AnonyNymous:

Ehen! Now you're talking. ALL the Christians I have come across say that god has planned everything ni o. . . divine design. . . and it MUST happen in the exact detail he planned it. . .this scholar up here just said it himself that god already knows the end point with 100% certainty, and that is the definition of omniscience. Ok. So in your form of Christianity, god is not scholar-version omniscient/your definition of omniscience agrees with wikipedia, which means NOT knowing the future with 100% certainty. Good. He does not know exactly what will happen, but just says what is most likely. i.e John 3:16 is a guess, albeit a well informed guess. Do you see what that implies? The whole of Christianity is based on a gamble of Judas betraying Jesus so Jesus would be killed. Because according to you guys, Jesus' bloodshed is the ONLY way that you can be saved. Its a well informed, highly probable guess, but its a guess nonetheless. Which means that in the off chance that Judas did the right thing, as well as everyone else, the Jesus would not be killed and mankind would not be saved. So we actually have to appreciate Judas for taking the choosing to do the wrong thing so that god can send 'woe unto him', because by doing that, he facilitated the salvation of mankind.
***********************
Talking with you guys brings me to a conclusion that if this historical figure Jesus actually existed, then he died BECAUSE of our sins and not FOR our sins(the idea of his blood symbolically washing away sins is ridiculous). That's the only way that the whole thing can make sense. However, that is not Christianity.

Yeah he died because of our sins in my opinion as well, however the idea of the sacrificial blood relates to the story of passover, the Jewish custom and religion celebrates passover as the beginning of freedom and jubilee.Jesus however reinterpreted passover and makes it all about his sacrificial death, the celebration now is that of community with bread and wine remembering the comittment of the master to the course and his love which in turn inspires us to move on inspite of persecution. This is my opinion though.
...

Also your idea of omniscience is an absolute which l do not agree with. God is not in control of human choices but he can predict the most likely choice given the circumstance, humans however are still in control of that. This however is irrelevant to God's divine knowledge of the beginning from the end. God knows how it would all end but he does not control all details because he gave us freewill and our choices are involved. Ciao.

Its becoming more and more glaring, even to the white man himself, that the religion he created has loopholes and contradicts itself. However, the African man swallowed everything these white people brought to Africa without examining it thoroughly, and constantly cling to the illogical beliefs because its so scary to admit that everything they've believed in while growing up, to this point, is a lie. No intelligent person can say that if Christianity was a new religion, brought from Europe by the white man today, that it would sound perfectly logical to them. Proof of my statement is in all these new religions springing up, which are just as ridiculous and illogical as Christianity, and people laugh at them and say it doesn't make sense. If only they could view Christianity objectively, using the same lens.

kilo4sure:

Yeah he died because of our sins in my opinion as well, however the idea of the sacrificial blood relates to the story of passover, the Jewish custom and religion celebrates passover as the beginning of freedom and jubilee.Jesus however reinterpreted passover and makes it all about his sacrificial death, the celebration now is that of community with bread and wine remembering the comittment of the master to the course and his love which in turn inspires us to move on inspite of persecution. This is my opinion though.

I am quite acquainted with the Jewish story of the passover, where the Jews were asked to spread the blood of a lamb on their door so that the Angel of the ever compassionate god would not kill their first born but 'pass over' their houses, however, that angel would kill the innocent firstborn child of all Egyptian children, for the sins of their Pharaoh (who was not even acting of his own accord, it was this same god that hardened his heart). Then in church they say people are judged for their own sins, there's no father and mother in heaven, etc. big contradiction. Anyway, if you believe that Jesus died because and NOT for our sins, then that means that his bloodshed was as a result of our own wrongdoing, something we should be sorry for, meanwhile the Jewish blood was gods way of liberating the Israelites from a man who was influenced by the same god to enslave them.
You see that they don't really correlate, and it doesn't make much sense, its illogical as well. But to each their own. . .

