Many verses can be understood in multiple ways depending on one's assumptions. Different people on this forum post the same verse to make different points. Now there likely is one proper way to understand every verse, but who is interpreting any given verse properly is largely a matter of opinion for those of us who are still physical. Even your comment about unalienable rights falls into that category. God might well grant the rights, but if the government refuses to recognize them, what good are they to the individual. Thus it can be proper to attribute the rights to either God or the government.
Man imputed Jesus with sin on the cross, not God.
- Thread starter ATG
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Your basic argument is one I made earlier in the discussion. And your last point doesn't answer my assertion. The question isn't whether one recognizes that rights come from God or not. The question is what is actually true.
You said, "The Bible is written in such a way that one can come up with plausible cases for a wide variety of understandings". That sounded like a concession that I had presented a plausible case for my understanding.
What bearing does open theism have upon those verses and my understanding of them? I do not see any connection. Please, could you explain the connection?
The Hebrew word used for "he has laid" is HiPGiY'a, a Hiphil perfect form of HaaPa' which means "fall" (Strong's), or "strike" (Gesenius). The Hiphil expresses the action performed causatively, "YHWH caused to fall/strike upon Him the iniquity of us all."
Clearly, this could fit a scenario where God commanded our Lord to expose Himself to arrest, trial and execution by the Jews and Romans without resisting. Thus the iniquity of the Jews and Romans fell upon/struck upon Christ, and God caused those iniquities performed by the Jews and Romans to fall/strike upon Him by leab=ving Him exposed and not coming to His rescue. You don't have difficulty agreeing with that as a possible way that the prophecy was fulfilled, do you?
who else imputed our sins to christ? How else did he who knew no sin become sin for us?
I did not say "some spirits become quickened" That is you twisting my words and my meaning.
Biblically, “quickened” means one thing only: God making a dead human alive.
It never refers to angels, demons, or “spirits” being made alive.
The term shows up in older English translations (KJV), but the underlying Greek verb is ζῳοποιέω — to make alive, to give life, to cause to live. Ephesians 2:5: “even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.”
And every single time Scripture uses it for salvation, the subject is God, and the object is a human who was spiritually dead.
How does one prove absolute truth? Note, this is not to declare that something is absolute truth, but to prove that such a claim is true. Hint, in a fallen world it cannot be done, thus variant views all have potentially credible standing (obviously some more than others based on evidence) even when you do not like what they say.
There is a way in a fallen world to know absolute truth. Do you know what it is?
Proving it is not my job. Only sharing. God Himself doesn't offer proof for all He claims. He simply declares truth.
Jesus was judged by God and bore the wrath of every sinner. Yes Jesus was judged by God...that's the whole point. What you wrote about sounds like an apology to people who don't believe in God. God is not up for our judgement yet you don't like the fact He judges sin and found His Son who took our place in obedience to the Father to be guilty of all of it....including your sin tod
The rest of your post just keeps getting worse.
There is no excuse for denial of what scripture states and trying to make it more palatable so you can present a worldly hypocritical Jesus so that YOU will be accepted.
“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” II Cor. 5:21
The above verse days nothing of what you say.
I'm not addressing your private feelings again. Obviously it's a waste of time judging by all those who already did their best to explain to you how you are so very very wrong and you dismiss what is written because it seems
to make you uncomfortable.
Yup. Wait until Revelation. You will really feel out of sorts then.
Right now, I do not see where you understand the actual gospel. In fact, you dismiss it and rewrite it.
Not really but it does help to understand why you and others are so badly mistaken about what actually happened.
I guess you take your handle seriously.
As long as your "proof" does not involve BELIEF if God, it would be interesting. However, in a fallen world, humans lie to themselves, then choose to believe the lie and thus render themselves incapable of knowing absolute truth. This is a psychological truth and impossible to get around.
Now if you want to resort to some late 20th-early 21st century science, it is possible to present an argument that God must exist and be omnipresent, all-knowing and all-powerful and personal, but I doubt you are aware of how to do this. The argument is still being fully developed, currently work is being done on objections to some premises, and not yet presented to the general public, only to a very select few people in appropriate fields.
Are you certain that many verses cannot be taken in multiple ways? In Hebrew, the 10 Commandments are written as declarations, not imperatives. Thus, they actually read better as "when you get it right you will" as opposed to the more traditional "to get it right you must". Jesus tells the woman at the well "Go and sin no more", was He referring to fornication or sin in general? If you claim sin in general then it must be possible to not sin, yet that contradicts other scriptures. But again there are two potential understandings of what a few simple words mean.
Do you need more examples or are you smart enough to realize that multiple meanings are possible for many verses?
Do you understand “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” II Cor. 5:21 in many different ways?
Do you study ancient languages or can you understand them and write a commentary? Which Bible is your interpretation of the many ways? People who actually do understand the original languages and supporting information as well as traditions and other things written at the time of the originals, have done their very best in the current accuracy of scripture along with copious notes and studies which absolutely DO NOT offer numerous ways to understand what is written.
FYI, my intelligence is not under question. Your absurd idea that it might be, is possibly proof of your own lack of it.
I mean honestly, can some of you people possibly post without trying to insult others or make them seen as possibly dumb?
Really though, how do you propose to understand II Cor. 5:21 I posted above.
I'll address this on it's own 'merit'
As the Bible declares us all sinners and impossible of saving ourselves, your asking what sin Jesus meant indicates either a lack of biblical knowledge or the idea that you are better equipped than God to tell us.
Is it possible to stop one particular sin? Yes of course it is. In this case, do not have intimate relations with someone you are not married to as adultery does not need both individuals to be married in order to commit adultery...one will do....consult a divorce lawyer on that one if you do not think the Bible a credible source for hour understanding on the subject.
Go and steal no more, go and stop lying against others no more, go and stop driving above the speed limit no more and go and stop adultery. None of it makes you sinless but who knows....your philosophy might tell you otherwise.
this is one of the most foolish things I have heard and unlearned about GRACE. Isaiah was a prophet who foretold of the coming suffering Massiah.
Jesus is also known as the Lamb of God as John stated That takes the sin of the world away. John 1: 29.
This liberal theology is blasphemous, and foolish.
Arguments aren't truth necessarily, so merely presenting an argument doesn't guarantee truth. And God Himself doesn't rely on proof; He merely declares truth. I'm familiar with many arguments for the existence of God, and I believe God has left in creation plenty of evidence of Himself. Man also through conscience knows of the existence of God. Both of these means of knowing God are attainable to the natural man. There is, however, another means of knowing God and acquiring knowledge and understanding; and that is through revelation.
Coincidentally, revelation is the cause of salvation...Matthew 16:17-18.