Sarassin, I'll answer the question when you dispute any of the points I made in this post:

DoctorAlien:


Your arguments are puerile. I have shown you that:

1. Atonement/reparation for sin must be made and it must be with blood.(Lev. 17:11) We cannot be forgiven unless someone pays for our sins.
2. The Scripture foretells that the blood of Christ must be shed to atone/make reparation for our sins(Isa. 53)
3. Jesus Christ agreed that He was about to do what the Scripture said He would do(Luke 22:20; 24:44).

DoctorAlien:
Sarassin, I'll answer the question when you dispute any of the points I made in this post:

You are not in any position to give me conditions. I asked you a simple question about 10 posts ago, you have waffled, bombasted and insulted your way through your responses delivered with a healthy dollop of faux-self-righteous indignation further compounded by scrambling around for disparate biblical verses taken out of context but you cannot bring yourself to provide a simple answer.

I think we have nothing further to discuss, have a nice day.

[s]

Sarassin:


You are not in any position to give me conditions. I asked you a simple question about 10 posts ago, you have waffled, bombasted and insulted your way through your responses delivered with a healthy dollop of faux-self-righteous indignation further compounded by scrambling around for disparate biblical verses taken out of context but you cannot bring yourself to provide a simple answer.

I think we have nothing further to discuss, have a nice day.

[/s]

Dispute any of my points and I'll answer your question.

Sarassin:


Leviticus! I won't even get into that spurious reference of yours. As I said before you really make me laugh I can see that you are itching to descend into your fit of bile and insults because that is where you find your succour but I am not interested. I asked you before and I ask you again, where in the NT canon has Jesus, the man who actually gave up his life, directly stated that he was shedding his blood for the 'atonement' of your sins? Geddit??

If Jesus stated so, then tell us where...
If he did not, then be man enough to state so.. Simples.

Check these out

Luke 18:31-33

31 And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and leverything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. 32 For he will be mdelivered over to the Gentiles and will be nmocked and shamefully treated and ospit upon. 33 And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on pthe third day he will rise.”

Mathew 26:28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

John 12:7

Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

Tell me what you think about all of them

rhektor:



Check these out

Luke 18:31-33

31 And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and leverything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. 32 For he will be mdelivered over to the Gentiles and will be nmocked and shamefully treated and ospit upon. 33 And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on pthe third day he will rise.”

Mathew 26:28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

John 12:7

Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

Tell me what you think about all of them

I think that none of the above verses directly promulgates the principle of atonement per se.

Atonement as a theological doctrine/dogma is one of many theological doctrines that can be inferred from scripture just as one can infer the trinity for instance but it is not in my view directly alluded to by Jesus nor is it even strongly propounded in the synoptic gospels, we do not for instance see any foreshadowing of a sacrificial event such as a crucifixion in direct relation to the doctrine of atonement of sins alluded to by the synoptic gospel writers either during the lifetime of Jesus or even after his death.

This should tell us that the doctrine of atonement is retrospective in nature.

As I mentioned in earlier posts, this doctrine was a position proposed by Paul based on what he said was given to him by the risen Christ through a vision.

Paul indicates that (according to him) God accepts the atonement (payment) by raising Jesus from the dead (Rom 3:23-24; 4:24-25)
Paul further expatiates on his doctrine when he begins to speak of Jews and gentiles alike being bought e.g, in 1 Cor 7:23, and also more generally in (1Cor 6:20), but it is clear that the crux of his doctrine was that believers were being bought and freed from the shackles of the law(according to Paul).

Clearly there's a divergence between what the apocalyptic wisdom teacher Jesus taught and what Paul propagates.
Paul states that he is proclaiming Jesus, but he is in fact proclaiming his vision of Jesus and his gospel......in my opinion.

Sarassin:


I think that none of the above verses directly promulgates the principle of atonement per se.

Atonement as a theological doctrine/dogma is one of many theological doctrines that can be inferred from scripture just as one can infer the trinity for instance but it is not in my view directly alluded to by Jesus nor is it even strongly propounded in the synoptic gospels, we do not for instance see any foreshadowing of a sacrificial event such as a crucifixion in direct relation to the doctrine of atonement of sins alluded to by the synoptic gospel writers either during the lifetime of Jesus or even after his death.

This should tell us that the doctrine of atonement is retrospective in nature.

As I mentioned in earlier posts, this doctrine was a position proposed by Paul based on what he said was given to him by the risen Christ through a vision.

Paul indicates that (according to him) God accepts the atonement (payment) by raising Jesus from the dead (Rom 3:23-24; 4:24-25)
Paul further expatiates on his doctrine when he begins to speak of Jews and gentiles alike being bought e.g, in 1 Cor 7:23, and also more generally in (1Cor 6:20), but it is clear that the crux of his doctrine was that believers were being bought and freed from the shackles of the law(according to Paul).

