Total posts: 3,520
-->
@zedvictor4
Sort of what we refer to as conjoined triplets then.One brain, two arms, six legs, and 3 dicks.I bet that Mary wondered what the fuck it was in the stable.Though it becomes clear why GOD created women with three entry ports.Hallelujah.
Nope.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes, I understand most Christians view the Trinity as three separate persons who are one God, but I am a Christian and do not agree with the mysticism.Nothing about God is mystical, which word, unfortunately, mostly bears unacceptable connotation. It makes much more sense to me that three holy persons can all be gods, and more yet. The sense of it is best explained in Psalms 82: 6 [The singer and seer, Asaph, in David's court, who wrote Psalms 50 and 73-83] says, citing God, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” He is speaking to men who have become judges over Israel. In Exodus 22, it is explained that judges so called to that service in the days of Moses we’re called by God, “Elohim,” which is a name of God, but the term, in Hebrew, generally refers to multiple gods, thus, these judges are given great honor and responsibility to always judge as would God. Since God [and other gods], hence the name, “Elohim,” can be conferred on men, why, then, is it forbidden men to ultimately become like God, since Jesus gave us the commandment [Matthew 5: 46] “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven us perfect.” That is my belief that such is ultimately possible, else why do we exist at all for eternity? It’s called “eternal progression” and what’s eternity for if not continuous improvement unto perfection, which is a never-ending process, not a destination.
Saying the Trinity is ONE GOD yet THREE persons is not mystical. It is based on the idea of Revelation. Not blind faith. True, it doesn't conform to Platonic Greek logic. Yet that is its strength. When faith is blind, it becomes mystical. Hence, one reason I reject the Mormon approach. To say that the Bible is true, based on some fuzzy warm feeling that apparently the Holy Spirit provides, is mystical in a true sense. That is subjective mysticism based on a personal experience.
Ironically, I suspect that you deem the Bible to be infallible, yet written by sinful men. Although it is possible you hold to the view that sinful men merely dictated it.
If the former, you take a mystical point of view, using your earlier logic. Yuo may even have a lesser view of it but I can't recall.
Elohim is used at times as a plural, but it is also translated in the singular. The Jews themselves used it to describe ONE GOD. Not many gods.
Psalm 82, which Jesus quotes in the gospels, can't be used to suggest that people are GODS. He was using the term quite differently.
The Christian umbrella of the Worldwide church - which is very broad and even quite liberal in many respects - still hold to the idea that the Trinity as described in the Scriptures is one of the core elements of Christianity. I notice that the Mormons and the JWs have seats at the table at the WCC - but it is not a full membership. I'm not even sure they can vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
What is with these Christians that solely read New Testament?Is this seriously a trend? You know Old Testament is binding, right?
The OT is binding - but there are also frameworks for how we understand the OT.
The OT was written primarily to the Jewish people. And NT Christians interpret it through the lens of Jesus and his death and resurrection.
Created:
-->
@badger
I think this is a fairly shitty study tbh, but just to give a little extra meat to the post: https://www.psypost.org/feeling-forgiven-by-god-can-reduce-the-likelihood-of-apologizing-psychology-study-finds/It does also get at the edges of something I have understand for a long time though. And which is obvious, honestly. It wasn't hard to get.The whole humans are inherently sinful story, ask forgiveness and be forgiven, gild the church in gold, is obviously to give carte blanche to the person who buys in to do whatever shitty thing is in their heart without ever having to give a thought to who and what they are afterwards. They're a Christian.This is something the American right are putting on full show today. And for as long as I've ever argued with them tbh.That's the commodity. Sin is what you're purchasing.There is no god presiding over this farce. Next time you ask forgiveness think maybe if I was a little less shit a person I wouldn't have to.
Sin is an offence against God. Yet we all offend each other at times. While God may forgive our sins. This should never prevent us from apologising to others or asking their forgiveness.
I concede that sometimes people think that if they're right with God, they don't need to also apologise. I agree that it is bad form. Sometimes, however it is impossible to forgive people and sometimes it is difficult to apologise. For all sorts of reasons. A couple in our church lost their son in a car accident. The criminals who are locked up - will never apologise and do not wish to see the couple who lost their son. They tell me - they have forgiven the criminal - or that they have a forgiving attitude towards him.
I think sometimes we can forgive people in a judgmental way. My mother-in-law told my father-in-law, after they were divorced, that she forgave him for offending her. He responded in a manner that was hard because he didn't think he had done anything wrong, and that her forgiveness was judgmental.
I have a bible in my office - produced by a charismatic group, which in the appendix at the back teaches people how to forgive God. I think this is blasphemous. How can God be forgiven if he has never done anything wrong? The issue comes down to what is forgiveness? Is it to get rid of our resentment? Or is it to reconcile? Or is it something else? I think forgiveness ought to be part of a reconciliation package and not separated.
I take the view that we should apologise when we have done something wrong. And we should also ask for forgiveness. We shouldn't expect forgiveness, though. And we shouldn't expect others to apologise. Treat others how you want to be treated - but never EXPECT others to treat you in the same way.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The Trinity is not THREE gods. It is ONE God, three persons.
The Christian religion has only ONE GOD.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
In 2025 what is the nation of Israel that Bible tells us to hold sacred and protect?
I don't think there is a Biblical nation of Israel that we are told to hold sacred and protect. The Church is now God's sacred people. They are the ones who are set apart and anointed as priests and kings and prophets. They are the Israel of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
What is the nation of Israel then?
It is a nation named Israel. It even calls itself - Israelies - not Israelites. Of course, that might just be a culture and time thing.
Biblically, there have been many times when the nation of Israel brought judgment on itself for idolatry, for desertion of God, for siding with its enemies.
And God promised that if and when this happened, he would punish it. Historically, this has happened, within the pages of the OT, several times. They were punished by the Assyrians. By the Babylonians. By the Egyptians, and eventually by the Romans.
They were removed, and then they went back. And then they were destroyed.
The point is, though. They didn't just get to go back unless they repented of their sins. The OT cases - they repented first - and then God brought them back. God expects an apology - a genuine and sincere one. And historically, in the case of the OT times, Israel and its leaders did repent.
The nation of Israel - in the time of the Romans, or whatever it was called, had been invaded by the Romans. This too was judgment for their sins. And they had an expectation of the Messiah coming to save them somehow - a king who would rise up and help them gain their land back. In the NT - this expectation is realised in many ways and evident even in their response to John the Baptist. He came in accordance with the OT prophecies - a voice in the wilderness - and preached a baptism for repentance. And many people came - "all of Judea came". And perhaps there was a sense that God might bless them with the messiah and everything would be fine. (The OT Prophecies about the Messiah was never about temporal blessings and a king sitting on a throne in a literal Jerusalem - it was always much bigger and grander than that - since his role wasn't to save them from the Romans but from their sins - the very reason they kept committing idolatry and breaking God's laws. His role was to come and baptise them with the Spirit of God - who would give them a new heart - one that was directed or reorientated towards God.
When the Messiah arrived of course - the people heard him and were glad - but the leaders in Israel rejected him and then so did the people. They put him on the cross and killed him.
This rejection of the messiah was their greatest sin - and so within a generation the temple was destroyed - the heart and soul of the Jewish religion - and the records kept in the Temple - proving genealogy was destroyed as well. Making it difficult for people to prove their Jewishness. Their connection to Israel.
Hence, the nation of Israel was effectively ended - and the people were dispersed all over the world, without a place to call home. Until they repented and turned back to God. This has never happened. The League of Nations - which then evolved into the UN - with the support of some British and Americans decided after WW2 - to help them find a land to call their own. Probably a lot of guilt towards them because of Hitler - they had several spots located - a place in Europe, a Place in America, a place in Australia, and the Middle East. For whatever reason, perhaps sentimental, they chose the Middle East. They never asked the Middle East what they thought of this idea.
And it didn't matter that Israel had only for a very short time occupied that land themselves- they plonked them there. Israel had never repented so this wasn't the blessing of God. It wasn't the fulfilment of prophecy. If anything, it was the result of guilt and rich white men wanting to feel like they were important.
The intriguing thing is this - many people who claim to be Jews or of Israelite descent are not. Many are. But not all are. They are a very diverse type. After all, what is an Israeli? Is it someone born in the nation known as Israel, no matter what your background is religiously, or biologically? When a Muslim of Lebanese extraction is born in Israel - are they considered Israeli? The distinction between Israeli and Jew is significant.
From a Christian point of view - the entire purpose of Christ as the Messiah was to break down the walls of division between humanity. It was actually part of his mission to move the focal point of God's religion from Israel to the entire world. He came to the Jews - because this was where the focal point existed at that time. Yet his death and resurrection - brought about the end of Israel as God's people - as the only representatives of his on this earth. Now the church has arisen, which is the rep of God's people. no longer just Jew - but Jew and Gentile. As Romans 10 puts it - the entire world was blessed because the Jews were cut off. But when they come back - in repentance - then the entire world will be blessed beyond all description.
The church was originally a Jewish cult. But as their theology became more consistent with the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, it grew and expanded. And now is multinational.
Today's Israel is a product of human invention and guilt. Do they have the right to exist? Yes. Do they have the right to defend themselves? Yes. Do they have the right to live in peace? Yes. But do they have the right to claim to be God's people? I don't think so. And does the church have the obligation and command to bless them? No. The church has the right and obligation to love all people - even their enemies. And that includes both the Jew and Hamas. And those in Iran and the Middle East.
