Left Powerless Over Sin? No!

[cardw]

We all have life in this mortality - because Christ included us into His mortal humanity. We have freedom to choose - because we all died the death. Which resurrection we participate in depends on if we choose to accept that death of sin in us, or choose unbelief - and own up to God for our own sins.

Blessings,

This is just a complicated way of setting up the same injustice. These are just word games. I have no sense that I was on the cross with Jesus. It is unjust to have one person represent a whole race. Justice is everyone being responsible for their own choices.

Now belief is not a choice. I can no more choose to believe that Jesus died for my sins than choose to believe that what I perceive as blue is red. And any Christian that thinks they can choose to believe is lying to themselves. Belief by it's definition is not a choice.

This is all double speak.

[cardw]

Hi Ted,

I generally agree with your post. I am just saying (emphasizing) that salvation truly does not make sense and indeed is not fair in the physical realm. Throwing me in with Adam as a sinner deserving death isn't fair, either (although my own sins do that).

In the spiritual realm - especially where God rules/dwells - it makes perfect sense!

There is logic and there is fantasy. There is no sense to saying this all makes sense in the spiritual realm. This is just a word game. You are taking words that have very clear definitions like logic and sense and applying them in ways that have no meaning.

This would be like saying burning witches at the stake makes sense in the spiritual realm. This was the so called "logic" of both John Calvin and Martin Luther who are considered fathers of the reformation. These so called spiritual greats used this same type of nonsensical reading of the Bible to justify gross injustice. This has to stop.

It is child abuse when you teach a child they are sinful from birth and need to realize they are enormously evil. And when you teach them to make an immoral choice to save their own skin from a fantasy guilt you create immature adults who are trained to be dependent and avoid personal responsibility.

There is a phrase for letting someone else take the blame. It's called throwing them under the bus and whoever does this is a creep. In Christianity we are told to throw Jesus under the bus and taught that this is admirable.

It's time we stop teaching immorality on this scale.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

We all have life in this mortality - because Christ included us into His mortal humanity. We have freedom to choose - because we all died the death. Which resurrection we participate in depends on if we choose to accept that death of sin in us, or choose unbelief - and own up to God for our own sins.

Blessings,

This is just a complicated way of setting up the same injustice. These are just word games. I have no sense that I was on the cross with Jesus. It is unjust to have one person represent a whole race. Justice is everyone being responsible for their own choices.

Now belief is not a choice. I can no more choose to believe that Jesus died for my sins than choose to believe that what I perceive as blue is red. And any Christian that thinks they can choose to believe is lying to themselves. Belief by it's definition is not a choice.

This is all double speak.

You either did not read the points too closely - or chose to ignore the points, deciding rather to continue raging against your personal straw man you've labeled 'the Christian belief'. It's not word games. While you may have no sense you were on the cross with Jesus, it does not change the fact you were. It is just like you do not have a sense of being 'in' your paternal great-great-great-great grandfather whom you have never met, I guarantee you there are consequences and circumstances of life that came to you from his choices he made while alive seven generations ago. There are many aspects of our lives that come to us predetermined long before we were born into the world. Fair and just? Not at first blush. Consequences of a sinful world? Yes. Fact of life we must each deal with? Yes. The consequences of righteousness come to us just as those of sin.

While in your perspective it may be unjust to have 1 person represent a race, the Bible tells us not only is it fair, but both the men stepping into that place left consequences and circumstances coming to you from the decisions they made in life.

Double speak? If that is your choice to to believe it so...

Blessings,

[fccool]

Quote:

Perhaps it is because we think of "vicarious" to mean a swap, individual for individual. Unfortunately, fccool and cardw have it pegged dead right in saying the vast majority of Christendom thinks of Christ's death on the cross in specifically those terms - "He died, so I can live". The trouble is, no court of justice - human or Divine - could look at that and call it justice served for sin.

I'm glad you are able to see that

Quote:

And indeed, that's not what the calls the death of Christ, either. Romans 5:1-11 appears on the surface to talk of a "vicarious" death - reconciled by the blood of Christ. And in fact, it is used throughout Christendom for that very purpose.

A look at the context, though, places the matter into a whole different light.

Context = look at verses 12-19: the reconciliation is patterned not on a swap, but on a specific model.

Ok... you are actually making the matters a bit worse. If you want a good example of what reconciliation looks like, just take a good look at the parable of the Prodigal Son. The son screws up majorly, he returns and asks the father for forgiveness. The father accepts him with arms wide open.

No sacrifices, no silly pre-requisites of anyone dying... so very much unlike Christian theology. It's very simple, and very mature.

Quote:

What happened to us while Adam sinned? We were "in Adam" so to speak, and participatory in the sin. We reveal that participation via the sinful flesh every time we sin; hence just as the Scriptures say in vs 14 that we may sin in the same manner as Adam, we still sin - regardless if God has laid before us the Law or not.

It's a group-think, tribal explanation of humanity. It completely wipes out individuals that God supposedly values (personal savior), and it has 1 person deciding the fate of the entire group. How is that a better and just alternative? Everyone's shortcomings are different. You can't throw the murderers and psychopaths in the same cell with a person who lies to save face. Those shortcomings are not comparable.

You can't take the group approach to judgement. It makes no sense in terms of who you want us to believe God is.

Quote:

Paul writes of Adam being "a type of him who was to come." That means our reconciliation functions the exact same way as our being found sinners. Christ has stepped in as our New Adam. As the new Head of the human race, what happened with Him with respect to life, death, and resurrection, happened to us all. Just as we were all "in Adam" in a very real manner (and not just a genetic presence!) at the Fall, so also are we all "in Christ" in a very real manner when He walked on earth. Every human of the human race was there in Him when He lived that perfect life. Being present when Adam fell (and receiving the just condemnation for participation), we are also very present in Christ as He lived.

What you are doing, is simply wrapping Biblical language in a shroud of mysticism. The same things that Catholics do when they take a mass. They tell you that it's actually the body of Christ, even though there's nothing visibly to indicate it.

You are doing the very same thing with language you are using, when you say that every human was there "In Christ" when he lived a perfect life. It's just a language of mysticism that does not really mean anything beyond some sort of metaphor that's not based in facts, but rather recyles it's own statements that is provided for a support.