Clearly there's a divergence between what the apocalyptic wisdom teacher Jesus taught and what Paul propagates.
Paul states that he is proclaiming Jesus, but he is in fact proclaiming his vision of Jesus and his gospel......in my opinion.

And what gave your opinion authority? You just fighting tooth and nail to reject it since you never believed it in the first place. You asked for it and I gave you but now you are trying to shift the goal post. What else do you want?

rhektor:



And what gave your opinion authority? You just fighting tooth and nail to reject it since you never believed it in the first place. You asked for it and I gave you but now you are trying to shift the goal post. What else do you want?

Lord in heaven..I must be dreaming! where have I stated that my opinions carry any authority?

And what exactly did you 'give me'? Luke 18:31-33 is a descriptive narrative of Jesus predicting his death and resurrection, no more no less.
Matthew 26:28 talks of remission of sins, it is not the same as 'atonement'
John 12:7 is utterly indeterminate.

Talk of shifting goalposts, you're not even on the field!

Sarassin:


Lord in heaven..I must be dreaming! where have I stated that my opinions carry any authority?

And what exactly did you 'give me'? Luke 18:31-33 is a descriptive narrative of Jesus predicting his death and resurrection, no more no less.
Matthew 26:28 talks of remission of sins, it is not the same as 'atonement'
John 12:7 is utterly indeterminate.

Talk of shifting goalposts, you're not even on the field!

Indeterminable you say fur what reason was he speaking of?

Did you not mention your opinion in the earlier post? Check the bolded

Sarassin:


I think that none of the above verses directly promulgates the principle of atonement per se.

Atonement as a theological doctrine/dogma is one of many theological doctrines that can be inferred from scripture just as one can infer the trinity for instance but it is not in my view directly alluded to by Jesus nor is it even strongly propounded in the synoptic gospels, we do not for instance see any foreshadowing of a sacrificial event such as a crucifixion in direct relation to the doctrine of atonement of sins alluded to by the synoptic gospel writers either during the lifetime of Jesus or even after his death.

This should tell us that the doctrine of atonement is retrospective in nature.

As I mentioned in earlier posts, this doctrine was a position proposed by Paul based on what he said was given to him by the risen Christ through a vision.

Paul indicates that (according to him) God accepts the atonement (payment) by raising Jesus from the dead (Rom 3:23-24; 4:24-25)
Paul further expatiates on his doctrine when he begins to speak of Jews and gentiles alike being bought e.g, in 1 Cor 7:23, and also more generally in (1Cor 6:20), but it is clear that the crux of his doctrine was that believers were being bought and freed from the shackles of the law(according to Paul).

Clearly there's a divergence between what the apocalyptic wisdom teacher Jesus taught and what Paul propagates.
Paul states that he is proclaiming Jesus, but he is in fact proclaiming his vision of Jesus and his gospel....[/b]..in my opinion.
[b]

rhektor:


Indeterminable you say fur what reason was he speaking of?

Obviously I do not know, perhaps you could explain it to me sir?

rhektor:

Did you not mention your opinion in the earlier post? Check the bolded

Yes, I stated that they were my opinions, what gave you the idea I said they carried any authority? did I say so somewhere? we are all simply exchanging views here.

The premise was to provide a standalone verse where Jesus himself actually states that he came to shed his blood for the 'atonement' of the sins of believers. It still stands

Sarassin:

Obviously I do not know, perhaps you could explain it to me sir?


Yes, I stated that they were my opinions, what gave you the idea I said they carried any authority? did I say so somewhere? we are all simply exchanging views here.

The premise was to provide a standalone verse where Jesus himself actually states that he came to shed his blood for the 'atonement' of the sins of believers. It still stands

But you rejected the one you were given, so what else do you want?

rhektor:


But you rejected the one you were given, so what else do you want?

You do not have to worry about it, you gave it your best shot! Thanks.

Sarassin:

You do not have to worry about it, you gave it your best shot! Thanks.

I'm not worried about it it's not a competition so don't make it look like one. You got what you asked for even though it was not what you wanted

rhektor:


I'm not worried about it it's not a competition so don't make it look like one. You got what you asked for even though it was not what you wanted

You are right in respect that it is not a competition.

I stated that Jesus directly preached forgiveness and not the doctrine of atonement, my proofs are the following verses; Mat 26:28, Mark 11:25, Mat 11:6-15, 1John 1:9, Luke 17:3-4, Mat 6:14-15.

Others disagreed. You never stated whether you agreed or not you simply provided a couple of verses and left it at that. So what exactly is your position on the matter, do you believe Jesus preached the doctrine of atonement? And if you do then show me where.

I think the difficulty in communication here is caused by the presumption that the gospels are an accurate depiction of the words and deeds of Jesus.

