Offers free salvation that cannot be lost

Jesus was the the sacrifice that makes sure we don't need to sacrifice animals or goods, as are sins are forgiven past, present, and future.

>le Jesus was a zombie

This isn't even true by D&D standards. Zombies, by definition, are undead. They have experienced tissue death and brain death, but their dead and decaying bodies are animated by some force of vitality different from that which animated them in life. This could be magical power, a strange virus, or even cybernetic implants.

Jesus, on the other hand, is resurrected. He regains his original vitiating force, his cell death and brain death are reversed, and he resumes life in the manner of a living person. It's literally not the same thing.

How is Jesus supposed to forgive sins without killing Jesus? That barely makes any sense.

How so?
Ultimately the decision is up to god.

No he doesn't, he has unhealed wounds on his hands, claiming he has the same powers as Wolverine is ridiculous.

But you never needed to sacrifice animals in the first place.

Why is Jesus needed to forgive sins at all?

salvation is the exception, not the rule
we all deserve to go to hell for our sin.

If you have faith in Jesus Christ, you go to heaven.
If you reject his sacrifice, then you go to hell.

Does God have the power to change his mind about that?

Well Jesus is God so....

What if I accept Jesus in my heart, prior to dying.
Seek penitence etc, for all my minor sins: Lying.
Do I go to heaven?

I'm not sure what you meant by this so I'm going to answer both of my interpretations to it.
1:If you accept Jesus in your heart and have complete faith in him before your death, then you're saved
2:If you "lie" about accepting Jesus, then you did not have faith in him and you're going to hell, because you don't actually believe in him.

>You have the choice to do anything you want.
>BUT if you don't do exactly as I say you're going to hell forever
I thank Satan every day that he gave us the freedom to overcome this slave ideology.

Yes or no

I'm uncertain, I am not a theologian.

If you don't like God, then why would you want to be with him? Is hell not more desirable for you then?

>My interpretations
Ok, I meant the former, I have never broken the amendments, other than lying, and disrespecting my parents during my youth. If I go over the process, then accept Jesus.
Am I going to heaven? Or not?

Following the commandments (following the law) does not get you saved, faith in Christ does. Read Galatians and Romans.

Are we talking about Protestantism or Catholicism?
Or is this a interpretations accepted in the major branches of Christianity?

It's what the Bible teaches

Because sins need to be forgiven before you can go Heaven

Yes. Heaven is for the bended knees, fascists who want an absolute dictator to serve, and make everything "right". They don't care to think only to blindly serve. Hell may be terrible, but I made my own choices and not to have lowered myself trying to please an entity with undeserved loyalty.

So? Forgiveness is clearly possible with repentance alone. What need is there of Jesus?

You do realize that if you believe in Jesus, you can do whatever the fuck you want on Earth and not go to hell?

1. Sin requires death (death is a consequence of the Fall)

2. Animals were sacrificed in the OT to atone for sin, but this was just a temporary solution

3. Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, was perfect and lived a sinless life. He died for your sins on the cross. Debt paid in full, God's judgement satisfied

4. You can only go to heaven by believing in Christ's finished work, He took your place, your sins are blotted out, you are rendered righteous

This is basic Christian theology 101, it's the Gospel.

So that we wouldn't have to repent or sacrifice

Being a born-again Christian, a child of God, is a life changing event. You will start to act differently.

Good works are a consequence of being saved. Eternal salvation is not a license to sin. If you go around murdering people you were never saved in the first place.

Except that this "Basic Christian theology 101" is in contradiction with the Old Testament, which Christainity holds as God-Given scripture and True by default, where you in fact do not need to sacrifice animals to atone for sin, temporary or otherwise; and the declaration that it is temporary comes from Paul, who clearly shows he has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

Not to mention that the Gospels themselves record Jesus sinning by not offering a Paschal sacrifice and just showing up to some dude's house and bumming off of his.

So again, why should I believe any of this, since they can't even manage to be internally consistent?

Therefore I can be a complete asshole, yet truly believe in God, and I would go to heaven?
Reminds me of Cartel members.

So, in other words, you need Jesus because you're too big of a baby to own up to your mistakes and not do them again?

>O foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is worthless?
Christ Cucks don't even read their own book

Being saved is a life-changing event. If you are saved, good works are expected to follow.

