God

[Derf]

He never sent his son to die for you and me, but was sent to teach and guide and be respected as he said.

Didn’t God tell us through the prophets what Jesus was sent for?
Isaiah 53:3-5 (KJV) 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isaiah 53:6-7 (KJV) 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Isaiah 53:8-11 (KJV) 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

 

[Clete]

>>>justice??
God already told us:
No one should be punish for the sin of other, this is justice.

Unless the one being punished is both innocent of his own wrong doing and being so punished voluntarily.

John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

Repent and I God will forgive your sins, this is justice.

No, this is mercy and grace. In fact, without the sacrifice that Jesus made, no such mercy would be possible precisely because justice would not be served.

He hates animal and human sacrifices, and never command such practices.

You're either a liar or a complete idiot! There were all sorts of sacrificial offerings that God not only commanded but considered a sweet aroma when offered properly.

• Burnt offering (Hebrew, ‘olah; literally, “ascending offering”; Lev 1, Lev 6:8-13) could be a herd or flock animal (bull, sheep, or goat) or a bird (dove or pigeon). The whole animal was burned in the altar fire. It was the most extravagant sacrifice because the entirety was given to God.
• Grain offering (Hebrew, minhah; literally, “gift”; Lev 2, Lev 6:14-23) was an offering of fine flour or unleavened baked goods, mixed with oil. A handful of the offering was burned (with incense) in the altar fire. The rest went to the priests.
• Sacrifice of well-being/fellowship offering (Hebrew, zevah shelamim; Lev 3, Lev 7:11-35) could be a herd or flock animal. Innards (fat, kidneys, and part of the liver) were burned in the altar fire. Most of the animal was eaten, divided between the priests and the offerer. This sacrifice was associated with feasting and well-being.
• Sin/purification offering (Hebrew, hatta’t; Lev 4:1-5:13, Lev 6:24-30) dealt with disruption in the relationship between human beings and God. The offering depended on the identity and status of the person required to make it. The chief priest, for example, had to bring a bull, whereas ordinary Israelites brought a female goat or lamb. Those who were too poor to afford a goat or sheep could offer birds, and an offering of grain flour was acceptable from the very poor.
• Guilt offering (Hebrew, ’asham; literally, “responsibility”; Lev 5:14-6:7, Lev 7:1-10) dealt with distinct categories of wrongdoing that disrupted the divine-human relationship, such as unintentional desecration of sacred things. The prescribed sacrifice was a flock animal. As with the sacrifice of well-being and the sin offering, innards were burned in the altar fire; the animal’s flesh was eaten by the priests.
  • Source

He never sent his son to die for you and me, but was sent to teach and guide and be respected as he said.

Saying it doesn't make it so, bS!

Sometimes we think, we’re more merciful than God .

Being more merciful than God is easy. Being more just than God is impossible.

If your baby who doesn’t know good and evil pushed a glass and got broke, do you punish him and never forget his evil act??

"Punish", no. Train, yes!

I don’t think so, but you think God will?

This makes no sense. You think that God punishes babies that don't know good from evil?

For you and others believe the only reason God sent Jesus to die for the sin which Adam did.

What? Who believes that? I don't believe that! I don't even know anyone who believes that. Who is it that you think believes that?

Why Jesus never once claim this reason or teach anyone about his real mission or even mention Adam once???

So look, you need to start using proper grammar. This sentence is nearly unintelligible!

You only think this because you are just about COMPLETELY ignorant of what the bible teaches and, it seems, unaware of how to think properly.

What's you've done here is called an argument from silence. It literally does not make any argument for anything whatsoever.

The gospels do not pretend to report every word Jesus ever spoke and as for His mission, every time He did tell anyone what was about to happen, they didn't believe Him! His disciples all thought that He was there to over throw the Roman Empire and give Israel its promised kingdom, which would have eventually happened, by the way, had Israel not rejected Jesus as their Messiah. (See Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9).

