Let's Talk About Sin

#126
#126
Vol8188 said:
How do those who've never heard know to get in? And I ask because someone mentioned innocence a few pages back.
Click to expand...

Again......not really something I'm worried about.

Though the bible clearly teaches judgement based on what you've heard. Does that mean some get a free pass. I dought that. Does it mean those who've never heard get to make a decision at their death? Could be, but I'll leave it to God to work that out. This line of questioning is irrelevent to you and me. We've both heard and one of us is going to be dead wrong.
 
#127
#127
Vol8188 said:
It's complete psychobabble.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. What?


The book of Daniel describes one of the most dramatic appearances of the Son of God in the entire Old Testament. The passage in Daniel 3 tells of three Jews, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who were sentenced to death for refusing to worship an idol that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon erected and commanded all his subjects to revere. The king was enraged that they had questioned his supreme authority and ordered that they be thrown into a furnace and it be heated to seven times its normal intensity. The fire became so hot that it killed the soldiers assigned to push them into the inferno.

But when the three were in the blaze, Daniel states: “Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, ‘Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?’ They answered and said to the king, ‘True, O king.’

“‘Look!’ he answered, ‘I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God’” (vv. 24-25).
 
#128
#128
orangeslice13 said:
Again......not really something I'm worried about.

Though the bible clearly teaches judgement based on what you've heard. Does that mean some get a free pass. I dought that. Does it mean those who've never heard get to make a decision at their death? Could be, but I'll leave it to God to work that out. This line of questioning is irrelevent to you and me. We've both heard and one of us is going to be dead wrong.
Click to expand...

I dought too.
 
#129
#129
orangeslice13 said:
Again......not really something I'm worried about.

Though the bible clearly teaches judgement based on what you've heard. Does that mean some get a free pass. I dought that. Does it mean those who've never heard get to make a decision at their death? Could be, but I'll leave it to God to work that out. This line of questioning is irrelevent to you and me. We've both heard and one of us is going to be dead wrong.
Click to expand...

I guess my main problem with judgement is that if somebody never got the opportunity to follow Christ, why would they be punished? Does God really punish those who would likely be killed by their own people for even speaking about Christianity?
 
#131
#131
Obsessed said:
I'm sorry. What?


The book of Daniel describes one of the most dramatic appearances of the Son of God in the entire Old Testament. The passage in Daniel 3 tells of three Jews, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who were sentenced to death for refusing to worship an idol that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon erected and commanded all his subjects to revere. The king was enraged that they had questioned his supreme authority and ordered that they be thrown into a furnace and it be heated to seven times its normal intensity. The fire became so hot that it killed the soldiers assigned to push them into the inferno.

But when the three were in the blaze, Daniel states: “Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, ‘Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?’ They answered and said to the king, ‘True, O king.’

“‘Look!’ he answered, ‘I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God’” (vv. 24-25).
Click to expand...

Here is another conundrum I have. The Old Testament undoubtedly mentions "the son of God" but Jesus' name hardly comes up. Jesus came around in the book of Matthew, yes? So, if Jesus wasn't born yet, did God have another son by another name in the Old Testament?
 
#132
#132
GoBigOrangeUT said:
Here is another conundrum I have. The Old Testament undoubtedly mentions "the son of God" but Jesus' name hardly comes up. Jesus came around in the book of Matthew, yes? So, if Jesus wasn't born yet, did God have another son by another name in the Old Testament?
Click to expand...

The book of Matthew, and all the Gospels for that matter, were written after Jesus' death.
 
#134
#134
GoBigOrangeUT said:
I guess my main problem with judgement is that if somebody never got the opportunity to follow Christ, why would they be punished? Does God really punish those who would likely be killed by their own people for even speaking about Christianity?
Click to expand...

My thoughts are that God is both rightous and Just. He will handle these things without me. I could speculate on what God will do in those situations but that would be based on nothing. I have no support for an opinion on this issue. As I've said eariler it just doesn't bother me much.

I will probably look into it now though.
I may even bring it back up later.
 
#135
#135
VolFan32 said:
The book of Matthew, and all the Gospels for that matter, were written after Jesus' death.
Click to expand...

Okay. That is making sense now. So Jesus never lived during the New Testament, but his life was written about by matthew, mark, Luke and John long after he died?
 