AnonyNymous:
Its becoming more and more glaring, even to the white man himself, that the religion he created has loopholes and contradicts itself. However, the African man swallowed everything these white people brought to Africa without examining it thoroughly, and constantly cling to the illogical beliefs because its so scary to admit that everything they've believed in while growing up, to this point, is a lie. No intelligent person can say that if Christianity was a new religion, brought from Europe by the white man today, that it would sound perfectly logical to them. Proof of my statement is in all these new religions springing up, which are just as ridiculous and illogical as Christianity, and people laugh at them and say it doesn't make sense. If only they could view Christianity objectively, using the same lens.

Christianity does make sense in what it teaches, your question is a philosophical one, and philosophy is always confusing. Our problem is that we focus on irrelevant things. The elephant in this room is the big question.. Does God's divine knowledge downplay our freewill, l say no and you disagree, but that is not the focus of Christianity.

kilo4sure:

Also your idea of omniscience is an absolute which l do not agree with. God is not in control of human choices but he can predict the most likely choice given the circumstance, humans however are still in control of that. This however is irrelevant to God's divine knowledge of the beginning from the end. God knows how it would all end but he does not control all details because he gave us freewill and our choices are involved. Ciao.

No no don't get it mixed up man, I defined omniscience as not being absolute, no complete certainty of the future, just complete knowledge of the past and present. That's the definition by wikipedia.
It is our Christian scholar above that said omniscience is absolute and knows the future, 100%. Then I gave an analogy to show how ridiculous that is when you say that.

kilo4sure:

Christianity does make sense in what it teaches, your question is a philosophical one, and philosophy is always confusing. Our problem is that we focus on irrelevant things. The elephant in this room is the big question.. Does God's divine knowledge downplay our freewill, l say no and you disagree, but that is not the focus of Christianity.

That's just one of the discrepancies in the bible. And you feel its irrelevant but then again, its the basis of Christianity. Hell and heaven, Jesus dying for our sins, free will. I believe that I have free will, because its obvious to see, but these people have been telling me that god knows what I'll do with exact detail. I recommend you read the thread from the beginning if you have the time.

AnonyNymous:

That's just one of the discrepancies in the bible. And you feel its irrelevant but then again, its the basis of Christianity. Hell and heaven, Jesus dying for our sins, free will. I believe that I have free will, because its obvious to see, but these people have been telling me that god knows what I'll do with exact detail. I recommend you read the thread from the beginning if you have the time.

Nice, l understand perfectly well what you are saying and we agree on many things because in matters of philosophy there's almost no perfect answer, for instance l believe that God is not in control of our choices, he is however in control of events, and can use our choices whether good or bad for his ultimate purpose. This in turn does not make our choice moral. This is why l say the matter of Judas or the betrayal in itself does not make Judas a hero, just that God knows our choices(whether good or bad) would not stop his plan, and he could even make the best out of them, but he would prefer that we always choose the good.

AnonyNymous:

As long as there's free will, probability of ANYTHING can never be 0.
You even completely ignored the diagrams

Rather, as long as there's free will with a confirmed pattern of choices and reactions as a result of the motions of depravity being the true master chosen by freewill; probability will be 0 since there is no neutral ground-there are two parts and the rejection of one automatically implies the choice of the other and P(all will choose good)=0. This much was known by Omniscience.

Now to your diagrams:

Diagram3: As long as mankind chooses servitude to depravity by rejecting possible deliverance therefrom through God,
P(man will exercise freewill against his chosen master - depravity- and refuse to kill Jesus )=0

Reason: he cannot act contrary to his master's wish except as he avails himself of the possibility of deliverance through God which he chooses not to do!

Last Diagram: But the majority chose not to be free! Why?

19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
John 3:19

Scholar8200:

Rather, as long as there's free will with a confirmed pattern of choices and reactions as a result of the motions of depravity being the true master chosen by freewill; probability will be 0 since there is no neutral ground-there are two parts and the rejection of one automatically implies the choice of the other and P(all will choose good)=0. This much was known by Omniscience.