Clete

 

[chrysostom]

Think about it

You have free will. It has to be your choice. Justice requires redemption. Think about that.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Being more merciful than God is easy.

It's also a sin.

 

[Clete]

It's also a sin.

Yes

 

[blackSand]

It's also a sin.

Unless the one being punished is both innocent of his own wrong doing and being so punished voluntarily.

John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”


No, this is mercy and grace. In fact, without the sacrifice that Jesus made, no such mercy would be possible precisely because justice would not be served.


You're either a liar or a complete idiot! There were all sorts of sacrificial offerings that God not only commanded but considered a sweet aroma when offered properly.

>>>neither, I was created in the image of God.

• Burnt offering (Hebrew, ‘olah; literally, “ascending offering”; Lev 1, Lev 6:8-13) could be a herd or flock animal (bull, sheep, or goat) or a bird (dove or pigeon). The whole animal was burned in the altar fire. It was the most extravagant sacrifice because the entirety was given to God.
• Grain offering (Hebrew, minhah; literally, “gift”; Lev 2, Lev 6:14-23) was an offering of fine flour or unleavened baked goods, mixed with oil. A handful of the offering was burned (with incense) in the altar fire. The rest went to the priests.
• Sacrifice of well-being/fellowship offering (Hebrew, zevah shelamim; Lev 3, Lev 7:11-35) could be a herd or flock animal. Innards (fat, kidneys, and part of the liver) were burned in the altar fire. Most of the animal was eaten, divided between the priests and the offerer. This sacrifice was associated with feasting and well-being.
• Sin/purification offering (Hebrew, hatta’t; Lev 4:1-5:13, Lev 6:24-30) dealt with disruption in the relationship between human beings and God. The offering depended on the identity and status of the person required to make it. The chief priest, for example, had to bring a bull, whereas ordinary Israelites brought a female goat or lamb. Those who were too poor to afford a goat or sheep could offer birds, and an offering of grain flour was acceptable from the very poor.
• Guilt offering (Hebrew, ’asham; literally, “responsibility”; Lev 5:14-6:7, Lev 7:1-10) dealt with distinct categories of wrongdoing that disrupted the divine-human relationship, such as unintentional desecration of sacred things. The prescribed sacrifice was a flock animal. As with the sacrifice of well-being and the sin offering, innards were burned in the altar fire; the animal’s flesh was eaten by the priests.

>>> none of the above takes sins away.
Offering or Sacrifices were only for very small sins done ONLY unintentional as penalty.
No sacrifices for sins done intentionally.

• • Source

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/sacrifice-in-ancient-israel.aspx

Saying it doesn't make it so, bS!


Being more merciful than God is easy. Being more just than God is impossible.


"Punish", no. Train, yes!


This makes no sense. You think that God punishes babies that don't know good from evil?


What? Who believes that? I don't believe that! I don't even know anyone who believes that. Who is it that you think believes that?


So look, you need to start using proper grammar. This sentence is nearly unintelligible!

>>> When did Adam knows good from evil ?
Before he sin or after?

You only think this because you are just about COMPLETELY ignorant of what the bible teaches and, it seems, unaware of how to think properly.

What's you've done here is called an argument from silence. It literally does not make any argument for anything whatsoever.

The gospels do not pretend to report every word Jesus ever spoke and as for His mission, every time He did tell anyone what was about to happen, they didn't believe Him! His disciples all thought that He was there to over throw the Roman Empire and give Israel its promised kingdom, which would have eventually happened, by the way, had Israel not rejected Jesus as their Messiah. (See Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9).

Clete

 

[ttruscott]

>>> When did Adam knows good from evil ?
Before he sin or after?

Well, it is interesting to consider 1 Timothy 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient... This implies that sinners /sin came before the law, the law does not create evil people.
with
Rom 3:20... through the law we become conscious of (ie convicted of) our sin. This also implies that sin came before the law...as no righteous need be so convicted. Yet they received the command not to eat supposedly before they sinned.

