Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Refuting Tektonics - The Doctrine of the Atonement: Explanation and Defense

First of all Happy New Years 2013!, May this year be Greater than last year, 2012 was my first year  as a Born Again Christian, The Greatest year of my life, Thus far... Remember I have an eternity, it gets better and better, now,

Tektonics can be a very good Christian Defending website for us Christians when not legalistic, however some things it gets very wrong, for example J.P. Holdings un-Biblical view of atonement(aka The Blasphemous, Anti and Un-Biblical Penal Substitution)


The article from Tektonics entitled, The Doctrine of the Atonement: Explanation and Defense(http://www.tektonics.org/af/atonedefense.html ), will be refuted, lets get to it,


Tektonic in White, my rebuttal in blue.


"1. God is in the position of highest authority, of the highest good, and is therefore a being of the highest personal honor."


Agreed. This is a fact.


"2. All sin and evil are therefore an insult to the honor of God, a disregard of His rule and authority and an honor offense."


Agreed. This is a fact.


"3. Any who commit sin/evil, therefore, are degrading God's honor and status. Because this honor rightly belongs to God, it must be restored.

It should be noted here that some may object that it is impossible to take away honor from God. This argument fails because ancient people recognized two types of honor: Acquired honor and what we might call inherent honor.
The second type of honor is honor due someone because of what they were by nature -- their family associations, for example. This type of honor is associated with God's nature and indeed can't be taken away.
However, acquired honor is a different matter. It has to do with one's deeds and authority. This kind of honor, even if it belongs to God, can indeed be taken away, because at its core is what others (including us) think of God."

Maybe.

"4. God's proper response to disobedience, which dishonors Him, is to require the shaming and punishment of those who degrade His honor."

Agreed, but before we go on lets not forget Forgiveness is the taking away of the shame and punishment; the debt, by repentance, as repentance restores God's Honor.

"5. Jesus Christ underwent the crucifixion, a "status degradation ritual," in our place. In other words, he experienced the shame that was rightly owed to us. Crucifixion was the most shameful death in the NT world."


Disagree, I agree yes Jesus Christ took the most unjust and shameful death, He died for not just doing anything wrong, because He was without sin, but for doing Perfectly Good because He Is God and brought peace beyond comprehension. however He didn't die in our place for several reasons,

1, Bible condemns one paying for another's sin

Jeremiah 31:30 - 30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.


One cannot die or take the punishment for another's sin(s)

2, it is unjust and immoral to put the punishment of a crime on someone who didn't commit it, nonetheless on someone who is innocent, nonetheless someone who never committed a sin. no where in any society can only justly take the punishment for another's sin, the equalivent would be this, 

Person A murders someone, Person B is accused and condemned in court as the murderer despite not having committed the crime. Person B is unjustly killed for a murder he did not commit, while Person A, the murderer is homefree. that is penal substitution. added to The Fact that The Father loves His Son Jesus Christ, no way would this go down and no where is this false doctrine of penal substitution in The Bible.

now in real life by The Holy Spirit's influence on our conscience, if we found out that the wrong guy was punished we would be outraged and filled with wrath, it is unjust.

3, Penal substitution just isn't The True Biblical Doctrine. Catholic Nick refutes Penal Substitution well, Check out his blog: http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/

Therefore Refuted, lets continue.

"6. As a corollary, one who accepts the payment offered by Jesus ought, sensibly, to be aware of this price that has been paid and respond accordingly. One who does not respond accordingly is not appreciative of the paid price and may not truly have accepted the gift."

See this has caused me sleepless nights and unease spiking my OCD, lets examine,


"one who accepts the payment offered by Jesus"

Where in The Bible does God(The Father, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit), The Apostles, Paul, John The Baptist or Old Testament Prophets say that you must accept or that there would be a payment offering for sin?

The Bible says Repent, Ask for Forgiveness, Love God, Turn from sin, Believe, etc, nowhere does it say to make a contraction agreement with God, The Bible/Christianity is Moral, not legalistics, Legalism is not Biblical, therefore not acceptable in society, one does not accept a payment with God, but they repent, that's what Jesus Christ was telling us.

