No one can die to atone for the sins of another.

[irosie91]

the "servant" role? "isolated instances" if you are reluctant to discuss this issue---it is ok with me

Actually, it is the original broad-brushing that indicates an unwillingness to enter into a discussion. If you are truly interested in a discussion, pinpoint a specific instance, and we'll discuss.

"original broad brushing"? ask luther a specific instance of what? salvation VIA priests?-------the priests were the ones who "GRANTED" absolution

 

[Meriweather]

Judea was a TRIBUTE state to Rome-----no doubt----Jesus had little trouble with Pharisees because Jesus was a Pharisee. Annas and Caiaphas were SADDUCEES and roman shills. The temple tax was utterly trivial and no issue at all even for the poor-----I have no idea what are your issues with sacrifices-----
the custom was not profitable---your must be thinking of the ROMAN system ----roman temples made a BUSINESS out of sacrifices-----the meat was sold and involved GIANT animal massacres-----but donated mostly by the rich and powerful for the sake of a show of PRESTIGE AND POWER

No, the Temple Tax was not trivial to the very poor. Also, there is nothing but speculation on whether Jesus qualified formally as a Pharisee. In my opinion, the speculation he may have, at one time, been a Nazarite is more convincing. Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, and said to sway/have influence over some Pharisees. Sadducees were from the wealthy or ruling class.

No, I am speaking of Jewish sacrifice. A sin offering. The cost may be trivial to some...not so trivial to the very poor.

 

[Meriweather]

"original broad brushing"? ask luther a specific instance of what? salvation VIA priests?-------the priests were the ones who "GRANTED" absolution

Salvation is from God alone. Priests are teachers who point the way. Along with pronouncing absolution, Priests are also the ones who Baptize and make the pronouncement of man and wife. They are witnesses. Do you believe priests should stop pronouncing a couple husband and wife? Do you believe they should not baptize and confirm initiates? Why do you see the pronouncement/witness of "Your sins are forgiven" out of line? It is what Christ assigned them to do, following what he did.

 

[irosie91]

Judea was a TRIBUTE state to Rome-----no doubt----Jesus had little trouble with Pharisees because Jesus was a Pharisee. Annas and Caiaphas were SADDUCEES and roman shills. The temple tax was utterly trivial and no issue at all even for the poor-----I have no idea what are your issues with sacrifices-----
the custom was not profitable---your must be thinking of the ROMAN system ----roman temples made a BUSINESS out of sacrifices-----the meat was sold and involved GIANT animal massacres-----but donated mostly by the rich and powerful for the sake of a show of PRESTIGE AND POWER

No, the Temple Tax was not trivial to the very poor. Also, there is nothing but speculation on whether Jesus qualified formally as a Pharisee. In my opinion, the speculation he may have, at one time, been a Nazarite is more convincing. Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, and said to sway/have influence over some Pharisees. Sadducees were from the wealthy or ruling class.

No, I am speaking of Jewish sacrifice. A sin offering. The cost may be trivial to some...not so trivial to the very poor.

your are a bit misinformed-----Annas and Caiaphas were high priests because they
were so appointed by the Romans. Pharisees despised them and----still do. Their power was ---as roman shills People were not INDUCTED into PHARISEEISM------being a NAZARITE---does not preclude being a ALSO A PHARISEE-----those two groups ---if ever
self described as separate---(news to me) were not in CONTENTION with each other on
issues of dogma. Your view of SADDUCEES as the rich guys------is a bit off------they were
"rich" only by their accommodation and alliance with the romans-----they were not some sort of ---RICH CASTE. Pharisees could be wealthy-----and some were---relatively speaking. The persons who despised the money changers in the temple court yard were the Pharisees---it was a very PHARISEE and anti roman thing. The temple tax was so trivial that it was not even IMPOSED---it was like a religious nickel in the collection box thing----I believe it was something like half a shekel per year. Completely destitute people simply DID NOT PAY it. "sacrifice" at the temple was not IMPOSED either ----for the poor it could be a PIGEON. No one made money on a PIGEON-----burnt up-----the burnt up pigeons were not even eaten. There were LOTS OF PIGEONS around-----people did cultivate them for food

 

[irosie91]

I should add----there was no concept of "SALVATION DENIED" to people who did not engage in "sacrifice" rituals. Not doing the ritual bath thing ----would be considered -----
very 'naughty'----but not a condemnation to
"HELL"

 

[BreezeWood]

No one can die to atone for the sins of another


yes they certainly can and for humanity and perhaps the sinner were they to repent -

- in their belief that Jesus did it all for them....

The belief of Jesus as an atoning sin is possibly the worst thing ever foisted on mankind and this blatant lie is held fast to by people either becaus ...

(and for himself) ... and who may follow the same path.


really all one has to do is not sin, atone for previous sins (those of humanity as well) to die pure (Jesus) for their Spirit to enter the Everlasting - irregardless whatever religion got them there CH:07.

.

 

[Meriweather]

Judea was a TRIBUTE state to Rome-----no doubt----Jesus had little trouble with Pharisees because Jesus was a Pharisee. Annas and Caiaphas were SADDUCEES and roman shills. The temple tax was utterly trivial and no issue at all even for the poor-----I have no idea what are your issues with sacrifices-----
the custom was not profitable---your must be thinking of the ROMAN system ----roman temples made a BUSINESS out of sacrifices-----the meat was sold and involved GIANT animal massacres-----but donated mostly by the rich and powerful for the sake of a show of PRESTIGE AND POWER

No, the Temple Tax was not trivial to the very poor. Also, there is nothing but speculation on whether Jesus qualified formally as a Pharisee. In my opinion, the speculation he may have, at one time, been a Nazarite is more convincing. Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, and said to sway/have influence over some Pharisees. Sadducees were from the wealthy or ruling class.

No, I am speaking of Jewish sacrifice. A sin offering. The cost may be trivial to some...not so trivial to the very poor.

your are a bit misinformed-----Annas and Caiaphas were high priests because they
were so appointed by the Romans. Pharisees despised them and----still do. Their power was ---as roman shills People were not INDUCTED into PHARISEEISM------being a NAZARITE---does not preclude being a ALSO A PHARISEE-----those two groups ---if ever
self described as separate---(news to me) were not in CONTENTION with each other on
issues of dogma. Your view of SADDUCEES as the rich guys------is a bit off------they were
"rich" only by their accommodation and alliance with the romans-----they were not some sort of ---RICH CASTE. Pharisees could be wealthy-----and some were---relatively speaking. The persons who despised the money changers in the temple court yard were the Pharisees---it was a very PHARISEE and anti roman thing. The temple tax was so trivial that it was not even IMPOSED---it was like a religious nickel in the collection box thing----I believe it was something like half a shekel per year. Completely destitute people simply DID NOT PAY it. "sacrifice" at the temple was not IMPOSED either ----for the poor it could be a PIGEON. No one made money on a PIGEON-----burnt up-----the burnt up pigeons were not even eaten. There were LOTS OF PIGEONS around-----people did cultivate them for food

No, I am not misinformed as I am well aware that high priests were appointed by Romans at that time. Annas and Caiaphas were also known to be of the wealthier class. In any case, not anything I'm interested in dwelling on.

 

[irosie91]

Judea was a TRIBUTE state to Rome-----no doubt----Jesus had little trouble with Pharisees because Jesus was a Pharisee. Annas and Caiaphas were SADDUCEES and roman shills. The temple tax was utterly trivial and no issue at all even for the poor-----I have no idea what are your issues with sacrifices-----
the custom was not profitable---your must be thinking of the ROMAN system ----roman temples made a BUSINESS out of sacrifices-----the meat was sold and involved GIANT animal massacres-----but donated mostly by the rich and powerful for the sake of a show of PRESTIGE AND POWER

No, the Temple Tax was not trivial to the very poor. Also, there is nothing but speculation on whether Jesus qualified formally as a Pharisee. In my opinion, the speculation he may have, at one time, been a Nazarite is more convincing. Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, and said to sway/have influence over some Pharisees. Sadducees were from the wealthy or ruling class.

No, I am speaking of Jewish sacrifice. A sin offering. The cost may be trivial to some...not so trivial to the very poor.

your are a bit misinformed-----Annas and Caiaphas were high priests because they
were so appointed by the Romans. Pharisees despised them and----still do. Their power was ---as roman shills People were not INDUCTED into PHARISEEISM------being a NAZARITE---does not preclude being a ALSO A PHARISEE-----those two groups ---if ever
self described as separate---(news to me) were not in CONTENTION with each other on
issues of dogma. Your view of SADDUCEES as the rich guys------is a bit off------they were
"rich" only by their accommodation and alliance with the romans-----they were not some sort of ---RICH CASTE. Pharisees could be wealthy-----and some were---relatively speaking. The persons who despised the money changers in the temple court yard were the Pharisees---it was a very PHARISEE and anti roman thing. The temple tax was so trivial that it was not even IMPOSED---it was like a religious nickel in the collection box thing----I believe it was something like half a shekel per year. Completely destitute people simply DID NOT PAY it. "sacrifice" at the temple was not IMPOSED either ----for the poor it could be a PIGEON. No one made money on a PIGEON-----burnt up-----the burnt up pigeons were not even eaten. There were LOTS OF PIGEONS around-----people did cultivate them for food

No, I am not misinformed as I am well aware that high priests were appointed by Romans at that time. Annas and Caiaphas were also known to be of the wealthier class. In any case, not anything I'm interested in dwelling on.

you are very much misinformed----if ANNAS and CAIAPHAS were wealthy----they did not
get there by profiting from their positions
as "high priest"---unless they engaged in
corruption----which is not unlikely----the romans ran the Temple like a business which is why the PHARISEES wanted the temple
CourtYard money changers OUT. Now you know

 

[Meriweather]

--if ANNAS and CAIAPHAS were wealthy----they did not
get there by profiting from their positions
as "high priest"---unless they engaged in
corruption----which is not unlikely----the romans ran the Temple like a business which is why the PHARISEES wanted the temple
CourtYard money changers OUT. Now you know

I did not say they got wealthy profiting from their positions as high priest. Are we done now?