Miracles: The Reader's Digest Version

[Jefferson]

Miracles: The Reader's Digest Version

Wednesday December 22nd, 2004. This is show #255.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

God didn't need Christ to die to do physical healings. He could do those in the Old Testament. "By His stripes we are healed" referrs to the salvation of our souls as Peter clarifies.

 

[Zakath]

God could forgive sin and impute righteousness under the Old Covenant too... so the speaker's point would be, what?

 

[Lighthouse]

The forgiveness of sins, on the OT was because God waslooking forward to Christ. Now that Christ has died, all people have access to God, and can receive forgiveness and righteousness. Before, not everyone could.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

The forgiveness of sins, on the OT was because God waslooking forward to Christ.

You've got some scripture to support that view, I trust... if so, how about posting it.

Now that Christ has died, all people have access to God, and can receive forgiveness and righteousness. Before, not everyone could.

Not me, nor, according to your NT, anyone else who doesn't believe in your religious concoction... like newborn babies, those who never heard the gospel, etc.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Zakath

You've got some scripture to support that view, I trust... if so, how about posting it.

Romans 3:25

Not me, nor, according to your NT, anyone else who doesn't believe in your religious concoction... like newborn babies, those who never heard the gospel, etc.

Wanna bet? Yes, it says that those who don't believe are condemned. But it also says that they have to be able to know the law and make a choice. If they don't know, then they are not held responsible and can not make an informed choice. But anyone with natural brain function knows the difference between right and wrong, at some point in their life.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Romans 3:25

... thanks. But you have nothing an Orthodox Jew would consider as scripture to support the point? :think:

Wanna bet? Yes, it says that those who don't believe are condemned.

Yup. That covers the newborn babies, the mentally infirm, and those who just haven't managed to hear your "good news" after two thousand years...

But it also says that they have to be able to know the law and make a choice. If they don't know, then they are not held responsible and can not make an informed choice.

Where does it say that?:think:

But anyone with natural brain function knows the difference between right and wrong, at some point in their life.

I know many persons who fit into the category of able to discern right from wrong, what does that have to do with adopting your religion?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Zakath

... thanks. But you have nothing an Orthodox Jew would consider as scripture to support the point? :think:

Not to my current knowledge. I'll check.

Yup. That covers the newborn babies, the mentally infirm, and those who just haven't managed to hear your "good news" after two thousand years...

Well, since you saw what followed, no need to go over this.

Where does it say that?:think:

I'm paraphrasing. But it does say, in one of Paul's epistles, [If you can't find it let me know and I'll be more specific] that sin is not imputed where there is no law. Which means that those who do not know the difference between right and wrong are not found guilty of sin.

I know many persons who fit into the category of able to discern right from wrong, what does that have to do with adopting your religion?

If they know the difference, and yet choose to do wrong, they are found guilty, unless they have accepted the blood of Christ to cleanse them of sin.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Not to my current knowledge. I'll check.

Good luck. You Christians haven't managed to come up with a convincing argument from the OT in almost 20 centuries...

Well, since you saw what followed, no need to go over this.

Very shabby dodge.

I'm paraphrasing. But it does say, in one of Paul's epistles, [If you can't find it let me know and I'll be more specific...

Is this kind of like you were "remembering" Jesus calling himself the "rock of offense"? If not, please do actually cite something from your scriptures that support your point.

...who do not know the difference between right and wrong are not found guilty of sin.

NT references to "law" are generally referring to Mosaic Law. Much of the world lives without familiarity with or even knowledge of Moses' Law. So, in one sense, Christian missionaries are doing them a disservice by preaching to them and exposing them to "the law". It sounds a bit like purposely infecting someone with a poison so you can offer to sell them the antidote.

If they know the difference, and yet choose to do wrong, they are found guilty, unless they have accepted the blood of Christ to cleanse them of sin.

So if they know the difference and "accept the blood of Christ", then do wrong, there is no guilt or penalty? :think:

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Zakath

Good luck. You Christians haven't managed to come up with a convincing argument from the OT in almost 20 centuries...

:zakath:

Very shabby dodge.

I didn't dodge anything, clown. I answered the question in the same post that you asked the question of.

Is this kind of like you were "remembering" Jesus calling himself the "rock of offense"? If not, please do actually cite something from your scriptures that support your point.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
-Romans 3:20

"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."
-Romans 5:13

If one does not know right and wrong, they don't know sin. And sin is not imputed.

NT references to "law" are generally referring to Mosaic Law. Much of the world lives without familiarity with or even knowledge of Moses' Law. So, in one sense, Christian missionaries are doing them a disservice by preaching to them and exposing them to "the law". It sounds a bit like purposely infecting someone with a poison so you can offer to sell them the antidote.

