the propitiatory sacrifice of the christ

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry my friend, i have quite finished with thinkofthecentreofadoughnut,

My advice is to leave ThinkOfOne alone. He seems to really get to some people to the point where they start going ballistic. I personally have nothing against him though.

sorry i have reread your text, your query is simply why the sacrifice of Christ was needed, is it not or am I misunderstanding?
That and a bit more. I want to understand what the thinking if any is around the whole sacrifice concept.
From what you have said it seems that a sacrifice somehow 'balances the books'. But what you do not explain is why the book is there in the first place or how a sacrifice does balance the books. I know and understand why the criminal justice system punishes people - and it has nothing to do with balancing books. Anyone who has lost someone to murder knows perfectly well that killing the murderer does not bring back the dead one. Anyone who has been 'sinned' against knows perfectly well that being paid off doesn't necessarily solve the problem or make it alright. But most important, these human solutions simply should not apply to God. There must be some other reason that I simply do not get or understand.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My advice is to leave ThinkOfOne alone. He seems to really get to some people to the point where they start going ballistic. I personally have nothing against him though.

[b]sorry i have reread your text, your query is simply why the sacrifice of Christ was needed, is it not or am I misunderstanding?
That and a bit more. I want to understand what d not apply to God. There must be some other reason that I simply do not get or understand.[/b]

i personally do mind mind sincere inquiries, but when someone starts to say that I am dishonest and set out to mislead persons then that becomes a personal matter and is quite defamatory!

yes you are correct, it does balance the books, it satisfies Gods perfects standards of justice and righteousness which, he, being perfect could not compromise. this as the article stated is the universal issue of whether God has the 'right', to determine standards of good and bad. because Adam was perfect, initially without sin, he had the opportunity to pass perfection on to his offspring, however, because of willfully disobeying God, he brought ostracism upon himself, sinned, the consequences of sin thus spread to all humanity, but this was never Gods intended purpose. he had created humans with free will and powers of reason, it is true, but it was intended to be used in harmony with Gods principles, thus the earthly paradise should have extended earth wide. what was God to do? he could not simply terminate the individuals, that would be tyranny and anyhow the issues would still remain, that being 'whether God has the right to determine 'morality'. the issue of universal sovereignty! so in order to fulfill the legal requirements, these perfect standards of justice and righteousness, God had to make provision for the perfect life that Adam fortified! he would simply not decree something and then not be bound to accept the standards himself, that would not be just, nor righteous! in order to balance the books as you say, a perfect life had to be given to correspond to that which was lost by Adam.

think of it like this, Gods justice demanded that in the case of an intentional murder, pre mediated (the law for involuntary or unintentional murder was different) a life had to be given for a life! god set this decree and thus he had to submit to it himself! thus Adam forfeited his perfect life, through sin and rebellion, selling humanity down the river, for the loss of this life, God had to make provision, because it was a perfect life, God had to produce the equivalent and since all of Adams offspring were now tainted with sin and imperfection, they could never provide it, God had to to something else. thus the sacrifice of the Christ, to make atonement for sin and to 'buy back', that which was lost to Adam. so in a very real sense, although what you say is quite true when considered from a human standpoint, that when someone is murdered, no punishment can bring them back, this is not the case with God, for he does not desire any to perish, but has made provision so that anyone can see life! as was his original purpose and still is. hopefully this sheds some light on the reason as to why a sacrifice was needed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the following is a reply intended for anyone interested in gaining an insight into why the sacrifice of Christ was necessary, what its significance is to Christians and why it propitiated or atoned for sins. I apologize for its length, however, this is a very deep and broad subject for Christians and requires much background information to establish aimed the life of the one who had taken his relative’s life by murder.—Nu 35:9-32; De 19:1-13.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Critics-Jehovah-s-3121/Salvation.htm

Robbie, I'm sure it makes baby Jesus cry when you don't cite your sources. Seriously, how hard is it to cite the source?

