- Bible Truth Discussion Forum
- → Flappie's Content
Flappie's Content
There have been 44 items by Flappie (Search limited from 03-May 23)
By content type
See this member's
#447362 Revelation 19
Posted by Flappie on 04 January 2014 - 06:46 AM in Theology
What's going on in Rev 19:3? I assumed it underscored the finality of Babylon's destruction (in quoting Isaiah 34:10 - there's not much left of Edom). It has been suggested though that when it says "And a second time they said, Hallelujah", it means this isn't about the same thing, but a second, final, destruction, maybe a remnant. Others say this is said after the events at the end of the chapter.
Also, how relevant are Deut 32:43 and 2 Kings 9:7 to Rev 19:2? It seems to be quoting that, but so far I've found no-one who mentions them, only that this is an answer to Rev 6:10 (which seems odd to me).
#447282 Should we use unleavened bread during the memorial service?
Posted by Flappie on 30 December 2013 - 09:02 PM in Theology
#447201 Substitutionary atonement
Posted by Flappie on 26 December 2013 - 05:46 AM in Theology
Fappie posted it already, Hebrews 10:1
You say that animal sacrifices came not to be enough any longer, implying they were enough at some point. Hebrews 10:1 says the opposite.
Shadows and the real thing are not interchangeable; that which is perfect is not a substitute for a mere shadow.
#447192 Substitutionary atonement
Posted by Flappie on 25 December 2013 - 09:06 PM in Theology
Christ and a sheep (or a few million) are not somehow interchangeable.
Except they both died for the same basic reason, sin atonement. Very interchangeable on that basic level.
Isn't that "Much too simplistic for what actually happened"?
Animal sacrifice came to not be enough for God any longer so his Son became a symbolic Lamb to take the place of animal sacrifices.
Really? At some point God decided he didn't like sheep anymore and sacrificed His Son instead?
#447183 Substitutionary atonement
Posted by Flappie on 25 December 2013 - 01:32 AM in Theology
Debatable, but that wasn't my point. Substitutionary atonement is a heresy, you've just redefined it so that what you mean by substitutionary atonement isn't actually substitutionary atonement.There is no heresy in what I have presented.Heh, you can argue any sort of heresy is true by completely redefining it, but that is just confusing for everyone.
His sacrifice did away with the need for the OT sacrifices, but he did not take the place of an animal. Christ and a sheep (or a few million) are not somehow interchangeable.It's more than that but that is still true. He did take the place of an animal/animals that would have died to atone for people's sins. Now no animals have to die for that because Jesus took their place for all time. You deny the simple facts about what occurred.No, he is not substituting himself. His sacrifice and that of the animals had different purposes, so it's not simply a case of taking the place of animals.
#447176 Substitutionary atonement
Posted by Flappie on 24 December 2013 - 03:11 PM in Theology
No, he is not substituting himself. His sacrifice and that of the animals had different purposes, so it's not simply a case of taking the place of animals.Both is true. He fulfilled the sacrifices by substituting himself in place of animal sacrifices.
Anyway, Hebrews 10:1 makes clear that the law with its sacrifices was a shadow of what was achieved in Christ. Christ is not a substitute of the OT sacrifices, but the fulfillment of that which was foreshadowed in the those sacrifices.
Heh, you can argue any sort of heresy is true by completely redefining it, but that is just confusing for everyone.I am arguing for a form of it. Substitutionary atonement is true if defined properly to align with scripture.
You don't actually accept substitutionary atonement in the way normally understood, so I'm not entirely sure what the point of this thread is.
#447175 Trinity Talk
Posted by Flappie on 24 December 2013 - 02:51 PM in Theology
To say that "let us" means Elohim is plural is a bit daft. All you could say is that he is addressing a group of some sorts, not that the group is all (part of the) Elohim.
#447155 Substitutionary atonement
Posted by Flappie on 23 December 2013 - 02:32 AM in Theology
You don't actually accept substitutionary atonement in the way normally understood, so I'm not entirely sure what the point of this thread is.
#447129 Substitutionary atonement
Posted by Flappie on 22 December 2013 - 09:02 PM in Theology
I don't know what "the main tenents" may be, I am only going by the wording, "substitutionary atonement" which itself is factual. What else might be added to it can be discussed.
There's nothing factual about it since there is nothing beng substituted.
A man was killed instead of an animal. How is that not substituting one for another?
He was not killed instead of an animal. Read those verses you quoted again, the whole chapter is about Christ achieving something that the sacrifice of animals could never do.
#447122 Substitutionary atonement
Posted by Flappie on 22 December 2013 - 06:06 AM in Theology
I don't know what "the main tenents" may be, I am only going by the wording, "substitutionary atonement" which itself is factual. What else might be added to it can be discussed.
There's nothing factual about it since there is nothing beng substituted. Christ is not simply the cleaner alternative of slaughtering millions of sheep.
- Bible Truth Discussion Forum
- → Flappie's Content
- Privacy Policy
- BTDF Guidelines ·