, then Christians shouldn't die. But they do. Therefore, the wages of their sins have not been paid for.

What do you mean Christians die? What death is it that we 'pay for our sins'? Please explain this last underlined line to me. I was following until it. The build up does not make sense as to why you would say this.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference. Maybe instead of spending time here trying to prove me wrong, the time may be better spent studying the history of the Atonement and the different theories. Also, since you don't give logic any place, I can see how you accept payment and acceptance of the same debt.

Look, man, I wouldn’t have come here to have a discussion with you on this convoluted topic if I hadn’t done my fair share of study. Substitutionary atonement is the only view I hold onto, it’s solidly rooted in the Torah - with several models:

An animal took Adam and Eve’s place, as God made tunics from its skin to clothe them; (Gen. 3:21)

A ram took Isaac's place in Abraham's test of faith; (Gen. 22:13-14)

Judah, Yeshua's own forefather, volunteered to take Benjamin's place to be held ransom; (Gen. 44:30-34)

Moses volunteered to be blotted out in place of the Israelites; (Ex. 32:31-32)

And of course, the most famous one, the brozen serpent as the symbol of sin hanged on a stick, which Yeshua compared himself with; (Num. 31:4-9)

All of these point to Yeshua, the Word of God who took OUR sin onto himself and died FOR US. This was confirmed by the thief who was crucified right beside Yeshua in Luke 23:40-41

"Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong."

Sources like this one below called it "penal Substitutionary Atonement", which fused the two models into one, whereas you have them separated. I really don't wanna get myself swamped in another rant over silly semantics, because it's just a waste of time and creates more confusion. So, since you don't reject substitutionary atonement, there's no problem. Maybe you've summed it up in your own terms, but essentially we're on the same side.

What is the penal substitutionary atonement theory?

Penal substitutionary atonement theory best explains the holiness of God in relationship to the legal requirements of the punishment of sin.

www.carm.org

 

[Butch5]

The problem you have is that you do not see how evil it is to not give a highly intelligent creation true free will. Free will to live with their choices. We are not merely some candid random creation. We are created in the image of God Gen 1:27 and can grasp good and evil as He can Gen 3:22.

The gospel is: 'live in heaven or live in hell' / 'Choose this day whom you will serve' Josh 24:15. This gives a human the freedom to choose. If the gospel was live in heaven or die, there is no freedom to choose. As I said, this then creates adverse pressure on all to act against their will. Those that get to heaven you want to be referred to as the 'lucky ones' as opposed to the 'bride of Christ' Eph 5:22-23?

It paints God as a sick Being. If we were dogs or pigs, your justification for God not being evil would hold some water.

If you did a poll, you would find 99% of people would say God is evil with your belief. Not sure why you don't get it or how you think your reply here suggests God is a good God who is righteous in all His ways Psalm 145:17.

It's not that I don't get it. I've spent years working through these doctrines. I've looked at them from multiple perspectives. As I said, it's the way you see things that cause you to draw your conclusion. You start with two false premises; these then lead you to a wrong conclusion. The Gospel is "not" live in Heaven or live in hell. There is nothing in Scripture that says people go to Heaven when they die. Jesus actually stated the opposite, telling both the Jews and the apostles that they could not go there. There is nothing that teaches people live in the grave. You hold a Greek Philosophic/Gnostic view of these things. The Gospel is the Kingdom of God. There's nothing in it about going to Heaven. Because you hold these two false premises, you draw a false conclusion. Everyone sins and everyone dies, thus they get the wages of their sin. That would be the end of the story if God had not stepped in. But He did. He gave man a way out. A way that his death didn't have to be permanent. He said if we enter into a covenant with Him through Christ we could have eternal life. If one chooses, of their own free will, to say no, that's up to them. God does not force anyone into the covenant. Just as God set before Israel, 'I have set before you life and death, choose life', so, He sets before people today. Everyone has the opportunity to choose life or death. God didn't say to Israel, I set before you heaven and hell, choose Heaven, He said, life and death, choose life.

Please, show me anything anywhere in Scripture that suggest people are to choose between Heaven and Hell. You won't be able to. There is nothing there. There is no choice between Heaven and Hell. The choice is between life and death. I don't know how it is that you can reject certain doctrines claiming they impugn God and at the same time hold the doctrine of Penal Atonement that impugns God. That my friend is inconsistent. That is not logical.