It's no different than me saying "In the first paragraph of my reply, I said that you were wrong... end of argument"

Quote:

However, just living a perfect life is not enough. The Word of God states unequivocally the soul that sins shall die. The human race must die for sin. Period.

So, God should execute humans for any deviation from his perfect standards set for humans? It's a bit drastic, don't you think? It would be like a teacher failing you for making a single mistake on a test. It makes no sense.

I certainly don't put my children to death for disobeying and lack of understanding. Why should God?

Quote:

When Christ hung on the Cross, all humanity - from Adam right down to the billions in the last generation - ALL of us were in there, hanging on that tree in Him. When Christ died, each one of us died with Him, in a very real sense, that could satisfy the Divine justice requirements holding the sinner accountable for their sins.

Again, it's the Catholic bread and real body of Christ issue. None of us hung there. You are attempting to reify a metaphor.

Quote:

Christ can accord us a real righteousness, because we were there in a very real sense. Christ's blood can serve as the reconciling atonement, because in a very real sense, that's our blood, showing that we have died the stroke due sin. All of us shall indeed live again, because we were all there in Christ as He rose triumphantly from the grave.

Everything necessary for our salvation was put into Christ Jesus, because God put us all into Christ Jesus - regardless whether we accept this fact or not.

None of this answers the central problematic questions:

1) Who requires people to die because they sin?

2) Who does the execution?

Quote:

We can choose to accept our place and justice done in Christ Jesus - and live, accept our death in Christ, die physically, then live again. Or, we can live, refuse to accept our place in Christ, die, live again, then die permanently.

There is nothing "unfair" about accepting Christ dying on the Cross, because we were there as well.

If we were there, then why do we need to accept Christ's death? Based on your explanation of these fact, we've already paid the debt of death with our own death. After all, we've been there with him and died, and it's our own blood that was spilled...

Based solely on your logic, your explanation does not work out very well.

Quote:

Vicarious does not mean an individual one-for-one swap. It means in love, Christ included each and every human into his own humanity, just as Adam bore all of us in himself - right down to the very worst of us. And right up to the very best of us - Christ Himself - we all died the the second death.

So, why do we need to accept it? If we've already died... even though none of us remember it, why do we need to do anything else? Why do we even get to die again if that's the case. It makes zero sense.

Quote:

We all have life in this mortality - because Christ included us into His mortal humanity. We have freedom to choose - because we all died the death. Which resurrection we participate in depends on if we choose to accept that death of sin in us, or choose unbelief - and own up to God for our own sins.

Again, you don't make any sense. If we already died, and it already happened as you've said "because God put us all into Christ Jesus - regardless whether we accept this fact or not"... why do we even need to choose? It has happened already whether we accept it or not, then why should we choose to believe anything?

Likewise, why would God rest such important choice on a story that lacks supporting evidence and is so very much like the myth's of the past?

God might as well said, believe that the Earth is flat contrary to what you see with your eyes, and you'll be saved. Can you really do that once you know and understand certain history and scientific facts? Why would God demand to believe in very odd things?

[fccool]

Quote:

While you may have no sense you were on the cross with Jesus, it does not change the fact you were.

Do you understand the meaning and prerequisites of the term "fact? Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Quote:

It is just like you do not have a sense of being 'in' your paternal great-great-great-great grandfather whom you have never met, I guarantee you there are consequences and circumstances of life that came to you from his choices he made while alive seven generations ago.

It's nothing like that. Choices that our grandparents made generations ago would not put us in the "death row inmate" situation" solely because they made the choice.

Quote:

There are many aspects of our lives that come to us predetermined long before we were born into the world. Fair and just? Not at first blush. Consequences of a sinful world? Yes. Fact of life we must each deal with? Yes. The consequences of righteousness come to us just as those of sin.

Sin is an undefined concept that's thrown around. Want to do a mental exercise? Try to replace the word "sin" in your speech with actual definition of the word, and attempt to explain these concepts in such way. You will find it much more difficult to do, because that language would not allow you to get away with many things you do by means of vague terminology.

Quote:

While in your perspective it may be unjust to have 1 person represent a race, the Bible tells us not only is it fair, but both the men stepping into that place left consequences and circumstances coming to you from the decisions they made in life.

Your perspective is the only thing you have. The Biblical perspective has to be imagined, because it does not exist in reality. What you are doing is imagining things, and then judging other by imaginary standards.

It's up to you to prove the validity of supernatural claims, or reject these as "trick of imagination". I can say that I just saw an actual Unicorn materialize in the room and telling me that Pope is resigning, and that Paris is the capital of France.

Just because the 2 are true does not warrant the fact that I might be making things up. It's up to me to prove the most unlikely and irrational prior to anyone believing me, which they should not.

You are saying that because Bible tells us something, we should automatically believe it. Why? Why should we accept that the Bible is the Word of God? Because it says so? Because many of the things "sound right" and "make sense from Biblical perspective". Why wouldn't they? Star Wars world and storyline makes sense from perspective of the film... it does not warrant us believing in this imaginary world.

What if someone told you that Star Wars was actually based on true story, and that "The Force" inspired George Lucas to write down the happenings of the true things a long time ago. .

This is the kind of thing that you believe in You don't see it, because you are an extreme fan of "Star Wars" who wants to believe that it's real to mentally escape in that imaginary world.

[M. T. Cross]

What if someone told you that Star Wars was actually based on true story, and that "The Force" inspired George Lucas to write down the happenings of the true things a long time ago. .

This is the kind of thing that you believe in You don't see it, because you are an extreme fan of "Star Wars" who wants to believe that it's real to mentally escape in that imaginary world.

http://www.jedichurch.org/

[Woody]

Ellen White is clear on this:

" When the Father gave His Son to live and die for man, He placed all the treasures of heaven at our disposal. There is no excuse for sin. God has given us all the advantages He possibly could give, that we may have strength to withstand the temptations of the enemy." TDG 318

"The strongest temptation is no excuse for sin. No matter how severe the pressure brought to bear upon you, sin is your own act."

