OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[stowfan]

As I perceive some stagnation on points I've made, I figured I'd ask:

1) Does anyone want to discuss I53 further?
2) Does anyone want to discuss Personal Vicarious Atonment?

There's no problem IF no one wants to. I'd just like to know.

Muffy,

I work with the NASB, a few of many are: LEV4:28, 5:6, 5:8 5;10-17
Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for NASB

 

[muffler dragon]

Muffy,

I work with the NASB, a few of many are: LEV4:28, 5:6, 5:8 5;10-17
Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for NASB

Stow:

I realize that I may be separating by minutiae; however, Personal Vicarious Atonement is a tangential topic from Sin Offerings. I will admit that your timing of bringing up "sin offering" is interesting. I was thinking about a discussion about "sin offering" versus "crucifixion". Would you be interested in reading the points of difference and discussing from then on?

 

[stowfan]

Stow:

I realize that I may be separating by minutiae; however, Personal Vicarious Atonement is a tangential topic from Sin Offerings. I will admit that your timing of bringing up "sin offering" is interesting. I was thinking about a discussion about "sin offering" versus "crucifixion". Would you be interested in reading the points of difference and discussing from then on?

My guess would be cursed is he who hangs on a tree will be somewhere found in the points you lay out. Back to your topic at hand, the creature being killed is the PVA during a sin offering. What has always amazed me is how all the ancients, Hebrews included had the same belief in only blood could atone for sin. Must have been a pre Tower of Babel thang

 

[muffler dragon]

My guess would be cursed is he who hangs on a tree will be somewhere found in the points you lay out.

Nope.

Back to your topic at hand, the creature being killed is the PVA during a sin offering. What has always amazed me is how all the ancients, Hebrews included had the same belief in only blood could atone for sin.

I don't find this to be true in the slightest especially in light of Genesis 4.

By making this post am I to understand that you're interested in seeing my points and then discuss?

 

[lvbuckeye]

Rhetorical Question: why would the progenitor (RCC) of Christendom (along with the previous EO affiliation) canonize a book that supposedly prophesies it's own baseness?

you're sadly mistaken if you think the the RCC is the progenitor of Christendom. there was a church for 300 years before Constantine bastardized it with his pagan Roman beliefs.

As an outside of observer of Christendom, I have to admit that I relate the RCC deriders of Protestantism/Reformation as children that are attempting to find their own footing in life, and rail against their parents. This is not a slight, but instead, a natural course of things. The only part that I intend on sharing of consideration is this:

the mortal wound that is dealt to the Beast was the Protestant Reformation. unfortunately, with the futurist works of Ribera and his ilk that came out as a result of the Reformation, in conjunction with the Vatican's unholy alliances with Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin (it's true, look it up) that Beast has been miraculously restored...

IF the RCC is the beast of Revelation; THEN Christendom's foundation is quite shaky (if not virtually destroyed). The RCC is the very organization that has:

1) given Christianity its canon.
2) given Christianity its core beliefs and doctrines.

false. though i can see your point... then again, the pictures of vast fields of tare (weeds) and a remnant of wheat are pretty telling.

Regarding Revelation, it can also be deduced as speaking of the city, Rome; and not necessarily the religion.

they are one and the same. one cannot separate Rome's influence as a city from its religious influence. Rome is Rome.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Allow me to answer your question, with a question

How does any of this make sense? Us creatures walking around, thinking, talking, writing down the future thousands of years ago and talking about it on an internet message board make sense? This is a crazy world, where I can turn on the discovery channel in HD and watch stuff, where I can drink a beverage to alter my consciousness... I'm a young guy who is feeling out reality and trying to figure out what the hell is going on. I haven't given up quite yet, but I do take a step back frequently and think that all this stuff is beyond my comprehension and look at the world and all it's complex systems in awe.

In terms of it being an arbitrary thing for an all powerful God to do..