Now to your diagrams:

Diagram3: As long as mankind chooses servitude to depravity by rejecting possible deliverance therefrom through God,
P(man will exercise freewill against his chosen master - depravity- and refuse to kill Jesus )=0

Reason: he cannot act contrary to his master's wish except as he avails himself of the possibility of deliverance through God which he chooses not to do!

Last Diagram: But the majority chose not to be free! Why?

19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
John 3:19

You've shown that you don't understand probability. I have nothing more to say to you.

AnonyNymous:

No no don't get it mixed up man, I defined omniscience as not being absolute, no complete certainty of the future, just complete knowledge of the past and present. That's the definition by wikipedia.
It is our Christian scholar above that said omniscience is absolute and knows the future, 100%. Then I gave an analogy to show how ridiculous that is when you say that.

Well, gentleman, I got a quote from the Bible hence those were not my claims.

Yes God knows the future,

He knows the heart of man whence the choices originate,

He knows what choices are to be expected from he that rejects the Truth and cleaves to depravity,

He knows the end i.e. the consequence of choices we make either good or bad and the chain reactions those choices and their consequences will trigger and how those to be affected thereby will react if they were those who have also chosen depravity or Him as Master and likewise the consequences the choices of the latter category. And of course what could happen if someone in the link chooses to make a change along the line.

Finally, He also knows that depravity is just a regent of the serpent, and the serpent has an organised kingdom and a plan that has its goal as what led to his ouster from Heaven. Hence as long as man hates the Light and cleaves to depravity, his every choices under this master will lead to the fulfillment of the purposes of he for whom depravity is just a regent.


Kindly correct me where I am wrong (do quote the Scriptures in your corrections).

AnonyNymous:

You've shown that you don't understand probability. I have nothing more to say to you.

farewell.

kilo4sure:

Nice, l understand perfectly well what you are saying and we agree on many things because in matters of philosophy there's almost no perfect answer, for instance l believe that God is not in control of our choices, he is however in control of events, and can use our choices whether good or bad for his ultimate purpose. This in turn does not make our choice moral. This is why l say the matter of Judas or the betrayal in itself does not make Judas a hero, just that God knows our choices(whether good or bad) would not stop his plan, and he could even make the best out of them, but he would prefer that we always choose the good.

So we condemn Judas but are also happy that he facilitated salvation. Got it.
Religion. . . honestly it's really funny, its funnier that people pay pastors money to tell them these stories lol. . .
Another question I have, if you, by yourself, can tell that some things in the bible are wrong, e.g condoning rape, condemning eating shellfish, destroying women's rights, etc. . .
Then why can't you apply that same common sense to real life to tell right from wrong without the use of religion?

AnonyNymous:

So we condemn Judas but are also happy that he facilitated salvation. Got it.
Religion. . . honestly it's really funny, its funnier that people pay pastors money to tell them these stories lol. . .
Another question I have, if you, by yourself, can tell that some things in the bible are wrong, e.g condoning rape, condemning eating shellfish, destroying women's rights, etc. . .
Then why can't you apply that same common sense to real life to tell right from wrong without the use of religion?

Yes we condemn Judas because his action was immoral, God has a way of turning the tables on the wicked by even using their immoral action to still achieve the good, since he can't stop them from doing the evil due to their freewill. I wonder why this is strange to you, or is it that it is hard to get?
Also l do not know where bible condones rape or destroys women's right, bible report stories, and hardly condones anything.
Of course we do not need religion for morality, but without a God, morality cannot be objective, which means your right to condemn Hitler or even the bible for that matter is subjective and has no basis.

