Did God Need Jesus' Sacrifice to Make You Acceptable to Him?

[bbyrd009]

see, you can only get yes or no answers from people who are convinced that they have the correct answers, right.
and they are not hard to find i guess

 

[VictoryinJesus]

well, you can read "believeth" if you liketh, personally i know that "belief" has 5 definitions, and "faith" only has one; the one i note there where you read "belief."
John 3:16 Lexicon: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. extract
Strong's Greek: 4100. πιστεύω (pisteuó) -- to believe, entrust

and just ignore where Strong's has helped to corrupt the definition of "faith" there, if you would, as if "believe" doesn't have enough definitions already lol. Pistis is not "belief," at least until they or your pastor (or your coach, lol) get done with it

Nehemiah 9:19-24 KJV
[19] Yet thou in thy manifold mercies forsookest them not in the wilderness: the pillar of the cloud departed not from them by day, to lead them in the way; neither the pillar of fire by night, to shew them light, and the way wherein they should go. [20] Thou gavest also thy good spirit to instruct them, and withheldest not thy manna from their mouth, and gavest them water for their thirst. [21] Yea, forty years didst thou sustain them in the wilderness, so that they lacked nothing; their clothes(Raiment) waxed not old, and their feet swelled not. [22] Moreover thou gavest them kingdoms and nations, and didst divide them into corners: so they possessed the land of Sihon, and the land of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan. [23] Their children also multipliedst thou as the stars of heaven, and broughtest them into the land, (important part) >concerning which thou hadst promised to their fathers, that they should go in to possess it . [24] So the children went in and possessed the land, and thou subduedst before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gavest them into their hands, with their kings, and the people of the land, that they might do with them as they would.

You said it is not about physical death for you...that physical death is temporary; yet you judge God by the lesson given in the wilderness. The fruit went in. Their children. Just like Abraham was given a promise that we see manifest today. Then again, even the children go back to their old ways, the lesson of man doing what man alone does ...he can not maintain salvation without God and they go back to their idols.

"Believe" "Faith" : add another one..."Trust".

Psalm 78:17-22
"And they sinned yet more against him by provoking the most High in the wilderness. [18] And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust. [19] Yea, they spake against God; they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?"

Yes, God can furnish a table in the wilderness? Hopefully you have eaten from His table. He prepared it before your enemies.

"Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also?"

Yes, God can provide bread also...Christ.

"can he provide flesh for his people?"

O yes, God can.

"Therefore the Lord heard this , and was wroth: so a fire was kindled
(against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel; [22] Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation:"

"I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!"

I am sorry but you are only preaching another form of "man saves Himself"...it is not going to work. It has already been proven.

Now consider the wilderness. In (Isaiah 40) the Lord speaks to the deceiver, here is a glimpse: "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

His prisoners. The deceivers. Jesus Christ walked amongst, as He referred to them "children of devil" and spoiled the devils goods and took those captive and lead them free on high. Where does John the Baptist cry come from?

Isaiah 40:3-8
[3] The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord , make straight in the desert a highway for our God. [4] Every valley(lowly person) shall be exalted, and every mountain(The proud and worldly) and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: [5] And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it . [6] The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: [7] The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. [8] The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

(1 Peter) "For all flesh is grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away."

All glory and goodliness of man: falleth away.
Why?
"because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it"
...but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

And who is the word? So Judge God by what happened in the wilderness if you like. Focus on some pole. He is proclaiming in your face that man can not save himself. The Lord is the Ark. In Him...the gates of hell will not prevail.

Genesis 7:18 KJV
[18] And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

Psalm 29:10 KJV
[10] The Lord sitteth upon the flood; yea, the Lord sitteth King for ever.

Once the door is shut to the Ark. No man can open it. I am within Christ. I trust in His Salvation. Not mine.

Revelation 3:7 KJV
[7] And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

He decides.
His mercy endureth for ever.

 

[bbyrd009]

He has no idea. He'll have to consult the Great and Mighty Google.

As he does with everything else...

not sure how you might search something that you do not know the term for per se, iow referencing is a bit different from learning, even if you might learn while referencing, i guess. Most of my Gsearches are into Scripture, so i dunno if maybe that changes your observation here any? But you make a good point, i guess.

Even if not the one you mean to make; i mean, i obviously have some idea, only it might not agree with yours, which btw i am not even aware of, @ Nehushtan? We, you and i, seem to have gotten sideways here for some reason, but i am not even aware of your opinion on the matter lol.

