Every Generation Shall Have a Prophet.

Every Generation Shall Have a Prophet.

by

Published on August 25th, 2009, 9:51 am
Rift: Religion

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.

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.

Sins don't come with a price tag. Real sins are actions that cause suffering to other people.

But re-read what I said:

A Person wrote:Every person is responsible and accountable for their actions

The Abrahamic idea of 'paying for sins' is encouraged by Churches but is flawed. The punishment is not a payment for the crime, it is there for the protection of society. If a murderer kills a child the murderer is accountable. If his mother offered to live out her life in prison or to be executed in his place we would not accept her offer. It would be immoral to do so and be pointless. I hope you would be outraged if someone suggested killing Hamida al-Attas to 'pay' for Osama bin Laden's actions. It would not remove the need to find Bin Laden and remove him as a threat.

Forgiveness is something other people may choose to give. Sometimes it is conditional - e.g. you make reparations for the cost incurred by your actions, or serve a time in prison to discourage yourself and others, sometimes it is unconditional, we forgive children when they do things not realizing the consequences.

Sometimes we are unable to forgive. If the 'sinner' is unrepentant or is considered a continuing danger to others we remove them from society by incarceration (in civilized countries) or execution in others.

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

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..

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.

That is the same principle with Attonment. The cost of a broken window is the debt i pay for my son.
The cost of breaking a commandment ( which we have all done) is death. God has decided to pay that debt for us in his own person.

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.

When God identified Himself to Moses as

I am

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.
When humans reason together they can all agree on a certiain value of a thing but just because we decide that a thing has a certain value that does not mean we are correct. there is a higher judgment of values and God as

I am

understands the value of all things in a perfect wisdom.
If sin did not requuire attonment ( and i mean the highest and true attonment of Christ ;THE ATTONMENT), then god would have in mercy paid other that cost for us. 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. It is a matter of undimished understanding of the value of things acording to the eternal reality of the unchanging nature of God who is the I am . This says somthing about the value of our forgiveness as well.

Go sell crazy somewhere else. We're all full here

Mr meany face wrote_
[quoteGo sell crazy somewhere else"][/quote]

You must live by some standard for some reason. For example, As a Christian i a have a reason not to be a homosexual. It is not the way that God has created things. i am a man and God has ordained male and female relationships to be Good and that sexuality is rightly and enjoyably expressed in a marrriage.

I do because i know the standars and reality are good and are established by God as Good.

if you are without any standard (sort of spineless) then there is nothing to prevent you from being Gay.

But of course hetrosexuality for you would be buying into "crazy" since you have no truer moral standard to follow.

If you are upset at this then why?

Go sell

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

Your condition would be a reasonable one because it is based on reparation - making good the wrong in a pragmatic way.

If however, you demanded your son chop off the hand of his wife in sacrificial atonement , then things become more comparable. If your son refused to carry out the act you would be bound by your condition not to forgive him. For you to chop the hand of your wife to 'pay the price' for him would be highly immoral. For you to cut your own hand off to satisfy your own condition would be the sign of mental illness.

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.

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.

A person wrote-

Your condition would be a reasonable one because it is based on reparation - making good the wrong in a pragmatic way.

I agree reparation should fit the wrong done. A wifes hand for a window is not a fitting reparation. 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. There is more than pragmatics involved in relationship.

We seeem to see eye to eye on the issue that one can "sin" against another human.

But in our converstaion up to this point i do not know if you beleive we can sin agianst God or that when we sin agianst aniother we sin against God as well.

If so there are three parties involved in reconciliation and not Just two.

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?

A person said-

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.

What do you mean by saved?

Well you are arguing against a theology that is biblical the other option is some sort of open theism “where God waits to see what will happen”.

I hate to say that some believers think God is altogether outside of His creation. You may not fully believe but at least you are not going against straw man theology in your defence.
( I like you).

God’s foreknowledge is his, our decisions are ours. We have already established from past conversations that each person is rightly responsible for his own actions. God’s foreknowledge doesn’t change that.

It certainly is no legitimate grounds to reject Him. To do so would be our own culpable decision.
The bible really speaks of two judgements one is whether a person has been made fit for heaven by having his sins taken away ( forgiven in Christ). That is the heaven or hell issue.

The other has to do with works the unbeliever will be judged by his works as an unbeliever.
The saved will be judged according to the works he has done if he has truly served God with the very best then he will be rewarded if he has really not been giving himself to God as he should he will not have a good eternal reward though gloriously to be with God forever. No more pain crying tears etc. Eternal life and no looking back.

William Joseph wrote:A wifes hand for a window is not a fitting reparation

Neither is the torture and death of an innocent person for a remote ancestor seeking to gain knowledge.

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.

We seem to see eye to eye on the issue that sacrificing an innocent - or demanding such a sacrifice - is not moral and counterproductive to a relationship. One example of changing moral standards.

William Joseph wrote:We seeem to see eye to eye on the issue that one can "sin" against another human.

