‘Non- Binary’ Transgender Deacon ?

[Sola_Fide]

Please show me where Isaiah said that God was pleased to place the iniquities of the elect on Jesus?

Isaiah 53:10

But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;

Isaiah 53:5

He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.

TER, you said you were going to ignore this. You can't ignore it. This is the truth of God, and way beyond the church traditions that you worship, I think you hear the voice of God calling you to repent and believe. This is His holy word.

 

[TER]

TER, you said you were going to ignore this. You can't ignore it. This is the truth of God, and way beyond the church traditions that you worship, I think you hear the voice of God calling you to repent and believe. This is His holy word.

No Sola. What you are reading is the Masoteric text. You know, the version compiled by Jews 700 years after Christ rose from the dead.

The Septuagint, which was the authoritative version of the Hebrew text divinely translated by Jewish scholars waaay before Christ's advent, which was widespread throughout the Greek-speaking world and is the version quoted by the Apostles (- and Christ!) in almost every instance in the New Testament, writes this:

53:4 – This one bears our sins and suffers pain for us, and we accounted him to be in trouble and calamity and ill-treatment.

53:10 – And the Lord desires to cleanse him from his blow..

Nothing about a “penal” notion of the appeasement of a vengeful deity. There is no reference to God striking down the Servant or afflicting him, nor is God willing to crush him (through either disease or suffering). Instead, v. 10 shows that the Lord “desires (or is pleased) to cleanse him from his blow.” Additionally, the “trouble” and “calamity” experienced by the Suffering Servant is also not blamed on God in the Septuagint.

So, when you get around to reading the texts actually used by the Lord and the Apostles, and regarded as the official inspired version of the Scriptures used by the Christian Church from the very beginning until now) instead of using mistranslated, tainted versions written and compiled by Talmudic Jews centuries later, then perhaps you will hear the voice of God calling you to repent and believe His holy word.

 

[Sola_Fide]

No Sola. What you are reading is the Masoteric text. You know, the version compiled by Jews 700 years after Christ rose from the dead.

The Septuagint, which was the authoritative version of the Hebrew text divinely translated by Jewish scholars waaay before Christ's advent, which was widespread throughout the Greek-speaking world and is the version quoted by the Apostles (- and Christ!) in almost every instance in the New Testament, writes this:




Nothing about a “penal” notion of the appeasement of a vengeful deity. There is no reference to God striking down the Servant or afflicting him, nor is God willing to crush him (through either disease or suffering). Instead, v. 10 shows that the Lord “desires (or is pleased) to cleanse him from his blow.” Additionally, the “trouble” and “calamity” experienced by the Suffering Servant is also not blamed on God in the Septuagint.

So, when you get around to reading the texts actually used by the Lord and the Apostles, and regarded as the official inspired version of the Scriptures used by the Christian Church from the beginning and afterwards) instead of using mistranslated, tainted versions written and compiled by Jews centuries later, then perhaps you will hear the voice of God calling you to repent and believe His holy word.

Septuagint
Isaiah 53:5-6

But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed.

All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins.

Do you believe in the Jesus that was wounded on account of man's sin?
Do you believe in the Jesus that the Lord gave up for man's sin?

 

[TER]

Septuagint
Isaiah 53:5-6

Good job, Sola! Keep up the good work! You have made progress tonight!

 

[Sola_Fide]

2 Corinthians 5:21

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Do you believe in the Jesus that God made to BE SIN, so that the elect would be righteous in His sight?

You don't believe in this Jesus TER. You believe in an idol created by your church.