Perspective? No Butch. Here is your belief:

I adopt two children. One likes to clean my kitchen and one does not. The one that likes to clean my kitchen will get a free pass to stay with me forever. The one that does not, will be shot dead.

Many unrepentant sinners are guilty only of venial sins. There are many unrighteous barely not saved as there are many righteous barely saved 1 Pet 4:18. If perhaps the other, stabbed her sister to death, sure, maybe death penalty is fitting. The thought that God would give all the unrighteous the same punishment for their sin is shocking.

According to your belief God perverts justice as all the wicked get the same punishment and He is evil as He does not give highly intelligent creations true free will. The ability to choose to not be with Him and live with their choice.

So far you've misrepresented my belief each time. I'm wondering if you're paying attention to what I'm saying. It doesn't appear to me that you're giving it any thought. Let me rephrase your analogy. A man adopts two children, one like to clean his kitchen and one doesn't. Both of these children are going to die. The man hands out a life preserver, they have a free will choice to either take it or leave it.

It's amazing that you claim an act of mercy is unjust but and an act of injustice is just. Nothing I've said perverts God's justice. As I said, you're starting with two false premises. These are causing you to draw a false conclusion.

They explained how with your belief God would not be eternal. The deal breaker however / what you don't want to accept is the fact that every translation says eternal. I will not argue this anymore with you.

No, as I said, it was full of fallacies. I do find it rather interesting though that you take the words of the translators over the words of Jesus and the apostles. That speaks volumes, my friend. As a Christian I would think that the words of Jesus would take precedence over everyone anywhere. Especially since He said the words He spoke were the words of the Father. So, in other words, you take the words of the translators over the words of God the Father. That's a scary place to be my friend.

I could so easily turn this on you.



His blood is a cup on the table that anyone in the whole world can pick up and drink from John 6:53.

That's not what I asked. Is His death a payment to God?

No sidestep. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Example: Jesus paid our debt, yet Christians can still sin and go to heaven.

But we could also take the view that Jesus paid the debt for all our sins, past, current and future.

This is all a silly waste of time discussion. I am done with this. I wish you would just make your underlying point and explain the relevance / how you use it to arrive at support for whatever it is you want to imply.

It's only a waste of time because you have no reply. The two are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be true. This means there is a problem in your doctrine. Rather than address it you've chosen to be "done with this".

The trinity is hard to understand. But it is a fact Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I don't beat up anyone trying to defend and explain it. You should not mock gotquestions that much. We are ants compared to God. You ask '' who raised Jesus''. Let me ask you, where does God come from? Who made God?

I don't believe any human can properly understand the exactness of the trinity. But it does exist. Scripture is clear on it. To ever state Jesus is not Lord, is to make a complete mockery of Christianity. According to Paul such a belief is evidence of not having the Holy Spirit 1 Cor 12:3.

So the best answer I can give you is ''God the Father raised God the Son''. Imagine the puzzlement of those who ask God the question of where He comes from and He says ''I am''.

I agree, God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. Thus, they are not the same. I also applaud you for saying you don't think anyone can understand the Trintiy. No one can, it's a logical contradiction. It's impossible. One being cannot consist of three beings. This is probably why the 5th century Catholics who came up with the idea put a disclaimer on it. They said if you don't believe this you can't be saved. So, now in the 5th century it wasn't just believe on Jesus to be saved. It was believe on Jesus and in our Trinity doctrine to be saved. The fact that they put a disclaimer on it suggests they knew it was ridiculous and that no one would believe it. Thus, the claim, unless you believe this you cannot be saved. It wasn't like it is today. Many, if not most, of those people were illiterate.

Not sure how that is possible when Isa 9:6 is OT, Jesus said 'I and the Father are one' in John 10:30 and Paul said we will call Jesus, Lord with the Holy Spirit 1 Cor 12:3.

Because they used the same Bible as Jesus and the apostles. Here is Isaiah 9:6 from the Septuagint, the Bible that Jesus, the apostles, and early church used.

because a child was born for us,
a son also given to us,
whose sovereignty was upon his shoulder,
and he is named Messenger of Great Counsel,
for I will bring peace upon the rulers,
peace and health to him.
7(6) His sovereignty is great,
and his peace has no boundary
upon the throne of Dauid and his kingdom,
to make it prosper and to uphold it
with righteousness and with judgment
from this time onward and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord Sabaoth will do these things.


Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., “Esaias,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Primary Texts), trans. Moisés Silva (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), Is 9:6–7.

Notice there isn't a mention of "everlasting Father". It wasn't there. That's why I asked you about the translators always being correct. They know the Septuagint is what Jesus, the apostles and early church used. However, they've chosen to give us a Bible with the Old Testament of the unbelieving Jews and not the believing Christians. Your blind trust in translators is misplaced.

regarding Jesus' words in John, "I and the Father are one", he's talking about unity, not being. Jesus makes a comparison.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Would you suggest that Jesus is praying that all Christians would be a single being? That they would all morph into one being. Is there one Christian being that consists of millions of Christian persons?

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jn 17:20–22.

What do you mean Christians die? What death is it that we 'pay for our sins'? Please explain this last underlined line to me. I was following until it. The build up does not make sense as to why you would say this.

Sure. Christians, like everyone else, die. The wages of sin is death. All sin, all die. No one gets out alive. We earn death with our sins. If a payment to God remedied that, then Jesus death would do that and Christians wouldn't die. But they do die. Again, no one gets out alive.

 

[joestue]

There is nothing in Scripture that says people go to Heaven when they die. Jesus actually stated the opposite, telling both the Jews and the apostles that they could not go there.

False.

He told the pharisees their father was the devil.. and I think he did tell them that where he was going they cannot go.

But he told Peter, where I am going you cannot follow now but will later. John 13

 

[Butch5]

False.

He told the pharisees their father was the devil.. and I think he did tell them that where he was going they cannot go.

But he told Peter, where I am going you cannot follow now but will later. John 13

No, it's not false. Jesus said,

32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him. 33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.

In the same way, the unbelieving Jews could not go to where He was going, so too the apostles could not go.
The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jn 13:31–33.


36 Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jn 13:36.

Why is it that they can't follow Him now, but they will follow Him later? This is explained in 14:1.

14 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jn 14.

The can't follow Him now because He is going away. However, He said He would come back and receive them so that they could be where He was. Since they can't go where He is going, He will come back so that they can be with Him. When He comes back they will again be able to follow Him. Thus, His statement, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow me later. They will follow him later when He comes back.

It's all about the context my friend.

 

[joestue]

And where in his father's house is the room?


Might that be... Heaven? Where his father's house resides?

 

[Butch5]

And where in his father's house is the room?


Might that be... Heaven? Where his father's house resides?

Actually, that would be the temple. The temple is called my Father's house.

12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 21:12–13.

One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after;
That I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life,
To behold the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in his temple.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ps 27:4.

7 They go ofrom strength to strength,
Every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.

8 O LORD God of hosts, hear my prayer:
Give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.
9 Behold, O God our shield,
And look upon the face of thine anointed.
10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand.
I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God,


The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ps 84:7–10.

Remember, he was speaking to the apostles. They had no thoughts of going to Heaven. Then knew the temple was the house of God.

 

[joestue]

Then knew the temple was the house of God.

Hopefully they were wise enough to understand what David and Solomon knew which was that God is far larger than a mere earthly temple.

 

[Butch5]

Hopefully they were wise enough to understand what David and Solomon knew which was that God is far larger than a mere earthly temple.

God being bigger than a temple has no bearing on how they would understand Jesus' words. The Jews were looking for an earthly kingdom. They weren't looking to go to heaven, that was the pagans who thought that. Jesus said there are many dwellings in my Father's house. He was referring to the living quarters of the priests.

And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. 2 And the house which king Solomon built for the LORD, the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits. 3 And the porch before the temple of the house, twenty cubits was the length thereof, according to the breadth of the house; and ten cubits was the breadth thereof before the house. 4 And for the house he made windows of narrow lights. 5 And against the wall of the house he built chambers round about, against the walls of the house round about, both of the temple and of the oracle: and he made chambers round about: 6 The nethermost chamber was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad: for without in the wall of the house he made narrowed rests round about, that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house. 7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building. 8 The door for the middle chamber was in the right side of the house: and they went up with winding stairs into the middle chamber, and out of the middle into the third. 9 So he built the house, and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of cedar. 10 And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high: and they rested on the house with timber of cedar.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Ki 6:1–10.

