Pedrito thinks he understands why popsthebuilder could consider that important questions he has posed have not been satisfactorily addressed.
For instance: “Why would the eternal GOD manifest and kill itself to be a payment to itself?”
That would have been based at least in part, a statement made in Post #39 on Page 4: “Only God could be perfect enough for the sacrifice to be accepted. ONLY GOD.”
Yet, in Post #323 on Page 33, popsthe builder was asked:
“Is that what happened?”
Followed by, in Post #325 on the same page:
“I ask if the sacrifice of himself to himself was really what happened because I am not sure that is how holy scripture ever presents it.”
Pedrito’s understanding is in line with what he understands MoreCoffee’s understanding to be, MoreCoffee being the author of the two statements above. (Pedrito understands that his method of expressing his understanding might require some understanding.)
==============================================================================================
Pedrito’s understanding is the same as that given in response to popsthebuilder’s question in Post #15 on Page 32:
“I'm sorry to keep asking the same question and really do mean no disrespect towards the beliefs of any but I'm still wondering why an eternal omnipotent omniscient benevolent creator GOD would need to manifest itself in utter fullness to be a blood sacrifice to itself in order for people to go about sinning and believing they are safe and have eternal blissful life. I've asked around here and other forums and none can logically answer this question because the premise itself is illogical.
It would be very much appreciated if someone could actually give a real, in scripted, logical answer.”
The response was (Post #216 on Page 33 [Emphasis added]):
“Is the part of the question you don't understand the answer to this... why an eternal omnipotent omniscient benevolent creator GOD would need to manifest itself in utter fullness to be a blood sacrifice to itself
The answer is that since man (100% man or fully man) was the reason for the fall, then 100% (or fully man) man had to be the atonement for all of mankind.”
==============================================================================================
We can see at least one reason why popsthebuilder may consider he is getting the runaround (Pedrito’s term). Can’t we?
The same person who said “Only God could be perfect enough for the sacrifice to be accepted. ONLY GOD" also said "The answer is that since man (100% man or fully man) was the reason for the fall, then 100% (or fully man) man had to be the atonement for all of mankind", as well as "God became man (100%) without losing his divinity (100% God) in order to live the perfectly obedient life we could not and die in our place so the sacrifice was accepted. It was all about what God expected and we could not live up to it, so God, being merciful saved us.".
Pedrito understands that the Holy Scriptures do plainly reveal "that since man (100% man or fully man) was the reason for the fall, then 100% (or fully man) man had to be the atonement for all of mankind".
If that be true, then there was no need for Jesus to be 100% God when he was on Earth. Only a perfect man. The Holy Bible tells us that God sent His Son to be that perfect man, the perfect sacrifice required to reverse the wages of Man's sin (death). Because of the Son of God's obedience, the Son of God was rewarded by God, God giving to His obedient Son a name that is above every name.
The risen Jesus is now sitting at the right hand of the throne of God (Mark 16:19, Acts 2:33, Acts 5:31, Colossians 1:3, Romans 8:34, Hebrews 10:12, Hebrews 12:2, 1 Peter 3:22).
Pedrito hopes this has been of some help to popsthebuilder.