This is the common Christian view for most of church history. The Dispensationalists differ. Yet their position is a very modern view- the 1800s. Schofield, Darby. Etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
No No.
Modern-day Israel is not the same as ancient Israel.
And even if it was, we are not commanded to support it.
This is not protestant rhetoric - it is dispensational rhetoric.
It is not evangelical - it is fundamentalist. Zionist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
And slavery is almost universally condemned in the modern world; in the ancient world it was so normative that God himself condoned it.The condemnation does not mean much when there are millions of slaves in the world, some of whom are enslaved in Western countries, or making products those in Western countries use. Do you think you have never used a product not made by the hands of a slave? What about all the children forced to pick coffee beans? And the fruits you eat? What about the clothes you wear and technology you use?Where does it say God condones slavery? God has less to do with slavery than you and I do. He is not using products made by slaves. Take it up with Satan if you dislike slavery.Lev 25:44-46"As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness."And I don't understand your argument. "Because slavery is still happening in parts of the world, it's okay that God condoned it"?
I think attempting to say whether God condoned or didn't condone salvery is a very simplistic question on a very complex idea.
It's well and good to say that God could have simply put into the Bible - "don't own slaves." He didn't, therefore, he condones slavery. I think that is a very weak argument.
The number one problem that people have with slavery is stealing people, kidnapping free people against their will and making them slaves. God ABSOLUTELY condemns kidnapping people - whether they be Jew or Alien. So I think it is right to say that God does not condone slavery in the way that slavery is conducted in our world today.
Yet that is still only one part of the complexity of this issue.
Another part of the complexity is that in the time that Leviticus was written, EVERY nation on the face of the earth supported slavery. And in every nation apart from Israel, this slavery could arise from kidnapping. So there was already a clear distinction between Israel and other nations.
Also, back in those days, and interestingly, even in the world in some places today, people would sell themselves to others for a time, known as an indenture. Even the Jews could do this for 7 years. This is a type of slavery. The idea is based on the notion that "we own ourselves". And an important part of those ownership rights of our body, was the right to sell it to someone else. Today - people don't own their own bodies. (not that the abortion movement cares) The State owns our bodies - and it has done so - since it legislated the idea that no property rights can exist in a human body. Removing the ownership of property in body, removed the ability to privately sell your body to someone else - but it also effectively proved the point that we are slaves to the State. It owns our body and it tells us what rights we have.
In those times - people from other cultures could sell their bodies to another person - even to a Jew. In a sense it was a form of welfare. Or perhaps a bank mortgage.
The Israelites, however could not go looking for people in other cultures to buy slaves. And the reason for that is because the predominant manner in which people became slaves was by kidnapping.
The other time when Israel needed to consider slavery was in times of war. What were they to do with the foreigners they captured? If they released them - then they would form part of a group to try and get rid of them. Or they would go back and join the families they came from and start fighting again. The Jews were disliked then probably in the same way they are now. didn't have welfare in those times, so people had to make money somehow to get food. So they had to do something with them. I suppose they could kill them. But they were captured in war - and unless God said to destroy them - then they couldn't.
Overall, I think the matter is far too a complex matter to come up with a simplistic answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Do you mean they present the standard and properly peer-reviewed criticism? I am sure that they, like me, would not have found any of Harikrish's positions particularly concerning enough to even address in a discussion. Harikrish basically made stuff up and never engaged with anyone who disagreed with him. Basically, he mocked and ridiculed and demeaned people. That is a classic sign of a bully, and a narcissist. Hence, it was like talking with a brick wall.
Personally, nothing that Harikrish ever tried to argue had much substance to it. He was repetitive as well. He simply repeated everything over and over and over again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Here's an interesting Youtube clip you might be interested in.
It's titled "The Truth about the bible and Early christianity. It's a discussion between Wes Huff, Michael Kruger, Daniel Wallace and is very intriguing.
Especially for those who think any of the gnostic letters are valid.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Thanks for the question. I'm not orthodox because I am not.
I grew up in a Christian / Atheist home. I attended a Church of Christ. Became a Baptist Pastor and then a lawyer. Then, after a couple of decades, I became a Presbyterian minister.
Perhaps part of the reason for this is because I was born in the Western world. At least statistically so. Of course many people in the West also become many other things - so it doesn't necessarily mean this. Many of the people I went to school were non-religious and still are.
I understand orthodox theology—at least from a Protestant Western point of view. I did have an Orthodox priest live two doors down for at least a decade and have a little bit of an idea. He was nice enough. He mentored me for quite a while. I also went into partnership with a Catholic guy, with the French connection thing, which was pretty full on. I remember going to a 40th to discover that even though I had 6 kids, this was considered very small in this particular subgroup. And for a Catholic he certainly knew his stuff.
At one of the universities I attended, one of the units was on comparative religions - moreso comparative denominations. Part of the scope of the course for assessment including interviewing different pastors / priests from different denominations. One of these people I interviewed was an orthodox priest who gave very similar information to what I had learned. And to be honest, it's all very interesting, even if esoteric.
My sister and her husband spent several years in the Ukraine and were involved with the local churches. When they came back to Australia, you could see the influence the church had had on them, in their new preference for liturgy and also a greater focus on tradition. None of it was particularly bad. In fact I joined in with them from time to time.
My studies of course have led me away from the Orthodox Church. Probably and perhaps most likely this is because I was trained from the Western point of view. Yet the logic from my view is more consistent in the West. I'm no fan of the Roman Catholic Church either and I think politics was very much involved in the great church split - but politics doesn't exclude it from being the right move.
My loyalties lie with the protestant position on the solas. I fall now within the Reformed camps. I grew up outside of the Reformed Camps and have come to this position by conviction - not out of convenience or because I was born into it.
Why am I not an Orthodox? I haven't been convinced of it.
I trust that answers it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Satan didnt prevent anyone from obeying God willingly now. Anyone who wants to obey God can do so now. However, Satan gave freedom to not obey God if people want to do something else instead. In this sense, Satan benefited wishes of those who dont want to obey God.
Satan tempted Adam and Eve to disobey God by eating the forbidden fruit. His temptation was - that the would become like God.
Satan didnt fight for himself there. He fought for others. He didnt want to see people being forced to serve God forever. Instead, he gave them a chance to serve their own wishes. Satan doesnt take away your choice. He is the reason you have a choice.
Satan wasn't fighting for anyone but himself. He desired to take humanity that worshipped God and make them worship himself. Satan hate humanity worshiping God, so to make them stop worshiping God is almost as good as them worshiping him.
Even if you consider Satan evil, he is still the one who sacrificed his place in heaven so that you could choose your own destiny. He gave up on everything he had just to give you a choice. He rebelled against a tyrannical God so that today you wouldnt be that God's slave. Satan gave you your free will and knowledge.
Satan didn't sacrifice his place in heaven. He was kicked out because of his pride. Humans are either a slave of God or a slave of sin. There is no middle ground.
Many people today praise Satan for what he did there. For gift of their free will and choice. Even Christians, when praising free will, praise Satan.
Interestingly, humanity had free will prior to the fall of man. Prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit. After the fall, they lost the freedom to come back to God. God kicked them out of the garden and separated them from the tree of life.
Tree of knowledge is a great gift from Satan. The apple which gives us both knowledge and choice. Satan knew that not many people will follow him now, but that didnt stop him from even giving choice to those people.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a gift from God and it was good. It also was a boundary. A boundary that enabled people to know the limits of freedom. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil didn't give knowledge. They already had knowledge. They were created moral creatures. They were created sexual creatures. they were created spiritual creatures. They know it was good to worship and obey God and they knew it was wrong and evil to disobey God. they also had choice before they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They had the choice to eat from any tree in the garden. An almost unlimited choice. Choices from all the trees and to eat however they wanted. The one tree not to eat from - doesn't mean they didn't have choice. Of course they had choice.
In reality, you wouldnt even be able to choose God if it wasnt for Satan himself. Choice demands multiple options. One option isnt choice by definition. If it wasnt for Satan, no one would ever even choose God. Everyone would be brain dead slaves.
Ironically, after eating the fruit, the one thing they couldn't choose was God. They became unable to choose God - unless the Holy Spirit gave them the capacity to do so.
So Satan benefited all people by giving them all a choice. Some chose God anyway. Some chose Satan who gave them a choice in first place. Now all have choice. All are now free.
Wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
This is the funniest thing. Not the picture, not the Trump. But this site and forum making such a silly statement and people actually discussing it. I think the fact that I am - puts me into this category as well. which is truly sad.
The anti-Christ is not a person - it is a system.
The antichrist doesn't even get mentioned in the book of Revelation or Daniel.
Trump has demonstrated his utter contempt for the catholic church. and for Catholics around the world. He is a blasphemer. I don't think he is a genius , but he's not stupid - but having said that - he also very clearly - NOT WISE.
I don't like him. But he's not the anti-Christ.
He might be a very naughty boy, but he's not the messiah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
This post is about Orthodoxy vs Catholicism vs Protestantism, and it's directed towards christians.
I suspect many others will seek to be included.
In my personal studies, I've noticed the divide in these denominations. And it's by no means uncommon for the denominations to talk smack about each other.The differences that caused these splits was always due to church politics and tension over differences of scriptural interpretation.
