ECT Which understanding lends itself to your theology?

[Cross Reference]

I would rather suggest that death was but the last of the tyrants to fall.

Suggesting is your prerogative __ but it doesn't make it truth.

Please tell me what you think "may" means. To me the full realization of atonement comes in ascension and the sending of the Holy Spirit into believers, as stated at the bottom of my post. May I suggest that you are so wont to prove me wrong that you are not reading my posts with a view to understanding? Until there is some give and take here, this will be my last word on the subject. Good morning, T

Look the word up in Websters. OMT: What makes think that what you believe should be received as doctrine, is doctrine?

I see you again don't address the meat of my posts but rather skip over it and insist on yours being accepted?

One more time:

If you believe you don't have all the answers, you should be willing to do something with this instead wilfully ignoring it using scriptures verses.:

"Until He paid the price on the cross, none of what Jesus did [performed] prior to the cross, could be validated. Therefore, it could only be that all the righteous had their tickets in hand waiting for them to be punched. cf Rom.5:1 again."

 

[TFTn5280]

Suggesting is your prerogative __ but it doesn't make it truth.




Look the word up in Websters. OMT: What makes think that what you believe should be received as doctrine, is doctrine?

I see you again don't address the meat of my posts but rather skip over it and insist on yours being accepted?

One more time:

If you believe you don't have all the answers, you should be willing to do something with this instead wilfully ignoring it using scriptures verses.:

"Until He paid the price on the cross, none of what Jesus did [performed] prior to the cross, could be validated. Therefore, it could only be that all the righteous had their tickets in hand waiting for them to be punched. cf Rom.5:1 again."

The "justification by faith" that is referenced in 5.1 can only be rightly understood as it resides within the larger rubric of Christ's faithfulness to God the Father. There is a recurring theme in Paul whereby it is Christ's faith pistis tou Christou that procures justification, yet another ontic aspect of the atonement, whereby in faith we participate in his fidelity on our behalf.

 

[Cross Reference]

The "justification by faith" that is referenced in 5.1 can only be rightly understood as it resides within the larger rubric of Christ's faithfulness to God the Father. There is a recurring theme in Paul whereby it is Christ's faith pistis tou Christou that procures justification, yet another ontic aspect of the atonement, whereby in faith we participate in his fidelity on our behalf.

Is what I posited correct or not? That is all I am asking you.

 

[TFTn5280]

Jesus Christ himself explained that he had come as a servant to give his life in an act of sacrifice for us. Thus resting on Christ's own self-interpretation, the New Testament concept of atoning redemption assumes a central role in the doctrine of atonement. In order to clarify the term atonement, we have to turn to the Old Testament. Behind the OT conception of redemption there are three basic terms and their cognates. Although all three denote different aspects of divine redemption they are all profoundly interrelated.
1)**** Kipur — Together with its cognates*kipur is applied to express the expiatory form of the act of redemption in the OT. It speaks of the barrier of sin and guilt which exists between God and humanity as being done away by the sacrifice and* propitiation made between the two factions.*Here, the subject of the atoning act is always God. Thus even though in the OT it is liturgically carried out by a high priest, the human act has to be seen as only a witness to the fact that God himself makes atonement and blots out sin by his own judicial and merciful act. Both God's judgment of wrong by offering an equivalent and the act of restoration to holiness before him are involved here in the understanding of atonement. This is brought out most clearly in the NT where we see Christ stand in as both Priest and Mediator; e.g.,*"Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb. 2.17).
2)**** Pedah —*Together with its*cognates pedah is applied to express the aspect of the mighty acts of God in the OT concept of redemption. Significantly these acts bring immediate deliverance from oppression of evil and out of God's judgment upon it. It also carries the notion of offering a life in substitution for another as the cost of redemption and emphasizes the dramatic nature of the redeeming act as a sheer intervention on the part of God in human affairs. When the NT writers speak of Christ in terms of victory over the tyrants--sin, death, devil, etc.--they have in view the pedah aspect of atoning redemption; e.g.,*"Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil;" (Heb*2.14).*
3)**** Go’el —*Together with its cognates go’el is used to express the aspect of someone redeeming others out of a situation of bondage or forfeited rights. The "redeemer" or go’el, upon whom the emphasis is placed in this type of redemption, possesses a bloodline kinship to those in need, and can thus claim the cause for their needs as his own and stand in for his kinsmen who cannot free or redeem themselves. This ontological concept of redemption is applied in the OT to God acting on behalf of Israel by virtue of its special covenant relationship. That covenant was, of course, fulfilled in Christ in that he stood in as go'el for Israel as Seed of Abraham and David and, by way of kinship attachment to Eve, the entire human race in recapitulation (i.e., e.g., the gathering together language of Eph. 1-2; see also Heb 2.14a --*"Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same").

