justcool:

davidylan
the probelem with you is that you quote a scripture and give it whatever meaning you like without paying attention to what the scripture actually said.

The scripture said " He shall save his people from their sins." Where does it say He is sent to be crucified so as to pay for their sins?
He came to save us from our sins! This is true, He saves us from our sins by bringing us the Truth which if we live by it, we will be freed from our sins.  This is the meaning of the scripture. Only by living according to the teaching of Jesus can one avoid sin, and only by living according to His teachings can one attain righteousness which will open the door of paradise for such a blessed person.

Thanks.

You see that is a different opinion, this dude should get off his high horse.

You would also die if you were nailed on a cross and pierced with a spear

justcool:

davidylan
the probelem with you is that you quote a scripture and give it whatever meaning you like without paying attention to what the scripture actually said.

You just succinctly described yourself here to be honest.

justcool:

The scripture said " He shall save his people from their sins." Where does it say He is sent to be crucified so as to pay for their sins?

Hebrews 9: 11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep

Revelations 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

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

[size=13pt]Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.[/size]

Let me stop here . . . but of course we could always read more verses. I cant imagine how people can be SO BLIND to such a glaring truth of the bible. But then the same bible talks of strong delusions at the endtime that they shld believe a lie.

justcool:

He came to save us from our sins! This is true, He saves us from our sins by bringing us the Truth which if we live by it, we will be freed from our sins. This is the meaning of the scripture.

This again is false . . .

[size=13pt]Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.[/size]

Even the OT Jews knew that they had to go to Jerusalem EVERY YEAR to offer a burnt offering (shedding of blood) for the remission of sins. They werent banking on bogus and nebulous stuff like "truth".

justcool:

Only by living according to the teaching of Jesus can one avoid sin, and only by living according to His teachings can one attain righteousness which will open the door of paradise for such a blessed person.

Thanks.

Again this is heretical teaching very much reminiscent of the new age emergent church teachings we have today. We CANNOT BY OURSELVES avoid sin . . .

Salvation is through the blood of Jesus (the bible says it) . . . and it is ONLY when you are saved that you obtain the power of the Holy Ghost to avoid sin. We are by nature children of wrath.

Thor:

You would also die if you were nailed on a cross and pierced with a spear  

I am sure I will lol.

davidylan:

God pls save us from these damnable heresies . . . where did the above individual get this lie of the devil? Jesus didnt come to "teach us to strive for righteousness" . . . He came that we may have life and have it abundantly.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Dude open your eyes. The scriptures you quoted above does not support your agument.

Chrisbenogor:

You see that is a different opinion, this dude should get off his high horse.

Word! Some of these religious fanatics will quote any scripture and twist and turn it to fit thier agurment. Tell me how these scriptures he quoted proved that Jesus' cricification payed for the sins of the world.
Some people are just like photocoping machine, they keep photocoping what thier pastors tell them without taking time to read the scriptures themself or think for themself.

Chrisbenogor:

You see that is a different opinion, this dude should get off his high horse.

What is most amusing about you clones is that you simply parrot the opinions of the other without any thought for verifying if its true or not. So long as it supports your own bias you are ok with it.

Justcool says a lot of nonsense . . . NOT ONE SCRIPTURE to back it up? And you sit there lapping it all up?

What has justcool's opinion about me got to do with the truth of the scriptures? Am i justified by his opinion? My only presence here is to make sure liars like him dont confuse other christians struggling to understand the salvation that is in Christ. What you or him have to say on that is your own kettle of fish.

seeklove:

Dude open your eyes. The scriptures you quoted above does not support your agument.

How? Another "fanatic" (accusing others of being fanatical of course) comes around making a baseless claim without even bothering to prove it?

seeklove:

Word! Some of these religious fanatics will quote any scripture and twist and turn it to fit thier agurment. Tell me how these scriptures he quoted proved that Jesus' cricification payed for the sins of the world.
Some people are just like photocoping machine, they keep photocoping what thier pastors tell them without taking time to read the scriptures themself or think for themself.

That is EXACTLY what justcool is doing (oh wait! Justcool doesnt even bother to present any scripture to justify his heresy . . . but atheists are ok with this of course)!