By the way, isn't the idea that our 'salvation' requires blood sacrifice of innocent(s) just complete utter nonsense anyway?

EDIT: I see now that ToO already gave a similar link.

Originally posted by LemonJello
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Critics-Jehovah-s-3121/Salvation.htm

Robbie, I'm sure it makes baby Jesus cry when you don't cite your sources. Seriously, how hard is it to cite the source?

By the way, isn't the idea that our 'salvation' requires blood sacrifice of innocent(s) just complete utter nonsense anyway?

yawn, the accusation has already been made, did you not see it, was it not plain enough, have you not taken the time to read the entire thread, obviously not, for if you had you would not have posted your feeble accusation,

here is the text that i posted earlier on to jaywill, right, so let us be qulite clear, will i spell it out to you as well, perhaps if i got a stamp made up i could stamp it on your forehead in large capital letters, cut and paste, cut and paste, which i have already reiterated now for the third time. is that plain, clear, lucid enough for you?. my goodness you should follow the complete thread before opening your mouth!

mmm, i had never considered these aspects and they are very interesting indeed, however Jaywill my friend, if i may say this is my defense, I am always conscious of not going beyond the things that are written and have on numerous occasions edited text from the information that i have gathered ( i did not write any of this stuff that i am posting, it is merely cut and past, cut and paste) when i thought it went beyond the things written, or could not be substantiated by text or was in any way speculative, hopefully the information is entirely objective for it is not my intention to influence anyone, simply to provide background information to broaden our understanding, for to be sure the controversies among Christians are numerous and one must be tentative - kind regards Robbie

if you have any comment to make on the text then let it be heard, otherwise don't bother me, i got better things to do than argue with you, and the source was a cd rom that my wife has on our family computer at home, not that its any of your flippin business!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yawn, the accusation has already been made, did you not see it, was it not plain enough, have you not taken the time to read the entire thread, obviously not, for if you had you would not have posted your feeble accusation,

here is the text that i posted earlier on to jaywill, right, so let us be qulite clear, will i spell it out to you as well, p ...[text shortened]... rom that my wife has on our family computer at home, not that its any of your flippin business!

How am I supposed to know the conversational history between you and jaywill? Anyway, nothing in that text is relevant. Look, a thread should stand on its own: if it is a continuation of some previous discussion somewhere, then provide a link to the previous discussion. Also, it takes a whole second of your time to cite your frickin sources so that you avoid having your character called into question. That you persist in these bad lifting habits despite being corrected and called on it multiple times in the past...at this point, you deserve the criticism.

Originally posted by LemonJello
How am I supposed to know the conversational history between you and jaywill? Anyway, nothing in that text is relevant. Look, a thread should stand on its own: if it is a continuation of some previous discussion somewhere, then provide a link to the previous discussion. Also, it takes a whole second of your time to cite your frickin sources so that you ...[text shortened]... orrected and called on it multiple times in the past...at this point, you deserve the criticism.

'bad lifting habits?', 'bad lifting habits?', 'bad lifting habits?', that is your perspective, which you are entitled to, personally I do not care where the text originated from, its the content that matters to me, but that is just my perspective, you may disagree, that's ok, anyhow, so you never read the thread, jumped in, accusations flying, its ok, lets not blow the thing out of perspective, but i did clearly state, did i not, that the text was not my own, so let it be an end of the matter, its my habit which i will continue to do, if i feel the information is relevant! if you do not like it, so be it!

Nothing in the text is relevant, relevant to what?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you are correct, it does balance the books, it satisfies Gods perfects standards of justice and righteousness which, he, being perfect could not compromise. this as the article stated is the universal issue of whether God has the 'right', to determine standards of good and bad. because Adam was perfect, initially without sin, he had the opportu ...[text shortened]... still is. hopefully this sheds some light on the reason as to why a sacrifice was needed.