 

[TER]

Let's see the words which were used by the early Christian Saints when writing Isaiah 53:10 (of course, they too were quoting from the version which Christ and the Apostles used):

1st century:

Clement of Rome: And the Lord is pleased to purify Him from the stripes.
(Epistle to the Corinthians, Sec. 16)

2nd century:

Justin Martyr: And the Lord is pleased to cleanse Him from the stripe.
(First Apology, Ch 51)

Justin Martyr: And the Lord wills to purify Him from affliction.
(Dialog with Trypho, Ch 13)

4th century:

Augustine: The Lord is pleased to purge Him from misfortune.
(Baptism of Infants, Book 1, Section 54)

Augustine: The Lord is pleased to clear Him in regard to His stroke.
(Harmony of the Gospels, Book 1, Section 47)

John Chrysostom: it pleaseth the Lord to cleanse Him from His wound
(Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 38)

 

[Danke]

What is Gods position on LGBTQHB?

 

[TER]

So if one is going to be a Sola Scripturist, he should at least study from the version which Christ and the Apostles taught with, and not the version written centuries later by Talmudic Jews. Otherwise, strange and foreign doctrines may arise.

 

[Sola_Fide]

So if one is going to be a Sola Scripturist, he should at least study from the version which Christ and the Apostles taught with, and not the version written centuries later by Talmudic Jews. Otherwise, strange and foreign doctrines may arise.

Let's agree to use the words that the apostles themselves wrote. Deal?

2 Corinthians 5:21

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Did God make Jesus to BE SIN in place of the ones who will inherit eternal life?

 

[TER]

goodnight, Sola.

When we get over the huge problem of you using a mistranslation of the Book of Isaiah (and the Old Testament in general) which is leading you to erroneously believe and teach that God sadistically enjoyed to afflict torture and death on His Son, then we can move on to the later writings.

Until then, nothing you write about Scripture or your interpretations can be deemed reliable or trustworthy.

 

[Sola_Fide]

goodnight, Sola.

When we get over the huge problem of you using a mistranslation of the Book of Isaiah, which is leading you to erroneously believe and teach that God enjoyed to afflict torture and death on His Son, then we can move on to the later writings.

Hebrews 2:10

For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.

Did God make Jesus suffer in bringing many sons to glory?

 

[Sola_Fide]

1 Peter 2:24

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

TER, why don't you believe in the Jesus of the Bible who bore His people's sins on the cross?

What does God do to sin? He has wrath against it right?

Romans 1:18

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Romans 8:32

He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

Did God give up His own Son for the ones who inherit eternal life? Why don't you believe this?

 

[Sola_Fide]

goodnight sola

When we get over the huge problem of you using a mistranslation of the Book of Isaiah (and the Old Testament in general) which is leading you to erroneously believe and teach that God sadistically enjoyed to afflict torture and death on His Son, then we can move on to the later writings.

Good night.

Does God have wrath against sin?

I've asked you that for 2 days now, and I've asked you to provide one verse in the Bible that said the death of Jesus was for the purpose of making all men resurrected in the final judgement.

But as usual, for years on this board, I go out of my way to meet everyone's challenges to show the Biblical support for the Christian faith, and in return no one, and I mean no one, ever responds to my questions.

How hard is it to answer the question: Does God have wrath against sin? I mean, it could be a simple yes or no. Why has TER not answered it after I've answered all his questions and challenges? It's frustrating.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Do not call my faith into question heretic!

Hey, tod. How are you? I'll tell you something. Something you might already know. S_F is a neo-Calvinist. He will never talk across from you or anyone else here. He will always talk above you. He will talk to you as if he is looking down at you. And he differs very little from any other authoritarian group in that way. He will continually reaffirm is own theological correctness by deriving his own view of the Gospel from proof-texts rather than the general tenor of Scripture. S_F's role, by his own doctrine, is to create a spirit of division among Christians by way of theological elitism and theological snobbery. S_F's system creates walls between believers. It creates a class of Christians within the Church who believe themselves to be part of some worthy inner circle that you and I aren't in.

Read through S_F's posts here, tod. About 75 percent of them end with a question mark. S_F believes that he is above everyone else here spiritually. S_F believes that everyone here has to answer to him. S_F believes that he is the decider of what its Truth. Why? Because it's his 16th century reformist doctrine that tells him that he can proof-text the Bible and diregard its tenor in order to claim some kind of theological superiority.

Personally, I wouldn't give him your time. That's what he feeds on. He wants you to engage with him so he can ask you a bunch of questions that he feels he, and only he, has the answer for. He wants to guide discussion so that his doctrine is the main aspect of any theological conversation. Again, the neo-Calvinist will aways establish for himself a position in a given discussion so that he can speak from above you. He asks nothing but questions. As if he's the authority and you have to explain your faith to him.

Heck, by S_F's theological model, Jesus Christ died in vain. By S_F's model, we're all predestined to be saved or doomed. So, what the heck? lolol. Poor Jesus. Crucified for nothing if we're to take S_F's proof-texting horse pucky seriously.

Anyway. I'm on extended break. lol. I was just checking my messages and saw the peckerhead was out of the hole and back to his usual game of theological superiority and general authoritarian babble.

Peace out, muh brotha.

 

[tod evans]

I'm still waiting on him to apologize to all the good Christian Methodists he would personally condemn...

That's low behavior even for a Calvinist...

They're a dime a dozen out here in the buckle of the Bible belt, funny thing is the ones who scream the loudest about another mans beliefs are usually the first to fall...

 

[Suzanimal]

I'm still waiting on him to apologize to all the good Christian Methodists he would personally condemn...

That's low behavior even for a Calvinist...

They're a dime a dozen out here in the buckle of the Bible belt, funny thing is the ones who scream the loudest about another mans beliefs are usually the first to fall...

Meh, he's been on the Catholics for awhile. Good thing he doesn't get to decide who's condemned and who's not.

 

[tod evans]

Hey, tod. How are you? I'll tell you something. Something you might already know. S_F is a neo-Calvinist. He will never talk across from you or anyone else here. He will always talk above you. He will talk to you as if he is looking down at you. And he differs very little from any other authoritarian group in that way. He will continually reaffirm is own theological correctness by deriving his own view of the Gospel from proof-texts rather than the general tenor of Scripture. S_F's role, by his own doctrine, is to create a spirit of division among Christians by way of theological elitism and theological snobbery. S_F's system creates walls between believers. It creates a class of Christians within the Church who believe themselves to be part of some worthy inner circle that you and I aren't in.

Read through S_F's posts here, tod. About 75 percent of them end with a question mark. S_F believes that he is above everyone else here spiritually. S_F believes that everyone here has to answer to him. S_F believes that he is the decider of what its Truth. Why? Because it's his 16th century reformist doctrine that tells him that he can proof-text the Bible and diregard its tenor in order to claim some kind of theological superiority.

Personally, I wouldn't give him your time. That's what he feeds on. He wants you to engage with him so he can ask you a bunch of questions that he feels he, and only he, has the answer for. He wants to guide discussion so that his doctrine is the main aspect of any conversation theological conversation. Again, the neo-Calvinist will aways establish for himself a position in a given discussion so that he can speak from above you. He asks nothing but questions. As if he's the authority and you have to explain your faith to him.

Anyway. I'm on extended break. lol. I was just checking my messages and saw the peckerhead was out of the hole and back to his usual game of theological superiority and general authoritarian babble.

Peace out, muh brotha.

While I'm still semi-coherent (before lacquer) how'd you like to be a fly on the wall where S_F works?

Some big-city motel with a staff of beaners who are predominately Catholic...

Bet the break-room conversations are fun.

 

[tod evans]

Meh, he's been on the Catholics for awhile. Good thing he doesn't get to decide who's condemned and who's not.

He certainly condemned the entire Methodist congregation toward the beginning of this thread..

Then he conveniently sidestepped several questions I asked him but continues to accuse others...

Shameful behavior in the Peace through Religion forum...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Good thing he doesn't get to decide who's condemned and who's not.

Phhhhht. We wouldn't know it to hear him tell it. lolol. That boy thinks he's the gosh darned Angel of Grace.