There is certainly much division among the denominations. Of course, even one major view of division is whether the EO is a denomination - and the same with the RC. I'm sure both would deny that they are a denomination. They would say that they are the ONE True Church.
I don't agree that every division is political. Any more than every division is theological. An interesting fact is that there are tens of thousands of denominations. I also don't think that every split is over an interpretation of Scripture. There are many splits over personalities, some over music. Some because the pastor committed adultery. Politics is clearly one of the reaons - but not every division.
Where do you stand on the side of church politics, if you are Christian?
Would you like to expand on that more, it might be helpful? It's not a very specific question. Do you mean - do I think churchs should be political? Does that mean, do I think we should vote republican or democrat? Or are you talking about church government? Hierarchy, presbyterian, democratic or autocratic.
If you are a christian that believes all churches are universally acceptable, so long as you have faith in God, then this post doesn't apply to you.Protestants, evangelicals, orthodox, catholic... I want to hear from all of you what denomination/church you represent and why it appeals to you the most, versus other branches of christianity.
I think if a Church holds to the Trinity, observes the early creeds, believes Jesus is the Christ, and also God, and in the authority of the Scriptures, that would be a good start.
I think a denial of the Trinity puts you outside of the Church. And a denial of Jesus as God puts you outside. And the denial of Jesus' physical resurrection puts you outside of the church. I don't care whether you believe in creation or think that the bible is infallible - I don't care if you speak in tongues or give money to the church. I don't care whether you vote republican or democrat. I don't care if you've been baptised or not. there are some non-negotiables and there are some secondary issues.
I am Presbyterian and it appeals to me - because it has the best church government which holds local and universal in tension. It subscribes to a reformed doctrine of faith or confession. It adheres to the primary early creeds. It practices the regulative principle. Having said that - there are pretty dodgy presbyterian churches, and there are some very good churches in other Christian denominations.
Created:
-->
@Clausewitzian
Jesus was a Jew who lived fully under the Jewish covenant (the Law of Moses) and never claimed to start a new religion.
He affirmed the Law, spoke about fulfilling it (not abolishing it), and constantly referred back to God’s covenant with Israel.
Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say, “Start a new faith called Christianity.”
The label "Christian" and the organized system we now call "Christianity" developed later, largely shaped by Paul (formerly Saul).
Paul’s letters introduce a major shift: he focuses on faith in Christ over works of the Law, opens up salvation to Gentiles, and lays the foundation for what becomes a separate faith.
In doing this, Paulian Christianity starts to deviate from the historical Jesus, who lived, taught, and died as a faithful Jew.
Over time, Paul's interpretation overshadowed the original Jewish context of Jesus’ life and teachings.
Thus, modern Christianity is more Pauline than it is directly from Jesus himself.
Not true.
Christians follow a man, named Saul of Tarsus, who was a jew, but who abandoned the faith, and opened up early Christianity (A sect of Judaism) into a wholly different faith, Christianity.
Christians follow Christ Jesus. Paul is important but insignificant next to Christ.
I suspect, Saul felt the sect would die if more weren't allowed to join. Therefor he got rid of circumcision, sabbath, kosher, and many other things required of jews, to make the faith appear more welcoming to Gentiles, and it worked. Gentiles joined fast, and the faith spread steadily.
Interesting suspicion but debunked on many levels.
I notice you have read lots of Austrian Economic books - You have named many of my favourite authors - have you read anything by Gary North - also Peter Bauer, - North has many commentaries and ideas which expose the weakness of your arguments.
Still welcome to this Debate Site.
Created:
Posted in:
I wasn't a fan of Pope Francis. He's passed on now. Where is he? That is the question.
I pray for all those who are grieving over him.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, he affects my reality. I believe in God and I serve his wishes to the best of my ability.
He affects others, too. A good example is this question. If God didn't affect your reality, then you wouldn't have asked this question.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
What about topic of holy vs sinner? Should people who follow Jesus seek to be holy and without sin?
Ephesians 1:4 tells us that "for he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight."
So the answer is clearly yes.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It depends on what you think is Christianity.
I think Christianity is just another name for the people of God.
The people of God have existed since the beginning.
Jesus didn't invent Christianity, but he did take the people of God as understood and provided them with a new or fresh way of understanding how they ought to live and breathe.
For me, Israel is the church in the OT. And the Church is the old Israel in its new format.
Jesus took the Old and by sitting on the throne of David when he ascended, poured out the Holy Spirit and remade the Old into the New.
His work - took the church of the old covenant and made it international.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Don't obey what Trade?What is it that we do, that an omniscient GOD would not have expected?
I think you are conflating two things, there dear Zed.
One is to do with the expectations of a holy God and one is God knowing we will or we won't obey.
When a government - admittedly not holy, and probably corrupt, makes laws that tell people to not murder people, this is an expectation and a good one in the scheme of things.
But surely you would also agree that every government, no matter how evil or how corrupt it is - would know that not every person would obey its laws? It doesn't need to alknowing to make the law anyway.
You see - laws are effectively a standard or a boundary. And hopefully they reflect the standard or boundary of a particular God or indeed a government.
And boundaries are necessary for teaching and for discipline, aren't they?
What was the first boundary in Biblical Terms? God put Adam and Eve into the Garden of Eden. He told them they could eat from all the trees including the tree of life, and then he gave them a boundary. Don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He gave them freedom, and then defined what that freedom meant. After all without a boundary, then freedom would have had no meaning. To appreciate freedom, one needs to appreciate the boundarys attached. And in appreciating so, then one moves towards maturity, via discipine.
Hence, God, the all knowing God, knew that some would obey and some would not. He desires that his children grow and mature. And one way that happens - and probably the most effective way that happens is via discipline - and knowing what boundaries are.
When you think about it - the people who break laws in our society have never understood what boundaries are - and the purpose of them. They probably see them as a restriction on their freedom, rather than as a process to help them understand true freedom. They might even perceive them to be tools to keep people as slaves. That's the way Karl Marx perceived them. Hence why he advocated anarchy as the natural conclusion of humanity.
The author of this OP however has a different understanding of laws. Hence, why he wants to know whether we would obey God even if he asks us to kill infants. For him it is not so much about teaching or training people to maturity, and helping them to understand true freedom. He, at least it seems to me, is trying to ascertain - why someone wouldn't obey a God who asks us to do anything - if they were so all powerful? To me, that is an unhelpful suggestion, even if there may be an inkling of truth within it.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Thanks so much for sharing that. It's quite revealing really about AI.
Created:
-->
@Hero1000
What an intriguing and very good question.
To be honest, I think that whether we should obey or not is not the right question. I think it goes without saying that not obeying will bring about the consequences of what that particular God indicated would occur.
The real question is - why don't we obey? that for me is the more fascinating question. I for example think your scenario is not far from the reality - and hence, is a picture of the real world situation. Hence, we don't obey - as a general practice- and the question is why not?
God is real -and despite people not believing in him, it doesn't change the fact. They hold the truth down.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Did you though?
why don't you produce the same as i did in my opening statement? I copied and pasted my conversation. Can you do the same please?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- It's been a couple years since I was last active here. What changed & who changed?
My ideas have consolidated. Not necessarily changed from one thing to another - but evolved, or developed, or grown, however you want to put it.
- As for me, the Jewish question changed my perspective in terms of differentiating between Whites & Jews, their motives & beliefs. A lot makes a lot more sense to me now.
The Jewish question? Intriguing way to put it - I suppose a bit like the Muslim question. Or the Nazi question. Or the Athiest question.
I grew up in a Dispensational - Zionist perspective within a Christian Church. I believed that God had brought Israel back to its land that He has promised and was a fulfillment of prophecy. But that was decades ago.
Now I hold to a different view - that the Jews are in this particular piece of land not because of prophecy but out of genuine horror at what happened during WW2. The League of Nations, to become the United Nations, observed what did happen and was genuinely horrified. Sadly, and in my view, wrongly, they figured that the appropriate compensation was to place them back into the Middle East in their own country. I think a spot in the middle of Europe, Africa, America, or Australia would have been more appropriate. Or perhaps in the middle of Germany.
I don't agree with the Muslem's version of history - and think it is distorted for their benefit. But hey, more power to them. I take the view that the nation of Israel is still in judgment and will be until it recognises Jesus as the messiah and repents of its sins. Only once it embraces Jesus not just as the Messiah, but as God, will this judgment be over. And then the world will see unparalleled blessing. See Romans 10 and 11.
The White or indeed anyone whether you be black, white or Muslim or Nazi, that does any more than call the Jews to repentance is overstepping in my opinion. There should be no hate against them, nor of the Muslims, nor of any religion, nor of the Atheists. Or non-religious. People should be allowed to utter their opinions, in love and kindness, not with hate nor ill speech. Threats and bombings are simply manipulative and evidence of hate.
Is there a Jewish conspiracy? Probably somewhere there are a bunch of Jews that collaborate to make a lot of money, grab power and influence the world in the way to make it more like the one they want. However, it's not just some Jews doing that. There are some muslims who do the same thing, and some nazis who do the same thing, and some unionists who do the same thing, even some Christians as well. This is not unusual or even wrong in my view. The question always comes back to the means by which they bring about such change. Or even if they bring any change. The fact is - conspiracies exist - they always have and always will. Some will be more powerful than others - but from the Christian perspective, God sits in the heavens and laughs at such puny thoughts. So says Psalm 2.
