An animal's life does not atone for one's sin unless it stands for a
MEGA sacrifice -- Jesus. One human life can offset the debt for
another human life but many human lives can never be paid for by one
human or animal sacrifice.
A lot is written in these NGs and others about atonement for sin and
question what is proper sacrifice that is "acceptable" to God and what
is not.
Exercises in linguists in Hebrew and Greek attempt to find answers in
the Bible while quasi-historians and quasi-archaeologists pontificate.
I am not claiming to be a scholar of any of the fields mentioned
about; however, what I think I know trivializes some of the scholastic
attempts for simple reasons. Here is why:
Were the sacrifices of ancient religions, including Judaism, of any
value? If so, what is the value of the sacrifice itself, not the
symbol behind it? Doesn't a lamb = a lamb or is a lamb = a person's
life?
How does one receive atonement from God through the blood of an
animal? If I were to kill my brother then sacrifice a lamb at the
Temple, how can a lamb equal my brother's life? It cannot.
Sacrificial systems existed since the beginning of time to please the
"gods." Living humans were presented as sacrifices by ancient
peoples.
How did animal sacrifice become a worthy tool of atonement? It became
as such when it became a pre-enactment of a "promissory" sacrifice. A
promissory sacrifice is one which one promises to do or God, if you
will, assures to perform (or has performed) on behalf of you in a
major way that return the scale of debt from that of owing to that of
equilibrium.
Those who think that Jesus was a man who sacrificed his life as a
single human, are mistaken. A human can only pay for another human
life.
The sacrifice of Jesus was a MEGA sacrifice of a super-human i.e. God
in human incarnation that suffices to offset the debt humanity owes
and returns the balance to equilibrium. Anything less than that will
not atone.
Shan
.
|
|
| User: "Atzilah" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
17 Feb 2004 08:15:26 PM |
|
|
"Shan" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71bd538c.0402171009.54a3a43a@posting.google.com...
An animal's life does not atone for one's sin unless it stands for a
MEGA sacrifice -- Jesus. One human life can offset the debt for
another human life but many human lives can never be paid for by one
human or animal sacrifice.
Wrong. Throughout the Bible, YHWH says that one person cannot die for the
sins of another:
"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put
to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin"
(Deuteronomy 24:16)
"But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his
teeth will be set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:30)
"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for
the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's
iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the
wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20)
"He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of
them are an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 17:15).
"No man ['Jesus' included] can by any means redeem his brother, or give to
'God' a ransom for him" (Psalms 49:7)
A lot is written in these NGs and others about atonement for sin and
question what is proper sacrifice that is "acceptable" to God and what
is not.
Exercises in linguists in Hebrew and Greek attempt to find answers in
the Bible while quasi-historians and quasi-archaeologists pontificate.
I am not claiming to be a scholar of any of the fields mentioned
about; however, what I think I know trivializes some of the scholastic
attempts for simple reasons. Here is why:
Were the sacrifices of ancient religions, including Judaism, of any
value? If so, what is the value of the sacrifice itself, not the
symbol behind it? Doesn't a lamb = a lamb or is a lamb = a person's
life?
How does one receive atonement from God through the blood of an
animal? If I were to kill my brother then sacrifice a lamb at the
Temple, how can a lamb equal my brother's life? It cannot.
Sacrificial systems existed since the beginning of time to please the
"gods." Living humans were presented as sacrifices by ancient
peoples.
How did animal sacrifice become a worthy tool of atonement? It became
as such when it became a pre-enactment of a "promissory" sacrifice. A
promissory sacrifice is one which one promises to do or God, if you
will, assures to perform (or has performed) on behalf of you in a
major way that return the scale of debt from that of owing to that of
equilibrium.
Those who think that Jesus was a man who sacrificed his life as a
single human, are mistaken. A human can only pay for another human
life.
The sacrifice of Jesus was a MEGA sacrifice of a super-human i.e. God
in human incarnation that suffices to offset the debt humanity owes
and returns the balance to equilibrium. Anything less than that will
not atone.
Shan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shan" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
18 Feb 2004 11:18:06 AM |
|
|
"Atzilah" <atzilah@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2VzYb.67755$n62.33130@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
"Shan" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71bd538c.0402171009.54a3a43a@posting.google.com...
An animal's life does not atone for one's sin unless it stands for a
MEGA sacrifice -- Jesus. One human life can offset the debt for
another human life but many human lives can never be paid for by one
human or animal sacrifice.
Wrong. Throughout the Bible, YHWH says that one person cannot die for the
sins of another:
In black and white: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. You
are WRONG.
"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put
to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin"
(Deuteronomy 24:16)
That means, if you kill somebody, your life must pay for killing that
somebody. If you take his eye, he should take your eye.
"But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his
teeth will be set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:30)
Jeremiah was an idiot. You are confused before reading the rest of
the post.
Shan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hillel Sabba Markowitz" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
20 Feb 2004 02:14:17 PM |
|
|
(Shan) wrote in message news:<71bd538c.0402180918.5995226@posting.google.com>...
"Atzilah" <atzilah@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2VzYb.67755$n62.33130@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
"Shan" < > wrote in message
news:71bd538c.0402171009.54a3a43a@posting.google.com...
An animal's life does not atone for one's sin unless it stands for a
MEGA sacrifice -- Jesus. One human life can offset the debt for
another human life but many human lives can never be paid for by one
human or animal sacrifice.
Wrong. Throughout the Bible, YHWH says that one person cannot die for the
sins of another:
In black and white: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. You
are WRONG.
<sigh> It is amazing how the same errors keep being propagated
throughout. This phrase, ayin tachas ayin, does *not* mean literally
removing an eye. It *never* meant a "literal" translation. The Oral
law (case law in modern terms) from the time of Moses at the giving of
the Torah specifically points this out. If you want to stay literal,
it is because of the the use of the word tachas.
This is part of the reason that one cannot understand Jewish law
without both parts of the Torah.
"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put
to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin"
(Deuteronomy 24:16)
That means, if you kill somebody, your life must pay for killing that
somebody. If you take his eye, he should take your eye.
Perhaps "should" or "deserves to" but definitely not as a matter of
actual performance. That is why the Torah has to say explicitly that
a murderer must be put to death and cannot "ransom his life". The
other punishments (such as ayin tachas ayin - an eye *replacing* an
eye) must be monetary in nature.
"But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his
teeth will be set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:30)
Jeremiah was an idiot. You are confused before reading the rest of
the post.
Yirmiyahu was a prophet (not a bullfrog) and was stating G-d's
explicit command.
