The Gospel according to John, Chapter 9 (NASB):

[Lazarus]

Jhn 9:1 As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth .
Jhn 9:2 And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind ?"
Jhn 9:3 Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
Jhn 9:4 "We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work .
Jhn 9:5 "While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world."
Jhn 9:6 When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes,
Jhn 9:7 and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam " (which is translated, Sent ). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
Jhn 9:8 Therefore the neighbors, and those who previously saw him as a beggar , were saying, "Is not this the one who used to sit and beg ?"
Jhn 9:9 Others were saying, "This is he," still others were saying, "No, but he is like him." He kept saying, "I am the one."
Jhn 9:10 So they were saying to him, "How then were your eyes opened ?"
Jhn 9:11 He answered, "The man who is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me, 'Go to Siloam and wash '; so I went away and washed, and I received sight."
Jhn 9:12 They said to him, "Where is He?" He said, "I do not know ."
Jhn 9:13 They brought to the Pharisees the man who was formerly blind.
Jhn 9:14 Now it was a Sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.
Jhn 9:15 Then the Pharisees also were asking him again how he received his sight. And he said to them, "He applied clay to my eyes, and I washed, and I see."
Jhn 9:16 Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath." But others were saying, "How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs ?" And there was a division among them.
Jhn 9:17 So they said to the blind man again, "What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes ?" And he said, "He is a prophet."
Jhn 9:18 The Jews then did not believe it of him, that he had been blind and had received sight, until they called the parents of the very one who had received his sight,
Jhn 9:19 and questioned them, saying, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind ? Then how does he now see ?"
Jhn 9:20 His parents answered them and said, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind;
Jhn 9:21 but how he now sees, we do not know ; or who opened his eyes, we do not know . Ask him; he is of age, he will speak for himself."
Jhn 9:22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.
Jhn 9:23 For this reason his parents said, "He is of age; ask him."
Jhn 9:24 So a second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, "Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner."
Jhn 9:25 He then answered, "Whether He is a sinner, I do not know ; one thing I do know , that though I was blind, now I see."
Jhn 9:26 So they said to him, "What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes ?"
Jhn 9:27 He answered them, "I told you already and you did not listen; why do you want to hear it again ? You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?"
Jhn 9:28 They reviled him and said, "You are His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.
Jhn 9:29 "We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where He is from."
Jhn 9:30 The man answered and said to them, "Well, here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He opened my eyes.
Jhn 9:31 "We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him.
Jhn 9:32 "Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind.
Jhn 9:33 "If this man were not from God, He could do nothing ."
Jhn 9:34 They answered him, "You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?" So they put him out.
Jhn 9:35 Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man ?"
Jhn 9:36 He answered, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?"
Jhn 9:37 Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you."
Jhn 9:38 And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him.
Jhn 9:39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."
Jhn 9:40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?"
Jhn 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.


Notice that Jesus stated that ""It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents;" in verse 3.

Notice also what the Pharisees said of the formerly blind man, "You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?" in verse 34.

These two claims about the "sinful" or "nonsinful" status of the blind man made no longer blind by God through Jesus indicate something quite profound:

PHARISEES throughout the ages have been denouncing the innocent as "sinners"--that was even the point behind the disciples of Jesus' question in verse 2: It had been drilled into their heads that every human being is quilty of "original sin"--the sins of Adam. Nut Jesus' teaching was something radically different from the teachings of the Pharisees and some modern "Christians"--it was that "...neither that this man sinned, nor his parents". Sinning was not the cause of the man's blindness. Blindness was not a "punishment" from God for sins. And being blind is itself no sin.

By his words, Jesus defended the innocent--the righteous blind man who had no "sin"--and by curing him of his blindness, Jesus demonstrated the power of God. He also exonnerated the formerly blinf man's parents, confirming the scripture in the book of Ezekiel, 18, verse 20:


"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.


The punishment for Adam's transgressions was not passed on to his children, etc. So the blind man was not being punished (by being blind) for the sins of his parents or forefathers. Indeed, Jesus made the point of excluding "sin" as a cause for the blind man's blindness by His words in verse 3. He revealed that the man's blindness was for God's purpose:

"but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him."

In verse 4, Jesus prophesies that a time will come when the world will be in darkness (He being the light of the world, one is left to conclude that His physical absence will be responsible for the "darkness"). He also makes the point that at that time of darkness, "no one can work"--certainly not as He worked.

The upshot of all of this is that God does not condemn the guiltless, and those Pharisees who substituted their judgment for God's erred greatly in their statements (lies contained within the Bible) that contradicted the words of Jesus Christ (the truth that is also contained within the Bible). This led to Jesus' statement at verse 41, in response to the question of the Pharisees in verse 40:


hn 9:40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?"

Jhn 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.


There claim to "see" was to exercise the judgment of God to say that the blind man was a sinner when he was not according to the words of Jesus Christ in verse 3! Thus Jesus was convicting the Pharisees "of judgment". They did not believe what Jesus had said in verse 3! Rather, they believed the doctrine of men about original sin. Yet they SAW Jesus HEAL the blind man! Thus, they had no faith in Jesus Christ but in THE "WISDOM" of THEIR OWN JUDGMENT!

Imagine if you were watching all of this, heard what Jesus said, saw the blind man get healed, etc. Would you LISTEN to what Jesus had to say? Or would you listen to what the world had "taught" you?

This is a particularly fascinating chapter in the Bible. It is extremely subversive to what the major religions teach, and it beckons all who understand it to come to Jesus Christ in faith to be healed--casting aside whatever the world teaches in favor of an intimate spiritual relationship with one's Creator.

:)

[LanceALott]

From the Gospel According to Thomas, The ugly twin of Jesus:

1:1 He was my little brother, the Man of Galilee, born one minute after me. We grew up together, me in His shadow, watching His back.

1:2 Was He what He said He was, the Son of God, the Only Begotten Son of God? Then what was I, His clone, or he mine?

1:3 At the wedding He turned the water into wine. I drank it. Made me feel real fine. It was good having Him for my little twin, even if His wine made me drunk, made me fall down, wet my pants, and made a fool of myself while the guests dance.

1:4 Then there was the day they laid Lazarus away. He’d been dead three days. Laid there in the desert sun, talk about stink. And my Bro commanded him to rise right before my eyes, but I don’t know why. Not only did he stink, but Laz was a bit of a dink I think.

1:5 And at the Sermon on the Mount, how many He fed with three fishes, I lost count. But He was a good man to have around when the food, or the wine supply, went down.

1:6 And that Sermon, I’ll tell you, it went way over my head as I drank my wine and ate my bread.

1:7 I remember the day they laid Him away. I was so sad, ‘cause He had did nothing bad, just gave people hope for something better than they had.

1:8 I still had tears in my eyes later when I saw Him alive, walking among men, again; and my eyes were not focusing too well, I do tell. I’d drank the rest of the wine.

1:9 I did not believe what those fuzzy eyes saw. So I asked Him to let me feel the wound, where the soldier stuck the spear. He came near. I stuck in my hand, and I’ll be damned, right there in his side, a hole real wide in His hide. I was so scared, I nearly died. It was He, standing before me.

LanceALott: Would someone to whom the Holy Spirit talks, please ask the Spirit why this Gospel of Thomas was not included in the rest of the Scriptures?

From the Gospel According to Thomas, The ugly twin of Jesus:

1:1 He was my little brother, the Man of Galilee, born one minute after me. We grew up together, me in His shadow, watching His back.

1:2 Was He what He said He was, the Son of God, the Only Begotten Son of God? Then what was I, His clone, or he mine?

1:3 At the wedding He turned the water into wine. I drank it. Made me feel real fine. It was good having Him for my little twin, even if His wine made me drunk, made me fall down, wet my pants, and made a fool of myself while the guests dance.

1:4 Then there was the day they laid Lazarus away. He’d been dead three days. Laid there in the desert sun, talk about stink. And my Bro commanded him to rise right before my eyes, but I don’t know why. Not only did he stink, but Laz was a bit of a dink I think.

1:5 And at the Sermon on the Mount, how many He fed with three fishes, I lost count. But He was a good man to have around when the food, or the wine supply, went down.

1:6 And that Sermon, I’ll tell you, it went way over my head as I drank my wine and ate my bread.

1:7 I remember the day they laid Him away. I was so sad, ‘cause He had did nothing bad, just gave people hope for something better than they had.

1:8 I still had tears in my eyes later when I saw Him alive, walking among men, again; and my eyes were not focusing too well, I do tell. I’d drank the rest of the wine.

1:9 I did not believe what those fuzzy eyes saw. So I asked Him to let me feel the wound, where the soldier stuck the spear. He came near. I stuck in my hand, and I’ll be damned, right there in his side, a hole real wide in His hide. I was so scared, I nearly died. It was He, standing before me.

LanceALott: Would someone to whom the Holy Spirit talks, please ask the Spirit why this Gospel of Thomas was not included in the rest of the Scriptures?








Because it's bullshit. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

[LanceALott]

Lonestar: Because it's bullshit. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

LAL: Bullshit? Is that what the Holy Spirit told you? Or is that Lonestar substituting Lonestar's judgment for the judgment of the Holy Spirit?