Yes, we can cause preventable and unnecessary suffering to another sentient being.

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?

No and no. I don't believe any gods exist. They are invented by people.

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.

To what standard do you refer, is there one?

If it is the law of the land it is largely based on the ten commandements at its inception.
if it is to personal choice and preference than how can anyone agree?

If it is to persoanl conscience then can it be informed in a correct way?

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.

Funny, I was wondering the same thing.

For me "morals" are an ideal code of conduct which would be adopted by any sane and rational person in preference to any other behaviour. The criteria are a reduction of suffering and empathy. The golden rule or reciprocity is a simplified model.

How do you answer your question?

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?

We have a truly fine sig line up for auction here today. Who wishes to start the bidding at $10 US ?

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

BHL wrote

"I suggest don't use the word morility when you are pushing an argument. Any argument. Because you'll just look silly"

I have given some thought to what you have said and although i did not understand what you might mean at first i think i get it.
Yes the world "morality "really has no concrete and commonly held understanding in a culture without any moral absolutes. Within a relitivistic society it can at best only posess meaning from a subjective position. Invididual morality is by nature individual and no one can tell another what their subjective moral standards should be.

We each come using the same word with two different presuppositions.

I presupposae that morality is an objective reality; that there are moral absolutes that exist outside of myself and that my subjective morality may not always accord with that reality. I therefore can understand a standard that is not my own and to which i may fail to live up to.

subjective morality can never call a person to an external absolute an objective morality is the standard for one to persue.

You are quite right no sensible dialogue can take place when both parties use a word but our completely different meanings into it's use.

However if there were moral absolutes then the word "Morality" could be used and understood as meaning one standard and a dialogue that moves past the meaning of the word and into the actual objective standards could take place.

A person_ said,

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.

I answer the question by saying that morals are an ultimate standard of conduct which is directly related to character. Morality in its highest sense is not rules of conduct alone but a standard that is based on the absolute and perfect character of God. Morality is relationally based and involves motive as well as conduct and motive and action toward Goad as well as others.

The character and relational aspects of morality do have a duel and unified expression. I am not one to thump the bible but I think Jesus answers the question and I truly believe His answer is sane and rational and runs parallel in context to the “Golden rule”
Matthew 22:36-40 N.I.V.
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Luke 6:31 “Do to others as you would have them do to you…. ( notice the further context a few verses later ) 35…But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”

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.

I could say more I guess but that is how I define the bulk of my thinking on “morality”.

A person- wrote

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

yes this is an interesting passage.
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."

MacArthur, John: Mark : The Humanity of Christ. Nashville, TN : W Publishing Group, 2000 (MacArthur Bible Studies), S. 114

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.

Given that the only insight into God's character is the Bible (which in your very next post you point out is in error) it would seem that this 'objective standard' permits just about any act. Genocide, rape, murder, lying, pedophilia, abortion, slavery, torture are all moral by that standard.

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."

No kidding. If you must 'use caution', you are applying your subjective human values to judge God's word. Since the Bible is not inerrant and the whole thing is the product of scribes and copyists decades after the events were purported to have taken place, the foundation to your morals, worldview and life is sand. Your derivation of morals is every bit as subjective as mine - the only difference is your selective use of scripture to justify your position.

When Christians claim that the bible is inerrant they are refering to what are called the "original autographs"; the oriiginal manuscripts. Those oringinals no longer exist ,what we do have are copies. That is why there is so much resreach into the earliest manuscrpit evidence and meticulous effort to delve into the original languages.

I assumed you would know that. We don't think the book is magic or just dropped out of the sky. Thinking people apply there minds to bring a consistent standard to discover what belongs to the originals by looking at all the copies, their dates and consistency and acceptance by the early church. The many early copies in diverse places of the world agree and where these kind of copiest mistakes or extra enteries are made they are discovered analised and noted.

No major doctrine is compromised and the discovery of the dead sea scrolls has only verified the work that has gone on before.

I consider most modern day versions in english to reflect the original text well in english.

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?

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?

It was not me that challenged the accuracy of the translation - it was you that pointed out that

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 is the sort of thing that happens to ancient books.

Any historian that accepted Caesar's Gallic Wars as unvarnished 'fact' would indeed be a poor historian. Not that the wars did not take place, there is plenty of independent evidence for them, but Caesar's book was written as propaganda. So how well the extant books represent actual history and how well the surviving copies represent his original work is difficult to determine.

Fortunately Caesar is not treated as God

So then you are settled as to the accuracy of the translation process even if you feel the words do not reflect truth?

All of these ancient works must be scrutinized. It is this process that when employed, blows away the chaff such as the gnostic gospels such as the gospel of Judas. If people would actually think ( even if they reject what the words procalim) they would reject the utter and pure fictioanl works such as " The Davinci code" which is based on easily rejected manuscripts that do not pass the normal test of historical authenticity.