However we know that numerous episodes in the gospels were later inventions. For instance the story of the woman accused of adultery that ends with the famous quote of "let he who is without sun cast the first stone". We know this was added to the gospel later.

In fact the earliest writings in the New Testament are the letters of Paul, written before any of the gospels.

What makes anyone say that the doctrines if Paul differed from that of Jesus? Could not Pauline Christians have redacted and inserted Pauline doctrines into the gospels? Why then are people so sure that Paul taught differently from Jesus.

Well what is clear from the New Testament is that there are at least two doctrines of forgiveness. In the sermon on the mount we are given the Lord's Prayer which talks about forgiveness that is granted just by asking, on the condition that the person asking is also forgiving of others.

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us"
"For if you do not forgive others neither will your father in heaven forgive you."

Jesus repeats these themes over and over again in the synoptic gospels.

Paul does not mention any of these teachings of Jesus. In fact Paul hardly mentions any of Jesus' teachings in his letters.

Instead what we find is the doctrines if Paul worked into the gospel resulting in the juxtaposition of two contradicting doctrines if forgiveness in the gospels.

Which one was Jesus' true position? Forgiveness by grace, just for the asking, dependent on one's forgiving disposition, Or the forgiveness paid for by the blood of a lamb.

Herein lies the reason for questioning whether Paul was in line with Jesus.
P.s. I don't think Paul was actually teaching falsehood per se. But there were definitely more than one doctrine of the forgiveness of sins.

PastorAIO:
I think the difficulty in communication here is caused by the presumption that the gospels are an accurate depiction of the words and deeds of Jesus.........

Thank you for your riposte, I agree that early followers of Paul did insert certain doctrinal elements into the gospels at a later stage, in fact they inserted entire epistles!

Christendom will never know how close it came to having a 3 Corinthians, the church elder who was the forger claimed he did it out of love for Paul, he was defrocked on the spot by Tertullian. The pastoral epistles for instance are widely regarded as Pseudoepigraphy but still remain within the gospel canon with their inherently conflicting doctrines, i.e the stance against women.

Naturally one does not lay the blame for forgery at the feet of Paul. But there is no question that Paul himself is directly responsible for the doctrine of ‘Atonement’ as distinct from ‘forgiveness’, in the books that we can be sure are Paul’s actual writings it is explicit, in his Epistle to the Romans which in my view is Paul’s most theologically explicit work he floats the idea, and in his letter to the Galatians he seals the deal.

We have to inquire, what gave Paul the gumption to create a doctrine distinct from the teachings of Jesus? It makes no sense unless we understand his motivations. Paul is nothing if not extremely smart, I think he realised very quickly that the Apostles were theological neophytes and he moved succinctly to take advantage of that.

Clearly Paul must have studied the prophecies of Isaiah 2:2-3, Zechariah 8:22-23, Isaiah 42:6-7 and drawn his own conclusions, it appears he has then allied those prophecies with that of : Isaiah 49:6 "I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth”.

Who is this person who was “called in righteousness” (Isaiah 42:6-7) to proclaim God’s salvation as a “light to the nations”? If we cast our minds back to Paul’s description of his conversion experience in Galatians, He says: God “called me through his grace” and “in order that I might preach him among the gentiles” (Galatians 1:15-16). Afterall in Mat.10:5-6 Jesus appears to instruct his disciples Go nowhere amongst the gentiles (nevermind the much later insertions) Paul appears to be relating to the prophecy of Isaiah, his calling to preach (in his mind) is anticipated in the Scriptures. He would therefore consider himself the fulfilment of prophecy just like Jesus. He was the one (according to him) God had chosen to bring salvation to the world, through his proclamation of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

For me, I believe that is where the motivation of Paul rests. I don't say that Paul preached falsehoods per se, a doctrine is a doctrine, I do think he or others on his behalf mis-represented certain aspects of his life in furtherance of his theology.

Sarassin:


Acts 26:10. Paul makes it clear that he casts his vote against the followers of Jesus on each occasion they were condemned to death.

Of course, they counsel do vote, but am saying that there isn't any evidence that vote was taken in this instance.

Votes starts from the lowest member to the highest. This was not the case here.

Even if your stand of vote is true, there is no way we could know whose vote is greater - Pharisees or Sadducees. 23 member makes up a quorum. We don't know how many they were there. At any rate, xtens were whipped and ordered not to preach, that wasn't favorable nor fair. Although it was better than murdering them.

Sarassin:


Thank you for your riposte, I agree that early followers of Paul did insert certain doctrinal elements into the gospels at a later stage, in fact they inserted entire epistles!

Christendom will never know how close it came to having a 3 Corinthians, the church elder who was the forger claimed he did it out of love for Paul, he was defrocked on the spot by Tertullian. The pastoral epistles for instance are widely regarded as Pseudoepigraphy but still remain within the gospel canon with their inherently conflicting doctrines, i.e the stance against women.