@ AnonyNymous let me ask you a question. Why did peter, judas,pilait fell guilty ? Why dint they fell good if they know, what they are dong was right ? Peter ask for forgiveness, what about the rest ? We regard peter as saint, is he not among the betrayals ? You don't expect christians to celebrate the work of evil. I don't think I will reply you anymore. Thank you for your time. Am gone.

malvisguy212:
@ AnonyNymous let me ask you a question. Why did peter, judas,pilait fell guilty ? Why dint they fell good if they know, what they are dong was right ? Peter ask for forgiveness, what about the rest ? We regard peter as saint, is he not among the betrayals ? You don't expect christians to celebrate the work of evil. I don't think I will reply you anymore. Thank you for your time. Am gone.

Mr man, you just keep pushing your bible mumbo jumbo to me, you've made it clear that if you don't see common sense in the bible, then you choose the bible and refuse to use common sense, bible that was written by men YEARS after the events had occurred. So I don't know why you are still quoting me. I am talking to people who use common sense only and you're not one of them so farewell.

Person: Why is the content of the bible true? Christian: Because the bible says its true.

kilo4sure:

Yes we condemn Judas because his action was immoral, God has a way of turning the tables on the wicked by even using their immoral action to still achieve the good, since he can't stop them from doing the evil due to their freewill. I wonder why this is strange to you, or is it that it is hard to get?
Also l do not know where bible condones rape or destroys women's right, bible report stories, and hardly condones anything.
Of course we do not need religion for morality, but without a God, morality cannot be objective, which means your right to condemn Hitler or even the bible for that matter is subjective and has no basis.

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic forces a rape victim to marry her attacker?! Its clear that in the bible, women are just mere property, not human beings.
There are many passages like this, I could bring as many as you want. But modern Christians know how to cherry pick the ones that 'don't apply to us anymore'. That basis that you use to cherry pick the commandments of your god is subjective. You can't tell me that you agree that a woman should be forced to marry a man that raped her. The basis you use is subject to the conditions of modern society, the society you currently live in. And I'm asking you to use that same basis in real life. The same way you can tell that condoning rape is wrong is the same way you can tell that Hitler was wrong too. As we have evolved physically, our rules and our perception of wrong and right has evolved along with us, and these perceptions are based on what is most favorable for humanity as a whole. Ok question. Do you think its bad to kill a person because god said its bad, or because it causes unnecessary suffering for others? If you think its bad only because god said its bad, then you admit that its a mere arbitrary decision and likewise another religion can come up and say killing is good because their god said its good. It doesn't take god to recognize the suffering of another person. At this point in our evolution, mankind has realized that true happiness comes from making other people happy. And this is the basis on which most rules that exist in the modern world are made, the protection of other people's happiness. Its only in a society that everybody is happy that we can be the most productive and, knowing that our lives and existence are finite, make the best by experiencing things of it before our cycle in the universe is complete and a new one takes over.

AnonyNymous:

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic forces a rape victim to marry her attacker?! Its clear that in the bible, women are just mere property, not human beings.
There are many passages like this, I could bring as many as you want. But modern Christians know how to cherry pick the ones that 'don't apply to us anymore'. That basis that you use to cherry pick the commandments of your god is subjective. You can't tell me that you agree that a woman should be forced to marry a man that raped her. The basis you use is subject to the conditions of modern society, the society you currently live in. And I'm asking you to use that same basis in real life. The same way you can tell that condoning rape is wrong is the same way you can tell that Hitler was wrong too. As we have evolved physically, our rules and our perception of wrong and right has evolved along with us, and these perceptions are based on what is most favorable for humanity as a whole. Ok question. Do you think its bad to kill a person because god said its bad, or because it causes unnecessary suffering for others? If you think its bad only because god said its bad, then you admit that its a mere arbitrary decision and likewise another religion can come up and say killing is good because their god said its good. It doesn't take god to recognize the suffering of another person. At this point in our evolution, mankind has realized that true happiness comes from making other people happy. And this is the basis on which most rules that exist in the modern world are made, the protection of other people's happiness. Its only in a society that everybody is happy that we can be the most productive and, knowing that our lives and existence are finite, make the best by experiencing things of it before our cycle in the universe is complete and a new one takes over.