I hold to the view that God is the author of history, he is the sustainer of history, and he is the judge and saviour of history. He asks me to love him and to love my neighbour. That means - I will obey the 10 commandments and treat others how I would like to be treated. Even if I know they would never do so. And I should never have any expectation that they will. But any religion or worldview which treats itself as superior is doomed in my view. Christianity which I happen to agree with has had many flaws over the years, many different representatives which has damaged its message- but it continues to grow - perhaps not as fast as others currently - but it will not fail - indeed the very gates of hell won't stop it. So says Jesus.
Motives tends to fall within a couple of areas. Survival. Power, fame, influence, vengeance, Greed, religious conviction. But there are also positive motives too - compassion, concern, horror at what has happened to someone, love and desire to see others grow and develop, I think it would be entirely naive to suggest that any one group has only one negative motivation for the things that they do - It would be more natural to consider that every group - even those I despise actually have some positive motivations. This of course doesn't make them right or wrong. but it ought to help us be broader in our perspectives and not just see the negative motives in each other.
For example, I think the October 6 killings and kidnappings were completely over the top. And wrong. And yet, I also can understand why the motivation was there for something to happen. Sometimes nations, such as Israel, need to be shocked into doing something. And for some this was the only way to make that happen. On the other hand, I think Israel's response has also been over the top, and yet from its eyes, the Hamas want to wipe them from the land, so it becomes a matter of self defence. Sadly, there has been too much killing over a piece of land and over people's hatred for the others. It needs to stop.
I think Trump is an idiot - but at least he brought a fresh perspective. The issue is the land in many respects. Some think that Israel should just get over it and move to another piece of land and some think that the Palestinians should do the same. I sometimes think dropping a nuke onto the land - will resolve the issue for at least the time the radiation remains. Hopefully a hundred years. Why people get so attached to the land is in my view crazy - and yet that is a Western notion. In Australia I like our land, but the indigenous have, so they say, - a spiritual connection to the land. Perhaps that is the same for all those who live in the Middle East.
Me, I think - the un rest in the Middle East, like the rest of the world will continue - until such time as firstly, the church gets it act together, and grows up, and then it is able to demonstrate why the nations ought to embrace it, and then finally, so too will Israel, and then peace will be achieved. Then - and only then will people know that true peace is not found in a piece of land, or in just the absence of fighting, but in peace with God - which will translate to peace with others.
Created:
-->
@vi_777
well, i did that as well n uh when u asked it didn't say it's a critical topic n bla bla , on my asking the naswer was different.idk if it's being that cool, thou when did u ask it?
I asked it on the same day that I posted the OP.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I guess so.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I figure this is the atheist program. So even more interesting given your input.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I/m just using the premier program - latest one.
No particular prompts. Just what you read above.
Created:
And it's answer was Christianity.
It then explained why it came to that position.
I also asked it whether Christianity or Atheism was more likely to be true and it's answer was also helpful.
I know it's a programmed machine. But have you asked it this question and what answer did it give you? Here's a rundown of the conversation.
"Out of all the religions in the world, which one do you think is most likely to be correct? Use one word only.ChatGPT said:Christianity.4oYou said:Why do you say that?ChatGPT said:Christianity uniquely offers a coherent explanation for humanity's origin, purpose, and moral condition, centering on the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as evidence of God's redemptive plan for the world. Its emphasis on grace, not human effort, distinguishes it from other faiths.4oYou said:Is there anything else?ChatGPT said:Yes. Christianity also provides a deeply personal and transformative relationship with God through the Holy Spirit, grounded in covenantal love. Its consistency with historical events, fulfilled prophecies, and philosophical truths about justice, forgiveness, and love further strengthen its credibility. Additionally, the resurrection of Jesus stands as a historically defended claim that validates Christian teachings.You said:Would it also be true that Islam is as likely to be true?ChatGPT said:Islam shares some overlapping truths with Christianity, such as belief in one God, the importance of moral living, and reverence for figures like Abraham and Moses. However, Christianity and Islam diverge fundamentally on key issues, particularly regarding the identity of Jesus. Christianity asserts that Jesus is the Son of God, who died and rose for humanity's redemption, while Islam views Him as a prophet and denies His crucifixion and resurrection.
If the resurrection of Jesus is historically and spiritually true, as Christians claim, it validates Christianity's core message in a way that Islam does not accept. Therefore, while Islam presents a coherent worldview, it lacks the central, verifiable claim that Christianity offers through the resurrection.You said:What about the Jewish religion?ChatGPT said:Judaism holds foundational truths upon which Christianity is built. It shares belief in one God, reverence for the Hebrew Scriptures, and the expectation of a Messiah. However, traditional Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the promised Messiah, which creates a significant divergence from Christianity.
Christianity claims to fulfill the promises of the Jewish faith, with Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. If Jesus' resurrection and messianic identity are true, Christianity completes the Jewish narrative rather than contradicting it. Without acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah, Judaism remains incomplete from a Christian perspective.You said:Is Christianity or Atheism more likely to be true?ChatGPT said:Christianity is more likely to be true because it offers compelling answers to fundamental questions about existence, morality, meaning, and destiny. It provides a coherent framework that integrates philosophical reasoning, historical evidence (especially the resurrection of Jesus), and personal experience of the divine.
Atheism, on the other hand, struggles to account for the origin of the universe, objective moral values, consciousness, and the widespread human longing for meaning. While it denies the existence of God, it often lacks sufficient explanatory power for life's most profound questions. Christianity's historical and experiential claims make it a more robust and credible worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Thanks for that.
It is good that you have provided the Catholic position. For others, please note, that this is distinct from the Biblical position. And for the most part from the Protestant Position. I can't recall the Orthodox position but I think it is more in line with the Protestant position than the Catholic one.
The Protestant position in line with the Bible is that certain behaviours are sinful. Jesus, himself, said that even looking at a lady with lust in your heart, looking at porn for instance, is adultery. Adultery is a sin. It is not just the way you are born, it is the heart itself.
The Roman Catholic position - historically , at least as I understood it, was of the same view. Yet, over the past few years, especially under the leadership of the current pontiff, this may or seems to have changed.
Remember, this is Catholic teaching. Not necessarily ALL Christian teaching. They have in my mind at least, the authority to make such decisions and declarations for their own church. Yet they are only one denomination amongst many. (They would never call themselves a denomination) I think of course that Paul would probably put them into the same category as Romans 1:32. they have become enablers of sin.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
1} no creator-of-Universe God exists except as a Meta-space mind/intellectual concept,
The universe does exist as a physical reality. It is not just a concept. If that were the case, then please provide for me your bank account details, after all, it's only a construct. And tomorrow you can put some more concepts into your construct.
2} ancient life can be so awful that to find something to have faith or belief in, is an effort to bring peace to desperate peoples,
It's not just ancient life. It's any time - where people have moved away from God, the God who created the universe. But hey, if it's just a concept or a construct, just change it.
3} Christianity was spread via violent force, for the most part, if understand history correctly --im no expert---,
Glad to see you admit you are not an expert. you are incorrect about Christianity being spread for the most part by violence. It may well be true that "A" concept of Christianity has been spread by violence, in particular during the crusades. But that is a distorted concept of Christianity. For the most part - and history defintely reveals that for the first four hundred years, it was spread by influence of the love and grace of the Christians. And i would suggest that overall, for the most part it is still love and grace that spreads the true concept of Christianity.
4} a common cause, belief or faith is good for the social condition to celebrate as one humanity under the stars { Sol } ---Universe---,
It stands to reason that if everyone believes the same thing that there will be a certain amount of unity. It however is not necessary that means it will be good for humanity. Take china as a example. They hold mostly to the same view - primarily by force and threat of harm if not, this doesn't mean it is good for the society. At least from eyes outside of China, whereas inside, it is seen as the greatest good.
5} people need each other for support, for the most part, and they need to find commonality to avoid violence, or, to fight violence with violence.
Yes that's true. But sometimes - it is necessary to stand against tyranny.
...All-for-one and one-for-all... is the most important spiritual belief for humanity in general.
Nope, that's just Chinese philosophy. Or perhaps a humanist position. It doesn't have anything to do with truth or morals.
AI....."Divide and conquer" is a strategy that involves causing division among people to weaken them and make them easier to control.It can be used in many contexts, including politics, business, and personal relationships ".....
Yes, one of the key strategies used by governments like China against the West.
Universe divides into Fermionic matter { fields } and Bosonic forces { fields } and each of those has its subdivided particles { fields }.
Okay. I don't have any clue and can't be bothered looking them up.
Why? Is just eternally that way? With an eternally existent occupied space Universe, do there exist times of only one common field?
Not sure what you mean. Perhaps if you unpack that - I might have a response.
Cheers.
Created:
-->
@Shila
You raise important historical facts. Yes, crucifixion was a common form of Roman execution, particularly for crimes like treason. What makes Jesus' crucifixion unique isn't the method of execution but the theological significance attached to it. Christians believe that Jesus' death was not a political defeat but a divine act of love and redemption, fulfilling centuries of prophecy.
Regarding the crowd choosing Barabbas, it's a tragic reflection of human rejection of truth and justice. Yet Jesus willingly went to the cross, not because He was powerless, but because His mission was to lay down His life for humanity (John 10:18).