The idea was "Nehushtan," Job, and wadr i don't recollect ever even having the opp to challenge your pov on the idea.

if you want to talk about me instead, then yes, i agree with your post up there, pretty much

 

[VictoryinJesus]

bbyrd009, one last thing.

The scapegoat sent into the wilderness...
and the snake raised on a pole(the antidote) in the wilderness...
All happened in the "wilderness" because:

"They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?"

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus was tempted in the wilderness.
Christ overcome.

 

[bbyrd009]

That is hysterical...I think he is having fun tho.

ha well, my days certainly fly by quick enough.

we are raised from the crib seeking yes or no answers, but i suggest that life is not very much like them as it turns out, and that it is logical thought that forces a yes or no reply. Now natch for someone who knows no other way to reason, there is obviously no other reply that will suffice, but i suggest that the truth will only be obscured, and not found that way.

What will likely happen is that the truth of a specific matter will be discerned, but then it will be installed as a law, and it might not apply to the next specific situation exactly the same, see. So i suggest that one at least reflect upon dialectic reasoning, even though this is quite unsatisfying to a logical thinker at first. I suggest this mainly because it is how the writers of Scripture thought; they are the acknowledged masters of the art, unless i am mistaken there. And this is even less well known than Nehushtan, i guess.

Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture
or bam go and find out your way, and add to the extremely sparse reference here, ty

 

[bbyrd009]

For I can quote verses equally from both sides: receive mercy ; give mercy : give mercy ; receive mercy.

yes, i think this is the actual mechanical process; you ask to be forgiven of your past sins at initial public profession, but if you have not forgiven all past sins committed upon you, there is still a process you will have to go through i guess. And just stating "i forgive all sins done to me in the past" is not really going to cut it.

 

[bbyrd009]

You said it is not about physical death for you...that physical death is temporary; yet you judge God by the lesson given in the wilderness.

hmm. i'll have to think about this one, and get back to you. I'm not clear on how i might be judging God here.

The fruit went in. Their children.

well, so in that analogy, if i tell you that you will be condemned, but your children will enter the PL, that would suffice for you? Seems like maybe we are mixing metaphors here somewhere

I am sorry but you are only preaching another form of "man saves Himself"

how so? by insisting that Christ be followed, rather than worshipped? or how, exactly?

 

[bbyrd009]

So Judge God by what happened in the wilderness if you like.

ya, guess i'll have to get more input on what you mean here, maybe someone else can interpret for me. I'll get back to you on this.

 

[Miss Hepburn]

....we are raised from the crib seeking yes or no answers, but i suggest that life is not very much like them as it turns out, and that it is logical thought that forces a yes or no reply.
What will likely happen is that the truth of a specific matter will be discerned, but then it will be installed as a law, and it might not apply to the next specific situation exactly the same, see. So i suggest that one at least reflect upon dialectic reasoning, even though this is quite unsatisfying to a logical thinker at first. I suggest this mainly because it is how the writers of Scripture thought; they are the acknowledged masters of the art, unless i am mistaken there. And this is even less well known than Nehushtan, i guess.

Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture
or bam go and find out your way, and add to the extremely sparse reference here, ty

You talking to me? Cuz I rarely use logic.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

how so? by insisting that Christ be followed, rather than worshipped? or how, exactly?

Follow means "to abandon all dead works of the flesh" and "trust" in Gods provision. Trust in His Salvation alone. Yet they grumbled and complained at His provision. You say His sacrifice was not needed to cleanse. You say man never failed, there was never any garden, and therefore teaching there is nothing really to be atoned for. You feed philosophically. Isn't that the title of the OP. I am paraphrasing: was Christ really needed?

Have you ever considered that He that gather too much: symbolizes the Pharisees that gather but never distributed to others. Rather they hoarded. Gathering too much has nothing to do with you...but about feeding others with "fish and loaves of bread" once again God's provision was more than enough.


Nahum 1:5
[5] The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.

The earth is burned at his presence...yet you convince people they can provide their own cover because...who told them they were naked anyways.

No need to respond.
We are done.

Proverbs 25:27-28 KJV
[27] It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory. [28] He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.

Zechariah 2:5 KJV
[5] For I, saith the Lord , will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her.

 

[bbyrd009]

You talking to me? Cuz I rarely use logic.

lol :)
ha no, you are a dialectical thinker already, even if you would not have used that term.
women seem to be a bit less prone to strictly logical thought for some reason, dunno why?
kids force seeing the shades of grey, maybe.