The chambers are the dwellings that Jesus spoke of.

 

[joestue]

The Jews were looking for an earthly kingdom. They weren't looking to go to heaven, that was the pagans who thought that.

Guess what? The Jews were wrong and paid for it with the destruction of the whole city in 70ad.

This even leads many to think that the book of revelation is past tense.

The fact that nearly no one of traditional religion survived speaks volumes. Either Pauline Christianity is correct and James and Peter were wrong on many issues, or Satan was 99% effective at destroying what he didn't want on earth.

We hardly have 3rd person accounts of the first century church. No other primary sources.

 

[Butch5]

Guess what? The Jews were wrong and paid for it with the destruction of the whole city in 70ad.

This even leads many to think that the book of revelation is past tense.

They weren't wrong about an earthly kingdom. Some were wrong on the timing.

 

[joestue]

House of the Lord does not mean God resides in this universe. He created it, is and was outside of it from the beginning. God does not need man to build him a house!

Anyhow this is a waste of time

 

[Butch5]

House of the Lord =\= earthly temple

That's how the apostles understood it.

 

[joestue]

That's how the apostles understood it.

I edited my post, but they were wrong on so many things.

Peter didn't even believe gentiles could be made clean until after a dream, after pentecost. It's not even clear if he understood salvation!

We don't know when he met Paul who argues you don't need to be circumcized, but from what little we do know it's likely James did not relent of his beliefs and stayed in Jerusalem teaching the law til 69ad.

What we do know is Jerome wrote a letter to someone in the 3rd century telling them it's not worth your effort to figure out what the controversy was about. But there definitely was one.

Amazon.com

You should do some reading, and not from just sources you agree with.

 

[Butch5]

House of the Lord does not mean God resides in this universe. He created it, is and was outside of it from the beginning. God does not need man to build him a house!

Anyhow this is a waste of time

I agree He doesn't need it. However, that's what He's chosen to do.

If thy children will keep my covenant
And my testimony that I shall teach them,
Their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.
13 For the LORD hath chosen Zion;
He hath desired it for his habitation.
14 This is my rest for ever:
Here will I dwell; for I have desired it.
15 I will abundantly bless her provision:


The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ps 132:12–15.

 

[Butch5]

I edited my post, but they were wrong on so many things.

Peter didn't even believe gentiles could be made clean until after a dream, after pentecost. It's not even clear if he understood salvation!

We don't know when he met Paul who argues you don't need to be circumcized, but from what little we do know it's likely James did not relent of his beliefs and stayed in Jerusalem teaching the law til 69ad.

What we do know is Jerome wrote a letter to someone in the 3rd century telling them it's not worth your effort to figure out what the controversy was about. But there definitely was one.

Amazon.com

You should do some reading, and not from just sources you agree with.

I don't just read people who agree with me. If I did that, I'd hold the doctrines that most here, hold. It's because I'm open to hearing others that I've come to the conclusions I have.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

They weren't wrong about an earthly kingdom. Some were wrong on the timing.

Yeah, the clear timing is actually given in the bible:

- When Jews finally call for Yeshua as their messiah; (Matt. 23:37-39)
- When the gospel is preached to all nations on earth (Matt. 24:14), hence the completion of the great commission; (Matt.28:19-20)
- Yeshua is scheduled to return on an "acceptable year" (Is. 61:2) which is none other than a jubilee based on the description of "proclaiming liberty to the captives," in Is. 61:1; and believe it or not, this jubilee is gonna be the 121st jubilee since the Creation, for the days of man shall be 120 years (Gen. 6:3), those 120 years therein are not referring to 120 years of lifespan as interpreted in most commentaries, but 120 jubilees, which add up to 6000 years.

One big error that caused the mistinterpretation of Revelation as past history is not the book of Revelation itself, but the term "this generation" in the fig tree parable. The fig tree is a symbol of Israel, in the parable a barren fig tree begins to bud, but at Yeshua's time, what happened is the opposite, the fig tree withered when Yeshua passed by and saw it fail to bear any fruit, therefore it was not referring to the generation of the disciples, but the end time generation that is rising up in this day of age.