"In view of the dangers of this time, shall not we, as God's commandment-keeping people, put away from among us all sin, all iniquity, all perverseness?" AH 331

"There is no excuse for sin or for indolence." FW 49

" It is not in the power of all the host of Satan to force the tempted to transgress. There is no excuse for sin." Mar 82

"When the Father gave His Son to live and die for man, He placed all the treasures of heaven at our disposal. There is no excuse for sin. God has given us all the advantages He possibly could give, that we may have strength to withstand the temptations of the enemy. Had man, when tested and tried, followed the example of Christ, he would have given his children and his children's children an example of steadfast purity and righteousness, and the race would not have deteriorated, but improved. . . . " TDG 318

"There is no excuse for sin. It will be the final condemnation of Lucifer and his angels that when God shall ask, "Why have ye done this?" they will be able to assign no reason. And when at the last great day sinners are confronted with their sins, and are asked, "Why did you transgress?" every mouth will be stopped. The sinful will stand speechless before God. " RH, September 24, 1901 par. 3

"Men of high or low degree have no excuse for sin. The light given of Heaven, the power from Jesus Christ, can be obtained by all who ask for it in faith. Under every provocation there is a present help that will never fail. We are to learn to take God at his word, walking by simple faith, continually feeling our own weakness, and trusting in the Mighty One of Israel. " ST, October 7, 1880 par. 12

"There is no excuse for sin, no excuse for the least degree of unfaithfulness." 20MR 385

"When we know God as it is our privilege to know Him, our life will be a life of continual obedience. Through an appreciation of the character of Christ, through communion with God, sin will become hateful to us." --DA, p 668

"So long as we are united to Him by faith, sin has no more dominion over us. God reaches for the hand of faith in us to attain to perfection of character." The Desire of Ages, 123

"We may have flattered ourselves, as did Nicodemus, that our life has been upright, that our moral character is correct, and think that we need not humble the heart before God, like the common sinner: but when the light [His agape love] from Christ shines into our souls, we shall see how impure we are; we shall discern the selfishness of motive, the enmity against God, that has defiled every act of life." SC 28

[cardw]

It's not word games. While you may have no sense you were on the cross with Jesus, it does not change the fact you were.

Calling this a fact is a word game. I suggest that you follow fccool's advice and actually look up the definitions of the words you use.

He also answered you so well in regards to your further claims that I will reference you to " what he said. "

[JoeMo]

This is a very interesting debate. fccool and cardw, I really appreciate your input. You provide much incentive to learn the reason to believe what we claim. I can offer nothing from your world; I can only go on my experience. Experience trumps logic for me. That's just the way it is. The fact that I can't logically explain my experiences doesn't make them less real. Haven't you ever had dreams that you couldn't explain logically; but you know they were true? If that doesn't meet your standards of intelligence, I guess that's just the way it is too.

Woody - great post!! I was blessed!

[cardw]

This is a very interesting debate. fccool and cardw, I really appreciate your input. You provide much incentive to learn the reason to believe what we claim. I can offer nothing from your world; I can only go on my experience. Experience trumps logic for me. That's just the way it is. The fact that I can't logically explain my experiences doesn't make them less real.

[Gerr]

[Gerr]

Gerry,

Maybe we are ought to start out with the definition of sin. What is sin to you?

The only definition that I can give you is the Bible's definition of it.

ESV | ‎1 Jn 3:4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

KJV 1900 | ‎1 Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

ESV | ‎Ro 14:23 For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

ESV | ‎1 Jn 5:17 All wrongdoing is sin.

Quote:

Do you commit sin if you unknowingly do something someone else knows to be wrong, but you do not?

Of course, it is sin! The law doesn't care whether you know it or not! But the judge might. Our Judge most certainly does.

ESV | ‎1 Jn 5:17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

ESV | ‎Le 4:27 “If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any one of the things that by the LORD’s commandments ought not to be done, and realizes his guilt, ‎28 or the sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed.

Quote:

Then lets move onto your assertion of sinless perfectionism. Let's say, just for arguments sake, that I never sin again in my life. Do I still need the cover of Christ's righteousness? Yes. Does that mean I am a sinner? Yes. Does that mean I fall short of the glory of God? Yes.

Now, how is it that there is power over sin in my life? Does the power/desire/ability come from me? No. Where does it come from? Christ. Is any of this possible without faith in Him? No. If I am distracted and lose my abiding relationship with Christ do I still have this power over sin? No. I will sin and no doubt about it.

Are you lost every time you sin?

Quote:

This is all based upon abiding with Christ and faith in Him based upon the love I have for Him.

God is more powerful than sin. It is He that is overcoming the sin in my life, not me. All I am doing is continually surrendering my will to His, at the Holy Spirit's prompting, just as Christ did with His Father. That is how Christ lived a sinless life. That is exactly what He offers to us.

The problem with your scenario as I see it is that the person that Christ indwells is not dead but a live person whose every cell in his body is indwelt by sin! Yeah, Paul does say to "reckon" ourselves "dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus." When Christ does His work in me, He does it through sinful legs and hands. He sees through my sinful eyes and hears through my corrupt ears. That's why as omnipotent as God is, we must shed this sinful body at His coming.

Quote:

Here are 3 paragraphs from the Desire of Ages on this:

The DA quote is the only one that seems to give me the idea that I can through Him achieve sinless perfection in performance. So then, we have to consider and put together all the things that she says that has a bearing on the subject.

1) There are those who have known the pardoning love of Christ and who really desire to be children of God, yet they realize that their character is imperfect, their life faulty, and they are ready to doubt whether their hearts have been renewed by the Holy Spirit. SC 64

2) The closer you come to Jesus, the more faulty you will appear in your own eyes; for your vision will be clearer, and your imperfections will be seen in broad and distinct contrast to His perfect nature.

3) ...because of his sin our natures are fallen and we cannot make ourselves righteous. Since we are sinful, unholy, we cannot perfectly obey the holy law. We have no righteousness of our own with which to meet the claims of the law of God.