 

[bbyrd009]

You say His sacrifice was not needed to cleanse.

no, i did not say this

You say man never failed

i did not say this either; Adam obviously felt failure and even remorse for it

Isn't that the title of the OP. I am paraphrasing: was Christ really needed?

no, that is exactly what the title is not, wadr. Christ was needed, as i have reiterated many times now. Adam needed a skin; God did not need Adam to have a skin, but that does not mean that Adam did not need a skin

 

[bbyrd009]

yet you convince people they can provide their own cover because...who told them they were naked anyways.

ok, i think i have been clear enough that Christ is required for the first, and i would encourage you to come to your own understanding of the implications of "Who told you..?" if we...if i am not being understood by you here, as seems likely ok. Bc you are extracting from this things that i would not agree with either.

Even if i can agree that there are some rather unsettling conclusions that might be drawn from this, yes, "you can provide your own cover" is certainly not one of them. Except in another sense that is exactly what i mean, bc believing that Jesus died for your sins will not save you; following Him is all that will.

No need to respond.
We are done.

ok, and i pray you get peace in this matter, fwiw you prolly aren't done with the cognitive dissonance here yet ok
you can run toward it, too, if you want to

 

[VictoryinJesus]

ok, i think i have been clear enough that Christ is required for the first, and i would encourage you to come to your own understanding of the implications of "Who told you..?" if we...if i am not being understood by you here, as seems likely ok. Bc you are extracting from this things that i would not agree with either.

Even if i can agree that there are some rather unsettling conclusions that might be drawn from this, yes, "you can provide your own cover" is certainly not one of them. Except in another sense that is exactly what i mean, bc believing that Jesus died for your sins will not save you; following Him is all that will.
ok, and i pray you get peace in this matter

Ok. Then I am sorry if I misunderstood the message. What I took away from it was: we have been tricked into thinking we need cover. What I took away was the snake on a pole in the wilderness was a trick to make you think you need an antidote. The scapegoat was a trick to make you think you need one.

Again, I am sorry if I completely got it wrong and am still getting it wrong. I am leaving anyways because the multiple views makes me question everything I hear.

 

[Miss Hepburn]

no, i did not say this

i did not say this either; Adam obviously felt failure and even remorse for it
no, that is exactly what the title is not, wadr. Christ was needed, as i have reiterated many times now. Adam needed a skin; God did not need Adam to have a skin, but that does not mean that Adam did not need a skin

Cleverly put...I approve. :•]
(Getting used to this Samsung Galaxy tablet...but if I write Woodstove it turns it to Woodstock....it just now capped woodstove!)

 

[Miss Hepburn]

... bc believing that Jesus died for your sins will not save you;
following Him is all that will.

You don't see that often on a Christian site....following him....
'... goin' My Way?...'

 

[bbyrd009]

What I took away from it was: we have been tricked into thinking we need cover.

ha, we have been tricked into thinking that God needed us covered; diff perspective, see

bc if i can make you believe that God needs you to be covered, then you are now in a position to accept the laws that i will be writing, etc., to put it briefly

 

[Miss Hepburn]

ha, we have been tricked into thinking that God needed us covered; diff perspective, see

bc if i can make you believe that God needs you to be covered, then you are now in a position to accept the laws that i will be writing, etc., to put it briefly

How'd you get so smart...research, logic, contemplation, Bible Study,
Divine revelation? Etc.

 

[bbyrd009]

What I took away was the snake on a pole in the wilderness was a trick to make you think you need an antidote.

ah, no, my bad there, can't deny that looking at the snake saved peoples' lives, in the moment anyway. But also wish to confront that all of these ppl died anyway, even after being healed by "the snake," figuratively speaking.

so iow the snake was a device that was needed--so not exactly a trick--because of the snakes, but the question of "where did the snakes come from" is begged there; it was, after all, the complaining that manifested the snakes, see. So this is not a one-dimensional thing we are talking about, there is a sowing/reaping thing going on , snakes are "reaping what you sow," and strictly speaking here Christ is presented as an escape from reaping what we sow, which is a lie, even though this exact message is often preached, right.

 

[bbyrd009]

The scapegoat was a trick to make you think you need one.

the scapegoat is another device, and the trick is the one we play on ourselves, see. People acting from ego need scapegoats; scapegoats serve a purpose, and are needed. Now the fact that at some point some ppl no longer need a scapegoat--just like at some point a kid no longer needs a convenient lie, when it is time to face some truth--and the scapegoat is seen for what it is, does not mean that the scapegoat was not essential to them at one point, see