It is I (hell, women, church, scriptures)

[Rbbi1]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

here the trouble is 1/2 truth. So dishonest people (not you) mislead peopl. Yeah, you can influence places far from your home sometimes without ever going there. ignoring internet priveldges.

That in no way implied he died, woke up, and flew away. There is just no reason to dump observations and commonsense for personal emotional needs (fundy/milli menatal's religion), again, not you. I learnt that from jesus.

Well, I have met Him, so I know He's alive and if alive, then the whole story is true, and the principle I shared above is also true. I don't have to rely on the meanderings and philosophical smokescreens of carnally minded men to shape my views, and neither does anyone else if they will bow the knee and cast the man of sin in their temple to the dust where he belongs, and allow the Lord to sit upon the throne of their heart instead. Peace

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Rbbi1

Well, I have met Him, so I know He's alive and if alive, then the whole story is true, and the principle I shared above is also true. I don't have to rely on the meanderings and philosophical smokescreens of carnally minded men to shape my views, and neither does anyone else if they will bow the knee and cast the man of sin in their temple to the dust where he belongs, and allow the Lord to sit upon the throne of their heart instead. Peace

their is a difference between "literally true" and "what do we mean by "jesus".

The verb, "jesusing", "experiencing, understanding, and loving" yeah, he rose, well not really, he was always here. Those three "actions" have always been here.

You met him. We all met him. I met many insightful people and many of them were similar to others I have met. So, We met a human, again we would have to talk about what do we mean by jesus.

"his body literally died and literally flew away", that is false. That is an apple people offer to deceive people to the truth of a region in space that is better described as "alive" than any other word. It is the apple of deception that holds people in "ignorance", or anti-learning/teaching witch is anti-christ.

The standard model is the mechanism I offer. What is your mechanism beside your claim that you met him. My mom says I don't have a big nose too.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Rbbi1

Well, I have met Him, so I know He's alive and if alive, then the whole story is true, and the principle I shared above is also true.

IF you really met Him there would be no doubt in your mind or heart about the characteristics of His Holy Spirit. They are unmistakable! Yet you cannot describe them. That is why I question what spirit you actually met.

[Pleroo]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

IF you really met Him there would be no doubt in your mind or heart about the characteristics of His Holy Spirit. They are unmistakable! Yet you cannot describe them. That is why I question what spirit you actually met.

Either cannot, or refuses to. It's a HUGE red flag, because what positive reason could there be for someone to keep that a secret?

[Jerwade]

Originally Posted by Mike555

Argument by mere assertion is fallacious. I'll take the word of Jesus and of the apostles, as well as that of Isaiah, that He died for the sins of the world.

Originally Posted by Jerwade

I wasn't making a mere assertion, have you never witnessed a sibling within a dysfunctional family become their scapegoat, being blamed and criticized for everything that happens? And understand something else, when God forgives, he forgets - he does not require a penalty, neither does he punish anyone with eternal damnation for a finite life. Have you ever heard the words: "Cruel and unusual punishment?" Or, do they fall on deaf ears, thinking you are the golden child?

Originally Posted by Mike555

Despite your denial, you simply made an assertion which ignores what both Jesus and the apostles stated, which is that Jesus died for our sins, as our substitute. And I'll show that when I reply to your next post which is quoted below in which you imply that the word ''for'', only carries the connotation "because of."

Your contention of only is misleading and rather deceptive, however, because of, on account of, and as a result of your ignorance or backward thinking. I will leave you to your own demise, and, I could careless (really, do not give a damn) what Wallace has to say. He is not my mentor, teacher or authority.

But regarding your comment that God forgives without requiring a penalty, the reason that God can forgive our sins is because Jesus paid the penalty, paid the price for our sins. Jesus Himself stated that His blood was to be shed for the forgiveness of sins.

You hold this legalistic view of the religious evangelical fraternity with its vicarious punishment. Christ died, not to appease the justice department, but to rescue humanity from the temple gods whom you apparently worship.

Personally, I do see the Penal Substitution theory as being sacred.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Mike555

Despite your denial, you simply made an assertion which ignores what both Jesus and the apostles stated, which is that Jesus died for our sins, as our substitute. And I'll show that when I reply to your next post which is quoted below in which you imply that the word ''for'', only carries the connotation "because of."

But regarding your comment that God forgives without requiring a penalty, the reason that God can forgive our sins is because Jesus paid the penalty, paid the price for our sins. Jesus Himself stated that His blood was to be shed for the forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 26:27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28] for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

In other words, Jesus died so that our sins could be forgiven. Without His death on the cross there would be no forgiveness of sins.







There are a number of Greek words which are translated into English as 'for.' Two of those words are especially pertinent to the issue of whether the word 'for' carries within its range of meaning the concept of replacement or substitution. 1.) ἀντὶ - anti; and 2.) ὑπὲρ - huper (or hyper).

1.) ἀντὶ - anti; It has a range of meaning from replacement to equivalence.

Definition (from BDAG [Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich] - A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, third edition);

1. Indicating that one person or thing is, or is to be replaced by another, instead of, in place of.

2. Indicating that one thing is equiv. to another, for, as, in place of.

3. Indicating a process of intervention.

4. Indicating the reason for somth., because of, for the purpose of.

5. Indicating result, w. implication of being a replacement for someth., wherefore, therefore, so then.

Matthew 2:22 provides a clear use of the word ἀντὶ as replacement or substitution.

Matt. 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of (ἀντὶ - anti) his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee,

But the crucial verses in which the word ἀντὶ is used for Jesus' death in our place, as our substitute, are Matthew 20:28 and its parallel Mark 10:45, and 1 Tim. 2:6.