I have no promblem with people rejecting the New Testament as long as they do it honestly. ( though I do wish all men to be saved through the gospel), They had better know what they are talking about. I would hope that thinking people who may reject the new Testament, which passes historical muster, would not accept hook line and sinker a far inferior document to reject a superioir one.

If people accepting the New teastament as truth makes secular thinking people angry something like the Davinici Code and it's untenable bases should make them even more angry and afraid.

I choose to use the Davinci Code because of the wide acceptence by the masses as actual historical reality in on the one hand and how it has no bases as anything other than fiction.

Both ceasar and Christ cliamed to be God but which one has the more tenable positoin rooted in authentic eye witness accounts? Reject both if you like but don't chose ceasar his position is the weakest of all.

Message to - A person-It was very interesting to me that you threw out

Mark 16:17-18 (King James Version) 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

It came out almost like a turrets syndrome outburst. (not a tongue) lol.
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”.

I can tell by our conversation up to this point that though you do not accept the eye witness accounts of the Gospels as authentic and true you are a person who at least thinks through the issues. You will probably never believe. But I respect your thoughts and I consider them because I can relate to many of the objections having once held them .I have my own questions as a believer too.

Long before I became a Christian there was a preacher’s kid who would walk past my house on the way home from school. He played the trombone in band and after school as he walked past my house I would stop him and routinely make him play me a tune ( or get a black eye) . I was about 14 And he was just a little older than me but kind of mousy and weak. He was a nice kid, a good kid and I really gave him a hard time. \I distinctly remember making him play the theme song from the A&W commercial. it was very hard for him and he tried to explain that it was only really to be played on a tuba. I made him play it anyway. ( it wasn’t very good). I was holding a snowball and was going to plough him with it. I didn’t though and I chased him down the road.

Years later after I read the bible myself and investigated the faith and looked at my own heart and began to trust that Jesus was who he said he was. I thought about the episodes with the preachers Kid (Bart) “why did I do it?”
It was because he seemed weak and foolish for believing in invisible things. I knew he would turn the other cheek (and he did). What I have discovered is that the preachers Kid was right and God really was in his life and not only that but he is in mine too. ( a guy who loved to make a meek person look foolish). God is wonderfully forgiving and real.

Everything I just told you is true I’m an eye witness I was there and for my part I was wrong but there is a reality to the presence and help of God that I can not articulate or give an explanation. There is an objective subjective reality to a real relationship to God.

There are many hypocrites in the faith and there are many who act hypocritically from time to time and I too can fail to live up to what God desires. But as for God and his love and mercy these are so real.
I willingly share this and you may use it as a weapon or as an extended hand of friendship you are only bound by your own choice.
I have enjoyed the stimulating conversation.

This person is not really interested in an answer at all

You could have stopped right there and been 100 percent accurate. When you argue with an idiot he'll bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience. :lol:

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”.

No I chose this odd verse as a direct response to your statement

William Joseph wrote:second question is "do you beleive that God is a person if you do beleive tha He is?

Which seems to be written in "tongues'

The passage is interesting, as it is an example of men applying reason and logic to the Bible to reject some parts of it. It is my contention that morals are read into the Bible using the contemporary moral zeitgeist and are not read from it.

Slavery is a classic example. Throuhought most of history slavery was considered moral and reasonable. It was condoned in the Bible and devout Christians quoted the Bible to support it.

"[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.

This continued untill 1833 years after Christ until the moral zeitgeist changed and the majority of people realized that there is somethng fundamentaly wrong (immoral) about enslaving others.

The Bible didn't change, people's moral standards did. Christians, deists and atheists alike.

Which is why I say neither God or the Bible is your source of morals

Slavery? who was talking about that? Any how. These individuals who upheld the kind of slavery to which you refer from some sort of prooftexting from the bible used a completely faulty hermenutic.

Slavery of that sort was terrible. God does not condone that.

The bible uses the greek term "duolos" which means servant or slave but our understanding of the word as it relates to the sad facts surrounding American history do not properly apply to every scripture that has been tranlated into english as "slave" .

Do not read your presuppositions based on the use of an english term in modern history as the basis for understanding words in greek that have a contextual meaning all of there own. That was what these bigots to which your refer did. Don't make the same mistake they did.
The term slave in english because of recent history now usually brings forth the understanding of one being forced into abuse and misuse by cruel masters.

Although that kind of slavery is not new but as old as the fall itself it is not always what is meant in the context of every passage where duolos apears in the Greek.

Many duolos of the bible were voluntary servants for economic reasons and were basically treated as extended family members and many chose to become bond sevants for life because of the love of the master towrd them.

Maybe it's a good thing you werent bornback than as a beleiver you may have condoned slavery too based on you faulty hermeutic.

Now perhaps you will know better.

Every Generation Shall Have a Prophet.

Developing News:

What a year can make. Liv's 2009 Life in review.

The End of Time - "I don't want to go"

New "World's Tallest Building" opens

Just got back from "Avatar"

The End of Time - "I don't want to go"