Naturally one does not lay the blame for forgery at the feet of Paul. But there is no question that Paul himself is directly responsible for the doctrine of ‘Atonement’ as distinct from ‘forgiveness’, in the books that we can be sure are Paul’s actual writings it is explicit, in his Epistle to the Romans which in my view is Paul’s most theologically explicit work he floats the idea, and in his letter to the Galatians he seals the deal.

We have to inquire, what gave Paul the gumption to create a doctrine distinct from the teachings of Jesus? It makes no sense unless we understand his motivations. Paul is nothing if not extremely smart, I think he realised very quickly that the Apostles were theological neophytes and he moved succinctly to take advantage of that.

Clearly Paul must have studied the prophecies of Isaiah 2:2-3, Zechariah 8:22-23, Isaiah 42:6-7 and drawn his own conclusions, it appears he has then allied those prophecies with that of : Isaiah 49:6 "I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth”.

Who is this person who was “called in righteousness” (Isaiah 42:6-7) to proclaim God’s salvation as a “light to the nations”? If we cast our minds back to Paul’s description of his conversion experience in Galatians, He says: God “called me through his grace” and “in order that I might preach him among the gentiles” (Galatians 1:15-16). Afterall in Mat.10:5-6 Jesus appears to instruct his disciples Go nowhere amongst the gentiles (nevermind the much later insertions) Paul appears to be relating to the prophecy of Isaiah, his calling to preach (in his mind) is anticipated in the Scriptures. He would therefore consider himself the fulfilment of prophecy just like Jesus. He was the one (according to him) God had chosen to bring salvation to the world, through his proclamation of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

For me, I believe that is where the motivation of Paul rests. I don't say that Paul preached falsehoods per se, a doctrine is a doctrine, I do think he or others on his behalf mis-represented certain aspects of his life in furtherance of his theology.

Paul's conversion to xtenity was clearly recorded in the book of acts, a book not penned by Paul himself. Peter acknowledged that Paul was used by God. The direction issued by Paul didn't stem from him but God through Jesus. If he teaches something different from what Jesus instructed, Luke, Peter and even Jesus would censure him. They won't need your help.

If you don't believe the above, no need to be here discussing this topic.

JMAN05:


Of course, they counsel do vote, but am saying that there isn't any evidence that vote was taken in this instance.

Votes starts from the lowest member to the highest. This was not the case here.

Even if your stand of vote is true, there is no way we could know whose vote is greater - Pharisees or Sadducees. 23 member makes up a quorum. We don't know how many they were there. At any rate, xtens were whipped and ordered not to preach, that wasn't favorable nor fair. Although it was better than murdering them.

Of course you could be right that no vote took place, but there is no evidence in the bible to suggest that. Given that the Sanhedrin would ordinarily sit and cast votes on a decision, given that Paul states he cast his votes against the Christians on every occasion, I would say that on the balance of probability and in the absence of anything more definitive, votes were probably cast after Gamaliel gave his speech.

You say the decision was not favourable or fair, I beg to disagree. The leader of their band had been put to death for sedition and they were preaching in his name, from a perspective of civil disobedience what could the disciples have reasonably expected to happen to them once caught? Ask any condemned man if he would not rather accept a beating and go home to his wife and children as opposed to having his neck elongated at the gallows.

I don't think they would have hung around to debate the fairness of the decision with Caiaphas.

JMAN05:


Paul's conversion to xtenity was clearly recorded in the book of acts, a book not penned by Paul himself. Peter acknowledged that Paul was used by God. The direction issued by Paul didn't stem from him but God through Jesus. If he teaches something different from what Jesus instructed, Luke, Peter and even Jesus would censure him. They won't need your help.

If you don't believe the above, no need to be here discussing this topic.

You don’t state whether or not you believe Paul preached a different doctrine to Jesus, what are you all scared of?

We have Paul’s own account of his conversion in Galatians and Luke’s account in the Book of Acts, we know also that Luke was a one-time travelling companion of Paul, if you are trying to impute a lack of bias into Luke’s accounts relating to Paul then good luck. Luke was not an independent observer of Paul’s conversion and don’t even try it, Galatians was written sometimes in the 50’s CE and Acts decades later.

Luke was not an Apostle how would he censure Paul? Jesus had been dead a while by the time of Paul’s conversion. The early church headed by James certainly summoned Paul to Jerusalem to explain himself or do you suppose it was for a sleep-over?

I don’t get your grouse, what exactly are your objections here?

You say If I don't believe what you have written then there's no need to discuss the topic, what a curious stance to take in a debate

Sarassin:


You don’t state whether or not you believe Paul preached a different doctrine to Jesus, what are you all scared of?

