Removal Theology not Replacement Theology

[Naomi25]

Hey sister. Sorry about the delay. I'm behind right now.

Oh yeah, totally get that! I try to answer these in the morning, but sometimes it just doesn't happen, then it all builds up! Life can be hectic, can't it?!

I read through your post, but honestly, I found only the above to be a plausible argument (the others didn't instill much confidence in me quite frankly, and I do honestly consider things).

I think his point was; biblical structure and genre matter, and it helps us determine what the author was was thinking and hoping to portray with his words. It it definitely changes the way we read when we know the sort of genre it is. Poetry and history are very different, as are history and apocolyptic.
The reason why the use of poetry is important, is that in poetry it is not uncommon to use words to paint things. "it was like..." Not in those exact words, but that is often the intent. We use poetic phrases to to explain and describe things. And Isaiah is attempting to paint "the new heavens and the new earth"...a place where 'you would be accussed is you died at 100' or 'a child will never die an infant'. Death is an intergral part of this life, a gut wrenching part of this life. It's one thing to say, "death will be no more", but when we start painting pictures of the way death really impacts us: children dying, people withering with age (and sin) and their bodies failing until death, life literally draining from them, well then we start to really see and feel in an emotive way that we will be set free from these things in the new heaven and earth!!

But in answer to the above, it isn't about the gospel. Again, with Millenialist arguments there seems to be a continual reversion back to the salvation message as if it is the only thing God ever communicates, and that's just not the case.

I think I would beg to differ. I feel safe in saying that all scripture points to Jesus, either his coming, his work, his promise or his example. And isn't that the gospel? Isn't the gospel the news that despite mankinds fall, God entered into the world, first in direct covenant with Abraham and his people, then by sending his Son. But even the Covenants with Israel was pointing towards and for a purpose...to show a need for Jesus, and to facilitate his coming.

The passage speaks about our health while still in the flesh during the millennium, a time when there will be no hatreds, strifes, anxieties or stresses like in our present age. These things are commanded against, and cut our lives short (possibly because of their negative effects on the human body), whereas obedience to God leads to long life, as scripture points out numerous times:

Forgive me, but if people can still rebel in the Millennium, how will there be no hatred there, or no strife or anxiety or stress?
I simply cannot see in scripture a time period where some will be in glorified bodies, some will not, but they will apparently live longer. Some will follow Jesus, but some will rebel against him and still die, even though there is the presence of those who are resurrected. It just jumbles everything, and makes no real sense of all the passages that talk of Christ's return, which tell us plainly that when he does return death will be no more and all people will recieve new bodies.

Psalm 91:16 - [speaking of the one who walks close to God]. "With long life I will satisfy him and show him my salvation.”

Actually, many theologians believe that this reference to 'long life' is actually talking about eternal life. They link it back to Ps 25:5-6 where it says, "and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever."
The 'forever' here is literally, “for length of days”; this may simply be another way of saying "all the days of my life", but is more likely to be meant as “for days without end” (forevermore).

Deuteronomy 5:33 - [of commandments made to the Jews] "You shall walk in all the way that the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you shall possess."

I'm not sure we can difinitively take this to mean people will have their lives lengthened beyond 'normal'. It could just as easily be read 'that they may live in the land long'...as in, they will be in the land long. It could also mean that they will live out their days in the land, rather than being booted out before their retirement, so to speak.
If we look at the other times the Hebrew word אָרַךְ is used, it could easily mean either of those two options. So, I'm not sure we can hang our hat on the argument of longevity.

Ephesians 6:1-4 - [of commandments made to Christians] "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord."

In the New Covenant, the promise of 'land' is not physical land on Earth, but of eternal life. It starts now when one becomes regenerated, but comes to full fruition in the age to come.
So...as Christians in the here and now, our children do not obey us and get amazing longevity. No, when they grow up in obedience, it is but one sign of them following Christ. And that is a sign of them receiving everlasting life, not the land of Israel and an extra 900 years. Christ, his cross and his new covenant changed things for us. Not in a bad way, but in a far more outreaching, amazing way. Land? 900 years? Try in Christ we are heirs of it all, and we live forever. That is what it is saying.