--
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
Sabba.Hillel@verizon.net | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shan" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
21 Feb 2004 01:10:34 PM |
|
|
(Hillel Sabba Markowitz) wrote in message news:<927a0385.0402201214.5d2c5f4b@posting.google.com>...
shankarees@yahoo.com (Shan) wrote in message news:<71bd538c.0402180918.5995226@posting.google.com>...
"Atzilah" <atzilah@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2VzYb.67755$n62.33130@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
"Shan" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71bd538c.0402171009.54a3a43a@posting.google.com...
An animal's life does not atone for one's sin unless it stands for a
MEGA sacrifice -- Jesus. One human life can offset the debt for
another human life but many human lives can never be paid for by one
human or animal sacrifice.
Wrong. Throughout the Bible, YHWH says that one person cannot die for the
sins of another:
In black and white: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. You
are WRONG.
<sigh> It is amazing how the same errors keep being propagated
throughout. This phrase, ayin tachas ayin, does *not* mean literally
It does not matter. You are bein literalist. All of this means to
say that justice requires that you pay an equal value for what you've
done. It does not matter what 3aiyn means.
This is part of the reason that one cannot understand Jewish law
without both parts of the Torah.
Jewish law is a joke.
"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put
to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin"
(Deuteronomy 24:16)
That means, if you kill somebody, your life must pay for killing that
somebody. If you take his eye, he should take your eye.
Perhaps "should" or "deserves to" but definitely not as a matter of
actual performance. That is why the Torah has to say explicitly that
Regardless of the Torah. You have to compensate for your mistake with
equal value -- stop dwelling on the words and think of the meaning.
"But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his
teeth will be set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:30)
Jeremiah was an idiot. You are confused before reading the rest of
the post.
Yirmiyahu was a prophet (not a bullfrog) and was stating G-d's
explicit command.
I don't know what's the use of using Hebrew words in an English text
but anyway, you have no proof that stating Yahweh's command, *****'s
command or Harry's command. All of these folks were confused men
blabbering nonsesne.
Shan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
21 Feb 2004 09:50:57 AM |
|
|
Atzilah wrote:
"Shan" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71bd538c.0402171009.54a3a43a@posting.google.com...
An animal's life does not atone for one's sin unless it stands for a
MEGA sacrifice -- Jesus. One human life can offset the debt for
another human life but many human lives can never be paid for by one
human or animal sacrifice.
Wrong. Throughout the Bible, YHWH says that one person cannot die for the
sins of another:
True... unless God says such is the case.
God is telling them that THEY can not decide to kill
a father's son, for the father's sins.
But God CAN decide to do such, he's God, he gives the breath
of life and he can take it away.
That's why Pharoah's kid died... for Pharoah's sins.
And ... Pharoah's men died for Pharoah's sins.
And ... King David's kid died for King David's sin.
And ... King David's men, died for King David's sins... etc...
And ... Jesus died for the sins of those that would believe him.
"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put
to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin"
(Deuteronomy 24:16)
Exactly, they can't decide to do it, but God can.
Just like you can't decide to kill a man, but God can.
"But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his
teeth will be set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:30)
Unless God says otherwise.
In the cases of Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9, a MAN is dying for
OTHER's sins, not for himself, but for OTHERS, since God
set up that MAN, that messiah, that ARM OF GOD, that savior,
that rejected, despised, taken, deserted, mutilated and killed,
CUT OFF, great man... with God's SPIRIT inside him. The
physical man died, God's SPIRIT never died.
"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for
the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's
iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the
wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20)
Which just goes to show... God can decide, he can JUDGE,
he can put out a punishment that THEY could not.
"He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of
them are an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 17:15).
"No man ['Jesus' included] can by any means redeem his brother, or give to
'God' a ransom for him" (Psalms 49:7)
No man that THEY would decide... but God can decide otherwise.
That's why King David's son DIED for King David's sin.
God wanted King David to feel PAIN and KNOW it was wrong
for him to have done it, but at the same time, to remain
King. God didn't want another King, he wanted King David
to rule, so OTHERS paid the price, and King David received
the pain of knowing that they died because of his sins.
Jesus is even further along that that, he was their messiah,
what they were looking for, to save them. But in that they'd
sinned as Daniel said right all through Daniel 9, they would
then lose out in that they'd feel the pain of LOSING the
messiah, him being CUT OFF due to their sins. But at the
same time, he's also dying for OTHERS, not for himself,
OTHERS.
It was all sealed by the messiah, his death, Daniel 9
was sealed so they wouldn't understanding it, and would
miss it... even missing it until present day.
Yet it's right there in Daniel 9 and has been there
for thousands of years.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Mikra" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
21 Feb 2004 02:08:01 PM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" wrote
: Atzilah wrote:
: > Wrong. Throughout the Bible, YHWH says that one person cannot die for
the
: > sins of another:
:
: True... unless God says such is the case.
*Which He never does.
: In the cases of Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9, a MAN is dying for
: OTHER's sins, not for himself, but for OTHERS, since God
: set up that MAN, that messiah, that ARM OF GOD, that savior,
: that rejected, despised, taken, deserted, mutilated and killed,
: CUT OFF, great man... with God's SPIRIT inside him. The
: physical man died, God's SPIRIT never died.
*No, dying 'because' of another's sins - not 'for' another's sins.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 02:06:45 AM |
|
|
Ben Mikra wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" wrote
: Atzilah wrote:
: > Wrong. Throughout the Bible, YHWH says that one person cannot die for
the
: > sins of another:
:
: True... unless God says such is the case.
*Which He never does.
Oh, forgot to post where God paid off the sin with
the deaths of others... yet King David himself, he
was not punished directly, OTHERS were while the sin
was "put away"... reconciled, equalized, atoned:
2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment
of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou
hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword,
and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and
hast slain him with the sword of the children
of Ammon.
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from
thine house; because thou hast despised me, and
hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be
thy wife.
(David really messed up, God was VERY angry with him for
despising the commandment of God and doing evil in his sight)
11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil
against thee out of thine own house, and I will
take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them
unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy
wives in the sight of this sun.
12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this
thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against
the LORD.
(a direct admission by David that he knew he'd sinned)
And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put
away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
(David's thinking he's gonna die... seconds and he'd be dead,
but Nathan tells him God isn't going to kill him... in fact,
he's not going to do anything directly to him... OTHERS
would be making the payments on that sin that was even worse
than David had thought it was... others would be blaspheming
God as well)
14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great
occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme,
the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
So, let's add it up. The sin King David did, killing or
having killed Uriah to take his wife, that sin cost:
* David - nothing directly.