Lol sorry . . . i didnt photocopy anything, i understood the significance of the cross myself the day i took time off to read the book of Hebrews from chapter 1 to 11. You can finish it in a day and its something a 10 yr old can understand . . . but of course that's assuming you're reading it with no preconcieved bias.

davidylan:

What is most amusing about you clones is that you simply parrot the opinions of the other without any thought for verifying if its true or not. So long as it supports your own bias you are ok with it.

Justcool says a lot of nonsense . . . NOT ONE SCRIPTURE to back it up? And you sit there lapping it all up?

What has justcool's opinion about me got to do with the truth of the scriptures? Am i justified by his opinion? My only presence here is to make sure liars like him dont confuse other christians struggling to understand the salvation that is in Christ. What you or him have to say on that is your own kettle of fish.

lol david save your bad attitude for other people, where did I state my bias now? eh? lol oya answer people wey ask you question.

davidylan:

How? Another "fanatic" (accusing others of being fanatical of course) comes around making a baseless claim without even bothering to prove it?

That is EXACTLY what justcool is doing (oh wait! Justcool doesnt even bother to present any scripture to justify his heresy . . . but atheists are ok with this of course)!

Lol sorry . . . i didnt photocopy anything, i understood the significance of the cross myself the day i took time off to read the book of Hebrews from chapter 1 to 11. You can finish it in a day and its something a 10 yr old can understand . . . but of course that's assuming you're reading it with no preconcieved bias.

reading the bible by itself doesn't tell u shit. That's why ur pastor has you wrapped around his finger. He knows the rest of the story, you don't.  

educate urself, learn from others. You don't know everything

@ davylan
I am not here to argue about Hebrews and all those scriptures that you quoted. The issue is "Did Jesus say that by his crucification, he has payed for the sins of the world." Of course you know that I dont believe in the whole Bible as being the Truth, you must have read this in my earlier posts. Don't bring up Hebrew, lets deal with what Jesus allegedly said. Lets deal with the gospel.

I might also let you know that I have read the Scriptures you provided, eventhough I don't want argue about them, still non of them confirms your argument.

justcool:

@ davylan
I am not here to argue about Hebrews and all those scriptures that you quoted. The issue is "Did Jesus say that by his calcification, he has payed for the sins of the world." Of course you know that I believe in the whole Bible as being the Truth, you must have read this in my earlier posts. Don't bring up Hebrew, lets deal with what Jesus allegedly said. Lets deal with the gospel.

I might also let you know that I have read the Scriptures you provided, eventhough I don't want argue about them, still non of them confirms your argument.

This dude is completely lost and doesnt know what he is talking about. He has read the scriptures i posted but says none of them confirms the FACT that the blood of Christ is the SOLE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS even though ALL those verses state so in plain language? I'm completely shocked!

But why wont he read the book of hebrews? why do these liars and heretics PREFER SELECTIVE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES? Have they got something to hide?

Justcool claims to be only interested in what the gospel said . . . but i provided two cases - [size=14pt]John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.[/size]

Could anything be more clearer?

davidylan:

This dude is completely lost and doesnt know what he is talking about. He has read the scriptures i posted but says none of them confirms the FACT that the blood of Christ is the SOLE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS even though ALL those verses state so in plain language? I'm completely shocked!

But why wont he read the book of hebrews? why do these liars and heretics PREFER SELECTIVE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES? Have they got something to hide?

Justcool claims to be only interested in what the gospel said . . . but i provided two cases - [size=14pt]John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.[/size]

Could anything be more clearer?

Is it possible that the words were symbolic?

@ Davidylan  Jesus never said those things. they were made up after his death. but u ain't ready for that yet. just thought i'd hint at it though. when u graduate from kindegarten i'll explain that to u  

davidylan:

You just succinctly described yourself here to be honest.

Hebrews 9: 11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep

Revelations 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

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

[size=13pt]Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.[/size]

Let me stop here . . . but of course we could always read more verses. I cant imagine how people can be SO BLIND to such a glaring truth of the bible. But then the same bible talks of strong delusions at the endtime that they shld believe a lie.

This again is false . . .

[size=13pt]Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.[/size]

Even the OT Jews knew that they had to go to Jerusalem EVERY YEAR to offer a burnt offering (shedding of blood) for the remission of sins. They werent banking on bogus and nebulous stuff like "truth".

Again this is heretical teaching very much reminiscent of the new age emergent church teachings we have today. We CANNOT BY OURSELVES avoid sin . . .

