Jump to content


Flappie's Content

There have been 44 items by Flappie (Search limited from 30-March 23)



Sort by                Order  

#447377 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 06 January 2014 - 02:01 AM in Theology

Yes.

Did He set up a system and was surprised it didn't work as well as He had hoped, or did He set it up knowing He would change His mind about it later?



#447375 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 06 January 2014 - 01:35 AM in Theology

A yes or no will suffice



#447373 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 06 January 2014 - 01:33 AM in Theology

So the people not using the sacrifices as intended came as a surprise to God?



#447370 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 06 January 2014 - 12:02 AM in Theology

Thanks

 

Anyway, surely God knew that was going to happen?




#447368 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 05 January 2014 - 11:44 PM in Theology

What made God change His mind?




#447362 Revelation 19

Posted by Flappie on 04 January 2014 - 06:46 AM in Theology

Does anyone have any good resources on Revelation 19?

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).



#447353 Should we use unleavened bread during the memorial service?

Posted by Flappie on 02 January 2014 - 05:21 PM in Theology

The feasts were part of the old covenant, which has become obsolete - 1 Cor 5:7 should make clear this applies to the passover as well. Most of the feasts are impossible to keep anyway since there's no temple/tabernacle.




#447332 Holy ground

Posted by Flappie on 01 January 2014 - 09:10 PM in Theology


God can mean both God and His representatives.

 

 

I disagree. God is God.

 

That's nice. However, Exodus 23:21




#447320 Holy ground

Posted by Flappie on 01 January 2014 - 03:06 AM in Theology

God can mean both God and His representatives.



#447282 Should we use unleavened bread during the memorial service?

Posted by Flappie on 30 December 2013 - 09:02 PM in Theology

Doesn't the way leavening works now compared to then render the discussion somewhat moot? Part of the point, according to Paul, is that they get rid of the old leaven. They used fermented flour from the last batch, so using the old, to make the new rise. They were to start a completely fresh cycle, and get rid of all the old leaven. Modern bread making doesn't use that process.



#447260 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 29 December 2013 - 10:30 PM in Theology

You do realise Lev 19:21-22 is talking about a very specific sin, yes?



#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

Heh, you can argue any sort of heresy is true by completely redefining it, but that is just confusing for everyone.

There is no heresy in what I have presented.
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.

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.

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.
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.



#447176 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 24 December 2013 - 03:11 PM in Theology


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.

Both is true. He fulfilled the sacrifices by substituting himself in place of animal sacrifices.
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.


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.

I am arguing for a form of it. Substitutionary atonement is true if defined properly to align with scripture.
Heh, you can argue any sort of heresy is true by completely redefining it, but that is just confusing for everyone.



#447175 Trinity Talk

Posted by Flappie on 24 December 2013 - 02:51 PM in Theology

The -im suffix does usually indicate a plural, but the verb conjugation makes clear that isn't the case here.

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

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.

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.



#447153 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 23 December 2013 - 01:48 AM in Theology

So you're only objecting to the choice of words rather than the concept?



#447151 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 23 December 2013 - 01:38 AM in Theology


Yes, but you agreed that was basically what you were saying but phrased differently.



So I didn't actually claim what you said I claimed?

Same thing, you agreed with the claim.



#447147 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 23 December 2013 - 01:20 AM in Theology

Yes, but you agreed that was basically what you were saying but phrased differently.



#447145 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 22 December 2013 - 11:47 PM in Theology

Well, you're the one that claimed Christ is simply a replacement for a bunch of sheep, we find that trivialising the sacrifice of the son of God.




#447139 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 22 December 2013 - 10:41 PM in Theology

So why did the animals or Christ have to die?




#447131 Substitutionary atonement

Posted by Flappie on 22 December 2013 - 09:27 PM in Theology

Do you actually believe that continually sacrificing animals achieved the same as the one time forever sacrifice of Christ; that the sole purpose of his death was so that sheep wouldn't have to be killed anymore?




#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.