₦airaland Forum

SIRTee15:
Leave your rhetoric one place
Did Paul agree with Jesus?

SIRTee15:
Since it's parable
Explain it to we Christians.

What does Christ imply when he said my life will be a ransom for many.

SIRTee15:
So whose writings about Jesus should I believe?

The one dictated by Muhammed who came 600 years after Jesus?

Oniyeye

AntiChristian:
John the baptist was killed too who did he ransom? He died fulfilling his mission!

SIRTee15:
Did John the baptist say his life shall be a ransom for many.
Did John the baptist predict his death?
Do U know what ransom mean?
Na illiteracy dey worry U.

SIRTee15:
Ok so we now acknowledge that God demands blood sacrifice for forgiveness of sin from the ancient Israelites.

So the question now is what changed. How come all U need to do now is ask God and he will forgive your sins.
Why did he change his mind?
When did he change his mind?
Why did God abandon the blood sacrifice and is now saying all U need have your sin forgiven is to raise up your hand and ask.
Why did he institute above right from the beginning.

I thought God doesn't change, why did he change mind concerning forgiveness of sin.

SIRTee15:
U are a big joke.
Forget what verses....
It's now become cherry picking what suits your agenda
Why not allow the scripture to speak for itself....

I warned U to stay away but your stubborn self wouldn't listen.
See where U ended up...

Next time learn to mind your business.

AntiChristian:
I know you have to help Paul reinterprete what he said! But what Paul preached remains different from Jesus's.



So salvation is not grace but works right?

SIRTee15:
U are saying the same thing as Paul, a sincere faith is what gets U to heaven

SIRTee15:
That he died b4 doing any works changes nothing. If evidence of work is needed to enter heaven, Allah will make provision for that one way or another.
If Allah can allow one to enter paradise without works it shows it's NOT A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT.

SIRTee15:
Yes, answer above.
Now on this passage. Can U tell me exactly what Jesus said when his disciples asked him ':how can we be saved'? Go back to the passage and and tell me Jesus exact response to the question.

SIRTee15:
Why did God tell the Israelites to atone for their sins with animal blood of he already gave them the commandments to follow for salvation.
Why tell them to sacrifice animals if all that's needed for salvation is obedience to commandment?

SIRTee15:
Jesus never preached obedience to commandment as a way to salvation, that's in your head.
Otherwise, what commandment did the criminal on the cross obey when Jesus promised him paradise.
What good work did zaccheus implement when Jesus told him salvation has entered your home today.
What commandment did the woman who announced Jesus obey when Jesus told her 'woman your faith has saved you'

That Jesus preached works as requirement to salvation is another gist from our mosques not backed by gospel scriptures.

AntiChristian:
His book no enter Bible!

Explain ransom for me!

The ram Abraham killed was a ransom for what exactly?

sonmvayina:
I guess you are not following my point this far.
The sacrifice must be done by a priest in a particular place in the temple...but we know the temple has been destroyed several times..in the absence of the temple God requires us to confess and forsake that is the Hallmark of a sincere repentance.
When the temple is re established the sacrifice will commence..
See 2nd chronicles 7:14.

sonmvayina:
Isaiah was talking about Israel as the suffering servant, stop implying what is not there...there is no death and restoration..it is not a messianic prophesy. It is talking about a servant. Isaiah already told you who the servant is...
Believe whatever you will. There is no Jman there..
It is written in the past continuous tense. Not future tense...
I really advice you to go back to secondary school..seems comprehension is your weakness..

SIRTee15:
Now let me start with U.
Explain Isaiah 53 to me...
Who is the suffering servant describe in Isaiah 53?

Qasim6:
No, I'm not saying the same thing as Paul.
It is obvious from Paul's writings that he is against the following of Jewish laws. Paul believed salvation and forgiveness of sin now revolves around the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that the law is a curse. Which I believe is the reason Christains are Christain today and not Jew.

Qasim6:
And it is very problematic when you compare Paul teachings with the saying attributed to Jesus in Matthew 5:19
"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven"

Qasim6:
Paul believed the law is no more biding and he was summoned to Jerusalem because of that teaching. He was told to do some rituals to prove to people he is not against following the law and he obliged like a hypocrite.

Qasim6:
Thanks to Paul, Some Christain now enjoy pork delicacies.

Qasim6:
Some Christain now believe circumcision that is everlasting covenant between God and Abraham as not really that important.

If circumcision is so important, why did Peter and James wrote to gentile Christians that they do not need to be circumcised.
Answer above first, then we go to Genesis 15 and 17 to dissect the origin of the everlasting covenant.

[quote author=Qasim6 post=131069355]don't get it twisted. Let's assume after taking the shahada, then he just continue living without offering the 5 daily salat, he refuse to fast during the month of Ramadan, he has the wealth to perform hajj he refuse, he has the wealth enough to pay zakat he refuse to pay. He will still be punish. So it is a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT.

AntiChristian:
God doesn't need the blood! He just wants their obedience and piety! But Cain and Abel brought sacrifices but the one with piety was accepted!


What animal is slaughtered In the book of Ezekiel, Chapter 18, verse 21-22 which says: "But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live."

Qasim6:
U guys are just ransacking the old testament to justify your human sacrifice doctrine.

Is this part of Isaiah 53 not problematic?
Or are we just going to pretend it is not there?

"he will see his offspring and prolong his days"

Did Jesus have offspring we don't know about?