As for His disciples, many were indeed killed, but their willingness to die rather than renounce Jesus is remarkable. Historical records show that they boldly proclaimed His resurrection despite facing intense persecution. This courage suggests they genuinely believed they had witnessed Jesus alive after His crucifixion.
The crucifixion may have seemed like a defeat, but for Christians, it represents victory over sin and death. I understand skepticism about these claims. However, they remain central to why Christianity grew and transformed lives, even in a hostile Roman world. Would you be interested in exploring any of these points further?
Regarding the crowd choosing Barabbas, it's a tragic reflection of human rejection of truth and justice. Yet Jesus willingly went to the cross, not because He was powerless, but because His mission was to lay down His life for humanity (John 10:18).
As for His disciples, many were indeed killed, but their willingness to die rather than renounce Jesus is remarkable. Historical records show that they boldly proclaimed His resurrection despite facing intense persecution. This courage suggests they genuinely believed they had witnessed Jesus alive after His crucifixion.
The crucifixion may have seemed like a defeat, but for Christians, it represents victory over sin and death. I understand skepticism about these claims. However, they remain central to why Christianity grew and transformed lives, even in a hostile Roman world. Would you be interested in exploring any of these points further?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You're right that belief in Jesus involves more than just sensory or empirical evidence. History often relies on written records, and while ancient texts can be imperfect, the New Testament stands out for its early authorship, multiple independent sources, and consistency with archaeological findings. Even non-Christian historians like Tacitus and Josephus reference Jesus' crucifixion.
Regarding emotions as electrochemical responses, that's certainly one aspect. But measuring brain activity doesn't fully capture why we deeply love, grieve, or find meaning in life. Science can explain "how" but often struggles with "why."
Faith doesn't mean ignoring evidence but looking at a broader spectrum—including historical records, changed lives, and deeply personal encounters with God. I understand skepticism; it's reasonable. But I'd encourage you to explore whether there’s more to Jesus than just a historical figure. Skeptics like C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel set out to disprove Christianity and came to believe based on the evidence they found.
Would you be interested in discussing what specific historical or philosophical points you find most challenging? I'd love to hear your perspective.
Regarding emotions as electrochemical responses, that's certainly one aspect. But measuring brain activity doesn't fully capture why we deeply love, grieve, or find meaning in life. Science can explain "how" but often struggles with "why."
Faith doesn't mean ignoring evidence but looking at a broader spectrum—including historical records, changed lives, and deeply personal encounters with God. I understand skepticism; it's reasonable. But I'd encourage you to explore whether there’s more to Jesus than just a historical figure. Skeptics like C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel set out to disprove Christianity and came to believe based on the evidence they found.
Would you be interested in discussing what specific historical or philosophical points you find most challenging? I'd love to hear your perspective.
Created:
-->
@Shila
You're right that crucifixion was a brutal and common Roman punishment, especially for non-citizens and slaves. Historically, Jesus' death was viewed as redemptive by Christians from the very beginning, not as a later Roman invention. The early church, particularly the apostle Paul, emphasized Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection as the cornerstone of salvation.
Regarding Jewish practices, it's true that Jewish law strictly forbade human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31). The suggestion that the Holocaust was some form of "Christian" act of atonement is historically and theologically false. The Holocaust was a genocide driven by anti-Semitic ideology, which was entirely opposed to the teachings of Jesus and Christian values.
Jesus' death was not a human sacrifice in the pagan sense. It was a voluntary act of love and obedience, fulfilling God's promise to redeem humanity through the Messiah. His sacrifice was unique because He was sinless and divine, taking on the penalty of sin for all people. Christians believe that His resurrection confirmed the victory over sin and death.
These distinctions matter because they prevent misunderstanding and highlight the message at the heart of Christianity: God's love demonstrated through Jesus, not hatred or violence.
Regarding Jewish practices, it's true that Jewish law strictly forbade human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31). The suggestion that the Holocaust was some form of "Christian" act of atonement is historically and theologically false. The Holocaust was a genocide driven by anti-Semitic ideology, which was entirely opposed to the teachings of Jesus and Christian values.
Jesus' death was not a human sacrifice in the pagan sense. It was a voluntary act of love and obedience, fulfilling God's promise to redeem humanity through the Messiah. His sacrifice was unique because He was sinless and divine, taking on the penalty of sin for all people. Christians believe that His resurrection confirmed the victory over sin and death.
These distinctions matter because they prevent misunderstanding and highlight the message at the heart of Christianity: God's love demonstrated through Jesus, not hatred or violence.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Science is a naturally occurring faculty associated with thinking beings.So therefore is the need to understand, theorise and explain.So GOD the thinking being, was an obvious theoretical proposition for a thinking being to propose.A sound enough proposition in terms of a theory of universal developmental hierarchy.Though the associated ritual devotion that developed concurrently, brought very little if nothing to the scientific table.Ritual devotion in the main, is an unnecessary but seemingly necessary offshoot that mortal beings developed as a coping strategy.Sort of...Look guys, there might be a GOD, so might as well pray to it and perhaps not die...Failing that, you might die here, but will perhaps go to a magical place called Heaven.For sure, invent a religion, build a church and write a book about it....But remember, we haven't actually substantiated the theory yet.And so thinking man was burned at the stake for doubting GOD.Clever stupid gene.
You make a fair point—God's existence isn't something we can prove in a laboratory. But not all truths fit into the scientific method. Love, beauty, and moral values, for example, aren't empirically measurable, yet we know they're real and shape how we live our lives. Similarly, belief in God often comes from evidence that isn’t scientific but is nonetheless compelling: changed lives, historical claims, and deeply personal encounters.
For Christians, the heart of faith isn't just about ritual or a theoretical proposition about God but a historical claim: that Jesus lived, died, and rose again. That event is what shaped the Christian faith, not just as a philosophical idea but as a lived reality. If Jesus truly rose from the dead, it changes everything about how we understand life, death, and eternity.
I wonder if we might sometimes dismiss religion without fully considering the claims at its core. Have you ever explored the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection or how it might impact the way we see the world today?
For Christians, the heart of faith isn't just about ritual or a theoretical proposition about God but a historical claim: that Jesus lived, died, and rose again. That event is what shaped the Christian faith, not just as a philosophical idea but as a lived reality. If Jesus truly rose from the dead, it changes everything about how we understand life, death, and eternity.
I wonder if we might sometimes dismiss religion without fully considering the claims at its core. Have you ever explored the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection or how it might impact the way we see the world today?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It seems that Christians have made great arguments which have convinced me to become Christian.Why should I believe in science, why should I believe in what I can observe, when I can believe in one of the thousands of Gods I randomly selected to believe in?I used to hold opinion that person should believe in what he can see.But no. You shouldnt believe in what you can see. You should believe in Christianity instead.Truth and science are all flawed.For example, truth requires a system for determining truth. However, a system for determining truth cannot determine itself as true, which makes it flawed.This disproves all science.Dont believe in what you can see.Believe in Jesus instead.Hail Hitler!
The only thing you believe is in you. You are your own god. God is made in your image.
Christianity is the only truly rational religion. It says faith is not letting go of your reason. It tells us that science is God made. Christianity NEVER says - don't trust the Science. It does say embrace the truth and ALL Science that is based on the truth.
We don't say truth or science is flawed. We say people are flawed - since they are sinful. We say humans make mistakes. Humans have prejudices. Humans are biased.
Your comment about truth and a system are noted - but this is not unique to Christian thinking. It is a fundamental part of philosophy. Axioms. Reason and Logic are axioms. But how does one prove the truth of reason or logic as an axiom without already presuming that the logic or reason is true? For one to attempt to use reason or logic to prove that logic or reason is an axiom requires the faith that such is true in the first place. IT is based on faith. An axiom is not just self-evident - but is circular reasoning. It can't be proved. And for it to be proved by a means other than reason or logic, actually proves that the other means is more of an axiom than reason or logic. We say it is self-evident, but that's a delusion. We can't conceive that another axiom exists - so we just shut the conversation down. It's self evident. Wake up - people are saying. Well, I agree. I think it is time for you to wake up. Jesus and Hitler are at the polar ends of all things.
Created:
-->
@Shila
No one asked Jesus to sacrifice himself for the sake of others.
That's right. No human would ask since we are all so proud of ourselves and don't think we need saving. You've now touching on what we call the Total Depravity of Sin. The original sin. God decided to do it. He planned it. It was the only manner by which humanity could be saved. We also call this - the doctrine of inability. That is - that humanity was unable to save themselves - which explains why God needed to do it Himself. So no human asked. But God did. And God the Son volunteered.
Human sacrifice was not part of the commandments from God.In Jeremiah 19:4-6, Gd tells us that human sacrifice is so horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind to demand it from His creation.
Again, that is absolutely correct. God forbade human sacrifice. And Israel was the one nation in the world which did not practice it, except when it was taken over by outsiders or when it betrayed God and followed the gods of other nations.
Jesus' death wasn't a human sacrifice in the same style or method as these other types. Humanity wasn't trying to appease God. Humanity just wanted him dead. the other thing you are forgetting is that Jesus wasn't just a human. He was also the Christ. He was also DIVINE.
It was not a known practice to allow someone to die for the sins of others.Even the disciples did not know why Jesus had to die.