Somehow, I doubt it came from the Holy Spirit; and my doubt centers around "then." Could you please tell me back WHEN?

[Lazarus]

Thank you, LAL, for giving us a minute and for sharing ALL of your thoughts. ;D

[buzaw]

Laz, are you saying there was not original sin under Adam? Are you implying that nobody's infirmity is related to sin, or am I not understanding your point? Could you give a brief summary statemet of your point?

[buzaw]

Lonestar: Because it's bullshit. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

LAL: Bullshit? Is that what the Holy Spirit told you? Or is that Lonestar substituting Lonestar's judgment for the judgment of the Holy Spirit?

Somehow, I doubt it came from the Holy Spirit; and my doubt centers around "then." Could you please tell me back WHEN?


Evidently the Holy Spirit saw to it that it wasn't included in the cannon of scriptue, and confirmed that to nearly all of Christianity. Imo, you're whipping a dead horse here.

[arod]

Evidently the Holy Spirit saw to it that it wasn't included in the cannon of scriptue, and confirmed that to nearly all of Christianity. Imo, you're whipping a dead horse here.


Did you actually read what LAL posted as the Gospel of Thomas? Probably something he fudged up for a creative writing class in high school.

[Lazarus]

Laz, are you saying there was not original sin under Adam?


The original sin was the lie of the devil in the guise of a serpent. Adam and Eve disobeyed God (sinned) and were the original human sinners.


Are you implying that nobody's infirmity is related to sin, or am I not understanding your point?


Some infirmities MAY or MAY NOT be related to "sin" if sin is defined as "transgression" of God's word or law. However, in the case of the man blind from birth, his infirmity--blindness--was not the result of his sin nor his parent's sin--indeed they may not have sinned at all in their entire lives up to that point where Jesus stated the words quoted in John 9.3.


Could you give a brief summary statemet of your point?


God does not punish children for the sins of their parents or forefathers. People have invented a doctrine of "original sin" and some people have chosen to apply that doctrine even to babies--declaring them, in effect, to be transgressors while yet innocent. Indeed, that was what the Pharisees were doing when they said to the formerly blind man, ""You were born entirely in sins..." but Jesus had stated otherwise.

BTW, I do not particularly care for the NASB version of John 9.3. Here are some other translations:


Available Translations and Versions for
Jhn 9:3

Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.
(NKJV Copyright 1982 Thomas Nelson)


Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. (Webster's)

Jesus answered, `Neither did this one sin nor his parents, but that the works of God may be manifested in him; (Young's literal translation).

Jesus answered, Neither has this [man] sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifested in him. (Darby's literal translation).

Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. (ASV)

Yeshua answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him. (HNV)

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. (King James Vesrion)


All of the above translations lack the interpretive "helper" words that were inserted into the NASB:


Jesus answered, It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.


The Greek text does not contain those words (in Greek) and if this trend continues, then the Bible will become completely corrupted by the doctrines of men.


John 9:3 (Greek):
apekriqh ihsouV oute outoV hmarten oute oi goneiV autou all ina fanerwqh ta erga tou qeou en autw


My translation:

Answered Jesus: Neither this (man) sinned nor his parents; but that manifested is (the) works of God in him.

What happens is that if we assume that it was the case that the man had sinned (or was tainted by sins from his parents or forefathers), then Jesus' words are then made untrue. So, the asumption must be false, and so it is NOT the case that "the man had sinned (or was tainted by sins from his parents or forefathers)". But what just happened to the doctrine of "original sin" (transgression) being transmitted to all of the descendents of Adam and Eve? I think it just evaporated in a puff of logic.

Some religions--notably the Roman Catholic--go to great lengths to establish that "original sin" did not taint Mary the mother of Jesus--that she was the "Immaculate Conception". I don't disagree that she was untained by original sin--but Mary was fully human and no less a descendant of Adam and Eve than anyone else. So, logically, if Mary was not tainted by "original sin" then neither is anyone else--if we also assume that Romans 2.11 is true:


Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God


Now I am also aware of this verse:


Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;


But, to understand this verse, we have to understand that the word translated as "sinned" does not necessarily transgressed. What transgression has a newborn baby committed? I think that clearly there was NONE. So, how then is Romans 3:23 o be understood IF "sinned" does not MEAN "transgresion" within that verse? Well, accorinf to my research, "sinned" in this context means "to miss the mark".


264 hamartano {ham-ar-tan'-o}

perhaps from 1 (as a negative particle) and the base of 3313;
TDNT - 1:267,44; v

AV - sin 38, trespass 3, offend 1, for your faults 1; 43

1) to be without a share in
2) to miss the mark
3) to err, be mistaken
4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and
honour, to do or go wrong
5) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin


What the verse means is that no human being is perfect. But, just becuase a person is not perfect, it does NOT follow that they MUST have TRANSGRESSED God's law and have been born damned by God. Indeed, quite the contrary. God does not condemn the guiltless.

[truelies]

Laz, point to one person on the Earth at this moment who is NOT a Sinner.

[I-RIGHT-I]

Laz is confused. He thinks he's a scholar and that's his first mistake. He trusts the wrong people and the wrong sources for his information and that is his second mistake. Then with the typical arrogance of the liberal athiest begins to expound beyond his capabilities using idiot's for source material and pretending he's stumbled upon something new.

He has confused original sin with the concept that the "sins of the fathers" are passed to the sons. The former is a Christian doctrine, the latter a Biblical principle. Both can be proven by practical experience and by scripture to be true. Laz whether intentionally or just because of ignorance of the Christian faith has tried to combine these to separate truths to prove in essence that mankind does not need the atoning sacrifice of Christ. I think he copied his idea from one of those "Jesus sucks and I'm OK" websites. He does this all the time and it is a gross waste of a Christian's time to argue with him. One of these days Laz is going to look around and say, "Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?" So be it.

Laz is confused. He thinks he's a scholar and that's his first mistake. He trusts the wrong people and the wrong sources for his information and that is his second mistake. Then with the typical arrogance of the liberal athiest begins to expound beyond his capabilities using idiot's for source material and pretending he's stumbled upon something new.

He has confused original sin with the concept that the "sins of the fathers" are passed to the sons. The former is a Christian doctrine, the latter a Biblical principle. Both can be proven by practical experience and by scripture to be true. Laz whether intentionally or just because of ignorance of the Christian faith has tried to combine these to separate truths to prove in essence that mankind does not need the atoning sacrifice of Christ. I think he copied his idea from one of those "Jesus sucks and I'm OK" websites. He does this all the time and it is a gross waste of a Christian's time to argue with him. One of these days Laz is going to look around and say, "Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?" So be it.


Not bad from a 45 year old gay man but who are you to give advice?

[I-RIGHT-I]

I don't give advice. I might hold up a mirror and show you your face. I might help point you in the right direction or criticize you for being willingly ignorant, but I don't give advice. I used to give advice until it was pointed out how rarely I take my own. I am neither a hypocrite or gay. Ask your sister. ;)

I don't give advice. I might hold up a mirror and show you your face. I might help point you in the right direction or criticize you for being willingly ignorant, but I don't give advice. I used to give advice until it was pointed out how rarely I take my own. I am neither a hypocrite or gay. Ask your sister. ;)


That's why your opinion is hollow because your an asshole extraordinary and not a person that we should take religious opinions seriously since you’re no better than me or Lazarus or anybody else so take your opinions and shove it up your hypocritical asshole.

[LanceALott]

Arod: Did you actually read what LAL posted as the Gospel of Thomas?

LanceALott: No they did not. If they had, they might have gotten a chuckle or two.

Arod: Probably something he fudged up for a creative writing class in high school.

LAL: You are close. Actually, it came from a discussion on another messge board about the Gospel of Thomas and why it was not included as scripture. No one could tell me where to find the actual document, so I wrote my own.

LAL: The "When" it was written I asked our "Christian" friend to ask his Holy Spirit, was about two days before I posted. If the Holy Spirit really talks to him, I wonder why He didn't tell him when the BS was written? I was trying to find out whether it is the real Holy Spirit talking to him, or just another imposter voice from the sky talking to a schizophrenic with illusions of grandieur? -- His "no answer" is my answer.

[I-RIGHT-I]

I don't give advice. I might hold up a mirror and show you your face. I might help point you in the right direction or criticize you for being willingly ignorant, but I don't give advice. I used to give advice until it was pointed out how rarely I take my own. I am neither a hypocrite or gay. Ask your sister. ;)




That's why your opinion is hollow because your an asshole extraordinary and not a person that we should take religious opinions seriously since you’re no better than me or Lazarus or anybody else so take your opinions and shove it up your hypocritical asshole.


You seem to have an anal fixation and a fascination with homosexuality. You probably dress like Dwight Yoakam on one of his CD covers. It doesn't matter to me what you think. If you choose to ignore me that's your right but it would be a mistake. I'm no better than anyone else when it comes to these things but rather than being hypocritical I'm quite up front about it. I don't throw stones at Christians. One day you might just figure out who the people are that will do that. Until then you can kiss my ass.