4)But Christ has made a way of escape for us. He lived on earth amid trials and temptations such as we have to meet. He lived a sinless life. He died for us, and now He offers to take our sins and give us His righteousness. If you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your Saviour, then, sinful as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted righteous. Christ’s character stands in place of your character, and you are accepted before God just as if you had not sinned

5) he law demands righteousness, and this the sinner owes to the law; but he is incapable of rendering it. The only way in which he can attain to righteousness is through faith. By faith he can bring to God the merits of Christ, and the Lord places the obedience of his Son to the sinner’s account. Christ’s righteousness is accepted in place of man’s failure, and God receives, pardons, justifies, the repentant, believing soul, treats him as though he were righteous, and loves him as he loves his Son. This is how faith is accounted righteousness; and the pardoned soul goes on from grace to grace, from light to a greater light. He can say with rejoicing, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." {RH, November 4, 1890 par. 7}

6) Rom 3:23 says we are falling short as an ongoing experience

I think there is a law of hermeneutics which in effect says we are to go with the preponderance of evidence. The passage - "His life testifies that it is possible for us also to obey the law of God" - could mean that she is contradicting herself, or, by the preonderance of what she had written, it means that by the same faith in His Father that enabled Him to achieve sinless perfection, I can be the same faith obey all of God's commandments by presenting to the Father the perfect righteousness of Christ my Substitute. I take the latter.

[Gerr]

But, he didn't reveal it to you. There's no proof that he revealed it to anyone. All you have is a cultural mythology about a group of people thousands years ago who attribute everything that happened to them in highly exaggerated manner to creator God who chosen them out of all people to rule the world as his special people. Does that sound familiar? In ancient times it was very common thing to do. Look at any culture, and you'll find similar stories. In fact, many ideas from Christianity borrow from these stories.

I would expect the God of the universe to reveal himself in much more clear way than disjointed letters written by people for whom a wheelbarrow would be an emerging technology, and who would have a scientific knowledge comparable to a modern 7 year old.

ESV | ‎Jn 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. ‎47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

ESV | ‎Mt 12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” ‎39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

quote=fc]

It only makes sense if you are not thinking about it long enough.

First of all, the Christian interpretation of Satan completely contradicts the Jewish tradition of who or what the Satan is. In Jewish tradition, there is no "evil angel" named Satan. In Jewish tradition, THE Satan is a title given to the opposing party. Jews would explain that there is no single evil angel named Satan, and that The Satan title is actually given to many people and angels who would stand to oppose certain parties, at time demonstrably by God's own appointments... just like a district attorney would.

Should I put much stock on the Jewish interpretation of Scripture that totally missed the very Person they had been looking for?

Originally Posted By: fc

Christianity actually perverts and confuses the idea of "good" and "evil" all together. Good and evil, in actuality, are one and the same thing looked from two different perspectives. Good and evil is a subjective judgement from perspective of someone who perceives it. It's not a universal standard. It can't be. It's a standard in a specific context for a specific conscious being. Each sets of beings would then have their own standard of good and evil. For example, pain may be considered as a "bad/evil" concept. If one is constantly in pain, it's bad. At the same time, it's a good thing, because pain is telling your body that there's something wrong that needs to be fixing.

In that sense, evil is a judgement about deviation from a preferred standard.

And who put that standard there? YES!!! The world in pain is crying out that God's universal standard of right and wrong has been violated. Exactly! Without a divine fiat of right & wrong, there are no standards. Every man would be a standard unto himself, which means chaos!

Originally Posted By: fc

I'm not saying that Jesus was not a historical figure. There may have been a Rabbi called Jesus in Yeshua at that time, but there's no contemporary historical sources to verify such claim.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted By: fc

There's no need to believe in a seemingly contrived book to see and appreciate the transcendent mystery of the Universe and being.

Contrived? By 40 different authors of varying backgrounds over 1500 years? The unity of scripture is a miracle in itself!!!

Originally Posted By: fc

Sure, at one time there were in my life too , until I realized that I simply impose a patten of interpretation on events that could be explained otherwise.

No doubt the seemingly supernatural leadings in your life & mine can be interpreted some other way. No doubt the antediluvian scientists also had a perfectly natural explanation for the animals going into the ark; that's why only 8 people went in.

Originally Posted By: fc

There is no empty tomb. There is a claim of empty tomb by the writers who needed to finish the story on a happy and hopeful note. If someone is writing a religious literature about A God who is put to death, what else would you expect? Would you expect a sad ending? Read any other myths, there are plenty of resurrected characters.

Over 500 witnesses to a myth? And how many people do you know would suffer untold suffering and even death for a myth?

Originally Posted By: fc

Complete is a terrible definition of "perfect" in context of what you are describing. An atomic bomb is "complete", but it's certainly not "perfect" in context of what you are trying to do with that word.

If that is what you would say about your OWN definition & about the bible's, I can imagine what you would say about my own!

[joeb]

The DA quote is the only one that seems to give me the idea that I can through Him achieve sinless perfection in performance. So then, we have to consider and put together all the things that she says that has a bearing on the subject.

1) There are those who have known the pardoning love of Christ and who really desire to be children of God, yet they realize that their character is imperfect, their life faulty, and they are ready to doubt whether their hearts have been renewed by the Holy Spirit. SC 64

2) The closer you come to Jesus, the more faulty you will appear in your own eyes; for your vision will be clearer, and your imperfections will be seen in broad and distinct contrast to His perfect nature.

3) ...because of his sin our natures are fallen and we cannot make ourselves righteous. Since we are sinful, unholy, we cannot perfectly obey the holy law. We have no righteousness of our own with which to meet the claims of the law of God.

4)But Christ has made a way of escape for us. He lived on earth amid trials and temptations such as we have to meet. He lived a sinless life. He died for us, and now He offers to take our sins and give us His righteousness. If you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your Saviour, then, sinful as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted righteous. Christ’s character stands in place of your character, and you are accepted before God just as if you had not sinned

5) he law demands righteousness, and this the sinner owes to the law; but he is incapable of rendering it. The only way in which he can attain to righteousness is through faith. By faith he can bring to God the merits of Christ, and the Lord places the obedience of his Son to the sinner’s account. Christ’s righteousness is accepted in place of man’s failure, and God receives, pardons, justifies, the repentant, believing soul, treats him as though he were righteous, and loves him as he loves his Son. This is how faith is accounted righteousness; and the pardoned soul goes on from grace to grace, from light to a greater light. He can say with rejoicing, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." {RH, November 4, 1890 par. 7}

6) Rom 3:23 says we are falling short as an ongoing experience

I think there is a law of hermeneutics which in effect says we are to go with the preponderance of evidence. The passage - "His life testifies that it is possible for us also to obey the law of God" - could mean that she is contradicting herself, or, by the preonderance of what she had written, it means that by the same faith in His Father that enabled Him to achieve sinless perfection, I can be the same faith obey all of God's commandments by presenting to the Father the perfect righteousness of Christ my Substitute. I take the latter.