It was known for people to be pardoned for someone else. Consider what Pilot asked when he said to the people - who shall we let go? Barabbus or Jesus? The Jewish religion did practise atonement for sins. They had an entire system set up. They also had the practise of the scape goat. So it's incorrect to say that it was not a known practise. What was unknown was how God was going to do it. And it was unknown to the Jews, and the disciples, the exact nature of what was going to happen. Even when Jesus told them, they didn't get it. That's why it's such an intriguing thing that such an unknown thing after his death and resurrection became such a central point. Generally speaking, people who want to start a false religion, don't start with unknown things and make them a central part - and they say they were part and parcel of everything before hand, If people want to fraudulently do stuff, they start with things that they know everyone agrees with - to get their trust. For it's evidence of its authencity
Why was Jesus' death hidden from the disciples?The disciples failed to comprehend Jesus' explicit and repeated predictions of his coming crucifixion and resurrection because, even while he was revealing it to them, it was being “hidden from them” by the Lord Himself. And only the Lord could remove that incomprehension — which is exactly what Luke says happened.
Jesus didn't hide it from his disciples. He told them many times. They failed to comprehend is true. But that doesn't make it hidden. After all, the gospel is not hidden from you, but you don't comprehend it. It's clear they didn't want him to die. It's clear they wanted him to do other things - like become the king of the nation. Or the messiah in a way that would end Roman rule.
All SACRIFICED animals had to be slaughtered by a priest, at the Temple (and prior to that, at the sanctuary), and that animal was treated differently - parts were burnt, parts went to the priests and levites, and the rest was returned to whoever brought it.
Yes, that was part of the OT ritual. In many ways it is fair to say that the Jewish leaders ordered his death. They sent him to his slaughter. The Romans might have been their hands. The aspects of his death clearly were not the same as some sacrifices were meant to play out. that doesn't diminish what happened at all. Clearly, there were similarities - and there were differences. The differences don't make it invalid.
The Bible tells us Jesus was crucified for blasphemy. He was put on trial for his own sins and found guilty. Jesus was not sacrificed in the temple. He was crucified in a public area. The crucifixion was not performed by priests. The Roman guards then crucified Jesus.
The Gospels tell us that the Jews wanted Jesus dead. And they also clearly point out that the Jews and the Romans conspired together to trump up a charge of blasphemy. The NT indicates that Jesus was without sin and did not sin. This must also include any charge that others might have found him false of doing. Blasphemy would only be true if he was not God. If he was God, then blasphemy is not true. The Messiah was prophesied to die outside the city walls. At the hand of strangers. On a tree. All of this the Christian embraces as truth. As I said above, his sacrifice had similarities - one might even say that since he is a priest - his death came at his own hands. No one takes my life.
John 19:23 23 When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.Is Jesus' death a human sacrifice?In response, God didn't sacrifice Jesus. Rather, Jesus gave up his own life. No one forced Him. He laid down His life willingly, as He made clear speaking about His life: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. Jesus admits he took his own life even though he was crucified for blasphemy and sedition.If Jesus claimed that only dead Jews could forgive sins using himself as an example. Then the Holocaust was totally justified. The world needed more Jews sacrificed for the growing population of Christian sinners.
Jesus death was not a human sacrifice in the same manner as other types of human sacrifice. It wasn't an ordinary sacrifice like the animal in the temple. There were vast similarities and vast differences. I've touched on some of those things above. Yet none of these things diminish the role he played.
It wasn't just a dead Jew, it was a particular line - of the promise - that would bring us to the Messiah. That would point out who he was. The Holocaust was evil. And anti-Semitism has no place in the world. And without the Christ, then all humanity would end up in destruction - completely of their own free will and choice. Your words demonstrate where you stand. And that is a matter for you.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Tell you what. When it ACTUALLY happens, then let's discuss it. Now, there is just speculation and lots of people believe in speculation as though it is true. Gee go to any of the thousands of dispensational churches in America and ask them about the rapture. They'll all tell you it's going to happen any day now and they believe it - even though the Bible doesn't. The church has been saying "it's the end of the world" for millennia. Me, I like to see the actual evidence and so-called facts. The same applies to the JFK assassination. Rumours and speculation and rabbit holes.Well, at least you're open to it. Keep it up, when the time comes you won't be caught with your pants down.
People have been waiting for these things forever and ad finitum. I don't intend to spend my time waiting for something that just happens to be in someone elses head or delusion. I have enough delusions of my own. (I can't wait to see how that is used against me, not by you, of course) I haven't seen any compelling evidence for the existence of intelligent life on other planets. We've all seen the videos of the US fighter pilots. But not understanding what something is - doesn't mean we have to fill in the gaps and say - It must be alien. I don't do that about God, I don't believe in the idea of filling in the gaps. I'll leave that people who need to be able to explain everything. I like explanations by the way, but not speculative ones. Not that I don't find them interesting and intriguing, but you can't build your life on such things.
It depends on what kind of Christian church you're subscribed.As far as I'm concerned, all the Christians that I met have always remarked that God is love, it's like a slogan of christianity all over the world. Justice and holiness is like secondary. As a matter of fact, I never heard about it in my debates with these zealots, everything was about love and compassion.Maybe you're interpreting it from the standpoint of a person that hates to be challenged, a person that wants the religous dissidents to be punished as painful as possible, a zealot who only cares about himself. In that case, sure, every non christian should burn in hell mercilessly.
Perhaps that's true. There are many churches which highlight as the primary thing that God is love. Certainly I have come across many who think that. Yet most of these churches, also think that God will send someone to Hell if they don't trust Jesus as God. Not all of them. There are quite a few churches who don't believe in Hell or punishment. Some think that everyone goes to heaven. Good bad or indifferent. Certainly, God is love. I wouldn't say otherwise.
But I would also note that within Reformed Churches, and that's the type I attend at, that it is the holiness of God that is his primary attribute. And that love of God is always consistent with that. Perhaps since you've never heard a different perspective, you should broaden your discussons. The Reformed are plenty afield. I'm sure you've heard of John McArthur. John Piper. Wayne Grudem. The Red Pen crew. It actually surprises me that your perspective is so narrow in relation to Christians. From your comments, I would have take the view that you had come across most types. The Reformed View in America is huge. Still, that doesn't matter. There is still time for you to investigate if you choose.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Love can also be defined biblically as one who obeys the commandments of God. If that is a reasonable definition, then God showing justice to the wicked is actually love. Whereas if he just let them do whatever they want without regard to how they hurt, then that would not be love. Hence, I don't see a contradiction, on a number of levels.How is it love to sacrifice your son for the sins of others?
That's a great question. But even in the modern world, the rights of the individual become subject to the rights of the many, it isn't that difficult to see. In China for instance, it is considered right and just and therefore loving to humanity as a whole, to subject the rights of the individual for the interests of the whole. Some might call this utilitarianism. the ends justify the means. It is loving for China to subject Taiwan to sanctions and pain. and slavery. For it will bring them back to the fold.
Of Course, the Bible's morality isn't based on utilitarianism, so I couldn't use that as an argument even if the world thought it was a good one.
The Concept of God sacrificing his Son is, however, very different to a human sacrificing his son on many different levels. It's not even close to a similar story in the Bible, where Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son because God commanded him too. The Story of Abraham and Isaac is useful for many ideas but it is not the story of God and his Son being put to death.
I suppose the question you asked could be considered on a different levels.
You ask "how could it be love"? You didn't specify where the love is directed or not directed. If the question was - how is it love towards the people of the world who would be saved from certain death and hell by the sacrifice of this Son then the answer is not difficult. To save anyone from Hell or from certain death by any act that is going to cost you is a demonstration of love towards those people. Whether they accept it as love or not is irrelevant for - one of the definitions of love is sacrificial. Giving up your most valuable things for someone else's benefit.
If you were to ask whether the death of his son was love directed towards the devil, then I would say, it wasn't.
Of course, we also need to understand that God is Trinity. The Son is not a biological son or child like humans have. The Son is Truly God as the Father is Truly God as the Holy Spirit is Truly God. So when God sent his Son to die, we can't put it in the same manner as a human sacrifice. God also knew Jesus would rise from the dead. Jesus knew he would die but he also knew he would rise from the dead. And the purpose for his death and resurrection was for Jesus to gain a bride, the church, those who trusted in him. Therein is love by the Father for his Son, for he brought about his bride for him.
Jesus like many people in this world would sacrifice himself for the sake of others. That too is a demonstration of love. He didn't have to hold himself back. The fact that Jesus was prepared to die not just for his friends and family but also for his enemies demonstrates something more profound than love too. Doesn't it? IT demonstrates supreme integrity, grace and generosity, let alone kindness and mercy.