 "to be aware of this price that has been paid and respond accordingly. One who does not respond accordingly is not appreciative of the paid price and may not truly have accepted the gift."

How does one respond accordingly? in what specific method would this be done? One must Believe and Repent, not make some contractal agreement with God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)

"7. In the process of the crucifixion, then, Jesus acts as a broker for those who wish to enter into a covenant with God. Those who enter that covenant are expected to serve within that covenant if they have indeed made a commitment."

Again with this legalism, Jesus Christ doesn't act as a broker, He's our Savior, not our broker. what Jesus Christ does do is Preach The Kingdom of Heaven, that one must repent of sin and Accept Him in their hearts to receive The Holy Spirit, to come to The Father which brings us fully to The Trinity and allows us in The Narrow Gate of Heaven.


"Similarly, God cannot change His nature so that sin can remain in His presence, and this has nothing to do with power or lack thereof.
It is not that God is incapable, it is that we are incapable."

Exactly however to say that the sin, Must be paid for is false, God takes away The Debt of sin once that sinner is truly repentant/sorry for their sin(s), if one is not repentant towards The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit then they have The Wrath remain, and they are subjected to Hell(Annihilation, The Grave)



Now it gets good,

"If a convicted serial murder/rapist plead guilty to multiple counts of murder and rape, would we allow his law-abiding mother to volunteer to step in and serve his prison time (or be executed) in his stead and allow the murder/rapist to be turned back onto the streets?
Here's where we get into the issue I alluded to earlier re the purpose of criminal justice. Let's go over these one at a time, using the case provided above.
  1. Punishment. The criminal above would get a prison sentence, but prison sentences don't often do a lot in this regard. A number of justice experts feel that restitution would be a better way, and indeed, that is the basic principle laid down in the OT law. In this case, restitution might well equal death.Now of course any person could pay the debt if restitution were all there was to the matter. Even at the lower tier of justice, things like speeding tickets can be paid for by a benefactor; where is the "satisfaction" in that?
    But in fact there is satisfaction: For if someone paid restitution for you and you could not afford it, then you would be indebted to that person - which leads to the notion of Christian ethical behavior as an obligation of the believer.
  2. Rehab. We assert that God effects rehab through the indwelling of the Spirit (i.e., sanctification); but let's concentrate on our rape case. Because of the way our justice system is structured, we might have the rapist go through counseling, therapy, etc. - which is one reason why the substitute of the mother would indeed be ludicrous for us, as things stand. We tie punishment in with rehab to such an extent that letting the mother volunteer to pay the price does not make sense.                                     

  3. Thing is the mother cannot pay for what she did not do, rehab or not the murder pays for his crime.

    However, if the payment of the mother assured that rehab would occur, then we could argue that her substitution is acceptable.

    Actually not, because the mother didn't do anything, it is not her crime, either the rapist is forgiven or simply pays the debt, no can take his place, that is unjust.

    This is indeed the problem with our totally-human analogy: Our judges (even the most politically "liberal" among them with the greatest faith in human nature) cannot guarantee that the payment of the price of guilt thereafter results in rehabilitation.

    Punishment is not for rehabilitation but payback for the crime you committed.


    But God can, and promises "ultimate" rehabilitation with the gift of the resurrection body (1 Cor. 15) for which the Holy Spirit is a deposit.

    Again with the Un-Biblical legalism.. there isn't a deposit, But a Gift, The Holy Spirit is God, The Greatest Gift one could get, not some deposit.

     In the meantime, if we truly accept God's gift of grace, we ought to act like we do.
  4. Protection. Much the same here as with #2. The indwelling Spirit's changes in us mean that others are protected from being hurt by our future misbehavior (as there will be none). However, it might be added that should be end up misbehaving, it will result in a loss of rewards in heaven.Put another way, the person who sins seriously in Christ, as I like to say, will end up scrubbing toilets in the New Jerusalem.