You don't get it, why should l care about my happiness or yours when we are just insignificant components of matter that would soon pass away, soon the earth itself would pass away, and so why should l care. I love cheating others to survive, stealing, lying, etc makes me happy, nothing matters anyway.
.......
On a side note though, morality is not objective because it is commanded by God or anyone rather it is because it is defined by God's nature meaning the Good is the ultimate, you do not need the bible's command for it, however the bible is there to remind you. Also what you call cherry picking is the act of rightly dividing scriptures, everything in the bible is for our learning, so that we make the decision but not everything was written directly for us. So you know which applies to us and which does not, this is why we also have the spirit of truth.

kilo4sure:

You don't get it, why should l care about my happiness or yours when we are just insignificant components of matter that would soon pass away, soon the earth itself would pass away, and so why should l care. I love cheating others to survive, stealing, lying, etc makes me happy, nothing matters anyway.

why should you care about your happiness? because humans don't like to be sad. you don't 'care' about your happiness, you naturally want to be happy.
Stealing, cheating others, I'm sure there was a time in human civilization that it was not a crime, wasn't there? But as we evolved, we saw that doing that only brings hatred, conflict, etc and causes the people we stole from to get revenge, killing us/ ending our life before we got to enjoy it. Why should we care to enjoy life? That's like asking why we should eat a chocolate cake, even though we know it'll end up as poop. So we realized that that is not the way to go about happiness. As we evolved we put rules in place so that future generations can learn from our experience. If you put a group of babies in the wild, with no civilization whatsoever, they will grow up fight and kill each other, for their own benefit, until they realize that its not worth it and it'd be easier to do things in another way. Our ancestors have already learned this and saved us the trouble of repeatedly going through it over and over again. You could call this mental evolution. I hope you understand now. Human standards change. Just as there was a time when we thought it was acceptable to rape, we evolved to see that it has negative outcomes also, and decided that its unacceptable.
*********
cherry picking or rightly dividing, its the same thing, whatever name you wish to call it. as time goes on, with our mental evolution, some things that are currently acceptable today will be deemed unacceptable. Then the future generations will also 'rightly divide' it out of the things that the bible says we should do. If we can continuously decide what is right and what is not, on our own, then religion is not needed, we don't need any bible to remind us, that is why we set up governments with rules and enforcement agencies to execute those rules.

AnonyNymous:

why should you care about your happiness? because humans don't like to be sad. you don't 'care' about your happiness, you naturally want to be happy.
Stealing, cheating others, I'm sure there was a time in human civilization that it was not a crime, wasn't there? But as we evolved, we saw that doing that only brings hatred, conflict, etc and causes the people we stole from to get revenge, killing us/ ending our life before we got to enjoy it. Why should we care to enjoy life? That's like asking why we should eat a chocolate cake, even though we know it'll end up as poop. So we realized that that is not the way to go about happiness. As we evolved we put rules in place so that future generations can learn from our experience. If you put a group of babies in the wild, with no civilization whatsoever, they will grow up fight and kill each other, for their own benefit, until they realize that its not worth it and it'd be easier to do things in another way. Our ancestors have already learned this and saved us the trouble of repeatedly going through it over and over again. You could call this mental evolution. I hope you understand now. Human standards change. Just as there was a time when we thought it was acceptable to rape, we evolved to see that it has negative outcomes also, and decided that its unacceptable.
*********
cherry picking or rightly dividing, its the same thing, whatever name you wish to call it. as time goes on, with our mental evolution, some things that are currently acceptable today will be deemed unacceptable. Then the future generations will also 'rightly divide' it out of the things that the bible says we should do. If we can continuously decide what is right and what is not, on our own, then religion is not needed, we don't need any bible to remind us, that is why we set up governments with rules and enforcement agencies to execute those rules.