If you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins, you don't have to live a sinless life. You physically cannot as a human being. Humans are imperfect, we should strive to be like Jesus, knowing that can never be Jesus.

You are blabbering about things you don't understand. Everything you said was false.

There is no inconsistency, you're simply dumb.

>Born again Christian
Disgusting
Kys so you can meet god, faggot

I'm not seeing a refutation user.

But I do good things, good DEEDS. All this proves i s that don't believe if I do no good things at all.

God looks at the heart.

He knows whether your belief is genuine or not. He knows all your intentions and motives.

I don't see any evidence on your side to refute.

The moment Adam and Eve fell, God killed an animal to cloth them. Here is the first sacrifice that ever happened.

>Man rebelled
>Sin requires punishment
>God loves us, so He kills an animal instead of killing us

God promised a Savior that would ultimately conquer sin.

>You do realize that if you believe in Jesus, you can do whatever the fuck you want on Earth and not go to hell?
>All this proves i s that don't believe if I do no good things at all.
How do you manage all this double think and not have some serious cognitive dissonance?

I'll admit mi first statement was a bit wrong, but still. You can sin quite a lot and still go to Heaven as long as you do good things.

You guys can not, unironically believe this.

I cited 3 different points as to when forgiveness was achieved without blood (pre-Jesus), as well as a point where Jesus quite explicitly sinned by failing to bring a proper Paschal offering while still alive.

>The moment Adam and Eve fell, God killed an animal to cloth them. Here is the first sacrifice that ever happened.

That is neither a sacrifice nor does it prove any of the points you just made, such as that sin requires punishment or that blood is necessary for forgiveness.

It's not about doing "good things". Works is not a means to an end.

It's about realizing the situation you are in. You are incapable of being perfect, incapable of satisfying God's perfect laws, incapable of not sinning. You sin daily. You lie, steal, hate (which is akin to murdering someone in your mind).

Only God can solve this problem, and He did 2000 years ago on the cross. A perfect, sinless, innocent person had no reason to die, but He did so for us.

In Adam we die, but in Christ we are a new creature.

>incapable of satisfying God's perfect laws,

Not him, but given that God quite explicitly says that the Mosiatic Covenant "Is not too hard for you", and that is at least in Christian theology considered emblematic of God's "Perfect Laws", it is apparently a part of Christian theology that God is a liar.

It's clear you have never really read the Bible.

Again, I'm not seeing an actual refutation. What blood sacrifice was offered in Numbers 16:47? Aaron seems to certainly be offering incense, not blood. How can Jesus's failure to bring a Passover sacrifice be anything but sinful?

The law was a temporary measure. We wanted to be independent and autonomous from God, so He says "Ok, here are the laws. Go ahead and try to be perfect" and people failed every time.

The Ten Commandments shows us how far away and distant we are from God's holiness and righteousness. The law condemns us.

We gained the knowledge of good and evil, and so we are responsible for our actions. That's what the law was for. God showed us the standards that we need to live by.

The incense offering was about stopping the plague. It was not an atonement for sin (which requires animals). The Levitical laws and rituals were specific.

Jesus was not a sinner, He did not need to bring a passover sacrifice. He was the sacrifice.

>The law was a temporary measure

So then again, God is explicitly LYING to at least millions of people when he tells them that it will endure "Forever" in Deuteronomy 4:40.

>so He says "Ok, here are the laws. Go ahead and try to be perfect

Except He also says that "it's not too hard for you" in the same book, 30:11. Why do your ideas require God to lie?

>That's what the law was for. God showed us the standards that we need to live by.

And again, God says you can do it, and Paul says you can't. I might be a fedora tipper myself, but I'm pretty sure that if you do believe in a God, God> Paul

Even if God is a liar, that doesn't mean the Bible is fake.

>. It was not an atonement for sin (which requires animals).

WRONG!

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers 16:47&version=NASB

>Then Aaron took it as Moses had spoken, and ran into the midst of the assembly, for behold, the plague had begun among the people. So he put on the incense and made atonement for the people.

>The Levitical laws and rituals were specific.

They are!

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 5&version=NASB

>‘But if his [g]means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then for his offering for that which he has sinned, he shall bring the tenth of an [h]ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it or place incense on it, for it is a sin offering. 12 He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as its memorial portion and offer it up in smoke on the altar, [i]with the offerings of the Lord by fire: it is a sin offering. 13 So the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin which he has [j]committed from one of these, and it will be forgiven him; then the rest shall become the priest’s, like the grain offering.’”
>Jesus was not a sinner, He did not need to bring a passover sacrifice. He was the sacrifice.

Except that even in the most supercessionist views, the New Covenant did not come into place until after Jesus was crucified, and the Synoptic Gospels are quite clear that the Passover offering had already been brought at the time of the last supper. Jesus, ergo, sinned at least once.

So, I'd like to throw your own comment back at you. It's quite clear you have never actually read the Bible.

The laws do endure forever. That's not a lie. God Himself keeps the laws because He is holy, literally perfect. Christ fulfilled the law. He made it so we don't need to rely on our own works. He healed our heart of stone.

God is right, it's not hard if we just listen. The problem is that we are rebellious, and want our own ways. This is shown by the endless cycle of Israel turning to pagan gods, doing wicked things, getting enslaved and then repenting and turning to God, being restored only for them to fall into sin again.

The problem is our fallen nature.

No, but it does cast that whole "Objectively Good and Just" into rather serious doubt. And if God can utter lies, how can you believe anything Jesus has to say?

God is incapable of lying.

Satan is the father of lies.

>The laws do endure forever.

You just said they were a temporary measure.>. Christ fulfilled the law.

Well, except for that Passover thing, but I guess we'll just play at him doing 100%!

>his is shown by the endless cycle of Israel turning to pagan gods, doing wicked things, getting enslaved and then repenting and turning to God, being restored only for them to fall into sin again.

So, in other words, getting it right about 50% of the time?

>The problem is our fallen nature.

The problem is that you Christians constructed a theological edifice on the foundation of a completely different religion which has little to nothing to do, theologically, with yours. It's not hard at all to pick out contradictions, because again, you are dealing with fundamentally different notions to the questions of things like "What is the ideal relationship between God and Man?", and you guys have to keep 2 ridiculous edifices together instead of just 1 that most religions have.

Temporary as in needing to sacrifice animals to atone for sin.

The laws themselves still stand, just the way to fulfill the laws are changed in the New Testament because God knows and history testifies that we are incapable of keeping the law.

>Temporary as in needing to sacrifice animals to atone for sin.

Except for all the times that you DON'T need to sacrifice animals to atone for sin. We have it built right into Leviticus that, if you're too poor to afford even some birds, an offering of flour will atone for sin.

Also, don't you think it's the littlest bit weird that animal offerings are only for unintentional sins, and you have a completely different set of atonement laws, including things like making restitution to people (not God, humans) that you've harmed when it's an intentional act (Numbers 5:6-7)

>The laws themselves still stand, just the way to fulfill the laws are changed in the New Testament because God knows and history testifies that we are incapable of keeping the law.

Which you apparently believe despite quite literally God himself saying otherwise.

There are animal sacrifices to atone for sin.
There are other sacrifices to atone for different things.
There are laws on how to interact with others and how to function in society.

It's really simple, but the concept seems to fly over your heard. Read Leviticus and you'll see exactly what each sacrifice or ritual was for. God is not going to kill a poor man because he can't afford a lamb, so an "emergency" sacrifice would be flour. God has His reasons, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you should be putting Him on trial.

You need to turn away from your rebellious attitude. Stop pointing your finger at God in anger, you are only harming yourself.

>There are animal sacrifices to atone for sin.
>There are other sacrifices to atone for different things.

Which clearly shows that animal sacrifices are not necessary to atone for sin. In fact, it's actually also pretty Biblically clear that no sacrifices whatsoever are necessary to atone for sin. You can take a look at Jonah 3:10 or 2 Chronicles 7:14

>It's really simple, but the concept seems to fly over your heard. Read Leviticus and you'll see exactly what each sacrifice or ritual was for. God is not going to kill a poor man because he can't afford a lamb, so an "emergency" sacrifice would be flour. God has His reasons, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you should be putting Him on trial.

Which means that the blood, as blood, is not in fact necessary! You're even admitting that the amount of sacrifice is indexed to your means, indicating that it's not about what you offer up, but that you offer something up (and probably something enough to constitute a real setback, but I'll admit I'm offering my own gut instinct there), and even that's not 100% necessary (see the above).

>You need to turn away from your rebellious attitude. Stop pointing your finger at God in anger, you are only harming yourself.

I'm not pointing a finger at God in rebellion. I'm pointing a finger at YOU and laughing. Because you can't even justify your own beliefs from your own holy book without revising them at least twice in this simple conversation. Whatever the ultimate truth of the universe is, it's pretty clearly not Christianity in any form that's survived today.

See sin as something that gradually piles up.

Sacrifice, repentance, prayer or fasting are means to get a clean slate, back to 0 sin. But you will inevitably keep sinning again, daily.

Animal sacrifices were the best way to atone for mass sin of the population, priests would do that. You could also individually bring a sacrifice for what you've done wrong.

Death IS necessary. You are going to die eventually of old age. Why? Because we live in a fallen state. Christians are still the same as non-believers (although we strive to sin less) in the physical sense that we die, but we are SAVED from eternal death and separation from God because we are "born again" of the Spirit, recognizing what Jesus Christ did for us.

>Offers free salvation that cannot be lost
If it can't be lost, I had it when I was younger and am good for life. Glad that's over with, then.

Tradition and LARPing is not being saved.

You were a Cultural Christian, a product of your environment. You simply believed what your parents told you without thinking much about it.

Cause Jesus resurrected in from of 514 people?

Funnily enough, you also have a statement from the Old Testament to not listen to people just because they do miracles. Deuteronomy, chapter 13.

Being raised from the dead is pretty extraordinary, even in the Old Testament.

Reminder that believing you need to be "saved from hell" is contingent on believing there is hell to begin with. Religious people take it for granted that you are already on the hook for their solution to their own self-made problem. How convenient that the priests and the pastors are selling the cure alongside the disease. They can keep their psychopathic worldview to themselves.

Hell is empty and all the devils are here.

William Shakespeare

That's God still deciding.

>White pride is bad
>but black pride is okay
Leftypol is an embarrassment

>white pride - genocide, nazism, lynchings
>black pride - celebration of culture, shaking off oppression, solidarity

gee I wonder why

fuck off /pol/blr school of false equivalence

I don't believe you.

So what would have happened if I died in that state? Furthermore, at what age or cutoff point did such a state end?

Damn you are ignorant

>my book of lies and contradictions!
Naw, gnosticism and only finding a tradition that knows jesus is a false name.
Actual people cloaked in actual divine power whom hate and are hated by all people.

>he got btfo
>lazy weak reply

lmao

White pride isn't bad, only its generally not as unified as "black pride."

You have immense german, Italian, irish, etc. Pride in culture in the states and each is considered white.

Black pride is an amalgamation of several different black cultures that seek unity through similarities to create an individual and unified identity.

>Veeky Forums is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates

>White pride isn't bad
>always leads to oppression of other races and nazism

uhuh

>Italian, irish
not even considered "white" by other whites and racially persecuted lmao

>Black pride is an amalgamation of several different black cultures that seek unity through similarities to create an individual and unified identity.
The problem is that within the context of North American society, the difference between all those black cultures is less significant than how they are collectively treated by majority-white society at large. A random Black applicant to some job will likely be less likely to achieve said job than a white applicant with roughly equal qualifications regardless of what said appliant's actual African racial/ethnic group may be.

The unified black identity is borne out of this shared culture, which is itself a product of the dominant culture.

>white pride is always bad
>If it's not bad then it's not white

That's bullshit and you know it.

>Irish and Italians weren't considered white

This is a myth and the Irish and Italians were considered white when accounted in the census. However, this does go the root of the problem in that the definition of "white" changes constantly and makes it difficult for a unified white identity to ever really form.

>white pride is always bad
>If it's not bad then it's not white

white people cemented this fact when they voted trump and held up trumpism

But latinos are also considered white in many statistics and they clearly didn't jump on the bandwagon.

>Irish
>Mass imigration just in time to bolster North army in civil war

>Italians
>Mass immigration in time to bolster USA in WW1 and WW2

There's plenty of earning to be done to be the "right" kind of white.

Dude, they had a guy who was raised from the dead in 2 Kings 13:21, and they didn't even bother to write down his name, it's just "some guy lol".

>white horseshit

his voter base are 50+ year old shitty white boomers

>believing the boomer lie
gbt/pol/

His voting base was the same as Bush & Romney's, the dems just didn't have the turnout to beat him in the same places they always fight. If you're mad about Trump you have nobody to blame but yourselves.

*proddieshits don't even read their own books