    Or they will just not be going to Heaven, as if someone who sins seriously, isn't one who tries, if they are repentant they don't seriously sin(rape, murder, drug abuse, constant violence, unwillingness to forgive, etc), not saying habitual repentant sinners won't go to Heaven, as we all sin, saying serious sinners, they are most likely not repentant, true repentance with The Holy Spirit stops sin.(nonstop unrepentant hypocrisy, murder, rape, etc).
The irony here is that Jesus, in what he taught throughout his ministry -- not in an "atonement," but in a consistent message of universal compassion -- provided the means for overcoming sin..

"Jesus never taught this doctrine.
Not so; Jesus taught it at the Last Supper, when he spoke of the bread and wine being his body and blood, and of dying for many."



Actually not x2, notice the fallacy? Jesus Christ says He will die For many, which can mean anything, He didn't say He will die in replacement of many, this shows you have penal in your mind when reading and analyzing The Scripture.



"That said: It would be correct to say that Jesus does not expound upon the notion of atonement to any explicit extent in the records of his ministry until the Last Supper. "

As proven above Jesus Christ does say penal substitution, therefore a He never says anything in His entire earthly life about penal substitution, He died as a ransom for many, He died For our sins, never does Jesus Christ say He took our punishment.

"His central message, though, is that the Kingdom of God is at hand. We may relate this to the post-resurrection message of Paul, and the account of the Last Supper, by means of a simple before-after dichotomy."


"Why can God forgive after being crucified but not before?
Actually, it is held that those chronologically before the Crucifixion, like Abraham, could "look forward in faith" to the time of the Crucifixion. (See for example Job 19:25.)"

Please do not lie, Jesus Christ(God) forgave sins Multiple times before the crucifixion, He didn't say you will be forgiven He says you are forgiven,




John 8 

“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”




Matthew 9:2


Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”

Mark 2:5


When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, Son, your sins are forgiven.



Luke 5:20


20 When Jesus saw their faith, he said, Friend, your sins are forgiven.”



Luke 7:47-50

47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”
48 Then Jesus said to her, Your sins are forgiven.”
49 The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
50 Jesus said to the woman, Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”


To those that say God cannot forgive without punishment, come on.. That is Clearly Un-Biblical and Anti-Biblical, Jesus Christ didn't say look forward to it or you will have your sins forgiven, or they need to be paid for, He says to the person who repents, you are forgiven, your sins have Been forgiven, your sins are forgiven. saying otherwise would be trying to imply that He lied, and Obviously Jesus Christ is The Truth, The Truth cannot lie, Jesus Christ cannot lie, He really forgave sins before crucifixion.


as for 

Job 19:25


I know that my redeemer[a] lives,
    and that in the end he will stand on the earth.

Where does that say sins cannot be forgiven before crucifixion, Job just says he looks forward to His redeemer(Jesus Christ, aka God) who will stand on the earth.



"Matt. 7:21 shows that the idea of salvation by profession of acceptance is blasphemous.

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

How is this read as meaning that "salvation by profession of acceptance" is a blasphemy? Indeed, it fits in with the idea that profession must be followed by evidence to be validated: Not everyone...which means that there are those who will profess, but only those who have backed it up with evidence of good works (to wit: those who have truly believed) will enter the kingdom of heaven."



Therefore penal is false as penal can Allow sin to be constant yet forgiven by an unrepentant contractual agreement.





"Finally, let us add here that the evidence indicates that Paul was not the originator of the idea of Jesus dying for sins. Paul makes statements in this regard that are clearly formulaic in nature and therefore obviously derived from his predecessors at the Jerusalem church (1 Cor. 15:3, Gal. 1:4, Rom. 4:25, etc.). Furthermore, in agreement with Jesus, Paul cites love as the controlling principle in ethics (see 1 Cor. 8 and 13; 1 Thess. 4:9)."