Hmnn careful now, the Nazis were as civilized as you can get and the communist Government as well set down their own laws via what made sense to them from their evolution and we all saw the result of that. The Nazis could argue that they were right because their end goal was for the greater good, remember that the victor writes history.
Let's face it we did not evolve to discover anything, we are as screwed as we could ever be, the good has always been in us, and mankind have always had what it took to separate good and evil, but we are selfish and constantly choose evil. Of course l never said we need religion for this but the concept of God gives morality a better meaning than your pseudo theory. The fact is even if we are happy and maximize creativity by this theory there's no hope and it doesn't matter anyway. As for the bible call it cherry picking all you like, you would also say the newtestament authors cherrypicked oldtestament, that is your call. See ya later.

kilo4sure:

Hmnn careful now, the Nazis were as civilized as you can get and the communist Government as well set down their own laws via what made sense to them from their evolution and we all saw the result of that. The Nazis could argue that they were right because their end goal was for the greater good, remember that the victor writes history.
Let's face it we did not evolve to discover we ate as screwed as we could ever be, the good has always been in us, and mankind have always had what it took to separate good and evil, but we are selfish and constantly choose evil.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The victor writes history. If the Nazis had won, with time, we would have continued to evolve to think that what happened was right and it was for the greater good of humanity. Until another idea came to replace it.
**********
Good and evil here are both subject to our mental evolution. . . in biblical times slavery was considered good and normal, now we consider it evil.
If the confederate states had won the American civil war, then slavery would still be a normal thing, and nobody would see it as evil, until another opinion came and won.
And its based on these human events that you cherry pick the passages in the bible to follow.

AnonyNymous:

That's exactly what I'm saying. The victor writes history. If the Nazis had won, with time, we would have continued to evolve to think that what happened was right and it was for the greater good of humanity. Until another idea came to replace it.
**********
Good and evil here are both subject to our mental evolution. . . in biblical times slavery was considered good and normal, now we consider it evil.
If the confederate states had won the American civil war, then slavery would still be a normal thing, and nobody would see it as evil, until another opinion came and won.
And its based on these human events that you cherry pick the passages in the bible to follow.

I have answered you in my previous post that was edited. Also tell me, did the new testament authors cherry pick? Why can't you understand that the bible is not one book, and certainly not a law book, what you call cherry picking was even explained in the new testament and does not come from a so called modern morality. Truth and goodness is what it is, we have always had it in us and it can be recognized anywhere. For instance if slavery would still bring benefits, it would still be practiced, it has nothing to do with an evolved morality. What you call evolutionary discoveries, l call the spirit of truth. Man has always known the golden rule but chose otherwise and would still choose otherwise when it is beneficial, evolution does not help this it only makes it worse. Also remember, what makes you happy may not be what makes me happy, it might even make you sad and vice versa, who decides then? The stronger decides and even the natural process of evolution supports this no matter how you spin or cherry pick it.

kilo4sure:

I have answered you in my previous post that was edited. Also tell me did the new testament authors cherry pick? Why can't you understand that the bible is not one book, and certainly not a law book, what you call cherry picking was even explained in the new testament and does not come from a so called modern morality. Truth and goodness is what it is, we have always had it in us and it can be recognized anywhere. For instance if slavery would still bring benefits, it would still be practiced, it has nothing to do with an evolved morality. What you call evolutionary discoveries, l call the spirit of truth. Man has always known the golden rule but chose otherwise and would still chose otherwise when it is beneficial, evolution does not help this it only makes it worse.

The new testament has a lot of letters of Paul to other people, and those, at best, are Paul's interpretation of whatever he learned from that Jesus man. Its funny how in the accounts of Jesus' life, in moments when Jesus is supposedly ALONE, someone can still write his experiences in detail. So the bible is not a law book, but yet the bible is the book which you Christians live according to, as the absolute 'word of god'.
************
If we felt that slavery could still bring benefits, then the American civil war to abolish slavery would have never been fought, since we decided that slavery was more beneficial than harmful. Our laws change, and our perception of right and wrong changes too. That's due to moral evolution. If you say its the spirit of truth, then what if civilization had gone in another direction as regards to morality? Would the spirit of truth be wrong then?
************
What we define as good today may be bad tomorrow. Even Christians recognize that, and that is why they choose which bible passages they follow in correlation with the modern world. Slavery was good before (even in the bible), its bad today(it does not apply to us anymore). When you say that 'good' is absolute and unchangeable, then we have a problem, because history has shown that what we know to be good has continuously changed.
So knowing that good is not absolute, and continuously changes depending on its effects on society, why would you need to keep validating a book called the bible by continuously trying to marry it to each new perception of good?

