Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just want to point out that the vast majority of us bring our opinions or preconceived ideas to the Scriptures when we interpret them. It takes intention and humility and commitment to exegete objectively. Someone has yet to demonstrate from Scripture that God must leave no sin unpunished, including the ones we repent of, even though it seems to be the major consensus on this thread.......
"Punishment and rewards are only carrots before the horse of ignorance."
Natural consequences and Non-punitive discipline called Correction leaves room for growth.
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
The Holy Eternal one can not look at sin (Habakkuk 1). So it seems it's either red like crimson or white as snow - no in between. In Isaiah 53 the LORD's righteous servant will justify many. He is our Passover Lamb. We are seen as white as snow in him.
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Hebrews 7
22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
"Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." Isaiah 53:12
That's very comforting.
Hebrews 9
11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
I was just reading through some sections of Hebrews earlier, and there is a constant theme of purification for sins through the sacrifice of Jesus. Even in relation to OT cleansing or atonement, there never seems to be a penal element to the sacrifices.... just a constant reminder that blood will cleanse us of our sins. Is this correct?
I was just reading through some sections of Hebrews earlier, and there is a constant theme of purification for sins through the sacrifice of Jesus.
Even in relation to OT cleansing or atonement, there never seems to be a penal element to the sacrifices.... just a constant reminder that blood will cleanse us of our sins. Is this correct?
Wikipedia is an unreliable source that can be edited by any moron at will. Eisegesis involves the use of extra scriptural knowledge and sources . . . NOT the application of personal bias or views. Restricting your source to the ancient ignorance compiled in the Bible by men corrupts the understanding of the actual spiritual inspirations that God led them to. Failure to apply over 2000+ years of accumulated knowledge and understanding to the scriptures is spiritual negligence on the part of religious leaders who have abdicated their responsibility to revise their understanding . . . instead of stagnating at the level of ignorance in the 1st century.
By Golly, You really don't know what eisegesis is do you!!!
You who have a PhD, can't do a little research? One need not rely on Wikipedia. Here is another source which gives the definition of what Eisegesis is:
eis·e·ge·sis
[ahy-si-jee-sis] Show IPA
noun, plural -ses [-seez] Show IPA.
an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text. Eisegesis | Define Eisegesis at Dictionary.com
And if you don't like that source, there are any number of other sources.
I tire of this repeated lie . . . I do NOT reject the scriptures. I know the scriptures are God-inspired . . . but they were NOT God-dictated and are NOT inerrant. They require knowledge (or the "mind of Christ" as in WWJD) to discern what the real spiritual messages are . . . not merely to blindly accept the carnal "milk" that was necessary for our savage ancestors' minds.
Yes, you do reject the Scriptures. I recall you saying that Christ didn't die for our sins. You have said that God as revealed in the Old Testament is evil.
The Scriptures are indeed inerrant. No variation or error in the manuscript copies have caused any point of doctrinal importance to be lost. And by that, I mean that dispite the variations and errors in particular manuscript copies, a comparison of all available manuscript copies reveals that we have the doctrines of the word of God as set forth in the original autographs.
The Bible contains both milk and meat. Both basic doctrines and advanced doctrines.
You speak of savage ancestors and include the apostles in that statement. I suppose you think that there are no modern day savages. You ever read the news?
Well, this takes the thread off topic. But you should come down off of your self made pedestal and stop pretending that you are superior to other people and that you have knowledge of the Scriptures which you do not possess. People are getting tired of that!!!
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-31-2012 at 09:58 PM..
The Bible contains both milk and meat. Both basic doctrines and advanced doctrines.
You speak of savage ancestors and include the apostles in that statement.
I suppose you think that there are no modern day savages. You ever read the news?
It also contains that which is good and that which is not.
But you will have to distinguish or comprehend the differences.
There is no excuse for ancient or modern-day ignorance, if you have any morals.
By Golly, You really don't know what eisegesis is do you!!!
You who have a PhD, can't do a little research? One need not rely on Wikipedia. Here is another source which gives the definition of what Eisegesis is:
It has nothing to do with definitions applied by Biblical authorities. It means "lead in" and it means the application of external information (called personal interpretation and bias by Biblical scholars). For example, suppose we have a witness to an event and the text of his report says:
Thor came hunting in his flying chariot and killed a rabbit with his hammer that throws lightning bolts.
We could accept that as written or we could recognize that the witness is a time traveling Viking brought into the 21st century and the limitations of his knowledge influenced what he saw. What he actually witnessed was:
A man landed in a helicopter and shot a rabbit with his 45 pistol.
The difference is in the knowledge applied to the event witnessed which can never be determined if the written text is the ONLY source of interpretation as the Biblical scholars demand with exegesis ONLY. We have far more knowledge to apply to what was interpreted than existed back then. Disparaging it as eisegesis fails to understand the real problem of interpretation across cultures and generations. Yes . . .we need to know what they DID know and what idioms they used, what mindset they possessed, their grammar rules, etc. (exegesis) . . . but we ALSO need to know a whole lot more to make any sense of what they interpreted using our accumulated knowledge over 2000+ years(eisegesis).
