Search results

Yet His justice does allow him to brutally punish Jesus for our sins? How is that just?

Let's agree to disagree on what the legal system considers a "debt." But my original question stands: What restrained God from simply canceling the "debt?"

There is no evidence that Abiathar ever shared high priestly duties with his father Ahimelech. You are positing such an arrangement to shore up your presumption of inerrancy. Are you going to do the same thing with Matt. 23:35, which confuses two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the...

Well, Peter and John were supposedly “uneducated and untrained men” (Acts 4:13) yet both of them wrote in Greek (presuming that they are the authors of the epistles and gospel that bear their name). Roberts says “If they, humble fishermen of Galilee, understood Greek to such an extent as...

We probably should infer a comma between "detestable" and "god."

This is a bit off point from the OP, but it is noteworthy that Mark (or Jesus, if Mark's quote is accurate) got this one wrong. 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time.

I have been a lawyer for nearly 45 years, and understand the legal system quite well. And a criminal verdict of guilty does not result in payment of a "debt." It results in incarceration and/or fines and/or sometimes payment of restitution to victims of financial crimes. A debt is a civil...

What absolute crap!

Two hundred posts in, it's official: @Peterlag is indeed the only one on the planet who understands Romans 7. The rest of us just don't get it.

It's perfect "justice" to punish A for the sins of B? Let's think about that for a moment. The idea that a just God would ever punish A for B’s sin―whether or not A volunteered for the substitution―is a troubling one. A bloodthirsty God just might decide that “someone has to pay!” and accept...

I am claiming no such thing. I am saying only that the article you cite does not prove the contrary.

I don't see it that way. I'm not Roman Catholic, but I do know that mere error and intentional fraud are two different things. What would be the RCC's motive for the latter?

You think the RCC intentionally brings in knowingly false doctrines into the Church? They KNOW it is false but trumpet it as truth ANYWAY? That makes no sense!

Respectfully, may I push back a bit? 2. An "I don't know" answer is consistent with atheism (because it could be coupled with "I don't know, but NOT by a Supreme Being you call God; my lack of knowledge does not imply any possibility you care to name"). 3. A "Nothing created the Universe"...

I suppose it is out of topic. I'll start a new thread on it some day.

I meant, what are the implications of the discrepancy between John 8:50 and Heb. 12:2? Why did he go to the cross? Selfless motivation (John) or selfish motivation (Hebrews)?

My vote is for the latter. As for the implications, John 8:50 quotes Christ as declaring that he did not seek his own glory, suggesting that the sacrifice of Christ was purely an act of selfless love. Yet Heb. 12:2 suggests that Christ endured the cross “for the joy that was set before him,”...

Yup, those would be appropriate options given the tripe I've been reading on this site recently. If everyone were honest, many would be picking one of these.

You've put it better than I did (in #197).

Still no help . . .