We have Paul’s own account of his conversion in Galatians and Luke’s account in the Book of Acts, we know also that Luke was a one-time travelling companion of Paul, if you are trying to impute a lack of bias into Luke’s accounts relating to Paul then good luck. Luke was not an independent observer of Paul’s conversion and don’t even try it, Galatians was written sometimes in the 50’s CE and Acts decades later.

If you agree to what I said above, there is no debate here. That is my point. Paul's preaching came from God through Christ.

How can Paul preach a doctrine different from Jesus'? What Paul preached came from Jesus himself. (Acts 9:15). It seems you get your confusion from comparing the gospels from what Paul said. There aren't any contradiction. Some of Paul's point elaborated on what Jesus said, and since the holy spirit brought more truths to their attention, Paul's words brought something new from what Jesus said. But the revelation that brought the new thing came from God through Jesus. (John 16:12,13: acts 1:4,5)

If Paul preached something different, Jesus will censure him, and Luke will record it. You don't need to worry yourself on that.

Luke was not an Apostle how would he censure Paul? Jesus had been dead a while by the time of Paul’s conversion. The early church headed by James certainly summoned Paul to Jerusalem to explain himself or do you suppose it was for a sleep-over?

Luke need not be an apostle to censure Paul. Paul censured Peter, Barnabas and others, he need not be an apostle to do it. After all, Peter was among the twelve, yet was censured by Paul.

Apollos was corrected by Aquilla and Priscilla, although an eloquent man. (Acts 18:26).

OK, you know that about James meeting with Paul. Was James an apostle? Even Paul came before Peter, James and john to explain himself. So if he was dissident or maverick, he would be censured. Jesus was on high watching too.

Peter, who saw Paul's letters, even Galatians stated: 2Pet 3:15, 16

"... just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction"

I don’t get your grouse, what exactly are your objections here?

You say If I don't believe what you have written then there's no need to discuss the topic, what a curious stance to take in a debate

Yap, if you don't believe that Paul's words stem from God thru Christ, no need to discuss further. Even God, Jesus, Peter, Luke etc won't be on your side. It might even land you to destruction.

Sarassin:

Of course you could be right that no vote took place, but there is no evidence in the bible to suggest that. Given that the Sanhedrin would ordinarily sit and cast votes on a decision, given that Paul states he cast his votes against the Christians on every occasion, I would say that on the balance of probability and in the absence of anything more definitive, votes were probably cast after Gamaliel gave his speech.

Well, the bible didn't say that no vote was taken. But the reason I gave above is revealing, showing that this may not have been the case. Of course, keeping it under probability for now is reasonable.

You say the decision was not favourable or fair, I beg to disagree. The leader of their band had been put to death for sedition and they were preaching in his name, from a perspective of civil disobedience what could the disciples have reasonably expected to happen to them once caught? Ask any condemned man if he would not rather accept a beating and go home to his wife and children as opposed to having his neck elongated at the gallows.

I don't think they would have hung around to debate the fairness of the decision with Caiaphas.

Like I stated above, beating was better than murdering them. However, I wouldn't view a position of beating and ban on preaching as a fair judgment. They should be allowed to worship God the way they felt best for them, inasmuch as they don't incite violence, use force, or destroy other peoples property. Why not let them be?

Your position is that the pharisees are not against xtens, even your quotation does not support the claim.

JMAN05:


If you agree to what I said above, there is no debate here. That is my point. Paul's preaching came from God through Christ.

How can Paul preach a doctrine different from Jesus'? What Paul preached came from Jesus himself. (Acts 9:15). It seems you get your confusion from comparing the gospels from what Paul said. There aren't any contradiction. Some of Paul's point elaborated on what Jesus said, and since the holy spirit brought more truths to their attention, Paul's words brought something new from what Jesus said. But the revelation that brought the new thing came from God through Jesus. (John 16:12,13: acts 1:4,5)

If Paul preached something different, Jesus will censure him, and Luke will record it. You don't need to worry yourself on that.

Jesus was on high watching too.

@bolded, I think you have been drinking. Of course I don't agree with what you wrote, you are at the bottom of the food chain, higher Christian authorities already accept that Paul disseminated a different doctrine to that of Jesus.

JMAN05:

Luke need not be an apostle to censure Paul. Paul censured Peter, Barnabas and others, he need not be an apostle to do it. After all, Peter was among the twelve, yet was censured by Paul.

Apollos was corrected by Aquilla and Priscilla, although an eloquent man. (Acts 18:26).

OK, you know that about James meeting with Paul. Was James an apostle? Even Paul came before Peter, James and john to explain himself. So if he was dissident or maverick........

James was head of the Jerusalem church, he had the standing to censure Paul which he did. The rest of your quote is irrelevant to the point.