* House of David - brought the sword, evil, etc... upon them.
* David's wives - dispersed to other men.
* David's son - killed by God.
What did David do right after he found out his son was dead?
He got up, got cleaned up, ate, told them it was over,
annoited himself, and went into the temple to praise God.
The sin didn't directly impact David himself. The sin cost
the House of David, David's wives, and David's son's life.
'vicarious atonement'
A payment by someone else to make it right again.
King David didn't decide it... God decided the payment.
God set it up, to make it right again.
When King David KNEW that God was content... it was over
and he got cleaned up, ate and went to the temple to praise God.
Jesus dying for others sins... it's much the same thing,
but on a grander scale... a GREAT MAN dying for the sins
of OTHERS... despised and rejected... they don't believe
the report... deserted and killed... mutilated... it's
all sealed just like the angel told Daniel in Daniel 9.
What's amazing to me is how God can openly say it's sealed,
and it truely is sealed, until he says otherwise. It can
be right in front of people, and they don't see it going
on, having already happened, or having already been predicted,
and right out in front of them.
Basically Daniel, in Daniel 9 asked God
"When will this be paid? We've done horrible things, how
and when can we be forgiven? When can God be content that
it's over? What can we do to fix this?"
The angel showed and told Daniel when and how:
From http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/dan9.htm
Da 9:24 Seventy sevens are determined upon thy people
and upon thy holy city, to finish the
transgression, and to make an end of sins,
and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
to anoint the most Holy.
(Note that the original scriptures say 'seventy sevens'
which can be weeks, days, or even years in the
prophecy. Also that the transgression would be
finished, sins would end, iniquity would be paid off,
to bring in everlasting righteousness (God would show
up), and that said prophecy and vision would be
SEALED by the Messiah... the most Holy anointed.
Basically, in a specified amount of time, the Messiah
would show up as 'God with us', his showing up would
pay for sins and that his showing up would SEAL the
vision and prophecy until later... present day.
)
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the
going forth of the commandment to restore
and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the
Prince shall be seven sevens and sixty two
sevens: the street shall be built again,
and the wall, even in troublous times.
(This and a portion of the next verse have already
been more than covered by various authors. Basically
the verse is saying that the command to rebuild
Jerusalem in 445 BC, that following the command
after 7*7+62*7 prophetic years {of 360 days per
prophetic year} the Messiah would show up... and
he did in 32 AD. Continuing on, retranslating...}
Dan 9:26 And after sixty two sevens shall Messiah
be killed, but not for himself: and the
kinsman of the prince that shall come,
shall destroy the encampment of God; the
end thereof shall be outrageous. After
the attack the deserted shall be mutilated.
(This is just what happened, the Messiah showed up
at the predicted time of 32 AD, and Jesus showing
up, he didn't use any MIGHT and POWER, only God's
SPIRIT {Zec 4}. In return he was taken to prison,
his followers attacked and scattered by his own
kinsman, himself left DESERTED.
The ending for the Messiah was fairly outrageous,
he was beaten, mutilated and crucified. Notice, he
was DESERTED since he was considered to be OFFENSIVE
by his own kinsmen. God had told them this would
occur in Zec 11.)
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with the
many for one week and in the midst of the
week he shall cause the sacrifice and the
oblation to cease, and at the corner of the
garment, detestable appalling destruction
and mutilation, poured out upon the deserted.
This too continues to discuss what happened the last
week of Jesus's life, he rode into Jerusalem on a
donkey, praised by them, and himself making strong
the covenant with the many, the OTHERS he would die
for, himself being blameless {see Isaiah 53}.
The messiah's death was to pay for OTHERS sins,
those that would believe him. And as was discussed
in other articles, the corner of the garment shows
the "detestable appalling destruction and mutilation,
poured out upon the deserted". Jesus dying for sins
and raising up again, he then sealed the prophecy
for later by writing in the corner of the cloth the
"detestable appalling destruction and mutilation,
poured out upon the deserted" for all to see.
--------------------------
And as was pointed out before, if they'd known and
UNDERSTOOD what Jesus said to look for, had done
what Jesus said THOUSANDS of years ago to do, then
none of it would have happened.
BOTH didn't know or understand what God had done,
nor did they understand what he'd said he would do,
or what he knew would happen... and it then happened
at the SAME TIME he said it would.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 01:31:02 AM |
|
|
Ben Mikra wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" wrote
: In the cases of Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9, a MAN is dying for
: OTHER's sins, not for himself, but for OTHERS, since God
: set up that MAN, that messiah, that ARM OF GOD, that savior,
: that rejected, despised, taken, deserted, mutilated and killed,
: CUT OFF, great man... with God's SPIRIT inside him. The
: physical man died, God's SPIRIT never died.
*No, dying 'because' of another's sins - not 'for' another's sins.
Explain the sin that Kind David's son died for.
Why did the son die? Was the son dying "because of"
or "for" said sin?
Atonement is a PAYMENT, or equalization, reconcillation,
an adjustment to make things right.
From the viewpoint of the son, he's done nothing wrong,
yet he was killed. When you check God's statement about
it, you find that the sin was "put away", and the son
was killed.
Isn't this obvious?
Do you not see the trade that was made? Do you not
see the reconcilliation? The equaliation of the sin
and the taking of the son's life?
If you don't see it, then explain WHY God KILLED the son
when the son did nothing.
Go on... explain away.
If you say that the son was killed without regard
to the "put away" sin... then what was he killed for?
Why wasn't King David killed instead?
From what I can tell... NOTHING happened directly to
King David, but his entire world around him was dirupted.
Why didn't God directly impact King David instead?
The son did nothing... or did he? What sin did the son do
deserving of his death?
David did a horrible thing, took a man's wife, and had
the man KILLED in a planned battle that he couldn't win,
forced to go in and die, so King David could take his
wife...
In return, God "put away" the sin and KILLED the son,
brought the sword to the House of David, and dispersed
David's wives to other men.
What do you expect that reconcillation was to accomplish
other than to pay for the sin as it's "put away"? God
said that the sin would cause others to blaspheme him,
so he was going to bring the sword on the House of David,
and David's son would die... and the sin was "put away".
David thought he was going to die for what he'd done,
but NOTHING happened directly to him as the sin was
'put away'... why?
If the sin was already "put away"... why would the son
need to die? If King David was already forgiven, and
living on, what was the point of bringing the sword
against the House of David, killing David's son, and
dispersing his wives to other men?