I can out ride you, out shoot you, out cuss you, out drink you and when it's all said and done still show you what page the answer is on and explain it. On this forum "it's become all things to all men" for me. I am your not so humble servant in the service of the Lord. If you don't like the way I do things then send your complaint to the Front Office because I'm not here to make you happy. I'm here to give just a few people a clue and to piss off the rest. Am I arrogant? Yes. So what? Arrogance is not exactly a rare commodity on this forum now is it?

I don't give advice. I might hold up a mirror and show you your face. I might help point you in the right direction or criticize you for being willingly ignorant, but I don't give advice. I used to give advice until it was pointed out how rarely I take my own. I am neither a hypocrite or gay. Ask your sister. ;)




That's why your opinion is hollow because your an asshole extraordinary and not a person that we should take religious opinions seriously since you’re no better than me or Lazarus or anybody else so take your opinions and shove it up your hypocritical asshole.


You seem to have an anal fixation and a fascination with homosexuality. You probably dress like Dwight Yoakam on one of his CD covers. It doesn't matter to me what you think. If you choose to ignore me that's your right but it would be a mistake. I'm no better than anyone else when it comes to these things but rather than being hypocritical I'm quite up front about it. I don't throw stones at Christians. One day you might just figure out who the people are that will do that. Until then you can kiss my ass.

I can out ride you, out shoot you, out cuss you, out drink you and when it's all said and done still show you what page the answer is on and explain it. On this forum "it's become all things to all men" for me. I am your not so humble servant in the service of the Lord. If you don't like the way I do things then send your complaint to the Front Office because I'm not here to make you happy. I'm here to give just a few people a clue and to piss off the rest. Am I arrogant? Yes. So what? Arrogance is not exactly a rare commodity on this forum now is it?


Rant on if you must with your blathering nobody takes you serious anyway.

[Lazarus]

Laz, point to one person on the Earth at this moment who is NOT a Sinner.


If by sinner, you mean "transgressor" then any newborn baby will suffice. If you don't mean "transgressor" then you need to be more specific.

[Lazarus]

[Laz is confused.


I doubt it.


He thinks he's a scholar and that's his first mistake.

Really? So far you have made two presumptuous mistakes.


He trusts the wrong people and the wrong sources for his information and that is his second mistake.


How do you know? Please provide a link to every source that I trust. ::)


Then with the typical arrogance of the liberal athiest begins to expound beyond his capabilities using idiot's for source material and pretending he's stumbled upon something new.


When did I say that it was "new"? Make that three mistakes. As for my "arrogance" that is simply your projecting your feelings on to me. Since you "know" my sources, you really ought to provide a link to them. Otherwise, you are just another blow-hard.


He has confused original sin with the concept that the "sins of the fathers" are passed to the sons.


Actually, I did not confuse those ideas. Many religions confuse those ideas, but I did not. I am simply pointing that out that those who are confused about those concepts blame Adam for their "fallen nature" and usually condemn innocent children (requiring them to be baptized as infants as a form of exorcism).


The former is a Christian doctrine, the latter a Biblical principle.


What is the difference between a Christian doctrine and a Biblical principle? Never mind, God sent prophet after prophet--eventually sending His very own only begotten Son to try to straighten stuff like this out--and it is painfully obvious that you are unwilling to listen to anything but your own opinions.


Both can be proven by practical experience and by scripture to be true.


Again, John 9:3, and Ezekiel 18:20: explain it.


Laz whether intentionally or just because of ignorance of the Christian faith has tried to combine these to separate truths to prove in essence that mankind does not need the atoning sacrifice of Christ.


Listen, since Christ came and atoned ALREADY, it is safe to say that mankind does not need ANOTHER atoning sacrifice. ::) Now who is ignorant of the FACTS?


I think he copied his idea from one of those "Jesus sucks and I'm OK" websites.


Link?


He does this all the time and it is a gross waste of a Christian's time to argue with him.


Well, since I am a Christian, you are going to have to PROVE what you say, LIES-RIGHT-LIES.


One of these days Laz is going to look around and say, "Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?" So be it.


I seriously doubt that you have any facts, links or evidence to back up anything that you have alleged. Either start posting it, or start eating your words. ;D

[truelies]

Laz, point to one person on the Earth at this moment who is NOT a Sinner.


If by sinner, you mean "transgressor" then any newborn baby will suffice. If you don't mean "transgressor" then you need to be more specific.


Of course newborns sin. Their utterly self-centered me first rants of rage at being thwarted in the slightest are as much sin in them as in you or me. Teaching kids to NOT give vent to their 'natural' emotions/impulses is 90% of the job of parenting. Just because the little vipers are small and weak does not make them good.

[Lazarus]

Laz, point to one person on the Earth at this moment who is NOT a Sinner.


If by sinner, you mean "transgressor" then any newborn baby will suffice. If you don't mean "transgressor" then you need to be more specific.


Of course newborns sin.


What Law of God do they transgress by taking their first breaths? ::)


Their utterly self-centered me first rants of rage at being thwarted in the slightest are as much sin in them as in you or me.


Since when is it a sin to be self-centered? ::) Please provide chapter and verse if you would be so kind.


Teaching kids to NOT give vent to their 'natural' emotions/impulses is 90% of the job of parenting.


Which does not begin until they are older and is beside the point anyway. Trust me: if an infant crawls across the trigger of a loaded .45 and the gun discharges killing another person--then infant has not transgressed God's law or man's law. If you don't trust me, that's okay, too. Just be sure to cite an example of any person under age 3 incarcerated for manslaughter. I'll wait. ;D


Just because the little vipers are small and weak does not make them good.


I did not say that they were "good". Only God is good. You, however, are a truly sick human being if you think that newborn humans are "vipers." What I said is that newborns are NOT "sinners" if by "sinners" you mean "transgressors" of God's law. If you mean something else by "sinners" then you are going to have to be more specific and perhaps choose another word to describe whatever it is that you are trying to express. If you insist that all "sinners" are "transgressors" and that all people are "sinners" then you are going to have to start citing which Laws of God a newborn infant violates by its existence. Otherwise, you have been afforded every chance to make your point and have come up woefully short in justification for your extreme views.

[Descartes]

Let me take a stab at it . . .

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors ass.

Kids (as young as 9 months) do this all the time. Almost exclusively (as in they usually only want what another kid is playing with.)

Disclaimer: I am not really a Christian and don't particularly think this behaviour is a 'sin' before the eyes of whatever gods may be. just playing devil's advocate here.

The question here is, are we born 'tainted' and sinful from birth or are we born innocent and with a blank conscience? According to Catholic doctrine sex is a sin no matter if the parents are married or not, sex is just a sinful nature of man and so the offspring are sinful having been conceived in a sinful manner. That's good 'ol Saint Augustine and personally I think he's full of shit and trying to justify his own depravity as a young man.

I say a child is born innocent and with a blank conscience until he reaches an age of accountability, when they are capable of making a choice, somewhere around the age of 8 when they begin to know right from wrong.

So twisted is the Catholic doctrine that they invented the Immaculate Conception to absolve Mary and Jesus from being tainted by their perverse doctrine but the rest of us are scum? To say a newborn baby is sinful is false doctrine and not true, to say a young child is sinful because he hasn’t learned the difference of choice is also a false doctrine.

[buzaw]

Adam and Eve were divine sinless creatures of God before the eating of the fruit of the tree of the kowledge of good and evil. They were more or less programmed to be sinless and to know no evil. Their bodies were different also. They were never to die physically. Something in that forbidden fruit poisoned them with the sin nature and zapped their bodies so as to afterwards die. It also forbad them to cohabit and commune with their maker, Jehovah. This is the nature of "original sin." It is both physically and spiritually lethal and a remedy must afterwards be provided for the dilema of both body and soul. Thus the need for the atonement sacrifices and ultimately the ultimate sacrifice as well as the ressurection to remedy the physicl body destined to die.

[LanceALott]

IT’S CALLED THE PERFECT PLAN

In the “perfect Plan, you say “God knew in his foreknowledge that mankind would sin.”

And yet God created this defective bunch of humans anyway? I tell you what, if your God was an engineer who worked for me; the incompetent SOB that could not get it right, and knew He couldn’t; well He would be looking for another job.

And in your “perfect plan” God creates His Only Begotten Son, whose only job was to die on the Cross to pay for His Father’s incompetence?

“Perfect plan”? That seems like the ugliest plan I ever heard of to pass the buck, to send your own Son out to pay the ultimate price for your mistakes and failures?

“God, who came in the flesh as Jesus, would take the penalty for their sins, and in so doing redeem their lives… So there you have it in scripture AN INNOCENT GOD (OR JESUS) DYING FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND.

First of all in your “Perfect Plan” your vision of God is not innocent, man is; because we humans have done exactly what we have been created to do, to error, and then to learn from our mistakes.

Since mankind has not sinned, that is we are doing the Will of God even when we screw up, only then can you make the case that God Himself did not sin.

And Hence, all that BS about needing some kind of a sacrifice so mankind can be forgiven of sins (he never committed) is a load of crap that was not invented by God at all; but rather it was invented by preachers, religious professionals, the worlds second oldest profession.

Prostitution of course is the oldest profession, but the “Whores of Babylon” (organized religions, preachers, priests), they needed The Sacrifice, so they could use the pity felt for the innocent animal as a necessary step toward collecting for their unnecessary service, and for gaining loyalty and obedience from the scared and sad followers.

[Lazarus]

The question here is, are we born 'tainted' and sinful from birth or are we born innocent and with a blank conscience? According to Catholic doctrine sex is a sin no matter if the parents are married or not, sex is just a sinful nature of man and so the offspring are sinful having been conceived in a sinful manner. That's good 'ol Saint Augustine and personally I think he's full of shit and trying to justify his own depravity as a young man.

I say a child is born innocent and with a blank conscience until he reaches an age of accountability, when they are capable of making a choice, somewhere around the age of 8 when they begin to know right from wrong.

So twisted is the Catholic doctrine that they invented the Immaculate Conception to absolve Mary and Jesus from being tainted by their perverse doctrine but the rest of us are scum? To say a newborn baby is sinful is false doctrine and not true, to say a young child is sinful because he hasn’t learned the difference of choice is also a false doctrine.



I agree with you. But following that logic, then, it is possible for a person to reach maturity and to have not transgressed God's law and "sinned". And, if that is the case, then it is perfectly REASONABLE for Jesus to say (as the Son of God), that "neither this man nor his parent's sinned...." if--in fact-- that was the case. And who can argue with the Son of God about it? So, Mary could have been sinless, Jesus sinless, and the formerly blind man and his parents also sinless. And, if God is "not a respector of persons" (Romans 2:11), then whatever benefits that God had bestowed upon ALL of those people, surely, He would not have withheld from everyone everyone else lest the scripture be made false. It simply stands to reason. :)

[Lazarus]

Let me take a stab at it . . .

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors ass.

Kids (as young as 9 months) do this all the time. Almost exclusively (as in they usually only want what another kid is playing with.)

Disclaimer: I am not really a Christian and don't particularly think this behaviour is a 'sin' before the eyes of whatever gods may be. just playing devil's advocate here.


One may violate God's law with impunity so long as one remains ignorant of it--that is, so long as one remains innocent. Even the laws of men recognize that children sometime do acts that if done by an adult would be considered criminal acts. Not knowing the differnce between right and wrong is often considered a legitimate excuse. Therefore, newborns and infants are not responsible for their actions, innocent, and therefore not "transgressors" under the law.

[Lazarus]

Adam and Eve were divine sinless creatures of God before the eating of the fruit of the tree of the kowledge of good and evil.


I am not certain that "divine" is the appropriate choice of words. Have you a verse in Genesis that indicates that they were "divine"? I understand that they were created by a Divine God, but what if they were created less than divine? Is anything that was created "divine"? ::)


They were more or less programmed to be sinless and to know no evil.


Programmed? More or less? ::)


Their bodies were different also. They were never to die physically.


How do you know? Given that they did, in fact, die, it is a bit difficult to understand how you could reach that opinion.


Something in that forbidden fruit poisoned them with the sin nature and zapped their bodies so as to afterwards die.


The knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong. Fruit carries a seed that grows another tree. That tree bears fruit, and the fruit bears seeds. Those seeds get planted in the ground, and grow into yet another tree, and the cycle continues.


It also forbad them to cohabit and commune with their maker, Jehovah.


God kept them from returning to the Garden and set up a sentry to block the way after God drove the man out from the Garden.


This is the nature of "original sin."


What is the nature of original sin? Again, the original human sinners (transgressors of the word of God) were Adam and Eve. They transgressed and received the consequences of their disobedience. The devil in the disguise of a 'serpent' lied, and deceved them into thinking that they were immortal (they were not immortal since they later died). Moreover, since the way to the tree of life ("living forever") was foreclosed to them, a reader may only reasonably conclude that Adam and Eve died an everlasting death--that their spirits were annihilated, never to be made alive again.


It is both physically and spiritually lethal and a remedy must afterwards be provided for the dilema of both body and soul.


"Soul" refers to the union of flesh with spirit. What you are referring to is not clear. The recompense of sin is eventual, absolute, and total annihilation--"death".


Thus the need for the atonement sacrifices and ultimately the ultimate sacrifice as well as the ressurection to remedy the physicl body destined to die.


Jesus atoned for sins throughout the past, present, and future. It is by no means clear that the atonement was, is, or will be useful and beneficial for everyone (or for all transgressions). It is simply in God's merciful hands.

[Lazarus]

IT’S CALLED THE PERFECT PLAN

In the “perfect Plan, you say “God knew in his foreknowledge that mankind would sin.”

And yet God created this defective bunch of humans anyway? I tell you what, if your God was an engineer who worked for me; the incompetent SOB that could not get it right, and knew He couldn’t; well He would be looking for another job.

And in your “perfect plan” God creates His Only Begotten Son, whose only job was to die on the Cross to pay for His Father’s incompetence?

“Perfect plan”? That seems like the ugliest plan I ever heard of to pass the buck, to send your own Son out to pay the ultimate price for your mistakes and failures?

“God, who came in the flesh as Jesus, would take the penalty for their sins, and in so doing redeem their lives… So there you have it in scripture AN INNOCENT GOD (OR JESUS) DYING FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND.

First of all in your “Perfect Plan” your vision of God is not innocent, man is; because we humans have done exactly what we have been created to do, to error, and then to learn from our mistakes.

Since mankind has not sinned, that is we are doing the Will of God even when we screw up, only then can you make the case that God Himself did not sin.

And Hence, all that BS about needing some kind of a sacrifice so mankind can be forgiven of sins (he never committed) is a load of crap that was not invented by God at all; but rather it was invented by preachers, religious professionals, the worlds second oldest profession.

Prostitution of course is the oldest profession, but the “Whores of Babylon” (organized religions, preachers, priests), they needed The Sacrifice, so they could use the pity felt for the innocent animal as a necessary step toward collecting for their unnecessary service, and for gaining loyalty and obedience from the scared and sad followers.




Well, it seems I was right. Before, you took a minute and shared ALL you know. Now, you have taken another minute and shared with us everything that you simply believe!

What is next? What do you do for an encore? ::)

Let's go over it once:


IT’S CALLED THE PERFECT PLAN


Who called it that?


In the “perfect Plan, you say “God knew in his foreknowledge that mankind would sin.”


I made no such claim. False assumption. My bet is that God hoped humans would never transgress His word.


And yet God created this defective bunch of humans anyway?


Who says that Adam and Eve were defective in any way? If you say, "Well, they transgressed!" I say, sure. Nobody's perfect--except God. But "defective"? How does that word come to apply?


I tell you what, if your God was an engineer who worked for me; the incompetent SOB that could not get it right, and knew He couldn’t; well He would be looking for another job.


God, the Father, is not the "son" of anything. That He created people "free" meant that they were free to err. If you did not think yourself to be the most important thing in the iniverse, then you might see that what humans do on this little speck of dust in some far flung part of the universe has about as much significance as a grain of sand among all the beaches in the world--and at that I greatly overestimate the significance of the grain of sand.


And in your “perfect plan” God creates His Only Begotten Son, whose only job was to die on the Cross to pay for His Father’s incompetence?


Actually, He came to demonstrate that God Most High is not our enemy and to demonstrate His love for the world, in that, while we were yet sinners, He loved us enough to die for us and take away our sins. As to how you characterize a God in whom you do not believe: who cares if you don't believe in a God that you don't like? If it makes you happy, then I don't believe in the non-god that you describe, either. Rather, I believe in God who is the Father of all.



“Perfect plan”? That seems like the ugliest plan I ever heard of to pass the buck, to send your own Son out to pay the ultimate price for your mistakes and failures?


Humans were free to remain in the Garden, but it required obedience to the word of God. Humans freely disobeyed, and were made subject to death. Christ Jesus came to make us free from being subject to death, and instead make us subjects of the Kingdom of God.


God, who came in the flesh as Jesus, would take the penalty for their sins, and in so doing redeem their lives… So there you have it in scripture AN INNOCENT GOD (OR JESUS) DYING FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND.


Amen. For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but might receive eternal life. And were it not for His sacrifice, then all flesh would perish and nothing would be saved.


First of all in your “Perfect Plan” your vision of God is not innocent, man is; because we humans have done exactly what we have been created to do, to error, and then to learn from our mistakes.


Define "innocent". If it is knowing right from wrong, then nobody who knows right from wrong is innocent if they transgress and do the wrong thing. If God did the "wrong thing", then God would not be innocent. You say that God is not innocent, so God must have done the "wrong thing." What was the "wrong thing" that God did? Was it that God created you? Was that the "wrong thing" that God did? If so, then you have condemned yourself. If God did the "right thing" by creating you, then your complaint is what exactly? If you don't like the world that God created, do you suppose that you could have done better than God? Just how big is that ego of yours? ::)


Since mankind has not sinned,...


Mankind has never done wrong? Hitler? Mao? Stalin? Ghenghis Khan? Pearl Harbor? Manson? Bundy? Idi Amin? Bib-Ladin? ::) You have one twisted sense of morality there.


...that is we are doing the Will of God even when we screw up, only then can you make the case that God Himself did not sin.


You seem to have "bought" responsibility for all of the reprehensible actions of mankind and have sought to justify them while blaspheming God and condemning Him for your own existence. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. I certainly hope so.


And Hence, all that BS about needing some kind of a sacrifice so mankind can be forgiven of sins (he never committed)...


You are perfectly free to REJECT God and Christ's atonement in your behalf--if it pleases you to do so. However, it would be ever so thoughtful if you if you would permit others to make up their own minds as they may see fit to do so.


...is a load of crap that was not invented by God at all; but rather it was invented by preachers, religious professionals, the worlds second oldest profession.


You are entitled to your opinion--and I truly hope it serves you well in the way of life that you have chosen. But why do you feel the need to try convert others to your opinion? Why do you seek to control others in that way?


Prostitution of course is the oldest profession, but the “Whores of Babylon” (organized religions, preachers, priests), they needed The Sacrifice, so they could use the pity felt for the innocent animal as a necessary step toward collecting for their unnecessary service, and for gaining loyalty and obedience from the scared and sad followers.


And how much have I asked of you? You paint things with a very broad brush, but where is the justice in your words?

[LanceALott]

Laz, You must be a preacher because you sure are long winded, and pretty windy too, and self-serving in your sermon above. I'll cut it up and answer in parts:

First: Laz says "Well, it seems I was right. Before, you took a minute and shared ALL you know. Now, you have taken another minute and shared with us everything that you simply believe!

LaL: It is not all I believe, but I don't dump the whole load of BS (acronym for Belief Sytem) at once.

Laz: What is next? What do you do for an encore?

LaL: What would you like, a magic trick? pICK A CARD, ANY CARD... OR HOW ABOUT A LITTLE WALKING ON WATER? Trust me, my hole card will knock your socks off.

Let's go over it once:Laz: Quote:
IT’S CALLED THE PERFECT PLAN -- Who called it that?

LaL: I told you it was Kim, a preacher from down under, not Hell, Australia. I've been discussing religion with him for a long time. If you are interested you can do a search and find a mesage board called "Bible Talk" where he has made a fool of undamentalist "Christianity" for quite some time.

Like Buzz, your Holy Spirit is slipping. He allowed you to call Kim's beliefes my beliefs; and if there really was a Holy Spirit behind your keyboard how could you be so darn wrong?

LL,

What's this with the spirit thing? You're passing judgment based on your understanding which is not neccessarily right, only to you. You seem to have some inside track about another person's 'spirit', how is that?

Just what is your BS? (belief system)

[Lazarus]

Laz, You must be a preacher because you sure are long winded, and pretty windy too, and self-serving in your sermon above. I'll cut it up and answer in parts:

First: Laz says "Well, it seems I was right. Before, you took a minute and shared ALL you know. Now, you have taken another minute and shared with us everything that you simply believe!

LaL: It is not all I believe, but I don't dump the whole load of BS (acronym for Belief Sytem) at once.

Laz: What is next? What do you do for an encore?

LaL: What would you like, a magic trick? pICK A CARD, ANY CARD... OR HOW ABOUT A LITTLE WALKING ON WATER? Trust me, my hole card will knock your socks off.

Let's go over it once:Laz: Quote:
IT’S CALLED THE PERFECT PLAN -- Who called it that?

LaL: I told you it was Kim, a preacher from down under, not Hell, Australia. I've been discussing religion with him for a long time. If you are interested you can do a search and find a mesage board called "Bible Talk" where he has made a fool of undamentalist "Christianity" for quite some time.

Like Buzz, your Holy Spirit is slipping. He allowed you to call Kim's beliefes my beliefs; and if there really was a Holy Spirit behind your keyboard how could you be so darn wrong?




LAL,

Too bad you don't have the intellectual acumen to back up your statements with evidence or anything more than your unsupported opinions.

If you attributed your copy and paste, then it was not done in the post where you copied and pasted it. That's intellectually dishonest. Even if it was not a copy and paste, then it was posted as your beliefs--why post them if you DON'T agree with them?

As for the whereabouts of the Holy Spirit, that is anywhere He wants to be. "All you believe" can be summarized as "yourself": you may dress it up anyway you like. You may add words, but in the final analysis, you are your own "God."

As I stated before, you are free to say or do anything you wish here within the limits permitted by the Guardian. You have made your point that you do not agree with me or with the Christian doctrine that I have presented.

So, who cares? I am not here to try to convert you to my belief system. All I am doing is discussing a bit of Christian doctrine that I believe some of the major Christian sects are on the wrong side of--given what the Bible says about it.

If you would like to discuss THAT issue, then you are free to do so. But if your only purpose is to disrupt this topic and to flame me, personally--then go take a long walk off a short pier.

If your future posts are not on the topic, then I will ignore them in this thread. BTW, that is probably what I should have done when you posted your anti-Christian, anti-God screed. However, I gave you the courtesy of addressing the issues that you raised. I can see now that my effort was wasted upon you.

So, if you won't address the topic of this thread, then your posts are not worth the effort it takes to respond to them.

You and everyone else who reads this has been put on notice about you.

Otherwise, have a nice day. :)

[Lazarus]

LL,

What's this with the spirit thing? You're passing judgment based on your understanding which is not neccessarily right, only to you. You seem to have some inside track about another person's 'spirit', how is that?

Just what is your BS? (belief system)


lonestar, I appreciate that you are a kind man. However, if LaL wishes to express his B.S., then he may start his own topic on that subject. It seems that he would simply prefer to tear down other's beliefs rather than do that.

I don't agree that this thread is the place for the discussions of his anti-Christian, anti-God screeds (recognizing, of course that I did respond to one of them, and received a flame in rebuttal). ::)

LL,

What's this with the spirit thing? You're passing judgment based on your understanding which is not neccessarily right, only to you. You seem to have some inside track about another person's 'spirit', how is that?

Just what is your BS? (belief system)


lonestar, I appreciate that you are a kind man. However, if LaL wishes to express his B.S., then he may start his own topic on that subject. It seems that he would simply prefer to tear down other's beliefs rather than do that.

I don't agree that this thread is the place for the discussions of his anti-Christian, anti-God screeds (recognizing, of course that I did respond to one of them, and received a flame in rebuttal). ::)


Sure enough Laz, when I get time I will start a thread for him to 'expound'. Peace. :)

[Lazarus]

LL,

What's this with the spirit thing? You're passing judgment based on your understanding which is not neccessarily right, only to you. You seem to have some inside track about another person's 'spirit', how is that?

Just what is your BS? (belief system)


lonestar, I appreciate that you are a kind man. However, if LaL wishes to express his B.S., then he may start his own topic on that subject. It seems that he would simply prefer to tear down other's beliefs rather than do that.

I don't agree that this thread is the place for the discussions of his anti-Christian, anti-God screeds (recognizing, of course that I did respond to one of them, and received a flame in rebuttal). ::)


Sure enough Laz, when I get time I will start a thread for him to 'expound'. Peace. :)


If you want his views, then he should volunteer them (just not here unless they are on this topic of this thread), IMHO. :)

[LanceALott]

Well, alrighty then, I see Laz and Star do not want any discussion unless it is with someone who agrees with your insanity, especially when it's the biggest challenge your religion has ever seen. Kind of like you don't care about the truth or about God, it's all about collecting a gang (cult of lunatics) that is loyal and obeys your false Lords.

I knew that.

You have no god behind you to make good on His promises, nor will He make good on His (your) threats. The last time He is reported to have parted the sea or helped out the "good guys," was so long ago it probably never happened.

I think Your God is a false God that does not exist. Furthermore, when I look at the history of the results of belief in that angry, mean, and incompetent God, I see more Evil than Good.

Anyone who fears such a non-existent God that demands Blood Sacrifice is a coward. I'm al calling your God a scum sucking pig, and I challenge Him to a fight. Have Him meet me on main street, and He better be a wearing a gun. But if you try to backshoot me, or help Him in any way, you will prove beyond a doubt to Him, to me, and to yourself, that you do not believe He can handle the job.

But you and I both know He will not show up, because we both know HE DOES NOT EXIST.

[Lazarus]

Well, alrighty then, I see Laz and Star do not want any discussion unless it is with someone who agrees with your insanity, especially when it's the biggest challenge your religion has ever seen.


I am not challanged by gnats. Your rants are simply off-topic. If you want to express them, then you have a great big forum here in which to do so. You need not post off-topic remarks here with respect to this thread.


Kind of like you don't care about the truth or about God, it's all about collecting a gang (cult of lunatics) that is loyal and obeys your false Lords.


I care about the "truth" and when you offer some, then I will aprreciate it. However, until then, you have two choices--rebut to the reply to your objections with something serious (rather than the flame you offered) or bug off.


I knew that.


The problem is not what you know, it is more that you don't know anything but think that you do.


You have no god behind you to make good on His promises, nor will He make good on His (your) threats.


If you are accusing me of having threatened you, then you may report me to the Administrator of this forum. If you will not do that, then obviously you are in error about my having threatened you, and thus you have made yourself into either a fool or a liar. Go ahead. Make my day. Just be sure to quote me if and when you complain to the Guardian. I could use some more hysterical laughter in my life. ::)


The last time He is reported to have parted the sea or helped out the "good guys," was so long ago it probably never happened.


God helps those who help themselves. Some people very much want it to be otherwise.


I think Your God is a false God that does not exist.


Evidence? Show me everywhere so that I may alos "know" that He is not. ::)


Furthermore, when I look at the history of the results of belief in that angry, mean, and incompetent God, I see more Evil than Good.


Perhaps you have God confused with Satan. Satan was into doing bad things and making the Hebrews blame God for it.


Anyone who fears such a non-existent God that demands Blood Sacrifice is a coward.


And you think that senence makes sense? If God does not exist, then how could He demand a blood sacrifice? If God does exist, then whether He demands a blood sacrifice or not is irrelevant. ::)


I'm al calling your God a scum sucking pig, and I challenge Him to a fight. Have Him meet me on main street, and He better be a wearing a gun.


Either you will meet Him on His terms or not at all. It has nothing to do with me.


But if you try to backshoot me, or help Him in any way, you will prove beyond a doubt to Him, to me, and to yourself, that you do not believe He can handle the job.


God does not need me to help Him.


But you and I both know He will not show up, because we both know HE DOES NOT EXIST.


"God is dead"~~Nietche......"Nietche is dead~~God......

[LanceALott]

God is not dead!

But your God never existed.

My God is The Lord Jesus Christ! Your God is the false God of Paul, the same God Moses invented.

Christ did exist, and He left us with a great Gift, His Teaching; but that teaching had absolutely nothing to do with Blood Sacrifice. Jesus rejected that ancient insanity.

His Teaching is My God, and that did not die with Him.

You see He taught GOD IS TRUTH! And Truth does exist, in spite of all the religious professionals who try to impersonate the Truth.

[LanceALott]

LaL: Below is a reply the the "Perfect Plan" by Nova on another message board:

Let me see... God created Man, Free Will, Error, and the Forbidden Fruit, then punishes Man ad infinitum for making use of that which God put before him. Can we say "dysfunctional, abusive deity"? Original Sin may be a useful metaphor for early, totalitarian societies, because God is portrayed as an absolute ruler. There's a nice, moral lesson for the subjects of totalitarian leaders: disobey the Sovereign (earthly or heavenly) and you will suffer!

But I don't see why the post-Enlightenment peoples of a democracy should hold on to such a belief. Logically, "Original Sin" is a transparent attempt to solve a central problem of Christian theology: if God is Good, how can He have also created Evil? Easy answer: He didn't; man did!

At least in Lance's clerical friend's version, it is acknowledged that whatever Error ensued was also of God's creation and the suffering of Jesus is God's expiation of Sin that was essentially created by Himself. A bit of justice in that, eh?

[LanceALott]

KIM : PLEASE SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUEMENT !!!

LaL: Everything I write is scripture.

[Lazarus]

God is not dead!


Yes?


But your God never existed.


How do you know if "God is not dead!"...? Could the Spirit be failing you? ::)


My God is The Lord Jesus Christ!


So you claim, here, for the first time in this thread--after bashing the Father, the Creator--and blaspheming Him. Somehow, your claims don't pass the "stench test". ::)


Your God is the false God of Paul, the same God Moses invented.


Jesus was born a "Jew," as were Paul (Saul) and Moses. Your claims about the beliefs about the God of those gentlemen certainly are not first hand--and the only evidence that exists to go by is found in the Bible. There is simply no reason to accept your absurd claims based on what is actually in the Bible. My God, is God Most High, the Father whose only-begotten Son was Jesus Christ. :)


Christ did exist, and He left us with a great Gift, His Teaching; but that teaching had absolutely nothing to do with Blood Sacrifice.


Well, then perhaps you can explain this teaching from the Last Supper:


Mat 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;

Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.



Jesus rejected that ancient insanity.


He put an end to animal sacrifices. That is not the same as saying that "He rejected it."


His Teaching is My God, and that did not die with Him.


His teaching was the truth.


You see He taught GOD IS TRUTH!



Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


If you accept that God is truth, and accept that Jesus taught the truth, then you have accepted that Jesus is God incarnate. If you reject that Jesus is the truth, then you reject that Jesus is God incarnate--and you reject what Jesus taught. You seem to have managed to claim an extremely selective edit of what Jesus taught as your version of "the truth". It is quite likely that you will not be able to sustain your views (as you have claimed them) if you remain here and continue to discuss matters with me. Who was "the Father" about whom Jesus spoke if Jesus was not referring to the God of Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and Paul? The inconsistencies (contradictions) in your claims lead me to think that you are nothing more than a kibitzer--someone who thinks he knows better than others what is "right"--but have never seriously examined your own heart to see whether the truth really abides within you.


And Truth does exist, in spite of all the religious professionals who try to impersonate the Truth.


There is an objective truth, reality and morality that exists apart from all subjective opinions about it. The closer one is to God in one's perspective, the more objective one can be about all issues.

Jesus was a man of the Law of God. That Law was handed to the Jews from God by the hands of Moses. Your attempt to separate Christ Jesus (who first came as savior to the Jews) from Paul and Moses cannot be sustained based upon what is contained in the Bible.

I suspect that you are simply a mocker, trying to sound intelligent but instead you are only dashing yourself upon the Rock.

Care to offer an opinion on the topic (the teachings of Jesus Christ about original sin and the sins of the fathers)?

[Lazarus]

KIM : PLEASE SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUEMENT !!!

LaL: Everything I write is scripture.


But not Holy Scripture. Like I stated before, you have much pride. But to answer the complaint, it was already cited:




Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.


Stop trying to blame God for the faults of man. God was Adam's Father. The father is not responsible for the transgressions of the son. Do you execute the FATHER of a murderer? Be logical.

[LanceALott]

Laz: Quote:
Mat 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

LaL: Now tell us the TRUTH about what we know from "Holy Scripture" was in that cup. IT WAS NOT BLOOD!

[LanceALott]

LaL: Everything I write is scripture.

Laz: But not Holy Scripture

LaL: I am inspired by the Holy Spirit, as Paul claims he was: EVERYTHING I WRITE IS HOLY SCRIPTURE.

Furthermore, your bold statement above is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and it is bearing false witness against God.

[truelies]

Of course to make that Claim without the Lord's Let is a guaranteed ticket to the place reserved for Satan and his Minions.

[LanceALott]

Truelies: Of course to make that Claim without the Lord's Let is a guaranteed ticket to the place reserved for Satan and his Minions.

LaL: Yes, I am aware of what some say the consequences are.
and I accept that fate, if I am wrong and deserve it, if there is a place reserved for Satan and his Minions. But not to worry BECAUSE I HAVE THE LORD'S LET!

[LanceALott]

KIM: NO,NO,NO...he has it mixed up,it goes...God created man,in his image,free will,forbidden fruit,GODLY ADVISE ,dont eat fruit, there is a consequence,disobedience(or sin)...

Tim: If it was GODLY ADVISE, and if you read the scripture carefully, advice is precisely what it was, it was not an order or a command; and hence there was no DISOBEDIENCE (OR SIN).

He said, don't eat of the Tree of Knowledge, or you will surely die (a warning). They ate and they did die; but God did not say IF YOU DO NOT EAT OF THAT TREE YOU WILL LIVE FOREVER. Yet these are precisely the false words all those self-serving religious professionls try to put in God's mouth as they bear false witness to what He really said, at least what He said according to Moses.

The scripture says they were always going to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, (it is impossible to live without learning some things about what is good and what is evil) and they were also always going to die. But to the trained eye of a scientist and logical thinker (real seeker of Truth), these were never said as a CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP.

There was no ORIGINAL SIN!

And hence, all that Blood Sacrifice to redeem man is BS invented by the Whores of Babylon (religious professionals) who consort with governments.

[Lazarus]

Laz: Quote:
Mat 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

LaL: Now tell us the TRUTH about what we know from "Holy Scripture" was in that cup. IT WAS NOT BLOOD!





You've missed the point. You claimed that "God is truth". Jesus stated, "I AM...truth...." Therefore Jesus is God. Now, Jesus as God, stated (in truth), "...this is my blood...." Therefore it WAS His blood. Therefore, your "truth" is to deny Christ's truth. And thus you have contradicted yourself.

[Lazarus]

LaL: Everything I write is scripture.

Laz: But not Holy Scripture

LaL: I am inspired by the Holy Spirit, as Paul claims he was: EVERYTHING I WRITE IS HOLY SCRIPTURE.

Furthermore, your bold statement above is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and it is bearing false witness against God.


What you have managed to do is contradict the words of Jesus Christ (see the above post)--as written in the Holy Scripture--the Gospel of Matthew--while claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit--an act that the true Holy Spirit would NEVER do. Your accusation against me is meaningless since the truth does not abide in you as evinced by your 1) contradiction of Jesus Christ, your contradiction of the Holy Spirit, your false claims to inspiration, and your false accusations against God Most High--and of significantly less importance--flase claims against yours truly. ::)

[Lazarus]

Of course to make that Claim without the Lord's Let is a guaranteed ticket to the place reserved for Satan and his Minions.


Perhaps. I am not prepared to guarantee it. But did you notice how he nearly simulataneously claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and contradicted the words of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Matthew?

If Jesus says that what's in the cup was His blood, then that is precisely what it was. :)

[Lazarus]

Truelies: Of course to make that Claim without the Lord's Let is a guaranteed ticket to the place reserved for Satan and his Minions.

LaL: Yes, I am aware of what some say the consequences are.
and I accept that fate, if I am wrong and deserve it, if there is a place reserved for Satan and his Minions. But not to worry BECAUSE I HAVE THE LORD'S LET!


A house divided shall not stand. You are claiming the authority of the Holy Spirit to contradicted the words of Jesus Christ as written in the Gospel according to St. Matthew in the Holy Scriptures. You require everyone who reads you to make a choice between what you write and what the Bible states. Thanks, but I will stick to the words of Jesus Christ as written in the Bible anyday in preference to a cheap charlatan such as yourself. ::)

[Lazarus]

KIM: NO,NO,NO...he has it mixed up,it goes...God created man,in his image,free will,forbidden fruit,GODLY ADVISE ,dont eat fruit, there is a consequence,disobedience(or sin)...


Within the realm of possible interpretations.


Tim: If it was GODLY ADVISE, and if you read the scripture carefully, advice is precisely what it was, it was not an order or a command; and hence there was no DISOBEDIENCE (OR SIN).


Again, the original sin was the serpent's who contradicted God (lied). It is arguable whether it was disobedient to God's words for them to it, but to quote the scripture...

Gen. 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


...it is clear that "Thou shalt not...." is hard to distinguish from a command.


He said, don't eat of the Tree of Knowledge, or you will surely die (a warning).


Actually, the consequence. The part in bold was the declarative statement or command. Still, to not take God's good advice (even if it was only advice rather than a command), so what does that say except they desrve the consequences they received?


They ate and they did die; but God did not say IF YOU DO NOT EAT OF THAT TREE YOU WILL LIVE FOREVER.


Actually, that was implied--for if the day of your death never comes, then you will live forever. And, to make that point crystal clear, the Holy Scripture reports that "livinf forever" was specifically withheld from Adam...


Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


Whether the consequences were fully understood or not by Adam and Eve, they are certainly made clear to the reader who seeks that information.


Yet these are precisely the false words all those self-serving religious professionls try to put in God's mouth as they bear false witness to what He really said, at least what He said according to Moses.


Again, Genesis 3:22-25 makes clear what the consequences were, and I must disagree with "Tim" that those who accurately restate what is found there are somehow the "false words of...self-serving religious professionals...." The record is clear and available for anyone to read and determine for themselves.


The scripture says they were always going to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, (it is impossible to live without learning some things about what is good and what is evil) and they were also always going to die.


Usually, when somebody says, "the scripture says..." and then does not say where the Holy Scripture says it, if it is challanged, then it is recanted. So, where does the Holy Scripture say that? I am not saying that it isn't in there somewhere, but without a specific citation, I have no intention of reading the entire Bible to try to figure out what precisely was being referred to (or 'interpreted') in that manner.


But to the trained eye of a scientist and logical thinker (real seeker of Truth), these were never said as a CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP.


I disagree. Here is what it says:

Gen. 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


Interpreted: Don't eat that: if you eat that, then you will die within a certain period of time. Cause (eating), and effect (death). I will grant that it is not explicitly stated how closely related the cause and effect (actions and consequences) will be.


There was no ORIGINAL SIN!


Sure there was: the serpent contradicted God, caused Eve to get confused, and that led her and then Adam to eat the forbidden fruit and consequently die an everlasting death.


And hence, all that Blood Sacrifice to redeem man is BS invented by the Whores of Babylon (religious professionals) who consort with governments.


The problem with reaching this conclusion is that it is built upon premisses that are known to be false--and any argument so constructed can lead to ANY conclusion. Tim is entitlted to his opinion, but Tim is in error.

* * *

Now, LAL, while I enjoy ripping apart faulty arguments, I would prefer to rip apart the faulty arguments of those who are prepared to defend their positions. If you would like to invite your pals here to discuss these issues, then please do. Otherwise, I will have no intention of responding to a cast of characters from another forum or bulletin board, since it is hardly fair that I get to rip them apart but am denied the satisfaction of doing so to their faces. If you wish to post their screeds as your own, then you take responsibility for whatever they have posted. Thus, the onus is upon you to defend all of the positions that you present here--unless you make it explicityly clear that you disagree with what you are posting from other people's writings.

Becuase, if you do disagree with it, then there is no point in your having posted it--and no reason for me to waste my time and effort showing where it was in error.

You will not be permitted a free ride in this thread to post other people's screeds, then deny that you underwrite them.

::)

Next...

[LanceALott]

Laz: You claimed that "God is truth". Jesus stated, "I AM...truth...." Therefore Jesus is God. Now, Jesus as God, stated (in truth), "...this is my blood...." Therefore it WAS His blood.

LaL: It was wine in the cup, and the scripture says so. Are you trying to lie about what the scripture says?

It was wine, and for those who have eyes to see, Christ started a new, sane, ritual that had noting to do with Blood, or blood sacrifice. By calling the wine blood, Jesus was in effect flipping the bird at the old insane ritual of blood sacrifice.

Furthermore, He did it for a purpose. Remember the parable about pouring new win in old wineskins? They break. In that parable, the old wineskins represents the old and insane religion. The new wine Christ poured into that old religion was designed to break that old wineskin (religion); but those who reject Christ, as Paul did, insist something had to die, some blood had to be spilled, when Christ clearly told us blood sacrifice was BS.

[buzaw]

Stop trying to blame God for the faults of man. God was Adam's Father. The father is not responsible for the transgressions of the son. Do you execute the FATHER of a murderer? Be logical.


Not to contradict your point here, but God was not Adam's father. He was his creator/maker. Thus in the NT we read of Jesus being the only begotten or born son of God, and that may be pertaining to this planet only, for we do read of other "sons" of God in Heaven in the book of Job.

[Lazarus]

Stop trying to blame God for the faults of man. God was Adam's Father. The father is not responsible for the transgressions of the son. Do you execute the FATHER of a murderer? Be logical.


Not to contradict your point here, but God was not Adam's father. He was his creator/maker. Thus in the NT we read of Jesus being the only begotten or born son of God, and that may be pertaining to this planet only, for we do read of other "sons" of God in Heaven in the book of Job.


God was Adam's Father. God was Jesus' Father. God is everyone's Father. We read about the "sons of God' also in the book of Genesis. Did I mean that God was the flesh and blood father of Adam in the same way that I am the father of my son? No. Does that mean that Adam was any less God's son than anyone else? No.

Here are all exact references to the phrase, "sons of God" (KJV):




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phl 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.


Who, pray tell, is not (and was never) a "child of God"?

[Lazarus]

Laz: You claimed that "God is truth". Jesus stated, "I AM...truth...." Therefore Jesus is God. Now, Jesus as God, stated (in truth), "...this is my blood...." Therefore it WAS His blood.

LaL: It was wine in the cup, and the scripture says so. Are you trying to lie about what the scripture says?


Here is what the Scripture says:


Mat 26:27-28: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.


Are you trying to make JESUS into a liar in the Holy Scriptures? Do you see any mention of WINE in that account? Of course not, for it was His blood just as He stated it was. Prove that there was WINE in the cup He and those others with Him drank from. ::)


"It was wine,..."


Based on?? I don't believe that you will find any authoritative source that places WINE into THAT cup. The only sources that exists assert that Jesus stated that the contents of the cup was His blood. Quote a scripture--if you can find one--that supports your opinion. How does the spirit in you contradict the Word of God, Jesus Christ? There was His blood in the cup. 4 verses in the Bible quote no less than Jesus Christ Himself saying so. If you will not be corrected by the Word of God, Jesus Christ, then what use is there in discussing anything with you? ::)

There was His BLOOD in the cup. He promised not to drink again of the fruit of the vine until after He had come into His Kingdom.


Mat. 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.


Who knows precisely what He was referring to when he said, "...this fruit of the vine..."? YOUR interpreation seems to be that this meant that there was WINE in the cup from which His disciples drank. But, those who drank from the cup of whch Jesus spoke, drank His BLOOD, while Jesus may have been referring to unfermented grape juice sitting in a separate bottle on the table. PROVE ME WRONG BY THE SCRIPTURES IF YOU CAN. ;D


...and for those who have eyes to see, Christ started a new, sane, ritual that had noting to do with Blood, or blood sacrifice. By calling the wine blood, Jesus was in effect flipping the bird at the old insane ritual of blood sacrifice.


There was no wine in the cup. Jesus said it was His blood. He did start a new ritual. Jesus became the blood sacrifice of the atonement when He permitted Himself to be taken and crucified. The ritual of the "bread and wine" (some churches use bread and grape juice) commemorates both the Passover and the Atonement of the Crucifixion--when Jesus Christ shed His Blood and Body for the remission of sins. His blood sacrifice put an end to all blood sacrifices of ritual animal slaughter.


Furthermore, He did it for a purpose. Remember the parable about pouring new win in old wineskins? They break. In that parable, the old wineskins represents the old and insane religion. The new wine Christ poured into that old religion was designed to break that old wineskin (religion);


Not quite. It was not just the old religion that perished, but the entire Old Covenant Age or World that passed away. But the "wine" that was poured out was Christ's own Blood upon THE CROSS. And the bread from heaven that was come down to us was His Body. Now listen to the whole passage again:


Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

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


Notice that His BLOOD was shed "for the remission of sins."


"... but those who reject Christ, as Paul did, insist something had to die, some blood had to be spilled, when Christ clearly told us blood sacrifice was BS.


But, THAT is not what Christ taught us--when He taught us that HIS BLOOD would be shed for many for the remission of sins. Again, there you are stating things in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Why should you be taken seriously? ::)


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


And again:


Mar 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.


And again:


Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.



And Paul agrees:


1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.


I DEFY YOU TO QUOTE A REPUTABLE SCRIPTURE THAT DEFINITIVELY PLACES "WINE" INTO THAT CUP THAT CHRIST JESUS SAID CONTAINED HIS "BLOOD". ::)

Come on, O guided one, the world awaits your reply! ;D

[LanceALott]

Matthew 26:26 ""As they were eating, Jesus took a small loaf of BREAD and blessed it and broke it apart and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take it and eat it, for this is my body."

LaL: It clearly says it was bread, not His body; and yet He said it was His body. And hence, He was speaking metaphorically, not literally. IT WAS BREAD. So are you calling Him or the scripture a liar here?

Matthew 26:27 "And he took a cup of WINE and gave thanks for it and gave it to them and said, "Each one drink from it, for this is my blood, sealing the New Covenant...." (The Book, a special edition of The Living Bible; Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois. Library of Congress Catalogue number 83-51732, ISBN 0-8432-21732.

Matthew 26:29 "...I will not drink henceforth the fruit of THIS vine, until..." KJV.

LaL: It says THIS "VINE," and let's not forget when He was called a drunkard and a glutton. It was wine in the cup; and furthermore, your own scripture says He sealed the New Covenant right there at the Last Supper with that sip of wine, not at His crucifixion with His real blood.

Blood sacrifice is and always has been BS!

[LanceALott]

Lararus: Who knows precisely what He was referring to when he said, "...this fruit of the vine..."?

LaL: Above, you tacitly admit that you really do not know! In your own words I can see you think it might be wine He was referring to; and yet look at your blasphemy above as you impersonate the Lord and tell us it definitely was blood in the cup.

You had doubts, yet you testified IT WAS BLOOD!

You were too positive and hence you bore false witness about what you really believed. You have exposed yourself as the liar, who substitutes your own desires for the truth, and in so doing you have exposed yourself as one of the Cult of believers in death who follow Paul instead of Jesus who gave us a New Covenant through His life, while He was still alive.

You may now arise from the dead, Lararus, abandon the cave man insanity of Blood Sacrifice, join the real world, the modern world, and have a sip of wine.

[Lazarus]

Matthew 26:26 ""As they were eating, Jesus took a small loaf of BREAD and blessed it and broke it apart and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take it and eat it, for this is my body."

LaL: It clearly says it was bread, not His body; and yet He said it was His body.


You admitted that the bread was His body.


And hence, He was speaking metaphorically, not literally. IT WAS BREAD.


No, it was not. You just admitted that it was His body. ::) Your INTERPRETATION is that He was speaking "metaphorically." But God does not lie. It was either His body or it was not. And if it was His body, then it was not only bread.


So are you calling Him or the scripture a liar here?


Absolutely not. The bread was His body, just as He said it was. ::)


Matthew 26:27 "And he took a cup of WINE and gave thanks for it and gave it to them and said, "Each one drink from it, for this is my blood, sealing the New Covenant...."


Unfortunately, I asked for a REPUTABLE translation of the Bible. You have a DISREPUTABLE translation of this particular verse and it has confused you into thinking that you KNOW something that you do not know. I always prefer to read the ORIGINAL Greek text since it does not contain the errors that have tainted your doctrines...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1042509366-5057.html#27

As can be clearly seen at the link above, the translater has introduced a false translation into the version of the Bible that you cite. It has led you astray. The Greek word is transliterated as "poterion." It is Strong's #4221. It means "cup":

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1042509406-7303.html


(The Book, a special edition of The Living Bible; Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois. Library of Congress Catalogue number 83-51732, ISBN 0-8432-21732.


Just because somebody publishes a pack of lies and slaps the title "Holy Bible" upon the cover does not make it Holy Scripture. You have much to learn. Always best to go to the source, rather than rely upon the traditions of men into whose trap you have fallen. There is no reference to "WINE" in that verse--never mind what men may say about it.


Matthew 26:29 "...I will not drink henceforth the fruit of THIS vine, until..." KJV.

LaL: It says THIS "VINE," and let's not forget when He was called a drunkard and a glutton.


It could be grapes. It could be grape juice. It could be Tomatoes. It could be Tomato juice. You are reading between the lines and inserting your interpretation because you have been led astray. The Lord said, "This is My blood..." There is NO MENTION OF "WINE"--except seemingly in the corrupted and more disreputable translations. :o


It was wine in the cup;


It was His blood, just as the Lord stated. There was NO wine in the cup--at least none that can be found in the Holy Scriptures.


....and furthermore, your own scripture says He sealed the New Covenant right there at the Last Supper with that sip of wine, ...


Sorry, you have that wrong also. Post the scripture to support your asserions. BTW, here is every reference to "WINE" in the KJV of the New Testament:




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mar 2:22 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mar 15:23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received [it] not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 5:38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 5:39 No man also having drunk old [wine] straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 10:34 And went to [him], and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 2:9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: thou hast kept the good wine until now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 4:46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rom 14:21 [It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Ti 3:8 Likewise [must] the deacons [be] grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Ti 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tts 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tts 2:3 The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Pe 4:3 For the time past of [our] life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rev 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and [see] thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rev 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rev 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rev 18:13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.



You go right ahead and point out the verse in the New Testament from the above list that asserts that the New Covenent was sealed with "wine". Then I will show you where it was sealed with BLOOD and where we who are to be saved are redeemed by His blood:


Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, [b]Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.


Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

1Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;


Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

Hbr 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hbr 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Hbr 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Hbr 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Hbr 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Hbr 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.


As can be clearly seen, there are no references to support your claims, but DOZENS to support the idea that it is by the BLOOD of Christ shed upon the Cross that men are redeemed from their sins. You would seemingly prefer to get drunk. It also seems that your vision is quite obscured.


...not at His crucifixion with His real blood.


The Bible and virtually ALL of the Apostles and inspired writers of the Bible beg to differ with you (as cited and quoted above).



Blood sacrifice is and always has been BS!


If it is worthless FOR YOU, then so be it. ::)

[Lazarus]

Lararus: Who knows precisely what He was referring to when he said, "...this fruit of the vine..."?

LaL: Above, you tacitly admit that you really do not know!


Verse 29 refers to SOMETHING, but NOT NECESSARILY the contents of the cup. I know what was in the cup, becuase the Lord, Jesus Christ told everyone that it was His blood in the cup. What Jesus meant by "the fruit of THIS vine" is anyone's guess except those who could see what He was pointing at. Your claim, in effect, is that you were there and that you know what He was pointing at.


In your own words I can see you think it might be wine He was referring to;


He MAY have been referring to anything other than His blood in the cup, that also comes as fruit from a vine.



...and yet look at your blasphemy above as you impersonate the Lord and tell us it definitely was blood in the cup.


I DID NOT TELL YOU THAT THERE WAS BLOOD IN THE CUP. THUS SAITH THE LORD:


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


As can be CLEARLY SEEN, Jesus says that it was His blood. And it is YOU who presumes to call Jesus Christ a liar by claiming that it was ordinary wine. ::) KEEP YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF BLASPHEMY TO YOURSELF.


You had doubts, yet you testified IT WAS BLOOD!


IT WAS HIS BLOOD IN THE CUP, BUT TO WHAT "FRUIT OF THE VINE" HE LATER SPOKE, THAT IS ANYONE'S GUESS. Of this I have no doubt, based upon what is actually written in the Greek text. You, however, are in the business of justifying the FALSE interpretation in a specious "Bible"--while accusing me of some faults. Open your eyes and back up your writing with SOME facts. As it stands, you have sustained NOTHING of what you have claimed.


You were too positive and hence you bore false witness about what you really believed.


You were bearing false witness before, and even now, and no doubt you will continue to do so into the future. You are a pathetic and misguided little person. As for what you accuse me of, it is simply bearing witness to the truth of what Jesus Christ stated, "This is my blood..." You deny Christ's words and cling to the traditions of men that it was "wine" while accusing me falsely. You have no integrity, but you have your arrogance and pride that will not allow you to admit that you are in error--that you presumed to "know" something when you merely filled in the contents of the cup with your desire--rather than cling to the Word of God as spoken by Jesus Christ. In short, you see wine were there is no wine--and you don't see blood where Christ says there is blood. Twist it anyway you want in your warped and pathetic world--but it does not match up to the truth that was given to