Interesting points have been made here both by my christian brothers and the OP.
However i seem to agree more with the OP in some of his points (not all) than my christian brothers.

Now i have a question for my christian brothers. .

What will you say about choice in the case of Esau? According to the scripture when they were still in the womb God said - "Jacob have i loved and Esau have i hated".
He hasnt been born into the world yet for him to start making choices and God declared hatred for him. S

kilo4sure:

How do you interpret Isaiah 53.

My point still stands, nothing like cross or crucifixion was mentioned in that chapter.

AnonyNymous:

I went to a Christian secondary school, I believe it actually was prophesied in the old testament.
My problem with Christianity is how it continually contradicts itself, not to talk of some of the morals the bible promotes. Islam too, has their own issues, but that's for another day. The person you are arguing with, that Malvis guy, fails to think in terms of logic and common sense but is saying 'just believe'. That's why I refuse to reply to him, because there is no logic in his words. But before you actually bring forth statements, I advise you to do your research first to avoid seeming unintelligent

Nothing like death on cross or word like ' crucifixion' was mentioned.

malvisguy212:
the old testament forestshadow God plan of salvation, isaiah prophsied it, the psalmist talk about it, many other prophet made mention of it.

Pls show me the verses that talked specifically on Jesus dying on a cross or where the word crucifixion was mentioned in those books. Thanks

Presbulg:


My point still stands, nothing like cross or crucifixion was mentioned in that chapter.

So until you see cross or crucifixion you wouldn't believe it was prophesied especially when such was yet to be invented in the time of Isaiah? Come on now, you should be better than that.
Okay l believe it can be argued that psalm22 can be applied to anyone, but what it describes looks more like crucifixion, would you say that isn't the case simply because cross and crucifixion was not mentioned? Na wa o.

kilo4sure:

So until you see cross or crucifixion you wouldn't believe it was prophesied especially when such was yet to be invented in the time of Isaiah? Come on now, you should be better than that.
Okay l believe it can be argued that psalm22 can be applied to anyone, but what it describes looks more like crucifixion, would you say that isn't the case simply because cross and crucifixion was not mentioned? Na wa o.

So you don't think something as significant as that in the foundation of christianity wouldn't be talked about extensively ?

Presbulg:



So you don't think something as significant as that in the foundation of christianity wouldn't be talked about extensively ?

What difference does it make? Would you believe it then? What is this foundation of Christianity you all keep talking about? Christ dying is only a part of it. Conquering death and suffering is more important to God in my opinion, Christ shows the way of the cross! To come and die and find that l may truly live. I cannot fathom this myself, but there's a mystery in Christianity beyond all this irrelevant stuff you guys keep bringing up.

AnonyNymous:

Its the very reason why I don't consider myself religious. There are lots of loopholes like this in all religions, yet people choose to blindly follow, calling it 'faith'. Not my business. It becomes my business when they, with their illogical reasoning, commit terror acts, kill people, defraud people of their money, or contribute to noise pollution by screaming in the middle of the night, disturbing us,etc all in the name of that 'faith'.

bravo

AnonyNymous:

Its the very reason why I don't consider myself religious. There are lots of loopholes like this in all religions, yet people choose to blindly follow, calling it 'faith'. Not my business. It becomes my business when they, with their illogical reasoning, commit terror acts, kill people, defraud people of their money, or contribute to noise pollution by screaming in the middle of the night, disturbing us,etc all in the name of that 'faith'.

Gbam!!