The answer is OBVIOUS.
There was a direct reconcillation, a payment, the sin
required a payment for God to then be content that it
was over.
And WHEN it was over, when it was PAID, King David promptly
got up, got cleaned up, ate, told them it was over and
went into the temple to praise God.
David knew the sin was paid off by all the things God had
done after putting away said sin... don't you understand
how said sin was paid off? Don't you understand how it was
paid in part by King David's son dying for the sin?
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Mikra" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 02:21:26 AM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" wrote
: Explain the sin that Kind David's son died for.
*He didn't die 'for' anyone's sins.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 03:29:25 AM |
|
|
Ben Mikra wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" wrote
: Explain the sin that Kind David's son died for.
*He didn't die 'for' anyone's sins.
Why did God kill King David's son then?
Was it for the sin, or not?
Why was the sword brought against the House of David?
Was it for the sin, or not?
Why were King David's wives dispersed?... for the sin or not?
Can you read the verses? What is the problem understanding them?
Can someone read them to you?
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Mikra" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 12:21:20 PM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" wrote
: Why did God kill King David's son then?
*Where is it written that YHWH killed him?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
23 Feb 2004 04:39:47 AM |
|
|
Ben Mikra wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" wrote
: Why did God kill King David's son then?
*Where is it written that YHWH killed him?
-------------------------------------------------------
2Sa 12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And
the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife
bare unto David, and it was very sick.
..
..
..
2Sa 12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh day,
that the child died.
-------------------------------------------------------
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 04:30:14 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Ben Mikra wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" wrote
: Explain the sin that Kind David's son died for.
*He didn't die 'for' anyone's sins.
Why did God kill King David's son then?
Was it for the sin, or not?
Why was the sword brought against the House of David?
Was it for the sin, or not?
Not for it but because of David's sin no one dould be certain whose son
it was because it was done in secret and it was known that Uriah was in
town near the time of conception. Solomon was his brother and became
king so do you see the risk had the child lived?
Why were King David's wives dispersed?... for the sin or not?
Can you read the verses? What is the problem understanding them?
Cleary you do have trouble understanding them. It was because of David's
sin. Absalom wanted to establish himself on the throne before Solomon
could be crowned needed to discredit his fathers choice.
Can someone read them to you?
We've been reading and eplaining them to you.
It does not seem to help.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 05:29:23 AM |
|
|
Jan Pompe wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Ben Mikra wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" wrote
: Explain the sin that Kind David's son died for.
*He didn't die 'for' anyone's sins.
Why did God kill King David's son then?
Was it for the sin, or not?
Why was the sword brought against the House of David?
Was it for the sin, or not?
Not for it but because of David's sin no one dould be certain whose son
it was because it was done in secret and it was known that Uriah was in
town near the time of conception. Solomon was his brother and became
king so do you see the risk had the child lived?
2Sa 11:4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came
in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified
from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.
5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and
said, I am with child.
Looks like it was known.
Why were King David's wives dispersed?... for the sin or not?
Can you read the verses? What is the problem understanding them?
Cleary you do have trouble understanding them. It was because of David's
sin. Absalom wanted to establish himself on the throne before Solomon
could be crowned needed to discredit his fathers choice.
You agree again, it was King David's sin being PAID OFF.
Fine.
As nothing ever happened directly to King David himself:
'vicarious atonement' strikes again.
Can someone read them to you?
We've been reading and eplaining them to you.
It does not seem to help.
You're ignoring the obvious 'vicarious atonement' aspect of it all.
I wonder why?
Does Mohammed command you to ignore the obvious?
You yourself said the sin was the reason the son died,
the wives dispersed, and of course, the sword against the
House of David... yet NOTHING happened to King David
himself...
And a little 'vicarious atonement' later, King David
is off praising God in the temple after cleaning himself
up, annoiting himself, and telling them it was over
after his son died... it's all PAID OFF... God is
content that that sin is/was over.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 06:58:20 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Ben Mikra wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" wrote
: Explain the sin that Kind David's son died for.
*He didn't die 'for' anyone's sins.
Why did God kill King David's son then?
Was it for the sin, or not?
Why was the sword brought against the House of David?
Was it for the sin, or not?
Not for it but because of David's sin no one dould be certain whose son
it was because it was done in secret and it was known that Uriah was in
town near the time of conception. Solomon was his brother and became
king so do you see the risk had the child lived?
2Sa 11:4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came
in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified
from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.
5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and
said, I am with child.
Looks like it was known.
When was this part of Samuel written when was it known? At this time it
was all in secret and not known until Nathan took David to task over it.
Why were King David's wives dispersed?... for the sin or not?
Can you read the verses? What is the problem understanding them?
Cleary you do have trouble understanding them. It was because of David's
sin. Absalom wanted to establish himself on the throne before Solomon
could be crowned needed to discredit his fathers choice.
You agree again, it was King David's sin being PAID OFF.
It was paid by David get it?
Fine.
As nothing ever happened directly to King David himself:
'vicarious atonement' strikes again.
Can someone read them to you?
We've been reading and explaining them to you.
It does not seem to help.
You're ignoring the obvious 'vicarious atonement' aspect of it all.
I wonder why?
I think perhaps Mohammed is explaining it to you you seem the think that
the death of a child is a matter for rejoicing.
Are you a Palestinian?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
07 Mar 2004 12:01:18 AM |
|
|
Jan Pompe wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
You're ignoring the obvious 'vicarious atonement' aspect of it all.
I wonder why?
I think perhaps Mohammed is explaining it to you you seem the think that
the death of a child is a matter for rejoicing.
I don't know what Mohammed said.
Can you describe more about what you think Mohammed said
that deals with this topic?
Are you a Palestinian?
No, are you?
I do think it's rather odd though, both Jews and Muslims
being BLIND to what God said would happen in Daniel 9, and
right there in the same verse set, God said through the
angel, that it was SEALED... and neither of them saw it.
The one claims they know what the messiah said, yet
doesn't know what would have been great to know BEFORE
it all blew up.
The other claims they don't need to know what the messiah
said, yet then desires said messiah to show up.
In either case, Jesus said WHEN you see what Daniel 9
described, then they should flee Judea.
It was known and written up on 5/11/00... soon after,
the 7 year peace agreement fell apart because BOTH didn't
know what Jesus said, or that he'd died for OTHERS, as
was given by God in Daniel 9. God decided it, God said
the messiah would DIE for OTHERS. God had him KILLED, just
as he had King David's son KILLED, and Pharaoh's son KILLED.