[Gerr]

Quote:

And just how do we define what is/is not rational? I believe myself to be rational as well. "Irrational and borderline-insane" people just don't get to graduate school.

And how far did he get?

Originally Posted By: fc

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to convey. I does not matter who sacrifices who. If you are a criminal, and you let anyone die instead of you - that's an immoral choice on your part. It does not matter whether the creator himself dies, it's just becomes a convoluted word-play, because you would contend that the creator had to be a perfect man before he can die for you.

If I were to use force to compel someone to die in my place, you would be correct. But the One who died for you & me did it out of love. ESV | ‎Jn 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

Originally Posted By: fc

Cardw correctly pointed out that any God requiring such a choice as prerequisite can't remain "Good" and "Just", because such idea is neither consistent with justice, neither it is consistent with mercy. Mercy is forgiveness, and God does not "forgive" in this context. God simply gets his payment elsewhere and declares "All is paid! All who are willing, come aboard!". That's not mercy.

How can theJudge uphold justice and at the same time show mercy? That's the tension between justice and mercy that even God has to wrestle with. God did what He did, ESV | ‎Ro 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

{quote=fc]I don't have any choice but to die for myself... and I'm not afraid to do so. There's nothing to fear in death.

But the point is you DO have a choice! Die yoyrself or accept the death of One who, under no compulsion other than compelling love, died for you!

Originally Posted By: fc

Sin is not something that can be caught on fire . Sin is an action, whether of body or mind. It's an abstract concept that has to be explained through more words than "sin".

That's why the above makes zero sense. Likewise, you are drawing imaginary parallels. Rom 6:23 certainly does not talk about what you are talking about. It talks about the "reason" for people dying, because of the consequences of sin. It has nothing to do with God's presence setting them on fire.

Since the effects of sin are too painfully palpable and real, the concept of sin is not as abstract as one might think. And since sin cannot exist apart from people, you incinerate the offender and the sin goes with him/her.

Eternal life on other hand is the idea of immature mind that does not consider what it would be like to be alive for a trillion trillions of years. There's a "divine reason" as to why our experience is cut off. What I have is more than enough for me in terms of my experience here. I could not imagine prolonging such experience forever. At certain point we need to be done. I think it's the pinnacle of human maturity to realize it, and be at peace with it.

If wanting to live forever is the product of an immature mind, I am also very much at peace with it. Just think how much more time we could spend together exploring all these grand concepts instead of just tidbits compressed into such little time!

Originally Posted By: fc

First of all, you are actually engaging in double-speak here. There would not be a need for "the way out" if man would not be previously condemned. So it's quite obvious that you are wrong here from the get go. Man is condemned and punished because of "sinfulness from birth". The way out is a ploy to make it easier.

It would be odd that the way out would be paved through a mountain-full of animal corpses who were slaughtered needlessly for no fault of their own...

That is exactly the point that the sacrificial system was trying to make - a perfectly innocent victim is sacrificed to let the sinner go free!

ESV | ‎Mic 6:6 “With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? ‎7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”

ESV | ‎1 Sa 15:22 And Samuel said, “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.

Originally Posted By: fc

and that was not enough, because apparently a human being had to die to fulfill the requirement so that God would not be angry anymore. And because human being could not be perfect enough, God said "Ok. I'll come down myself and will suffer and die so I can forgive you people, but only if you believe that I did that based on few writings of superstitious people 2000++ years ago... no matter how irrational it may sound"

Don't you see the apparent problem with this? If God would provide a way out, don't you think it would be more than require a robotic belief that rejects rational thought?

Yeah, it is, ESV | ‎1 Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Which would be more rational - to choose life? or death?

Quote:

God then punishes the person twice, first by not restoring what's rightfully belongs to that person - a sense of dignity and worthiness (whatever it may be), and secondly by blaming the person for not trusting "the way out" under such difficult circumstances.

The offender is rewarded for feeling guilty yet avoiding paying what is actually due, the offended party is punished for feeling resentful and acting upon it.

It fixes NOTHING. I think it would be more idea if priest would do everything in his power to restore what was lost to the person he offended, but that's not the Christianity's requirement. The requirement is to repent (not do it again), as you yourself has pointed out.

So, what's your solution?

Quote:

Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and even Paul are seemingly mythical and composite characters that arguably are products of exaggerated cultural mythology and tradition. The only way you can point me to these people is by pointing to a page in the Bible, and the books written about the Bible.

See my response to the mythical Jesus.

Originally Posted By: fc

So, you are using the Bible to validate itself

As crazy as it may sound, the Bible IS a self-validating book! NO other book does that. If you really want to know and obey the truth, here's the promise - ESV | ‎Jn 7:17 "If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority." You won't be the first.

[Live4Him]

Wow, thanks for this post joeb. I am by no means perfect but it is really exciting to see that there is a way out of the slavery of satan. It really gives one hope as we press toward the mark of the high calling of God as Paul puts it.

[Gerr]

Gerry,

I'm not going to respond to each response of yours by quoting and then responding. I'm going to respond though to it all.

First, you're going to have to show me where I have claimed sinless perfection. Just because you accuse me of it doesn't mean I'm supporting such an idea. You're arguing against a straw man. Stop using logical fallacies.

If you made no such claim, my apologies. The thread is just too long for me to go back and quote your statements that gave me just such an impression. But you have just provided one with this:

Quote:

If I am a sinner today, and admit to such, even though I don't sin for the rest of my life I will forever be falling short of the glory of God.

Never in this thread have I referred to "sinless perfection" as including our past. Sinners from birth is a given. By sinless perfection, I mean as a future achievement after one comes to know the Lord. I maintain that that is an impossibility. The ONLY way one could achieve that is by accepting by faith the sinless perfection of Christ.

BTW, that statement - "I don't sin for the rest of my life I will forever be falling short of the glory of God," looks like an oxymoron to me. Sin, after all, is "missing the mark." "Falling short" IS missing the mark.

Quote:

I find it interesting that you cannot see by faith that God is greater than sin, and that He can impart to us the power to overcome it. That's what this is all about: righteousness by faith. How, if I live by faith can I be lost if I sin even once? I don't even understand where you are coming from.