#136
#136
orangeslice13 said:
My thoughts are that God is both rightous and Just. He will handle these things without me. I could speculate on what God will do in those situations but that would be based on nothing. I have no support for an opinion on this issue. As I've said eariler it just doesn't bother me much.

I will probably look into it now though.
I may even bring it back up later.
Click to expand...

People being unduly punished doesn't bother you much? As long as your skin is saved, you couldn't care less?
 
#137
#137
GoBigOrangeUT said:
Please explain. Because if I was taught wrong in Sunday school, my preacher has some 'splainin to do.
Click to expand...

I will assume now you were not trolling with that comment.

Jesus lived under old testament law....actually Jesus claimed that he was here to fulfill the law. While the gospels are in the group of new testament books they are the story of old testament fulfillment. The new testamen begins with the reserection.


So it comes down to what you are asking.
Which testament is Jesus written about? New testament
Under the which law did Jesus live? Both. He fufilled the law
 
#138
#138
GoBigOrangeUT said:
Okay. That is making sense now. So Jesus never lived during the New Testament, but his life was written about by matthew, mark, Luke and John long after he died?
Click to expand...

The birth of Jesus on earth is the beginning of the NT. His teachings followed by the teachings of his disciples follows. The images of him from the OT are just that. They are images and acts of the Father. Jesus was prophetized and spoken of in the OT, but all acts performed in the OT, were from the Father.
 
Last edited:
#139
#139
GoBigOrangeUT said:
People being unduly punished doesn't bother you much? As long as your skin is saved, you couldn't care less?
Click to expand...

All have sined and fallen shot of the glory of God. No one will ever be "unduly" punished.

When I neal before God and give account for my life I will be there all by my self. As will everyone else. I don't dewell on those I don't know ad can't reach because its a waste of time. I would much rather spend my time talking with people like you. You may recall I politely warned against Mocking God because I was really conserned for you.

In the end each person is accountable for themselves.

You ask if "I couldn't care less"

My attitud is I would rather you be cast out thinking "I wish I would have listened to Slice" instead of "I wish Slice had told me".
 
#140
#140
GoBigOrangeUT said:
Here is another conundrum I have. The Old Testament undoubtedly mentions "the son of God" but Jesus' name hardly comes up. Jesus came around in the book of Matthew, yes? So, if Jesus wasn't born yet, did God have another son by another name in the Old Testament?
Click to expand...


Oh. But his name is mentioned. More than 150 times:


What Nebuchadnezzar saw in the fire—the fourth man—was God in human form, Yeshua (Jesus). Many times I have been asked, “If Jesus is Messiah, why isn’t there anything about Him in the Tanakh (the Jewish Old Testament)?” The answer is, there are many references to Yeshua in the Old Testament—throughout the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy), the books of the prophets and the other Scriptures.

In fact, when I began to read the Bible with an open mind, I was astounded to discover that Yeshua is mentioned more than 150 times in the Old Testament. The apostle Paul even used the Tanakh to teach about Yeshua: “[The leaders of the Jews] arranged to meet Paul on a certain day. ... From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets” (Acts 28:23, NIV).
 
#141
#141
GoBigOrangeUT said:
The book of Matthew, which is New Testament, spoke about Jesus' birth. So, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Jesus living in the Old Testament?
Click to expand...

He was more referring to the Law rather than Old Testament books themselves.

Jesus was born under the Law, lived under the Law and died under the Law....

the books of Matthew, mark, Luke and John are written as a history of the ministry of Jesus (which he conducted under the law)

The Book of Acts is the recorded deeds of the Apostles after the resurrection (and a change over to Grace)

The book of Romans actually begins the age of Grace whereby for the first time men are forgiven...(under the Law man's sin were only atoned for for one year)....hope that helps :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#142
#142
Coastypop said:
He was more referring to the Law rather than Old Testament books themselves.

Jesus was born under the Law, lived under the Law and died under the Law....

the books of Matthew, mark, Luke and John are written as a history of the ministry of Jesus (which he conducted under the law)

The Book of Acts is the recorded deeds of the Apostles after the resurrection (and a change over to Grace)

The book of Romans actually begins the age of Grace whereby for the first time men are forgiven...(under the Law man's sin were only atoned for for one year)....hope that helps :hi:
Click to expand...

Not sure I totally agree.

***Romans 4 spells out OT faith


What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." 9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.