Proverbs 3:16 - [Speaking of wisdom] "Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor."

Again, this does not specifically say, "add several hundred years to a normal life span". It just says 'long life'. When we are blessing someone, say...at a wedding, what do we say? "May you live a long, happy life!" It's a way of saying, "your life (I hope) will be full, not cut off, not deprived, not cheated."
There is no way to insist that this text to saying anything else. Longevity is not there explicitly and the context doesn't give us leave to even really put it there implicitly.

Thus, whereas many live well into their eighties now, the prophecy is saying that during the millennium, because they will walk more perfectly in the ways of the Lord, they will live well into their hundreds. This is about what we would expect if people were taking excellent care of themselves and living stress free and godly lives.

I think, again, you are painting this picture of a story after only being given the title, which leaves you having to fill in all the details yourself.
The painting shows Christ in all his glory reigning over glorified bodies juxtaposed against fallen bodies. But that's okay, because they live much longer now. But how do they live longer when apparently sin, death, stress, rebellion still exist in this 'near perfect' world? For example, I believe the idea is that if any 'land' doesn't make the pilrimage to Israel, then they pay the price. What happens if you are a fallen body...following Jesus...who lives there. You know the person next door is rebellious, and that the curse of Christ is falling on your land because of the actions of a few. Stress much? There goes your bonus 800 years.
It doesn't fit. There is a disharmony in this picture that I cannot line up with how the bible paints the return of Christ. No death, all resurrected, new heavens and earth, all judged.

 

[Naomi25]

um, wow? i gotta wonder how this believer might ever pick up a cross and outdo Jesus, wadr

Um...did Christ not go to the cross for us? Did he not die for us? Did he not take our sins on the cross? Doesn't that make his death on our behalf? Shouldn't we remember this? How does that get a "um, wow"?

um, guess i gotta reload and find out how i got in this convo lol, what usually happens is i'm doing a drive-by and get the context wrong or whatever. My guess here based upon the two different accounts that use the phrase "we ate at your table" has given me a diff pov @ ritual communion Naomi, and part A there kind of reveals...how disconnected we are now from life as it was then, so much so that i can't even honestly reply bc it would be a complete guess, but i'm pretty sure continuing the sacrifices in remembrance of Him was not on the table. You might note the complete lack of "and when it was time for the daily sacrifice" et al in the NT?

Israel was a hollowed-out shell at that point anyway, doubt anyone could afford to kill a goat

Ah...are you thinking that I'm arguing for a reinstatement of animal sacrifices? Cause I'm not. I'm saying that Christ gave us the cup and the bread instead, and tore the temple curtain in 2 when he died. Then the temple was rather effectively put out of service. 'Nuff said, don't you think? If Christ's death was once for all, why should there be any more deaths, even if only in 'rememberance'? (that's my point, anyway). The new is here and the old is passing away.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Oh yeah, totally get that! I try to answer these in the morning, but sometimes it just doesn't happen, then it all builds up! Life can be hectic, can't it?!

Yeah. :) I hate to say it, but while I started to write out my reply, I realized I may have to just move on for now. Maybe we can start this up again in the future. For now I'm getting too backlogged on other stuff I need to take care of.

Blessings, and fun talking to you!
Hidden

 

[Naomi25]

Yeah. :) I hate to say it, but while I started to write out my reply, I realized I may have to just move on for now. Maybe we can start this up again in the future. For now I'm getting too backlogged on other stuff I need to take care of.

Blessings, and fun talking to you!
Hidden

Ha! No worries, I'm a bit the same! I was thinking this morning...it's way easier to blast off a reply when it's not really a serious conversation. When you need to really stop, think, track through scripture, you suddenly realize you've lost 2 hours! When I saw you had replied just now, I was like "I don't have another 2 hours just now!!"
So...yeah, another time! But I've enjoyed our conversation and that I can really dig into the question with a bit of feeling without it getting...you know...overwraught!