Quote:
Yes, you do reject the Scriptures. I recall you saying that Christ didn't die for our sins. You have said that God as revealed in the Old Testament is evil.
I do not reject the scriptures. I reject your interpretation of them. Christ died BECAUSE of our sins and God AS DESCRIBED in the OT under the veil of ignorance is Evil. Christ revealed the TRUE NATURE of God unambiguously.
Quote:
The Scriptures are indeed inerrant. No variation or error in the manuscript copies have caused any point of doctrinal importance to be lost. And by that, I mean that dispite the variations and errors in particular manuscript copies, a comparison of all available manuscript copies reveals that we have the doctrines of the word of God as set forth in the original autographs.
There is NOTHING on this earth that is in the hands of humans that is inerrant or infallible . . . NOTHING! Believing there is . . . is magical thinking with no basis in reality whatsoever.
Quote:
The Bible contains both milk and meat. Both basic doctrines and advanced doctrines.
True . . . and the inconsistencies reveal where the meat is to be found by revising the understanding to eliminate the inconsistencies.
Quote:
You speak of savage ancestors and include the apostles in that statement. I suppose you think that there are no modern day savages. You ever read the news?
I do not include the Apostles or Jesus . . . just the masses and those who needed the carnal "milk."
It has nothing to do with definitions applied by Biblical authorities. It means "lead in" and it means the application of external information (called personal interpretation and bias by Biblical scholars). For example, suppose we have a witness to an event and the text of his report says:
Thor came hunting in his flying chariot and killed a rabbit with his hammer that throws lightning bolts.
We could accept that as written or we could recognize that the witness is a time traveling Viking brought into the 21st century and the limitations of his knowledge influenced what he saw. What he actually witnessed was:
A man landed in a helicopter and shot a rabbit with his 45 pistol.
The difference is in the knowledge applied to the event witnessed which can never be determined if the written text is the ONLY source of interpretation as the Biblical scholars demand with exegesis ONLY. We have far more knowledge to apply to what was interpreted than existed back then. Disparaging it as eisegesis fails to understand the real problem of interpretation across cultures and generations. Yes . . .we need to know what they DID know and what idioms they used, what mindset they possessed, their grammar rules, etc. (exegesis) . . . but we ALSO need to know a whole lot more to make any sense of what they interpreted using our accumulated knowledge over 2000+ years(eisegesis).
I do not reject the scriptures. I reject your interpretation of them. Christ died BECAUSE of our sins and God AS DESCRIBED in the OT under the veil of ignorance is Evil. Christ revealed the TRUE NATURE of God unambiguously. There is NOTHING on this earth that is in the hands of humans that is inerrant or infallible . . . NOTHING! Believing there is . . . is magical thinking with no basis in reality whatsoever.
True . . . and the inconsistencies reveal where the meat is to be found by revising the understanding to eliminate the inconsistencies.I do not include the Apostles or Jesus . . . just the masses and those who needed the carnal "milk."
Wrong! You reject the given definition of eisegesis and substitute your own personal definition in order to validate your own ignorant eisegetic interpretations.
You reject the Scriptures as I have said. And you derisively refer to those who do follow the Scriptures as 'Biblians.'
The Old Testament has accurately revealed God to the extent that He chose to reveal Himself. God's revelation is progressive.
And the Bible, being the word of God is inerrant. That you deny that is more proof that you reject the Scriptures.
But you will not listen. You are too caught up in what you think you know, when in fact you know very little about the word of God.
And I have spent enough time on this. I think most people know to disregard the things you say.
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-31-2012 at 10:41 PM..
To give His life as a ransom for us, thereby delivering us from bondage to sin, cleanse us of sin by His blood (versus incur punishment in our stead for sins).... and the "cup" perhaps not being a cup of God's wrath, but a cup of suffering (the same cup from which certain apostles agreed to drink). Just an alternative perspective?
Thoughts?
The "cup" is that Jesus "drank" was the cup of God's wrath about sin .... your sin, my sin..... everybody's sin.
That is why Jesus is the subsitute for, not the example of. That is meaning John 3:36.
Which was what John was told in Revelation 14:9-11 in greater detail:
“If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.”
People who reject Jesus as God and as their subsitute forfeits what Jesus did for them.
Therefore......the payment becomes theirs again.
That's what Jesus said... that's what Jesus revealed ... that's what Jesus commanded John to write down.
Hi Phazelwood, thanks. Question for you- what do you believe the atonement was about, if not that Jesus took our punishment? Thanks much.
Steph
The atonement was about Jesus defeating Gods enemies, including death, that is why those who died before Jesus came to earth will be resurrected unto life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