I find this a hard question to answer. Let me ask other Christians why they think God had to manifest Himself into human form and die for our sins? If he was an all powerful God as you describe, he could have simply waved his wand and said 'forgiven.' Why is their evil, sin, pain?

Perhaps the only 'sane' answer to that question is - because it's all made up. But see, thats where this faith thing comes into play, and it feels too real to be make believe.

stop listening to preachers and start reading the Word. i've said it before, and i'll say it again, it's not about Heaven and Hell. eternal damnation DOES NOT EXIST. it's about choosing to follow God, and being adopted into His Family. if you don't you cease to exist. God is NOT a sadist.

 

[lvbuckeye]

GatorUbet,
I am a pretribulational premillennialist. I believe you've stated before that you're a Christian. If you truely are, and pretribulational premillennialist happen to be correct then you wouldn't have to wait on the second chance part.

how can you be "pre" anything? read the prophecies. the word "trevail" is repeated over and over and over again. "whole whole world groans, as a woman in travail." the tribulation has been going on for the last 2000 years. the labor pangs are coming faster and faster. wars, famine, pestilence, disease, all at an ever increasing rate. there is no rapture. the DAY of the Lord is the LAST day. believers are gonna be here 'til the bitter (or sweet, depending) end.

 

[lvbuckeye]

I am not picking on Bleed when I re-post this quote. I simply thought it would be of interest for some for me to explain myself when I responded by saying that this is rather Judaic in nature (in other words - pre-dates Christianity).

The "thou shall have no other gods before Me" comes from Deuteronomy. The "love your neighbor as yourself" comes from Leviticus.

Here is a link which some may find of interest:

Judaism 101: Love and Brotherhood



One of the first things that intrigued me about Judaism was the concept of "challenge your faith daily". To some, this is an inspiring statement. To others, fear or ambivalence. For today, it's just something to think about.

Yeshua was a Jew, in case you missed that part.

 

[muffler dragon]

you're sadly mistaken if you think the the RCC is the progenitor of Christendom. there was a church for 300 years before Constantine bastardized it with his pagan Roman beliefs.

Hey LV:

I didn't say Constantine. The RCC existed before Constantine. Thus, my statement stands.

the mortal wound that is dealt to the Beast was the Protestant Reformation. unfortunately, with the futurist works of Ribera and his ilk that came out as a result of the Reformation, in conjunction with the Vatican's unholy alliances with Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin (it's true, look it up) that Beast has been miraculously restored...

IF the Beast has been restored; then it wasn't a mortal would nor was it a prophesy fulfilled as there is no resurrection of the beast in Revelations.

false. though i can see your point... then again, the pictures of vast fields of tare (weeds) and a remnant of wheat are pretty telling.

Please feel free to explain how my statements are false. What organization produced the canon IF it wasn't the RCC? What organization produced the majority of theological doctrines IF it wasn't the RCC?

they are one and the same. one cannot separate Rome's influence as a city from its religious influence. Rome is Rome.

I disagree.

 

[muffler dragon]

Yeshua was a Jew, in case you missed that part.

So what?

 

[stowfan]

Nope.



I don't find this to be true in the slightest especially in light of Genesis 4.

By making this post am I to understand that you're interested in seeing my points and then discuss?

Again using the NASB, I think these verses apply better than Gen 4; Lev 17:11
Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for NASB

 

[lvbuckeye]

Hey LV:

I didn't say Constantine. The RCC existed before Constantine. Thus, my statement stands.

sorry, but you are incorrect.

1) the word Roman. there were churches in Corinth, Ephasus, Thyatira, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Pergamos, Laodicea, and Sardis. it wasn't until those church came under the control of Rome, which happened ~323 when Constantine had his visions and 'converted' that they became 'Roman.' and even then, what Rome portratyed as Christianity was a FAR cry from what those churches were actually practicing. those churches consisted primarily of Jews and secondarily of converted gentiles. the original church was a JEWISH church. the Roman church has its basis in paganism that dates all the way back to Nimrod and his whore mother/wife.