You already admitted that you will miss the mark, unless I misunderstood what you said.

Quote:

Does that fact that I believe in sanctification by faith somehow mean, in your eyes, that I cannot believe in justification by faith? That's what you seem to be saying. How does one exclude the other?[

Never said nor meant to imply such a thing!

Quote:

As to being held accountable for sinning for an action which I do not know to be wrong, well, James disagrees with you.

James 4: 17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

If this is not true, then God is unjust. Under your scenario He would be holding us responsible for that which we cannot understand. Justice demands that a person understand the issue before they can be held accountable for their action.

You may want to go over what I said. I made no such statement that God holds us accountable for something we did not know. Quite the opposite! The law does not/cannot distinguish intentional from unintentional transgression. But I did say the Judge can!

I find it absolutely stunning that you think the ability to live as God would have us live, according to His law, is something bad. It really saddens me, Gerry. I really hope that you come to see the beauty of this someday soon.

Did I ever say that it's bad? Are we now going to pit the prophet against her own words and against scripture?

BTW, been there, done that. Back in the late '70's, I was totally sucked into the perfectionist mode. It didn't take me long to realize the futility of it. The harder I tried, the more obvious the impossibility. And please, don't make the charge I was trying to do it on my own! I cried for help day and night to do! Then one day I just got down on my knees and said, "Lord, if sinless perfection is what you are asking of me, You just have to count me out, because the only perfection I can present to you is the perfect righteousness of Jesus." That's when a load was lifted off of me.

Am I therefore advocating careless and loose living? I have maintained many times in this forum that what is possible for us is that by God's grace, we can & we must stop willfully/intentionally sinning. I believe that's what 1 Jn 3 is saying & Jn 15 & Gal 5 are saying.

"The closer you come to Jesus, the more faulty you will appear in your own eyes; for your vision will be clearer, and your imperfections will be seen in broad and distinct contrast to His perfect nature. This is evidence that Satan's delusions have lost their

65

power; that the vivifying influence of the Spirit of God is arousing you." {SC 64.2}

If you fail to reach this sinless perfection (forget about the past, I'm talking about now), are you toast? Am I toast?

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

Gerry,

I'm not going to respond to each response of yours by quoting and then responding. I'm going to respond though to it all.

First, you're going to have to show me where I have claimed sinless perfection. Just because you accuse me of it doesn't mean I'm supporting such an idea. You're arguing against a straw man. Stop using logical fallacies.

If you made no such claim, my apologies. The thread is just too long for me to go back and quote your statements that gave me just such an impression. But you have just provided one with this:

Quote:

If I am a sinner today, and admit to such, even though I don't sin for the rest of my life I will forever be falling short of the glory of God.

Never in this thread have I referred to "sinless perfection" as including our past. Sinners from birth is a given. By sinless perfection, I mean as a future achievement after one comes to know the Lord. I maintain that that is an impossibility. The ONLY way one could achieve that is by accepting by faith the sinless perfection of Christ.

BTW, that statement - "I don't sin for the rest of my life I will forever be falling short of the glory of God," looks like an oxymoron to me. Sin, after all, is "missing the mark." "Falling short" IS missing the mark.

Quote:

I find it interesting that you cannot see by faith that God is greater than sin, and that He can impart to us the power to overcome it. That's what this is all about: righteousness by faith. How, if I live by faith can I be lost if I sin even once? I don't even understand where you are coming from.

You already admitted that you will miss the mark, unless I misunderstood what you said.

Quote:

Does that fact that I believe in sanctification by faith somehow mean, in your eyes, that I cannot believe in justification by faith? That's what you seem to be saying. How does one exclude the other?[

Never said nor meant to imply such a thing!

Quote:

As to being held accountable for sinning for an action which I do not know to be wrong, well, James disagrees with you.

James 4: 17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

If this is not true, then God is unjust. Under your scenario He would be holding us responsible for that which we cannot understand. Justice demands that a person understand the issue before they can be held accountable for their action.

You may want to go over what I said. I made no such statement that God holds us accountable for something we did not know. Quite the opposite! The law does not/cannot distinguish intentional from unintentional transgression. But I did say the Judge can!

I find it absolutely stunning that you think the ability to live as God would have us live, according to His law, is something bad. It really saddens me, Gerry. I really hope that you come to see the beauty of this someday soon.

[cardw]

BTW, been there, done that. Back in the late '70's, I was totally sucked into the perfectionist mode. It didn't take me long to realize the futility of it. The harder I tried, the more obvious the impossibility. And please, don't make the charge I was trying to do it on my own! I cried for help day and night to do! Then one day I just got down on my knees and said, "Lord, if sinless perfection is what you are asking of me, You just have to count me out, because the only perfection I can present to you is the perfect righteousness of Jesus." That's when a load was lifted off of me.

[Gerr]

Have you ever considered that this load is self inflicted?

In a way, yes, it was self-inflicted because I bought into a theology that looked logical & biblical at the time. I discovered after further study that it was erroneous.

Quote:

What if the whole sin thing is a myth?

What if it isn't? Sin is too much of our experience to doubt its reality.

Quote:

Remember the first step in converting someone is convicting them of being sinners. Without shaming someone there's nothing to be saved from.

Isn't shameful to hurt and thumb your nose at your Maker or hurt the ones you love?

Quote:

This is the problem with Ellen White. She is so self-centered in her teaching. Looking at your own faults and being disappointed in yourself is being self-centered.

I've never thought of it that way.

Quote:

What she is promoting here is that low self-esteem is evidence that god is working in you. All low self-esteem is evidence of is self-centeredness.

On the contrary, having suffered from a couple of incidents/accidents in childhood that left me with some scars for which I was teased and left me with extremely low self-esteem, it was when I grasp the truth that I was/am a child of God that I develop a healthy self-esteem. EGW will elevates human beings in that regard.

Quote:

If you just stop rating yourself all together and go out and enjoy your life, you'll find a lot more peace.

ESV | ‎Is 48:22 “There is no peace,” says the LORD, “for the wicked.”

ESV | ‎Is 26:3 You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on you, because he trusts in you.

Quote:

The reason none of this has any power is because it is all about rating your performance either low or high. And the motivator of this rating process is fear of eternal death. That's a complete waste of time and energy.