See T.F. Torrance, "The Trinitarian Faith" for a full exposition of these themes.

 

[Cross Reference]

Jesus Christ himself explained that he had come as a servant to give his life in an act of sacrifice for us. Thus resting on Christ's own self-interpretation, the New Testament concept of atoning redemption assumes a central role in the doctrine of atonement. In order to clarify the term atonement, we have to turn to the Old Testament. Behind the OT conception of redemption there are three basic terms and their cognates. Although all three denote different aspects of divine redemption they are all profoundly interrelated.
1)**** Kipur — Together with its cognates*kipur is applied to express the expiatory form of the act of redemption in the OT. It speaks of the barrier of sin and guilt which exists between God and humanity as being done away by the sacrifice and* propitiation made between the two factions.*Here, the subject of the atoning act is always God. Thus even though in the OT it is liturgically carried out by a high priest, the human act has to be seen as only a witness to the fact that God himself makes atonement and blots out sin by his own judicial and merciful act. Both God's judgment of wrong by offering an equivalent and the act of restoration to holiness before him are involved here in the understanding of atonement. This is brought out most clearly in the NT where we see Christ stand in as both Priest and Mediator; e.g.,*"Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb. 2.17).
2)**** Pedah —*Together with its*cognates pedah is applied to express the aspect of the mighty acts of God in the OT concept of redemption. Significantly these acts bring immediate deliverance from oppression of evil and out of God's judgment upon it. It also carries the notion of offering a life in substitution for another as the cost of redemption and emphasizes the dramatic nature of the redeeming act as a sheer intervention on the part of God in human affairs. When the NT writers speak of Christ in terms of victory over the tyrants--sin, death, devil, etc.--they have in view the pedah aspect of atoning redemption; e.g.,*"Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil;" (Heb*2.14).*
3)**** Go’el —*Together with its cognates go’el is used to express the aspect of someone redeeming others out of a situation of bondage or forfeited rights. The "redeemer" or go’el, upon whom the emphasis is placed in this type of redemption, possesses a bloodline kinship to those in need, and can thus claim the cause for their needs as his own and stand in for his kinsmen who cannot free or redeem themselves. This ontological concept of redemption is applied in the OT to God acting on behalf of Israel by virtue of its special covenant relationship. That covenant was, of course, fulfilled in Christ in that he stood in as go'el for Israel as Seed of Abraham and David and, by way of kinship attachment to Eve, the entire human race in recapitulation (i.e., e.g., the gathering together language of Eph. 1-2; see also Heb 2.14a --*"Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same").

See T.F. Torrance, "The Trinitarian Faith" for a full exposition of these themes.

Is what I posited correct or not? That is all I am asking you.

 

[TFTn5280]

Is what I posited correct or not? That is all I am asking you.

It is not that what you are saying is incorrect. Is that it is woefully incomplete as it relates to atonement. I am simply attempting to provide an avenue into a fuller, richer articulation of that concept.

 

[Cross Reference]

It is not that what you are saying is incorrect. Is that it is woefully incomplete as it relates to atonement. I am simply attempting to provide an avenue into a fuller, richer articulation of that concept.

It is unnecessary that you provide anything. I am not relating anything to the Atonement except the validity of His prior life.

1. By His blood Jesus validated "remission of sins" thus making peace with God not only for the salvation of the righteous but also for the redemption of all mankind explained by Peter to the crowd on the day of Pentecost. (Heb.9:22) (Rom.5:1) (Acts 2:37-41)

2. By His death that "split the veil in two" for righteous laity to enter directly into the presence of God ___ not later __ now, in this life! (Rom.5:2)

3. By His resurrection, enable one to receive the new birth from above (J/n 20:22)

4. The His Glorification the enablement of Himself to administer the baptism of Holy Spirit that JTB spoke of. (Lu 3:16,17) for the purpose of bringing into existence, by such a baptism, His multimembered Body. (Lu 24:49)

Did I miss anything? Now, what did I write you believe is incomplete that think you can add that will change what I wrote __ to mean something else??

BTW, did you look up the word "may" yet?

 

[Word based mystic]

slightly off the subject but maybe of significance. Why are the women in genesis not mentioned as long lived.

And what do some of you all think on whether only the line of seth was long lived.
During pre flood times.
Cain was not mentioned as long lived nor his descendants.

 

[Cross Reference]

slightly off the subject but maybe of significance. Why are the women in genesis not mentioned as long lived.

Why aren't women in Genesis mentioned at all except when beginning to explain why men started to fall away from God: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." Genesis 6:1-2 (KJV) Obviously, there areas of scripture that have remained hidden from us to fully understand but, with sufficient verses to promote conjectured reasoning without violating purposed serious knowledge by God for our betterment in Him.

And what do some of you all think on whether only the line of seth was long lived.

My last line above says it for me.

During pre flood times.
Cain was not mentioned as long lived nor his descendants.

Ditto my last.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

TFTn5280 and Cross Reference,

Can you be more judicious in capturing all the closing quote tags of your posts? As it is, your current posts make it very difficult to follow the contexts. Note the dangling open quote tags in your posts above. They should not appear. Before submitting a post, select the preview button to see how things will appear and add the proper quote tags, then preview once again, until all is good.

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

TFTn5280 and Cross Reference,

Can you be more judicious in capturing all the closing quote tags of your posts? As it is, your current posts make it very difficult to follow the contexts. Note the dangling open quote tags in your posts above. They should not appear. Before submitting a post, select the preview button to see how things will appear and add the proper quote tags, then preview once again, until all is good.

AMR

How many years have I been on TOL AMR to not
have the faintest notion of what you talking about.

NO one has ever complained to me about whatever it is you are complaining about. I preview my posts and they all look good to me. Your posts look no different than mine or anyone elses.

Is this complaint supposed to be a substitution for a post of mine you don't want to reply to?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How many years have I been on TOL AMR to not
have the faintest notion of what you talking about.

NO one has ever complained to me about whatever it is you are complaining about. I preview my posts and they all look good to me. Your posts look no different than mine or anyone elses.

Is this complaint supposed to be a substitution for a post of mine you don't want to reply to?

Huh?

See the dangling quote tags here:
View attachment 19179
[Click to enlarge]

What is the matter with you?

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

Huh?

See the dangling quote tags here:
View attachment 19179
[Click to enlarge]

What is the matter with you?

AMR

That is normal stuff to me. What part bothers you I should be paying attention to?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That is normal stuff to me. What part bothers you I should be paying attention to?

Hence the issue. It is not normal.

Your quoted portion of another's post should include the tagged reference to their actual post. If you look at your post I provided an image of previously, it does not, only containing the text of the person's post and not a resulting link to their actual post. At times, because of this error, you are actually quoting yourself, or give that impression when you quote as you do.

Examine the quote of your "That is normal stuff to me..." immediately above. See the icon, a small blue square, following your user name? That icon contains a link to your actual post so readers may examine the full context of a quote, especially a partial quote. The example I gave you of your many posts omits this important aspect because you select "quote" and then delete a closing "quote" tag in your response...or something is very wrong with yours and TFTn5280's browsers.

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

Hence the issue. It is not normal.

Your quoted portion of another's post should include the tagged reference to their actual post. If you look at your post I provided an image of previously, it does not, only containing the text of the person's post and not a resulting link to their actual post. At times, because of this error, you are actually quoting yourself, or give that impression when you quote as you do.

Examine the quote of your "That is normal stuff to me..." immediately above. See the icon, a small blue square, following your user name? That icon contains a link to your actual post so readers may examine the full context of a quote, especially a partial quote. The example I gave you of your many posts omits this important aspect because you select "quote" and then delete a closing "quote" tag in your response...or something is very wrong with yours and TFTn5280's browsers.

AMR

Do readers know that? Has it been pointed out to them because I haven't gotten any comments; no complaints they are having difficulties? Personally, I don't think it matters at all and shouldn't be that serious a concern but I will look into it because I want to be clear and if that is the slightest reason I haven't been receiving replies from you, I will do my utmost to correct my error in posting. Write me one you owe me and lets see if have understood what you are after. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

 

[TFTn5280]

TFTn5280 and Cross Reference,

Can you be more judicious in capturing all the closing quote tags of your posts? As it is, your current posts make it very difficult to follow the contexts. Note the dangling open quote tags in your posts above. They should not appear. Before submitting a post, select the preview button to see how things will appear and add the proper quote tags, then preview once again, until all is good.

AMR

I apologize aMR but I am too new to this to even understand what you are referencing. Again, my apologies

 

[TFTn5280]

Hence the issue. It is not normal.

Your quoted portion of another's post should include the tagged reference to their actual post. If you look at your post I provided an image of previously, it does not, only containing the text of the person's post and not a resulting link to their actual post. At times, because of this error, you are actually quoting yourself, or give that impression when you quote as you do.

Examine the quote of your "That is normal stuff to me..." immediately above. See the icon, a small blue square, following your user name? That icon contains a link to your actual post so readers may examine the full context of a quote, especially a partial quote. The example I gave you of your many posts omits this important aspect because you select "quote" and then delete a closing "quote" tag in your response...or something is very wrong with yours and TFTn5280's browsers.

AMR

Well now I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't know how it is that I am doing that.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Well now I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't know how it is that I am doing that.

I posted a request for staff to weigh in at the Ask Knight thread.

