toldailytopic: Why did Jesus need to die?

[naatmi]

Well, see? Then we probably agree on most of this then. That phrase sets me off because MOST folks really think Jesus' Blood forced God's Hand.

It cheapens His death and is insulting to me.

I never heard anyone say it that way but I would disagree as well. Why would God's hand need to be forced if He is already ready to forgive?? All I can guess is that people who say you don't need to obey God want to assure themselves by saying the atonement prevents God from judging them even though they continue in sin. In my experience, an excuse for sin is really the underlying cause of false doctrines.

 

[naatmi]

What one is capable of realizing is limited by one's experience. Iron boats won't float is logical as Iron sinks and wood floats. However it's not right.

Picture a 2 dimensional pair of entites, we'll name them 1 and 2.

------1-----------2------------

They can't imagine up, down, left or right. It's beyond their experiential comprehensive abilities. God existed in a reality as far beyond our comprehension as our existance is from 1 or 2 comprehending it.

1 can walk up to 2, but not pass 2. Same with 2 to 1. Their reality is defined within what is in front of them, and behind them.

This reminds me of Stephen Hawking stuff I read when I was little.

Regarding logic: Are you familiar with the difference between the truth (or soundness) of a logical argument and the logical validity of an argument? I think that it is impossible to discuss logic without some basic agreement on the nature of logic and a distinction between truth or soundness and logical validity.

Knowledge is like a mental reflection of reality. Since reality can not "contradict" itself, true knowledge can never contradict itself either, or it would no longer reflect reality. In reality there can not be things that "are" and "are not" simultaneously. That is totally meaningless.

God has way more knowledge than we can imagine. But since knowledge reflects reality and reality does not contradict itself, we can be certain that God's knowledge does not contradict itself either. God's law of non-contradiction in His own mind is the same law He put into our mind so that we could have accurate knowledge of reality and not conclude totally whacked out things that contradict themselves.

 

[IXOYE]

I never heard anyone say it that way but I would disagree as well. Why would God's hand need to be forced if He is already ready to forgive?? All I can guess is that people who say you don't need to obey God want to assure themselves by saying the atonement prevents God from judging them even though they continue in sin. In my experience, an excuse for sin is really the underlying cause of false doctrines.

They don't have to say it that way. The minute someone proclaims ONLY HIS BLOOD CAN SAVE. They have irrevocably assumed that position as a given to their theology.

 

[IXOYE]

This reminds me of Stephen Hawking stuff I read when I was little.

Regarding logic: Are you familiar with the difference between the truth (or soundness) of a logical argument and the logical validity of an argument? I think that it is impossible to discuss logic without some basic agreement on the nature of logic and a distinction between truth or soundness and logical validity.

Knowledge is like a mental reflection of reality. Since reality can not "contradict" itself, true knowledge can never contradict itself either, or it would no longer reflect reality. In reality there can not be things that "are" and "are not" simultaneously. That is totally meaningless.

God has way more knowledge than we can imagine. But since knowledge reflects reality and reality does not contradict itself, we can be certain that God's knowledge does not contradict itself either. God's law of non-contradiction in His own mind is the same law He put into our mind so that we could have accurate knowledge of reality and not conclude totally whacked out things that contradict themselves.

I taught logic and debate for a semester in college. I understand the basics. What i am not getting through here is what is logical to you and me is what we have learned from our observations within creation. God doesn't exist within the creation. He has more options to his perception than we do. For example, since ahead existed before time, which existed with the first piece of matter/mass so there was something to "time" his perspective of creation must not be linear as ours is. For Him, bbeginning middle and end have no meaning. He would see all the beginnings middles and ends as both one instant and many instances. So, what makes sense to him as logical, wont to us. Like genocide.

I think snoot of times people gwr caught up in anthropomorphisms and try to make God fit within them. When they are limited descriptions at best. Similar to analogies.

 

[IXOYE]

Oh yeah, if hawking is right with his theories, then 1 plus 1 is not two.

A recent experiment in one of the super commiserate got something somewhere before it left. Nor rather it surpassed the speed of light. B according to hawking's works that means for that briefest of instants 1 plus 0 equaled 2. Math is math because God said so. Would math exist before God or creation? Or do you think math as we know it, world because that is how God created things, and we have learned the use of that part.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

hi,

All I know is that mankind had a debt toward God and a Man was raised up by God to be righteous who bought up all of the debt.

This man Jesus has the right to forgive or not forgive and give eternal life to all who come to Him and obey Him for all things have been placed in His hands by His Father.

Be it a great secret or not, but Christs sufferings were for the saved, His Bride while they are still alive in the flesh who ignorantly sin from time to time as easily as breathing most times.

The Bible teaches that only a righteous man could satisfy the justice of God on behalf of mankind. A God could not do that, for it would be cheating and God is not a cheat. (God was in Christ, and not always, for Jesus Himself is not God but now is eternally filled with God.)

The real unbelief of most who claim Christ is that they do NOT believe that God could and did make a Man in His own image and neither therefore do most believe that God can make them in His own image, for if they did then they would think, speak, and act more like Christ this side of the resurrection, which many may well miss out on.

Read Phil. ch 3 for the lifestyle required of those who hope to be included in the first resurrection from the dead to be with Christ at his return.

Be not faithless but believing.

LA.

 

[IXOYE]

Why does Scripture say we are not to always be in the flesh?

hi,

All I know is that mankind had a debt toward God and a Man was raised up by God to be righteous who bought up all of the debt.

This man Jesus has the right to forgive or not forgive and give eternal life to all who come to Him and obey Him for all things have been placed in His hands by His Father.

Be it a great secret or not, but Christs sufferings were for the saved, His Bride while they are still alive in the flesh who ignorantly sin from time to time as easily as breathing most times.