 

[bbyrd009]

Um...did Christ not go to the cross for us? Did he not die for us? Did he not take our sins on the cross? Doesn't that make his death on our behalf? Shouldn't we remember this? How does that get a "um, wow"?

if you were to answer the Q that would clarify, but i quite expecting ppl to answer my Qs a long time ago i guess, so
when "No Son of Man may die for another's sins" is not included in that understanding is how imo, Naomi, but there are plenty of other clues. If Jesus died for your sins in the manner that infers, then why would you need to pick up your cross and follow? Why can't you find Jesus seeking literal worship anywhere, but in fact hiding from it @ the Two Greeks and inferred in other places? Why are you called to break up Nehushtan, why can't you Quote God accepting this sacrifice anywhere, but rather find "why have you forsaken Me?" why be perfect as He is perfect, if you can sin now and confess later? and as i asked, how are you going to do a literal "worship" bowing and scraping thing and then presume to go and do greater things than that which you just got done "worshipping" as God? No, hell no, Jesus did not die for your sins in the manner that that infers imo; 20no Son of Man may die for another's sins

Ah...are you thinking that I'm arguing for a reinstatement of animal sacrifices? Cause I'm not.

sure, i understand. But imo no, Jesus could not have said "do the animal sacrifices in remembrance of Me" i don't think. Anyway, the convo is going to go into literal communion now i guess, that was really your point?

 

[Vexatious]

Acts 2:5 ¶ And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven....22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words...36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
After Peter delivered his gospel message, showing all that heard him, Jews from many different nations, that the very Jesus they crucified

was risen thus the Messiah,
they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?​

Peter said they must repent and be baptised, and further preached many things which Jesus had taught, the result of which was
the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Added to what??? Israel? No. It was Israel, through their leaders that continued to persecute and denigrate the faith. These were Jews, the apostles were Jews, but they separated themselves from the established religious system, and joined another. This is akin to the last day separation from Babylon.​

​

The phrase you should have highlighted in Acts 2:5 is DEVOUT MEN. Acts called them Israel because they were devout men. But, you continue the lie that non-devout Jews are Israel. You know Jesus called non-devout Jesus the children of Satan. The Bible never calls corrupt Jews (Pharisees, Scribes, or anyone) devout. You also know in many places the church is equated with Israel, such as Ephesians 2. One of your favorite chapters to abuse, Romans 11, twice shows that Christians are added to Israel. Start telling the truth. The corrupt Jewish leaders and corrupt Jews in the NT are not described as members of Israel.

You misrepresent everything. From a Christian perspective (rather than your Antipreterist perspective), it would make no sense for Acts 2 to say these Devout Jesus were added to Israel. Devout men are Israel, OT and NT. They can't be added to Israel because devout men were already Israel, and they stayed in Israel when they accepted Christ, because Christians are Israel (except to those who implicitly deny Christ).

Also, you delightfully smear the disciples when you call them Jews.

 

[Keraz]

Christians are Israel

Right, That the Jews called their new nation, Israel, must be a Satanic deception, from all the confusion that has caused!

The true Christian Ekklesia is Israel.
Those believers who love the Lord and keep His commandments, that is: every faithful Christian person are designated by God to be Israelites. Galatians 6:16 The New Testament writings are clear: there is only one true Israel, Jesus and we who follow Jesus are the Israelites of God, who are the only one Church, only one elect, be they Jew or Gentile by birth.

1/ Israel, the chosen people of God: Exodus 15:13, Deuteronomy 33:3, Ezra 3:11

Christians, chosen of God: Romans 9:25, Ephesians 5:1, Col. 3:12, 1 John 3:1, Rev. 7:9

2/ Israel, the children of God: Deut. 14:1, Isaiah 1:2-4, Isaiah 63:8, Hosea 11:1

Christians, the children of God: John 1:12, Romans 8:14-16, Galatians 4:5-7, 1 John 3:1

3/ Israel, the scattered sheep of God: Psalms 78:52, Isaiah 40:11, Jer. 23:1-4, Ezekiel 34:12

Christians, His sheep: among the nations: John 10:14-16, Hebrews 13:20, 1 Peter 2:25

4/ Israel, God’s household: Hebrews 3:5, 1 Chronicles 29:14-18

Christians are God’s household: Hebrews 3:6, Hebrews 10:20-21, I Timothy 3:15, 1 Cor.3:9