 

[KingJ]

So far you've misrepresented my belief each time. I'm wondering if you're paying attention to what I'm saying. It doesn't appear to me that you're giving it any thought. Let me rephrase your analogy. A man adopts two children, one like to clean his kitchen and one doesn't. Both of these children are going to die. The man hands out a life preserver, they have a free will choice to either take it or leave it.

Nobody would not take a 'life preserver' if the consequence of not taking it was being shot in the head. There is nothing hard to understand here.

Two adopted children are dirty, you say take a shower or I will shoot you dead. Whether the other child likes you or not is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that they need to take the shower to avoid being shot. That is sick. This is your belief. My analogy was fine, you just move the goal posts. Your belief boils down to choose path A or be killed. That is not how you get a bride....or someone with you who actually loves you....which is exactly what God wants....

 

[KingJ]

It's not that I don't get it. I've spent years working through these doctrines. I've looked at them from multiple perspectives. As I said, it's the way you see things that cause you to draw your conclusion. You start with two false premises; these then lead you to a wrong conclusion. The Gospel is "not" live in Heaven or live in hell. There is nothing in Scripture that says people go to Heaven when they die. Jesus actually stated the opposite, telling both the Jews and the apostles that they could not go there. There is nothing that teaches people live in the grave. You hold a Greek Philosophic/Gnostic view of these things. The Gospel is the Kingdom of God. There's nothing in it about going to Heaven. Because you hold these two false premises, you draw a false conclusion. Everyone sins and everyone dies, thus they get the wages of their sin. That would be the end of the story if God had not stepped in. But He did. He gave man a way out. A way that his death didn't have to be permanent. He said if we enter into a covenant with Him through Christ we could have eternal life. If one chooses, of their own free will, to say no, that's up to them. God does not force anyone into the covenant. Just as God set before Israel, 'I have set before you life and death, choose life', so, He sets before people today. Everyone has the opportunity to choose life or death. God didn't say to Israel, I set before you heaven and hell, choose Heaven, He said, life and death, choose life.

The gospel is eternal hell verse eternal heaven. You are 1/1000 people that do not believe in eternal hell when every translation speaks to it.

There is a lot of scripture to consider on this. But if I cannot even convince you of an annihilationist belief being evil, I have not got much hope.

Please, show me anything anywhere in Scripture that suggest people are to choose between Heaven and Hell. You won't be able to. There is nothing there. There is no choice between Heaven and Hell. The choice is between life and death. I don't know how it is that you can reject certain doctrines claiming they impugn God and at the same time hold the doctrine of Penal Atonement that impugns God. That my friend is inconsistent. That is not logical.

Penal atonement does not incriminate God as Jesus is God. I have already explained this. Talk about going in circles. A discussion on the trinity we can have in another thread.

So far you've misrepresented my belief each time. I'm wondering if you're paying attention to what I'm saying. It doesn't appear to me that you're giving it any thought. Let me rephrase your analogy. A man adopts two children, one like to clean his kitchen and one doesn't. Both of these children are going to die. The man hands out a life preserver, they have a free will choice to either take it or leave it.

Butch, nothing hard to grasp here. You are missing two key parts in your analogy. 1. God is the creator of all. 2. We need works for justification (not salvation). The example is not ''we all en route to hell, He saves some who take the free gift''.

Your belief = A father created two humans. Told them to work in the kitchen or they will be shot dead = evil. I don't believe this is how anyone goes about getting a 'bride' or starting a healthy long lasting trust and love relationship with someone.

Then with your non-OSAS belief, if they work in the kitchen for 50 years but fail in the 51'st, they will be shot dead. If they work in the kitchen for 1 year and then die in a car crash, they will get eternal bliss = Perversion of justice.

It's amazing that you claim an act of mercy is unjust but and an act of injustice is just. Nothing I've said perverts God's justice. As I said, you're starting with two false premises. These are causing you to draw a false conclusion.

You are not grasping the significance of a human creation. You see us and angels as merely 'a creation' like a motor vehicle. Something you can scrap if it is not working properly.

You have a very bleak idea of God and what He wants of humans. There are many scriptures speaking to a relationship. Relationship 101 is not ''accept me or die''.

You are only saying my premises are false because you don't believe in the trinity. As I said to you already, it is a terrible belief to have if you do not believe in the trinity.