:zakath:

So if they know the difference and "accept the blood of Christ", then do wrong, there is no guilt or penalty? :think:

Don't read too much into that. elohiym read way too much into it, and said there was no right or wrong. Yes, it's true there is no penalty when someone does wrong, under the blood of Christ, but that doesn't make it right. And when one accepts the blood of Christ they do not live a life of wrong. If they do wrong, it is not a continual action. They repent of it, and move on.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I didn't dodge anything, clown. I answered the question in the same post that you asked the question of.

You didn't answer the question, you merely stated that "I'll check."

Have you checked yet?

Until you provide the results, you haven't answered the question...

"Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
-Romans 3:20

"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."
-Romans 5:13

If one does not know right and wrong, they don't know sin. And sin is not imputed.

Yet Romans 3:23 appears to categorically deny your position:
"...There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."

It says all have sinned; either the Bible is wrong, or you are... :think:

Don't read too much into that.

Don't worry, I've learned not to read too much into virtually anything you post.

Yes, it's true there is no penalty when someone does wrong, under the blood of Christ, but that doesn't make it right. And when one accepts the blood of Christ they do not live a life of wrong. If they do wrong, it is not a continual action. They repent of it, and move on.

So those "under the blood of Christ" can sin afterall...

How many times must an action be repeated before it becomes "a life" or "continual"? Can a Christian commit one murder, or two, or twenty two before they're living a "life of wrong"?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Zakath

You didn't answer the question, you merely stated that "I'll check."

Have you checked yet?

Until you provide the results, you haven't answered the question...

Two different questions, numbnuts.

Originally posted by lighthouse

Originally posted by Zakath

... thanks. But you have nothing an Orthodox Jew would consider as scripture to support the point?

Not to my current knowledge. I'll check.

Yup. That covers the newborn babies, the mentally infirm, and those who just haven't managed to hear your "good news" after two thousand years...

Well, since you saw what followed, no need to go over this.

Can you see the difference in questions?

Yet Romans 3:23 appears to categorically deny your position:
"...There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."

It says all have sinned; either the Bible is wrong, or you are... :think:

It means that none of us are worthy of salvation, by anything we do. We have all fallen short of the glory of God. And scripture should be interpreted in light of scripture.

Don't worry, I've learned not to read too much into virtually anything you post.

:zakath::juggle:

So those "under the blood of Christ" can sin afterall...

Sin is not imputed to them. It is not counted as sin. That is my point. But you obviously can't follow along, to see the path that leads to the point, so you discount the point by assuming I said something I didn't say. You read the words, and apply your own meaning.

How many times must an action be repeated before it becomes "a life" or "continual"? Can a Christian commit one murder, or two, or twenty two before they're living a "life of wrong"?

I honestly don't believe a Christian would commit one murder. Someone who has the life, and mind, of Christ would know it was wrong, and not desire to do it.

But, it is possible that in the heat of the moment, if they caught their spouse cheating, or something, they might kill the other person, and possibly the spouse. But they aren't mass murderers or serial killers. They don't go around randomly killing people, flippantly. Those who do are not in Christ.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Two different questions,...

Neither of which you appear able to answer.

It means that none of us are worthy of salvation, by anything we do. We have all fallen short of the glory of God. And scripture should be interpreted in light of scripture.

Not at all, it doesn't speak of "worth", it speaks of condition.

You're reading into the text something that is not there to avoid an unpleasant reality - the deity you claim to believe it damns eveyone who does not consciously follow your little religious ritual of "accepting Christ", whatever that means to you.

:Brandon::juggle:

Sin is not imputed to them. It is not counted as sin.

If sin is something that cuts one off from the deity, then is sin that is not imputed actually sin?

...You read the words, and apply your own meaning.

Oddly enough, you do the same thing with your Bible...

I honestly don't believe a Christian would commit one murder. Someone who has the life, and mind, of Christ would know it was wrong, and not desire to do it.

Oh really? So to take your illustration another step, no "Christian" could commit any sin because they knew it was wrong?

But wait, I speak too soon... you recant this position in your next sentence...

But, it is possible that in the heat of the moment, if they caught their spouse cheating, or something, they might kill the other person, and possibly the spouse....

So you're suggesting that those who might do such an act in the "heat of the moment" should not bear the penalty of criminal law? We should let murderers go free because they claim to be Christians?

But they aren't mass murderers or serial killers. They don't go around randomly killing people, flippantly. Those who do are not in Christ.

So you're suggesting that Christians can commit murderer, commit extortion, deal drugs, steal, beat their wife, or abuse children and they are not sinning so long as they are not serial criminals?

:darwinsm: