The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

Hebrews 9:22 was also speaking about the blood of animals.
So, please don’t use Hebrews 9:22 to support the belief that God demanded blood in exchange for Mercy.
God never required that. He required a broken, contrite heart… genuine repentance.

King David understood God was not requiring him a sacrifice… neither in that moment nor in any future moment, in order to erase his sins and renew his heart.

No blood nor substitutionary atonement. No verbal confession. No baptism. No inciense or holocaust or burnt offering. No creed recitation. No washing. No fire. No dressing in sackcloth. No fasting, singing or dancing. No quiz on Theology answered correctly in an Internet Forum.

Then when Jesus said Luke 22: 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
and then His blood was shed....
. was for nothing?
 
The discussion on the Unitarian vs. Trinitarian understanding of scripture has not quite achieved an agreement on details, even in minor details. Those with an unorthodox view have not come with possible questioning of their view of scripture but have only come to persuade people to accept it despite the many deficiencies. Oh well. Hopefully there are enough warnings to keep people for falling for those unorthodox views.
 
Then when Jesus said Luke 22: 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
and then His blood was shed....
. was for nothing?
things that make you go hmmmm- I have never witnesses such resistance to the blood of Jesus and His atonement for sin.

Acts 20:28- Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Heb 9:12-
He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption

Heb 9:16-18- In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

Heb 9:22
- According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Eph 1:7
- In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

Matt 26:28- for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Rev 1:5
- and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and has released us from our sins by His blood,

conclusion:
reject Jesus blood atonement and you have no forgiveness for your sins and one is not released from their sins and forgiven.


hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:
The discussion on the Unitarian vs. Trinitarian understanding of scripture has not quite achieved an agreement on details, even in minor details. Those with an unorthodox view have not come with possible questioning of their view of scripture but have only come to persuade people to accept it despite the many deficiencies. Oh well. Hopefully there are enough warnings to keep people for falling for those unorthodox views.
Ummmmm

Trinitarian is an unorthodox view? Well, alrighty then...... avi_headscratch.gif
 
Hebrews 9:22 was also speaking about the blood of animals.
So, please don’t use Hebrews 9:22 to support the belief that God demanded blood in exchange for Mercy.
God never required that. He required a broken, contrite heart… genuine repentance.
King David understood God was not requiring him a sacrifice… neither in that moment nor in any future moment, in order to erase his sins and renew his heart.

No blood nor substitutionary atonement. No verbal confession. No baptism. No inciense or holocaust or burnt offering. No creed recitation. No washing. No fire. No dressing in sackcloth. No fasting, singing or dancing. No quiz on Theology answered correctly in an Internet Forum.
Then Jesus was not needed?

Doug
 
I didn't think I would be misunderstood. I was hoping that the discussion has shared enough warnings to avoid the unorthodox Unitarian theories.
You wrote it this way

The discussion on the Unitarian vs. Trinitarian understanding of scripture has not quite achieved an agreement on details, even in minor details. Those with an unorthodox view have not come with possible questioning of their view of scripture but have only come to persuade people to accept it despite the many deficiencies. Oh well. Hopefully there are enough warnings to keep people for falling for those unorthodox views.
For me it reads

"The discussion on the Unitarian vs. Trinitarian understanding of scripture has not quite achieved an agreement on details, even in minor details
.
Meaning that neither Unitarian or Trinitarian has achieved agreement yada yada.

Continuing
"Those with an unorthodox view have not come with possible questioning of their view of scripture but have only come to persuade people to accept it despite the many deficiencies."

Meaning as both Unitarian vs. Trinitarian see the other as being unorthodox.

Continuing
Hopefully there are enough warnings to keep people for falling for those unorthodox views.

Meaning that the conclusion is hope for the reader to not fall for either.

Conclusion... as posted in #2346.

BTW. You are certainly allowed your opinion... but this Trinitarian wont agree I am unorthodox in thinking.

Blessings
 
You wrote it this way

The discussion on the Unitarian vs. Trinitarian understanding of scripture has not quite achieved an agreement on details, even in minor details. Those with an unorthodox view have not come with possible questioning of their view of scripture but have only come to persuade people to accept it despite the many deficiencies. Oh well. Hopefully there are enough warnings to keep people for falling for those unorthodox views.
For me it reads

"The discussion on the Unitarian vs. Trinitarian understanding of scripture has not quite achieved an agreement on details, even in minor details
.
Meaning that neither Unitarian or Trinitarian has achieved agreement yada yada.

Continuing
"Those with an unorthodox view have not come with possible questioning of their view of scripture but have only come to persuade people to accept it despite the many deficiencies."

Meaning as both Unitarian vs. Trinitarian see the other as being unorthodox.

Continuing
Hopefully there are enough warnings to keep people for falling for those unorthodox views.

Meaning that the conclusion is hope for the reader to not fall for either.

Conclusion... as posted in #2346.

BTW. You are certainly allowed your opinion... but this Trinitarian wont agree I am unorthodox in thinking.

Blessings
Why elaborate on something that I did not write clearly enough to convey the idea for you to follow?

I hope you accept me as one of those who is holding to and defending the Trinitarian doctrine. That is what many of us are promoting here.
 
Last edited:
Why elaborate on something that I did not write clearly enough to convey the idea for you to follow?

I hope you accept me holding to the Trinitarian doctrine. That is what many of us are promoting here.
I think it was just a misunderstanding how it was worded. It threw me off for a moment but I know you are a trinitarian which is the orthodox view. :)
 
I think it was just a misunderstanding how it was worded. It threw me off for a moment but I know you are a trinitarian which is the orthodox view. :)
Sure. Other than learning more reasons why the Trinitarian doctrine makes sense (and a lot due to Mattie and your contributions), these debates with the Unitarians has not led to any confession of weaknesses in their views nor have convinced Trinitarian followers to go Unitarian.
 
Sure seems that way His death was in vain as was the blood He poured out for the forgiveness of sins. I’ll go on record saying His resurrection was not necessary for salvation either. Another Gospel, another jesus.
Dear @TibiasDad and @civic

Was the the sacrifice of Jesus was in vain for the two of you? For me it was not in vain.
You are the Christians here. I am not… and I will tell you that Jesus sacrifice is of infinite relevance to me.
For me, Jesus example has moved me to crucify the old man and be resurrected with Him to a new life.
God’s plan for me was to be born in a Christian country and be raised hearing about Jesus, his example and teachings.
I praise God for that.
 
Both are true, when scriptures are intrepreted properly, when the complex natures of Jesus are kept separate as the Holy Ghost does in the scriptures. One cannot reject one over the other, or else, you will end up teaching a heresy.

Acts 20:28​

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

1 Timothy 2:5​

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”
God can't die though. What's your workaround for saying both are true?
 
Last edited:
Hebrews 9:22 was also speaking about the blood of animals.
Bulls and goats are animals. No animal’s blood is sufficient to atone for sin, only Jesus’s blood. That is the point of Hebrews 9.

So, please don’t use Hebrews 9:22 to support the belief that God demanded blood in exchange for Mercy.
Without blood there is no remission from sin!


God never required that. He required a broken, contrite heart… genuine repentance.
King David understood God was not requiring him a sacrifice… neither in that moment nor in any future moment, in order to erase his sins and renew his heart.
To obey is better than sacrifice; outward ritual is meaningless if the heart is not sincere. The sacrifice is still required in conjunction with the humility of heart.

The question is never about whether is sacrifice necessary, but rather what sacrifice is sufficient to atone.


No blood nor substitutionary atonement. No verbal confession. No baptism. No inciense or holocaust or burnt offering. No creed recitation. No washing. No fire. No dressing in sackcloth. No fasting, singing or dancing. No quiz on Theology answered correctly in an Internet Forum.
Then you have no salvation!

Doug
 
Then when Jesus said Luke 22: 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
and then His blood was shed....
. was for nothing?

To Me, Jesus sacrifice has an infinite value
It inspired me to crucify my old man and be resurrected into a new life… the life of love and obedience that Jesus exemplified.

What is the importance of Jesus sacrifice for you, @MTMattie? How has it changed your life?
 
You wrote it this way

The discussion on the Unitarian vs. Trinitarian understanding of scripture has not quite achieved an agreement on details, even in minor details. Those with an unorthodox view have not come with possible questioning of their view of scripture but have only come to persuade people to accept it despite the many deficiencies. Oh well. Hopefully there are enough warnings to keep people for falling for those unorthodox views.
For me it reads

"The discussion on the Unitarian vs. Trinitarian understanding of scripture has not quite achieved an agreement on details, even in minor details
.
Meaning that neither Unitarian or Trinitarian has achieved agreement yada yada.

Continuing
"Those with an unorthodox view have not come with possible questioning of their view of scripture but have only come to persuade people to accept it despite the many deficiencies."

Meaning as both Unitarian vs. Trinitarian see the other as being unorthodox.

Continuing
Hopefully there are enough warnings to keep people for falling for those unorthodox views.

Meaning that the conclusion is hope for the reader to not fall for either.

Conclusion... as posted in #2346.

BTW. You are certainly allowed your opinion... but this Trinitarian wont agree I am unorthodox in thinking.

Blessings
I generally agree with what you said, though Arianism was the orthodoxy in the third and fourth century even though what constituted Trinitarianism at that time would be unrecognizable and probably heretical to most in the present day. Trinitarianism wasn't fully developed and hashed out until around 325 AD. It hasn't always been the mainstream. It's interesting to me how perspectives change over time and why they do.
 
Why elaborate on something that I did not write clearly enough to convey the idea for you to follow?

I hope you accept me as one of those who is holding to and defending the Trinitarian doctrine. That is what many of us are promoting here.
Yes, I know you do. (y)(y)

I just tend to try and correct what seems confusing to me, for if it confuses me, others might also be confused... if that makes any sense

I am a full blooded card carrying Trinitarian myself. I also, not to scare you into avoiding me, am a full blooded card carrying free will born again child of God.
 
Dear @TibiasDad and @civic

Was the the sacrifice of Jesus was in vain for the two of you? For me it was not in vain.
You are the Christians here. I am not… and I will tell you that Jesus sacrifice is of infinite relevance to me.
For me, Jesus example has moved me to crucify the old man and be resurrected with Him to a new life.
God’s plan for me was to be born in a Christian country and be raised hearing about Jesus, his example and teachings.
I praise God for that.
if His blood He gave for the forgiveness of sins was unimportant and not necessary so was His death. For the life of the soul resides in the blood.

One cannot choose what they like about the bible and disregeard what they don't like in the bible regarding the Atonement of Christ. It all fits together and every aspect of His death was necessary. It was a fulfillment of Prophecy. It was also necessary for Messiah to die in the exact way He did for the Atonement of sins. The blood of Christ cannot be left out or there is no forgiveness of sins.


Acts 20:28- Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Heb 9:12-
He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption

Heb 9:16-18- In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

Heb 9:22
- According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Eph 1:7
- In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

Matt 26:28- for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Rev 1:5
- and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and has released us from our sins by His blood,

conclusion:
reject Jesus blood atonement and you have no forgiveness for your sins and one is not released from their sins and forgiven.


hope this helps !!!
 
Acts 20:28- Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Heb 9:12-
He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption

Heb 9:16-18- In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

Heb 9:22
- According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Eph 1:7
- In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

Matt 26:28- for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Rev 1:5
- and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and has released us from our sins by His blood,

Summary and Conclusion: nothing but the blood of Jesus can suffice @Pancho Frijoles

1- His blood purchased/ ransomed the church
2- His blood provided eternal redemption
3- His blood was necessary for the New Covenant
4- The OT Covenant was based on blood sacrifice
5- Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for ones sins
6- His blood provided redemption and forgiveness of our sins
7- His blood makes the New Covenant providing forgiveness of sins
8- His blood releases believers from their sins


hope this helps !!!
 
Back
Top Bottom