But notice... it was foretold HUNDREDS of years before
Jesus showed up. Predicted HUNDREDS of years in advance
and the year predicted, came true... Jesus showed up
on cue.
And what would have helped them NOW... they MISSED since
they didn't know what Jesus said... to FLEE Judea when
it's UNDERSTOOD what Daniel 9 described.
When you see it... flee Judea.
On 5/11/00 it was UNDERSTOOD... the 7 year peace agreement
was coming to a close, the last sticking point, the last
main point was the territories.
What Jesus said to look for showed up, the warning went out,
and NO ONE believed what Jesus said to look for had shown up,
and it all collapsed. Only months later, Sharon showed up at
the temple, and said he could do anything he wanted there,
and they went ballistic... about a thousand died in street
rioting... then months after that, the jets slammed into the
towers and the towers collapsed.
Jesus knew when they should flee Judea, if they had, it
would have ended. Both Islamic Jihad and Hamas, they said
that it would end if they left the territories... and at
that very time... the 7 year agreement was near closure,
then it all collapsed, "peace peace, and there is no peace".
Israel offered peace, but it wasn't wanted, they wanted
them out of there... then peace... or so they said.
================
Jesus knew WHEN.
================
Jesus knew it THOUSANDS of years ago.
God knew WHEN too. God said at the SAME TIME, it would
be said that the moon shines as the light of the sun
(it does, it's just reflected sunlight), and the
sun shines as the light of 7 days (the sun has shown
as the light of 7 "God days" as given in Genesis 1
which matches what God's creation shows), that there
would be a slaughter in the hills filled with water
(Afghanistan is known for it's hills filled with water)
in the day the towers collapse... Bin Laden sent the
jets into the WTC towers at the SAME TIME.
It all happened at the same time.
The entire world mourned at the same time.
God knew it would happen, God knew when it would be SAID.
Notice though, Jesus gave a WARNING, that WARNING was
written up only months before Sharon showed up at the
temple. On 5/11/00, Jesus's warning was UNDERSTOOD,
it was written up, but NEITHER of the two over there
believes Jesus... the warning was never taken seriously.
Mohammed didn't know it, and even made it tougher for them
to find out in saying that Jesus couldn't have died
for sins... yet there's King David proving Mohammed wrong.
The Jews didn't know it... they don't believe Jesus
is anyone to believe in the first place, so they didn't
and don't listen anyway.
Two groups, one says they believe Jesus... they don't,
since they don't even know what he said, or why he died,
claiming he never died... their leader... their prophet,
Mohammed, said "no man can die for another's sins" as a
basis for rejecting Jesus dying for OTHERS sins... so
they point blank have no idea that Jesus was right thousands
of years ago in saying such.
The other group... they don't realize who Jesus is and
tend to not care what he said... they think it's unimportant
to know anything about him.
But if BOTH had known and done what Jesus said to do,
none of it would have happened as BOTH would have known
what to do such there would have been no issues in the
first place.
Regardless, Jesus said when you see it and understand
what Daniel described, that disgusting devestation on
the Holy One's quarter... then they should flee Judea.
At the time it was understood and written up (5/11/00),
they were nearing the end of the 7 year peace agreement,
the big sticking point was the territories... leaving...
never happened and the 7 year peace agreement... it all
fell apart, and the entire world got sucked into it.
Jesus knew WHEN to flee... and hundreds of years before,
God knew WHEN it would be SAID.
Only God could predict such stuff... but NEITHER cares
to find him, or understand what he said.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
21 Feb 2004 10:07:17 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
And ... Pharoah's men died for Pharoah's sins.
And ... King David's kid died for King David's sin.
And ... King David's men, died for King David's sins... etc...
And ... Jesus died for the sins of those that would believe him.
One last point about this. In the case of Pharaoh, God
could have EASILY killed Pharaoh, no problem...
Why didn't he?
God could have easily changed Pharaoh's heart to be
very receptive to letting them go...
Why didn't he?
Instead, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and let him
continue to believe and do exactly what he wanted
to do in the first place... and that got his kid
and lots of his men KILLED... KILLED by God.
Why?
Why were Pharaoh's kid and men... KILLED by God?
Especially when it was Pharaoh's SIN that was the source
of the entire mess.
Why?
If you believe that "no man can die for the sins of another",
then explain Pharaoh and God killing all of those killed,
but not killing Pharaoh.
Then there's King David and his son that... God KILLED.
Then there's King David's men that God said would DIE
in battle because of King David's SIN.
Don't you see?
There is NO PROBLEM with God setting up someone to die
for another's sins... but there is a BIG PROBLEM if
men kill others for someone else's sins.
Why?
The answer is, God is God... men deciding such, they
are NOT God... they can not decide to do something only
God allows himself to do.
God set up Jesus, their messiah, to DIE for the sins
of OTHERS... and ONLY God can set that up, no man
can set it up... ONLY God can.
And God told them about it, told them in Daniel 9,
that it would happen. God told them in Isaiah 53,
"who would believe the report?"... a MAN dying
for OTHERS sins.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Form" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
21 Feb 2004 07:17:54 PM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
That's why Pharoah's kid died... for Pharoah's sins.
The child died because of Pharoah's sins
And ... Pharoah's men died for Pharoah's sins.
The soldiers died because of Pharaoh's sins.
And ... King David's kid died for King David's sin.
The baby died because of David's sins.
And ... King David's men, died for King David's sins... etc...
They die because of David's sins.
And ... Jesus died for the sins of those that would believe him.
Jesus died *for* the sins of those who believe in him.
There is no relationship whatever between the case of Jesus and the
cases of the others you cite.
Ed Form
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 03:34:04 AM |
|
|
Ed Form wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
That's why Pharoah's kid died... for Pharoah's sins.
The child died because of Pharoah's sins
You agree then, fine.
And ... Pharoah's men died for Pharoah's sins.
The soldiers died because of Pharaoh's sins.
Again, you agree, fine.
And ... King David's kid died for King David's sin.
The baby died because of David's sins.
Again, you agree, fine.
And ... King David's men, died for King David's sins... etc...
They die because of David's sins.
And again you agree... fine.
And ... Jesus died for the sins of those that would believe him.
Jesus died *for* the sins of those who believe in him.
If no one had ever sinned, or ever would sin, what reason
would there be to KILL Jesus?
Call it because of, or for, makes no difference.
There is no relationship whatever between the case of Jesus and the
cases of the others you cite.
It's all the same thing, 'vicarious atonement', another
person paying the debt and the original person NOT paying it.