See your post here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4201916#post4201916

Note what is shown as quoted text from you is actually text from CR's post immediately above your post. As shown your post is effectively appearing as if you are talking to yourself.

If you select the edit button of that post you will likely discover you are missing an end quote tag in the quoted portion. The missing end quote tag should look like this:

[/quote]

In other words, there should be a start quote tag [quote] and an end quote tag [/quote] for every quoted text in a post.

Moreover, at least the first quoted text should contain the user id and post id, as in [QUOTE="TFTn5280, post: 0"], which is the referenced link to the original post being quoted. It is best not to delete this identifying information so we all can know who and where someone is being quoted. That format with the ids is translated by the TOL VBulletin software into the square icon that we can click to go immediately to the original post.

If you are familiar with basic programming these tags are equivalent to things like braces { } in code. All such tags or braces must be balanced by an open and a close format.

Note: anyone trying to type the tags I used above will need to bracket them with [norparse][/norparse] tags or the VBulletin software will try to interpret them normally and foul up your post. It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine how I formatted the parsing tags just above for them to show uninterpreted. Hint: quote this post to see the tags used to do so.

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

I posted a request for staff to weigh in at the Ask Knight thread.

See your post here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4201916#post4201916

Note what is shown as quoted text from you is actually text from CR's post immediately above your post. As shown your post is effectively appearing as if you are talking to yourself.

If you select the edit button of that post you will likely discover you are missing an end quote tag in the quoted portion. The missing end quote tag should look like this:

[/quote]

In other words, there should be a start quote tag for every quoted text in a post.

Moreover, at least the first quoted text should contain the user id and post id, as in [QUOTE="TFTn5280, post: 0"], which is the referenced link to the original post being quoted. It is best not to delete this identifying information so we all can know who and where someone is being quoted. That format with the ids is translated by the TOL VBulletin software into the square icon that we can click to go immediately to the original post.

If you are familiar with basic programming these tags are equivalent to things like braces { } in code. All such tags or braces must be balanced by an open and a close format.

Note: anyone trying to type the tags I used above will need to bracket them with [norparse][/norparse] tags or the VBulletin software will try to interpret them normally and foul up your post. It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine how I formatted the parsing tags just above for them to show uninterpreted. Hint: quote this post to see the tags used to do so.

AMR

I believe two people engaging in a discourse it should not be an issue, at least it has been proven not to be a serious one, since both should know who wrote what. Do you honestly believe Word Based Mystic doesn't know the below is addressed to him?:

re Post 168

Quote:

slightly off the subject but maybe of significance. Why are the women in genesis not mentioned as long lived.

Why aren't women in Genesis mentioned at all except when beginning to explain why men started to fall away from God: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." Genesis 6:1-2 (KJV) Obviously, there areas of scripture that have remained hidden from us to fully understand but, with sufficient verses to promote conjectured reasoning without violating purposed serious knowledge by God for our betterment in Him.

Quote:

And what do some of you all think on whether only the line of seth was long lived.

My last line above says it for me.

Quote:

During pre flood times.
Cain was not mentioned as long lived nor his descendants.

Ditto my last.

Be that it as it may, I will endeavor to rectify my lack of "quoting skills".

May we now get back to the business of at least addressing what we know is meant for us?

I am especially looking for your reply to post 157, AMR. I want to know who translated what you have taken to yourself to believe as the gospel truth and, more importantly, why you have done so? Thank you.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I am especially looking for your reply to post 157, AMR. I want to know who translated what you have taken to yourself to believe as the gospel truth and, more importantly, why you have done so? Thank you.[/B]

Please resist the stubborn refusal to at least clean up your posting methodology for the convenience of all you hope may come along to read the discussion. Why burden the reader with sorting out all the formatting issues versus simply availing yourself of the features the software for posting here supports? This is an odd entrenchment of yours.

I replied to your query about the passage from Genesis in which I assume you hoped to find warrant about some goodness remaining in man (Romanist prevenient grace...sigh) that would give man the ability to somehow join with God in his rebirth.

I translated the Hebrew correctly and very literally. I am confident I am not alone in my translation. That is the start of interpretation. I referred you to the preceding context of the passage in question. That is also part of interpretation. I offered up how the context supports the translation and the subsequent grammar involved. You, however, point to popular translations of the passage and claim you have met the interpretive burden. You have not. Had you immersed yourself in the thoughts of others that have come before you, inspired by the same Spirit you have indwelling you, you would find that all is not as simple as you make it. In fact, at least one of those posted translations of yours has men profaning the Lord, which in itself presents two competing interpretations of what "profane" means.

Yours is a desperate attempt to import more freight into passages that the passages cannot bear. You need to look elsewhere for prevenient grace being supported by Holy Writ. Look as you will, but I am confident you will find no evidence therein.

AMR