If I were doing what I'm doing out fear, then you are absolutely right. But ESV | ‎1 Jn 4:19 "We love because he first loved us." ESV | ‎Mt 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. ‎29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ‎30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

If you are married, you do remember that there was nothing too difficult that you didn't do just to please her.

[Gerr]

First, sorry I misread part of your post.

No problem. I've done that too many times myself.

BTW, I use color to distinguish my responses from those I'm responding to.

Quote:

Second, you are reading into what I say the idea of perfectionism. Plus, you are generalizing from your experience and throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Perhaps the best thing to do, Joeb, is for us to start over. It's too tedious work for me to go back and copy and paste what you had posted that led me to believe that you are of the persuasion that henceforth after conversion you can live a sinless life. What is your position, is that possible?

Quote:

The very fact that wanting to be like Christ was a drudgery, an impossibility, "no matter how hard I tried", to quote you, tells me we are talking about completely separate concepts. Read your own post.

It is quite possible we are talking about two different things and just talking past each other. That's why I say let's start over.

Originally Posted By: joeb

Does that fact that I believe in sanctification by faith somehow mean, in your eyes, that I cannot believe in justification by faith? That's what you seem to be saying. How does one exclude the other?

I'll say the same thing - never said it nor did I mean to imply any such thing. So why did I ask this question - If you fail to reach this sinless perfection (forget about the past, I'm talking about now), are you toast? Am I toast?

Because there SDAs who believe in both justification AND sanctification who also believe that unless you reach the stage of sinless perfection (discounting the past] now or at some future time, then you are toast/lost. I was trying to get a clearer understanding of what you believe. And forgive me if I come across as being accusative. If you are not of the persuasion that you can be totally obedient and therefore reach sinless perfection, then my apologies.

[fccool]

Quote:

Should I put much stock on the Jewish interpretation of Scripture that totally missed the very Person they had been looking for?

You'd think that the people who wrote down the theology should know and understand it better than people who claim to further interpret it. Isn't it the very thing that Joseph Smith tells you . Christians don't know how to interpret the Bible, that's why there's another book to further interpret it.

Either way, in this case it's like arguing about Superman VS Batman, and who would win. In the end, both are fictional character, which I'm sure may be based loosely and inspired by real people.

Quote:

And who put that standard there? YES!!! The world in pain is crying out that God's universal standard of right and wrong has been violated. Exactly! Without a divine fiat of right & wrong, there are no standards. Every man would be a standard unto himself, which means chaos!

Divine "standard" is no standard at all. A small example - having sex with your sister is ok... then it's not ok. Love your enemy, but go ahead and kill all of the people in the nation next to you. Where's the standard? There is no standard! It's a situational ethics. Anyone can have one and claim divine origin.

Quote:

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Contrived? By 40 different authors of varying backgrounds over 1500 years? The unity of scripture is a miracle in itself!!!

Most of the authors are anonymous, the there's no real way to know whether there 40 or much less. Historicity of Jesus is more unlikely than likely. Jesus seems to be a composite figure based on a rebel Jew of that era. It does not take too long for a folk story to become a cultural myth. With illiterate people, the oral history usually takes on exaggerated tones, just like stories about the biggest fish caught get bigger and bigger.

Likewise, the Bible has been nitpicked in terms of the authors included. Is it any wonder that they seemingly agree with each other? Only they don't really. You have to inject quite a bit of post-hoc rationalization to make Biblical authors agree. If you think that Moses completely agreed with Paul or Jesus... you really need to re-read the Bible.

Quote:

The unity of scripture is a miracle in itself!!!

Only there is no unity. It's Jewish theology in Pt 1, which is then modified in Pt 2 saying that the Jews really did not get it in Pt 1. You call that unity? It's like me writing another book telling what Mohammed got wrong, and then saying that the Quoran and my book are in perfect agreement.

How can you even make that claim?

Quote:

No doubt the seemingly supernatural leadings in your life & mine can be interpreted some other way. No doubt the antediluvian scientists also had a perfectly natural explanation for the animals going into the ark; that's why only 8 people went in.

You are referencing imaginary things as some sort of justification to why we should re-consider reality? It makes no sense. It's like me saying "No doubt Captain Hook doubted the amazing flying powers and ability of Peter Pan". It's ludicrous.

Quote:

Over 500 witnesses to a myth? And how many people do you know would suffer untold suffering and even death for a myth?

LOL. Let's try this in court. Your honor, you should believe me. There were 500 witnesses who saw me levitating and raising the dead. What? No, none of them are here to testify. No, the only way you can know about them is me telling you that they were there... but you should believe that there were 500 just because I tell you they were there. That should be enough.

You crack me up

Likewise, I really don't get why you asking the "how many people to the death" question in a post 9-11 world. How can you even make such ludicrous assertion in light of people around the world blowing themselves up left and right for a myth?

Quote:

If I were to use force to compel someone to die in my place, you would be correct. But the One who died for you & me did it out of love. ESV | ‎Jn 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with you forcing. The moment you agree for someone to be punished instead of you... you are making an immoral choice. It's not a choice consistent with a moral person. A moral person would not agree to something like this.

Quote:

Since the effects of sin are too painfully palpable and real, the concept of sin is not as abstract as one might think. And since sin cannot exist apart from people, you incinerate the offender and the sin goes with him/her.

I challenge you to do something. Try to replace the word "sin" with actual definition of sin... whatever you decide it's going to be. Let's say you say that sin is "the transgression of God's law", or whatever definition you come up with, and instead of using "sin", use that definition from now on. I can guarantee you that you'll have difficulty doing so and retaining your ideas about why Jesus had to die, and how he "took away our sins" intact. Try it, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Better yet, how about you give me a consistent definition of sin that you agree with, and I'll do it for you from now on. Every time you use the word "sin" I'll just replace it with that definition, and see how that works.

Quote:

So, what's your solution?

Stop coming up with imaginary solutions to your imaginary problems as a way to deal with real issues in this world. It helps nothing.

Quote:

As crazy as it may sound, the Bible IS a self-validating book! NO other book does that.

I think the fact that no other Book can possibly do that should tell you that you are making a mental exception. No book can validate itself. You need external evidence to validate things which are described in the book with words . If the external evidence is missing, you can't just go "Well, the book says on page 15 that page 205 is correct". It's ludicrous! But that's exactly what you keep on doing.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

What if the whole sin thing is a myth?