JMAN05:

Yap, if you don't believe that Paul's words stem from God thru Christ, no need to discuss further. Even God, Jesus, Peter, Luke etc won't be on your side. It might even land you to destruction.

Thank you for the health warning, but lay off the bottle before you post!

JMAN05:

Your position is that the pharisees are not against xtens, even your quotation does not support the claim.

My position is that the Pharisees as a group headed by Gamaliel stood up for the Christians in the Sanhedrin, even whilst your beloved Paul elected to have them killed. Even though Paul claimed he was a 'Pharisee of Pharisees'. If it had been left to the Sadducees and Paul, they would all be dead.

DoctorAlien:
Good. I understand that Christ shed His blood so that we can be forgiven i.e. so that our sins would be remitted.
This is because atonement/reparation for sin must be made, as the Bible records that "without shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9:22

Sarassin:
So, let me see now if I understand you correctly, You say that Jesus shed his blood so that you may be forgiven your sins,
because as you say ; atonement/reparation for sin is essential
and without shedding blood atonement is not feasible and neither is remission.

This is sheer genius at work, in trying to wrangle yourself a get-out-of–jail-card
you have conflated the doctrines of Forgiveness and Atonement
and created another gospel entirely.
It is the words and actions of Jesus that matters the most and nothing else,
it should be clear to all that one of the most central themes of the teachings of Jesus was that of forgiveness,
in the following verses Jesus directly teaches this; Mat 26:28, Mark 11:25, Mat 11:6-15, 1 John 1:9, Luke 17:3-4, Mat 6:14-15

Yes this is true that one of the most central themes of the teachings of Jesus was that of forgiveness
but the other most central theme is, reconciliation
which essentially is, returning or coming back to God, having "at-one-ment" with God (i.e. atonement)
Without the work successfully done or carried out by Jesus, the "at-one-ment" with God opportunity, will not have existed

God, in Genesis 6:6, is on record, saying, He was sorry He made human beings on the earth and he was deeply grieved about that.
but as Jesus, with atonement or "at-one-ment",
He did something, as a way, that showed He is sorry and that would fix up the entire mess or situation

I can go on about "at-one-ment" with God (i.e. atonement, DNA, zygote, blood etcetera) but the extra info will exceed the scope of this reply.

Sarassin:
I asked you to provide one verse in the NT where Jesus alludes to “atonement”, I will help you out

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
- Mark 10:45

Even as the Son of Man is not come to be ministered unto,
but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many.
- Matthew 20:28

Short Definition:
a ransom, an offering of expiation
the act of making amends or reparation for guilt or wrongdoing; atonement

Definition:
the purchasing money for manumitting slaves, a ransom, the price of ransoming;
especially the sacrifice by which expiation is effected, an offering of expiation.
freeing them from all slavery (bondage) to sin

Sarassin:
Nowhere in the NT canons does Jesus directly express the view that his death is a vehicle for the atonement of sins,
not once does Jesus use the word ‘atonement’ even his disciples taught that the death of Jesus brought about the forgiveness of sins,
the distinction is there to be made but most Christians are simply not aware of it.

⁴⁸If we let Him go on like this, everyone will believe in Him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
⁴⁹But one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all!
⁵⁰You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
⁵¹Caiaphas did not say this on his own. Instead, as high priest that year, he was prophesying that Jesus would die for the nation,
⁵²and not only for the nation, but also for the scattered children of God, to gather them together into one
- John 11-48-52

and He Himself is the propitiation (i.e. atoning sacrifice) for our sins;
and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world
- 1 John 2:2

In this is love:
it was not that we loved God, but He has loved us,
and He sent us His Son, the atonement for the sake of our sins
- 1 John 4:10

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,
through the shedding of his blood--to be received by faith.
He did this to demonstrate his righteousness,
because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
- Romans 3:25

People have already publicly and indirectly said this about Jesus
so, why my friend, are you expecting Jesus to allude again to a done and dusted fact
Caiaphas, in John 11:50 above, wasn't talking about forgiveness but rather was alluding to atonement

Sarassin:
The doctrine of atonement is a construct of Paul in his writings
purely and simply for selfish and egotistical reasons

The next day, John saw Jesus coming toward him and said,
"Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
- John 1:29

Rather, the payment that freed you was the precious blood of Christ,
the lamb with no defects or imperfections
- 1 Peter 1:19

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
- Mark 10:45

Even as the Son of Man is not come to be ministered unto,
but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many.
- Matthew 20:28

To the contrary, not according to John the Baptist, Peter, Mark and Matthew
these subscribed to the doctrine of atonement

Sarassin:
the shedding of human blood for the sins of others was not Jewish practise
the doctrine of atonement was essential to Paul's gospel

The shedding of human blood for the sins of others was not Jewish practise
because God gave them, an expressed command against shedding or sacrificing of human blood for the sins of others.