1 Cor. 15:3 - For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,


Galatians 1:4 -


who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,


Died For our sins, again no penal mentioned, penal would have a case if it said took the penalty of our sins or took our replacement, it just says died for our sins.

Romans 4:25



25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.


Where is penal even implied?


"Why require a substitute anyway? Why can't God just forgive sin?
On that, see Glenn Miller's essay here. Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science commentary notes that in the ancient world, sin was "a breach of interpersonal relations" that invoked a debt upon the sinner to the "sinnee". Thus also in the substitution model of the doctrine of the atonement: Sin incurs a debt upon us to God that Jesus' blood forgives. In addition, we should not wrongly define "forgiveness" in modern terms, thus:


And the debt was taken off when one is Repentant towards Jesus Christ. Read Parable of Unforgiving Servant, that refutes penal substitution.

How does the substitution model reflect forgiveness, since God exacts a penalty anyway, even if from Jesus?
This objection misunderstands what "forgiveness" is, Biblically. As Malina and Rohrbaugh put it, "forgiveness by God meant being divinely restored to one's position and therefore being freed from fear of loss at the hands of God." How this was done is not part of the definition, which means "exacting all that is in justice due" is not excluded as a method, whether the person itself somehow pays it, or someone else does (as Jesus does in the substitution model).
It also does not mean that no one pays anything at all. It may be claimed, for example, that in passages like Luke 7:41-2 show true forgiveness, because the debtors were forgiven their debts and paid nothing. But this neglects the dimension of patronage that governed the ancient world: Though the monetary debts were erased, the debtors would continue to serve the creditor and would be expected to return the favor.
"Forgiveness" means that they were returned to a former status that they had before they incurred the debt -- not that they never gave back something in return. That would never make sense in a collectivist society.

Nope, Jesus Christ(God) offers forgiveness, restores one to prior position and makes Righteous those who are Repentant to Him.




In conclusion, Doctrines such as the one J.P. Holdings present is entirely man made, not Biblical and I challenge him to refute me because Penal is not only Un-Biblical and Anti-Biblical but immoral. people like Hitler are not in Heaven because they didn't truly repent, Hitler cowardly committed suicide to escape, 


Bonus that I had to refute, From J.P. Holdings The Crucifixion, the Nature of Hell, and Shame


http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html


"A reader asked this question: I gathered from your response to [another Skeptic] that the Jeffery Dahmer, who apparently repented before that unfortunate encounter with a mop handle, would be in the “nosebleed section” in heaven. Why would that be if Christ suffered the shame for everyone who is saved?

I think the answer here relates to the concept of rewards in heaven as opposed to salvation. The rewards will be rewards of honor; obviously someone like Dahmer isn't going to have a lot of rewards, and nor would an Adolf Hitler who repented on his deathbed. So yes, to say they will be in the "nosebleed section" of heaven would be accurate."



hitler was a coward who committed suicide as an escape(He probably thought it as a last resort) and dahmer was a sociopath incapable of repenting, no matter who tries to tell you otherwise, dahmer a known sociopath could not Truly repent, that is an impossibility.



We must take warning to Legalistic false teachings that Jesus Christ warned us about, penal substitution is one of them, as it is immoral  and illogical.




Matthew 7:15-23

New International Version (NIV)

True and False Prophets

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

True and False Disciples

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


If tektonics teaches truth they will be able to refute me on penal substitution, this is often a problem when dealing with "atheist"'s as they believe because the Church teaches them and since it's so mainstream that Penal is held as true and they use that against The Bible, which is wrong.

Next I will, because Inspired by The Holy Spirit and acts420 prove that Pre-martial sex is not a sin. 


Happy New Years 2013! I except a reply from tektonics 


11 comments:

  1. Hi, you said:

    "1, Bible condemns one paying for another's sin

    Jeremiah 31:30 - 30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge."

    The first part of the verse says:

    Jeremiah 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

    This is talking about Jesus lifting the curse of death starting from Adam to Adam's children, us...it's not been fulfilled completely yet "in those days" since we still die a physical death starting with Adam, 1 Corinthians 15:22.

