FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

No ads, no mods, Frankly Anonymous (you can join w/fake name/email, are not tracked)!
It is currently 25 Sep 2018, 12:56

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Extra Smileys: http://forums.mydigitallife.info/misc.p ... _Editor_QR

Not moderated, so you are on your own. Spambots, stalkers and anti-semites will be banned without notice. Else, POLICE YOURSELF.



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2015, 03:35 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Oukexergon wrote:
The Father Did Not Punish His Son
Quote not famous b/c Jesus never said it: "THE FATHER HATED ME WITHOUT CAUSE"
How is it possible for the Father to punish His innocent Son without it being an injustice?

Did Christ deserve to be punished? Christ was perfectly righteous and completely innocent of the charges made against him by men. Christ died for our benefit at the hands of sinful men, not at the hands of the Father. To say Christ was punished by the Father not only has the Father bearing false witness in pretending His Son was guilty when He was not, but also perpetrating an injustice against the Son when He had done no wrong. To say the Father unjustly punished His innocent Son for the crimes of the guilty “in their place”, is to say the Father participated in the same crimes against the Son as those who wrongly accused him and put Him to death. Nowhere does the Bible ever say the Father had wrath on His Son or punished His Son in our place, as this would be a total injustice to punish the innocent in place of the guilty. God does not ever punish the innocent (as in the false and blasphemous penal substitute doctrine). In fact, it is an abomination to condemn the righteous. Proverbs 17:15

Source: http://www.principledlegalstandard.org/ ... unish-son/

First and foremost we'll see that Ouky incorrectly separates Jesus Christ and the Father as being separate beings. This causes a problem because she says "God does not ever punish the innocent", okay sure. But to support this she infers that Jesus Christ is NOT God but a random human being. Another problem (and this echoes with Tim A.) they don't quote scripture very well and just spew nonsense. And as previously described, simultaneously shout "it's not there" when the issue is that THEY can't see it when everyone else can.

So let's actually read some verses and see if what she's saying adds up:
Quote:
KJV 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.
NIV 2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
BGT 2 Corinthians 5:21 τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.

KJV 1 Peter 2:24 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.
NIV 1 Peter 2:24 "He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."
BGT 1 Peter 2:24 ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμενοι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν, οὗ τῷ μώλωπι ἰάθητε.

KJV Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
NIV Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
BGT Romans 4:25 ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν.

KJV 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
NIV 1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
BGT 1 John 2:2 καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου.


For starters, I don't know where they are pulling the whole emphasis for "punishing" (they ENFORCE this is what you also believe if you believe Christ paid for your sins). Christ paid with His thinking which is why He said "it is finished" BEFORE HIS BIOLOGY BECAME INERT! Which He did of His own power. So it had nothing to do with punishment. He did bear our sins on the Cross though, with His thinking.
I assume this is why they may be attacking 'Thiemeites' since they've given a problem Alleman and Tellez can't solve with the spiritual death that bypasses physical "punishment" as they call it. Just a guess.

As for Ouky's unitarian distortion on John 15:25, God can't "hate" Himself. Since she doesn't think Jesus Christ is God, there's nothing we can do to change her mind (only she can).
Quote:
KJV John 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
NIV John 15:25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'
BGT John 15:25 ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ αὐτῶν γεγραμμένος ὅτι ἐμίσησάν με δωρεάν.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2015, 04:22 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 879
It's sad how people make these ludicrous arguments and try to back them up with broken context. They don't WANT to see the big picture.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2015, 04:55 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Anonynomenon wrote:
It's sad how people make these ludicrous arguments and try to back them up with broken context. They don't WANT to see the big picture.


And even when they do, they create the most absurd circular arguments and eventually argue themselves into a corner where they have to make insane statements out of no choice (like how John 8:58 FORCES unitarians to become calvinists by denying I AM refers to Christ in the O.T. -- they have NO CHOICE but to deny it). Some of the worst I've seen come from unitarians (of which Ouky is).

If you don't have an agenda, nobody should ever prevent themselves from changing their mind when proven wrong. Or sticking to ONE IDEA and ignore all evidence.

Nobody should ever sell the gospel. God sets up the situation for you to "witness"--no Christian should ever EVER tell the gospel unless GOD SETS THE STAGE. And if you 'sell' instead of 'tell' you're so far off in the left lane... you may as well just put Duck® tape on your mouth and leave it there.

Image

You know, it's like how asshole christians go on condemning gays without cause. Oh yeah... what a GREAT way to get people interested in the Bible (not). Homosexuality is not a "choice" and is determined in biological coding.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2015, 09:05 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
hupostasis wrote:
You know, it's like how asshole christians go on condemning gays without cause. Oh yeah... what a GREAT way to get people interested in the Bible (not). Homosexuality is not a "choice" and is determined in biological coding.