And how do you reconcile Psalm 91 a prophecy that was thrown at Jesus and he confirmed it is a prophecy about him, how do you reconcile that with this suffering servant of Isaiah 53 that is supposed to see his offspring?

Qasim6:
Even if animal blood was used for atonement in the old testament. It is obvious God is against human sacrifice in the old testament. What changed?

SIRTee15:
Isaiah 53, the suffering servant.
That's what changed.

Forget about Jesus, those who wrote isaiah 53 didn't know any Jesus.

So let's dissect Isaiah 53 without Jesus bias. Let's analyse the chapter as if both don't know any one called Jesus Christ.

Now let me ask U, who is the protagonist in Isaiah 53.
Is he a man, a nation or a group of people.

What does Isaiah 53.12b mean

For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

What exactly do U infer from this verse.

Other things U said already addressed, no need for repetition.

SIRTee15:
Can Israel forgive their own sins.
That's my question.

U said it's not a messianic prophecy. What if I show U that the 2nd temple Jews believed Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah.
If I bring the evidence here, will U accept?

SIRTee15:
So if God can forgive sin without blood, why did he tell Israelites to sacrifice animals and use their blood for atonement.
That's My question.
If U don't know, say U don't know.

sonmvayina:
Christians believe that one needs a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin and that one who does not have a blood sacrifice will die in their sins and go to hell. For Christians, the ultimate and only blood sacrifice that counts with God came in the death of Jesus. Christianity believes that if one does not accept the death of Jesus as one’s blood sacrifice, then one is condemned to an eternity enduring the punishments of hell.

In Judaism the centrality of the animal sacrifices ceased, not with the second destruction of the Temple by the Romans, but rather with the first destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians. One must keep in mind that the vast majority of Jews never returned to the Promised Land under Cyrus of Persia. They remained in Babylonia. By the time Jesus was said to have been born, eighty percent of the world’s Jewish community lived outside the Promised Land, and did not care about the cessation of animal sacrifices. When the Temple was reestablished, the Jews of Babylonia made an annual financial gift for the maintenance of the Temple and the land, but never worried that God would not forgive them their sins without a blood sacrifice (much as Jews all over the world do today). They had no such fear because the Bible makes it explicitly clear that no blood sacrifice is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. The Bible also makes it clear that an animal sacrifice is not the exclusive means of obtaining forgiveness.

Qasim6:
What I am saying is that Isaiah 53 can not be reconcile with Psalm 91 a confirmed known prophecy about Jesus, the prophecy even foreshadow his name.

You can not read Psalm 91 and believe it is the same person that was beaten, spat on, crowned with thorns, nailed to the cross and pierced with spear except if God don't keep to his promise, and we both know God always keep to his promise.

SIRTee15:
Paul is very correct. Jesus said the same thing.

He made it clear only his flesh and blood can guarantee eternal life.

John 6
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

SIRTee15:
Have not heard of spiritual offspring?

John 1.12

Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

SIRTee15:
Didn't Isaiah 53 confirmed God indeed saved Jesus?
because I don't get your point.

SIRTee15:
I think the council of Jerusalem is one of the most misunderstood passage in the bible.
And this is because people confuse Acts 15 and Acts 21.
Now I can't bring the whole chapters here but will advise U to read both and cure your own if ignorance.
Now I will summarise both chapters here starting with acts 15.

Acts 15
Paul was summoned to Jerusalem to explain the disagreement going on about circumcision amongst gentiles.

Paul went to Jerusalem and defended his stance that gentiles should not be circumcised.
Jewish Christians of Pharisee background countered and insisted gentiles should be circumcised.
The disciples of Jesus including Peter and James agreed with Paul and wrote a letter to the gentiles that no one should burden them with circumcision and any other mosaic law apart from eating food offered to idols, sexual immorality and strangled animals.

The council of Jerusalem clearly concluded and agreed with Paul that the gentiles do not need to be circumcised and so not need to follow the mosaic law.

Acts 21, James reiterated that gentile Christians are not bound to follow the mosaic law but Jewish Christians still need to follow the tradition and culture of their ancestors.
That was the bone of contention in acts 21 and not Paul's message which is targeted towards gentile Christians.


U guys will do anything to vilify Paul but will conveniently agree with other messages that validates Paul's teaching.

In acts 10, The Lord spoke to Peter on a vision

11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

So what will U say about above....

Ken4Christ:
Paul is a faithful servant of Jesus. He is the only one who boldly wrote that he has finished his course. All he taught is by the revelation Jesus gave to him.

Qasim6:
What I am saying is that Isaiah 53 can not be reconcile with Psalm 91 a confirmed known prophecy about Jesus, the prophecy even foreshadow his name.

You can not read Psalm 91 and believe it is the same person that was beaten, spat on, crowned with thorns, nailed to the cross and pierced with spear except if God don't keep to his promise, and we both know God always keep to his promise.

Qasim6:
And you believe this statement attributed to Jesus is historical?

Does this not look like a cult initiation?

SIRTee15:
I don't consider psalm 91 a messianic psalm. It's a poetic psalm that's applicable to everybody.

Some Christians may have attributed it as such but it's not amongst the messianic passages as per 2nd temple Jews.
Pre Christian Jews do not see it as a messianic prophecy.

Besides no messianic prophecy defines the whole of the Messiah ministry.
So I don't get the point of your argument at all.

SIRTee15:
Why should I doubt it?
Give me evidence why I should doubt it.
It's not just how U feel