Then we can consider the two back to back verses in which the word `rm was first used to describe Adam and Eve as naked and the second time in the next verse `rm was used to describe the fullness of the serpents evil.

Both the serpent and A&E were `rm and to protect their commitment to the idea that A&E were created on earth and had to therefore be perfect on earth, they chose to interpret their `rm as nudity. Not only did the writer not use a perfectly logical word for being unclothed used of Noah in Gen 9:21 (Strong's H1540 - galah) but there is no sin in being nude as GOD created you!

The only problem is that when their eye were opened to their sin, they saw the nakedness they had before they ate, not the sin of their eating. Both the Hebrew word used as a hominem for evil and their eyes being opened to their sin symbolized by their nakedness imply that by having this condition before they ate it proves they were already sinners when they ate.

Then there is the small point of Adam being the first to bring sin into the world. In my book the serpent entered the garden with sinful intent to sin, the first to sin by tempting Eve. Then Eve ate, the second to sin and tempted Adam, the third to sin, when he ate.

The only way it makes sense to say Adam brought sin into the world without a lot of sophisticated word play is if Adam was a sinner when he was moved from sheol into his human body (Matt 13:36-39) and, as the first person in the garden, was the first to bring evil into world.

This is a logical explanation of the words and story that supports my contention A&E were sinners before they ate the fruit, sinners before they came to the garden. That there are other interpretations does not make mine false but means they must both be considered...

 

[blackSand]

This is a logical explanation of the words and story that supports my contention A&E were sinners before they ate the fruit, sinners before they came to the garden.

>>> you may be right, but if you look at genesis 2:16-17, you’ll notice without eating from the tree of knowledge they both have no knowledge of good and evil.
What I want to say, to sin against God with ignorance, He doesn’t hold it against you and your children after you as original sin theory indicates.

 

[Clete]

@blackSand

You are a lunatic. I do not discuss Christian doctrine with non-christian weirdos.

It's not like you were responding to anything I said anyway. Just another in a long line of waste of time buffoons.

Good bye.

 

[ttruscott]

>>> you may be right, but if you look at genesis 2:16-17, you’ll notice without eating from the tree of knowledge they both have no knowledge of good and evil.
What I want to say, to sin against God with ignorance, He doesn’t hold it against you and your children after you as original sin theory indicates.

I suggest that there can be no sin by ignorance but only by a free will decisions to go against HIS decision knowing how HE defines or names the consequences for each option of that decision. I also think that eating of the tree of knowledge is an euphemism for making a sinful decision and becoming a sinner. It happened in Paradise pre-creation and then again in the garden, physically.

But, why did GOD not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge of good and evil?

Adam and Eve had to have had an understanding of the difference between good and evil, especially after the command was given where they had to apply this knowledge. To make a free will decision they had to know the reported consequences of each option but without proof which would coerce their choice and destroy their free will in that decision.

But there is a great difference between knowing about something or someone and knowing it experientially. This is exemplified by Christ's claim to never have known some who were supposedly serving Him though He knew them implicitly as their creator.

To eat of wisdom, folly or revelation is a common biblical metaphor from its start to its finish. It means to ingest the ideology and thus make it your own. This refers to moving from an understanding about the topic to a deep internal acceptance of it. Prov 2,
Revelation 10:8-1., etc.

So it is clear to me that though they did understand intellectually what GOD meant by good and evil, they were being warned not to prove HIS definitions of them by choosing to know by experience the difference between them, ie not to choose evil by rebellion.

 

[way 2 go]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640908601865764867

 

[way 2 go]

I Changed My Mind About God - Here's Why

Get Your Got God? Shirt Here - https://bit.ly/41MogtH Upcoming LIVE shows - https://awakenwithjp.com/pages/tour Get updates from me via email here: https://awakenwithjp.com/joinme In this video I shar

rumble.com