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom (λύτρον - Lutron [or lytron]) for (ἀντὶ) many."

1 Tim. 2:6 who gave Himself as a ransom (ἀντίλυτρον) for (ὑπὲρ) all, the testimony given at the proper time.

In 1 Tim. 2:6 the word ἀντὶ - anti is prefixed to the compound word ἀντίλυτρον - antilutron.

ἀντίλυτρον - antilutron = ransom for the return of all. ἀντί corresponding to, instead of; exchange; replacement. λύτρον - Lutron = ransom price.


2.) ὑπὲρ - huper (or hyper). ὑπὲρ carries the meaning of 'because of,' 'for the benefit of,' 'for the sake of,' 'in behalf of.' It also carries the meaning of 'in place of.' That ὑπὲρ carries the meaning of 'in place of', or replacement, is seen in John 11:50-51 where the high priest Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation. In other words, Caiaphas was saying that it was better for Jesus to be killed instead of the entire nation being destroyed. He had in mind Jesus' death in place of the nations destruction.

John 11:50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for (ὑπὲρ) the people, and that the whole nation not perish." 51] Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for (ὑπὲρ) the nation,

In Romans 9:3 Paul states that he could wish to be separated from Christ for the sake of his brethren. While this has the obvious connotation of being separated for the benefit of his brethren, it just as obviously has the connotation of substitution. Paul could wish that he was separated from Christ instead of his brethren.

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from (ἀπὸ -from, away from; carries the connotation of separation) Christ for (ὑπὲρ) the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for (περὶ - peri) all, the just for (ὑπὲρ - huper) the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

The just for the unjust has the double connotation of being 'for their benefit' and 'in their place'.


New Testament Greek scholar and textual critic Daniel B. Wallace, addresses the meaning of ὑπὲρ in his book 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp, 383-389 and notes its substitutionary sense. Here are few quotes.

''It is our conviction that ὑπὲρ is naturally suited to the meaning of substitution and is in fact used in several passages dealing with the nature of Christ's atonement. On behalf of the view that ὑπὲρ has at least a substitutionary sense to it in passages dealing with the atonement are the following arguments:'' [p.383].

Wallace's arguments concern the substitutionary way in which ὑπὲρ is used in extra - NT Greek literature.

In classical Greek such as Plato, Republic 590a, Xenophon, Anabasis 7.4.9-10.

In the LXX, cf. Deut 24:16; Isa 43:3-4; Judith 8:12.

And in the papyri, cf. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1281.11,12; Tebtunis Papyrus 380:43,44.

''Υπὲρ is used in a substitutionary sense in soteriologically insignificant passages, thus establishing such a nuance in the NT. CF. Rom 9:3; Phlm 13.'' [p.387] (the capital upsilon ''Υ'' should have a rough breathing mark in front of it, but I couldn't locate a word with a capitalized upsilon to paste).

Wallace also notes, referencing Davies, ''Christ in Our Place,'' p.90, that the reason the less ambiguous preposition ἀντὶ isn't used more often than ὑπὲρ to connote substitution is that during the New Testament period, ἀντὶ suffered a great reduction in use.

Wallace further references Robertson who he says demonstrated that in Koine Greek, ''The set idiom for substitution employs ὑπὲρ rather than ἀντὶ. (Robertson, Minister, 38).

Wallace has more to say about the use of ὑπὲρ in the sense of substitution, but what I quoted from 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics' will suffice.

To therefore imply that the word 'for' connotes only the meaning of 'because of' is simply not true. It is quite obvious that ὑπὲρ also carries the meaning of 'replacement,' 'substitution,' as does the word ἀντὶ.

Originally Posted by Jerwade

Your contention of only is misleading and rather deceptive, however, because of, on account of, and as a result of your ignorance or backward thinking. I will leave you to your own demise, and, I could careless (really, do not give a damn) what Wallace has to say. He is not my mentor, teacher or authority.

You hold this legalistic view of the religious evangelical fraternity with its vicarious punishment. Christ died, not to appease the justice department, but to rescue humanity from the temple gods whom you apparently worship.

Personally, I do see the Penal Substitution theory as being sacred.

In other words, the facts be damned, you are going to believe what you want to believe. That was never in doubt. Hopefully, others will get something out of what I posted. On grammatical grounds, it can be, and has been shown that Jesus' death was substitutionary.

[Jerwade]

Originally Posted by Mike555

In other words, the facts be damned, you are going to believe what you want to believe. That was never in doubt. Hopefully, others will get something out of what I posted. On grammatical grounds, it can be, and has been shown that Jesus' death was substitutionary.

It's your Penal Substitution theory that be damned. And the ideologies of Eternal punishment.
If I save my dog from being hit by a car? I don't then turn around, and throw him into the street.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Jerwade

It's your Penal Substitution theory that be damned. And the ideologies of Eternal punishment.
If I save my dog from being hit by a car? I don't then turn around, and throw him into the street.

[Rbbi1]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

IF you really met Him there would be no doubt in your mind or heart about the characteristics of His Holy Spirit. They are unmistakable! Yet you cannot describe them. That is why I question what spirit you actually met.

One again, there is a vast difference between CAN'T and WON'T. Peace

[Rbbi1]

Originally Posted by Pleroo

Either cannot, or refuses to. It's a HUGE red flag, because what positive reason could there be for someone to keep that a secret?

Simple really. I don't pander to bullies who DEMAND I do anything. Which is also not His Spirit. Peace