King David didn't pay... his son did.
Pharaoh didn't pay... his son did.
King David's men paid... King David didn't.
Pharaoh's men paid... Pharaoh didn't.
Good 'ole 'vicarious atonement'... don't leave home without it.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 04:35:26 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
If no one had ever sinned, or ever would sin, what reason
would there be to KILL Jesus?
He sinned against Caesar so Caesar's agent killed him.
Call it because of, or for, makes no difference.
It makes a huge difference. 'For' implies vicarious punishment 'because
of' implies cause and effect.
It's all the same thing, 'vicarious atonement', another
person paying the debt and the original person NOT paying it.
King David didn't pay... his son did.
If you've ever lost a child you'd know David paid.
Pharaoh didn't pay... his son did.
If you've ever lost a child you'd know Pharoah paid.
King David's men paid... King David didn't.
If you'd ever commanded armed forces you'd know David paid.
Pharaoh's men paid... Pharaoh didn't.
If you'd ever commanded armed forces you'd know Pharoah paid.
Good 'ole 'vicarious atonement'... don't leave home without it.
That is right don't and you'll carry the truth with you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 05:54:29 AM |
|
|
Jan Pompe wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Call it because of, or for, makes no difference.
It makes a huge difference. 'For' implies vicarious punishment 'because
of' implies cause and effect.
Are you without a dictionary?
"vicarious" - someone else substituting.
"atonement" - pay the debt, reconciliation, or equalizing.
The debt was David's horrible sin.
The payment was all the stuff that God commanded to be done
to pay that debt:
* David's son dying
* Sword coming against the House of David
* David's wives being dispersed
And of course... NOTHING happening to King David himself.
'vicarious atonement'
It's all the same thing, 'vicarious atonement', another
person paying the debt and the original person NOT paying it.
King David didn't pay... his son did.
If you've ever lost a child you'd know David paid.
YES!!!
David PAID in the PAIN of losing his child, yet NOTHING
happened directly to King David other than that MENTAL pain
while OTHERS paid the price... King David if he had no
caring, it was a costless debt... but since he more than
likely cared (7 days on the ground while his kid died),
that pain was something he had to endure.
NOTICE NOW... see that missing messiah????
See him???
Where is he?
Do you see why Daniel 9 says the messiah would die
for the sins of OTHERS and not for himself???
Jews then get that mental pain... they didn't get
their messiah... instead, they got what Daniel 9
told them would happen... same as King David got
with his son dying.
Pharaoh didn't pay... his son did.
If you've ever lost a child you'd know Pharoah paid.
YES!
That's what I've been trying to say!
King David's men paid... King David didn't.
If you'd ever commanded armed forces you'd know David paid.
YES!!!
We are in agreement!
Pharaoh's men paid... Pharaoh didn't.
If you'd ever commanded armed forces you'd know Pharoah paid.
YES!!!
It's a mental payment, Pharaoh LOST his men, some of them
I'm sure he was great pals with... and they're "now" DEAD!!!
Now ask the Jews about their messiah... then see Daniel 9
and Daniel asking WHEN would the sins be forgiven, when
would it be paid off... what could they do... please hear
me God... WHEN?
Do you understand what Daniel was asking God? Do you understand
the ANSWER God gave Daniel?
It's the same answer God gave King David, but in the messiah
case, it's not King David's direct son, it's THEIR son, one of
their own kinsmen, that they'd then reject, etc... their own
messiah taken, beaten, and KILLED... God even telling them:
WHEN.
Good 'ole 'vicarious atonement'... don't leave home without it.
That is right don't and you'll carry the truth with you.
Yep, I believe Jesus died for sins, just like Daniel 9
told them.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 07:23:31 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Call it because of, or for, makes no difference.
It makes a huge difference. 'For' implies vicarious punishment 'because
of' implies cause and effect.
Are you without a dictionary?
"vicarious" - someone else substituting.
That is right no one substituted.
"atonement" - pay the debt, reconciliation, or equalizing.
Actually the Hebrew word for atonement kaparah does not mean anytthing
like that.
The debt was David's horrible sin.
What was his sin? You haven't got it yet and you are a prime example of
the sort of trouble it has caused and contiues to cause even today.
The payment was all the stuff that God commanded to be done
to pay that debt:
* David's son dying
* Sword coming against the House of David
* David's wives being dispersed
And of course... NOTHING happening to King David himself.
All of the above happened to David.
'vicarious atonement'
It's all the same thing, 'vicarious atonement', another
person paying the debt and the original person NOT paying it.
King David didn't pay... his son did.
If you've ever lost a child you'd know David paid.
YES!!!
David PAID in the PAIN of losing his child, yet NOTHING
happened directly to King David other than that MENTAL pain
while OTHERS paid the price... King David if he had no
caring, it was a costless debt... but since he more than
likely cared (7 days on the ground while his kid died),
that pain was something he had to endure.
Have you ever ever experienced that pain? It never goes away.
unless you are a Palestinian.
NOTICE NOW... see that missing messiah????
See him???
Where is he?
You should answer that one he did say he would return soon.
Do you see why Daniel 9 says the messiah would die
for the sins of OTHERS and not for himself???
You are making that up it's not in the text.
Jews then get that mental pain... they didn't get
their messiah... instead, they got what Daniel 9
told them would happen... same as King David got
with his son dying.
Pharaoh didn't pay... his son did.
If you've ever lost a child you'd know Pharoah paid.
YES!
That's what I've been trying to say!
King David's men paid... King David didn't.
If you'd ever commanded armed forces you'd know David paid.
YES!!!
We are in agreement!
Pharaoh's men paid... Pharaoh didn't.
If you'd ever commanded armed forces you'd know Pharoah paid.
YES!!!
It's a mental payment, Pharaoh LOST his men, some of them
I'm sure he was great pals with... and they're "now" DEAD!!!
It's more that mental payment you idiot what is a commander without an Army?
Now ask the Jews about their messiah... then see Daniel 9
and Daniel asking WHEN would the sins be forgiven, when
would it be paid off... what could they do... please hear
me God... WHEN?
I am a Jew I can tell you about our Messiah he will be King
Jesus never was King and since he's dead if he ever existed in the first
place he never will be.
He will be a descendent of David.
Since we don't know who the father is he doesn't qualify.
Do you understand what Daniel was asking God?
Yes I do He wsn't actually asking anything but got an explanation anyway.
He was asking for something - forgiveness.
Do you understand
the ANSWER God gave Daniel?
