BecauseHeLives wrote:AP... we don't have the CAPACITY to pay for our sins. Neither did the old testament believers even with the animal sacrifices thay had. That was only them putting their sins on a credit card until Jesus came and paid it off. That's why believers were in Sheol before Jesus paid the price. Jesus then came down and took them with Him.
A Person wrote:Every person is responsible and accountable for their actions
A person wrote-
The important thing is that forgiveness is something given. The giver can choose to forgive or not and whether it is conditional..
No blood needs to be weighed out. To say that blood must be shed to buy forgiveness implies that your god is bound by some higher rule making authority.
he was identifying an amazing reality about His person. Eternal, ageless, omnipotant. omnipresent, etc. The qualitative nature of God is reflected in this statement. It is a statement that shows him to be the perfect judge of the value of all htings as creator and sustainer. In our human appraisal of things we fail to understand the true value of things whether it be God, ourselves our sin , forgiveness or whatever.I am
understands the value of all things in a perfect wisdom.I am
William Joseph wrote:That is true. If my son broke a window in our house by throwing a rock through it i could choose to forgive him (and i would) i would also have the conditional option of making him pay for the replacement or paying for it myself. To pat the price myself would free him from the debt bu the cost would have been born by me
William Joseph wrote:As it is God is only bound according to His own nature and true judgment of things and as God, who is THE AUTHORITY knowingthe true value of things has understood us, our sin and the perfect and true conditonal cost of our forgiveness.
Your condition would be a reasonable one because it is based on reparation - making good the wrong in a pragmatic way.
You seem to be saying that God has no choice in His actions. If he is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good then he can only act as a robotic automaton performing the only action that is perfectly good. Perhaps that is why He has predetermined who shall be saved since He has no choice.
Neither is the torture and death of an innocent person for a remote ancestor seeking to gain knowledge.William Joseph wrote:A wifes hand for a window is not a fitting reparation
William Joseph wrote: It would also defeat the altimate purpose of forgiving the repentant it is to bring the relationship into a close bnd again. to restore the relationship.
Yes, we can cause preventable and unnecessary suffering to another sentient being.William Joseph wrote:We seeem to see eye to eye on the issue that one can "sin" against another human.
William Joseph wrote:i will ask this as a direct question " Do you beleive that we can sin against God ?
a second question is "do you beleive that God is a person if you do beleive tha He is?
William Joseph wrote:You keep bringing up moral standards as though i am supposed to intuatively understand. you keep bringing up the imorality of the innocent suffering for the guilty.
William Joseph wrote:i will ask this as a direct question " Do you beleive that we can sin against God ? a second question is "do you beleive that God is a person if you do beleive tha He is?
"I suggest don't use the word morility when you are pushing an argument. Any argument. Because you'll just look silly"
For me "morals" are an ideal code of conduct which would be adopted by any sane and rational person in preference to any other behavior. The criteria are a reduction of suffering and empathy. The golden rule or reciprocity is a simplified model.
Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues
william joseph wrote:Here again you can see that the character of God is the objective standard it is the conforming to God’s character qualities and not just a modification of our behaviour to a code of conduct.
william joseph wrote:Alow me to quote anothers work here as it answers your silent question in sane and rational manner looking into the facts details and hitorical evidence of the words in question.
"The external evidence strongly suggests that these verses were not originally part of Mark’s gospel. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain this passage. Perhaps a scribe or copyist added this ending some years later. Caution should be exercised in formulating doctrine solely from this passage."
william joseph wrote:recorded history is taught and accepted as fact.
There are Historical events that are accepted as factual based on non original documents but copies of originals.
Ceasar's Galic war for example only has 10 ancient copies in exstence . The time between the auotograph originals and the earliesst surviving copies is 875 years.
Thucydices "history of the polyponnesian war" has 73 ancient copies in existence. These earliest surviving copies
are 1,300 years after the original autograph copies.
The New Testament has 14000 ancient copies in existence ( approximately 5,000 Greek; 8000 Latin and 1000 in other languages. The earliest surviving copies are 130 years after the original autographs.
These are facts my friend. You may not accept the documentsof the Newe Testament as "Gods Word" but you must accept the accuracy of the translation.
or do you reject ihistory too?
The external evidence strongly suggests that these verses were not originally part of Mark’s gospel. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain this passage. Perhaps a scribe or copyist added this ending some years later. Caution should be exercised in formulating doctrine solely from this passage
This person is not really interested in an answer at all
William Joseph wrote:It was a very non academic approach to our conversation and I must confess that for just a moment I thought “This person is not really interested in an answer at all but has chosen this odd verse for controversy and to use it in a way to discredit either myself or the whole rest of the biblical canon but not academically but in a hit and run sort of way”.
William Joseph wrote:second question is "do you beleive that God is a person if you do beleive tha He is?
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, South Carolina
"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.