Salvation is through the blood of Jesus (the bible says it) . . . and it is ONLY when you are saved that you obtain the power of the Holy Ghost to avoid sin. We are by nature children of wrath.

None of these said that Jesus payed for the sins of the world by his crucification.

[size=13pt]Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.[/size][/color]

This scripture has been analysed in another thread, and I have researched on it. It said that this is my blood of the new testament that is given(not that shall be killed, crucified or spilled) for the remision of sins of many. The wine he offered as his blood reprented his words. This has nothing to do with Crucification.

Chrisbenogor:

Is it possible that the words were symbolic?

Thank you my brother!!!!! Of course even a child knows that this is symbolic. The wine represented words of Jesus. If it were literal then the bread he gave them is actaully his body.

Chrisbenogor:

Is it possible that the words were symbolic?

Symbolic in what sense? Christ already told the disciples he would be killed going up to Jerusalem and for what purpose.

Krayola2:

@ Davidylan  Jesus never said those things. they were made up after his death. but u ain't ready for that yet. just thought i'd hint at it though. when u graduate from kindegarten i'll explain that to u  

dont worry . . . hence i will not entertain trolls. First its not in the bible, soon as its produced it must have been inserted long ago. Are there any more excuses you folks havent thought up yet?

seeklove:

None of these said that Jesus payed for the sins of the world by his crucification.

[size=13pt]Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.[/size][/color]

This scripture has been analysed in another thread, and I have researched on it. It said that this is my blood of the new testament that is given(not that shall be killed, crucified or spilled) for the remision of sins of many. The wine he offered as his blood reprented his words. This has nothing to do with Crucification.

I stop short of calling this the daftest excuse ever. Pls stick to Krayola's "it was inserted after his death" excuse . . . that is at least fairly more reasonable. How did Christ expect his blood to be "given"? Was he intending to undergo a blood donation exercise by the red cross?

So when in the prior verse he talked about his body being broken . . . what did He mean?

What is even funny is the completely disgusting way that start these unintelligent heresies with "i have researched on it" . . . ask him for details of his "research" and he cant tell you anything.

seeklove:

Thank you my brother!!!!! Of course even a child knows that this is symbolic. The wine represented words of Jesus. If it were literal then the bread he gave them is actaully his body.

Lets backtrack to[size=15pt] John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.[/size]

Christ already explained that . . . so seeklove what's knew that you are yet to tell us?

Hahahaha, david wan turn mad o. Abeg take am sufling o

davidylan:

dont worry . . . hence i will not entertain trolls. First its not in the bible, soon as its produced it must have been inserted long ago. Are there any more excuses you folks havent thought up yet?

I stop short of calling this the daftest excuse ever. Pls stick to Krayola's "it was inserted after his death" excuse . . . that is at least fairly more reasonable. How did Christ expect his blood to be "given"? Was he intending to undergo a blood donation exercise by the red cross?

First of all, the Gospels and other writings were written long before the bible was put together, dummy.

Between the death Of Jesus and when Christianity became official a lot happened. A lot. Christianity is not a perfect reflection of the vision Jesus had for the world. It has been tainted almost right from the get go! U underestimate the weakness of men. U think fake pastors and church leaders are a new phenomena? HA HA HA HA  

Jesus≠ Christianity

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

ROFL
Jesus was Hannibal the Cannibal

those look symbolic to me

Lets look at that scripture in another Bible Transaltion


[Quote]
because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins.[/Quote]
International Standard Version (©2008)


You see, it was King James version which Davilan quoted, that gave a misleading translation.
Of course you can see that in the international Standard Version it says "is being poured out" which is present tense. Remember at this point Jesus has not been crucified. If He was talking about the future would He use present tense? This shows you that He was talking about His words, the Truth which he brought to the world, which He was giving the world at that time. The blood being poured out is his word or the Truth which was being(present tense) poured out by his speeches.

Another clue is in another scripture where he said that

"So 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. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. John 6:53-56"

Here also He was not talking about His crucification. Here we see that to eat His flesh and drink His blood means to abide in Him.  Not to Crucify Him

haha. . .Chrisbenogor. . i see u're tryin to be the bigger man. i tried, its hopeless.  

@krayola
Hit us with your hypothesis and try to ignore david, I would be interested to know your take on the issue.

davidylan:

Lets backtrack to[size=15pt] John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.[/size]

Christ already explained that . . . so seeklove what's knew that you are yet to tell us?