5/ Israel are the priests of God: Exodus 19:6, Deuteronomy 27:9

Christians are the priests of God: Isaiah 66:21, 1 Peter 2:5-9, Rev. 1:6, Revelation 5:10

6/ Israel is the bride of God: Isaiah 54:5-6, Jeremiah 2:2, Ezekiel 16:32, Hosea 1:2

Christians are the bride of Christ: Isaiah 62:4-5, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Ephesians 5:29-32

7/ Israel is the vine and the olive tree: Isaiah 5:7, Hosea 9:10, Hosea 14:6-7

Christians are the vine and the olive: Luke 20:16, Romans 11:24

8/ Israelites are the circumcised: Genesis 17:9-14, Judges 15:18

Christians are the ‘circumcised’: Romans 2:25-29, Philippians 3:3, Col. 2:11

9/ Israelites are the children of Abraham: 2 Chronicles 20:7, Psalms 105:5-6, Isaiah 41:8

Christians are the spiritual children of Abraham: Romans 4:13-18, Gal. 3:7& 29, John 4:23

10/ The Covenant is with Israel: Deut. 4:31, 2 Kings 17:34-36, Psalms 105:7-10

The New Covenant is with Christians: 1 Corinthians 11:25, Hebrews 8:6-10, Ezekiel 34:25

 

[Vexatious]

Right, That the Jews called their new nation, Israel, must be a Satanic deception, from all the confusion that has caused!

Yes, the Jews are engaged in a Satanic deception. But, Jews openly define themselves by their rejection of Christ. What excuse does someone who claims to be a Christian have to believe the blatant lie that the Antichrist nation so-called Israel is of God?

 

[brakelite]

The phrase you should have highlighted in Acts 2:5 is DEVOUT MEN. Acts called them Israel because they were devout men. But, you continue the lie that non-devout Jews are Israel. You know Jesus called non-devout Jesus the children of Satan. The Bible never calls corrupt Jews (Pharisees, Scribes, or anyone) devout. You also know in many places the church is equated with Israel, such as Ephesians 2. One of your favorite chapters to abuse, Romans 11, twice shows that Christians are added to Israel. Start telling the truth. The corrupt Jewish leaders and corrupt Jews in the NT are not described as members of Israel.

You misrepresent everything. From a Christian perspective (rather than your Antipreterist perspective), it would make no sense for Acts 2 to say these Devout Jesus were added to Israel. Devout men are Israel, OT and NT. They can't be added to Israel because devout men were already Israel, and they stayed in Israel when they accepted Christ, because Christians are Israel (except to those who implicitly deny Christ).

Also, you delightfully smear the disciples when you call them Jews.

Your name is entirely appropriate. The misrepresenting of what I was saying and the impugning of my motives leaves me with nothing to say.

 

[Vexatious]

Your name is entirely appropriate. The misrepresenting of what I was saying and the impugning of my motives leaves me with nothing to say.

Of liars caught in their lies, I have so often seen them refuse to repent, but rather pretend to be taking the moral high ground by refusing to defend what in fact they can't defend. As for myself, I am always ready to give an answer to every man. And, I won't slime away from answering using the excuse I was offended.

 

[brakelite]

Of liars caught in their lies, I have so often seen them refuse to repent, but rather pretend to be taking the moral high ground by refusing to defend what in fact they can't defend. As for myself, I am always ready to give an answer to every man. And, I won't slime away from answering using the excuse I was offended.

Okay.

 

[Naomi25]

if you were to answer the Q that would clarify, but i quite expecting ppl to answer my Qs a long time ago i guess, so
when "No Son of Man may die for another's sins" is not included in that understanding is how imo, Naomi, but there are plenty of other clues. If Jesus died for your sins in the manner that infers, then why would you need to pick up your cross and follow? Why can't you find Jesus seeking literal worship anywhere, but in fact hiding from it @ the Two Greeks and inferred in other places? Why are you called to break up Nehushtan, why can't you Quote God accepting this sacrifice anywhere, but rather find "why have you forsaken Me?" why be perfect as He is perfect, if you can sin now and confess later? and as i asked, how are you going to do a literal "worship" bowing and scraping thing and then presume to go and do greater things than that which you just got done "worshipping" as God? No, hell no, Jesus did not die for your sins in the manner that that infers imo; 20no Son of Man may die for another's sins

Okay. First, just let me say....