So far all you have achieved is to give me more questions: did God make a massive blunder on day one? ie you are saying that what Adam did and everything that followed was one big mistake by God -for which he had to punish himself.

You do not even attempt to address my core question. Do you:
1) know why God demands a sacrifice in return for sin
or 2) is it simply a property of the universe whose cause if any is unknown,
or 3) something you simply do not know?

All this dancing around the question with long winded dressed up posts is not helping.
You make references that seem to imply that the answer is 2) or 3) but you don't want to admit it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So far all you have achieved is to give me more questions: did God make a massive blunder on day one? ie you are saying that what Adam did and everything that followed was one big mistake by God -for which he had to punish himself.

You do not even attempt to address my core question. Do you:
1) know why God demands a sacrifice in return for sin
or 2) ...[text shortened]... make references that seem to imply that the answer is 2) or 3) but you don't want to admit it.

long winded, dressed up posts, for goodness sake man, Rome was not built in a day. you do not discuss something as fundamental and deep as the propitiatory sacrifice of the Christ in a few words, what do you think it is, a cryptic crossword puzzle?

the answer to your first question is rather easy, it is because blood represents the life and is sacred to God, thus, as the dressed up and long winded post states, the life that was fortified because of sin, the perfect life, blood was needed, perfect blood, to fully represent the life that was lost because of sin, is it not too easy, i could cite a scripture here, but i feel it would be wasted.

will i start another thread so that you can understand the use of blood, its meaning, what it represented etc etc my goodness, i do not mean to be rude, but a chess player does not become a master overnight, you need to get the fundamentals before progressing, thus until you understand at least basic fundamentals in christian theology you need milk, not solid food!

questions two and three are irrelevant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am making no concession for your presumptuousness, the text is clear enough for any reasonable person to understand, nor was it made in an off hand way, for it was deliberately engineered specifically for combating petty and unsubstantiated claims that I somehow claim the text as my own, i even repeated it twice so that there would be no mistake, c ...[text shortened]... wise persons will become wise, but those who have dealings with the foolish one will fare badly!

"If you had the humility to admit this mistake then all would be well, but no!, for it takes humility and honesty to admit ones mistakes!"
Listen, all I did was make the suggestion that you cite your sources. If you were honest, you would have admitted your negligence and that would have been the end of it. Instead you started a now lengthy stream of deceptions and false accusations. You're the one lacking the "humility and honesty" to admit YOUR mistake.

This latest post of yours is no more than an attempt to deflect from your wrongdoing by attacking me by making one deceptive statement after another.

You may not have been intentionally dishonest when you omitted your source, but your attempt to cover it up has been about as dishonest as it gets. The fact that you attack me as a part of your cover up is particularly pathetic. You can make all the false accusations you want, but it doesn't change the facts. You really need to find a way to be honest with yourself.

Here's a little advice: "If you want to get out of a hole, stop digging."

This may only be coincidence, but the most dishonest people I've come across have all believed in "the propitiatory sacrifice of the christ." Perhaps it's because they don't take responsibility for their actions.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"If you had the humility to admit this mistake then all would be well, but no!, for it takes humility and honesty to admit ones mistakes!"
Listen, all I did was make the suggestion that you cite your sources. If you were honest, you would have admitted your negligence and that would have been the end of it. Instead you started a now lengthy stre th yourself.

Here's a little advice: If you want to get out of a hole, stop digging".[/b]

no you accused me of deception, dishonesty, lying, passing off information as if it was my own, and you continue to do so, I thank God and Christ that i included those comments to jaywill when I did, were they honest enough for you?

Here's a little advice: If you want to get out of a hole, stop thinking about the center of a doughnut!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you accused me of deception, dishonesty, lying, passing off information as if it was my own, and you continue to do so, I thank God and Christ that i included those comments to jaywill when I did, were they honest enough for you?

You just have to keep digging don't you.

Go back and read the posts. I didn't start accusing you of any of those type of things until you started being deceptive in your attempts to cover up.

