REPORT: God's plan of salvation

Ben Masada

New member
We need help though, since the wages of sin is death. That sentence has not been revoked unless we have died to pay it. Being Christian means that we have been crucified for our sins and paid the debt we owed and are alive forevermore in Christ. Without His Blood there is no forgiveness for sin.

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The wages of sin is not death. Thousands of babies die every day and none of them has committed a single sin. We die because we have been born. Death is only the 3rd phase of birth, life and death. As you can see, I have just revoked that sentence with my sword called Logic; a sword that no one can refute.

Jesus did not shed his blood for the forgiveness of our sins. The reason why he was crucified was due to sedition whose verdict INRI was nailed on the top of his cross. Besides, according to Jeremiah 31:30 and Ezekiel 18:20, no one can die for the sins of another.
 

Omniskeptical

Active member
The wages of sin is not death. Thousands of babies die every day and none of them has committed a single sin. We die because we have been born. Death is only the 3rd phase of birth, life and death. As you can see, I have just revoked that sentence with my sword called Logic; a sword that no one can refute.

Jesus did not shed his blood for the forgiveness of our sins. The reason why he was crucified was due to sedition whose verdict INRI was nailed on the top of his cross. Besides, according to Jeremiah 31:30 and Ezekiel 18:20, no one can die for the sins of another.
Some wages of a sin is death, actually. Then you have the gall to slander Jesus. The charge was being king of Jews, which Pilate didn't even take seriously. INRI is not the charge in any known historical accounts. Perhaps Constatine's mom found a cross a one which thought to be his.

Sedition was a common crime committed by the authorities during this period.
 

Aimiel

New member
I still believe that, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of Jews," was the acronym that was put on the sign nailed to the cross: "JHVH."
 

Ben Masada

New member
Some wages of a sin is death, actually. Then you have the gall to slander Jesus. The charge was being king of Jews, which Pilate didn't even take seriously. INRI is not the charge in any known historical accounts. Perhaps Constatine's mom found a cross a one which thought to be his.

Sedition was a common crime committed by the authorities during this period.

But only in those countries that adopt the death sentence; and only if it is proved that it was pre-determined. Regarding slandering Jesus, Christians are the ones who slander him with being a Greek demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. I honor Jesus for what he was and not for what you guys make him to have been.

If Pilate was not serious about the charge of sedition on Jesus being acclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province, why was he the one who decided for that verdict? (John 19:21) The crime of sedition was not really of Jesus but of his disciples acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem.(Luke 19:37-40)
 

Ben Masada

New member
Why are you here, an antichrist? What do you have to say that you would expect a Christian has any use for?

No, and I have told you already. I am here to tell you the truth about Jesus which you refuse to hear. You prefer the contradiction to believe that he was a Jew who acted like a Greek. Anti-Christs are supposed to come out of the Christian church itself, if you read I John 2:18,19.
 
No, and I have told you already. I am here to tell you the truth about Jesus which you refuse to hear. You prefer the contradiction to believe that he was a Jew who acted like a Greek. Anti-Christs are supposed to come out of the Christian church itself, if you read I John 2:18,19.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along, or are you parroting some whackjob's website? I was going to ask, "Polly want a cracker?", but was unsure.

You really should avoid scripture, actually all theology, as you're humiliating yourself. But I am very curious if you've ever contemplated what makes you so desperate for any kind of attention?
 

Ben Masada

New member
Do you make this stuff up as you go along, or are you parroting some whackjob's website? I was going to ask, "Polly want a cracker?", but was unsure.

You really should avoid scripture, actually all theology, as you're humiliating yourself. But I am very curious if you've ever contemplated what makes you so desperate for any kind of attention?

No sir, a Jew does not need to read a book every day for ten years or appeal to authorities to give answers about that book. Three times is enough.
 

Omniskeptical

Active member
But only in those countries that adopt the death sentence; and only if it is proved that it was pre-determined. Regarding slandering Jesus, Christians are the ones who slander him with being a Greek demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. I honor Jesus for what he was and not for what you guys make him to have been.

If Pilate was not serious about the charge of sedition on Jesus being acclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province, why was he the one who decided for that verdict? (John 19:21) The crime of sedition was not really of Jesus but of his disciples acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem.(Luke 19:37-40)
Pilate was insulting the authorities. To be ruler of the Jews, is to be crucified. You don't know how insulting Pilate was.
 

Ben Masada

New member
Pilate was insulting the authorities. To be ruler of the Jews, is to be crucified. You don't know how insulting Pilate was.

And who was to blame for the insult to Pilate, the People or his own disciples? The disciples if you read Luke 19:37-40. So, why charge the Jews with having crucified Jesus? (Acts 2:36)
 

Omniskeptical

Active member
And who was to blame for the insult to Pilate, the People or his own disciples? The disciples if you read Luke 19:37-40. So, why charge the Jews with having crucified Jesus? (Acts 2:36)
The verb is actually present aorist. Israel is then crucifying Jesus after the fact. And the stones would have cried out if the pharisee, who aren't even related to Rabbinical Judaism, killed him.

Can we say the House of Israel, the elders were not obeying God?
 

Omniskeptical

Active member
BenMasada said:
And who was to blame for the insult to Pilate, the People or his own disciples?
Pilate was the one implying being king of the Jews was enough punishment. It was easy for Pilate to forgive any Judahite insults, because he knew their talk was cheap. They didn't obey Rome, and the Romans out-numbered them.
 

Ben Masada

New member
The verb is actually present aorist. Israel is then crucifying Jesus after the fact. And the stones would have cried out if the pharisee, who aren't even related to Rabbinical Judaism, killed him.

Can we say the House of Israel, the elders were not obeying God?

This is an anti-Semitic accusation. The Jews had absolutely nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus was crucified on a political charge of sedition against Rome. Hence his verdict INRI.
 

Ben Masada

New member
Pilate was the one implying being king of the Jews was enough punishment. It was easy for Pilate to forgive any Judahite insults, because he knew their talk was cheap. They didn't obey Rome, and the Romans out-numbered them.

But the Jews were not anti-Semite. Rather those who wrote against them were so.
 

Omniskeptical

Active member
This is an anti-Semitic accusation. The Jews had absolutely nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus was crucified on a political charge of sedition against Rome. Hence his verdict INRI.
No, the verdict was king of the Judeans. This was Pilate's version of the crime.
 
Top