This guy is Crazy
You just proved our point!!!!!! The scripture that you qoted above clearly shows that to eat His flesh or Drink His blood has nothing to do with his death on the cross.


"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.[/color][/size]"

I believe He was talking about the poeple that beleieve in HIm or dwell in Him not his death on the cross!!!!!. Besides, that scripture never said that He will be crucified to pay for the sins of the world.

justcool:

Lets look at that scripture in another Bible Transaltion

International Standard Version (©2008)

You see, it was King James version which Davilan quoted, that gave a misleading translation.
Of course you can see that in the international Standard Version it says "is being poured out" which is present tense. Remember at this point Jesus has not been crucified. If He was talking about the future would He use present tense? This shows you that He was talking about His words, the Truth which he brought to the world, which He was giving the world at that time. The blood being poured out is his word or the Truth which was being(present tense) poured out by his speeches.

Foul! [size=14pt]John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life[/size]

Why would Christ need to say this if His death was of no consequence and "truth" alone was all we needed? What did His death have to do with having eternal life?

Again you try to TWIST scripture to say exactly what you want it to say . . . the bible was VERY CLEAR as to the role of both the blood and the word of God . . . they were NEVER mixed together by either the disciples or the early apostles . . . and all through His ministry on earth, Christ REPEATEDLY talked about His death being the reason for His coming in the first place and what role His death was to play.

To attempt to use man's translated version of the bible to lie is just absurd and incredibly mind numbing.

Infact Hebrews 9:22 is VERY CLEAR on this matter . . . without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Why i particularly liked to refer people to Hebrews is that it basically explained WHY Christ had to die.

Now from Chapter 1 of hebrews we are taken through ancient jewish rites of consecration. Jews had to bring a bullock to Jerusalem EVERY YR to cleanse themselves from sin. Why did they need to shed blood? why could they not just read the words of the torah (as the pouring blood) to cleanse themselves?
Christ symbolised a type of this yrly sacrifice and Hebrews goes on to tell us why this was necessary - -

[size=14pt]Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified[/size]

So what is truly misleading isnt the translation i used BUT your own deliberate and wicked misinterpretation of that verse.

justcool:

Another clue is in another scripture where he said that

"So 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. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. John 6:53-56"

Here also He was not talking about His crucification. Here we see that to eat His flesh and drink His blood means to abide in Him.  Not to Crucify Him

That again is FALSE theology i'm sorry. Christ didnt mean that "eating his flesh and drinking his blood" simply meant to abide in him. How do we abide in him if we are not saved by the blood in the first place?   That is what that verse was saying . . . those who are saved by the power of His death and resurrection ABIDE IN HIM . . . not the other way round.

Again stop twisting scripture, this is simple.

@ Chrisbenogor.

Its very complicated and to be honest i don't know all the lil details yet. I'm taking a course on it next term. I already did a bit of reading though and this is some what i understand so far.

1) Competition between disciples, or off-shoots of their individual ministries. thats why they're all sorts of gospels poppin up all over the place and different versions of his story.

2)some were more popular than others. e.g a more charismatic leader would have a larger following. . .etc. When everything was being consolidated, the teachings/writings that were most popular, and not so controversial were adopted.

3) Jesus and Paul had a vision of equality between women and men, jews and gentiles, within and outside the church. SOme of the gospels were altered to change this so women were not involved in church leadership

4) A lot of the sayings about Son of God, and washing away sins, appear mostly in the later later gospels. . John especially. Acts of the apostles is a very suspect book.

"Son of God" was used to describe great rulers. In Roman territory there  Caeser propaganda all over the place, walls, everywhere saying "Son of God".  Thats what they had to compete with.

5) I cant really give a detailed explanation because, like i said, i havent studied the finer details, but i'm pretty sure of the stuff i just wrote.

Now Christians probably want me shot for that

seeklove:

This guy is Crazy
You just proved our point!!!!!! The scripture that you qoted above clearly shows that to eat His flesh or Drink His blood has nothing to do with his death on the cross.


"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.[/color][/size]"

I believe He was talking about the poeple that beleieve in HIm or dwell in Him not his death on the cross!!!!!. Besides, that scripture never said that He will be crucified to pay for the sins of the world.