    Also remember David's son from Bathsheba was punished for David's sin to Uriah, 2 Samuel 12:14. Plus you may review Isaiah 53.

    Thus paying for another's sin is biblical, for now. As Jesus did it is admittedly more complicated than simply being a whipping boy, but I'll leave it at that for now.

    I'm Johhny Poochie on theologyweb if you want to discuss it more there. Happy New Year

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David's son dying was a lesson to David not to do it again, as The child went to Heaven, under the penal model the child would go to Hell.

      Jeremiah 31:30 makes it clear that instead everyone will pay for their own sins.

      1st Corinthians 15:22 all it says is that we die in Adam and that we are made Alive in Jesus Christ, how does that make it penal?

      Isaiah 53:4 is not penal, for example where it says,

      Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

      then read Matthew 8:16-17 - 16 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.

      17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases."

      Nothing to do with penal.

      Delete
  2. How do you know David's son didn't go to Hell to pay for David's sin?

    Jeremiah 31:29-30 makes clear that sins of the father do affect sons at one point, then that curse is lifted at a later point. Else how do you explain that death came by Adam, or verses like this?

    Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

    Compare:

    Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

    2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2 Samuel 12 22 He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? [Child is in Heaven/or will be going to Heaven --->]I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”


      "Jeremiah 31:29-30 makes clear that sins of the father do affect sons at one point, then that curse is lifted at a later point. Else how do you explain that death came by Adam, or verses like this?"

      At one point and that at some point everyone will pay for their own sins, that makes

      Read the next verse,

      31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
      “when I will make a new covenant,

      so put together in context, This is a Prophecy about The Messiah Jesus Christ, not only does it prove that Jesus Christ is God but that penal substitution is AGAINST The New Covenant,

      Jeremiah 31:,

      27 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will plant the kingdoms of Israel and Judah with the offspring of people and of animals. 28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the Lord. 29 “In those days people will no longer say,

      ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
      and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
      30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.

      So in the future people will have to pay for their own sins, when?

      31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
      “when I will make a new covenant
      with the people of Israel
      and with the people of Judah.

      So basically that is to happen with The New Covenant.

      32 It will not be like the covenant
      I made with their ancestors
      when I took them by the hand
      to lead them out of Egypt,
      because they broke my covenant,
      though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]”
      declares the Lord.
      33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
      after that time,” declares the Lord.
      “I will put my law in their minds
      and write it on their hearts.
      I will be their God,
      and they will be my people.
      34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
      or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
      because they will all know me,
      from the least of them to the greatest,”
      declares the Lord.
      “For I will forgive their wickedness
      and will remember their sins no more.” - basically Jesus Christ forgiving sin.


      #1 where does it say He will pay for peoples sins? nowhere

      #2, He says in the future(that future which is The New Covenant) that people will have to pay for their own sins.

      On Isaiah 53, read CatholicNick's blog, he refutes the penal substitution connotation to it.


      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rafael: 2 Samuel 12 22 He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? [Child is in Heaven/or will be going to Heaven --->]I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

    Me: Since I believe in a purgatory (Matthew 12:39, Jonah 2:2, Jonah 2:10) it isn't necessary that the child remain in Hell in order for David to see him in Heaven.

    Rafael: so put together in context, This is a Prophecy about The Messiah Jesus Christ, not only does it prove that Jesus Christ is God but that penal substitution is AGAINST The New Covenant,

    Me: Correct but Jesus died first to install the New Covenant:

    Hebrews 9:15-16 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

    Rafael: #1 where does it say He will pay for peoples sins? nowhere

    #2, He says in the future(that future which is The New Covenant) that people will have to pay for their own sins.

    On Isaiah 53, read CatholicNick's blog, he refutes the penal substitution connotation to it.