Absolutely Daniel was wondering why when the seventy years was up they
were in exile. there were two seventy year prophecies one did not get
fulfilled until the US invaded Iraq which was that Baylon would be
destroyed when it had fulilled 70 years Baylon was defeated after 69.
Iraq was invaded after 70 years of independence.
The seventy years dated fromt he fall of the Temple where the second
seventy year prophecy was made together with the word from God that
Jerusalem would be rebuilt.
AS ordained in Leviticus 26 Hudah did not repent in exile so the
punishment was increased 7 fold hence we have the 490 years.
Is it getting any clearer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
07 Mar 2004 12:54:58 AM |
|
|
Jan Pompe wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Call it because of, or for, makes no difference.
It makes a huge difference. 'For' implies vicarious punishment 'because
of' implies cause and effect.
Are you without a dictionary?
"vicarious" - someone else substituting.
That is right no one substituted.
King David's son died... King David was left intact.
"atonement" - pay the debt, reconciliation, or equalizing.
Actually the Hebrew word for atonement kaparah does not mean anytthing
like that.
Death isn't a payment to equalize the debt caused
by the sin?
Then why was it done?
The debt was David's horrible sin.
What was his sin? You haven't got it yet and you are a prime example of
the sort of trouble it has caused and contiues to cause even today.
Adultrey.
The payment was all the stuff that God commanded to be done
to pay that debt:
* David's son dying
* Sword coming against the House of David
* David's wives being dispersed
And of course... NOTHING happening to King David himself.
All of the above happened to David.
King David is NOT his own son.
King David WATCHED it happen to OTHERS.
Where is he?
You should answer that one he did say he would return soon.
Soon is relative.
The universe is billions of years old, soon relative to
billions of years, could seem like a long time.
But when you see the eagles gathered to the carcase...
Do you see why Daniel 9 says the messiah would die
for the sins of OTHERS and not for himself???
You are making that up it's not in the text.
It says sins would end.
It says not for himself.
It says the messiah.
Can't you figure it out?
OH! That's right... it's SEALED... you probably can't
figure it out.
It's a mental payment, Pharaoh LOST his men, some of them
I'm sure he was great pals with... and they're "now" DEAD!!!
It's more that mental payment you idiot what is a commander without an Army?
Not all his soldiers died.
Now ask the Jews about their messiah... then see Daniel 9
and Daniel asking WHEN would the sins be forgiven, when
would it be paid off... what could they do... please hear
me God... WHEN?
I am a Jew I can tell you about our Messiah he will be King
Jesus never was King and since he's dead if he ever existed in the first
place he never will be.
The kingdom of God came to them, they rejected it.
See Daniel 9 for details.
He will be a descendent of David.
Since we don't know who the father is he doesn't qualify.
You don't know who God is?
Do you understand what Daniel was asking God?
Yes I do He wsn't actually asking anything but got an explanation anyway.
He was asking for something - forgiveness.
Yes, and the angel then told him WHEN sins would end,
and that it was a long time off in the future, even
gave the timing for when it would occur.
Do you understand
the ANSWER God gave Daniel?
Absolutely Daniel was wondering why when the seventy years was up they
were in exile. there were two seventy year prophecies one did not get
fulfilled until the US invaded Iraq which was that Baylon would be
destroyed when it had fulilled 70 years Baylon was defeated after 69.
Iraq was invaded after 70 years of independence.
Wrong:
Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the
going forth of the commandment to restore
and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the
Prince shall be seven sevens and sixty two
sevens: the street shall be built again,
and the wall, even in troublous times.
The command was concerning Jerusalem, not "Baylon" (sic),
the restoration of Jerusalem. That from that command to
when the messiah shows up... etc... and the years
ended up being right.
The seventy years dated fromt he fall of the Temple where the second
seventy year prophecy was made together with the word from God that
Jerusalem would be rebuilt.
No, because it's the restoration of >>> Jerusalem <<<
not the temple, and the messiah is dying:
Dan 9:26 And after sixty two sevens shall Messiah
be killed, but not for himself: and the
kinsman of the prince that shall come,
shall destroy the encampment of God; the
end thereof shall be outrageous. After
the attack the deserted shall be mutilated.
AS ordained in Leviticus 26 Hudah did not repent in exile so the
punishment was increased 7 fold hence we have the 490 years.
Is it getting any clearer?
You've basically lost track of the discussion since
you thought Jerusalem was the temple in the Daniel 9
verse set... no, it is not.
At this point Jan, it's either one of two items:
* You are trolling
* It is sealed and you won't understand.
It's either one or the other since you haven't bothered
to actually read what's being discussed in the verses.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Form" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
24 Feb 2004 04:19:46 PM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Ed Form wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
That's why Pharoah's kid died... for Pharoah's sins.
The child died because of Pharoah's sins
You agree then, fine.
I certainly don't agree with your reading. Because Pharaoh was a sinner
in this matter he placed his eldest son in peril, and the child died.
There was no element whatsoever of atoning sacrifice in this case.
And ... Pharoah's men died for Pharoah's sins.
The soldiers died because of Pharaoh's sins.
Again, you agree, fine.
I do not agree with your reading. Because Pharaoh was a proud and
presumptuous man, filled with his own importance, he placed his soldiers
in harms way and they came to harm. There was no element whatsoever of
sacrificial atonement in this case.
And ... King David's kid died for King David's sin.
The baby died because of David's sins.
Again, you agree, fine.
And ... King David's men, died for King David's sins... etc...
They die because of David's sins.
And again you agree... fine.
No I d not agree. David's wrongdoing placed all of his family in harms
way, and, beginning with this little boy, four of his sons died in the
years that followed.
And ... Jesus died for the sins of those that would believe him.
Jesus died *for* the sins of those who believe in him.
If no one had ever sinned, or ever would sin, what reason
would there be to KILL Jesus?
But that situation could never subsist; even by the time Jesus was born
a huge number of people had died in sin and ignorance.
Call it because of, or for, makes no difference.
When a selfish, sin-bent man causes the death of others as a consequence
of his wicked actions, the deaths *do not* atone for his sins. If I
drive too fast down our high street, and run down a toddler, does his
death atone for what I have done? Your entire thesis is preposterous.
Ed Form
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
29 Feb 2004 01:23:18 AM |
|
|
Ed Form wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Ed Form wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
That's why Pharoah's kid died... for Pharoah's sins.
The child died because of Pharoah's sins
You agree then, fine.
I certainly don't agree with your reading. Because Pharaoh was a sinner
in this matter he placed his eldest son in peril, and the child died.
There was no element whatsoever of atoning sacrifice in this case.