The Bible teaches that only a righteous man could satisfy the justice of God on behalf of mankind. A God could not do that, for it would be cheating and God is not a cheat. (God was in Christ, and not always, for Jesus Himself is not God but now is eternally filled with God.)

The real unbelief of most who claim Christ is that they do NOT believe that God could and did make a Man in His own image and neither therefore do most believe that God can make them in His own image, for if they did then they would think, speak, and act more like Christ this side of the resurrection, which many may well miss out on.

Read Phil. ch 3 for the lifestyle required of those who hope to be included in the first resurrection from the dead to be with Christ at his return.

Be not faithless but believing.

LA.

 

[Jacob]

Why does Scripture say we are not to always be in the flesh?

Which scripture gives you the impetus to say so?

 

[IXOYE]

Which scripture gives you the impetus to say so?

Romans 7:5 paul says he's not in the flesh. That's rather problematic for someone saying you are in it til you die.

The confusion comes from the term he coined/borrowed, Sarx which literally means flesh, to describe something that isn't physical or physiological.

Romans 8:9 says if you are indwelled by the Spirit you are NOT IN THE FLESH. The problem here is people insist they are "INDWELLED" while they are still in the flesh, and thus the verse can't be right. They are making claims they don't warrant, in other words. So they are basing interpretation of scripture on how their lives play out. Last time I checked, scripture defines me, not my life defines scripture.

Col 2:11 says that body of sins of the flesh, that Paul identifies in romans 7, is removed by a circumcision done by Christ, not man. I guess someone could argue that Christ isn't capable. But, I find that problematic and difficult to defend.

How about gal 2:20A, it's no longer ME who lives but HE who lives in me.

THE ME is the col 2:11 flesh removed,
the HE is romans 8:9 Spirit when the flesh is removed.

Anyone wanting to tie the term FLESH to the human body, must consider Paul knew skeletons in the Church, and in fact that he was one, rom 7:5 and col 2:11.

There are the most direct vss. Now, in a broader sense, with less deduction than it takes to prove Trinity, I could put another 18-25 pages on here. But that would require people to think more than they want. Not saying that means YOU.

 

[Jacob]

Romans 7:5 paul says he's not in the flesh. That's rather problematic for someone saying you are in it til you die.

The confusion comes from the term he coined/borrowed, Sarx which literally means flesh, to describe something that isn't physical or physiological.

Romans 8:9 says if you are indwelled by the Spirit you are NOT IN THE FLESH. The problem here is people insist they are "INDWELLED" while they are still in the flesh, and thus the verse can't be right. They are making claims they don't warrant, in other words. So they are basing interpretation of scripture on how their lives play out. Last time I checked, scripture defines me, not my life defines scripture.

Col 2:11 says that body of sins of the flesh, that Paul identifies in romans 7, is removed by a circumcision done by Christ, not man. I guess someone could argue that Christ isn't capable. But, I find that problematic and difficult to defend.

How about gal 2:20A, it's no longer ME who lives but HE who lives in me.

THE ME is the col 2:11 flesh removed,
the HE is romans 8:9 Spirit when the flesh is removed.

Anyone wanting to tie the term FLESH to the human body, must consider Paul knew skeletons in the Church, and in fact that he was one, rom 7:5 and col 2:11.

There are the most direct vss. Now, in a broader sense, with less deduction than it takes to prove Trinity, I could put another 18-25 pages on here. But that would require people to think more than they want. Not saying that means YOU.

Paul talked about living on in the flesh. His desire was to depart, but it was profitable that he live on in the flesh.

 

[IXOYE]

Paul talked about living on in the flesh. His desire was to depart, but it was profitable that he live on in the flesh.

SO? Show me how that affects those verses above? And tell me why he was no longer IN THE FLESH in romans 7:5.

THEN tell me what that word FLESH MEANS, since you use two distinctly different meanings interchangeably.

I explained the word above, you ignored it.

I showed you vss that if flesh means BODY, Paul was a skeleton, and others as well. YOu ignore them and apply a vs where FLESH IS used as body, one of three or four uses of the word, and try to counter the other vss.

What you have done is akin to me saying my car is orange and you thinking you can eat it.

 

[Jacob]

SO? Show me how that affects those verses above? And tell me why he was no longer IN THE FLESH in romans 7:5.

THEN tell me what that word FLESH MEANS, since you use two distinctly different meanings interchangeably.

I explained the word above, you ignored it.

I showed you vss that if flesh means BODY, Paul was a skeleton, and others as well. YOu ignore them and apply a vs where FLESH IS used as body, one of three or four uses of the word, and try to counter the other vss.

What you have done is akin to me saying my car is orange and you thinking you can eat it.

You have a point with Romans 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

Your statement about there being multiple understandings of the word flesh I agree with.

 

[IXOYE]

You have a point with Romans 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

Your statement about there being multiple understandings of the word flesh I agree with.

I appreciate that you conceded that point. The term is confusing. It's one of a few things I prefer the NIV for. Most of the time I use the NET or NASB for clarity. And it's no biggie, I'm just disclosing.

Now, the vss above, show 3 or 5 instances of living people without the flesh anymore.

Either it means sinful nature, or we had skeletons in Church, would you agree with that?

 

[Jacob]

I appreciate that you conceded that point. The term is confusing. It's one of a few things I prefer the NIV for. Most of the time I use the NET or NASB for clarity. And it's no biggie, I'm just disclosing.

Now, the vss above, show 3 or 5 instances of living people without the flesh anymore.

Either it means sinful nature, or we had skeletons in Church, would you agree with that?

I don't know what you are saying now so I don't know if I should agree with you.

 

[sky.]

To fulfill all Old Testament prophecies and requirements and to bring in a permanent atonement rather than a temporary one.