So how does it demonstrate love? Well, I would it by saying how does not demonstrate love? In fact to call into question Jesus' motivations is to call into question the motivations of every soldier who has ever fought and died for his country. And every police officer or fire person or first responder. It's a clear example. And to deny that is well to deny the reality of the world we live in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
MarriageIn Catholic teaching, any two validly baptized Christians—including Presbyterians—who freely exchange consent are understood to enter a genuine, sacramental marriage, even if their own community doesn’t label marriage a sacrament. The Church does require Catholics to marry according to “canonical form” (in a Catholic ceremony or with official dispensation), so if a Catholic marries outside these norms, that marriage may be deemed invalid until it’s “convalidated” under Church jurisdiction. Regarding annulments, they differ from divorce: a divorce attempts to dissolve a valid bond, whereas an annulment states, after careful investigation, that a fundamental requirement—like free consent or the capacity to undertake marriage—was absent from the very start, meaning the couple never had a valid sacramental marriage in the Church’s eyes, even if they appeared happily wed and raised a family.
thanks for your response. I still feel as though you are saying that unless one is married in RC then it is not entirely valid. I read your words, but the qualifications keep on keeping on. As for the annulments, I understand what you are saying. Certainly that is how it has been explained to me before. Experience however sees that such is sometimes wordspin. The marriage I was talking about above, involved a close personal friend of mine, who ended up going to Brazil to get his marriage annulled. I feel for his wife. She had left everything to marry him, and then he cheated on her, and wanted to move on. I know, because we talked about it. And I could see the adulterous relationship evolving, despite my warning to him. He left behind his wife with 9 children, half of which had severe autism. The annulment meant she couldn't press legalities in the law which would have been available under a divorce. the problem was - there marriage was valid. It had always been valid. But somehow that didn't matter in the end - since RC don't believe in divorce. Although, from my point of view, every anulment is effectively a divorce. Still, it's a matter for the RC, but I will say, the practice in real life, doesn't make the RC any more attractive. If they for instance, had said, well we don't believe in divorce, so let's see if we can make this marriage work, that would be one thing. But that was never the case. At least in this situation.
SchismDespite the gradual, centuries-long development of the papacy’s external structures and its articulation in ecclesial law, the Catholic tradition holds that its core reality traces back to Christ’s designation of Peter as the “rock” (Matthew 16:18) and His command to “feed my sheep” (John 21:17). The apostles, while each holding their own authority, remained in communion with Peter, whose unique role is evident not only in the Gospel accounts—where he’s consistently named first—but also in Acts, where he often speaks or acts on behalf of the nascent Church. From this vantage, the papacy, as Peter’s successor in the See of Rome, is understood to be more than a mere organizational convenience: it’s the visible sign of unity in faith and communion for the universal Church. Even though historical circumstances shaped the way the papacy functioned over time, the Catholic conviction is that the essential Petrine office—established by Christ and recognized in the apostolic community—remains genuine and binds the faithful in one visible fellowship.
Thanks again. I appreciate you taking time to respond. I do understand the reasoning behind the RC's justification for its doctrine on the papacy. I don't agree with it and there are many significant questions that remain unexplained. Why didn't Paul recognise Peter's authority when he wrote the letter to Rome? Why did Paul and James both call Peter to account in the book of Acts at the first council? I see the first council more like a presbyterian meeting. Elders / apostles all with equal authority. If anything Jerusalem had a bishop who was James. Paul and James both corrected Peter. that's clear from the book of Acts.
Peter for sure was one of the close disciples of Jesus. He was engaged with Jesus in some of the most memorable accounts in the gospels. He wrote his own epistles. He was a genuine and highly respected leader. His command to feed the sheep, I think was Jesus demonstrating that he was forgiven for betraying him. Three times he betrayed. and three times he was told - he was forgiven and loved. I think there are other explanations that account for the rock. It may refer to Peter, it may refer to Jesus, it may refer to the gospel, which makes the best sense. Again thanks for your response. It's nice to see someone articulating their faith in a positive and well reasoned manner.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Yeah, you must be afraid of what it's coming the next years. The UFO phenomenon is already a fact, people all around the world are more convinced about it given the clear evidence such photos, videos, testimonies and so on. There will be a declassification of all the alien files that the US have so I recommend you to be prepared, it's not going to be easy for you and your acolytes.
Tell you what. When it ACTUALLY happens, then let's discuss it. Now, there is just speculation and lots of people believe in speculation as though it is true. Gee go to any of the thousands of dispensational churches in America and ask them about the rapture. They'll all tell you it's going to happen any day now and they believe it - even though the Bible doesn't. The church has been saying "it's the end of the world" for millennia. Me, I like to see the actual evidence and so-called facts. The same applies to the JFK assassination. Rumours and speculation and rabbit holes.
On the other hand, I've got to admit that the reincarnation phenomenon is more difficult to swallow for the people, let alone for the believers. I'm not going to insist on that, then. The only thing I'm going to say is that reincarnation is more suitable for Christianity because all "the souls" have the opportunity to learn and evolve, so noone is left behind, everyone moves forward. This situation coincides with the concept of the "loving god" of Christianity. I mean, what kind of "loving god" sends people to burn in hell for eternity? That's not loving at all. You see the contradiction?
Well let's disagree about the suitability of it for Christianity. I think it is hard to swallow because it implies lots of things that are incompatible with facts and logic. But it is also difficult to reconcile with the story of Christianity. It would make a mockery for a start of Christ's purpose to die on the cross. And certainly it would remove the need for the resurrection, which the Church requires as an essential doctrine. Not to mention the story of the Transfiguration which I showed above refutes completely reincarnation. I think rather than focusing on a loving God. After all, I can't think of any occasion in the NT when any of the disciples or apostles tried to evangelise by saying - God loves you. I think the primary focuse is on holiness. The angels - never said God is love is love is love. No, they said God is holy holy holy.
What kind of a just and holy God would let evil run rampant for ever? Why would a just God not punish the wicked? I see the love of God as part of the Holiness of God.
For me, a judge in our world demonstrates love to the victims of the family that has been murdered by sending them to prison for the rest of their life. He doesn't show love to the murderer. He does show justice though. I think we can properly make the same leap to God as judge. He shows love to the righteous by sending the wicked to Hell. He shows justice to the wicked by sending them to Hell.
Love can also be defined biblically as one who obeys the commandments of God. If that is a reasonable definition, then God showing justice to the wicked is actually love. Whereas if he just let them do whatever they want without regard to how they hurt, then that would not be love. Hence, I don't see a contradiction, on a number of levels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Also, would you explain the position of marriage as a sacrament of the church? If a couple are married outside of the Roman Catholic Church are they truly married? Or would they need to be remarried by the Church if they wished to join the church as members?The Catholic Church understands marriage both as a natural institution and, for baptized Christians, as a sacrament. When non-Catholic Christians marry each other—following the norms of their own community—Rome usually recognizes that union as a valid (and if both are baptized, a sacramental) marriage, no additional ceremony required. If at least one of the spouses is Catholic and marries outside the Church without official permission, that marriage is not considered valid according to Catholic law. To rectify this, the couple can seek a convalidation—a simple ceremony that validates their vows under Church jurisdiction. It’s not a “new” wedding but a recognition that now the marriage meets the Catholic form.
So to be clear, as I do not wish to misunderstand. The RC accepts that marriage outside the church is a natural institution. And when you say "baptised Christians" it is also a sacrament, you are referring ONLY to baptised Christians within the RC church. For example, if Presbyterians, who are baptised Christians in the Presbyterian Church, that would not be accepted by the RC as valid. Presbyterians don't view marriage as a sacrament anyway. Although it is covenant institution. And is blessed by God. And ought to be viewed extremely highly. Hence, why we say marriage is between a male and a female, and is for life. And must be legally valid, whether by the State or the Church.
You indicate that this invalidity can be rectified with an extra ceremony. That sounds to me a lot like - unless you are married by the RC then your marriage is not only invalid, but that people without a proper RC ceremony are "living in sin". The other curious thing I often see is that although RC don't believe in divorce, they sure like to nullify marriages all of the time. I was close friends with a RC gentlemen who'd been married for 20 years. He and his wife had 9 children. He was born into the RC. And she was a convert. Her conversion was genuine and her lifestyle matched what she now believed. They were both practicing Catholics, meaning that their lives reflected their teachings and beliefs, (for me, this was rare to see as most RC members I knew didn't even know their beliefs) Yet, they ended up separating. And then their marriage was anulled. What is the difference between the anulment and divorce? Is it just spin? Or a fancy word for the same thing?
Also, would you explain why the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the Orthodox Church in the original split? Why does history from both the Orthodox and the Protestants and even from some Catholic historians suggest it was because the Orthodox refused to accept the authority of the Papacy and his role in introducing "and the Son" to a certain Creed?The East–West Schism, often dated to 1054, was a complex, centuries-long rift fueled by differences in language, culture, theology, and governance, culminating in mutual excommunications. Key flashpoints included disputes over the Pope’s authority—viewed in the West as a unique Petrine primacy and in the East as an overreach—and the West’s unilateral addition of “and the Son” (Filioque) to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Though it’s sometimes simplified as Rome excommunicating the Orthodox for rejecting papal claims and the Creed’s alteration, deeper issues—such as differing liturgical customs and broader political pressures—had been straining East–West relations long before the final break.
Thanks for providing your explanation. I don't disagree that there were many pressures that arose prior to the schism. Sometimes in hindsight we do simplify things to try and make sense of it. Interestingly, I agreed with the West in that particular situation. At least in respect of the doctrine. I'm not sure of the process of course and I think that both the East and the West chose to make it more difficult than was necessary. And as a Protestant, I also reject the so-called Petrine primacy. Church history records the general evolution of how that came to become the dominant view in the West. And there are quite intriguing remarks by both sides that give us all room to pause and consider.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
This is similar to the UFO phenomenon. The Roman Empire translated and changed the meaning of the original bible in order to keep people from knowing the real facts, like the reincarnation. Most first christian sects believed in reincarnation, though nowadays Christians believe that human beings have only one life after which their "souls" are sent either to hell or heaven, according to their deeds and the judgement of a "god". Nevertheless, the bible and the science contradict such Christian belief.