2) the word "Catholic." Catholic literally means "universal." prior to becoming the state religion of the largest empire in the world, the tiny little churches spread around Asia Minor could hardly be called universal.

IF the Beast has been restored; then it wasn't a mortal would nor was it a prophesy fulfilled as there is no resurrection of the beast in Revelations.

pick up a book. i suggest Murder, Money and the Mafia: The Vatican Exposed. perhaps the intro will give you some insight into exactly how dead the Vatican was in the 1920s.

Please feel free to explain how my statements are false. What organization produced the canon IF it wasn't the RCC? What organization produced the majority of theological doctrines IF it wasn't the RCC?

let's see, because what Yeshua taught is different that what the church teaches.

I disagree.

back that statement up please.

 

[lvbuckeye]

So what?

what do you mean so what? it's not irrelevant. the fact that he was Jewish is fundamental in understanding who He was and what He taught.

 

[stowfan]

So what?

It's not, So what?

It's, So you want what for what?

 

[muffler dragon]

Again using the NASB, I think these verses apply better than Gen 4; Lev 17:11
Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for NASB

I utilized Genesis 4 to show two things:

1) That from the very beginning G-d set forth a process of sin => repentance => forgiveness. This is established for all people.
2) Genesis 4 has two components noticeably missing from the argument you're attempting to make: a sacrifice and a mediator.

Thus, from well before the institution of atonement via blood sacrifice, we see that G-d provides forgiveness for sins from a person's repentance. This is consistent throughout the entire Tanakh. Furthermore, there is not just one way of gaining forgiveness, but instead, many.

Now, for the "sin offering" v. "the crucifixion".

Sin Offering Taken from Leviticus 4. Note that this particular passage deals with the laypeople.

Leviticus 4
27. If one person of the people of the land commits a sin unintentionally, by his committing one of the commandments of the Lord which may not be committed, incurring guilt;

28. if his sin that he committed is made known to him, he shall bring his sacrifice: an unblemished female goat, for his sin that he committed.

29. And he shall lean his hand [forcefully] on the head of the sin offering, and he shall slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

30. And the kohen shall take some of its blood with his finger, and place [it] on the horns of the altar [used] for burnt offerings. And then he shall pour all of its [remaining] blood at the base of the altar.

31. And he shall remove all of its fat, just as the fat was removed from the peace offering. The kohen shall then cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. Thus the kohen shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.

Key Points:

1) This takes place within the Temple walls.
2) This is for UNINTENTIONAL sins.
3) After the sin is "made known" to the sinner, he then brings an "unblemished female goat".
4) The sinner places his hands on the goat.
5) The sinner slaughters the goat.
6) The kohen (priest) sprinkles the blood on the altar.
7) The kohen burns the fat on the altar.

Taking the above and rendering them upon the crucifixion:

1) It took place outside of the Temple walls.
2) The crucifixion is supposedly for both INTENTIONAL & UNINTENTIONAL sins.
3a) No sinners brought Jesus to the cross as according to the Christian testament, he went on his own. 3b) Jesus is NOT an animal. 3c) Jesus was not unblemished as he was supposedly beaten. 3d) Jesus was not perfect according to the observance of Torah either, thus the spiritualizing is moot.
4) No sinners placed their hands upon Jesus.
5) No sinners slaughtered Jesus according to Jewish tradition guidelines.
6) Jesus' blood was not sprinkled on the altar.
7) Jesus' fat was not burned upon the altar.

My challenge for you, stowfan, is this:

Can you substantiate the idea that the crucifixion WAS a sin offering in any way, shape or form OTHER THAN METAPHORICAL/ALLEGORICAL?

As an addendum, I ask in advance that you please refrain from any consideration of the Passover should it come to mind. The Passover is NOT a sin offering.