    Me: I addressed #2, as for #1 and Isaiah 53:

    1 Peter 2:24-25 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    Isaiah 53:5-6 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

    If Jesus suffered for our sins so we should not die from them but live unto righteousness, it does not amount to him not paying for our sins so we don't have die for them. Quite the opposite...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before I start I urge you to read my brand new blog post on Penal Substitution and Jeremiah 31/The New Covenant.

      Now, Let me refute your purgatory verses, I believe purgatory is unbiblical, either death(Hell) or Life(Eternal Life/Heaven)

      Matthew 12:39 - 39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

      This is in reference to His(Jesus Christ's) death and Resurrection,

      Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

      Jonah 2:2 says,, 2 He said:

      “In my distress I called to the Lord,
      and he answered me.
      From deep in the realm of the dead I called for help,
      and you listened to my cry.

      but the previous verse states,

      Jonah 2:1 - 1 [a]From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the Lord his God.

      That was just a prayer Jonah prayed when he was alive in the whale.


      On Jonah 2:10 - 10 And the Lord commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.

      God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) just saved Jonah from the belly of the whale.


      On these, 1 Peter 2:24-25 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

      Isaiah 53:5-6 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.


      I urge you read Catholic Nick as he refutes any penal to it.

      If Jesus suffered for our sins so we should not die from them but live unto righteousness, it does not amount to him not paying for our sins so we don't have die for them. Quite the opposite...

      How does dying For sins so we could be righteous grant us forgiveness or say Jesus Christ can pay for anothers sins?

      1, Under The New Covenant you cannot do this

      2, Jesus Christ forgave before establishing The New Covenant.



      Delete
  5. Rafael: Now, Let me refute your purgatory verses, I believe purgatory is unbiblical, either death(Hell) or Life(Eternal Life/Heaven)

    Me: Why else would Jesus compare his own death to Jonah's experience if Jonah was not a model for what happens to the dead? Jesus didn't need to repent as Jonah did, and Jesus wasn't swallowed by a fish...but rather he went to a place like Jonah was in to preach to spirits in the prison of Hell so they would repent.

    1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

    1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

    Rafael: 1, Under The New Covenant you cannot do this

    Me: 1 Peter 3:18 as just cited shows Jesus suffered for sins, not for his own but for ours. Like if you steal 10 bucks from someone and I suffer for it, I'm paying for your sin.

    Rafael: 2, Jesus Christ forgave before establishing The New Covenant.

    Me: How was this forgiveness and New Covenant installed? Why did Jesus shed blood for remission of sins, if the cross had nothing to do with forgiving sins?

    Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. No no no, Jesus Christ compared Himself to Jonah this way,

      Matthew 12:40, For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

      Basically Just as Jonah went in the belly of the whale for 3 days and 3 nights, Jesus Christ would die and after 3 days and 3 nights Resurrect from the dead

      2,

      1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

      Where does it say He took our punishment?

      1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

      How does this mean purgatory?

      1 Peter 3:18 as just cited shows Jesus suffered for sins, not for his own but for ours.

      Ok I agree, He suffered and died FOR our sins. no penal mentioned.

      Like if you steal 10 bucks from someone and I suffer for it, I'm paying for your sin.

      Uh ta ta, The verse never says He took our punishment, it says He died for sins, where does it say He took our punishment?

      Dying for sins could mean anything.

      How was this forgiveness and New Covenant installed? Why did Jesus shed blood for remission of sins, if the cross had nothing to do with forgiving sins?

      Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

      It's shed, but you fail to prove what for, never proves Penal Substitution, just that His blood will be shed for the remission of sins, not taking place of.

      Delete
  6. Gee it seems like christians are pretty divided on their own holy book. Is your god so incompetent that he can't make the most important message clear even to his own believers? If believers can't even agree on their own holy text then what hope do you have of convincing a non believer they should take it seriously? The only thing your conversation did was demonstrate contradictions in an allegedly infallible book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He made it clear, as I proved, if it wasn't clear then it could not be proved.

      Also doesn't matter if there's a contradiction(which there aren't) or error, EVEN in the originals. doesn't change the Absolute Fact that Our Lord Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead.

      Delete