I commented on how Christ died for us. That's a pretty standard belief for...well...people who believe in Jesus. Christians. Those who claim Christ. Those who recongize he shed his blood for them. In their place. You know.
You replied with bogglement. Which, you know, surprised me. Because how much surprise can come from repeating a fairly well known (even if not agreed upon...but then one would question their how they called themselved saved I think) tenet of the Christian belief?
Now I get this? I haven't answered your question? What question?? Your question to "Wow!" Is there a question there?

Are you, perhaps, trying to say with your, once again not referenced verse, that Ezekiel 18:20 is suggesting that Jesus did not...could not die for the sins of mankind??? Because to do so is to ignore everything the NT says on the matter, and ignore that Jesus was not simply a man. He was the God-man. The perfect man. There was a very good reason that God had to come and rescue mankind.

But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. -Hebrews 9:26–28

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. -1 John 2:2

Are you saying that we need to "pick up our own cross" because we need to attone for our sins, because Christ did not? Man...if this is what you are saying (and I never truly know), then this is outright heresy. If Jesus did not die for the sins of mankind, then what was the point of his death? We pick up our cross and follow our Savior because we love him, not because our actions can pay the same price, but because we follow him and once we are his, all our actions and thoughts need to be through the lense of "Christ". Because we still have trial and hardship in this life and because he set us free we get to walk through everything knowing that nothing, not even death, can truly defeat us.

Jesus did not "hide" from worship, he simply waited for the time and place. His first advent was one of meekness and suffering. He was not there to be made King, or even "God of the world". And yet, when the Disciples determined he was the Messiah, he did not disbuse them of this fact, because it was true. And after his resurrection, we see this:

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” -John 20:28–29

And in the epistles we see plenty that we are to worship him. Paul and the other Apostles tell us that Christ is being worshipped by humans and angels alike, for who he is and what he has done.

God did not accept Christ's sacrifice? Really? That's why Christ is even now seated at his right hand, I suppose.

that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, -Ephesians 1:20

Raised him from the dead, seated him at his right hand in a place where angels fall down and worship constantly. Jesus is God. He is worshipped. And he did die for our sins. There are simply too many bible verses to deny this. You are soooo far outside of orthodoxy if you go there. You wonder why Christ cried out "why have you forsaken me?" on the cross, if this is the case? It's not that theologically deep. The Trinity has had, and will have, a perfect unity across time itself. But in that moment that Christ took upon himself the sins of the world, that unity was fractured briefly, and God the Father turned his face away from the Son. Can you imagine what that was like for Jesus? But following his death, the cup of the wrath of God was drunk, and the Father "raised him from the dead". That's an act of a loving father, the relationship between the Trinity had been restored, the sins of man paid for by the perfect lamb of God.

I think you have a very, very broken view of God.

 

[brakelite]

If Jesus died for your sins in the manner that infers, then why would you need to pick up your cross and follow?

We are also called to die... Daily... But we don't pick up HIS cross, we pick up our own. It's still a cross of self sacrifice, but not one of atonement.

20no Son of Man may die for another's sins

While it is true that Jesus wanted to be known a as the son of man, He also made sure that His disciples knew precisely who He was in essence... The Son of the Almighty.
The fact that He died, was even able to die considering His deity, was the reason he became a man. But despite His humanity, He was still deity. When scripture says God gave His Son to the human race, this was an eternal gift... Christ, as he ministers as high priest in heaven, is still man. Always will be. He is also still the Son of God. And always will be.

 

[bbyrd009]

Okay. First, just let me say....

I commented on how Christ died for us. That's a pretty standard belief for...well...people who believe in Jesus. Christians. Those who claim Christ. Those who recongize he shed his blood for them. In their place. You know.

yes, the many who will be deceived. With you so far.

You replied with bogglement. Which, you know, surprised me. Because how much surprise can come from repeating a fairly well known (even if not agreed upon...but then one would question their how they called themselved saved I think) tenet of the Christian belief?
Now I get this? I haven't answered your question? What question?? Your question to "Wow!" Is there a question there?

i count like 7 in a quick scan of that post, if you include the one that was already overlooked, yes

Are you, perhaps, trying to say with your, once again not referenced verse, that Ezekiel 18:20 is suggesting that Jesus did not...could not die for the sins of mankind?

that is correct and not only that, but there are many, many supporting vv, red-letter and otherwise

Because to do so is to ignore everything the NT says on the matter

from your current perspective, sure, but i would ask you to reflect upon how you came to believe the perspective as an AT first, and only then are we directed into Scripture, to the vv that support the perspective, and vv that contrast it are then considered within that frame. By ppl who have been raised with the Hegelian Dialectic, no less, intimately fam with it iow, and yet do not know what the term even means, usually.

Which don't get me wrong there's no sin in that i guess ok, i'm usually down to just move on to a diff subject then, but then the guy invariably makes some noise about how "Hegelian Dialectic" sounds all New Age or whatever--even though we're talking like Plato and the bedrock of democracy and Western Thought and all that--usually right after some sermon on "Hypostatic Union" or some such, if you follow me.

but really the main point here is to examine how we first chisel the premise into stone, and then go find the vv to support it, Hegelian Dialectic be damned, and we can always invent Hypostatic Onions too if we need to right, all we need is 4 ppl and a pen lol

If Jesus did not die for the sins of mankind, then what was the point of his death?

"I came that you might have life, and more abundantly" but i never said Jesus did not die "for" our sins, ok, only there is more than one way to interpret that declaration, see. Christ died for my sins

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus did not "hide" from worship, he simply waited for the time and place. His first advent was one of meekness and suffering. He was not there to be made King, or even "God of the world". And yet, when the Disciples determined he was the Messiah, he did not disbuse them of this fact, because it was true. And after his resurrection, we see this:

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” -John 20:28–29

And in the epistles we see plenty that we are to worship him. Paul and the other Apostles tell us that Christ is being worshipped by humans and angels alike, for who he is and what he has done.

i suggest that in each instance there is qualifying language that is being disregarded in order to reinforce the premise that is paramount, and i'm pretty sure scribes have even helped as much as they could, but nonetheless we can still read "“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” The point there, iow

So my arg there @ "My Lord and my God," "kurios theos," would be something along the lines of 'we are talking about a declaration made by Doubting Thomas here, and "kurios theos" being translated that way is really deceptive bc of the way we define those terms now, "Lord" and even "God" in that context--where "god" could go just as easily, see--are not really correct, in fact they are not correct at all ok, but i don't expect you to believe me as long as you hold the premise of course, it's just something you have to decide for yourself i guess. Many discussions about kurios theos online, and i guess i better tack on here that we prolly even have a diff of opinion on the def of "worship" going on, too. Plus i might point out that v 27 does not say "come and put your hand here, and worship."

so imo it is at least pretty probable that Jesus did not correct Thomas bc 1) Thomas did not say "My Lord and my God" in the manner that that is translated to us, that we hear it in, which is why Jesus did not correct him, and 2) the point of the passage is 'blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed,' which let's not lie virtually every swingin' believer in here is expecting to literally spy Jesus with their little eyes right. And 3, "believe" is invoked several times int he passage, "worship" is invoked 0 times

And in the epistles we see plenty that we are to worship him. Paul and the other Apostles tell us that Christ is being worshipped by humans and angels alike, for who he is and what he has done.

you could bring up the vv for treatment if you like, and fwiw i obv could not say that Jesus is not being worshipped, so i would agree with Paul and the other Apostles @ "Christ is being worshipped" anyway.

If you (all) see that you are to "worship Jesus" in the epistles, all i can tell you is that i have too, and i am not even asking you to change your mind here, ok, what you believe right now is fine with me. Nehushtan is not going anywhere, until we break him up

God did not accept Christ's sacrifice? Really?

oh wait i never said that ok, i said that you cannot Quote God accepting any blood sacrifices anywhere, the diff being the way you put it sounds like maybe that i know, right? For sure?