I am sure, you know, why God was against the shedding of such ordinary human blood, is because of the pointlessness

I am sure, you accept and agree that, God, Himself, is not bound by "the shedding or sacrificing of human blood for the sins of others" restriction
I also, am equally sure, you are aware, God, was not against the shedding of human blood per se

Sarassin:
it is one of the most important doctrinal discrepancies between the writings of Paul
and the Synoptic writers that has perplexed biblical scholars enormously

Perplexed SOME biblical scholars enormously
BUT not all or every other person

Sarassin:
You jumped into the middle of this thread bandying wild accusations and snide comments without bothering to read through properly.
Let me be clear, I am not teaching anyone anything, these are merely my views.
My assertion that Paul considered himself an incarnation of Jesus stands,
an incarnation in the sense that he arrogated to himself the ability to divine the nature of Christ,
not even on a physical level, because he never met Jesus but in a spiritual and ephemeral sense

Where and when exactly did Paul
''arrogate himself the ability to divine the nature of Christ,
not even on a physical level, but in a spiritual and ephemeral sense"?

Sarassin:
that in a nutshell is the essence of what I have been writing about

Well, it was obvious from the opening post, that you'll go over-energetic and completely bananas with thread,
Next time, try briefly and clearly expressing what exactly each of the falsehoods are
and stop being superfluous
Soul-destroying and too long assertions like on this thread causes one to feel bored or try someone's patience
PastorAIO's prophecy is about to fulfil, that arguments will just go all over the place and 10 pages later there'll be no progress, just a lot of yabis.

Sarassin:


My position is that the Pharisees as a group headed by Gamaliel stood up for the Christians in the Sanhedrin, even whilst your beloved Paul elected to have them killed. Even though Paul claimed he was a 'Pharisee of Pharisees'. If it had been left to the Sadducees and Paul, they would all be dead.

I just don't know how you came to that conclusion. What Gamaliel advised the counsel didn't state Paul's opinion on the matter.

Both the saducees and pharisees are together in their hatred for xtens. If you think that pharisees are more liberal in this issue, you are mistaken. They both meet together and discuss the issues together.

I thank everyone that has contributed to his discuss. I wished the discussed didn't end.

I thank most especially sarassin, even though he has deactivated his account, for creating this topic. By this topic, I am renewed in my faith in the true way which is in Christ Jesus.

I was initially deeply troubled when he started by the things I read from him. My heart was pounding, not been grounded in the scriptures myself and unable to draw informed conclusions.

I was worried that everything I held dear for over 40yrs of my existence was crashing before my very eyes, until the christains on NL showed up!

As I write this, my joy knows no bounds. I am joyous that there were still people out there who were very grounded in what they believe in and defended it convincingly using the Holy scriptures as a yardstick all at no cost to people like me.

Thank you Jman05, Muttleylaff, DoctorAlien, rhektor, Shdemidemi, Striktlymi, Maestroferddi etc. My hope is that you yourselves do not miss the mark after everything.

Rather than view sarassin as a deciever, I rather view him as a vehicle used by God to renew my Faith in Him and in the finished works of Christ.

■ The phrase “Apostle Paul said……” has to be one of the most over-used phrases in Christendom. I wish to examine the falsehoods of Paul and the impact it has had on contemporary Christianity. I kick off this thread with a number of quotes. "The Spirit of the Apostles is not a guide equal or greater than the Lord, thus Paul within his letters does not have as much authority as has Christ." (Carlstadt, Canonicis Scripturis (1520)
■ "In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ the Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. Making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ" (Soren Kierkegaard, Theologian)
■ "True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock. The cause of the principal defects of Christian theology." (Theologian Ernest Renan, Saint Pau[/i]l)
"His [Justin Martyr, St. c. 100 - c. 165 C.E.] silence about Paul, when he had every reason to cite him in his anti-Jewish reasonings, is a silence that speaks--a void that no iteration of unattested statements, no nebulous declamation, can ever fill ([i]Ibid.)
■ “The Marcionists (a Christian sect) assumed that the evangelists were filled with falsities. The Manicheans, who formed a very large sect at the commencement of Christianity, rejected as false all the New Testament, and showed other writings quite different that they gave for authentic. The Cerinthians, like the Marcionists, admitted not the Acts of the Apostles. The Encratites, and the Sévénians, adopted neither the Acts nor the Epistles of Paul. Chrysostom, in a homily which he made upon the Acts of the Apostles, says that in his time, about the year 400, many people knew nothing either of the author or of the book. [size=12pt]St. Irene, who lived before that time, reports that the Valentinians, like several other sects of Christians, accused the Scriptures of being filled with imperfections, errors and contradictions. The Ebionites, or Nazarenes, who were the first Christians, rejected all the Epistles of Paul and regarded him as an impostor. They report, among other things, that he was originally a pagan, that he came to Jerusalem, where he lived some time; and that having a mind to marry the daughter of the high priest, he caused himself to be circumcised; but that not being able to obtain her, he quarreled with the Jews and wrote against circumcision, and against the observance of the Sabbath, and against all the legal ordinances. –(Boulanger-Critical examination of Paul).[/size]

1. Response to Carlstadt, Canonicis Scripturis (1520): Jesus Christ made clear in His Gospels that the servant is not greater than the master.