Again we see the hypocrisy that is rife with these folks. First they start off accusing you of misrepresenting the scriptures . . . then end up forcing their own UNBIBLICAL beliefs into that same bible. On what basis does seeklove claim "he believes" the bible was saying what he claimed?

What was the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection? A joke to show His power or what? Could He not have avoided death simply by refusing to go up to Jerusalem EVEN WHEN HE HAD PREDICTED THEY WERE GOING TO KILL HIM IF HE WENT?

True that scirpture didnt say He was being crucified to pay for the sins of many (since it has to say it in plain english for goons to grudgingly accept), but i have already provided other verses where He said so DIRECTLY . . . but of course i notice the strategy is to avoid those glaring verses rather picking on the others and building a false logic on it.

As far as sins go, Jesus did not think he was dying for anyone's sins. But he thought the end of the world was coming soon. Very soon. Not 2000yrs later type soon.Paul did too.

Krayola2:

As far as sins go, Jesus did not think he was dying for anyone's sins. But he thought the end of the world was coming soon. Very soon. Not 2000yrs later type soon.Paul did too.

I think I agree on that one, I was reading about the Jesus Seminar just now to check some things, can you tell me the criteria within the religious community that makes biblical scholars stand out. Are there any scholars involved in the seminar that are well recognised?

Krayola2:

@ Chrisbenogor.

Its very complicated and to be honest i don't know all the lil details yet. I'm taking a course on it next term. I already did a bit of reading though and this is some what i understand so far.

1) Competition between disciples, or off-shoots of their individual ministries. thats why they're all sorts of gospels poppin up all over the place and different versions of his story.

2)some were more popular than others. e.g a more charismatic leader would have a larger following. . .etc. When everything was being consolidated, the teachings/writings that were most popular, and not so controversial were adopted.

2) Jesus and Paul had a vision of equality between women and men, jews and gentiles, within and outside the church. SOme of the gospels were altered to change this so women were not involved in church leadership

3) A lot of the sayings about Son of God, and washing away sins, appear mostly in the later later gospels. . John especially. Acts of the apostles is a very suspect book. "Son of God" was used to describe great rulers. In Roman territory there cas Caeser propaganda all over the place, walls, everywhere saying "Son of God". Thats what they had to compete with.

4) I cant really give a detailed explanation because, like i said, i havent studied the finer details, but i'm pretty sure of the stuff i just wrote.

Now Christians probably want me shot for that

I was seriously looking forward to your write-up on that your excuse . . . to say i am disappointed this is all you can muster after all your nonsense that you spewed WITHOUT PROOF is an understatement.

1) Competition between disciples, or off-shoots of their individual ministries. thats why they're all sorts of gospels poppin up all over the place and different versions of his story. - Stupid . . . its funny that the 4 gospels in the bible are almost parallels of each other. One would think if they were truly competing with each other we'd have serious/grievous problems with correlating them. Where was this competition ever recorded in the book of acts?

2)some were more popular than others. e.g a more charismatic leader would have a larger following. . .etc. When everything was being consolidated, the teachings/writings that were most popular, and not so controversial were adopted. - this again is stupid. Matthew was never even popular, only mentioned a few times. Mark wasnt even a disciple . . . if this was all about a popularity contest then one would expect Paul or apollos to have written their own gospels no?

3) A lot of the sayings about Son of God, and washing away sins, appear mostly in the later later gospels. . John especially. Acts of the apostles is a very suspect book. "Son of God" was used to describe great rulers. In Roman territory there cas Caeser propaganda all over the place, walls, everywhere saying "Son of God". Thats what they had to compete with. - Ridiculous because even Matthew, the very first gospel is the one that most plainly talks about the crucifiction as God's way of being the propitiation for our sins.

Acts of the apostles said very little on this issue and i didnt even post A SINGLE VERSE from it so how is it being a suspect book of relevance to this thread or issue?

Chrisbenogor:

I think I agree on that one, I was reading about the Jesus Seminar just now to check some things, can you tell me the criteria within the religious community that makes biblical scholars stand out. Are there any scholars involved in the seminar that are well recognised?

Krayola2:

As far as sins go, Jesus did not think he was dying for anyone's sins. But he thought the end of the world was coming soon. Very soon. Not 2000yrs later type soon.Paul did too.

Even when HE DECLARED IT SEVERAL TIMES HIMSELF?