I think you have a very, very broken view of God.

ah, no prob, i understand ok. I think you have a very, very widely accepted view of Jesus, and there is nothing wrong with that, no judgement for beliefs that i can find anyway, Naomi. Worship Him in spirit and in truth, and trust your current definition of God as far as you are comfortable doing so ok, that's all anyone can reasonably expect to do i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

We are also called to die... Daily... But we don't pick up HIS cross, we pick up our own. It's still a cross of self sacrifice, but not one of atonement.

ok

While it is true that Jesus wanted to be known a as the son of man, He also made sure that His displeasure knew precisely who He was in essence... The Son of the Almighty.
The fact that He died, was even able to die considering His deity, was the reason he became a man. But despite His humanity, He was still deity. When scripture says God gave His Soon to the human race, this was an eternal gift... Christ, as he ministers as high priest in heaven, is still man. Always will be. He is also still the Son of God. And always will be.

um, ok.
Lotta definitive statements in there, and i don't know bl

 

[Naomi25]

that is correct and not only that, but there are many, many supporting vv, red-letter and otherwise


but i never said Jesus did not die "for" our sins, ok, only there is more than one way to interpret that declaration, see. Christ died for my sins

This. Right here. This is the reason I cannot have conversations with you. Forget that half the time I struggle to read your sentences. Or even follow your train of thought. You seem to dabble in trolling, with a large side of 'back-stepping'. You loudly proclaim something, but then a post later (or even a paragraph latter in this case) contradict yourself. All the while trying to make it look like you're the enlightened one and I'm the foolish, believer-of-fables one.

The quote above? I asked you: "are you suggesting that Jesus did not...could not die for the sins of mankind?" You said "that is correct and not only that, but there are man, many supporting vv"

But then you say "but I never said Jesus did not die 'for' our sins, ok".

You just did.
I wonder if you realise this is a repeating pattern? It drives me nuts and I'm about done with it.

 

[bbyrd009]

This. Right here. This is the reason I cannot have conversations with you. Forget that half the time I struggle to read your sentences. Or even follow your train of thought. You seem to dabble in trolling, with a large side of 'back-stepping'. You loudly proclaim something, but then a post later (or even a paragraph latter in this case) contradict yourself. All the while trying to make it look like you're the enlightened one and I'm the foolish, believer-of-fables one.

The quote above? I asked you: "are you suggesting that Jesus did not...could not die for the sins of mankind?" You said "that is correct and not only that, but there are man, many supporting vv"

But then you say "but I never said Jesus did not die 'for' our sins, ok".

You just did.
I wonder if you realise this is a repeating pattern? It drives me nuts and I'm about done with it.

"only there is more than one way to interpret that declaration" Naomi, so what is another way to interpret that declaration, "Christ died because of my sins" might work, might not, see it still depends upon how you might interpret that...so, my apologies ok, if you will just stay here for the present this might clarify, but of course no one wants to contemplate that Christ died specifically because they sinned

 

[Naomi25]

"only there is more than one way to interpret that declaration" Naomi, so what is another way to interpret that declaration, "Christ died because of my sins" might work, might not, see it still depends upon how you might interpret that...so, my apologies ok, if you will just stay here for the present this might clarify, but of course no one wants to contemplate that Christ died specifically because they sinned

Knit-picking. Of course he died because of my sins. Every single one of my sins held him pinned there to that cross. And that's something that every single Christian should acknowledge and feel. That's why we love him so much. But to say that that is fundamentally different to "dying for my sins" is just semantics and if you're as half as smart as you keep implying you are, you well know that.

 

[farouk]

Knit-picking. Of course he died because of my sins. Every single one of my sins held him pinned there to that cross. And that's something that every single Christian should acknowledge and feel. That's why we love him so much. But to say that that is fundamentally different to "dying for my sins" is just semantics and if you're as half as smart as you keep implying you are, you well know that.

Naomi25:
I'm not sure about the point being made to which you are responding...