2. Response to Soren Kierkegaard, Theologian: Jesus Christ never asked His disciples to imitate Him. Rather, He made abundantly clear that they are instead to submit/accept and obey Him. He is as master over them all and as such they are to abide by His teachings and commandments in all wise. Also, I don't believe Paul is to blame for any of what you accuse him of given that those who come to Jesus Christ in truth would know never to follow any man.

3. Response to Theologian Ernest Renan, Saint Pau I: I wholly disagree with your assessment of the writings of Paul. Like every other follower of Jesus Christ, we are all urged to use the understanding we have in order that more understanding may be added to us by the Father - Matthew 25 vs 29 & Matthew 13 vs 10 - 13 & Mark 4 vs 22 - 25. And Paul, in his way, used the understanding he had in order that he might receive more from the Father. To then blame Paul for men choosing to build their religion atop the words of Paul rather than the Word of God Himself is akin to absolving such men of their foolishness/wickedness.

4. Response to Boulanger-Critical examination of Paul: Seems your interest is not in Jesus Christ; it lies elsewhere.

■ Paul claimed that his interpretations were not just his own invention, but had come to him by personal inspiration; he claimed that he had personal acquaintance with the resurrected Jesus, even though he had never met him during his lifetime. ...

Myer, you see this? Your buddy Paul did tell you that it was possible to have God as a teacher but maybe you think it has not happened to you it cannot happen to anyone else? Either that or God stopped working that way — reminiscent of the JW line of reasoning.

Kobojunkie:
Myer, you see this? Your buddy Paul did tell you that it was possible to have God as a teacher but maybe you think it has not happened to you it cannot happen to anyone else? Either that or God stopped working that way — reminiscent of the JW line of reasoning.

God is everyone's teacher through the Holy Spirit.
Paul was discipled under the disciples and then in Arabia. He did not forsake the gathering of saints. This is someone that had a direct encounter with Jesus Christ Himself through open heaven.

You that all you have is the bible, you believe your mind is capable of handling God alone

Anyway, I am not one to underestimate what God can do. All I will do is encourage you to follow the laid down guidelines in the bible.

1. Repent and be Born again.
2. Receive the Holy Spirit - our helper and teacher.
3. Join the brethren and be discipled (mentored)- Baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holyspirit.
4. Passionately and Patiently Grow to matutity through discipleship- leading of the Holyspirit, love and service
5. Become like Christ evident in unbelievers confirming Christikeness in you.
6. Make disciples of others

Myer:
■ God is everyone's teacher through the Holy Spirit. Paul was discipled under the disciples and then in Arabia. He did not forsake the gathering of saints. This is someone that had a direct encounter with Jesus Christ Himself through open heaven.

1. That is not true at all. Let's stop the lies and start visiting the truth. Paul was a sinner and Old Law adherent without a Holy Spirit on his way to commit what may have been yet another murder when God came to Him. Paul, become born-again after He submitted directly to God. He told you himself that He did not have any human train him rather it was God that did the teaching. So, are you suggesting that Paul here lied?

Kobojunkie:
1. That is not true at all. Let's stop the lies and start visiting the truth. Paul was a sinner and Old Law adherent without a Holy Spirit on his way to commit what may have been yet another murder when God came to Him. Paul, become born-again after He submitted directly to God. He told you himself that He did not have any human train him rather it was God that did the teaching. So, are you suggesting that Paul here lied?

Scrioture has to be balanced.
When you read Galatians 1:11-19 Paul says he was not taught of man.
But when you read Acts 9:15-28 you will realise he was discipled by the apostles.

How do you explain this?
Good morning and a blessed June to you and yours.

Myer:
■ Scrioture has to be balanced. When you read Galatians 1:11-19 Paul says he was not taught of man. But when you read Acts 9:15-28 you will realise he was discipled by the apostles. How do you explain this? Good morning and a blessed June to you and yours.

Wow... you actually do believe God lied, and Paul equally lied? Unbeweavable!

Acts 9 vs 15 - 28 only tells you that Paul stayed with the followers of Jesus Christ for a time. After all there was pretty much nowhere else for him to go since he was now one of the scourge that his former employers -- the religion of Judaism-- were trying to get rid of. Your claim that he was "discipled" is an assumption of yours since you don't believe it possible that God can teach people just as He said He would.