What if it isn't? Sin is too much of our experience to doubt its reality.

[Gerr]

You'd think that the people who wrote down the theology should know and understand it better than people who claim to further interpret it. ...

Either way, in this case it's like arguing about Superman VS Batman, and who would win. In the end, both are fictional character, which I'm sure may be based loosely and inspired by real people.

Nothing fictional about the Jews!

Originally Posted By: fc

Divine "standard" is no standard at all. A small example - having sex with your sister is ok... then it's not ok. Love your enemy, but go ahead and kill all of the people in the nation next to you. Where's the standard? There is no standard! It's a situational ethics. Anyone can have one and claim divine origin.

Where is the standard? There's the one, the two, & the ten. The only thing absolute is the one and possibly the two. What are the one, the two, & the ten? The ten, I'm sure you well know - the 10c. The two? When Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment, His answere was - Love God with all your heart, etc., & love your neighbor as yourself. And the one is just a summary of the two. Whatever you do, do it out of love. Even God is bound by the law of love. But, horrors! how love acts depends on the situation!!! Yes, it must! Sex with his sister was ok for Cain & Seth because their parents had just come from the hands of the Creator. No genetic damage other than the infection of sin. Fast forward to today, what happens when you have sex with your sister, or close relatives having inbreeding, what happens?

God gave the Canaanites 400 years of probation. They heard the mighty acts of God in Egypt and the drying up of the Red Sea, but persisted in their unbelief. Had they repented, they would have been spared just like Rahab. God gave the antediluvians 120 years of probation during Noah's preaching. They thought he was crazy because it had never rained before. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, Israel, all had their day in the sun. When they failed God's purpose for them, probation closed for them and they passed from the stage.

You and I are on probationary time also. And the clock is ticking.

Originally Posted By: fc

Most of the authors are anonymous, the there's no real way to know whether there 40 or much less. Historicity of Jesus is more unlikely than likely.

Over 500 witnesses, empty tomb, secular references to Jesus, people who would suffer privations and torture & death, all for the sake of a myth? Not likely, fccool!

Originally Posted By: fc

Likewise, the Bible has been nitpicked in terms of the authors included. Is it any wonder that they seemingly agree with each other? Only they don't really. You have to inject quite a bit of post-hoc rationalization to make Biblical authors agree. If you think that Moses completely agreed with Paul or Jesus... you really need to re-read the Bible.

Yeah, there are some hard sayings there; that's for sure. But when studied carefully, there's a remarkable harmony, considering that there were 40 authors of differing backgrounds and wrote over a span of 1500 years! Just think about that! Go to any board meeting and see how many agree over anything.

Originally Posted By: fc

Only there is no unity.

How can you even make that claim?

I suggest you study it again. And here are just a few for starters & pay attention to these - God is the Creator, Sin, Salvation, Judgment - for like a thread they all run from beginning to the end.

Quote:

You are referencing imaginary things as some sort of justification to why we should re-consider reality? It makes no sense. It's like me saying "No doubt Captain Hook doubted the amazing flying powers and ability of Peter Pan". It's ludicrous.

The pain that my wife was delivered from was nothing imaginary. We ran through the gamut of everything medicine had to offer. Some may call it a coincidence, but I believe she was healed as an answer to prayer. That's just one example.

Originally Posted By: fc

LOL. Let's try this in court. Your honor, you should believe me. There were 500 witnesses who saw me levitating and raising the dead. What? No, none of them are here to testify. No, the only way you can know about them is me telling you that they were there... but you should believe that there were 500 just because I tell you they were there. That should be enough.

You crack me up

Can you call up witnesses to testify that George Washington ever existed? Had a court been convened in 40 A.D. to establish why the empty tomb, there would have been over 500 witnesses available to claim that the reason the tomb was empty was not that the body was stolen as the Jewish leaders claimed, but rather that He walked out of it alive!

Originally Posted By: fc

Likewise, I really don't get why you asking the "how many people to the death" question in a post 9-11 world. How can you even make such ludicrous assertion in light of people around the world blowing themselves up left and right for a myth?

That's rather a recent phenomenon. Put them to torture - crucifixion, burning at the stake, throw them to the lions, put them in the rack, years in prison - rather than the instantaneous death, and see how many will stand up to a myth.

Who says it's immoral? By what & whose standard? Didn't you say there are no standards?

Originally Posted By: fc

I challenge you to do something. Try to replace the word "sin" with actual definition of sin... whatever you decide it's going to be. Let's say you say that sin is "the transgression of God's law", or whatever definition you come up with, and instead of using "sin", use that definition from now on. I can guarantee you that you'll have difficulty doing so and retaining your ideas about why Jesus had to die, and how he "took away our sins" intact. Try it, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The word "sin" is conveniently used because it is an all-encompassing word that describes ALL the actions that are an affront to a just and holy God.

Originally Posted By: fc

Stop coming up with imaginary solutions to your imaginary problems as a way to deal with real issues in this world. It helps nothing.

Imaginary solutions to imaginary problems? Was the Columbine shooting real? Was Sandy Hook? What is the solution? Man's solution: ban guns, put them all in prison. God's solution? Change the heart. Real change of heart is a supernatural event. That's no imaginary solution.

Originally Posted By: fc

I think the fact that no other Book can possibly do that should tell you that you are making a mental exception. No book can validate itself. You need external evidence to validate things which are described in the book with words . If the external evidence is missing, you can't just go "Well, the book says on page 15 that page 205 is correct". It's ludicrous! But that's exactly what you keep on doing.

Here is a challenge for you. If you really want to know and with a heart to obey whatever it requires of you and follow wherever it may lead you, study the book for yourself and you will see how the Book validates itself.

[Ted Oplinger]

Historicity of Jesus is more unlikely than likely. Jesus seems to be a composite figure based on a rebel Jew of that era.

The historicity of Jesus has been established by outside historians alive in that era. The Jewish historian Josephus is very broadly held to be credible in the world's academic circles today. He includes not only the person of Jesus, but also the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders of the day and the crucifixion/resurrection events which caused such a stir in Jerusalem.

Jesus is a more established figure in history whom more people can readily identify today, than the Roman Caesar ruling the Roman Empire when Jesus was born....of whom most people just don't have a clue.

I don't know where you get your information from.

Blessings,