***So salvation for the Jews was in faith looking forward to the coming of the Lord. And faith now is receiving the gift.


***Note.. Romans is expanding on an OT vs from Gen 15 1-6

After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: c“Fear not, Abram, I am dyour shield; your reward shall be very great.” 2 But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue1 childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and ea member of my household will be my heir.” 4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; fyour very own son2 shall be your heir.” 5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and gnumber the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, h“So shall your offspring be.” 6 And ihe believed the Lord, and He counted it to him as righteousness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#143
#143
orangeslice13 said:
Not sure I totally agree.

***Romans 4 spells out OT faith


What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." 9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.


***So salvation for the Jews was in faith looking forward to the coming of the Lord. And faith now is receiving the gift.


***Note.. Romans is expanding on an OT vs from Gen 15 1-6

After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: c“Fear not, Abram, I am dyour shield; your reward shall be very great.” 2 But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue1 childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and ea member of my household will be my heir.” 4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; fyour very own son2 shall be your heir.” 5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and gnumber the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, h“So shall your offspring be.” 6 And ihe believed the Lord, and He counted it to him as righteousness.
Click to expand...

Cool someone with a brain to discuss with...LOL

Under the Law men were saved by "Faith" in a sense, it was the faith in the Cross of the future, Under Grace men are saved by "faith" but it is the Faith of the Cross looking back.

Without the death of the Testator then the New Testament (or agreement) cannot be applied in it's fullness.

It is the principle of a "Last Will and Testament" .. you may be named in a will as a person to relieve a benefit, and in the true sense of that you are beneficiary, but the fullness of that cannot be fully realized until a death has occurred.

Hebrews 9
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

16In the case of a will,d it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”e 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.


I think this was what you were inferring but if not ???
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#144
#144
Coastypop said:
Cool someone with a brain to discuss with...LOL

Under the Law men were saved by "Faith" in a sense, it was the faith in the Cross of the future, Under Grace men are saved by "faith" but it is the Faith of the Cross looking back.

Without the death of the Testator then the New Testament (or agreement) cannot be applied in it's fullness.

It is the principle of a "Last Will and Testament" .. you may be named in a will as a person to relieve a benefit, and in the true sense of that you are beneficiary, but the fullness of that cannot be fully realized until a death has occurred.

Hebrews 9
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

16In the case of a will,d it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”e 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.


I think this was what you were inferring but if not ???
Click to expand...


Yup. Pretty much
 
#145
#145
PKT_VOL said:
Pascal's Wager.

As for me, I am drawn to the thought process of believers, not to the substance. That substance just is. I will continually try to understand the thought process of people who do not think like me whether it is about religion, politics, philosophy, science, etc.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

Pascal was suggesting that people would lean toward belief because there was no risk (if correct... gain everything; if incorrect... lose nothing).

I'm suggesting that non-believers participate in discussions like this because they're looking for support of their non-belief.

Not sure how you get Pascal's wager from that.
 
#146
#146
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Not at all.

Pascal was suggesting that people would lean toward belief because there was no risk (if correct... gain everything; if incorrect... lose nothing).

I'm suggesting that non-believers participate in discussions like this because they're looking for support of their non-belief.

Not sure how you get Pascal's wager from that.
Click to expand...

IBlvNTmWrk said:
There is only one (logical) reason non-believers would spend this much time and effort discussing something they don't believe in. Whether they choose to admit it or not, there must be a small concern or doubt that they are wrong and will perhaps miss out on the greatest gift of all time...
Click to expand...

That is a version of Pascal's Wager.
 
#147
#147
PKT_VOL said:
That is a version of Pascal's Wager.
Click to expand...

So do you often take half of a person's sentence to help justify your point, while completing ignoring the second half (which completely contradicts anything to do with Pascal's wager)?
 
#148
#148
IBlvNTmWrk said:
So do you often take half of a person's sentence to help justify your point, while completing ignoring the second half (which completely contradicts anything to do with Pascal's wager)?
Click to expand...

"and thus they feel better about themselves if they can garner support for their beliefs that God does not exist."

How does that in any way contradict Pascal's Wager?
 
#149
#149
PKT_VOL said:
"and thus they feel better about themselves if they can garner support for their beliefs that God does not exist."

How does that in any way contradict Pascal's Wager?
Click to expand...

Before I answer, please give me your brief understanding of Pascal's wager. That is... what was he suggesting.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top