Well, homosexuality might be a biological proclivity, but the act requires will; and only the act is condemned, be it in Noah (Genesis 9:21-22, even my Scofield KJV Bible separated it into a subparagraph) .. or anyone else.

Note well: NOAH DID IT, so clearly neither being gay nor committing sodomy causes you to lose or not get, salvation. Heh. God even records our sins to teach doctrines of grace.

Ergo, substitutionary payment. We are all doing it, every day. It's commonly called 'work for wages'. I work and get paid. That's a substitutionary payment. I can fix my computer myself or hire you to fix it. So if the latter, and YOU fix it, then YOU make the substitutionary payment of your labor (me amal naphesho, Isaiah 53:11, out from the labor of His Soul) -- and afterwards, then YOU get paid for having done that. (Isaiah 53:12, laken! Ahalleq-LO b' rabbim! Translated Absolutely! I will give to HIM, the people!)

But how does a mere human, pay Holy God? WE are the damage. The damage cannot pay for the damage. That would only cause more damage, Romans 4:4 (Greek, play on opheilema=debt, idea that the more you work, the more you end up in debt).

    Milk gets spoiled. So how can spoiled milk pay for or do anything at all to go back in time to its pre-spoiled state? LOL!

    Say you got hit in a car accident. So your arms are broken. Can you say to your arm, 'heal!' and it will? NO!

    Can you say to the person whose bad driving broke your arm, 'HEAL MY ARM' and expect it to be healed? No!

    When your computer glitches, can you yell at it, FIX THE PROBLEM? and will it respond? No.

    When your clothing tears, can you say to the tear, 'pay me for the damage' and expect it to respond? No.
Christ HAS to be God-Man and Sinless, else the quality of His Thinking WHILE BEING IMPUTED WITH SINS, couldn't pay for them. But He is, and He did.

Isaiah 53:11 makes this clear: b'dato yatsdiq, tsadiq av'di l'rabbim! Lit., By means of His Truth Knowledge He Make Righteous, the masses! Notice that: HIS truth knowledge: not, anything we learn, think, do.

Isaiah 53:12 also makes this clear, though since neither Ouky or Tim can read either Greek or Hebrew then maybe they can't understand it well (most Bible mistranslate the first clause): Christ paid, and Father rewards Him with us. That WAS the contract, in Isaiah 53:10 (also clearer in Hebrew or Greek).

But, most folks can figure it out, even with the mistranslation errors. Ouky and Tim, however, cannot. Which means, they can't read Bible even in translation. I feel really bad for them, hupostasis. How does anyone recover from such reversal? We gotta pray for these people. They are missing so much.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 30 Dec 2015, 09:23 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 103
hupostasis wrote:
Oukexergon wrote:
The Father Did Not Punish His Son


Jesus stepped into the punishment. He was not the object of the punishment.

When he bore our sins? The Father had to forsake him because of our sins, not because of anything he did. He bore our punishment. He did not deserve it. But, he chose to because only he could bear the punishment and live to tell about it. That is why he wanted to die in our place. For, if we were to have borne our own punishment? There would have been no resurrection for us. We would have simply been forsaken. Gone! No more to be.

The reason Jesus was chosen by the Father to bear our sins and being forsaken was because he never sinned. God in his wisdom prevented Adam from living forever. Beautiful! That way we will all die. That means? Our sins are finite.

With finite sins to be judged, the Lord could bear our sins to remain forsaken by the Father for the time it took to bear all the finite sins of mankind. Once he bore the last sin of man? And, there were no more sins to pour? And, because He had remained sinless while bearing our sins? After the last sin was poured he was no longer to be forsaken on account of no having no more contact with sins. So, when it became... "That's all? No more sins?" He then instantly snapped back into fellowship with the Father because he himself remained sinless.

Now... If it was us and not him? Forsaken forever. To cease being. For, we would have had to been sinless, yet while bearing our sins to survive. That's impossible. So, out of love for us Jesus took our place and bore what was unacceptable and unbearable to his soul. Which was to be cut off from the love of the Father.

For Jesus to be cut off from fellowship with the Father, even for one second? Was to be total agony for him. He could take the beatings and abuse of men without complaining.. But, never to be cut off from His communion with the Father! That is why darkness covered the cross while he bore our sins. God did not want anyone to see his shame and agony. A mild comparison to the intensity of the shame Jesus bore while contacting our sins, would be like witnessing to the Queen of England being forced to eat shit before millions watching her on TV. The Father did not want any man seeing it. For Jesus to come in contact with sins? Was for the Lord's eternal impeccability a total revulsion when baptized into what was utterly disgusting and shameful in God's eyes.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited