It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
For His sake: God who wants to be known by the name, "He who justifies the unrighteous".
Can you explain to me the rational behind God having to sacrifice somebody for his sake?
The execution of the result of this "wrath" happens naturally, what we see in the effects of sin in the world, such as suffering and death. No divine intercession is necessary for those things to come about.
God created a flawed product, us humans, then he blames the "clay" for the "potter's" mistakes? Then he makes another human, and somehow his death leads to the salvation for sinners? Salvation from his own wrath?
I believe that the scheme of faith and the church as laid out in the New Testament is very conservative in its expectations, taking into consideration the limitations placed by the very universe that we live in, including God himself. Where the unrealistic expectations come from, in my opinion, is people who have a problem recognizing the metaphoric nature of some of the sayings found in the NT, and the taking of things out of proper context, and the fitting together of those pieces into a new created prediction about the way things are and how they are going to be.
Shouldn't God recognize his own limitation instead?
Originally posted by jmdewey60
people who have a problem recognizing the metaphoric nature of some of the sayings found in the NT,
Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
The title "King of the Jews" is not something that Christ ever claimed. The Roman Senate had confirmed Herod as "the first King of the Jews" in about 40 BC. When Pilate ordered the inscription placed on the cross, it was done to anger the Jews for what they were doing.
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
The title "King of the Jews" is not something that Christ ever claimed. The Roman Senate had confirmed Herod as "the first King of the Jews" in about 40 BC. When Pilate ordered the inscription placed on the cross, it was done to anger the Jews for what they were doing.
When they asked Jesus, during trial, if He were the Messiah, understood to be the king of the Jews, He said...."you said it". Jesus was known to be a descendent of the royal line of David and so a Jew.....whoever the Sanhedrin may have been.
Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
According to Christ's words, he was sent for the Lost sheep
Idumaen "converted Jews"
Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Unless one has firm definitions and a firm understanding of history, discussions like this have little point.
Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
The title "King of the Jews" is not something that Christ ever claimed. The Roman Senate had confirmed Herod as "the first King of the Jews" in about 40 BC. When Pilate ordered the inscription placed on the cross, it was done to anger the Jews for what they were doing.
When they asked Jesus, during trial, if He were the Messiah, understood to be the king of the Jews, He said...."you said it". Jesus was known to be a descendent of the royal line of David and so a Jew.....whoever the Sanhedrin may have been.
Messiah was certainly to come from the tribe of Judah. Your error is thinking that Jew=Judahite
No where in the OT is Messiah said to be king of the Jews (only time Jews are mentioned in OT is when the Israelites are fighting them). One more time---only rarely in the NT does Jew mean or even include Judahites. It usually means either Judean(a resident of Judea--which Christ was not) or one of the Herodian idumaens who had been in control of Judaism and Judea for nearly 100 years under the Romans. The Greek word is Ioudaois (the letter J was not invented for another 1400 years).edit on 12-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
It is the Ashkenazi Jews who are behind the Protocols of Zion starting from Meyer Rothschild . The Talmudic Jews were in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus from what I understand . The Edomites cheered on the Romans when they attacked the Jews also and were believed to take the place of the Jews when they were ran out .So it is a real question of just who is running Israel now .
It seems to me a bunch of orthodox 'experts' don't like to answer a simple question, Why do Christians believe in a God that has "chosen" the Jews? I wonder why this is. Do you not have an answer or do you just want to bury the question?
Originally posted by Logarock
Dude you are simply tossing stuff at the wall and hopes some sticks. You don't even make any sense. Your sources are ten times more biased, confused and disjointed than what you criticize.
Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
It is the Ashkenazi Jews who are behind the Protocols of Zion starting from Meyer Rothschild . The Talmudic Jews were in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus from what I understand . The Edomites cheered on the Romans when they attacked the Jews also and were believed to take the place of the Jews when they were ran out .So it is a real question of just who is running Israel now .
What does any of this have to do with Christian belief?
Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
The Edomites sided with the Romans when the Romans under General Pompey first invaded in 63 BC. However, 133 years later, when the Romans under Titus were sent to destroy Jerusalem, the Idumeans sent 20,000 troops to help the Jews fight the Romans.
Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
What does any of this have to do with Christian belief?
Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
The Edomites sided with the Romans when the Romans under General Pompey first invaded in 63 BC. However, 133 years later, when the Romans under Titus were sent to destroy Jerusalem, the Idumeans sent 20,000 troops to help the Jews fight the Romans.
Still not answering the question of this topic?
UNRELATED:
Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
UNRELATED:
The promises of the Old Testament were to the Israelites, who were neither the Jews of the time of Christ, nor the Ashkenazim of today.
UNRELATED:
Messiah was certainly to come from the tribe of Judah. Your error is thinking that Jew=Judahite
No where in the OT is Messiah said to be king of the Jews...
UNRELATED:
Unless one has firm definitions and a firm understanding of history, discussions like this have little point.
You have been answered several times. Your question insinuates that the promises of the OT were made to the "Jews"...The Jews of today are not the Israelites of the OT...You have been told several times, but you still don''t seem to understand it.