Why didn't Pharaoh die instead?
What difference did it make to kill Pharaoh's kid?
Pharoah's heart was being HARDENED such that he'd continue
to do as he'd have done anyway. The kid dying, said kid had
nothing to do with it, other than being a PAYMENT for not
doing what God had said to do in the first place.
If you can show Pharaoh dying for said sins, his own sins,
then you have a point, but the kid and other's in Pharaoh's
camp were dying instead of Pharoah... Pharaoh off making
decisions that angered God, and the PAYMENT was the DEATH
of OTHERS.
Blindness is like that, you can point out a PAYMENT, but
it's not perceived as a payment when it's said for what
it is.
If God had said: "OK, you now will lose 4000 cattle!" would
that have registered as a payment?
And ... Pharoah's men died for Pharoah's sins.
The soldiers died because of Pharaoh's sins.
Again, you agree, fine.
I do not agree with your reading. Because Pharaoh was a proud and
presumptuous man, filled with his own importance, he placed his soldiers
in harms way and they came to harm. There was no element whatsoever of
sacrificial atonement in this case.
Then why did Pharaoh continue to live with others dying?
What was the point in letting Pharaoh live and killing
innocent others?
If you can explain this and you will have the answer.
The answer is, the deaths were a PAYMENT, a COST, a LOSS,
the Pharaoh was LOSSING... like lossing chips in a card
game, or losing money, or losing his own life... a COST
that God continued to add on to.
Each time... more and more COST... yet Pharaoh was left
intact... others dying all around him or being attacked
by various means... direct from God.
And ... King David's kid died for King David's sin.
The baby died because of David's sins.
Again, you agree, fine.
And ... King David's men, died for King David's sins... etc...
They die because of David's sins.
And again you agree... fine.
No I d not agree. David's wrongdoing placed all of his family in harms
way, and, beginning with this little boy, four of his sons died in the
years that followed.
And David... his sin was ERASED.
WHY???
Do you even know what the penalty for what he did was?
What was it?
What about Uriah's wife... what was the penalty for her?
Please explain >>> WHY <<< those penalties were ERASED
and OTHERS paid with their lives.
What happened to the law, the Torah law, when dealing with David?
Explain this, and you have the answer.
When a Jew mentions that Jesus couldn't have died for OTHERS...
Explain King David and his son dying for King David's sin.
When a Jew mentions Jesus saying to break the laws in the Torah...
Explain King David and his not abiding the laws of the Torah.
When a Jew mentions punishment that Jesus said to forgive the
woman taken in adultry...
Explain King David and his not getting said punishments either...
Or King David's new wife...
And ... Jesus died for the sins of those that would believe him.
Jesus died *for* the sins of those who believe in him.
If no one had ever sinned, or ever would sin, what reason
would there be to KILL Jesus?
But that situation could never subsist; even by the time Jesus was born
a huge number of people had died in sin and ignorance.
God can judge it all.
Just as God can PUT AWAY King David's sin and place it on
OTHERS rather than King David or his new wife, God can do
the same thing with his own ARM, Jesus, their messiah that
did what God said he would do HUNDREDS of years before he'd
even shown up.
Call it because of, or for, makes no difference.
When a selfish, sin-bent man causes the death of others as a consequence
of his wicked actions, the deaths *do not* atone for his sins. If I
drive too fast down our high street, and run down a toddler, does his
death atone for what I have done? Your entire thesis is preposterous.
Please post the method of punishment perscribed for King David,
as listed in the Torah.
Please post the method of punishment perscribed for King David's
new wife, as listed in the Torah.
Please post the method of punishment perscribed for King David
having had Uriah KILLED and taking his wife, his own countryman,
not an enemy, a man believing God.
Please post what the Torah says about KILLING a man's son, rather
than the man for the sins done.
As you will not be able to reply to this, I'll tell you:
It's the same answer you get with Jesus, but on a grander
scale, and from the same source... God.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
22 Feb 2004 03:45:41 AM |
|
|
Ed Form wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
That's why Pharoah's kid died... for Pharoah's sins.
The child died because of Pharoah's sins
And ... Pharoah's men died for Pharoah's sins.
The soldiers died because of Pharaoh's sins.
And ... King David's kid died for King David's sin.
The baby died because of David's sins.
And ... King David's men, died for King David's sins... etc...
They die because of David's sins.
Sometimes I have to agree with you Ed.
And ... Jesus died for the sins of those that would believe him.
Jesus died *for* the sins of those who believe in him.
Other times i cannot.
There is no relationship whatever between the case of Jesus and the
cases of the others you cite.
But then again I agree there is no relation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Form" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
24 Feb 2004 04:23:41 PM |
|
|
Jan Pompe wrote:
Ed Form wrote:
They die because of David's sins.
Sometimes I have to agree with you Ed.
And ... Jesus died for the sins of those that would believe him.
Jesus died *for* the sins of those who believe in him.
Other times i cannot.
Why not? The question of whether his death was effective in this cause
remains moot, but the fact that he deliberately accepted death,
believing that God would, as a consequence, save from death those who
believe in Jesus as their God-given saviour, is surely not in question?
Ed Form
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
25 Feb 2004 12:13:03 AM |
|
|
Ed Form wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
Ed Form wrote:
They die because of David's sins.
Sometimes I have to agree with you Ed.
And ... Jesus died for the sins of those that would believe him.
Jesus died *for* the sins of those who believe in him.
Other times i cannot.
Why not? The question of whether his death was effective in this cause
remains moot, but the fact that he deliberately accepted death,
believing that God would, as a consequence, save from death those who
believe in Jesus as their God-given saviour, is surely not in question?
I agree it is not in question it is nonsense. I have seen no reason to
believe he actually existed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: No atomenent w/ animal blood |
29 Feb 2004 01:44:15 AM |
|
|
Jan Pompe wrote:
Ed Form wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
Ed Form wrote:
They die because of David's sins.
Sometimes I have to agree with you Ed.
And ... Jesus died for the sins of those that would believe him.
Jesus died *for* the sins of those who believe in him.
Other times i cannot.
Why not? The question of whether his death was effective in this cause
remains moot, but the fact that he deliberately accepted death,
believing that God would, as a consequence, save from death those who
believe in Jesus as their God-given saviour, is surely not in question?
I agree it is not in question it is nonsense. I have seen no reason to
believe he actually existed.
Josephus wrote about Jesus.
The NT source was direct from Jewish eye witnesses there at the time,
though written up later... which is nothing new, the OT was written
up ye | | | | | | | |