So many assumptions without any evidence.
The current bible has no reference to reincarnation because it was removed but there are some hints that lead us to think that reincarnation was a Christian doctrine at the beginning. "Now the Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” John 1, 24-25. In that verse, Elijah had already long died but the Pharisees asked if John the Baptist was him. It's not a direct reference to reincarnation but I think we all understand what the pharisees tried to say.
Matthew 171-11 refutes reincarnation. It's the story of the Transfiguration. A spooky story often used by UFO loons to prove such nonsense. The glowing body and clothes- the voice from the sky.
But the two visitors - Moses and Elijah are the figures which refute reincarnation. Both persons remain the same person - hundreds of years after the died or were taken up to heaven. Elijah NEVER was reincarnated in John the Baptist. He remained Elijah. And John the Baptist was born and died and yet Elijah remained Elijah. If the Bible or people in that time were attempting to prove reincarnation - then at the very least John the Baptist would have appeared and whoever Moses had turned into after he died. But no - that's not the story.
Also, the science has been researching this phenomenon. There are thousands of cases about reincarnation, one of them even adapted into a movie, "Yesterday's children". I wish I knew more how reincarnation works but at least I can make out several things about it from the many readings I had and also from my observations. From what I understand, what religions call "soul" is actually a sort of technology that resembles an AI. The "soul", as well as the AI, needs experience in order to learn and thus to evolve, that's why the soul incarnates in this life or reality, in order to find the experience it needs to evolve. As it is evident, the soul needs a lot of incarnations because a 60 year life in average is not enough (courtesy of the aliens). The evolution process is still ongoing so we are not going to hell or heaven after death as Christianity claims, we'll keep incarnating and evolving until our bodies get enough long-lived to stop the incarnation process.
there are many stories about lots of things in history. How many different stories of the moon landing, of the earth being flat, of the vaccine conspiracy, of every Catholic and Vatican secret, of UFOs and big foot and escaped leapards etc. How many people die and see a white light and then come back to life? how many people pray and their prayers are answered? Blah blah blah blah.
You can believe whatever you want to believe - but the Bible doesn't support your conclusions and nor does Christianity. We are born and we live and we die. And then we are judged. Reincarnation is really a joke in any event. the Western concept of reincarnation is much different to the Eastern One.
In the East, life is associated with suffering. Therefore to get rid of suffering you need to reach nirvana. Nirvana is not heaven as we understand heaven in the West. It is when the individual is absorbed back into the all. People in the East don't want to keep being reincarnated - they want to simply end and become nothing. The West's idea is a Hollywood nonsense with no link back to the religions it is derived from.
Reincarnation can explain several things about us. For example, children that are gifted with something like music, maths, arts, etc. Science can't explain it. You'll be asking why we don't remember our past lives, well we actually can but we need to get hypnotized because those memories are in the unconsciousness. There are several things about it that make a lot of sense so I think reincarnation is real and is part of the human being nature. We need to be open minded and keep researching in order to find the truth (although the fucking aliens will bring the truth anyway).
DNA can explain it too. In any event - there is no reason for Christianity to hide it - they just take the view that it is nonsense and not related at all to the historic religions that they were based on. I also think that you will find that even the Greeks and the Romans did not believe in reincarnation. They died and went to Hades - the place of the dead. The Egyptians might be different. but it is not found in Christian early history, unless you are talking about the Gnostics. And their position is so varied that no one really knows what was believed consistently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
The Catholic Church does not deem non-Catholic Christians’ rejection of the papacy as blasphemy, nor condemn them thereby as faithless. The Church views them as brothers and sisters in Christ who, while confessing the same Redeemer, lack the fullness of communion that Christ willed for His flock. In the eyes of the Church, the papacy—rooted in Christ’s words to Peter (Matthew 16:18)—represents both the center of visible unity and apostolic continuity. Jesus desires that all be one (John 17:21), so the Church prays and labors that every Christian might one day share this unity in its entirety. Though disagreement remains about the role of the Pope, it is not adjudged a deliberate offense against God’s honor but an imperfect apprehension of the gift Christ entrusted to Peter and his successors. We trust that in God’s providential plan, sincere hearts moved by grace will together converge on the truth, fulfilling our Lord’s prayer that all may be one.
Interesting statement. I'm not sure that Canon Francis Ripley agrees with you. See his lovely and helpful book, named This is the Faith published by Tan Book Publications.
Also, would you explain the position of marriage as a sacrament of the church? If a couple are married outside of the Roman Catholic Church are they truly married? Or would they need to be remarried by the Church if they wished to join the church as members?
Also, would you explain why the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the Orthodox Church in the original split? Why does history from both the Orthodox and the Protestants and even from some Catholic historians suggest it was because the Orthodox refused to accept the authority of the Papacy and his role in introducing "and the Son" to a certain Creed?
Created:
-->
@Shila
We don't get the Holy Spirit to enter us. He's God. He's not on a string. John 3:5-9 tells us that the Spirit goes where the Spirit desires. Not where we desire. He's like the wind. It blows where ever it pleases.There would be no reason to hold people responsible for believing or failing to believe in Jesus if the unregenerate person cannot actually believe. If God is the one who imparts faith to the unbeliever, then the responsibility to believe lies not with man but with God, and therefore, God can have no basis on which to judge people for failing to believe.If faith is a gift, then many commands in Scripture that exhort, command, prompt, and warn believers to live obediently become superfluous because the ultimate end of infused faith guarantees the sanctification of believers without their involvement (Lopez, “Is Faith a Gift From God?” 275).So for biblical, theological, and practical reasons, we conclude that faith is not automatic, nor is faith a gift from God.Faith comes through hearing the Word of God, through the convicting and drawing work of the Holy Spirit, and through responding to the revelation that one has already received from God.
Original Sin, from the fall, puts all humans into a situation whereby they can't believe. That's Church Teaching. It's Catholic, its Orthodox, It's protestant. It however is not cultish. It is not humanity's point of view. Certainly none of the other religions believe man can't believe. It is a uniquely Christian idea. I'm not even sure the Jews teach it, although their prophets surely did.
The Catholic church and the Orthodox church deal with it differently than the Protestant Church. They see baptism as the means of dealing with original sin. The non-Reformed protestant church deals with it by way of what they refer to as Prevenient Grace. Some even deny original sin as a concept. (I don't call consider them true protestant churches since they deny the fall.) The Reformed churches tend towards the doctrines of grace. We say faith is a gift since Paul calls it so. We deny the idea of prevenient grace since it is so vague. We don't think water baptism saves, although it is a sign of the covenant and brings people into covenant with God. And as such we believe it is a command of God to baptise, infants within the faith and adults who convert.
The Reformed churches also hold to the view that God is sovereign. Salvation belongs to him. And he will save whom he will save. He will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy. Go and read Romans 9 - it's a helpful read.
God elects whom he will save. He does it according to his own holy will. He has also created some for his holy wrath. Romans 9:22-23 We say - we believe because we are saved. Not that we are saved because we believe. We read John 3:16 as a declaration of the gospel. It's a warning. Not an invitation.
We say that God's rules of ethics and morals and justice belong to him, and not the same as humanity. God is never and can never be held to a human account.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The point is God gave salvation to all those people who are of the "Israel of God". It is for persons who have circumcised hearts, not necessarily circumcised foreskins.The covenant of circumcision still stands as written.The commandment to circumcise was a covenant made with Abraham and is recorded in Genesis 17:10–14, reading: 'And God spoke to Abraham saying: … This is my covenant which you shall keep between me and you and thy seed after you — every male child among you shall be circumcised. 'Matthew 5:17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.Jews still honour the covenant by continuing to circumcise their foreskin. Christians don’t have a covenant with God.Jesus did not form a new covenant with Christians with his death. His death was a result of nonbelievers.
The covenant was not circumcision. It was a sign of the covenant. Don't conflate the two things. When Jesus came, he fulfilled the law. He filled out the law.
He didn't change it. He exposed it for what it was. Never a tool for salvation. But a tool that would drive people to the Messiah. Since it would demonstrate that man needed God.
The NT sign of the covenant is baptism. Same as Jesus also said this is the new covenant - when he ate the bread and drank the wine - referring to himself at the last supper. the New Covenant which is what Christians - whether Jew or Gentile follow. Circumcision, the old sign, puts one under the law. Baptism puts one under grace.
Christians DO have a covenant with God. You speak nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I would add covenantal death.
God created humanity with a moral compass. They already knew the distinction between good and evil. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, may well have been more experimental, but the bible doesn't indicate it.
I know you are not in the habit of responding to me, but do you think it is significant that whereas before the fall, man was naked and not ashamed, that after the fall, knowing he was naked, it doesn't actually say he was ashamed. I know many people suggest it is the case, after all he hid in the garden, and he said, he was afraid because he was naked.
But do you think there might have been another reason for why he covered himself - or do you think it is basically that he felt shame for his sin? And the reason I ask that is because if is he ashamed of his sin, why did he immediately blame Eve and God - rather than confessing his sin and asking for forgiveness?
I know it is a long way from animals having free will. But it directly on the topic you raised above.
Created:
-->
@Shila
And your point is?
Created: