Kind sir, you need to read what is written. And read without blind Faith. Read it as if you've never read it before. Wipe out all those wrong conclusions that live in your head. Yes, the voice said it was Jesus. But does that make it true? Read the account of Ananias (Again). Please, actually read it....
And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.(Acts 9:10-16 KJV)
Can you see what is missing? There is NO mention at all that the Lord Jesus confirmed to Ananias that He had stopped Paul on the way and blinded him. It would have been VERY easy for the Lord to have said, ".... enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, I have met him in the way and he is awaiting to be told what to do."
Instead, Ananias is told that Paul is praying. (I'm sure he was...) And I'm sure that he REPENTED in accordance with the Gospel that Jesus preached, and in doing so, the Lord had compassion on Paul to restore his eyesight, giving Paul a vision of what was about to happen.
I'm sure everybody believed Paul's testimony that Jesus actually blinded him. But nothing in Acts 9 testifies that the voice actually was Jesus. It just called itself Jesus.
First, your entire argument collapses when you actually
do what you say “read what is written.” The Lord identifies Himself as "Jesus" to Paul
“And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” (Acts 9:5)
The text doesn’t leave it ambiguous or open to speculation. Paul was not confused, he asked directly and received a direct answer. If you deny this, you are not questioning Paul, you are calling Luke, the Holy Spirit-inspired author of Acts, a liar.
Secondly, in Acts 9, the Lord speaks to Ananias in a vision and refers to Paul as
“a chosen vessel unto Me”. Are you claiming that the Lord lied to Ananias too? According to your logic, not only was Paul deceived but now Ananias was also misled in a vision directly from the Lord. That leads to a dangerously low view of Scripture.
Acts 22 and 26 record Paul retelling the event, and in Acts 26:15 he says: “And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.”
Jesus Himself, after His resurrection and glorification, speaks from heaven. This is consistent with what the early church preached—Paul’s experience was verified by Ananias and later by the apostles in Jerusalem.
You seem to invent a dichotomy where none exists. You argue "the devil blinds people" but ignore the very text you're quoting. It wasn’t the devil who said,"I am Jesus"
”. It was the glorified Christ, acting in His authority to call a persecutor to repentance and commission him as His apostle.
Your last comment about Paul “turning the Gospel into a human blood sacrifice” directly contradicts the teaching of Jesus Himself, who said at the Last Supper:
“This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)
It is Jesus who proclaimed the shedding of His blood for forgiveness. Paul faithfully preached exactly what Christ commanded.
It’s not “blind faith” to believe Scripture; it’s faith in the testimony of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the apostles, all in agreement. What you’re offering is a man-made theory, selectively ignoring clear Scripture to push an anti-Pauline narrative that the early church would have outright rejected.
For those who live in Blind Faith... there can never be an understanding of what actually happened without the Holy Spirit bringing wisdom. The Devil blinds people. The Devil curses people. Jesus restores sight, and Jesus blesses people. It's that simple.
As opposed to you having no faith in the word of God...funny, you are blinded to the Gospel and you are under a curse gallatians 1:8 so maybe you need to figure it out, you tread dangerous territory and look how you butchered jermiah 8:9 So from your logic you would be calling the Lord in Genesis 12:3 the devil..."And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
further proving my point of this thread
I have no doubt that the Lord had indeed chosen Paul to be a minister of the Gospel of Jesus, right up until Paul turned that Gospel into offering a HUMAN blood sacrifice to pay for sins. But it wasn't that way in the beginning.
And when Paul's life came into jeopardy, the truth comes out. Paul WAS a Pharisee.
Once more we're to a position where we have to read what is written, and not let fictional religious tradition sweep things under the rug.
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.(Acts 23:6 KJV)
He didn't say "I had been a Pharisee," Paul claimed to actually BE one... STILL. He only needed to have said "I was raised a Pharisee and am now called in question for believing in the resurrection of the dead."
I understand how irate and angry you are at me, because I'm calling the integrity of your venerated holy man into question. But had I asked you yesterday, could you have answered that Paul was indeed a Pharisee? One needs to look at the whole picture.
Lol Scripture calls Gods prophets holy you butchered the verse in Jeremiah to call them liars and the Lods word a lie, I noticed you completely ignored that muslim argument you brought in to try and do that
But Your whole argument is built on selective reading and conspiracy theories, not Scripture. I could respond to way more of your made-up theories, but as you like to protect in your accusations, your goal is to waste as much time as you can, and it shows, but hey, I have free time at the mo but at what point is it Titus 3:10 when everything you say opposes the new covenant in his blood
“Paul turned the Gospel into offering a HUMAN blood sacrifice.”
No—Jesus Himself
instituted the New Covenant in His
own blood
“This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matt 26:28)
If you reject the atoning power of Jesus’ blood, you’re not criticizing Paul—you are rejecting the very words of Christ. The apostles, including Peter, preached this too (1 Peter 1:18-19).
You’re playing games with basic reading comprehension. Paul said,
“I am a Pharisee” in Acts 23
because he was making a strategic legal defense before a divided council. His point wasn’t about religious allegiance but legal status—Paul used his background to expose the hypocrisy of his accusers.
“The Apostleship of Paul was contentious.”
No kidding. Have you even read Acts?
Of course Paul’s conversion was shocking—he had persecuted the church! Yet the apostles recognized his calling:
“And when James, Cephas, and John… perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.” (Gal 2:9)
Trying to twist normal historical tension and debate within the early church into some big “power struggle” conspiracy is a cheap atheist tactic, not honest biblical interpretation.
“James tricked Paul into being arrested.”
That’s pure fiction. Show me a single verse where Scripture says James
tricked Paul. You’re not “reading Scripture critically,” you’re inserting gossip from your imagination.
“Galatians and Acts contradict.”
No, they complement each other. Paul explained he didn’t get his Gospel
from the apostles—but after years, he went to Jerusalem to
confirm it with them (Gal 1-2). That’s why Acts records both: a private initial introduction through Barnabas (Acts 9:27), and a later fuller fellowship with the apostles (Acts 15).
“Paul taught a different Gospel.”
Then why did Peter, James, and John recognize it as the
same Gospel (Gal 2:9)? Why did Peter affirm Paul’s writings as
Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16)?
Jesus Himself said:
“Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations.” (Luke 24:46-47)
Paul did exactly that. You are the one replacing the Gospel of Christ with an anti-apostolic fantasy.
It's possible that you have been taught for years, decades(?) even, that the church was one big happy family and that all the leaders believed the exact same thing about Christ. I bought into that lie for quite awhile when young, until I learned at the age of 14 that I had to start reading what was actually written. And that I had to read with a critical eye. As an example, when Paul begs for unity, it means that there wasn't unity. So go dig down and find out the particulars. I did. But it might be shocking to learn that James and Paul were at each others' throat. The signs are there, to the point where the epistles of Galatians and James directly contradict one another in matters of doctrine, but that's a discussion for a later time.
My point here, is that the Apostleship of Paul was not accepted with warm fuzzy buzzy feelings. It was contentious. And standing back, it should be easy to see that James finally tricked Paul into getting arrested and sent to Rome, well out of James' hair. ALL sorts of excuses and stories are fabricated to cover this up - this power struggle between Peter, James and Paul; but it's there. By Acts 15 one can see that Peter lost control of the church to James - the same James who thought his brother Jesus was insane. But you have to read the accounts without preconceptions, without the rose coloured glasses. Even the historical accounts of Paul's travels differ between Acts and Galatians.
In Acts, Barnabas brings Paul to meet all the Twelve. But in Galatians, Paul went off to Arabia (my studied opinion is that Paul traveled to Mount Sinai to figure out what the heck just happened to him), and never saw the Twelve.
So why the boisterous claim from Paul that he learned the "Gospel" from special visions, as if one couldn't learn an accurate Gospel from Peter James (the other one) and John? Maybe because it was different.
No not possible, I havent heard anyone claim the early church was one big happy family, Scripture is transparent about disputes and challenges. But disagreement does not equal doctrinal contradiction. The unity Paul pleads for in his letters (like in 1 Corinthians) is a unity
in Christ, not a denial of tensions in personalities or backgrounds. The fact that conflicts existed (Acts 15, Galatians 2) actually supports the authenticity of Scripture—it doesn’t whitewash the difficulties, it records them honestly.
Secondly, the idea that James “tricked” Paul into being arrested is pure speculation with no textual foundation. In Acts 21, James welcomes Paul, and they rejoice at what God is doing among the Gentiles. James’ advice to Paul was about helping to prevent riots—not betraying him. Paul himself doesn’t blame James or anyone else—he knew suffering was part of his calling (Acts 20:22-24). Turning this into a political power play is reading into the text something that isn’t there.
The premise we start off is very easy. If Jesus came preaching the Gospel then that Gospel is what Jesus preached with no other adulteration allowed. As the Proto Orthodox church developed, it rejected the Teachings of Jesus and replaced them with a Teaching ABOUT Jesus. A Teaching that has significant contradictions with what Jesus actually taught.
Again...Jesus is the good news, you can't even comprehend English enough to understand that gospel means good news, so when you cant understand English why do you pretend to know greek that you are even worse at than English... What you reject is the Gospel of the grace of God this is the point you accused me bringing another Gospel but the Gospel in the time of the gentiles is the Gospel of the grace of God that Jesus gave to Paul from heaven to take to the whole world, that is the Gospel that you reject and the reason you are to be considered cursed and deny That Jesus died for our sins
The idea that the “proto-orthodox” church replaced the
teachings of Jesus with
teachings about Jesus is not only historically inaccurate, but ignores what Jesus Himself taught. Jesus didn’t just give moral teaching He spoke of His own identity as the Son of Man who came to give His life as a ransom (Mark 10:45), foretold His resurrection (Matthew 16:21), and commissioned the apostles to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name (Luke 24:47). That’s exactly what the early church did. It’s good to read critically but reading critically means checking
all the evidence, not just cherry-picking fragments to fit a conspiracy narrative.
And your claim that
“the Proto Orthodox Church rejected the Gospel of Jesus and replaced it with a teaching about Jesus” is nothing but recycled Gnostic nonsense. The apostles didn’t teach "about" Jesus—they taught His death, burial, and resurrection
as the fulfillment of everything the Law and Prophets foretold. That
is the Gospel.
Decades ago when I was in prayer, the Rhema of the Lord came to me and asked. "How can you forgive a debt that's been paid?"
Now that should bring any intelligent believer to a Hard Stop immediately. Sin is a debt that is owed to the creator when we live and act outside the boundaries of the Pattern that the Creator established for His creation.
Sin is the usurpation of the Sovereignty of God.
And when we do such a thing, we owe a debt to our creator. But debt can be discharged in one of two ways. The debt can be paid, after which the debt no longer exists. OR that very same debt can be forgiven, and when forgiven, it also no longer exists.
Jesus clearly taught that the Father forgives debt. The Father forgives sin. But you seem to reject this as some "Jewish" thing, and instead seem to believe that after the Resurrection, the blood of Jesus (as a HUMAN blood sacrifice) now pays off that debt to the Father.
Regardless, though, a Debt is either Paid, or it is Forgiven. It cannot be both. If an institution (or person) forgives you the debt of your mortgage, the debt no longer exists, but it wasn't paid for. And if you go to your bank and pay off your mortgage. The bank manager will rightly think you loony if you say, "Thank you for forgiving my loan." He didn't forgive your loan, you paid it.
Your analogy fails because it treats sin like a human loan when Scripture treats it as both a legal debt and a moral offense against a holy God.
You said, “A debt is either paid or forgiven, it cannot be both.”
But that’s your logic, not God’s revelation.
Jesus Himself links forgiveness directly to His own sacrificial death:
“This is My blood… poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matt 26:28)
So, according to Jesus, His blood pays the price, and God forgives because of that payment. Not one or the other—both. The cross is not a business transaction—it’s justice satisfied and mercy given. Hebrews 9:22 says plainly:
“Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.”
Forgiveness isn’t God pretending the debt didn’t exist—it’s God applying the payment made by Christ to the account of sinners who repent and believe.
Isaiah 53:5-6 says:
“The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him… the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”
Forgiveness flows because the debt was fully paid by Christ on behalf of others. Your “rhema” moment contradicts the written Word of God. And Scripture warns:
“If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20)
I’ll trust the voice of Christ in Scripture, not a private voice that contradicts it.
Listen...If you have the same terminal sickness as my neighbor, and I am making medicine for them that would cure them and you wanted to be healed as well so you stole my medicine and drunk it...... but it turned out I wasn't finished the concoction and in its unfinished state it was poiseness so now you are going to die from poisoning.... I can forgive you for stealing my medicine but you are still going to die. I can forgive you but it is not going to help you, you are still going to die, even tho I forgave you
Jesus, through his atonement, gives us his life, it is an aspect of being saved that you admit you do not know anything about, you actually call it creepy
You might want to make an appointment with your doctor and get that obstinate gene removed.
I never said that the Bible lied about that. The Bibles a book. People lie. And other people embrace lies. I submit that something happened between Acts 13 and 1 Cor. that caused Paul to change the message he preached. And that caused enough strife that Paul got hotheaded and started to curse people because they wouldn't accept his new scandalous revelation of HUMAN sacrifice.
Ah, here we go classic tactic, shift from Scripture to vague accusations about “people lying” when the text doesn’t fit your theory. You’re free to “submit” whatever theory you want, but what you’re doing is slandering an apostle of Christ without a shred of Scriptural proof.
Let’s be clear—there is zero evidence in Acts or Corinthians that Paul “changed” his message. Paul consistently preached Christ crucified from day one:
“Immediately he preached Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.” (Acts 9:20)
By Acts 13 he’s saying:
“Through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 13:38)
And in 1 Corinthians, he summarizes:
“I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins…” (1 Cor. 15:3)
Where’s the change? From start to finish it’s the cross, the resurrection, and forgiveness through Christ.
As for Paul calling down curses (Galatians 1), that’s not “hotheadedness”—that’s defending the integrity of the Gospel against false teachers adding works to grace. Jesus Himself had harsher words for false teachers than Paul ever did (see Matthew 23).
Bottom line: accusing Paul of “scandalous human sacrifice” is just repackaged Gnostic slander. Paul’s Gospel wasn’t new, it was foretold by the prophets, fulfilled in Christ, and affirmed by the apostles.
“We are witnesses… whom God raised from the dead… and there is salvation in no one else.” (Acts 4:10-12)
Either you stand with the apostles or you stand against them. There’s no neutral ground.
You just cannot be this dense. ANY spirit pretending to be Jesus wouldn't SAY, "I am pretending to be Jesus." LOL
Please don't turn this conversation into a circus.
No circus here—just basic biblical reading comprehension.
Your argument collapses on itself. You admit any deceiving spirit could claim to be Jesus, yet you conveniently ignore the context where Ananias is sent by the Lord—not some random spirit—to confirm Paul’s vision:
“The Lord said… go… for he is a chosen vessel unto Me.” (Acts 9:15)
Not only that, Ananias calls Him “Lord”, obeys, and Paul receives his sight and the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17-18). Are you saying the Holy Spirit was in on the deception too?
Later, in Acts 22 and Acts 26, Paul retells the same encounter before unbelieving rulers, and in both accounts, it’s Jesus speaking from heaven—no correction, no retraction, no hint of demonic trickery.
And let’s not forget the apostles themselves welcomed Paul (Gal 2:9), and Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).
If you’re claiming Paul was fooled, then Ananias was fooled, Peter was fooled, James and John were fooled, and the Holy Spirit was fooled—yet somehow, you, 2,000 years later, see through it? That’s not discernment, that’s arrogance dressed up as “revelation.”
The circus isn’t from me—it's from you rewriting Scripture to fit your theory.
If you use a bad translation you will get a bad understanding.
He asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do."(Acts 9:5-6 NRSV)
But you don't know any Greek, so you're SOL. (Go get help.)
But the text doesn’t hinge on English translation alone, it’s about understanding the whole context and the consistent witness of Scripture.
First, whether you use the KJV, NRSV, ESV, or others, the core message remains: Paul encountered the risen Jesus. The Damascus Road event is recorded three times (Acts 9, 22, and 26), and in each account, Paul identifies the speaker as “Lord” and is told plainly:
“I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” The key issue isn’t a minor variation in phrasing—it’s that Paul wasn’t meeting a random spirit but
the risen, glorified Christ.
The phrase “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” (Acts 26:14) is included in Paul's later recounting of the event to Agrippa. Even the NRSV includes this in Acts 26. Luke doesn’t contradict himself—he records different parts of the same encounter told in different settings.
As for your “you don’t know Greek”(when you don't know greek) comment—Greek isn’t some secret password. Many faithful believers through history, including the earliest Christians, understood the gospel without scholarly Greek knowledge. Greek can be helpful, but it doesn’t nullify the clear, repeated testimony of Scripture: Paul met Jesus. His life was transformed, and he preached the same crucified and risen Christ as the other apostles (1 Cor 15:1-11).
Dismissive jabs about translation or language don’t replace sound exegesis or honest engagement with the text. The real question is—what do you do with the risen Christ who called Paul? Because the witness of Scripture is crystal clear about
who Paul met.
I do what? What education have you had? This is the third time I've given you my CV - Moravian Seminary and Princeton Theological. (Most all were classes on church history and language.) And your avoidance tells me all that I need to know about your supposed education. You don't have any, but don't want to lie, and you don't want to admit you have none or you'll look the fool. Get over your pride and be honest with yourself. If it's a problem for you, then go fix it.
Well I can read...you obviously cannot, one thing i agree with garee on is it has given you a brain of mush, Im sure you took some classes but who cares you cant comprehend the bible so it hasn't helped you, you probably failed your classes anyway, It is funny you bring up pride because like I point out to you you project yourself in your accusations its actually quite entertaining, The lowest scumbag on the planet is a "Bible corrector"... as this level of Pride, is incredible. The NT does not need scholarship to try to use koine greek or hebrew to try to correct it, or confuse it.
What the Bible is requiring of us.... is that a Christian turns to it for revelation, and truth, and life, and final authority.
The Catholic says the same of you.
(As if I should care about your criteria. You being the God appointed arbiter of what composes the criteria for being a Christian LOL)
I wouldn't mind that? but is that you admitting you are a catholic? It is not my criteria it is the scriptural test, whether you have received Jesus you said you received another Spirit and you thought the aspect of receiving Jesus was creepy....that's how fake you are, but it is when you receive Jesus that is when you become a member of his body if that hasnt happened you are what scripture calls rebrobate...its just the facts
Wow, maybe you truly ARE that dense.
A Muslim type question?
No.
That's a Jesus DIRECT question to YOU...
"Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I tell you?(Luke 6:46 NRSV)
Maybe I am but that is at least 6 times in this response alone that you have called names like that, when I said to you one time I didn't think you were very smart i got a warning about it and it was after 6 posts in total on this site, why do you get a free pass to do it as often as you like, I told you I have only seen muslims use jeremiah to call God and the prophets liars, But as for you why don't I do what the Lord tells me? When your terms where repent and be baptized? I have repented and I have been baptized... but listen ......you can be baptised 100s of times and go to hell, you can repent your whole life and go to hell Jesus said you must be born again, you don't understand any aspect of been born again as you admit it hasn't happened to you you described receiving Jesus as Creepy
Yes, and that's the problem in a nut shell. Scripture directly says that Jesus PROCLAIMED the Good News.
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God,(Mark 1:14 NRSV)
And here is a good example of how you and I differ. You say crap that contradicts the scripture I post. That should really bother you, but instead of taking personal responsibility about this, you'd rather vilify me.
owww poor you are playing the victim now.....again, Gospel means good news, Jesus taught himself and about the kingdom of God is within you etc no one here is denying that Jesus proclaimed the Good News. Of course He did, Scripture says it plainly (Mark 1:14), and I fully agree with that. The point is you reject the Gospel of the Grace of God that Jesus gave to Paul to teach in the time of the Gentiles. It is you that contradicts the bible you call lots of it lies It brings me great joy that I contradict stuff that you write, My position is the bible is the final authority not your interpretation of it or your morovian greek goobledegook
Jesus is not a devil, and shame on you for that. What, are you like some 2 year old child? Jesus is the Messiah the Son of God, sent to PROCLAIM the Good News. The devil was that angel of light which called itself Jesus. That's all.
And with regards to your accusation that I reject the Word of God, which Word? You've been brainwashed to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, when the Bible DEFINES the Word of God. BOTH of them. There are two Words of God, but you are too full of yourself to even wonder what I'm talking about. Truly, you think you know it all. (And you're starting to tick the boxes for NPD.)
If you are wrong, and you are wrong you are absolutely calling Jesus the devil, you also call the Lord a devil in genesis and many other places. its through your accusation that i get a clearer picture of you your pride of trying to be a bible corrector would definaelty put you in NPD category, but I do know what you are talking about but it depend what cult you are a part of, Want to explain your two words of God that will help me narrow down what cult you are part of, I'm leaning towards gnostisism at the mo, but you are not smart enough to be considered one of them they would kick you out, Ill go with the written word and the Living Word and you write your novel from there and explain your two words . it should be entertaining
I can see why your wife would want to smack you upside the head. I have never called Jesus a devil. Just that angel of light in Acts 9 whom you wrongly think is Jesus just because it said so. Your gullibility is gargantuan.
Okay, so I am to believe what Jesus said and do it. (We agree. We greatly agree.) So what did Jesus say about the forgiveness of sin? (And did you do it?)
My wife do what lol I think I'm getting to you but Yes you do.... scripture says it was Jesus you say no it was a devil so one of you is wrong and it is not scripture, and if you are wrong you absolutely are calling Jesus the devil, you do it a lot with God also you just don't really comprehend words very well your job is more to twist words.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
You deny this, saying Jesus didn't die for our sins, rejecting the Gospel and proving to the church you are still under the curse, But you are asking did I die on the cross for the sins of the world? lol no I didnt....Jesus is the saviour
You truly don't understand just how vague that statement is. Now do you mean to say, "Jesus died to pay for our sins?" Then say it, but that's not what you actually wrote. I say Jesus died because sinful people murdered him. Don't you believe that? (Peter did. He directly said that.)
I know that statement holds great meaning to you. It's a common trope in Evangelical Christianity. But it doesn't convey information. You think that these words, "Jesus died for our sins" will trigger the same understanding up inside everyone's head as it does yours, but it doesn't. Now I'm not talking about whether people believe it or not, but I'm telling you flat out that the meaning of your words here is incomplete. I've had countless discussions about this shibboleth, but it always winds up to where the other person admits that he really meant to say "Jesus died to pay for our sins." I'm just wondering if it's the same with you.
Clarification would be greatly appreciated.
You really don't recognize it is a line from the Gospel message? I know you reject it but you are that blind to it?
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that "Christ died for our sins" according to the scriptures
You call the Gospel that saves trope and you wonder why you are not saved....still under a curse....gee whizz
When I say 'Jesus died for our sins,' I absolutely mean it in the full, biblical sense: that He died as a sacrifice, as a substitute, and to make atonement for sin. So yes, He died to pay for our sins. But more than that, He died to reconcile us to God (2 Cor. 5:18–21), to bear our curse (Gal. 3:13), and to satisfy divine justice (Isa. 53:5–6, Rom. 3:25). So I’m not using it as a vague slogan—I’m using it as a compact summary of a rich theological truth affirmed throughout Scripture."
"You’re right that Jesus was murdered by sinful men—Peter says exactly that (Acts 2:23)—but that doesn’t contradict the idea of redemptive purpose behind it. In fact, Peter also says in that same verse that Jesus was 'delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.' So it wasn’t just murder—it was also God's plan of redemption unfolding. That’s not contradiction. That’s divine providence."
"So to your question: yes, I mean that Jesus died to pay for our sins—but not only that. His death does something for us, something we could never do ourselves: it opens the way to forgiveness, reconciliation, and new life. That’s not just a trope—that’s the core of the gospel."
"You’re treating 'Jesus died for our sins' like it’s an empty phrase, but it’s only vague to those who refuse to unpack it. I’m happy to walk through Isaiah 53, Romans 5, Hebrews 9–10, or anywhere else you'd like. The truth isn’t hidden—just rejected by some because of what it implies: that we need a Savior, not just a teacher or martyr."
That's not even close to answering the question I asked.
Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured-out INTO for many for the forgiveness of sins.(Matthew 26:27-28 NRSV~)
What is the "this" ??
The "this" is what was in the cup that he made them all drink.
What was in the cup?
It's an easy question, with a one word simple answer.
So I ask what was in the cup? (Don't go all Garee on me.)
As for the rest, again it would be worthless to address any more of your post until you get it.
What was in the cup? (What was the "this"?)
classic trap-question tactic. Youur pretending it's a simple "one-word" answer, You want me to say wine? your trying to steer the conversation toward denying substitutionary atonement and reducing Jesus’ words to mere symbolism or shared suffering, rather than redemptive sacrifice.
Sure it’s wine. That’s what was physically in the cup. But you and I both know that’s not the point Jesus was making. Jesus wasn’t giving them a chemistry lesson—He was instituting a covenant meal. The cup held wine, but Jesus said, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’ So the ‘this’ refers to the symbolic representation of His blood, not just the wine, but what the wine stood for."
"The question isn’t ‘what was in the cup?’ it’s ‘what did Jesus mean?’ And the answer is: He was pointing ahead to the cross, where His actual blood would be poured out for the forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22, Isaiah 53:12). Just like in Exodus 24, where blood sealed the old covenant, Jesus was using the cup to declare the new covenant, sealed with His own blood."
"So yes, wine was in the cup—but it represented something far greater: the blood of the Lamb of God, poured out to fulfill the promise of forgiveness. If you stop at ‘wine,’ you miss the whole point of the gospel."
"Now I’ll ask you: Why did Jesus say His blood was ‘poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’? If He only meant He was going to die as a victim, why did He link His death so directly to atonement just like the Passover lamb or the sacrifices under the Law? Why speak of a covenant and forgiveness if there’s no redemptive meaning to the cross?"
)