Sure your comments to jaywill were honest. Unfortunately they weren't specifically directed at the "Sin, its definition according to scripture" thread as you claim.

Why don't you stop all the lying and just admit your guilt?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'bad lifting habits?', 'bad lifting habits?', 'bad lifting habits?', that is your perspective, which you are entitled to, personally I do not care where the text originated from, its the content that matters to me, but that is just my perspective, you may disagree, that's ok, anyhow, so you never read the thread, jumped in, accusations flying, its ok ...[text shortened]... ! if you do not like it, so be it!

Nothing in the text is relevant, relevant to what?

Nothing in the text is relevant, relevant to what?

Relevant to my point here -- my point here being that you should cite your frickin sources. This point of mine is not merely based on the idea that you have an intellectual responsibility to clearly cite sources whenever you use them (crazy me!); further, it is also pragmatic with respect to your own benefit. If you don't want people to continually accuse you of lifting, then don't continue to engage in your lifting habits. It's quite simple really.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Nothing in the text is relevant, relevant to what?

Relevant to my point here -- my point here being that you should cite your frickin sources. This point of mine is not merely based on the idea that you have an intellectual responsibility to clearly cite sources whenever you use them (crazy me!); further, it is also pragmatic with respect to yo of lifting, then don't continue to engage in your lifting habits. It's quite simple really.[/b]

if you have nothing to say about the content of the text, i would be very much pleased if you would go and either listen to some Julian Bream, calm down, gather your thoughts, whence forth, you will see that it is a triviality with which you concern yourself and unworthy of your attention or hijack someone elses thread, or comment on the content of the text, its not so much to ask for, otherwise you will be stamped on the forehead

=========================
CUT AND PASTED, CUT AND PASTED
=========================

and thinkofone

jammy doughnuts
=======================
SOLD AT ASDA SOLD AT ASDA
=======================

🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you are correct, it does balance the books, it satisfies Gods perfects standards of justice and righteousness which, he, being perfect could not compromise. this as the article stated is the universal issue of whether God has the 'right', to determine standards of good and bad. because Adam was perfect, initially without sin, he had the opportu ...[text shortened]... ed in harmony with Gods principles, thus the earthly paradise should have extended earth wide.

What will happen to those who accept the sacrifice of Christ? Will they have eternal life in heaven/paradise?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
What will happen to those who accept the sacrifice of Christ? Will they have eternal life in heaven/paradise?

you are a man well versed in scripture and a chess giant and you are asking me a hopeless patzer and miserable theist! i do not think that life in heaven/earthly paradise can be guaranteed, for why would Paul state that we need to put up a fight for the faith, or that we have a battle against sin? this idea makes no sense. please let me think about it for a wee while that i may give at least an answer worthy of your attention, failing that if you could train me to be a chess giant also i would be very appreciative - regards Robbie.

there are quite a few variables swissgambit my friend, for example what about those who never knew the Christ prior to his death and thus had no provision of the atoning sacrifice, they cannot be in heaven, for the scriptures state that no man has ascended to heaven prior to the Christ

Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man. John 3:13

however the same passage states

And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life.

thus everlasting life, according to scripture must be possible and given that it was Gods original purpose that men dwell on an earthly paradise for ever, free from sin and death, it seems to me that once sin is removed, perfection will somehow undo the aging process and persons should be able to live eternally.

however until that time, we are all constituted sinners and because of this imperfection we are sadly dying, we cannot help it, not that we want to sin, or that we 'practice' sin, its just imperfection makes it probable that we will at some point sin, even involuntarily, thus for this reason we cannot be righteous in the absolute sense, not while we are imperfect. thus those who put faith in the sacrifice of the Christ are not actually righteous in the absolute sense, but are declared righteous, in other words they have righteousness credited to them, the atoning merit of Christs sacrifice atoning for any sins due to imperfection.

And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

i need to think about this some more, sorry for the delay swissgambit, let me think......