No, as I said, it was full of fallacies. I do find it rather interesting though that you take the words of the translators over the words of Jesus and the apostles. That speaks volumes, my friend. As a Christian I would think that the words of Jesus would take precedence over everyone anywhere. Especially since He said the words He spoke were the words of the Father. So, in other words, you take the words of the translators over the words of God the Father. That's a scary place to be my friend.

Not sure how you are not concerned that every single translation disagrees with you.

That's not what I asked. Is His death a payment to God?

You not accepting the trinity does not put me in a box you have created.

No trinity is a sick belief.

It's only a waste of time because you have no reply. The two are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be true. This means there is a problem in your doctrine. Rather than address it you've chosen to be "done with this".

You create your own boxes and assume they apply to me. I have given you my belief and explained it. Both can exist.

You come unstuck because you hold to annihilationism and no trinity.

I agree, God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. Thus, they are not the same. I also applaud you for saying you don't think anyone can understand the Trintiy. No one can, it's a logical contradiction. It's impossible. One being cannot consist of three beings. This is probably why the 5th century Catholics who came up with the idea put a disclaimer on it. They said if you don't believe this you can't be saved. So, now in the 5th century it wasn't just believe on Jesus to be saved. It was believe on Jesus and in our Trinity doctrine to be saved. The fact that they put a disclaimer on it suggests they knew it was ridiculous and that no one would believe it. Thus, the claim, unless you believe this you cannot be saved. It wasn't like it is today. Many, if not most, of those people were illiterate.

Because they used the same Bible as Jesus and the apostles. Here is Isaiah 9:6 from the Septuagint, the Bible that Jesus, the apostles, and early church used.

because a child was born for us,
a son also given to us,
whose sovereignty was upon his shoulder,
and he is named Messenger of Great Counsel,
for I will bring peace upon the rulers,
peace and health to him.
7(6) His sovereignty is great,
and his peace has no boundary
upon the throne of Dauid and his kingdom,
to make it prosper and to uphold it
with righteousness and with judgment
from this time onward and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord Sabaoth will do these things.


Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., “Esaias,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Primary Texts), trans. Moisés Silva (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), Is 9:6–7.

Notice there isn't a mention of "everlasting Father". It wasn't there. That's why I asked you about the translators always being correct. They know the Septuagint is what Jesus, the apostles and early church used. However, they've chosen to give us a Bible with the Old Testament of the unbelieving Jews and not the believing Christians. Your blind trust in translators is misplaced.

There are a lot more scriptures to consider on the trinity. Welcome to discuss it in a separate thread. 1 Cor 12:3 for example is clear that we must believe Jesus is Lord. Then, we know from the entire bible that God does not like us putting anyone before Him. 1 + 1 = 2.

regarding Jesus' words in John, "I and the Father are one", he's talking about unity, not being. Jesus makes a comparison.

Sure, but there is more to it. Will discuss in a new thread.

Sure. Christians, like everyone else, die. The wages of sin is death. All sin, all die. No one gets out alive. We earn death with our sins. If a payment to God remedied that, then Jesus death would do that and Christians wouldn't die. But they do die. Again, no one gets out alive.

There you go again with your boxes. Nobody dies. We are all eternal beings. Angels and humans.

The 'flesh' dying is not 'us' dying. We are spirit, mind and body.

 

[KingJ]

Because they used the same Bible as Jesus and the apostles. Here is Isaiah 9:6 from the Septuagint, the Bible that Jesus, the apostles, and early church used.

because a child was born for us,
a son also given to us,
whose sovereignty was upon his shoulder,
and he is named Messenger of Great Counsel,
for I will bring peace upon the rulers,
peace and health to him.
7(6) His sovereignty is great,
and his peace has no boundary
upon the throne of Dauid and his kingdom,
to make it prosper and to uphold it
with righteousness and with judgment
from this time onward and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord Sabaoth will do these things.


Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., “Esaias,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Primary Texts), trans. Moisés Silva (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), Is 9:6–7.

Notice there isn't a mention of "everlasting Father". It wasn't there. That's why I asked you about the translators always being correct. They know the Septuagint is what Jesus, the apostles and early church used. However, they've chosen to give us a Bible with the Old Testament of the unbelieving Jews and not the believing Christians. Your blind trust in translators is misplaced.

I will admit, this is material difference to the KJV. Perhaps a thread on translations and the Septuagint is needed.